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.
I did some minor simplfication of Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Self-references to avoid, but my main point at this minute is the implication given late on in that that template usage should consider that the template gives away the fact it's Wikipedia. I've never seen this line of reasoning before. It's possible that the design of templates should be conducted with the posibilites for reuse considered, but it would be simpler if we just said that?
At the moment, it reads "Please verify that any use of the templates in this list override the need for encyclopedia-neutrality in the article." and then goes on to list some of the most used templates, for example {{Citation needed}}. My proposal is to reword to say that this should bee considered when designing templates, thus avoiding the need for a list of exceptions covering almost every article. Grandiose(me, talk, contribs) 16:10, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
Hmm. "Please verify that any use of the templates in this list override the need for encyclopedia-neutrality in the article" is wikilawyering nonsense, I'd just delete the line. Fences&Windows18:12, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
Editors, please take note of this edit, in which Kotniski reverted my reversion of two edits. My own extensive edit summary:
"Reverted two edits. One had no edit summary and the other (text: "ce") gave no indication of the section affected or the nature of the addition. Editors, please give informative edit summaries. Too many untrackable changes are planted in this page."
It is a nuisance to have to check an edit that lacks an edit summary, but we are impelled to do so because it could be something important or controversial. Of course Kotniski acts in good faith, and has earned the trust of regulars here. But I would remind him and everyone else that edits have often been inserted surreptitiously, with serious consequences that only became apparent much later. It is extremely hard to track these down, to check what sort of discussion had led to them, if any. The other editor involved this time is unknown to me: Nightscream. This editor added a provision, with the bare edit summary "CE". Not good enough, and a great inconvenience to us all.
I for one will feel completely justified in reverting any edit whose intent is left unclear, simply because it is left unclear. The edit can always be repeated, with the normal Wikipedian courtesy of an honest and informative summary, after such a reversion.
I do not believe that we should revert edits that are not well-summarized solely because they are not well-summarized. The article history pages are set up reasonably well and it is not that hard to go in and look at the change itself. However, we absolutely should encourage people to use good summaries. That is both a courteous and useful practice.
I agree with Darkfrog here. Though edit summaries should be encouraged, lack of an edit summary should not be a reason to remove an edit. If edit summaries were mandatory then I Wikipedia would simply make so you cannot save the page unless you've put something in the box yourself. I also agree that false edit summaries are just as easy to produce and have seen many vandals on film pages pretend like they were adding sourced information and upon closer inspection what they were adding was their own information with another source just copy and pasted from the page to cover their vandalism. BIGNOLE (Contact me)13:00, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
Edit summaries are not required, but some edits may be unclear without an edit summary. Editors will have to use their judgement when inspecting and reverting edits. ---— Gadget850 (Ed)talk15:34, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
Noetica, I agree that importantinformative edit summaries are important. See Help:Edit summary and Wikipedia:Edit summary legend and Wikipedia:Edit summary legend/Quick reference. Abbreviations are optional, and I have generally avoided them, except when otherwise there was insufficient capacity. In edit summaries as also in section headings, informativeness is important. (Particularly in section headings, informativeness is often in dynamic tension with brevity.) I wish to encourage any schoolteacher reading this to grade for informativeness the titles of the non-mystery compositions of his or her students.
Sometimes one wishes to know when a particular guideline was added or changed or removed. Yes, one can narrow it down by means of approximately binary fractions of an edit history page, but an informative summary for the relevant edit can possibly help to make the search quicker and easier. Also, for editors watching a page, an informative edit summary on the watchlist can be a useful criterion in the decision of whether or not to spend time in analyzing the edit more closely.
To anyone who thinks that attention to such details is an inconvenience, I say that any inconvenience about it is in the interest of security.
Perhaps this is a wake-up call for us. I'm a serial offender, and I agree that the MoS, being a critical page for the project, deserves more specific edit-summaries. Tony(talk)16:04, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
I'm just as guilty for editing without summaries, but again that is never a call to blindly revert an edit. That just comes across as pointish. Edit summaries are a great benefit, but frankly unless you absolutely trust the editor in question you should always verify their work. As far as major changes to the MOS go, there should probably be a better tracking system for those discussions then the simple archive that takes place. There are currently 125 archive pages. If I had to go through all of those pages just to find a consensus it would take me forever. Maybe a separate box needs to be created to house all discussions regarding the changes to this page (and all pages). There are a lot of needless topics that can just be housed in the general archive. Having a specific house for changes to the page will help in those times when you cannot find the "edit summary" that shows when a change took place. It could take a long period of time to locate the change even if there was an edit summary (even a thorough summary), because it could get lost in the countless summaries that would be surrounding it in the first place. BIGNOLE (Contact me)16:22, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
The technology affects this. Our diff mechanism is ill-suited for seeing changes in whitespace or punctuation. I consider it acceptable to revert an edit that lacks a meaningful summary for the sole reason is that the changed text is not evident in the diff. Jc3s5h (talk) 17:38, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
Seeing a punctuation change is not the same as seeing content change. If you look at the diff and cannot tell what happened, and there is no edit summary then that is one thing. If you look at the diff and can see what happened clearly and there is no edit summary then you need to ask yourself whether or not the edit was controversial in nature. If it wasn't then leave it alone. If it was, then revert it and tell the person. Again, this comes down to checking and making a conscious choice, not simply blindly reverting just because you didn't get the edit summary you wanted. BIGNOLE (Contact me)18:37, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
That is not acceptable. That is aggressive ; that is presumption of guilt. If you don't know why you are reverting some edit, then don't revert it. Wikipedia owes its success to being free and open.
Noetica considers an edit summary of "copyedit" or "fix" to be sufficient for his own editing, but omitting the section and abbreviating "copyedit" to "ce" makes an edit evil enough to revert for that reason alone. That's an awfully fine distinction. Art LaPella (talk) 17:56, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
Noetica, other editors can learn about informative edit summaries by studying them in your contribution history. They need not necessarily copy your style completely, because each of us has a unique personality.
Also, for non-minor edits to policies and guidelines in particular, it is helpful to state not only what is being added or changed or removed, but also why, even if a more extensive explanation has already been given on the discussion page. For example, one might state: adding guideline supported by CMOS—see talk page for more details—Archive 125. A record of the anticipated archive page can facilitate searches for the discussion after it has been archived.
I dislike summaryless edits too, but I don't consider that alone a good reason to revert. Changing the meaning (as opposed to correcting typos, adding obviously relevant links/removing obviously irrelevant ones (narrowly construed), and stuff) of a guideline without giving any rationale is usually ‘revert-some’ (even if the edit summary mentioned the exact location of the edit and its wording verbatim), but the idea of not putting footnotes in section titles seems quite uncontroversial to me, so I wouldn't have reverted that edit myself. ― A. di M.plédréachtaí20:43, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
I thank editors for their responses here. Nothing in the preceding persuades me to alter my resolution, and I will feel free (and sometimes obliged) to revert edits to crucial guidelines and policies if they are not documented. I have explained already. Further points:
Art LaPella writes that I consider edits like "fix" or "copyedit" sufficient for me, but not for others. But that is misleading. The first of those was just part of a discussion at ANI; it was marked "m" (for minor), and transparently followed a longer edit that bore this summary: "But it's a seamless history of intolerable behaviour that SOMEHOW gets to be tolerated ...". No one could construe that as inadequate. The second was also transparently part of a series, helping a newbie editor with an embryonic article in userspace when he wanted it moved to article space. The uninterrupted series of edits was explained in this initial summary: "Copyedit (see also current RM discussion on the talkpage)." Art, it is not helpful reflexly to tar any complainant with the same brush as the perpetrator, as you often attempt to do. I am known for my fastidious and often maximal edit summaries. At WP:MOS I am always careful to show what I am doing. See examples of my MOS editing in early August. We observe there that most people provide good summaries; but those who don't do that impose an unfair burden on the rest of us. A typically long one from me: "Tighten, fix wording; add cases that use en dash: 'north–south dialogue', 'east–west orientation' (now in the Dash guideline, and incidentally also in CMOS and OED); wider range of examples for persons by origin"; and a rare short one from me: "Add parentheses for clarity." A typical cryptic one from another editor, illustrating why we need to ask for transparent explanations: "shorter". That edit attempted to smuggle in a change, without success; but often those are successful.
Policy at WP:EDITING requires an informative edit summary: "Be sure to leave a comment about why you made the change. Try to use an appropriate edit summary." That link from policy is to a help page, where editors are enjoined always to provide an edit summary, because "accurate summaries help other contributors decide whether it is worthwhile for them to review an edit, and to understand the change should they choose to review it."
I make no apology for calling on editors to respect policy, or for bold action if they do not carry their share of the burden in documenting changes to the Manual of Style.
Just wanted to say that WP:EDITING does not mandate an edit summary (or require if you will). It says that it is helpful and people should do it, but nowhere does it say that failure to provide a summary can result in automatic reversion of your edit. Just saying. BIGNOLE (Contact me)23:32, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
Bignole, that's true, but I suppose we're all jaded by learning after the fact of major changes sneaked through under generic edit-summaries. Please remember that this is a big page that has ramifications for the whole project. Tony(talk)00:59, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
Bignole, I think WP:EDITING makes the expectation pretty clear. As I cited it: "Be sure to leave a comment about why you made the change." That's a direct, unqualified imperative, and it's policy. It is reasonable to revert an edit that does not conform to such clear policy – sometimes, and when the page is as influential as this one.
Art, if ever you judge an edit summary of mine to be substantially less informative than it ought to be – in an article, a policy page, or a guideline page – please do revert it (and explain your action ☺). I will happily come back and restore the edit, with a more thorough account of what I am up to.
A MOS-only attempt to police edit summaries by reverting might work if we 1) had a consensus 2) wrote a rule we can point to (for reverting, not just that we should have summaries) and 3) reverted blank edit summaries only. I think the main effect of anything more subjective would be arguments that reinforce our bearpit reputation. Art LaPella (talk) 03:13, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
I agree that Noetica's edit summaries (and mine) usually take up more room than most people's, without getting too lost in the significance of series of edits. But I wouldn't revert his edits with the shortest summaries. Art LaPella (talk) 00:36, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
While I think we all agree that edit summaries are helpful and many of us would like to remember to use them with greater consistency, this doesn't seem to be a "rule" that ought to be enforced by the "punishment" of reversion (if the edit was an improvement, then you're not punishing the editor by doing this, you're punishing Wikipedia). If you really want to know what an edit was about, just click the link or look at the popup - it doesn't take long. Anyway, it's just as easy to sneak in something controversial (possibly accidentally) with a misleading edit summary as with a missing one, so enforcing such a rule won't really do anything to improve the page's integrity.--Kotniski (talk) 10:34, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
Kotniski, if an inadequately summarized edit is reverted and then restored with an adequate summary, the edit history is improved. (Also, without reverting an inadequately summarized edit, the next editor could make a dummy edit with a summary for the inadequately summarized edit.)
Yes, but if a good edit is removed without a good reason, then the article itself is worsened. Also, "I'm removing this because you didn't write a summary that I think is long enough" smacks of WP:OWN. I concur that looking at the edit and then adding a summary for it would be better. Darkfrog24 (talk) 14:15, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
Kotniski: Of course it is possible to give a fuller but misleading edit summary; but it is harder that way to maintain the illusion of good faith. The evasion is more easily detected, and whoever detects it is more confident in reverting it. The reputation of editors who mislead like that is damaged, and people are on their guard when they encounter subsequent edits from the same source. I look at all edits here, Kotniski: but I scrutinise yours less closely because you have established trust. Still, as you acknowledge, "edit summaries are helpful and many of us would like to remember to use them with greater consistency." It is no "punishment" to remind people sharply of this matter of policy by reversion; it is simply a means of maintaining an accurate and informative record of the history of a crucial page.
Wavelength and Darkfrog: I would say the same to you. And the option of a null edit, with an edit summary to make up for the omission in a previous edit, has three flaws at least:
It inevitably suggests endorsement of that previous edit, unless one is forced to the additional inconvenience of issuing a disclaimer.
It requires interpretation of the intent behind that previous edit, or the effort to find a justification. This interpretation or justification may not itself be accurate.
It constitutes an unfair burden for those diligent enough to research the matter and correct it, and does little to influence the behaviour of the first editor to be more respectful of policy and common Wikipedian courtesy.
Darkfrog, surely if the edit is clearly "good" and important, an exception might be made. But let's keep as distinct issues the value of edits (often a subjective matter) and the proper documentation of changes (never a subjective matter). As for WP:OWN, who is more guilty of that? Editors who presume to make changes without a recording their content or justification (after all, they know what they're doing), or editors who insist that changes be transparently on the public record as required by policy and practice?
Having considered all comments here, I find among them no persuasive reason to withdraw my statement of intent. I commend it to others as a positive move for the management of the Manual of Style, and of any other guideline or policy pages.
Editors who make up non-written rules—or expand existing but obscure rules off the books until it is no longer reasonable to expect newcomers to know them without being told by discussion page regulars—come closer to WP:OWN than people who make changes without summarizing them. As for strangers coming in and making changes, however they are summarized, that is expected. That is how Wikipedia is supposed to work. Anyone who wants to may improve any article he or she wishes. How are they supposed to know that the MoS regulars have added extra requirements?
It is because the value of an edit is independent of the value of its edit summary that edits should not be reverted solely because they have poor edit summaries. If a given editor is too busy to look at an edit, then that editor is too busy to revert that edit.
Take a look at what you've just said about Kotniski. Of course the fact that you know this editor makes you more likely to trust any edits made—why shouldn't a good reputation have an effect?—but extending that to the point where people we don't know have to follow more rules than people we do approaches a collective WP:OWN: "I'm deleting your edit because I don't know you, but his similarly summarized can stay because he's part of the MoS co-op." Darkfrog24 (talk) 13:05, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
Thank you, Noetica, for replying. I accept your criticism of my suggestion about using null edits. I wish to follow your example in reverting inadequately summarized edits, but I would find it easier to do so if I could link in my edit summary to (the shortcut of) a supporting guideline at Help:Edit summary. Please initiate a discussion at Help talk:Edit summary for inclusion of such a guideline. Those pages are now on my watchlist, and I am ready to support your initiative.
This would need rather wider discussion than on an obscure help page. Since there's nothing special about the MoS in this regard, such a practice would represent a change to Wikipedia's whole editing culture, and would need to be discussed centrally. I hope Noetica's last statement does not mean that he is going to continue with this kind of revert unilaterally - it would produce ill-feeling between editors (something we already have more than enough of on these pages), and cause trivial matters of form to distract from the important matters of substance. (And on some occasions I really believe that no edit summary is the best edit summary - it implies "any few-word summary of this edit would be potentially misleading, so the most practical way to learn what the edit is about is to click on the diff and see for yourself".)--Kotniski (talk) 09:27, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
Kotniski, I am interested in seeing (a) links to edits where "no edit summary is the best edit summary” or (b) hypothetical but realistic examples of such edits or (c) both.
Kotniski, please suggest one or more pages more suitable to a wider discussion. Alternatively, it might be better to use Wikipedia:Requests for comment.
Noetica, if you decide to initiate a discussion on a different page, please mention it here with a link. I am still ready to support your initiative there.
Darkfrog: You write concerning "editors who make up non-written rules". Well, I hope I am not one of those. I hope that newcomers to this page will follow at least the normal requirements of policy and guidelines, and these include making an accurate edit summary. That's in the written rules. Myself, I have issued a written statement of intent; I have explained in great detail, followed the ensuing discussion, and responded. I stand by that statement, and I commend it to others for their own consideration. We are enjoined to be bold, and I intend to be. My boldness will not take the form of, for example, acting in such a way that the page is locked and then refusing to do anything to remedy that. Rather, it will be a conservative boldness that respects the central role of WP:MOS and related pages: the need for stability and clear documentation in evolving the Project's core style resources. If you somehow have a problem with that, I'm sorry; but it is your problem, not mine.
Kotniski: Wavelength's questions a, b, and c are good ones. I hope you will respond to them. So far I cannot agree that it is ever preferable to leave no edit summary. If the matter is too complex to summarise, this is something that can itself be noted: "A complex re-working affecting [add some broad characterisation here]; please see the edit itself"; or perhaps, since almost anything so elusive and complex needs discussion or at least notification at the talkpage: "A complex re-working of details to achieve [such and such]; see discussion at [relevant section of the talkpage]". Still, I'd like to see what you say.
Wavelength: Right now I have no time to take this further in any other forum; I am content to have raised the matter and to have got some good discussion going. Thank you for your interest, and for pursuing this methodically.
Noetica, your belief that edit summaries are not just desirable but required is an example of taking something that is written down and expanding it to the point where a newcomer to this page would not know that his or her edits would be deleted unless he or she performs to a specific set of actions in a specific way. No, you didn't make it up out of whole cloth, but no, Wikipedia does not state that edits without summaries should be deleted. I have a problem with requiring newcomers and non-regulars to magically know about the regulars' personal preferences and specialized interpretations of policy. Darkfrog24 (talk) 12:55, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
Darkfrog: You misrepresent me. Please don't do that. This is not a matter of "personal preferences", except perhaps the lazy, inattentive, ill-advised, and sometimes nefarious ways of those who "magically" expect that the effect of their edits will be visible to everyone, even months or years after they make them. When we are attempting to unravel some ancient mischief or other (as we must sometimes do here), undocumented edits must be checked. Every time. I call that unreasonable, and it takes no "specialized interpretation of policy" to see that such lapses undermine one of the central recording mechanisms set in place to maintain cohesion and quality in the Project.
You refer to my "belief that edit summaries are not just desirable but required" as if it were a mere belief; but in fact I have cited policy that requires it (see above): "Be sure to leave a comment about why you made the change. Try to use an appropriate edit summary." A newcomer's edit, treated as I propose, could be rescued by any editor wishing to restore it – with an adequate edit summary as required by policy and well-established practice. The course of action I propose is by no means radical. Policy and guideline pages carry admonitions at the top about editing them. WP:MOS (along with all MOS pages) has this wording: "Please ensure edits reflect consensus." An edit that is undocumented in the record can hardly be said to conform to this reasonable and polite request; and any edit that then removes the first edit, with a similar polite call for appropriate documentation, is hardly unreasonable.
You disagree? Very well, here's a compromise. I (and any others who adopt the same stance) might wait 24 hours in each case, unless of course there is some separate reason to revert the edit. During that time, any editor can provide a null edit that:
Sufficiently explains the undocumented edit.
Expresses neutrality, support, or reservations concerning the undocumented edit (so the intention of the "null editor" is clear).
Explains the null edit so that the first editor is reminded of the need to give an informative edit summary.
How's that? A collegial and moderate middle position. If you think all of that can be achieved, I'll go along with it. I'll adopt this softer approach if it is generally preferred and accepted. (Of course, if no such null edit appears in the meantime, it would be reasonable to revert entirely to the state preceding the undocumented edit; subsequent editors have had a chance to rectify things, and did not do so. That would be one option to consider, if disentangling several edits proved excessively onerous.)
"We should delete edits that are not well-summarized" is your own personal, specialized interpretation of "Try to use an appropriate edit summary." New users should not be expected to know it.
Or, instead of waiting twenty-four hours, you could wait no hours and look at the edit to see if it merits deletion. If you're too busy to do that, then you're too busy to perform the deletion. Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:34, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
No Darkfrog, you continue to misrepresent me. I do not say "we should delete edits that are not well-summarized". I gave notice that I (one editor) reserve the option of doing so, in egregious cases; and I said that there would be exceptions, and I flexibly offered to take a softer approach to maintaining the integrity of records, and promoting respect for policy and established practice. I am not "too busy" to take care with both the content of the Manual and its proper documentation, as can be seen from my record here. (Well, I am too busy: but I sacrifice the time from my real life activities.) No edit is to be dismissed lightly. That is not what I am suggesting. I don't see why you should be so resistant to any change, given that things have clearly not been working well in past months. Or rather, some here have had to work extraordinarily hard to correct for others' lapses, and to keep the development of the Manual moving along smoothly. It takes far too much time to fix things when sound procedure is treated as optional. Now, look at how much time I spend explaining and responding in this discussion; and compare the summary dismissals from some other contributors to it – and failures to answer fair questions, in favour of reiteration of sheer opinion. NoeticaTea?01:07, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
"Noetica believes that we should revert edits that are not well-summarized" is not a misrepresentation of "I for one will feel completely justified in reverting any edit whose intent is left unclear, simply because it is left unclear" and "I will feel free (and sometimes obliged) to revert edits to crucial guidelines and policies if they are not documented." Your belief that such edits should be reverted is no less subjective than others' belief that they should not. Darkfrog24 (talk) 13:17, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
Fortunately the stark assertion in your first sentence can be refuted simply by examining your very words, and mine that you quote. I write with precision; I wish you would read with precision. Your second sentence? I do not say or believe that "such edits should be reverted"; but I will exercise my judgement and feel free (sometimes obliged) to revert them. Others will behave as they choose, as always. Can we break from this now? NoeticaTea?03:05, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
We can break, assuming you don't misinterpret breaking as a supporting consensus. Even Wavelength wants a written guideline first. Art LaPella (talk) 03:30, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
Well Art, Wavelength has not required a written guideline first, as a careful reading of this section will show. Wavelength would like something in writing, yes: "I wish to follow your example in reverting inadequately summarized edits, but I would find it easier to do so if I could link in my edit summary to (the shortcut of) a supporting guideline at Help:Edit summary." Wavelength is at least as fastidious a writer as I am, and I draw your attention to the phrasing that I have just underlined in that quotation. I too would like something hard and fast in policy or guidelines on this; but it is not strictly necessary. Nor is consensus needed, if someone chooses to act in support of longstanding policy and conventions in favour of adequate edit summaries. Nor was it even necessary for me to raise the matter here. I did so for the sake of openness and free discussion. NoeticaTea?07:27, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
I think that interpretation is too literal. But even if Wavelength had supported you wholeheartedly, two editors in such a large discussion aren't a consensus. There is longstanding policy for adequate edit summaries, but to my knowledge, reverting for that reason is completely unprecedented on any page, nor was there any prior discussion of reverting. To me, it's like towing your car away because you didn't rotate your tires. Art LaPella (talk) 21:35, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
In my experience, if anyone here is to be read literally it is Wavelength. As I thought I had made clear, no consensus is necessary or solicited. I merely advised of my intention, sought comment, and responded to it. I found nothing to make me change my mind: I will feel free to safeguard the record of the page, and its transparent development; and I think it would be good if others felt that way too. If what I propose is "completely unprecedented", so what? Wikipedia is itself an innovation, and we must sometimes boldly innovate within it – especially at guideline and policy pages, whose importance steadily increases as the Project expands and matures. This innovation simply respects existing conventions and policy. I have also offered a softened approach as an alternative, in response to concerns. No one has taken up that offer. NoeticaTea?00:06, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia is itself an innovation, but its founders presumably paid or contracted for servers and bandwidth. Fortunately for you, administrators tend to avoid this bearpit. So if you edit against consensus long enough, I expect more months or years of edit war before they crack down. At least our summaries will improve! Art LaPella (talk) 04:56, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
Art, I recall you using the word "you" seeming controversially to mean a particular editor, but when queried you explained that you meant "you" broadly (and not Greg L). Please explain this time also; I genuinely can't see what message you want to convey. I am wondering why it would be fortunate for me, if admins avoid this place. I would welcome their careful attention here, in evenhanded enforcement of policy. NoeticaTea?06:49, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
"you" means you, Noetica, not you plural. I can imagine admins eventually enforcing the WP:CONSENSUS policy if you reverted enough edits with insufficient summaries, assuming the consensus doesn't change. Even if you waited 24 hours, and even if you issued numerous warnings, and even though good summaries is a motherhood issue (definition, in case that expression is an unfamiliar Americanism). That is my understanding of WP:CONSENSUS and the way Wikipedia normally works. Of course, if you think you understand their ways better than I do, then my opinion doesn't matter. Art LaPella (talk) 19:06, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for clarifying, Art. I too can imagine all sorts of abuses and misunderstandings arising. (One only has to browse occasionally at WP:ANI. That will suffice!) But I have done my best to explain. I had thought it would be piercingly clear by now that my intention is to support policy and conventions, and that I propose always to act in good faith for the good of MOS and of the Project at large. The actions that I would reverse (with documentation and explanation, and after careful thought) would be patently against policy and conventions. In the end I have to ask: what part of the word "bold" do people not understand? I really think we should drop this now. It is hard to see how anything new or useful could be added. NoeticaTea?22:41, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
Noetica, your explanations have not been ignored. You read the policy and came to the conclusion that it is okay or even good to revert poorly summarized edits solely because they are poorly summarized. Most of the rest of us read the policy and came to the conclusion that it is not good to revert poorly summarized edits solely because they are poorly summarized. It is not that we're not listening to you. It is that we do not agree with you. Darkfrog24 (talk) 14:51, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
Very well, except for two things. First, the few that have joined in here do not justify your summary use of "we". Wavelength favours my approach, and others have not censured it but rather simply agreed that it addresses a serious problem. Second, I do not consider that we all need to have the same approach anyway. In your other recent comment (answered below), you propose an alternative. I express the hope that you will act on it – because the problem has grown serious enough for action to be necessary, not squeamish or theoretical niceties alone. I will sometimes act as I have said I feel free to, after careful reflection. I have done so once already. I look forward to your efforts also. NoeticaTea?23:30, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
Good Olfactory: Thanks to you too. Great to see you taking an interest. I look forward to your assistance next time we have to defuse an anti-MOS mine that someone has planted months ago, under a deceptive edit summary, multiplying the work of those who actually do things here by a factor of thirty or so.
Of course I've said all I need to say on this. Others have not answered questions put to them; but it's their prerogative to leave a discussion if they can't follow through. I've made my intention and my reasons abundantly clear, and responded fully. Let's drop it now. NoeticaTea?11:10, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
Or perhaps not answering your questions indicates not a lack of follow-through but merely that they've said all they have to say and don't feel the need to repeat it. Darkfrog24 (talk) 13:17, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
I was thinking of Wavelength's three-part request (a, b, and c) for responses from Kotniski, actually. Still not answered. NoeticaTea?07:27, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
That is not any sort of character flaw on Kotniski's part. He might just be done. These discussions can run long and people don't have to keep at it if they don't want to. Perhaps, rather than mocking those who continued to participate, Kotniski simply declined to continue himself. Darkfrog24 (talk) 13:07, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
Fine. I have praised Kotniski here, not sought to find in him any "character flaw". Still, he has not answered a challenge to his surprising idea that sometimes it is best to leave no edit summary. Is that idea consensual? Where has it been questioned, apart from by Wavelength and me? NoeticaTea?00:06, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
"I look forward to your assistance next time we have to defuse an anti-MOS mine that someone has planted months ago, under a deceptive edit summary, multiplying the work of those who actually do things here by a factor of thirty or so." Given the level of scrutiny that this page seems to attract day-to-day, as evidenced by this discussion, I won't hold my breath for such an opportunity to help ... at least regarding edits to this page, if that's what was meant. Good Ol’factory(talk)22:20, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
Just so you know, even the weakened wording in the template at the top of WP:MOS, and all MOS pages ("Use common sense in applying it; it will have occasional exceptions"), was determined unilaterally by a campaigner against MOS under the single-word edit summary "shorter". The work of undoing that damage is still ahead of us. NoeticaTea?03:05, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
Apparently. You call it pedantry? In an ideal Wikipedia it would make no difference, of course. But that edit removed some crucial words: "it should be followed"; and that removal was part of a sustained campaign to weaken the MOS pages. (Contrast the corresponding wording on other guideline pages.) The wording was this:
The current wording does not say that the guidelines should be followed. Ever. It suggests only that, if the MOS is followed, one should
[u]se common sense in applying it; it will have occasional exceptions.
Fortunately, against those who do quibble over such minutiae at RMs and the like, that template is not itself a guideline or a policy. Hard policy at WP:PG still says this:
Editors should attempt to follow guidelines, though they are best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply.
That is the policy that our campaigner was trying to mask, with a subtle (pedantic?) alteration. Other examples can be shown. But really, that's for another day, isn't it? NoeticaTea?03:49, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
How does anyone know for sure what the user's intent was in making the change, though? Or are we just assuming? Judging by the discussion above, I wouldn't be surprised if perhaps much was being read into his actions that does not necessarily reflect anyone's actual intent. Good Ol’factory(talk)05:11, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
I think that user would agree that he doesn't want the Manual of Style to have so much authority. You could ask him. It's a long story. A better question would be whether reverting edits against consensus, just because the summary is inadequate, would help resist someone who hasn't edited here lately, more than it would emulate him. Art LaPella (talk) 05:44, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
Art: Of course discretion and normal collegial respect are advisable, when we consider using any sanction. This doesn't entail that sanctions ought to be unavailable. I have no intention of acting here without regard for consequences. I hope others will be equally cautious, in their editing of a core resource. NoeticaTea?07:27, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure who is considering using a sanction, but it isn't me; I have never blocked anyone, and I was made administrator just to proofread the Main Page. Art LaPella (talk) 21:40, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
The sort of sanction I refer to is what I propose: reverting an editor who has flouted policy, convention, and courtesy by failing to leave an edit summary – or by leaving a patently inadequate one. Not only admins are capable of delivering sanctions; anyone can advise, warn, reprimand, or revert. Many editors (and certainly admins, as we see from the record at WP:ANI) regrettably do such things capriciously. That's not my intention. NoeticaTea?00:06, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
I believe that the appropriate response would be to contact the editor via talk page and tell him or her that leaving poor edit summaries inconveniences other Wikieditors. The edits themselves should be kept or reverted on their own merits, independently of their summaries or contributors, Darkfrog24 (talk) 14:55, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
And a fine belief it is too, Darkfrog. Well motivated, and likely to have good consequences. Will you act on it? I truly hope so. I intend to act on mine. NoeticaTea?23:30, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
I don't think we need a consensus policy on this. Suffice it to say that edits without summaries are much more likely to be reverted at a glance if they are at all questionable, or if the editor in question is on a streak of such annoying things and has been warned. Each of us can adopt our own thresholds for action. Dicklyon (talk) 01:33, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
WP:MOS revision history and user edits
Here is a link to the history page of the latest 500 edits to Wikipedia:Manual of Style. (The web address can be revised to show the latest 5000, but the page takes more time in being loaded. It might be advisable that not everyone use1 that feature at the same time.)
