Wikipedia

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 226

< Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style
Latest comment: 1 year ago by SMcCandlish in topic Short description for Marshfield station
Archive 220←Archive 224Archive 225Archive 226Archive 227Archive 228

MOS:ERA: dispute over what "established era style" means

Latest comment: 2 years ago205 comments43 people in discussion

Hi all, I know that this has been a perennial source of discussion, most recently here.

An editor (courtesy pinging Ficaia) changed CE/BCE style at Josephus to AD/BC style a couple months ago on the grounds that the original change was never discussed on the talk page. In this talk page thread, I pointed out that the CE/BCE style has been relatively stable since 2015, but the editor has continued to edit war over it periodically, insisting that the language of MOS:ERA referring to an article's established era style refers to the era style used when the article was created, and that even a 6+ year status quo does not imply consensus.

Perhaps there should be some refinement to the language to make clear whether it is me or the other editor who is mistaken here? It seems that we both believe our interpretations of the guideline to be obvious. Generalrelative (talk) 23:15, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

The wording of MOS:ERA seems very clear to me: no change without consensus at talk. Ficaia (talk) 23:33, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
Right, but you have insisted on changing the style back to the way it was in 2015 without consensus on talk. To my mind, it seems obvious that this change is a violation of the guideline's language about established era style. Since you appear to think otherwise, I am requesting additional clarification. Both here and on the article talk page, I linked to a previous discussion a few years ago in which several editors made clear that they considered changes such as you insist upon to be contrary to the guideline, and your response was to say that this discussion is not policy.[1] No, it is not policy, but it is guidance, which we should respect. I have posted here in the hopes of gaining additional guidance, hopefully specifically targeted at resolving our dispute. Generalrelative (talk) 23:43, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
You seem to have a problem with the actual wording of MOS:ERA. So do several editors in that discussion: one even boasts about switching the dating style in articles and just hoping he doesn't get reverted, which is a violation of the policy as written. Ficaia (talk) 00:12, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
I do not. My argument is that a 6+ year status quo fits the common-sense definition of "established".Generalrelative (talk) 00:27, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
I would take 6 years of status quo to be implied consensus. If somebody objected to the change then it would have been raised long ago. This is in spite my personal preference for AD/BC.  Stepho  talk  00:06, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
WP:MOS says nothing about "implied consensus". It says an editor should seek consensus on the talk page before changing the style. Also, if you look at the article history in question, you'll see that the dating style has been changed back multiple times since 2015 and in each case was swiftly reverted. Ficaia (talk) 00:12, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
Stepho-wrs didn't invoke WP:MOS. "Implied consensus" is a longstanding tradition on Wikipedia. See WP:IMPLICITCONSENSUS : "An edit has presumed consensus unless it is disputed or reverted." and generally, the longer it is not disputed or reverted, the stronger the consensus is perceived. Like Stepho-wrs, I also am an advocate of AD/BC. I am always on the lookout for a reason to convert the "oh noes, we can't refer to Jesus!" way back to the traditional way, and have done it dozens of times, but I agree with them in that 6 years makes it firmly the consensus version in this case, unfortunately. Le Marteau (talk) 00:34, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
I don't see how an edit can ever have implied consensus if it was made by explicitly breaking a tenet of the MoS. It's like arguing: "yeah, the edit was wrong, but it's been here for a long time so we'll just let it stand." If that's the case, the instruction in MOS:ERA to seek consensus in talk before making any change is only really a "suggestion", because you can just go ahead and change the style and if no one reverts you, then your edit sticks. Ficaia (talk) 00:44, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
WP:MOS is a guideline, and some flexibility is allowed. It says as much on the banner at the top: This guideline is a part of the English Wikipedia's Manual of Style. It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply. I'm applying my "common sense" here. Le Marteau (talk) 00:58, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
Agreed that the change 6 years ago should not have happened as it did. However, people had the chance to revert it or query it at the time. That didn't happen, therefore there was implied consensus - or at least no-one cared enough to challenge it. The point of MOS:ERA, WP:DATERETAIN and similar is to avoid flip-flopping due to opinions and local customs. If we have to troll through every edit since 2002 and the corresponding talk page comments to find what is legal or not legal then we are expending a lot of energy for very little or no gain. The community seems happy with the status quo. Which means you have to provide a reason to move from the established consensus.  Stepho  talk  01:03, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
If the article has been in one style since 2015, that is where it should stay. The point of WP:ERA is to avoid disputes over two valid style options. That end is not served by delving into decades-old edits to justify a change to the status quo.--Trystan (talk) 00:23, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
Good point. Intent matters. It was enacted to prevent Wikilawyering, not to be used as a basis to Wikilawyer. Le Marteau (talk) 01:42, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
Okay, you folks seem to disagree with me, so I'll drop it at Josephus. More generally, I'd be interested how long roughly you think such a change should have to stand in an article to have assumed consensus. Would I be right to revert within 1, 2, 3 years? Ficaia (talk) 01:54, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
It's going to matter how active the page is. For an obscure article with only a dozen page watchers, my dividing line would be over a year. But the Josephus article has over 500 page watchers, and is very active. In a case like that, my dividing line would be in the area of maybe half a year, maybe less. I'm sure others will have wildly different dividing lines, which is why we use consensus, but that's about where mine are.Le Marteau (talk) 02:14, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
Putting a one-year timeline on this effectively makes the instructions in MOS:ERA meaningless imo. Why bother having a discussion at talk at all when you can just change the style and hope no one notices... Ficaia (talk) 02:21, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
The instruction on MOS:ERA are in no way "meaningless"... I have invoked them many times to revert to AD (and even to CE... I apply it fairly as any search of my edits will show). I have never seen a case like this happen in my almost twenty years here. This is an outlying case and an exception... guidelines are guidelines and not policy because they allow for exceptions. Peace out. Le Marteau (talk) 02:27, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
Tumulus is another example. The dating style was changed gradually 2-3 years ago without any talk page discussion. I think this is more common than you think, as evidenced by the discussion linked by Generalrelative in which one editor openly admits to changing articles in this way. Ficaia (talk) 03:13, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
If you want to make a case out of Tumulus, be my guest. Le Marteau (talk) 03:26, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
You are probably seeing a lot more of this than I am, because you seem to work on articles involving topics where the distinction between AD and BC needs to be specified. I have no topic I concentrate on here other than general Wikignoming and helping out whenever I think someone is getting screwed, so I only stumble upon such articles. Le Marteau (talk) 03:30, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Repeating my arguments at the older discussion linked, I think 6 years (now less than a third of the lifetime of an older article) is too short - a year is certainly waay too short. Ficaia's "Putting a one-year timeline on this effectively makes the instructions in MOS:ERA meaningless imo. Why bother having a discussion at talk at all when you can just change the style and hope no one notices..." is correct. If someone feels strongly about the matter, the policy is clear - they should start a talk page discussion. On obscure pages they only have to hope one or two people seeing the matter the same way as they do will turn up & then the new style is unchallengable, short of opening another discussion. I also agree this is very common; annoyingly changers to "CE" often use an edit summary including "correct", despite the fact that vast numbers of our readers don't even understand "CE". Johnbod (talk) 03:54, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
    When I encounter a CE or some such, I don't know how it got there, and I don't actually care unless it comes to my attention through someone changing it and I see it in recent changes, or when someone complains. I am guessing both you and Ficaia proactively look into how it came to be in the article which is something I have never done, which would account for our differing experiences with its ocurrence. Le Marteau (talk) 04:03, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
    God, no, I only look at them when they come up on my watchlist, which is 33k+ & history-heavy, & where I see an ERA change perhaps every 2 days. Or if I notice split usage reading an article. Changes to CE, rather than to BC, are far more common in my experience, & I've no doubt there are masses of illicit ones hidden in the histories. I never look at recent changes at all. Johnbod (talk) 04:11, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
    Alright, time for me to retire the Sherlock Holmes routine and call it night. I never look at recent changes at all. I do, all the time. For whatever reason, I don't see conflicts such as Ficaia's here often at all, you see it all the time. I'm going to leave further exposition of the issue to those who perceive it as a problem, i.e. not me. Le Marteau (talk) 04:17, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
  • I think at this point it may be warranted to ping those involved in the previous discussion –– one reason being that this thread appears to have evolved into a rehash of some of the same themes, and another being that an accusation of wrongdoing appears to have been leveled above against an unnamed participant in that previous discussion [2]. If I've missed anyone, please help me out: EEng, Doug Weller, A D Monroe III, SMcCandlish, Johnbod (already here, I know), Richard Keatinge, Sweet6970, Jc3s5h, El C, John M Wolfson. Apologies to anyone who may have wished not to be bothered. Generalrelative (talk) 15:29, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
    ....or is recovering from an operation, as one of those is. Anyway, let me help you with the mysterious "unnamed participant" who was SMcCandlish, as will be obvious to anyone who reads the discussion. Johnbod (talk) 15:41, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
    Sure, I apologize to Doug specifically if he is annoyed by my ping. But I strongly suspect that he is not, given our other recent interactions. Wishing you strength and joy, Doug. Generalrelative (talk) 15:56, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
    I don't think I have participated in any recent discussions concerning MOS:ERA. But maybe I'm forgetting, Generalrelative...? It isn't something I have a strong opinion of, in any case. El_C 15:55, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
    You only made a brief and rather neutral statement in the previous discussion, El C. I included you here for the sake of including everyone. Thanks for taking the time to pop in. Generalrelative (talk) 15:58, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
    I too feel that the main use of WP:ERA is to avoid Wikilawyering. Does anyone wish to propose an actual change to the wording of WP:ERA? If not, I don't think that this discussion will be a profitable use of anyone's time. Richard Keatinge (talk) 16:14, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
    The meaning of "established" could certainly be clarified, and quite easily (in either direction), and maybe this is no bad thing. As the top of the section shows there are regular sincere disagreements as to what this means. Johnbod (talk) 16:24, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
    Agreed. That was my intention here. Whether this is best accomplished by clarifying the language of the guideline or simply by establishing a consensus on this talk page I'll leave to the wisdom of the community. Generalrelative (talk) 16:33, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
    I’ll be home at a proper keyboard in the next couple of days. I’ll try to remember to participate then. Doug Weller talk 16:17, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
    Much appreciated, and no stress. Generalrelative (talk) 16:30, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
    It's hard to give a definite period of time for a style to become established. It depends on how long it takes for someone interested in style to notice a change. When a substantial numbers of editors, or readers who will become editors if sufficiently motivated, have noticed a change and decided to do nothing, it becomes established. This in turn depends on the number of readers, and the frequency of era mentions in the article; it takes longer to notice one mention of "AD" or "BC" in a 5 page article than if there are 30 mentions of "AD" or "BC".
    Once the change has been noticed and the editor decides to see if the correct style is being used, it's harder to check an active article, especially if there is a lot of vandalism, because it's harder to find when strings were really first inserted, and what the status of an article was at any point in time. You pick an arbitrary edit to check the status of the article at that time, and get a blank page, and have to try again.
    For most articles, I think 1 year is not enough time for an ERA change to become established. Four years might be about right. Jc3s5h (talk) 16:39, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
  • I agree that MOS's phrase when the article was created for when ERA is established for an article cannot be fully justified in all cases on all articles; strict application of this results in obvious lapses in fairness in at least some cases. But I would not change this. I think the goal is to have a standard determination of established that keeps personal opinions and time-wasting debates to the minimum possible; this means it's much better the determination be simple and unambiguous than fair, or reasonable, or even logical. If any change to MOS:ERA is to be made, I'd support only ones removing some of the ambiguity elsewhere that could be used to undermine the phrase in question. For the record, I have reverted CE/AD changes specifically because of this phrase's wording, even though the change stood for many years, and my revert made the article's ERA counter my actual strong personal preference for "AD". --A D Monroe III(talk) 20:43, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
    @A D Monroe III: Thanks for weighing in. I am, however, confused by your statement since the phrase when the article was created does not appear in MOS:ERA. Could you clarify what part of the MOS you're referring to here? Generalrelative (talk) 20:55, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
    The actual wording is "An article's established era style should not be changed without reasons specific to its content; seek consensus on the talk page first"; it doesn't say "when the article was created". But it's more or less what is meant. When a dispute becomes intractable over any WP:*VAR matter, we revert to the style established in the first non-stub version, and have a discussion from there, with advocates of each style presenting their rationales. In this case, someone changed away from the established style without discussion and now editors who favor that style are trying to claim it's the "established" one, to thwart someone reverting back to the original. That's not how it works.

    There's any confusion at all about this because this section could use some clarifying wording, which can be borrowed from MOS:ENGVAR or some other passage. The mistake here was in assuming that everyone would absorb, as if by osmosis, that all the *VAR rules operate the same way. They do, but this is not obvious to people who don't pore over MoS and discussions about it.
     — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:01, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

    Huh, I'm genuinely surprised that this is your interpretation but I'll defer to your judgement. See below. Generalrelative (talk) 23:10, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
    Well, a style can also later become established through other means, like an RfC. But "I didn't get caught at violating MOS:ERA for a few years" doesn't make for a new "establishment".  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:18, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
    To be clear, I wasn't editing Wikipedia back in 2015 when the change in era style at Josephus was implemented. Until I noticed edit warring about it I'd never even had cause to check how long the style had been in place. Disruption caused by ERA activists like Special:Contributions/49.199.142.135 brought my attention to the matter. Generalrelative (talk) 23:25, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

The article in question was created more than 20 years ago and until 6 years ago, it used BC/AD and the change was made without discussion or consensus. I think BC/AD should be restored and then a discussion had on its talk page to determine which era to use going forward. To me, at least, that's how the MOS:ERA reads. Masterhatch (talk) 21:37, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. The idea that a style which was wrongfully inserted into an article (in direct violation of MOS:ERA) can become the "established style" if it stays in the article for long enough is ridiculous. A mistake is a mistake, no matter how old and "established" it is. The argument that our side is just "wikilawyering" is also stilly, when it is the other side of this dispute arguing that MOS:ERA doesn't actually mean what it clearly states: a lawyer's argument if ever I heard one. MOS:ERA states that the established dating style cannot be changed without consensus at talk. So "CE" cannot be the established style here. How is there debate about this?
Also, it seems to me the best way to avoid disputes in this area is to have a clear, literal interpretation of MOS:ERA. Otherwise we are opening up the possibility for endless arguments such as the one at Talk:Josephus. The simplest solution is to say, quite simply, that the "established dating style" in an article is either 1) the first style used consistently in the article, or 2) the style decided upon by consensus at talk. That interpretation would kill any disputes such as this, which would be a bloody good thing. Ficaia (talk) 22:38, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
I also concur (and I helped write these guidelines, so I know what their meaning and intended application are). This would mean reverting back to BC/AD, then having a pro/con discussion on the talk page with regard to using BCE/CE.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:00, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
I'm genuinely surprised that this is your interpretation but I'll defer to your judgment as one of the authors of the guideline. As a show of good faith I'll revert Josephus to AD/BC era style. If others decide to argue for a change to CE/BCE in this case I'd support that, but I don't think I need to be the one leading that charge. Thanks, all, for the thoughtful discussion. Generalrelative (talk) 23:10, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Proposal

I do agree with Ficaia that WP:ERA, as written, engenders editing behaviour that can appear to one side in a dispute as hypocritical. That disputes over its meaning/the intent of its meaning don't come up very often is only a reflection of the fact that a relatively small fraction of articles even include mention of AD/BC/CE/BCE. So, I propose the following:

  1. Rework the wording of WP:ERA and have it reflect the same principles that are used in WP:ENGVAR. ENGVAR, unlike ERA, is relevant to every single article on enWP, and when it comes to preventing disputes, it works.
  2. A caveat similar to ENGVAR'S STRONGTIES can be made for ERA: if an article subject has STRONGTIES to the Christian religion, that is a case for using AD/BC. If it has STRONGTIES to another religion, that is a case for using CE/BCE. The guideline will not take a prescriptive approach, but will allow for an existing style to be changed on those grounds.
  3. For all other articles that have no ties to any religion, or with equally strong ties with Christian and non Christian religions or peoples, WP:RETAIN applies, i.e., use the style that was used in the first non-stub version of the article.

What do you all think of that? 2600:1702:4960:1DE0:48C0:967D:8F03:E2B1 (talk) 22:55, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

  • I can get behind no. 1. Nos. 2 and 3 are problematic, and have been discussed before. We don't already have rules like this for reasons. They can be revisited, of course. But the most obvious problem is that most proponents of BCE/CE do not believe BC/AD should be used at all, or that it should never be used for topics with strong ties to science, or that it should only be used in entirely Christian contexts, among several other variant arguments. So, by writing a guideline with the above wording, you are strongly favoring a BC/AD position and gutting many arguments that would be presented on a talk page. That won't do. You're also misundstanding RETAIN principles. We don't default to a style used in the first non-stub version except as a last resort, i.e. during intractible dispute, and even then reverting to that style is a set-up for further discussion of why to potentially change to the other style. And a style can become the "established" one through mutiple means, including previous consensus discussions. The first non-stub style choice was the first (but just in some case the only) established style.

    I think I could get behind this entirely if we said in point 3 (whatever the final wording) that RETAIN applies, i.e. do not change away from the established style without consensus, and if dispute becomes intractable then revert to the style used in the first non-stub version of the article, pending a clearer consensus through continued discussion.
     — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:15, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

    PS: Actually, it would be better to put verbiage of this sort at MOS:RETAIN MOS:VAR [I sometimes get these two confused], then just cross-reference it from here and from other *VAR passages. We need not repeat the same principles in detail at all of them.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:17, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

  • I agree with SMcCandlish's counter-proposal. The established principle is that if it was changed and no one objects for a month or longer, it can be assumed that a new format has been established. Ties to an era format are more difficult to support. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:35, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
    @Walter Görlitz: That was my understanding too when I started this thread –– maybe not the specific time frame, but the basic sense of what "established" means. However if you read above you will see that SMcCandlish objects to this reading of the guideline. In this case, the article Josephus, he and a few others are arguing that an era style which has been relatively stable for 6+ years is in fact not established because there was no explicit talk page consensus accompanying the transition. Perhaps we need to go back to the drawing board to come up with language that makes it less likely for misunderstandings of this nature to occur? Generalrelative (talk) 01:08, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Agreeing with SMcCandlish, MOS:ERA should definitely not be tied to whether the article is religious or not. There are many non-Christian's who prefer AD/BC and many Christian's who prefer CE/BCE - and vice versa for both positions. There is no link in either direction. Also agreeing that established could be defined as a change that has lasted for a month without being challenged. Of course, if an editor makes a change and somebody notices then it can be challenged and reverted - as long as it is within that month.  Stepho  talk  10:30, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
  • I agree that ENGVAR produces fewer disputes, especially given it is relevant to all articles, but I think that this is because all but the most ignorant or chauvinist editors accept that there are different varieties of English that WP in general does not choose between. You very rarely see editors systematically going through an article changing to/from American English, unless they are claiming to restore from a mixed style. But we have loads of editors who have obviously been told at school that only CE is "correct", & see BC as a mistake, or political or religious conspiracy. Changing the ERA is almost always much quicker, & they will do that. Using some of the ENGVAR language would probably help for ERA, but not I think the "strong ties" bit. Most smaller Hindism articles evidently written by Hindus use BC because that is what all Indian books, websites and newspapers use, except scholarly academic ones addressing an international market (and not all of those use CE). Most of the puzzled talk page requests for help as to the meaning of CE come on Indian articles. I suspect something similar is true for articles on Islamic topics, where AH dates are often also used. The trouble is there aren't really any good arguments for either era style, except for Christian, East Asian and Jewish topics - maybe Pre-Columbian ones too. People have preferences, often strong, but that's it. For example, most ancient Graeco-Roman articles use BC, although they have nothing to do with Christianity. I'd very strongly object to a "everything except Christian articles gets CE" approach. So "We don't default to a style used in the first non-stub version except as a last resort, i.e. during intractible disputes" is what happens, or should happen, most of the time. What should not happen is allowing illicit POV changes to remain, even if they have been undetected for a long time. But there should be more talk page discussions - I very rarely see these in fact. And RETAIN arguments should be prominent in these, as arguing about appropriateness etc rarely gets anywhere. Johnbod (talk) 02:37, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Most of the oldest articles on Wikipedia were written by Americans, where Christian beliefs are very much the norm and thus AD/BC notation is used without a second thought. So MOS:RETAIN based on "first use" is likely to favour that perspective. There is a definitely a problem if the topic is "Old Testament" [scare quotes intended] because this is Jewish tradition appropriated by Christianity. A similar issue arises with the history of North Africa and western/southern Asia. CE/BCE is the norm in most academic history and archaeology papers – I trust there is no dispute over using BP in geology articles. So STRONGTIES is certainly relevant and RETAIN should not be a trump card that a zealot can play as a hold-out to argue that there is no consensus for change.--John Maynard Friedman (talk) 10:17, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
    Not just Americans, AD/BC is the norm in the UK and most people (IME) are confused over CE/BCE. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 10:31, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
    Yes, I would dispute that "Most of the oldest articles on Wikipedia were written by Americans" anyway; rather I'm pretty sure that most intoductions of "CE" are by Americans. The matter has evidently become part of the strange American culture wars, in a way in has not in most parts of the world (as far as I can tell, the various local equivalents of CE have barely taken off in the other European languages). That "Christian beliefs are very much the norm" is a factor is a rather American perspective. The entire world used BC/AD for centuries, and most of it has yet to be pursuaded that it is necessary to switch to new names for exactly the same actual dating system. Johnbod (talk) 14:05, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
    In most cases, CE is wlinked. Is it so terrible that visitors are introduced to other perspectives than the familiar? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 10:44, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
    But why? Anyway, there is the principle of least astonishment. Generally we try not to puzzle our readers. Johnbod (talk) 14:05, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
    BCE/CE is not a ‘perspective’: it is an era style based on BC/AD, which uses a terminology which is unfamiliar to most people. Sweet6970 (talk) 13:04, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Any new guidance needs to emphasise the policy/convention/guidance that editors should not attach an era prefix/suffix unless it is reasonably in doubt. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 10:44, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
  • ENGVAR works because no one went to war over flavour vs flavor. People take religion very seriously and sadly in the world in which we live, there is hatred and intolerance for other religions. People get bent out of shape at the mere sight of religion where they think it shouldn't be. Sometimes that spills over into Wikipedia. The problem I see with using CE / BCE and AD / BC similarly to ENGVAR is it will cause edit wars on topics that could go either way and POV will be an issue. As User:John Maynard Friedman pointed out, the Old Testament could be a problem and potential for edit wars. Someone else had suggested if it gets changed and no one changes it back for a month, then the new style is established. What if one year later it gets changed again and one reverts it? Does that mean the old style is re-established? That is problematic too because you will have guys going around and changing styles everywhere just to see how many they can change without having the edits reverted. It's gonna cause edit wars and unnecessary bickering. The current way we deal with AD / BC and BCE / CE isn't perfect, but it's been stable for a long time and there have been very few issues that aren't easily resolved. This thread is the first time there's been a serious issue in a long time. For all it's worth, I strongly suggest we keep things status quo for now as all the suggestions I've seen above (IMHO) will only cause more edit warring, not less. (On a side note, BC / AD is still the most commonly recognised style in writings and for the average English speaking Joe, so trying to eliminate it out of all non-Christian articles does not make sense. Not in this thread, but in other threads I've seen that as a "solution".) Masterhatch (talk) 10:58, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
    This discussion is trying to establish what the "status quo" actually is, which is far from clear! The last big MOS discussion on exactly this issue (linked above) was less than 2 years ago, and rather inconclusive. There have been plenty of spats on individual article talk pages in the meantime. You talk about "you will have guys going around and changing styles everywhere just to see how many they can change without having the edits reverted" in a future conditional tense for some reason. Actually this has been happening quite a lot for years; I've had to explain WP:ERA to people who were doing nothing else, several times. I'm sure many don't realize it is against the rules, and think they are updating to to the "correct" style, as their edit summaries often say. Johnbod (talk) 14:21, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Since folks have mentioned that they believe BCE to be confusing, I took a moment to Google "BC versus BCE recognition" and found some interesting stuff. I hadn't been aware that the BCE system has been in use since 1708. [3] Nor did I realize that, according to editorsmanual.com, BCE/CE is now the preferred style at Encyclopaedia Britannica. Curious, I checked both the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy [4] and the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy [5] and saw that both employ BCE when discussing ancient Greece. In terms of online encyclopedias, then, it seems that Wikipedia is the holdout. Perhaps this is well known to many of y'all, but hey we come at this project from many different backgrounds. That site editorsmanual.com also says "While the BCE/CE notation is generally preferred in scientific and academic writing, BC/AD is the more common choice in writing meant for a general audience." [6] The problem with applying a similar standard here is that all Wikipedia articles are supposed to be both scholarly/scientific and geared toward a general audience. I don't have a solution here, just thought this discussion might benefit from some outside references. Generalrelative (talk) 13:49, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
    There's a ton more of that at Common Era. It hasn't exactly "been in use" since 1708; that was the first time it was used, & there was little pick-up (and that mostly confined to Jewish writing) until after WWII. To some extent you do see the scholarly/general audience difference reflected in Wikipedia articles, with the more general and basic ones more likely to use BC. There is also a considerable issue of American cultural imperialism here, which many editors are not sensitive to. Johnbod (talk) 14:05, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
    Thanks, I hadn't thought to check for a Wikipedia article! This controversy is (obviously) new to me. That said, it's hard for me to wrap my mind around the idea that this has to do with American cultural imperialism, since clearly the issue divides the U.S. as much as it does other English-speaking countries. Sure, I suppose BCE may be more common in the U.S. than in Britain (are there sources for that?) but e.g. Britannica, Nature and The Lancet, all of which are British publications, use BCE too. And on the other side of the ledger, the American AP Style Guide still calls for BC. Is there some aspect of the American cultural imperialism argument that I'm missing? I see that below you're talking about the rest of the world, not just English-speaking countries, but surely usage by native speakers of English is the standard we should apply in an English-language encyclopedia, no? Generalrelative (talk) 14:51, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
    @Generalrelative: Not that it directly impacts on the argument here, but for the record Britannica is an American publication. CMD (talk) 07:00, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Why is it that Americans and Brits seem to be uniquely resistant to change? When I was at school in England in the 1960s and 1970s BC/AD was taught but by the time my children, who are in their 30s, went to school that had changed to BCE/CE, so why don't we just use it and have done with the problem? The same can be seen with attitudes to the "first past the post" voting system. When we had a referendum here to make a small change to it our politicians told us that we were so thick that we could not understand anything else, although the system on offer was still much simpler than those used in most of the world. It can also be seen in the non-adoption of the metric system. The UK has dipped its toe in the water (I buy fuel for my car in litres but measure its consumption in miles per gallon) but the US seems to have held out against it even more. Are people in the largest Anglophone countries really so less intelligent than those in the rest of the world? Phil Bridger (talk) 14:20, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
    As I have more or less said above, most of the world except Russians in secular contexts, the Chinese and Czechs, many Americans and some Brits uses BC/AD, so you have the thing on its head. Look at Indian or Italian papers. See Common Era for the British school system, where things are not as you say. Johnbod (talk) 14:27, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
    I for one, would fully support a complete move to the Common Era CE/BCE formatting for era/years. I think it is the best, most inclusive, and more academic, scholarly, and modern usage. AD/BC is antiquated and should only be used when citing it in older usage, but not in any encyclopedic content usage. Just my point of view... ♥Th78blue (talk)♥ 17:11, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
  • I strongly oppose point 2 in the suggestion above RELIGIOUS TIES – Wikipedia articles should not have ‘ties’ to any religion. All articles should be subject to the same rules. Also, using a criterion of ‘ties’ to a particular religion would just provide further material for arguments.
    And, since this seems now to be a general discussion on Era styles, I support BC/AD because it is the most understood style, and is the standard form in Britain, used, for instance, by the Guardian and the BBC. Sweet6970 (talk) 19:47, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
    In articles about, for example, Judaism or Islam, it is deliberately provocative to prefer the 'Lord' or 'Christ' of another religion. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 22:50, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
    I think it's almost funny (and certainly tragic), but for most people it's not "deliberately provocative". They've probably never thought through how that language denies other people's faith. Maybe they've never thought about it from the view of a person with another religion or no religion. SchreiberBike | ⌨  23:21, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
    To JMF: Assuming you meant ‘refer’- BC and AD do not refer to the Lord or Christ of any religion – they are labels which consist of capital letters. My guess is that most people who use them don’t know what they stand for. And as for being ‘provocative’ – the article on Muhammad includes pictorial depictions of him. Sweet6970 (talk) 13:08, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
    Capital letters have meaning when they're consistently used in an acronym. Would you claim MOS doesn't refer to style? RfC doesn't refer to a request? MD doesn't refer to medical doctors? NASA does not refer to aeronautics and space? For that matter, is the JMF at the start of your sentence just a label, or does it refer to someone named John? --Ahecht (TALK
    PAGE    ) 15:14, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
    Abbreviations made up of capital letters only refer to the words if you know what the letters stand for, and think of the words when you use the abbreviation. It took me a long time to work out what ‘MOS’ stood for (because I would abbreviate it as ‘MoS’), even after I had been making comments on an MOS page. I’m not sure I would say that ‘RfC’ refers to a ‘request’ – from what I’ve seen of RfCs, it’s not a request, but a procedure which is unique to Wikipedia. I certainly don’t think of it as a request. I’m glad you told me that ‘MD’ stands for ‘medical doctor’. I thought that was what it meant, but this was a pure guess, and I would not have been surprised to hear that it was an abbreviation for some Latin expression. And I know roughly what NASA is, but I don’t think I’ve ever come across the full version, and I never think of it as anything other than ‘NASA’. It’s a very long time ago, but I think it was several years after I first came across ‘AD’ that I finally found out what it stood for. Sweet6970 (talk) 15:51, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
    @Sweet6970: I'll take your word for it and believe that you don't think of words when you think of abbreviations, but that is not true for all. The idea that "BC and AD do not refer to the Lord or Christ of any religion" is simply not true. Imagine a Christian in an Islamic country being required to use an AH date, that's not so bad because AH refers to a historical event. However if it were "in the year of the Prophet (pbuh)", a Christian would know that their faith is being denied.
    That's the case for non-Christians in the West. For most it's not a big deal, it's a small insult to their beliefs that they've learned to live with, but most of us do not want to deny the faith of other people and BCE/CE is a way of doing that. SchreiberBike | ⌨  20:41, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
    BC and AD refer to Jesus in roughly the same way that Wednesday refers to Odin. --Trovatore (talk) 21:20, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
    Well said. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 21:49, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
    @Trovatore and Martin of Sheffield: You really don't understand what cultural imperialism is do you? Can you imagine how it feels to be a minority? In the West, most of us are not bothered by linguistic references to Odin, Thor or Frigg because we are part of the dominant Christian culture. Norse gods do not threaten us. Imagine what it is like to be in a minority religion. Take the example above of "in the year of the Prophet (pbuh)"; how would that make an American Christian conservative feel? The phrases BC and AD don't just refer to Jesus. They refer to a messiah and a lord.  SchreiberBike | ⌨  22:24, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
    I apologize for pushing this discussion further off track. It riles me up when I see that people understand the world differently from how I do, especially in ways that, I think, hurt people.
    But, I think we should work together on a clear definition of established and that we should not debate the merits of BC/AD vs. BCE/CE. SchreiberBike | ⌨  22:39, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
    I am less than impressed with the concept of "cultural imperialism", but I would allow that you had some sort of a point if we referred to years as "before Christ" or "in the year of the Lord". But we don't; we call them BC and AD. --Trovatore (talk) 22:40, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
    Given that no child has ever asked what the terms might stand for, your position is obviously beyond cavil. Cheers! Dumuzid (talk) 22:57, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
    That is not given and, in fact, is not true. Perhaps nobody in your family ever asked as a child, but others have. --Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 14:25, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
    My reply here was snarky one, and perhaps overly so--as I understand but disagree with the position taken by Trovatore. Suffice it to say, in my experience, the "what does it stand for?" question is ever-present. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 14:52, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
    Trovatore, expressions such as "in this, the year of our lord 2022" have a long history of usage and are even now far from unknown. At least in that part of the English speaking world I live in. (PS: this is User:Khajidha, I cannot log in at this time) --152.27.33.1 (talk) 15:37, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
    Khajidha, I'm aware of that. But no one is proposing that that phraseology be used in Wikipedia dates (other than perhaps in quotations), so I don't see how it's relevant. --Trovatore (talk) 03:53, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
    Wikipedia articles do not have ties to any religion, but the subjects of the articles do. In the same way that articles about things with ties to countries that use British English should use British English spelling, articles about things with ties to specific religions other that Christianity should use CE/BCE. --Ahecht (TALK
    PAGE    ) 22:24, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
    I see it as the exact opposite. BC/AD originated in a religious context but then became a broad western culture thing separate from religion - ie the typical person on the street uses BC/AD. BCE/CE tends to more of an academic thing (often including Christian theologians) and is not well understood by the average person on the street. The current use of AD vs CE is not tied to religion.  Stepho  talk  22:40, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment. Putting my cards on the table, I am a strong advocate for CE/BCE dating. Putting that aside for the moment, I think we need a clear and consistent policy on this. That doesn't mean there can't be exceptions, but when writing a new article, or revising an old one, we should start from the same stylistic assumptions. If that ends up being AD/BC, then so be it. But I think this is one where the MOS needs to be a non-persnickety, blunt instrument, with granular issues worked out as they arise. I will, however, leave the decision to those wiser than myself. Cheers all, and Happy Monday. Dumuzid (talk) 20:06, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Proposal 1 above makes sense to me. I think that when WP:ENGVAR was written, it was not seen as some wonderful solution but as a practical comprise which will keep people from fighting. Proposals 2 and 3 are full of problems. The original question above was about the meaning of "established era style". We've seen that reasonable people can disagree about that. Let's lock it down. SchreiberBike | ⌨  22:38, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment. I would support 1, 2, and 3; it is a pragmatic solution, and it makes sense for articles with strong ties to Christianity, such as Jesus, to use BC and AD. If there is a consensus for a single solution, I would prefer AD and BC, as the most recognizable style. BilledMammal (talk) 23:39, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment well as a non-Christian I don't find AD offensive at all, I just accept it as part of normal English usage and most importantly understood by all. BC is after all just a statement of fact (even if the origin is off by a few years). Likewise I'm no more offended by people referring to Jesus as "Christ", than I am by Mohamed being called "The Prophet" or Siddhartha Gautama being called "The Buddha". Accept that for those who cling to religions these words have special significance and respect them. As a secular example consider that many people around the world, particularly in the USA refer to HM Queen Elizabeth as "The Queen", yet she has never been Queen of the USA!
    You may not find AD offensive, but others, myself included, do. He (if he existed) is not my lord.
    Respect for "those who cling to religion" includes not using such language to describe them and to accept that there are markedly divergent views among them. --Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 13:09, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
    Not to mention the fact that "queen" has a real-world basis whether you are in the UK or not. The fact that I am an American and not under her rule does not diminish the fact that she is a queen. However, if one is not a Christian, Jesus was not Christ. If one is not a Muslim, Muhammad was not a prophet. It would make more sense to me for those who hold religious views to show respect to those of us who don't and not expect us to bend to their usage in language and dating and such. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 15:40, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
    Whether you are Christian or not, the fact is that we have a dating convention which counts years from a certain point in the past. That point was chosen many centuries ago, supposedly as being the year of birth of Jesus, and although both theologians and historians have since debated the accuracy of this selection, nobody has come up with any other historical event that the years might have been counted from. So we are kinda stuck with a Christianity-based calendar. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 16:51, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
    This is precisely why I like CE/BCE nomenclature--to me, it's an implicit admission that the era is based on an agreed-upon date that really references nothing in particular (as most would now agree 1 CE was not the birth year of Jesus). As ever, though, reasonable minds may differ. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 17:29, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
    Exactly. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 22:17, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Keep current WP:ERA wording. There are of course going to be people who want to change to BCE/CE for certain articles but that can be addressed by trying to get consensus for change on the article talk page. There are of course going to be people who misunderstand the guideline but that can be addressed by explanation, as happened above. I oppose all the IP's proposals. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 13:40, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
    I think the ip's proposals have had little support above, & are sunk. But addressing the precise point the discussion began with, of what "established" actually means, could be useful. This is actually equally unclear at WP:ENGVAR, but as several have pointed out, causes rather fewer issues there (I think there are a number of reasons for this). We could just pick a time limit after which an undiscussed change of style becomes "established", or even a number of views (back as far as statistics go, to 2015). Or we could just go back to the earliest non-stub version, which is what tends to happen in ENGVAR disputes. Or something else. Johnbod (talk) 14:29, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
    I thought the point was addressed, earliest non-stub version. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:55, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
    Well, that's my view, but some above, and very many 'out there' don't agree, and the policy could be more explicit. Johnbod (talk) 15:02, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
  • No need to change the guideline. This entire thread started with a simple question: How long does a style choice need to be in an article for it to be considered “established”? My answer: If you have to ask, you are over-thinking it… just act as if the currently existing text is “established”, and go from there. Remember that a) consensus can change, and b) a discussed consensus outweighs a silent consensus. If you think the current stylization should change, just open a discussion and propose changing it. Blueboar (talk) 15:56, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
    @Blueboar: That was my assumption too. The problem here is that others read the guideline and come away with an entirely different meaning, which has led to edit warring –– even in the midst of good-faith talk page discussion, since each side believes the other has the onus to achieve consensus. What the above discussion makes clear is that there really is no consensus as to what "established" means in the guideline as written. Clarifying that language, in one direction or the other, would be a solution. Johnbod and I appear to have very different intuitions about this topic on a number of levels but we are in agreement about that. Generalrelative (talk) 16:32, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
    I think you miss my point... if you start with the assumption that whatever you currently see on the page has a silent consensus (however long it has been there)... and open the discussion with "I think the era style currently used in this article should change; here's why..." it no longer matters whether one style is "established". You have conceeded that argument before it can even be made, and you shift the discussion away from wikilawyering and towards trying to figure out what is the best style choice for the article. If someone says "But this is the established style" respond with "yes, I know, I am arguing that we should change to a different style... again, here's why.." Blueboar (talk) 17:10, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
    Right, but what is your suggestion for someone (like me) who has a page watchlisted and sees that someone else has unilaterally changed the longstanding era style? Revert and start a talk page discussion? That's what I did, and it turned into an intractable dispute because the other party (the one who wanted to change from the status quo) did not behave the way you suggest. And when I brought the issue here, after an initial period when my interpretation was clearly favored, a couple of highly experienced editors showed up who said that the other party was in fact right to unilaterally roll back a 6+ year status quo. Which shows not only that there is no consensus about what "established" means, but that there is no consensus for the approach that you are suggesting (which I agree should be the norm). This lack of consensus matters. Take a look at Talk:Josephus#Era style, if you feel like it, to see how this unfolded in practice. Generalrelative (talk) 17:37, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
    It seems to me: we look at the page history and find the first editor who made a unilateral change away from the first non-stub usage. Whatever the usage was before that change is the established style in the article (assuming there is no consensus at talk). I strongly oppose the idea that we just give a free pass to violations of MOS:ERA which haven't been challenged for a while. As I and others above have pointed out, editors unilaterally changing the dating style in articles is a common occurrence, so there will obviously be cases which go unnoticed for years. We should be able to correct them. Ficaia (talk) 21:35, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
    We all know your opinion on the matter, Ficaia. My question was for Blueboar, who appears to have a very different take. My concerns is that the lack of clarity here might make you feel that it is appropriate to go around changing longstanding era styles while refusing to accept the onus of creating a new consensus, as you did at Josephus. In my view that would be highly disruptive, and many of those who have commented here believe as I do that it is contrary to a common-sense reading of MOS:ERA. Short of clarifying the language of the guideline, I am curious if Blueboar has advice for how to handle behavior such as yours. Generalrelative (talk) 21:49, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Well, after participating in a number of discussions on this topic over the years, I thought I had heard all possible viewpoints expressed, but Blueboar has me completely stumped! This novel interpretation would "force" anyone objecting to a very recent driveby undiscussed ERA change to go the trouble of launching and following a talk page discussion, rather than just reverting. Even the most law-abiding and saintly editors (like myself) are unlikely to follow this. Most such drive-by changes are by ip's with no watchlist, and there is rarely any reaction to a reversion. We are not talking about consensus at all in these cases. I've never heard anyone express before that this is what the policy means - if it were the word "established" would not be needed, would it? Yet it is there, and the great majority of editors think it means something, but there are disagreements as to what. We have many similar policies, and I have never heard a "last night is right" position expressed concerning them. Johnbod (talk) 22:21, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Here is an example from just the other day, which I happened upon at random: an IP which has been editing disruptively elsewhere changed BCE/CE to BC/AD at History of the Jews in the Roman Empire with the edit summary Some years ago an editor changed the dating system from what the original author wanted to use, without discussing it - I've changed it back. [7] Tgeorgescu reverted, citing WP:ERA. [8] According to SMcCandlish's reading of the guideline (and that of some others here), Tgeorgescu was wrong to do so. If very experienced editors such as this disagree as to the common-sense reading of this guideline, and it makes a real difference in practice, I would suggest that we have a problem which needs to be resolved through either 1) a clarification of the guideline's language, or 2) an explicit consensus here as to what is meant by "established era style". Perhaps some kind of RfC is in order? Generalrelative (talk) 18:34, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
    Indeed. That's a good example - "some years ago" seems to be June 2020 in this edit, with a dubious edit summary claiming "consistency". I think Tgeorgescu was wrong to revert, though I'm sure he did so in good faith. Johnbod (talk) 20:10, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
    Well, it looks like History of the Jews in the Roman Empire first used CE dates (1), so the IP was mistaken. Ficaia (talk) 20:52, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
    Ha, thanks Ficaia. Just goes to show how confusing this issue is for everybody! Generalrelative (talk) 20:57, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
    I don't think it's confusing at all. The case you cited above actually shows MOS:ERA working as intended. Ficaia (talk) 21:14, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
    Umm, yeah the confusion here should be obvious. Johnbod, through no fault of his own, came away with precisely the wrong conclusion even after looking through the page history. That's assuming that the style present in the stub version you've cited persisted through the earliest non-stub version. Also: while I've agreed to abide by SMcCandlish's interpretation in the short term here, I don't think we need to go so far as to take his word as gospel as to what is "intended" by MOS:ERA. It should be evident to you by now that experienced editors differ about this in good faith. Generalrelative (talk) 21:28, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
    Yes, I didn't look far enough back - the article "went BC" with these edits in 2011. It was never a stub imo, from the first 3 edits in 2010. Johnbod (talk) 02:17, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
    I disagree. I did find one interesting article where the first edit was one era style, but its creator changed the era style in their second edit. Without of course any discussion on the talk page. Let's make sure any "rule" we created doesn't mean we have to stick to their first choice. I also very strongly feel that "established style" doesn't have to have been decided on the talk page if it's long enough ago, how long depends for me on how active editing is on the article. Doug Weller talk 14:29, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
    @Johnbod: Do you agree with my assessment that an RfC may be the best way forward at this point? If so, do you have any suggestions as to the best way to phrase it? Generalrelative (talk) 20:55, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
    Yes, I do. I think it needs to be limited in scope, & certainly needs careful wording, which I'll think about. Johnbod (talk) 02:17, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Towards another proposal

