Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 154

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 150←Archive 152Archive 153Archive 154Archive 155Archive 156→Archive 160

"Rave", "universal", "overwhelmingly positive" and other shit

Hello fellow Wikipedians. It has come to my attention that there is a lack of consensus among the community about how to summarise an entertainment product's critical reception. Such "products" would encompass books, films, albums, songs and video games, and as such the issue can be applied to articles within the scope of multiple WikiProjects. The "summary" in question refers to the statement usually found at the beginning of a "Critical reception" section and echoed in the lede that gives the reader a short, one-sentence summary of the product's reception.

The problem I identify is that while we do our best to summarise using language attributed to WP:RS, our word choices often violate our WP:PEACOCK policy and more often than not stray into WP:OR territory. One of the best examples I can find is the article Yeezus, having passed a GA Review with this language; "The album received rave reviews from music critics". Dictionary.com considers the word an informal term. The usage of the word on Yeezus ignited a widespread debate where no clear consensus was established, and the language has remained. It is adopted in other articles, such as Beyoncé (album) and Good Kid, M.A.A.D City.

Common among articles as well is the usage of "universal", a term defined as " relating to or done by all people or things in the world or in a particular group; applicable to all cases". Such language suggests that, quite literally, the product in question received an entirely positive reception among any person capable of being receptive to it. A similar problem is brought out by the use of "overwhelming", which could perhaps imply that reviewers were literally taken aback by the brilliance of the product to the point of being unable to perform other bodily functions until their fingers typed up a review to summarise their experience.

You could say I'm being hyperbolic. I feel that neutrality, one of the project's biggest problems (knives out, wolves of Conservapedia), is being exacerbated by the use of such language. It's in direct conflict with our MoS policy on peacock words, yet such handles have been so widely used now with no direct policy in the MoS to address them.

Proponents of the language may put forward the argument that it is supported by reliable sources, making it okay. We often use Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic as our bible, echoing the language used by these sources. Now here's my thesis: if the language is echoed by a reliable source, why is it not being directly attributed to it? When summarising reviews in an article, the language may be supported by sources. I propose that if such is the case, we have a duty to our readers to clearly attribute the peacock language to the source. In doing so we remove the bias from the language by clarifying that the language is not our own. In these instances, there should quotation marks around the term with a footnote directing the reader to the usage of the language by the source.

This, I feel, is an appropriate compromise for those who feel that the language is backed up by the sources, and those who feel that it introduces bias into the article. I propose the drafting of a new policy in the MoS, based on consensus among us, that clearly explains how, in the scenarios where the writer boldly wishes to use such language, it is to be written and verified.

tl;dr - If we're going to be using peacock language when summarising critical reception, we need to make it crystal clear that the language is not being used by us, but rather is attributed to a reliable source

CR4ZE (t • c) 13:54, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

This is definitely something that needs to be discussed. I agree that any peacock language should be quoted, and/or attributed to the source in which that language is used. I would suggest that the word "mostly" be used when describing something that received critical acclaim. I'm relatively new to Wikipedia, however, so I'm not an expert in this field. Twyfan714 (talk) 14:00, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
I think when a product has something like over 90% positive reception, we can use the phrase "overwhelmingly positive" without it being POV or peacock. In these cases, it's just a statement of fact. Adding a cite for it is fine, but it should be presented later in the prose anyway. In other cases (e.g. 80% positive reception), we can use the more tame terms "generally positive" or just "positive".
"Rave" should never be used, as it is informal and lacks concrete definition. Similarly, "universal" shouldn't be used either unless something was REALLY, literally universally hailed, like the invention of sliced bread. Just my $.02. — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 14:51, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
Bah! Its rave reviews made tearing and dunking comparatively barbaric, and now I never get invited to dinner parties. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:24, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
We have guidelines at WP:SUBSTANTIATE and WP:TONE that can apply here. I think that Wikipedia's goal of having a formal tone means that we should avoid using informal words like "rave". I would also say that "universal" is too hyperbolic to be "clear and understandable" per WP:TONE. In regard to films (since Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic were mentioned), WikiProject Film has guidelines at MOS:FILM#Critical response that says, "The overall critical response to a film should be supported by attributions to reliable sources. Avoid weasel words. If any form of paraphrasing is disputed, quote the source directly. Detailed commentary from reliable sources of the critics' consensus (or lack thereof) for a film is encouraged." The part about disputing paraphrasing comes from muddled attempts to interpret Rotten Tomatoes or Metacritic, especially when Rotten Tomatoes just says a review is positive or negative, never mixed. (E.g., The Avengers has a similar RT % to Gravity, but Gravity's Metacritic score is much higher due to Metacritic actually classifying some reviews as mixed.) I don't think it's a matter of guidelines lacking -- they are just being overlooked and need to be enforced better. There's pretty constant discussion at WikiProject Film in this regard, and we talk out the best ways to report on critical reception. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 17:44, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
Erik, though Rotten Tomatoes states "Fresh" or "Rotten," I don't think it's accurate to state that it says that a film is either positive or negative; its critical consensus summary is more indicative of what the critics there felt, and we all know that 50%, for example, is not simply positive or simply negative. What we really have with regard to Rotten Tomatoes seeming positive or negative because of their fresh rating is that they did not think of a term to indicate something between fresh and rotten. Flyer22 (talk) 21:40, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
Rotten Tomatoes says so itself here, "A good review is denoted by a FRESH red tomato. A bad review is denoted by a ROTTEN green tomato." It's similar enough to be interchangeable. It says here that it does not do mixed ratings to keep it simple. Whenever I cite Rotten Tomatoes now, I make it absolutely clear that it only does positive/negative classifications, and indicate that Metacritic does a positive/mixed/negative breakdown. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 00:35, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
I don't really count Flixster as Rotten Tomatoes, parent company or not. But either way, I still see it as fact that "[the Rotten Tomatoes] critical consensus summary is more indicative of what the critics there felt." If they feel that a film is bad, they state so in clear enough words; when a film there has a 59% score, for example, never is the film indicated as a purely bad film by their summary, and it would be silly anyway to state that a film is bad because it's 1% away from a 60% "good" score, a rating that can change very easily depending on one or more extra reviews. Anyway, what do you mean you "make it absolutely clear that it only does positive/negative classifications"? We shouldn't be adding "Rotten Tomatoes only judges films as good or bad," or something similar, to our critical reception sections, especially when their critical consensus summary shows otherwise. Flyer22 (talk) 00:50, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps an issue in this context is that, in general, critical responses are not summaries of critical response, while those sites that make it their business to summarize critical response are not attributed. Our purposes fall somewhere between. --Ring Cinema (talk) 19:13, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

  • In general, we have far to many quotes in our critical reception sections, especially for commercial music and films. Why quote a review that says "rave" at all? Doesn't it just transfer the hyperbole (and potentially the POV) from there to here? And I think "overwhelmingly positive" is bad even if it's 99% -- too emotional (who is supposed to be overwhelmed?) "Extremely positive" may be OK, or write in terms of "a large majority". --Stfg (talk) 19:53, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
    • We need to make a distinction here. The concern here is how to neutrally word the summary of a work's overall critical reception. It is not about quoting an individual critic's opinion. In this case, we should be talking about sources that summarize how critics are responding to a given work. We can (should?) attribute the sources in-text and paraphrase any hyperbolic quotations with a formal tone. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 20:58, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
That is what we often do for the critical reception sections of film articles, Twyfan714; we add "generally" or "mostly" in clear-cut cases, though some WP:FILM editors would rather that we not, especially because what is clear-cut on these matters can sometimes be debatable; such a matter has been recently discussed at WP:FILMMOS, which, until a few minutes ago, I thought this latest discussion was also taking place at; that's the talk page such discussions are supposed to be made at with regard to films. All WP:FILM editors are against adding "generally mixed," though, because it is senseless; see this latest discussion there about that, where I point to past discussions about film critical reception sections. Flyer22 (talk) 01:05, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

@Erik and Stfg - In some cases, editors may summarise reviews by adopting language used by a journalist; they don't just take from review aggregates. In regards to the use of the word "rave", in the Yeezus article I cited, the usage of the word has in fact been attributed to a journalist, not an aggregate like Rotten Tomatoes. Reading through the long talk page debate, Dan56's justification was that the word exists in the dictionary and can be attributed to reliable sources. I don't consider that an adequate justification, especially not with how it was written, which is why I feel this debate is important so that we can avoid contention in the future. My argument is that if editors wish to do so, I certainly would never agree with it, but they should at least put "quotations" around the statement and provide a footnote directing to its usage. It's good to see that MOS:FILM#Critical response attempts to address this, however I don't think it quite covers all the usages and wouldn't stand up if it was brought into video game or album articles. This is why I would propose a uniform policy that applies to all entertainment mediums; peacock terms are best avoided, but if you wish to use them they should be directly attributed to an RS to remove bias.

@Twyfan714 and Flyer22 - I think terms like "generally" or "mostly" (or the synonymous "largely") remove a great deal of bias in comparison with the excessive "rave" and "universal" terms. However, I think on a by-case basis, editors should carefully consider how they would justify such language, because the attribution is certainly debatable. CR4ZE (t • c) 06:50, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, any peacock language must carry quotes and a source. However, too many vague quantifiers could make for vague articles. As I mentioned above, it isn't the usual thing for a reviewer to attempt a summary of critical response, and a heavy dose of skepticism should greet such an effort anyway. Memories are fuzzy, if I recall correctly. --Ring Cinema (talk) 07:36, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
<shrug> It's also about Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch and WP:NPOV (not to exclude others, perhaps). --Stfg (talk) 10:27, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
Agreed. It's as much an issue to do with language as it is to do with sources. As long as we have one coordinated place to discuss it, that shouldn't matter. CR4ZE (t • c) 10:53, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
@CR4ZE - I think that if over 75% of the reviews on Rotten Tomatoes or Metacritic are positive, then I think we could safely put "mostly" or "generally" without there being too much of a fuss. Now of course, for something that is not on those two sites (or any site that sums up reviews and is reliable), then it gets to be more difficult. But how does that sound? Twyfan714 (talk) 13:44, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
@Twyfan714 - Yes, I agree with you on that, but you just have to be careful as to what constitutes "mostly". Here's one problem with Metacritic; if a video game receives a score of 89, it is deemed "generally favourable reviews", yet if it receives a 90 it gets "universal acclaim". There's no attribution between "okay" and "amazing". We have to go on a by-case basis and use the best language we can, but in some cases, we could go even more neutral; "[x] was well-received by critics" is perhaps the most neutral statement we could use when handling that hazy area between "generally" and "universal". CR4ZE (t • c) 10:29, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Flyer22, my justification at the Yeezus article was more than what you said it was. "Awfully limited language does not demonstrate any neutrality. If the reviews were strong enough for these folks to use 'rave', then that's the tone of the material in question. We're not misleading readers with a perfunctory 'positive reviews' when that can range from lukewarm ('B-' anyone?) to what Metacritic likes to call 'universal acclaim', especially when there are several sources backing it up." In short, if reviewers chose "to talk or write about someone or something in an excited or enthusiastic way" (Merriem-Webster), then they by definition raved about it. The tone of the word would only become a neutrality issue if it wasn't accurate. If reviewers raved about something, I don't see why readers shouldn't know it simply because the tone of the word rubs some the wrong way. In the case of Yeezus, several sources verified the nature of the positive reviews, and if it was only one journalist's choice words, then obviously we'd defer to what most sources said. Dan56 (talk) 00:47, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Dan56, I didn't state anything about your justification at the Yeezus article or anything about you at all in this discussion. Flyer22 (talk) 01:08, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
Forgive me, I meant CR4ZE. This discussion is very messy. Dan56 (talk) 01:11, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
Dan56 - the exact word choices made by reviewers, who have more creative leash when it comes to expressing their opinions, does not give us free rein to use any language we like. We have to be a notch above what a reviewer thinks because the reviewer's words are their own opinion, but if we are to approach the standard of an encyclopedia, we are required to report here with as neutral a tone as we can write. "Rave" is not a neutral term. It is a peacock term, plain and simple. Whether or not a journalist "raves" about the album does not change the context of the attribution when we use it. However, you're far from the point of this discussion - I'm not here to try and get you to change "rave", because you're basically married to it and won't let go. What I'm proposing is that we create new policy that mandates that if we are to use such terms, we remove the bias by treating "rave" as a direct quote from an RS, instead of it being our own language. In the case of the Yeezus article, what I would personally want to see is quotation marks and a footnote around the term "rave" in both the lead and the reception section. WP:LEADCITE requires that we balance the desire to reduce redundant citations in the lead, but for a term which you absolutely cannot deny is contentious I would deem it absolutely necessary. CR4ZE (t • c) 10:29, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

I didn't used to be such a hardliner on this issue, but I now regularly strip out all emotive language and unsourced analysis from reception sections. Although MOS:FILM, WP:SAID, and WP:PEACOCK cover these issues rather well, I think more explicit advice might be helpful – and perhaps help prevent other articles from reaching Good/Featured with such non-neutral language. I would strongly support a blanket ban on "rave", "universal", "overwhelming", "acclaim", "hail", etc. If you wouldn't use the word in a mixed review, don't use it in a positive or negative review. For example:

  • The film received overwhelmingly mixed reviews." What? This doesn't make any sense. Don't use "overwhelmingly".
  • The film received universally mixed reviews." Doesn't make sense. Don't use "universally".
  • Critics raved that it was an average film. Doesn't make sense. Don't use "raved".
  • Critics hailed it as an average film. Doesn't make sense. Don't use "hailed".

