Forum:Proper grammar vs. our current policy

Forums: Index > Wiki discussion > Proper grammar vs. our current policy

This was brought to my attention via Gunny and the Wild Bill's sidearm (Fallout 3) page and the Wild Bill's Sidearm (Fallout Shelter) page. There is a serious grammar error in our policy and I believe this needs to be remedied before Fallout 4 is released. In-game it is properly listed with sidearm in caps as it is part of the proper name. Please refer to the talk page of Wild Bill's Sidearm (Fallout Shelter) for further info on this. But as far as proper grammar goes, sidearm should be capitalized as it is part of the proper noun.--Kingclyde (talk) 20:55, June 27, 2015 (UTC)

Comments

Fine, change it to Sidearm. Seems ok too. Can't be really bothered by it anymore. Let's not forget the Captain's sidearm then. Jspoel 21:27, June 27, 2015 (UTC)

Does this mean we throw out our capitalization policy? Does it just apply to "X's sidearm"? Personally I see both Wild Bill's sidearm and Captain's sidearm as just "sidearms belonging to Wild Bill/the Captain" rather than it's actual name. Dave's son is, for example, the son of Dave. It is highly unlikely that Dave would name his son "Dave's Son" (unless he is incredibly arrogant). I think the system we have currently works. I have never really been a fan of case by case stuff, as it just leads to whoever's swinging the biggest stick getting what they want in specific instances, so in general I prefer it if we have a concrete rule in place.

I think we should be able to tell the difference between a name (e.g. This Machine) and a designation (e.g. Wild Bill's sidearm) without too much difficulty, but it does rely on some level of speculation. It may be worth capitalizing items/weapons/ect as they appear in game, instead of how we interpret them. JASPER//"Do you like hurting other people?" 21:38, June 27, 2015 (UTC)

I am reminded about the "debate" on policy interpretation where we had to make clear that more general rules give way to the more specific rule.

In this case, the rules of English are clear, but they are trumped by the more specific rule of what rules apply here.

For the record, I think out capitalisation policy is wrong, I would suggest we cap all in game items in all words. However as a matter of policy as it stands today, I think the correct rule to apply is clear and indisputable. The Gannon family Power armor" example is specifically cited as being correct, and Wild Bill's sidearm clearly falls into the same hole.

If we are going to do a change, the rule has to be applicable to all pages that fall into a similar pattern - Ganon family Power Armor, Pensylvania avenue. It can't be a one off 80.1.218.63 22:54, June 27, 2015 (UTC)

I believe that's Clyde's intent here, to start that discussion of should we change the policy. Correct me if I'm wrong though.

I understand Jasper's points, too and see how it can easily be interpreted that way. The crux of the issue, as I stated on the article talk page is essentially this: Is it a "thing" given a name with a proper noun phrase in-game; Is it a "thing" given a name with a proper noun phrase out of the game; Is it a "thing" given a name with a proper noun phrase arbitrarily by us; or should we just find a simple solution to avoid trying to parse whether something is a proper noun in-game or out? The Gunny   22:02, June 27, 2015 (UTC)

I would never use what is capitalized in-game, to determine what constitutes a proper noun or not. Developers have a very well deserved generalization, to get everything from punctuation to spelling completely wrong - especially when it comes to subtitles.

If we start accepting that in-game grammar dictates our content over English conventions, we might as well and accept misspellings and improper use of punctuation/typography, too. Precedents seen on wikis such as The Elder Scrolls wiki alludes to this inevitably happening - a good example is that in Skyrim, the developers referred to dragons as "Worms..." in one case, instead of "Wyrms..." - so now, the wiki frequently uses this misspelling in referring to Skyrim dragons as "Worms," which they are not and everyone knows it.

