Talk:House system at the California Institute of Technology

Capitalization

I did some case fixing, but got reverted. Per MOS:CAPS, we only cap what's pretty consistently capped in reliable sources. If you look at book searches such as "north houses" "south houses" caltech and "house system" caltech, it's apparent that "house" is seldom treated as a proper noun; it's capped when part of a name (like "Lloyd House", where I was a member, class of '74), but not in "house system", "south houses", etc. Sometimes North and South are capped, but not enough to pass Wikipedia's threshold as described in MOS:CAPS.

@Antony-22 and DjTj81: who reverted me here and at History of the Caltech House system. You guys should say why or whether you think that capitalization here fits WP's style. Dicklyon (talk) 01:15, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

This is a clear case of unnecessary capitalization. Dicklyon (talk · contribs) you have correctly edited the page according to Wiki policy. Just because CalTech follows its own capitalization scheme doesn't mean we conform to it here on Wikipedia. WP:Capitalization is clear on that. Cristiano Tomás (talk) 03:31, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, Christiano. But it's always Caltech; never CalTech. Dicklyon (talk) 04:30, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

In his revert edit summary, DjTj81 wrote that the term "House" is capitalized in Caltech documents, with an example link. But there are numerous examples where they don't cap it, too, e.g.: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12]. And anyway, it's not what Caltech does that's relevant to WP guidelines; we go by independent sources, per MOS:CAPS. Dicklyon (talk) 05:10, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

South Houses and North Houses are proper nouns and not descriptive; they're the formal names of the two buildings. I'd have to take some time to find RS supporting this. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 02:19, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

No rush. If you find that these are consistently capitalized in independent reliable sources, let us know. But they're not. Dicklyon (talk) 05:53, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

@Dicklyon: I went through the sources I used to write History of the Caltech house system. The following independent sources capitalize South/North Houses: [13] [14] [15] [16] [17]. The Caltech Catalog also uses capitals [18], while this source [19] is unusual in that is capitalizes Houses but uses lowercase south/north. The offline Wyllie book generally uses other terms to refer to the buildings, and the other sources don't mention South/North Houses. From the links you yourself posted above, every single one that mentions them uses capitals for South/North Houses, and this one [20] even uses the "South Hovses" variant.

These sources use South/North Houses as a proper name, and according to MOS:CAPS, "proper names, which can be either single words or phrases, are typically capitalized". It also meets the "substantial majority of independent, reliable sources" bar. So I'm going to revert the capitalization changes for "South Houses" and "North Houses". Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 23:36, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Some of those do treat South/North Houses as proper names. But those are mostly not independent of the topic, being Caltech reports and such, and the capping is not consistent. The first one you cite doesn't mention South or North at all. The SURF report it links to uses both uppercase and lowercase south and north, so is not even internally consistent. They also cap "Rotation", because it's an important concept in the house system (see WP:SSF), not because it's a proper name. The WJE one has a link to a "project brochure" that calls them "Caltech South Undergraduate Houses"; they wouldn't do that if they thought "South Houses" was a proper name. The catalog doesn't seem to mention "South Houses" nor "North Houses", but does mention the "South House laundry room"; if they thought "South Houses" was a proper name, why didn't they say "South Houses laundry room"? Look at independent book sources and you see mostly lowercase. Dicklyon (talk) 04:46, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

The first five links I posted are independent. Publications by students are not self-published by Caltech itself as an organization, and also note that ASCIT is a separate incorporated 501(c)(3) organization than Caltech itself. In general, for very basic facts like this, "official" sources and those close to the subject are the most reliable, and are explicitly allowed by WP:SELFSOURCE. The Google searches you link to bring up are things like "The Insider's Guide to the Colleges", which has a few pages on each of a hundred or so colleges, which makes me doubt that they have the editorial oversight to actually figure out what the proper capitalization is. I'd consider a student who wrote a formal research text about it to be much more reliable. And Rotation is a proper noun in this context, as it refers to a specific event that recurs at a specific time, like Thanksgiving. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 08:27, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

I think you're mixing up style issues with facts and reliability; quite different things. And as I mentioned, there are other Caltech sources that don't cap north and south houses (e.g. CCF caps North and South but not houses; The Tech with "south houses"; the IHC with "north houses"; studentaffairs with "North houses"; [The Tech] again with "South houses"; and again with "north Houses", and again with "north houses"; etc.). When sources don't cap consistently, WP style is to use lowercase, not to invent reasons why it might be better to treat them as proper names even though sources often don't. These are knowledgeable sourcues at site:caltech.edu, not very independent, but clearly showing that even Caltech does not consistently cap these. Expanding the search you find lots more, though it becomes trickier to restrict the search to avoid unrelated uses of the phrases. Same issue with rotation, which is a fine thing to call the yearly process (also referred to as "Rotation Week", "a week called Rotation", "a week of rotation", "a process known as rotation", etc.), but it doesn't have a proper name like Thanksgiving. Dicklyon (talk) 23:16, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

I listed this discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters#Current to see if we can get more analysis or opinions. Dicklyon (talk) 05:46, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

MOS:CAPS itself requires a "substantial majority" of sources, not absolute consistency. It's sloppy work to pick out a couple of counterexamples haphazardly; as you know, the plural of anecdote is not data. If you were to write a script to analyze every issue of the Tech for capitalization, that would mean something.

Also, I read the essay you linked to, and I do not find it compelling. WP:V (and the closely related WP:RS) applies to every aspect of Wikipedia, including style, and as a core content policy it overrules everything else including the entire MOS and certainly an essay. This is essentially an iteration of the descriptive—prescriptive grammar debate, and arguments can be certainly be made about whether actual usage in sources, or a general (external) style guide, is more reliable as a source. That doesn't apply here because there is no style guide that mentions this case specifically; rather it falls under the general category of proper nouns. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 02:49, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

And please don't continually try to reinstate changes that do not have consensus. See WP:STATUSQUO. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 07:09, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

An argument on the policies WP:V and WP:RS omits WP:NPOV. While policy trumps guideline (such as the MOS) it only does so to the extent of any inconsistency. Independence of sources is addressed in policy and reflected in MOS:CAPS. There is no inconsistency in the requirements of MOS:CAPS, that reflect a broad community consensus on the issue, and that we only use caps when necessary. MOS:CAPS also gives guidance on how to determine this - in a way consistent with policy. WP:SSF reflects the matter of independence of sources in determining capitalisation. It is consistent with policy and guidance. When sources (ie organisations) directly or closely tied to the subject can't get their "shit in one sock" as to whether they should capitalise, it is strong evidence that capitalisation is not necessary per MOS:CAPS. On the actual issue of capitalising the "houses" (north or south), what I am seeing is a is a group of houses to the north and to the south (of some reference point). These name terms are purely descriptive. They are not true proper names. Authors might capitalise many terms that are descriptive in nature - frequently to distinguish the phrase in running text. This does not make same a proper name. Cinderella157 (talk) 12:50, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

@Cinderella157: MOS:CAPS requires a "substantial majority of independent, reliable sources" for capitalization. That criterion has been met per the discussion above.

Also, to be clear, the South Houses and North Houses are each structurally and architecturally a single building. Parts of each building are designated for individual student Houses, which are self-governance units with ~100 people each. They are used as proper names in sources in the same way that, say, the Grand Canyon is a proper name, even though many other canyons may be described as grand. Or the North and South Towers of the old World Trade Center. I believe the fact that they're grammatically plural may be confusing to editors who aren't familiar with them, even though they're each a single building. (Photos of the South Houses complex for the sake of illustration: 1, 2, 3) Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 22:52, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

I am not seeing that the criterion has been met. There certainly appears to be variability in capitalisation across the sources cited, even if they are not independent of the subject and in most cases, lack evidence of editorial oversight. Whether the terms are used in the same way as "Grand Canyon" or the Twin Towers is another issue. In those two cases, we would observe almost universal capitalisation in independent reliable sources. In one of the sources given here, the term "South Houses" is introduce in quotation marks, indicating it is being used as a particular phrase or term-of-art, rather than as a proper name. In that same link, the architect describes the south houses as "the buildings" (plural). Cinderella157 (talk) 00:08, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

@Cinderella157: We need to go back to the language of MOS:CAP. "Substantial majority" is not absolute consistency. There can be outliers causing variability across the sources, while at the same time a substantial majority of sources agree with each other. The former does not disprove the latter, and presenting a few counterexamples in a non-systematic way is prone to selection bias that makes the argument fallacious.

I systematically analyzed the sources for History of the Caltech house system, which I'd written some years ago, and I found that the substantial majority of sources, most of them technically independent, used capitalized South/North Houses. I also analyzed a set of sources that User:Dicklyon provided to prove a different point (that "house" and "house system" by themselves were not consistently capitalized), and found that every single one of them used capitalized South/North Houses. User:Dicklyon responded by posting three issues of the Tech that span 32 years, as well as two web pages across the hundreds on the Caltech website. These were apparently not collected systematically and are not representative of their respective corpuses as a whole, so this is a fallacious argument. A valid analysis would be to pick 10 or 20 issues of the Tech at random and analyze those for capitalization, or better yet to use a script to analyze all issues of the Tech or the entire Caltech website if you really care that much.

