Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 174

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 170←Archive 172Archive 173Archive 174Archive 175Archive 176→Archive 180

Religion parameter in infoboxes

When an info box contains a "religion = X" parameter (displays as Religion: X") should it be in the form "Religion: Roman Catholic" or "Religion "Roman Catholicism"? "Muslim" or "Islam"? "Buddhist" or "Buddhism"?

Note that while this mostly pertains to biographies, some organizations, schools and counties have a religion listed in the infobox. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:41, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

  • My call: In biographies I think we should use the adjectival form ("Catholic", "Muslim", Episcopalian, etc.) since that is more appropriate when talking about an individual. In articles about places and organizations, I am less sure... but lean towards "Catholicism", "Islam", etc. as that is more appropriate for a group. Blueboar (talk) 13:18, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Blank line under section heading, part of Wikipedia's default spacing

I propose a change in this content at Section headings. The blank line below the section heading is currently optional. I'd like to see it changed to mandatory.

Current version
".... Include one blank line above the heading, and optionally one blank line below it, for readability in the edit window (but not two or more consecutive blank lines, which will add unnecessary visible white space in the rendered page)." (Italics mine)
Proposed change
".... Include one blank line above the heading and optionally one blank line below it for readability in the edit window (but not two or more consecutive blank lines, which will add unnecessary visible white space in the rendered page). Also add one blank line below it to make it easier to find in the edit window. Editors with poor eyesight will find this helpful. (It is actually part of Wikipedia software's default spacing if one uses the "new section" tab.) (Addition in italics)
Shorter version
".... Include one blank line above and one below the heading for readability in the edit window (but not two or more consecutive blank lines, which will add unnecessary visible white space in the rendered page). Editors with poor eyesight will find this helpful. (The blank line below the heading is actually part of Wikipedia software's default spacing if one uses the "new section" tab.) (Changes in italics)

To check the defaults, go to your talk page and push the "new section" tab, make a heading, and type a couple words of content. Then save it and reopen the editing window. You'll see that there is a blank line below the heading, and even a blank space before and after the words in the heading.

Note that none of these spacings make any difference in the final appearance of the page, but they make a difference in ease of editing for many editors. If you open an article in edit mode and scan the article, looking for a particular heading, or all headings, it's much easier to find them when they don't blend together with section content, as they do when there are no blank lines below the headings. There are just a whole lot of single blank lines. This change makes headings pop out at you.

This very simple change makes the editing experience easier, and that has merit. -- BullRangifer (talk) 05:26, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

  • I don't think it matters... as long as the styling is consistent within an article. Blueboar (talk) 12:23, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
  • I don't even think that the style needs to be consistent within an article. A few archive bots adjust these, but (if memory serves, and it may not) they remove the blank line after the section heading. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:37, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
  • My take is that we shouldn't add new rules to the MoS unless there's a clear problem that adding those rules would solve. Got anything like that for this? Are there articles where too much space is a problem? Darkfrog24 (talk) 18:52, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Strongly oppose This is a very clear example of totally unnecessary instruction creep. There's a group of editors who seem to spend a lot of time inserting and removing blank lines and spaces that don't show in the rendered text. I've seen "== Section title ==" and "==Section title==" being changed back and forth in a number of articles.
There is a disadvantage to extra blank lines: they reduce the length of the text visible in the edit window, making editing slightly more tedious. If they've been added to an article I'm working on extensively, I remove them for this reason. Peter coxhead (talk) 20:54, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
Why is "visible" necessary? Tony (talk) 09:30, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
Perhaps because things are easier to see when they are visible? (Quips apart, I think what Peter is getting at is that more blank lines than really necessary reduce the amount of context visible in the edit window). --Mirokado (talk) 22:29, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Strongly support BullRangifer's suggestion be taken seriously as a good faith and needed MOS improvement. Extra line breaks to not render to our readers. It would be easier for me too if extra line breaks in articles were already there for the most part. When I edit an article needing copy edits I also proof the entire article for other issues if I have time (like for extra white space, incomplete refs, spaces before refs, semi-colon used to create pseudo headings, overwikilinking, basic layout of headings in wrong order, alphabetizing categories, adding portals, adding sister project links, etc.).
To pull this off it helps me to insert a line break (if not already existing) after each: heading, group of templates, or image. They do not render. This is the way I chunk up the article for easier proofing. However, I strongly oppose bots (such as BG19bot assisted by WP:AWB (Auto Wiki Browser) stripping these line breaks out after I take my time to manually insert them. This practice by bots and AWB should be immediately halted as being disruptive to my permitted (and encouraged) edits. If you go to the BG19bot userpage there is a table of permitted changes linked and stripping out line breaks below headings is not one of the permitted bot changes. And, since it's a cosmetic change, bots aren't supposed to go there. Extra line breaks do not render. Cheers! ...Checkingfax ( Talk ) 22:15, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Having the heading, any image, and the paragraph text on adjacent lines, with blank lines mainly just after each paragraph, makes it easier to recognise the paragraph boundaries. --Mirokado (talk) 22:29, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
    Mirokado, it looks like we actually agree, so your !vote should be changed to "support". You recognize the importance of the visual impression. I want section boundaries to be just as noticeable as paragraph boundaries. A paragraph should "jump out" from its surroundings as a clear entity, just as a section heading should also jump out so it's immediately noticeable. If there is no difference between a paragraph boundary and a section boundary, the blocks of text (paragraphs) all flow together, with no clearly visible section break because the heading appears to be part of the paragraph. To notice it, I have to slow down quite a bit, and that makes the editing experience a drag, as well as introducing the risk of errors. The visual difference should be at least as clear for a section as for a paragraph. -- BullRangifer (talk) 02:13, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
    No we don't agree, I'm afraid. Section headings are usually distinctive because they are short lines preceded by a blank line and followed by a block of text. There is no need for a following blank line too. We can search for the '==' (or '===' etc) markup to jump through sections quickly. --Mirokado (talk) 13:13, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
BullRangifer, here are links to previous discussions, initiated by Dicklyon and SlimVirgin respectively.
—Wavelength (talk) 22:41, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for those links. I'll check them out. -- BullRangifer (talk) 02:13, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Wikimarkup is pretty trivial; I don't think we need "coding standards". As long as it doesn't affect what the reader sees, and doesn't do anything baroque to what an editor sees, then who really cares? Most editors won't even notice one way or the other, and the ones that do have my blessing to "fix" it if they like, but no instruction is needed. --Trovatore (talk) 23:04, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Trovatore, I wish it were that simple, but I have been treated pretty rudely for doing it, even though I never edit war over it. The fact that "Most editors won't even notice one way or the other" isn't an argument against doing it. This is for the benefit of those editors who will notice it. Ignoring minority needs isn't helpful, especially when it doesn't inconvenience others. The extremely tiny difference in how much can be seen in the editing window is so negligible as to be unworthy of comment. -- BullRangifer (talk) 02:21, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment. The blank-line situation in the MoS is annoying because it has been written into AWB, and they won't change it because it's in the MoS. Whoever has added it to AWB has interpreted it to mean that there must be a blank line under every heading and subheading. In articles with lots of subheadings, we end up with:
==Level 1==


===Level 2===


====Level 3====
This is a nuisance on a small screen. Where there are other changes at the same time, it can make checking diffs harder because it moves text. Sometimes this is the only change the bot makes. Whatever the consensus here is, it would help if the MoS would say: "There is no need to include a blank line between two headings." Tony, I've been meaning to ask you about this, but it seemed too minor to raise on its own, so I'm piggy-backing onto this discussion. Sarah (talk) 01:05, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
Sarah, I too have noticed that. Your suggestion is a good one. The blank line should only be between the heading and following text, not if there is a following subsection heading. -- BullRangifer (talk) 02:21, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
Strongly agree with Sarah. I remove them when doing any serious copy-editing. And small-screen-friendly is now increasingly important. Tony (talk) 10:47, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
Sarah, currently AWB and its bot brigade is *removing* any line breaks below headings that they come across. See this. Cheers! ...Checkingfax ( Talk ) 03:16, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Indeed, the MOS should ideally remain 100% agnostic on any differences which do not change rendered text, and should actively discourage users from making changes which do not alter rendered text. --Jayron32 01:18, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Jayron32, let me get this right. Are you really saying that there should be no efforts to make the editing experience easier for minority groups, even when they don't inconvenience others? -- BullRangifer (talk)
  • Nope. If I had said that I would have said that. I just double checked. I used totally different words than what you just used. So no, I really didn't say what you just did. What I said was "Indeed, the MOS should ideally remain 100% agnostic on any differences which do not change rendered text, and should actively discourage users from making changes which do not alter rendered text." You may want to read it again to make sure you get all the words right, because you clearly read the wrong words if what you read was what you typed back at me. --Jayron32 02:40, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Jayron32,, thanks for the reply. This is how we clear up misunderstandings. What I wrote is how I interpreted what you wrote, because that is the effect, even if it's an unintended consequence. The proposed change does not alter rendered text, so your statement would forbid it, even though the change makes a substantive improvement in the editing experience for editors, especially those with poorer eyesight. That's why your POV would deny any action (at least this one) which improves the editing experience for a minority group. We already care about the reader's reading experience, but we should also care about the editor's editing experience. -- BullRangifer (talk) 04:16, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose This isn't really a MOS issue anyway but I don't these blank spaces even helpful (especially when there are subheadings, subsubheadings, subsubsubheadings, etc.). Jimp 06:17, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

References to academic publications with transgender authors

Similar to the issue of book titles is the issue of authorship. I am thinking of the works of the distinguished American economist Deirdre McCloskey, born Donald. The possible issues here include all the obvious ones discussed above, plus the question of whether to mention that a first edition was by "Donald", the second by "Deirdre". References and citations are different from mere data, these are things people actually want to look up and track down. This question would apply to publications identified in the author's WP page (where our ideal reader will know what's going on) and outside that page (where our ideal reader is not expected to know what's going on).

This looks similar to the Walter/Wendy Carlos question regarding "Switched-On Bach", but I don't think it's really the same. Or maybe it is the same, but technical authorship instead of artistic authorship skews the question in a different way. Academic literature database lookup is an essential part of modern research. Do we want to tweak Template:cite to allow for now-known-as variants?

Obviously, "D. McCloskey" will often suffice for academic citations. I'd like to know what to do when it doesn't. Choor monster (talk) 18:35, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

This looks like it's a slightly separate issue, so I've moved it to its own thread.
This, unlike Wikipedia articles in general, looks very specific. How do academic style guides treat this kind of name change? (Most of the academic papers I deal with just use the first initial.) Darkfrog24 (talk) 18:48, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
There is a discussion about publications above, but not in an academic context. (Popes/Queens/etc.)
I personally have no idea how academic style guides handle this, I think they just improvise, based on what I've seen in my own reading.
To give examples of academic name changes I've seen in print and mentioned in citations:
The three Google books results list various ways these name changes have been handled in references. The first two authors have many distinguished publications under both names. The third author had a medium-distinguished publication list prior to her marriage. Choor monster (talk) 19:28, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
The Brontë family may be relevant to this discussion.—Wavelength (talk) 19:54, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
The purpose of a citation is to identify the source that supports some bit of article text. It is not a place for author biographies. WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT tells me that when I take a fact from an author's book, I am obliged to cite that book. The information in my citation comes from the book I used. Whomever that book identifies as the author is the name that I should use in my citation. As far as I know, there are no little sprites who visit every copy of every book to make name corrections should the author's preferred name change for whatever reason. It is also highly likely that I do not hold the only copy of that book. There are other copies out there and all of them from that same printing identify the author by the same name as is done for my copy.
—Trappist the monk (talk) 19:15, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
Your last sentence is true, but it dodges the question that does come up. There are first editions by "Donald McCloskey", second editions by "Deirdre McCloskey". For example, The Rhetoric of Economics. For most purposes, the books are the same. Choor monster (talk) 15:02, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
Simply use the name of the author that is printed in whatever edition that is cited. Furthermore, we can't expect people to know the name change has taken place when citing an older edition (nor will the books magically change as pointed out above). I don't research the author of every source I happen to use.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 16:59, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
And if you do know? I might cite to my personal copy, 2nd edition, but perhaps someone wants to look it up in their library and it only has the 1st edition? And even if you do not know, what of it? This is WP. Doubtless someone else will know and see your citation. What should that person do? I'd like a clear statement on this. Choor monster (talk) 17:08, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
Even if it is known, what is printed in the source should be used (there may not be an updated edition, no need to speculate). Name changes shouldn't necessarily be a concern and don't need urgent updating when it comes to citations. The most common case is women regarding maiden and married names; we don't treat those any differently or retroactively change them.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 00:48, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
And maybe we should change that? See the three authors I listed above, with links to Google Books. Academic citations include name changes. The question hasn't been raised before. I assume it has never been more than a one-off and no one was ever geeky enough to care. But in the case of transgendered authors, we have BLP and MOS:IDENTITY issues to be careful about, and treating these like a one-off is asking for edit warring. Choor monster (talk) 13:40, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
No, because we can't change traditional books (printed). There are no "BLP and MOS:IDENTITY" concerns because those guidelines don't really apply to citations. A citation, or reference, uniquely identifies a source of information, no more, no less. Potentially updating an authors name when there isn't a new edition of that book, would be harmful. Not doing does it, doesn't hurt the purpose of a reference, as the book will always be able to be found under the previous name. Not making a guideline or worrying about it means there is less room for error, and less work to be done to something that's already correct for its purpose. In other words: If it isn't broke, don't fix it.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 16:11, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
You're just ducking the question. We do not want edit wars over 1st edition versus 2nd edition citations, just because the main difference is simply the author's name and editors claim BLP/MOS:IDENTITY issues apply. Do we want to discourage double citing? Just saying we can't change books, books themselves don't have BLP/MOS:IDENTITY issues, isn't of any help here.
Meanwhile, your statement about citations contradicts my several decades of experience in using citations in academia. They're jumping off points, and having incomplete jumping off points is definitely a broken system. A reader who can't easily look up a perfectly valid Donald McCloskey 1st edition when its 2nd edition by Deirdre McCloskey is at his fingertips has been done a disservice. You're right, we can't change books, but that's not an excuse to provide less than helpful information. As I have pointed out twice now, academic citations do include name changes. Why? Because it's helpful, and apparently they thought providing incomplete information is somewhat broken. Choor monster (talk) 16:40, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
And as a further thing that could confuse readers if we just let things happen willy-nilly, do we care if we mix cites to "Donald" and "Deirdre", with no indication that these two are the same person? Apparently academic publishers do care. Choor monster (talk) 16:56, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

