Discussion:Druid (Evaluational Base Class Layout)/Capitalized Abilities in Tables?

Back to Main Page → Meta Pages → Discussions

Capitalized Abilities in Tables?

Recently, with all of IP 69.95.86.73's edits on certain classes I have come to a problem. First off I did not revert these edits because A) I like them and think they are okay and B) When we format all the classes to this new way it will get changed back anyways depending on the verdict here. So, I think title-like capitalization of abilities in tables looks better than just the first word capitalized on the entire level. I think we should title-like capitalize abilities in tables even though WotC does not. --Green Dragon 00:42, 23 March 2007 (MDT)

I don't like it, myself. Looks kinda ugly. Armond 08:32, 23 March 2007 (MDT)

Should it be put to the vote? --Green Dragon 14:31, 23 March 2007 (MDT)

I can't think of any strong reason for one way or the other. I say go with inertia and follow WotC's lead. —Sledged (talk) 14:48, 25 March 2007 (MDT)

Just for the record: text-transform uppercase may help get the code consistent. Beware, though, it does not respect any convention, it just uppercase any first letter, Like This Even Though A Word Shall Not Be Uppercased).
By the way, remember my proposal for a template? That would help enforcing consistency.
David Latapie (✒ | @) 15:09, 25 March 2007 (MDT)

Hm... So, everyone is for keeping only the first letter of any certain levels abilities capitalized (Say NAY if you are not)? --Green Dragon 20:24, 25 March 2007 (MDT)

Could you provide some links, so that I may get a look? Thank you.
David Latapie (✒ | @) 20:38, 25 March 2007 (MDT)

• Capitalized: Anchorite (3.5e Prestige Class), Battle Hedgehog (3.5e Prestige Class), Battle Herald (3.5e Prestige Class), <nonwiki>Blink Warrior (3.5e Prestige Class)</nowiki>, Blood Soldier (3.5e Prestige Class), Brother of the Scarred Hand (3.5e Prestige Class), Channeler (3.5e Prestige Class)
• Only first word capitalized (except the occasional bonus feat): Aerial Cavalier (3.5e Prestige Class), Arcane Hunter (3.5e Prestige Class), Arcanist (3.5e Prestige Class), Archer of Artifice (3.5e Prestige Class), [[Gold Knight (3.5e Prestige Class)]], Gold Templar (3.5e Prestige Class), Grafter (3.5e Prestige Class)

—Sledged (talk) 21:16, 25 March 2007 (MDT)

Nay (1). --Green Dragon 20:03, 26 March 2007 (MDT)

Am for keeping them. Armond 15:58, 27 March 2007 (MDT)

Although not as determinist as German, English has some rules regarding typography and cases. Check out CapitalizationStandardEnglish
David Latapie (✒ | @) — blog 18:34, 27 March 2007 (MDT)

So, according to that, we should capitalize the abilities in the table, right? --Green Dragon 18:40, 27 March 2007 (MDT)

Right. Don’t forget some words are not capitalised (articles and adverbs, I think) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by David Latapie (talk • contribs) 18:45, 27 March 2007 (MST). Please sign your posts.

That article only addresses capitalization in titles. The section of the table that has the class features aren't titles. The titles would be the name of the table itself ("Table: The Druid") and the headers of each column; "Level," "Base Attack Bonus," "Fort Save," "Spells Per Day," etc. —Sledged (talk) 21:48, 27 March 2007 (MDT)

I'm not very good with English however I see the tables abilities as titles that lead to the abilities writing farther down on the page. Even though this is incorrect, this is how I, and I am sure many other people, see it. even though it may not be gramatically correct I still think capitilization on the abilities looks better than having them non-capitalized. Do you think that their is enough disagreement to put this to the vote? --Green Dragon 22:55, 27 March 2007 (MDT)

I see introductory text/definition term (the capacity in bold) as a title too. I consequently agree with Green Dragon here. Plus, this is what Wizards do in its book (See Arcane Dilettante in Dungeonscape, p. 16).
David Latapie (✒ | @) — blog 04:59, 28 March 2007 (MDT)

Yes, but in the table the first word is still the only thing that's capitalized. —Sledged (talk) 11:26, 11 April 2007 (MDT)

I share the intuition about titles. However, that intuition is overruled by desire for consistency. It's hard enough to remember which titles D&D capitalizes and which ones they don't, e.g. classes, races, attributes, skills, feats, spells, powers. My first preference would be to ask Wizards to establish a consistent policy, but assuming that's unlikely, I'd vote for local consistency. So, if a spell or power is not capitalized, I'd rather it never be capitalized, rather than add a second tier of confusion. --Cúthalion 13:26, 2 April 2007 (MDT)

Well, any non-automated process will induce errors, typos… by essence (not counting people who want to enforce the rules. Forking, anyone?) Here is a beginning: substantive and qualificative adjectives are always capitalised. I would add that in my native language, we do not capitalise (welll, we do, but much less, since we capitalise up to the first appelative). Still, this is a site in English, so we should follow the English rule (I would go as far as to say that when Wizards and English conflict, English should win. I never liked Orc, this is orc, except in a title, as the first word or a sentence or in poetry.
David Latapie (✒ | @) — blog 15:19, 2 April 2007 (MDT)

If every word is to be capitalized in the table simply because it looks better is okay, but there's a potential problem with using this title line of reasoning, because by the same token, everything else that refers to special abilities would have be capitalized, too, not just what's in the table. All terms that refer to special abilities, just like the ones in the table, implicitly (or in some cases explicitly) refer to an ability description titled with that term. In fact, the same could be true every term (not just special abilities) that's used as a title: "attack of opportunity," "free action," "standard action," "cover," "concealment," "initiative," etc. Essentially, almost any text used as a hyperlink would be capitalized. —Sledged (talk) 11:26, 11 April 2007 (MDT)

I agree with Sledged. But I'll change my vote if it means we can put this to rest. –Cúthalion (talk) 18:10, 18 May 2007 (MDT)

We should probably do a final call on all the votes and finish this up. We still have to deal with NPC, prestige, and racial paragon classes. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sledged (talk • contribs) .

I want it known that while I'm not changing my vote (I honestly think the tables look a lot better with the lower case formatting), I'd be fine with having my vote ignored if it would bury this discussion. This is one of the only things left being discussed, isn't it? --Armond (talk/contribs) 00:09, 20 May 2007 (MDT)

I think lower case formating in bold or italics to make it stand out. --User:Mallicate (talk/contribs) 19:04, 24 May 2007 (MDT)

Italic text is reserved for spell-like abilities like the paladin's detect magic and remove disease. Don't think I'd like the bold. —Sledged (talk) 19:07, 24 May 2007 (MDT)

Capitalization of Abilities in the Table

Make them capitalized (example below)	Capitalize first word only (example below)
Improved Charging of the Bulwark	Improved charging of the bulwark
Green Dragon David Latapie EldritchNumen Alabastor Blue Dragon Daniel Draco dmilewski	Think it's worth fighting over	Tired of discussing it
		Cúthalion Armond Sledged

Edited first line a bit, as (obviously) it'll be capitalized outside the table and it was freaking me out a little :P Armond 15:30, 9 April 2007 (MDT)

Final verdict—they will be capitalized. --Green Dragon 10:02, 28 May 2007 (MDT)

Changed. —Sledged (talk) 20:49, 28 May 2007 (MDT)