Also, please read the above discussion carefully before proceeding, as I have repeated several points that were made earlier. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 03:43, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

There are not many issues of the Tech that mention these phrases. Here is a search that finds those and some other campus pubs, showing pretty near 50% capping of "house" after "North" or "north". Similar for south. But it's better to look more widely; your sources are mostly not independent of Caltech, and a broader book search or web search shows that caps are definitely nowhere close to consistent there, and probably not in any corpus you want to choose. Dicklyon (talk) 04:07, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Also, by your logic, the building named "North Houses" would also include the Chandler Dining Hall (or whatever they've renamed it just now). A more common view is like it says here: "The most popular of these is Chandler dining hall. It is attached to the same building as the north houses..." The north houses are actually quite distinct buildings, have dining rooms that attach them, like Chandler, to a central kitchen building. It was all designed and built together, but the distinctness of the houses (see in the satellite view, for example), and their distinction from the south houses, is what the term conveys. Dicklyon (talk) 04:19, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Also note that after they were first built, they were referred to in the 1961 Big T as "student house", "new houses", and "old houses"; no north or south. In the 1962 Big T you see a few instances of capped "Houses", but still mostly lowercase and still no north and south. Eventually, "new" became inappropriate, so a different description was used. Nobody ever named them these things. Still capped houses, or north and south by the 1974 Big T (I only sampled a few). Dicklyon (talk) 04:33, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

In the 1973 Big T we have "the North Complex of student houses". For those who don't know, the Big T is the undergrad yearbook. Here. Dicklyon (talk) 04:43, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

I don't think usage from the 1960s is relevant because the North Houses were new and the terminology hadn't stabilized yet. There are alternative names used sometimes, such as South Undergraduate Complex, but that's not particularly relevant either. Yes, the three houses and Chandler/Browne are all part of the same building, as your quote says. It's an E-shaped building rather than a rectangular one, but still a connected one. The Caltech server seems to be down at the moment, so I'll take a look tomorrow. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 06:44, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

But "terminology hadn't stabilized" was my point. And it still hasn't is the rest of the point. Capitalization has increased, but is still clearly "optional", not "consistent". Nobody ever declared "North Houses" to be the official name of that complex, and nobody thinks of Chandler as part of the same building, or as part of the north houses in any case, in spite of their connectedness. The quote said it's "attached to the same building as the north houses [are attached to]", not part of the same building as the houses. Dicklyon (talk) 19:29, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

@Dicklyon: Now you're just making statements unsupported by sources. Nobody ever declared North Houses to be the official name of the complex? Nobody thinks of Chandler as part of the same building as the North Houses? And since terminology hadn't stabilized in the 1960s means it hasn't stabilized now? Again, "consistently capitalized in a substantial majority" of sources doesn't mean absolute consistency in all sources, so you're clearly not interested in following MOS:CAPS. Your arguments are all selection bias and WP:IDONTLIKEIT. I think we're at the WP:STICK point now. Please do not make "per talk page" edits declaring consensus when there is none. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 06:58, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Clarifying present issue

The OP was initiated as a central discussion after a reverts to generally correct over-capitalisation in this article and at History of the Caltech House system. I have not followed developments at the other article but most of the initial issues have been resolved save (most prominent) capitalisation of: north houses, south houses and rotation. Apart from those editors specifically involved in the initial reverts, two other editors have joined the discussion in support of the changes with both citing MOS:CAPS. Cinderella157 (talk) 10:39, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Comment: Considering the articles, their sourcing and searches I have conducted in course of the discussion, I am not reasonably satisfied that the articles meet WP:NOTABILITY to the extent that there is sufficient coverage in independent reliable sources. While I do not intent to pursue the matter of notability ATM, none of the sources cited in the articles are at sufficient arms-length to be considered independent. None, save perhaps the campus rag have any editorial oversight as to make them "reliable" (and then, they are not independent). There are a very few sources that might be identified by searching Google or Google Books that might satisfy the criteria. Even then, the opponent to the move would dispute their "editorial oversight", but prefer the sources cite that are clearly lack independence and are at least as questionable on the matter of reliability. Selection bias is a red herring argument to mount in the context - ie when applied to selection from a "biased" source.

It is claimed that "North House" and "South Houses" refer to the structures as "single structures" and are their (the structures) "proper names". In [almost - I am pressed to see any] every instance, usage in the article refers to a collection of "houses" (ie colleges or sororities) in the "north" or "south" - at the very least, it may reasonably be read as such. It is not even clear these are "singular" structures or a "complex" of co-joined structures - as described by the architects (per above). There appears to be no official name. The "complexes" are variously described, even recently. While these "descriptions" may be capitalised, they are nonetheless "descriptive". This is definitely not a property of a true proper noun/name. While, in general, we might capitalise terms for distinction, this is contrary to MOS:CAPS - unless it should meet the criterion therein (that it is consistently capitalised in a substantial majority of independent reliable sources). It doesn't. Please don't give me a lecture on statistics. One needs to get and "adequate" corpus without bias (independent) before one can start talking about a "couple of outliers". There is nothing sufficient to show (per MOS:CAPS) that these terms are other than descriptive and are "necessarily" capitalised IAW MOS:CAPS. On the matter of rotation, much the same applies. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 12:23, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

There are quite a few books discussing Caltech's house system, so I don't think notability is an issue. I agree on using lowercase, obviously. Only the one techer who created the article is insisting on caps, and reverting the fixes. While we agree that caps for "North Houses" and "South Houses" have increased over the years, I agree with your assessment that that doesn't make it a proper name, and doesn't meet the criteria of MOS:CAPS, which he claims I'm ignoring. Also, I agree with your analysis that when these terms are used, they are not in reference to the building complexes per se, but to the groups of distinct institutions and their separate buildings. Dicklyon (talk) 18:12, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

@Cinderella157 and Dicklyon: I see the confusion here, that, South/North Houses could refer to either the building or the collection of student groupings. When used to refer to the building, it's clearly a proper name, but I can see that when used to refer to student groupings, one can make arguments either way. Looking at the sources above, the vast majority of them are clearly referring to the buildings, as they discuss the South/North being constructed, renovated, or demolished, or to physical rooms in the buildings. There are a few cases where they are used to refer to the collection of student groupings, using language like "the four South Houses" or referring to the planning of events, but these seem to be rare.

Perhaps we can agree on the following. I was able with some light copyedits to History of the Caltech House system to make clear that the terms "South/North Houses" refer only to buildings, which is a clear usage of a proper name. I easily can do the same with this article and Campus of the California Institute of Technology. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 19:42, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Where is it made clear that those capped terms refer to the buildings? E.g. at this doc, with "Undergraduate Houses/Residences are as follows: Bechtel Residence; Avery House; North Houses: Lloyd House, Page House, and Venerable House; and South Houses: Fleming..." it sounds like it refers to the groups of houses, not the buildings. And even if they do refer to the buildings, what is the evidence that the buildings were actually named? The Tech uses lowercase in "In some indeterminate number of years, the north houses will be reconstructed". And it's almost always with "the", not "North Houses" will be reconstructed. The company that did the renovations called them the "South Undergraduate Houses", so they apparently didn't think of it as a proper name. Dicklyon (talk) 20:19, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Antony-22, the complexes are (might be) variously referred to such as "the South Undergraduate Houses" or such other that I have seen. Such example noun phrases are specific in their referent and are descriptive in their nature. They are not true proper nouns. They might be perceived to be a proper noun because they have a specific referent. This is incorrect. They might be capitalised to distinguish or emphasise the particular noun phrase in running text or because they are seen to be important. These editorial style choices do not make the phrase a proper name in the grammatical sense. Capitalisation is a matter of orthography and is not equivalent to "proper name/noun" as a matter of grammar - though many perceive it is. What Mrs McGillicuddy taught us about proper nouns and capitalisation in grade 7 is quite adequate in most instances but unravels at the fringes (such as here) because it has been simplified for a grade 7 mind and rarely developed further. English is a language that defies codification. MOS:CAPS tacitly acknowledges the futility of trying to codify capitalisation style. Instead, it relies on usage and defines the criterion to establish capitalisation. A particular cohort will have its own jargon and this includes capitalisation. WP relies on generalist styling. If a "name" rises to be capitalised generally (independantly), consistently and in a substantial majority of cases, it is capitalised as if it were a "proper name" since capitalisation is clearly necessary, even if it is not a "true" proper name. "South houses" and "north houses" (describing the complexes) are descriptive and not true proper names. They do not rise even close to the hurdle to be capitalised under the criterion set by WP. Not everything has a proper name. Not every specific name is a proper name. Rotation is also a term descriptive of the process. There are similar considerations. To where the burden lies, MOS:CAPS clearly establishes this: caps must be necessary (as determined by the criterion therein). WP:RS establishes a similar burden. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 12:11, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

• Dicklyon is known for meticulous research on stylistic matters. The matter here is very simple: MOSCAPS says, in effect, that an overwhelming majority of reliable sources must capitalise (in this case they don't) if we are to follow suit. Tony (talk) 00:15, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

  And to be fair, Cinderella157 and Tony1 are also known for meticulous care in style matters. I think the consensus is clear here. Dicklyon (talk) 01:30, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Use lower case, since sources are not consistent in capitalizing. We have WP:NCCAPS and MOS:CAPS guidelines for a reason; just follow them and stop trying to find "but my case is magically special" loopholes. There aren't any.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:15, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