The purpose of references here on Wikipedia is for verifiability. BLP/MOS:IDENTITY does not apply to citations. We are not academia, which may have different purposes and citation styles. Wikipedia:Citing sources#Books clears up this issue: In effect, different editions of the same work can be considered different sources, so expanding the citation to include multiple editions (double citing) is unnecessary at best, erroneous at worst. WP:Page numbers covers that even if a different edition is provided, it may be in a different location within that (or missing per the latter guideline), simply adding another edition wouldn't work. Lastly, the spirit of WP:CITEVAR covers edit-warring over edition preference, stating, Editors should not attempt to change an article's established citation style merely on the grounds of personal preference. While I personally think this matter is a non-issue per what I've just stated and my comments above, if this concern is deemed something of importance: Most of the reasons other(s) list above appearing to advocate for such a guideline, apply equally to all name changes, not just those of certain groups. Therefore, all name changes should be treated the same.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 01:37, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Per Trappist, I'm sympathetic to the "do no harm" principle in biographies and in article text, but in the case of sources, it's incumbant to cite sources verbatim. If I am holding a book in my hand that is written by Jane Doe, published by Anypress, in January, 1986, titled The Book of Everything, I should cite exactly what is written in the citation, since the purpose of the citation is to help others find the work. If Jane Doe later changes name to John Doe, while it would be prudent to update references to Jane in Wikipedia articles which deal with the person, but the book I'm holding in my hand, with the name Jane Doe written as the author, does not change, so my citation should not. --Jayron32 13:22, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
Trappist is spot on.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 16:59, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
I too agree with Trappist. The issue is the same with anyone who changes their name, whether a woman on marriage or whatever. A book is cited by the information printed in it. The fact that a second edition has a different name is irrelevant: the publication date, edition number and ISBN should all be present in a citation and uniquely identify the particular "version". Peter coxhead (talk) 18:26, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
Meanwhile, the question I raised is not being addressed. Do we or do we not encourage/discourage giving more complete citations when possible if potential readers who wish to look up a citation could be thrown for a loop by a name change? Choor monster (talk) 18:41, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
Can you think of a time when that would happen? Like the others said, the point is to help the reader find the information, not give them a balanced and accurate description of the author. Darkfrog24 (talk) 18:48, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
When somebody wants to look up the reference? Or spontaneously look for more information by the same author? Choor monster (talk) 19:07, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
That's what authority control is for, which is not in the remit of a citation, in my opinion. --Izno (talk) 19:26, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

As an inclusionist I like my refs to include as much detail as I can lay my hands on. I don't mind adding extra author names. Or, take it a step further and update the citation templates to: |current1=|previous1=|current2=|previous2=| Cheers! ...Checkingfax ( Talk ) 22:32, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

(Izno) Authority control seems to be working fine when I look things up in WorldCat or MathSciNet or university libraries. It is unavailable when I look things up on Amazon, Google, or Jstor.
(Checkingfax) Any citation must be absolutely clear as to which edition you are relying on. And we don't want to deprecate the existing parameters. Thus, any revision must leave author= alone, but allow for author-fka= to refer back to an earlier edition and author-lka= to refer forward to a later edition. "Current" can become obsolete, and should be avoided entirely. (forgot to sign, sig added later:) Choor monster (talk) 16:40, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
  • I would object to changing the cite templates in this way, or in general to giving any information in the citation that is not in the source being cited. If the author has an article here, we can use |author-link= to link to the article, where the name change should be mentioned, if it is supported by reliable sources. And by the way, how could we cite a reliable source for the name change of a cited author? If we can't this becomes "uncited information about a living person on another page" (if the author is living) and is subject to removal on sight. If we cite a specific edition of a work, I wouldn't object to a note "earlier (or later) edition exists, with ISBN XXXXX" or "Dated YYYY" so that people looking for the source can find a different edition if the cited ed is not readily available, but of course pagination often changes in different editions, and the cited fact might not even be present in a different edition (although it often will be). DES (talk) 18:14, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Regarding RS for a name change, this would presumably be the later edition itself in the case of books. In the worst case, a comment in the source identifying RS should suffice.
  • Regarding multiple editions being cited, do we or do we not mention the name change? If not, someone looking for a work might only have the other-named edition readily available, and not realize it. Choor monster (talk) 19:43, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

This is not the correct forum to discuss this. Discuss this at Wikipedia:Citing sources. Jc3s5h (talk) 21:37, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

I was thinking that myself.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 01:41, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
This discussion is a spin-off of a previous discussion on this page that is discussing a policy/guideline revision that, if not worded carefully, could interfere with citations. If a consensus forms that something should be done regarding citation styles/template as a solution, then a discussion there would be appropriate. Choor monster (talk) 19:43, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Lowercase "his" in title case

In Wikipedia:Today's featured article/November 4, 2015, "his" is lowercased in The Return of Ulysses to his Homeland, both in the article and in every ghit I've found so far. Thoughts? - Dank (push to talk) 20:35, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

"Ghit"?
It seems as though "his" should be capitalized in title case, but if that's how the title is written in the RS, then that style should be preserved per exception rules. Darkfrog24 (talk) 23:04, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, Google hit. Okay, that's what I was thinking too. - Dank (push to talk) 00:34, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Adding commas to "the [so and so] show" type of sentence

As seen here, here, here, and here, an editor (Cebr1979) insists on adding commas to sentences such as "Marty Saybrooke is a fictional character from the American daytime drama, One Life to Live." My argument is that such sentences should not have the comma there. This was also stated in a different discussion, where others weighed in. Opinions from editors/watchers of this guideline and talk page would be much appreciated for sorting out this grammar aspect. Flyer22 (talk) 04:24, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Note: SMcCandlish helped out with this matter at Talk:Marty Saybrooke#Improper comma usage. A WP:Permalink for it is here. Flyer22 (talk) 20:46, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

This is just how the English language is. A comma needs to be before the name. Ex:

  • Jim had supper with his parents, Mr. & Mrs. Smith.
  • This is my dog, Bingo.
  • Phyllis Summers is a fictional character from the American CBS daytime soap opera, The Young and the Restless.

Cebr1979 (talk) 23:24, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

@Cebr1979: The difference between the phrases above is that the first two are complete sentences before the comma where the third is not. In the first "his parents" and "Mr. & Mrs. Smith" are the same thing. In the second "my dog" and "Bingo" are the same thing. In the third "the American CBS daytime soap opera" describes "The Young and the Restless". I'm sure someone who knows grammar better than I can talk about the names of those things, but that's the difference.  SchreiberBike | ⌨  01:01, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
That's just not true at all! "his parents" describes his relationship to Mr. & Mrs. Smith. "my dog" describes what Bingo is... just like "American CBS daytime soap opera" does for The Young and the Restless. Cebr1979 (talk) 01:43, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
There's a difference between "This is my oldest dog, Bingo", where both "my oldest dog" and "Bingo" uniquely refer to the entity in question, so "Bingo" is semantically parenthetical, and "This is my dog Bingo", when the speaker has more than one dog, so "my dog" is not sufficient and only the full phrase "my dog Bingo" effects the reference. In the second case a comma is not needed in modern English which is more tolerant of stacked nouns than it used to be. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:28, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
Flyer22 and Peter coxhead are right, and Cebr1979 is wrong. The comma marks off a parenthetical phrase. A parenthetical phrase is one that can be removed and the sentence still means the same thing. If you remove the parenthetical phrase in Cebr1979's first two examples you're left with "Jim had supper with his parents" and "this is my dog", which retain the same meaning. But if you remove the parenthetical phrase in the third example you're left with "Phyllis Summers is a fictional character from the American CBS daytime soap opera", which only means the same thing if there's only one American CBS daytime soap opera. Therefore, "The Young and the Restless" is not a parenthetical phrase, is not the same as the other two examples, and doesn't require a comma. --Nicknack009 (talk) 11:08, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
Exactly. Further, in "This is my dog Bingo" you can't tell whether to use a comma without more context. If someone says, "This is my dog Bingo and this is my dog Rover", then commas would be wrong since deleting the names doesn't work. Peter coxhead (talk) 12:39, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
Hmm, working it through, I can see that the no-comma versions of the soap-opera sentences are formally grammatical, but to me they read oddly. If the commas are considered not acceptable, then I would recommend rewording in such a way that they are, because reading too much text in a row without punctuation is confusing. How about "... a fictional character from One Life to Live, an American daytime drama"?
That solution has the added advantage of separating the wikilinks, consecutive wikilinks being another source of parsing difficulties for the reader. --Trovatore (talk) 00:48, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
Rewording so that the sentence uses an appositive does seem clearer in that particular example. That isn't always going to be the case, though. In the other example linked, I would prefer "The 2009 sitcom Cougar Town explored..." to "Cougar Town, a 2009 sitcom, explored...".--Trystan (talk) 01:23, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
Trovatore, yes, as you may have seen at Talk:Marty Saybrooke#Improper comma usage, SMcCandlish opted to reword. But as pointed out by SMcCandlish, it's not certain that rewording will definitively stop Cebr1979 (or some other editor) from incorrect comma usage in these or similar cases even in the face of overwhelming evidence of being wrong. If Cebr1979 were to acknowledge that he is wrong on this matter and/or that he won't be adding any more incorrect comma usages, then okay; but it's unlikely that he will, especially given his tempestuous history with me, and his tendency to see things as a winning matter. I did not bring this discussion here to win anything; I brought it here so that he and others can understand why these type of comma usages should be avoided. Despite what Cebr1979 may think, I don't want to escalate this matter to WP:ANI. I also don't see why we need to reword these articles simply because he or someone else wants to place a comma incorrectly. I personally don't find these sentences confusing because they lack a comma; they can obviously be confusing if they cause a WP:SEAOFBLUE problem, though. Flyer22 (talk) 02:56, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
I'm not so worried about a "sea of blue" as a "wall of text". Well, maybe not exactly a wall in this case, but a monotone block of text with a lot of signifiers at the same syntactic "level" and nothing to indicate how they are to be broken up. If you see lots of words in a row and you can't start forming your mental parse tree until you've actually decoded the words for their meaning, then there's a problem. It's not an insoluble problem, not if you actually speak English and know the meaning of the words, but it's a problem that it's better not to give our readers, if we can avoid it. --Trovatore (talk) 03:15, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
I kind of understand your point. Flyer22 (talk) 03:24, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Template:Scottish English

{{Scottish English}} has been nominated for deletion; this is a MOS template -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 06:53, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Controversy over MoS stated preference for "glasses" over "eyeglasses"

I think there may be controversy raised if we adhere to the preference for "glasses" over "eyeglasses" because a user reading the word may be tempted to ask, in the corresponding article's talk page:"Excuse me, but what kind of glasses are you talking about?" or, more informally, "Excuse me, what kind of glasses are ya talkin' 'bout?" if it was a young person who asked. I think the preference should be reversed, instead preferring "eyeglasses" over "glasses" in order to clear all signs of misunderstanding, since there are basically 4 types of glasses:

1) drinking glasses 2) eyeglasses 3) sunglasses 4) hourglasses. Do you see what I mean? --Fandelasketchup (talk) 10:32, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