Seems almost common sense to me, but what do I know? I'm not a universally acclaimed Wikipedian. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:51, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

NinjaRobotPirate - You nailed it. Explicit advice is exactly what I feel we need, as well. CR4ZE (t • c) 10:29, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
Although it's not only about phrasing that doesn't make sense, but about hype and POV, which, per other examples cited previously, will sometimes make sense on its own terms but hardly be appropriate for an encyclopedia entry. I'd also support explicitly blocking for example "universal acclaim", which appears everywhere, usually based on the specific Metacritic judgment. The problem is that film and music pages are often written by fans, who want to seize on every piece of favourable hyperbole and journalese they can find and cram it in. If you dispute it, they will claim it's sourced, failing to understand, as WP editors often do, that the issue is one about encyclopedic presentation and language, not one about sources per se. N-HH (talk) 10:40, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
To make it clear, what I would personally want to see in a best-case scenario is a total block on all of these POV attributions. However, the editors on the other side of the coin will argue that when the language is used, it's justified in the sources. As I stated above in my response to Dan56, I don't agree with that. I brought it up in my GA review of Threes! but Czar and I happily reached a compromise (with some insight from Sergecross73, Masem and Tezero). That compromise is what I would want to see as an explicit policy; If you're going to use the peacock terms, it's not the best choice, but you're allowed to so long as it is crystal clear that it is coming from a source, not us. Enforcing a total ban will disgruntle too many editors and exacerbate the problem. CR4ZE (t • c) 11:34, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
In the video game context I've also worked with Sergecross73 in a large discussion that eventually turned into an RfC over the term "universal acclaim" here. The word "universal" has a precise definition which is totally at odds with the way Metacritic uses the word. Wikipedia isn't a Metacritic affiliate so we should not be using their terminology unless attributed and in this case we should completely avoid using such a misleading term of art. As for the word "rave", I have fewer problems. Maybe saying "Critics raved about the film" is misleading in that it suggests that all critics raved about it, but the word "raved" isn't a peacock term if it's true. Sometimes critics do rave about a film/game/album/book/etc. So I think it would be acceptable to say something like "Roger Ebert raved about the film, describing it as 'a rare treat of a film - like some exotic tarte poire noisette'[ref1]" as long as it's properly reffed. I suppose it's possibly treading into the territory of original research to use the term, but it's not outrageous in my view. -Thibbs (talk) 11:44, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
CR4ZE, "rave" isn't the reviewer's word, it's the journalists who are reporting how the reviewers received whatever they reviewed. Should we abstain from using "praise" too when articles on a creative work's reception use it to describe how reviewers received it? Dan56 (talk) 14:48, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
I agree that if an RS uses the term "raved" then we can use it and ref it. It seems as though CR4ZE is asking for attribution in this case, though. So we'd say something like "According to XYZ Magazine, critics raved about the film.[ref2]" If we as editors are using the term, again I don't think it's outrageous, but ultimately it's a matter of interpretation. Did a specific reviewer "rave"? Did he "gush"? Did he "laud to the heavens"? Some might argue that any kind of interpretation violates WP:OR and we should just say "Joe Reviewer said 'I would sell my first-born to see the film again'" without seeking to interpret this as a positive or a negative review. This is a very hardline approach. -Thibbs (talk) 14:59, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
Surely the point about "rave" specifically is that it is informal and/or journalese. Just because a newspaper might use the term, that doesn't mean an encyclopedia should, whether referenced and even attributed or not. Things here really need to be written in a more sober, and less definitive and/or hyperbolic, style than even reputable sources might rely on, even when simply describing an individual review or the overall reaction rather than making any direct assertions in WP's own voice. If there's evidence, eg from Rotten Tomatoes or wherever, that most or even all the reviewers singled out rated something positively, we can and probably should just say it was "critically well received" or whatever, not that critics "raved" about it or that it had "universal acclaim"; if we single out an individual review, just take a representative quote. N-HH (talk) 15:23, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
A rave is a certain kind of positive review. It's characterized by excited enthusiasm. I don't see a tone problem in describing the degree of positivity in a review if it's actually sourceable. If for example a normally reserved reviewer gives a wildly enthusiastic review of a work and this fact is noted by an RS then I think we could neutrally point this out in Wikipedia as well. The word "rave" itself shouldn't be put on the list of peacock terms in my view. -Thibbs (talk) 15:33, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
CR4ZE, you keep stating "policy." But we don't have policies on words in the way you are suggesting. We have guidelines and essays, and the main guideline in that regard is Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch (the one others have pointed to when linking to sections of it, such as WP:PEACOCK); that is where you should make your proposal about such words. Since that page is generally inactive, though, it would be best to alert editors of this talk page to any discussion you start there about the matter.
As for "universal acclaim," if we use "universal acclaim" based on Metacritic, then it should be attributed to Metacritic via WP:Intext-attribution, just like we often use WP:Intext-attribution to attribute the other Metacritic ratings; for example, Metacritic's "generally favorable reviews" rating is attributed to them at the The Avengers (2012 film) article. Flyer22 (talk) 15:50, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
I'd just avoid using the term "universal acclaim" completely. It's an exceptional claim and it would require exceptional sourcing. Almost never is something universally acclaimed. Metacritic uses the term in a specific way (>90% positive reviews) that isn't shared by the rest of the world. If we're using it with attribution, I think we'd have to also include a note explaining what Metacritic means by "universal acclaim". -Thibbs (talk) 15:56, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
When WP:Intext-attribution is involved, I disagree. That's what the WP:Intext-attribution guideline is there for -- to make it clear who is stating it. In the case I cited, we are stating that Metacritic judged it that way; it's the same for when Metacritic judges something as "universal acclaim." For film articles, the most we go in explaining what Rotten Tomatoes or Metacritic mean by their classification systems is what you can see in the The Avengers (2012 film) article; we link to review aggregator, the sites' names, sometimes for "average rating" or "rating average" we WP:Pipelink "weighted arithmetic mean," and we state the score based on how many reviews. I don't think that the reception section of film articles or of other type of articles should be digressing into how these rating systems work; if the readers are too lazy to click on the links and the references, that is on them. Flyer22 (talk) 16:15, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Metacritic's usage and goals are different from ours but it's hard to see how quoting them is going to turn out badly. Readers can judge for themselves. --Ring Cinema (talk) 16:17, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Most of Metacritic's terms are comprehensible without further explanation. "Generally favorable reviews" on Metacritic means very nearly the same thing as it does in standard English. The term "universal acclaim," however is quite different from its standard English equivalent. That something is "universal" is an absolute statement in standard English whereas it's only used relatively on Metacritic. Again, it's a exceptional claim and it requires multiple high-quality RSes to back it up. Simply attributing it to Metacritic results in confusion for the reader interpreting it from a standard English perspective. For further discussion of this term see the above-linked RfC. -Thibbs (talk) 16:30, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
Thibbs, like I stated, I can't agree that "universal acclaim" is an "exceptional claim" when it concerns WP:Intext-attribution and that it therefore requires multiple high-quality sources to back it up. If it's specifically Metacritic's terminology, reflecting their rating score, and is attributed as such, no multiple high-quality sources are needed to back it up (it's simply an aspect of reporting Metacritic's rating score), and I'm certain that such a thing will never be endorsed by WP:FILM or the wider Wikipedia community. Flyer22 (talk) 20:14, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
I guess it depends how it's handled. If the line was something like: "The film received what Metacritic described as 'universal acclaim' (an average score of greater than 90%)" then that would be fine because a someone unfamiliar with Metacritic's nonstandard use of the word "universal" would be able to clearly see that criticism may not have in fact been universally positive. If the line was more like: "The film received universal critical acclaim.[ref Metacritic]" then there are big problems even though it's reffed. The fact of the matter is that if there are 100 ratings averages then Metacritic could still call the result "universal acclaim" even if 1 in 10 had scored the film in the single digits. That's misleading. So I'd even have a problem with: "Metacritic noted that the film had received 'universal acclaim'". Without explanation of what "universal acclaim" means, readers are quite likely to interpret it literally. Not everyone is familiar with Metacritic's interesting use of repurposed words. -Thibbs (talk) 21:17, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
Have you looked over the RfC linked above, by the way? There was fairly broad support at the time for simply giving the raw Metacritic score and replacing "universal critical acclaim" with simply "critical acclaim". I think that still makes the most sense. -Thibbs (talk) 21:19, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
Again, this is why I mentioned WP:Intext-attribution and brought up that WP:FILM editors often do their part in assisting readers in understanding the Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic rating systems. It is not our part to go into digressions about those rating systems; readers have the links and the references to assist them on that. And the word noted should generally be avoided, per WP:SAID; the WP:SAID guideline exists to help describe things neutrally and accurately. Flyer22 (talk) 21:24, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
WP:Intext-attribution is fine for sourcing paraphrased comments, but it's really not intended to be used for quoted comments when the quoted material is specialized jargon. The bottom line is that the term has a specialized meaning only comprehensible to those familiar with Metacritic's rating system. Although this rating system can be explained in ever instance on every page where Metacritic is cited, this would seem to violate the MoS as currently written: "Do not introduce new and specialized words simply to teach them to the reader when more common alternatives will do." -Thibbs (talk) 18:58, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Just came across this and as the largest contributor to Beyoncé, I'll offer my two cents. I can't speak for film articles as I haven't been involved in many on a significant level, especially not their Reception sections, but I notice from editing album articles and generally reading music criticism, most albums tend to receive "positive reviews". A significant, but less, amount of albums garner mixed reviews and quite a small number of albums are negatively received. I think it's quite customary for journalists to award a safe 3/5 to albums (perhaps in the interest of the publication), indicative of good music but nothing excellent; a score which would = 60/100, creeping into Metacritic's "positive/generally favorable" band. I think this is why Metacritic has avoided lumping all positively-reviewed albums together, awarding "universal acclaim" to anything 80>, because the album in question is not commonplace and has caused journalists to consider it differently from the standard rock/rap/pop/r'n'b album with some hits, but filler aplenty. @Thibbs: I understand your point, but I think "universal acclaim" has to be read purposively. I don't think the reasonable person would think that the film/album in question has been enjoyed by every reviewer in history, but there is a consensus among journalists that this is an excellent work. —JennKR | ☎ 20:07, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

It's a hyperbolic term. Interpreted literally it's an exceptional claim; interpreted metaphorically it is confusing and in my view it sets an unencyclopedic tone. -Thibbs (talk) 21:17, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
Exactly. As a stylistic/presentation point, the phrase reads horribly and should rather obviously be avoided as being hyperbolic, misleading or both, whichever way you cut it. It's not an answer to that problem to say that it's OK so long as we attribute it and/or that readers can go and find out what Metacritic technically mean by it according to their internal system and terminology. Prima facie, in basic English, it means something very different and much more definitive. N-HH (talk) 22:16, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
If properly attributed with intext language, it's hardly any different to me than relaying that "[So and so] critic stated that the film is the best film ever." Just not a problem with intext attribution, as far as I'm concerned. Flyer22 (talk) 00:58, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
N-HH, I think you're point about an encyclopedia shouldn't have to use the term was brought up at the discussion in the Yeezus article talk page, where I pointed out that encyclopedias have used it (Oxford, Brittanica) If that's the case, would it in any way change your position? Dan56 (talk) 01:39, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
Well, @Flyer22, the immediate point here was about "universal acclaim". As for your links re "rave reviews", they don't show widespread usage; if anything, they suggest it's not commonly found in encyclopedic writing, even if it is once or twice. I guess like any other phrase, it would be fine with attribution and as a specific quote but I'm not sure even then it would ever be needed as such. Again I do not think it is OK to say in WP's voice, for example, simply "Album X received rave reviews" even with a footnote and reference.
Back to "universal acclaim", and @Dan, of course there's obvious difference between saying "According to Critic A, it was the best film ever" and "According to a review aggregator site, the film had universal acclaim". The first statement clearly simply reports the critic's personal view, and will obviously be read as such. Even if one believes the critic's view is "wrong", the statement stands as a fact. By contrast, the second purports to convey a more objective, definitive and quasi-scientific judgment to the effect that every single critic acclaimed the film, when that is not what the Metacritic rating means and unlikely to ever be the case. Sure, you can say "well no one will believe it literally means that" but some people may well do. Equally, it's an odd defence to argue that it's OK to use phrases that don't actually mean what they literally appear to because people will realise they don't mean what they appear to. Why not use a phrase which does mean what it appears to, and is neither misleading nor hyperbolic, such as "critically well received"? N-HH (talk) 09:05, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
I know this was @Dan, but in my opinion, and as I said before, most things are "well received" by journalists. In an ideal world, I don't think 60-70% would mean "well received" but it just has come to do so, by Metacritic and the reviewers themselves. I think these terms have been necessary to distinguish good albums/films from excellent albums/films. You can argue they are hyperbolic, but if an album/film does receive "rave/extremely positive/etc." reviews, I don't see the problem with including and attributing this as surely the hyperbole must derive from the enthusiasm of the journalists, the very thing we must present? Fundamentally, we are writing about people's opinion, and if people's opinion is truly enthusiastic, then why not report it as so? Also, when the Metacritic score is inserted, universal acclaim is always done in quotation marks, i.e. At Metacritic, which assigns a normalized rating out of 100 to reviews from music critics, the album received an average score of 100, which indicates "universal acclaim", based on X reviews, is this problematic? I mean, a footnote could be inserted explaining universal acclaim is awarded to a score of 80>, but I think the quotation marks certainly imply it's their words and not WP's. —JennKR | ☎ 12:19, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
I see little reason to directly quote a misleading statement when a perfectly comprehensible paraphrasing can be achieved with minimal effort. Metacritic is an aggregator so it's not supposed to be expressing its own journalistic enthusiasm. It purports to be aggregating reviews from a select universe of critics. When it claims that there is "universal acclaim" it isn't expressing an opinion. It's categorizing using a specialized jargon that means something different from the common usage (i.e. that all critics in the Metacritic universe acclaimed the work). As editors we spend much of our time paraphrasing sources rather than directly quoting them. Rephrasing "universal critical acclaim" to "widespread critical acclaim" or something similar would avoid the problem of readers mistakenly thinking that "universal" means "universal" in this context. -Thibbs (talk) 12:37, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
N-HH, about "rave reviews" and links, you must have been talking to Dan56, because I was not speaking on that topic.
JennKR, I think 60% and 70% would mean well received...generally well received...in an ideal world as much as it means that in this world, unless an ideal world means unanimous critical reception (as in everybody liked the work). 70% is a significant majority. Both 60% and 70% indicate a significant majority, which is why percentages in that high of a range are held up as a majority matter in various aspects of life. Of course Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic represent portions of the world's professional critics, not the vast majority of the world's professional critics, but, when it comes to the western world, if a film gets over 70% (or let's go higher and say 90%) based on over 300 critical reviews, I don't think it's good logic to say that the film likely would have done much worse if only 300 or so more professional film critics had weighed in. I feel that way because western critics may have their own tastes that have a lot to do with western society and the beliefs of that society, and these tastes can therefore be out of step with other cultures' tastes; for example, when a western film is loved by American and British critics, but is panned by Japanese critics. If, for example, a film failed to impress 300 or so professional film critics within a given society, I don't think it's likely that the score would drastically change to positive if only 300 more professional film critics from that society weighed in. As for "universal acclaim," I've already made myself quite clear on that topic. As you can see, I agree with Thibbs when it comes to "universal acclaim" without WP:Intext-attribution, but I disagree with him when it comes to the notion that there is even a problem when WP:Intext-attribution is used for "universal acclaim." Flyer22 (talk) 16:17, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
Also, as shown at Metacritic article, "universal acclaim" does not necessarily mean "all critics in the Metacritic universe"; rather it means the vast majority of critics who participated in judging that work. Flyer22 (talk) 16:34, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
And I guess that's my point. At Metacritic, "universal acclaim" does not necessarily mean "all critics in the Metacritic universe" whereas in the rest of the world that's exactly what it would mean. That's confusing for a reader unfamiliar with Metacritic. For the record I agree with Flyer22's idea that it is possible through disclaimers and attribution to directly use the term "universal acclaim," but it seems to me that it's something that should be avoided in the interest of minimizing reader confusion. There isn't actually any need for Wikipedia to use the term exactly as Metacritic does even if it's possible through carefully worded attribution. Neutral standard-English paraphrasing (as practiced throughout the rest of Wikipedia) should be good enough for articles on topics that Metacritic has covered. -Thibbs (talk) 11:41, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, apologies, I got my @s the wrong way round in the 9.05 post above .. N-HH (talk) 22:07, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

