Wikipedia

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters/Archive 14

< Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style | Capital letters
Latest comment: 9 years ago by JorisvS in topic Capitalization of universe
Archive 10←Archive 12Archive 13Archive 14Archive 15Archive 16→Archive 20

Capitalization of universe

Latest comment: 9 years ago236 comments24 people in discussion

Currently Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Capital letters § Celestial bodies mentions Sun, Earth, Moon (added in 2004 by Satori after discussion here and Solar System (added in 2012 by Kotniski without any discussion that I could find). I intend to add the sentence: "The word universe should not be capitalized." This is consistent with a decision on the Age of the universe article and some related articles after discussions here, here, here, here, here, here,here, and here. The principal reason was that several sources (the NASA style guide and Wiktionary and Oxford Dictionary and Encyclopedia Britannica and Merriam-Webster) use lower case. Recently there was a completely opposite consensus on the WikiProject Astronomy talk page to use upper case instead, and as a result universe has been changed to Universe in 100 or more articles, but this resulted in dispute and two or three editors suggested it would be better to treat this as a MOS issue. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 16:45, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

But what is the rationale for that? "Universe" is completely analogous to those. NASA also calls for "solar system", yet we do capitalize it. Wiktionary also has Universe. --JorisvS (talk) 17:37, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
They were referring to what Wiktionary says under wikt:universe: "Alternative forms ... Universe (dated or religious)". Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:04, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
Actually, one editor. One hot head editor posting long angry messages.
Well, Peter explained it all. I'd like to add that, according to the MoS, words like "sun" and "solar system" should be capitalized when used in an astronomical context to differ from other suns and other solar systems. Pretty much the same rule applies to universe. There is "universal law", "Miss universe", and "the Universe". By doing a simple google search you can easily see that isn't wrong. The lowercase word can also be acceptable, but it is not wrong to use the word capitalized to differ from other meanings of "universe". It's quite simple Tetra quark (don't be shy) 17:43, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
Actually it is "Miss Universe" here and most everywhere I've ever seen. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:19, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
Yes, of course we do capitalize the trademarked names of beauty pageants. Dicklyon (talk) 07:27, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't see any rationale for caps in "the Universe". Most sources don't do that (see n-grams and make up your own searches), and it's not a celestial body. It's just the concept of everything that exists. Dicklyon (talk) 18:25, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Agree... of course going by n-grams, we would not capitalize Earth either (I tried Sun and Moon as well... mixed results depending on which phrases I put into ngrams). Blueboar (talk) 19:44, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
It's a question of style and it seems like a no-brainer to me. We have the Sun and a sun, the Moon and a moon, the Queen and a queen, the President and a president, the White House and a white house. By the same rule of thumb we have the Universe and a universe. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 21:46, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
When it comes to caps, WP is like a parallel universe (<- n.b.) with its own set of rules that nobody wants to make explicit but everybody wants to argue about. "Wikipedia avoids unnecessary capitalization. Most capitalization is for proper names or for acronyms." This page of the MOS is based on an inaccuracy, compounded by ambiguity and assumption. It is a strange contradiction for an institution obsessed with accuracy and consistency. Cinderella157 (talk) 23:37, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
But when "the Universe" is used to refer to the one and only, it is a proper noun, completely analogous to the Sun, Moon, Earth, and Solar System. Proper nouns are capitalized, and which is also why the latter are written with caps. Why would we make an exception for "the Universe"? --JorisvS (talk) 11:56, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
Precisely my point. I would be happy to go with "the universe" if we also had "the queen of England", "the shah of Iran" and "the president of the United States of America" [, but we don't]. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 12:44, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
I agree. It should be the Universe when referring to the one we're in (The Universe is big) but universe in other contexts (She passed through the portal into a parallel universe; In The Simpsons' universe...), consistent with Sun, Earth, Moon, etc. —sroc 💬 13:01, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
All of those are fine examples that seem to motivate capitalizing "universe". As part of the scientific method (note that "scientific method" is not normally capitalized), we might also think of good exceptions. For example, "the sky" or "the ocean". Those refer, as we might interpret, to our sky and our ocean. I would suggest, however, that they not be capitalized. You see, this English language thing is kind of squishy. Not amenable to strict logical rules. We might try to establish conventions, but so long as language has an arbitrary dimension, there will be plenty of gray area. Our conventions will, sooner or later, come down to drawing lines: on this side we capitalize, on the other we don't. Anyway, I'm cool with conventions, and I'm cool with trying to get them put into practice. I also don't think we should worry too much about enforcing them if they don't make much difference for the most important issues: content and clarity of communication. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 14:30, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
There are many skies and many oceans. Those are not proper nouns. The scientific method is a bit more tricky. There are many methods, some scientific, some not. Gradually the body of techniques that makes something scientific has come to be considered a method and hence come to be referred to as "the scientific method". It is not really a monolithic entity, though, and a certain studies may be more or less scientific. "Scientific method" is indeed in the grey area, but "Universe" is not. --JorisvS (talk) 15:19, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

I have flagged this discussion for interested editors at:

—sroc 💬 13:21, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps relevant to the present discussion, and as presented earlier, my own preferences atm may be summarized as follows:

Copied from "Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomy#Capitalize the "U" in "universe" or not?":

FWIW - if not already considered, a relevant reference for the discussion *may* be the "Style Guide for NASA History Authors and Editors" at the following link => http://history.nasa.gov/styleguide.html - especially? => "Astronomical Bodies: Capitalize the names of planets (e.g. Earth, Mars, Jupiter). Capitalize moon when referring to Earth's Moon, otherwise lowercase moon (e.g. the Moon orbits the Earth, Jupiter's moons). Do not capitalize solar system and universe." (and more? - see link) - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 17:11, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Hope this helps in some way - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 14:32, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
  • I would oppose capitalization of sun, moon, and Earth, along with universe. The only exceptions I can imagine is when the planet Earth is being referred to as a planet by the proper name of the planet. For the sun and moon, it would probably be more reasonable to use the standard phrases "the sun" and "the moon" in general. If for whatever reason this isn't done, then it would not be unreasonable to use Sol or Luna or similar, which are recognized proper names of the bodies in question and as such are capitalized. Solar system is another matter, but I guess, when referring specifically and only to the system of which the star Sol is the main body, it wouldn't be unreasonable. Even there though I think "the solar system" is the way it is most frequently referred to, and that phrase isn't necessarily capitalized. Universe is so far as I can see never used as a proper name except perhaps with additional modifiers, like "Miss Universe" which is the proper name of that pageant's winner, and on that basis I can see no good reason to ever capitalize it except in those rare instances when it is used as part of a proper name. "The universe" is always another, less problematic, option. John Carter (talk) 15:29, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
Trying to be fair to the pro-Universe side: I found a printed Oxford dictionary which says Universe is used "frequently" although universe is the main entry, and an old Times style guide saying "cap[italise] in planetary context". But add for the pro-universe side: IOP style guide. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 16:00, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Support capitalisation generally. "Universe" is the proper name of the cosmos we inhabit. This is especially true in astronomical contexts, and when it would benefit to distinguish our Universe prom hypothetical parallel universes. It's similar to how the Galaxy (ours) is capitalised, but other galaxies are not. Reyk YO! 21:09, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
  • I can support capitalization (even though I think the issue is not important), so long as it is a style for astronomical domains. I'm not sure it makes sense in other domains (like the humanities). Having slept on it and seen some of the arguments below, I'm opposed to making this an expected style as in MOS. I'm fine with authors of articles making the choice that makes most sense for the individual article. I apologize for being a bit fickle, but that's the way I am sometimes. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 21:18, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
@Isambard Kingdom: The problem is that this leads to disagreements over which form "makes most sense for the individual article". Affected articles have been moved and inconsistent capitalisation throughout articles as a result. We have a long-established consensus in MOS for Sun, Moon, Earth, Solar System, so why not Universe too for the sake of consistency? —sroc 💬 13:28, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
Okay, I see that we have arguments, so my suggestion about allowing authors to do what is best might be overly optimistic. But it is still an arbitrary line that is being drawn. Again, as I've suggested above, think of the words that somebody is next going to propose be capitalized (if they haven't already), Heaven, the Ocean (when referring to Earth's ocean specifically), the Atmosphere (again for the Earth), Lithosphere, the list is endless. I'm not sure what the policy is on God vs Gods vs Goddess, etc. If we need to have a style, then adopt one that has already been put into place for a reasonable publisher (and, no, I don't think that is irrelevant, as someone has suggested). Also, we will need to carve out a large exception for articles on the humanities, where I worry that Universe might not be appropriate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Isambard Kingdom (talk • contribs) 14:06, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
And, also, why not capitalize "multiverse"? Assuming that really is everything! (Apologies if I wasn't the first.) Isambard Kingdom (talk) 22:11, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Support capitalization, when, in an astronomical or physics context, it is referring to the Universe as our universe. The word is used in many ways in astronomy/physics and otherwise, but, when it is referring to ours, I see it as a proper noun. SchreiberBike talk 21:53, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
    • Support lower case, it seems transparently obvious that in some uses universe is a proper noun, but our policy says we follow reliable sources to determine what is or is not a proper noun. I've looked through Google Books and lower case is far more common and more so in higher quality sources. (I'm not clear on the votes for "MOS" or "other" below, so I'm changing my !vote here.) SchreiberBike talk 17:10, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Absolutely and unhesitantly support capitalization of Universe -- leave it uncapitalized when speaking of one thing in an object class, of traipsing across parallel universes, or of a universe of bicycles or mementos. But when addressed to our Universe, its age, its span, its future, its divineness, we address the proper name of a proper place. A very, very big place, but a place, like Ulster and Uruguay and Uranus. DeistCosmos (talk) 22:23, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose capitalization. It seems to me that some of those commenting here are relying on their own sense of what's "logical" or analogous rather than on how the word is actually treated in the preponderance of reliable sources. The Encyclopaedia Britannica, for instance, lowercases universe even though it capitalizes Earth, Sun, and Moon in the same article. I've read quite a few books dealing specifically with this universe of ours in a scientific or philosophical manner, and a great majority of them do not capitalize the word. Deor (talk) 23:20, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment (I opposed caps above, before people took to the oppose/support format) – I think those who want to support capitalizing when it's "our universe" need to say something more compelling to overcome the fact that about 90% of sources use lowercase for that, and the fact that MOS:CAPS says we avoid unnecessary capitalization. Can anything be more clearly not necessary than this capital U? Why would we decide to treat the universe as having a proper name if our sources don't? Dicklyon (talk) 03:53, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Sources are largely irrelevant to usage here - such sources have their own MOS, and there is a certainty that such a MOS is not consistently followed. Wikipedia does have a MOS, and it says that proper nouns are capitalised, while common nouns are not (I generalise a little - but you get the point). "Universe/universe", like "Sun/sun" can be both - the general meaning (ie the common noun) extrapolated from the specific (proper noun). So, while the Sun is the star around which our Earth orbits, you can by extension talk of "a sun" as any star with orbiting bodies. The Universe is the existence containing everything we are aware of (and a lot we're not), but it isn't necessarily the only universe. This distinction is made quite often in offices and jobs - so there is only one (office of the) President of the United States; but there have been loads of presidents. MOS:JOBTITLES makes this distinction in more detail. There is a difference between the Universe and a universe - and the capital letter is essential to distinguishing that difference. Oh, and "our universe" is correct! In this usage it is a common noun. Shem (talk) 08:57, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
  • I agree with Shem. This is not about sources but about house style - an editorial decision. Either WP chooses to capitalise proper nouns or it chooses not to. To capitalise some and not others is daft because then you have to list all the exceptions, and with what possible benefit? The Universe is the name of the place we all live and the place that we and all of our descendants always will live. I agree further with Shem that there are lots of other universes, and these are not proper nouns. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 09:06, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
  • I would add as well that internally we have such things as Stephen Hawking's Universe -- as compared to parallel universe, fictional universe, observable universe. Now some might jump up and point out that the Hawking's example is the name of a specific thing.... Exactly!! DeistCosmos (talk) 23:28, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
If you think Wikipedia article titles are important, look at them all. Excluding non-astronomical or fictional or book/film/documentary/band names, including where universe/Universe is in the article title but not the first word: ones that contain universe are Accelerating universe, Age of the universe, Chronology of the universe, Clockwork universe, De Sitter universe, Earth's location in the universe, Ekpyrotic universe, Future of an expanding universe, God becomes the universe, Heat death of the universe, Mathematical universe hypothesis, Mixmaster universe, Observable universe, One-electron universe, Shape of the universe, Static universe, Thermodynamics of the universe, Three-torus model of the universe, Ultimate fate of the universe, Zero-energy universe. Ones that contain Universe are Fine-tuned Universe, Great Architect of the Universe, History of the Center of the Universe, Weakless Universe. Ratio: 4 or more times as many for universe as for Universe. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 02:34, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
In fact Hawking himself uses the spelling "universe", see this extract from his book, page 4. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 16:04, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
But my point is that here, proper nouns are capped, while most uncapped uses of "universe" are common noun uses, ie, a type of universe and not the specific and unique place, our Universe. DeistCosmos (talk) 07:30, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
  • I agree with the observations by Dondervogel 2 and Isambard Kingdom. There is a general failing in the MOS to address the underlying issue. This failing is divisive. See my earlier comment above. While this discussion may resolve this specific question, the underpinning issue remains unaddressed and will continue to be a source of dissent unless it is more effectively addressed. I have been trying to spark discussion on the broader issue and overcome the inertia of inactivity. See Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters#Use of capitals in a shortend title. and Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biographies#Occupation titles. Frankly, I am appalled by what I perceive as apathy and a resistance to both acknowledging the shortcomings of the existing MOS and to taking positive steps to redress these. We should be looking beyond the specific problem to the root cause. Treat the cause and not the symptom. Don't just apply a whole series of band-aid fixes. It is not about whose perception of the rule is right or wrong. WP works in a global domain. We can not rely on an assumption that conventions are universally understood across the domain. Ultimately, it comes down to a matter of style. Make the unwritten rules (the assumptions) explicit.