  • Cool, thanks. It seems to me that before we even consider changing the language of the guideline we’ll need to get consensus as to what the standard practice should be. And there seem to be two clear options on the table:
    1) Whenever a dispute surrounding era style arises and there is no explicit consensus on the article talk page, revert to the style present in the oldest non-stub version of the article pending a new consensus.
    2) An era style should be seen as having implicit consensus if it has persisted in an article for a reasonable amount of time. The amount of time depends on how actively edited the article is and/or how many page watchers it has.
    Of course these are just a suggestion / first draft. Please critique! Generalrelative (talk) 14:49, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
    This is the sort of thing I've been supporting in the past. Doug Weller talk 10:47, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
    Which is, Doug? As Generalrelative says, the options are contradictory. I think it might just be possible to find a way incorporating elements of both. I'm very suspicious indeed about "implicit consensus" regularizing undiscussed changes after a certain period. This just encourages sneaky obsessives, of whom there are a very considerable number. Many articles have only one or two uses of any ERA marker, and very few readers will be upset enough to check the history. Virtually all the changes I pick up are spotted from the watchlist, or seeing two styles used (many sneaky changers only do the lead). Those above who accept the principle of "implicit consensus" have an extremely wide range of times after which this should be assumed, ranging from minutes to several years. Strangely we don't apply this principle to typos, including ignorant changes of spelling to another variety of English, or to downright mistakes. I agree any time period should vary somewhat with the obscurity of the subject, and possibly the number of times an era style is given in the article (often far more often than is needed). Believers in "implicit consensus" might ponder on the fact that History of the Jews in the Roman Empire spent nine years with BC before another undiscussed change returned it to BCE (see above). Johnbod (talk) 01:29, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
    I think one thing a change we could propose in an Rfc is to scotch the "only use AD on subjects related to Christianity" argument. That is held by a certain minority of editors, but I don't think it has ever achieved consensus as such, and it seems clearly against the letter and spirit of WP:ERA as it stands to me, so we would just be clarifying. This argument is essentially that CE is right and deviation from it is some sort of concession (also believed by many editors); that is clearly not the intent of WP:ERA.
    The relatively few full-blown talk page discussions tend to be rather depressing and pointless parades of personal prejudices and cultural assumptions, and I think we should aim to minimize them. In the great majority of cases, there are no killer "reasons specific to its content" (surely nearly all Jewish articles use BCE already, and I think that is very generally agreed), and beyond the single example above, I don't think we should restrict arguments used.
    So in general I am with going back to the earliest non-stub version. If people don't like that they can always launch a talk page discussion to change. If we do accept that illicit changes can become "established" I'd suggest 6 or 7 years, or 30,000 views in that period (where applicable), equalling some 15 a day over the whole period. Or one could go on some number for 2021 views. Our current "all time" pageviews go back to the fixed point of 1 July 2015, so we could take that as the start of the count, as the numbers are very easily available. My thoughts, anyway. Johnbod (talk) 01:23, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
    I don't have a problem with sneaky obsessives. If no one notices then obviously no one cares. If someone cares then they will raise the issue when it happens. The alternative is for other editors to have to trawl through the history. If a sneaky change was done in say April 2021, should you revert it? Perhaps another sneaky was done in Dec 2016 - in which case the last sneaky is actually right. But perhaps there was another sneaky done in Jan 2013 - in which case the last sneaky was wrong. Too much work for too little gain.
    Exact times to wait can be subjective but I'd say that if nobody made a fuss after 3 months then nobody cared about it.
    I would also have no trouble with applying this principle to WP:ENGVAR, WP:DATEFORMAT and similar.  Stepho  talk  02:31, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
    Whooah! Way to liven up those talk pages! "If someone cares then they will raise the issue when it happens." goes against all we know about how editors, let alone readers, use WP. In fact, establishing the first non-stub style is very easy; it's trawling through for subsequent changes that is difficult. Most talk pages are also really short, so it takes no time to see if there has ever been a discussion. Johnbod (talk) 02:42, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
  • No changes required 2022 AD == 2022 CE. These are both one and the same, based on the same legendary/mythical/however-you-want-to-describe-it event as the reference epoch (one could even say that the "C" in BCE/CE is just a bowdlerism and really stands for "Christian era"). Which one (including the third alternative of using +/-) is used in an article is entirely an inconsequential style choice; and there's no need to waste or even encourage a waste of editor time or efforts over it. If there's ever any doubt which format is in use in an article, people should be encouraged to just pick one, at random if must be, and go with it, not write walls of text over it. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:44, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Here is my idea for an RfC question: When an article's talk page contains no explicit consensus endorsing one era style or another, should the phrase "established era style" in MOS:ERA be taken to mean 1) the style present in the oldest non-stub version of the article, or 2) the most recent stable era style?
    Thoughts? Generalrelative (talk) 02:49, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
    I think you have to define "stable"; it has just the same problems as "established" - ie no-one agrees what it means (as very clearly shown above). Johnbod (talk) 02:54, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
    I agree that that's a possible issue, but I'm having trouble coming up with a succinct enough way to phrase the question while including that level of detail. Another possibility is to include a preamble and then refer to it in the RfC question, like so:
    RfC Preamble
    MOS:ERA states: An article's established era style should not be changed without reasons specific to its content; seek consensus on the talk page first. In the above discussion, two interpretations of this clause have emerged:
    Option 1) Whenever a dispute surrounding era style arises and there is no explicit consensus on the article talk page, revert to the style present in the oldest non-stub version of the article pending a new consensus.
    Option 2) An era style should be seen as having implicit consensus if it has persisted in an article for a reasonable amount of time. The amount of time depends on how actively edited the article is and/or how many page watchers it has.
    RfC on MOS:ERA's "established era style" clause
    Should Option 1 or Option 2 (as summarized in the Preamble above) be the standard interpretation of MOS:ERA's "established era style" clause? Let's say that Neither is Option 3.
    Generalrelative (talk) 03:05, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
    I think "The amount of time depends on how actively edited the article is and/or how many page watchers it has" is unclear and would be argued by the partisans so as to favor their preference. I'd suggest something like "An era style should be seen as having consensus if it has persisted for one year without challenge". That's in the middle of the ranges proposed above and seems reasonable to me. SchreiberBike | ⌨  04:16, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
    I obviously don't agree with any time limit. But 1 year was the lowest proposal. The range was 1 to 6 years. Ficaia (talk) 05:07, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
    How about waiting a millenium? `EEng 05:27, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
    Fine by me! The whole "established" thing is not a necessity, and causes trouble, & I would happily propose just removing it if I thought that would succeed. Johnbod (talk) 13:35, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
    That's false. Walter Görlitz and Stepho-wrs both stated established could be defined as a change that has lasted for a month without being challenged. Generalrelative (talk) 05:16, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
    Someone else said there was no time limit at all. But I agree that 6 months to 1 yr is the lowest period that seems to have wide support, from this and other discussions. I very much doubt anything less would get wide support. 13:35, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
    I am, by the way, against setting an exact time frame in the RfC. I believe that it's best to leave the question of how long a change needs to persist in order to be considered "stable" up to community judgement on a case-by-case basis. If that becomes unworkable, it will always be possible to settle the question in a subsequent RfC. For now I think the priority should be to sort out which of the two very different principles we should be observing –– either oldest non-stub version or most recent stable version. Of course that's just my 2¢. Generalrelative (talk) 05:21, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
    Well, I don't see any need for an RfC. The second interpretation you put forward completely undermines the purpose of MOS:ERA: to prevent editors making unilateral changes. Ficaia (talk) 05:28, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
    Simply ignoring a critical mass of experienced editors who disagree with you is not an option, even when you feel strongly that your own point of view is correct. Wikipedia works by consensus, and more than half of those who have commented on the matter above have endorsed the second interpretation. But whichever reading ultimately prevails, my fundamental concern here is that we eliminate the ambiguity which enables content disputes such as you and I had on Talk:Josephus, which end up wasting editor time. That's why I'm advocating for an RfC. Generalrelative (talk) 05:48, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Thanks everyone for your feedback. I think at this point WP:RFCBEFORE is well satisfied so I'll open up the RfC below. Generalrelative (talk) 17:04, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

RfC Preamble

MOS:ERA states: An article's established era style should not be changed without reasons specific to its content; seek consensus on the talk page first. In the above discussion, two interpretations of this clause have emerged:

  • Option 1) Implicit consensus is not applicable to changes in era style. Therefore, when a dispute surrounding era style arises and there is no explicit consensus on the article talk page, revert to the style present in the oldest non-stub version of the article pending a new consensus.
  • Option 2) An era style should be seen as having implicit consensus if it has persisted in an article for a reasonable amount of time. The amount of time depends on how actively edited the article is and/or how many page watchers it has. Therefore, when a dispute surrounding era style arises and there is no explicit consensus on the article talk page, revert to the most recent stable version pending a new consensus.

Generalrelative (talk) 17:07, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

RfC on MOS:ERA's "established era style" clause

Should Option 1 or Option 2 (as summarized in the Preamble above) be the standard interpretation of MOS:ERA's "established era style" clause? Let's say that Neither is Option 3. Generalrelative (talk) 17:11, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Survey (MOS:ERA's "established era style" clause)

  • Comment: In setting up this RfC, I have resisted specifying an exact time frame in Option 2 for determining whether a style change has implicit consensus. I believe it's best to leave that up to community judgement on a case-by-case basis. If that becomes unworkable, it will always be possible to settle the question in a subsequent RfC. And if Option 1 prevails then the question will be moot. For that reason I think our first priority should be to sort out which of the two very different principles suggested above we should be observing –– either oldest non-stub version or most recent stable version. Generalrelative (talk) 17:15, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Option 2. Lawyers gonna lawyer; I'm not sure there's any practical way to write the rules to avoid that. With Option 1, they'd argue about what version is a stub, or the oldest non-stub would turn out not to have any instances of era markers or conflicting instances or what have you. Explain the principle and the fact that it depends on everyone applying it in good faith, then trust them to do so. They might or they might not, but this is a manual of style, not a cop. --Trovatore (talk) 18:10, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Option 2. No novel argument to add. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 18:50, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Option one without a doubt. Option one provides stability especially from editors who just don't like a particular style. Option two will produce more conflicts. I've seen so often many articles mix era styles. Option one allows for a quick resolution but option two will result in bickering about which style gets implicit consensus especially if there's been a lot of back and forth. I've mentioned before that moving away from the stabilty that option one provides will result in editors going around changing as many articles as possible to see if they'll get reverted before the "time limit" is up to revert back. An editor made a comment about it happening already. I agree, it does happen already but with option one, stability will win out. When there's been a lot of back and forth between the era styles in an article, using option two can get messy. Option one is clear. Masterhatch (talk) 18:55, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
    • Then I have to repeat what I said a few days ago. Option 1 gives precedence to whatever style an early editor chose many years ago, which (given that most early editors were from North America) means a preponderance of the Christian notation. This is particularly problematic in articles about Jewish history because of Christian appropriation. Wikipedia works by consensus and we should not give a trump card to hold-outs. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 19:08, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
      • We should not divide this down religious lines. It will be fool hardy as editors will claim "religious ownership" over articles and that'll be particularly difficult to deal with as there are many articles that more than one religion may claim "ownership". Imagine the edit wars over that? This is an encyclopedia and we must keep our POV out of editting. Masterhatch (talk) 20:48, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
        • No, I wasn't proposing that, the reverse in fact. My point is that Option 1 provides a card that trumps consensus. In reality that card would most likely to be used by religious zealots. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 07:52, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
          • Where on earth do you get the idea that "Option 1 provides a card that trumps consensus"? This is completely wrong. Under both options, a new discussion can always establish a new consensus. In practice it is mostly secular "zealots" at work here, although it is unfair to call them that, it's just their teachers told them "CE" was the "right" era to use. Also in practice any discussion on a Jewish-related article using BC/AD that is notified to Wikiproject Judaism will produce a quick and certain result I'm pretty sure. I don't know why various people here use future conditional tenses describing era problems. If you watchlist lots of ancient history or art articles, you'll know this comes up all the time, and has done for years. Johnbod (talk) 03:28, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
            • A thought experiment: imagine a debate where someone is objecting and asserts that there is this no consensus. In the absence of consensus, they play the 'first used' clause, which provides their desired result. Trump card played. System gamed. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 13:14, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
              • That works just as well with the "established" "card", which some above interpret as taking immediate effect. In either case a new debate will settle any dispute, though obviously launching one is a nuisance. Johnbod (talk) 14:15, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
                • Johnbod, well no, I don't think it does, or at least not as unarguably. "First use" is verifiable and defensible, no matter how long ago it was written; "established use" requires a judgement call and is thus not an iron-clad defence against a new consensus. Discussion can take place: yes, wp:status quo applies but the consensus to overturn it does not have to be overwhelming. An RFC gives added weight to a WP "guidance" so it seems important to me that we don't limit the discretion of future editors without a very convincing reason. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 16:08, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
            Johnbod, You and I seem to have very different experiences. I see at least as many new editors or IPs changing CE to AD etc as the other way around. There is of course no way to easily get statistics on this but I suspect that there are a lot of Christian zealots as well. I took a look at Wikiproject Judaism, this seems to have come up very rarely there but they did remove one statement from the manual of style 11 years ago saying " Gregorian calendar dates on Jewish topics should generally refer to BCE and CE for years." I don't think we can make decisions on the basis of numbers of zealots. Doug Weller talk 09:50, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
            • That might well be the case, and explained by your watchlist being, I imagine, mostly archaeology articles, where CE is more common, and mine by art and history ones, where AD still just about prevails. Also I have a lot on India, where only those with very expensive educations to post-graduate levels understand "CE" at all. I agree with you over "zealots"; that was Friedman's introduction. Yes, the issue would come up very rarely at Wikiproject Judaism, which considerably undercuts Friedman's concerns. In fact discussion sections on this, as opposed to reversions that produce no comeback, are mercifully rare these days, and we want to keep it that way. Johnbod (talk) 14:15, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
              • JB, Doug W: when I wrote "religious zealots", I really should have included so-called "militant fundamentalist atheists" too. And yes, having reverted "corrections" both ways over the past few years [most changing CE to AD], my experience has been the same as John's. But I have no doubt that the culture wars will return to this topic ere long, and I don't want to us to make disruptive editing easy. IMO, Option 1 does that. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 16:08, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Option 3 - The entire point of WP:ERA is to prevent edit warring over which dating format is used - and even reverting an undiscussed change can be seen as a form of edit warring. I would adopt a 0 revert policy as follows:
    1. If you dislike the ERA style currently on the page - DO NOT CHANGE IT WITHOUT DISCUSSION.
    2. If someone else has previously changed it without discussion - DO NOT REVERT IT WITHOUT DISCUSSION.
    This does not mean you have to accept an undiscussed change… it simply means you should raise the issue on the talk page and actually discuss it. Blueboar (talk) 19:13, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
    That seems inconsistent with BRD. Do you really want to invent a whole new flow just for era styles? --Trovatore (talk) 19:18, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
    See WP:0RR. I’m not inventing a new flow… just applying an accepted (albeit rarely used) alternative that already exists. Blueboar (talk) 19:33, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
    The editor making the change may not be willing (or able) to discuss. WP:BRD should apply. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:45, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
    I would add that, in any such discussion, "no consensus" is a very likely outcome (perhaps the most likely). The advantage of BRD is that it tends to maintain a stable version over time. --Trovatore (talk) 19:52, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
    If you care enough to revert, you care enough to at least open a discussion. If the other editor does not engage, you can take that lack of engagement as a silent consensus to revert. And a silent consensus established via an attempt to discuss on the talk page out weighs a silent consensus with no discussion at all. Blueboar (talk) 20:15, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
    Just unrealistic, as well as against WP:BRD. Most regulars know not to do an undiscussed ERA change; the people who don't are usually ip's with a handful of edits, who won't see any talk page section. In what other contexts do we apply "If you care enough to revert, you care enough to at least open a discussion"? Johnbod (talk) 20:29, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
    But if only you and the other editor actually discuss it and you can't agree, that's "no consensus", which would mean that the edit would stand. But it shouldn't; there should be a preference for the status quo ante. --Trovatore (talk) 20:27, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Option 2 as OP. It seems to me that WP:IMPLICITCONSENSUS is clearly applicable, and it is a policy. I’ve seen no persuasive reason why era style should be a special case where this policy doesn’t apply. And while I admire the collaborative ethic of Blueboar's suggestion above, it does not appear to me to be feasible in practice, nor is it based in policy. Generalrelative (talk) 19:30, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Option 1 MOS:RETAIN: When no English variety has been established and discussion does not resolve the issue, use the variety found in the first post-stub revision that introduced an identifiable variety. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:45, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Option 1 MOS:RETAIN, though I'm not wholly against Option 2, and regret the opportunity was not taken to try and hammer out more precisely what "established" might actually mean. I'm on the long end of the opinions expressed above. Johnbod (talk) 20:29, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
    @Johnbod: I’m confused – do you mean that you’re not wholly against Option 2? Sweet6970 (talk) 18:15, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
    Opps, sorry - changed now You're pretty easily confused then. The present situation is a combination of 1 and 2, but if I have to choose one, I'll go with 1, although the uncertainty as to what "established" means in practice (the issue that started this discussion off) would remain completely unsettled. Johnbod (talk) 19:43, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Option 2 There will always be arbitrary changes to article ERA styles, whether by people who are unaware of MOS:ERA or who choose to ignore it. With no general consensus as to when a given style should be used, we should have a guideline that allows those changes to be reverted quickly to a stable version, determined by looking at the recent article history. The goal isn't fairness to either the BC/AD or BCE/CE crowds, it's to make the unproductive disruption go away while consuming minimal editing resources. The guidance in MOS:ERA to achieve consensus on the talk page before changing a style is good advice, but "established style" must also be interpreted in line with the core Wikipedia policy that "Wikipedia consensus usually occurs implicitly." A change that has stood for at least a couple of years is established by any reasonable interpretation of that term, even if it didn't follow the MOS:ERA guidance when it was made. Looking at Second Temple, it was created in 2002 using BC/AD (copied from an 1897 Bible Dictionary), and changed bit-by-bit to BCE/CE in 2004 and 2005. This change was challenged in 2007, and discussed on the talk page - it is arguable whether the talk page discussion resulted in a consensus. If the article's era style were changed arbitrarily today, an editor should just be able to revert to the established style without requiring revisiting 20 years of history.--Trystan (talk) 20:59, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
    • Oh, then I must have an unreasonable interpretation, as I don't think "a couple of years" is long enough for little-read articles (ie most of them). Gee, thanks! I agree that the aim is to minimize editor time sorting things out, which is why it is so important that the earliest edits are very quick to find, while on some articles even going back just 2 years in the history is a nightmare, especially as ERA-changers tend not to give clear edit summaries, often just saying something like "correct". Johnbod (talk) 21:06, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Option 1 per MOS:RETAIN - per  SMcCandlish, I believe this option is the current status quo. Further, ERA is similar to ENGVAR and DATEVAR; something that editors will disrupt wikipedia arguing and edit warring over if they are allowed to do so. Option 2 will allow them to do so, while option 1 will prevent this. BilledMammal (talk) 02:37, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Option 2 MOS:RETAIN still applies. If an editor changes it without discussion then other editors watching the article can revert as per WP:BRD and then start a discussion on the talk page. However, if nobody was watching the page or none of the watchers raised an issue about it in a timely manner then obviously nobody cares. After a suitable time (I'm not hung up on the particular time but call it 6 months if you really want a figure) with nobody objecting to it then it becomes the "established" style. Option 1 would require tedious trawling through the history and may easily miss an earlier revert out of multiple reverts - it might also require trawling through archives discussion pages. An option 1 style revert of a change from years earlier will itself look like a unilateral change and will probably get (mistakenly?) reverted by another editor under WP:RETAIN.  Stepho  talk  03:27, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Option 1 MOS:ERA tells us not to change the dating style in an article without discussion at talk. If we accept Option 2, we'll be telling people: "Yeah, you probably shoudn't go around changing articles in that way. But if you do and no one notices for x amount of time, then you'll get away with it." Ficaia (talk) 06:51, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Option 1, which is just MOS:RETAIN / MOS:VAR applied to yet another style. It has served us well for 15+ years. To the extent there will be any definitional conflict over what "established" means, this should be explained at MOS:RETAIN MOS:VAR [I sometimes get these two confused], not re-re-re-explained in every WP:*VAR that is derived from it. Doing it the latter way is priming us for a pointless WP:POLICYFORK in which, over time, the standards for MOS:ERA would diverge from those of MOS:DATEVAR and MOS:ENGVAR and WP:CITEVAR and so on. To the extent MOS:ENGVAR may already be trying to define what "established" is, that text should move to MOS:RETAIN MOS:VAR, which is where we should be defining the process: 1) don't change from one acceptable style to another without good reason; 2) give that reason on the talk page and establish consensus; and 3) if consensus is so elusive even the status quo ante the dispute can't be said to have consensus, then use the style that was established in the first non-stub version of the article with relevant content. This is not rocket science and we need to stop trying to make it more difficult than it is, and stop trying to fork new (and conflicting) rules out of nowhere. See also WP:CREEP and WP:MOSBLOAT.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  10:38, 17 April 2022 (UTC); updated 00:52, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
  • Option 1 and no need to add to the good arguments above. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:48, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Option 1 because this gives a definite answer. Option 2 would only amplify the possibility for arguments, because it would lead to arguments about what is a ‘reasonable time’. Sweet6970 (talk) 16:23, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Option 2 which reflects our policy on consensus, policy normally overrides guidelines. To say that, for example, a 15 year old article that was changed 12 years ago doesn't have an established style from that time onwards doesn't make sense. Btw, I find that most editors making changes are new or are IPs. And recently a lot are calling such changes "grammar". Doug Weller talk 16:50, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Option 2 Saying that implicit consensus doesn't apply here sounds like special pleading. Moreover, option 1 doesn't really solve anything. To paraphrase Trovatore above, "oldest non-stub version" is just as ambiguous and open to wiki-lawyering as "reasonable amount of time", and it presumes that a consistent dating style actually existed in it. Is a stub only a stub if it is tagged as such? Does a stub remain a stub if it is expanded yet no one bothers to remove the tag? For that matter, what grand principle insists that stubbiness is the crucial dividing line? XOR'easter (talk) 21:09, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
    • I've never seen any of those stub-related arguments raised, but I've seen quite a few disputes over "established". Obviously, if the earliest non-stub version is mixed in style then all bets are off (I don't think I've ever seen that either though). What grand principle - MOS:RETAIN. Johnbod (talk) 03:15, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment It's a significant argument for Option 1 that ENGVAR still uses "first non-stub". It would be weird to ask editors to remember one rule for spelling and a different rule for eras. But in practice, is "first non-stub" really taken seriously even for ENGVAR? If someone wrote "color" in 2007 and then it got silently changed to "colour" in 2009, and the article has been humming along tranquilly in BrEng ever since, I wouldn't feel that entitled me to go in and start changing all the spellings to AmEng. Maybe we should consider clarifying that point for ENGVAR, rather than copying the text for ERA. --Trovatore (talk) 03:58, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
    • Really? I do that all the time, especially where (as is normally the case for ENGVAR, and often for ERA problems) the styles are hoplessly mixed up in the article, as different editors have added over the years. The clear "first non-stub" rule is the main reason we have few protracted ENGVAR arguments, unless close national ties are invoked. Johnbod (talk) 14:20, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
      • An example has just hit my watchlist at Apollonius of Tyana, which went non-stub in 2002. Despite his dates being "2-98", no one thought it necessary to add any ERA indication until 2006, when an "AD" was added, followed not long after by a CE. The article has probably remained mixed until an ip's first edit went all-AD in the last hour, saying "Changed few instances of CE into AD to conform with the overall style of the articles which primarily uses AD" which I haven't checked but is no doubt correct. So much for "established". Johnbod (talk) 14:44, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
        • That's not exactly the situation I was talking about. Yes, when things are genuinely mixed, you've got to clean them up somehow, and you might as well pick a clear rule, to the extent there is one. But if a style has genuinely become "established", it seems more rather than less harmful to stability to go change it based on being able to find a single instance from a decade ago that no one paid much attention to at the time. --Trovatore (talk) 18:01, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
          • It is more typical than the cases you have made up. What does "a style has genuinely become "established"" mean? That was the question that started this section off, and unfortunately this Rfc avoids attempting to provide an answer. No one is actually going through histories looking for the many illicit changes that have undoubtedly been undetected, except when another such raises the question. Johnbod (talk) 05:01, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
            If Option 1, or even no consensus, is decided, I've been thinking that the least time-wasting way to respond to a change might be to simply revert any changes, either way, that don't point to a discussion or something like that on the basis that it's up to the person making the change to justify it, not me to spend time searching for the first non-stub version etc. Doug Weller talk 09:36, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
            I think illicit is an inappropriate assessment here. That implies that the person making the changes is trying to "pull a fast one" or otherwise knows what they are doing is wrong, and being sneaky about it. These are good faith changes that people make; they earnestly believe they are helping improve the article when they make said change. Whether or not they are is a different story, but to call such edits "illicit" is really wrong headed, and the wrong way to approach what is, in essence, an arbitrary change. The policy exists not because one version is better or not, but that neither is, and as such, we should not be changing arbitrarily between one or the other just to change it. If what is there now is as good as what one could change it to don't change it. If it happened to have been changed (against that advice) a very long time ago, don't change it back. --Jayron32 13:10, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
            The most frequent edit summary I see by IPs or accounts with almost no edits is "grammar change" or "fixed grammar". Doug Weller talk 13:21, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
            Let's look at a dictionary: "illicit... forbidden by law, rules, or custom." Seems correct. Johnbod (talk) 15:22, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Option 1, which has the virtue of simplicity, although I can't see it fairly resolving all cases (e.g. where major early contributors prefer one style but don't explicitly impose it, followed by someone whose only contribution is to set the other era style). Option 2 just has too much vague language that is left open to interpretation. Dhtwiki (talk) 22:20, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Option 2. It's important to understand that both of these options are "failure states" (the ideal solution is to reach a clear consensus.) That being the case, the only overriding concern is the same one we always have with WP:NOCON - we want to maintain article stability per WP:QUO. Stability is best ensured by giving the longstanding version precedence rather than encouraging people to dig through the article history from years and years ago and make a sweeping change to it based on that. I don't really agree that MOS:RETAIN overrides this, but even if it did I'm not seeing much of an argument for why RETAIN is what it is; if there's a contradiction and people are bothered by that then MOS:RETAIN should be changed as well, since in neither case is there a compelling reason to override the much more core and much more important policy of WP:NOCON. Finally, WP:NOCON is a broader and more widely-known policy; using it uniformly as the default way to resolve no-consensus disputes makes policy simpler - it is the current wording here (and, yes, even RETAIN) that are CREEPy. --Aquillion (talk) 22:59, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
    • Additionally, while I don't think this is the intent, I'm concerned that the wording of option 1 could be used to argue that, in situations where, say... one editor starts an article with era type A, someone else immediately changes it to B, a clear consensus emerges for B on talk, and then, five years later, another RFC over the era ends in no consensus, the article should be changed back to A because the consensus in B is no longer valid and the first version has priority. I've seen enough policies end up in weird interpretations like that that I would strenuously oppose any version of 1 that fails to make it unambiguous that the moment a clear consensus is reached for an article's era, the first version no longer matters and will never matter again under any circumstances (ie. a new explicit consensus is needed to reverse a previous one; it is not acceptable to demonstrate that the consensus is now deadlocked and then insist on reverting to the older version over a previously-established consensus.) But in general all of these nonsense interactions can just be avoided by going for option 2, which is how we handle basically everything else - it feels like both this policy and RETAIN were from an earlier era where WP:NOCON was less well-defined, and now feel arbitrary and unnecessary. But in general, WP:NOCON is simple, easy to understand, and works everywhere; I am not seeing anyone making any compelling arguments why we should allow deviations for it here (honestly I'm not even sure we can - NOCON is policy, this is just the MOS. When there's no consensus to enforce what the MOS says, or when there's disagreement over how to apply it, we default to the current / longstanding text; the MOS can't just grant itself priority over core dispute-resolution policy.) --Aquillion (talk) 23:07, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
      • I'm sure that wasn't the intent, nor would any such implication ever actually make it into the policy. Neither of the options have wordings that are suitable for just dropping into the policy, which is a pity. Johnbod (talk) 02:12, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Option 1: This is how I've always understood WP:ERA and read through article histories accordingly. The "reasonable time" could vary tremendously, since some articles do not get a meaningful edit for years. But in heavy traffic articles an era change can still go unnoticed for a long time, even if the change was virtually vandalism. This happens a lot, especially from BCE to BC. StAnselm (talk) 14:09, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
  • Option 2. Just because someone rushed an article and wrote a few lines, does not mean anything. If an article has been stable after an era style changed then there is clearly implicit consensus for that change. That is especially true for articles which are actively edited by numerous editors. If after a period of time, an editor wants to challenge that, they should start a discussion and get convince other editors. If they can't they obviously do not have consensus for that style. --Gonnym (talk) 14:56, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Discussion (MOS:ERA's "established era style" clause)

Do reliable sources play no role here at all? What if a stub (or whatever stable baseline point people decide to agree on) does it one way, but the preponderance of reliable sources clearly use the other system? We go with the Wikipedia editor's decision? Mathglot (talk) 01:52, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Not really. On most ancient subjects (which is obviously where this mostly applies) the "preponderance of reliable sources" will use BC, if only because they predate the very recent arrival of the BCE style. Working out & demonstrating what "the preponderance of reliable sources" say or use on anything is a huge effort. Under either option here, a new discussion, per WP:ERA can always change and confirm the style. Johnbod (talk) 02:31, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
I concur with Jc3s5h below that this would basically be disastrous, but iff we felt we had to go in some direction like this, it would have to be like MOS:GENDERID, and only consider recent source material.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  10:56, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
We must not decide the era notation based on the practices of the sources cited in the article. To adopt such a guideline would create an incentive to edit war over the sources; one side will try to add sources that use BC and remove those that use BCE; the other side will do the reverse. The changes in sources will reduce the quality of the article much more than a change in era notation would. Jc3s5h (talk) 03:01, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
Both of the above are correct. I'd like to add that it is not Wikipedia's practice to make style decisions based on sources. Reliable sources tend to be written for and by specialists and Wikipedia is written for a generalist audience. RS determine the facts in an article, but not what style we choose. WP:SSF talks about this (and says a lot more that I haven't read). SchreiberBike | ⌨  03:31, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
Yes, that's correct (and will remain correct no matter how often someone with a WP:Specialized-style fallacy gets bent out of shape about it).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  10:54, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
If you propose changing from style A to style B and you are shouted down, clearly there is an established style. If you propose a change (or propose to explicitly declare the existing style "established"), and a consensus does not form, then clearly there is not an established style. If the article has been in the same style for most or all of its existence, then clearly there is an established style. If the article has been about 50/50 between two competing styles, then clearly there is not an established style. If people have been repeatedly editwarring about it for months or years, clearly there is not an established style. If it's been the same style for most of the existence of the article and an editwar broke out recently, clearly there is an established style (though a failure to come to consensus could disestablish it). None of this is complicated. The fact that era style attracts a certain level of zealotry and related bad behavior doesn't make this *VAR "magically special" compared to all the other similar provisions, nor call for instituting weird rule forks when we already have a general rule (that WP:ERAVAR is just an application of). It means some zealots (on both sides) need to be taken to ANI and barred from changing established era styles in articles. It's a behavioral problem, not a "there oughta be a new rule ..." problem.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  10:53, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
Several people above cite MOS:RETAIN, which is part of MOS:ENGVAR and relates specifically to changes between national varieties of English. The general guidance on retaining existing styles is at MOS:VAR. In my opinion, both MOS:VAR and MOS:RETAIN are compatible with Option 2. MOS:VAR just says not to make arbitrary changes or edit war. MOS:RETAIN says "When no English variety has been established and discussion does not resolve the issue, use the variety found in the first post-stub revision that introduced an identifiable variety. The established variety in a given article can be documented by placing the appropriate Varieties of English template on its talk page." Reverting to the first post-stub version only happens in the absence of an existing established style. I would say that an article that has been stable in one variety of English for many years, and has that style documented on the talk page, has an established style, regardless of whether it was arbitrarily changed at some point years ago. Use of a similar template to record established ERA styles might help "settle" articles on one or the other, though it would likely be a fair amount of trouble trying to apply those templates in the first place.--Trystan (talk) 14:12, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
What we may need to do is "port" some provisions out of ENGVAR/RETAIN and into VAR, so that the general principles are found there and can be referenced from all the *VAR provisions.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:49, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
  • They do, sort of? Remember that this discussion is just about what we do when there is no clear consensus. If there's a clear consensus for one version, then that one must be used, and sources can be used to argue for that as usual. --Aquillion (talk) 23:01, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

I've no preference for any options. But, would recommend restraint on 'newbies' or IPs who've been making numerous changes to related articles. GoodDay (talk) 17:30, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Sure, but will they be aware of your urgings? Johnbod (talk) 19:45, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Honestly, thinking over it, I am beginning to feel like both the relevant parts of MOS:ERA and MOS:RETAIN are inappropriate and should either be entirely deleted or drastically toned down to make it clear that they are mild suggestions at best (while referencing or summarizing WP:NOCON for what to do when there is no consensus, ie. retain the stable version until there is a consensus otherwise - but it should be clear that the force of that comes from WP:NOCON and not from the WP:MOS.) The purpose of the MOS is to give general guidelines for how articles should read; it is not to dictate dispute-resolution, which is covered by WP:CONSENSUS and other core policies. These parts of the MOS feel like they are relics of an era when our consensus-building procedures were less well-defined and rules on consensus-building therefore ended up slipped into the MOS. If people think they are vital then they should be added to WP:CONSENSUS, but in general I don't think it makes sense for the MOS to be overtly dictating how consensus should be assessed and what to do when it breaks down - that's not its role. And I have the same problem I outlined above - why are these different from anything else that is subject to consensus? Obviously going through a bunch of articles and changing them in a chain is inappropriate WP:FAITACCOMPLI; in general it feels to me like the problems that these parts of the MOS were intended to cover have since been covered adequately by more core policy. --Aquillion (talk) 23:16, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

That's a good point, Aquillion. I would support starting a centralized discussion on the matter once this RfC is concluded, regardless of the result here. Generalrelative (talk) 00:50, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
I don't see it this way at all. One of the important purposes of the MOS is to stop disputes arising in the first place, which is what we are after here. Long-term readers of this page will know that just about everything in the MOS is disputable, and often disputed, but the MOS exists to set out the rules and standards and stop such disputes from taking up editors' time. Plus I really don't see how the deliberately very vague WP:NOCON helps in this issue at all; that would lead to far more protracted disputes, I'm sure. It deals with what to do when discussions fail to achieve consensus; WP:ERA aims to prevent the need for discussions in most cases, and even in its ambiguous condition is fairly successful in this. Johnbod (talk) 02:13, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

See also template

Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Do we have a consensus on cases when {{see also}} template is used inbetween of paragraphs (which is usually used for related topics) but there is no subtitle? Was it ever discussed before? Just want to make sure it's not regulated (I think it should not be because of WP:CREEP probably). Below is an examples of what I'm talking about. Thanks in advance.