I disagree. As a UK-English speaker, I have never once heard the word "eyeglasses" used in normal speech, and I've never heard sunglasses or hourglasses referred to simply as "glasses". The context should be enough to distinguish between eyeglasses and drinking glasses, and if it's not, then, as the policy is an WP:ENGVAR one, we should follow the variety of English used in the article and use "eyeglasses" or "spectacles" as appropriate. The policy, to prefer but not insist on the more universal term, is fine as it is. --Nicknack009 (talk) 11:48, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
Agree, and sun-glasses are eyeglasses too. I can't imagine there are many contexts where eyeglaases and hourglasses are likely to be confused. Johnbod (talk) 15:18, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
As a UK-English speaker, I find 'eyeglasses' to be highly unidiomatic. 'Spectacles' would be much clearer for disambiguation where needed. AlexTiefling (talk) 15:33, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
I agree with Nicknack. Context should distinguish "glasses" from drinking glasses. As a U.S.-English speaker, I find "spectacles" extremely old-fashioned, but I'd probably know what was meant. Appropriate for British English articles. Darkfrog24 (talk) 16:17, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Good grief, why are we spending any time discussing this whatsoever? This is exactly why we have WP:ENGVAR. In articles written in American English or British/Commonwealth English, use the appropriate word for that variety of English. Trying to force an artificially common word into all varieties of English violates the spirit, if not the letter of ENGVAR, and this is not a worthwhile use of any editor's time, as the pedants among us will now attempt to replace the disfavored word(s). After all, it's not like 95% of our readers are unable to understand the meaning of eyeglasses, glasses or spectacles from the context; and frankly, most of our readers have probably encountered all three of these words and understand their meaning perfectly, even if the particular word is not the preferred choice in their own variety of English. Leave well enough alone, and stop trying to micromanage the dynamic English language. We're not French, and MOS is not the Académie française. Vive la difference. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:14, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

We have ENGVAR but we also have WP:COMMONALITY. Concur that this one shouldn't put a big dent in the reader experience. Darkfrog24 (talk) 21:10, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I know, DF. This is a very weak example. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 23:26, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
Note that in older writing, "glasses" can also mean binoculars, and "a glass" can mean a telescope. I agree that at least in my experience ( I am American but have read many works from the UK) "eyeglasses" is rarely used in idiomatic spoken English. But in formal written English, particularly in medical articles and insurance documents, "eyeglasses" is almost the invariable usage. Perhaps we should favor the more formal wording? I don't recall seeing "spectacles" in anything written since about 1950, except fiction set before that date. If that is the current common term in the UK, this is an WP:ENGVAR issue. But I agree that this is too small a point for a specific MOS guideline. Where is this preference expressed? DES (talk) 21:26, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
I'd say that Wikipedia should use general-English standards even if medial documents use something else. That's our audience. Darkfrog24 (talk) 23:21, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
If it were an exclusively medical usage, I would agree with you, Darkfrog24. But I think (without having done any detailed data collection, so I may be badly mistaken) that it is at least in part a formal/informal distinction. See if you can find a few mentions of "eyewear" in formal writing, whether legal, medical, or some other sort of formal, and see what terms are used? I'll have to check google scholar. We do strive for a formal tone here, as i understand it. DES (talk) 00:28, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
  • @DESiegel: See WP:COMMONALITY. The eyeglasses/glasses/spectacles example is a weak one. As I said above, I find it difficult to believe that few, if any, reasonably literate American, Australian, British, Canadian or New Zealand readers are not going to comprehend any of the three synonyms. This is exactly the sort of linguistic micromanagement that MOS should avoid. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 23:26, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Ah I see, all this is over an example. Perhaps a better example can be found. But remember that examples are only that, and are not even guidelines much less rules. I do think that if there is a word A that is strictly US usage for a thing and a word B that is strictly UK usage for that same thing, and there is a third word C which will be well understood by all fluent speakers of English, C should usually be preferred here, if it doesn't require awkward writing. But the key word is usually -- everything depends on the specifics of the case. DES (talk) 00:28, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

MOS:IDENTITY - "She fathered a child"

The suggestion in MOS:IDENTITY that "she fathered a child" should be replaced by a gender-neutral version "she became a parent" is absurd. If jarring text is to be avoided, it's the pronoun that needs to be changed or removed, not the biological verb changed to a legal verb. If the guideline is to require the current gender in pronouns, the pronoun needs to be removed, rather than the verb neutered. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 11:56, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Again... a one-size-fits-all "rule" is a bad idea here... a lot depends on context. In a bio article about a trans-gender person, the issue of his/her gender identification presumably has been explained early in the article (preferably in the lead). If not, it should be. Once the issue of the gender identification has been explained, subsequent gendered sentences such as "she fathered a child" will no longer be confusing for the reader... because the reader will already have been informed of the background behind the statement. In articles on other topics, such a sentence may indeed cause confusion... that's when re-writing the sentence to avoid the pronouns is helpful. Blueboar (talk) 12:24, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
Sometimes if an example seems too rigid, providing an additional one can show that the rule has more than one way of being implemented. Do you think adding something like "Change 'he hid the burn mark on his breasts' to 'he hid the burn mark on his chest'"? Darkfrog24 (talk) 21:10, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
I think that runs into the same fundamental problem; we shouldn't be suggesting reducing clarity to avoid superficial apparent contradictions at all. If the writing is clear, there is nothing particularly remarkable about a trans woman fathering a child or a trans man giving birth. I'd suggest taking out the example entirely and simply saying something like "Avoid confusing constructions by providing context as necessary."--Trystan (talk) 21:25, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
@Darkfrog24: Men (males) have breasts, also. I don't even seen anything jarring about the sentence "He hid the burn mark on his breasts," although it might depend on context.
@Trystan: I see your point. Perhaps an example relating to the phrase "her wife" might be in order, in that we would need to explain whether she was presenting as male at the time, or whether it was a homosexual relationship. (In this context, "wife" should not be neutered, as the wife's sexual identity is not in question.) In most of the English-speaking world, homosexual marriages are still notable, as are transitions, and we should avoid bald phrases such as "her wife" without explanation, but should explain the phrase, rather than neutering it. (I am not always intending "neutering" as pejorative; it seems the best term for applying gender-neutral language even when it seems the best thing to do.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:45, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
I think that the example helps some editors figure out that we're WP:NOTHERE to over-emphasize biology, and to remind other editors that this tendency is occasionally a problem in the relevant articles. "She fathered a child" is pointlessly focused on the physical, biological mechanics of sexual intercourse. "She had a child" might be misinterpreted as the subject spending nine months pregnant, especially if readers skip the explanation elsewhere (surely nobody here believes that all readers read every word...). "She became a parent" provides the actual facts without confusing anyone, without misleading readers who didn't notice the whole "this is a trans person" stuff, and without focusing on genitalia.
Of course, there are many other (and often better) ways to handle this, such as a sentence under a section heading like ==Personal life== that says "She is divorced and has two sons", which is exactly the sort of thing that we'd say in most biographies anyway. But when the birth of the child is relevant to the notability narrative, rather than a minor detail to be appended to the end of the article, then the slightly vague "She became a parent" is definitely preferable to the "insert Tab A into Slot B" statement behind "She fathered a child". WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:53, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
But "she fathered a child" isn't all that confusing once the reader has been informed that the "she" who is the subject of the sentence is a trans-gender person. It's not like that statement is going to appear outside of the trans-person's bio. Blueboar (talk) 22:54, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
It isn't confusing if and only if the reader has actually read the whole article, which is (unfortunately) not a reasonable assumption.
Additionally, as I said, there are two separate reasons to avoid this language:
  1. It may confuse some readers (=those that either didn't read or didn't understand the earlier information about trans status).
  2. It emphasizes the person's genitalia, which is something that trans people (and also many cisgendered people) find offensive.[1][2]
Even if you believe that nobody will be confused, the focus in that phrasing is still on the fact that the subject possessed a penis at the time of conception. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:34, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
I don't see a reason to prefer "fathered"/"is the father of" to "...parent..." in an article about a trans person except to highlight physical mechanics or social role, which would be unnecessary outside of the "occasional exceptions" the MOS allows. Indeed, it would arguably be wp:undue, if the sources only consider "A is B's parent" important and not details of how "[trans woman A] used her sperm to become the father of B with an egg from C". Hence, I think the guideline is reasonable. Removing it would also (re)open the door to "[post-transition trans woman A] is the [=fills the social, and if adoption is involved possibly also the legal, role of] mother of two children", unless one added a new guideline that references to parentage must not only detail the fe/maleness of the actors involved but must also be based on the mechanics of sexual intercourse and genetics (delegitimizing parents who adopt, use donor eggs, etc).
The phrase has been discussed since at least 2007 (see Archive 92), and the wording has been in the MOS off-and-on since at least 2013 (search the archives for "fathered"), because individual discussions like this one tend to see a handful of participants conclude the wording is good/bad only for the next discussion to conclude the opposite. For example, it looks like slightly more than half of the six people here don't find "she fathered a child" jarring/confusing/to-be-avoided, but the archives are full of people who do. After the RFCs which are being discussed above have concluded, perhaps we should have an RFC on this. The most recent iteration was added as a result of a subthread of the Village Pump RFC on Jenner by User:SMcCandlish, who may want to comment. -sche (talk) 19:59, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
the issue is with the phrase is the verb fathered. Where would we even use "he fathered" ? Obama has two daughters he fathered with Michelle? Gingrich fathered two daughters with his first wife? Prince Philip fathered four children with Queen Elisabeth? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 10:04, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
I agree that the usage would be rare... however, I could see the term being appropriate in cases where someone sired a child, but had little subsequent contact with that child (ie where it might be inappropriate to call the person a "parent").
This all comes down to allowing article writers to choose the terminology they think is best (not what we think is best)... balancing: a) what is said in the sources, and b) the expressed desires of the subject and c) the unique circumstances of a specific subject's life. All three considerations need to be considered when figuring out how to present information about the subject and what terms to use. The reality is that no matter what "rules" we come up with, we are going to have to make exceptions to those rules... because the actual people who are the subjects of our articles rarely fit into neat little boxes with clear labels. Blueboar (talk) 11:56, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Here's a real-live example: Deirdre_McCloskey#Personal life has the sentence, summarizing her autobiographical book, "It is an account of her growing recognition (while a boy and man) of her female identity, and her transition—both surgical and social—into a woman (including her reluctant divorce from her wife)." In context, it's perfectly clear, and I don't think it needs "fixing". There will be readers who will be discombobulated because the sentence does not reveal the timeline of divorce vis-a-vis transition, under the false idea that both divorce and transition are single-point-in-time events. That level of detail is, for us, UNDUE. Choor monster (talk) 17:01, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
  • By contrast, the article Caitlyn Jenner reads as if a woman won Olympic gold medals in men's track events. Some editors have removed all pronouns to avoid confusion, but this creates a clumsy sounding article. Why can't we keep it simple and use the identity of the person at the time of the events we describe? This is exactly how Wikipedia handles[name changes], and few people seem to be bothered by that. The fact that we make this so controversial indicates that we're not as open minded as we pretend to be. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Canute (talk • contribs)
Because, among other reasons, that's actually less simple.
I don't follow you. How does using trans individuals' preferred pronouns indicate that we're less open minded? Darkfrog24 (talk) 12:49, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
Strongly agree with Canute(?). Keep it simple, and so you keep it good. When necessary, avoid gender-specific pronouns, maybe use neutral 'they'? (Much easier in e.g. Estonian and such languages without gender-spec. pronouns.) Besides, in addition to being very confusing (good point there about Caitlin), policy of using pronouns of relevant person's last known choice of gender identity is in blatant contradiction with neutral point of view policy, emphasizing thus mostly one person's PoV - they have, of course, every right to that, but, is Wikipedia correct place for that? Bit similar to writing article based on original reseach, without good references. It's a bit tall analogy, true, I hope you catch my meaning. And, besides, they might change their mind again... Analogy with (other) name-changing issues is very good and should be taken seriously into consideration and hopefully into changing MoS about gender or non-gender pronouns. It's as good to write about trans-man that she was born, or [name] was born as female, as it's about Marilyn that she was born Norma.BirgittaMTh (talk) 12:56, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

MOS:QUOTE on translations: Bloat?

Thread retitled from "Bloat?".
[I am revising the heading of this section from Bloat? to MOS:QUOTE on translations: Bloat?, in harmony with WP:TPOC (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) 16:06, 26 October 2015 (UTC)]

A recent edit has further expanded a section that I think has a dubious claim for inclusion—at least in the already over-large MOS central. Why do we need a smattering of examples of what is a complex and elaborate skill-set and knowledge-base for translating foreign text into English? As a gnome, I encounter much more troublesome features of our translations than a few "false friends". This section should be much shorter and just link to whatever style we (should) have on translating into English. Tony (talk) 00:38, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree that that addition is superfluous. The page should be less like a frog about to burst, and it should be less like a chameleon.
—Wavelength (talk) 01:00, 26 October 2015 (UTC) and 02:35, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
I propose a new subpage: Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Translation.—Wavelength (talk) 01:34, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
Splitting MoS content into multiple pages does not reduce complexity; it increases it. It only makes the rules harder to find. Darkfrog24 (talk) 12:51, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
WP:MOS#Foreign-language quotations can have a link to the new subpage. Also, the search box at the top right-hand corner of WP:MOS can be used for searches of both the main MOS page and also its subpages.
—Wavelength (talk) 16:02, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
How about just compress it into something meaningful and manageable? I'm skeptical that MOS has enough to say about translation that it needs a subpage, and agree that the recent additions are overkill. This is a manual of style; problems with translations are most often matters of WP:NOR. Poor translation that misrepresents the original material isn't really a style issue, but a content matter. When it comes to overinclusion of excessively long non-English text followed by excessively long translation, that's already covered by the overquotation guidelines.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  04:04, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

WP:IDENTITY on transgender people: why more opposers?

