Talk:Capitalization of Internet

Requested move, 1 April 2026

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. – robertsky (talk) 04:24, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

---

Capitalization of Internet → Capitalization of internetCapitalization of internet – Wikipedia has a history of only sporadically capitalising the word internet in its articles, and this article's title is no exception. As this article shows, since 2016 most reliable sources have switched to the lowercase form, internet. Per MOS:CAPS, Wikipedia avoids unnecessary capitalisation, and as a preponderance of reliable sources now use lowercase, this article should do too. Newbzy (talk) 02:15, 1 April 2026 (UTC) — Relisting. – robertsky (talk) 02:40, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

• This proposal is a misunderstanding of the history but that might be lost to deep time now. Johnuniq (talk) 02:17, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

  I'm not sure I fully understand what you mean... since the start of the 21st century there's been a push to decapitalise the term. I'm hoping this RM will draw attention to how we are being pretty inconsistent with this on Wikipedia. Newbzy (talk) 02:29, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

  It's ok, only people with significant knowledge of networking over a long period understand the history. In brief, an "internet" (lowercase) is a group of networks perhaps operated for internal use by a company. The one and only "Internet" (capital) is the world wide internet that joins pretty well everything now. That's why it had a capital. People who don't understand the issue started writing the word in lowercase. That's fine, no problem, common usage wants simplicity. However the issue was the push to change the "Internet" to simple "internet" because as far as most people concerned, it was just a thing they used like a car. Style guides argued that lowercase should be used to comply with other common usage words and for simplicity. That is, the argument was about "Internet" with a capital I. Johnuniq (talk) 08:18, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

I know all that, actually, and I was going to mention it in the initial RM starting comment, but left it out for brevity. There's no need to maintain the distinction anymore, just as The New York Times writes in their article It’s Official: The ‘Internet’ Is Over: "[It's] a pointless distinction now, since “internet” is rarely used anymore in the generic sense." Newbzy (talk) 08:33, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

• Support per MOS:CAPS. (And MOS:CAPS is the reason we should be spelling "internet" lowercase everywhere on Wikipedia, but that's a different — and well worn — debate.) Popcornfud (talk) 04:18, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject Internet and WikiProject Linguistics have been notified of this discussion. Qwerty123M (talk) 04:35, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose. I am inclined to support this motion as not capitalising "internet" would be far better given that there is no Manual of Style article telling us to do so. I cannot support this idea because the idea needs to be widely discussed by the community at large first via an RFC or a more important forum. I agree that MOS:CAPS supports the argument in favour of this proposal but there seems to be an unwritten consensus present on other articles and this one that "internet" is a proper noun and hence should be capitalised. Maybe "internet" is just capitalised because that's the way auto-correct services such as on iOS have treated the word!

Having said all this, I would much prefer a Manual of Style article be created on why "internet" is capitalised because it probably would not be capitalised in a sentence outside of Wikipedia. Qwerty123M (talk) 04:43, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

Given that there's no MoS guidance either way, I don't see why a consensus can't be found on a per-article basis. If half of the uses of the word "internet" are lowercase on Wikipedia already, why not this article too? (Assuming that's the consensus formed by the editors looking at it, of course.) Popcornfud (talk) 04:47, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

Finding consensus locally would be dramatically inefficient and if people change the capitalisation of "internet" in other articles, it would probably result in frequent edit wars. From what I've seen, it's much less than half of all articles that have a different capitalisation of "internet", usually the capitalised version is used. Per WP:LOCALCONSENSUS, this proposal is not the best way to gather consensus on an apparent site-wide policy. Consensus probably will not hold if it is made locally, if many users know about it via an RFC then we will have success on judging what is most appropriate.

I favour MOS:CAPS including information on the words that should always be capitalised, this will be best so that everyone is certain on whether "internet" should be capitalised because this is not common practice and so consensus does not change based on different articles. Qwerty123M (talk) 07:47, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

If it wasn't clear, I just meant getting a consensus to change something on this article, for this one case, not every other article where the word internet is used. Popcornfud (talk) 10:01, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

Even though you have clarified that a local consensus is sought, I think any consensus here would make its way to other articles, resulting in inconsistent capitalisations. It's safest to do redo this proposal in a forum where many opinions will be contributed and the community at large agrees on the best way forward. Qwerty123M (talk) 10:13, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose Clearly not a serious suggestion, given the date — GhostInTheMachine ^{talk to me} 07:05, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

If you're talking about April Fools' Day, where I'm from we barely celebrate it, so I wasn't aware that it was today when I started this RM. Can you guys in the US really not take anything seriously on April 1st, even policy-based arguments? Newbzy (talk) 08:33, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

guys in the US? — GhostInTheMachine ^{talk to me} 08:37, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

Yep – Newbzy (talk) 08:41, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

— GhostInTheMachine ^{talk to me} 09:00, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

This user lives in York.