Some article about X topic
[…]

Subtitle

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum.


See also: Abundance of elements in Earth's crust

Some minerals here and there, like, sulfates, are quite rare on Earth etc...

[…]
The Template:See also documentation states it should be placed "at the top of article sections (excluding the lead)." This has been there since at least 2006, so it seems like well defined consensus. --Cerebral726 (talk) 17:20, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
  • That's not what the template is for, and using it this way will confuse the readers as to whether the cross-reference pertains the the preceding material or the following material. It would be better in a case like this to do: Some minerals here and there, like, sulfates, are quite rare on Earth etc... {{crossref|(For more information, see [[Abundance of elements in Earth's crust]].)}} Blah blah blah rest of paragraph.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:48, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

MOS:TMSTYLE

Latest comment: 2 years ago7 comments3 people in discussion

Is MOS:TMSTYLE restricted strictly for usage to trademarks only? Is using (stylized in all caps) or (stylized in lowercase) in the start sentence of lead of entertainment (songs/albums/bands/television series/etc) articles (for illustration purpose – Hello World (stylized in all caps) ...) considered as deliberately going against MOS? — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 12:54, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Yes, taht's what MOS:TM is aimed at. It has nothing to do with trademark registration and officialness, but with marketing intent.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:55, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
@SMcCandlish Looks like my interpretation is not wrong, in that it isn't aimed exclusively for trademarks only. For further verification, does doing such considered as "not noteworthy" because of reasons such as the work's title regardless of actual stylization is in uppercase or lowercase is simply the same word hence not noteworthy enough to use to justify usage of (stylized in all caps) or (stylized in lowercase) or should it only be used only when the title is complicated enough such as having unicode and/or special characters. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 12:57, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
I'm not sure we're entirely on the same page here. I don't think it has anything to do with "noteworthiness". It's about potential for reader confusion. We commonly include a "(stylized as ...)" note in leads just to be sure the reader knows they are at the right page, but we're not going to around writing SONY or macy★s in running text otherwise. A good example is probably Client (band). When an entity like the University of Wisconsin–Madison has a logo that literally reads "UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN–MADISON" we have no need to do a "stylized as" note because there's no potential for confusion on the reader's part. But someone who encounters "CLIEͶT" in a music magazine is not necessarily going to be 100% certain that's the same band as "Client" unless we tell them so. One thing we're not going to do, by contrast, is a bunch of color-coded font goofery like "(stylized as ebay)". The purpose is not to mimic trademarks and logos, it is to prevent reader confusion about whether they're at the right place. Anyway, if your goal is to delete all the "stylized as" notes, that's not a worthwhile goal. But where they just show upper-case, for a string that is not going to be confused with an acronym, they probably serve no purpose. E.g. at a song title "Don't Touch My Monkey" there is no purpose served by adding '(stylized as "DON'T TOUCH MY MONKEY")' just to mimic the all-caps cover of the single.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:25, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
@SMcCandlish Understood, thanks for the clarification. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 01:34, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
Personally, I believe the MOS:TM guidance applies generally to other topics as well as trademarks and business names. As far as I'm concerned, the spirit of MOS:TM applies whenever an affiliated source is using special styling to promote any topic. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 05:04, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
Yep.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:58, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Introductory commas

Latest comment: 2 years ago36 comments7 people in discussion

"In 2017, he finally found a job in the warehouse"; "Eventually, he found a job in the warehouse"; "In May 2020, they issued their first single", etc., etc. Are these commas necessary? Are they preferred for some reason? The only guideline I can see which might cover them is: "Modern writing uses fewer commas; there are usually ways to simplify a sentence so that fewer are needed." It may be my imagination, but these "introductory commas", which seem to me to be wholly superfluous, appear to be far more prevalent in American English articles. Is some guidance needed here? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:32, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Longer introductory phrases frequently take commas, or else we get "In the early 16th century buildings were denser." As far as I'm aware, most varieties of English use commas in such situations. Two-term phrases like "In 2017" are a bit more varied. I'm not sure we need guidance to use the comma or not, and articles should just be consistent. I noticed you removed one in the lead of Elon Musk, though the comma is included everywhere else, so I'm glad we're talking about it. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 21:23, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
Two-term phrases are my biggest gripe. I have to admit the task of removing all those commas that I see as unnecessary is too daunting. I tend to revert additions and also any others I spot in the same section. If in the early 16th century buildings were denser, that's fine by me. But I'm not sure how adding a comma, anywhere in that sentence, would change the meaning. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:31, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
Without changing the meaning, a comma can make sentences easier to parse. How about "In the early 16th century buildings Sheena experienced a growing sense of connection with her heritage." A reader is likely to eventually figure out the correct meaning of the sentence, but I would probably initially think I was being told the setting in time of the sentence. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 21:43, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
For me the first part of that sentence constitutes a subordinate clause, so I think a comma is actually required. In a sentence such as In 2017, Sheena experienced a growing sense of connection with her heritage, the comma looks to me wholly redundant. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:48, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
I don't think you're right about clauses, but three is about my limit for daily comments in a grammar debate. I reiterate my desire for consistency within articles and my opposition to a guideline either requiring or deprecating commas in introductory phrases. I look forward to the opinions of other editors. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 21:52, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
If you can stretch to four, I'd be happy to see any sources you could provide for a rebuttal of my view on subordinate clauses. Although I'd be happy to move from "required" to "preferred". Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:56, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
For you, anything! As long as my teachers learned me right, a clause needs a subject and a verb. Here's two sources that agree:
Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 22:04, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
I see. I still think a comma is required in your example. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:14, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

For me, "In the early 16th century buildings Sheena experienced a growing sense of connection with her heritage." would benefit from a comma before “Sheena” as this would be better for clarity of argument. As I would naturally pause after “century” but the comma would just clarify what exactly you’re trying to say. I don’t find that comma redundant though in the “In 2017, Sheena experienced a growing sense of connection with her heritage“ as it signifies the point whereby you would naturally pause. For me, it’s just neater and cleaner. Define02 (talk) 22:12, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Here I am, to weigh in with half-remembered lessons! I do believe "in the early 16th century buildings" would be considered a prepositional phrase, and not, indeed a subordinate clause. I was always taught that a basic rule of thumb was less than four words, no comma, four or more, comma. This was, of course, caveated with the wonderfully tautological advice that one should always use a comma "if necessary to prevent misunderstanding." Happy to be corrected by others, but I think I am adequately channeling my grandmother. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 22:15, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
Is a comma required after a prepositional phrase? And hearty congratulations on the firing up of the "Jennifer Aniston neurons". Martinevans123 (talk) 22:23, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
I should have been clear that my "four words or more" rule is generally applied to prepositional phrases. Thus "In 2017 she ate all the carrots" but "In the early 16th century buildings, she ate all the carrots." Dumuzid (talk) 22:27, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
Maybe I just don't feel the need to pause after two words. This is an encyclopaedia, not a murder mystery. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:18, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

But for example, if you started the sentence with “Unfortunately, the weeds were highly prevalent”. One would naturally pause after “Unfortunately” hence though comma. Though indeed adverbial sentence starters do differ from the aforementioned subordinate clauses. Define02 (talk) 22:25, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Yes, fine. Maybe I don't read "In 2017" as an adverbial phrase. Or, if it is, one that requires any pause to disambiguate the meaning. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:29, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
Right. I had to look at disjuncts to remind myself! Dumuzid (talk) 22:30, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for the link. An obvious case where commas are needed. "In 2017" is not a disjunct, is it? And neither is "On 1 April 2017", etc. ? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:04, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
No, those are not disjuncts, but prepositional phrases, per the above ("on" and "in"). Thus, my leaning would be "In 2017" does not require a comma, but "On 1 April, 2017," would (four words). Again, this is not in any way a hard and fast rule, and I don't mean to pretend I have any great authority here! Just, as mentioned, dim memories. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 13:38, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
Dumuzid's advice is one I've seen in style guides (four words or fewer), but it's not an established MoS style guideline so far. Martinevans123, could you wait for firmer consensus before removing commas from shorter introductory phrases? I presume there's a "retain existing styles" advantage to the status quo ante. If, as you suggested, this is a feature of American English, then articles like Musk's should continue to use it. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:51, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
The advice I recall is "four words or more." You are now my bitterest enemy. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 13:57, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
I don't know why I phrased it that way! It made total sense in my head, like "Don't use the introductory comma for phrases that are four words or fewer." Why phrase it in the negative? Perhaps I was attacked by a comma as a child. Either way, I accept your enmity. I've been hoping for a good wikinemesis, as the LTA that hates me is more of a pest than a worthy foe. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:01, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
I'd like to see some consensus about American vs British English. Revert Musk if you must. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:05, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
No 'must' from me on Musk. I'd prefer if you didn't start making changes "on mass" (real error I ran into the other day) to a bunch of articles. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:15, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
It was only your "consistency" comment that prompted my Musk attack. I'll hold fire on any others. (pre-Brexit we used to have en masse, lol) Martinevans123 (talk) 14:22, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

A tragedy! Heads up: there are still more brief intro commas at Musk. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:46, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

There's the added complication of US date format which is e.g. "April 1, 2017". At least Brit English escapes that one. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:07, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
My understanding is that the comma in "American" date formats (which used to just be the English date format) does not require a comma after the year, if a comma would otherwise not be placed there; but again, I might be wrong. Honestly, though...is this something that really needs to be codified, especially to the finest minute detail of counting words and requiring either a commma or no comma in all such cases? I think it is better to decide when and where to place commas on a case-by-case: articles are written in natural language, so it is a question of "Would there be a natural pause here if this were spoken?" There may be good reasons for having some sentences do one thing, and others another. For example, In 2017, she began a journey around the world in a hot air balloon, but In April the rain forced her to be grounded on the plain, in Spain. SirTramtryst (talk) 17:30, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
Well well well, it looks like I am going to need an entire bitterest enemies list. (I jest!) I am not of the opinion that it needs codification, and I was offering my word counting 'rule' for two reasons: (1) chuffed I can remember back that far; and (2) it's a reasonable rule of thumb if someone is looking for guidance. I certainly don't think it should be mandated as I tried (and apparently failed) to say. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 17:39, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
Fff - Be my guest. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:25, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

I feel less special now. SirTramtryst, I know other style guides might differ, but Wikipedia's does indeed require a post-year comma in mdy date formats. See MOS:DATECOMMA. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:46, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Not needing to be codified?? Good lord. I believe shoddy comma crimes should lead to an indefinite block, or at least an indefinite article. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:23, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Introductory-phrase commas are generally recommended by style guides, and should always be used when the construction could be confusing without one. I just ran into a case yesterday that was something like "In July 2012 researchers [did whatever]" and added a comma because there were not 2,012 researchers involved. If you go around removing commas from things like "In 2022, O'Brien moved to Madagascar", expect to get reverted, because they are not incorrect. See MOS:VAR. Leaving those commas out is primarily a news/journalism habit, and Wikipedia is not written in news style as a matter of policy (WP:NOT#NEWS). News style guides have had nearly zero input into or impact on our MoS, for good reasons, the most obvious of which is an extreme of expediency and compression at the expense of comprehensibility. It is important to remember that WP is written for everyone, including school children and ESL learners. Don't remove commas you don't think are absolutely required; remove commas only when they are flat-out incorrect. When MoS says that English today uses fewer commas than it used to, it means in comparison to writing from, say, 1922.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  05:30, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

  • Always test without them and remove if they're not needed. Tony (talk) 22:26, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
    • If there had been 2,012 researchers, I would have expected a comma right there. I'd say that, in the UK, "leaving those commas out is primarily".... normal, not some journalistic habit. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:31, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
      A) You can't depend on our editors much less our readers to have read and absorbed MOS:NUM. B) Then I suggest you don't read enough British writing (e.g. Oxford U. Press output etc.) that isn't journalism. I devour nonfiction voraciously, and the commas as usually present in high-end, academic-leaning writing, which is what MoS is based on and the kind of writing that an encyclopedia employs. If there's any room for any confusion on the part of any reader, use the comma.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:01, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Under Further Reading; External Style Guides, the link is dead. Possible substitute: https://www.chicagomanualofstyle.org/tools_citationguide.html

DET (talk) 20:36, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with the symbol №.

Latest comment: 2 years ago14 comments11 people in discussion

This guide says, “do not use the symbol №.”, without stating a reason. Why should it not be used? And who says so? It seems totally arbitrary. Jeff in CA (talk) 11:16, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

The Chicago Manual of Style does not seem to cover usage of №, presumably because it is rare in English. The Unicode Standard 13.0 (2020, p. 821) states that "U+2116 numero sign is provided both for Cyrillic use ... and for compatibility with Asian standards"; it does not mention English use of the symbol. Doremo (talk) 11:31, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
This is a case of having a rule for the sake of having a rule. This is a classic edge-case. Who was ever going to do it in the first place? Delete completely and practically no-one will ever notice. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 12:47, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
The explicit rule is useful because editors that are not native English speakers can be referred to it. Native English speakers are certainly unlikely to try to use №, but it is helpful to invoke it while editing, just as the MOS explicitly says not to use guillemet (« ») marks, which would likewise never occur to a native English speaker. Doremo (talk) 12:58, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
The numero sign (№) may by unusual in English, but Nº is not, particularly in manuscript. In print No. is possibly more common. Recently though I'd agree that the American # seems to have become more common. I've just grabbed the current issue of the Kent Archaeological Society's newsletter which has "Nº 118 Spring 2022" on the front cover. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 14:43, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
I do not consider it sufficient to only consider how the symbol appears on the screen or paper when rendered; it makes a difference what is present in the wikitext, and when it isn't obvious, it should be specified how the editor would enter the character(s) in the wikitext. Martin of Sheffield did not specify how Nº was entered in the wikitext of the preceeding post, nor it is obvious. Since the Kent Archaeological Society's newsletter was not linked, it is not obvious whether Martin of Sheffield cut and pasted the exact same symbol that is present in an electronic newsletter, or whether it is Martin of Sheffield's impression of what electronic symbol best approximates what is shown in a paper newsletter. Jc3s5h (talk) 15:42, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
Since I was not addressing the use of the symbol in Wikitext, nor yet the contents of the MOS, how I entered it is pretty irrelevant. As regards the KAS newsletter, since I grabbed the current issue and commented about the front cover and furthermore since it was not linked it ought to be obvious to most readers that it is in print and not electronics. I'm not arguing for a change in the MOS recommendations, merely commenting on the unfounded assertion of Doremo that No (or one of its variants) are "rare" and "unlikely" to be used by an English speaker. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 20:24, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
I believe Doremo was referring specifically with the Unicode symbol №, as opposed to the more general No.. Note that No. is actually recommended by the MOS. Kahastok talk 20:47, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
Yes; № ≠ No. ≠ no. Doremo (talk) 02:16, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
The New York Times Manual of Style and Usage (2015) says, No. for number. Note the capitalization: Haste is the No. 1 reason for errors. Do not use No. before the numerical designations of schools, fire companies, lodges and similar units: Public School 4 (or P.S. 4)... Le Marteau (talk) 18:57, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
The clause which forbids the use of the "№" character, albeit worded differently, was first added to the MoS as long ago as September 2009, in this edit by Alexd~enwiki (talk · contribs). The relevant discussion may now be found at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 110## in British English, although the only mention of the character is in a post by Tony1 (talk · contribs) at 12:05, 14 September 2009 (UTC). --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:15, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
So far I haven't seen any good arguments on the merits for having this rule. If it's hard to type, then don't. If "№" is hard to read and understand, then why is "No." allowed or even apparently encouraged, and then what about Nº or for that matter the octothorpe (#). If it's a matter of what some external manual of style says, who cares about that? My take is that this is instance #37,542 of this general case:
  • It just another rule put in for the sake of having a rule and bossing other editors around.
  • It was put in place during the Eisenhower Administration or whatever, after a brief discussion by three editors, none of whom are active anymore and two of whom are actually dead.
  • It will be in place til the Sun dies. These things are like bedbugs, once you have them it's practically impossible to get rid of them.
So I'm not going to worry about it. Best practice if for editors to ignore rules like this, but either way is fine. But thanks to OP for pointing it out. Herostratus (talk) 15:13, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

I can see no reason why you'd want to use this over "No." aside from affectation, which we generally don't encourage. Doremo above highlighted the possibility of non-native English speakers using it. As a general rule, I think it makes sense to discourage using a character that is difficult to type when there are non-special replacements readily at hand (No.) with no loss of meaning. Mackensen (talk) 15:34, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

I think that there's an issue with screen-readers and fonts. It's the same reason that other symbols are discouraged
> Do not use Unicode characters that put an abbreviation into a single character (unless the character itself is the subject of the text), e.g.: №, ㋏, ㎇, ㉐, Ⅶ, ℅, ™︎. These are not all well-supported in Western fonts. This does not apply to currency symbols, such as ₨ and ₠. For more comprensive lists, see Ligatures in Unicode, Letterlike Symbols, CJK Compatibility, Enclosed CJK Letters and Months, and Enclosed Alphanumeric Supplement.
Source Smasongarrison (talk) 22:59, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Need other eyes

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The discussion is Talk:Apex#Apparently_this_is_necessary.... Sorry and thank you. —swpbT • go beyond • bad idea 18:42, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Examples requested at MOS:ENBETWEEN

Latest comment: 2 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

In MOS:ENFROM, there is explicit guidance about spacing of en dashes in ranges involving one or more entities containing spaces (e.g. "20 November – 3 December", not "20 November–3 December"), but MOS:ENBETWEEN is mute regarding similar issues. Is it "Duchy of Parma – United States relations" or "Duchy of Parma–United States relations"? An example or two in that section would be helpful. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:36, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

I hope the answer is no space. The space in the date ranges still looks odd to me. and was never something I agreed with. But obviously styles and opinions vary. Dicklyon (talk) 03:59, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
Yeah, opinions do vary. I very much like our full-date protocol with the open en dash, but in some other contexts an open en dash could be termporarily understood as an interrupting dash (I think the original discussion opted for closed en dash, but you can probably get away with either). Tony (talk) 01:20, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Hyphen-Traumas

Latest comment: 2 years ago21 comments6 people in discussion

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:MasterQuestionable/3

    [ Quote:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/FAQ?oldid=1105700345#Dashes
    Why does the Manual of Style differentiate the hyphen (-), en dash (–), em dash (—), and minus sign (−)?
    Appropriate use of hyphens and dashes is as much a part of literate, easy-to-read writing as are correct spelling and capitalization. The "Insert" editing tools directly below the Wikipedia editing window provide immediate access to all these characters. ]

    A low effort search indicates there should be already similar topics scattering across the hundreds Archives. I did not further check them all.
    My apologies in advance if the statements missed some past critical points.

    ----

    |*| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Search?fulltext=1&prefix=Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style&search=hyphen+dash+minus
    |*| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Archive_208#Can_we_stop_now%3F


    [ Quote EEng @ CE 2018-10-09 18:15 UTC:
https://en.wikipedia.org/?diffonly=1&diff=prev&oldid=863263753
    [ Quote Khajidha @ CE 2018-10-09 16:22 UTC:
https://en.wikipedia.org/?diffonly=1&diff=prev&oldid=863247133
    It seems like saying the "W" on the Walmart sign is different from the "W" on my keyboard because it's bigger. ]
<^>    ... by the Walmart reasoning, we should eliminate the distinction between lowercase w and uppercase W because they're the same except for scale. ]

    [ Quote David Eppstein @ CE 2018-10-09 22:28 UTC:
https://en.wikipedia.org/?diffonly=1&diff=prev&oldid=863299519
    OPPOSE UNLESS WE ALSO OUTLAW LOWER CASE AND GO BACK TO THE 1963 UPPERCASE-ONLY VERSION OF ASCII. ]
<^>    What sort of non-sense reasoning is this..?


    [ Quote Dicklyon @ CE 2018-10-08 14:51 UTC:
https://en.wikipedia.org/?diffonly=1&diff=prev&oldid=863071899
    If hyphens and dashes look alike to you, you are using a deficient font. ]
<^>    How could they possibly look distinct under Monospace constraint?

    [ Quote EEng @ CE 2018-10-07 20:32 UTC:
https://en.wikipedia.org/?diffonly=1&diff=prev&oldid=862959695
    ... there's nowhere whatsoever that a hyphen can substitute for an emdash without looking absolutely awful:
    |0| He—now with his wife—went inside.
    |1| He - now with his wife - went inside. ]
<^>    The |1| looks acceptable. (and actually better under Monospace)
    But for this very case it should be better expressed as: "He, now with his wife: went inside.". (rather than the above comma splice like crippled statement)

    [ Quote Dr Greg @ CE 2018-10-05 21:04 UTC:
https://en.wikipedia.org/?diffonly=1&diff=prev&oldid=862662798
    The reason Wikipedia distinguishes between hyphens, en-dashes, em-dashes and minus signs is because that's what all professional publishers do, and have done for centuries. It's a very well established convention. So we do it to make our encyclopedia look professional rather than amateur. ]
<^>    Blindly following the professional is what headless amateurs do.


- MasterQuestionable (talk) 22:49, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, but WTF? - EEng 18:38, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
Exactly the WTF you intended to express. - MasterQuestionable (talk) 03:56, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
Would it help matters to point out that the typographic symbol is named tréma, not trauma? And that it cannot be used as a substitute for a hyphen? —David Eppstein (talk) 18:49, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
Diaeresis, not diarrhea. - EEng 01:01, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
	"Hyphen-Traumas", literally exactly as it is.
	For the tormenting traumas trying to distinguish these hardly distinguishable hyphen alike symbols.
- MasterQuestionable (talk) 03:56, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
I think you mean hyphen-like. - EEng 04:32, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
	You may make arbitrary interpretation entirely at will. But it's "hyphen alike", intended.

	Does the factual validity really change only because it was expressed "It Do" instead of "It Does"?
- MasterQuestionable (talk) 20:13, 2 September 2022 (UTC)


    [ Quote Martin of Sheffield @ CE 2018-10-11 22:35 UTC:
https://en.wikipedia.org/?diffonly=1&diff=prev&oldid=863617726
    [ Quote J. Johnson @ CE 2018-10-11 22:25 UTC:
https://en.wikipedia.org/?diffonly=1&diff=prev&oldid=863616575
    [ Quote Martin of Sheffield @ CE 2018-10-11 20:19 UTC:
https://en.wikipedia.org/?diffonly=1&diff=prev&oldid=863601359
    As in: there are lO types of I/O? ]
<^>    More like "l0 types of i/o" (who would ever use an "I" in place of an "l"???), ... ]
<^>    Eh? Look at the source and you'll see I used lower case L not upper case I.
    BTW, what's this "0" all about, real old school types used "O" since it looks the same (but heh, really screws up the compiler - DAMHIK). ]
<^>    [ Quote <Characters Demo: Unicode Absurdity>:
https://github.com/MasterInQuestion/Markup/blob/main/Char%20Demo.htm
    Is the A an А or Α or A..?
    Canonical equivalence matters? Uniqueness matters!
    .
    One brilliant design of Unicode:
    The purpose of such distinct hardly distinguishable characters? ]

- MasterQuestionable (talk) 22:27, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

If you're going to quote me, please: (1) do it in context, and (2) have the courtesy to ping me. The above exchange was a light-hearted couple of comments concerning early typewriters, not a serious discussion about Unicode! - Martin of Sheffield (talk) 06:53, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
	Ping only necessary when direct reply is expected. However it's not relevant in the context:
	The quotes mainly demonstrate why uniqueness matters, not directly related with Unicode nor your typewriter discussion.
- MasterQuestionable (talk) 21:09, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
But Unicode has no direct representation of slashed zero. - 2600:1001:B022:948:55F4:5527:8F35:AAE3 (talk) 23:27, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
The problem is far beyond the scale of certain characters, but the overall design of Unicode (and the presentation mechanism behind). - MasterQuestionable (talk) 23:43, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
But Unicode has been very successful in the computer industry. Don't understand your attacks against it or what it has to do with Wikipedia style guide. - 2600:1001:B022:948:55F4:5527:8F35:AAE3 (talk) 02:46, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
Are the demonstrated issues non-existent made-up?.. Or you just pretend to not see? - MasterQuestionable (talk) 15:17, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
This thread was opened two days ago. That should be more than enough time for the LSD to have worn off. Now would you mind making a concrete proposal for what you think should be changed in MOS? Otherwise I'm going to archive this because it's taking up space and brainpower better put to other uses. - EEng 01:43, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
	With various other discussions of great length already piled up here in heft: would it really matter?
	It just seems like you are trying to kill the discussion... not for its factual validity but your personal distaste.

	Feels so like: trying to wake those of feigned LSD-overdosed.
- MasterQuestionable (talk) 15:17, 3 September 2022 (UTC)


    Related discussion: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:MasterQuestionable/4 - MasterQuestionable (talk) 21:09, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Using "who/whose/her/him/hers/his" in the context of named individual animals

Latest comment: 2 years ago32 comments19 people in discussion

It seems that there is a strong tendency for Wikipedia articles to use "who" and "whose" and "him" and "her" (e.g., rather than "it", "that" or "which") when discussing named individual animals. It seems pretty consistent. I first noticed it for racehorses. I recall being a bit disturbed when someone changed a phrase like "Fast Filly was a racehorse that won the 2018 Kentucky Derby" to replace "that" with "who", but that seems to be our general convention. For examples, see the opening sentences of Secretariat (horse), Seattle Slew, War Admiral, Whirlaway and Rombauer (horse). I asked about it at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Horse racing#"Who" versus "it", "that" or "which", and apparently the issue has been discussed before and this convention has been generally agreed. I noticed the same phenomenon in articles about several other types of animals as well – orcas, giant pandas, apes, bears, dogs, cats – I found it everywhere I looked. I suggest describing this convention in the MoS grammar section. Has this been discussed as a MoS matter before? Is it already documented somewhere? —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 00:29, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

  • I don’t recall it being discussed before… but my initial reaction is “meh”. Blueboar (talk) 00:41, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
  • Its rather a common feature of the English language that individual animals who have close relations with humans will start to be referred to using the pronoun appropriate to their gender (since animals are usually male or female...). This kind of language is usually frequent in informal settings, but it can also be seen in more formal settings, for ex. race horses, [9]: Lively Citizen (2.25), the star of David Jeffreys’ small yard near Evesham, is a prime example. He is two-from-three since 7lb claimer Archie Bellamy took over in the saddle, and the race in between was a non-event as his saddle slipped early on. He is just 4lb higher after another battling success at Leicester in February and with many firms offering six places, he looks an excellent each-way bet at around 20-1.. However my reaction is otherwise pretty much like Blueboar's. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:51, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
  • There's a good account of the matter at Why Writers Fight Style Guides. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:30, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

    In the early 1960s, Jane Goodall turned in her first paper about the chimpanzees of Gombe, only to have it returned to her with official instructions that each he, she, and who referring to a chimp be replaced with it or which. (“Incensed, I, in my turn, crossed out the its and whichs and scrawled back the original pronouns,” she writes in her memoir Through a Window).

  • If a living beings sex can be determined then 'him' or 'her' seems accurate. "It" sounds like a mechanical toy. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:17, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
  • Agree with Randy Kryn. On the who vs that issue, I likewise think it's fine to use 'who' for most individual animals, but also noting that 'that' is nearly always an acceptable alternative to 'who' in these contexts (it may not always be best, but I don't think it would ever necessarily be wrong) - even for people, 'that' and 'who' have been used interchangeably since time immemorial. 2600:1702:4960:1DE0:5CAB:B9C5:3234:C105 (talk) 15:16, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
    I recall some time ago when editing a racehorse article there was some editor who jumped in just to change "that" to "who". I don't remember whether I started edit warring with them or not. But the practice is so highly consistent in racehorse articles that it cannot be accidental. There must be some people who are actively changing "that" to "who". —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 16:41, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
  • why no “whom’s”? Blueboar (talk) 15:18, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
    That's another discussion, but "whom" has fallen into disuse in favor of "who" in mainstream American English, and Wikipedia should reflect that. We are not linguistic prescriptivists or elitists. We follow mainstream usage. MarshallKe (talk) 16:57, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
    Um, no. It has fallen into disuse in informal English everywhere, but WP is not written in informal English, so continue to use whom when appropriate.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  18:33, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
    Excuse me, there are many of us whom still mark the objective case even casually, so be careful for who you speak! SamuelRiv (talk) 03:11, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
  • If writing about an individual animal of known sex, "he" or "she" seems appropriate. This would also be the case when writing about a generic animal in a situation where the sex is relevant. But when writing about a generic animal in a context where the sex of the individual is not relevant, "it" seems appropriate. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 19:22, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
  • At least the animals of which (whom?) we are talking usually have a sex, which has replaced grammatical gender in English, so there is some sort of case to be made. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:01, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
Taking the perspective of the dominant attitude towards the concept of gender in this community, the argument could be made that because an animal cannot communicate their preferred gender, a default should be used. Also taking what I presume to be the dominant attitude against anthropomorphizing animals, an argument could be made against the use of "who" in favor of "which" and "it" instead of "they". My personal opinion? This conversation is a waste of time. It's not that important. MarshallKe (talk) 17:00, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
Well, there's very slightly more chance of a primate communicating its (their/her/his) preferred gender than there is of a means of water transport doing so. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:09, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
I'm going to keep making my transoceanic vessels joke over and over and over until someone acknowledges how brilliant it is. EEng 20:22, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
Perhaps take the comment to a sandbox where you can keep writing until someone finds it funny or appropriate. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 20:27, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
No, I'm just going to hold my breath right here until I turn blue. EEng 17:37, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
I tried it once and it didn't work. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:56, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Note: Recycled joke

For MOS:NOTUSA

Latest comment: 2 years ago6 comments5 people in discussion

Add Using "America", while not disallowed, is heavily discouraged. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:36D:1200:4F8:51BC:5571:C919:E9FB (talk) 06:45, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

So you want us to say, "United Statesian foreign policy"? EEng 14:27, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
Perhaps simply "United States' foreign policy"? Martin of Sheffield (talk) 16:56, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
So we just won't have an adjectival form -- we'll convert everything into possessive? EEng 17:55, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
Why would using America be heavily discouraged? There's a very good reason that America redirects to where it does, and that other languages might use the term differently shouldn't mean we change how the word is used in English on the English Wikipedia. - Aoidh (talk) 06:23, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
I gather that "America" is confusing to people who think that there are more countries in America than just the U.S. See Continent#Number. In the systems that say we have five or six continents, "America" is what I'd call "the Americas", i.e., North and South America together. If that's your frame of reference, then a statement like "Kansas is in the geographic center of America" is factually wrong; the geographic center of America is actually somewhere in the Caribbean Sea.
The adjective doesn't seem to have as much potential for confusion. Everyone knows that continents don't conduct foreign policy, so "American foreign policy" is comprehensible, if perhaps faintly arrogant (perhaps we think we're conducting foreign policy for the whole continent, instead of just for one country?).
There is a similar but IMO much smaller problem with "United States": List of countries that include United States in their name. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:54, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

With the MoS itself so poorly composed, how to possibly convince?

Latest comment: 2 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

    Due to the MoS's readability, I've not adequately analyzed all its content.
    However at a glance it seems: the most part of MoS merely asserts certain practice without giving any rationale:
    And the suggested practice may not even come out of any careful consideration.

- MasterQuestionable (talk) 03:33, 30 August 2022 (UTC)


    [ Quote Mandruss @ CE 2018-10-10 08:54 UTC:
https://en.wikipedia.org/?diffonly=1&diff=prev&oldid=863361137
    The existing guidelines received due consideration whether you agree with them or not, and they should be left alone absent a VERY compelling reason to change them. ]
<^>    Due consideration?.. Primarily for absent exposure and adequate readability for receiving which supposedly.

- MasterQuestionable (talk) 22:25, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

  • Most style guides are without rationales, which invite debate. The place for rationales and debate is the talk pages, and they (and their archives) is where that will all be found. As for MoS otherwise not being all that well-written, it's because (like all of WP:POLICY matter) it's written by committee over a long period of time, and isn't someone's monograph. It just comes with the territory.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  17:14, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
    Posts like the OP are best left unanswered. Archiving. EEng 00:26, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Mass change of style (i.e.: avoiding e.g., for ex.; c.f. History passim)

Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

It seems ironic to edit war for a global change in the style of English in an article when that article is the guideline saying not to do that without first seeking consensus. SamuelRiv (talk) 19:46, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Guidelines are not articles. But, yes, people should not be editwarring here, or anywhere else.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  15:09, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Infobox image captions

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Looking for more opinions at this MOS discussion on image captions. MB 22:18, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Why is "#" discouraged in MOS:NUMBERSIGN?

Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I'm just wondering why this is? What is the specific reasoning? It's only been discussed a few times, most recently back in 2016. From what I gathered, using "No." instead of "#" is more popular in the U.K., but not the U.S., so why should the U.S. articles adopt the same style?

I know this is a piss poor example, but I quickly searched on Google "#11 on the" and got 65million results. Then I searched for "No. 11 on the" and only got 418,000 results ("his album reached #11 on The Chart" & "his album reached No. 11 on The Chart" was my thinking). I then did the same thing for Wikipedia. "#11 on the" got 21,800 results and "No. 11 on the" got 1,790 results. I think it's baffling that we would try to convert all of that!

Ideally, shouldn't there be a new line entered in under MOS:NUMBERSIGN, which permits the usage of "#", but only for specific countries' articles such as the U.S., since it sounds like MOS:ENGVAR? I'm also aware that Twitter popularized the usage of "#" as a tag, but I don't think that matters much on Wikipedia since we rarely use it in that way here, except in edit summaries. Was hoping someone could shine some light on all of this for me. Thanks in advance. Xanarki (talk) 16:15, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

For one thing, ENGVAR relates to spelling-related differences. Not symbols, capitalization, or punctuation (the sitewide convention of logical quotation being the best example of this). Primergrey (talk) 16:43, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Wikilawyering over passive voice

Latest comment: 2 years ago86 comments21 people in discussion
The guideline was updated. Future problems with this IP range should be treated as a behavioral problem or a lack of good writing skills, neither of which are problems that can be solved by clarifying guidelines. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:41, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

The following discussion 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.

MOS:PASSIVE says "Passive voice should still be avoided when it is not needed". The discussion at User talk:131.203.251.134#editing which is damaging to article quality. suggests that this is being interpreted as "Passive voice should be avoided if it is at all humanly possible", resulting in changes such as these:

  • The name was anglicised → The name became anglicised
  • The word tapu can be interpreted as "sacred" → One can interpret the word tapu as "sacred"
  • policy is the manner in which a given entity (often governmental) has decided to address issues → policy is the manner in which a given entity (often governmental) proposes to address issues
  • It was closed in 2011 → The Greater Wellington Regional Council closed the station in 2011
  • was an early supporter → became early supporters
  • Wolfe was killed → Wolfe died
  • War diaries are focused on → War diaries focus on

The first, for example, pointlessly changes from one passive construction to another. The second unnecessarily introduces the Impersonal pronoun. The third changes the meaning from something that is already decided to something that has only been proposed so far. The fourth places the emphasis on an unimportant actor (which PASSIVE says not to do). The fifth changes a linking verb to the passive voice. The sixth removes information (he didn't just die; he was actively killed by gunfire). The last suggests that inanimate objects have attention spans and the ability to choose their focus, which is just silly.

These are all bad, and at least most of them have been reverted. I think that the behavioral problem could be reduced by changing the wording at PASSIVE. So far, the IP insists that passive voice is acceptable only if absolutely needed. I think we could probably come up with a clearer way to explain this. We don't want to use passive voice when it omits relevant information –

Mistakes were made.
The passive voice was used.
Responsibility was shirked.

– but we also don't want people to make pointless changes from one form of passive to another, to remove linking verbs, to create stilted sentences with the unnecessary use of "one" in violation of MOS:YOU, or to replace clear sentences with clunky, awkward, or silly constructions.