A laughably false assertion, just start at Talk:Fermat's Last Theorem and go from there. I don't know if it's more strange that someone ever thought the above assertion would convince anyone, it never has, or that people continue to repeat it after so many discussions have found otherwise, most recently for Go (game). 196.192.179.38 (talk) 03:23, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, sadly, sometimes the specialists do gang up to make their case special, and that's the loophole. Sources don't mostly cap "last theorem" or "go", but it was hard to reach a consensus consistent with our style guidelines there. Shit happens. Even worse than those is the capping of "site" in World Heritage Site and numerous related articles. Even the appeal to "it's a particular thing" can't be made there, yet they prevail; but why? Hard to say. Still, about 95% of cap discussions over the last decade have reaffirmed the consensus expressed at MOS:CAPS. Dicklyon (talk) 04:03, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

I don't know if the % is that high, or why anyone would bother with keeping track of it anyway. The exact number isn't important since the guidelines are what they are. Actually it's likely there's numerous discussions that are never noticed that take place between people who are not even aware we have guidelines. Yes the World Heritage Site stuff is ridiculous, and other exceptions are even more bizarre, but pretending they don't exist doesn't get us anywhere. Even if it were true it's not going to convince anyone, all it does is muddle discussions. Now I'm off to find someplace else to rant about how Wikipedia can't ever seem to follow its own rules. 196.192.179.38 (talk) 04:49, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Right on. Point out that in 5% of discussions (or make your own estimate), WP can't follow its own guidelines. Similarly for US and some other big orgs, I guess. Dicklyon (talk) 04:53, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

@Dicklyon and Cinderella157: To repeat myself, there are many sources that discuss the South/North Houses being constructed, renovated, or demolished, or to physical rooms in the buildings. Some other sources refer to house culture or governance. We can distinguish between these uses. I'm not sure what you're getting at by this distinction of whether something is a "true proper noun" or not. In English, words have not been "capitalised to distinguish or emphasize the particular noun phrase in running text or because they are seen to be important" for about two centuries now. In any case, I've laid out the evidence in the RfC below. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 03:42, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Antony-22, a "true proper noun" is an arbitrary label (name) applied to a particular referent (eg person, place etc). A person's name is a true proper noun. I use "arbitrary" to connote that such a label does not of itself describe that which bears the label. A person's name is a true proper noun. In the subject article here (the house system), "house" has been capitalised even when used alone. Isn't that a case of capitalisation for distinction of emphasis? So I don't know where you got the notion that: In English, words have not been "capitalised to distinguish or emphasize the particular noun phrase in running text or because they are seen to be important" for about two centuries now. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:03, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

@Cinderella157: Here's what I mean. A good use of capitalizing non-proper nouns for emphasis would be, say, the original U.S. Constitution. That sort of usage was very common in English up until some point in the early 19th century I think, and universally fell out of favor afterwards. Literally the only contemporary example I can think of is Donald Trump's tweets, which are widely considered to be an aberration from proper usage.

What's going on here is that, for a small and well-defined group of particular referents, the group name is a proper noun as well, even if it has the appearance of being descriptive rather than arbitrary. So we write Twin Towers, but Manhattan skyscrapers; or former Secretaries of State, but former engineers. Capitalizing Houses is consistent with this rule of English grammar, but it's not actually done consistently enough in the sources for MOS:CAPS's much stricter requirements. It's not the case the writers of the sources are capitalizing nouns in a non-grammatical way simply for emphasis. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 05:42, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Antony-22, the "Constitution of the United States" is arguably the title of a work. Whether one considers the title of a work a proper name or not, it is a near unversal convention to write such titles in sentence case. From the WP article (Constitution of the United States): Since the Constitution came into force in 1789 ... [emphasis added] That is a case of emphasis for distinction or importance. The constitution would capitalised nearly all nouns and there has been a progressive change toward less capitalisation for some time since that was written. It does not mean that capitalisation for importance or distinction does not still occur. What's going on here is that, for a small and well-defined group of particular referents, the group name is a proper noun. Where is that version of the rules written? "My dogs" is not a proper noun nor is "the two cars outside". Not everybody writes "Twin Towers" (see this ngram). Per MOS:JOBTITLES, we do not write: "Presidents of the United States" but presidents of the United States and secretairies of state. One can then say, that not capitalising Houses is consistent with this rule of English grammar? Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 06:52, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

@Cinderella157: I wasn't clear. I meant the actual text of the U.S. Constitution. It contains sentences like "The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States, and the Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature."

MOS:JOBTITLES is incorrect. It's been on my list to put together an RfC to change that, but it hasn't been near the top of that list. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 06:57, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

To quote myself: The constitution would capitalised nearly all nouns and there has been a progressive change toward less capitalisation for some time since that was written. Re WP:JOBTITLES, it is fairly closely aligned with the Chicago Manual of Style. Are you going to get them to change too? Cinderella157 (talk) 07:08, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

I do a lot of editing on U.S. policy topics, and all reliable sources I use very consistently capitalize titles of government positions in all cases. I believe that should overcome the prescription of a style guide, but the discussion has not yet been had. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 07:22, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

RfC on capitalization of buildings

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

As a discussion that revolves around the capitalization of words, it's quite unavoidable that MOS:CAPS will be the main guideline being used by participants to justify their opinion. As mentioned in the RfC, MOS:CAPS quite clearly states that only words and phrases that are consistently capitalized in a substantial majority of independent, reliable sources are capitalized in Wikipedia. Discussion between editors was then over whether that is the case or not, which was done through the in-depth analysis of an extensive number of sources. Another point of contention that was raised was the potential confusion between the physical place and the student body, and how sources might capitalize the words when speaking of the former but not the latter.

Initial analysis in favor of the capitalization notes that many of the sources used in the articles under dispute capitalize "North and South Houses", although it admits that the majority of sources are related to the subject (written by a student government or students) and several of those capitalize only "North" and "South", but not houses. A later rebuttal raised two issues: first is the lack of consistency in the sources, with words sometimes being capitalized and sometimes not, leading to a lack of reliability and confusion over whether that source is useful or not.

The second problem was overcapitalization, making them less useful to define whether these words can be considered proper nouns or not, a topic to which the discussion then veered into. Editors against the capitalization posited that North and South Houses are clearly not proper names, but instead a descriptive name used by sources related to the topic. Another point raised by those against capitalization was that, if a quantitative analysis took into account only sources that saw North and South Houses as proper names, the percentage of capitalization would decrease immensely.

While there was some discussion over whether or not it mattered that North and South Houses were considered proper nouns, it seems that most participants agreed that North and South Houses are not proper nouns, and the level of capitalization shown by reliable sources is not sufficient to justify capitalizing the words on Wikipedia, as such, "north and south houses" should follow sentence case. As MOS:CAPS does not specify what is the level of capitalization a word needs in reliable sources to be capitalized on Wikipedia, this discretion falls upon editors.

-- (non-admin closure) Isabelle ^🔔 04:16, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

---

The names of two buildings, the South Houses and North Houses, have been capitalized in this article since it was created in 2005. There have recently been discussions and edits proposing that these terms should be lowercase. The disagreement arises from whether these building names are proper nouns, and whether the sources using capitals constitute a "substantial majority".

According to MOS:CAPS, "In English, proper names, which can be either single words or phrases, are typically capitalized," and "Wikipedia relies on sources to determine what is conventionally capitalized; only words and phrases that are consistently capitalized in a substantial majority of independent, reliable sources are capitalized in Wikipedia." This RfC applies to this article as well as the related articles History of the Caltech house system, Campus of the California Institute of Technology, and California Institute of Technology.

Please !vote whether to retain uppercase or change to lowercase. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 03:42, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Notified: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Architecture, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Higher education. ~~~~

• Procedural note: as the terms "South Houses" and "North Houses" were originally capitalized in this article, under WP:NOCON and WP:STATUSQUO it will require a consensus to change them to lowercase, and a no consensus finding will result in the capitals being retained. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 03:42, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

MOS:CAPS states: "Wikipedia avoids unnecessary capitalization. In English, capitalization is primarily needed for proper names, acronyms, and for the first letter of a sentence.[a] Wikipedia relies on sources to determine what is conventionally capitalized; only words and phrases that are consistently capitalized in a substantial majority of independent, reliable sources are capitalized in Wikipedia." MOS:CAPS creates a burden to show that caps are necessary. A close must consider if this burden has been met. Cinderella157 (talk) 11:39, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

It is the job of the !voters to determine whether the burden of MOS:CAPS has been met; it is the job of the closer only to determine whether there is a consensus among !voters and which way it goes. There are very limited circumstances under which !votes can be discarded, and none of them apply here, so this comment is pretty explicitly asking for a supervote. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 06:05, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

• Note – See Prior discussion at Talk:House_system_at_the_California_Institute_of_Technology#Capitalization. Dicklyon (talk) 05:04, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

• Retain uppercase. Analysis follows.