Thread retitled from "Why is this happening??".

Compared to 2 years ago, there appear to be many Wikipedians now who disagree with the status quo of how Wikipedia deals with transgender people. Any reason it's becoming common now?? Georgia guy (talk) 14:44, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Probably in reference to these two threads: VPP:Revisiting MOS:IDENTITY in articles about transgender individuals
I don't know. Maybe it's proportionate. Perhaps five years ago, the cohort of people who had an opinion on transgender pronouns was more limited and would have included a higher proportion of people who've met trans men and trans women. With Manning, Jenner and Cox so visible, we have more people who know about trans individuals overall but a higher proportion of people who've only seen them on TV. The idea that the gender binary doesn't work for everyone after all can feel very threatening. People reject the idea to keep things simple. Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:23, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
Treating transgender people with respect has wide support, rightly in my view, but the Jenner case has highlighted more sharply the issue of rewriting history, which does not have wide support, equally rightly in my view. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:38, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
This is exactly the issue, in my opinion. Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedic record of history, and changing every instance of a pronoun or gendered words to match the current identity of the person in question seems too much like changing history. I understand and respect the wishes of a transgendered person to use their current gender. And I think using their current gender in the introduction section or any current section is preferable. However, I also very much disagree with the idea that because they are now a different gender, that we should write historical sections as if they had always been such. I know that a lot of transgendered people simply wish to never even acknowledge that they were once their original gender, likely due to the stigma that still surrounds the issue. But if they are notable enough to have a page on Wikipedia already, it's also highly unlikely that it will be forgotten in the public mind that their gender changed. That's just my (probably unintentionally offensive) two cents. ----Tustin2121 talk 16:41, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
That's just it, Tustin, does a trans persons' gender actually change or does the announcement correct a misconception?
If there was a girl (genitalia and all, a cis girl) whose parents chose to raise her as a boy, but she always felt like a girl on the inside and when she grew up she found that she really was one and thereafter wore women's clothes and used a female name, would we refer to her as "he" when discussing her life before this discovery? So is are real trans people more like our hypothetical cis girl raised male or are they more like frogs that physically and chemically change gender based on circumstance or are some of them like the first and others like the second?
The accusations of rewriting history are overblown. No one's talked of saying that Caitlyn Jenner was always called Caitlyn or that she never wore men's clothes. Darkfrog24 (talk) 22:03, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
Which Cox ? The most visible one is Michael Cox (archbishop of Cashel), but he doesn't seem to have advertised any kind of cornflakes, nor released any kind of documents. Pldx1 (talk) 09:27, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
I mean Laverne Cox. Darkfrog24 (talk) 11:53, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
Perhaps part of the reason is that as that we are applying MOS:IDENTITY to more and more articles... which means more editors are now seeing it in action. As more editors see it in action, more editors are discovering situations where it doesn't work well... situations that perhaps were not thought about two years ago. This happens to any policy or guideline... the more it is applied, the more it comes under scrutiny. Blueboar (talk) 14:07, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
Intriguing. Like what situations? Darkfrog24 (talk) 21:45, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
Well... most of the push back seems to come from editors who work on lists and articles that focus on historical events. So I would start there. Blueboar (talk) 15:58, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
I am revising the heading of this section from Why is this happening?? to WP:IDENTITY on transgender people: more opposers, in harmony with WP:TPOC (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) 15:39, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
I have amended your revision... the topic of this sub-thread thread is the question WHY? I think the question should be highlighted in the sub-section header. Blueboar (talk) 15:58, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
Concur with Peter Coxhead. The gist is that while more people are aware of TG issues, and perhaps fewer people feel their worldview is threatened by TG people, more editors have become keenly aware of the challenges inherent in writing about people when we forget that informing readers is our primary goal, not assisting TG individuals (or those who have something against them) in any kind of language policing/activism campaigns. The best way around the problem generally is to rewrite in a way that doesn't result in confusing constructions, doesn't pretend that the past did not happen, and doesn't use conflicting pronouns or other attempts to reinforce the former gender linguistically, mentioning it only when the context needs it. Good: In 2001, Smith (then publicly identifying as a woman) won the BAFTA Best Actress award. Confusing, even if it's what some TG people would prefer: In 2001, he won the BAFTA Best Actress award. Disrespectful/combative: In 2001 (while still a woman), she won the BAFTA Best Actress award. No one really seems perplexed about how to go about this any longer other than people with an advocacy agenda to fudge history by erasing mention of previous gender identity, or those with an opposite agenda against TG people. They both need to drop their respective sticks, and remember that we're an encyclopedia, not a blog.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  04:00, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
In agreement with the above, another view on this is that as an encyclopedia, one of our goals is to summarize sources and provide useful references that a reader that needs to learn more can use as a launching pad for their own research. And in terms of something like transgendered people that were notable before that point, those external sources are very much unlikely , if not even unable, to go back and change names and genders to match the present. So for us to serve our readers, we should be presenting the information in a manner that will make it easy for the readers to start from us and jump into the sources; a switch of gender and name can lead to a lot of confusion for readers. Similarly, in terms of covering major geographical name changes, like Bombay to Mumbai in 1995, I would figure that for events before 1995 we should stick to Bombay on en.wiki, because a reader trying to research on the name Mumbai for pre-1995 events will not find much. We can respect transgender persons' desires in the present coverage, but we'd fail as a summarizing encyclopedia to retro-activity do that if they were notable before. --MASEM (t) 16:54, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
It now appears that there are more Wikipedians who support the "use the gender of rearing before transition" rule based on recent posts to this section of the talk page. Georgia guy (talk) 18:05, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
Meh. This can mostly be avoided by rewriting, at no cost other that some repetition of the surname: "In 1997, Jenner won the Foo championship, and took the gold medal in 1998 Bar competition. By 2000, Jenner ...", instead of "In 1997, Jenner won the Foo championship. [Disputed pronoun here] took the gold medal in 1998 Bar competition. By 2000, [disputed pronoun here] ...". A few years ago I was a strong proponent of the "use the gender of rearing before transition" view, but it actually turns out trivially easy to write around the need for such a rule, and its better to do so than to push one extreme rule or its opposite, both of which are guaranteed to lead to non-stop strife.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  04:52, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Yes, it important in cases of name changes to indicate what name the subject was using at the time of the reported events, especially if the sources cited are also using it, otherwise it leads to WP:V difficulties, at least in practice (finding and verifying the sources) if not strictly in theory (given enough time and understanding of the subject, the material would eventually be verifiable). I wouldn't agree that the issues are the same for geographical name changes, albeit similar in some respects. The primary difference is that the only rationale for bending rules or making up a new rule to, e.g., not refer to then-Bruce Jenner as "he", is simply the feelings of the subject (and of other TG people, and perhaps of language change activists, by far the noisiest proponents of such rule shuffling), the subjective notion that "refusal" to "recognize" the subject's "true" gender (true experientially for many but not all TG people from an early age) is "disrespectful". Depending on your views, that argument ranges from "of paramount importance" to "completely worthless", and I think most of us are somewhere in the middle between these two extremes. But Mumbai is not a self-aware entity with feelings; it's just a place. There's no "disrespect" of "Mumbai's feelings" in following the sources and calling it (in English) what it was called (in English) at that time. The "falsifying history" effect is much more palpable with regard to geographical topics than individuals and their names. For instance it's genuinely ignorant and misleading to say something like "Julius Caesar was an emperor of Italy", a considerably worse distortion than to say "Caitlyn Jenner won a gold medal in the Olympics", which is just crap writing fixable by insertion of "(competing as man, under the name Bruce)". There is no way to fix the Caesar mis-statement with just a parenthetical clarification.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  04:52, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

№ no. no

I have a memory of advice on the use of the symbol № and other replacements for "number", as in number 4, №4, #4 etc (see e.g. Nonna Mordyukova). Whereabouts would I find it? TIA Mr Stephen (talk) 23:45, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

See MOS:NUMBERSIGN.—Wavelength (talk) 23:58, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Ah, that's it. Many thanks. Mr Stephen (talk) 00:03, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Criteria for including guidelines

According to MOS:LIST#List naming, "the precise inclusion criterion of the list should be spelled out in the lead section". WP:LIST#List layout says: "Don't leave readers confused over the list's inclusion criteria or have editors guessing what may be added to the list." (The noun "criterion" has the plural form "criteria".)
WP:MOS is a list of style guidelines, but the current version (version of 03:21, 26 October 2015 [UTC) does not specify inclusion criteria. Ideally, it would contain every guideline that every editor should know: guidelines with frequent applications. (Ideally, its size would not be daunting to an editor who wishes to study all of it.) However, sometimes editors want it to include decisions made about matters with infrequent applications. (Understandably, they want it to settle disputes on those matters, but the possibilities for inclusion are almost limitless.)
Therefore, I propose that the introduction of WP:MOS include a brief mention of one or two criteria for limiting what can be included in the main page. I perceive that deciding on one or two inclusion criteria will not be easy, inasmuch as there is a degree of subjectivity involved. However, the benefits can be worth the effort.
—Wavelength (talk) 16:34, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't believe that that's how the MoS is used. Editors will come to the MoS and then either use the table of contents or CTRL-F to jump to the section that they need at that moment. Darkfrog24 (talk) 18:54, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
There are known knowns and known unknowns and unknown unknowns. An editor who consults WP:MOS only for answers to specific questions could be for a long time unaware of guidelines that he or she is not applying. Wikipedia articles contain enough stylistic errors to occupy many editors for a long time.
Do you agree that the size of WP:MOS (the main page) should be limited? If you do, how do you propose that it be done?
—Wavelength (talk) 00:00, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
Speaking from my own experience, when I was new to Wikipedia, clicking through six and seven and ten different pages of rules and still not finding the one I needed was a problem, but the size of the MoS never was. Because it was all on one big page, I could hit CTRL-F and get right to the point. If the idea is to give new Wikieditors a set of instructions short enough that they can actually be expected to read all of it, then we have to look far beyond the MoS.
So no, I don't agree that it's too big but that doesn't mean I'd automatically oppose any proposal to shorten it. If any part of the MoS can be shown to be unnecessary or no longer necessary, it might be best to remove it. Darkfrog24 (talk) 04:18, 27 October 2015 (UTC)


