Semi Protection

UESPWiki talk:Spelling/Archive 2

The UESPWiki – Your source for The Elder Scrolls since 1995
Jump to: navigation, search
This is an archive of past UESPWiki talk:Spelling discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page, except for maintenance such as updating links.

Incorrect usage of sic template

I've noticed a couple of instances of sic being misused via the sic template. In modern media, sic is used to indicate that a spelling mistake is present in the source material and has not been introduced during the typographical process. However, I've seen the sic template used for words missing from the original source whereas modern media includes missing word(s) in square braces. As an example, take the Wild Hunt lore page, which currently states the following:

killing everything its [sic] path.

This should actually be:

killing everything [in] its path.

I know it's a very minor issue, and I'm not going to trawl the wiki looking for occurances, but other than "it's always been done that way", is there a reason against correcting this on sight? --Reka 16:16, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I suppose you could change that if you wanted to. RIM 16:19, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Well, on of the purposes of the template is to document that the mistake is intentionally copied, keeping people from correcting it. --Alfwyn 16:40, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Plural of Draugr in Bloodmoon

So I was doing a search for "Draugrs" to see if there were any instances I could correct when I came across an issue in the Bloodmoon namespace. While in Skyrim, the plural of Draugr is Draugr, I'm getting conflicting information from the Bloodmoon articles. The Undead article (and most other written articles I can see) follows that style, but the only three books that mention Draugr--Rogue Necromancer's Journal; Thirsk, a History; and Thirsk, a History -- Revised--all say otherwise. I do not know about dialogue or quest updates that mention Draugr in them, though.

What should the guidelines be on the plural of Draugr in the Bloodmoon namespace? --Velyanthe 20:53, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

If you can see unwritten articles, I suggest visiting a neurologist. Or maybe a fortune-teller. Anyways, my rule of thumb is when in doubt, look to journal entries, loading screen texts, official game guides, and similar clues directly from Bethesda. I could only find one quest whose journal entries referred to multiple draugr, and it sticks with "draugr". So using "draugr" as a plural seems correct, even for Bloodmoon. Those texts you mentioned can likely be dismissed as mistakes by the in-game authors. Minor EditsThreatsEvidence 21:17, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
Actually, crap, that journal seems to be referring to a singular draugr; I thought it meant all the draugr in the barrow. So, the search continues. Minor EditsThreatsEvidence 21:19, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
According to the wikipedia page about Draugr (Yes, they are real and they DID happen in human history) the plural of Draugr is Draugar. As seen here, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draugr. — Unsigned comment by Chronic (talkcontribs) at 18:46 on March 29, 2012
That was the original, older plural, but it doesn't mention a new plural... It also states that they're in mythology, but not necessarily real. It shouldn't matter what Wikipedia says, though, since we're just checking out the Bloodmoon info. So far, Skyrim's plural is Draugr and, as far as I can tell, Bloodmoon's is Draugrs. --Velyanthe 22:57, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
I have to reaffirm that the correct plural of draugr is draugar regardless of what Bethesda intended only because this plural has more standing and proof than three very short books, a handful of conversations and 2 games that don't agree with one another. Also, when I stated that they did happen, I referring to what is seen in-game with the dead bodies. Chronic 23:02, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
Ah, I think I see what you mean. Regardless of what the real term is, the wiki should follow the games in terms of spelling, though. It is interesting that the true plural is draugar, though. --Velyanthe 23:10, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
It appears that there are different plurals depending on which kind of undead you are referring to, and that draugr referred to ghosts rather than a zombie like monster. In reality the haugbui would be a better description of what is found in-game. Stated that it/they will not leave its/their burial site. But I digress, every spelling you'll see from me will be using the Old Norse word. (Thankfully, I do not edit pages anymore).23:30, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

() Since it's been a while... Would anyone oppose it if I were to make all instances of plural Draugr in the Bloodmoon namespace Draugrs, and update the spelling guide to reflect that? Vely►Talk►Email 15:56, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Hm, I found some dialogue that conflicts with those books: "I have been in this cave for many centuries. The draugr you met in this place are not my kin. Mindless creatures, driven only by desire for living flesh. My story is quite different." Suppose that solves this, then. Vely►Talk►Email 23:53, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

() Sorry for reviving the topic, but the latest version of Thirsk, a Revised History from DB says "draugrs", not draugr. Minor EditsThreatsEvidence 07:07, 6 December 2012 (GMT)

Consider the word "cactus." Dictionaries give three plural forms: cacti, cactuses, and cactus. None is wrong. Why couldn't this hold true for draugr/s. Unless we reach a consensus on a single standard, we can set a within-page consistency standard and accept both. We could also set a preference, but state that changes should not be made except for within-page consistency. We could also specify draugr for the general plural form and draugrs for referring to more than one type or variety. If we are to specify one, I prefer the latter idea, but I care more about specifying a policy or guideline than having none, regardless of what it may be. --JR (talk) 06:03, 14 December 2012 (GMT)

Capitalization

I have yet another capitalization question to add to this page. I notice that a lot of edits have been made recently that are simply decapitalizing the names of equipment, such as "Wolf Armor" and "Blue Mage Robes". The Spelling Guide doesn't give specific guidance on this. I'm leaning towards capitalizing names such as this, as they seem like proper names, unlike "steel armor" or "ebony gauntlets". Thoughts? --Xyzzy Talk 01:58, 4 October 2012 (GMT)