Kashkomarimashita. Newbzy (talk) 09:03, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

Gesundheit! — GhostInTheMachine ^{talk to me} 11:03, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

• Support: Usage has changed. The distinctions mentioned above are no longer used. Almost everything I read uses lower case. SchreiberBike | ⌨  02:48, 9 April 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose No obvious reason given to change from the status quo, the idea that "most" reliable sources have stopped capitalizing Internet is declared with zero proof. This really ought to be an RfC rather than an attempt to randomly move this page - if Wikipedians decide to stop capitalizing it, this move would be relatively uncontroversial in comparison. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:35, 11 April 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose: Primary reason is that it seems to me that in the title of a page about the capitalization of "Internet", the word "Internet" should be capitalized! Regardless of your view on the capitalization of Internet, this just makes sense to me. I don't understand why it should be changed. - Dyork (talk) 09:14, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

  Have you read MOS:CAPS? It says: Only words and phrases that are consistently capitalized in a substantial majority of independent, reliable sources are capitalized in Wikipedia. This isn't the case for "internet", hence the proposal. Popcornfud (talk) 09:23, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

  @Popcornfud: Hello, again! Didn't you and I spend many hours - and thousands of characters - having these exact discussions here on this Talk page a number of years back? 🙂 I highly doubt either of us have changed our minds. Yes, I have read MOS:CAPS and I have also read WP:LOWERCASE - both would argue to lowercase "Internet" in the article title. I understand that, and yet I still oppose the move because in this particular case, I just think "Internet" should continue to be capitalized because the article is about the capitalization of Internet! - Dyork (talk) 12:09, 11 April 2026 (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.

Comment: Robertsky, I just came across this page and this discussion. Despite the numerical majority opposing a move, the argument for moving looks far stronger to me, to the extent that I would have been tempted to close it as in favor of a move. How I'd have summarized it: The support side argued that, per the sources cited in the article, most people no longer capitalize internet, and that, per MOS:CAPS, the article should follow common usage and avoid unneccessary capitalization. The opposition raised various uncompelling points. The argument about a different forum being needed was discarded because this discussion is about this article, not about general practice on all of Wikipedia. GhostInTheMachine's !vote erroneously interpreted the proposal as an April Fools' Joke but presented no other argument, so was discarded. The argument that the support side failed to provide sources attesting to the change in usage was likewise discarded, because the sources the support side mentioned are readily available in the article itself. After discarding/deweighting the invalid opposition arguments, the overall consensus is to move. Sdkb ^talk 21:56, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

@Sdkb Fair enough. I can see the argument. Feel free to vacate my close and reclose as appropriate. – robertsky (talk) 08:32, 12 September 2026 (UTC)

It would be better to consult others by starting a move review rather than encouraging @Sdkb to make this significant change unilaterally. Qwerty123M (talk) 08:51, 12 September 2026 (UTC)

Or another RM. Five months has gone by. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 09:13, 12 September 2026 (UTC)

GhostInTheMachine ... was discarded The cheek of it! — GhostInTheMachine ^{talk to me} 10:07, 12 September 2026 (UTC)

Maybe better to target a new modified request at Internet, which is uppercased in running text there and still preferred in n-grams from 2022 (although a proper noun in the 1990s, now on an interesting 21st century steep curve towards lowercase, which is bound to be preferable here at some point if not now), and then use that result in the title of this page. As long as Internet is uppercased in running text at its direct link then the argument for changing it here would arguably be moot. Then again, this would be the location for an RM as long as Internet includes an RM notice on its top (would be unusual but IAR should be enough to ensure a fuller discussion). Randy Kryn (talk) 12:28, 12 September 2026 (UTC)

@Randy Kryn, those are all much better points than any made in the RM. Given that, I'll open a new RM, which will also cover what to do at Internet. Sdkb ^talk 02:51, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

Requested move 15 September 2026

Capitalization of Internet → Capitalization of internetCapitalization of internet and lowercase by default the word internet at the article Internet – Per the sources cited in this article, most people no longer capitalize internet, and per MOS:CAPS, the article should follow common usage and avoid unnecessary capitalization. Sdkb ^talk 02:57, 15 September 2026 (UTC) — Relisting. In solidarity, Grilledcheeseisgreat ^✉ 03:20, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

• Support as nominator. Sdkb ^talk 02:57, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

