Forum:CT:Capitalization of page names pertaining to titles/ranks/assignments

This page is an archive of a community-wide discussion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made in the Senate Hall or new Consensus Track pages rather than here so that this page is preserved as a historic record.
The result of the debate was Do not adopt proposed policy changes. Imperators II(Talk) 12:18, October 18, 2017 (UTC)
Forums > Consensus track archive > CT:Capitalization of page names pertaining to titles/ranks/assignments

There is a lack of consistency in the way we name pages pertaining to titles, ranks, assignments, and positions. Some of them are capitalized (e.g. Communications Officer, Junior Lieutenant, Supply Master) when others are not (e.g. communications master, master chief petty officer, signal officer). Sometimes, there's even a difference in capitalization depending on the Legends/canon status of the article (e.g. communications officer vs Communications Officer, Chief Petty Officer vs chief petty officer). I think it's time to standardize it all.

Now, according to proper English grammar, a title/rank/assignment should only be capitalized immediately before a person's name or if it's used as part of their name (usually replacing their first name). In other words, since the article for the position defines the position itself, the page name sould not be capitalized a priori.

The advantage is that it would be conform to English grammar. The drawback is that, every time we'll use said title immediately before a name in an article, we'll have to pipelink it (e.g. [[Second weapons officer|Second Weapons Officer]] Thrawn.) This admittedly can become tedious.

However, we can choose to do it the other way around, that is always capitalize the page name for a title/rank/assignment. Of course, the benefits and drawbacks are reversed: it would be easier for pipelinking, but a departure from proper grammar.

In short, our options are:

  • Option One: Never capitalize (conform to grammar)
  • Option Two: Always capitalize (easier to link)

Voting

Option One

  1. More tedious or not, I think we should conform to grammar. --Lelal Mekha The Uprising crest (Audience Room) 11:57, October 11, 2017 (UTC)

Option Two

Option Three

We are and always have done stuff according to however it's done within the original source. So if the source material says Lieutenant commander, then that's what we need to use. If it says Lieutenant Commander, then we use that. If both are used, then we go with whatever the majority term is as a rule. (I think?) Therefore, I can't support either of the above options and am initiating Option Three, which is to conform to that rule.

  1. ProfessorTofty (talk) 14:23, October 11, 2017 (UTC)
  2. This. A million times this. I can't even believe this CT is offering any other voting options, and I'm surprised this forum's proposer doesn't realize this: What you may see as an inconsistency in our articles is actually matching canon source material. If a rank is capitalized, like Second Lieutenant, then we capitalize. If it's not capitalized, then we don't. Simple as that. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 17:29, October 12, 2017 (UTC)
  3. Per above. - Imperial Information Office AV-6R7Crew Pit 17:33, October 12, 2017 (UTC)
  4. Indeed. 1358 (Talk) 17:35, October 12, 2017 (UTC)
  5. --Lewisr (talk) 17:39, October 12, 2017 (UTC)
  6. Brandon Rhea(talk) 17:40, October 12, 2017 (UTC)
  7. Our grammar is okay. Star Wars' grammar isn't. Imperators II(Talk) 20:40, October 12, 2017 (UTC)
  8. --DarthRuiz30 (talk) 20:43, October 12, 2017 (UTC)
  9. Ayrehead02 (talk) 21:12, October 12, 2017 (UTC)
  10. Exiled Jedi (talk) 00:42, October 14, 2017 (UTC)
  11. <-Omicron(Leave a message at the BEEP!) 01:20, October 14, 2017 (UTC)
  12. It's all translated from Basic for our entertainment anyway. MasterFredCommerce Guild(Whatever) 17:14, October 15, 2017 (UTC)

Discussion