Page 1 of 2

Capitalization

PostPosted: Wed Aug 30, 2017 5:05 am
by jackitaylor
A specific scenario here. I feel a bit stupid for asking this, just confirming I am doing it right . . .

If I am referring to a playing card, the ace of spades, in a general way, I wouldn't capitalize that - "I saw an ace of spades", but if I'm referring to a specific one, as in, the only one, the one in my hand or the only one in a singe deck, I would then capitalize it? "The Ace of Spades fell to the floor" or "The Ace of Spades was torn" That is how I'm doing it now. Is that correct?

Re: Capitalization

PostPosted: Wed Aug 30, 2017 8:06 am
by rob-lost
GOOD question!

I think not, and Wikipedia agrees with me:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Poker/Guidelines#Card_names_and_suits

==Card names and suits should not be treated as proper nouns (i.e. should not be capitalized), whether used in isolation or in combination to describe a single card. For example:

"the ace of spades" not "the Ace of Spades"==

I don't consider Wikipedia to be authoritative, so maybe it's worth looking up other sources. But this makes sense to me.

Re: Capitalization

PostPosted: Wed Aug 30, 2017 8:28 am
by jackitaylor
yeah, I don't usually bank on wikipedia. I would at least find another source, just to be positive. Quite a few years ago, in college composition, we weren't allowed to cite wikipedia as a source, it wasn't considered credible. That doesn't mean it's wrong of course. You are most likely correct, but i will check around online about it. thanks!

Re: Capitalization

PostPosted: Wed Aug 30, 2017 8:38 am
by ostarella
It wouldn't be capitalized just because it's "special" or unique. It's not a proper noun, ie, a name - it's just a thing.

Here's a good overall reference:

http://www.grammarbook.com/punctuation/capital.asp

Re: Capitalization

PostPosted: Wed Aug 30, 2017 12:40 pm
by jackitaylor
thanks ostarella. I swear I've seen it capitalized though somewhere, thats probably how the idea got in my head . . .

Re: Capitalization

PostPosted: Wed Aug 30, 2017 1:00 pm
by rob-lost
[quote="jackitaylor"]thanks ostarella. I swear I've seen it capitalized though somewhere, thats probably how the idea got in my head . . .[/quote]
FYI, I doubt that this would kill a submission. Good to ask, and to follow, but the publisher will tell you how they will handle it.

Re: Capitalization

PostPosted: Wed Aug 30, 2017 1:27 pm
by jackitaylor
That's good to know, rob-lost! Thanks.

Re: Capitalization

PostPosted: Wed Aug 30, 2017 7:04 pm
by DrG2
{quote="jackitaylor"}Quite a few years ago, in college composition, we weren't allowed to cite wikipedia as a source, it wasn't considered credible. {/quote}
Sigh. The reason wikipedia is not a great choice as a reference is that it can change from day to day, not because it isn't credible. It's credible for most topics.

Re: Capitalization

PostPosted: Wed Aug 30, 2017 7:31 pm
by robjvargas
credible: able to be believed; convincing.

As far as I'm concerned, that editability is the reason it's not credible.

I use it as the first step in research quite a lot. Like with my initial reply here. But in and of itself, Wikipedia doesn't have the controls in place to be either credible or authoritative.

Re: Capitalization

PostPosted: Thu Aug 31, 2017 4:41 am
by jackitaylor
I do that too, rob, wikipedia and then try to find some other confirmation, from another, better source.