  You don't need to explicitly support your own nomination as that is implied per WP:RMCOMMENT. Qwerty123M (talk) 02:37, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject Internet and WikiProject Linguistics have been notified of this discussion. Qwerty123M (talk) 02:58, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

• Support per nomination and as the nominator of the previous RM. Also support lowercasing the word internet in the article Internet. Newbzy (talk) 03:05, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

Support. Using an uppercase "I" in this case seems like an antiquated tradition that we should move on from now that the internet has matured and it is a common part of daily life. The WP:COMMONNAME should be found by assessing whether more editors use lowercase "i" or uppercase "I" in spelling this word in talk page messages and other non-article namespace communications; as for sources indicating a common name, I have found many Australian internet providers using the lowercase name as well as the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission and a majority of Australian news agencies, though the Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development, Communications, Sport and the Arts uses the uppercase name. I would rather this matter be settled through a request for comment so that there is a strong WP:CONSENSUS to update any relevant guidance in the manual of style, however I hope that the requested move here will provide consensus to update any other guidance. Qwerty123M (talk) 03:10, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

Comment: I agree with all of these points. I also wanted to say that I think adding a note about this in Wikipedia's MOS is a very good idea, since it sets a standard that editors should follow sitewide and that can be enforced sitewide. Right now, it's pretty hit-and-miss. Newbzy (talk) 03:16, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

Notified: Talk:Internet. Reason: message was sent by @Sdkb. Qwerty123M (talk) 03:12, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

• Support. MOS:CAPS says "only words and phrases that are consistently capitalized in a substantial majority of independent, reliable sources are capitalized in Wikipedia". "Internet" does not meet this criteria, as demonstrated by the various articles and style guides cited in this very article. Popcornfud (talk) 03:16, 15 September 2026 (UTC)
• [EDIT: Neutral per not including top alerts at other Internet articles, see discussion at Smec's comment well below]Support, the n-grams [EDIT: per comment below, n-grams for "the Internet" tell the tale] of a mighty uppercase Internet who, upon bad fortune and familiarity, has likely and quickly fallen to lowercase by now. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:31, 15 September 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose Randy Kryn's Ngrams analysis is highly misleading, as it purposely doesn't include the simple words "Internet" and "internet" without the "the" While the lowercase version is climbing it's not nearly there yet. I'm not going to assume that this was done in bad faith without proof, just that it was a major oversight that renders the argument null and void. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 12:54, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

  Zxcvbnm, thanks, no, I missed that the first time around and then recopied it into the RM. You really are determined against me, of course this wasn't in bad faith. In any case, lowercase per Wikipedia style of casing predominance so still 'support'. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:03, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

  No, I'm not trying to Wiki-stalk you. I just browsed upon the page and was skeptical, so it was frankly a pure coincidence. The fact it was said with such extreme confidence made me wonder, but it's fair that it was an oversight.

  Predominance of usage on Wikipedia doesn't seem like a valid argument since it's so easily changed by a bot or the like. In fact, the nom literally suggests doing just that. I am genuinely curious if there is a policy that backs that up. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 13:12, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

  I haven't accused you of stalking, was commenting on your subtle aspersion. In most cases adding 'the' to a noun will achieve nearly the same n-gram result as this one has, the predominance of uppercased 'Internet' has fallen rapidly and likely updated n-grams would show this has continued, but Wikipedia's casing preference for mixed lower- and uppercase comparison puts this one at lowercase. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:16, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

  I don't know much about Ngrams, but wouldn't comparing "Internet" and "internet", as opposed to "the Internet" vs "the internet", produce a less reliable diagnostic? Without "the", we'd include every time "Internet" is capitalized at the start of a sentence, regardless of whether the writer otherwise spells it lowercase.

  In any case, this is moot because Wikipedia only capitalizes words that are "consistently capitalized in a substantial majority" of sources, per MOS:CAPS. We already have enough evidence to see there's no such majority. Popcornfud (talk) 14:16, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

  You are ignoring MOS:PROPERNAME, of which "Internet" is one. The sentence you cited refers to non-proper names. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 14:38, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

  But we have an abundance of sources showing the opposite, that internet is no longer treated as a proper noun. These are cited in this article. Popcornfud (talk) 15:01, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

  (edit conflict) Occasional exceptions apply, of course, but yes, "internet" has become more than a single proper noun but an overall descriptor of an everyday item which now includes billions of variations which exist in so many separate servers that it can no longer act as a fully singular word (like 'sidewalk' would be uppercased if there was only one known sidewalk, which would be a tourist attraction complete with signage). Randy Kryn (talk) 14:45, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