Using the search box at the top right-hand corner of WP:MOS searches not only WP:MOS itself but also all of its subpages, so using the search box is superior to using CTRL-F and not more difficult.
One example of an "unknown unknown" involves the use of "&" where "and" should be used. I have frequently seen that error when I have searched in Wikipedia articles for other errors. An editor who has not read all of WP:MOS might continue editing for years without being aware of the error. WP:MOS itself contains many instances of "&" and many instances of "and", and there are people who do not know the word "ampersand", so in this example even searching on WP:MOS (if an editor has the idea to search) would not necessarily locate the guideline (at MOS:&).
—Wavelength (talk) 16:55, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
So the problem is that people don't know when they're breaking the rules. Shortening the MoS does not seem the optimal way of solving that. In that scenario, the Wikieditor would still have to take it upon him or herself to come here and look for information. It would make more sense for the information to be sent to them. Darkfrog24 (talk) 19:05, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
In each of my edit summaries involving MOS, I almost always provide one or more links to MOS, but in at least one recent case, my revision was later undone.
—Wavelength (talk) 19:26, 27 October 2015 (UTC) and 15:08, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
My proposal to limit the size of the main page of WP:MOS does not explicitly say that it is necessarily too large already. We can take preventive action before a crisis. Also, editors can overcome their reluctance to study WP:MOS. (One statement in my original post—"Ideally, it would contain every guideline that every editor should know: guidelines with frequent applications"—needs some revision.)
—Wavelength (talk) 15:08, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
In that case, I'd say the criterion for adding new content to the MoS should be the existence of a non-negligible number of instances of a non-hypothetical problem that adding said content would solve or ameliorate.
Remember the discussion about the use of animate vs non-animate pronouns for fictional characters? We worked out a good wording but consensus formed that fights over animate vs non-animate pronouns did not occur often enough for a rule about it to earn the space that it would take up in the MoS. Darkfrog24 (talk) 18:23, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I remember that discussion, although I observed it only briefly when it was active. Since your post of 18:23, 28 October 2015 (UTC), I have been studying it more closely, but without much benefit.
I propose the addition of the following text to the end of paragraph 2 of the introduction of WP:MOS.
  • New content on this page should be able to improve or solve style issues in more than a trivial number of real instances.
—Wavelength (talk) 23:54, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
Well maybe that page seems more straightforward to me because I was there to watch it develop scrap by scrap, but I suppose you could use the table of contents [3] or hit CTRL-F "should the MoS" or "explicitly" to jump right to the part relevant to the issue at hand. ;)
I think it would be clearer phrased as *"Any new content added to this page should directly address some style issue that has [shown up in a non-trivial number of real instances]" because "new content" can refer to content that has already been added rather than proposed content.
But we should ask ourselves this: Would adding that line directly address some non-hypothetical style issue that has troubled Wikipedia in a non-trivial number of real instances? Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:29, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
My answer is: Yes, it would address a style meta-issue. I have read, in a non-trivial number of instances, on this talk page and on other talk pages on Wikipedia, complaints that the size of the MOS main page deters editors from reading it. If the addition of content about a minor style issue results in editors being less attentive to style guidelines of more importance, then that addition is counterproductive on balance to the purpose of the page.
However, I do support the inclusion of minor style guidelines on other pages, preferably on existing subpages of MOS. Also, there can be a new subpage: Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Minor points or Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Supplement or something similar. That new subpage can also be an optional place for keeping any content removed from the MOS main page as not important enough to be there but still deemed worthy of being kept for settling disputes.
—Wavelength (talk) 02:32, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
Well I've gone over what makes that a bad idea: Everything gets harder to find once it's not all on the same page. Whether someone's willing to read something is moot if they can't find it or don't know it exists.
Okay, then, I can get behind inserting some version of this line. Darkfrog24 (talk) 05:27, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
I have considered your revision of the additional text that I proposed, and I have revised it further.
  • If any new content is added to this page, then it should directly address a style issue that has occurred in a non-trivial number of real instances.
By using a conditional clause, I hope to emphasize (even if only slightly) the fact that we are not actively seeking to enlarge the page.
—Wavelength (talk) 18:00, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
I have added the text mentioned in my post of 18:00, 30 October 2015 (UTC).
—Wavelength (talk) 18:35, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
The additional sentence has been revised, with the edit summary "simplify language as MoS states", to the following.
  • Any new content added to this page should directly address issues that have occurred repeatedly.
The adverb "repeatedly" is too vague, and the adverb phrase "many times" does not account for simultaneous instances in many places, so I have revised the text again, with the edit summary "making wording more precise", to the following.
  • Any new content added to this page should directly address issues that have occurred in many places.
—Wavelength (talk) 21:19, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
That's actually completely different. It suggests that problems that affect just one kind of article don't count. I think it should refer to number of incidents and it should definitely keep some version of "non-hypothetical" or "real" or "actual." We do get a lot of "Well this would stop people from doing something that I haven't actually seen them do" around here. Darkfrog24 (talk) 22:35, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
Please revise the additional text on WP:MOS to match your standards.
—Wavelength (talk) 00:29, 2 November 2015 (UTC) and 00:32, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
I have revised the additional text again, with a version almost identical to what you suggested in your post of 01:29, 30 October 2015 (UTC).
  • Any new content added to the body of this page should directly address a style issue that has occurred in a non-trivial number of real instances.
—Wavelength (talk) 21:28, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
Concur with Darkfrog24; MOS is primarily used by way of ToC, in-page searching, and incoming links to anchors. Furthermore, MOS:LIST#List naming applies to list articles, not internal documentation.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  04:07, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
Although it is true that MOS:LIST#List naming applies to list articles, the principle of clear inclusion criteria is relevant to WP:MOS, because many editors consider it to be too large, and because some editors still want to add things to it. The page should be less like a frog about to burst, and it should be less like a chameleon. For acquisition of a thorough understanding of WP:MOS guidelines, a systematic study of the page from beginning to end is more effective than sporadic access to specific guidelines.
—Wavelength (talk) 20:48, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
I got the metaphors the first time around. The problem is that for everyone who thinks MOS is too long and covers too much, there are several people who want to add yet another rule (sometimes they're even the same people; MOS is too long for them when it includes rules they don't care about or disagree with, but critically lacking in their view when their own pet peeve is not covered the way they want it covered). For everyone who thinks the main MOS page is too long and that it should be split up more, there's someone else who feels the opposite, and that it would be better to have a long, integrated MOS that can be page-searched easily than a forest of sub-guidelines. The inclusion criteria for MOS and its subpages are the same as for all other policypages: Consensus to add/retain the material in question.

An artificially limiting set of inclusion criteria will simply result in increased conflict, as material that MOS should cover – because doing so resolves/prevents disputes, and/or results in better article prose – starts being targeted for removal by people wikilawyering the criteria, and material that MOS does not need, because it does not serve those purposes, starts being shoehorned in because it technically fits the criteria despite being useless to us. Any major, general-public style guide has hundreds, even thousands, of line-items that MOS does not have because they're not important or even applicable here, and MOS, being about how to write WP, not a magazine article or a journal paper, has advice not found anywhere else. It can't really be any other way. For those who want a more concise overview of MOS, see MOS:SIMPLIFIED.

I certainly agree that systematic study of MOS (and its subpages, and the naming conventions) provides a more thorough understandings of style on WP, but that would be true of anything, and doesn't really relate to whether MOS, alone out of all WP guidelines, should have some kind of "you can't/must include that here" pre-emptive inclusion criteria.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  01:19, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

In both places, the metaphors are for many readers, not only one. (Compare User talk:Wavelength/Archive 3#Do not lecture me [June 2010].)
Consensus itself has been a topic of discussion on this talk page. (1) How are we to define consensus? (2) How is a consensus to be achieved? (3) How is a consensus to be recorded, for all editors to see? (4) When and how does a consensus ever lapse? (Credit to User:Noetica)
Your other points describe a difficult situation, and I need to contemplate them more before I (possibly) respond to them.
—Wavelength (talk) 01:51, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
For recording consensus, MOS:REG seems to be working well.
For most pages, consensus would be established by the weighted preponderance of reliable sources, though it usually breaks down to a vote. The MoS is not held to as high a standard for sources as other articles are, so "consensus" often ends up as "popularity contest." I see this line that you've added here as a good way to mitigate that problem. We've already been using it unofficially for a while, and it's worked well. Now that "only add to the MoS if there's a non-imaginary problem" is official, we might see a slow change in mindset around here. Here, diffs proving the existence of the problem, can be numbered among reliable sources.
I have one example of consensus lapsing: The rule about double quotation marks only was based on the idea that single quotation marks mess up the search function in older browsers. Once those browsers are phased out, the consensus for the rule will have lapsed and the issue should be reevaluated. So I guess we could do that: Whenever the problem that the addition to the MoS was meant to solve becomes moot, consensus has lapsed. Darkfrog24 (talk) 02:04, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 113#Recording consensus (January 2010) led to the establishment of Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Register.
—Wavelength (talk) 02:52, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
Responding to both Wavelength and Darkfrog24 at once: I'll rephrase: We all got the metaphors the first time around. :-) Again: Consensus works here like it does everywhere else at WP. Much of the strife around MOS is rooted in the pretense otherwise, that something special and different should be done here. Demands and proposals in this regard have been going on for years, from one editor's [failed] RfA platform to have some kind of "parental" (their word) oversight over MoS and other guidelines, to another's lengthy campaign to have MoS, alone among all WP:POLICY pages, subjected to WP:V / WP:RS as if it were article content. These proposals never go anywhere because they don't make cultural sense here. It's no different from suggesting that WP:No original research be subjected to some kind of review bureaucracy, and not be able to say anything that didn't come from some external source on how to do research. Such ideas are unworkable because there is no one who knows what is best for WP and its policy formation processes than the editors involved in it, and there is no source for how to do reearch on WP than is more authoritative than WP's own internal documentation and the learning process by which it developed. Similarly, no third-party source can dictate to WP's editorial community how best to write for WP's own purpose and audience.

MOS:REGISTER could work well in theory, except that it is not complete or consistently maintained. I agree it's a helpful tool for finding some parts of some prior discussions, but that's pretty much all it is. The primary tool is simply the archive search form and doing the mental-sweat work of digging the stuff up. But frankly there is way, way too much focus on "show me exactly where there was a previous RfC on this nit-pick, or I'm going to change MoS to say what I want it to say to suit my own pet peeves" behavior. [Cf. #MOS:ELLIPSIS thread below, for example.] That is not how WP works. Consensus, especially with regard to policies and guidelines, is often strongly tied to longevity of the point in question and how integral it has become to extant content and procedures. It cannot really be any other way: Changes to these pages can have serious consequences across thousands, even millions of articles, and long-standing rules, in any WP:POLICY pages should not be deleted, much less reversed, out of any kind of "correctness" campaign. Their stability is of more value than most any of their particulars, and they exist primarily to have something to agree on so we get the work done, instead of continuing to argue about what we should establish some rules about. No one is happy with every single rule in any complex system, and no single rule in such a system has universal support within it. Pretty much ever. It's the system as a synergistic whole that matters.

When it comes to MOS, this is especially true, since most style matters are essentially arbitrary; having established a rule is the important part, not which of several options the rule selected. When they are not arbitrary, then there's an even stronger reason not to undo them – not only would a major change be disruptive across innumerable articles for no real gain, if the rule in question was there for practical reasons, it will re-problematize long-settled problems. A major showing of site-wide consensus is thus necessary for sweeping changes with serious impact. A temporal local consensus of editors to push in some peeve-based change to MoS cannot trump a decade or more of consensus to do it a particular way. This is really a basic fact of how human organizations work. The productivity cost of imposing a change that does not suit overall organizational interests almost always outweighs the benefit that might result, in a localized way, from the change, no matter how strongly some individuals in the organization feel about pushing the change through. For example, this is why so few companies, even in the high-tech world, have switched to using Linux as a desktop operating system despite the various arguments in favor of doing so; the opportunity cost is too high.

The perennial double-vs-single quotation marks thing is a case in point. While it actually is not an accurate assessment that "the rule about double quotation marks only was based on the idea that single quotation marks mess up the search function in older browsers", even if we pretend for a moment that it was, the idea that consensus for it will have "lapsed" soon when the older browsers are effectively extinct is not plausible. The consensus lies in the site-wide implementation, not in one of the various reasons it was implemented in the first place. If we decide to take a road-trip to Vegas to see a particular show (and for other reasons), once we are in Vegas the trip is not suddenly off when it turns out the show was cancelled at the last minute; we have already arrived and work with the present situation, we don't turn around and drive back home, and then take a different road trip somewhere else.

"Official" doesn't make sense in this context; there is no office, and no officials were elected. Consensus formation process works the same at MOS as it does everywhere else here. Finally, "For most pages, consensus would be established by the weighted preponderance of reliable sources" is not a factual statement; that's true only of mainspace content, not "pages" generally, and certainly is not true of our internal "Wikipedia:"-namespace documentation. "The MoS is not held to as high a standard for sources as other articles are" doesn't even logically parse. MoS is not an article, so "other articles" is not a valid construction in that sentence, and the comparison it contains is of unlike things. Directly equivalent statement: "My cat is not held to as high a standard for equestrian ability as other horses are."  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  05:40, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Actually, no. Consensus does not work exactly the same way here as it does in the article space. If it did, most of the MoS would be sourced and marked with ref tags.
Consensus on Wikipedia is not supposed to come down to votes but to the preponderance of sources and of logical arguments. I know it often doesn't end up working out this way, but the scales are more tipped toward it out in the article space than they are here. For a solution, I'm all for increasing the role of sourcing in the MoS. In this MoS's particular case, difs proving the existence of a problem can be considered RS.
Also consider that the role of an article is to say "this is true/verifiable; here are facts" and the role of the MoS is to say "do this; here are instructions." These can be very different.
The idea that no one but the MoS regulars know what is best for the MoS is why we're so often accused of cliquishness. Anyone proposing a change would be wise to consult the regulars, but disregarding or weighting against outside input is improper.
Third-party sources, such as style guides, can tell us what is correct English, and helping editors write articles in correct English is the MoS's core goal, so yes they do have a role here as sources.
The fact that you and others think that it's okay that the MoS is arbitrary is probably one of the reasons why so many editors ignore it. "Do as I say not because it's verifiably true but because I say so" is antithetical to Wikipedia's mission.
I'll be more specific: One of the reasons for the double-vs-single rule was that single messes up search browsers, and if you want me to link to the discussion saying so, I will. It's just that the other reason is kind of stupid: Early during Wikipedia, there was a split-the-difference decision between American and British English rules. Those Wikieditors decided that the MoS would require British commas-out placement (WP:LQ) in all articles but double quotation marks in all articles. They did so in the entirely mistaken belief that British English always requires single. (One more reason to chuck WP:LQ.) I'm sure you can see how I don't think that this reason for the establishment of the double-only rule would prevent that rule from lapsing when the non-arbitrary problem that it was meant to solve becomes moot.
By "The MoS is not held to as high a standard for sources as other articles are," I mean that content in articles has to be sourced, but the MoS has a lot of unsourced material, including assertions of fact (as opposed to instructions). Some of its text, if moved to the article space, would be deleted for lack of support or at least changed dramatically. People get away with saying things here that they can't get away with saying elsewhere, and some of the things they've said have been misleading or even flat-out false.
I notice that you are assuming something: That any change in the MoS must immediately be carried out. That would of course take a lot of work. However, this is not true. The changes to the articles could merely be allowed to happen slowly, with new articles written in accordance with the updated rules from the start. Also consider that some of the worse rules in the MoS already have low compliance anyway. In the specific case of double-vs-single quotation marks, the MoS would be updated to allow both systems in British English articles, so it isn't as if even one article would be rendered incorrect (or "non-compliant," for those who don't like the term "correct") by lifting the ban. It is not as though articles magically get worse when the MoS is improved. Rather, their likelihood of getting better increases.
Yes, the MoS is different from articles in many important ways but that means we must be more strict with its content, not less. Darkfrog24 (talk) 20:56, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Use of the word "the" at the Lauren Lapkus article

Opinions are needed on the following matter: Talk:Lauren Lapkus#Concerning the 4 characters that have caused such a fuss. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:22, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Hatnote mentions sidebar, not visible in mobile view

In § Guidelines within Manual of Style we state "... see the sidebar at top right of this page." However, the sidebar is invisible when viewing the page in the mobile skin (look). (See MediaWiki:Mobile.css; the sidebar is hidden due to its CSS class "vertical-navbox", if I am interpreting correctly.)