I don't have a proposal offhand for how to re-write this sentence, but I'd like to know whether you all think this should be adjusted to prevent future problems. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:24, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

I think the existing language would cover many of those examples. For instance, "The Greater Wellington ..." is "a news-style shift to dwelling on a non-notable party". Many examples, including "was an early supporter", aren't even passive voice, just the past tense of "to be". Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:32, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
Yes, I agree that the existing language covers this. If we could count on people to read and follow the whole thing instead of just the 11 words that, taken in isolation, support their personal preferences, then we wouldn't be here. But, unfortunately, we can't. So I am wondering whether we could adjust the wording to make it more difficult to wikilawyer over. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:49, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

(ec) I'm totally on board with this project. The passive voice is a tool to be used for specific purposes, namely whenever the grammatical object of the main verb is more pertinent than its grammatical subject. Unfortunately there's a fair amount of unreasoned aversion to this perfectly normal aspect of our language. I've noted that people who complain about "passive voice" are sometimes not even talking about passive voice, but about grammatically active-voice sentences using an unaccusative verb, which is not the main point of this discussion but is not unrelated either.
What is worth saying is that the passive voice should not be used just to use it, for example because you think it makes the text sound more refined or lawyerly or scientific or something. --Trovatore (talk) 17:37, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
I like your phrase, "whenever the grammatical object of the main verb is more pertinent than its grammatical subject". That's a good way to explain why we would write "She was burned" instead of "The hot object burned her" – but that in other cases, we would write "The scalding hot coffee burned her". WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:55, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
Agreed, it sums up the situation nicely. I can still hear Mr Thomas (chemistry) whilst telling us how to write up chemistry practicals stating that "no-one cares which one of you heated the test tube, only that it was heated", and that was 50 years ago! Martin of Sheffield (talk) 20:37, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
This whole "don't use the passive voice" thing must be one of the worst rules introduced by prescriptive grammarians into English in the last few decades. I'm pretty sure that the first time I saw it was when Microsoft introduced so-called grammar-checking into its word processor and flagged all uses of the passive voice as errors. As with several other of my pet peeves in this area it seems that people are more prepared to go along with silly rules introduced by ignoramuses at tech companies rather than emulate people who use the language well. And, after I have said all that, some of the examples given don't even use the passive voice. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:52, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
"policy is the manner in which a given entity (often governmental) has decided to address issues" - there is no passive voice in this. Both verbs ("is" and "has decided") are in the active voice. Indefatigable (talk) 21:37, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
What we really want to say here is "write well". There's a limit to the level of detail we can go to to make that happen. And it looks like in this particular case we're making things worse by trying. We can't really teach people how to write. There are times when the passive voice is great, and times when it sucks, and there's no way to teach that by giving some out-of-context (and therefore ill-advised) examples. "write 'Germany invaded Poland in 1939', not 'Poland was invaded by Germany in 1939'" is just bad advice, because in many contexts the latter would work better, and with no context it's no more useful than "Don't get wet" or "Wear sunglasses". The other examples in that section are more clearly bad writing ("There were no witnesses, but O'Neil shot the guard..." ) and that's what you want if you want an example.
Passive voice is sometimes used by illiterates -- "Upon the valve being opened by us, a deceased bat was seen" or whatever -- but then illiterates use all kinds of bad constructions. If that could be solved by providing an MOS we wouldn't need writing courses. And passive voice is sometimes used to bamboozle or shirk blame ("The computer proved to be unable to be programmed by the persons who had been hired to do so"), but that's not an issue here and if it is its an NPOV and weasel-word issue, which is something else altogether.
"Passive voice should still be avoided when it is not needed; write Germany invaded Poland in 1939, not Poland was invaded by Germany in 1939" is just a bad, unhelpful passage that somebody put in there. It should just go. I suppose you could just say "Passive voice should still be avoided when it results in weak or confusing writing" or something, but what for? Anything that results in weak or confusing writing should be avoided.
Hmmm, looking at our article Passive voice, we sure as shooten play our cards straight out there:

Many commentators, notably George Orwell in his essay "Politics and the English Language" and Strunk & White in The Elements of Style, have urged minimizing use of the passive voice, but this is almost always based on these commentators' misunderstanding of what the passive voice is. Contrary to common critiques, the passive voice has important uses, with virtually all writers using the passive voice (including Orwell and Strunk & White). There is general agreement that the passive voice is useful for emphasis, or when the receiver of the action is more important than the actor. Merriam–Webster's Dictionary of English Usage refers to three statistical studies of passive versus active sentences in various periodicals, stating: "the highest incidence of passive constructions was 13 percent. Orwell runs to a little over 20 percent in "Politics and the English Language". Clearly he found the construction useful in spite of his advice to avoid it as much as possible".

Ouch, burn. And that's the article. I think the sentence in dispute here was probably added as a sop to the Orwells and Strunks and Whites. But people mostly don't pay attention to Strunk & White anymore, and according to our article they're just flat wrong, and the sop is just causing trouble.
It's pretty clear that from this discussion and the user-talk thread pointed to, there is only one person who seems to think that the sentence should stay. I was going to remove it myself but no super hurry. Herostratus (talk) 06:09, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
I am very happy to find this oasis of good sense with regards to the use of the passive. I would strongly support the removal of the sentences regarding Poland. As a teacher of English as a Second Language, I frequently used the clauses "Germany invaded France" and "France was invaded by Germany" as examples of when the passive might be appropriate, the latter being more suitable in a text focusing on the history of France. Boynamedsue (talk) 08:53, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
I think at this point the only question is whether to remove the sentence or change it to something else. I vote for the former because, as Strunk & White say, "omit needless words". An editor above wrote that the passive is best used "whenever the grammatical object of the main verb is more pertinent than its grammatical subject" and that is cogent and precise, altho possibly obscure to people who are a little shaky on the difference between "verb" and "object" (which is many of us, and we're here to help the writing be better, not judge people). If you wanted a clearer example... well, look at how the Pottinger-Cain Incident would be described in, respectively, the articles David Pottinger (criminal) and Lorenzo Cain (victim) if they existed (emphasis added):

"David Pottinger (1883-1936), dubbed 'The Beast of Leeds', was a famous violent criminal. His career began in 1882 when he assaulted Lorenzo Cain...

"Lorenzo Cain (1883-1936), dubbed 'The Unluckiest Man in Leeds', was famous as the victim of many brutal attacks. The first was in 1882 when he was assaulted by David Pottinger...

Beating a dead horse here at this point tho I guess. Just remove the sentence, I say. Herostratus (talk) 15:57, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
In defence of George Orwell, who is always someone worth taking seriously even when you disagree with him, he said in that essay, "never use the passive where you can use the active" [my emphasis] and "break any of these rules sooner than say anything outright barbarous". We seem to have at least one editor who interprets such general guidance as "never use the passive voice", which is just bollocks. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:26, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
Very well said. And as others have pointed out, most people have a very bad accuracy rate at actually identifying instances of the passive voice. Language Log has written many times about this tendency to equate "passive voice" with any "construction that is vague as to agency". Which makes advice about avoiding it doubly futile. Colin M (talk) 17:23, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
In defense of Strunk & White, the passive voice was never spoken about in such absolutes by those two as many seem to wish to think it was. Dhtwiki (talk) 03:06, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
I agree with the OP that most if not all of the changes shown were not improvements. Passive voice is more frequently used in encyclopedic writing than otherwise, and people just have to learn to live with it. The last time we had a "my preferred grammar ideas are the law" holy warrior around here, it resulted in a topic ban and very long block.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:51, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
Having read the discussion above, I would argue that we should remove this text "Passive voice should still be avoided when it is not needed; write Germany invaded Poland in 1939, not Poland was invaded by Germany in 1939." And replace it with the following text:
"The passive can be used to maintain focus on the party receiving an action, for example look at look at how the Pottinger-Cain Incident would be described in, respectively, the articles David Pottinger (criminal) and Lorenzo Cain (victim) (emphasis added):

"David Pottinger (1883-1936), dubbed 'The Beast of Leeds', was a famous violent criminal. His career began in 1882 when he assaulted Lorenzo Cain...

"Lorenzo Cain (1883-1936), dubbed 'The Unluckiest Man in Leeds', was famous as the victim of many brutal attacks. The first was in 1882 when he was assaulted by David Pottinger...

".
If there is no consensus in favour of this, simply deleting the sentence would be enough. Boynamedsue (talk) 07:44, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
I would favour removing the sentence altogether, because most of our policies and guidelines are far too long already. It's a good example, but we cannot legislate for every aspect of good writing. This is an encyclopedia, not a book on English style. Phil Bridger (talk) 07:51, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
  • The entire footnote [o] should be deleted per WP:CREEP. It's just a rambling tangent from MOS:WE and MOS:YOU and is too indecisive to be useful. An essential feature of good writing is that it is short and to the point. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:19, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
    Removing the entire footnote means removing all of this:
    The passive voice is often advised against in many forms of writing, but is used frequently in encyclopedic material, where its careful use avoids inappropriate first- and second-person constructions, as well as tone problems. Passive voice should still be avoided when it is not needed; write Germany invaded Poland in 1939, not Poland was invaded by Germany in 1939. The most common uses of encyclopedic passive are to keep the focus on the subject instead of performing a news-style shift to dwelling on a non-notable party; and to avoid leaping to certain-sounding conclusions from uncertain facts. Contrast The break-in was reported to police the next morning, versus Assistant manager Peggy Plimpton-Chan reported the break-in to police the next morning. Compare also There were no witnesses, but O'Neil was convicted of shooting the guard, and Sklarov of driving the getaway car, and There were no witnesses, but O'Neil shot the guard, and Sklarov drove the getaway car.
    (Also, I have just noticed that our advice about the passive voice is written partly in the passive voice.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:45, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
    We should keep something on this, or we're just going to get more well-meaning but wrongheaded "death to passive voice" bullshit. It's in there for a reason. Just doesn't need to be that detailed. Boynamedsue's material above could work, though it's fine if it remains in a footnote.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:35, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
    We could cut the existing text down to something like this:
    The passive voice is often advised against in many forms of writing, but is used frequently in encyclopedic material to avoid inappropriate first- and second-person constructions, tone problems, and leaping to certain-sounding conclusions from uncertain facts, as well as to keep the focus on the main subject, rather than a minor actor.
    I also like Trovatore's "whenever the grammatical object of the main verb is more pertinent than its grammatical subject", and Herostratus' Pottinger–Cain incident examples are good, too. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:51, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
    Gee, I wonder how long before someone recasts that in the active i.e. "Many forms of writing advise against the passive voice." ;P EEng 02:13, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
    How about in the passive-aggressive voice?  Stepho  talk  05:42, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
    That's only for ANI and Arbcom cases. EEng 06:01, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
    I agree with WhatamIdoing's rewrite above.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:56, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
    What about cutting it to "Passive voice is allowed in articles", and someone writing an essay that explains more detail? WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:28, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
    MoS should provide rationale when reasonable to do so, and essays generally have no authority. An essay on this would be a good idea, like the great one about WP:Elegant variation, but MoS should still give reasons to use passive voice, or we'll just be right back here with people arguing that MoS is being pointlessly prescriptive and arbitrary and that "Passive voice is allowed in articles" should be removed. Maybe more to the real point, though, PV is advisable not just allowed in articles for various purposes.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:56, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Did anyone, ever, advocate turning all passive-voice constructions into active ones? Or that "the passive voice is acceptable only if absolutely needed"? If so, I missed it.

The examples of horrible edits quoted hardly support the case for this whole apparent storm in a tea-cup and subsequent attempt to crush butterflies with sledgehammers. And those examples lack links to articles or even to sections edited, making it more difficult for anyone to assess them in context and to evaluate what proportion of each editing operation involved passive-to-active shift, let alone how many other passive-voice constructions remained untouched (rather than getting the improve-on-sight treatment). Leaving aside the examples which do not involve substituting actives for passives (three of the seven), we find:

  • "One can interpret the word tapu as 'sacred'" - Nothing wrong with the occasional impersonal pronoun as a feature of stylistic variety.
  • "The Greater Wellington Regional Council closed the station in 2011" - This answers the question: who closed the station? The railway company? The local government? Or the regional government? Or the central government? - The alleged "unimportant actor" may have great importance to some readers. The article becomes richer with this detail, but remains vaguer without it.
  • "Wolfe died" - In the context of a battle one might assume a fatal wound. In this case I would suggest that the finer details may seem irrelevant. That said, I wouldn't die in a ditch for this edit.
  • "War diaries focus on" - Depending on context, "war diarists focus on" might seem better. But the claim that inanimate objects have "attention spans" has little merit. Which sounds better: "The sun set at 6pm" or "At 6 pm the sun was obscured by the horizon due to the rotation of the Earth"? The passive-voice version ("was obscured") has the advantage of scientific pedantry but little else.

Who defines "minor actor" or "non-notable party"? Or whether a verb object seems "more pertinent" than a grammatical subject? Such apparently sensible strictures on style might invite serious wiki-lawyering.

I have no particular beef for or against Strunk and White. But one of the comments on these worthies seems to suggest that their views have dated. In that case, we can alternatively (or also) quote more contemporary authorities. A brief glance at English passive voice#Style advice suggests that both style guides and editors generally favor use of the active voice - with some defined exceptions. And that article, of course, as a part of Wikipedia, demonstrates and exhibits a neutral point of vies. Remember, too, that Wikipedia-editors produce not literary fiction, but simple straightforward explanatory prose - the MOS prescribes: "Editors should write using straightforward, easily understood language". In this context, active-voice constructions can exactly mirror the content of passive-voice ones - and often more succinctly. Baldly labelling specific active-voice constructions as "bad" or as "bad writing" scarcely helps the debate.

Speculating on the motives of the esteemed developers of the Wikipedia Manual of Style seems pointless. We have archives to provide evidence on such matters.

Active voice might merit a mention in the Manual of Style. Otherwise we give undue weight to passive-voice constructions at the expense of the most common English-language grammatical voice. Articles with excesssive use of the passive voice may become dreary (see facet, for example) and uninformative.

User:Andrew Davidson suggests: "An essential feature of good writing is that it is short and to the point." Endorsed. And judicious use of the active voice can exemplify good writing.

- 131.203.251.134 (talk) 04:39, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

The real guidance should be "avoid circumlocution". Passive voice is only a problem when it obfuscates the meaning of a passage, or interrupts the flow of a narrative, or similar. There are times when you want to use passive voice, because it is actually more concise, to the point, and where changing to active voice changes the emphasis or meaning of a passage. The sentence "The American Revolution War was fought between the British Empire and their former subjects on the North American continent", for example, is in passive voice. To convert that to active voice actually makes it worse, from a narrative perspective and in being able to parse its meaning. "The British Empire and their former subjects on the North American continent fought the American Revolutionary War" is in active voice, and is a trainwreck of a sentence. --Jayron32 13:36, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
"The British Empire fought the American Revolutionary War in North America against their former subjects". Really in most cases you can use either. As long as it's not truly grating or objectively confusing (less a function of a particular voice than of the general skill of the writer I think), let the volunteers write how they write. If and when we hire professional writers we can demand more conformity. Herostratus (talk) 22:43, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
True. But the passive makes more sense than either of those constructions if you are writing about the war itself. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 13:19, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
I'd be interested to know how many IP addresses the IP user above is using to make these anti-passive edits. I reckon I've seen about 5 or 6 accounts with a very similar editing style. The alternative being that at there are at least 6 people doing this on wikipedia, which would strongly argue for a change in the MOS. And also it'd be cool if they could confirm they have taken on board the consensus on this page and stopped making this kind of edit. --Boynamedsue (talk) 07:09, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
I personally see no reason to discourage passive voice in encyclopedic material unless it is being used to avoid providing information that the reader wants to know. "Mistakes were made" should not be used as a way of avoiding the identification of who made the mistakes. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 05:10, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Main page examples

Having been pinged here, I then perused today's main page and noticed extensive use of the passive voice. For example,

The main exception seems to be OTD. All today's OTD entries seemed to use the active voice so I checked the next two days, including the staging area where the choices are made. In every case, there seemed to be candidates which used the passive voice but only active voice entries were chosen. I gather that OTD is mostly the work of a particular editor so perhaps this reflects their personal style?

Andrew🐉(talk) 07:31, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

I have always read OTD as being deliberately unencyclopaedic in style, serving a slightly different purpose to the main space. Its kind of frothy prose is intended to sound less formal and draw people in, so active voice makes more sense as it is used much more frequently in informal English. Boynamedsue (talk) 06:40, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
I think there's something to this, but it's perhaps worth noting that "elected" and "located" are examples of verbs that are, respectively, either awkward or impossible to cast in active form. "The people of [country] elected [person]" is an OK sentence, but uses a lot of extra words (and would raise NPOV issues if it were used here). "Located" in this context has no agent, and arguably is not a "real" passive at all (CGEL would call it an "adjectival passive").
"Went into foreclosure" is not passive (it seems like an active-voice recasting of "was foreclosed on", one that actually obscures the agent even further). But I suspect that DYK might have a particular tendency toward such patient-first constructions, including passive ones, because each entry is meant to highlight a specific article, and for any given factual statement in any given article, the article subject is more likely to be the patient than the agent. (Or so I imagine, having done no research on the subject.) Anyway, circling back to the main topic of discussion, I think these examples shown how context-dependent the choice between active and passive clauses is, and how unwise it would be to have any hard rules (or anything that could be misinterpreted as a hard rule). -- Visviva (talk) 01:52, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
Completely agree. As a side point re "located": WP:LOCATIONLOCATIONLOCATION. EEng 05:51, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
I concur entirely with Boynamedsue above; OTD is not written in the same style as the encyclopedia proper.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:50, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
Alright then, it seems time to a change make as, if I'm seeing it right, the editor is continuing to point to the existing written rule. So what I did was excise altogether the sentence "Passive voice should still be avoided when it is not needed; write Germany invaded Poland in 1939, not Poland was invaded by Germany in 1939". That's the minimum. I then went on to change

The passive voice is often advised against in many forms of writing, but is used frequently in encyclopedic material...

to

[[]]

To explain the situation to those readers who, like me, vaguely remember being taught when in short pants to not the passive use. Many of us are dead and most are decrepit I guess, but some apparently still have freedom to wander the grounds and access the computers in the dayroom. We could just have

The passive voice is used frequently in encyclopedic material...

Which is shorter but doesn't explain why we're bothering to address the issue. Other editors have advised just deleting the whole section and so on, anyway, make any further changes you like, the main point is that that horrid passage has now been knocked for six.

In return for this service, I ask editors to stop rewriting me when I say "Smith was graduated from Smith in 1907", which is the correct construction. Herostratus (talk) 07:11, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

The "formerly sometimes advised against" in "The passive voice was formerly sometimes advised against in many forms of writing, but is used frequently in encyclopedic material..." is awkward.
I know this is a little on the humorous side, but would anyone object to a link to Wikipedia:Lies Miss Snodgrass told you in there? Perhaps "For non-encyclopedia writing, most schoolteachers and some style guides recommended against the passive voice, but it is used frequently and appropriately in encyclopedic material..." WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:38, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

passive voice formerly sometimes advised against

A revision of MOS:PASSIVE from May 2022 states: "The passive voice was formerly sometimes advised against in many forms of writing [...]."

Looking at some relatively recent (post-Orwell) purveyors of advice on the matter of passive-voice usage, we find:

  • 1962: Flesch, Rudolf (1962). How to Be Brief: An Index to Simple Writing. p. 5; 15. Retrieved 31 May 2022. The active voice is always better than the passive. [...] All forms of the verb to be [...] are signs that you probably used a weak passive voice or be-with-noun construction. Hunt for a strong active verb and re-write.
  • 1973: Evans, Harold (1973) [1972]. Newsman's English. Volume 1 of Editing and Design: A Five-volume Manual of English, Typography and Layout, Harold Evans. Heinemann [for the National Council for the Training of Journalists]. p. 23. ISBN 9780434905508. Retrieved 31 May 2022. Vigorous, economical writing requires a preference for sentences in the active voice.
  • 1996: Ratcliffe, Krista (17 January 1996). "De/Mystifying HerSelf and HerWor(l)ds: Mary Daly". Anglo-American Feminist Challenges to the Rhetorical Traditions: Virginia Woolf, Mary Daly, Adrienne Rich. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press (published 1996). p. 94. ISBN 9780809319343. Retrieved 2 June 2022. [...] foreground grammar deletes agency: passive voice mystifies accountability by erasing who or what performs an action [...].
  • 1996: Fowler, Henry Watson. "passive territory". In Burchfield, R. W. (ed.). The New Fowler's Modern English Usage (3 ed.). Oxford: Clarendon Press. p. 576-578. In scientific writing the passive voice is much more frequent than it is in ordinary expository or imaginative prose [...]. [...] In ordinary prose true passives are relatively uncommon [...]. [...] Gowers (1965) advised against the use of it is felt, it is thought, it is believed, etc [...]. He was probably right. The use or avoidance of the passive in such circumstances often depends on the level of formality being aimed at and often on the wisdom of accepting personal or group responsibility for the statement that follows. In general, however, it is better to begin by identifying the person or group who feel, think, believe, have decided, etc. [...].
  • 2002: Lasch, Christopher (3 May 2002). "Christopher Lasch and Politics of the Plain Style - by Stewart Weaver". In Weaver, Stewart Angas (ed.). Plain Style: A Guide to Written English. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press (published 2002). p. 34. ISBN 9780812218145. Retrieved 31 May 2022. [...] inert and lifeless, the passive voice, for Lasch at least, also suggests a kind of moral cowardice insofar as it 'disguises the subject and makes it hard to assign responsibility for an action.' thus its appeal to bureaucrats, 'who wish to avoid resposibility for their decisions,' and timid academics, who, unwilling to risk a straightforward judgment, aspire above all else to 'an appearance of detatchment and objectivity' [...].
  • 2010: "Content Style Sheet" (PDF). Blackwell. 10 March 2010. p. 2. Archived from the original (PDF) on 8 June 2011. Retrieved 2 June 2022. Use passive voice throughout: [...] (science/medical requirement – fading practice)" [...] Use active voice throughout [...]
  • 2011: Hitchings, Henry (2011). A History of Proper English. London: John Murray. p. 323. The use of the passive voice is another technique of denial [...].
  • 2022: "Nature portfolio". Nature portfolio. Nature. Springer Nature Limited. 2022. Retrieved 2 June 2022. Nature journals prefer authors to write in the active voice ("we performed the experiment...") as experience has shown that readers find concepts and results to be conveyed more clearly if written directly.
  • 2022: "Write clearly and concisely". IEEE ProComm - Professional Communication Society. IEEE. Retrieved 2 June 2022. Use active voice by default; research shows readers comprehend it more quickly than passive voice [...].

So a few gullibles have drunk the kool-aid. But when (if ever) did the "formerly sometimes advised against" monster become "formerly sometimes advised against" (rather than generally accepted by grammarians, style-gurus and publishers) ?

In the light of the examples presented, the characterization of passive-voice-use as "formerly sometimes advised against" seems vague and questionable.

We could drop the formulation "was formerly sometimes". Or we could find and reference some overwhelmingly convincing alternative pronouncements in reliable sources to justify the new implied prescription ("passive constructions are no longer generally advised against"). So far in support of the new wisdom we have had some spirited statements of the type "[...] But people mostly don't pay attention to Strunk & White anymore [...]."

- 131.203.251.134 (talk) 04:07, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

It was formerly advised against in the MOS. This whole debate is to change MOS to no longer generally advise against it. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 08:06, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
Confusingly vague, no? - to state: "The passive voice was formerly sometimes advised against in many forms of writing [...]." Still what can one expect but vague sloppiness from an agentless passive-voice sentence, with or without irony?
However, to address the interpretation that the advice for "many forms of writing" relates to advice promulgated in the Wikipedia Manual of Style. User:SMcCandlish added into the Manual of Style the text "Passive voice is used much more frequently in encyclopedic writing than in most other forms, in which it may be frequently advised against. [...] Passive voice should still be avoided when it is not needed [...]" on 26 September 2017, adding the edit summary: "Been meaning to add this for years, and keep forgetting." Sampling of the archives suggests that similar wording about the use of passive-voice constructions remained in the Manual of Style continually until May 2022. Does that gel clearly with the "sometimes" in the statement: "The passive voice was formerly sometimes advised against in many forms of writing [...]" ?
It intrigues me to read that "[t]his whole debate is to change MOS to no longer generally advise against it". I thought that any debate aimed to determine something rather than to presuppose a predetermined outcome. Right now we apparently have a debate on possibly improving the formulation "The passive voice was formerly sometimes advised against in many forms of writing [...]" - in a sentence which User:WhatamIdoing has identified as "awkward".
- 131.203.251.134 (talk) 04:39, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
It is clear that you feel you are right, and that these quotes support what you are arguing, unfortunately they don't. The reason the MoS has been changed is that the former wording could be misinterpreted to suggest that all passives were bad and should be changed where possible. That is not what the above quotes say, nor was it the intention of the previous wording, but it is what you are doing. I would suggest that, with the change of the text of the MoS, you should just move on and cease to rephrase passives until you are clearer about the incidences in which that might be appropriate. We are possibly arriving at a WP:CIR situation here. --Boynamedsue (talk) 06:26, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
I fail to see how the repeated (but unfounded and unproven) suggestion - that I change all possible passive usages - has anything to do with the current discussion on the MOS's history and analysis of style. - 131.203.251.134 (talk) 04:50, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
Just let me clarify as the above was a bit short. It may be that you are right about the passive and the other people who have commented here are wrong. But the consensus here is different to that, and therefore, for the purposes of wikipedia, you need to edit in a slightly different way. Not every consensus is backed up by a rewrite of the MoS, so this one seems pretty clear. Boynamedsue (talk) 06:57, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
I agree. We do not require that people agree that this is the correct rule; we only require them to acknowledge that it is our rule and that our rule is the one that must be followed, however grudgingly, here.
I have just re-written the first half to say: "The passive voice is inappropriate for some forms of writing, such as creative writing and instructions, but it is widely used in encyclopedia articles, because the passive voice avoids inappropriate first- and second-person constructions as well as tone problems." I think this is clearer (identifies what we mean by 'forms of writing') and less awkward. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:51, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
 Y I like that. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 16:38, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
"The passive voice is inappropriate for some forms of writing, such as creative writing and instructions, but it is widely used in encyclopedia articles, because the passive voice avoids inappropriate first- and second-person constructions as well as tone problems." This gives the message we want to communicate perfectly, but the first bit isn't true! Could we change "is inappropriate" for "is frequently advised against"? Boynamedsue (talk) 05:05, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
@Boynamedsue, what makes you think that the first bit isn't true? Consider these options:
  1. Remove the pizza from the box and plastic wrap. Discard all packaging materials.
vs
  1. The pizza is removed from the box and the plastic wrap. All the packaging materials are discarded.
Which of these is the appropriate style for telling someone how to prepare a frozen pizza for a hot oven? WhatamIdoing (talk) 14:48, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
You are certainly right in that example, but the phrase "The passive voice is inappropriate for some forms of writing, such as creative writing and ..." sounds like passive voice should never be used in creative writing. I can imagine it being just what's needed occasionally. Changing "is inappropriate" to "is rarely appropriate" or something like that sounds good to me. SchreiberBike | ⌨  15:25, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
Yes, in that example the passive is absolutely wrong. But, for example, "The alarm must be fitted by a trained electrician" would be fine. The passive is frequently used in creative writing, it is just less common than in encyclopaedic language. A nice example is the legendary poem "This be the verse" by Phillip Larkin, where the artistic choice of the passive is doing an important job.
Like I said, the relevant part of the text as it is now does the job we need, but the irrelevant part isn't technically correct. Boynamedsue (talk) 15:47, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
That's fair. Would you like to make the change that SchreiberBike suggests? WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:37, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
I would put something like "less frequently used". Boynamedsue (talk) 16:32, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
Why are we advising people on creative writing? I don't see how this is within the scope of the MOS. --Trovatore (talk) 00:37, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
It's not "creative writing", which is how to write a novel, etc. I haven't read this voluminous thread but for the examples at the top of ridiculous passive-to-active changes. Please revert them wherever they occurred. Tony (talk) 02:26, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
Boynamedsue, WhatamIdoing, and SchreiberBike seem to be discussing MOS text that references creative writing, contrasting it with Wikipedia writing and suggesting that passive voice is more appropriate here than it is in writing a novel etc. I don't have any problem with passive voice used appropriately in Wikipedia, but I think it's out of place for us to compare it with creative writing. No one is interested in our tips on creative writing. Or maybe they even are, but this isn't the place for us to offer them. --Trovatore (talk) 04:40, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
Agreed. Furthermore, suggested text along the lines of "the passive voice is frequently advised against" would (re-)introduce vagueness and confusion. It would leave unhelpfully unclear, for example, whether the statement applies as much in Bolivia as it may in Burundi. Excellent example of the perils of an agentless passive. - At least the current MOS text discussing the usage of passives: "The passive voice is inappropriate for some forms of writing [...]" has greatly improved clarity - thank you, User:WhatamIdoing. - 131.203.251.134 (talk) 04:50, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
The point is that people have had it pounded into their head by Miss Snodgrass and MS Word to never use the passive voice. They need a bit of context to understand why it has a place in an encyclopedia. We're not saying everything they've learned is wrong, only that in an encyclopedia, sometimes, passive voice is just right. SchreiberBike | ⌨  04:58, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
We don't need to say everything they've learned is wrong, but we don't need to say it isn't wrong, either. Maybe everything they've learned really is wrong. Or maybe not. Not up to us to say, at least not in the MOS. --Trovatore (talk) 16:31, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
Just regarding this, anon user, you have been repeatedly asked not to change passive structures for active ones on this page, and given the reasons why you shouldn't do this. I believe the following edits to include further examples of what Tony asked to be reverted on sight. [[10]], 2, 3. Could you maybe stop doing this, given the well-established consensus against it? Boynamedsue (talk) 05:49, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
Or not - given the wealth of support from various quarters for appropriate active-voice constructions in and beyond Wikipedia articles and Wikipedia talk-pages, and given the lack of any purportedly established consensus banning occasional improvements in editing for clarity and succinctness. - One might indeed convince oneself into a belief aligned with a third party's views on reversion - Tony states that he read only the examples of "passive-to-active changes" (the four or five cherry-picked ones, plucked out of context and unreferenced). But talk-pages do not always operate on the basis of repeated shrill denunciations, without reasoned discussion, and Tony may even have had the opportunity to read through our little thread here and to consider some of the more nuanced approaches to the use of active voice. - I detect no stylistic crimes in context in the referenced edits - WP:MOS does not require passive-voice structures. I suggest finding a real justification for any proposed reversions. - 131.203.251.134 (talk) 04:47, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
Given that this thread is purportedly dedicated to encouraging clear exposition, I'm having a hard time interpreting the immediately foregoing as anything other than parody. EEng 05:11, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
  • If this could be conveyed to the anon user: scientific/engineering English nowadays uses a mix of active and passive when explaining in a funding application, for example, how a project will be conducted. The point is to avoid successive close occurrences of "We will ...", et al. Last century is was the norm to use wall-to-wall passive voice, in some weird attempt to suggest objectivity through the absence of actors. Passive voice has its place, though it's possible to find passive that would be better as active: just not the way the anon is doing it. Tony (talk) 13:05, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Now at ANI

Fallout from ANI

The discussion now safely archived at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1102 reached an administrative decision summarizable in the viewpoint of User:Boynamedsue of 24 June 2022 - "[...] nobody here is arguing that the active voice is bad, or that replacing the passive is always incorrect. We argue that the way the anon user is doing this is not appropriate and that they should stop it." But this negative authoritative wisdom - institutionalizing what one user should not do - offers little help to anyone busily crafting and re-crafting Wikipedia articles - how should we use the active voice (the default standard in English)? In what specific way(s) do the edits of the "anon user" (User 131.203.251.134) seem "not appropriate"? So perhaps we can discuss a way forward here on WT:MOS. We could start with the sage advice of User:Visviva on 24 June 2022 - "I do not see any consensus at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style#Wikilawyering_over_passive_voice that the active voice is bad or that the passive voice should never be replaced [...]." - 131.203.251.134 (talk) 04:39, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

The way forward is for you not to resume flitting from article to article twisting sentences into pretzels. A lot of your changes are improvements but plenty aren't, and you've pissed people off enough that no one wants to spend time filtering one from the other. Because your judgment on active versus passive is clearly off, if you're not sure -- don't. EEng 15:30, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
I've consistently followed the Wikipedia Manual of Style in making edits, pausing occasionally to defend against some of the wild accusations, dodgy interpretations and gross inaccuracies in claims to the contrary. So exactly who or what has pissed anyone off here? - 131.203.251.134 (talk) 04:41, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
You have. Huge amounts of time have been wasted on your pointless arguing. See below. EEng 17:20, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
Just dropping by to say that the user seems to have heeded E's advice as their recent edits have avoided changes to the passive. I'm happy this seems to have been resolved. Boynamedsue (talk) 12:45, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
While I'm always happy to hog credit, this particular IP has made exactly one edit in the past few days, so not sure what you're saying. EEng 19:15, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
They've made more edits with their other accounts, linked on their talkpage. I came across them by chance and thought "here we go again", but I was pleasantly surprised.--Boynamedsue (talk) 08:49, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Not everyone agrees on other folks' judgment re preferring active or passive constructions. Discussions have reflected this, and doctrinaire opinions abound. Picking on individual editors who consistently attempt to follow the Wikipedia Manual of Style guidelines does not resolve the issue. Threatening individual editors with sanctions does not solve the issue for the numerous other Wikipedians who edit many many articles each day. Inventing unwritten rules against changes which User:Visviva has described as "mostly ... value-neutral" does not help. Postulating an uncodified consensus where none exists does not help future Wikipedians. Misinterpretting the MOS's tentative toleration of occasional passives (in certain circumstances) as requiring a certain "encyclopedic" style may lead to unencyclopedic vagueness. - User:WhatamIdoing started this discussion with a query about possibly adjusting MOS:PASSIVE. We now have "some waffle buried in one of its many footnotes" - "still not crisp and clear". Time to get back on topic? - 131.203.251.134 (talk) 04:41, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Christ, even as someone (above) is saying that your recent edits no longer seem problematic, you STILL want to argue. Could you please spare us and quit while you're ahead? EEng 17:20, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
I think that we now have adequate written advice, and that if there are future problems, we should handle it as an individual/behavioral problem, instead of blaming an alleged lack of clarity in the Manual of Style. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:35, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
The Wikipedia Manual of Style does not lack clarity. The question becomes: how to interpret and respond to its discussion of passive-voice usage? - A misunderstanding has arisen over whether the Wikipedia Manual of Style gives advice on the use of passive-voice constructions. Generally speaking, it doesn't. It notes that the use of passives may (not must) avoid certain perceived stylistic infelicities (in MOS:WE: "rephrasing to use passive voice may be preferable"; in MOS:YOU: "[t]he passive voice may sometimes be used instead"), and explains (without prescribing) the "most common uses of encyclopedic passive" (MOS:PASSIVE: "it is widely used in encyclopedia articles, because [...]"; "[t]he most common uses of encyclopedic passive are [...]"). Re-editing the Manual of Style to remove specific discouragement of the passive voice has not changed the MOS's silence on non-passive-voice (normal) usage. Nor do statistics reveal undue passive-voice usage in Wikipedia articles: in a recent featured article I count 385 main-space verbs - only 106 of them (less than 28%) in the passive voice, despite much of the text paraphrasing scholarly articles. Recall that editors use featured articles, "reviewed as featured article candidates for accuracy, neutrality, completeness, and style" "as examples for writing other articles". So why all the fuss over some switches to use the active voice? - 131.203.251.134 (talk) 04:42, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
Perhaps the problem is not "switches to use the active voice" per se but the absence of WP:Brilliant prose in the results. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:12, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
I grant you that I have a greater interest in accuracy than in glitter. - 131.203.251.134 (talk) 04:44, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
What part of Christ, even as someone (above) is saying that your recent edits no longer seem problematic, you STILL want to argue. Could you please spare us and quit while you're ahead? did you not understand? EEng 18:45, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
"ahead". - Need you ask? - 131.203.251.134 (talk) 04:44, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
Well let me spell it out for you: you've managed to get this far without being blocked, but if you post to this thread again, that may change. EEng 20:24, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
Alternatively, rather than laying down some law or issuing threats, we could engage in debate (question and answer; thesis and antithesis) on appropriate encyclopedic style, thus furthering the purpose of the talk-page. Who knows - we may reach a consensus on outstanding issues which could eliminate the need for cancel-culture behavior. - 131.203.251.134 (talk) 04:32, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
There's nothing to debate. Liz (picking you at random), can you please give this guy a warning to drop the stick? EEng 05:22, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
Further discussion here is not useful. Your past posts have shown that you personally have consistent problems with the correct use of the passive, which you defended using the wording of the manual of style. The MoS has been changed so no language appears which you could use to justify the type of edit you were making. The post above in which you discuss the number of passive verb forms in Red panda is irrelevant, nobody is arguing for a specific percentage of active or passive verbs, it was simply noted by many users that your constant rephrasing of passive verb forms as active ones led to bad prose. I am fairly certain that everybody who has commented on this page has rephrased a passive as an active at some point, I did one a couple of days ago. The point is that you, personally, don't seem to know how to do this correctly, and so have been advised to stop. I would say we really should leave it at that. --Boynamedsue (talk) 05:32, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
I will willingly debate - in some appropriate venue - your much-repeated, grossly exaggerated and inaccurate misrepresentations of my occasional alleged editing offenses. Right here and now, however, we have a talk-page devoted to something else: to discussing appropriate Wikipedia style. I have raised some issues re active- and passive-voice usage which apparently interested parties have not yet addressed. You could help specifically by explaining what you consider "the correct use", "bad prose" and permissible editing - for my benefit and for the benefit of others attempting to improve the encyclopedic accuracy and clarity of Wikipedia. - 131.203.251.134 (talk) 04:48, 12 August 2022 (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.
Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

There's a mislink on this page

{{crossref|(see also {{section link|Hatnote#Hatnote templates}})}}

(see also Hatnote § Hatnote templates)

should instead say

{{crossref|(see also {{section link|WP:Hatnote#Hatnote templates}})}}

(see also WP:Hatnote § Hatnote templates)

Instead of linking to articlespace, it should link to Projectspace

-- 65.92.247.226 (talk) 08:00, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

  Done Many thanks for pointing this out. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 08:14, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Nom de Plume

Latest comment: 2 years ago24 comments11 people in discussion

I recently noticed an editor making hundreds of edits a day to expunge the phrase "Nom De plume" from the encyclopedia. Is there a style guide that specifies that phrase is not to be used? ApLundell (talk) 19:45, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

I hope not. This is a phrase that has become part of the English language, whatever its origin may be. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:22, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
Not that we need a guideline or anything, but I think pen name should do fine in the vast majority of cases. The other comes across just a bit poetic (or poetical -- I can never remember the difference). EEng 21:29, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
Poetic justice? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:34, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
I'm not familiar with "pen name", but very familiar with "nom de plume". Probably a difference in different parts of the English speaking world. HiLo48 (talk) 23:22, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
I see from your user page that you're from Australia, so with all due respect I'll be more interested in hearing the experience of native English speakers. EEng 23:41, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
I'm very much a native English speaker, being from England, and "nom de plume" seems more natural to me than "pen name". Phil Bridger (talk) 06:48, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
We speak English in Australia, you f%$@ing idiot. — Guarapiranga ☎ 07:03, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
That's what you think. EEng 04:08, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
Wonderful! HiLo48 (talk) 22:53, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
I'm a Englishman born and raised. I've just worked out that (ignoring day trips) I've spent 16 weeks out of my 66 years outside the British Isles, so I think I qualify in EEng's terms. I'm thoroughly familiar with both "nom de plume" and "pen name", but would tend to associate the former with a professional writer whereas the latter seems more informal, possibly the signature at the end of a ranting letter to the papers. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 08:25, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
Entirely agree. (Although am a Welshman born and raised... "We speak English in Wales, you f%$@ing idiot" etc.) Martinevans123 (talk) 13:05, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
There are two issues here: what usage is appropriate and whether it is appropriate to make bulk changes without consensus. Does anybody raise an eyebrow at du jour? au jus? If not, then I don't see an issue with nom de plume, especially since it is common and is an exact tanslation. --Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 12:55, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
There are a number of foreign terms that are standard in English. Would you want to replace all de jure with "by law". What about Queens regnant? Come to think of it before this list grows any longer I'd better sign off with with "...and the rest" since I doubt you'd allow "...etc". Martin of Sheffield (talk) 15:07, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
Oh look, we have an article. And a few similar? Those are words in English, not just used by English speakers "to be a bit poetic (or poetical)". Martinevans123 (talk) 15:06, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
That was my point; there is a wiki page devoted to such terms. I'm an American, and I don't find the term nom de plume to be at all archaic or quaint; I'm not familiar with usage in other Anglophone countries. I don't believe that the term is illegitimate just because it was coined in England. It is true that [[nom de plume]] is a redirect, but that doesn't negate its legitimacy. --Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 09:30, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
Nom de plume is an English expression derived from nom de guerre, which had been copied from French. French speakers never used the term nom de plume. Pen name is a later term created by Americans translating the French words of nom de plume into English.[11] So its possible that one form is preferred in the U.S. and the other in the rest of the English-speaking world. In that case, which term was used would depend upon the version of English the article adopted. To me, it sounds strange to refer to Lewis Carroll and George Orwell as pen names. TFD (talk) 16:07, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
Your idea about word choice in the US vs other English speaking countries is probably correct. This American finds "nom de plume" rather old fashioned and perhaps slightly pretentious, but it isn't unfamiliar or confusing and isn't something I would bother changing. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 17:53, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
Now we're getting somewhere! Thank you. HiLo48 (talk) 22:53, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
H. W. Fowler wrote in his influential (at least in the British Empire) 1926 style guide, "Nom-de-plume is open to the criticism that it is ridiculous for English writers to use a French phrase that does not come from France....Nobody perhaps uses pen-name without feeling either 'What a good boy am I to abstain from showing off my French & translate nom-de-plume into honest English!', or else 'I am not as those publicans who suppose there is such a phrase as nom-de-plume'. For everyone is instinctively aware that pen-name, however native or naturalized its elements, is no English-bred word, but a translation of nom-de plume."[12]
He seems to prefer nom de plume over pen name, which leads me to think that usage is preferred among non-U.S. English speakers to this day. While some editors consider nom de plume to be pretentious, others might consider pen name to be rough, which is the way some British and Americans regard one another's language usage.
TFD (talk) 21:21, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
Fascinating — a calque of a ... hyperforeignism, I guess? Anyway, I disagree with HW here; I do not reflexively think of nom de plume when I hear pen name, though I suppose I might from now on, and to be fair that was a long time ago in another country. --Trovatore (talk) 16:29, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

MOS:'S misguided?