I honestly think users are making the distinction of proper nouns, much harder than need be. Would you capitalize 'corporation' in Nuka Cola corporation? No. If some wasteland kid takes over a cavern, would you capitalize 'cave' in Billy's Cave? Yes. Would you capitalize the 'mine' in the Teraclu mine? No. Sometimes it does get a bit tricky, but in the case that brought this forum into existence? 'Sidearm' clearly needs to be undercapped, unless there is some evidence that Wild Bill specifically called his firearm that. User:Sarkhan the Sojourner 22:38, June 27, 2015 (UTC)

“The 'Gannon family Power armor' example is specifically cited as being correct”

I'm probably being overly pedantic, but as a non-regular here this quote threw me off. The example is "Gannon family Tesla armor", not "Power armor". "Tesla" is a guy's name so it's capitalized, while "Gannon family power armor" would be lowercase as "power armor" is just a class of armor. 162.252.201.32 05:26, July 3, 2015 (UTC)

“Would you capitalize 'corporation' in Nuka Cola corporation? No.”

Wikipedia do in Apple Corps, and when I look at the official beatles website, Corps is again capitalised, despite meaning corporation. The BBC again has Coprortaion capitalised on Wikipedia, and in their annual report use Corporation with a big C, even when used in the phrase " with the Corporation". NBC also sees "Company" capitalised on Wikipedia and the press release announcing its creation also uses Company with a big C. So based on real world usage, yes, I would capitalise Nuka Cola Corporation with all caps, on the assumption that Nuka Cola Corporation is its real, full name (rather than describing Nuka Cola Inc. as a corporation). Agent c (talk) 23:04, June 27, 2015 (UTC)

Bad example - I had forgotten that the business was not just called 'Nuka Cola'. My other examples still stand, and I will replace that example with not capitalizing the 'plant' in Nuka Cola plant. User:Sarkhan the Sojourner 23:17, June 27, 2015 (UTC)

Actually, I think it stands as a good example as to how our policy is wrong. Corporation/Company is a general term, so the policy would suggest "British Broadcasting corporation" is correct, it would also suggest "Pensylvania avenue" is correct. Both are not correct. Agent c (talk) 23:22, June 27, 2015 (UTC)

We have tens of thousands of article-pages. There are going to be inconsistencies - even if said inconsistencies are used to throw the baby out with the bathwater and start anew, there will just be new inconsistencies. Just something that has to be lived with in the wiki-life of a typical editor.

Does not mean that our policies are wrong. It just means that we, as humans, are inherently flawed, and that we need to remain diligent to keep our inconsistencies down. Also, the British Broadcasting Corporation/Company is their full-name - they call themselves the BBC, making that an obvious one. Pennsylvania Avenue is also correct, under our current policies, because the way we name our streets and stuff, we include everything from Rd. to Avenue as part of the name. However, avenue by itself would definitely not be capitalized. Context and a familiarity with certain aspects of modern civilization are needed to figure out certain proper nouns - the reason why I said there are a few tricky cases. User:Sarkhan the Sojourner 23:37, June 27, 2015 (UTC)

I've not suggested in-game capitalization be used at all either. The issue I have is if something in-game is a proper noun phrase or not. Simple as that. The Gunny   23:39, June 27, 2015 (UTC)

Never said that you did. When I made that statement, I was referring to comments such as: "In-game it is properly listed with sidearm in caps as it is part of the proper name." User:Sarkhan the Sojourner 23:41, June 27, 2015 (UTC)

If you would have read the very next sentence Leon, you would have noticed that I made my point as to why we are here. "But as far as proper grammar goes, sidearm should be capitalized as it is part of the proper noun." Please don't change why I posted this. We have an English grammar issue here and it seems apparent that no one wishes to address this. I'm not worried about in-game. I should never have included that as now it has tainted peoples views more that they already were. Personally, I dislike poor grammar. It bothers me to no end. I believe we need to fix it.--Kingclyde (talk) 23:53, June 27, 2015 (UTC) ┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘The way I see it, we have a couple of options:

1. We leave the existing policy as is, and have to deal with instances where some of us believe that the grammar is incorrect with the usage of proper nouns.
2. We reinterpret the existing policy, giving a better example or proper/common noun usage and change only those articles that are clearly proper noun phrases.
3. We change the policy so it is clear on proper noun usage, one way or the other, whether that's ignoring them or enforcing them.
4. We change policy on page naming completely. That could be as simple as capping all article names, as most publications do, or capping uniques only, or some other variation.

