Template talk:R from miscapitalisation

What exactly qualifies as a miscapitalisation?

Isn't every capitalization difference incorrect according to some convention?

How "bad" does a capitalization have to be to be considered a "miscapitalisation" as opposed to {{R from other capitalisation}}?

What is the relative importance to this Rcat of:

• General English capitalization rules
• General capitalization rules of the article subject's language, if different from English
• Reliable sources about the subject
• Wikipedia policies and guidelines, such as WP:MOSTM

--SoledadKabocha (talk) 05:24, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

More specifically: I am assuming that former names are never miscapitalizations, nor are titles that violate MOSTM but are considered official by the article's subject. Is this true? What other kinds of redirects are considered miscapitalizations? --SoledadKabocha (talk) 05:45, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

I recognize that R from miscapitalisation is a "pages that use this link should be updated" Rcat—a distinction which I've called "highly unprintworthy" elsewhere—while R from other capitalisation has no such wording. So, I suppose the difference is whether the miscapitalization looks unprofessional enough that it must be fixed immediately or whether there is some plausible excuse for it. However, it would be good to define this more rigorously. --SoledadKabocha (talk) 17:02, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Template intent

Essentially same question as the section above from 2020. The template displays "From a miscapitalisation: This is a redirect from a capitalisation error." Does this mean an error with respect to Wikipedia guidelines such as MOS:CAPS? Or an error in some broader or more absolute sense. It goes on to say "This redirect is made available to aid searches or to maintain links" which is why I use it; it causes links to it to show up on the maintenance report at Wikipedia:Database reports/Linked miscapitalizations. It goes on: "Pages that use this link should be updated to link directly to the correct form..."; again, that's what I've been doing.

Similarly, Template:R from over-capitalization says "This shortcut is used specifically to flag cases of redirects from overly capitalized names that violate WP:NCCAPS and MOS:CAPS". But it's just a redirect, so displays the same "error" message. And why isn't there a corresponding Template:R from under-capitalization? We see a lot of those on the report, too.

I'm asking because User:Hey man im josh changed a whole bunch of over-capitalized redirects with "NFL Draft" to Template:R from other capitalization after I had tagged them as over-capitalization (after a big RFC that established that we want to use lower draft there in article text and titles). He doesn't like calling these "errors" since a lot of external sources and styles do capitalize draft, but doesn't otherwise seem to object to the idea of fixing them in WP, which he did a bunch of himself. See our discussion at User talk:Hey man im josh#NFL Draft capitalization, where he suggested I should maybe ask for a change of wording instead of "error". Maybe "This is a redirect from a capitalisation contrary to WP guidelines"? Opinions? Dicklyon (talk) 09:48, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

• Why not just use a simple redirect? I don't get the point of this template. Gawaon (talk) 11:03, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

  I kind of agree. I've never made getting the exact right redirect category an important part of my editing, but Wikipedia has all kinds of people with all kinds of interests. If there are people who want to spend their time getting redirect categories right, good for them, so long as they know that when the rest of us get them wrong sometimes it's not a big deal. Given that, I try to get them right so as to not add to the burden of others. SchreiberBike | ⌨  13:44, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

• Template:R from other capitalisation is the more appropriate rcat in this instance. The text in the template states: It leads to the title in accordance with the Wikipedia naming conventions for capitalisation... This template states: This is a redirect from a capitalisation error. The discussion did not determine that the capitalization was incorrect, it determined that the articles should be downcased in accordance with Wikipedia's naming conventions for capitalization (the naming conventions mentioned in r from other capitalization). But, as we've discussed, the NFL and the 32 teams use an MoS that consistently capitalizes the annual event, so to call it an error would be incorrect. In addition, a number of reliable sources use the capitalized version as well, albeit sometimes having inconsistencies based on writers. I believe the examples at Wikipedia:Template index/Redirect pages support that r from other capitalization would be the appropriate rcat in this instance. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:21, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

  But when it's not "in accordance with the Wikipedia naming conventions for capitalisation", then this is the wrong template, per what it says, that you already quoted. So you're suggesting we change the wording to avoid calling it an "error"? That would be OK by me, as it wouldn't interfere with how these templates and reports are used. Dicklyon (talk) 10:52, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

  @Dicklyon: I am not suggesting we remove the wording of calling it an "error", that would make these redundant. Do you believe there are instances outside of Wikipedia when a specific capitalization that is not acceptable on-Wiki may be acceptable outside of it? I do, and that's what these templates are meant to differentiate between.

