One note, in this time of increasing worldwide distribution of titles from single publication sources (not many indies have different editions for, say, Australia and the US):
The OP is very US-centric, and fails to note critical capitalization rules for the kind of work that matter. This is actually easiest to see in UK rules — material that originally appeared in a periodical retains the European sentence-capitalization rules for titles even when reprinted as a monograph (but not as a book, and let’s not get started on the distinction, ok?).
Similarly, technical terms appearing in titles should be treated as that technical field would treat them. A book or article on eighteenth-century military law would properly begin Jus bellum, and that’s not just because it’s from Latin — a work on bird lice would, if somehow worked into the title, refer to Strigiphilus garylarsoni (really, and he was quite pleased by it), even if following the otherwise-most-rigid application of CMS style.
Don’t get me started on capitalizing legal materials — even when stated in the title of something else (nonfiction or even fiction).
My point is that the OP is seriously underinclusive in its selection of four, and only four, rulesets.
Complex rules of capitalalization seem particularly unneeded when the use or non-use of a capital, if truly needed to understand what the author meant could be easily remedied by the author expressing what he was doing with/without capitalization.
For instance,
the city of albequerqe
department of biology, school of dental medicine
president john Kennedy
old main
north classroom
university center
board of regents
chief justice
md
phd
judge jones
dr jones, oncologist
One note, in this time of increasing worldwide distribution of titles from single publication sources (not many indies have different editions for, say, Australia and the US):
The OP is very US-centric, and fails to note critical capitalization rules for the kind of work that matter. This is actually easiest to see in UK rules — material that originally appeared in a periodical retains the European sentence-capitalization rules for titles even when reprinted as a monograph (but not as a book, and let’s not get started on the distinction, ok?).
Similarly, technical terms appearing in titles should be treated as that technical field would treat them. A book or article on eighteenth-century military law would properly begin Jus bellum, and that’s not just because it’s from Latin — a work on bird lice would, if somehow worked into the title, refer to Strigiphilus garylarsoni (really, and he was quite pleased by it), even if following the otherwise-most-rigid application of CMS style.
Don’t get me started on capitalizing legal materials — even when stated in the title of something else (nonfiction or even fiction).
My point is that the OP is seriously underinclusive in its selection of four, and only four, rulesets.
Complex rules of capitalalization seem particularly unneeded when the use or non-use of a capital, if truly needed to understand what the author meant could be easily remedied by the author expressing what he was doing with/without capitalization.
For instance,
the city of albequerqe
department of biology, school of dental medicine
president john Kennedy
old main
north classroom
university center
board of regents
chief justice
md
phd
judge jones
dr jones, oncologist