I invite each editor to become familiar with the degree of informativeness of the edit summaries of each editor listed, and to copy these links to his or her userspace or even to a private computer file outside Wikipedia. Periodic review might show improvements.
—Wavelength (talk) 16:08, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
When I was posting the list above, I had edited WP:MOS 34 times and I was ranked in the 28th position in the list of contributors. After my 35th edit (at 17:19, 27 September 2011), I was ranked in the 27th position, and Patrick, also with 35 edits, was ranked in the 28th position.
—Wavelength (talk) 18:37, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
Astutely pointed out, Wavelength. Of course your grammar (along with your explication of the relevant grammatical facts) is sound. I do wonder, echoing something I have already written in this subsection, about the need for such minute explanations on a talkpage; but where might we expect them, if not at this talkpage? ♪ NoeticaTea?22:41, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
I have tried to follow your advice in regard to not interrupting the flow when I revise what I have posted, and so I have used a footnote in this instance. Sometimes people mistakenly conjugate a verb in the plural number with the subject pronoun everyone, and I did not want my message to be misconstrued as supporting that error.
My summaries are actually shorter than most, but not when compared to comparable edits – relatively simple and uncontroversial. I worry about cluttering up the edit history page as much as I worry about explaining my changes. Art LaPella (talk) 20:53, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
In edit summaries, as in section headings, both brevity and informativeness are desirable aspects, but they are often in dynamic tension with each other. Sometimes I become aware, after I have submitted an edit summary, of how I could have done better. Various distractions, from within Wikipedia and from outside it, can cause my performance (and probably any editor's performance) to be less than optimal. We need time to think, and especially when other editors have not taken enough time to think.
Because of the importance of the Manual of Style, informativeness in its edit summaries is more important than in those of most pages in Wikipedia. If they are somewhat longer on average, the difference is in the edit summaries of a relatively small number out of all the pages in Wikipedia.
Wavelength, thank you for bringing to light that innovation at the top of the revision history page. Invaluable! Thank you also for this section. All of us might learn something from examining our own practice with edit summaries. I am happy enough with my own: I am obviously a believer in giving the details, and sometimes even adding "editorialising" observations; but I would welcome any critique. You have asked me at my talkpage for an evaluation of your summaries, and I will answer here. I think they are just fine. But I take the opportunity to remark that, when you amend your posts on talkpages, it is not always desirable to insert a long comment signalling that you are doing so. This can interrupt the flow. Here too there is a "dynamic tension": it is often important to signal a change, for the course of the discussion to be comprehensible and in fairness to editors who have read or even responded to an earlier recension. It is unfair to make them look inept! But very often it is not so important, especially if the alteration is minor or follows swiftly after the original. NoeticaTea?01:36, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
Noetica, thank you for your feedback. I have tried to follow your advice in the sections #Evaluating style guides and #Evaluating published usage, further down this page. In each of my revisions before Darkfrog24 replied, I simply changed what I had posted and I added a timestamp. In my revisions afterward, I used a footnote number after the added word and before the new timestamp.
Experts in style may be interested in this discussion at wt:title, remembering that the MoS itself has a section on article titles. The issue of how specific article titles are has not been properly reviewed for many years. In addition, there is a move to reverse what some editors regard was a reasonable parenthetical addition to one of the examples provided in that thread—the article Central Provident Fund—so that our readers have some idea of what the topic is (Central Provident Fund (Singapore)); I note that there's at least one other central provident fund, in South Africa, but this doesn't seem to count in the appeal to "prior practice in article naming". Tony(talk)12:09, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
Iodized salt has just been moved to Iodised salt on the grounds that when it was moved from Iodised salt to Iodized salt a few months ago that was a violation of ENGVAR (and, presumably, WP:RETAIN in particular), and ENGVAR enjoys more consensus support than did that particular move[3].
But is it the intent of ENGVAR for RETAIN to apply in cases like this, where one spelling variant is clearly dominant, not only in N. American English, but also in British English? Yes, the -ised form is used in the UK, but the -ized form is more common there. The -ised form is only predominant in a few Commonwealth countries... is there consensus to give an obviously minority form equal weight per RETAIN? --Born2cycle (talk) 17:35, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
How does ENGVAR even apply in that sense? It's not a regional variety of English, only an optional spelling variant in some varieties. And -ize is the international form, so WP:COMMONALITY would apply. — kwami (talk) 17:59, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
Though I use British English, I prefer the -ize form (en-gb-oed). However, I do not think this spelling is dominant in British English. I, personally, would also prefer the ize form on the basis of WP:COMMONALITY but I do not think this is consensus. If we wanted to change consensus, I think it would require discussion at WT:MOS.--Boson (talk) 19:32, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
WP:RETAIN indeed appears to go too far. We absolutely shouldn't change an article's English variety without a valid reason, but "strong national ties to a topic" isn't the only such reason. For example, we moved Check (finance) to Cheque to eliminate the need for parenthetical disambiguation. An opportunity for commonality is another valid reason. (Whether it's applicable in this particular instance is a separate matter.) —David Levy20:01, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
See latest revision being discussed below
Given the preliminary discussion above, I suggest that WP:RETAIN be clarified to make an allowance for COMMONALITY, which presumably has consensus support. This suggestion is based on my belief that WP:RETAIN, as written, presumes a situation where COMMONALITY does not apply. WP:RETAIN currently states:
When a variety of English has become established in an article, it should be maintained unless Strong national ties to a topic require otherwise. When no variety has been established and discussion cannot resolve the issue, adopt the variety used by the first major contributor; or equivalently, the first contributor to a non-stub article to edit in a way that determines the variety. The decision can be documented by placing the appropriate Varieties of English template on the article's talk page.
I suggest adding the following statement to the existing language:
When multiple spellings of the same word are commonly used in the established English variant of an article, but one spelling is used most commonly among all major English variants, use the more common spelling, per WP:COMMONALITY.
Oppose. No procedure is described to measure whether "one is used most commonly among all English variants". Whatever procedure might be imagined would be a severe burden on editors. Jc3s5h (talk) 20:26, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
A suggested change/improvement would be more constructive than an Oppose. Anyway, the assumption is that there is consensus agreement about the question, but we can make that explicit if you wish, which I do below. --Born2cycle (talk) 20:57, 5 October 2011 (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.
Revision a
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
To account for Jc3s5h's concern above:
When multiple spellings of the same word are commonly used in the established English variant of an article, and there is consensus agreement about one spelling being used most commonly among all major English variants, use the more common spelling, per WP:COMMONALITY.
Better? The point is that this should only apply when the spelling in question is obviously most common, which we can easily determine from, say, no one, or hardly anyone, challenging the assertion that one spelling is most common, while most if not all agree that it is most common. --Born2cycle (talk) 20:57, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
Oppose I am a great advocate of version neutral English, but this formulation has little to do with that section of the policy. The policy is not about spellings that are most commonly used: across all versions of English (on aggregate) US spelling will be most common, and this is open to that interpretation. Nor is the -ize suffix dominant, or anywhere near to dominant, in UK English. I could support a comment that tempers WP:RETAIN by reference to WP:VNE, but not a paraphrase that misrepresents the latter. To mandate the -ize spelling, which is the logical consequence of this, is to determine that the Oxford idiosyncrasy is the only acceptable version of UK English. That would require a far stronger consensus than is being sought here, and if it is to be proposed, should be explicit. Kevin McE (talk) 21:07, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
What if we were to specify that this applies strictly to a situation in which there's consensus that a spelling is used with similar or greater frequency in the article's English variety? For example:
A word can be spelled either "x" or "y".
The article is written in American English, in which both spellings are used with approximately the same frequency.
The article currently contains the spelling "x".
In other English varieties, the spelling "y" predominates by a large margin.
Kevin, why do you think changing to -ize is "to determine that the Oxford idiosyncrasy is the only acceptable version of UK English"? The point is to recognize that both spellings are acceptable in UK English, but one is more dominant among other variants. Also, you refer to "the US spelling" will be most common, true, but that's only relevant when "the US spelling" is an acceptable spelling in the established variant of the article in question. What's wrong with that?
David, perhaps I failed, but your example illustrates what I was attempting to convey with the proposed wording. You wrote,
"What if we were to specify that this applies strictly to a situation in which there's consensus that a spelling is used with similar or greater frequency in the article's English variety"
That's what I meant to say with,
"When multiple spellings of the same word are commonly used in the established English variant of an article, ...".
Comment I don't think that would help, particularly in the example you gave above, since as far as I know the "-ize" form is not most commonly used in British English. I haven't researched this thoroughly, but according to the article American and British English spelling differences
So, to make a sensible difference, the guidelines would have to state explicitly that the –ize form (and possibly other OUP conventions, such as the serial comma) should be used in British English even though it is not the most common form in order to use a form that is permitted in both British and American English. I don't think there is a likelihood of consensus for that. --Boson (talk) 23:26, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
The issue of theater vs. theatre was resolved to use the later since American English uses both. Sounds like the same may be true for the ise vs. ize problem. Use the one the is accepted in both major forms of English. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:31, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
Boson, nothing in the proposed wording requires the spelling to be the most commonly used in each of the variants, only the most common spelling among all of them put together. I agree with Vegaswikian and perhaps that suggests a better way to word this. --Born2cycle (talk) 00:47, 6 October 2011 (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.
Revision b
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Trying to incorporate Vegaswikian's point:
When there is consensus agreement that one of several spellings of the same word is commonly used (but not necessarily most commonly used) in the English variant of the article as well as in another major English variant, then prefer that more common spelling over a spelling that is not commonly used in the other major variant, even if it's less commonly used in the established variant, per WP:COMMONALITY. However, do not use a spelling that is not commonly used in the established variant of the article.
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.
Revision c
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Trying to incorporate Will's suggestion for using plain English...
When consensus agrees that one spelling is commonly used in the established English variant of the article as well as in another major English variant, then prefer that spelling over a spelling that is not commonly used in both variants.
It sounds like it could be boiled down further: If there is more than one recognized spelling, rely on consensus to decide which to use. In other words, it's a revocation of the entire MOS:ENGVAR section. That's a huge change and would not lead to greater stability, IMO. Will Bebacktalk04:03, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
I agree "rely on consensus to decide which to use" is a complete revocation of ENGVAR, but that's a total change in meaning from the proposed wording, which is closer to the much narrower "rely on consensus to determine a) whether one spelling is commonly used in the established English variant of the article as well as in another major English variant, and b) whether the other spelling is not commonly used in both variants". In other words, in the proposed version we're talking about relying on consensus to determine two very specific issues, while in your version you're throwing the broad question at consensus to answer without providing any guidance on what determinations to make at all. --Born2cycle (talk) 04:37, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
It doesn't seem to account for the fact that there are many engvars: it talks about "another" variant, but which one —Canadian? —Australian? Uniplex (talk) 05:02, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
Oppose Common usage alone is not a good enough reason to remove a valid spelling or downplay a valid variety of English. (The Check/Cheque example gives us more than that.) If we do this, we'll end up removing non-Oxford English from Wikipedia altogether, and showing English as it is rather than as some people wish it were is good for Wikipedia and its readers. Darkfrog24 (talk) 13:14, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
(This is the point I was making above, nothing to do with Iodised salt, just taking the proposal at face value). Uniplex (talk) 13:51, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
Oppose. Firstly, the last two revisions advise us to focus on "the [established] English variant of the article" and "another major English variant." Which other major English variant, and how do we select it? Do we just arbitrarily pick one on a whim? I'm baffled as to why we wouldn't instead look to all of the other English variants in aggregate, as stated in the first two revisions.
Secondly, I was happy to consider the idea if it applied when the spelling most commonly used around the world also is about as common as any other spelling in the article's English variety. I cannot support the proposal if it also applies to a spelling that's common but less common than another in the article's English variety. As Kevin McE and Darkfrog24 noted, this would lead to the mass replacement of "-ise" with "-ize" throughout the encyclopedia. A similar example mentioned above is "theatre," which is a secondary spelling in American English (and therefore shouldn't replace "theater" in American English articles, apart from proper nouns and quotations of written material). I can't imagine the benefit of taking our commonality pursuit that far. —David Levy17:25, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I personally prefer to use spelling X rather than spelling Y whenever X is at least 0.5 times as common than Y in both BrE and AmE (and overall) but not vice versa (hence organization[4][5][6], sulfur, yogurt, etc.), but I know that's not the mainstream interpretation of WP:RETAIN. ― A. di M.plédréachtaí17:32, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. Excellent points, and some things I did not full realize. Then should we state more clearly that when multiple spellings of a word are acceptable in an article's English variant, we usually prefer the more common spelling used in that variant? --Born2cycle (talk) 18:57, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
We should suggest in very strong terms that thinking for five seconds about which spelling to prefer is a terrible, terrible idea. This site is not here to host this kind of minutiae-chasing. -GTBacchus(talk)01:27, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
@Born2cycle: No way. The fact that in a certain English dialect a certain word is spelt in a certain way 60% of the times and in another way 40% of the times is not, by itself, a good reason to discourage using the latter spelling in articles written in that dialect. Now, if the ratios are more like 90%:10%, that's a different kettle of fish. (And if there can be semantic differences between the two spellings, I'd not consider them as different spellings of the same word for these purposes, even if they have the same pronunciation and etymology.) ― A. di M.plédréachtaí09:54, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
Oppose - I question what's going on here. This seems to be an attempt to make a rule to help people decide which spelling to use for a word when there's more than one English variant. The whole point of ENGVAR is that we don't care.
Our long-standing de facto policy, which many people associate with the label "ENGVAR", is that we should go out of our way not to question whether words should end "-our" or "-or"; "-ter" or "-tre"; and certainly, "-ise" or "-ize". Please do not make the guideline page appear to ask us to care about these spelling distinctions. -GTBacchus(talk)01:27, 7 October 2011 (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.
Revision d
This is a total rewrite of the new proposed wording - trying to reflect how GTBacchus (talk·contribs) says this is widely interpreted. I propose adding this to WP:RETAIN as a separate paragraph:
When multiple spellings of the same word are commonly used in the established English variant of an article, and one of the commonly used spellings is used in the title, don't change the title simply to change to another spelling.
Absolutely, it is. It is accurateinsofar as an imperative can be called "accurate", and it is related to iodised salt. Discussion of that move has made it apparent that this bit of policy (or guideline, or whatever it is) is out of sync with how Wikipedians understand ENGVAR. In particular, the spirit of ENGVAR-as-ceasefire is not readily apparent to at least some good-faith readers of this guideline, and very probably many more.
I like the change. By explaining the goal of the guideline, editors can form a consensus for occasions when the guideline could be ignored (for example, an article that frequently discusses the SI unit of length and measuring instruments could use "metre" for the former and "meter" for the latter).
Sorry, isn't this covered by the lead to MoS, specifically ArbCom's judgement that optional styles shouldn't be switched about unless there's a good reason? Tony(talk)16:00, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
In the case of Iodised salt the good reason given was that the other spelling was more common - so if we want to discourage moves like that, we need to be specific about that not constituting a "good reason". --Born2cycle (talk) 21:52, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
Tony, I think that's probably accurate, and what you just said is consistent with my understanding of community norms: "optional styles shouldn't be switched about unless there's a good reason". Are you arguing for, or against, also mentioning it here in RETAIN, or am I missing a different point that you're making?
Born2cycle, I broadly agree with your comment here. Commonality is the main type of argument that ENGVAR was introduced to stop in these situations. Thus, for many Wikipedians I think it looks redundant to mention it. However, I think it's worth mentioning, and if further edits to the page end up obscuring it (without "good reason", heh), it's worth re-clarifying again. -GTBacchus(talk)03:53, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
GTB, I'm okay with the change, though I'm not sure it addresses the problem since it does not mention titles specifically. --Born2cycle (talk) 21:52, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
Iodised salt should never have been moved to Iodized salt in the first place. Repairing an invalid moved is a good reason. American spellings in general are more common. Therefore we've got an excuse to Americanise the whole encyclopædia. This whole thing is quite contrary to ENGVAR. JIMptalk·cont23:21, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
Yes, except ENGVAR did not make this clear in the past. We're trying to fix that. Do you think the edit just made does that? --Born2cycle (talk) 23:28, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
Yet another problem caused by the archiving — something wrong in the software about section editing
Our discussions get stupidly archived by date, even when they are still very recent and very relevant. And so the links to the discussions get broken. And the archived page tells not to edit the page, but to start a new discussion if one wants to say something.
On the page Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style, there was the section Making MOS:ENDASH happen. I clicked its edit link. I landed into the edit form of the section Specific–vague axis in choosing article titles, a completely different section !
What happened ? The section I intended to edit was still on the main page, but someone had archived some other section(s), and so my intended section's order number had changed. And the software, not very clever, uses only the section's order number to identify a section, and believes this is sufficient.
There is something wrong in the software about section editing. The software has to handle sections better than that !
I have had the same problem at WP:TDYK, which at that time also had sections deleted from the middle regularly. So I don't think style experts on this page can fix it. Wikipedia:Village pump (technical) maybe? Assuming they don't fix it, I have often worked around that problem by clicking a different edit link. For instance, if you are mistakenly editing the second section after the intended section, then click the edit link for the second section above the intended section. Art LaPella (talk) 22:28, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
Our discussions get stupidly archived by date, even when they are still very recent and very relevant. Right now, discussions are archived when they have got no new comment in the last seven days; this may seem too short, but whenever it's increased the page eventually becomes ginormous (nearly half a megabyte), which is just discourteous to users with low bandwidths and/or old browsers. ― A. di M.plédréachtaí10:59, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
ENG:VAR MOS:RETAIN becomes a problem with no solution sometimes.
Example, the main article I edit sticks out from all related articles. Throughout the archives and currently, it causes friction between editors. I'm not talking about huge friction, but enough so that some editors have walked out in the past, and the tension has even increased recently to more talkpage templates on the subject. It's getting WP:LAME. This article is just an example, it's the current wording that needs fool-proofing. For example, if I write the next two sub-articles, for the new space station modules, one with Template:Scottish English and the other with Template:Pakistani English and write the whole article that way, it's stuck that way until the end of time, yes ? I'd prefer Hillbilly and cockney slang, but they don't have templates. Once set, it's stuck.
Proposal: Add this line to the MOS. "If the subject of an article has no strong national ties, and the ENG:VAR causes contention between editors, a template should not be used." or better "National ties refers to the expected readership demographic of the article not the subject of the article itself."
The latter is better, because there are some arguments offered that national ties means the country who paid for the subject of article, rather than it's use and demographic interest.
Penyulap talk17:21, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
I'm not suggesting articles are to be forced into variants, I'm just saying there is no 'out' once they are in a variant, according to the current reading. Penyulap talk17:57, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
“National ties refers to the expected readership demographic of the article not the subject of the article itself.”
Certainly not. We are writing an encyclopedia, so we have to write universally, without expecting any geography of the reader.
Preferring the English variation of the subject of the article makes sense. That is preferring British English in the United Kingdom article. But it would be wrong to suppose that the readers of the United Kingdom article are mostly British or in the UK.
Agreed, in the case of the space station, American readers want it in American, British want it British, the problem presents itself, and the current guide does nothing to help. So one Pakistani article and one Scottish article are next for the "International" space station, and that's not going to go down well. How can we improve the guide ? Penyulap talk18:14, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
IMHO you are presenting us with a non-issue - I see no serious disagreements about ENGVAR in the ISS article talk page. So what if different articles about the ISS are in different varietoies of English -IMHO that is exactly as it should be. The rule as it stands is fine, "Retain" makes perfect sense in articles without national ties. Roger (talk) 18:27, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
Are you serious? ISS has strong ties to the United States and Americans. It has almost no ties to the UK. So clearly it should be in US English. When they move the English speaking control center to the UK and start speaking British English, then I'll reconsider. Given at least one bloody discussion on this on the talk page, saying "I see no serious disagreements about ENGVAR" is a misstatement of the history there. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:59, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
By virtue of its name, the ISS has links to countries beyond the U.S. Which country has the strongest ties is really subjective. (For example - the space shuttle is clearly an American spacecraft, but given how much Canadians go on and on about the Canadarm, you'd think the space shuttle was invented in Quebec City and launched from Saskatoon. But to Canadians, the Canadarm is a big big deal, perhaps even moreso than the space shuttle being significant in the context of U.S. history. I'm not suggesting it would be right or appropriate to put Space Shuttle in Canadian English, but I can understand how the "strong ties" discussion can be viewed entirely differently depending on where one stands. I use the space shuttle as a ridiculous example to illustrate a point.). At the end of the day, though, this is about the variety of English used. Nobody is suggesting articles should be written in Irish Gaelic or Punjabi. Where there is disagreement over strong ties, I like to think that WP:RETAIN is a-okay because editors are sufficiently mature and wordly that Americans won't flip out to see "colour" and Brits/et al won't flip out if they see a reference to an elevator in a building. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 19:56, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
As an aside, I also disagree with the "expected readership demographic" proposal, as that is even a less clear criterion and would lead to even more disputes. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 19:58, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
This has been discussed over and over again with respect to the ISS article; there has never been consensus to change it to US English. I'm not convinced that this page is the best place to be bringing it up yet again given that history. --Ckatzchatspy00:55, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict) lovely to see you again Ckatz, yes, your right, and I'm not trying to get a solution to the article here, I'm proposing better docs, as you can read above. The ISS is simply a good example to use, do you know of a better one ?
I agree with your point about the shuttle 100%, but editors are not always entirely mature, hence ANI. The Eng:Var which is meant to be a none issue can be used as a battle flag to polarize the two sides. When that happens there is no solution for it in the mos, or anywhere I have seen. Just being able to take down the kid's marching banner would be able to help, but that is not possible because of the 'rules of the game' (aka mos misinterpreted). I am suggesting Irish Gaelic or Punjabi actually, to help illustrate the problem to editors who can't see it. I have been accused of being wp:spiderman before, and I have a tendency to find solutions. As the Docs stand, I can legitimately use preposterous variants in my new articles, to draw attention to the problem, and with a literal interpretation of the current wording, it would stand. (I make constructive edits and collaborations in languages which I don't speak a word of, and even one where I didn't know what language it was !). I'm not trying to be disruptive though, just trying to illustrate that an article can be locked into a state of friction with no clear solution in the current docs, hence the proposals. Editors have left the page if not the project before, because of the 'victory flag' being displayed by their opponents. A non-issue ? lets make it one please. Some kind of dispute resolution process for the should-be non-issue, a line should do it.
This explains the ongoing problems best I think. Previously, editors tried to use a straw poll to decide ENG:VAR [8], this indicates to me that better guidance is needed for some editors to understand what 'national ties' refers to and how eng:var should be determined.
Here an editor has drawn up a complex table to discuss the ENG:VAR, when this much effort goes into it, there has got to be a better way. Most articles are fine, but clearly there are cases where the current wording doesn't work.
Now there are also the edit summaries which can be contentious over the issue of VAR, I don't want to diff the lot at this point, I think I've diffed enough for most editors to see that I am speaking honestly. There have editors using search-and-replace to make changes, and a quite a few confrontational summaries.
Penyulap talk02:23, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
[Outdent from all.] Here's a radical, but simple and sensible solution: If it's not intimately tied to the US in particular (or some other place with a discernible dialect, like South Africa or New Zealand), use Oxford English. The British get most of "the Queen's English", American's get their "-ize", and no particular violence is done to other dialects like Canadian and Australian and so forth. The end, please move on, have a nice day. I'm an American by citizenship and dint of longest residence, who learned to read and write in the UK, and who has also lived in Canada. So I have no particular preference to push. We should just pick a frakkin' standard and stick to it and get on with writing an encyclopedia instead of bickering over this for another ten years. WP:ENGVAR is a clearly failed experiment. ENGVAR was doomed to falter and flop, like anything that essentially tries to resolve a potential and frankly pretty uncommon fight over something (spelling, here) by setting up several more probable fights over other things (national ties, original substantial version, etc.). Nice try, but EPIC FAIL. I've tried for years to conscientiously work within ENGVAR's parameters (which keep changing), and basically just given up and gone with WP:COMMON. If ENGVAR were a separate document, I'd suggest it go to WP:MFD just like the whole spoiler warning mess, the Esperanza crap, and the fromowner clutter. Just because an idea arises on WP and gets accepted for a while, even years, by a noticeable percentage of editors doesn't actually mean it is a good or even practicable idea. — SMcCandlishTalk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀContribs.07:48, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
Oxford spelling is my personal preference for articles with no obvious ties to any one country, but I don't think the idea of enforcing that throughout en.wiki has a snowball's chance in hell of being accepted. WP:RETAIN is working fine in millions of articles, and I'm afraid that abolishing it would provoke many more arguments than keeping it has. Also, it is an obvious sub-case of a more general principle which has been reaffirmed by ArbCom umpteentimes (I'm quite surprised of not finding it in Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Principles, indeed). (Also, I like to interpret WP:TIES in the broadest possible way: IMO it kinda of makes sense for C programming language to be in AmE the C standard being written in AmE, for International System of Units to be in BrE the SI brochure being written in BrE, and maybe even Quark being in AmE Gell-Mann and Zweig being American and Speed of light being in BrE Maxwell, Lorentz and Einstein being European. (In all four cases, those happen to be the dialects the articles are actually currently written in.) I'm sure most people here disagree, though.) ― A. di M.plédréachtaí12:40, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
I agree with ADM. Oxford spelling is its own variety of English (subset of British) and it makes no sense to write an article on, say, the American Civil War or the South African rugby team in a British variety.
The bottom line is that the "first significant contributor" rule was put in place as a way of acknowledging that not all articles have strong national ties and of allowing users to choose a style in a way that respects everyone's national and linguistic origins. Neither ENGVAR nor this part of it is perfect, but we should only replace if if someone can come up with a better idea. This is not a rhetorical comment. Imagine an article, say "blue" or "clouds" that has no strong ties to any variety of English. What's a good way to choose, other than "go with what the first person who did a lot of work on this was doing," which variety to put the article in? Darkfrog24 (talk) 13:45, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
I agree with Darkfrog. ENGVAR has been a very successful way of minimising disputes and edit-wars over varieties (remember the old days?). I see no reason for wholesale change. Tony(talk)14:29, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
SMcCandlish did say “If it's not intimately tied to the US in particular (or some other place with a discernible dialect, like South Africa or New Zealand)”. ― A. di M.plédréachtaí15:53, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
“Oxford spelling is its own variety of English (subset of British) and it makes no sense to write an article on, say, the American Civil War or the South African rugby team in a British variety.”
Why so ? The Ancient Greece article is currently written in English. So we should rewrite it in polytonic Greek ?
“What's a good way to choose, other than "go with what the first person who did a lot of work on this was doing," which variety to put the article in?”
Choose what the editor wants ? Let the editor be free to write in any variation of Englih s/he wants, as long as the English is correct. If I want to write “the International Space Station is painted in white colour”, I am free to do so.
It does not make sense to write an article on an American, Australian or South African subject in a British style. However, Ancient Greece has no claim or tie to any particular variety of English.
Letting each editor do as he/she wishes means that any other editor would be free to revert your "colour" to "color" at will, and you would be free to revert it back. That wouldn't always escalate to edit wars, but it would often enough. Again, our question then boils down to "Who gets to decide?" The current rule is "The first person to do a big chunk of the work."
I wouldn't mind saying that the group of editors working on a given article should be allowed to form a consensus that any particular style should be changed so long as that consensus is based on sound reasons and not whims. Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:14, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
They already can. They can ignore all rules; that is they can arrive at a consensus that there is a better way to achieve something than slavishly following the rules. I think it happens rarely though, as the rules, being established by consensus, very often match the consensus editors would arrive at themselves: or if not still enough editors recognise the benefit of guidelines that the consensus ends up being in line with them.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds00:55, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
SMcCandlish I find your comments extremely informative and enlightening. I'm too new to wp to know about Esperanza or fromowner as yet, but I do know an epic fail when I see it, and this entire 'lets have 4 languages in one article' crap is destroying a lot of editing resources. The example article is in 77 languages at the moment, and it's english version is the only one I can see that has a war all over it, and losing good editors as a result. The example article won't arrive at consensus in the foreseeable future, as there are two factions of equal strength. The red flag for the bull, also known as the template, just tells everyone "HEY PLEASE JOIN OUR WAR" if the blasted thing wasn't there, or could be removed, the war would disappear. It was put there with no consensus, and removing it would simply be a second wrong as far as I can see. Reaching consensus for it's removal is as easy as getting everyone in the middle east to disarm. Is there any disarmament measures that you have seen that would work in such cases, if I study them, maybe I can make some better proposal for change. Or where may I find such previous wars ? I so want to see this epic fail die, or mature into something (slightly more) workable. I am this close to rampaging through and ripping down ALL of the red flags in the name of commonsense, and I am certain there can be no commonsensus to support such a move, still I'm just the spiderman to do it. I'd rather articulate the problem, the path and the solution into the docs first though. Penyulap talk18:23, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
Making MOS:ENDASH happen
All debate over the principle seems to have subsided now, so it seems appropriate that we act on the new approach to en dashes by changing the large number of articles we have in the form Algeria – United States relations (and hundreds of others under Category:Bilateral relations). MOS (in line, I think, with other style guides and normal English usage) now says that the en dash in such compounds should be unspaced. Hence it seems we want titles in the more standard form Algeria–United States relations. When I made such a proposal before there were various procedural objections, so how and where do people think this should be proposed and discussed?--Kotniski (talk) 10:06, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
So do spaced dashes (see Kotniski below), and potentially pretty much anything else. What matters is which choice is least likely to result in actual ambiguities (ones in which both syntactic parsings are semantically and pragmatically plausible, and for which a non-negligible number of readers is likely to get the wrong one), as well as which is less jarring (if someone is not used to see stuff like Algeria – United States relations spelt that way, they are likely to be confused by it). ― A. di M.plédréachtaí17:02, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
Comment. My understanding of Kotniski's comment here was not to re-open the substantive debate, as the above comments suggest it should be. My understanding is that he's asking how can we implement a guideline that has already been agreed to by a consensus decision. We can't avoid implementing a consensus guideline by having those who users opposed the guideline in the original discussion simply pop up and say, "I still oppose the guideline". Otherwise nothing would ever get done except by unanimous agreement, which is pretty much never going to happen for most things. Good Ol’factory(talk)01:41, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
Going back over the "consensus", I see a clear consensus (in Archive 124) that there is no consensus, and no discussion in Archive 125, or the present talk page. — Arthur Rubin(talk)06:32, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
If so, the question therefore becomes—why was it adopted as the guideline if there was no consensus to do so? After my quick reading of the discussion, however, I would say it looked like no one was completely happy but most everybody agreed to compromise and adopt the proposal. It was adopted, so there must have been some feeling that consensus existed. Good Ol’factory(talk)07:03, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
Support moving as proposed. I would be equally happy to go the other way, but this is the way we decided. It was not a perfect consensus, but unless someone wants to try to gain a consensus to go the other way, we should proceed to implement what we decided. I would be OK with a delay if someone is going to do the work to try to get a consensus to change this decision, but having tried that on another fine point, I'm pretty sure it will have a hard time. Dicklyon (talk) 07:15, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
I think there was no consensus to keep that aspect of the MOS, so it was dropped. But there was no consensus to change existing articles either. We half keep the convention, actually: we still have spaced en dashes for dates in the MOS, and that is formally equivalent to Algeria – United States relations. — kwami (talk) 07:31, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
No it isn't - in dates, the dash represents "to", while in Algeria–US relations, it represents nothing. Are there any other style guides, or decent examples of real world usage, that space the dash in such phrases? To me it just looks wrong, as if the dash were supposed to be a colon (with the meaning "Algeria, in particular its US relations"). --Kotniski (talk) 09:45, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
I prefer with the spaces. Particularly, when some part has a space, like United States, the rule says we need the spaces, for logic's sake.