I can think of three possible approaches:

  1. Do nothing, because nobody who cares is using the mobile skin.
  2. Remove the hatnote, because it's not important.
  3. Add a note such as: "(only visible in desktop view, not in mobile view)".

Comments? Thanks. – Wdchk (talk) 04:30, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

  • Or 4: Make all templated content such as that sidebar visible to mobile users on clicking an "expand" button or similar. Stubsorting on a mobile when stub templates are invisible is another problem! PamD 07:00, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
I have added the following text: " (visible only in desktop view, not in mobile view)". I consider this addition to be in harmony with the following statement in the introduction.
  • Any new content added to the body of this page should directly address a style issue that has occurred in a non-trivial number of real instances.
I consider the edited subsection to be outside the body of the WP:MOS. I hope that even additions there be made very sparingly. As soon as this issue with the mobile view is resolved, the added text can be removed.
—Wavelength (talk) 18:54, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
Something like #4 is needed. This is not an MOS problem, but a problem with all sidebar content on WP. This should be addressed at MediaWiki talk:Common.css (to which Mediawiki talk:Mobile.css redirects). There does need to be some kind of placeholder for where these sidebars (infoboxes, nav sidebars, etc.) are, that either allows people to open them in situ, or which re-opens the page in the full-browser view, or something otherwise effective.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  04:11, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
@SMcCandlish: infoboxes show up correctly in the mobile view (at least on the devices/operating systems/browsers I use). See this view as an example. The problem seems to be with the "top level" Wikipedia sidebar, not part of the article, which is not accessible. Peter coxhead (talk) 15:22, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
Same or similar CSS classes can probably be used to resolve this, and the problem that collapse-boxed content remains inaccessible to mobile users. While such material need not be right in their faces, they shouldn't be prevented from accessing it entirely.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  01:02, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Abbreviations: "US" and "UN"

At 21:41, 4 November 2015 (UTC), an anonymous editor revised WP:MOS#Abbreviations, replacing "US" with "UN" (substituting "UN" for "US"). I do not remember the reason for "US" being chosen previously, but it might have been chosen as a robust example, because US citizens have a tendency to include full stops [periods] in some places where UK citizens do not include them.
This example of an edit illustrates an advantage that comes when editing of WP:MOS is limited to a specific group of editors, and a disadvantage that comes when new editors continually appear in the edit history. Editors experienced with the history of WP:MOS are more likely to remember the reasons for previous decisions, whereas new editors might easily (and with good intentions) overturn the results of long discussions.
I propose the insertion of hidden text identifying archive pages and sections of previous discussions which led to specific decisions. For example, if the discussion leading editors to choose "US" is in section 10 of Archive 100, then the hidden text could be "100:10" or "A100:10". The hidden text could be placed immediately after the relevant passage in WP:MOS.
—Wavelength (talk) 03:39, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Any hidden text should be in plain English. A user who's not a regular here would probably not know our shorthand.
As for directing people to archives ...who's going to want to sit and read through one of our long threads and try to guess which part of it has to do with the section in question?
While this particular case does not seem controversial, there are other parts of the MoS whose rationale is disputed. "We put this here for reason X!" "No, reason X is BS; it's really because of reason Y!" I can see this being a can of worms if we make it a regular thing.
How about we ask this user why they made the change? Darkfrog24 (talk) 04:07, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
I left a message at User talk:144.85.233.138, with a link to this discussion.
—Wavelength (talk) 16:50, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
I have restored the previous version, with the more robust example.
—Wavelength (talk) 03:24, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
WP:POLICY pages do not need citations for what they recommend or require; they are not articles that the public readership depends on, but internal documentation that exists strictly for editorial support purposes and which is determined by internal consensus (or, in a few particular bits, imposed on us by WMF's legal department, as with parts of WP:COPYRIGHT and WP:BLP, which is still an organizationally internal matter, distinct from encyclopedic content). In the rare case that the rationale for a guideline or policy saying something is unclear and questioned frequently enough that it needs to be documented, just do it in plain wording with a footnote. We have footnote templates for a reason, and our internal documentation is no stranger to them (see, e.g., several at MOS:LEAD). The few cases of consensus-discussion "citations" that are not in footnotes (there are a couple at WP:AT#DAB, for example) should be converted into footnotes, because they're extraneous, distracting asides when inserted into the flow of the policy/guideline wording. PS: An exception to "do not need citations" is when we're explicitly following external technical standards like WCAG, ISO, W3C, etc. In these rare cases, they should actually be proper reference citations, as at MOS:ACCESSIBILITY.)

Re: "This ... illustrates an advantage that comes when editing ... is limited to a specific group of editors, and a disadvantage that comes when new editors continually appear.... Editors experienced with the history of [the topic] are more likely to remember the reasons for previous decisions, whereas new editors might easily (and with good intentions) overturn the results of long discussions." That's true of every conceivable topic, in or out of mainspace, and is not an MoS issue.

US and UN: Yes, the "US" example was put there for a reason, and surely the "UN" one put in its place in a well-meaning gesture of internationalization. Not a big deal, but proper to revers, as the examples do not illustrate the same thing. As for the underlying issue behind the "US" example, it's not really true that "US citizens have a tendency to include full stops [periods] in some places where UK citizens do not include them"; rather US-based people steeped professionally in "U.S." as a conventional style (i.e. the U.S. government and fields directly tied to it, like the U.S. military and the American legal profession) have a tendency to use it even outside contexts in which is it actually conventional (i.e, irrespective of register of use, and simply out of habit), while most other Americans, and most non-Americans, don't do it at all, especially in the post-IM / post-SMS world in which punctuation is increasingly eschewed when not necessary for clarity. Within a single generation, you can expect to see "U.S." being viewed as archaic as "to-day" and "coöperate", through exactly the same process that has rendered "A.T.M." and "U.N.E.S.C.O." obsolete renderings of "ATM" and "UNESCO".  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  07:46, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Where are you getting your info on what "most Americans" do? I see a lot of "U.S.," actually. Darkfrog24 (talk) 17:30, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
I read a lot. Thread below covers, more analytically, where "U.S." is used. Short version: In US legal and governmental documents, in US academic writing that follows CMoS and was produced prior to the 16th ed. (2010), in non-headline prose in American journalism that follow AP Stylebook, and even in headlines by the handful of papers that follow NYT style. And that's just in formal writing; see any number of analyses of computer-mediated communication's effect on general public use of optional punctuation (it's being dropped increasingly, and millennials never used it to begin with).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  19:59, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Other style guides on "US" vs. "U.S."

Journalism:
The process of moving from "X.Y." initialisms to "XY" format appears to be inexorable, and it's only government/jurisprudence and a few conservative (mostly East Coast) newspapers who keep the "U.S." variant alive at all. This trend is easy to see in style guides (aside from non-US ones, which consistently use "US"). If you look at 1980s editions, you find recommendations (e.g. in the 1981 Los Angeles Times Stylebook, and the Chicago Manual of Style [see below] from the same era, among others) to treat geographical initialisms the same as human initials ("J.R.R. Tolkien" – virtually no external works support WP's weird "J. R. R. Tolkien" style), thus "U.N." and even "U.S.S.R."

Today, the New York Times Manual of Style and Usage has mostly abandoned this, yet still insists on "U.S." for the United States any time it is abbreviated (except in longer initialisms like "USAF"), and does likewise for a handful of other "intrinsically American" initialisms like "G.O.P.", which competing style guides like that of the Los Angeles Times have been rendering "GOP" since the 1970s. The new edition of the NYT guide, the first in years, came out a couple of months ago and still says this, demonstrating its conservative approach to typography and language. Meanwhile, the more efficient and populist Associated Press Stylebook abandoned even "U.S." in headlines, several years ago, permitting it only in running prose. The combination of slipping usage in the AP Stylebook (the dominant journalism style book in the US by a very wide margin) and the no-dots style in virtually all non-US publications, and the overwhelming use of "US" in headlines and abstracts, as well as in running prose outside American newspapers and legal/regulatory material, has lead to "US" dominating in online sources that are not tied directly to traditional US newspaper publishers. (See August threads here for some external sourcing on that, for those who care.) Virtually no one writes "U.N." any more, or "U.A.E."; to the extent the style survives at all it's limited to "U.S." in certain American publishing contexts.

CMoS:
Similarly, the Chicago Manual of Style, a conservative-leaning work, until the 14th ed. (1993) recommended "U.S.", "U.K.", etc. consistently (for country initialisms, but "UNESCO", "USAF", etc. for longer constructions incorporating them). The current edition (16th, 2010) has abandoned this and explicitly says to use "US" (§10.33), except in legal citations (§14.293).

The now-obsolete 15th ed. (2003) is what MoS's own rule is based on, and is wishy-washy like ours, recommending "UK", "GDR", etc., consistently, except saying (in part) "U.S. traditionally appears with periods ... [which] may nonetheless be omitted in most contexts. Writers and editors need to weigh tradition against consistency."

MoS implications:
MOS pretty much just outright plagiarized "U.S. traditionally appears with periods" from CMoS, without any critical thinking about the meaning and implications of that statement. We should've read that last CMoS part twice, since we generally go with consistency and have little use for "tradition", which varies between audiences, but which we can't reasonably permit here because no article is edited only by editors from a particular "tradition". Part of MOS's mission for inter-article consistency, when practical, for both reader and editor benefit is studious avoidance of colloquial and jargonistic constructions.

This is a good illustration, BTW, of why MoS should not be explicitly based on external style guides vs. our own determinations through consensus (often considering multiple external style books, giving more weight to the reasoning and context behind their rules rather than their wording), arriving at an internal WP finding of what makes best sense for our context and readership. Paper style guides change randomly from edition to edition, for reasons that have nothing to do with WP's needs or audience, but primarily based on pressure from the editorial staff at big-name publishing companies in a particular market. As argued in a thread above, MoS should not be changing randomly to suit off-WP whims. If we were nuts enough to establish rules like "MoS punctuates following the recommendations of the CMoS", we'd be in a world of metaphoric fecal matter, having to change millions of lines of wikicode every few years simply to match what some essentially irrelevant off-WP book said.

If MoS changes to eschew "U.S.", it should be on the basis of an WP-internal rationale. Arriving at one is not challenging:

  • Except in American government/legal contexts (where they are a term of art and mostly used in legal/regulatory citations in specific proper name abbreviation constructions like "U.S." and "U.S.C."), the "U.S." spelling does not match conventional expectations of most readers, only Americans intimately involved with the legal system or branches of the U[.]S[.] government.
  • It is no longer supported by any major style guide consistently outside of those contexts (unless you consider the rarely-updated NYT guide to be "major", which even the world of journalism publishing does not).
  • It leads to strife and conflict, as various editors squabble over whether to make "U.S." be consistent with "UK", etc., in articles in which they both appear (sometimes with "UK" or whatever being added long after "U.S" was already "established" in the article prose).
    • Sometimes it goes the other way around, with an American editor imposing "U.S." on an article that was not using it, just because they're convinced it's the "only proper way to do it in American English" despite MoS not saying this and no modern style guides off-WP saying this.
    • Some may even go further and try to convert "UN", "UK" ,and "UAE" to "U.N.", "U.K." and "U.A.E." to be consistent with "U.S.", despite MOS not supporting any such thing (MoS is only a guideline after all).
  • It can also lead to broader confusions, e.g. about how to handle other abbreviations like "UNESCO" and "NASA" (a confusion worsened by some external style guides' insistence that true acronyms of this sort – those pronounced as if words not letters in series – should be rendered the same way as "Jackson" and "London": "Unesco", "Nasa" – yet another reason that "an external style guide says so, so we have to follow suit" is not valid reasoning here).

 — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  07:46, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Props for the legwork, SmC. Have you seen anyone on Wikipedia get confused and use "U.N.E.S.C.O." or "Nasa" or is this an extrapolation? Darkfrog24 (talk) 17:28, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
I have actually seen someone use "Nasa" before, but I straight reverted it as it had he hallmarks of a copy-and-paste bit of copyvio. Indeed, that "Nasa" was used was part of what tipped my off. The "use only a starting capital if pronounced like a word" format is the standard practice of the British press (good old Fleet Street); in this case the text came from The Financial Times. That said, it's prevelance in the British press does mean it's quite possible to see it here if someone doesn't know the guideline and/or doesn't realize it's an acronym because of the UK press style. And I seem to vaguely remember a discussion on the use not too long ago here; a proposal to allow it was rejected if I recall. oknazevad (talk) 17:44, 9 November 2015 (UTC) PS Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Archive_164#Lowercase_acronyms_.2F_uppercase_initialisms here was that discussion. Not soundly rejected, but it kinda just died without consensus.
In my current employ as a legal journalist, my employer has a standard that "U.S." shall be written with periods, while EU, UK, UN, etc. are not. This reflects official U.S. government usage (see, e.g. The U.S.-EU Partnership, which has some mixed use in titles, but consistently uses U.S. in running text, while using EU and other unpunctuated abbreviations in the same text. I vaguely recall hearing at some point in my life that U.S. is punctuated to avoid having it pronounced as "us" or otherwise confused with the pronoun. Whatever the root cause, it remains prevalent and seems intuitive to me. bd2412 T 18:28, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
I find nothing even faintly intuitive about "The U.S.-EU Partnership"; it looks like someone had a mild seizure while typing. The "U.S." spelling is retained simply because the government (and thus law and the military) like it. It is not plausible that people will mistake it for "us", or the rest of the world, including the rest of the US, would not spell it "US". QED (or Q.E.D. as old-timers write it. ;-)  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  19:48, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Yes, I've personally corrected both "U.N.E.S.C.O." (or maybe it was "U.N.I.C.E.F." – one UN agency or another – and "Nasa" (as well as either "Unicef" or "Unesco" again). I also frequently run into "U.N." I don't log trivia like this though; I just edit-summary it "typo", "ce", "style fix", or whatever, or it's often a tiny part of a bunch of other changes in the same edit. I generally decline to participate in "can you prove editors are doing this?" fishing expeditions; either it's logically plausible that MoS should clarify something, or it's not. When the potential error is likely (e.g. because one or more style guides or other major publications or regional sets of publications do it, ergo many readers/editors will be familiar with that variant), then we can just implement the clarification. With an entire planet of editors available, it's inevitable that the mistake will; we only have to consider how frequently we guesstimate it may arise. Per WP:AGF, editors' word that they recall having encountered it already is sufficient if there's also a plausible rationale for why it's happening. We needn't entertain something like 'MOS should say not to spell "I" as "i" or "me" as "Me", and I keep seeing people do that.' MoS mostly doesn't cover basic writing rules, unless they've actually turned out to be something experience tells us we need cover. If you encounter "i" for "I", it will probably be in a block of text with no capitalization at all, or an isolated typo; we don't find editors who really believe it should be spelled that way.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  19:48, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for answering my question, SmC.
I disagree with your reasoning, however, and with your characterization of my question as a fishing expedition. While it is possible that any error will occur sooner or later, not all of them will occur often enough for a line about them to earn the space it would take up in the MoS, and assuming otherwise leads to rules banning pet peeves. In this case, the answer to "How often does anyone on Wikipedia actually make this mistake?" seems to be "Often enough that SmC noticed and remembered." Memory should hold more weight than imagination in these matters. Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:47, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Sub pages

Is there a way to access an automated list of sub pages? For example:

The ones I saw so far are informative and would like to read them all or have easy access to know which content types have them. Like for example does MOS for TV episodes match films regarding them being primary sources for themself? 64.228.90.179 (talk) 01:37, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

See this page and Category:Wikipedia Manual of Style and Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Contents.
—Wavelength (talk) 01:50, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
For maintenance use (e.g. to find redirects, sandboxes, etc.), use Special:PrefixIndex/Wikipedia:Manual of Style or the WP:Manual of Style/ soft redir.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  19:24, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Number signs example

MOS:NUMBERSIGN gives as its first Correct example: "Her album reached number 1 in the UK album charts." I don't think that's correct. If "number" is used then the numeral should be spelled out as well (one). But, I think that the other example: "Her album reached No. 1 in the UK album charts." is preferred, so it should be listed first. --Musdan77 (talk) 20:47, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

I've never seen anything that states using the "No." abbreviation is preferable with numerals, nor conversely that if "number" is spelled out then the value should be expressed as words. Is there someplace (off-wiki) that you can point to with that recommendation? oknazevad (talk) 01:43, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
When I say "preferred", I mean from what I've seen used in articles. But, when the section is about the Number sign, it seems more natural to go from one shortened version (#) to another (No.), than to to the spelled-out word. I have not found anything that actually says that it's better to use "number one", but it makes more sense for consistency. --Musdan77 (talk) 18:08, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
One could say it's an unordered list, and no preference is implied in the listing. However, some readers might infer differently. I'll have to admit that in most of my work in sports-reated articles, a number for a ranking or a jersey number is usually seen as "No. 1" than "number one". Consistent with WP:PROPOSAL ("Most commonly, a new policy or guideline simply documents existing practices, rather than proposing a change to them"), I'd support at the very least to list the "No." example first, whether or not we say it is preferred.—Bagumba (talk) 21:01, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
Last I looked, we're also not advocating "No." but "no." when it's used; its an abbreviation of Latin numero, not "Numero". I've raised this issue before, but there are also contexts in which "#" is preferred usage, but they're uncommon enough maybe we can continue ignoring them. I sympathize with OP's view that we should use either "number one" or "no. 1"; this would be in agreement with a lot of our other guidance on abbreviations and numerals (mostly in WP:MOSNUM). I don't know if any major external style guides cover this, but I'd be surprised if they don't. I can start looking it up if we care.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  19:29, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Shortcuts (number of)

At 21:57, 19 August 2015 (UTC), Voidxor removed several shortcuts, using this edit summary.

  • There are more shortcuts than can practically be listed here. Therefore, let's only advertise the MOS: versions in the {{Shortcut}} boxes, for consistency. Also, mv floating {{Shortcut}} elements below hatnotes.

At 16:35, 10 November 2015 (UTC), Danhash added three shortcuts to the subsection "Quotation marks", which already had one shortcut, using this edit summary.

Wikipedia:Shortcut#Link boxes (shortcut: WP:2SHORTCUTS) has this guideline.

  • The point of these template boxes is not to list every single redirect for any given page (indeed, that's what Special:Whatlinkshere is for); instead, they generally should list only one or two common and easily remembered redirects.

—Wavelength (talk) 18:02, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

That's fine with me; I did not realize there was already a discussion or de facto guideline for shortcut boxes. Feel free to remove the ones which aren't necessary. —danhash (talk) 20:49, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for your reply. At 21:35, 10 November 2015 (UTC), I removed the three added shortcuts.
—Wavelength (talk) 21:38, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
I support Voidxor's & Wavelength's approach (and we've been over this many times before), generally, though there a few cases where sections have merged, or they cover several distinct things, and it's practical to have a few extra non-alike shortcuts. There's no reason at all, however, to have "WP:MOSFOO" variants in addition to the "MOSFOO" variant, nor minor spelling variants like plurals, nor various people's attempts to impose odd camelcase variants or other approaches. That's just pointless clutter that adds no actual utility.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  19:23, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Why is "WP:Manual of Style" title case?

I was just wondering, why is "WP:Manual of Style" title case? Per WP:TITLEFORMAT, shouldn't it technically be sentence case? (I.e. "WP:Manual of style".) I apologize if this isn't the place for this type of question, or if there is already an explanation on the topic. Main reason I ask is because I'm helping craft a MOS guideline at a Wikia community, and was wondering if there's a reason Manual of Style is title case. Thanks, User:Jacedc (talk) 21:26, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

It probably started in that form, before the community decided that article titles should be in sentence case.
—Wavelength (talk) 22:41, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
Also, it's not a Wikipedia article.  SchreiberBike | ⌨  00:18, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
It's less relevant whether it's an article and more relevant whether it's a proper noun. Chicago Manual of Style is capitalized. Why not Wikipedia Manual of Style? Wikipedia articles can contain title case if they include the name of a proper noun, such as List of Star Trek characters or Critical approaches to Hamlet. Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:00, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
There have been objections on a number of previous occasions, all, I think resolved as "too hard". It shouldn't be upcased. Tony (talk) 11:38, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification, at any rate. Yeah, I don't think "manual of style" is a proper noun so much as "Wikipedia Manual of Style" is. User:Jacedc (talk) 23:55, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
If you check the archives, there were previous discussions of this; the consensus was that the MoS is essentially a work, and should be titled as one. There are various other projectpages treated as proper names, e.g. Main Page a.k.a. WP:Main Page, Help:Wikipedia: The Missing Manual, WP:The Wikipedia Adventure, the WP:WikiProject Council, [most] wikiprojects, WP:Mediation Committee, WP:Arbitration Committee, WP:The Wikipedia Library (I have no idea why it has "The" in it), and the former WP:Mediation Cabal, etc. There's also WP:Video and Interactive Tutorials, the name of a formal WMF project, and various things in Category:Wikipedia tools, which are basically software or documentation named for the software. If the WP:Signpost were renamed to a multipart name like "Wikipedia Gazette" it would surely be capitalized that way. A few others probably should capitalized as proper names but are not, e.g. a few wikiprojects with only their first word capitalized, plus the WP:Village pump, WP:Five pillars, WP:Welcoming committee, WP:Community portal, maybe also WP:Help desk and WP:Reference desk. There are some other inconsistencies, like WP:Request Edit Wizard vs. WP:Article wizard, and WP:The newcomer's manual vs. the other "Manuals", as well as WP:Editor's index to Wikipedia and WP:Reader's index to Wikipedia (essentially stand-alone works also). On the other hand, various disused essays are capitalized and should not be; I WP:RM these on sight or just move them manually.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  19:17, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Politician?

There is a dispute as to whether we should say "Donald Trump is a politician", "Ben Carson is a politician", and "Carly Fiorina is a politician". One side argues that anyone seeking office is a politician, while the other side cites common usage -- all three of the names listed above have multiple reliable sources that say they are "not a politician". Does the MOS give us guidance on this question? --Guy Macon (talk) 04:28, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

MOS/Religion

I created a disambiguation page at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Religion, indexing all the non-trivial MoS coverage of religion/faith/philosophy/scripture that I could easily locate, since people are apt to wonder where to find that stuff, and it is a bit scattered.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  19:18, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

RM to move wikiproject content essay misnamed as a MoS subpage back to wikiproject

FYI
 – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

Please see Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/New religious movements#Requested move 15 November 2015.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  22:35, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

MOS:ELLIPSIS

As of November 2015, the MOS states WP:MOS#Ellipses states "Pre-composed ellipsis character (…) generated with the … character entity or as a literal "…". This is harder to input and edit and too small in some fonts. Not recommended." Automated edits are being made that convert ellipsis (…) into sequences of three full-stops. This loses semantic information, and appears to do so on the basis of

  1. Presentation on some unknown set of "some fonts"
  2. Input mechanisms that are "harder to input", but this doesn't appear to suggest removal

For the latter, input mechanisms have moved on a lot eg. ISO 14755 entry. For the the former fonts provide a very carefully spaced ellipsis glyph (nb. normally wider, not small-er than a row of full-stops). Thus, the basis for preferring rows of full-stops over the correct semantic form seems doubly flawed. If there are no objections, I would proposed the following adjustment:

"The ellipsis character (…) literally inserted Preferred, or from its corresponding … HTML entity. Not recommended."

(This would remove the flawed/distracting perceptions about fonts and input mechanisms from the policy text). —Sladen (talk) 21:54, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

I object to the proposed adjustment. The affected fonts are not specified, probably for the sake of brevity. Characters generated with … can be replaced by three unspaced periods (full stops). (In Wikipedia articles, "very carefully spaced" and "doubly flawed" should be unhyphenated.)
—Wavelength (talk) 23:10, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
I have a question. Will all of the existing instances of … have to be converted to three full stops, if this passes? epic genius (talk) 01:30, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
Epicgenius, the first priority/aim would be to discourage robotic conversion of ellipsis (coded as … or …) to sequences of full-stops, could you suggest an improved wording? —Sladen (talk) 08:48, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
@Sladen: Oh, OK, I see what you mean. An improved wording would be Pre-composed ellipsis character (…), generated with the … character entity or as a literal "…". This is harder to modify and is too small in some fonts. Not recommended." epic genius (talk) 13:59, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
Epicgenius, perhaps I'm missing something? That seems to be (a) the present wording, and (b) doesn't appear to discourage attempts at converting ellipsis into full-stops. —Sladen (talk) 14:02, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
@Sladen: Maybe this should be a new line: If possible, it is not recommended to change a pre-composed ellipsis character into three full stops. epic genius (talk) 14:06, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
I support the use of literal ellipsis characters. An ellipsis looks like three periods but is semantically different (much like a lowercase L looks like the numeral 1, but is different!). I think we should prefer the ellipsis character over three unspaced dots. I would, therefore, even support discouraging the use of three dots, spaced or not. It's not clear to me why we wouldn't also recommend the HTML entity, since it is functionally equivalent and solves the "hard to input" problem. Pburka (talk) 14:07, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
I think the three full-stops should be the norm. It is by far the easiest way to create ellipsis while editing in the Wikipedia environment, and it is far less likely that millions of casual editors are going to dutifully use the other options, one which requires knowledge of the HTML code, ALT-keycodes, or the use of word processors, which we would have to discourage because we don't want curly quotes and weird hidden formatting in articles either. If the issue is semantic difference, then maybe the software should be coded to convert "..." to "…" when the article is being read, similar to how the software ignores multiple spaces between words and presents a single space in read mode. But I gotta say, "..." looks very much like "…" on my screen, so I don't know what additional value we're getting by using the semantically correct version, except when we're in edit mode. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:48, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
Cyphoidbomb, yes three full-stops is an easy way to enter three full-stops. We have a situation where lots of editors who do know how to use '…' enter it, but later an AWB-user comes along and converts it. My hope here would be wording that encourages AWB users to leave this as-is, just as with – and — (endashes and emdashes). —Sladen (talk) 16:56, 19 November 2015 (UTC) For not being able to tell the difference on some particular font/settings/browser/platform, see Pburka's comment above "…lowercase L looks like the numeral 1, but is different!"
I also object to this claim for reasons given above. The idea that font-related issues can be ignore because we aren't providing a catalogue of all the fonts in the world that are affected is nonsense. This is a style guideline, not a font debugging tutorial, and the suggestion smacks of WP:GAMING and WP:LAWYER. There is not "gotcha!" to be had here.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  21:02, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