  I think your analogy has it the wrong way around. A controlled-access highway is a kind of road, while the Dwight D. Eisenhower National System of Interstate and Defense Highways is one specific road network. Similarly, an internetwork is a system of connected computer networks, while the Internet is one specific internetwork. It's not a web server or a router or a firewall, but the one unique system which the majority of those devices are currently connected to. Temporally it's also distinct from the earlier ARPANET and from whatever alternative computer networking systems may or may not arise in the future. ;; Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 16:34, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

  Exactly. It is the "Internet", that is a unique name given to it, and it would make no sense to say "an internet". Because it's "a network"; that would be the non-proper noun. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 01:34, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

  The issue with Ngrams that don't have words prefixed is that they will tend to capture too many titles, which are conventionally stylized as all caps in many sources, even for words that are most certainly not proper nouns. Katzrockso (talk) 19:37, 25 September 2026 (UTC)

  Disagree. Assuming they actually do pick up titles, they also pick up all of the text of the works that are under said titles, which text likely contains many uses of the words being checked. So the usage in the titles is a drop in a bucket compared to the usage in the texts, not enough to make a significant difference. HierophantOfOmens (talk) 20:01, 26 September 2026 (UTC)

• Support. The text of this article makes a compelling case that internet should not be capitalized. pburka (talk) 16:14, 15 September 2026 (UTC)
• Support in the context presented. I would like to note that updated references would be greatly helpful, as it seems the article cites usage as of 2016. – The Grid (talk) 17:45, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

  Neutral Adding that I don't agree with lowercasing the Internet article. I thought the argument was only for this article. – The Grid (talk) 06:03, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

• Support: Usage has gradually changed. Wikipedia should follow the trend. SchreiberBike | ⌨  18:53, 15 September 2026 (UTC)
• Wondering if the problem here is that the term started as a proper name but evolved into a generic? Similar to how “Hoover” (proper name for a specific brand of vacuum cleaner) has evolved into “hoover” (generic in UK English for any vacuum cleaner). If so, then we may have to deal with this on a case by case basis (even a sentence by sentence basis). Blueboar (talk) 19:45, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

  What would the distinction then be? I.e. what is, according to you, the Internet, and what is an internet? Because within the field of computer science, there is a common noun called internet: it's short for internetwork, that is any system of interconnected computer networks. Of which the global Internet (proper noun) is one instance. But this article (and Internet, which the nominator is also hoping to affect with this discussion) are about the global Internet, of which there is only one. Internetworking in general is a niche topic by comparison. ;; Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 20:12, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

  The Hoover/hoover example is an example of a generic trademark. As internet was never trademarked, it's not quite the same thing, but it is an example of a proper noun shifting to a common noun over time.

  "Phonograph" is another example of a word that was once written as a proper noun (source). Per the NY Times: "Uppercase 'Internet' also reflected a common tendency to capitalize newly coined or unfamiliar terms. Once a term becomes familiar and quotidian, there is a tendency to drop the capital letter.'

  In any case I don't see why this means we need to treat this on a "case-by-case basis"... Popcornfud (talk) 02:36, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

  So the NY Times stopped capitalizing Internet because the AP stopped doing it. The AP stopped doing it because the American Copy Editors Society stopped doing it. The American Copy Editors Society stopped doing it because... they "thought" they didn't need to anymore. Just because various publications do what is "in style" and faddish does not mean Wikipedia needs to follow suit for the same reason.

  Even the phonograph example doesn't prove anything about Internet vs internet, as it was never, ever written more commonly in uppercase. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 03:44, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

  But your Ngrams result shows that "phonogram" was once often written as a proper noun and now isn't, which is the whole point. And if still you don't accept the phonogram example, at least accept that proper nouns can convert to common nouns over time, as the NY Times source above explains. Popcornfud (talk) 04:31, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

  The point is that phonograph never actually "converted into a common noun", it was always a common noun. Even moreso because a lot of the proper noun usages were probably talking about or advertising some company or product. The Internet on the other hand follows a drastically different trajectory. And while the common noun version is sorta catching up, there isn't enough proof out there that the common noun version has blatantly and obviously exceeded the capitalized one in common usage, just wishful thinking and attempted self-fulfilling prophecies, in other words a large example of WP:RGW. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:01, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose. It's a proper noun, in fact I still don't see any way in which it conceivably could be anything else when referring to the global Internet, which is a singular phenomenon. Also, sources still mostly capitalize it. ;; Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 12:59, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

  This article explains why it has been shifting... – The Grid (talk) 00:54, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