--Nnemo (talk) 16:41, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
OK but is this preference not just a result of reading Wikipedia too much? Is this style used or recommended anywhere else? If it is (significantly), then I can accept it, even though my own brain is repelled by it. But if not, then I don't think we have any business using it, even if some people find it more logical. (I find it quite the reverse of logical – the purpose of the en dash in such compounds is to join, not to separate – and spaced en dash is always used to separate parts of sentences, not to join words. The spaces within the items aren't a problem when we have a familiar and capitalized item like United States or even Cape Verde – but the spaces round the dash are a problem, since they tell the reader a complete and believable lie about what kind of dash they're seeing.)--Kotniski (talk) 18:08, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
This preference may come from my native language, in which one is prodigal with spaces. But it does not come from Wikipedia. Naturally, I use a / in this matter. Surrounded with spaces, of course.
Anyone? Sources, arguments? We have quite a major contradiction between guidance and practice here – we ought to resolve it one way or the other.--Kotniski (talk) 09:07, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
Support but amend the guidelines first—there should be something in there that allows for a move of these. The spaces around the dash in these articles make it seem possessive (as in Algeria: United States relations). Rennell435 (talk) 02:19, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
The guideline has already been amended; this proposal would bring the titles in line with the current guideline.--Kotniski (talk) 09:33, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
I hope the discussion will continue above; but here is a subsection intended to help things along.
[Disclosure: I was heavily involved in "stewarding" the last stages of the process introduced below, leading up to acceptance of a draft by ArbCom through the agency of arbitrator and admin Casliber. My view, then and now, is that there is no perfect solution concerning spacing of en dashes. But there is a general background consensus for decisive and effective guidelines in the Manual of Style. Many uncertainties and disputes throughout the Project can be dealt with by appeal to decisions taken here – after focused, centralised deliberation and consultation. I stand by that view of the community's wish; and I am ready to defend the Manual against both fragmentation into "multiple-choice" advice (which settles nothing) and instability (which the community abhors in its style guidelines). NoeticaTea?12:12, 30 September 2011 (UTC)]
The present wording of the entire dash section of WP:MOS (WP:DASH) is the outcome of a long consultative process under ArbCom direction. There were two pages devoted to the process:
In due course the process was transferred to this talkpage, and that part is preserved in Archive 124 (Dashes: a new draft). The presentation of the draft to ArbCom, and its acceptance, are preserved in Archive 123 (Dashes: a completed consensual draft for inclusion in WP:MOS). There is more; but that's probably enough for anyone wanting to catch up on the biggest recent developments. Anyone who wants to can add more links here, of course.
Raw material enabling the best approximation to consensus is concentrated on the voting page. For convenience in the present discussion, I reproduce the most relevant slice of it here. Click on "show" (at the right) to see the contents:
Spacing of en dashes: an excerpt of the "voting page"
Spacing of endashes
Split out below. Apologies to those who've commented and can you please recast in each section below
Disjunctive en dashes are unspaced, except when there is a space within either one or both of the items (the New York – Sydney flight; the New Zealand – South Africa grand final; June 3, 1888 – August 18, 1940, but June–August 1940). Exceptions are occasionally made where the item involves a spaced surname (Seifert–van Kampen theorem).
Disagree with the exception "when there is a space"; an ingenious invention to avoid the problem with the New Zealand–South Africa grand final, but artificial.[Who wrote that?–Noetica. It was Septentrionalis, when he first created the page. Signed, Art LaPella]
Not sure, probably simply because I'm not terribly familiar with this usage. But it would seem to warrant consideration to resolve potential conflict with 1–3 and 5. (Anderson, all punctuation is artificial.) — kwami (talk)
Disagree. The spaces in such situations are very rare in the literature, and hence unfamiliar to readers and potentially confusing, especially in articles which also use spaced en dashes as em dashes substitutes. ― A. di M.plédréachtaí12:59, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
Disagree on the exception. This usage is rare in published works (at least any that I′ve seen), and is at odds with every style guide that I’ve read. JeffConrad (talk) 19:50, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
Disagree. My Least favorite part of the guideline, as it introduces inconsistent formatting for equivalent constructs based on a rationale that is very weak and isnt attested in the majority of usage. oknazevad (talk) 17:23, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Yes, it's too inflexible, and needs major loosening-up; but spacing in date-ranges is widely practised in English and is universal on WP, apparently without a single complaint; this should be the firm exception. Could I suggest the following?
En dashes meaning "to", "and", "versus" or "between" are unspaced, except when there is a space within either one or both of the items in a date (June 3, 1888 – August 18, 1940, but June–August 1940); spaced en dashes may be used between groups of numbers and words to avoid implying a closer relationship between the words or numbers next to the en dash than between each of these and the rest of their groups c. 1450 – c. 1650, not c. 1450–c. 1650.
The last sentence is based on the authoritative Butcher's copy-editing, which has long had flexible and intelligent advice on this, and is mirrored in several other important guides. Tony(talk)04:08, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
Agree, with reservations. I've thought for a long time that this needs reining in, but the climate was not right. Now that we have a methodical process, we can adjust such things. This usage is really effective for displaying ranges of full dates, and in that capacity it has pretty good acceptance in guides (other than in America), and even more in actual use (birth and death dates in biographies, especially). For certain complex headings it is valuable too, where the items to be related are already unusually complex. But it doesn't work well in running prose, and we can work on that. NoeticaTea?10:10, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
Agree, and per Kotniski, replace "Disjunctive en dashes ..." with "En dashes that stand for to, and, or versus ...". Tony(talk)14:22, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Agree, but lose the technical jargon. (Normal people don't use the word disjunctive when they are texting. :) —Telpardec (talk) 18:28, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
6b. when there is a space within either one or both of the items (the New York – Sydney flight; the New Zealand – South Africa grand final; June 3, 1888 – August 18, 1940.
Agree for ranges of ddmonthyyyy; Neutral for ranges of monthdd, yyyy; Disagree for most other uses. Chicago close up in both instances. For the first example, I think this is the right approach, but do concede the benefit of spacing in 3 June 1888 – 18 August 1940, where 3 June 1888–18 August 1940 would be confusing because of the implied close association of 1888 and 18. I would like to see editors encouraged to consider (is this permissive or what?) using to or through as an alternative when a date range includes month, day, and year. I would strongly discourage (or ban) the spaced en dash in this sense if the spaced en dashe is used as an alternative to an em dash elsewhere in the article. JeffConrad (talk) 08:53, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
At the risk of beating the drum too hard, I note that APA, CMOS, Garner’s MAU, Words into Type, M-W′s Manual for Writers and Editors, M-W’s Guide to Punctuation and Style (largely an extract of the previous), OSM, and New Hart′s Rules (an extract of the previous) all show this closed up. I think only CMOS gives the example of a range of full dates, and not all others show an example with an open compound, but they show all uses closed up nonetheless. Aside perhaps from dates, the space is at odds with quite a number of widely used guides, so proscribing closed-up usage here would seem capricious. JeffConrad (talk) 01:08, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
Disagree, sorry, but this has always looked wrong to me. Closing up is surely consistent with the "ex–prime minister" examples above. Kotniski (talk) 10:47, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
I think the logic behind both rules is to do something to signal the reader that one of the elements is spaced. In the case of ex–prime minister, the hyphen is changed to an en dash. In the case of New York – Sydney flight, it is already an en dash, so it could be converted to an em dash, or spaced. Typographers apparently went with the latter. –CWenger (^ • @) 21:35, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Not all of them (see Jeff's list of style guides above). I can make an exception for the dates, but things like "South Korea – Thailand relations" look decidedly bad to me – it looks like the division is between "South Korea" and "Thailand relations". Kotniski (talk) 08:17, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
Agree strongly for dates, which has been just about universal on Wikipedia for a long time (3 June 1816 – 18 August 1840}, avoiding the squashing of the central elements, which would often be harder to read (3 June 1816–18 August 1840). There are probably more than a million examples of the spaced en dash in full dates on WP, and it seems to be widely accepted. For en dashes between compound words, I agree it should now be optional, at editors' discretion ("New Zealand – South Africa" or "New Zealand–South Africa"). Tony(talk)13:45, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Agree strongly for dates. I would prefer to retain the status quo for the others, but I don't feel too strongly about it. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:33, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Mixed. I agree on the dates, and have seen it this way in several usage guides. On the names, it's more common unspaced (at least in America). If we can take names and words out of 6b, and put more balance into 6c, essentially implementing what Tony suggests above, I believe it will reflect actual usage better, both in outside works and guides and in existing WP text. I will refrain from adding my Agree to all the other items, since it seems pointless. Dicklyon (talk) 15:54, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Agree for dates, not for the other examples. This looks especially wrong in lists where some items are spaced and some unspaced (example). Jafeluv (talk) 07:44, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
Disagree Both this and the widely recommended (the New-York–Sydney flight with hyphen and dash attempt to make clear that New and York are more strongly linked than New York and Sydney, without leading the reader to see York–Sydney [dash] as an invented compound. Either should be permitted; if one must be chosen, it should be (the New-York–Sydney flight, which does avoid the unwanted link. As usual, this is an invented form. SeptentrionalisPMAnderson21:12, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
Anderson, now you're inventing stuff. No-one uses hyphens within proper names. And the whole point of this convention is to avoid the York–Sydney that you're objecting to. — kwami (talk) 21:47, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
The use of hyphens within proper names (such as Lennard-Jones above) is quite ccmmon; otherwise Michelson–Morley [dash] would make no difference whatever. However, Kwami does have one thing right: the purpose of this artificial convention is to avoid the deceptive York–Sydney. But it does it badly, and in a manner used and understood only by a handful of readers; therefore it should not be required. SeptentrionalisPMAnderson22:29, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
Please reply in good faith. Of course hyphens are used in hyphenated proper names! But they are not used in unhyphenated proper names like New York when those are compounded or used attributively. — kwami (talk) 10:53, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Um, pardon my ignorance, but just who recommends this and what is the guiding rule? Are you seriously suggesting that New-York is comparable to Lennard-Jones? JeffConrad (talk) 05:55, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Fowler and those who derive from him. See here. The guiding rule is that "New-York" as an adjective should be hyphenated when necessary for clairity. Actual usage here is normally to hyphenate "New York-London flight" (or use a slash); dashes are rare; spaced dashes extraordinarily rare. SeptentrionalisPMAnderson15:35, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Note that he doesn’t give the example New-York. The problem with any of his constructions there is that they appear to equate Lloyd-George and Winston-Churchill; the seemingly obvious solution would be Lloyd-George–Churchill or the government of Lloyd-George and Churchill.
In the interest of full disclosure, in TKE, Fowler does suggest the London and New-York loan as the alternative to London-New York loan. But the 1st ed. of MEU was in 1926, and the 3rd ed. of TKE was in 1930, and many things have since changed with regard to the hyphen. Note that in TKE, Fowler also proposes Anglo-SouthAmericans as the alternative to Anglo-South Americans (but settles for Anglo-South-Americans). All things considered, I think Anglo–South Americans is preferable to any of the preceding three. In any event, given the dates of both works, I think the opening statement “the widely recommended” is pretty off the wall, especially given the conspicuous absence from any current guide of which I am aware. JeffConrad (talk) 23:18, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Fine with dates. Heartily disagree with the others. I see no reason for some pairs to be spaced and others not; it's an inconsistent, distinctive formatting that provides no real distinctive meaning. There's no reason to use differing punctuation for "New York–Sydney flight" than for "Chicago–Sydney flight". Supposedly the use of spaces allows a reader to more easily parse that the passage is covering a flight from New York to Sydney, as opposed to a new flight from York to Sydney. But that illusionary at best; even actually using the preposition instead of the dash does nothing to make the meaning clearer. And such cases are very rare; "Los Angeles–Sydney flight" is not going to be confused with a Los flight from Angeles to Sydney. Bluntly put, if the reader can't glean the proper meaning from context, then they have more problems. And rewording is always a better solution in the rare occasions where genuine confusion may exist. oknazevad (talk) 22:08, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
Agree for dates, should be left open to discretion otherwise, depending on context. In a table, for example, having "New York – Sydney flight" above "Chicago–Sydney flight" would look odd. --JN46623:30, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
Agree in the case of ranges (point 1 above), very strongly disagree in the case of pre-head modifiers of nominals (points 2 and 3). Spaced dashes are extremely rare in this case, and might seriously confuse readers in some cases, inter alia because they look the same as spaced en dashes used as sentence-level punctuation in lieu of em dashes. I'd propose a wording along the lines of:
En dashes in ranges, as described by point 1 above, are spaced if and only if one or both of the endpoints of the range contains a space (1400–3000 nm, 3000 nm – 1 mm, 1879–1955, 14 March 1879 – 18 April 1955); en dashes in compound modifiers [or a less technical synonym thereof], as described by points 2 and 3 above, are not spaced.
Strong disagree for New York – Sydney flight and the like. In these cases the construction "New York – Sydney" as used in an adjectival way to the noun "flight", so the dash should not be spaced and there is no need for exceptions like in 6c. Agree for the dates with the exception that an unspaced dash is used for Ranges as discussed under bullet 1. Nageh (talk) 20:07, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Disagree wholeheartedly. I do agree that when one of the endpoints in a range contains spaces, then the en dash may be spaced (10 W – 100 kW, 5 January 1919 – 21 January 1919), but I don't think it's always necessary (25–30 mm, 4:30–5:00 pm, 3–6 November). But as far as disjunctive en dashes go, I see no reason to space anything. (Also I feel that I should point out a previous RfC on this topic: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 114#RfC: Disjunctive en dashes should be unspaced.) Ozob (talk) 12:41, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
Strong disagree. The only place I've ever seen this usage is Wikipedia. It certainly runs counter to American usage (e.g., CMoS 16th Ed. ¶6.78). // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 22:52, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
Agree. Even if it is Wikipedia's innovation, it is a good one and, at Tony has pointed out elsewhere, eliminates ambiguities.—Finell03:30, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
If it really was a Wikipedia innovation, it wouldn't help readers in resolving ambiguity because they wouldn't be familiar with it. (It'd be like deciding to spell nail as ‹nale› when we mean a metal spike so that it doesn't get confused with a fingernail or toenail.) And as someone else once showed, it can also introduce ambiguity (with the sentence-level dash). ― A. di M.plédréachtaí20:44, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
Agree for composite dates, composite times, composite ranges generally (like 30.5 mm – 15.75 m, where such a switch in units may be warranted). Disagree for other cases. I have changed my mind about this principle. I always wanted it accepted with caution, and subject to a context in which the intent would be clear; but I acknowledge from voting and discussion here that it is not likely to have stable acceptance unless it is more explicitly and narrowly restricted. It is not a "Wikipedia invention"; I know it from at least five standard style guides, and although Oxford guides do not provide for it, OUP is not averse to its use for clarity in complex headings. We can do without that, and I now agree that we should. NoeticaTea?05:27, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
Thinking about it, this is more a "style of the talk page archives" problem. Wt:MOSNUM has two specialized archives on binary prefixes and dates. Perhaps we should have added a Dash archive to this main talk page. Withdraw my comment, if consensus was obtained. I still don't see a real consensus, even in Archive123, as no elimination-voting system can realistically indicate consensus. — Arthur Rubin(talk)14:09, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
Arthur, that's right: The number of the archive does not necessarily reflect the natural order of the archived sections. The completed draft was presented and accepted (see Archive 123); but the section with the discussion that preceded was archived later (see Archive 124). As for the nature of consensus, we wrestle with that here a lot. For crucial style guidelines, a pragmatically approximate solution is better than the perpetual absence of a solution. Such a solution was achieved: by convergent use of all the available means, in a comprehensive and very well advertised process. NoeticaTea?00:42, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
Capitalization of animal and plant names now rampant
Unresolved
– Discussion was archived without resolution of the issues raised.
This is really getting out of hand. Last I looked in on this matter (a year or two ago), the overall feeling among MOS regulars was that capitalization of the common names of plants and animals in Wikipedia articles was "controversial", in the sense that everyone thinks it looks moronic except hardcore specialists in ornithoscopy, dog breeding and flower marketing, because in their specialist publications this practice is common, and they insist, with zero compromise, on pushing it here. I predicted over five years ago that if we allowed dog fanciers and birdwatchers to use a style, unknown in any other fields, that some specialists in these fields prefer (not all, and yes I can prove that) and force it on a general-purpose, general-audience encyclopedia, that this mad capitalization would run rampant and spread throughout the encyclopedia to all biological articles and beyond. This has in fact happened. It makes Wikipedians look like illiterates, and suggests to our innumerable young and impressionable readers that Nouns in general should be capitalized (like that), as if we were writing in German. I would strongly suggest that this is a downright editorial crisis at this point and needs to be resolved at the MOS or even WP:VP level. By bending over backwards to keep clenched-teeth, combative, insular wikiprojects happy at the expense of encyclopedic consistency and general public expectation of proper grammar and spelling, we're allowing a tiny but obsessive and tendentious minority to reduce the value of the encyclopedia on multiple levels. I've even seen this nonsense spreading outside of biology articles. Review the last several years of my edit history and search on "English not German" to see just how broad the problem is. And I don't even go looking for instances to correct (and lately haven't bothered at all, though it used to be one of my more common fix-it edits). I just run across them, everywhere all the time. — SMcCandlishTalk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀContribs.07:33, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
I agree. Capitalisation has got out of hand. WP:CAP says if in doubt, downcase it, which is good advice and benefits our readers. We should have limited tolerance for clusters of external interest groups who pump up their favourite terms with initial caps against the advice of most style guides, adding complexity to the language. Like all good publishers, we have our own rules, which should be bent only when there's a compelling case to do so. Too much fizz and fuss goes into countless debates, such as this silly insistence by the British railways brigade on upcasing Chief Mechanical Engineer; meanwhile, the article itself meandered in and out of a sense of generic description, not really knowing where to go. Tony(talk)11:16, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
Err, disagree. Our job is to reflect on what sources do. For birds, that's capitals. period. Agree for many others it has been a headache but most have gone from upper to lower case in recent years (eg. most plant, fungus and mammal articles). It is frustrating when people raise these discussions on yet more pages. Casliber (talk·contribs) 12:26, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
If the sources are not general-English publications, then they are good sources for facts but not for presentation. For example, the AMA and many other style guides that are explicitly for professional science journal articles prefer numerals for numbers, even numbers under ten. (This is because a large portion of their readership speaks English as a subsequent language and will find "7 h" easier to recognize than "s-e-v-e-n h-o-u-r-s.") Similarly, ornithology publications et al. probably have their reasons for capitalizing words that are kept in lowercase in general English, but those reasons do not apply to this encyclopedia. We're a general-English publication. We should use general-English rules. Darkfrog24 (talk) 13:40, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
The reasons this out-of-control capitalization has to stop are numerous. One of the most basic ones is that the claim that this is universal style in ornithology and a handful of other sphere is actually false. And even it weren't it wouldn't really matter anyway, since Wikipedia is not a scientific journal.
Casliber, our job is emphatically not to "reflect what the sources do". If we did that we would simply delete the entire Manual of Style, since every field and area of interest has its own stylistic vagaries. Do no confuse Wikipedia's verifiability policy, which mandates that the facts we present much be verifiable with independent reliable sources, on the one hand, with some imagined mission to parrot style decisions made by random aggregates of people, be they comic book collectors, lizard breeders, Unix sysadmins or Navy pilots, or made by particular other sorts of publications, be they science journals or tabloid newspapers. This is an encyclopedia, with it own unique, encyclopedic style. We are doing precisely the opposite of what Casliber suggests. We are devising a uniform, consistent approach to prose style so that our readers (and editors) never have to mentally "switch gears" and adjust to jarring, unexpected veering of stylistic, grammatical, punctuation and other conventions from article to article. The single greatest violence being done to this important goal is the rampant spread of nonsensical, childish capitalization of the common names of plant and animal species and even varieties and breeds. This was being tolerated (by a loose "no consensus") on a provisional basis for a while, in very limited areas (common names of birds, and breed names of dogs, and pretty much nothing else). A few years have passed and it's become an epidemic that is spreading all through biological, husbandry and pet fancy articles, and beyond. People with a dim grasp of proper grammar are seeing these badly written articles, which are basically a WP-internal memetic plague, and taking the overcapitalization everywhere. I routinely have to de-capitalize the names of all sorts of things, from poker hands to video gaming maneuvers, in an ever-increasing number of and variety of articles. It's gone way more than far enough. The birders and dog fancier made their case. We grudgingly let them have their way as an experiment. It has proven to be a dismal failure.
And the practice isn't even universally supported within ornithology to begin with! [I'm not going to get into the practice among dog breeders; the vast majority of dog, and cat, and whatever breed-related publications are unreliable bunk, a sub-topic we can get into if we have to, later.] One of the two most prestigious refereed scientific journals in ornithology, The Auk, published a reasoned criticism of this practice (as quixotic, confusing and illiterate-looking) as early as 1983 (Atkins, Anselm (October–December, 1983). [library.unm.edu/sora/Auk/v100n04/p1003-p1004.pdf "The Capitalization of Birds' Names"] (PDF). The Auk. 100 (4): 1003–1004. {{cite journal}}: Check |url= value (help); Check date values in: |date= (help)). One site devoted to birdwatching suggests, "Use IOC format (caps) in lists of bird species" and "Use dictionary format (no caps) in general text", based on the logic of the Atkins piece and others.[12] If this were applied here, we'd simply stop capitalizing things like this in Wikipedia at all, since even our list articles are "general text" in our uniquely encyclopedia context, and we do not use different prose conventions for list articles vs. non-list articles. One specialist in the field commenting on this debate elsewhere states, "[W]e ornithologists, with our Important Capitals, continue to look Curiously Provincial." Even Eloise F. Potter's rebuttal to Atkins in The Auk in October 1984 (pp. 895-896) essentially says that the practice should be used in scientific ornithology literature, as a communication aid between ornithologists in particular, and she acknowledges that, as Atkins says, the style is not used in other biological fields, nor even in non-ornithological writing about birds. She advocates for its use in other biological fields (e.g., she would write "Bermuda Grass" rather than "Bermuda grass" in reference to a plant variety), but nearly 30 years later every other biological field has in fact ingored her. Only ornithology (and, I hear, lepidoptery) use this silly capitalization.
Wikipedia is not an ornithology journal. It's a general purpose and highly influential encyclopedia for the entire general public. The outright abuse on Wikipedia of a specialist style, used by some but not all specialists in some but not all specialist publications to communicate with other specialists, in one or two scientific fields out of thousands, is demonstrably leading here to rampant capitalization all over the place, in ways that even Aktins's critics do not support. All that said, there is clearly a debate about the practice, one ongoing for decades even within ornithological circles, and such capitalization is not even remotely considered appropriate in other fields. So the claim that Wikipedia is "reflect[ing] what the sources do" is a false and misleading one. WP adopting controversial capitalization styles that are not just limited to a tiny handful of specialist circles elsewhere, but actively opposed by some of those specialists, is a gross violation of WP:NPOV and WP:SOAPBOX. When performed site-wide by editors who are insistent on "enforcing" this nonsense in every article on birds, and dogs, and then tomatoes and mice, and now card games and who knows what will be next, it's escalated to violations of WP:POINT, WP:TE, WP:DE, WP:CONSENSUS, and several other kinds of problematic, harmful editing, as well.
PS: To anyone encountering this debate for the first time: The rationale given by "capitalizers" is (to use an example from Potter), that "three Carolina Wrens" means three birds of the species known as the Carolina Wren, while "three Carolina wrens" means "three wrens of indeterminate species from the Carolinas". I think most of us realize that this is a completely absurd justification for "Germanizing" English and capitalizing things like the common, English names of flora and fauna. If any particular construction could be ambiguous, we'd simply rewrite it to avoid the ambiguity, like we do with every other such case. There isn't anything at all special about organisms that suddenly makes our brains melt and our writing skills run out our ears. If someone actually means "three different kinds of wren from North and South Carolina" they'd write that, especially if "Carolina wren" is a recognized common name of a particular species. We're not idiots. The justification for this capitalization practice in an encyclopedia is bankrupt. The justification for it even in specialist literature has been subject to over a generation of debate. Even the "WP is just doing what the sources" do excuse is faulty - other encyclopedias and secondary sources (newspapers, etc.) do not do this, only specialist publications do. The sources being aped are the wrong kinds of sources; they are not comparable to Wikipedia.
Here is a new example of one of literally thousands of cases over the years of rampant miscapitalization that I've fixed when I've come across it. It's becoming especially common now in Wikipedia articles on medical topics, because (I theorize) editors are seeing things like German Shepherd and Granny Smith Apple and Ebola Virus and are misled into thinking that all organism names must be capitalized, so they start capitalizing all sorts of disease and disorder names on the theory that most of them are caused by some micro-organism. It's certainly become more and more common the longer the MOS has tolerated the proliferation of miscapitalization of the more entrenched "capitalizer" camps like the bird and dog projects. As high-end editors leave Wikipedia faster than they can be replaced (and if you've been paying any attention to the tech press you know this has been independently reported several times, with WMF representatives like Jimmy Wales admitting it is true), these errors are getting fixed far less often than they are being made. The principal reason for this is that the MOS has been too wishy-washy and not declared against the practice. — SMcCandlishTalk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀContribs.04:51, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
Images in sections
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Procedural note: I've removed the RFC tag at this time -- support for the proposal appears to be strong and essentially unanimous, and even beyond that I'm pretty sure that this has always been What We Do, even if it wasn't specifically codified as a result of some oversight. SilkTork mentioned that the proposed change has been added at WP:MOSHEAD. – Luna Santin (talk) 22:30, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
I noticed that several articles decorate headers with images. These are completely useless images, which are neither relevant to the article, nor help the reader navigate, make the article harder to edit, completely screws the print version of our articles (which often won't render, as headers are expected to be text+formatting only), and goes against just about everything in WP:ACCESS. I propose that we add a provision that headers should not be decorated with images. That is, we should not have things like
Question a very common technique, used on thousands of pages, is to put a flag icon in front of a country's name when the section headings are listed by country. Would those be considered as decorative (only) images? — Andrwsc (talk·contribs) 22:07, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
Yes, there's been several recent changes with flag icons to remove their decorative use, this would be another example. --MASEM (t) 22:10, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
The MOSICON argument is always "decorative only" versus "has navigational value". It's a very old argument; does the country name itself provide sufficient navigation value when it appears in a list (or in this case, the TOC and bolded headings) or does the flag add some incremental value. The flag templates would not render alt text, so I don't think they violate WP:ACCESS. — Andrwsc (talk·contribs) 22:20, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
That's not an answer to my question. I'm looking for additional opinions on "decorative only" versus "some navigational value". It won't help if different parts of the MOS contradict each other. — Andrwsc (talk·contribs) 22:36, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
What navigational aid do you feel a flag icon would have in a section header? There is an argument that a flag icon may be usefully used to replace the name of a country in a table in order to save space, but we wouldn't have the same space saving issue for a section header. The use of a flag icon in a section header would be alongside the name of the country, and the name of the country would supply the appropriate information, so the use of the icon would be decorative. SilkTork✔Tea time10:27, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
I don't necessarily think it adds significant navigational value; I am merely echoing the rationale previous given in the perpetual debate at MOSICON. I think that voice should be represented in this discussion, even if I don't share that opinion. — Andrwsc (talk·contribs) 21:17, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
Support removal of images from headers. Although assuming that WP:ACCESS already deals with this, you shouldn't need my support to remove them. —WFC— 22:09, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
Absolutely support: I've seen way too much gratuitous decoration, including the military bio articles that have a small lead and then a circus of in-your-face colour icons standing for awards and medals. Detracts from the dignity of the person. Tony(talk)07:23, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
Support. This is one of those "Let's not clutter up the rules with that! No one's ever going to— wait, they do? Dammit" issues. — by Darkfrog24 (talk) 12:54, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
Support, for all the reasons already given. (On a rather tangential note, we ought to encourage people not to use {{anchor}} templates in headings either - but to use "span" tags instead - though I think that only causes problems in the editing interface.)--Kotniski (talk) 13:43, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
Support Images such as the one provided in the example should never be in a headline. I am worried about images that must be used such as copyright symbols or things that we simply don't have the unicode/keyboard to use.Curb Chain (talk) 15:54, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
This might be a non-point to worry about , but I would extend this to say that using Unicode/high ASCII/HTML entities to display a symbol that are not part of the title for the section and are merely decorative purposes is also covered by this proposal - eg they should not be used. --MASEM (t) 15:59, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
Support. I am slightly surprised that people are so silly as to do that, and very surprised that it's not already discouraged. Besides that, I'd discourage any kind of mark-up from headers except when there's some damn strong reason to use it. ― A. di M.plédréachtaí16:52, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
Strong support. I objected to this in a recent DYK nom and was told it was OK per MOS, which I find very hard to believe as it goes against all our other layout principles. If we strongly discourage linked heds I don't see why icons are OK. Daniel Case (talk) 04:37, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
Support. Count me as among the surprised that this wasn't already a clear rule. I like images, even little flags ;-), but section headers are not the place for anything but plain text except in rather unusual circumstances. Eluchil404 (talk) 05:32, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
When I saw the RFC listing, I couldn't believe this was a real thing. I like icons in general but they're not very encyclopedic. Save it for the app. —Designate (talk) 18:12, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
Support. It just doesn't make sense to make something harder for users on certain devices like ereaders to make it "look pretty" in the opinion of a few. ZamorakO o (talk) 19:24, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
Strong support. I have two things to say about images in headers: they're ugly, and they can mess up the formatting in wierd ways. Definitely make images in headers history. WikiPuppies! (bark) 07:26, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
Comment Can someone put some examples in live pages in the proposition at top? I am not sure that I have ever seen this. What would the proposal move? Blue Rasberry (talk)14:52, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Is there a punctuation expert in the house, who can help me on some questions I have about application of WP:LQ? I really want to understand it. If someone knows WP:LQ really well, I appreciate if they'll volunteer to help me w/ my Qs. (Should I post them here or on your Talk or mine?) Thank you. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 05:50, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
Okay, thank u. This will probably be pretty easy for you. Anyway, I thought I understood MOS:LQ, but I want to be sure I do, because I was reverted recently after moving ending periods from outside to inside quotations. Here are the details ...