Actually, the guide does give guidance to this. According to the article, Capitalization should in general follow regular English rules. A few notable points are.... yada yada yada. As outlined by this, yes, you are correct to some extent that proper names should be capitalised. However, equipment such as wolf armor, blue mage robes, college boots aren't proper nouns in English, unlike honed ancient Nord armor, Nightingale bow, or Elven dagger. The words blue, wolf, mage etc aren't proper nouns, and just like you mentioned, they seem like proper nouns, but are actually not. so, I am against capitalising these. ~ Psylocke 02:19, 4 October 2012 (GMT)
When it comes to "blue mage robes", I'd definitely consider it generic enough that it doesn't need capitalization, while in my opinion "Wolf Armor" could go either way (could be "wolf armor" or even "Wolf armor"?). Personally, I think most of the names of various types of equipment don't need capitalization (according to normal English rules, they wouldn't) but there are some which are questionable. When it comes to those, I tend to leave them capitalized, though I won't revert it if someone else changes it. — ABCface 02:30, 4 October 2012 (GMT)
I want to suggest a comprehensive look at capitalization. I have seen it come up as an issue in many ways, just in the relatively short time I've been around here. Lately I've been noticing a lot of changes from "... the Rift" to "xxx The Rift" for example, yet we have "in the great capital of the Pale, Dawnstar" [emphasis mine] in this. And "...the United Kingdom" is given as an example in Wikipedia's style manual.
"Following regular English rules" sounds good, but a related problem is that there is a fair amount of diversity, even among "authoritative" grammar and style guides, with a modern trend toward more free choice. I propose adopting some fairly-specific standards with regard to capitalization and codifying them similarly to how Wikipedia has done it: quite comprehensively. I think the Skyrim space, for example, is beginning to reach a state of maturity such that more consistency in such things rises as a priority. Also, we seems to have a fair number of editors who enjoy checking such things and correcting them.
If we adopted Wikipedia's rules as a standard, I think that the major specific issues we may still need to discuss revolve around "in-game" style(s).
I think that working on capitalization questions issue-by-issue does not work very well, and we should try to have a comprehensive discussion that remains in one place until we produce a separate article specifically on this topic. --JR (talk) 03:28, 5 November 2012 (GMT)
Capitalizing "the" in "the Rift", "the Pale", etc., is definitely wrong. If you see people making that change, correct it. The only times "the Rift" should appear as "The Rift" is if it starts a sentence, the extremely rare occasions that in-game text capitalizes it, and when you're explaining "The Rift" is improper. ;) As for the topic, all I care about is consistency across the wiki. Minor EditsThreatsEvidence 03:37, 5 November 2012 (GMT)
I wouldn't mind adopting many of Wikipedia's guidelines on that page. Some aren't really needed on this wiki due to our subject matter, but they're all pretty useful and specific. The only part I'd like to completely ignore would be their guidelines for section headings - that wouldn't apply here since we've already established a precedent to do otherwise on our articles. One which may need discussing is capitalization of animals, plants, and other organisms, since there seems to be some disagreement on this already. I do agree with ME on the capitalization of "the Rift", but I think the wiki could benefit from further discussion on capitalization standards in general. — ABCface 03:54, 5 November 2012 (GMT)

() Thanks. ME: There is certainly some kind of rift about this. Some may feel it Pales in comparison to other issues, but I wanted to Reach out and see what we can settle. I believe you were part of a big discussion on "job titles" ("Jarl/jarl") and also this issue not too long ago, right? Do you know where that is? I want to try to put together a comprehensive proposal, with help from whoever's interested, and submit it for consensus. Going back and trying to put together some of the past discussions on the issue should be part of the process, I think. (And if anyone feels upset that I wrote "whoever" instead of "whomever", see the usage note here before convicting and sentencing me for my sentences. ABCface, maybe we can see what other input comes in here at this time, and then form a project. We could put together an article in a sandbox, submit it for comments and approval, and adopt it as policy. Yes, the animals/plants issue is probably mainly about tensions between in-game uses vs. conventional uses, and I think we should strive for a clear debate with a long input period so that everyone who wants to contribute their thoughts is really heard and we struggle to achieve the best agreements we can. There are always some strong opinions on such issues. --JR (talk) 04:09, 5 November 2012 (GMT)

Is this discussion the one you're thinking of? — ABCface 04:20, 5 November 2012 (GMT)
Yes, exactly. Thanks. Dunno why I didn't see it when I searched the first time. There are more, like this one, and more (on capitalizing sidebars, in tables, in captions, etc.), all of which should probably be skimmed to catch any good points or agreements that were informally or formally made without policy/guidelines being updated. Maybe we can give this some more time for others to comment on, then think about starting to craft a fairly comprehensive proposal. I think we may want to dig down a little deeper into what "in-game" spelling means: I think there are some things that are consistent in-game, some that might be consistent in some places but not across others (the messages on loading screens, journal text, lore text, map text, etc.). I think a really good try might be worth it, considering how often the issues arise. Specify guidelines, including probably asking only for within-article consistency in certain cases. --JR (talk) 06:09, 5 November 2012 (GMT)
Sorry, I overlooked your earlier request. It was hard to get past the puns. Minor EditsThreatsEvidence 06:17, 5 November 2012 (GMT)
I've tried to Forswear making them, but can't stop. --JR (talk) 06:26, 5 November 2012 (GMT)
Just wanted to clarify a bit further: I recently edited articles pertaining to standing stones, and I realised that most of these have "The" in front of them. Am I right to say that these are erroneously capitalised as well? If so, I'll gladly correct these minor mistakes (including the hold ones). ~ Psylocke 04:07, 6 November 2012 (GMT)
Psylocke: It seems that a consensus is emerging toward that direction (no initial cap for "the" preceding proper names unless it begins a sentence or a "field" with certain, quite narrow, exceptions); however, it could reasonably be argued that no clear and absolute rule on this has been established and formally adopted by consensus as of quite yet. So I (personally) think you could go either way at the moment. I'd probably wait (Hold off) until that occurs. Maybe you can contribute more vitally by participating in the process that I hope will unfold in the next days or couple of weeks on capitalization policy. You obviously have a facility with language and the talent and willingness to help make the whole wiki look better in terms of such details. I think we might listen for any more input here for a few more days, then probably put together a basic proposal: For example, that we adopt Wikipedia's standards on capitalization with the exceptions ABCface notes above, we try to specify a bit more about what it might mean to follow "in-game" usage, and we think about whether there might be some contexts in which there should be some flexibility. --JR (talk) 06:29, 6 November 2012 (GMT)

() ABCface (or anyone): Do you want to start a draft policy proposal—either here or in a sandbox—fundamentally based on Wikipedia's, minus what's irrelevant, and starting a list of proposals and issues uniquely relevant to us? Or should I? I'm willing. If we take substantially from Wikipedia, let's make an attribution under the terms of their ShareAlike license. --JR (talk) 15:34, 10 November 2012 (GMT)

Capitalization Edit Break 1

I want to do some groundwork before preparing (whether by myself or with anyone else who wants to participate) a comprehensive policy on capitalization, and possibly related language/style issues. I think a major question to put out for settling is whether "titles" and/or "headings" on pages/articles and/or titles of pages/articles should follow Wikipedia's style guide, or keep closer to the current practices (always or almost always following a "capitalize the first letter of all important words")? Very soon after raising that or any capitalization issue, I suppose, a question regarding "in-game" style will arise. I think it makes sense, therefore, to first detail and agree upon what "in-game" means. It also makes sense to detail what a "title" ("subtitle"; "header"; etc.) is on the wiki: there are several kinds of titles besides article/page titles, yet the current spelling guide says (ambiguously, I think) that "In titles and subtitles, all words should be capitalized except for minor words...".

