Wikipedia

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 223

< Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style
Latest comment: 2 years ago by S Marshall in topic "Chair" v "chairwoman"
Archive 220Archive 221Archive 222Archive 223Archive 224Archive 225→Archive 228

Ebony and Ivory

Latest comment: 3 years ago16 comments9 people in discussion

Executive summary: regarding the capitalization of "Black" and "white" (referring to racial groups), let's please find out what major publications such as Time and so forth are doing, and let's write that down as our rule. Detailed argument follows.

So, the capitalization of "Black" (referring to African-Americans or other people of color) has become totally established in the press, like, overnight; I've never seen anything be accepted so fast, seems like in a few weeks it went from 0% to 100%.

I mean, I am writing "Black" because if I didn't I'd be like the only one in the world it seems. It's that universal. Sure, we are supposed to lag the cutting edge somewhat, but neither are we supposed to be essentially the only mainstream publication using a format that nobody else is.

So, the problem with this is, what do you do with "white". There's an argument to capitalize it -- "The film was popular with both Black and white people" looks a bit odd, does it not?. But then you have "Most of the town's Whites opposed the candidate" and what have you, which, the capitalization of "White" grates and looks, well, racist. I don't know if we capitalize "White Power" and "White Pride" as a proper nouns (I wouldn't think so) and assuming not, then you have "There was a well-attended White pride parade"... uh, that's not good.

I think the reason for this is that "White pride" is not a legit thing, because there's no such ethnicity or nation as "White". "Italian pride" and "Irish pride" are fine, because those are ethnicities/nations. (And "White pride" is only used by racist blackguards.)

Black (African-American) is also not an ethnicity but it is treated as such primarily because African ethnicity was entirely mixed up and destroyed by the slavers. You can't really have "Ibo pride" or "Nigerian pride" because most African-Americans don't know their background that well. Black (African-American) is also treated as a distinct cohesive group because, well, in some ways it is. Black people are a minority in America and have a distinct universal experience (of oppression and segregation) and a distinct minority culture that whites just don't have. There is Black music (I mean the blues and all) and Black literature etc., while there simply is no such thing as "white music" and "white literature" in the same way (I mean generally; some exceptions apply when specifically doing cultural studies and comparisons and so on). James Baldwin was a "Black writer" but Kurt Vonnegut wasn't a "white writer", see what I mean?

So, what should it be?

  • "black" and "white" (and you'll get a shitstorm partly because lower-case "black" is now considered racist in the real world)
  • "Black" and "White" (and you'll get a shitstorm because upper-case "White" has been and is considered racist in the real world)
  • "Black" and "white" (and you'll get a shitstorm because its unequal and people can say it valorizes one group vis a vis another)
  • Leave it to the individual editor (and you'll get an endless drama of people bitching about in scores of individual articles and accusing each other being racist, and anyway even tho lots of things here don't need to be standarized, if this one isn't it seems odd and generally a headache)
  • Lets see what other important publications do and do that (Let's do this! Please! I get that we don't usually slavishly follow other publications, but in this case, let's. There's no "right way" here, so let's just avoid the shitstorms.)

So who wants to do the research (altho this is so new that wheel might still be in spin) and write that up toute de suite. Herostratus (talk) 02:42, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

@Herostratus: Is this only for the United States, or is the usage changing elsewhere too (Canada, UK, etc.)?
I'm not sure it's possible to survey all recent uses of these words to refer to race, but for reference, here's some sources discussing it:
  • Why we capitalize ‘Black’ (and not ‘white’), CJR; this reversed course from an earlier piece, noting journalism has continued to evolve in its approach to covering race.
  • Why We’re Capitalizing Black, NYT: “Some have been pushing for this change for years,” Mr. Lacey said. “They consider Black like Latino and Asian and Native American, all of which are capitalized. Others see the change as a distraction from more important issues. Then there are those troubled that our policy will now capitalize ‘Black’ but not ‘white.’ Over all, the view was that there was a growing agreement in the country to capitalize and that The Times should not be a holdout.”
  • AP says it will capitalize Black but not white. Columbia Journalism Review, the Wall Street Journal, The New York Times, USA Today, the Los Angeles Times, NBC News and Chicago Tribune are among the organizations that have recently said they would capitalize Black but have not done so for white. ... In some ways, the decision over “white” has been more ticklish. The National Association of Black Journalists and some Black scholars have said white should be capitalized, too. ... “We agree that white people’s skin color plays into systemic inequalities and injustices, and we want our journalism to robustly explore these problems,” John Daniszewski, the AP’s vice president for standards, said in a memo to staff Monday. “But capitalizing the term white, as is done by white supremacists, risks subtly conveying legitimacy to such beliefs.”
  • Opinion piece in The Atlantic that seems to have been influential.
  • The Brookings Institute writing to AP before it announced the above, encouraging it to capitalize Black.
  • The footnote in this paper: I capitalize “Black”when referring to Black people, because as explained by Kimberlé Cren-shaw, “Black[people], like Asian[people], Latin[x/e], and other ‘minorities,’constitute a specific cultural group and, as such, require denotation as a proper noun.’...I do not capitalize ‘white,’which is not a proper noun, since [neither white people nor ‘people of color’refers to] a specific cultural group.”Kimberlé Crenshaw, Mapping the Margins: Intersectionality, Identity Politics, and Violence against Women of Color, 43 STAN.L.REV.1241, 1244 n.6 (1991). In this context, Black is both a racial category that encompasses many cultures and ethnicities of African descendants, and a specific culture borne out of collective resistance to anti-Black oppression and preservation of ancestralpractices.
  • Here is a similar footnote in an academic journal.
Those are the first few results of a quick search for 'capitalize black'. --Aquillion (talk) 03:18, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
I haven't looked outside the United States, no; I think that American usage should weigh pretty heavily here in this particular case, on account of its large Black population, and its history.
Thank you for the work User:Aquillion! For my part, this is sufficient to go with a Black-white paradigm as the the least-bad. What we need is to get that accepted, and to that I think a two-pronged argument -- that its the least racist looking, AND that major pubs are doing that -- might do the trick. A bit more research, than an RfC? Herostratus (talk) 03:42, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
There was an RfC on this at MOS:CAPS from just 7 months ago: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters/Archive 32#Proposed update to MOSCAPS regarding racial terms. The closure states: Consensus against changing MOSCAPS to capitalize "Black" when used as a racial or ethnic descriptor. A raw vote count has a significant majority opposing the change, although an analysis of arguments made suggests a closer outcome than the votes, as many of the arguments made in opposition were rebutted or missed the point entirely. Ultimately, the decisive question is how RS use the terms; while several reliable sources (and particularly US sources) have adopted capital-B Black for the racial grouping, several counter-examples were also provided (including examples from US sources)....sufficient opposition such that the matter should not be reopened at a project-wide level until either further developments occur (i.e. more style guides adopting capital-form) or significant time has passed. More recently there was this discussion with a short RfC stating that MOS:CAPS did not need to be changed and was consistent with the earlier RfC: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters#Discussion about capitalisation of Black (people).
I disagree that capitalizing "White" alongside "Black" looks racist, though my preference is that both be lowercase, as terms primarily for skin color and "races". Black people are also ethnically diverse - an African-American identity is not the same thing as the many ethnicities of Africa, for instance. The reason white pride is not legitimate is not because there is no such thing as white people, but because white people as a group already are esteemed by society and treated as a norm, in the U.S. and ethnically similar countries anyway (again, as a group), so pushing "pride" in being white is just another term for white supremacy. (Likewise, the existence of so-called straight pride as a reaction to gay pride does not negate the existence of heterosexuality.) The idea that there is no such ethnicity as white or that white does not refer to a specific cultural group does not really make sense to me. What cultural group in the American South was it, then, that promoted and enforced Jim Crow laws? Many white people have ancestry basically equally divided from many different places in Europe and elsewhere, so it's not like they are actually German-American or English-American or whatever. They don't consider themselves that. So what ethnicity are they?
Some of Aquillion's sources note arguments that both should be capitalized. The AP quote says, The National Association of Black Journalists and some Black scholars have said white should be capitalized, too. This Atlantic article I found to be very thought-provoking and makes an argument for capitalizing both as the most anti-racist option.
I emphasize that above all we need to go by the recent RfC, and that any reopening of discussion on this would need to survey a wide array of sources and be careful not to exclude from the dataset sources that did not make changes in Summer 2020 as others did. Per WP:Due weight, we should also be looking for the opinions of linguists and other relevant academic experts, even more so than journalists. And, again, my own preference is to capitalize neither black nor white. Crossroads -talk- 04:04, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

We just had an RfC on this about two months ago. The idea of writing "Black but white" came nowhere close to gaining consensus. The closer (unaware of prior background) was generally down on capitalizing any of these things, but there's never been a rule to not capitalize them, nor to capitalize them. They just have to be treated consistently in the same article (MOS:ARTCON). WP shouldn't be using "ivory" and "ebony" in its own voice anyway; those are silly and rather outmoded evocative terms that lack neutrality. The "capitalize to show esteem" argument has already failed to gain consensus, both in the last RfC and in general for many years: we have an entire guideline section MOS:EMPHCAPS on not misusing capitalization as a form of emphasis/signification. PS: No, we do not care what journalists are doing; encyclopedic style is very different from news style, and WP is not written in new style, as a matter of clear policy. Our style guide is based on academic style guides (mostly Chicago Manual of Style and New Hart's Rules, plus Scientific Style and Format), and literally nothing in it was taken from a news style guide like AP Stylebook. Many, many times have people argued to change MoS based on AP or some other news style sheet (from NYT, The Guardian, The Economist, etc.), and the answer is always "no". PPS: The OP is fudging the "real world" reality. Using black is considered racist only when it's done in a pointed manner, e.g. next to White; White is considered racist only likewise in a pointed manner. There are many mainstream publications that use black and white, and quite a few that use Black and White, and this has actually been true since at leaste the 1980s. The new fad of Black but white is a politically motivated Americanism, recentism, and journalese-ism, and the fighting about it off-site is entirely politically driven. There's nothing even faintly neutral about using it or proposing its use here.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  05:38, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

I agree with almost all of that, but it's not really fair to say that a mere proposal is political and non-neutral (unless it were a case of the same person participating in/proposing the same proposal every one or two months, like (e.g.) Ukranian nationalists did every month for 3 years straight to get Kiev changed to Kyiv). Also, there was never any suggestion of using "ebony" and "ivory" in Wikivoice; I think Herostratus was just being cute with the discussion header. I'm also unclear what's unneutral about it - it's cheesy, but it seems neutral enough..? Ebony and ivory are what black and white piano keys were respectively made from, historically. Then in the '80s it was the title of a schmaltzy duet by Paul McCartney and Stevie Wonder. Aside from that... only possibly controversial thing is in regard to ivory and how it's obtained. Firejuggler86 (talk) 15:19, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment, I do seriously question the veracity of the statement "lowercase black is now considered racist in the real world". Exactly what do you consider "the real world"? Corporate conference rooms in skyrise buildings in the centres of the affluent financial districts of major cities, filled with (undoubtedly overwhelmingly white) "task forces" (e.g.) sipping Starbucks lattes and pretending to fuss about "oppression" and that somehow a lowecase b vs an uppercase B is the cause of all the inequality woes in the world, when in reality the only actual objective they have is to maximise their bottom line for their ultra-wealthy shareholders. It's a classic case of corporate "keeping up with the Joneses" because it's the "hip" thing to do right now. We have no such monetary incentives. That's what differentiates us from everyone else, and Wikipedia was never meant to be like other publications because it isn't like other publications. (I also make note that, in the last year or so that this trend began, racism in society had not improved - after last summer's widespread enthusiasm cooled off, the racists have crawled out from their nooks and crannies more emboldened and unapologetically vocal than they've been since 1968 :\. ) Now, I fully agree that racists should not be catered to - not a thousandth of an inch. We should not be doing the opposite, to antagonise them either, though. Whatever short term satisfaction you might get out of it, it's bound to backfire. Firejuggler86 (talk) 14:32, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Black and White or black and white. I personally like lowercase when it comes to colours, but I am perfectly fine with uppercase too - so long as all colours are treated the same way within their articles and/or article sections (including brown, and, if it were to be applicable, currently defunct/deprecated colours like red and yellow). For example, in South Africa, they have Whites, Blacks, and Coloureds; always capitalised, but not quite the same situation as America or England, so maybe irrelevant. Anyway, see my post advice for my arguments. Firejuggler86 (talk) 14:42, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
  • In the "real world" it's mostly still black and white. Neither is racist, whatever the woke brigade might like to claim. Neither is a genuine ethnicity, neither does actually refer to a cultural group (try telling people from Jamaica, people from Kenya and people from Nigeria that they all have the same culture!) and neither is derived from a place that is a proper name (like Asian). They're based on the perception of the colour of someone's skin, for crying out loud. How on earth can that be a proper name? Oh, and let's also remember that there is a very big world outside the US of A! Some of us actually live in it. I know, who would have thought... -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:28, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
    • Necrothesp, I was willing to entertain your argument until you started talking about "woke brigade", and your counterargument is starting to sound a lot like "designating groups is divisive". Note: I live in the real world too. Drmies (talk) 15:40, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
      • We are an encyclopaedia, not a soapbox. When people start to claim that capitalising one or other term is racist when it blatantly is not then we're going down the latter route. Note: The "real world" comment was taken from the OP (lower-case "black" is now considered racist in the real world.... What utter rubbish.). -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:43, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
        • If it's a soapbox, it's one that many, many organizations, and not just news organizations, have adopted, and there is no reason for our practice to simply disregard what their practice already is. As for "when it blatantly is not"--that's actually you climbing on a soapbox. Drmies (talk) 15:47, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
          • No, it's common sense. How can not capitalising someone's vaguely defined skin colour possibly be considered to be racist? But once again, I say, there's a world outside the USA. The BBC, for example, does not capitalise black. Even the famously liberal Guardian newspaper, which would probably self-destruct if anyone even suggested it might be racist, doesn't. The assumption seems to be that because American organisations are doing it, the whole world does it and ergo Wikipedia should do it. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:53, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
  • We JUST held a massive RFC on this exact issue. Too soon to discuss it again. Blueboar (talk) 16:48, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Personally, I would only use Black and White when comparing and contrasting with other ethnic groups ("Blacks yadda yadda yadda, while Hispanics foobarity foo"). Or in proper nouns. When used as simple descriptors, I would leave them lowercase ("the crash killed four people: two white females and two black females"). --Khajidha (talk) 19:32, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Need more realistic examples for logical quotation

Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

It would really help if the MOS:LQ examples were of the kinds of material we quote here in Wikipedia articles rather than short examples from narrative fiction. Because I am puzzled by two apparently contradictory guidelines – "Include terminal punctuation within the quotation marks only if it was present in the original material" and "If the quotation is a single word or a sentence fragment, place the terminal punctuation outside the closing quotation mark."

Here is the original source material, from a well-known book on a presidential election:

Thus, since he who lives by the polls must die by the polls, George Romney took his decision forthrightly, openly, bravely, and on February 28th called an end to it, leaving behind the impression of an honest and decent man simply not cut out to be President of the United States.

And here is its use in a Wikipedia article:

Presidential historian Theodore H. White wrote that during his campaign Romney gave "the impression of an honest and decent man simply not cut out to be President of the United States."[192]

or

Presidential historian Theodore H. White wrote that during his campaign Romney gave "the impression of an honest and decent man simply not cut out to be President of the United States".[192]

Is the period inside the quotation mark correct, because it was inside in the material being quoted? Or should the period be outside the quotation mark, because only part of the original sentence is being quoted? I have thought it was the former, and I think the latter kinds of misrepresents the source, but it has been changed to the latter by another editor. I just want to know which one is intended by MOS:LQ. Thanks ... Wasted Time R (talk) 11:19, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Excellent point, WTR. The MOS should interact with editors' usage on the encyclopedia, surely, but in this instance the guidance is confusing, or at least, could be less confusing. (I brought this up here years ago. More practical wording and examples were added, by other too; they've since been removed.) I remember seeing an article make FA with the precise opposite of LQ applied, but editors at the FAC seemed convinced that the approach they followed was in keeping with what was outlined here.
The answer to your query is the second example: the quoted portion is not a complete sentence, therefore (logically), end punctuation should sit after the quote mark. JG66 (talk) 11:41, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Capitalisation of "Internet" (the global interconnected network of today)

Latest comment: 3 years ago156 comments44 people in discussion

Hi,

I had a discussion with another person on the talk page of the article In Rainbows about the capitalisation of "Internet" (referring to the global interconnected network generally used today), as they changed the capitalisation back from how I had edited it (to capitalise the "I"). They mentioned that as there is no formal decision on this, people editing Wikipedia can do as they like, so it may be capitalised in one article and uncapitalised in another, depending on the consensus of that particular article. However, I consider this to be something of a problem. I think it looks rather strange if we have no formal consensus on this.

My position on this is that the word should be capitalised when it refers to the Internet (the one we are using right now) as opposed to an internet; this makes sense to me, as it makes for an easy distinction between "merely 'an' interconnected network" and "the main interconnected network most are familiar with".

The other person's position is there is no reason to consider Internet as a proper noun; therefore, it should not be capitalised. They cited some sources recommending that people no longer capitalise Internet (the talk page of the In Rainbows article contains the links to the sources in question).

So, there are three options here:

  • (A) Capitalise the word internet whenever it refers to the global interconnected network most commonly used today
  • (B) Don't capitalise the word internet in any case
  • (C) Per-article consensus on the matter, as it is now

Please indicate which option you prefer below, explaining why if possible. Regards, DesertPipeline (talk) 12:43, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Addendum: Another way of looking at this, as Gah4 helped me realise with their comment in the Discussion subsection below, is that "Internet" is a name; "internet" is a term. DesertPipeline (talk) 05:33, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Addendum 2: It is important to consider that option B would require writing about various related topics, and renaming their articles, such as Internet of Things, in ways that may or may not comport with source usage (mostly not). From a quick review of this discussion, is appears that very few if any supporters of B have taken this into account.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  05:33, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

How important is it that "Internet of Things" is consistently capped in sources, but "the internet" is not? Can we cope? Dicklyon (talk) 05:38, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
I'm not seeing the dilemma here either. If sources consistently cap "Internet of Things" (though I have a feeling they don't), then we can do that too, regardless of whether we cap "internet" standalone. Popcornfud (talk) 13:33, 18 August 2021 (UTC)


Survey

Option A (Capitalise when name; lowercase when term)

  • Capitalize the proper noun name of our favorite network of networks, (also known as internets): The Internet or just Internet. As noted below, I don't know why it didn't get a nice name like everything else. Talking to someone who actually wrote the book about Ethernet (which is also capitalized as a proper noun), it seems that no-one thought about naming it before it was too late. Gah4 (talk) 06:01, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
      This comment has been responded to in the Discussion subsection: link to response.
  • Capitalize when used as a proper name, otherwise lowercase. Blueboar (talk) 21:20, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Capitalise if we're talking about the medium in which users can communicate globally. Otherwise, standard all-lowercase works for talking about the kind of network. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 22:02, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Capitalize in reference to the Internet; lowercase when referring to generic technologies (usable on an intranet). We've been over this again and again and again (and the "give me lower case or give me death" folks really need to stop WP:FORUMSHOPping this again and again and again in hopes of getting the answer they want). It does not matter that various newspapers and bloggers and so forth are too ignorant to know that the Internet is a proper name and that an internet is not, and that they are not the same subject. Wikipedia knows better, and our job is to be factual and to communicate clearly, not to immitate lazy, confusing style found in other publishers with lax standards. For those not aware of it, an internet is an (i.e., any) inter-network, what is more commonly called a WAN (wide-area network) today. This question also applies to [W|w]eb: Use Web when it means the World Wide Web. It's fine to lower-case both terms when used as modifiers and as generic technology descriptors, since they can refer to protocols from the Internet and the Web usable in an isolated intranet circumstance: "internet-technology server", "web developer", etc. When fully compounded, also use lower-case: website, webpage, internetworking (these terms are not proper names so should not be capitalized). Remember also that Internet of Things is a proper name. As a subset of the Internet, it would not be a proper name if the Internet were not one itself. And some modifier cases will remain capitalized, because they refer to (and may be definitional of) proper-name the Internet: "the Internet protocol suite", etc. See also Internet Standard, which is a proper name (a formal IETF spec); this is distinct from "an internet standard" a vague term we should not use which could mean "any standard pertaining to internet technology").  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  10:14, 22 February 2021 (UTC); revised 10:30, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
      This comment has been responded to in the Discussion subsection: link to response.
  • Capitalise is correct for The Internet and lowercase is correct for a general internet. However, Wikipedia is not about being correct — it is about reporting the sources — GhostInTheMachine talk to me 13:24, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
      This comment has been responded to in the Discussion subsection: link to response.
  • Capitalize. It's fallen out of favor (AP Style shifted to never capitalize a decade or so ago), but it still strikes me as wrong and potentially confusing to treat it generically instead of as a proper name for the global network. Carter (talk) 01:17, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Capitalize, in particular, because it continues to be used as a name: on the Internet, and because it refers to a specific technology and a set of protocols. -Mardus /talk 07:47, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Capitalize.. This is one of a handful of issues on which I fully concur with User:SMcCandlish. --Coolcaesar (talk) 21:04, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Capitalize per SMcCandlish. It's been some twenty years since I had studied Evi Nemeth and those O'Reilly's books that are considered the most reliable textbooks on the system administration. They all define it clearly: the Internet (historically DARPA Internet) is the global network, and an internet might be any local TCP/IP network, roughly a synonym to intranet. This terminology is still in use, there were no major changes in this field, AFAIK. — Mike Novikoff 22:50, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Capitalize the one, true Internet per SMcCandlish and obvious, well-known well, they used to be well known rules of English. There is one and only one Internet, that special arrangement of infrastructure following on ARPANET's development. Sure, there are other internets, but I believe in practice, people rarely talk about them. Most of our articles will be about, relate to, make mention of, or depend on resources available via the Internet. — JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits) 20:09, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
      This comment has been responded to in the Discussion subsection: link to response.
  • Capitalise. It's odd to me that many people pretend that the Internet is just "an internet". And although technically that's true, the Internet is so much more than that because of its size, the way it is used, its applications (combined with the World Wide Web) and its significance culturally and historically. There is only one Internet. ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 13:41, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Capitalise when proper name. It can get decapitalised when Internet shall had been renamed Earthnet (proper name), a subnet of Solsysnet (proper name), which shall be a subnet of Galaxynet (the Galaxy, meaning the Milky Way galaxy, proper name, and not a galaxy in general, which shall be of type "galaxynets" and not to be capitalized... ). And that shall be a subnet of the Universenet (to be continued through multiverse(s)).
Then there shall hopefully be a general agreement all mentioned are internets (term, not capitalized).
Of course, when there shall be the Centauralfanet (proper name), which shall be a solsysnet (term), which shall be colliding with existing Solsysnet (proper name); and when there shall be the Andromedanet (proper name), which shall be a galaxynet (term) and colliding with Galaxynet (proper name), our descendants shal continue this discussion about decapitalizing or not decapitalizing Solsysnet and Galaxynet, with all new passion.
They'll hopefully still agree they are all internets (terms), but we might wish to preemptively rename Sol (proper name) and Galaxy (propername) to something else, to prevent this possible future disambiguation problem ;-). --Marjan Tomki SI (talk) 11:31, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
Edit: I saw below mentioned, as the reason to decapitalize, concordance with most common use, and majority of manuals of style (which also seem to follow common use). Much of common (mis)use of language is advertising, which also massively influences general public use off a language. The goal of (much of) advertising seem to be miscommunication (in such a way that the advertiser can't be sued). If you look into amount of different aspects of the SPAMware "industry", that also (used to be, I am retired now and not up to date) significant portion of digital web content, but should we follow that?
I somehow had the idea that the only legitimate reason for trying to regulatie use of a language should be improvement of - when possible, clear and concise - communication. --Marjan Tomki SI (talk) 07:18, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Option B (Lowercase always)

Option C (Per-article consensus)

  • Per-article It really depends on the usage. For example, I do a lot of work on video game articles from an historical perspective and it is important to talk about the arrival of the capital I Internet (the global network), as well as the fact the video game consoles gained access to lower case "i" internet functionality. I would agree that if we are talking in the present tense in all sense, the lower-case "i" internet makes reasonable season, but the historical aspect needs to be considered. Hence, per-article consensus needs to be reviewed. --Masem (t) 04:50, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
      This comment has been responded to in the Discussion subsection: link to response.
  • Hell no. This will just cause "slow-editwar" and WP:CIVILPOV activity by obsessives who want to eventually force all uses to lower-case or all of them to upper-case, and we'll have the same squabble break out page after page after page. The second purpose of MoS (after consistent and professional-looking output for readers) is forestalling repetitive, time-wasting editorial disputes over style trivia – not generating a perpetual stream of them. This really has nothing to do with what page the term appears in, but rather the contextual meaning. If what is meant is the the Internet then that is a proper name. If what is meant is internet-technology networking in general, including on an isolated intranet, then lower-case is appropriate. Same goes for [W|w]eb; if you mean the Web, then it's capitalized. If you mean web technology like HTML and CSS and HTTPS and whatever, then lower-case is fine. I.e., distinguishing between name and description, between the global network and the technologies that enable it.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  10:20, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Many publications are switching to lowercase as someone mentioned above, so I think that should be the default. Just be consistent within the article. I would only distinguish the two (Internet v. internet) if it is absolutely necessary for the subject matter (I don't know, say talking about the early days of the internet and what people called it). Otherwise the distinction is likely to be distracting. Fredlesaltique (talk) 01:10, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Dear God, why? 207.161.86.162 (talk) 06:21, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
  • For maximum flexibility. Dhtwiki (talk) 20:38, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
      This comment has been responded to in the Discussion subsection: link to response.

Discussion

People should search before making proposals. 2020, more 2020, more 2020, 2019, 2012/2014, 2010, 2008, 2004 (eesh on that last). --Izno (talk) 16:28, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
Oh, it's the exact same editor as a half dozen of those discussions. Popcornfud, that you're still having this issue and across multiple pages doesn't look too good for you. Please stop pushing it until there is an actual consensus on the point. --Izno (talk) 16:29, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
"Half of a dozen of these discussions"? I think one - maybe two? edit: OK, three (though those were kind of all the same discussion).
I am not the one who is pushing anything; DesertPipeline wants to make this change to an article. Per the lack of consensus I see no reason to deviate from the WP:STATUSQUO. If a consensus emerges to change it (on that article, or at a MoS-wide level) then I will follow that consensus. Popcornfud (talk) 17:03, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
My apologies for starting another discussion on this when there's been so many; Popcornfud did mention that it's been brought up here before but always ended in no consensus. I guess discussing it so soon after the last time is probably not going to result in anything different? Also I'm not sure if I'm at the right indentation level and in the right place here to be replying to User:Izno... sorry, I still don't really know how talk page threading works exactly :( DesertPipeline (talk) 04:47, 18 February 2021 (UTC) Struck last part as I'm now at the right indentation level – I hope :) 05:20, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
Ha, I skimmed the struck-out text and initially misread it as I'm not sure if I'm at the right indignation level ... to be replying. Pelagic ( messages ) – (17:46 Sat 27, AEDT) 06:46, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
  • I don't downcase it when I come across the cap, because I don't like complaints; but in my view it should be lowercase; and where some subset of the internet is intended, that should be clear from the context. Few readers appreciate the significance of the I vs i, anyway. Tony (talk) 05:17, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
    Well, it's not that the Internet is "a subset of the internet"; the article Capitalisation of Internet explains it quite well – "the Internet is an internet, but an internet is not the Internet". I do realise that nowadays most people don't care about this sort of thing, but I don't feel like we should lowercase the "I" in a context where it should be capitalised just because that's how most people do it. My opinion on this is that as an encylopedia, which should strive to get things correct as much as possible. To me, it would be like Wikipedia writing "COVID-19" in lowercase simply because most people do that nowadays, and fortunately we aren't doing that. DesertPipeline (talk) 05:26, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
    Just to be sure, even though it says right in the Internet article, an internet is a network of networks. That is important for the scaling of network architectures, such that each host doesn't need to know the path to all others, but just to a router that knows which way to route it. Many large companies have their own private internet, and many are worldwide. Some companies need the security of not connecting their internal internet to the Internet. Many companies will name their internal network after the company. What does seem strange to me is that the Internet doesn't have an actual name other than Internet. Gah4 (talk) 10:04, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
    What does seem strange to me is that the Internet doesn't have an actual name other than Internet. The Internet used to be also called the World Wide Web, but I think that name has fallen out of use a few years ago. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 16:58, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
    No, the Internet and the World Wide Web are two very different things. It is true that there are commentators who lump them together, but they don't understand what either is. The WWW is an application that uses HTTP over IP, and no more the Intenet than Gopher, NNTP or SMTP. Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 18:47, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
  • I was actually able to think of a much better reason for capitalisation thanks to Gah4's comment. "Internet", referring to the Internet, is a name; "internet" is a term. Would anyone say that provides a better case for standardising capitalisation? Also, I've added a discussion subheading and a survey subheading. DesertPipeline (talk) 04:47, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
    Addendum: I also have to wonder if the sources that Popcornfud linked which recommend not capitalising the word don't realise that it is a name, rather than simply a term in all cases. I haven't read them though, so I'm just speculating here :) DesertPipeline (talk) 05:01, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
    "the Internet is an internet, but an internet is not the Internet" I don't see how that means that "the Internet" is a proper noun. Seems pretty parallel to the statement that "the atmosphere is an atmosphere, but an atmosphere is not the atmosphere". --Khajidha (talk) 19:30, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
    Indeed, that quote isn't that great, because the Internet is definitely not in the same category as any other internetwork; because of its size, its significance, its everything, it's become a completely unique thing. (That's unlike an atmosphere though, because many planets have an atmosphere and the Earth's isn't that unique.) ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 13:11, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
    Yes. Like Microsoft naming their word processor Word, our favorite internet is named The Internet. It might have had a fancier name, but it seems not. Gah4 (talk) 06:36, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
    And even LibreOffice fell victim: They called theirs "Writer" :) DesertPipeline (talk) 06:42, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
    I also have to wonder if the sources that Popcornfud linked which recommend not capitalising the word don't realise that it is a name, rather than simply a term in all cases. I haven't read them though, so I'm just speculating here
    Yes, the history of the term as a proper noun is discussed in those sources (here are some of them again: NY Times, Wired, New Republic, the Verge).
    I have to say that the fact that you didn't bother to read these - which I provided because you asked me for an explanation - and are now typing things to the effect of "I wonder what those sources arguing against my position say? guess we'll never know!" is sort of causing me to faceplam. Popcornfud (talk) 20:51, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
    I'm sorry, Popcorn :( The reason I didn't read the sources you provided is that I feel paranoid about visiting websites I haven't before – and I know the ones you linked are trustworthy, but my fear is just irrational. I thought you might be frustrated if I said I didn't read them, but I didn't want to act as if I knew – because I don't. I could read them with Lynx, a terminal-based browser, if you'd like me to (although my paranoia is such a problem that I even hesitate to do that, despite the fact that I installed Lynx specifically for situations like this). DesertPipeline (talk) 06:38, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
    DesertPipeline, OK, that sounds tough. If you're curious, I would be happy to summarise what those articles say on your talk page, just let me know. Popcornfud (talk) 10:44, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
    If you don't mind doing that, then sure, and thank you :) DesertPipeline (talk) 12:48, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Lower case per Capitalization of Internet#Usage examples. Randy Kryn (talk) 05:19, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
    Hi, would you mind putting this in the Survey subsection above and adding (B) to the beginning of your comment? Thanks, DesertPipeline (talk) 05:28, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
    OK, added it there as well. Randy Kryn (talk) 05:40, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
    Thanks :) I also decided to add subheadings for each option so hopefully things will be more readable. I moved your comment to the corresponding subheading (Option B). DesertPipeline (talk) 05:44, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Pinging everyone who participated in the discussion so far (except Gah4, because I mentioned it on their talk page and was intending to do that for the other participants but then realised it was way less efficient than just doing it here and using pings): User:Izno, User:Tony1, User:Tenryuu, User:Chatul (I think that's everyone). If you don't mind, can you add which option you're in support of to the survey? :) If you already gave your explanation in this section, you can just say something like "see my comment in the discussion section". I just want it to be clearer for whoever closes this what option each participant was for :) Thanks, DesertPipeline (talk) 05:12, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

  • Lower case always since I can't see any uses that I would think of as proper names. Like radio, television, and the mail, it's a medium through which businesses and individuals communicate globally. So what? No particular reason to ignore our own style guidelines on this one. Dicklyon (talk) 00:34, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
    I wouldn't really say that radio, television, and mail are good comparisons – they're not words that can either be a term or a name. In this case, though, "Internet" is the name for the global internet we're using right now – and "internet" is just a term meaning "interconnected network". As someone (me? I can't remember) said previously: "The Internet is an internet, but an internet is not the Internet" :) DesertPipeline (talk) 06:25, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
    I do understand that you want it to be a name. But I disagree that it is ever that. Dicklyon (talk) 06:49, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
    I'll be honest: I don't understand why you think it isn't a name. I'd like to know why you think this way. Do you think you could explain to me? Thank you, DesertPipeline (talk) 10:14, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
    And I don't understand why you think it is. A lot of things have names, like the Internet Engineering Task Force, Internet Protocol, ARPANET, but this thing we call the internet is just the agglomeration of everyone's networks. Nobody named it; they just took to capping it to indicate that if you're not on it, maybe you're on some other internet. That's a use of caps that's outside the uses that WP's and many others' style guides recommend. Dicklyon (talk) 04:37, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
    Well, I'll admit... I thought I read somewhere that someone had officially named it Internet, but... apparently that's not the case, at least according to the article on Internet :) Still though, language is just something we invented of course, so we could say "its name is Internet now because people call it that, even though it wasn't officially named that". Then again, maybe humanity should have a vote to decide on an official name, like... well, I don't even know what it could be called, but I guess it'd be less confusing if it wasn't called "Internet" :) DesertPipeline (talk) 05:38, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
    Well, I think humanity did take a vote. Or least the part of humanity that issue style guidelines has pretty much converted on lowercase. Dicklyon (talk) 05:41, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
    I'd argue that the most likely reason style guides usually recommend lowercase nowadays is that they don't realise that it is a name (or at least that some people consider it a name)? I'm not sure though :) DesertPipeline (talk) 05:49, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
    You don't think they looked long and hard at the issue before changing their guidance? They just don't "realise that it is a name"? Yeah, that must be it; probably a bunch of new grads running that department now. Dicklyon (talk) 06:22, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
    ...But would you be so shocked if that was the case? ;) DesertPipeline (talk) 06:29, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

  • Per-article It really depends on the usage. For example, I do a lot of work on video game articles from an historical perspective and it is important to talk about the arrival of the capital I Internet (the global network), as well as the fact the video game consoles gained access to lower case "i" internet functionality. I would agree that if we are talking in the present tense in all sense, the lower-case "i" internet makes reasonable season, but the historical aspect needs to be considered. Hence, per-article consensus needs to be reviewed. --Masem (t) 04:50, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

    If I'm reading this right, I think you may actually be in favour of option A? I agree with you that it should be capitalised only when referring to the Internet and uncapitalised when referring to any other internet :) DesertPipeline (talk) 05:47, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
    I think he's saying that there may be historical contexts in which that distinction might still need to be represented via caps, but that most current stuff not. I'm not sure I get why, though. I don't know what video game consoles gained access to lower case "i" internet functionality means. Dicklyon (talk) 06:07, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
    Not to suggest that I can read minds (that would probably make life a little easier :D) but I think what's meant is that video game consoles gained access to internets in general – i.e., any interconnected network :) Maybe you're starting to see why some consider the distinction between capitalised I and uncapitalised I important now? ;)[note 1] DesertPipeline (talk) 06:13, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
    I didn't say anything about it not being important; just not capitalization relevant. But what internets did videogames have access to? Dicklyon (talk) 06:20, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
    Well, any :) If a computing device can connect to a network, then it can connect to any internet, including the Internet, although some manufacturers of video game consoles might try to prevent connection to internets they don't authorise – P.S. I'm not an authority on this subject if it wasn't already obvious, so my explanation isn't very good, sorry ;) DesertPipeline (talk) 06:25, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

  • Same as "universe". --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:26, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
    I'd say that the example of "universe" is another one that doesn't really apply here – it's not both a name and a term: it's just a term :) DesertPipeline (talk) 06:29, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
    I agree. But some want it to be a name, too. NASA style guide and many others say not to cap it, but there are outliers (billions and billions...). Dicklyon (talk) 06:57, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
    To be honest, I wouldn't really mind either way myself – I mentioned this in the On Rainbows talk page, but if there are other universes then I feel like having a distinction between "the Universe" (ours) and "a universe" (any other universe) could be useful. DesertPipeline (talk) 07:01, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
 
"It behooves us" – Neigh!
 
Bees don't have hooves, silly!
But they apparently have the best knees.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 
 
They have bee feat.
"A shetland pony,
a bee, and a beefeater
walk into a pub...."