  {{r from other capitalisation}} is for capitalizations that don't adhere to our MoS, but may be acceptable outside of Wikipedia. I think the template clearly explains that: This is a redirect from a title with another method of capitalisation. It leads to the title in accordance with the Wikipedia naming conventions for capitalisation, or it leads to a title that is associated in some way with the conventional capitalisation of this redirect title.

  {{r from miscapitalisation}} – This is a redirect from a capitalisation error.

  Note that {{r from other capitalisation}} specifically calls out that the title is not in adherence with the MoS, that's the key thing here and that's what's trying to be conveyed, whereas {{r from miscapitalisation}} simply states it's for errors. @SchreiberBike had a great example of this lower in the comments. I believe there's a clear and obvious distinction between incorrect / in error verse being an acceptable use outside of Wikipedia and I think that's the exact reason that both these templates exist. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:13, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

• The current instructions are ambiguous. I have interpreted {{R from other capitalisation}} as meaning that the capitalization is wrong by Wikipedia standards but acceptable elsewhere; and {{R from miscapitalisation}} as meaning the capitalization is wrong by any reasonable standard. Something like National Football League Draft is other capitalization and UNIted States is a miscapitalization. I've never thought it mattered much though, but if it's causing errors to be generated and somebody's willing to do the work to fix them, more power to them. SchreiberBike | ⌨  13:38, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
  • I think this would be a useful way to distinguish the two templates/categories. If we go this way, both templates should include the advice to fix incoming links, and both should show up in the maintenance report, since we want to fix both big Errors and small errors of style. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:33, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
    • I think the "other" miscapitalizations are supposed to be ones that are needing to be fixed; there are many thousands of them (about 1% of all pages, the template says). But I haven't looked a lot to see how many really should be fixed when encountered; when I see those, I change the tag to miscapitalization, so links to them will be monitored. It doesn't generate errors, just puts them on the report. Dicklyon (talk) 05:15, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

      We shouldn't be tagging/changing the classification of redirects to a less appropriate rcat just to have them included in a maintenance report. If anything, the maintenance report should expand to include redirects categorized as {{r from other capitalization}} and the text of that rcat should be more clear that links using this capitalization should be fixed. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:32, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

      Sure, but to me changing to the template that puts it on the report is more appropriate, not less, because the existence of that report seems like it reflects an intent to do such things. If someone makes a report for links to the "other", to help with fixing those, then that would be different. That's what we're here to figure out. Can't just remove the useful tag if there's no good alternative. Dicklyon (talk) 23:16, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

    • In fact, Template:R from other capitalization says "This is a redirect from a title with another method of capitalisation. It leads to the title in accordance with the Wikipedia naming conventions for capitalisation, or it leads to a title that is associated in some way with the conventional capitalisation of this redirect title. This may help writing, searching and international language issues. If this redirect is an incorrect capitalisation, then R from miscapitalisation should be used instead." Seems clear that "other" is not supposed to be for things needing fixing (though it often is, since editors haven't been making that distinction much). Dicklyon (talk) 05:18, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
• Comment The RfC at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Capitalization of NFL draft article titles asked:

  Regarding the capitalization in "NFL Draft"/"National Football League draft" etc., should it be capitalized "Draft", or lowercase "draft", in article text and titles?

  The close was:

  ...there is consensus that “draft” should be lowercase in these NFL articles.

  It's clear that lowercase "NFL draft" is the preferred spelling on Wikipedia. —Bagumba (talk) 13:43, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

  The instructions also say that this template is NOT to be placed "on the talk pages of mainspace redirects". Now I'm even more confused, admittedly, but it's clear that, regardless of what's its actual purpose, the NFL draft (or a miscapitalization of the UNIted States) has nothing to do with it. Gawaon (talk) 14:21, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

  I think this is just saying to tag the redirect itself and not the associated talk page. For example, I tagged The pixies with the micapitalisation template, but I would not tag Talk:The pixies (even if it existed). Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:33, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

  (edit conflict) You seem to be talking about the WikiProject banner {{WikiProject Redirect}}, which is on the top of this talk page. That is unrelated to the actual template, {{R from miscapitalisation}}. —Bagumba (talk) 14:37, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

  Ah, right. Gawaon (talk) 16:02, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

