Any reason for the nonstandard capitalization? Niiue (talk) 07:20, 16 August 2017 (EDT)
- It's following the standard capitalization for section headers in articles. Hello, I'm Time Turner. 12:53, 16 August 2017 (EDT)
- But not the standard capitalization for category names. Niiue (talk) 21:28, 16 August 2017 (EDT)
- I'm personally more of a fan of this standard - besides following the articles, "wasp", "amphibian", and all the rest aren't proper nouns, so I don't see why they should be written as such. Hello, I'm Time Turner. 21:34, 16 August 2017 (EDT)
- It still looks pretty strange for this category to be the exception, though. Niiue (talk) 21:45, 16 August 2017 (EDT)
- Agreed, but I'd rather that a proposal was made about this first. Hello, I'm Time Turner. 21:47, 16 August 2017 (EDT)
- It still looks pretty strange for this category to be the exception, though. Niiue (talk) 21:45, 16 August 2017 (EDT)
- I'm personally more of a fan of this standard - besides following the articles, "wasp", "amphibian", and all the rest aren't proper nouns, so I don't see why they should be written as such. Hello, I'm Time Turner. 21:34, 16 August 2017 (EDT)
- But not the standard capitalization for category names. Niiue (talk) 21:28, 16 August 2017 (EDT)