What is a proper name? The MOS really doesn't address this. What it does say, is inaccurate and it assumes a common understanding. The answer is not as simple as many of you might have thought. Have a look at Proper noun and Proper name (philosophy). Having made this point; however, other manuals can address the issue much more effectively than here without delving into the esoteric or getting bogged down in semantics. An MOS should be comprehensive, easily interpreted and easy to apply across a diversity of situations (content areas) to consistently produce a uniform style. It should avoid being prescriptive except where necessary and should, as much as possible, deal in principles and concepts that can be applied generally while avoiding and minimising potential ambiguity. This is what we need. This is not what we have. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:30, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
@Cinderella157:, My observation since I've been following these discussions is that the MoS answers many questions, but also has ambiguities and compromises. When there is no consensus, questions are left open. I think it probably would be better if we elected a dictator and accepted her or his decisions as final, but that's not going to happen. It is both ugly and beautiful, and I'm ok with that. SchreiberBike talk 03:08, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
@SchreiberBike, The issues I have are rooted in the first two sentences: "Wikipedia avoids unnecessary capitalization. Most capitalization is for proper names or for acronyms." WPMOS does not attempt to define what is either necessary or unnecessary. This is premised on a false assumption of a universal understanding across the global domain of WP editors. The second sentence is quite false - most adjectives derived from proper names are also capitalised. Finally, there is only the poorest of attempts to define what a proper name is. It is not so much a definition but five examples, of which four are no-brainers but the rationale for the fifth (Three Great Gardens of Japan) is quite unclear. It is not consistently capitalised in web sources (including books) and is apparently contradicted on that page by the capitalisation used in "the three gardens of Emperor Go-Mizunoo".
Many herein quote either the CMOS or New Hart's Rules as authoritative sources. This is fine except that neither of these sources are available off the net. I would be surprised if these sources were not much more explicit, particularly with respect to the primary statements from the WPMOS. They could be used as the basis for improving the WPMOS. Perhaps I am too optimistic but I would be hopeful that these fundamental issues could be addressed by consensus. Of note, it is just as important to make explicit matters on which there is no consensus, since this indicates that both options have broad support and therefore, either use is acceptable. To paraphrase this, someone can't start a war by claiming the WPMOS says something when it is explicit that the matter is optional by virtue of a lack of consensus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cinderella157 (talk • contribs)
I think I cited New Hart's Rules as an exception to most guides. But yes I do have several editions of CMOS and now several of New Hart's Rules, and each is authoritative in its way, as other guides are They are worth consulting, but no particular guide is as comprehensive as our own MOS, and none overrides our MOS. Dicklyon (talk) 06:31, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
  • The Universe (as opposed to parallel universes, or my personal universe) is exactly parallel to the Galaxy (Milky Way) vs other galaxies, the Sun (Sol), the Moon (Luna), the President, and God (should logically be "the God", as in Arabic, but oh well), as opposed to other suns, moons, presidents, and gods. Whether we *should* capitalize common nouns like "sun" and "president" when used for specific entities is another matter, but since we *do* capitalize them, it would be consistent for us to capitalize "Universe" when meaning the totality of existence accessible to us, and not capitalize it when used in other senses. But since context nearly always makes it clear which meaning is intended, it won't matter much if we're inconsistent.
The problem with making the MOS explicit so that we have a single convention that applies equally to all nouns used this way, is that I suspect English capitalization conventions are too "squishy" (credit above) for this to work: We'd have to also capitalize the Sky and the Ocean, the City and the Subway, when those words are used for single entities. Where would we stop? Can someone write a general rule and see if it works? — kwami (talk) 02:15, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
  • I strongly oppose, as adopting this change depends on absolute rule. Technically, it might be right, but the problem is more about how text is scanned by a reader. Capitalising every letter, can makes the page look unedited, and frankly, this multiple times, looks every time like a beginning of a sentence. Hence capitalisation should be used sparingly when used multiple times. Again, its usage is ultimately based on context which it is used. Having 'universe' in a line of text, the reader already knows what it means in its context. This especially applies, to sun, moon, solar system. Also for writers, it is part of their own writing style, and this is why technical journals, books and paper, have adopted a variety of interpretations. (Most formal editors seem fine with it, too.) I randomly looked through more than two dozen cosmology books in my possession, and none had universal adoption of capitalised 'universe.' Frankly, it is hard enough contributing to Wikipedia, without having to think every time if I'm breaking some specific rule. There has been an argument, if we capitalise for the other planets. I.e. Uranus or Neptune, so we must do that for sun, moon, etc. That argument is mostly specious, as the usage of these planets are not in everyday usage, like the sun, moon, etc. There are also alternative words, like solar or lunar, or with the other planets like jovian, saturnian, uranian and neptunian. (Should these, be capitalised too?) Variety is these names should be encouraged to be used in writing styles. Written english (or is that English) is clearly fluid in formal use, and hence in this issue, it is mostly superfluous. I will continue to use the way I have been writing astronomical text, beyond this somewhat narrow box of absolutism. I have enough trouble remembering the context of terms than its specific meaning. Arianewiki1 (talk) 03:33, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
To answer, "jovian, saturnian, uranian and neptunian" should be capitalised on the basis of Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Capital letters#Proper names, which gives English as a specific example.
"Most adjectives derived from proper names should be capitalized, e.g. the English people, the London commuter belt, the Kantian imperative, with occasional established exceptions such as teddy bear."
My national dictionary also capitalises these words, except Jovian, for which there is no entry. Solar and lunar are exceptions to the capitalisation of adjectives derived from proper nouns. Sun, moon and solar system in an astronomical context are also capitalised IAW Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Capital letters#Celestial bodies. Cinderella157 (talk) 07:43, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for some of your valid points Cinderella157. So many possibilities.
Now I further looked at many book sources today looking for general styles, and I also found many exceptions in usage.
  1. My standard book for my writing outside of Wikipedia is the authority Jacqueline Mitton [1] The Penguin and Cambridge version of the "Dictionary of Astronomy" (Mine is a very worn out book.) It has spelt 'universe' throughout the book, and for the main universe entry, it says "The entirety of all that exists. The size of the observable universe is limited to the distance light has time to travel since the Big Bang particle horizon." (Also written as the entry "solar system", but the Sun, Moon, and planets are all capitalised.) These a common general reference used by astronomers for basic definitions.
  2. My useful and worn advanced undergraduate cosmology book is "Cosmology : a First Course" by Marc Lachieze-Rey", Pub. Cambridge University Press. Is has not capitalised 'universe' at all. The first sentence is "The study of the universe or cosmos, cosmology, is the most global and all embracing possible."
  3. All but one, has 'Universe' capitalised, and this was very infrequently. There is nothing really to confuse 'Universe' with 'universe' is an astronomical written cosmology text. The alternative uses would normally be spelt out in the alternative meaning, just to avoid confusion.
  4. My own cosmology handout notes and text for a cosmology course I once taught (1993), is all lowercase for everything, except the first page, which is all capitalised. I.e. It says; "The Universe or Cosmos, in its literal sense is everything, including the volume of space, all its matter, and the energy it contains.*" I added a short footnote, stating that "* The usage of the term 'universe' assumes this definition."
  5. If anything, the practice would be first capitalise 'Universe' at the beginning, then just use 'universe' after that, because the context has been already defined. With +100 entry in current Universe page, scanning this with capitalised 'Universe' would wear a little thin. At the moment it is capitalised in the Introduction, and after this it is a mixture, then finally not capitalised.
In the end, solving this issue should just toss out the argument of capitalisation of universe or not. If you are specifically talking of the universe as a whole, capitalise it. Any other usage that indicates the first use of universe, thereafter should be all in lowercase. If some capitalised Universe happen to appear here or there, it isn't an issue.
It is a reasonable solution that meets rough consensus, isn't hard for users to remember, and allows the authoring of different individual styles without the conflict.
As for the rest (a separate issue)
  1. More complicated is the Sun and Moon, as lowercase words 'sun' and 'moon' have different contexts. However, if you are writing about the Sun and Moon, it is very unlikely that the writer in an solar astronomical topic would be referring these other contexts, so writing lower case would not be much of a concern. Alternative lowercase words should be 'solar' and 'lunar'.
  2. Earth is always capitalised, as earth has a different context. Again, the writer in an planetary astronomical topic would be referring this other contexts, so later writing lower case would not be much of a concern.
  3. For the planets, these should always be capitalised. To avoid repetition, use their versions. I.e. 'Jupiter', the 'Jovian atmosphere' or 'the Jovian satellites', etc
We need an improved or (greatly) modified list like above, defining each usage in turn. We cannot be too ruthless, but I agree we should decide on some compromise. Anyway, that's what I think. Arianewiki1 (talk) 12:56, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
@Arianewiki1: There is no justification to capitalise Universe the first time it is encountered in an article and universe thereafter (The Universe is so big that astronomers disagree on just how big the universe is); we don't do this for anything else, and I doubt any style guides would advocate it either. When used in the same sense, it should either be capitalised or all lowercase consistently. —sroc 💬 13:43, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
Also, solar and lunar are adjectives and cannot be simply substituted for Sun or Moon (e.g., Modern solar panels generate energy from the Sun, not Modern solar panels generate energy from the solar). —sroc 💬 13:50, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

AFAIK - notions presented above by User:Arianewiki1 - and the notions presented by the "Style Guide for NASA History Authors and Editors - Astronomical Bodies" (and posted above in this discussion thread) - seem *very* similar (at least to me atm) => ie, "Capitalize the names of planets (e.g. Earth, Mars, Jupiter). Capitalize moon when referring to Earth's Moon, otherwise lowercase moon (e.g. the Moon orbits the Earth, Jupiter's moons). Do not capitalize solar system and universe." - FWIW - these notions are *entirely* ok with me atm - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 13:19, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