The point of the template, at least as I use it, is to be able to find incorrectly capitalized links, e.g. to aid in post-move cleanups and to help maintain correct capitalization in linking articles later. I was not the one who invented it, or the report Wikipedia:Database reports/Linked miscapitalizations that tabulates links to miscapitalized redirects, but after than report was pointed out to me I've been using it, for the last couple of years, to find and fix tens of thousands of miscapitalizations. If things that ought to be fixed are not tagged as "miscapitalization", they won't show up in the report, and they be much less likely to be fixed. So, if that's not the intent of "R from miscapitalization", we need another, such as "R from capitalization worth fixing", for this job. And if printing the message that calls this "other" capitalization an "error" is not really what we want, we simply change the message "This is a redirect from a capitalisation error" in the template to something like "This is a redirect from a non-preferred capitalisation that should be fixed" (or even make another template and category, so some can still be called "errors"). Some of the responders above haven't understood the question; sorry I was unclear. Dicklyon (talk) 05:12, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

MOS:CAPS states

Wikipedia avoids unnecessary capitalization.

So capitalization is either necessary or it's not i.e. miscapitalized. There's no such thing as "half necessary". In that context, it's unclear how "other capitalization" is a worthwhile capitalization for Wikipedia maintenance purposes.—Bagumba (talk) 07:37, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

That's a great point. When I look through what links to Template:R from other capitalisation, they do pretty much all look like errors (with respect to WP guidelines) that we should correct. But there may be some that are legitimately different caps in different contexts. Not sure. Dicklyon (talk) 10:42, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

That's the thing, right? Context is key. There are items under the miscapilization category that I'm sure have appropriate uses. That's why fixing these capitalizations can be time consuming, the edge cases where they're actually appropriate. I think, if any changes are to be made, it would be to add to {{r from other capitalization}} to say that in most cases that should also be bypassed / the capitalization be fixed. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:29, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Take the "NFL Draft" case. There's a clear consensus from its RfC to downcase in prose. So the guidance at Template:R from miscapitalisation that Pages that use this link should be updated to link directly to the correct form without using a piped link hiding the correct details would be appropriate. What would be an alternative to marking redirects for definite replacement in lieu of using R from miscapitalisation? —Bagumba (talk) 15:03, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

It seems like there's a disconnect between the names, descriptions, and documentations of these redirect templates. It might be a good idea to re-shuffle, clarify, or create new templates that align with use cases. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 15:14, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

The guidance at {{R from other capitalisation}} is

If this redirect is an incorrect capitalisation, then {{R from miscapitalisation}} should be used instead, and pages that use this link should be updated to link directly to the _target

.That seems appropriate for the "NFL Draft" redirects—to replace the links with the direct links to the downcased title.—Bagumba (talk) 15:13, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

I do agree that they should be replaced. I just think that the {{r from other capitalization}} is the more appropriate template given what I interpret to be the intended usage of these templates. I just don't see many cases where a page pointing to a redirect that uses {{r from other capitalization}} shouldn't be replaced / down cased anyways. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:18, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Presumably R from other capitalization could also include cases going from lower case to a capitalised version, and they may not necessarily all be redirects from a captialised title. —Bagumba (talk) 15:29, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Yes, there are tons of redirects from "under-capitalization", tagged various ways (and many not tagged at all). In most cases, these are more clearly "errors", in that they'd be wrong in pretty much any outside style as well as in WP style. I've changed some from "miscapitalization" other "other capitalization" when the lowercase versions are commonly used outside; these are cases where we haven't yet got article titles in alignment with out MOS though, so that's still not really right in terms of what the template is saying. Dicklyon (talk) 23:04, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

The template should be deleted or retired. Re-directs aptly handle these situations. GoodDay (talk) 22:09, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Yes, the redirects do a good job of getting readers to the right place even with miscapitalized links. That's not in question. These templates are for maintenance, to help editors find things to fix to bring articles into better compliance with guidelines. Are you saying it would be better to keep them harder to find, so fewer get fixed? Dicklyon (talk) 02:49, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Note the /doc at Template:R from other capitalisation/doc, which says, since mid 2016:

• If it is a redirect from an excessively capitalized title that violates WP:NCCAPS and MOS:CAPS, please use the alternative template:
  • {{R from miscapitalisation}} a.k.a. {{R from miscapitalization}}

Dicklyon (talk) 09:42, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Also WP:REDCAT has this yellow box (my elision):

 General information note

ALL the {{R from...}}, {{R to...}}, etc., templates have as their main purpose to populate a redirect subcategory (see Category:Wikipedia redirects) to aid in maintenance. A second goal is to help editors with concise explanations for such sortings. ...

