This is an archive of past discussions on Wikipedia:Manual of Style. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Would like someone to check me on the title of Library–State / Van Buren (CTA). I'm interested in knowing if I did the spacing correctly on this title, since it seemed a shade confusing, and so I'm looking to know if I did it right (and if I did it wrong, what would make it right). Thanks! SchuminWeb (Talk) 19:06, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
Agreed. And the article doesn't provide much illumination, though you'd think it would. I presume State is a street, and in this case, the bus or train or whatever it is has a stop there named "State". But there is not, apparently, any stop named "Library", although is or was or was going to be an actual library somewhere along the route. I have no idea how Van Buren comes into this, other than being 8th presdident of the U.S.
If I might complain further, I believe it would be of great usefuleness to mention "Chicago" or at least "Illinois" ("U.S."?) in the first sentence or two of the article. If you don't know that CTA is the central keyword here, you won't immediately click on (or hover over) it, and so you will have no idea that it has to do with buses (heading in bold) or trains (photo at right).
The station, which is on the south side of the CTA Loop, serves the Harold Washington Library, the central facility of the Chicago Public Library system. It is located at the corner of State Street and Van Buren Street (which is named for the president). The CTA, for stations located on intersections, typically uses the names of the two streets separated by slashes, such as the "State/Van Buren" here. The addition of "Library", joined by a dash, is less typical, but not unheard of; Sox–35th is the name of the station that serves the Chicago White Sox's ballpark, for example.
As for the question of spacing on the slash, which is the ultimate question, the CTA doesn't, so I'd not space them either. oknazevad (talk) 18:54, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
Thanks! Your first two sentences above would make a great addition to the current article. I'm also surprised (and better informed) to read that there is, in fact, a library; I had the impression from the article that "this was never built." Now I understand that it must be the direct access to the second floor that was never built. And okay, now I realize that Harold Washington Library is wikilinked, so it must have been built, but I didn't catch it the first time.
As the CTA doesn't appear to use spaces for either the dash or the slash, neither should we, to be factually accurate.oknazevad (talk) 03:15, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
At the risk of triggering World War 3: by that token, shouldn't those en dashes be hyphens? See the CTA's own pages linked from Library–State/Van Buren and Sox–35th (and see too the station itself [1]), where the names are rendered Library-State/Van Buren and Sox-35th respectively. (And despite what MOS:ENDASH says, it looks better in this case!) PL290 (talk) 09:03, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
←Oknazevad: I'm not sure I agree with a race to the bottom in typography. But PL290, yes, the en dashes should be hyphens, I think. Tony(talk)12:45, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
On further thought, PL and Tony are right regarding hyphens for two reasons. Firstly, as PL alluded to, because the CTA uses them, and we should use what the agency that defines the name uses. (So hard to tell hyphens and endashes appart on a small screen sometimes.) But I should have known for the second reason, namely that a compound name, which is what these are, uses hyphens. D'oh!
But, though I believe it is going to open a can of worms, I have to ask why do you think conforming to the official usage is a "race to the bottom in typography", Tony? Is it because of your previously oft-stated preference for spaces around dashes and slashes that separate multiple-word terms? If so, then I guess we can consider this another example of that preference not being in use elsewhere. As I've stated before, I disagree with it, as I feel that the same punctuation mark performing the same function should always be spaced the same way. Indeed, had that been the rule, then the only issue here would be the hyphen-vs-dash issue, which is a matter of function and far more objective. oknazevad (talk) 13:49, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
CMOS's reversal on US versus U dot S dot
News from User:Noetica: finally, in the new 16th edition ("pre-publication" available via Amazon), The Chicago manual of style has changed from regarding the dots as mandatory to regarding them as evil. It's about time; now Americans don't have to put up with an u.g.l.y. country-name. Tony(talk)10:34, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
Indeed—and by the way, following a recommendation from Tony, they have now become The Chicago, Illinois, Manual of Style. :> PL290 (talk) 11:16, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
STOP PRESS: following a rethink, they have decided to recast to avoid the issue, and the title is now The Manual of Style of Chicago, Illinois. PL290 (talk) 13:32, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
CORRECTION: The Manual of Style of the University of Chicago, in the State of Illinois (US); earlier editions being The Manual of Style of The University of Chicago, in the State of Illinois (U.S.A.)—— Shakescene (talk) 07:04, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the news, Tony, but please remember that not everyone thinks that "U.S." is ugly. They're dots. They don't have much aesthetic value on their own. Any beauty or ugliness they seem to have is projected onto them by the viewer. Darkfrog24 (talk) 18:40, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
What is the preferred style for table captions? I think the question boils down to "Title Case" (I learned titles were capitalized years ago), or "Sentence case" (has become popular with tweeters, bitliers, and those who like to send cell phone messages).
The manual makes it clear that one should not include quotations marks in a block quotation. MOS:QUOTE "Do not enclose block quotations in quotation marks".
I've noticed quite a number of articles not following this rule, and have made some changes. However, before doing any more, I wanted to make sure I was on solid ground. The rules seem clear enough, but I noticed the discussion of Italics has an example of a block quote with quotation marks. (See the subsection Italics within quotations) One possibility is that the example sentence should be viewed as an inline quotation, but was displayed as a block quote for visual ease. However, that construction isn't used in earlier examples, and is quite confusing. I would like to remove the quotation marks from the example (or make it an inline example), but I'd like some feedback first in case I am missing something.--SPhilbrickT17:35, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
No, I think you've got it right. As to the discussion of Italics you cite, by my reading that's not intended to be a block quote per se (less than a line in length!). I think it's just an example that's indented to make it clear (cf the tabular examples that follow it). PL290 (talk) 17:50, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
I was going a different direction: as long as some of us can see it, authorial intent to quote the marks is clear. When Wikipedia means to quote punctuation, it should do so. SeptentrionalisPMAnderson14:08, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
2000s vs 21st century
Where is it dicussed that 2000s, for example, is ambiguous and refers more to the 10 years years 2000 thru 2009 and not to the entire 100 years of the 21st century?
I know that the disambig page on 2000s says this but nothing in MOS can I find a recommendation on how we should be writing articles to assure correct meaning. Hmains (talk) 21:55, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Why does this page have - or need - a FAQ? Our guidelines, except for this one, are FAQs - that's what they exist for. If they need explanation or justifications, it's right there on the page, not tucked away invisibly in the look-alike boxes on top of the talk page. SeptentrionalisPMAnderson00:42, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
They represent topics that generate repeated threads on discussions that have been brought up many times before. The hope is that someone might get their answer there before opening another discussion thread on a topic that has been beaten like a dead horse. People could use the archives, but don't always take the time to do so. I don't know of any major drawback to having an FAQ section, so it shouldn't be an issue to keep it. --Airborne84 (talk) 02:29, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
I don't feel that we need a FAQ (We could always just put edit-screen messages in contentious parts of the MoS), but some users feel strongly about it, and it doesn't seem to be causing any trouble. Darkfrog24 (talk) 12:10, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
I think calling it a weapon to enforce ownership is going a bit far, but there are potential problems with it: a) it's just another MOS page for people to edit war on, and b) it's can be a narrower version of WP:PEREN, which is sometimes used as a bludgeon to stifle discussion. I've seen the edit wars, but nobody's used it to scare away editors questioning the MOS (which is a far worse offense in my opinion). There doesn't seem to be any harm in keeping it up here, though. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:22, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
FAQs are useful for articles, when they discuss editing issues. Since the FAQ at the top of this page discusses style issues, the content should be on the project page, either in the body or as an explanatory notes. ---— Gadget850 (Ed)talk16:01, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
This page's FAQ discusses editing this page. It doesn't discuss styling this page, except in the self-referential sense that the Manual of Style ought to obey the Manual of Style. Ozob (talk) 21:23, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps this will clarify Gadget's comment, and get him an answer: Unlike article FAQs, this FAQ contains the same sort of material as the guideline itself. Why is it not included in the guideline? SeptentrionalisPMAnderson23:14, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
Septentrionalis, you bring up a valid point. Major style guides do sometimes elaborate on points that are confusing, or have undergone recent changes, for example. I personally don't have any issue with including the FAQ material in the MoS itself. However, I suspect that will have the effect of people complaining that too much is being added to the MoS, and that it's "too long already"—a recurring statement. If you could garner support through a consensus to add the FAQ material to the MoS main page, I'd be fine with removing the FAQ. The intent of the material is to prevent further unnecessary discussions over topics that have been beaten to death here. Where the explanatory material itself resides is not important. --Airborne84 (talk) 23:49, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
Yes, it is likely to raise the question whether further discussion is necessary. But the test for that is "does a consensus agree with the guidance?" and that can only be checked by puttint the guidance and its justification out there and seeing who agrees with it. If a consensus does, then the questions are genuinely settled; if not, then we should discuss - not, as has too often been done, revert-war. SeptentrionalisPMAnderson23:54, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
Well, it is "out there". I guess at this point (since there are some that support the FAQ section's existence), the question is, is there a consensus to remove? I don't see the point of fighting to remove an FAQ section that arguably doesn't hinder anything; but, if you feel that strongly that it should be eradicated, feel free to pursue this. By the way, I removed the only sentence that seemed contentious to me—needing sourcing. "Also, using different glyphs for different purposes improves readability" (IRT dashes). This probably needs a reliable source to state here. The shouldn't be overly contentious or is sourced. --Airborne84 (talk) 00:42, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
No, the question is: is there opposition to a merge? Why should the reasoning for MOS's decrees be stuck in a page nobody will see unless their attention is drawn to it? SeptentrionalisPMAnderson00:56, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
I oppose a merge unless a consensus can first be built to integrate the material into the main article. If a consensus can be built, I'll happily support it. --Airborne84 (talk) 01:46, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
It does not actually discuss the FAQ; but they are similar. Both conceal on a subpage the absence of actual consensus on the present language of MOS and the perhaps inadequate arguments on which the present text is based.SeptentrionalisPMAnderson15:09, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
Which is followed by an immediate objection; that's not consensus, merely another demonstration why this page is so widely ignored.
The first step towards making MOS actually useful and respected is to state its reasons, where they are supposed to be consensus, and to acknowledge where it is not consensus. SeptentrionalisPMAnderson18:17, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
How do you define "consensus" in the context of decisions made by Wikipedia editors?
I oppose the merge for one reason: The FAQ makes assertions that ought to be sourced but aren't. For example, it claims, without references or evidence, that LQ is less prone to ambiguity and introduction of errors than other forms of punctuation. These statements do not belong in any part of the MoS unless reliable sources can be found for them. Even then, such information would be more appropriate to the Wikipedia article on quotation marks than it would be to the MoS itself. But all this is less about whether or not the information is presented in a FAQ and more about whether or not it's there at all. Darkfrog24 (talk) 22:41, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
Come on now. There's a difference between telling editors not to capitalize the names of the seasons and claiming that a given punctuation system causes specific problems X and Y. Sources at least exist for the first one. Darkfrog24 (talk) 23:19, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
OK it doesn't necessarily have to be a part of the official "MoS" series, but it's certainly not obsolete and should not be marked "historical". -- Ϫ17:08, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
Here's an odd one. I told another editor that the information he was trying to insert was potentially the "same as every other similar article" and it should therefore be omitted because it was boring. He seemed to agree but challenged me to "prove" where the policy/guidelines say that anything has to be "unique or interesting." I haven't been able to find any reference! Any ideas? Student7 (talk) 22:02, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
This isn't really an MoS issue, but it is an interesting question. Usually, the idea of subject matter being uninteresting would fall under WP: Notability but if other articles that are almost exactly the same have passed muster, then this is almost certainly notable too. Would it be possible for you to propose a merge? Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:16, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
Do we really need to distinguish between minus signs(−), em dashes(—), en dashes (–), and hyphens (-)?
I appreciate that we want to achieve a good standard of presentation but these distinctions seem somewhat archaic to me. What proportion of editors know how to use them correctly and how to create them? There is little chance of confusion if one character is replaced by another. Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:20, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
Our distinctions are not entirely archaic, and there are some good reasons to distinguish between them. But our list of distinctions is based on the preferences of a few editors, not on English practice nor on reliable sources. It would be preferable to leave such matters to Sprachgefuehl, and link to the articles on the subject. SeptentrionalisPMAnderson14:12, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
Before Wikipedia, my Sprachgefuehl (assuming that means nothing more than the literal translation "language feeling") was that any line will do. Now my software dutifully changes one kind of line to another, mainly just because wars like the Oxford spelling war above can be minimized if we can agree on a system. Art LaPella (talk) 17:14, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
On the chance that you didn't see the FAQ on this topic, here is is.
The use of the full range of these glyphs is normal in typeset English. Also, using different glyphs for different purposes improves readability. Finally, the sole use of hyphens in articles would make certain constructions ambiguous (for example, an em dash meant to set off a short bit of text from the surrounding text could be confused with a compound adjective) or illegible (for example, a minus sign in a superscript is legible, but some fonts render hyphens so small that they become hard to read). The use of hyphens to approximate other glyphs was due to the mechanical limitations of the typewriter (en and em dashes were not present on typewriter keyboards).
I'm also not sure what makes you think that these glyphs are "archaic". Pick up any professionally published book or magazine in English and you will see these used. Styles differ, but you will not find a professionally published work that uses hyphens in place of dashes and minus signs. You could probably find DTP works that do so—but only because the author didn't know the difference, or thought typewriter conventions were still relevant today. You can also find plenty of experts that will support this, such as typographer Ilene Strizver (see "Type Crime #5"). Hope that helps. --Airborne84 (talk) 20:39, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
"[A]ny professionally published book or magazine"? Not exactly. Handy counterexamples include White Pass & Yukon Route (ISBN1-886462-14-3), and Journal of the American Historical Society of Germans from Russia. You'll have to take my word for it that the dashes and hyphens look alike (well, at least once in the former publication). But if you look at the main British Broadcasting Corporation webpage, it now says "Pakistan's PM Yusuf Raza Gilani says 20 million people have been affected by flooding - a much higher figure than UN estimates." You didn't say "webpage", but I would think the BBC is professional enough. Art LaPella (talk) 00:15, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
Oh, and if Ilene Strizver's "Type Crimes" are authoritative, see "Type Crime #1", and then reverse WP:PUNC's condemnation of curly quotes to say that curly quotes are required! Art LaPella (talk) 00:25, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
So what is the reason for using these different glyphs? I really do not believe that there is any improvement in readability. Are you really telling me that −2 is easier to read than -2, or that sub–zero is easier (or harder) to read than sub-zero? Martin Hogbin (talk) 23:57, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
The use of the full range of these glyphs is normal in typeset English. Also, using different glyphs for different purposes improves readability. Finally, the sole use of hyphens in articles would make certain constructions ambiguous (for example, an em dash meant to set off a short bit of text from the surrounding text could be confused with a compound adjective) or illegible (for example, a minus sign in a superscript is legible, but some fonts render hyphens so small that they become hard to read). The use of hyphens to approximate other glyphs was due to the mechanical limitations of the typewriter (en and em dashes were not present on typewriter keyboards).
Well, I can see not putting all that in the guidelines, especially since parts of it are bad advice, and parts of it only apply to very special circumstances.
This could be better put something like:
If you use a dash as punctuation to separate text, either surround it by spaces or use an actual em-dash [instructions]
If you use a minus-sign in a superscript, use an actual minus-sign [instructions] or use <math>.. Some browsers do not render hyphens large enough in such circumstances.
We are, of course, answering and perhaps confusing 2 different questions: 1. Should we have WP:DASH at all? The FAQ does address that question, and Martin Hogbin's answer only addresses the first sentence of that FAQ. And 2. Should we combine that FAQ into WP:DASH? Art LaPella (talk) 01:41, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
An interesting discussion, but I'm not sure what the utility is.
Art, you have illustrated that "the only rule for which there are no exception is that there are some rules for which there are." Agreed. However, it seems that you are suggesting that because there are extreme cases, that they should be made the rule. Is that what you are suggesting? I suspect it's not, and you were just playing devil's advocate.
I probably missed a long discussion thread on WP:DASH. In my opinion, it would be foolish to remove that section. Look in any major style guide in English—and in many other languages with latin-based alphabets—and you will see sections on dashes. They are part of the English language and editors here need to know how to use them correctly. Why would we remove a section that provides that information to editors?
If someone has suggested that it should be removed because it is easier to just use hyphens, or that it is more readable, I'm afraid that I might have to resort to uncivil language that I almost never stoop to. That is borderline ludicrous. The reasons that I can imagine that might provoke that thought are (1) "I don't know how to properly use dashes and it's easier for me to not learn," or (2) "I'd rather not take the time to use dashes properly since it's easier for me to just hit the "hyphen" key for everything." I might be outvoted, but I would personally not underwrite this type of rationale.
Of course, perhaps I'm missing something. If someone can show me some reliable sources (reference grammars, typographers, grammarians, etc.) that say it would be fine to use hyphens in place of dashes, I might well change my mind. Or maybe a reliable source that says text is easier to read with hyphens in place of dashes. Or that dashes and minus signs are archaic. Or that there would be little chance of confusion if hyphens took over for all similar glyphs. Without some sources, we should consider what major style guides say on matters of style at Wikipedia—even if we choose to modify it somewhat. --Airborne84 (talk) 02:23, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
I stand at your side, good Sir Knight, with my hand on the hilts of my sword, ready to draw my weapon to defend your flank in the battle that threatens the sanctity of correct punctuation. It is simply the case that dashes and hyphens are separate symbols; they have different names, generally have different appearances, and have quite different uses. That people don't know this, or don't know what the different uses are, doesn't mean we have to keep using hyphens for everything that goes kind of horizontal-like. The hyphen is okay to use in place of a dash when you are typing a message on a deserted island with no more modern equipment that a 1967 Smith-Corona. Okay, maybe the island has electricity, but no modern computers, which—surprise!—we all have here on WP. — JohnFromPinckney (talk)03:39, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
"Extreme cases"? I meant 3 counterexamples out of the first 10 or so publications I looked at. Support for dashes comes from style books, but not from universal practice. If we recognize that, then moving on ... Art LaPella (talk) 19:39, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
I have read the FAQ now; it is not very illuminating. I can understand people who get passionate about spelling or even punctuation in general, but fighting to the death over short horizontal lines is a step to far for me, even with the gallant JohnFromPinckney by my side.
There simply is no fundamental reason why different length lines are used in different circumstances. It seems to me that this is a reasonable time to stop fussing about things that really do not matter. So yes, (1) "I don't know how to properly use dashes and it's easier for me to not learn," and (2) "I'd rather not take the time to use dashes properly since it's easier for me to just hit the "hyphen" key for everything." [puts fingers in ears]. Martin Hogbin (talk) 12:34, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
Martin, if you would rather not use the correct dashes, that's your prerogative, though I would encourage you to at least make an attempt to learn since you're here (these exercises are very helpful). If it's taking the time to find the dashes in the Wiki interface that's the issue, I can sympathize with that (they're not exactly prominent). You might find User:GregU/dashes.js useful; it takes just a few seconds to run and I've found that false positive are few and far between. The matter remains however, that many do consider the dashes to be correct typography, and since the MediaWiki software distinguishes between them and a good number of editors do realize and appreciate their differences, we might as well encourage their use. It's preferable that you follow Wiki style, but if you don't, Jimbo is not going to descend down from his throne and ban you. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:56, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
Typography is relevant in this discussion, but since dashes are also punctuation, that might make it more relevant to Martin Hogbin. I was just going to drop it, but there is a "fundamental reason" why different dashes are used. If you look at the evolution of punctuation over the centuries (and millennia), you can see that various punctuation marks were introduced to make the digestion of written material easier. Whatever their origin or reason, dashes are part of English punctuation now. The mechanical limitations of the typewriter didn't remove them. It just prevented some people from learning about them. Why not learn now? --Airborne84 (talk) 14:11, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
Airborne, I have nothing against punctuation in general and I understand its purpose but you have still given no logical reason why we need four types of short horizontal line. It may have some historical significance but how does it help to make Wikipedia better. Martin Hogbin (talk) 16:35, 15 August 2010 (UTC).
It makes us compliant with every style guide I have ever perused. It seems that you are not going to be swayed by any of the given arguments. I suggest you use whatever sort of dash you desire, but accept that your contribution may be corrected. ---— Gadget850 (Ed)talk17:49, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
Swayed by what arguments? 'Everyone else does it' seems to be the only reason given. Regarding your suggestion I do just use a hyphen, because it is easy. Occasionally I have been 'corrected', which does not worry me in the least. The question is, why to we ask all editors of Wikipedia to distinguish between four types of short horizontal line? So far all I have heard is because that is the rule, it has always been done that way. Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:05, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
An analogy might help bridge this gap: If we let entomologists rule the English language, we would be unable to say "Clean the bugs off my windshield" without first determining if the life forms belong to the order Hemiptera. According to them, any other use of the word "bug" is incorrect. Why? Well, it says so right here in my book of rules, and if that isn't good enough, here's another book of rules ... Having said that, the FAQ really does make some points Martin hasn't responded to beyond the first sentence. Art LaPella (talk) 19:57, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
That is not a good analogy, we are not talking about the classification of short horizontal lines into types, which seems somewhat pointless but at least harmless, we are talking about a policy which tells all editors to use these lines in a specified way. All I am asking is why? Why should the rules exist? What purpose do they serve? Have they any value in WP? Martin Hogbin (talk) 20:08, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
Actually my analogy was supporting your position, so perhaps the others will understand how your "why" resembles "why won't you just clean the bugs off?" Art LaPella (talk) 21:02, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
OK, the analogy compares Hempitera to hyphens, other bugs to dashes, book of rules to a manual of style, "incorrect" to "incorrect", and entomologists to style experts. Art LaPella (talk) 21:09, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
Martin, you are aware that the MOS is just a guideline, right (but read WP:JUSTAGUIDELINE)? If you truly feel that MOSDASH inhibits your ability to improve the encyclopedia (however sensational a claim that may be), ignore it; nobody will block you, persecute you, or think less of you because of it. Otherwise, I'm not sure what you're driving at. I don't see the harm to Wikipedia if we encourage correct typography and punctuation while the software allows us to differentiate between dashes. They obviously have some noticeable quality, or they wouldn't have been brought up so many times at WT:MOS, and indeed we wouldn't have guidelines about them. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:48, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
Exactly. To continue Mr LaPella's analogy, the entomologists would be entitled to correct me every time I referred to the life form on the windshield as "bug", but I'd always have the choice to continue referring to it as such (at the risk of being corrected again). Waltham, The Duke of23:54, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
Sigh. Recommend close. The purpose of this talk page is to improve the article, not discuss why the mechanics of the English language might be strange, useless, or cumbersome. I think Martin is clear that she/he can use hyphens at will without repercussion. Martin, if you're truly interested in the whys of dashes as punctuation, feel free to start a post on my talk page. I'll be happy to discuss. I'm sure there are other editors that are "experts" here that can dig further into the history and mechanics of English if you'd like. I just don't think there's much more productive to be said—in reference to making changes to or improving the Wikipedia Manual of Style (since a consensus doesn't seem to be building for any changes). --Airborne84 (talk) 00:04, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
One of the valid subjects of discussion, however, is whether what this page recommends or requires has anything to do with the actual mechanics of the English language. WP:DASH has no sources; no links to anything with sources; and no evidence has been presented in its favor. SeptentrionalisPMAnderson15:33, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
That is quite right. This page makes quite onerous demands on editors, for which no one has yet given a good reason. However, it is not that important to me so I will leave you people to it. Martin Hogbin (talk) 16:05, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
And if WP:DASH referred inquiring editors to the articles, and left matters there, it would be an improvement. It doesn't; it links to subsections on how to input the marks, and not to the sections on usage; it then proceeds to add its own rules on usage, unfounded on sources or anything else. SeptentrionalisPMAnderson17:09, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
The article gives complicated instructions on how to use the various short horizontal lines without giving any reasons for the proposed usage. It is like some weird old custom or religion. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:20, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
Right or wrong, the MoS doesn't cite references. I don't know why that is. I've made some edits on the WP:MoS (e.g. WP:MoS#Terminal Punctuation). For that one, I initially cited references that discussed terminal punctuation. After I realized that was not the norm on the MoS page, I deleted the inline citations. However the reason for that is a separate topic (perhaps worthy of discussion in another thread). If you'd like references that discuss the proper uses of dashes in the English language, let me know how many you want. One? Five? Three dozen? You want Web-based or print? "American" or 'British English' punctuation? Historical or current? I've done some research in similar areas. However, you can also do some research. There are plenty of reliable sources online if you don't have a lot of print style guides and reference grammars sitting around. For instance, Grammar Girl says this about dashes and hyphens:
And here's a very important rule about dashes: never, never, never use a hyphen in place of a dash. A hyphen is not a junior dash; it has its own completely separate use.[2]
But I can provide as many reliable sources as you'd like. If some references will help settle the matter for you, just tell me how many you want. I'm happy to help.
Of course, you can make the argument that all of these reliable sources are wrong, or that—regardless of the existence of dashes as punctuation in the English language—dashes should be replaced with hyphens. That's a topic worthy of discussion, just not on this talk page—IMO. --Airborne84 (talk) 18:35, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
Grammar Girl is not likely to do justice to the complications here - or to the variance of actual English usage. But you can add more useful references to dash, which badly needs them. Nonetheless, even in its present state, it makes clear what MOS should have addressed: that authorities disagree.
I agree—on a couple of points. (1) The dash article needs references. I hadn't given the article much attention, but I will add that article to my "to check" list and add references as needed – and that I have available. (2) There is some disagreement and variance in style between American and British (or International) English. However, the disagreements are not over whether dashes should exist. Most disagreements are about what types of word pairs merit en dashes as opposed to hyphens and similar topics. And the fact that dashes are used differently in English around the world doesn't mean that "dashes" as a whole should just be converted to hyphens.
We could add more context in the manual of style about the differences between dashes. We'd just have to be careful about it expanding to the point where it makes the MoS cumbersome. At some point, the material is better in the main article. It could be difficult to determine by consensus where that point is. That's probably why the current, simple, information is in the MoS.
...sorry to be so very off-topic everyone, but I spend much of the time thinking about how the public is too busy playing RTS to care about the finer points of the language any more, and well, this gave me a bit of hope for the universe. Darkfrog24 (talk) 16:20, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
The BBC endorses the hyphen and says that a grammarian at Edinburgh University has "bigger grammatical fish to fry".
And most parts for the MOS were written very quickly, usually under a week, with no wider consultation. If this were an article, it would violate WP:NPOV --Philcha (talk) 17:59, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
"Finlo Rohrer" wrote the article, not "The BBC." I'm not sure how that relates to the discussion on dashes though. If you'd like, I'll be happy to agree that there are uses for hyphens—which seems to be what the article is suggesting. Cheers! --Airborne84 (talk) 18:09, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
Sure. There are also examples of hyphenated "ranges" on the webpage (instead of en-dashes). I'm not sure what that proves other than laziness on the part of the typist. I think a more relevant reference to illustrate the position of the BBC would be the BBC Style Guide , which makes use of dashes and hyphens throughout. --Airborne84 (talk) 22:56, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
Athletics race distances
I notice that athletics articles are not always consistent in the way race distances are designated. Using 5,000 metres as an example, all of the following styles are seen:
Either of the last two examples, assuming that a non-breaking space, , is entered in between the number and the unit. Imzadi1979→13:51, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
We ought to make a decision between the with-comma and without-comma styles too. It looks messy to have some articles using a comma and others not. Not even the main articles, such as 5000 metres and 10,000 metres, are consistent. 86.174.47.204 (talk) 14:02, 20 August 2010 (UTC).
Commas are not used in British or South African English. I'm not sure of other varieties but I suspect that commas are used only in North American varieties. Roger (talk) 16:32, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
iaaf.org uses the comma only on distances of 10,000 m or greater, so the current article titles are consistent with the relevant authority. Kevin McE (talk) 19:42, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
Many style guides recommend that commas are dispensed with when writing four digit numbers in text, but that they are retained when inlcuding them in columns of numbers were some of the numbers run to five digits. Martinvl (talk) 13:25, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
In my opinion we definitely should not do that. There is no need to convert track distances to yards every time they are mentioned. It would become highly tiresome. 86.174.162.75 (talk) 13:25, 22 August 2010 (UTC).
Indeed 5000 metres is the name of the type of race. There's no need to convert it in all articles; for readers who do want it, there's one right at the top of the article 5000 metres. A. di M. (talk) 13:53, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
I agree. While conversions are useful for, say, lengths of rivers etc, they would seem highly unusual with athletics events. Not even the most imperialist lover of imperial measurements would say that Usain Bolt runs the 109.36 yard dash. Imperial equivalents should used in the article on the particular event, but never in standard prose elsewhere. The marathon is a bit of an exception, however – it makes sense to mention the distance (both metric and imperial) on things like New York City Marathon.
I think using the IAAF standard and the non-breaking-spaced "m" (e.g 5000 m) is what the grand majority of people here are happy with. Much clean up is still needed but that is largely due to the wide number of articles in which the events are mentioned and the fact that discussion and agreement on the subject was only had a year ago. Sillyfolkboy (talk) (edits)Join WikiProject Athletics!
Updating the style guidelines
Tony suggested we update the style guidelines roughly every 4 months. Does Sept 1/Jan 1/May 1 work for everyone? If so ... who'd like to help over at WP:Update/2? I used to do 27 of them, but only about 10 of those changed frequently so it wasn't that hard ... now there are 57 style guidelines. - Dank (push to talk) 20:22, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
I really don't have a preference. I've just been doing them so long it seems a shame to quit. Tony, anyone, what do you want? - Dank (push to talk) 00:45, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
For the naive, can you point/link me to what is going to happen? Do you collect changes someplace as they are decided here or what? Are you proposing to update all "57" simultaneously? Sorry for the third degree when you are "just" doing what has always been done. (And thanks for doing that, I guess). Student7 (talk) 18:22, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
To see what I did, click on the links at Wikipedia:Update/2; I reported on monthly changes to around 27 of the most generally-applicable style guidelines for a couple of years. I stopped in April because there was some thought that people would be more likely to read them if I did the updates less often. - Dank (push to talk) 18:47, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
Our guideline on words like "1800s" is at WP:CENTURY: "Forms such as the 1700s are normally best avoided ...". We prefer "19th century" or "nineteenth century" to "1800s". Yes, "1800s" is also clear, but I'm just quoting the guideline.
I believe the reason is related to the potential confusion over the number. Does "1800s" mean the whole century (19th century) or the decade from 1800–1809? The context of the statement should make that clear, but "19th century" is totally unambiguous. Imzadi1979→12:59, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
Nope. Two of the three pages linked above say "capitalize every noun", and the other says "capitalize all words" with a list of exceptions which doesn't include nouns. A. di M. (talk) 09:12, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Back to the original question, if RICH OFF COCAINE and RICH COCAINE OFF are both grammatical and mean the same thing, then OFF is an adverb and should be capitalized; if the latter is ungrammatical or means something else then OFF in the former is a preposition and should be lowercase. A. di M. (talk) 09:18, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
It is stated that "headings should not normally contain links, especially where only part of a heading is linked". Could anyone give an example of when it would be appropriate to link a section header? If not, I propose the removal of the word "normally" as well as the second half of this statement, which gives the impression that it might be okay to link as long as the entire heading is included.--William S. Saturn (talk) 04:57, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Recently, a few questions about WP:BOLDTITLE, specifically the "Foreign language" section, have come up. It'd be nice to get some more input on this as I don't think these issues were considered when the guideline was originally added. The discussion is here. Prime Blue (talk) 22:43, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Lead sentence and tautology
I have added a provision into the MOS guide to writing the first sentence of an article which reads 'Tautological definitions should be avoided wherever possible. For example, avoid leading sentences like "the Oxford English Dictionary is a dictionary".'. I would like feedback on whether people agree with this, and to test the waters. If I tear through articles about diplomatic relationships, expunging such horrors as Pakistani-Iraqi relations are the relations between Pakistan and Iraq|Pakistani-Iraqi relations are the relations between Pakistan and Iraq]], am I going to run into opposition?
The issue is that it is often difficult to write a good first sentence when
almost everything that can be said in a 'declarative sentence' is highly controversial. For example, the article on the Israeli-Palestinian peace process begins 'the peace process in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict has taken shape over the years, despite the ongoing violence in the Middle East and an "all or nothing" attitude about a lasting peace, "which prevailed for most of the twentieth century".'. In this case, the poor editor resorts to a phrase (has taken shape over the years) which really means nothing at all!
This could be avoided if we don't absolutely have to define the subject in one sentence. I agree that we should try to do this in most cases, but sometimes calling something by something other than its actual name is just impossible. BillMasen (talk) 14:23, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
I agree with you fully. Instead of writing "The Oxford English Dictionary is a dictionary...", one should write The Oxford Dictionary is considered to be ...". Martinvl (talk) 14:31, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
Yes, but you've picked a case where no-one on the English wikipedia, and no reliable sources, would disagree with you. Therefore it's possible to write an commonly-accepted first sentence which contains real information.
Personally, I don't think that the Middle East peace process is really a peace process. I think it is a way for both sides to continue the conflict, while placing responsibility for the conflict on the other side. But others would disagree with that. And it would be ridiculous to try to summarise all of the arguments about that in one sentence. I don't think the Middle east peace process can be defined neutrally in a single sentence... except tautologically.
On the other hand, I really do think that the OED is a dictionary. And again, we can't have a lead sentence which
begins with the article title (Oxford English Dictionary) and
I think the more generalized version that used to be there ("redundancy should be avoided wherever possible") is preferable. Why make it specific to one kind of redundancy? But quite honestly, I don't think this needs stating in the MoS either way. It's a matter of common sense, not house style. There's already enough verbiage there about the first-sentence format itself. My preference would be to remove it, or, failing that, put it back how it was (but fix the redundancy dab). PL290 (talk) 16:46, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing out that dablink, I've changed it.
Can't the "tautology" statement be made to work? I do appreciate what your are saying about the OED, but redundancy seems the problem there, which may not be avoidable.
