The following discussions are requested to have community-wide attention:
You can sign up to receive a user talk page invitation to participate in discussions of interest to you, see Wikipedia:Feedback request service
Should the threshold for capitalization of article titles in NCCAPS be reduced?
Current wording
For multiword page titles, one should leave the second and subsequent words in lowercase unless the title phrase is a proper name that would always occur capitalized, even mid-sentence. (Consensus is currently to treat the threshold for such as about 90%.)
Proposed wording
For multiword page titles, one should consider what sources use, particularly midsentence. If a substantial majority of sources (defined as about [depends on option]) leave the title capitalized, the title phrase can be considered a proper name in most cases. If that substantial majority is not reached, leave the second and subsequent words in lowercase.
Option A: Status quo; 90–95% capitalized.
Option B: 75–80% capitalized.
Option C: 2/3–70% capitalized.
Option D: 60% capitalized.
Discussion
Support, ideally option C or D as proposer. My reasoning is explained at this village pump thread. I originally supported a more radical version (instead of 70%/two-thirds, 51%), but the comments there and at the original discussion have persuaded me to adopt a more moderate stance with a greater chance of passing. TL;DR: Ignoring the vast majority of sources to uphold some editors' interpretation of grammar rules goes against the fundamental principles of Wikipedia. 🐔ChicdatBawk to me!10:43, 13 April 2025 (UTC)
Does WP:GNG allow for album reviews containing substantive, in-depth analysis to ground the notability of a song article, or does the categorical prohibition in WP:NSONG apply?
If a song article has substantive in-depth coverage across multiple reliable sources, but they are all album reviews, it can still be notable under WP:GNG despite plainly failing WP:NSONG. WP:NSONG should be modified to remove the prohibition on album reviews to establish notability, and refer to WP:SIGCOV.
A song being substantively covered across multiple reliably-sourced album reviews is not a sufficient basis for notability—a notable song should be the subject of multiple non-trivial published works. NSONG should be clarified as superseding GNG for songs.
No change is necessary and the current wording of WP:NSONG is sufficiently clear (please explain your rationale).
Having a guideline for notability of newspapers addresses the challenge of supporting recent increased interest in developing Wikipedia's relationship with fact-checking, journalism, reliable media, and newspapers in particular.
One existing closely related guideline is for books. Here is that, and several comparable essays for media.
Add the tag {{rfc|xxx}} at the top of a talk page section, where "xxx" is the category abbreviation. The different category abbreviations that should be used with {{rfc}} are listed above in parenthesis. Multiple categories are separated by a vertical pipe. For example, {{rfc|xxx|yyy}}, where "xxx" is the first category and "yyy" is the second category.