There is technically a difference between solar system and Solar system, though I doubt anyone follows it. Lower case, it's just like solar panel, an adjective from the Latin word for "sun". There are lots of solar systems in a galaxy. Capitalized, it derives from the English proper noun Sol, itself from the same Latin word for "sun". There is only one Solar system (= Sol system) in the universe. If we're going to use lower case, then it would mean the same as "stellar system". Regardless, "Sol system" would be unambiguous when referring specifically to our solar system. — kwami (talk) 19:52, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
Wow Fyunck!! Congratulations. Best specious argument I've seen for ages. Here a very general site CalTech/JPL says one thing and another more detailed NASA site, Style Guide for NASA History Authors and Editors - Astronomical Bodies say another. Even your referenced source it is mixed, and the capitalised 'Universe' here is only used for emphasis! if there was ever a reason NOT to adopt this, you surmised it absolutely brilliantly. Thanks! Arianewiki1 (talk) 00:35, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
I read it completely differently and it's not all capitalized for emphasis so that blathering of yours is a fabrication of galactic proportions (or is that Galactic?). But you're very welcome just the same. Have a good one. Fyunck(click) (talk) 01:08, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
It reads:
The universe is all of the galaxies – billions of them! NASA’s telescopes allow us to study galaxies beyond our own in exquisite detail, and to explore the most distant reaches of the observable universe. The Hubble Space Telescope made one of the deepest images of the universe, called the Hubble Extreme Deep Field (image at the top of this article). Soon the James Webb Space Telescope will be exploring galaxies forming at the very beginning of the universe.
You are one of the billions of people on our Earth. Our Earth orbits the Sun in our Solar System. Our Sun is one star among the billions in the Milky Way Galaxy. Our Milky Way Galaxy is one among the billions of galaxies in our Universe. You are unique in the Universe!
I can't see the pattern; why does the prefix "our" invoke capitalization, when they're all about our universe? Looks like typical web junk. And I say that as a Caltech/JPL alum. Dicklyon (talk) 05:54, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
As with our Sun or our Solar System. I see it. I'm assuming that this question about capitalizing doesn't mean to capitalize universe 100% of the time? It would only be like when we capitalize moon, earth and sun. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:00, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
OK, then; we'll capitalize it when we put "our" in front of it, and not otherwise. Ship it. Dicklyon (talk) 07:31, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
Ya know Dickylon... I've been putting up with your whining on this and other talk pages. I tried to answer your questions in good faith but you're trying my patience in dealing with you. If you'd like to converse as adults fine, if you need to resort to snotty "ship its" you can move along. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:11, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
Well, you're the dude who introduced the "It looks good enough for CalTech/JPL" bullshit. Dicklyon (talk) 22:56, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
What a wonderful and proper notion you've presented, that we ought to refer to our Universe as our Universe whenever we are speaking of the Universe which is in fact our place of abode, instead of simply referencing some hypothetical universe or fictional universe. Yes, I support Dicklyon's implicit proposal that whenever referencing a universe which is in fact the one we occupy, we ought to call it "our Universe" instead of "the universe" (the latter being suitably reserved for accounts like "the universe of Star Wars" or "the universe of Battlestar Galactica.") DeistCosmos (talk) 07:39, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
I also concur with Dickylon's proposal to always capitalize universe when it's prefaced by the word "our" as in "our Universe." Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:14, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
I think it's funny that you "also concur" with one who has so clearly rejected (or missed?) my point. Poe's law again with DeistCosmos? See the JPL text I quoted if you want to actually understandn my point, which is the when referring to our universe no caps are needed. The thing about "our" in front was a bit of a joke. Dicklyon (talk) 18:32, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
There's no doubt your point is a bit of a joke. But I wonder, which Universe is it you think you live in? If you live in " our" Universe then where's the distinction from living in our Milky Way or on our Earth? DeistCosmos (talk) 20:12, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
My point is serious: that the page at Caltech/JPL that Fy cited in support of uppercase actually supports lowercase, as do other pages there. You're just making noise here. Your claim that "most uncapped uses of 'universe' are common noun uses, ie, a type of universe and not the specific and unique place, our Universe" is not consistent with what we see in sources. Yes, it's a common noun, but it also usually refers to our universe that we live in, as you easily see by following the various links presented or by looking at books and papers of your choice. Dicklyon (talk) 23:07, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
That would be baloney, again. It uses uppercase in particular instances and lower case in others. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:44, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
Bullshit; there's nothing "particular" about the 4 lowercase uses and in one paragraph and 2 uppercase in the next. They all refer to our universe. Here it is again:
The universe is all of the galaxies – billions of them! NASA’s telescopes allow us to study galaxies beyond our own in exquisite detail, and to explore the most distant reaches of the observable universe. The Hubble Space Telescope made one of the deepest images of the universe, called the Hubble Extreme Deep Field (image at the top of this article). Soon the James Webb Space Telescope will be exploring galaxies forming at the very beginning of the universe.
You are one of the billions of people on our Earth. Our Earth orbits the Sun in our Solar System. Our Sun is one star among the billions in the Milky Way Galaxy. Our Milky Way Galaxy is one among the billions of galaxies in our Universe. You are unique in the Universe!
Dicklyon (talk) 00:49, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
Here is another Caltech/JPL page where it's consistently lowercase universe. Dicklyon (talk) 05:59, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps it has already been mentioned, but just in case, this article and ensuing debate seem relevant. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 22:38, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Universe, if you always put it at the beginning of the sentence, is capitalized in all instances! – an astute observation. Dicklyon (talk) 22:56, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
That blog post is by an astronomer who's notable i.e. has a Wikipedia article, so his factual observation should be taken seriously: "The most common position and, in my opinion, the worst, is to simply adopt "universe" indiscriminately." So we have another authoritative statement that universe is most common; we already have much better authorities but yes that's relevant. The rest of the post, where he sets out his own scheme including observation about when universe "deserves" a capital U, is irrelevant for MOS. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 16:12, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

I am disappointed that this debate has degenerated, with the introduction of unnecessary sarcasm and explicatives, which serve no useful purpose. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:38, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

  • Oppose mandated capitalization: Universe is not a proper name, while Earth, Sun, and Solar System are. Those proper names are given to single entities, and the name distinguishes each entity from others of its type (planets, stars, stellar systems). There is, however, only one universe; it is unique, that is, universal (ahem). The word is used in alternate contexts to imply universality (everywhere-presence or -applicability), and "parallel universe" is still science fiction, an inexact language usage not designed for everyday use. Therefore, the one-and-only universe needs no distinction from other universes (at least not until they are really discovered and agreed to be equivalent in scope and type to what we have known as our universe). And needing no distinction, there is also no need for that kind of proper name, which is why there isn't one.
WP should not create mandates for usage that are based upon editorial point of view and not upon standard English usage. English usage regarding capitalization varies, as usage in any language often varies in matters of this kind of triviality. WP does not have the authority or the policy to establish norms, consistency, or rules in the absence of a clear case of correctness, which simply does not exist here. There is also no way to establish such rules through "consensus". Since there is no established consistency in sources, an attempt at "consensus" will always (and has here) devolved into an argument about nothing more than editorial opinion. As such, the discussion is void of usefulness, void of power to force compliance, and subject to editorial disciplinary measures to those who press the non-existent issue on others, under the policies against disruption. Editing already accomplished under such guise of "consensus" should be undone and erased. Let the English language usage of inconsistency prevail and be allowed to appear naturally without interference. Anything else is distortion. Evensteven (talk) 04:55, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Comment I have been following this pretty much since this thread was created. My interest is not so much in which is correct but in improving Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Capital letters (section) particularly, and in generally improving the WP 'back of house' to make it more accessible and easier to use - particularly for newer editors. My particular issue withe this page is its opening:

Most capitalization is for proper names or for acronyms. Wikipedia relies on sources to determine what is a proper name; words and phrases that are consistently capitalized in sources are treated as proper names and capitalized in Wikipedia.

This section lacks specificity as to the broader conventions for applying capitalisation, is inaccurate and ambiguous. These inadequacies give rise to discussions such as these which might otherwise be obviated if these deficiencies were remedied. I believe that this section might be made more explicit in a way which is descriptive rather than more prescriptive of specific instances. I would observe that the two camps here, appear to be divided on the basis of: the prevalence of use in sources (rather than sources of style but not exclusively); and, the premise that the Universe is a proper noun/name for our Universe. I observe that the style for sun, moon and earth has been reached by consensus and are nor at issue. However, it appears that the inclusion of solar system was outside such a process, and might be worthy of consideration along with universe. If the International Astronomical Union is silent on the matter, then, for me, the NASA style guide (or similar) would appear to be an acceptable guide on this particular subject and not too technical a source in this case to render it inappropriate as a source for WP use.

I preface what I am about to say with two things. Firstly, I have no particular position on Universe or universe. I would, of course, use capitalisation in accordance with convention (as I understand it to be) but I have no issue with a determination of style contrary to a convention - unless it is to write 'universe' in yellow with pink polka-dots. Secondly, if I have this wrong, I would welcome correction by an expert in onomatology or orthography. I refer to articles on Proper noun and Proper name (philosophy).

To say, the Universe is our Universe as justification for it being a proper noun would lead to the Dog is our Dog, by extrapolation. While our dog may be called 'Dog' (a proper name - my dog is called 'Dog'), the Dog, is not a proper name. In general, an article cannot be used with a proper noun (a proper name of one word). Specifically, use of the definite article, the, with a noun indicates it is not a proper name. "But! ...", I hear the cries. It is different when the is an intrinsic part of the name, such as 'The Hague' or 'the United Kingdom' or 'the Committee for Xyz' even though 'the' may or may not be capitalised - depending on the specific case and usage and a lower-case 'the' implies it is not an intrinsic part of the name. You (one) cannot say: "Hague is in ..." or "United Kingdom is ...". 'The' is an intrinsic part of the name. For compound proper names of more words than 'the Xyz', it is possible to substitute other articles, such as 'our' - 'our United Kingdom' but not (I believe) 'our Hague'. What about, 'the Queen'? This is not a proper name but a shortend form of the full and correct name, for which there are conventions to capitalise shortend form such as this (see discussion Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters (section)#Use of capitals in a shortened title above). What about, the Earth, refering to the planet of course? 'Earth' is a peculiar case that can be used both with and without a definite article. "The Earth is a planet ..." and "Earth is a planet ..." are but "The cat has four legs ..." and "Cat has four legs" would be nonsense. I acknowledge that 'sun' and 'moon' deviate from this and, while I cannot explain it, I suggest that this deviation has roots which are archaic. The word', 'universe', in the context of cosmology and the noun phrase, 'solar-system' are certainly much newer than 'sun' and 'moon' - the sun and the moon have always (since pre-history) been things that we have perceived. I suspect that capitalisation of 'sun' and 'moon' in cosmology is likely a relatively new convention of that field but no such convention exist for 'universe' or 'solar-system'. I wold suggest that the conventions do not support capitalisation of 'universe' (in this context) when the case for same is substantially base on: the Universe is our Universe. - Cinderella157 (talk) 01:19, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

This appears to me to be a very reasonable comment, with which I have much sympathy. I particularly like the tone and the desire to seek answers from reliable sources. I might take issue with only one thing: that NASA is not the reliable source to depend on for this item. Such a source ought to be expert in current English usage; expertise on the universe itself does not pertain. I expect that such a usage expert would look at NASA and weigh it accordingly, but we would want a broad view of usage everywhere, not just usage from a single place with other tasks on its mind. I think it is unlikely that any usage expert will find for one usage being standard or "correct", given the variation we ourselves can perceive in sources, but if someone wants to try finding such an expert, that works for me. Evensteven (talk) 01:53, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
I don't have a particular opinion on this one, either, which is why I look to sources. Since I think the opening of MOS:CAPS is a good point, and I don't see any particularly strong sources contradicting it, I'd stick with lowercase. NASA, by the way, is quite inconsistent about it. Dicklyon (talk) 02:50, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
Here's a pertinent question though.... Our plant is named "Earth"; our galaxy is named "Milky Way"; so what is our Universe named? If it has no other name how could it be named anything else but "Universe"? DeistCosmos (talk) 06:21, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
We distinguish galaxies and planets and stars and places on Earth by naming them. We don't need to do that for the universe, by definition (except in some weird multiple-universe scenarios, in which a name still would not help anything). Dicklyon (talk) 06:35, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
Not by definition. At least not by astronomers that I know. There are plenty of theories (and it's not so weird) for the inclusion of multiple universes. Not fantasy parallel universes like in Star Trek, but the possibility of multiple encapsulated universes. You must be thinking of grammar school definitions of universe, not the astronomical/cosmological possibilities. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:55, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
So is the grammar-school one, the one we live in, needing to be honored by a capital U to distinguish it from those possible ones that theorists make up? I don't think so. Sources don't do that. Dicklyon (talk) 07:09, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
Speaking of cosmology, in what context do you think these cosmology books capitalize Universe? Hint: I had to go through the first 7 of them to find one that capitalized universe in any context other than in titles and headings. That one that uses caps is An Introduction to Islamic Cosmological Doctrines; and it has no context in which it uses lowercase. Go ahead and check more, and see if you can find one that does anything like what some are suggesting here. Dicklyon (talk) 07:19, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
Does the grammar school one need to be honored with a capital.... no. But neither does earth, sun or moon or milky way...yet they do. These astronomical definitions seem to have a different set of rules in English usage and I don't see a big difference in adding Universe to the list. I brought those issues up not because they do or don't condone capitalization, but because that narrow view of universe "you expressed" can make one very biased on this particular capitalization topic. And something else, sources at Wikipedia aren't everything. Consensus crushes sources every time here. If 99 out of 100 sources spell it "Universe", and 20 out of 25 editors are convinced it's better to have it at "universe", then universe it will be, and we move on. The reverse of that also. Overall this is a super minor issue at Wikipedia, but capitalizing universe as we do earth, sun, moon, and milky way seems fine to me. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:45, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
Actually, the next (8th) hit does make that case distinction: [2]. I haven't found any others that do. Should WP align with this outlier? Dicklyon (talk) 07:24, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
The universe that we live in is a very particular universe, just the same as "the dog [I saw] that just peed on the tree", is a a very particular dog but I am not referring to it by name. It may not even have a name. If I substituted 'feral dog' into the sentence, then nobody would expect it to have a name. The universe has no proper name. It will only have a proper name if somebody with naming rights gives it a name. I could call it 'Widget' but I don't think that anybody soon will be recognising this as my contribution to cosmology or that anybody here will be editing WP with this new name for the universe. :) (my wit is in no way intended as sarcasm directed at anybody) Cinderella157 (talk) 07:55, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
Except that we also capitalize "Solar System" which really has no proper name. Solar System is also being used to describe other stars with newly discovered planets. So their are billions of solar systems, but our Solar System contains the planet Earth. There may be billions of universes out there, but our Universe contains the Milky Way Galaxy. Fyunck(click) (talk) 10:10, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
Some people capitalize solar system. Some don't. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 10:20, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
I suspect that Fyunck's "we" refers to the MOS. My view, and perhaps also his, is that it is inconsistent to capitalize Earth, Sun and Solar System, and not Universe. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 10:24, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
Yes. Thanks. Fyunck(click) (talk) 10:51, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Some people use "Sol" as the proper name of the star that Earth orbits. It is listed this way in the American Heritage Dictionary 3rd ed. Naturally a person who regards Sol as the proper name of our star will write "Solar system" because an adjective derived from a proper noun is capitalized. However, the same dictionary contains the entry "solar system". Jc3s5h (talk) 20:10, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Capitalization of universe/proposal

