Wikipedia

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters#rfc 05A4BE1

Shortcut

Capitalization discussions ongoing (keep at top of talk page)

[edit]

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.

Current

[edit]

(newest on top) Move requests:

Other discussions:

Concluded

[edit]
For the archive of related discussions closed 2021–24, see WT:Manual of Style/Capital letters/Concluded RM archive.

RfC on the meaning of "usually" as used in MOS:MILTERMS

[edit]

Should the spirit and intent of usually capitalized in sources at MOS:MILTERMS be taken as consistent with the general advice on capitalisation given in the lead of MOS:CAPS or is the spirit and intent to create a substantially different and lower threshold for capitalising the types of events named.

Cinderella157 (talk) 03:41, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The subject text at MOS:MILTERMS is as follows:

Accepted names of wars, battles, revolts, revolutions, rebellions, mutinies, skirmishes, fronts, raids, actions, operations, and so forth are capitalized if they are usually capitalized in sources (Spanish Civil War, Battle of Leipzig, Boxer Rebellion, Action of 8 July 1716, Western Front, Operation Sea Lion).

The matter is discussed above in the section MOS:MILTERMS.

Please comment by indicating Consistent or Lower. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:42, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Notified at MILHIST. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:48, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Consistent MOS:MILTERMS is part of MOS:CAPS. The opening paragraph of MOS:MILTERMS states: The general rule is that wherever a military term is an accepted proper name, as indicated by consistent capitalization in sources, it should be capitalized. The general advice in the lead paragraph of MOS:CAPS is often paraphrased as requiring consistent capitalisation. Some have argued that usually herein means any degree of usage just greater than 50%. As Firefangledfeathers notes above: It's odd to see an unexplained clash between the general rule and the specific rule, and it's untenable to have the clash be open to interpretation. However, such an interpretation clashes not only with the general rule but the more proximate rule in the lead paragraph at MILTERMS. The issue is not just whether usually should reasonably be interpreted as greater than 50% but whether doing so reflects the spirit and intent of the guidance. At multiple places, we are told that the spirit of any P&G is paramount rather than skirting the spirit on some technicality - perceived or real (eg WP:P&G, WP:5P, WP:IAR?, WP:PRINCIPLE, WP:MR and WP:LAWYERING). If the spirit of using usually is intended to create a lower threshold then we would need a substantive reason for doing so.
The Merriam-Webster definition for usually is: according to the usual or ordinary course of things : most often : as a rule : customarily, ordinarily. This source collates linguistic studies on how various terms (including usually) are usually perceived as percentages - reporting that usually is perceived as 70 - 84 percent of the time. It also gives the definition from the OED: In a usual or wonted manner; according to customary, established, or frequent usage; commonly, customarily, ordinarily; as a rule. Those arguing a lower threshold would seize on one part of the definition most often as being just greater than equal. As with any law, rule etc, the meaning of a definition should be read in the fuller context and a balance of all the parts. Seizing on one part in isolation is the epitome of a WP:PETTIFOGING argument. Considering the definition and linguistic interpretation of usually, the meaning is consistent with both the general advice in the lead of MOS:CAPS and the lead paragraph of MILTERMS. These are subject to the same conflicting views on whether these are proper names as any other name on WP which is descriptive and take the definite article in prose - unless they are consistently capped in sources.
Many editors are of a view that any name having a specific referent is a proper name that must be capitalised. While a specific referent is a property of a proper name, it is not a defining property since specificity of referent is also conveyed by the definite article (the). If there is anything that defines a proper name, it is that it is not descriptive. However, it is because of these different views that MOS:CAPS relies on consistent capitalisation in sources to determine what we capitalise rather than semantic arguments of what defines a proper name. This is the consensus of the broader community and is reflected by the consensus of a vast majority of (RM) discussions both generally and more specifically for battles, wars etc. As a group, the names identifying many battles, wars etc take the definite article in prose and are inherently descriptive - eg the Battle of Waterloo is a battle that occurred near Waterloo. As a group, these are commonly capitalised but there are significant number of exceptions for specific battles, wars etc such as the Syrian civil war, where Syrian civil war is not consistently capped in sources. There is no apparent substantive reason why these should be considered as a group as an exception from the general guidance, particularly when the lead paragraph at MILTERMS reinforces that the general guidance apples to MILTERMS.
