Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 119

Archive 115

←

Archive 117

Archive 118

Archive 119

Archive 120

Archive 121

→

Archive 125

unit conversion templates, good or bad

(And please don't tell me not to ask here, to ask on the FA forum, since until I have an FA done, I lack street cred.  ;))

What do y'all think of the use of unit conversion templates as opposed to manually typing the conversion? (good or bad, or even the movement to require them). Sounds dumb, but I find that the conversion templates have occasional bad features. Like when I have a rounded number of meters (200 m) giving me 679 ft or the like, just looks bad. There's an implied vagueness of measurement in the first measurement which I WANT TO KEEP (we are talking about how far away from land a painted turtle nests, NOT the well-surveyed height of Everest.) If I do it manually, I can kind of decide how to tweak the rounding on the second unit. Also, I may try yards vice feet to get around this. But I find the conversions in the first place kinda load the article down. And I am even a bit of a conservative, but in a science article, could see using metric (not in a US state article, though). But anyway, if we are going to have them, the FA requirement to use them, ends up making the text look worse than what I could do on my own, manually. I'm just saying...TCO (talk) 16:35, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

P.s. and just to keep my conservative street cred, kn is so, so unused for knot. I'll bet you can survey style guides, published usage, etc. and find WAY more kt than kn. I've got my "time on the pond" on that unit. TCO (talk) 16:38, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

The {{convert}} template rounds unwisely, and chooses units arbitrarily. It is always better to do unit conversions by hand, if your arithmetic can be trusted. (Not everybody's can, and it's more trouble; that's why there is a template.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:42, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

I see no special merit in putting in the conversion template rather than calculating and typing for yourself, esp if the data is unlikely to change in future edits. However, if you change your edit to {{convert|200|m|ft|sigfig=2}}, or to {{convert|200|m|ft|-1}}, then you'll get 200 metres (660 ft) Kevin McE (talk) 17:52, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Manual conversion is unquestionably more vandal-prone. If necessary, require the usage to specify the number of significant digits rather than inferring it, but by all means avoid the manual conversion when possible. LeadSongDog come howl! 18:03, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) There's no move that I'm aware of to mandate the use of the {{convert}} template, as opposed to conversions done by whatever means, and I very much doubt that there ever will be. I pretty much always use the template myself. The issues that PMAnderson alludes to are the template's default behaviour, all of which can be parameterised. Your example of "implied vagueness" can be dealt with like this, for instance {{convert|200|m|ft|sigfig=1}} (giving 200 metres (700 ft)), depending on how much vagueness you're looking for. Malleus Fatuorum 18:13, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Sig figs field is perfect. We will use and conform (to the policy that is NOT creeping in). Seriously, thanks!TCO (talk) 18:22, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

BTW, in that situation, I would go with 660 as sorta "looking right". I think the reader understands it is a converted quantity, thus the added digit. But 659 looks bad, and 700 is too far "off". Same thing comes up with converting 2 kms to miles, 1.2 just reads better than "1". Thanks again on the sig figs field! TCO (talk) 18:35, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

The convert template is more easily maintained as pointed out by Leadsongdog, because it is relatively vandal resistant. Try to figure out by eyeball whether a change by an IP from horsepower to joules is a correction or vandalism. It's a pain the rest of us don't need. When I find something changed that an editor entered manually, I am forced to use convert to reenter and ensure it was either done correctly the first, or the second time. Why fool around? It's better to do it right the first time. Help out your fellow editors and those of us who "watch/patrol" pages by using the template.

And the initial, well-meaning, trustworthy, reliable editor is still prone to error. Convert will also figure out what to convert to, which is sometimes useful (sometimes not). For example, it converts inches of rain to millimeters. Who would have thunk that the rest of the world would want rain in millimeters? It makes no sense, except in a desert someplace, but I don't have to worry about it. Convert makes the decision for me. At other times it makes more sense to convert a large number of small units into square miles/km, which the template does easily, with no mistakes. Student7 (talk) 21:15, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

In short, {{convert}} is not always useful; it chooses inappropriate targets to convert to; it chooses the wrong number of digits to state; but we have to use it anyway "to help our fellow editor" (especially when they can't check a multiplication - that's what calculators were invented to do). Don't help your fellow editor; help the reader - and if checking calculations is not what you're best at, do feel free to check something else. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:29, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Both the target unit(s) and the rounding can be specified. (I think the defaults in many cases make no sense at all, but that'd belong to Template talk:Convert, not here.) A. di M. (talk) 02:00, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

I think Convert helps the reader in the same way a vandalbot helps the reader. Both prevent the reader from seeing wrong information immediately, not later when someone happens to fix it. Automation also frees up editors to help the reader in other ways. Art LaPella (talk) 02:10, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

The presence of an adjustable sig fig may be all I needed. Also had an interesting glitch where we used it for converting celsius to farenhiet, BUT we were refering to a difference of degrees and of course it converted absoltue temperature. No biggie though. I'm fine with fitting in.TCO (talk) 23:49, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

The temperature difference vs. absolute temperature problem probably affects hundreds of Wikipedia articles; I wonder whether someone could design a clever bot to find them all. But further to your original question, an unmentioned advantage of {{convert}} is that it suppresses inappropriate wrapping without the need for  , which I suspect would be more confusing to new editors than the template. A disadvantage is that it sometimes breaks sorting in tables, as its output gets sorted "alphabetically", by which I mean 2000 would get put in between 10 and 30. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 07:02, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

To convert temperature differences, use e.g. increased by 14 °F (8 °C) (though this is one of the cases when if no precision is specified the default is completely absurd). The sorting table is not a disadvantage of the template as the same would also happen when giving the conversions by hand, and in both cases you can write {{sort|0074|{{convert|74|kg|lb|0}}}}/{{sort|0074|74 kilograms (163 lb)}} (assuming the largest value in the table is less than 10,000 kg). A. di M. (talk) 12:54, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Ah! I didn't know either of those things. Thanks for the tips! Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 14:05, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree with PMA and others: conversion templates are usually not a good idea. Editors need to exert control over the details. When I copy-edit, sometimes I have to remove them to make the conversions consistent and sensible. On this matter, I do wish WP editors had a readily accessible page for calculating conversions. It seems that the very existence of these templates has made us lazy on this count. Tony (talk) 15:45, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

If you don't like the template, there are websites like http://www.unitconverters.net/ Art LaPella (talk) 22:13, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Or Google for that matter. A. di M. (talk) 10:00, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

You can control details with {{convert}} if you know how to do that. (You can't control everything, but the conversions for which I don't use it because I can't get it to do exactly what I want are about one in twenty.) A. di M. (talk) 16:02, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

But the effect of our present language has not been to get editors to learn the tools of {{convert}} which make it adjustable; it has been to inspire bots and bot-like edits which go around installing {{convert}} at its default settings whether those are appropriate or not. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:48, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

What "present language" are you talking about? Right now the MOS doesn't even mention Template:Convert, so if editors go blindly adding it without even checking whether the defaults make sense, that's only their own fault. A. di M. (talk) 04:31, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Actually, MOS:CONVERSIONS does mention it: "Category:Conversion templates can be used to convert and format many common units, including {{convert}}, which includes non-breaking spaces." Then there's the usual contradiction at WP:VAMOS#Measurements: "convert by template, as the MOS requires". Art LaPella (talk) 05:42, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

It seems that (as so often happens) we need to make the MoS consistent. It also seems to me that {{convert}} can do pretty much everything we'd like, but that it's frequently misused. That makes me hesitant to require it. On the other hand, it's more maintainable and vandal-proof than manual conversions, so it feels like a better long-term solution. I would support language that recommended {{convert}}, but that strongly advised editors to read the documentation and carefully ensure a good result; if editors are unable or unwilling to use {{convert}} correctly, they should be required to use a manual conversion. Ozob (talk) 13:40, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Me too. A. di M. (talk) 13:49, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

No "hiding" information?

I have just discovered that the policy (MOS:COLLAPSE) prevents concealing a list of people who have run an organization, like the mayors of a town, or the presidents of a university. Yes, I know that Wikipedia is NOTALIST. Some of these people in a list were notable; but most weren't. This was once the only list that was allowed, no other names allowed in place or school articles. Some of these lists were long, and concealing them did allow readers to skip them at will. I guess they will have to be erased which is a shame IMO. A bit of history lost to readers. And often, there is no other list anywhere that is current. Student7 (talk) 21:59, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Don't delete good content. The sometimes-inconvenience of scrolling past a list is not a reason to delete a list. --Cybercobra (talk) 02:52, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

• I'm not sure this discussion belongs here, but also, you need to define what "good content" is. My inclusionist friends may disagree with me here, but we ought to follow WP:N and WP:NOT#DIRECTORY too. I rarely hesitate to remove list of non-notable people (be they supporting cast, faculty, committee members of an organisation/production) where they are of limited relevance to the central topic (and sometimes even when they are directly relevant, but resolutely fail WP:N) or otherwise constitute a laundry list. To cite an example: we might often have details of the president or chairman of a notable organisation, but where this article goes on to list every "Tom, Dick or harry" on the committee, it crosses the line, IMHO. Collapsing a list may make it less obtrusive, but there really ought to be a good reason to keep same information, collapsed, expanded or otherwise. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 03:26, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I guess you have almost convinced me about lists of mayors, presidents, etc. I still think that some elected positions in a town should be listed. I have to admit, these lists can get pretty long. Someone correctly observed in a small village I was maintaining that the number of "officials" was a rather high proportion of the number of adults living in the village. I had to agree that the list shouldn't be that long. Almost none are notable. Sorry, if this discussion shouldn't be here. It arose because of no COLLAPSEd lists. Student7 (talk) 16:10, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm having a hard time understanding that guidance on collapsing. I don't think I agree with it either, and I don't know the background, but to start with, it's hard to understand. On content: surely collapse is a highly useful device. (even for text). And why would putting a list in a table make it any different than if bulleted (although I guess putting stuff in a table allows getting the needed benefit, while still matching policy.TCO (talk) 16:36, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Remember, this is one of the items, I had to reverse myself on!  :)

The question would arise: Why am I "hiding" information? In my case above, I was hiding it because most people would not be interested in a long list of non-notable people (people without articles). The other editors are saying (in affect) "Aha! Why am I putting non-notable stuff in an article to begin with?" (I had no good answer).

If these were all notable mayors, people would be tremendously interested because how many times do members of a tiny city get to be notable? It would be of great interest. But my list didn't have that quality.

The flip side is, maybe I am trying to conceal someone else's material that I don't like or agree with! That would normally get quick attention though.  :) In other words, there seems to be no good reason to "hide" stuff. Having said all that, it is normal to hide stuff in navigational boxes at the end. They accumulate and are simply too long to display them all to people who aren't normally interested. But that is the only exception I have found. Student7 (talk) 21:39, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I think there is a lot of benefit of having some click to expand text versus a subpage, at times. See subpages and summaries constantly clashing. Yes, a click to expand could be non-consistent as well, just as sections of an article might. but I think consistency would average higher and also reader appreciates staying in same window for comparisons, etc. this is not to say never have a subpage. also, it's just a feature. like wikilinking or the like. media is changing...

Of course, your list, well...that's not what I mean really. I mean more when articles are getting long, but still splitting into pages will not be best solution.TCO (talk) 23:33, 17 December 2010 (UTC)ho

The browser still has to load the full text of the page including the hidden stuff, even if the user doesn't click "show", so if the problem is that a page is long, {hide} doesn't solve it. A. di M. (talk) 01:26, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't think browser size is what drives the limitation, but, rather, the ergomics of information processing.  ;) TCO (talk) 02:01, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

I too would support at least an RFC on collapsible content. The biggest argument against it is that since pages shouldn't exceed a certain size, the mount of scrolling should be limited. The exception to this argument is long lists (of short items). Therefore I would support an exception allowing collapsibility of long lists of short items. Rich Farmbrough, 02:24, 22 December 2010 (UTC).

Almost every time I see country subpages with summaries, there are marked differences between the two. I suspect having the content on the same page, would help keep things more consistent (yes, you could still ahve a breakdown, just like with section to section, but I think it would be less). All kinds of other parts of the web, like blogs, use click for more info. Readers don't like having to open a seconde window. Click for more info would be sweet. TCO (talk) 02:34, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Summaries are horrible. Don't know how to keep them in sync. New editors add to summary and neither edit nor even check the forked article. (Sometimes the original editor deliberately omitted the info the new editor is adding). Eventually the summary becomes as big or bigger than the fork! "Summaries" are a another whole topic. Student7 (talk) 13:52, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I can think of an example of this! At Derivative#Derivatives of elementary functions we have an intentionally short list of the most common derivatives. A long-standing problem was that editors (usually new or anonymous) would add to the list, even though the list is intentionally very selective. So now there are HTML comments in the wikisource that say, "DO NOT ADD TO THIS LIST". This seems to have solved the problem. Perhaps HTML comments would be a useful tactic in other situations? Ozob (talk) 23:59, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, or a special warning on any section that has a summary (so that the editor is warned of this, automate it IOW). TCO (talk) 00:50, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

The Manual of Style is a guide applicable to all Wikipedia articles(?)

The first box on the page says, "This guideline is a part of the English Wikipedia's Manual of Style."

In contrast, the first sentence under the section [General Principles] states,
"The Manual of Style is a guide applicable to all Wikipedia articles."
If this is intended, it is hard to tell where the General Principles end and the "English Wikipedia Manual of Style" section starts.  The next use of the word "English" appears in the subsection "Follow the Sources."

Proposal is to insert the word "English":

The Manual of Style is a guide applicable to all English Wikipedia articles.
RB  66.217.118.31 (talk) 18:16, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't see the need. Every policy and guideline on this site applies to the English Wikipedia. Other language versions have their own policies and guidelines. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 21:50, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Concur. We have a gazillion other places where we just refer to Wikipedia. Gonna be a hell of a lot of Englishes that need to get dropped in otherwise. And when no one is really confused. Only worth clarifying when we are talking inter-wiki or the like.TCO (talk) 22:02, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, verily, or there be too many repetitionſ and variationſ of Engliſh. -- SEWilco (talk) 23:13, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

(ec)First of all, for my information, where does the policy say "Every policy and guideline on this site applies to the English Wikipedia"?  Secondly, let me try to respond to the doubt that there is a purpose for this proposal.  My experience was to skim down the entire page and there was no place that actually says that this MOS is for use with English.  I can't tell if the "General Principles" is from an old version written back when English was the only Wikipedia, or if there is some application for this MOS in other languages.  And nowhere does the page say "Use English".  (WP:TALK explicitly says, "Use English".)  Thanks, RB  66.217.117.119 (talk) 23:37, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree, having stated it once at the top, it seems unnecessary to repeat it. Tony (talk) 14:42, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

• I think there is an abundance of context in this case; the other Wikipedias have their own manuals of style. Unfortunately, the language herein kinda creates its own ambiguity. We should let context work to its fullest – I see little need to use the word 'Wikipedia' in the sentence "The Manual of Style is a guide applicable to all Wikipedia articles." --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 06:20, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Amending WP:DASH to include a note about figure dashes

Please see figure dash I have changed the section of the MoS redirected from WP:DASH to include a brief not about the use of figure dashes on the Englih Wikipedia. As far as I'm aware, it's only come up twice in naming an article: 867-5309/Jenny and Royal Albert Hall London May 2-3-5-6, 2005. I moved both of those from the version that includes hyphens to one using figure dashes and the consensus was to move back the title of the article, but to use the figure dash in the body text as appropriate. For what it's worth, I am still in favor of using the figure dash in the title as well. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:54, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

The problem with that is North American phone numbers are defined as using the hyphen, not the figure dash by the standards body that determines these things. The citation is in the archives somewhere from a previous discussion. oknazevad (talk) 21:14, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Found it here.oknazevad (talk) 21:22, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

The cited standard is: International Telecommunications Union E.123 : Notation for national and international telephone numbers, e-mail addresses and Web addresses. The standard says the space character is the separator. If you use the space character in both national and international numbers then you're compliant with E.123. If you use any other character in an international number then you're non-compliant. You may use another character in national numbers and claim compliance with E.123 if you can refer to some other agreement. I hope that helps. Lightmouse (talk) 16:30, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

That wasn't the one I'm refering to, I was refering to the North American Numbering Plan website, which uses hyphens.oknazevad (talk) 18:30, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

OK, I wasn't sure what you meant. Thanks for clearing that up. Lightmouse (talk) 19:50, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Sure I appreciate Lightmouse and Oknazevad looking into the technical specs on this matter, but I'm not sure that I see how relevant they are. Publications make arbitrary style decisions--including typographical ones. While technical manuals can (and should) be consulted, they aren't a trump card for how Wikipedia as a community will (or should) decide how to style our articles. Are you suggesting that we follow these specifications or are you simply pointing out what they are for the consideration of anyone else who chooses to engage this discussion? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:13, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

The issue is that is not a matter of style, it's a matter of technical correctness. These are the correct standards, and we should follow them. The correct usage doesn't take a powder because we don't like the way it looks. Factually incorrecct usage must be fixed.oknazevad (talk) 18:30, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

I think I can paraphrase that in more utilitarian and less dogmatic terms (correct me if I misinterpreted): Words like "ain't" are informal but understandable, but disagreements over phone number delimiting symbols can cause software to malfunction, because one program can't read a database intended for another program.

Advisory template about the policy on spelling variants?

Is there an easy-to-use template for advising new users about the Manual of Style's policy on National varieties of English? Rossami (talk) 18:49, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Is {{uw-lang}} what you're looking for? Art LaPella (talk) 22:23, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Perfect. Thank you. I am going to boldly add a reference to that template to the guideline page so it doesn't get lost when this discussion gets archived. Thanks again. Rossami (talk) 03:42, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

hyphen and emdash in proper nouns

See Talk:Alberni–Clayoquot_Regional_District#Requested_move. Per WP:COMMONNAME, if a proper noun uses always a hyphen, then we should use also a hyphen. Should we add an exception to WP:EMDASH? --Enric Naval (talk) 19:33, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

thanks for starting that/this, in clearer, briefer terms than my usual volubility would produce.Skookum1 (talk) 19:50, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Previous discussion. Art LaPella (talk) 22:29, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

I think that the discussion concludes that WP:COMMONNAME > WP:DASH. --Enric Naval (talk) 09:41, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Achieving consensus (for other style guides)

With a view to gathering ideas for possible adaptation for use with guidelines in the English Wikipedia Manual of Style, I ask this question: How is consensus achieved for guidelines in other style guides (whether in print or online or both)?
―Wavelength (talk) 00:01, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
[I revised my message at 0:51, but I forgot to add a comment with my signature and timestamp.
—Wavelength (talk) 16:21, 1 January 2011 (UTC)]

Given that most other Style guides are written by individuals (or, perhaps, a very small group of individuals), I don't think achieving a consensus is really an issue. The author just says, "This is how it should be done". It is a dictated, top down process that does not involve reaching a consensus... Wikipedia is different, we are a community and decide things as a community. Of course, as a community, we naturally disagree on, and argue about how things should be done. As we discuss and argue, we (hopefully) start to compromise until we reach something that everyone (or mostly everyone) can live with. Thus we form a consensus. Blueboar (talk) 17:32, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Style guides for Wikimedia wikis are composed by teams of volunteers.

—Wavelength (talk) 20:50, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

It might be too strong a statement to say that "most style guides" are written by individuals. Below are some author/title examples from the US and UK:

• ALWD & Darby Dickerson (2006). ALWD Citation Manual
• American Psychological Association (2010). Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association
• American Medical Association (2007). AMA Manual of Style: A Guide for Authors and Editors
• American Sociological Association (2007). American Sociological Society Style Guide
• American Political Science Association (August 2006). Style Manual for Political Science
• American Sociological Association Style Guide (2nd ed.). Washington D.C.: American Sociological Association
• Associated Press (2009). The Associated Press Stylebook 2009: Associated Press Stylebook and Briefing on Media Law
• Council of Science Editors, Style Manual Committee (2006). Scientific Style And Format: The CSE Manual for Authors, Editors, and Publishers
• Garner, Bryan A.; Jeff Newman, Tiger Jackson (2006). The Redbook: A Manual on Legal Style
• Modern Humanities Research Association (2002). MHRA Style Guide: A Handbook for Authors, Editors, and Writers of Theses
• Modern Language Association of America (2008). MLA Style Manual and Guide to Scholarly Publishing
• Modern Language Association (2009). MLA Handbook for Writers of Research Papers
• Publications Office of the European Union (24 July 2008). Interinstitutional Style Guide
• Staff of REA (2009). REA's Handbook of English Grammar, Style, and Writing
• Style Manual Committee, Council of Science Editors (2006). Scientific Style and Format: The CSE Manual for Authors, Editors, and Publishers
• Turabian, Kate L. (2007). Booth, Wayne C.; Colomb, Gregory G.; Williams, Joseph M. eds. A Manual for Writers of Research Papers, Theses, and Dissertations
• University of Chicago Press (2010). The Chicago Manual of Style: The Essential Guide for Writers, Editors, and Publishers
• United States Government Printing Office Style Board (1984). United States Government Printing Office Style Manual

There are certainly style guides that have one or a few listed editors (rarely individual authors). An example would be

• Ritter, R. M., ed. (2003). Oxford Style Manual.

However, the publisher in this case (Oxford Univeristy Press) provides some oversight. Many other similar style guides have publishers who won't let a random author reinvent the English language.

If you are talking about guidelines for authors from a specific journal, for example, there could be cases of a single editor-in-chief that is able to stipulate "top down" how authors are to submit manuscripts. These examples of specific publications or organizations are probably less useful to us at Wikiepdia—especially in this type of discussion. I hope that helps. --Airborne84 (talk) 01:06, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Lapses in consensus (for other style guides)

With a view to gathering ideas for possible adaptation for use with guidelines in the English Wikipedia Manual of Style, I ask this question: When and how does consensus lapse for guidelines in other style guides (whether in print or online or both)?
―Wavelength (talk) 00:01, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
[I revised my message at 0:51, but I forgot to add a comment with my signature and timestamp.
—Wavelength (talk) 16:21, 1 January 2011 (UTC)]

As I said above... most other Style guides are not created by consensus, they are dictated by an author. (Style Guides are followed because people consider the author(s) an expert, and choose to follow the author's opinion when it comes to style). Blueboar (talk) 17:42, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Style guides for Wikimedia wikis are composed by teams of volunteers.

—Wavelength (talk) 20:51, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

How does one make a paragraph?

I keep coming across total headscratchers of logic on this site! I see sentences glommed together into paras, but I can't tell what the logic is of one to the next. Or sometimes there is a two-para section with (perhaps) two themes, but with sentences not cordoned off into "theme one" and "theme two". Just littered like stray toys. Not organized. Dolls with dolls. Legos with legos. Or Red with red and green with green. Or old with old and new with new. Or whatever!

P.s. I want to learn to write and am probably too old to do so, but I at least can see fault. So please don't shoot down my discussion, by saying "I can't run the football in the NFL". I can still criticize Clinton Portis nonetheless. Let's talk about how to make cuts and get yardage, not my lack of steroids and speed.

TCO (talk) 00:13, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

It's not just how does one make the paragraph (although that sin does the worst damage), but how does one logically develop a thought or organize a topic.TCO (talk) 00:15, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Not sure what you expect here. True, the writing of many articles is horrible. We could enforce a writing test before allowing people to edit. We could unloose some grammar/coherence checking software on articles. We could attempt to train people. Each of these alternatives has drawbacks. Instead we correct what we can. I suppose a page pointing to tutorials in composition or some such thing might be useful, but I don't think this is the forum for providing those tutorials directly! --John (User:Jwy/talk) 00:21, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Article development (permanent link here) and Wikipedia:Article development#Related information.

Wikipedia:Writing better articles#Paragraphs (permanent link here) discusses paragraphs.

—Wavelength (talk) 02:06, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't need the wiki article (although so great we have it). I can pull out Harbrace or whatever book on writing. I know humanity has addressed the issue. I'm talking more about "what really goes down". Which is paragraphs formed by randomly glomming sentences together. TCO (talk) 02:10, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Just so people are clear... TCO, are you complaining about the Wikipedia articles in general, or are you complaining about this specific guideline? Blueboar (talk) 02:51, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

The articles (what the actual resultant writing style is on Wiki). I'm sure this article (as an article) is pretty spiffed up. My concern is the translation of policy to action (and perhaps policy is not adressing all that it needs to, don't know...but end product is off.)TCO (talk) 02:59, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

One way to answer you is to say we need millions of edits like this one, but that edit is yours, so you are already contributing. Another answer is Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors, but I see you are already active there. Thousands of people are working on the problem in many different ways, so I think all the obvious answers have been considered. I assure you we are all against bad articles, but do you have any more specific suggestions? Art LaPella (talk) 03:57, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Art I don't have a quick suggestion. And I'm new here and I'm sure a lot has been hashed out and tried already. So it was kind of a whine. The one point I was hoping to push though was thinking about structure. So your example of the spelling upgrades while kind, was off. I'm not talking about finding little specks of dust and cleaning them up. I'm saying we need to move furniture from one room to the other. A lot.

I am far, far, far from a good writer. But I've learned enough to know that the key issues of writing are having good content (good points) and organizing them effectively. And I see this as a big gap in Wiki writing (in general, of course, I'm sure there are select stunning writers amongst us.) Maybe instead of a GOCE that kinda fixes nits and maybe a few extraneous words ala Strunk, we need a "Guild of Rewriters", that really pushes on the logic and organization. For instance, I've had the benefit a few times of working with really, really topnotch corporate writers on reports for clients. And inevitabely, they didn't just push me on my wordiness or my grammer...they really hammered my on my themes and my logic and my organization.

P.s. Most of those spelling mistakes I fixed were ones I created, while buying furniture and putting it in the house (content) or while moving it from room to room (re-org). Really they were my sins. I know that I have to really push myself to get clean prose out. When I see my talk posts often I grimace at the typos and punctuation and all.TCO (talk) 04:20, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

In one sense we are shouting into the abyss; the awful void created in human communication by the monster of mobile phone texting. All we can do is go on on fussing and correcting and fondly hope someone might say, "Hey! What that guy did actually made my writing nicer to read." Rumiton (talk) 04:26, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps Wikipedia:Featured articles is more what you are looking for. I don't know much about featured articles, because only a tiny percentage of Wikipedia can realistically be held to their standards. Art LaPella (talk) 05:33, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

• TCO, you're not too old to learn to write properly. Nobody is. The problem lies with the founding principle that anyone can edit. Any editor can and is welcome to make any changes to any article, within certain limits. Drive-by tagging with {{cleanup}} is far easier than actually rolling up one's sleeves; people can and do dump text nilly willy into articles, leaving the integration work to others. It's also often true that the inserted content may not belong at all. I don't know what other solutions there are to the underlying issues. Whilst there are plenty of good copywriters around, there are not enough new people interested in putting in the effort to learn to write properly; there are also not enough copyeditors around to collectively adopt all WP articles, to weed out the sort of issues you elaborated. FA is the ultimate goal but it is not for all articles. GAC, whilst a useful milestone, could do with more reviewers. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 06:39, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I donnno. I guess in the normal, grownup, corporate work world, I see a big emphasis on clear structure in writing. But I don't really see it talked about too much on wiki. Yeah, someone can point me to a policy, but I don't see it getting attention in discussions on talk pages or here, or at GOCE. Maybe GAC or FAC do. Have not hung there. But I just sorta get the impression that although none of this is rocket science, that this aspect of writing is not being pushed enough to the masses. And it's pretty fundamental to improving the written style of the encyclopedia.

P.s. I might do some reviewing after I get an article of my own through GA and FA process. I'm sort of helping with one now, but might need to do one from scratch to really check the box. Gotta do that first, to have some sympathy for the supplicants. And prove I can do it.TCO (talk) 06:57, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

The difference here is there isn't the centralized responsibility for the writing as in the corporate world. No one person is responsible for an article - so often, after the first version of the article, people are focussed on their little contribution and are not looking or feeling responsibility for the article as a whole. --John (User:Jwy/talk) 07:07, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

• I see a good and bad side to WP:OWN. It may be a conflict-avoidance mechanism, but it may just frighten some editors from actually taking articles under their wing and nursing them through the WP qualitative process. Also, what may be obvious in the corporate world may be taken for granted here, given the average age of WP editors may be somewhat below those who have experienced the corporate world. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 15:34, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Did you mean, "...may NOT be taken for granted here"? (I can't help it, I'm a copy editor.) Rumiton (talk) 15:59, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

It may be impossible, and even inadvisable, to effectively deal with this matter now. The problem stems (at least in part) from Wikipedia's basic concept. Anyone can edit. What that means is that people will come to an article, say "I know a fact that would be useful here" and contribute one or more statements (hopefully sourced). They might pop it right in the middle of a paragraph, whether it best goes there or not. The result is that most articles below GA class tend to be a mishmash of facts and statements that are held together only by the theme suggested in the title. That leads to stilted prose. Many times it also results in the problem that TCO brings up.

This problem gets resolved when an editor takes an article under his/her wing and decides to make it a Good Article or Featured Article. Well-written prose then becomes a requirement—as we all know.

Perhaps in 8–10 years or so—if most articles on the English Wikipedia start to reach mature states—it may make more sense to implement measures that, if implemented now, could discourage new editors from making contributions.

In the meantime, I recommend that we look for well-structured paragraphs and flowing prose only in our best articles. The other ones will come along—eventually. --Airborne84 (talk) 16:18, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

For the record, I was not professing we institute ownership like that in the corporate world, only that the lack of ownership explains the poor state of some articles. --John (User:Jwy/talk) 16:36, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I hope we never introduce writing standards that many people could not reach. Wikipedia has succeeded beyond what anyone could have predicted ten years ago, the "poor state of some articles" notwithstanding. It has done so because of the team approach, not in spite of it. Some people write well-organised and flowing prose; others are sticklers for accuracy and sourcing; some are tireless researchers, or are highly attuned to BLP considerations, or historic relevance, or scientific validity. When everyone does what they do best, great and constantly improving articles result. (And I say this as a pretty much fanatical copy editor.) Rumiton (talk) 07:18, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Editors tend to specialize in Wikipedia, mercifully. We do have rewriters who circulate and try to make sense out of years of accumulated changes "by committee." I personally add single well-cited items and try to merge them in a paragraph as "best as possible" but I usually do not try to rewrite the paragraph or article around the new entry. (I am in the process of rewriting two lengthy, low-visibility histories now. It is taking me "forever" by Wikipedia standards). Is this a perfect world I'm editing into? Not really, but it sort of works. I tremble when the rewriter enters the scene usually without fanfare and sometimes without edit summaries on massive changes. And I sometimes rv his extensive changes, so it's a risky business. Student7 (talk) 19:08, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Delete improper "MOS:" pseudo-namespace redirects, or adopt (some of) their targets into MoS?

Resolved

 – This is just a notice; actual discussion should be at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Manual of Style#adopt.

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2011 January 3#MOS:

The nom is certainly right that these redirects should not exist if the pages are not in the MOS. Some of those listed in this group deletion nomination (of the redirects, not the pages they redirect to - mostly essays) should definitely not be in the MoS. I say, however, that some definitely should, especially the target of MOS:BETTER, which is used as a guideline, and is the product of a lot of consensus-building editing over many years by many 'Pedians, and is no longer simply an essay, in my view. There are some other candidates for elevation to MoS status, I would think, but I'll let others chime in. The one I feel most strongly about is MOS:BETTER. It's very much a WP style guideline at this point. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 06:10, 4 January 2011 (UTC) NB: No naming conventions pages are part of the MoS, so all of the MOS redirs to them should be removed. That accounts for about half of the entries in the nomination. It can be argued that all of the NC pages should be part of MoS. I'm neutral-ish on the matter. Discuss here.— SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 05:16, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Do we have a MOS noticeboard?

Subject says it all: is there a place to get third opinions on the MOS-aspects of a specific article? --MASEM (t) 04:58, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I donno. I would use GOCE if you just want help (or bother Malleus) getting stuff improved. If you want to discuss some thorny issue of policy, to show how an article is being affected "when things really go down" by the style guide, or elevate some issue of "pseudo policy", then I would post here. TCO (talk) 05:15, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, the article is the Humble Indie Bundle, where a user insists that what I have, in prose, a list of 5 games and their developers (in two places) must be set out as a bulleted list for clarity. WP:EMBED suggests that in this case the former makes sense, but the user believes that EMBED supports his approach too. He's insistant on it to raise a mediation case (far too soon in DR), so I only want to try to get more eyes on the issue. --MASEM (t) 07:28, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't think you will get a judge here or someone who has so much deeper insight that it is obvious that one way or the other is better, to an extent that it convinces both sides. My personal take is that it would be mildly (25%) more powerful to show the list. I think we need to help people process information quickly and that lists are best seen as lists. then paragraphs have more of a thread of commentary and point to them, not listyness. I think people thing they are being "verbal" by typing listy stuff into a para, but really they are not driving a point and a theme and all that jazz and not sympathetic with the reader. That said, this really is SUCH a 6 one, half dozen the other, that I really can't see why that guy is hassling you. It would be different if you had three sentences in a row list 8 things in each category. And yes, I see that on Wiki sometimes.TCO (talk) 07:42, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Oh...and I'm not an MOS guy. I'm like a child answering the telephone while the parents are out.  :) Just a couple things to consider:

• What is the rationale for the list order in the first paragraph? (second seems alphabetical at least, although would be nice if you had a stronger organizing thought).
• Consider that the words and topics are rather obscure, not for example "clubs, diamonds, hearts, spades" (note the order and also the familiarity). The strangeness of the words and the need to process them argues more for a list or even table.
• it's not just five items, but also the company associated. That's a lot of content (and blue-links conjoined) to have to process in a textual style.

Just a thought and honest, I've seen a lot worse. And I am on your side, to make good content and please don't let these bummers of disagreements slow you from the real work of making more content for the readers (but it is a bummer, I get derailed with format debates too!) But good job writing an article, man! Go content! Yeah!!!TCO (talk) 07:54, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Possible addition

I was wondering whether this would be the right place to post that I would like to see User:John Carter/Religion outline perhaps considered as a first draft of a layout guideline for religion articles, and what I would have to do to initiate widespread discussion of it. John Carter (talk) 19:20, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Defining consensus (for other style guides)

With a view to gathering ideas for possible adaptation for use with guidelines in the English Wikipedia Manual of Style, I ask this question: How is consensus defined for guidelines in other style guides (whether in print or online or both)?
—Wavelength (talk) 00:01, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
[I revised my message at 0:51, but I forgot to add a comment with my signature and timestamp.
—Wavelength (talk) 16:21, 1 January 2011 (UTC)]

http://www.onlinestylebooks.com/Results.html?cx=009692468319527345289%3Astf7hyxvc2e&cof=FORID%3A9&ie=UTF-8&q=consensus&sa=Search&siteurl=www.onlinestylebooks.com%2Fhome.html#866 A. di M. (talk) 15:43, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

You provided a link to a page which lists links to pages which discuss guidelines (by various style guides) about the use of the word consensus. My question was about the definition of consensus regarding guidelines (in various style guides). In other words, when the decision-makers of a style guide have consensus about a particular guideline, what does that mean?

—Wavelength (talk) 16:45, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Does it really matter... we don't need to follow what other style guides if we don't want to... what matters is what Wikipedia means when it talks about consensus... that is spelled out at WP:Consensus. Blueboar (talk) 17:17, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Although printed style guides consider the consensus of educated writers on meaning and style, they also make arbitrary choices among acceptable alternatives in their publication in order to achieve consistency. The forward to the Associated Press Stylebook describes their process and goals:

• "to provide a uniform presentation of the printed word, to make a story written anywhere understandable everywhere"
• "[the Stylebook] is still distilled from a thousand suggestions and ideas, and several big desk and online dictionaries"

Jc3s5h (talk) 17:59, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Blueboar, with a view to gathering ideas ..., it can be helpful.

—Wavelength (talk) 20:46, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

The definition of consensus has stymied us for some time. On this particular page, things come down to polls too often. Looking at how other style guides handle this problem could be useful even if we don't decide to do what they did. Darkfrog24 (talk) 03:24, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't count on that: with the exception of those of other wikis, the conditions in which other style guides are written might be way too different for any useful analogy to be drawn wrt process. A. di M. (talk) 12:41, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you all for commenting at #Defining consensus (for other style guides), #Achieving consensus (for other style guides), #Lapses in consensus (for other style guides), and #Recording consensus (for other style guides). I especially appreciate the list of "author/title examples" provided by Airborne84 in the second of those sections.
Perhaps I will research my questions at wikis and other websites, at some time in the future, and report my findings to this talk page. Other editors are welcome to do likewise.
(I was counting on posting this to all four sections, and did not notice the statement "Sections with no replies in 5 days may be automatically moved." The waiting period used to be 10 days. I wanted to keep the four sections together in the original order: "Defining ...", "Achieving ...", "Lapses ...", and "Recording ...".)
—Wavelength (talk) 16:05, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Recording consensus (for other style guides)

With a view to gathering ideas for possible adaptation for use with guidelines in the English Wikipedia Manual of Style, I ask this question: How is consensus recorded for guidelines in other style guides (whether the style guides are in print or online or both)?
―Wavelength (talk) 00:01, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
[I revised my message at 0:51, but I forgot to add a comment with my signature and timestamp.
—Wavelength (talk) 16:21, 1 January 2011 (UTC)]

Why would they need to record consensus at all? A. di M. (talk) 15:45, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Again, this question assumes that other style guides are written by committee and thus there is a need to reach a consensus in the first place... but I don't think that is the case. Blueboar (talk) 18:39, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Blueboar, style guides for Wikimedia wikis are composed by teams of volunteers.

—Wavelength (talk) 20:52, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Sure, but we are talking about other style guides, such as the AP Stylebook, right? My impression is that the teams that produce things like the AP Stylebook are organized hierarchically, so there is someone at the top with a title like editor-in-chief who has the authority to unilaterally resolve disputes. —Bkell (talk) 21:35, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

My question was about "other style guides", as distinct from "the English Wikipedia Manual of Style".

—Wavelength (talk) 21:51, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, and the AP Stylebook is one of those, right? I think what A. di M. and Blueboar are saying is that, outside of collaborative projects like Wikipedia, most style guides are not written by committees and thus do not operate on the consensus framework that we use here, so asking how they record consensus is meaningless. So your question would perhaps better be framed as, "How is consensus recorded for guidelines in other style guides that are written using a collaborative, consensus-based approach like the English Wikipedia Manual of Style uses?" When you ask it that way you are eliminating quite a few (perhaps most) well-established and authoritative style guides, so you may find that there are not a lot of precedents to gather ideas from. Thus the first step in answering your question would be simply to find some examples of "other style guides" that have been written with a consensus-based approach. —Bkell (talk) 00:10, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I didn't realize until just now that you had started four different sections asking various questions relating to the same idea. My responses here would perhaps be slightly better placed in your section about defining consensus, but since they are relevant here too I'll just leave them where they are. —Bkell (talk) 00:16, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the AP Stylebook is one of those. Probably many wikis listed at List of wikis and probably many online encyclopedias included in Category:Online encyclopedias have their own style guides. Probably many wikis listed at the websites listed at Wiki Farms have their own style guides. Probably many wikis listed at Welcome - WikiIndex have their own style guides.

—Wavelength (talk) 16:58, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedians who are sublisted subcategorized in Category:Wikipedians by website might already know the answers to my four questions for some websites.

—Wavelength (talk) 17:17, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

[I am revising my message of 17:17.—Wavelength (talk) 02:15, 3 January 2011 (UTC)]

Thank you all for commenting at #Defining consensus (for other style guides), #Achieving consensus (for other style guides), #Lapses in consensus (for other style guides), and #Recording consensus (for other style guides). I especially appreciate the list of "author/title examples" provided by Airborne84 in the second of those sections.
Perhaps I will research my questions at wikis and other websites, at some time in the future, and report my findings to this talk page. Other editors are welcome to do likewise.
(I was counting on posting this to all four sections, and did not notice the statement "Sections with no replies in 5 days may be automatically moved." The waiting period used to be 10 days. I wanted to keep the four sections together in the original order: "Defining ...", "Achieving ...", "Lapses ...", and "Recording ...".)
—Wavelength (talk) 16:05, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Hyphens in article titles

In the requested move I initiated here, it is being argued that moving the page from "WBX (W-Boiled Extreme)" to "W-B-X (W-Boiled Extreme)" is against WP:MOSTM (low traffic talk page) and WP:ABBR (another low traffic talk page) because "hyphens are simply a styled form of the period/full stop". Yet on other pages on the project on music (e.g. B.O.B. (song), The E.N.D.) these full stops are allowed anyway.