  • Capitalize in reference to the Internet; lowercase when referring to generic technologies (usuable on an intranet). ... — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 10:14, 22 February 2021 (UTC); revised 10:30, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
    One quick question SMcCandlish: Is it then correct to say "Web page" (as opposed to "web page")? When I see "web page" I usually change it to "Web page" – although I do feel like "webpage" sounds better :) DesertPipeline (talk) 12:51, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
    The fully compounded "webpage" has been the most common since the early 2000s, maybe even the late 1990s. I don't think anyone's arguing for retaining the capital letter when it's used in a combining form like this. If one were to write it as "Web page", then the "W" would arguably belong, but this seems a bit archaic at this point (in Internet time, anyway). Same with "website" and "Web site", etc. Various terms like "web development" can probably go lower-case, because they are about web[site] technology in general, and equally pertain to intranet websites, not just the [World Wide] Web. Used in a generic enough way, even "web page" and "web site" would work for that reason, though again "website" and "webpage" seem to be the dominant spellings now.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  05:29, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
    S, I never proposed "death" as the alternative, but it seems to me that treating "Internet" as a proper name is out of step with most modern style guides, so it behooves us to discuss when/whether to re-align with them. Dicklyon (talk) 01:01, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
    I never proposed "death" as the alternative – But those of us following this thread are openly pining for it. Oh sweet release! EEng 04:29, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
    Admit it, EEng – you're just envious that I made a joke in this section before you, aren't you? ;) DesertPipeline (talk) 05:05, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
    Au contraire. It delights me to see other editors taking up the jokester's banner. EEng 05:56, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
    Another task ticked off the bucket list – " Y Have work approved by EEng" :) DesertPipeline (talk) 06:06, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
    Congrats. All I got from him was some pix to mock my verb choice; et tu. Dicklyon (talk) 01:54, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
    Sorry, but I have standards to uphold. EEng 07:35, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
    Dicklyon, I seem to recall you being among those of us who regularly point out that "is a proper name" and "is capitalized in some proportion of publications" is not a 1:1 relationship. We know news-writing style in particular takes a large number of liberties with capitalization (mostly dropping it at every chance, even when the results are confusing, e.g. "Nato" and "the Aids virus", and lately "Covid-19" or even just "covid"). It's one thing for a eponym to lose capitalization when it becomes "divorced" from the namesake ("our platonic relationship", "draconian workplace policies", "french fries"), but nothing like that has happened here. The Internet is no less the Internet now than before, and if anything it's more: more a prominent part of our lives, and more the Internet, as it grows to integrate with our phones, our watches, even our refrigerators and doorbells. I'll repeat what I've said in several other variants of this debate: if we decide this has somehow become "the internet", then we're also going to have to down-case Internet of Things. This is a very good example of why not to trust newspapers when it comes to style questions. They'll happily drop a capital letter from a common proper name, to save a sliver of typing time, then insist on capitalizing something simply because it seems new and important (MOS:SIGCAPS). Can't have it both ways. When the very same sources directly contract themselves on whether to capitalize [I|i]nternet, and do it only when used as a modifier (i.e., the exact opposite of actual trends in English usage, which is to start decapitalizing modifier usage, which may or may not then spread lower-case to the noun form), then they are not reliable sources for the style question.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  05:40, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
    I agree completely with SMc here honestly – just because other style guides are getting it wrong it doesn't mean we should follow in their footsteps ;) DesertPipeline (talk) 03:38, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Someone mentioned universe, which it seems is not capitalized and not a proper name. There might be some astronomers who disagree, (that is, that we live in one particular Universe), but it reminded me of Earth and Mars, which it seems are proper names, though earth (synonym for dirt) is not. It might be that mars is a synonym for dirt if you are Mars. I don't see any discussion for capitalization in talk:Earth, but instead whether it is Earth or the Earth. Somehow that question was avoided here. In any case, I still believe that Internet is the proper name for out favorite internet, like Earth for our favorite planet. Gah4 (talk) 02:34, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
    Sometimes I see "earth" when it really means "Earth" (in an article where it was capitalised before) and I usually correct that. I've heard that in casual usage, people will just type "the sun", "the earth", "the moon" (etc), but weirdly enough I don't think that's done in the case of the other planet/celestial body names. I wonder why that is? P.S. I fixed the indentation of your comment :) Regards, DesertPipeline (talk) 03:21, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
    "Sometimes I see ..." – Yes, we know. There is not a single line-item in MoS (or any other style guide) that you can't find some people ignoring (on-site or in RS material). That really has no bearing on the matter. MoS is not about what "is" "correct" (English doesn't have a set of hard rules governing it); it's about what to do on WP, so that we have consistent and semi-formal output for readers, and a reduction internally in tedious strife over style trivia.

    "I wonder why that is?" It's because "earth", "moon", and "sun" have many figural usages ("to till the earth", "When the moon hits your eye / Like a big pizza pie", "shining in the sun") and pre-date common understanding of celestial bodies. Most of our other astronomical bodies were named much later, after thing that were in and of themselves proper names (mostly mythological figures), and do not have much in the way of figural/metaphoric usage.
     — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  05:23, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

  • I'm going to do some refactoring with the discussion. The intent was that the Discussion subsection would be for any replies, including to replies in the survey section, for better readability, but even I forgot to do that at first :) I'm going to try and organise all the (initial) replies to bullet points in the Survey section by time posted when putting them in this section. Someone have a mop ready, because I can't guarantee that this will go smoothly... but I'm going to try my best :) DesertPipeline (talk) 06:17, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
     Y Refactor complete. If anyone else wants to check to make sure everything that existed before still exists now, I'd be grateful, because this stuff makes my head hurt :) DesertPipeline (talk) 07:04, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

  • Lower case I'm from the networking world and know that technically "Internet" is correct to distinguish the world-wide internet from all the others. However, it's a lost cause as explained at Capitalization of Internet and it's time to follow common usage. Johnuniq (talk) 2:10 am, Today (UTC+0)
    User:Johnuniq: I'm curious as to why you think it's a lost cause. Could you elaborate on that? As said before, many people get it wrong nowadays, but at Wikipedia, we don't have to get it wrong as well. In my opinion, considering people are getting it wrong consistently nowadays, I almost feel like it's Wikipedia's duty to get it right – an encylopedia is supposed to be educational, after all, and we could induce some positive change by capitalising it when it should be capitalised in all cases, perhaps. Regards, DesertPipeline (talk) 09:09, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
    User:Johnuniq: ...I really seem to be having trouble getting pings to work lately :) At least, the notification system isn't telling me it sent. I hope it isn't silently doing it so I'm double-pinging people. DesertPipeline (talk) 09:13, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
    By lost cause I mean that the tide of common usage has risen and trying to oppose it will not be successful and will only make us look like pedants. For readers, there is no difference between Internet and internet except that the former looks like someone inadvertently pressed the Shift key in the middle of a sentence. Johnuniq (talk) 09:58, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
    User:Johnuniq: Would you disagree that if we don't take that attitude, there's still hope? Think about it this way: If we do nothing, then yes, the correct capitalisation for the Internet will probably cease to exist at some point. However, if we do do something, then there is at least a chance that things can change for the better. Even if it's a small chance, I think it's worth it, especially considering it requires little effort on our part. DesertPipeline (talk) 10:26, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
    Wikipedia is not here to right great wrongs. Popcornfud (talk) 13:54, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment: Microsoft doesn't capitalize [1]. Nor does Google [2]. Nor does Apple [3]. I guess all these companies are wrong too - it's up to Wikipedia to lead the way now! Popcornfud (talk) 14:42, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
    User:Popcornfud: Come now, you must recognise why "everyone else is doing it" is a poor reason :) Just remember that no matter how popular something is, that doesn't always make it correct or right. (The world is in a lot of trouble because there are many people doing things that are popular but ethically wrong, usually in order to make money.) Also, in response to your above comment where you mention WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS: There is a difference between "righting great wrongs" and "not making things worse" :) The same problem applies in another area that I've been trying to deal with: Wikipedia has a lot of loaded or confusing words on it (such as "consumer" and "intellectual property") – my opinion there is the same as here, which is that while we're not here to right great wrongs, we can at least not make things worse. If a capitalised I in Internet – referring to the Internet – is indeed correct, which according to Johnuniq, it is – I'm from the networking world and know that technically "Internet" is correct to distinguish the world-wide internet from all the others. – then I really think we should be following what's correct, rather than what's popular. Although I do want to ask: In your view, is "Capitalised I for the Internet is correct" not a factual statement, but an opinion? I might be repeating myself in a sense here... my apologies if so, my brain is not good at keeping track of so many things :) DesertPipeline (talk) 03:34, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
    There is really no "fact" when it comes to what is "correct" in language. The closest you'll get is the fact of what's more commonly used or not, or what's considered standard or non-standard by big-cheese publishing houses et al.
    "Everyone else is doing it" is the perfect reason, though. As others say: Wikipedia follows, it doesn't lead. Wikipedia reflects sources. Wikipedia has no responsibility to uphold your preferred version of the universe. And as I said right at the start of this discussion, we have a policy for this: WP:MOSCAPS: Only words and phrases that are consistently capitalized in a substantial majority of independent, reliable sources are capitalized in Wikipedia. In other words: only capitalize if "everyone else is doing it". Popcornfud (talk) 12:09, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
    User:Popcornfud: Well, the lead of MOSCAPS also says primarily needed for proper names. The lead of Proper noun (which Proper name is a redirect to) says A proper noun is a noun that identifies a single entity and is used to refer to that entity – does that not apply to Internet, since it's a single entity? It goes on to say as distinguished from a common noun, which is a noun that refers to a class of entities which applies to internet. By the way, I would like to ask, what is your reasoning behind wanting to do this because everyone else is doing it? Regards, DesertPipeline (talk) 12:23, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
    The entire point of this disagreement is that most style guides no longer consider it a proper noun, so you saying "but it's a proper noun" misses the point. As for what is your reasoning behind wanting to do this because everyone else is doing it, I just explained that. WP:MOSCAPS: Only words and phrases that are consistently capitalized in a substantial majority of independent, reliable sources are capitalized in Wikipedia. In other words, "Do what most reliable sources do" - even if you think it's wrong - sorry. Popcornfud (talk) 12:30, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
    User:Popcornfud: I just don't personally believe that what is and what isn't a proper noun can be defined by popular opinion, though. Surely it is or it isn't, regardless of what people think, based on what the article on proper nouns says? DesertPipeline (talk) 12:40, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

  • However, Wikipedia is not about being correct — it is about reporting the sources — GhostInTheMachine talk to me 13:24, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
    User:GhostInTheMachine: Maybe I'm wrong, but I'm not really sure that applies here. We can obviously report that some people don't capitalise the I when referring to the Internet according to the sources, and that some do, but when we're just referring to it generally, shouldn't we be capitalising the I if that's the correct way to do it? :) DesertPipeline (talk) 03:44, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Joking moved out of the !vote section (with copy of what it's a response to), per user talk request:

How about now? It's been weeks since any new votes or discussion. Popcornfud (talk) 14:24, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
  • I want to mention that none of those opposing capitalising Internet as a proper noun are disputing that it is a proper noun. As I said to Popcornfud previously, "popular opinion cannot take away a word's status as a proper noun" (not a direct quote).

    1. Does "Internet" refer to a single entity? – Yes

    2. Is a proper noun something that refers to a single entity? – Yes

    Unless these can be refuted, then for what reason should we not capitalise it in reference to the Internet, other than "to conform"? Should we really "conform" with things that can be proven to be wrong? Whether or not something is a proper noun is a fact, not an opinion. DesertPipeline (talk) 03:17, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

    1) Uh, yes, we are disputing that it is a proper noun. You must have missed several people's points. The one I find most relevant is the comparison of "the internet" to "the airwaves" or "the press". 2) Your illustration would also apply to the word "atmosphere". 3) I'm not sure it was ever really a proper noun in the first place. More like a simple emphasizing for importance, like "That's Jimmy Wales over there, but not THE Jimmy Wales". --Khajidha (talk) 14:43, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
    User:Khajidha: 1. In what way are "the airwaves" and "the press" relevant to the context of "the Internet"? There isn't "an airwave" and "the Airwave"; nor is there "a press" and "the Press". Internet, when referring to the Internet, is a proper noun because it refers to a single entity – the Internet. There is no other internet like the Internet, and therefore it refers to a singular thing.

    2. "an atmosphere" (referring possibly to another planet's) and "the atmosphere" don't really need that distinction right now because the vast majority of us are on Earth.

    3. It was understood to be a proper noun when people understood that "internet" means "interconnected network". Because there are multiple, but one is the "main" one, it's useful to have a distinction. It's just a shame a name wasn't chosen that didn't have this problem. Because that's not the case though, we should be capitalising the name of the Internet, which is "Internet", when we refer to it. DesertPipeline (talk) 09:52, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

    1) This might be the nucleus of the disagreement. The point I was making was that "the internet" is a medium, like "the press" or "the airwaves". You seem to characterize "the Internet" as the actual linkages. 2) Even on one planet we have the atmospheres of each city or even each building. We can even have atmospheres in chambers completely cut off from "the atmosphere". 3) You made my point for me. "The Internet" isn't a name, it's a simple emphasis. This emphasis is more commonly made these days by speaking of "the global internet" as opposed to, for example, a "corporate internet" that only links computers within a single company. --Khajidha (talk) 15:40, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
    I would note that there are other "spheres" that, unlike "atmosphere", have a unique referent but are still not capitalised (noosphere, anthroposphere). —Nizolan (talk · c.) 17:38, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
    User:Khajidha: You seem to characterize "the Internet" as the actual linkages. That's not what I meant. The Internet is the name for the most common public interconnected network as of 2021. Press, airwaves and atmosphere aren't cases where one usage is a common noun and the other is a proper noun. "internet" is a common noun but "Internet" is a proper noun. If we don't capitalise Internet when referring to the Internet, then essentially we're saying "well even though this is grammatically correct, we're not going to do it because others don't". Appeal to popularity is a fallacy for a reason – because no matter how many people happen to do something, that doesn't automatically make it right. (See also: Smoking, drinking, developing non-libre software.) If we were just going to go along with what the masses do, we wouldn't even have our own manual of style – we'd just use one that already exists. DesertPipeline (talk) 03:58, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
    You keep saying that it is a proper noun, but it just doesn't scan that way to me. I just cannot see a difference between saying "the Internet", meaning the world-wide one that is most important, and "the car", meaning my personal car because it is the most important. --Khajidha (talk) 17:33, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
    But there is only one Internet, that unique, special project developed out of ARPANET. The car you drive is just some car; it's non-unique (there may have been tens of thousands of that model produced in the very same color, styling, etc.). If you name it something, like "Khajidha's Krazy Kar", well then you can capitalize it, because it refers to a unique and special vehicle. But don't be disappointed when the neighbors just refer to it as Khajidha's heap (or Ford or blue car or 318i or whatever) because you're not famous enogh for folks to recognize your car's uniqueness. The Mackinac Bridge is a particular, unique structure (like the Internet); a bridge is just one of a kind of item, like an internet. — JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits) 19:55, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
    Yes, "the Mackinac Bridge" is a proper noun. But "the Bridge"isn't. If you can figure out which one is analogous to "the Internet", you will see why that isn't a proper noun.--Khajidha (talk) 20:15, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
    I have figured it out, which is–surprise!–why I brought the examples. Proper nouns: the Mackinac Bridge, the Internet, Khajidha, Wikipedia, the Earth. Common nouns: a bridge, an internet, (an or the) editor, encyclopedia, some earth. I don't know if you mistyped, but I didn't use "the Bridge" with a capital letter, so I don't know if you're trying to make a point there. I said "a bridge" and I meant "a bridge". — JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits) 21:13, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
    Nope. You completely missed the point. Bridge and internet are both common nouns. Used by themselves, neither is a proper noun. And just capitalizing them doesn't change that. Common nouns are capitalized as part of specified names like Mackinac Bridge. --Khajidha (talk) 22:52, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
    User:Khajidha: Internet is a common noun, yes. But it is also a proper noun, because the name of the global internet commonly used in 2021 is "Internet". If there was a bridge and it was simply called "Bridge", would you argue not to capitalise the B because bridge is also a common noun? It doesn't matter that it's also a common noun – they decided to call the global internet as commonly used in 2021 "Internet". Names have their first letter capitalised, whether or not the name also counts as a common noun if uncapitalised. DesertPipeline (talk) 03:48, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
    But you're ignoring the fact that many sources and many authorities have decided that it's not a proper name. Just because you consider it to be one doesn't mean that Wikipedia should. We tend to go the other way, and use lowercase when caps are not necessary, and the large number of sources and authorities who say caps are not necessary here make your opinion on the matter rather un-weighty. You claim "they decided"; but who is they? Dicklyon (talk) 04:29, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
    If there were a bridge simply called "Bridge", it wouldn't have a proper name, either. It's that simple. --Khajidha (talk) 04:43, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
    User:Dicklyon: Popular opinion cannot decide whether something is or is not a name. It is a name; someone decided that. I don't know who, but that's irrelevant. We cannot change that.
    User:Khajidha: Why not? If the people who constructed it decided its name would be "Bridge", then that is its name. You can't refute something like that. You could say "well, that shouldn't be its name", but that changes nothing. It is its name. DesertPipeline (talk) 07:07, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
    You guys are claiming someone created it and named it? But can't say who? How quaint. Dicklyon (talk) 15:21, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
    User:Dicklyon: I can't see how knowing who named it is relevant to the discussion of whether or not it is a name. What about place names in different countries? If they're old names, we don't know who named them – we just know that is their name. The same applies here. DesertPipeline (talk) 03:39, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
    Yeah, not relevant because nobody named it, as you seemed to claim above. Dicklyon (talk) 03:47, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
    User:Dicklyon: If nobody named it, then why does it have a name? DesertPipeline (talk) 04:58, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
    If it has a name, please tell us what it is, because"the Internet" isn't one. --Khajidha (talk) 12:29, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
    User:Khajidha: In your opinion Internet is not (or should not be) a name; however, opinion does not override reality. DesertPipeline (talk) 04:51, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
    Seems more like you are the one trying to put your opinion above the reality of how the English language has always worked. --Khajidha (talk) 14:14, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
    Addendum: Also, does this mean that you don't consider "Moon", "Sun" and "Earth" names because they are also common nouns when uncapitalised? DesertPipeline (talk) 12:27, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
    Yep, it does. (Although the rationale is that the uncapitalized form is the common noun for the type, not just any common noun.)--Khajidha (talk) 13:57, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
    User:Khajidha: I don't know what you mean by that. Please can you rephrase? DesertPipeline (talk) 05:02, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

  • If we're making a direct quote (The Podunk Herald wrote that "Ted Stevens famously compared The Internet to a series of tubes"), then yes, we should reproduce the original source as faithfully as our publishing technology reasonably allows, but that's really the only exception which prompted my "almost always" qualifier. (...) -- RoySmith (talk) 15:26, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
    @RoySmith: per MOS:PMC, it is okay to silently correct minor spelling errors in quotations. So if the result of this discussion is that "internet" is correct, then it's okay to also correct the quotations (unless that change also changes the meaning of the quote somehow). ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 16:33, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
  • I'll add my 20 cents here, too, to my argumentation for my vote above.
    @changing direct quotes: it is inadmisive to change quotes in such a way, that changes quotes meaning. Where manuals of style etc. allow or encourage that, MOS-es etc. should be reconsidered, and changed, not followed.
    @internets, intranets, Internet: There are company (etc.) internets (term), that are also global, composed of interconnected (used to be by various types of dedicated links) intranets, which are by design trying not being part of Internet accessible to general public (and malware). When we discuss history of these technologies, internetworking without Internet used to be a lot more common before, much of it for security and reliability reasons. Now VPN tunnels through Internet are often used, often not because they would be more secure, but because of price and better hw redundancy.
    Now go try to teach fresh young to-become-network-engineers (from extremely-smart-but-not-yet-very wise child game-enthusiasts) OSI model and related science and technology with all terminology in the literature used, decapitalized. Try to teach them about systematically preventing vulnerabilities (make them keep Murphy's law in mind's eye) of these technologies, without letting them know (and understand thoroughly) the examples what happened before some of those were fixed. And think of how you could explain those examples in an understandable way without the ability to be concise, which removing distinction between similarly sounding and/or written terms like proposed here, would reduce.
    Please try to look at the problem not from the aspect of (an expert narrow speciality) teacher, but from the aspect of an (extremely smart and interrested) novice student. I learned much form bad teachers - about how not to teach. I used to be an expert, but tried as much as possible to stay aware of the point of view of a novice, to a point to systematically try not only to remember, but also document a novices point of view whenever I was introduced at something significantly new. It happened often, because I was called often to try to help troubleshoot widely different things, and insisted of always being introduced to field of the problem as a novice to it. Often (even usually) significant part of the problem to troubleshoot was miscommunication between novices and experts, and even between different experts, without the experts being aware of that, and without most novices daring to speak up about it.
    Conclusion: I see WP primary as a tool for users, and secondary to be editor friendly. WP policies should help with both aspects. Following them should reduce clashes between editors about what contents should be included and how it should be presented, and ease up their resolution if they emerge.
    IMO Primary goal should be to help contents be usefull to the user, and beneficial to humanity in general. Policies should help achieving that goal, and if policies are found to have evolved in such a way the usefullness of contents of WP diminishes, they hvvr"however"? should be reconsidered, no matter how longstanding, not followed and enforced just becouse they exist.
    I see changes that make things harder to be explained concisely adverse to the primary WP goal mentioned above, and anything involved in promoting that trend (in or out of WP) in serious need to be reconsidered from that point of view. --Marjan Tomki SI (talk) 07:21, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
    Your post incisively summarizes the discussion so far. EEng 15:43, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
  • This section was archived yesterday by a bot. I think if nobody else has anything to add it might be time to request closure. DesertPipeline (talk) 11:44, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
    Maybe the archiving interval should be increased from 30 days. 60 days? -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:10, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
    User:Michael Bednarek: That might be a good idea. Also, I indented your comment as I presume you were intending to reply to my last bullet-pointed comment. If that isn't the case, please feel free to change it back and remove one of the colons from the beginning of my response. DesertPipeline (talk) 12:24, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
    Before you close, I'd like to add a bit I encountered lately (doing something else).
Several contributors supporting option B (allways lowercase) claimed relevant publishers never use Internet (capitalized) to differentiate from inter-network. I offer the link to Install and configure IP version 6 in Windows Server 2003 Enterprise Server at Microsoft showing otherwise. The article there was last updated 09/25/2020, so it's also not quite antediluvian contents.
The summary outlines differences between IPv4 and IPv6, and systematically capitalizes Internet to differentiate from "inter-network" as a set of technologies to connect networks, and it is imperative that a novice troubleshooter understands the difference, so it is there made more visible by both different capitalization and spelling (regardless of any manual of style).
Furthermore, IETF (probably the authority on that field, including terminology) seem to systematically use Internet (capitalized, suposedly proper name) in current contents of their web pages, too. --Marjan Tomki SI (talk) 13:55, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
  1. ^ "I can tell you right now, Dave... that monkey is indeed being cheeky!"
Latest comment: 3 years ago16 comments4 people in discussion

I can't seem to find any guidance on the appropriate way to style footers for collages, such as those found on city pages like Washington, D.C. I assume that either "clockwise, from top" or "From top, left to right" is acceptable. But should it be From top, left to right:, (From top, left to right)[line break], or something else? Should entries be separated by commas or by {{hlist}}? This seems like something we might want to agree on just for consistency. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 23:38, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

I did bring up a simliar question [4] about whether caption 'pointers' like "(left)" "(pictured)", etc should be in italics but it seemed MOS did not have an answer.  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 00:19, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
...because, indeed, it's not clear is needs to have an answer. (I actually think it does need an answer, but until it becomes clear that it needs an answer, it's premature to formulate it. Sort of, when the student is ready the master will appear, some shit like that.) EEng 03:14, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
Hmm, interesting. The advice that it's not worth the drama is worth considering, although sometimes this stuff is easier than we might expect. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 01:08, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
  • something we might want to agree on just for consistency – No, no, a thousand times NO. "Just for consistency" is the weakest of arguments for adding a rule to MOS, and it's very seldom sufficient. Different articles, different collages, may have different needs. Let a thousand flowers bloom in the captions of various articles, tended and nurtured by the editors of those articles. See WP:MOSBLOAT. EEng 03:14, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
    @EEng: Fair point. Consider this idea withdrawn. I would still appreciate if editors have any thoughts about what they personally prefer. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 16:21, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
    Collages usually have four to six images; so long as the descriptions are concise, keeping it in prose form looks good to me. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 16:24, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
  • So the tl;dr here seems to be leave it up to editorial discretion to be determined by consensus on a case-by-case basis. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 16:11, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
    We could possibly add that somewhere in the MOS, no? I.e. either way is acceptable as long as it is consistent throughout the whole article.  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 16:25, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
    MOSBLOAT MOSBLOAT MOSBLOAT MOSBLOAT MOSBLOAT MOSBLOAT MOSBLOAT MOSBLOAT MOSBLOAT! What problem or issue (real, not hypothetical) does this solve? EEng 19:25, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
    @EEng: I could not find a shortcut to MOS:BLOAT (guessing you meant WP:BLOAT?). There have been a few occassions where I wish I had something like this added to MOS so I can cite when editors revert the italic style the other way which would be helpful. Regards  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 19:33, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
    It's my Pulitzer-nominated essay WP:MOSBLOAT. (The "Closely related principles" section is SMcCandlish's.) EEng 02:18, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
    @EEng: Ah I see thanks. But do you see what I mean in this case it may be good to have brief mention that italics or no italics is alright. Nice to be able to quickly cite MOS in an occassion like this [5] where an editor may not be aware that either way is fine. Regards  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 19:09, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
    I do see, but if we say that, then "You can do it either way" itself becomes a guideline. What MOS is silent on, it is silent on, and we need to keep it that way or we have just another form of MOSBLOAT. To be a broken record: unless you can show me that substantial editor time is being wasted because of the lack of a guideline (even a guideline saying "You can do it either way"), I'm going to stubbornly resist adding anything to MOS. Think of me as the boy with his finger in the dike. EEng 23:13, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
    That'd be nice, as otherwise someone else is likely to come back asking again at some point. Another place we could put it is the documentation for {{Multiple image}}; I'll do that. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 17:02, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
    Well, like I've said, I think this is the sort of thing that probably could stand being standardized, but there needs to be a critical mass of trouble that will be avoided in the future in order to make such an exercise worthwhile, and to act as grist for the discussion mill. EEng 19:28, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Question About Fonts for Non-Latin Scripts

Latest comment: 3 years ago14 comments5 people in discussion

I am trying to mediate a dispute about what style of letters to use for native names in a non-Latin script, in particular in Arabic. I can't find a section in the MOS that addresses this question. Where in the MOS would there be guidance on what style of letters (that is, what fonts) to use for the native Arabic names of places and people whose native names are in Arabic? Robert McClenon (talk) 18:56, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

If it makes a difference, I believe the dispute is over non-Arabic languages that use Arabic script. Sorry to be pedantic, but there's a chance it'll matter since Nastaliq script is more commonly used in the languages of Afghanistan/Iran than in the Arabic language. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 19:48, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
Don't worry about being pedantic. Here at MOS, pedantry is our stock in trade. EEng 20:10, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
Full transparency: 20% of me was sorry for being pedantic and 80% of me was excited. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 20:12, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
Correction noted. The question is about languages other than the Arabic languages that are normally written in the Arabic alphabet, just as many Indo-European languages, such as English, besides Latin are normally written using the Latin alphabet. Yes, User:Firefangledfeathers knows what the dispute is. Where dpes or should the MOS address the question of what font or fonts should be used for non-Latin representations of the native forms of foreign names? Either the appropriate section of the MOS addresses the issue, or the appropriate section of the MOS should be developed. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:36, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
The MOS is pedantic in its own way, so that it excludes other styles of pedantry. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:36, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
Most browsers and operating systems will see your text as Unicode characters and then try to display it in the current font. If a character is not present in that font then the system will hunt for the most similar font on your device that does have that character. If it still can't find a font containing that character then you will see a small rectangle.
If you instead try to declare a particular font then it will try to use that font. But if the user doesn't have that font then it will do the above searching anyway. So there's no need to worry about it. Declaring the specific font just clutters up the wiki mark-up in the article for no real benefit.
Just type it in and the system will work it out for you. For proof, find an article with many language links on the left. Right click and view the page source. You will see many non-Latin languages with no particular font selected. It just works.  Stepho  talk  02:17, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
User:Stepho - Thank you for the general advice about using fonts for non-Latin alphabets. That is probably helpful to someone who is trying to add to an article. That wasn't my question. My question was about whether the MOS says anything about a dispute between two other editors about what font to display non-Latin letters in. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:31, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
Perhaps I'm missing something. If we don't need to specify a font at all then surely there is no dispute to worry about. Can you point us to where the dispute is?  Stepho  talk  11:35, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
I don't see any sections about the use of either the Arabic alphabet or expanded forms of the Arabic alphabet. Is that because there are no sections, or am I missing something? Robert McClenon (talk) 05:31, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
MOS:FONTFAMILY might be relevant here. pburka (talk) 17:28, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
Thank you. I will try to explain, User:Stepho-wrs, User:Pburka. The dispute is currently at DRN, the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard, and it is font-warring about articles related to Afghanistan. One user objects to the use of the Nastaliq font. What I would like is a guideline that says that the Nastaliq and Naskh fonts are permitted. Otherwise resolving the dispute comes down to saying not to be disruptive, and if necessary invoking discretionary sanctions, which would be an ugly way to resolve an ugly dispute. Is there any guideline that says either what fonts are permitted, or that says that font-warring is not a good idea? If there is an MOS page about the Arabic script in general, we could put something there, but I don't see anything about the Arabic script. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:34, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
The MOS is quite clear that you shouldn't override the default font family. pburka (talk) 00:40, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
Ah, I understand a bit better now. The choice is to force the article to render with the font Nastaliq (eg کابل ), or the font Naskh (eg کابل‎ ) or the default font chosen by the viewer's browser (eg کابل ). On the face of it, they want their choice for aesthetic reasons - it looks prettier to their eyes. Kind of like someone preferring Calibri vs Times new Roman whenever British town names are mentioned. The downside of an editor forcing a font is that all readers no longer have a choice - they get the editor's choice regardless. If no font is forced, then the reader's browser can choose the font - including the reader's option of custom CSS styles. MOS:FONTFAMILY says don't force the font due to this loss of flexibility - although it doesn't go into the details I just gave about how the flexibility is lost.
From '(3rd) Statement by Danre98', there is a faint hint of cultural suppression where a minority culture is being forced to use the script of a dominant culture (kind of like if all British articles were forced to use American spelling). It would explain the fervour involved. But neither side explicitly listed this reason and it might just be my imagination.  Stepho  talk  11:47, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
Latest comment: 3 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

WP:NavFrame is a long-deprecated collapsing technology. Efforts over the past several years have trimmed down its use or made it such that when it is finally turned off in our Common.css/js, it will be accessible to users in non-article spaces (simply by uncollapsing its content permanently; see also User:IznoBot#Task 3). There are about 70 pages left to work on in non-article space to swap it for its replacement so there is still some to do there.

However, there are some 1400 pages in the mainspace that employ NavFrame. Noting that WP:COLLAPSE says not to collapse content in mainspace generally, would there be support for a mass removal of this specific class and related HTML in semi-automated fashion (not the content held inside it)? Or to finish removal, must the uses be converted to use NavFrame's replacement technology (or one of the various collapsing templates)?

If it is of interest, the remaining use of NavFrame is generally in a series of sports articles to hide long tables that I would argue violate WP:NOTSTATS, but I'm not interested in article deletion right now. ;)

I am willing to leave a nice "here's how to 'revert' this activity constructively" in the edit summary, if that matters, indicating how the interested user can swap to the more correct class. (And more or less did so in the context of IznoBot task 3.)

(This may need a wider audience a la RFC, or possibly a more general question, since that section was written largely when collapsing stuff was not broadly accessible, and while there may be rationale for its continued existence, accessibility is not it today as collapsing these days is a case of progressive enhancement.) Izno (talk) 21:44, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi @Izno:. This automated edit has left a bit of a mess on 2015–16 Coupe de France Preliminary Rounds. I would hope you can fix this before implementing the edit on any other Coupe de France articles, please. Cheers, Gricehead (talk) 19:27, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
Yes, I caught that myself and didn't go back to fix it. When I get back to my PC I'll take care of it. Izno (talk) 22:14, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Place names merger complete

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
  FYI
 – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

Please see: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters#Personal names and place names merger complete.

This merger affected one section of the main MoS page.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  16:20, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Consensus on rankings

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Please forgive me if this has been discussed and decided, but even if it has, I would like my fellow editors to revisit this style question. I believe that Wikipedia needs a standard for expressing rankings instead of offering options. It adds to Wikipedia's reliability when people see a consistent style throughout all articles. In contrast, I believe it adds to our lack of credibility when people see different styles. When we do that, it appears we do not know what we are doing. Of course, a style should be consistent within an article, but that is not enough. We need to have a standard that is recognizable and consistent. As it stands, we have articles where rankings are referred to as "number one record," "number 1 record," "#1 record," and "No. 1 record." The Manual of Style allows four options, but we can do better and we should do better. The Associated Press and Chicago Manual of Style agree that proper style as "No. 1 record," and that is the style I propose. I believe when editors, especially new ones, come to the Wikipedia Manual of Style, they are looking for answers, and when instead of answers they find different options, it can be confusing. We cannot always provide definitive answers to every situation, but when we can, we should. I usually am in favor of giving people options, but there are times when structure, specific guidelines and policy is more important. In Wikipedia, we often have articles where rankings are expressed because of the nature of the expression. Please consider joining me in putting forward a specific Wikipedia style for expressing rankings, and that it be "No. 1" as in "...the song reached No. 1 on the Billboard charts." God bless and happy editing! MarydaleEd (talk) 02:08, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Capitalisation after semicolon

Latest comment: 3 years ago31 comments14 people in discussion

I was always taught that it was necessary to capitalise after a semicolon linking two complete sentences, as in Zinc is a common metal; It has several industrial uses. (OK that's not the best way of phrasing that, but I think it works as an example.)

I was about to "correct" an occurrence of non-capitalisation, but checked the MOS first in case there was a national difference. But MOS:COLON is no help. I checked the talk archives and found much discussion but no consensus. So just as well I checked IMO.