I agree with Fyunck. We each have an opinion but what really matters is consistency. The present Universe article is a joke because it uses half and half. Valid arguments are presented on both sides, so why not agree by a simple majority vote here and be done with it? Dondervogel 2 (talk) 08:16, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

The joke would be if we insisted on one or the other without any basis for it in common English usage. Consistency is not only unnecessary, a mandate for it is inconsistent with the language as it exists today. Evensteven (talk) 16:37, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
Wait, there is basis to capitalize it and not to capitalize it. It depends on which style guide you prefer or perhaps which university science classes you might attend. But to say that consistency is not necessary, especially within an article, is wrong in my opinion. It either needs to be treated as wikipedia does for Earth and Sun and Solar System, or it needs to be always non-capitalized. To have both versions in the same article is messy and unworthy of an encyclopedia. It would also be messy if an article on Venus capitalizes it, yet an article on Mars does not. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:42, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Capitalization based on published MOSs

I propose that we follow existing conventions stated in published manuals of style (Chicago, NASA, etc.). If there is disagreement among those manuals, then we follow what is in the majority of those manuals. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 08:58, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

I would suggest the following to make this a manageable/workable proposition:

  • Each interested party may nominate a style guide to be considered.
  • To be considered, a style guide nominated should be of 'good standing' from a 'respected' academic institution, government body, professional body of consequence, major publishing house or like.
  • For simplicity, each guide will be given equal weight and shall be considered only once (ie, despite multiple nominations).
  • Nomination shall be accepted over a defined period - 7 days unless there is dissent on this suggested period.
  • Nominators should provide a link to the guide or a quote of the relevant section and a statement of whether it supports capitalisation or not. For a guide to support one position or the other, it should specifically address the matter of capitalising (or otherwise) universe or give a specific example. Cinderella157 (talk) 12:46, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

As is stated in a later clarifying edit, "Capitalization based on published MOSs" is "a proposal to resolve based on the recommendations from a majority of sources consulted". So far, from what's above and with one addition, they are: DICTIONARIES: universe only: short Oxford and Merriam-Webster and Penguin / Cambridge / McGraw-Hill dictionaries of astronomy. both universe and Universe: Wiktionary. universe as main entry but Universe allowed: large Oxford. ENCYCLOPEDIAS: universe only: Encyclopedia Britannica. STYLE GUIDES: universe only: IOP and NASA. Universe only: old British Times. PUBLISHED BOOKS: universe mostly: as shown by n-grams WIKIPEDIA ARTICLE TITLES: universe mostly: with some special conditions: see earlier list above, search for the word "Ratio:". STATEMENTS BY ASTRONOMERS: universe mostly: although the astronomer thinks that's bad: Marcelo Gleiser. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 17:49, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Update: add to "style guides" saying universe only: CERN. Add to statements by astronomers: saying there's an old world / new world divide: Edward Robert Harrison. Add to statements by linguists: saying universe mostly: Larry Trask. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 16:47, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
Thank you, Peter. Still, it seems, no style guides specifically recommending capitalization of "universe". Isambard Kingdom (talk) 17:00, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

What is this knee-jerk response we have to "majority"? A majority of MOSes is not adequate to answer the question of what standard English usage is. 50.1% does not decide. Leave that for such fictions as democracy (where it doesn't really decide either, for long). Either usage is mixed, or it is somewhat lopsided (say 75/25), or it is overwhelmingly lopsided (say 95/5). If it's the last, then there is a clear general usage preference, and the basis for a mandate. Otherwise, if multiple usages are acceptable in the world, they ought to be acceptable on WP. Evensteven (talk) 16:58, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Which way to go?

I suggest both have merits, not withstanding the policy on Consensus. But this does not preclude a poll as an aid to reaching consensus. Further, the situation of mixed style in an article demands resolution. I suggest a poll of the two proposals. More to follow. Cinderella157 (talk) 09:41, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Suggest a response with either: Vote, MOS or other. With results to close 30JAN0000Zulu. Cinderella157 (talk) 09:46, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Is this poll to get a sampling, or to establish a consensus? The short time frame is inadequate to establish consensus. Evensteven (talk) 16:46, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

This gives about 38 hrs to respond. Need to ping everybody that has participated. WP policy is that a consensus is based on strength of arguement. If there is favor for a vote, then I suggest that the strength of arguement to support this is that a decision is required for internal consistency of the article/s. Frequently, consensus is indicated by a 2/3 majority. I suggest that if the poll is for a vote, then there would need to be at least 2/3 support for the outcome of the voting process - ie, if in the vote (if it occurred), at least 2/3 of the voters would need to accept the voting process. To be clear, reference to vote or voting in the preceding is for a subsequent voting process and does not refer to the poll I have just started now.

Need to ping all contributors to this discussion. Cinderella157 (talk) 10:15, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

What is MOS supposed to mean? It isn't banned by MOS which is why this started... someone wanted to add universe as "always" non-capitalized. I agree that mixed style has to go but we need more than 7 editors in a poll to change MOS to specifically exclude the use of capitalized Universe. As it stands right now, MOS gives no answer to the capitalization and we would still need to !vote/poll for consensus since just saying MOS in the result section leaves this just as much up in the air as ever. Fyunck(click) (talk) 10:23, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
It is explained above (Chicago, NASA, etc.). FYI, Chicago MOS (available on line) makes no explicit recommendation on "universe". They do, however, use the word in example text, uncapitalized (consistent with NASA MOS). Isambard Kingdom (talk) 11:02, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
So you're saying a vote of "MOS" is not a vote for Wikipedia MOS (which we know says nothing), it's a vote for going with and searching every other MOS that we can dig up on the internet or library? As stated, NASA MOS follows 23 year old Chicago MOS so this is also going to eliminate "Solar System" from being capitalized here on Wikipedia, and might change it to "milky way" also. Interesting. I'll have to think on this for a bit. I assume the Astronomy Project has been informed of these potential changes? Fyunck(click) (talk) 11:22, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
Chicago MOS is fine with "Milky Way". Also, the universe is much older than 23 years! ;-) Isambard Kingdom (talk) 11:30, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
But NASA MOS didn't list it in the exceptions. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:26, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
@Fyunck, as I said, Chicago MOS is fine with "Milky Way". That is not NASA. Also, it would be good to read the Chicago MOS on these sorts of things, as it can be a minefield of follow-on consequences if one insists on finding "logic" in all of this. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 20:15, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
True, but you wrote MOS down below, and that doesn't mean Chicago MOS, it means all MOS's we can find. Who knows what that may change here since MOS doesn't necessarily follow sourcing or common usage, and Wikipedia often does. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:29, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
Again, I suggested following the majoring of MOSs (those that we can find and are published). If you find this issue addressed or even obliquely discussed by more than Chicago or NASA, then please let us know. This is about getting a bearing relative to what is standard. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 20:34, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
I'll write it below. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:21, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
@Isambard Kingdom, I've already let everyone know what the three known relevant style guides are (see end of previous section), but I can understand how things could get missed in such a long thread. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 21:48, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
Just a note that I didn't receive your ping, and presumably neither did any of the others. Pinging works only if the ping is included in a message that is signed at the same time it is posted. (I think you'll need to copy the "Pinging" section below, then paste it over the current section, adding a signature at the end.) Also, I'm still not sure how to interpret this poll; what, explicitly, is a response of "MOS" supposed to imply? Deor (talk) 12:09, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

@Deor, To clarify, there are two proposals in the subsections - Capitalization of universe/proposal, a proposal to resolve the issue by vote, and Capitalization based on published MOSs, a proposal to resolve based on the recommendations from a majority of sources consulted (see immediately above this subsection). The poll is to determine if there is support in favor of one of these by responding Vote or MOS in the result section, below. A response of other, is for another proposition (or for neither) and should be specified. Also repinged - thanks. Cinderella157 (talk) 13:12, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I don't understand the question (i.e., the "Vote" or "MOS" binary). We don't resolve issues by voting so why is it being considered here over rational discussion of a clearly enunciated proposal (i.e., a properly constituted RFC with a standard adequate timeframe for editors to discuss the merits)? What does "MOS" mean here? Why have the usual processes been suspended here? Remember that Wikipedia is not a democracy is a policy and should not be disregarded without good reason. —sroc 💬 13:15, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

  • Comment on Style Guides - We also have the official IAU Style Guide where it specifically states that individual astronomical objects (such as Earth, Solar System, Orion, the Crab Nebula, Galactic Center) should be capitalized. That also implies Universe imho. There is discussion of Universe at this IAU symposium, discussion of Solar System in this IAU article, mentioned IAU style of Universe here with a source of "NASA/MSU-Bozeman CERES Project Course Manual", and a pdf of an old guide here. All this shows the International Astronomical Union uses capitalized Solar System and Universe. That doesn't mean it's what we'll use at Wikipdedia, but those editors simply putting "MOS" in the result section makes this even more ambiguous since individual style guides don't agree. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:40, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
@Fyunck, so are you on board with using a set of MOS to get some discussion? Here you refer to more than MOSs, but if we consider just MOSs, then we can see, yes, that some of these support capitalization of "Solar System", but I don't think that, necessarily, implies anything about "universe/Universe". Indeed, if an MOS could state a simple rule, they probably would state it, but, as we can acknowledge, English is not especially amenable to rules and logic, hence the lists that are given MOSs. Understand, I don't have a strong feeling about any particular capitalization. I'm just advocating for doing what is standard, and, then, suggesting a way to help us define what seems standard --- looking at MOSs (just a suggestion). And, please note, just because we can find isolated articles published by, say, the IAU or anybody else, doesn't mean there is a "style" per se. I've published plenty of papers that haven't conformed to the publishers MOS. So, my take on the MOSs we've seen so far regarding the issue at hand: Favoring "universe": (2) NASA MOS, Chicago (where "universe" is used in the text). Agnostic on the whole issue: (1) IAU Style Guide and the "old guide" you cite also doesn't mention universe. Favoring "Universe": (0) I haven't yet seen one. If you or anyone finds this evaluation to be incorrect, then please correct it. I will go with what ever gets decided here. Really, I'm just happy to move forward either way. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 22:43, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
I would go with consistency rather than MOS. I lean towards capitalizing Universe when needed. But most assuredly if we capitalize Solar System then we also must capitalize Universe. That Chicago MOS... how old is it? Maybe they haven't really updated the Celestial Bodies section since 1992 and things have changed a lot in Astronomy in the last 23 years. Exoplanets, other solar systems, theories of multiple universes from multiple Big Bangs, etc... We build consensus by throwing around MOS terms, sourcing, official organizations, and common sense. We shake that around a bit and see what comes out. We work on changing peoples minds. I think the discussions we have been having here have gone pretty well so far and to limit things to a particular exterior MOS isn't what Wikipedia usually does. If after discussing this, where the discussing runs out of juice, we do an informal poll/!vote to see if consensus has been formed. If it looks to be leaning one way we ask for a closing from an uninvolved editor/administrator. He reads our entire discussion and we hope he comes to the same decision as our informal polling did. It's done and we move on. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:24, 28 January 2015 (UTC)


pinging

@Peter Gulutzan @JorisvS @Tetra quark @Dicklyon @Blueboar @Dondervogel 2 @sroc @Drbogdan @John Carter @Reyk @SchreiberBike @DeistCosmos @Deor @Shem @kwami @Arianewiki1 @Evensteven Think I got everybody that doesn't already know. Cinderella157 (talk) 12:51, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

