Category talk:De Havilland Canada DHC-6 Twin Otter
Capitalization
It appears there is some confusion about whether or not the "D" in this name should be upper or lower case. Wikipedia seems to have it lower case. Tleeg 23:00, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
- It should be de Havilland but like normal pages, Categories have to start with a capital. Bthebest 18:35, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
De havilland please! not "de" Havilland. I think wikipedia is wrong on that point. it's a name with a Capital in first letter as conventional way of writting proper noun. Sixcyl
- I would disagree, there is a big discussion about this on Wikipedia anyway. I believe for appearances sake, and historical correctness, it should be 'de', as it comes from the name 'de Havilland'. The most authoritative proof I can find to support this is the Bombardier website, which now owns de Havilland, states it as 'de Havilland' - Bombardier Acquisitions Bthebest 00:07, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
- After much research and deliberation amongst many long time aviation enthusiasts from other aviation sites, I have chosen to go with "de Havilland" like what is shown in the Bombardier Archives and other reputable places on the web. Thanks for the discussion and for understanding. Tleeg 22:40, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
Sorry Sirs , but I’d like to present you some strong arguments. For the historical correctness sake.
First, and I’m sorry Tim, but we can’t consider a marketing object like Bombardier’s website as automatically reliable in terms of typography rules and writting conventions, whatever the notoriety of this company. If you permit I would prefer to refer to most authoritive norms settled by more academic and officials Lexique des règles typographiques en usage à l’Imprimerie nationale , French Académie française , U.S. Government Printing Office …etc…. There are certainly much more other sources, but I’ve limited my research with enough proofs below:
Here as some samples of what we can find on different sites extracted from these authentic documents. Sorry but most of them are in French:
Wikipédia:Conventions typographiques
Par extension, on parle de casse pour désigner l'alternative entre capitale (ou majuscule) et minuscule. La casse est généralement régie par les conventions typographiques : le français exige une majuscule en début de phrase et aux noms propres , tandis que dans certains cas (titres de journaux, par exemple) d'autres langues, comme l'anglais, mettent une majuscule à chaque mot. Dans la typographie créative au contraire, le choix de la casse est laissé à l'artiste.
[ http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitale_et_majuscule Capitale et majuscule] Dans les titres La langue anglaise possède elle aussi cette distinction entre mots signifiants et non signifiants dans les titres d’œuvres, la seule différence étant que le français ne demande une haut-de-casse (capitale) obligatoire que pour le premier mot signifiant du titre , alors que l’anglais la demande sur tous les mots signifiants. Les deux langues ne demandent une haut-de-casse (capitale) pour le premier mot du titre que s’il est commun et signifiant, ou propre, ou s’il est en tête de phrase.
Usage des majuscules Attribution de la majuscule en fonction de la place du mot Les majuscules s'utilisent : • au premier mot d'un texte ; • au premier mot d'un alinéa : c'est notamment traditionnellement le cas en poésie au début de chaque vers ; dans le cas d'une phrase divisée en alinéa, cette règle n'est plus toujours respectée aujourd'hui ; • au premier mot suivant un point (également après le point d'interrogation, le point d'exclamation et les points de suspension uniquement quand ils équivalent à un point) ; • au premier mot d'une phrase citée13. Quand la majuscule est due à la place du mot, elle ne se place qu'à la première lettre d'un nom composé dont les éléments sont reliés par des traits d'union. Exemple : « Avant-hier, je me suis couché tard. » Attribution de la majuscule en fonction de la nature du mot Règles générales d'attribution Les majuscules s'utilisent : • pour les noms propres ; • pour indiquer le sens particulier d'un mot (état et État) ; • pour certains mots comme marque de déférence (ainsi, certains auteurs mettent la majuscule aux possessifs et aux pronoms personnels se rapportant à Dieu14) ; • pour les noms des objets étudiés dans la terminologie scientifique ; • pour distinguer des unités lexicales constituées d'une seule lettre15.
Noms composés La majuscule est utilisée pour le premier mot d'un nom composé tel que le requiert la règle générale et pour les mots qui, à l’intérieur d’un nom composé, requièrent en eux-mêmes la majuscule :
Majuscules et minuscules L'abus de la majuscule est unanimement dénoncé. La majuscule est beaucoup moins employée en français qu'en anglais. Quelques exemples : – les Français, les Japonais, les Parisiens ; mais : il apprend le chinois – l'Assemblée nationale ; mais : le conseil général du Var – le général De Gaulle ; mais : le Général (considéré comme nom propre désignant De Gaulle) – le président de l'Association colombophile de Vouziers, le directeur du centre culturel André Malraux [http://frwebgate2.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/TEXTgate.cgi?WAISdocID=l5F2h1/13/1/0&WAISaction=retrieve 3. Capitalization Rules ]
Particles in names of persons 3.13. In foreign names such particles as d�, da, de, della, den, du,
van, and von are capitalized unless preceded by a forename or
title. Individual usage, if ascertainable, should be followed.
Da Ponte; Cardinal da Ponte
Den Uyl; Johannes den Uyl; Prime Minister den Uyl
Du Pont; E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co.
Van Rensselaer; Stephen van Rensselaer
Von Braun; Dr. Wernher von Braun
but d'Orbigny; Alcide d'Orbigny; de la Madrid; Miguel de la Madrid
3.14. In anglicized names such particles are usually capitalized,
even if preceded by a forename or title, but individual usage,
if ascertainable, should be followed.