Should we continue to not use the name of the song as it is printed everywhere else ([1], [2], [3], [4] [the wavy dashes in the second part of the name are a different issue at the moment]), ignore this aspect of the MOS's, or simply phase out this aspect of the MOS?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 19:28, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I see no reason why the Manual of Style should be changed to include stylizations. Just because articles exist that use full stops in the title does not mean that they are allowed or conform to the Manual of Style – I have told you before that if you are bothered by these articles, point out the relevant Manual of Style sections and move them. Prime Blue (talk) 21:55, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

This is not related to what is going on at WT:MOS-JA currently. So I don't know why you've felt the need to point it out here. Are you following me to where I raise issues with the manual of style and titling now? If I clearly disagree with how the manual of style is being applied, I'm not going to be a vindictive dick and move the pages because I'm not getting my way on another page.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 23:20, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I just noticed that you repeatedly brought up these topics in the last few weeks, and it seems to me like you want to introduce special stylizations to titles and prose text because of those articles on Japanese subjects. Prime Blue (talk) 23:49, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I work on articles concerning Japanese subjects and I find that various parts of the manuals of style hamper more than they help when writing about them. If I have to suggest that different manuals of style be modified to change the current consensus of the project, there should be no problem in that.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:45, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

And I'm tired of arguing with the same people on different pages on the project. The reason I have come here, Prime Blue, is to get an outside opinion from someone who has not been involved with the various debates on talk pages elsewhere. If you already know my opinion, why do you go to a different talk page and tell me I'm wrong, again, when I've already heard you say that you think my proposal is wrong?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:49, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Because I am just as free to voice my opinion on the Manual of Style as you are. :/ Prime Blue (talk) 01:50, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

But we do not need to refresh our arguments on other pages.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 01:55, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

As it states, MOS:ABBR does not apply to proper names, so a song title cannot violate MOS:ABBR. McLerristarr | Mclay1 03:06, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

So as it currently stands, WBX (W-Boiled Extreme) can have "full stops" or whatever resulting in the title "W-B-X (W-Boiled Extreme)" or is there still a WP:MOSTM thing?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 03:57, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

It's not a trademark so the weird rules of MOS:TM cannot interfere. However, you may wish to enquire about the name on WP:WikiProject Songs. If the move is possible without admin assistance, I would go for it till somebody can bring up a good reason why it should not be moved. McLerristarr | Mclay1 04:24, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm currently being yelled at here that it should not be moved per WP:ABBR and WP:MOSTM. So maybe a friendly pointer there would help, too.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 04:27, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

BTW, even WP:MOSTM says "editors should choose among styles already in use (not invent new ones)", so if there's no English-language reliable secondary source referring to the song by the title without hyphens, neither should we. --A. di M. (talk) 01:18, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Again, that's a nice comment to bring up on the article talk page, if you would not mind doing so.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 01:33, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Blank lines around headings

Back in 2008, see Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Archive_97#Blank_lines_around_headings, the suggestion on blank lines around headings changed in this diff to the current asymmetric form suggesting a blank line before, not after. Why not both? I find that headings are so much easier to spot when editing if they're set off by blank lines. Some editors go through and squeeze out the spaces after, making the source files very "scrunched"; I tend to go the other way. What would you all think if we recommended spaces both before and after? Dicklyon (talk) 06:31, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Please. It is so much worse to type here than in MS Word given all the markup and citations and all. Anything that helps the view in edit mode, we should do. Also, I want to start a movement for everyone to start skipping a line when doing talk. It sucks to see so much unbroken text in edit mode (indenting does not help when in edit mode).TCO (talk) 07:00, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't agree on the MS Word sentiment, but yes on putting one blank line wherever they are optional. I generally do put one before my indented talk comments, but most people don't, it seems. Dicklyon (talk) 07:08, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I much prefer footnotes in Word. You don't have all that crap in the middle of the paragraph. I can barely see the real text on a well cited paragraph when in edit mode. P.s. Loving the space skipping in talk! Want to spread that disease!TCO (talk) 07:18, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I never use a blank line under a heading. I don't think you'll ever get consensus to get the style guide changed. McLerristarr | Mclay1 07:24, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

If you were typing it manually, you would have a space. And the software makes one. It is natural way to do paragraphs and headings in typed text. So why not do it in the edit window, too?TCO (talk) 07:33, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't necessarily use a space after a heading if typing in Word or something. It's really just a matter of personal preference and doesn't make much difference one way or the other. McLerristarr | Mclay1 07:45, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Well if you were writing a report in most companies or the military, the normal pattern would be a space below the heading. It's how it's done. It's like having a blank line between paras. That said, I'm just LOVING how we have all this space between our paras in edit mode, instead of some superwall of text! Keep replying. I just love this!  :) TCO (talk) 07:53, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with spaces between indented talk messages. It is very difficult to read when it's one huge block of text. It's especially difficult to go back and find a previous message. McLerristarr | Mclay1 08:51, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Putting a blank line before a reply in talk pages produces crappy HTML (have a look at it). A. di M. (talk) 11:15, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

• I don't follow you. Looking at the as-read page and at the (bee-yoo-tee-full) edit page, I don't see anything bad. But what does it mean to "look at html"

• Boy that sure sounds exactly like the "be a computer programmer" attitude rather than what is helpful for the user. Let's all type at a DOS prompt too.

• Think about how when you read text there are lines between paragraphs. If you have to encounter text that is unparagraphed, the "wall of text" in an article, is that no painful? So, does not the same thing apply in edit mode?

• Also, since we are all a bunch of language mavens (well you all are, I'm just a Cro-Magnon), then shouldn't we care about paragraphs and such? And after all, what is not MORE of a paragraph than a shift in dialog? Think about when you read a book and look at dialog. Every comment in a back and forth is a new para as the speaker shifted. (In view mode, the indenting saves you, but of course in edit mode, you're screwed.)

• What if I have a multiparagraph comment? Then I HAVE to skip lines. So we are getting some crappy html anyhow.TCO (talk) 18:08, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

On Firefox you can view the page source with Ctrl-U, and I think most browsers have an option to show it in the menu; if yours doesn't, just save the page somewhere and rename it from something.html to something.txt. A paragraph starting with several colons which is preceded by a blank line will be rendered as a one-item list nested in a one-item list nested in a one-item list, which is quite crazy; to elaborate on your analogy, such markup would mean that each post is an one-line dialogue, rather than part of the same dialogue as the one you're replying to. What makes much more sense is for the reply to be a <dd> belonging to the one you're replying to (which is what you get if you leave no blank line).

With visual browsers and “simple” comments this doesn't look too bad (though “doesn't look too bad” is hardly a good reason to use kludgy markup, as separation of presentation and content has been a key element in web design for at least a decade; would you allow people to type lIIinois on the ground that with most fonts it doesn't look wrong?), but the rendering on screen readers might get quite ridiculous, and even visual browsers can get confused with bulleted and numbered lists sometimes.

Also, you can have multiparagraph comments without skipping lines – like this. A. di M. (talk) 18:23, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

So who is hurt more? Every single talk user who has to encounter a wall of text? Or the few readers who decide to view html? Also, regarding your comment on viewing devices, they have all kinds of issues anyhow. ANY time, that I try surfing the net on my blackberry, I have problems. Let's let them work on processing the web better. We're already more dummied down than a reasonable standard for general web sites. (Also requiring me to parse some new ndash template to make paragraphs in talk, and not just me but EVERY responder including new to wiki ones, rather than following the normal human habit of hitting the carriage return twice is just not practical or ergonomic.)TCO (talk) 18:39, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

If you leave a line starting with the proper number of colons (like here) instead of a blank line, it produces decent HTML whithout the "wall of text".—Emil J. 18:46, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

What the hell does the ndash template have to do with this issue? A. di M. (talk) 20:03, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Hitting the carriage return twice might be normal for people who grew up in the typewriter age, but it is certainly not normal to hit return twice for those who are used to using computers. I personally when reading the text in the edit window dislike the blank lines below section headers, makes it harder to read to me. Its normal to have no space between headers when typing documents and the like electronically. -DJSasso (talk) 20:11, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

The ndash was my bad, I was trying to get ADM's point, so looked at his code right next to "this". I still don't get how I do paragraphs without spacing between (and bullets are not the same thing and I should not have to do that as a workaround).

As far as section headers and the space between them, that has nothing to do with typewriters, but is standard formatting. Every company I've been in has had that for reports, same with government work. It's the same in Word or with a typewriter or even hand-written. It has nothing to do with typing, but is the right way to show a header. It's like a paragraph. It gets that prominence. That's what the software returns anyhow, even if you don't put the space in between. But it really is a separate paragraph.TCO (talk) 20:34, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Can we defer or move the broader discussion of spacing elsewhere, and get back to the question of what to recommend for blank line after headings? Poll? Please chime in to give an idea whether you prefer the present asymmetric recommndation, versus to say that setting off headings with one blank line before and one after is preferred. Dicklyon (talk) 18:40, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Before I brutally threadjacked, I agreed that we should have before and after spacing. Edit window is PAINFUL. This is a no brainer to make things a little easier. Plus it matches what is displayed on the view window.TCO (talk) 19:07, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Dick on having blank lines before and after for readability. JeffConrad (talk) 05:07, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Seeing no opposition, I'll try a change, and see what happens... Dicklyon (talk) 21:43, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Vertical white space after section headings serves no purpose whatsoever. It does not enhance much of anything, except for stretching logically connected text needlessly across more space. This is rather annoying, as it disassociates headings from their sections. The existing markup for section headings is prominent enough to guide the eye. In addition, these are presented in bold anyways in the fancy editors. Guidelines should simply state that a single blank line follows every paragraph. Kbrose (talk) 03:14, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for adding your opinion, which I tried to get from you on your talk page and here on Monday. I still don't quite understand the reasoning. Numerous of us find that the extra space after a heading makes headings easier to spot, and apparently we're not familiar with the fancy editors that have another way of helping with that problem. I made the change to the MOS page in response to what appeared to be a consensus here; you reverted it. I'm happy to have more discussion, but you statement that my edit was against consensus is not fair. Dicklyon (talk) 03:33, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I disfavour extra lines after headings. We should reserve that for outputting a small space between items (like paragraphs). MediaWiki's behaviour below a heading is a bit weird, in that you'd expect a blank line between items would cause a larger separation—like it does with paragraphs in text and the <p></p> tags it automatically places in the HTML page source. When you do that with a heading, nothing happens (counterintuitively). The reason, of course, is that it doesn't make sense from a layout point of view to allow extra space below the heading in the rendered view, so the MediaWiki interpreter treats this case differently. The fact that there's an automatic filter that keeps bad layout from being rendered isn't a good reason to keep using the inconsistent markup as a matter of standard practice.

That's not to say I disfavour blank lines in general. But between paragraphs, there is also the matter of the ugly nested <dl><dd><dl><dd><dl><dd><dl><dd></dd></dl></dd></dl></dd></dl></dd></dl> tag soup that happens on talk pages (because of the :::: at the beginning of the line). That's fortunately invisible to the reader (as opposed to the editor), and the colons are convenient to type and coexist peacefully with the line break separations.

The ideal would be to have the blank line generate some sort of <p></p> thing instead (like what you need to use when you're trying to maintain paragraph indenting on a bulleted list on a talk page). Unfortunately, the current state of the MediaWiki interpreter means that that involves hardcoding the tags, and they don't co-operate peacefully with the blank line—if you use a blank line (or even a single carriage return) in the editor window to make it look like sort of like the output, you can't also use <p></p> because it loses the indentation. (This is probably a known bug that hasn't been acted upon because it could potentially break a lot of talk pages over an invisible piece of HTML that contributes only a extra few bytes to the page length.)

While it's possible to use :::: at the beginning of a talk page reply, and then <p></p> for every paragraph thereafter, that hardcoding sort of defeats the purpose of having the interpreted MediaWiki syntax in the first place, and conceals paragraphs in the editor view. (See the code of this comment for examples....) TheFeds 07:02, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

You seem to have strayed back to the other topic. I hear your opinion that "I disfavour extra lines after headings", apparently based on your impression that it should leave more space if you do that, but it doesn't. They're presently "optional", so I take it you object to that for the same reason. Dicklyon (talk) 07:25, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Kbrose: A section header IS a paragraph. Normal format is to skip a line space below the header. Not glom it into next text (first para), it governs the whole section, not just that one para, it stands above. If you respect a paragraph to paragraph division enough to skip a line, should do same with a section header: [5][6]TCO (talk) 08:04, 6 January 2011 (UTC) P.s. Who was that bad guy, who threadjacked us? (sorry)

Gee. I thought this was such a simple suggestion! I am in favor of putting a blank line before subsections in articles. 2) Maybe not afterwards. No great need IMO. 2) maybe not in discussions since some turn out quite long anyway  :) Anything to shorten them. I thought the idea of indenting was to set off comments. Apologize for the lack of anything insightful to say. Student7 (talk) 18:53, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Is there a process to get a wider discussion here? I see at least 3 of us who see a good reason to put a blank line after headings to make editing easier; 1 who denies that reason ("Vertical white space after section headings serves no purpose whatsoever"), as he seems to have other tools to solve the problem; 1 who has some reasons about html internals or something for disliking such spaces, and a few comments that don't seem to actually take a position on the question. Dicklyon (talk) 19:59, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I think this is a ridiculous proposal because it doesn't change how the page looks. What I do in my edit box is my private business. Nobody is going to tell me to leave or not leave a blank line, else they will be mercilessly ignored. Ozob (talk) 00:17, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

It's only a recommendation. It might cut down on the back-and-forth that goes on a lot under the current ambivalent recommendation. Dicklyon (talk) 00:53, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

OK, how about this approach... presently we have this:

• A blank line below the heading is optional; but do include one blank line above the heading, for readability in the edit window. (Only two or more blank lines above or below will add more white space in the public appearance of the page.)

I suggest we change to:

• Include one blank line above the heading, for readability in the edit window. Some editors also prefer a blank line below the heading; this is optional, but don't remove them if other editors have added them for readability. (Only two or more blank lines above or below will add more white space in the public appearance of the page.)

Better? Please note your approval or opposition herebelow. Dicklyon (talk) 01:55, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Fine with me. It's better if for no other reason than that it simply and directly calls for a blank line above the heading. It also clarifies that purely stylistic changes, such as removing and optional (but acceptable) line below headings, are frowned upon. There is one question, though: should editors follow the prevailing style when adding headings? JeffConrad (talk) 02:06, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Except it goes both ways in terms of useability. On a small mobile screen (yes, <sigh>, some editors do insist on iPad editing, etc), vertical space is at a premium. It is actually easier without the space under the title. I see no reason to ban editors from subsequently removing this space. My suggestion is: "Some editors also prefer an (optional) blank line below the heading. (Only two or more ..." Tony (talk) 02:27, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Affirmative. Mandatory pre-header blank line, optional blank line following the header. Good compromise to accommodate us near-sighted types so that we may edit text as effectively and accurately as all of you younger 20/20 types who don't need the extra help when staring at your edit window. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 03:58, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

The trouble with "optional" entries (a blank line), once entered, then considered inviolate, once entered, may (will) lead to editors annoying one another with edits, when one editor (like me) mindlessly removes the blank line below the subtitle, only to have it reinserted by an annoyed editor who can now point to "first insertion of a blank line wins" policy statement. It should either be mandatory blank or mandatory non-blank. If you can't decide either, you should just leave it alone. It's working fine now IMO, without any statement. Thanks. Student7 (talk) 12:51, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Translations and quotations

Wikipedia contains instances of text presented as quotes yet sometimes they are actually translations. Editors are (understandably) unwilling to question a quote. Even the most accurate translation can and should be constantly challenged for changes introduced by the translator. This is in contrast to quotes where no translation has taken place so the words presented were the actual words spoken/written.

Furthermore, a quote should add value that wouldn't exist if the same information were presented in prose text. If there is a translation and hence liable to contain errors/spin that could go undetected, perhaps the test should be even stricter. It would be handy to have a discussion about that.

For an example of this issue in an article, see:Talk:Johann Sebastian Bach. I couldn't find any guidance on presentation of translations so I welcome a debate so that editors can identify and improve them as appropriate. Lightmouse (talk) 21:45, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I think the question is whether the editor took it upon him or herself to do the translation, or whether it's someone else's translation that's being posted. If the original editor or a later one thinks that the latter is faulty or needs clarification, I certainly think the clarification or correction should be given (e.g. as footnotes or within [square brackets]), but without altering the original translation. If a complete substitution is called for, and the substitution is a Wikipedia editor's rather than one already published somewhere else (and of course properly noted), then it is imperative that the original source in the original language be given. Otherwise, a reader would have no way of verifying the translation. ¶ To give two extreme examples, there are errors in the 1611 Authorised King James Version of the Greek and Hebrew Bibles, and (no doubt) in Edward Fitzgerald's verse translation of the Rubaiyat of Omar Khayyam; but changing or improving those translations without indicating the original version would give the reader nothing to consult. —— Shakescene (talk) 23:53, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I have often encountered translations into misspelled or otherwise broken English. If it's something like "Putin told the Russian Duma 'I can't put up this misbehaviour any longer'", I go ahead and copyedit. Art LaPella (talk) 00:09, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Or to paraphrase Churchill... this is misbehavior... "up with which I will not put" Blueboar (talk) 00:36, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Can we have a guideline that says something like:

• "Quotes that have been translated should be distinguished from quotes that have not. This will allow readers to be aware that the words in the article are those of the translator, not those of the original speaker/writer."
• "Editors are encouraged to provide references to the untranslated text, if available. This will allow subsequent editors to audit and improve any translated copy."

I hope that captures what I mean. Feel free to suggest alternative guidance. Lightmouse (talk) 11:46, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I've put a first try at a foreign language quotation section on the page. One question I was not sure how to answer was: If it's possible to provide the original language quotation, then where should this be done? When I translated some French to English for Quillen–Suslin theorem, I gave the original quotation in a footnote. On the other hand, for a very short quotation it might be more appropriate to put it inline, as in the second sentence at Wilhelm Furtwängler#Influences. And I'm not sure what to do when an entire paragraph is quoted. Ozob (talk) 14:21, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Question: use of "Mr." in articles

Not clear what Wikipedia's policy is. In an article about Abdulla Saeed‎, do I use "Mr. Abdulla Saeed" or just "Saeed"? --Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:00, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

We generally refer to people by their full or last name, without honorifics (although those are usually mentioned in the lead.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 23:02, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

No "Mr." ... use his full name (Abdulla Saeed) for the title and the first reference to him in the lede. Just "Saeed" after that. Blueboar (talk) 23:04, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks!--Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:15, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies)#Honorifics and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies)#Subsequent uses of names.

—Wavelength (talk) 02:15, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! I hadn't seen that.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 01:39, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Let's come up with a standard for citations

Discussion here. Basically I want to kick ass on articles and feel like I'm struggling in quicksand as I can't learn the "journal" citation standard and that even when I want to collaborate and use same system ans others, there's no system. More over there. Feel free to throw your pennies at it.TCO (talk) 04:02, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Woe is me. Woe! Recommend some British English style guides.

Despite the absurdity of copyediting in a language I don't speak (British English), I'm finding I really don't have a choice. We've offered money, we've begged, we've been patient, and still we don't have other copyeditors available in the places I hang out. I'm going to have to grab a British English style guide or two and sit down and read them, and make notes cross-referencing to Chicago and AP Stylebook. The question is ... which one(s) do you Anglophiles consider most authoritative and relevant to Wikipedia? The Oxford Style Manual (2003) and New Hart's Rules (2005) are affordable. The Guardian (and Observer?) style guide has the advantage of having an online version, so that I can point people there, and it's of course more up-to-date, but in the US at least, style guides suitable for news writing aren't as satisfactory for Wikipedia as Chicago since they don't make a serious effort to reflect the style of typical Wikipedia sources.- Dank (push to talk) 15:40, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

The Oxford Dictionary is certainly the most prestigious dictionary in the world. I don't know much about style guides. I'm sure Oxford and Cambridge have their own. Oxford Dictionaries Online has some information on the differences better British and American English. Other than that, The Times style guide is popular, as well as other style guides of major British newspapers. McLerristarr | Mclay1 16:01, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Ah, you've changed your comment since I read it. I would recommend the Guardian style guide. McLerristarr | Mclay1 16:03, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Although, this is coming from a native speaker of British English. You may have to wait for an American who knows about these things to reply. McLerristarr | Mclay1 16:05, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

• British articles on Wikipedia use dd mmm yyyy dates. Some help is available here with spelling, and here with date formats. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 16:09, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
• Some general fixes available here. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 05:36, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
  • A problem I've just noticed with newspaper style guides is that they are concerned with saving space. For example, some of their opinions on full stops and spaces in abbreviations contradict WP:MOS. McLerristarr | Mclay1 16:14, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Recommending The Cambridge Guide to English Usage. It's international, discussing most WP:ENGVAR variations and, as it quotes from the British National Corpus and similar databases from other countries, it's authoritative by citing usage, rather than an author's opinion. The editor can claim impartiality between American and British usage as she is Australian. --Old Moonraker (talk) 06:50, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, that's not true. As an Australian, I know Australians use British spelling, apart from "programme" being spelt the American way in Australia. McLerristarr | Mclay1 11:27, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Newspapers (at any rate British newspapers) often ignore international conventions or standards. For example, British newspapers might write "10C (50F)" where they mean "10 °C (50 °F)" - it appears that they do not know that "50F" (50 farads) describes a really big capacitor or that "10C" (10 coulombs)is an electric charge. Similarly, they often use "kph" whereas international convention is to use "km/h". Martinvl (talk) 11:42, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm sure it is true that Pam Peters did indeed edit her work impartially: the publisher's introduction claims that she "notes the major dictionaries, grammars and usage books in the US, UK, Canada and Australia..." (italics added). --Old Moonraker (talk) 21:55, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Not quite sure why knowing British English is high on a list of "things to do" for a native speaker of American English. I just write the article and let someone correct me! A native speaker can spot errors and make corrections in a few seconds. I correct honour to honor often for British speakers in American articles. No big deal, right? The hard part was getting the facts straight with references. The few misspelled words or awkward phrasing can be easily corrected by someone else IMO. Gives others a chance to contribute. :) Student7 (talk) 21:45, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Because you're apparently an author; Dank mentioned "copyediting". I used to unknowingly "correct" Britishisms like "storey", and I presumably continue to "correct" unrecognized Britishisms (any apparent typo could conceivably be an unrecognized Britishism.) Art LaPella (talk) 23:25, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Exactly. Good news ... Ian Rose and AustralianRupert have volunteered to cover our A-class BritEng articles, so the main reason for me to continue to study BritEng is just as Art says. - Dank (push to talk) 14:13, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I crossed the Atlantic thrice (= three times) between the ages of 6 and 11, being taught (and corrected) by both British and American teachers, so while I'm not absolutely bilingual, I understand the issues fairly well. If it's something like honour/honor that's clear and unambiguous, just go ahead and do it yourself, but you don't really need master British (or Australian, Canadian, Caribbean, Indian or South African) idiom to do the initial writing of articles about non-U.S. subjects. In some ways, in fact, it might be better to let a "native" do the revisions, since there are some finer distinctions in both American and British usage that aren't readily apparent to speakers of the other idiom (for example, "practice" is both a verb and a noun in U.S. English, while British uses "[to] practise" for the verb and "practice" for the noun; at least until recently "ass" [with a short "a"] only meant the Biblical animal in British English [which spells and pronounces the less-polite sense semi-phonetically with four letters]; on the other hand, Americans tend to reserve "metre" for the musical/poetic rhythm and "meter" for the unit of length, while the British spell both "metre"). On the other hand, you'd only be doing your job if you corrected a well-meaning British editor's misunderstanding of your intended meaning (e.g. changing "story" to "storey" when you meant a tale rather than the floor of a building.) But don't overworry yourself; the three not-overly-serious US/UK translators I have were all small enough to be stocking-stuffers for different Christmases, much smaller and thinner than the average light paperback; it's not like trying to learn Middle English or Biblical-Shakespearean English. I found the reference sections of the Merriam-Webster New Collegiate Dictionary's sixth and seventh editions to be pretty good guides to Anglo-American variations in both spelling and pronunciation; I don't know if later editions still have equivalent sections. —— Shakescene (talk) 07:27, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Our article American and British English differences doesn't seem too bad to me, for that matter. A. di M. (talk) 11:08, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

That reminds me of a leaflet advertising a gym in Ireland reading "Get off your ass" with a picture of a donkey. --A. di M. (talk) 12:48, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

DATERET conflict

I'm having a disagreement with an editor over the format of dates in the History of supernova observation. He has tried to apply international format dates to the article. I reverted his edit under the WP:DATERET policy. We have been holding a discussion on the talk page.

I believe Wikipedia policy is on my side on this dispute, and he may be violating WP:POINT by continuing his reverts. I suspect he is trying to set a precedent for a policy change, but this seems like the more appropriate location for that venue. What would you suggest I do? (I have asked him to bring up the topic here, but he apparently declined.) Thank you.—RJH (talk) 18:35, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not surprised. Talks here can get rough. I would be open to expanding "strong national ties" to any good and objective reason (such as if, for example, all professional astronomers' organizations, even in non-international countries, used the international format), but as far as I know, there is no intra-Wikipedia policy stating that astronomy articles must use one given format or another. Even if there were, the MoS would supersede it.

My own take is that if the article is written in U.S. English, then it should use U.S. formatting and punctuation in all respects. Darkfrog24 (talk) 22:54, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, the Day Month format is far from being unattested in AmE[7] and the Month Day is far from being unattested in BrE[8], after all (though they are sufficiently rarer for me to want to avoid using the former in AmE or the latter in BrE unless there's a good reason to). --A. di M. (talk) 23:37, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the responses on the article talk page.—RJH (talk) 15:40, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Collaboration and dissent

At Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2011-01-10/News and notes#In brief, the second item is the following.

• "Four essays every Wikimedian should read!": On her personal blog, the Wikimedia Foundation's Executive Director Sue Gardner recommended Four essays every Wikimedian should read! from Less Wrong (a rationalist community blog co-founded by Eliezer Yudkowsky, see also the entry LessWrong on RationalWiki). As described by Gardner, the four postings are about "collaboration, dissent, how groups can work together productively". In another posting, she described her recent travels in India.
  

—Wavelength (talk) 22:02, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

ENGVAR problem

I've got an odd sort of ENGVAR problem over at Talk:Special education. I've got a very nice editor who is absolutely determined that British educators never-ever-ever uses certain words—today, we've added the word accommodations (in the plural) to the list—despite having been presented with UK sources (e.g., major reports from DFES [the UK's main education agency]) that definitely do so.

I don't suppose that we've got an expert on British English who could help me out? (Yes, the article is written in American English, but the presence of English words deemed to be "American" rather than "British" seems to be deeply disturbing somehow, even though they are all directly defined in the article.)

It's time for me to take a break, but I'd love to have some help. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:48, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

It sounds to BR Eng ears like something of an affectation (and to a teacher like something absolutely typical of the mealy mouthed, pseudo-psychological middle management jargon ridden crap typical of the DfE: I'm pleasantly surprised to see them use any word other than as part of a TLA) Not typical UK vocabulary: WP:VNE (a sadly overlooked element of ENGVAR) would probably be better served by alternative phraseology. Kevin McE (talk) 00:10, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm thoroughly horrified at such usage by, of all organisations, the one in charge of British schools and universities... explains why British educashions is going to the dogs. ;-) --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 07:00, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps driven by real-estate advertising: It's beyond doubt an Americanism, but one which is gaining ground in Britain, according to the BNC. The Cambridge Guide to English Usage (2004) quotes the BNC as recording 45 instances of the plural usage in BrEng—evidence, it suggests, that the plural is "being recommissioned". The work notes its rise in estate-agent speak—perhaps not a shining example of sound use of language—but also application in the abstract sense. --Old Moonraker (talk) 07:13, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Lower case first letters

I originally posted this on WT:AT, until I was told that this page would be better to discuss it.

For a while I have been discovering that if a band parses their name in all lower case letters every single time, then per whichever one of the naming guidelines there is, it has to be given a capital letter first, and this is almost always the case with every band which has this set up (and the bands are generally from Japan). But when it comes to individual people such as will.i.am, apl.de.ap, k.d. lang and the like, it's perfectly allowable to use {{lowercase}} and refer to the individual throughout the article without capital letters in the name.

Why do we have this selective treatment of lowercase letters?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 01:07, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

What do you mean by "it has to be given a capital letter first"? Do you mean that it has to be given a capital letter the first time it is mentioned, but thereafter can be all lower case? That seems a peculiar rule... 86.185.76.186 (talk) 14:07, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

I've not heard of the rule mentioned by Ryulong. In my view, if individuals or bands wish to reflect their names using lowercase letters that wish should be respected, except if the name appears at the beginning of a sentence, in which case it should be capitalized (e.g., "The music of k.d. lang in her new album ..." but "... new album. K.d. lang's music ...".) — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 14:34, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

To avoid looking funny, it would probably be best to avoid starting the sentence with a name like k.d.lang. That can be done pretty easily. Rumiton (talk) 16:28, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Let me give two examples: defspiral and angela are two Japanese bands who parse their names in all lower case letters. However, because of the current reading of one of the manuals of style this is apparently not allowed because having all lower case letters is a trademark. I also have a feeling that this is a double standard because these bands are Japanese in origin and automatically it is assumed that if a band is Japanese then that means anything they do that involves the English language has to be corrected for Wikipedia, and I've seen this blatantly clear with the requested move here. While articles on artists in the Anglosphere get to have their titles parsed in any which form of capitalization.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 19:50, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

These names aren't being capitalized "because having all lower case letters is a trademark"—they're being capitalized because, according to the normal capitalization rules of the English language, proper nouns are capitalized, and these are proper nouns. Read WP:MOSTM#Trademarks that begin with a lowercase letter more carefully, and see What's in a nAME(cq)? for another explanation. —Bkell (talk) 20:03, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

will.i.am, apl.de.ap, and k.d. lang are all proper nouns too. What makes them special?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 20:05, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't know. I would argue that they are not special. —Bkell (talk) 20:08, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, from looking at Talk:k.d. lang#Requested move, it appears that the rationale for the move to a lower-case name comes from a line at WP:MOSCAPS#Mixed or non-capitalization, which says, "Some individuals do not want their personal names capitalized. In such cases, Wikipedia articles may use lower case variants of personal names if they have regular and established use in reliable third-party sources (for example, k.d. lang)." So it appears that the Wikipedia Manual of Style says that trademarks should always be capitalized, but personal names don't have to be. (I don't necessarily agree with this distinction, but that's how it is, apparently.) —Bkell (talk) 20:15, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

So because defspiral and angela are bands and not individuals, that means they don't get the special treatment?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 20:27, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

That seems pretty messed up to me. I think we should respect the capitalisation preferences of any person, group or brand. McLerristarr | Mclay1 08:54, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

These names are clearly being exploited as if they were trade names. I see no reason why the must be capitalised. To treat them otherwise would be perverse, and contrary to common sense. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 09:19, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

WP:MOSTM has a lot of history and weight behind it; I don't think it's a good idea to start kowtowing to organizations' stylization trademarks just because we allow it for personal names. Powers ^T 20:09, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

We don't kowtow to weirdly-spelled personal names unless English-language reliable secondary sources do so. We should just do the same with corporate names. Many a time WP:MOSTM has been used to force a particular name for something regardless of what everyone else calls it. --A. di M. (talk) 20:23, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Is a band's name a corporate name, though?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 20:34, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes it is. Right now we have the nonsensical rule at WP:MOSTM banning all-lowercase spellings, though IMO it should be treated the way any other proper name is. A. di M. (talk) 11:52, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

• Agree with A di M: nonsensical rule. Tony (talk) 12:36, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
  • So, are you guys suggesting that the exceptions be eliminated completely ("k.d. lang" should not be allowed) or more exceptions be made (names of groups like bands should not be treated as trademarks and whatever capitalization scheme they use other than all caps)?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 06:55, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

    I'm suggesting that things should be referred to by whatever the hell English-language reliable secondary sources refer to them, regardless of both the trademark owner's preference and ‘standard English’ rules. (Proper names needn't be ‘standard English’ anyway: the article about “You Ain't Seen Nothing Yet” isn't located at You Haven't Seen Anything Yet, and I don't think anyone would ever dream of moving that.) We only need guidelines to choose which style to use when there are several in widespread use among reliable secondary sources. --A. di M. (talk) 10:55, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

    But the inherent issue in these moves is that the articles are on topics that are Japanese in origin but utilize the English language for their names.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 21:05, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

    There is still an answer to the question, "What do reliable secondary sources use?" If there are no English-language secondary sources about these topics, then you'll have to rely on Japanese ones. Ozob (talk) 22:24, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

    As the band name(s) uses lower case Roman lettering, so it seems that the problem does not exist, and we should adopt the name as stylised by the band(s). Band names are trade marks, FULL STOP. If all else fails, then I suggest ignoring all the rules, because it is clearly ridiculous and not in anyone's interests to slavishly follow a nonsensical one. After that, we should get the rule changed ;-) --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 02:32, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Slightly different capitalization schemes

As a side issue, how would the current locations of the articles on the bands known as m.o.v.e or Pay money To my Pain work and the song Journey through the Decade? Or are these two WP:AT issues?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 06:51, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Suggested edit re: parentheses and punctuation

I would like to propose the following edit. The article currently reads:

However, where one or more sentences are wholly inside brackets, place their punctuation inside the brackets (see Sentences and brackets below).

I think that the sentence would be more helpful as follows, because it would contain an example itself:

However, where one or more sentences are wholly inside brackets, place their punctuation inside the brackets. (For examples, see "Sentences and Brackets", below.)

I know this is similar to the example shown later but given that we already have a parenthetical here, why not make use of it? Agnosticaphid (talk) 21:45, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea. Darkfrog24 (talk) 12:40, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

MOS discussion

As this talk page generally enjoys far higher participation levels than the talk pages of MOS subsets, I invite editors here to participate at the discussion here. Regards, —WFC— 05:07, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

WP's 10th anniversary: MoS regulars invited to contribute to Signpost coverage

Dear colleagues, the English WP's weekly journal The Signpost is keen to cover the upcoming celebrations of WP's 10th anniversary in the "In the news" section; this high-profile page typically receives 1000–2000 hits during the week. We would welcome skilled editors who would like to try their hand at contributing to the page for the next edition (published Monday UTC). More details here (there's a link to the IRC, which will be active over the weekend, and links to good places to search for the stories that will be most interesting to our readers). The Managing Editor is User:HaeB. Tony (talk) 11:03, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Country names

There seems to be a lack of conformity in the styles used in the opening sentences of articles about nations. I've perused this page, as well as several others I thought revelant, and am still unclear about this. Is it correct to begin with the official name (i.e. The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, commonly known as The United Kingdom), or is it correct to begin with the title of the article (i.e. Iran, officially The Islamic Republic of Iran)? Or is it the case that either is acceptable? Joefromrandb (talk) 04:46, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I think our readers should be spared longwinded official names unless they are important in the context. A footnote is sometimes preferable to a gobbledy opening. If there's an etymology section, that could be a better place to insert all of the alternate titles. Tony (talk) 08:52, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Including official names of countries is basic information and should be in the lead. As for which to put first, I'd put the common name that is the article title. Just seems the most straightforward thing.oknazevad (talk) 14:46, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Oknazevad. The full name belongs in the lead. We do the same thing with people. Darkfrog24 (talk) 14:52, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

This is a frequently asked question. Per WP:Article titles, we don't necessarily use the "official" name for things as our article title... instead, we use whatever terminology is most commonly used in reliable sources. However, when we don't use the "official" name, we should mention it in the lede. Blueboar (talk) 15:01, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

That certainly makes sense. I reread WP:PLACE, which seems to say the same. My question now is, would I be editing properly if I were to reverse the order in articles that currently list the nation's official name before its common name? Joefromrandb (talk) 15:14, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

You would certainly be acting correctly to start a discussion on it. If you are talking about changing the article title, that is done through a move request. You would have to show that the "official" name is less common than some other terminology. If you are talking about changing the wording of the lede sentence, that should be discussed at the article talk page. Personally, I don't think it really matters whether the opening sentence is worded:

• "Official Name (more commonly referred to as Non-official common name)" or...
• "Non-official common name (officially, Official Name)"

as long as both alternatives are given. Blueboar (talk) 15:56, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying this. I have no strong preference either, but was rather striving for conformity where possible. I will inquire at the respective talk pages and see others feel. Joefromrandb (talk) 16:48, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I kinda lean towards Tony's point. Include it if helpful (judgement call on how important the distinction is). Hate ugly first sentences with a million parentheticals and arabic text and what have you. They repell reading. Think about how not to make that first sentence sloggy.... Think later in the article may be fine with a country where naming is not key (conversly the FYROMulans, it's all ya hear about them and the Greeks).TCO (talk) 18:13, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I'll say it again. The official name of a country is an utterly basic fact. It appears immediately after the title in every encyclopedia I've ever seen, as well as every almanac. It should remain in the lead.oknazevad (talk) 19:13, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, we agree... it should be included in the lede sentence... the question was about how to phrase that lede sentence. On that we have more flexibility. Blueboar (talk) 16:13, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

I prefer first the name of the country and in parentheses the long winding official names ... like Germany (official: Federal Republic of Germany) .... if there are other writing systems at use in the country in question, add those incl. transliteration and phonetic transcription. As in Sri Lanka (Sinh. ....... transliteration [IPA], Tamil. ....... Transliteration IPA; officially: official title) ... छातीऀनाएल - chartinael (talk) 10:26, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Requested move re dashes in Talk:Poland–Lithuania

Please see Talk:Poland–Lithuania regarding a requested move arguing that a simple dash is more acceptable. Renata (talk) 21:54, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

The nominator actually wants the page moved to a hyphen. McLerristarr | Mclay1 05:08, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Wikiproject guides moving to MOS space

FYI, a large number of WikiProject local guides are being renamed to MOS names, without any indication that those guides have any support other than local wikiproject support. See WP:RM contributions by user:Bernolákovčina

65.93.14.196 (talk) 06:49, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

This is not necessarily a problem. Most local project MOSs are in sync with what we say here in the general MOS... and when there are conflicts, these will come to light and can be discussed. Blueboar (talk) 16:09, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

About a year ago, there were many here (of sharply different views on other matters) who felt that this is a huge problem of creep. I counted the number of things that are considered to be part of the Manual of Style and it was then over 200. The Wiki-judicial fiction that every editor is aware of The Law becomes untenable (even laughable) when what's called the Manual of Style has bloated so much that it's a semi-heroic effort just to find and read all the titles. There's no reason that local conventions will not continue to expand nearly continuously and at least as rapidly, as subject fields and projects mature. Either a genuine local consensus will develop with time, enshrined in a local convention, or one faction will gain temporary hegemony and write a convention to bludgeon down opposing views. If all this is called "Manual of Style" it will collapse of its own weight, and few sensible editors who want to accomplish any work will continue to consult it or pay it any heed. —— Shakescene (talk) 22:54, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

The templates {{WikiProject style advice}} and {{WikiProject content advice}} were recently created to address this issue. Mlm42 (talk) 20:18, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

"Invitation to edit" trial discussion

Contributors to this talk page might be interested in the onging "Invitation to edit" trial. This consists of adding tutorial information about using Wikipedia itself to the article lead, as seen in Conjunctivitis, Placenta, and several other medicine-related topics. There is currently discussion about whether this trial should be extended to two months instead of to the originally proposed one month. Discussion is occurring on the template talk page. Thparkth (talk) 12:21, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Comma before coordinating conjunction or quotation

A comma is sometimes used in each of the following types of sentence: Paul makes the customer visits but Mary drafts the contracts. Paul said “no”. Is a comma necessary in these cases? And should this be the subject of a guideline? — Wrapped in Grey (talk) 08:56, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Normal practice is to use the comma there. Only in very short sentences might one omit the comma. Per Harbrace (rule 12a), "When the clauses are short, the comma may be omitted before and, but, or or, but seldom before for, nor, so, yet." And then it gives an example from Rachel Carson: "The next night the wind shifted and the thaw began." But this is an exception to the basic rule of "use a comma before a coordinating conjunction".

I think this is basic grammar stuff one can look up in a book, not really controversial or one of these intricate discussions like U.S. versys US where usage varies. Unless we are going to rewrite Harbrace, not sure adding every grammar rule is that helpful. Me, I just keep that Harbrace thing next to me and check it all the time. On stuff where I still have doubts or it seems like there is alternate usage, I go to the net and read some different opinions. (And it's not just about winning Wiki arguments, but maybe I learn something.)TCO (talk) 18:14, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Prescriptions vs common sense. The quotation is the direct object of the word "said". It makes no sense to throw a comma there ... and written English always makes sense ... JIMp _talk·cont 22:04, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

I would use a comma in Wrapped Grey's example sentence above. It's standard grammar from the book. Coordinating conjunction gets a comma. Boom, boom, boom. :-) TCO (talk) 22:24, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

This is English, Jimp. It's like the old crazy relative that we love anyway. What is correct is not always what makes sense (and what makes sense can vary from person to person). Darkfrog24 (talk) 13:00, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Comma usage is more flexible than expressed in any authority. Whether a comma is used before "but" depends on the context, the tenor, the register, and especially the surrounding text. Usually, but not always. I've been coaxed not to use commas in my own writing to such a slavish prescription as expressed above. I think MoS should not legislate on this. Tony (talk) 13:51, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, so quotations as sentence object, no, but coordinating conjunctions, often but not always—consider on a case by case basis. Don't see that it would be harmful to put a summary in the guide though. — Wrapped in Grey (talk) 15:21, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Before quotations? Case-by-case decision, although close-by inconsistency might be avoided. Such commas can be speed-humps if unnecessary. Depends partly on whether you want to slow the reader down for a quote. Sometimes you do. Tony (talk) 16:04, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

In your second sentence, I suspect there are two very distinct possibilities. If it is simply intended to report that Paul declined, without asserting that he actualy used the word no, then the speech marks are redundant, and erroneous. If, however, Paul's use of that specific word is to be recored, then (in UK grammar, at least) a comma and a capital N would be required. Kevin McE (talk) 13:24, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

City names

We've got an editor, User:Jeremiestrother, who is using the city name policy on this page to replace a city's official name (a field in the city's info box template) with its common name in dozens of articles. He has taken it upon himself to make these changes without consulting anyone regarding his novel reading of the MoS. While the policy as stated here makes good sense, it makes no sense to apply it to a field that was specifically intended to inform the reader about the city's official name. Here's a snippet of the affected info box showing the original version and with Jeremiestrother's edits in parenthesis.