I still don't see any way in which it conceivably could be anything else when referring to the global Internet, which is a singular phenomenon... all the more reason why capitalisation is unnecessary. Wikipedia no longer needs to use a capital to show that internet doesn't just mean some locally based internet setup. Newbzy (talk) 01:12, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

Does that mean the internet has some higher status than the Earth, Moon, and Sun, and God? (We capitalize those.) —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 01:44, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

BarrelProof, if you are discussing an IAR-based keep of uppercase because the Internet can arguably be designated by Wikipedia as a proper noun, you arguably have a point. The summary of MOS:CAPS says "Editors should generally follow it, though it is best treated with common sense, and exceptions may apply", so asking for an exception here may have potential. Randy Kryn (talk) 02:17, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

Anything that exists just once can be treated as a proper noun if you try hard enough, so that argument risks leading to a considerable degree of overcapitalization. Gawaon (talk) 04:33, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

If I was advocating a particular conclusion, I'd be more clear about it. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 04:58, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose. Especially in this case, I would see the uppercase kept. Also per editor ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ's ngrams, this title should not be altered, not yet at least. I think whether or not the word "internet" is a proper or common noun depends a lot on the context, and in this case the Internet is still the COMMONNAME. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. – welcome! – 20:46, 17 September 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:CONSUB. No opinion the merits question (should internet be capitalized), but the article Internet capitalizes it. Srnec (talk) 19:40, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

  @Srnec, this request also covers whether to capitalize the term at the article Internet. Sdkb ^talk 20:13, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

  It's weird to bundle that into an RM. Srnec (talk) 21:50, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

  Yeah, it is, but it was suggested above and I couldn't think of any better way to do it. Since changing the default at Internet wouldn't involve moving the page, but at the same time I don't think anyone is likely to support capitalization at one but not the other, so it's best to consider them together. Sdkb ^talk 22:57, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

  Note that the linked suggestion included the fact that the article Internet would either have to be the site for this discussion or would have to include a top-box alerting readers to the RM. This was not done. Other articles which include Internet in their name should have also been alerted. So as of now 'Internet' is the uppercased proper name on Wikipedia and this page going it alone without a full alert being disseminated to other Internet articles is probably not possible. Per this oversight, I will change my 'support' above. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:17, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

  {{Requested move notice}} has this article hardcoded into it, so I didn't see an easy way to add the notice to Internet, and instead alerted Talk:Internet using {{Please see}}. But I have no objection to a notice on the article itself if you think that's needed. Should we use the highly generic {{Notice}} or something else? If you can come up with a way to do it, feel free to be bold and add it. Sdkb ^talk 23:27, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

  It seems too late to add top-of-page notices about this RM, should have been done at the start if it was even feasible, so I'll pass at any attempt to do so. Didn't know you had added a note at the Internet talk page, that was a good alert. Still, a major change like casing should have full notification and access to discussion. Randy Kryn (talk) 01:52, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose No one worries about the capitalization of internet (lowercase)—all commonly used words end up being simplified (N.A.T.O. → NATO, etc.). The article is about the drift from the original (correct at the time) spelling of Internet (uppercase) for the Internet. That was to distinguish the one-and-only global internetwork from other networks that connected different locations. No problem if that logic is too hard to grasp—we can get a bot to change every Internet to internet for consistency. Johnuniq (talk) 02:54, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

Relisting comment: Would've closed with consensus as support if there was not this recent string of opposes challenging that. Clearly, more time is needed. In solidarity, Grilledcheeseisgreat ^✉ 03:22, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

• Comment An additional pertinent point that Randy Kryn raised correctly above is that this move would assumedly determine the usage of the word Internet all over Wikipedia, which is not helpful to editors or readers, as it excludes many who may not be watching this page or discussion. The title of this page with regards to making Internet lowercase should not be changed by RM, before there is a Wiki-wide policy decision or an RFC to change said policy, that reaches the maximum people possible. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:15, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

  First, per MOS:VAR there will be no binding obligation to change any articles except the two explicitly covered here. It is true that many editors may want to align wording at other articles with these ones, but that's the same phenomenon as any other move; I don't see it creating a special need to promote this discussion more widely. RMs are already centrally listed. I don't have any objection to wider advertising, so if you wanted to try WP:CENT-listing it you could and see if it sticks. A {{Please see}} invite to WT:MOS might be a more appropriate option, although it should be clear that we're not currently proposing adding to the MOS. Sdkb ^talk 14:13, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

  I absolutely think that if this page were moved, people may be prompted to start lowercasing Internet everywhere en masse, whether by bot or find and replace, believing it to be the new policy and pointing to this page's title if questioned. It could become a de facto MOS change, which is problematic.