Substantial majority test. The key phrase in MOS:CAPS is "substantial majority", which does not require absolute consistency. The existence of a few outliers does not disprove that a substantial majority of sources capitalize a term. It is important to analyze sources systematically to avoid selection bias, which arises when an editor presents a few non-capitalized ad hoc cases while ignoring much larger numbers of capitalized sources. I performed the following systematic analyses:

• I went through the sources I used to write History of the Caltech house system several years ago. The following capitalize South/North Houses: [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26]. One [27] capitalizes Houses but uses lowercase south/north. 86% of this group capitalizes both words.
• I went through a series of sources provided by User:Dicklyon to show examples of the word "houses" being lowercase when not prefixed by North or South. The following capitalize South/North Houses: [28], [29], [30], [31], [32]. One [33] capitalizes North but not houses. 83% of this group capitalizes both words.
• I analyzed a selection of issues of the student newspaper The California Tech. To get a representative sample, I viewed the first, tenth, and twentieth issue in every volume going back 20 years (to the beginning of 2001), that were available on CaltechCampusPubs. These capitalize South/North Houses: [34] [35] [36] [37] [38] [39] [40] [41] [42] [43] [44] [45] [46] [47] These capitalized North/South or House, but not both: [48] [49] [50] This one [51] is an April Fools issue that uses both the capitalized and uncapitalized forms in the same article. 78% of this group of sources capitalizes both words.
• Nearly all of the above sources are independent of Caltech as an organization. Since most of them were written by students or by the student government (which is a separate incorporated 501(c)(3) organization from Caltech), some editors expressed a preference for sources less closely associated with the larger Caltech community. I searched ProQuest, Newspapers.com, and Google Books for examples, but could only find five examples. These two [52] [53] use capitals; two more [54] [55] contained obvious factual errors and are thus not useful as reliable sources. This source [56] is the only source in this entire corpus that uses lowercase for both words. It is often the case that for basic factual and style issues, sources that are closer to the subject are actually more reliable, and their use is explicitly endorsed by the WP:ABOUTSELF part of the WP:V policy.

Proper name test. The terms "South Houses" and "North Houses" are the proper names of the buildings they refer to.

• Each of the South and North Houses are actually a single building. Here are photos of the South Houses building for illustration: 1, 2, 3. It is not unusual for a single building to have a plural proper name, especially for residences; some examples from a quick search include Sheats Apartments, Ponte City Apartments, 360 Condominiums, and Akoya Condominiums.
• The names are not descriptive names, in the sense of describing houses that are north or south of something, as confirmed by usage in the sources described above. Many proper names take an adjective-noun form. For example, "Grand Canyon" is a proper name, even though many other canyons may be described as grand. Also compare with the North and South Towers of the old World Trade Center.
• There has been some confusion because South/North Houses could each refer to either the building or the collection of student groups called houses that they host. When used to refer to the building, it's clearly a proper name, but the situation is less clear for the student groupings. Many but not all sources are clearly referring to the buildings, as they discuss the South/North Houses being constructed, renovated, or demolished, or to physical rooms in the buildings. To avoid confusion, this article and the related articles listed below have been edited so that the terms "South Houses" and "North Houses" can only refer to the buildings.

TLDR: Around 80% of sources in systematic analyses use capitals, and only one source in the entire corpus consistently used lowercase for both words; this fulfills the "substantial majority" criterion of MOS:CAPS. Additionally, many sources use the terms to refer to the physical buildings which are clearly proper names, fulfilling that criterion of MOS:CAPS. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 03:42, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

As a courtesy, I'm linking to Dicklyon's opposing analysis below, which has the benefit of actually quoting every usage linked above. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 05:35, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

And here is my rebuttal to it. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 05:11, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

This analysis is an argument by analogy. To your "tests", you would assert an analogy with the "Grand Canyon". "Grand Canyon" is the official name of a geograpical feature and is capitalised as such, even though it might be considered descriptive. Furthermore, it is universally capitalised per this n-gram. The problem with these complexes is that they do not appear to have an official name. Furthermore, the degree of capitalisation is not the same as we see for the Grand Canyon - not even in sources that have close ties to the subject. Geographic features (rivers, mountains and like) commonly take a binary form that includes a descriptor. It is a near universally applied convention to apply capitalisation to the full noun phrase (including the descriptor) even when the descriptor is redundant (see Mount Fuji, Nile River and Pacific Ocean). There are significant differences between the two cases. It is not a sound analogy.

You would draw an analogy to the North and South Towers of the old World Trade Center, asserting that these are "proper names" - an assumption not established. This n-gram, World Trade Center north tower casts this assertion into doubt (or this n-gram for World Trade Center twin towers). Even for things that are so well known and widely written about, we are certainly not seeing the same degree of capitalisation we see for the Grand Canyon.

You would argue that pluralisation does not create an exception to being a proper noun. True, but if a proper noun takes a plural form, it is not then singularised. In your preferred version of the article (03:29, 15 January 2022), we see, The South House complex opened in 1931. Buildings that are named have their names capitalised because they are official names or trade names. The problem here is that there does not appear to be an official name. One can also see the degree of capitalisation for such buildings (eg the Chrysler Building).

You would state: When used to refer to the building, it's clearly a proper name ... This is not establish. Continuing: To avoid confusion, this article and the related articles listed below have been edited so that the terms "South Houses" and "North Houses" can only refer to the buildings. However, in most instances in your preferred version of the article, the two terms are used in a way that would be synonymous with "south or north fraternities or colleges". Here is a telling quote from the article: Dabney House, as part of the single building that makes up the four "South Houses".

There are widely varying views on what is "necessary capitalisation". That is why MOS:CAPS defers to consistent capitalisation in a substantial majority of independent sources. The sources here are largely not independent. In such sources, we would expect more capitalisation and furthermore, those sources are not applying it consistently. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 03:12, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

• @Antony-22: Please adjust the RfC to abide by WP:RFCNEUTRAL. The RfC should just lay out a simple and precise question. All your analysis belongs in your !vote. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 03:51, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

I also have to note that the invitations to this RfC, e.g. here, are not fully neutral either. Please be cautious of WP:CANVASSING. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 04:11, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

@Sdkb: Thanks for the note. I moved analysis to a !vote and tweaked the language of the invitations. Do these satisfy your concerns? Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 04:24, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for modifying the notifications to be more neutral. Dicklyon (talk) 05:29, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

• The above is true, but I support the caps anyway, as they are proper names. Named buildings generally do have proper names. Johnbod (talk) 03:53, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

  These complexes are not buildings, and have never had names. They have been called the old houses and the new houses, the south houses and the north houses, etc., but even these do not encompass the entire complex with the dining hall sharing the kitchen of the new/north houses. Dicklyon (talk) 05:14, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

• Lowercase per the prior discussion that shows that "North Houses" and "South Houses" are not (historically) the name of buildings. These complexes are not generally even thought of as buildings (the north complex even includes the (previously-named) Chandler dining hall, which is not a house at all). Please review the prior discussion linked above for tons of evidence about how the houses and complexes are referred to in sources. Dicklyon (talk) 05:04, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

• Also Malformed RFC since "retain" is not the issue and the question is presented in a very biased way. Dicklyon (talk) 05:13, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
• keep as capitalized per the second paragraph of the "malformed RFC" and what seems to be a fairly well-researched analysis (unless validly contested) of Antony–22. Revised to lowercase: Per rebuttal (validly contested) that as individually named "houses" there is not enough independent evidence to support the terms denote proper nouns. -- Otr500 (talk) 22:10, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

  Well, I do contest that sloppy analysis. Just looking a few docs he cites in favor of his proper name proposition (the ones he says I provided in which he found support for both words capitalized), this one has "the North and South undergraduate house complexes" but then later "The North Houses, South Houses and Temporary Housing Facility used during South House Remodeling are connected to the Campus Network." That later sentence obviously capitalizes more than proper names, so can't be relied on in support of proper name status, and the earlier sentences makes it clear that these are descriptions of complexes, but generally though of or referred to as buildings. Similarly, this one use North Houses and South Houses at some places, but also "in the north and south houses" and "North House renovations" in which the singular is used. Not much support of consistency there. And this one and this one don't use these terms at all (as far as I can find). And this one has "South Hovses" (just horsing around, I guess). His percentages are pretty bogus, not supporting consistency. Dicklyon (talk) 03:58, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

  Similarly in his analysis of The Tech articles, he conveniently ignores evidence again his hypothesis, such as use of "the student Houses" and "in each of the Houses" and "representatives from each House", where the caps have nothing to do with what he supposes to the proper name of a building or complex. Or this one where only the singular versions "North House" and "South House" appear. These run contrary to his hypothesis, but he counts them as if they support it. Same with the one that has "as the three North Houses combined", which is obviously referring the individual houses, not to a presumed building with proper name "North Houses". He's only seeing what he wants to see. As a former resident of one of the north houses, I assure you we never thought of ourselves as being in the same building with Page boys and Rudds. Dicklyon (talk) 04:09, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

• Comments: I am just curious! @Johnbod: how did you arrive at the opinion that the names North Houses and South Houses were "proper names"? Each of the "Named buildings" has very specific names so certainly proper nouns. I am still looking for the two buildings specifically named North Houses and South Houses. From all that I can find these names refer to individual houses that are collectively in these areas (may be considered a specific campus?) and not to a specific house called "North Houses" or South Houses". @Antony–22: You stated two options 1)- "could each refer to either the building, or 2)- "the collection of student groups called houses that they host". It would seem, the long time being capitalized notwithstanding, that the examples (the building or the collection they host) do not name an individual building because I cannot find such specifically named building (North or South). The "Grand Canyon" specifically points to one specific canyon so there is no confusion. If someone stated they were from "North Houses", I would imagine (please correct me if my surmising is in error) it would illicit "Which one"? The seemingly pretty well-researched analysis of Antony–22 (unless validly contested) concerning sources seems clear but I fear the opinion "Each of the South and North Houses are actually a single building." is flawed. A picture can show one building in a group but I will offer that the building, if one of the named "North and South Houses", actually has a specific name. The only real criteria is if "the sources using capitals constitute a "substantial majority", and of course, if consensus agrees. We can dispense with trying to wrongly qualify the reasoning. -- Otr500 (talk) 22:10, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
• Additional comments: I am still confused. I overlooked one comment so someone, please point out the two buildings ("South Houses and North Houses are proper nouns and not descriptive; they're the formal names of the two buildings.") referred to on 11 November 2021 by Antony–22? To me it seems they could be the formal names of each of the collective group of buildings but I will stand corrected if we pin-point the two specific buildings. Thanks, -- Otr500 (talk) 22:25, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