"This article contains information on the Pakistani-Iraqi relations from 1627 AD onward." Okay, no Pulitzer, but an improvement, right? The topic doesn't have to be the first or second word(s). Student7 (talk) 21:00, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
How about something like "Pakistan and Iran have had relations since 1627 AD." The article title need not be verbatim in the lead sentence, and in my example, "relations" need not be bold if desired. For a case where the title will not verbatim n the lead sentence, look at M-28 Business (Ishpeming–Negaunee, Michigan) which has "M-28 Business Route" and "BUS M-28" in boldface because the title assigned to the article isn't what the common names for the roadway are. Imzadi1979→21:25, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
For such articles as Iraq–Pakistan relations, WP:LEAD#Descriptive titles applies. It doesn't apply to Oxford English Dictionary because that's not a mere description but the proper name of the thing. The problem with the first sentence of that article (as of now) is not that it's tautological but that it fails to show notability: being a dictionary of the English language is not by itself a good reason to have a WP article. A. di M. (talk) 22:37, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
Use of Ampersand
Just wondered about the use of Ampersand in the following example. Kelly Rowland has a single coming up which is titled "Forever & A Day". Per two official sources that is how it is named. I intend to create the article once notable under the name "Forever & a Day" per capitalization rules. However another user brought up the use of ampersand being incorrect per grammar. Yet per WP:& it is corrected because "ampersand is retained in the name of works", and per my understanding songs are registered, legal bodies of work. Is the retention of the ampersand in this case correct? -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1(talk2me)22:27, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure what counts as an official source, but that's another department. Our WP:& rule is indeed "Retain ampersands in titles of works ...". I could respond better to the "grammar" objection if you could link us to that comment. Art LaPella (talk) 23:32, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
Grammar objection is here. The official sources where the artist's official website and a video director database which shows who is directing the music video. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1(talk2me)21:03, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
I couldn't find any grammar rule against "Forever & a Day". Ampersand#Usage says "The ampersand is now rarely used when writing paragraphs. The main surviving use of the ampersand is in the formal names of businesses ... (e.g. Brown & Watson)", which would account for why "& a" looks a little unusual. But the article goes on to say "The ampersand is also used for book and movie titles, such as Harry & Tonto, as well, and in some other proper names. In these cases, & is interchangeable with the word and; the distinction between them is mostly aesthetic." There are also book and TV show titles like Dinner & a Movie (although I found that same logo with "and" instead of "&"). Art LaPella (talk) 21:31, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
The section on commonality has been cited as a reason for changing one variant of spelling to another. Can we get some views here please? I personally think it's clear enough, but two editors are insisting on changing words like 'organisation' into 'organization' ostensibly because the -z- form is "more accessible" per the wording of the section. Ohconfucius¡digame!03:31, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
I was not aware that there are two editors going around changing words like "organisation" into "organization". Tut tut. Who are these strawmen people? On the other hand, I am well aware of one editor who has been going around changing words like "organization" into "organisation" under the misapprehension that the former is not proper British English. At any rate, here is my position:
For many verbs and verb derivatives that take -ize in American English, authoritativesources clearly establish that either -ize or -ise is proper style in British English. The spirit of WP:COMMONALITY thus encourages the use of -ize in British English articles on Wikipedia. However, our general principle of article stability is paramount, so if an article's style is well-established with either -ize or -ise, it should not be changed. But for new articles or for ones where a predominant style has yet to be established, yes, the commonality principle guides us to use -ize. DocKino (talk) 03:55, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
I don't believe anyone is arguing that -iza-, -ize-, or -izi- words are not 'British English'. I would just like to make the distinction that what WP articles on the subject consider these forms to be Oxford English. The argument which was put at the Lennon page was NOT whether Oxford English should be used, but that, apparently, WP:COMMONALITY could be used as grounds for eradicating -isa-, -ise-, -isi- words because these are not sufficiently "accessible". THAT it is that argument I want a discussion on. Ohconfucius¡digame!04:31, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
To answer Tony's question, nobody has done any digging about which word form existed in the earliest versions of the article. But the spelling in most WP articles is often an inconsistent mish-mash of American and British spelling, and these need to be rendered consistent, per WP:MOS. The present argument is over whether WP:COMMONALITY trumps WP:ENGVAR, as DocKino is asserting, or whether the two parts of the guideline merely deal with different aspects of style. Ohconfucius¡digame!04:41, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
"WP:COMMONALITY trumps WP:ENGVAR"? That's yet another strawman you've created, Ohconfucius. I gather you find it easier to debate those than you do your fellow editors. I understand...
I do not contend that WP:COMMONALITY trumps WP:ENGVAR. As the very structure of our Manual of Style should make apparent to all, WP:COMMONALITY is fully compatible with WP:ENGVAR. I have stated very, very clearly that in those articles where the -ise style of British English spelling is well established, it should not be changed (unless, of course, a new consensus is arrived at through discussion). Once again, my position is this: The fact is that both -ize and -ise systems are proper British English and acceptable under WP:ENGVAR for articles on topics for which British English is appropriate. For such articles where neither the -ize nor the -ise style has been established, the spirit of WP:COMMONALITY encourages the use of -ize.
By the way, Ohconfucius, your comment here, suggests that you do not appreciate the distinction between the spirit of a principle and its letter. The articulation of a given principle rarely specifies every case to which it might be relevant, but where the general intent of a principle is clear, it is our right—even our responsibility—to interpret it for its applicability to potentially relevant cases. You insist, "If it was intended that Oxford English were to have primacy, then such preference MUST be explicit." That is very simply wrong. Our lives at this moment would be easier, yes, if that preference were made explicit, but we can interpret the principle to cover this matter based on its general intent just as we can interpret its applicability to the many, many other relevant matters that are not made explicit in its brief description: WP:COMMONALITY certainly encourages, say, finding a substitute for the verb to table because that can mean very different and confusing things in British English vs. American English. (Your comment at Talk:John Lennon also suggests, oddly, that you believe that "Oxford English spelling" is somehow not "British English spelling". You've gotten over that, right?) DocKino (talk) 05:09, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
You personalized the matter by falsely and needlessly claiming that "two editors are insisting on changing words like 'organisation' into 'organization'" and by willfully misrepresenting my position. For the sake of focusing on the substance of the debate, I forgive you. Now please respond to the substantive argument I have laid out:
Both -ize and -ise spelling systems are proper British English.
Where one or the other system is well-established in an article, it should not be changed, given the general principle of stability.
Where one or the other is not yet well-established in an article, -ize is favored according to the spirit of the principle of commonality.—DocKino (talk) 05:28, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
It's preposterous - how could I have 'personalised' it when I didn't even make a reference to your identity? We only disagree on the third point. You may not have seen my script, but it does cater for use of Oxford English. Ohconfucius¡digame!05:34, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
"Preposterous"? Oh, so you didn't very clearly mean me? Then tell us, who are these two miscreants?
A-n-d...back to the substance. The description of your script looks unobjectionable, but the description is inaccurate. It claims that "it leaves -iza-, -ize-, and -izi- words untouched", but that is not so. Let's look at what the script did on the Featured Article Sex Pistols: It correctly changed breakup to break-up throughout. It also changed 14 -iza-, -ize-, and -izi- words. (And, as a side note, the unavoidable flaw in the script that the description does accurately identify came into play: colored was changed to coloured inside a quotation from a published source.) DocKino (talk) 05:50, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
It appears that you haven't personally experienced the tool, and I invite you to try it. Please don't complain at me unless it was a script bug. From the diff, it appears the script was converting 'z-words' as intended - as indicated by the {{EngvarB}} template at the top. If the conversion to Oxford variant had been chosen, there would be a {{EngvarOx}} template at the top. Ohconfucius¡digame!06:07, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
I would also invite you to Read The Manual with care, because it seems that you are eager to jump on me for what my script does without fully understanding what it is supposed to do, and the responsibility of the user making the edit with it. FYI: the doc specifically states that words in single or double quotes will be converted. Ohconfucius¡digame! 06:12, 28 July 2010 (UTC) [FYI, please take a breath and take a moment to read what I actually write: "the unavoidable flaw in the script that the description does accurately identify". DocKino (talk) 06:29, 28 July 2010 (UTC)]
(after edit conflict)
OK. I see what happened with this application of the script on Sex Pistols. Radiopathy set it to "British English" function when the predominant style of the article was "Oxford English". This is not entirely his fault—some of that goes to you and some of that goes to the article's engaged editors...i.e., me.
On your side: Differentiating in the script between "Oxford English" and "British English" functions is a mistake. The names of the functions confuses the fact that Oxford English is British English. Script-runners working on many B.E.-related articles will naturally tend to choose the "British English" function for all, given those two choices. You need to come up with different function names that compel script-runners to take a closer look at the B.E.-themed articles they want to run the script on.
On my side: The article was predominantly, but not entirely in Oxford English style. Of 19 words that could go either way, 14 were in -ize style and 5 in -ise style. That's a clear predominance, but the fact is that the one word in the lead section that could go either way was in -ise style. If Radiopathy had actually eye-balled the article (given the nature of his sweep and its effect on other mature articles, I am sure he did not), it would have been reasonable for him to assume it was not in Oxford style. That's on me.
But that's just one article. Your script can affect many articles, and many British English articles are clearly and properly (though not always perfectly) in Oxford style. If it is not possible to design a script that recognizes which is the predominant style in an article, you must at least change the function names so one style does not sound "less British" than the other. DocKino (talk) 06:25, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
I'm glad some semblance of calmness seems to have been restored. If my doc doesn't make it sufficiently clear, then of course it should be clarified. I'm open to suggestions about renaming the buttons, but I tend to feel that, if clarification is indeed needed, there needs to be clarification at British English, Oxford English (which incidentally is only a redirect) and/or American and British English spelling differences, all of which my doc already links to. However, I believe that it is already the majority view that 'British English' spelling generally does not use the 'z-words' in favour of 's-words', but that under the Oxford variant, 'z-words' are acceptable. I'm open to suggestions as to how to further reduce any ambiguity in the script buttons. I'd also like to reiterate my view that preponderance of one form over another is not and should not be an invitation to change all occurrences to the dominant form, nor would it be acceptable for an article to be deliberately diluted with 'z-words' and then stealthily aligned to OED spelling. Ohconfucius¡digame!06:46, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
There are three substantive points here I can address.
(1) "I believe that it is already the majority view that 'British English' spelling generally does not use the 'z-words' in favour of 's-words', but that under the Oxford variant, 'z-words' are acceptable."
I'm not sure how your claim about the "majority view" might be objectively verified in this case. What I do know is that both OxfordandChambers clearly establish that either -ize or -ise is proper style in British English, and both give -ize first.
(2) "preponderance of one form over another is not and should not be an invitation to change all occurrences to the dominant form"
I fervently disagree. Consistency is a bottom line of good style. I know it, you should know it, and our Manual of Style says it.
(3) "nor would it be acceptable for an article to be deliberately diluted with 'z-words' and then stealthily aligned to OED spelling"
I agree. While I firmly believe that the intent of WP:COMMONALITY clearly does favor -ize, stealthy dilution and realignment is not what we are about here. If there is no compelling reason to change an appropriate and established style, it should not be changed. If there is no well-established style, then the process of applying a consistent one should be open and transparent. DocKino (talk) 07:08, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
It is a well-known absurdity that at least one BrEng dictionary (the OED), still insists on putting the z as first spelling; yet British usage (and that of five of the seven ancestral anglophone countries) has firmly swung to the s since the 1970s. It is now generally accepted, except among the elderly and The Times newspaper. In Australia, the z is rare, only just tolerated, and is increasingly regarded as "American". Tony(talk)07:21, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
Tony, Chambers also puts -ize as first spelling. Two highly respected British dictionaries (my Penguin makes a third, but I don't believe it's online), the most famous British newspaper, and the cohort of wise elder Anglophones do not an absurdity make.
Regardless, we are addressing not the concerns of the Commonwealth, but as the passionate DocKino says, those of the pan-English Wikipedia. Do you not think the commonality principle is relevant here...and favors -ize? Frankly, I can see no other reasonable interpretation of the commonality principle embedded in our guideline. Do you disapprove of the commonality principle and believe it should be excised from the guideline?—DCGeist (talk) 08:44, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
PS: Tony, I'm almost ready to support your dotless "US" cause if you'll join me in getting rid of all these Commonwealth hyphens. "Break-up"? Must we?—DCGeist (talk) 08:48, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
Well I think not. It would strike me as mandating use of Oxford spelling by the back door: Under the guidelines, in an article about a british subject, if an editor puts 'honor' or 'skeptic', one would be allowed to change it, but if someone then puts or changes 'organize', is that article destined to use Oxford English because someone asserts 'commonality' about the 'z-word'?
Help me here, because I don't know. Does Oxford spelling favo(u)r "honor" over "honour" and "skeptic" over "sceptic"?—DCGeist (talk) 09:03, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
So this is really just about -ize vs. -ise. Frankly, I see two rational and irresolvable positions here. Sure, everyone gives lip service to the fact that both -ize and -ise are proper Limey English. But no one really LIKES that fact. On the one hand, there's the view that commonality calls for -ize, because that style is shared with American English. And that's exactly what the other hand doesn't like. The other hand, in its heart (!), views -ise as the only TRULY proper Limey English (calm down, kids, just havin' a li'l Yankee fun). Seems to me, you can keep on wrangling over this interminably, or you can set up a proper RFC.—DCGeist (talk) 09:22, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
I don't know about that. I really am fine with maintaining -ise where it's well-established. To do that, we'll need to have Ohconfucius identify those mysterious "two editors [who] are insisting on changing words like 'organisation' into 'organization'". Usernames, please. DocKino (talk) 09:32, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
Ohconfucius, from a check of the contribution histories, it does look like you were making a vastly exaggerated claim about DocKino and PL290. Even if most people on this page might not have known who you were making insinuations about, Doc and PL and anyone here aware of the debates at John Lennon, The Beatles, and Sex Pistols would have. And your characterization was unfair in the extreme—Doc and PL were obviously concerned with maintaining the prevailing style at the Featured Articles they tend, not "insisting" on "changing" anything. Whether you want to express some regret over how you opened this thread, that's entirely up to you.—DCGeist (talk) 09:54, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
I was drawn there by a query, and I noticed some apparent edit-warring, and started a discussion. Then, DocKino started pushing this 'WP:COMMONALITY' argument. He could have simply dealt with the matter by pointing out to me the place where all assembled editors had agreed the articles would be in Oxford English, but did not. Instead, he started dumping on me like a ton of bricks when I brought the matter here. I did not even edit the article, except to put an {{EngvarOx}} tag on the article. It was only later that I discovered there had been some edit warring at some Beatles' pages over British English too. The personal attacks and incivilities I was subjected to were about the worst I have ever experienced, and required the intervention of Roger Davies. You say I have been guikty of mischaracterisation, for which I would apologise. Yet I still do not feel the extreme abuse was in any way justified, notwithstanding. Ohconfucius¡digame!10:12, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
WP:COMMONALITY says "Use a commonly understood word or phrase in preference to one that has a different meaning because of national differences." Both s and z variants are universally "understood". There are no differences of meaning. End of issue, it seems to me. Tony(talk)10:17, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
The lead line of WP:COMMONALITY reads "Wikipedia tries to find words that are common to all varieties of English." Would not a generous, Wikipedian heart read that to embrace spellings of words that are common to all varieties of English?—DCGeist (talk) 10:33, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
I agree.
On a side note, purely as a point of information prompted by incidental remarks by various editors about WP:COMMONALITY and WP:ENGVAR (including whether one could "trump" the other): WP:ENGVAR presents four guidelines "to help editors avoid cultural clashes over spelling and grammar" (thus making clear the spirit of what the guideline goes on to detail prescriptively). One of those four guidelines is WP:COMMONALITY (the section Opportunities for commonality). So it doesn't really make sense to talk about WP:COMMONALITY and WP:ENGVAR as alternatives, or one trumping the other. The former is part of the latter. PL290 (talk) 10:58, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
Dan, the z is not common to all varieties of English. Do an experiment for me: go the Australia talk page and say you're gonna change over all of the the instances of ise, isi and isa to the zed form. Watch the reaction. Tony(talk)12:24, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
- Population of Australia (2010 estimate): 22,402,480 (53rd)
- Population of USA (2010 estimate) 309,842,000 (3rd)
Once again, remembering the spirit of the guideline, rather than merely the letter, would not the same generous, Wikipedian heart read "Wikipedia tries to find words that are common to all varieties of English" to embrace, "the widest possible English-speaking audience"? As a Brit, I'm used to reading both -ise and -ize the whole time, and I don't mind at all which I see. (Unlike, say, "favor"—sorry guys, ain't never gonna see me using that!) I'm happy to use -ize on WP if it brings a small enhancement to the majority of my fellow global-villagers. PL290 (talk) 13:45, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
I can't help being slightly bemused by the logic in using those numbers. It seems to suggest that en.WP should now adopt American English because that is by far and away the most populous variant of English<gasp, shock, horror!>. I for one would welcome the project-wide consistency that would bring, and a certain death knell to ownership tendencies in all these little empires being built around and across Wikipedia. However, as similar harmonisation proposals before them have fallen for the existence of same ownership cliques, such a proposal will unfortunately also be destined to failure. Ohconfucius¡digame!16:38, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
Here's my accessibility question: what Firefox compatible spell checker will see if words comply with Oxford English? If the answer is none, then the proposal to favor the -ize variant of British English over the -ise variant is not accessible to editors. Jc3s5h (talk) 14:51, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
The built-in Firefox spell checker doesn't flag either "realize" or "realise" (as it shouldn't) when set to "English (UK)". (It does flag "favor", as it should: "favour" is 75.6 times as common as "favor" in the BNC, so its unBritishness is clear.) A. di M. (formerly Army1987) (talk) 17:05, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
As a native speaker of South African English my natural tendency is to use the "ise" form when writing. SA English dictionaries use "ise" as standard and mark "ize" as a variant form. When reading, however, I hardly ever notice whether a text uses "ise" or "ize", unless I am deliberately looking for it. As I understand WP:ENGVAR we should use the "ize" form in articles written in American English (maybe Canadian too, I'm not sure). In (most) other varieties both forms are accepted but we must not mix "ise" and "ize" together within an article. Roger (talk) 15:42, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
tl;dr; but I want to point out that both -ize and -ise are used in BrE and the prevalence of -ise in BrE is much smaller than believed: for example, the British National Corpus contains 5511 occurrences of realize and inflected forms thereof, and 9451 of realise and inflected forms. The ratio is 1.71; by comparison, the ratio of the numbers of occurrences of someone to somebody is 3.94, so replacing -ize with -ise on the grounds that an article is written in BrE makes even less sense than replacing somebody with someone on the same grounds. Likewise, avoiding using both -ise and -ize in the same article (provided it's in BrE) makes no more sense than avoiding using both someone and somebody. A. di M. (formerly Army1987) (talk) 15:55, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
Army, your comment was, as usual, very insightful. However, WP agreed long ago not to go by any external policies nor anecdote, but what its editors can agree on. This is just why we always end up in interminable debates about many such aspects, not just style matters. Ho hum... Ohconfucius¡digame!03:11, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
PL290, by your logic, WP would ban any variety other than AmEng. (BTW, does your figure of 309 M account for the ?18% who are Spanish speakers?) Tony(talk)16:25, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
Ohconfucius and Tony, you know what I meant! Please rearrange my words to form a recognizable/recognisable phrase or sentence. (The figures are from the linked article; I don't actually know the answer about the 18%, but with or without it, the point is made.) PL290 (talk) 16:53, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I know perfectly well what you meant. However, I do not feel it makes the logic of your citing the numbers, or the numbers cited themselves, any less escapable. ;-) Ohconfucius¡digame!16:57, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
True, Ohconfucius, but presenting inescapable logic was not my intent (if only these matters were that simple!)—I merely suggest a wider context in which we may wish to consider Tony's Australia comment. PL290 (talk) 17:17, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
Dan, I wanna see you mauled by kangaroos and battered by boomerangs. The denizens at Talk:Australia are waiting! They object to those spiky little angular blops, and hold to their suave, curvaceous s.Tony(talk)17:41, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
While I sympathise with Ohconfucius's desire to have spelling neat, tidy, consistent - and American - it just ain't gonna happen. It might be illogical and fiddly, but the rest of the English-speaking world likes to manoeuvre round the glories of English English spelling, even if does give us diarrhoea. Michael Glass (talk) 02:44, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
LOL. It was a shot in the dark. As someone who has been forcefully arguing that there should be no whimsical change of 's-words' into 'z-words', based on something as subjective as 'commonality' rather than definitive and objective a criterion as 'first major contributor', I see many obstacles. If we can only agree to disagree on such simple a matter, there really is no hope for globalisation at en.wp. ;-) Ohconfucius¡digame!02:55, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
This appears to be a solution in search of a problem. Where have you seen evidence that "whimsical change of 's-words' into 'z-words'" has been taking place? DocKino (talk) 03:10, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
Simple, you shortened the quote excessively – If it's subjective, it's whimsical; if it's objective, it ain't. The fallback is WP:RETAIN, according to which When an article has not yet evolved to that point, the variety chosen by the first major contributor should be adopted." Ohconfucius¡digame!05:03, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
"If it's subjective, it's whimsical." Wrong. You either need to make more of an effort to become fluent in English or you need to stop prevaricating. "Subjective" means "characteristic of or belonging to reality as perceived rather than as independent of mind." "Whimsical" means "resulting from or characterized by whim or caprice". In other words, a "whimsical" act has no rational basis; a "subjective" act very well may. Very different words.
Both of your recent statements suggest that I and/or someone else whimsically changed -ise to -ize style in an article or articles that had not evolved to the point where -ize was the established style. Please name these articles and provide us with a diff or two so we can judge whether your claims are accurate, sincere but misguided, or simply dishonest. DocKino (talk) 05:21, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
Sincere but misguided. The original Talk:John Lennon will do for examples. Ohconfucius' stated rationale is whimsical because it's subjective because it's based on WP:COMMONALITY. No, taking a stand based on pages of debate can't be whimsical, whether that stand is judged to be right, wrong, or even tendentious. And no, Ohconfucius isn't dishonest; he explained why he thinks it's whimsical, and based on his previous history, perhaps he really thinks there can be no other serious opinions; I don't know. I hope we can all be nice enough to keep this detail out of arbitration this time! Can we keep the discussion on spelling, COMMONALITY and RETAIN? Art LaPella (talk) 06:30, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
I hope so, and that will be made easier if Ohconfucius will indeed enlighten us about the insinuation—already objected to when first made above, and now repeated—that "whimsical change of 's-words' into 'z-words'" triggered this discussion. As far as I'm aware, the reverse change was the trigger. Ohconfucius, do you believe otherwise? PL290 (talk) 07:27, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
You knew I had good taste, Tones. Some Vegemite, a toast, and my snack's complete. -ize, -shmize...let's party.—DCGeist (talk) 04:59, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
In general, I'm a fan of ENGVAR. However, the question in this particular case doesn't seem to be whether WP:COMMONALITY trumps WP:ENGVAR but whether consistency trumps commonality. We've seen that the case can be made for -ize as acceptable in British English.
WP:COMMONALITY is just fine as it is; it is being intentionally misinterpreted by one editor to justify his campaign to force Oxford spelling into certain articles for no reason other than that is his preference. There's no need to change or amend WP:COMMONALITY; it's well understood by the majority. Radiopathy•talk•21:25, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
Oh, dear God. That's sound terrible, Radiopathy. Please identify this editor who is waging a "campaign to force Oxford spelling into certain articles". Please identify the articles where he or she is waging this campaign. And please provide us with the evidence, by way of diffs, that establishes that this nefarious editor is in fact trying to "force" Oxford spelling "into" certain articles rather than, say, trying to maintain and/or make consistent Oxford spelling—per WP:MOS/"Internal consistency", WP:MOS/"Stability of articles", and WP:RETAIN—where it is already the universal or predominant style.
While you're gathering that all-important evidence to present to us, Radiopathy, you should be pondering a certain question. Given your highly principled opposition to editors attempting to force certain varieties of British English spelling into articles, how would you judge an editor who was waging a campaign to force out Oxford spelling from certain articles for no reason other than that is his preference? And what if that very same editor who was trying to force out Oxford spelling from certain articles for no reason other than that is his preference was also going around making false insinuations about his fellow editors? Would you consider that person a hypocritical shmuck? Or what? We breathlessly await your answer. DocKino (talk) 05:44, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
I can see the Oxforders' point, but I think it just makes things too complicated. Really ENGVAR has always been mostly about UK vs US spelling, with UK spelling meaning what's usually understood by that phrase. Even having to call out the Canadians and Aussies separately is already a headache. If we have to get into subtle variants within the UK I think we're going past the point of diminishing returns. --Trovatore (talk) 20:23, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
I think that what's usually understood by UK spelling is the spelling used in the UK, and it turns out that in the UK the -ize spelling is nearly as frequently used as the -ise spelling, so arbitrarily banning one because allowing both "just makes things too complicated" seems pointless to me: IMO it's banning one that is more complicated. (What next, ban somebody in favour of someone?) A. di M. (talk) 00:23, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
Well, the thing is, there is no problem with using both somebody and someone in the same article. (Except that both words are a little informal-sounding, and unlikely to appear in encyclopedic writing — that's orthogonal to the current problem.)
The complication is not in allowing -ize in British English articles; it's in singling out another variant, the so-called "Oxford" one. If you don't do that singling out, then I agree there's no extra complication. But that means that it would be acceptable to have organize and jeopardise appear in the same article. Is that something you would want to allow? It's plausible in principle, I guess. --Trovatore (tally k) 20:44, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
It looks like I had misunderstood you, then. I am in favour of allowing both -ize and -ise in articles written in BrE, and (mistakenly?) believed you would want to only allow the latter. (As for whether it should be allowed to use both in the same article, I have no strong opinion either way.) A. di M. (talk) 15:04, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
My opinion is that a separate "Oxford English" should not be enumerated as an English variety for the purposes of ENGVAR. I have no strong objections to allowing -ize in British English (that's not my fight; I'm not a British English speaker). But if there's no separate Oxford variant, then I don't see any formal way to ban having organize and jeopardise appear in the same article. --Trovatore (talk) 05:35, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
Yes. What you (Trovatore) said matches my thoughts about the matter better than I myself had been able to express. A. di M. (talk) 22:58, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
You must realise, or in your case realize, that the "-ze" looks rather jarring to many UKish speakers, and is flagged up as a spelling error by the Mac OSX system spellchecker. Some cases may be technically acceptable, depending on which dictionary one uses, but not common use. So, best sorted out on individual articles, but for goodness sake don't ban "-se", poor old Isa would be most upset. . . dave souza, talk06:41, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
Soccer is also a common word and originates in Oxford, but like "ize" it is now seen in Britain by most people as an Americanism, so even if one could convince the editors here that ize is just as acceptable as ise, for most British readers would color their view of the article and would be a distraction. Using soccer instead of football is a red rag to a bull for many fans of the beautiful game in the UK (as many an edit war has shown)-- PBS (talk) 06:19, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
I agree with A. di M. If both -ise and -ize are correct British English, then we should allow editors their freedom within Engvar so long as each article is consistent within itself. With regard to Americanisms, seeing British-style punctuation in articles that are supposed to be in American English is a huge turnoff for me, so I can identify with Brits who don't want to be impinged upon. As for commonality, let's look at it from the other side. Is not banning -ise causing us any problems? Will non-British readers seeing -ise in a British English article be confused or insulted? So far it doesn't look like they would be. Darkfrog24 (talk) 12:10, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
The funny thing is, no one here is actually trying to ban -ise. Rather, the opposite: one editor is waging a campaign to expunge -ize, and is going round systematically removing it where it's already established in British articles. He now has a new toy to do the ethnic cleansing faster: Ohconfucious's script. That's what triggered this whole thread. You can see it if you look carefully. But watch out for the straw men. FWIW, as a Brit I'm used to seeing both -ise and -ize all the time, and I'm quite happy with both. PL290 (talk) 12:45, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
(outdent) You have to look damn carefully to find examples of my "ethnic cleansing". Read this discussion and tell me where you see me trying to abolish -ize or favoring one nationality over another. This is about the narrow point of view of two editors, and lies and personal attacks are not going to change the majority opinion. Radiopathy•talk•17:46, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
Here's an example of the sort of behavior of yours that PL290 is describing:
This edit to Sex Pistols employed a script to unilaterally change the style of that Featured Article from its clearly prevailing -ize style to -ise tyle.
When I reverted your unilateral, undiscussed change--which obviously runs contrary to WP:MOS/"Stability" and WP:RETAIN, and which I suggest also contravenes the spirit of WP:COMMONALITY--you left this template warning on my Talk page, which (a) falsely claims that I had perpetrated a contentious style change (which is, obviously, what you did) and (b) clearly suggests that you believe the article's existing style--that is, -ize style--is "not" British English. DocKino (talk) 20:50, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
All of those articles stood for years with the -ise suffix unchallenged, except for the occasional "spelling error" edit by someone not familiar with the UK variant. Your decision to change to all Oxford spelling runs counter to the spirit of WP:RETAIN. You should just accept responsibility for that and move on. WP:COMMONALITY does not have a thing to do with what you are trying to argue here. Your persistent invoking of an inappropriate guideline continues to weaken your position.
Method: I searched the history of the most recently disputed article, Sex Pistols, for the letters "ize" and "ise". I excluded words like "rise" that can only be spelled one way, and I excluded quotes, references etc. because the original spelling was likely to be used. I used every 500th version that the editor shows, so the results should be considered a random sample.
Thanks for following up with this objective analysis.
I believe the actual count on June 22, the final state of the article before Radiopathy applied the script, demonstrates even more conclusively that -ize was the prevailing style. Outside of quotations and source names, among words that could be spelled either way, I count 15 instances of -ize, -iza, -izi: recognized, organized, organized, politicized, recognized, hospitalized, criticized, recognized, mythologized, characterizes, emphasizes, vocalization, characterization, characterization, organizing. I count just 5 instances of -ise, -isa, -isi: organisers, fictionalised, fictionalised, organised, organisers.
Clearly, to use the language of WP:RETAIN, at this point the "article has evolved sufficiently for it to be clear which variety it employs" and thus "the whole article should continue to conform to that variety." (If Radiopathy had changed the 5 -ise words to -ize style to promote internal consistency, there of course would have been no basis for objection.) Clearly, Radiopathy violated WP:MOS/"Stability" and WP:RETAIN with his application of the script. In addition, Radiopathy in his comment immediately above has made explicit his persistent mistaken belief that -ize is not proper UK spelling, despite all the evidence that has been presented to the contrary. DocKino (talk) 23:22, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict)No, the evidence says that the clear style is apparent in the 22 June 2006 version, where instances of -ise outnumber instances of -ize by two to one compared to the version of 30 August 2005 - thus, according to WP:RETAIN, it is "clear which variety it employs" and "the whole article should continue to conform to that variety".
You also continue to intentionally misrepresent the idea that I believe that ' ...-ize is not proper UK spelling'; I used the term "UK variant" in my comment above, I have never said "spelled incorrectly". You are violating the spirit of WP:RETAIN by insisting that the versions of articles since you started editing them represents the "existing variety". Further, each time you invoke WP:COMMONALITY to argue your case, you alienate more editors. Radiopathy•talk•23:58, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
This is obviously nothing to do with MOS but is a content dispute - which should be dealt with via appropriate channels.Nigel Ish (talk) 23:27, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
In fact, there are two substantive debates concerning the Manual of Style here:
(1) I have asserted, with apparent support from PL290, that the spirit and intent of WP:COMMONALITY favors the -ize form of British English in those UK-themed articles that have yet to evolve to the point where one or the other style clearly prevails. Radiopathy and OhConfucius strongly disagree. (Tony has strongly disagreed in so far as this debate might concern Australian-themed articles and Australian English, but I have only ever meant to address UK-themed topics and British English.)
(2) Radiopathy appears to suggest that -ise is so very much favored in British English that at any time, an article where -ize prevails--now matter how well evolved it is, no matter its current state--may be summarily altered to -ise style if it can be shown that the first ever contributor to use a word that could be spelled either -ize or -ise choose the latter. I strongly disagree, believing this to be a deep misreading of WP:RETAIN. In comments later redacted by Roger Davies, OhConfucius made an argument similar to Radiopathy's, but went even further, arguing that if the first ever contributor to use a word that could be spelled either -ize or -ise choose the former, that contributor's nationality should be determined to make sure they were not American. OhConfucius has never apologized for or retracted this suggestion, which I find nauseating. Regardless of how anyone else might feel about instituting nationality tests for certain article contributions, OhConfucius's argument again reflects a deep misreading of WP:RETAIN, favoring a sub-clause over its primary directive.
Sorry, Nigel, but this is not a content dispute. It is a style dispute that raises significant questions about the meaning and intent of our style guideline. DocKino (talk) 23:49, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
(outdent) I'm glad you brought this up - "nationality test" indeed! Just like WP:COMMONALITY? Or Radiopathy is the only one on Wikipedia who can't see how right you are? -ise? Not proper UK English? Existing variety means the variety that existed after you started editing? Nationality test! Let's hear some more! Radiopathy•talk•00:06, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
Before the recent screaming, Radiopathy offered a slight variation on what I believe to be his deep misreading of WP:RETAIN. In this one, he suggests that if you arrive at an article to discover a style you don't favor, WP:RETAIN encourages you to go hunting in the past to see if the article ever exhibited a tendency toward a style you do like. If you have to go back to 2006 to find one--to a version of the article where there were 6 relevant words rather than the current 20; where there were, for instance, 3 inline citations rather than the 234-plus when you ran the script --you go right ahead. You call that four-year-old mess an "evolved" version of the article. Then you unilaterally change the current style of the article to the one you prefer.
I don't believe this is the primary directive of WP:RETAIN. I think it tells us clearly, that if we arrive at an evolved article to discover a style we don't favor, we don't make a wholesale alteration in that style if it is a proper one. But apparently it doesn't say that clearly enough. I think we should consider editing WP:RETAIN to cut down on the opportunity for confusion such as that demonstrated by Radiopathy.
Oh, and you poor dear, Radiopathy. WP:COMMONALITY in no way, shape, or form suggests that an individual contributor's nationality is relevant to anything at all. It simply says, "Wikipedia tries to find words that are common to all varieties of English", and I have suggested that the spirit and intent of this is applicable as well to the spelling of words. DocKino (talk) 00:20, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
We don't need to change a guideline to accommodate one editor. And you are the one who suggested above that Ohconfucius was suggesting a "nationality test". Everyone knows, of course, that "first major contributor" is code for "nationality test" - and that 9/11 was an inside job, too. Sorry Kal, you're the one who said it; you can't weasel out of it now, and your credibility at this point is in the negative numbers.Radiopathy•talk•00:34, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
OhC proposed a nationality test on the first significant contributor to a UK-themed article if that contributor happened to use Oxford spelling. I don't "suggest" that he proposed such a nationality test; I state it as a matter of fact, and I provided the diff that evidences it. Here it is again. Do you know how to use a hyperlink, Radiopathy, or do you need instruction on that procedure?DocKino (talk) 00:45, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
"Radiopathy appears to suggest that -ise is so very much favored in British English that at any time, an article where -ize prevails--now matter how well evolved it is, no matter its current state--may be summarily altered to -ise style if it can be shown that the first ever contributor to use a word that could be spelled either -ize or -ise choose the latter."
This has nothing to do with which form is favored in "British English" - stop attributing a non-existent arguement to me. Once again, WP:RETAIN is about determining and respecting the existing variety and carrying it through to subsequent revisions - it has nothing to do with the prevalence or lack thereof of the -ize suffix in the current revision. Once a clear style evolves, we don't change it. And yes, if one is going to abide by WP:RETAIN, one needs to check the article history to determine "first major contributor" as well as when the article "evolved sufficiently for it to be clear which variety it employs". Radiopathy•talk•02:32, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
For Sex Pistols, the article history favors -ize, -ise, or neither, depending on whether we go back 0–1 years, 2–4 years, or 5–9 years. Is that typical of the articles in question? If not, then perhaps a case like Sex Pistols could be compromised away because it doesn't happen very often. Art LaPella (talk) 05:05, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
Thanks to the analysis performed by Art LaPella, we see that the swing in the number of 'z-words' over 's-words' occurred between 19 March and 16 July 2009. Since this article has been chosen to illustrate the issue, I will continue with a few diffs:
In fact, in examining the z-words extant as at 16 July, I have established that most were inserted between 20 March and 1 April 2009 by Doc Kino. I am not saying or implying in any way he did this to deliberately alter the ratio, but the facts are that he is a major contributor to the article who has, through his own efforts, conscious or otherwise, shifted the balance in favour of z-words. His present claim to adopt the "prevailing style" per WP:RETAIN would appear to be based purely on the current state of the article, whereas he clearly did not take into account the state of the article as he was making his additions in that period in question.
catalyzed 14:43, 31 March 2009 *note this is within a quote taken, as the ref suggests, from an audio recording, and this word is not an Oxford recognised variant!