Latest comment: 2 years ago32 comments17 people in discussion

FYI, in the RM discussion at Talk:Eyles's harrier#Requested move 21 May 2022, most of the initial comments are saying that MOS:'S / MOS:POSS is misguided (re: "the boss's office, Illinois's largest employer, Descartes's philosophy" – especially "Descartes's philosophy"). Should the guidance be changed? —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 04:55, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

  • Yes. Per apostrophe, even the US Supreme Court is split on this and so WP:ENGVAR applies. See also WP:CREEP...Andrew🐉(talk) 11:50, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
  • Indeed, MOS:'S should better summarise Apostrophe#Singular nouns ending with an "s" or "z" sound and the following section on silent consonants. This will indeed lead to non-territorial Engvar. Davidships (talk) 12:27, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
    The summary would be that "Many respected authorities recommend that practically all singular nouns, including those ending with a sibilant sound, have possessive forms with an extra s after the apostrophe so that the spelling reflects the underlying pronunciation." and "Certainly a sibilant is pronounced in examples like Descartes's and Dumas's". That's pretty much what MOS:POSS is based on. Dicklyon (talk) 04:04, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
  • Apostrophe#Singular nouns ending with an "s" or "z" sound says that usage authorities disagree, but I don't see anything in the article saying that that disagreement is along national lines, and so I don't see how WP:ENGVAR is applicable. Colin M (talk) 17:55, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
    There's some variation in English grammar and spelling and it's not just national in nature. For example, see MOS:OXFORDCOMMA. As Wikipedia contains a large variety of topics and can be edited by anyone, it should be broad and tolerant rather than narrow and exclusive. Andrew🐉(talk) 18:45, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
    Sure, that's a fine argument to make, but the shortcut MOS:ENGVAR points to a section titled "National varieties of English". So to say that "WP:ENGVAR applies" here is confusing. Colin M (talk) 18:57, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
    The MOS is a guideline, not policy, and so needs work in that respect too. The general point is that we have some reasonable variation in the way that we do things (see WP:CITEVAR for another example) and, as there's no general agreement on the way that English works in this respect, then we should not be making an arbitrary choice which is likely to generate conflict. Andrew🐉(talk) 19:16, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
    How is this case different from the case of logical quotation? --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 13:55, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
    Personally, the main difference I see between this and MOS:LOGICAL (and MOS:CURLY) is that this topic is less familiar to most people, since this question is encountered less frequently. Practically all articles contain quote marks, but rather few contain the possessive form of a singular noun ending with an 's'. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 17:37, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
    Yes, "it should be broad and tolerant rather than narrow and exclusive" -- WP is that. But we still have a style that we strive for, and it should be well articulated so that style gnomes don't have to guess or argue about what is preferred. Dicklyon (talk) 04:06, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
  • No, let's not re-open this. We had long discussions years ago and concluded with a consensus for this simple straightforward style that accords with most modern style guides. Dicklyon (talk) 18:10, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
  • Yes, let's revisit this. Wikipedia guidelines, like the MOS, are supposed to document existent community consensus, and the lack of community consensus for this shows we should not have a hard and fast rule for this matter (see WP:CREEP). -- Vaulter 18:25, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
  • The style manual could simply advise editors to avoid the contentious and confusing construction. If someone rewords a sentence to avoid "Illinois's" or "Illinois'", it shouldn't be reverted based on some pedantic interpretation of WP:RETAIN. pburka (talk) 18:40, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
  • It should be removed, per WP:CREEP. We don't need instructions on this; WP:RETAIN is suitable, and for article titles WP:COMMONNAME can be applied. BilledMammal (talk) 19:06, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
    • We clearly do need instructions on this, since style guides conflict with each other on it, and people will fight about it again and again and again. MoS exists primarily to ensure consistency for the reader and secondarily to stop recurrent style fights. MOS:POSS serves both purposes.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:43, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
      Yeah, I’m firmly in the we-should-have-a-house-style camp. I would take a style guide that’s “wrong” over one that doesn’t just pick a side. We waste enough time on dumb stuff without adding another x-thousand person hours each year on fights over Jesus’ses. — HTGS (talk) 23:49, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
  • Looking at the RM discussion that started this post here, there is mixed usage in sources which indicates that this is an editorial choice of style. WP has the MOS as its style and is quite reasonable that we undertake to edit in accordance with it even if we (individually) might not always agree with it. Having a broad community consensus on a recurrent issue is a better alternative than having to reargue each case ab initio every time an issue is raised. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:01, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
  • Having a single global style choice, on an issue where consistency of style is preferable and there are no strong national ties to confuse the issue, is not misguided. What rationale is there for having inconsistent styles, beyond individual editors wanting to be individual rather than part of a collective? —David Eppstein (talk) 05:10, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
  • The Commonwealth Style Guide says to use an apostrophe-s on personal names even when they end with an S, so I regard this as an WP:ENGVAR issue. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:45, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
    Which Commonwealth Style Guide are you referring to? I've seen this recommendation in guides from various ENGVARs. Dicklyon (talk) 15:10, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
    It is the Australian government's official style guide. Now available online. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:43, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
    So what? The New York Times official style guide contains the very same advice. MapReader (talk) 07:00, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

If anyone is serious about re-opening this, please first review these prior discussions (and others you may find) and let us know what's changed that should unsettle this settled matter. Dicklyon (talk) 18:51, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Dicklyon, would you toss those links up in the FAQ at the top of the page? That sometimes helps, and it would at least save us the trouble of finding the whole list next time. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:37, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
Feel free. Or I might get to it later. Dicklyon (talk) 17:40, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
OK, done. Dicklyon (talk) 03:41, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
I don't recall ever reading a word in the "s's" style. GoodDay (talk) 17:52, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
See if any of these books will refresh your memory. Dicklyon (talk) 03:29, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
Or maybe some of these? Or these? Dicklyon (talk) 03:42, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
Do as you all please. This old bear is just a tad weary & bruised up. Just not in a debating mood, these days. GoodDay (talk) 03:59, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Use of "they" for corporations

Latest comment: 2 years ago26 comments13 people in discussion

Coming here for a second opinion and gut check. I have always thought that the appropriate pronoun for a corporation or organization is singular, for instance:

ABC Corp is a public company. It sells its stock on the New York Stock Exchange.

and not

ABC Corp is a public company. They sell their stock on the New York Stock Exchange.

MOS:PLURALS discusses the similar, but not identical, case of collective nouns and notes the WP:ENGVAR issues with those. As a writer of American and occasionally Canadian English, I would write

The Blackacre Tigers is a soccer team. It acquired Smith from the Greenacre Rapscallions last week.

and not

The Blackacre Tigers are a football team. They acquired Smith from the Greenacre Rapscallions last week.

But a corporation or organization should not be referred to by collective pronouns (or so I think). Am I right to be changing plural pronouns to singular for corporations and organizations, as I just did on Tax Foundation? And if I am (or if I am not), should this be clarified somewhere in the MoS? Or, if it is clarified somewhere, could someone point me to that provision? AleatoryPonderings (talk) 15:41, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

"They" for corporations, political parties, etc. is brutal writing and should be hunted down and eliminated. Primergrey (talk) 16:13, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
No, it is fairly standard usage in British English for any entity with multiple people involved (sports teams, governments, corporations etc) to be referred to in the plural.  — Amakuru (talk) 16:22, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
Sourced examples: "Microsoft have released...", "Amazon realised that they would need to pay", "Apple have released two more versions" etc.  — Amakuru (talk) 16:26, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
I agree, Primergrey, but I'm afraid the cancer has metastised too far throughout media outlets over the last few years to be stopped now. And it's not fortuituous either. It's most likely a concerted effort to make corporations seem more human than they actually are (a sequel to the institutionalisation of corporate personhood). — Guarapiranga ☎ 00:59, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
That's a serious stretch. It doesn't have anything to do with corporations per se. In American English, groups called by their name take singular verb agreement if the name is singular (Kansas is a rock band, not Kansas are a rock band), but the pronoun is "they", which is not "singular they", but rather refers to the natural persons making it up: They sing "Carry On Wayward Son", certainly not It sings. -Trovatore (talk) 01:50, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
Is it?

“Use of the corporate we is one of the tactics stressed in popular books on corporate management during the 1980s,” Faigley writes, mentioning specifically the influential book Corporate Cultures (1982), by Terrence E. Deal and Allan A. Kennedy. That book refers to the use of “we” as “a clever ploy for communicating corporate principles.”[1]

— Guarapiranga ☎ 04:00, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
Your example of what you, as an American, would write about a sports team seems absolutely wrong to this American. "Tigers" is intrinsically plural and would require "are". There's some wiggle room for teams with names like the Utah Jazz, but your example isn't like that. As for companies, usage seems much more fluid. I would write "Microsoft has released", "Amazon realized that they would need", and "Apple has released" in the examples that Amakuru gave. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 16:44, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
Yep. The use of singular verbs for collective nouns in American English has a massive exception in the form of sports teams when their plural nickname is included. Indeed, such an exception is already in MOS:PLURALS. (As an aside, the correct term for the non-geographic portion of a North American team's full name is "nickname", because although they are formally adopted now, when the practice originated with baseball teams in the late 1800s, they were indeed nicknames generated by sports writers, and many clubs had multiple. The use of one of them as formal branding didn't really fully take hold until the late 1920s. As a relic of that, the short form remains known as a nickname, despite its formal adoption.) oknazevad (talk) 17:22, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
There is nothing wrong with they as a singular, it has existed as a singular pronoun in circumstances where gender isn't relevant or appropriate in English for many centuries and is commonplace. Complaining about the singular use of they is a very recent thing despite it's long term common usage. See also Merriam Webster. Canterbury Tail talk 17:14, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
The problem is that it's not being used as a singular for corporations, since it is combined with plural forms of verbs—as noted above. The confusion seems to be that sometimes we like to use singular verbs (e.g., "Apple Inc is a corporation") and sometimes, at least in some engvars, plural verbs (as Amakuru's examples suggest). This isn't a case like using they as a gender-neutral personal pronoun. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 17:25, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
Yeah this has nothing to do with the debate on individual's preferred gender pronouns. They can be both a singular and a plural and none of the usages above are grammatically wrong for the usage of they, and when used to refer to a corporation it's a singular they. They doesn't have to be an animate object or creature. There may be some trippy exceptions that just 100% don't sound right, like using an in front of some h words, but in normal grammatical usage in US, Canadian and British English using they to refer to a company, corporation or organization is perfectly acceptable. Canterbury Tail talk 17:29, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
I don't agree at all that it's singular they for companies. "They" used for companies is implicitly referring to the natural persons making up the company, not personifying the company. Singular they is not used for inanimate objects. --Trovatore (talk) 17:50, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
And that's my concern. It seems like sometimes we are OK with using third-person singular verbs for companies and sometimes third-person plural. (e.g., "Apple is a company" versus "Apple are preparing for their upcoming shareholders' meeting", or whatever). You would never say, when referring to a natural person, "Jordan are about to leave the house," even if you might use "they" as a personal pronoun for Jordan. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 18:29, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
"Apple are preparing" works in British English; not in American English. That doesn't make the "they" singular. --Trovatore (talk) 18:31, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
Oh, to be clear, I agree with you, Trovatore. In general, it seems there is consensus that MOS:VAR applies to my original question and so articles written in American English should use singular pronouns and verbs for corporations whereas articles written in British English need not. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 18:40, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
I honestly don’t see how this isn’t covered by MOS:PLURALS, but perhaps it would be sensible to clarify it. It sounds like most commenters here are demonstrating support for singular or plural along national lines for companies just as with any other collective. I also agree that English speakers are not using a singular they in those cases. — HTGS (talk) 19:51, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
Perhaps something like the following as an addition to the existing language?

Some collective nouns – such as, among others, team (and proper names of them), army, company (and proper names of them), crowd, fleet, government, majority, mess, number, pack, and party – may refer either to a single entity or to the members that compose it. As explained further in this section, national varieties of English differ in their treatment of collective nouns and verbs used with them. Treat collective nouns as they are treated in the national variety used in the article in question. ...

AleatoryPonderings (talk) 20:38, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
Ahem. "such as"="among others". Davidships (talk) 20:50, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
Company literally means a group of people. Until the 20th century, most companies were unincorporated, meaning they were groups of people. Incorporation turned companies into legal persons, although law and accounting firms remained unincorporated. So I would say that both are correct, depending on context. TFD (talk) 03:03, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
FWIW...

  1. When referring to a company or organization in writing, the organization in question should always be referred to as an “it,” not a “they.” Unless, of course, you’re referring to the actual people who work there. Simply put, people are “they,” and a thing is an “it.”[2]

  2. A common error in modern writing looks a little like this:
    “Microsoft announced they are releasing a new Xbox console next week…”
    Since Microsoft is a company made up of many people, it’s easy to make this mistake. But companies are always its, not theys.[3]

  3. As we said in our recent post about the corporate “we,” a company generally refers to itself in the first person plural, with the pronouns “we,” “us,” “our,” and “ourselves.”
    But when somebody else writes or speaks about a company, the third person is used. And from a grammatical point of view, the singular “it” is more appropriate than the plural “they.”[4]

— Guarapiranga ☎ 03:52, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
On reflection, I think for companies I use "it" in descriptive or stative assertions, but "they" when describing an action or decision. Google is a multinational corporation. It has a market cap of about 1.5 T. They are releasing a new phone. I would argue this makes sense — the descriptive assertions refer to the legal entity, but the legal entity is not volitional and is not an agent except as a legal fiction, so in active assertions, it's actually some set of natural persons who are doing the thing, and they are referred to as "they". --Trovatore (talk) 16:30, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
I think you have articulated my pattern of usage as well. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 18:30, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
Brittiany Cahoon says that is a common error, and that the following mainstream press examples are correct:[3]

Last week, at the Gnomedex technology conference in Seattle, Microsoft announced it is building the ability to detect, display and subscribe to RSS (The Guardian)

Second, Microsoft has devised a new strategy, called .NET, under which it will try to recast itself as a provider of Internet-based software services rather (The Economist)

Michele Brosius, a 49-year-old blogger from Pillow, Pa., says she’s not deleting her Facebook account, either. She knew from the moment she put her data on the Internet that it was up for grabs. Facebook isn’t the only one tracking her. Anytime she uses a store rewards card, a credit card, takes surveys or picks up an electronic device, she knows someone’s watching her.

— Guarapiranga ☎ 02:36, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

In British English, companies, public bodies, teams, etc., are correctly treated as singular. American usage seems more lazy, and I would defer to those familiar with US style guides to advise on which usage is correct? MapReader (talk) 14:28, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

MapReader, I wish you were correct in that summary but you are not. Sports clubs, especially in football (aka soccer), are invariably called they. Other grammatical monstrosities include "defeat to" (rather than "defeat by"). "I blame the parents/the schools/TV/video games/the internet/[insert favourite black beast here]. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 16:48, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "The Grammarphobia Blog: The corporate 'we'". www.grammarphobia.com. 2017-12-20. Retrieved 2022-07-29.
  2. ^ "10 Common Grammar Mistakes In Business Writing". Pyxl. 2022-02-14. Retrieved 2022-07-29.
  3. ^ a b "Companies Are It, not They". www.dailywritingtips.com. 2007. Retrieved 2022-07-29.
  4. ^ "The Grammarphobia Blog: Is GM an "it" or a "they"?". www.grammarphobia.com. 2018-01-26. Retrieved 2022-07-29.

Languages in navboxes

Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Per how obscenely long it takes to find an MOS on a language is, and how absurd the current categorization is, I'll be adding them to the MOS navboxes. The only question is where to link dormant proposals like WP:PMOS, or WikiProject Languages if that's where additional language MOS should be cross-proposed. SamuelRiv (talk) 04:54, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Dormant proposals, failed proposals, and WP:PROJPAGE essays do not belong in the MoS navbox. If you've found something in wikiproject space the claims to be a guideline not an essay then it should either be demoted to {{WikiProject style essay}} or moved to a WP:Manual of Style/[Something] name, depending on whether we think it really has consensus or not. In my experience trying to promote to MoS status various "wikiproject findings" that claimed to be style guideline pages, there's only about a 30% success rate, so do not make assumptions.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  09:37, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

For 5–6 years, or five to six years

Latest comment: 2 years ago30 comments10 people in discussion

MOS:RANGE and MOS:NUMBER may have a conflict in certain cases. The former recommends en dash for ranges of numbers, but this doesn't look right for numbers below ten, for which I prefer MOS:NUMBER. I.e., I just changed:

It usually lives for 5-6 years, to:
It usually lives for five to six years

citing MOS:NUMBER. But, MOS:RANGE says: "For ranges between numbers, dates, or times, use an en dash." which would contradict my change. The top example just looks wrong to me, given our normal recommendation for small numbers. Do we want to add a slight change to MOS:NUMBER to clarify this case? Mathglot (talk) 01:14, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

  • I'm not entirely sure what your concern is, but I think you're worried that MOS:NUMBER implies you can't write five to six but must instead write five–six or something like that. But MOS:NUMBER says that "generally ... Integers from zero to nine are spelled out in words". Note the generally, which gets you the flexibility to use the "to" form, consistent with common sense. EEng 01:52, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
    I find the numerical form much more pleasing and a better example of "common sense" usage.--User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 14:09, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
    You misunderstand. I'm simply saying that the "generally" in this particular guideline, plus the fact that every MOS page reminds all that guidelines are to be applied with "common sense", imply that five to six is an acceptable formulation (in addition to 5–6, which is incontrovertibly an acceptable formulation). I'm not saying which of those two is preferable -- that's an editorial decision to be worked out by the editors of any given article. EEng 00:43, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Five to six years
    is definitely too wordy, and just descreases readability.
  • 5–6 years
    should be fine on a list, table or in parentheses.
  • 5 to 6 years
    is an alternative for prose, that is yet to be considered here, which I personally find much more readable, while not interrupting text flow. — Guarapiranga ☎ 02:23, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
Yes, that was my concern. Mathglot (talk) 02:47, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
Since MOS:RANGE is part of MOS:DASH, I read it as guidance on which dash to use, not when a dash is needed. I would rely on MOS:NUMBER, and I think it's clear on "for five to six" being right and "for 5–6" being wrong. If anything needs to be tweaked, it's probably MOS:RANGE, which could be something like "If a range between numbers, dates, or times, needs a dash, use an en dash. See MOS:NUMBER for guidance on when to use a dash. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:33, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Five to six years is best. Five – six years is second best. The point about WP:NUM is that encountering digits within a plain text sentence reduces readability and increases reading time considerably. MapReader (talk) 13:44, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
    Five – six years is absolutely out of the question. The three versions giving by Guarapiranga are all acceptable in at least some situations. EEng 18:37, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
    Agreed. — Guarapiranga ☎ 23:43, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
    Agreed also.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  09:40, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
    encountering digits within a plain text sentence reduces readability and increases reading time considerably.
    Wut??
    1. WP:NUM is a WikiProject is believed to be semi-active.
    2. These sources disagree:
      • Australian government[1]

        Use numerals for 2 and above in text
        In text, the general rule is:
        Use numerals for ‘2’ and above.
        Write the numbers ‘zero’ and ‘one’ in words.

      • Content Design London[2]

        Use numerals instead of words for numbers.
        They are easier to scan read. It's more consistent to always use numerals rather than have a variety of rules for different sentence structures.

The actually relevant MoS section here is MOS:RANGES (which Mathglot spelled out right at the start):

For ranges between numbers, dates, or times, use an en dash:
 • pp. 7–19;   64–75%;   Henry VIII reigned 1509–1547

I'd like to make two proposals:
  1. Change MOS:RANGE to:
    • For ranges between times or dates, use an en dash. For ranges between numbers, use to between numerals for numbers from 1 to 9 (e.g. 9 to 5), and an en dash otherwise (e.g. pp. 7–19;   64–75%;   Henry VIII reigned 1509–1547).
  2. Move this discussion to WT:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers.
— Guarapiranga ☎ 00:53, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://www.stylemanual.gov.au/grammar-punctuation-and-conventions/numbers-and-measurements/choosing-numerals-or-words#use_numerals_for_2_and_above_in_text
  2. ^ "Numbers". readabilityguidelines.co.uk. Retrieved 2022-08-16.
It would be better if your proposal were consistent with MoS:NUM. In almost all cases, numbers below ten will be expressed in words, hence your ‘9 to 5’ example will never really be seen. MapReader (talk) 19:19, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
"In almost all cases, not" <> "never". But I have to say, I remember than when I reorganized MOSNUM 10 (ten) years ago I tried really, really hard to get my head around the complicated interacting provisions of MOS:RANGE, MOS:NUMBER, and I'm pretty sure some other bits and pieces scattered here and there. And I gave up. EEng 04:02, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
In this case it is, because the limited exceptions to small numbers being in words - such as in formulae, scientific notation, sports scores, adjacent different-topic numbers - don’t apply to a phrase like nine to five, hence it will always be written out in words. Unless it is the result of a sports match in which case it wouldn’t have the ‘to’. MapReader (talk) 18:34, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
9 to 5 (disambiguation). --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 10:46, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
Thank you! — Guarapiranga ☎ 05:50, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
The acceptable range of control settings was determined to be 5 to 9. EEng 13:03, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
I think the written out form is really only more common with simple counts of physical objects. Times, years, setting levels, etc seem to be most often encountered in numerical form.
Yeah, in the example in this thread I'd personally have a preference towards "5 to 6 years" as a natural flowing sentence on the screen. Canterbury Tail talk 13:35, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
But ‘five to six years’ is considerably easier to read, which is the whole purpose of MoS:Num in the first place MapReader (talk) 14:25, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
May have to agree to disagree on that one perhaps, I think contextually for what is being used in the example that 5 to 6 is actually easier than five to six. Canterbury Tail talk 15:13, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
Except that assertion is disputed. Numbers-as-numerals are not harder to read than numbers-as-words. If anything, the opposite is true, as shown by the sources listed above. People parse compact single character numerals faster than multi-character words.
The stigma against them among some style guides is a holdover from stilted and outdated assumptions of formality, treating numerals as some sort of abbreviation and not the primary, universal-across-languages form for writing quantities. The whole "write out numbers less than 10" thing should be dropped outright. It's bad, outdated style. oknazevad (talk) 14:57, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
I'm not going to get into a debate over assertions about what's easier to read but -- sorry -- what you say is silly. We're not going to write They had 1 son and 3 daughters any more than we're going to start using slang in articles. EEng 15:57, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
While I think such a sentence would be more likely to be written with words, I would not be surprised to encounter it with numerals and do not find it at all silly. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 17:06, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
The idea that using numerals is akin to slang is preposterous and exactly the sort of faux formality I referred to. There is nothing less formal about numerals. oknazevad (talk) 19:19, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
Indeed it is, oknazevad, as evidenced by the adorementioned Australian government's style guide. In fact, if EEng were to write that example in an official Australian document, he'd write it as: They had one son and 3 daughters. — Guarapiranga ☎ 05:55, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
  • We don't need a rule for this - leave it up to the editors on the articles to decide how to write, with the normal warning about not edit warring or otherwise being disruptive in trying to enforce any particular preference.Nigel Ish (talk) 14:47, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
    This is style guidance; it gives WP a coherent look and feel. There's plenty of other guidance on par with this. And it already allows for occasional exceptions, and that it is best treated with common sense. Having written guidance, however, substantially reduces the time and energy spent on rows over cosmetic disputes, and stops WP from looking like a ransom note. — Guarapiranga ☎ 06:02, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
    That's if there's been trouble over this (see WP:MOSBLOAT) -- although I've lost track of what "this" is. Can you show us recent debates that a guideline would have avoided? EEng 14:42, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Commas

Latest comment: 2 years ago8 comments4 people in discussion

Hello - are the following versions correct? "born 10 August 2022, in country" & "born August 10, 2022 in country"? GoodDay (talk) 07:15, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Neither is correct. It would be "They were born 10 August 2022 in Lithuania" or "She was born August 10, 2022, in Zambia" depending on the article's established date style. See MOS:DATE. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 12:52, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
I mean in bracket form, at the beginning of the bio "(born 10 August 2022, in country)" & "(born August 10, 2022 in country)". GoodDay (talk) 12:57, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
Birth places shouldn't be in the opening brackets per MOS:BIRTHPLACE: "Birth and death places, if known, should be mentioned in the body of the article, and can appear in the lead if relevant to notability, but not in the opening brackets alongside the birth and death dates." If there's some reason for an exception, it would be (born 10 August 2022 in country) or (born August 10, 2022, in country) as the normal date comma rules apply. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:02, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
Most BIOS begin with the bracket form & have the versions I've displayed. GoodDay (talk) 13:08, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
Likely best to use only the years, in the brackets - "(born 1985)" & "(1773–1873)". -- GoodDay (talk) 13:11, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
It's either "born 10 August 2022 in [country]" or "born August 10, 2022, in [country]", irrespective of whether the sentence is within brackets or not. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 16:15, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
Concur.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  09:41, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Ambiguous words and terms

Latest comment: 2 years ago23 comments14 people in discussion

Many words and terms can have different, sometimes contradictory meanings. For example, "to table" means to "postpone consideration of" in the U.S., while in the UK it means to "present formally for discussion or consideration at a meeting." (Lexico)

When reliable sources use this term, it is usually clear from the context which definition is meant.

Is there any policy in Wikipedia about how and when to use these terms?

One concern is that tendentious editors may try to use phrasing that while supported in reliable sources implies a different state of affairs to readers than was meant in the sources.

TFD (talk) 14:33, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

The above example is a good one, where one meaning is to "take from the table" and the other is to "place on the table". I've recently noticed fought with which sometimes means "fought against" and sometimes means "fought on the same side as". Such phrases shouldn't be used without explanation. We do have the Words to watch page, but these don't fit there. Is there another place where they should be? SchreiberBike | ⌨  15:02, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
There are a few relevant bullets under MOS:COMMONALITY.--Trystan (talk) 15:05, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
Thanks. That's about national differences, but there are also cases where usage differs among people in the same country. For example, dinner can mean either the midday or evening meal. When speaking to other people, I don't use the word unless its meaning is clear in context. So I would ask to see the dinner menu in a restaurant. Where I have found this issue a problem is in topics involving politics and other social sciences. TFD (talk) 16:43, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
I think that commonality would still apply to regional differences. Maybe we could think about a way to make it clearer that the general rule of thumb is to pick the word that's less ambiguous is a general one. Mason (talk) 18:54, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
Another one, found often on talk pages, is "moot". In the UK this means that the topic is worthy of further discussion, but in the US it apparently means that there is no point in discussing it. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:22, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for that RedRose. I've been looking things up in the OED, and it starts with one meaning of the noun moot: "The discussion of a hypothetical case by law students for practice". From which a moot-point was one which was reserved for discussion at such a moot, but not essential to the present discussion. This usage was still the American interpretation as late as 1808 and probably 1831. However by 1899 a court dismissed a point as "moot" and ignored it. Not necessarily that there was no point in discussing it, merely that it was not relevant. Indeed in law moot merely meant that it was not relevant to the current case: "A lawsuit which is, or has become, moot is neither a case nor a controversy in the constitutional sense and no federal court has the power to decide it" (1946). The change in meaning to having no point seems to be a late 20C Americanism, possibly due to non-lawyers (could this be journalists?) misunderstanding a technical legal term. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 08:36, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
That was interesting. I make a point of never using the word moot because it is so easily misunderstood, except in the phrase moot court. Same with biweekly and bimonthly; I've thought of going through Wikipedia to take out those words (2,320 and 4,124 hits respectively). I can see benefit of a page, probably just an essay, of words to avoid. SchreiberBike | ⌨  13:35, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
I see no reason to avoid words because some people are ignorant. That defeats the whole purpose of having an encyclopaedia in the first place. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 08:59, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
But if you use a phrase like "the question is moot", how would I know which of two possible meanings was intended? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 09:33, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
It's not ignorance, except on the part of the writer. Clearly ambiguous terms can and should be avoided where possible, per MOS:COMMONALITY, and in the relatively rare cases where they can't an explanation may need adding. Johnbod (talk) 12:18, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
On "moot", does it not depend on whether you are using it as an adjective or a verb? Compare [13] and [14]. A 'moot point' is debatable or questionable, but it is also deprived of practical significance (you can debate it forever). Whereas 'to moot' something is to discuss it (maybe forever) but that says nothing about reaching a conclusion. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:53, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above was about the phrase "moot point" where moot is being used as an adjective. Of course its meaning changes according to the part of speech. The OED lists:

  • Three main heads for moot as a noun: (1) the sense of meeting, discussion (4 defs), (2) a tree stump and (3) a couple of woodworking tools.
  • One main head for moot as an adjective, as discussed above.
  • Three main heads as a verb: (1) to speak, ague or plead (3 defs + US only: to render something of no practical significance), (2) to uproot or grub out and (3) to shape a trenail.

Studying the form from which the adjective came may be illuminating, and with that selection of meanings fascinating to a linguist, but does it add anything to the discussion about ambiguous words?

BTW, "deprived of practical significance" is the modern American interpretation, the English and original American meaning was that it was "not essential to the present discussion", somewhat different in meaning. See my earlier post above. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 16:01, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Somewhat different? 'Not essential to the present discussion' sounds much the same in effect as 'deprived of [practical] significance [in this discussion]' or '[in this decision]'. If it's not essential, it is without significance. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:42, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
Adding those bracketed terms changes the meaning. "deprived of practical significance" is not the same as "deprived of practical significance in this discussion". In a discussion of the best way to drive from A to B, whether your car is petrol or diesel is "moot" in English usage (ie significant, but not relevant) but not moot in American usage (ie of no practical significance at all). Martin of Sheffield (talk) 09:25, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
No, "moot point" is always raised in the context of a particular discussion or decision. And it is always a matter of framing the terms of the debate. If something is not relevant to the debate than it is not significant to the debate. The only way you can rule out diesel or petrol for relevance is to determine it is not a matter of significance. If all you have to drive is on petrol, than the fact diesel exists is irrelevant and lacking in practical significance. If you have a real choice between diesel or petrol than, solely depending on the terms of the debate, it is both relevant and significant (for example, does the concept of 'best way to drive' include best comparative cost, best effect on the environment, best performance, etc.)-- Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:28, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
I hate to guess what our American friends make of Tolkein's Ent moot, let alone its origin in Moot hill and Moot hall. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 10:30, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
Do you seriously believe that the US has a monopoly on uneducated Anglophones? I guaranty that I am not the only American to know the primary (I didn't know about tree stump) meaning of moot or to understand at a glance the terms that you mention. The only question I have is whether the ents honestly argue about their differences instead of lying about the positions of their opponent, but there, too, the US has no monopoly on dishonest politicians. --Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 13:22, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
This American read Tolkien in the early 60s and had no problem with “moot”. Doug Weller talk 13:41, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
As already stated before your "wonder", no one has a issue "moot" alone (nor as a name or compound noun) -- at basic, the argument seems to be that "moot point" (moot as adjective describing point) means "irrelevant" to the English but "no significance" to the Americans, and whether that is really all that dreadfully far apart. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:09, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
I consider myself thoroughly admonished and banished to the Mines of Moria for seven years hard labour.--John Maynard Friedman (talk) 15:05, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
I think MOS:CONFUSE should be expanded to mention that certain words convey different connotations to different English speakers.
I witnessed several discussions on using the word 'attack' in the context of military action lately, and it appears that the sole source of the argument was that the primary meaning to some speakers is 'to harm' (as defined in Merriam-Webster), whereas to others it means 'to try to harm', suggesting intent and targeting (Cambridge Dictionary).
There's a similar discussion on the MOS:WTW talk page about the word 'issue': Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Words to watch#"Issue".
I propose to extend MOS:CONFUSE, mentioning that different usage by different speakers (in addition to words with dual meaning the section focuses on currently) can introduce undesirable ambiguity and include a yellow 'words to watch' block that would specifically mention 'attack', 'issue' and 'table (v)'. PaulT2022 (talk) 05:45, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
This is better material for a style essay. MoS is already over-long, and there is perhaps no end to the examples one could come up with of phrases that can be confusing for dialectal or other reasons.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  09:47, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

MOS:SINGLE clarified

Latest comment: 2 years ago15 comments3 people in discussion

I'm new here. I wonder:

is there's an archived discussion around MOS:SINGLE — especially when it comes to Glosses that translate or define unfamiliar terms take single quotes?

Personally, I much prefer double quotes here. This is also consistently used on Wiktionary (see atom etymology), LSJ, and other dictionaries. I find it makes texts easier to read.

Compare this to how it looks like on Wikipedia right now, say, the first sentence of Mathematics.