Asserting that usually creates a lesser standard than the general guidance is clearly contrary to the usual meaning and the spirit and intent, reading in the fuller context of MOS:CAPS as a whole and the more specific guidance at MILTERMS. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:43, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Many editors are of a view that any name having a specific referent is a proper name that must be capitalised. Those are the rules of the English language: "Names of people, places and organisations are called proper nouns. We spell proper nouns with a capital letter"[1] While a specific referent is a property of a proper name, it is not a defining property since specificity of referent is also conveyed by the definite article (the). "The" is not necessary to make something a "specific referent", we say "Berlin", not "The Berlin"; adding "the" is an exception that arose through use, e.g. "The Grand Canyon". TurboSuperA+(connect) 09:50, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, we do capitalise proper nouns. This is not disputed. However, because something is spelled with a capital letter, that does not make it ipso facto a proper noun|name. English often capitalises descriptive names for emphasis, significance or as a term of art. If you read the Merriam-Webster definition or our article proper noun you will see that proper nouns are also not descriptive. I was not saying that proper nouns must take the definite article (the) to be specific (as you would indicate with the example Berlin). What I was saying is that the definite article confers specificity and therefore, specificity of referent is not a defining property of a proper noun. Consequently, names such as the Cimean B|blocade or the Syrian C|civil W|war are not ipso facto proper nouns because they take the definite article in prose. Your example the Grand Canyon is considered a proper noun even though it might appear descriptive (the canyon which is grand), This is partly because it is common to capitalise descriptors such as canyon, bay, sea etc (but not all descriptors) in geographical names. Secondly, we should not be confused by the etymology of the name where somebody said this looks grand, let's call it the Gand Canyon since they might just as easily called it something else like Kings Canyon. The ngram for Grand Canyon here is pretty much always capped compared with Syrian civil war here [contexturalised for prose]. However, because WP relies on usage in sources to determine capitalisation, we capitalise American Civil War because, even though it is not a true proper noun, it is consistently capitalised in sources (see here).
If we remove usually in the sentence at MILTERMS, it begs the question as to what is an accepted name of wars etc, since clearly, not all wars, battles etc are proper nouns. They are descriptive in nature, they take the definite article in prose and not all are consistently capitalised in sources. For the rest of this, you can read my reply to Chicdat below. Cinderella157 (talk) 11:15, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove usually altogether – text was added without discussion by Dicklyon six years ago. I will copy my comment from a recent RM: The operative word here is "accepted" – thus, the event has an actual, accepted common name, not a descriptive name (e.g. American Civil War is accepted, War in Afghanistan is [descriptive]). This is putting into words common sense, something that has never really existed at MOS:CAPS. Accepted = proper name. Proper names are capitalized. Please find any grammar or style guide that contradicts that. 🐔 Chicdat  Bawk to me! 11:06, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Your attempted to remove usually but were reverted by another with the edit summary: ... if this text has been here for 6 years it has implicit consensus ... Consequently, your comment is not a surprise. Removing usually begs the question: what is an accepted name - but you already answer this question: Accepted equals proper name [equals sign won't render here]. Therefore, we capitalise names of wars etc if they are proper names. WP (MOS:CAPS) treats those names which are consistently capitalised in sources as a proper name (per the lead). Accepted equals proper name represents the spirit and intent of the subject sentence. As you note, the names given to wars, battles, revolutions etc are not all proper names and the names of articles using these terms are not always correctly capitalised. Without usually, there is no conflict between the subject sentence and the lead paragraph of MILTERMS or the general advice in the lead. If usually is understood as synonymous with consistently, there is no conflict either. Such an understanding is consistent with reading the definition of usually on balance and the evidence of linguistic studies. Arguments that usually creates a lower threshold for caps than the general advice is based on an aberrant meaning of usually (by taking one part of the definition in isolation rather than on balance) such that the subject sentence would be inconsistent with the general advice. As you have identified, accepted equals proper name, and such an argument is contrary to the spirit of the subject sentence as you have identify it. I see that adding usually affirms the consistency with the general advice and believe this was the intent of adding it. Perhaps Dicklyon can affirm this. With or without usually the intent of the subject sentence is to affirm the general guidance in the lead. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:57, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Revert and remove "usually" per Chicdat, proper names are uppercased on Wikipedia. To lessen that obvious commonsense view, the word "usually" (which means 'most often') was added without discussion and has since been used to lowercase proper names. An easy fix to bring the guideline back the status of its original meaning. As for the meaning of the word "usually", the only objective term used in dictionary meanings is "most often", which asserts a majority, or the name most commonly used, and nothing more. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:43, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Amending my statement, as people are actually saying "usually" doesn't mean what it means. Either "usually" is kept, which sets the standard of "most often" (i.e. either 50.1% or the name used more than any other) or the wording reverts to include all wars, battles, etc. "Usually" at least sets a bar for those who want to keep it, but it certainly doesn't mean "always" or "consistently", it means most often, and is maybe the best idea to use it for all title casings and not only MILTERMS. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:26, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Consistent, per Cinderella157 and Dicklyon. Gawaon (talk) 07:37, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Consistent based on reading the relevant sections of both policies. Seems pretty straightforward: follow abundant reliable sources.
MOS:CAPS: "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."
MOS:MILTERMS: "[W]herever a military term is an accepted proper name, as indicated by consistent capitalization in sources, it should be capitalized."
As far as Cinderella157's supporting comment, WP:TLDR. Penguino35 (talk) 14:07, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Consistent per above. There was never an agreement of intent to establish a lower threshold. That was a reinterpretation after the fact. And the word shouldn't be deleted, as the comments above show some desire for the absence of the word to be interpreted differently. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 21:26, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Broken RfC, this RfC is about the word "usually", not about replacing it with another word. Replacing it for another word with a different meaning falls outside the scope of the RfC question. It's either remove it or keep it as is. Wikipedia should not be changing the meaning of a word which is defined as "most often", and "spirit and intent" language is strange wording with no basis in guidelines or policy. "Usually" means what sources say it means, "most often". Either keep it or remove it, but don't redefine it. Randy Kryn (talk) 02:35, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    There's nobody who could define English words once and for all, that's not how languages work. Words get their sense from their usage, and the usage can vary over time, region, and users. Dictionaries can help a lot, though of course they too will not always agree. I don't know from which dictionary you drew your "most often" description, but in Wiktionary I find the descriptions "Most of the time; less than always, but more than occasionally" and "Under normal conditions". But where in the "less than always, but more than occasionally" range do we want it to fall in this case? Or what are "normal conditions" and when do they no longer apply? Those are reasonable questions for an RfC to ask and as I understand this RfC, it's meant to do essentially just that – clarify the indented meaning of an inherently somewhat vague and ambiguous word for this specific case. Gawaon (talk) 06:56, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bad RfC more or less per Randy Kryn. We have over the years developed an unfortunate habit of using words in ways that are different from and even contrary to their normal meaning though this double usage of words as terms-of-art is by no means limited to us. I even bear some small share of blame for that. I suppose in many cases it isn't that bad because frequency of usage and context allows people to figure out the intended meanings without too much difficulty. However we really want to avoid future occurrences even if it leads to somewhat dry technical language being employed.
    Thus it is logical to propose a rewording for clarity, or to remove a word, or even to remove the whole paragraph. If the intent here is to say that this is not an exception or special case then it shouldn't be there at all it is rather backwards to list something in an exceptions area only to say it is not an exception, please don't write guidelines that way. But what we should not be doing is having RfCs to redefine one specific instance of a word's appearance well unless you deliberately want to make projectspace even more confusing for new and casual editors.
    Assertions that we should draft imprecisely because semantic drift is inevitable are unconvincing and prove too much. If and when such shifts happen rewording can and will be done to maintain meaning, assuming practice doesn't shift, but we should strive to reduce ambiguity not create more of it. 184.152.65.118 (talk) 20:58, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Consistent is the best available option, since it reduces the impact that an unnecessary specific rule is having on a useful general rule. Better options would be to rework MILTERMS more significantly, or make a small change like replacing "usually" with "consistently". I oppose removing "usually", and I see the unexplained clash between it and both the MILTERMS opener and CAPS more generally to be untenable. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:10, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove usually per Chicdat's train of logic. If that means a "lower" standard, then so be it. ⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 22:07, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