The conversation need to revolve around do we do any of those things, and if we do, which one do we do? The Gunny   00:09, June 28, 2015 (UTC)

1. Deal with them how? Deal with it as in, "Just accepting it." or deal with it as in making an exception?
2. Experience tells me leaving it to interpretation will lead us back here eventually.
3. I'm for changing it regarding proper noun usage, as I believe we're responsible in spotting exceptions, but I recognize the potential for fuss.
4. I'd rather we stick with the current than start anew, save us time and frustration. --The Ever Ruler (talk) 01:06, June 28, 2015 (UTC)

“Does not mean that our policies are wrong.”

When the policy is telling us to do something that is incorrect, then its not an "inconsistency", inconsistency would be selectively following the policy. Agent c (talk) 00:07, June 28, 2015 (UTC)

My apologies, Clyde - you are right in your assessment, although I would like to think that what I said is relevant in the light as an independent statement.

As for the policy, in response to Chad, I do not see anything incorrect about them. I just read the policy over again, and I believe it is rather accurate. Nothing in our currently-written policies contradict what brought this forum up, and it also does not contradict any of the examples you and I have brought up. Maybe I am missing something, if you are able to cite what is incorrect with our established policy.

As for Gunny's suggestions, I once again am looking at the policies, and I see absolutely nothing worth removing/re-writing. Maybe a few clarification additions, but I do not think anything drastic is needed. When it comes to inconsistencies, we have never had any serious problems. I spear-headed a massive change a while back here on Nukapedia, and re-named many articles that were improperly capped/uncapped without any controversy. I see no reason why any other user would find red-tape where none has been found in the past. User:Sarkhan the Sojourner 01:46, June 28, 2015 (UTC)

The "red tape" came in the form of a reversion war over a page name. There's obviously some disagreement here, so we're probably better off figuring it out. As for both your's, and Ever's other comments, I'd simply prefer that we make a determination of what constitutes a proper name (proper noun phrase) and just go from there. To some, Wild Bill's Sidearm is a proper noun phrase as it's the entire name of a uniquely named specific item. To others, it's not a proper noun phrase. That's what we really need to mesh out here, and then apply it to any other pages under consideration. The Gunny   02:05, June 28, 2015 (UTC)

In this specific case, I would look at already established precedents. I would use weapons such as Elijah's L.A.E.R. as an example towards the game giving unique weapons a generic name over an actual name given by their owner; except that this is Obsidian, and they might follow different rules as Bethesda does. Okay; so instead, I am going to focus on Fallout 3 weapons:

1. Colonel Autumn's 10mm pistol
2. Callahan's magnum
3. Paulson's revolver
4. Sydney's 10mm SMG
5. Lincoln's repeater
6. Reservist's rifle

The list I provided above shows that Wild Bill's sidearm is not a unique mention in-name - Bethesda has also shown an established normalcy for specifying ownership in regards to unique weapons - in every single case, the ownership elaboration is because there is in-game lore behind each of the weapons listed above.

It would be different if, for instance, Callahan's magnum was instead called the "Callahan Magnum," or similar. But instead, we have precedents in-place to establish only ownership - not that the weapons are actually named like this. And ownership of an item does not dictate a proper noun. User:Sarkhan the Sojourner 03:29, June 28, 2015 (UTC)

The trouble is, that "Colonel Autumn's 10mm Pistol" and "10mm Pistol" are names of specific 10mm pistols. Even when a generic word is used, if it's actually part of the name, then it too should be capitalized. Which, incidentally, is the same reason why we don't spell his name "colonel autumn". It's the same rule that applies with real-world items that incorporate generic words into the name of the product. For example, Nintendo's first console isn't called Nintendo entertainment system; but rather, Nintendo Entertainment System. Digital Utopia (talk) 05:32, June 28, 2015 (UTC)

In a more specific example of proper noun phrase usage, take the M3A1 Scout Car. Its official standard nomenclature is Car, Scout, M3A1, (4 x 4), it is alternately officially called Scout Car M3A1 and is commonly referred to as M3A1 Scout Car (warning: some of those links are .pdf files). One thing all those names have in common, even the "unofficial" ones, is that they are treated as a proper noun phrase. I understand that applying standard military nomenclature norms to a game wiki is quite a tangent, but it's to illustrate how these types of proper nouns are used. So again, to me the question still is: Does the phrase used to "name" the weapon constitute a proper noun phrase? A simple litmus test would be this: What is the name of the weapon? If the answer is <insert name, because it actually has one> then it's a proper noun phrase. If the answer is <none, because it's generic> then it's not a proper noun phrase. Go ahead. Ask yourself this in your head: What is the name of Callahan's magnum? If the answer is "Callahan's Magnum" and not "it doesn't have a name", then there's your answer. The Gunny   15:57, June 28, 2015 (UTC)

Military equipment and technology are some of those exceptions I was speaking of, which can sometimes make proper nouns a bit tricky. The U.S. military can be rather... contrived, at times, and completely abandons proper English on a regular basis.