Therefore, step-by-step, I think. And perhaps step one could be: Can anyone propose a categorization of "in-game" text types/areas so that I/we can propose a clear definition of what is meant when we refer to something like "used in-game" with respect to language standards, capitalization in particular. I can think of the following example of why this may be useful: There are screens with short texts on them (tips, lore, info) that appear while the game is loading. It seems to me that I've seen the term "loading screen/s" used to describe these. If that's considered a standard or correct term, I'd like to collect that kind of information here. If any of the categories overlap, I'd like to have that described here. For example, if a text on a "loading screen" is also repeated on a "tutorial" screen (again, that means something in my imagination, but I cannot define it precisely), I'd like to detail that info here, too. Similarly, is there more than one way to categorize "lore"? Is lore text the text from in-game books only? Are there useful "categories" of lore text? (This might help if we detail a policy to the extent that, say, one or more books introduced in Skyrim differs in how something is spelled or capitalized compared to earlier books.) Finally, while I've taken the step of downloading the creation kit (construction set/CS), I have not yet learned much about how to access the data it contains. Is there any kinds or categories of text that appear in the game that do not appear in the CK? For example, does game menu text, appear in the CS? Journal text? All of it? Can the way that things are spelled or capitalized in the game always be determined by accessing the CS?

Here's a feeble attempt at a beginning:

  1. Loading screen text
  2. Menu texts
    1. Main menu
    2. In-game menu
    3. Inventory screen
    4. In-game world map
    5. In-game local map
  3. Subtitles
  4. Books
  5. Pop-up tutorials
  6. All text that appears on-screen during the game not listed above
  7. All discourse that is spoken without a matching subtitle

Etc. And ... maybe edit the above list, create your alternative below, or place you taxonomy in User:JR/SandboxD. Once we have a taxonomy, we could take a shot at specifying perhaps, at least for some things at some times, which category should "prevail" when there are differences in "in-game" usage or style. --JR (talk) 02:32, 28 November 2012 (GMT)

I've told myself I'm taking a semi-break from the wiki, but I'm having a hard time staying away. However, I am making a conscious effort to spend less time here than I have in the past, so while I'm unwilling to make large, time-consuming contributions at this time, this is a topic that I do have a particular interest in. I would be quite interested in following the process and providing feedback along the way if it's wanted. I've gone ahead and added your sandbox to my watchlist for now (this page is 'watched' already). — ABCface 03:49, 28 November 2012 (GMT)
Support you taking a semi-break. "Wiki-holic" is fun to joke about, but I guess its consequences can be as serious as any other -olism when we neglect priorities because of its lures. Thanks for letting me know you are here. I don't mind taking the lead to move this forward myself, but I want others to know that they are more than welcome to work on it with me. You have already given useful input that has helped me set a basic direction in my mind. I think we need to formally propose the basic questions about capitalization style for articles/pages and "headers", carefully defining our terms along the way. I am struggling myself with balancing, and I expect to go forward on this one step at a time. I'm promising myself I'll do my best to see it through, even if it takes a long time. Take care. Your contributions and our appreciation for them will last a long time, and we want as happy and healthy an ABCFace here as we can get. --JR (talk) 06:12, 29 November 2012 (GMT)
I have moved this "project" to this sandbox for further development at this point. Editors can contribute there, or wait until I can get the process better organized. --JR (talk) 05:45, 5 December 2012 (GMT)
I just want to formally acknowledge that I've been aware of this project, and I respectfully dissent. I was wrong to say that all I care about is consistency across the wiki; I also care about introducing bias and harming reader comprehension, which is what I think is happening here. This practice of decaping items in the gamespaces which we deem to be generic is unnecessary, and ultimately arbitrary. It's much better that we try to follow the capitalization practices the games present us with; i.e., the capitalization being presented to the players, the ones they most easily understand.
Perhaps in the lore we should refer to "ash spawn" and "juniper berries" if appropriate, for example, as NPCs don't capitalize these in dialogue, but in the gamespaces, players are looking for information on the "Ash Spawn" they're fighting, not the "ash spawn". They want to know about the "Juniper Berries" in their inventory, not "juniper berries". They want to know who has the "Raven Rock Tomb Key", not the "Raven Rock Tomb key". Also, who's to say that's not a proper name? Like I said, this is our conception (or misconception) getting in the way between players and the game, and that shouldn't happen.
Also, I still care about consistency, and inconsistency is spreading across the our pages by doing this; for example, "Ash Spawn" and other enemy names are capitalized in the "occupant" parameter of many pages, but not in the text. Then there's this ultimately arbitrary distinction between capitalizing book titles but not those of notes and letters. Capitalizing seemingly "generic" items may not be the practice of wikipedia, but we're dealing with a dramatically different subject here, one in which normal capitalization rules don't necessarily apply. I just don't believe this filter we're erecting between the games' capitalization practices and how we're choosing to relay them is appropriate.
