This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Biography This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography California Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject CaliforniaCalifornia Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Canada Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CanadaWikipedia:WikiProject CanadaTemplate:WikiProject CanadaCanada-related Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Internet culture Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet culture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of internet culture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Internet cultureWikipedia:WikiProject Internet cultureTemplate:WikiProject Internet cultureInternet culture Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. WikiProject Internet culture To-do: Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Article requests : View all requested internet culture articles Expand : Pick an article from here or here Photo : Category:Internet culture articles needing images Stubs : All stubs are located here Other : Category:Internet self-classification codes (!?); Try to get YouTube to FA; Tag all articles you find with {{WikiProject Internet culture}} See also Category:Internet culture articles needing attention YouTube Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject YouTube, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of YouTube and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.YouTubeWikipedia:WikiProject YouTubeTemplate:WikiProject YouTubeYouTube Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. WikiProject YouTube To-do: A list of articles needing cleanup associated with this project is available. See also the tool's wiki page and the index of WikiProjects. Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Article requests : see list. Assess : Apply the assessment scale on Unknown-importance YouTube articles + Unassessed YouTube articles Cleanup : See cleanup listing Maintain : This WikiProject Stubs : Category:Stub-Class YouTube articles Other : Substitute {{WikiProject YouTube/Invite Members}} on user talk pages Check out edit requests on Talk:List of YouTubers

There were two tips that lead to Kai's arrest in Philadelphia. The Netflix documentary mentioned only one: a Starbucks employee. The other tip was from a New Jersey man. His tip notified authorities that Kai was heading to Philadelphia. 2601:83:8100:B:8BC:7B42:E191:2212 (talk) 23:56, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Shibbolethink, can you please clarify what you mean when you say a source becomes less verifiable when title case is modified? Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 17:11, 12 February 2023 (UTC) Hello @Shibbolethink, I have tagged you in a discussion after you reverted my edit...please take the time to respond to my concern. Thank you. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 05:41, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, when you don't get the tag right the first time (e.g. here), it doesn't ping the person when you correct it, unless you put the "ping" in the edit summary. That's why I didn't see this.

To answer your question: Wikipedia:Citing sources — When an article is already consistent, avoid: switching between major citation styles or replacing the preferred style of one academic discipline with another's

and also see this note on Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Titles of works which deals with how we treat references, as the titles are typically treated as a quotation.

Also on that page under MOS:TITLECAPS: Citation style permits the use of pre-defined, off-Wikipedia citation styles within Wikipedia, and some of these expect sentence case for certain titles (usually article and chapter titles). Title case should not be imposed on such titles under such a citation style when that style is the one consistently used in an article.

As far as I can ascertain, the precise situation of title idiosyncrasies in English-language works in citations is not defined in the MOS. TITLECAPS refers to "article titles" and "in the article text". It then goes on to separate this from reference style. So the above two things are the closest we get. This is also, as far as I am aware, why the many title-case pruning functions of WP:AWB specifically avoid citation templates. I think it may be overall ambiguous, but errs on the side of maintaining page-specific style. If you'd like to change that, I would suggest an RFC either here or at MOS:TITLECAPS. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 06:05, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Another problem with your edits: we don't wikilink things like New Jersey. See MOS:LINKSTYLE — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 06:07, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Shibbolethink, removing capitalization from coordinating conjunctions is not a change of citation style—can you point to a style guide that states these should be capitalized in title case?

Also, your response doesn't actually address my question: You have made the claim that a source becomes less verifiable when title case is modified. Can you explain how it is less verifiable? (besides the fact that, since title case calls for coordinating conjunctions to be lowercase, it isn't, in fact, modified)

Lastly, whether or not New Jersey is linked is not rule-based but contextually determined—this has nothing to do with the topic of this discussion, however. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 06:22, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

can you point to a style guide that states these should be capitalized in title case?
Can you point to one that says it shouldn't be?