 {{Infobox Settlement
  |name = City of Noblesville, Indiana
  |official_name            = City of Noblesville  (changing to just "Noblesville")
  |native_name              = 
  |settlement_type          = [[City]]

Please advise. Rklawton (talk) 14:36, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Actually, looking at that infobox, I think it should be:

{{Infobox Settlement
  |name = Noblesville, Indiana
  |official_name            = City of Noblesville
  |native_name              = 
  |settlement_type          = [[City]]

Or in other words, yes, the "official name" parameter should definitely be the full official name (and how anyone could interpret it otherwise is beyond me), but the "name" parameter, which titles the infobox, should be the same as the article title, and therefore not include the "City of" portion. In short, you're both right, and both wrong. Jeremiestrother is right that the name should be the common name, not the formal title, but for some inexplicable reason he's changing the wrong parameter. oknazevad (talk) 21:50, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

I would agree with Oknazevad here... the info box parameters seem to spell out which goes where. Blueboar (talk) 22:36, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps I wasn't clear enough. My only complaint was that Jeremiestrother was replacing official names with common names in the official name field of a city's info box (as illustrated above). I'm not both right and wrong in this. I'm simply right. But thank you for confirming my views on this. I'll drop a note on Jeremiestrother's talk page if someone hasn't done this already. Rklawton (talk) 03:06, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, I would say that, yes, you were right to object to the removal of the official name from the "official name" parameter. But it still seems to me that the "name" parameter should be the common short name, matching the article title. Looking at some other (larger) cities, it seems that that's not followed often, though. I wonder why that is. oknazevad (talk) 03:40, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

My two cents' worth: the "official" name of a city is just the name and does not include the word city, unless it is part of the name per se (e.g., Hartford City, Indiana). That is to say: the official name of Bangor, Maine, is just: BANGOR. The word city or town should be included when the corporate governing body is acting in its official capacity. John works for the City of Boston. (He's employed by the city government.) John lives in Boston./John lives in the city of Boston. Moreover, the info box may need reworking. Maybe delete the "official name" field - because the name IS the official name. There is no reason to have both fields. Keeping in mind: the "official" name is only in reference to the corporate city government, not the geographical entity, and articles about cities/town are about the geographical entity and not their governments. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.162.43.187 (talk) 04:45, 22 January 2011 (UTC) Chicago has this to say: http://www.chicagomanualofstyle.org/CMS_FAQ/Capitalization/Capitalization16.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.162.43.187 (talk) 05:01, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Actually, bad example. According to the home rule charter of Bangor, Maine, "The inhabitants of the City of Bangor shall continue to be a municipal corporation under the name of the City of Bangor". --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 05:25, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Folks, I'd like to defend my position here—just a little bit—and I recognize that I'm a new editor at Wikipedia. I would like to add that I am a professional copyeditor and proofreader; that's how I make my living. Moreover, I realize that there will be (and should be) exceptions (to be mentioned later). When it comes to the InfoBox, I suggest that the field "Official Name" be done away with. There is no such thing as an "official name"—there is just a name, with very few exceptions. Consider: John Q. Public's name is John Q. Public, not the Person of John Q. Public. Similarly, Boston is just Boston, not the City of Boston. Consider: Jane lives in the state of Utah; not, Jane lives in the State of Utah. Moreover, the next field below shows the form of government, thus re-stating it in the "official name" line is redundant. There is only a name; there is no difference between an "official name" and a "name" (with a very few exceptions, situations or problems). When there is a need to distinguish between the geographical entity named Boston (THAT'S THE TRICK HERE: geography vs. corporate body!) and the corporate governing body (i.e., the city's government, in its legal capacity), THEN the government may be referred to as the City of Boston (e.g.: The City of Boston sued ABC Company for breach of contract.) A name is a name is a name; I'm not convinced that the idea of an "official" name can be supported: John Q. Public's name is not "officially": the Person of John Q. Public. The Chicago Manual of Style, AP, the New York Times MoS, etc., all recommend against capitalizing the words "city", "town", "company", "state", etc. The reason they all recommend against such practice is that they consider those words not to be part of the name of said entities. Interestingly, Chicago calls it, "tooting one's own horn." One should guard against the use of "Legalese", where, for example, many words are capitalized in contravention of the general rules of writing English; one should also guard against the desire for self-aggrandisement (i.e., "tooting one's own horn"). Wikipedia respects many varieties of English, but also recognizes generally accepted forms as opposed to non-standard forms; in this case, the established American variety of English should be respected, not the forms that cities wish to use, against generally accepted rules of grammar, simply in order to "toot their own horns". It seems to me that there really is no such thing as an "official name", there is only a name. The so-called "official name" is used only in legal matters when the city's government is acting in its official capacity. However, the government is not necessarily the same as the geographical boundaries of a city. Naturally, there are exceptions and problematic phrases. The "City of New York" is, in fact, "New York City" – it's an exception; but, Atlanta is never known as the "City of Atlanta". While Wikipedia MoS, and every other major style guide, recommends against capitalizing the word "state" (e.g., the state of Kansas), the word "commonwealth" poses difficult questions (although it shouldn't). When referring to certain countries, it's usually necessary to include the descriptive words (e.g., "Republic of Georgia", but "Germany"). My point is this: with regard to cities, towns, and states (and commonwealths), the words "city", "town", "state", etc., should not be included (or capitalized) because they are not part of the name. Chicago, AP, NYT, even the Wikipedia MoS, support this position. My suggestion is that we re-work the InfoBox to show: name, form of government, and nickname. Because the InfoBox shows the form of government (e.g., town, city, etc.), there's no need to repeat that same information in the name field. I eagerly await discussion.

Jeremiestrother (talk) 09:17, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Would you take a shot at modifying the MoS accordingly? Also, let's start a new thread for the name field (below). Rklawton (talk) 04:23, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Please note that User:Jeremiestrother and User:70.162.43.187 are the same editor. At this point I'm going to assume good faith that Jeremiestrother simply forgot to login for a couple of editing sessions. However, I do object to his campaign to change cities names in spite of the fact that the other editors here have agreed that "official name" means exactly that, and I will advise the editor accordingly. I will also revert his edits back per our discussion above. Rklawton (talk) 21:02, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Someone make also wish to take the initiative to undo the changes made by these two accounts, but please do not rollback without first previewing. This editor is in the habit of making constructive edits - just not in the matter at hand. User contributions: [9] [10] Rklawton (talk) 21:17, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Various issues that have been archived

For the cliffsnotes, see #tl;dr

I previously came to this page to raise issues on the lack of consistency when it came to treatment of proper nouns that are universally not capitalized which were issues with WP:MOSTM (the names of the bands defspiral and angela). I also raised a similar issue for a song title that currently has a non-standard capitalization scheme when compared with the guidelines at WP:ALBUMCAPS (Journey through the Decade), a band that has a non-standard capitalization scheme that apparently has issues at WP:MOSMUSIC#Capitalization (Pay money To my Pain) and a band whose name is stylized in a way that treats it as an initialism when it isn't which I believe is an issue with WP:ABBR (m.o.v.e) and the title of a song where WP:ABBR (and WP:MOS-JA) was brought up (W-B-X ~W-Boiled Extreme~ [the tildes themselves are an issue with MOS-JA and WP:AT which I brought up here but received very little input from individuals uninvolved with the prior discussion at MOS-JA]).

From the various arguments that have been raised at a handful of move requests I put in place for these pages, it seems that there is an inherent issue with the applications of WP:MOSTM (most people ignore the part that says "When deciding how to format a trademark, editors should choose among styles already in use (not invent new ones) and choose the style that most closely resembles standard English, regardless of the preference of the trademark owner."), WP:COMMONNAME, and WP:UE ("If there are too few English-language sources to constitute an established usage, follow the conventions of the language appropriate to the subject")

I am aware that all of these cases also fall under the umbra of WP:MOS-JA, but due to the various style guidelines in place, I believe that this venue would provide more outside input and be able to determine a consensus that affects the whole project, rather than the treatment of just the English language in a Japanese context.

In short, the way non-Anglophone nations use the English language in their media is treated differently than the way Anglophone nations use the English language on this Wikipedia. When some stylizations are completely thrown out because they are not standard English and are not from an English speaking nation, similar stylizations are kept in place for article subjects of American, Canadian, British, Irish, Australian, New Zealand extraction. The specific manuals of style (e.g. WP:MOS-JA, WP:MOSMUSIC) that mistakenly apply the more general ones (e.g. WP:ABBR, MOS:TM), and have improper applications of WP:AT, should be modified to remove this disparity.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 20:54, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

How would Brittanica, NYT, WSJ, National Geographic, New Yorker (and some British rags) handle it? I'm not messing with you, am serious. Maye we can take a cue from them (at least gain an insight) and see if they usually follow local usage or more standard norms here. TCO (talk) 21:05, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

As my issues concern Japanese popular culture, I am not sure if they would even be covered by these various other publications you are bringing up. I am only sure of how they are treated in the Japanese media (the way they are formatted as I refer to them), English language fan media aka not reliable sources (also the way I formatted them above), and how the English Wikipedia is currently treating them (the current locations of the pages).—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 21:17, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

I suspect that the SUM of English media may have dealt with the OVERALL problem before. Worth looking for at least. Maybe they have, maybe they haven't. Maybe they are consistent, maybe not. But worth a look. Not inventing the wheel if there is a normal way of handling this...TCO (talk) 22:26, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Well I would like someone to look into this because the three requested moves I started that relate to this have all been closed as no consensus because of MOS warriors who have been interpretting the rules entirely wrong.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 18:55, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

What I would do is use proper capitalization in the article title and body text but give an example of the trademark caps in the lead: "The band Angela (often written "angela") was founded in..." etc. Darkfrog24 (talk) 14:48, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

But it was decided in one of the archived discussions that band names should be treated like any proper name and should not be counted as stylizations. If all reliable sources use "angela" why should we refer to it as "Angela"?—Ryūlóng (竜龙)

If they forget to use their shift key, how reliable can they be? Heh. Frankly, Ryulong, I don't see why any proper name would need incorrect capitalization. Darkfrog24 (talk) 10:51, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

What do you mean "forget to use their shift key"? It's how the band's name is formatted in every single reliable source, by the band itself, by its record label, etc. If that's what they call themselves in print, why should we change it? WP:MOSTM says to use styles that exist, and not make ones up ourselves. If no one in reliable sources refers to angela as "Angela" or Pay money To my Pain as "Pay Money to My Pain", then the English Wikipedia shouldn't either.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 20:04, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Help requested: MoS problems in the Wikipedia:WikiProject Mixed martial arts

At the suggestion of an administrator, I bring this issue here. The current text of the WP:MMA, with the recommended guidelines for MMA related articles regarding records, currently enforces some manual of style related problems. The first one is capitalization in the Method column, which right now is enforced in non proper names, acronyms, or initialisms. For example, right now it's used "Submission (Shoulder Injury)" instead of "Submission (shoulder injury)" or "KO (Punch)" instead of "KO (punch)".

The other one is the overuse of flag icons in the Location column despite that the location is mentioned with text. For example, " Tokyo, Japan" instead of simply "Tokyo, Japan". I've tried to address these and other related issues, but some editors seem to believe that it looks "stupid". You can check the changes here. In the discussion, I have pointed out that MOS:CAPS and MOS:ICON already state that those two issues should be avoided, but some editors simply ignore them. Regarding flag icons, I also think that they are completely unnecessary because the location is already mentioned and also because they increases server load. There are a few other MoS related issues, such as adding extra text for events (e.g. [[UFC 60|UFC 60: Hughes vs. Gracie]] instead of [[UFC 60]] which is the article title.)

Since there are very few editors actively discussion these issue (most simply revert the changes) and even fewer know of the manual of styles, and since no agreement can be reached, I request assistance in this issue, because I don't believe that using such capitalization or adding unneeded flag icons help in any way to improve the quality of the articles. If anyone could comment in the discussion at the talk page of WP:MMA it would be helpful because the discussion is going nowhere and there are only 3 editors actively participating, with on of them reverting the changes. I also want to point out that these problems are not limited to the WP:MMA. Most MMA related biographies have these problems also, so the discussion is not limited to the guideline. Jfgslo (talk) 04:21, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Geobox|Settlement, name field

Per above, we've agreed that "Official name" should be a city's official name rather than a shortened or common version. During the discussion, Oknazevad suggested we use the article's name for the "name" field, so I thought it useful to start a new thread for that discussion. I'd be interested in hearing from any dedicated geographers, but given that the "name" field also serves as the title for the info box, I believe Oknazevad's recommendation makes good sense and that any exceptions to this would need to be justified and discussed prior to implementation on a per-article basis. Rklawton (talk) 04:29, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, it's obvious that I support the idea, being that it was my idea. But just making it official for polling purposes. oknazevad (talk) 04:56, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Infoboxes have their use but can also get kinda cruddy with a lot of duplication of info. Maybe cut all the name stuff? Love the horn tooting thing on caps and could you do something about the darned species capitalizers (main center of herecy is the birders). Following their language reform land grab, I would need to start referring to Virginia Ham and even cutting it with a Chef's Knife.  ;) TCO (talk) 09:26, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Agree with TCO here in that cutting a lot of the stuff from the infobox is probably an easy way to avoid the issue and save time :P Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 19:17, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Duplication of information is not a problem. An infobox is a convenient device for a quick overview of basic information. Even an infobox that occupies one half of a page is not a problem.

—Wavelength (talk) 19:57, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree that duplication of information (i.e. putting information in info boxes that also appears in the article) isn't a problem. In fact, these boxes with their defined fields makes it easier for bots of various sorts to grab and reuse this structured data thereby rendering Wikipedia even more useful. Rklawton (talk) 20:55, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Wavelength, I take a more uncompromising view: infoboxes are mostly a blight on WP. The duplication of information is just one reason. I wonder who actually reads them? What is wrong with the article text? Tony (talk) 15:22, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

I consulted "Blight" and wikt:blight, which says "(by extension) anything that impedes growth or development or spoils any other aspect of life". How are infoboxes a blight? I read them, or parts of them. The article text can be informative, but an infobox is more convenient for quick reference. For example, if I want to find out the area and population of a country, I can find out faster and more easily from an infobox than from the main text of an article.

—Wavelength (talk) 16:45, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Or the mass of Enceladus (moon), the CEO of IBM, the atomic mass of carbon, ... Art LaPella (talk) 19:43, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

And please don't overlook my bot argument. Infoboxes put some structure into our data which makes it more useful for a wider variety of purposes. Rklawton (talk) 18:34, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

It's not an all or nothing. I do think they have their uses for quick info and have warmed to them a bit more (even things like species synonyms) as I found myself using them. But at least a consideration over a field like the common name. Do we need it in two different parts of the infobox (title and field)? I mean it's already got high prominence and close positioning as the article title and with usage in the first sentence of the article. I'm not even arguing against the use of the field. Haven't thought enough about it. Just that it's worth thinking about.TCO (talk) 00:33, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I have no objection to removing "common name" for the reasons you noted. Rklawton (talk) 02:21, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it is needed in the infobox; not least since it's required for the emitted microformat. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 15:11, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Ah bot's. The perfect argument for not putting information into infoboxes is so a bot can use it. I have been working my way through one tree focusing on the year in categories. While I'm not keeping score, I would say that 5-10% of the years listed in the infobox are incorrect. Seems some editors have a primal need to add an actual date to articles in multiple ways. I have found some years being totally unsupported by the article text, a year being pulled out from somewhere in a range, unknown but suspected ranges converted to a specific year and clearly garbage. I suspect, but can't prove that most of the categories I'm dealing with were added by script assisted editing, bot or editor assisted, working from the infobox. To be fair, I have made a few errors myself, for far fewer then what has been corrected. So rather then argue where the data is best presented, I would rather see an effort in correcting and sourcing the data we have. Oh, on the subject at hand, as long the box does not get too long, I think it is needed to give a quick overview of standard overview of common information. Like the official name of a settlement which is not always easy to work into the article text and is probably not needed in the text portion. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:53, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Tony, if you don't read or use them, then you can adjust your local CSS to hide them. But please don't assume others don't read, use or even need them. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 15:11, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

• Support I support the existence of infoboxes, I read them all the time. I'd add example, but they are largely duplicative of the reasons listed above. Speaking of duplicative, remember that the information in info boxes is intended to be duplicative. I support retention of the common name field, even though it will (normally) be duplicative of the title. I don't know how useful the official name field is, but if it is marginally useful, this is exactly where Wikipedia can shine. (If, for some reason, I needed the official name of a dozen cities, I could slog through a dozen websites and find it eventually in a dozen different places, or know that it is on every WP infobox.I know which I'd prefer.)--SPhilbrickT 20:36, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm in favor of infoboxes. But I agree that bots do need to be considered and I hadn't til mentioned here.

Nevertheless, an infobox makes the material "look important" IMO. I take an article much more seriously, however undeserved, if it has an infobox, than "naked," without. It looks "neglected" somehow. Like pictures. Raw text needs something for balance. Notice, too that your websites and newspapers (USA Today, for example) all have "box" information in them with statistical summaries. I suspect these are the most read articles.

There has been too little discussion, and when we've had it, against template "burying" of info. For example, a guru might describe a template with an infobox with correct info in it, then invoke the template in the article. Only serious editors will bother editing the template to change the data.

Probably ought to do the same to census data - put it in a template so vandals won't monkey with it, but that's another subject. Student7 (talk) 18:47, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I despise the entire concept of using bots to write articles (or generate info boxes)... they can be useful when it comes to searching for information to be incorporated into articles, but a human is needed to ensure that the information is actually accurate and appropriate. Blueboar (talk) 20:00, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't have any background with bot supplying information. I would assume that the infoboxes were first filled in, then the dates changed in the article but not the infoboxes. The same problem with maintaining data in two places. The same happens when leads change; they don't match the body of the text. So I guess I am forced to agree that info boxes can cause/result in maintenance problems. Student7 (talk) 22:54, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

• I support the inclusion of info boxes and the use of the "official name" field to specify the official/legal name of the city (I appreciate the argument that "City of Sometown" technically refers to only the government of the city and not the geographical place, but I think that form is used sufficiently to refer to the place to not be an issue).

  However, I have to ask why the (plain/common) Name field should include the state - the state is not part of the name of a city - it is descriptive information that helps us identify which city of that name it is (assuming there are multiple cities with that name, which there often are), and helps us understand where it is, but what does any of that have to do with the name? If you ask an American where he or she is from, they are likely to answer in the City, State format, but that's because they are identifying where geographically they are from, not the name of the place where they are from. Ask the same person instead, "what is the name of the city you are from?", and see what you get. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:23, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Didn't vs Did not

Given that the Manual of Style has a line on just about everything, I was wondering if there was one on this? I was very surprised to check my watchlist and find half a dozen edits such as this. Thanks in advance, —WFC— 20:01, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Doesn't Does not WP:CONTRACTION cover it?--SPhilbrickT 20:39, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Dang, you beat me. Mega-dittoes.TCO (talk) 20:53, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

If that's so, why do native speakers tend to find an error in sentences like this: "Why did not he go?" Chrisrus (talk) 21:33, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Why did he not go?, however, is fine. --Trovatore (talk) 21:45, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Some informalities are so idiomatic that you can't do without them. They seldom come up in writing, though; if you encounter something like that, other than in a quote, find a good fix. Dicklyon (talk) 21:37, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

FTR, I know that "Does not WP:CONTRACTION cover it?" is poor English and would have been better as "Does WP:CONTRACTION not cover it?". However, that would have reduced the visual effect, and I was more interested in a rare chance to look clever than a chance to be grammatically correct. It is mildly interesting that the proper placement of "not" sometimes follows the verb, sometimes not. "I didn't have sex with that woman" <->"I did not have sex with that woman." but " Why don't you fix this" <-> "Why do you not fix this?" Is it questions versus statements? I suspect if the straightforward fix sounds awkward, it may be a red flag that a more substantive rewrite is warranted.--SPhilbrickT 22:07, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

And the edit which began this discussion is an example. Did not is no help while the passage has two cliches and a mindless repetition ; I have edited to at least improve matters. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:21, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Negative questions without contrations

1. Why do not you always take an umbrella?
2. Why do you not always take an umbrella?
3. Why do you always not take an umbella?Chrisrus (talk) 22:17, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Sentence 2 and 3 do not say the same thing. I see sentence 2 as making the same claim as sentence 1, but in a grammatically preferable way.--SPhilbrickT 22:11, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

It occurs to me that the nature of Wikipedia is that there are unlikely to be many questions, outside of direct quotes. Am I wrong (and I should already clarify, I mean main space, not talk space.)--SPhilbrickT 22:14, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

No, I think you're right. I wouldn't want to put a blanket ban on questions in mainspace, but I can't imagine a good reason for them. There's an expository style that asks a question and then answers it, but I think that style is too chatty for an encyclopedia. --Trovatore (talk) 22:16, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that occurs to me, too, that negative questions (and questions in general) are not likely to be used in an encyclopedia. It is interesting, though. I'd say that if one wanted the meaning of the second question, as opposed to the third, one might say it without a contraction, but I don't think English-speaking people do, for some reason; at least not very often or not anymore. There appears to be an unwritten rule that contrations are the proper way to ask a negative question. Let me play some more:

1. Is not she probably coming?
2. Is she not probably coming?

I think you'll agree that these have different meanings (not modifies a different word), and that #1, though it breaks no rule that I've ever heard of or seen written, is, if not just plain wrong, pretty strange and just not the way English is spoken. It would be best to use a contraction in the first case. Chrisrus (talk) 22:29, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

The situations in which contracted forms are natural are rarely useful to the encyclopedia; we ask very few questions - and we normally use a formal register, in which he didn't come is unidiomatic. But there are exceptions to both generalizations; there should be more: much of our worst writing comes from a failed attempt at a high register. When they arise, ignore all rules (that's policy); that's why WP:CONTRACTIONS is phrased as it is, with generally.

If you find that's why in an article, consider recasting the sentence; but don't just substitute that is why, which makes Wikipedia look stupid - and will, for most anglophones, make it harder to read. Even if they don't realize why, they will stumble over the failure of idiom and look around for what's wrong, and why this strangeness has arisen. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:15, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Not usually. "That's why", 6,380,000 Google Books hits. "That is why", 3,800,000 Google Books hits. Art LaPella (talk) 02:27, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Text annotations in images

Spawned from Wikipedia:Help desk#Image is annotated in Spanish, the current guideline at Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Avoid entering textual information as images seems to be talking about use of "an image of text" rather than "the text itself" (for example, exported from Word or other formatting system). Should it be extended to include text-annotations in a graphics image (labels or details on a diagram)? For example, Wikipedia:Manual of Style (chemistry)/Structure drawing#General states "Do not include English text in images: this prevents their reuse in other languages." DMacks (talk) 09:22, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

No. If someone chooses to produce a text free diagram as a template, fine. But not required. And in any case to use some flow diagram, chart, map, biological drawing, etc. words are needed and normal. That guideline is NOT saying "don't lable the axes for a Cartesian correlation chart". What they are saying is don't slap a bunch of text like a paragraph down as an image. Like making a textbox be an image. Or even the regular article text.TCO (talk) 09:58, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm aware what it's saying, I'm trying to improve reusability/accessibility, and the given section was the closest general guideline I could find. In that light, is it not even worth a "you may want to...to allow the same image to be used in multiple languages"? The chemistry guideline is part of the MOS already, and is indeed a highly technical field with all sorts of diagrams, etc. Obviously a word or two on an axis would be reasonable. But (as with the help-desk question that started this), a diagram could have lettered or numbered pointers, resolved via a key in caption or body-text rather than as single-language text in the image itself. DMacks (talk) 12:03, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I always understand what you want. I disagree with it. I want what helps the immediate reader most. Having to perform an extra step of coding/translating (so that it makes it easier for figure drawers to do less work) versus having the immediate text right where the reader would want it. Do you see NYT, National Geographic or anyone else doing what you want? No...because they want to put the best work product in front of their reader. You will never get consensus to kludge up all the English langauge diagrams to make it less work for people in other lands to make local versions. And I think that diagram in Spanish was just fine and it would be a pain in the ass to have to go refer to a list of comments somewhere. Defeats having an efficient image to process viewing.TCO (talk) 17:15, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Now if someone uploaded the "base" so that anyone else could put comments on it in local languages, that might be useful. Even here, though I would hesitate to make it harder for our writers to make figures for our readers. After all, people on the other end can go in photoshop or Corel or whatever graphics program and just clip the old text and add new.TCO (talk) 17:20, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

We often use the same base diagrams, but usually copies are ported to the relevant language. I can think of articles (like one on a battle) where the locations and coordinates of skirmishes are overlaid on a basic map, but in general this is far more hassle than generating a one-off image. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 17:23, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Bird names

The blanket claim that "bird names are capitalized" is not my understanding. AIUI Bald Eagle is indeed capitalized, but eagle is sentence case. --Trovatore (talk) 22:48, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I thought that herecy was only restricted to their project article pages (where the birders write the articles and won the policy war). But if I mention the bald eagle in an article about the United States, I could follow the normal practice...of oh...the NYT and pretty much normal published media as well as style guides and the such.  ;-) TCO (talk) 00:04, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I was going by Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(capital_letters)#Animals.2C_plants.2C_and_other_organisms. If that's not right, feel free to take it out. Dicklyon (talk) 03:47, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Right, this is what it says:

title case for common names of species throughout, and lower case for common names of groups of species (the Golden Eagle is a relatively large eagle; see WP:BIRDS)

so if we're following that here, then first of all it's not just birds, and secondly we have to distinguish between species and groups of species. Personally I'm not sure the latter description is quite the correct one; if an individual species had a common name that was just one word, for example, we still wouldn't want to capitalize it IMO. --Trovatore (talk) 04:00, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I read somewhere. Going to look. But think. Since each animal project (birds, reptiles, rodents, etc.) kinda sets policy for their articles, it would not make sense to say capitalize birds everywhere. they will want it. (They want me to capitalize the H in Virginia Ham. And the C and K in Chef's Knife.) But it won't make sense. If I'm doing an article on a rat and talk about predation in article by birds, I can't capitalize the "Bald Eagle", but not the r in "Norwegien rat" as then I lose in article consistency on the style. Let me go dig where I read this.TCO (talk) 03:55, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Animal Project has a good discussion here and makes the point that each animal project should decide and then that style should be consistent throughout the article. I mean if the birders stick their newfangled capitalization in other species articles, do they want to have to refer to rodents and MOST animals which are not doing the birder thing, in the sentence case within their articles? Also see this draft guideline (see the table with remarks field. TCO (talk) 04:14, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Lower case should be used in contexts outside of ornithology. Inside ornithology group names are sentence case. So use eagle and not Eagle. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 20:53, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I generally support lower case for species names. We write for a general audience. We should use general-audience rules. Darkfrog24 (talk) 15:25, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

My understanding is that species names are generally considered proper names; just as we write "John Smith" or "the Louvre" or "Existentialism", so we write "Bald Eagle" and "Homo sapiens". Ozob (talk) 21:11, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Not generally; for one thing, it is possible for individual members of a species to have proper names (even if they are only Specimen A), but it is used, unlike many professional distortions of the language, outside narrowly technical writing. (Great Northern, by Arthur Ransome, is by a birder - but not for them; and he capitalizes.) On the other hand this is a bird book - and it doesn't. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:57, 26 January 2011 (UTC) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:54, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm confused and would like clear directions. Tony (talk) 08:51, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

The smallest change that would follow actual usage is to say that bird names are capitalized in articles about birds (or about fauna). Actual usage varies: in general, bird books capitalize, general writing does not - but there are exceptions both ways; Google scholar suggests that some, but not all, twenty-first century ornithology also capitalizes. Saying that in MOS stands a chance of helping actual editors make informed decisions; I realize that this has rarely been a goal of this page, but it is never too late to mend. (In practice, editors who want to cap should feel free to do so; but their preference is not so widespread in the corpus that it should be imposed on articles on, say, flags.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:58, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

The parallel should be between "Haliaeetus leucocephalus" and "Homo sapiens" or between "bald eagle" and "human being", not between "Homo sapiens" and "bald eagle".[11] 137.43.105.17 (talk) 12:30, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

What if we hired some editors for this magazine?

When you look at WP it has huge traffic. I'm sure we must have some paid employees who work on the servers and such. What if we got some paid editors? It's just money. Money can be located. This thing is a frigging Google H-bomb. It justifies that. And having some editors would not mean that all the work gets done. There's so much to do, even on the policy front, that there would still be a place for all the circular arguments and such. But the project is big enough to "deserve" the expenditure. And I feel for what Tony said about wanting direction. And this is not to say it would be Nirvana...but it would help and would move us to getting work done (article content written and prose completed) vice the never-ending wonk-battles.

Obviously, you need to pick someone who has both "skills" as well as sympathy for the crazy thing that we have here and a willingness to work in the New Media world. But there are people in those two intersecting circls of a Venn diagram. Just run the search and make it happen. Would be fun to think about bringing in some Michael Wolfe (maybe not, he seems a prima donna). But we could raid Britannica or NYT or National Geographic or what have you. And it's not about our having some ghetto resentment of the establishment, but just about getting the job done (and the job done is finished work product for people to read...never forget the silent majority that reads WP, but does not contribute and definitely does not come to MOS to debate dashes and curly-Qs, etc.

I would start with 3 hires: a head editor, a "copy editor" (he would mostly work on style policy, not actualy copyediting), and a featured content editor (FA, FP, GA, DYK, all that crap). This has to have been thought of. But why not some attention on the content as opposed to the servers? Or as opposed to the whole structure around conduct (going from admins to arbs to I guess the board of wikimedia)? TCO (talk) 13:10, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

The difference is there are editorial teams for the output of just a magazine, while Wikipedia is adding hundreds if not thousands of new articles a day and still needs to work on the old ones. Secondly, the Wikimedia Foundation is not a content provider but a service provider; if they assumed editorial control they'd be liable for all the possible libel or errors on any page. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 15:31, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Does WP deserve it? Yes. Would it be practical? Probably not. Darkfrog24 (talk) 14:33, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Are article titles within the scope of this guideline?

When naming an article, a hyphen is not used as a substitute for an en dash that properly belongs in the title, for example in Eye–hand span. However, editors should provide a redirect page to such an article, using a hyphen in place of the en dash (Eye-hand span), to allow the name to be typed easily when searching Wikipedia. See also Wikipedia:Naming conventions (precision). The names of a page and its associated talk page should match exactly.

Should this guideline be discussing article titles at all? We haver a policy on the subject on WP:TITLE#Special_characters, which already says much of this (have redirects from the hyphened form) rather less verbosely. Where they agree, this is unnecessary; where they disagree, it is excrescent.

In addition, the guidance here on which to use is use dashes when dashes are proper. I'm underwhelmed with this. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:47, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the previous text was poor, so I have substituted a much shorter text. It says basically the same thing—use dashes when dashes are proper—but with fewer words.

Directions on article titles in section 2 of the MOS (which essentially repeats part of WT:AT), in the section on quotation characters, in the section on hyphens (repeating the guidance from the section on en dashes), in WP:COMMONALITY and MOS:IDENTITY, and in the section on foreign terms. I would not be opposed to removing some of these. However if we go that route I think we should be consistent and remove all the references outside section 2, not just some of them. Ozob (talk) 03:12, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

I'd be reasonably happy with that. Let me get back to you after seeing what's in WP:TITLE. Comments? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:27, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, article titles are within the ambit of the MoS. Otherwise there is no coordination between the style of titles and the style of all other article text; that would be unacceptable. Tony (talk) 09:05, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Nice piece of empire-building. The opposite is clear from the date-delinking case; - especially since it mskes this guideline inconsistent with a policy - and (what seems to be more important to Tony) with itself; see Section 2. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:22, 28 January 2011 (UTC)\

Since Tony is the only proponent of the audacious view that this guideline overrules policy; and in the process rewrites English, the majority text should be restored with a tag. If this revert war continues, I will dispute the status of this semi-literate waste of electrons as a guideline. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:08, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Following the sources

But all this could be obviated if WP:DASH were to include WP:MOSFOLLOW. DASH is at best a set of reasonable guidelines for punctuation (some of its provisions may be somewhat less than that), but it is not intended to be an exact account of English punctuation, which is bent by innumerable crossing idioms. If it said, at the beginning, something like The following are guides to what English usage usually is; if in doubt, follow the punctuation of reliable English secondary sources on the subject, we would avoid undiomatic forms both in text and in titles. We don't have to make editors try to figure out what English ought to be; they should look at what English is.

If there are two actually contesting forms in reliable sources, there is nothing wrong with leaning to regularity as a tie-breaker; I would appreciate suggestions on how to phrase that. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:43, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Finally, someone making sense in this hyphen vs dash war. I agree that the MOS guidelines at the moment should be altered to say that there are exceptions to the rule. The problem is, however, that websites rarely, if ever, use un-spaced en-dashes, even if we would consider it appropriate in a particular situation. I've not seen un-sapced en-dashes outside of Wikipedia. McLerristarr | Mclay1 15:36, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks; this is one reason to use reliable secondary sources: for websites, this would be those which are professional publications and those which reproduce images of printed books. (Perhaps we should add to WP:MOSFOLLOW a warning against OCR?) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:49, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Let's see if do what the sources do provokes dispute; if so, let's remove the entire useless section. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:18, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Mr Anderson, that has been your attitude to the entire MoS for some years. You have never gained support for watering down the status of the style guideline, so I doubt whether you will now (the e.c. above and one or two others excepted). It is a pity you are persisting, since your contributions here are often good. I do not wish to go around in circles yet again as we did for some years until June 2009. It turns off good contributors to the style guides. My time-budget for this kind of thing has just been exhausted, and I don't want to have to put dozens of hours again into what will turn out to be a negative debate; please be supportive of the MoS. When you feel a change should be made but it meets opposition, you really need to gain consensus for it here first. Tony (talk) 15:41, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, this is the attitude of most Wikipedians to MOS as it presently exists, which is why it is so widely ignored and despised. I differ in that I think it can be fixed, even without banning the handful of enthusiasts that would like to invent and impose on Wikipedia a new reformed version of the English language; those of us who actually write the encyclopedia prefer to communicate in English as she is - which is what readers will understand.

But aside from Tony's personalities, he has a point, even if few people agree with it. He believes that this waste of unread and unconsensus provisions is binding on Wikipedia as a whole, even when they disagree with policy - and with the practice which produces policy. Disagreement with this he calls "watering down" the status of the guideline (Tony, see WP:Policies and guidelines for what the status of a guideline really is).

Does anybody else agree with Tony, or is he the only Secret Master of Wikipedia? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:55, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

I support the existence of a Manual of Style; I support a Manual of Style which represents the consensus of Wikipedians in general, and describes the English language. This page has been improving, but it is not yet either. It would be much more useful - and much less contentious - if it were. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:59, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Growing abuse of WP:DASH out-of-context and as if Holy Writ

There has been an annoying spread of the abuse of what it is claimed WP:DASH says, and the defenders of replacing virtually every hyphen in Wikipedia with dashes makes it sound like this is mandatory and all kinds of silly arguments are made to defend mis-applications about it. Current RMs on Talk:Poland-Lithuania and Talk:Alberni-Clayoquot Regional District and an unfiled one about Greco-Turkish Wars on WP:RM (no template has been placed on Talk:Greco-Turkish War (er, looking again, taht was Greco-Persian Wars, same argument applies) all make the "dash here, dash there, hyphens nowhere" argument, which claims to be about "typography" and "style" being more important than the sources - and wantonly ignoring what WP:ENDASH actually says, which is:

An en dash is not used for a hyphenated name (Lennard-Jones potential, named after John Lennard-Jones) or an element that lacks lexical independence (the prefix Sino- in Sino-Japanese trade).

The section needs clarification so that geographic hyphenated names, and other names of that kind, do not go so breezily dismissed as being left up to the imposition of Wikipedia's "style" in defiance of what the rest of the world (the real world) uses. I dispute many of the sweeping conventions/declarations of WP:DASH which, though consensus long ago at some point, are not immutable and deserve revisition, per the fifth pillar of WP:CCC (I think that's it) about consensus being adaptable and changeable. In this case it doesn't have to be, as both WP:HYPHEN and WP:ENDASH have more than enough of them to invalidate any suggestion that the dash is mandatory; those fanatical about this continue to deny that names such as Poland-Lithuania are actual names, and want to claim they are made of independent elements (on that premise, so are "Lennard" and "Jones" in Lennard-Jones, the name-example used in ENDASH). WP:HYPHEN needs expansion, WP:ENDASH needs emendation and clarification and more examples, and the wanton arrogance of teh "typography is more important than the sources" crowd needs to be slapped down.Skookum1 (talk) 21:09, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with the current guidelines. If editors are placing dashes where none should be WP:TROUT them. As you yourself said, the problem is that some editors are ignoring the explicit statements of WP:ENDASH not to do this, so the problem lies with the editors, and not the MOS here. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 01:24, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Headbomb. Tony (talk) 04:29, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Noted, but I think some emendation/expansion/clarification is needed, so that no one will construe (again) geographic hyphenated names as not being the same as hyphenated personal names, which they utterly are. It's not just that said editors are ignoring the whole of DASH/HYPHEN sections, they're wildly misinterpreting them and also interpolating and extrapolating off them some kind of absolutism-of-the-dash, while invoking MOS very loudly to justify their own....er, judgments; how to rein that in I don't know, other than to hope for better education methods in our schools....the comment in ENDASH about prefixes with no lexical indepedence, as with Sino- in Sino-Tibetan, as one of the dash-pushing editors is maintaining that the adjectival form Polish-Lithuanian shouldn't be a hyphen, even though the root term Poland-Lithuania is (or should be, which is the subject of that RM); so it's not jsut "lexical independence" which mandates a hyphen, but also adjectival forms and adjectival auxiliaries.....I read all three sections (HYPHEN, ENDASH and EMDASH) and quite frankly found them very vague in spots, and mutually conflicting sometimes too. The passage about the use of hyphens needing to be flexible and requiring some subtlety should be highlighted, at least - it's a key component, something like the infamous notwithstanding clause in the Canadian constitution, which is the back door out of anything a government wants to pull that the Charter ordinarly wouldn't allow - but there's also items in DASH which say "optional" which are being invoked, loudly, as if Doctrines From On High (but without the "optional" bit).....I"m not asking for sweeping revisions here, just clarity and more examples, as with geographic names using hyphens, and maybe a point-clause numbering system for line-quotes when you need to beat someone on the head about what they want MOS to say, even if it doesn't actually say it. I think there's been a lot of misapplication of the DASH in recent months, and there should be some kind of review investigating all the inappopriate changes, to titles, to categories, and to article content; similarly there's been a lot of misapplication of the lower-case-second-word "rule" too, often with embarrassing or just inane results ("Columbia river", "Fraser river", the "Persian wars" etc)...it's almost like someone has geared a bot to look for all two-capped combination terms and make the second one a lower-case without discretion or reference to the actuality of their proper name-hood. Lots of knee-jerk application of MOS, it seems, by people who don't really understand it....I'm also tired of hearing that MOS out-trumps sources, though that doesn't seem to come from anybody who actually wrote MOS or works on it at present.....Skookum1 (talk) 05:02, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

WP:HYPHEN ends with "Hyphenation involves many subtleties that cannot be covered here ..." so I'm not surprised to hear that the usual style wars that the Manual of Style was supposed to prevent can continue unabated, with both sides thinking the MOS is on their own side. But I'm pretty sure that an MOS consensus would agree that "Polish-Lithuanian" isn't a "lexical independence" issue, that "Nordrhein-Westfalen" and "Austria-Hungary" should be hyphenated, and "Polish–Lithuanian border" needs a dash – but even I'm not sure about "Polish-Lithuanian union". As for whether the MOS out-trumps sources, in either case this is a better page to debate the issue than Talk:Poland–Lithuania, because there is hope of resolving disputes concerning several articles, all in the same centralized place. Either that, or admit that we can't state rules about dashes that Wikipedia editors can understand, and just eliminate rules we can't explain. Art LaPella (talk) 06:17, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

The Polish-Lithuanian union and Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth are both referred to historically as "Poland-Lithuania"; the distinctions are wiki-titles to distinguish between two different political structures (of the same country) only and should reflect the source term, which is never "dash-ized". See Austria-Hungary for its official names; the convention remains hyphenated in English, and always has been, and always should be. Also, because of teh lnkage in referenc to a single country, whether "Polish-" or "Poland-" in reference to this country, these are NOT "lexically indepedent uses" because in those forms they are only' used in relation to the union/commonwealth with Lithuania.Skookum1 (talk) 06:28, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

WP:TLDR. Could you provide a brief summary of your posts and put these ones under a collapsible banner? Tony (talk) 07:32, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

He's saying Poland-Lithuania has a hyphen, not an en dash, because "Poland" and "Lithuania" lack lexical independence. Between the lines, however, I think he just wants to win his fight at Talk:Poland–Lithuania#Requested_move. Ozob (talk) 11:58, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Actually, this started back at Talk:Alberni-Clayoquot Regional District, and ultimately at items in (the subcats of) Category:Regional districts of British Columbia, where the dash was inappropriately tossed willy-nilly (by a speedy CfD no less, undiscussed) on names which are NEVER spelled with a dash. Asking me for a "brief summary" will cause quite a few chuckles for those familiar with my verbal style; short-winded I'm not. ENDASH is very clear, and that's the point - hyphenated names of any kind do not take the dash, and should have the hyphen. Period. As with normal English everywhere outside Wikipedia, except for a few rare sources.....Wikipedia's job is not to change the English language, but evidently there are lots of people around here who are intent on doing so....Skookum1 (talk) 21:33, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Agreed with Art. I'm copyediting Manhattan Project at the moment, and I would be really, really grateful if no one picks a fight over Einstein-Szilárd letter. That page is titled with a dash, and since this is Wikipedia, I won't even try to win that fight, because most Wikipedians haven't heard of the Einstein-Szilárd letter; they imagine that it's some letter involving both, so it should have a dash. No, it's not a letter involving both, it's the letter involving both, hyphenated without exception in the sources, because that's the name of the letter. My belief is that it's ironic that Wikipedians, of all people, are trying to get the world to do things our way rather than following the sources. - Dank (push to talk) 14:22, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, not actually without exception; some books do use the en dash: like this one. I don't think that Einstein-Szilárd letter is a proper name of an entity (if it were, letter would be capitalized, too); rather, it's a descriptive term involving two persons, not someone named Einstein-Szilárd. Dicklyon (talk) 16:52, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Well crap, there's one influential dictionary out of line with the others ... Merriam-Webster (note the hyphen!) uses an en-dash in for instance "Bose–Einstein". Grrr, why can't they be consistent with their own name, and with other American dictionaries? This isn't supported by for instance Webster's New World or Chicago (in which the very few examples all use hyphens for a well-known thing that's a compound word, such as "Spanish-American War" at 8.112). Your example btw doesn't do much for me, it's published by "An Independent Publisher for the 21st Century" ... independent, and cheap, too. On your second point, "letter" doesn't need a capital letter, any more than "the New York subway system" needs initial capital letters, to refer to one well-known thing (although in fact, I'm pretty sure I've seen "Letter" capitalized). I'm sympathetic to Art's position: if the rules are so complicated that even dictionaries aren't consistent, what chance do we have of being consistent? - Dank (push to talk) 18:00, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

IMO "Spanish-American War", like other similar terms (Greco-Turkish War, Greco-Persian Wars) should also not have had a dash imposed upon it, as per normal English convention (everywhere, virtually, other than Wikipedia); because of the unitary nature of what's meant, there is no "lexical independence" or "disjuncture" justifying the use of the dash, which looks unsightly and out-of-place on that article; the function of the "Greco-" and that of "Spanish-" in the respective terms is identical.Skookum1 (talk) 22:12, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Just as an FYI, New York City Subway is capitalized as a proper noun. And that's sourced to the current subway map on my wall. oknazevad (talk) 20:55, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

You mean in the map title? In books, other than in titles, "New York City subway" is almost never capitalized. A map title hardly suggests otherwise. Why is this being interpreted as a proper name? I thought the policy was to interpret things as proper names only if they are "almost always" capitalized in sentences in reliable sources. This one fails that. If it were a proper name, wouldn't mta.info mention it at least once on their site, other than in a title? Dicklyon (talk) 01:35, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

This is precisely what I'm talking about. I'm looking directly at the official map (which I geekily keep on my wall). Sure as hell, the "S" is capitalized. "New York City Subway" is a proper noun, just like "London Underground", "Washington Metro", "Paris Metro", "Bay Area Rapid Transit" and others. Just because it's commonly misused doesn't change that. oknazevad (talk) 02:56, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

I understood that to be your opinion. As I was trying to point out, capitalization in a title doesn't really tell you much. I agree that widespread error should not dissuade of from doing the right thing, which is why I use the en dash where it is propertly prescribed. But in this case, I don't see what makes you interpret "New York City Subway" as a proper name, when there's little evidence for that usage in sources, and no use of it on the operator's official site, other than in titles like on your map. The London Underground is a completely different story; everywhere I find it in books is capitalized. Dicklyon (talk) 03:44, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

And "the New York subway system" isn't, per the first four hits on "the New York subway system" that actually say "subway system", not in a title. I was illustrating the point with a name that wasn't generally used as a proper name, but clear nevertheless. - Dank (push to talk) 22:00, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

I just wanted to head off any attempt to move the article from it's current title. Not that you'd do such, but others might misinterpret this conversation. oknazevad (talk) 23:28, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

I second that, my goal isn't to provoke a fight, only to explain my copyediting choices, which are restricted to a limited number of articles at A-class and FAC.