N-HH, I hope you're not assuming any critics were cited as sources for statements such as "the album received rave reviews" or whatever, or that it's a case of "According to Critic A, it was the best film ever". It's an objective journalist who, in the case of the Yeezus article, reported on the album's reception in an article for the International Business Times ([1]). Why are we calling this source's objectivity into question? It's not a critic. Furthermore, in Channel Orange#Critical reception, the sentence "received rave reviews" is attributed to an article written by Metacritic founder Jason Dietz. These aren't critics being cited to support what you feel are hyperbolic phrases. Dan56 (talk) 22:09, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

No, I said nothing about critics being cited as sources for "rave reviews" or "universal acclaim" and nothing I have said is in response to any such assumption (although as it happens of course there is a significant overlap between critics and journalists, and the idea that journalists are by definition "objective", on matters of arts and culture or anything else, would be news to many people). I simply talked about the phrases in their own right and, in fact, explicitly said that the problem with the former was that it was "journalese". Nor did I call any source's objectivity into question (although, as noted just now, I would quite happily if relevant). Finally, as noted above, I flipped my @s by mistake and my comment about "According to Critic A" was directed at Flyer, who made the point about critics suggesting a film might be the "best ever". Hope that clarifies everything. N-HH (talk) 22:22, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
I still think this is a WP:UNDUE issue, not a MOS one, really, but I have to question the utility of ever, at all, using "rave views" and the like, no matter who it's sourced to. Editorial commentary in journalistic sources is basically categorically unreliable noise on something like this. See also the discussion elsewhere about using "award-winning"; it's the same crap. Doesn't matter if 50 sources say it. Journalistic sources use puffery and filler like this constantly, but there's nothing encyclopedic about it.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  13:45, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
The comments about it being unencyclopedic language here should stop. Encyclopedias have used this language before (Oxford, Brittanica, [2]). Also, if critics really did "talk or write with extravagent enthusiasm" about something, then it fits the definition of the word. Dan56 (talk) 22:32, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
People are offering legitimate views and judgment about what is encyclopedic language or not. There's no reason they should stop suggesting "rave reviews" is not, just because you happen to take the opposite view. As for your three links, you've already provided two of them I think previously; and, at that point, received the immediate response (albeit addressed by me to the wrong username) that, if anything, those search results show how infrequently the phrase crops up in encyclopedias. As for dictionary definitions, what the word means is not in dispute; this is about the tone of the writing and WP:WTW (and hence also a valid issue for MOS-based discussion). N-HH (talk) 15:32, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but "infrequently"? 46,400 results for "positive reviews" vs. 156,000 results for "rave reviews". As for the tone, if the tone fits, what's the argument? Are any of the editors who are offering this view backing it up with anything other than the personal impression the word makes on them? Dan56 (talk) 05:04, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
Um, you initially limited the search to encyclopedias in Google Books, as I noted in turn when I said the links suggest it crops up "infrequently .. in encyclopedias". What you're trying to show by suddenly linking to a full Google Books search which throws up recipe books, blurbs from novels and "The Dimwit's Dictionary" I do not know. It certainly doesn't justify querying my observation. And the point is precisely that the tone, according to many, does not fit. We are allowed to exercise some judgment here rather than simply genuflecting to raw random Google search numbers. Anyway, I'm done. I've offered my view FWIW and there doesn't seem to be much point continuing this individual meta-debate with you given the non-sequiturs and random moving of goalposts that keep coming. N-HH talk/edits 09:06, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
Again, what is backing this argument up? What language do encyclopedias use in place of "rave reviews"? I'm assuming your argument is that encyclopedias use more appropriate language than "rave reviews", so prove it. Dan56 (talk) 02:36, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Proposal

Having left the debate to roar on for a little while, it seems that the majority of the editors involved will agree with me that the usage of peacock terms such as "rave" and "universal" are inappropriate. Some contend with me that if particular editors want to use such language, its attribution to reliable sources should be made to be clearer when written. I need to make it clear to editors on both sides of the debate that, per my opening comments, I am not here to eliminate all instances of "rave" from Wikipedia. Rather, it was my intention to gauge how to frame a policy that explicitly restricts the usage of such language. It's clear that there are strong feelings either way; I knew that before opening the debate, and it's even clearer now. As such, I believe that the 'compromise' between opposing views I suggested in the original comment would be appropriate. I would like to hear feedback on the drafting of a new policy that discusses how to use language and attribute potentially peacock reviews when writing critical reception sections in articles. CR4ZE (t • c) 12:23, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

I doubt a whole new policy is warranted. The basic issue here is how to interpret the existing policies/guidelines/MoS-es. But I also think this topic should be split into 2 discussions covering:
  • 1) the use of precise but counter-intuitive jargon like Metacritic's "universal acclaim" and
  • 2) the use of imprecise but intuitive rhetoric like "rave reviews," "overwhelmingly positive reviews," etc.
Treating it like that, I think #1 is already covered by WP:JARGON and WP:INTEXT. And something should be done to correct the growing problem.
As for #2 I'm still not convinced that it's a huge problem. Maybe it would be good to insert some language into WP:SUBJECTIVE to the effect that WP:BIASED (and Wikipedia:NPOV#Bias in sources) applies to all aesthetic opinions including reviews of artworks and media. -Thibbs (talk) 12:47, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
  • I think it's reasonable to infer from the extant policy that potentially contentious words should be used in direct quotation attribution to a reliable source. I don't see the need for new policy and I don't see a growing problem. czar ♔ 21:13, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
991 instances of the term "universal acclaim" doesn't seem like a growing problem? I doubt it happened over night. Look through the results linked above. Most are not properly attributed and even for those that are there's simply no good reason to introduce new and specialized words simply to teach them to the reader when more common alternatives will do. There's nothing special about Metacritic that would suggest that its unusual expressions must be quoted verbatim. A paraphrase-oriented cleanup is sorely in order. -Thibbs (talk) 21:44, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
I think we need something that more explicitly deals with this issue. I would like to insert into an existing policy then; perhaps something into WP:W2W? CR4ZE (t • c) 04:16, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm working on something here. CR4ZE (t • c) 04:36, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Not bad. I guess I'm still disturbed by the Metacritic term "universal acclaim". There has already been an RfC on the topic of the term "universal acclaim" (linked above) and the conclusion was that it was to be avoided. I agree with that outcome. If we want to go back to using it with attribution then I think we might need a new RfC to overrule the first one.
Whether or not a review is a "rave review" is a matter of subjective interpretation, but whether or not something received "universal acclaim" or not is an objective claim. The term "universal acclaim" means that all reviewers acclaimed the work. On Metacritic it means that at least 9 in 10 reviewers acclaimed the work (and at least 8 in 10 for film works). These are fundamentally different concepts. Attribution is necessary if there is some reason that Wikipedia actually must include the term "universal acclaim" in the Metacritic context, but is it actually true that Wikipedia must use this term?
Let's imagine a more absurd example: Let's say the EPA had come up with a new set of categorizations for CO2 emissions from cars per 15k miles driven - "Environmentally harmful" (representing CO2 emissions of >14k lb/yr), "Environmentally neutral" (representing emissions of 12.5k to 14k lb/yr), "Environmentally green" (representing 11k to 12.5k lb/yr), and "Zero emissions" (representing <11k lb/yr). In such a case the term "zero emissions" is fundamentally different from the standard usage of the term in English. It's jargon just like Metacritic's term "universal acclaim". So analogizing my silly example with your proposal, CR4ZE, here's my take on the matter:
  • Incorrect: The car produces zero emissions.
  • Incorrect: The car produces "zero emissions", according to the federal regulatory group, the EPA.[1]
  • Correct: The car produces "less than 11 thousand pounds of CO2 per year", according to the federal regulatory group, the EPA.[1]
  • Correct: The car produces 9 thousand pounds of CO2 per year,[1] a figure that places it within the EPA's "zero emissions" category.[2]
(here [2] would represent not a ref, but a note explaining what the EPA means by "zero emissions")
  • Borderline: The car produces "zero emissions", according to the federal regulatory group, the EPA.[2]
(here [2] would represent not a ref, but a note explaining what the EPA means by "zero emissions")
The reason I think the second example above is incorrect even though it's attributed is that a group like a governmental agency (or indeed like a review aggregator) has the appearance of neutrality and readers are likely to take their claims at face value. If a specialized jargon is used and no explanation is given for how to interpret it then most readers will apply a standard English interpretation. We shouldn't expect readers to follow the link to the EPA/Metacritic and then navigate the EPA/Metacritic website to find where they define their counterintuitive term "zero emissions"/"universal acclaim".
In example 3 above, we've paraphrased by directly using the definition for their counterintuitive term.
In example 4 above, we've again avoided the problem by citing the actual figures and ignoring the specialized categorization scheme.
In the borderline example 5, we've at least provided the reader with an exact definition for the counterintuitive term without making the reader research to find it on their own. I'd say this is borderline because it is cumbersome if we have to apply it to all instances of the expression and it essentially amounts to the introduction of new and specialized words simply to teach them to the reader (a violation of WP:JARGON), but at lest the reader would understand the term in that case.
I feel like I'm flogging a dead horse here, but does this all make sense? -Thibbs (talk) 14:00, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Sources and capitalization of bird names

Moved to Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style § Bird article names: evidence

I've seen a lot of issues devolve into popularity contests. We should at least look at what the balance of sources is on this matter. Please feel free to add to both these lists. Please specify whether the source is general-English or specialist. Please limit entries to sources that comment on the capitalization of English names of species (even if that's not all they talk about). Latin names, breeds, subspecies and cultivars are not the issue at hand.

I have ranked the sources I've found in order of what I believe to be their relevance. (The formally compiled Style Guide of the AFS comes before an editorial in The Birdist.) I think we should continue to do this as the list grows. One source said that CMOS, Hart and Butcher all comment on this issue, but I don't have direct access to any of them right now. The AMA style guide is silent on the matter. Darkfrog24 (talk) 03:25, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Sources that say to capitalize common names of birds and/or other species:

  • Style Guide of the American Fisheries Society (specialist, fish) [3]
  • The Birdist (specialist, birds) [4]

Sources that say to use lowercase for common names of birds and/or other species:

  • Merriam Webster (general) [5]
  • Journal of Fish and Wildlife Management (specialist, fish and wildlife) [6]
  • Daily Writing Tips (general) [7]
  • Wandering Botanist (specialist, plants) [8]
It's rehash and distraction; this has already been done higher up this page

This is not productive to re-launch here. We already have an entire pair of sections for this above, here and here, much more filled out than this. And adding in "and/or other species" (i.e. of non-birds) both falsifies the "Sources and capitalization of bird names" titles chosen above, and would re-re-re-open a general "should we capitalize" debate that has been settled many times already (answer: "no"), including very extensive discussions in 2008 and 2012. As one example, re-introducing a US commercial fishery document that even most of the ichthyological world ignores and that WP:FISH ignores, and that the MOS debate was already aware of and chose to ignore in concluding to not capitalize here, does nothing but cloud the debate further. The vast majority of the pro-capitalization sources are going to be invalid examples (field guides, that capitalize for purely for emphasis - ease of visual scanning - not assertion of a general convention), yet will swamp all other examples (i.e. will be a popularity contest), wrecking the utility of such a list. The upcoming RfC, whatever its form, is going to surely have its own sourcing section here, too, reopening the same can of worms. We'd very likely end up with three duplicate sections on one page. PS: How could you possibly put two fish guides at the top of your list if it's supposed to be about birds and you ranked them in order or relevance?  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  20:16, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

I mean that I ranked them within each section. Of course the section for yes-capitalize and no-don't have to be different. And I used those sources because those were the ones I found. Not being a bird enthusiast myself, I don't have a copy of Ornithological Style and Structure on my shelf at the moment. I consider the fish source to be more relevant because it is more formal and should matter to us more. The AFS doc is a style guide, the formally presented opinions of teams of professional writers, and the Birdist doc is an essay, the informally presented opinion of one person who may or may not be a professional writer. Darkfrog24 (talk) 03:26, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

MOS:ID removal

First, let me appologize. Earlier today I removed some text from MOS:ID and my intent was to place a note here explaining why I'd removed it, however, my work firewall prevented me from posting - it insisted this was a programming language. I lead a band on Friday night and have just now come home from leading it, therefore I wasn't able to leave a note until now.