Anyways, I know you all having been "correcting" capitalization on the site for roughly a month, and you've already done a lot of work. It's likely too late to stop the ball from rolling, if I ever could've. Regardless, I should've spoken up much sooner, and I don't mean any disrespect to your efforts. But, as I'm sure you're already aware, I won't be participating. I believe this current practice is detrimental to the wiki, and while it's only marginally so, I can't support it. Neither will I engage in edit warring, obviously. So I'm afraid you capitalization folks are just gonna have to follow me around and pick up my turds like I'm a dog with a weak colon. I believe the players browsing the DB namespace right now are looking for information on East Empire Pendants, Ash Spawn, Reavers, etc., etc.,so that's what I'm going to write for them. I'll do my best to help the reader, and you all, hopefully, will do the same. Minor EditsThreatsEvidence 17:58, 13 December 2012 (GMT)
For me a very important distinction is, where is the word used? If it is used on it's own in infoboxes or tables, it should be capitalized. If it is part of a sentence, it should follow normal capitalization rules. That is approximately how the game does it too. If you fight the creature, it's "Ash Spawn" you see. But in the dialogue it's "Hope we don't run into too many ash spawn out here." - same goes for items found in the inventory. Of course that's only the larger trend, one will find exceptions. Consistency in such minor things doesn't seem to be a major concern of the devs. --Alfwyn (talk) 18:22, 13 December 2012 (GMT)
Yea you're right - words in infoboxes are generally capitalised. And I agree that capitalising everything in the main text just doesn't seem right. Let me illustrate with an example. This revision of Tolvald's Cave is the version just before I edited it; look at all the caps all over the place. Now, look at my edit. Doesn't the article look much neater? This is just a normal sized article. Now, let's just imagine this "caps" thing on much longer articles. Can you imagine that? With all caps?? Clothes, Weapons, Armor, Ingredients, Food, etc. That would be just.. eeww xD. I really wouldn't want to see that on all our articles.
There are exceptions though, like NPC dialogue lines, which are supposed to reflect exactly what is seen in game data, including caps. So, I think what Alfwyn stated is a good point: where is the word used? Go figure. :) ~ Psylocke 19:04, 13 December 2012 (GMT)
I agree with Alfwyn and Psylocke here. Where the word used is a major factor here. It makes sense for info boxes to use caps, as they are stand-alone words or fragments rather than full sentences. When we're copying direct quoted lines of dialogue, capitalization is copied straight from the game, regardless of whether it makes sense or is consistent. Otherwise, UESPWiki content articles should be written in a style appropriate for an encyclopedia, as stated by our style guide. This means proper grammar. Ash spawn are creatures, just like dogs or spiders, and we don't go around writing about Dogs and Spiders with caps in normal sentences. Our readers aren't stupid. They know that ash spawn are Ash Spawn. — ABCface 19:31, 13 December 2012 (GMT)
Written in a style appropriate for an encyclopedia of Elder Scrolls games, for Elder Scrolls players. We should be using proper grammar in that context. I don't want to treat readers like they're stupid; neither do I want to misrepresent the games to them. They know ash spawn are Ash Spawn, but I believe they primarily think of them as "Ash Spawn", and that nanosecond of cognitive dissonance when they read "ash spawn" affects reader comprehension. Of course where the word is used is important, and quoted dialogue should exactly match the game data, but that's not really relevant to what I'm talking about, which is our plain-text descriptions. If NPCs don't capitalize certain words, that should be relevant to the lorespace articles, which are supposed to appear as if they're written by someone in-game, but that doesn't directly matter to the gamespace articles, which are supposed to be written for someone playing the game.
In regards to Psylocke's examples, I'm sorry, I just don't see an appreciable difference in their neatness. I'm not saying these are significant problems, but neither is decapping a significant improvement, and there's still the fact that we're making some improper assumptions here. The dichotomy we're creating between caps and decaps demands we differentiate between generic terms and proper nouns. In a lot of these items, such as notes, letters, and unique keys, I don't think we can or should assume that the name is not a proper one. Even if some of their names appear descriptive, for all our intents and purposes here, they are still proper names. To Milore from Nilara is clearly the title of a letter, while Letter or Scrawled Note appear to be more descriptive terms. Either way, that doesn't and shouldn't matter. I prefer to err on the side of caution and capitalize all of them, because that's how readers will recognize them. Further, we're creating a situation where we're going to end up debating on case-by-case basis whether the name for a weapon, place, armor, and even some food is a proper noun or a generic term. And despite how much decapping has already been done, it seems like there's far more pages remaining. It's just not a good way to spend our time and energy. Minor EditsThreatsEvidence 20:36, 13 December 2012 (GMT)