Surely the simple answer is to forget the en-dash altogether in WP names, e.g. page names, category names, template names etc. It just causes more trouble than it's worth, in that it requires redirects so that 'incorrectly-named' objects can be found, requires bots to go crawling about WP changing names etc etc etc. Why this misdirected perfectionism at the expense of usability and IT resources? Why should WP be governed by arcane rules developed for print media? If someone wants to use WP material for printed work, let him/her apply the changes. Let's keep it simple. --TraceyR (talk) 20:23, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

I think this is a good example where we realize that Wikipedia is a work in progress and will never be perfect. There are editors who probably don't know or care about dashes, and will use hyphens. There are also editors who do care, and will quietly go about fixing them. If there's no harm in using hyphens for everything, there's also no harm (and probably at least a little benefit) in changing hyphens to en dashes, minus sign, or em dashes where necessary. As long as we have the MOS, we will have WikiGnomes willing to fix dashes, and that's fine. I don't think that the friction between the two camps is necessary. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:57, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

The point is not that people don't know about the en-dash, it's that they know but cannot see the point of complicating things. It's sad that people will devote their free time to adding a pixel or two to every hyphen to satisfy some pedantic need. It wastes so much time and effort for no appreciable gain. --TraceyR (talk) 07:04, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

If there isn't a button for it on my standard qwerty "101" keyboard I am not going to bother with it. As far as I can see there is no difference between the "-" which is the dash/hyphen/minus/whatever above the "P" and this one, "-" on the numeric keypad above the "+". Those are the only dash/hypen/minus/whatever keys on this keyboard. I have absolutely zero interest in counting pixels. How does one produce en and em dashes anyway? Don't bother answering, I don't really care. Roger (talk) 21:22, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't have a snappy answer for that. Some wikiprojects (such as WP:MILHIST) are blessed with people like AustralianRupert and Ian Rose who do parts of your copyediting "for free" after you push the article up the review ladder, so people who haven't digested all of Turabian or Chicago (for American English) don't need to worry too much about that stuff. I'm still hoping the Foundation employs copy editors (other than me!) some day; I think that would ease friction on Wikipedia, in both senses. - Dank (push to talk) 22:13, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Nor do I, but User:GregU/dashes.js is very handy for editors who don't want to spend time clicking on the en dash symbol below the edit summary box, typing in – or using the appropriate keyboard shortcut. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:50, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Roger, the point of the en dash is to make life easier for the reader, not for the writer, by signaling the meaning. In Bose–Einstein condensate, you can see at a glance that it's named after two guys, not someone named Bose-Einstein; the dash separates more, while the hyphen connects more strongly, affeting how the words are pronounced, even. Unfortunately, with all the people who grew up doing text on Windows (or on Mac ignoring the option key), as opposed to with TeX or some other real typesetting system, these conventions have been too much ignored in recent decades. It's a sad fact, but not one that the wikipedia consensus has decided to give up on. Dicklyon (talk) 23:02, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Growing abuse of WP:DASH out-of-context and as if Holy Writ (part 2)

[undent] Blame it on Windows, then, blame it on Windows users, that they didn't have the capacity to write with your newfangled way of doing things. Pity me, I was raised on an Underwood in the age of mechanical typewriters, and have used everything from telex to wordprocessing typewriters to the various electrics; had a slick portable my DAd owned, kinda space age '50s design, and our school had the old big black ones with the cash-register type keys. Not a friggin' dash on any one of them, only the hyphen and underline. Where do you get off talking like your way is better becaues Mac can along and improved things and made useless things possible? Wikipedia should be about ease-of-entry, and the MOS not overcompliated with unnecssary special characters; the same reason news copy and magazine copy isn't (unless "arty" designed). Wikipedia should be about enabling content, not fussing with design at the expense of people actually able and willing to add content meaningfully. The amount of energy going into this nonsense is really, really discouraging; the suggestion that technology is improving the way we write language, and that we have to get used to it and embrace it, is utter arrogant hogwash and all from a minority faction....the mainstream is the mainstream, typing has been typing for a hundred years before Wikipedia came along; Wikipedia should be part of it, not try to change it or tell experienced tpyists "you're doing things wrong, this is for publication and all these normal hyphen places are not acceptable because we say so". "We" being a handful of design-obsessed people, who don't have enough experience with content - or with typing - to be relevant in dicsussions of how to spell (or typeset) historical names, or dictate changes to historical conventions, some centuries-old. YOu haven't improved anything, you've unnecessarily complicated things for those of us actually interested in what the content is about. All because you have a Mac keyboard and want to sniff your nose at the rest of us for not keeping up with you??? Gimme a break. Technology should not wantonly redesign langauge as its own justification; nobody appionted you to write new spelling rules, or come up with a typographic system you're mis-using MOS to apply.....WP:KISS. Making things tougher for writers, instead of more encouraging, is the wrong way to go; dissing them because they were raised on Windows machines, or in my case, ancient typewriters....not hearing you, and dno't think much of what you're saying.Skookum1 (talk) 04:49, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

I need to stay on Tony's good side and keep racking up the supports, but...if I could take the whole ndhash silliness and trade it for some better writing and content and organization would do that in a heartbeat. Look around the wiki. There are a gazillion articles with poor organization at every level of heirarchy. Putting like with like and making it simple for readers to follow article though threads would mean a lot more than some hyphen or ndash (honestly, I STILL can't SEE the difference). Just give me a non-breaking hyphen and I will be ducky.TCO (talk) 05:00, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

That's the other problem that Microsoft seems to have foisted on us: default fonts where the en dash is as short of the hyphen. On my Mac, it's general significantly longer. Some sources say it's traditionally half the length of an em dash, which worked OK when the em dash was real long, but in my experience (in the 1970s, 80s, and 90s mostly), the en dash was generally signficantly longer than half the em dash, as it still is in the default fonts I use on my Mac. The difference is glaringly obvious. Dicklyon (talk) 05:48, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Please don't side-track the issue onto the Windows/Mac line. It's about more important things, such as abusing MOS, keeping things simple and avoiding unnecessary pedantry. --TraceyR (talk) 07:15, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm all for simplicity, and I wouldn't think of blaming the user for not knowing or caring about typography. I do blame Microsoft for not making it easy, but that's just an irrelevant aside, I admit. For wikipedia users, there never is, and never should be, any requirement to enter an en dash; a hyphen will do just fine. But when other editors who care come along and upgrade the typography accoring to the MOS, I don't think it's a good idea to fight them. It's good to push back when they're wrong, of course, as I may have been on the Poland-Lithuania thing. But to use arguments about en dash being a nuisance as an excuse to interfere with those who care seems just very odd. You can always just type a hyphen; keep saying that to yourself, instead of calling those who support the MOS "pedantic" and such. Dicklyon (talk) 07:29, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not calling "those who support the MOS" pedantic, just those who are "overly concerned with formalism and precision" (definition of Pedant, from our own WP article, my italics). The point has been made a couple of times that inflexibly insisting on the en-dash in certain contexts (including article names, section headers, category names etc) makes life difficult for the average user and editor, generates redlinks (and requires bots to sort them out) and thereby wastes WP resources. --TraceyR (talk) 14:56, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Article names? I thought redirects like Michelson-Morley experiment handled that problem. Section headers? Well, yeah, if you don't add an anchor with the hyphenated name, when you change the section name hyphen to a dash. Category names? I can't imagine changing them unless I were bored enough to change all of the category's members – which I'm not (to my knowledge, categories are used seldom by editors and never by readers). Should I be writing articles instead? Well no, my text is quickly rewritten or removed. Art LaPella (talk) 21:12, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Others can well imagine changing thousands of category names: 2,304 aviation-related names were supposed to be changed recently ([have a look here]). That's the sort of misdirected effort that this discussion is about - Growing abuse of WP:DASH out-of-context and as if Holy Writ (as far as I know, it hasn't been added to the accepted canon yet). --TraceyR (talk) 00:09, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

OK, I read all that, and to me it doesn't sound like a big deal either way. The biggest objections are apparently handled by category redirects (which I was unaware of), and bots that automatically correct hyphens to dashes, thus relieving the need for humans to type dashes. Art LaPella (talk) 01:12, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

A few months ago, I changed many category names, and revised their member articles accordingly. I was not motivated by boredom (there are many things to be done, on Wikipedia and elsewhere), but I wanted to correct a problem.

• Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 117#Category names with hyphens misused after "ly"
• Wikipedia talk:Categories for discussion/Archive 2010#Category names with hyphens misused after "ly"
• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Templates#Template names with the same misspelling (permanent link here)

Also, I use categories, both as an editor and as a reader.

—Wavelength (talk) 01:53, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I know this is off-topic, but since you brought it up: could you elaborate on how you use categories? The readers I talked to confused categories with references, so I concluded only insiders would even understand them, never mind actually use them. Art LaPella (talk) 02:35, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I use them to find articles, sometimes from other articles and sometimes not. The Main Page has links to major categories in the upper right-hand corner, so evidently they are intended to be available for use by everyone.

—Wavelength (talk) 02:48, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Or more statistically using http://stats.grok.se, a typical Main Page portal like Portal:Mathematics got about 100,197 hits in December (compare to the rest of the page), and all its categories totaled only 26,154 hits. Category:Publicly funded schools in Hawaii got 20. Art LaPella (talk) 05:05, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I do care, sometimes very much in my amateur way, about typography and letter-forms (including punctuation). Were I laying out a Wikipedia page for print (and had I the competence), I'd prefer to carefully match the dash or hyphen to the purpose and use curly opening and closing quotation-marks, as I normally prefer to do when writing or editing text within the body of an article on line. However, article titles, section headers and wikilinks are another matter. Not only the keyboard (which as noted above has been stripped down ever since typewriters tried to economize on cost, size and machinery, and since teletypewriters were based on Morse Code) but the Internet itself is based on stripped-down character sets . And the URL's that use even simple punctuation-marks like ?, let alone those for ‘, ’, “, ”, –, —, etc. look like gibberish to the uninitiated. This means that reading or writing out the URL on one's address bar for a Wikipedia article whose title includes curly quotation-marks or extended dashes (en-dash, em-dash & hyphen-dash) is too daunting for most people (including me). This can be, it's true, greatly abated by the use of redirects from versions using only hyphens and straight-quotes, but those simplified versions don't always work with derivative forms and secondary wikilinks, such as Redirected-title#Section header (1900-1950) and Talk:Redirected-title#Section header (1900-1950), if the original title uses em and en dashes (Article—title#Section header (1900–50) and Talk:Article—title#Section header (1900–1950). —— Shakescene (talk) 08:24, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

After poking around a little more, I'm changing my position and supporting an en-dash over a hyphen between most proper names, even though most of the sources, guides and dictionaries are against us to some degree. Even the Chicago editors support not taking their own dash advice too seriously, and their favorite dictionary, Merriam-Webster, disagrees with them on for instance "Bose–Einstein". I think the main point is that very, very few readers care or even notice the difference, which strengthens the argument that this is a matter of appearance that we can choose by consensus without causing any great harm. I think we're all agreed that whatever the rules are, they need to be dead simple ... there's no chance of getting even the fussiest Wikipedians (such as me) to memorize Chicago's labyrinthine dash rules, or care. It still seems to me that, in popular writing, dashes and hyphens continue to wither a little every year, and if the trend continues, I wouldn't be shocked if we decide to give up on dashes between words entirely in 10 years. But today is not that day. - Dank (push to talk) 16:23, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

I think you go too far in asking for the rules to be "dead simple", or in always putting en dash between names. Editors are usually able to sort out what's right and just do it (this conversation being a prominent counter-example, I realize). I think the MOS as stated is fine, and seldom causes conflict. When there's conflict, like in Poland-Lithuania, it's mostly due to genuine differences of interpretation of the underlying facts. It will work out. Dicklyon (talk) 21:38, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

I meant that's the reason I'm okay with the current MOS, because it's got "dead simple" in its favor. - Dank (push to talk) 21:53, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, as long as people would take it at face value and not engage in hyperflating it to mean things that it doesn't; such as the above quibble that Poland-Lithuania, though a conventional hyphenated name liks any personal or other placename, is actually made of two indepedent elements as so must take a dash; "must" is a pretty heavy word when something so obviously and famously a name can be subdivided and re-parsed by someone more interested in typographical conventions he'd like to see become standard over actual usage and long-standing history and historical convention. MOS needs amendment for geographic names, only a personal name is given as an example I also think the dash has been incorrectly applied on items like-war names - why is the hyphen to be used, as required, on Greco-Persian Wars, but the dash "must" be used on Spanish-American War, simply because the argument is made (but not, to me, valid) that "Spanish" and "American" are "lexically independent" when in that context "Spanish-American War" they're most decidedly not; really only another hyphenated name. And I utterly reject this nonsense about expecting people to change spelling conventions because technology has made it possible to change everything around; that's not Wikipedia's job and clearly any pretense that "the Wikipedia consensus" is not settled either way is bunk; there was never consensus to blanket-apply the dash as if it were god, and teh arguments being used to fight restoring hyphens when they are out-of-place and clearly against MOS are utterly specious and rather ridiculous. Wikipedia - "wiki" means "fast/quick" - should not be about making the creation/entry of articles or anything more complicated....saying it's OK to take the time to go to the special characters tempalte below the edit window, and back up to continue editing, is sa time-wasting bore and shouldn't be made necessary just because somebody "wants to improve the appearance of Wikipedia". You're making things hardeer for people to contribute, not easier, and that should be an axiom in MOS; keep it simple stupid, remember not everybody loves "new technology" or has a Mac, and get a grip - ordinary people have a hard enough time figuring out how to contribute properly; making it harder by insisting they learn not just a new way of typing, but a whole slew of new, invented and "consensus"-imposed ways of typing very old words/names, is just elititism and, given the way bots have been used to do that, as also with the lower-case issue, takes the human element out of the creation/modification of text, without human discretion and underlying knowledge and "subtleties", and places it just not in the hands of machines, but machine-like thinking...Skookum1 (talk) 23:27, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Proposal to stop these replacements against the naming policy

Could we simply add, under "En dashes in page names", that "When naming an article, an en dash is not used as a substitute for a hyphen that properly belongs in the title according to the naming policy."? There is already a similar sentence for preventing useless removals of dashes from places where they rightfully belong. --Enric Naval (talk) 20:49, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Because of the nature of people claiming they have a right to interpret facts, i.e. to vary from the sources

"because Wikipedia has its own style", I think it's necessary to be specific on certain categories of names. So beyond the family-name already given as an example, there should be "other examples of hyphenated names are those of countries (Poland-Lithuania), states and other country-subdivisions (North Rhine-Westphalia, Alberni-Clayoquot Regional District), town and neighbourhood names (Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Grandview-Woodlands), and personal names (Anne-Marie). Names conventionally hyphenated in the preponderance of sources should be hyphenated also in Wikipedia.

There's also the issue consistency of usage within certain types of article titles (e.g. wars, such as the Greco-Persian Wars and Spanish-American War and Brazil-Argentina War, Spokane-Couer d'Alene-Palouse War should be consistently hyphenated despite any interpretations that any of the terms forming it are "lexically independent" (which in those formations are not." No doubt someone will refuse to read that as "too long" or "too wordy", but those are also the people who don't seem to actually read what MOS says anyway...there should also be rider, if not already in MOS, that local MOS' override any "globalizing"/homogenizing imposition of external MOS precedents; for example CANMOS and its PPAP subproject (political parties and politicians) has a convention, already in use by Elections Canada and in my province's case, Elections BC, such that federal electoral districts use a dash, provincial ones use a hyphen - both backed up by sources, and not open to interpretation or imposition by someone in the UK or USA or Upper Volta.Skookum1 (talk) 21:51, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

As for any complaints that "TLDR", might I suggest a corresponding, and somewhat telling, alternate: "Big words, didn't understand" (WP:BWDU..also WP:Wikipedia does not exist separately from the rest of the world.Skookum1 (talk) 21:51, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

One detail that I think may have been consistently misunderstood: "Spanish" and "Brazil" are lexically independent because they are words. "Sino-" and "Greco-" aren't, because they are prefixes. WP:ENDASH uses the concept only as a reason for hyphens (not dashes) in the case of no lexical independence. Also, note that WP:ENDASH already uses the name "Lennard-Jones" and now uses the nation "Guinea-Bissau" as examples where hyphens should be used. Art LaPella (talk) 02:03, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

CONTEXT is more important than seat-of-the-pants syntactical analysis based on the form of lexemes. Tell me the difference in context, please, between Brazil-Argentina War and Greco-Turkish War? There isn't any. Except for in Wikipedia, where style-happy mavens have (spuriously) established a difference based only on the forms of the words involved, and which in all other sources are hyphenated. And also to the point, that capital-W on "Wars" establishes these whole phrases as proper nouns, as names, and as such, containing hyphens, they are hyphenated names. I see no bloody good reason at all to say "wars using these word-forms must take a dash, wars using this other word form can have a hyphen". The only reason given is that MOS says so, but MOS obviously isn't perfect and has no relationship to consistency, and has shown itself all too well how readily it justifies departing from the sources and interpreting things as "typographical issues" when really they're long-standing conventions in the English language. Consistency - ever heard of that? How is the relationship between the two entities different, given the claim that dashes indicate lexical separation - such that Brazil-Argentina War is supposed to be dashed, while Brazilian-Argentinian War "can" have a hyphen, even when both refer to the same war?? No doubt next I'll be hearing that all those "war" words shoudl be lower-cased "because MOS says so"....that'd also be a way to take away their status as COMMONNAMEs and deconstruct them to keep the dashifiers happy. Were the changes to war articles ever put by MILHIST, or were all these, too, done by "speedy renames" because they supposedly make sense/are uncontroversial. MOS is only supposed to be an option, and it's not mandatory; but even HYPHEN has passages in it, to complement those in ENDASH, which indicate that human discretion ("subtlety", something a machine-mind isn't capable of, or humans who think like machines) should determine when a hyphen is justified. Consistency isn't very subtle at all, and teh result of mis-applying MOSDASH in the incredibly blind and unthinking way it has been is that consistency as well as common sense have been thrown out the window - then defended, somewhat viciously, to prevent things from being corrected, or for consistency to be re-established. Franco-Prussian War vs Spanish-American War (the latter shouldn't have a dash, even by dashifier standards, also Greco-Persian Wars were similarly changed in spite of ENDASH - and now "certain people" are claiming that there are no articles with dash problems, that everything's just bloody fine. And it's bloody not.Skookum1 (talk) 19:24, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

That comment appears to be addressed to me. But I have repeatedly stated that I was explaining the guideline, not defending it. If I could write the guideline as dictator, it would be limited to forbidding complaining about the same dash/hyphen/minus sign more than once or twice. Art LaPella (talk) 21:29, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, if people would listen the first time it wouldn't be necessary to repeat them when asked, again, for examples; burying obvious facts and source-terms beneath tonnage of syntactical-argument tangents, none based in the sources, requires hitting the same nail over and over again, to keep it from getting bent, or buried, in the tide of irrelevance invoked to defend the misapplication of MOS and even more the avoidance of teh relevance of sources.Skookum1 (talk) 09:17, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

That is correct, Art. I believe Skookum has misunderstood, or at least overextended the meaning of what it says there about lexically non-independent terms requiring the hyphen usage. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:52, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I haven't misunderstood anything; what I think is the vagueness of MOSDASH has allowed to many interpretive renderings (=OR).....why should Greco-Turkish War be hyphenated, as per MOS, but another war isn't just because the word forms can be argued to be "lexically independent". Add on that capital-W "War" and the whole thing is a name, and is therefore a hyphenated name, i.e. a proper name including a hyphenated construction, so the "hyphenated name argument should apply even on Brazil-Argentina War, where the context is exactly the same as Greco-Turkish War....the Greece-Turkey War, if you will....the zeal with which people have sought to do away with hyphens where the real world still, and will always use them (except for people foolishly using Wikipedia as a source) is utterly amazing to me; the nit-picking, the wheedling, the playing with definitions, the obfuscation, the refusal to admit that what MOSDASH already said wasn't enough, even though it was, and the rush to change everything without real discussion on a case-by-case basis. There's no reason why one war-name uses a hyphen but in Wikipedia, and Wikipedia only, another war-name uses a dash "because MOS says so and it's carved in stone". I submit that neither is the case; a fully capitalized proper name is a proper name, no matter the jejune syntactical arguments trying to deconstruct it to justify the imposition of the dash - in defiance of sources, and of COMMONNAME. Consistency is also an issue here; there should be standards within each topic area ,e.g these wars, just as in MOSCANADA there is a standard for dashes in federal election districts and hyphens in provincial ones (both per the proper sources, the federal and provincial electoral office websites, and also accompanying legislation/government documentation). Did anyone consult MILHIST before fudging unsighly dashes in to war-names? Does consistency not matter in Wikipedia, and only particularists who deconstruct everything to push their favourite "style" or "typographical" issue, irrespective of sources and common usage are to get their way?Skookum1 (talk) 23:15, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

You raised a long list of issues I didn't discuss. But do we agree that in the existing guideline, "lexically independent" means examples like "Brazil (insert favorite punctuation here) Argentina War" but not "Greco-Turkish War"? If we can agree on what the rule means, then we (meaning others, not me personally) can meaningfully discuss whether to change it. Art LaPella (talk) 02:16, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

WHAT "rule"?? "MOS is a guideline....with exceptions it says point-blank in its lede box. Turning a guideline, an optional guideline as is also noted in many places, into a "RULE" is part of the problem here; and when teh "rule" is at odds with convention used in normal English, then MOS has a problem and no amount of saying "MOS is fine, it's people that are the the problem" will not solve that. Treating it as a rule, and defending it tooth and nail even when it's shown (as in this example about proper names of wars) that it fails the test of "usability" and "context" and insisting it's a RULE just ain't right, and you can patronize me again for having to point this out again, if you want. It doesn't change the point. Why should a war between Greece and Turkey have a different "punctuation" (=spelling usage) than a war between Brazil and Argentina? "Because MOS says so just doesn't cut it".Skookum1 (talk) 09:28, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Although the definition of "rule" is "A regulation, law, guideline", you are basically correct that "MOS is a guideline" and of course WP:EXCEPTIONS should be expected. And of course I haven't defended that rule/guideline/text/whatever word you want to use. Art LaPella (talk) 04:15, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

No, Brazil–Argentina War should be dashed because it's a war between two distinct entities. Greco-Roman Wars is hyphenated between it's an adjectival phrase. It is not a war between Greco and Roman. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 17:47, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Your piped links to Greco Pizza Restaurant and Roman, Bulgaria are "cute" but utterly childish; clearly a war between Rome Italy and Greece; just as Greco-Persian Wars refers to wars between the states of Greece and imperial Persia. Don't you get it?? Making ad hominem comparisons that have nothing to do with history, and using jejune links to "prove" your point, does nothing at all except demonstrate the lengths that supporters of using dashes everywhere will go to dig their heels in against reality. Sino-Japanese War is also a war between distinct entities, for pity's sake.....Skookum1 (talk) 19:45, 28 January 2011 (UTC) is all over posts such as this one.Skookum1 (talk) 09:17, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

the Greco-Roman War was a war between Italy and Greece (actually it was Italy invading Greece, styling itself as New Rome under Mussolini). As above re the Greco-Turkish War vs the what-if Argentina-Brazil War, why should the one context connecting (connecting) two opponents have a dash, and the other have a hyphen?? "Because MOS says so". Maybe MOS should say something different, then, and not be prey to syntax-abuse of the kind repeatedly being pulled around here to take two apples and declare that one is actually an orange.Skookum1 (talk) 09:28, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

I suggest you learn what ad hominem actually means before accusing me of it. The point is that the Greco-Roman War is not a war between "Greco" and "Roman", so it is not dash but hyphenated. Likewise for a hypothetical "Brazilian-Argentinian war", it is not a war between "Brazilian" and "Argentinian" so it is not dashed, although "Brazil–Argentina war" would be. Now I suggest you tone it down a bit because you're starting to get on a lot of people's nerves. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 20:08, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

That's an argument that WP:DASH is right because WP:DASH is right. Usage, as often, does not support this; actually looking for "Brazil–Argentina War" turns up ten results, from which two conclusions follow:

• Since eight of them are not even about the subject of the article, and the other two say "a Brazil-Argentina war", a generic term, the article has invented a proper name that doesn't exist. In the rest of Wikipedia, we call that Original Research.
• Despite the search term including a dash, every single one of these (in the scanned original) appears to include a hyphen.

Therefore the most that can be supported is that "Brazil-Argentina War" ought, in theory, to have a dash, depsite the fact that those writers who have discussed a hypothetical war don't spell it that way; if the name of the actual war is "Argentine-Brazilian War," which would be idiomatic, then the parallellism to "Greco-Roman" is quite close. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:19, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Another very-irresponsible mis-application of the dash, in another context, is the Spokane – Coeur d'Alene – Paloos War, which was wrongly dashified (with spaces, no less, which is totally beyond any convention or utility except somebody's idea of "typographical improvement"). It was not a war between the Spokan people, Coeur d'Alene people and Palus people, it was an alliance, so the dash gives a totally wrong context to the name, and is also at complete variance to all authoritative sources. There's no adjectival or "lexically dependent" forms for "Spokanian", "Couer d'Alenian" and "Palusian" - except maybe in those languages - and in many other cases the noun form of a name may be the same as the adjectival form. Distinguishing between Spanish-American War or Mexican-American War and any conceivable variants e.g. Spain-America War would be the same context and should have the same spelling (I maintain, strongly, that use of hyphens especially in proper names, is "spelling" and has nothing to do with "typographical style"). Consistency should be de rigeur.....and the utterly specious arguments that Guinea-Bissau is OK, but Alberni-Clayoquot Regional District is an "and/to" construction (when it's not) is just so much wikipedian bunkum.Skookum1 (talk) 19:45, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

• Conducting a vendetta against the MoS guideline is doing no one a service—least of all our readers. You moved:

"Spokane – Coeur d'Alene – Palouse War"

to

"Spokane-Coeur d'Alene-Palouse War".

The en dash conveys relationships, too, such as "Japan–Australia Free Trade Agreement". Tony (talk) 10:48, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Adjectival forms of hyphenated names should be hyphenated

The, to me, very crazy argument that while Poland-Lithuania, it is finally being conceded, is a hyphenated name and should be re-hyphenated, the same resistant, obstructive people who speedy-changed titles without adequate discussion are insisting that the adjectival forms of such names should remained dashes; this is absurd; the new addition to ENDASH should have a corollary phrase added "adjectival forms of hyphenated names are to be hyphenated". Polish-Lithuanian Army (if that even exists....yet), Polish-Lithuanian union, Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth are all clearly derived from Poland-Lithuania, any argument that they should be spelled with different characters than the parent term might be some kind of principle in MOS, but if it is, then MOS needs changing (and is not carved in stone).Skookum1 (talk) 23:15, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

There are two key points here:

• this page and its subsections are not intended to determine article titles; that's WP:TITLE.
• MOS is intended, at most, to choose between actually existing English usages. It is not intended to devise our own, which will be imposed against the usage of reliable sources.

I have included both, in the hope that common sense will be uncontroversial. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:06, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

This exact reversion claims, in edit summary, that the previous text is confusting. As far as I know, it is universally agreed that this page is not WP:TITLE, and the claim that they have distinct fields of application is uncontroversial. I invite the application of WP:BRD, but that requires actual discussion. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:35, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

BRD sounds like a damn good idea; revert to the original titles, and original style, and then let the dash-advocates face due process to try and get their name-changes - their language-changes/original analysis - on each case. Septentrionalis, you are one of the few other than me here who shows respect for the sources, vs the imposition of the dash as fait accompli, and reversion to correct forms having to be argued against total obstinacy and endless ad absurdum arguments against obvious facts, i.e. the sources and long-standing conventions. "We don't like this kind of apostrophe, we want people to use this other one" - not as a choice, but as not even a demand, but something just gone and done and "we know better" is the response? Know better about what? Not about the sources, not about the subjects of the names/words/phrases affected. This is a matter of both titles and article-content, this dash-nonsense, and it never should have happened; as in a response to Ckatz on my talkpage, the other much more necessary work on content t hat people like myself could do if they weren't constantly having to trip over, and try to get fixed, things done by uninformed and very often misunderstood, or as I have seen, misrrepresntative citations of MOS (and with no apparent respect for TITLE, or even what MOSDASH really says. It's all obvious, especially when backed up by someone going "uh, that should be hyphenated", and then have hte Holy Writ of MOS thrown at them like this was some kind of dictatorship. As below, I'm so frustrated - and now insulted by specific things targeted against me to the point of anger - anger because of all the more useful things intelligent people could be doing here. A consensus arrived at by fools is exactly what it is; but a consensus which clearly doesn't exist shouldn't be used to override common sense, the sources, or to be wiki-lawyered into misrepresentation - "bogus claims", indeed; the bogus claim is that MOS mandated all these hyphen-dash changes (which it doesn't), the other bogus claim is that this is irreversible and people better smarten up and learn how to do "the new typographY' as dictated by a handful of style-happy Wikipedians. Not all Wikipedians, just those who dig in their heels on this one issue, and want to apply it as a blanket policy, when that's unsupported, and contrary to sources. As you note, dashes should be options, they are not rules, and sources override anything some pompous Wiki-scribe might want to dictate to the rest of the universe. Wikipedia should reflect reality, it should not try to change it, or re-write it. Or, for that matter, re-typeset it.....Skookum1 (talk) 07:57, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, MOS has always been a piece of trash, where the half-educated revert-war to impose their favorite reforms on the English language. It is much better ignored; but it may be worth occasionally trying to fix it; now may be one of the times when there is a consensus of editors of good will. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:59, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Regardless of who wins this debate, we should avoid contradictions. Contradictions are my favorite nag; you can argue all day whether it should be this way or that way, but I know it can't be both simultaneously. The current version contradicts the En dashes in page names paragraph just below it. Specifically, "This page does not cover article titles" contradicts "When naming an article, a hyphen is not used as a substitute for an en dash that properly belongs in the title, for example in Eye–hand span." Art LaPella (talk) 02:39, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree that there must not be a contradiction. We have had at least one IT expert here say that this argument for trashy "typewriter" punctuation in article names is bunkum. I am wondering why file titles, in the current version of the MoS, are so precarious that they can't even take a common en dash. Is this the result of similar bunkum put about by the hate-dashes league, or do we need to file a bugzilla request to move on from the 1970s in this respect? Tony (talk) 02:59, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Heaven forfend that MOS should have a contradiction! Half this energy put to seeing that it doesn't prescribe forms that are so unidiomatic that they make Wikipedia look illiterate would do much more good. Actually describing English would also remove most of the occasions for contradiction; but it's much more fun - if rather more harmful to the encyclopedia - to compile the Wikipedia Edition of the Newspeak Dictionary. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:34, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Actually, it says "Dashes should never be used in the filenames of images", such as File:Football Formation - 4-2-4.png. By our rules, at least the first hyphen should be a dash, but that would only make it harder for editors to encode the file without a redlink. There would be no benefit to readers because they don't see the file name. I think that is the reason, not a software problem. Art LaPella (talk) 05:24, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, so far WP:TITLE only specifies that "A redirect from a hyphenated version should be created where a dash is present in a title." Until we move the advice that "When naming an article, a hyphen is not used as a substitute for an en dash that properly belongs in the title" we shouldn't take it out and point people there where it isn't. Dicklyon (talk) 04:20, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

When usage requires a dash, titles should have one. But ENDASH certainly does not describe usage exactly; at best, it is a handful of usually correct rules which will serve a hard-pressed reporter who is uncertain of idiom and can't be bothered to check what English actually does; at worst, it is a handful of incorrect rules. In either case, it should be ignored when it is wrong. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:59, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

You know I disagree, but fortunately you aren't ignoring it; you're here arguing. That's more than I can say for those who insist the rest of the world is wrong, and that no mechanism for forming a consensus, or even providing sources, is necessary. Art LaPella (talk) 22:23, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

There seems to be a lot of hacking around on the MOS in response to what sounds like a very bogus claim by Skookum1 that people are pushing inappropriate uses of the en dash. Where is the evidence for the problem, before we start hacking a solution? What "resistant, obstructive people" is he referring to? On what articles? Dicklyon (talk) 04:22, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

That's an outright lie, or you're just blind or stupid and in heavy denial; just as you have misrepresented and lied about what is in MOS, you have lied and misrepresented what I have pointed out; here's the facts:

• a dash was inappropriately placed in [[Poland-Lithuania
• dashes were inappropiately placed on scores of hyphenated names in Canada, including neighbourhoods and regional districts and no doubt other things I haven't found yet, which all have hyphenated names and never, anywhere, never until this pack of dash-whackers came along has anyone ever spelled them with a dash, or siad anything stupid like teh authors of the legislation and websites about them were "lazy".
• dashes were inappropriately placed on Greco-Persian Wars and other like articles, which even have the "not lexically independent" prefix, and on similar articles. Theres' lost of examples out there, I run into them all the time, grimacing when I saw them, but getting riled at teh asinine arguments against restoring well-known BC names back to their proper forms and being overridden by people who nothing about the place, and don't care anything but for their machine-brain-driven assertion taht typography is more important than normal spelling/typing conventions, and that they have a right to make any change they want even if someone from the place objects that it's incorrect. Give your collective heads a frigging shake - and Dicklyon you have wantonly lied about me just now, or are so stupidly vain you think you're actually right and aren't capable of admitting you were wrong. Don't bitch about a personal attack when you say shit like that about someone who knows the subject matter like you never will. You're the one making the personal attack with CRAP like that; it's pretty f'ing clear that these are hyphenated names, but you - who don't have any connection to them whatsoever, or knowledge of what they are, or how those names came about - have decided that not only what you say goes, but those are fully proper applications of MOS which they are most explicltly NOT. I demand a retraction, and an admission that articles have been changed without proper proce3dure on the one hand, and by, if in AGF, a completely mistaken understandign of what MOS says. What MOS says, has always said....and where's this accusation of hacking coming from? Is that directed at me? Another unwarranted allegation, like your lies about me above, and your ongoing obstinate lies about what MOS says, when it doesn't. You want to interpolate every stray word to fit your justification for spreading the use of the dash, even challenging that "hyphenated name" wasn't specific enough; no, duh, because it meant all hyphenated names. Any admin reading this who goes "Oh, Skookum1 is out of line" had better understand the depth of the insult and thte mirepresentation that Dicklyon has just pulled, and similar turning-things-on-their-heads early on in this. yes, buddy, you're an obstructionist, a contrarian, someone defending his own bailiwick using absurdity and stubbornness. Maybe you cut out 75% of your brain, that's why you can't stand things longer than the short, punchy lies you tell and teh absurdity of argument and denial that is your staple fare here.

IN ALL CASES MOS or DASH was cited for the change, either just blankly or with spurious claims that some constructions were "and/to" constructions which they aren't - made by people who nothing about those places, or in the Poland-Lithuania case by someone who knew nothing at-all about that once-largest of European states, and wants to rant on about typography and how other people should step up to modern technology yadayadayada. If no names were changed inappropriately, why the f**k are there so many hyphenated names that are now dashed names, but should have remained hyphenated names, and about which you shouldn't be arguing about preventing them from returning to their proper form. Yes, you are an obstructionist, and evidently deserve the first part of your username all too fittingly.Skookum1 (talk) 07:24, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Ha, Ha! Now who's being a WP:Dick? I'm not sure what I've done to get you thinking that I'm obstructionist, or that I lie, or whatever. But since you won't even answer what's behind your original complaint, I don't expect any clarification here, either. I did try to help with your flailing by putting a clarification into the MOS that hyphenated place names shouldn't be changed to dashes, based on the Poland-Lithuania example. I agree that some of that did happen, but now you're saying "the same resistant, obstructive people who speedy-changed titles without adequate discussion are insisting that the adjectival forms of such names should remained dashes," without saying who or what you mean. I don't think people should get worked up or change the MOS in response to such generalities without consider first some specifics. And I assume that these changes you're talking about were made in good faith. Dicklyon (talk) 23:51, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Dick, I can't see the conflict between MOS and TITLE. But it would be helpful for editors if the MOS requirement appeared also in TITLE. Art, I don't really see why it is "harder for editors" to observe normal typographical conventions, whether readers see them or not. I personally find it slightly harder to parse image titles—which are often fiddly and whose often-binary structure is plainer with the correct dash.

I don't see a conflict either; but there was one transiently when it said to see TITLE, but the removed info hadn't bee put there; I just reverted back to the stable state, so people can think about what if any change is needed. I'm not sure what you're saying on image titles; I'm happy with tolerating whatever people do there. Dicklyon (talk) 07:16, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

"harder for editors" means only that many editors don't know any of the methods for entering a dash, because it isn't on their keyboard. Other editors won't even notice that it isn't a hyphen. It's easy to say they can at least copy and paste, but that unexpected requirement would probably make at least 10% of all editors give up, because they didn't think of it. That seems like a more significant obstacle than the 0.1% of editors who will parse a title more easily because they are expecting a dash, which is a rule I never even encountered before I edited Wikipedia. Anyway, that's my interpretation of an existing guideline; whoever wrote it would be a better explainer of his reasoning. Art LaPella (talk) 07:19, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

I was warned by a certain admin that WTMOS is a snakepit. Now I see why...and who. No logic prevails here, just typographical inanity and defense of the indefensible, and people pulling shit as faits accomplis that weren't even what MOS said, and then arguing away anyone who wants those WRONG CHANGES returned to their proper state - with stupid, childish, ill-informed sophomoric arguments and lexical analysis of terms they don't even friggin' understand. You claim to have consensus on what MOS means, but as long as you keep sayhing it says things it doesn't, you might as well burn this whole place; because if you don't listen to input, your "consensus" is just a club, and disconnected from reality. I think you're deliberately irritating, DickLyon, and McLarrister, too, I think you do this just to feel powerful and creative, to make big decisions affecting places and people you dno['t know anything about, and then being smug and difficult point-pickers when it's pointed out you're wrong. And you're wrong. About Poland-Lithuania, about the Alberni-Clayoquot Regional Dietrict, about Grandview-Woodland; and you're wrong, also, in presuming to tell people they better catch up to typographically more enlightened people like yourself. What a load of friggin' crap. This ain't over, I'm finding somewhere upstairs to take it; did you just say that, Dicklyon, to provoke me to try and get me banned and out of the way? Join me in hell, baby, it's a long ways down and I've been there before, I know my way around.....instead of going "oh, you mean those names are always hyphenated?" as you should have, you've opened up a bigger can of worms than just the one you and your friends live in.....I'm tired of this shit; there's no way some typography-obsessed nerd in another country has the right to say "Alberni-Clayoquot sin't a hyphenated name" and override the input of people actually from the province/country it's in. Go stuff yourself, kid....Skookum1 (talk) 07:32, 27 January 2011 (UTC) And my edit count would be a LOT frickin' lower if I didn't have to put out stupid-idiot fires like this one all the time, and could jsut write history etc articles and fix geography etc, which is what I came to Wikipedia for. Not to ahve to argue with some typographical fanatics about their over-reach and overweeing power. Getting me blocked for repsonding to DickLyon's deciding to provoke me as much as possible - all this delay about what is obviously correct ("hyphenated names are hyphenated names") is insane; it's insane, I'm not. but I sure am pissed off at being angered like this in such a stupid, stupid, stupid way - you claimed the opposite of what was true, Dicklyon, with articles under discussion of the very kind you claim don't exist. You must like being an asshole, I think.....Skookum1 (talk) 07:36, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Please do find "somewhere upstairs to take it", such as WP:WQA. They will give you a new perspective on the civility policy. And I say that as someone who wouldn't really miss the WP:DASH guideline if it disappeared altogether. Art LaPella (talk) 22:18, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

I'd say to add the dash character to Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(technical_restrictions)#Other_problematic_characters and WP:TITLE#Special_characters, then we can make the change here. --Enric Naval (talk) 15:12, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Actually, less than that is needed; we don't count being a non-keyboard character in Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(technical_restrictions) and WP:TITLE already mentions dashes; what we need to do is what WP:TITLE already does in several places: say our titles should follow reliable (English, secondary) sources over this too. Then the requirement of redirects when the sources use a dash will fall into place. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:34, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

centuries: numbers versus words

This subject is being discussed at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#MOS vs. MOSNUM on centuries. Hmains (talk) 19:36, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

The Campaign Against Real English?