It is equally clear that the first instance of any z/s-word –'fictionalised' – was inserted on 16 February 2003, and that there has never been any effort to apply proper WP:ENGVAR spelling to the article until Radiopathy ran my script on the article, thus stirring up the objections from PL and DocKino, on the grounds of WP:COMMONALITY. Having now nudged the article clearly into 'z-word' dominance, it seems that they are now arguing WP:RETAIN although it was clearly ignored by DocKino when making the above additions shown with the diffs. Ohconfucius¡digame!05:23, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
Ohconfucius and Radiopathy, it does appear that you are both misreading the guideline, which is meant to forestall contentious changes of proper style, not encourage them. It is evident from the record that by the time you, Radiopathy, first took notice of the style of Sex Pistols, the article was well-developed and stable, and the -ize style, whatever its more or less distant history, was established. You had three choices at that point, one good—do nothing; one questionable—start a discussion to argue for a change in the style (there seems no good reason to do so, as the -ize style is a proper one for a British topic); and one bad—change the style as you did.
Ohconfucius, your analysis of Dockino's contributions to the article do suggest that the balance of style shifted from -ise to -ize as a result of his extensive writing. It's not clear to me if -ise was the clear and established style of the article when Doc started contributing extensively to it or not. If it was, he should have abided by it at the time. If the article had too few words and sufficient inconsistency among them to determine a clear style, then he did not err in favoring -ize as he wrote. In either event, I see no evidence that Doc's writing with -ize was contentious in the least. (If you came across any, Ohconfucius, let us know.) Regardless, what Doc did over a year ago or what, er, Quercusrobur did in 2003 is not particularly relevant to what Radiopathy did last week. RETAIN asks us to respect an "evolved" style: perhaps Doc failed to do so a year ago, as a side effect of his writing; certainly Radiopathy failed to do so a week ago, as a direct effect of his application of your script.
ALP, my guess would be that it is not rare at all for articles to go through stylistic fluctuations over time. What RETAIN asks us to do is to leave well-developed, stable articles with clear styles alone. If you encounter such an article, there's no need to check the article history. Only for underdeveloped articles without a clear style does the history become relevant. The history was not relevant last week in this case, nor is it today, nor would it be in any similar case—and again, I think many articles that are fine today have tortuous style histories. Our guideline wisely advises us to focus not on that past, but on the "evolved" present. That's the best way to avoid this sort of unnecessary conflict.—DCGeist (talk) 06:45, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
Dan, I also believe that this conflict is not a common one. Let me remind all that the initial argument was over the applicability if WP:COMMONALITY, and we seem to have drifted significantly from it. I can accept your interpretation as one such possible option of solving the conflict – although I believe it is not what WP:RETAIN sets out to say – if only not to prolong this nastiness which has been exploding here as well as in the John Lennon talk page over the course of the last week.
I would just observe that American-related articles tend to be stable in spelling style, and their spellings tend to be rapidly 'corrected' into Americanizationz if a Brit has added British English spellings. Also in my experience, there are British articles with fairly strict application of British English spelling, although Americanisations occasionally creep in unnoticed; spelling in less highly-watched British subjects' articles are often laxer. Other non-Brit/non-American articles tend to be a broader mix, with few people in general caring about whether its in American or British spelling, even lesser so Oxford, and these 'evolve' as a hotch-potch until someone decides to do something about it –enter the script. All that is except for articles where one editor or a small tight group of editors has been dominant or has exercised permanent vigil over a given article, and change the spellings manually when they are spotted. Ohconfucius¡digame!07:33, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
PS. I have just re-read the relevant parts of the guideline, and feel that there was no misunderstanding on my part. Instead, there has clearly been an attempt to bend the rule for the sake of some notional "stability", because it's clearly at odds with what WP:RETAIN states; what Dan said about there having been no objection to DocKino's progressive introduction of 'z-words' seems to be akin to using the debunked silence implying consent. The rule sought to be applied here seems to me more like WP:IAR + WP:CONSENSUS. Let me be on record saying I have no issue with that, if that is genuinely what the consensus is. However, any attempt to modify the guideline in line with Dan's interpretation can only mean the considerable weakening of the 'first major contributor' rule. Ohconfucius¡digame!18:30, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
Dan points out that it's probably not rare for articles to undergo stylistic fluctuations over time; I would add that whether or not such a shift—from one acceptable style to another—is in fact rare, we surely have no reason to discourage it. Like any other aspect of an article, its style has evolved over time to its present state because of what editors have contributed, and the article is now stable in that state To suddenly impose a different style on such an already-stable article, based on something dug up from the past, is to misunderstand WP:ENGVAR (and its subsections WP:RETAIN and WP:COMMONALITY). The underlying principle of that guideline is to prevent clashes over spelling and grammar, and to provide a reference point when, early in an article's development, editors cannot agree which style to use. To invoke it for the purpose of imposing a style change on a stable article is a serious misapplication of the guideline. Clarification of the wording is needed to prevent this sort of misunderstanding from happening in the future. I will be happy to attempt such presently, unless someone gets there first or makes suggestions about it here meanwhile. PL290 (talk) 09:29, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
If the article had stayed stable - had editors been more vigilant - then there would be no need to spend valuable time researching and reverting. You are still obviously misunderstanding WP:RETAIN, and any "clarification" you submit will only muddy the waters more. Besides, this discussion is about your and DocKino's misapplication of WP:COMMONALITY; do you also intend to address that? Radiopathy•talk•14:09, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
It seems evident that it is necessary to revise and clarify the guideline. The latest contributions to this thread are bewildering.
Radiopathy, it is you who recently destabilized the article, and that action which prompted this debate. All articles go through periods of instability as they are developed—as information is added and corrected, reference formats are changed and changed again, different structures tested, rejected, and finally agreed upon. Changes in various style matters are a normal part of that process. But as ALP and, yes, Ohconfucius have demonstrated, the article had been stylistically stable for over a year when you ran your script on it. There was, in fact, "no need to spend valuable time researching and reverting." (And, I'm sure you will admit that indeed you spent no time researching before you ran the script.) When you saw a stable article with an evolved style, according to RETAIN, you should have moved on. What you did, very simply, was to violate RETAIN, and as Doc has pointed out, the general Stability of articles clause. All the historical digging in the world won't change that fact.
Ohconfucius, your latest revision of your argument is baffling. You seem to be arguing that the "first major contributor" clause somehow trumps the lead sentence of RETAIN: "When an article has evolved sufficiently for it to be clear which variety it employs, the whole article should continue to conform to that variety". You seem to be imagining a "bending of the rule" that does not exist and calling stability "notional" when it has persisted for a year. I'm very surprised that RETAIN can be interpreted to encourage historical digging and "first major contributor" identification in a case where "an article has evolved sufficiently for it to be clear which variety it employs", but you seem wedded to that interpretation.
PL, I saw your first attempt at a revision of RETAIN. If there was any flaw I could see in it, it did not go far enough: the revision should not be limited to matters of spelling, but should cover any ENGVAR-related stylistic concern. It seems evident that the obvious sense of RETAIN must be made even stronger:
When you, the editor, come to an article, here's what you should do:
(1) If the article has evolved sufficiently for it to be clear what style it employs, abide by that style. Whatever happened in the past is irrelevant.
(2) If the article has not yet evolved to that point, you may employ any appropriate style.
(3) If the article has not yet evolved to that point and there is disagreement between two appropriate styles that be cannot be resolved through discussion, identify in the article's history the first edit to choose between the styles and follow the choice made in that edit.—DCGeist (talk) 19:18, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
To further strengthen clause (1), we might want to think about crafting a benchmark to forestall arguments (though, as is evident, we can never entirely eliminate them) over whether an article has or has not "evolved sufficiently for it to be clear what style it employs".—DCGeist (talk) 20:06, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
Dan, Let's look at exactly what WP:RETAIN says:
When an article has evolved sufficiently for it to be clear which variety it employs, the whole article should continue to conform to that variety, unless there are reasons for changing it based on strong national ties to the topic. When an article has not yet evolved to that point, the variety chosen by the first major contributor should be adopted. Where an article that is not a stub shows no signs of which variety it is written in, the first person to make an edit that disambiguates the variety is equivalent to the first major contributor.
Emphasis mine. I hope you are not attempting to argue that an edit such as this does not clearly disambiguate the variety of British English the article, which certainly was not a stub at the time the edit was made, thus putting into question the need to revise the guideline. We may need to scour the archives for the reason for installing the 'first major contributor rule', but I just feel that, in circumstances such as this, it is the only objective criterion. If not, how exactly is one to define 'evolution' and 'stability'? Yes, I have revised my position because the now proposed revision seems to me to be quite the opposite to what good practice of precedence should encourage. Dan already agreed that WP articles are organic and dynamic, so the need for objectivity is all the greater. I just feel that using the 'first major contributor rule' to be infinitely more reasonable than saying an article's style is stable if this or that has not changed in 100, 500, or 1000 edits. I seem to recall that this point (the use of dmy or mdy dates) was debated at some length during the dates case, and the consensus was that 'first major contributor rule' should be the basis, whatever the 'current' date format was. To say that the revision proposed by PL 'doesn't go far enough' is rather amusing. If the FMC rule had been observed -unreasonable, I know, considering the nature of WP articles - and my script didn't exist, we wouldn't need to be discussing a revision here today. It seems that the real threat to "stability" is attempts at uniformisation. Ohconfucius¡digame!02:14, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
Another strawman post: this discussion was started because DocKino and PL290 clearly demonstrated their intention to use WP:COMMONALITY in a manner for which it was not intended - that is the only reason this discussion was started. And the more the discussion unfolds, the more apparent it is that they are determined to bend or twist the intent of any policy or guideline that stands in the way of their getting the outcome they desire. It is clear that no amount of reasoning will get them to admit that their interpretation of both WP:RETAIN and WP:COMMONALITY is mistaken and self-serving. There is no reason to "forestall" arguements like mine and Ohconfucious's, because we're using WP:RETAIN in the way it was intended to be used. There is no reason to consider any changes to either of these guidelines, since it's not the guidelines that are flawed. Radiopathy•talk•01:41, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
Since you both feel at liberty to ignore the plain sense of the lead sentence of RETAIN, there is obviously a pressing need to revise the guideline.
Radiopathy, whether we locate the fundamental flaw in the present text of the guideline (possible) or your tortured interpretation of it (certain), the guideline needs to be recast so you can not continue to imagine that your violation of it is a demonstration of respect for it. I also think you don't quite understand what a "strawman" is. What in my post made you think it was a "strawman" post? My concern with RETAIN rather than COMMONALITY hardly constitutes a "strawman": indeed, I included a new header to make the shift in focus (which had been building for a while) transparent.
Ohconfucius, you have declared that the way to address the organic and dynamic history of any given WP article, no matter what level of quality and stability it may have reached, is to alter it to conform to the style of a years-old edit by a contributor who...may have never made a single other edit to the article; who may have contributed little other than dreck to it; who may have subsequently changed his mind. That's a mad notion. Imagine a now excellent article on a topic that could be in either American English or British English style, and happens to be in the latter. According to your rule, if the "first major contributor" seven years ago submitted an unsourced, biased, OR-riddled, unpunctuated, syntactically awkward first edit that happened to be in American English style, we're obliged to change the article now, in 2010, to American English. Crazy. (And if you think that hypothetical is unlikely, let me take you on an "organic, dynamic" trip into the dark recesses of some of our best work.)
You know, over at the Featured Article process, where Wikipedia's best work is identified, stability is one of the basic criteria. There's really no problem figuring out when an article has an unstable element and when it doesn't. The idea that we can't determine if and when an article has an evolved, stable ENGVAR style is fairly ludicrous. The "first major contributor" hunt is presently a method of last resort, as it should be. A proposal has just been made to turn the guideline on its head, and put it first. I will resist that tirelessly.—DCGeist (talk) 03:38, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
Dan, WP:RETAIN also clearly states that "When an article has evolved sufficiently for it to be clear which variety it employs, the whole article should continue to conform to that variety, unless there are reasons for changing it based on strong national ties to the topic.", so I think we already have that safeguard. What you state is hypothetical, and I am pretty sure you know it. I guess your not afraid that Tony will set the 'roos on you! ;-) Ohconfucius¡digame!09:11, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
It's time for DocKino to come clean WTF his agenda is, and for him to stop taking cheap shots at me ("Confucius ask, 'Who yo mama?'"). I think that, truth be told, he just wants it his way with z-words. Bearing in mind the number of edits he has made to Sex Pistols, John Lennon, and The Clash, one might be forgiven for assuming that he may think he owns those articles. If DK had just cared to check the version immediately preceding my edit before making that accusatory comment above, he would have found one instance each of 'realising', 'crystallisation', 'realise', 'popularise', 'surprised', 'organising', 'compromising' - a tally of seven occurrences. I only corrected two instances of 'Oxfordized' words ('politicized'), and removed one blatant Americanizm ('routinized'). By his preferred rule, the preponderance of s-words would have been ample justification for the alignment to non-Oxford British spelling. Ohconfucius¡digame!08:59, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
Americanism? No, my British dictionary (Chambers) gives "routinized" as the primary spelling, also allowing "routinised". You must by now have been aware that both are acceptable British spellings, so asserting that this is an Americanism, both in an edit summary and again here, is hardly conducive to the discussion. Regarding DocKino's agenda, I think we can safely say that that it is by now crystal clear to all involved in this discussion: (a) to resist unnecessary and sweeping changes to stable articles (pointing out the while, as an incidental observation, that those unnecessary changes are anyway divisive in our global encyclopedia because they go against the spirit of commonality), (b) to defend the false accusation that by undoing the edit that made the unnecessary and sweeping changes to a stable article, he was somehow the one who instigated a change, and lastly, and most relevantly to this discussion page, (c) to encourage revision of the guideline whose misapplication gave rise to the unnecessary and sweeping changes to a stable article in the first place. PL290 (talk) 11:06, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
You call this edit at The Clash, and this edit at The Kinks] defense of stability? Don't make me laugh! These were both blind reverts which left things in the mess they were in before – inconsistent dates as well as use of both Oxford and English variants, in total defiance of everything within this guideline. Arguing anything but is tantamount to calling night day, and proves just who is trying to make a point. Look who's calling me "disruptive! pffff! Ohconfucius¡digame!11:52, 3 August 2010 (UTC)14:53, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
Your disgreement with DocKino over that one edit is not relevant to this discussion page (although those following this discussion may indeed agree that you were provocative to make that edit right now). Neither is your contrasting of "Oxford" with "English" just above (a false contrast still, I believe, enshrined in your script and its template names) helpful to the discussion. I hope you will swiftly take steps to rectify that glaring terminology issue wherever it occurs. This discussion started with the false assertion that WP:COMMONALITY was being cited as a reason for change. Whether or not you retract that accusation, the facts of the matter are clearly laid out on this page for others to see, and the focus of the discussion is now the revision of WP:RETAIN to address the real issue. PL290 (talk) 12:33, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
I present for your approval, PL290, this edit summary. It clearly shows that WP:COMMONALITY was being cited as a reason for change. You are entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts. Radiopathy•talk•13:41, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
Thank you, Radiopathy and Ohconfucius, for at last producing diffs as requested long ago. Unfortunately, as we now know from the results of investigations by DCGeist and others—who were forced to spend time researching the matter when you would not originally produce diffs to back up your accusations—those edits do not bring change. They resist it. The diffs you show are, in each case, reverts of your sweeping change to a stable article. This knowledge (which is not new) adds nothing at this point in the discussion; may we please now concentrate on the important matter of agreeing a wording revision for WP:RETAIN to prevent future occurrences of the unfortunate misunderstanding that led to your changes. PL290 (talk) 15:31, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
No, the difs prove that your statement above, "This discussion started with the false assertion that WP:COMMONALITY was being cited as a reason for change", is patently false. And once gain, WP:RETAIN does not need to be reworded; it's clear from this discussion that, in spite of being misinterpreted by a few editors, it's meaning and intent are clear and acceptable to the majority. Radiopathy•talk•15:43, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
To respond to Dan's floated idea that we might possibly consider identifying a benchmark to reinforce the revised wording, in my opinion his final paragraph above illustrates precisely why no benchmark is necessary. Spelling out the principle as he has done in his proposed wording above will suffice to prevent future misapplication of the guideline. PL290 (talk) 07:56, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
If an article started with ise, and falls victim to someone who is running around on a campaign to change everything in BrEng to ize, the article should be changed back to the original. I am keen to hear of editors who are on such a campaign. Tony(talk)15:44, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
At this point I suggest we need to take a reality check and ask ourselves the reason for the guideline, to see if we are applying it correctly. The basis of Radiopathy's campaign to change articles from -ize to -ise appears to be that, against the estabished consensus among current editors—who may, gradually, and over a considerable period, have introduced a style change—it is acceptable to impose a unilateral reversion to the style used long ago, perhaps by an editor no longer even involved with the article—implying some kind of ownership by that editor who once touched the article years ago. I would suggest that rather, the reason for the guideline is to provide a reference point when editors cannot agree a style, and that we have absolutely no reason to discourage a shift in style should one occur naturally as a result of the editing process. PL290 (talk) 16:36, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
At the risk of appearing blunt or even rude, I do not agree with that reading of the general principles of the MoS. Please convince me that it is not serving a private agenda to impose a personal preference. Tony(talk)16:39, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
Any wedded to the alternative are invited to convince us of the same—and that Wikipedia's principles are better served by that interpretation. (BTW, by "guideline" above, I refer to WP:RETAIN, not the entire MoS.) PL290 (talk) 19:02, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
If an article has had consistent spelling for quite a while (depending on level of activity, that could be one to six months) AND if the spelling is appropriate for the topic of the article, I'd say leave it alone. However, if the spelling of the article is seriously inconsistent, it is really asking too much of an editor who has decided to make the spelling consistent to search for the first edit where the spelling style is apparent (but that IS what we ask). It is even more burdensome to expect the editor who is cleaning up the article to read the entire edit history to figure out if there was ever a consensus to change the spelling of the article (even though that consensus has since been ignored). The latter degree of burden is, in my opinion, too much to ask and editors should feel free to refuse to do that much work. Jc3s5h (talk) 19:18, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
But suppose an article contains a mish-mash of spellings that a random editor, who is not familiar with the variant of English used in articles relating to a particular nation, decides to make the spellings in that article uniform, and said editor chooses the "wrong" variant? Are DocKino and PL290 then justified in edit-warring over it and making unfounded claims about this or that guideline, or should the article simply be edited again to restore the "proper" variant by an editor who is willing to do the extra work? Radiopathy•talk•00:03, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
Although I am reluctant to stick my toe into the toxic waters of this "discussion", I will volunteer this answer:
If "the 'wrong' variant" you mention in your first line is wrong because of strong national ties of the subject, then it is appropriate to change it to the "right" variant, per WP:TIES and WP:RETAIN.
If it is "wrong" because the well-intentioned editor unknowingly chose a variant different from the established form – where "established" here means just before the last edits – then it's appropriate to revert per WP:RETAIN, and advise the user of the reason, with a pointer to the MoS.
If there isn't an established form at the time of the user's edit, as the "mish-mash of spellings" in your first line suggests, and there aren't strong national ties per WP:TIES, then we leave the user's edits as useful, because they can't be "wrong" (contrary to your question's phrasing). Whatever happened weeks or months ago, or when the very first dates or -ise/-ize words were added are immaterial, because WP:TIES doesn't apply, WP:RETAIN expired when the "mish-mash" crept in, and the user's edits should be kept per WP:AGF and WP:COMMONALITY.
All based on a reading of the current MoS and basic common sense. No revisions necessary. Move on, now folks; nothing more to see here. — JohnFromPinckney (talk)00:42, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
Jc3s5h, surprising though it may seem to some of you assembled here, I happen to wholeheartedly agree with you that common sense should apply, and that most people have better things to do than to dig out the very first version where a certain string (such as an 's-word' or 'z-word' was inserted. However, the wording in the guideline couldn't be more clear, and Tony seems to have confirmed it. I argued long and hard over just such points back when the date formats were being discussed, and I was unfortunateln not able to rally consensus behind me. I don't think the guideline will be changed because of such a minor dispute, just because there in one editor wants to see z-words adopted throughout WP because it's more accessible, and is prepared to edit-war. Such is life. Now it's time to drop the dead donkey, and move on. Ohconfucius¡digame!00:48, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
Who exactly are you talking about? Has someone actually demonstrated that they are prepared to edit war throughout Wikipedia to impose -ize? Who is this person?
On the other hand, I see you are undertaking a campaign to slap an "EngVarB" template on any article that strikes your fancy. Including on this article, which happens to be in American English. The next time you drop a dead donkey, try not to drop it on your head.
Tony hasn't been good enough to actually share his interpretation of the general guidance of RETAIN. But I'll say this. When an editor claims "the wording in the guideline couldn't be more clear" and simultaneously supports violation of the guideline, the wording could be more clear.—DCGeist (talk) 08:25, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
You make it very difficult to assume good faith when you claim that your placement of a "British" (non-Oxford) English template on the United Nations article page was justified by a prior placement of an Oxford English template on the Talk page.
You make it very difficult to assume good faith when I see your editing behavior coupled with new claims that some anonymous someone is willing to edit war to see -ize adopted throughout Wikipedia. That sounds as credible as the average tabloid gossip columnist's blind item. This is not a tabloid. What is the name of this editor and can we see some evidence of his or her ongoing ize-ization campaign?—DCGeist (talk) 10:05, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
WP-RETAIN: Scrap, revise, or keep as is?
The English Wikipedia does not consider one variety of English more correct than another. The guideline WP:RETAIN provides editors with a point of reference if they cannot agree which variety an article should use: in that event, the variety used by the first major contributor may be used. Should we change articles back to that style if we later discover they have evolved to use a different style? What Wikipedia principles should guide us here? Should RETAIN be scrapped, revised or kept as is? PL290 (talk) 09:28, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
Scrap or revise - RETAIN is increasingly being invoked to support attempts to impose sudden change on stable articles, against consensus that has evolved concerning those articles. This is preposterous, and disruptive. If there are strong national ties to the topic, WP:TIES applies. In all other cases, we should be guided by the Wikipedia principles of article stability, avoiding conflict and disruption, and consensus as a result of the editing process. Hence when building up and improving an article, editors—who are perhaps newcomers to the article—should, out of respect for its current editors, attempt to adhere to its existing style. The editors tending the article will naturally, and on an ongoing basis, modify any edits they disagree with (whether because of style, relevance, prose quality or anything else). Thus—except when there are national ties to the topic—consensus as a result of the editing process is seen at work, just as with any other aspect of the article's content, and Wikipedia's principles give us absolutely no reason to discourage it. In the interests of article stability and avoiding conflict and disruption, therefore, our guideline should explicitly discourage such attempts to make a sudden, sweeping style change to any article without first gaining consensus. Trying to justify such attempts simply on the basis that one editor—perhaps no longer even involved with the article—once touched the article years ago, and as a result has some kind of ownership of it, is, frankly, ludicrous in a consensus-based editing community. RETAIN should be revised to remove the possibility of that interpretation, or, alternatively, simply scrapped unless it can be shown to serve a Wikipedia principle not adequately served by good ol' consensus. PL290 (talk) 09:28, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
Scrap or revise - I completely agree. I have observed two experienced editors, User:Ohconfucius and User:Radiopathy, reject what I thought was the obvious sense of RETAIN: that if a mature article evidences a clear preference for one or another ENGVAR style (assuming that style is appropriate given the national orientation[s] of the article topic), you don't bloody well change that to another style without achieving a new consensus on the matter. Ohconfucius and Radiopathy take a very different view: that if a mature article evidences a clear preference for one or another ENGVAR style that you happen not to like, you should feel free to dig into the dark recesses of the article's history to see if some early contributor happened to employ a style that you do happen to like. And then you can change the article to that style...without discussion...and claim RETAIN as support. This is outrageous. RETAIN must be scrapped or revised to prevent this perversion of our principles and processes.—DCGeist (talk) 09:55, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
Yes, and articles evidence people's preferences. Don't pretend to be smarter than you are. It's icky. And your editing behavior is already icky enough.—DCGeist (talk) 10:15, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
A recursive RETAIN, of course. Whilst I am in general agreement with the arguments for stability advanced by the proposer, I feel that the proposal is a recipe for instability and is only advantageous for those seeking to apply their own preferences to game the system. The general stability of most articles has been overseen by the application, and general respect for, the style laid down by the earliest editors of an article. In the same way that we generally try to build on our forefathers' efforts, notwithstanding the occasional revolutions (through a widely discussed consensus), the principle should remain firmly, otherwise all hell will break loose. There is a consensus that the 'first major contributor' rule should be applied to date formats in the absence of strong national ties, and the use of s-words or z-words is no different. The sentence I most vehemently disagree with is that "The editors tending the article will naturally, and on an ongoing basis, modify any edits they disagree with (whether because of style, relevance, prose quality or anything else)." This is code for 'if I am currently maintaining the article, and make improvements, I should not feel constrained to abide by the established style so long as I don't breach WP:TIES. Ohconfucius¡digame!09:59, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
Ohconfucius, you have zero credibility in this matter. Indeed, it is your misbehavior that has prompted this RFC. You have rejected stable, established style as a basis for enforcing stylistic consistency, yet here you tag an article with a non-Oxford-style British English template without even establishing that your basis for style determination, the style chosen by the "first major contributor", supports the style you have elected to tag the article with. You did the exact same thing here—imposing a style template without even abiding by your own fanciful rules. And, big surprise, you did it again here. Talk about gaming the system, you did all that in the span of 13 minutes. You're quite a menace, Ohconfucius.—DCGeist (talk) 10:15, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
In addition, by your refusal to address the pressing questions raised in the preceding subsection in this thread, you have already tacitly admitted that you are not acting in good faith in this matter.
I noted above that you make it very difficult to assume good faith when you claim that your placement of a "British" (non-Oxford) English template on the United Nations article page is justified by a prior placement of an Oxford English template on the Talk page. You found time for well over 100 Wikipedia edits in the last two days, but you have still offered no excuse for this evidently bad faith behavior.
I noted above that you make it very difficult to assume good faith when your editing behavior is coupled with your submission of a provocative new claim that some anonymous someone is ready to edit war to see -ize adopted throughout Wikipedia. You found time for well over 100 Wikipedia edits in the last two days, but you have still not provided us with the name of this editor and evidence of his or her ongoing ize-ization campaign.—DCGeist (talk) 11:11, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
Retain RETAIN. It's the editors' behavio(u)r that should be scrapped or revised. Seriously. I haven't seen such childishness last so long since I was in school with other 11-year-olds. If editors can't use common sense to understand when an article has evolved or instructions (as in RETAIN) regarding that established state, then they shouldn't be obstructing a collaborative project like WP. — JohnFromPinckney (talk)13:23, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
Retain or revise. The existence of a policy called "Retain" shows our distaste for recurring brawls like this one. It didn't stop this problem, but it presumably stops other problems. Could it be worded better? Oh maybe, but for one thing, there is no way to automate this problem away, so there will always be a gray area concerning which version to retain. (If you think a "first major contributor" rule can't be Wikilawyered, see Talk:Sharon Johnston.) And for another thing, the main problem isn't a disagreement on precisely how we can best obey RETAIN. The civility policy has been openly flouted by both sides, so it's unlikely that a careful rewording of that policy, or any other rule including RETAIN, would have helped. I don't share the politically correct assumption of our civility policy, but if you're dishing back the insults as enthusiastically as you're getting them, I think it's safe to say you're interfering with a discussion of the substantive issue. Art LaPella (talk) 20:30, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
Retain the spirit, revise or retain the letter. I would believe the part until the first comma of the second sentence to make clear that if an article has 20 occurrences of -ize and none of -ise, I can (and should) keep on using -ize without bothering to dig through the article history to see whether it has always been that way; but since it appears that some editors haven't got the point, I would support a rewording making it clearer. A. di M. (talk) 15:34, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
Retain and reword to reflect the following scenario, based on A. di M.'s comment above: If you come upon an article with 20 instances of -ize and none of -ise, you have the option to continue using -ize in spite of WP:RETAIN; however, if an ambitious editor does look through the history and determines that -ise was the established style, said editor may revert without controversy. Likewise, WP:RETAIN should not be used to enforce a shift from the historic style to a more recent one. Radiopathy•talk•18:57, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
What would be the point of doing that? Editing an article which has consistently been written in a given style for a while to a style it used to use sounds like a waste of time and effort to me. A. di M. (talk) 20:44, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
Believe it or not, Radiopathy, this actually goes beyond your bête noire of -ize. The guideline applies to all ENGVAR matters.
Here's an example I know Tony will like. Let's say I come across an article that could be written in either American English or Australian English (aka "Roo"). An example: Australia – United States relations. This article happens to be written in Roo. According to your logic, Radiopathy, no matter how high quality this article, no matter how stable, no matter how long Roo has been its established style, I can be "ambitious", "look through the history", and change the entire article to American English if I find the "first major contributor" happened to use color instead of colour ten years ago (though I see you're now gliding from "first major contributor" to "was the established style"). That is a bad joke. And you imagine I could perform this action, which you call a "revert", "without controversy". That is an abysmally bad joke.—DCGeist (talk) 23:59, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
This is the topic—tightening the language of the guideline so your ludicrous interpretation of it is even more clearly deprecated than it currently is. As long as you promulgate the interpretation you've just reiterated, it remains at the heart of the topic.—DCGeist (talk) 00:29, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
No personal attack there at all. Love the sinner, hate the sin. I love you, Radiopathy.
Now why don't you address the topic. I have offered a scenario that would be the logical and entirely plausible outcome of your interpretation of WP:RETAIN. Do you support that outcome? Do you really support everyone going around Wikipedia "ambitiously" "looking through the history" of articles with styles they'd like to change, to see if they can find an excuse to do so? Your answers to these questions are central to evaluating the need to revise the language of RETAIN.—DCGeist (talk) 00:52, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
(outdent) How many more absurd scenarios do we have to endure before you admit what "first major contributor" and "the whole article should continue to conform to that variety" mean? The majority of editors posting here understand WP:RETAIN, even though they may not want to delve into the article's history. What needs to be clarified is that folks like your buddy Kal can't just come along and edit-war in favor of the variety with which they feel most comfortable. Radiopathy•talk•01:22, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
As many absurd scenarios as you intend to create, I suppose. Please specify what article you have in mind where DocKino "came along" and started an "edit war" in favor of a certain ENGVAR variety. I see where you "came along" and did that on Sex Pistols, providing clear and convincing evidence that you do not understand RETAIN.—DCGeist (talk) 02:38, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
The occasions on which the current RETAIN practice is trumped are when the wrong variety is used in an article that has a clear relationship with one ancestral English-speaking country. Tony(talk)01:28, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, I think we're going to have to ditch the "first major contributor" rule on this one. Articles can change over time and FMC can be a good tiebreaker, but in this case we're not trying to stop people who make contributions that just happen to have the wrong S or Z in them; we're trying to stop people who categorically change Ss and Zs specifically. We might have to come out and say "don't do that, not even if the FMC did." Darkfrog24 (talk) 10:03, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
Well, I think Roo editors will insist on changing zeds to esses in Roo-related articles. So will New Zealanders. We pushed the es first (Australian Government Publishing Manual, 1974); it's so much easier not to have to pore over and memorise long lists of ise and ize words, a burden suffered by North American children, not to mention non-natives in those parts of the Empire. We like our esses.
Much of the (ultimately racist) reason we privilege topics related to ancestral anglophone countries is that it keeps the peace. Under the circumstances, it's hard to imagine a better system. And let's be frank about one of the key roles of the MoS: to minimise edit-warring. Engvar was the child of appalling, silly edit-warring many years ago. But above all of this, I can't work out why the existing, long-established engvar rules, combined with the "principle" of stability, are failing. Tony(talk)10:14, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
Retain First major contributor is only a tiebreaker in a very special case (when we can't figure out what the established style is, and there was a first major contribution distinguished by nationality). We could try taking that sentence out and see if edit wars decrease. SeptentrionalisPMAnderson00:33, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
What PMAnderson observes, correctly, is that the "first major contributor" clause is not an arm, but just a little pinkie finger. However, when that pinkie is being used to pull the trigger on a bazooka, something needs to be done. Perhaps not amputation, but swaddling so it can't be used for such mischief.—DCGeist (talk) 02:22, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
If you ever learn when and how to use it correctly—and when to understand where it doesn't apply—I'll send you a big ol' candy bar. So far, you haven't earned an Altoid.—DCGeist (talk) 03:32, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
If you do remove the "first major contributor" clause, it should remain consistent with the rest of MOS: and MOS:NUM, each of which use that phrase several times, in addition to threats like "Users who focus in a disruptive way on an issue or subject may be banned from editing with respect to that issue or subject." Art LaPella (talk) 02:52, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
RETAIN: Perfecting the wording
The previous subsection shows a general desire to retain RETAIN rather than scrap it, coupled with a mounting awareness that we really ought to tighten its wording to prevent abuse. It will facilitate our further cogitations if someone will now propose the new text. Who would like to start the ball rolling? PL290 (talk) 08:47, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
I was going to make a suggestion when I read Wikipedia:Engvar#National_varieties_of_English. This seems to be exactly what I was going to suggest, that in the absence of a strong national connection the first identified style should be used. I suggest that all we need do here is add a link to the 'Engvar' section. If any further clarification is required, it should be done there. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:22, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
I was not proposing any change. What is on this page is a summary of Wikipedia:Engvar#National_varieties_of_English. That page just gives more detail on how FMC should be determined when this is not clear. I do not propose any change to the 'Engvar' page either.
My point was that we already have a well-defined rule that is summarised on this page. I was just suggesting a link and pointing out that one thing we absolutely do not want is two different rules, one here and one elsewhere. In other words if there was a consensus to change, it should not be done here. However, there is no such consensus. Martin Hogbin (talk) 13:13, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
My post was a response to PL290. It was essentially saying that we do not need to tighten the the existing wording because we already have more detail in 'Engvar'. So it looks like we agree. Maybe also PL290. Martin Hogbin (talk) 13:56, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
Ohconfucius, the purpose of the discussion is to work together and arrive at a consensus, and that consensus may indeed produce a change in the wording. Three possibilities were suggested by the RfC: scrap, revise, or keep as is. Virtually all responses state a preference to retain rather than scrap, but stop short of "keep as is"; moreover, a growing number of editors are expressing—in strong and unequivocal terms and in several different subsections here—their disapproval of your interpretation of the existing wording, and the consequent disruption to the encyclopedia. This makes it likely that a consensus will be possible concerning a wording change. It is only to be expected that both you and Radiopathy may currently be opposed to such a possibility, and may perhaps wish to continue the editing practice that sparked this discussion; but that is not a foregone conclusion. I hope you will continue to give consideration to the underlying principles and try to find common ground with what others are saying here.