I removed a section out of MOS:ID:

An exception to this is made for terms relating to gender. In such cases we favor self-designation, even when source usage would indicate otherwise. Any person whose gender might be questioned should be referred to by the pronouns, possessive adjectives, and gendered nouns (for example "man/woman", "waiter/waitress", "chairman/chairwoman") that reflect that person's latest expressed gender self-identification. This applies in references to any phase of that person's life, unless the subject has indicated a preference otherwise. Direct quotations may need to be handled as exceptions (in some cases adjusting the portion used may reduce apparent contradictions, and " [sic]" may be used where necessary).

On the grounds that it directly contradicts WP:V which is a policy. MOS:ID states "In such cases we favor self-designation, even when source usage would indicate otherwise (emphasis mine). Where WP:V states:

In Wikipedia, verifiability means that people reading and editing the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source. Wikipedia does not publish original research. Its content is determined by previously published information rather than the beliefs or experiences of its editors. Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it. . Further it states: All content must be verifiable. at the very beginning (WP:PROVEIT).

This places the removed section (which is a guideline) firmly against policy. Since it's about living people, it also then fails WP:BLP and must be removed. Seems to me that either WP:V needs to be changed or that removed paragraph has to stay out, but what we can't have is both, as that creates a situation where we're saying "yes" and "no" to having a verifiable source to back up some part of a living person's identity. I have removed it for violating WP:V and WP:BLP and ask that it remain out pending a change in WP:V that supports this.  KoshVorlon. We are all Kosh   04:19, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

I think we need to arrive at a more clear statement so that saying "we favor" is not in conflict with sources. Just as we put more weight on sources after an official name change of an organization, we should put more weight on sources that come after a person's expressed new identity. I agree that we do not lead, absent sources, but I agree with what that section was trying to say. Let's adjust it rather than remove it. Dicklyon (talk) 04:39, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
And now that you've been reverted (twice), you really should engage in discussing it; not just say what you did and do it again. Dicklyon (talk) 04:52, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
How is this not violating your voluntary restrictions? PaleAqua (talk) 05:07, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
I don't see a conflict with WP:V. A person's gender identity is subject to verifiability in reliable sources, just like any other fact. Whether we should respect people's gender identities is also subject to verifiability, with highly reliable sources (such as professional psychological associations) supporting the notion that we should. My interpretation of the style guide text in question is simply that, once those two facts are verifiably established, counting up pronoun usage in other sources is largely irrelevant. I agree that the text as drafted could be improved for clarity.--Trystan (talk) 05:33, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
I have never been a fan of the "identity" provision... but... it was added after a lot of discussion and did have consensus. I think it should remain (unless it can be shown that the consensus has changed, which I doubt).
That said, KoshVorlon's concerns do highlight that we omitted to mention an important element when we wrote the provision. The self-identification that we favor does have to have been expressed in a reliable source (and note it does not have to be a reliable secondary source... a reliable primary source is fine). So... I think the language of the provision needs some tweaking, but the provision itself should stay. Blueboar (talk) 12:59, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Unless I am misreading the above, the original poster's Talk page has a voluntary restriction that states, among other things: "I am topic-banned from all articles and discussions related to either Private Manning or transgender issues, broadly construed, for six months." The edits on MOS:ID and on this Talk page appear to violate that voluntary restriction. I propose that this section be closed to further discussion, since it was apparently started in violation of that restriction. If a different editor wants to open a new discussion of the same issue, that is fine. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:04, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Additionally, by repeating the edit the user appears to violate the WP:0RR portion of his restrictions. --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:13, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
The six-month topic ban ended on Tuesday, coincidentally enough. I have warned the user about any additional change to the guidelines. -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:33, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
Inappropriate though his actions are, we can take this opportunity to tweak the wording. Anyone want to have a go at it? Dicklyon (talk) 17:04, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
Sure... I would suggest something simple like:
  • An exception to this is made for terms relating to gender. In such cases we favor self-designation, even when overall source usage might indicate otherwise. Any person whose gender might be questioned should be referred to by the pronouns, possessive adjectives, and gendered nouns (for example "man/woman", "waiter/waitress", "chairman/chairwoman") that reflect that person's latest reliably sourced gender self-identification. This applies in references to any phase of that person's life, unless the subject has indicated a preference otherwise. Direct quotations may need to be handled as exceptions (in some cases adjusting the portion used may reduce apparent contradictions, and " [sic]" may be used where necessary). (Note: my suggested change is in bold here for identification purposes only) Blueboar (talk) 17:24, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
You mean, there are many people known to be men by reliable sources but rumored by unreliable sources to be transgender women?? Can you name any?? Georgia guy (talk) 19:07, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
I don't see any need for an exemption at all. AFAIC - since we're writing in Wikipedia's voice, we should use only reliably sourced information regarding gender. Any exemptions would fly in the face of WP:BLP or WP:V, then we have a case of WP:LOCALCONENSUS which just exist.  KoshVorlon. We are all Kosh   20:31, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
And what do reliable sources say about how to refer to a transgender person?? Georgia guy (talk) 20:35, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
Is that a trick question ? Whatever the reliable sources say, that's what we call them. For example, if we have reliable sources that say an individual who was born female, refers to themselves as male (example: Billy Tipton) then we refer to them as male. What we cannot do (what MOSID says we CAN do, is ignore reliable sources and call them what they call themselves (IE: Bradley Manning is reliably Bradley Manning, not Chelsea Manning ).  KoshVorlon. We are all Kosh   22:09, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
You mean, the name "Chelsea" is a fake rumor here?? Georgia guy (talk) 22:13, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
I'm gonna AGF on your comment. Bradley Manning exists per:
1.) Per the US Military: http://www.armycourtmartialdefense.info/search?updated-max=2014-01-10T08:44:00-05:00&max-results=3
http://search.military.com/search?site=military&client=military&proxystylesheet=military&output=xml_no_dtd&access=p&filter=1&entqr=3&tabname=military&q=Bradley+Manning
2.)Per WIred: http://www.wired.com/2010/06/leak/
3.) Per CNet: http://www.cnet.com/news/hacker-turns-in-soldier-in-iraq-airstrike-video-leak/#ixzz19dOnrixX
4.) Per Washington Post: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/06/AR2010120607109.html?wprss=rss_nation/nationalsecurity
5.) Per New York Post: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/16/world/16wiki.html?_r=0
6.) Per CNN: http://edition.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/07/31/wikileaks.manning/index.html
7.) Per Guardian: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/dec/30/wikileaks-bradley-manning-julian-assange
8.) The world Tributne: http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtribune/WTARC/2010/ss_military1276_12_22.asp
9.) Per The MarineCorpsTimes: http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/article/20110310/NEWS/103100314/Dad-of-WikiLeaks-suspect-says-son-is-innocent
10.) Per PBS (Public Television): http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/wikileaks/bradley-manning/brian-manning/
11.) The Wall Street Journal: http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052748703922504576273324075091178?mg=reno64-wsj&url=http%3A%2F%2Fonline.wsj.com%2Farticle%2FSB10001424052748703922504576273324075091178.html
12.) Per NYMag: http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2011/04/brits_pressure_us_on_bradley_m.html
13.) Per the Telegraph: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/wikileaks/8377603/Bradley-Mannings-treatment-ridiculous-says-Hillary-Clintons-spokesman.html
14.) Per the Daily Mail: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1367746/WikiLeaks-soldier-Bradley-Mannings-freedom-speech-row-Julian-Assange-UK.html
So far,no "Chelsea" in that list. Second, Bradley Manning is still a guy, biologically and legally, so he needs to be referred to (again, WP:V and WP:BLP and per Reliable sources) as Bradley Manning. We cannot (as MOSID is trying to say) ignore all reliable sources and call him "Chelsea". (BTW - it wouldn't matter if we were talking about Bradley Manning or anyone else in a similar situation, so it's not just about him )  KoshVorlon. We are all Kosh   22:19, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
What's your point? You've found contemporary sources from before Manning came out as trans. We don't rely on dated material for style guidance. If I found a reliable source describing Golda Meir as a Jewess we still wouldn't use that term on Wikipedia. Pburka (talk) 22:44, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
This hefty list of links seems to be disingenuous
1)Is this a blog? either way, 2nd post down reads "21 October 2013 Frequently Asked Questions About Chelsea".
http://search.military.com/search?site=military&client=military&proxystylesheet=military&output=xml_no_dtd&access=p&filter=1&entqr=3&tabname=military&q=chelsea+Manning&x=0&y=0 I can search on Military.com too], and the hits are more recent.
2-the rest) every single other one of these articles you linked to are from 2010 or 2011, before Manning's August 22, 2013 declaration. Cannolis (talk) 22:45, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
This is becoming deeply disruptive. This isn't the place to demand changes to specific articles. It looks like you're trying to get MOS changed so that you can make a change to a single article, after stewing about it on the voluntary topic ban you accepted to avoid this kind of disruption earlier. These references look like they're from 2010, before Manning ever announced their name change, so it looks like you have a deeply flawed idea of what "latest expression" means. In this edit, you said you were going to drop this particular crusade, and your next edit is to drop fourteen outdated references to a single article here on the MOS talk page. "Dropping it" doesn't mean arguing against the Manning article title changes with the same points here. __ E L A Q U E A T E 22:50, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
At this point, I'm struggling to even assume good faith on KoshVorlon's part. It's difficult to perceive the above list as anything other than purposely misleading evidence.
Regardless, when a topic ban (voluntary or otherwise) expires, jumping straight back into the dispute that triggered it and unilaterally editing a guideline to gain an advantage (followed by a violation of the active 0RR restriction) is an incredibly poor decision. —David Levy 01:25, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
Again, this isn't just about Bradley Manning, this is about an exemption that is prohibited by WP:BLP and WP:V. Irregardless of whether were speaking about someone that is transgender, or just simply states their name is "x", when all other reliable resources say it's "y". The bottom line here is, there can be no exemption to WP:BLP by WP:LOCALCONENSUS/ I'm not seeing any policy arguments that would allow it to remain.

  • Pburka If we have reliable sources that say someone is Jewish, Russian, whatever, then that's what we include per WP:V, WP:R and WP:BLP, and the date is irrelevant on the sources, we rely on reliable sources, period, full stop.

  • David Levy "misleading"? No, what you have in front of you are reliable sources , not blogs, not scandal sheets, but reliable sources, so by default, they are not misleading.

