User talk:Wikipedialuva/Archives/2023/October

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Wikipedialuva. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

AWB request

Hi Wikipedialuva, would you be able to run AutoWikiBrowser on Hydrothermal vent? There are a few duplicate references that AWB could likely make quick work of. I'm asking you as I recently saw this edit you did at Glass ceiling. No worries if you don't want to for any reason. Thanks! Wracking ^talk! 06:16, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

@Wracking:

Done! Wikipedialuva (talk) 06:31, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Thanks so much!

Wracking ^talk! 06:52, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

@Wracking: My pleasure! Feel free to request any AWB edits you would like me to do; they only take a few seconds. Thanks! Wikipedialuva (talk) 08:44, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for editing the MC page

File:Cesar Mandela.jpg	'NO LIFE IS WORTH THE RISK'
	Thanks for editing the Mandela Catalogue page!! keep it up!! Babysharkboss2 was here!! 15:23, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Cleanup that is the opposite of cleanup

Please stop removing hyphens from compound modifiers. These take hyphens, per MOS:HYPHEN. And LCCNs use hyphens (optionally), never en dashes (see LCCN). If you've been doing a bunch of the kinds of changes you did at The Hustler then you need to go back through an undo it. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 11:44, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

@SMcCandlish: Hi! Thanks for bringing my attention to the fact that LCCNs only use hyphens rather than endashes. I apologize, as I was not aware of this, and I will try to avoid making this error in the future. It might be helpful to mention this at the AWB talk so that other AWB users do not make the same mistake.

The other issue you mentioned involved whether the hyphen removed in the word "well-received" was appropriate in the sentence: "The film was well-received by critics, although with the occasional reservation." Whether removing the hyphen is appropriate in this case is not immediately apparent, and several different sources give conflicting information.

What I was taught is what Grammarly notes: "Remember to omit the hyphen when the compound comes after a noun."[1] Chegg states: "A hyphen should not be added to compound adjectives that come after a noun."[2] In this case of the sentence in question, "well-received" is the compound adjective, and it came after the noun it was describing.

The Merriam-Webster online dictionary entry for "received" also gives an example that also seems to support no hyphen in the above situation: "If Day Shift is well received, don't be surprised to find Perry and Stahelski reteaming for a sequel or two."[3] (citing Clark Collis, EW.com, 12 August 2022)

Oxford Learner’s Dictionary uses the example for the entry "receive" without a hyphen for "well-received" in a nearly identical situation as to the one in question: "The play was well received by the critics."[4]

In contrast, several dictionaries, such as Collins, seem to support a hyphen in nearly every situation of "well-received".[5]

Which finally brings us to the binding MOS:HYPHEN policy. The relevant section of this policy states: "A hyphen is normally used when the adverb well precedes a participle used attributively (a well-meaning gesture; but normally a very well managed firm, because well itself is modified) and even predicatively, if well is necessary to, or alters, the sense of the adjective rather than simply intensifying it (the gesture was well-meaning, the child was well-behaved, but the floor was well polished)." I was not aware of this specific part of the policy before researching this topic, but it does appear that the MOS statement, to me at least, supports your claim that "well-received" should generally be hyphenated, even in cases like the one above where it is used predicatively.

However, either the RegExTypoFix team has a different interpretation of said rule or has not heard of said rule, as they have a rule on their typo list that explicitly removes the hyphen for the term “well-received“ in which it will remove the hyphen (see WP:AWB/T under the "New: remove other hyphens (replace with space)" section).

<Typo word="well received" find="\b([wW])ell-received\b(?=\.|\s+(?:at\b|by\b|in\b))" replace="$1ell received"/>

Most AWB users and users of several other tools (i.e., WPCleaner) use RegExTypoFix to automate suggestions for changes to articles, and many editors will follow its suggestions on this issue. (I would like to note that I did review the edit; however, as I noted earlier, I was always taught not to hyphenate compound adjectives that come after a noun.) Therefore, if this is an important issue to you, I would suggest you discuss this topic on the RegExTypoFix talk page. Alternatively, I could start the discussion if you would prefer; however, you appear to be more familiar with and more qualified to discuss the MOS:HYPHEN policy than me and therefore may be better suited to lead a discussion regarding it. Thanks again for alerting me to these issues! Wikipedialuva (talk) 04:00, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't care what the Grammarly blog says, or what some other publisher's dictionary prefers. WP has its own style guide. We hyphenate compound modifiers. MOS:HYPHEN. The exception is -ly constructions ("rapidly deployed patches", etc.) — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 05:32, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

@SMcCandlish: I am aware of and understand how MOS policy works; I clearly noted in my response that the MOS:HYPHEN policy was "binding" to edits made on Wikipedia. I was giving the background and context as to why I approved the edit because the MOS policy in this case is not the common way people are taught, nor is the hyphen commonly used like this outside of Wikipedia.

With that in mind, to prevent other users from making a similar error that uses tools that utilize RegExTypoFix, I suggested it would be prudent to start a discussion on the RegExTypoFix talk to see if the rule should be changed; however, you did not respond in your reply. I also suggested that you may be best suited for this; however, I said I would do it if you did not want to. If you do not want to start the discussion, I will. Please let me know either way. Thanks! Wikipedialuva (talk) 08:10, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

If "that's not the way I was taught" was a rationale to not follow our style guidelines, then WP could never have any style guidelines at all, because style varies wildly from place to place and generation to generation, with elementary through secondary schools in particular teaching strongly conflicting things to different bodies of students. Our MoS is based, for good reasons, closely on the material that is largely in agreement between the four major academic-register writing manuals for the general public: Chicago Manual of Style, New Hart's Rules/Oxford Style Manual, Garner's Modern English, and Fowler's Dictionary of Modern English (plus Scientific Style and Format for technical matters). It is not and never will be based on textbooks used by 9th graders 30 years ago. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 00:12, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

@SMcCandlish: Nowhere did I say or otherwise indicate that "that's not the way I was taught" was a rationale for not following MOS guidelines; in fact, as I explicitly stated in my first and second responses, I acknowledged that MOS is binding. I also have no desire to change the MOS guidelines on this topic; if I did, I would be trying to obtain consensus to do so over at the MOS talk. By giving examples of conflicting guidance on this issue, I was merely indicating that this specific MOS guideline is what many people are commonly taught not to do (including beyond secondary education) and is in conflict with some of the styles that people are used to using. I also noted that this fact can become problematic when it is combined with a widely used tool (RegExTypoFix) that has a specific rule coded into it that suggests that the hyphen should be removed for the word "well-received". In order to prevent more edits from editors that use this tool that suggests violating this MOS guideline, I suggested that the coded rule in RegExTypoFix be discussed with those that maintain RegExTypoFix and, if consensus is obtained, be changed. Wikipedialuva (talk) 04:23, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Done, and sorry if I did not get your meaning sooner. But "if consensus is obtained" is not really a factor. There is already a sitewide consensus that we hyphenate compound modifiers. Automated tools are required to operate within our guidelines. A tool ignoring one of them doesn't magically become a tail that wags the dog. Otherwise I could create a bot that, say, forces all dates to ISO format, and through its very existence claim that WP's date formatting guidelines suddenly had no consensus and had to be re-established with a new consensus discussion to make my bot stop what it is doing wrong. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 11:15, 8 October 2023 (UTC)