Dicklyon (talk) 09:49, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

The way I see it, if a bot made an edit that changed the capitalisation and nothing else would it be seen as a cosmetic edit? If no, then it's a miscapitalisation. If yes, then it's another valid capitalisation that is not incorrect but simply not preferred. Something like New york is a miscapitalisation, something like LASER is not. In this case, editing a page solely to change "NFL Draft" to "NFL draft" is not fixing an incorrect capitalisation but changing a non-preferred capitalisation to a preferred capitalisation (given that which to use is a stylistic choice made by individual authors/publications) so {{R from other capitalisation}} is correct. Thryduulf (talk) 12:33, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Changing case in article text per guidelines is never what's generally considered "cosmetic". Your comments portray an extreme outlier position, essentially calling 90% of my work on WP a waste of time, and are not really responsive to the question. This does help me understand your reactions in other discussions, though, so I appreciate hearing it. Dicklyon (talk) 02:41, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

The way I see it, if a bot made an edit that changed the capitalisation and nothing else would it be seen as a cosmetic edit?: Per WP:COSMETIC:

A cosmetic edit is one that doesn't change the output HTML or readable text of a page.

Changing case does change the readable text. —Bagumba (talk) 03:00, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

A bot that bypassed redirects to change the displayed text from one capitalisation to a different capitalisation when both forms are used in reliable sources would absolutely be denied because neither capitalisation is incorrect, even if one of them is preferred based on style guidelines. It might not be technically a cosmetic bot, but it certainly is contrary to WP:NOTBROKEN. If that is the type of edit you are doing manually, then yes you are wasting your time. {{R from incorrect capitalisation}} should be reserved for redirects that are unambiguous errors, not merely a non-preferred style. Thryduulf (talk) 03:08, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

WP:NOTBROKEN is not applicable, as that deals with changing a redirect to a piped link: However, changing to a piped link is beneficial only in a few cases. This is not what is happening. Instead of linking directly to a redirect like 2024 NFL Draft, it is being replaced by its _target 2024 NFL draft, using the actual page title with the community-approved capitalization. There is no added piping to avoid a redirect; it's bypassing the redirect altogether. —Bagumba (talk) 04:33, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Stop wikilawyering. Editing an article solely to change the capitalisation from one correct form to another correct form, even if only one of those forms is in accordance with a style guideline, is an edit that would not be approved for a bot and is a waste of a human's time (although you are free to choose to waste your own time if you wish, do not encourage other editors to waste theirs). Neither form is incorrect and so redirects from one such form to another such form should not be tagged with {{R from incorrect capitalisation}}. Incorrect capitalisations are those that are not found in reliable sources. If multiple style guidelines disagree over which form to use, neither is incorrect. Thryduulf (talk) 04:58, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

If you don't like the MOS, change it. —Bagumba (talk) 05:07, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

I have no objection with the manual of style. I have an objection to treating the manual of style as if it was the unwaveringly authority on correct English usage. Thryduulf (talk) 12:06, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Without ploughing through all of this, I'll just answer the OP: Does this mean an error with respect to Wikipedia guidelines such as MOS:CAPS? Or an error in some broader or more absolute sense? It means the former. There really is no basis (because English lacks an official standards body unlike some languages) on which WP could declare something an error/wrong/mis-/incorrect/faulty with regard to "the real world", other than things that are obviously typos, like "UNIted States". It's not our job. Even off-site "authorities" on English usage all contradict each other on virtually everything, so it simply is not possible for our MoS or anything that pertains to it (like templates for sorting the compliant from the guideline-faulty) to be referring to anything but WP's internal writing style. R from other capitalization is for when there is doubt; e.g. many of the zillion cases we end up arguing about for one reason or another at RM; the version that doesn't "win" should get that template, not the miscapitalization template in the average case. (There are, though, a number of boneheaded cases where some heated argument transpires, yet there actually is no doubt at all, judging from the available source usage + WP's own ruleset that capitalizing something is, for WP intents and purposes, a mistake). And why isn't there a corresponding Template:R from under-capitalization? Because there's basically no such thing here. WP's default is to use lower case, every time, all the time, unless and until usage for some specific case is demonstrated to be "consistently capitalized in a substantial majority of independent reliable sources". If you ever run across something that is a redirect from an upper-case form to a lower-case actual article, but it's a case in which it is provable that almost all the sources (not just specialist material) capitalizes, then there would be no reason to tag it with "R from under-capitalization", but instead to go RM it.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  05:40, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