() I'm for trying to obtain a consensus on a comprehensive set of rules. Comprehensive, but described as simply as possible. Policy that specifies flexibility in certain regards is still policy, which may makes sense in some aspects because we have noticed some kinds of inconsistencies from "in-game" text. The guideline with respect to "logical quotes" is good in this respect, I think: "X is the preferred format/rule. It is not necessary to change content from Y to X, but it should not be changed from X to Y." Policy helps settle differences and back-and-forth "corrections". Compared to other factors, I don't think that the time and energy required to "correct" pages is a very good one because it seems there will always be some editors who enjoy focusing their energy on making things look neat, "correct", and consistent. We may wish that more people were producing big chunks of content, but it's just not some peoples' interest. Further, just setting a guideline does not require anyone to comb through the entire wiki to correct it. Finally, yes: what kind of a piece of text we have, and in what kind of location, will matter sometimes for capitalization. This will need to be detailed also. The rules for tables, infoboxes, etc., could also take Wikipedia's well-defined guidelines as a starting point. --JR (talk) 02:26, 14 December 2012 (GMT)

My ideal would be to have capitalization remain the same as the inventory name, map designation, or in-game titles as applicable for the following categories (possibly non-exhaustive):
People (including enemies like Bandits and Reavers),
Offices (keeping in mind proper grammar rule of not capitalizing when referring to unspecific type of office),
Associations (guilds, knightly orders, etc.)
Achievement names,
Places,
Books,
Notes,
Letters,
Generic Magic Armor,
Generic Magic Weapons,
Uniquely named creatures (such as Old Salty or Lord Tusk),
Unique items (including Quest Items),
Blessings,
Dragon Shouts,
Powers,
Spells,
Keys,
Most if not all Quest Ingredients (the named ones, at least), AND
Named food and drink (such as Sadri's Sujamma).
Basically, if there's any reason to think a subject in a category may be a proper noun, there is no doubt about the entire category. Minor EditsThreatsEvidence 05:26, 14 December 2012 (GMT)
I agree on these:
Offices (keeping in mind proper grammar rule of not capitalizing when referring to unspecific type of office),
Associations (guilds, knightly orders, etc.)
Achievement names
Places
Books (that is proper books- in the case of books such as "ABCface's Journal" I think it's better to write "ABCface's journal")
Uniquely named creatures (such as Old Salty or Lord Tusk),
Blessings
Dragon Shouts
Powers
Spells
ABCface 05:53, 14 December 2012 (GMT)
My thoughts:
Yes☑People (No☒including enemies like Bandits and Reavers) — Named NPCs are obviously caps, but I don't think generic NPCs like bandits, guards, reavers, warlocks should be caps.
Yes☑Offices or Titles (unless used generally) — e.g., "That man is Jarl Balgruuf the Greater, the person in charge of Whiterun" vs "This bounty was issued by the jarl"
Yes☑Associations or Guilds
Yes☑Achievements
Yes☑Places
Books — Depends — What ABC said.
Notes — Mostly No☒
Letters — Mostly No☒Plenty of notes and letter names are generic
No☒Generic Magic Armor
No☒Generic Magic Weapons
Yes☑Unique creatures
Yes☑Unique items (No☒including Quest Items) — Many quest items don't have unique names, such as Vilkas's sword, Fjola's wedding band, unusual gem, fragment of Wuuthrad
Yes☑Blessings
Yes☑Dragon Shouts — Names of shouts are caps, but "dragon shout" is decapped, e.g., "At the end of the barrow is a word wall which teaches part of the Elemental Fury shout."
Yes☑Powers
Spells — unsure of this — I have seen instances where these are decapped (not by me), and I'm starting to think they look better that way too.
Yes☑Spells
Keys — Yes and No — The "proper name" part of the key is caps; the part which says "key" or "key to" are decaps. Also, sometimes I just tweak the link label such that only "key" is linked, e.g., on Skyrim:Alvor, which IMO looks better.
No☒Most if not all Quest IngredientsFor example, if void salts, frost salts etc are decaps, why should Farengar's Frost Salt and Fine-Cut Void Salts be caps?
No☒Named food and drink (such as Sadri's Sujamma) — Only the proper name part (Sadri's) should be caps. Similarly with skooma and Redwater skooma; ale and Argonian ale; mead and Black-Briar/Honningbrew mead etc.
~ Psylocke 06:31, 14 December 2012 (GMT)
I agree with Psylocke's list completely (including her notes) with the exception of spells. I definitely think spells should be capitalized. Otherwise, she and I are on the exact same page when it comes to this, with similar thinking on the reasons and uses. — ABCface 06:36, 14 December 2012 (GMT)
At the risk of throwing out the baby with the bathwater, here are my only sticking points to Psylocke's counter:
Too many of those categories involve close calls which should be decided in favor of caps because differentiating between generic and non-generic names is too difficult. "Mostly" just doesn't cut it; we need bright-line, easy-to-follow delineations. Books, Notes, and Letters are non-negotiable in my opinion for this reason. It will become a pointless distraction for older users and a frustrating stumbling block for newer users if we differ in our capitalization practices for writings. Perhaps we can avoid this issue by mentioning relevant writings generically but still linking to them, such as what I did with this page, but if we're referring to them by name, their inventory name is what we should use. In regard's to ABC's example, we can't assume that someone hasn't given their journal a proper name. Your journal may be "ABC's journal", but I've scrawled "Minor Edit's Journal" on the front cover of mine. They can reasonably differ, but since we can't tell which is which, we should cut the guesswork and just follow the inventory name.
There's no logical reason to follow my preference for Blessings, Dragon Shouts, and Powers, and then not do so for Spells. They're all just magical effects with presumably proper labels.
I see absolutely no reason to decap "key" and nothing else. In the first place, many keys don't have proper names, but rather, descriptive names; for instance, the Raven Rock Tomb Key doesn't unlock the non-existent Raven Rock Tomb, it unlocks the Temple Ancestral Tomb. The point being, capitalizing that particular "proper" name highlights the arbitrariness of this difference. Other keys are apparently unique and often very important, and could very well warrant capitalized names due to this (as in, it's not a Raven Rock Tomb key, it's THE Raven Rock Tomb Key). It shouldn't be up to us to speculate; the safe thing to do is present them as the games present them to us. It's also the easiest method; in the aggregate, it's a whole lot easier to write {{DB|Raven Rock Tomb Key}}, for example, instead of [[Dragonborn:Raven Rock Tomb Key|Raven Rock Tomb key]].
"Sadri's Sujamma" is a brand name, a proper name, and should be treated as such. You wouldn't capitalize whiskey, but you would capitalize Bushmill's Irish Whiskey. It should be no different with Sadri's Sujamma. And once again, there's no point in adding our personal biases by trying to decide what is or is not a brand name or a proper name on a case-by-case basis, and instead just follow the same rule for the whole sub-category. Minor EditsThreatsEvidence 07:05, 14 December 2012 (GMT)
Okay, thanks for clearing up the part about spells. Now I am sure: they should be caps.
However, I disagree with capitalising "journal". Yes, like you said, they may all have given "proper names" on the front covers of their journals, but these aren't true book titles; there isn't any lore behind (most of) these journals.
Also, regarding the keys: yes you are correct; THE Raven Rock Tomb Key unlocks the Temple Ancestral Tomb. But instead of writing something like: "You require the Raven Rock Tomb Key to unlock and enter the Temple Ancestral Tomb" , why not write: "You require a specific key to unlock and enter the Temple Ancestral Tomb" . I've seen a lot of pages with keys formatted as such. Also, if we were to do it your way, all these pages (let's use Alvor's example again) would read something like: "He carries a selection of common loot and gold and the Key to Alvor's House" . Doesn't look grammatical or quite right IMO. Also, the part about "a whole lot easier to write" doesn't really strike me as a good point. ~ Psylocke 07:58, 14 December 2012 (GMT)
Well, yes, like I said, we can avoid problems by trying not to specify in text the name of the journal, key, what-have-you, and instead refer to them generically. But if we were to refer to their names, my rule would be easier for people to follow, your way needlessly slows them down. Seems like a pretty good point to me. Regarding journals, I don't think it's up to us to decide what the "true" book titles are; that's what I've been saying. That amounts to us introducing guesswork into our formatting when we should be sticking to verifiable standards. Minor EditsThreatsEvidence 08:10, 14 December 2012 (GMT)

Capitalization Edit Break 2

(edit conflict) Let's make a new break. This is a long wall of text to read o.O Personally, I have to agree with Minor Edits on capitalizing book titles. We ought to follow the in-game name, since that's what we do here. We document what things look like in-game. If we have a book titled "ABCface's journal", then that's how it ought to appear, but I have one of those fancy journals with a nice printed cover that says "Snowmane's Journal", so that's how it ought to appear on the wiki (minus the fancy show-offy font of course). We can not guess what the "proper" title of books are. It's not our job to guess. Otherwise, I have nothing to say, and I am satisfied with Psylocke's opinions on the list. Snowmane(talkemail) 08:13, 14 December 2012 (GMT)