  • Comment (as a result of ping)... I think we may be striving for a flawed consistency. The flaw is that "universe" is one of those words that is sometimes a proper name (which should be capitalized) and is sometimes not a proper name (which should not be capitalized)... and figuring out which it is depends on context (at a sentence level). So... I would agree that we should capitalize when it is being used as a proper name, but not in other contexts. This means that we will never achieve complete consistency over how to capitalize this word... because the word may be used in different contexts - even within the same article. Blueboar (talk) 13:51, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
  • So odd to think that my edits were what sparkled this whole discussion. I haven't been able to read everything, so can anyone tell me what the final decision is, if there's one? Tetra quark (talk) 14:05, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
@Tetra quark @Blueboar and others just rejoining - suggest catching up at least on conversations of today (28 Jan) Cinderella157 (talk) 14:37, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
@Blueboar No one is suggesting that the word universe should always be capitalized. The problem is that WP:MOS is silent on the issue, as a result of which there is disagreement on when it should be and when it shouldn't, and the articles therefore use inconsistent capitalization. A good example of inconsistent capitalization appears, as it happens, in the article Universe. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 15:05, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
Actually there was a suggestion on WikiProject Astronomy talk page to capitalize universe throughout Wikipedia, which got a possibly-premature consensus, which resulted in many capitalizations in existing articles, which is how this all got started. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 17:49, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
Since I don't usually look at Astronomy talk I was not aware this had gotten a consensus "Capitalize" consensus already. I usually defer to project wisdom on such things, but I can see how this could minorly affect other projects as well. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:33, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
Re: "Since I don't usually look at Astronomy talk I was not aware this had gotten a consensus..." With due respect, you should have checked. I would say that checking the relevant project's talk page would be the first thing we should always do when a topic specific style question comes up. We should always review relevant project pages to see whether the style issue has already been discussed there... and if so what the consensus of the project was. I'm not saying we necessarily have to agree with the project level consensus, but we should at least know the consensus exists and take it into consideration in our discussions. No wonder people get so pissed off at those of us who work on the MOS. Blueboar (talk) 23:08, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
The reason the discussion is here is that it is not project-specific. Furthermore, the astronomy project is more expert on astronomy than on English usage. Wider discussion was and is needed. Evensteven (talk) 16:43, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Results

  • The capitalization should be chosen according to reason and self-consistency within WP:MOS, not blindly someone else's style guide, whatever it says. It does need to be a vote but we do need a mechanism that generates a rational decision. Anything but MOS. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 21:15, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
It is irrational to choose or force consistency when the language does not do so itself. That can become only a power game based on opinion. Evensteven (talk) 17:35, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
It's not so irrational to want WP to have a style and follow it. That's why we have the MOS, so things will be internally more consistent; so that for example when we see caps we know it's for a good reason, not just for honor or emphasis as is inconsistently done in other perfectly good styles in English. Dicklyon (talk) 17:46, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
Agreed: "when it's for a good reason". Let's see if we get a good enough preponderance of MOSes to establish that it's reasonable to do one thing as opposed to the other. Otherwise, consistency alone is not a good enough reason to create the need for WP patrols and "corrective" edits when others have simply submitted entries based on common English. WP MOS can create a rule, but it cannot automatically disseminate knowledge of its entire contents to everyone who creates an edit. Consistency comes at a cost, especially when it's not a clear-cut matter of usage. Let's be sure it's worth it. Evensteven (talk) 18:08, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
Might depend on what you mean by "consistency". Dondervogel means extend the over-capitalization of Solar System to Universe. I'd rather go the other way, and extend the MOS recommendation of "avoid unnecessary capitalization" from universe to solar system, consistent also with most external guides and usage. Dicklyon (talk) 18:12, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
@Dicklyon If I understand correctly, what you are proposing is consistently lower case earth, moon, sun, solar system and universe. That would be a huge improvement on the inconsistent mess we have now. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 18:43, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
As much as I love our dear planet, and honor her in my own writings as "the Earth", I could accept this attempt at difficult-to-attain consistency. Is it okay that this proposed sweeping solution hasn't been the focus of this discussion, which was initially intended to consider "universe/Universe"? Sometimes conversations evolve, yes. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 19:59, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
I started this discussion on the understanding that Earth, Moon and Sun are capitalized because they are proper nouns. It follows from this understanding that Universe should be capitalized. Why? because it is a proper noun. Now I hear that universe should not be capitalized. Why? Because we worship Sources. Fine, follow those Sources, but find one does not defeat the object of having a MOS, which is to promote consistency. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 22:41, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
Come now, "worship"? How about "follow"? And what's the alternative? Editorial opinion? I wouldn't go there. Evensteven (talk) 23:36, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
[edit conflict] @Dicklyon What I meant by consistency in this context would be the establishment of a rule (MOS or not) that required editors to use one letter case or the other. It has already been work to talk about, would be more work to establish in articles, and then ongoing continued work to patrol articles and maintain, because not all editors will know the rule (probably few will). I can understand Dondervogel's wish for consistency; that much corresponds to my own personal inclinations also. But the world (and English usage) can sometimes be messy, and it's not up to us to clean it up (nor is it possible). If in this case the world gives us a sufficiently strong consistency of its own, then we may have enough reason to do the work required to follow its lead. Consistency that diverges from general usage would still be distortion, not only not worth the attention, but essentially counter-productive. Editorial opinion cannot settle the issue, and hence the whole problem that the issue has largely been argued by many on the basis of opinion, and the idea that the formation of an artificial consensus will have some meaning. Hence my counter-argument that editorial opinion is irrelevant and that consensus based on it is invalid. I hope this answers your question, and ties together the threads of what I have stated elsewhere. Evensteven (talk) 20:37, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
I have not gone so far as to suggest not capitalizing Earth and Moon when they are used as names of astronomical bodies. And people will not always agree whether the context calls for the proper name as opposed to the generic. So "consistency" might be hard to achieve, and I think is not really the goal. But I do think we could have less capitalization than we have now if we clarified that we still want to avoid unnecessary capitalization. Dicklyon (talk) 06:22, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Reserve judgement All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 00:05, 29 January 2015 (UTC).
I would amend that to say: Our MOS is the guide we usually follow... however, in a specific case, if there is consensus to make exception to our MOS, then we follow consensus. Blueboar (talk) 20:59, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Neither., per sroc above. WP consensus means nothing and is not applicable without backing from reliable sources, because lacking that, the consensus is nothing but editorial opinion (which is what got us here in the first place). This applies to the so-called consensus at the astronomy project. The canvassing of the various MOSes here is, however, useful. But see my comment above: majority of MOSes does not decide either. If there is not worldwide consensus on proper English usage, then there are alternate acceptable forms, even when one form is relatively scarcer. Worldwide consensus needs to be shown to be essentially comprehensive. And acceptable English should always be acceptable on WP, all editorial opinion aside. Evensteven (talk) 17:07, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
    On paper this might be true. In the real world of Wikipedia polling/!voting you have it backwards...consensus means everything and sourcing takes a back seat in RfC's and RMs. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:03, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
    On paper?! What does that mean? "real world of Wikipedia"? What real world? Consensus is a tool, and is never independent of the real world and reliable sources. Discussion is open and can include constructive editorial comment, but consensus is not valid without independent sourcing. Comment alone without reference to the real world is worthless anywhere, and also on WP. In the case of an MOS choice, a case must be built for why to make the choice, and when called for, evidence must be collected and presented to substantiate it. The sources may not appear in an article, but they do come to play in the discussion and the consensus. A consensus is invalid if it comes without due consideration of evidence. Editorial opinion is never enough; if it were, then WP would be one huge opinion piece, and worth far less than its weight in electrons. Evensteven (talk) 20:37, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

There were two propositions put forward as proposals to resolve this mater. I had proposed a poll to determine if one, the other or neither proposal represented an acceptable process. WP policy recognises polling as a legitimate process in discussions such as these and in this particular context. It certainly seemed a simple enough question I was asking. I can only say that I am disappointed by the responses. Many have simply restated their positions without even acknowledging that they were being asked a question. In most social contexts, this would be considered a mark of rudeness. Cinderella157 (talk) 10:22, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Please pardon any rudeness you may have perceived from me. None was intended, nor do I perceive that I gave any, but I would not wish for any animosity to survive this discussion, wherever it may have originated. Animus in discussion is the scourge of WP, and WP:IDHT is its partner. Let's hope that, while opinions may be strong here, that we don't all end up so far from collegiality. To be clear, I have already weighed in with a negative to both proposals at the same time as insufficient to resolve this matter. I hope there is no rudeness in that, especially as I see your proposal as still having usefulness as an aid to discussion. There is still the open question of how to interpret the collected data, but I am encouraged by the collection, inasmuch as preliminary results seem to indicate that actual usage is quite highly lopsided (in favor of small "u"), with capital "U" isolated within current astronomical circles (which may account for the earlier "consensus" or indicators at the astronomy project). I credit your idea for getting us along that far, and if others agree with my assessment of what we have currently, then we may be on the road to a decision. Evensteven (talk) 20:37, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Comments unrelated to results of poll

  • As others have said, we should be consistent. That means "Universe", as we capitalize Sun, Moon, Solar System, etc. (What do we do for "the Galaxy"?) I wouldn't mind putting them all in l.c. That would create a broader consistency, since we recently agreed to change e.g. "the Blue Whale" to "the blue whale" (meaning the species, not just a whale painted blue). — kwami (talk) 17:58, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
  • !Vote for Consistency. In cases where we capitalize Earth, Solar System, Moon, Milky Way Galaxy, and Sun, we should also capitalize Universe. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:47, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
  • As I have said above, Universe when it's ours. Reyk YO! 20:03, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
  • I would be the first to concede that where used generically (there is a universe of cats to feed, the phenomena is restricted to the local universe) that decapitalization is in order. But for an instance such as God becomes the Universe I insist different considerations apply. DeistCosmos (talk) 22:58, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Celebrate Inconsistency (perhaps by alternating back and forth, or randomly choosing capitalization by flipping a coin)... that way no one "wins" this silly debate. - OK, not serious... however, this entire debate is missing common sense. To me the answer is simple: When used as a proper noun, the word should be capitalized... and when not used as a proper noun it should not. Don't over think it. Blueboar (talk) 23:16, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Word universe definitely should NOT be capitalised. The standard references by Jacqueline Mitton who wrote The Penguin and Cambridge version of the "Dictionary of Astronomy" says it for me. I.e. universe is lower case all the time. Again it is context, and the reader nearly always knows what universe means in a sentence whether it is capitalised or not. As yet few have given examples of its usage in general books, of which 95% of the two dozen cosmology books that I looked through use it as lower case, except in the beginning of a sentence or for specific emphasis. Editing here is supposed to be based on document evidence, but as yet, all I've seen is mostly biassed opinion. Writing something is always based on consistency and logical practicality. Who wants to remember some crazy idiosyncratic style applied to one place, then have to use another elsewhere? (As for the presumed previous consensus, the individual did NOT have agreement to do this, and was properly censured for doing so and had his ability for global editing revoked. 16 hours is not adequate time for seeking consensus. That is now irrelevant for the decision for MOS here.) Arianewiki1 (talk) 13:57, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
    @Arianewiki1 If you know your opinion on the behaviour of an editor is irrelevant to this discussion, why do you repeat it? Dondervogel 2 (talk) 14:19, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
    Fyunck(click) said: "Since I don't usually look at Astronomy talk I was not aware this had gotten a consensus "Capitalize" consensus already." Then Blueboar said: "We should always review relevant project pages to see whether the style issue has already been discussed there... and if so what the consensus of the project was." What I said is because there has been no previous consensus, and there should be no influence on this current decision. I.e. It should not count towards, or affect. our decision here. That's all. Arianewiki1 (talk) 15:00, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
  • FWIW - my "vote" is for => "Do not capitalize solar system and universe" - and is based on the "Style Guide for NASA History Authors and Editors - Astronomical Bodies" — (ie, "Capitalize the names of planets (e.g. Earth, Mars, Jupiter). Capitalize moon when referring to Earth's Moon, otherwise lowercase moon (e.g. the Moon orbits the Earth, Jupiter's moons). Do not capitalize solar system and universe.") — in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 16:57, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
    I heartily agree. The advice to capitalize Solar System and such is out of step with the spirit of wikipedia style, which is to avoid unnecessary capitalization. This is what happens which each wikiproject decides that their own stuff is important enough to be the exception to the rule. Dicklyon (talk) 06:43, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
    @Dicklyon I could find myself agreeing with this statement were it not for the advice to capitalize Earth and Moon. In what sense are they examples of "necessary capitalization"? Dondervogel 2 (talk) 07:15, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
    Read [3]. It says; "House styles now vary: Oxford spelling recognizes the lowercase form as the most common, with the capitalized form an acceptable variant. Another convention capitalizes Earth when appearing as a name (e.g. "Earth's atmosphere") but writes it in lowercase when preceded by the (e.g. "the atmosphere of the earth"). It almost always appears in lowercase in colloquial expressions such as "what on earth are you doing?" The convention is the exactly same. Again it is context. When you talk about the earth, sun and moon, the context under the heading of Earth, Sun or Moon, is nearly always self explanatory. (Frankly scanning the whole text while reading the capitalisation every time is really irritating.) The Oxford Dictionary [1] is a good enough reference for me! Even the "New American Oxford Dictionary", describes planet earth as;
"The earth is the third planet from the sun in the solar system, orbiting between Venus and Mars at an average distance of 90 million miles (149.6 million km) from the sun, and has one natural satellite, the moon. It has an equatorial diameter of 7,654 miles (12,756 km), an average density 5.5 times that of water, and is believed to have formed about 4,600 million years ago. The earth, which is three-quarters covered by oceans and has a dense atmosphere of nitrogen and oxygen, is the only planet known to support life." No capitalisation here.
Note: Phrases like 'Life on Earth and 'life on earth', really are indistinguishable to the reader.
Evidence suggest, no capitalisation either.
Adoption of this in the WP:MOS should be, hence, concluded, quoting the primary references of the Oxford and Cambridge Dictionary of Astronomy, the Oxford Dictionary, and the New American Oxford Dictionary.. Arianewiki1 (talk) 12:40, 30 January 2015 (UTC)