I propose the following additional paragraph after the existing text in WP:RETAIN:
The purpose of this guideline is to resolve disputes when settling on a variety, not to forbid evolution. Use common sense when applying it. For instance, if an article has predominantly exhibited one variety for 30 days with no dispute, do not seek to change it to another variety without first seeking consensus: whatever happened in the more distant past is irrelevant.
Opposed - totally. This is not what this discussion has said at all. Are you actually hoping that no one is paying attention and will blindly !vote for what ever you propose? Radiopathy•talk•18:54, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
Other than yourself, DocKino and DC, who objects to my "interpretation"?It's interesting how, all through this discussion, you've been able to read things into peoples' statements that aren't there. Radiopathy•talk•19:00, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
It's cute how you put "interpretation" in quotes, as if you're channeling the will of God. It seems to me that JohnFromPinckney, DarkFrog24, A. di M., and PMAnderson also object to your willful misinterpretation and violation of RETAIN.—DCGeist (talk) 19:10, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
By 'misbehaviour' do you mean application of the current policy?
No, Martin. By "misbehavior" I mean the well-documented violations of our current policy, such as those committed by Radiopathy on Sex Pistols and The Beatles and OhConfucius on United Nations.—DCGeist (talk) 20:13, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
I see no violations by those editors. The MOS currently states [my bold], When an article has evolved sufficiently for it to be clear which variety it employs, the whole article should continue to conform to that variety, unless there are reasons for changing it based on strong national ties to the topic. There are obviously strong British ties to the first two topics. Whatever you may think 'ise' is far more common in the UK. What possible rational reason can anyone have for wanting 'ize'? Trying to change the MOS to just to get 'ize' in those articles is absurd, the clear consensus above is 'retain'. Martin Hogbin (talk) 21:30, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
We all know that ize is a possible alternative spelling but it is generally regarded as an Americanism. This is just what OhConfucius says. It seems logical to me for the native US English speakers to tell us what US English is and for the native UK English speakers to decide what Brit English is. We do not need reliable sources to speak or spell our language any more that you do to speak and spell yours. Martin Hogbin (talk) 23:19, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
(ec) In addition, copious evidence has been provided that while presently more common, -ise is not "far more" common in the UK. If you wish to see British -ize spelling eliminated from Wikipedia, then attempt to make that happen straightforwardly. For now, we regard both -ize and -ise as equally legitimate forms of British English, just as they are in the real world. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style (spelling)#British English with Oxford Spelling (-ize) for just some of the many organizations and publications that use British English with -ize.—DCGeist (talk) 22:39, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
I do. Many Brits prefer -ise. Many other Brits prefer -ize. Many are perfectly comfortable with both. Are you suggesting that PL290 is not British? Are you suggesting that the Oxford English Dictionary is not British? Are you suggesting that the Times Literary Supplement is not British? If you do not respect the many British citizens, organizations and publications that favor or are comfortable with -ize, then you should be honest about that and seek to eliminate its use on Wikipedia.—DCGeist (talk) 23:38, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
A few do but not many. The majority of Brits use ise. I know that the OED and a few other publications use or recommend ize. It may even be more logical in some cases but the fact is that it is not what most Brits use and it is widely regarded as an Americanism. We have enough problems with national varieties of English. Insisting that we use Oxford Spelling in a Brit article would be like me insisting that an article should be written in a Southern US dialect. Leaving the article in a state that will appear to many people to me a mixture of US and UK spelling is a recipe for endless argument. The two articles in question obviously have strong Brit ties; let us have them in standard British English so that they can be truly stable. What possible reason can there be for pushing OS? Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:18, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
Are you sure it's "a few but not many"? On the British National Corpus, excluding the "spoken" category, there are 5881 occurrences of organization and 8056 of organisation, 2954 of recognized and 5041 of recognised, 2770 of organizations and 4808 of organisations, 2617 of realized and 4629 of realised, 2193 of organized and 3805 of organised, etc. In all cases the frequencies are within a factor of 2 of each other. Implying that a word is not "standard British English" because another word is 1.7 times as common would exclude lots of words with more common perfect synonyms. (By comparison, someone is 5.7 times more common than somebody in the same sections of the same corpus and I haven't heard anyone implying that somebody is not standard British English.) A. di M. (talk) 09:28, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
Let me put it in a more pragmatic way. Most Brits (but not all) will see -ize as an Americanism and will correct it to -ise in an article that uses British English, very few Brits would change -ise. The odd American may change -ise to -ize in good faith believing that it is a misspelling but will be likely to accept -ise once it is pointed out that this is BrE. Promoting OxE is simply confusing to everyone. The one thing we do not need in WP is yet another, essentially manufactured, version of English. It use is virtually certain to result in endless edit wars. The only thing that puzzles me is the motive behind it proponents. Martin Hogbin (talk) 12:58, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
I have examined quite a body of British articles minutely and manually, and can attest to the existence of a very real problem on a practical level when aligning text to 'British English'. When looking at early, non-stub versions to apply the FMC rule, it can be quite difficult to determine whether an z-word has been inserted by an editor as an Americanizm or as a deliberate exercise in Oxford English. Whilst there may be other clues within the same edit such as other British or non-British spellings employed, these clues can often be few and far between. In general, most Brits accept that the s-form words are preferred. Nevertheless, I have only found a very small number of pockets, such as for 'Sex Pistols', where alignment to s-words seems to create a problem. --Ohconfucius¡digame!07:02, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
OpposeFor two reasons. Firstly this is not the place to propose such a change, as I have already pointed out we have WP:Engvar where the subject is explained in more detail, secondly there is a clear consensus above to Retain the existing policy. Martin Hogbin (talk) 20:02, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
You seem to be confused about more than just the word "misbehavior". For the second time you have suggested that WP:Engvar provides "more detail". But the fact is we are discussing ENGVAR. RETAIN is a subsection of ENGVAR. It is precisely ENGVAR that has been disrupted by bizarre and apparently self-serving misinterpretations of RETAIN. There is no other place to have this discussion. RETAIN is part of ENGVAR, and ENGVAR is part of the main MOS page, for which this is the discussion page. All clear?—DCGeist (talk) 20:48, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
Appologies, you are quite right about Engvar. I am an idiot. I navigated to that section by some means that made me think it was a different article. Martin Hogbin (talk) 21:17, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
Oppose --JimWae (talk) 21:48, 15 August 2010 (UTC) Articles that have had a spelling or date style of a certain style for 5 or 6 years since inception should not get a new presumed format established just because they were quietly changed without edit summary more than 30 days ago. People should not be encouraged to think all they need do to change the style is hide the change among other changes & wait 30 days.
I see no evidence that anything like what you're describing has taken place. You're suggesting that people have willfully and surreptitiously changed articles' well-established styles, "quietly" "hiding" their nefarious alterations? Show us some examples, please.
What we do have evidence of is Radiopathy and OhConfucius dropping into well-established, even Featured articles where they have been only minimally involved, if at all, and summarily changing the style without discussion, then ex post facto conjuring up a perverse "first significant contributor" rationale for their actions.
As a counterexample, I offer my recent, very enjoyable collaboration with Sarastro1 who successfully nominated the article on English cricketer Wally Hammond for Featured Article status. When I joined work on the article during the FAC process, it was clear that the predominant style of the article was -ise. As a result of the FAC process, I am now the number 2 contributor to the article by edit count (that is, far more involved than Radiopathy and OhConfucius were with the articles whose styles they summarily changed). Did I summarily change the style to -ize because I might prefer it or find it easier to work with? No. Of course not. Did I entertain for even an instant investigating the possibility that Sarastro1 might in the course of his superb work on Wally Hammond have changed a couple early -izes to agree with his preferred -ise? No. Of course not. Did I "ambitiously" go through the article history to see if I could make a claim that the "first significant contributor" used -ize, so I could "revert" the article to that style? No. Of course not. What an outrageous idea. But that is exactly the sort of attitude Radiopathy and OhConfucius have adopted, and the sort of perverse interpretation of RETAIN they continue to advocate.—DCGeist (talk) 22:39, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
I can show several examples, but there is no need. The policy should not allow - nor encourage - people to target articles with this purpose. If someone changes a style "quietly" with no discussion and no edit-summary that notifies anyone of the change, even if it has stood unnoticed for months, the previous history of the article, including the first disambiguating contribution, should still be relevant to determining the future style of the article. If the change has stood for 4 years, that is another matter, but the onus should not be on the editors to check every article for style changes every 30 days. --JimWae (talk) 22:58, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
You say you "can show several examples", but you won't. So we remain where we were: there is no evidence that anyone is "targeting" articles to surreptitiously change their style. The primary purpose of RETAIN is to minimize edit warring over equally appropriate varieties of English: e.g., -ize or -ise in an article on a British topic, Roo or Yank in an article on an Australian-American topic. The perverse interpretations of RETAIN we have seen argued for recently turn that purpose on its head. The phrasing of RETAIN should be adjusted to make absolutely clear that the "first major contributor" clause is a tiebreaker used for an article without a well-established style to resolve a discussion process that has not resulted in a consensus, rather than an excuse to summarily alter styles to suit one's personal preferences.—DCGeist (talk) 23:14, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
We do not need evidence of abuse - which I can indeed easily show - to see that abuse is possible. The policy needs to be worded so that abuse is discouraged - not encouraged. Anyway, doesn't strong national ties apply to that article? Oh, I see strong national ties might not settle -ize or -ise in the UK, but a 30 day time-frame encourages abuse. Check the history of Canada Day, Victoria Day, and Vancouver if you wish to find examples of hidden, uncommented-upon style changes. People should not think that because they have made significant changes to an article, that they then have any ownership or privilege of changing an article's style --JimWae (talk) 23:18, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict) We see examples all the time of people "correcting" UK spelling aside from the -ise suffix: [3], [4], [5] (I love the hidden note on that one!) and more of the same, [6]. They do not always leave edit summaries, particularly the IPs. As you can see, articles do drift from their established varieties, mostly through ignorance. WP:RETAIN specifically applies to cases like these; it's not reasonable to expect that an article with strong national ties to a subject should be forced to stay in its "evolved" state, but this is exactly what a few editors in this discussion would like to mandate. If the change has stood for four years, like JimWae suggests above, no, of course an editor would not be considered disruptive for not changing the style, but any editor who is so motivated can check the article history and revert at will without controversy or ridiculous weeks-long discussions. Radiopathy•talk•23:31, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
Strong national ties fail to resolve not only -ize/-ise but also articles with strong national ties to more than one country, e.g., Australia – United States relations. By the way, if you can "easily" show evidence of abuse, why don't you? I believe it would be relevant. Presumably, so do you or you wouldn't keep mentioning it.
As for the appropriate timeframe, I wouldn't mind if it was somewhat longer. Three months? Six? That's more than enough time for a predominant style to qualify as "established", without inviting this mystery "abuse".—DCGeist (talk) 23:38, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
It appears you believe "established" to mean the style that you prefer, Radiopathy. Is that not correct? Pray tell us, how do you define "established"? More to the point, how do you recognize that an article has a predominant style that you should not summarily change without discussion and consensus? In the case of Wally Hammond, I recognized that it had an established style by reading the article. What's your magic trick?—DCGeist (talk) 00:20, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
It's been an hour since DC posted this, and none of our three "established" editors have changed it to -ize yet! Congratulations! Radiopathy•talk•00:46, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
Can't answer the crucial question, can you? I determined that the style of Wally Hammond was not to be messed with because I (a) read the article and (b) saw it was clearly well tended to by a conscientious writer/editor. Please telll us exactly how you determined on July 24 to mess with the predominant style of the Featured ArticleSex Pistols, an article where you had previously made a grand total of three edits, without warning or discussion.—DCGeist (talk) 01:10, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
You're saying that the variety was established the moment you clicked the link to go to the article - that it was debatable until you arrived and issued your official proclamation. You're also saying that if there had been even one instance of -ize that you would immediately changed every instance of -ise to -ize, per WP:COMMONALITY, for article stability, per MoS. Radiopathy•talk•01:23, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
I have obviously made no such statements. You're simply conjuring fantasies about my position now. I have repeatedly made clear that I respect -ise where it is the predominant style. I simply observe the fact that in the Featured Article Sex Pistols—which recently appeared on our Main Page—among words outside of quotes and source names, there were 15 instances of -ize and 5 of -ise, immediately before your "ambitious" July 24 intervention. I think everyone of good faith can recognize that this is an evolved article with a definite predominant style.
You simply can't answer a straightforward question, can you? When you summarily changed the style of the Featured Article Sex Pistols on July 24 to -ise without warning or discussion—your fourth-ever edit on an article with well over 1,000 edits—how did you determine that was an appropriate course of action?—DCGeist (talk) 02:13, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
Hmm. I think that question needs to anticipate Radiopathy's oft-repeated (though surely debatable) answer: the first major contributor. Art LaPella (talk) 02:33, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
Oh, but there's no evidence at all that Radiopathy ever even bothered to do that perverse "research". He makes no mention of "first major contributor" in his edit summary for the first July 24 intervention; makes no mention of "first major contributor" in his follow-up, where he chooses to edit war; makes no mention of it in his first series of posts to this l-o-n-g master thread. Even if he had established the "first major contributor"'s style, which he obviously did not, that would not excuse his failure to go to Talk and discuss the style of an evolved, Featured Article.—DCGeist (talk) 03:02, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
I don't think that's what DCGeist said. Yes, there was an edit in 2003, but was that Radiopathy's reason at the time, or was that justification discovered 9 days after the fact? Art LaPella (talk) 05:12, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
Thank you, ALP. That is obviously what I said. And since OhConfucius has graced us with his presence, let's ask him: Would he have approved if I went hunting seven years back in Wally Hammond's history for an -ize? Would he approve of me going on such an -ize hunt on any article where -ise currently predominates?—DCGeist (talk) 06:14, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
If there is no notification of the change of style, then the edit should not establish a new default/presumed style - no matter how long it has been in place. We should not in any way reward "secretive" changes to the style. If the editor announced it in discussion, that is another matter --JimWae (talk) 23:47, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
OPPOSE One of the things I do when gnoming is to align dates to a single format; I often revisit an article I have previously treated as part of routine maintenance. When I do, I often find date formats have 'evolved', as new contributors do not always pay due attention to such matters of style, probably believing the content itself to be more important. Adopting a unified date format can nowadays be done with minimal controversy, although this has not always been the case. It was over just such a dispute that I became a supporter of the First major contributor rule, which I previously opposed.
We expect articles to evolve, and for subsequent arrivals to continually add content. In the absence of routine maintenance, preferably by bots because of the gargantuan task at hand, it would be incorrect and unreasonable to consider that an 'evolved' article has assumed "an established style" regardless of the duration, let alone one as short as 30 days as is proposed. --Ohconfucius¡digame!02:45, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
The position you state in your final sentence effectively nullifies the lede clause of RETAIN: "When an article has evolved sufficiently for it to be clear which variety it employs, the whole article should continue to conform to that variety..." Care to back that up with an RFC to determine if there's consensus to eliminate that clause?
By the way, we're still waiting for you to explain how your placement of a "British" (non-Oxford) English template on the United Nations article page was justified by another party's prior placement of an Oxford English template on the article's Talk page. Or are you ready to admit that was a blunder you'll be careful not to repeat?—DCGeist (talk) 03:02, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
OhConfucius, stop pretending you've offered an explanation that you have not. The link you supply "explains" that there was already an Oxford English template on the United Nations Talk page. But you inserted a "British" (non-Oxford) English template on the article page. Despite repeated requests, you have never explained your justification for such an action. It's a pity you feel hounded. Maybe you feel hounded because of the fact that you know there's no excuse for your action. Maybe you feel hounded because of the fact that you got busted for misbehavior you thought you could get away with. You have been given multiple opportunities to offer an honest explanation and/or apologize. Instead you want to pretend that you didn't do to United Nations what you obviously did do. We must therefore conclude that you are acting in bad faith in this matter.
And...still wondering how you decided you can blithely ignore the lede clause of RETAIN. Not that the view of someone acting in bad faith carries much weight.—DCGeist (talk) 06:14, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
Oh, now I see why you have been upset! Yes, I admit it was a cock-up... Note that the first version, which strangely doesn't look like a first version, was ambiguous as it had both s-words and z-words; there were no z-words were changed by me - just a minor tagging error, so I think the argument is pretty moot. I was in two minds about not responding, as there has been enough accusations of bad faith on my part from your keyboard. If it would genuinely serve to clear the air, I would indeed apologise. However, I have the sneaking suspicion that any apology I would have to offer would just seal my "guilt", as far as some of the presently assembled are concerned. --Ohconfucius¡digame!08:58, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
Support the idea but 30 days can be too short for articles which aren't edited very often. It could say "30 days or 100 edits, whichever is longer". A. di M. (talk) 09:00, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
This is just plain crazy. No system is perfect and there will always be disagreements but you want to change a simple system of first identifiable style to one that requires n day or edit count and that is open to gaming by people making changing slowly or by groups of editors on some kind of mission. It really does not matter that much, all I object to is silly argument about the subject like this one. Martin Hogbin (talk) 13:05, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
Section break: brief summaries please?
The sections above are now HUGE. I wonder whether editors who propose to change the guidance could briefly summarise their argument and propose new wording. I cannot see one good reason for changing the existing text; but I'm open to reasonable arguments. My savage kangaroos (fed on beef, trained to maul, and presently drunk on Coopers Ale) are ready and waiting. Tony(talk)09:58, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
Please see the RfC that has now been initiated on this page, asking the wider community to consider what Wikipedia principle RETAIN actually serves, and whether it should be kept as it is, revised, or simply scrapped. PL290 (talk) 10:44, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
Proclamation by the Queen
In breaking news, Buckingham Palace has issued a diplomatic note to the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House in Washington DC instructing that the American colonies, and whatever territories they have overrun, shall henceforth use only the "s" form of -ise and its variants. In Ottawa, the Canadian Governor-General has passed on a similar instruction to the Prime Minister, Mr Harper.
According to the BBC and CNN, however, the move is not entirely one-way. Apparently an olive branch has been offered to the North Americans: the UK and the rest of the Commonwealth may be forced to adopt the American single "l" in such words as traveling and modeling ("much more logical", Her Majesty was heard to utter under her breath). Tony(talk)14:35, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Anyone who thinks that this is an argument about which is the 'correct' version of English has completely missed the point. There is no correct version, just various national and regional styles. This has be recognised by WP long ago.
What is needed is a simple, definitive and non-partisan way of determining in which style subject-neutral articles should be written. The first contributor method does just this. Other methods, such as consensus, stability, most prolific editor, greatest contributor are all prone to endless argument. It does not really matter that much. Let us just have a simple rule and stick to it. Martin Hogbin (talk) 11:31, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
You are dead wrong, Martin. There absolutely is such a thing as correct English, for all that what is and isn't correct can change with time and region, and Wikipedia has an obligation to provide articles written in correct English. With regard to this particular issue, however, both -ize and -ise are correct British English. Darkfrog24 (talk) 18:23, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
I agree: the "first major contributor" guideline has saved much edit-warring. That is one of the major goals of a MoS. Tony(talk)11:55, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Right, but once the article has drifted away from the FMC's dialect/style (as they sometimes do, with nobody noticing), and then stabilized at some other clearly established style, going back to look at the FMC's work is counter-productive and leads to more edit-warring. If the article's drifted but a new style has not become dominant, then, yes, research and adjustment to the FMC's style is appropriate.
Who decides what is stabilized? Does this mean one week, month, year without change? What is clearly established? All one style, 90%, 51%? What if one style is stable for a year, then another for 6 months, then the first for one month? This allows too much gaming and argument.
Once again, see Talk:Sharon Johnston. No proposed system gives one clear answer. I don't have a better idea; I'm just deflating unrealistic expectations. Any system requires that editors do a better job of working together. Art LaPella (talk) 21:41, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
No system is infallible but one based on the FMC has less chance of disagreement and edit warring that one based on other less well defined features. Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:31, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
"Stabilized" is what we as reasonable, adult editors recognize it as. "Clearly established" is obviously not 51%, if you are reasonable, while 90% and 100% obviously are. No, I don't have some numeric bright-line limit where we can count the, what? and then calculate a percentage, yielding a OK-to-modify/don't-touch-it answer; all I have is my sense of reason. And trust in my fellow editors.
If, as your last question stipulates, an article "has been stable for one month", then it doesn't bloody matter what happened before. We're building an encyclopedia, not operating a Museum of Historical Edits. We're collaborative editors on an ambitious, never-finished, publicly visibly project, not tag-team wrestlers on a to-the-death cage match telecast where drama brings in advertising revenue. The Manual of Style can only provide guidlines for reasonable people to follow. It is beyond its scope to dictate behavior, or to cover again what WP:AGF, WP:CIVIL, WP:ETIQ, etc., have already covered.
I'm late to this discussion and haven't had the time to absorb all of the above (!). I'm an American. When I've seen "organise" corrected to "organize," I have been checking the article. If it seemed like a preponderance of words were British spelling, I have been labeling it "British" on the discussion page to avoid further changes. And then changed it back. Occasionally the reverse (to American), but not often. On one occasion, I had to go back to the originator of the article, who is no longer active. He was from Australia, so I labeled it accordingly.
One of my problems is that I cannot easily spell just anything in these articles cause my editor indicates "wrong" for the British variant. But not many words. No big deal.
A lot of articles ownership makes sense. Where it doesn't, is when "Istanbul" is British and "Greater Istanbul" is American or New Zealand or some such! But I can live with that. Even though -ize is allowable in British, it is not their first choice. We want to encourage (and not discourage) British editors. Let's live with it. Student7 (talk) 11:36, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
I think the existing rules aren't bad, per se, but they are vague. I understand that was probably purposeful. I'm not convinced that it's working the way it was intended to. Whenever you have vague rules, you get rules lawyers. WP:TIES is clear and straightforward and a great guideline. But the idea that Wikipedia has no default preferred variant of English means that everything without strong ties is essentially up for grabs. Okay, great, very egalitarian and noble, I get that, I even applaud that... but look at it from the point of view of Joe Schmoe who just wants to look something up in the encyclopedia. Sometimes he gets something that reads like an American wrote it. Sometimes he gets something that looks like a Brit wrote it. Sometimes he gets something that looks like a three-year-old on a five-day Sterno binge wrote it, because this is Wikipedia. But the point is, it's confusing, and Joe Schmoe could not care less about the principles behind WP:RETAIN. He just notices that Wikipedia is inconsistent. That's why I'd support revise for WP:RETAIN, and I'd support setting a default language for Wikipedia—as insanely contentious as such a motion would be. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 18:39, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
Technological solutions / aids?
Wouldn't a potential long-term solution to regional spelling differences be to use MediaWiki to render the spelling of an article into the reader's preferred locale automatically? The locale could be set by the user in preferences, inferred from the browser or IP by default, etc. The source text could then be written in any spelling style, with the software reading from a community-editable equivalence dictionary (properly sourced). Perhaps tags would be needed to protect specific sections of text, such as quotations, or to force a specific regional usage if needed. (Special cases would likely require more thought).
While no doubt there would be some complications, investing in software features and guidlines to use them would seem to be constructive. This might eventually make obsolete some of the apparently contentious guidelines which have been discussed here. David Hollman (Talk) 07:37, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
I enjoy reading text that's in the regional variant that matches the subject, but I don't see any real problem with this plan. If it glitches things out, we can just remove it. Darkfrog24 (talk) 11:52, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
In the meantime, does that mean I have another potential recruit to try out my script in cases where the spelling is not according to the British/Irish/Oz/Kiwi/Seth Efrika/India regions?? ;-) --Ohconfucius¡digame!12:52, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
Suppose that you write an article in AmE and my preferences are set to BrE; how does the software knows whether by meter you mean an instrument (in which case it should leave it alone) or a unit (in which case it should translate it to metre)? How does it know whether by check you mean a position in chess (in which case it should leave it alone) or a payment method (in which case it should translate it to cheque)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by A. di M. (talk • contribs) 14:02, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
I expect there would be a fair number of "special cases" which would have to be accounted for, such as the examples you cite. Another case is things to be left alone, such as links and quotations (note: not the display text for links, but the underlying address). Homonym problems (I think that's what they are) such as your examples would be a different exception. There are probably other types of exceptions which would have to be identified too.
My first thought for these examples is that some sort of new markup could be used to identify those cases. For homonyms, perhaps the underlying spelling-substitution list needs to have multiple entries for different meanings, and some markup could indicate which meaning was intended. For quotations, a different markup could be used to mean "leave this alone". Existing URL/wikilink markup should be obvious enough already.
Granted, adding markup would take work, but it would only have to be done once, and only for those special cases.
As for vernacular - IMO this idea should start with a narrow focus only on spelling differences, not on translating meaning. Perhaps over time the scheme could be extended; but I would guess that the basic, common spelling variations (like -ise and -ize words) are a vast proportion of the differences, and handling them would eliminate much of the problem. The vernacular issues could still be dealt with by WP:COMMONALITY and probably more easily than through translation.
Does anyone know of a good list of spelling variations so that the number of "exceptional" cases could be roughly identified? For the idea to be successful, I do think it is crucial that it provides a net amount of value to the community. Substituting one system for a different one which causes just as much work or problems would obviously be pointless. So it is important that the cases like check/cheque are truly exceptions. David Hollman (Talk) 16:28, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
Another issue: proper names. It's the Department of Defense in the US, but the Australian Defence Force. Neither of these should be switched. Imzadi1979→21:45, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
The way I deal with it in my script is to leave ambiguous words and capitalised words unchanged. That would mean favouring false negatives over false positives. BTW, I'm not suggesting new Metawiki software to adjust for differences in spelling. --Ohconfucius¡digame!10:54, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
Oppose. This is effectively a machine-translation proposal, even though between mutually comprehensible dialects. Machine translation is not good enough. I don't think it will ever be good enough, but my personal skepticism about AI in general is not the point; the point is it's certainly not good enough now. --Trovatore (talk) 21:48, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for mentioning your concerns.
This is not a proposal / concept for machine translation. It would be more like a limited cousin of a spell checker.
The idea is to maintain a mapping among the various spelling styles to substitute one spelling of a word for another, subject to (hopefully few) rules regarding exceptions, as being discussed above.I wouldn't call this "artificial intelligence", its only text substitution. Words not on the list would be unaffected.
As this approach would be entirely "data driven", and the data entirely supplied by the community, the workings would be transparent. The community would have to agree on rules for what words were to be included; the larger discussion was about differences in spelling (not meaning or grammar) and that ought to be the extent of the scope of the idea. (Note the mention of vernacular differences above).
I hope that clarifies the intentions and scope (IMO anyway). If not, can you explain what specific problems you forsee? Thanks, David Hollman (Talk) 09:51, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
I disagree with you, and assert again that what you are making is a proposal for machine translation, even if you don't see it. It is not just a matter of spelling; the spelling is semantically entwined. --Trovatore (talk) 10:32, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
If there are cases where spelling is semantic then those clearly need to be discussed and considered carefully (as above some specific instances were mentioned). It might be that those can be handled in a nice way, and it might be that they cannot. It would be helpful to call out those specific instances, so we can discuss them (rather than issuing a general statement that "it won't work"). I would appreciate your specific suggestions. David Hollman (Talk) 11:00, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
If it requires discussing lots of special cases, I'm opposed to the project as an unnecessary complication. Quite frankly even if it could work in general, I'd most likely still be opposed to it. See A. di M.'s remark above about the date formatting — that was far simpler and more constrained than this project, and it was quite correctly gotten rid of. --Trovatore (talk) 11:15, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
It looks like the "special case" problem could be solved by writing all articles in British English and giving the option to shift to American. Darkfrog24 (talk) 16:12, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
I liked this idea once. One objection above was the problem of quotes for another English variant. Can't really do both in the same schemata.
Something that I have seen asked before is "what problem does this solve?" Right now, I can labor along with occasionally editing a non-American article without much problem. If I "mis-spell" something as a watcher, I am corrected. No problem.
This seems to help me more if I write a new article about a non-American topic which comes under a different variant. Would be lots of spelling errors. But so what? Someone would catch it.
The flip side is, how often am I going to come up with a non-American variant article on my own, i.e. before someone in that country has come up with it? For me, the answer is "very seldom." I think we are better off the way we are now. Almost no problems. Double reversions mostly amusing. American do have to learn either way that not everyone spells things the way they do. Student7 (talk) 18:14, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
To answer another question, I would expect my editor to come up with British spelling, if I am editing a British article. I do not want anything done automatically! So "meter" might (or might not) be flagged in red, depending on what the British editorial software does today. No new choices on spelling; simply specifying a default lexicon. Student7 (talk) 18:18, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
Contradictions
The effort to prevent the Manual of Style from duplicating and contradicting its subpages has faded into history. So as I searched for guidelines I could automate, I listed contradictions I noticed, just in case anyone wants to make the Manual of Style relevant to the rest of Wikipedia. In some cases I can just correct them, but more often I can't guess the consensus. Here are the contradictions:
WP:HEAD says "Change a heading only after careful consideration, and if doing so use an anchor template ..." But Help:Section#Section linking and redirects doesn't require the anchor; it lists anchors as one of several alternatives. MOS:SECTIONS is similarly permissive, using the word "Consider ..." rather than a simple imperative.
MOS:CURRENCY says "In non-country-specific articles such as Wealth, use US dollars (US$123), the dominant reserve currency of the world. Some editors also like to provide euro and/or pound sterling equivalents ..." (emphasis added). But MOS:#Currencies says "or", not "also": "In non-country-specific articles, express amounts of money in United States dollars, euros, or pounds sterling." (emphasis in original)
WP:COPYEDIT#Common edits says "The wording, spelling, and punctuation of literal quotations should not be changed. ... See WP:MOSQUOTE for details." MOSQUOTE starts out the same way: "Preserve the original text, spelling, and punctuation." But then it says "Trivial spelling or typographical errors should be silently corrected ...", and there's no hint that some spelling errors are more trivial than others. Presumably it means that quotes over 200 years old shouldn't be spell checked, but that isn't the most common cause of misspelling. Thus most spelling should be corrected, depending on which guideline we read. Most of MOSQUOTE is about "Allowable typographical changes" that similarly undermine the rule against changing punctuation.
WP:Manual of Style (France & French-related)#Railways says "use the basis Ligne de XXXXXXXX - XXXXXXXX (ex. Ligne de Grenoble - Montmélian)". It should say "despite WP:HYPHEN and WP:ENDASH" if you really want French railways to be an exception to our usual taboo against spaced hyphens. The following section about railway stations says "it should be joined by hyphens. ex: 'Gare de XXXXXX-YY-ZZZZZZZZ'", which isn't a spaced hyphen, but anyway.
The ampersand in the title "WP:Manual of Style (France & French-related)" conflicts with WP:&. I realize it says "Retain ampersands in titles of works", but since we named it ourselves, we can rename it.
WP:ELLIPSIS says: "Use non-breaking spaces ( ) only as needed to prevent improper line breaks, for example: ... To keep the ellipsis from wrapping to the next line ("France, Germany, ... and Belgium but not the USSR")." But the very purpose of is to prevent wrapping to the next line. So "Use ... nbsp only as needed to prevent improper line breaks, for example ... to keep it from wrapping to the next line", can be simplified to "Use nbsp only as needed to prevent improper line breaks, for example every damn time."
WP:NBSP says "Use a non-breaking space ... in expressions in which figures and abbreviations (or symbols) are separated by a space (e.g. ... AD 565". But WP:ERA says "BCE and CE or BC and AD are ... separated from the year number by a space ornon-breaking space (5 BC, not 5BC)." (emphasis added)
WP:DECADE says "The two-digit form [of a decade], to which a preceding apostrophe should be added ..." But MOS:#Longer periods says "(the '80s or the 80s)".
The end of MOS:#Longer periods says "Centuries and millennia are written ... without Roman numerals". But the section it's supposed to be summarizing at WP:CENTURY doesn't mention Roman numerals.
MOS:#Large numbers says "Because large rounded numbers are generally assumed to be approximations, about or similar qualifications are not normally needed." But MOS:#Currencies says "approx. US$1.4M ... approx. €1.0M".
WP:BULLETLIST says "As a matter of style, list items should start with a capital letter. They should not have a punctuation mark such as a period, a comma or a semi-colon at the end, except if a list item is one or more full sentences, in which case there is a period at the end." But MOS:#Bulleted and numbered lists says "When the elements are sentence fragments ... [they] are formatted consistently in either sentence case or lower case. Each element should end with a semicolon, with a period instead for the last element. Alternatively (especially when the elements are short), no final punctuation is used at all." (emphasis added)
WP:Manual of Style (music)#Usage says "The word hip hop is ... not hyphenated." The compound adjective article says "Conventionally, and with the support of modern writing guides, compound modifiers that appear before a noun phrase generally include a hyphen between each word, subject to some exceptions", and none of the exceptions applies to a phrase like "hip-hop music".
WP:PAIC says "Place inline citations after any punctuation such as a comma or period" ... But WP:REFPUNC says "If an article has evolved using predominantly one style of ref tag placement, the whole article should conform to that style unless there is a consensus to change it."
WP:ANDOR says "Avoid the construct and/or on Wikipedia", which is often easier said than done. Searching the Manual for "and/or" proves that the real guideline is "Do as I say, not as I do." The same could be said for other guidelines such as spaced hyphens in the subpages, although I have changed many of them to en dashes according to WP:HYPHEN and WP:ENDASH.
My idea is that each section of WP:MOS should have a comment like <!-- This section is a summary of [[WP:Manual of Style (capital letters)#Titles of people]]: make sure it is faithful to the full version when editing it. If you want to modify the guideline in a way that affects its meaning, discuss that at [[WT:Manual of Style (capital letters)]]. -->. As for the specific cases: 2) I don't think it's a good idea to give pounds sterling only or euros only so I prefer the version in MOS:CURRENCY; 3) I'd consider a misspelling to be "trivial" if it's a typo beyond reasonable doubt and to be significant if there's some reason to think it might be deliberate; 6) unless there's something specific to Islam-related articles, I can't see the point of repeating that advice there; 8) I can't see any reason not to use a hard space in 5 BC, other than the usual ones that it takes longer to type and makes the source less legible, which would be moot if there were a simpler way to input hard spaces; 9) I'd only use "the 80s" when referring to the decade in the 1st century, so I agree with WP:DECADE; 15) "avoid" is too strong a word; I agree that and/or will often sound like legalese, but sometimes any alternative is not better; 17) it ought to say "needn't have parentheses when it is clear what the argument is". You definitely need parentheses in sin(x + y) because sin x + y would mean (sin x) + y. A. di M. (talk) 10:26, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
Whew! Now that is a tour de force. I think you've addressed more than most people will be able to chew on. I'd support adding comments as you suggest. --Airborne84 (talk) 10:47, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
Yes. Neat! This high level policy gets the constant attention and update, and usually, (with differences you may have noted) should be followed. Thanks. Student7 (talk) 12:23, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
No, actually, the high-level guideline gets constantly revert-warred, the low-level guidelines actually get changed. In the few cases I recognize, MOS has the older language; in almost all of them, the less sensible and less English. Always ignore MOS; ignore its subguideline only most of the time. SeptentrionalisPMAnderson04:00, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
Which of these two is clearer? (both will still require the following comment, especially when assuming one has just read the sections above telling you that quotations do keep their punctuation)
Did Martha say, "Come with me"?
Did Martha ask, "Are you coming"?
(The very quote is being questioned, so the question mark belongs outside; any punctuation at the end of the original quote is omitted.)