  I think that rather than super-publicizing this RM, a more general discussion needs to be started separately, this is not the proper forum to decide such things. If there really is consensus to do it on the wider Wikipedia, moving this will be rather trivial. If there is not, this should probably not be moved. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:30, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

  Can you please get a high-level discussion like that started? It is overly-bureaucratic to have a discussion about having another discussion, so what we are doing now goes against WP:NOTBUREAU. I did always want this issue to be resolved in that sort of way as it would provide strong consensus. Qwerty123M (talk) 06:36, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

  I'm heavily not in favor of changing the status quo, so starting a discussion for someone else would be rather odd. The onus is on the person who thinks it should be changed, in my opinion. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 07:13, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

  I agree that this is WP:NOTBUREAU. We are having this discussion and have advertised it widely — saying "you need to have this discussion but bigger" is not a valid objection. Sdkb ^talk 15:15, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

• Comment the two statistics quoted in the article itself are (1) capitalized in 54% of cases [2016 OED survey—outdated] and (2) 82% favoured lowercase [2020 Twitter poll—unscientific]. Any recent WP:RS to update the article would be good in its own right, besides perhaps helping to inform this move debate. jnestorius^(talk) 16:02, 25 September 2026 (UTC)

Notified: Wikipedia talk:MOS and Wikipedia talk:MOS/Capitalization. Sdkb ^talk 17:54, 25 September 2026 (UTC)

• Mild oppose move. It's clearer what the article's about if we show the capitalisation in question, especially if the italics are lost such as at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Discussion at Talk:Capitalization of Internet § Requested move 15 September 2026. Similarly "Capitalization of Cola" would be clearer than "Capitalization of cola", and "Capitalization of Aspirin" likewise; if the orthography startles the reader, they know at once what we're talking about. However, if we're really going to determine capitalisation inside other articles by an RM for this one (!), support lower-case "internet" in the Internet article and elsewhere, outside explicit quotations and suchlike, with some surprise to see that we've been hanging on to such an antique practice. NebY (talk) 18:32, 25 September 2026 (UTC)
• Strong support per nominator's rationale. You can literally read the article to learn why it has been changing. Additionally, the italics makes it much more obvious. FaviFake (talk) 19:13, 25 September 2026 (UTC)
• Support move. The evidence presented by both Randy Kryn and ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ suggests that at best there is no strong preference in the sources for whether the term is or is not capitalized. Per MOS:CAPS, 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. The evidence definitely does not show that the word is capitalized in a "substantial majority" of sources. The Oxford English study in the article says the ratio is just 54% capitalized, another piece of evidence that the capitalized form is not a "substantial majority".Katzrockso (talk) 19:42, 25 September 2026 (UTC)

  Note the next line, "There are exceptions for specific cases discussed below." One of the exceptions is proper names, at MOS:PROPER. The Internet is a proper name and is therefore not affected by the policy at all unless determined otherwise. MOS:CAPS is not a valid argument to use in this discussion though, as the discussion is literally to overturn MOS:CAPS in favor of a nonstandard spelling. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 12:44, 26 September 2026 (UTC)

  That seems to be begging the question. Why is "the Internet" a proper name but "the press" or "the media" not? The best possible answer is probably "because the Internet is capitalized", but that, of course, is tautological. Gawaon (talk) 12:48, 26 September 2026 (UTC)

  Yep, it is begging the question. Why should we capitalize internet? Because it's a proper noun. Why should we treat it as a proper noun? Because we capitalize it. Etc. Circular reasoning. Popcornfud (talk) 14:11, 26 September 2026 (UTC)

  "The press" and "the media" are abstract entities. "The Internet" is a concrete entity that exists both physically and virtually, that there is only one of. There are other "internets", there is only one Internet. The Internet is an internet. There are numerous cases where lowercase internet is appropriate. When it's being used as a name for a specific entity, then it isn't. HierophantOfOmens (talk) 20:37, 26 September 2026 (UTC)

  There are other universes but there is only one Universe ... no, wait ... NebY (talk) 20:46, 26 September 2026 (UTC)

  I understand, but you're arguing based on a technical or linguistic distinction that isn't reflected by sources. Popcornfud (talk) 06:39, 27 September 2026 (UTC)

  That section lists three classes of proper names which have specific exceptions (cultures, people, and places). The internet isn't one of those. pburka (talk) 12:54, 26 September 2026 (UTC)