The article in question draws on two external refs having these quotes:
"But among the things that science does know, evolution is about as certain as anything we know."
"It is not a scientific argument at all, but a religious one."
And here is how the article used those quotes prior to my edit:
In a December 2004 interview with American journalist Bill Moyers, Dawkins said that "among the things that science does know, evolution is about as certain as anything we know".
Dawkins has ardently opposed the inclusion of intelligent design in science education, describing it as "not a scientific argument at all, but a religious one".
On Wikipedia, place all punctuation marks inside the quotation marks if they are part of the quoted material and outside if they are not.
But I also see now there's this:
When quoting a sentence fragment that ends in a period, some judgment is required: if the fragment communicates a complete sentence, the period can be placed inside.
Okay, this is how I changed the sentences in the article (just moving periods from outside to inside):
In a December 2004 interview with American journalist Bill Moyers, Dawkins said that "among the things that science does know, evolution is about as certain as anything we know."
Dawkins has ardently opposed the inclusion of intelligent design in science education, describing it as "not a scientific argument at all, but a religious one."
And I was reverted for doing so. I got a little impatient with the arguments thrown at me to justify the revert, they didn't make sense to me. But all I want to know is whether I went wrong, and if so, how.
Thank you.
One final thing in addition: Am I wrong, or is there some ambiguity in the MOS:LQ which states: "if the fragment communicates a complete sentence, the period can be placed inside"? Okay, but what if the fragment *doesn't* communicate a complete sentence? What then? (And, why does it say can be placed inside? Does that imply placing inside is acceptable but not best?! And I think it's also unclear when it says "some judgment is required". In comparison to what alternative where that judgment is *not* required? When LQ says "place all punctuation marks inside the quotation marks if they are part of the quoted material", it isn't conditioning whether fragment or not, and I presume that's on purpose, as in "it doesn't matter". Yet later, it seems the text is making an exception for punctuation that's part of the quoted material in the case of periods at the end of sentences?! Or is it!? Anyway, I thought my understanding of MOS:LQ was good enough to make those edits, but now I'm thinking that both quote excerpts are fragments, but one communicates a complete sentence, and the other does not; so, the first exerpt should have the period moved inside, and the other shouldn't!?)
Ihardlythinkso, what you have done is in keeping with the wording of the MoS. However, I'm pretty sure that, because you quoted a sentence fragment, the reverter could be right. What this tells us is that the MoS is not clear enough.
WP:LQ is a stripped-down version of British punctuation styles. Most Internet articles describing the differences between British and American styles keep it about as simple as we do. What we need to do is go back to a solid, in-depth British source and make sure that WP:LQ really matches what British English requires.
Here's The Guardian Style Guide: When beginning a quote with a sentence fragment that is followed by a full sentence, punctuate according to the final part of the quote, eg The minister called the allegations "blatant lies. But in a position such as mine, it is only to be expected." [13] Not 100% applicable to your situation, though.
Here's another: In American English, the placement of periods and commas remains the same even when the quote is a sentence fragment. But in British English, periods and commas punctuating sentence fragments are placed outside quotation marks.[14] But I'm not sure how reliable this one is.
This one says that periods from the original material may be kept inside the quotation marks, but the only examples it uses are complete sentences. [15]
Of course, considering that Ihardly is talking about Richard Dawkins and the ID issue, this is probably an American English article. In correct American English punctuation, the period goes inside the punctuation marks regardless of whether the quoted material is a fragment or not. Darkfrog24 (talk) 14:00, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
For the zillionth time, MOS:LQ is not a WP:ENGVAR issue. And logical quotation is not a "stripped down version of British" style; its has nothing to do with region at all. It was developed for precision and lack of ambiguity as to what is and is not actually part of the quotation. It is used in technical, scientific and other nonfiction, non-journalistic publications regardless of country. What various tendentious editors like to insist is "American style" in fact used in a variety of British publications including some major UK newspapers and also by many British fiction publishers. All this "American this" and "British that" is a total red herring. Yes, a large number of Americans are only used to typesetters' quotation (what keeps getting called "American style" here) because it's the most common style in magazines and novels in the US. But this really doesn't matter. Well-educated Americans are familiar with logical quotation, as are most non-Americans more broadly. And more importantly, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, a work in which ambiguity, misquotation and other problems caused by typesetters' quotation (a style invented for long obsolete reasons related to movable type) are serious issues. Wikipedia is not a novel, a newspaper or a magazine. In response to the original query, it's permissible under LQ to put the period (full stop) inside or outside the quotation marks in those cases, but LQ would favor putting them outside because they're just fragments, and there's not a disambiguation or precision reason to put them inside (there sometimes can be with fragments - in context, it may be important whether a sentence actually ended where it is implied that it ended, and LQ can indicate this correctly. With TQ, it's basically a 50/50 guess whether the sentence did end there, or was editorially shortened (which can be a WP:NPOV issue sometimes). — SMcCandlishTalk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀContribs.07:24, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
You want to know why I don't believe you when you say that American punctuation isn't really American, British isn't British and "logical punctuation" isn't another word for "British punctuation"? It's because I've repeatedly offered sources showing that American is American etc. and no one has ever offered even one source showing that this isn't so. If you want to show me one, go right ahead. I promise I'll click. Here are mine: [16][17][18][19] You should at least concede that it is perfectly reasonable for Wikieditors to call British punctuation British, etc.
You know what would be even better? Show me one case of American punctuation causing even one problem on Wikipedia. If it's really so prone to misquotation and ambiguity, then surely it must have caused an actual problem at least once.
Bottom line, Ihardlythinkso just reported a non-hypothetical, non-imaginary problem that was caused by British/logical punctuation, a problem that American punctuation would solve. It's a small problem, granted, and I certainly wouldn't say that we should ban British style because of something like this. But for heaven's sake, we shouldn't be banning American punctuation either. Right now, the score is reports of problems caused by British punctuation: one and reports of problems caused by American punctuation: zero. Unless of course you'd care to report one. Darkfrog24 (talk) 13:46, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
Back to the issue at hand, SmC, how would you handle Ihardly's situation? Do you think that WP:LQ should explicitly state that it permits closing punctuation that is part of the quotation to be either inside or outside at the editor's discretion? Darkfrog24 (talk) 13:55, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
Detail: If "Well-educated Americans are familiar with logical quotation", then "well-educated" excludes my pre-Wikipedia, U.S. high school. Art LaPella (talk) 17:46, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
Well there are lots of American writers who are familiar with LQ but don't use it. I'm familiar with British punctuation and spelling, and I use them when my clients request them, but in my own writing, I use American. Darkfrog24 (talk) 17:58, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
@Darkfrog24: For Ihardlythinkso's very particular situation, I'm not sure it really matters all that much. It's not a "problem" at all, it was simply one editor preferring one thing and someone else preferring another; as I already explained, there are reasons for and against including terminal punctuation in a quotation like that, and it depends on the quotation and the context. If we were to change the guideline wording, I think we should say that that terminal punctuation should be outside the quotation when the quotation is not a full sentence, by default, but that it is permissible to include it if doing so clarifies that the quotation did in fact end the sentence in the source, if it is important for understanding or neutrality to do so; and that if it did not end the original quoted statement, then we cannot add a period inside the quotation or we are willfully falsifying the source. If we wanted to keep it simpler, it would be better to include it inside if it was terminal, even if the quotation is just a phrasal fragment. As for your demands for "evidence", read all previous threads on this topic in the archives for various cases of evidence being posted, including US journals using what you incorrectly call "British" quotation, and UK newspapers and novels using what you incorrectly call "American" punctuation, as well as a general international trend over the last century+ away from typesetters' quotation outside the US (not in Britain especially, but everywhere but the US, even in Canada, AND increasing use of logical quotation in online publications, including American ones. If you're not a reporter or a fiction writer, there really is no reason to use typesetter's quotation, and even then only if your editor/publisher demands it because of an in-house style guide. We've all been over this again and again and again. Please see WP:TE. Bringing up the issue again month after month, year after year is not going to force consensus to change, it's just going to irritate people and waste a lot of time. Re-re-re-explaining logical quotation to you and and handful of others who just won't let this go is getting very tedious.
@Art LaPella: Graduating from high school: No that is not what I mean by "well-educated"; that's "indoctrinated but hopefully prepared enough for actual education, at the post-secondary level" where one typically starts getting exposed to peer reviewed journals and other non-journalistic sources that don't use journalistic style. If you're referring to American high school teachers themselves, public school [in the US sense; that phrase means something different in British English] instructors usually, and are often forced to only, teach the basics, and from extremely biased sources. It is entirely routine to US schoolteachers to pretend that all style matters that do not conform to whatever particular rules are published in the approved textbook simply do not exist. And many of them are themselves poorly educated; a master's in education is probably the easiest graduate degree to obtain, and many schools do not even require that level of education of their educators. (Anecdote: I and some other students used to regularly correct my 10th grade English teacher, whose grammar was appalling. She though that "spatial" was pronounced "spattial", I kid you not. She only lasted a year before being fired for incompetence.) NB: I am not implying that every single peer-reviewed journal in the world uses logical quotation, only that an increasing number of them do, and that they are a majority and have been for a long time, with the most of the holdouts being US-published (and among those, the majority are scholarly but non-scientific, e.g. literary journals, or are in "soft-science" fields like sociology and anthropology, as I know from having an anthro degree).
@Darkfrog24 again, and all: Using typesetters' quotation would not have "solved the problem" Ihardlythinkso reported; it would simply have led to the punctuation being placed inside the quotation automatically, with no regard for whether it actually belonged there. By blind accident, that would have been logically sound in this particular case, but in many more than half of cases it would have been an outright falsification of the quoted source, an error that often could be grossly misleading. One of the most harmful forms of misquotation is to use (both in prose and with edited A/V "sound bites") out-of-context partial quotations and present them as if there were complete statements. It's one of the most common tools of the PoV-pusher, here and in the mainstream media. (Another anecdote: I've actually been badly misquoted, in the Washington Post back in the day, by precisely this method. I almost got fired over it, until the journo admitted that my comments had been "editorially abbreviated" to lop off a qualifier). Anyway, typesetters' quotation is an increasingly obsolete style preferred by journalists and fiction writers (especially but not exclusively American ones) for essentially aesthetic reasons. Wikipedia is in large part a technical publication in a crucial sense – it is devoted to presenting rather dry and verified information without artistic adornment – for which logical quotation is more than logical, but necessary to do its job properly. — SMcCandlishTalk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀContribs.04:37, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
Then remember that most Wikipedia editors aren't "well-educated" in that sense, and thus have a problem relearning punctuation, even if they tried to wade through the Manual of Style (which is a problem with almost any style proposal, be it WP:LQ or Darkfrog's alternative). Although I haven't studied a lot of scientific journals, I have proofread material from engineering graduate students who have. Many – perhaps most – of them in that era without easy access to spell-checking, had trouble with basic spelling and grammar, never mind logical quotation. My point can be confirmed by clicking "Random article" a few times. Or even by the Manual of Style problems that my AWB software can find in Featured Articles. Art LaPella (talk) 06:08, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
SmC, Ihardly's problem is that there is confusion as to whether a given period should go outside or inside the quotation marks, and that two editors are having a dispute about it. This question is there because WP:LQ/British style is vague on the issue of sentence fragments. American punctuation is not vague on that issue. That is what I mean when I say that American punctuation solves this problem.
You will notice that I don't scold you for saying "typesetter's punctuation." That is because the sources show that American punctuation has more than one name and that is one of them. Even if it's not my favorite, you're not wrong or out of line to use it. Extend me the same courtesy on the "British" vs "logical" issue.
I have read—and participated—in many threads on this subject. No one has ever offered proof that these aren't valid names for these respective styles or any non-hypothetical examples of American punctuation causing problems on Wikipedia. If you know of an incident and wish to bring it up, I promise to look and listen carefully.
I contest that American punctuation is not "increasingly obsolete." While some specialized publications have their reasons for preferring British/LQ and it's certainly gotten popular on the Internet in informal writing, it shows no signs of being abandoned by most formal American English writers in either fiction or nonfiction. I offer mainstream American style guides as additional evidence that this is so. This seems to be one of those times when two people can look at the same language and come to different conclusions. You seem to be looking more at blogs than at books. Darkfrog24 (talk) 10:04, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
I'm curious about your misquotation, SmC. Specifically, did the "editing" consist only of American punctuation or did they remove words from what you said as well? Darkfrog24 (talk) 18:36, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
I have now completed (in so far as something is ever complete) a serious of major changes to the layout and general wordiness of this part of the MOS, reducing it in size considerably. I have done so without the intention of changing the meaning of any of it, however, I would still welcome any thoughts. Grandiose(me, talk, contribs) 14:09, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Images would perhaps summarise the above and be the mainstay page for using images (thus incorporating the specific links in the previous set of bullet points. It would be brought into the MOS.
(Short) summaries would be provided where necessary/warranted – eg. WP:MOS#Images.
Did the MOS rules for blockquotes get changed recently (or ever) from 4 or more lines in the edit box to 40 words? And just how often should someone count 40 words? --Moni3 (talk) 21:02, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
It was then suggested to me that these capitalization rules might be of general use in Wikipedia. In fact, when I looked at a cross-section of Wikipedia articles which refer to viruses, bacteria, and other microorganisms, there is quite a bit of incorrect capitalization (primarily on the viruses names), so some guidelines may be useful.
The guidelines I have written are as follows (these of course should be validated by an expert in the field before adopting):
Capitalization rules for viruses, bacteria, etc
General rule in all taxonomy: species names are uncapitalized, but all other taxa (genus, family, order, etc) are capitalized.
This is why names of bacteria, which include both the genus + the species together (such as Chlamydia pneumoniae, Staphylococcus aureus, Escherichia coli, Clostridium difficile, Mycoplasma pneumonia), capitalize the genus, but not the species. Similarly for fungi (examples: Aspergillus fumigatus, Candida albicans) and protozoa (examples: Toxoplasma gondii, Blastocystis hominis).
Since viruses are generally referred to just by their species name alone, virus names are always uncapitalized, except in cases where the name contains the name of a person or place (viruses are often named after the place they were discovered), and in these cases, the person or place alone receives capitals as per usual.
So for example, all these virus names are uncapitalized: cytomegalovirus (CMV), human herpes six virus (HHV-6), herpes simplex virus (HSV), parvovirus B19, rhinovirus, echovirus, poliovirus, enterovirus 71, varicella zoster virus, adenovirus, norovirus, coronavirus, influenza virus, parainfluenza virus, human papillomavirus, human T-lymphotropic virus type I (HTLV-1).
But the following viruses contain the name of a person or place, so are written with capitals as shown: Epstein-Barr virus, Ross River virus, West Nile virus, California encephalitis virus, Rift Valley fever virus.
A subtle one is the Coxsackie B virus. As it stands, this is written with the town of Coxsackie capitalized; however, this virus is also written in an amalgamated form: coxsackievirus B which then does not get capitalized. Similarly for Borna disease virus, which is often amalgamated to bornavirus, without a capital.
Capitalization rules for taxonomic groups (genera, families, etc)
When dealing with the genus or family that a virus belongs to, there are some subtle points to observe. When referring to genera and families, these are capitalized. For example, poliovirus, echovirus and coxsackievirus B all belong to the Enterovirus genus, and the Enterovirus genus itself is part of the larger Picornaviridae family.
So far so good. However, sometimes people want to refer not to the Enterovirus genus as a taxonomic group, but to a generic virus from this genus, and in this case, it is written without a capital: just as enterovirus. So we can say: poliovirus, echovirus and coxsackievirus B are all examples of enteroviruses, and they all belong to the Enterovirus genus. Similarly, when you want to refer to a generic virus from the Picornaviridae family, you call this a picornavirus, without capitalization. Likewise, when you want to refer to a virus from the Herpesviridae family, you call this a herpesvirus, without capitalization.
You have choice, though, when referring to taxa: you say "Herpesviridae family", or equally "herpesvirus family". The former has the emphasis on the taxon, the latter on the set of species in that taxon, but they are essentially the same thing. Actually with the former, the tag "family" is not necessary, as this is implied in the name "Herpesviridae". Similarly: "Picornaviridae family", "Picornaviridae" and "picornavirus family" are all fine, and mean the same thing. Likewise: "Enterovirus genus", "Enterovirus" and "enterovirus genus" are all correct, and have the same meaning.
"Scientific names for genera and species are italicized, with an initial capital letter for the genus, but not for the species".
This one line doesn't quite capture the nuances of virus name capitalization in a user-friendly way. Also, I believe this instruction line might be wrong regarding italicization of viruses: it says "scientific names for genera and species are italicized", but in fact this does not seem to apply to viruses. Viral species tend to be written in scientific literature without italics. Drgao (talk) 03:46, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
Oops, corrected my other link. Concerning capitalization, it also says "Taxonomic groups higher than genus have an initial capital ..." If we really need 9 paragraphs just for virus capitalization, I suppose there could be another subpage for it, but I doubt if most subjects are covered at that level of detail, and we're already up to 1.4 megabytes. If viral species are written without italics, that would be a major change here, where there is no exception for viruses. Art LaPella (talk) 04:32, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
"In formal taxonomic usage the accepted names of virus orders, families, subfamilies, and genera are printed in italics and the first letters of the names are capitalized. Species names are printed in italics and have the first letter of the first word capitalized. Other words are not capitalized unless they are proper nouns, or parts of proper nouns".
If you look at the Poliovirus article, for example, you see, in the box on the right hand side, that the order, family and genus are italicized. But regarding the italicization of the virus species names, there often does not seem to be consistency, even in the same article. Have a look at Parechovirus and Cardiovirus, for examples of lack of consistency. Also, if you search scientific literature, and perform a search on PubMed for say cytomegalovirus, you find this is never italicized, nor capitalized. It may be that the International_Committee_on_Taxonomy_of_Viruses are trying to impose new naming conventions over the existing practice of naming viral species without capitals and without italics. The existing practice I think looks more elegant, as italicizing virus species names on a pages seems to lower readability, in my subjective view. They do state that their guidelines are for "formal taxonomic usage", so I guess there may be more leeway in general writing.
I believe the guideline "Taxonomic groups higher than genus have an initial capital and are not in italics" found in MOS:CAPS#Animals, plants, and other organisms may be correct for bacteria. For example, if you look at say the bacterial genus Staphylococcus, you see on the right of the page that the genus Staphylococcus and all species names are italicized, but the family, order, class, phylum and kingdom are not. But this guideline would appear to be incorrect for virus taxonomy.
I personally dislike the grey box {{quotation}}. What is the rationale for having both {{quote}} (normal blockquote) and the "distinctive" grey version {{quotation}} recommended here? I don't see how the extra visual elements of the grey box (shading and border) are any different from the bells and whistles of {{cquote}}. If the MOS aims to reduce distracting visual elements, the grey box should probably not be recommended here. If you're curious, {{quotation}} has roughly an equal number of [ab]uses, i.e. transclusions, as cquote does. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 01:46, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
Just wondering what other places ENG:VAR is discussed, the recent discussion I started is archived next to another discussion on the same topic, of course the page needs fast archiving as it is so busy, but where can eng:var be discussed in more detail with these other editors who are also seeking a solution, userpages seem inappropriate for this sort of thing. (warning, sarcasm ahead)...And surprisingly the problems with ENG:VAR weren't solved within a week, who'd have thought eh? Penyulap talk01:31, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
There's /Spelling, but that seems a bit more specialized than what you want. BTW, one advantage of forking stuff off onto subpages would be that, if matters of (say) punctuation were discussed at /Punctuation etc. (leaving just a {{please see}} pointer on WT:MOS), this page would be freed up for discussion of general principles, and a longer archival time would become feasible. ― A. di M.plédréachtaí10:44, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
And people with quick moving watch lists might miss the single notice whereas the multiple notices they would get from people editing the discussion might make them more likely to notice it. -DJSasso (talk) 13:11, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
There does not need to be a limitation of only one notice. For example, there might be a second notice, saying “This is a reminder that a discussion about _________ is still in progress at ___________.” Subsequent notices could specify stages of the discussion.
For some reason, our MOS section on possessives still suggests (as option 2) that one acceptable style for possessives of names that end in "s" is to just add an apostrophe. While this usage is often seen in sources, it is not the way recommended in any of the best grammar guides, and is not the usage of best sources. Can't we have a style guideline that suggests that we go with the more widely recommended approach, which is like option 1 or 3 or somewhere between? If you search books for the examples given, you'll find that they are absent or very much a minority in good sources:
[20], [21], [22], as well as being counter to recommendations or summaries in grammar guides: [23], [24], [25], [26] Even where just the final apostrophe is suggested as an exception on certain archaic and biblical names by some guides ("Moses' leadership"), the alternative "Moses's leadership" is still found in books; so option 3 is the most commonly recommended approach and it leaves room for such variation. Dicklyon (talk) 18:50, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
The problem here (with option 3) is that pronunciation is often varied, but to my ear "Steve Jobs' house" is fine where as "Jobs's" sounds odd. Often the exhortation is to avoid excess sibilance by "Moses' and Jesus'" in particlar and indeed anything with two trailing sibilants in general. RichFarmbrough, 21:50, 22 October 2011 (UTC).
I agree that variation is part of the problem; to my ear, you got it backwards (and I've been to Jobs's house, so I ought to know). My preference would be to avoid that problem by sticking with option 1. As many of the guides say after discussing the acceptable alternatives, "-'s" is always correct. As for avoiding excess sibilance, many suggest skipping the extra s for words that already end in two sibiliants with nothing but a vowel between (Jesus, Moses, Texas), but not more generally than that. Dicklyon (talk) 00:42, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
Either that or drop options 2 and 3; or rewrite it more like Chicago, Strunk & White, and the others that have a thoughtful discussion of the reasons for exceptions to 1. The options are essentially the problem; and the lack of depth in describing usage and guidance from sources. Few sources would even allow dropping the s from a monosyllabic name, yet we have a big argument over one. Dicklyon (talk) 01:07, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
Not all guides agree with that, nor does every person pronounce words the same. There are variations, and those variations should be recognized as viable options in the MOS.--JOJHutton01:17, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
The more serious guides discuss the problem in some depth, including the fact that not everyone agrees and that it's a thorny issue; and then they end up saying that "-'s" is almost always correct, and they discuss the exceptions. I agree that we should do the same. Some say base it on how it sounds best; I think we'd be best to mention that and recommend away from it, since it can't really help the problem of collaborative editing among English speakers with a huge variety of backgrounds. Or say that basing it on pronunciation is OK, but that when editors can't agree, then revert to what's always acceptable. Dicklyon (talk) 01:27, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
Question. How many edit wars have there actually been in the article namespace about this? If the answer is “few or none”, I wander why we need a guideline about this at all, rather than just leaving people write whichever the hell they want between James' and James's, the way we do with anybody vs anyone, burned vs burnt, or any of the other zillion instances of free variation any natural language has? ― A. di M.15:35, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
There aren't really that many. My guess is that this all stems from a debate at Talk:Steve Jobs on whether or not the article should use Jobs's or Jobs' exclusively. Seems that Dickylon may have begun this particular discussion as a way to clarify the rules more precisely. Can't blame him for that, although I do disagree with making one way more preferred over another. Our speech patterns on this topic seem to dictate how we write them. It would seem that the most MOS guides do prefer option #1, but I gather that either speech patterns have not caught up with the MOS guides or the MOS guides have not caught up with our speech patterns. Either way, noone can deny that there are plenty of hard core reliable sources that still use option #2. Getting rid of it would be foolish.--JOJHutton16:55, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
Noone can deny that? Have you even showed us a single source that recommends option 2? OK, we've heard about the Associated Press stylebook from Greg, but is that it? Are there any others? None in evidence. Dicklyon (talk) 17:16, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
As far as I saw, there were plenty of reliable sources from reputable news organizations that used the the -s'. We all saw the same links on at Talk:Steve Jobs. It's used, and quite often, so its time to move on from that. Also, the style guide in the Websters Dictionary also states that -s' is also acceptable, or did you forget that?--JOJHutton17:30, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, I misinterpreted you as saying that there are sources that recommend that usage; I over-interpreted from when you had said "Not all guides agree with that", didn't notice that you had gone off that and back to usage. So are there actually any guides that don't agree (besides the AP's own stylebook)? Dicklyon (talk) 19:03, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
Not sure if there are others, but it only takes one. I haven't seen the AP style guide, but I'm sure whoever linked it is correct. I did thumb through some hard copies of some style guides this morning and they all said -s's, so I would say that most style guides agree with you, but not all of them.--JOJHutton19:12, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
A, that's a very good question. It's not "none", and I don't know if it's "few". But this isn't the first time I've seen it come up. I'm not looking for "rules", but guidance. The current scheme is basically a punt, saying do whatever you want, rather than guiding toward what most good guides would suggest, and that just seems inadequate. Dicklyon (talk) 17:20, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
I agree 100% with Rich Farmbrough; it sounds odd to my ear; ergo, this proposal is overly proscriptive. Why? Because it ignores practices frequently observed today by reputable publications. Though many have it “John Adams’s estate”, it looks and sounds odd to my ear. I’m sure at least 1% of Americans in the south-section of Chicago pronounce it “John Adumzez eight-ball of crack.” This admonition, to write it the way it sounds correct to the ear, was practiced by none other than the famous American editorial columnist and grammarian James Kilpatrick.
If many reputable publications (which is the case) spell it “Steve Jobs’ health”, then it is not the proper role of MOS to tell contributing editors that they can’t follow such widely adopted practices. Just take a look at how CNN does it here and how the Associated Press does it here. It is Steve Jobs’ comments about…. And Macworld spells itSteve Jobs’ legacy. And PC World calls itSteve Jobs’ health. All these publications realize that a possessive of someone named “Jobs” ought to be spelled the way it sounds. Sure, some of these publications aren’t even consistent within themselves but the AP tends to be most consistent because its manual of style is observed by something like 99% of their subscribing newspapers. Even the Germans have this figured out. Witness how Der Spiegel does it:Steve Jobs' health… Jobs' death… Jobs' products… and Jobs' garage.
All the aforementioned publications eschew some of the classic grammarian guidelines for a good reason; it’s not like their professional copy editors (who invariably have journalism degrees) haven’t seen those guidelines. Does Dick think those editors are daft? Let’s cut these editors some slack and assume they might know a thing or two about proper punctuation.
Just because there is another school of thought does not entitle a handful of wikipedians who happen to be active here on the talk page of MOS in late October to dictate to others that they can’t observe such a widely used technique for punctuation. For this proposal to sail, it needs to be much more widely discussed to ensure we benefit from the full gamut of the best advise from our most experienced and educated editors; some undoubtedly (I hope… I hope) have journalism degrees. I’m sure may will say “Jobs’ health” is a widespread practice so the current MOS advise of permitting it when the alternative sounds odd to the ear is proper advise in a style guide for a collaborative writing environment. Greg L (talk) 19:11, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
Actually, the proposal ("or rewrite it more like Chicago, Strunk & White, and the others that have a thoughtful discussion of the reasons for exceptions to 1.") was to discuss usage, like the guides do, not to ignore it. I'm perfectly OK with a clause that bases the choice on how the word sounds, but the option 2 that says to always omit the final s seems to be much less favored in practice, and in guides (with the exception of the Associated Press and many other journalism outlets that follow them, which you pointed out and I acknowledged). Dicklyon (talk) 19:17, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
Quoting you: …much less favored in practice. My above-linked references to the Associated Press and other publications calls that into question. I would grant you however, that there are a lot of punctuation guidelines that advise as you prefer. Given the clearly ubiquitous practice of many notable and highly respected publications to eschew that advice, the current MOS guideline to permit it is wise. Greg L (talk) 19:22, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
My position has always been the MOS does not permit or prohibit. It advises and guides. The present version fails to do so. Dicklyon (talk) 19:24, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
I just looked at it carefully (it is here at MOS:POSS). I see nothing at all wrong with it. It seems to have been well crafted. I see also that it says Apply just one of these three practices consistently within an article. I think that is the best approach given that we have a collaborative writing environment with an all-volunteer army of contributors. Greg L (talk) 19:28, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
It describes "three practices", but fails to say anything useful about how to choose between them, or which ones are recommended or preferred by what authorities, or whether WP has its own style preference (which I think it should). Dicklyon (talk) 19:32, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
That’s “compromise” which is a common way of achieving consensus on Wikipedia. Witness how MOS handles AD - BC and BCE. Though “BCE” is often used by the pros in professional publications (being more PC makes one seem really smart), you seldom hear it on TV documentaries; “The pyramid was built in two-thousand Bee See Eeee” attracts attention to itself so is seldom used. Ergo, we have total chaos when it comes to “BCE vs. BC”. This issue of “Jobzuz vs. Jobs” is minor in comparison. I wouldn’t worry about it. Greg L (talk) 19:40, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict) It doesn't say anything useful about whether to write (say) he knew she was there or he knew that she was there, or, he did not know if she was there or he did not know whether she was there, or [insert your favourite example of free variation here], either. Why is this any different? Essentially, this is about euphony, about which it's very hard to say useful things without accidentally slipping some nonsense in. ― A. di M.19:49, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
Well, it's not that hard for the guides that do say something useful about euphony and other considerations. And euphony is not much help, as you can see, since we often split 50/50 on how we pronounce possessives of names. Dicklyon (talk) 20:03, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
As for “practice” (at least that of books scanned by Google), it is very close to be equally split.[27] That's why whether I saw Jobs' or Jobs's I'd just leave it the hell alone either way. ― A. di M.19:38, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
Exactly; the "preferred" way exceeds the "informal" way by only about 40% (a bit more if you look at all the years, or only recent years, but there was dip for a while there). Dicklyon (talk) 20:03, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
If it makes any difference, the original state of the Steve Jobs' article used the single apostrophe, not s's. If its split 50/50 then that could be a tiebreaker. Jeancey (talk) 20:40, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
If the article wasn’t a stub when the change was made and one or more major contributors were using Jobs’ health, then I should think the way to handle it is if there is no objection from those original editors, then Jobs’s health (and the ilk) can stay since it is a legitimate style. But if any of the original major editors object, it may be reverted to the original style. Greg L (talk) 01:16, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
Should we always place a space after the comma when we separate different page numbers in a citation? Eg. "G. Woodfall. pp. 111,112." Is there a rule? What do you think? Thanks in advance. -- Basilicofresco (msg) 07:32, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
I believe we should. It's a standard rule of punctuation that they're followed by a space (except for delimiting thousands), right? JIMptalk·cont14:02, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
I had a look and can't see this codified anywhere in the MoS, but it looks like we should just apply common sense. "111,112" is ambiguous because it actually looks like one hundred thousand one hundred and twelve. It should either be spaced ("111, 112") or dashed ("111–112"). Jenks24 (talk) 08:43, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
Common sense and a very elementary knowledge of English are all that are needed. Some things are so obvious that they are not in the canon of MoS. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:50, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
This editor is correct. "Composed" requires an "of" when it introduces a list of components, but "comprised" does not.