The whole point is that the quoted material is being questioned, not a question itself. "Come with me", as a statement, makes it clearer.
This is a valid, but different opinion, so some thought has to go into this :-)
In both cases the quoted expression is being questioned (is part of a question, actually, see below).
In both cases the (a actually, see below) question mark belongs outside (at the end actually, see also below).
The omission of a "?" is much more obvious than the omission of just a ".".
Example 1 raises the question, why deviate from the preceding example ("Are you coming?")? This may be for the clarity to be determined in this discussion.
Example 1 raises the question(like train of thought), And what if you quote a question? Do you keep the punctuation of the quote as being said above, or is the punctuation of the quote dropped, as said in the following comment, even when it is a question (or exclamation) mark? Can one really safely assume that what is being said later overrides what has been said before? even when it is just a little comment and in brackets too?
If nothing else these reflections show, that the comment is worse than either example:
Its brackets reduce its power of overriding the preservation of quote punctuation stated in the preceding sections.
Its phrasing is too limited: the point is not that the "quoted material is being questioned", but that there is a quote at the end of a question and one has been told to keep quote punctuation at the end of sentences. The quotation in Do you really think him intellectual just because he said "To be or not to be"? is not being questioned, it is just at the end of a question.
Thus there is no unambiguous "the question mark", but rather both examples have to be finished by a question mark, because both are questions, and a question is finished by a question mark.
(Intermediate?) conclusions:
Continue with preceding example and use example 2 Did Martha ask, "Are you coming"?
Remove indentation and brackets from the comment; it is as valid as, and even overriding things explained in regular sections above.
Rephrase the explanation (former comment).
Alas, number 3 requires more thought:
Example 2 shows that a quoted question at the end of a question loses its question mark, from which may be deduced that the same happens to commas, (semi-)colons, and full stops. One may deduce that a quoted exclamation at the end of an exclamation loses its exclamation mark; and one may even boldly assume that the same is true for a quoted exclamation at the end of a question. But what with a quoted question at the end of an exclamation?
Whatever is true or wanted should concisely be stated in the explanation. Whether or not individual examples would be bloating or clarifying I'll leave to other people to discuss.
--Empro2 (talk) 15:29, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
Indeed. It would be such a remote situation that, should it ever actually arise, should be dealt on a case-by-case basis. A. di M. (talk) 19:21, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
The truly "logical" formulation would be:
Did Martha ask, "are you coming?"?
. Unfortunately I don't think that format is really used anywhere. It should be. It's a reform I'd support. But encyclopedias are not in the reform business. --Trovatore (talk) 19:27, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
Wow, that's a great deal of detailed thought from Empro. My reasoning for retaining the statement is straight forward. Being a statement in a question makes it clearer, in my mind, that the rule applies to all variety of quotes. Additionally, it works better to prevent potential confusion as to which is the relevant question, that is, which would be answered by a respondant. Of course, after the edit conflict, I see what I believe is truly the correct course. Scrap it. It's not a situation that would be actually used, as it is not the proper encyclopedic tone.oknazevad (talk) 20:15, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
As far as I am aware, when a question ends in a quotation that is itself a question, then there should be a single question mark located inside the quotation marks, not outside (i.e. Did Martha ask, "are you coming?", not Did Martha ask, "are you coming"?). Of course, as already noted by others, I can't see when this would ever be needed in an encyclopaedia anyway. wjematherbigissue22:32, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
I find that the first of those two examples, with the statement, is much clearer. If we use a question within a question, newcomers to this punctuation style might become confused as to which question the question mark was for.
We should not be forcing LQ on all articles, but if we're going to do it, we should do it right. We should follow correct English precedent, as Wjemather has told us. We must use the English language we have, not the one we wish we had. Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:19, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
Internal versus external: I think the time has come to make the distinction between short fragments, quoted or words as words, and longer quotations. I'd also like to make a distinction between quotation-final periods and other quotation-final punctuation marks. Tony(talk)03:52, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
Tony, you raise a number of questions. How short is a short fragment? Is the distinction between a short fragment and a longer quotation the presence of a complete sentence? By words as words I take it that you refer to the use–mention distinction. Yes? Finally, what distinction do you think is appropriate between quotation-final periods and other quotation-final punctuation? Ozob (talk) 12:29, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
"Instruction creep": As an encyclopedia should not ask quotations, let alone exclaim them, all this, examples, explanations, and discussion should probably be moved Quotation_mark#Punctuation here. (The discussion on the discussion page, of course.)
"truly logical": We may take comfort in the fact that it is also logical, or at least reasonable, to reduce clusters of punctuation, the analysis of which may significantly distract from understanding what is being read.
Distinction 1:"longer quotations" should go into a quote-template and end up in a paragraph/block of their own, keeping their original punctuation (however good or bad) and receiving no further.
Distinction 2: Words like kindergarten, made up from the German kinder 'children' and garten 'garden' are no quotations, and yes, perhaps that can be made clearer at the beginning.
What this is all about:"short fragments" that are being quoted inline and thus may run into and influence, or be influenced by punctuation that is not their own. Though the period / full stop often suffers the most, the topmost distiction should be common usages, and each be exhaustively (not redundantly) covered by examples (including the period / full stop).
The information in the style guide, the quotation mark article, and wikipedia quotations should be cleared of redundancy and cross linked. This should be done only after discussing what each page should contain to prevent subsequent discussion destroying the effort.
On your first point: We should not move any instructions from the MoS to the articles. This is because they serve two very different purposes. The articles are there to inform readers about quotation marks. This includes their history and all sorts of things about how they're used. The MoS is here for one reason: to tell editors what to do on Wikipedia. The content of the MoS should never be moved to an article without careful review and alteration to suit its new purpose. Darkfrog24 (talk) 12:52, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
Presumably you meant to say "We should not move any instructions without careful review and alteration". Information on punctuating sentences that don't occur on Wikipedia doesn't belong in the MoS by your own definition, and it might belong in the article. Art LaPella (talk) 16:52, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
That's correct, but I haven't seen any non-relevant information in the part of the MoS that we're discussing, so I just went with "content." Darkfrog24 (talk) 11:37, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
The questionable part is the "questioned quote" Did Martha say, "Come with me"? and the note following it. An encyclopedia should not (rarely?) ask questions, so this information might better reside in either quotation mark -- or together with relevant parts of that article even in quotation, since the different (and various) rules governing the punctuation around quotations affect those marks least of all.
←Sorry folks, I made a comment above, and have since been in the usual weekly rush at The Signpost to get the next edition out. What I can say is that I've raised the matter of LQ with Noetica, who has promised to think it through. He says, initially, that (1) neither a purist LQ nor a purist internal-punctuation system can work logically in all situations; (2) the style guides (he owns just about every major one in English) do a bad job of it—none of them seems to have set out a robust, workable system, and the result is a mish-mash. I will send him a diff of this post to jog him. The reason I spoke with him was to ask about the ellipsis section, which has at least one mistake in it (the first bullet, I think), and IMO desperately needs examples. He has also promised to communicate WRT this part of the MoS. He is very busy in RL, and says if he makes one post here, he'll end up sinking days into it. Well ... Tony(talk)11:48, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
To prevent any wasted efforts: my suggestion Did Martha ask, "Are you coming"? is not better, it is at least unusual and probably just wrong. The switching from a quoted question (in the preceding example) to a quoted statement and the phrasing of the note following it somehow confused me. Questions that resulted from the discussion are:
Does not this example rather belong to quotation mark? Wikipedia should not ask questions, but answer them, so there is no need for this to be in the MOS. "Scrap it", "instruction creep" and "can't see when this would ever be needed" hint that way.
Does not this and the info on punctuation already in quotation mark rather belong in quotation, since the quotation marks are the most stable part of the punctuation around quotations?
And things won't hardly ever be consistently logical as long as low dots at the end of a sentence signal the completion of a unit of thought and call for a full stop to process that thought possibly causing a brief period of silence when reading aloud :-)
--Empro2 (talk) 17:06, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
Not sure what to do with this. It looks dated and not too helpful anyway. Should this page be merged into the MoS somewhere? redirected? marked historical? -- Ϫ15:36, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
It seems to be template documentation. Old template documentation too, for {{Related}}, a template that now redirects to {{See also2}} which has ample documentation in its /doc, the expected place. Propose deletion? PL290 (talk) 16:52, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
That might well be a borderline case, in which case it's not so much about correct interpretation of the guideline but more about compromise. "Engineer" for the train driver sounds very strange to me, and I agree that it would be nice to avoid it. (Perhaps this term arose because train drivers in America once had to be engineers fully qualified to repair an engine if it broke far from civilisation?) "Driver" as the generic word should be applicable even in the context of trains, but my experience with similar variations between standard German and Austrian German tells me that this kind of thinking can be misleading, and what is considered a standard formulation in one variant that should be acceptable to everybody, sometimes sounds hilarious in another because it raises the wrong connotations. HansAdler18:11, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
Hans, no, I don't think that's the reason. The reason the driver is called an engineer is that the car he's sitting in is called the engine. The engine in the ordinary sense is located in that car rather than being the entire car, but the name of the part is used to name the whole (is that synecdoche, or whatever the reverse of synecdoche is?). --Trovatore (talk) 21:00, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
"Train driver" sounds strange to me as an American. I would have to wonder if "train driver" meant an engineer, or was the train being somehow driven as one drives oxen or drives a nail. American children know that a train is driven by an engineer, and about ten years later they learn that an engineer doesn't necessarily need a train. Art LaPella (talk) 19:22, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
Bizarre! As a Brit, I'd expect that a train driver could only ever be called a train driver or engine driver. (And of course it's like driving a car, not oxen or a nail.) The word engineer means various things, but never, ever, ever, no matter how long I went on wondering, could it ever mean engine driver! PL290 (talk) 19:48, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
I'm American, and to me this usage of engineer seems a bit dated. It calls up baseball-style caps with black and white vertical stripes, men shoveling coal into the furnace, and Good & Plenty candy. Maybe we can say train operator or something formal-sounding like that. --Trovatore (talk) 20:31, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
American English seems to use the -eer suffix to mean "one who does stuff with." Charioteer - one who does stuff with chariots. Engineer - one who does stuff with engines. Mouseketeer - one who... uh. Well, anyway, whether or not it's correct usage, there's many examples of American English words created by tacking on -eer in this fashion. That's probably why it doesn't seem so odd to us Yanks. (Back on the article talk page, by the way, the best idea I've heard so far was to eliminate the word entirely, as the picture in question shows neither a train driver nor an engineer no matter where you live. It's a picture of the train's controls, no humans in sight.) // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 21:01, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
If the use is required, why not just use the word engineer, but link the term to Railroad engineer? That way, the link is available for those unfamiliar with the term, if they need the context? (And for that matter, note the article title, but also that train driver is mentioned as a synonym in the introduction.) —C.Fred (talk) 21:07, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
I'm not a big fan of that style of writing. Basic principle is that the content should be the same for a reader who doesn't follow wikilinks. Remember that articles sometimes get printed out!
Actually, Hans is exactly correct as to the origin of the usage. In the steam days, the guy who captained the train, coordinating and directing, that is to say conducting it, was the "conductor", the guy who operated and maintained the engine was the "engineer" and the guy who tended the firebox was the "fireman". It was quite analogous to steamship operation, and it's similar to the way heavy construction equipment operator are called "operating engineers". And it must be noted that calling an American railroad engineer a "driver" is considered an insult, as the term "driver" implies, to them, an unskilled position, like a cab driver. For clarity, a link on the first usage to "railroad engineer" is probably best. oknazevad (talk) 22:35, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
The conductor was in charge of directing the train? So who took over for him when he went through the cars to punch tickets? --Trovatore (talk) 22:40, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
Two thngs to realize. Firstly, that the terms apply equally in freight railroading (indeed, my best friend is a freight conductor). Secondly, the conductor on a passenger train is in charge of when the train departs, even if he's not in the cab. The engineer doesn't go until he gets the all clear signal from the conductor, who makes sure all passengers are safely aboard or alighted; he's more than just a ticket taker (there may be assisntants that do little more than that, but I digress.) Of course, the train goes nowhere without the engineer. So it really is a team effort. But that doesn't change the fact that the title is "engineer", not driver. oknazevad (talk) 22:54, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
Good to have a hobbyist to explain things. Personally I'm not a big fan of trains per se, but I'm a huge fan of songs about trains. Just run down the list -- Chattanooga Choo-choo, Rock Island Line, Orange Blossom Special, Wabash Cannonball, The Wreck of the Old 97, The Acheson-Topeka and the Santa Fe, City of New Orleans — all pure gold. Just about can't think of a song about trains that I don't like. --Trovatore (talk) 02:09, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
As a Canadian whose father works for the railway, I would have to say engineer as thats what always is used for that position. Conductor is usually the guy taking the tickets on a passenger train or when there were cabooses still on trains he was the guy who would sit at the back of the train making sure that all was good from behind. Can't say I have ever heard the term driver used here at all since driver is understood usually to be a truck driver or car driver. Something where you are actually driving as oppose to a train which you are not actually driving. -DJSasso (talk) 12:56, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
I made a proposal on the article talk page to simply avoid the issue by not speaking about the locomotiveer at all. It seemed to be accepted, so I implemented it. I think this matter is resolved. HansAdler12:57, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
As long as the word "engineer" is not used in teh context of the person in the first vehicle in the train - Isambard Kingdom Brunel, the noted British railway engineer would not be impressed. (He was a real engineer). Martinvl (talk) 13:05, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
He would be known as a civil engineer here for what he does. But again thats cause in EN-ca railway engineer is for the first guy in the train. :) -DJSasso (talk) 13:10, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
Could it be that the first engineers of any type were individuals involved with the design of engines? Later maybe, that term was applied to other professional designers that make up the various branches of engineering, like civil, mechanical, or electrical? Yup, The Wiktionary entry bears out that etymology. See the fourth definition as well. Imzadi1979→14:39, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
Engineering is the name of the profession in all branches of English; but in American an engineer can also be the man who operates a train engine; in Kipling an engineer is normally the man who operates a steamship engine. This may have more to do with the geography of the island nation, against the continental English-speaking countries, than anything else. SeptentrionalisPMAnderson00:05, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
As the engine is located in a car, called pars pro toto engine, I'd suggest career for both an engine and an automobile driver ;-) But seriously I cannot see any reason why in such cases engine driver / engineer should not be an option. Perhaps train driver (engine driver / engineer) is even better, emphasising the simplest (though perhaps not most common) expression of the concept. There is often not only one "truth".
--Empro2 (talk) 11:56, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
...does anyone actually say "engine driver"? I have never heard that term before in any context. We shouldn't make up new terms; we should choose from existing ones. Darkfrog24 (talk) 12:38, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I actually say "engine driver". And I have done so since well before Wikipedia existed. It's a well established term (as Google makes abundantly clear). -- Hoary (talk) 12:48, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
Why don't we just stick to ENGVAR? Despite the assertion above, "driver" is not universal in its use for a locomotive operator. The standard in American English (and Canadian English, too) is "engineer". As this is a named train (that is, a long distance one of particular note and importance, not just a local commuter run) of the United States, it should use AmEng usages.oknazevad (talk) 01:07, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
Hoary's not alone: train driver, engine driver,"so we're different colours / and we're different creeds / and different people have different needs ..." And that was my point, not the slashes which are really too often abused for "I don't really know what I mean and I don't care". But telling other people something requires one to make oneself clear and since most engineers do not set vehicles in motion this special use should be explained (once per page) like ... engineer (operates and drives the locomotive) ..., employing a parenthesis (in round brackets ;-) for an explanation to the rest of the world and no slashes. This way, in such a locally and technically specific context, people are educated about the difference(s) and travellers are not surprised when someone introduced as an engineer suddenly gets on the engine and drives the train away.
I agree. We should use the common American term and add any necessary clarification with both a Wikilink and another term in parentheses on first usage. Darkfrog24 (talk) 12:47, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
(Thank goodness no one has asked where the train was invented and by whom. We'd be stuck with "driver". "Hiya! Git along thar!" Crack!) Student7 (talk) 12:43, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
Welsh place names
I am concerned about a vote taking place on the Wales talk page about if the Welsh name of a location should always be stated after the first English mention of it in the article. So for example at the moment in the 3rd paragraph of the introduction of Wales it states the Welsh name for Cardiff. If the proposal is agreed to on the talk page, when ever a place name is mentioned in the article for the first time it will have to be accompanied by the Welsh name like the Cardiff example. What is more troubling is this appears to be trying to set an example for other articles to follow. And it already has led to another addition today at Bristol Channel, where the Welsh name has been added for the River Severn in that introduction.
Is stating the Welsh language name for each location mentioned in an article in line with MOS? It seems to me this would clutter up many many articles if copied, the only place i thought the Welsh name on the English wikipedia would be needed is in the article on the location itself, in the infobox, first sentence of the intro and history or naming sections. I am not sure if anything like this is covered in the MOS, any feedback would be helpful thanks. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:00, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
I think this editor misinterprets the position. It is not a "vote", it is a straw poll (in which, at present, he appears to be in a minority). It applies only to that article, as has been made clear in the discussion there. However, there is a long-established and stable consensus of approach in articles on places in Wales, which is to include the Welsh name of settlements in the article lede. The action at Bristol Channel was to undo an unexplained deletion of long-established material by an IP (one side of the Bristol Channel being in Wales). Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:13, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
This poll may be about the specific article, yet its clear an example may be set. See the comment by the proposer when they voted. ". Lets set an example to other articles that have two (or more) official place names, and let Wales be the first!" And it clearly will have a knock on effect, even if that is not the main intention. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:38, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I agree that what happens on the Wales article should not necessarily set a precedent for other articles. Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:59, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
The argument being used appears to be that, because Wales is formally bilingual, Anglophone Welsh are likely to expect Welsh-language names of places to follow English-language names. There does not appear to be any restriction on this, so it appears to me that the proposed first paragraph (shorn of references) is:
Wales (/ˈweɪlz/ⓘWelsh: Cymru; pronounced [ˈkəmrɨ]ⓘ) is a country that is part of the United Kingdom (Welsh: Y Deyrnas Unedig), bordered by England (Welsh: Lloegr) to its east, and the Atlantic Ocean (Welsh: Cefnfor yr Iwerydd) and Irish Sea (Welsh: Môr Iwerddon) to its west. Wales has a population estimated at three million and is officially bilingual; the indigenous Welsh language and English have equal status, and bilingual signs are the norm throughout the land. The once-steady decline in Welsh speaking has reversed over recent years, however, with fluent Welsh speakers currently estimated to be around 20% of the population.
To my mind, the situation is pretty clear. There may not be a cut-and-dried rule against cutting up the text with translations every few words, but we are an English-language encyclopædia. English-speaking Welsh people are, by definition, English-speakers and thus likely to understand the names in English. If using English is a problem, that's what cy.wiki is for.
I think that Pfainuk, by overstating the argument to an unrecognisable extent, makes a valid, but small, point. However, my interpretation of the proposal is slightly different. That is, it is only places within Wales, and organisations within Wales, which should have the Welsh name included - not places like the UK, England or Atlantic Ocean. The reason is that, within Wales - including to the English-speaking majority within Wales who obtain information from this English encyclopedia - those places and organisations are known by their bilingual titles, English and Welsh. This is a difficult point to explain, but essentially the culture of Wales is one of bilingualism, and ignoring that bilingualism in relation to the names of Welsh places and organisations would suggest - to English as well as Welsh speakers in Wales - an unfortunate English linguistic hegemony on WP. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:39, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
But this is the English language wikipedia. The final example by Pfainuk is to the point. The German name for Munich is not mentioned after its use on articles here on the English language wikipedia, why should Welsh be any different? English language has primacy on the English language wikipedia. You dont find much English on the Welsh language wiki articles. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:54, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
Ghmyrtle, I find common ground with you on most things, but not this time I'm afraid! In ordinary parlance in Wales, places and organisations are usually known by their English names in an English conversation or text, and by their Welsh names when the Welsh language is being used. The only exceptions are where a formal bilingual name has been adopted, e.g. BBC Cymru Wales. As far as I can see this the normal practice in most languages. As I said on the Wales talk page, the Encyclopedia of Wales only provides the translation of names in article titles, not in ordinary text; I see no reason why the English Wikipedia should differ.--Pondle (talk) 10:37, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
I'm not saying ignore the Welsh language altogether. But Welsh should not be treated differently from German, French, Estonian or indeed Irish and Scots Gaelic. If places and organisations are known in English by Welsh-language names, then naturally, the Welsh-language names should come first (and indeed alone in most of the contexts we're discussing). Articles on Welsh towns, cities and villages should put the Welsh name in the lede. Articles on Welsh or UK organisations that translate their names should include both names in the lede. But translating all geographic names in a given article - even if simply restricted to geographic names within Wales - is too far for an English-language encyclopædia by my judgement.
If you want a parallel, I suggest Ireland. The first official language is Irish, the second English. They have a culture of bilingualism, and places are known by both Irish- and English-language names. WP:IMOS appears settled on this point, and its advice serves as a useful precedent: "[w]hen mentioning other locales in the context of the article, conform to the rules for article titling [given in IMOS] but do not include the alternate name along with it."Pfainuktalk22:19, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
Yes i have no problem with places/things that are known in English by their welsh names using the Welsh names. It should be down to what article title is used. I see no reason to mention the Welsh name for Cardiff, when Cardiff is where the article is at, the Welsh name only belongs on the Cardiff article itself in the first sentence, the infobox, and some sections like history / naming.. However as the Welsh anthem is at Hen Wlad Fy Nhadau rather than its English translation, clearly the Welsh name needs to be used within articles. Should all be based on the titles. BritishWatcher (talk) 08:20, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
The "Munich/Munchen" example above is good. We don't force non-English names on English readers. What some editors seem to be saying is that, because Welsh is threatened by English, it would be politically correct to follow English names with Welsh ones. Let's do what makes sense to an English reader and never mind the "political" consequences. In an article about a Welsh town, the Welsh name for the town can be given, but listing names and alternatives ad infinitum seems distracting. Surely an English reader would find more readable sources and skip ours. We're an English encyclopedia. I would not expect the Welsh encylopedia to employ English words at all! Student7 (talk) 18:53, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
I agree that the local language equivalent of a town/country/region/country belongs in the lede and info boxes of the article pertaining to that locality, but usually not anywhere else. There is however nothing stopping a somebody from writing an article "List of English/Welsh town names" Martinvl (talk) 12:57, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
To hyphenate or not to hyphenate
The item "two-party-preferred vote", currently the title of the WP article on this topic, has been the subject of debate about whether it should be hyphenated. I sought advice from User:Noetica on this. His response on my talk page, collapsed. I'd be pleased to receive feedback. LinkTony(talk)06:36, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
I agree with Noetica: as a compound adjective qualifying the noun vote, it should be hyphenated as it currently is, two-party-preferred. PL290 (talk) 07:50, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
The last sentence in this source says "I made sure I had it this time," said the new Snooker Writers' Association Young Player of the Year. I want to say something like He said "I made sure I had it this time." but don't know whether the full stop should go in or outside the quotes. I've read the relevant part in the MOS but couldn't find the answer. Any help is appreciated. Christopher Connor (talk) 06:58, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
You could just say He said he had "made sure [he] had it this time"., so that instead of a sentence you're quoting a phrase. A. di M. (talk) 09:50, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
If "I made sure I had it this time" was the complete sentence, it could be quoted with a full stop before the quotation marks. But we can't know from the BBC source whether that was the complete sentence. If the full sentence was "I made sure I had it this time, because I didn't want to miss it again", it wouldn't make sense to put a full stop before the quotation mark (though plenty of style guides would proscribeprescribe that you should). Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs)11:55, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
If the final period is in the source, I don't mind either inside or outside. Outside is simply reducting the ambit of the quotation by one character space—to remove a character that almost never has any real meaning in the context. Tony(talk)01:21, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
As "Bishop of Salford" is the title of the office, and therefore a proper noun, I'd say it should be a capital. Unless WP:NCWC's rationale it that he's a bishop, generically, that comes from or is otherwise associated with Salford, and it isn't really naming he office. That needs clarification, I think.oknazevad (talk) 18:41, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
Yes, that's what I would have thought (and I don't believe the generic view really makes sense - it is, or should be, the office that leads to the choice of title). I plan to propose changing these (there's inconsistency at the moment in any case).--Kotniski (talk) 18:58, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
The difference, Tony, is that there is only one Bishop of Salford at any given time, unlike the other examples. So, yes, it is capitalized, as the English language capitalizes proper nouns.oknazevad (talk) 18:31, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
I've made a proposal about this at the relevant guideline - please see WT:NCCL#Bishops.
I see nothing in the MOS prohibiting the quotes outright, though it must be done with care to avoid NPOV problems. Also, that use is explicitly considered in the Cquote template docs: "Pull-quotes work best when used with short quotes, and at the start or end of a section, to help emphasize the content of the section." you might find that template attractive for the use. I like using such quotes when the quote summarizes, or effectively introduces, the section. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 00:16, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
Please pardon me if this is addressed elsewhere and I have just not stumbled upon it yet. I searched WP:MOS and the "Village Pump," but didn't find anything. What is the convention regarding periods and references and periods and quotation marks? For example, should a reference (footnote) come before or after the period at the end of a sentence? Should a closing quotation mark come before or after the period at the end of a sentence? I've been correcting these in a few places, and thought I should check into it before I start doing it a lot. My own recommendation would be that periods belong inside closing quotation marks and references should follow the period ending a sentece. Thank you. Saebvn (talk) 16:52, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Yes. In the American system, periods and commas are placed inside adjacent punctuation marks all the time. The British system places them inside or outside following the same rules that the American system uses for question marks. Wikipedia requires British punctuation on all articles, even those that are supposed to be in American English. I feel that this rule is not best and that each article should use the punctuation system corresponding with its spelling system. Darkfrog24 (talk) 10:00, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
Many thanks to all for the quick help on this. Looks like for references, it's uniformly after the punctuation (WP:PAIC) and for quotation marks, its dependent on context (WP:LQ). Clearly I could have found the answer if I had done some more research into these guidelines; I'm sorry I wasn't able to find these things on my own. Thanks again to all! Saebvn (talk) 13:21, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
I'm trying to figure out the English variant used in chrome plating. This edit is the first to use a British spelling, but its for a link and not actually part of the text, while this edit is the first to use an American spelling that is actually used in the text. Which one defines the variant? Wizard191 (talk) 22:20, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
This case is undefined in WP:RETAIN's logic. Me, right now, I'd take whichever one was higher up in the document since that's what readers will hit first. On a different day, I might go with British spelling since the topic doesn't have anything to do with the U.S. in particular, and British English is the "root" form of the language with U.S. English, like Canadian, Irish, etc., English being divergences from it (even if U.S. English is currently the most linguistically productive dialect). But I'm in the unusual position of being an American who learned to read and write in England and who has also spent a lot of time in Canada and Ireland. "Wholly" American or "entirely" British English speakers may have a different take. Anyway, the real answer is "just pick one, and probably no one will notice or care. If someone does and reverts it because they have a bug in their butt about this version of English vs. that, you have no reason to notice or care either." Heh. On something like this it's not important (by contrast it would be very jarring for the article on Shakespeare to be full of Americanisms, or the one on Mark Twain to be British-inflected). — SMcCandlishTalk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀContribs.10:24, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
Not that it really matters for the discussion, but the characterization of current British English a "root" form and current American English as a variant upon it is not a good description. It's more accurate to say that their two diverging lines from a common source, namely c. 16th Century English. Both have evolved quite a bit since then, and neither can really claim to be the "One, True English Language". oknazevad (talk) 12:16, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
That might be true for the vernacular, but AFAICT in America the standard for formal written language was based on British English until much later than the 16th century. As for the original question, I wouldn't consider text hidden away in a linked target to be part of the article, so I'd consider the first unambiguous revision to be the second one of those you cited. A. di M. (talk) 17:19, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
I am not so certain that British English is the "original" and the others the variant. British English, including spelling, has evolved along with the others. Like the people themselves, they all have the same "ancestors" which is usually no help in solving anything. Student7 (talk) 19:12, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
Agreed. Both current British English and the current forms of other variants came from an earlier version of British English. We could debate about exactly how long ago this happened, but both BrE and AmE have changed since that time. Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:29, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
The lead section (also known as the introduction, lead, or lede) of a Wikipedia article is the section before the table of contents and the first heading. The lead serves both as an introduction to the article and as a summary of its most important aspects.
Apparently there was a discussion in January on the guideline's talk page, when the term "lede" was deprecated by some; it was removed from the guideline's own lead at that time—and has been removed again now. Although I don't typically use that spelling myself, in my experience other editors very commonly do. There was not complete agreement in the earlier discussion, so I've raised it again.It seems to me that the guideline should mention it in its lead as above.
Let me see if I've got this: 1. There's more than one acceptable spelling of the term. 2. The article mentions both. Sounds good to me. Darkfrog24 (talk) 13:44, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
In a technical article with many percent figures given, I have used the percent sign next to the numbers expressed as digits (70%), but if a number value begins a sentence, I have spelled out the number and used the full word 'percent' (Twenty-three percent....) The article has received a GA review where the reviewer insists that the article must be consistent so that it reads "Twenty-three % of fruit are apples." Which is correct? Racepacket (talk) 10:35, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
"Twenty-three %" looks wrong. If you don't want to start a sentence with figures, re-arrange it, but don't mix figures and words. A. di M. (talk) 10:46, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
WP:HYPHEN, subsection 3, point 4, says "A hyphen is not used after a standard -ly adverb ... unless part of a larger compound". From the Category namespace of the Index (WP:QI), I opened every page from 1 to 9 and from A to Z and beyond, searching for the character string "ly-", and I found the following categories where the hyphen should be omitted.
The 22 categories and 41 subcategories total 63 categories. Also, I found the following category whose use of the hyphen might be correct, but I am not certain.
(Incidentally, the two-word expression clean up is a verb phrase, whereas the noun adjunctcleanup is one word.)
Is there a technically efficient means by which the incorrectly placed hyphens can be removed from the category pages and from the article pages within them?
—Wavelength (talk) 20:47, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
The "#" is part of HTML, not Wikipedia; I'm sure that it would be technically possible, but not easy, for Wikipedia to adopt some other style. That said, I agree that it's not very pretty. I just don't have a practical solution. Ozob (talk) 00:15, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
To me this seems like a maintenance nightmare—editors would be expected know both the # notation and the — notation, and every time they needed to link to an article subsection, they'd be expected to make a piped link as you did above. So while it is technically possible to do what you suggest, I still do not believe that it is practical. Somewhat easier for editors is for the Wikipedia software to attempt to automatically convert #s to —s, but this would require a lot of work by the Wikipedia developers; again I do not think this is practical. As I said above, your suggestion is more aesthetic; but I'm still not convinced it's practical. Ozob (talk) 01:13, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
@Ozob: I think you are vastly overestimating the difficulties. Piped links are a trivial matter that most editors would learn on day one of their Wikipedia experience. 81.159.78.237 (talk) 02:03, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
Unfortunately many of them learn it much too well. Pipes have many negatives. It's far too easy for the meaning of text to be different depending on whether or not you follow the link, and this is a very bad thing.
There are a few legitimate reasons for using pipes. The most important one is avoiding disambig pages; there seems to be no way around that one. (Honestly, if that one could be fixed, I would support removing pipes from the syntax.) Then there are lots of borderline defensible little special cases; the current issue could be considered part of that list. But I don't want to make that list too long, or detract from the message: Think twice before using a pipe. --Trovatore (talk) 18:15, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
I agree that we should avoid presenting the X#Y syntax to the reader wherever possible. It can be done quite easily with piped links; the exact method used depends on the context. For example: "...see the Color section of the Accessibility guideline."--Kotniski (talk) 09:00, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
Maybe looks a little worse to us because we are very aware of it. The average user may perceive it as just another blue link.
Having said that, the advantage of using the # is that it does draw editors attention to the "precarious" nature of the link which would otherwise not be apparent. Might get a forked article out of it sometime. Otherwise editors would assume everything just fine. Student7 (talk) 00:58, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
I also support a more aesthetically pleasing method than the use of #. Consider the long-term future of Wikiepdia. In 10 years, we want Wikipedia to be a better reference source than anything out there. It should not only be complete and as accurate as possible, but polished. The use of the # should be addressed at some point. --Airborne84 (talk) 03:08, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
Just to get our language straight, it's called a "fragment identifier," and all it does is indicate that the URL is linking to a subordinate resource within some document, usually this is just a section, but it could mean other things. The number sign makes sense, although it's a little strange in Wikipedia (section number is cut), the phrase "see Ebola#Classification" is read "see Ebola section number one Classification." Most documents I've read use a similar notation, but instead of a number sign it's the section sign "§", as in "While 28 U.S.C. § 1253 authorize..." In my opinion and as Kotniski said, the pipe will also work.
However, I do not believe using a dash or colon will work. It might be "aesthetic" to some, but the colon could indicate a title ("Maximum Ride: The Angel Experiment"), and a dash has a whole host of unrelated meanings. I believe that if we are going to move away from the number sign, it should at least be supported by some manual of style rather than something that we find pleasing that was discussed here. -- CaC 155.99.230.187 (talk) 06:26, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
If we are to replace number signs by anything, then I think the section sign is the right character. But I am still not convinced that there is an easy way of doing so, and I still believe that it is more trouble than it's worth. Perhaps someone here will choose to improve the Wikipedia software so that the use of the section symbol is automatic. I would support that. Ozob (talk) 12:47, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
In my opinion, the number sign is fine. Readers will become familiar with the syntax overtime, making the number sign common place and the section sign unnecessary (of course, there will also be readers who are unfamiliar with both). Anyways a template wouldn't be hard to make, just create this page with the following code:
I've included an error message in above that'll remind the user for a missing article or a section name. {{Sectlink}} sound like an appropriate name, although I believe we should also redirect {{Link section}} there since it's (in my opinion) clearer. As for implementing it into the Wikimedia software, I think that would be best, but that's a proposal for WP:VPT. -- CaC 155.99.231.8 (talk) 22:30, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
I have certainly seen the section symbol (§) used with section numbers, but I do not remember ever having seen it used with section names. Can anyone provide external support for such use, through either a guideline or an example?
It is new to me also. However if we are going to pick a character to denote sections than the section symbol is probably the one to use.
One aspect that has not yet been discussed is that the section symbol is non-ASCII. There may consequently be accessibility issues for users on certain platforms and for users using devices such as screen readers. Ozob (talk) 03:15, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
The article Section sign has information about typing the character. Also, it is included in the default set of characters below the edit window. That set is indicated by "Insert" in the drop-down menu.
I've never seen anything like "§Color" either. To me, it looks just as strange and non-human-friendly as a hash sign. More so, in fact, because I am at least used to the use of # in URLs. 86.186.35.93 (talk) 13:34, 29 September 2010 (UTC).
So the discussion's circular now. I think we should close it with the remarks, "No consensus, but considered: dash, colon, and section sign." so that if it comes up again, whoever will know what we went through and have a running start. 155.99.230.63 (talk) 05:36, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
I disagree with the policy of allowing the Current Era system to be used. Here's why:
"Common Era" is entirely arbitrary-- without a historic basis, why is the year 0CE picked?
History: If we are going to use 0 A.D./C.E. as the date, then why not recognize the reason why this date has been historically used?
