Believe it or not, Mav and I do agree a lot on this. But we disagree on the nuances. I agree we need a universal approach (I was the one with the help of other people who overhauled our naming conventions on names and titles to create a universally - well almost universally - applicable template. )
I'm also a biologist. So your presumption that we "know nothing" is a bit insulting.
The LAST thing I would ever want to suggest is that someone like Mav, Zoe, Deb, Michael Harty or others "know nothing". What I meant was that some editors don't know enough about a specialist area to be able to know how to apply the capitalisation rules there. I'm a historian and political scientist (and a few other things thrown in) but I know absolutely nothing about biology. (I slept through most biology classes in secondary school!) So I would not go near a page on biology for fear of inadvertently mucking up content because I would not know what I was doing. It is all double-dutch to me. All I am asking is that, if someone edits a political science article I wrote, and they themselves don't much about the topic, presume that I know what I am doing and that if I write PR.STV, if I write Taoiseach in one place and Taoisigh in another there is a reason (the latter is the Irish language plural for the former, though I link that to explain) and if I write 'King of the Belgians' there is a reason and don't change it to 'King of Belgium', 'pr.stv', 'taoiseachs'. Or at least ask me first why I wrote that.
But some editors sweep through an article like someone clearing a rain forest, cutting down capitals and changing names left right and centre, on occasion showing that they don't know what they are doing (someone changed an article on the 'Prime Minister' to 'Prime minister' recently, and the correct plural 'governors-general' to 'governor-generals', leading to a string of expletives and a muttering of 'what the fuck have they done?' when you see the sorry mess left of a carefully worded article. (Example: Someone keeps changing [[Lord John Russell]] to [[John Russell]] every so often. Under the [[naming conventions (names and titles)]], courtesy titles CAN be used where the person is universally known with it and unrecognisable without it. 100% of history students know Lord John Russell, MP as a British prime minister in the 1840s. 0% have ever heard of a pm called John Russell. As a courtesy title 'Lord' was treated like part of his name, unlike a peerage (like Earl of Ardbraccan) that is separate from someone's name. Even worse is the person who occasionally turns it into 'lord John Russell'. Or tried to turn [[W. T. Cosgrave]] into [[William Cosgrave]]. NO-ONE ever referred to him (bar his wife in the bedroom) as William. 100% of people know him as W.T. And Gladstone as W.E, William E. or William Ewart, never William Gladstone! And the next person who turns 'Charles Mountbatten-Windsor' (as confirmed by Buckingham Palace) into 'Charles Windsor' because Google says so (Google, believe it or not, is NOT always right!) will get an anonymous phonecall to the White House claiming Saddam Hussein is living in their basement: please send in the Marines & some B52s. (JOKE!!!)
In other words, if it isn't your are of expertise, be cautious. Don't get the chainsaw out and chop down every capital letter you can find if you don't KNOW FOR A FACT it is wrong. In many cases, the person who wrote it KNEW FOR A FACT it is right. If in doubt, ASK the author 'why 'PR.STV' not 'pr.stv'? 'Why the T with Cosgrave? Why use the Lord with Russell? Otherwise a lot of time is wasted correcting illjudged incorrect 'corrections'. And my usual response when something 100% correct is 'corrected' to something 100% wrong, 'Oh, not a friggin' again!' and a line of expletives.
JT
_________________________________________________________________ Protect your PC - get McAfee.com VirusScan Online http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963