Once again, since no one has offered any policy reason to keep the exemption in on MOS:ID, I propose removing it.  KoshVorlon. We are all Kosh   11:06, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
Your sources are from before Manning declared herself as a trans woman. Of course they will refer to Manning as Bradley, there was absolutely no reason not to. Try looking for sources newer than August 22, 2013, as they will actually be relevant to this discussion. Sources like this, this, this, which refer to Manning as her and Chelsea. I see no reason to ignore WP:RS that were published after Manning's declaration in favor of sources that were published before it, seeing as those published before have no relevance.Cannolis (talk) 11:12, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
More than three editors in good standing have clearly opposed Kosh's proposal to remove the text. This editor is proposing it again. There is no evidence of a changed consensus here. Kosh is in direct violation of their self-stated editing restrictions here, and shows no sign of changing the nature of their disruption. The text is I agree to discontinue a discussion when three users in good standing tell me I should drop it and no one has supported my position. Even though they are "voluntary", they were negotiated to avoid harsher blocking.__ E L A Q U E A T E 11:28, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
Actually, I count two disagree and the rest are discussing. So far, no policy arguments have been made. If you know of any, Elaqueate, feel free to offer some, otherwise, this will have to close , per policy to remove, as it currently violates BLP, V.  KoshVorlon. We are all Kosh   12:24, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
I agree with User:Elaqueate. There's no discussion here. User:KoshVorlon is ignoring or misinterpreting the arguments of others (either willfully or out of ignorance) and appears to be pursuing a vendetta against Ms. Manning or the trans community in general. If KoshVorlon attempts to remove the clause once again a permenant ban would be appropriate. Pburka (talk) 13:01, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
Apparantely, you haven't read everything I've written so let me spell it out for you this isn't just about Bradley Manning . Got it? This is a BLP violation, I'm merely enforcing BLP and V by removing something that was placed in as WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. Look those up as they apply here. I have no vendetta and I will strike your words for you under WP:NPA and because they constitute an ad hom attack on me.  KoshVorlon. We are all Kosh   13:07, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
I've reverted. Criticisms of your behavior don't automatically constitute personal attacks. It would be wise to leave such determinations to uninvolved editors. —David Levy 13:30, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
People are clearly "discussing" the various ways to not remove the text. Drop it. You're exhibiting a lot of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Just because you were topic-banned for earlier discussions is no reason to rehash everything for your benefit alone now. A lot of what you are putting forth was covered ad nauseum in easily findable previous discussions. Maybe User:Fluffernutter could give some guidance about how arguing with five or six directly opposed editors is in line with whatever was earlier negotiated about avoiding unnecessary and disruptive conflicts. I somehow doubt the six-month topic ban was intended to produce even more gigantic discussions about erasing any references to transgender subjects beyond what we have already had. If you had a new argument, it could merit a new discussion, but making the same arguments as six months ago is a waste of everyone's time. I will add that striking other people's comments is bizarre and inapproriate.__ E L A Q U E A T E 13:15, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
Again, this isn't just about Bradley Manning, this is about an exemption that is prohibited by WP:BLP and WP:V.
This is your unilateral determination, with which others clearly disagree.
Irregardless of whether were speaking about someone that is transgender, or just simply states their name is "x", when all other reliable resources say it's "y".
No one here advocates that we make such a statement in the absence of reliable sources.
I'm not seeing any policy arguments that would allow it to remain.
You see what you want to see.
If we have reliable sources that say someone is Jewish, Russian, whatever, then that's what we include per WP:V, WP:R and WP:BLP, and the date is irrelevant on the sources, we rely on reliable sources, period, full stop.
The date is irrelevant? So if someone has converted from Judaism to Christianity, we can point exclusively to articles published before that occurred and state that the individual is a practicing Jew?
"misleading"? No, what you have in front of you are reliable sources , not blogs, not scandal sheets, but reliable sources, so by default, they are not misleading.
Why, other than to mislead, do all of your sources (apart from one that does mention "Chelsea") predate Manning's declaration?
Do articles like this (in the left-hand column) establish that the International Astronomical Union currently regards Pluto as a planet? Should we arbitrarily disregard all relevant information published on the subject from 2006 onward?
Once again, since no one has offered any policy reason to keep the exemption in on MOS:ID, I propose removing it.
I propose that you cease this disruption. —David Levy 13:30, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
Disruption ? No, not at all, this is merely enforcement of BLP. We have an addition into MOS:ID which is in violation of LOCALCONSENSUS . IF that were all, it would be debateable whether it could stand or not. However, this item also violates BLP and attempts to contravene V , therefore, per policy it must come down. That simple. You're free to change the policy, but until that time, it must remain down (and no this isn't just about Bradley Manning).However, since at least 3 people are literally telling me to drop the stick, I will do so , per my agreement with Floquenbeam.  KoshVorlon. We are all Kosh   13:39, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
Thank you. —David Levy 13:52, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
WP:LOCALCONSENSUS doesn't apply to MOS or any other major site-wide guideline or policy; the entire point of LOCALCONSENSUS (these days called WP:CONLEVEL) is that the major guildlines and polices are the top level of consensus, period. Everyone here knows what and where they are, and they are paid far more attention to than minor topical guidelines, wikiproject essays, etc. Secondly, this conflict between MOS and policies like BLP and V is imaginary. MOS is providing a default style rule, not determining what facts one will ascertain. Gender identity including a self-identification of it is a fact that is determined from reliable sources. The end. There is nothing to see here. This is a silly marionette show.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  20:50, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
To be honest I see where KoshVorlon is coming from on this, although I agree it was not a good tack to take. The article we used to have on John Mark Karr/Alexis Reich actually illustrated this problem quite well; we had someone who one source (IIRC it was TMZ, I can check the deleted history if you want further proof) said began transitioning gender, and subsequent sources universally continued using the name John Mark Karr and the pronoun "he". Even from the TMZ report, it wasn't completely clear whether or not Karr actually went through with transitioning. Instead of following WP:V on the matter, however, the current rule led people to force the pronoun "she" into the article in the face of every single reliable source. That article ended up deleted (don't care one way or another on that), but it shows that this very problem can happen. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 18:05, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
Is this an example of a person rumored to be transgender?? Are there any questions at Wikipedia:Gender identity that you still disagree with even after careful reading?? Georgia guy (talk) 23:20, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

As I see it, there is no contradiction between this section of the MOS and WP:BLP or WP:V... What the MOS requires is the "person's latest expressed gender self-identification"... What BLP and WP:V require is that this self-identification be verifiable through citation to reliable sources. In other words, the "latest expressed self-identification" would obviously have to be expressed in a verifiable, reliable source. The reason we favor this self-identification is that any sources written before the most recent self-identification are obsolete and out of date... and thus less reliable.
Now... what the MOS does not address (and should) is the rare situation where a number of reliable sources written after the expressed self-identification refuse to acknowledge that self-identification and continue to refer to the person using his/her old name (and pronouns). In that case, we would have modern, up-to-date reliable sources that disagree with the self-identification. At that point it becomes a DUE WEIGHT issue. We have to assess whether the number and quality of (post announcement) disagreeing sources should out-weigh the self-identification (and any sources that do agree with it).
My feeling is that the number of disagreeing sources would have to be overwhelming and of very high quality to off set the reliability of a self ID... but we do have to admit that such an "exception to the exception" it is possible. Blueboar (talk) 13:55, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

For clarification, you must be saying that if a trans woman is still referred to her male birth name by 90% or so of recent reliable sources that post-date the name change, Wikipedia should treat the trans woman like a cisgender man. Have you had any experience with this situation?? What trans woman qualifies as such a person?? Georgia guy (talk) 14:09, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
At the moment, I know of absolutely none. I am merely noting the possibility that it could occur, and saying that we should account for that possibility. For example (and yes, I do accept that this isn't about the Manning article... but it is a good example), I think it absolutely appropriate that we changed "Bradley Manning" to "Chelsey Manning" and "he" to "she", etc. The most reliable, up-to-date sources support doing that that. However, let's imagine that five or ten years from now, a significant majority of historians writing about Manning all use "Bradley" and "he"... at that point there would be a good argument to invoke WP:POVNAMING. Those historians would be more modern and up-to-date than Manning's self-ID.
I realize that this senario may never occur ... but I also realize that it could happen. And because it could happen, the question is ultimately this: Would it be less contentious to wait until we actually get such a situation, and tweak the MOS guidance to account for it when it does... or would it be less contentious to anticipate the possibility and tweak it now (when we can discuss it dispassionately without it being related to an on-going POV dispute). Either is fine by me. Blueboar (talk) 14:49, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
Blueboar, how do you know it can occur?? Georgia guy (talk) 14:55, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
I think Blueboar is suggesting something in good faith, My view is that the answer to Would it be less contentious to wait until we actually get such a situation, is "Yes". I can concoct a wildly unlikely scenario where we might call identification into question (e.g. someone with medical challenges non-arguably beyond-a-doubt unrelated to their gender identity), but I think that any super-fringe case would be covered by WP:IAR, and that if a discussion was ever going to be contentious, then we won't avoid any fights by trying to pre-fix it here beyond outlining what should be done to cover the most likely cases involving gender identity. I think of it as when people say they are married. In the vast amount of cases we would not require source-counting and and we don't need spelled-out policy provisions to ensure they're not hoaxing us, because most people wouldn't affirm something like that on a whim. If ten years later in an unlikely case where most sources would deny a marriage existed, we'd still have a conversation about it to sort out the sources, I'd say. __ E L A Q U E A T E 15:22, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
Exactly. Remember, as far as WP policy is concerned, we don't get into the issue of whether a given statement is TRUTH or not... instead we ask: a) is the statement verifiable in a reliable source? b) is it contradicted by other reliable sources? and if so c) how much weight should we assign to the various disagreeing sources. At the moment, I can not think of a single case where a statement of gender self-identity (expressed in a reliable source) is out weighed by other reliable sources that contradict it. However, situations similar to that occur in other topic areas (I see it occurring with religious self-identifications from time to time)... and what I outlined is essentially how Wikipedia deals with them. Because it happens in other areas I expect that, eventually, it will happen with a gender self-identification. But we can deal with it when it does happen. Until then, the current MOS provision is good enough. Blueboar (talk) 19:04, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
Oh; you just feel like it's possible that it might happen one day. I initially thought you were going to bring up the now-deleted Alexis Reich. Georgia guy (talk) 19:51, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

The official abbreviation of a name

According to this Manual of Style, a name of an organisation should be written out in the way the organisation writes it. I also interprete the Manual of Style to say, the same goes for the official abbreviation of the name. The abbreviation used by the organisation itself is comparable to the name of the organisation in this regard and should be spelled like the organisation spells it, even if this would seem to contradict general spelling rules. Am I right? Bandy boy (talk) 12:27, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Is there a specific case where this has come up? -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:45, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Yes, there is an ongoing dispute on this subject regarding the article Djurgårdens IF Fotboll. Your opinions there are most welcome. Aikclaes (talk) 12:55, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
There is the interesting example of Adidas (an abbreviation of the founder Adi Dassler's name). The organization itself prefers it's brand name to be spelled in lowercase: adidas. In several wikipedia articles where Adidas is mentioned, someone (presumably working for Adidas) has changed the spelling to the organization's preferred lower caps. Is this behaviour correct and something that we should approve of? I think not. Aikclaes (talk) 12:55, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
@Aikclaes: you've just contradicted yourself, first saying that the organization prefers in in lower case, then saying that it prefers "lower caps". --Stfg (talk) 13:08, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Sorry about that. It should say "lower case" not "lower caps". Thanks for pointing that out. Aikclaes (talk) 13:12, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
That behavior is clearly incorrect under MOS:TMRULES, and with good reason; otherwise too many rightsholder would insist that we SHOUT the name of their product every time it is mentioned.-Nat Gertler (talk) 14:02, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
When it comes to questions of fact (like how to abbreviate a specific organization's name) we should follow what reliable sources do (see WP:Verifiability). Thus, if there appears to be a conflict between the generally excellent guidance expressed in the MOS, and what is done in the real world by reliable sources... follow the sources over the MOS guidance. (As the MOS itself notes, there are occasional exceptions to the MOS guidance).
That said... you should also note that we don't always do what the organization itself does... we follow what reliable sources that talk about the organization do. Now, reliable sources usually abbreviate the same way that the organization abbreviates... but not always. When there is a conflict between what the organization itself does, and what the majority of other sources do ... follow the sources (see WP:DUE WEIGHT).
Finally, if you are making up your own abbreviation for the organization... definitely follow the MOS guidance. Blueboar (talk) 13:01, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
So you mean an organisation may not decide on its own name? The way I see it, the abbreviation decided on by the organisation is equal to the proper name of the organisation. Bandy boy (talk) 13:23, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
@Bandy boy: Please don't insert your comments inside other people's talk page posts, as doing so orphans the comment from its signature. I've refactored to resolve this. --Stfg (talk) 13:29, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
ec... @Bandy... an organization can absolutely decide on its own name, and nothing Wikipedia does will change what the organization does. It's just that Wikipedia does not always use "official" names in our articles. If there is a more commonly used alternative, we use that instead - primarily because that alternative will be more natural and recognizable to our readers (See WP:Official names for more on this). To give an example... the "official" name of one of the US States is: "State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations", but very few sources ever use that "official" name... the vast majority of sources refer to it as: Rhode Island ... and so we follow the sources and use that more common alternative in our articles. Blueboar (talk) 13:51, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Exactly. Ultimately, an organization may decide how the organization refers to itself, and Wikipedia may decide how Wikipedia refers to it. Neither can dictate to the other. Wikipedia's determination of how to refer to the organization follows a certain process or set of processes, which are reflected in WP:COMMONNAME and WP:Official names. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:43, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
The full name of Djurgårdens IF is Djurgårdens Idrottsförening, but like many others organisations and persons, the club usually don't write the full name like that but abbreviate it to Djurgårdens IF, to Djurgården and to DIF, just like State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations is abbreviated to Rhode Island and to RI. But you don't use another way for abbreviation. You dont abbreviate State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations as "Providence Plantations" or as "Ri" just because you feel like it or because some know-it-all has decided that should be the way to do it. No, you use the common form and the form used by the entity itself, so people understand what you are talking about. Dif is a place in Kenya and the way it is written you just wouldn't know it was really meant to be an abbreviation for something since there are no periods or upper-case letters in it. Bandy boy (talk) 15:22, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
I can't see the point of comparing Swedish language rules with English. Swedish major language authorities are clear on that Dif is the correct spelling. It has nothing to do with what some "know-it-all" thinks. In fact, that's why I keep asking you for a single authoratative source that supports the claim you make in the article, i.e. that Dif is incorrect. If you can't back your arguments with a source you'll just be considered an irrelevant know-it-all. Aikclaes (talk) 15:43, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
I can't see the reason in suggesting to spell an abbreviation so that you don't know it is an abbreviation, no matter how much of an authority on language you may be. Bandy boy (talk) 06:21, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
The MOS guidance appears to be to use the organization's own abbreviation. See the World Union of Billiards example. Anyway, I'd have thought that the only reliable source for an organization's name and abbreviation is the organization itself. --Stfg (talk) 13:26, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
We don't restrict reliable sources for an org's name to the org itself, no. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:45, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

In this case, someone seems to be pushing for a non-English style convention that is common in Swedish, but is definitely not common in English. In Swedish, the style convention for an article on NASA would have the first mention as "NASA" and further mention in the text as "Nasa". In English you would never switch to "Nasa". This is English Wikipedia. In the article Djurgårdens IF Fotboll, if the abbreviation for the club is commonly "DIF" we would never switch it to "Dif" just because that's how it might be styled in a Swedish language article for some secondary mentions. Making it "Dif" goes directly against what English language sources would use and what the organization itself would use primarily, and we prefer English language sources. (Another example,: in a Swedish-language article, the style convention for IKEA would be all caps on first mention, then "Ikea" for subsequent mentions. English Wikipedia style would never dictate switching to "Ikea".)__ E L A Q U E A T E 13:28, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