I pointed to one that said (in essence) "titles of works should be in title case" and "don't change the sentence vs title case of citations"

Verifiability is about searchability. ngrams tell us that case often doesn't matter but it sometimes does. When searching for exact matches, or otherwise trying to track down that precise article. Having it in the same case as the article itself is a slight gain in verifiability with no loss in article-text style, as far as I can ascertain. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 06:26, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, absolutely! How about CMOS? [1] Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 15:05, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The CMOS does not mention Wikipedia citation templates. I seem to have misunderstood your question, which it now appears was "point to an outside style guide that says newspaper article titles should be in title case"

However, Title case#Title case in references shows clearly that multiple style manuals agree reference titles should be left in title case. Different style manuals disagree on whether (and in what context) "with" should or should not be capitalized. This should be kept stable on an article-by-article basis.

I get that you are interested in making this entire article adhere to a particular form of "title case" e.g. lowercasing "of" "an" etc. And I have to confess I really don't care about this entire conversation, so do whatever you want, and don't involve me in it any further, thanks.

But know that it isn't particularly based in any form of Wikipedia policy, and will make the references themselves slightly less verifiable. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 15:16, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Shibbolethink, the link you provided does not say what you think it says. While you are clearly trying to wash your hands of this interaction, which you started by reverting me, it appears that you have misrepresented your case throughout, not only by making a weak case for lower verifiability but especially by misunderstanding title case and therefore posting links that do not support your position. I don't want to accuse you of being disingenuous, so instead, I'll ask that you be more circumspect about making reverts when you do not have a strong case, and when you clearly aren't very invested in the consequences of your own actions. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 15:28, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

when you clearly aren't very invested in the consequences of your own actions

You made a bold edit, I reverted it, then we discussed it. Don't make mountains out of molehills. That's BRD working correctly. I know what title case is, I know how certain style guides treat prepositions less than five letters long. My entire point was about the idiosyncrasy of citations not being in the article text or the title of the article, and so MOS not covering it. Note how many multiple references here deviate from Wikipedia's own MOS by using sentence case, and no one has fixed that. Because it's verifiable.

Don't mistake your subjective opinion for objective reality. And don't assume that I am not invested in the consequences of [my] own actions. It's not assuming good faith.

To avoid this entire dispute, I just replaced those references which you edited with more reliable ones. Using legal case in a newspaper title is already a red flag, so it made sense those sources were less reliable. Since we are here to write an encyclopedia, and not to have fun arguments, that should resolve this.