I think the MOS should say one way or the other. I don't care which. Or if it does already, say it more clearly. Other thoughts? Andrewa (talk) 17:30, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

I've always learned the opposite; semi-colons should be followed by lower case. That seems to match the examples given in MOS:COLON. If there are differing acceptable styles out there, then I agree we should state a rule explicitly, and not rely on inference from the examples. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 17:35, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
According to MOS:SEMICOLON, the semicolon is an alternative to a full stop (period), enabling related material to be kept in the same sentence; it marks a more decisive division in a sentence than a comma. So it is kind of a middle ground between a comma and a colon. It isn't so much a matter of style as it is one of grammar. Given that the semicolon doesn't end a sentence and begin a new one, it isn't followed by capitalization. —El Millo (talk) 17:41, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
But in the example I gave, it does end a sentence and begin a new one, just like a full stop would. So by your own logic, the following sentence should have initial capitalization... exactly as my primary and high school teachers taught. But I don't mind which way we go. Just so long as we go one way or the other. Andrewa (talk) 00:12, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
It doesn't. Independent clauses don't get capitalised after the semicolon unless they start with a proper noun. They're considered to be two clauses in the same sentence that are linked by a semicolon. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 00:19, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
The word after a semicolon is not capitalized unless it's a proper noun. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 00:50, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
By definition it doesn't end a new sentence and begin a new one. If you want that, you use a full stop, not a semicolon. —El Millo (talk) 01:19, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
But, grammatically, what precedes a semi-colon may be a complete sentence. Similarly with what follows one. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:51, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
Friends, you are confusing "a complete sentence" with two independent clauses. In the sentence used as an example, they are two independent clauses and are better written without a semicolon. In that case, write "Zinc is a common metal and has several industrial uses." I do not believe anyone was ever taught to capitalize the word following a semicolon unless it is a proper noun. I do not believe it is a cultural difference. I believe it is a situation where people are far enough removed from having studied English grammar that they confuse what they were taught. It is not clarified and should not be clarified in the MOS because it is such a basic rule that no one, well, almost no one, could be confused by it. God bless and happy editing. MarydaleEd (talk) 02:46, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
This appears to be a simple case of the OP either having been taught incorrectly, or incorrectly recollected what s/he was taught. You don’t capitalise after a semi-colon (unless the next word is a proper name or acronym). MapReader (talk) 07:02, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
I've noticed that a great number of US publications capitalize after a colon and semicolon. (IMO that's fucked up, but hey.) Popcornfud (talk) 09:38, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
I don't recall being taught it, but I have always lower-cased following semicolon. Perhaps more significantly, I have never seen that capitalized in educated writing, and that's exactly the kind of pedantic detail I would notice and remember. I am American, and I would be interested to see a significant sample of this great number of US publications. I would be more interested to see what some of the major recognized style guides say about this, but I don't know how to find that. Wikipedia often conforms to a consensus among those guides if any exists, no matter what individual editors think about it personally. 68.97.42.64 (talk) 12:07, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
Unfortunately, it seems there's no easy way to google sites for colons. that's exactly the kind of pedantic detail I would notice and remember - me too, and that's why it always sticks out to me when I notice it. I may randomly trawl some major US sites later to see if I can spot any examples. (For the record, I think it's gross and we shouldn't do it.) Popcornfud (talk) 12:37, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
From the age of 5, I was always taught to follow a semi-colon with a lower case letter, unless the word was a proper noun. I don't see why this rule should have changed, at least in the UK. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:54, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
If you were taught about semicolons from the age of 5 that explains a lot, Martin. EEng 16:08, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
Yeah, we finished off complex algebra the year before. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:24, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
This American was taught the same. I think I was taught to capitalize after a colon, but (even if I was) that seems to have fallen out of favor (and I agree with it going away). --Khajidha (talk) 13:31, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
I think that great number of US publications might be like the large (and growing) number of publications (and speakers) using constucts like "there's lots of reasons", or "there's loads of semicolons". Possible rationale: now that any goofball on the planet with Internet access (that's pretty much all of us) can share their wisdom with the world, we need to figure out what people whose native language is Something Else are trying to say, so we're now used to having rules of grammar being ignored (because they weren't learned/taught). Ergo, the rules of grammar are superfluous; let's just ignore them. — JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits) 15:24, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
JohnFromPinckney, randomly came across an example - a 1998 movie review by Roger Ebert in the Chicago Times. They occupy "Spice World" as if they were watching it: They're so detached they can't even successfully lip-synch their own songs. Popcornfud (talk) 00:31, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Oh for God's sake, here are the rules: After a semicolon, never capitalize. If what follows a colon couldn't stand on its own as a sentence, never capitalize; if it can, then there's a stylistic choice to be made which partly depends on whether more than one sentence is being introduced (as in this very post). Of course, the following are always capitalized, the word never in the foregoing notwithstanding: proper names, initialisms normally capitalized, etc.
    If you doubt me, see User:EEng#correct. EEng 16:08, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
  • "I was always taught that it was necessary to capitalise after a semicolon linking two complete sentences" – then you were taught wrong, or more likely did not remember what you were taught correctly. There are no major style guides that recommend such a style, at all, and it is certainly not used on Wikipedia. Next, "there's lots of reasons" is a grammar error (plurality disagreement). It's common and idiomatic in colloquial spoken (and not just American) English, but it's glaringly wrong in formal written English, so don't use it in our articles. And we don't use contractions in article text anyway.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:27, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
    Surely you mean "There is no style guide" ;P . And when did you start spelling capitalize with an s? For the record, I do think there are some very, VERY limited circumstances where a contraction might be used in article text, for example "because he had had no opportunity" --> "because he'd had no opportunity" -- assuming there's no way to reword. EEng 14:49, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
    In case it's unclear to you, SMC, or anybody else, I was absolutely not proposing or condoning the use of "there's lots of reasons" and similar, rather bemoaning its usage. And it may be common and idiomatic in colloquial spoken ... English, but I find it glaringly wrong when I read it or hear it. — JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits) 15:08, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
This is not in question. Never capitalize the word following a semicolon unless it is a proper noun. If you want to offer a general and vague statement that many publications require it, show me those publications and their rules. If you were taught it, produce a grammar textbook where that was taught. It doesn't exist. I fell in love with the English language in 1969 when I was a child and I have made it my life's work. I have studied it ad nauseam. I freely admit I obsess about it. So often, people think English grammar is subjective and that it is proper to write whatever sounds right or looks right to an individual. There are rules in grammar. Hoping that discussion is behind us, I would like to address the idea of semicolons in general. Semicolons have a place in writing, but please remember that periods and commas are the workhorses of English punctuation. They should be your punctuation of first choice. Any time you are tempted to use a semicolon to separate two independent clauses, please consider separating them into two sentences. The goal of grammar is to provide understanding for the reader and to do that, we must keep our sentences simple. Semicolons, colons, parenthesis, and dashes should be used judiciously. Lean on periods and commas and allow them to do their jobs. That is how we make our sentences simple and easy to read. God bless and happy editing! MarydaleEd (talk) 02:38, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
MarydaleEd, why are you lecturing me about semicolons and the goal of grammar? Why are you telling me what to do in bold letters? Why do you think I might want to offer a general and vague statement that many publications require capitalization after a semicolon? I have never done such a thing myself (except where it's appropriate, as with proper nouns) and I have never suggested doing such a thing, here or anywhere else on the planet. I do not want it to happen. Please don't bark at me for wanting to. I don't. — JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits) 05:39, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
Mr. Pinckney, until I received a notification on my account that you had messaged me here, I have never seen your name before in my life, but I am pleased to meet you. Allow me a moment to try to understand what this is about. Thank you. It should take only a moment. God bless and happy editing. MarydaleEd (talk) 06:03, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
Ok. Research is completed. There are a couple of ways I could approach this, Mr. Pinckney, but of course, I will choose the path less reflecting of my usual cheerful disposition because I am basically, at this point, typing in my sleep. So, do forgive any typos that might slip through. Upon my reading of your contributions, you appear to be a very intelligent man, so I will treat you like one. There is not a doubt in my mind that when you read my comments, you knew exactly what I was saying and to whom, and that in all I have written on this page tonight, with the exception of the last two posts I've just made, nothing I have written even can be remotely misconstrued to having anything to do with you. But, you already knew that. That leaves me with two reasons for why you wrote that message to me. Either you take issue with the way I formatted my text and, by doing it as I did, would make it appear as if I was answering you, even though you know full well that isn't the case. However, throwing a fit would be an excellent way to make your point, so you threw one to make the point about the formatting. Or, you are trolling and wanted to pick a fight, and feigned making it look like you thought I was talking to you in my messages. Those are really the only two possible options. Of course, there is the third one that I wasn't going to mention because it assumes you were ignorant enough to truly believe I made my post in response to something you said or did, even though there isn't a word in my message that in any way could possibly be in response to you. But, I know the last one shouldn't have even been brought up because, as I said, I've read your stuff and can tell you are an intelligent person. Therefore, ignorance doesn't apply. So, which of the two is it? Do ou want to spank my hand over a formatting slip? I am happy to accept responsibility for not formatting properly. You seem to have too much on the ball to be a troller, so that take out two of the three. So, tell me what formatting mishap angered you. By the way, I thought hthis was fun! God bless and happy editing. MarydaleEd (talk) 06:26, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
MarydaleEd, perhaps you should get more sleep before you edit. You've typed what appears to be one big blast of words in which you try really hard not to insult me by saying I'm too stupid to figure out you weren't talking to me, so I must be so evil that I want to pick a fight. It comes over as insulting to me, either way.
I do not want to fight, I despise trolling. In fact, the only clue I have when you do not mention other users' names is your indentation. I guess that's what you mean by "formatting" in your reply above. But maybe if I'd had more sleep, myself, I might have seen you'd merely indented improperly and were talking to somebody else. But as it is, I don't think anyone here knows to whom you were replying.
And by the way, our paths have crossed; you thanked me for this edit at Dick Van Dyke back in June (I have no idea how to link an actual "Thank"). — JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits) 06:57, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
Good to know we've worked together before. Sorry for my bad memory. You are right on at least one thing...I need to get some sleep. I couldn't read all that you wrote, but I'll come back. Can we pick this back up tomorrow? Until then, please start at the very top of this section with the original question about capitalizing after semicolons, read that content, then maybe graze over some of the things said, OVERSTEPPING any comment made by you (because that is what I did. I read nothing you wrote which is why your name didn't ring a bell) and THEN read what I wrote. Please do ignore that I wrote directly under your last comment at teh time. I put my comments down there because it was last and that is where I was supposed to put it. You know very well that my comments had nothing to do with you or yours. I've got to go to sleep now =. I keep nodding off. I promise I will come back tomorrow with all my brain cells and answer you intelligently and specifically. Thamks. God bless and happy editng. MarydaleEd (talk) 07:11, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
How about if you two don't pick this up in the morning? EEng 15:04, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
I would like to offer a sincere apology to Wikipedia editors, and specifically to JohnFromPinckney. JohnFromPinckney, please know that in my original post to this subject, any references I made to other comments truly had nothing to do with you. I posted where I did only because I was tagging onto the end, as is usual practice. I am sorry it appeared like I was lecturing you. I never saw any post from you. If you go to my user page, you will see that my last user box reveals that I suffer from insomnia. What seems funny after one has had sleep meds is not necessarily funny to those who have not. I was attempting to bring you in on the humor, not insult you with it. A lesson has been learned. Do not post in a public place when chemistry tells you it is time for bed. It is embarrassing and unprofessional. I appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia and hope we can work together again. I am truly a fan. God bless and happy editing! MarydaleEd (talk) 23:24, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

MOS:Possessives at Talk:Bruno Mars

Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

There is an ongoing discussion regarding the possessive form of Bruno Mars. Should the possessive form of Mars contain only an apostrophe (Mars') or an apostrophe and another 's' (Mars's), per MOS or should this be an exception just like Jesus is and reword whenever it is possible? Any input is welcomed.

Kind regards, MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 22:47, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Mars's. We have MOS:POSS for a reason, and it's pretty clear.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  16:36, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

MOS:RETAIN at Bridget Burgess (racing driver)

Latest comment: 3 years ago5 comments5 people in discussion

Hi all

Not sure the most appropriate place to post this, but an IP editor has been edit warring with me over a change to the English variety at the above article. The subject is Australian-born, but has lived in the US since the age of seven, which makes me think she does not qualify for "strong national ties" for either US or Australian English. She appears to identify as "Australian made, American raised" according to her Instagram.[6] As such, without a strong reason to prefer one or the other, I think we should stick to US English as the first variant used in the article, per MOS:RETAIN. I'm at two reverts now though, so seeking more opinions here. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 09:21, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

You’ve also reverted GiantSnowman too, rather than it just being you v an IP. There is an open thread on the talk page too. - 2A01:4C8:46D:2DFF:5CB:46F7:4F12:4CCC (talk) 09:27, 21 August 2021 (UTC) Resigning to activate proper ping 2A01:4C8:1075:2F3F:1854:D8FA:8876:3F5B (talk) 22:21, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

There's a discussion at Talk:Bridget Burgess (racing driver)#Language and date format.—Bagumba (talk) 13:48, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

?No there isn't! I think she has "strong national ties" to both US & OZ, therefore it's first come first served, per MOS:RETAIN. Johnbod (talk) 14:44, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
Because (I think) of a recent move, the discussion is actually at Talk:Bridget Burgess#Language and date format. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 14:53, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Possessive forms of biblical names ending with "s"

Latest comment: 3 years ago13 comments13 people in discussion

For probably their entire existence, the Jesus and Moses articles used " Moses' " as the possessive form until I changed them to " Moses's ". The other day I came across an article on Merriam Webster that says specifically that biblical names are an exception to this rule and should be written " Moses' " and " Jesus' ", but an editor won't let me change it back. I noticed the first time I was making the edits that certain quotes used the " Moses' " form (for example Moses#Artapanus), which I left as is, since quotes shouldn't be changed obviously. I also noticed just now that the footnotes on Jesus still use the " Jesus' " form because I missed them the first time around. Should the manual of style be updated or does Merriam Webster not know what they're talking about?

I think they might be right because people always say "in Jesus name, amen", they don't say "in Jesuses name, amen" Akeosnhaoe (talk) 16:08, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia follows its own manual of style; while it may be influenced by others, it doesn't need to adhere to them. MOS:'S recommends adding 's to singular nouns ending in s, including proper names (which I personally find abhorrent to look at), but suggests rewording a sentence if adding the 's would make the name harder to read. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 16:19, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
I think Akeosnhaoe is aware of what the MOS says. The question isn't of what the MOS says but whether the MOS should say what it says or if it should be amended. The MOS itself can't be used as an argument against such a question..now, I personally don't understand why only biblical names should have such an exception (I would that this were the standard), but if that truly is the practice, I think it's worthy of consideration. Firejuggler86 (talk) 03:47, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
Well, since you've asked about should, the apostrophe represents a contraction, hence singular uses a apostrophe-s (contracting "his", "hers" or "its") whereas the plural form does not (contracting "their"). That's why it does not apply to personal pronouns; they are already spelt out in full. I don't know why there was an exception made for Biblical names; but it was a common style to omit the "s" when it was not pronounced. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:49, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
That’s not actually correct, Hawkeye7, see Saxon genitive. The idea that it’s a contraction was a popular folk etymology in the early modern period.
The current rule has consistency on its side - there’s no actual reason not to always write ‘s and there are style guides that prescribe it including for names like Moses and Jesus. It’s not a question of correct usage, just standardization in a particular written document. I personally prefer to write all names ending in -us with just an apostrophe, but that’s only one option. I don’t see any reason to change the current rule.—Ermenrich (talk) 22:55, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
There isn't a rule for how to handle possessives for non-plural names ending in s, right? I generally go by how its pronounced, and I suppose most people do.. Mr Franks' bunny pelts, Jits's walloo.
The Bibilical names thing is just tradition. Certainly for Jesus -- people always say "In Jesus' name" rather than "In Jesus's name". I guess preachers talk that way. Since that's how people in the real world do, so should we. Even Strunk & White carved out a exception for that (they prescribed the 's form for all other instances). For Moses the possessive is just pronounced that way, I guess: "By Moses' whiskers, I shall be avenged". Maybe because three esses in a row sounds awkward. So that's not an issue. Are there other important Biblical names ending in s? Herostratus (talk) 03:27, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
Well, Lazarus comes to mind. Silas, James, Tobias, Amos, Matthias, Genesis, Phineas, Gluteus Maximus. And the possessive form of Methuselah – is it Meh-thooze-uh-luhz or Meh-thooze-uh-luh-zez (or -zuz)? And what's the possessive of Lourdes? I don't even know how to pronounce Lourdes itself. EEng 04:39, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
Phinehas "distinguished himself as a youth at Shittim". I think that's all we need to know. Martinevans123 (talk) 07:34, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
The only one for which I actually hear anyone not saying the 's is "Jesus' name". And even there I do hear some people say "Jesus's name". I'm not sure why anyone cares about pronunciation when the question is about spelling, though. It's not as if English doesn't already have gobs and gobs of silent letters. Just stick the 's on all of them and continue pronouncing them however you already do. --Khajidha (talk) 13:08, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
It has nothing to do with a Biblical exception. It's just English. The possessive of James is very often written as James' rather than James's, for example. But both are technically correct. I don't think we should be changing one to the other except for consistency within articles. It may even be that there's a WP:ENGVAR issue here, as British English certainly often prefers the apostrophe without the terminal 's' on these names (as per the given example, St Thomas' Hospital). -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:35, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
Keep in mind that Biblical names are actually Aramaic, Greek or Hebrew rather than English, and the English names are often significantly different from the original, e.g., Hebrew: מֹשֶׁה, romanized: Moshe, lit. 'Moses', Hebrew: פִּינְחָס‎, romanized: Pinchas, lit. 'Phineas', Hebrew: שְׁלֹמֹה, romanized: Shlomoh, lit. 'Solomon'. --Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 15:48, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
As Ermenrich and others above have said, the MoS standard that singular names carry an ‘s in the possessive is simple, clear, and widely used elsewhere. I don’t see any reason to be making any exceptions for biblical names. The London hospital exception is actually not an exception - the change in its punctuation is relatively recent and reflects that there were two St Thomases associated with the hospital. It doesn’t indicate anything about British English, where ‘s for the singular possessive is the common standard. MapReader (talk) 18:15, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
This is already addressed by MOS:POSS. It does not make exceptions for Biblical names, which would be a gross PoV-pushing exercise. Nor is that an idea found across other style guides, which have widely divergent ideas about this: use 's in every case; use 's except after a trailing s; ... after a trailing s or z; ... after a trailing s or ss or z; ... after a /s/ sound however spelled (including x, sse, and other things in various cases, but not s or z if silent or pronounced /z/); ... in all cases except after a trailing s [or any of the variations just mentioned] in a Biblical name; ... in all cases except after a trailing s [or any of the variations just mentioned] in a name from antiquity at all; ... insert 10 other pseudo-rules here.

Every style guide says something different about it, and most people just do whatever they were told to do by whichever English teacher they most listened to from elementary through secondary education, or they do whatever they've gotten used to professionally if subjected to a consistent style at work (e.g. a particular organization's style guide). Fortunately, MoS's standard (which MoS did not invent, but adopted as the simplest and most consistent) is being adopted by more and more style guides over time, including Chicago (it "permits" variation on the matter, but no longer advises it, not since the 15th edition if I recall correctly).

We need to stop rehashing this stuff. It is guaranteed that every single editor is going to disagree with something in MoS (as they will in every other style guide in existence), and it is also guaranteed that every single MoS line-item will have at least one editor disagreeing with it. This needs to stop being an excuse for perennial "fix the MoS my way or else!" rehash. It wastes both our time and a considerable amount of editorial goodwill. The central purpose of MoS is to present consistent content for readers, and its secondary purpose is forestalling editorial conflict over style trivia. Engaging here in cyclical editorial strife over style trivia is therefore contraindicated. Just accept that fact that MoS is never going to say 100% of the things you'd like it to say. And "just do whatever you're used to" defeats the main purpose of MoS. Instead, just follow MoS and stop picking style fights. If you write an article for The New York Times, then follow the NYT style guide. If you submit a paper to an American Medical Association journal, then follow AMA style. This is not F'ing rocket science.
 — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  05:34, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Repeating person's position in article

Latest comment: 3 years ago9 comments7 people in discussion

After someone is initially introduced in an article that isn't their biography, how should they be referred to?

e.g. say the article is about 2018 Russia–United States summit and Trump is introduced as "U.S. President Donald Trump", in the rest of the article is he referred to as "President Trump" or just "Trump"? I think there's a MOS about this but I can't remember which one. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 10:23, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

It depends on the context. If "Trump" by itself is ambiguous somehow (say it could be the Trump organization, or one of the Trump family if any of them were mentioned also), then it needs "President" or "Donald" in front of it to disambiguate it. If it isn't clear that the reference to Trump is before or after his presidency, then "President Trump" would be used only for anything pertaining to his time in office. Use the least amount of words that still makes the intended meaning clear. ~Anachronist (talk) 11:59, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
Let me pick a better example so we’re not getting into questions of ambiguity, say repeated usage of “Prime Minister Arden” at Christchurch mosque shootings or “Prime Minister Johnson” at COVID-19 pandemic in the United Kingdom ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:20, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
MOS:LASTNAME may be what you were looking for. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 12:29, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
Agreed; we already have this in MoS. And Anachronist is correct about context, i.e. about WP:Use common sense.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  05:42, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

I was pinged to this discussion, but now I can't find that ping. Anyways, FWIW - I don't see why we'd have to keep repeating Prime Minister (for example) in front of the occupants name, unless there's another person being mentioned in that article with the same full name or same last-name. GoodDay (talk) 14:43, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

GoodDay, Here's that ping [7]. I got one too, no idea why. As stated above, MOS:LASTNAME already handles this and we seem to have a consensus here that reflects that. Odd that this discussion is still continuing TBH. WaggersTALK 14:59, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
Ah, ok, we were pinged to the discussion below, not this one! WaggersTALK 15:00, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
I was confused too. The edit added a section heading. Apparently, the ping software doesn't recognize when a ping is for a newly-created section. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 22:18, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Double quotation marks and italics

Latest comment: 3 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

A template-protected edit request on the talk page of {{EB1911 poster}} which renders as:

 
Wikisource has the text of the 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica article "Iliad".

asks that double quotation marks be added enclosing the title to satisfy MOS:MINORWORKS which specifically mentions reference works like an encyclopedia. The request also asks for an italics parameter for use when the minor work is about a book, play, ect. as outlined at Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Titles. I've worked out the technical aspects of the request but have misgivings about implementing a change that would place an italicized title between double quotation marks. I'd like some guidance from the regular watchers of this page before answering the request. Thank you.--John Cline (talk) 19:21, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Were you to use {{cite EB1911}} to cite an article about a book or about some creature where the encyclopedia article's title is the name of the book or the creature's binomen then you would write:
{{cite EB1911 |title=''Book Title''}}
  Chisholm, Hugh, ed. (1911). "Book Title". Encyclopædia Britannica (11th ed.). Cambridge University Press.
{{cite EB1911 |title=''Genus species''}}
  Chisholm, Hugh, ed. (1911). "Genus species". Encyclopædia Britannica (11th ed.). Cambridge University Press.
This latter form occurs regularly with {{cite iucn}} where |title=Genus species
{{cite iucn |author1=Hadfield, M. |author2=Hadway, L. |date=1996 |title=''Achatinella leucorrhaphe'' |volume=1996 |page=e.T209A13051378 |doi=10.2305/IUCN.UK.1996.RLTS.T209A13051378.en |access-date=13 September 2021}}
Hadfield, M.; Hadway, L. (1996). "Achatinella leucorrhaphe". IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. 1996: e.T209A13051378. doi:10.2305/IUCN.UK.1996.RLTS.T209A13051378.en. Retrieved 13 September 2021.
Italic markup within double quotes is a rather common occurrence; this search finds about 35,500 articles before it times out.
—Trappist the monk (talk) 19:42, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
Thank you Trappist the monk for that thoroughly definitive answer. I appreciate you and wish you the best.--John Cline (talk) 01:43, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Template:Anchor documentation boldly changed; some unaddressed objections in preceding discussion, however

Latest comment: 3 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
  Moved to Template talk:Anchor § Documentation boldly changed; some unaddressed objections in preceding discussion, however

Please refer to Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Archive_222#Instructions_on_the_placement_of_"Anchor"_templates.

Template:Anchor's documentation was boldly changed with this revision; however, I see some unaddressed objection in the discussion. It seems to me that placing the anchor in the previous section just above the next heading is the best option. While it does have the problem that a section could be moved with the anchor then being in the wrong place, I think this is better than the result of substituting the template in the heading of the section the anchor links to.

Please let me know your thoughts. Regards, DesertPipeline (talk) 10:08, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Regardless of where it is used, there should not be two pages that decide where it goes. Seeing as it is a template, that place should be Template:Anchor and its talk page. Perhaps it would be valuable to document the previous discussions here on its optimal location. Izno (talk) 14:15, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
I've started a section for it there now: Template talk:Anchor#Documentation boldly changed; some unaddressed objections in preceding discussion, however. If anyone reading here would like to participate, please feel free. Thanks, DesertPipeline (talk) 15:18, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Terminal punctuation in table cells

Latest comment: 3 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

Should trailing punctuation be added to table cells? Someone already made that edit for me (which also impacted image descriptions which is only vaguely relevant here,), which is 1035992478 which should demonstrate nicely what I mean. My personal opinion on that is that there should not be any in "special encasings" or however you want to call them, which include tables, image descriptions and similar templates. This discussion should be primarily about tables if possible since I saw a lot of inconsistencies in similar tables.

-- NetSysFire (talk) 21:41, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

MOS:CAPFRAG says to not put periods at the end of sentence fragments for captions (which that diff did). Not sure if that would apply to table entries but that's where my intuition takes me.  Stepho  talk  10:57, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
Sentence fragments should not have terminal punctuation, regardless of where they are found. Primergrey (talk) 12:06, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
Agreed. Rather than post a new pointless argument about that here, just look at what several million other articles are doing. They are not putting periods/points at the end of table entries or headers, or list entries, or image captions, or table captions, or etc., except where they end with abbreviations that take a dot, or actually form complete sentences.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  05:41, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
Latest comment: 3 years ago73 comments24 people in discussion
The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Speedy close - this is going over the same ground as this discussion a couple of months ago, isn't surfacing any new points, and is turning confrontational. I suggest everyone steps away and takes a deep breath. The Land (talk) 10:59, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

Whilst I am aware that a previous attempt to address the issue ended in no consensus, it seems to me there are two distinct issues with how articles relating to either people from the UK or places in the UK are treated on this website, compared with other countries. These issues are deeply unsatisfactory and ought to be resolved.

1) Historical articles: It is the standard across Wikipedia, when adding birth and death places to inboxes, to accurately record the country at the time that the birth/death took place. E.g. at Vladimir Lenin, we see that the birthplace is correctly marked as being in the Russian Empire, as it was pre-1917, and that the death place is equally correctly marked as being in the Soviet Union, it being post-1922. The only biographical articles this is not the case for are people from what is now called the UK. For example, at Robert Walpole, the pre-1707 Kingdom of England is correctly cited in the birthplace, but the equally accurate and correct post-1707 Kingdom of Great Britain is not included in the death place, and is in fact being removed by editors. Why is there an inconsistency here? Why is it that only for people from what is today the UK, but has previously been either Great Britain or England/Scotland etc., is this historically accurate standard not applied? I would suggest that in order to be consistent with the standard laid down across this website, the changes of country (pre-1707 England, Scotland etc., 1707-1801 Great Britain, 1801-1922 UK of GB and I, 1922-present UK of GB and NI) ought to be noted, exactly as they are in other articles. Could somebody please give a clear, concise and logical reason as to why this should not occur? Nobody appears to have done so.

2) Inconsistency of contemporary figures' infoboxes: The standard used across Wikipedia is very clear. When citing a birth or death place in a biographical article, the format is: City/town (or similar), wider local authority (be that some form of federal state, county or similar), country. Subjects of biographical articles from the UK are the only country of all UN member states that this is currently not the case for. There ought to be a clear and specific reason as to why the UK should be treated differently from the other 192 member states of the United Nations. To put it simply, either the UK is a country or it isn't. Since it clearly is a country, and is recognised as such, can somebody give a clear, consistent and logical reason as to why "UK" ought not to be added to articles? Nobody is asking for "England" or "Scotland" or similar to be removed, simply that the articles be made consistent with ALL other biographical articles on this website. Why is an exception made for the UK alone?

Clearly there are two distinct issues here - I think it really ought to be for somebody to justify why we should not immediately address issue 1) given that all other articles take account of this. On the second, a case ought to be made why the UK is the only country in the world to face erasure from infoboxes as standard by certain editors.

Those interested may include: DeFacto, Chipmunkdavis, Calidum, Johnbod, Oknazevad, Sgconlaw, FOARP, Bretonbanquet, Fyunck(click), Timrollpickering, S_Marshall, The_Gnome, BarrelProof, GhostInTheMachine, Spy-cicle, No_Great_Shaker, Imaginatorium, MB, Tony1, JG66, Nagualdesign, Pburka, Alanscottwalker, Keith_D, Ghmyrtle, Angry_candy, Llewee, Mabuska, AussieWikiDan, DeCausa, Francish7, Roger_8_Roger, Snowded, Pelagic, Waggers, GoodDay.

Vaze50 (talk) 14:40, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

  • The claimed "consistency" in biographies of people from other parts of the world is nonsense. Standards are particularly variable relating to historical people from Italy, Germany, France, North America, Central Asia, India, China, and the Islamic world generally, often understandably so. Vaze50's vandalistic repeated imposition of his preferred solution, despite objections from many editors, should not be allowed to stand. And, by the way, "England" should not be linked. Johnbod (talk) 15:10, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
    That's true, but two (or six, or more) wrongs don't make a right. Clearly there's a lot of subjectivity here but we have to acknowledge there's a difference between a person's national identity preferences and the objective facts regarding citizenship, origins, UN-recognised sovereign states, etc.
    Whether she likes it or not, Nicola Sturgeon is British and was born in the United Kingdom - these are objective facts independent of politics; but equally it is very well referenced that she has a desire to reject that nationality and to be Scottish instead. The quandry that gives us is that sovereign states and citizenship are well defined but "Scottishness" isn't.
    Does one have to be born in Scotland to identify as Scottish? Can someone who has never set foot in the place but with Scottish ancestry be Scottish? Is someone with no Scottish ancestry but who now lives in Scotland, Scottish? If so, how long do you have to live in Scotland for to qualify? Can someone with none of those things, who just "feels" that they are Scottish, be Scottish? The truth here is that it's completely subjective, there are no rules at all other than to find verifiable references about what the person says their identity is (or what others say it is) in each individual case. Without those references, or if we want a more consistent approach, sticking with UN-recognised sovereign states seems a sensible way to go for contemporary figures. WaggersTALK 15:24, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
    Johnbod So you admit that actually the vast majority of biographies DO contain accurate historical information? Covering Europe, North America, Central Asia, India, China, and the Islamic world...so...that's the entire world then. Seriously, do us a favour, and tell us exactly why you think people from the island of Great Britain should be subjected to a different standard? Elaborate on "understandable so". What exactly is the distinction and difference between Britain (which has changed political constructs numerous times in the last few centuries) and France, which you gave as an example, and which has also changed political constructs many times? Please, do tell us. I await your specific reason eagerly... Vaze50 (talk) 15:36, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
    It looks like you may have misread Johnbod's comment. They listed those countries and regions as places with "particularly variable" standards. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 15:40, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
    What, Firefangledfeathers, makes France, an example Johnbod used, "particularly variable", and the UK (which has gone from occupation to multiple separate kingdoms to several separate kingdoms to multiple different types of unified kingdoms, with a brief commonwealth along the way) not "particularly variable"? What standards are you applying here? Are there even any? It feels unbelievably arbitrary. Vaze50 (talk) 15:45, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
    If I'm reading Johnbod correctly , they mean variable in the sense that other regions/countries, not just the UK, have inconsistent information. I think it's fair to say that the standard we're currently applying is "no real standard". It's find to register that as a problem and to work toward solutions. I feel you will be more successful with less of a battleground mentality. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 16:56, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
    Yes, French historical biographies typically just say France, Chinese ones China, and so on. German ones usually say Germany or the rather dubious Holy Roman Empire, rather than the actual mini-state of the time. For Central Asian ones there is often no real state to link to. Johnbod (talk) 17:47, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
    You admit therefore Johnbod and Firefangledfeathers that there is "no real standard", to use your words. It's difficult to avoid a battleground mentality when it is so painfully obvious that there is only one country a particular type of editor is absolutely determined to airbrush from this website wherever they can. French historical biographies do NOT typically just say France Johnbod - even a moment's research on that would demonstrate to you that they clearly distinguish between the different political states of the time. So again, explain to me why it is that the UK (a country like France) should be removed, when the likes of France are included? I note you haven't actually given a specific and clear reason why yet... Vaze50 (talk) 09:27, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
    I don't think that's true. I picked some random pages from Category:19th-century French people and it's about 50% 'France' 50% 'No infobox' and I found one that said "Second French Republic". Firefangledfeathers (talk) 14:32, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
    (ec) Exactly! We must have several thousand French historical biographies, so "a moment's research on that" isn't going to get you far. Anyway, I did it. The first 6 bios I looked at had no infobox at all (& one was born in Belgium), but #7 Joseph Boulnois and #9 (next with a box]], Louis Adam, #10 Auguste Franchomme all just said "France" (mostly not linked, correctly). Johnbod (talk) 14:38, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
  • While I had suggested using "UK" in infoboxes in the RFC, my real concern is the lack of consistency between it and most other countries. I would actually prefer we remove country names from American, Canadian and Australian articles. Is it really necessary to say Justin Trudeau was born in Ottawa, Ontario, Canada? -- Calidum 15:25, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
    An interesting question, but surely we need to be consistent. Perhaps it would be right to remove country names, but if we aren't going to remove them from Canada, Australia, USA etc., why would we remove them from Britain because people like Johnbod and Ghmyrtle decide Britain isn't a country? Vaze50 (talk) 15:40, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
    That's why I supported including UK in the prior RFC. Now that the RFC is over, however, I think it is time to consider whether the country name can be removed from other infoboxes like those of American, Australian or Canadian subjects. The vast majority of readers will know Quebec and Ontario are part of Canada or that New York and California are part of the US -- just as they would know England and Scotland are part of the UK. -- Calidum 15:48, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
    For what it is worth I agree with you that it would be worth removing them in all of those instances. However, without a consensus to do so, at the very least I think that UK pages should be treated with consistency, and not treated differently for entirely unexplained reasons. You'll note already that Johnbod has failed to provide a single actual reason as to why they should be. Vaze50 (talk) 15:53, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
    It all comes down to the numbers, @Vaze50:. In practical terms, there's just too many editors involved in this topic, who have opposed & will likely continue to oppose using UK or United Kingdom, in post-1707 British bios infoboxes. GoodDay (talk) 05:34, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
    My guess is, you'd get less resistance in American & Canadian bios if you went with city, sovereign state (i.e. deleting California & Ontario, for examples). But would get greater resistance in attempting to establish city, sovereign state, in the post-1707 British bios. GoodDay (talk) 16:14, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
    GoodDay, your guess is not correct. Nobody but nobody says or writes, "Boston, United States" or "Miami, United States". It is always "Boston, Massachusetts" and "Miami, Florida". There are dozens of cities and towns named "Oakland" in the US, and "Oakland, California" is the largest and best known. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 19:43, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
    But, "Boston, Massachusetts, US", would be more acceptable to American editors, then "Cardiff, Wales, UK" would be to British editors. GoodDay (talk) 20:02, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
    In most contexts, GoodDay, I would think that "born in Boston, Massachusetts" would be perfectly adequate especially if the personal is identified as "American" in the lead sentence, but if another editor thinks that adding "United States" to the mix is helpful, then I am not going to get bent out of shape at all, as long as they don't delete "Massachusetts". I think about the needs of younger readers new to English language topics in far flung areas of the world, so sometimes we need to explain things that are obvious to more sophisticated English language readers. Should we really expect that a 14 year old student of English in Malaysia or Venezuela will know that Wales is part of the United Kingdom? Why not just add it so they know? Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:57, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
    One would think, what's so big a deal about adding US or UK in those infoboxes? They don't take up much room in their abbreviated form. Alas, as far as British bio infoboxes are concerned, there's just too many (mostly) British editors who haven't & never will accept it's addition. I partly blame it on the fact that England, Scotland, Wales & (some times) Northern Ireland are called countries, which (IMHO) causes some to confuse it with sovereign states. If only my old proposal of using constituent country at those four articles, would be adopted. But it won't, as it'll just be opposed by the same editors :( GoodDay (talk) 06:29, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
  • I was pinged. TLDR and not particularly interested - but this seems to be something about using English etc over British in the United Kingdom article, which is apparently inconsistent with other country articles. If that’s what this is about…don’t care either way but “consistency” is generally an overused and overrated argument on WP. It should be about what the RS do in any particular case. DeCausa (talk) 15:53, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
    Agree. Consistency is overrated and broad rules (e.g. "only use sovereign nations in infoboxes") often have unintended consequences, such as erasing identities of colonized communities. pburka (talk) 17:38, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
    As I mentioned above, there'd likely be less resistance to implement city, sovereign state in the bios of Canadians & Americans. But in the post-1707 British bios? Well, I've been down that frustrating road, before. GoodDay (talk) 17:44, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
    San Juan, United States, Pago Pago, United States, and Manila, United States would all, I imagine, be quite controversial. pburka (talk) 18:07, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
    So first of all GoodDay's point is confusingly worded, given that the United States (but not Canada) at least notionally recognizes a form of dual sovereignty, in which the several states are partially sovereign. (The notion of "partially sovereign" does not make sense in British legal theory, but it does in American theory.) So it's not clear at first reading whether the proposal is to write "Los Angeles, United States", or "Los Angeles, (the sovereign state of) California".
    From context I gather that the proposal is to write "Los Angeles, United States", which is frankly very jarring to American ears. I don't know why GoodDay thinks that this would meet "less resistance", but I seriously doubt that that's true. I would change that to "Los Angeles, California" if I came across it. --Trovatore (talk) 18:14, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
    Betcha "Los Angeles, California, US" would be more acceptable, then "Edinburgh, Scotland, UK". GoodDay (talk) 19:06, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
    That I wouldn't know. I agree it's less jarring than "Los Angeles, US". But it still sounds a little silly. --Trovatore (talk) 20:33, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
  • The basic problem is that Vaze50 has an incomplete understanding of how a "country" is defined. They appear to think that the sole definition of "country" is "sovereign state", which is not true. Historically, and now, England, Wales, Scotland and (in many respects) Northern Ireland are defined as separate countries though not separate sovereign states. The reasons are primarily historical. Most countries - the US, Canada, Germany, Italy, etc. - are, by British standards, relatively recent creations. Within the supranational state called Britain (or the UK), the four countries that it contains are the most meaningful areas of community and national identity. Describing a place in Britain as, for example, "London, England, UK", is, in British English (the language in which these articles about British people are written), nothing other than absurd. I recognise that many people in the rest of the world find this inconvenient if not incomprehensible, but it is nonetheless true. Also true is that, within each of the four countries, the town or village, and the county, are important, and part of the problem with Vaze50's edits (alongside the edit-warring, and the ad hominem attacks on editors' motivation) is that, often, they removed all mention of the county level - which it is essential to retain except in the case of those cities which by size or history are recognised at national level - for example, "Oxford, England" is preferable to "Oxford, Oxfordshire, England". That brings me to another point - that pure consistency, and a strictly uniform approach, is unattainable, because everywhere - every country and every sovereign state - has different characteristics, and an encyclopedia should recognise and accept that. Two final points. Firstly, I have never suggested that Britain (the UK) is "not a country"; it's just a different definition of "country" to, say England. And, to DeCausa - the issue here is not about English or British nationality - it's about whether the letters "UK" should be added to birth and death places in infoboxes, which is a different matter. Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:16, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
Point of information: This discussion is effectively a reopening of the discussion closed less than two months ago as "no consensus". Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:21, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
Gmyrtle, you likely remember this. Years ago, we had to change the article List of countries to List of sovereign states, in order to get an editor (since passed on, RIP) to stop inserting England, Scotland, Wales & Northern Ireland into said article. So indeed, that's how emotionally charged this topic can get. GoodDay (talk) 18:26, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
@Ghmyrtle: ok, that being the case I find it exceedingly difficult to care. In terms of providing information to WP readers what difference is there in an infobox that says (a) “born Edinburgh, Scotland” (b) “born Edinburgh, United Kingdom” (c) “born Edinburgh, Scotland, United Kingdom”, with wiki linking? I think the answer is ‘none’. It should be similar to WP:ENGVAR or WP:ERA: unless there’s some sort of special circumstances whatever style was there first should stay. DeCausa (talk) 19:47, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
DeCausa - I agree. The sole reason this debate has reopened is that another editor has failed to follow that suggestion. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:32, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
  • The idea that the UK is especially unique and should be treated especially different is for the birds. Plenty of other countries have a level of governance defined as “country” (the German Lande is normally translated as “state” but but can be translated as “country” just as easily). The idea that people identify with the “country” more than they do with the UK as a whole is something that unionists would disagree with quite a bit.
But in terms of what to do here: let’s not pretend that there’s a consistent rule. Do whatever makes sense in the context you are talking about, don’t go around changing articles to conform to an essay-level guidelines as this is extremely pointy. FOARP (talk) 18:43, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
Ignore or overturn WP:UKNATIONALS? Good luck with that, you'll need it. GoodDay (talk) 18:50, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
If you want to promote that essay to a guideline, then please go ahead and do so. Until then, it remains an essay - nothing more. FOARP (talk) 04:15, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
I despise that essay, but we're forced to abide by it. GoodDay (talk) 04:21, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
Probably an obvious point to most, but this discussion is not about WP:UKNATIONALS. It's about infoboxes. Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:00, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
There are ties to it. The core discussions. GoodDay (talk) 21:02, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
Ghmyrtle You are wrong, the UK is not a supranational state called Britain, it is a sovereign state, a founding member state of the United Nations, a COUNTRY. It isn't any more complicated than that. Describing a place in Britain as being in Britain is not "absurd" - explain why? Instead of just stating it, actually try explaining why for a change? Your desire to keep the UK off such infoboxes would appear to be simply because you don't see it as being legitimately included. You haven't given any other actual reason. So tell us why the UK along among countries should be treated differently? State your reasons. Vaze50 (talk) 09:32, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
If your statement that "It isn't any more complicated than that" were true, this discussion would not be happening. I've explained my position - you seem to be unaware that the word "country" has many subtleties of meaning, not simply the one you prefer. And please stop trying to attribute motives to editors with whom you disagree. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:48, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Pinged. We are talking about information boxes, so to begin with, imo, we should not be averse to a bit more information in the 'where' fields. With that as background, imo, because this is an international project, our general guidance should be in the 'where' fields, including: the locale, 'in-county-where', and the internationally recognized nation-state (____, ____, ____). In the old days when international mail-letters were a thing, people had little problem including the nation-state, where they would never do that for domestic mail -- do it for people a world away. --Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:08, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
  • There is no inconsistency. Walpole's place of birth was England, which is and I think was, the common name for the highest level country at the time, not Kingdom of England. You say that Lenin was "correctly" noted as being born in the Russian Empire. I suggest this is incorrectly noted because just Russia is all that is needed, because that was and is the common name and because I do not think there ever was an entitity formally called the Russian Empire. I do not see any real issue with this whole problem in WP articles. Just remember two words: Anachronism and common-name. They will deal with 99.9% of articles. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 20:37, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
    How about another headache. The bios of Latvians, Lithuanians & Estonians whose infobox (and intros) deny 'ever' being a part of the Soviet Union. -- GoodDay (talk) 20:46, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
    Roger_8_Roger The common name today would be UK. That's what should be included. But that's what certain editors, for blatantly political reasons, are attempting to keep off. It's an issues that needs to be addressed. Vaze50 (talk) 09:36, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
  • I assume this is just a repeat of the discussion in Archive 22 started on 10 April 2021 and closed as no consensus on 19 June 2021. Nothing has changed. England is still a country. London, England is still correct. London, England, UK is still excessive and to be avoided — GhostInTheMachine talk to me 20:52, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
    GhostInTheMachine Nothing has changed. UK IS STILL A COUNTRY. Why are people like you obsessed with scrubbing that fact out? This is supposed to be an objective website, not subject to political bias. Why on earth is the inclusion of the country that London is in (guess what? That's the UK. The country it is the capital city of) "excessive"? Give an actual reason for once instead of just arrogantly dismissing it. See if you can. Vaze50 (talk) 09:34, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Personally, I find "Los Angeles, California, US", "Edinburgh, Scotland, UK", and "London, England, UK", annoying. I think most readers should be assumed to know what country California is in, and sometimes that doesn't especially matter to the subject, or the article is about a subject that would primarily be of interest to readers with some context awareness. If they don't know and are curious, the city name is usually linked so they can click on it and learn more about the place. I think the state level in the United States or the big four parts of the UK (England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland) are sufficiently identified without adding a higher level. I often get the impression that some Wikipedia editor is trying to make a WP:POINT by appending the largest entity – either trying to make some nationalistic or anti-nationalistic political statement or trying to tell readers that Wikipedia should have a policy of consistently including that info for all places without assuming general knowledge about any particular countries. However, I discovered some time ago that not all Wikipedians share my view on the matter. I doubt we can agree on a clear and consistent rule. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 22:02, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
  • My view is that we should always start with "town/city, United Kindom" (or just "town/city, UK") and then insert only what is important and absolutely necessary to the context of the article before "UK". The purpose of a location is for readers from around the world to be able to picture the geographic position of a place on the globe. We cannot assume that all, or even most, readers understand the relationship between the UK (the sovereign country which is a member of the UN and to which the Union Flag and "God Save the Queen" applies) and its constituent countries, or even know (or care) that it has constituent countries or what they all are. What we need to guard against too, is the use of the location field for the pushing of a political or nationalist agenda - all towns and cities in the UK are, from an international point of view, geographically in the UK, whether they are in England, Northern Ireland, Scotland, or Wales is not of primary importance. We must avoid the confusion or conflation of self-identified nationality and location of birth or settlement too, of course. It is factually correct to say that a person born in, say, Pwllheli, who self-identifies as Welsh, is a Welsh person born in Pwllheli, UK. -- DeFacto (talk). 19:17, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
    IMHO, today's "I'm (Scottish, Welsh, Northern Irish/Irish, English) not British" etc bit, has become old & archaic. But, like I mentioned earlier, it's the number of editors that are deciding these things. If enough editors take the stand that 'red' is 'blue'? we end up with 'red' being 'blue'. GoodDay (talk) 19:50, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose for the reasons laid out in the last discussion. Country is perfectly sufficient and using "England/Scotland/etc, UK" is redundant, etc, etc, etc, laid this out all in the previous discussion. Rehashing the discussion after a no consensus results seems like WP:IDONTLIKEIT. It seems reduntant,. we are general purpose English encylopedia we are not expected to teach every reader the obvious that England is in the UK, it is irrelevant that it is not a "sorverign state". Country is perfectly sufficent. to accurately record the country at the time that the birth/death took place We do that already. You seem to suggesting the adding England/Scotland to end does not do this. England, Scotland, and Wales are countries... You seem to suggest only by adding GB that we are able to achieve this which is not true. The inconsistency argument is also flawed. When listing the Netherlands for example Ahold Delhaize We say more often say "Zaandam, Netherlands" rather than "Zaandam, Netherlands, Kingdom of the Netherlands" as the latter is again redundant. But it is getting increasingly tiresome dealing with this editor becuase
  • "a) they cannot respect consensus of the lack of it (so WP:NOCON), and b) whenever anyone disagrees with Vaze50 they bad faith assume it is for "blatantly political reasons":
  • "People like you who are, for blatantly political reasons, intent on erasing the UK/Britain from this website as much as you can are being allowed to get away with your agenda, not on the basis of consensus being behind you doing so, but on there being a split opinion."[8]
  • "That's what should be included. But that's what certain editors, for blatantly political reasons, are attempting to keep off. It's an issues that needs to be addressed."[9]
  • "you are - for obvious political motivations - seeking to erase the country from this website which is intended to be accurate, not politically motivated." [10]
  • "This is blatantly politically motivated by you" [11]
  • Thus it is getting increasing tiresome trying to reason with this Vaze50.  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 20:14, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
  • My own take is to avoid the childish game that most people did as children of listing their address as street, city, state, country, continent, Earth, Solar System, Milky Way Galaxy, the universe. Tedious and childish. Listing city, country is fine. I looked at Encyclopedia Britannica and it says that the UK is a country. Making Edinburgh, UK perfectly acceptable. Britannica also says that England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are constituent units of the UK but also calls them countries. Which means Edinburgh, Scotland is also perfectly acceptable. Notice that both forms link to the same place. Either form works and avoids the tedious long form that helps nobody. I think it fair to assume that any unit that is big enough to be an actual country is big enough to be known in its own right. So, either of the 2 short forms is plenty good - just try to be consistent within the same article and don't flip-flop between them - ie, similar rules to WP:ENGVAR, WP:RETAIN, WP:DATERET.  Stepho  talk  02:42, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Consistency is not really that important for International Wikipedia, vs writing a book edited and published in England or the US rather than a mix of countries round the world. We already recognise this by accepting English language variants. Scotland and England are not just "called" countries, as some people above have written, they are countries. I read some nonsense about being Scottish only a "desire" of some nationalists. The UK Census gives the options "Scottish; English; Welsh; Northern Irish; British; Other, please describe". The 2011 census demonstrates clearly that the great majority of people in Scotland identify as Scottish and in England as English and in Wales as Welsh, not as British. This isn't some deviant belief only held by Nationalists, but how the great majority of people identify, and something Wikipedia should respect. The two regions where "British" identity is stronger are in Unionist areas of Northern Ireland, and London (which has a significant immigrant population). I agree with the comments above that writing "England, UK" is an embarrassment of ignorance. If you ask someone in these countries which country they were born in, they will say "Scotland" or "England". Nearly nobody says "Britain" or "the United Kingdom". -- Colin°Talk 08:18, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
That's one of the core problems, why so many British editors keep opposing the usage of "British" in the bio intros & "UK" in the infoboxes. Been through it all before & know full well, you ain't 'ever' gonna get'em to change their position on this topic being debated. GoodDay (talk) 08:44, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
Well I think we can all see that the problem here is if you think this is a problem and you consider British editors to be a problem. Vaze50, can you stop making personal attacks about the motivation of editors here. Similarly, GoodDay, try to avoid grouping editors like this as it is a sort of mass personal attack. The arguments here can be made on their merits and references, and don't need to consider the personal beliefs, assumed motivations or nationality of editors. -- Colin°Talk 10:22, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Closed quite quick. I absolutely agree with the points raised. The issue primarily around the inclusion of United Kingdom after E/S/W/NI is the result of nationalist editors seeking to prevent the name being associated with their region. It is also an attempt at trying to portray that E/S/W/NI are actual sovereign countries in the way that the USA, France, China etc. are. They however are not.