No, I'm not "pushing for a non-English style convention that is common in Swedish". I'm just stating in the article how the organization's name is abbreviated according to the two arguably largest authorities regarding how Swedish is to be written (Språkrådet and TT). I think both abbreviations should be shown in the article. However, another user keeps removing my sourced wording and replacing it with unsourced POV about the language authorities being incorrect. Aikclaes (talk) 13:35, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Those are non-English sources. We don't follow them for our article on IKEA as this is an article about IKEA written in English. Now you are clearly edit-warring and I won't be surprised if you're temporarily blocked in the near future. You should review WP:3RR before you do anything else.__ E L A Q U E A T E 13:49, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
You are missing the point. I have no issue against what Wikipedia's Manual of Style has to say about how to write brand names or the names of other organizations. The issue here is whether or not another user can remove my sourced wording on the page about Djurgårdens IF Fotboll and replace it with unsourced POV. Djurgårdens IF fotbollAikclaes (talk) 14:00, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Since this is the abbreviation of a name, general spelling rules do not apply, just as they do not apply for names. A name of an organisation is spelled like the organisation spells it. Bandy boy (talk) 15:06, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
You have no sources that support this idea. Aikclaes (talk) 16:03, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Wouldn't the issue regarding how to abbreviate Djurgårdens IF best be discussed on the talk page of Djurgårdens IF Fotboll instead of here? Aikclaes (talk) 13:53, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Hold on... it is absolutely appropriate for the lead to mention what the official (Swedish) name and abbreviation is (and to cite that to Swedish language sources)... the appropriate way to do this would be to include a short parenthetical in the first few sentences of the lead paragraph. For the bulk of the article, however, we would use what English Language sources use. Blueboar (talk) 14:00, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
I agree, but the facts in this case are that the official Swedish abbreviation is DIF, [9], both English language sources and Swedish Sources favor the DIF, and the only reason anyone is mentioning the secondary abbreviation is that "Dif" is sometimes used in Swedish language news articles after they've already introduced it as "DIF". It is a secondary mention style in newspaper writing, not a unique identity. Swedish media also sometimes refers to things like IKEA and NASA as Ikea and Nasa. We wouldn't mention that in their English language articles because it's only a typographic style in the Swedish language.__ E L A Q U E A T E 14:13, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
The link you provided of the club's emblem, shows, if anything, that the club's name should be abbreviated D.I.F., not DIF. Your claim that Swedish media uses Dif after first introducing DIF in an article is simply not true. It's nearly always one or the other in articles, which this link [[10]] proves. It also shows that Sweden's largest newspaper Aftonbladet nearly always uses Dif. Aikclaes (talk) 14:27, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
From our MOS: The letters in an acronym are generally not separated by periods (full stops) or blank spaces... We also omit things like Ltd. or Inc. Otherwise we follow MOS:CUE. We consistently style it IKEA, even though some Swedish newspapers may on occasion style it "Ikea". I haven't see any indication that the organization styles it (in English translation or by preference in their own language) the way you've provided, and our readers are reading in English. __ E L A Q U E A T E 14:43, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
How can you say "some Swedish newspapers may on occasion style it 'Ikea'"? Both Sweden's largest newspaper Aftonbladet [[11]] and the largest morning paper DN [[12]] consistently write Ikea. However, the real point here, which you fail to address, is why Dif is described as incorrect in the article, when there are no sources to back this up. Aikclaes (talk) 15:31, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Umm, you're kind of missing the point of the IKEA example. It's great that Swedish newspapers "'consistently' write Ikea". That's not surprising as they're writing in Swedish. Our article about IKEA is written in English and uses the company name both preferred by the company, and used in most English language sources. That's why we consistently use "IKEA" in our article. As far as the article claiming it is "wrong", I removed that claim from the lead, because it could be considered "correct" by some in Swedish in some settings, but it shouldn't be referenced in the lead at all if it has no connection to how the organization styles itself and it is never referenced in English language sources.__ E L A Q U E A T E 15:44, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
For the millionth time, I have no problem with the Ikea article and the fact that the comapny's name is written IKEA there. I do however disagree with you that the abbreviation Dif should be omitted from the article about Djurgårdens IF Fotboll. For those who come across one of all the media articles describing the club as Dif, it would help them to know that this refers to Djurgårdens IF. Why can't both abbreviations be present in the article? Aikclaes (talk) 15:54, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

For those not familiar with the subject: The abbreviation of Djurgårdens IF is read out as a word, Dif, not letter-by-letter: D-I-F. According to Swedish language rules, this is important for knowing if a Swedish abbreviation should be written in lower or upper case. I would also like to point to MOS:TMRULES#General_rules regarding whether organizations themselves have the right to rule how their brand names are to be stylised in encyclopedias. Aikclaes (talk) 14:16, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

DIF is a name, the abbreviation of the full name of the club. Names do not follow general spelling rules. Also, your notion that acronyms "should" be written in lowercase letters in Swedish is simply not true, even if some (not all) linguists favours that idea. Bandy boy (talk) 15:06, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
It's unclear why you keep repeating that the word is "a name". This has nothing to do with how the word is to be written according to Swedish language authorities. Aikclaes (talk) 15:14, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Yes, it has, because a name is not following general spelling rules. If someone starts a club with a name which is being misspellt, that is still the name of the club and should not be altered by others with reference to general spelling rules. An example is Swedish Football Association, which officially is named Svenska Fotbollförbundet in Swedish,[13] even if the latter word in its name is supposed to be spelled fotbollsförbund in Swedish.[14] Bandy boy (talk) 15:46, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Your thoughts are all very interesting, but you have no sources that support your claim that an organization has authority over how others abbreviate it. Aikclaes (talk) 16:00, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Of course, it's all a matter of civility. You can't have anyone pay damages for spelling your name wrong. However, it is common courtesy to spell someone's name the way it spells its own name. Bandy boy (talk) 06:13, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
I have no opinion on how anything "should" be spelled. I just don't see why you keep removing a soruced wording about how Djurgårdens IF is abbreviated according to the two organizations that are regarded as leading authorities on the Swedish language. Aikclaes (talk) 15:19, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
MOS is clear. We give some preference to how an organization styles itself, and we also give preference to how a name is used in English language sources. In this case they are in complete agreement. Both use DIF. The MOS does not say to give any preference to any "Swedish language authorities" advice about how to write an article if it were in Swedish, especially when it contradicts both the organization itself[15] and English language sources.[16] We're not trying to teach people Swedish newspaper-writing style, we're trying to describe the organization with concision and with some respect for how it styles itself, while being consistent with English language sources. That's what MOS advises. If you want something added to the article please give an argument based on MOS or policy, give some English language sources, or consider leaving it alone for a while.__ E L A Q U E A T E 15:28, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
What English language sources are you referring to? I have no issue with how the MOS recommends writing abbreviations. I just can't see why Dif is described as incorrect in the article. There are no sources for this claim. Aikclaes (talk) 15:36, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Go look at the article. "Dif" is no longer described as "wrong".__ E L A Q U E A T E 15:50, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
I would still like to know what English language sources you referred to. Aikclaes (talk) 15:56, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
I only suggested that you provide English language sources as one of the ways to support any claim about how the club is described in English. I provided a link to ESPN to show that when they abbreviate, they abbreviate as DIF.[17] The lead shouldn't be a non-concise laundry list of alternate stylings, especially if a usage is not used by the organization itself, or used in any English-language setting. __ E L A Q U E A T E 16:06, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
The way the name of the club is abbreviated in tens of thousands of Swedish media articles is relevant (and much more so than how it is abbreviated in a single article on ESPN). Aikclaes (talk) 18:35, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
On the other hand, the way the club is abbreviated in a single English-language article is much more relevant to English Wikipedia than how it is abbreviated in any number of non-English-language sources. -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:52, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

@Aikclaes: you keep on saying there are no sources. Here is the club's own web page. DIF there. --Stfg (talk) 19:33, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

"Generic words" specific rule needs to be generalized

The short version: In various places we advise against capitalizing things like "Director" and "River" and "Trust" when they are not used with or as part of a name, but this principle needs to be generalized into one rule in one place, instead of it being reiterated piecemeal with not-entirely-consistent rationales, and consequently not being applied in several places where it should be.

The "Generic words" provision at MOS:CAPS#Institutions (and a similar one a section later, about geographic names, and another similar one, I think under job titles; MOS proper repeats some of this stuff) is really a general fact about any such proper name or title. It would be nice if we codified the following examples (or some like them) into one overarching rule:

  • Correct: according to Vice-president of Marketing Jane Hernandez of The Hernandez Company
  • Correct: according to the vice-president of marketing of that company
  • Incorrect: according to the Vice-president of Marketing of that Company
  • Correct: along the Colorado River
  • Correct: along the river, the largest in Colorado
  • Incorrect: along the River, the largest in Colorado
  • Correct: some members of Mishmiense Group were reclassified
  • Correct: some members of that group were reclassified
  • Incorrect: some members of that Group were reclassified

These things are capitalized when they're used as part of a name, but not when used generically (with rare conventional exceptions like President (of a nation, not an organization), and Prime Minister, and Secretary General (of the UN) still being capitalized when referring to the office generically. Not sure how to best write the rule, though. Ideas?  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ⚞(Ʌⱷ҅̆⚲͜ⱷ^)≼  07:20, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Firstly, it should be Vice-President (title) or vice-president (generic), not Vice-president.
Secondly, what's wrong with the current guidance at MOS:CAPS#Institutions? We needn't crowd this section with more examples than are needed to convey the point. —sroc 💬 02:47, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
Well, obviously what's wrong with it is that it's at #Insitutions, and that only covers institutions. Last I looked, job title, rivers and biological groupings are not institutions. :-) PS: No, it wouldn't be "Vice-President" in that context; we do not capitalize after a hyphen in English. The Vice-President of the United States is a weird conventional exception dating to the late 1700s, before capitalization was fully standardized. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ⚞(Ʌⱷ҅̆⚲͜ⱷ^)≼  22:12, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
  • I agree that it would be a good idea to generalise this issue. It certainly doesn't apply only to institutions. A couple of points:
    • The example of "Group" is explicitly against the ICNCP which governs the use of cultivar names. It always capitalizes "Group" (as opposed to other terms like "grex") whether used in a complete name or as a general term. See http://www.actahort.org/chronica/pdf/sh_10.pdf.
    • Sources seem to vary in how they capitalize when a short form is used which refers back to a longer capitalized form. I've recently had to write in both these styles in different publications: "Sutton Park has many rare species. ... The Park also has ..." versus "Sutton Park has many rare species. ... The park also has ..." I prefer the first style, but the second seems to be growing in use, at least in the UK (or maybe I just read theguardian too much). This issue could usefully be covered.
Peter coxhead (talk) 21:55, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
We can skip the ICNCP Group thing for now (it really is a simple WP:SSF case, in my view), sincet most reliable sources use the longer "cultivar group" not just "group" by itself, and they do so with wildly inconsistent style, so we're free to use normal English "cultvar group" without any style weirdness. And actually, just because ICNCP itself uses "Group" capitalized doesn't mean it's "against" them to not do what they do in their own publication; it simply means we're not aping them. I just read all of that ICNCP material last night, detail by detail, and it does not try to impose its style in this regard on other publications, anywhere. WP doesn't need to care what a scientific work's authors choose to do stylistically in their own instructional materials discussing labels for names; we're not even sure we care what they say about the names themselves unless a preponderance of reliable sources agree with them, and even then we still don't care about their style preferences.
The second style in the Sutton Park example is the overwhelming preference of North American English, and has been my entire literate life (I'm in my 40s). If the UK preference for the capitalized form is dying off, that gives us a clear rationale to advise against using it unless it's ncessary in a particular context for distinguisihing betwen a generic and a specific case (and even then just rewording is probably a better idea). WP is almost entirely written in the second style, and it doesn't seem to be a legitimate ENGVAR matter. The capitalization seems to be an argument for capitalizing an appositive if and only if it repeats something in the proper name it is stand-in for. A serious problem with this is how wide a context is considered "good enough" for this to take place. If I say I lost my hat at sea this morning, do I have to capitalize Sea if I live near the Irish Sea? How near?  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  05:57, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Sourcing the matter

A bunch of source citations and quotations

The current (16th ed.) Chicago Manual of Style says not to capitalize these, giving many examples such as the foloowing: sect. 8.18 Cardinal Newman; the cardinal; 8.20 the empress Elizabeth of Austria (but Empress Elizabeth of Austria); 8.21 the mayor; Richard M. Daley, mayor of Chicago; Mayor Daley; 8.27 the professor; Françoise Meltzer, professor of comparative literature; Professor Meltzer; 8.29 the historian William McNeill (not Historian McNeill) ; 8.46 the Great Plains, the northern plains, the plains (but Plains Indians) (most other examples there are adjectival); 8.50 the Ottoman Empire, the empire, the Republic of Indonesia, the republic, the Fifth Ward, the ward and many similar examples; 8.52 the Hawaiian Islands; Hawaii; but the island of Hawaii; 8.55 Jackson Park; the park, London Bridge; the bridge; 8.56 the Babri Mosque; the mosque; 8.57 the Empire Room (but room 421); and so on.

The EU English Style Guide (7th Ed., 2011) notes that "the use of initial capitals has a highlighting effect, so if the body or person is not particularly important in the context of your text, an ordinary noun phrase may be more appropriate for subsequent mentions: The Ruritanian Programme for Innovation and Research focuses on ... The (research) programme is headed by ..." In a similar passage about capitalizing types of government body, legislative acts, etc., it adds "[I]f there is no risk of confusion or there is no need to draw attention to the name, lower case can be used instead." This, from a government body that loves to capitalize things.