His father is Black and his mother is white.

[edit]

At the end of Tyrese Haliburton#Early life and family, it says His father is Black and his mother is white. Is this mixed capitalization of races appropriate? If not, what is the consensus on how to treat them? FWIW, the cited source uses that exact style, but evidently this appears contrary to MOS:RACECAPS. Left guide (talk) 06:07, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think the accepted WP practice is apply it consistently on a given page, whatever style is chosen. —Bagumba (talk) 06:23, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, a note in MOS:RACECAPS says "The status quo practice had been that either style was permissible, and this proposal did not overturn that". I too would interpret that as meaning that both capitalized style and lower-case style is permissible, as long as it's used consistently on any given page. Mixed usage is not accepted – the proposal to capitalize only "Black" failed to reach consensus. Gawaon (talk) 07:14, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand that answer. Shouldn't it be No if either capitalized or lowercase is acceptable, and mixed like this is not? Dicklyon (talk) 22:29, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think Gawaon's "yes" is agreeing with Bagumba, not responding to the question in the second sentence of the original post. --Trovatore (talk) 05:03, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I expressed my agreement with Bagumba. Gawaon (talk) 05:15, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it is fine, and not contrary to MOS:RACECAPS. The upshot of the RfCs was that both upper or lower case is acceptable. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:51, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, taken at face value that would also seem to allow His father is black and his mother is White., which I suspect would elicit objections. --Trovatore (talk) 00:53, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I remain confused. Does "both upper or lower case is acceptable" mean it's OK to do them differently, like Trovatore illustrates? Or not? Or is Black and white OK as in some publications' modernized styles, but black and White not? I'm not saying it's an easy question, just that I don't understand these answers. Dicklyon (talk) 05:01, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My interpretation of "either style [is] permissible" in MOS:RACECAPS is that consistency is still required – if something is not consistent, it's not a style, and hence not permissible. So it's not OK to lower-case "white" in one sentence and capitalize it in the next (when both apply to persons), since that's not consistent. Neither is it OK to capitalize "White" and lowercase "black" since that's not consistent. Nor the other way around. Consistency is an implicit requirement here (per our general rules), so both terms must be treated the same. Gawaon (talk) 05:18, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Consistency is not required. Although we did not adopt the American practice of capitalising Black only, editors are free to do so. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:27, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Are they free to capitalize White only? --Trovatore (talk) 05:31, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If they want to. I guess you are wondering what the content creators will do with so much editorial freedom. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 08:15, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Rereading the note in MOS:RACECAPS, I see that "mixed use" (i.e., capitalized "Black" and lower-case "white") is indeed allowed as well. I stand corrected! Gawaon (talk) 06:08, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Should we add a line to the main text clarifying that mixed use is permissible when editors determine this is the appropriate style for a particular article? The added detail in the note is useful but the top line guidance is easily missed. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 20:22, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Why not? It sure would make things clearer. Gawaon (talk) 21:02, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Special:Diff/1299365122. I tried to stick very closely to the wording in the note to reflect that this is a mere clarification and not a change but additional wordsmithing may be in order. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 00:26, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That is not how I read the results of that discussion. I read it as either Black and White or black and white is acceptable, but that Black and white or black and White is not. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 15:23, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's what the note in that section has been saying for a long time, however: "with no consensus to implement a rule requiring either or against mixed use where editors at a particular article believe it's appropriate" (emphasis added). Since there was no consensus against mixed use (Black, but white), it's allowed. Gawaon (talk) 17:11, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

antisemitism -v- anti-Semitism

[edit]

The section "Peoples and their languages" states, "antisemitism, which is preferred in wikivoice per the consensus of scholars and historians of antisemitism" – but "consensus" is not true: there is a small majority, but not a consensus (i.e. "general agreement among a group of people"). The Internet Archive lists 2,740 texts with "antisemitism" in the title and 2,114 texts with "anti-Semitism" in the title. I note that The Oxford English Dictionary and Merriam-Webster give only one version of the term: "anti-Semitism" It seems rather an odd formation, given that German has had "Antisemitismus" since the 1870s and French has had "antisémitisme" almost as long but I do not think Wikipedia should fly in the face of the two most authoritative English and American lexical sources. Was the current wording of the MoS discussed, and if so, where can one find the discussion? Tim riley talk 07:05, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The last discussion was in March, and Zanahary made the guideline change. Just skimming here, but it seems that the guideline would be stronger if it noted Wikipedia consensus to use "antisemitism" without making a claim about scholars and historians. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:31, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No objection ꧁Zanahary꧂ 16:23, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My thanks, Firefangledfeathers. I think the decision you refer to is ill-informed but I shan't raise the matter again. Tim riley talk 19:09, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Capitalization "black", "white" and "colo[u]red"

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
It's best to ask the writer or author's preference about the capitalization. MarcoToa1 (talk) 09:47, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
You can also compare other style guides. MarcoToa1 (talk) 09:50, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It should be "compare with". MarcoToa1 (talk) 09:51, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is covered in MOS:RACECAPS. Gawaon (talk) 10:08, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. MarcoToa1 (talk) 12:05, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Capitalizing the word "MXDWN"

[edit]

I've used the sources from mxdwn.com, which is a relianle source. When I cite this source, I write it as "MXDWN" (all caps) in |website=, thinking it was an initialism. However, I could not find any evidence that "MXDWN" is actually an initialism. On the contrary, the site itself uses the lowercase form "mxdwn" on its About Us page. Should I therefore write it as "Mxdwn" instead? Camilasdandelions (talk!) 23:55, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that makes sense. Gawaon (talk) 08:34, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

United States Marine

[edit]

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)[reply]

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

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

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