'wɪnd (talk) 18:08, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Hmm. Double quotes are severely overloaded (direct quotation, approximate direct quotation explicitly called out as such, use–mention, words-as-words, titles of short works, scare quotes) and of course it gets worse when these things get nested, as is sometimes hard to avoid. Calling out single quotes for glosses seems a little arbitrary, but if it reduces the overloading, it might be a good idea. --Trovatore (talk) 19:23, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
Yes, maybe you're right. Do you have data on if such overloading involving glosses are common? I'm really curious to understand why this decision was originally made and if there are any discussion on it. To me, the choice here might need to be reconsidered. 'wɪnd (talk) 20:28, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
Update. I found the original MOS edit here per discussions here and here.
If I read this correctly, then this was not a widely held belief, but rather is a non-standard historical convention used in a specialized field. Since Wiktionary made another decision (they chose double typographic quotes), I think we may want to reconsider this decision from 2015 for consistency reasons. How do you others see this?
'wɪnd (talk) 13:19, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
There is no principle of WP:CONSISTENCY between en.Wikipedia and en.Wiktionary, or even between en.Wikipedia and any other Wikipedia. They all have their own policies, guidelines, and style, for reasons that are not cross-compatible. Trovatore is correct that double quotes are already subject to a great deal of operator overloading, which can be confusing for readers, but is not correct that "single quotes for glosses seems a little arbitrary"; it's standard in linguistic writing, and when we are producing glosses we are engaging in linguistic writing.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  09:31, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
@SMcCandlish Thank you for chiming in. I'm glad we can have a discussion. I want to comment on three things you said.
1. Learning. You say there is no policy of consistency between en.Wikipedia and en.Wiktionary. Yes, thank you for pointing out this fact. As much as I enjoy consistency, keeping decentrality and independence I think is more desirable. You changed my mind. I also think this means, and I think you'd agree, that we can learn from the different approaches taken. I think Wiktionary's decision has improved readability, and we may consider learning from it.
2. Data-based decision. Operator overloading: I think you'd agree that decisions here would preferably be made based on data. I'd be interested in some data for "double quotes are a subject of great deal of operator overloading", in particular when it comes to glosses. How common is this for glosses? Apostrophes have a very clear meaning otherwise in regular English writing, like in "isn't it so?".
3. Evolving norms. You say it's a standard in linguistic writing, and I think you are very correct. Both the Oxford English Dictionary and other historical linguistic societies almost unanimously use ‘single typographic quotes’ as a norm, to distinguish it from apostrophes, and prevent operator overloading. I've never seen 'neutral single quotes' used. I also think, as you know as a software engineer, it's important for norms to evolve as we learn more, and not get stuck in dogma. Other communities have moved over to double typographic quotes in the digital world. I think we can learn from Wiktionary and other such projects here. 'wɪnd (talk) 10:26, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
One your point 1: this tells me you just are WP:NOTGETTINGIT with regard to what Trovatore and I are saying. 2: Trovatore already addressed this. No one is going to take the time to produce a table of tabular data about it for you. 3: You're confusing single versus double quotes, with typopgraphic (curly) quotes versus straight quotes; they are unrelated subjects. If WP were to drop the MOS:CURLY requirement to use straight quotes, then the single quotes we use around glosses would be curly, just as the double quotes we use around quotations (and for many operator-overloaded other purposes) would also be curly. "I'm new here. I wonder ...." Yes, it shows. This is all perennial rehash. You are free to wonder, but can satisfy that curiosity by reading the archived previous discussion material about quotation marks, and refraining from making off-the-cuff guideline change propositions without even yet understanding why things are they way they are. If I've said this once I've said it a hundred times by now: It is the nature of all style guides that no rule will have 100% buy-in from all writers, and no writer will be in favor of 100% of the rules. You just have to live with the fact that MoS doesn't happen to be the "'wɪnd personal idiolect style guide".  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  10:51, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
@SMcCandlish It seems to me, you're annoyed that newcomers inquire on this Talk page, don't have competence about similar patterns of discussions, and you'd prefer the history to remain clear of such things. Is that so? It is not my intention to annoy you. If you know a better place I can ask, I'd enjoy such information. I searched the archives, I linked to all such discussions I found. This is a more recent change (2015) and seems to have been done without much discussion.
1. I'm glad you pointed out the difference between MOS:CQ and MOS:SINGLE. This is helpful for my understanding. Here, the topics seem interdependent, they're not separate. Sticking to straight quotes and single quotes for glosses, overloads the meaning of the apostrophe, and to me seems confusing. (There is no precedence for this on the internet as far as I can tell.) Sticking to straight quotes and curly quotes for glosses, seems less confusing. (This is what linguistic communities use online as far as I can tell, the ones who don't use double quotes.)
2. WP:NOTGETTINGIT : I don't understand. You and Trovatore commented so far. I asked a question about data. You were the only one who responded about that so far, saying you don't want to compile such data. So it seems you're saying, there is no such data?
3. I appreciate receiving your responses, User:SMcCandlish, since they increase my understanding. I'd also like to ask to keep this discussion solution-focussed (WP:RUDE). I want no status competition. My main aim here is readability and clarity through community consensus. The issue I saw, is that many different styles seem to be used across Wikipedia for glosses, going against the MOS. I wanted consistency and was interested in past discussions. The current style guide for glosses seems to have been implemented in 2015 without much discussion. I think following what other linguistic communities do online for glosses will improve readability (either using "double straight quotes" OR ‘single curly quotes’ OR “double straight quotes”). For me, the MOS guide of 'single straight quotes' for glosses are confusing since it overloads apostrophes and has no precedence online or offline as far as I can tell. I wonder if others see things similarly. 'wɪnd (talk) 12:00, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
No one's "annoyed that newcomers inquire". Many of us are annoyed when newcomers rehash the same stuff over and over again because they fail to review previous discussions in the archives. And it's extra annoying when someone launches a proposal for change without understanding yet why the guideline is the way it is. (Pretending to be just "inquiring" when you are in fact proposing changes and not paying much attention to the feedback you are getting, well that's double-extra annoying).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  14:08, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
You've said twice already that I did not review previous discussions. This is not correct. I both asked if there were such discussions and I linked to them once I found them. Please let me know how I'm not paying attention. 'wɪnd (talk) 14:58, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
Update. A linguist on Wikipedia pointed me to another place that I can discuss this. I'll move over there. Thank you @Trovatore and @SMcCandlish for growing my understanding. 'wɪnd (talk) 12:25, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
In other words, you're going to attempt to WP:FORUMSHOP by engaging in WP:TALKFORKing. Bad idea. This is already the correct venue.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  14:08, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
And you've opened yet another thread about the same matter, at Template talk:Lang#Why is transliterated text put into single quotes?, as well as your new one at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Linguistics#Single straight quotes in glosses: Readability concern?. This is really not accemptable. See also WP:MULTI.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  14:21, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
@SMcCandlish I would again like to ask you to consider that my actions are ignorance (not-knowing), not malice. Your writing is making me feel uncomfortable. (WP:FAITH, WP:RUDE) 'wɪnd (talk) 14:53, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
@SMcCandlish Thankyou for the pointer to WP:MULTI. I was not aware of this rule. I will adhere to it going forward, that is, to link from one discussion to the other, when I find myself in the wrong Talk page. 'wɪnd (talk) 14:56, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Conn. or CT?

Latest comment: 2 years ago17 comments10 people in discussion

For US places of publication, does WP have a preference between (A) the pattern exemplified by "Hamden, CT" and "Broomall, PA" and (B) that exemplified by "Hamden, Conn." and "Broomall, Penn."? (I looked around MoS, jumping from one page to another but getting nowhere, and thought I'd instead infer preference/acceptability from a featured article. But Emily Dickinson#Secondary_sources wobbles between the one pattern and the other.) -- Hoary (talk) 01:15, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Non-American readers might not be familiar with either abbreviation. I'd recommend Connecticut. pburka (talk) 01:21, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
Seconded. Even American readers might not get all the two-letter codes. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:29, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
My recollection is that we avoid postal codes in general; not sure where it's stated. Spell it out. Dicklyon (talk) 01:22, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
I agree that Connecticut is preferred. The abbreviations go back to the days when publishers had to constantly be buying boxcars full of paper and barrels of ink. Cullen328 (talk) 01:34, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
When using citation templates (and official styles) the U.S. state is often omitted. CS1 could conceivably in the future auto-abbreviate journal titles and location names should there be a MOS decision, in which case it's worth keeping stuff spelled out in full, but that's not usually necessary either way. If a researcher is using the citation information in a template, something like the publication or journal information will probably be subject to further (online) searching if necessary, so the only important thing is that it's rendered in an unambiguous manner. The major style guides have official journal term abbreviations that don't usually collide, and they have abbreviations for U.S. states when necessary ("Conn." and not a postal abbreviation would be typical), but the only purpose to keep in mind is that the reader/research should be able to locate the source. If very little publication information is available: no (fixed) ISBN, no original date, or just rarity in libraries, having full publisher information can be essential. If you are the one providing the citation information, you know if the source is hard to find, so you determine whether the location should be specified in detail. 01:54, 21 August 2022 (UTC) SamuelRiv (talk) 01:54, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
This is for the most part no more than meaningless convention. I have just now changed multiple instances of "(Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1968)" to "(Ithaca, New York: Cornell University Press, 1968)", even though anyone who has a clue about Cornell UP knows that there's only one Cornell UP and thus that "Ithaca" (wherever it may be) is superfluous, and even though anyone who knows anything about "Ithaca" knows that only one Ithaca would be in the running. Not following the meaningless convention -- having plain "(Cornell University Press, 1968)" -- would be sure to have somebody or other moan about inconsistency. Still, I'll have "(Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1963)" and not "(Bloomington, Indiana: Indiana University Press, 1963)" because the latter would insult the reader's intelligence and because the edition I happen to possess of "Chicago" very sensibly rules against it. Anyway, given that I am to follow what's largely a meaningless convention, I might as well follow it in the least objectionable way. -- Hoary (talk) 02:12, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
Counterpoint: If I listed a publication as being from Perth, WA, would you think that I am talking about someplace in Washington State in the US or some place in Western Australia? Most non-Americans do not know many states in the US or their abbreviations.  Stepho  talk  02:24, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
I'd be pretty certain that it came from Western Australia. I've never even heard of the former. I have heard of London, Ont., and what little I know about it suggests that it could easily support a publisher or two; however, it would be perverse to take this possibility as a reason to insist on, for example, "(London, UK: John Murray, 1998)" and the like. Indeed, my "Chicago" says that the British Cambridge can be plain "Cambridge" whereas the one in Massachusetts should be so specified (even though it famously does host at least a couple of eminent publishers). -- Hoary (talk) 03:52, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Ah, OK. Shall do. -- Hoary (talk) 01:50, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia's MoS has guidance for this: MOS:POSTABBR; nutshell: (almost) always spell it out. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 03:04, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
Thank you, Michael Bednarek. -- Hoary (talk) 03:52, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
Yes, thanks for finding that for us. In summary, it says, "Postal codes and abbreviations of place names—e.g., Calif. (California), TX (Texas), Yorks. (Yorkshire)—should not be used to stand in for the full names in normal text." Dicklyon (talk) 04:50, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
I avoid places of publication where possible - vast numbers of books are now published at the same time in at least the UK and US, though I suppose with different ISBNs in most cases. If you have the ISBN the place is redundant really. Johnbod (talk) 03:59, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
Use "Connecticut" since non-US readers are not necessarily going to understand any abbreviation style. If there's some context like a tight table where it is really seen as necessary to abbreviate, then use the "CT" style (with a link or {{Abbr}} on first occurrence per MOS:ABBR) since it is a standardized system, and the other is not ("Con.", "Conn.", "Conct.", "Connect.", "C'cut.", etc., etc.). Anyone who's done much genealogy will be familiar with the numerous inconsistent ways people have abbreviated longer US state names.

We should probably update MOS:STATEABBR to say something to this effect explicitly.
 — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  09:26, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

"Conn." is standard for the biggest U.S. legal citation styles (and all international styles by extension, because they copy common local styles as much as possible) and also consistent with many major general citation style guides. Two-letter state postal codes are not in either case, and are utterly incomprehensible for non-Americans (or non-Australians or Canadians per above) and open for international confusion. Omitting |location= from a citation entirely is not a solution to the problem, such as when it's necessary to specify a publishing house with multiple locations (and publishing location is important information for older and obscure books, starting say pre-war). I agree that having redundant redundancy over redundant information is redundant, and so does every citation style guide, but in the cases where you have a lot of citations needing a lot of information fields in full, it becomes a question of what's reasonable, conventional, and importantly convenient for the reader. SamuelRiv (talk) 19:59, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
WP isn't written in Bluebook or other legal style, so I'm not sure what your point is. In the rare instances we need to abbreviate (e.g. in an already wide table), it should be by consistent, codified, concise systems (US postal codes, Canadian postal codes, etc.), not by idosyncratic abbreviations that vary widely by writer (Calif., Cali., Cal., Ca.). WP doesn't have a reason to care that some other publisher either didn't opt for this consistency or came up with their own less concise set of abbreviations.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  15:08, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Examples use prose rarely encountered in WP

Latest comment: 2 years ago13 comments7 people in discussion

I've checked the archives and don't believe this is a WP:PERENNIAL, but the examples under MOS:INOROUT show styles of prose rarely encountered in WP (e,g, Dory said, "Yes, I can read", which gave Marlin an idea.) which limits the example's effectiveness. Examples reflecting the style advocated for use in articles might facilitate better comprehension, especially in the scenario of differentiating clauses from editorial insertions, since these rules differ for both.  Spintendo  11:42, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

This is a criticism I've long made of some parts of MOS -- particularly (as chance would have it) the fishy examples. Take these two:
  • "Why are you sleeping?", asked Darla.
  • "Fish are friends, not food", said Bruce.
It's almost impossible to imagine an article reciting what someone said in this style, which is better suited to works of fiction. Same goes for:
  • Did Darla say, "Here I am"?
No article could possibly contain such an interrogatory construction, so why are we instructing editors on how to punctuate it properly? (The exception would be a quotation, in which case we'd use the source's punctuation anyway.) If we can't illustrate a MOS principle using an example that might conceivably arise in an actual article, then there's no need for MOS to address that principle at all, and WP:If MOS doesn't need a rule on something, then it needs to not have a rule on that thing. EEng 20:02, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
Just chiming in to agree that this is a problem and has been a problem; I remember talking about it with EEng after I fixed one example in 2018(!), and some time later someone also changed the poetic "Old Man Winter's bleak greys relent as Spring begins to show her colors" example elsewhere on that page to something that could more plausibly occur in encyclopedic prose. Wherever possible, we should use examples that do, or at least plausibly could, occur in articles. Whenever you spot one that you can improve, please improve it or bring it up for discussion like this; it's just hard to find them all. -sche (talk) 06:28, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
Right, but to reiterate what I think is, perhaps, an even more important point: if no one can think of a plausible example -- one that could arise in an actual article -- to illustrate a given point of usage, then that point should simply be deleted. EEng 18:25, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
Could we please say ”omitted” or “removed”, rather than “deleted”… just a quibble. Blueboar (talk) 20:17, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
Could we compromise on "annihilated", "shot on sight", or "terminated with extreme prejudice" [15]? EEng 22:08, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Here's two made-up examples:

  • When asked about the website's debut, Wales and Sanger stated that Wikipedia was launched sometime during the "beginning of the third week of 2001", and that at the time, "only the English language version was available".
  • According to Wales, Nupedia and Wikipedia coexisted "until Nupedia's servers were taken down permanently, sometime around 2003."

The punctuation shown above is according to my interpretation of how MOS:INOROUT reads. My main question though is about the second example, where the period is enclosed within the QM's because it ends the quoted statement, but that statement is still a fragment (i.e., less than a whole sentence)---so wouldn't the period go on the outside? Or does the comma after the word 'permanently' mean the period is enclosed by the QM's?  Spintendo  06:15, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

The way you wrote it is correct. - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) [he/him] 07:56, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
I should have said "it is correct if we are following American punctuation."
I think a writer in the United Kingdom would write the sentence like this:
According to Wales, Nupedia and Wikipedia coexisted 'until Nupedia's servers were taken down permanently, sometime around 2003'.
If that is wrong, please correct this lowly Yank. ;^) – Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) [he/him] 08:07, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
I think Dr. Worthen is absolutely correct, the US and UK versions do traditionally differ along the lines they described, and that MOS:INOROUT technically follows the UK version (by coincidence--not b/c of any geographic preference). I've been trying to imagine a quick n' easy rule to remember MOS:INOROUT and I believe it's the following:
Whenever quote fragments are used, periods and commas always exist outside of QM's, no matter how many fragments from different quotes are placed into one sentence. The only cases where commas and periods exist inside QM's are when the full quote is used from beginning to end (either broken by an editorial insertion or unbroken).
Which means my second example above was incorrect (as Dr. Worthen noted) and would only have the period on the inside of the QM's if the sentence went like this:
In the original pair of "Wales and Sanger" examples, the second could end with 2003". (dot outside the quote) because the quoted material is a fragment. I don't think anyone really cares either way. In the example immediately above, it wouldn't be coexisted," (comma inside) unless the comma was there in the original (which might have been the case: "Nupedia and Wikipedia coexisted, until Nupedia's servers ..."). If it wasn't in the original, then use coexisted", (comma outside). Logical quotation is not hard. Stop over-thinking it. It's simply "Do not put inside the quotation marks any punctuation that was not in the original material." The end. If it was in the original, it is usual to include it, but it can be omitted (there is no rule against omitting it) if the structure of the overall material doing the quoting is better with it omitted (e.g., moved outside the quotation marks). All of these sample quotations above are juggling fragments around, they are not presenting an entire quoted sentence as a unit. Finally, LQ is not "British style". We've been over this about a thousand times before. There is no single British style, but about a dozen identifiable British styles from different publishers with subtly different rules and rationales. LQ is usually closer to the British styles than it is to typesetters' quotation often called American style (though it is not confined to American publications nor found in all of them).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  10:00, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
To get back to the main point, it would be good to replace these silly dialogue examples with examples of WP quoting someone in turn quoting someone/something else. Count me in firm support of doing that.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  15:18, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
Keep in mind that dialogue examples can be more illustrative than prose examples in certain mixed cases. The point is to create a minimal example that informs the reader as clearly as possible, and in some cases that might mean a realistic encyclopedic example is necessary, but in others that might just make the point more subtle and be unnecessary if the prior example is already in that form. The canonical inside-outside mix would then go something like, "This is why you should always ask 'why?'." (The gist is that mixing two different punctuation marks is a clearer illustration of why it's a necessary form than if you double up a period, for example, and that mix may be hard to find in encyclopedic prose -- but I'm sure we'll think of something.) Also note my previous sentence (in that I put the period inside the parentheses, since it's a full sentence parenthetical, as opposed to this one). SamuelRiv (talk) 15:30, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Columbia Lectures in International Studies — capitalization of "channel" in running text, primarily U.S.

Latest comment: 2 years ago6 comments5 people in discussion

I did some copyediting on this new television article, and Wasted Time R and I disagreed (Redirects, broadcast stations) about style, and I suggested to bring it here (so I finally am).

In a lot of U.S. newspapers, say a radio or TV column, references to a TV station's channel number were traditionally capitalized, something like "There's a movie on Channel 10 tonight at..." I personally don't like this style (note that we're not dealing with proper nouns like a UK Channel 4). I tend to not use "channel" references next to call signs unless needed for disambiguation, whereas they use them more often (see the repeated use of WNEW-TV Channel 5). See Special:Diff/1107139815.

Which is closer to the proper style? Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 03:13, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

My belief is that in the U.S., television channel numbers are effectively proper nouns representing the name of a station, not just short-hand for a broadcast frequency. For instance, the New York Times stories that are used as sources in the article in question consistently capitalize it, both when used after the call sign, as in "... over WNEW-TV (Channel 5) beginning ...", and when used stand-alone, as in "... stimulating start last night over Channel 5" or "... the advent next fall of Channel 13 will have ...". It is also my belief that television stations are often best identified to readers by the combination of call sign and channel. If you look at television station logos, for example, many times you'll see that the call sign isn't even present, but the channel number always is. That's a pretty good indication of which readers will be more familiar with. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:14, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
	It's much like "channel" in general sense, or "Channel" in special sense.

	E.g.
	|*| "Try the watermelon." [ The watermelon in general sense, probably a typical watermelon. ]
	|*| "Try the Watermelon." [ Probably not any sort of watermelon at all. ]
- MasterQuestionable (talk) 11:19, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
Some examples from the Los Angeles Times in the 2000s here and here and here where the call sign and the channel number are used together to identify a station and 'Channel' is capitalized. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:45, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
I think a case can be made for capitalizing channel when it's used with a number to refer to a specific television station. It wouldn't be capitalized when referring to the setting on the television. One could say "Turn the TV to channel 7 to watch Channel 7", where "Channel 7" is used as the name of the station in place of its call letters or whatever branding they are using. SchreiberBike | ⌨  13:16, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
WTR's writing is representative of standard usage in the US. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 17:09, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Percent again

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Percent clarification

I would like to propose a small update to the percent description. The description is spot on with regards to how to use it. 3% Three percent Three per cent (however much I personally hate this option; but that is one of the reasons there is a style guide)

On what not to use, the style guide is a lot less clear Do not use: 3 % I think we should add: 3 percent 3 per cent. As invalid options. That is implied in the text, but it is not stated in the examples. Additionally, to be completely clear, I think we should add: Whether it is the first time in the article you use percent or not. if you do not write out the number, do not write out the percent. That also means that 70% can be written in only one way. I consider this a clarification of the rules, not an update (Together with how to write numerals in Wiki)

Percent update

The is one very small inconsistency with the percentage standards as opposed to most percentage standards. Where 3–5 m is correct for 3 to 5 meters (and 3 m – 5 m is not), the percentage standard is to include the percent in both instances, thus: 3%–5%. I guess that has to do with number formatting, as well as the fact that a lot of text could be added between the 3% and the 5%. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.207.179.62 (talk) 12:05, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Clarifying periodical titles?

Latest comment: 2 years ago6 comments6 people in discussion

I recently wrote Reason. I had gone back and forth in my head a few times about whether it would be better to write it as Reason Magazine for clarity, and eventually ended up with the shorter version. In Special:Diff/1108245559, Victuallers went with the longer version, which is fine. I tend to write "Time Magazine" (even though the correct title of the periodical is just "Time"), but I'd never write "The New York Times Newspaper". Is there some general style rule which covers this? -- RoySmith (talk) 14:31, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

No strong view myself but I don't think that the name is all that is required. "Charles Dickens" works, if you hane heard of him. but then I would suggest "The Victorian novelist Charles Dickens" is a better title. If you are still with me, then "The magazine Reason" is more quickly digested, than just "Reason" - irrespective of what the magazine decides is its title (they may think everyone will see "Reason".. and they don't). Victuallers (talk) 14:46, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
In properly styled running text, italics would also offer a hint to the reader. William Avery (talk) 15:29, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
I don't think Magazine should be capitalized or italicized unless it's actually part of the proper name: New York Times newspaper or New Yorker magazine, but Brooklyn Magazine. It's fine to include as a descriptive term if it makes the text clearer. pburka (talk) 15:51, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
I agree with the the above; only capitalize and italicize the proper name. If necessary to clarify that you are talking about a magazine, newspaper or whatever, label it in the text e.g. "Time magazine said ...". I do note that New York, like Chicago and many others do not include the word magazine in their name, but when used outside of references they should be labeled to avoid confusion. Establishing the correct name of a magazine is not always straight forward. For instance Time magazine, in it's own writing calls itself Time Magazine, but does not have the word magazine on its cover. When in doubt, I go with the name used in the Wikipedia article if there is one, or if not, what I can see on the periodical's printed cover. SchreiberBike | ⌨  18:49, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
Concur with Pburka, and this is already covered at MOS:TITLES.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  17:16, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

MOS:HYPHEN

Latest comment: 2 years ago24 comments10 people in discussion

MOS:HYPHEN has an image of college students stating "four-year old children", meaning these college students are in their fourth year (seniors) at a university. However, college students are not kids, but young adults and have obtained the age of majority, so the description is somewhat misleading. That is why I added a note explaining that sources sometimes refer to college students as college kids because of their youthfulness. cookie monster 755 02:38, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

They're all somebody's children. I've removed your overanxious pedantry. EEng 04:36, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
I'd missed that pics had been introduced in that section. They're cool. Tony (talk) 08:27, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
Thanks. Honoraria may be sent to the usual numbered account. EEng 13:50, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
And they're old children. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:59, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
Questions: is that expression, or even just "old children", actually in use in the USA in the context of university graduates - Ive never heard of that usage in the UK? At what age do students graduate from Texas Tech University?
That is different form of pedantry, EEng#s. You are using children in the "vertical" family relationship sense, with no age implications whatsoever; the photo concerns contempories, using the word to mean young people who have not yet reached puberty or become adults. Davidships (talk) 09:58, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
You're joking, right? EEng 13:50, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
College students are some ones children, but they aren't children in the legal sense. It's misleading EEng#s. cookie monster 755 17:12, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
Then I guess if we end up in court over this we're screwed. EEng 18:28, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

lol. cookie monster 755 18:44, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

This seems to be a litany of people not getting the point, which is, in the context of hyphenation, that these children are four-year (in that they are studying four-year courses) and old (as children go). Mildly humorous things like this lose most of their effect if they have to be explained, but it seems that it is necessary to do so. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:33, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
They are not children though, they are young adults. I know they are four-year uni students. cookie monster 755 00:36, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
You're absolutely right. The individuals depicted are not, in fact, children. There's no one within the sound of my voice who was ever unclear on that. Your point therefore is ... what? EEng 01:29, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
  • Just want to chime in saying that I think we should keep the humorous example. I think that it emphasizes the importance of hyphens while keeping it entertaining. Heck, the fact that folks are missing the point just adds to the charm. Mason (talk) 02:02, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
I am not sure why you need to be sassy, EEng#s. I already explained myself above. cookie monster 755 21:18, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
For crying out loud, it doesn't matter whether the caption is literally true or not, and there's nothing "sassy" about saying that. It and the accompanying picture are only there to light-heartedly illustrate the importance of correct hyphenation. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:53, 2 July 2022 (UTC) P. S. And yes, EEng, I did mean "litany".
Phil Bridger as my grandmother said, for cryin' on a crutch. Be nice always   cookie monster 755 23:15, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
Well, as my grandmother used to say, if you don't drop this lunatic preoccupation of yours I'm gonna reach right through the interweb and smack you upside your head [16]. How's that for civility? EEng 00:05, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
I think it's touching that you all still think students spend four years at university. At that school, they're almost as likely to have taken five years to graduate.[17] WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:01, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
Being from a country where most students graduate in three years I'm rather jealous of all these students who spend four years at university, let alone five, as many of my Polish relatives seem to. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:11, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
In Guatemala there is the public university, a storied institution of social resistance and activism, but also where reportedly decades ago crooked Army officials dropped drug cargos from helicopters, the government kidnapped and murdered students and faculty, and crooked radicalized students used to haze new admissions throwing them naked in pools of feces and urine, extort businesses and rob fellow students as a tax. Currently it's 5.5 years to finish all courses and then there is the thesis and the private exam to defend it. So I guess it takes about 6 years to graduate from a Business Administration degree. I was an old child, now I guess I am practically an old orphan. Thinker78 (talk) 18:13, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
I agree that we should keep the examples of four(-)year-old children, but I feel like the example actually works better without the third image with four-year old children. Nobody actually says it this way, it's grammatically and factually questionable, and it's confusing. Everytime I see this thing shared online (like today in this Reddit post), the first comment is "I don't understand the third one". ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 11:53, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
Yes. The third panel uses language that you're unlikely to encounter anywhere else, and it could sow confusion with people who might take it seriously as proper English usage. There are students in their fourth-year at four-year colleges, but they won't be referred to as "four-year old children". The first two panels are witty enough, along with the fish examples, and go far to making clear that people who care about the MoS aren't just a bunch of dreary old scolds. Dhtwiki (talk) 23:13, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Is there any point in reviving this discussion? I still think there are good, unchallenged arguments for removing the third image. ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 11:43, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Złoty or zloty?

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I know this is not the best place to put this, but I think this page has pretty high traffic with lots of MOS experts--and frankly I wouldn't rightly if I have a position here, and what validity it might have. So, I'd appreciate it if some of you could have a look at Talk:Polish_złoty#Requested_move_10_September_2022 and maybe weigh in. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 20:17, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Chimpanzees

Latest comment: 2 years ago19 comments8 people in discussion

A chimpanzee with a typewriter, given an infinite amount of time could create the Wikipedia Manual of Style, except it would probably be infinitely better.

Passive voice is one example of how MOS ignores aspects of reality. The penchant for the active voice came, fairly recently, from humanities academics and popular writers. It is fine for what these people write, but the passive voice was adopted by the Royal Society, founded in the late 17th century, for its scientific publications. The use of the passive voice in science thus has a long and distinguished history. It was and is still used - try writing a scientific paper in the active voice and it will look and sound like the product of an imbecile - because it gives a very necessary distance between the writer and the phenomena being described. It is impersonal, which science strives to be. Contrast the following: "An agarose gel was eletrophoresed, and the DNA fragments proved to be of the following sizes ..." and, "I ran an agarose gel in the electrophoresis tank, then I sized the DNA fragments, which were ..."

MOS also weighs against constructions that are perfectly standard in English usage. I was staggered that an editor asserted that MOS effectively vetoes the construction "He suffered from a chronic illness..." WTF!!!!

So much of Wikipedia's working is ridiculous, but MOS is probably the worst. I am not in a good mood, editing Wikipedia often has that effect on me. Urselius (talk) 10:12, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

The Manual of Style does not prohibit passive voice, and it has recently been updated to make that more clear - see the discussion earlier on the page.Nigel Ish (talk) 10:28, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
Anyone or anything with an infinite amount of time will succumb to the heat-death of the universe, manuscripts probably unfinished. Primergrey (talk) 01:58, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
Whether to use passive or active voice is sometimes a subtle and complex decision. Generally don't use passive where active would be perfectly good; but don't adopt a slavish rule against the passive. To begin with it allows you to start a clause with a different word—what comes first is called the grammatical theme. The succession of themes in a text should make sense as a logical sequence. It can add to cohesiveness and help the reader. Tony (talk) 08:42, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
In the name of Jesus, Tony, please let's let passive sleeping dogs lie! Last thing we need is a new round of wheel-spinning on this. EEng 09:18, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
<Puts sock in mouth> Tony (talk) 11:42, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
Personally I don't believe passive sleeping dogs should be allowed to lie, we should actively hold them to the truth. Levivich (talk) 14:57, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
Personally I think you're my punishment for something I did in another life. EEng 19:31, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
Nah, it was something you did in this one. Levivich (talk) 14:25, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
"heat-death of the universe" contradicts "infinite amount of time". - MasterQuestionable (talk) 05:25, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
And that's my point. Primergrey (talk) 07:43, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
So?.. - MasterQuestionable (talk) 10:19, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
Valid conclusion, though not with very substantial cause. - MasterQuestionable (talk) 05:08, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Drive-by critics who don't actually read the guidelines they criticize

Such critics with typewriters, given an infinite amount of time, could create a Wikipedia Manual of Style, but it probably wouldn't be better. EEng 01:27, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Let the chimpanzees have another go. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:36, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
Levivich, you're wanted! EEng 04:58, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
I'd begin by adding a 'disallow' edit filter to this page for the string "passive voice". Levivich (talk) 06:06, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
That's actually not a bad idea at all. EEng 06:17, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
Garbage-In Garbage-Out. - MasterQuestionable (talk) 05:08, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Discussion about soft redirects to sister projects

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Please see Wikipedia talk:Wikimedia sister projects#Soft redirects to sister projects which needs input from additional editors. Thryduulf (talk) 12:37, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Discussion about Flags_in_tables_of_national_subdivisions

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Please see Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Icons#Flags_in_tables_of_national_subdivisions, which needs input from additional editors. Furius (talk) 23:53, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

What is the target for WP:Clarity?

Latest comment: 2 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Wikipedia:Clarity redirects to this page, but there is no section target for it to land on. Where should it link to? – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:30, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

In other words, there's a lack of clarity. Ironically enough. GoodDay (talk) 23:34, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
It links to the {{anchor}} in the lead. The original section[18] has been removed. DrKay (talk) 07:23, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

MOS:PREFIXDASH doesn't include instructions

Latest comment: 2 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

The MOS:PREFIXDASH section just includes a list of examples with no instructional text. It's unclear what the actual rule is. pburka (talk) 17:33, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Seems to me the heading makes things clear. EEng 17:48, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
The heading reads: "Instead of a hyphen, when applying a prefix or suffix to a compound that includes a space or a dash". What are we supposed to use "instead of a hyphen"? I think the answer is an unspaced en-dash, but that's far from obvious. pburka (talk) 20:41, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
OK, I see what you're saying now. Looks like these little subsections were once a bullet list with an introduction. Check out my fix made just now. EEng 21:03, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
Looks better. Thanks. pburka (talk) 01:12, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

MOS:COLLAPSE and the mobile app

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#MOS:COLLAPSE_and_tables/sections_defaulting_to_collapsed_state_on_mobile_app

There is a discussion about how the Wikipedia app is defaulting to collapsed tables/infoboxes (and references sections) at the village pump for any editor concerned or wishing to participate. See link above. —Locke Cole • t • c 16:33, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

About "Scrolling lists and collapsible content"

Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I just made some changes to the section "Scrolling lists and collapsible content": [19]. I would like to offer a very extended edit summary :)

I rewrote the following fragment (primarily written in [20] in 2016 by @SMcCandlish):

Collapsible templates should not conceal article content by default upon page loading. This includes reference lists, tables and lists of article content, image galleries, and image captions. In particular, while some templates support a collapsible parameter or manually-added CSS class, and this is permissible, the collapsed, mw-collapsed, and autocollapse states should not be used in articles to pre-emptively force the closure of these elements, except as noted below. Any information hidden in this way when the page loads will be irreversibly invisible to the aforementioned classes of users, as well as a growing number of low-bandwidth users in Asia who reach a Wikipedia article via Google.[a] Several other CSS classes, used manually or by templates, will render content inaccessible to mobile users.[b]

  1. ^ As noted, CSS and JavaScript support are required to operate the show/hide toggle. Moreover, hidden content is not available in the mobile version of Wikipedia even on devices that have that support, because the mobile version's servers strip that content out before sending the page. In 2016, Google launched a Google User Content service that, like the earlier Google Lite and Google Web Transcoder, strips hidden material from pages when they are accessed through Google searches, before content is delivered to users with slow connections. The service has already been deployed in India (where English is a major language) and Indonesia, with additional national markets planned for 2016 and forward. These services also completely strip out navboxes.[1]
  2. ^ Applying, or using a template that applies, any of the following CSS classes will cause the affected content to be inaccessible to mobile users, and this list may not be exhaustive: navbox, mbox-image, vertical-navbox, nomobile are from wgMFRemovableClasses. No top icons are displayed, so topicon is missing.
  1. ^ "Google Launches Streamlined Lite Version Of Mobile Search Interface For Slower Connections", Search Engine Land
    "Google Testing Faster & Lightweight Mobile Search & Optimizing Your Web Page For Slow Connections", Search Engine Land

I'm afraid that several of the points made in this paragraph weren't right:

  • "Any information hidden in this way when the page loads will be irreversibly invisible to the aforementioned classes of users" ["As noted, CSS and JavaScript support are required to operate the show/hide toggle"] – It's true that JavaScript is needed to use the toggle, but when it is disabled, the content is simply not collapsed (it is not removed). This has always been the case for mw-collapsed, and it's the case for collapsed and autocollapse since around 2018 (since [21] and following edits).
  • "Moreover, hidden content is not available in the mobile version of Wikipedia even on devices that have that support, because the mobile version's servers strip that content out before sending the page" – This is not true, the collapsibility is not working on mobile (T111565), but the content is again not collapsed (it is not removed). Some elements are hidden (like navboxes), but not the elements using those standard collapsible classes. I'm not sure if it was always this way, but it definitely is so now.
  • "In 2016, Google launched a Google User Content service that, like the earlier Google Lite and Google Web Transcoder, strips hidden material from pages when they are accessed through Google searches, before content is delivered to users with slow connections." – This seems to be called Google Web Light now, I was able to access it following the instructions on https://developers.google.com/search/docs/advanced/mobile/web-light#see-the-web-light-version-of-a-web-page and a proxy geolocating to Pakistan, and it seems to be based on the no-JS version of the mobile site, which hides navboxes etc. but not the collapsible classes. (It's a real pain to access it, so here are some copies for your reference: Hurricane Julia (2022) [Google Web Light rendering], Talk:Hurricane Julia (2022) [Google Web Light rendering], Hurricane Julia (2022) [original no-JS mobile site], Talk:Hurricane Julia (2022) [original no-JS mobile site].)

I hope this is acceptable, as I haven't touched this page before. Matma Rex talk 23:27, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the testing and updating.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:30, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Capitalization in astrological sign infoboxes

Latest comment: 2 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Using Pisces (astrology) as an example, there are some things in the infobox that are correctly capitalized. Dictionary.com agrees that Pisces should be capitalized whether it is referring to the sign or the constellation. It's also correct to capitalize the name of the planets. But what about the symbol? User:64.222.135.42 claims it should be "Two Fish" while I think it should be "two fish". Similarly, I see now reason to capitalize the element (water) or quality (mutable).

Is there anything about them being in an infobox that would lead to different capitalization than if they were in running text?

A complicating factor is that while the name and the constellation are used in both astronomy and astrology, so there are numerous high quality sources to refer to. But the element, quality, domicile, exaltation, fall, and detriment have no scientific basis and are based on magical thinking, so it's hard to find a reliable source about them. Jc3s5h (talk) 15:59, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

I'd expect them to be lower case. Compare something like silver, with "Appearance: lustrous white metal" "Group: group 11" "Period: period 5". MOS:CAPS says "only words and phrases that are consistently capitalized in a substantial majority of independent, reliable sources are capitalized". If you are finding that some sources capitalise these concepts and others don't, then that standard hasn't been reached.
Using capitals to indicate the specialness of a particular term is explicitly verboten by MOS:EMPHCAPS ("This includes over-capitalization for signification, i.e. to try to impress upon the reader the importance or specialness of something in a particular context").
(side note: astrology is obviously nonsense, but I think that published works on it could be reliable sources for capitalisation even though they are not reliable sources for, y'know, how the universe actually functions). Furius (talk) 21:03, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
But if a major supermajority of all sources, not just astrology specialized sources, don't capitalize it, then we wouldn't either (see WP:Specialized style fallacy). That said, my own reading suggests to me that use of these names (Virgo, Pisces, et al.) in a purely astrological sense is almost universally capitalized (e.g. in newspapers, etc.), whether we'd all like that or not.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  08:08, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Footnotes should appear before a colon, just like dashes

Latest comment: 2 years ago8 comments6 people in discussion

I updated a woefully outdated page about the certificate of analysis (COA), and I have a section with five footnotes followed by a colon, followed by the corresponding bullets. A bot came along and moved only the first citation in front of the colon and ignored the rest. That's one problem. The next is that, and I argue, footnotes should appear before the colon when a subsequent bulleted list follows. Just like the exception for dashes, an exception for footnotes before colons should be made. Using my example of the COA:

"Broadly speaking, however, the following represent elements that may be common to a COA[2][4][11][13][14]:" followed by bulleted items

The referenced claim is that "there are indeed elements that are common to a COA." The footnotes back up THAT specific claim, that there are elements common to a COA. The bullet points after the elements, as previously cited, are an extension of that claim, but arguably the footnotes belong with the initial claim about elements of a COA, just like the footnotes should appear with the claim made before an end dash appears. I hope I explained my case. At a bare minimum, if footnotes after a colon is non-negotiable, the bot needs to move all the footnotes after the colon, not just one.