In regards to historical names. I agree as well that the contemporary entity should be used, but then again the issue comes down in many aspects to nationalist editors taking offence over history and reality. Irish editors of nationalist persuaion frequently censor Lordship of Ireland, Kingdom of Ireland and United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland from infobox locations and replacing it simply with Ireland. This creates an anomaly in that other places are not treated like this and lumped under a geographical entity. Mabuska (talk) 14:48, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

One wonders, why don't they just call it the "Disunited Kingdom". GoodDay (talk) 20:06, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
That's not really helpful GoodDay and you already have had plenty to say after almost every comment. My response is simply because this was hastily closed and was focused on the issue raised. Mabuska (talk) 23:14, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Requesting inputs

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Greetings

Requesting (brainstorming) inputs regarding Manual of Style proposal @ Chronological listing of coastal townships

Thanks and warm regards

Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 07:14, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Contradictory wording of "Punctuation inside or outside" subsection

Latest comment: 3 years ago15 comments4 people in discussion

Currently we have the following wording at Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Punctuation inside or outside: 

Include terminal punctuation within the quotation marks only if it was present in the original material, and otherwise place it after the closing quotation mark. For the most part, this means treating periods and commas in the same way as question marks: keep them inside the quotation marks if they apply only to the quoted material and outside if they apply to the whole sentence.

The second sentence above contradicts the following: 

When quoting a full sentence, the end of which coincides with the end of the sentence containing it, place terminal punctuation inside the closing quotation mark.

See the corresponding examples. This is clearly different from the treatment of question marks.

I recommend simply deleting "For the most part, this means treating periods and commas in the same way as question marks: keep them inside the quotation marks if they apply only to the quoted material and outside if they apply to the whole sentence."

Winston (talk) 04:35, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Could you give an example that could expose the contradiction? Firefangledfeathers (talk) 04:40, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
Here is an example from the subsection itself. In Did Darla say, "Here I am"? the quotation mark applies to both the quoted material and to the whole sentence, and is placed outside. In Marlin said: "I need to find Nemo." the period applies to both the quoted material and to the whole sentence, and is placed inside. Winston (talk) 04:51, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
I don't think Darla said "Here I am?", meaning the question mark doesn't apply to the quoted material. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 04:54, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
Ah wait I'm incorrect. The question mark in Did Darla say, "Here I am"? applies to the whole sentence only. Still, the manual says "outside if they apply to the whole sentence", but the period applies to the whole sentence and is placed inside. Winston (talk) 04:55, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
My first thought is that the first quoted paragraph lays out the general rule ("For the most part") and the second lays out a specific rule that serves as an exception. I have more thinking to do on whether the removal you're proposing would hurt or help. Hopefully others will chime in soon. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 05:14, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
I suspect that was the intention of its author, but the OP is right that it does fail, because what is presented as a general rule is both qualified in a way that makes it meaningless (“for the most part”…) and isn’t really the general rule at all. It is the examples below in that section of the MoS that make clear what we are supposed to be doing. Taking first the part that Winston highlights, it is misleading because it gives two scenarios that are not mutually exclusive: it is possibly for a full stop (period) to apply BOTH to the whole sentence and be present in the original material. The phrasing suggests that in such circumstances the full stop goes outside, but the MoS examples make clear that in many cases it’s the opposite that we should be doing. However the first part of the section that Winston quotes above, but doesn’t propose for deletion, is also badly worded, since it suggests that we should be including the full stop within the quotation if it was present in the original material - yet, here again, the examples make clear that this isn’t what we should be doing, since any end of sentence fragment that is quoted will clearly have the full stop at the end yet this then goes OUTSIDE the quotation marks. “Otherwise” is used totally inappropriately in that sentence! What it (the first sentence) is trying to say is “never include punctuation within quotation marks unless it was present in the quoted material” - which IS a general rule! - The second part is trying to say “the general approach is to include punctuation within quotation marks if it applies solely to the quotation and outside if it forms part of the overall sentence” but I would add for clarity at the end, covering off terminal full stops which is the most common scenario: “, terminal periods (full stops) should be included within quotation marks if an entire sentence from the quoted material is being quoted in full, but otherwise put outside”. These would be my own proposals, but it would be just as good to use the wording we already have elsewhere in WP that sets out the general rule: “include within quotation marks only those punctuation marks that appeared in the original quoted material and in which the punctuation mark fits with the sense of the quotation, but otherwise to place punctuation outside the closing quotation marks”. The AND inside that is doing the heavy lifting, but it is at least correct and clear. MapReader (talk) 05:57, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
I've thought about this some more (typed this up before seeing MapReader's comment, they make good points too). I believe the issue is mainly with the wording of the explanation, which could do with some logical refinement. Here's my thoughts.
A question mark goes inside if and only if the question mark applies to the quotation:
  • Did Darla ask, "Where am I?" (question mark applies to both the whole sentence and the quotation)
  • Did Darla say, "I like dogs"? (question mark applies to whole sentence only)
  • Darla asked, "Where am I?" (question mark applies to the quotation only)
Thus when it comes to question marks, "keep them inside the quotation marks if they apply only to the quoted material and outside if they apply to the whole sentence" should instead be "keep them inside the quotation marks if and only if they apply to the quoted material".
I think the explanation could also be reorganized. We should first explain fully the rules for question marks, then introduce the heuristic of mostly treating periods and commas in the same way as question marks, followed by further explanation for commas, periods, etc. In this case, there may be enough exceptions to the heuristic that it may not even be helpful to some people.
An example of such an exception is that if a period is placed inside, then it applies to the quoted material, but if a period applies to the quoted material, it is not necessarily placed inside. (So we have here a one-directional material conditional rather than the biconditional "if and only if").
Basically, we need to be extremely clear and explicit with logical terms such as "if", "only if", "otherwise", and with the exceptions (if we can even call them that at this point). We should also try to organize the explanation in the most effective way (although what's effective is subjective). I suggest diving into the precise details with examples first, perhaps organized by type of punctuation, and then summarizing at the end. Currently we have an inaccurate summary followed by (correct) examples. Winston (talk) 06:14, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
  • I strongly urge that examples be found that might conceivably arise in actual article editing. The current guideline spends most of its time on encyclopedically impossible cases. No article is (or should, anyway) ever say something like "I need", said Marlin, "to find Nemo." EEng 14:21, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
    We could say “The film”, commented Hollywood Reporter, “is very good”. But I’d think we can credit editors with some ability to extrapolate from the examples we already have. Winston risks complicating things by trying to revise the examples as well, which are currently not broken being pretty clear. We’d do better simply to come up with something better to replace the opening paragraph. MapReader (talk) 17:16, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
    No, it's inconceivable that an article would read “The film”, commented Hollywood Reporter, “is very good”; that's for novels, historical fiction, and Sunday-supplement pieces. ("'Ask not what your country can do for you", the young president challenged his listeners, "ask what you can do for your country.'" – I'd love to be a fly on the wall while you guys hammer out how to punctuate that one.) If you can't find an actual article-editing situation to which the principle exemplified by an example arises, then the example not just can be junked, but needs to be junked. See WP:MOSBLOAT. EEng 00:25, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
    The purpose of an example is to help the reader understand the general principle, and whether or not the words used are true to real life isn’t a critical criterion. In your example the final period clearly goes outside the quotation marks, because the wording within your second set of quotation marks is a sentence fragment and not an entire sentence. MapReader (talk) 05:46, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
    I'll say it for the third time: if you can't supply an example that would actually arise in an article, then "the general principle" doesn't need to be understood, and shouldn't be bloating MOS. EEng 06:03, 27 August 2021 (UTC) P.S. There's a lot more going on with the Kennedy passage.
    You have taken the discussion off on a tangent; the original point was about the introductory wording, which most posts above agree is currently inadequate. If you don’t like the examples, that’s a separate issue, and the onus should be on you to offer up some better ones. MapReader (talk) 05:09, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
    Off on a tangent might be preferable to going around in circles. And no, it's the person wanting to retain, in MOS, a particular provision who carries the onus, if challenged, of giving at least one example of a realistic editing situation to which that provision would apply. If there are no such situations, which as I've said I suspect is the case above, then it's obviously impossible for me to offer one as an example as you illogically demand. This the fourth time I've explained this self-evident truth -- here's hoping it sinks in this time. EEng 05:20, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Difficult to pronounce

Latest comment: 3 years ago82 comments19 people in discussion

Currently we have If a name ending in s or z would be difficult to pronounce with 's added (Jesus's teachings), consider rewording (the teachings of Jesus). Maybe it's me, but "Jesus's" is not particularly difficult to pronounce. The possessive seems to become more difficult to pronounce on multi-syllable words with stresses on the final syllable, say manganese's properties, which might make a better example. (Or Sisyphus's struggles, perhaps.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 22:05, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Lazarus's lethal legalisms. Methuselah's memorable mercury montages. Peter Piper picked a peck of pickled peppers. Sad Sue certified Sisyphus's struggles similarly silly. EEng 00:11, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
Doing the OP the favour of taking the point seriously, personally I agree and would delete that provision entirely. Whether something is difficult to pronounce is subjective, and in any event, since when was ease of pronunciation the criterion for deciding how written text should be punctuated? Rewording is always an option that editors have, and shouldn’t need providing for by specific reference within the MoS. Failing deletion, an alternative example would at least move us away from the recently aired misapprehension that there is some sort of exception (to the general rule of adding ‘s) for biblical references. MapReader (talk) 05:19, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
None of those seem hard to pronounce to me. Just put the 's on and leave it to the reader to pronounce or not. I mean, it's not like English doesn't already have boatloads of words with silent letters.--Khajidha (talk) 10:31, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
Why is “difficult to pronounce” even a consideration for something that’s written? Are we expecting people to gather round to have articles read out to them? (Or is the concern those that need to move their lips to read to themselves??) DeCausa (talk) 15:49, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
I don't know what the original rationale was, but we do have a commitment to WP:ACCESSIBILITY. Some of our users do, indeed, have articles read out to them. pburka (talk) 16:57, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
'Difficult to pronounce' is a subjective value judgement that should not be present in the MoS. Different people speak English in different ways, and what might be difficult for some is easy for others. RGloucester — ☎ 16:59, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
Yes, we often gather round the piano in the front parlour and sing the Today's Featured Article to the tune of Land of Hope and Glory. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:48, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
True, although I still maintain that having a rule about written punctuation that rests upon how something might be pronounced if spoken is, as you would say, dumb… MapReader (talk) 05:35, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
I'd only say so if it was, indeed, dumb. Writing is fundamentally a visual embodiment of speech, so considering how something is spoken isn't dumb. In English we're used to orthography being all over the map, but in other alphabetic languages it would seem bizarre not to consider pronunciation. EEng 18:47, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
For what it's worth the Chicago Manual of Style mentions pronunciation a reference point for whether or not to include an "s" in a possessive, and advises against punctuation such as "Etta James' singing", because this "disregards pronunciation in the majority of cases". --Lord Belbury (talk) 07:17, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
A lot of style choices are subjective, but that's not really the issue here. The point is that this phrase does not make sense because its assertion about what is 'hard to pronounce' is unverifiable (because what each person can pronounce is different, depending on dialect, ability, &c.), and will likely ring false to many people consulting it for guidance. While this is not the place for a linguistic discussion, I strongly contest Mr EEng's point that 'writing is fundamentally a visual embodiment of speech'. This is entirely incorrect, and rooted in a phoneticist viewpoint that should not be embedded into the MoS. There are many examples the world over of cultures that use seperate written and spoken forms that completely deviate from each other. Please refrain from making such strange and offensive assertions here! RGloucester — ☎ 19:52, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
Well I'm afraid you've made it a linguistic discussion, one in which you don't know what you're talking about. That writing (in natural languages, anyway) represents that which can be spoken is a bedrock axiom, even if such representation is often rough and confusing, or (as in Chinese) there are multiple, widely divergent recognized ways to speak out a given piece of writing. These things can make discussing how something is pronounced complex, sometimes even futile, but they don't mean the general goal isn't worth pursuing where possible. EEng 20:33, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
I believe I do know what I am talking about, thank you. Perhaps you are not familiar, but there are languages that are capable of being read, written, and understood without any knowledge of an appropriate verbal way to express that language. Written language is capable of conveying ideas, without sound. Given that I read and write in one such language, I find your continued attempt to impose phoneticism appalling. But, I will not sully this talk page any longer. RGloucester — ☎ 20:40, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
And I'm quite sure you don't, you're welcome. You've taken on with characteristic rapidity your familiar role of overwrought scold ("offensive", "appalling", "impose phoneticism", "sully") staking out some eccentric position. Go ahead: show us a natural-language writing system that isn't meant to be read out orally. That one might conceivably learn a language's writing with no idea of how it's spoken is obvious – here's an artificial example that's actually intended to be learned that way – but to move from the conceivable to the practical: did you learn Japanese that way? Like I said, go on and tell us; we really want to hear it (or read it). EEng 21:34, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
No answer. Huh.
On reflection it's occurred to me that maybe you're confusing the proposition that all writing represents speech (which is what I'm saying) for the proposition that all writing represents speech phonetically, or alphabetically, or something like that (which is obviously not true, and not what I'm saying because... well, because... y'know... I'm not a moron). EEng 00:08, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
Of course we should consider pronounceability. For example, tongue twisters or rhymes in formal prose are generally inappropriate because they distract the reader. And, as I mentioned above, some of our readers are, in fact, listeners and we should consider their needs. But I'm not sure we need this specific rule. The guidance to "[use] plain English" and "avoid ... unnecessarily complex wording" in the introduction is probably sufficient. pburka (talk) 20:29, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
Difficulty of pronunciation isn't mentioned, but the exceptions to adding an 's' to a singular possessive ending in 's' (or sibilant, especially if followed by same, e.g. could "for goodness(') sake" ever be "for goodness's sake"?) are given in both Strunk & White (under rule number 1, actually) and Fowler. I think some rule making allowances for such exceptions should be kept. Dhtwiki (talk) 05:41, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
Again, if you don't want to pronounce it, don't But that is not a reason not to write it. Or do you say "kuh-nig-hit" for "knight"? --Khajidha (talk) 13:37, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
Just because English has very difficult spelling doesn't mean we should make it worse. EEng 14:42, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
Seems to me it would make it better, because 1) it would be more predictable and 2) it would more closely match the pronunciations I use and most often encounter. --Khajidha (talk) 16:31, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
It's more like kuh-neekt if you're trying for a Middle English pronunciation of, say, Chaucer. Acknowledging standard spelling variants here should be helpful when such variants are encountered in sources. Dhtwiki (talk) 21:38, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Does this impact Spoken Wikipedia at all? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:59, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Even if we accept that "reword phrases that are difficult to pronounce" is a reasonable command or suggestion for the MoS (on which I'm not committed; I suspect we could do without it), I think there's a real question of whether it is a concern that is that 's-centric that the suggestion should be in this section, or whether this is a more general concern that deserve's a section on its own. --Nat Gertler (talk) 01:03, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

  Agree Remove the “difficult to pronounce” guideline from this MoS. Frankly, though, when I begun speaking English (as a second language) it was difficult to pronounce for me, so I would suggest to move this phrase to simple: WP: MoS. ‑‑ K (🗪 | ✍) 07:23, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
I have gone ahead and removed the sentence, as that appeared to be the consensus (despite the heat of people arguing over things that were not that question.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 00:19, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
And @EEng: has decided to single-handedly overrule this consensus, despite (as near as I can tell) not having put forth any statement that this particular sentence should be kept (at least that I can find in his large amount of text here). On August 20, his objection was that we should "Give it a couple of days" -- we gave it another week, and not only were there not new folks saying "no" to the deletion, there was at least one additional call supporting the deletion. Consensus looks clear. Does anyone besides EEng feel that consensus has not been reached? (And the edit summary that he used of course misstated the situation; it's not just a mere case of "A couple of people saying they don't get the point" -- it looks like we have actual calls to delete from @MapReader:, @Jochem van Hees and Jochem van Hees:, @Kai Burghardt:, @RGloucester:, and myself.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 03:16, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
Does anyone besides EEng feel that consensus has not been reached – Apparently the answer is yes. See below. EEng 04:45, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
  • It's standard advice that native speakers should rely on pronunciation to guide this kind of spelling, example (see it's mention of Chicago MoS). Perhaps their example (Euripides's plays) might be used, but asserting that pronunciation has no application in written English is a mistake. Johnuniq (talk) 03:55, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
    That another style guide does so might be evidence to support an argument, but I’m not seeing an argument. Things would be much simpler and clearer without such provisions, which I struggle to see the sense of, particularly as neither Jesus’s nor Euripides’s with the ‘s voiced appears particularly difficult to pronounce to me. It’s a shame there was a revert based on scant opposition, but as it’s the MoS how about a proper survey of views? MapReader (talk) 05:41, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
@Johnuniq: The question of whether the possessive of Jesus includes the added s, which is what the article you point to discusses, is not the matter of the deletion being discussed in this thread (though you may wish to look to the Bruno Mars thread.) Even though the discussion started with questioning the choice of example, the topic quickly moved on to whether we should even have the suggestion that we should consider avoiding having a possessive at all for cases where it is hard to pronounce. (Myself, while I am somewhat open on the question of whether we should recommend rephrasing things to avoid hard-to-pronounce sentences, I see zero logic on having that concern applied specifically and solely to singular possessives, rather than making it its own general MOS entry.) Do you have a position on the deletion being discussed? (Forgive me if you think it clear that you were making no comment on that matter but another editor just used your entry into the discussion to make claims about the deletion discussion.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 13:46, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Can we do the bold edit now then? Very few objections have been raised and they have all been countered. As far as I can tell EEng is the only one who wanted to continue the discussion but has not provided any arguments himself. ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 10:20, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
    At this point it's not really a bold edit, since there's been plenty of time for people to comment. As someone guessed, I don't actually care about this particular provision, but I'm very surprised no one else seems to either. EEng 11:13, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
It wasn't a bold edit when it was done after a week of discussion, either. Given how you responded to that by undoing the edit, misdescribing the discussion, and obnoxiously calling me "pilgrim", it's reasonably to wonder if you're going to appropriately respond this time. --Nat Gertler (talk) 22:29, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
Don't take it so personal, pilgrim. I've participated in, and often guided, a whole lot of discussions here, and have a pretty darn good idea of how the community will react to certain kinds of things. In this case, I judged that there would be significant controversy over the change, even if for some reason it hadn't manifested yet; but in this case my crystal ball failed my badly. So sue me. EEng 00:47, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
So you entered this thread to do a little joking around -- and little joking I have no problem with. But you stayed on insulting other editors, overriding consensus, sliding the goalpost, misdescribing the discussion repeatedly and now, having seen that I would prefer not to be called "pilgrim", chose to attack me with that again. Is that all to be blamed on your malfunctioning crystal ball? You may want to consider whether you are interacting here in ways that encourage participation, or whether you are letting Wikipedia:Civility fall by the wayside. --Nat Gertler (talk) 02:11, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
No, no, no, no, no, no and, um ... no. I entered the thread, and reverted the edit, for exactly the reason I stated above. If it upsets you to see Gloucester make a fool of himself, talk to him about it. The stuff about goalposts and "misdescribing" is just shit you made up. EEng 04:43, 31 August 2021 (UTC) You're a persistent cuss, pilgrim!
Count this as a gentle reminder to all involved that conversations about user conduct are best held at user talk pages. Will new entrants to this discussion, looking to make up their minds about this point of style, benefit from reading this exchange? Firefangledfeathers (talk) 02:29, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
Do-gooder. EEng 04:43, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
Pilgrim. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 04:46, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
Your mother wears army boots. EEng 05:20, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Why not use "Jesus' teachings"? GoodDay (talk) 02:48, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
    There are style guides that recommend that. But to do it we'd have to have a guideline calling out certain words, or classes of words (like Jesus) as special cases, and then you'd be right back in the soup we were in at the start of this thread. EEng 04:13, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
    Cool. GoodDay (talk) 04:22, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
    Anything else before the oracle closes for the evening? EEng 04:43, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
    No. I support using "Jesus' teaching" style. GoodDay (talk) 15:13, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
    @GoodDay - Because, depending on your belief system, the options for how many Jesuses there were are none or one; there aren’t any religions advocating a plural number. MapReader (talk) 04:57, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
    I'm an atheist. GoodDay (talk) 04:59, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
    I think the plural possessive of Jesus would be Gee-zus-uhz-ehz? EEng 05:23, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
    You see, EEng has his own idiosyncractic belief system. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:58, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
  • I have reverted the change removing the pronouncability, as indeed EEng had already done. It is self-evident to me that constructions like "Jesus's disciples" and "Leeds's defence" are awkward due to their pronouncability, and it is entirely sensible to recommend that writers find a different way to phrase such things. Even if there are exceptions in other languages, English written text is a representation of spoken text, and to be "brilliant and refreshing", our prose needs to reflect that by flowing off the page in both written and spoken form. The point about screen readers and accessibility is also clearly an important one. The advice about avoiding awkward possessives has been around forever and is an integral part of the MOS, so it at least needs a formal RFC to change it, rather than a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS of a few shows of hands in this thread. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 08:47, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
    English written text is a representation of spoken text – Jeesh, keep your voice down or you'll have Gloucester on your ass! EEng 11:44, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
    The policy that you linked does not support your own argument. It only says that "editors often propose substantive changes on the talk page first to permit discussion before implementing the change." I'd barely call this a substantive change (just one redundant sentence removed), and it certainly has been discussed on the talk page. I can't find anything about RfCs being mandatory for anything. ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 09:23, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
    I agree. Does that mean that a talk page consensus for the MOS has to always have an RfC? Whhat’s proposed is hardly earth-shattering - it’s minor. Ignoring a talk page consensus and requiring an RfC is way over the top. DeCausa (talk) 10:18, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
@Amakuru: You have no standing to single-handedly stonewall a change supported by most participants here by imposing an artificial bureaucratic process that is not required by any Wikipedia policy, guideline, or practice, in what is essentially a WP:SUPERVOTE. See WP:NOTBURO. As for what is 'self-evident' to you, that is irrelevant. I have no trouble pronouncing 'Leeds's defence' or 'Jesus's disciples', and I never have done. If anything, 'Jesus' disciples' may well be more difficult to pronounce, as it deviates from the norm! These phrases may be hard to pronounce for you specifically, but that does not mean they are hard to pronounce for anyone else, and this is exactly why this piece of guidance makes no sense whatsoever, as was said numerous times above. RGloucester — ☎ 13:13, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
It was far from single-handed. EEng had already reverted the change once. And several commenters above agree that the mentioned constructs are difficult to pronounce, and that the guideline is therefore part of what we should be advising readers. It is really not up to a handful of editors to overrride longstanding guidelines on good writing - which match other style guides by the way - without a formal request for comment. And this is nothing to do with me and whether I can pronounce things, this is a pre-existing guideline which obviously makes sense because it's been in use for years.  — Amakuru (talk) 13:26, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
The fact that numerous editors above have raised this issue at all is proof that this guideline does not 'obviously make sense'. Perhaps the problem is the specific examples given in our guidance. 'Jesus's' seems quite normal to me, but 'Waters's', as found in The Guardian style guide, is undoubtedly awkward. The Guardian specifies 's as the norm, even for words ending in s, but gives latitude to the writer to use ' where it 'helps', leaving it up to the writer's discretion. This is much more sensible than our present guidance, but still creates the problem of inconsistency based on the specific pronunciation capabilities of a given editor, which vary by region, dialect, and personal ability. In a global encyclopaedia how can we possibly justify guidance that discriminates based on the perceived correctness or awkwardness of a person's pronunciation? In any case, I am not in agreement that our present guidance is in alignment with style guides generally. The Chicago 16th edition that I have access to states: 'In a departure from earlier practice, Chicago no longer recommends the traditional exception for proper classical names of two or more syllables that end in an eez sound. Such names form the possessive in the usual way (though when these forms are spoken the additional s is generally not pronounced)'. This seems a much more sensible approach in a global encyclopaedia. RGloucester — ☎ 14:57, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
I am utterly flabbergasted that anyone would find either of those at all difficult to pronounce. --Khajidha (talk) 15:28, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Where's SMcCandlish when we need him? EEng 11:44, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
    Need a break from this place sometimes.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  16:35, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
  • For the record, I've tracked it, and what is there now (more or less, I've not done a note-by-note check) is not something that has been in there forever; prior to this edit in January 2018, there was no comment about Jesus's being hard to pronounce; that Jesus' didn't get a closing s was due to tradition, not pronunciation. And the advice was focused "particularly" on inanimate objects, which does not describe "Jesus" in the name's most common use. The new wording was raised by this RFC at the Village Pump, but was made by proposer @Dicklyon: before the RFC had a formal closure. (As for the screen reader concern: Do screen readers have trouble pronouncing Jesus's? The one on my old Mac OS doesn't. It seems to me it would be easy for a device that isn't reliant on tongue movement.... not that I find it difficult myself, as someone who does rely on tongue movement. But perhaps Dicklyon, who has written about machine hearing, has some input on machine speech.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 13:30, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
    Dicklyon effected the change because the consensus was quite clear in the RFC, and nobody then objected. (Plus it was later closed as successful anyway). But the fact that the clause was established through RFC means it's all the more imperative that an RFC be held to remove it.  — Amakuru (talk) 13:39, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
    A focused discussion is difficult with people insisting that constructions no more difficult to pronounce than “molasses” or “promises” are apparently unpronounceable. Except that the fact we have such differing individual views on pronounceability does bring home what a pointless criterion it is for determining punctuation within the MoS! MapReader (talk) 16:15, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
    You're off by one s. The parallel to Jesus's is not muhl-ass-uss but muhl-ass-uss-izz (as in "mollasses's viscosity"). On the other hand, the possessive of promises is promises' i.e. prom-iss-izz. EEng 16:52, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
    I’ve often wondered what the possessive of the Court of St James's is. Court of St James’s’s guards or Court of St James’s’ guards? DeCausa (talk) 17:51, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
    The relevant point is that if some people, like me, think that these constructions are easily pronounceable, and others appear to think they are impossible to pronounce, then pronounceability can never be a sensible determinant of anything. MapReader (talk) 18:55, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
    Well if this sentence came to be through an RfC then I kinda do understand why you'd want another one to remove it, even though I predict that nothing of value would come from such a discussion, and even though I still dislike the bureaucracy. ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 21:19, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
    The January 2018 change that I made was a great simplification (basically, always use 's for a singular possessive) in accord with most modern style guides and the clear consensus at the RFC. I didn't particularly like the bit about hard to pronounce (because it never is), but that was for people who think it is, to have an alternative to just using the apostrophe without the s. That is, if you don't like the possessive with 's, rewrite. And what is molasses's viscosity, if I may ask? One thing I learned in that RFC discussion, if I recall correctly, is that there are people who pronounce a final apostrophe as if it's 's, and then they want to add another 's pronunciation for the s. I.e. Jesus's they would read as Jesus uz uz. That is, some people don't know how to read written English, and want to see it written differently as a result. I had not imagined that such existed. And this was not 2020, so they don't have that excuse! Dicklyon (talk) 04:50, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
  1. Thanks to everyone participating in the discussion in a constructive manner so far.
  2. Let’s take a step back and wonder what an MoS is about. Is it supposed to be a comprehensive guide to all style issues that might occur? No. The introduction currently says “New content added to this page should directly address a persistently recurring style issue.” I hardly doubt there are/were conflicts on grounds of pronunciation. Worse: The current situation fuels/provokes conflicts as Bruno Mars recently showed. Frankly, I myself would not revert an edit changing the wording to one form or another. I deem it unnecessary, not an improvement regarding encyclopedic content, but otherwise it’s tomayto, tomahto. “The waitress’s attire” and “the attire of a waitress” both convey the same meaning just as well. Space is not a concern here, ¬paper.
  3. The “no new content unless really necessary” policy already existed at Special: Diff/819210420. It read “Any new content added to the body of this page should directly address a style issue that has occurred in a significant number of instances.” Why is this rule in place? I suppose because the MoS is already quite a mammoth. For a project that’s based on volunteers too many rules are rather stifling, you know what I mean? Let’s KISS, shall we? Remove this clause from the text. I can infer from previous comments that Map Reader, Jochem van Hees and Nat Gertler second this point.
  4. I suggest to take a look at grammar references. For instance Michael Swan’s Practical English Usage § 432. There is no documented preference for either style simply based on subjective difficulties in pronunciation, hence one’s ideolect.
  5. Lastly, and I can’t stress this enough, but written English ≠ spoken English. RGloucester already wrote that. It is OK and there will always be differences between how people speak and how they write a language. This attempt in uniting them is doomed to fail.
    ‑‑ K (🗪 | ✍) 22:59, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Dicklyon is right above, that we were very close to a consensus of going for the straight ‘s in all cases (which reflects best practice in many guides) except for a minority hangup over pronounceability, which left us with a rather unhelpful sentence in the MoS. The ability to reword a sentence is always open to editors - it doesn’t need ‘permission’ from the MoS - and resting the facility to do so on the impossible-to-judge question of pronounceability is where the compromise within the last discussion went wrong. Editors should be able to write about the teachings of Jesus even if they can pronounce it the other way around. MapReader (talk) 05:16, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Hopefully not late the party on this but I'm not in favour of removing the passage in question; yes you can get hung up on what is or isn't difficult to pronounce but that's not really the meat of it to me; having it spelt out concisely that it's okay to restructure a sentence to avoid a direct possessive is worth noting. Maybe someone would care to change the wording of it, but an explicit instruction that it's worth considering "the teachings of Jesus" over "Jesus's teachings" is a good point to retain here. Gʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ˣ 21:44, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
    Allowing people to restructure things is not something "worth noting". It is a fundamental part of what a wiki is. People really don't need the MOS's permission to make sentences easier to read in their opinion. ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 22:20, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
    And yet, is there harm in spelling it out? I don't see the gain in not stating it, whereas I do see the gain in stating it. Gʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ˣ 22:33, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
    WP:CREEP. ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 22:34, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
    The removed passage is 170 characters in total including wikimarkup, is this really instruction creep or simply a brief gloss? I'm not in favour throwing out baby to save a thimbleful of bathwater. Gʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ˣ 22:40, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
    Instruction creep is pretty much never a big block of text that is entirely meaningless. This is exactly what creep means: small changes, over time, each amounting to the problem. There is no baby here, only bathwater. ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 23:17, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
    That's not what this was. Not "small changes, over time, each amounting to the problem", but rather a big change that was a great simplification relative to all the weird considerations that were there before. That was how we accommodated the RFC inputs. That said, I have no objection to further simplification if that's what people prefer here. Dicklyon (talk) 04:49, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
  • I'll generally concur with removal. The important part of the sentence under discussion is the instruction to write around conflict, and that's the first "rule" of MoS, in its lead. So, it's not really necessary to repeat it here, much less to use a flimsy rationale to do so, like alleged pronuncation difficulty. PS: No, the plural of "St. James's" isn't "St. James's's"; I don't think any reputable work would ever use such a construction. "St. James's" is already a contraction of something longer ("St. James's Gate", etc.), so use the longer name, or write "of St. James's", or otherwise write around the problem. This is not difficult, and we have better things to do than entertain argument-for-sport (cf. WP:NOT#FORUM) that attempts to make it seem difficult.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  16:35, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Query about extra spaces