Justice Van Devanter; Reginald De Koven
Thomas De Quincey; William De Morgan
Henry van Dyke (his usage)
Samuel F. Du Pont (his usage); Ir�n�e du Pont
3.15. If copy is not clear as to the form of such a name (for
example, La Forge or Laforge), the two-word form should be
used.
De Kalb County (AL, GA, IL, IN)
but DeKalb County (TN)
3.16. In names set in capitals, de, von, etc., are also capitalized.
For the case that we are talking of, if in a sentence we shall write: Geoffrey de Havilland or Charles de Gaulle, etc… it MUST compulsorily be written De Havilland, De Gaulle when placed without the 1st name in a title or at beginning of a sentence. ANY WORD, either proper noun, of common noun is capitalized when STARTING a sentence or in a TITLE. That is a fact and historical correctness. I’ve more than 5 decades in my life-meter (unfortunately), and I can say that I’ve read many literature in my life , own a good deal of books to trust in experience. I’ve got many aircrafts books too, and I could send you many scans on pages were De Havilland is mentioned: Never you will find a title or starting sentence with ‘de’ ! Wikepedia and Bombardier’s site is wrong on that point. By the way, it seems different actors aren’t on phasis, as you can see different pages sometimes written ‘de Havilland’ and sometimes ‘De Havilland’! De Havilland or de Havilland. Cordialement.Sixcyl
- I appreciate the effort you've put into this research, however I still stand by my opinion. This issue is not just about grammatical correctness, for which most of your argument applies to, but about what is appropriate for the content of the site. This site is primarily about the factual correctness of aviation and where, in the case of titles, de Havilland is a brand name as I see it. Would you capitalize 'iPhone'? What I propose is that where de Havilland is used in all titles and middle of sentences, it is 'de Havilland' and when it is at the beginning of a sentence, 'De Havilland'. Bthebest 07:13, 18 December 2010 (MST)
Well, I can see we almost agree... almost, because on one side you make a difference between 'beginning of sentence' and 'titles' where normatives and authorized rules edict the same conventional rule (see all proofs in my upper comments), on the other side we agree that in a sentence the normative rule is to write: "The de Havilland aircrafts ...or Olivia de Havilland, Honoré de Balzac, Charles de Gaulle, Denis de la Patellière, etc...). The example of 'iPhone' is not convenient, because it is a neologistic brand name while de Havilland brand name, or du Pont de Nemours, have a genuine proper noun source who leads compulsarily to adopt the same rules than any words, since placed in a title.
As soon as I can, I'm going to send you scans pictures of litterature about aircrafts, some French, some other English and you 'll be able to state on. ... see you soon on the forum, it will be for me the occasion to join all of you there.
By the way and to discuss the use of the rule on different sites, here are some sites as reliable as others ,using the correct typography:
Airliners.net,
De Havilland Comet,
De Havilland DH-100 Vampire,
Havilland DH 106 Comet 2 De Havilland DH 106 Comet
De Havilland Ltd,
DeHavilland,
De Havilland Watches,
Association des Amis du Musée de l'Air,
De Havilland DHC-2 Beaver
- Firstly, you don't need to bother with the scans of the literature, I don't disbelieve you. Secondly, the point about 'de Havilland' having a genuine source, I completely agree but I believe the rules only apply when you are referring directly to that source, i.e. de Havilland the person. In this case we are referring to the aircraft which has been given the brand name of 'de Havilland', regardless of the fact the company was named after Geoffrey de Havilland, and as such the same conventions should apply as for 'iPhone'. Bthebest 12:07, 18 December 2010 (MST)
No, the normative rule in a title of bibliographic document like IMPDb is, definitively leads to consider the signifiant of the word not at is appears , like in a logo, but as a common or proper word. Imagine Rovers cars had been written “rover” as logo, it should be introduced as Rover in a title. That is the confusion that some people can make nowadays, because of emergence of new kind of commercial makes like iPhone, e-bay, etc… Considering De Havilland as these new invented words is absolutely anachronistic and un-convenient from the point of view of the rule. You asked to refer as closest as possible to historical correctness, and that does credit to you Tim, but I know you’re only 19 and I hope you may believe in my rather older experience and my knowledge? Of course, everybody may learn at any age of his life, I can be wrong too, more often than I’d want but fortunately not each time, and this time I’am certainly sure of what I say. Friendly best regards. Sixcyl
- Ok, I think we've both made our arguments clear now, and the final say has to be by Tobin. I will accept whatever he decides is right for his site. Bthebest 14:29, 19 December 2010 (MST)
- I appreciate everyone's comments and opinions. This site will use "de Havilland". I hope everyone who uses IMPDb will understand and can accept the decision. Tleeg 17:31, 19 December 2010 (MST)
Sorry Tobin ,and you might think it too excessive but I've just read your post and can't find yet more appropriate compareason, but your position is like, in such a way , to ask me to say now: 2+2=5 ! ... I can't accept it whatever my future as admin on this site. I've spent many time to argument and to proove the correctness of my point of view, but it seems one don't care anyway... Sixcyl
Where is the sentence from Bthebest about "Dortoir des grandes" visible? I can't find it where it is to reply on it Sixcyl 12:09, 3 February 2011 (MST)