Lostraven (talk) 15:08, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

The "exception" link above should be: exception. The bot edit is here; pinging NicoV regarding the WikiCleanerBot bug.  MANdARAX  XAЯAbИAM  15:45, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
I suspect the bot was confused by the unbalanced quotation mark in <ref name=CTCalCode22" />.  MANdARAX  XAЯAbИAM  15:54, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
Hi Lostraven and Mandarax.
  • As Mandarax said, only one citation was moved because the following one has unbalanced quotation mark, so the bot didn't consider it as a reference. So it should be a very rare case.
  • I see no mention of this exception in the MOS, and if I understand your point it should be also the case if the reference was applying to the last part of a sentence with an ending dot, but it's not the case: even if a citation applies to only the end of the sentence, then the citation is still after the terminal dot. --NicoV (Talk on frwiki) 17:43, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
"I see no mention of this exception..."
It's linked above. It states: "Exceptions: Ref tags are placed before dashes, not after." I continue to argue that, just like dashes, ref tags should appear before colons. Lostraven (talk) 21:21, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
I see no reason these two cases (dashes and colons) should be treated as equivalent. In saying that, I would prefer superscript references were not placed next to these punctuation marks on either side, wherever possible. — HTGS (talk) 00:50, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
Footnotes go after the colon, always, even though the footnote might only source the material before the colon, just like footnotes go after a period, always, even though the footnote might only source the material before the period. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:33, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
We don't need any more exceptions to the general rule, which has served us well, and the exceptions to which already lead to enough confusion and debate.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  08:09, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Clarification on MoS foreign-language quotations in non-Latin scripts

Latest comment: 2 years ago7 comments4 people in discussion

The Wiki Manual of Style states "When editors themselves translate foreign text into English, care must always be taken to include the original text, in italics (except for non-Latin-based writing systems), and to use actual and (if at all possible) common English words in the translation."

I interpreted this part of the MoS to mean that an original text of non-Latin script should be included and that that original text should not be italicized. Another Wiki editor interpreted this part of the MoS to mean that original texts in non-Latin scripts should not have the original included at all. Please clarify what is meant here. BlakeALee (talk) 23:00, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

The original text of non-Latin script should be included and that original text should not be italicized. One sees this frequently with Ancient Greek, Cyrillic, and Chinese throughout the wiki. (there is a policy to exclude the script for Indic languages WP:INDICSCRIPT, but that is a special policy for that context only) Furius (talk) 23:09, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. BlakeALee (talk) 00:40, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
When there are two scripts used for the same language, and only one is in modern use, should the archaic form be replaced by the modern form? E.g., should an editor use the Aramaic alphabet for a Hebrew text originally in Canaanite script? --Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 13:20, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
I *feel like* that's something that should be decided on a case by case basis. E.g. if the article is about an inscription and gives the original text of it, I'd think you'd give it in the original script. But if it is an article about weaponry and you quote the inscription for the name of a type of sword, I'd give it in the script people commonly read... Or just in transliteration. I don't think it makes sense to have a blanket rule. Furius (talk) 16:24, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
Even if only an archaeologist or biblical scholar would be able to read the original? Would it be appropriate to give the text in both script?
As an example, in Tetragrammaton, some inscriptions for יהוה use the Canaanite alphabeth, which is unintelligible to most modern readers of Hebrew. --Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 18:45, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
Yes, that's my point. One can't and shouldn't generalise. It depends totally on the individual case. Furius (talk)
In answer to the original question, "(except for non-Latin-based writing systems)" applies only to "in italics" (which we do not apply to Cyrillic, etc.), or there would be no comma before "in italics". It was punctuated carefully for a reason. On the broader question that's developed, of what languages/scripts to use, I agree with Furius that a blanket rule is not something to make here. It's a matter of contextual relevance and is going to vary on a case-by-case basis.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  08:17, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Redundant "birth_name" in infoboxes

Latest comment: 2 years ago17 comments7 people in discussion

Too much often I do this kind of a very obvious edit: removing the redundant "birth_name" from an infobox when it exactly matches the current name.

Of course I've never met any objections, and I've even made my pattern to describe my edits in edit summaries ('"birth_name" is redundant since he never changed it').

Yet we better avoid such questions altogether by explicitly stating that these claims are redundant. And since the biographical infoboxes are numerous, the best place to put a summary seems to be the MoS. With a shortcut to use instead of my rather clumsy current practice.

So, let's decide on a wording and where exactly to put it.

How about this one:

There shouldn't be |birth_name= (or similar) parameter in infobox of a person who never changed it.

And the place?

I guess the right place would be below MOS:BIRTHNAME, just to clarify it. (With its own shortcut).

Feel free to suggest something else on both wording and location.

Ping to (may I already call you my friends?) SMcCandlish and EEng. — Mike Novikoff 20:30, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

  • WP:MOSBLOAT -- you just said there's never been a problem over this. And the doc for Infobox Person says only use if different from name. EEng 21:17, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
    Yes, I have been removing redundant birth names for years from all kinds of bios based on that statement in {{infobox person}} and have never received any objection. I don't see a problem either. There is a related issue that could be addressed if someone had the inclination. Some sports biography infoboxes have |full_name=. I have removed that when identical using the same rational and been reverted because some sports editors believe it somehow minimizes name vandalism by having the field filled in rather than left blank. MB 21:58, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
    you just said there's never been a problem – Not really. You see, "no objections to my edits" is not equal to "no problems". The problem is that I have to do these edits. (And I don't use any advanced search, so I surely miss a lot of cases.) {{Infobox Person}} doc is fine, yet many articles use other templates that don't even mention this. — Mike Novikoff 22:41, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
    Well, it is redundant and should be removed. Don't leave a blank parameter in there, just remove the parameter entirely. I don't have any objection to adding a one-sentence instruction about this in MoS as suggested above.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:44, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
    Add an instruction to MOS? Sandy, do you have a fever? EEng 01:10, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
    Thank you! Yes, I do usually remove the parameter entirely. — Mike Novikoff 22:55, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
    Let me make a better suggestion: add a hidden comment, <!--leave empty since same as subject's common name-->. EEng 01:10, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
    It's a job to be done. Not in the articles (I've always appreciated your sense of humor), just in the (have I already said that?) very numerous templates. — Mike Novikoff 18:45, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
  • My general feeling is that the proper place for documenting parameters of templates would seem to be either the template documentation or the comments in the sample templates that are usually used to fill these in, rather than in the MoS where the people filling them in won't see them. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:54, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
  • I agree this needn't be in the MOS. I feel there's probably a simple technical solution: don't display birth_name in the rendered infobox it's the same as their usual name. pburka (talk) 02:50, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
    Excellent idea. EEng 03:17, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
    An idea is excellent indeed, yet it might be hard to implement it. What will you compare your ${A} to? Just one example regarding the Russian names: they always have a patronym, it is always mentioned in the lead (and tends to be in an infobox too) but never in the article's name. How do you parse that? With Lua maybe (though I'm not sure there either), surely not with the conventional dumb template language. — Mike Novikoff 18:20, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
    It's not necessary that the comparison work perfectly in all cases. If the two forms of the subject's name are equal, then it will detect that and suppress. If not, well, no harm done. EEng 19:20, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
    Agreed, it would definitely be better than nothing if you as a template editor implement even a simplest case. — Mike Novikoff 20:28, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
    Plus you're moving goal posts. The original problem said "when it exactly matches the current name." If that's really a frequent occurrence, we can deal with it technically, and I think we can all agree that identical names don't belong in birth_name. Variants require more judgment. pburka (talk) 20:15, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

See previous discussions for Template talk:Infobox person/Archive 30#Birth name parameter and Template talk:Infobox person/Archive 36#Birth name parameter. 191.112.53.57 (talk) 03:28, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Block quotes to be italicized or no?

Latest comment: 2 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion

I've seen block quotes where the block quotation is both presented in italics or standard text. To me, the italics seems to look more presentable and appear to indicate that the text is actually a quotation more apparently. I would like to know if there is MOS guidance on block quotes appearing in italics. Yes, no, or is it up to the individual editor? TY. — Moops ⋠T⋡ 23:07, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

For guidance see Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Quotations in italics. StarryGrandma (talk) 23:25, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
And the short answer is "no italics". There isn't a style guide on earth that recommends that practice. Some people do it because some blog software packages do it by default. (Why? No one knows).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:26, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
Our article block quotation says that quotations were originally italicized rather than indented to set them off from surrounding text, and that "block quotations can be distinguished from the surrounding text by variation in typeface (often italic vs. roman)". So your dogmatic statement that this practice is never recommended seems to be an exaggeration, at best. That said, our style guide is clear that we don't do this here. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:56, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
Quote me a style guide recommending it.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:51, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Do people die in their ledes?

Latest comment: 2 years ago21 comments13 people in discussion

Apologies if this is the wrong talk page, but I have noticed something and I am not sure what the actual guidelines are. Here is an example: Ken Starr. The lead covers his career, his basic deal, and some stuff that went on in his life up to about 2020... then it stops. He died in 2022. Should this be in the lead, or only in the body? jp×g 14:46, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Hey, what will we do when someone's cryogenically preserved head gets reanimated? How will we indicate that inside the parentheses? Instead of waiting until it actually happens I think we should should have an RfC so we're prepared. EEng 20:56, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Not necessary as it would obviously be in a new article. Just need to decide on the disambiguator. MB 21:02, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
Perhaps John Smith (head only)? Anyway, for further guidance on this matter, see Wikipedia:Biographies of dead persons. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Herostratus (talk • contribs)
But John Smith already needs dabs, so we'd end up with John Smith (anatomist and chemist, head only) and John Smith (astronomer, head only) and John Smith (lexicographer, head only) and so on. What a mess. EEng 00:10, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Date of death goes in the parentheses in the lead sentence, and was already in Starr's article. More detailed circumstances of death are usually not lead-worthy, unless there is something unusual about the death. There are exceptions but Starr does not appear to be one of them. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:12, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Noticing the Lennon example. Let's be clear to outsiders, we're discussing Ken Starr (as an example), not Ringo Starr (who's still alive). GoodDay (talk) 21:24, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

I concur with EEng and Austronesier and David Eppstein. Everyone dies; for those this has happened to, this is generally indicated by including the death date shortly after the name. For unusual cases, where the death was under noteworthy circumstances, the lead may include more information, in WP:DUE balance to coverage of the event in the article body. Thus the lead at the Lennon article.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:33, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Starr died of "complications from surgery on September 13, 2022, at the age of 76" - not lead-worthy. It has a section to itself, which poor WP articles tend to do, but here there seems no "later life" section it could go into. But I have seen some bios where a decidedly unusual manner of death is not mentioned in the lead when it should be, and only appears right at the end - at least one murder. I can't remember examples unfortunately. Johnbod (talk) 04:43, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

As an example where a death is mentioned in the lede and is notable enough to do so, there's Marion Miley. SilverserenC 04:51, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Indeed - and a search on "murdered by a fellow guest" brought me to Johann Joachim Winckelmann, actually pretty famous, where the murder was only mentioned at the bottom of a long article until I added it to the lead in July. Johnbod (talk) 05:24, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but I have to ask... Why were you searching "murdered by a fellow guest"? EEng 00:02, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
Purely to find the article as an example - I remembered the how, but not the who. Johnbod (talk) 03:15, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
That's a lie. I overheard Johnbod a few months ago saying he regularly searches for "murdered by a fellow guest". I couldn't quite catch the reason, but it was something like "mumble fisheries burglegurgle not in the face unintelligible and then you'll be saved." Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:53, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
Sadly, we don't have a :Category:Deaths by fellow guests. pburka (talk) 02:28, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers § Article titles for years: BC/AD or BCE/BC

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

  You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers § Article titles for years: BC/AD or BCE/BC. Interstellarity (talk) 14:18, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Are continents capitalized

Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I know the talk page is not a forum but are continents capitalized GenZenny (talk) 17:03, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

If you mean the names of continents, Africa, Asia, North America, etc., then yes. BD2412 T 17:12, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Mainstream publications are capitalizing both Black and White

Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I noticed in this article: https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2022/10/19/covid-deaths-us-race/ that both Black and White are capitalized. Perhaps this is a good cue to mirror this as policy here, to avoid what I imagine have been divisive editing battles. 2600:1012:B028:F35F:4957:F090:2315:B94B (talk) 16:48, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

They have been divisive. I'm skeptical that today is soon enough to revisit this; I would give it another year for source usage to even out more. The current status quo is black/white or Black/White, left to editorial consensus at the specific article. The previous big discussion had a clear consensus against Black-but-white usage.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:44, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

RfD regarding MOS: shortcut to an explanatory essay

Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

  An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect MOS:LONGDAB and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 October 25#MOS:LONGDAB until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 17:48, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Of considerably more importance is: Wikipedia talk:Organizing disambiguation pages by subject area#RfC: make this page a guideline.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:03, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:LeAnn Rimes (album) § Album name same as artist's name

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

  You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:LeAnn Rimes (album) § Album name same as artist's name. Sundayclose (talk) 19:10, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

MOS:NOTE

Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Discussion at Talk:Acts of the Apostles § RFC

  You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Acts of the Apostles § RFC. Elizium23 (talk) 09:01, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Talk:2022 Morbi bridge collapse has an RFC

Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments1 person in discussion
 

Talk:2022 Morbi bridge collapse has an RFC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. BilledMammal (talk) 06:45, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Talk:2022 Morbi bridge collapse#RfC: ₹4 lakh or ₹400,000 has an RFC

 

Talk:2022 Morbi bridge collapse#RfC: ₹4 lakh or ₹400,000 has an RFC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BilledMammal (talk • contribs) 16:19, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Action comedy film

Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion

There is a discussion to move action comedy film to action-comedy film. Editors, including those who work with MOS:DASH, are invited to weigh in on if this is necessary or not, or helpful or not. The discussion is here: Talk:Action comedy film § Requested move 3 December 2022. Thanks, Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 14:28, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Clarification of MOS:LIST

Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion

If an editor is able to give clarification at Talk:Fort Albany First Nation#Notability of council list it would be appreciated. There is a dispute about whether three lengthy lists of mostly non-notable names should be added to the article, per MOS:LIST. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 21:49, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Intros to cities, towns, boroughs, and census-designated places

Latest comment: 1 year ago23 comments13 people in discussion

I've reviewed WP:USPLACE, which states: "Articles on US cities should never be titled "City, Country" (e.g., "Detroit, United States") or "City, State, Country" (e.g., "Kansas City, Missouri, U.S.") because that is contrary to general American usage." That makes perfect sense. It seems similarly logical that the introductory sentence for cities, towns, boroughs, and census-designated places also follow this approach for the same reason. The nation, of course, already appears in the Infobox and categories, and the addition of the nation in the introduction yet again increases the wordiness and can't be something any reader really needs to see or has doubts about. So am I correct that, as appears to be common practice, there is no need to state "United States" again in the introduction of these pages? Would the following be correct:

Bangor is a borough located in Northampton County, Pennsylvania.

Or should it read:

Bangor is a borough located in Northampton County, Pennsylvania, United States.

The former appears broadly acceptable and common with most editors and on most pages. And yet, here we are: a few editors (perhaps four or so) insist the latter is necessary and are embarking on vast additions of "United States" in these pages' intros. Does a policy exist on this precise question? If not, sadly, I think we've reached the point where one is necessary. Thanks for any guidance. Keystone18 (talk) 03:17, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Because this is an encyclopedia with an international audience, it is appropriate for the lead to provide the context of what country we're talking about. The lead is meant to provide an accessible overview and stands on its own (per MOS:LEAD) without requiring the reader to also reference infoboxes or categories. The second option above is correct. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:30, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
Please sign your comment since you're the editor in question engaged in these vast additions of "United States" on these pages. Keystone18 (talk) 03:27, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
In WP:USCITIES and also the WP:U.S. counties page, the guidance for the introductory section is as follows:
  • Name of city and location in state
  • City proper population (US Census figures should be used. When appropriate, other reliable estimates may be included as a supplement to Census figures.)
  • Metro population (US Census figures should be used. When appropriate, other reliable estimates may be included as a supplement to Census figures.)
  • Brief note about historical roots/founding
  • Primary industries supporting its economy (e.g. service, manufacturing, tourism, etc ...)
  • Notable unusual characteristics and characteristics commonly associated with it

That first entry instructing the name of the city and location in the state and consciously not mandating or even suggesting inclusion of "United States" is as close to any guidance on this as I can find and should be sufficient guidance. There certainly is no stylistic requirement, or even a suggestion, that "United States" be again listed in the introductory of U.S. location pages. Keystone18 (talk) 04:26, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

That essay makes it very clear that its suggestions are supplementary to LEAD. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:39, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE clearly says an article should remain complete with its summary infobox ignored. Without specifying the country in the lead, readers may have no idea where the place is located. This is not listing United States "again", it is listing it for the first time which is necessary. MB 16:36, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
The argument against including “United States” is that the average reader (even those from the non-English speaking world) will know the names of the 50 US States - they may not know which state is where on the map, but they will recognize the name and know that it is within the US. Similar to how readers will know that EU member states are within the EU. Thus, specifying that (say) a town in the State of Nevada is in the US is unnecessary. Saying Nevada is enough. Blueboar (talk) 17:14, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
The difference, of course, is that EU member states are sovereign states and US states are not! The EU is not a country. -- Necrothesp (talk) 17:26, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
There are plenty of Americans that do not know that New Mexico is a US state. It's foolish to assume that the "average reader" in an international audience can recognize all 50 states. MB 18:41, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
I've come across the "New Mexico is outside the country, it's part of Mexico" comment in person, so I can concur that even Americans don't know the names of all the states. Not every one can list the 50 states, so I don't think it's reasonable to expect someone from outside of the country to know that level of detail. - Aoidh (talk) 05:51, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment I think the country should always be included in the first line of a location. Not everyone knows what the US states are (including some Americans), and if you don't put United States in then people may believe that locations in the state of Georgia are in fact in the country of Georgia. We shouldn't presume the knowledge that people know the US states anymore than people are expected to know the counties of the United Kingdom or the provinces of China. Oddly enough the education systems of other countries don't usually tell people about sub-divisions of other countries and aren't taught the 50 states. I don't think it's reasonable to expect non-Americans to know that Arkansas, Idaho or New Mexico are states in the United States anymore than they should be expected to know Yukon is a territory of Canada or Pernambuco is a state in Brazil. Always put the country as part of the location in the opening sentence. It's okay to presume people know, in English, the names of large major world player countries, but I don't think anyone should be expected to know the internal sub-national divisions of those countries. And note I don't think this should apply just to the US, but to all countries. Canterbury Tail talk 17:33, 24 November 2022 (UTC).

Definitely include United States at first mention for the reasons already noted, not just where it is needed to avoid potential ambiguity, but to respect readership needs. Don't forget that the population of the USA is a smallish subset of the world's 2 billion-odd English speakers - including not just those from 1st language or bilingial upbringings, but also those who have reasonable learned profiency, because EngWP is much more comprehensive in many areas than most other language wikis. If "city, state, country" can seem too clunky, there are other clear formulations, eg "Birmingham is a city in the north central region of the U.S. state of Alabama." Davidships (talk) 02:49, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

  • Do not include United States. This just clutters the lead. A person who wonders what New Mexico is can click the link and find out. Most readers will recognize most state names as US most of the time, so the clutter is not worth it. Dicklyon (talk) 00:09, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
We're an international encyclopaedia that happens to be based in the United States, not an United States encyclopaedia. Don't presume geographical knowledge of things that are not actually common knowledge to non-Americans (and to some Americans.) Canterbury Tail talk 00:33, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

From what I've seen over the years. Canada, the United States & the United Kingdom appears to be the three countries that habitually aren't shown. The Canadian provinces/territories; American states/territories, British constituent countries, tend to only be shown. GoodDay (talk) 00:20, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Doesn't mean they shouldn't be, it's possibly just a centric viewpoint of the original writing editor not thinking it's necessary because they know it. It's often the case with places in India as well. However we are an international encyclopaedia, and should write like it. Canterbury Tail talk 00:33, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
FWIW, I'm in favour of including "Canada", "United States", "United Kingdom" as we include the sovereign state for the other countries of the world. You'll likely get support for the Canadian & American bios & places. But probably resistance in the British bios & places. GoodDay (talk) 00:40, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
  • We go round on this every now and then, but guidelines are clear on this once you find the right ones to read together:
    • WP:Manual_of_Style#Geographical_items (aka MOS:PLACE): A place should generally be referred to consistently by the same name as in the title of its article (see Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names) ... Thus we consult ...
    • WP:Naming_conventions_(geographic_names)#United_States (aka WP:USPLACE): articles on populated places in the United States are typically titled "Placename, State" ... [never] "City, Country" (e.g., "Detroit, United States") or "City, State, Country" (e.g., "Kansas City, Missouri, U.S.") (In addition, per [22], the following cities do not even take that state qualifier: Atlanta, Baltimore, Boston, Chicago, Cincinnati, Cleveland, Dallas, Denver, Detroit, Honolulu, Houston, Indianapolis, Las Vegas, Los Angeles, Miami, Milwaukee, Minneapolis, New Orleans, New York, Oklahoma City, Philadelphia, Phoenix, Pittsburgh, St. Louis, Salt Lake City, San Antonio, San Diego, San Francisco, Seattle, Washington, D.C.)
If you think articles should identify US cities as e.g. "Ketchum, idaho, United States", then you first need to explain why the article on that city is titled simply Ketchum, Idaho. EEng 03:26, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
That guideline combo doesn't address the question under discussion here, though. "Atlanta is a city in Georgia" and "Atlanta is a city in Georgia, United States" are both entirely consistent with MOS:PLACE as in both cases the city is named as "Atlanta"; the rest of the sentence is not part of the name. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:46, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
Sure it addresses it. To avoid the obvious complication inherent in "Georgia" as an example, let's switch to California. Writing California, United States also violates WP:USPLACE, since the title of the California is, well, simply California. EEng 04:43, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
By that reasoning one should explain why Manchester isn't at Manchester, England, United Kingdom. Article titles have a requirement to be brief. Article leads don't have that same restriction. oknazevad (talk) 04:09, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
  • Include the country. It does no harm, and makes it clear for an international readership that may not know US states, Canadian provinces, constituent countries of the UK, Mexican states, Brazilian states, etc. Countering systemic bias is a good goal. This is one way to do that. oknazevad (talk) 04:14, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
  • I think it would be reasonable to have a clear guideline on this saying to either A) name the country (in short form for US and UK), or B) link the subnational division and leave the country off. Both approaches have proven satisfactory for a long time now. Given how many reader-editors WP has, it would be way more than ~4 editors pushing on this if option B were unintelligible broadly. Yet option A is not inherently broken in any way, and we need not make it forbidden. It's especially useful in cases like Georgia (confusable with another country), New Mexico (often mistaken for part of Mexico), Nunavut (which many people have never heard of and which only dates to 1999), and Northern Ireland (yes, there are people who don't know it's part of the UK).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  07:54, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Addition of "part of a system ..." to WP:&

Latest comment: 1 year ago6 comments3 people in discussion

On 9 June, someone modified the WP:& paragraph to say that "&" should be used instead of "and" when it is "part of a system such as the WGA screenwriting credit system" (@Alex 21). As far as I know, this was a "bold" undiscussed addition. I don't think that is appropriate:

  • It seems to endorse the principle that the use of specialist styling systems is generally permissible in the Wikipedia MoS, which is contrary to the popular Wikipedia:Specialized-style fallacy concept.
  • It seems to adopt the WGA screenwriting credit system as a specific endorsed system for use in the English Wikipedia as part of the Wikipedia Manual of Style. Has that been agreed? Note that the WGA screenwriting credit system is an extensive and very specific set of guidelines and associated specific processes for dispute resolution.

I have just reverted that addition.
—⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 18:14, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

I don't care either way, but it is absolutely the agreed consensus in certain WikiProjects to credit television and film writers on Wikipedia the way that they are credited in official productions. If you have an issue with that, take it up there. -- Alex_21 TALK 23:46, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
For purposes of this discussion, I am only focused on what WP:& should say. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 23:52, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
This discussion relates to those WikiProjects. The addition was simply an example of a long-standing consensus. -- Alex_21 TALK 23:54, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
I don't think it is helpful to the MoS to provide examples of instances where particular Wikiprojects have established a local consensus to follow some external guideline. I remember a time when there was a convention of using a capitalization convention for the names of bird and butterfly species that was different from what was done for other fauna. There was also a recent discussion of a special use of capitalized "The" when referring to a particular religious institution. Such things might happen, but I don't think that is the sort of thing the MoS should be generally accepting and encouraging. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 01:40, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
Indeed. When weird "my wikiproject decided ..." variances from normal writing come to light at the MoS level, they consistently get rejected. We learn rapidly that other general-audience publishers do not follow the pet style, and that it has been imported from specialist writing (or even a single entity's house style). This is looking like another case of that. If an average newspaper has no problem writing "produced by Jane Doe and Joe Blow" where WGA would prefer "&", WP has no reason to prefer "&". At very least it has no business being in our MoS; people can argue at a particular article for writing "&" and demonstrate that independent sources consistently do so for the specific case in question.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  08:01, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

MOS:PF

Latest comment: 1 year ago3 comments3 people in discussion

MOS:PF says: All ref tags should immediately follow the text to which the footnote applies, with no intervening space, with a note that they can be spaced apart from the preceding content by a hair space in the unusual case that the results of not spacing could be visually confusing, such as when a citation immediately follows an exponent. However, the section text itself uses hair spaces between plain words and ref tags: here{{hsp}}{{Dummy ref|10}} and London{{hsp}}{{Dummy ref|10}}. I don't think that not having these spaces would be "visually confusing". Thus, is it setting a bad example, or somebody believes that these spaces are really needed but forgot to properly describe this (not so) "unusual case"? — Mikhail Ryazanov (talk) 22:39, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

I have the weird idea I may have put those {hsp}s there, but if so I have no idea why. I removed them. EEng 07:00, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
OK, thanks! — Mikhail Ryazanov (talk)
You're welcome! Herostratus (talk) 16:55, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
Latest comment: 1 year ago4 comments4 people in discussion

Even if the page has been linked in nearby text, adding the same link within a caption has seemed common sense to me because some (many) readers only look at pictures (especially further down the article). I was reverted on one (first time that I can recall), and told it was against MOS. But I can't find anything about links on the WP and MOS pages for captions. Anyone know the quick answer? As usual I'll call upon the maestro of MOS, SMcCandlish. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 21:25, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

  • Not the maestro, but I can tell you that in my experience, the admission of repeated links in infoboxes has been seen as a tacit green flag for them in captions. I think that's the only way the MOS has figured into it. Primergrey (talk) 03:45, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
MOS:REPEATLINK explicitly allows for duplicate links in captions. oknazevad (talk) 03:50, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
Right.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  05:00, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Short descriptions

Latest comment: 1 year ago5 comments2 people in discussion

Does the MOS cover short descriptions anywhere? WP:SHORTDESC says that "All mainspace articles should have a short description" and WP:SDFORMAT gives some style advice. If correct, shouldn't these points be moved to the MOS? a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 09:38, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Probably not. That's metadata, not part of the encyclopedic content.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  09:46, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
Hi @SMcCandlish: short descriptions are more than metadata: they appear in Wikipedia mobile and on desktop searches (see Wikipedia:Short description). They're similar to infobox content, covered by Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Infoboxes.
The MOS only mentions short descriptions in:
Please note that WP:VG/SHORTDESC is the video games MOS, even though the above quote seems to give general recommendations. So I would either:
  • Move that quote to a new section MOS:SD in WP:LEAD, or
  • Make WP:SHORTDESC part of the MOS (as the MOS already defers to this page regarding short descriptions)
(and then maybe modify the aforementioned quotes if other contributors disagree with their recommendations)
What do you think? a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 10:42, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
If "the MOS already defers to this page [WP:SHORTDESC] regarding short descriptions", then what is the problem you're trying to fix? I don't see that anything's broken. MOS also, for example, makes reference to article titles, and defers to WP:AT and various NC guidelines, but we don't feel a need to merge them. Same with citations and WP:CITE.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  14:01, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
OK perfect then, thanks @SMcCandlish! a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 14:02, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Requested move Asian people > Asians

Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Requested move that may be of interest: Talk:Asian_people#Requested_move_13_December_2022 Valereee (talk) 17:06, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

It's more of a (somewhat socio-politicized) semantics argument than a style one.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  14:04, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Does MOS:OUR cover "our Sun"

Latest comment: 1 year ago10 comments4 people in discussion

Brought up by Trovatore on a revert. Why wouldn't it? This would also cover "our galaxy" (Milky Way would substitute), "our Solar System", etc. When uppercased the 'Sun' refers to the star of the Solar System (also uppercased). The language seems clear: "To maintain an objective and impersonal encyclopedic voice, an article should never refer to its editors or readers using I, my, we, us, our, or similar forms". Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 07:30, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

So you might mention that the "our" in the passage you quote was actually added by you personally, less than half an hour before your edit that I reverted, so to pull it in in support could mislead readers who weren't aware of that.
I can see the point that the Sun is already a proper noun and doesn't really need qualification, but that doesn't apply to the "our galaxy" you mentioned in the previous edit summary. How exactly would you describe these objects to a reader who doesn't know (say) which galaxy is the Milky Way?
It seems to me that the first person plural is properly avoided when it refers to Wikipedia or its editors, but not so much when it refers to the human race as a whole. Our universalist impulses do us credit, but they get kind of silly when they try to avoid being specific about our very species and the location that it will inhabit for the foreseeable future. --Trovatore (talk) 07:43, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
I added "our" because the section abbreviation is literally MOS:OUR. You objected to "our Sun" and wanted to talk page it, but now you don't, so fine so far, and a good point about "our galaxy". How about "our Solar System", "our Moon", etc.? Randy Kryn (talk) 07:49, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
I think that the language you propose does not make it clear that the objection to "our Sun" is that "Sun" is already a proper noun. This point does not really even seem to be about the first person, but about possessive determiners with proper nouns, which I'm not sure we really need a guideline for, but if we were to have one, this would probably not be the section I'd put it in. --Trovatore (talk) 07:56, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
Agreed on the example used, I had suggested a poor choice if not fully explained and was rightfully reverted. But to the point of this section, MOS:OUR does seem to cover "the Sun", "the Solar System", and "the Moon". Randy Kryn (talk) 08:01, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
I would think that in such a case, our is being used in a manner similar to the example exception of an historical article. It is being used to refer to us, the collective world rather than editors or readers. Furthermore, if we use any modifier other than the with such terms (sun, galaxy and solar system), they are inherently being used as a common noun like "our dog". Cinderella157 (talk) 08:47, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
Perhaps if they are lowercased as you've written them, but Earth's inhabitants have only one Sun, one Moon, and one Solar System when uppercased (where 'our' would be redundant). Randy Kryn (talk) 09:18, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
One is a modifier. It implies there may be more than one and that what it precedes is a common noun. But that was not my primary point. Cinderella157 (talk) 10:15, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
"Our" Moon only works outside of MOS:OUR when "moon" is lowercased and not at the Moon's proper name. Same with "our" sun and solar system - our only falls outside of MOS:OUR at lowercase and not at the uppercased proper names. Randy Kryn (talk) 18:06, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
MOS:OUR was clearly not meant to apply to this. The point of MOS:OUR is WP:NPOV; WP doesn't identify with any particular population or individual. However, the "our" in "our sun" or "our galaxy" is everyone, so there is no NPoV problem.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  14:16, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

RfC on mid-sentence and mid-article title capitalization of the in the full name of the LDS Church

Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion

There is a request for comment about mid-sentence and mid-article title capitalization of the in the full name of the LDS Church at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters#RfC on mid-sentence and mid-article title capitalization of the in the full name of the LDS Church. Please contribute there. Thank you. SchreiberBike | ⌨  12:38, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

This has already resolved, in favor of lower case.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  14:18, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Content dispute over non-English addition

Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion

There is a content dispute regarding MOS:FOREIGNITALIC and MOS:FOREIGN at Talk:Minneapolis#Photo of Owamni. An editor added a translation of Saint Anthony Falls--a local waterfall--into Dakota, to enhance an edit about a local restaurant. The input of others would be appreciated. Magnolia677 (talk) 20:46, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

That discussion has already archived, as Talk:Minneapolis/Archive 9#Photo of Owamni.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  14:19, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

WP:MOS#Consecutive punctuation marks suggestion

Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion

2 suggestions:

1: maybe change

so is usually better

to

so it is usually better

2: maybe add a Better example to contrast with He made several films with Sammy Davis Jr..:

Where a word or phrase that includes terminal punctuation ends a sentence, do not add a second terminal punctuation mark. If a quoted phrase or title ends in a question mark or exclamation mark, it may confuse readers as to the nature of the article sentence containing it, and so is usually better reworded to be mid-sentence. Where such a word or phrase occurs mid-sentence, new terminal punctuation (usually a period) must be added at the end.

Incorrect: Slovak returned to the Red Hot Chili Peppers in 1985 after growing tired of What Is This?.
Acceptable: Slovak returned to the Red Hot Chili Peppers in 1985 after growing tired of What Is This?
Better: Slovak, having grown tired of What Is This?, returned to the Red Hot Chili Peppers in 1985.
Incorrect: He made several films with Sammy Davis Jr..
Correct: He made several films with Sammy Davis Jr.
Better: He and Sammy Davis Jr. made several films together.

--173.67.42.107 (talk) 20:47, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

That seems reasonable, and no one's objected to it.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  14:22, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Gluing/joining words and unspaced em-dashes together

Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion

This is my first time participating in the MOS talk page, so please forgive me if I made any mistakes in this admittedly bikeshed-y question.

Currently, part of the MOS's recommendation on the spaced en-dash's usage is as follows:

Ideally, use a non-breaking space before the en dash, which prevents the en dash from occurring at the beginning of a line ...

However, there is no recommendation like this for unspaced em-dashes, despite the fact that:

  • Line breaks can occur before em-dashes, meaning em-dashes can also occur in the beginning of a line like unspaced un-NBSPed en-dashes (to verify, try zooming-in in Dash#Em-dash; here's a screenshot)
  • There are "gluing characters" that we can use (accessible using {{zwj}} and {{Word joiner}}) to glue a word and an em-dash together, preventing em-dashes from occuring in the beginning of a line
  • We can also create a "gluing em-dash" template (as a parallel to {{snd}}) that uses one of the gluing-character templates/raw characters so that it can be easily added in pages

Has there been a discussion before where this specific facet of unspaced em-dashes was discussed and voted against? Thank you for your patience! LightNightLights (talk) 14:33, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

I've thought about such a thing but have never succeeded in figuring out which of the many joiner thingamajigs actually works on more or all browsers. More globally: I personally find spacing mishaps (like dash at the start of a line, or references to World War
I) highly annoying, but it happens so infrequently, and the work that will be needed to formulate guidelines (not to mention the annoyance other editors will express at having MOS even more bloated for such a minor issue) has kept me from really getting into it. But I plan to, sometime between now and when I die -- see #Non-breaking_spaces_with_written-out_units on this very page. EEng 20:45, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Short description for Marshfield station

Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion

There is a discussion on the appropriate short description for Marshfield station at Talk:Marshfield station which would affect several articles on the mass transit system of Chicago and other pages, potentially affecting the entire encyclopedia. The discussion concerns the purpose of short descriptions and whether local consensus or precedence overrides broader agreements on the purpose and style recommended for short descriptions in the encyclopedia. Any interested parties are invited to consider the implications and provide input. · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 05:53, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

That's a [meta-]content matter, not a style matter.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:20, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

MOS discussion at WP:Main Page/Errors

Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion

There is a WTW discussion at the errors page. Am I out to lunch on this one? Come weigh in and let me know. Primergrey (talk) 01:49, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Icons#RfC Can notable Brazilian jiu-jitsu people display a rank icon in their infobox like Judo people do?

Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Please comment at the subject RfC. Lewolka (talk) 15:22, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Elementary school

Latest comment: 1 year ago5 comments5 people in discussion

I'm wondering what the policy is on school type naming. Should the first school be referred to elementary school or primary school. TheHaloVeteran2 (talk) 16:23, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

This could be a ENGVAR situation. I know that “Elementary” is sometimes used in the US (as is “Primary”) but is it used in the UK or other parts of the world? Perhaps both/either is acceptable. Blueboar (talk) 16:35, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
English and Welsh usage is "Primary" which is usually split into infants (up to 7) and junior (8-11). I'm not sure about the Scottish system which does differ in some respects from England. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 16:51, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
I don't know the usage elsewhere, but in the US the nomenclature is highly Balkanized, at least partially due to the federal structure of the government, with schools being the responsibility of state and local governments. All of these exist
  • K-8-4
    1-8
    Elementary school
    9-12
    High school
  • K-6-3-3
    1-6
    Elementary school
    7-9
    Junior High School
    10-12
    Senior High School
  • K-5-3-4
    1-5
    Elementary school
    6-8
    Middle school
    9-12
    High school
among others, depending on location and year. --Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 19:58, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
I think it depends upon the context. If you're talking about an American school, an American subject, or an American education, it's an elementary school. --Coolcaesar (talk) 16:57, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Non-breaking spaces with written-out units

Latest comment: 1 year ago45 comments13 people in discussion

As a follow-up to topic-specific discussions at Talk:Hassium and User talk:DePiep#MOS and NBSP, it seems that the current MOS guideline on the usage of non-breaking spaces when separating numbers from written-out units (e.g. 5 kilometers (instead of 5 km); 118 elements) is open to interpretation. It advises to use non-breaking spaces when line breaks are awkward, which they seem to be in this case; however, implementing this would apparently require making heavy changes to lots of articles, as it is not strongly established as are the examples given in the MOS section.