The EU Interinstitutional Style Guide[18]: "Use capitals sparingly. They are often employed to excess in commercial and administrative circles. When in doubt use lower case. ... Note, too, the difference in the use of Prince of Wales and … prince of Wales. The first has a particular sense, the second a general one. ... References to EU legislation: write Regulation, Decision, Directive, Annex and Article (followed by a number) with capitals if they refer to specific acts; use lower case for references to regulations, directives, etc. in a generalised sense and when referring to proposed legislation..." Otherwise doesn't touch on the issue.

The Journal of Irish and Scottish Studies style guide (the same guide text is used by various other journals as far away from Scotland as Australia, I find, with just the examples changed) contradicts itself saying "Use of capitals: 1. When in doubt, don't.", but then giving an example of retaining capitalization on later mentions: "the Scottish School Board Association ... the Association". It's because they state generally, a bit later, "Where there is any likelihood of confusion, capitals should be used in words which have a different meaning [sic] without them: an Act, the Opposition, the State." WP would never capitalize this way. It's a journal-style jargon use that doesn't belong here , and is totally unnecessary in a medium in which links make the meaning clear, while better, more explanatory writing than is usually permitted in academic journals can be used to clarify anyway. Remember that journals have a lot of odd conventions because they are highly compressed communications between professional in the same field; they are a form of code, and wikipedia is not. (See also the debate that has swallowed most of this talk page! All of these points apply equally well to capitalizing bird species common names just because some journals do it. It's also why we don't need to capitalize "Group" just because ICNCP does.)

The Modern Humanities Research Association Style Guide (2nd Ed., rev. 2.3., 2009) is confusingly split on the issue, probably to avoid offense to subjects who may be written about. It says to capitalize a personal title used individually and specifically, but not generically: The Archbishop of Canterbury and several other bishops were present. But then it says "When, after a first full reference, or with such reference understood, a title is used incompletely but still with specific application to an individual, the capital is retained: The Archbishop spoke first." It never addresses other usage directly (e.g. geographic), but is clearly not wedded to capitalization being universally retained, advising before the Neolithic, neolithic sites and also advising: "Note, however, that ‘anglicize’, ‘anglophone’, ‘francophone’, ‘romanization’, etc., are not capitalized, nor are ‘arabic numerals’ and ‘roman type’ (but ‘the Arabic language’, ‘the Roman alphabet’)." So, well, whatever. I always hated the HRA style guide for its wishy-washy nonsense,and now I have an example I can save for future reference.

The (American) legal guides I have on hand (Standler's, etc.) say not to capitalize "court" except in the full name of the court (Municipal Court for the City of Whatever), when addressing the court directly ("If it please the Court..."), or when referring to the US Supreme Court as "the Court" and otherwise do not address the issue. The general use of "court" in lower-case is consistent with the majority of sources.

The London Times style guide, like some other journalistic ones, are not going to be useful on this question because of advice like "[S]ome terms, eg, Act, Bill, Cabinet, Civil Service, always cap.", which WP would never obey.

The internal (staff) "Oxford University Style Guide" (Michaelmas term 2012): "The general rule is not to use a capital letter unless it is absolutely required." "college: capitalise only when used as part of the title of a college, not when referring to an institution without using its full name. Exeter College was founded in 1314. The college is one of the oldest in Oxford." Similarly for "division", "department", "faculty", "fellow", etc., etc. The only exception is "University" when it refers to Oxford specifically. "The largest University division is Medical Sciences." Because, you know, Oxford is magically special.

"The Guardian and Observer Style Guide"[19] waxes editorial (and clipped and British): "A look through newspaper archives would show greater use of capitals the further back you went. The tendency towards lowercase, which in part reflects a less formal, less deferential society, has been accelerated by the explosion of the internet [sic]....Our style reflects these developments. We aim for coherence and consistency, but not at the expense of clarity." Specifics: "jobs: all lc, eg prime minister, US secretary of state, chief rabbi, editor of the Guardian."; "titles: cap up titles, but not job description, eg President Barack Obama (but the US president, Barack Obama, and Obama on subsequent mention); the Duke of Westminster (the duke at second mention); Pope Francis but the pope."; "churches, hospitals and schools cap up the proper or placename, lc the rest, eg St Peter's church, Pembury, Great Ormond Street children's hospital, Ripon grammar school, Vernon county primary school."; and so on. Please pardon their freaky use of "eg" as if that were a word in English; they also seem to be the #1 source of "aka" as somehow equivalent to "a.k.a." or "AKA". Despite these sins, they get this one surprisingly consistent with so many other sources, and even contradict other lazy journalistic ones.

The Handbook of Good English (1991 rev'd. ed.) has an entire section (3-12) titled "Learn to distinguish generic terms from proper nouns and adjectives formed from them", so you can probably guess where they go on this. Farther than most, actually: It even suggests the Buffalo chamber of commerce (in ref. to Buffalo, New York). Otherwise, the HGE agrees completely with Chicago on all relevant points here.

National Geographic Style Guide[20], Zion National Park, Zion Park, the national park, the park, but gives a handful of special, conventional exceptions , e.g. the English Channel, the Channel.

I could go on (and will if it's demanded), but I think we have hear a clear body of evidence that a) usage is not consistent, but strongly leans toward lower case; b) it is not strongly tied to regional English language variant; and c) the retention of the capitalization ("in the Park" as a substitute for "in Golden Gate Park") is jargonistic and decreasingly common in mainstream English. This strikes me as a green light to deprecate the practice generally, since we're already doing it in several specific contexts here. I.e., no case has been made for special exception for, say, geographic names, or organization names, or personal titles, or whatever.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  05:57, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

I linked Wikipedia:Gender identity, a project explaining many reasons that the gender paragraph in the Identity section in this project are the way they are. User:Trystan reverted me, saying that "Linking to an essay from a guideline should only be done after a clear consensus has been established to do so."

Any thoughts from different Wikipedians on whether it's a good link from this guideline?? Please reveal whatever your thoughts are in whatever way you can. Georgia guy (talk) 15:54, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

I wouldn't... I realize that the issue of gender identity means a lot to a significant segment of our editors/readers, and it was important (and helpful) for these editors to write an essay to explain their views on how best to deal with gender identity issues... but the essay really only relates to a limited number of articles. I don't think it really rises to the level of importance that would make it worth linking to in the MOS. Note that I'm not opposed to doing so... I just don't think there is a clear need to do so. Blueboar (talk) 21:44, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
Don't link, I think it would harm matters. Without that link, the reason for the material in the MOS is because that's what the community consensus is. When you point to this essay, which may not represent the belief of everyone in that consensus and certainly does not represent the belief of everyone who has been in the discussions, it comes across as we do it this way because this is the right way to think about gender and everything else is wrong, which is not apt to be calming nor encouraging for folks who may want to vary from the guidelines to follow them. --Nat Gertler (talk) 02:07, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
Well, the essay is written in depth to make it as easy as possible for people not to be able to make objections to it after reading it carefully. Are there still some Wikipedians who disagree with it despite having read it carefully?? If so, what part?? Georgia guy (talk) 13:43, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
Wow, just about all of it. It's a rather condescending essay that promotes the idea that there is only one way to view gender and that makes it sound as if the goal of Wikipedia is to make its subjects comfortable. That's not likely to win over a large group of the doubters. There's a vast difference between saying that here is what we've decided to make our standard on a tricky issue, which is what the MOS does, and this is The Truth. Also, linking that to this would likely result to vast damage to the essay, as it would be then coming across as the Wikipedia Stance rather than the stance of the editors who had worked on it, and thus make it legitimate fodder for massive alteration. --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:07, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
I have to concur with both Blueboar and NatGertler. That essay is one particular (politicized) view, and is about some reasons to approach gender that one way; it's not about how we write here. Even if its advocacy nature were changed (why? it wouldn't be much of an essay then...), there's no clear rationale for the MOS reader's needs in us linking to it from here; it doesn't explain why MOS takes the position it does, and promoting socio-political, psycho-sexual essays isn't MOS's job.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  08:08, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Use of commas in article titles

The RM at Talk:John Gielgud, roles and awards#Requested move may be of interest. --Rob Sinden (talk) 11:16, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

  • I would like to know how this may affect, for one example, Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey (UK Parliament constituency) doktorb wordsdeeds 14:55, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
    I don't see any effect on titles where the comma is used for items in a series. The problem in the RM above is the use of the comma where the things separated are not things that a comma separates. If they were otherwise appropriate topics for articles or titles for those topics, "John Gielgud, Rosemary Clooney, and Samuel L. Jackson" would still be fine (serial use). "John Gielgud, super-genius" would still be fine (apposition). "John Gielgud, roles and awards" doesn't work, for the same reasons that we avoid "John Gielgud/Roles and awards" or "John Gielgud: roles and awards" (indication of article hierarchy). -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:09, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

WT:CONSENSUS discussion to remove mention of wikiprojects from WP:LOCALCONSENSUS

FYI
 – Notice of a relevant discussion elsewhere

Wikipedia talk:Consensus#Suggested change proposes to remove the wording unless they can convince the broader community that such action is right, participants in a WikiProject cannot decide that some generally accepted policy or guideline does not apply to articles within its scope from WP:LOCALCONSENSUS (a.k.a. WP:CONLEVEL). This would likely have a significant effect upon the Manual of Style's centralization of Wikipedia article-writing style advice in one place, and the extent to which that advice if followed.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  07:58, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Off-topic CONLOCAL discussion moved to WT:CONSENSUS
Moved to Wikipedia talk:Consensus § Further CONLOCAL discussion
SMcCandlish, I don't think the proposal would have the effect you fear. The idea behind the proposal is that, when two groups of editors reach a conflicting consensus, the locations of the two consensus discussions matters less than the relative size of the two consensuses.
I think everyone would agree that a consensus reached by hundreds of editors should out weigh a consensus reached by a limited number of editors ... because hundreds of editors better reflects the consensus of the "wider community" than one made by a limited number of editors. The problem is that some of our more obscure guidelines are the product of a very limited number of editors, while some of our larger WikiProjects have hundreds of active editors. In such a situation, we have to ask: which better reflects the views of the "wider community"? Blueboar (talk) 12:39, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
Blueboar, this talk of "consensus" is an erroneous use of the word. Hundreds of editors do not make a consensus if there are other editors elsewhere working with a different view, and the two groups have not engaged directly. Consensus buiding requires involvement of all stakeholders. If there are two groups in different places, they need to be made to work together in the same place. I think the obvious solution is to discourage pseudo-policy documentation being hosted on WikiProject pages. Instead, the WikiProject members need to engage other interested editors at the policy page. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:57, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
OK, but the same needs to apply in the other direction. Hundreds of editors (at a guideline) do not make a consensus if there are other editors elsewhere (at a WikiProject, or even on a specific article) working with a different view. Now... if we accept that, how does it mesh with what WP:CONLOCAL says? The entire rational behind CONLOCAL seems to indicate the opposite... that some consensuses (those at a policy/guideline) in some way trump other consensuses (those at WikiProjects).
I completely agree that when two groups reach conflicting consensus, they need to come together, discuss the issue and reach a compromise... that's how Consensus is supposed to work. The problems arise when the two groups refuse to listen to what each other is saying, and start engaging in pissing contests over which page trumps the other (for example Guideline vs WikiProject page).
Another issue is the question of where the new (compromise) consensus must be reached... does it have to be reached at the relevant Policy/Guideline page, or can that discussion take place on the WikiProject's page? (my opinion is that it does not matter)... however, if it takes place on the WikiProject page, does CONLOCAL apply to that new consensus? I hope we could agree that it does not really matter which page the discussion takes place at. Unfortuately, the current wording of CONLOCAL can be interpreted as saying that the (new) consensus will continue to be discounted, simply because it took place "at a WikiProject" and not at a policy/guideline page. There will be diehards who refuse to accept that a new "wider" consensus has been reached... simply because of where the discussion took place. These diehards will continue to argue that the (new) consensus is "LOCAL" even though it isn't. Yet another unintended flaw with the current language of CONLOCAL. Blueboar (talk) 13:48, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
I don't agree with the language on levels of consensus at WP:Consensus. Instead, I would say a group in isolation may think it has a Wikipedia consensus, but it is mistaken. It may be operating under a false consensus. The term "local consensus" is not helpful, it implies independent separate parts of the community.
Where should separate groups come together? In theory, it needn't matter. In practice it does. They should come together at the policy/guideline talk page, or elsewhere if agreed and advised at that talk page, elsewhere such as a subpage of the talk page, or a WP:RfC subpage. WikiProjects are special interest areas, and are not appropriate places to document community practice. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:25, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
Indeed. This was just a neutral pointer to centralize the discussion over there, because it's directly relevant to MOS (this talk page is about 80% covered by debate that ultimately comes down to whether WP:CONLEVEL is really policy). The last thing we need is to fork a consensus-building discussion about how much consensus-building needs to stop forking.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  20:24, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Gender designation preferred by a subject

I am revising the heading of this section from New question to Gender designation preferred by a subject, in harmony with WP:TPOC, point 12 (Section headings). Please see Microcontent: How to Write Headlines, Page Titles, and Subject Lines. The new heading facilitates recognition of the topic in links and watchlists and tables of contents, and it facilitates maintenance of Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Register.
—Wavelength (talk) 19:14, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
Thread retitled from "New question".