This edit summary genuinely shocks me; the claim that do as [reliable English] sources do is a serious change of guidance for any section of this page should disqualify that section for z guideline on the English Wikipedia; the claim that such a position is consensus of Wikipedia (not of some clique of rule-makers) is an evident falsehood; if it were consensus, it would not be controversial – as WP:DASH evodently is.

I hope, however, that there is some other explanation that the assertion that MOS attempts to provide rules which are not supported by the usage of actual English beyond Wikipedia. Wikipedia editors (at least most of the time ;}) write real English, not MOSese; more importantly, our readers read the language actually found in published sources – not some artificial construct. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:35, 29 January 2011 (UTC) What is WP:DASH? The top of this section links to an edit summary claiming that it has nothing to do with how English is actually written outside Wikipedia; I don't believe it. The top of this page links to a long and acrimonious discussion provoked by a claim that it is binding on article titles even when the result is almost unheard of in English (demonstrating in the process that the meaning of these innumerable bullet points isn't the same for everybody). I think this violates our article title policy, and I still don't believe it. What do other people think? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:24, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

There seem to me three possibilities about WP:DASH:

1. that the true rule here is in fact: write English; use dashes and hyphens as well-proofread English sources do, the sort of sources that are also fact-checked, and therefore reliable, and that the many bullet-points here are guidelines, more or less accurate, towards what good English writing does. In this case, we should say so - and make sure, by sourcing our rules and consulting well-printed texts, that they are approximately what English does.
2. That ehese are Commandments to be followed, whatever English may do. If so, they produce bad, unidiomatic, writing whenever they differ from English usage and are harmful to the encyclopedia.
3. That they should have no weight at all, which is how most editors seems to regard this entire page.

1 I believe #1. Let's have other views. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:52, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

I also believe #1. The complaint was about changing from the simple style statement "a hyphen is not used as a substitute for an en dash that properly belongs in the title" to a statement that tried to provide guidance on making the decision about whether an en dash properly belongs: "use dashes when the sources do". The edit summary said "That would be quite a change from the current consensus", which it is, since the MOS until now doesn't attempt to give much guidance there (at least not in this section), and because it is an attempt to turn a decision over to the often erratic results of the styles of others rather than leaving it more up to WP style. My own interpretation is this: if I think that an en dash belongs in a title, and it currently has a hyphen, I might move it, but only if I first find and cite a source that does it that way. I don't require a preponderance, or a majority, or even a large number of sources doing it that way, because most sources aren't curated well enough to bother to respect the value of indicating meaning via punctuation, which is what the style guide says elsewhere we try to do with en dashes, using them to indicate a different kind of connection than hyphens indicate. But I do need at least one source to back up my opinion before I'll do it; I might be tempted to change "Springer-Verlag" to "Springer–Verlag" if I were ignorant of the real meaning of this German-derived name, but hopefully when looking at sources I'd find out that that would be wrong, and I'd leave it alone. Those of us who have been brought up on a combination of good grammar and good typography find the hyphen offensive when it indicates the wrong meaning by being used where the en dash belongs; and vice-versa. But it's not always obvious, so cases need to be looked at by editors who get the point and are willing to make decisions without the emotional baggage of dashphobia or dashphilia. Dicklyon (talk) 02:51, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

You omit, I think, the reason you aren't tempted: Those who have spent time with the Yellow Peril know what looks right; this applies on and off Wikipedia. This doesn't need copy-editing; most people who write of Springer-Verlag spell it right to begin with (just as they aren't tempted to use a dash in copy-edit), and copy-editing improves that. That's why do what sources do works. What WP:DASH produces is a mass of junior editors who are emending WP in fields they don't know, and feel no reason to check usage at all. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:11, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Among those who invoke DASH without knowing the fields they are emending are many in this present company, either in actual title/article changes or in opposition to reverting to hyphens when the sources dictate that's what should be there (WP:MOSFOLLOW is one of those non-cherrypicked bits of MOS that a lot of people here have openly dismissed, rather repetitively too - "Wikipedia has its own style and doesn't need to follow the sources", for example). As for this arrogance: "I don't require a preponderance, or a majority, or even a large number of sources doing it that way, because most sources aren't curated well enough to bother to respect the value of indicating meaning via punctuation," In other words, you're fine with cherrypicking sources (a sole source, or a handful) that support your adjudgment of what the "meaning" of a construction is, i.e. that this or that should have a dash even though a preponderance of sources (in the case of regional districts all sources) have the hyphen, and you are incredibly arrogant to suggest that sources that "aren't curated well" are inferior to your own judgement, even though you've done this to articles in fields you very pointedly don't know anything about (and don't care to either, it seems). How can you judge meaning, or claim to, when it's clear from things you've taken positions that deconstruct meaning, without considering context or even accepting standard convention because, well, "you know better". You're not consensus, though you're pretending you are. Maybe the rest of the world knows things you just do not, has that occurred to you?Skookum1 (talk) 06:25, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

I hope you don't mean me, but I'd like to know who you do mean when you say "Among those who invoke DASH without knowing the fields they are emending are many in this present company". If people have done that, they do deserve to be criticized; but this kind of blanket smear doesn't help. Say what you mean, backed up by pointers to the facts, or you're just making noise. Dicklyon (talk) 07:09, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

See Talk:Alberni–Clayoquot_Regional_District#Requested_move re TheTom, McLay and Skinsmoke's comments, and refer back to the arduous Poland-Lithuania RM for many of the same uninformed pronouncements that this is two separate entities so must be dashed, plus other rationalizations why the sources don't matter and what matters is style and "typographical" technology over content (many of your own posts were about that, very repetitively and you also, it seems to me, said that the prevailing usages in the sources weren't important and coudl be discounted; just as you have done so immediately above). The Canadian placenames were changed by User:Arctic.gnome and User:Renata3 (the latter took part in Poland-Lithuania, as I recall) citing the mis-taken "and/to" concept that these are just linked items, and not unique placenames referring to unique places/concepts (which they are). You nkow all this already, and you know what I was referring to; yet you ask me to back it up with "facts"....but the facts are that the sources ARE the sources, and Wikipedia is not a source (and MOS even less so).Skookum1 (talk) 07:19, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Skookum, is that where you wrote, recently, "One thign I want added to MOS is "editors unfamiliar with a subject should not undertake major changes to the article, including its 'title' " and that such editors "know f-all"? Tony (talk) 14:16, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

TheTom and Skinsmoke don't seem to be among the "present company", and McLay has only made a few moderate and sensible comments, so I still don't understand your ranting about imagined "uninformed pronouncements". And I hadn't looked at that other discussion, but I see now that you're having trouble there. I can see why it's an interesting case, but don't see why it needs to be turned into an MOS problem. Dicklyon (talk) 07:43, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

The MoS absolutely does demand usage that is not supported by a majority of sources, that contradicts English usage and that was imposed by revisionist rule-makers rather than taken from either Wikipedia usage or general English: WP:LP. However, none of this means that there isn't a Wikipedia consensus for this or any other given rule unless "Wikipedia consensus" is not defined as a significant preponderance of contributors to discussions about said rule.

As for using reliable sources? I've worked with too many scientific journals. Sources that are reliable for facts do not always get their grammar, punctuation and word usage right. We should use fact-reliable sources for facts and usage-reliable sources for usage. Darkfrog24 (talk) 15:51, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Do they get their usage wrong? Of course they do; that's why finding a single exemplar of something is not enough. Do they get it wrong on half the words? Very few of them are anywhere close, even in the present post-copyediting environment. But think about the result; even if there is a significant amount of noise, a supermajority of sources will still be right on any given word or punctuation choice. (In those cases where a majority is consistently and jointly wrong, we eventually say the language has changed - as in mob for mobile vulgus - and they are then right.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:51, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Then we would have to specifically require that people look at a supermajority of sources, both on and off of the Internet. Usually, "use the sources" means "one reliable source will do," and when using sources for facts that is indeed sufficient. We must be clear that using sources in this way is not the same thing as using sources through the rest of Wikipedia. Darkfrog24 (talk) 19:50, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

No more than pollsters have to poll a supermajority of the voters. It requires only a sufficient sample to be reasonably sure that there is a supermajority of sources do it one way or the others. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:33, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

But that sample must not be skewed, as an Internet-only sample would be likely to be. Darkfrog24 (talk) 16:08, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Supermajority is irrelvant here. We have a manual of "style"; different sources have different typographic styles. The point of consulting sources is to verify that at least some of them that have a compatible typographic style has made the same interpretation of the structure/meaning of the compound term in question. The ones that always use hyphens have no bearing on the question, and those are the majority. Dicklyon (talk) 22:01, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

This is a claim that this guideline, unsourced as it is, can mandate any style it pleases, as long as some editor thinks it can be found somewhere in the corpus of English writing - whether most English readers boggle at it or not. That violates a core policy of this English Wikipedia: that it be in comprehensible English.

Does anybody else agree with this? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:31, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

So, the question is this: If MOS, as Dicklyon suggests, isn't based on what English does, what is it based on? Not on style manuals: it cites none, and they are in turn ultimately based on usage. If it is based the Original Research of some Wikipedians - as his answer would suggest, why should we keep it? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:31, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't recall making that suggestion, but yes, it's sort of the case that "what English does" and good style for publication of English are largely orthogonal. We should keep the style guide because it has evolved through a consensus process; changing it hugely would be very disruptive, so we need to change it only when we have consensus to do so. Dicklyon (talk) 22:37, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

I do not agree that the MoS should mandate whatever styles a preponderance of the contributors to these discussions please. Neither do I believe that we should look around and make educated guesses about what we think English users are doing (or about to do). I believe we should follow established style guides. Yes, these guides may be based on what English users are doing, but their professional investigations are more likely to be accurate (and unbiased) than anything we could do ourselves. Darkfrog24 (talk) 16:08, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

If MOS were doing that, it would cite the style guides; it doesn't. Most of these provisions are sheer Original Research; changing to what style guides recommend - and giving due weight to each where they disagree - would be a enormous first step.

There are also two problems with style guides.

• Most of them make choices for reasons which are not ours; chiefly that they are only intended for one natioual dialect. CMS recommends -ize with the same certitude of all its other recommendations; should we dredge that out and bind Britiish editors with it?
• All of them are intended for people in a hurry, for whom some choice is better than none, even if the other would be just as good. We have no deadline - and we harm Wikipedia by insisting on one arbitrary choice when neither we nor the style guide have a reason; we harm it doubly when - as does happen - the style-guide's rule of thumb is simply unidiomatic for some particular construction. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:15, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

It would be wonderful if the MoS cited its sources. We should not bind British editors to the Oxford spelling but continue to employ ENGVAR. My personal preference is to allow editors their freedom within correct English. Because British English includes both -ize and -ise (and double and single quotation marks), I'd go with intra-article consistency but otherwise let people do what they want.

Our purpose here is to provide good guidance for general-audience pieces. That would put is in accordance with most style guides most of the time. If there were a specific instance here or there in which most style guides' advice would not be appropriate to Wikipedia, we could deal with that on a case-by-case basis. Darkfrog24 (talk) 22:11, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Do try to keep in mind that there are many more than just two varieties of English. Roger (talk) 22:41, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Of course, but the question was about British editors and -ize, so that's how I answered it. Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:24, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not aware of those. I pretty much assume that WP:ENGVAR with more than 2 varieties would be impractical, even though it does allude to variants of British English. What varieties are you suggesting that we need to keep in mind? I don't think the article on dialects that you linked is relevant. Dicklyon (talk) 23:01, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Actually, there are lots of articles on Wikipedia that are written in other varieties of English, such as Irish and South African. Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:24, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure I'd recognize one of those. Can you point out an example, or say how those varieties differ, roughly? Dicklyon (talk) 04:01, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Example? Caster Semenya for South African. How they differ? I don't know. The point is that ENGVAR, when used correctly, gives proper respect to all varieties of English. Darkfrog24 (talk) 12:30, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Example sentence for standard English as it is written in the land of the Desis: "Public sector lender Central Bank of India today reported a 31.68 per cent increase in its net profit to Rs 403.52 crore for the quarter ended December 31, 2010." [12] From The Economic Times. Hans Adler 12:53, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Page is getting hard and discouraging to follow

I just put the page on unwatch, even though I care about the MOS and enjoy talking style nuances with the best of the best here. But it's a total buzzkill to see these moth-flying-into-flame debates the last day or so. Heck, I don't like the dashes either, but let's roll with it. Let's have a system and use it. Having no style guide (or some sort of jury nullification) would be worse than one with a couple tiny debatable issues. This place needs better content, better writing. There's plenty of work to be done that has nothing do to with dashes. This is supposed to be fun, but following this page last day has been unfun. TCO (talk) 06:16, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

You should do what I do and just skim. I only read the posts in a heated thread if I think there's something I want to say. Ozob (talk) 14:38, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Or... you could do what most editors do... just get on with writing and editing articles and completely ignore all the battles that rage here as being irrelevant to that goal. (I am not saying that the entire MOS is irrelevant, although I am sure many editors would say it is.... but the nit-picky debates on this page often are.) Blueboar (talk) 02:15, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

The problem with that is twofold:

• Only a couple of provisions of MOS are consensus. (Something that is not in practice open for anyone to edit, whether by protection or by revert-warring, has no claim to be consensus just because the frozen page has not been changed.)
• Bots (and editors acting like bots) spread the non-consensus, unEnglish, idiom that a handful of well-meaning language reformers has written all over Wikipedia, making articles look semi-literate. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:43, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

I am frustrated as well. The answers above are good.

I wish that once editors realize they are in conflict, that they would answer every other day so that a) we wouldn't have to read a ping-pong match essentially stating the same arguments over and over, and b) that warring editors would have time to rethink their arguments and actually arrive at a reasonable compromise instead of trying to "win" the argument.

I wish we could have a "FAQ" above that might say this, but I would not look forward to the months of discussion that it would take to insert one!  :) Student7 (talk) 14:11, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

(sigh) But that only works when people are willing to compromise. Some people can be shown source after source and still think they're right and the other side is wrong. Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:44, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

En dashes and RS's

I've moved several articles with disjunctive names to titles with en dashes per MOS:ENDASH, only to have them reverted because WP:RSs use hyphens. What is our policy here? I would expect that we do not need to follow RS's in this any more than we do other orthographic or stylistic conventions, but some editors get quite irate at any divergence from their sources.

Most of the time, for me this involves language families. For example, a large number of families are named after two languages or groups, such as the Amto-Musan languages (= Amto + Musan) and the Kwomtari-Fas languages (= Kwomtari + Fas). Since they are disjunctive, these should have en dashes, despite being "proper names", correct?

In other cases the elements themselves have spaces or hyphens. One of the most important is Trans-New Guinea languages. En dash despite trans- being a prefix, correct? Others are the Left May–Kwomtari languages, Ramu–Lower Sepik languages, Yele–West New Britain languages, and Reefs–Santa Cruz languages, which have not (yet) been reverted. However, since these are both disjunctive and contain spaces, should there be spacing on either side of the dashes?

Then, if our sources (many written on a typewriter!) use hyphens, do we need to follow that practice per WP:RS, or are orthographic conventions independent of sourcing? (For TNG, I've found sources with "Trans New Guinea" and "Trans–New Guinea", but the clear majority have "Trans-New Guinea".)

A non-linguistic example is the Spokane–Coeur d'Alene–Paloos War. There was recently an edit war over this. I restored it to the stable 2008 title with en dashes, but since 2009 it had been stable with spaces as well. One of the arguments for moving this back to hyphens was that the Spokane, Coeur d'Alene, and Paloos were not fighting each other, but were allies (AFAIK an overly literal reading of "disjunction"); another was that "War" is capitalized, and therefore a proper name, and proper names require hyphens.

A critical test case would be Niger-Congo languages. It seems disjunctive, being the languages which range from the Niger to the Congo rivers. Yet I can find no sources which use en dashes; even the refs which had "Trans New Guinea" and "Trans–New Guinea" use a plain hyphen for "Niger-Congo". Is this not truly disjunctive, because the family is not composed of "Niger languages" + "Congo languages", but is simply named after its geographic extremes, much like Indo-European? Should we only use en dashes for families such as Amto–Musan, which are named after two disjunctive groups of languages? or should we use "Niger–Congo" despite that usage being unattested in the (voluminous) lit? or do we defer to sourcing despite the MoS?

It would be nice if less straightforward examples such as these could be spelled out in the guide, as fights like these crop up over and over. — kwami (talk) 20:31, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

In the case of the Spokane–Coeur d'Alene–Paloos War, I don't find any sources with either en dashes or hyphens, or such a compound title at all. If we're making up a descriptive title, en dashes make sense. But then why capitalize "War" like it's part of a proper name? One really needs to decide what this title is. Let me restate my point from before: it's a good idea to have some source using an en dash to confirm your interpretation of the meaning and structure of a compound; but it's not a good idea to follow the majority, as that would mean giving up on en dashes entirely and reverting to typewriter and MS-Word typography. On things like Reef-Santa Cruz, I find the hyphen particularly offensive, but I have to admit it is found non uncommonly in RSs. But then some sources use a slash as in Reef/Santa Cruz, to avoid the confusion caused by the hyphen, and some use an unspaced en dash, as here. Some style guides, including ours, suggest a spaced en dash in this context, but it's not so common; the en dash is enough to signal the intended structure, at least partly. Dicklyon (talk) 20:45, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I added the critical Niger-Congo example after your answer, so would appreciate any insight you have on that as well.

As for the war, does it matter whether it's a "proper" name or not? I read the exception as being things like surnames, country names, ethnic names, and the like, not noun phrases being used as names for events etc. In other words, should capitalizing "War" make any difference to whether we use hyphens or dashes? After all, we speak of the "Argentine–Brazilian War"—that doesn't need to be changed back to a hyphen just because "War" is capitalized, does it? — kwami (talk) 21:07, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

No, of course not. On the other hand, I find that in sources, that "war" is often not capitalized; so why do we do that? And I don't find any sources with the en dash, so I'd just leave it at hyphen, I think. Dicklyon (talk) 22:27, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

En dash in Niger–Congo languages is not unprecedented; if you search in Google scholar, you can the "find" with the en dash and get this one and this one. They're harder to find in books, since the OCR doesn't usually distinguish them. I'd say it's a tough call; if people feel that the hyphen is the overwhelmingly accepted version, I wouldn't fight it; but the en dash seems more logical and does have precedent in reliable sources. As to whether "proper" is relevant, perhaps not; but if there's evidence that a proper name is really intended to have a hyphen, then I wouldn't mess with it; for non-proper terms, you won't have that kind of argument against using logical typography. In this case, it looks like "War" might have been capitalized to make the title look like a proper name, possibly to support some way of punctuating it (but I haven't looked at the history, and a more likely explanation is that people just tend to over-capitalize). Dicklyon (talk) 21:28, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

But why should it not have a hyphen, when Franco-Prussian War and Austro-Prussian War do (or should, if they don't at this point)? The relationship between combatants is the same, i.e. the lexical relationship; being joined in conflict is being joined, not "disjuncted".Skookum1 (talk) 21:31, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

As you said elsewhere, Skookum, we go by tradition, and the tradition is that prefixes take hyphens unless the stem is itself hyphenated, or contains a space. — kwami (talk) 21:58, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

A name is a name is a name is a name, and fully-capitalized name-phrases are proper nouns, and hyphenated names are hyphenated names. Period. In the case of the Sp-Cd'A-Pl War I haven't looked to see who created it yet (moving today) but originally I believe it was titled Couer d'Alene War and the Spokane War and Palouse War are used separately, though in the context of the same flow of events; it may be well that this title is entirely OR and not supported by sources; I'll find teh author/mover later and take it up at {{NorthAmNative}} as this is really a "NativeMOS" issue (there are various conventions in NorthAmNative that predicate a special MOS for them, e.g. the use of native names for peoples is now preferred in BC, partly because the usual English names are misnomers, e.g. Nuu-chah-nulth vs Nootka, Kwakwaka'wakw vs Kwakiutl and partly for, um, political reasons (=nativePOV can be a hot-button issue, best to respect it - if we want native contributors to take part in Wikipedia, that is, which we should)...Palus people vs Palouse (which in Wiki is the anglicization shared by both the people and the landform/region), Secwepemc vs Shuswap Nation Tribal Council/Northern Shuswap Tribal Council, Skwxwu7mesh vs Squamish Nation (the latter in each case are modern governmental bodies)...with the anglicization generally in use for the language, e.g. Lillooet language vs St'at'imcets..as far as this war goes, the same series of events bound together by a common name is very much a white perspective, as though there was an alliance (between all NW peoples, pretty much) from the native view these were three separate wars against the same set of troops....I'm gonna read Bancroft and certain other sources later tonight....and again submit this dash/hyphen issue in this case may be moot, given that the title itself, and the combined article, may well be OR, as it seems to be. I'm concerned that in cases like Gitxsan-Wet'su-we'ten Confederacy, though that's a redirect and not a title, or Carrier-Chilcotin Tribal Council, that MOS-ites will dictate that those names must appear as dashes...without actually knowing anything about what they are, or caring what the source-government itself uses and prefers....Skookum1 (talk) 21:31, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

If a name is a name is a name, then we should not capitalize proper names. If you want to go by typographic tradition, then we should go by that, whatever it is. It seems that your argument changes depending on what's convenient, but that's no way to organize an encyclopedia. — kwami (talk) 21:58, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Carrier-Chilcotin Tribal Council is not a useful case to consider, since their own web site uses a space, and the article is unsourced. I don't see how you think the MOS says it must use an en dash. Dicklyon (talk) 18:04, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Back to the NC question: is there any reason why a name based on extremes which are not themselves units should be treated differently than a name based on genuine units? That is, any reason why "Niger-Congo" (= in the expanse from the Niger to the Congo) should be handled differently than "Tai-Kadai" (= a group consisting of the Tai languages and the Kadai languages)? Per Skookum's objections, do we have a source with a clear definition of what "disjunction" means, since he's arguing that Michelson–Morley experiment is conjunctive rather than disjunctive? Or is "disjunction" a misnomer here?

Or, perhaps, is a name based on two people, such as the Michelson–Morley experiment, en-dashed to distinguish it from a name based on a single person with a hyphenated name, such as the Lennard-Jones potential? In other words, should this convention be specifically for compounds of surnames? — kwami (talk) 21:58, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't know what conjuctive and disjunctive mean here, but it's clear that in the case of names, then en dash is to indicate two people, as opposed to one with hyphenated surname. A similar convention seems to be used in analogous situations in many sources. Dicklyon (talk) 22:20, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Conjunctive would mean "and" or "with", whereas disjunctive would mean "but" or "against". Skookum was arguing that the name of the war should not have en dashes because the named peoples were allies and therefore in a union, which was a conjunction, and that an en dash indicating disjunction would mean that they were enemies. I think that mistakes the semantics of the relationship for the grammar of the name for the relationship, regardless of whether en dashes indicate "disjunction" or not.

But it is clearly not disjunction as Skookum is reading our guideline. Here is the guideline from the Atlantic Monthly, 1921 (which also counters Skookum's argument that this is a newfangled convention based solely on the ability of modern word processors to handle en dashes, violating long-standing tradition):

The en-dash ... may stand for the word "and" or "to" in such phrases as "the Radical–Unionist Coalition," "the Boston–Hartford Air Line"; "the period of Republican supremacy, 1860–84"; "pp. 224–30." It is necessary to be on one's guard against the use of the en-dash instead of "to," in connection with "from"—a surprisingly common error.

The Civil War lasted from 1861–'65.

This dash is used also instead of a hyphen in lines consisting of capital letters.

—Text, type and style: a compendium of Atlantic usage (1921:125)

"Radical–Unionist Coalition" is a perfect analogue to the war. "Boston–Hartford Air Line" would seem to be pretty close to "Niger–Congo languages".

(The counter example is meant to show that [from X] [to Y] is not a conjunction of X and Y the way the Republican supremacy example is.)

In case anyone thinks this is dated, we have Webster's New World punctuation (2005:122), which, after giving number-range examples, says,

The en dash may also connect two words when to or and is implied. The two words connected in this way for a single expression that precedes and describes another word. The same function is often performed by a hyphen, but the en dash is used when the two elements are equal in importance and may be reversed whithout altering the meaning.

(examples: teacher–student relationship, Portland–Yarmouth ferry, New York–Boston match)

The en dash connects two names (again, of equal importance) when two people are referred to. The en dash contrasts with the hyphen, which may separate parts of one name.

Now, I'm finding the use of the en dash to join compounds of compounds (open or hyphenated) or to prefix such compounds all over the place, even in elementary guides, but conjunctive en dashes only in more professional or in-depth guides. So "Trans–New Guinea" is supported by more style guides than "Niger–Congo". — kwami (talk) 23:16, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Right. This book says "Many writers use a hyphen where those in the publishing world would use an en dash," and suggests that the choice of an en dash is more about simple readability than about meaning. They don't talk about names, just other uses, including compounds of spaced or hyphenated terms. It remains unclear to me the extent to which the convention with pairs of person names is more widely applied. It's not so uncommon to see en dashes used that way, but I don't find guides that specifically call it out. I had always learned the name thing as an important part of conveying meaning, I suppose the disjunction/conjunction difference: the hyphen binds strongly, while the en dash suggests a separate-but-equal relationship. Dicklyon (talk) 00:37, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Also, from The copyeditor's handbook (UC Press, 2000:109),

In compound adjectives formed by attaching a prefix to a hyphenated element, however, a hyphen is used (that is, "post–World War II economic recovery" with an en dash, but "non-English-speaking air traffic controllers" and "semi-labor-intensive industries" with only hyphens) — kwami (talk) 01:56, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Are there any objections to these reverted edits? They are clarifications, the removal of the incorrectly used word 'disjunction', which has already created problems, and a fifth use of the en dash (a variant of the hyphen in all-cap text) which I've seen in two sources now. — kwami (talk) 10:51, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

To take one change, where is the other source for the idea of replacing hyphens with em dashes in upper-case text, apart from the "Modern style" (1919) ref? Do you mean "NON—LINEAR DRIVER", like that? WP text is not normally all-caps, anyway? Tony (talk) 10:57, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Not em dashes, en dashes. In my last response on your talk page I gave you an example from the Chicago manual of style. I forget what the first source I found it in was. Of course, we don't normally write in all caps in WP, but it doesn't hurt to include that convention. — kwami (talk) 11:41, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Tony, the example was capital letters, not upper case text. The example means things like this: "The song's structure is A–B–A–C–A–B" or "The sequence of notes is G–F–E–E–B♭".

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Binksternet (talk • contribs) 16:12, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

I believe this example is a special case of the rule on lists; however, it should clearly be unspaced (as in A–B–A) and not spaced as the MOS currently requires (A – B – A). Consequently I have removed the spacing requirement and have updated the spacing directions. Ozob (talk) 23:05, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

I see that Dicklyon has already reverted me on the grounds that A–B–A is not a list. I am left wondering what it is. Ozob (talk) 23:12, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

In the Chicago Manual of Style, 15th edition (2003), the sequence of musical notes is separated by unspaced en dashes, as is a sequence of harmonic progressions: I–IV–V–I. It says a chord (simultaneously sounded notes) is given spaced plus signs: C + E + G. Chicago isn't the be-all or end-all of style guides but it is certainly one of the top five. Binksternet (talk) 23:59, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

I noticed that the Music project did not have a MOS guide for recurring themes (ABACAB) or sequences of notes (G–F–E–E–B♭) so I added two relevant questions at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (music). We'll see what the musicians say. Binksternet (talk) 01:27, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

You can call that sequence a list if you like, but it's clearly not what that advise was talking about, where the example clarified that what they meant by separating items in a list was separation of an introductory element and a following element; probably it should be said better, but not thrown out as your edit did. Dicklyon (talk) 03:58, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I disagree. I think that the example is not a good explanation of the text, not the other way around. I also think that A–B–A is clearly a list, as is C–E–G or G–F–E–E–B♭. One can even interpret the "and" type of en dash as a list; for example, one might write, "The paper of Hoste–Ocneanu–Millett–Freyd–Lickorish–Yetter introduced the HOMFLY polynomial into knot theory", which means just the same as "The paper of Hoste, Ocneanu, Millett, Freyd, Lickorish, and Yetter introduced the HOMFLY polynomial into knot theory". The former is also consistent with the common practice of putting an en dash between names of authors or joint discoverers, as in "the work of Eilenberg–Mac Lane" or "the Seifert–van Kampen theorem".

I have reverted your reversion. If you wish to revert, please also remove the spacing direction below so that the MoS is consistent. Ozob (talk) 12:20, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Done. It's not clear what the one below was referring to, nor could I see any other to make it self-consistent. Dicklyon (talk) 17:34, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I meant. Sorry for the confusion. Ozob (talk) 00:39, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

• Where did Chicago dredge up "C + E + G"? That is weird. C–E–G is the normal practice. Tony (talk) 09:49, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
• A list? It's a set of univariate relationships, a sequence. Just like Auckland–Durban–London flight. In the loosest sense, yes, it's a list ("A–B–A" etc). But I'm certain the sentence you just removed refers to lined/bulleted lists of album tracks, and personnel. Such as this. Tony (talk) 12:32, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, the spacing of those en dashes doesn't change under my suggestion, since every bullet point contains an item with a space. But without my suggestion, A–B–A is forbidden. So I don't see how it could be objectionable. Ozob (talk) 12:38, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Sure, it needed attention. But the sentence was added, I think, after complaints emanating from FAC about messy practices in such lists of tracks and personnel. They wanted centralised guidance. As long as it's clear enough that we don't have brushfires in the articles for want of guidance. Tony (talk) 12:44, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

It bothers me that I see an inconsistency. As long as nobody goes around writing "A – B – A", then I'm happy. But right now I think that's what the MoS requires, and I worry that some day someone will try to enforce that. Ozob (talk) 00:39, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Style to avoid accusation of original research or synthesis

Proposed content, please comment -

"Policies on not doing original research include that synthesizing material from a variety of sources into a single sentence is original research. Sometimes an editor may initially find it stylistically better to include material from two sources in a single sentence because they go so well together. This can lead other editors to make accusations of synthesis. To avoided the accusation, break the material into two shorter sentences, each with its own citation."

• Does not belong here. Try WP:CITE.
• Substantively, this is undesirable. Nothing prevents a footnote from occuring in the middle of a sentence, or explaining, with each source, what part of the sentence is so sourced. If the resulr is better written as a combined sentence, it ought to be; if not, it should be divided, whatever the citation. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:04, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

I fully agree "it out to be". But there is a reality of other WP editors who might not agree (perhaps just to have something to do) to deal with. I was suggesting that at WP, there may be a good reason to use bad style in order to avoid getting content being deleted repeatedly. MOS only talks about what is good style, and says nothing about when it may be useful to use bad style. HkFnsNGA (talk)

No. We are not editing to evade vandals; we are editing for readers. You want WP:Dispute resolution - although continued reversions by a single editor discussed at our policy on edit warring and continued reversion - which you will want to avoid yourself. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:43, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

It is an anti-style, not to avoid vandals, but to WP:Civility avoid WP:Synth-sticklers and nit pickers deleting content by suggesting a stylistic change to only the slightly worse. (User:Septen..., I noticed someone in a talk section above accused you of being a "mathematician". I have been disparaged by others using that offensive descriptor, too.) HkFnsNGA (talk) 19:45, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

But I am a mathematician. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:39, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

I am a retired mathematician. HkFnsNGA (talk) 22:04, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

---

deleted material not germane to topic----

Are we getting off topic for this section? PPdd (talk) 14:39, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

My last verbose comment might best be taken in the context of the section header of the section I started immediately above - "irony- concise". PPdd (talk) 18:58, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

It would only be in context if you tried to write a style guide for circus related articles. Blueboar (talk) 19:23, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Proposed replacement text for WP:CONTRACTIONS section

Current text: "In general, the use of contractions—such as don't, can't, won't, they'd, should've, it's—is informal and should be avoided."

Proposed replacement text: "In general, the pointed avoidance of contractions—such as don't, can't, won't, they'd, should've, it's—is stilted and should be avoided. It was a traditional rule of formal versus informal writing in the pre-Internet era, and nowadays it seems stodgy and outdated to most readers under 40."

No, I don't expect the people who read this page to accept this change anytime soon—not now, nor this year, nor this decade. Yes, it needed to be said anyway. No, it doesn't present any actual problems to EFL readers or readers who are machines. Yes, it will eventually happen. Till then, I remain, — ¾-10 23:33, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

There's a middle ground. Add the pointed avoidance of contractions is stilted and also should be avoided. The harm is the pointedness, not the use of cannot and so on. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:15, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

• informal English is informal English and WP is not the place for it. Hmains (talk) 04:32, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose – Those contractions are written forms of a way of quickly saying two words. We should not write an encyclopaedia in colloquial speaking language. It would be like replacing "the" with "t'" on pages about Yorkshire and replacing "afternoon" with "arvo" for Australian pages. McLerristarr | Mclay1 05:39, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose per informality. We are not Jimmy's Blog. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 23:02, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
• oppose as per above and: we need one consistent style. Allowing contractions opens up the encyclopaedia to innumerable national, regional local and even personal variants which will not only degrade quality and readability but greatly increase the scope for disagreement. Is my "it's not" better than your "it isn't" or her "it aint"? Or if we allow contractions what's to stop editors writing articles in leet speak, a rather extreme form of contraction?--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 23:29, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose. This is a reference work and formal language is appropriate. Contractions have been used in spoken English for many centuries but they still have not replaced the spelled-out versions in written English.   Will Beback  talk  23:32, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose this semi-serious proposal, which misses the point. (We should avoid blindly replacing contractions, not mandate their use.) The "most readers under 40" part is silly and untrue. —David Levy 00:53, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Untrue only because most readers under 40 (or over 40) won't notice the difference. The same could be said of almost everything in the Manual of Style. Art LaPella (talk) 02:43, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Are we in for months of instability?

Mr Anderson, an editor whose specialisations in the classics and mathematics I admire, has suddenly taken to making substantive changes to the MoS without consensus. Above, he has reprimanded User:Ozob for an edit-summary to a reversion of one of these changes earlier today. Editors need a stable MoS, and changes to it, unless everyone here agrees—not just one or two people where there's also disagreement—need to be discussed on this page. Consideration should sometimes be given to advertising the discussion more widely to involve the community.

That depends on you. I came here, observed that there was a long-standing discussion, easily remediable by admitting at a single point that the purpose of the Manual of Style was to help editors write English - that is to say, actually existing English.

But those who value stability should also consider that a guideline which cannot be changed because it is policed by revert-warriors loses all claim to consensus - and with it all claim to authority. The reason to believe that most articles, most guidelines, most policies are consensus is that anybody is free to change them, and they have, by progressive changes, arrived at a point where nobody wants to. That's what WP:Consensus means; that everybody can tolerate the present state.

If a guideline is frozen - hy protection or by other means - this argument no longer holds. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:07, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

I ask that the normal protocols be observed on this important page. There seems to be a spiralling element in which disagreement to change is met by a bulldozer. We need to treat each other more kindly and maintain peaceful discussion. \

You don't understand what normal protocols are. Normal protocols are to edit collaboratively; when a change is suggested and argued for, to try to find language that will suit all parties. (For example, if you want generally at the beginning of the sentence below, fine; I thought it smoother where it is.) You have reverted three times without discussion, and only now start a tirade. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:11, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Contractions, again

In yet another example, this:

In general, the use of contractions—such as don't, can't, won't, they'd, should've, it's—is informal and should be avoided.

has been changed to this:

The use of contractions—such as don't, can't, won't, they'd, should've, it's—is informal and should generally be avoided; on the other hand, the pointed avoidance of contractions is stilted and also should be avoided.

I'd have thought "In general" was enough leeway for common sense to be applied in particular instances. "On the other hand" isn't a particularly thrilling phrase for a style guide. Can we have examples of where "the pointed avoideance of contractions is stilted and also should be avoided"? Otherwise, it seems to be bloat. What will new editors make of it? I'm struggling with it myself. Tony (talk) 01:56, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

This should have been placed at #Proposed replacement text for WP:CONTRACTIONS section. The coy avoidance of contraction, when it is idiomatic, can be stilted, can't it? Or should this encyclopedia use can it not?

Much of the bad writing here is due to editors attempting Victorian school-room prose, because they think it necessary for an encyclopedia. You've read Fowler; you know how his contemporary reporters did when they tried writing on stilts. Let's not encourage newbies in this bad habit. Or do we need Let us not? For Heaven his sake, why? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:19, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Again, consider this paragraph, ridden with cliche and pointless repetition, in the register of a bibulous sportscaster:

Godfrey signed a one year contract with Hampton & Richmond Borough in August 2004, but didn't make his first appearance until October that year due to injury. His debut was a home match against Windsor & Eton in the Isthmian League Premier Division, where he came off the bench to score the winner in a 2–1 victory for his new club.

Soem editor "corrected" didn't, leaving the rest of it alone, and went his way rejoicing. That does nothing to the real horrors, makes the sentence somewhat less natural, and doubtless gives the good soul a feeling of being useful to Wikipedia. That's what one-sided guidance produces. May he be happy; but has the guidance helped Wikipedia any? How? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:47, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't see anything wrong with that paragraph including the contraction. But since I know WP:CONTRACTION, I too would have changed that word. If WP:CONTRACTION changes to "Only remove contractions when you can guess that we want you to", I will simply ignore contractions, and tell my AWB software to do the same. Art LaPella (talk) 06:15, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Please do. When the contraction was taken out without fixing the paragraph, that made very bad writing slightly worse by changing register pointlessly. You didn't do it, but the fewer who do the better. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:30, 29 January 2011 (UTC).

Sure, as soon as your change to WP:CONTRACTION remains unreverted; how else do I know what the consensus is? Art LaPella (talk) 05:27, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

This section should make plain that the present text isn't consenus. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:01, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Then change it again. Would you prefer we ignore every guideline that has been debated in the archives? Art LaPella (talk) 19:25, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

The problem is that every bullet-point of MOS is - in effect - a separate guideline. Most of them have been protested in the past; the response is usually not a demonstration of consensus, but one or two editors claiming consensus (with no evidence) and revert-warring. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:07, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I basically agree that style Nazis are a problem on this page. But style Nazis throughout Wikipedia who don't bother with this page, or with any other form of consensus, are a bigger problem. So what's the alternative? Art LaPella (talk) 01:54, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

It seems like an OK situation of WP:BRD to me. The revert was absolutely appropriate, as is this discussion; and the bold change was OK, too, but then don't rag on the reverters. I made a bold change myself to the page recently, and nobody complained (I was surprised); so it depends on what the consensus is, right? Dicklyon (talk) 02:55, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

One problem is that is the first sign of discussion by the reverter; the other and more serious problem is reversion of edits with which the reverter doesn't disagree just on principle. This destroys all possibility of reaching general agreement; the actual text may be supported by nobody (except presumably whoever wrote it, and she may have left) - and still it stays as "consensus". Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:32, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

For example, this edit made with the edit summary this change has not been fully discussed; one can assume the text is correct and the example is in error. One may indeed presume that the reverter has never heard the old joke: "when you ass-u-me, you make an ass out of u and me" ;-} but the edit was made after discussion at WT:MOSNUM, to straighten out sn inconsistency by which Tony was desperately worried. Now I don't really care; I intend to ignore this page and its whole Mass of Stupidities whatever asinine (as it were) rule it lays down on the subject. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:46, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

I would like to establish something: Wikipedia does not require people to get permission before making controversial edits. It only requires people to enter into discussions after their changes are reverted. Here on the MoS, we've developed a custom of discussing things first, and it's served us well, but it's not as though Anderson broke any rules.

However, now that it is clear that said changes are controversial, I would ask that Anderson make a habit of discussing any rule-changing edits on the page first. It's just nice to do. Darkfrog24 (talk) 15:55, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Darkfrog puts it nicely. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 19:13, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree that it's annoying when editors remove contractions. Doing so often requires that the sentence be rewritten, because there are cases where "don't" is fine, but "do not" looks silly. I hope the reference above to software doesn't mean there's a bot going around doing this. If there is, I hope Art will consider putting a stop to that.

As for being bold on policies and guidelines, it's okay when improving the writing, but substantive changes are best discussed first. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 01:21, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

The only reference above to "software" I could find was "AWB software". AWB is not a bot; it lets me look at each change before I accept it. In the case of WP:CONTRACTION, I don't remember ever rejecting a change AWB presents (that is, from a contraction to an uncontracted form) just because it sounds wrong, because I have never encountered such a contraction in a real article. I reject changes to contractions in titles and quotes. I believe that is consistent with the consensus as reflected by the current language of WP:CONTRACTION, unless your proposed change is accepted. Art LaPella (talk) 06:24, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much. I propose the following language to deal with the problem:

The use of contractions—such as don't, can't, won't, they'd, should've, it's—is informal and should generally be avoided; on the other hand, the pointed avoidance of contractions is stilted and also should be avoided.