  They're complexes, not generally thought of as single buildings even though they share some parts. Nobody ever named them "North Houses" and "South Houses", though they are sometimes referred to that way (certainly not consistently). The groups of houses (or their building complexes) used to be called the "new houses" and "old houses" among other things. Nobody ever treated the Chandler dining hall as part of the north/new houses, even though it is part of the same complex sharing a kitchen; it's not where house residents eat. Students think of their houses as separate buildings, even though they connect and share a kitchen. It's not unusual for buildings to connect, especially on campuses, without having proper names for the connected complexes. Dicklyon (talk) 03:35, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

  See aerial view in Google maps. Complexes of connected houses. Dicklyon (talk) 04:24, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

  See official map from Caltech, in which the three north houses each connect to the Browne Dining Hall (the part I was called the shared kitchen), but not to each other (except for the covered breezeway connecting Page House to Lloyd House). They have distinct building numbers (52 for the dining hall, 53 through 55 for the north houses). The south houses are buildings 57 through 60. The terms north and south do not appear on the map, capped or otherwise. Just building names appear. There's also no name for the complex of buildings 45 through 50, and others like that. Dicklyon (talk) 04:31, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

@Otr500: Here are the photos again I linked above: 1, 2, 3. Each photo is of the entire South Houses, which is clearly architecturally and structurally one building. The building contains four student houses (Ricketts House, Blacker House, Dabney House, and Fleming House) that each occupy a specific part of the building. The North Houses have a similar setup. Even the Google Maps and Caltech maps that Dicklyon linked above clearly show that each is one connected building. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 03:15, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

The photos you link from the 1931 and 1932 Big T don't call those buildings South Houses. See the original captions "South Elevation of Student Houses" and "Undergraduate Living Houses" and "The Residence Halls". Today we call that complex the south houses, but that's not the name of a building. Dicklyon (talk) 06:52, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

• Lowercase In the article, north houses and south houses generally refer to the "houses" (colleges/fraternitiies) co-located in one of two complexes - to the north or to the south. It is clearly not necessary for us to capitalise "South Houses" when referring to the "south fraternities". The article sometimes uses the same terms to refer to the two complexes. When the buildings are being specifically referred to in sources, it is not uncommon for the distinction to be clarified, such as "the North Complex of student houses" (see preceding discussion). Such clarifications would not be required for a proper noun. There does not appear to be an official name for the two complexes. Specificity is not a distinguishing property of a proper noun, since can equally be achieved by the definite article ("the"). The majority of sources quoted by the OP are not independent since they are not written at arms-length from the subject. Cinderella157 (talk) 05:29, 17 January 2022 (UTC) PS: Not every "thing" has to have a "proper name". Cinderella157 (talk) 13:19, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
• Upper Case - A majority of sources appear to be referring to them by using capitalization, which means so should Wikipedia. All other arguments about how students living in the campus "feel" about one building or another seem to be superfluous. After reading the continuous discussion I am no longer so convinced that the sources cited use the upper script to denote proper names. Disregard my previous vote. PraiseVivec (talk) 14:39, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

  No, even if Antony-22's sloppy survey reporting were true, the criterion is not that. See MOS:CAPS, which makes it clear what we mean by avoiding unnecessary capitalization: "only words and phrases that are consistently capitalized in a substantial majority of independent, reliable sources are capitalized in Wikipedia." Many of the sources he reports include lowercase or mixed variants, or use different terms such as with singular House, or use the terms in a way that are clearly not even about the building complexes as much as about the groups of houses. And most are not independent of the subject (e.g. The Tech is written and editted by residents of the houses, and only in recent years started using these terms mostly capped); independent books discussing residential life at Caltech don't cap them generally. So "A majority of sources appear to be referring to them by using capitalization" is not really a fair interpretation of the data, but rather a "specialist" view. Dicklyon (talk) 17:09, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

• Lower case. Cinderella157 and DickLyon already said what I would have.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  18:53, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Analyzing the cited sources

Going through the sources Antony-22 linked above in support of his proposition, starting by copy-pasting his paragraphs full of links (in "small"), following each paragraph by detailed list of what the links support:

• I went through the sources I used to write History of the Caltech house system several years ago. The following capitalize South/North Houses: [57] [58] [59] [60] [61] [62]. One [63] capitalizes Houses but uses lowercase south/north. 86% of this group capitalizes both words.
  1. A. ASCIT History of Undergraduate Self-Governance at Caltech – Is just a TOC page; no sentences. Clicking through to Full Report (59 pages), we find "constructing a history of the Student Houses from 1930", "... the construction of the Student Houses. These Houses...", "opening of the North Houses in 1960", "for the Student Houses", "to tour each of the Houses", "three new Student Houses in 1960", "after the new Houses opened", "the North Houses each developed", and (quoting another report) "some suites in the south and north Houses". It's pretty clear that this doc likes to cap Houses and other things like Student, but in no case is there a suggestion that "North Houses" refers to the building complex; it's simply plural Houses, with inconsistent capitalization of other stuff.
  2. A. Blacker Hovse History at gdbg.org – "the seven undergraduate Houses", "the South Hovse (Blacker, Dabney, Fleming & Ricketts) and the North Houses (Lloyd, Page and Ruddock)", "South Houses in 1932", "how the houses were origionally organized", etc. Pretty mixed, no suggestions that the complexes of houses are buildings with proper names (though the individual houses are buildings with proper names). The Definitions page there has no use of North or South, and mentions "the off-campus houses" without caps.
  3. A. Caltech South Houses Rehabilitation doc at pfeifferpartners – "...restore and modernize Caltech’s South Houses, our design for the residence halls incorporates contemporary features while preserving the buildings’ historic fabric. The Institute’s undergraduate houses consist of four buildings..." – Clearly treating them as pural "buildings", not one.
  4. A. Caltech South Undergraduate Houses doc at wje.com – "The houses were in a state of disrepair...", "The 'South Houses' are comprised of four individual undergraduate student houses interconnected by party walls, arcades, and open courtyards. The Houses were designed..." – plural houses, not a building.
  5. A. Report by the 2008 Student Experience Trip Committee – Pretty mixed capping of house with "the student houses" multiple places, also "Caltech's Houses" and "North Houses" and "South Houses" and "the Houses" in multiple places. Also singular variations like "pending North House renovations" and "North House members". No particular sign of referring to the complexes as building though; in "once the North Houses are rebuilt", the term is not used as a singular building. Similarly "The South Houses’ lounges" is not using South Houses as if it's a building.
  6. A. 2021–22 Caltech Catalog – page not found – here's the catalog PDF. "the undergraduate houses", "the South House laundry room", "matters affecting the houses", "Undergraduate housing includes the eight houses (Avery, Blacker, Dabney, Fleming, Lloyd, Page, Ricketts, Ruddock), and the Bechtel Residence and Marks House and Braun House." No South Houses, no North Houses.
  7. A. Task Force on Undergraduate Residence Life Initiatives (TURLI) final report – Nothing on that page but links to PDFs. Clicking through to the main 2001 Final Report PDF: "the current Houses", "existing undergraduate houses", "existing undergraduate Houses", "restoration of the south Houses and the tear down and reconstruction of a set of 4 north Houses", "suites in the south and north Houses". (Antony did note that this was the only one not capping north and south; it's kind of establishes what was normal 20 years ago.)

• I went through a series of sources provided by User:Dicklyon to show examples of the word "houses" being lowercase when not prefixed by North or South. The following capitalize South/North Houses: [64], [65], [66], [67], [68]. One [69] capitalizes North but not houses. 83% of this group capitalizes both words.

  Note that I had provided these just to refute a bogus claim: "DjTj81 wrote that the term 'House' is capitalized in Caltech documents''.

  1. B. Rotation FAQ – "the North Houses (Lloyd, Page, Ruddock) and Avery only have doubles" (you need to open all the questions to search; one place only). Clearly about the houses, not the building complex. No south or South. Lots of intermixed houses and Houses.
  2. B. Undergrad Residential Experience – "Caltech's unique House system", "The South Hovses are the oldest", "The North Houses were built", but otherwise all lowercase house. No suggestion of North Houses or South Houses being names of buildings.
  3. B. Vulnerability scan policy – "student house computers" and "IMSS house rep"; no south or north.
  4. B. Student Experience Conference: Follow-up Report 2008 – "the North House renovations", "If the North Houses are renovated", "house dinners in the north and south houses are fairly bad"; no suggestion that "North Houses" is the name of a building; mixed capitalization.
  5. B. Broad Center Network Services – Trouble Shooting & Tips – "The student house networking project at Caltech has made available a 100baseT ethernet port for every resident in the on-campus houses (the North and South undergraduate house complexes, ..." – complexes, not buildings. Also overcapped "The North Houses, South Houses and Temporary Housing Facility used during South House Remodeling." No consistency.
  6. B. Recommendations on how to revamp the rotation process, 2018 – capitalizes North but not houses as Antony noted. "our houses and residences should provide a supportive culture" and "students assigned to the North houses and Avery" (about assignment to houses, not to the building complex).