Latest comment: 3 years ago6 comments4 people in discussion

I'm a little hesitant to venture into MOS territory with your 200+ archived talk pages but here goes. I'm coming across some old pages that have titles like "Wikipedia talk / Manual of Style" with two extra spaces, one on either side of the slash/diagonal. I checked the article and these spaces aren't repeated in the article when the subject is mentioned. I fixed the first incident I came across because I thought it was a mistake but now I'm running into other examples and so I thought I'd check here and ask if this is standard practice (or was) and I should not correct the unnecessary spaces in the article titles when I come across them. Thanks. Liz Read! Talk! 05:36, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Just in case you wanted to see an example, one would be Aoraki / Mount Cook. Liz Read! Talk! 05:39, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
Just a guess here: maybe its a New Zealand thing? I go to the New Zealand MoS and there's an example. Wikipedia:Naming conventions (New Zealand)#Dual and alternative place names under dual names. Not sure if it's policy or what, though. Masterhatch (talk) 09:47, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
A forward slash in an article title indicates a subpage; there are no spaces around the slash because the slash is there to separate the subpage name from the main page name. However, subpages are not a thing in the mainspace, where article titles are supposed to have natural English titles. So it is perfectly fine to put spaces around a slash there, following English punctuation rules. ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 10:30, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
Okay, then, that's what I needed to know. I won't go around around and "correct" elements that aren't obvious mistakes. I thought I received a good education but I clearly didn't learn all the English punctuation rules so I'm glad there is a talk page here to ask. Thank you. Liz Read! Talk! 23:21, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
Part of the issue is that they vary over time, by region, by topic, and by claimed "authority". It's probably not possible to know them all, and many of them will conflict when any of those variables are changed. However, it's very dubious that the NZ naming conventions page (alleged to be a guideline though I doubt it was subject to a WP:PROPOSAL process) should be recommending page titles like "Aoraki / Mount Cook". Our article titles policy says to use one name, and the prefer the most common in English-language sources (which may change over time, resulting in an article rename). WP guidelines cannot contradict WP policies (see WP:P&G). Odds are that for this specific case the common name is "Mount Cook" and will eventually become "Aoraki" as preference for the original native name increases. This is not limited to NZ; similar geographic-feature renamings are happening in the US and Canada, and possibly in other places (and Canada has already long had the issue of places with differing names in English and French, too; we use the English one in most cases, and do not have dual-named articles with slashes in them). All that said, article titling isn't entirely an MoS issue, but should probably be raised at WT:AT, and moves/renames discussed via WP:RM.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:37, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Adjacent places

Latest comment: 3 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

On some articles about places I see text diagrams describing which places are nearby. Examples:

Is this stuff honestly helpful for a reader? Maybe in ~2005, but these days (given Google Maps exists and so does Wikipedia:Mapframe maps in infoboxes) I feel like it's a really hard-to-parse format with zero benefit to readers. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 18:52, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

I only know "Localities around …" from {{Infobox Australian place}} where there are widely used. I'm not aware of any discussions to remove them from the template. Given the increasing number of Wikipedia readers on mobile devices, presenting this information in an infobox is preferable to a navigation box which is not visible on mobile devices. Mapframes don't seem to work for most locations using {{Infobox Australian place}}. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 04:26, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
These things really are outdated claptrap. It's been suggested before to delete or deprecate {{Adjacent communities}} and some similar templates, but they were rather narrowly kept. I think a new push to remove them would succeed if they were no longer embedded in other templates. The fact that infoboxes can support a roughly similar feature, and the fact that various articles are doing completely different things in an attempt to provide information like this, is a strong indication that the navbox templates for this should go away, and that table-based simulations of them should go away, leaving only the infobox implementation, if even that meets with consensus to retain it.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:42, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Re. MOS:RANGES

Latest comment: 3 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

There's an ongoing discussion at Talk:Body mass index#Boundaries between categories that may benefit from some attention from experienced MOS editors. Essentially, BMI categories like Normal and Overweight are variously described by reliable sources, with some using ”18.5 – 25” and ”25 – 30”, respectively, while others use ”18.5 – 24.99” and ”25 – 29.99”. MOS:RANGES doesn't actually recommend how adjacent ranges of values in a continuum should be displayed. The article had previously used the former style, but it's now been changed to the latter, which arguably leaves gaps. Also, using a decimal precision of 0.1 (or 0.01) when it comes to BMI values is like weighing a fart. The discussion, such as it is, is like watching ping pong. As I see it, there's no real consensus either way at the moment, so the more opinions the merrier. Cheers. nagualdesign 22:54, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

This is a self-contradictory argument. If x.99 is so precise it's like weighing a fart then it cannot be said that x.99 (versus something much more precise like x.9999999) leaves gaps in any meaningful sense. This is much preferable to having overlapping and directly contradictory values as in ”18.5 – 25” and ”25 – 30”, which results in the reader having no idea how 25 is classified.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:10, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
Is 25 classified? Does it need to be? If it is the actual border between two ranges, then it obviously represents the transition from one to the other and you should alter your behavior to move your own BMI in the direction you want to go. -Khajidha (talk) 11:24, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

MOS:TENSE for non-fiction television

Latest comment: 3 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

The MOS doesn't give a clear statement on what tense to use for an old gameshow or documentary series. Would it be closer to "products or works that have been discontinued" (which should be written in the present tense) or "periodicals that are no longer being produced" (which should be past tense)? Checking for examples of usage across Wikipedia articles on prominent shows, I'm finding both tenses used. --Lord Belbury (talk) 10:33, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

I believe that even for non-fiction work, it still is a programme, but its broadcast information would be past tense ("X is a 19xx documentary series that aired on Channel Q", that sort of thing). 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ X 10:37, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
TV shows were discussed when we made the change for periodicals (Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 220 § WP:WAS and defunct magazines) at WP:WAS, but I don't know that the RFC discussed at that time ever went ahead. I think the underlying question is the same as for print materials. Are we describing a work that still exists and is consumed in a semi-regular way (i.e., not just archival access), or describing an enterprise that has ceased? News shows would clearly be analogous to periodicals, so "The Huntley–Brinkley Report was an American evening news program". Documentary series tend to be much less ephemeral than news, so "Civilisation is a 1969 television documentary series". Game shows are also commonly aired in reruns, including years after the fact, so I would tend to use "is" for them as well (if the episodes haven't been lost).--Trystan (talk) 13:34, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
I would tend to agree that non-fiction shows intended to be treated as periodicals, their content reflecting on current information of the last day/week since the last airing, should be treated in past tense if they are no longer in production. This would include news programs (including programs like "Meet the Press" and "60 Minutes") and daytime and late night talk shows (eg "The Oprah Winfrey Show" and "The Tonight Show"). Non-reality game shows (thinking of daily-produced shows like "Price is Right" and "Jeopardy") are a bit of a different beast as while it is true they can be found in reruns, they tend to also be treated as changing with the times and were generally produced without consideration of reruns, and to that end, I'd consider those past tense where appropriate. --Masem (t) 13:57, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Is man-made undesirable gendered wording?

Latest comment: 3 years ago36 comments21 people in discussion

I moved "List of man-made disasters in South_Korea" to "List of human-caused disasters in South_Korea". I note the Gender-neutral language section overleaf.

Now there's friction at the talkpage. Anyone care to give an opinion (here or at that talkpage)? Tony (talk) 09:22, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with man-made. It is still the most common usage in English, and believe it or not, it IS gender neutral. Masterhatch (talk) 13:44, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
I would generally agree "man-made" still is one of those terms that is recognizes as not pushing a gender, and the switch to "human-made" is awkward. In this specific case, it may be possible to suggest "List of anthropogenic disasters..." if there really is issue with that. --Masem (t) 13:49, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
I also would prefer "anthropogenic". Putting aside the gendered aspect, it seems awkward to describe ferry accidents as "man-made" or "human-made" disasters. Humans were involved, but the only thing they made was a serious error. pburka (talk) 13:55, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
Per [12] man made: "manufactured, created, or constructed by human beings", not sure how that excludes women. "Man-made" is short for mankind, i.e. humans as a whole for just "men".  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 13:59, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
In some cases artificial works as a synonym (as at swimming pool). I don't think that particularly works in that title there. --Izno (talk) 14:52, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
True, but sometimes that carries the wrong implications. I think "man-made" is still ok, per others above. It's much clearer than the alternatives in most cases - how many people understand "anthropogenic"? I think "human-caused disasters" is the best for that page though, though User:Tony1 was completely (and typically, I'm afraid) wrong to move it without discussion. He can't have thought that would be uncontroversial. Johnbod (talk) 14:56, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
And Johnbod is being (typically, I'm afraid) insulting. Tony (talk) 00:04, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
Don't dodge the issue - if you stop doing this stuff, I won't need to keep pointing it out. It wasn't relevant to mention how rude you often are yourself (see ANI archives) - perhaps now it is. Johnbod (talk) 03:47, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
yeah, he's been around long enough to know about the MOS retaining existing styles. Masterhatch (talk) 15:06, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
Right, as regard "anthropogenic". Nobody knows what that means. Step outside your shoes here, people. (On the proximate matter, "human caused" is preferable IMO, but only because "man-made" seems a bit off in this particular context). Herostratus (talk) 15:08, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
Erm, we have a strong predilection to the gender-neutral. MOS:RET doesn't apply in such cases. Izno (talk) 15:42, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
It's WP:RM that applies, and that makes no concessions to supposed PC. Johnbod (talk) 16:09, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
RM is neither policy nor guideline; WP:BOLD is. (Mind you, I don't care about this particular article - simply commenting that the RM process is not mandatory.) Wikipedia:Article_titles#Considering_changes is policy I suppose, so take that fwiw. Izno (talk) 16:13, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
As an interesting point on "anthropogenic", I was looking at what other articles started with "list of man-made..." and found that the redirect List of man-made disasters points to Anthropogenic hazard. So we sorta already support that. (The other two cases, List of man-made objects on the Moon goes to List of artificial objects on the Moon (which makes sense from above) and List of man-made mass poisoning incidents which is just there). --Masem (t) 16:20, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
Anthropogenic hazard is a man-made disaster of a title! Johnbod (talk) 03:47, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
Can we use “man-made” if all the items listed were made by human males? Blueboar (talk) 15:58, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
"man-made" has not just been applied to disasters. Once upon a time, it was applied to ice. Man-made ice was different from the one transported from the arctic and stored in ice houses. Now because pretty much all ice consumed by humans is human-made we just call it ice; "artificial ice," is now reserved for the one underfoot in rinks. In the early days of rayon or nylon, it was called man-made fiber; now it is just artificial or synthetic fiber; man-made grass or turf is artificial turf; man-made lakes are artificial lakes; man-made flavors are imitation flavors; man-made leather or fur is faux; man-made flowers are fake or artificial; man-made gems are imitation gems. So man-made has been continued to be replaced by gender-neutral terms for nearly 100 years now. And it doesn't just apply to Homo sapiens. The national bird of India used to be the peacock. But on WP it is now peafowl based on the principle that a national bird can't be born of a mother who is not. The European Parliament says in its pamphlet on gender-neutral language, "the use in many languages of the word 'man' in a wide range of idiomatic expressions which refer to both men and women, such as manpower, layman, man-made, statesmen, committee of wise men, should be discouraged. With increased awareness, such expressions can usually be made gender-neutral." I think the page move was needed because gender-neutral terms are inevitable. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:56, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
"Anthropogenic" sounds good to me. Tony (talk) 00:06, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
"Anthropogenic" is too sesquipedalian to be used in an article title. WP:COMMONNAME y'know. ~Anachronist (talk) 04:27, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
Yes, we should avoid 'man-made' per existing language in MOS:GNL. I can't immediately generate an example of a usage of 'man-made' that wouldn't clearly or precisely be covered by 'human-made', 'human-caused', or a similar construction. If there continue to be 'man-made'-specific style disputes, I would support an explicit mention in GNL. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 02:30, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
Fiber, grass, and lakes listed in my post above have been purposefully made by humans. Disasters have typically not. So, "anthropogenic" (OED: originating in or caused by human activity) is certainly more accurate independent of the gender bias issue. "Anthropogenic" is applied to climate change (OED example: 2008 S. Vanderheiden Atmospheric Justice i. 38 By the time George W. Bush took office in early 2001, the existence of anthropogenic climate change was acknowledged by broad scientific consensus.), or to deforestation (OED example: 1963 E. Pyddoke Scientist & Archaeol. iii. 67 West has suggested that at Hoxne a phase of deforestation might be anthropogenic.) But in terms of human purposefulness, a disaster is somewhere in between fiber and climate change. That is why this morning, I'm leaning more toward "human provoked disasters," (which has some currency in the literature). They were provoked by human activity or agency. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:22, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
PS So in terms of preference, I'd say: 1. "human provoked disasters" 2. "anthropogenic disasters" 3 "human-caused disasters." All are better than man-made. I don't buy that "anthropogenic" is unfamiliar. It might be a little, but probably not much more than "pandemic" was in 2019 (as opposed to epidemic). Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:32, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
All three of these (as well as "man-made disasters") seem to be used in reliable academic sources, so they satisfy WP:COMMONNAME. All three also satisfy MOS:GNL so I'd be fine with any of them. pburka (talk) 16:32, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
I probably should have clarified: my position above is focused on interpretation of our MOS, and the possibility that new language needs to be added to it for clarity. If I start to have an informed opinion on the list that's generated this discussion, I'll share it at the talk page. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 18:44, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
There is generally no problem with "man-made" in terms of gender neutrality, unless discussing specific objects made by an individual person. However, as noted above, there are in many cases different terms that are better for other reasons. Thryduulf (talk) 00:50, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
Under my interpretation of MOS:GNL, I would support using 'human-made' instead of 'man-made,' although I must admit it does sound a bit awkward, likely because it is not used in mainstream lexicon. However, using 'human' avoids either he/she, as set forth by MOS:GNL. Perhaps for each individual circumstance, we can consider alternative wording altogether, such as "artificial," which a user above has suggested. I also agree that 'anthropogenic' is an appropriate term in this case, which removes the need to use 'man-made' or 'human-made' at all, if causing contention. Alternatively, maybe in some cases, labelling something more specifically, like 'industrial disaster' avoids the issue, too. All in all, though, while there are alternatives, I see no reason to stick to the term 'man,' especially when MOS:GNL advises as such. Broadly, I see no harm done in using more gender-inclusive terminology in the English language more generally. Kind regards, PinkElixir (talk) 01:50, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Support either man-made (pithy, very common, and an alliteration that humans tend to like) , or human-made (more gender neutral, and still straightforward). Anthropogenic has its semantic merits, but as mentioned above is sesquipedalian and not commonly used in this context ("anthropogenic climate change" yes, "anthropogenic disasters" no).
    • A key question is whether wikipedia wants to follow the literature per our basic pillars, or be at the forefront of leading the change in the use of language according to new mores. Al83tito (talk) 03:24, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
  • I'd support either man-made or anthropogenic. I feel I have to dip in here - I may be a trans guy, but trans I still am, and though the sentiment is admirable, this feels like a strange move to make.
'Man', in this instance, seems to refer pretty obviously to humans in general, in the same sense of the phrase "when man first landed on the moon"; though gender neutral language is something I pick up on, I don't think I'd be alone in saying this isn't relevant to gender neutrality, because the usage of the word is not in a gendered context. I feel it's far less gendered than a phrase like "you guys", to the point where I wouldn't classify 'man-made' as gendered at all. People refer to humankind as 'man' on the whole. Though it is in somewhat of an edging-on older, more grandiose sense, it's not an egregious turn of phrase.
However, I *would* imagine that 'anthropogenic' is a more *specific* turn of phrase than 'man-made'. I don't think it's too sesquipedalian for usage here at all. 'Anthropogenic' is close enough to 'anthropology' and 'anthropological' to be pretty clear at the very least what it probably means; something to do with humans, and human-caused disasters.
At any rate, 'human-made', though it doesn't have the word 'man' in it, doesn't feel like an improvement towards gender neutrality, it just feels like a sideways change. I'd much rather see people focus on replacing 'he or she' with 'they'...-- Ineffablebookkeeper (talk) 16:18, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
Ah, shit. 'Human' does have the word 'man' in it. There's a reason I didn't go to University for English Language Studies... -- Ineffablebookkeeper (talk) 16:19, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
No, it does not have the word man in it. Consult any dictionary that has etymological information. Human entirely coincidentally has the character string m-a-n in it, but the word man and the word human have unrelated origins.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:58, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
  • While I agree with observations that man has multiple uses in English, it probably cannot be escaped that some people will object to use of man to mean humans, including in man-[something] constructions, whether their objection is well-grounded or not. Ergo, it is better to use substitute terms like artificial, anthropogenic, human-[something], industrial, etc., and which to use will vary by context. There will be times that this may run into WP:COMMONNAME problems, but keep in mind WP:NTITLE and that COMMONNAME is just a restatement of WP:RECOGNIZABLE, which is only one of the five naming WP:CRITERIA. We can generally write around problems like this with some thought and judgment.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:06, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
    Agreed. I don't think there's a one-sizes-fits-all substitute but each use-case will have something more in keeping with MOS:GNL that would fit. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ X 12:32, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Avoiding "man-[something]" or "man" when human or something else will do, in such a context when there are several alternatives is in keeping with GNL and it avoids the flowery over the specific, except in quotes, (in fact, individual men walked on the moon), or the ambiguous or archaic ('which man?' or 'which men?', or 'do you mean human?'). -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:20, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep using "man-made". Let's not adopt Justin Trudeau views, claiming we Canadians use "people-kind", rather then "man-kind". GoodDay (talk) 12:17, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
  •   Disagree Man-made is perfectly fine to express something wouldn’t’ve occurred without human intervention. Actually, if you wanted to say something was caused exclusively by male humans, you would need to write men‑made. (PS: Shouldn’t it have read “huwoman-caused”?  )‑‑ K (🗪 | ✍) 07:29, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

PSA: Layout RfC

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello everyone! There is an ongoing RfC (currently with little participation) regarding MOS:ORDER, found here. I hope interested parties can partake in the discussion. Regards, IceWelder [✉] 12:05, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Latest comment: 3 years ago22 comments10 people in discussion

Are the names of book publishers in citation templates no longer being linked to their Wikipedia pages? Was there an RfC about it? Why do I ask? Because of this edit performed with an AutoWikiBrowser. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 13:51, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

It's certainly not a change I'm familiar with, nor one I've seen enacted across other articles either. Perhaps it was an error or an overzealous use of the AutoWikiBrowser tool out of context? Worth pinging @Colonies Chris: for feedback on it. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ X 14:08, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
Quoting from Template:Cite book/doc#Publisher:
"publisher: Name of publisher; may be wikilinked if relevant."
There's no benefit to the reader in wikilinking the publisher of a cited book, unless there are special circumstances to make the publisher particularly relevant. In this case, the links are to large generalist publishers, which have no special significance. Colonies Chris (talk) 14:18, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
I agree with that – it's not necessary to link publishers, and from what I see, the majority of editors don't link them. It can make for a sea of blue links in the citations also: authors, article or chapter title perhaps, book or website, then publisher (supposedly), on top of a book's ISBN. (And why not location too, if the approach is to link every linkable field?) JG66 (talk) 14:26, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
"There's no benefit to the reader in wikilinking the publisher of a cited book, unless there are special circumstances to make the publisher particularly relevant." Your personal opinion, of course. But your POV is not a policy and/or guideline. And as you pointed out with Template:Cite book/doc > Publisher: "Name of publisher; may be wikilinked if relevant. The publisher is the company, organization or other legal entity that publishes the work being cited." Obviously, you don't think it's relevant ... but I do — and probably the other editors who added book citations to the biography and wiki-linked book publishers. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 14:48, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
It feels like the sort of link I wouldn't press someone to include, but also wouldn't actively remove either—this feels like a MOS:VAR issue at heart. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ X 14:53, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
The whole point of the clause "may be wiklinked if relevant" is that merely being the publisher isn't sufficient relevance in itself. The key question is whether such a link would be of value to a reader. And these - to large generalist publishers - are not. Colonies Chris (talk) 15:18, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
What are examples where it might be relevant? Non-independent publishers? pburka (talk) 17:45, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

I have an answer for pburka but won't give it until this thread is moved to WP:Citing sources, where it belongs. Jc3s5h (talk) 19:58, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

The claim that "there is no benefit" to such links is not consensus, merely individual opinion. As such, these edits violate WP:CITEVAR and should not be performed en masse, nor at all without local consensus at the affected article. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:17, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
It's appropriate to discuss this here. MOS:LINKING applies. pburka (talk) 20:43, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
Links to publishers seem neutral at worst. One more clickable thing in a part of articles already full of much more obscure and intimidating-looking clickable things (like the bizarre strings we call DOI's) won't make an article harder to read. And they can help the reader sort out issues like publishers' names changing, corporate acquisitions, etc. It can also be helpful sometimes when looking up a publisher to know which Wikipedia articles rely upon them. Is it necessary to include these links? No, I wouldn't insist upon it. Would I remove them when I find them? No. The editor who inserted them took the time to bother and implicitly finds them worthwhile. Don't like? Don't click. And yes, WP:CITEVAR applies. XOR'easter (talk) 22:03, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

The phrasing that's used in the MOS - Name of publisher; may be wikilinked if relevant - is an implicit statement that the default should be to not link. It's up to anyone who wants a publisher linked in a citation to justify how it's particularly relevant in any specific case. One can always make a case for any potential link that it might be useful to someone in some circumstances, but that's not enough in itself. The whole issue about overlinking arises because linking is often done on a 'because I can' basis rather than through careful thought about whether it would actually be useful. Colonies Chris (talk) 09:35, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

"The phrasing that's used in the MOS - Name of publisher; may be wikilinked if relevant - is an implicit statement that the default should be to not link." – Again, your interpretation; ergo, your POV. I see it differently. For me, the "may" in the guideline leaves the "yes or no" open to the interpretation of individuals. Is it relevant for me? Yes. Is it relevant for you? No. Your take and mine boil down to: "You say either and I say eyether, You say neither and I say nyther; Either, eyether, neither, nyther" .... Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 11:18, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
No, this is not just a POV matter. The phrasing in the MOS gives you freedom to link if relevant, but thereby places the onus on the linker to make a case for that link being specially relevant, beyond its obvious relevance as the publisher. If you want to argue the case that any specific publisher link in that article deserves to be retained because it has special relevance, go ahead, we can all discuss it. Colonies Chris (talk) 19:39, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
But as "relevant" is not a clear-cut term, it is a POV matter as one editor's view of relevance will not always be the same as another's; linking "if relevant" does not mean "only in exceptional circumstances". As such it still seems that this is a MOS:VAR/WP:CITEVAR issue, which would mean not to add them to articles which have deliberately omitted them, but also don't remove them for the sake of removal. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ X 19:43, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
"If you want to argue the case that any specific publisher link in that article deserves to be retained because it has special relevance, go ahead, we can all discuss it." – I don't need to cherry-pick publishers and then debate which one gets the linking thumbs up. All that I am required to do when I edit Wikipedia is to follow its policies and guidelines. "If relevant" is open to the interpretation of individual editors. The use of "If" can be a conjunction or a noun -- either assumption or supposition. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 13:43, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
Agree with Pyxis Solitary here. The phrase ...if relevant makes this a matter of editorial judgement. Both addition of links and removal of preexisiting links should be done with such judgement, and not semi-automatically based on the assumption of a default state (here: unlinked) which doesn't exist. –Austronesier (talk) 17:15, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
Yes, if relevant is a matter of editorial judgment. But clearly different editors make different judgments. That's why we need to have a discussion in each case where opinions differ, but we don't need one where no-one objects to a change. Of course the default state is unlinked - that applies to all potential links in general - links shoukld only be made for good reason - and specifically here, otherwise there would be no need for a clause suggesting when it may be linked. And the question of whether unlinking is done manually or semi-automated is a complete red herring. Any changes made by an editor using AWB or similar are always a matter of personal judgment and responsibility. These tools are productivity aids, not bots. Colonies Chris (talk) 10:47, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
"AWB or similar are always a matter of personal judgment and responsibility" Yeah too many people have been on the recieving end of AWB automated editing for that to be accurate. AWB is routinely used to make mass-edits to large amounts of articles where the principle for the edit task is considered (eg, publishers should by default not be linked), but no individual article-context judgement (is this link someone previously added relevant to this article) is exercised when the edit is actually made. I would wager with AWB that the complete opposite of the intent of your statement is more often the case. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:56, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
This discussion has now descended into baseless accusations and a failure to WP:AGF. I'm out. Colonies Chris (talk) 07:51, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
If you take the descripion above of how AWB is routinely used as an 'accusation' specifically against you, that rather explains the problem other editors above seem to have in getting you to understand. When edits are made at 5 second intervals to groups of articles by AWB, the idea that the editor pushing the button is looking at the context of the change they are making each and every time is laughable. When this editing is about something clearcut such as changing a typesetters apostraphe to a typewriter's, the lack of individual consideration is not going to affect the outcome, as one is wrong and one is right. Where the editing involves something that has a nebulous judgement-value like 'relevance' for inclusion, claiming that the contextual relevance has been assessed in that 5 second interval before moving on to the next article is just not credible. Its not a matter of AGF any more than when someone says they did adequate WP:BEFORE checks when nominating a large amount of articles for deletion in a very short period of time. The principle is declared first, then the run of editing to bring articles in line with the principle is enacted. This is not a controversial description of routine usage of AWB. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:18, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Timelines for artists/bands?

Latest comment: 3 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Over the past half-decade or so, member timelines for bands/artists have been more common. I remember initially seeing them around 2009, but they've been appearing more frequently lately. Examples can be seen on Mushroomhead's timeline, Onyx's timeline, Korn's timeline, Jawbox's timeline, GWAR's timeline, N.W.A.'s timeline, etc etc etc.

I'm very supportive of including these into articles. It gives an accessible glimpse at the history. But, has there been any agreements on the manual of style? Specifically, the colors? The reason I ask is because most timelines use different colors, and lately, I see editors changing the colors based on some sort of preference. Currently, the most common I'm seeing is (for bands): red for vocals, green for guitar, blue for bass, and orange for drums. Any other instruments are colored with purple, lime, brown, gray, etc.

My question is, when was there an agreement to use red, green, blue, and orange as the colors of the four main instruments? Specifically, orange is an odd choice, and it's not a huge contrast to the other three colors. In my opinion, it should be replaced with yellow.

Red, blue, green, and yellow are usually seen as the most common four-way combination. It's the combination used in basic painting/arts, its use is widespread publically for signs and logos, it's the model for the Natural Color System (and its many related subjects), all types of color blindness falls under Red-Green and Blue-Yellow spectrums, etc. So why is orange being used instead of yellow?

I know that this seems like a trivial thing, but my personal reasoning is because I'm partially color blind. The light orange used in the timelines looks extremely similar, if not the same, as the green. I know that I can't be the only one that struggles with this; however, if there was a valid discussion and a consensus reached, then I'd be fine with it. My personal problems are my own afterall. But I searched the archives and didn't find anything. Xanarki (talk) 01:35, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

After searching through WT:WikiProject Music, WT:Timeline standards and WT:WikiProject Musicians I finally found Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Musicians/Archive 8#Create Member Section/Timeline Standards. I haven't read it all, but I see it does mention drums=orange, so maybe that's what you're looking for. — JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits) 02:52, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
Indeed it is, thanks for digging thru it. I see that they didn't take into account that green and orange can look similar (1 person brought it up though), but, everything else was tackled. Since it was 6 years ago, I may move this there. Thanks again.Xanarki (talk) 03:45, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Olympics etc: "400 metres" or "400-metres"

Latest comment: 3 years ago6 comments5 people in discussion

Some recent edits have been putting in "400-metres" for Olympic events, e.g. Ariarne Titmus. While it agrees with WP:HYPHEN, in my opinion it should be trumped by the fact that the Olympics and other sporting events rarely if ever include the hyphen. Thoughts? Adpete (talk) 09:17, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

We don't strictly follow sources' style guides. It also helps clear ambiguity: are we talking about a freestyle that is 400 metres long, or 400 freestyles that are a metre long? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 20:44, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
Surely WP:COMMONNAME applies, though? And while WP:COMMONNAME generally only applies to titles, we are left with the situation that the text doesn't match the title, e.g. Swimming at the 2019 World Aquatics Championships – Women's 400 metre freestyle, which in my opinion is poor style. Adpete (talk) 23:39, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
I don't think COMMONNAME applies really - not only is it just about article titles, but it's also about choosing the name that we're going to call something by, not about how to punctuate it (so it requires that we call our article 'Triple jump' rather than Hop, skip and jump). From my reading of MOS:HYPHEN, these changes are correct, and titles without the hyphen probably ought to be changed. (Or, if people don't like hyphens, per MOS:HANGING it's OK not to hyphenate if the units are abbreviated, so 400 m freestyle would be.) Girth Summit (blether) 14:10, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
COMMONNAME does not apply. That only applies to article titles (which is why it's in the article titles policy and not the MoS), and it does not apply to style questions anyway. COMMONNAME is the policy that tells us to use a particular article title (in one spelling or another, which might be determined by MOS:ENGVAR or some other MoS criterion), e.g. David Johansen, rather that some totally different name, e.g. Buster Poindexter.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  05:38, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
The linked page uses the hyphen correctly, but "400-metres" in some other location is simply incorrect and is likely a result of hypercorrectness. The plural can't be correctly attributive. That is, "400-meters event" is clearly wrong. Case 3 of Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Hyphens is the related case of correct use of a hyphen, and it specifically details in its third bullet why "400-meter event" is good and "event of 400-metres" would not be. Don't feel bad about this. Few professional journalists can get hyphens right in the analogous cases when they're reporting someone's age. NoNonsenseHumJock (talk) 22:24, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

RfC started on track listing sections

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

RfC started at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Music#RfC on Track Listing sections in song articles. All comments are welcome. --TheSandDoctor Talk 03:05, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Is using 'Latter' and 'Former' a bad idea?

Latest comment: 3 years ago12 comments11 people in discussion

Is using 'the latter' of 'the former' (as the subject of a sentence, not a point in time) a bad idea? Or indicative of a sentence that needs re-wording anyway?

For example in:

Rio 2016 Olympians Shōhei Iwamoto and Natsumi Tomonaga confirmed places each in the men's and women's event, respectively, with the former finishing fourth and the latter second among those eligible for Olympic qualification at the 2019 Asia & Oceania Championships in Kunming, China.

— https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japan_at_the_2020_Summer_Olympics#Modern_pentathlon

I would prefer something like:

Rio 2016 Olympians Shōhei Iwamoto and Natsumi Tomonaga confirmed places each in the men's and women's event, respectively, with Iwamoto finishing fourth and Tomonaga second among those eligible for Olympic qualification at the 2019 Asia & Oceania Championships in Kunming, China.

My objections:

  1. It's poor for readability, you have to scan back and forth when reading, especially bad for screen readers and audio recordings, and even then the subject is often still unclear.
  2. It's brittle, if someone adds another example to a list or re-orders the list, then the whole construct has to be re-written.
  3. It's potentially harder to understand text out of context for e.g. 'did you know'

I'm tempted to edit these out whenever I see them, is there any existing discussion/guidance on this that I should take into account?

JeffUK (talk) 17:15, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

  • Both sound fine to me, but I exercise caution when I repeat names in a sentence, as it can sound redundant. If I want to do a little repetition, I would personally go for:

    Rio 2016 Olympians Shōhei Iwamoto and Natsumi Tomonaga confirmed places in the men's and women's events respectively: Iwamoto finished fourth, and Tomonaga second among those eligible for Olympic qualification at the 2019 Asia & Oceania Championships in Kunming, China.

    —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 18:18, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Former and latter are way overused. In most cases they're simply one more form of WP:ELEVAR. The OP's rewrite is best. Tenryuu's rewrite is missing a comma after second (or you can omit the comma after fourth). EEng 19:31, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
  • I rarely see them on WP, perhaps too rarely. They are often better than repeating names, especially when only one of them is needed. This may be an ENGVAR style thing. Certainly no MOS change needed. Johnbod (talk) 22:18, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
  • No nothing wrong with using 'Latter' and 'Former', avoids repetitive tedious language. Also please do not cite ELEVAR at me, it is a user essay.  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 14:03, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
    Wow, someone sure got up on the wrong side of the style manual this morning, you have a comma splice too. Linking to a user essay informs (or reminds) our fellow editors of a particular line of reasoning without its having to be tediously pasted in; that's what essays are for. EEng 14:39, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
There isn't anything fundamentally wrong with latter and former when referering to things that are sequential. But when one is referring to a sequence of words in the sentence, then it can be a sign of verbosity and complexity that could be eliminated with a rewrite. The proposed sentence is way too long and confuses the reader by combining "came fourth" and "came second" about separate events. The facts:
  • Both Shōhei Iwamoto and Natsumi Tomonaga were Rio 2016 Olympians.
  • Both compete in the modern pentathlon and sought qualification at the 2019 Asia & Oceania Championships in Kunming, China
  • Iwamoto came fourth in the mens event
  • Tomonaga came second in the womens event
  • Both successfully qualified to compete at the 2020 Summer olympics.
There are lots of way to write this to minimise redundancy while keeping separate things separate. In particular, I think it is important to keep the mens/womens events/results separate. For a data-heavy article like this, it is probably best to err on the side of short simple sentences, than attempting beautiful flowing prose. The reader is skimming for facts, not reading to be entertained. -- Colin°Talk 15:10, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
  • I think it should be avoided wherever possible. I'm not talking about zero tolerance, but to only resort to it when repetition of the names/terms becomes truly clunky and repetitious. This was an example I found unnecessary – imo, the use of former/latter there came across as affected, and so caused more problems than it solved. WP:ELEVAR makes some good points, I think, because there's nothing worse, as a reader, than coming across a page that reads as if it's been authored a little too fussily. JG66 (talk) 15:54, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Concur with EEng and Popcornfud. We have essays like ELEVAR to explain the reasons behind various good/bad writing choices, so we don't have to WP:CREEP-bloat MoS with rules that virtually no one actually needs. "ELEVAR is just an essay not a rule" is completely missing the point. See WP:MOSBLOAT: we don't want a rule about anything that doesn't need to be one. If something can be resolved on a case-by-case basis just by applying common sense, then we don't need a rule about it, and need to not have a rule about it.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:49, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
  • To respond to the initial question, yes, the way you have written it is a bad idea. The sentence as you wrote it is not proper encyclopedia style. The goal in encyclopedia writing is to express ideas in the simplest, most direct manner so as to aid in the reader's understanding.
Your sentence "Rio 2016 Olympians Shōhei Iwamoto and Natsumi Tomonaga confirmed places each in the men's and women's event, respectively, with the former finishing fourth and the latter second among those eligible for Olympic qualification at the 2019 Asia & Oceania Championships in Kunming, China" is very badly written.
It should be written "Rio 2016 Olympians Shōhei Iwamoto and Natsumi Tomonaga confirmed places in the men's and women's events. Iwamoto finished fourth and Tomonaga finished second among those eligible for Olympic qualification at the 2019 Asia & Oceania Championships in Kunming, China." God bless and happy editing. MarydaleEd (talk) 03:04, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Wrong use of capitals

Latest comment: 3 years ago6 comments5 people in discussion

My downcasing yesterday of Manned Maneuvering Unit was reverted because it is "capitalised as a proper noun". It is not a proper noun/name. cf "The award-winning manned maneuvering unit was designed for a specific type of mission: satellite rescue missions." – from a history of NASA. Tony (talk) 23:21, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

While manned maneuvering unit can certainly refer to the technology in general, in this particular usage, it's clearly referring to the proper noun: the Manned Maneuvering Unit previously used by NASA. It's especially clear the example is referring to the proper noun because the full sentence says: "Direct quotations and proper nouns that use gendered words should not be changed, like Manned Maneuvering Unit." Firefangledfeathers (talk) 02:06, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
Indeed, and if it's not proper noun then the MOS instructs us to write crewed maneuvering unit. pburka (talk) 03:23, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
Heck, it's a common noun even though there may be only one of them 'cause there are others, or there may be others. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 05:39, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
Then we need a different example. pburka (talk) 14:16, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
The Manned Orbiting Laboratory seems to not have the same problem and stays within the same specific field too. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ X 09:59, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Should academic degrees be capitalized?

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

  You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters § Capitalization of degrees. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 01:15, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

The word "template" after {{TemplateName}}

Latest comment: 3 years ago9 comments8 people in discussion

"[The] best practice is to have the word 'template' just after {{TemplateName}}; not all readers know {{...}} refers to a template (and even less newcomers".

Am I the only one who thinks Antoine Legrand is making unnecessary edits? (See diffs A, B, C, and more in the History page.) Do we really have to state a million times that {{...}} indicates a template. To me, this is like writing, "Mandela was born in the year 1918" instead of simply stating that "Mandela was born in 1918".—Fezzy1347Let's chat 21:43, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

I agree, I found the changes overly prolix. I think the vast majority of readers will recognize the curly brace syntax as denoting a template, and the few who don't recognize it can click the links and be taken to the template page. Looks like the changes have already been reverted. Colin M (talk) 23:26, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
There's nothing inherently wrong with writing "Mandela was born in the year 1918." except that "Mandela was born in 1918." is as understandable, and more concise. I do think, however, that it is odd to write "Mandy was born in 1918 year.", and perhaps, more comparable.--John Cline (talk) 00:21, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
With the ever increasing use of visual editor, I wouldn't assume that {{...}} means "template" to most readers. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 21:53, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
Keep in mind that the share of mobile devices is higher than that of desktop computers. There is no Page Previews, no mouseover on mobile devices and people are less likely to click on links when using a mobile device! — Antoine Legrand (talk) 20:31, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
As Firefangledfeathers advised me, I come to expose my arguments. As soon as I started my modifications, I had a brief exchange with him on my user talk page, and he found my initiative interesting.
I started to put the word template systematically after the curly braces because I had noticed that it was generally the case on other pages on Wikipedia. I thought that it would benefit newcomers who don't always know the meaning of curly braces. In retrospect, given the length of the MoS page (which is very long), it would take 70x template (tlx=70 times, in wiki markup) and I can understand that it would be too repetitive.
The problem with the MoS page is that it is extremely long and has many shortcuts. A visitor can arrive in the middle or at the end of the page.
My new proposal for the use of the word template is: make sure that at least the first two occurrences of {{tlx|TemplateName}} have the word template next to them, and this for each section of the MoS. Beginners who don't know the meaning of curly braces yet will be well informed. — Antoine Legrand (talk) 14:50, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
I would agree that the article is painfully long – but it does cover a lot of topics. Perhaps there should be another discussion about splitting it into manageable parts?
Regarding "template" – I suspect that most people who read the MOS page are already or intend to soon be an editor rather than being "just" a reader. As such, they probably will explore the links and so there is less need to explain all of the details in the article itself. Perhaps add "template" to only the first example ... — GhostInTheMachine talk to me 15:39, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Telling people that a template is a template isn't going to help them unless they click on it anyway in order to find out what the parameters are and so on, in which case they'll find out it's a template if they didn't already know that. And come to think of it, some newbie who doesn't know that braces indicate a template -- so we tell them it's a "template" -- what good does learning a name do them? We don't go around marking every HTML tag as an "HTML tag", we just tell people how to use them.
    This is a solution-which-isn't-a-solution in search of a nonexistent problem which it wouldn't solve even if the problem existed. There are lots of things in MOS which might puzzle the newcomer at first, but they rapidly pick them up, or there are Help: pages on the basics of editing they can consult; MOS cannot be self-explanatory, nor should it try. It's somewhat of a tutorial, but only where necessary -- mostly it's a reference work, and should stay that way. EEng 17:00, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Talking about "templates" doesn't help newcomers. Wikipedia's use of the term is very far from the non-IT meaning and from most IT uses. Read our article Template or ask a search engine to "define: template" and it'll take some time before you find a definition that suits the uses in the MOS. So instead we can show the reader some useful templates without calling them that, and the newcomer quickly understands that there are some very useful magic things that are easily recognised by their curly brackets. Long after seeing them while editing, long after using them, the not-so-new editor might dig deeper and discover our weird generic term for them, but that can wait. As it is, of the 51 times the body of WP:MOS uses "template", at least 19 are in the form "the {{whatever}} template" or "the template {{whatever}}" and for the newcomer and the experienced editor alike, that's already too many. NebY (talk) 18:31, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

"Natives"? No, Bwana! Tabu!