"Avoid unnecessary capitalization" should be understood as "don't capitalize capriciously or pointlessly", not "always pick the least-capitalized style from all plausible options". --Trovatore (talk) 20:06, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Tentative agreement: do not capitalize the word universe. I am finding the general search results of reliable sources for English usage uncovered in this discussion convincing that usage is generally heavily weighted against capitalization. My own opinion and inclination are also with @Arianewiki1 and @Dicklyon that the MOS should remain with its stance to avoid unnecessary capitalization. I also agree that individual projects ought not to be establishing capitalization conventions separate from the MOS. If there is a special case that affect an individual project, then that case should also become a part of the MOS after sufficiently wide discussion and evidence of recognition of the specialized usage. On these bases, I am also tending to favor another look at Solar System (especially) and also Earth and Sun, with an eye to removing capitals there, unless special cases can be substantiated by sources. I've rather supported capitals there before, but I'm seeing good evidence here that small letters are preferred usage. By all means let's take our cue from what the experts in usage say. Evensteven (talk) 21:02, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
  1. ^ The New Oxford Dictionary of English, 1st ed. "earth". Oxford University Press (Oxford), 1998. ISBN 0-19-861263-X.

A single editor's review of the discussion

The question is whether universe should be capitalised in a particular instances. The section of the MOS Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Capital letters#Celestial bodies is the context for this discussion. Specifically:

The words sun, earth, moon and solar system are capitalized (as proper names) when used in an astronomical context to refer to a specific celestial body (The Sun is the star at the center of the Solar System; The Moon orbits the Earth). They are not capitalized when used outside an astronomical context ...

I unerstand that if a consensus were gained for capitalisation, universe would be included along with the words sun, earth etc.

Position of the WP:MOS

WP:MOS makes the following statement which is relevant to the discussion:

Wikipedia avoids unnecessary capitalization. Most capitalization is for proper names or for acronyms. Wikipedia relies on sources to determine what is a proper name; words and phrases that are consistently capitalized in sources are treated as proper names and capitalized in Wikipedia.

WP:MOS discusses proper names at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Capital letters#Proper names, but not in any meaningful way.

Case against

The Case against is based on sources, including varios style guides, ngrams etc. Statements made are to the effect that a majority of sources do not capitalise universe and therefore, there is no case to capitalise the word and amend the MOS Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Capital letters#Celestial bodies to reflect this.

My comments of 01:19, 28 January 2015 (UTC) make a case based on language conventions.

Case for capitalisation

  • The case for, is that universe is a proper name in particular instances and that capitalisation is required in these instances.
  • The case acknowledges that universe is a common noun in more general usage.
  • To sumarise and paraphrase, universe is a proper name when it is used to specifically refer to our 'universe', since it is referring to a particular universe, as distinct from other theoretical of fictional universes.
  • A corollary of this is that: "universe should be capitalised when it is a proper name".
Other arguements for capitalisation

There have been other minor positions/arguement made in support of capitalisation.

  • One arguement is by analogy with 'the President' and 'the Queen'. The convention leading to to capitalisation in these instances is that they are shortend forms of the full formal title - eg 'President of the United States'. There is no parallel application of this convention in the case of universe. The arguement has no merit in this case.
  • Capitalisation of universe in Miss Universe was raised. Miss Universe is a proper name for the title. The name consists of more than one word - sort of like a hyphenated surname. The surname 'Smith-Williams' for a particular person is not 'Smith' nor 'Williams' but 'Smith-Williams'. Capitalisation of universe in Miss Universe is a very different context from the issue under consideration. It has no merit that would support this case.

The MOS in context of the Issue

The MOS states: "Wikipedia avoids unnecessary capitalization. Conversely, it uses capitalisation when necessary.

The MOS then states: "Most capitalization is for proper names or for acronyms." This statement is very much in error. There are many instances where common names, adjectives or adverbs (or such phrases) are capitalised - usually because they are derived from a proper name.

The erroneous statement of the MOS, essentially suggesting that only proper names are capitalised is of little import or consequence to the issue at hand. There is no dispute that capitalisation is applied to proper names. The question is whether there are instances where universe is a proper name, as asserted by the case for capitalisation.

The MOS then states: "Wikipedia relies on sources to determine what is a proper name; words and phrases that are consistently capitalized in sources are treated as proper names and capitalized in Wikipedia." This statement is based on the premise that only proper names are capitalised - a premise which is incorrect. This statement is also at odds with the opening sentence but more specifically, its converse. One should first be looking to the conventions for a solution. Yes, English is fuzzy - but mainly around the edges. There are rules or conventions that should be looked to first. Given that these are not globally understood, as evidenced by the preceding discussion, the MOS should make these clearer.

I would submit that the role of 'solution by analogy' is mainly for capitalisation which is applied to 'other than proper names'. This is an underpinning issue with the MOS.

Deficiencies in MOS

This discussion serves to clarify deficiencies in the MOS with respect to the issue of clarification.

Redefining the question

There is no arguement that: "universe should be capitalised when it is a proper name".

The underpinning question is whether universe is ever a proper name and then, if it is a proper name in the context that has been submitted by the proponents in this discussion.

Census

It is a policy of WP, that "consensus is determined by the quality of arguments" (see Wikipedia:Consensus). "The quality of an argument is more important than whether it represents a minority or a majority view."

Defining the deadlock

The implied 'strength of arguement' of opponents to the proposition is a perception that the principles of the MOS are essentially unimpeachable - the sources have been consulted and the result is unquestionable. This is undermined by the deficiencies and inaccuracies in the MOS.

The implied 'strength of arguement' of the proponents of the proposition, is that the rules of language are a higher authority than the MOS - not an unreasonable position.

Strength of arguement

The proponent's arguement is essentially that 'the Universe' is a specific universe which is 'our universe' and because it specifically refers to a particularly universe, it is therefore a proper name and should be capitalised accordingly to distinguish it from other [potential, theoretical or fictional] universes.

The definite article is applied to common (general) names to refer to a specific referent. For the example, "That is the dog that bit me", the reference is to a specific dog. 'Dog' does not become a proper name because the reference is to a particular dog.

The convention of language is that definite articles are not applied to a proper name. To assert something is a proper name ostensibly on the basis that there is a particular referent and this is evidenced by the use of the definite article 'the' is inherently an arguement without merit. There are cases where 'the' is an inherent part of a proper name, such as 'The Hague' or 'the Milky Way' but this is not the proposition being made. To subsequently suggest that 'the Universe' is the proper name, would contradict the initial proposition - that use of the definite article, 'the', indicates a specific referent.

The arguement that capitalisation is necessary "to distinguish it from other [potential, theoretical or fictional] universes" indicates the use of capitalisation for emphasis. Such use would be contrary to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Capital letters#Do not use for emphasis and lacks merit.

Conclusion

There can be no census for capitalisation of 'universe' in the circumstances indicated by the proponents on the basis of the arguement presented. A strength of arguement on the basis of the conventions of English has not been supported by the conventions in question or the actual case that has been made.

A census, on the basis of 'strength of arguement' opposes capitalisation of 'universe' in the context that has been proposed by the proponents.

Before responding, please have the decency to read the complete statement of reasons I have given. Cinderella157 (talk) 12:52, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't understand how you reach this conclusion. If I may sum up your reasoning in a few words you seem to be saying that following (a majority of) sources is more important than internal consistency. You are welcome to that opinion and we can agree to disagree. The bottom line is this: If the consensus really is to use a lower case "u" then please make sure that is what MOS says, and clearly. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 17:29, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
I think I can summarize this more succinctly. Universe in some contexts seems like a proper noun, but most sources and style guides don't capitalize it. We disagree about whether the rule to capitalize proper nouns takes precedence or the rule to follow sources takes precedence. SchreiberBike talk 20:03, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, but I actually resent the entire summation made by Cinderrella157. That is something a closing administrator would do and is naturally biased in many aspects. I assume anyone should be able to add things to each heading? The mini headings make it seem special instead of one editor's opinion. There is much left out of each of Cinderella157's summaries and that is because it is his opinion and no one elses. Hey. I'm sure if I made my own overly lengthy summation it would also be biased, but then again I wouldn't lay it out like it was something special. Universe, in some contexts "is" a proper noun as is Earth, Sun, Moon, Solar System, etc... Whether or not Wikipedia chooses to capitalize those things is what we are discussing. And you can't take Earth, Sun, Moon, and Solar System out of the equation, nor what the Astronomy Project thinks about it. Those terms are all intrinsically bound to one another in terminology and usage, so when we talk about universe/Universe we are also talking about what we will do with sun/Sun and moon/Moon. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:19, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Whether universe is a proper noun is not as simple a question as you seem to assume. Sure, "Earth", "Sun", and "Moon" are capitalized in an astronomical context (one doesn't write "The Sun had set, but the Moon had not yet risen" in nonscientific prose) when the words refer to specific astronomical objects. The universe is not an astronomical object, however. Though the universe may be considered to be a unique "thing", that doesn't make the word a proper noun. Nature can also be said to denote a unique thing in some contexts (as can biome, ocean, etc.), but we don't capitalize the word in scientific discourse; we capitalize it only when we are personifying the concept. (I'm ignoring "solar system" for the moment, since style manuals differ on the treatment of it.)
That said, although I understand why Cinderella157 is trying to lend some structure to a rather haphazard discussion, I find that editor's efforts somewhat straightjacketing. If a more structured discussion is desired, someone should start a proper RfC, with supports and opposes and all that. Deor (talk) 23:13, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
Actually depending on context, the universe is an astronomical object that may or may not be unique. Remember this isn't grammar school universe we're talking about, this is Stephen Hawking Universe definitions. It may not be as simple as I made it, but the statement "seems like a proper noun" isn't either. You say you're ignoring "Solar System" since style guides differ, well they do for universe/Universe also. And style guides differ on sun/Sun and moon/Moon too. Didn't this start as a normal RfC? but got highjacked into a sort of MOS vs vote issue. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:28, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
Stephen Hawking is a theoretical physicist, who well knows the nature of scientific speculation: that it has serious purpose, and must agree with well-established facts, but that it is speculation nevertheless. None of these "universes" have yet been observed, measured, analyzed, or prodded by experiment; we have no experience of them. They are not even really postulated in full. We don't know how much or in what way they are equivalent or comparable to our own universe. They are an object of interest in a rather narrow span of human inquiry that is yet in its infancy. There is literally a whole universe of fully-formed contexts which the single known universe bounds at present. There's nothing "grammar school" about that, or about how sophisticated and complex an entity the universe is. I think the rhetoric you're using is rather unbalanced and fanciful, and not well-formed for this issue. Evensteven (talk) 23:51, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
And I think you are looking at this way too narrowly. We are talking about our Universe in astronomical terms here... as when we do Earth, Solar System and Sun. And as some Style Guides and universities do. This isn't an RfC to capitalize it all the time, but in the proper context and with consistency. To confine it to common layman terms in this Encyclopedia is not well suited for this issue. I want consistency more than anything else. I said I lean towards capitalizing it but perhaps I'm exposed more to it being capitalized. That I can grant. But when are talking about scientific articles and style guides, there is something mighty odd about Earth, Sun, universe, Solar System and Moon. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:17, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
Ok, good. It helps me (at least) to see better where you are coming from, and hopefully I've been able to let others see the same for myself. If the core issue you're looking at is the scope of application, then that is something that would need to be made clear in the MOS. I tend to think that "universe" is not too technical a word, and is certainly readily usable as a layman's term, so it can easily be present in all sorts of articles, not just astronomical ones. Would the main question then be whether (or not) there is a special application of the term in astronomy that calls for capitalization, or at least makes that usage commonplace in that context? I think we're seeing evidence to the contrary, but have we yet looked at all relevant expertise? Where else would you suggest? Evensteven (talk) 04:32, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