• I analyzed a selection of issues of the student newspaper The California Tech. To get a representative sample, I viewed the first, tenth, and twentieth issue in every volume going back 20 years (to the beginning of 2001), that were available on CaltechCampusPubs. These capitalize South/North Houses: [70] [71] [72] [73] [74] [75] [76] [77] [78] [79] [80] [81] [82] [83] These capitalized North/South or House, but not both: [84] [85] [86] This one [87] is an April Fools issue that uses both the capitalized and uncapitalized forms in the same article. 78% of this group of sources capitalizes both words.
  1. C. Sept. 2016 – "as the three North Houses combined" is clearly talking about the houses, not treating North Houses as the name of a building. Similarly "South House student parking spaces".
  2. C. Nov 2016 – "all of the South House Residents", "the four South Houses", "The South Houses are not just dorms". Plenty of caps (even Residents), but no support for the idea that "South Houses" is the name of a building.
  3. C. Oct 2009 – "North House rennovation/reconstruction", "murals of the houses", "the South House rennovations", "your new House-mates", etc. No North Houses or South Houses as such.
  4. C. Oct 2007 – "the South Houses renovation," "the South House renovation project", "asbestos in the South Houses", " each of the Houses you are visiting during Rotation", "the student Houses", "the undergraduate Houses". Plenty of conventional Caltech capitalization in that one, but no suggestion that the house complexes are named buildings.
  5. C. Sept 2005 – "For the first time since construction circa 1932, the South Houses", "brought so many students from so many houses together", "the South Houses will rise anew, a shining sanctum for..." (which actually does suggest treatment as one thing, unlike everything else we've seen), and "when South House Techers had to fight"
  6. C. Dec 2006 – "the South House reopening party" and several "South Houses" and "Trash cans need to be brought out from the North Houses to facilitate clean up." But not quite consistently capping houses: "the houses will be far nicer" and "should not cost the houses one penny", but "granted to both Houses".
  7. C. Dec 2005 – "additional apartments in the South Houses", "if the houses are not finished in time", "The North Houses not be renovated", "in Page House, in Ricketts House, in Dabney House, and in all the other houses". "Avery has joined the other houses' meal plan", and "Avery's bastardized introduction in the house system is no being legitimized". Treatment of lowercase house still prevales in 2005.
  8. C. Apr 2012 – "people wearing house stoles". And a heading "North House AC:" whatever that refers to; certainly doesn't count as support as Antony counted it.
  9. C. April Fools 2009 – (Yes, another April Fools edition, which Antony counts in his favor). Fake headline: "North Houses declared historic, slums". Several instances of lowercase house, such as "make sure you understand them, and your house understands them"
  10. C. Mar 2007 – Lots of lowercase houses, e.g. "other houses doubt it can", "multi-house events", etc. Then "South House Kitchens", "South Kitchen", "South Kitchens", a lot of proper names for this kitchen. Also "South House reconstruction" and "South House students". No "South Houses". No "North"
  11. C. Mar 2006 – "the new South Houses and their renovated kitchen" (note: not "its renovated kitchen" which would sense of "South Houses" was the name of a building); and "South House Reopening Party" (did a party really rate a proper name?). No "North".
  12. C. Mar 2005 – "when the South House residents will be moved". No "Houses", but plenty of "houses".
  13. C. Mar 2004 – lots about "the seven houses" (over 20 lowercase "houses"). "renovation of the South Houses in 2005 as the main threat", "plumbing and wiring have not been redone in 70 years in the South Houses!", "when the North Houses are renovated/replaced". So yes this one was fair to count, except that it's "the North Houses are", not "North Houses is" as would be expected if "North Houses" was the name of a building.
  14. C. March 2001 – "seven houses", "undergraduate houses", etc., but one "walk from the South Houses to Avery" (wouldn't use "the" if "South Houses" was the name of a building).
  15. C. Sept 2010 – "entrance doors to the North houses, Marks, and Braun", "the magnetic cardswipes in the South houses and Avery house", "the North house basement", etc.
  16. C. Dec 2003 – "recommended that the South houses be gutted and completely renovated and the North houses be demolished" – No suggestion of proper name status
  17. C. Dec 2001 – "The extensive renovation and restoration of the south Houses and the tear down and reconstruction of a set of 4 north Houses constitutes" – No suggestion of proper name status, clearly not one building
  18. C. April Fools 2019 – "the south houses"

Conclusion: While "North Houses" and "South Houses" have become the common terms, with more frequent capitalization, in the last 20 years or so, they still refer to the houses, not to single buildings. And they are not consistently capitalized, even in docs closely connected to Caltech. The premise of this RFC ("The names of two buildings...") is wrong, and the data estimates in support of it are greatly exaggerated. Dicklyon (talk) 19:41, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

@PraiseVivec, Otr500, and Johnbod: In light of this more detailed look at the sources, do you not agree these these are not proper names of buildings, and that sources prove that their capitalization is optional, a Caltech specialist thing? Dicklyon (talk) 23:11, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

The purpose of this analysis was to show that, as required by MOS:CAPS, South/North Houses are "consistently capitalized in a substantial majority" of a representative sample of sources. The proper name test does not have such an explicit requirement, but to repeat myself above, "Many but not all sources are clearly referring to the buildings, as they discuss the South/North Houses being constructed, renovated, or demolished, or to physical rooms in the buildings." (Also, we already agreed to let the unspecified usage "houses" be lowercase since their capitalization isn't consistent; that isn't at issue here. And WP:SSF is an essay, and one that does not have consensus from the community, and so should not be invoked as authoritative.) Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 03:44, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

You thought it was important, for some reason, to refer to my references that show that "house" is not uniformly capped in Caltech docs, which is why I re-analyzed those. As for the terms "North Houses" and "South Houses" being names of buildings, that's roundly contradicted by most of the sources that you counted in your favor; "consistently capitalized" is far from what we see, as opposed to a hodgepodge of capitalizing sometimes north or south, sometimes house or houses; not the name of anything; "both words capitalized", for various word variations and references, is not quite what MOSCAPS is asking us to look for to decide if they're proper names. Dicklyon (talk) 03:51, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

To be clear, if you want to capitalize "North Houses" and "South Houses", the only reason must be that these are the proper names of something. You've claimed that they are the names of buildings, and have counted lots of sources as supporting your claims. I've shown that that's nonsense. Therefore, we should not capitalize. Wikipedia avoids unnecessary capitalization. Dicklyon (talk) 04:09, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

You're trying to argue to overturn the MOS:CAPS "substantial majority" requirement by splitting hairs about whether the sources are referring to the houses as buildings or communities, when many cases could validly refer to either—and then positing that if they're referring to communities, then they're not proper names, the reasoning of which isn't even clear to me. Well, we've both laid out our evidence, and I'm happy to see what others think. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 04:35, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Well they're certainly not names of communities, and I'm pretty sure I didn't posit that. As you know, I'm sure, there are communities of undergrads as a whole, house residents as a whole, and individual houses' members; but the north and south house groups don't have any particular communities (or I see no evidence of it, and didn't feel it when I was there). These terms refer to groups of named houses, and are descriptive terms that Techers sometimes capitalize. If they were proper names, they'd have to refer to actual entities, but you can see by the usage that they do not. MOSCAPS is clear that when sources show capitalization to be optional and unnecessary, we don't cap. The criterion of a substantial majority of independent sources is not met, not even by this group of insider Caltech sources. The Tech is written and edited by Techers, mostly residents of the houses, and the other Caltech documents are also from the Caltech insider specialist POV. Dicklyon (talk) 16:59, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Let's summarize. – Look at which ones support "North Houses" and/or "South Houses" as possibly the proper name of something.

1. A. – No. "the North Houses each developed" makes it clear that North Houses is not the name of a thing; and "some suites in the south and north Houses" shows it's not consistent.
2. A. – No. "the seven undergraduate Houses" and "the South Hovse (Blacker, Dabney, Fleming & Ricketts) and the North Houses (Lloyd, Page and Ruddock)" makes it clear that the houses are distinct; not naming a thing.
3. A. – No. "The Institute’s undergraduate houses consist of four buildings..." in reference to what they call the South Houses; not a thing.
4. A. – No. "The 'South Houses' are comprised of four individual undergraduate student houses interconnected by party walls, arcades, and open courtyards. The Houses were designed..." – obviously capped reference to distinct things, not a proper name of a thing.
5. A. – No. "pending North House renovations" – is "North House" to be taken as yet another proper name for someting? "once the North Houses are rebuilt" is clearly plural houses, not a thing.
6. A. – No. No appearance of "North Houses" or "South Houses". Just "the South House laundry room".
7. A. – No. "restoration of the south Houses and the tear down and reconstruction of a set of 4 north Houses" speaks for itself.

Net: 0% support capitalizing "North Houses" and/or "South Houses" as proper names.

1. B. – No. "the North Houses (Lloyd, Page, Ruddock) and Avery only have doubles" is clearly about the three distinct north houses, not a thing.
2. B. – No. "The South Hovses are the oldest", "The North Houses were built" – plural verbs suggest reference to distinct houses, but unified buildings.
3. B. – No. No capped North, South, House, or Houses
4. B. – No. "house dinners in the north and south houses are fairly bad"
5. B. – No. "the North and South undergraduate house complexes"
6. B. – No. "the North houses and Avery"

Net: 0% support capitalizing "North Houses" and/or "South Houses" as proper names.