As for the Litmus test, that is not how it works when it comes to proper English. There are defaults for almost every English convention, in cases where proper usage cannot be verified, that must be taken into consideration: for example, one is not supposed to shorten words in their writings, before writing the entire thing first. A perfect example is that before saying F.E.V., it is proper to spell it out as Forced Evolutionary Virus earlier on. However, when F.E.V. is not spelled out beforehand, and we are unsure as to whether or not F.E.V. could or could not be spelled out, then the default is never that the actual name is F.E.V. - the default is that the writer is wrong.

When it comes to proper nouns, the same defaults apply. These guns have only had ownership established - and as I said, ownership does not dictate proper nouns. Since only ownership has been established, and there is no confirmation that these weapons were actually named as so because of their previous owners, then the default is that they do not have a known name.

• Tl;dr? It boils down to us being able to verify ownership in the name. Anything more than that, is speculation. English defaults make this a pretty clear case. User:Sarkhan the Sojourner 17:07, June 28, 2015 (UTC)

I'm not a regular here and don't really care and stuff. But I feel like calling something a proper noun is a bit subjective. I could say "the rifle" and just mean "the weapon on the table that's not a pistol, knife or club", while someone else could consider every other rifle to be "a rifle" or "that rifle", but this particular rifle is "The Rifle". Therefore the "correctness" of whether something is a name or not could legitimately depend on the speaker, and not common practice, even when two different people are talking about the same object.

For example, Callahan is unlikely to refer to his own gun as "Callahan's Magnum". "I'm gonna shoot you with Callahan's Magnum!" doesn't sound right. He would likely say "my magnum" or "Betty Sue" or whatever. On the other hand, Hannibal Hamlin would quite plausibly consider Lincoln's Repeater to be the name of a sacred object. "Lincoln's Repeater shall lead us to victory against the slaver scum!"

So really, it's not even accurate to say there could be a "canon" answer for many weapons, since the in-universe answer could change per-person.

Then there's the software engineer in me. "An assault rifle" is one of the many instances of the "Assault Rifle" template. So the page title of Assault rifle (Fallout_3) correctly refers to both the proper noun (the class name) and the improper noun (the instance description) at the same time.

At the end of the day, I don't think it matters one way or another. I'd just pick something and stick with it. The obvious thing would be to leave it alone so nobody has to edit a bazillion article titles. 162.252.201.32 05:26, July 3, 2015 (UTC)

Personally my view is if it is an ownership (Callahan's magnum, Autumn's 10mm, Wild Bill's sidearm) it should be lowercase as (like the anon above me said "Callahan is unlikely to refer to his own gun as "Callahan's Magnum."" other's would, however, but just to state ownership and not to name it. Burnmaster is a name, Callahan's magnum is not. Ol' Painless is a name, Autumn's 10mm is not.
I own a baseball bat. I (only slightly ironically) call it/her Patricia. Patricia is a proper noun, but if you were to say "Jasper's baseball bat" that would not be.
The real issue is (like gunny says) that we cannot really (and likely will never) agree on if these count as proper names. If we stay here then we will likely only go in circles, so I assume this will be going to vote very soon. When it does I propose we first run a poll asking "Should we consider ownership names (e.g. Callahan's magnum, Wild Bill's sidearm, Anyone's anything) to be the true name of the weapon?" (or similar). If the feedback is yes, then all ownership names would be fully capitalized where as if it says no then none would be. Even if we still run a vote to see if we change our policy further it would help to have this as a groundwork.JASPER//"Do you like hurting other people?" 22:15, July 3, 2015 (UTC)