I've gone back through the history to try and track down where the additions of the Recommended/Not recommended came from. In October 2007 there was a replacement of ellipsis characters in the MoS itself with full-stops by an editor[4]. The same editor then replaced the (at the time) short/clear ellipsis policy with a longer version with significantly changed meaning.[5]. Some of the more extreme aspects were immediately reverted[6] by SMcCandlish in subsequent edits with some pretty strong words "That's just wrong…". There is reference to apparent discussion, which from the timeline is probably Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Ellipses revisited, but which does not appear to mention alleged problems with fonts, nor input mechanisms, nor most of the rest. Andreas Toth,[7] Goffrie[8] made further small corrections. Subsequently Andyvphil and atakdoug also expressed concern at some of what had changed in Wikipedia talk:Manual of Styl#Ellipses .E2.80.93 Proposal to expand_the treatment thereof. In the latter jacobolus expressed concern over "flimsy" arguments,[9][10] and mms was around too. To those pinged here, are any of you able to shed any more light on this? Was it continued elsewhere—SMcCandlish does at one point note about taking an apparent dispute with the editor in question off privately, but I don't know if there was further discussion that wasn't documented. —Sladen (talk) 21:47, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Eight years of stability, in one of the most actively edited guidelines on the system, is more than sufficient evidence of consensus. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, and inclusion of advice in guidelines is often a matter of WP:COMMONSENSE; there is not a formal ratification process. "I can't find old discussions justifying something I don't like to my satisfaction" isn't a rationale. If you think the present advice is sub-par, then present a new rationale for changing it, rather than argue about procedural matters from almost a decade ago. WP:PROCESS evolves over time, so any procedural objection predicated on present-day process is inapplicable to consensus formation that long ago to begin with. Who discussed what, with whom, back when, isn't really relevant to what MoS should say now.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  22:25, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
I (think) this the first time I've raised this here, and as noted it was in response to observing diff-noise from search-and-replace of ellipsis with full-stops. Many things have changed in eight years, including the mw:Typography refresh, and now seems an excellent time to be having such a discussion. On my trip through the Talk archives I've not (yet) been able to find anything supporting there being a general (nor singular) problem with fonts, nor with input mechanisms. Are you aware of any consensus-forming discussion that would justify the continuance of the present asserts? —Sladen (talk) 22:34, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
Whether there used to be justification for it in 2007 is essentially irrelevant. I'll repeat what I said in user talk for the benefit(?) of other readers: It doesn't matter why we arrived 8 years ago at something. It's been stable and has resisted change so there's a consensus for it. Consensus can change, but it does so by presenting a new rationale for why that change should happen, not second-guessing why a decision was made that long ago. We do not have a time machine and cannot go back and re-examine the entire decision-making process. The breadcrumbs left though old discussions are an incomplete snapshot of what the thinking was. We do not need an endless raft of people showing up at MoS claiming they can't find a decade-old consensus for some line-item that triggers one of their personal pet peeves. Nothing would happen at MoS ever again, pretty much, other than dealing with people raising bogus procedural "appeals" against every single thing in MoS they want to change for their own personal reasons. The specific rules in MoS are less important than its stability. Zero editors agree with every single line-item in MoS, and zero line items in MoS have universal agreement. What we do agree on is to operate under it because any project of this sort has to have a style guide, which will necessarily contain many arbitrary things simply to settle disputes and prevent inconsistent usage. Every sport, by analogy, has to have a ruleset, and not everyone will always agree that each of them is perfect, but the game does not go on unless people agree to play by the same rules.

If you have evidence that that rationales for the rule against the (for me, nearly impossible to make out) unicode ellipsis character are faulty, then present that evidence. It's a waste of time to try to "re-litigate" an eight-year-old consensus discussion on the merits of the arguments 8 years ago. If nothing else, it's a WP:DGAF matter. No one cares whether the arguments were good 8 years ago. We care what MoS should say now, based on arguments that make sense now. I see no case really presented for the benefit of using that character today. It's hard to read, hard to type, and may well still present font problems on some systems. Even if that last point is no longer true, it is not the only (present-day) rationale against that character. This is part of a wider-ranging set of issues, e.g. about using Unicode fraction characters and so on. Just because a character exists does not mean it is the ideal representation of something in an encyclopedia.

PS: The idea of a "leave-it-as-is" rule, like we have for spaced en-dash vs. unspaced em-dash, doesn't track. We have that rule because they're both universally recognized style approaches, well documented in most style guides; this isn't true of "…" vs. "..."; they're a different coding approach to what is intended to be parsed by the reader as the same thing; it has more in common with he choice of whether to use a "fi" ligature (fi) or not for kerning purposes. [Interestingly, it does not in fact render as a ligature in all fonts, and Google tells us that there may be accessibility concerns with those, too [11].] — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  22:55, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

[I moved a bit of this comment of mine to new sub-thread below. -SMcC.]
(edit conflict) If it's helpful for the discussion to know, I would discourage the use of legacy single-codepoint fractions. They go against one meaning one codepoint, and using them disguises multiple characters under a single codepoint (eg. 5 / 16), whereas they each have own semantic meanings. Conversely an ellipsis does have its own semantic meaning and therefore its own encoding and distinct (codepoint) that is different from a trigraph of three consecutive full-stops. A row of row-of nine full-stops ('.........') is not the same as three ellipses ('………'). Endashes ('—') and emdashes ('–') have semantic meanings different to rows of hyphens ('-'), and so their own distinct codepoints too. Not everyone can see the difference with every configuration, but we do do our best to get them encoded appropriately so that it is possible, and would likely discourage any bot trying to replaces emdashes with trigraphs of three hyphens ('---') or endashes with digraphs of two hyphens ('--'). I'm hopefully with a minimal wording change such as that suggested by epic genius above we can reach a wording where the directly/correctly encoded form, or entity, does not appear to be prejudiced to the point that AWB/bot operators are tempted to try easy one-way conversions. Part of this may stem from the example style being different to the rest of the MoS, where instead of Good: …example/Bad: …example, whilst the ellipsis section presently has bold-face Recommended/Not recommended at the end of the line; with the bold-face appearing to overshadow the example itself. —Sladen (talk) 23:29, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
Except that the ellipsis actually is a series a three periods (BrEng: full points). The choice by some typesetters to put it on a single block of type and (often, buy but no means universally) to kern them closer together, and the choice to provide this facility in digitized typefaces to keep the typesetting world happy, really has nothing to do with semantics. The fact that Unicode, and some pre-Unicode code pages, fonts, etc., have supported it as a separate character of its own does not magically imbue it with new semantic meaning. It originated as and is literally written as a period-period-period series. Sematically a series of nine periods and a series of three Unicode ellipsis characters are in fact the same thing - a line of dots that conveys no meaning, but is used as a visual aid or decoration, e.g. to evenly space page numbers in a table of contents. The character string "........." (whatever glyphs and codepoints are used to generate it, and whatever its kerning, either intrinsic to the character encodings or applied by the font or later steps) has no linguistic or other symbolic meaning. There is such meaning in English for "..." and "&9633;", and it's the same in both cases. The only time there's going to be an actual semantic difference is in a language other than English (or probably any other natural language), e.g. in a programming/scripting language where the literal character "." may have a particular meaning to the interpreter/compiler, including in series, where the Unicode character would not parse as the same thing as "...". Some uses of en- and em-dashes are semantically identical (when spaced properly), but in other cases this is not true; e.g., an em-dash is never used in a construction like "US–UK relations". So, some uses of these dash usses are syntactically distinct, while others – like this these—that you are reading now—passages – are not.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  00:22, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Looking into accessibility issues

External searching brings up probably-relevant results: [12] [13] [14].

A similar issue came up very recently (August?) with regard to use of the hair space character,   (rendered here between two em-dashes: — —, vs. two consecutive em-dashes: — —, and a thin-space between em-dashes: — —), which seems like a no-brainer for fonts to support, but many do not. I.e., it's unwise to make assumptions that a particular character is supported it if's not among the most used (–, •, etc.)

If someone actually wanted to test support of the ellipsis character, to do it adequately they'd need to set up virtual machines for at least Windows XP through 10, and MacOS X in various versions, plus various flavors of Unix, and NetBSD, just for starters, and check rendering of a webpage containing that character in various stock fonts in each OS. Doesn't seem like a practical use of anyone's time. Even if you already had all of these VMs handy, it would take many hours. I would hope that someone somewhere has already done some kind of Unicode font support tables for common "Web fonts" across multiple platforms, and by OS version. Hopefully something in this search is what we need.

The fact that reliable sources tell us that Unicode support for non-common characters is spotty and that their use can present accessibility problems should be sufficient for us to remain skeptical and exercise caution. No one is going to suffer any problem at all if their preferred "…" character gets replaced with "...", but the opposite may not be true.

The argument that the character conveys semantic meaning, if I bought it, could make me philosophically inclined to support it, on principle (see parallel discussion among Drupal developers [15]), but only if it's known to not be problematic at the font level, and only if it were done with a template wrapper that applies a CSS class so that those of use with crap vision can make it more legible with a slight font size or character width (transform-scale [16]) increase. (And I don't buy the semantic argument, anyway; see above.) My earlier comment "Just because a character exists does not mean it is the ideal representation of something in an encyclopedia" is particularly salient in this regard. The use of WP as some kind of typography showcase has to take a distant back seat to getting information across to as many people as possible. The hint of semantic information allegedly lost in the translation from "Pi is 3.14159265…" with Unicode ellipsis to "Pi is 3.14159265..." with three dots is much less significant than the loss of parseability information ("this digit continues") in the failed rendering of "Pi is 3.14159265…" as something like "Pi is 3.14159265□" or "Pi is 3.14159265?" (depending on how the OS handles unknown characters). The actual output of the Unicode ellipsis is wildly inconsistent. In many of the fonts I use, it is almost indistinguishable from an underscore (_) with my eyesight, especially in a monospaced or narrow font, but in one I just tested, it's actually wider than three dots. This means that a template wrapper should not force a font-size increase, just apply a class people can adjust to suit their browser's usual font, and their eyes. It's also notable that the use of Unicode fractions actually interferes with many things, including templated math operations and the ability to copy-paste (or otherwise get at) the numbers in a way that can be operated on by external tools, (e.g. pasting into a calculator app, or exporting a WP table to a spreadsheet), so we devised {{Frac}} to do something visually like this but more functional. I.e., avoidance of Unicode can sometimes increase semantic value. An over-generalized approach of "Unicode can do this now, so we must do it with Unicode" is not valid. It's always going to be case-by-case. A strong argument can be made, for example, for using "–", not the bare character "–" in wikicode, because in many fonts (especially monospaced ones in the editing window) it's impossible to tell the difference between "–" and "-". It's unfortunate that the "–" button in the editing tools cannot be configured (and isn't configured by default) to insert the character entity code instead of the bare symbol (especially since this may also interfere with editability on some Unix/Linux platforms when in a text browser, not that this comes up too often, I guess).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  00:22, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Need help determining the common name of an individual

This is regarding a naming dispute at WP:VIDEOGAMES and the individual in question is a Swedish professional Counter-Strike: Global Offensive player for Ninjas in Pyjamas. Possible variations of an article title as seen in reliable and unreliable sources include:

--Prisencolin (talk) 15:15, 24 November 2015

Are you disputing the article title or the lead sentence? If it's the article title it should either be Patrik Lindberg or f0rest. Then you should determine what common name is most prevalent in secondary reliable sources such as gaming competition articles. Cases can be made for either. Swedish wikipedia uses his real name, but with other gamer articles like Nadeshot use the gaming handle. I don't see any cases where the quotes version need to be in the article title. As for lead sentence, writing Patrick "f0rest" Lindberg would imply that people would call him f0rest Lindberg, which I don't see any support for that in what you have presented. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:42, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
This is regarding the article title. It's an interesting concern that first "alias" last shouldn't be used if the individual isn't actually known as alias last, but I'm not sure if that's actually standard English usage.--Prisencolin (talk) 14:39, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
Concur with AngusWOOF. The lead should probably say something like "Patrik Lindberg, better known as f0rest", since it's an alias, not a nickname used with his surname. Titles questions should usually go to WT:AT unless they're about a style matter within the title (diacritics, etc.). But since it's already been raised here: Judging from the sources cited so far, the stand-out appears to be "f0rest" as what this person is publicly known as. The sourcing giving his real name all seem to be self-published. They're valid per WP:ABOUTSELF for establishing what is real name almost certainly is (barring unlikely weirdness like he's really an at-large criminal using a fake name as well as a gamer moniker :-), but they don't have anything to do with WP:COMMONNAME which is based on independent, secondary sources.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  07:58, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Archive_174&oldid=1088079377"