Articles from The Tech are pretty mixed, too, as discussed above. Even if all them supported the proposition that these are proper names, that would not be enough. Dicklyon (talk) 04:20, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

I would observe that is was once common to capitalise compass points (ie north and south) and that the change has occurred within my life-time. It would beg the question of how much that convention has affected the capitalisation of north and south in the matter at hand? Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 04:25, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

You're probably ancient like me. In my lifetime they went from old and new houses to south and north Houses, to South and North Houses, clearly as specialist capitalization to indicate what's import to Techers. But as Antony points out, my experience, being so long ago, is not very relevant. And my allegiance today is more to Wikipedia style than to Caltech style, so I'd agree. He seems to be stuck on Caltech style still, as a younger Techer. Dicklyon (talk) 04:31, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

The summer (or Summer) of our youth. another thing that has change. Cinderella157 (talk) 05:27, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

@PraiseVivec, Otr500, and Johnbod: Your support of capping above was before I analyzed the claimed evidence in support. Please review and say where you stand in light of what's actually in Antony's evidence links. Dicklyon (talk) 17:43, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Very nice analysis of sources! It seems the consensus is not as strong as I initially thought. But one of your conclusions is that capitalized mentions are more frequent in the last two decades, so doesn't that mean that the consensus is clearly moving in that direction? PraiseVivec (talk) 18:39, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

"Moving in that direction" is not the criterion in the MOS:CAPS guideline. We recognize that specialists increasingly like to cap their important stuff, even when it's not the proper name of anything, and that's obviously been going on, to varying degrees, at Caltech since 1959. WP style is to avoid unnecessary capitalization, and sources here, even the Caltech sources cited, make it clear that capitalization is optional and mixed, not necessary. Dicklyon (talk) 23:55, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

@PraiseVivec: In light of this deeper look, please consider modifying your "Upper Case" response above. Dicklyon (talk) 19:35, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

@Dicklyon: Your analysis is not valid. You're entirely basing it off of the fact that South/North Houses are plural, but we know that there are many proper nouns that are plural. Great Pyramids of Giza, or Twin Towers, or Fay Apartments, for example. Yes, when they say something like "once the North Houses are rebuilt", North Houses can refer to either the building collectively or each of the individual parts. It doesn't resolve the issue either way.

Additionally, you are also confusing the guidelines involved. MOS:CAPS says that capitalization is based on use in a "substantial majority" of sources, regardless of the reason why the sources use capitals. You're confusing this with the separate rule that Wikipedia capitalizes names if they are proper names. Note that this does not imply the inverse: proving something is not a proper name does not mean it should be lowercase in Wikipedia, according to the guidelines. I was very clear that the sources aren't consistent about referring to buildings versus communities, and the MOS doesn't even require consistency for that in particular.

@PraiseVivec: You are right here. We care about whether current usage is consistent, not usages from far in the past. One wouldn't argue that the Willis Tower doesn't really have a name because it used to be called the Sears Tower. The South/North Houses have had those names far longer than the Willis Tower has. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 05:32, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Antony, the Great Pyramid of Giza is a great example of a proper name, consistently capped in sources, while the plural great pyramids of Giza is clearly not, even though it is seeing more capitalization in the last 20 years. Good analogy. The Willis Tower was also obviously named thus, and is consistently capped in sources (but not in enough books to use n-grams, like your houses). Dicklyon (talk) 05:48, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Re the Great Pyramid: You got me on that one! It doesn't affect the underlying point, though. There are many other examples. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 05:53, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

I agree that proper names can be plural, but the way they're being used in most of those sources does not at all sound like they're referring to the collection of houses as a unit, the Twin Towers and Fay Apartments do. The premise of the RFC is that these are names of buildings; the sources don't use them that way, except perhaps for the South Houses redo project, which was also referred to with a variety of other forms; not much evidence of treatment as a proper name of anything, especially in light of the inconsistency of usage and style. I'm not saying that my "correction" of your stats to 0% is unbiased, but neither are your numbers. Wherever the truth might lie in between, it's not enough for the criteria in MOS:CAPS. Dicklyon (talk) 19:35, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

No, the premise of this RfC is that ~80% constitutes a "significant majority". MOS:CAPS only requires us to look at how many of the sources capitalize, and all these questions about what's a building and what's not is irrelevant to the actual guidelines. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 19:42, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Didn't you already agree that "Houses" is not a proper names, and that "North Houses" and "South Houses" are names of buildings only? If that's the case, then we need to discount many of those sources that clearly have a style of capitalizing things that are not proper names. But there's no consistency there, just a bunch of Caltech-style over-capping of one word or the other or both. The notion of consistency is key. See the stats on "Great Pyramid of Giza" again. Proper names usually show well above 90% caps in sources, and your 80% claim is a ridiculous stretch, since you include a bunch of things with mixed an unexplainable variations from what would be expected if these were proper names. I think my 0% estimate is actually closer, in terms of how of those sources provide evidence that these are proper names of buildings, or of anything. Dicklyon (talk) 01:18, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Antony-22, the "premise" of the RfC is contained in the first two paragraphs of the RfC's thread. Specifically, it is The names of two buildings, the South Houses and North Houses that are the subject of this RfC. Context is everything but you now appear to be arguing that context has no bearing on the issue. Without context, we would never capitalise "plumber" even when it is being used as a surname (see this). As DL has said, you appear to have already acknowledged that we would not capitalise "houses" when it is being used synonymously with "fraternities". Such uses are therefore not relevant to determining the question of the RfC and should reasonably be culled from any analysis of sources being used to determine the question. Your analysis does not do this. Your conclusion is biased by data that is not relevant to the particular question. It is akin to claiming that a person who had covid but died in a car accident died of covid. As DL acknowledges, he may have over-excluded data and the "actual" result lies somewhere in between and somewhere less than 80%. 80% is a premise of your argument. It is not a premise of the RfC. You have made that argument because, by your analysis, you claim that the 80% threshold has been reached. But MOS:CAPS does not give an absolute figure. To my mind, the phrasing of the guideline requires a (very) high degree of conformity in sources (more like 90%) - in independent reliable sources, where the data is consistent with the context. Because your data is not from independent sources and the data used is not all consistent with the context of the question, it is not even showing an 80% level of usage in independent reliable sources, where the data is consistent with the context. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:06, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

You are misrepresenting my comments. I recently noted above that I consider "House" and "house" to both be grammatically proper usages, and I don't think it's necessary or warranted to exclude sources from my analysis based on that. Even if I did, it wouldn't change anything. I did say that capitalized "House" wasn't used consistently enough in the sources for me to contest it in this article, but that's moot.

I stand by my analysis that ~80% of a representative sample of sources capitalize South/North Houses. That is sufficient to meet the criterion of MOS:CAPS, if you think that 80% is a "substantial majority". I don't find your analysis convincing that South/North Houses aren't being used as a proper name, but in any case MOS:CAPS doesn't even say that such a finding would overrule a substantial majority of sources.

"Substantial majority" is not defined. I took it as meaning "substantially more than a majority". 51% or 55% is not a substantial majority, but I think it starts to get there once you get to 70% or so—the extra 20% is a pretty substantial chunk, in my opinion. But since there's no stated definition, there's really no way to argue about it. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 04:13, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Substantial majority may not be defined, but you've counted in your estimates quite a few sources that include mixed capitalization and variant forms, as my closer look at the sources show. "South House Kitchens" and "South House laundry" can not really be taken as evidence for proper name status of "South Houses", can they? Or "North House members" for North Houses as a building? And again, this RFC is about the premise that these are proper names of buildings, which they very clearly are not. Dicklyon (talk) 05:04, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Maybe you should start a new RFC on "Should North Houses and South Houses be capitalized even though they are not the proper names of anything we can identify", or something like that. Dicklyon (talk) 05:08, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Antony-22, you could be replying to either DL or myself but the last thing that I want to do is to misrepresent another editor; however, in your analysis, you stated:

There has been some confusion because South/North Houses could each refer to either the building or the collection of student groups called houses that they host. When used to refer to the building, it's clearly a proper name, but the situation is less clear for the student groupings. Many but not all sources are clearly referring to the buildings, as they discuss the South/North Houses being constructed, renovated, or demolished, or to physical rooms in the buildings. To avoid confusion, this article and the related articles listed below have been edited so that the terms "South Houses" and "North Houses" can only refer to the buildings.

I do not think that I nor DL have misrepresented you when I have stated: As DL has said, you appear to have already acknowledged that we would not capitalise "houses" when it is being used synonymously with "fraternities".

You would say (referencing this link): I recently noted above that I consider "House" and "house" to both be grammatically proper usages ... I don't see that you have actually said that at all but moreover I have no idea what you might mean when yo are saying I consider "House" and "house" to both be grammatically proper usages [empasis added]. A determination of grammatically proper [or correct] usages can only be determined within a context. I have said above, that context is everything.