Consistency: Although many might not pick up on this sort of thing, it is not encyclopedic to use both systems without a logical guideline for when they are appropriate
Simplicity: It is confusing to use both dating systems
Double Standards: Nobody objects when a new article or section is created which uses one system or the other, yet everyone objects when the system is changed. Why does the first editor to get there get the right to irreversibly decide which system is used based entirely on his personal preference
Bias: The BCE/CE system was specifically designed to censor the historical basis of the years in Christ's birth--why continue the tradition of religious suppression?
As you see above, this means that a few lucky editors get to decide which is used. Given the disproportionate atheist and secularist population on the encyclopedia, this gives a statistical disadvantage to Christians, who make up the majority of the audience. I think only the traditional, established BC/AD dating system should be used.--Axiomtalk00:19, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
At the top of this article by the red triangle, is a search box. If you haven't already done so (you didn't mention it if you had), please enter "BCE" into that search box and click "Search Archives". You will be linked to many, many previous debates on this subject. That doesn't mean you can't bring it up for the hundredth time; it's just that you haven't recognized previous debate. Art LaPella (talk) 01:11, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
I searched and, as you said, found about 800 discussions of this issue. There seemed to be two standard types:
A bunch of "multicultural"ists declared that AD was western-centered and was somehow offensive to them, and spent pages and pages expounding on the topic without convincing quite enough people
or
A handful of people argue that CE/BCE is a sign of anti-christian bias, and are very rapidly booed down by a chorus of opponents.
In neither did anyone address the great randomness that characterizes the policy. Will someone please address why the person who inserts the date has more control than any subsequent editors? And nobody can conclusively explain why using a blatantly anti-Christian, politically correct system can be used without violating or twisting NPOV.Axiomtalk01:44, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
I suppose I could write an equally spirited post to decry the atrocious injustice that allows Wikipedians to use a blatantly anti-non-Christian system that describes any year since 1 CE as the year of some alleged "Lord". I won't do it, but please understand that BCE is widely used in outside sources, and it's never Wikipedians' job to decide that some style system is morally wrong. Ucucha01:53, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
The "randomness" that allows the first editor to control a style, is also used for other Manual of Style issues, such as whether to use British English. It is described at Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Stability of articles, which references a footnote, which in turn references full-blown Wikipedia:arbitration cases on this same CE/BCE issue. The thought is that if CE/BCE isn't one's main issue, then one wants such repetitive arguments settled rather than continually re-arguing them; hence the rule of leaving the existing style alone. Art LaPella (talk) 03:00, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
And as for claims about suppression and bias, a number of books by Christian theologians use the BCE/CE convention. If our policy on this upsets you so much that you are going to make arguments like this, you may be happier somewhere else, eg Conservapedia. Dougweller (talk) 12:47, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
this gives a statistical disadvantage to Christians, who make up the majority of the audience
Can you support that? Do Christians make up the majority of the audience? People speak English all over the world. It's one of the official languages of India, for example. I'm not saying it's not true. However, I'd be interested in seeing the statistics. --Airborne84 (talk) 21:48, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
Self-identification tells a different story. There are several possible reasons for this discrepancy; one is that your assumption is wrong, another that (for whatever reason) Christians tend not to self-identify on Wikipedia. Ucucha23:19, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
I am actually confusing "audience" with "editors" here; perhaps editors are less likely to be Christian than readers. Ucucha23:26, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
I guess all three things are probably true: maybe Christians are slightly less likely than non-Christians to read Wikipedia, but much less likely to edit it, and the ones who do edit it are less likely to categorize themselves as such. A. di M. (talk) 00:04, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
The pie chart linked above says that only 5,973 Wikipedians identify their religion. Special:Statistics says that in the last 30 days, 133,689 Wikipedians were active. We have data on less than one in twenty Wikipedians, and the data we do have is a biased (in the jargon statistical sense, mind you!) and non-random sample. I don't feel confident in drawing any conclusion about Wikipedians as a whole from the available data. We would need a truly random sample to get good statistics out. Ozob (talk) 01:14, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
Nonetheless, our audience is largely Jewish and Christian and our writers are (probably) disproportionately secular. We need to offset this by eliminating the potential for bias, and a good place to start is by recognizing the historical roots of western dates. The CE/BCE system is a laughable politically correct denial of our heritage and is far more indicative of bias that reaffirming that heritage by using the BC/AD system that most of our western english speaking READERS are accustomed to.--Axiomtalk01:37, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
And regardless of that issue, his birth is usually given as 2 to 7 BC anyway. I'm not sure why Axiom emphasized "Jewish", because Jews have their own reason to object to "Anno Domini". Art LaPella (talk) 06:00, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
Yes, C.E. is a little lame considering that we're using the exact same start year for almost the exact same reason, but it has been common practice long enough to be considered standard. It correctly and recognizably communicates the information of what year the writer is talking about, and, within correct English, we should give writers their freedom. The first-major-contributor rule isn't perfect, but establishing these things on a first-come-first-served basis is usually the best of our available options.
The British vs. American/Australian/Canadian English example is a good one. However, we also have a rule, WP:ENGVAR, that says that if people can demonstrate than an article has strong cultural ties to one variant of English (American Civil War, Australian Navy, etc. etc.) then that article can be switched to that variety even if the first major contributor used a different one. If you can come up with a similar logical rationale for C.E. vs. A.D., then please propose it. Darkfrog24 (talk) 10:21, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
For excellent overview of the terms, their origins, and their modern meanings, I commend to editors both:
Segan, S. (May 2006). "Uncertainties and misconcepts about calendars". Publications of the Astronomical Observatory of Belgrade. 80: 233–44. Bibcode:2006POBeo..80..233S.
and
Blumenfeld, Warren J. (2006). "Christian Privilege and the Promotion of "Secular" and Not-So "Secular" Mainline Christianity in Public Schooling and in the Larger Society". Equity & Excellence in Education. 39 (3): 195–210. doi:10.1080/10665680600788024.
In the context of wp, it is a clearly unjust thing to adopt a rule which would require in some fashion of any editors who do not believe their Lord was born 2010 years ago to assert the reverse by calling this "the year of our Lord 2010". An abbreviation to A.D. would not in any way change that injustice to those editors. Effectively then, such a rule would impose the Christian believer's wp:POV while excluding others. In contrast, Diocletian's "Christian Era", or the more modern usage "Common Era" permit balanced discussion even though they still implicitly acknowledge the primacy of Christian representation systems. LeadSongDogcome howl!15:38, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
For better or worse, very very few people actually think anno Domini when writing AD. As someone once aptly said, AD is Christian in roughly the way that "Wednesday" pays homage to Odin. --Trovatore (talk) 17:47, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
(To be clear here, I am not supporting a global change to AD/BC. I am supporting the current system, which does call for using AD/BC in articles in which it is the established form.) --Trovatore (talk) 17:49, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
Incidentally, there is no year zero in the Gregorian calendar, which we use.
There is absolutely no reason to change the current system for one or 2 or 200,000 christian editors to feel better about the dating system. One of the 5 pillars of this project is NPOV, to decide for religious reasons to fix a specific date style system is against this qualification and violates the spirit of the project. If the user wants to edit within a conservative christian system, they should go back to Conservapedia. Heiro18:42, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
The dating system we use was originally intended to refer to the birth of Christ, even if it was many years off. AD recognizes this. CE is simply a PC attempt to replace the historical reference with a meaningless phrase without establishing a new date. CE is as rooted in Christian heritage as AD, but it denies the connection. At least AD makes it clear the dating system we use and why. I am unaware of this "Conservapedia" you have repeatedly referenced in a derogatory way, but I recall that insults are not encouraged. --Axiomtalk23:22, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
This project is not here for you or anyone else to profess their faith, do homage to your diety or show the connection of western or any other culture to a specific diety. As for Conservapedia, I dont believe my comment was disparaging, I merely suggested you might be more comfortable editing there. Heiro23:45, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
I agree with Trovatore that it is unlikely that most editors think "year of the Lord" when writing A.D. Yes, A.D./B.C. does have its origins in Christian tradition, but it is not for Wikipedia to go around righting the real or presumed injustices of the English language. We should allow editors to chose from among these correct forms without bias.
Hahaha, ok, not Conservapedia, CreationWiki, heres you Axiom. The blog he mentions on his user page here at WP, mentions that this is his user acct there, as well as chronicling some of his experiences here at Wikipedia arguing with WP editors about the benefits of creation science. Heiro03:57, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
One of the most insightful comments I ever heard on AD vs. CE came from a Jewish person. He pointed out that CE is patronizing because it tacitly assumes that we all have Christ in common. He preferred the Jewish calendar, but failing that he used AD, because at least its Christianity is obvious instead of hidden. Regardless, Wikipedia follows reliable sources. Reliable sources use both AD and CE, so we do too. Ozob (talk) 02:17, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
There may be a lesson at wp:COMMONALITY. Rather than choose A.D. or C.E., in most cases we would do as well with "...in the year 1066." We would still need either B.C. or B.C.E., but these are significantly less offensive than A.D. LeadSongDogcome howl!01:22, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
OnlineStylebooks.com mentions 19 style guides with guidelines regarding the abbreviations under discussion.
In particular, The Christian Writer’s Manual of Style discusses them on page 10, where the question is not which ones to use, but whether to use full stops (periods)small capitals.
There is no need to change anything or use euphemistic language, our current system allows for either BCE/CE or BC/AD, depending on what the original major contributor of the article fixes it as. No one is forced to use anything. But, one is not allowed to go and change over to the other system on an already established stable article without the consent and discussion of other editors. The user who posted this wants the current system done away with, and everyone else forced to follow HIS religious convictions in using BC/AD. Making policy and guideline decisions based on the religious POV of a subset of editors is antithetical to this project. The system we have now works fine, with the only complaints being from the religious right bemoaning how we are denying god. If you want god, go to church, the rest of us are here to create an encyclopedia. Heiro
I think you are misunderstanding one of the fundamental beliefs of Christianity. God is not just in church; God is everywhere, including Wikipedia. Axiom will not check his faith at the door, as you seem to want him to, because he will not be Christian sometimes and non-Christian other times. He will be a Christian always because God is there always. In America, where his blog says he lives, he is entitled to do that: He is guaranteed not just freedom of worship but freedom of religion, and his religion pervades his life. Mock it if you will, but his behavior reflects a consistent philosophical viewpoint, much more consistent than the sometime-secularism you are suggesting. Asking him to stop because his views are grounded in religion is asking him to be a hypocrite here and deny himself. It is tantamount to holding an atheist POV and demanding that he hold one too, and that is just as antithetical to Wikipedia's principles as a Christian POV.
Wikipedia policy avoids religious and anti-religious POVs entirely by requiring citations to reliable sources. That is what we need to base this discussion on, not on a discussion of the perceived merits of other editors' religions. (That goes for you too, Axiom.) I suggest we stop the present discussion and try again. Neutrally, this time. Ozob (talk) 11:17, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
I'm not misunderstanding anything, the OP seeks to impose his philosophical viewpoint on the rest of the project. That is POV to the extreme. If he feels hypocritical editing here because he must work within the rules of our community, thats his problem, not ours. In the US, he certainly does have freedom to practice his religion, but Wikipedia isnt the U.S., it isnt a christian institution, isnt a forum for promoting ones beliefs and it is not a battleground for ideological debate. I am not suggesting or advocating he change to an atheistic belief system, I'm advocating the current policy not be changed to reflect his religious whims. If the OP feels better in a system such as they have at CreationWiki[10] maybe they should spend more time there than here. Heiro14:33, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
Then by all means, let's ignore the personal views of the OP and look instead at his or her proposal on its own merits: Should Wikipedia either ban the C.E. system or adopt some unspecified measure other than first significant contributor for determining whether any given article should use C.E. or A.D.? For my part, I do not think so. Allowing both B.C. and B.C.E. on a first-come-first-served basis treats proponents of both systems with roughly equal respect without giving our readers anything awkward or confusing. Darkfrog24 (talk) 18:03, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
Recommend close. This has been discussed ad nauseum. There seems to be a clear consensus. Axiom, if you would like to start an RfC and get a formal vote, you can certainly do so. --Airborne84 (talk) 15:17, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
I wish to remind editors of the statement above by Dougweller, that "a number of books by Christian theologians use the BCE/CE convention." With that statement in mind, I ask Axiom to specify (preferably with Bible references) which "Christian" laws or principles are violated by the use of that convention.
Wavelength, no dating system existed at the time, so your challenge is not truly relevent. However, I think it's covered pretty well by the very first commandment. I am also displeased with the speed with which Heiro has researched me and discovered my blog, my online activity, and Lord knows what else. But the point is that, as said above, CE is a halfhearted nod to the seculars that has no place in an encyclopedia. Just because secular scholars use it thoughtlessly and Christian scholars use it due to pressure from their peers and the liberal academic elite. CE doesn't even make sense! If we must deny the basis of our dates, at least deny it all-out as set the date 1 CE back to, say, the origin of Homo sapiens sapiens or something.--Axiomtalk02:59, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
If you don't want other Wikipedians reading your blog, remove its link from your user page. From your blog is a link to your CreationWiki user page. It took me all of about 2 minutes to find both. As for which system to use on Wikipedia, there is no right answer, but to forestall protracted edit wars, the first system in use in an article is assumed to have consensus to remain until challenged and discussed. Of course with some topics, there will be a strong, logical argument to use one or the other regardless of the first used. Such as it is with variations of English, so it is with BC/AD vs. BCE/CE. I do not support any policy shift to advocate for either option to the exclusion of the other. Imzadi1979→06:50, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
Agreed. Axiom, putting a link to your blog et al on your user page can be construed as an invitation to go and read it. Heiro did nothing wrong. It's not like anyone hacked into private posts. Darkfrog24 (talk) 12:11, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
The speed at which I found your other activities, lol? I followed a prominently placed link on your user page here at WP and from there another prominently placed link on that page. As for the very first commandment, it is irrelevant, seeing as how it isn't one of the Wikipedia:Five pillars, part of the WP:MOS or listed as a criteria for editing anywhere else on Wikipedia. I respect your right to believe what you want but I do not accept it as a basis for setting editing policies at this site. The system we have now for BCE/BC works just fine and does not need to be changed. Heiro22:38, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
To be fair to Axiom, commandments are irrelevant to many of us, but not to Wavelength, who asked Axiom for "Bible references". (Note the two apparently represent well-known competing "isms" that argue with each other more than they argue with unbelievers, so we might have to keep them apart). Art LaPella (talk) 02:00, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
Whoa, easy there. Most of the MoS is about minute differences. We've seen in previous discussions that Axiom's not the only one who cares about this. Keeping both B.C. and B.C.E. is what's best for Wikipedia; let's make it about that. Darkfrog24 (talk) 13:07, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
Axiom is not alone. Having said that, editors normally supporting AD/BC must be conscientious about other editors reverting BCE/CE for no good reason in an atticle where that style prevailed. There is a template for style of English. Should there be one for dating style? While this seems uncecessary on heavily edited articles where reversion is nearly instantaneous, such is not the case on most articles. Student7 (talk) 01:36, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
Page formatting is creating a greenified misunderstanding
Agreed. If it's a big, systemic problem, then it would be worth changing the MoS. If it's just one user, then a quick "Hi there," ought to do it. Darkfrog24 (talk) 12:59, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
Unless they are transplanting from a heart to a lung, I think it's already at the correct name. The hyphen indicates a compound noun-as-adjective here. oknazevad (talk) 20:45, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
I understand that the medical profession has a long tradition of using compounds such as heart-lung as if they were indivisible. Assuming my understanding is correct, this is why the compound is hyphenated and not en dashed. Ozob (talk) 21:34, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
What is the format supposed to be? I just came across my first Kindle-reference (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Washington#cite_note-25) and it is puzzling me. I can't check the reference at all, can't go to the library and check a physical bound-book since the information is presented only in the Kindle format...I don't know where the information exists in the physical edition. Is there a WP:MOS that addresses the citation form that e-books (Amazon's Kindle, Barnes & Noble's Nook, Apple's IPad) are supposed to take? And should e-book citations perhaps also contain their bound-book equivalents? Shearonink (talk) 12:20, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
I'm countermanding User:MC10's improper edit. U.S. is still the preferred usage in AP style and in most professional and academic writing. Also, most lawyers and judges use U.S. --Coolcaesar (talk) 06:24, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
MC10's edit is closer to actual usage by Americans, let alone others. The Chicago Manual of Style, in a major change, has announced in its new 16th edition that the dots are not to be used (same as "USA" has been for decades), a complete reversion of its ruling until now that the dots must be used in the two-letter abbreviation. It is only a matter of time before this MoS moves with the times. However, it should be made clear that institutional titles such as "U.S. Postal Service" (which abbreviates itself to "USPS" as though to point up that the first is transitional) should be rendered with the dots if they still publicly insist on them. PS, Coolcaesar, that most US liars and judges use "U.S." is predictable, since the major legal/goverment organisations have not yet updated. Tony(talk)06:35, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
As fond as I am of CMoS, the Wikipedia MoS should not attempt to predict where English might be in five or ten years. The advantage of a non-print MoS is that we can change it to reflect the present very quickly. If the other guides follow Chicago, we can just change the MoS then. In the meantime, stating that most American style guides say X but that CMoS now says Y is actually a pretty good way to go—credit to Tony. Darkfrog24 (talk) 12:51, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
Code style
I would like to initiate a discussion on the style of the wikicode. For example I would like to get opinions and possibly form a consensus on subjects like "Should infoboxes have one parameters per line or not?", "Should certain templates to appear with capital first letter in wikicode or not?" Is this the right place to initiate this discussion? Any better place to do that? Thanks, Magioladitis (talk) 22:27, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
These are not really MoS issues. Vertical or horizontal format in infoboxes or other templates has no effect on the output, nor does initial capitalization of templates. I really do not see that these are a problem. ---— Gadget850 (Ed)talk06:50, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
Yup, they don't affect the output, but if bots start them back and forth, the affect the diffs that editors see; and whether the use matches the examples on the particular template page. Is there a better forum that this could be raised at? —Sladen (talk) 01:02, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
The current vagueness of the dialect statement leaves an opening for a dialect nut to jump into every new article with an "organize/organise", "honor/honour", "lift/elevator", etc. in order to jump the claim to dialect. This makes sense when the original author did not think to jump the claim first. The original authorship should count for something. "Waiting" for somebody to "jump the claim" does not make good sense or good editing IMO. And causes problems. I have been using original author for labeling for all articles when I saw a change. This has worked well until recently when someone questioned it based on the vagueness of the MOS policy statement. The policy should be clarified. An originator should not have to force "honour" into an article in order to "claim" it for his dialect. Student7 (talk) 14:03, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
BTW, the dialects don't always become crystal clear once they are non-American, Do we have to go back to the first use of "honour" and decide whether that editor was from New Zealand or South Africa or what? Student7 (talk) 14:08, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
I presume that this is due to Order of St. Gregory the Great. The problem there is that the first person to use honor used both forms. This is a very special case and changing rules to cover special cases is usually a bad idea. BTW organize and organise are British spellings.Dejvid (talk) 15:12, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
An interesting set of problems, Student7. Basically, you're saying, "If the first major contributor doesn't happen to use any dialect indicators, then why should the next contributor, who may be quite minor, be the one the article must follow?" In general, I like the FMC rule because at least in theory anyone from any background can be an FMC, but I'll admit it's not perfect. What do you propose? Darkfrog24 (talk) 16:02, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
Isn't it currently worded that a consensus view discussed on the talk page of an article would be able to work out such a situation? Heiro16:59, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
"FMC" - I like that! :)
I'm not sure what "working it out" would entail. I am from the US. I come into an article that was formerly edited by English speakers from all over. I insert some Americanism or local spelling. Now what? Do I get "first dibs?" The problem is this has usually been ignored for a long time until someone notices. At some distant time, someone does notice and reverts it! Now I get in a snit saying "It's been that way 'forever'!" :) I was hoping to have some simple rule to avoid discussion, actually. I had thought it was "original editor" ("FMC"! :) and had gone back and inserted "Australian English" and "British English" on many articles, along with (lately) "American English" when someone stopped me! My whole idea is to avoid problems/discussion. I don't care what is used. Flip a coin! :) Just so long as everyone understands when they arrive at the article that their spelling may get changed. Student7 (talk) 15:44, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
Fine. I just gave you an example of a change above with my American edits precipitating a reversion, not in content, but in spelling. What do you answer to my (superficially accurate) claim that the article has "been that way 'forever'"? It was "forever" as far as I was concerned. Student7 (talk) 16:46, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
Look. The reason that we have policy pages is to avoid prolonged discussion at every point and to simplify things. If things are more complicated as a result, time is chewed up with discussion, not production. We don't discuss the user of periods at the end of sentences. We have standards covering punctuation. We have other standards and policies as well. What I am asking and you either can't answer and are spoofing me, is why do you want to produce a discussion instead of coming up with an easy solution to a dialect problem? And what is that solution? Discussion at each turn is counterproductive (anti-productive?). That is why I have tried for some sane, easily understandable guide. I also mentioned the one I chose which has worked quite well over the months. No one seems to have a better answer than FMC. When I asked you to "discuss", you make a joke. It isn't funny when you are confronted with it. That is the problem. There is no "discussion" solution. There is nothing to discuss! And that is the problem! Student7 (talk) 03:05, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
I know the problem well. Due to the nature of wikis, many articles suffer from a problem of what dialect it's in, with both British and American spellings abound. For me, the thing that matters most is consistency within any given article. We have WP:TIES, which governs article dialects for subjects of some anglophone countries, we also have WP:RETAIN. I am also developing a script which is aimed at those editors needing to align the most major spelling differences (currently only towards British English spelling). The FMC rule is the best we got. However, applying it has it's own difficulties, as you have discovered. The most sensible approach to everyday editing would be not to worry too much about spellings, but follow with the dominant spelling/style if there is one. Notwithstanding, this may still be challenged by someone who finds a diff showing which dialect was first used. More often than not, except in articles about British/Br Commonwealth or US subjects, there won't be much fuss over spelling variants. Ohconfucius¡digame!03:56, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
Migrate Chronological items sections to MOSNUM
The talk page of the Manual of Style is one of the busiest talk pages in Wikipedia. In an effort to reduce the amount of traffic on that page, to shorten the Manual of Style article, and to avoid duplication of material I propose replacing the section “Chronological items” with the following text:
Chronological items relate to any item that is related to time. This includes but is not restricted to:
The use language such as "soon", "recently", "as of 2010" and so on
Representation of calendar date – should one write "25 December", "December 25", "12/25" or "25/12”?
Representation of the year – is it permissible to ignore the century part of the year?
Should one use BC or BCE and when should one use CE or AD?
Should one use the 12 or 24 hour clock?
How does one identify a particular century?
Makes sense to me, the above BCE/BC discussion was actually started there by the OP, before he suddenly started another here 2 or 3 hrs later, I'm assuming because the debate there wasnt going his way. Heiro15:36, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
Sure, it would help relieve my pet peeve about MoS contradictions. But I hope somebody would notice how that would change what the Manual actually says, in addition to concerns above about "traffic" etc. For instance, MOS:#Chronological items says to use "19th century" but not Roman numerals (XIX century). The corresponding MOSNUM paragraph at WP:CENTURY doesn't even bring up that issue. And WP:ORDINAL says 19th or nineteenth, and doesn't mention Roman numerals with a century. Remember, no matter how many archived talk pages we fill with arguing, it doesn't matter at all unless the Manual says what we want it to say. Art LaPella (talk) 19:35, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
As I don't follow these pages as closely as I would like, I can't be sure, but I rather think that there was an exercise to make MoS cover more of the sub-guides material a few months back. RichFarmbrough, 01:39, 7 October 2010 (UTC).
To cover more, or else less as in this proposal. Anyway, our archives are thick with proposals that never happened. When I get some time, I might resolve the contradictions by flipping a coin. The worst that could happen is that I'd get more time for my business. Art LaPella (talk) 04:20, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
I think they should be harmonised, section by section, before anything is lopped off either. I proposed the opposite last year: that MOSNUM become more specialised and drop the the stuff that is here. Tony(talk)04:23, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
As a prelude to this migration, we should of course ensure that both articles are harmonised. I did this a few months ago with the Units of Measure section. You will notice that my proposed text in WP:MOS consists of typical questions to answers that are already in WP:MOSNUM. Martinvl (talk) 10:33, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
I do not think we should remove this content from the Manual of Style. This page might be big, but it's also very well organized. The purpose of the MoS is to serve as a reference for Wikipedia editors, and information is a lot easier to find on one big page than on many little pages. Reducing traffic to this discussion page must take a stretch-limo back seat to MoS functionality. Darkfrog24 (talk) 13:01, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
The dilemma I see is that on the one hand, it is easier to use the MOS if it contains the most common chronological items. To keep MOSNUM useful, it must repeat the common items from MOS as well as cover the less common items. (You wouldn't expect the Merriam-Webster Unabridged Dictionary to leave out the words that are included in the Merriam-Webster Collegiate Dictionary, would you?) But by having the material in both places, there is a serious risk of an edit being made to only one of the copies. Jc3s5h (talk) 16:11, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
Yes, that is a problem. My own preference would be that, once an edit is made to one of the subpages, the person responsible for that edit would come here and edit the MoS using the description "Implementing change discussed at (link to discussion)" and vice versa but that's not something we yet have any strong tradition of. Darkfrog24 (talk) 16:16, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
The problem is the repetition of specific detail in both places (I'm speaking generally about MoS subpages, not just MOSNUM). IMO if the TOC approach suggested before isn't popular, our ideal would be to model the whole thing on the MoS's own guideline for long articles, WP:Summary style: detail in the subpages, and a summary of that detail in the master page. That guideline includes a couple of sentences about keeping the two in sync. PL290 (talk) 17:52, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
I think it would help both people using the MoS, and those editing it, if there were a way to clearly show what parts of the subpage are duplicated or summarized on the main page. In the code, that could be done with a short, standardized comment. I see there's a general comment at the top of the page, but somehow bracketing the sections that are particularly in need of synchronization might be helpful. I'm not sure what would be the best way to make the repetition visually apparent to users without becoming distracting or affecting usability. Some cue, though, would help; sometimes I feel like I miss things because I don't notice where the subpage expands on the main page's summary. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 13:40, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
New reorg proposal
The question of the relationship of this main MoS page with its subpages won't go away. In the abstract I favour putting all detail on subpages, but I recognize there are also other viable possibilities. I also recognize—if summary style were to be attempted—the challenge of producing a meaningful summary for this kind of document. Fundamentally, a driving principle for me is that if we could agree a structure achieving it, it would be best if any given detail was only stated in one place—either here, or on a subpage. My proposal now is that we identify "everyday" subpages (such as MOS:NUM and MOS:CAPS), and merge those into the main MoS, while retaining "less common" subpages (such as MOS:DAB) as they are. That would eliminate the duplication, and give a coherent guide in one place for everyday use, without necessitating a huge page with absolutely all the subpage content on it. PL290 (talk)
Inclusion of country subdivisions in articles
I have a question regarding what information should be included on articles, especially with city lists, mainly whether to include country subdivisions as well as city and country.
A good example of the concerns I have can be seen at List of twin towns and sister cities in Germany where US entries include state yet no other country subdivisions have been added. Does listing the subdivision depend on the country, and if so is there any policy regarding this? Surely any federal republic should have relevant subdivisions listed?
Also entries for UK/England intermittently use either as the country, is there a specific policy that states whether UK or constituent country should be used? Zarcadia (talk) 13:19, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
Well, 1. in the U.S. there are lots of cities that share names with cities in other states. There's a Newark, New Jersey and a Newark, Delaware, thirteen more Newarks in other states and about sixteen cities named "Paris," all in different states (except for the two in Wisconsin). 2. The inclusion of U.S. state names seems a lot more significant to me, only rarely having heard of state/province names from other countries. I'd put in "Ontario" vs. "Saskatchewan," for example, but not the name of a province in Germany. However since I am an American myself, that might just be because I'm more familiar with them. If people throughout the English-speaking world are familiar with U.S. states to the point where it would be a useful bit of information for them, then yes they should be included. Otherwise, it would make sense to put them on par with state and province names in other countries, making exceptions for point #1. Darkfrog24 (talk) 13:48, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
In the context of Germany it is very unusual to include our federal states. Sometimes web forms created and maintained by Americans force me to enter my state, but that's just plain silliness. The state is not part of the address, and it has only little relevance for anything. Even for disambiguation of city names we prefer almost everything else to using a state name. In most cases we use rivers, as in Frankfurt am Main and Frankfurt an der Oder. Other options include nearby mountains or the status of a town or city as a bath, or as a former member of the Hanse. Sometimes we use historical landscape names that have almost fallen out of use (as in Freiburg im Breisgau). But the names of German states are simply too transient for that. Most of the states we have now were created or very substantially altered after WW2. HansAdler14:06, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
There is related information in the following places.
Guidance and suggestions are great, but I don't think it's a good idea to make this the subject of a general Manual of Style (or even WP:WikiProject Cities) rule. It's really a hard, difficult slog by the editors of individual articles, because different cities and countries vary so much. I was born in London, England, centuries after the Union with Scotland, but I still can't accept or recognise my city of birth being called London, U.K.; nor, for that matter do I recognise such a place as London, Canada (what?): it's London, Ontario. However, this has been batted back and forth on the Sister City (twinning) section of New York City for a couple of years now, with previously-uninvolved editors with strong passions for Scottish nationalism or UK unionism undoing various efforts at compromise. The best one I see is treating England as a subdivision of the UK (London, England, United Kingdom), even though seven of New York's sister cities are so dominant that the surrounding region bears the same name, leading monotonously to Tokyo, Tokyo prefecture; Cairo, Cairo governorate; Beijing, Beijing region, etc. (I'm going from memory). —— Shakescene (talk) 17:09, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
In a list of twinned towns, the commonsense solution would seem to be disambiguate where necessary, don't if not: I would imagine national subdivision would be a frequently useful disambiguator. Kevin McE (talk) 18:37, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
I agree that this doesn't need to be a MoS rule. That said, it seems to me that a reasonable rule-of-thumb would be: Would you need to include the subdivision in an address in order to send physical mail to someone who lives there and have a reasonable chance of it getting there? Offhand, I can't think of a case where this wouldn't reasonably disambiguate the address. It certainly works well for the US; I live in New York, and the subdivisions here can include hamlet/village, town, county, and state; in practice, only town and state are used to identify places (with hamlet or village replacing town if you're being really specific). // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 13:49, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
Do we really want three kinds of disjunctive en dash?
I can't say I've seen this use of en dashes elsewhere. It's not listed in Chicago 16th Ed., although that work does recommend their use in certain combinations of compound adjectives, which might better replace this particular Wikipedia rule. I don't have it at hand right now, but i'll try to post more about this later, when I can. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 11:55, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
At least in my field, an en dash in things like "Michaelson–Morley experiment" is pretty much standard in the literature (at least that which uses fonts for different glyphs for the en dash and the hyphen, which anyway comprises most of the professional peer-reviewed literature). A. di M. (talk) 17:38, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
Okay, finally had a chance to dig out Chicago. While it obviously isn't binding on Wikipedia, I would expect it would carry significant weight in informing our decision, yes? They like en dashes as follows: replacing the word to (6.78); indicating an unfinished number range (6.79); "in place of a hyphen in a compound adjective when one of its elements consists of an open compound or when both elements consist of hyphenated compounds", giving the examples the post–World War II years and a quasi-public–quasi-judicial body (6.80); and "in certain scientific disciplines," (6.81) which I believe covers A. di M.'s case. For that last one, Chicago implies that if a style manual more specific to the discipline encourages the en dash, they won't object. That section also notes that some universities use the en dash to link the campus location to the name of the university: the University of Wisconsin–Madison.
What Chicagodoesn't support is the use of the en dash to replace and. They don't really say one way or the other about using a hyphen in, e.g., heart-lung machine, but they do note that a slash is sometimes used to signify and while conveying a sense of alternatives: an insertion/deletion mutation (6.104). Seems to me like heart/lung machine might be better supported than heart-lung machine if we were going by Chicago.
In any case, based on my own experience and on Chicago, I'd wholeheartedly support dropping "To stand for and between independent elements" from our style guide, or at the very least qualifying it to indicate it's used only in certain scientific contexts. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 01:52, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
Given the above responses, I propose we qualify "To stand for and between independent elements" with "where both elements are proper nouns", substituting "Michaelson–Morley experiment" as the example. Further, I particularly like Chicago's "in place of a hyphen in a compound adjective when one of its elements consists of an open compound or when both elements consist of hyphenated compounds", giving the examples the post–World War II years and a quasi-public–quasi-judicial body (6.80), and so, despite my originally presenting this as "do we really need 3", I also propose we adopt that one. PL290 (talk) 20:28, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
Not "where both elements are proper nouns" but maybe "in certain scientific disciplines", as I'm pretty sure the last time I saw "transistor–transistor logic" on a printed book it was spelt with a dash, too. A. di M. (talk) 02:39, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
I wonder why it's not done. The manual of style recommends against using two hyphens for a dash yet I see double hyphens all around in articles and the default signature also uses them. I think it's unavoidable since the correct dash characters are not easily accessible on many keyboard layouts. Couldn't the rendering system just turn double hyphens into dashes when it formats the pages for viewing? I know many web publishing systems do this, for example using SmartyPants. --CyHawk (talk) 10:20, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
If it's unavailable directly on your keyboard (I guess it's a partial Windows keyboard), you can (1) click on the en-dash button just under the edit window; (2) use the "Insert" -> "Symbol" function (bit of a bore); or (3) program a Macro shortcut on your machine. If there's already a dash in the article, you can copy and paste. OR you could install GregU's superb dash script which has almost never returned a false positive: just create a vector page (your userpage address plus /vector.js), and type into it importScript("User:GregU/dashes.js");
Many articles need to have the dash script run on them.
After all that, I must say that if there were no technical issues, doing what LaTeX does, turning double hyphens into en dashes, would be a great idea! Feel like asking at the Village Pump (technical)? A Bugzilla request would follow, but only if you can demonstrate support for it. Tony(talk)10:35, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
I think the problem would come when trying to add text that specifically needs to be a run of two or more hyphens. Computer code examples come to mind. It can be done, but not indiscriminately. User education might work better; I think the vast majority of people have no idea what an 'em dash is, much less how to type one.