Anything which conveys a similar caution will be equally acceptable. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:38, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Personally I don't see anything wrong with contractions, so I'd suggest telling people they're fine. If we want to retain the general caution, we could write something like: "The use of contractions—such as don't, can't, won't, they'd, should've, it's—is informal and should generally be avoided, but whether they are appropriate depends on context, and editors should not remove them without good reason." SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 03:50, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm fine with that. Is there objection to this proposal? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:20, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes. Contractions don't belong in encyclopedias, except in quotes or similar things. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 05:41, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

And where is that written? :) SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 09:05, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

• More such words to invite editor conflict. Which two or more editors will be able to agree on its face what is a appropriate context for a contradiction: "appropriate depends on context". And what is "good reason" to two or more unhappy editors who always believe they are absolutely right and anyone who disagrees is absolutely wrong. Just look at routine editing here: whenever there is an opening for conflict, it is taken. Either WP is opened for any type of informal English or it is not. And it is a very slippery slope. This is an Encyclopedia, not a place for pandering to popular culture, nor Google stats, and not anything else that would make our school English teachers outraged. Hmains (talk) 04:42, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Contractions are prominent hallmarks of oral English and informal written English. I'm yet to see an example in which "it is" should be replaced by "it's" in WP text (aside from quotations, of course), and why is it "stilted" to use "do not" in an encyclopedic register? Tony (talk) 09:13, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

The Britannica disagrees; for example, they phrase rhetorical questions: Shapley’s work caused astronomers to ask themselves certain questions: How could the existing stellar data be so wrong? Why couldn’t they see something in Sagittarius, the proposed galactic centre, 30,000 light-years away? as English actually phrases questions; substituting Why could they not would make the reader stumble - because it's not idiom; it's writing on stilts.

To impose such writing on Wikipedia is to disrupt the encyclopedia to make a point - and make the encyclopedia measurably worse.

It is also Original Research - since, as Slim Virgin points out, you have no source for this; you and Hmains have made it up. (The more measured claim in the text is equally unsourced; but as advice, it may halp - and it may also encourage semi-literate editors to make bad writing worse, as with the example in the top of the section.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:24, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm just waiting (w8ng?) for the moment when someone argues that text-speak is their "national variety of English". Blueboar (talk) 16:10, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't worry. Ebonics actually had some merit to it, and it didn't last. Darkfrog24 (talk) 21:58, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi Tony, it's not that "do not" is invariably stilted. It's that a sentence written to flow well with "didn't" may not flow well when it's replaced with "do not". Had the writer known his "didn't" would be removed, he might have chosen to write the sentence differently. I can't give an example because I've not kept note of them, but I've seen awkwardness introduced several times by editors going around changing other people's writing with a "one size fits all" approach. That's the thing that causes the problems, and the MoS makes clear no one should be doing it, so I think it's worth stressing it here regarding contractions.

Perhaps we could leave the sentence as it is, but refer editors back to the section that advises against editors changing from one style to another without good reason. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 02:22, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I dislike the 'without good reason' proviso. I often do change instances of "don't" or "couldn't" to "do not" and "could not" when I come across them, and I agree that often stylistic rewriting of the phrases are unavoidable. By all means, the guideline may recommend to editors to rewrite for flow to accompany such removals, but by insisting that simply removal of contractions (except within quotes) should not be done "without good reason" is going a bit far. It enforces the perception that contractions somehow have a right to unhindered existence above the uncontracted forms, and may lead to edit warring of an element where I know of no such conflicts. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 02:48, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. There's nothing special about contractions warranting an implication that they're off-limits from (or less subject to) normal copyediting. —David Levy 03:19, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

There is something special about them if there's a bot going around replacing them. It's that kind of blind replacement that it would be helpful to warn against.SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 16:59, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree that blind replacement is a bad idea, but it's my understanding that no such bot has been deployed. —David Levy 18:40, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

The problem (see the example at the top of this subsection, beginning with Godfrey) is that some editors go around behaving like bots. One took out the contraction in the example, and left the rest of it alone. This failed to fix the paragraph, and probebly added an increment of atrocity. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:01, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Again, I agree that blind replacement (irrespective of the mechanism behind it) is a bad idea, and others appear to agree as well.

I already have addressed that specific example below, and I remain baffled as to how the change in question "added an increment of atrocity" and why you choose to mock an editor for failing to correct unrelated flaws. —David Levy 20:39, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree that we shouldn't blindly replace contractions with potentially stilted wording, but it often is possible to simply recast a sentence in a manner that eliminates the issue entirely.
In the case of "Why couldn't they see something in Sagittarius...", it's true that "Why could they not see something in Sagittarius..." is awkward, but alternative options (such as "Why did they see nothing in Sagittarius..." and "Why was nothing found in Sagittarius...") exist.
Of course, apart from quotations (which obviously shouldn't be modified in that manner), Wikipedia is unlikely to contain this style of prose in the first place.
I don't understand Pmanderson's earlier example, as I see absolutely nothing unnatural about the wording "...did not make his first appearance...". I agree that the paragraph contains unrelated flaws, but I find it rather unfair and distasteful to mock an editor for failing to address them (as though this was an either-or proposition in which the change from "didn't" to "did not" was performed instead). —David Levy 03:19, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Slim, I have no objection to the avoidance of contortions in WP article text just to achieve a stylistic recommendation (or insistence). It is always open to an editor who objects to the spelling out of a contraction by another editor to invoke the "use common sense" principle, which, if not accepted, could be debated on the talk page or even brought here for comment. But it does worry me that a few academic journals do allow contractions—not too many contractions, in scope (never "would've", of course) and in density in the text. These journals tend to be not very authoritative, I must say. We should beware risking difficulty in countering a group of editors who went around adding contractions (in good faith) to make the text more "friendly" in tone. In 20 or 30 years' time, maybe English will have changed enough to loosen up on this; but I don't think it has yet, at least, not in the most authoritative sources whose tone we need to emulate. Just my thoughts, and I think your and Mr Anderson's concern have been noted by everyone here, and that it's made us think carefully about the issue.

On that, let me comment on Mr Anderson's example above from Brittanica": "Shapley’s work caused astronomers to ask themselves certain questions: How could the existing stellar data be so wrong? Why couldn’t they see something in Sagittarius, the proposed galactic centre, 30,000 light-years away?" I do believe this tone is not encouraged in WP articles. It comes perilously close to POV in the relationship it assumes with the readers. If authoritative sources reacted in this way, it should be expressed as such, not as though it's WP's opinion. Have I got this right? Tony (talk) 14:36, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

We're not an academic journal, though. We're a new kind of thing, and we make up our own rules. If editors want to use contractions, I truly see no reason to stop them. What we want is good writing. Using or not using contractions won't change the quality of the writing, but swapping them willy nilly might. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 17:04, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

There appears to be agreement that contractions shouldn't be blindly replaced (because doing so might result in stilted wording). But there also is consensus that contractions reflect an informal tone not typically used in our encyclopedia (apart from quotations) and generally should be avoided. (As with any other style convention, exceptions may arise.)

Indeed, we determine our own rules, and this one is longstanding. Much of the Manual of Style's text is fairly arbitrary, recommending one convention over another of comparable validity (based upon outside usage) because this eliminates needless inconsistency and argumentation.

In this instance, the rule isn't arbitrary, as there is a legitimate (albeit not universally applied) distinction. I'm sure that some editors want to use contractions, but others don't, and the last thing that we need is another source of edit wars. Unlike national English varieties (as an example), there is no compelling need for multiple styles to coexist. —David Levy 18:40, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

One who has had little exposure to refined English is more likely to consider the avoidance of contractions to be stilted, whereas one who has spent much time in studying educational works by professional writers using refined English is more likely to accept easily the avoidance of contractions.

—Wavelength (talk) 21:07, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Mild disagree: (Let me "pre-caveat": The last thing in the world (World?) I want to do is run around her fixing people's contractions or cripes edit-warring them. That said I wrote Ph.D. thesis and several peer-reviewed science papers without contractions (searching to fix all) and I never felt the "shackles" as heavy on me, or that the writing was strange afterwards.TCO (talk) 22:30, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

And they weren't (ha) stuffy papers either. The idea that sounding sciencey or being unreadable makes you better is routinely contradicted in any how to write a science paper article (although Wiki needs to read those more). They all say to avoid over-nominalizing and the like. That said, they are not as chatty as some good old talk page battlin".TCO (talk) 22:45, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

When writing articles, we need to code-switch into an "encyclopedic" tone. That changes most people's writing considerably. In particular, the prose in our articles shouldn't use contractions, because that makes it sound too informal. But people like me can use contractions on talk pages if they want to. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:24, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Remove the rule. I think that the guideline should recommend against "informal language" in general and leave it at that. This rule is too specific and, as such, it invites lazy editors to apply it mechanically. A paragraph with overly informal language needs to rewritten by someone who is actually thinking about what they are writing. "To write is to think, and to write well is to think well". This rule invites "thoughtless" edits. ---- CharlesGillingham (talk) 06:13, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

My two cents

1. While some contractions such as gonna or ain't are indeed restricted to spoken or spoken-like English or direct quotations thereof, others such as don't are now widely found even in professionally written and edited texts such as university-level textbooks. In >90% of the cases, using do not instead would be less informal but no less natural, but a blanket or near-blanket ban on don't is excessive, and just editing an article to replace all occurrences of don't outside quotations to do not without changing anything else is just a waste of time. (For an example of the remaining <10% of cases, see the “Cosmological constant problem” item in Unsolved problems in physics#Cosmology and astronomy: “Why does the zero-point energy of the vacuum not cause ...” would sound much worse.)
2. On the other hand, PMAnderson's proposal sounds too wordy and slightly polemical (“pointed”?) to me; the “generally” in the current guideline is fine, but I'd like something like “In most cases, uncontracted auxiliaries such as do not or it is should be preferred to contracted ones such as don't or it's, as the latter are less formal” even more. A. di M. (talk) 10:49, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Let's think about this a minute.

1) We are stuck with whatever someone uses in a quote. But, most people making quotable statements don't (!) use contractions.

2) Contractions most often involve a negative. Don't, can't, won't. These are seldom used by editors because they involve negative inventories. We inventory things/events that are there, not ones that aren't (are not!  :). Therefore, editors themselves will rarely need contractions.

3) Other contractions are clearly "lazy" and may confuse people whose first language is not English. "Would've", "you'll" "we'd".

Except for these informal discussions, I have found that I seldom need contractions.

I think we're arguing over pretty much nothing, here. Let the current language stand. It's rarely invoked anyway. Student7 (talk) 13:33, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Are you serious about point 2? The last four days' Main Page featured articles all have between two and sixteen instances of “not” immediately following an auxiliary not in a quotation. The reason why you seldom need “don't” is that “do not” is usually just fine, not that you never need negative statements in the first place. --A. di M. (talk) 14:26, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

"rarely invoked"? I invoke it often, as part of my AWB edits, and fairly regularly when copyediting Main Page material. Art LaPella (talk) 21:40, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Proposed addition to MOS re Style of “using concrete examples”

(This proposal could be applied to some sections of the MOS article itself.)

“When possible, use of concrete examples is helpful in explaining concepts.”

A mathematics professor at Stanford “boasted” in the preface to his widely used graduate Probability textbook, that he wrote it without any geometric diagrams exemplifying the concepts developed. While this may have satisfied a particular philosophy of math perspective, it was not very helpful to my learning from his text as a grad student. PPdd (talk) 20:27, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I feel that this may be outside the purview of the MoS. It isn't specific enough to be clearly translated into action and it covers a non-mechanical aspect of writing, something subjective. Even though the MoS is labeled "guideline," it's followed like ironclad law. We shouldn't require users to do something that we can't fully explain. Darkfrog24 (talk) 14:53, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Its not mechanical, but neither is definition in 1st lede sentence, and definitin in rest of 1st lede paragraph (which are somewhat inconsistent as to what "definition" is). Both lede content and body content are stylistic decisions. A dispute about this actually arose at pseudoscience talk, where it was argued that readers don't need examples to understand concepts, and use of examples might provoke edit wars from pseudoscientific POV editors. PPdd (talk) 20:46, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Don’t unnecessarily make a reader chase links

Proposed add to links section, or following "avoid jargon" -

”If a highly technical term can be simply explained with a very few words, don’t make a reader use a link to understand the sentence, especially if this requires going into nested links (a link that goes to a page with another technical term needed to be linked, which goes to a page with a link to another technical term, and so on).”

PPdd (talk) 20:27, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Sounds good to me; but what are "nested links"?Tony (talk) 01:01, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Nested links are when a technical term appears, and you click on the link and another technical term is used to define the first, then you click on that, and so on. A reader gets lost as to what they were originally reading. Examples are the older versions of math articles at WP, which were almost impossible to read without prior knowledge, basically being a giant series of nested (or circular) links. This situation has been fixed in many of these math articles in the last two years. PPdd (talk) 01:45, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Possibly something that should be included in WP:MOSLINK. Tony (talk) 06:58, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

SUPPORT 100%. 74.105.135.235 (talk) 14:51, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I effing support big time. It is really miserable to feel like I have to read 20 articles to understand one. Biology and anatomy are really bad here and it's not even needed (not like we are talking about group theory or quantum mechanics). What's even more miserable is when you get sent off into that set of linked articles or that "definition by blue link" and then the article is some stub that's inadequate to even explain the concept (IOW, the link and set of them don't even define).TCO (talk) 22:12, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

• I moved this discussion to WP:MOSLINK talk here[13]. Please coninue conversation there, not here. PPdd (talk) 20:40, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Section titles beginning with numbers

I have long wondered whether sections that begin with numbers, usually years, should have the word following the number capitalized or not. For instance, is it "2010 General election" or "2010 general election"? My practice has been to go with the latter on the theory that the number acts as the first word, but I can see the argument that the MoS provision says "word" and figures aren't words. I didn't find anything about this in the archives, and I was wondering whether we might make a decision and update the page to reflect it. -Rrius (talk) 03:22, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Suggest "General election of 2010"... then you don't have to worry about the issue. Blueboar (talk) 03:35, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

It's always proper English to capitalise the first word of a sentence unless the first "word" is not actually a word. I'm pretty sure that "2010 General election" is always considered incorrect. MOS should probably be edited to clarify this. McLerristarr | Mclay1 08:15, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I think someone already asked the same thing some time ago and everyone agreed that the G would have to be lowercase. BTW, is there anyone actually capitalizing the G or arguing that it should be capitalized, or is it just a hypothetical situation? In the latter case, I don't think this should be added to the MOS as WP:UCS already covers it. --A. di M. (talk) 12:16, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

The article is in "sentence case". You would not capitalize the "g" if you were writing a sentence.TCO (talk) 22:08, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

WP:MOS (*)

There are a bunch of specialized MOS's here[14]. Am I failing to read some hat in the main MOS article referring users to this, or should there be a hat referring to a listing of them above the main MOS article? PPdd (talk) 08:20, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

See the box "Style", near the upper right-hand corner of Wikipedia:Manual of Style, and see Category:Wikipedia Manual of Style, at the bottom of the same page.

—Wavelength (talk) 15:33, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Those are not a very complete list like this[15], e.g., Wikipedia:Manual of Style (footnotes) does not show. This[16] seems like prime WP:Hat material for MOS, since, for example, I am suggesting an add on to MOS about quotes in footnote sources, and the discussion might be more appropriate for a more Wikipedia:Manual of Style (footnotes), but I came to MOS looking for a more specific MOS article. From WP:Hat, "... help readers locate a different article they might be looking for when they arrived at the article in which the hatnote is placed (this may happen because... they are looking uses (of MOS) a more specific". PPdd (talk) 16:50, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Style of putting Quotes in citations; it may help readers skip, or quickly check, source content

I propose adding to MOS aand/or RS the following –

“Wikipedia can be edited by anyone, and is often viewed with mistrust. Wikipedia responds to this by requiring reliable sources. Users can then always check the content of an article by reading the source provided in the reference list. It is helpful to the reader to include a very brief quote from the source in the ref, so the reader can quickly find where the content came from in the source.”

Please comment. HkFnsNGA (talk)

That belongs in WP:No Original Research, where it may actually be a useful condensation; this is the Manual of Style, where we argue over hyphens. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:32, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

It probably belongs in citations (although I think MOS should take over citations). On the content, I had to deal with this at an FA and have a slight tweak desired. I often use quotes in citation, they are very punchy sometimes. they give extra info. they give a flavor. They drive home the proof. But I don't do it to help locate info. I do it for extra effect. I had a reviewer want me to add "See sentence starting at..." before all my quotes, but my intention was pretty far from locational. I believe the citation was sufficient. Plus the quote was the most important part but not the "starting part". Plus I had a couple that started mid sentence. So I love the practice. But I don't do it for location. See Painted turtle. TCO (talk) 20:44, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

I will start a talk page section at WP:RS And WP:OR, per your suggestions. (What does "FA" abbreviate? Is there a dictionary of WP:abbreviations for relative newbies to them?) I had similar experiences to yours, which is why I thought of it, and with your additional "punch" motivations, beyond just to be helpful. HkFnsNGA (talk) 23:15, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

"FA"=Wikipedia:Featured article. Dictionary of WP:abbreviations=Wikipedia:Wikipedia abbreviations or Wikipedia:Glossary. Art LaPella (talk) 05:56, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Thnx HkFnsNGA (talk) 05:59, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Were this proposed in a relevant policy (and I oppose MOS taking over anything actually important), I would comment that a brief quotation is often misleading, and this provision would certainly be abused; often a sentence in WP summarizes a page; also, anything that makes citation more difficult had better be clearly worth the slower citation rate it will produce. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:32, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, there is a possibility for non-WP:GoodFaith abusing this, but it is also helpful in finding information in large sources, and for detecting such abuse. I agree this discussion could also take place in other talk pages, and I will start it there. HkFnsNGA (talk) 23:13, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

The solution to that is giving page numbers, which is required by WP:V. For sources which don't have page numbers, text tags may be a good idea; but we source other things than web pages, and even for them, long unpaginated pages are not universal. Therefore no universal rule for a local problem. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:18, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

I have found that when I find abbreviated quotes in a ref, I have always been thankful. I assume good faith in editors, and that their edits were not some kind of bad faith trick. I have found that the page numbers often do not have what is claimed to be in them... hmmm, but when there is a brief quote, it has always been accurate. Tricksters thrive on vagueness. HkFnsNGA (talk) 00:56, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Here is a proposal for the style of writing refs as to whether or not to use quotes, which incorporates the above comments -

“Wikipedia can be edited by anyone, and is often viewed with mistrust. Wikipedia responds to this by requiring reliable sources. Users can then always check the content of an article by reading the source provided in the reference list. It is critically helpful to include page numbers from which article content specifically came from. It is also helpful to some readers to include a very brief quote from the source in the ref, so the reader can quickly find where the content came from in the source. This can also add 'punch' by giving extra info, flavor, or in driving home the proof. However some editors find that a brief quotation is often misleading, and using them might be abused by some editors. ”

HkFnsNGA (talk) 16:42, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

I removed this because it belongs on WP:CITE or WP:V. I would oppose it because adding endless quotations to footnotes is misused by people strongly pushing a POV. They'll add a contentious sentence to the article, followed by 10 refs with a couple of quotations in each ref so the article is overwhelmed. I wouldn't want to see anything that encouraged that practice, so if a section like this were to be added elsewhere it would have to be worded carefully. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 01:04, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Agreed about WP:Cite. I put a new section there, referring to this section here with a link. I did not move this whole section there, because of all the comments from people who might not be wathcing WP:Cite, but are wathcing MOS. PPdd (talk) 22:38, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

At the moment V says in a footnote: "When there is dispute about whether a piece of text is fully supported by a given source, direct quotes and other relevant details from the source should be provided to other editors as a courtesy." But that could be done on the talk page. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 01:04, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

• I find quotations helpful, particularly if one does not have access to a source. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:02, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

• I find quotations helpful for long unpaginated electronic sources as the functional equivalent of a page number. Jc3s5h (talk) 02:06, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

• I actually disapprove of including quotes in sources. Perhaps this is due to the topic areas where I tend to edit... but my experience has been that when a quote is included in a citation, someone is probably selectively quoting, taking the quoted words out of context. I see quoting in the citation as a red flag for potential POV pushing. Context often requires pointing the reader to long passages of a source... more than just the phrase or sentence that we have room for in a citation.

All that said... I agree with Slim Virgin... this is the wrong place to discuss this... it belongs at WP:CITE Blueboar (talk)

• Please read Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Footnoted quotes, a 2008 case which held, "In the absence of unambiguous guidance in the Manual of style and in Wikipedia:Footnotes covering the content of footnotes, the question of what material – such as quotes – should or should not appear in footnotes is substantially a legitimate disagreement over content. Editors who systematically produce articles which contradict style guidance should expect others to bring their articles into line, but style guidance should be decided by consensus after wide consultation." Racepacket (talk) 05:43, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

• I have two issues with the quotes. One is that they clunk up the text of the citations. Maybe I'm old school, but when I was learning how to write research papers in the 1990s, the bibliography page of the paper was streamlined and to the point. It gave the information necessary for someone to find the specific source if they wished to verify the content of the paper, but no more. Second is that how much text needs to be quoted to verify the information attributed to the source? Depending on how much it is, we could be running afoul of fair-use criteria that specify to use the least amount of copyrighted content necessary to illustrate the point. Even if it is only a few lines each, that could still add up to a lot. Passing the quotations over to a section of the talk page though is problematic, because non-free content is not supposed to be used outside of mainspace. In a few cases where I've felt it necessary, I've used <!--HTML comments --> to include a single sentence hidden in the footnote. Imzadi 1979 → 08:11, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

• Like Blueboar, I dislike quotes in citations. Don't "mind", if they are short and pithy, but normally they tend to be quite lengthy, pushing a pov, often longer than the text devoted to the subsection! (Sometimes, they were kicked out of the subsections as WP:UNDUE!) I really don't see the point of inserting quotes in formal citations other than to allow an outlet for a crank. Even I don't use quotes there, even when I have a pov and am grinding an axe! Student7 (talk) 13:41, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

• My experience with quotes is that they are actually helpful in dealing with POV pushers, who otherwise insist that the sources don't actually back up the material in the article, or who otherwise simply delete material they don't like. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:44, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Good point, I second it. PPdd (talk) 22:03, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

• I think that for references which are not freely available on-line, including a quotation (even if just one or two sentences) should be strongly encouraged. A. di M. (talk) 14:03, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I hope there is consensus on the point you just made. Extensive, unabbreviated quotes are best for unavailable RS, rather than abbreviated ones. PPdd (talk) 22:03, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

• I have found short quotes to be usefull, especially when I am coming back to an article whose sources I verified for myself a long time ago. PPdd (talk) 22:03, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

• A possible consensus proposal is to add to MOS or WP:Cite -

  "It is helpful for an editor to create a supplemental page for quotes called "(Article title) quotes", and include a link in the ref to it, but it is up to the editor to decide whether or not it is helpful to include a quote or an abbreviated quote in the actual article page ref or not. Quotes from sources that are not online are encouraged to be put somewhere, but never selectively quoted in a way to violate WP:NPOV. It is up to a contesting editor to point out why it may be POV, under WP:GF."

Thus an editor can make the quotes as long as they find helpful on the supplemental page, or include the quote on the actual article page if they want or not include it anywhere if they do not, and make them as long or short as they see fit wherever they do or do not want to put it. PPdd (talk) 22:14, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

What does supplemental page mean here? Another (sub)page separate from the article? If that the case, then I'm rather against it, because it becomes unnecessarily complicated and convoluted (an article should consist of one page allowing as much straight forward editing as possible). Ifd an aithor feeols the needs to provide quotes in connection with his inline citations, he can do so in the regular references/notes section. I see no reason to mandate or recommend here anything in particular (see WP:CREEP as well). Keept it simple!--Kmhkmh (talk) 07:59, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

The quotes are useful for the same reason that having the title of an article (and not just journal, volume, page number in ACS style) is useful. It give you immediately more info and helps you figure out if you should bother getting the source or not. I think we have to remember the vast amount of work and articles that is just about normal scholarship, not the POV battlers. Since the citations are all endnotes, they don't take up room and similarly, the servers can handle the extra characters. Quotes ROCK!TCO (talk) 02:59, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Irony - concise

When I first came to MOS, I found it so long that I did not read it. The style of the article should be to have the most common things an editor is likely to need easily picked out at the outset, with minutiae left to sections and subsections. It is ironic that the manual of style would have stylistic problems likely to scare off a typical editor, whose concern is likely just a quick overview. Perhaps a new article should be created, "Concise essentials of MOS". HkFnsNGA (talk) 03:10, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

How about this:

• Write English.
• To find out how to spell and punctuate a given subject, follow carefully edited, reliable English sources; if they do the same thing, do what they do. See also [the list of style guides.
• Where national varieties of English differ, don't edit war over it. If there are choices which every national variety will understand, consider using them. If not, and there are strong national ties to the subject of the article, write in that national variety (the article will be anyway.

Do we need anything else? Does the bulk of Wikipedia editors agree on anything else? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:49, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

• When it comes to style, do the best you can, but don't let stylistic minutiae bog you down. Another editor will come along later and tidy up after you. Blueboar (talk) 04:01, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

  Let's take out the last sentence. That's what I object to: a Wiki-gnome coming along and "tidying" into something that may be MOS-compliant (about 10% of the time it isn't even that) but which isn't English. Septentrionalis PMAnderson

I was actually serious in suggesting creating a short, but useful, "Intro to MOS". HkFnsNGA (talk) 05:46, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

I think it would be useful to have such a summary in the lede. After all, according to our MoS, a lede is supposed to summarize the article!

It is a bit odd that we have numerous shortcuts for separate sections. However, it's much easier to navigate if we keep this as one article. Should we add Sep's suggested summary to the lede? — kwami (talk) 08:27, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Slight rewording (to be edited as y'all see fit):

For those of you who are just getting started, the main points are as follows:

• Write in English.
• To find out how to spell and punctuate a given subject, follow carefully edited, reliable English sources; if they do the same thing, do what they do. See also the [recommended style guides].¹
• To find out how to lay out and organize an article, compare our [featured articles].
• Where national varieties of English differ, be consistent, but don't edit war over it. If there are choices which every national variety will understand, give them priority. If not, and there are strong national ties to the subject of the article, write in that national variety.

¹IMO we shouldn't suggest the full list of style guides. Some of the most popular are absolute garbage, telling you to avoid all sorts of things that even the style guides themselves do (see #10). — kwami (talk) 08:41, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

The list of style guides (there are only nine) would be useful if it were a separate page, as the original post suggests; as a section of MOS either silence or an internal link would be fine. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:56, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

This would be a hindrance to editors, not a help. Tony (talk) 09:09, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

What would be a hindrance? Creating a lede for the MoS? — kwami (talk) 09:58, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

In addition to the already large "General principles" section at the top—yes, I think so. Tony (talk) 10:54, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, maybe you're right. There are two things I'd add, though: a link to our list of featured articles (they're a great source for formatting and coding ideas which are not covered here), and Sep's line "If there are choices which every national variety will understand, give them priority." Although this may seem obvious, it can lead to some rather irate arguments. For example, the US is the only country to have sent people to the Moon, so articles on the Moon, or at least the Apollo missions, should use imperial rather than metric units. Or the Ganges River is mostly in India, and most Indians call it the Ganga when writing in English, so we should use that name despite it not being widely recognized outside India. (It's also the CommonName if we count 1 billion Indians.) Or articles on Russian or Arab history should not use the Gregorian calendar for dating. Etc. As silly as these may sound, it's hard to argue against them when the MoS says to use local English for regional topics. IMO 'prioritize international forms' should be made explicit up front, but it could go into General Principals as easily as the lede. — kwami (talk) 12:11, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

First... STOP...Let's NOT reopen the Ganga/Ganges debates here. Second... My take on this is that the MOS should not even discuss the issue of names... that issue is so controversial, and each debate is so dependent on specifics that have noting to do with other debates, that to give realistic advice we would need an entirely separate guideline. It simply isn't an issue that can be summed up in a short paragraph in a broad MOS. Blueboar (talk) 13:58, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not asking us to address names. Only that international norms in wording take precedence. That's already established ('fixed-wing aircraft', metric system, IPA, Gregorian calendar, binomial nomenclature, etc.), but IMO it should be given more visibility. — kwami (talk) 14:55, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

International norms in wording should not be included in the brief version; it's not something we all agree on. Some of Kwami's examples are not instances; others are our hottest points of controversy Whether there is enough consensus to retain them somewhere in MOS is a different question; often there is - but a summary should be what is virtually unanimous. To be specific:

• fixed-wing aircraft is a title - and it's moderately controversial
• The metric system is another of our points of perennial disagreement.
• So is IPA. Many applications of it are actually harmful, since it is sensitive enough to register the difference between national accents - and then picks one; usually because the IPA enthusiast is picking from a dictionary which records his national dialect and doesn't realize there are others. An example of this is the good soul who wanted to replace "pronounce pi like pie" with IPA. In both British and General American (and I presume Australian) the first sentence is true - but there are two different IPA transcriptions involved; he wanted to place one of them. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:49, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
• The Gregorian calendar is not an international/local issue. No anglophone country has used the Julian calendar since 1752.
• Linnaean nomenclature is used everywhere, like the Gregorian calendar. But prefering it to vernacular names is another of our perennial points of controversy. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:49, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Do we really have any halfway decent article that uses imperial units but not metric, unless the units themselves are explicitly relevant? Really?

The IPA on WP does not register differences between dialects. Replacing "pronounce pi like pie" with "pronounce pi as /ˈpaɪ/" makes no difference whatsoever in that regard: it's just as true in US, UK, Oz, and NZ English, because our IPA convention was designed to be international. The primary issue is one of accessibility, since Usonians especially are poorly educated in this area.

Yes, but they did use Julian prior to 1752. That's relevant to a large number of articles.

And those articles are written in Julian (with an explanation for the ill-prepared reader). See WP:MOSDATE. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:37, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Vernacular names are fine if they're widely understood. There's no problem with cat. But robin is ambiguous, so we make it a dab page. That is precisely my point: If there were a bird that only occurred in my country, and we called it a "robin", in would be inappropriate to use the local name when that would be confusing to everyone else. International needs to trump local in such cases.

Depends on the article. If George Washington saw an (American) robin before one of his battles, we should call it a robin; that's ENGVAR. Link so the European reader can follow; but neither the American nor the European will be helped by writing Turdus migratorius instead. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:50, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

But Sep, you're the one who said we should include this, so why are arguing against it now that I'm backing you up? — kwami (talk) 16:07, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

I thank you for the support on the general principle. But you have diverged into something which I seriously doubt is supported by the consensus of Wikipedia editors - any more that most of MOS is. Rein international back to what WP:ENGVAR says and we can go forward. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:33, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

All I changed was "consider using them" to "give them priority". I thought the stronger wording was called for: IMO the international forms should be the default, not used only when there is an overriding reason to use something more local, such as in your robin example. — kwami (talk) 17:02, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

I have tweaked it out. That's an invitation to disaster; it will be read - you yourself read it - as much stronger than it is. The metric system is not understood in every national variety of English; if it were, it would not be anywhere near as controversial as it is. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:22, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Getting back on topic, MOS violates itself, multiply, and WP:GF, in that -

• (1) A lede should sum up the entire article, and the MOS lede does not. So MOS contradicts itself.
• (2) By contradicting itself, "internal consitency" is violated. So MOS contradicts itself again.
• (3) Intrenal consistency violation is classical Bad faith self delusion.
• (4) By being in bad faith, MOS violates WP:GF.
• (5) By violating other guidelines or policies, which should not happen under MOS, MOS again lacks internal consistency, so again violates itself.
• (6) This violation of itself is then is in bad faith, so again violates WP:GF, creating an infinite loop. HkFnsNGA (talk) 16:00, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

First, that's not what 'bad faith' means. Second, the MoS is not an article, and so does not need to follow the guidelines for articles. — kwami (talk) 16:07, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Concerning 1), the MOS is not an article, so there is no contradiction. The rest of the stuff is complete non-sequitur. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 12:44, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Proposal

Say something like this as a lead, with links where appropriate to the General Principles and ENGVAR.

Write in English.

When it comes to style, do the best you can, but don't let stylistic minutiae bog you down. [from Blueboar; link to IAR]

To find how to spell and punctuate a given subject, follow carefully edited, reliable English sources; if they do the same thing, do what they do. [Possibly a link to See also for the style guides]

To find out how to lay out and organize an article, compare our [featured articles].

Be consitstent within articles; don't use two different styles on the same issue in the same article. Where national varieties of English differ, don't edit war over it. If there are choices which every national variety will understand, they are often desirable. If not, and there are strong national ties to the subject of the article, write in that national variety.

I've tweaked the layout and added Blueboar's sentence as something WPians agree on.I have also tweaked the internationalism sentence, but we can discuss exactly what that should say - if anything - after discussion of the general idea. Also enlarged the involcation of WP:CONSISTENCY. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:43, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Add - "Write in English. If possible, use simple sentences and plain English that a layperson can understand." HkFnsNGA (talk) 17:46, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Forgive me, but telling visitors they should "write in English" might result in irritating them. And while all of us are for writing in plain language, as simple as possible grammatically and lexically for the context, it's notoriously hard to define what this is globally. "Write in plain English" might be worth including, but won't it fit into one of the existing "Principles"? BTW, the issue of writing only for the layperson has been hotly contested and remained unresolved in the debate I remember. To start with, it would render untenable a lot of articles on mathematics and physics. And does it apply equally to daughter articles? And daughter articles of daughter articles? I think one of the brilliant aspects of WP's structure is its ability to use "summary" style in topics of ever narrower scope. Summary, then, is a relative term. This clearly applies to the readership in technical and scientific topics, where one would expect to address experts in some articles, both in terms of scope and the linguistic register. Do people agree? Tony (talk) 10:53, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes. It's good style to avoid excess jargon, especially in introductory level articles. But the more specialized the article, the more specialized the language is going to be, and there often isn't much we can do about that. — kwami (talk) 11:41, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

It works because every reader can choose where in the breadth–narrowness chain they are prepared to visit. Choose "Wagner" and you'll get something that is broadly accessible; choose "Wagner's style", less so. Drill down to "Wagner's use of chromatic harmony" and you'd be a nuisance to complain about inaccessibility to all but the experts. Tony (talk) 12:40, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Telling visitors not to write in English, as much of this page does, irritates me. If the function of this page is not advice on how to write English, why is it here? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:54, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Write in plain English when possible. If it is not possible, and a more general article "mother article" exists, put at the top a statement that a more general article exists. Perhaps something more than just a "Further information" tag. PPdd (talk) 06:19, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

There is already the page Wikipedia:Make technical articles understandable.

—Wavelength (talk) 18:52, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Some objection to 'write in English', and we don't have a list of recommended style guides, but the rest seems acceptable, so I'll add it in. — kwami (talk) 09:49, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Alt + 0150 for en dashes on Windows

This has been raised on my talk page—something I've been meaning to ask here for some time after ?User:Headbomb, was it, confirmed age-old advice only a month or two ago, here, that this instantly yields an en dash. I would love to know how this can work. I ask clients who have Windows to do it, and they say ... errr ... won't work. Is it a fiction, I wonder? :-) Tony (talk) 02:43, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

It does work. However, many new keyboards (especially gaming keyboards) have unassigned keys to which one can assign macros. I have two such keys with recorded macros for Alt+0150 (en dash) and Alt+0151 (em dash) respectively. I don't like having a Windows PC, incidentally. --Andy Walsh (talk) 02:55, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I tried it myself on my father's Windows machine. Nothing. Is there a trick to it? Tony (talk) 02:58, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Doesn't work for me either. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:59, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

You have to hold down ALT the entire time, and the dash will not appear until you release it. It must also be done on a number pad with numlock engaged. Integrated laptop number pads (where the number pad is in the midst of all the keys) don't work unless you also have function depressed. --Andy Walsh (talk) 03:06, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I just tried it and can't get it to work either. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 03:08, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

This is what I get with keypad and numlock []:nothing. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:21, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I got it in my laptop "–", but I had to press Fn+F11 to switch to numeric keypad, then hunt down the numbers that are in unfamiliar places in small print, and then press Fn+11 again to switch the keypad function off. Cue several times where I pressed the regular numbers instead, producing no characters and making me scratch my head for a couple minutes.

I would say that this is a bit beyond the average computer-typing skill, at least in laptops. Idem for setting up keyboard macros, or for remembering by hearth the correct numbers. Really not something that we can expect from random people who just want to type stuff in a wikipedia article they just found. --Enric Naval (talk) 11:44, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Dash#Electronic usage (permanent link here) says: "On Microsoft Windows, an en dash may be entered as Alt+0150 (where the digits are typed on the numeric keypad while holding down the Alt key)." (The present text has a dangling modifier.)

—Wavelength (talk) 03:22, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

If you don't know how to type an en dash, don't worry. You'll never need to. Just enter a hyphen, and if it matters someone who cares will fix it. Or if you use the standard editor, use the "Wiki markup Insert:" feature below where it's the first character. Or get a Mac. Dicklyon (talk) 03:52, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

See also Character Map and Windows Alt Key Codes.

—Wavelength (talk) 04:23, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Or just copy and paste this: – Art LaPella (talk) 04:26, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Or if you have FF, get the abcTajpu addon and customize it. (I set --[insert] to output –.) — kwami (talk) 09:29, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Or use the dash-button just below the edit-box. The way we do for a host of characters and syntaxes. Tony (talk) 14:39, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

User:GFHandel sent me this comment, which I am posting below:

“ Have a look at this page, which has a "how to" section. If the ALT codes don't work, check the following:

• Make sure the Num Lock light is on. Find the Num Lock key and press it a few times to see the behaviour of the little Num Lock light on the keyboard (the light must be on for ALT key codes to work).
• Press and hold down the ALT key while pressing the four digit keys (one at a time). After pressing all four digits, release the ALT key. It is the releasing of the ALT key that inserts the requested character. Use the ALT key to the left of the space bar (not the one to the right of the space bar).
• You must use the numeric key pad to press the number digits (not the horizontal row of numbers above the letters on the keyboard).
• ALT key codes are not just for em and en dashes. Any character can be entered using the the ALT key and the appropriate four digits. In theory I could have typed this entire email just by using the ALT key and the numeric key pad. Of course, that would be a little ridiculous, and in practice the ALT codes are only used for the common "unusual" characters. For example, to write "café" properly (with the acute mark), I used ALT 0233.

”

Tony (talk) 02:41, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

• I particularly like the 'get a mac' suggestion above, as the character is easily accessible using the alt-hyphen keystroke. Gosh, it's no wonder people in this Windoze-dominated world aren't incited to apply it properly. The lack of a proper direct access for these characters on the keyboard makes this thing so intimidating for the average editor to implement. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 03:01, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

And not just the en-dash. Even when you tell someone the exact code in the standard Windows method for entering special characters, they still can't understand how to do it! It's only been a problem for about 20 years; why can't they do something about it? Dicklyon (talk) 05:31, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

So what are you suggesting—that we purge the world of idiots? I certainly have no objection . . .

For what it’s worth, I’ve never had a problem with the Windoze Alt codes; I use a desktop, so I’ll concede I have less to fiddle with than do laptop users. And I only have common need for a handful of special characters, so I don’t have too many codes to remember. For less-common special characters, I usually use other means—in WP, that often means using the links below the edit box. Ultimately, I think an approach like that of abcTajpu is probably faster and easier—I’ve used a similar approach in MS Word for years, using Autocorrect to expand the names of—believe it or not—troff character names to the Unicode characters. There’s nothing special about troff names; I simply remember most of them, so I have nothing new to learn. I’m sure the same could be done with T_EX character names for those familiar with them. JeffConrad (talk) 06:00, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

When I used to work for Apple, I sometimes felt that we should fire all of our idiot customers and get new ones (the ones that wouldn't learn to use or appreciate the good stuff that was there, and just used it like a typewriter); but it was not to be. If I recall correctly, Word on Mac was set up to translate two hyphens to dash, like a typewriter convention; but it would only do an em dash; so Word users typically never learned to do an en dash even on the Mac. Dicklyon (talk) 06:11, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

By no means do I suggest that those who devised the current input methods for non-ASCII characters are any less idiots than users who aren’t enamored of the cryptic crap. But I also don’t think the entry methods are nearly as difficult as many make them out to be. The greater problem is that the codes aren’t mnemonic (those on a Mac are shorter but just as off the wall); with older formatting languages like troff and T_EX, the codes are easier to remember (at least for native English speakers). To an extent, the same is true for most HTML character entities, though the cost of being less cryptic is more typing. And for those who insist that Unicode support is still lacking for some browsers, the entities completely avoid the problem for all but the most ancient browsers. But the entities seem informally deprecated by many editors.

The greater problem with the en dash (and most other non-ASCII characters) is that most people would not recognize one even if it bit them; as you previously mentioned, though, in many cases another editor who does know the difference will change a hyphen to the proper character (en dash, em dash, or minus).

Nonetheless, this topic has come up so often that providing an easier method of entry (or even just clearly describing existing methods) for those who do know the difference seems like a worthwhile endeavor even if it means stooping to a dreaded “how to”. GFHandel’s comment posted by Tony is a good example; the Alt method isn’t really that difficult, but it’s essential that all the steps be followed, and most descriptions omit some of them. Incidentally, I find the method works with either Alt key. JeffConrad (talk) 07:09, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

If the US International keyboard has been selected, the right Alt key takes on different functions. The Penn State link above includes a pretty complete listing; Washington State University also has listings of key combinations. JeffConrad (talk) 02:51, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Ohconfucius, I used to mouth the "get a Mac" mantra, but it usually caused irritation, so I stopped doing it. It's like telling a religious person: "<yawn>There isn't a god, so just get over it and move on"—pointless. While we're on an anti-Win-doze binge, getting doze users to accept a file transfer via their Skype is a NIGHTMARE: they pause, dumbfounded; they hunt; they pause again; somewhere, after 60 seconds, they find it, and then have to rename the damned file before the transfer starts. Jeesh. Tony (talk) 07:00, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

While others have been posting alternative methods, I might as well do so too. I downloaded a program called “Microsoft Keyboard Layout Creator” and created my own layout, I can now easily type not only en dashes but also just about every conceivable character I could want to type while using Latin-based languages, and more… “ × ⅓ • √ ♙ ✓ ∴ ”. I find this solution more useful and practical than any of those suggested above (my layout is freely available to anyone who wants it). MTC (talk) 07:10, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I've done the same, to emulate Mac input (and more), but I find that many of the key combinations are not compatible with Win7. (No surprise there: MS software is frequently incompatible with the MS OS.) — kwami (talk) 22:56, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Use "See|", "See also", or link? and proposal for new tag creation

Many editors complain when I put a "See" tag at the top, that it should be in the "See also" section at the bottom. The problem is that many newer users coming to a technical "daughter article", do not know where to find the mother article at the bottom. Even if they did know to look at the bottom "See also" section, it is often filled with "related" articles, with no indication as to which should be read before the article they are in, and which are only peripherally related to the subject article, or provide only supplemental reading. A further thing that comes up is when I put a "see" tag at top, it gets removed as "already in a link word in the lede ot body, with no indication that link should be read first, among the multitude ot links in the article.