I think it boils down to how one looks at things. The current policy seems to want to make as much of a name, as completely generic as possible, viewing game object names as a description, instead of an actual name. So, if the name of the object is "Wild Bill's Sidearm", then the policy dictates that everything other than the proper name, should be lower-case. The conflict to the policy is based on the idea that each object's name, is an actual name. So Colonel Autumn's 10mm Pistol, and 10mm Pistol are both names of specific 10mm pistols. A more real life example of this - would be coming across a business named "Jasper's Restaurant". The current policy dictates that it should be referenced as "Jasper's restaurant", which is still accurate, but not as proper. Digital Utopia (talk) 16:36, July 5, 2015 (UTC)

I am going to take perspective aside, and look at what has been established as fact, and what has not been established as fact. The factual information in this case, is that ownership has been established in regards to Wild Bill's sidearm. What is not factual information, and constitutes as speculation, is that Wild Bill himself, named his weapon 'Wild Bill's Sidearm'. Ownership, when taking proper English conventions into account, has absolutely 0 bearing as to whether or not a noun is considered proper or not.

So taking the factual information alongside the non-factual information, the only thing that can be confirmed, is ownership - not that 'sidearm' should be considered part of the weapon's name. Since that assumption is not backed up by anything other than personal perception, said perception can only be one thing: speculation; something that we do not allow on this wiki. User:Sarkhan the Sojourner 16:45, July 5, 2015 (UTC)

On the contrary, the only thing that has been established as fact, is the name chosen by Bethesda/Obsidian. Anything else would be speculation to some degree - as well as being open to interpretation and conflict. Take Dot's Diner for example, and compare that to Grub n' Gulp rest stop. The former is shown capitalized on a sign, and as a page title, while the latter is shown capitalized in the location text, but not the title. Why? Because someone speculated that "rest stop" wasn't part of the name of the place, and chose to de-capitalize it - even though it's shown capitalized in game. But not having extra evidence, didn't stop Aerotech_Office_Park from existing.

See, this is what I'm talking about - the decision to second-guess the actual name of game objects, by arbitrarily picking what should and shouldn't be capitalized, just ends up deep-sixing consistency. Because, instead of letting the game itself be your guide, you're leaving it up to the individual, and on a wiki - with presumably numerous individuals, you just end up with the above...logic vacation.Digital Utopia (talk) 18:19, July 5, 2015 (UTC)

The actual problem, is something that you just help prove - that many here do not understand proper grammar as much as they would like to believe. I do not say that to be mean - but it is a hard truth that is revealed when users say things like right now, where you said that ownership has not been proven. Allow me to explain: an apostrophe is for three things, and the relevant one here is that it dictates possession. So its use in 'Wild Bill's sidearm', does indeed prove ownership. That is a fact that cannot be disputed.

As for your examples, there a myriad of points that need to be taken into account:

1. It not rare, or even uncommon, for people to misuse the English language. Business-owners are not exempt from this general rule of thumb.
2. There are exceptions, such as if Billy specifically names his cave 'Billy's Cave', instead of the cave being known by the public as 'Billy's cave', in which the first becomes proper. However, the default is that 'cave' would be de-capped. Same would be the default for 'Ray's restaurant', 'Tom's thrift-store', etc. etc. etc. Defaults in regards to English conventions, are not a pick & choose decision. They are there as a fall-back specifically in cases where not enough information has been compiled to make a full-knowledge decision.
3. Developers cannot be trusted to use proper grammar - so just because they decide to capitalize certain words, does not mean that we have an excuse to ignore proper English conventions. For instance: Bethesda capitalizes the word 'vault', in most, if not every single case seen in Fallout 3. When being used as a general noun, 'vault' most certainly does not warrant a capitalization and referral to as a proper noun. That is a violation of proper grammar. However, do not mistake this for referring to a specific noun - saying Vault 101 is fine, for instance. Saying the Vault, as short-hand for the referral of a specific vault, is also fine.

Ultimately, Nukapedia can do whatever it wants should the community decide it. Many popular and large wikis use improper typography and grammar in-order to make their wikis look visually nicer. It comes down to either aesthetics over professionalism, or vice verca. User:Sarkhan the Sojourner 19:57, July 5, 2015 (UTC)