I'm for more, more, more input. One thing that I think we can all recognize is that there is substantial variation in capitalization practices and preference, even among experienced and/or active editors. I think it makes sense to emphasize collecting ideas and proposals for what we should do, as a first step. Then organizing a comprehensive set of choices, then debating and working to achieve consensus. There's nothing wrong with debating proposals here, but I think it tends to make the whole process more complicated and confusing because there are too many factors. As far as I know, there are two ideas that govern so far: 1) "Follow grammar rules"; and 2) Take guidance from "in-game" texts. The obvious problem with that is that they often conflict with each other. Also, as has been pointed out, what "areas" or "aspects" of "in-game" texts should apply is not a simple question. "Take everything from 'in-game' does not work, because in-game capitalization practices vary: sometimes systematically by "type" of in-game use, and sometimes there are inconsistencies even within the same "in-game" areas/types. If we take the "follow in-game text" rule to an extreme, then must we put the names of quests in ALL CAPS, because that's how they appear on-screen when we begin them?
I like ME's input a lot, since it is fairly specific in what he recommends or prefers, and I think that it should certainly be refined and then included in one of the options that I believe we should present as a choice to adopt for policy/guidance, once we have gathered all the possibilities that have some kind of support. I think it's better if we do not edit controversial issues like crazy all over the wiki if we are making changes that are not based on consensus, but I guess it's ok as long as we don't mind seeing lots of our work "undone" if our choices don't fit the policy that I hope will eventually emerge. For my part, I'm willing to do my best to drive the general course of the project (which I started not to impose my own preferences, but to seek input, organize, and then present as choices that are relatively easy for us to understand and then choose as a community. --JR (talk) 09:24, 14 December 2012 (GMT)
Sorry, I had not read some of the recent input. I equally like Psylocke's and ABCface's input, because it is also specific. My point is to bring it all on, until we have a complete set of options to then debate (further refine), etc. Maybe we're ready for that, but I'm inclined to give more time for yet other alternatives and variations and finer details on what's been proposed. If anyone feels ready to assemble a complete set of choices that includes all ideas advanced so far, then be my guest. Otherwise, I'm willing to take a crack at that later (and, as I try to constantly emphasize, I'm at least equally willing to let someone else do that if they want to, or to collaborate with someone in figuring out a scheme for presenting choices. I imagine we should end up with some kind of table. That table could then be presented on the CP page for debate, more recommendations, and--when we think we're ready--see if we can reach a consensus on a fairly complete set of rules. — Unsigned comment by JR (talkcontribs) on December 14 2012
Sorry to break any sort of consensus that has been made, but for the most part, I agree with Minor Edits' rules.
On Books, Notes, and Journals: They are proper names, and should be capitalized as such. For instance, I can buy the Diary of Anne Frank, but I can also buy the diary of Anne Frank. What's the difference? The first is a title of a book, and the second is describing a book that was hers. So which do we use? In the case of the in-game books, the only thing we are given is its inventory name, which by all indications is its title. Just like Sadri's Sujamma, it is capitalized as a proper noun; this can be verified by looking in the CK. If it is capitalized like a title, and is treated like a title, then shouldn't we also treat it as a title? And if it's the title, then we should capitalize it as such. In my mind, the only possible exception in which it should not be capitalized as a title is if it's name in the CK is decapitalized. Ultimately, our site bases its information off of the game data, and we should match its capitalization rules entirely. Since it almost always capitalizes the names of books, notes, and journals in-game, then we should as well. There's no logical reason not to.
There is a very important distinction we need to make, and that is the difference between a proper noun and a possessive noun. A proper noun is quite literally the name of something. Some examples are:
  • Black-Briar Mead: A brand name
  • Farengar's Frost Salt: The full name
  • Hrodulf's Journal: A book title
  • Raven Rock Tomb Key: The full name
  • Sadri's Sujamma: A brand name
The possessive noun and adjective counterparts to these are:
  • Black-Briar mead: mead that can be described as "Black-Briar"
  • Farengar's frost salt: frost salt that is possessed by Farengar
  • Hrodulf's journal: A journal that is Hrodulf's
  • Raven Rock Tomb key: A key to Raven Rock Tomb
  • Sadri's sujamma: sujamma that is Sadri's
As you can see, these are two entirely different usages, some of which are incorrect. With brand names, you should never change the capitalization; as Minor Edits said above, "You wouldn't capitalize whiskey, but you would capitalize Bushmill's Irish Whiskey." Similarly, you'd say skooma, but you'd say Redwater Skooma, and you'd say mead, but you'd say Black-Briar Mead. This works the other way around as well: I have an Intel i5-3570K CPU, not an Intel I5-3570k CPU. Whenever it's a brand name, it must retain its old capitalization. This is a law of the English language. Book titles, keys, and others are different. Below are two equally valid sentences that you might find on Hrodulf's page:
Inside Hrodulf's House, you can find Hrodulf's Journal in the basement.
Inside his house, you can find his journal in the basement.
Both are perfectly valid usages. The first is using the proper names of each object, and the second is describing them. Which one you use is up to whoever writes it, although we've generally used the second usage more. However, what I believe Minor Edits is trying to get at is that when you refer to an object by its proper noun, you should NOT decapitalize it. Below is an improper example:
Inside Hrodulf's house, you can find Hrodulf's journal in the basement.
The proper name of it is correct, and you should not change it, at all. Below are three more examples, which you might find on Skyrim:Alvor:
He carries a selection of common loot and gold and the Key to Alvor's House.Yes☑
He carries a selection of common loot and gold and the key to his house.Yes☑
He carries a selection of common loot and gold and the key to Alvor's house.No☒
This is a good example of when the second usage would be preferred, although the first usage is grammatically correct. The third one is incorrect, because it changes the capitalization. • JAT 22:40, 17 December 2012 (GMT)
Thinking of "capitalization standards" as a whole, how can there be a consensus when so many people are providing various kinds of input, and there is so much variation on the wiki (and within "the game")? If there ever was one, which I cannot find, it is certainly being raised anew. JAT offers more input, which is valuable, and it gets added into the mix. I just kind of surprised myself, personally. I'm writing a quest, and I seem to want to capitalize "Iron Sword", etc. I wouldn't have thought so two days ago. So I guess I'm more influenced by things I see capitalized "in-game" than I thought I was. The engineering feat, at some point, will be to put together a truly useful set of guidelines. There are so many ways to look at the questions that when one articulates a proposed guideline from x perspective, it may contradict one from y perspective. More input, more input. All of it can be picked apart, summarized, and packaged in some sensible form eventually. And we'll do our best to satisfy as many people as best we can. I have faith in that. --JR (talk) 07:38, 18 December 2012 (GMT)
To ME: Above, you seem to say that you "dissent" from "the project". Did you mean that you dissent from a particular person's proposal or practice? I see the project as gathering opinions and working systematically toward achieving consensus, not as starting from any conclusions from which dissent makes sense. Did you perceive a "project" that is operating on assumptions of a consensus? Also, would you care to take a crack at categorizing types of "in-game" uses more comprehensively, and giving an opinion on which "rules" when there are conflicts between "types" of in-game sources (and even within such sources)? And we also need to reconcile types of text on the wiki: Table headers, infoboxes, "plain prose", etc. I tried to take an initial shot at categorizing in-game sources above, but I know it's incomplete, and I'm fairly unfamiliar with the whole lore space and the content of books. --JR (talk) 07:47, 18 December 2012 (GMT)