• (1) I propose a new tag be created that says "For more introductory information on the subject of '(put article title here)', see '(mother article here)'.
• (2) Add to MOS this stylistic suggestion, If an article contains more introductory information about the article's subject, include BOTH a "See tag" at the top, and a "See" at the bottom.

This would help me alot with an unfamiliar subject, and likely would help others. PPdd (talk) 06:33, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

If an article has a "parent article", then there will already be a link to it in the first sentence or at least the first paragraph of the page. {{Main}}, {{See}} and {{See also}} templates belong at the top of sections. McLerristarr | Mclay1 07:05, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

(1) Maybe I missed it, but where does MOS say link in the first sentence?

(2) MOS says "dedicated article" without explanation as to what that expression means. PPdd (talk)

It probably doesn't say that but it's just basic lede structure. The topic of the article is defined and the main terms of the definition are linked. Could you please provide an example of an article to which this discussion would be applicable? McLerristarr | Mclay1 15:42, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

(1) You're right about what should be "basic lede structure", but helping create "basic lede structure" is part of what MOS is guidance for, and regarding "it (MOS) probably doesn't say it", it should say it.

(2) "Main" is different from "For more introductory information", and conversely, there is no stylistic tag for "this article is general, for more technical information on the same topic see...".

(3) From my own very recent edit history, an example of good style is the Evolution article, which has at top "For a generally accessible and less technical introduction to the topic, see Introduction to evolution."

An example of where I had a problem was the Feminism article. At universities, "feminism" and "feminist theory" are often used synonymously. Yet the link for "feminist theory" is way down in the lede along with a "sexual assault" link. I did not notice the exitence of the other article, and (while actually working on the bad faith article and finding peripheral information I thought should be included in a feminism article) I stopped by over at feminism and inserted an edit about Simone de Beuvoir and bad faith in the feminism article, without reading the whole article, but as a result of searching for the information I wanted to insert and not finding it. If the feminism article had something like the evolution article at the top, like "This article is about feminism in general. For feminist theory, see feminist theory", I would have immediately gone there instead. The feminist theory correctly has the link to feminism in the beginning of the first sentence, but could also stand with an improvement along the lines of the evolutoin article, and the feminism article certainly could. A MOS guidleine to make these stylistic rules of thumb might be appropriate. If no one else has a proposal, I will try to come up with one.

Also, the introduction to evolution uses the correct style of putting evolution at top, not in "See also" at bottom.

So I am making a stylistic suggestion for MOS as to (1) when to put things at the top with "see of main" vs at bottom in "see also", like in the evolution article, and (2) to include relevant links in the first sentence, which I agree should be "basic lede strucutre", (3) to create a tag similar to the "explanation at top" in the evolution article, and this is MOS territory. MOS should recommend a generalization of the style of the evolution article and introduction to evolution articles. PPdd (talk) 16:28, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I tend to put the "See" tag at the top when it seems likely that the article may not be what the reader wanted. For example, the article Little Mermaid is about the Hans Christian Anderson story. I'd put "For the Disney movie, see The Little Mermaid (1989 film). Darkfrog24 (talk) 16:38, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Good suggestion to put in MOS, "when the article might not be what the reader wanted, use the "about" tag", which is more specific than a "disambiguation" tag. I did not know about "About", Where can one read about the "About" tag, as used in the little mermaid article? PPdd (talk) 16:46, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Proposal add subsection to MOS links section -

"- Links to related articles - When an article is a general or introductory treatment of a topic, and another article is a technical treatment, an Wikipedia:Hatnote tag should be placed at the top of each page. The links between articles should be at the top of the article, not in the “See also” section at the bottom. For example… evolution and introduction to evolution… (then give example of how to use the Wikipedia:Hatnote tag). In this case, this should be used over and above a “disambiguation” tag."

PPdd (talk) 18:29, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

No comment on the proposal, but {{about}} IS a type disambiguation link generically called Hatnotes. older ≠ wiser 19:37, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Thnx. I changed "about" to hatnote in proposal. I did not know about hatnotes, and a brief mention of their use as a writing style could stand a brief mention in MOS so others do not suffer my lack of knowledge on this. PPdd (talk) 20:25, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Disadvantages are (1) disruption at the top, by starting with what is not the topic, but related to it; and (2) the issue of what goes into the "hat" note at the top (at the moment, we are fairly liberal about what goes into "See also", but would have to be stricter about it if the "related" links were at the top. Can we see a mock-up example of the visual, structural, and relevance effect? Tony (talk) 01:22, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

The Evolution article is a good example to look at for proper use of hat and "see also". Only the same topic is at the top, but at a different level of generality or technicality. The feminism / feminist theory article is an example of where a hat at each would be helpful. I did not put one in these articles for use as an example here. PPdd (talk) 01:41, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Evolution uses the {{See introduction}} hatnote. However, there are not many introductory articles. Could you please provide an example of an article which you think should have a hatnote, but doesn't? I don't believe we need to address this in WP:MOS. We already have WP:Hatnote. McLerristarr | Mclay1 02:16, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Feminism and Feminist theory are almost synonyms in academia. At WP, the former article is general, the latter technical. Both should have hat notes guiding the reader to the article they want. PPdd (talk) 02:33, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

The first link in Feminist theory is to Feminism. If every topic had hatnotes to all its subtopics it would be a mess. Subtopics should have links to their parent topics in the opening paragraph but subtopics can be addressed in sections or in the see also section of the parent topics' articles. Perhaps you could provide a better link to Feminist theory in Feminism but I don't think it should be in a hatnote. McLerristarr | Mclay1 08:07, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Actually, there is a section in Feminism of theory which has a hatnote at the top to Feminist theory. Hatnotes to subtopics are good for sections but not at the top of the page. McLerristarr | Mclay1 08:10, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

- "Choice of style?" - WP:Hat says about hats, "The choice of style in a given article is based on editors' preference". But it says nothing about the stylistic choice about what to put in a hatnote vs. in "See also". PPdd (talk) 03:47, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, the usual convention is to use disambiguation hatnotes at the top of the page and links to subtopics etc. in hatnotes at the top of sections if possible. Anything else of relevance can go in the See also section. The See also can also contain links that are elsewhere on the page. McLerristarr | Mclay1 08:12, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Unsure about the original question. It seems to me, if you had a well-chosen forked article, that there would be absolutely no good reason to look back. I am thinking of "Geography of Lithuania" which is supposed to have everything the main article, "Lithuania," has in it. In the first sentence, it would mention Lithuania, linked, if someone wished to go back for some other information. But the information they came for, Geography, is all there in the subordinate, forked article. It's the main articles that lack information because of these (deliberate, and well-chosen) forks. They would only have a summary. In theory, anyway. Student7 (talk) 21:34, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Bolding the title phrase

Wikipedia's convention is that the title word or title phrase of an article is set in bold at its first appearance in the article, usually in the first sentence, apparently except when the title is a long descriptive phrase like "How Einstein learned of Lennard's experiments on the photoelectric effect".

Is this convention stated in any of Wikipedia's style manuals? Where is it? Michael Hardy (talk) 18:05, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Manual of Style (lead section)#Format of the first sentence. The supplementary essay Wikipedia:Stop bolding everything expounds the reasoning behind this. —David Levy 18:17, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Ditto to David Levy. Like everything, sometimes people miss common sense and awkwardly ham-fist the title into the lead to the detriment of the article just for the glory of bolding, but luckily that's usually a nonissue. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 18:57, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Capitalization in article and section titles... why?

I understand what the MOS says about capitalization of Article and Section titles ("List of music recording certifications" not "List of Music Recording Certifications") and I don't object or want to change it... but I am curious as to why we adopted this style... and why didn't we adopt the more common style of capitalizing the first letter of all words in the title? If this is a frequently asked question, just link to a previous discussion. Blueboar (talk) 16:17, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I had the same question. If you do a google search on "sentence case" and "title case", there are some good essays on the topic, even explaining where one versus the other tends to be used. I had the same reaction as you did, but when I read that stuff, I had a lot more open mind, that we can choose either. I even summarized and gave some links over in the "Painted turtle" FAR.TCO (talk) 22:06, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

One of the most common aspects of this leprosy of overformatting we still put up with in computer-generated documents is the old typewriteresque use of title case to mark out titles from other text. Other outmoded habits are all-caps (thankfully, WP stamped on that one early) and underlining (likewise). It is gobsmacking that schools and universities pay almost no attention to even the simplest aspects of formatting. Workplaces and educational institutions need to get in a specialist for two distributed half-hour demos on how to use a word-processor.

From an informational perspective, title case extinguishes a whole level of signifying: that of initial caps that carry real meaning, mostly in proper nouns. The text becomes harder reader when the "alphabet soup" method is used. I would be very happy to explicitly discourage the use of title case in book, chapter, and paper titles in our reference sections. But I suppose that's not gonna happen. Tony (talk) 07:11, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Book titles are proper names, aren't they? --A. di M. (talk) 08:58, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

So are the titles of chapters, papers, articles, subsections if you want to define any name to be a proper noun. But unlike Public Broadcasting Service, title-names in larger texts tend are (1) formatted using a selection of the extraordinary array of highlighting devices available on a computer (unlike a typewriter, which had only underlining and caps, and possibly quotation marks), and (2) tend to be larger nominal groups than items that are titular for organisations, people, etc. What exactly are we missing by losing the redundant caps in titles, when they're italicised or bolded to show that they're titles? Tony (talk) 09:20, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

It was here before Tony or I began to edit. While this is guesswork (one problem with a MOS that includes no justifications), my impression is that lowercasing article titles was adopted to make them easier to link to (most article titles become running text if you lowercase the first letter, which preserves the link) and lc'ing section heads was adopted for uniformity with article titles. (Early Wikipedia seems to have done many more merges which made an article into a section or conversely than is present practice; this minimizes the amount of makework in doing so.) Nothing more. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:13, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

In other words... no one knows (or at least no one remembers) why we do it this way... OK, I can live with that. PMA's guess seems logical, however... I can easily believe that the MOS decision to use sentence case for titles is based on linking issues (perhaps dating from a time when we did not have the [[Article title|Displayed text]] function that allows us to include links that are exactly the same as the article title). Thanks for the replies. Blueboar (talk) 20:55, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I prefer Wikipedia's sentence-case-only policy for exactly one reason: Most people can't do title case without messing it up. While I wouldn't object to a change of policy allowing both—they're both correct forms, after all—I think title case is better for a nonprofessional site like Wikipedia. Darkfrog24 (talk) 16:06, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Even if one consider the reason entirely historical, Darkfrog do make a point, and at this stage, changing that would be far, far more hassle than it's worth (given that it is article titles that are affected, this is very different from the en-dash change—though I suspect issues similar to the one created by curly vs. straight apostrophes are created by it). Circéus (talk) 16:45, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Most encyclopaedias use sentence case for their headwords; some don't even capitalize the first letter of them except in proper names and the like.[17] --A. di M. (talk) 17:41, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Use of feminine gender for ships

It is just a small point but I don't think an English encyclopaedia should be using the feminine gender when referring to inanimate objects such as ships. I can't find anything in the MoS but perhaps I haven't looked hard enough. (Apologies if this is the case.) It may be romantic to use "she" for a ship but to me it doesn't seem encyclopaedic. However it may just be a matter of personal preference, so I think we need a ruling through a wider discussion to ensure consistency throughout Wikipedia. A few random ships showed "she" was mainly used in Wikipedia: German battleship Bismarck, HMS Hood (51), HMS_Montagu_(1901), HMS Invincible (1907) and MS Estonia. To get some background I searched for precedents. I found a discussion from 2004 in Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive (ships as "she") which seemed to reach no conclusion, and there is also a statement in Gender-specific pronoun, though this may just be one person's opinion. This latter entry refers to The Chicago Manual of Style. This is a paid web-site so I took this lead no further. I then looked at British style guides. The BBC and The Economist are silent on the subject. However The Guardian's style guide under the heading 'ships' is against the feminine gender (see [[18]]). Conversely The Times style (see [[19]]) is in favour of the feminine gender. Whether newspapers and encyclopaedias should have similar styles is debatable, but I think a standard should be defined in Wikipedia's Style Guide as well. JMcC (talk) 00:29, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

To me, the tagging of ships as females is disgraceful. Men ride ships; men fuck ships; men fuck women. I had a go years back to get this practice overturned as POV, but the (male) ship lobby screeched and screamed that this and that military establishment condone it. I wonder whether, if the UK or US airforces condoned the use of the n word as a nickname for their aircraft, we would go along with that. Tony (talk) 00:40, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

It always seemed to me to be affectionate rather than anything more. But our opinions don't matter much. I can't find the ref in the CMOS; my copy is organized by section rather than page. But they do refer to the practice in the past tense ("as was traditionally done, for example, when a ship or other vessel was referred to as she or her"), and the one sample sentence I found (illustrating hull numbers) used "it": "USS Enterprise (CVN-65) was already on its way to the Red Sea." — kwami (talk) 00:48, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

It is affectionate; it may be rooted in sympathetic magic; but it is idiom. Let it be. (And, Tony, any man who fucks a ship is desperate even for a sailor; mind you, there are traditional yarns about some figureheads...) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:46, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

We've had this discussion more recently, too, at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 114#She's a ship. One of the things I learned is that we have a guideline for this very question: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Ships/Guidelines#Pronouns. If you object to the guideline then you should probably raise this question at the Ships WikiProject. Ozob (talk) 00:49, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Exactly... this isn't the right place to discuss it... the issue is subject specific, and so should not be discussed in the general MOS. Blueboar (talk) 00:53, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Many thanks for pointing me in the right direction. It seems that the only rules in the Ships Wikiproject is that the gender of the pronouns has to be consistent within the article and that you should not try to switch an article from one gender to the other, ie there is no consistent style throughout Wikipedia. JMcC (talk) 10:24, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Why is a ship referred to as she? Because it costs so much to keep one in paint and powder.TCO (talk) 02:44, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

• Kwami, I can arrange for guidelines other than CMOS to be posted to you. It's not the only one in English: there are many, actually. Tony (talk) 10:04, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Tony. That would be useful for en-dashes, and my email is enabled (unless you prefer a download link), though I have little interest myself in whether ships are called 'she'. — kwami (talk) 23:03, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Proposed guidelines for talk page discussion

There are some draft guidelines purporting to aid discussion here, at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Proposed MOS talk page standards. For now, could those who want to help develop these standards, comment at the bottom and I will respond to changes.

At some later stage, this method of sole editing may change.

For those who don't want these at all, just wait. You will have the option later of voting them down. Thanks.

And please don't comment here. Not looking to start another unending discussion thread!  :) Student7 (talk) 14:56, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

• COMMENT - (Sorry, I couldn't resist.) PPdd (talk) 15:34, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

MOS articles list

I created Wikipedia:Manual of Style (list of specialized Manual of Style articles), but it needs alot of work and improvement. It is very long. Please help out. PPdd (talk) 15:37, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

I'll get cracking on it. Circéus (talk) 18:12, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

WP:ENGVAR doesn't point to the right place anymore

It should point to Wikipedia:Manual of Style#National_varieties_of_English but instead it goes to the main page Wikipedia:Manual of Style. This sort of thing usually happens in regular articles when a section name changes after people have put the link in. I don't know how the WP: shortcuts are edited or I could see maybe where it went wrong. These shortcuts should point to the section of the appropriate article so people can see what is being pointed to/talked about. Someone responds to a query with "WP:ENGVAR" and you have a whole manual of style to read before you could even begin to wonder what they were on about that has anything to do with the question you asked. I am pretty sure other wp: shortcuts do this, maybe some don't, but IMHO they all should point to the section of the target article that is relevant to the subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rifter0x0000 (talk • contribs) 20:53, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

I just tried WP:ENGVAR, and I was directed to Wikipedia:Manual of Style#National varieties of English. Please try again.

—Wavelength (talk) 21:06, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

So was I; Rifter may have hit the back button once, which will take you to the top of the page, or the MOS may be taking too long to load. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:19, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

compounded compounds only dashed in US usage?

Could part of the problem with en dashing be regional variation? Users Johnlp and DuncanHill inform me that compounded compounds are not en dashed in the UK; such wording is either avoided, or a virgule is used. Duncan quotes the Oxford University Press style guide, as set down in the Oxford Writers' Dictionary.

(a) The en rule (–) is used:

1. To join pairs wherever movement or tension, rather than co-operation or unity (for which use hyphen) is felt, e.g. ‘1914–18 war’ (but ‘from 1914 to 1918’), ‘current–voltage characteristic’, ‘the Fischer–Spassky match’, ‘the London–Horsham–Brighton route’, ‘the Marxist–Trotskyite split’ (but ‘the Marxist-Leninist position’ (hyphen)). Note also ‘Franco-Prussian War’ (hyphen, because ‘Franco-‘ is a prefix which cannot stand alone).

2. For joint authors (hyphen would lead to confusion with a single double-barrelled name), e.g. ‘the Lloyd–Jones hypothesis’ (two men), ‘the Lloyd-Jones hypothesis’ (one man), ‘the Lloyd-Jones–Scargill talks’ (two men).

Of course, some US style guides say the same thing, and some have only the compounded-compound type, so this may not indicate a general lack of the convention in the UK. Does anyone have a UK style guide that parallels the CMOS in this case? — kwami (talk) 22:10, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Hm, the The Oxford dictionary of American usage and style (2000:94) says the same thing, and only adds the following:

In circumstances involving a disjunction, the en-dash is usually preferable to the virgule—e.g.: [...] the 19th-century possessive–genitive dichotomy [not possessive/genitive dichotomy]

So it may be an Oxford thing rather than necessarily a UK thing. — kwami (talk) 23:06, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I have been watching the whole "dash or no dash" tempest in a tea pot for a while, wondering if it would end up boiling down to nothing more that a "regional variation" issue. We really need to remember to ask this question at the beginning of our debates in the future... it would save a lot of angst. Blueboar (talk) 00:34, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Here's most of what the CMOS has to say. (I left out several repetitions and details of en-dash between numbers.)

CMOS

The principal use of the en dash is to connect numbers and, less often, words. In this use it signifies up to and including (or through). For the sake of parallel construction the word to, never the en dash, should be used if the word from precedes the first element; similarly, and, never the en dash, should be used if between precedes the first element. [I've seen this explained elsewhere as the en-dash including the sense of from–to, so that using it w from was redundant] Her college years, 1998–2002, were the happiest in her life For documentation and indexing, see chapters 16–18. In Genesis 6:13–22 we find God’s instructions to Noah. Join us on Thursday, 11:30 a.m.–4:00 p.m., to celebrate the New Year. The London–Paris train leaves at two o’clock. I have blocked out December 2002–March 2003 to complete my manuscript. Her articles appeared in Postwar Journal (3 November 1945–4 February 1946). Green Bay beat Denver 31–24. The legislature voted 101–13 to adopt the resolution. but She was in college from 1998 to 2002. She published her articles between November 3, 1945, and February 4, 1946. [then a section on open dates w a dangling en-dash] The en dash is used in place of a hyphen in a compound adjective when one of its elements is an open compound or when two or more of its elements are open compounds or hyphenated compounds (see 7.83). As illustrated by the first four examples below, en dashes separate the main elements of the new compounds more clearly than hyphens would (“hospital” versus “nursing home,” “post” versus “World War II,” etc.), thus preventing ambiguity. In the last two examples, however, to have used en dashes between “non” and “English” and between “user” and “designed” would merely have created an awkward asymmetry; the meaning is clear with hyphens. the post–World War II years a hospital–nursing home connection a nursing home–home care policy a quasi-public–quasi-judicial body (or, better, a judicial body that is quasi-public and quasi-judicial) but non-English-speaking peoples a wheelchair-user-designed environment (or, better, an environment designed for wheelchair users) (Abbreviations for compounds are treated as single words, so a hyphen, not an en dash, is used in such phrases as “U.S.-Canadian relations.”) [mentions idiosyncratic use in some scientific disciplines] In some instances an en dash is used to link a city name to the name of a university that has more than one campus. the University of Wisconsin–Madison the University of Wisconsin–Milwaukee A slash is sometimes used in dates instead of an en dash, or even in combination with an en dash, to indicate the last part of one year and the first part of the next. The winter of 1966/67 was especially severe. Enrollment has increased between 1998/99 and 2001/2. The fiscal years 1991/92–1998/99 were encouraging in several respects. A series of pitches are joined by en dashes. The initial F–G–F–B♭ Harmonic progressions are indicated by capital roman numerals separated by en dashes: IV–I–V–I. compass points and directions: northeast, southwest, east-northeast, a north–south street, the street runs north–south. (Closed in noun, adjective, and adverb forms unless three directions are combined, in which case a hyphen is used after the first. When from . . . to is implied, an en dash is used.) noun + gerund: decision making, a decision-making body, mountain climbing, time-clock-punching employees, a Nobel Prize–winning chemist (for use of the en dash, see 6.85), bookkeeping, caregiving, policymaking. (Noun form usually open; adjective form hyphenated before a noun. Some permanent compounds closed.) e: e-mail, e-article, e-commerce, e-marketing, e-zine, e–graduate school. (Hyphenated; use en dash if e precedes an open compound.) Compounds formed with prefixes are normally closed, whether they are nouns, verbs, adjectives, or adverbs. A hyphen should appear, however, (1) before a capitalized word or a numeral, such as sub-Saharan, pre-1950; (2) before a compound term, such as non-selfsustaining, pre–Vietnam War (before an open compound, an en dash is used; see 7.83); ... An en dash used between two numbers implies up to and including, or through. Please refer to pages 75–110. Here are the figures for 1999–2000 Campers were divided into age groups 5–7, 8–10, 11–13, and 14–16. If from or between is used before the first of a pair of numbers, the en dash should not be used; instead, from should be followed by to or through, between by and. The wording or context should indicate the degree of inclusiveness. Avoid between . . . and where precision is required. from 75 to 110 from 1898 to 1903 from January 1, 1898, through December 31, 1903 between 150 and 200 Inclusive spelled-out numbers should not be joined by an en dash. women aged forty-five to forty-nine years sixty- to seventy-year-olds A range of equations is referred to by giving the first and last equation numbers, joined by an en dash: From equations (2)–(5) we obtain . . .

— kwami (talk) 01:18, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

I've seen such examples as “a quasi-public–quasi-judicial body” in style guides quite often, but I'm not sure they'd ever be used in an actual sentence. I mean, what's wrong with a plain ol' space (optionally preceded by a comma), i.e. “a quasi-public quasi-judicial body” (or “a quasi-public, quasi-judicial body”)? People don't normally write “long–black hair”, do they. --A. di M. (talk) 02:23, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I've seen several examples that don't seem to actually need two levels of hyphenation. That line does not appear in Google Book apart from the CMOS and one other which uses it as a hypothetical example. It would be nice to find some situations which truly are disambiguating. — kwami (talk) 02:32, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

One I have seen, though w a prefix, it "Trans–New Guinea languages". Hyphenation is common, of course, but I've also seen "Trans New Guinea", suggesting perhaps that the author was uncomfortable with a normal hyphen, but didn't know what else to do.

Some other examples in that book (Ruhlen, typeset by Stanford) are Trans-Fly–Bulaka River [languages], Central and South New Guinea–Kutubuan, Wissel Lakes–Kemandoga, Mairasi–Tanah Merah, Reef Islands–Santa Cruz, South Halmahera–Northwest New Guinea, Milne Bay–Central Province [languages], New Ireland–Tolai, Yoruba–Northern Akoko.

But they don't seem to do it with hyphenated compounds: Paiwanic-Malayo-Polynesian (I'd expect Paiwanic–Malayo-Polynesian), Ami[–]Extra-Formosan, Kurumfe[–]Oti-Volta, etc.

Some of these could be disambiguating: Eastern Senegal–Guinea implies Eastern Senegal and (all of) Guinea, whereas Eastern Senegal-Guinea implies either the eastern branch of "Senegal-Guinea", or the eastern parts of both. Central Niger-Congo might not be near either river, whereas "Central Niger–Congo" would presumably lie along the Congo and the central Niger. — kwami (talk) 03:07, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

• You can have too much of a good thing. There seems to be a touch of intellectual masochism here with this discussion and endless quoting of various manuals of style, which demonstrates there is no consensus even in the big wide world. It's great to see even the 'experts' get their knickers in a twist with "extreme" uses of endashes mixed with hyphens that most people aren't likely to see more than once in their lifetimes – now getting trotted out as if there was a legitimate point and end. Although the CMOS (for example) may be influential here, we should not be afraid to have our own style, or to say "enough" when it begins to get confusing. I totally agree with A di M – I mean "what's wrong with a plain ol' 'space' (optionally preceded by a comma)"? Keep it simple for our poor readers. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 09:14, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree with that sentiment. If we don't need it, we probably shouldn't have it. (That's the argument for eliminating en-dashes from things like Proto–Indo-European.) However, keeping things simple in one area may make them less accessible in another. It would be 'simple', for example, to not use semicolons, but there are times when they're useful. Similarly, it's sometimes difficult to parse long technical terms without something more informative than a string of hyphens. The fact that they may not have seen them before only makes them more difficult to parse. — kwami (talk) 09:26, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

One of the problems I've heard raised about the "en dash plus bare space" method is that the space is often where you'd normally put a hyphen (credit-card fraud, but credit card–style accounting). I do a little double-take myself when I first encounter these items. I can cope with an optional usage of this method, I suppose, since some authorities do sanction it and others are brave enough to use it. What gets me is that it's all about avoiding a triple hyphenated unit (13-year-old girl), which is less than ideal in some circumstances, particularly when the words are longer and/or less familiar than this—but sometimes it's the least evil of the options. And there's often (not always, I concede) an easy option in reversing the word order to remove the need for any typography ("a bridge 12 kilometres long" rather than "a 12-kilometre-long bridge", or yuck, "a 12 kilometre–long bridge"). Tony (talk) 09:59, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

• I might be wrong, but not knowing how to strictly execute, I would be tempted to write "Proto-IndoEuropean" in the above example, in my ignorance. I'm pretty sure there is more than one way to skin the proverbial cat. While we are here, I would mention another construction I dislike, and which causes havoc with my WP:MOSNUMscript, "in the March 23, 2001 edition of The New York Times..." – I would almost invariably rewrite this as "in the The New York Times of March 23, 2001..." –Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 13:55, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

What, are you saying that you'd use a somewhat unidiomatic wording only because you don't like having too many hyphens? Every day, enormously many more people say “a ten-year-old boy” than “a boy ten years old”. --A. di M. (talk) 18:32, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Proto-IndoEuropean is not idiom, because IndoEuropean is not. Use two hyphens, which is what most native speakers will do, and leave it alone. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:44, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

• Keep yer knickers on! I said "I would be tempted to write "Proto-IndoEuropean" in the above example, in my ignorance". I never said I would change any instances which already exist. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 16:25, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

As for the question at the root of this section; it's not purely national variation; the strongest voice I know for the double level of hyphenation is proudly British. It is that there are various traditions of how to deal with such fine points, each propagated by high-school teaching (and, far more often by imitation) - and since Australians tend to read and be taught by Australians (and likewise for Poms and Yanks), once a tradition is established in a given country, it tends to propagate there; thus each country has several of them. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:44, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Tony, this isn't about avoiding three or more hyphens, it's about not using hyphens with different meanings in one word. AFAIK, there's no problem with "13-year-old girl" or "12-mile-long bridge". At least, if en-dashes were expected for those, they'd be included in the style guides, as they would be much more common than the other, sometimes forced examples they give. "Up-to-the-moment information" – there: no problem w 3 commas. Ambiguity only arises when you want to link "up-to-the-moment" with something else; using a 4th hyphen would then make it difficult to read.

Here's what CMOS has to say on multiple hyphens:

Although two or more hyphens are standard in such phrases as a matter-of-fact approach or an over-the-counter drug, there is no consensus—nor need there be—on the need for more than one hyphen in longer and less common adjectival compounds. Readability and semantic logic are sometimes judged differently by equally literate writers or editors. Thus, early nineteenth-century literature and early-nineteenth-century literature are both in good standing. Using one hyphen or two does not affect the meaning of the phrase as a whole. Likewise, late twentieth-century politicians will surely not be understood as “recently deceased twentieth-century politicians,” but those who prefer to hyphenate early-nineteenth will logically hyphenate late-twentieth also. Some are more comfortable with the additional hyphen (which logic indicates), others without it (to avoid a lengthy string). Consistency must be maintained within any one work.

Personally, since we're an encyclopedia and expect precision, I think we should use logical hyphenation, just as we use logical punctuation with quotation marks. That isn't necessary either, but IMO it's a good idea for WP to be reliable in the details. — kwami (talk) 23:00, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree with CMOS: "there is no consensus—nor need there be". The most destructive habit of MOS is inventing supposedly "logical" rules. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:44, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

MOS is not inventing anything here: CMOS says it's the logical solution, but that there are other concerns. As a general reference work, we need to place a priority on precision, because we cannot assume our readers will have the familiarity with the subject necessary to correctly parse imprecise wording, even if people literate in the subject at hand prefer the latter. — kwami (talk) 01:12, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

quotations for specific terms

I thought this was here, but I don't seem to find it so I was wondering if there was any rules regarding the use of quotations for special words that are used as as alternate terminology for something. For example, After John defeats or "cleanses" the enemy he advances a level or "sphere".陣内_Jinnai 15:47, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Useful for this specific purpose of specifying technical terms; not desirable in general. Don't let's have a rule; whatever it is, it will probably be abused either to defend totally useless quote-marks, or to remove ones like these. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:47, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Section headers and links

MOS:HEAD currently contains this guidance:

• "To avoid accessibility problems, headings should not normally contain links, especially where only part of a heading is linked."

This is a remnant of two problems: the inability to make simple internal links to a heading containing a link; and an accessibility problem that affected JAWS prior to version 7.1. The former problem was solved some time ago as evidenced by this note in Help:Section#Section linking:

• "An internal link in a section heading does not give complications in terms of section linking"

Opinion at WT:ACCESS#Section headers and links was that there are no longer any significant accessibility issues either. One of our most active JAWS users, Graham87 states that "very few people would be using JAWS versions prior to 7.1 these days" – which seems likely as Jaws 7.1 was introduced in June 2006. As a result, the section of WP:ACCESS linked to in the MOS guideline above no longer contains any mention of problems with section headers and links. I suggest it's time to remove this outdated guidance from MOS as well. --RexxS (talk) 05:07, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Links in section headers are helpful if the same link is not in the first sentence of the section, especially if one has no idea what the word being linked means. PPdd (talk) 05:45, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I find links in headers to be terribly distracting. I'd prefer to see a guideline to try instead to link anything linkable in the text rather than in the heading. Dicklyon (talk) 06:02, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Like Dicklyon, I oppose links in section headers: they are not encyclopedic and are often unhelpful. If the link is required, so are a few words saying what it is about. I suppose IAR might be invoked to link headings in some articles, but in general the current MOS:HEAD is good regardless of technical issues. It is not relevant to my point, but I have seen some new users who did not realize that a link in a heading was actually a link (that was on another wiki). Johnuniq (talk) 06:11, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Agree with Dicklyon and Johnuniq, especially as the blue-link is bolded in most (?all) heading levels, too. The structural cohesiveness of articles partly depends on the uniform formatting of each level of heading; I find that partially or wholly linked headings weaken this visually. Tony (talk) 06:57, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, I don't particularly like them myself, but if personal preference about an aesthetic issue is the only reason to advise against using links in headers, then let's be honest about it in the MOS. We have to recognise that the separation of style from content, coupled with the proliferation of different displays from smart phones to HD monitors means we can no longer expect to dictate how any page will be rendered by the end-user, who is free to impose any presentational effects they choose. If they want high-contrast white text on a black background with underlined links, they can.

The reason I'm here is that I was asked to comment on a Featured List Candidate which was criticised for having links in headings (List of birds of Pennsylvania). At present, the article is in breach of MOS:HEAD on accessibility grounds. I had to say that there were no significant accessibility issues with the article, which makes a mockery of the MOS. If the consensus here is that we should be advising against having links in headings in any article (and that includes lists, which are concise in their text by definition), then could we at least have a valid reason for that spelt out in the text of MOS, please? --RexxS (talk) 07:22, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

FWIW, there _is_ an accessibility ground, though unrelated to "links in titles" to discuss with regard to that list (and, IIRC, most "List of birds in XXX" lists): almost all the links already lead to the order or family linked right below in the section. Misleading linking of this type is a Bad Thing. Mos of the links that then remain are also into the intro paragraph, or could easily be integrated there, solving the entire problem. I'm not what weird stylistic concept led to savagely delink these section intros in the first place. Circéus (talk) 07:32, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I too oppose links in section headers on aesthetic grounds. Part of the justification for the MoS is to give Wikipedia a consistent style, so if consensus here is that links in section headers are unaesthetic, then that is a valid reason for forbidding them (even though it is not currently the given reason). So far I have never encountered a case where it was difficult to move a link in a section header to the body of the text, and that is true in your case as well. For example, under "Pelicans", the text begins, "Pelicans are...". Under "Bitterns, Herons, and Egrets", the text begins, "The family Ardeidae contains the herons, egrets, and bitterns." There are a few exceptions cases where the name of the linked birds does not appear in the paragraph, such as "Old World warblers and Gnatcatchers". (BTW, one of these exceptions, "Ibises and Spoonbills", has inconsistent formatting, since the order and family are not on a line of their own. Plus the description is oddly short.) By far the names of the birds do appear, usually in the first sentence and often in the first few words. I think it would be easy to adapt the article to the MoS's stated requirements, and I think that's what ought to be done. Ozob (talk) 11:46, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

@Ozob: Thanks for the comments, but I have no connection with that list other than it lead me to discover the inaccurate rationale in MOSHEAD. I'm sure the FLC nominator would be grateful for your comments at WP:Featured list candidates/List of birds of Pennsylvania/archive1 - seriously, more reviewers are always welcome.

@Circeus: Yes, misleading linking is a Bad Thing, but that issue is usability more than accessibility - it has a negative impact on all users, not just those with disabilities, and you won't find much in WCAG 2.0 about duplicated linking. --RexxS (talk) 16:32, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

"Not encyclopedic"? Is this another form of WP:IDONTLIKEIT? What encyclopedia has had a chance to make a decision on this issue? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:49, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Ditto those opposing links in subtitles. Student7 (talk) 15:43, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Oppose, but... "there should always be the same term in the section, as in the incorrectly linked term in the section title, and this section body term should be linked". PPdd (talk) 15:50, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Discussion seems to have petered out now, and it seems clear to me that opinion here is in favour of maintaining the MOS guidance not to put links in section headers. I'll revise the current text to remove the inaccurate part about accessibility, and leave the rest in place. --RexxS (talk) 23:20, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Blatant disruption by User:Kwamikagami (WP:DASH)

Kwami has recently taken upon himself to blindly replace any hyphens into dashes by make mass moves, and replacements with AWB. None of them make any sense! Switching "pre-main star" to "pre–main star", "post-World War II" to "post–World War II". Could someone do a mass rollback (and undo all the page moves he made) and revoke his/her AWB access? Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 07:10, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

The "blatant disruption" described appears to be exactly what the Manual of Style prescribed before this edit. Revoking AWB access for doing what we said and not what we secretly meant, is the surest way to make everything else on this page irrelevant to the rest of Wikipedia. Art LaPella (talk) 08:11, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

There's about 4-5 ongoing discussions about dashes right now, and kwami him/herself placed that on the MOS about two days ago. AWB is for uncontroversial edits, not for the unilateral imposition of an at-best optional style thing immediately after that same person modified the MOS. If you want to move and impose a style on half a zillion article, you need consensus for it, and you need to make sure you're not doing silly things like changing "pre-main sequence star" to "pre–main sequence star". Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 09:49, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I did indeed miss this edit. Art LaPella (talk) 04:00, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

You're the one who's tried overriding consensus to fit your POV. A bit rich of you then to blame me for it. — kwami (talk) 09:56, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I also notice that Skookum has been moving articles to change dashes to hyphens in his own unilateral campaign against dashes. Tony (talk) 07:12, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I've been moving them because they're hyphenated names and ENDASH even said that, directly, though it's taken some head-banging to get people to agree to it until it was specified that hyphenated names included geographic names, and I still maintain war-names and other fully-capitalized names are included in the definition of hyphenated names, irrespective of original-research analysis/deconstruction of their lexical meaning and common usage.Skookum1 (talk) 10:35, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

En dashes have been standard typographic practice for at least a century. The reason I asked at the astronomy page was in case there was an expected form in technical articles, though I've seen several contradictory punctuations myself. Anyway, they're not "pre-main stars" (and presumably also "sequence stars") as Headbomb incorrectly states, they're "pre-[main sequence] stars".

I made a similar inquiry on the linguistics page. According to the style manuals, language families like Niger-Congo should be en-dashed, but that is minority usage in the actual journals. (Though Nature has used it.) I figured it would be too disruptive to follow the guideline in such cases, since they're (almost?) never ambiguous. — kwami (talk) 09:30, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

There are reversions going on at the moment at MoS: the most recent edit-summary says "credit card-savings" better than "credit card–savings". I'm not sure about that. In fact, as a reader I'd prefer not to have the option of parsing it as card-savings (of the credit type). At least the dash stops that, and it is a recognised typographical convention, although by no means universal. I think it should be optional, or you re-word. But after all of that, "credit-card savings" seems to be the correct typography here, doesn't it? In which case it's a wrong example for the point at issue in MoS. Tony (talk) 09:34, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

"Credit-card savings" yes, because 'savings' is not attributive, but not "a credit-card sized calculator". The latter would mean a sized calculator for credit cards, not a calculator the size of a credit card. It may not be the clearest example, but that's no reason to disregard the CMOS and every other typographic style guide out there. — kwami (talk) 09:40, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Vaguely agree with Kwami over the use of dashes. BUT a reminder that no one should be making large scale single trivial changes like that to articles, it is against AWB usage policy. Fix stuff as you come across it as part of the usual work, otherwise it causes skirmishes like this --Errant ^(chat!) 10:09, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, that's probably good advice. — kwami (talk) 10:18, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

LOL given that numbers of single articles have had trivial changes to their titles, forcing dashes on them, by people not familiar with their subject matter or their origin, or with any regard to WP:MOSFOLLOW or WP:COMMONNAME. "Typographical sophistication" falls flat on its face when the obvious lexical derivations of adjectival forms of hyphenated names continue to be insisted on by the "typographical clique" who've overturned both logic and common sense by insisting that the alleged grammatical difference between an adjectival form and the original proper name it is derived from must be dashed. That's original research, based in sketchy understanding of both etymology and syntax - and with unfortunate results, and obviously without any real consensus, other than those who all agree that the dash is the best thing since Velveeta (tm).Skookum1 (talk) 10:35, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

COMMONNAME has no more to do with this than whether we use curly or straight apostrophes: it's a punctuation issue, not a naming issue. There is variation in the publications, so it's not like the hyphenations is set as part of a technical name. — kwami (talk) 12:38, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

MOSFOLLOW has a hell of a lot to do with it, however. And in what publications are you talking about, in reference to the Alberni-Clayoquot Regional District RM you've now weighed in with deconstructionist inanities about "Fraser-Fort" and "Skeena-Queen"? You won't find a document produced by any of those bodies or their parent-government (BC's) or Canada's that uses the dash, none at all. So what publications are you talking about? Wiki-clones or publications which used Wikipedia as a source? BTW I've been on the phone to various government offices today about this, though I already know that BCGNIS and CGNDB are reflections of the Provincial Gazetteer and the Gazetteer of Canada, respectively (both core sources for official usage). Next up, the Hansard Office and the Public Affairs Bureau of British Columbia re their style guides and legal names.Skookum1 (talk) 20:28, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

None of those are relevant to pre-main-sequence star or to post–World War II, which are the topic of this post. The first has dozens of RS's, and the second is used as an example of the en dash by the CMOS as well as several other guides that I've come across. — kwami (talk) 21:08, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I have no horse in this race. I just want to see this thing properly thrashed out into a consensus before we make any such radical changes to the guideline. I have wound it back to what I felt was the last WP:Consensus version for now, pending resolution. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 14:47, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

• A credit-card debt; a credit-card-sized calculator; a calculator the size of a credit card—all of these are good English. I find a clash in applying the en-dash method in "credit card–sized calculator" such that it should not be applied. Good examples, not problematic examples, should be provided. Tony (talk) 14:57, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Also, "credit-card–sized calculator" (where the first is a hyphen and the second an endash is a reasonable - but not universal - method of indicating two different levels of grouping. It should be permitted but not required; is the illogical "credit card-sized" common enough to be defended as idiom? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:55, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
  • But whether or not the illogical form is idiom, "credit card–sized" with a dash is not idiom and illogical. We do have a word for that kind of thing: wrong. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:58, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
• This is indeed disruptive - and (to whatever degree punctuation can be) harmful to the encyclopedia. I doubt DASH does require this; the fact that it can be read in two different ways demonstrates that it is badly phrased - and that is independent of what we want to do. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:55, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

What's illogical about it, and what would the 2nd reading be? But I agree with Tony that "credit-card-sized calculator" is the most straightforward solution, so it was a bad example. (We should probably disregard that style guide if they present examples like this.) — kwami (talk) 21:11, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

As for the first question: "credit card-sized" suggests, wrongly, that card is grouped with sized and only then is card-sized joined with the separate modifier credit. It's just as bad, and unidiomatic, with an en-dash. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:49, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Post-World War II with a hyphen (or perhaps three hyphens, in the strong-compound style - three hyphens is British, to my ear); this is Hyphens, section 2 "To link certain prefixes with their main word." Does this prevail over Dash, section 5? Normally, in actual English usage, it does. I shall refashion; since I dispute both examples, I will be substituting "credit-card–sized calculator". Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:00, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

There's really no need for an en dash in "credit-card-sized calculator". It would be better to only advise using them where the hyphen would be incorrect. It would be better to leave the example "pre–World War II", where a hyphen would be incorrect, since the prefix applies not to the word "World", but to the multi-word proper name. Dicklyon (talk) 06:14, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Kwami's ill-advised moves continue. Please stop, or I will consider the most effective means to stop this. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:45, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Sep, by proposing to hyphenate "Post-World-War-II", you demonstrate that you are unfamiliar with English punctuation. You're hardly the person to judge what is ill-advised when you do not understand the topic. — kwami (talk) 01:15, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't accuse Mr Anderson of not understanding the topic. Kwami, may I comment further? Would you replace "13-year-old child"? Where would the en dash go if you converted it to the other system? I think the unease that has given rise to this discussion comes from the wish to avoid a number things: (1) triple hyphenated units (ungainly? perhaps sometimes, but I wouldn't change "Post-World-War-II" if I came across it as an epithet), (2) a single dash that doesn't typographically link items that are grammatically linked (the first two words in "credit card–sized debt", which seems fussy because of the logical problem), and (3) juxtaposed hyphens and dashes (probably most readers get it subconsciously, though). The dash-plus-space(s) solution works better after the reader has encountered it and thought about it, and realised it's not a mistake; but it comes as a jolt the first time.