Still, I don't know if this needs to be in the MoS. To my knowledge, looking up the proper use of "comprised" is relatively simple. Have there been an edit wars or talk page conflicts about this? Darkfrog24 (talk) 10:04, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
Meh, I objected when he changed a phrase to eliminate a direct quote which contained "comprised of": [28]. I would not have objected otherwise, but he also introduced a minor formatting problem in the same edit. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 10:16, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
The phrase "comprised of" is a well-known bugaboo for people who worry about such things. It is both present in some educated writing and deprecated by some educated writers. We won't settle the argument here. My 2p is that people today generally use it when they are trying to sound smart, only to make themselves sound silly instead. On the other hand, if you use "comprise" in the intended sense ("Wikipedia comprises encyclopedias in dozens of languages") many readers will think it sounds odd. In real life I advise my students to just avoid the word "comprise" altogether to avoid the problem. — Carl (CBM · talk) 10:06, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
Like I said, you won't find any resolution here. But I'm sure there are better examples of "comprised of" in educated literary use than a web page of someone who works in criminal justice. For example [29] — Carl (CBM · talk) 10:40, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
This sounds like a "correct it when you see it but a rule against it would be more trouble than it's worth" situation. I concur that errors of this sort in direct quotes should be left in. The person can add a [sic] if he/she feels so strongly about it. Darkfrog24 (talk) 12:07, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
Makes me sick, too. As Dan Geist pointed out to me years ago, there are three options: composed of, consists of, and comprises. I think Fowler discusses the nuances in these, although he's a bit dated nowadays. Perhaps it does need to be included somewhere, but we usually avoid adding to MoS in this way. Tony(talk)13:32, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
I see nothing wrong with someone going round changing "comprised of" to something else (as long as he or she doesn't unintentionally change the meaning or create other problems) but I don't think we should claim that this is a grammatical error and talk of 'correcting' it, since all three uses of "comprise" have been established for over a century, as Merriam Webster's Concise Dictionary of English Usage confirms. As they say, "Our advice to you is to realize that the disputed sense [active and passive uses] is established and standard, but nevertheless liable to criticism. If such criticism concerns you, you can probably avoid comprise by using compose, constitute or make up, whichever fits your sentence best. --Boson (talk) 18:19, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
Yup, I saw that. For me language is not driven by experts but by users and this leads to all sorts of anomalies and 'irritations' (it is common in the UK to hear "1 pence" (WTF!!)). I think the one part "half a whatever" is now widely, if not universally used, but the decimal equivalent is perhaps subject to some variation. It is normal here to say "nought point five of a kilometre" but "nought point five kilometres" (in reality the 'nought' is usually omitted) I can't explain that, but that is the way a huge majority of people in the UK use these terms. For me use decides the rules. Richard Avery (talk) 14:57, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
Yes, usage, not logic, is what we should be considering. In the UK, this is (for example) "seven tenths of a second" but "0.7 seconds". I would have said that this was universal here, but no doubt someone will find a deviant citation. Dbfirs18:08, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
I don't mean to be a smarty-pants or anything, Darkfrog, but it hasn't got anything to do with collective nouns; the nouns here are just plain names of units of measure. If you have half of a gallon, you have half of one gallon & it's singular because you get a gallon a halve it. "0.5 gallon(s)", though it might be just as much milk, is a different thing grammatically. JIMptalk·cont06:55, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
There is a set of proposals on WP:VPR to allow him to perform mass changes of a certain sort, particularly with respect to citation formatting. You'll have to go through the proposal as there are some 20 of them right now. Searching for "CITEVAR" on that page might help. There are a few other issues that are MOS related; spaces, category placements, and probably some other stuff as well. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 16:43, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
Would editors with a strong command of English grammar take a look at Talk:Middlesex (novel)#Intersex grammar? The discussion has become a bit heated, and I would be grateful if editors can comment there to clear up any confusion about grammar related to the term "Intersex". Cunard (talk) 23:31, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
Proposal: bring WP:Images into the MOS
I propose making WP:Images part of the Manual of Style to compliment MOS:Images and alongside WP:Image use policy which is a similar but unrelated policy. I did not get any comments above, so for now I am simplifying the proposition. The suggested title, Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Images, is already occupied but I think this can be moved over.
I absolutely agree. It's a stub, but images are just critical to the project, and we don't use them well in terms of placement and sizing. Guidance on these practices should be as high-profile as possible, and the best way to achieve that is to bring it into the central page. We do want MoS central to be more succinct, but in this case, I think there's a compelling case for presenting image usage (such as is not in the policy WP:IUP) here. Tony(talk)13:21, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
I hope to both make it clearer and more succinct by bringing together disparate pages. Given how long I've put this to tender, I might see if I institute it. Grandiose(me, talk, contribs) 13:53, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
OK, so I've been bold. I will tidy incoming links etc. up after a couple of days if there's no opposition to the move as instituted. Grandiose(me, talk, contribs) 19:36, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Pretty much everyone that dosen't write the MoS considers it a largely irreverent walled garden. The only thing that you did here, by moving this, was turn it from an ill read guideline to an ill read guideline that MoS zealots can now use to beat people over the head with if they don't like something.
If you want to tell us how to write, go ahead (we largely ignore you anyways, and still wind up with good content). However, none of you, as far as I can tell, are file workers, so you're effecting other people's work without asking them. That's not nice, and it's not proper process.
Personally, I would have objected had I been asked, but now that it's done, I suppose it dosen't matter. It's not like the MoS sticker will change anything for anyone, except, of course, the aforementioned people that use the MoS as a weapon. Sven ManguardWha?03:41, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
Well, either "it doesn't matter" or we will "use the MoS as a weapon". It can't be both. If there really is a consensus for making the MoS an irrelevant walled garden (and perhaps there should be, but there isn't), then that consensus should either make the MoS an essay, or change the WP:GUIDES policy to make guidelines the same as essays. One way or another, it shouldn't permit us to promote the illusion that the MoS matters. If that really is an illusion (what we really have is self-proclaimed experts throughout Wikipedia who feel no need to consult the MoS or anyone else – I don't know enough about Sven Manguard to know if he fits that broad category.) But I'm glad that at least you came here to talk about it, rather than simply trying to speak for the rest of Wikipedia unilaterally elsewhere. So maybe there will be some kind of consensus. Art LaPella (talk) 04:58, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
They're not mutally exclusive, and your interpretation of what I'm saying is off.
For many, many people, the MoS is not something that they care about when they do their work. Plenty of good writers have come to the conclusion that if they write well, and cite properly, that almost no one will care that they used the wrong length of dash or that they used Moses' instead of Moses's. They see the MoS as a book of esoteric guidelines that interferes with the objective of trying to write a high quality article far more often than it helps them.
A small group of users (often users who also write the MoS) go around and try to force the MoS on everyone. This ranges from quietly fixing the length of dashes (perfectly acceptable), to telling users that their writing sucks because they broke some MoS procedure or another (not acceptable), to harassment, fights, etc. (definitely not acceptable). The more radical of these MoS pushers, the ones I call zealots, are part of the reason that many have stayed away from the MoS.
As to the specific phrase "self-proclaimed experts throughout Wikipedia who feel no need to consult the MoS or anyone else", that's totally not what I meant. I write college level academic papers, I know how to write well, when I choose to write, and I know how to cite sources. Thus far my writing, limited as it has been, has not received complaints, and yet I've never read most of the MoS, and treat it with disdain largely because of having come across the zealots. I'm not a "self-proclaimed expert", I'm a decent writer who dosen't use the MoS. I don't "feel no need to consult the MoS or anyone else", I frequently ask other people to proofread my work and make corrections. Your categorization of people that don't cling to the MoS like small children cling to teddy bears as being arrogant and isolated is completely incorrect, and is a good part of the problem.
As for the MoS itself, it is useful as a teaching tool, especially for people not experienced as writers, and I'm not advocating for it to be destroyed. I am telling you, however, that the MoS is being hurt by association with all the zealots. I see it often. People hate the MoS not because they often disagree with it, but because it gets stuffed down their throats by proselytizers. Fix that, and people might actually pay more attention to the MoS. Sven ManguardWha?07:43, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
Not an issue that needs to be discussed at this juncture. Personally I hope to simplify the guidelines, thus easing the zealot problem (since every good wikilawyer likes complicated wording). Grandiose(me, talk, contribs) 08:57, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I've encountered zealots stirring up unnecessary trouble, often based on an extreme interpretation of the MoS that wasn't really intended. I've also encountered editors who insist their quirk is proper English, without needing guidelines, citations, or "other people to proofread my work and make corrections". Art LaPella (talk) 23:28, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
Koran etc. green/colored quote boxes
Shouldn't these be discouraged? I've seen them created typically using the optional "bgcolor" parameter of {{cquote}}. There are probably other ways, e.g. changing toccolours spanning a {{quotation}}. But they are rather distracting regardless how they are implemented. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 01:53, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
Which is why I pointed you at that discussion. Colour backgrounds have accessibility and usability implications for the visually impaired and those using readers. For this reason succession boxes no longer use background colours, just a colour band at the top of the header section.
See Wikipedia:Manual of Style#En dashes: other uses, part 3: Instead of a hyphen, when applying a prefix to a compound that includes a space (permanent link here). It seems to me that the principle can be extended to suffixes. Although the word style is an unbound morpheme, its function here is somewhat like that of a suffix, so I recommend the form New York–style pizza.
That looks like a reasonable supposition, Wavelength. But no: the guideline is precise, and distinguishes cases of prefixing from all seemingly related cases. The guideline as it stands is the result of carefully negotiated compromise across a sharp divide in opinion (as exhibited in voting and commentary during the Great Dashfest of 2011), and it fits as well as can be expected with the aggregated recommendations of major style guides, both explicit and ex silentio. It is not to be set aside lightly.
For the present case, note that a hyphen can be considered sufficient because the capitals in "New York" mark it clearly as a unit, so the hyphen is unlikely to be construed as making the compound "York-style". For cases with no (or mixed) capitalisation, an additional hyphen is almost always available: "old-Naples-style pizza" (a pizza in the style of old Naples), contrasting with "original Naples-style pizza" (a pizza in the original style of Naples). Cases where neither solution is available? I leave that as an exercise.
Proving, for the stragglers among us, that no system of punctuation can defeat the ingenuity of the determined exception-finder. But hard cases make bad law; and the hard cases here are remarkably few. Now Tony, your response does not meet the requirements of the task. <hyperpedantry>The solution is available all right; just not efficacious. "New York" is capitalised, even if the first capital has a different justification from the second. (This might arise in title case also: "Another New York-Style Pizza Franchise Fails in Bristol".)</hyperpedantry> There are genuine cases in which capitals are not in play, but an extra hyphen is not considered available in the manner of "old-Naples-style pizza". Hint: do not attempt this with pizzas. NoeticaTea?04:21, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
I concur. You need to put up a fence to keep those teal deer away. I put some comments on your content on the essay's talk page. Darkfrog24 (talk) 03:18, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
I just did a Wikipedia search for "teal deer" about two minutes ago, and now I understand.
Hi all. I just came across 99–yard pass play, which uses an en dash in the title. My immediate reaction was that it looked weird to use an en dash in that situation and that a hyphen should be used instead. I had a look at MOS:DASH and couldn't find anything that seems to apply to this case. Any opinions? Jenks24 (talk) 08:46, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
It fits with the MOSNUM call to use digits for numbers greater than 10, just like the various articles on numbered streets larger than 10. Also, yardages in American football are rather consistently written as numerals, even for small numbers under ten. So it's fine. oknazevad (talk) 03:47, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
Double or single quotes for 'scare quotes'?
When a single word is quoted as a 'scare quote', particularly for the askance use described here: Scare quotes#Non-acceptance of terminology, should they be single or double quotes? I would favour single personally, as more obviously distinct from a literal quote. WP style seems to be double, from the examples on that page, although this isn't especially clear from WP:MOSQUOTE. Can this please be confirmed, and ideally stated more clearly at WP:MOSQUOTE. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:25, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
The MoS currently requires double quotation marks for all such cases. The rationale behind this is that single quotation marks can interfere with CTRL-F searches. However, there is some question as to whether this rule is still necessary. Darkfrog24 (talk) 18:39, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
See new draft of reasons for insertion into the guideline, above. It would be rational to include these. Editors often use alternative forms (single where MOS calls for double; curly though MOS calls for straight), without understanding the issues.
Thanks Wavelength. The first of those links occurs in the proposed text (mentioned in the preceding section, and given in a navbox above). The second is from 2008. Neither includes the word prompt, and I do not find discussion of how prompts work, under any different name. Something may need to be written. Compare the ill-documented "editing screen". Is the area in which one edits called the "edit window", or the "edit box"? Not definitively treated; not anywhere obvious, at least. Alas, I still have no time! NoeticaTea?22:20, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
Actually, although there's no specific discussion of "scare quotes" in WP:TITLE, it's written that the title should appear as if it were in text, quoting WP:SURPRISE, and, in text, WP:PUNCT does specify that double-quotes should be used for scare quotes. In fact, if we are considering that "Occupy", in this context, is mentioning the word rather than using the word, we could make a good argument that the display-title should be "Occupy protests", potentially leaving the internal title at Occupy protests. — Arthur Rubin(talk)13:01, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
WP:PUNCT does not indicate that double quotes should be used for scare quotes. If certain stretched interpretations of WP:PUNCT make it seem that way, then it needs to be changed for titles at least. --Timeshifter (talk) 16:53, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
The term quotation in the material below also includes other uses of quotation marks such as those for titles of songs, chapters, episodes, unattributable aphorisms, literal strings, "scare-quoted" passages, and constructed examples.
No, I'm not stretching, at all. The following sentence of the guideline states:
Enclose quotations with double quotation marks (Bob said, "Jim ate the apple."). Enclose quotations within quotations with single quotation marks (Bob said, "Did Jim say 'I ate the apple' after he left?").
Even under WP:SYNTHESIS, we are allowed to combine two statements from the same source:
That section is referring to regular quotations specifically, not scare quotes. Anybody can go there, read it in context, and see for themselves. --Timeshifter (talk) 13:47, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
Yes, but just a reminder that as a matter of course, any thread that touches on the other page (wp:title or wp:mos) should be flagged there, for basic coordination. Thanks. 13:17, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
(unindent). Discussion of scare quotes should probably start here since this is the overall Manual of Style. The use of scare quotes in titles is another location where scare quotes are used. Roger left a note at the WP:TITLE talk page directing people here.
We should probably use what reliable news sources use most for scare quotes in titles. The news media usually use single quotes instead of double quotes when referring to the 'Occupy' protests. There are many examples from major news sources:
We should probably base the MOS on what the rules of grammar are. I found this:
Use Single Quotation Marks in Headlines.
The Associated Press uses single quotation marks for quotations in headlines.
Use Single Quotation Marks to Highlight Words Not Being Used for Their Meaning.
It's the convention in certain disciplines such as philosophy, theology, and linguistics to highlight words with special meaning by using single quotation marks instead of double quotation marks.
Here is how Scare quotes are used: "If scare quotes are enclosing a word or phrase that does not represent a quotation from another source they may simply serve to alert the reader that the word or phrase is used in an unusual, special, or non-standard way or should be understood to include caveats to the conventional meaning."
A title is not a headline, nor reasonably analogous to one. The URI is closer to a title (and if the news agencies use a single quote in the URI, then that would be an argument in your favor.)
You have potentially presented an argument for changing MOS, not for clarifying the MOS. There is no credible evidence that the single-quoted version does not violate the current guideline at WP:TITLE.
A bot error, either RM bot or RFC bot, is not a justification for changing style guidelines; unless the bot is only failing because of another guideline violation it's a justification for fixing the bot.
The problem at the deleted page is not obviously because of RFC bot, even viewing the deleted pages. I'll have to assume that Timeshifter thought he/she invoked RFC bot correctly, but there's really no way to tell whether it's a bot error or Timeshifter's error. — Arthur Rubin(talk)18:16, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
The WP:MOS page does not discuss scare quotes. WP:TITLE says nothing about scare quotes in titles. The technical problems may not be the deciding factor, but they point out the rarity of double quotes in titles.
Titles, headlines, headings. Headlines are synonymous with titles. See
(I was sure I've written this somewhere before, but, if I did, it got lost)
Showing no knowledge of Wikipedia guidelines or English grammar, as usual for you in this thread.
WP:MOSdoes discuss scare quotes as I noted above. You need to combine two sentences in the guideline, but they are adjacent.
Synonyms are not interchangeable, and google dictionary is much worse than Wiktionary for accuracy. If you look at, for example, m-w.com, and use common sense, you can see that the appropriate definition there of "headline" (2a, at the moment) looks little like the definition you quote there, and none of the definitions of "title" match are compatible with that definition. 5a seems best for our use.
Even if the definitions were the same, those manuals of style are for newspapers, and Wikipedia is not a newspaper.
I did notice that "headline" and "title" are listed as synonyms. In m-w, headline (1) is a species of one of the definitions of "title". However, ourWP:TITLE, is clearly a different one of the definitions. Furthermore, newspapers use headline (2a), rather than headline (1); there is no similarity between headline (2a) and any of the definitions of "title". — Arthur Rubin(talk)14:24, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
From here: "What’s the Difference Between Titles and Headlines? There is no difference between the words 'title' and 'headline'. The two words, in this case, are synonymous. Newspapers tend to use the word 'headline', and magazines, websites, and blogs tend to use the word 'title', but they all mean the same thing. It is the name which represents a summary or description of the written content." --Timeshifter (talk) 19:01, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
Comment A possible reason for quotes in headlines to be indicated by single-quotes is that they expect them to be quoted with double-quotes, thereby pre-empting the nested quote rule. That argument is sufficient to justify the newspaper manuals of style you quote, without applying at all to Wikipedia (or Commons) titles. — Arthur Rubin(talk)14:31, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
Single quotes are used in article titles in the news media much more than double quotes. See the search result shortcuts in my various previous comments. There is no prohibition against single quotes in article titles in the news media, nor in Wikipedia titles. So, let us not create a new prohibition here. --Timeshifter (talk) 15:12, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
Comments: 1) The usage "the Occupy protests" assumes everyone agrees that italics should be used for words-as-words, which is actually a long-standing fight here, and why the MOS says we can use "double quotes" or italics (well, that's one of the reasons; there are others). I think the italicized version of this looks ridiculous, and it doesn't make sense in the context anyway. It should be in quotations marks because it is in fact a quotation (of "Occupy Wall Street!", etc.). 2) "The Associated Press uses single quotation marks for quotations in headlines" because, and only because, they are trying to save space. We should, generally, never, ever, and I mean ever do what the US Associated Press style guide or the British The Guardian style guide do, just because those guides say to do it. They are utterly worthless as style guides for any writing style other than mainstream newspaper journalism, and their style decisions are completely controlled by the needs and intents of of that particular kind of publication. As a mostly "gnome" editor, I find that the #2 bottomless pit for my editorial time (after just general "I dunno howta wright good, 'cause, I'm 9 yrs old" garbage) is correcting overly journalistic style to a proper encyclopedic tone, direction and intent. It's a scourge. The further we can distance Wikipedia from that style of writing the better. It's one of the reasons I keep trying, successfully for a while each time until it gets editwarred back in, to get WP:LEAD to stop using the term "lede". A journalistic lede – a teaser paragraph that intentionally omits the most important information to arm-twist the reader into reading the entire piece, like a movie trailer drives film ticket sales – is the exact opposite of a encyclopedic lead a concise summary of the salient facts of an article so that one does not have to read all of it unless needing detailed information. — SMcCandlishTalk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀContribs.16:29, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
PS: Re: "The news media usually use single quotes instead of double quotes when referring to the 'Occupy' protests." See above; more newspaper journo space saving "style" (or lack thereof). Has nothing to do with encyclopedic writing. Arthur Rubin's logic is obviously correct: Scare quotes are quotes, so we use double quotes because that's what we do. Even if we didn't, it'd then be an ENGVAR issue, and we still wouldn't be putting them in single-quotes, except perhaps on a British article on an "Occupy Downing Street" spinoff. — SMcCandlishTalk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀContribs.16:35, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
Comments. The question, as I understand it, is whether "scare quotes" should be marked by single quotation marks in article titles while Wikipedia's style is to use double quotation marks for quotations in general (with single quotation marks for nested quotations).
Finding any sort of examples of scare quotes in titles – whether from news sources, Google searches, or anywhere else – without also knowing the normal style of the organization publishing those quotes proves nothing!
If the examples using single quotation marks for scare quotes in titles are from organizations that use single quotation marks for all quotations, then these examples support the use of double quotation marks for scare quotes in Wikipedia - all quotes are being treated equally.
If the examples using single quotation marks in title for scare quotes are from organizations that use double quotation marks for other types of quotations, then these same examples support the use of single quotation marks for scare quotes in Wikipedia - scare quotes in titles are being treated differently from other quotations.
The technical problems with double quotation marks in URLs is a general issue - not particular to scare quotes.
I ask the editors contributing to this discussion to please slow down. Please do all your research before writing your submission, and then please use the preview button and check the result before saving your submission.
Revising your own submission repeatedly makes following the discussion difficult, especially when the change is to text than has already been responded to.
Timeshifter:
You have stated twice above that there is no prohibition against using single quotes; but that is not the point. There is a Manual of Style. If the absence of a prohibition means you can do it, then there is an unlimited number of things that we could do regardless of the Manual of Style.
The adoption of any style is not favouring others who happen to use the same style. Making a decision either way here is not favouring either the British or the Americans.
I don't think you addressed the point of whether to use single quotes for scare quotes in titles. It seems like almost everybody except Wikipedia is doing it. Be they British media, American media, Associated Press, etc.. --Timeshifter (talk) 13:22, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
Occupy movement
Comment. A specific article helps to bring this discussion back to a more useful discussion, as opposed to the theoretical. Concerning the specific article, "Occupy" protests, that started this discussion, the growing consensus is to change to Occupy movement as the name of the article. It does not really matter to me or most others in the talk page discussion anymore whether there are scare quotes around 'Occupy', since for most people it is no longer an unfamiliar use of the word (which is what scare quotes are for in this case). So Occupy movement or 'Occupy' movement is fine by me. When the news media put quotes around 'Occupy' they almost always use single quotes, both in the title and within the article. But the news media is only rarely putting quotes around 'Occupy' anymore. Wikipedia looks silly using double quotes, since there is little basis for it, and no desire by most grammar guides and authorities to do so. --Timeshifter (talk) 14:33, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
Yes, the media uses single quotation marks. But I think you will find they use single quotation marks as their preferred quotation marks everywhere, not just for scare quotes. You still have not provided any evidence for single quotation marks for scare quotes from a publisher that uses double quotation marks for the preferred quotation marks elsewhere - you still have not proved anything. Does anyone follow my logic - or am barking up the wrong tree? —Coroboy (talk) 01:12, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
If you click on the Google News searches in my other comments and below you will see that the media using single quotes around 'Occupy' are media from the US, UK, Australia, New Zealand, etc.. Those media use double quotation marks for regular quotes, even media from the UK. Google News phrase searches for
The 'Occupy' movement, which began in Wall Street a month ago, has "touched a nerve" and is "spreading across America", film-maker and author Michael Moore has told the BBC's Newsnight programme. "People are not going to take it any more," he told Jeremy Paxman, as the protests against banks and financial institutions have spread to capitals including Rome and London.
Note the double quotations around regular quotations. Here is an article from New Zealand:
Thanks for persevering with me. You are quite right – I had not followed the links that had been provided. If I had I would have seen for myself the evidence that I was looking for: they use double quotation marks in the articles but single quotation marks for scare quotes in the headings. —Coroboy (talk) 11:12, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
Thanks Coroboy. It can be complicated. Double quotation marks are used within articles for regular quotations in almost all English-language news media nowadays from all countries. Single quotation marks are usually used for scare quotes within titles. Single quotation marks are oftentimes used for scare quotes within articles too. --Timeshifter (talk) 16:40, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
Talking about words
SMcCandlish. Journalistic style of writing is different from journalistic punctuation. I would think they have some kind of consistency and thought put into punctuation. Single quotes make more sense in titles for scare quotes due to the practical problems of sharing URLs, etc..
Grammar Girl says in many cases it is the convention to use single quotes for scare quotes used to "Highlight Words Not Being Used for Their Meaning". See: Single Quotation Marks Versus Double Quotation Marks. August 18, 2011. By Mignon Fogarty aka Grammar Girl. "Use Single Quotation Marks to Highlight Words Not Being Used for Their Meaning. It's the convention in certain disciplines such as philosophy, theology, and linguistics to highlight words with special meaning by using single quotation marks instead of double quotation marks."
I do not believe that Wikipedia, a general-English publication, should necessarily require practices geared to the specific needs of specialties such as literary criticism, linguistics or ornithology. Darkfrog24 (talk) 18:55, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
Note. The technical and practical problems have been consolidated here.
There are also technical problems with double quotes in titles. URLs with double quotes can be problematic when placed in email, Facebook comments, Wikipedia, etc.. Many places, such as in Facebook comments, can not make double-quote URLs clickable at all. In other places the software substitutes characters in the URL. For example; try pasting in such URLs here:
Double-quote URLs can not be pasted in edit windows here on Wikipedia, and stay with the double quotes. Wikipedia converted it to the above version with %22 for the double quotes. It is hard to read such URLs. One of the beauties of Wikipedia is that one can share Wikipedia URLs, and people can know what the article is about by reading the title in the URL. That is difficult with double quotes. Many comment and email forms can not use URLs correctly, or at all, if they have double quotes in them.
I think it is a good idea to use titles that produce URLs that are easily readable when shared. I have noticed lately that the Commons has been removing en dashes and em dashes from category titles. Maybe one of the reasons is that people have difficulty sharing URLs with en dashes, and em dashes. For example from this list of Foroa deletions check the October 17 category deletions. There is a long list of deletions of categories containing en dashes and em dashes. Here is an example:
14:24, 17 October 2011 Foroa (talk | contribs) deleted "Category:Denmark – United Kingdom relations" (Moved to Category:Denmark - United Kingdom relations.)
When em dashes are pasted into Facebook comments this is what you get:
Readability of URLs has never been among the goals of WP styling. Let's don't start that way, which would take us back to the typewriter/ASCII age. Dicklyon (talk) 15:06, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
It looks like it may be part of the reason for the change on the Commons. Commons has always seemed to have more common sense. --Timeshifter (talk) 15:19, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
Search engines cannot find quotations
I removed this from WP:PUNCT because it is contradictory, and makes no sense:
Wikipedia prefers double quotation marks because some search engines cannot find quotations within single quotation marks, like 'I ate the apple'. (Wikipedia's search facility will only find such an expression if the search string is also within single quotation marks.) In addition, double quotation marks are harder to confuse with apostrophes.
You know, that ban on single quotation marks has been there for years. In the meantime, there have been new web browsers and new operating systems. Maybe it's time to lift the ban and permit single quotation marks in articles written in national varieties that permit them.
One caveat: Do the browsers and search engines available in all parts of the world ignore punctuation or just the ones in the U.S. and other wealthy countries? Darkfrog24 (talk) 17:30, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
Isn't Timeshifter talking about what happens when one hits CTRL-F on a Wikipedia article or types something into Wikipedia's search bar? Google is a search engine, but the MoS refers to Wikipedia's search facility. Darkfrog24 (talk) 20:40, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
I did some more tests. Browsers don't need quotes of any kind to find phrases on a page. The browser's 'find' form will find exactly what is typed into the form including punctuation. Browsers are not "smart" search tools.
Search engines use double quotes in the search form to indicate that the full phrase is being searched for. This is true for Google and Wikipedia's Special:Search. Both Google and Special:Search ignore punctuation in the results themselves. --Timeshifter (talk) 02:11, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
We'd have to ask someone who's more adept with this kind of programming than I am, but isn't this less about what's plugged into the search feature and more about what's in the article? If the phrase she sang the song 'Concorde' again are in the MoS, then would I be able to search for "Concorde again"? Darkfrog24 (talk) 18:17, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
Timeshifter, and everyone, this needs to be got right. There were indeed some infelicities in how this was managed, but a simple excision was not the answer. There are genuine important points to make about convenience, searching, and rational consistency. I have therefore amended things at a few points in the section, to read as follows:
Enclose quotations with double quotation marks (Bob said, "Jim ate the apple."). Enclose quotations inside quotations with single quotation marks (Bob said, "Did Jim say 'I ate the apple' after he left?"). This is by far the dominant convention in current practice; see other reasons, below.
