Template talk:PublicationFields:Title

Capitalize "with"?

Currently, "with" is not in the list of words not to be capitalized in titles, so apparently it should be changed to "With". However, this doesn't seem to go with most rules for capitalization, and certainly the prevailing (though not overwhelmingly) practice in ISFDB is not to capitalize it. So, change the rule, or all those Meeting with Medusas?--JVjr 09:23, 11 Apr 2007 (CDT)

There was a conversation about this at User_talk:BLongley#Capitalisation; it was apparent then that "With" was on the border. I've seen seen it uncapped in some pubs, but capped in others. Is there a standard for this in some bibliographic document somewhere on the web?

By the way, would we be better having this conversation at ISFDB:Rules and standards discussions (which I've just realized usurps the function of the old Bibliographic Rules page; must do something about that)? Mike Christie (talk) 10:50, 11 Apr 2007 (CDT)

I was thinking along the same lines the other night. We probably want to merge the two, although I am not sure which name would be better. Ahasuerus 18:05, 11 Apr 2007 (CDT)

I ask because not everyone may have this template on their watchlist, and if we're going to switch over to watchlisting as opposed to monitoring recent changes, a central location is probably better. Just a thought. Mike Christie (talk) 10:50, 11 Apr 2007 (CDT)

Feel free to move it there. I'm on the side of "with" rather than "With", but I'm also rather disappointed with the lack of response to my "regularization" question: and I'm leaving "E.T." rather than "E. T." for another rant later! (The "E.T.:" looks AWFUL to me!) BLongley 17:37, 11 Apr 2007 (CDT)

I have been meaning to raise the "with" issue for a few weeks now. I too support the lowercase solution, although I am not too worried about it since we can always run a simple database conversion if and when we decide to add/subtract from the Offical Lowercase List. Ahasuerus 18:05, 11 Apr 2007 (CDT)