There is no magic bullet; all of the "solutions" have disadvantages. But I do think MoS should at least point out the option of rewording the item so that no typographical marks are required. We do this already for units:

"Multi-hyphenated items: It is often possible to avoid multi-word hyphenated adjectives by rewording (a four-CD soundtrack album may be easier to read as a soundtrack album of four CDs). This is particularly important where converted units are involved (the 6-hectare-limit (14.8-acre-limit) rule might be possible as the rule imposing a limit of 6 hectares (14.8 acres), and the ungainly 4.9-mile (7.9 km) -long tributary as simply 4.9-mile (7.9 km) tributary)." Tony (talk) 02:12, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Sure, rewording may be the best option. That's always something to keep in mind. However, there are also set phrases that we may want to keep; the question is how to punctuate them if we don't replace them. As for '13-year-old child', I see no reason not to keep it as it is. The hyphens don't cause you to misparse anything, so there's no need for a dash. — kwami (talk) 06:04, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Is it incorrect to have nothing ? Post World War II seems fine to me, as does After World War II and Following World War II. Embarrassingly I was a copy-editor for some years, had my own printing company and have written it without anything for the last twenty years in both those occupations as well as when we had a studio doing sound recordings for educational CDs lol Chaosdruid (talk) 07:17, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

en dash in compounds...

Before the edit war started Jan. 29, it said:

• Optionally, in compounds whose elements contain hyphens or spaces (pre–World War II technologies, non–government-owned corporations).

I've put this back, since the effort to make it non-optional led to it being deleted altogether. Dicklyon (talk) 06:17, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

I've come across several sources which state that the second example should be avoided; the CMOS says as much above. — kwami (talk) 06:41, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Here's an example from a real text: nucleoside reverse-transcriptase inhibitor–induced myopathy — kwami (talk) 08:49, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

• I'm sorry to be coming late to the party and I do realise that this is currently being thrashed out in multiple venues (too many for me to keep up), but can someone please explain to me how "pre–World War II technologies" is any better than "pre-World War II tecnologies"? Also was it really wise to reinstate this considering the edit warring that has been going on and that no consensus has been established above? Jenks24 (talk) 09:12, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

"nucleoside reverse-transcriptase inhibitor–induced myopathy"—that is an cumbersome elephant no matter which typography is used. Why, I ask, can't it be "myopathy induced by a nucleoside reverse-transcriptase inhibitor"? [or plural "inhibitors"] Tony (talk) 10:05, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Usually because it is an element in a further phrase - or in an article title. If we wanted to be helpful, we would advise recasting the sentence; but depending on the larger context, there may be a danger of ambiguity. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:16, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

It's also a medical diagnosis, which might mean that we would want to stick to the wording of the medical references, awkward as that might be. — kwami (talk)

Jenks, "pre-WWII technologies" would be fine with a hyphen only because we are already familiar with the phrase and with the concept of WWII; also, the change in capitalization helps. But without that context, it's not so simple to work out. What about "pre-apocalyptic war events"? Given that this could be capitalized various ways, would that mean events prior to the war of the apocalypse, or events of a war prior to the apocalypse? The first would be dab'd "pre–apocalyptic war events". (I'm sure s.o. can come up with a better example.)

One could argue that en-dashes should only be used when necessary. However, that would mean that when we use a hyphen in an ambiguous situation, the reader would have to guess whether we think it's ambiguous enough to require disambiguation. That is, the reader wouldn't be able to rely on a hyphen just being a hyphen. If we consistently use en-dashes, on the other hand, then when we do use a hyphen it will reliably mean that an en-dash is not appropriate.

This is rather like using logical punctuation with quotations. Most of the time it really doesn't matter whether we put the period or comma inside or outside the quotations marks. However, there's general WP agreement that for an encyclopedia we want precision, and so should be clear whether the punctuation belongs within the quotation or not. — kwami (talk) 22:33, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for the detailed explanation (and the good expample), I think I understand now. Cheers, Jenks24 (talk) 06:37, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Your previous question about what's wrong with "pre-World War II technologies" wasn't quite addressed head-on, so I'll try: the trouble is that the hyphen signals very strongly that "pre-World" is to be parsed as a single grammatical item, and then combined with what follows; this gives a garden-path reading, where you have to next notice that the real intent was to first group "World War II"; so you have to go back and undo your first interpretation. Even if it's not semantically ambiguous, the incorrect punctuation makes it hard to read. In some cases, like the one kwami brought up, just using more hyphen to makes a compound adjective fine: ""pre-apocalyptic-war events" if that's how you mean it. But hyphens are never inserted into multi-word proper names, so you can't say "pre-World-War-II technologies"; the en dash is the only alternative. That also explains why this kind of use is sometimes "optional". Dicklyon (talk) 23:09, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Good explanation; also, hyphens tend to be dropped from familiar expressions. However, as an encyclopedia, it's difficult for us to estimate what our readers will be familiar with, or how readily they'd take the garden path reading. (And yes, "pre-apocalyptic-war events" would be the better solution.) — kwami (talk) 00:35, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanations guys, they were very clear and are much appreciated. Cheers, Jenks24 (talk) 02:56, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

• Why does the MoS now read: "while non-government owned would be incorrect and non-government-owned would be ambiguous and non-government–owned would be a different meaning." Run that past me again? It will have to be changed. In particular, what is ambiguous about the second example (and why "would be"?). What is the "different meaning" in the third one? Tony (talk) 07:17, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Tony. (Tony, "non-government–owned" would mean s.t. like 'owned by an NGO', as opposed to "non–government-owned", which would mean 'not gov-owned'.) It's rarely the case that en dashes are necessary for such things. I really think we should stick to real-text examples as much as possible, because the stuff we make up in our heads is often easy to work around in real life. If fact, several style guides I've read advise against using en-dashes between a prefix and a hyphenated compound, as they were unable to come up with any situation when it would actually be needed for disambig. — kwami (talk) 07:41, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

That was my change, which I subsequently changed a bit more. The is about a context where "non-goverment" is not the intended reading, which is why some of the examples are red. The ambiguity with all hyphens seems clear enough: you can't tell if it means owned by a non-government organization, or not owned by the government (perhaps too subtle a distinction?). I was just extending an example that was there, but would be happy to see a better one. Dicklyon (talk) 08:04, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

I think that the MoS should discourage this sort of use. There may be some situations when it is appropriate, and we'll have to come up with rules for them. However, judging from the difficulty of finding realistic examples, I suspect that most realistic examples are better said another way; that is, this usage of en dashes is often unclear. Ozob (talk) 14:48, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Official refs for hyphen/dash for BC placenames

To prevent further MOS-claimed changes of BC placenames to dashes, this is notice that, as explained on the now-closed RM2 at Talk:Alberni-Clayoquot Regional District, the Office of the Legislative Council has an official styleguide, based in the legislation creating such places and their names, that has decided that RM, mandating hyphens in all those cases; see BCLaws.ca re the Local Government Act, and in re BC provincial parks, many of which are so far still hyphenated and have not been "MOS-ified", see in the same link the Protected Areas of British Columbia Act which gives a full list of parks, protected areas, ecological reserves, and conservancies as to their official usages; some officially use space-dash-space as with Smith River Fall – Fort Halkett Provincial Park and Ed Bird – Estella Lakes Provincial Park, but most do not and the hyphen is mandatory in most other cases, as also the use of forward-slashes in some cases, as well as special characters of various kinds for aboriginally-derived official placenames. Note also on the ACRD-RM there is mention of the Concise Gazetteer of Canada, which is not only and costs $39.95 or something like that, but is probably in most major city and university libraries in the References section. Canadian usages should be used in Canadian articles; speedy renames implanting dashes on such articles, if they occur in future, should be quickly reversed, citing the relevant pieces of legislation. I'm drafting an addition to WP:CANMOS which does not directly address this issue which should be approved by WPCANADA editors by consensus, as specified in CANMOS.Skookum1 (talk) 20:01, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

I didn't find a "Local Government Act" at BCLaws.ca, and the Local Government Act article doesn't mention Canada. Your most convincing argument is in your first link, especially "Style comments from the Office of the Legislative Counsel of British Columbia, February 4/02". Depending on what "does not directly address this issue" means, it would be helpful if your CANMOS addition explicitly states that WP:DASH doesn't apply to this specific issue, because the consensus would be clarified if such a provision isn't reverted. Art LaPella (talk) 21:54, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, in my view DASH does because of the "hyphenated name" wording, w/wo the addition of the geographic name examples that were needed recently to help some people understand tht the term "hyphenated name" implicitly means ALL hyphenated (proper) names. And, er, last time I looked, British Columbia was (still, so far) part of Canada. Perhaps I should explain that regional districts - and provincial parks and other subdivisions of the province of various kinds - are not part of Canadian federal legislgation/jurisdiction, but entirely provincial; most Americans and others (not sure where you're from) don't understand the two-teired nature of Canadian Confederation, which has a "separation of powers" context that doesn't happen elsewhere (e.g. residual powers in Canada go to the provinces, not the federal government, while in the US the opposite is true re the state and federal jurisdictions). Municipal incorporation in Canada is a "creature" of provincial governments and legislation, not of federal; CGNDB only mirrors the names that are established by provincial legislation; and there's no reason at all for a piece of provincial legislation to mention Canada, except in passing references. Provincial governments in Canada are fairly autonomous, which is why it's one reason why it can be so hard to get certain things in place, like national standards and, er, national harmony (Quebec isn't the only restive province....). Anyway, the "core citation' for placenames in this case is the enabling legislation, which is what the Local Government Act and the Protected Areas Act are; the feds have nothing to do with it - except that StatsCan uses RD boundaries for its Census Agllomerations or Census Areas of whatever they're called; the distinction in that case is that "Alberni-Clayoquot", for example, is the name used by StatsCan for the area/unit for statistical analysis/collection, and "Alberni-Clayoquot Regional District" is the name of the provincially-created/mandated regional district, whose boundaries are followed by StatsCan in defining its census areas, but they are actually different creatures, one being an entity of the federal government, the other of the provincial. NB in Ontario provincial electoral districts are harmonized in their boundaries and names with the federal ones, and both use the endash; though each has separate articles; whereas in BC and certain other provinces, provincial regulation (a "regulation" is one "half" of a piece of legislation, the other is the "statute", as was explained to me by the Office of the Legislative Counsel) mandates hyphens be used in provincial electoral district names by law (which as I previously noted elsewhere is already a standard usage in Canadian Wikipedia, though not specified in CANMOS - yet).Skookum1 (talk) 22:24, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Um, I think you're the one who needs clarification as to the federal nature of the US. Not only is local government very much a state, not federal, issue (indeed, the only federally chartered city is Washington, DC), but the US Constitution is a enumerated-powers constitution, meaning all powers not delegated to the federal government are "reserved to the states, or the people", to use the terms of the 10th Amendment. Just how broadly to interpret the powers delegated to the federal government is the classic "states rights" debate (especially when the federal government is using those powers on states that are abusing the powers reserved to them, as has been the case in history). But that doesn't change the fact that the US is not all top-down like you characterize it.

The residual powers difference is standard fare in Canadian education, as an example of the different way that the Canadian federation works vs the US one; yes, municipal and county governance is at the state level (or so it seems); I was meaning in response to ALP that expecting to see "Canada" mentioned in the linked citation was a non sequitur because the federal government has nothing to do with it; as explained below, I didn't realize the LGA article existed and half-expected it to be a redlink when I typed it, and that it doesn't have anything on such acts in Canada is a glaring omission...probably penned by a Brit or Australian or an American, and as usual Canada gets forgotten about (I know because I've had to add CanCon - Canadian Content in Canadian-ese - to several articles of that kind). I was speaking of the citation to the Act mentioned on the Alberni-Clayoquot RD talkpage/RM - which I expected people to, ahem, actually read.....Skookum1 (talk) 08:33, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

That said, I agree, strongly, that if these districts/municipalities/other subdivisions are defined and named with hyphens by the relevant authorities, we absolutely cannot change them to a dash; to do such is to misspell a proper name. That is unacceptable. oknazevad (talk) 22:53, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

I think most of Skookum's last post was in response to my words "the Local Government Act article doesn't mention Canada", explaining that it's because of something like what we Americans call federalism. However, that LGA article doesn't mention Canada, British Columbia, or anything else Canadian. My point was only that it doesn't support Skookum's opinion in his post before that one (however valid that opinion may be anyway). Art LaPella (talk) 23:09, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

You can think what you like but I frankly didn't even notice that was a bluelink as I linked it in passing; if you actually read the source you'd have KNOWN I was talking about the Local Government Act of British Columbia, a hint was "Protected Areas of British Columbia Act" that it was a provincial act that I was talking about, but it appears you're the kind of person who's probably picked all the hair off their own head and now wants to do it to others.....that that article isn't globalized is typical of many political-concept and legislation articles, and obviously needs expansion; instead of being cute you might have gone "oh, there's a cite here for one in British Columbia, I'll add it to the article, then" instead of being cute and going on the attack here as you just have. WP:Sofixit. There's too many articles like that, where disparate concepts in different countries, even all Commonwealth ones, have different contexts....and in this case, it's not about normal municipalities, but a special class of municipality, or maybe "meta-municipality" as an explanation; because while regional districts extend municipal powers beyond municipal boundaries, they contain municipalities and do not govern them directly except on certain matters. The legislation creating cities, district municipalities, towns and villages (which are part of RDs) is the Municipal Act of British Columbia; and in the case of the City of Vancouver a completely differetn body of legislation, capped by the Charter of the City of Vancouver. So in the context I was speaking (not the one you chose to took it in, because the article so-linked did not mention British Columbia "or Canada" (the Govt of Canada has nothing to do with municipal governance), that's that article's failing - and your gaffe not mine.Skookum1 (talk) 08:33, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

TLDR. People on this page are very busy, both on- and off-line. Could you express your arguments succinctly, please? Tony (talk) 08:44, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

I told him before that he needed to remove 75% of the characters of each post before he hit "Save page". I warned him that he'd be ignored if he didn't listen; that appears to be coming true, as I am not reading his posts either. Ozob (talk) 14:37, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

As has been explained to me, TLDR is generally used by people trying to shut down a discussion, or who just don't want to understand what it has to say. And I don't really care if either of you read it, so what? It's in reply to Art La Pella and oknazevad. WP:Butt out.Skookum1 (talk) 18:42, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

And Ozob, your petulant arrogance "I told him to....etc". Who are you to tell anyone anything? I mean, I'm not your student or your employee. Get it? If you guys have short attention spans or just don't care to find out what an explanation is about, then you're just justifying your own ignorance, and pretending like you're in a position to make rules about how to talk. That's even worse than deciding you have a right to make rules at all. TLDR is just a way to close your own mind, and tell someone else to shut up without having to acknowledge they have a point. Why don't you just cut out 75% of your brain? I'm not in the mood to deal with silly crap like TLDR. If you can't read - don't write.Skookum1 (talk) 18:47, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

And Tony, I think you're just pissed off that I "won" and was right all along, and had some of your precious dashes changed back to their proper hyphenations.Skookum1 (talk) 18:50, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

"My point was only that it doesn't support Skookum's opinion in his post before that one (however valid that opinion may be anyway)." If you didn't look to see where the blue link goes, then that alone is enough to explain it. Ozob and Tony aren't demons either. Art LaPella (talk) 20:09, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Proposed discussion guidelines ready for review

Five short guidelines purporting to aid discussion here, are now at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Proposed MOS talk page standards. Please express your opinion on whether 1) none should be inserted above, or whether all should be inserted above ("vote" once) or 2) whether one or more should be accepted or rejected ("vote" five times).

Probably will make it easier on this watchlist to comment there on same line, if you like, rather than discussing it here. (And PPdd, I've got my eye on you! :) Student7 (talk) 23:07, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

I feel that #1 is unambiguously good and should become practice here. The first sentence of #2 is good as well. However, the detailed description should be left out. If we need any rules or codes more specific than that first sentence, we'll work them out in practice. The rest just impose artificial limits on discussion. I don't see how they'd help organize or resolve anything. Darkfrog24 (talk) 15:14, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Quotations within quotations... within reference templates

Resolved

 – solution: simply add &nbsp; at the end of the parameter – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 18:35, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Revised to clarify original question – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 04:39, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

{{Cite web}} is a template that auto-formats its title= parameter by adding quotation marks. Reference titles that end in double/single quotation marks are therefore susceptible to awkward pairs of quotation marks that can be difficult to read. For example:

<ref>{{cite web|url=en.wikipedia.org|title=Website publishes article titled 'Foo' |date=8 February 2011 |accessdate=8 February 2011}}</ref>

yields

As far as I can tell, there are no templates specifically designed to help kern these quotation marks apart within the actual template. {{" '}}, as suggested at Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Quotations_within_quotations, would not work; what would be needed is a template of a single qm followed by a space. Any thoughts? – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 03:49, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

The proper solution to real problems is to not use the silly template, and supply what it does (punctuation and italics) by hand. But since the proper format here is exactly as in your example (single and double quotes are interchangeable, and the purpose of using both is to avoid confusing the reader), what's the problem? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:00, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi PMAnderson, I revised my question because I don't think I made my question clear at all. I was hoping for a solution to spacing out the quotation marks. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 04:39, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

That is a real problem - some readers may find the three quote marks confusing; but the solution is clear. Write the citation by hand, using the same format the template provides, and include as many spaces as you like. (The wikiformatting may reduce them to one; but I believe that can be overridden by using &nbsp;, which will produce non-breaking spaces.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:01, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

How about

{{cite web|url=en.wikipedia.org|title=Website publishes article titled 'Foo'  |date=8 February 2011 |accessdate=8 February 2011}}

which gives

"Website publishes article titled 'Foo' ". 8 February 2011. Retrieved 8 February 2011.}

There's a non-breaking space in both which I don't know how to make visible but it seems to work.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 16:10, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

&amp;nbsp; produces &nbsp; which produces the space. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:01, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

JohnBlackburne, the &nbsp; worked perfectly! Thank you! And PManderson, thanks for the &amp; tip. As for writing references manually—nah!! – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 18:35, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

You can also use {{'-}}:

{{cite web|url=http://en.wikipedia.org|title=Website publishes article titled 'Foo{{tl|'-}} |date=8 February 2011 |accessdate=8 February 2011}}

"Website publishes article titled 'Foo{{[[Template:'-|'-]]}}". 8 February 2011. Retrieved 8 February 2011. {{cite web}}: URL–wikilink conflict (help)

Pushin' POV with Style

Talk pages at MOS used to talk about stylistic presentation of content, like lede structure, not get bogged down with uses of commas.

Something like this stylistic presentation of content issue actually came up, and I cannot think of a suggested MOS addition to deal with it (paraphrasing) -

"The American Academy for the Scientific Criticism of Acupuncture did a comprehensive review of scientific acupuncture studies on prevention of lung cancer and said, 'We did a systematic review of lung cancer studies and acupuncture and as a result we believe that acupuncture significantly decreases lung cancer rates compared to cessation of smoking'."

The problem is, that "American Academy" is a bunch of whackos who assumed an authoritative title and is trying to market acupuncture, and is RS for its own beliefs! Yet the stylistic presentation leaves a typical layperson with the impression that some legitimate and authoritative national science board really made that finding. One could put a MOS guideling to describe any quoted authority, which would bog down every quote at WP. An accurate rewording is "A major acupuncture believes that acupuncture is more effective than cessation of smoking for lung cancer." But what MOS guideline would lead to this accurate stylistic persentation, as opposed to the original misleading stylistic presentation? PPdd (talk) 03:01, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

That's not a stylistic issue; that's a content issue. Find a source (preferably a consensus of sources) that say they're flakes and quote them. We are permitted - and encouraged - to describe sources. You also want the WP:FRINGE noticeboard. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:04, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

There are methods other than style to try to deal with it, as you suggest. But I could not find RS saying "flakes", and the POV pushers in similar situations wanted their style of presentation, to push POV. PPdd (talk) 04:11, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Then what is your basis for saying so? I presume you have a relaible souirce, or solid evidence (which will sarisfy WP:FRINGE). Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:19, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I got lucky in this one case, since their home page described the group as believers in qi "energy", so I could describe the group's beliefs with RS using its own home page as to its beliefs. I also got lucky because I had just worn out the POV pushers in that article by my nonstop barrage of NPOV RS edits over a few days. But this kind of thing has come up over and over; I gave this example because it was fresh in my mind, and it was entirely about stylistic presentation. (what kind of math do you do?) PPdd (talk) 04:37, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Nice move, but yes, mucking about with commas is exactly what a manual of style should do. It sounds like what you need is another reliable source that criticizes the Academy in a relevant way. Darkfrog24 (talk) 14:09, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Left justified images in lede

Just need confirmation here that images in the lede should not be left justified. It has shown up in a number of spacecraft articles including MESSENGER, Mars Polar Lander, Galileo (spacecraft), Voyager 1, Voyager 2, Pioneer 11, Pioneer 10, Mars Climate Orbiter, Mars Observer and Viking program.--Labattblueboy (talk) 04:12, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Very strange, I have no idea what the MOS says, but these these left aligned logos look out of place and cramp the lede text. I've removed two of them so far and then came here. I suggest putting them on right, maybe in the infobox, if you must. -84user (talk) 04:41, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't see it at all strange. Many technical and educational books and articles begin with identifying image on the left. Having the mission logo at the front of the article gives an immediately identifiable image for that particular mission. The images are only 75px in size so any issue with crowding of the text seems unbased. --Xession (talk) 04:54, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

This is a change from the usual wikipedia style. I just looked at the featured and good articles on Wikipedia:WikiProject_Spaceflight/Assessment and none of them have images on the left, any logos appear on the right. I then looked at the MOS and it has "Infoboxes, images and related content in the lead must be right-aligned." -84user (talk) 04:59, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Of course the other articles in space flight wouldn't necessarily have them; this is my own form design based on NASA press kits. I am not a member of WP:Spaceflight. --Xession (talk) 05:03, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery; but rarely the most complimentary one. We are not writing NASA press kits - and we have no pressing need, as they do, to identify institutional affiliations and bureaucritic credits. We do need articles which are readable on a wide range of devices - and if the lead is sandwiched between two images, narrow screens will leave an illegible river of text. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 11:09, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

While I would entirely agree that the intention of Wikipedia is not to provide information geared toward the press, I think it is certainly most useful when information is provided for the benefit of those who are layman readers, as well as those who are researching. Providing the most detail possible should be at the forefront of every article. As for a 75px graphic at the front of the introduction, as per your claim of a possible "river of text", I would certainly need pictorial proof of such an occurrence. Many of the reading devices that I am aware of such as the Kindle, default to using the mobile layout of Wikipedia, which does not produce a 'river of text' at all, but rather a nonintrusive picture above the introduction text. --Xession (talk) 15:04, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't think that the ledes of Wikipedia articles should ever have left-aligned floating images. Images in the lede should be on the right, and there should be only a single column of images/infoboxes there. That style is consistent across millions of our articles. — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:16, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

• Agree with Carl. Our house style is to eschew such left-aligned images in the lead. In our case, using media on both left and right often produces oddball display output, depending on the monitor used. In addition, we are not 'Many technical and educational books and articles'. Current best practice across the vast majority of WP:MILHIST articles is having mission badges inside the right-aligned infobox. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 02:34, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Left-aligned images in the lead are a blight on Wikipedia. There's not much else to say on this issue. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 06:09, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Kill them with fire! For whatever reason, the universal standard is to use the upper-right corner of an article for a quick-reference identifier. That's where infoboxes go, and infoboxes are universally formatted to allow inclusion of a representative image at the top. If an article editor chooses to put something other than a mission-logo there, then...that editor has chosen to use something other than the mission-logo as the key decoration for the article. WP is definitely not in the business of cloning others' layout standards and use of stylized images as the primary indicator of...anything...but rather primarily focused on content, with images as a supporting role. DMacks (talk) 06:21, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

This issue is already being dealt with. I am not cloning anything in context to mission briefings or press kits. Unmanned spacecraft mission articles are a collection of badly formatted, inconsistent quality. I intend to change that by every means possible. Case closed. --Xession (talk) 06:26, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Your snideness doesn't help get support for your position. But more importantly,putting an image in a "caption" field is an accessibility mess--again, the infoboxes have existed for years and set a caption field for the caption for the associated image, not for any arbitrary other thing you decide should be in that layout region. There may very well be an appropriate place to put the insignia, but please don't try to force it in beyond standard formatting guidelines. "I am not a member of WP:Spaceflight"...then maybe you should consult with them for some advice on how to proceed, since they've been (at least nominally) working on these articles for a while now. It affects many of their articles and they may have some insight into how to do this cleanly. You could ask them to consider whether spacecraft insignia are worthy of including in the infobox, and if so, to consider updating {{Template:Infobox spacecraft}} to include a separate "insignia" field analogous to {{Infobox space mission}}. DMacks (talk) 06:41, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

What support for my position was I gaining? I assumed consensus claimed that the images did not belong on the left, regardless of how small the image was and regardless of removing any possibility of a screen reader reading the code. I do believe, as I stated in the changelog comment for Pioneer 10, that this is simply an issue of bickering group think. There seems to be many other more important issues to apply your time towards. I have since moved the images again, to a potential future placement in the infoboxes. --Xession (talk) 06:59, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Very occasionally I see left-side images that look OK. Mostly they do not, because they get cluttered with right-side images. And let's not forget that they screw up bullet points. I think the MoS should encourage right-side placement as the default, with great care taken in considering left-side placement. Certainly not in the lead. Not enough editors are considering the range of window widths that readers have their display set to; they vary considerably right up to the full width of a 27" monitor (horrid IMO, but people still do it, many WPians included). Image placement needs to consider optimising for all reasonable widths overall. Left-side images often sandwich the text and judder against right-side images. Tony (talk) 06:45, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Dashes

I ran into a case today for which I couldn't quite determine the MoS advice. From 2008 Hungarian Grand Prix:

"The teams, also known as 'constructors', were Ferrari, McLaren-Mercedes, Renault, Honda, Force India-Ferrari, BMW Sauber, Toyota, Red Bull-Renault, Williams-Toyota and Toro Rosso-Ferrari."

Should these partnerships be en dashes? --Andy Walsh (talk) 21:18, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

According the this, that would make sense. However, it seems rather minor. --Xession (talk) 21:24, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Nominally all of these 'partnerships' were team-sponsor and team-supplier relationships, e.g. the second only indicates what motors are used. I think this is a case of conjunction. --Rontombontom (talk) 22:21, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

All partnerships should be conjunctive; but this question would be unnecessary if MOS's advice were in accord with MOS:FOLLOW and our "rules" were explanations of the observations. What do the sources use? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:21, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

"I think this is a case of conjunction. " -> "I think" = "original research". Use what the sources used; they are not yours to interpret.Skookum1 (talk) 00:58, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Stylizing text is most certainly not original research. No new information is gathered or inferred by changing the way something is displayed. Using what the source used is generally advised, but not mandated if it could be displayed in a more appropriate and consistent manner in relation to Wikipedia. --Xession (talk) 01:01, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it is OR, even if unimportant OR. If in fact we are making up Force India–Ferrari, with a dash, we are asserting something which does not exist; if we are giving it vastly more prominence than English writing does, we are violating WP:UNDUE. A coherent argument that this invention is more appropriate and consistent when it is illiterate has never been made; if made, it belongs at each article which would include it, not here. Consider the reasoning involved in these policies: Our readers do not benefit from something a Wikipedian has made up, or a fringe view asserted as fact. Are our readers interested in a Wikipedia convention, or are they interested in how English spells something? Most will be interested in neither; but if they are, they will be interested in the second - indeed, readers unaware of our vandals and our language reformers will assume that we dash because English does. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:41, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

In the example you provide, if the editor is presenting a falsity, it is not original research, rather it is simply false information. Original research is vastly different from making making false assertions. Secondly, there would be no possible way to do original research to assert such a possible truthful claim, beyond calling each organization and asking them. Seeing it on a website, presented in a particular manner, regardless of the improper use of symbols, is simply research of a topic that is both unoriginal and available to all without the need for you to cite yourself as proof of the assertion. Lastly, the visible difference between an en dash and a dash, and the population of people aware of the difference, are small and would have very little impact to the meaning for the general audience, regardless of falsity. This is what you would call, "making a mountain out of a mole hill." Debate something more important. --Xession (talk) 01:51, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I agree this is trivial; but the correct solution to a triviality is to revert to general principles. Rather than trying to invent our own language, use MOS:FOLLOW: find a single instance of Force India-Ferrari before discussing whether it should be dashed; if it isn't, it shouldn't be. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:07, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I just want you to know that you are a very unpleasant person to deal with. --Andy Walsh (talk) 02:16, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

What have I said? That we might try writing English as she exists? Why is this unpleasant? Do you really prefer making up Newspeak? And if so, why not do it at the conlang sites intended for the purpose, where nobody will object? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:17, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I suggest that you use en dashes and stop reading this thread. It's not likely to improve. Ozob (talk) 02:28, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Or you can use the natural punctuation (which would be hyphens) and stop paying any attemtion to MOS. It has improved slightly - and may continue to do so - but not quickly. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:17, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Hold the horses. This is a discussion on interpreting sources, not an entry in a Wikipedia article to which WP:OR could apply. And it is a discussion on formatting style, where, as I was made aware recently, Wikipedia does recommend changes relative to appearance in sources, most prominently in WP:ALLCAPS.

Regarding common usage in F1 combination team names, that's a difficult call. If you check some pages (for example this one) on the website of BBC, the main English-language F1 broadcaster and thus source number one, you'll note that they are ASCII barbarians, using (single) hyphens everywhere and not using en and em dashes at all. The same is true for the official F1 site (example). I searched various newspaper sites for "Brawn Mercedes" (a combination team name that should come up most often), and can't find any use of en dashes to connect the team and motor supplier. Hyphen is in overwhelming use, for example, in British newspaper The Guardian, which does use en dashes in its web appearance (in the linked article too). Occasionally a space (also The Guardian) or a slash (some blogs, US sites) is used as separator. --Rontombontom (talk) 10:51, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Even a B-grade rag such as The Sydney Morning Herald uses spaced en dashes as separators. Tony (talk) 13:03, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

For F1 teams? Can you link to an example? --Rontombontom (talk) 13:23, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

The Telegraph has the same usage as The Guardian. For example here, they do use en dashes: "It is a risky game plan – traffic is always something of a lottery from that far back – but then..." ...but not for F1 teams: "1st row Lewis Hamilton (GBR/McLaren-Mercedes) Adrian Sutil (GER/Force India-Mercedes)" --Rontombontom (talk) 13:55, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Interestingly, I've dug up some hard copy race publications I've collected over the years (read: box of junk in the garage) and they pretty consistently use unspaced en dashes when writing about partnerships. On the web, rarely. I blame ignorance of typography on the part of webmasters and web editors, or plain laziness in figuring out how to render en dashes in HTML. --Andy Walsh (talk) 19:24, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Em dash around subtitle

I have a source that has a title in all caps, and a subtitle in title case and enclosed by em dashes on both sides, with spaces. The title and subtitle are repeated in the same format, only in the same line, at the top of every odd-numbered page. How should I render it in a cite journal |title= parameter? Both title and subtitle in title case, and leave both em dashes around the subtitle, but remove spaces? --Rontombontom (talk) 22:09, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Search for the article title on scholar.google.com - and see how it is cited. My bet would be both in title case, joined by a semi-colon. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:34, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

The em dashes and the all-caps are just artefacts of header formatting by that journal (like the font and font-size they've chosen). I would be inclined to use a colon, and definitely not the all-caps. Probably, "Risk management in a large-scale new railway transport system project: evaluation of Korean high speed railway experience". Use title case, I suppose, if every other item in that ref list does, but sentence case would be better for all. We can't do anything about the illiterate omission of the second "a" or the absence of the hyphenated "high-speed". Tony (talk) 03:38, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Cited three times. All three are title case; one uses a colon; one a dash (I think); one parentheses around the subtitle. All of them hyphenate large-scale. I would use parens, since it make the omission of an before Evaluation less glaring. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:05, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the suggestions and help. There is a fourth citation that does the trick with an ugly line break, and scholar.google.com seems to prefer a dot, but I went with the parentheses. Regarding source errors that can't be corrected, I'd also put a "the" before "Korean"; but I don't think someone writing in a second language not closely related to the mother tongue should be accused of illiteracy for such mistakes. --Rontombontom (talk) 08:39, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

The before Korean changes the meaning slightly, implying that the paper surveys the whole of the Korean evidence; whether this would have been intended by a native speaker is not clear. I should add that one of the citations also hyphenates high-speed although it looks like Korean High Speed Railway may be a proper noun (and so unhyphenated).Septentrionalis PMAnderson

South Korea has a single high-speed railway transport system run by the state, and at the time the article was written, no part of that system was in operation yet, so yes, it was about the whole of the Korean evidence at the time. The proper noun would be Korea Train Express (also the title of the article where I am using the source). --Rontombontom (talk) 23:10, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

"MOS:"

There's a discussion about whether non-Manual of Style pages should use shortcuts prefixed with "MOS:" over at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2011_January_8#MOS:ALT. Any comments would be appreciated. Thanks! Mhiji 18:18, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

10 word long titles? Huh?

"Titles should be short—preferably fewer than ten words.[2]"

Ten words for a title–even a subtitle– seems really long, and the source doesn't quite confirm this either. Shouldn't this be closer to 2 to 4 words at most?AerobicFox (talk) 04:31, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

A few examples just off my current watchlist:

• Population history of indigenous peoples of the Americas
• 95th Civil Affairs Brigade (United States)
• List of North American cities by year of foundation

Try fitting any of these in under 4 words or less. Heiro 04:44, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Or items such as this:

• • Conversion on the Way to Damascus
  • Salome with the Head of John the Baptist (Caravaggio), Madrid, both paintings by the artist Caravaggio. Heiro 04:54, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

If the title is of a book or something which has a name that long of course the title should be that long. However some of these could be shortened:

• Population history of indigenous peoples of the Americas
  • Population of early Americas
  • Population of pre-Colombian Americas
• 95th Civil Affairs Brigade (United States)
  • 95th Civil Affairs Brigade

Clearly things like "List of" are automatically going to have two additional words "list of" and need not be shortened. Also titles of songs, paintings, groups, etc, should remain the same. Nonetheless, only one of those you cited even had 10 words in it(the name of a painting). Is there any reason this is at 10, and not say 8?, or 5?AerobicFox (talk) 05:23, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Population of what in the early Americas? birds? lizards? buffalo? indigenous peoples?

95th Civil Affairs Brigade-of what country?

• • List of sites and peoples visited by the Hernando de Soto Expedition
  • National Register of Historic Places listings in Athens County, Ohio

Some subjects just can not be boiled down into 4 words, or they lose their specificity, such as Art of the Edo period, plus some thing get their titles from their real life most common terms, as in art works, scientific or artistic concepts, etc. I'm not sure why the cutoff is ten, but it seems a reasonable number to me. Heiro 05:48, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I was going to actually change "Art of the Edo period" to "Edo period art" since if someone is looking for art of the Edo period, it is much more likely they will start typing in "Edo Period..." and then have "Edo Period art" pop up under the search bar than typing in "Art of..." where they get "Art of Fighting", "Art of Noise", "Art of memory", etc. Nonetheless I suppose it's fine as it is. It just seems like a really low goal to aim for—less than 10.AerobicFox (talk) 05:57, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I think its more to keep titles as succinct as possible, so as to avoid the proliferation of Whole sentence style titles for subjects not many people care about with excess verbiage and extraneous details 06:02, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

• This is the longest one I know of, but there's a much longer formal title hiding behind Sino-British Joint Declaration. And if anyone here wants to take a stab at the record, try creating an article about this. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 06:25, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
  • And that is why Hong Kong needs a manual of style.AerobicFox (talk) 06:35, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the example-posters, but if anyone thinks that the word "ten" might give people title-expanding ideas, we could just take out the number. "A few words," would do the trick and keep enough flexibility for necessarily complex titles. Darkfrog24 (talk) 13:55, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

The longest title I have ever seen suggested was: [[The Supreme Council (Mother Council of the World) of the Inspectors General Knights Commander of the House of the Temple of Solomon of the Thirty-third Degree of the Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite of Freemasonry of the Southern Jurisdiction of the United States of America]] ... The argument was that this was the "official" name of the organization and so should be used as the article title... thankfully we were able to convince people to use Supreme Council, Scottish Rite (Southern Jurisdiction, USA) instead (on the grounds that the shorter version was actually more common).

That said, I could agree to removing the specific number. Reword to something like:

• Ideally, titles should be short — using as few words as possible to accurately indicate the topic of the article" Blueboar (talk) 14:26, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

"Thoughts should be short, preferably two to four words". Geez, worded that way it's like a dictum from the Ministry of Truth in 1984 (there it was "sentences"). "Thou shalt not have complicated thoughts" or the like - "don't use long sentences, it hurts my brain" (of which WP:TLDR is a manifestation). The post-literate era has arrived and inflicts itself on the literate....The re Scottish Rite title above, the official name of the city of Bangkok in Thai is over 100 words long and begins with the phrase "Royal City of Angels"....just something I remember from my Bangkok guidebook from years ago (which quoted the first twenty words, though in Roman script); Bangkok is a foreign/outside word/usage that has become the standard.Skookum1 (talk) 17:39, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

A title is supposed to capture the eye, and something asking people to think deflects their eyes away from it. I like this suggestion "Ideally, titles should be short — using as few words as possible to accurately indicate the topic of the article"AerobicFox (talk) 23:20, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Titles are covered under WP:TITLE, which does have brevity as one of its five principles; this is a summary. TITLE does not give a limit, and there should not be one; a shorter title is better than a long one, other things being equal; five words are better than ten, and two better still. But often other things aren't equal; as a prinicipal example, another principle is Recognizability, which is the argument we should title the articles on the Caravaggios by what they are called (disambiguating when necessary). Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:31, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Hard to disagree with that. The MoS should reflect this advice, too. Tony (talk) 03:41, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Agreeing from my side also.AerobicFox (talk) 05:17, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I concur with AerobicFox's previous observations if we were a media publication looking for "catchy" titles (see Strunk and White). But not for encyclopedic entitling. A name "Kings of France" is objective and tiresome. Also accurate. But neither as catchy nor simple as "French Kings." I think we are striving towards the former (objectivity) and trying to get our fellow editors to relinquish "catchy" media-oriented titles. (I don't know about 10 words though. That does seem long). Student7 (talk) 01:47, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

• I don't agree: titles should be as short as possible. Readers don't like reading long ones, and it is a great advantage if they don't wrap onto a second line (even if the reader has chosen a narrow window width—many people do). Long titles can usually be trimmed without much trouble: they need contain only the kernel that distinguishes them from the surrounding titles, and to provide some sort of comprehensible flow in the ToC. Sometimes, yes, it's hard not to have long title; but this should be rare. Tony (talk) 01:55, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

The longest title in words is (and has been (at least the tie) longest in characters (since it hits the software limit) for some years) Dante And Randal And Jay And Silent Bob And A Bunch Of New Characters And Lando, Take Part In A Whole Bunch Of Movie Parodies Including But Not Exclusive To, The Bad News Bears, The Last Starfighter, IN Jones And The Temple Of Doom, Plus A High Scho. As I remember there is a sequel or prequel which also runs up against the maxlength buffers.

Other long titles in words are:

Note that the 35 word title The hill of the flute playing by Tamatea — who was blown hither from afar, had a circumcised penis, grazed his knees climbing mountains, fell on the earth, and encircled the land — to his beloved redirects to Taumatawhakatangihangakoauauotamateapokaiwhenuakitanatahu, only one word, but hardly easier to remember or type.

Rich Farmbrough, 14:46, 19 February 2011 (UTC).

I think you may have some duplicates in there, Rich. That said, quite a few of these are titles of creative works, government acts and other proper nouns, which cannot be shortened. So the current, general advice is good, as long as it's not applied too mechanically. Anyway, this is really WP:ARTICLETITLE stuff, though it does have implications for section titles, which do fall under MOS. oknazevad (talk) 15:27, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

A lot of them are redirects, of course, and do look similar, I can assure you that they aren't otherwise the same. For your viewing pleasure the 41 article space titles over 199 characters long are listed at user:Rich Farmbrough/temp227 - many are the same as the above but Lopado­temacho­selacho­galeo­kranio­leipsano­drim­hypo­trimmato­silphio­parao­melito­katakechy­meno­kichl­epi­kossypho­phatto­perister­alektryon­opte­kephallio­kigklo­peleio­lagoio­siraio­baphe­tragano­pterygon isn't. Rich Farmbrough, 15:31, 19 February 2011 (UTC).

I think we have consensus with the concept that titles should be as short as possible, with the understanding that "short" is not always possible. On a related issue... we do have a technology based character limit for titles... we should probably mention that. Blueboar (talk) 15:22, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Might be a little BEANSy? Rich Farmbrough, 15:32, 19 February 2011 (UTC).

How about "Short titles are preferred to long titles." ? Rich Farmbrough, 15:34, 19 February 2011 (UTC).