I'll admit I didn't give my previous responses enough time for details on when/why I think caps should and shouldn't be used, and I think ME and Jak have made some really good points which counter the preferences I've (vaguely) noted quite well.
For starters, I think we can establish that these specific categories should always be capitalized as they are in game, since no one seems to disagree on these in particular:
• Offices/Titles (with notes above in mind) • Associations/Guilds • Achievement Names • Uniquely Named Creatures • Blessings • Dragon Shouts • Spells • Powers
Unless anyone strongly feels that any of the above should not be capitalized, they probably don't need to be brought up again. As for the other categories, we obviously still have some ironing out to do. So, here's some further thought on some of these categories brought up.
  • People/Creatures: I think the way we use capitalization on Skyrim:Dragon is a good example of how capitalization should be used in regard to people and creatures on articles. Consider the following excerpt from the page:
Dragons are fearsome opponents in combat and are some of the most dangerous creatures in all of Tamriel. As your level increases, more difficult types of dragons will appear, ranging from a basic Dragon at the lowest levels up to a mighty Legendary Dragon at the highest. Encounters with dragons in the wild are heralded by a loud roar; the dragon will often fly very close to you if it has spotted you, causing a palpable rush of air, almost as if the dragon is deliberately trying to provoke you. Not all dragons are automatically hostile to the Dragonborn, however. Some will simply circle for a while without engaging other creatures in combat. If you ignore a dragon for long enough, the event ends and the dragon flies off.
When referring to dragons in general (could be lowest-level which are named "Dragon", could be higher level such as "Blood Dragon", or could be unique, named dragons such as "Alduin"), the words "dragon" or "dragons" are not capitalized. The relevant information applies to all levels of dragons and therefore is referring to the type of creature in general and not capitalized. However, when referring to the specific type of dragon which is actually named "Dragon", that is the lowest-level of dragon in the dragon leveled lists, the word "Dragon" is capitalized. The same holds true for "Legendary Dragon".
I agree with the way that capitalization is used on that page, and I believe this is the method we should use when referring to people and creatures in general. When it comes to reavers, I feel that we should refer to them the same way:
"Glover Mallory's home was invaded by a gang of reavers."
"A Reaver Plunderer and Reaver Marauder were making fun of Glover Mallory."


  • Places: With most places, the name of the place as it appears on the map is clearly the proper name and we should follow the capitalization as seen on the map. "Ashfallow Citadel", "Eldergleam Sanctuary", and "Tel Mithryn" are clearly proper names, and should be capitalized just as written in this sentence. However, when it comes to places with names such as "Abandoned Building" or "Glover Mallory's House" we can use the full name of the place in a sentence without capitalization, and it would still be grammatically correct:
"I entered Glover Mallory's house illegally."
"There is an abandoned building near the lake."
As for claiming that the proper name of Glover Mallory's house is "Glover Mallory's House", we're given no indication that this is the case. It's a generic name for the home where Glover Mallory lives. Here's some examples of houses which clearly have proper names: "Alor House", "Severin Manor", and "House Gray-Mane". It would be incorrect to write "I entered Alor house illegally."
  • Books: Let's consider the fact that skill books, historical books, books containing fictional stories, and journals are all lumped together into one group we simply refer to as "books". This is not done because these are all the same type of literary work. This is done because it's simpler. When it comes to any book on lists 0, 1, 2, 3, or 4, or any skill books, these are clearly published works which can be found in multiple locations. Artifacts such as the Oghma Infinium are clearly ancient works with historical merit. But the faded diary, bandit's journal, bandit's journal, and butcher journal are generically-named "books" which are not clearly proper names. I certainly wouldn't believe that when Calixto Corrium is writing to his sister he titles it "Butcher Journal", and there are loads of other examples of these. In the case of Hrodulf's Journal, and others like it, we can use the full name of the item in a sentence without capitalization and it would still be grammatically correct.
  • Notes/Letters: ME makes a good point that To Milore from Nilara is a name given to the letter in question by its author, and thus its proper name. But in the case of this fake letter or this incriminating letter, I can't consider these proper nouns. They're generically named items, and the name given in inventory is to make it easier on the player, not the proper title given to the written work by its author.
  • Named food and drink: This is actually something I disagree with Psylocke on and somehow passed it up before in my quick responses. As ME and Jak have noted, Sadri's Sujamma is a brand name, as are Black-Briar Reserve and Honningbrew Mead. The full names of these should be capitalized-- as Jak pointed out, not doing so can change the meaning of the sentence. Instead of distributing Sadri's Sujamma to help him promote the product, I would be distributing Sadri's sujamma because I'm a mean bastard or I think he drinks too much. Or both.
Anyway, this has gotten extremely long and I'm not even done yet. There's still generic magic armor/weapons and keys, and possibly other categories I missed. But I'm tired and it'll probably take forever to read through this whole post as it is, if anyone actually does. So I'll just stop here for now. — ABCface 08:18, 18 December 2012 (GMT)

() I'd also like to add that using the reasoning that something is "easier" would be just fine if we were discussing templates or page layout. But this is about grammar and writing style. No, we don't want to make it unnecessarily difficult to edit the wiki. But we do strive for quality, and one of the things that sets our wiki above others out there is the fact that we're more strict when it comes to writing style. — ABCface 13:41, 18 December 2012 (GMT)