To quote you: I don't think it's necessary or warranted to exclude sources from my analysis based on that. The question of the RfC is to determine the capitalisation of "North Houses" and "South Houses" when it is specifically being used to refer to the two building complexes. Only data that specifically uses the terms to refer to the building complexes is relevant to determining the question. You can't count a collection of apples of different varieties and then claim that the total you get are all Jonathan apples. Yet that is precisely what your analysis is doing. It is appropriate to exclude samples from the sample pool if it does not clearly refer to the building complexes, as opposed to a grouping of fraternities since the question to be answered is whether we should be capitalising the terms when they are referring to the building complexes (and not the grouping of fraternities).

When you say: That is sufficient to meet the criterion of MOS:CAPS, if you [emphasis added] think that 80% is a "substantial majority". I have neither said nor thought any such thing. When you say: MOS:CAPS's much stricter requirements. I would agree that the requirement is a high bar - higher than 80%. We do see 90% or better conformity with capitalisation for proper names such as the Grand Canyon per this. You state: When used to refer to the building, it's clearly a proper name. If it is clearly a proper name, as claimed, then it should be able to reach a similar degree (percentage) of conformity. While your analysis shows about 80% conformity for the data sets used. The analysis is not showing 80% conformity in independent reliable sources, where the data is consistent with the context. Cinderella157 (talk) 08:13, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

There are also precdents for accepting less than 80%, but those are cases where the term clearly names a thing. Here, there is no identifiable thing called "North Houses" or "South Houses". The terms are used for groupings of the houses more than for the buildings, but there are no identifiable entities that these are the names of. Dicklyon (talk) 04:53, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Rebuttal

@Otr500 and PraiseVivec: I hadn't directly responded to User:Dicklyon's analysis until now because I found it more confusing than convincing, but it seems to have led to some late changes in !votes, so I'll respond to it now.

If you believe that 85% is enough to be a substantial majority of sources, there needs to be a very strong argument that there is some other context to overcome this. Dicklyon is apparently trying to argue that the sources do not support their use as a proper noun, but his analysis shows no such thing.

Just to take the very first example listed: in "opening of the North Houses in 1960", North Houses could be either a proper noun or a descriptive term. It could mean "opening of the building called the North Houses" (proper noun) or "opening of the houses north of the Olive Walk" (descriptive). It tells us absolutely nothing, and provides no support for overturning a substantial majority of reliable sources.

It is the same for all of the other examples cited. For illustration, the next few cited are "the North Houses each developed", "some suites in the south and north Houses", "the South Hovse (Blacker, Dabney, Fleming & Ricketts) and the North Houses (Lloyd, Page and Ruddock)", "South Houses in 1932", "restore and modernize Caltech’s South Houses...", "The 'South Houses' are comprised of four individual undergraduate student houses interconnected by party walls, arcades, and open courtyards". Note again the reasonably consistent use of capitals in the most reliable and independent sources available.

Dicklyon states that "0% [of analyzed sources] support capitalizing "North Houses" and/or "South Houses" as proper names." He omits that at the same time, 0% support that they are descriptive. This analysis would give the same results for any plural proper noun, such as Twin Towers. It is a useless argument for setting aside a finding based on WP:RS, and is simply a WP:IDONTLIKEIT argument expressed in many bytes of prose. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 05:10, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Antony, when you analyze "the very first example listed", you misrepresent the content and what I said about it, which was this:

• 1. A. ASCIT History of Undergraduate Self-Governance at Caltech – Is just a TOC page; no sentences. Clicking through to Full Report (59 pages), we find "constructing a history of the Student Houses from 1930", "... the construction of the Student Houses. These Houses...", "opening of the North Houses in 1960", "for the Student Houses", "to tour each of the Houses", "three new Student Houses in 1960", "after the new Houses opened", "the North Houses each developed", and (quoting another report) "some suites in the south and north Houses". It's pretty clear that this doc likes to cap Houses and other things like Student, but in no case is there a suggestion that "North Houses" refers to the building complex; it's simply plural Houses, with inconsistent capitalization of other stuff.

Your rebuttal does not refute this. There is no suggestion in the source that they consider "North Houses" to be the name of a building or complex, and a strong indication that "Houses" is capitalized there for other reasons. Are there sources that cap North Houses but don't have a style of capping other terms of their specialist interest? If you find any, count them as support for the proper name hypothesis. Dicklyon (talk) 07:57, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

There are plenty of sources that use lowercase "houses" but uppercase "South/North Houses". You listed them yourself above! Why imply that they don't exist when you've examined them yourself? Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 05:48, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Old and new houses

Originally, the terms north and south were not used, but new and old were. Capitalization of "Student Houses" goes back at least to 1959 (see The Tech Nov 1959 and lots more). Sometimes you'd see "new House" and "new Houses", but more often lowercase except in the early name placeholders "new House A", "new House B", and "new House C". The reference gradually changed during the 1970s or so to more often use north and south. Caps remain mixed, since nothing has these terms as proper name, but Techers generally seem to want to cap something to signify the importance of the Houses (and the more recent Hovses thing is just silly). Wikipedia avoids unnecessary capitalization, so there's no reason to follow Techers like Antony; he can cap as much as he wants elsewhere, but not on Wikipedia. Dicklyon (talk) 23:30, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure why a usage that, as you say, fell out of usage nearly 50 years ago is relevant. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 03:25, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Just because nobody can point to a time when the names "North Houses" and "South Houses" were given to buildings or complexes that never had names, and still don't according to official maps. And because the practice of capitalizing things about the houses goes back to before the new/north houses. Dicklyon (talk) 03:54, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

By the way, that 1959 issue of The Tech that I linked has a nice cartoon of Cleve Moler, creator of Matlab (later a Lloydie), crucified and welcoming his substitute editor. Dicklyon (talk) 03:57, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Comments (continued)

The insertion of new subsections on analysis, sources, etc. is confusing as far as continued comments are concerned, so let the comments continue...

• Uppercase - The use of proper caps averts the possibility of confusion for readers. The capitalization, IMO, should be based on either names officially adopted by CIT or their usage in official publications and other reliable sources. The documentation above indicates to me that the use of capitals is well supported. "Official" or not this also happens to be how our language itself evolves, that is, through usage. Allreet (talk) 22:18, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

  But the use of caps leads to the misimpression that these are proper names, which source usage generally contradicts. Caltech has no such official names; they do not appear on maps or in lists of buildings. I've shown that capitalizing "Houses" in various contexts has been common, but not consistent, since at least "Student Houses" in 1959. Caltech loves their houses, but that doesn't make these proper names. Per MOS:CAPS we should not cap what not consistently capped in sources. Antony's 85% estimate is rubbish, and the premise that these are names of buildings is also rubbish. Dicklyon (talk) 01:22, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

• Comment. The RfC tag auto-expired a few days ago. @Dicklyon: Would you prefer a close request now, or to keep the RfC open a bit longer? We've had recent new and changed !votes, and less participation than I hoped, probably because of the voluminous nature of our own comments. I've pretty much said all I have to say, so if we extend the RfC I'm unlikely to comment much more, so as to stay out of the way of future participants. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 06:04, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

  I filed a close request about a week ago. Dicklyon (talk) 06:28, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hovse?

Why this weird "Hovse" thing? I never heard of that in my years at Caltech, as student or faculty. It showed up in Wikipedia in 2005, and at Blacker's site by 2006 according to the Wayback Machine. Is this just a weird styling of a few people who aren't that familiar with the Roman alphabet? Are there sources that talk about it or actually use it? Dicklyon (talk) 03:33, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

And gdbg.org is a self-published site from 2008, not something that can be considered WP:RS. Dicklyon (talk) 03:44, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

It my time at Caltech (mid 2000s), the spelling "Hovse" was popular among undergraduates because the signs on the South Houses use that spelling, in imitation of ancient Roman inscriptions that lack the "U" glyph. And gdbg.org is independent of Caltech as it was written by a former student, and should be considered reliable for these purposes. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 02:09, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

A personal blog by a former student can hardly be considered either reliable or independent. And I understand the reasoning, a typical silly Caltech undergrad thing. But of course, the Romans also had no lowercase letters, so "Hovse" is nonsense, even if it was popular among undergraduates. That's not the kind of thing that Wikipedia needs to propagate. Dicklyon (talk) 05:52, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Regardless of its usage, this is not a case of one letter being substituted for another but a case of how the letter is being rendered. Bulgari is a similar example, as it also uses the old Latin "u" (rendered with a "v") in 100% of its branding and clothing, but that doesn't make the letter a "v", its still a "u". A brief mention can be made to say that the houses are sometimes rendered as hovses, but usage throughout the article should be the actual word, which is houses.Cristiano Tomás (talk) 03:26, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

I concur with Dicklyon: '"Hovse" is nonsense, even if it was popular among undergraduates. That's not the kind of thing that Wikipedia needs to propagate.' Undergrads call things "frats", too, but WP would refer to them as "fraternities". This is not Slangpedia.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  18:57, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Concur with SMcandlish in concurring with Diklyon. Mention of undergrad humor - with confirmation from sources - is perfectly acceptable, but anointing their playful nonsense as "fact" is ridiculous. Allreet (talk) 22:25, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Citation and other issues

This is listed as a B-class article but according to the criteria: It has reliable sources, and any important or controversial material which is likely to be challenged is cited, so there is an issue of multiple inline "citation needed" tags and at least one "original research?" question. Aside from a large amount of unsourced material, there are unsourced sections and sub-sections. Maybe a "General references" section would help a C-class article so hopefully, someone can look at this. -- Otr500 (talk) 20:04, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

I agree, this is clearly a C-class article. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 19:17, 24 January 2022 (UTC)