Article openings
When the title of an article appearing in the lead paragraph requires quotation marks (for example, the title of a song or poem), the quotation marks should not be in boldface, as they are not part of the title:
Correct:
"Jabberwocky" is a nonsense poem by Lewis Carroll.
Block quotes
As already noted above, we use quotation marks or block quotes (not both) to distinguish long quotations from other text. Multiparagraph quotations are always block-quoted. The quotations must be precise and exactly as in the source (except for certain allowable typographical changes, also noted above). The source should be cited clearly and precisely to enable readers to locate the text in question, and to quote it accurately themselves from Wikipedia.
Quotation characters
Do not use grave and acute accents or backticks (`text´) as quotation marks (or as apostrophes).
There are two possible methods for rendering quotation marks at Wikipedia (that is, the glyphs, displayed with emphasis here, for clarity):
Typewriter or straight style: "text", 'text'.Recommended at Wikipedia.
Typographic or curly style: “text”, ‘text’.Not recommended at Wikipedia.
Whenever quotation marks or apostrophes appear in article titles, make a redirect from the same title but using the alternative glyphs.
Reasons to prefer straight quotation marks and apostrophes (and double quotation marks)
Typographical, or curly, quotation marks and apostrophes might be read more efficiently; and many think they look more professional. But for practical reasons the straight versions are recommended, and double rather than single quotation marks.
Consistency keeps searches predictable. Search facilities have differences that many readers (and editors) are unaware of:
Google uses quotation marks (single or double) to mark whole phrases, and ignores any punctuation marks in the search text.
Wikipedia's search facility, and the prompts that appear as users insert text, ignore double quotation marks, but treat single quotation marks as significant. They also distinguish straight and curly forms (neither ‘occupy’ protests nor “occupy” protests will find the title "Occupy" protests directly, especially in prompts).
Browser searches (of displayed text, perhaps a Wikipedia page) distinguish between single and double quotation marks, and also between curly and straight forms. (Searches for Alzheimer's disease could fail to find Alzheimer’s disease and vice versa; similarly for "must see" attractions, 'must see' attractions, “must see” attractions, and ‘must see’ attractions.)
Double quotation marks are not confused with apostrophes, as single quotes can be:
She wrote that 'Cleanthes' differs from the others', but neither opinion may represent Hume's'; ... (slows the reader down)
She wrote that "Cleanthes' differs from the others', but neither opinion may represent Hume's"; ... (clearer)
Straight quotation marks are easier to type in reliably, and to edit. They are available on every keyboard.
That is your prerogative, Timeshifter. Now discuss the changes I made – which were not major, and affected no substance of any guidelines. Carefully analyse each one for us, showing how I am in error and how the information is not useful. Also the amendments by Greg, and anyone else involved. I'll watch, and come in later. Much too busy in the world for this sort of thing.
There are separate discussions. I and others can discuss your latest proposals over a few days. It would be helpful if you could specify clearly what you are proposing to change. --Timeshifter (talk) 01:21, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
Timeshifter, it is not helpful to pretend that the changes I proposed are not clearly marked. I present them above, and they have been fully self-explanatory and documented from the start. I accept also Greg's input, integrated now into the material in the navbox above. Keep the discussion tag that I have placed on the section; it is under discussion. Please join in keeping the discussion well flagged (don't change the section header to something uninformative), and collegial. WP:MOS affects 6,931,249, not just the ones that recently occupy you. NoeticaTea?03:08, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
I found that a bit confusing: “[Argument in favour of curly quotes]. But [on the other hand] [argument against single quotes].” I know you're lumping the two issues, but still... Simply swapping the two following bullet items would help a great deal, though maybe something even better could be come up to.
Also, “Almost certainly the eye parses typographical (curly) quotation marks more smoothly”: how do you know that? Did empirical studies find that? If so, say “[It has been found|Studies have found] that the eye [probably|almost certainly|whatever] parses ...”. Is that speculation? If so, say “Many think that the eye parses typographical (curly) quotation marks more smoothly, and that they look more professional.” ― A. di M.12:41, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, A di M. Fair points. First, I simply integrated Greg's reasons in favour of the disfavoured curly versions; I do not feel any onus to supply references in WP:MOS. Greg or someone else might like to show some, here on the talkpage. I agree with the point, and could argue for it on theoretical and empirical grounds, when I am not too busy. Anyway, I have softened the statement in question. Second, I have re-ordered and adjusted things in response to your other useful suggestion, and substituted a more pressing example.
I have again amended some wording in the draft. I avoided "the eye parses". As used here, parses is a term borrowed from computer science without a clear meaning for some readers. The revised wording: "Typographical, or curly, quotation marks and apostrophes might be read more efficiently; ...". NoeticaTea?20:47, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
I'm confused, because Noetica would surely know that computer science borrowed "parses" from linguistics. But I agree that his simplified explanation is better. Art LaPella (talk) 01:28, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
Let me dispel your confusion, Art. Read carefully what I wrote: "As used here, parses is a term borrowed from computer science without a clear meaning for some readers." The primary sense, still with us from the 16th century, concerns words in a sentence. See SOED, "parse, v. & n.":
A [a] v. 1 v.t. & i. Describe (a word in context) grammatically, by stating the relevant part of speech, inflection, and place within the sentence structure; resolve (a sentence, phrase, etc.) into component parts of speech for grammatical description. M16.
Then the computing sense comes in the 20th century:
b Computing. Analyse (a string) into syntactic components, esp. to test conformability to a given grammar. M20.
The usage I removed, which was adopted from Greg's edit, is not about parsing words; it is an extension of the computing sense of parse, and would be foreign to many readers.
This is a bit like the bilateral international relations articles I raised here a while ago (and which still haven't been resolved). According to the rule now adopted, all of these should have no spaces next to the dashes. (The MoS used to recommend a different rule, which is no doubt how they got to be like that).--Kotniski (talk) 14:04, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
Yes. The ones without spaces are correct. The others (with more than a single word on one side or the other, and spaces) were correct in the old scheme, not in the new. All unspaced would be correct. Dicklyon (talk) 15:36, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
It was part of a long process involving a huge RfC. See "Making MOS:ENDASH happen" in the last archive for more detailed information.--Kotniski (talk) 20:43, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
Whatever RfC there was, wasn't advertised very well for such a massive change, and breaks an English rule that applies to all variants of the language. Dashes should be spaced when one of the two terms is longer than a single word. Its not Canada–United States border crossings, because there is no Canada States. Common sense thrown out the window yet again. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲτ¢16:01, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
When I last asked anyone for any real-world style guides or similar that recommended spacing the dash in such situations, no-one could do so. Perhaps you can? It certainly seems to me that "Canada – United States" is not in accord with common sense, since it makes the dash look like the separating kind rather than the linking kind, which is far worse than the possibility that someone might be momentarily misled about exactly what is being linked.--Kotniski (talk) 16:05, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
I don't happen to carry style guides in my library, but perhaps tony1 could fill us in a bit better as the expert. Spacing doesn't determine whether a dash is linking or separating two terms; the context does. With the spaces it's separating Canada and United States, as opposed to separating Canada and United. The words that follow establish the context, as Canada – United States in of itself means several possible things. Canada to United States or Canada and United States. Canada to United States border crossings doesn't make sense, so it must be the other meaning. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲτ¢16:14, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
It's linking rather than separating, in the sense that it links "Canada" and "United States" into a single unit, like the hyphens in "three-year-old" do. As opposed to the dash in "so much work – so little time", which serves to separate the two parts of the sentence. --Kotniski (talk) 16:22, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
Neither of those examples can be applied to a border. The second is a full sentence example and has nothing to do with conjoining two terms. Take this sentence for example. "I'm driving down to the Canada–United States Fair". Are you driving to the Fair in the United States, or the States Fair in (pretend it exists for a moment) Canada–United? - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲτ¢16:32, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
We all recognize "United States" as a single unit, so this isn't really an issue here (if it is, we can dodge it by shortening to U.S., though there are other cases where there is no such convenient getout). But the fact that the whole-sentence example has nothing to do with conjoining two terms is precisely my point – the reader doesn't know, on encountering a dash, whether it's the conjoining kind (which tells his internal parser "these things are connected somehow") or the separating kind (which tells him "whoa, pause here"), unless we follow what I still believe to be the normal rule of good English – that the separating kind should either be a spaced en dash or unspaced em dash, while the conjoining kind should be an unspaced en dash (or in some kinds of cases a hyphen). By using a spaced dash for joining, we throw the reader utterly; we are saying something like "Canada: its United States borders" (compare "Canada – United States tourists' favorite travel destination").--Kotniski (talk) 17:04, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
Punctuating suffixed phrases
What are the punctuation guidelines in regard to attributive adjectives formed by the addition of suffixes to phrases?
Earlier, I suggested discouraging excrescent forms of prepositions, such as amongst (among) and whilst, (while) due to the potential for misunderstanding. Both are verifiable as excrescent forms. Just check any dictionary that bothers to have decent etymological accounts of its entries.
By being so inclusive of different grammatical standards, Wikipedia is indirectly encouraging a lot of contextual misunderstanding and misapplication of English vocabulary. The average reader is not necessarily aware of differences that existence among various dialect of English, nor are they necessarily aware of Wikipedia's policy allowing articles to vary in dialect as much as it incidentally occurs. These readers tend to assume that some (or many) of these different spellings and forms have separate contexts, and should be used regardless of one's dialect. I realize this might sound like a stretch, but I sincerely believe that Wikipedia is responsible for setting grammatical reformations back several hundred years. Just in recent years, I've noticed several people expanding their vocabulary in awkward ways, not realizing that some of the word forms that they use belong to another dialect; and this often reflects the varied style of grammar and vocabulary found in your average Wiki article, having sections written by people from entirely different parts of the world.
Bear in mind, this is not necessarily a debate about dialectal differences. Neither of the aforementioned excrescent forms belong to any specific dialect of English, and have no place in any of the grammar books. What's important is that most dialects of English agree on several commonalities, and those standards uphold that among and while are standard usage. Permitting anything further is just lending to confusion.
There are a few other excrescent word forms that I propose should be replaced, when possible:
towards, anyways, backwards, forwards - The [-s] is excrescent. Dictionaries (belonging to different dialects) only list the [-s] forms as alternative spellings. Some don't acknowledge it at all.
unbeknownst - Clearly an archaism. Sounds like something that would result from Early Modern English inflection. Replace with "unknown," which means the exact same thing.
At present, a Google search says "towards" (for instance) outnumbers "toward" by 355,000 to 203,000 on Wikipedia. Wikipedia may influence the English language, but you overestimate how much proposed Manual of Style rules like those can influence Wikipedia. We already have 1.4 megabytes of rules at last count, and even Manual of Style regulars don't know most of those rules, nor do they know when they need to look one up. Art LaPella (talk) 04:55, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
Quesion: What kind of misunderstanding? How exactly do amongst/among and toward/towards confuse people with regard to meaning? This is not a rhetorical question. If there's something that I'm not seeing, please do point it out.
Wikipedia is not supposed to be a vehicle for language reform. We already have far too much of that in the MoS. Ideally, Wikipedia would show English exactly as it currently is, changing in response to the language rather than ahead of it. In reality, yes, many people copy Wikipedia. That is all the more reason not to ban or promote specific forms. Darkfrog24 (talk) 13:48, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
Amongst and whilst (just about always), upon (usually), and within (often, when in would do), are pretentious nowadays; they should be scrubbed off our article text unless there's a good reason to keep them. I'm not so sure about towards: I thought it was still in good odour, interchangeable with toward; but perhaps I'm wrong. Tony(talk)14:09, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
That's what I thought, Tony, that the among/st issue is a question taste and sensibility. But this user is maintaining that amongst/among will confuse people, not just make them think that Wikipedia is old-fashioned. Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:48, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
Towards is more than twice as common as toward in BrE, at least in Google books;[30] if we're allowing realise in spite of WP:COMMONALITY because it's 1.5 times as common as realize in BrE, we should allow towards as well. As for anyways, that just sounds too informal for an encyclopaedia to me (I'd only use it in the kind of writing where I'd use wanna and similar). And am I the only one who prefers backward attributively but backwards predicatively (the backward motion, it is moving backwards)? (Same for northwards, eastwards, etc.; but for some reason forwards just sounds weird to me in all contexts – other than as a verb – but that's just my €0.02 and YMMV.) Oh, and I second Darkfrog's question. ― A. di M.11:59, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
Proposed clarifications in the lead
Two proposed additions shown in italics (but not intended to remain so):
Consistency in style and formatting promotes clarity and cohesion; this is especially important within an article, and when using common means to present information across articles, such as 'info-boxes'.
Writing should be clear and, without compromising clarity, concise. Plain English works best: avoid jargon, and vague or unnecessarily complex wording.
These changes might not look like much, but they would constitute a major alteration in the MoS's policy on internal consistency. Right now, the unit of internal consistency is the article, not Wikipedia as a whole, Wikiprojects or, as your wording would put it, articles with similar topics. Frankly, I like the current policy, which sets the article as the unit of internal consistency, establishing that even similar articles may use different styles. Darkfrog24 (talk) 13:23, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
Well, up to a point, but the present wording also points out that consistency is a good thing in general, not just within articles (but especially within articles), so this wouldn't represent that much of a change. Still, I think it's perhaps going into too much detail for the lead.--Kotniski (talk) 13:49, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
Darkfrog24, only the first change is specifically inter-article. I agree that it's correct to allow similar articles to use different styles, but this is not about articles per se. It seems reasonable for readers to expect multiple instances of a particular type of infobox to be used consistently. AFAIK, most if not all info-boxes already have documentation that promotes their consistent use, so no great change in practice is intended. The wording is initially deliberately loose: whether there are common means other than info-boxes that might benefit from consistent use, I don't know. Kotniski, my first thought was the same as yours about the suitability of this for the lead but I'm not sure where else it should go—in fact I'm not sure the MoS has a lead as such, it seems to be a section on general principles and then sections on specific usage; this seems more of a general principle. Uniplex (talk) 14:22, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
Is there a problem with inter-article information such as infoboxes?
Occasionally, yes; so it would be nice to have a little more visibility of the desirability for consistency in this case. Uniplex (talk) 14:36, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
I don't find the without compromising clarity useful. Concision, I'd have thought, takes for granted that clarity is not compromised; otherwise, concision starts to mean truncation. Tony(talk)14:13, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
Those gaming the system push conciseness over clarity when it suits them to do so; the potential for this can be reduced by wording as "clarity is a requirement; conciseness is a virtue" or somesuch. Uniplex (talk) 14:36, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
I don't think infoboxes should be consistent with each other, they should be consistent with the article. I also don't think a discussion about consistency that appears on the talk page of a particular infobox can override consensus for the whole encyclopedia, as is found in this guideline. So, infoboxes should put the same unit of measure first as the article does, or is appropriate for the article if the article has ties to an English-speaking countries. Likewise for spelling. If there are citations for the information in the infobox, that citation should be in the same style as the other citations in the article.
Since an article may have more than one infobox, there is impossible for infoboxes with a fixed style to be consistent with other infoboxes in the same article. So you would really have to create one style for all infoboxes. If you are going to do that, you might as well create a real solution and create one style for the whole encyclopedia. Jc3s5h (talk) 14:40, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
That's a good point re spelling etc. That was not the type of consistency I was concerned about however (so wording would be needed to clarify this). I was concerned about the occasional inconsistent use of info-box fields. E.g. a fictional example of a field name where the qualifier "at birth" is implied but in some instances the field is populated according to "at death". Ideally, this would be resolved at the talk-page for the info-box. In practice however, it can be difficult; hence, a clearer statement in the MoS would be useful. Uniplex (talk) 15:21, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
Maybe this at the end of the WP:IBX lead: “The meaning given to each infobox field should be the same across all instances of that type of infobox. For example, for a particular type of infobox, if one its fields is called "weight", it would be inappropriate to sometimes use this field to denote "weight at birth" and other times "weight at maturity". Each infobox type should have documentation giving instruction on how each part/field may be used.” Uniplex (talk) 20:29, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
I am not sure why we need such a rule (does anyone remember?), but if we do it can probably be fixed by clarifying "about particular modern writers or their works". But it may be better to remove it altogether as a small step against policy bloat. HansAdler20:47, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
The purpose of this rule, I imagine, is to prevent fights over ENGVAR. I wouldn't toss it entirely, but I concur with Hans that adding the word "modern" would fix any problem.
Also, Pyrochem, are people actually trying to write the Chaucer and Shakespeare articles in pre-modern English? Is there an actual problem here? Darkfrog24 (talk) 03:28, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
Make that “For articles about particular Modern English writers ...”, to make clear that Umberto Eco shouldn't be written in the kind of English he himself writes. (Technically, Modern English does include Shakespeare, but I think the intent would be clear.) ― A. di M.12:05, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
I have a feeling this was added as a way of justifying the fact that the article on Tolkien used "-ize" spellings, on the ground that Tolkien himself used those spellings. Or something close to that. I don't think it's a particularly valuable rule (particularly worded as "often" rather than "sometimes" or "occasionally"). --Kotniski (talk) 18:44, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
for a subquotation: reconsider two pairs of quotation marks or one?
Should an inline quotation of a quotation, where both are identical, have one pair of quotation marks or two pairs?
MoS expects two, as it now stands, in the Quotations within Quotations subsection. I edit providing two, for accuracy. But, to some editors, including an IP editor, it apparently looks wrong. And if a citation or context makes clear that it's a quoted quotation, then arguably the inner quotation marks are superfluous. A scholar would likely expect both pairs, but most readers are not scholars, or not yet.
For blockquotes, the equivalent question is whether to put quotation marks inside a blockquote for a subquotation that is identical to the enclosing quotation.
This does not apply if the quotations are different. In that case, both pairs should still be required. For example, "Pat said, 'Kim think so'" would not be not questioned.
This is not about using single or double quotation marks, as that's separately governed by the MoS. This is about how many pairs.
I don't understand the example. Does it mean The Times reported, "The Journal said, 'It's on the left.'"? Or The Times reported that The Journal said, "It's on the left."? Do you have a real example? What in the MOS suggests two sets of quotes in the your example? Dicklyon (talk) 04:10, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
Here's a real example that I changed from two pairs of quotation marks to a single pair. As virtually all quotations on Wikipedia are cited from non-primary sources, I believe Nick's suggestion would lead to most quotations on Wikipedia being enclosed in two (or more) pairs of quotation marks. According to my understanding, the normal practice in English is that you only use more than one pair of quotation marks when you need to distinguish part of a quotation as a sub-quotation. Kaldari (talk) 09:23, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
It says the Synod of Gran said, not Schmidt (1989) reports that the Synod of Gran said, so double quotes would just be very confusing. We're using Schmidt as a source for the Gran quote, not quoting Schmidt itself. ― A. di M.10:48, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
I would try very hard to locate a definitive version of the original source to avoid all this. However, if you must do it this way, you should just use a single pair of quotation marks and let the citation do the leg work. For example, if you had an anthology of famous quotations, you would just assume the quotation is definitive and cite the anthology. You wouldn't write Churchill said, "'Here we stand...'"—you would just write Churchill said, "Here we stand..."—and cite the anthology, even if it's not the original source of the quotation. None of this should be done unless it is a seriously reliable source. —Designate (talk) 17:18, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
Nick, it sounds like you're the one arguing that we should sometimes enclose a quote twice, possibly by reading that into what the MOS says. If you have a good example, make your case. I think most of us aren't seeing the issue, or reject the logic. Dicklyon (talk) 16:41, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
I can go either way, but if we shouldn't use them or if Kaldari's concept is preferred then we should word the MoS accordingly, since it now specifies what I was doing. I agree that the citations or other context can provide functional equivalence. As long as the MoS supports it, there shouldn't be a complaint about inaccuracy from omitting inner marks. In the examples above following mine, the first was punctuated to reverse the meant source order, so it doesn't apply, but the second (with the added "that") applies and presents the same issue (adding a "that" or not is unrelated to the number of sets of marks). I don't agree that most quotations would get two sets; I rarely use two even under my understanding, because it's rare that a source quotes another and that a Wikipedia editor quotes the quotation. In the Synod/Schmidt case, I relied on readers reading the ref element; I probably should have written in the main text that Schmidt said that the Synod said ..., but I didn't, and that might be confusing to people who don't read footnotes (probably most people most times). That applies to the Churchill case not citing the anthology, thus obviating the need for the second set.
Putting aside my error/inclarity re Schmidt, it seems the preferred method is that if the quotations are coterminous and if the context makes clear that source A is quoting source B being quoted, a single set of marks suffices. Is that the consensus? If so, I'll propose a wording for the MoS section, probably to precede the section's last sentence.
Nick Levinson (talk) 11:50, 6 November 2011 (UTC) (Corrected by adding a pipe character to a link in lieu of erroneous space: 18:49, 6 November 2011 (UTC) and this rephrased for sake of edit summary: 19:06, 6 November 2011 (UTC))
I still think you're inventing a case that needs no special attention. I've never seen the question come up before, nor anyone wanting to put two sets of quote marks around a quote just because it's from a secondary source. Dicklyon (talk) 17:50, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
It's not because a source is secondary (most secondary sources don't quote most of their sources for most of their content, but often summarize them), but for the less common case of a source quoting a source. And I don't need to use two sets of marks, if our guideline exempts us (just like we're exempted from using original dashes where the MoS calls for specific kinds of dashes for specific kinds of contexts even within quotations). A single set is fine and probably normal as long as the sourcing is clear about the dual quoting; it's just the guideline that needs one sentence saying so, in my opinion. Nick Levinson (talk) 18:49, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
If this is okay, this is the sentence I'd like to add, to follow the first sentence (including the Voltaire example) of the Quotations within Quotations subsection:
If the inner quotation is identical with the outer quotation, a single set of quotation marks is sufficient provided the citing or context makes clear that it is a quotation within a quotation.
I can see your point, more or less, but I think to prevent rule creep we should simply leave this out. It appears that you are the only editor so far who has interpreted the silence of the MOS on this very special point as a decree to depart from what is universal practice outside Wikipedia. Now that you know there is a consensus that we should just do what everybody does, this should really be enough. If it ever comes up again, someone will point to this section or the same consensus will quickly come up again. I think that's far better than confusing hundreds or thousands of MOS readers by giving undue weight to this minor point. HansAdler09:41, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
Foreign relations questions
I have several questions:
1. Should the dash between countries in foreign relations be with space or without?
3. Should we have articles about relations of all states with all other states? Isn't the international relation notable for its self for separate article, if its referenced?
4. Do we have some Manual of Style for these articles?
4. I don't think so, but there are a few common practices that have evolved by the core people working in that area. Jenks24 (talk) 03:16, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
Agree with Jenks24 about 1, 2, and 3. I have no idea about 4. (FYI, you can make a numbered list by putting a # at the beginning of the lines, immediately after any colons/stars/other hash signs.) ― A. di M.16:50, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
But only if the list has no unpredictable interruptions like double spacing or indenting. I prefer hard-coded numbers for such short lists. Art LaPella (talk) 23:35, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
If you do things right, you can have lists working even with intervening indented stuff. But I agree that's more likely to break ungracefully if someone does something wrong. ― A. di M.16:34, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
Added examples for ellipses
I just added a few examples for ellipses MOS guidance, here. Feel free to revert if you believe they are incorrect. Explanation: I submitted an article for GA review and the reviewer pointed out that an ellipsis was contrary to the MOS, and indeed it was, but the MOS guidance did not include an example, so it was hard to parse. Some readers may find examples easier to grasp. The examples include some spaces adjacent to the ellipses; and following that are some examples with non-breaking (nbsp) spaces. So there is a subtle issue of whether to use plain spaces or nbsp in the examples. --Noleander (talk) 13:05, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
I think if we're serious about wanting "France, Germany ... and Belgium", then there should be an nbsp in every example where we want one. Perhaps not a visible nbsp before we mention the need for nbsps, but at least an nbsp that can be seen in edit mode. WP:NBSP is perhaps the most frequently ignored guideline in the Manual of Style, so if we don't use it on our own examples, it does look like "Do as I say, not as I do." "Use non-breaking spaces ( ) only as needed ...To keep the ellipsis from wrapping to the next line" apparently means "Use nbsp only as needed, which is every damn time", so there should be an nbsp before most ellipses. Art LaPella (talk) 21:44, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
Well done, Noleander. I have added hard spaces now. Art:
"Use nbsp only as needed, which is every damn time"
Not so. See the edit I have now made. It would hardly ever be appropriate to use a hard space on both sides of an ellipsis; it is normally appropriate to add one hard space. None might be added, however, if the ellipsis occurs near the start of a paragraph and is certain to stay there. This might occur in some sorts of lists that are unlikely to be quoted by copying from the source.
That edit helps. "every damn time" is more precisely "every damn time on the left". The point of the profanity is not to gloss over the exceptions, but that "only as needed" is misleading to describe something done for almost every ellipsis. Art LaPella (talk) 00:35, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
Profane or sacred, Art, it is not "every damn time on the left". Look carefully now, especially where I underline for you:
Use non-breaking spaces ( ) only as needed to prevent improper line breaks, for example:
To keep a quotation mark (and any adjacent punctuation) from being separated from the start or end of the quotation ("... we are still worried"; "Are we going to France ...?").
To keep the ellipsis from wrapping to the next line ("France, Germany, ... and Belgium"; "France, Germany, ... and Belgium").
An interesting question, class: should every space adjacent to and on the left of an ellipsis be a hard space? Points will be awarded for clear exposition, neat handwriting, and independent thought.
Good question. For WP purposes, it would be Quixotic to try to mandate such a rule (lest a holy war begin). But, speaking logically, a non-breaking space on the left side appears to always be a good idea. That is, I cannot think of a situation when a left-side space should be a plain space. The key observation is that the text preceding the ellipsis should always appear adjacent to (on the same line as) the ellipsis. --Noleander (talk) 04:51, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
Even more precisely, "every damn time on the left when there is a space", but that wasn't what I was emphasizing. But I did recognize it; that's why I mentioned "the exceptions" and "almost every ellipsis". Do you agree that "only as needed" is misleading? It looks to me as if we wouldn't lose any precision by simplifying the entire quote above down to: "When there is a space to the left of an ellipsis, it should be non-breaking ( ).", followed by an explanation of the right-side example "... we are still worried". Art LaPella (talk) 06:02, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
Uh-huh. Well, let's see how others might respond to my challenge question. I won't answer it myself just yet, partly because I want to see what others come up with. Meanwhile, this text is not misleading, if it is read with attention: "Use non-breaking spaces ( ) only as needed to prevent improper line breaks." Why else would we use a non-breaking space, in this context? (I say "in this context", because non-breaking spaces do have uses beyond preventing linebreaks.) The guidelines have to be exact, but also not too wordy. MOS can be criticised for too many words (as by you I think, Art) or too few. Anyone who claims to know better is welcome to do better, right here on the talkpage – with complete marked-up text such as I presented above please, not just a wave of the hand.
I guess that means you want me to complete my proposed rewrite, perhaps like this: "An is also used to keep a quotation mark (and any adjacent punctuation) from being separated from the start of the quotation ("... we are still worried")";. But I don't know why I'm specifying wording if we don't agree that "only as needed" is misleading, when it's almost always needed. "In space, use a space suit only as needed, for instance if you want to breathe." True, but why isn't it just "Use a space suit in space", or at least "Use a space suit in space if you're not an alien"? Art LaPella (talk) 17:18, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
I see articles on a political topic that say "The United States deems" or "France will" or cetera to mean that the (current) government of a country is the subject of a sentence. In other cases the action of a head of state is described as an action of the country. In comparison, e.g., articles about language say "United States" to mean a vast majority of the residents. Is there a manual of style entry that discusses when it is appropriate to use the country's name in lieu of the name of a person or of a (relatively small) group of people? —Quantling (talk | contribs) 20:07, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
"Spain won the World Cup." "China voted against the Security Council resolution." "Greece accepts the terms of the bailout." I think when the people or person involved are acting as representatives of the country it's acceptable to use just the country's name. A MOS rule would be superflous, just use editorial judgement. Roger (talk) 21:04, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
What Roger said. This is the sort of thing where it looks like it would confuse people but it doesn't. If that changes, we can always modify the MoS then. Darkfrog24 (talk) 11:54, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
Countries use of date format
Does anybody know which parts of the world use the European date format (DAY/MONTH/YEAR) and which countries use the date format used in the Americas (MONTH/DAY/YEAR)? Snoozlepet (talk) 21:33, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
Most Asian countries use 'year month day'; Most European countries use day month year natively. month day, year is used most widely in USA and Canada, and to a much lesser extent in UK and most other anglophone countries, who tend to use day month year. --Ohconfucius¡digame!22:49, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
I'd say that's a random guess, not an actual statistic. No offence intended, but my point was simply to let the OP know that Canada certainly isn't MDY-exclusive by any means. --Ckatzchatspy06:37, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
Fer sure, there are exceptions and countries having dual use. I believe that the Philippines, an Asian country, uses predominantly month day, year format whilst Hungary, a European country, uses 'year month day'. --Ohconfucius¡digame!06:40, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
Yah, it was explicitly framed as a guess ("I'd say ..."). One matter you might be able to advise on concerns whether francophone Canadians are more likely to use dmy. Someone asked me the other day, and I wasn't able to answer. Tony(talk)14:12, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
I don't think any other date format is ever used in French (though I haven't studied French since the summer of 2001, so my memory might be failing me), and I'd be surprised if Canadian French were different from French French about this. ― A. di M.17:01, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
Chomsky's ideas on language and power—critical comments by a WPian
Nice, but the "media" was catering to power long before it reached its current form. This isn't something specific to our own age. Darkfrog24 (talk) 11:59, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
The edit by Kotniski (talk·contribs) occurred on 13 August 2011 in MoS#Abbreviations with the insertion of the sentence "Circa. – To indicate approximately, the unitalicised abbreviation c. (followed by a space) is preferred over circa, ca., or approx". Why is c. preferred over circa by whom and under whose authority? This change, I believe, is not consistent with "Use c. only for dates in small spaces and in the opening sentence of a biography (see MOS:DOB). It should not be italicised in normal usage. Do not use ca." found in MoS (abbreviations)#miscellaneous initialisms (and inserted July 2011.