Latest comment: 3 years ago17 comments11 people in discussion

I'm not suggesting a rule (we have plenty already, and there's no need to micromanage everything), but do people really have to write like "[Random European explorer] was attacked by natives"? They're inhabitants. Local fighters. "Xians" where X is the name of the place or group. Or whatever. We don't say "When Lindbergh's ship entered New York harbor, many native vessels came out to greet it." "The British troops at Concord were attacked by natives." And like that. Herostratus (talk) 15:58, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

I beg to differ. Very common to use 'native' for people who are from somewhere. I am a native of Saskatchewan. And from here, this sentence, "The six-foot-four, 208-pound Montreal native has also..." So, yes "white people" are called natives when describing where there from. Native is not an offensive word and definately don't need a rule here, imho. Masterhatch (talk) 17:09, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
Mnmh. I just changed

Portuguese explorer Ferdinand Magellan arrived in the area, claimed the islands for Spain, and was then killed by natives at the Battle of Mactan.

to

Portuguese explorer Ferdinand Magellan arrived in the area, claimed the islands for Spain, and was then killed by Lapulapu's fighters at the Battle of Mactan.

I consider the former to be bwana-speak. I don't like it. Herostratus (talk) 19:16, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
So how do you feel about Eleanor_Elkins_Widener#Second_marriage_and_South_American_adventures? EEng 19:20, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
The Widener article is directly quoting a 1920 newspaper. Language changes over time. pburka (talk) 20:13, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
I know -- I wrote it. <bows, acknowledges applause> What you just said was the point I wanted to make (plus it's fun). EEng 23:02, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
I agree with your approach. I don't think a rule is necessary, unless we're seeing a lot of pushback against these common-sense fixes. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 20:23, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
What do we feel about Alaska Natives or Native Americans or Native Hawaiians. I’m aware that North Americans quite often say “a native of x” (Masterhatch refers to it above) which is not a formulation we tend to use in British English. But if you’re not North American it can be confusing about when it’s used acceptably and when it’s ‘bwana-speak’. DeCausa (talk) 21:14, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
I agree that this word is used offensively in the example given at the top. The advice at MOS:IDENTITY is to "use specific terminology", and your examples seem to me to be redeemed in proportion to the specificity they offer. William Avery (talk) 21:35, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
Cripes! The MoS natives are revolting! We British have to be firm! Martinevans123 (talk) 21:38, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
The Native Americans article is a disambiguation page and has been for a long time; see this and this. The Alaska Natives and Native Hawaiians articles both use the term indigenous early on to clarify the usage of the term native in the article title. The lead sentence of the Indigenous peoples article reads: "Indigenous peoples, also referred to as first people, aboriginal people, native people, or autochthonous people, are culturally distinct ethnic groups who are native to a place which has been colonised and settled by another ethnic group." I think we're wasting time here and maybe feeding a troll. Consider that comment rhetorical and call me insensitive -- I don't fancy being drawn into a discussion abut this. Call some others oversensitive. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 22:39, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
A native troll, one hopes. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:50, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
Good grief, Wtmitchell. that's not how we talk here. Nobody's drawing you into any discussion, go do something else if you'd rather. Herostratus (talk) 02:26, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
I don't know how to easily locate or quantify such uses of "native" but maybe "the natives" is a richer seam ("the natives charged the Europeans", "Fearing a massacre by the Natives"). It seems over 7,000 of our articles include "the natives" in the text. There's a great mixture but at first glance, most uses are of non-Europeans that Europeans are encountering, killing or being killed by, trading with, governing and so on. NebY (talk) 01:23, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
Well yeah, I'm only talking about certain circumstances. I know that "native of Manchester" and "Native Americans" and many other used of the term "native" is OK. I'm talking about some specific uses where it's not excellent. As you say, there are some circumstances, particular when describing European invaders interfacing with people who were pretty much minding their own business somewhere, where there is the danger that using the "native" conjures up the image of an unorganized mass of ignorant savages. Probably because it's the same construction as used in the time of Queen Victoria I guess. So I mean compare

Portuguese explorer Ferdinand Magellan arrived in the area, claimed the islands for Spain, and was then killed by natives at the Battle of Mactan.

to

In June 1940, the German First Army thrust into northern France, where it was counterattacked by natives.

I mean both of the above are correct, but you're not going to see the second one are you. Now why is that.
I get that people have been writing like this forever and its a habit, and fine, but it's occurred to me that not a good one maybe. It's not huge deal, and I'm not advocating a rule. Every gosh-darn thing doesn't have to be a rule. I'm just pointing out that here's a thing. I just noticed this myself just recently, and I'm sharing my thought and making a suggestion. You all are free to ignore it. Herostratus (talk) 02:23, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
We should look to the RS on this. This is what the Cambridge English Dictionary says for native as a noun
a person born in a particular place ‘He was a native of Indianapolis and a graduate of Indiana University’.
dated: A native is also a person who was born and lived in a country before Europeans began to visit and live there
Note: This use is considered offensive.
DeCausa (talk) 07:09, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
Well, even without this confirmation from a dictionary, the package of associations that comes with "European explorer X was welcomed/killed/etc. by (the) natives" is quite different from the usage of "native" in other contexts. It is the kind of language you'd exepct from this guy, but not from a 21th century encyclopedia. –Austronesier (talk) 08:12, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Chopping would

Latest comment: 3 years ago27 comments9 people in discussion

With the summary "verb form", Doremo has removed an amount of "would" from my article Teikō Shiotani. Each is of the word "used to indicate futurity in the past, futurity relative to the time referred to by the preterite" (CaGEL, p.198). It now seems to me that I did somewhat overuse what I'll call "futurity would", so I agree with some of the changes; but as an example of a use I still consider (mildly) beneficial:

In 1922, Shiotani married Sadako Inoue (井上貞子, 1905–1988). They would have / had three sons, Sōnosuke (宗之助, b. June 1923), Reiji (玲二, November 1926 – March 1927) and Makoto (誠, August 1940 – September 1945); and two daughters, Yūko (優子, b. February 1930) and Yōko (陽子, b. July 1934).

The intention here was a subtle indication to the reader that the narrative is not here jumping ahead to the 30s, 40s or wherever; rather, that we're merely making a little excursion from the early 20s.

Clearly the "core meaning" of the sentence with "had" (Doremo) is the same as that of the sentence with "would have" (me) (i.e. there's no imaginable series of events such that one version of the sentence is true and the other false); and clearly the nuance here is subtle and its desirability hardly worth a discussion thread. But the clearing of instances of futurity would puzzles me. Is my idiolect unusual (perhaps outdated)? Is futurity would a part of your Standard English too, but somehow ill-suited to encyclopedic prose? (Is it what Tony1 might call mere fluff?) -- Hoary (talk) 22:11, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Don't know about anyone else, but the simple "had" there reads to me as if all those children existed at the time of the marriage and not that they were the later results of the marriage. The version with "would have" seems much better to me.--Khajidha (talk) 23:34, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
Khajidha – Don't you need "had had" (past in past) to convey that? Tony (talk) 23:49, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
Yes indeed, or "already had", or "had by then" or .... EEng 00:01, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
Consider In 1973 he relocated to Waynesville, North Carolina, where he would die died of cancer. Surely you're not suggesting that the died form implies he was dead when he moved. EEng 00:01, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
[edit conflict] "X married Y. They had Z children." is the idiomatic form. Written in this order it always means that the children were born after the marriage, because the two sentences are in the same tense ("They had Z children" is simple past, not past perfect.) "They would have" is pretentious and generally unnecessary. "They had had" wouldhah! indicate by its change of tense that the children were pre-marriage. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:05, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
"Already had" or "had by then" would be preferable if the children existed at the time of the marriage, but the simple "had" still reads that way to me. As for the "relocated to Waynesville, NC, where he died" reads to me that he died pretty much immediately after the move. --Khajidha (talk) 00:31, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
To be blunt, the examples in your diff are in the main wretched. (I'm not saying one or two might not be appropriate, but I doubt it.) In any writing (encyclopedic or otherwise), would has a very (very) occasional role in signaling a temporary glimpse of the future where the reader might otherwise be puzzled or misled. Even one instance of inappropriate use is tiresome. See WP:INTOTHEWOULDS. EEng 00:11, 25 September 2021 (UTC) P.S. CaGEL isn't meant to be a style guide (and from what I've heard isn't very good at being what it is meant to be either).
Relatedly, I see the phrase "would later" in the diff, and searching Wikipedia finds some 55k instances of that phrase. Isn't this always a pleonasm? If one is using "would" to indicate a temporary futurity, how is it possible for it to be anything but later? —David Eppstein (talk) 00:33, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
I mean, it was fine before, it was fine after. On that basis it's roiling the text, so on that basis you are (of course) entitled to roll it back per WP:BRD and ask the editor to make his case on the article talk page. Or, since it's not worse, you could just roll your eyes and forget it. Your call.
If anybody wants to get consensus to make a rule about this, I suppose she can try. I'd be against it because both are fine and so why. Herostratus (talk) 01:51, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
Absolutely not. Heavens to Betsy! EEng 01:59, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
It's salutary to hear that examples within what I wrote "are in the main wretched", and I take the point about pleonastic "later". Of course CaGEL isn't a style guide (and doesn't pretend to be one), but I am surprised to read that persons unspecified are saying that this hefty book "isn't very good at being what it is meant to be". I cited it not in the hope of demonstrating that my version was optimal, stylish or whatever; merely to demonstrate (perhaps primarily to myself) that futurity would was an established pattern. I'm confident that it's acceptable (perhaps even desirable) in appropriate contexts. I asked here not about its grammaticality (or "correctness") but about its use in Wikipedia. The immediate trigger was my noticing the diff I pointed to; but if I remember correctly, I'd previously seen other instances of (to me, surprisingly) impatient would-chopping. Above, I see "pretentious" and "[e]ven one instance of inappropriate use is tiresome": the animus directed at what I'd considered an innocuous (and sometimes useful) use of would astonishes me. But the animus is there, so I'll try to reduce my use of futurity would. -- Hoary (talk) 02:59, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
Part of the animus stems from the fact that the construction is a favorite of hacks who think it makes their writing sound fancy. EEng 06:17, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
It had to happen eventually. EEng, you have outed me as, yes, just another hack who fondly hopes that his writing will sound fancy. Guilty as charged. Further evidence: (i) I persistently write that a building is somewhere, rather than writing, as a good Wikipedian should, that it is located somewhere. Thanks to this obscurantism, the poor reader is left wondering if it's strewn there, demolished there, buried there, vaporized there, or what. (ii) Rather than use the versatile, rugged word feature, I resort to what, IIRC, H W Fowler decries as "elegant variation", littering my prose with such gewgaws as have, include, and (for preposition featuring) with. -- Hoary (talk) 07:18, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
I didn't mean to include you in that. You've simply come under bad influences. BTW, see WP:LOCATIONLOCATIONLOCATION, WP:ELEVAR, WP:ASTONISHME, and WP:DIFFUSINGCONFLICT. EEng 16:04, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

So far I've only received thanks from various editors for removing excessive would. Would can be used to mark reported speech, hypothetical situations, habitual activity, and volition—and adding unnecessary usage for futurity in the past often risks confusing this with those functions of the verb. If a futurity-in-the-past would seems necessary, it can certainly be used, although there are also workarounds (e.g., "he would become" → "he later became"). I see no merit in using would with a time adverbial (e.g., "He would die in 1831") or for a mundane sequence of past events (e.g., "He married Jane Smith in 1831 and they would have three children"). And the would strings ("He would marry Jane Smith in 1831 and they would have three children, two of whom would become lawyers. He would be elected to the Assembly in 1860, where he would serve for eight years before he would die in 1868.") are egregious. Some of the text really is that bad. Doremo (talk) 03:14, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

My view is that "future would" might be permitted where the meaning is clear; but that it shouldn't be sprinkled through a text. That is, it's repetition-sensitive, so needs to be rationed. Tony (talk) 03:30, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
I'd turn it around to say the would might be permitted where the meaning would otherwise not be clear. EEng 15:57, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
Doremo, I can hardly believe that my article is so dreadful in just that one way. I nervously await the next unsheathing of your editorial machete. -- Hoary (talk) 07:18, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
Please! There are ladies present! EEng 15:57, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
  Hoary (talk) 12:30, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
I'm not singling out anyone or any particular article. If other editors agree that your article is stylistically improved or that ambiguities are resolved by replacing simple past forms with would, then that is the right thing to do. Doremo (talk) 11:59, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
  • I think much of the resistance to the "futurity 'would'" comes from seeing it used in our coverage of sports. You can't just write that a sportsperson did something. They might have "went on to", or "would go on to", but never simply "did". See this diff for a truly eyelid-twitching example. If your read garbage like that once too often, every use of the word "would" starts to looks dubious. Reyk YO! 16:18, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
My eyes! But good to know how much "would" a wouldchuck would chuck if a wouldchuck could chuck "would" at last. NebY (talk) 16:34, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
WP:WOULDCHUCK EEng 19:21, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
I wonder what had given that editor would. -- Hoary (talk) 12:30, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

So I mean neither of the examples is bad. They're both good. It's just a question of context -- how much our writing should be like the writing you find in business memos and technical documentation, and how much it should be like the writing that you find in magazine articles and books. So let's see, for say a biography of the Earl of Sandwich, compare

It was in Paris that he met the Countess. She would teach him all he would ever know about cold cuts.

to

He met the Countess in Paris. She taught him all he ever knew about cold cuts.

I mean, I wouldn't change the first to the second, no. I might change the second to the first. Which is "better" is a matter of opinion, but I like the first. The second is limp and boring, in comparison. In my opinion.

Yes I know about Bill Strunk, and he makes great points, but "Why use lot word when few word do" is not a iron law, nor is the a rule that we must bore the reader.

Yes I get that our articles are not like magazine articles, and "not boring the reader" isn't exactly part of our remit. On the other hand, if the reader is so bored that she passes out, hits her head on the table, and perishes, that's on us. There's nothing wrong with, I don't know, good prose, as long as the info is communicated clearly. I mean we do (I hope!) take care not use the same adjective in consecutive sentences and so an, and after all an encyclopedia is part of the general body of public literature, it's not, I don't know, a memo to a Group Captain (or whatever they have) at ExxonMobile about how to smartsize the training department. Herostratus (talk) 01:08, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Capital letters

Latest comment: 3 years ago22 comments7 people in discussion

I made an edit [13] that was reverted [14] with the edit summary "I'm not certain that this, being the converse, is true". It isn't a matter of a converse being true but whether this would be a reasonable addition to this guideline.

I'm interested in what other editors think about adding the sentence, "If something is consistently capitalized in a substantial majority of independent, reliable sources for a given article, then it should be capitalized in the article." Bob K31416 (talk) 19:36, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

I have some guesses, but it would be helpful to hear from you why you support this addition to the guideline. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 19:50, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
Because it uses reliable sources to make the determination. Bob K31416 (talk) 20:59, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
I can't support a proposed change on that reason alone. We could remove the almost the entirety of the MoS and replace it with "do what most of the RS do", but that sounds frustrating and chaotic. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 21:12, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
I think the MOS was built on what is the accepted style based on style manuals and reliable sources, yet anyone who uses that as a reason for an addition to MOS is not told that we could remove almost the entirety of the MoS and replace it with "do what most of the style manuals and RS do". Bob K31416 (talk) 22:33, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
There's a difference between reviewing sources and guides to write a guideline and writing the guideline to just say "review sources". Firefangledfeathers (talk) 15:17, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
I reckon the folks pushing WP:JOBTITLES, may object to the addition. GoodDay (talk) 19:53, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
They shouldn't have any problem with it if that section doesn't contradict the condition that something is consistently capitalized in a substantial majority of independent, reliable sources for a given article. Bob K31416 (talk) 21:09, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
That could lead to basing capitalisation on the age of the sources, and in general source-based style could be as perilous as source-based units ("we'll show all these footballers' heights in metres because that's what the source does"). Counting sources looks like one good way to reach consensus but need it be the only one? Are we seeing disputes on Wikipedia that have to be determined by such a rule and no other considerations, or existing articles that need fixing according to this rule? NebY (talk) 20:00, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
Re "we'll show all these footballers' heights in metres because that's what the source does" — It would have to be what is consistently capitalized in a substantial majority of independent, reliable sources for a given article. Bob K31416 (talk) 20:59, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
Do you have any responses to NebY's other point, on dispute/article examples? Firefangledfeathers (talk) 21:12, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
For me it arose while working in the section Talk:Killing_of_Ma'Khia_Bryant#Black_or_African-American when I found in my work there that capitalized "Black" was always used in reliable sources when describing Ma'Khia Bryant. I then changed to capitalized "Black" in the article. (BTW, I was the one who originally introduced uncapitalized "black" into the article a few months before.) I thought I could easily change it to capitalized because that followed the sources, but instead it ran into opposition. The other editors participating in the "black" vs "Black" discussion were Buffs, The Blade of the Northern Lights, and Volteer1. Bob K31416 (talk) 22:15, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
You seem to be attempting to unilaterally change the rules in order to get your way despite the fact you've been shown a VERY recent RfC where is no consensus to do so. It should stay as is. This could be argued to be forum shopping. Buffs (talk) 23:14, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
The "black" vs "Black" issue is a very minor issue for me compared to making a good addition to this guideline. In fact, if this addition is accepted, I won't change "black" to "Black" but leave that for anyone else to do. Bob K31416 (talk) 23:29, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

As a reminder, here's the proposed addition again, "If something is consistently capitalized in a substantial majority of independent, reliable sources for a given article, then it should be capitalized in the article." Bob K31416 (talk) 01:10, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

This would just open up old (and very fraught) discussions, e.g. on the capitalization of the English names of species (particularly since styles in sources differ by country). Consistency across the English Wikipedia means having our own style manual and following it. Peter coxhead (talk) 06:33, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
Could you give an example of a specific Wikipedia article where the proposed addition would be a problem? Bob K31416 (talk) 17:02, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
spotted owl (vs. Spotted Owl) and nearly every other species of bird. Many field guides capitalize these, whereas scientific texts have generally standardized on lowercase (if I recall correctly). In the past we had a weird mixed style where all species were lowercase, except birds. pburka (talk) 17:22, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
The proposed addition wouldn't apply because spotted owl is not consistently capitalized in a substantial majority of independent, reliable sources for the given article. So there's no problem. Bob K31416 (talk) 21:47, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
How would one go about demonstrating that? We don't have an authoritative list of independent, reliable sources. And "substantial majority" is vague: is 60% substantial? what about 3 of 5? Some species are so obscure that there may only be two or three sources: should we follow the style of those sources, or be consistent across the encyclopedia? Does Nature count as one source, or is each published paper a separate source? This proposed rule would encourage WP:WIKILAWYERING and inconsistency. pburka (talk) 22:16, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
Exactly. Which is why in repeated discussions we decided on the existing policy. This proposal is a non-starter. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:39, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
It would be up to the editor using the proposed addition to gain consensus that something is consistently capitalized in a substantial majority of independent, reliable sources for a given article. This is the normal process when an editor's use of something in the MOS is challenged. If one was working on an article where something was consistently capitalized in the references for the article, and their change to capitalization was challenged, then they would need consensus that it was consistently capitalized in a substantial majority of references for the article. This is a more objective condition to discuss than whether to capitalize or not without any guidance from the MOS.
For whatever reason, it doesn't look like this proposal will gain consensus, so I'll end my participation in the discussion here. Bob K31416 (talk) 15:12, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Discussion about capitalization of Go

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I'm looking to increase participation in a discussion about documenting the convention of capitalizing the name of the board game Go at MOS:GAMECAPS. Coastside (talk) 17:49, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Black or black?

Latest comment: 3 years ago38 comments16 people in discussion

Hi, is there a Wikipedia style guideline on whether we write "black" or "Black" for race? Thanks. Marquardtika (talk) 15:24, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

I couldn't see anything with a quick searching, but looking at some higher-quality articles to check for usage (Martin Luther King Jr. at GA and Malcolm X at FA) it seems the preference would be lower-case. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 15:42, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
Yes. See the last paragraph of MOS:PEOPLELANG. The short version is that either is fine in most cases, they should be used consistently, and editors shouldn't switch to a different style without discussing it. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 15:50, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
Got it, thank you! Marquardtika (talk) 16:00, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
See also Proposed update to MOSCAPS regarding racial terms. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 17:32, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

@Marquardtika: @Peter Gulutzan: @Grapple X: I've been having this conversation (Black vs. black) regarding the NHL page. I'm a little surprised it doesn't seem to have more conversation here on WP. In American writing of all sorts, this is kind of a big deal. Please see this article from the AP on why we now capitalize Black. It's an incredibly important issue for inclusion as well as recognition of the awareness around systemic racism. I'm finding that as I change pages to have Black capitalized, I'm met with overwhelming disdain and reverting of my edits. I'm not trying to pick a fight with those who spend such a great deal of time making WP what it is, I just want to push this issue to be discussed more if possible. Thank you all! Mrohlewis (talk) 16:16, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

There already was quite a lengthy discussion that ended as no consensus, other than not changing what's already used in any given article without discussion first. —El Millo (talk) 16:58, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
As El Millo says, and as you say, this is essentially "In American writing" - only some uses of "black" would be capitalized in current British English - maybe "the Black community" (but certainly not by all) but only rarely "a black footballer". What the Canadian position is I don't know. Johnbod (talk) 17:48, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
  • I don't see any indication at the MOS section that a change must be discussed beforehand; nor do I see anything that says the use must be consistent. As to the latter, quite the opposite: " there is no consensus against what is sometimes perceived as inconsistency in the same article (Black but white)".--Bbb23 (talk) 17:51, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
Yes, exactly - "the inconsistency of "Black but white" is ok, but once a capitalization style is used, it should be stuck to within the article (not Black and black together). Well I think that's what it says, but that actually raises issues re for example British English. Whatever the MOS section says, it is always best to raise proposed controversial edits on talk, and if you don't, don't be amazed when you are reverted. Johnbod (talk) 18:00, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
I personally think articles should be consistent, not only with the capitalization of black vs Black but also White vs. white and White vs. black or vice-versa, but it doesn't say you have to be. As far as "controversial edits", I'm talking only about what the MOS section says, nothing generally about good practice.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:28, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
We don't disagree on "consistent". I meant it in the sense of don't mix black/Black or white/White in the same article, not to suggest that Black/white is prohibited. It seems we might disagree about changes needing discussion, which I see as a straightforward application of MOS:VAR. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 18:39, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
Honestly, I think we do disagree, but I also think it's no big deal. Fortunately, I rarely get involved in MOS disputes. I'm only commenting here because it was wrapped up in a more significant dispute. I'm now bowing out.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:47, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
Fair enough. My curiosity means I'm happy to talk more if you feel like re-engaging. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 18:53, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
@Firefangledfeathers: @Johnbod: @Peter Gulutzan:: Thank you all for the responses. This discussion is very much needed as the only writing that has black instead of Black in America is right-wing media. I very much understand that it's not the case elsewhere in the world yet but that doesn't change the fact that we're talking about systemic racism in America and elsewhere when we capitalize Black. It seems to me that this is a basic issue of respect for the current cultural awareness around race. I have read the MOS conversation and see that while the vote was lopsided against capitalization, there was a note that after misleading or incorrect information was removed, the poll would have been significantly different. As that conversation happened over a year ago, it would seem to me that it's time to revisit this issue. Also, there is no capitalization of white in any American writing other than, again, right-wing or white-supremist media. That in itself is disturbing to me as that case has been made above in this talk. Thoughts? Mrohlewis (talk) 19:03, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
I am not sure you're entirely correct about American media usage. I know there's a subpage somewhere with some analysis of style guides. Maybe someone else has the link handy?
I am hesitantly optimistic about a new RfC. I think a key ingredient is framing it as a US-specific style decision. I would encourage patience, and soliciting opinion on carefully crafting the RfC's neutral statement and presentation of options. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 19:16, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
There was quite a lot of this analysis in the big discussion here. If, per the link above, AP only made the change in July 2020 (or shortly before), it seems unlikely that "the only writing that has black instead of Black in America is right-wing media", even with the BLM movement. The American-promoted change from BC to BCE etc has been pushed for some decades now, but even in America is very far from complete. Likewise transgender-y language issues. These things take a long time, & WP usually rightly aims to follow not lead. I agree "framing it as a US-specific style decision" is best (plus Canada?). Johnbod (talk) 19:27, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
Again, thank you all for your thoughtful consideration of this issue. While it might seem unlikely that "the only writing that has black instead of Black in America is right-wing media", I respectfully push back and ask you to quickly search around American news outlets and see for yourself. Our papers of record, The NY Times, The Washington Post, The Wall Street Journal have all moved to capitalize Black. It is standard American English today except for those pushing the idea that white-privilege is a made-up conspiracy. If WP is going to follow, not lead, it should do that and get on-board. It's been well over a year now, WP would not be in the lead to make this stylistic change. Again, I thank you all for the conversation about this issue as it's truly collaborative and the way WP should work. Mrohlewis (talk) 19:44, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
Consistency within color is desirable (i.e. if you start with Black, then don't change to black halfway through); consistency across colors is not (If you start with Black, there is no reason to also prefer "White" instead of "white.").
This is because we use "Black," (Websters: Black or less commonly black a: of or relating to any of various population groups of especially African ancestry often considered as having dark pigmentation of the skin but in fact having a wide range of skin colors. Black Americans NOTE: Capitalization of Black in this use is now widely established. b: of or relating to Black people and often especially to African American people or their culture e.g. Black literature, a Black college, Black pride, Black studies, NOTE: Capitalization of Black in this use is now widely established.) because the battle for this capitalization was won on the playing fields of America (I'm paraphrasing the Duke of Wellington here). It was not in Europe or Canada. They didn't have any Black people to speak of until recently, no Frederick Douglass, no Zora Neale Hurston, no Martin Luther King, and no Toni Morrison.
The evidence for "White" being preferred to "white," or vice-versa needs to be amassed independently. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:05, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
Yes, well in the UK we have had many black people for some time, but I don't see much of a movement to capitalize when they are called that - one of a range of possible terms, with Afro-Caribbean having been preferred for many years, perhaps less so now. Johnbod (talk) 03:22, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
True, but that is mostly the result of post-war emigration. British society, moreover, was more liberal than the American South. For the Caribbean migrants, there was no crucible like there was in America wherein new ways of looking at the world (Black is Beautiful) or of naming (Black, African-American) emerged (though emigration and exile are potent drivers too). Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:58, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
"Afro-Caribbean" now only covers a minority of Black people in the UK. In the 2011 census, many more people identified as Black African than as Black Caribbean, according to Black British people#Population. NebY (talk) 14:28, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
True as far as it goes, but Afro-Caribbean as such has not been a census option for the last two times, and the census option of "Black African" is not that common in general discourse, I'd say. I wonder how many who identified as Black Caribbean last time have now changed to Black African - this rather reinforces my point above. Then there's "Other Black", still chosen by many. Johnbod (talk) 15:04, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
There's been markedly higher immigration to the UK from Nigeria, Ghana, Kenya, Uganda and other countries in sub-Saharan Africa than from the Caribbean for decades, sufficient to explain the magnitude of the census changes without wondering how many have changed their description. NebY (talk) 16:36, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
Oh, you think? From that section: "In the 2001 Census, 575,876 people in the United Kingdom had reported their ethnicity as "Black Caribbean"" but in 2011, for England and Wales only, "594,825 [identified] as "Black Caribbean"" (and the 2001 Scotland & NI figures are pretty tiny). Seems an improbably low rate of growth. Johnbod (talk) 17:50, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
Remember there was a significant increase in the Mixed White and Black Caribbean responses, maybe consider your assumptions about probable growth rates, maybe ask whether you'd know how much the black population of the UK has changed and why that's changed our terminology - but this is all drifting very far away from the original question. Enough. NebY (talk) 18:36, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
From June 2020, "a growing list of media enterprises that have already updated their policies to capitalize Black [includes] NBC News and MSNBC, TIME, BuzzFeed News, the USA Today Network, Business Insider, HuffPost, McClatchy, Los Angeles Times, Seattle Times, Boston Globe, Chicago Sun-Times, Philadelphia Tribune, Detroit Metro Times, San Diego Union-Tribune, Sacramento Bee, Columbia Journalism Review, as well as The Canadian Press, Toronto Star, Globe and Mail, and CBC News. Black media outlets, such as Essence magazine and theGrio, led the way in capitalizing Black." Also "statement after statement from executives of companies and organizations using the capital B in their responses to the nation’s protests: Nike, Netflix, Amazon, Google, Starbucks, Target, Macy’s, Nordstrom, Spotify, Apple, Disney, Hulu, HBO, Lyft, Uber, McDonalds, Team USA, Major League Baseball, and Major League Soccer, among many others."[15] NebY (talk) 14:19, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
How many actually show "Black" juxtaposed with "white", which would probably look just sloppy to anyone not acquainted with the rather subtle rationale behind such usage. There's a good chance that writers for such publications would go to some lengths, through judicious rewriting, to keep that from happening. Rules of usage usually are simpler, such as "color designations used to classify races should be capitalized (or not capitalized)". I recently noted that "white" appears with "black" in an essay by Thomas Chatterton Williams in the October 2021 Harper's Magazine. The essay was largely about James Baldwin's sojourn in Switzerland, and Harper's generally isn't regarded as white-supremacist literature. Dhtwiki (talk) 04:28, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
Here are some stats showing the capped Black is not so common, but does sometimes go along with lowercase white. Try searching other contexts. Dicklyon (talk) 05:05, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
Why is this still being discussed here rather than WT:MOSCAPS? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:38, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
MOS:PEOPLANG states that it could be either way. That leads me to wonder why so many editors have jumped down my throat about this issue. It seems that WP protocol allows it and those reverting it are doing so arbitrarily....Mrohlewis (talk) 19:16, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Comment - it is somewhat misleading, and perhaps WP:WEASELy wording for the MOS to state "There is no consensus against using Black but white." Aside from the bizarre, roundabout double-negative construction, there were significant numbers of editors who stated that capitalisations should be either for all colours or no colours, i.e. White and Black or white and black but not white and Black (nor White and black, if that doesn't go without saying). In fact, there was a consensus fairly recently, then shortly afterward there was a "no consensus" discussion that had only a small fragment of participants, likely editors were worn out from the one they'd only just had. So, whomever activist editor placed that in the MOS, twas not done in absolute honesty.

I pose a question to everyone here: Do you think all of these style guides and (for-profit) news outlets are doing this because they truly think doing so will help elimnate racism? Or are they doing it merely to make themselves look better? And further on that point - how exactly does writing Black but white erase systemic racism? Does anyone really think that racist whites who see Black with a capital B but white with a lowercase w are going to stop and think "Oh, Black is capitalised but white isn't, that must mean that Blacks are better than whites and we should all stop giving them the shaft!" Please.

And from the other side, I can see how a black person could take offence as well. It's somewhat akin to being called "Special".

Lastly, I will comment that, dispite what all ye in your Wiki bubble and mass corporate media bubbles may believe, natural language doesn't change over night. One year is over night as far as language goes. Activists and elitists may think they wield that kind of power, but they are all in an echo chamber.

Therefore, since the main motivation behind all this seems to be to improve social justice, ask all of yourselves how realistically actions like this are likely to help things. Also consider the possible unintended consequences of them having the opposite effect: rather than mending hatred, deepening it. Act wisely, friends. 2600:1702:4960:1DE0:DC01:DE1:31A5:708A (talk) 23:49, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

TLDR version: the vast majority of the motivation behind this in the public sphere is NOT "I honestly think this will help improve social conditions and opportunities for disadvantaged groups", but rather it is "I want others to see me as someone who cares about social justice for disadvantaged peoples! " So it's really not about helping others, it's all in the interests of making it look like you're fighting for social justice. It's truly a smokescreen, a distraction, if anything. 2600:1702:4960:1DE0:DC01:DE1:31A5:708A (talk) 00:04, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

What's Wikipedia's current practice on this matter. PS: please when responding indent properly & don't use bullet points. GoodDay (talk) 22:35, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Current practice varies. As said above, there was no consensus to specify one way or the other. In general, the MOS says not to change things where there are multiple acceptable ways and no consensus on a preference. Dicklyon (talk) 04:50, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Just an aside. Most of the discussion here seems to be correctly based on objective considerations. However, some is based on the consideration of social issues. I think the latter is a disease in Wikipedia that causes conflicts between editors and bias in articles. The purpose of Wikipedia is to inform, not influence. Otherwise, Wikipedia's credibility is tarnished and the editing environment becomes toxic. Bob K31416 (talk) 14:43, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

As others noted, this seems to be a matter of US style that has not reached the UK to any degree. For example Guardian style guide does not request any case, but to respect the writer's choice (likely their US journalists).

I have two points about langauge change generally. Firstly the meme that Wikipedia "aims to follow not lead" and the idea that it does so "rightly". Hmm. Saying something doesn't make it so. I don't think Wikipedia has an "aim" in this regard, as it is an encyclopaedia. We, as editors, can chose whatever path we like, as long as it is consistent with some core principles. We can choose to be among those changing early or we can choose to be among those who are late. The problem with follow/lead is that it is polarising language that assumes the only positions are at the front or the back. It is ambiguous as to where among the leaders or followers we might be. Are we in the vanguard or among the stragglers? Are we among the leaders but not quite at the front? Or are we among the followers but not quite at the back? Our guidance on gender neutral language and gender identity suggests we are closer to the front, and these are matters a lot of Wikipedians care about and have wikiprojects for. On other issues like disability and mental health, I think we are quite far towards the back, compared to our peers in the information business. This area seems to be one where a few highly opinionated editors can dominate and proclaim that certain practices are The Way. I think it is important to realise that just because someones says we have always done it this way doesn't (a) mean what they say is true or (b) mean we have to repeat that for a particular case or even at all in future.

Secondly the above comment about Wikipedia informing, not influencing. We all know the language we use has an influence on how subjects are perceived. If that wasn't the case, then nobody would be upset or wish to change as long as the words were correct. As a major internet website and resource of information that gets read and reproduced, we do have a responsiblity for the influence we do have. If we, for example, write assuming doctors are male and nurses are female, that does perpetuate stereotypes and influences future generations about what they may grow up to be. So we have influence whether we want it or not. It may well cause conflict between editors, but some of that could be moderated by checking those who dominate their opinions and dubiously claim to speak on behalf of "Wikipedia" or MOS or some group.

Just as our own policy and guidelines follow best practice on Wikipedia, our style guidelines should follow best practice in the industry. There are lots of publications in the information business who we can examine (either the published material or their style guides). Some damaging ideas have crept in that news publications and science or expert publications are so weird and different to us that their style should be completely rejected. Well they are different but we are intelligent enough to recognise when their style is geared towards their audience or approach, and when their style is valuing things that are universal and that we could adopt. I think we can do better than have have done at times, and if one's only argument against change is a mix of "I don't like it" and "We should be last to change" then that's a poor position to take. -- Colin°Talk 13:25, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Note that there is a sentence in the lead of Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Capital_letters that has a criterion for style.
"The central point is that Wikipedia does not capitalize something unless it is consistently capitalized in a substantial majority of independent, reliable sources."
Also in the lead of Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Capital letters there is,
"Wikipedia relies on sources to determine what is conventionally capitalized; only words and phrases that are consistently capitalized in a substantial majority of independent, reliable sources are capitalized in Wikipedia."
How do those two excerpts fit in with your thinking? Bob K31416 (talk) 22:03, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:List of screw drives § Images in Section Headings

Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

  You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:List of screw drives § Images in Section Headings. — Marchjuly (talk) 04:37, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Begins I noticed that user Marchjuly removed all screw profile images ... but don't get your hopes up -- it's all downhill from there. See also erection engineer Mark Barr, who had a business making rubbers, said bicycles stimulated ball development, and was elected to the screw committee. EEng 05:46, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

One of these is not like the others

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Bit of a drive-by comment here (sorry)…

I was looking for a reference for formatting a MoS on a sister project, so I looked at the top of WP:MOS for the first time in… well, probably ever. One sentence there stood out as a non sequitur: Since using plain English makes the encyclopedia easier and more intuitive to read, editors should avoid ambiguity, jargon, and vague or unnecessarily complex wording. A fine sentiment certainly, but the rest of the lead describes the MoS itself, what it is for, how it is structured, its inclusion criteria… That sentence then suddenly dives into one specific content guide. Not that it's bad guidance, but it seems very malapropos in the context, and gives it an emphasis that appears out of proportion to its relative importance. Does it need to be there? Or, rhetorically, what other specific style rules should be promoted to a mention in the lead? Xover (talk) 06:51, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Adding a citation to an empty parameter

Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

Can infobox parameters be empty, but also have a citation listed? Or, is "none" appropriate for infoboxes? Requesting additional comments concerning this topic.
The article Tver Oblast infobox lists the parameter anthem as "none." The infobox had a parameter with no content, just a citation. I removed the "citation" (which is more of a comment or footnote at best), and it was reverted by User:Ymblanter because they believe it's useful. Essentially, another user added these "citations" long ago to some Russian oblast infoboxes to explain that an oblast anthem doesn't exist, but is permitted by law. Some oblast infoboxes listed "none" and then the citation, or just the citation. Some pages had these, some didn't. Some pages had actual oblast anthems, like Ulyanovsk Oblast, which entirely makes sense in this case. But for the infoboxes like Volgograd Oblast, Vologda Oblast, and others, while there is no content for the parameter, there is a "citation" which explains why there isn't an anthem. I have never seen this in any infoboxes on WP, and to illustrate the fact that there could be an anthem, but there isn't, all in the infobox makes no sense. I'm sure this is a violation of MOS:INFOBOX, but as I explained to Ymblanter on their talk page, it's as if one needs to find a policy on adding periods at the end of a sentence. They stand by their ground that this is useful, and that we have differing opinions. To me, if the indication were that notable, then it would probably be worth noting somewhere in the article, but if the word "anthem" isn't even mentioned in the article at all, why would it be useful to understand that an anthem doesn't exist, but could, in the infobox. Seems very trivial to add any parameter to the infobox that isn't notable at all, or for something that doesn't exist. I understand how in some cases, "none" may be appropriate for some infobox parameters, but this doesn't seem like one of these cases. --PerpetuityGrat (talk) 16:45, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

FYI, there's been more traction at the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Infoboxes. Seemed more appropriate to add the discussion there. --PerpetuityGrat (talk) 12:08, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

RfC on linking non-major countries

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

  You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Linking § RfC: Linking non-major countries. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 18:57, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Thread that could use broader input

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

  You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers § Bot task for adding MDY tags to U.S.-related articles. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 07:38, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Should MOS:US mention national varieties of English?