Notice the statement:

An exception to this is made for terms relating to gender. In such cases we favor self-designation, even when source usage would indicate otherwise. Any person whose gender might be questioned should be referred to by the pronouns, possessive adjectives, and gendered nouns (for example "man/woman", "waiter/waitress", "chairman/chairwoman") that reflect that person's latest expressed gender self-identification. This applies in references to any phase of that person's life, unless the subject has indicated a preference otherwise. Direct quotations may need to be handled as exceptions (in some cases adjusting the portion used may reduce apparent contradictions, and " [sic]" may be used where necessary).

Are there some people with Wikipedia articles who the bolded phrase applies to?? Georgia guy (talk) 18:55, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Gregory_Hemingway might be. In any case, having a clause there that is not currently being used is not a problem - and it makes sense. Why would we have a rule saying "use their preference" but only in some situations? Just as we don't let the Majority dictate how the minority is termed, we should not allow a majority OF the minority to dictate to an even smaller minority. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:16, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
Exceptions (who I have met) include James Robinson and Alexander James Adams, both female-to-mail trans, who refer to their pre-transition identity as if it were a different (female) person. Alex's preference can be easily documented. I know James/Jane's preference, but do not know if it is documented. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:07, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
Gaijin42, that can only be taken so far, though, before it becomes WP:ADVOCACY, or simply absurd. If I decide I'd rather be referred to as a Dsnorfoptlian than an American, or a man, or a human, I don't expect Wikipedia to go along with that. I'm not sure where the line is, and it might be fuzzy, but I'm pretty sure it does exist.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  07:52, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
Off the top of my head I can't think of anyone for whom the bolded statement applies, but I do know of some people (i.e. Mina Caputo) who don't seem to care about gendered noun, pronouns, and the like. Renee Richards also speaks about being a man in the same way Alexander James Adams does above. There are obviously differing viewpoints on the matter, as there are with any group of people, and it would be thoroughly unsurprising to find someone who would state a preference contrary to that of our MoS. SMcCandlish, obviously we can't take it too far, but I'd think that most situations are obvious enough one way or another that it won't be a big deal. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 18:06, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

MOS:COMMA on thumbnails, tables and boxes

This is actually about periods (full points), not commas.

I have a question: Could we define a policy when to insert commas after text on thumbnails, tables and boxes? Examples:

With dot...
Grass flower with vestigial perianth or lodicules.
Countries by percent of Avaaz members.
The list can be scrolled manually or interactively
#;Country Popul. Avaaz color coded %
...or without
Grass flower with vestigial perianth or lodicules
Countries by percent of Avaaz members
The list can be scrolled manually or interactively
#;Country Popul. Avaaz color coded %

--Rezonansowy (talk | contribs) 21:38, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Grammatically, that would depend on whether the material was a sentence or not. "Countries by percent of Avaaz members" doesn't even have a verb; is not sentence. "The list can be scrolled manually or interactively" is a sentence, and should end with a period. Or a dot. Or maybe even an exclamation point, if you feel really good about it. --Nat Gertler (talk) 00:23, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Captions#Formatting and punctuation.
—Wavelength (talk) 00:30, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Weird this-article-uses-an-external-style-guide banner

Template:Bsastyle. Only used in 15 articles. I see this as pretty problematic. The way to integrate special scouting jargon, where it's really needed on Wikipedia, is to define it in context or to create a glossary of scouting article, with sourced terms in it, and then link to them from usage of these terms in context in articles. The idea that we're going to impose some external style guide on articles here is pretty off-base. I'm tempted to WP:TFD this immediately, but I'm curious if there are any other "this article uses our special jargon at this external style manual" templates created by wikiprojects.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  02:24, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Do not change hyphens to dashes in templates like {{Bibleverse}}

The newly added advice is "Do not change hyphens to dashes in filenames, URLs or templates like {{Bibleverse}} which formats verse ranges into URLs." but it's perhaps not quite clear. Regarding the templates, are we talking about the input or the output? For example, {{Bibleverse|Genesis|1:15-16}} gives [http://tools.wmflabs.org/bibleversefinder/?book=Genesis&verse=1:15-16&src=! Genesis 1:15-16] and we wouldn't want to change the hyphen in the template call nor the one in the url but the hyphen displayed should be changed i.e. it should be [http://tools.wmflabs.org/bibleversefinder/?book=Genesis&verse=1:15-16&src=! Genesis 1:15&endash;16] (this is a job for the template writer). Of course, then we have to ask what these "templates like {{Bibleverse}}" are. Perhaps it would be better simple to warn users that some template inputs must be hyphens not dashes (and give this as an example); perhaps it's better still not to mention this here since template doc pages are the place for template use instructions. Jimp 11:30, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

I did also ask at Template talk:Bibleverse#dashes and hyphens what the template's options were. Ideally, templates would support hyphens and dashes as input and then properly style the output. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:57, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
Yep.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  02:27, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Italicization for taxa above genus

Editors are invited to see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Plants#Italicization for taxa above genus (version of 00:44, 25 April 2014).
—Wavelength (talk) 00:59, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Names - to conform or not to conform, that is the question.

I have noticed a trend ... many of our most heated debates have centered on the issue of how to present NAMES (whether in an article title or in running text) that don't conform to our MOS. The core debate being, should we "force" them conform or not? Whether we are talking about birds (the current debate), or pop-stars (the Deadmou5 debate) or some other topic, our most heated debates seem to relate to that question.

Rather than try to propose any specific change to the MOS, or advocate any position on the question... I would like to explore the issue of names at a more conceptual level. Let's start with the basic question: When should we conform a name to our preferred style, and (perhaps more important) when should we not do so? Blueboar (talk) 16:02, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

When the MoS is right and the article is wrong, do what the MoS says. When the article is right and the MoS is wrong, keep the article as it is but be prepared for consequences. When both options are right, use the one selected by the first major contributor, even if that makes the article in question different from other articles.
To determine what is right and what is wrong, consult outside sources, such as style guides. If the style guides are divided on the issue, consult the ones most relevant to Wikipedia's situation if it makes any difference and the most reputable one if it does not. Darkfrog24 (talk) 16:50, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
"First major contributor" stuff has nothing to do with this issue. In the odd case that "both options are right", do what MOS says; it's the WP style guide.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  18:16, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
Whaaat? It's never helpful to frame a discussion like this in terms of a guideline "forcing" anything. I don't think anyone would propose a discussion like this about whether WP:NCBOOKS should "force" articles on book titles to not include long subtitles in the name, or whether WP:BIO should "force" potential articles about people with a role in co-creating something to only be about people who have played "major" roles in such co-creation; or pick any other "rule" in any other guideline about which to misleadingly construct an "it's forcing us!" fallacy.

It's nonsensical and just weirdly, unreasonably anti-MOS (in effect if not intent) to come at disputes here from such an angle. WP:RM and other discussions that frequently touch on MOS matters are based on consensus, and consensus leans toward what MOS says because it is the our style guideline, built by us. It was not imposed on us by some alien space god. There is no reason to have a discussion about whether the fomenting of anti-MOS rebellion is cool or not. It's not, as a matter of policy.

If there's a case where MOS seems to expect a style that doesn't make sense in that instance, that's why MOS has a talk page. Most of what MOS says, from top to bottom, is in there because of discussions about MOS's inadequacy about something (either proposals to add/change something, or defenses of WP:BOLD edits that add/change something). That's how Wikipedia works. It's how we arrived at all of our various naming conventions, notability expectations, criteria for what constitutes reliable sources, and everything else covered by our guidelines.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  18:16, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

What I am asking is this... When a name appears in the real world (as demonstrated by sources) in a form that does not conform to our MOS... what are we to do? Some will point to the MOS and say, "this needs to be conformed to the MOS". Others will disagree and say "this needs to be an exception to the MOS". In such cases, who is correct?
My guess is that in many cases the actual answer will not be clear cut. In many cases it's probably more of a "well, it depends on several factors" sort of answer. What I am hoping to see is some discussion about the sort of factors that the decision depends on. Are their situations where editors should simply ignore the MOS? If so, what are they? Blueboar (talk) 19:36, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
SMcCandlish, once again, LOCALCONSENSUS absolutely does not say that the MoS has a monopoly on style issues. It does not even mention the MoS. --Trovatore (talk) 19:42, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
Of course it mentions MOS: "participants in a WikiProject cannot decide that some generally accepted policy or guideline does not apply to articles within its scope" MOS is a generally accepted guideline. Random WP:PROJPAGEs are not and are precisely what that policy says does not trump guidelines like MOS. If you're looking for some kind of smoking gun that the policy doesn't mention MOS by name, that's just silly. It doesn't mention anything at all by name and addresses all policies and guidelines (and, oppositionally, all wikiproject stuff that contradicts them) in general terms. If I say "all chickens are birds", you can't contradict that statement with "no, MY chicken is a fish, because you didn't say mine in particular is a bird". Sheesh. Also, no one ever mentioned anything about WP:LOCALCONSENSUS saying anything has a "monopoly" on anything, except you. Three times in three different discussions over the last month. It's basically a weird non sequitur.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  21:43, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
It says that the broader consensus has precedence over the narrower. It does not say that the broader consensus on a given point will always be the one at MoS; that has to be proven case-by-case, even if the point happens to be a style point. It definitely does not say "anti-MOS rebellion is not cool"; that's your non-sequitur. --Trovatore (talk) 23:45, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
Some wikiproject page no one watchlists but its members is never going to be a wider consensus than MOS, so I'm not sure why we're even arguing about this. If there comes a time when, who knows, WP:NCFLORA says something like "italicize all taxa, from kingdom down" and MOS still disagreed (as it surely would), and somehow NCFLORA's watchlist had a grown to exceed that of MOS itself, I suppose people could engage in silly arguments about which might have precedence if they really wanted to, but the practical thing to do there would be to have an RFC promoted at WP:CENT and WP:VPP to resolve the matter. <shrug> This entire scenario of "let's use other pages to contradict MOS and see if we can game the system to trump it" would be a bunch of pointy lameness (I'm sure I don't need to link any of those pages by now), and the end result would still be a broad-participation consensus discussion about whether to change MOS, because MOS is where Wikipedia stores its style guidelines that have consensus. QED.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  02:03, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
SmC, the word "force" is merited. May Wikieditors use whatever style they want with no consequences? No they can't. Do they feel like someone else is pushing them and laying down a unilateral law? Sometimes they do. We all know that the talk page doesn't always help. The better-sourced case often gets shouted down by the majority, even in the face of proof. Pretending that the MoS doesn't evoke bad feelings won't help dispel them.
But I agree with the MoS trumping other Wikipedia pages for this reason: Putting all the rules in one place makes them easier to find. Even if there is an exception to the MoS, it should be here, not somewhere else. I remember my new days on Wikipedia, clicking through six and seven and ten pages and still not finding the rule I needed. A single MoS covering all style issues is best. Darkfrog24 (talk) 02:45, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
The "better sourced case" for style purposes is the case with the most generalist sources that use standard English, not the case that relies on obscure, jargonistic specialist sources that mangle English writing rules for their own internal purposes. We've been over this many times, and there's a whole essay about this at WP:SSF, so I don't need to go over that again here. I don't see anyone at all pretending some people don't get upset over the MOS. It's the nature of style guides. There is no rule you can put in any style guide that someone somewhere does not want to vehemently object to. Ce'est la vie.

There isn't anything you can do on WP that doesn't have consequences if you do it disruptively. But really, no one cares if you do something habitually that doesn't agree with MOS, you just can't force your quirk on existing prose, or revert other people normalizing what you've written to MOS's version. You're not forced to do anything covered by MOS, but you can be administratively prevented from disruptively doing anti-consensus things that affect other editors. Not the same thing.

I'll tell you from experience that if you just stop fighting a style quirk you disagree with here, you just get used to it and stop grinding your teeth and your axe and move on. There are at least 20 things I disagree with in MOS, and I just do them anyway, or avoid circumstances where I"d be called upon to do them, or even WP:IAR sometimes and write them my way in new material, as long as I"m not messing up someone else's MOS-compliant material. Seriously, you do just get over it.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  05:48, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

SMC - I was not really discussing CONLEVEL conflicts - what I wanted to discuss was the far more basic issue of how to present NAMES. Again, the question is: what should editors to do when a NAME does not conform to the guidance set out at the MOS. Should we "conform" the name to our MOS or not?
I suspect the answer to that fundamental question is not black and white... it is likely to be more along the lines of "Sometimes we should, and sometimes we should not.". But answer that leads to another basic question: when should we "conform" names to the MOS, and when should we not conform them? Blueboar (talk) 12:45, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

This sort of question usually gets resolved by examining examples and seeing how they differ, and doing this enough times until a principle emerges.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  21:13, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
OK... that's exactly the sort of discussion I am hoping to we can have... let's look at examples, see how they differ, and whether a principle emerges. Blueboar (talk) 12:45, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Capitalization of "Indigenous" for indigenous populations of Australia

FYI
 – Pointer to a relevant discussion elsewhere.

See poll at WT:MOSCAPS#Capitalisation of Indigenous when referring to Australian Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. It started as a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Indigenous_peoples_of_Australia#Capitalisation#Capitalisation, and the pro/con arguments are summarized there, but the proponents of the idea launched the poll at MOSCAPS concurrently. I hatted the wikiproject discussion and directed it to the MOSCAPS discussion, to centralize.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  00:12, 27 April 2014 (UTC) And it was unhatted. I guess you're all expected to participate in both discussions at the same time for no reason. Or an admin can just go {{hat}} one of them.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  14:16, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Proto-proposal of new citation style guideline

FYI
 – Pointer to a relevant discussion elsewhere.

See: Help talk:Citation Style 1/Archive 4#Time for a real CS1 style guide?. Short version: Matters of style keep coming up there, some rather perennially. The outcome of this could ultimately affect the majority of articles in various ways, since they all have to cite sources, and most use citation style 1.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  15:07, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Archive_154&oldid=1136059471"