I have used headings to structure my statement of reasons and for clarity. I am somewhat vindicated in doing this, since, although it is a relatively straight forward discussion, even with the aid of the heading structure, a number of people have already reached erroneous conclusions in regard to the arguement I have presented. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:23, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

My arguement has nothing to do with sources. The aruements of the proponents are that universe (in a particular context) is a proper noun. Nothing in the arguements of the proponents indicates that universe is anything but a common noun with a definite article. The arguements presented have no strength to support the proposition of the proponents. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:44, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Cinderella157 bizarrely says "My arguement has nothing to do with sources." Sorry, that is the precise problem, and why the failure here remains. Please ONLY valid and verifiable references are need to back up the arguments, not just hearsay.
By saying "There can be no census for capitalisation of 'universe' in the circumstances indicated by the proponents on the basis of the arguement presented. A strength of argument on the basis of the conventions of English has not been supported by the conventions in question or the actual case that has been made." is obviously wrong, and frankly is seemingly YOUR opinion, somehow. I see the tipping scale about 70% towards lower case for 'universe.'
Really. Now if primary references of the Oxford and Cambridge Dictionary of Astronomy, the Oxford Dictionary, and the New American Oxford Dictionary is NOT good enough, then what is? My Mac OSX Dictionary on my desktop uses the New American Oxford Dictionary, and universe is always lower case!
Please either show why this should be rejected, as it IS based on evidence. Either invalidate this, or accept universe is mostly lowercase.
I see no other option to conclude this search for consensus. Arianewiki1 (talk) 01:44, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

@Arianewiki1, There is nothing 'bizzare' about my arguement. I have considered the issue from a different referential framework - the WP policy, Wikipedia:Consensus. In matters of consensus for change, this WP policy has precedence over the MOS, which is a style convention. Do you believe that my analysis supports the proponents' proposal for capitalising? If so, please read again. I am saying that Wikipedia:Consensus requires a 'strength of arguement' for a consensus. I am saying that the proponents cannot achieve a 'strength of arguement' on the basis of the aruement/s that have been presented. The arguements used to claim that 'universe' is a proper name are asserted to be based on conventions of language. But the arguements (of the proponents) have no strength - particularly since the conventions of language actually contradict the case that has been made by the proponents. The 'universe' is a common noun with a definite article. It is the definite article that creates a link to a specific referent. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:48, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Firstly, it is 'argument' NOT 'arguement.'
"Do you believe that my analysis supports the proponents' proposal for capitalising?" No. (In fact the diametrical opposite, actually.)
(Note: It is not 'your' or 'my' argument, because consensus is presumably neutral point of view.
Secondly, your argument is actually circular.
1) Evidence for the MOS "style convention" is not to capitalise.
2) Evidence for " In matters of consensus for change, this WP policy has precedence.." The consensus above say not to capitalise.
3) A "common noun with a definite article" says not to capitalised.
4) Evidence from the Oxford and Cambridge Dictionary of Astronomy, the Oxford Dictionary, and the New American Oxford Dictionary, says not to capitalise.
5) Evidence from the responses here says 70% say not to capitalise.
6) Evidence "I am saying that Wikipedia:Consensus requires a 'strength of arguement' for a consensus." I say there is consensus that 'universe should be all lower case.
I feel this is deliberate obfuscation, which has little to do with solving this problem.
As for "The arguments used to claim that 'universe' is a proper name are asserted to be based on conventions of language. But the arguements (of the proponents) have no strength - particularly since the conventions of language actually contradict the case that has been made by the proponents.". Well if that is true, then to solve the 'contradiction' then you have to look for evidence to prove or disprove the case from an INDEPENDENT source, which is verifiable and adopts some kind of convention. (Well we already have that conclusion, where 'universe' should not be capitalise.
Hence, either invalidate the argument that the "Oxford and Cambridge Dictionary of Astronomy, the Oxford Dictionary, and the New American Oxford Dictionary, says not to capitalise." or adopt this as precedent.
The rest of the argument you place here is otherwise, really a specious one.
With your seemingly 'negative' appraisal (as above), what is bizarre is that your illogical statements presented are the ones that have 'no strength' either. I.e. It is an answer to a question, seemingly without a question being known or stated.
Frankly, either present the case for the affirmative or negative, and let the group come to some conclusion. Else let someone else give their appraisal of the 'consensus', and really avoid saying "Do you believe that my analysis…" Sorry. I have little little faith in your analysis here.
Already, Deor, Fyunck(click) and me, are the "number of people have already reached erroneous conclusions in regard to the argument I have presented." Sorry. Evidence for your argument here makes little to no sense. Arianewiki1 (talk) 04:17, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
Actually, your question; "Do you believe that my analysis supports the proponents' proposal for capitalising?" absolutely the wrong question. It should be "I think the consensus proposes X (or Y). Do we all agree on this conclusion?" That is the real question here. Democratic decisions are never based on any individual view, but on the clear evidence available to support some proposition. In this light, the result now seems quite obvious, I'd think. Arianewiki1 (talk) 04:31, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
@Arianewiki1, "Do you believe that my analysis supports the proponents' proposal for capitalising?" I was specifically asking you this question because your comments are very confusing. You appear to be arguing against my analysis even though it concludes that there has been no substantive case made for capitalisation. You appear to be arguing against your own position. You state: "Democratic decisions are never based on any individual view ..." I suggest that you read Wikipedia:Consensus. I clearly states that WP consensus is not a democratic process: "The quality of an argument is more important than whether it represents a minority or a majority view." I conclude that the arguments made by the proponents to capitalise indicate that 'universe' is a common noun with a definite article and not a proper noun that should be capitalised. On this basis, I conclude that the argument of the proponents' has no strength and a consensus cannot be made for a proposition when the argument has no strength. Cinderella157 (talk) 05:27, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
@Cinderella157, "You appear to be arguing against my analysis even though it concludes that there has been no substantive case made for capitalisation." Again, I am arguing on the CONSENSUS position, not my own nor yours. As for the "democratic decision", my only case was that decisions are not made by individuals, especially when using words like 'you' or 'me' just to polarise arguments or decisions. The argument does have 'strength', which for some reason you seem to be indirectly avoiding the question. So to finally end this once and for all... Arianewiki1 (talk) 05:47, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
@Arianewiki1, my analysis is based on there being a proposition to capitalise 'universe'. This was explicitly stated at the start of the analysis: "The question is whether universe should be capitalised in a particular instances." I have not made a decision. I have made an analysis with a conclusion. This is certainly not the same as a decision - particularly in a discussion such as this. I am quite confused by your comments and statements. You state that: "The argument does have 'strength' ..." I have discussed the proposition to capitalise 'universe'. Which arguments have strength - arguments to capitalise, arguments to not capitalise or both? A consensus for an amendment to make explicit that 'universe' is not capitalised is another proposition. Firstly, concluding that 'universe' is not a proper name (under any condition - ie there is not argument of any strength to support this) but always a common name is significant. However, the strength of argument for the need to make this explicit is the debate here. This clearly indicates a need to make non-capitalisation of 'universe' explicit. I am still very confused by your comments. Cinderella157 (talk) 06:55, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

FINAL VIEWS ON CONSENSUS

For all the arguments so far presented, I think the consensus proposes that 'universe' in lower case be adopted in the WP:MOS.

Do we agree with this conclusion? <YES> or <NO> Arianewiki1 (talk) 05:52, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't believe I have even seen the question posed, so why am I being asked to answer yes or no to it? The MOS can't possibly list every word that is not to be capitalized, so why this one? Wouldn't it be better to clarify the bit about solar system, earth, sun, etc., and give some examples of their upper and lower case usage, so as not to imply that they are usually uppercase, which causes some to want to extend that to universe? Dicklyon (talk) 06:39, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
Think it is better to ask the converse question. I said there is strength of argument to making lower case explicit but I did not say there was a consensus. Furthermore, while the initial question (way back when) was to make no caps for 'universe' explicit, all of the discussion has been framed in a way which perhaps assumes the converse - should 'universe' be added to the list: earth, sun etc. Cinderella157 (talk) 07:18, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
Cinderella157"I said there is strength of argument to making lower case explicit but I did not say there was a consensus." Neither did I.
If there is no consensus, we cannot change things, if there is we can soon get on with the editing. (The converse question is absolutely irrelevant, because either way, the answer solves the question whether we have consensus or not.) If we don't pose a question sometime, we'll be just be here forever. Is there consensus, well let others decide without the rhetoric please. Thanks. Arianewiki1 (talk) 07:44, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
There is only one question here. We have not been asked anything else other than should the word 'universe' be capitalised or not. Other variants need to be debated separately. Decision on one, may assist with the others. It has been nearly one month since this was question was posed. Really, Dicklyon and Cinderella157, please give others time to respond before derailing even the simplest of question. Please. :) Arianewiki1 (talk) 07:26, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

@Arianewiki1, you say We have not been asked anything else other than should the word 'universe' be capitalised or not. But this not the question you have asked. Cinderella157 (talk) 08:06, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Absolutely No. The question in plainly black and white is. "'For all the arguments so far presented, I think the consensus proposes that 'universe' in lower case be adopted in the WP:MOS." Why is that so hard for you to understand here? The other statement was in reply to you. Really. We NEED TO KNOW, if there is consensus or not before we can precede. Arianewiki1 (talk) 10:45, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
I'm not sure why you think there might be consensus. After all the arguments and just counting it looks like more wanted it capitalized than not, especially if earth, sun, moon, and solar system are capitalized. Add in the consensus Astronomy Project and it looks like it's closer to Universe than universe. Maybe it should be a more comprehensive RfC that includes all the objects being capitalized or all the objects not being capitalized. Or perhaps only Earth being capitalized but only when talked about with other planets. The moon and sun would never be capitalized.. we'd use Luna and Sol to take care of those. That isn't my choice but at least we'd be consistent and might get a better read on consensus. Fyunck(click) (talk) 11:06, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

——

No. <This is an unsigned comment. Arianewiki1 (talk) 10:47, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

FINAL VIEWS ON CONSENSUS : ATTEMPT No. 2.

For all the arguments so far presented, I think the consensus proposes that 'universe', always being in lower case, should be adopted in the WP:MOS.