Latest comment: 3 years ago15 comments10 people in discussion

In my experience, U.S. is discouraged in favour of US in a number of contemporary varieties of English, such as Australian English and British English. The current section on this implies that either could be used in any article, but I think articles in English varieties that prefer US to U.S. should use the former only; however, I don't see that principle reflected in this section of the manual. Should the issue be mentioned here? Mr248 (talk) 00:34, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Problem is, US can be easily confused with We. Where's U.S. is recognised as United States. -- GoodDay (talk) 00:58, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
In practice that’s not a problem at all, though, is it? The word ‘us’ fully capitalised would only be done for emphasis, and that happens extremely rarely, mostly in verbatim speech, which for a non-fiction document like an encyclopaedia means basically never. And the difference is usually obvious from context in any case - ‘US’ is commonly preceded by ‘The’ or followed by words such as ‘military aircraft’ or ‘Secretary of state’ or ‘forces’ that make it clear what is meant. Hence CNN uses ‘US’ throughout its news website. MapReader (talk) 07:30, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
Mr248, if you can find some evidence of those varieties of English preferring US, I think it would be wise to include a small mention. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 02:07, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
I don’t think that can be in contention; it’s pretty standard. For example the general rule in the Oxford University style guide is Don’t use full stops after any abbreviations, contractions or acronyms and close up space between letters. MapReader (talk) 07:50, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
Acronymns without punctuation are pretty standard for English beyond North America, and even within the US such styling is becoming more common - for example CNN uses the unpunctuated form. In time I would expect WP to follow suit and adopt ‘US’ as standard; the MoS already requires it in articles using any other unpunctuated geographical term (such as EU, UK, USSR) - which is actually a lot of articles already. Whether or not WP is ready now to make the move to a consistent approach is another question; personally I don’t see the mix of styles as being particularly helpful. MapReader (talk) 07:20, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
Confused with "we"? Give us a break. Chicago Manual of Style changed its tune on the U dot S dot in 2014 (16th edition). Tony (talk) 07:27, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
I agree (and would we feel the need to shepherd readers who might take IT to mean shouty-cap "it"?) I've worked as an editor for publishing companies based in the UK, Australia and the United States, and without fail the approach is to use "US", apart from in the US. I appreciate that's only anecdotal, though. JG66 (talk) 09:43, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
Alright, I'll give you all a 'break'. I'm content with either version. GoodDay (talk) 14:21, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
How about a new second sentence:

US is preferred in some varieties of English, such as Australian English and British English.

Firefangledfeathers (talk) 14:45, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
Sounds good. Johnbod (talk) 15:13, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
I just noticed this discussion. I suspect that the United States will continue to use U.S. in formal written American English for quite a long time. Most U.S. law schools teach the Bluebook, which is notorious for its conservative approach to abbreviations and punctuation. Federal courts continue to be very conservative in how they punctuate abbreviations. Only three states have followed the silly British trend towards dropping periods in abbreviations, at least in opinions from state appellate courts: New York, Michigan, and Oregon. The other states look upon such work product with a mix of curiosity and horror.
Although there are only about 1.3 million active lawyers out of a national population of about 327 million, lawyers continue to play a prominent role in the public sphere in the United States: government, corporations, nonprofit organizations, journalism, etc. (For example, look at the cabinets of any president or state governor from the last 50 years; even if the executive on top was not a lawyer, several of their direct reports invariably had Juris Doctor degrees.) Nearly all those lawyers had it pounded into their heads during the first year of law school that the correct abbreviation is U.S. (as stated in the Bluebook in Rule 6.1(b) and also in Table T10), and they strongly expect people who work for or with them to write that way. --Coolcaesar (talk) 16:11, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
Hmm…so American lawyers do it one way. Very good reason for the rest of the English-speaking world to do the exact opposite. DeCausa (talk) 16:27, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
If three US States have joined CNN and the rest of the world in dropping this unnecessary punctuation, then it is simply a matter of time before WP adopts this as our default approach. MapReader (talk) 17:28, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
FWIW (F.W.I.W.?), I don't think I've ever seen a single American source refer to (e.g.) "the P.A.T.R.I.O.T. Act", which in any case looks sorta comical. Archon 2488 (talk) 09:00, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Drag performer pronouns

Latest comment: 3 years ago5 comments5 people in discussion

Is there a community consensus on which pronouns we use for drag performers? For example, it is quite common for reliable sources to use she/her when referring to a cis man in drag, even when that person prefers he/him pronouns out of it. Likewise, there are non-binary people who use they/them pronouns out of drag, but again use she/her pronouns while in drag. How does WP:GENDERID apply in this regard?

Should this distinction be made in the article namespace, or is this too confusing to read? I've noticed a general tendency to go for gender-neutral pronouns when this is unclear, even when this goes against reliable sources (and sometimes even against the subject's preference), but I don't think this is the right way to go for the majority of drag performers. (I'm mainly focusing on drag queens here, but I assume the same applies to drag kings too.)

I'm aware that we're talking about broad generalisations here so I don't expect a consensus to emerge, but I'm wondering if this has been brought up before. —AFreshStart (talk) 12:39, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

I'm far from a subject matter expert here but it was always my assumption that a drag act is a character just as much as any other acted role, the role and the portrayer need not be treated the same. For example, Paul de Leeuw is a male actor, Annie de Rooij is a female character, to say "he" plays "her" would be accurate there. I'd follow the sources when it comes to gendering either, probably using "they" when there is any doubt or lack of clarity. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 16:29, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
There was a discussion about this a year ago: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 220#WP:Surname and MOS:GENDERID with regard to drag queen articles. pburka (talk) 16:34, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
How is it handled at Tootsie? -- GoodDay (talk) 17:37, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
This is a nightmare. [16] EEng 12:46, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Italics for "(pictured in XXXX)"

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Please see this discussion on /Captions. I started it in August but there have been no replies yet. Hoping to get some more eyes on this. Regards, IceWelder [✉] 08:56, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

"Wheelchair-bound"

Latest comment: 2 years ago115 comments24 people in discussion

There is an ongoing discussion regarding the use of the phrase "wheelchair-bound" taking place at Talk:Nick Fury: Agent of S.H.I.E.L.D. (film); any additional input would be welcome. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 15:53, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

There seem to have been a number of similar edits taking place lately. @Persicifolia: Has there already been a central discussion about this somewhere? If no, I suggest we have one here rather than at individual articles. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:19, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
Hi Nikkimaria, no this isn't part of an organised action - I think there's already a consensus on this, MOS:DISAB is clear 'wheelchair-bound' and 'confined to a wheelchair' should be avoided so I thought I was just clearing up. Most of WP already uses 'wheelchair user' and other preferred terms. The AP style guide is clear here [17] as is the UK gov [18] and the Guardian style guide [19]. There's actually only been one reversion and discussion so far, as above, and at the moment that's actually been reverted to my edit (not by me, obviously!). All other articles, including protected ones like Morrissey, have accepted the change so far. I am pretty new here though, 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ has been helpful in pointing out that eg the AP style guide is a particularly good source to refer to. Persicifolia (talk) 10:13, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
I just became aware of this thread. MOS:DISAB seems to be an essay on style. Why is this not WP policy, a part of MOS proper? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:56, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
It's never been properly proposed as as a project-wide MOS (it came out of the Disability Wikiproject but never vetted by the community) and the fact that it was implied to be an official MOS or style guide had problems in the past , based on its talk page. It would take an RFC to make that part of MOS proper. --Masem (t) 15:05, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
I see. Thanks. And that project-wide RFC would need to take place here, right? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:20, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
I wouldn't mind a broader RFC on this; it seems like a good idea for us to implement it both for reader-friendliness and for following common style guides (the AP Stylebook, for example, recommends it, as do a breadth of guides listed on the other talk page). I know the broader recommendations at the MOS:DISAB page were rejected as an official guide not too long ago but that focussed solely on the recommendation for people-first language ("person with autism" over "autistic person"); a discussion solely on this application would at least allow it to be judged on its merits alone. ᵹʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 16:56, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
Grapple X, Fowler&fowler, Masem, et al. I have on several occasions (the most recent just a few sections above) appealed for assistance from "MOS specialist" editors to help improve the Disability WikiProject's style advice page (with the aim of eventual inclusion in the MOS) but have yet to receive a positive response. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:05, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
I was in favour of it then and am still in favour of it now. I'm far from a "specialist" but am more than happy to continue supporting the kind of language advised by style guides, health officials, and public bodies. ᵹʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 09:34, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
There may be a chicken-egg problem here. Likely the better way to proceed is whether MOS should have a page to handle language related to disabilities, with the current project page to be used as a starting point but with full recognition that its "style" can be improved by a MOS specialist to bring it in line with other parts of MOS without losing its substance, such that the RFC is reviewing the concepts already on there, and ignoring that its not presently a perfect fit into the MOS. Assuming that RFC passed for inclusion, that would give the need for those skilled at MOS writing to help improve it. --Masem (t) 13:25, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
Carried from that conversation, the following all expressly prefer "use/user" language over "bound" or "confined": UK government style guide, the NDA (Ireland's statutory body on disability), Greater Manchester Coalition and New Mobility, the Guardian, American Psychological Association, Americans with Disabilities Act National Network, National Health Service, Stanford University, and the Associated Press Stylebook. This is by no means exhaustive but should show that we're not discussing a fringe preference here. ᵹʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 17:23, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Let's keep in mind what George Carlin said about softening language. Changing the name of the condition, doesn't change the condition. GoodDay (talk) 17:03, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

GoodDay What did George Carlin say about it, and what qualifies his opinion as authorotative? Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 08:38, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
Observe his video about euphemisms. GoodDay (talk) 14:51, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
(ROGER reads the response from GOODDAY, and based on the helpful information therein, extends his left arm to the small shelf with a comprehensive collection of George Carlin videos, labelled and sorted by subject, sitting on ROGER's table next to him. ROGER quickly extracts the one video on euphemisms, and pops it into his video player.)
ROGER: Ah! I am enlightened!
(ROGER ejects the "euphemisms" video from his player and files it again on his shelf. The TOWNSPEOPLE react, talking quietly among themselves at this development.)
LIGHTS fade to black. Curtain. — JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits) 17:29, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
YouTube, would be quicker. GoodDay (talk) 17:34, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
* APPLAUSE
Seriously, though, probably talking about this one. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 17:36, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
Makes you wonder: when someone's suing a drunk driver, does their attorney tell the jury that his client "is now a wheelchair user"? Or does he say, "My client will be confined to a wheelchair for life"? Context matters. EEng 18:13, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
Notifying WT:MEDMOS of this discussion. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:44, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
GoodDay, I think that's one of the main points behind opposition to this language: "wheelchair-bound" is often an inaccurate description of the facts. Many people "use" wheelchairs; only a few are "bound" to them. It is not unusual for a wheelchair user to be able to stand up for brief time periods or to be able to take a step. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:36, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
Saying that someone who can stand and take one step isn't wheelchair-bound is like saying a diabetic who can go all day without insulin isn't insulin-dependent. EEng 01:42, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
Certainly that phrase should only be used when the sources indicate that someone is, indeed, "bound" to their chair. I don't think that amounts to a need to deprecate, though. Primergrey (talk) 23:07, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
None of us are literally "bound" to our wheelchairs though, one reason why this is bad terminology that is recommended against in every style guide I've seen. We sit in chairs, sleep in beds etc etc, even if we cannot walk at all. I started these edits, only one out of more than 100 was reverted. Again, here's the AP Stylebook [20]. These discussions have all been hashed out elsewhere, amongst disabled people, decades ago. Persicifolia (talk) 01:28, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
Ahem. Differently abled people. EEng 01:42, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
I know you have a tendency for levity but I don't believe this is the time or place to be sarcastic about the civility we show our editors and readers. ᵹʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 01:45, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
Well I identify as a disabled person E as that's what I am - as do most disabled people I know. (See also the style guides linked above, which don't agree with you on 'differently' etc.) Persicifolia (talk) 01:53, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
I'm not being sarcastic in the least. Rather, as always[1] I'm using humor to point out something serious, to wit that there's huge disagreement among the disabled (or differently abled, or handicapped, or physcially disadvantaged, or crippled) about appropriate forms of reference, and that even someone such as Grapple – striving to use appropriate terms – might run afoul of one faction or another in that debate. In fact it's almost unavoidable to run afoul of some faction.
For example, while no one (that I know of, anyway) actually advocates differently abled anymore (though there was a time ...), there are certainly people who bristle at your phrasing "He is a handicapped person" instead of "He is a person with a handicap". EEng 01:59, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
I had an aunt and uncle who used wheelchairs. Both rose above the situation and did everything possible to not limit themselves. I've seen my uncle carry 2 ft x 2 ft concrete pavers in his wheelchair across sand - that takes determination. Both drove cars (special hand controls). Both were intelligent and had good office jobs. And never say the word "disabled" around my aunt if you don't want a tongue lashing. "Wheelchair-bound" makes you defined by the chair. As my aunt and uncle showed, they were not defined by their chairs. Properly speaking they were paraplegics (their legs don't work). More severe cases can be quadriplegics (all 4 limbs don't work). There can be other reasons. The wheelchair is just a visible tool, not a definition.  Stepho  talk  02:03, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
Ok so, if us disabled people are so impossible to please (which seems to be your contention E), yet a consensus has nonetheless been reached in every mainstream style guide out there that a particular term - eg 'wheelchair-bound' - is objectionable, what would be the reason for disregarding that? Persicifolia (talk) 02:14, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
No, I said nothing like impossible to please; I said there were differences of opinion. I'm particularly tickled by this admonition by AP [21]: Cripple: Often considered offensive when used to describe a person who is lame or disabled. I'm pretty sure Stepho-wrs's unc and auntie wouldn't have liked being called lame.
To be clear, BTW, I actually think that phrasing such as "used a wheelchair after an accident in 1993" is probably best for the run-of-the-mill situation, but there may be times that dependence on the device may be appropriate to emphasize e.g. "Wheelchair-bound passengers presented a special problem in planning the evacuation", because there are users of wheelchairs who really are immobile without them, and those who, with great effort, can get off the burning train or whatever without the machine. EEng 02:39, 31 October 2021 (UTC) And it's "We disabled are impossible to please". Being lame doesn't excuse bad grammar.
Some wheelchair users presented a special problem in planning the evacuation. —valereee (talk) 19:09, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
Not the same at all. Like I just said, there are users of wheelchair who really are immobile without them, and those who, with great effort, can get off the burning train or whatever without the machine, and the whole point is to distinguish between them. EEng 10:27, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
"Nonambulatory passengers". Kolya Butternut (talk) 19:19, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
Non-ambulatory is a fluid medical term whose meaning varies greatly depending on context. In the context of the burning train, its most likely meaning would be "cannot walk unassisted", and if that's what you mean you'd better just say that. But that's not the same as wheelchair-bound, and the difference would matter. EEng 10:27, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
"Wheelchair-bound" is not a well-defined term. And it's silly to define someone's limitations based on the equipment they use. What if they use a scooter but cannot walk? Are they still wheelchair-bound? Kolya Butternut (talk) 13:45, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
Apparently not silly: "The Impact of a Wheelchair Bound Evacuee on the Speed and Flow of Evacuees in a Stairway During an Uncontrolled Unannounced Evacuation". EEng 15:22, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
Ok, well you're right it's not silly to identify them by their wheelchair when we're talking about wheelchair accessibility and evacuations. But that article is old. This recent article cites it: "Dynamic, Stream-Balancing, Turn-Minimizing, Accessible Wayfinding for Emergency Evacuation of People Who Use a Wheelchair". Kolya Butternut (talk) 16:35, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
@Persicifolia, some people actually are "bound" into wheelchairs (or any other chair they might use). Positioning belts, "seat belts", and other devices are sometimes used to reduce the risk of someone falling. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:13, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

So, it's up to the Wiki-community to decide what terminology to use & if it'll be used across the board 'or' on a bio-by-bio basis. GoodDay (talk) 02:45, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

One particular thing keeps coming up and I want to be clear - 'wheelchair-bound' is considered offensive (and yes ableist) whether the person referred to can walk and stand or not. Of course sometimes there's a need to clarify whether we're talking about somebody who cannot walk at all or someone who uses a wheelchair part-time. Either 'a full-time wheelchair user' or to be more specific 'cannot walk at all' works for the former, and 'ambulatory wheelchair user', 'occasional wheelchair user' or 'sometimes uses a wheelchair' for the latter. (And incidentally in many articles on WP the sources are not clear, and 'wheelchair-bound' is actually being used to mean 'seen in a wheelchair'.) Persicifolia (talk) 11:14, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
But "full-time wheelchair user" can't really be right -- don't they sleep in beds? If "wheelchair-bound" is offensive because it's not literally true, then why isn't "full-time wheelchair user" offensive for its incomplete truth as well? I'm not joking about this (though if I brought in the concept of "college-bound high school student", then I'd be joking -- though not entirely, actually). EEng 11:22, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
Because it's the word 'bound' that is offensive. We are not bound to our wheelchairs. We do however use them full-time. A bit like people who work full-time. Who also sleep. Generally not in their place of work. Persicifolia (talk) 13:29, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
"I have been wheelchair-bound for almost four decades and the chance to float free in zero-G will be wonderful." – Stephen Hawking[2]
Thinking about the Hawking quote, I was curious about first-person usage. Based on hits at newspapers.com, ""I am wheelchair-bound" is twice as frequent as "I am a wheelchair user" in recent years. For example, "My home of many years has several problems for me to deal with because I am wheelchair-bound." (The Pantagraph, 2018); "It allows me to see something that I can easily produce, especially on days I am wheelchair bound," he said. (News-Press, 2018); "Although I am now wheelchair bound, I used a cane as my walking deteriorated." (The Boston Globe, 2019); "My Mother's Day was different this year as I am still wheelchair bound ..." (The Winona Times, 2021); "I am a wheelchair-bound Marblehead voter, and I strongly urge Massachusetts to establish voting by mail." (The Boston Globe, 2020). Doremo (talk) 15:56, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
That is because you are sampling a demographic which was born and raised when "wheelchair-bound" was common parlance. Sample the under-40s, the Paralympians, the soldiers whose legs were blown off in the 21st-century. Long after Black or African-American had become de rigueur for newspapers, many older Blacks were still referring to themselves as colored. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:12, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
And you were there to tell them they shouldn't do that, that they're complicit in their own oppression by not adopting the hip new with-it term? And as for Hawking, well, he wasn't what you'd call a thoughtful person so he was just using wheelchair bound unthinkingly and without considering the subtle social effects of his words. Not really that bright, he. EEng 17:35, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
No, of course not. But language does evolve, even when the brightest among us continue to use terms that are now considered by many offensive. RS don't use the word 'retarded' any more, but there are absolutely people who still use that word to describe themselves and don't consider it hurtful or offensive. —valereee (talk) 19:15, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
And now "people of color" is de rigueur. The search for sensitive and inclusive language can sometimes look like a dog chasing its tail. Dhtwiki (talk) 19:29, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Making note of the article that began this discussion (and which I've also posted at), we should decide whether or not to use the same terminology for 'real people' and 'fictional characters'. GoodDay (talk) 17:17, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
    I was going to make the same point. It's crucial to the story that Dr. Strangleove be wheelchair-bound (or, if you prefer, confined). EEng 17:35, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
    I've said on the other talk page: We paraphrase not for the character's milieu or time, but for ours. We cannot describe Uncle Tom's Cabin as a story of negro life in the slave states of America, even though that is the novel's alternate title Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:40, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
    I don't know what you mean by paraphrasing for our time. It's clear from this discussion that wheelchair-using includes people who can stand and walk (to some extent, under some circumstances) and so to describe Strangelove that way makes ambiguous a point which must not be ambiguous i.e. he is completely dependent for his mobility on the wheelchair i.e. wheelchair-bound. In other words: there are times when that wording is appropriate. EEng 22:26, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
    If you were determined to avoid that term, you could write that he is "completely dependent for his mobility on the wheelchair", which might be even clearer. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:17, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
    I would just like to reiterate that the article under discussion Nick Fury: Agent of S.H.I.E.L.D. (film), is a low-budget made-for-TV comic book adaptation, with a version of comic book character Arnim Zola who is an evil psychic Nazi in a wheelchair. Zola is basically the B-villain of the film, and his physical condition is a minor plot point, just enough to set the scene. Saying more than "wheelchair-bound" is frankly an undue amount of attention to this point. Perhaps the plot summary could do without mention of it at all. BD2412 T 06:03, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
    Ironside (1967 TV series) uses "reliance on a wheelchair". Whatever ya'll decide, is fine with me. Political correctness, doesn't influence or shape my stance. GoodDay (talk) 06:18, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
    @GoodDay: but see this recent edit to that article. BD2412 T 06:37, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
    Oh geez. GoodDay (talk) 06:41, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
    The budget of the production, morals or the character, and whether you think it's any good or not, have no bearing on whether we use inclusive language or not. We wouldn't use the N word to describe a character just because they're an evil villain in a straight-to-DVD trash film, and that should not play a part in our determination of encyclopedic and modern-style language.  — Amakuru (talk) 08:21, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
    So wheelchair-bound is comparable to the n-word (because they both have to do with human bondage, I guess)? Sure. That's definitely an appropriate analogy. EEng 11:20, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
  • The mistake that keeps getting made in these discussions is to offer the uninformed and the overly self-opinionated a platform and let them dominate it. Do you think is his how the UK government or the NHS or Associated Press wrote their style guides on language choice about disability and other health and social issues? Did they pop down to the high street and randomly ask shoppers who had never thought about the subject before to give their opinion? Or perhaps they searched out the people who rant and moan in forums and on twitter and made sure their egos got the much needed boost their sad souls crave? Do you think they got bogged down in distractions about Marvel comics and the N-word? Or allowed an anti-woke libertarian to frustrate all attempts to direct writers towards better language choices? Do you think the UK government decided that it should "follow and not lead" and wait for a majority of UN countries first? Or perhaps the Associated Press insisted their style guide can only document typical practice rather than inform writers about best practice? Or do you think perhaps some of them actually considered that they themselves might not know, and so go and ask other people and other groups.
    ᵹʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ above listed many guides from a wide variety of authorities. What makes us so arrogant to think we might know better than them? Why do we end up with arguments about whether or not User:X thinks a word might be perceived as offensive but User:Y thinks the etymology permits a neutral interpretation and User:Z's grandmother's opinion. Yet strangely we are happy to defer to dictionaries to inform us about what words mean, and insist the facts in our articles come from authoritative sources, and follow style guides for most other things.
    The people we are trying to write about here are often stigmatised, face prejudice and discrimination, and find their disability increased by the unthinking choices made by the majority. There are people and groups and authoritative bodies who are far better informed and experienced who have already had these discussions. They have done so in a professional and respectful manner, rather than for laughs and trolls. We should recognise this is not a topic where the crowd is wise, but one where the community should consult the professionals and follow best practice. On Wikipedia, that shouldn't be a radical idea, because it is how we write articles. -- Colin°Talk 12:25, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
    I broadly agree with Colin above. The usual too many cooks problem here. Go with a) what reputable style guides have already done the work on for general use cases, and b)if its contextually relevant as some of the examples EEng points out, just use what the source uses. I will say as a disabled person that yes, arguing over terminology is a blight upon progress in accessibility. You cant please everyone, and there are factions of activists who enjoy this sort of arguing. I have spent far too much time over the years dealing with the various deaf-activist loons that as soon as people start telling me what words I should be using to describe myself I tune them out. The vast majority of ordinary people with disabilities do not ultimately care about the subtle textual differences between 'disabled' and 'person with disability' they really only care that said disability is addressed. Just go with whatever the majority of reputable style guides use and be done with it. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:43, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
    +1 for Only in death. Colin, not so much because he caricatures intelligent editors who are simply advocating flexibility where the situation calls for it (e.g. Dr. Strangelove). EEng 16:32, 1 November 2021 (UTC) P.S. for Colin: your indentation praactices violate MOS:ACCESSIBILITY.
    Can you please demonstrate the indentation fix that sorts the MOS:ACCESSIBILITY in my edit. Thanks. -- Colin°Talk 16:52, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
    Your wish is my command: [22], which then allows those who follow you to use proper indentation as well [23], which they couldn't do once you'd thrown things off track. You understand, I hope, the import of my making this picayune point. EEng 17:25, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
    Thanks. And it isn't a petty issue and typifies how unthinking writers can unconsciously make things worse for others, and benefit from being corrected. Only in death makes a great point that you can't please everyone. That's an advantage of deferring to an external source. It no longer becomes our problem to please everyone, but rather to find an end to the edit warring and debates. It isn't Wikipedia's purpose to debate the best form of writing about such matters, so doing so is a cost, a distraction, and one that often makes editors cross with each other. In all the debates we have had, has anyone said something mind blowingly novel? Do we think we are original in arguing whether the binding in wheelchair bound is physical or metaphorical? That nobody else has ever discussed alternative wordings? No. We are just bringing a source of disagreement in the world and making it our problem, and that's not wise. It is particularly not wise when brighter people who are actually paid to come to an agreement have already done so and published their recommendations. Let's make it someone else's problem, choosing as wisely as we choose our reliable sources for facts, but then deferring to them. In contrast, nobody else in the world has to work out how best to use MediaWiki markup to thread a discussion in a way that is easily understood and accessible. So debating and documenting the best way to do that is very much more productive. -- Colin°Talk 18:49, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
    This is "our problem" though; we are ones writing and encyclopedia here. You make a good argument to follow AP and the other style guidelines in this issue, but it's not a bad idea to first have some reasonable discussion about it. Otherwise we might as well just copy-paste the whole AP right now. ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 23:19, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

I feel that this discussion is going on in two places at once, but the context is important. No one is suggesting that real living people should be described as wheelchair-bound. The genesis of this discussion was with a series of edits in which one editor changed this wording without discussion across a number of articles on fictional characters. In some cases, these characters are specifically depicted by their authors as wheelchair-bound, and never shown being able to move about or engage in any activity without use of a wheelchair. In the case of the fictional Arnim Zola, this is no doubt to provide a contrast against the powerful evil of his mind, despite his physical condition. In others, it is to depict the struggle of the character against their own perceived limitations. A one-size-fits-all rule directed at greater human enlightenment doesn't fit these cases, and makes for particularly awkward and forced writing in a fictional plot description noting the condition of the character just enough to convey what the work of fiction actually conveys. BD2412 T 18:13, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

I and other editors have tried to explain this to you several times now. It does not matter that a term is used to describe someone fictional, someone living, someone dead. The term is the issue, not the article. It is seen by our readers, by our editors, by anyone who mirrors our content. If public health bodies, national governments, widely-used style guides all advocate something, and your only go-to excuse is that none of that is important because you can't understand that our language affects real people regardless of which article it appears in, I genuinely do not know how else to engage with you. It would not matter if the article that sparked this was about a film character, or a comic book character, or about any living, dead, fictional, mythological, or hypothetical person, because our readers are not fictional, they are flesh and blood human beings. ᵹʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 18:19, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
MOS:EUPHEMISM states Do not assume that plain language is inappropriate. The goal is to express ideas clearly and directly without causing unnecessary offense. If "wheelchair-bound" actually causes offense because of its wording, then fine, we should find other direct wording that states the same thing. HOWEVER, if the offense is caused by the very fact of describing certain people as being unable to leave their wheelchairs, then we should continue to describe them as unable to leave their wheelchairs, and not cast around for euphemisms that avoid saying that. The keyword in the EUPHEMISM quote is "unnecessary". Sometimes saying things clearly and directly will cause offense, but it is still necessary to say those things clearly and directly. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:23, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
But no assumption is being made—once again, a list of sources has provided that state, not assume, that the term should be avoided. I fail to see why we should cast around for excuses to ignore all of these sources in favour of acting counter to them, which feels like the most "unnecessary" aspect of all of this. ᵹʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 18:34, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
Because neither those sources nor your comments here clarify whether what is to be avoided is that specific wording, or any wording that directly states that people are unable to leave their wheelchairs. If it is only that specific wording, then we need another specific direct and to-the-point replacement wording. If you are looking for Wikipedia to avoid any wording that directly states that people are unable to leave their wheelchairs, you are doing the wrong thing. We need to know which it is. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:51, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
They specifically and in clear terms say not to use "wheelchair-bound" (and "confined to a wheelchair"). Gov.uk--"avoid ... wheelchair-bound", "use ... wheelchair user". NDA--"Term no longer in use: wheelchair-bound". NHS--"Words to avoid ... wheelchair bound - implies burden or being confined". AP Stylebook--"We do not use the wording confined to a wheelchair or wheelchair-bound. People use wheelchairs for independent mobility. If a wheelchair is needed, and the description is relevant, say why. The term wheelchair user when relevant is OK". They very much clarify this. ᵹʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 19:02, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
You are either not understanding or deliberately missing the point. Replacing "wheelchair-bound" by "wheelchair user" as they recommend is NOT a simple direct replacement, because it does not convey the same information. And the advice you quote fails to explain whether the reason for the changed wording is to avoid some specific negative connotation of the "-bound" wording, or whether it is to avoid telling people that they're permanently stuck in wheelchairs. It makes an important difference to us. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:12, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
If you need to convey a difference between someone who users a wheelchair full time and someone who does not, you can simply say that, but "bound" is uniformly rejected by these sources, it isn't rejected "in some cases". If it's important for context to note that a wheelchair is someone's only means of ambulation then we can simply say "full-time wheelchair user", or in the inverse, we can specify "ambulatory wheelchair user" for someone for whom it is not their only means of movement. But what is clear, uniform, and undisputed amongst all the sources is that the term "bound" is to be avoided, not only sometimes. ᵹʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 19:19, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
You're still casting around for ways to not say that someone is permanently in a wheelchair. "Full-time wheelchair user" does not convey that meaning. It could well describe someone who can walk and has fulltime employment pushing other people around in wheelchairs at airports or whatever. Simple. Direct. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:21, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
I don't think that he's casting around for ways not to say that someone is permanently in a wheelchair. I think he is repeating that there are ways to accurately describe the fact that someone uses a wheelchair without using a term that offends some people and is usually inaccurate. (Did you know that 90% of wheelchair users don't have a spinal cord injury?)
Also, even total dependency is not always permanent. I have had the pleasure of seeing, over the space of several years, a local man go from being barely capable of moving his wheelchair to being able to sit up securely, maneuver it well, and even to stand briefly. I know very little about him except what anyone can see of another person at a bus stop, but he's in the right demographics to be a veteran of the Iraq War.
More relevantly for Wikipedia, consider this statement from an article:
Upshaw was wheelchair-bound for seven years, but gradually regained the ability to walk with crutches. His condition eventually improved enough that he told newspaper reporters that he was able to walk several steps unaided.
If you think that "wheelchair-bound" means that Upshaw needed to use a wheelchair permanently, then presumably you think this sentence is wrong. If you think that "wheelchair-bound" means being totally reliant on a wheelchair for mobility, then presumably you think this sentence is potentially wrong (because the moment he started walking with crutches, he was no longer using a wheelchair exclusively, and going from exclusive wheelchair to walking with crutches does not happen in a single day). I'm not certain that there is any sense in which the sentence as written is completely factually correct. Why shouldn't we say "He used a wheelchair for seven years, and gradually regained the ability..." instead? WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:28, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
I think David Eppstein wasn't thinking with his usual precision when he employed the word permanently; likely he meant something more like fully dependent on. Clearly everyone knows that a debility, no matter how severe, might not be permanent.
That aside, "He used a wheelchair" is vague and admits a variety of interpretations; "wheelchair-bound", if it applies, is more precise even if some don't like it. EEng 04:24, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
You are correct, of course. If someone dies in a housefire because they are unable to leave their wheelchair (as sadly appears to happen far too often) it is not the permanence of their attachment to the wheelchair that is important, and it is not "using" a wheelchair that contributes to their death, but rather their inability to leave it. Google news searches show that "wheelchair-bound" is still often used in such circumstances. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:48, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
Or their inability to get into the wheelchair fast enough. You have about three minutes to escape a modern house fire. It takes some people that long just to transfer from their beds to their wheelchairs. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:50, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
BD2412, you'd have more of a case if your response on the talk page was to quote the authors or at the least cite some commentators on the fiction, rather than dig up some low quality newspapers covering real world people. If the authors of those works have explicitly used the language "wheelchair bound" as a metaphor for the character's circumstances or to contrast with their other abilities, say, then using quotes would seem to be the standard mechanism for us to introduce that to the article. That stops it being Wikipedia's voice. Similarly if we want to quote some commentator using that language to express the same thing. You said "No one is suggesting that real living people should be described as wheelchair-bound." but in fact some in the discussion on that talk page did indeed insist that such language was perfectly acceptable. And as I noted above, not a single original thought or argument was put forward on that page that hasn't been said or argued countless times already. -- Colin°Talk 18:49, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
You mean something like:
Michael Pawuk, ‎David S. Serchay, Graphic Novels: A Guide to Comic Books, Manga, and More, 2nd Edition (2017), p. 40: "When Wally West, the third-generation Flash, is wheelchair bound after an accident, how can he defeat a villain without the aid of his legs?";
Jacob Leigh, The Late Films of Claude Chabrol: Genre, Visual Expressionism and Narrational Ambiguity (2017), p. 83: "[T]he characters stage scenes to deceive people: Victor stages a scene to pretend to Betty that he is wheelchair bound; René stages a scene to convince the police that Desmot had a normal evening at home";
Christopher Kul-Want, Philosophers on Film from Bergson to Badiou: A Critical Reader (2019): "James Stewart's characters in both Rear Window (1954) and Vertigo (1958) are afflicted with a certain immobility; in Vertigo, Scottie suffers from agoraphobia, while in Rear Window L.B. is wheelchair bound".
Yes, those sorts of commentaries exist. The language is succinct and accurately depicts the media. BD2412 T 20:22, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Political correctness can go too far. Let's be mindful of that. GoodDay (talk) 19:22, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

If you are looking to paraphrase those examples, they are many ways that are adequate for an encyclopedia. "When Wally West, ... has to continually use a wheelchair after an accident ..." "to pretend to Betty that he always uses a wheelchair ..." As for Rear Window, "is forced to use a wheelchair on account of a broken leg" Is a much more accurate description of the media. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:45, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
So I guess you think "forced to" use a wheelchair is more empowering than wheelchair-"bound"; either that or you're just reflexively avoiding a particular phrasing with little regard for the substitute. The fact that Jimmy Stewart is confined to the chair is essential to the whole plot; the fact that Strangelove is confined to the chair (or, at least, so it seems) is essential to the final line of the film. And continually is certainly not the word you're looking for, though I'm pretty sure continuously isn't it either. EEng 04:29, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
@EEng: Oh, I very much am looking for the adverb, "continually." (i.e. Oxford English Dictionary (OED) adverb 1 a. In a continual way; always, incessantly, constantly, perpetually, all the time; i.e. either: Without any intermission, at every moment, continuously (in time); or less strictly: With frequent repetition, very frequently. 1880 A. Geikie Elem. Lessons Physical Geogr. (new ed.) ii. ix. 58 The sun is continually radiating heat from his glowing mass. i.e. the Oxford Dictionary of English 2 Without interruption; constantly: The underground water level was continually falling and the environment in the adjoining valleys was also deteriorating, he said. i.e. Websters Unabridged, continually (adverb): " 1: in a continual way : unceasingly 2: continuously in time : without intermission 3: in regular or repeated succession : very often) I asked for examples, not the Wiktionary, which has been compiled by schoolchildren, and not subliminal sneering. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:35, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
Um, well, yes, but since the OED's examples end at 1880, let's come into the 21st century (or at least the 20th) with, er, Fowler (pocket):
Continual is the older word (14c), and once had all the meanings it now (since the mid-19c) shares with continuous (17c) ... continuous here means ‘going on uninterrupted’ whereas continual means ‘constantly or frequently recurring’ ... In the following example, continuously seems to be wrongly used for continually: "The Chinese officials also continuously stated that they could put a stop to inflation at any time"—P. Lowe, 1989.
Now that we've cleared up the modern distinction between continual continually and continuous continuously, back to the point at hand: I gave two examples, Rear Window and Strangelove. EEng 12:53, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
@EEng: We certainly have not. The Oxford Dictionary of English, my second example, was published in 2010. Again, please no Wiktionary and that means no pocket guides either. Fowler's 2015 (unabridged) quoted above, says on pages 181–182, "Since the mid-19c. it has been customary to regard continual as being applicable to events that occur frequently but with intervals between, and continuous to anything that happens or proceeds in an unbroken manner. In practice the distinction is not as neat as that. ... Continuous is used in physical contexts (such as lines, roads, etc.) and is preferred in technical contexts. The following examples show how difficult it is to keep the two meanings apart: (continual) The house and garden had seen their best days, and the decline was now continual, from season to season—R. Frame, 1986; The 1840s were years of continuous self-education for Philip Henry Gosse—A. Thwaite, 1984. I suggest that you not waste more time with simplified distinctions. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:33, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
Right, but we're not discussing continual and continuous (my slip above) but continually and continuously, about which all editions (AFAICT) say Of the corresponding adverbs, continually (14c) is older by far than continuously (17c). Here, for some reason, the current distinction is clearer to see ... giving several examples including the "Chinese officials" above.
While this has been entertaining, you're still dodging the Rear Window and Strangelove examples. EEng 14:20, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
The point, the way I see it, is this. "bound" (adj) has a literal meaning, "Made fast by a tie, confined; fastened down; bandaged"(OED); "confined to" or "fastened by or as if by a band : confined (Webster's Unabridged) i.e. in the two definitive dictionaries of BrE and AmE respectively. "Wheelchair-bound" does not appear in these dictionaries, but it does in the oldest dictionary of English usage; to be sure, in its fourth edition: Fowler, H. W. (2015), "disability, the language of", in Butterfield, Jeremy (ed.), Fowler's Dictionary of Modern English Usage, Fourth Edition, Oxford University Press, p. 219–220, The language now generally considered suitable to describe and refer to people with different kinds of physical or mental disabilities is very different from what it was only a couple of decades ago. The changes are due partly to the activity of organizations which promote the interests of particular groups with disabilities, and partly to increased public sensitivity to language that might perpetuate stereotypes and prejudices. ... If you want to use appropriate language, you need not only to avoid words which have been or are being superseded, such as mongolism or backward, and which are listed below with their more neutral equivalents. You should also try to: ... 2 avoid usign words such as victim, suffer from, and wheelchair-bound which suggest that the person concerned is the helpless object of the disability. Suitable alternatives to suffer from are have, experience, and be diagnosed with. Instead of talking about victims you can talk about a particular disability; and instead of wheelchair-bound you can say who use(s) a wheelchair
A special exemption is being sought for fictional characters. Many here, and it includes me, are suggesting that there is no exception. Here is an open challenge. Please find one example in which the adjective "wheelchair-bound," unsupplemented, conveys meaning in fiction or literary criticism that the wh-clause "who/which is a wheelchair user" suitably amended does not. Peter Sellar's brand of highly physical slapstick in a wheelchair or Jimmy Stewart's obsessive watchfulnessin a full leg last cast, are hardly the examples that "who uses a wheelchair," does not cover. I'm sure in the eventual guideline we can give a number of examples that add "constantly," "all the time," etc to "who uses a wheelchair." Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:54, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
Firstly, you asked for sources, I provided sources, Wikipedia is source-driven. Secondly, there is no rule, so no exception is being sought. There is no established consensus on this project to avoid "wheelchair-bound" as a descriptor at all. Obviously, no one objects if this is used in BLP articles for subjects who are in real life best described this way, but that does not translate to a rule that it be used universally, even where it is ungainly and disproportionate. BD2412 T 22:22, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
Isn't the whole point of this discussion to find consensus on that, and also whether or not there should be exceptions to such a guideline? ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 23:19, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
@BD2412: Please accept my most heartfelt apology. The thread had become so long that I became tired, and assumed your examples were offered unilaterally to counter something, which they were not. But the examples are good. Perhaps I'll try to create a subpage somewhere (of my user page, maybe) with your examples and more that I or others find and try to figure out the best way forward in terms of paraphrasing. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:23, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

I may regret this... My edit started this but I've since bowed out, because I find this terminology and the way it is being discussed here (comical as that may seem to some) deeply unpleasant. It is effectively my body being discussed. (I could have done without jocular references to me being 'lame'.) I get it - this is how you do things. But it means actual (yes, 'full-time') wheelchair users like me, who might have spent decades discussing this and have something to add, end up silent, while people entirely new to the idea go round and round in basic circles. As Colin, 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ and others have pointed out, many people over many years have already gone far past those circles to reach a consensus, in the style guides referenced and elsewhere. It appears to me that a lot of people are very attached to this term, precisely because its connotations are so unpleasant.