Mac users have it easy: hold Option and press the hyphen key for an en dash; hold Shift and Option and press the hyphen key for an em dash. The occasional crazy person (like myself, on occasion) using an iPad to edit Wikipedia can do the same with the Apple Bluetooth keyboard. There's no en dash on the iPad's soft keyboard, but you can get an em dash by pressing and holding the hyphen "key"; a popup menu will appear with the em dash as an option. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 11:50, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
Windows Vista (and as I remember 98SecondEdition) allows you to enter ASCII characters like en-dash and em-dash with Alt+0150 and Alt+0151 (i.e. holding down the Alt key while typing out those digits on the number pad), which is how I usually insert them. Unfortunately, I think the displayed result depends on the "Encoding" (UTF-8, Windows-1252, etc.) that the reader's browser is using; since Yahoo! (Mail, Groups, News) is inconsistent, I'm always seeing strange characters in place of secondary punctuation such as dashes, hyphens and curly quotation marks. So sometimes outside Wikipedia, I just used double hyphens (--), which on my low-resolution screen just displayed as an en-dash. —— Shakescene (talk) 17:02, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
I think it would be a good idea. It'd solves the dilemma between using a literal en dash (indistinguishable from a hyphen in many monospaced fonts) and the entity (which makes the source text harder to read). Computer code using the decrement operator would typically already be within <code> or <src> tags, and for any other use of the double hyphen <nowiki> could be used. A. di M. (talk) 17:44, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
Ah, but historically, two dashes have been used to represent an em dash, not an en dash, so that would lead to considerable confusion. Didn't catch that distinction this morning. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 18:07, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
If you want the change to be automatic, remember that many URLs include double hyphens, and changing them will cause a dead link, not just a style issue that only we will notice. Art LaPella (talk) 19:17, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
AWB is fairly smart at this. An automatic blanket change would break Femto Bot. I do think -- has more uses than one might expect - mathematical 7--2=9, academic "awarded A--" as a sig set off in emails, usenet posts, and forums, ASCII art, emoticons .. well of course there is a dab page now I look --. RichFarmbrough, 01:35, 7 October 2010 (UTC).
The first should be 7 − −2 = 9 (possibly with parentheses around the −2), A-- I guess should be A−−, and for the other things you mention <nowiki> could be used. A. di M. (talk) 10:43, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
So it occurred to me, do we have any help pages to assist people in manually entering symbols like en and em dashes that aren't obvious keys on typical keyboards? There's Help:Special characters, but that's more about the technical backend and how it affects rendering of various character sets rather than being a practical guide for editors. Here's what I'm envisioning: a table listing on each row a typographic character, a link to the section(s) of the MoS that encourage or mandate the use of that character, and the keystrokes needed to enter it on Windows, Mac OS, and X Windows (or, at least, common Linux invocations thereof). Possibly some parenthetical or sub-page help for users of less common operating systems, like Apple's iOS (iPhone/iPod touch/iPad). Before I put work into this, is there agreement that this would be useful? If so, where should it sit, and what should we call it? // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 13:30, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
I imagine such a page would obviously include a "Further reading" section including The Mac Is Not a Typewriter and the Windows edition of the same... // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 13:30, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
Sounds good if our expectations aren't too high. Remember, many editors can't/won't copy and paste an existing dash, or find the dashes at the bottom of the edit page, so few of them would find Help:Dashes. Art LaPella (talk) 16:51, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
User:Noetica's opinion on this
He has emailed a comment to me:
"Since MOS supports both em dash and spaced en dash for the sentence-level dash, automated substitution would not work. We have had trouble already from bots enforcing em dash or even curly quotes, haven't we? More trouble than they're worth. The point about other uses of "--" is relevant also. "A--" is rare enough; but minus signs are a worry. They ought not to be represented by hyphens, but in practice they often are. A converting bot would do more harm than good when it encounters an aberrant "2--3=5"."
I thought I remember reading somewhere that headers (section titles) should not have references attached to them. For example, see this diff: [11]. Before the change, the section had a short sentence that really had no information content, but existed to provide a place to attach the reference. After the change, the editor removed the sentence and added the reference directly to the section title. Personally, I prefer the former, as references in section titles seem confusing to me, but I'm wondering if the guidelines comment either way. Thanks, Qwyrxian (talk) 01:08, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
I didn't find a guideline against references in section headers, but I don't remember seeing any references in headers either. You might be remembering WP:HEAD: "headings should not normally contain links". Art LaPella (talk) 04:35, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
I've seen refs in section headers a couple of times, and I just move them to more reasonable places (if I can be bothered to). This is even worse than "normal" links, I think... A. di M. (talk) 11:21, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
For MOS purposes, it's an accessibility problem like any other kind of link in section headings, which, as Art points out, is already covered. If necessary that section could be updated to include the phrase "including reference citations", but putting them in headings is so uncommon, that's probably a case of WP:BEANS. — SMcCandlishTalk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀContribs.17:07, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
I'm sure you are right and the lead could get cluttered, but I hate to see unsupported claims in the lead and be forced to read the body (sometimes short, sometimes not) to find out whether it has merit, "Best school in the state", "Richest city in Lower California", "America's favorite author" (in 1967, as it turns out), etc. And sometimes, like all "facts", these turn out wrong! Easier when they are footnoted IMO. Why are we worried about "footnoting as a readability issue" in the lead and not in the rest of the article?Student7 (talk) 12:33, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
Um, this conversation has nothing to do with lead sections. Its about section headings, like the one at the beginning of this section.oknazevad (talk) 17:50, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
Franchise names
We need to say something specific about the names of media franchises, from multi-medium properties like "Star Trek" down to simple novel trilogies like "His Dark Materials". Current practice is all over the map, with many franchises being italicized as if they were novel/movie/TV show titles, others double-quoted, some single-quoted, and many not marked up at all. I would advocate double-quotation, as used in my opening sentence. Using italics for both a franchise and works within the franchise is a recipe for ambiguity, confusion and even outright misinformation (e.g. "Yoda, the fictional Star Wars character..."). — SMcCandlishTalk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀContribs.16:52, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
CMoS isn't terribly helpful on this one. They want the titles of book series to be capitalized but not italicized (8.174); however, the titles of movies and television series are italicized (8.185). I suspect the rule would have to be: If using the series name in reference to a particular medium, use the style guideline for that medium; otherwise, use the style that's appropriate for the medium where the series originated. In other words:
The Star Wars movies; a Star Wars action figure but the Star Wars novels
The Harry Potter novels; a Harry Potter limited-edition broomstick but the Harry Potter films
N.B., titles of TV series are italicized alongside film titles as they are considered long-form works, like novels and music albums. Conversely, individual episodes are in quotes as a chapter of the full work, like individual chapter, song or poem titles. As for using Star Wars and Yoda, that's fuzzy, as technically there's no film called Star Wars, that's the name of the whole series. (A New Hope, call it you must. Which is of course the only one of the series where Yoda doesn't appear. Yes, I am a geek. Why do you ask?)oknazevad (talk) 22:18, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
I think there are a lot of people who remember going to a theater in 1977 to see a movie titled Star Wars. As I recall, it had a lot of matte lines, and Han shot first. Sorry, but you've got an uphill fight convincing me that A New Hope isn't just another facet of Lucas's penchant for revisionism; technically, there is a film named Star Wars, it's just that its creator prefers the retronymEpisode IV: A New Hope. Before this discussion goes any further, can we agree that this is a semantic technicality that even <insert name of preferred omniscient and omnipotent deity here> would give up on before issuing a definitive ruling? ;) // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 01:40, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
I'm firmly of the opinion that it's Lucas's film to do with as he wishes. And if he wanted to rename it, then it's been renamed. I would argue the same for any artist. Just because he's made gobs of money, and that may have an influence on his decisions, doesn't mean we respect Lucas's wishes for his work any less. Besides, the title switch dates from 1981 (shortly after Empire, reflecting its "Episode V"), and so is not a recent change, and our article on it is at Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope.oknazevad (talk) 21:11, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
I had to read "the title switch dates back to 1979 or 80" three or four times to parse it correctly. Weird, I'm usually quite good at figuring garden path sentences out, and in retrospect this one doesn't seem particularly hard. A. di M. (talk) 00:18, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
If we use a slash, and I didn't say we should, WP:SLASH says: "A spaced slash may be used ... to separate items that include at least one internal space (the NY 31 east / NY 370 exit), where for some reason use of a slash is unavoidable". That is, the space depends on whether there are multiple words in the titles. Art LaPella (talk) 21:53, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I read that. It doesn't explicitly say that an unspaced slash should be used to seperate items that include no spaces, though perhaps this is meant to be implicit? What alternative would you suggest to using a slash? PC78 (talk) 22:08, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
Legalistically, I consider it implicit because the qualification "that include at least one internal space" would be unnecessary, unless an unspaced slash is used to separate items without spaces. I leave it to others to suggest an alternative if necessary. I consider my place to be automating rules made by others, which accounts for my ability to remember Manual of Style details. Art LaPella (talk) 22:31, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
User:Noetica has emailed me a very handy compilation of the most relevant changes to the 16th edition of the CMOS. It's eight pages long, a pdf file, extracted from CMOS's online site. It's very well laid out. He's happy to have this made available to MoS editors, but I'm unsure how to do this; I can certainly email it privately to anyone who wishes to give me their address via my email facility. Tony(talk)06:49, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
Would
A grammar question ... I think we're all agreed that this is okay: "If Smith hadn't injured his leg, Jones wouldn't have been in the starting lineup." AP approves and calls that would have the "past conditional". I see plenty of good writers using "would" in the following sense, but never thought to look it up before. Someone just challenged me on it at our A-class review, I guess because it sounds old-fashioned to them, so I looked it up ... and I can't find a trace of this verb tense in AP or Chicago. For example: "The ship left port on 1 August. It would be 3 years before the crew would see saw home again. They arrived a month later in ..." My sense has always been that the advantage of the "would" is that it doesn't break the time sequence of the main narrative; you know that's a month after 1 August, whereas it's more likely to be three years and a month if you use the past tense: "The ship left port on 1 August. It was three years before the crew saw home again. They arrived a month later in ..." Thoughts? Is this use of "would" odd to anyone, or obsolescent? - Dank (push to talk) 23:19, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
The use of would that you are describing is the future-in-the-past. I don't think there's anything odd about it. It may not be used so much in conversation, but in writing it looks fine. --Trovatore (talk) 23:36, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. Wait ... which sounds better, "It would be 3 years before the crew saw home again" or "It would be 3 years before the crew would see home again"? - Dank (push to talk) 23:43, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Agreed and struck. Thanks for the name, I've found it in some grammar guides ... apparently it's the same tense as "I knew Julie would make supper." - Dank (push to talk) 23:54, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Assuming you mean rarely within an article, I agree: it gets a bit corny if it pops up every other sentence. But beyond that, I wouldn't discourage its use: as Dank says, it's valuable in preserving the time sequence in a chronological narrative. PL290 (talk) 18:11, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
Worse than corny, this is what amateur genealogy authors use constantly in order to mention the "hero" of their work, over and over. I like the first example which seems legitimate. "Smith in lineup, etc." The second "The ship left port on 1 August. It was three years before the crew saw home again. They arrived a month later in.." Why not "The ship left port... It arrived (year+3)." This is just simple English. WP:MOS stuff. KISS. Exaggerating the length of time it was away assume the audience is stupid (as did my amateur author example). It is also pov in this case because it assumes that 3 years is "too much" time. Please don't copy these 19th century folks! I suspect bad style anyway. Student7 (talk) 01:57, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
The statement sort of "sets the scene" for the reader. Great prose. Not good encyclopedia documentation. Kind of like "It was a dark and dismal night..." :) Student7 (talk) 02:04, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
OK, first of all, the "Smith" example is a completely different thing. It's not future-in-the-past; it's a counterfactual in the past. Not part of the discussion.
But I don't agree in general about keeping the structure simple. As you say — give our readers credit. They can handle something more than subject-predicate-subject-predicate, all in the simple past (or the present, depending on the topic). That sort of syntax is deadly dull. It's more for legal depositions than for encyclopedias.
That doesn't mean I want to see future-in-the-past popping up everywhere it could possibly be used! Tony is correct that it can be overdone. But I'm against legislating against grammatical structures just because you don't hear them at the mall. --Trovatore (talk) 02:13, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
Sorry. I disagree. You are/would be (!) quite a credit to a newspaper or television script. My thought is for an encyclopedia - it the sentence sounds fascinating, it should be taken out and shot! Then start over. All we need here is the dry, deadly facts. Anything else is hype. Pure hype! Very undesirable in a research tome. We don't read Nobel Prize winners physics (or whatever) papers because they make fascinating literature. It because they contain fascinating facts without the "artsy" addition. Value-added is not desirable. Student7 (talk) 01:22, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
The History Channel has this sort of thing. Unfortunately for the audience (and us since it's reflected here) is that it is mostly incredible. I've become suspicious as a result. The more fascinating the information, the less likely it is to be true. I don't think I am the only one to reach this conclusion BTW. Professors reached it long ago (except maybe in journalism where they are trying to teach hype perhaps). But they would, wouldn't they. :) Student7 (talk) 01:28, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
I agree completely that we want to stick to the facts. But within sticking to the facts, we are allowed and encouraged to use "brilliant prose". I don't mean sensationalistic; that's an interpolation on your part. I do mean, among other things, that we can use more intricate (or simply less common) grammatical structures. We ought to be able to assume at least a twelfth-grade reading level. --Trovatore (talk) 19:29, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
I agree with Trovatore, this is not simple.wikipedia.org. A modicum of grammatical sophistication, judiciously applied, renders articles more readable, not less. Dry pedantry is boring. Roger (talk) 19:48, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
I make the case for a case-by-case basis in this case. As far as the MoS is concerned, we don't need to make a rule either for or against future-in-the-past. Darkfrog24 (talk) 10:02, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
To my way of thinking, anytime you can hear the sound track rising to a crescendo, we;ve missed the mark as a written encyclopedia and are trespassing on the History Channel forte of hyping history. "It would be 3 years before seeing friends and family again..." *pathetic music loudly swells to creacendo* *fades to black* *commercial break*. I hope not. Student7 (talk) 12:42, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
I often copyedit sentences like "1996 would be a difficult year for Yeltsin" to "1996 was a difficult year for Yeltsin". Next to the misuse of "however", this is one of the commonest errors or infelicities I see here. --John (talk) 14:09, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
Reading level
This was brought up by Trovatore in the previous subsection. Started a new thread in order not to interrupt the flow of thought there. Have we decided on a reading level? It would be surprising if this hadn't been discussed before. Some articles, clearly can't be read by people who are not already expert: Philosophy, Physics, Mathematics, etc. But Trovatore's remarks were most likely aimed at the general readership, where links would fill in an ordinary reader's lack of knowledge. What level are we aiming at here? Anything in Wiki policy? Student7 (talk) 12:38, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
A search of the help section for "Readability" yielded nothing relevant. I propose subjecting a random selection of (stable) feature articles to a Flesch-Kincaid test. I've just put the MoS through the test using MS Word 2007 and the result is: Flesch Reading Ease = 41.0 and Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level = 11.0. Roger (talk) 13:53, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
I think that the standard readability tests are to be taken with a large grain of salt, when all they are based on is the number of words per sentence and syllables per word, "another" is three syllables whereas "squark" is one, and a poorly punctuated 20-word sentence is usually harder to read than a well-punctuated 50-word one. Apparently, the writer of the tool I used to use for this shares this sentiment but to a much greater extent. A. di M. (talk) 10:49, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
I'm with A. di M. on this one. On Wikipedia, reading level should be assessed by the level of accessibility of the topic to a non-expert. Unfortunately, that makes it difficult to come up with a standard measuring system. Darkfrog24 (talk) 13:36, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
To find the frequency of a word in English, one can go to http://www.websters-online-dictionary.org/, enter a word in the box at the top of the page, and click on the button "Stats".
I'm not sure I agree with the excision of the diode–transistor example of how the en dash is used to stand for "and".
Nor do I much like the insertion of this, without the rider that it is only an optional usage – certainly not employed by all or even many authorities:
In compounds whose elements contain hyphens or spaces (pre–World War II technologies, non–government-owned corporations).
I've never much liked the awkward en dash following by inter-item spaces; they seem to pull the reader in opposite directions. Scientific American uses this sometimes, but does not enforce it. I'd be inclined to reword to avoid triple and quadruple monsters, towards which I see a worrying trend, both on and off WP: "technologies developed before World War II". Tony(talk)07:24, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
I, too, dislike the new insertion. While I understand the reasoning behind constructions such as non–government-owned corporations, I've always thought that the en dash made the non stand too far off from the rest of the word, almost as if it were non–(government-owned corporations), which is clearly not the intent (it includes, for example, my breakfast, since my breakfast is not a corporation, let alone a government-owned corporation). I would rather the MoS discourage this practice.
I think we should explicitly discourage constructions with three or more hyphens. Hyphenated hydras are hard to read; we want to be easy to read. It may be hard to come up with an appropriate wording, though, as terms such as first-past-the-post are common and commonly hyphenated; we shouldn't discourage the use of standard terminology.
Finally, I am not convinced by the statement that en dashes for and are not in "general usage". If I recall correctly, last time we looked at en dashes we found that the best authorities did recommend their use in this case, but that publishers were inconsistent. Eubulides noted that the medical profession made a certain exception ("common medical practice is to use "blood" as an adjectival combiner"; see archive 112), but I do not think that counts as "general usage". Furthermore, we should not ape the poor typography we see every day; we should aim to do better.
For the time being, I've restored the bullet about and to the way it was before, and I've put an "optionally" in front of the new bullet on en dashes in place of hyphens. Ozob (talk) 11:24, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
Disjunctive hyphens
Recently there have been several edits [12][13][14] encouraging the use of a hyphen to mean and between two independent nouns. I do not like this change. First, if the MoS accepts this use, then it should be documented in the hyphen section, not the en dash section. But more importantly, as our section on hyphens says, hyphens "link certain prefixes with their main word" or "link related terms in compound adjectives and adverbs". Hyphens do not link compound independent nouns. Or at least, I don't want them to. In well-typeset material, I expect to see an en dash for and, not a hyphen. Butcher agrees with me on this point; she says to use en dashes. The AMA does not, but they also tell people to use hyphens for number ranges, which is an error.
For the time being, I've removed this section yet again. But I am open to discussion. If someone insists on having this material in the MoS during the discussion, then please put it in the right place in the hyphen section. Ozob (talk) 11:28, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
Certainly not; Hyphens indeed do connect compound nouns, such as double-barreled names. Whether or not you want them to.oknazevad (talk) 18:09, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
I've searched the Corpus of Contemporary American English for occurrences of "The Beach Boys" as a subject of a present verb, and there are tens of them where the verb is plural and only one where it's singular. With "the Doors" it's quite harder because of the many irrelevant hits, but it appears that the plural prevails too. A. di M. (talk) 22:28, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
Fowler said plural verb emphasises the individuals in a group, and singular verb the whole group. That makes sense, but I'm not convinced many people go along with this. I think we have to be a little flexible in this usage. Tony(talk)08:04, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
There's a pretty good explanation of that on A Student's Introduction to English Grammar by Huddleston and Pullum. (I'm pretty sure it used to be on the Google Books preview but it seems it's not there any more, or maybe it depends on what country you access it from.) It's usually (but not always) what Fowler says for very clear-cut cases, but in the huge grey area in between BrE uses the plural and AmE uses the singular. Anyway, it looks like pretty much no-one uses the singular with band names whose "form" is plural (at least not on the Corpus of Contemporary American English, so let alone in British English). A. di M. (talk) 09:33, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
15:01, 18 April 2010 Tony1 (talk | contribs | block) (155,451 bytes) (Rv: no consensus here, and indeed the consensus at REFPUNCT was rather to change to what the MoS says.)
There has never been consensus on this issue. See these sections for previous discussions on this subject in Footnotes and citation archives
The wording currently at WP:REFPUNCT is compromise wording worked out in 2007. The wording in the section "Punctuation and inline citations" of the MOS contradicts that compromise wording. What would you suggest is suitable wording as there is no agreement, nor has there ever been (see the archives), that ref tags should always go after punctuation. The compromise wording advises that after punctuation is used but does not mandate it. What do you suggest as compromise wording that everyone can live with?
I notice from the edit history that you Tony changed long standing wording with this edit on 13 February 2010. Before you made that edit the wording here was a brief summary of the compromise at WP:REFPUNCT. I am going to partially restore the wording you changed and I assume that as you say you made you last revert with the comment "Rv: no consensus here", as there was not a consensus for the change you made, you will not feel the need to revert it until after an agreement to change it is reached. -- PBS (talk) 04:45, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
Considered, considered, considered, and considered, along with all the analogous Manual of Style passages. Can we either keep PAIC and REFPUNC consistent, or else merge them? Art LaPella (talk) 19:07, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
Is there some reason why we can't simply adopt one style and stick with it? If (as is my observation) the "ref after punctuation" style is the most widely favoured, why not just adopt that and say that it's what we do? It hardly seems the sort of thing that we're going to lose editors over; it will promote uniformity, help cut short multiple lame arguments about "which style an article evolved with", etc.--Kotniski (talk) 08:25, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
The point is that depending on the academic field different styles are used. The is no correct answer to this. Those who push for after punctuation can not give a good reason for it, they say do it that way because it looks better. Which is fine reason, but for those used to seeing it before the punctuation they say but it looks better before. There is also the point that if a reference comes after the punctuation at the end of a paragraph does it refer to the whole paragraph or just the last sentence? If the punctuation is before the punctuation as done in Nature it is taken to be a reference for that sentence. Now neither method is better -- Nature is more precise but can end up with more repetitive footnoting as two sentences with the same reference will need to be noted twice, while after punctuation noting is ambiguous in a Wikipeida context because additional sentence(s) may be added to a paragraph after it was initially footnoted, in which case it may appear that the additional sentence(s) are covered by an end of paragraph footnote when they are not -- but why enforce a uniform system on all articles? Its exactly the same issue as national varieties of English. -- PBS (talk) 01:17, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
Philip, I've restored the ref-after-punctuation advice, as it seems to have consensus. Can you make your case here for why we should allow choice, along with examples of well-developed articles that use ref-before-punctuation? SlimVirgintalk|contribs08:34, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
I agree that there seems no reason to leave the door open to more than one style, especially as the Nature method of numbers before punctuation is seriously cumbersome where there are square brackets, too. Punctuation before ref tags is widely accepted in sources, and I know of no publisher that allows a mixture of methods. Tony(talk)08:45, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
So Tony1 you want to enforce one version on every article, and you want to choose the version you like best. One can make a good argument for using the Nature method, so if we are going to use one method then why not use that method? I think it is better if like the national verity of spelling that so long as articles are internally consistent editors should be able to use the style they prefer and consensus a local consensus should be found before that style is changed. I see no harm if advising that one method is preferred if the editors come here looking for guidance but I do not think we should be prescriptive. -- PBS (talk) 01:27, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
Of course the present language is incorrect. Footnotes go after punctuation. Harvard-style references do not. Moreover, footnotes go after punctuation even if they are not inline citations (e.g. explanatory notes). — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:07, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
Footnotes are the notes at the end of the page that contain the full citation referred to by the in-text citation; they can be references or explanatory notes. Numerical style in-text citations should follow the current guideline for placement after punctuation. Parenthetical style in-text citations follow other rules. ---— Gadget850 (Ed)talk13:37, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
Feel free to reword it. But it is simply false that we should, in general, place inline citations after a comma or period. Consider: "The world is flat (Smith 2009)." That's what I fixed with my edit this morning. Not all inline citations are footnotes and not all footnotes are inline citations. The guidance here is unrelated to citations, it's just about footnotes (or footnote markers, if you prefer). — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:46, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
SV why do you want to open this up again? As you know -- because you were an early participant in the debate -- there has never been consensus on this issue. The agreed wording was that we would advise people to use after punctuation, but if a different style had been adopted then there should be no change to another style unless there was consensus on the talk page to do so. The advise here should follow that agreed compromise. -- PBS (talk) 01:03, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
I didn't open it up again. I'm just agreeing. My recollection is that almost everyone who commented wanted ref tags after punctuation, but you kept reverting until people gave up, so it wasn't a compromise that was likely to last, and it's not reflected in the way articles tend to be punctuated. SlimVirgintalk|contribs01:44, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
This is silly-- why not reopen it? There may never have been consensus, but I have *never* encountered an article that intentionally used refs before punctuation unless it was inline citations, so what's the beef and why do people hold so tightly to these big meaningless past issues? I don't see why we don't do what makes sense (use one convention as Wiki's house style), but I have no interest in the length of argument it takes at MOS to get common sense to prevail. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:20, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
No, I changed my style after the last debate. I thought it clear that the consensus was to enforce a single style of referencing. I don't think that's necessarily right, but I also don't think it's worth fighting over. There is a slightly separate issue about spaces before referenes in tables and boxes (see previous section), but my citations in prose are just like everybody else's now. --Stemonitis (talk) 05:25, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
I'm not really seeing any argument for not recommending a standard style. It hardly depends on the needs or circumstances of any specific article (does it?), it's just a matter of personal preference, and since editors don't own the articles they write, there's no reason in any particular case to put individual preferences over the established preference of the community (which seems to be clearly for punctuation before ref, though we could have a poll about it if that claim was disputed).--Kotniski (talk) 09:23, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
then in my opinion A is far preferable. B just looks horrible to my eye. I've always assumed A to be the mandated style, and whenever I come across B I change it (if I can be bothered). I'm surprised to learn there's any doubt about this. 86.186.35.99 (talk) 13:22, 2 October 2010 (UTC).
Just as Nature has a standard style, so does Wikipedia. Wikipedia's standard style is refs after punctuation. This has been the case since as long as I can remember, and I've been here since 2004. There is absolutely no reason for us to support 2 different styles. What other journals or fields of study use is irrelevant. We don't have to accommodate every style used on the planet. That's the whole reason we have a manual of style. Kaldari (talk) 18:29, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
Nature is not the only journal to use other styles, it is just put in because it is the best known example. The compromise wording was to recommend a one style (hence generally) but not to mandate it, as different people hold different opinions about what is aesthetically pleasing and on the functionality of different styles (see what I wrote above). The trouble with comments like "B just looks horrible to my eye" is that so do "colour" and "Lech Wałęsa" to to others, but changing to color and Lech Walesa when a page uses British spelling or Wałęsa throughout an article without agreement on the talk page is not considered consensus editing, because to other editors color and Walesa also look horrible to their eyes. I do not see this issue as any different. More so I think because unlike spelling and many accent marks there are functional reasons as well as aesthetics involved in the placement of footnote markers.
Personally if I am editing an underdeveloped article and there is no comment on the talk page about footnote placing, I add footnotes tags after the punctuation as that is what is generally done and, acting in a BOLD manner, I alter any others footnote tags to that style. But if anyone was to revert to before punctuation, I would not revert it again and I would add any additional footnotes before the punctuation. As that seems to me to be in line with the spirit of this guideline's stability of articles principle.
If Wikipedia was to have an in-house style (as opposed to one borrowed from other journals and style guides) given the rather unique circumstances of how articles develop on Wikipedia and the needs of WP:PROVEIT I personally would go for a hybrid system: Inside punctuation for sentence specific and after punctuation for all the text since the start of the paragraph or the preceding after punctuation citation (which ever comes first). But when I suggested this several years ago although there was some support for it there was no traction for the idea, so I dropped it. -- PBS (talk) 00:15, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
The inside/outside "meaning" would be very useful if anyone ever understood it. But they won't. Nature can more easily use the before system because its ref tags are small and have no square brackets, which take up a lot of room. More than one tag, and three or more as we sometimes have, makes before plain cumbersome. Tony(talk)02:21, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Philip is insisting there's no consensus for a house style on this point, and won't let the other page be changed. Philip, please start an RfC if you doubt there's consensus, but as things stand you're the only one who supports ref tags before punctuation. SlimVirgintalk|contribs10:37, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
As the consensus is clear in favour of ref tags after punctuation and discussion seems to have petered out, I assume no one will mind if I close the RfC myself rather than looking for an uninvolved closer. SlimVirgintalk|contribs02:26, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
Should the Manual of Style recommend that ref tags always be placed after punctuation, except when it involves dashes? That is, should it recommend A, and disallow B?
Support. It's time we plumped for a house style on this issue. Most Wikipedians, in keeping with most publications around the world, place ref tags after punctuation. Particularly because our ref tags are inside square brackets, they make sentences look very cluttered when placed inside. SlimVirgintalk|contribs10:47, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Support, possibly allowing one specific exception. I can envisage an occasional need to associate a citation with a particular word. That word may not have punctuation attached. Were there general agreement to allow that, our convention would need to allow both formats (and state the usage of each: pre-or-non-punctuation associates the tag with a particular word; post-punctuation, with the preceding sentence or sentence fragment). PL290 (talk) 11:51, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Oppose Clear case of WP:CREEP Editors should decide what works best on the pages they are working on because different styles will work in different situations. No rule can fit all cases. Wikipedia will survive a little inconsistency.Dejvid (talk) 12:11, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Point of information. Editors should note that the shortcut provided above, WP:CREEP, links to an essay and not a Wikipedia policy or guideline. ("Essays are the opinion or advice of an editor or group of editors, for which widespread consensus has not been established. They do not speak for the entire community and may be created and written without approval.") Opinions about how to solve the issue of shortcuts unintentionally masking essay status are invited at the ongoing RfC. PL290 (talk) 12:38, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Support. It's already the dominant house style and should be codified. Frankly, what other publications do in regard to non-grammatical layout questions is irrelevant to us here, and editors can and should adjust. As for the question of citations attached to a single word, if there's no adjacent punctuation, then I see no conflict here, as this is about refs at punctuation.oknazevad (talk) 12:52, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Support This is extremely tiresome to witness. End this the debate on at least this one minor issue once and for all. Wikipedia maybe loosely controlled and tolerant, but allowing this much editorial freedom is not constructive. Anyone who feels like they have their right to control such minute aspects of "their" articles should consider publishing their stuff elsewhere. PeterIsotalo14:23, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
More or less neutral. I always put them after, but then so does everyone else, with rare exceptions. The only exception I've seen recently was a newbie WP editor with a list of scholarly publications as long as your arm. I do think flexibilty should be preserved for the infrequent situations like those PL290 mentions, for example where there are two or more quotes from different sources in running prose: ".... this view has been variously described as "brilliant" and "complete crap" by ....". Once can always force a comma, or pile up the refs at the next punctuation, but just putting them after the quote is best. Johnbod (talk) 14:42, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Support. All citations not supporting sections of a sentence (as in Element 1,[9] element 2.[10]) should follow punctuation as a simple house style that has no reason to not be followed.
Support, definitely looks better, though I would admit rare exceptions of the "She was big[1], bold[2] and beautiful[3]." type.--Kotniski (talk) 17:08, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Mild Oppose. "This looks bad to me" and "I'm tired of talking about this" are not good reasons to ban something. I personally prefer refs after punctuation, but that's not enough. Wikipedia does not need pan-article uniformity; we just had a discussion of why B.C. and B.C.E. should both be allowed, neither favored over the other. Darkfrog24 (talk) 18:18, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Support. It makes sense to have a uniform style. (And, in fact, I think it can even be applied to Kotniski's example, with no need to make an exception: "She was big,[1] bold,[2] and beautiful.[3]") --Tryptofish (talk) 19:13, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Comment I think the point is that a citation coming after the period should logically be supporting the entire sentence (at least; possibly several sentences), whereas Kotsinski's example is talking about a citation that supports a single word. When the citation is given in support of just the end of the sentence, rather than the whole sentence, I do think it should come before the period. But I do strongly hope that such citations are rare. --Trovatore (talk) 23:45, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Support It just doesn't make grammatical sense to have reference before the period as the ref is not a part of the sentence. That is also why all references should be placed after the sentence.—Chris!c/t20:26, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Support. I learned this here, I guess. Took a few minutes. Looks good to me now. Why switch? I'm with Kotniski on this one. Student7 (talk) 20:57, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Support. PBS, what I'm seeing at MILHIST (which is important to you I think) is that just about no one puts a ref tag just before punctuation. If some people did it one way and some the other, I'd be totally with you. When it's more likely to be a typo, or someone new who's going to wind up being reverted at some point anyway, I'd really rather be the one to move the ref tag after the punctuation as part of copyediting, and it would be easier if I had a guideline to support me. That's also got much more support in style guides, as we've mentioned. - Dank (push to talk) 23:35, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
The thing is that historical, journals tend to use after punctuation footnoting. But suppose it was different and that Nature style was the most common, would you want there to be a global ban on using the style you were familiar with? I think live and let live is better policy than war in this case. -- PBS (talk) 00:07, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
Oppose for the reasons given above by Darkfrog24. I think it is better if like the national verity of spelling that so long as articles are internally consistent editors should be able to use the style they prefer and consensus a local consensus should be found before that style is changed. I see no harm if advising that one method is preferred if the editors come here looking for guidance but I do not think we should be prescriptive. -- PBS (talk) 23:43, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
Support. I believe that we should go with the overwhelming practice which already exists. I actually prefer to see them before punctuation in 'read' mode. However, it is always confusing in edit mode, where I often wonder if perhaps a comma or full stop has been omitted. --Ohconfucius¡digame!02:53, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
Support - although, quite honestly, I thought this had already been codified, so I was kind of suprised to find this discussion. Gatoclass (talk) 01:36, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
Support. I also assumed this was already a guideline, as I don't know any print style that places references before punctuation (well, I mean, parenthetical refs go before punctuation in some styles, but no footnote/endnote refs). Some people above say that we shouldn't make such rules, letting each article/section decide what works for them. First, I can't think of any instance where someone could convincingly argue, "In this article, it makes more sense for the footnote to go before the style," so having the guideline in place helps end pointless edit wars. Second, in matters like this, it actually makes sense for the whole of Wikipedia to be the same--having a consistent style/look makes both reading and editing easier. Qwyrxian (talk) 11:44, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Threaded discussion
User:Oknazevad says above, "As for the question of citations attached to a single word, if there's no adjacent punctuation, then I see no conflict here, as this is about refs at punctuation." There are in fact two conflicts: (a) the word in question may occur at punctuation, and (b) as currently worded, the proposed change would mean we can no longer attach a citation to a single, unpunctuated word, requiring us instead to attach it after punctuation later in the sentence. So further discussion is needed to clarify whether we intend to disallow attaching citations to a single word. PL290 (talk) 14:34, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
To answer b): Neither WP:PAIC, WP:REFPUNC, nor widespread practice prevents citations after an unpunctuated word. So "always be placed after punctuation" (above) can presumably be corrected to "always be placed after any punctuation". Art LaPella (talk) 17:34, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Oh ... that was my understanding. People do on rare occasions place ref tags with no punctuation before or after, generally when they think it's necessary to comply with some citation requirement. If I see a good excuse to insert punctuation, I do, but if not, I don't. In these rare cases, no one seems to object to the ref tag unaccompanied by punctuation. - Dank (push to talk) 23:39, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Some statistics: It happens less than I thought. The heavily footnoted Big Bang has 4 footnotes without punctuation (search for [43] for instance). The randomly chosen NorthStar Foundation has 5 footnotes after unpunctuated list entries. The also randomly chosen Hinduism in Ghana has 1 out of 4 footnotes unpunctuated. Art LaPella (talk) 00:23, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
I agree it's rare, so it should be possible for us to achieve the required consistency with a general rule, while still stating a specific exception for those rare cases without upsetting anyone. I hope that is what we end up with. PL290 (talk) 09:03, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
A possibly stupid comment: my understanding was that "refs after punctuation rather than before" always had been the recommended style. Has it changed historically, or was I just remembering a convention rather than a rule? Shimgray | talk | 10:48, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
CREEP - Some questions to ask:
Will anyone change what they do because we pass this rule? Most users will never use this. Some who have participated in the discussion will change but because of the discussion not because of the rule.
Will anyone more be more likely to go about reformatting refs. No the same people who feel this is important will continue to do so - no more no less
just occasionally someone will object. It will be because they have good reason - trolls will not pick on something so tiny. That doesn't mean they are right but this rule will mean that the person making the change can use the rule to cut off discussion. Hence it is likely that it will difficult to prevent it being used in cases where there needs to be an exception.
