Talk:Capitalization of Internet

This article was nominated for deletion on 24 August 2020. The result of the discussion was no consensus.

This page was proposed for deletion by Popcornfud (talk · contribs) on 24 August 2020.

This article was nominated for merging with Internet on March 26, 2009. The result of the discussion was no merge.

Archives

Archive 1

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by when more than 4 sections are present.

In what way is the Internet a proper noun

This article fails to answer the question: in what way does the word Internet describe a proper noun? I honestly don't get it. -Howarthe (talk) 17:31, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

An internet is a collection of separate local area networks that can communicate as if one network (using routers).

The Internet is the world-wide internet of public networks inhabited by Wikipedia and other websites and more.

The capital I Internet was used to identify the particular internet being discussed. However, statistically speaking, no one knows what an internet is now. Johnuniq (talk) 23:11, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, like the Telephone Network, and of course, the Sky. --Nigelj (talk) 11:17, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

IMHO common usage made it follow the same pattern as "world". Even though there only one "world" we're talking about, it stays lowercase.

Maybe it's a holdover from the same language-process where people living in a town next to a river start just calling the river next to them "the river"? That's no reason to ask "What river?" because people in town always mean the same river.

If anything "the Internet" becoming "the internet" is less indicative of a language-breakdown and more a sign of its massive success. Ikmxx (talk) 21:31, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gathered Zanahary (talk) 12:33, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are plenty of internets which aren't connected to the Internet. Do a Web search on 'air gap'.

What people who insist on spelling 'Internet' incorrectly don't seem to understand is that these are different words with different meanings. Jnc (talk)00:49, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

True. But in the past thirty or forty years, there has been a shift in how those different meanings are expressed. I've just edited a book about cloud computing, and only once is the term "an internet" used in its original historical sense, as "a collection of separate local area networks that can communicate as if one network (using routers)." The same is true in common usage: several LANs connected "as if one network" seems to be described as simply "a network" (perhaps adding an appropriate adjective for the situation), albeit a bit more complex than six workstations and a server connected by ethernet cables. At the same time, the Internet ("the world-wide internet of public networks inhabited by Wikipedia and other websites and more") seems to have lost its branding. Normal people don't think of it as a proper noun and no longer use the word that way: especially with the advent of cloud computing, it seems that the internet (by which I mean the Internet) has become a common noun, while internets are simply called networks. Garner's Modern English Usage (2016) says "Internet" should be capitalized, but in that same year, the AP Stylebook and the Chicago Manual of Style both demoted "internet" to common-noun status. Since then, common usage has become even more uniformly lowercase. Garner's just hasn't caught up yet. --Nic Nicolas Nelson (talk) 19:42, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

First, minor correction; an internet isn't necessarily made up of only local area networks; many also contain[ed] long-haul point-to-point links (large ones included clusters of LANS connected by such links). The crucial distinction between an internet, made up of a group of local area networks, and a network made up of a group of local area networks (connected e.g. by bridges) is 'how they are connected: the internet uses routers as the connecting devices. (Where 'router' is defined as 'a packet switch which examines the internet header'; bridges look at the network header - a different level in the protocol stack/nested headers.)

When the people creating internet technology needed a name for the large internet we were all connected to, we used the English rule for proper nouns and came up with 'Internet'. (Had we been able to foresee that people who didn't understand the difference, and thus didn't realize that by spelling Internet as 'internet', they were changing the meaning, we'd probably have called it the 'Meganet', or something, but 'Internet' was crisp, and elegant. And now here we are.)

Common use may be 'internet', but if common use is king, why don't we all stop using 'virus' and 'bacteria' and switch to 'germs'? Just as medical professionals continue to use the more complex terms because they accurately describe two importantly different classes of things (without, in their case, having to put up with people who don't understand that, trying to degrade the terminology), serious professionals in the computer networking field continue to use the two different words, with their original meanings, because they need two terms. (Look through recent RFC's in the RFC Index, e.g. RFC-9006, from April 2021, and you'll see this.)

As long as there are internets which are not connected to the Internet, there will be a use for two terms; and people who understand that they are two distinct words with different meanings will continue not to mis-spell the one referring to the global internet. Noel (talk) 15:52, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

cough cough... let's try to keep discussion focused on improvements to the article... Popcornfud (talk) 16:10, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

OED

I changed the wording to reflect the actual entry in the Third Edition OED (Entry/248411: "internet"). This is a new entry in June 2001. I'm happy to discuss the wording in our article, but a false report of what the entry says is not acceptable. Dbfirs 06:38, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

... later ... I now see what RDXL was saying, so I've reverted to his version with modifications. I hope the article now accurately represents the OED entry. Dbfirs 06:51, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Capitalization of Web" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Capitalization of Web has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 August 22 § Capitalization of Web until a consensus is reached. Aaron Liu (talk) 02:19, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Capitalization of the Web" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Capitalization of the Web has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 August 22 § Capitalization of the Web until a consensus is reached. Aaron Liu (talk) 02:20, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Jay I wouldn't have known about this RfD with the IP editor's lack of edit summary. I think nothing changes on the watchlist unless you include the talk pages. – The Grid (talk) 12:49, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@The Grid: Pages and their associated talk pages are tied together. If one is added to the watchlist, the other gets automatically added too. The point is, edit summary is useful but not mandatory. Not providing an explanation should not be a reason to revert an edit, but not understanding an edit can be a reason. Jay 💬 14:47, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]