  Zxcvbnm makes a very valid point here. Proper names are uppercased on Wikipedia, and the obviousness of Internet as a proper name is easily arguable. And no, it is not like "the press", it is a verifiable properly named stand-alone and well sourced tech invention. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:56, 26 September 2026 (UTC)

  This is along the lines of what I was about to say. Those aren't even considered proper nouns so I'm not sure why they were brought up. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 13:04, 26 September 2026 (UTC)

  It was fairly common to capitalize "the Press" until around the 1950s, but it's much rarer in recent years. The same thing is happening to "the Internet": it's no longer capitalized in many sources. The only way to tell if a phrase is a proper name is to see if sources consistently capitalize it, and in this case they no longer do. pburka (talk) 14:48, 26 September 2026 (UTC)

  The three sections are just for types of proper nouns that require additional guidance. The section refers to all proper nouns, though. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 12:58, 26 September 2026 (UTC)

  This makes no sense. The way Wikipedia determines what is and is not a proper noun is by looking at what is consistently capitalized in a substantial majority of reliable secondary sources. MOS:PROPER is not an exception to the rule, just an explanation of how to apply it to peoples, places and personal names. Wallnot (talk) 15:50, 26 September 2026 (UTC)

  As I posted above, there's solid evidence it's NOT consistently lowercase in a majority of reliable sources. Wikipedia isn't automatically obliged to operate by newspaper manuals of style. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 16:17, 26 September 2026 (UTC)

  This reverses the burden of proof - we lowercase everything that isn't conventionally capitalized, not uppercase things that don't have a majority lowercase. Katzrockso (talk) 00:04, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

  No, proper names are determined by whether or not sources use them in capitalized form, not by simply by assuming the term is a proper noun. Katzrockso (talk) 00:04, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

• Support move because the article's title refers simultaneously to two different but closely-related nouns ("an internet" is roughly synonymous with "a network", whereas "the Internet" means the global amalgamation of all connected "internets"). Since "the Internet" is one form of "internet", this move resolves the ambiguity in the article title, without requiring consensus on whether or not the global Internet should be capitalized. Because I'm seeing a lot of generalization beyond the apparent scope of the MR in the above discussion, Oppose style changes that would lowercase "the Internet" when in reference to the global Internet (except as needed to demonstrate differences in capitalization), on the grounds that this is a MOS:PROPERNOUN (this is one of the many exceptions for specific cases mentioned in the lead at MOS:CAPS that Katzrockso partially quotes above). If a variant of English would capitalize "the Sun" or "the Pacific Ocean" (both "Pacific" and "Ocean"), "the Internet" should also be capitalized. Same for derived adjectival forms/usages of both ("internet packet" may be lowercased unless the packet is definitely Internet-specific, "Internet backbone" should not be). Please note that my opposition is ultimately fairly focused on usage strictly related to the global Internet. I expect that for the vast majority of usages, there is a trivial argument that the usage in question is not necessarily tied inextricably to the global Internet, which could make lower case acceptable or even preferred. In solidarity, Autoinvective (🗨︎ 𓅬) 22:54, 25 September 2026 (UTC)
• if moved at least Keep uppercasing for 'the Internet' when used as a proper noun, per Autoinvective. And add 'the' to the title of this page to keep it uppercased. Randy Kryn (talk) 00:54, 26 September 2026 (UTC)
• Support per nominator and MOS:CAPS. Clearly, usage has shifted over time and "(the) internet" is no longer "consistently capitalized in a substantial majority of independent, reliable sources". Arguments that it should nevertheless be capitalized since it's a MOS:PROPERNOUN are circular – there's no basis on which to "prove" that "(the) internet" is a proper noun other than pointing out that it's capitalized (by some). Gawaon (talk) 01:59, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

  there's no basis on which to "prove" that "(the) internet" is a proper noun I'm sorry, but what? It's a singular entity with a specific name. There's not another global Internet out there. Do any reliable sources say that it's not a proper noun, in any other way than not capitalizing it? Because if not, insisting that the global Internet be lowercased based on (contested, see above) statistical evidence introduces a new exception to MOS:CAPS instead of following its existing guidance for proper nouns. In solidarity, Autoinvective (🗨︎ 𓅬) 23:18, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

  "With a specific name" is again circular since here you're assuming what you would have to prove. And I'd say that "the internet" is indeed a collective rather than a singular entity, just like "the press". But if you can point me to a single physical entity that's "the internet", then please point it out to me. Gawaon (talk) 02:24, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

  You used the internet to post here. It is a single physical entity that adapts to changed conditions: if one link fails, another takes over, etc. Johnuniq (talk) 03:12, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

  No, the single physical entity I wrote my comment on was in fact my laptop. Gawaon (talk) 03:16, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