I thus ask, should the same guideline for quantities and abbreviated units be followed for fully spelled-out units? Should non-breaking spaces be used only with abbreviations, or always with units and quantities? I would like to establish a more definite MOS guideline, in which one or the other is widely agreed upon as common practice. ComplexRational (talk) 00:46, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

  • I really, really wish people would stop jumping straight into a project-wide RfC before working with other editors to frame the questions to be posed. I urge you to withdraw this. And MOSNUM is probably the right place for this. (Main MOS vs subsidiary pages is a longstanding problem.) EEng 01:26, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
    Where else would you suggest discussing this, seeing as its outcome is not specific to the articles for which this was discussed, and the question is pretty straightforward from these discussions? If it can be held elsewhere, I will withdraw; however, I don't think that place is MOSNUM because this issue pertains to MOS:NBSP, which is not its own MOS sub-page. I'm open to ideas. ComplexRational (talk) 02:02, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
    I'd suggest discussing it right here (or at Talk:MOSNUM, but since ultimately it's an aesthetic, not technical, issue I guess here is fine.) There are plenty of people here who have thought a lot about formatting issues, and many have outside professional experience, and with their participation I suspect the issue can either be resolved or boiled down to a clearcut question. Open-ended RfCs like you've started, which pull random people from all over into an unstructured discussion, just end up a mess. EEng 03:28, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
    Okay, I withdrew it as an RfC. Let's play it out as a regular discussion now; I apologize for being unaware of this potential complication. ComplexRational (talk) 09:53, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
    Ping to prevent archiving. EEng 12:49, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
    I don't see the "jumping into an RfC" that EEng is referring to here. I do see a reasonable description by ComplexRational of a MOS detail to be clarified somehow. Do I miss some invisible redacted editing? Please clarify. As it stands now, the OP is correct and relevant to me. -DePiep (talk) 00:01, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
    Yes, obviously, like the OP said: he had set this up as an RfC but later withdrew it at my urging. EEng 00:28, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
    Eh, that 'obvious' part is not visible then?, like in an talk edited afterwards (ouch)? Must I do homework research to see it? -DePiep (talk) 00:34, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
    Jesus Christ, the OP wrote, just above here: Okay, I withdrew it as an RfC. 01:46, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
    I think the point that is puzzling both DePiep and me is there seems to be no trace of the !RfC for us to see what issues had been raised. Starting an RfC and then withdrawing it should surely leave something in a history somewhere. There are no links, nor anything in contributions that I can find. What am I missing? --RexxS (talk) 14:11, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
    The most recent diff before I withdrew upon EEng's suggestion was [23]. All that changed since then was removal of the RfC template; the content of my original post is the same now as it was then. ComplexRational (talk) 14:43, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

In traditional typography, typesetters would ensure that sentences didn't break onto another line at a point where the result was a new line starting with something that didn't make sense alone, or where the break would produce a semantic dissonance. So they would avoid lines starting with an abbreviation:

  • something something ... a distance of 15
    km

as well as lines that changed meaning when the next line was read:

  • something something ... a cost of $5
    million

In electronic document processing, when line length can change with screen resolution or window size, the non-breaking space was used to prevent those sort of breaks from happening. I don't believe there has ever been any rationale for placing a non-breaking space between numbers and normal recognisable English words, because those don't produce problems, other than in cases like the second example. There is really nothing wrong with seeing:

  • something something ... a distance of 15
    kilometres

and it is especially ludicrous to extend the fetish for non-breaking spaces in quantities to normal counted items. There is nothing wrong with reading:

  • something something ... a squad of 24
    football players

The examples at MOS:UNITNAMES reflect these simple principles, and I can't see what other interpretation could be made of the present guidance:

  • Use a non-breaking space ({{nbsp}} or &nbsp;) between a number and a unit symbol, or use {{nowrap}} ...
  • ... and a normal space is used between a number and a unit name.

If somebody wants to change those guidelines, then they really should be proposing what changes they want made and the reasons for them. --RexxS (talk) 19:07, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Just for the record, I wasn't proposing a change. I was merely asking for clarification, and if any disagreement were to arise, then firmly establish one way or another. What is written here makes sense, now I only propose that it is made crystal clear for other (copy)editors in the MOS:NBSP section (to use only with abbreviations). ComplexRational (talk) 00:10, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
(ec) @RexxS:, these examples are undisputed, and are clear by WP:NBSP and WP:MOSUNIT. Minor detail: your example of 15<regularspace>kilometres is not in the MOS explicitly, but well observed, also by {{Convert}} — end of detail.
Note: for simplicity, an "_" (underscore) says NBSP.
A question arose when reading in MOS:NBSP: It is desirable to prevent line breaks where breaking across lines might be confusing or awkward. -- note the criterium "awkward". The examples given are (1) unit symbols - no problem, see before, and (2) exampes of number-in-proper-name (Boeing_747).
Some editors state that the "awkward" situation may also occur in situations with a number inline, i.e. in running text. Examples (in here): element_114, the expected magic 114_protons, ....
My (opposing) point is that such number-word combinations are not awkward, can reasionably occur in any running sentence, are part of a reading habit, and so are not 'awkward' and do not allow an NBSP. Otherwise, this whole enwiki could require a MOS-change in ~every article, or have inconsistent styles between articles re this line-breaking.
So, first question: do we recognise this is a Good MOS Question to discuss? -DePiep (talk) 00:25, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
There's long been a need for the nbsp/nobreak guidance to be improved. I've never done anything about it because I realized some cases would need a discussion. EEng 00:28, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
@DePiep: It certainly seems that something ought to be done to educate editors about when to use (and not use) non-breaking spaces. I just looked at the Island of stability article you pointed out. Over 200 non-breaking spaces. Seriously? I've just removed four that you could see at a glance occur at places where the line could never break. No doubt somebody will revert me, citing MoS instead of thinking for themselves. I'm not sure repeating the already crystal clear guidance in MoS is the solution though. Either they never read MoS or they don't understand what a line break is. Either way, tinkering with the MoS won't have any effect on them. As for your actual examples, I've long ago given up trying to convince others that there's absolutely nothing wrong with reading
  • Flerovium, with the expected magic 114
    protons, was first synthesized in 1998
Although to get a line break there, you would have to be viewing on a screen with a maximum line length of less than 40 characters. Even my 1978 vintage TRS-80 could manage that. --RexxS (talk) 03:06, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
  • If 114 protons can't be broken, then you may as well say that every number has to be followed by an nbsp, always, and that would be silly.
  • I do think Z = 112 shouldn't break, though that would be better coded as {{nobr|Z = 112}} than the current Z&nbsp;=&nbsp;112
  • I'm not sure that all the examples at MOS:NBSP belong there, and I wonder if there shouldn't be some other cases listed.
EEng 04:20, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
User:RexxS: that is my understanding of MOS:NBSP too, including its background (typography). It's just, I stopped editing because of EW, started a talk, and involved editors correctly started a wider talk here. But I see no need to admonish other editors, instead we could use a clearer MOS text and explanation here, for fellow editors. -DePiep (talk) 08:28, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
I now see that the section title here is a much narrower issue than the wide one ComplexRational and I were discussing/editing. As the Island of stability example show, it was and is about all of MOS:NBSP. This complicates/disturbs this talk flow, I must excuse. (how to proceed?). -DePiep (talk) 08:32, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
@EEng and DePiep: Apologies, I was too focused on the quantities issues and not enough on the general nbsp guidance, which does seem to be missing. IMHO, we should have a guideline that says something like
  • Numbers followed by an ordinary English word (not an abbreviation, or similar) do not require a non-breaking space between them in normal circumstances.
There are also many circumstances where a non-breaking space is unnecessary because a line break can't happen there. There are three examples in Island of stability: in the caption of the infobox (the width is fixed, regardless of window size); in reference number 5 (too close to the start of a line for a line break to be possible); and in the table caption "Most stable isotopes of superheavy elements (Z ≥ 104)" (the table can't become narrow enough to wrap the caption onto another line). I've tried pushing the zoom up to 250% and narrowing the window to its minimum, but I can't find a setting that could cause a line break where one had been placed. Nevertheless, I don't suppose that is anything we can, or should, try to give guidance about in MoS for fear of causing more confusion. --RexxS (talk) 14:06, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
In the first image, a line break appeared at 70% zoom on my computer screen, and indeed was awkward. What exactly are you suggesting would risk more confusion? The MoS is supposed to make things as clear as possible, and I wouldn't have started this thread had it been clear from the beginning (echoing EEng – There's long been a need for the nbsp/nobreak guidance to be improved.). ComplexRational (talk) 14:40, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for explaining how you got the line break in the image caption; I hadn't considered zooming out that far. But do you think anybody actually reads Wikipedia at 70% zoom? I can't even get any of my browsers to zoom at 70% to see the effect. Still, it's possible, so best to leave in the {{nowrap}} in that case. The general point about infobox images with captions shorter than the image width is worth understanding, though.
What I am suggesting is that there are many cases where we simply don't need a non-breaking space, i.e. whenever it's not possible for the line to break at that point, but that it's difficult to try to give foolproof guidance to cover those cases, so I don't think we can come up with a form of words that would be helpful. Can you?
Do you agree with my suggested clarification above: Numbers followed by an ordinary English word (not an abbreviation, or similar) do not require a non-breaking space between them in normal circumstances. and if not, why not? --RexxS (talk) 16:33, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
Makes sense, I understand what you're saying about captions. Would it then also be better to use {{nobr|1=''Z'' = 114}} (for example) throughout the article, if this would be preferred to a pair of nbsp's? (On an unrelated note, maybe a new template should be created following whatever this discussion establishes, as this is pretty common in chemistry and physics articles.) ComplexRational (talk) 18:18, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
I agree with this wording, it addresses the elephant in the room and is easy enough to follow. I would specifically use it as an antithesis to the MOS points advising nbsp with units (70_km) or parts of the name (Airbus_A380), though I suppose saying "not an abbreviation" already addresses that. The only thing that may raise questions is "normal circumstances" – I'd rather leave that out and add an additional bullet point saying something along the lines of Non-breaking spaces are not required in fixed-with table cells or image captions, especially when the text is not long enough to wrap., or else work out through discussion what the most common exceptions would be (that would otherwise confuse editors unfamiliar or too familiar with MOS). ComplexRational (talk) 18:18, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
Most editors, in my experience, prefer {{nowrap}} over multiple consecutive non-breaking spaces in a phrase. It makes the wikitext more readable for other editors (the same reason we prefer to avoid html entities where possible).
The "normal circumstances" would be to cover exceptions like
  • ... his fee for the service was $50
    thousand.
where a non-breaking space between the number and the next word would avoid giving the reader the impression the fee was $50 until they read on to the next line. But I'm happy to accommodate other views such as giving examples of specific exceptions instead of stating "normal circumstances".
While I think about it, there is a good case for what I called the "semantic dissonance" to be noted as a rule in other places as well:
  • ... the great-grandnephew of Queen Mary
    II
To anyone familiar with Tudor/Stuart history of England, it first reads as Mary I of England, then as Mary II of England when the next line is reached and obviously should be avoided. That represents one of the very few phrases where I would have no hesitation in recommending the use of a non-breaking space for cogent, rather than aesthetic reasons.--RexxS (talk) 19:26, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
This is already covered at MOS:NUM, to the extent any of this needs any rule-mongering. It advises using non-breaking spaces in strings like 5 cm, but it does not advise doing this when using spelled-out words. It doesn't advise against it, either. Like most things, it is left to editorial discretion. Nothing is broken. No, we do not need another template, since {{nobr}} and {{nbsp}} work fine. So does just using &nbsp;. Yes, it is WP:Common sense to non-breakify certain strings like "$50 thousand", and "Mary II". No, we don't need a rule about it, or we would've already had one by now. No, we do not need anyone going around inserting non-breaking spaces robotically in proximity to every number they see, per WP:MEATBOT ("ain't broke, don't 'fix' it").  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  11:29, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

NBSP for numeric followed by words

Hi all, I recently put up Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/1985 World Snooker Championship/archive2 for FAC. SandyGeorgia commented that there should be some additional non-breaking spaces for items such as "15 seeds, 103 entrants, 32 participants". I don't really mind putting these in, but wanted to clarify our MOS, and how it effects these types of phrases. My understanding at WP:NBSP is that we should use these on names, such as World War 2, and measurements, such as 10 Miles. However, should we also use these on regular expressions, such as "20 people"? I don't mind either way, but wanted to clarify before I do wholesale changes. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:19, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

The guideline gives patchy and somewhat conflicting advice on this entire subject. I'm going to give you what I think will be useful guidance, but we must brace ourselves for people to leap out at us from all corners of the project to denounce what I say as at best the product of unfathomable ignorance, and at worst detrimental to the moral fiber of the nation.
There are two (maybe more, but two I can think of offhand) things we're trying to prevent:
  • (1) You don't want tiny fragments that look odd alone stranded on the start of a line. Thus World War{nbsp}2 and Henry{nbsp}VIII.
  • (2) You don't want two things separated by a linebreak if the reader, seeing just the first part, will be momentarily misled and have to back up and rethink when he sees the bit on the next line. Thus $2{nbsp}million, because if the million goes on the next line the reader first thinks "Two dollars", and then when he sees the million he has to back up and think "Oh, wait, Two million dollars". (This is a peculiarity of the fact that money symbols go at front of quantities rather than at the end as with other units. Can anyone think of a similar example not involving money?)
(3) Notice that the logic of (2) doesn't arise with normal quantities like 15 seeds or 2 million dollars (i.e. no nbsp used in these cases) because as the reader scans "15<linebreak>seeds" there's nothing misleading about 15 alone at the end of the line, and the same for scanning "2<linebreak>million dollars" or "2 million<linebreak>dollars". When you think about it, if you required nbsp in constructions like that, then you're pretty much saying every number anywhere must be followed by an nbsp, and that can't be right. So I would not put {nbsp} in your examples.
(4) Units of measure are a special case. By the logic of (3), there's no {nbsp} in 10 kilometers. However, I think the guideline does recommend an {nbsp} in the case of 10{nbsp}km, because at the start of a line km looks weird in a way kilometer doesn't. (km is what's called a unit symbol, whereas kilometer is what's called a unit name, and there are several other ways in which unit symbols and unit names are treated differently, so there's nothing odd about treating them differently here.)
Perhaps the principles laid out above can be the start of a revival of this thread. EEng 03:04, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
Or perhaps not. In the meantime, here are some other places I think (comment invited, of course) nbsp would be needed or not needed. Probably some or all of these are give by others in the posts above but I want to get them down while they're on my mind.
Needed:
  • In DMY dates e.g. 28{nbsp}May or 28{nbsp}May 1935, because at least some readers will find separation of the day-in-month from the month odd. (Further explanation on request as to why this is different from the case of 10 kilometers.)
  • In MDY dates e.g. May{nbsp}28, 1935, because "28, 1935" looks ludicrous at the start of a line.
  • He responded, "Better you than{nbsp}I." or The smallest reading was{nbsp}5.
  • 9:30{nbsp}a.m. because I think it's somewhat analogous to a unit symbol (see above); and definitely 9:30{nbsp}am, because "am" alone and separated from the "9:30" could cause the reader to trip and fall.
  • several{nbsp}.22 shells, because starting a line with a . looks weird
  • <certain image caption situations, details to be supplied (centered captions, left-aligned captions)>
  • Ellipsis or other fragments at the start of a quotation: He listed them as "1.{nbsp}Good goals, 2. Good planning, 3. Good execution; or The torn fragment read, "...{nbsp}for the love of God!"
  • July{{nbsp}}28, 1942 ????
Not needed:
  • 123 Main Street
EEng 00:48, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
  • I ask people here: how often have you struck a dangling numeral at the end of a line? Me: not that I can recall. Tony (talk) 07:08, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
    By struck do you mean "run into/happened to find" or "struck out/had to get rid of"? EEng 16:14, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
    Perhaps that was meant to be "stuck", the synonym for "put". —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 23:58, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
  • I could see having a summary section somewhere (hopefully not in the main page, maybe in MOS:TEXT) about "Appropriate uses of non-breaking spaces" or some heading title like that, in which we could suggest these sorts of cases, without implying that they're required. People already rankle at the currently fairly-strongly-recommended ones in MOS:NUM and a few other places. So, there's opportunity to cry "WP:CREEP!" here if this discussion produces more rules, rather than optional tweaks for polishing up text for maximum usability.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:30, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
    Definitely for FA-level polishing, mostly, but there's one situation where I've found it worth the trouble to apply nbsp/nobr fairly liberally: in image captions, because their short line length means bad breaks do occur now and then unless you prevent them. EEng 03:45, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
  • I'm surprised to see the above quote from MOS:NUM (WP:UNITNAMES): "a normal space is used between a number and a unit name". Personally, I would find a line break within the example's "29
    kilograms" rather ugly. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 00:05, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
    Me, too. The position "you're pretty much saying every number anywhere must be followed by an nbsp" that EEng spoke against earlier actually seems to me to be the best practice. Your example of a break between 29 and kilograms not only looks "ugly", but makes me think that there has been a misprint of some sort causing me to have trouble understanding what is written. --Khajidha (talk) 19:38, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Somewhat related, but since the discussion here is almost-exclusively referencing insertion of NBSPs, I wanted to re-raise this previous discussion where I advocated for using Template:nowrap instead of NBSPs. The simple reason being that (at least on my system / in my browser) {{nowrap}} has the same effect as the insertion of NBSPs, without affecting spacing of the text the way NBSP does (again, at least on my system). Here's the example I presented:
Bare Wikilinked
Using {{nowrap}} World War I World War I
Using &nbsp; World War I World War I
Looking at that on my screen, the &nbsp; version has a much larger — in fact, uncomfortably large — space between "War" and "I", whereas the {{nowrap}} version is spaced normally. If we can protect phrases against wrapping without making the formatting look weird, I figure that makes the decision on when/whether to do so a bit less fraught. -- FeRDNYC (talk) 02:52, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

Something from somewhere else

From User:Tony1/Monthly_updates_of_styleguide_and_policy_changes / WP:Wikipedia_Signpost/2008-07-07/Dispatches --EEng 15:34, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Non-breaking spaces. The narrower scope for using non-breaking (i.e., "hard") spaces was significantly clarified. They should be used:

  • in compound expressions in which figures and abbreviations or symbols are separated by a space (17 kg, AD 565, 2:50 pm);
  • between month and day in dates that are not autoformatted (August 3, 1979);
  • on the left side of spaced en dashes; and
  • in other places where displacement might be disruptive to the reader, such as £11 billion, 5° 24′ 21.12″ N, Boeing 747, and the first two items in 7 World Trade Center.

Improve Controlling line breaks section

It seems that it would be good if the example markup of 5° 24′ N included a non-breaking space between the 5degrees and the 24minutes and the N. DGerman (talk) 21:18, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Does this still need to remain unarchived?

EEng? valereee (talk) 17:20, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Along with patrollers reflexively responding to edit requests with "Get consensus first", it's one of those things I plan to get to sometime between now and when I die. EEng 17:31, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
It's been here for two years. I say let it archive. If people want to raise it again, and maybe get a clearer consensus, then okay. But this isn't attracting new meaningful commentary.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  15:37, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
But it acts as a mute reminder that I need to get back to this someday! Isn't that reason enough for keeping it here? EEng 02:08, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
It's been another 7 months. This is just a really big block of clutter at this point.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  17:01, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
Let it go. Any future discussion can reference the archives. – The Grid (talk) 17:45, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Revert

Latest comment: 1 year ago3 comments2 people in discussion

On 24 January 2023, User:John Maynard Friedman made a revert with the explanation "rv good faith but wait for consensus". The reverted edit was done after a degree of consensus in the discussion that was linked in the edit summary ( Difficult-to-implement guidance in MOS:FOREIGNITALIC ). Please join said discussion as I don't see how the current guidance of following dictionary's italics is of any use nowadays. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 17:36, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

But the discussion did not reach a consensus, it just petered out. If you believe it concluded as you say, then you should have asserted that view at the end of the discussion rather than just go ahead as if had been resolved to your satisfaction.
As I remarked already, there are two reasons for italics and they are getting muddled here. One is purely visual, which is fine for sighted readers. The other is to identify (a) a non-English word and (b) indicate which language it is, so that screen readers used by visitors with impaired vision may interpret it. Per MOS:ACCESS, we must not deliberately or carelessly disable those visitors.
Pinging @SMcCandlish: for comment, as they know more about this issue than I do. I could be overstating it. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 19:15, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
Sorry, S McC, comments should go to Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Text formatting#Difficult-to-implement guidance in MOS:FOREIGNITALIC. I will copy my reply above there. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 19:19, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Mobile app designed to collapse tables by default

Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion

MOS:DONTHIDE states "Collapsible templates should not conceal article content by default upon page loading." While this is true on mobile versions of the Wikipedia website, it is not on native Wikipedia mobile apps (e.g., Android). The app is designed so that "Tables are collapsed by default for readability on small devices" [24]. fgnievinski (talk) 14:16, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

We should just add a clarifying footnote about this.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  18:35, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Plural(s) vs Plural/s

Latest comment: 1 year ago4 comments3 people in discussion

As the title shows, there are two ways to type the possible plurality of a noun. Orange(s) OR Apple/s. Which is correct? I believe the first is more common but still... also, maybe this should be added to the MOS? 3point1415 (talk) 21:03, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Far be it from me to proclaim one type of signifier "correct" but generally I have seen Orange(s) more commonly than Apple/s. I'd say it should be added to the MOS considering how these things can be interpreted differently by people who haven't encountered them before.
JBrahms (talk) 02:43, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply! Could you help me move forward with proposing the addition to the MOS? The WP:PROPOSAL page is pretty confusing. 3point1415 (talk) 07:13, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
See WP:MOSBLOAT. Unless there is a long history of editorial dispute about something like this, we should not make MoS larger by addressing it.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:54, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Long dash confusion

Latest comment: 1 year ago8 comments7 people in discussion

MOS:EMDASH contradicts itself. First it says, "An em dash is unspaced." Then it shows, "The birds – at least the ones Darwin collected – had red and blue feathers," I am confused, should the mdash be spaced or not? Comfr (talk) 07:06, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

That appears to be an en-dash, not an em-dash. You should be able to tell that it's a bit shorter: en-dash is "–", em-dash is "—". When used in the way you quote, en-dashes are spaced, but em-dashes are unspaced. And now I'm wondering what happened to the ell-dash, for when we want them extra-long. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:29, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for clearing this up. I wish mediawiki had a tool for distinguishing between similar characters. Sometimes I must resort to using a hexadecimal editor to tell what I am editing. Comfr (talk) 08:15, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
David Eppstein, I don't know if it's an ell-dash, but I made {{long dash}} a while ago. It doesn't seem to be much used. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 08:47, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
Justlettersandnumbers, from the fact that David set it in small type I think this is a joke. Historically en-dashes were the same width as the letter "n" and em-dashes as "m". That would make a putative ell-dash rather narrow! Martin of Sheffield (talk) 09:00, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
I thoght he meant the ell-dash (for when we want them extra-long) would be an ell in length. DuncanHill (talk) 21:22, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
Twinkle, when turned on and in editing mode, helpfully marks dashes with an 'm' or 'n', while leaving hyphens unmarked. Other parsers might do the same. Dhtwiki (talk) 15:29, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
The main fix for Comfr's problem is installing and using fonts that clearly distinguish the two characters. Especially in the editor. See https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:SMcCandlish/codefont.css  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  07:00, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

commas outside prose

Latest comment: 1 year ago4 comments4 people in discussion

Does MOS:GEOCOMMA apply outside of running prose? For example, in an infobox, would "Lexington, Kentucky police" be acceptable (as it looks), or would it need to be "Lexington, Kentucky, police"? — Fourthords | =Λ= | 14:56, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

As far as I know, it should always be "Lexington, Kentucky, police" That's because the "Kentucky" is a clarifier for "Lexington", such clarifying words or phrases (known as Parenthesis (rhetoric)) are set aside by commas in this case, and they pretty much always are. It's really the Lexington police, and you're pre-supposing a question "Well, which Lexington?" by putting the "Kentucky" in there. Compare to "Bill, my brother, went to the funeral" for example. You can just say "Bill went to the funeral", but if you anticipate someone may need to know "Which Bill?", then you add "my brother" as a parenthesis, and set it apart with commas. --Jayron32 15:58, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
How about "... Lexington police ..."? The link already makes it clear which Lexington and there is no need for any commas at all — GhostInTheMachine talk to me 16:27, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
The article should still make sense if printed out or otherwise repurposed without links. If the context is clearly enough about Kentucky already, then no problems. Anyway, the answer to the original question is: It's "Lexington, Kentucky, police". Bracketing commas always come in pairs (unless the final one is replaced with other punctuation as in "from Lexington, Kentucky.").  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  07:07, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Should the "then-[title] [name]" construct be hyphenated or not?

Latest comment: 1 year ago12 comments6 people in discussion

For example, "her then-husband Joe". 'Then-husband' seems to be a compound modifier, and according to MOS:HYPHEN #3 should be hyphenated. However, according to at least one style guide, this construct should not be hyphenated. If it shouldn't be I think we should mention this in the MoS. Ping User:Jonesey95. –CWenger (^ • @) 21:37, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Link to previous discussion on my talk page. Here's an adapted version of what I said there: Nobody would write "the future-president Jane Smith" (for "Jane Smith, who would in the future become president") or "her Italian-boyfriend John Brown" (for "John Brown, her boyfriend, who is Italian"). The word "then" works the same way in this context. It is confusing because "then" is usually an adverb, so our brains get stuck in the wrong frame. This discussion originated from edits to Rachel Bilson. I linked to two mainstream style guides in my edit summaries there: National Geographic's, and the Cambridge Dictionary. These were the most mainstream style guides I could easily find on-line. I'll dig up some books if necessary. – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:49, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
How would you formulate this as a rule though? I agree 'then' is an adjective here but as I said before, it's not that the [adjective]-[noun] [noun] construct that doesn't get hyphenated, because we have short-story writer in the MoS. –CWenger (^ • @) 01:10, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
For what it's worth, the phrase then-President is used by White House and by Axios, itself quoting a judge's opinion. This is also used by NOAA, the DOJ, Department of State, and the University of Ohio. Then-husband is more hit-or-miss but is used by organizations that would follow style guidelines of their own, but I think if there were a convention against the hyphen then all these institutions wouldn't be using one in this instance. (Rolling Stone, apparently in a mad bid to give me a headache, uses the phrase then-future President Trump) - Aoidh (talk) 01:20, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
Also the Cambridge Dictionary is ambiguous because its example is: I wanted to live in the city, but my then husband preferred the country. There is no compound modifier in that sentence so I am not arguing for hyphenation in that instance. –CWenger (^ • @) 03:07, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for the examples. I think they help to clarify the situation. Some of these are different from "short-story writer" because the phrases are really appositives that leave out the comma. Here they are with the comma: "her then husband, John, jumped"; "her Italian boyfriend, Gianni, jumped". Also, a phrase like "my then husband preferred ice cream" does not need a hyphen. I think the rule might be "if the phrase containing then is followed by an appositive or by nothing, do not use a hyphen." So a construction like "On Tuesday, then-President Trump tore up classified documents" would be correct, because the "then-noun" combination is followed by a noun that is not an appositive. I think that rule would fit nearly all of the examples. Rolling Stone can do what it wants. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:02, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
As an aside, to add more complexity, one could argue for "then President Trump" without a hyphen because "President Trump" should be grouped together, so "then" becomes a non-compound modifier... –CWenger (^ • @) 15:41, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
I don't think anyone who understands compound modifiers would buy that argument.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  07:09, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
TBH, I wish we limitd the usage of "then", in these situations. For example: "In 1978, President Carter helped bring Egypt and Israel together in peace", as oppose to "In 1978, then-President Carter helped bring Egypt and Israel together in peace". GoodDay (talk) 14:59, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
Agreed.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  18:36, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
Yes, I avoid it for similar reasons. It's just overcomplex. Popcornfud (talk) 21:30, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
Yes, it should be hyphenated.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  18:36, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Why not the precomposed ellipsis character?

Latest comment: 1 year ago3 comments3 people in discussion
Wikipedia's style for an ellipsis is three unspaced dots (...); do not use the precomposed ellipsis character (…)

I understand this is the policy, but why is that Wikipedia prefers unspaced periods over the designated ellipsis character? Thanks – Olympian loquere 03:34, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

I have no idea why WP does that, but I think we're trying to follow most style guides, which strongly prefer either three unspaced dots or three spaced dots in formal written English. The ellipsis in one character looks quite tacky. --Coolcaesar (talk) 15:47, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
Yes, and it's just a readability problem for a lot of people who do not have great eyesight.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  07:10, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Clarification on the publication of business addresses

Latest comment: 1 year ago4 comments4 people in discussion

Would it be possible to clarify Wikipedia's position on the reproduction of business addresses on this page, specifically when published by reliable sources? Without wading this discussion down in political details, there are instances I can link to where the business address of one organisation has been included in their article, but the same information has been explicitly excluded from others, citing doxing/potential real-world harassment concerns. So either posting business addresses is OK or should be discouraged across the board. I've been a Wikipedian for over 15 years, but even I'm not sure if this is the correct page to ask this question, or if any particular user has the right to make this sort of sweeping change. An RfC maybe? But I believe this issue needs to be addressed one way or the other. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 01:44, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

This question is being asked in the context of LGB Alliance, a group that has taken office space at 55 Tufton Street, and the association of this address with numerous right-wing, libertarian, pro-Brexit groups of dubious/opaque financing has been the topic of over 1000 news articles (search Google News for "Tufton Street"). Some editors are trying to censor this information wrt LGB Alliance, edit warring over its mention and trying to delete Category:Tufton Street, etc. Of course, those editors are not at all concerned that all the articles we have on the other notorious residents of that address are on Wikipedia and all these addresses are publicly available records such as Ofcom or Company House. That LGB Alliance has taken an office at 55 Tufton Steet is recorded at the organisation's own article, at the 55 Tufton Street article, in a number of newspaper articles, at OfCom's public website and hundreds of other websites (if google search results are to be believed). This is hardly a doxing issue. -- Colin°Talk 08:00, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
I agree. Doxing would be about making private or hard to collate public information easily available. That isn't the case here. Moreover, I would say that in this instance, removing mention of 55 Tufton Street is simply not justified because reliable sources have mentioned the connection as something significant, such as here, here, and here (an opinion piece, but a statement of fact is made in the piece). Most articles on the other organisations housed at 55 Tufton St mention it because, as Colin says, it's something reliable news and political media talk about. It's true that LGB Alliance didn't want their connection to 55 Tufton Street made public, but I don't think it's Wikipedia's job to help them suppress information in the public domain and now publicised and commented on in RS. OsFish (talk) 09:16, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
Also agreed. This isn't doxing. But this is also not an MoS question, and should be raised somewhere more appropriate, like maybe WT:HARASS (where I think the answer will again be that this isn't a case of doxing or other harassment).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  07:13, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Colored-underlining links in example-text templates

Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Admittedly, this is a minor issue on the grand scheme of things, but I think it might help (albeit only a little bit) if, in the Manual of Style, we underline wikilinks in example-text templates like {{xt}} and {{!xt}} with the color of that example-text template. It would help readers distinguish if an example text is allowed or disallowed ({{xt}} or {{!xt}}) without having to check the page's source text and, in my opinion, simply helps with readability by just that much.

For reference, here are some underlining styles if we do end up implementing this (taking an example from MOS:NUMNOTES):

LightNightLights (talk) 20:53, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

We're already using color (and writing clearly enough contextually for the colorblind). Your proposal is really to just underline lots and lots and lots of stuff, using the colors we're already using. This would be visually worse that boldfacing the hell out of everything. And this isn't a MOS:UNDERLINE-sanctioned use of underlining.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  07:19, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

User of logos - case: Sydney Opera House

Latest comment: 1 year ago8 comments5 people in discussion

Hi there - a question on whether there is a Wikipedia position on using logos in infoboxes. In particular, as seen here on the Sydney Opera House article (logo on top of info box). To me, it looks out of place and a distraction to the article. I'm inclined to remove it, but would like to consider any other opinions first. thanks --Merbabu (talk) 00:48, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

It's pretty standard to include a small version of the logo in the infobox. See for example Argos_(retailer) (taken purely at random). I'd leave the opera house logo exactly as it is, remove it and I'd guess you'll be reverted fairly quickly. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 08:48, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
OK thanks for your comments. I should have mentioned, it's only appeared in recent months. With no discussion in support or against.--Merbabu (talk) 09:01, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
PS - I'd be keen to see whether there are other famous buildings with similar logos in Infoboxes. Hopefully there are more closer examples than an online retailer (Argos). --Merbabu (talk) 09:03, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
Would the Royal Opera House be a good example? Martin of Sheffield (talk) 09:19, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
I suspect the Sydney Opera House logo won't stay in that article article much longer; see c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Sydney Opera House logo.svg. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 11:56, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Use of diacritics in page titles

Latest comment: 1 year ago12 comments10 people in discussion

I have been overhauling several ancient history pages, and it appears to me that some of these will need to be renamed to fit their academically accurate names. The problem is that English Wikipedia does not seem to allow me to rename, for example, Yatie and Te'el-hunu to Yaṯiʿe and Teʾelḫunu, likely because of the diacritics used in these names even though there are existing pages where these diacritics are used. How can I deal with this issue? Antiquistik (talk) 11:37, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Is this desirable? This is the English language Wiki, and as such keeping to English versions of the name is likely to be of more use to our readers (remember WP:RF) than an obscure set of diacritics. I would leave the pages as they are, and add your "academically accurate names" in the lead. If you are really desperate to include these obscure names, try adding redirects. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 16:51, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
I agree. Follow WP:COMMONNAME whenever possible and use redirects for not-so-common names. Masterhatch (talk) 17:02, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
Don't use diacritics. GoodDay (talk) 17:16, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
Sometimes use diacritics. See WP:DIACRITICS. It's complicated, but I read the core as "follow the general usage in reliable sources that are written in the English language". SchreiberBike | ⌨  17:44, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for the input, @Martin of Sheffield:, @Masterhatch:, @GoodDay:, and @SchreiberBike:. However, I will need to point out that these diacritics are very commonly used in the Romanisation of Semitic languages, including of Hebrew and Arabic, and are already used in the titles of articles relating to these languages, and these articles themselves are about relatively obscure historical figures with no universally agreed on common names other than their academically-accurate names, which aligns with what @SchreiberBike: is saying.
And, while we are here on English Wikipedia, I do see that German Wikipedia, which therefore also doesn't use diacritics relating to the Romanisation of Semitic languages for the bulk of its articles, has been able to adequately use these diacritics in page names without it reducing the navigability of their platform.
And, given that overhauling Wikipedia's ancient history entries will likely require the expansion of our coverage of linguistics and the possible creation of numerous pages with similar names, I would nevertheless appreciate if I could be provided with a way to use the appropriate diacritics in the page names while also using redirects when necessary to easy navigation by readers. Antiquistik (talk) 17:48, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
Most titles with diacritics are possible and allowed, but you have to have certain level of adminship to move an article to a title with certain diacritics. Use the process described at WP:RM#TR if you think the move is uncontroversial, and an admin might move it for you. Indefatigable (talk) 18:03, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
It's controversial. So, for me, you have an article "Yatie" which OP is saying should be at "Yaṯiʿe". Well but what good is "Yaṯiʿe" to me? I don't know what a "ṯ" is, what it is called, or how it is pronounced (altho I would guess "t"). "iʿe", what is that? "ie" is a dipthong, and now you're putting punctuation in the middle of a dipthong, the heck am I supposed to do with that. "Yatie" I can at least try to pronounce, it's presumably either "YAY-tee" or "YAH-tee" so I've a 50% chance of being in the right general area at least. If I see "Yaṯiʿe" I will do the work of stripping away the odd glyphs and end with "Yatie" I suppose, so at least there's that (unlike some other cases). But "not all that confusing, this time" isn't a high bar. You shouldn't need a college education to read the Wikipedia. Also, people can't search on "Yaṯiʿe" anyway. Herostratus (talk) 00:45, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
Controversial. The main reason they were not used in our English language sources is that the typesetters lacked them, or found them a nuisance. This is increasingly not the case now that we have computers, but they create more problems. One that I'm constantly running into is code pages. Put simply, I cannot always cut and paste them in order to feed them to the bots or automated tools. (Don't get me started on the stupid ndash.)
In addition, I would caution their use with modern languages. I have fielded complaints for the subjects of BLP articles (and the biographers of dead ones) that the use of glyphs is endorsing certain political perspectives ie claiming for the subject a nationality with which they do not wish to be associated. As such, I have removed them under WP:BLP, WP:NPOV and WP:COMMONNAME. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:03, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
I figure it this way. If they ain't in the english alphabet? Then don't use'em. GoodDay (talk) 03:19, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
The pages should be at their common name in English. If that is with diacritics, so be it. For example, the Yugoslav-American scholar Jozo Tomasevich is at that title, not Jozo Tomašević. However, that is probably because he published with that name in English, and used it in general. Many Yugoslav bios are at names that include diacritics because it is the most common way their names are rendered in English language sources. Throughout his extensive English works on Yugoslavia in WWII, Tomasevich consistently uses diacritics for names and places etc. So do Marko Attila Hoare, Sabrina Ramet and Stevan Pavlowitch in their works on the same time and place. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:13, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
Yep. We have a handful of editors, since the dawn of WP, pushing the "death to diacritics" angle, but they have no policy leg to stand on and their anti-diacritic propositions fail again and again and again. They need to WP:DROPTHESTICK.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  07:27, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Small caps in quotations

Latest comment: 1 year ago8 comments4 people in discussion

Should MOS:CONFORM recommend that small caps formatting generally be preserved in quoted material? A recent edit by Libhye introduced such a rule. This puts this guideline in conflict with MOS:SMALLCAPS (part of MOS:CAPS), which advises "In quoted material, all caps or small caps for emphasis should be replaced with italic emphasis or, in an already italic passage, boldface". I'd love to see the change happen at both pages, or neither. Libhye mentioned Tony1 thanking them for the change, so a ping for them as well. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 05:37, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Addendum: it was actually a series of two edits which also changed the guidance on all caps and underlining/spacing within words. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 05:45, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
Two things: small caps are one of four standard faces in each font: roman (normal), italic, bold, and small caps. Second, I don't think I like that business of replacing small caps with italics in quotations. Normal all-caps, yes—it's too much in your face. Tony (talk) 08:19, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
Removing underlining, space ing within words, and all caps from MOS:CONFORM seems to go against many discussions here. I guess small caps have also been discussed, and they are certainly unwanted in MOS:ALLCAPS/MOS:SMALLCAPS. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 08:49, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
I'm not seeing consensus for the changes, and am planning to restore the status quo ante in a couple days if no one else chimes in. Happy to see further discussion, or another form of dispute resolution, but leaving up inconsistent guidance that's unsupported by consensus is untenable in the medium term. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:48, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
I already restored the section "Typographic conformity" some days ago. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 04:17, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
I missed it! Thanks, MB. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:27, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
Yeah, there is definitely no consensus for those changes, and we routinely shift all-caps to some less nutty form of emphasis, usually italics, under CONFORM.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  07:29, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Broken heading markup in the MOS

Latest comment: 1 year ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Please don't embed the span class in a markup. For example:

===Apostrophes <span class="anchor" id="Foreign characters that resemble apostrophes"></span>===

It breaks the link to the text in the edit history. -- Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 11:47, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Fixed that one (with an anchor tag under the heading).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  09:45, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
{{Anchor}} is explicit that the span tag to anchor a section does go in the section-header. DMacks (talk) 20:08, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
Then the template documentation is wrong, since doing that obviously causes problems.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  07:31, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Archive_226&oldid=1148248562"