You're right, it's inconsistent, and therefore I will stop changing "circa" to "c." except where those inconsistent guidelines agree, or until that inconsistency is reconciled. Art LaPella (talk) 16:45, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
I think MoS#Abbreviations just needs re-wording slightly or we should add examples such as
"WRONG: circa two-thousand soldiers"
"RIGHT: c. two-thousand soldiers"
"WRONG: c. 1800" (except where brevity is warranted in an infobox for example)
Thread retitled from "Why do dates in duration lists of Soap Operas have to miss certain digits out if they are in the same decade?".
For the dates format, why is it for years selected within one decade does it have to have the first two digits from the end year missing? Such as 1996-98. On the list of soap opera characters, the duration lists for the past characters of Hollyoaks and the current characters of Coronation Street are in this format. The lists look incomplete with some of the digits missing and I can't help feeling the rule seems misguided. Because it seems wrong I have tried to correct the lists and the editors keep reverting them. It just looks wrong in this format and I can't help wondering why it needs to be set out like this.82.38.49.218 (talk) 19:02, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
I am revising the section heading from Why do dates in duration lists of Soap Operas have to miss certain digits out if they are in the same decade? to Date ranges for soap operas. See WP:TPOC: "Section headings".
Didn't know about Template:Formerly. It had always irritated me when retitling a section broke links to it in edit summaries, and as a result I never did that at all. Nice to know about that template. ― A. di M.22:15, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
Are these year-ranges in a table or infobox? Particularly where space is short, the two-digit closing year seems preferable. 10:08, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
WP:YEAR: Years: point 3 (permanent link here) says the following.
A closing CE or AD year is normally written with two digits (1881–86) unless it is in a different century from that of the opening year, in which case the full closing year is given (1881–1986).
Let me try and fill you in on the background behind this question. The IP, 82.38.49.218, does not like the use of the two-digit closing year, particularly in the articles List of Coronation Street characters and List of past Hollyoaks characters. He/she constantly changes this style, despite warnings and advice to look at WP:YEAR. On their talk page 82.38.49.218 has said "The Manual of Style is completely flawed and misguided and cannot possibly be adhered to when its "rules" don't seem to make logical sense." He/she was told to come here to bring up and discuss their issues with WP:YEAR. - JuneGloomTalk15:06, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
A Google Books search shows only a slight preference for "1881–86" rather than "1881–1886", so neither "style looks lazy as if it has been put together by children of primary school age". So perhaps someone else can explain why we have that rule, and perhaps it should be eliminated. In any case, 82.38.49.218 is to be encouraged to take such questions here, rather than keep re-arguing them for however many specific articles are involved. However, as long as we have that rule, I will comply with it, as explained at User:Art LaPella/Because the guideline says so. Art LaPella (talk) 21:30, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
Maybe in some articles the 1881-86 looks OK and is not important but in a list that is specifically recording dates it does not look aesthetically pleasing. I genuinely feel that in these Soap Opera lists it looks more presentable, complete and considerably better with all the digits present and not just the last two of the second year.82.38.49.218 (talk) 11:57, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
Many house styles prefer the two-digit closing number, for years and page ranges. In my view it's easier to recognise. In a space-poor table or infobox I can't imagine why editors would want otherwise. Tony(talk)06:35, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
I don't know how else I can prove my point. It just looks wrong with digits missing and uncompleted. I always feel the need to add the missing digits to the list in order for it to be complete. It looks whole and complete with all the digits added. I disagree that it is easier to recognize as the only people who would have trouble recognizing whole years would have to be incredibly stupid.82.38.49.218 (talk) 23:12, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
We believe you when you say it just looks wrong to you. The way to prove it looks wrong to others is to appeal to style books and other documents, as in Tony's admittedly vague "Many house styles" comment. As I showed above, others are about evenly split between the two styles, so I don't see much reason to prefer either. Art LaPella (talk) 23:44, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
I cannot see any conflict between MOS:RETAIN and MOS:LQ, Cunard. The absence of LQ is not a style recommended by the Manual of Style, so it can be overridden for conformity. If we were to generalise from such a retention, any style established in an article would be out of reach for MOS, which is counter to the role these guidelines play in the Project.
MoS LQ should not be in the MoS at all; banning American style punctuation does us no good and some harm. However, as long as it is still here, no I don't think this is particular case merits an override. If this were a long quote, a block quote or full sentence lifted from a source that used American punctuation, then RETAIN would apply. (If the original sentence Soueid used the words "project," "merit," and "hope" to describe his plan. were lifted whole from the source, then we would be required to keep the American punctuation.) However, the Wikieditor who placed the word "project" worked it into a new sentence designed for the article.
I actually raised a similar question a few years ago, is internal consistency more important than any one rule in the MoS, and I got brought up on AN/I for making such edits. Good luck. Darkfrog24 (talk) 12:54, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
There's no evidence that there is an "American style" that's opposite to a "logical style". Neither style is particularly tied to an English language variant, as far as I've been able to tell. So RETAIN seems irrelevant here; we might as well stick with the consistent LQ style. Dicklyon (talk) 16:01, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
If the reason we're requiring British/LQ in all articles is that including a character not present in the original inside the quotation marks would be a misquotation, then how could transposing two characters in the middle of the quoted material not be a misquotation?
Actually there's lots of evidence that there are separate American and British styles. First, if almost all American writers do X and almost all American style guides require X while almost all British writers do Y and almost all British style guides require Y, then it is safe to say "X is American and Y is British," even if they are also other things too. Second, logical style is referred to as "British" and American style is referred to as "American" in a lot of our sources: [[31][32]
Does this mean you have to find the evidence convincing? No. Does this mean you have to agree with APA and CMoS? No. But is there evidence that this is a split along national lines? Yes. Darkfrog24 (talk) 16:49, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
@Dicklyon: Well, that only depends on what you mean by particularly. For certain values of particularly, date formats aren't particularly tied with countries either ([33][34]), and still we recommend 16 November in UK-related articles and November 16 in US-related ones. ― A. di M.17:55, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
The original question concerns relations between MOS:RETAIN and MOS:LQ, as illustrated by the linked diff; but the discussion (since I addressed the question) treats it as concerning MOS:QUOTE rather than MOS:RETAIN. Neither the question nor MOS:RETAIN mentions preservation of style in quotations. MOS:RETAIN is about the style established in an article. It's all right to change the topic; but let's be aware that this has happened.
Regarding the original question, I agree with Noetica, RETAIN doesn't override LQ since LQ is the only style accepted. Darkfrog says we shouldn't change it if the quote contains TQ, I agree but this is not against LQ. If the quote contains "metres" but we're using US spelling in the article, we leave it; we don't change the quote. LQ doesn't change the quote. JIMptalk·cont20:40, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
Actually, I said that long quotes, such as blockquotes, should be kept intact. This doesn't appear to be the case in the original poster's question; a single word is placed within quotation marks. I'm saying that if the quotation marks (with their adjacent punctuation) had appeared in the middle of a quotation, then they should not be converted from American to British or vice versa. Regarding what Cunard should do in this particular case, I agree with Noetica. Policies like ENGVAR and RETAIN should apply to punctuation, but, according to precedent, they don't. Darkfrog24 (talk) 22:36, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
(1) Please don't attempt to shut down conversations within a day of posing them; that's not how consensus is formed at all. Less than one day of discussion, with minimal participation (three users!), does not justify making sweeping conclusions as to policy. You and I know this equally well.
(2) The rationale for retaining the existing variety is to prevent exactly these sorts of pointless, arbitrary changes. There is a strong preference to use the style most strongly connected to the topic (American English for U.S. articles; British English for UK articles; Australian English for Australian articles) and in the absence of any national connection to the article topic, to retain the style of the first major editor. Here, the article in question is both tied to American style and written originally in American style. These both weigh extremely strongly to retaining the existing variety.
(3) Placing commas and periods within quotation marks is universally the style in the United States. There seemed to be some confusion as to this above. See, for instance:
B. Strunk and White's authoritative, widely-cited Elements of Style (1918) states that: "Formal quotations, cited as documentary evidence, are introduced by a colon and enclosed in quotation marks."
I don't go around changing British style to American style (at least not intentionally), especially on British topics. Nor should anyone, as here, go around changing American style to British style, especial on American topics.No useful purpose is served by changing one completely acceptable and internally-consistent form of English to another completely acceptable form of English. It is antithetical to the idea of an international encyclopedia to impose a single, particular national English variety. Neutralitytalk23:52, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
But MOS:LQ is a more specific guideline than MOS:RETAIN and ENGVAR. So if MOS:LQ were intended to apply only to British articles, it would say so, rather than expecting the more general MOS:RETAIN and ENGVAR guidelines to explain details like quote marks. 3 users might not be a consensus, but the existence of the MOS:LQ guideline is prima facie evidence of a consensus, although we might clarify it by changing MOS:LQ to explicitly cover American English text. This is not a stylistic opinion; that is, I won't stop Neutrality and Darkfrog from changing MOS:LQ their way. Art LaPella (talk) 00:59, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
Inserting a clarification is an idea I can get beyond. But I would disagree that the existence of one guideline precludes the other. The "leave acceptable English as it is" principle is equally explicit and clear as the quotation language, and if I recall correctly it is the more long-established principle, imposed to ensure that users don't do exactly what we saw here - swoop down on an article and change grammar from one for reason. Neutralitytalk01:16, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
No guideline is intended to apply to every situation; hence the (misnamed) "Ignore All Rules", or more practically, its 12-word text. We can leave exceptions to be decided one at a time, as they come up, or we can describe an exception with a more detailed guideline. "Leave acceptable English as it is" could be used as an argument against the application of any rule in the Manual of Style, so that can't be what was intended; it has to mean don't change British English to U.S. or vice versa, and even that has exceptions. The goal of ensuring that users don't swoop down and change grammar also means national varieties of English, obviously not any possible grammar change, and the broader goal of stability is best served by everybody agreeing to follow the guidelines. Yes, LQ might be considered part of a national variety of English, but WP:LQ should make it clear that it isn't. Art LaPella (talk) 01:48, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
Neutrality claims "It is antithetical to the idea of an international encyclopedia to impose a single, particular national English variety." Nonsense. It is perfectly acceptable and normal for a publication, including an encyclopedia, to establish any house style it wants to. It is perfectly legitimate to either revise submissions so they conform to the house style, or reject them. Trying to undermine the house style by strained reading of the manual of style is nasty and underhanded. Accept defeat. Now. Jc3s5h (talk) 01:07, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
Absolutely "leave acceptable English as it is". TQ is not acceptable, not here, per well established consensus. It doesn't matter how long your list of other style guides which disagree with ours is: they disagree with ours. WP has chosen LQ, use LQ or gain consensus to change the guideline. JIMptalk·cont01:45, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
1) Placing the period inside the quotation marks is not the universal American style. It is simply what the overwhelming majority does. There are a few exceptions, such as ACS and many computer programming style guides.
2) ENGVAR and RETAIN don't apply to punctuation but they should. As always, I am 100% behind changing WP:LQ to require, or at the absolute least, to allow American punctuation in articles that are otherwise written in American English.
Neutrality, what's really going on here is that a lot of the regulars on this page really really don't like American-style punctuation. (See Jimp's comment above; Jimp sees American punctuation as "unacceptable.") Some of them believe that it causes misquotations and errors. Some of them believe that the commas-always-in and commas-according-to-sense rules aren't really American and British, respectively. Yes WP:LQ conflicts with RETAIN and ENGVAR. But it's going to take more than a scolding to get them to change their minds about it. Stick around. Be polite. Listen to everyone. Show evidence and cite sources supporting your position. Darkfrog24 (talk) 02:04, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
Your words are well taken and appreciated. Some notes:
(1) Commas and periods going inside punctuation marks is as universal in American English as "logical quotation" is in British English. As cited above, all four major American style guides (many of which also govern outside the U.S. in various academic disciplines) concur. So does every other noted authority on North American grammar. It's undoubtedly taught in nearly every composition course imaginable. It is more than a prevailing practice: It is nearly-universally accepted doctrine.
(3) As you note, some "Manual of Style regulars" express a personal, apparently deep-seated (and rather bizarre) animus toward U.S. style. That's fine (although it shows some wacky ownership-like tendencies), but that doesn't change the fact that (a) the North American style is attested over more than 100 years of style guides and practice; (b) North American English and its punctuation style is used on millions of articles here, and practice should carry significant weight in interpreting prevailing style, and (c) the punctuation-inside-quotation marks is used in the variant of English that the majority of our readers and world of English-language writers use.
(4) I feel that to the extent that language conflicts (and I do not think it necessary does): we should go to (1) the more fundamental, principle-based rule (i.e., strong national ties followed by first major contributor determines grammar), and (2) the more common sense rule that is consistent with editing harmony (prevent arbitrary changes) and practice (i.e., both color and colour are acceptable here, in accordance with the national variety rules; there is no reason quotation marks are different). To say that there is a special "carve-out" for quotation marks, such that articles on North American-related topics should be modified to reflect British grammar, is in direct contravention of established policy and leads to an absurd result. Neutralitytalk02:20, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
I agree with you on most of these points. However, we should work by changing the MoS so that it is more in keeping with the sources, with common sense and with the principles of professional-quality writing rather than by working against the MoS. Bottom line, Cunard was following the rules when he or she reverted that change. The problem is the rule, not Cunard's relationship with it. If you go around changing British to American, even in situations in which it makes sense to do so you can be brought up on AN/I for it. I was. Darkfrog24 (talk) 02:36, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
Well, I don't really care about targeted by the self-appointed grammar police. I've been here a long time and my focus is on contributing content; I'm not intimidated by other people's foolishness or English-variety obsessions.
However, if you start a Wikipedia:Request for comment to clarify the Manual of Style to eliminate absurd result and bring it clearly in line with the longstanding national varieties of English policy, I would gladly participate and encourage wide participation. Neutralitytalk02:58, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
It would be a significant modification, not a "clarification." Most of us, including those who disagree with the rule, are clear on its meaning and acknowledge its existence.
You're entitled to disagree with an element of the MoS, but it's rather unfair to suggest that those who seek to enforce it (and revert your non-compliant edits) are foolish, obsessive grammar police. —David Levy03:13, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps it was strongly worded. Still, I think it quite fair to term the practice of changing grammar from one standard, acceptable variety to another silly and arbitrary, especially in the context that we explicitly don't change spelling from standard, acceptable variety to another. As to the number of articles that have been affected by this, I edit with some regularity and I haven't seen this issue crop up until today. Neutralitytalk03:42, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
MOS:RETAIN (to which I've contributed) is part of MOS:ENGVAR, which directs users to MOS:PUNCT (encompassing MOS:LQ) for an explanation of our punctuation rules.
MOS:RETAIN correctly states that "an article should not be edited or renamed simply to switch from one valid use of English to another," not that such a change shouldn't be made for compliance with the MoS.
When I mentioned "a massive number" of articles affected, I was referring to a hypothetical scenario in which the MoS is altered to recommend typesetters' quotation in articles written in American English. —David Levy04:15, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
Indeed, it's quite reasonable to argue that we should use typesetters' quotation in articles written in American English, but that would constitute a significant alteration to a longstanding MoS rule (however "absurd" it might be).
For the record, I agree that it would have made more sense that way. However, I also feel that it's far too late for such a change (affecting a massive number of articles) to be practical, particularly given the relatively modest benefit (which, regardless, many would argue is outweighed by benefits of the status quo). —David Levy03:13, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
Neutrality:
Interesting username, under the circumstances. You are an admin and have been on the Project since 2004, it seems. Must I remind you about assuming good faith, and about the need for civility? Talk of "self-appointed grammar police" or "other people's foolishness" is unhelpful. So was this, from you:
As you note, some "Manual of Style regulars" express a personal, apparently deep-seated (and rather bizarre) animus toward U.S. style. That's fine (although it shows some wacky ownership-like tendencies), ...
The first accusation is unfounded; if it were well-founded, and if LQ is to be strictly identified as non-American, then some Americans who post on this page have a "personal, apparently deep-seated (and rather bizarre) animus toward U.S. style". The second accusation, concerning ownership, is cheap and easy to level. Some of us are staunch defenders of MOS for the sake of stability and readability in the Project's 6,931,249 articles. That is not to be confused with ownership. I don't agree with everything in MOS by any means; but I abide by it when I edit. Do you think that the "British" preference for single quote marks should have equal standing with the "American" preference for double quotes? I don't; but when I write or edit elsewhere according to Cambridge norms in which single quotes rule, I do it without complaint.
In both cases (quotes, and LQ versus TQ) there are compelling reasons favouring one way over the other. It is not simply a matter of evolved regional differences, as with spelling. Just as the metric system is demonstrably superior to alternatives, so are double quotes by default, and LQ by default. That has been the judgement here; but even if we disagree, we might still see merit in consistency, and in the avoidance of thousands of needless squabbles at articles – like the squabble at Mohamad Anas Haitham Soueid, which brought Cunard and you here. Needlessly, if there is a recommendation at MOS and it is respected.
It would be a separate matter to initiate, yet again, a properly labelled and well-advertised discussion of LQ through an RFC, on this talkpage. Do so if you are inclined to disturb a long-standing guideline here. That is every editor's prerogative, of course.
As I understand it, double quotation marks are acceptable in British English (the Guardian, Telegraph, and Times of London appear to use it). It's fundamentally different from enforcing a style that is non-standard in North American English, especially on North American articles. As for "needless squabbles" - such squabbles are promoted, not discouraged, by a rule that seeks to use one particular variety of English usage (a minority one, at that) universally, especially when that has never been our policy for spelling or word choice at all. It is likely to confuse and cause conflict much more than if we use our standard English varieties practice which has served us well for many years. Neutralitytalk03:46, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
When I became acquainted with Wikipedia, its exclusive use of logical quotation surprised me. (As an American, I was accustomed to using typesetters' quotation.) But irrespective of whether this longstanding house style rule is sensible, it clearly exists. Neutrality is badly misapplying WP:RETAIN, which advises against unneeded changes from one MoS-sanctioned style to another, not from a non-MoS-sanctioned style to an MoS-sanctioned style. (As Art LaPella noted, Neutrality's interpretation would prevent us from maintaining any style guideline, provided that an alternative constituted "acceptable English.") I find it interesting that a dispute arose regarding this particular MoS rule, as it's one that I've cited to dispel the mistaken belief that WP:RETAIN means "permit every widespread style element in existence." —David Levy03:13, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
I do not argue that we should "permit every widespread style element in existence." That is not my interpretation, nor has anyone suggesting that. There are some style elements that we don't use (for example, we bold article titles in lead sections, when we could just as easily italicize them), but those elements have no acceptable-grammar implications. For these, our standards are uncontroversial; they promote efficiency and there is no reason not to have them.
Here, the issue is fundamentally different because (1) quotations marks and punctuation usage are an integral part of grammar in any English varieties; (2) we have a longstanding policy that English varieties should be chosen, and retained, according to topical ties and the first major contributor (in spelling and word usage; e.g., color or colour acceptable; use of "cookie" in either U.S. or British context is acceptable) and (3) it naturally follows that punctuation, too, falls under (or should fall under) the same rule. Nobody is arguing we should have crazy, wacky rules; what is being said is that punctuation shouldn't have an inexplicable "carve-out" from the general rule. Neutralitytalk03:42, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
I understand the distinction, largely agree (in principle) with what you've written above (which is more specific than some of your previous statements), and don't include you among those arguing that we should "permit every widespread style element in existence." (I was referring to past discussions.) —David Levy04:15, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
David, Jc3s5h, the reason this issue keeps coming up is because WP:LQ is a bad or at least an essentially problematic rule. We have ENGVAR and RETAIN saying one thing (that Wikipedia allows/celebrates different varieties of English), and we have WP:LQ saying the exact opposite (that Wikipedia allows only British). It's not a dead horse; it's a perennial. Darkfrog24 (talk) 03:58, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
The above comment was written by Jc3s5h. I accidentally added my signature when appending {{unsigned}}. (My apologies for the confusion.)
As stated elsewhere in the section, my opinion is we should have taken a different approach (using typesetters' quotation in articles written in American English), but it's too late for such a change to be practical. —David Levy04:15, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
Sorry about that. Why is it too late to change the MoS? A lot of featured articles already use American punctuation, and, as Neutrality has said, many regular articles do too. It's not like we'd have to go and correct the punctuation of American-spelling article in a day; it's that people would be allowed to do so, as Neutrality did in the case under discussion. This would legitimize something that's already going on.Darkfrog24 (talk) 04:24, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
Darkfrog24 and Neutrality can wish for a change to the MOS concerning logical quote marks. My wish is for a policy that imposes a mandatory waiting period before a new RfC may be introduced that is substantially the same as a previous RfC. Perhaps it should be a sliding scale, 6 months for 2 participants up to 2 years for 100 participants. Jc3s5h (talk) 04:34, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
You make a compelling argument, Darkfrog. My impression has been that most of our articles comply with the current rule, but I've never actually paid much attention (and easily could have overlooked many instances of typesetters' punctuation, particularly given the fact that it was drilled into me throughout my education.) And if I recall correctly, one of my earliest edits (before I'd seen the MoS or even registered an account) was a well-meaning change from logical punctuation to typesetters' punctuation.
I'd be interested in seeing an approximate breakdown of our current usage in American English articles. (I don't know how easy it would be to create one, however.) —David Levy04:42, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
Of the 206 or so featured articles that have appeared since April, 10 have used only American style on their big day, 6 have used mostly American style, 66 have used only British, 55 have used mostly British, 37 have been more or less half, 13 have used none and I classified 19 as "other." Darkfrog24 (talk) 04:46, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
Those are the articles most likely to have been edited to follow an LQ policy (because they went through the FAC process and thus have been extensively edited). I would imagine the proportion would be much lower in other articles, particularly in North American-related articles. Neutralitytalk05:04, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
Neutrality—Yup. Dicklyon—If 111/206 is "most," then yes. If 111/206 is "a little more than half," then no. If we exclude "none" and "other," it comes to between 63 and 64%. Darkfrog24 (talk) 05:12, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
111 out of a total of 206 looks somewhat weeker than 111 mostly or only British (i.e. LQ, right) vs 16 mostly or only American (TQ). Above I'd called TQ unacceptable. Let me just clarify that I'm not refering to my preference but to the current WP guidelines. Yes, it is "quite fair to term the practice of changing grammar from one standard, acceptable variety to another silly and arbitrary" but TQ is not acceptable inasmuch as it is against our guidelines. These are the guidelines, if you disagree with them, you've got every right to do so, but if you're suggesting that there's no reason to have them, I'd disagree with that. The long-standing WP:LQ guideline is based on the principle of not changing a quote. It may be argued that the changes made by TQ are regular enough as generally not to cause significant miscommunication. This may be true but the fact remains that TQ does change the quote. This puts the LQ vs TQ issue into a different boat than "colourise" vs "colourize" vs "colorize". JIMptalk·cont06:49, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
But that's just it. American punctuation doesn't change the content of the quoted material. Learning that is part of learning how to read. Schoolchildren see the teacher write "She said 'apples,' peaches,' and pears'" on the board and they learn that the comma is part of the process, not part of a fruit. It's kind of like how schoolchildren in British-ish areas learn that "centre" is pronounced "sen-ter" and not "sen-treh." The -tre spelling looks counterintuitive and it looks like it would confuse people, but it doesn't.
This is an important point. In mainstream American/Canadian English, it's understood that commas and periods (full stops) appearing within quotation marks are not necessarily parts of the quoted material. The assertion that typesetters' quotation "changes the quote" relies on the application of a rule that simply doesn't exist (outside certain specialty publications) in these English varieties.
Certainly, logical quotation draws a distinction not present in typesetters' quotation, and it's reasonable to argue that Wikipedia benefits from the added specificity. It's unreasonable, conversely, to suggest that typesetters' quotation is inherently wrong. —David Levy19:28, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
So what you're saying, David Levy, is "It looks like the added specificity British/LQ might prevent problems on Wikipedia." The question, then, is "What problems?"
A few months ago, I asked "Has anyone ever seen a problem on Wikipedia that could be attributed to American punctuation? What did it look like? Any errors in subsequent editing?" I was expecting some waffling, "Well, I saw one but it was so long ago that I don't remember," or "I saw some, but I don't want to go dig up the page histories," but that's not what happened. Not counting people who answered, "American punctuation itself is always an error," no one could remember even one.
We've seen that American punctuation is far from absent from Wikipedia. If problems that can be attributed to American punctuation are so rare under ordinary Wikipedia conditions that not even Noetica could remember even one case, then any benefits that British/LQ might offer are outweighed by the benefits of allowing people to use contextually correct punctuation. Darkfrog24 (talk) 20:22, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
I can understand why some people prefer logical quotation's additional specificity (particularly if they're conditioned to expect it), but I'm not aware of any significant problems caused by typesetters' punctuation. So no, it doesn't appear to me that our longstanding rule prevents such problems. (Like you, however, I welcome examples.) —David Levy22:21, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
If you consider the quote to be that which is within the inverted commas, then, by definition, TQ changes the quote in that it puts stuff within the inverted commas that doesn't belong to the quote. You might argue that this definition of "quote" is based on LQ and doesn't apply to TQ, that these punctuation marks added within the inverted commas are understood not to belong to the quote. The problem is, though, with TQ we cannot always be sure whether a punctuation mark is or isn't part of the quote whereas with LQ is perfectly clear. So perhaps what I'd called the principle of not changing the quote should be rephrased as a principle of clarity. With LQ is is clear whether or not a punctuation mark was part of the quote. Therefore it still makes sense to consider this as a special case rather than lumping it with other ENGVAR issues such as spelling and date formatting ("color" is as clear as "colour" and "18 Nov" is as clear as "Nov 18"). Consensus has shown that editors value this clarity. JIMptalk·cont01:26, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
But I don't. Jimp, have you ever seen a style guide or other source say "every character between the quotation marks must be from the original"? If you wanted to put the claim that every character between the quotation marks/inverted commas must be from the original into a Wikipedia article, would you be able to find a source that says so?
British/LQ style isn't clear; it's silent. When the period is inside the quotation marks, we don't know what the original punctuation was. When the period is outside the quotation marks, we don't know what the original punctuation was. In both cases, we have to look at the source material. With regard to information provided, British and American styles do about the same.
If American punctuation causes so much confusion that it must be treated differently from spelling and date systems, then please point to at least one case of that actually happening on Wikipedia. If it's so rare that you've never seen it happen, then it's not a big enough problem to merit requiring incorrect punctuation in American English articles. Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:47, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
If you do decide to answer my question, either here or just to yourself, then consider this: Have you ever seen anyone on Wikipedia get confused about dates? Have you ever seen anyone mistake April 10 for October 4 because the date was written 4-10-2011 or 10-4-2011? Like punctuation, it's pretty well divided along national lines, and it sure looks like it would confuse people. How often have you seen it happen? Darkfrog24 (talk) 02:14, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
Not all editors value this clarity, no, but there are enough that the consensus has been in favour of LQ for years. I'm afraid I don't have a list of style guides to prove that there is support of LQ out there. I learnt what inverted commas were many years ago and used them in a logical way for decades before I'd ever heard of this TQ vs LQ tiff. Then I discovered that there's a name for my way of punctuating. With LQ you don't need a list of arbitary rules, inverted commas enclose quotes, that's it. It was decided that WP should similarly follow logic inspite of the fact that some prefer not to (i.e. to use TQ). WP:MOS is not an article; it's a set of guidelines. It doesn't require reliable sources; it requires consensus. We're all free to challenge consensus but this guideline has yet to be successfully challenged. If though, you'd still like to see some backing up of LQ in the world out there, I believe SMcCandlish's essay (which you've read, Darkfrog) has a bunch.
I'm not quite sure I'm getting you when you say LQ style isn't clear but silent. With LQ if there is a full stop within the inverted commas, it's part of the quote. With TQ, it might or might not be. When the full stop is outside with LQ (it doesn't happen with TQ) there are a number of things that this could entail; perhaps it's unimportant, perhaps no punctuation is possible, perhaps it's obvious.
I'm not trying to insist that TQ causes so much confusion that it must be treated differently to spelling and date formats. I'm offering an explanation of the fact that it has been treated differently until now.
Yes, but in British/LQ rules, the writer not supposed to put the period inside the quotation mark for sentence fragments, short-form works, etc. When either American or British styles are used correctly, no situation arises in which British provides more information than American. Also, here's a question specific to Wikipedia conditions. If I see a sentence fragment with a period inside, I don't know if that period was present or not because I don't know if the editor who placed it was using British or American style, don't know if the editor was using it correctly, etc. (That's something not likely to be much of an issue for someone who's reading a work that does not have multiple nonprofessional writers.)
The rules of British style are just as arbitrary as the rules of American style. Some guys back in 1906 thought that one thing seemed more appealing than another and got a lot of other people to agree. That's all. British style is called logical, but we could just as easily make the case that it is more logical to always put periods and commas inside the quotation marks, because it's more consistent, because it's easier to teach, because it's easier to copy edit or for whatever reason.
Safe to say you've seen more confusion stemming from date formats than you have from American punctuation? I've been editing a lot of science papers this week and I notice that geneticists tend to use beta-actin as a baseline when assessing gene expression. I was trying to use date formats as a sort of a control group, an example of something for which the occasional problem has been observed. Actual problems caused by American style still seem a bit like Bigfoot. Lots of people believe in them, but no one seems to have a photo that doesn't turn out to be of some backpacker who hasn't shaved in a while. Darkfrog24 (talk) 04:07, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
Darkfrog:
Earlier you wrote this:
If problems that can be attributed to American punctuation are so rare under ordinary Wikipedia conditions that not even Noetica could remember even one case, then any benefits that British/LQ might offer are outweighed by the benefits of allowing people to use contextually correct punctuation.
Who says I can't remember a case? When have I ever said that? I'm tired of you pushing this same spurious point every time the topic comes up; so I thought of just one article to go to that was likely to have quotes I could easily check: Pride and Prejudice. Here is the first quote I found in the article:
He is "not a sensible man, and the deficiency of nature had been but little assisted by education or society." Mr Collins is obsequious, [...]
That style of quoting needlessly gives a false impression of how the character was described, and of the way a sentence ends in this author's writing. Here is the actual text (the first sentence of Chapter 15):
Mr Collins was not a sensible man, and the deficiency of nature had been but little assisted by education or society; the greatest part of his life having been spent under the guidance of an illiterate and miserly father; and though he belonged to one of the universities, he had merely kept the necessary terms, without forming at it any useful acquaintance.