  We're off-topic because this article is about how the spelling of Internet changed to internet due to the process of words becoming simplified when commonly used. The article is about the capitalization of Internet. You typed your message on a laptop. Magically it then appeared here. Presumably you understand that there is a physical entity that transported your message to a WikiMedia server. That is the internet which I am also using to reply. Johnuniq (talk) 03:34, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

  I think it's a bit weird to describe a huge, heterogenous, constantly changing collection of cables, fibres, antennas, satellites, routers, switches, and repeaters as "a single physical entity". But this is also off topic, since it has no bearing on the capitalization. pburka (talk) 03:53, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

  It's weird, but that's what the Internet is. The Universe is even weirder. Johnuniq (talk) 04:14, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

  Or as we now call it, the universe. NebY (talk) 10:09, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

  Yeah, I know. Like I said, all commonly used words get simplified. Good! Johnuniq (talk) 10:39, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

  Interesting. But we still seem to use the Sun and the Moon! —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 13:58, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

  Those aren't consistently capitalized in sources, either (e.g. in Goodnight Moon!), but the MOS has a specific rule about them (MOS:CELESTIALBODIES). pburka (talk) 14:06, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

  We also have the Earth, the Solar System and the Big Bang. "The universe" seems like an outlier. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 14:11, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

  It's a global communications network. At a technical level it's made up of constituent parts that are constantly changing, just like you or I are made up of constituent parts that are constantly changing. Is Black Forest not a proper noun, referring to a specific, singular entity? Its specific population of trees is in constant flux. World War II wasn't even tangible, and was made up of battles and campaigns that themselves are not always considered individual events, but it's still an individual entity in an abstract sense, which is the sense that natural language operates on.

  None of this is a circular argument. I am not assuming anything I would have to prove, I am applying the dictionary definition of proper noun, and using that to comprehend what our policies and guidelines currently say. If you want to argue that this guidance needs an exception, that's fine, argue away, exceptions happen, and our guidelines aren't static. Alternately, you could argue (as I have, though I've been second-guessing myself since) that the title of the article under consideration refers simultaneously to two different nouns, one proper (and commonly-used) and one common (and now rarely-used, from which the former derives), and we could potentially Alexander this whole debate. But if you honestly believe that capital-I Internet is not a proper noun, I would like for you to produce a source for your extraordinary claim. In solidarity, Autoinvective (🗨︎ 𓅬) 06:29, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

  Check out MOS:MILTERMS: "The general rule is that wherever a military term is an accepted proper name, as indicated by consistent capitalization in sources, it should be capitalized." So, without consistent capitalization in the sources, we have no basis to capitalize a war, revolt, campaign, siege – nor any other thing that exists or existed just once, such as the Internet, the Telephone Network, the Postal Network, the Electric Grid, the Universe, and the First Mayor of New York. Gawaon (talk) 06:52, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

  I can see where you're getting the "circular" bit from now, thank you for explaining. That said, I think you're taking that guideline for identifying a proper noun in a written source the wrong way. Capitalization is an important indicator, but it's only just an indicator. Usage as a name vs. usage as a description is ultimately what matters.

  Have an example (I'll be abusing smallcaps to make capitalization unclear sometimes for demonstration purposes). "The purple house on the corner of Main Street and East 10th" is merely descriptive, even if shortened to "the purple house". But at the same time, someone could use "Purple House" (or even "the Purple House") as a name instead, at which point it would be a proper noun. In spoken English, intonation might be our best hint that it's being used as a name (Think about the stressing/timing you would apply to the syllables when speaking each. If you can't tell what I'm talking about, change "purple" to "white" and try thinking of how a newscaster would say each.). In written English, capitalization is by far our best hint (and thus our main guidance), but it's not the only one. If I sometimes refer to the building in question with the purple home or the lilac house instead of the purple house, I'm probably referring to it by description, not by name. I could also be giving it a second proper name, which is why capitalization is so important (and why not capitalizing things willy-nilly is equally important). But if you asked me if I'm describing it or calling it by (perhaps a hyperlocal) name, I could tell you, and then you would know.

  When people write "the internet" to refer to the global Internet, they're not suddenly remembering that "internet" is a now-baroque synonym for "network" and using it as a mere descriptive phrase, they're just not capitalizing a proper noun. Ask anyone who lowercases "internet" what they call the global digital communications network they use to get cat videos and they'll say "the internet", however capitalized. Ask them if that's its name, and they'll say yes. In solidarity, Autoinvective (🗨︎ 𓅬) 10:05, 29 September 2026 (UTC)