Next time, when I say, "don't involve me in it any further, thanks", don't tag me. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 15:35, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User:Revirvlkodlaku - please don't mass revert a long series of edits with the reason being you don't like my edit summaries. here. Most of it simply copy editing. I created this article in 2017 and wrote the description of it then and am responsible for most of the text, I know what I am doing here. Over the years it became confused and I am fixing and clarifying some things. If you have any particular problems with it, then discuss here. There was no reason to revert all of my edits over an edit summary dispute! You have been involved with this article for a little while now and I expect you and I will be working together for a long time so I suggest we start using the talk page to work through issues in the months and years ahead. -- GreenC 09:51, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Green, that's a fair point—apologies for the mass revert. I was surprised that you changed the sex of the person struck by McBride's car, and given that you didn't explain this change in the edit summary, I found it dubious. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 14:10, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As I understand it, there was a (male) PG&E utility truck and worker who McBride hit and pinned against the back of his truck. A female bystander who saw the accident came to their aid and McBride then attacked her. Thus two victims. But, all of this needs to be better verified with reliable sources preferably a news story close to the events. -- GreenC 15:12, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Green, the original text, prior to your edit, stated that the person pinned by the car was female. I assumed this is what McGillvary stated in the video, though I haven't seen that. Have you had a chance to watch it? I think that unless a news report disputes McGillvary's statement on this point, we should go with what he says. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 15:49, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That wasn't the original text, someone messed it up at some point. He says in the video it was a man who was pinned and two women came to help and McBride attacked one of the women. Only thing not confirmed is if it was a PG&E worker, or just some worker. UPDATE: It was a PG&E worker: https://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/california/jury-finds-man-insane-in-2012-attack-of-pge-worker/71208/ -- GreenC 16:01, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Green, I just watched it—thanks for posting the link. In a previous edit, I removed mention of PG&E, as I didn't think it warranted inclusion. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 18:27, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Caleb Lawrence McGillvary → Kai – Before someone tries to speedy close this: The previous consensus was established because this article is about Kai himself and not just the hitchhiker incident. Because of this, the name change was made to his full official name. However, this is a blatant violation of WP:COMMONNAME, as he is most popuarly called Kai. Just Kai. Not the hatchet wielding hitchhiker. But just Kai, no one calls him Caleb Lawrence McGillvary, and this is such a violation of WP:COMMONAME and WP:CONCISE. Rc2barrington (talk) 01:09, 19 February 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. TarnishedPath^talk 03:53, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose per previous RM: "This article goes well beyond the scope of the original viral video title. In fact, the lengthiest section is on McGillvary's murder conviction. The new Netflix documentary speaks even more about the person himself, and could potentially be used as the basis to further elaborate upon a biographical article about McGillvary." It's true he first became notable using a temporary nickname, he was going by many aliases. Anyway, "Kai" is so short as to be nearly meaningless. Also the sources don't support the nom's statement: "he is most popularly called Kai. Just Kai. Not the hatchet wielding hitchhiker. But just Kai, no one calls him Caleb Lawrence McGillvary". Not true when you look at the sources. -- GreenC 01:44, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per above. Mbdfar (talk) 02:01, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong oppose usurping the primary topic, as no evidence has been presented that he is primary. No opinion on whether "Kai" would be a better title for this article (in which case some disambiguation like Kai the Hatchet-Wielding Hitchhiker would be required). -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:34, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Kai the Hitchhiker or Kai McGillvary per NATURAL and COMMONNAME, it's clear he's not known by his legal name.--Ortizesp (talk) 14:56, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Kai the Hitchhiker, per WP:COMMONNAME. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 15:24, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  It sounds like you prefer the primary topic to be the meme, not the person. Because the sources that talk about the person usually use his real name not this alias. We happen to have an article that is both a bio and meme in the same article. That's OK, how it should be, but be clear on the primary topic, and name accordingly. The weight of the article is about the person. Per WP:PRECISION. -- GreenC 16:07, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Caleb McGillvary or Kai McGillvary. No need for his full name. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:20, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Move to Kai the Hitchhiker. There is no chance that this is the primary topic for Kai. 162 etc. (talk) 20:57, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Can't possibly justify displacing an entire dab page. Moscow Mule (talk) 09:05, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment This poorly conceived RM - changing primary topic for Kai and this article title at the same time - was done as a quick knee-jerk reaction after I reverted the nom's poorly made attempt to rename the article without discussion here. What should have happened is discussion, before an RM, to come up with possible solutions and talk about it. Because that's where this RM is headed: no consensus, talk about it first. -- GreenC 17:50, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  There is a majority to rename it to Kai. I understand that RMs like these aren’t majority votes, but consensus shows towards renaming it. Rc2barrington (talk) 18:19, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  A majority to "Kai"? Not a single person !voted renaming it to Kai. Not one. There are a few who propose a different name, like Kai the Hitchhiker or Kai McGillvary, but that's a totally different proposal, and no clear consensus there. We need to discuss it first, look at all the possible options, then come up with one we can all agree might be best chance of gaining consensus at RM, if at all. And actually, you know, demonstrate why with sources. The way you go about it has been brute force - changing the title without discussion (reverted), starting a RM without any prior discussion or input from others (no consensus), and then WP:GASLIGHTing there is "majority to rename to Kai". -- GreenC 19:03, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  My mistake. There is a majority vote for it to not stay Caleb Lawrence McGillvary. And this name is a violation of WP:COMMONNAME and WP:CONCISE. Rc2barrington (talk) 23:58, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Also changing the title without discussion is completely allowed. I didn't think there would be any controversy about this because this was a clear violation, and the incident is very old. Rc2barrington (talk) 00:00, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  You would either need consensus to change it to "X", or there is no consensus. There is no such thing as "vote for it to not stay Caleb Lawrence McGillvary". It's not supported by any guideline or policy. -- GreenC 00:54, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]