Do we agree with this conclusion? <YES> or <NO> Arianewiki1 (talk) 07:50, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

  • No. In a context where the possibility of other universes is being considered, the one we inhabit could be capitalized. Jc3s5h (talk) 14:37, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
  • No, we don't have consensus yet. I also disagree that we must separate consideration of "universe" from the other terms. And it should be noted that there is also disagreement as to whether or not there was any type of consensus at the astronomy project, and if so, how that applies to our discussions here. I'd like to see it resolved, too, but we're not there, and this is not the right question. Evensteven (talk) 18:20, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Yes universe should usually be lowercase (I'm fine capitalizing it in a context where it specifically is intended to distinguish our universe from others, as Jc3s5h proposes, but this will be a rare exception); No I don't think we need an MOS amendment to that effect, but working on that stuff about celestial bodies could be useful. Dicklyon (talk) 20:31, 31 January 2015 (UTC)


comments

I'm quite confused about Dicklyon's answer above and didn't want to clutter the yes no section. The question is Should universe ALWAYS be lower case, Yes or No. Assuming we aren't talking the beginning of a sentence it's Yes or No. He answered "Yes universe should usually be lowercase (I'm fine capitalizing it in a context where it specifically is intended to distinguish our universe from others.". So really his answer is NO? It makes no sense to me. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:41, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree. Dick Lyon says "yes" but he clearly means "no". Nearly all of us are saying it should be capitalized when it is intended to uniquely distinguish our universe from other potential universes. Isn't that the consensus. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 21:01, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
I disagree. There's no confusion except in the question itself. There is no agreement that there should be an "always", and it is in that category where Dicklyon's answer lies. A question can itself be biased by eliminating legitimate choices. It should be no surprise when alternative answers appear. Evensteven (talk) 22:58, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
If an alternate must be used, then the answer is No. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:11, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
Did I answer the question that was asked? Yes, but not really. Dicklyon (talk) 01:20, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Real example

So, I've spent some time editing the Universe page. It encompasses a wide variety of ideas, some of which are in between cultural ideas and old astronomical ideas. Consider the following excerpt:

"Astronomical models of the Universe were proposed soon after astronomy began with the Babylonian astronomers, who viewed the Universe as a flat disk floating in the ocean, and this forms the premise for early Greek maps like those of Anaximander and Hecataeus of Miletus."

According to a convention in which we might capitalize "Universe" when it refers to an astronomical entity, maybe this is all correct. I would, however, prefer to put all those instances into uncapitalized form, partly because the perspective, here, of the universe is also mythological. Also, one wonders, if universe is capitalized, here, should one also capitalize the "ocean" in which the universe floats?

Alternatively, consider this example text:

"Many cultures have stories describing the origin of the world, which may be roughly grouped into common types. In one type of story, the world is born from a world egg; such stories include the Finnish epic poem Kalevala, the Chinese story of Pangu or the Indian Brahmanda Purana. In related stories, the universe is created by a single entity emanating or producing something by him- or herself, as in the Tibetan Buddhism concept of Adi-Buddha, the ancient Greek story of Gaia (Mother Earth), the Aztec goddess Coatlicue myth, the ancient Egyptian god Atum story, or the Genesis creation narrative."

Again, considering a convention in which we might capitalize "Universe" when it refers to an astronomical entity, perhaps we should change "universe" to "Universe" since this is, after all, a cosmogony. Maybe we should also capitalize "world"? My preference, again, would be to set all of these words into lower case.

Anyway, editors who work with text that actually make use of words like universe, world, cosmos, etc. might appreciate that having a mixture of capitalizations can be difficult. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 19:24, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

The excerpt you're looking at originally said universe but an editor changed all occurrences of universe to Universe, based on the authority of Wiktionary. See here and here. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 22:49, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
That is true, but I present these excerpts for purposes of discussion, not because someone changed capitalizations in the past. If we are going to capitalize Universe in astronomical contexts, then we need to realize that there are some contexts that are vague. Also, if "Universe" do we then capitalize "world" when it means "Universe", what about "cosmos" or its antithesis "chaos", etc. etc. etc. ? Isambard Kingdom (talk) 23:05, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Potential fresh RfC

I feel that the long discussion above has become somewhat confusing and entangled in other issues. I'd like feedback on a fresh request for comment I have drafted at User:SchreiberBike/Workspace/Universe. Please make comments there about the wording of the RfC. If there is support for such an RfC, I would then post the final text here and make the notifications. Thank you. SchreiberBike talk 20:35, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

I commented there, but wonder whether before going to WP:RFC anyone would be interested in this compromise: say that either way is okay but it is not okay to change a Wikipedia article's original capitalization / non-capitalization without first seeking and getting definite approval on that article's talk page. See the wording in WP:ERA for an example of something similar that could be modified for our situation:

Do not change the established era style in an article unless there are reasons specific to its content. Seek consensus on the talk page before making the change. Open the discussion under a subhead that uses the word "era". Briefly state why the style is inappropriate for the article in question. A personal or categorical preference for one era style over the other is not justification for making a change.

This sort of thing would at least address the matter that started this apparently-unconsensusifiable issue. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 00:54, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
What constitutes support for another RfC? As it is worded right now, that would be a no for me. I may lean towards capitalizing, but I'm for consistency too and choice two leaves it woefully inconsistent. Sort of backs me into a corner for choice one and doesn't allow for compromising. Not good imho. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:33, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
@Fyunck(click), I understood your position to be IAW the quote below.
"The way I read it, it used Universe for specifically our Universe and universe for general talk... just like it does for Milky Way Galaxy and like we do for the Moon/moon. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:17, 23 January 2015 (UTC)"
I understand that option one of the proposal on SchreiberBike's page has exactly this effect. The result of this option is specifically the amendment of the MOS 'Celestial bodies' section as follows:
The words universe, sun, earth, moon and solar system are capitalized (as proper names) when used in an astronomical context to refer to a specific celestial body ...
Cinderella157 (talk) 10:53, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
  • (I may well have posted this in the wrong place - it's not clear where in this discussion I should be adding my comments. I would be grateful if someone could move this to the correct location) We should follow the style used in professional astronomy and most style guides: the Universe when referring to the one we live in, and a universe when referring to other universes. This is analogous to our existing guidelines on the Moon vs a moon, our Galaxy vs a galaxy etc. I'm amazed this has proven to be controversial! The correct solution seems fairly obvious to me. Modest Genius talk 19:05, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
Modest, as already discussed, several professional style guides recommend not capitalizing "universe". So far, I haven't seen a style guide that does. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 19:12, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
The point has nothing whatever to do with (external) style guides and everything to do with internal consistency in WP, which after all is the raison d'être of WP:MOS. Like Modest Genius, I find it hard to understand why this is controversial. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 19:29, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
Choices that we make for WP style are generally informed by external guides; we don't have them "vote", but we do study their advice and reasons. If one can't find guides recommending capitalization of "universe", then having our MOS say to do that would be a nonstarter. As I said before, if you're in favor of more consistency, it would be easier to get there by backing off on the exceptional capitalization of solar system (which appears to have been slipped in without comment, as a Christmas special, here in 2008) and other astronomy terms. Dicklyon (talk) 23:49, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
I don't understand. You mean "Solar System" became part of the WP MOS without proper discussion? Isambard Kingdom (talk) 02:18, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
Yes, that's that the diff indicates. Also, Halley's Comet and the Andromeda Galaxy, which in most sources are Halley's comet and the Andromeda galaxy, came in at that same diff. There is nothing in the talk page for that month. Dicklyon (talk) 02:53, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
If this is true, then it these "styles" should be re-examined. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 03:17, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
I suggested on the very post of this thread that it became part of WP MOSCAP (not WP MOS) without any discussion that I could find, but with reference to the Kotniski edit of 2012, which I still believe is the important one. But our topic is universe/Universe, eh? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 02:39, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
We are discussing "universe" in the context of many things, including the WP MOS, which I now find suspicious. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 02:46, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
Yes, so let's see if we can find consensus for a middle way, a rewrite of the celestial bodies section that moderates the over-capitalization that Kotniski was a fan of. Dicklyon (talk) 02:56, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
(Conflict edit occurred) A statement to this effect was made by User: Peter Gulutzan at the very start of this discussion and there is no evidence or discussion I can see to suggest otherwise. I have even looked. There is nothing on the talk page at that time, that I can see, to suggest that the edit was the result of a discussion/consensus.Cinderella157 (talk) 03:33, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Reference to the IAU style guide in the 'Celestial bodies' section is made in a specific and limited context in which section 7 of the IAU style guide is applicable. It appears that the reference to the IAU style guide is being interpreted to be applicable beyond its section 7 and beyond the scope that the 'Celestial bodies' section defers to the IAU style guide. Specifically, the IAU style guide makes a general statement of style wrt capitalisation at section 6. At first glance, it would appear that section 6 is being used to justify capitalisation of 'solar system' and 'Galactic Center' etc. I have no issue with sun, earth and moon, since the capitalisation of these has been determined by consensus. The discussion was also specific to these. While the substantive issue at the moment is 'universe', there is a broader issue. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:33, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

I apologize for not picking up on Peter's earlier message on this point. While, yes, we are discussing "universe", we probably wouldn't be here, discussing it, if the WP MOS was a bit more in line with other authoritative MOSs. I do think that these "styles"in the WP MOS need to be re-examined. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 03:40, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
I agree with the need for re-examination, and that should include all the astronomical names that have arisen in this discussion. With a flawed MOS section in place, it is not appropriate to consider as valid consensuses that may have developed from its lead. Evensteven (talk) 07:40, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
Agreed that, for consistency, the re-examination should include all the astronomical names. For me it's tough to separate them. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:46, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
I think too much is being made of Solar System here. Remember it's been there for 2-3 years and it seems no one has complained in that time. I do not object to re-examining that change, but if we re-examine Solar System, we should do the same for Earth, Sun and Moon. My preference is to get the universe/Universe RfC out the way first. If not, I fear we will achieve nothing and SchreiberBike's work will have been in vain. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 07:54, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
I'm planning to put the fresh RfC on this page tomorrow. It will be based on the collaboratively developed RfC at User:SchreiberBike/Workspace/Universe. That is a work in progress, but I think we are pretty close now. I appreciate the help the many editors have given in developing it, but I plan to use my judgement for what I post tomorrow. Please provide feedback below on whether or not I should put up the RfC and there on the content of the RfC. Thank you. SchreiberBike talk 18:02, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
There is a clean "proof" of the current proposed RfC here. It may not be current as discussions continue, but it's easier to read than the page where we have been working on it. SchreiberBike talk 18:20, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

In my opinion, it would be useless to put up this "new" RFC because it does not cover the issues at hand that have been raised at this discussion. It is one more attempt at restricting/redirecting discussion towards one element only and avoiding a comprehensive look. Any new RFC must honestly address all the issues, and this one does not begin. Evensteven (talk) 22:23, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree. This discussion has uncovered some interesting facts, that parts of the present form of the MOS exist, despite having hardly been discussed and considered. Building on undiscussed "styles" seems like not the way to go. Indeed, the very same issues and concerns would be raised during the RFC, causing bewilderment as to why focus was made on this one word, "Universe". Isambard Kingdom (talk) 22:51, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
No bewilderment is needed; what prompted this discussion was someone's decision to go through Wikipedia articles, capitalizing the word universe with abandon. I think that the proposed RfC is a good idea, so that at least this question can be sorted out. Questions about the handling of "solar system", the situations when earth should and shouldn't be capitalized, and other aspects of the guideline can be dealt with afterward. When an RfC is worded too broadly or presents too many possible options, the almost inevitable result is a confusing split of !votes among the options offered, with none achieving a clear consensus. That is, as far as I've seen, the usual result of proposals to alter the MOS, and it seems worth trying a "baby steps" approach here to see whether a consensus on this restricted point can be reached. Deor (talk) 23:15, 2 February 2015 (UTC)~
Possibly it can. I could be wrong but what may likely happen is folks will look at how MOS reads now and they'll decide that ease of consistency and appearance is the most important for our readers and editors, so they'll !vote to go with "capitalize Universe" for that sake. I know I would, but I was leaning towards its capitalization anyway. They might have gone with uncapitalizing sun, moon, solar system, etc... and universe, but without that choice they'll go with a more uniform MOS because it's much more straight forward, especially with so many non-English-first editors here now. A much more international melting-pot if you will. Time will tell I guess. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:50, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
I too support the RfC. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 23:20, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
@Fyunck:: "but without that choice ...". Exactly my point above. This RFC is an attempt to limit choices and restrict discussion. And that is constructive how? What makes you think that others don't have a choice anyway, and cannot speak up in discussion? This RFC is pointless. Deor makes a reasonable point about baby steps, but making a decision based on a political-type move makes it even more likely to cause further difficulty ahead. Evensteven (talk) 06:25, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
Context matters. "Universe" can refer to the one and only, the whole of existence. In this case it is a proper noun, and English capitalizes proper nouns. "Universe" can also refer to a universe in the context of a multiverse or a fictional universe, in which cases it is a common noun and should therefore not be capitalized. Note that usually the former is usually accompanied by a definite article ("the") without any qualifiers and cannot be pluralized, whereas the latter are often accompanied by an indefinite article ("a(n)"), can be pluralized and if it is accompanied by the definite article, there must also be an additional qualifier nearby. This situation is exactly the same as those of earth/Earth, moon/Moon, and solar system/Solar System. We should hence add "universe" to the sentence in question. Do note that, as I've said, there will still be many instances where "universe" should not be capitalized. --JorisvS (talk) 15:57, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Capital_letters/Archive_14&oldid=1145970721"