My (non-expert) understanding of it is that "miscapitalization" is for errors like "UNIted States" that are incorrect everywhere, while "other capitalization" is for titles that are valid in English, used by sources etc but aren't the one capitalization preferred by our MOS. Other style guides I know don't state that different capitalizations are wrong, just not the preferred usage for their publication. Because I'm bored, I dug out my old copies of The Associated Press Stylebook and The New York Times Manual of Style and Usage. The AP Stylebook is full of "in general", "preferred", and "acceptable" while the NYT manual leans heavily on "normally" and "may be used" with a forward making it clear that these are guides, not rules with rigid rights and wrongs. Our own MOS also heavily uses "prefer" while rarely saying that a different option is wrong.

Maybe it would be better if we moved these templates to {{r from incorrect capitalization}} and {{r from alternative capitalization}}? Otherwise, maybe further breaking them down into multiple templates for each type of capitalization issue could make it easier on maintenance. We just want to make sure we aren't saying that capitalizations used in other places are wrong, rather than just not in line with the stylistic choices we've made as a publication. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 16:53, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

I suppose there are really four types of redirect from different capitalisations:

1. Ones that are incorrect everywhere, e.g. New york
2. Ones that are correct but not preferred by our style guidelines, e.g. NFL Draft
3. Ones that are correct but which our style guidelines take no position on (I can't think of an example off the top of my head).
4. Ones that may or may not be correct and/or in accordance with style guidelines, depending on context (e.g. Parallel Universe redirecting to the disambiguation page Parallel universe);

The current templates distinguish type 1 from the others, and they should be tagged as {{R from incorrect capitalisation}}, but do not distinguish between types 2, 3 and 4, all using {{R from other capitalisation}}. I'm unsure if it is worth the effort to do change this. Thryduulf (talk) 17:37, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

For #4, it seems that {{R from ambiguous term}} should be used, with no judgement on the redirect's capitalization possible, given that it's context specific.—Bagumba (talk) 04:17, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

For 1–3, MOS:CAPS take the stance that capitalization is either necessarary or it's not: Wikipedia avoids unnecessary capitalization. So 3 could be more of a case that the community has not or cannot reach consensus for a given term. From a maintenance perspective, I see the following cases:

I. Change case of links due to it being incorrect everywhere, or unnecessary by MOS:CAPS standards.

II. Do nothing: No consensus or consensus against changing case on WP.

So either we align existing templates and categories with this maintenance view on capitalization, or we can introduce new categories (either with existing or new templates)—Bagumba (talk) 04:32, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

While most type 4 reidrects are also going be ambiguous, it's possible that there will be examples when it isn't (e.g. if an article covers both a generic thing and a specific Thing) and there are occasions when we intentionally link to dab pages - sometimes the capitalisation of that link will matter, sometimes it won't.

From a maintenance perspective I think there are actually three cases:

I. Actively seek out and change the case to avoid the redirect (corresponds to type 1 and some type 4)

II. Change the case when making other changes the article, but actively seeking them out is usually going to be busywork (corresponds to type 2 and some type 4)

III. Do nothing (corresponds to type 3 and some type 4). Thryduulf (talk) 04:46, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Your phrase "actively seeking them out is usually going to be busywork" denigrates the hard work of gnomes in improving the encyclopedia, implicitly saying busywork, or seeking out things to improve, is of little value. Yet many of us do that, feeling that we're making a positive difference. Dicklyon (talk) 09:56, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

As someone who does much gnoming work I'm definitely not one to denigrate that type of edit. My point is simply that changing from a spelling that is not incorrect but not preferred to a spelling that is equally correct but preferred, without making any other improvements to an article, is usually busywork. If you want to spend your time changing capitalisation without other changes, then spending the time changing capitalisations that are actually incorrect will be of much greater benefit to the encyclopaedia. Thryduulf (talk) 11:52, 27 March 2024 (UTC)