I'm a big fan of policy: think about it once, don't have to think about it again. And it's surprising how people can forget why a policy was put in place. I'm also a big fan of trusting people for some things: if there's a policy for something, there was probably (at one time) a good reason for that policy. Using sentence case for the 245 field is one of those situations exactly: the very smart people that created that rule probably had a very good reason for it, even if we don't remember what it was. There are a few different reasonable alternatives, and at some level it doesn't matter which one we choose, so just make a choice and move on. Of course, Karen's question can be difficult to answer under the pressure of the debate, when one doesn't actually have any real books lying around to examine. Of the three books on my desk, two have titles pages that are ALL CAPS, and the third one is ALL CAPS TITLE: Title-case Subtitle. Given that, it makes sense to define a standard capitalization rule. The Chicago manual says capitalization depends on whether you're using "notes + bibliography" or "reference list": journal and book titles are headline case in bibliographies, but in reference lists, journal titles are headline case; book titles are sentence case (15th ed, para. 16.17).

Roy, I agree in general with the idea of questioning dogma in libraryland. However I want to add a vote for a different point of view. Karen's statement makes a great soundbite and I can just picture the nodding heads of approval when it was uttered. But I think, as David pointed out in the first comment, we are too easily drawn into agreement with such statements. We are too easy to agree with the "how dumb can we be to prefer sentence case" examples. There were very legitimate reasons for this decision way back when. Does it make no sense to users? Agreed. Does that absolutely mean it is wrong and should be discontinued, even in today's mostly online environment? No, not necessarily. I get really frustrated with the "shoot the dogma" attitude when it is not based on a full understanding of whys and wherefores. 'Course, you or Karen or someone else may retort, "That's the very problem! We shouldn't HAVE to understand that." Well, as a result, I see way too much these days of something called reinventing the wheel. It really bugs me that there is so little in the way of rudimentary understanding of or respect for library history, including cataloging history. So...Sure, shoot the dogma. But only after carefully and thoughtfully going beyond a soundbite to an understanding that a particular dogma really and truly is irrelevant and obstructionist in this day and age.

May I point out that sentence case was Roy's example, not mine? Both David and Steve are making me sound far more glib than I believe I was in the actual debate.

Whoops, make that Karen Coyle's example (just to muddy things more).

Unfortunately I think we have a "Karen" vs. "Karen" problem here. I was quite clear in my post which Karen said what, but that has gotten less clear as the discussion has worn on. I would like to suggest that those who comment qualify the "Karen" with either "Coyle" or "Schneider", as appropriate.

Sorry (to both Karens) for not identifying to which Karen I referred. Roy is right, he was clear in the original statement. I understand the quote from Karen Schneider was out of context and that there was more to the discussion than just that statement. I am not charging Karen Schneider or anyone with glibness; I am simply responding to the phrase as it was highlighted in Roy's original post. I don't think my response is therefore unfair or less relevant because I wasn't there to hear the whole discussion. It was certainly less well informed than if I had been there, though. Steve

Since Roy linked to the audio recording, you can "be there" for the discussion. But I'd add that if Karen Coyle is talking about sentence case, I give her insights a lot of credence. This is a domain in which she has a lot of knowledge, and I wouldn't be quick to dismiss her insights.

OK. I admit to still being confused about which Karen said what. Roy identified this statement as coming from Karen Schneider in the original post. I'll listen to the audio as Karen (Schneider) suggests and find out. If this quote references sentence case then, regardless of Karen Coyle's longstanding experience in these issues, I still question her view. The sentence case issue, as far as I can tell, is a bogey man situation. Michael Gorman -- just to pick another "famous" person in librarianship -- is someone with longstanding experience too (more so than Karen Coyle) and yet I have a great deal of disagreement with many of his statements. But, whatever. I'll definitely listen to the audio archive so that I'm better informed. Steve

To Roy and both Karens, if you're still following this thread...Sorry for a rant based on incomplete information about the discussion. Late yesterday I was able to listen to the whole discussion, following Karen Schneider's suggestion. It has served to temper my initial negative reactions and I've blogged about that on my personal blog. Steve

Steve, Thanks, I appreciate the follow-up!

Like I said, shoot the dogma ;-)