This rule will bring no benefit and will create a small amount of harm. Instruction creep is about small amounts of harm adding up.Dejvid (talk) 11:10, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
But there already are instructions - in fact adopting (or rather confirming) a simple rule like the one proposed will actually reduce and simplify the amount of instruction in this area (though it's always understood that such rules will have occasional exceptions - we can say so explicitly in this case if it's felt that the situations calling for exceptions are not going to be vanishingly rare).--Kotniski (talk) 12:23, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
Well yes, choosing the more restrictive rule will be shorter. But wordcount is not the issue here. My preferred option is to have no rule at all. To have a rule that explicitly allows exceptions such as WP:REFPUN is to me the lesser evil. This is not the kind of situation where not being clear will IMO cause problems but being over rigid will. Problem being that a rigid rule will be used to impose one option when discussion would be useful.Dejvid (talk) 15:06, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
This debate is not about whether to to recommend a style -- that is done at the moment:
Inline citations are generally placed after any punctuation such as a comma or period, with no intervening space:
When a reference tag coincides with punctuation, the reference tag is normally placed immediately after the punctuation, except for dashes, as recommended by the Chicago Manual of Style and other style guides. Some editors prefer ...
But whatever we do should be phrased in the imperative. This MoS is not here to make blanket statements about what does and doesn't happen in the English language. It is here to tell Wikipedia editors what to do. Hence, "Place inline citations..." If it needs a softener, then we could say, "On Wikipedia, place inline citations..." Darkfrog24 (talk) 10:13, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
A bit of history. Previously when we had for short time one style in the guidlines, a bot was run to convert all pages to that style. This was in the early days of people using footnotes and there were at that time about 10% of the pages that used before a before punctuation style. It was of course not obvious how many of those were done for specific stylistic reasons and how many were like that for no particular reason. If we mandate a style then it will only be a matter of time before someone runs a bot over the pages converting to the mandated style. At that point there are likely to be complaints from editors unaware of this debate who deliberately use Nature style referencing. Do we really want to force the opinions of a few Wikipedia editors on all editors over an issue like this? Or is it better to keep the current wording, which recommends a style but does not mandate it? -- PBS (talk) 00:00, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
Surely by "allowing" Nature-style referencing (i.e. forbidding people from changing it to the Wikipedia house style), we would then be forcing the opinions of a few (the minority who prefer that style) on all editors. I don't see why this should ever be a big deal, but if there are people for whom it is, then it's good that we have a simple rule saying "we do it this way", so that lame arguments can be cut short (where it's just a matter of preference, that is - if there's a concrete reason to vary the rule in a given case, then people would still be free to argue that).--Kotniski (talk) 08:40, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
Kotniski, explicitly stating "both styles are allowed" does not force the minority's views on all editors. That would only happen if we allowed only the minority-preferred system.
Shearer, the current wording, "Place inline citations after punctuation," does mandate one system. So does the previous wording, "Inline citations are generally placed after." In almost all cases, either phrasing will be interpreted as a rule endorsing place-after and banning place-before. That's how things tend to work. Darkfrog24 (talk) 10:17, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
Saying "both styles are allowed" does force the minority's views, in the sense that you're not supposed to make edits that simply switch from one permitted style to another (and therefore the statement would forbid editors from changing articles to comply with the majority's wishes).--Kotniski (talk) 10:33, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
That's not forcing a minority view, Kotniski; that's allowing it. And the scenario that you're describing would only occur on those articles in which a person with a minority view was the FMC, so it would only occur as rarely as minority-view FMCs do. Darkfrog24 (talk) 16:43, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
At the moment the change only takes place if there is a local consensus to make the change, that is not forcing a minority view on the majority. If this change is made then there is no longer room the guidance for a minority point of view. -- PBS (talk) 10:50, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
The wording was "Inline citations are generally placed after any punctuation" and it is a brief summary of WP:REFPUNCT. Generally does not say in every case, so there is no justification for running an bot. "Place inline citations after punctuation," does mandate one system, and a bot will be run to change all pages to that style. Bots are useful for doing that! If the changes to the wording are made how can anyone argue that a bot operator is not following MOS guidance if they change a pages to after punctuation reference tags? -- PBS (talk) 10:46, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
I don't understand how any of this is a bad thing. A local consensus should "not" override the general consensus.--Kotniski (talk) 11:44, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
There are two different issues here, the imperative vs. indicative and the presence or absence of the word "generally." I do not feel that the presence or absence of "generally" will make any difference in the way that the rule is interpreted. However, one could just as easily say, "Generally, place inline citations after punctuation." If we were to say "X is what is generally done," then we must add a source for the claim. Such statements belong in regular articles.
If the MoS specifically allows two systems, then a bot that corrects all instances of one allowed system to another would be against the MoS. Darkfrog24 (talk) 16:43, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
Kotniski If it were policy then I would agree with you that A local consensus should "not" override the general consensus, i.e. I think that funny foreign squiggles should not be used on a word, if the majority of English language sources do not use them because we have a policy of deriving contend from sources. In this case we are talking about a style issue that I see as closer to National varieties of English and Stability of articles. If it is agreed that this change to mandating one style there will be editors who are surprised by the change and wish that they had known about it to stop it. Probably a lot more than the score that have taken part in this debate (how do I know that? -- back of an enveloped calculation from the last time someone ran a survey of before punctuation reference tags in articles), so the score of people who are making this decision one way or another probably do not represent a consensus on the issue.
Darkfrog24 As soon as this debate is over if the outcome is in support of SV's proposal then I strongly suspect either she or some other like minded editor will reimplement this edit justifying in on the outcome of this RFC. If that is done then a bot that corrects all instances to the one true method described in REFPUNCT will not be against the MOS it will be following the MOS. -- PBS (talk) 21:13, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
If this was anything more substantial than whether to place punctuation before or after superscript notes, it might potentially be a cause for concerning. But since it's extremely trivial, even the potential for alarm is non-existent.
Two additional points, it is more common to use footnotes than (parenthetical referencing) so should we get rid of them at the same time? Second point made by Chrishomingtang that references are not part of the sentence so they should not be placed before the punctuation, how does one then explain the placing a reference tag after a comma (as it has nothing to do with the next clause) or at the start of the next sentence? -- PBS (talk) 00:51, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
If you're suggesting that the Manual of Style should forbid parenthetical references, I would object very strongly for all kinds of reasons. Wherever you put references will be a nuisance; ideally you'd have very wide computer screens that would let you run a column of them parallel to what's being referenced, preferably at the same height. Otherwise, the reader has to either jump to the bottom to see the footnote (although that's automated by clicking the [little superscript number], and then clicking [the up-arrow])[11] or have the flow of reading continuously interrupted by references, as in much legal prose (cf. Findlaw.com). Neither is inherently better than the other; it all depends on the article, in fact on the individual paragraph or section. Sometimes you want to indicate differing sources for comparison or contrast, which may be best done within the lines, as in
many American magazines support the Republican Party (such as National Review), while others (like The New Republic) support the Democrats or While Prof. Jones used to support the Big-Endian theory (Toward Great Ends, Oxford, 1933, page 13), his further researches led him to become a passionate Little-Endianist (The Final Collapse of the Big-Endian Bubble, Cambridge, 1957, page 273).
^Now press the little arrow to return to where you left off.
Then maybe you should express an opinion in the above survey because one of the common reasons (probably second to "I think it looks ugly") given for wishing to depreciate Nature style footnoting is "I believe that we should go with the overwhelming practice which already exists." So why keep parenthetical referencing? -- PBS (talk) 10:39, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
We can't "grandfather" in existing articles? :) I prefer footnotes. Yes, you are jerked out of the main flow, but most people don't want footnotes. We watch-editor do, mostly to validate articles. But most readers could care less. Those that do should mostly copy the footnotes and perform his/her own research on his own paper for the prof. The inline stuff is horribly distracting except for peer-reviewed papers, which these encyclopedic articles are not (not really, anyway). Student7 (talk) 00:46, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
As someone has noted, the proposed wording is inept: it can be read as meaning that there must be punctuation of some sort before every ref note. A further problem, not raised by anyone so far, concerns placement near a closing bracket, whether round or square. Uncertainty in the meaning of "punctuation" complicates things further. Some extremists use the term broadly: include quote marks, brackets, ellipsis points, ampersands, and generally anything other than a letter. Opposite extremists include only terminal marks (.?!) and a few others (,:;). Most take some intermediate stance; and most (including CMOS and New Hart's) are sloppily inconsistent. All of this is clearer in European languages that promote a distinction between narrow "interpunctuation" (a vague and rare term in English) and broad "punctuation".
Here is New Hart's (17.2.2) on the placement of the tag, or "cue":
The cue is placed after any punctuation (normally after the closing point of a sentence). If, however, it relates only to text within parentheses it is placed before the closing parenthesis.
Here is most of the new CMOS 16 (14.21), which differs from the
citation of CMOS 14 in a note at WP:REFPUNCT:
Placement of note number. A note number should generally be placed at the end of a sentence or at the end of a clause. The number normally follows a quotation (whether it is run into the text or set as an extract). Relative to other punctuation, the number follows any punctuation mark except for the dash, which it precedes. [...] Though a note number normally follows a closing parenthesis, it may on rare occasion be more appropriate to place the number inside the closing parenthesis – if, for example, the note applies to a specific term within the parenthesis. [Example 1:] (In an earlier book he had said quite the opposite.)2 [Example 2:] Men and their unions, as they entered industrial work, negotiated two things: young women would be laid off once they were married (the commonly acknowledged "marriage bar"1), and men would be paid a family wage."
I cannot begin to list all of the inadequacies of this CMOS 16 formulation, and the ways it differs capriciously from both the CMOS 15 (16.30) and CMOS 14 attempts. New Hart's is far more rational and decisive, allowing, with "any punctuation", for cases in which a single word or unpunctuated phrase precedes the tag. MOS would do well to follow its lead; but there will be cases that go beyond both New Hart's and CMOS, as Kotniski observes.
_____
Something like this would be good:
Place the ref tag immediately after the relevant text. If that text includes punctuation at its end, place the tag after that punctuation.
The relevant text is usually an entire sentence or clause that includes punctuation at its end:
Nietzsche wrote that women "make the highs higher and the lows more frequent".[19]
Some say Australia has the world's most venomous snakes,[7] but this depends on the definition of venomous.[8]
Isidore of Seville also discussed dolphins and cranes (dolphins "gather in a group at the sound of music";[1] and cranes at night "divide up the watches, and alternate their vigils"[2]), implausibly endowing them with human qualities.
But sometimes the text does not include such punctuation:
The second Bali bombing – not so deadly as the first[1] – had far less press coverage.
In rare instances the relevant text is a short phrase, or a even single word:
Shakespeare's coinages include to bet[32], incarnadine[33], and anchovy[34].
”
Spaces below section headings
When I look in the edit window of an article, I often see blank lines below some section/subsection headings within an article, but not below others. To my eye, this lack of internal consistency gives the appearance of a somewhat haphazard approach to copyediting. With respect to these blank lines, the MOS simply states:
"A blank line below the heading is optional; but do include one blank line above the heading, for readability in the edit window."
As a general rule, we go to great lengths to achieve internal consistency within any given Wikipedia article. Should there be internal consistency in this regard as well (i.e., either a space below every section header within an article, or no space below any of them)? In the unlikely event that there was to be another editor as annoyingly pedantic as me, and we were to get into an edit war over such a silly issue, how would the issue be adjudicated? Respectfully, DiverDave (talk) 18:56, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
As such a space makes no difference to the appearance of the page, there's no need to advise otherwise. That's the reason for the current advice to its optionality.oknazevad (talk) 19:02, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
I can't think of where it says it, but basically you are discouraged from just doing whitespace changes that don't affect the appearance of the article. As for how it would be handled in an edit war situation. You both would likely be troutslaped for getting in a WP:LAME situation. -DJSasso (talk) 19:31, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
MOS:HASH gives the example of Her album reached No. 1 in the UK album charts. This contradicts WP:ORDINAL, and 'No.' is not seen often in musical articles (and I certainly don't want to see it used in articles). Can we change the example to Her album reached number one in the UK album charts.? Adabow (talk · contribs) 08:46, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
By "musical articles" do you mean WP's, or outside sources? What do outside sources use? If it's that frightful hash sign, yuck. Tony(talk)09:06, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I hate the use of it, and the use of 'No.'. I am talking about WP articles. The vast majority of articles on songs and albums (and probably artists) use number one, rather than No. 1. Adabow (talk · contribs) 09:09, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
I didn't find the contradiction. WP:ORDINAL seems to require "No. one" (but not really; the "Chanel No. 5" exception applies), but I didn't find where WP:ORDINAL requires "number 1". Art LaPella (talk) 20:21, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
Yes, WP:ORDINAL requires 'No. one' or 'number one', but I am also proposing that the example read Her album reached number one in the UK album charts., as 'number x' is used far more frequently and smoothly than 'No. x'. Adabow (talk · contribs) 09:30, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
Text has been added on restricting punctuation with these words. I would be more concerned with the words themselves. I am always on my guard when I see them. "Obama easily carried Oregon in 2008, but was nevertheless so concerned with the 2010 election that he stumped Oregon hoping to keep it Democratic." That Obama carried Oregon in 2008 is a fact. That he campaigned there in 2010 is a fact. But the connector "nevertheless" could very well be WP:OR if I furnished it and it was not furnished by the original source. I don't much care for these two words. It is not necessary for me to furnished a "connector" between the two facts mentioned above. The reader may draw her/his own conclusions about why Obama is campaigning in Oregon. (To get out of DC? Cause he has friends in Oregon?). My "spin" is unessential at best. And yes, sometimes the words are appropriate, but they should be avoided in an encyclopedia IMO. They tend to be "media" words. Student7 (talk) 20:43, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
I oppose this idea. If it is original research it needs to be removed as original research. Prohibitions against single words make no sense because they only encourage editors to turn off their brains, go on word deletion sprees and run into situations such as this one, which happened while half the Wikipedia was engaged in a big brawl at that BLP talk page anyway. HansAdler21:11, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
Google reports 3,610 "however"s on the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, an academic encyclopedia. That's not really surprising, however, since "however" is a perfectly standard English word. I don't see any benefit in trying to ban particular words here. — Carl (CBM · talk) 21:21, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
The way I read it the example is pointing out that the abreviation "No." should be used instead of the symbol "#" because the hash symbol does not mean "number" in all varieties of English. It is drawing a distiction between two different ways of abreviating the word "number", to change one of them to the full word defeats the point that the hash symbol is problematic in this usage. Roger (talk) 08:08, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
Not really. If we ask people to spell the word out correctly, they can still see that using a hash is incorrect. The reason for changing this is that 'number' is used far more often than 'No.' on WP, and keeps the prose flowing nicely. Adabow (talk · contribs) 08:22, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
You seem to be missing the point that this guideline is about the preference of one abreviation over another abreviation. Full word versus abreviation is a different matter entirely. There are situations such as infoxes or tables where the full word just doesn't fit neatly and an abreviation must be used. Roger (talk) 08:48, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
But the example (Her album reached No. 1 in the UK album charts.) is one of prose. Besides, both options ('number' and 'No.') are listed before the examples. The other point is that WP:ORDINAL states that numbers less than ten should be written out in full. Adabow (talk · contribs) 09:05, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
I reemphasize the "Chanel No. 5" exception at the end of WP:ORDINAL, which has to be used more widely than it implies. Otherwise, we would have to write "The Yankees beat the Phillies four–two after a home run in inning three", "Journal of Astronomy, Volume two, page three", "Type Two Diabetes", ... Art LaPella (talk) 17:49, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
Verified, sort of. On Wikipedia, "No. 1 album" gets 3930 Google hits, and "number one album" gets 14,500. On Google Books, the numbers are about equal: "No. 1 album", 1820, and "number one album", 1680. Art LaPella (talk) 20:25, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
I have often left "number 1" in an article after some little thought, as it is very common usage, but I would not see a big problem with "number one". Certainly we should be avoiding "No." in running text and as much as possible elsewhere (pace technical contexts). RichFarmbrough, 07:39, 26 October 2010 (UTC).
Mixed martial arts (copied from my talk page)
Can you please alter the SmackBot. It seems to be going through my articles and destroying my work. It's MMA, not Mma. Please stop your bot because I don't want to manually revert each and every one of your bots edits to MMA pages. Thank you. Paralympiakos(talk)22:58, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
I have prevented this type of edit, and of course "MMA" (which is not changed) is the correct abbreviation. I can't see any reason that mixed martial arts (in words) should have special capitals though, perhaps you can advise? RichFarmbrough, 00:00, 26 October 2010 (UTC).
Well spell it out then. Mixed Martial Arts. I feel like I have to battle with the bot every couple of months; it does get frustrating.
I'm puzzled still: SmackBot does not touch "MMA", unless you have an example. Please be clear if that's what you mean.
If you mean the full words, they are not proper nouns, they are not capitialised in the article on MMA. We do not capitalise words in titles and headers that would not be capitalised in running text, apart form the first word.
Interesting. If "kung fu" [24] and "tae kwon do"[25] aren't proper nouns, then I don't see why mixed martial arts would be (and in that case all three words would get lowercase mid-sentence, not just the last two). We are just talking about MMA itself, not the name of a specific MMA league, right? Darkfrog24 (talk) 09:47, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
IMO, when used in context it would be something along the lines of "Brock Lesnar is a mixed martial arts fighter" not "Brock Lesnar is a Mixed Martial Arts fighter". Thus, the heading would read "Mixed martial arts" capitalizing only the first word of the phrase. Heck, even the MMA WikiProject is located at Wikipedia:WikiProject Mixed martial arts (note the capitalization). Therefore, I believe the smackbot is doing just fine. --TreyGeek (talk) 03:44, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
Jew
Uhh ... how does the article Jew "prove" that Hebrews prefer to be called "Jewish people"? It doesn't even assert that, much less prove it.
In my experience "Jew" and "Jewish person" are interchangeable, and Jewish people use the shorter word "Jew" more frequently than non-Jews use it.
Crasshopper (talk) 11:41, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
You seem to be referring to the sentence See for example the article Jew, which demonstrates that most Jews prefer that term to "Jewish person" in MOS:IDENTITY. If you read it carefully, you will realize that it says the exact opposite of what you apparently think that it says.—EmilJ.12:14, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
Numerical range abbreviations
Please refer to the question at Wikipedia:Ear#Numerical ranges for page numbers in citations. The question concerns which of "pp. 141–149", "pp. 141–49", "pp. 141–9" is preferred (this is not about dashes but about abbreviating a range in which the upper bound has at least some (contiguous) significant digits in common with the lower bound). All seem to be correct representations of the range, and unequivocal in meaning, but which do we prefer? Please respond there for the original poster and here for recommendations to add to the MOS. Thanks. –Paul M. Nguyen (chat|blame) 13:30, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
I'd prefer using the full number, or at least two digits: "141–9" reminds me too much of the format used by some books to denote the ninth page of the 141st chapter. A. di M. (talk) 18:18, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
I think everything under 'Years' after that point can be out-dented 1 level, because the radiocarbon dating section applies to the material on BC–AD/BCE–CE. –Paul M. Nguyen (chat|blame) 19:33, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
Bias in favour of US English
The policy on English dialects means, in practice, that US English is utterly dominant, not because of the prevalence of USA English in the editors' idiolects but directly because of the policy itself which is designed in such a way that disadvantage for non-USA languages is guaranteed (Spanish will fall prey to this too, if it hasn't already).
The English-language Wikipedia is very much a USA encyclopaedia, not an international one. There is a case for either changing this policy, or separating the USA's Wikipedia from the rest of the world's, or for a rival encyclopaedia to be created to counter-balance the policy's effects.
This is an old discussion and perhaps one with some merit perhaps. On the other hand, the article for what you call football is not at soccer, but at Association football or what we Americans call the color "gray" is at grey. As far as starting a "rival" encyclopedia goes... go for it. You can even fork from the Wikipedia- the license (or licence if you will) allows that, and you could change feces to faeces, color to colour, and even delete annoying articles like American football! VictorianMutant (talk)09:18, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
In the larger scheme, we are blessed with varieties of this language that are very very similar. OK, some of the spelling differences might be a little fussy, but the key advantage is that we tend to smoothly comprehend the other variety's spelling (and grammar, in the few cases where it differs). This homogeneity is a gift compared with many other languages. We have by and large very successful rules for managing the varieties: we have done well. <Note of community self-congratulation, sigh>. Tony(talk)10:23, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
I try not to bring this up unless it's relevant, but take a good look at WP:LQ. This policy forces British-style punctuation on all articles, even the ones that are explicitly supposed to be written in American English. In this respect, there is a bias against American English. Even so, I don't think that Wikipedia needs to branch off into different encyclopedias, but as Victorian Mutant says, do whatever you want. More encyclopedias mean more articles for the readers to read. Darkfrog24 (talk) 13:21, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
I don't see it as British. I probably picked it up from Usenet in the Nineties (it always had seemed more reasonable to me). I don't think Usenet was ever Brit-dominated, but it might have been programmer-dominated, and it's a convention that makes much more sense to programmers than the "inside the quotes" one ever did. --Trovatore (talk) 18:16, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
It might be other things too, Trovatore, but it is British. It's referred to as such in style guides and dictionaries and it's the overwhelmingly preferred style in the U.K. Look at it this way, just because a movie theater in New York writes "theatre" on its sign doesn't mean that it's not using a British spelling. Darkfrog24 (talk) 22:33, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
See the very extensive recent discussion at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)/Archive_65#Proposal_for_Wikipedia_in_American_English, stemming from the opposite complaint. Under Wikipedia:Manual of Style#National varieties of English (affectionately referred to as WP:ENGVAR), articles should follow the English-language usage of the country closest to the topic (e.g. Babe Ruth, Tower of London, Pierre Trudeau, Sydney Opera House, Taj Mahal, Bob Marley), and where no such close national tie exists, other editors should follow the style of an article's first major editor (which has been the practice at War of 1812). While it may be irritating to non-Americans, many of the topics do have American affinities, while a plurality if not a majority of editors and readers of the English-language Wikipedia are Americans. If there is a slight bias, it's in giving British usage preference to topics which are really the common heritage of Americans as well as Britons (e.g. William Shakespeare, whose English is no further from current American than it is from current British). ¶ Although I've lived in the States for decades, I and my parents were born in London and I still hold British citizenship, so my own bias or prejudice is towards British spelling and usage; I hold no brief for American usages, except where they make more sense. Having grown up and studied on both sides of the Atlantic, let me say that the differences, while they can be sometimes obscure or irritating, are just not that great, certainly not great enough to justify separate encyclopaedias. —— Shakescene (talk) 19:56, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
WMF have done an amazing job with Chinese WP, where with a simple click of a tab, one can choose between 4 slightly different Chinese characters. They have created the database, done the mapping, and as a result, the editing and reading are pretty seamless between the character sets. I have heard rumours that they may be working on a similar setup for AmEng and BrEng. --Ohconfucius¡digame!05:35, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
It's sad in a way that we would need this, though. This is an international project, in spirit as well as in fact. Should we not stop caring whether it's colour or color, or at least stop thinking about it along nationalist lines? I move between these spellings depending on which article I'm working on, and I like that, that there's no fixed thing in my mind about how things must be written. I have my preferences, but not because of this or that nationality. SlimVirgintalk|contribs05:47, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
Exactly. If the WMF is spending money on such a purpose, I want to know about it; and I would be suggesting that they direct their resources to real issues that need urgent action. I hear no complaints from readers about varieties of English ... does anyone? I do wish programmers/developers would concentrate on clearing the backlog of technical changes rather than solving problems that don't exist. We hear continually that they are too busy ... doing what? Tony(talk)06:06, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
I know very little between the traditional/simplified Chinese thing, but the mapping from AmE to BrE is not one-to-one with semantic differences (e.g. "cheque" and "check" mean different things), so I don't think it can be fully automated, at least not in the foreseeable future. A. di M. (talk) 09:39, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
I have long thought that the mapping through functionality in the software would be the best way to make the encyclopaedia as accessible as possible to a wide range of readers by displaying their chosen style of english, where available (its not all about contributors) and a lot of readers, rightly or wrongly, get defensive over 'their' style of english. I appreciate that a lot of words couldn't be automated, but many more could be directly mapped, and editors could gradually get round to using a suitable template, as currently happens with measurements between imperial and metric. The current system just invites confusion, especially where you have to go back to try and find instances of what language variant the first author wrote in, as its not always that clear - personally i favour Oxford English, so depending on what i've written, you might assume its AmE (organization) or BrE (colour). OwainDavies(about)(talk) edited at 10:42, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps each of "catsup" and "ketchup" first surprises people accustomed to the other, and "gaol" is odd; that's about it. To me, the notion that text in prototypically "British" English isn't "accessible" to US readers or that text in prototypical "American" English isn't "accessible" to British readers suggests one or more of: (a) "accessible" has sprouted a meaning that's new to me; (b) this is pandering to silly readers who like to claim that less familiar spellings render text incomprehensible or awkward; (c) we're dealing with readers who are unusually thick. Incidentally, I have dealt with thousands of people using English as a second language, and while many have commented on unfamiliar pronunciations I don't remember a single one stumbling over US/British differences in writing. ¶ You have a point, though: I do get defensive about my style of English. It's one from which peacockery and waffle is expunged (to the best of my awareness). In order to find articles in crap English, try searching for some excrescence such as "tender age": you'll find a lot. If more effort went into removing such blather and less into worrying about imagined problems with "organi?ation", etc, WP would be a lot more pleasant for me to read. -- Hoary (talk) 11:04, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
Indeed. It is far, far more important to clean up the standard of writing in many of our articles. Why are we worrying about a system that works very well? Every English speaker, including non-natives, is exposed (sometimes daily) with different varieties. It's shoulder-shrugging, and we should not bother ourselves beyond ensuring within-article consistency. I gnome a lot of articles, and only very occasionally do I have to spend a minute determining which variety is at issue. Next issue, please ....Tony(talk)11:19, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
Frankly, if someone were to suggest to me that American readers were too stupid to understand "centre" or "theatre" or "organisation," I would be rather insulted. I actually like that Wikipedia is written in more than one style. Complete uniformity is not necessary to our purpose. Darkfrog24 (talk) 13:51, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
Agree. Hard to justify a change affecting maybe .001% of the words, which (as Darkfrog mentions) are almost always easily understood. I would urge all editors to identify (new) articles by spelling on the discussion page to avoid later difficulties. (BTW, I am an American who differs on ketchup, and agrees it is catsup. The revisionists are wrong! :) Student7 (talk) 17:46, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
You can't really argue for WP language use being completely dominated by any variety. Certes, there are some instances. There are also many places where there is an alternative that is more widely acceptable than a nationally dominant one (and by acceptable I mean, in general , one which would not stand out). A good example seems to be the word "car" - the UK perception is that all Americans say "automobile", which is almost never used in the UK. It seems that "car" is widely used in the US, which makes it an ideal choice of synonym in Wikipedia. There are other words, such as "ouster" (used as a noun) where there is no real UK English word I can think of. This does highlight the fact that it is a capital trap to start describing an aspect of style or spelling as "UK" or Commonwealth" or "US" or even "international" - where a word or construction appears jarring to any reader, and a suitable alternative appears available, it is wise to use the alternative. Only in the case that one is unable to find a smooth solution in the eye of most beholders, should the "association" or even "first major editor" tests be considered. RichFarmbrough, 10:10, 26 October 2010 (UTC).
The UK perception is that all Americans say "automobile" — what an unusual thing for them to perceive. Certainly automobile is used is some formal contexts, maybe vehicle codes and the like, or when it is necessary to distinguish them from railroad cars. But the normal, everyday word in the States is car. I think you'd better find an example not based on a flagrant error, unless of course that's your point. --Trovatore (talk) 17:41, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
I recently lost an argument with Brits when I demurred at their insistence on using a name for venues for sports (other than cricket) as "pitches." I thought a word more common to both dialects could be used. They disagreed, and I lost! Student7 (talk) 13:26, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
A question regarding a film article title
Yesterday, the subtitle of the fourth Mission: Impossible film was announced, and the article was moved to Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol, reflecting that title (they decided to leave off the "IV" on this one). The question I have is with the actual punctuation of the title. Discussion started here; i would appreciate some input from a more knowledgeable contributor.oknazevad (talk) 18:24, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
Titular vs generic titles: it's a bit of a mess out there
Someone raised the matter of why a section title "General Secretaries" (in which three of them were listed) should have been changed to "General secretaries". This has been taken up at an outlying style guide. It would be better handled centrally, I think ... here. I've linked them to this thread. The MoS is quite clear about this ("the French president"). But xeno says, well, should "Prime Minister of Canada" be moved to "Prime minister of Canada"?
Canadian prime minister, a common noun phrase of two words, qualified by an adjective, but Prime Minister of Canada, a four word proper noun phrase. The Archbishop of Canterbury, Archbishop Rowan Williams, is an archbishop based in Canterbury. Kevin McE (talk) 18:10, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
No, it is more appropriate here, where there are more editors to lend their opinions. The matter relates to points in this MoS. Tony(talk)01:30, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
Once a discussion is ongoing, it is far better to link to it, than to start a new one elsewhere (and particularly with a comment which confuses the issue). Warofdreamstalk15:52, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
Either can be correct. There is a slight difference of connotation and meaning between (to pick yet another parallel, one existing in multiple countries) the Secretaries of State and the secretaries of state. (In particular, in Great Britain, the first definitely refers to a small number of members of the Cabinet; in the United States, unless qualified, to the holders of a single Federal post; the second may or may not. In both countries, the Secretaries and the secretaries mean different things, even if the context is general: the Secretaries have, since the eighteenth century,...) This is a matter of editorial judgment for many reasons - including whether, for the particular office, the difference is worth worrying about. Also, idiom varies from office to office; is there even attestation for the secretaries general of the United Nations? If not, we should not use it; MOS is not supposed to place stumbling blocks in the reader's path.
Bots should not override editorial judgment. The proper rule is, as often: First, follow the usage of the sources; if it is divided or otherwise doubtful, use lower case. Bots are not equipped to make those decisions. SeptentrionalisPMAnderson15:19, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
So you insist. But MoS main page, here, makes it quite clear in these examples: "De Gaulle was a French president; Louis XVI was a French king". This page doesn't particularly take orders from small, outlying pages when it already contains the appropriate guidance. A much larger group of editors watchlists this page.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but "secretaries of state" is the plural form of "a secretary of state". By analogy, "De Gaulle and Mitterand were French presidents"; "Smith and Jones were Canadian secretaries of state", therefore, a section title is "Secretaries of state". By contrast, "Secretary of State Thompson said ...". If there are engvar differences, why aren't they mentioned in the MoS section Titles of people? Either the advice should be clarified or we should drop the pretence that MoS is providing guidance on this matter (rather, confusion). Tony(talk)15:17, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
Because it is complicated; we don't have to make it so. The plural of Secretary of State is Secretaries of State; that's a partial differentiation of meaning. Similarly, there is a complete differentiation between Secretaries and secretaries; some will think this unfortunate, but our business is to communicate in English, not to revise it. SeptentrionalisPMAnderson19:44, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
Various style guides differ on these treatments, so we don't have to slavishly follow any of them. It is clearly an area where general usage is in flux. Unless we actually wanted Wikipedia to participate in a race to the bottom (with the news sources we often treat as the poor cousins of literature, no less) then why would we choose to adopt the nebulous and informal option over the well defined and formal one? We do not, after all, choose to completely abandon the use of grammar, spelling, capitalization and other such inconveniences. LeadSongDogcome howl!20:03, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
The high road is do what reliable sources do; this, of course, includes capitalization and grammar - suggesting otherwise is the reddest herring I have seen in some time; tweets are not reliable sources. But put the case that were not so; how then would this justify inventing a rule of our own? SeptentrionalisPMAnderson21:08, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
I am not sure I understand the preceding discussion. You seem to be saying that "secretaries of state" should be capitalized, but CMS (at least my ed. 14) seems to suggest the non-capitalized form (except when followed by the name of a particular secretary of state, which would seem to almost preclude the plural). The Oxford Guide to Style also suggests that titles used as clarification after a name or used to refer back to a previous mention of an office holder are not normally capitalized, e.g. Mr. Gladstone, the prime minister. I presume quite a lot of reliable sources follow Chicago or Oxford. --Boson (talk) 23:31, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
Secretaries (when used of the officials, as a brief form) must be capitalized - or the meaning is changed; there is at least a reasonable argument Secretaries of State should be capitalized, for the same reasons. Bots can neither understand meaning nor evaluate arguments; therefore no bot should be decapitalizing, despite our general preference. That's all. SeptentrionalisPMAnderson06:40, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
I understand Chicago and Oxford as recommending capitalization only when the term is not used descriptively, after, or referring back to a previous mention of the person (i.e. it is capitalized only when it is used preceding or instead of, for example, "Hillary Clinton", not anaphorically or descriptively). CMS (14th ed.) gives the specific examples "the secretary of state; the secretary; Secretary of State George C. Marshall; Secretary of State Marshall; George Catlett Marshall, secretary of state". I am still not sure if you are agreeing with this or arguing for capitalizing "secretary" whenever it is used with the special meaning of a political office. I agree that bots cannot evaluate this. --Boson (talk) 15:08, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
Whenever Secretary or Secretaries are used of a Cabinet office - by themselves without qualifiers like of State or of State for War - they must be capitalized for clarity; CMOS is bizarre, misleading, and contrary to usage in suggesting otherwise; the secretary runs a word-processor, not a department of state.
By extension, Secretaries of State is at least defensible; and should be decided on by human beings. If the actual reference is, say, to Acheson and Marshall, I would capitalize; if it is to the title, English and American, I would not; other instances are intermediate - others may differ.
Thanks! I think I understand your position now. That seems to be similar to Chicago's position on Speaker (exception for clarity)--Boson (talk) 19:21, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
←PMA, I don't disagree with you that it requires human decision-making, not bots. "the secretary runs a word-processor, not a department of state."—I do disagree with this distinction. The clear trend worldwide in English is towards lower case for titles in the absence of the person's name. I don't think it's up to individual WPians to decide whether, at the local government authority, Garbage Collector should be capitalised, or the wordprocessing Secretary, or the Chief Rangers (who gathered at a conference). This is an unnecessary and arbitrary boundary that leads to mess, which is probably why CMOS went with the tide and said, "Enough!" Tony(talk)03:16, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
Another Wave of the Future, is it, then? Those fade and turn back when they run into difficulties - and Speaker and Secretary are such difficulties. That's why they have survived the trend, such as it is. Throwing away differentiation, the process by which English has become a varied and subtle instrument, because you see a trend, is folly; don't join the lemmings.
A gathering of chief rangers is a collection of leading people who range, not holders of the title Chief Ranger. The reader may be able to figure out what was actually intended if Chief Ranger Smith is mentioned in the same context, or may guess that all the principal Rangers were invited; but it is bad writing to make the reader do so. We can lowercase president because the adjective in president genii is obsolete and there is no noun other than the office, but it is not always so.
This is not one anglophone's decision; the usage of the collective mass of English-speakers decides such things. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not an institute of language reform; and insofar as it tries to be the latter, it fails at the communication needed for the former. SeptentrionalisPMAnderson19:08, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
Resolved
![[1]](http://www.chicago-l.org/stations/images/DanRyan/sox-35th05.jpg){kind=link}