I think it's great to get so much input. And, perhaps echoing ABCface's sentiment above, I think that resolving issues related to capitalization—involving as it does, hundreds of decisions per day by contributors—deserve some difficult and lengthy work.
I've been reviewing UESPWiki:Consensus and particularly the section [[:UESPWiki:Consensus#Reaching_Consensus}}#Reaching_Consensus. I think it really has some useful things to say that can guide us forward here. I focused especially on the point that the goal of reaching consensus is usually not best resolved by voting. It aims to satisfy everyone through a process of discussion and normally involves a lot of compromising. This issue may need to end up getting "votes", because it's about (I think!) creating a comprehensive set of rules.
I've put myself out there as having the will to spend energy to facilitate the process. I do want to, but it's also hard. Any or all help would be appreciated. Does anyone think we have enough above to put together several "packages" of proposals? There's been an effort above, with the lists and Xs and checks. Is something as simple as that adequate to cover what we want to cover? I was thinking of developing a lot of possibilities into some kind of table that make it easier for us to say something like "I support row B of the table." Or, I support row C, but would prefer to change one part of it.
Does anyone think I should or should not give that a try? Alternative ways to move forward? Try to drum up more input from the CP page, or something? The only thing that I hope for is that all this activity so far does not just die and get shipped off to that vast wasteland: the archives. If it seems that I should try to do this, I will, but I can tell that it will take me some time and effort. Maybe weeks. If anyone else is willing to do something like this instead of me or with me, please be my guest!
Maybe there is a simpler way to continue the discussion and reach policy proposals. I just tend to think that there are too many elements, and that one moves when you talk about the other, so it might need a comprehensive, sort of "engineered" treatment.
For the time being, I'm not really thinking about capitals too much when I write something on the wiki, because I simply think that "consensus" hasn't happened (culminating in publishing policy). So I sometimes capitalize x, and sometimes don't. I have read all of the above, but not studied it, and I am not very aware if certain things have been perhaps all but formally decided. If that's the case, I'm not intentionally ignoring it when I'm writing or editing for now, and I don't think I care if my capitalization decisions are changed for the time being. --JR (talk) 16:09, 25 December 2012 (GMT)
I have had a very hard time following this discussion, and I'm struggling to come up with the best way to express my viewpoint. So I decided to link you to a few of my latest edits that show what I think of this "issue", Skuldafn was my latest and had the most thought put into capitalization. Ironbind was just my natural type, no real thought went into it. I think my edits are generally in line with Minor Edits thoughts. My last point is to read a book, our quest, location, and place pages are designed for readability, while our list pages (eg. Ingredients) are different, and are designed as encyclopedias. A wiki-wide policy therefore is unworkable as we have at least two types of style across our pages. Silence is GoldenBreak the Silence 19:17, 28 December 2012 (GMT)
I think the issue deserves a "hard to follow" discussion, because it's complex, and important (potentially impacting all or nearly all ~18K articles). My commitment, which admittedly no one has asked for, is to ensure that everything is eventually organized into a table "summary of issues/choices" (something like that) to facilitate a friendlier, comprehensive, wider discussion. I'm intentionally delaying that, because if we end up writing policy, I think we really want to get it right, which means a lot of listening and consideration. (Above, we already see some great summaries that discuss many of the more prominent issues, and I think they can help guide us to some extent in the meantime.) Whenever I do that, I will include info from your post and will check out your pages to do the best I can to ensure that your preferences and choices are included in the process. I'll add another issue into the mix right now, since it's on my mind: Capitalization of compound words (One-handed vs. One-Handed). --JR (talk) 08:35, 5 January 2013 (GMT)
As far as I know, One-handed is correct per the game data, so there isn't ever a reason to put it as One-Handed. Jeancey (talk) 08:38, 5 January 2013 (GMT)
Actually, the skill is "One-handed", and one faction uses "One-Handed", however magic effect and enchantment records in game-data are inconsistent, with some using one way and some using the other. For the faction and skill, we of course use in-game capitalization. For the effects/enchantments, however, we use "One-handed" for consistency regardless of the in-game capitalization. Our article page for the magic effect is Skyrim:Fortify One-handed while Skyrim:Fortify One-Handed is a redirect. — ABCface 18:08, 5 January 2013 (GMT)
I think it's good to have it thrown into the mix. It concerns at least three issues: 1) Discrepancies within and between types of "in-game" text and between terms when used in differing senses; 2) Capitalization and "title case" (of elements of compound words; and in general because there are some variations in style guides for capitalization in titles); 3) If we agree, e.g., to capitalize skills the way the game does, do we always capitalize that term when use in another sense? (e.g., "increase your One-handed"; "one of the best one-handed weapons").--JR (talk) 01:23, 6 January 2013 (GMT)
When referring to the skill, it's One-handed and Two-handed, but when just talking about doing things with one or both hands (like melee fighting) you don't need caps. So, "Aela can help me improve my One-handed skill but I'm gonna kill her with my two-handed weapon." — ABCface 05:00, 6 January 2013 (GMT)
That's how I think I'd want to do it. That's what I'll do for now. Try to do. --JR (talk) 05:42, 6 January 2013 (GMT)
Just two more notes stuck in here for consideration later: "One-handed" is also a compound word, and there is a separate grammar standard on capitalizing elements of compound words in "title case" usage: Generally, capitalize both. 2) Is "Dragon" the (or a) name for the language? If so, it should always be capitalized when it's used to name it. --JR (talk) 12:34, 10 January 2013 (GMT)
Also adding into the mix: The in-game dialogue uses caps for Mirabelle's position "Master Wizard", while we (mostly) seem to not capitalize such unless used together with a name. This creates an inconsistency within the page. --JR (talk) 05:10, 11 February 2013 (GMT)

() Since the current capitalization discussion began, I'm noticing more about what I see on the wiki, how I think and feel when I make capitalization decisions (e.g., strangely pulled toward capitalizing more things that I used to be; noticing that I have some inconsistencies in these decisions and preferences). The examples of capitalizing "one-handed" and "One-handed" [here] is interesting for me to notice. Is the uncapitalized term in the quote about the skill also uncapitalized in the the game? And, I've argued elsewhere, I think that if it's going to be capitalized as a proper noun (and when it's capitalized in headlines/titles/in summary or info tables), I think the standards (at least mostly) call for capitalizing all elements of compound words, unless any of them is "unimportant" (excepting the first word, which would always be capitalized): "One-Handed" or "one-handed".

Before I try to put some different "option packages" into a table for us to discuss/refine, I'm wondering if anyone who has written above, or on the CP discussion (linked to above), has seen any evolution in their opinions or practices. --JR (talk) 13:06, 4 March 2013 (GMT)

Psijic vs. Psiijic

What is the correct usage and spelling of this? It appears that the only time it is spelled "Psiijic" is when it is used for one of their clothing items (e.g. Psiijic Robes). Is this correct? I thought I saw something on this many months ago, but couldn't find it in this article. --Xyzzy Talk 19:37, 25 March 2013 (GMT)

All the books, and the two members who use the word in Skyrim, Quaranir and Nerien, call it the "Psijic Order". The clothing they wear is identified as PsijicMonkOutfit, but the clothes listed under the link are all Psiijic. In fact a site-wide search only brings up 10 instances of Psiijic. It looks like an error on the part of whomever named the items during manufacture. Silence is GoldenBreak the Silence 19:53, 25 March 2013 (GMT)

Almsivi or ALMSIVI?

This edit prompted me to check whether Almsivi always appears in all-caps or not; a quick check on CSList seems to indicate that the usage is mixed. Is there currently a preference one way or the other? If so, we should probably make an entry for it. Actually, it wouldn't hurt to indicate that both usages are acceptable, if that's the case. Any thoughts? eshetalk 17:58, 22 April 2013 (GMT)

As it isn't always the case, and unless there are special reasons for it to be all-caps, there is no reason to have it all-caps where it is not directly from the game. Using it when it clearly isn't always the case just looks unsightly. Silence is GoldenBreak the Silence 18:00, 22 April 2013 (GMT)


Prev: Archive 1 Up: UESPWiki talk:Spelling Next: None