There is a complaint that alternatives like 'full-time wheelchair user' or simple language like 'cannot walk at all' etc are too long and hard when 'wheelchair-bound' is so quick and easy. 'Wheelchair-bound' is easy. Quick, easy, offensive and inaccurate. (And no, seatbelts are not binding.) The idea that any wheelchair user, whether able to walk or not, is 'bound' to their wheelchair causes numerous problems in real life. I am not going to catalogue them here. There are a lot of very, very good reasons this term has been discarded. This is not theoretical for some of us, and I think it's worth saying that this very fact puts us at an enormous disadvantage in this discussion. Persicifolia (talk) 04:01, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Look further back in my post. The AP apparently recommends lame; I was just following suit. EEng 04:25, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
I'm aware of the justification. The remark was "Being lame doesn't excuse bad grammar." [24] Persicifolia (talk) 10:03, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
Your point being what? EEng 11:08, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
The question is then, should the phrase "wheelchair bound" be entirely barred from Wikipedia. GoodDay (talk) 04:18, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
The phrase can be completely accurate with respect to a fictional character, just as "telepathic" or "reality-warping" might be. We describe the Joker as "a psychopath with a warped, sadistic sense of humor", and in Hong Kong Phooey identify the Giggler as a "deranged lunatic". We would not use offensive descriptions like these in connection with a real person, but they are correct in their contexts. BD2412 T 04:31, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
Well, see, you can get away with such stuff because we psychopaths with warped, sadistic senses of humor remain an oppressed minority. But our day will come! (Deranged lunatics, in contrast, have made great strides in public acceptance in recent years – witness the election of Donald Trump.) EEng 04:46, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
I agree with @Persicifolia: I've issued an open challenge: "Please find one example in which the adjective 'wheelchair-bound,' unsupplemented, conveys meaning in fiction or literary criticism that the wh-clause 'who/which uses a wheelchair' suitably amended does not." This is an encyclopedia, not a telegram in which ellipses near the limits of natural language are a must. So again, especially the three editors above wasting time with inanities, please find that example I can't hack. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 10:26, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
Let's start with Whatever Happened to Baby Jane (film), which ...
  • used to recite that Blanche is "wheelchair-bound" [25] ...
  • then was changed to say "Blanche now uses a wheelchair" [26] ...
  • but now says "Blanche's mobility is limited by a wheelchair" [27], as if it's somehow the wheelchair's fault.
Per David Eppstein's cogent dictum above, your phrasing must clearly and directly state that Blanche is unable to leave her wheelchair, not euphemistically avoid that fact. EEng 12:53, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
Looking at that article's own plot section, she clearly was able to leave her wheelchair given that she spends a big portion of the film outside it. (Haven't seen the film itself though.) ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 13:18, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
Um, yes, you clearly have not seen the film. She desperately drags herself down the stairs and calls her doctor for help, then later is lying starved, dehydrated, and near death on a blanket. I'm not sure that counts. [28] EEng 14:32, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
I changed Whatever Happened to Baby Jane (film) to say "Blanche's mobility is limited to a wheelchair".[29] Kolya Butternut (talk) 16:57, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
Sorry, Kolya, but that makes no sense. See my comment in the RfC (below). EEng 06:32, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
@Grapple X, Persicifolia, Masem, Dodger67, and Nikkimaria: Pinging editors who began this discussion. Grapple X, would you like to start the RfC (see the top of this thread) about "wheelchair-bound?" It would be a good first step toward a broader MOS guideline. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:57, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
I've never started an RFC before so give me a little time to read up on the process and I'll put it together. ᵹʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 12:13, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
Fowler&fowler I'd actually prefer that more of this effort goes into improving the already existing style guide at WikiProject Disability. My hope is that it might be brought up to a standard worthy of inclusion in the MOS. Quite a lot of effort has already been put into the project's guide, it's not neccessary to reinvent the wheel when we could rather improve the one we already have. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 12:56, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
Perhaps we should concentrate on reinventing the wheelchair. EEng 13:00, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
Ultimately, yes, that would be the ideal goal, but as you can see there's a lot of teeth-gnashing over even incremental changes—I don't think the extant guide is faulty, it's just very easy to be rejected in toto because one person resists one aspect, another queries another aspect, etc. ᵹʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 13:08, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
I don't disagree Dodger67. I do think though that a foot in the door is needed in MOS, and "wheelchair-bound" might be the one. A broader proposal all at once, without precedence in MOS, might be much harder to push through as Grapple X above says. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:50, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
@Fowler&fowler: well I tried taking on your challenge and searched through a bunch of articles in Category:Disability in fiction, but to my own surprise I was not able to find any example where "wheelchair-bound" would be better than "wheelchair user". The article En équilibre currently uses "wheelchair-bound", but looking at the film's trailer[3] he's clearly not exclusively in his wheelchair. I also found he laughable plot section of Kiss of Death (1947 film), which talks about Mrs. Rizzo as "the criminal's wheelchair-bound mother", which is followed only two sentences later by "Udo binds Mrs. Rizzo to her wheelchair with an electrical cord and pushes her down a flight of stairs, killing her." So yes, she was actually wheelchair-bound, but not before her murder. ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 13:08, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
Note: Udo and Mrs. Rizzo can be seen at 43:20 here. Doremo (talk) 14:30, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
See also Red Dragon (2002 film): An enraged Dolarhyde kidnaps Lounds, glues him to an antique wheelchair ... Now that's wheelchair-bound. EEng 14:32, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
Thanks, that forced me to go watch Red Dragon (reasonably worth watching) which in turn led to Hannibal Rising (definitely not). —valereee (talk) 22:40, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
@Jochem van Hees: Yes. "Wheelchair-bound" is a more restrictive term than "wheelchair user." People who use wheelchairs use them in a range (of adverbs): occasionally, intermittently, habitually, constantly, uninterruptedly, ... "Wheelchair user," being more general, allows us to achieve greater precision by choosing our adverbs wisely. In other words, it is not just a non-ableist term, a term that does not perpetuate stereotypes and prejudices, it is can also more precise with supplementation because it is unencumbered. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:11, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ OK, maybe not always. But at least sometimes.
  2. ^ "For a While, Stephen Hawking Leaves Gravity Behind", interview with Melissa Block, NPR, April 26, 2007
  3. ^ Video on YouTube

"Chair" v "chairwoman"

Latest comment: 2 years ago101 comments28 people in discussion
The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
This interesting discussion concerns the language we use for the person who chairs a committee or panel. Options are "chairman/chairwoman", "chairperson", or "chair". As usual on Wikipedia, we have rules to help us decide: in this case, MOS:GNL, which enjoins us to avoid needlessly gendered language, and MOS:VAR, which applies where there are two equally valid language choices and enjoins us not to make needless changes to the original author's phrasing.
This discussion contains a lot of useful thought which is applicable to other MOS-related questions, and the posting at WP:CR asking for it to be closed says: Should have a close to tie it up in a digestible summary that can be used as precedent if the question comes up in the future. Accordingly, I will try to extract the thoughts and principles from this discussion as well as explaining the outcome.
At first glance, GNL might appear to be the controlling guideline, because VAR only applies where the MOS gives "no specific guidance", and the MOS does give us specific guidance. The community explores this below, and, with some editors dissenting, we broadly don't think that way. This gives us principle #1: WP:GNL does not apply to biographical articles on unambiguously cisgender people. So for example, we wouldn't go through our article on a woman changing "she" to "they".
Editors also discuss metonymy, which is the shorthand often used by journalists when a decision is said to come from the Kremlin, or an event is said to cause panic on Wall Street; roads don't have feelings, and buildings don't make decisions. Neither does furniture, and so some editors wish to disbar us from using the word "chair" in place of "chairman/woman/person". This view does not attain consensus, which gives us principle #2: Metonymy is permissible where it couldn't confuse the reader. Journalists like metonymy because it's succinct, which is an important consideration for encyclopaedia writers too.
The context of this discussion is an editor who was going through changing "chair" or "chairperson" to "chairwoman". These changes were well-intentioned and in accordance with principle #1 established above, but nevertheless, editors broadly disapprove. This gives us principle #3: In biographical articles, MOS:VAR takes precedence over MOS:GNL. This means that in an article about a woman who plays characters on TV for a living, you shouldn't change "actor" to "actress" or vice versa.
I do hope this helps. Commentary or criticism of this close should be directed to my talk page in the first instance.—S Marshall T/C 11:48, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Jaguar has recently been automating changes of "chair" or "chairperson", used as a generic expression for the head of some board or panel, to "chairwoman" (see eg Special:Diff/1050107578, Special:Diff/1050107675). When I raised this on their talk, they pointed to a portion of Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Gender identity discussing gendered references on Caitlyn Jenner that, to my mind, is relevant only where there is a potential difference between a person's gender identity at present and their identity in the past. In my view, MOS:GNL is clear: we ought to use gender-neutral language ("chair" or "chairperson") where it is possible and clear – as it would be, in my view, in virtually every instance where we are discussing someone "chairing" an organization, board, panel, etc. I am bringing this here because it likely has broader applicability beyond my concern regarding Juanita Maxwell Phillips (the article where I first noticed Jaguar's alterations), and to get a wider sampling of opinion. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 23:16, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

I would agree that GNL points towards simply using "chair" (or "chairperson") in these cases. It's a readily understood term that loses no meaning versus "chairman" or "chairwoman" and so we shouldn't be introducing needlessly gendered language. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 23:29, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
Those diffs are in the context of one gender contexts hence it is fine. Those two subjects were women. Though if you are talking about the position in general (in which one gender contexts no longer apply, i.e. The Chair/Chairperson's (probably used as opposed to chairman/chairwoman) responsibilties include [...]) that is were it would likely no longer be appropriate.  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 23:49, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
Even if they're fine in a vacuum in these instances, changing a valid (and preferable) usage like that also contravenes WP:STYLEVAR. I could see the justification for doing it the other way around, to fall more in line with GNL, but moving from adherence to MOS to a permissible exception just for stylistic preference is a bad idea. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 23:56, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
I do not why chairperson/chair would be preferable to chairman/chairwoman in these instances. If anything chairman/chairwoman is preferable to chairperson/chair in these instances because it is specific to the context (unlike the other way which is overly broad for no reason). "to fall more in line with GNL" but GNL does not apply here it is a single gender context. By that logic we would have to 'to fall more in line with GNL' by replacing actress en masse to actor.  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 00:48, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
How could the gender-neutral term be overly broad? All versions of the term—chair, chairperson, chairman, and chairwoman—refer to precisely the same role. If gender is clear in context, as it is in the vast majority of cases, there's no reason to depart from gender-neutral language because there's no extra meaning to be gained from using the gendered term. (As, IMO, is the case with "actor" as well.) AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 00:52, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
we would have to 'to fall more in line with GNL' by replacing actress en masse to actor--Which I've been in favour of doing every time it comes up, and which I tend to do when writing articles myself. This isn't a bad thing. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 00:54, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
Yes it is a bad thing because that is not what GNL says at all.  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 22:14, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
Use any of them, but be consistent within each individual bio. GoodDay (talk) 23:58, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
Jaguar's actions should stop. Tony (talk) 00:18, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
Why? ♦ jaguar 00:26, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
WP:STYLEVAR, for one; this isn't a constructive change so much as switching one preference for another. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 00:45, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
Jaguar, why do you want to change uses of chair to chairwoman? In OP's first diff, you changed away from gender-neutral language in a sentence that started "On Council, she served on the committees for Maternity and Child Welfare (of which she was chair as of 1941)". What benefit does "chairwoman" provide in that context? Firefangledfeathers (talk) 05:49, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Topic related: FWIW, this gender neutral pushing on the 'pedia, gets annoying at times. Actor/actress, Chairman/chairwoman, are acceptable. GoodDay (talk) 00:56, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

It's the manual of style. Enforcing it is "pushing" as much as enforcing something MOS:DECADE or MOS:BADDATE is. It's not helpful or constructive to frame it otherwise. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 01:00, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
Grapple X, as you can plainly see, there is not even close to being widespread agreement on whether or not the MOS actually says what some of you say it does. If it were that cut and dried, this debate wouldn't be happening. You may certainly hold the opinion that all the editors who interpret the guideline differently than yourself are wrong, but that doesn't mean it's okay to claim agreement exists when it actually doesn't. Furthermore, the difference is that this guideline is not rooted in pragmatics, but in some kind of pseudo-activism (pseudo because nobody actually knows what the actual goal is supposed to be. We are all aware of English WP's enormous gender gap. Purging enWP of all traces of gender would be an effective way to preserve systemic prejudice by making it invisible. 2600:1702:4960:1DE0:A069:2944:4900:B67E (talk) 02:07, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
Sorry, what part of Edit-warring over style, or enforcing optional style in a bot-like fashion without prior consensus, is never acceptable, When either of two styles are acceptable it is inappropriate for a Wikipedia editor to change from one style to another unless there is some substantial reason for the change or As with all optional styles, articles should not be changed from one style to another unless there is a substantial reason to do so are unclear or being misinterpreted here? 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 02:10, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

I'd be more enthusiastic to support this if the editor were changing all instances of chairman to chairwoman. (Surely chairwoman is understood to include people of any gender.) But if they're only applying the term to women chairpeople it ought to stop. pburka (talk) 04:19, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

I think only STYLEVAR applies here. I would oppose mass removals of "chairwoman", "chairman", "actress", and so on regarding specific people with a known gender. Crossroads -talk- 06:00, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

I was going to give a more detailed response last night but it was half one in the morning and fatigue got the better of me. My one word response to Tony wasn't meant to be brazen, but rather I wanted to know why my changes were cause for a dramatic alarm. Firstly I don't understand why my changes last night invited this discussion. As you all know, chairman/chairwoman is the proper vernacular, as is actor/actress, postman/postwoman. While I do share GoodDay's slight grievance of referring to a person as a metonymic chair (I have been a victim of this in real life), Wikipedia ultimately needs to conform to using encyclopaedic language and not concede to the twin dynamics of oversaturated gender-neutralism and laziness. I don't see how MOS:VAR applies since they are the proper terms to describe people's roles. Lucilita Bhreatnach is a woman, so her role bestows her the title of chairwoman. It's simple. The only instance of where the use of 'chairpersons' would apply is if it was describing a mixed group of men and women, which didn't come up during my edits last night. Is there a place where we can propose to set this in stone in the MOS (assuming it isn't already)? ♦ jaguar 19:14, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

As a global statement that isn’t correct - perhaps you are arguing from a single country perspective? In the UK, the House of Commons Select Committees have ‘chairs’ most local councils have ‘chairs’, as do many companies. For sure, chairman or chairwoman (more commonly the former) are still terms in use, but they are now minority usage, and certainly not the “proper vernacular” as you claim. Similarly “postmen” has long ago been replaced by “postie” or “delivery officer” in official Royal Mail usage, and actor is commonly used for both males and females - this latter is also common in US media coverage. MapReader (talk) 19:26, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
They are certainly not minority usage. Threre are far more instances of 'chairman' to 'chair', with the latter being a recent and inaccurate deviation among some articles. 'Postie' is slang and wholly unencyclopaedic - in fact I very rarely hear it. By your admission shall we change all instances of postmen on Wikipedia to posties? Quell anything conventionally descriptive in favour of these? I am arguing from the perspective of the English language and what it is. ♦ jaguar 19:33, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
Jaguar, this is 2021, not 1921. There is no justification whatsover for your edits, which flatly contradict our manual of style. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:38, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
Gaveling person? Blueboar (talk) 19:42, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
So gendered nouns aren't advocated in the manual of style? LMAO. I'd hardly say chairman is archaic. ♦ jaguar 19:45, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
Jaguar, you got to know it’s outdated, especially chairwoman. See for examaple Collins Dictionary. At best it’s just ‘controversial’ (see the citations in our Chairperson article where, incidentally, Chairman is a redirect to it). DeCausa (talk) 19:47, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
I don't see how MOS:VAR applies—It applies because you have taken articles where one valid, MOS-compliant usage is already in place, and with no unequivocal gain, changed it to another stylistic preference. The edit isn't fixing something broken, it isn't correcting a mistake or anything of the sort, it's moving from one established usage to your personal preference, which is the absolute textbook basis of MOS:VAR. It doesn't matter if you, or anyone else, believes your preference is valid, MOS:VAR doesn't care about validity—just like switching citation styles or date formatting could easily be done to a "valid" style but is still discouraged. As the saying goes, if it ain't broke don't fix it. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 19:45, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
As I said my changes weren't one bourne out of personal preference. I see that Orangemike has now reverted all my edits, despite chairman remaining the abundant identifier on Wikipedia. Shall we begin the mass purge of chairmen to just chairs then? I had no idea referring to a woman as a chairwoman was so controversial among Wikipedians. ♦ jaguar 20:03, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
Jason Bourne? EEng 20:21, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
"Bourne/bourn"; a destination, goal, or aspiration. And yes I regret saying it now. ♦ jaguar 20:24, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
I fail to see how it's anything but personal preference, when the prior versions were all perfectly valid and clear. Do you mean to tell me your edits were somehow counter to your preferences, that you liked it better before you edited it? 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 20:14, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
I would suggest that we take this to a wider discussion, but from what I've seen in this disintegrating discussion I'm afraid that these editors would end up advocating the removal of all 'sexist' gendered nouns. ♦ jaguar 20:37, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

If it comes down to chair vs chairperson, because folks want to go the gender-neutral route? Can we please use the latter? People are humans, not chairs. GoodDay (talk) 20:06, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Changing well established mainstream gender neutral terminology to gendered terms (which are deprecated by a variety of style guides) is, to put it plainly, sexist. This is 2021 not 1921. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 20:07, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
Sexist? Not seeing it. GoodDay (talk) 20:10, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
These people are utterly delusional, GoodDay. I wish I never engaged with this. ♦ jaguar 20:12, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
It's just a topic, that is formed by the # of editors involved. If enough editors push that 'red' is 'blue'? then 'red' is 'blue'. GoodDay (talk) 20:14, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
No need for personal attacks, just because this 'ye olde' English language argument that has been put forward is seen as risible by others, and by others as sexist, and your edits prohibited by the MOS. English changes, and it always has. Style guides change and always have. And GoodDay's response makes little sense, editors here, certainly did not make the multiple dictionary uses of 'chair' appear out of the blue. [30] -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:39, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
It is not 'ye olde' English when it remains common usage. This was not the original point of the discussion anyway. By the way the definition of chair that you linked is indeed the correct one, but when referring to the roles of people the gendered 'chairman' is prevalent and indeed desirable. I can't believe I have to say this. Thinking that nouns describing someone's gender is sexist is delusional. It is clear that people here are arguing for the sake of arguing, and nothing I stated initially has had any effect. ♦ jaguar 20:45, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
You have been shown multiple sections of the manual of style which disagree with your edits. Please explain how abiding by existing policy is "arguing for the sake of arguing". 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 20:48, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
"Desirable", you say. So, not actually about anyone else's "delusion", at all, it's just about what you desire. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:11, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
I was mainly referring to Dodger67's above comment of gendered terms being sexist as delusional, which it is. ♦ jaguar 21:14, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
I agree, gendered terms are not sexist. Masterhatch (talk) 21:24, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
It appears you have misstated his or her argument, Dodger was noting that the English world has chosen to create and accept in formal writing gender neutral terms, so insisting that we not use such gender neutral terms, in fact going around in censorious dudgeon replacing them is by logic, sexist (social roles based on sex). Dodger may be right, or may be wrong, but there is no delusion in it. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:30, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
It can also be considered censorship, preventing usage of gender terminology. What the world does is irrelevant. What's relevant is what Wikipedians decide among themselves. GoodDay (talk) 21:37, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
Asking editors to retain existing uses of gender neutral language is censorship? That's a stretch. pburka (talk) 21:45, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
Wikipedia editors have already decided on MOS:GNL. If you feel censored by it, there are many other places in the world for you to write. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:53, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
Though I disagree with MOS:GNL's current status. I've no plans to attempt to change it. PS: I'm not planning on writing anywhere else. GoodDay (talk) 21:56, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
Asking editors to not use gender terminology (actor/actress, policeman/policewoman; etc) can be considered censorship. Again, Wikipedia isn't the real world, but rather a cyber world. Therefore, the community decides what usage to go with, amongst itself. GoodDay (talk) 21:49, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
That's not what's happening here. This editor has been replacing existing uses of chair and chairperson with chairwoman. It's a simple matter of MOS:RETAIN. Nobody's trampling on your right to continue to use outdated gendered language. pburka (talk) 21:54, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
Missing the point again... ♦ jaguar 21:56, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Is it censorship to ask users not to use apostrophes in plurals, or not to use contractions in running prose, or to avoid the passive voice, or not to use curly quotation marks? These are all MOS concerns just as much as GNL but I don't see anyone clinging to the idea that they're censorious, and I wonder why... 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 21:58, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
Wikipedians don't have rights, only privileges. GoodDay (talk) 22:00, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

If required? Change the MoS to prefer the usage of chairman/chairwoman, over chairperson/chair. GoodDay (talk) 20:52, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Chair / Chairman / Chairwoman / Chairperson are all acceptable in Wikipedia and I totally disagree changing any one to any other one without just cause. MOS:VAR applies here. If chairman was used first, it stays. Don't change it to Chairperson. If chairwoman was used first, leave it. No need to change. Look at the original usage in the article per VAR and use that (with certain exceptions, of course). There are a lot of parts of the MOS I totally disagree with but one of the best that I support whole-heartedly is retaining existing styles as it can really help solve edit wars over style. Masterhatch (talk) 21:22, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

The opposite of this has been happening here; "chair" was the existing version which was later changed, I agree that VAR is the principle we should be sticking to here but you seem to have the direction of the conversation in reverse. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 21:26, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
I wasn't arguing in support of any one side. I was arguing in support of VAR. I don't care which word is used, but to end a squabble, I love VAR. I know Jaguar was changing chair to chairwoman and he was wrong to do that since chair was used first. Masterhatch (talk) 21:30, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Non-arbitrary break

This somewhat vituperative discussion seems to have established or confirmed two things:

  1. MOS:VAR definitely favours leaving ungendered language as-is. (And so, I would suggest, a fortiori, favours not automating changes from ungendered to gendered language.)
  2. MOS:GNL probably favours using "chair"/"chairperson" over "chairman"/"chairwoman".

Can we agree on this? AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 22:47, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

  • Agree. pburka (talk) 23:28, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
  • I basically agree with the conclusion of 1, but would go further in opposing indiscriminate mass changes in either direction (gender-neutral to gendered, or gendered to gender-neutral). Not so sure about 2. Per Spy-cicle, I think it's unclear to what degree GNL is intended to apply to scenarios where we're referring to a definite subject of known gender. Furthermore, GNL says to prefer gender-neutral language "where this can be done with clarity and precision". But there are some cases where substituting a gender-neutral equivalent for one of a pair of gendered terms makes the text less natural or readable. e.g. I think we'd all agree that globally replacing fiancé/fiancée with "person engaged to be married" would be execrable - there's just no succinct gender-neutral hypernym. Heck, even though mother/father have a gender-neutral equivalent that's a common word (parent), doing a mass replacement would still result in a lot of unnatural sentences. Leave it as an editorial/stylistic choice to be made on a case-by-case basis. Colin M (talk) 14:11, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
    Surely there ought to be some regard to the actual usage by the organisation or position being described? For example Select committee (United Kingdom) - and all the subsidiary or related articles dealing with specific committees or particular individuals - refer to “chairs” because that is the term used in Parliament. If we came across one that didn’t, it would be correct to amend it, so that WP follows the RS, and I wouldn’t expect such an edit to be opposed on grounds of Var or Retain? Similarly Chairman of the Conservative Party uses chairman pending that party’s arrival in the 21st century. MapReader (talk) 21:37, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
    Yes, I think that matters. Sometimes either option is fine and it's just a stylistic choice, but sometimes the context will clearly favour one over the other. Colin M (talk) 23:45, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Disagree with point 2 as I have already explained above. Context matters.  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 08:49, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
  • How about this way. If the topic of the bio article identifies as male? we use chairman. If topic identifies as female? we use chairwoman. If the topic identifies as neither? we use chairperson. GoodDay (talk) 14:03, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
    • It's never wrong to use non-gendered language. MOS:GNL doesn't require use of gender-neutral language for individuals, but doesn't forbid it, either. pburka (talk) 14:38, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
    • I strongly oppose amending the MOS to require the use of gendered language in any circumstances. I also disagree that it's "more accurate" to use gendered language. "Chair" and "chairwoman" are perfect synonyms; neither is more accurate than the other. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 14:47, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
  • For a given article, if editors disagree as to whether a gendered or non-gendered term should be used, I think that it should be determined by what is used by the reliable sources of the article, if one way is consistently used in a substantial majority of independent, reliable sources for the article. Bob K31416 (talk) 15:15, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
    • This proposed policy would, in many cases, require us to use archaic language for older topics. Should we use "poetess", "lady doctor" or "Jewess" if we're relying on 19th-century sources for a biography? pburka (talk) 15:31, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
      • A real example: Annie Rothwell was the "supreme artist" of "Canadian martial poetesses". "Poetess", sans quotation marks, is simply not encyclopedic language in contemporary English. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 15:46, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
        • pburka, AleatoryPonderings, Please note the condition, "if one way is consistently used in a substantial majority of independent, reliable sources for the article."

          Pburka, You didn't give an example of an actual Wikipedia article. All it takes is one valid example from you that satisfies the above condition, and you will have proven your point.

          AleatoryPonderings, You showed one source in the article Annie Rothwell with "poetess". Do any other sources in that article use "poetess"? I started looking through the sources and the second one [31] used "poet". So far, not a substantial majority. Bob K31416 (talk) 22:54, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
          • My example was purely for illustrative purposes. The fact that it is conceivable that many sources could refer to a person by language we no longer consider acceptable is enough to cast doubt on your policy proposal. In any event, I take it you have the burden to explain why MOS:GNL should be amended to prefer gendered language when sources appear to prefer gendered language; we don't have the burden to explain why the default rule (GNL) should be retained. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 23:05, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
            • What I suggested is at the basic foundation of Wikipedia, follow the sources. Bob K31416 (talk) 05:28, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
              Reliable sources tell us what to say, but not how to say it. The analogous version for matters of style would be commonly-used style guides, many (most?) of which recommend the use of gender-neutral language. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 05:43, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
              I would agree with basing MOS on the major style guides: Chicago, AP, MLA, APA. Unfortunately, they're behind paywalls. If you say that most prefer "chair"/"chairperson" over "chairman"/"chairwoman", I'd accept that if I don't check for myself. However, if they don't indicate a preference in some way, then the sources should be followed. Bob K31416 (talk) 06:31, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
              Chicago and AP for sure, with Chicago recommending 'chair' and AP either 'chair' or 'chairperson'. For AP, it's their very first example of easily-usable gender-neutral terms. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 06:45, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
              "chair; chairman; chairwoman; chairperson. Chair is widely regarded as the best gender-neutral choice. Since the mid-seventeenth century, chair has referred to an office of authority." (Chicago, section 5.250) AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 13:55, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
              Thanks both of you. But just to clarify what you found, did the manuals say that those gnl's were preferred over non-gnl's, or were they preferred if one wanted to use gnl? Bob K31416 (talk) 17:27, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
              Not super clear from section 5.250. Section 5.257 is less equivocal: "The trend in American English is toward eliminating sex-specific suffixes. Words with feminine suffixes such as -ess and -ette are easily replaced with the suffix-free forms, which are increasingly accepted as applying to both men and women. For example, author and testator are preferable to authoress and testatrix. Compounds with -man are more problematic. The word person rarely functions well in such a compound; chairperson and anchorperson sound more pompous and wooden than the simpler (and correct) chair or anchor. Unless a word is established (such as salesperson, which dates from 1901), don’t automatically substitute -person for -man. English has many alternatives that are not necessarily newly coined, including police officer (first recorded in 1797), firefighter (1903), and mail carrier (1788)" [bold added]. I don't have access to the AP Stylebook. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 17:43, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Agree, with a caveat on point 2. Point 1 is, in my view, unambiguously supported by current guidance. It's worth bringing up again that Jaguar should self-revert their changes, many of which are only still current because of edit warring. For point 2, I think it's clear GNL support chair/chairperson unless "clarity and precision" demand otherwise; I could see this happening in a number of places. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 02:20, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
    I haven't seen any response from Jaguar to my or others' requests to self-revert their changes. I went ahead and reverted the ones that were still current. I did not see any that were apparently required by clarity or precision, but I am happy to see local discussion commence if any of them have good reason to be 'chairman' or 'chairwoman'. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 14:48, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Agree The first is certainly correct. And the second is certainly correct as a general statement. MOS:GNL says "use gender neutral", and while there are exceptions, exceptions can't be construed to swallow the rule. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:13, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
Adding, discussion about other words is off-topic, and may even be a diversion. It's simple, here, to apply to, well established, well recognized words "chair", "chairperson", which are the topic of this discussion. And no, there is no broad category of assumed articles, where chair or chairperson won't do, as Jayron demonstrates (below), and the idea that we should use gendered terms for "chair" when a person's sex (meaning almost all articles of people) is known, is preposterous swallowing the rule, because chair and chairperson, are English words that are designed to be, and are to be used when the person's sex is known. Finally, in main, we don't copy sources, nor do we plagiarize them: we describe their content in our own words (as, among other things, that's the only way to freely license our articles) So, for example, given a source that says "chairwoman", in our article that says "chair", is nothing but a faithful following of the source in our own words. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:17, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Disagree. GNL isn't "genderlessness good". MOS:GNL is quite clear in stating, This does not apply to...wording about one-gender contexts. So, for specific people of a known, single gender, there is no basis in guidelines to prefer "chairperson" or any other equivalent. Indeed, clarity and precision would seem to favor using the appropriate gendered term rather than a linguistically unnatural neutral one - for example, we would say that Jane Doe is the mother of her child rather than the "parent". Perhaps in some contexts, a word like "chair" is much more common than "chairwoman", so it would be fine to use then. But overzealousness to de-gender terminology in contexts where, regarding specific individuals, it is usually gendered, is against GNL. Crossroads -talk- 05:32, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
  • One of the conclusions of this discussion, IMO, is that "chair" is generally preferred (by style guides and WP editors) to its gendered equivalents. We are not talking about changing "mother" to "parent"; we're talking about changing "chairwoman" or "chairman" to "chair". So if we read MOS:GNL to say that we should use gendered language when it's generally used or preferred, and ungendered language when it's generally used or preferred, we'd conclude that "chair" is better. Moreover, it strikes me as implausible to read a guideline directing editors to use ungendered language as a general rule, when it can be done (as you note) with clarity and precision, as instead a guideline that tells editors to use whatever kind of language they would ordinarily use according to prevailing usage and opinion. Under that reading, MOS:GNL makes no change to the status quo: it just says you should use whatever language, gendered or not, you would ordinarily use. But why would we have a guideline that directs editors to … do what they would do anyway? As Alanscottwalker notes, "exceptions can't be construed to swallow the rule". If MOS:GNL says anything, it must say that the presumption is in favour of gender-neutral language, and exceptions are genuinely exceptions. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 14:30, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Agree 1 and 2. MOS:GNL says Use gender-neutral language...where this can be done with clarity and precision. Vanishingly close to 100% of the time, context from the rest of the article determines gender in such a way that there's no need to use gender-specific versions of things like job titles. "He was the chair of the organization" or "She was a flight attendant on the aircraft" are perfectly precise and clear as to job title and gender, and avoids using gendered titles such as "chairman" or "stewardess". I can't think of a single time when using a gendered term is needed (except for things like direct quotes, or perhaps a few sui generis IAR type situations I would allow for). There simply isn't any need to use unnecessarily gendered language, it imparts no extra meaning to the article. --Jayron32 16:06, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment - Use chairman, chairwoman or chairperson. But don't use chair. GoodDay (talk) 16:38, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
    As noted several times above, widely used and reliable style guides recommend for "chair" and against "chairperson". --Jayron32 16:45, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
  • While I HATE the practice of referring to someone as a piece of furniture, it is what most modern style guides call for. Blueboar (talk) 17:00, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
    Well said. Clearly WP must follow the published style guidelines from reliable sources, rather than the views of any individual editors who aren’t fully up with the times. MapReader (talk) 17:23, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
As the current edition of Fowler's says, "chair was already in use to mean 'the authority invested in a chairman'", so it's not a great shift from the authority to the role or position and the person in that role/position (cf crown for the authority or office of the monarch, see for that of a bishop). Fowler's also notes that chair came into use to replace chairman and chairwoman c.1976, and concludes "It is now de rigueur in all varieties of English to use this in preference to any term marked for gender." NebY (talk) 17:28, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
Reference is to p 133 of Fowler's Dictionary of Modern English Usage, ISBN 9780191064944. For some reason, the "concise" edition is more circumspect ([32]). AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 17:47, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
Publication of the Concise Edition is clearly lagging! That's in its third edition and that section at least is adapted from the 1996 third edition or the 1998 revised third edition of the full Modern English Usage. The 4th full edition, the current one I quoted, was published in 2015. NebY (talk) 18:13, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Agree.
    1. Automatically changing gender neutral language to appropriate gendered language might be a good idea if it was 100% accurate, but since that is unachievable it is a bad idea.
    2. I consider chairperson an abomination, but the usage chair is reasonable and is a long established usage. I see no problem using chair even when the gender is known from context. --Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 18:24, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Strong agree with both those points. And if people have been going around changing perfectly acceptable standard gender-neutral terminology, as prescribed by this and other reputable manuals of style, purely because they don't like it (and will invent pedantic distinctions that have no basis in reality, like niggling over exactly what a "single-sex context" means, to justify it) then that is a disruptive nonsense which needs to stop immediately. Tendentious editing against the global consensus on WP style, as expressed in our MOS, is tedious and timewasting for the whole community. Look at the number of people who've been drawn into this wall of text, ultimately because some people struggle to accept that WP tends to be skeptical of efforts to fix what's not broken. Suggest the instigators of this acknowledge that the equine has expired. Archon 2488 (talk) 12:47, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Agree. Changing "chairwoman" to "chair" en masse could be debatable. Doing the opposite is absolutely unjustified, and if it continues, grounds for sanctions. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 22:52, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Agree - just seeing this now because of the discussion below, but I agree with Sdkb and the others above. Levivich 02:19, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Disagree - Nothing wrong with using chairman, chairwoman or chairperson. Better then using furniture. GoodDay (talk) 03:15, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Archive_223&oldid=1255212871"