Difference between revisions of "Template talk:PublicationFields:Title"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
(So let me try start discussions right at appropriate places: should "with" really be regularized to "With"?) |
(→Capitalize "with"?: Prior conversation) |
||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
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 [[wikipedia:capitalization|capitalization]], and certainly the prevailing (though not overwhelmingly) [http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/edit/tp_search.cgi?TERM_1=%20with%20&USE_1=title practice in ISFDB is not to capitalize it]. So, change the rule, or all those ''Meeting with Medusa''s?--[[User:JVjr|JV]][[User talk:JVjr|jr]] 09:23, 11 Apr 2007 (CDT) | 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 [[wikipedia:capitalization|capitalization]], and certainly the prevailing (though not overwhelmingly) [http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/edit/tp_search.cgi?TERM_1=%20with%20&USE_1=title practice in ISFDB is not to capitalize it]. So, change the rule, or all those ''Meeting with Medusa''s?--[[User:JVjr|JV]][[User talk:JVjr|jr]] 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)? 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. [[User:Mike Christie|Mike Christie]] [[User_talk:Mike Christie|(talk)]] 10:50, 11 Apr 2007 (CDT) | ||
Revision as of 11:50, 11 April 2007
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)? 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)