Soon we find in the article this quote from a secondary source, duly referenced:
This has been defined as "the free representation of a character's speech, by which one means, not words actually spoken by a character, but the words that typify the character's thoughts, or the way the character would think or speak, if she thought or spoke".[4]
This quote affirms for us that the article distinguishes between ." and ". at the end of the end of a quotation. In other words, we are led to believe that LQ is in play. So does this:
[...] the final chapter of Fanny Burney's Cecilia, called "Pride and Prejudice", where [...]
And several other instances give the same impression of care in quoting sources, though in other instances the care is clearly absent.
Now, what if the source were not one I could check? What if I needed to quote, on of off Wikipedia, what Wikipedia quotes about Mr Collins? Suppose I want to use LQ in my own text:
According to Wikipedia's quotation, Austen says of Mr Collins that he is "not a sensible man, and the deficiency of nature had been but little assisted by education or society[ ". or ." ]
I could not tell how to punctuate the end of my sentence. Prudence would dictate this:
"[...] by education or society".
After all, I would be out on a limb, and in fact in error, if I did it this way:
"[...] by education or society."
The only excuse would be that I am faithfully replicating Wikipedia's error!
It is exactly where the article fails to use LQ that the problem occurs; and the inconsistency in the article makes matters even worse. It is hard to escape the conclusion: consistent use of LQ offers the best defence against misleading our readers. If MOS recommended that LQ be used or not used, with consistency only within an article, the difficulty I sketch above would still be there. And anyway, the best way to ensure consistency in an article is to recommend just one way, for every article. As the guideline stands, editors have some hope of learning what is expected. And then, above all, experienced and responsible editors can set an example of respecting the well-chosen and well-settled guidelines we have in place here. That is what happens with featured articles, up to a point. This sort of rigour is the way forward, subject to small and very carefully judged corrections in our bearing.
Darkfrog, that is the first quote in the first article I checked. A more compelling case could easily be made, given time and patience, looking further through the riches of Wikipedia. But I do not have that time, and I will continue my patience only if this matter is dealt with rationally and without misrepresentation in future. Take care.
Who said you couldn't remember any cases of problems caused by American punctuation? You did.[35] Post is signed 23:50, 5 August.
"Do you recall any instances of American punctuation causing any non-hypothetical misquotations or errors in subsequent editing on Wikipedia?"
No I don't. But:
(Followed by a list of other points.) If you've remembered something now that you didn't then or if you've changed your mind, that's one thing, but I'm certainly not misrepresenting what you said.
Regarding your examples, you still haven't shown any problems that are created by American punctuation. 1) Someone quoted a line from Pride and Prejudice and placed a period at the end of it. Where is the problem or error? The period is part of the quotation process. Regardless of where the period is placed, the quote does not misrepresent the book or the character. 2—on) The use of British style in the article might mean that British style is being used consistently or it might mean that a mix of British and American styles are being used. In the 207 featured articles that I examined, 98 used a mixture of British and American.
If you want to write your own article copying a full sentence from Wikipedia, then, if you're writing it in American English, placing the period or comma inside the quotation marks is what you should do. This does not make the claim that the period was present in the original, so there is no misquotation. If you're writing your article in British English, then you would have to check the original material to be sure or make your best guess.
But Wikipedia does not recommend one way for every article. Wikipedia explicitly permits both British and American English, as well as Canadian, Australian, and others. In British English, placing periods and commas according to sense, as Fowler put it, is correct. In American English, it is incorrect. It is better to be consistently correct than consistently British. Having one rule for dates, spelling and other matters but making a magical exception for punctuation is pretty far from consistent. Darkfrog24 (talk) 14:00, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
Darkfrog, you write: "If you're writing your article in British English, then you would have to check the original material to be sure or make your best guess." But I set up the case first by using a checkable source (Pride and Prejudice), and then by extrapolating to instances in which I could not check the source, but had only Wikipedia's quote available. And as you pretty well admit, Wikipedia's quote (if it forfeits the precision of LQ) let's me down. The quote is in a way disabled for further use.
As for trying to catch me in an inconsistency, nice try! It can be done, I'm sure; but you still misrepresent the facts here. Look closely at what you quote. In August of this year you asked exactly this: "Do you recall any instances of American punctuation causing any non-hypothetical misquotations or errors in subsequent editing on Wikipedia?" And no, I did not; and I answered accurately and at length. But you report it now in these terms: "If problems that can be attributed to American punctuation are so rare under ordinary Wikipedia conditions that not even Noetica could remember even one case, ...". That's not the same. I responded accurately this time to what you wrote this time – again, at length. The points I went on to make last time are also applicable in the present discussion, since your arguments are recycled here anyway. Let editors search on this, in Archive 125: "Famously, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."
Sometimes we need to settle things and move on: not crank up the same tired old discussion every time, as if it were worthwhile or new. Do you see me harping at length on ellipses, possessives, or the naming of centuries every time the opportunity comes up? No. I'll make my comment about those provisions, but I won't launch a diatribe to change MOS because those guidelines are not quite to my liking. Not every time!
Can we please drop the semantic argument about who said or didn't say x? It really doesn't matter. Let's attempt to understand each other's concerns.
The relevant issue regarding typesetters' quotation is that it doesn't specify whether a trailing comma or period (full stop) is attributable to the quoted source. The dispute, as I understand it, pertains to the existence/nature of a resultant problem.
It appears that some of us are on slightly different wavelengths, which is causing confusion and acrimony. Here's a rough summary of the back-and-forth:
TQ proponents: "What's the problem with TQ?"
LQ proponents: "TQ doesn't convey whether certain punctuation is part of the quotation."
TQ proponents: "Okay, but what problem does this cause?"
LQ proponents: "Huh? I just told you the problem."
TQ proponents: "No, you didn't. You noted a difference, but you didn't explain how it causes a problem."
LQ proponents: "That difference is the problem."
And around and around we go. Jimp, for example, refers to the ambiguity as a "problem" in and of itself, which is difficult for those of us accustomed to typesetters' quotation to understand. (We were educated to regard the distinction as unimportant and unwritten, so we have little or no concept of any harm caused by its omission.) Meanwhile, for someone accustomed to logical quotation, I assume that it seems similarly difficult to understand why we're requesting elaboration regarding the harm caused by a patently obvious and inexcusable deficiency.
However, buried within the exchange is the point that logical quotation is directly adaptable to typesetters' quotation, while typesetters' quotation is not directly adaptable to logical quotation. In other words, if an article is written with logical quotation, a third party can easily convert it to typesetters' quotation without a need to consult the original sources. Conversely, an article written with typesetters' quotation lacks information essential to a third party that wishes to republish it with logical quotation.
Whether this justifies a rule requiring American/Canadian English articles to incorporate a punctuation style explicitly deemed "incorrect" in American/Canadian schools is debatable, but I must acknowledge that I find the argument compelling. —David Levy22:32, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
Art LaPella: "I think it boils down to distinguishing between a 'problem' and an 'error'." That's part of it, yes. But as David Levy puts it, "Can we please drop the semantic argument about who said or didn't say x? It really doesn't matter." I will not do that, provided Darkfrog does not distort particular wording (my particular wording) in a way that favours the case against LQ, knowingly or otherwise.
David Levy: Yes; except that I consider it unhelpful to continue characterising the TQ–LQ divide as an American–British divide (or as any similar regional divide). There are, for one thing, different implementations of the LQ idea. What dominates in British publishing is one variant (or perhaps there are two or a couple more involved). The divide between technical usages and popular usages is probably more relevant to the adoption of LQ on Wikipedia, and it is founded on considerations of simplicity in use, clarity, and freedom from ambiguity, not on regional allegiances. Same for the preference for double quotes, straight quotes, and simple three-point ellipses (not pre-formed ones, and not ". . ." which requires hard spaces). I have said before (as Darkfrog can no doubt verify) that adjustments are needed in the current LQ guideline; but I am not going to embark on that, when someone might pick up an opportunity for unsettling it. It would all cost too much time.
No one is suggesting that the divide is purely regional, but we're discussing the style used in non-specialist encyclopedia articles written in American/Canadian English.
I don't know how the matter is handled in your country, but in mine (the U.S.), teachers commonly treat logical quotation as an error (i.e. something for which points are deducted and/or corrections are made).
I'm not suggesting that this automatically precludes the use of logical quotation in American/Canadian English Wikipedia articles, but I hope that you can understand why some editors regard it as anomalous. —David Levy02:57, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
That's right: no one is suggesting that the divide is purely regional. I did not say anyone did. But some emphasize (this time and always before) an American–British divide for the topic. That is, as I say, unhelpful. (Nor do I even think that is so clear a distinction between such regional varieties these days. Especially as the web continues its unifying work, here on Wikipedia and elsewhere, things might become more level. As with writing, as with printing, as with television.) And yes, of course I can understand the difficulty some have with LQ. Everywhere! Same for en dashes, if they are unfamiliar with contemporary best practice in anglophone publishing. And same for straight quotes and apostrophes as practical adaptations for collaborative web writing, and so on. I don't like everything in MOS myself, as I have said above. But I think you agree: it's best to respect standards that are long-established and rationally based, even if we can find some fault with them.
We should add this line: TQ: But British punctuation doesn't say whether the punctuation was part of the quote or not either.
Noetica: Absence of evidence isn't evidence of presence either, now is it?
Regarding whether American/TQ is American and British/LQ is British. I've repeatedly (and in this topic) offered sources showing that the national divide is real. Please offer sources of your own that support your belief that it isn't. Darkfrog24 (talk) 06:21, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
1. I'm unclear on why you regard discussion of a regional divide as unhelpful. To my understanding, it's factual that typographical quotation strongly predominates in American and Canadian English (to the extent that teachers treat logical quotation as an error).
2. While people naturally experience the greatest ease when writing in the styles to which they're accustomed, the argument isn't that logical quotation is more difficult to use; it's that it's incongruous with mainstream American/Canadian English. Perhaps the incongruity is justified, but it nonetheless seems unusual.
3. Yes, I agree that adherence to the MoS (including elements with which one personally finds fault) is important. Unless and until a rule is modified/removed (as a result of consensus or a lack thereof), it's an essential source of stability in a collaborative environment. —David Levy06:32, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
It's not that talking about regional variation is unhelpful; it's talking about regional variation highlights why WP:LQ really shouldn't be here. This whole question came up because Neutrality wanted found WP:LQ to be in conflict with WP:RETAIN. ENGVAR and RETAIN are all about national varieties of English and when to use which one on Wikipedia. Fans of WP:LQ like to maintain that British style isn't really British and American style isn't really American because if that were true, then arguments like "We should be following ENGVAR" or "We shouldn't use British punctuation in articles on clearly American topics," etc. which some pretty strong arguments in favor of permitting American punctuation, would hold no weight. There are also probably a couple of people on here who actively want to erase regional differences between varieties of English and create one international style and they figure, probably correctly, that Wikipedia would be a reasonably effective place to push that.
If British/LQ becomes some kind of international alternative in five or ten or twenty years, we can always change the MoS then, but right now, that's not the case. Darkfrog24 (talk) 23:55, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
Does MOS:RETAIN override MOS:LQ? (part 2)
Here are some examples of expressions where, in each case, a quotation from the beginning to the comma can be misleading if the comma is not quoted.
He said that he would be there, if he could be excused from his job.
Climate change will extinguish many species, unless humans radically change their lifestyles.
residents of London, Ontario
This treatment cures all ailments, except those of type Z.
We enjoyed the experience, but not without some problems.
In each and every instance, quoting only up to the comma is inherently misleading (and therefore should not be done), irrespective of whether a period (full stop) appears within the quotation marks. —David Levy01:09, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
Very well; and using LQ consistently would enable the inference that a quoted comma was indeed quoted, and not added as an artefact of the operation of quoting. Still, the main thing is not to misrepresent what is quoted. LQ is only one of the safeguards against that, and others are needed. Like this, when the textual and semantic details are important:
He said "[c]limate change will extinguish many species, [...]", not "global warming will extinguish many species".
What I (and others accustomed to typesetters' quotation) have difficulty understanding is why it's inherently important to know whether the comma is attributable to the original source. (I understand the argument regarding republication by parties using logical quotation, but I fail to grasp the underlying need.)
In each of the above examples, I don't believe that it's advisable to quote only up to the comma, as this significantly alters the text's meaning. But if this is done, I don't see how knowledge of whether the comma is part of the quotation meaningfully affects a reader's comprehension of the quoted material.
Well, I'm one who is "accustomed to typesetters' quotation" too. I have to be, if I were not naturally. But I see the rationality of LQ, as you do; and I see the rationality of having a single consistent recommendation on Wikipedia (as you do, right?). As for what matters in fidelity to a quoted source, it is hard to predict the needs of readers and the sorts of misunderstandings that can be spawned by not caring. Rarely do writers and editors set out to confuse readers; but they often achieve it nonetheless.
I can see you are not arguing with me. You do not, for a start, identify and criticise points that I actually make ☺!
Omitting the words that come after the comma would be a misquotation regardless of whether American or British style is used. American punctuation does not make the claim that the comma or period was part of the quoted material, so it does not make the claim that the sentence stops at any particular place.
I would support WP:LQ if Wikipedia discarded ENGVAR and required every article to use British spelling, grammar and other conventions only. That would be consistency. Our current rule is trendiness and codified pet peeves. Darkfrog24 (talk) 06:21, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
Litmus test: If you saw "He said he would be there"[period] or "residents of London"[period] or "The treatment cures all ailments"[period] wouldn't you revert it as a misquotation? You would really go "Well the period's outside, so everything's fine, not deceitful at all"? Darkfrog24 (talk) 06:25, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
Indeed, I see value in Wikipedia-wide consistency. However, I also see value in adhering to an English variety's usual conventions when writing in said variety, except when there's a good reason not to. (We agree, I presume, that mandating consistent American or British spelling throughout Wikipedia would be a bad idea.)
The issue, as I see it, is that there is disagreement regarding the existence of a good enough reason to deviate from the quotation style prevalent in American/Canadian English when writing in those varieties. Personally, I see reasonable arguments from both sides. But I regard our longstanding rule as the default and would need to see a stronger argument from the pro-TQ camp to be convinced that it makes sense for the MoS to be changed (irrespective of what would have been the optimal choice in the first place). I also believe, of course, that we should abide by the MoS unless and until such a change is made.
I'm sorry if you regard my previous response as a straw man of sorts. I certainly didn't intend to distort your position or anyone else's. I simply don't understand what essential information (apart from that which is needed to author an LQ version of the text) is lost in TQ. —David Levy06:32, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
I was primarily addressing the statement that I "do not, for a start, identify and criticise points that [Noetica] actually [makes]" (the seriousness of which is unclear to me, as a "smiley" emoticon follows), but I'm glad that I haven't misrepresented your position. —David Levy17:20, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
I suggest that further elaboration be made with the following statement in Strong Nation Ties to a Topic: "For articles about modern writers or their works, it is sometimes decided to use the variety of English in which the subject wrote".
This should probably be expanded with examples such as these:
Newer Dragon Quest games, which are localized in British English in all English-speaking regions, should have their articles also be written in British English. Older games in the series that use American English should have their articles written in American English.
Games developed by Bioware Edmonton should use Canadian English (with "Spectre" instead of "Specter" in the Mass Effect series) with "day month year", or little endian, date format (as can be seen on the save/load screen in the Mass Effect series). Games developed by non-Canadian Bioware studios, such as Bioware Austin's Star Wars: The Old Republic, should likewise use American English with middle endian date format, as shown in the promotional website for that game.
Despite Minecraft creator Markus "Notch" Persson being Swedish, he actually prefers American English as shown on some of his Twitter posts. Therefore, American English should be used on both his page and Minecraft's.
It should be made clear that the subject's preferred dialect ought to be taken into account more often, as seen on J. R. R. Tolkien's page (with Oxford-style English being used instead of the more common British spellings, such as "–ise"). This only applies, however, if said dialect is considered formal and recognized as a valid dialect to write in Wikipedia. Otherwise, the formal dialect for the subject's home country is used.
This should be used because it can reduce ambiguity for certain subjects. For example:
Ben "Yahtzee" Croshaw was born in the United Kingdom, but currently lives in Australia. When Croshaw's distinctly-English accent can be heard in his videos, it becomes reasonable to assume that British English is his preferred dialect, not Australian English, so his article should be written in British English.
Keep in mind that the current policy only mentions the works of single authors, when by extension, it should apply to organizations such as video game companies as well. —C. Raleigh (talk) 06:40, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
Formal written British English and formal written Australian English are very similar, though, so an article that's correct in one is likely to be correct in the other as well. ― A. di M.16:24, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
True, it is more of a minor example, which is why I listed it last. I just like to have even the smaller details covered, even if the chance of such ambiguity is unlikely. —C. Raleigh (talk) 21:01, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
An interesting RM, and consequences at WT:MOSTM
In this RM it is proposed to move The LEGO Group to The Lego Group. WP:MOSTM has been invoked, on the implicit assumption that because "LEGO" (so styled) is a registered trademark, the provisions at WP:MOSTM must apply to that element of the company's name. [< Modified comment; that trademark is in fact registered, but this does not affect my argument.] I have disputed this, with detailed argument. Of course, my concern is just that policy and guidelines be accurately interpreted; and that any modification of them be rational and subject to wide community consultation. A general discussion has just now been opened: WT:MOSTM#Scope of this guideline as it applies to company names. (It ought to be an RFC, if any change is to be made.) There are no responses there yet; but I commend the discussion to editors' attention.
Continued discussion on the proper interpretation of WP:MOSTM. (Please see the orderly continuation at WT:MOSTM.)
As I've explained, the trademark's registration is immaterial. Your mistaken belief that MOS:TM applies strictly to registered trademarks (a term absent from the guideline's text) is a major element of this disagreement. No "modification" is needed. —David Levy01:44, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
O, nothing rests on whether the trademark "LEGO" is registered or not. In fact it is a registered trademark, so I added the qualifier supererogatorily. I now strike it out and explain, above.
An immediately relevant question is whether "The LEGO Group" is a trademark, registered or otherwise. This is not what was asserted at the RM, but it would be the proper basis for applying WP:MOSTM. Another immediately relevant question is whether WP:MOSTM applies even if "The LEGO Group" (or generally, any company name) is not strictly speaking a trademark (registered or unregistered). A company may not "trade" under its name; is its name then a trademark?
I am puzzled by your response in the discussion at WT:MOSTM. Obviously the question of applicability is very general, though it has been prompted at a specific RM. To get a discussion with any general effect, we need it to be at a suitable talkpage.
Noetica, I don't really get where you're coming from on this LEGO thing. Of course company names are typically used as trademarks, whether registered as such or not. When companies put odd styling into their names, WP:MOSTM says we don't need to copy it. And we eschew all caps. Of course the LEGO Group article should be moved away form the all-caps version; a great number of reliable sources do so, so it's not like we'd be breaking new ground in using more conventional styling for their name. I do agree that maybe the RM was badly posed, but so was the move that it's trying to undo to fix; what's unusual about that? Dicklyon (talk) 03:15, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
The accurate assertion that the company's name is a trademark is implicit in the citation of MOS:TM.
You explicitly focused upon trademark registration when you wrote the following:
To put the matter yet another way, suppose that a company had no trademarks registered, and called itself "PARSNIP Brokerage", and all sources respected that use of case. Its Wikipedia article title must be decided without recourse to WP:MOSTM, since there is no trademark involved. It is strange and arbitrary then to make WP:MOSTM relevant when PARSNIP Brokerage does get around to registering "PARSNIP" as a trademark.
This reflects a mistaken impression that a trademark doesn't exist until it's registered. As I've explained (via the citation of dictionary definitions), any name used by a manufacturer, dealer or service provider to identify its goods or services and distinguish them from those of other companies is a trademark or service mark (both of which are commonly referred to as "trademarks," including at MOS:TM).
So in your hypothetical scenario, as soon as "PARSNIP Brokerage" enters existence, its name becomes a service mark (and therefore is subject to MOS:TM).
In practice, Wikipedia probably contains very few (if any) articles about companies whose names are unregistered trademarks/service marks, simply because it's unlikely for such an entity to be sufficiently notable.
I also pointed out that several company names appear as examples at MOS:TM, so how could the guideline possibly be inapplicable to company names? And why would the community arrive at such a decision? (What material distinction exists?)
As noted at WT:MOSTM, I agree with your assessment of the two issues' relative importance, but I don't know how to go about transferring the thread without disrupting the active move discussion. —David Levy03:19, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
David Levy, for someone who expressed a wish not to fork the discussion, you are doing a good job of forking the discussion! Forget the loose talk about registering, which I have already adjusted and explained, here and there. I am tempted to answer you more (do you doubt that I have plenty to say?), but I will not. Take it to WT:MOSTM#Scope of this guideline as it applies to company names. I have no time to deal with this in three locations; I barely have time for it in one, and may have to do other things instead for a while. Others can join in also. I hope they will. NoeticaTea?03:38, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
But you do more than that, David. Look at my post at the head of this section. It summarised the situation neatly, and suggested that people go to the appropriate talkpage:
... A general discussion has just now been opened: WT:MOSTM#Scope of this guideline as it applies to company names. (It ought to be an RFC, if any change is to be made.) There are no responses there yet; but I commend the discussion to editors' attention.
Your answer here was provocative and unhelpful, with its reference to my "mistaken belief". I have to point out a few mistaken beliefs too, after a little research I have just done. But not here. Move on. NoeticaTea?04:17, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
My reply served to address your summary's inaccuracy (not quoted above) for the benefit of someone who might otherwise have read it and assumed that it accurately described the situation. I expressed my opinion that you were mistaken about a material element, but this wasn't intended as a personal attack (and I apologize if you perceived it as one). —David Levy04:43, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
Not taken as a personal attack, David; and I mean none against you. Let's just work efficiently. The discussion at WT:MOSTM is growing. NoeticaTea?04:54, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
National Variations In English: An objection to the current regulations
I do not agree with the rules as they currently stand and would like to outline my case with the intention of having the rules re-considered with regard to national variations in English within articles. I've been advised that the 'Talk' page on the articles themselves is not the place to debate this matter because the matter is already one of established conclusion, in so far that it has been resolved on this page 'Manual of Style' - however I am disputing this part of the Manual of Style and therefore request permission to outline my case here. --Thedaveformula (talk) 20:27, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
The following is a summary of the case for reviewing the regulations pertaining to national variations of English and their use in Wikipedia articles.
It is the contention here that the objective of Wikipedia should be to accurately represent truth, reality and facts consistently and in a manner that is best understood by the majority of readers, and that the current rules regarding national variation of English undermine this objective.
The approach to spelling does not serve best the education of readers since the decision on which version of English should be used is currently decided what boils down to a 'first come, first served' basis, with minor exceptions. Quotations, proper names, titles, and explicit comparisons on the subject of the variations themselves are rightly exempt from the stated neutral policy and rightly so. In addition, as also stated on the Manual of Style page, articles with strong national ties should be written in the language of that nation's English and this is also uncontested herein.
However, the overall approach to spelling in general is not serving the needs of readers because it is not representing accuracy to the majority of readers. I am not an expert in linguistics nor in Wikipedia, if I may be so immodest I will say that I have a considerable knowledge in the field of Orthopaedic surgery - it is this interest that led me to Wikipedia's article on the subject. I am eager to improve this article and to work on it heavily with the aim of producing a very high standard page. I will not - however - do so whilst the spelling is 'orthopedic'.
The spelling in the article, and undoubtedly there are other examples, is nothing short of American exceptionalism. My intention to change it is not anti-American English, a variation for which I hold great respect, but based on a neutrality that rests on global consideration. The vast majority of readers who may wish to learn about Orthopaedic surgery are not from the United States of America but from countries where the spelling is 'Orthopaedic'. Nothingstanding this fact, it is the case that 'Orthopaedic' is the preferred spelling within many highly regarded American institutions such as the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons, the American Orthopaedic Society for Sports Medicine, the Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, and Foot & Ankle International.
Now there *are* American organisations of the highest standard who use the spelling 'Orthopedic' and I have no quarrel or right to argue with their spelling in their country or their expertise in the field. That being said, given that 'Orthopaedic' is the spelling used and recognised by many, many more people around the world, I cannot see how it is proper to use American English in this article.
It was contended in the talk page that since the term was first used by a Frenchman, 'Orthopedie', that this justifies the use of 'Orthopedic' as opposed to 'Orthopaedic'. I don't think I need spend much time refuting this argument beyond saying that firstly the term is from a Latin root which includes the 'a' and the nationality of the first person to practice the subject is neither here nor there.
Consider a young person in Australia, the United Kingdom, or any other country whose English is not American - a much greater number of young people I may add. These students may have an interest in medicine and log on to find that the spelling used by the vast majority of the medical world is not the spelling used by Wikipedia - this is at complete odds with the stated 'neutrality' of Wikipedia.
Given Wikipedia's exponentially growing role in educating people across the world and its adherance to high standards I propose that spelling be decided on the version of English that is most widely used across the world. The current rules are not satisfactory in achieving this aim and therefore I submit that they be changed. --Thedaveformula (talk) 22:13, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
Actually more than 60% of English-as-a-first-language speakers, worldwide, live in the United States. So be careful what you wish for. --Trovatore (talk) 22:22, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
First and foremost, you are not the first person who has attempted to make this argument. Many have tried and failed, just as surely as this attempt will. (I read your comment at Talk:Orthopedic surgeryI'm going to stop editing this article and take this matter a level higher. I'm going to win this case.) Not very likely, especially when you attempt to give us ultimatums like this: I am eager to improve this article and to work on it heavily with the aim of producing a very high standard page. I will not - however - do so whilst the spelling is orthopedic. Not gonna win many friends like that on Wikipedia.
Given that its a flat out fact that the majority of English speakers in the world read and write in American English, there is probably very little basis for so many pages to be written in the less common dialects or spellings. There are far too many pages as it is, with British spelling as the default, so its very unlikely that this MOS will change to accommodate even more.--JOJHutton23:02, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
If you take a crayon and colour in all the countries that use the word 'orthopaedic' and then take a different coloured crayon and colour in all the countries using the term 'orthopedic', you will see that the global medical commpany, regardless of how many people there are in the USA, prefer the spelling 'orthopaedic'. And yes I do plan on winning this case because I don't see how a school child in London or Auckland should have to be subjected to the American spelling of the word when they see in their own hospitals signs saying 'Orthopaedic' Do you understand what I am saying? And while I'm at it, regarding the 'you won't make friends here if you don't use American English' comment, what do you expect me to do? Sit down and spend hours researching the subject to make it a fantastic wikipedia page but use the language variation of another country? --Thedaveformula (talk) 23:09, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
Yes, that's what we expect you to do if you're going to edit the page. Them's the rules. No one is forcing you. If you're not willing, we'll just have to muddle by somehow without your expertise. --Trovatore (talk) 23:12, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
(I'll modify that slightly — it's OK if you want to write in your own dialect, and let someone else change it to the one used in the article. If you edit war over those changes, though, there will probably be consequences.) --Trovatore (talk) 23:15, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
It needn't be an American. I'm American, and I sometimes change spellings to British, when appropriate for the article they're in. --Trovatore (talk) 23:28, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
Them might be the rules but I'm challenging the rules cause I don't think the rules are fair. If I put in hours of work to bring this website what could possibly be considered for a featured article, I want to write it in the language I use. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thedaveformula (talk • contribs) 23:18, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
You are free to challenge, but you aren't going to win. The existing rules are a grand compromise that allow us all to work together, and prevent a costly and useless split of en.wiki into two varieties with only minor differences between them. The argument "I really know a lot about orthop(a)edics, and unless you change the rules for the whole project I'm not going to share it with you" is not going anywhere. --Trovatore (talk) 23:24, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
(EC) But not everyone uses your language and spelling. Wikipedia has ways to settle these type of potential disputes. What you seem to be suggesting is that if Wikipedia isn't going to use the spelling you prefer, on the articles you prefer to write on, then you don't want to write at all. Basically the Wikipedian equivalent of picking up your ball and going home, because you can't have everything your way.--JOJHutton23:26, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
If you take a crayon and colour in all the countries that use the word 'orthopaedic' and then take a different coloured crayon and colour in all the countries using the term 'orthopedic', you will see that the global medical commpany, regardless of how many people there are in the USA, prefer the spelling 'orthopaedic'.
By that logic, British English would be the default variety throughout the site. Similarly, if we were to base the decision on the number of native speakers, American English would be the default variety throughout the site. Do you understand why neither option is viable?
And yes I do plan on winning this case because I don't see how a school child in London or Auckland should have to be subjected to the American spelling of the word when they see in their own hospitals signs saying 'Orthopaedic'
The wording "subjected to" appears to imply that this is a terrible burden.
No matter which English variety someone prefers, he or she will encounter inconsistent spellings and terminology when reading Wikipedia. Most of us (irrespective of location) agree that this isn't a big deal (and is preferable to any alternative).
And while I'm at it, regarding the 'you won't make friends here if you don't use American English' comment, what do you expect me to do?
That isn't what Jojhutton wrote. He correctly pointed out that you won't win many friends via your ultimatum.
Sit down and spend hours researching the subject to make it a fantastic wikipedia page but use the language variation of another country?
That's one option. Countless editors do so on a regular basis.
Your other option is to follow through on your threat by withholding your contributions. If you believe that such an outcome is preferable to contributing to the dissemination of free knowledge in an English variety other than the one that you prefer, that's your prerogative. —David Levy23:53, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
Adapting to unfamiliar spellings is like adapting to unfamiliar driving regulations. See Right- and left-hand traffic.
I don't think so; the latter seems much harder to me. Plus, the former is not life-threatening, except in a very few cases such as flammable~inflammable. (Then again, I've never even tried to drive a car in a left-hand traffic country or – after my early teens – to ride a bicycle in a right-hand traffic country, so I might be overestimating the difficulty of it.) ― A. di M.17:11, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
Dave (if I may abbreviate), welcome to Wikipedia and its many excitements and chagrins; and welcome to WT:MOS. I think you did the right thing by coming here, and I hope we can work together on the issue that concerns you.
Let me make a small correction: orthopaedic with its related words is best considered to come from two Greek words, not Latin – though of course the form is influenced by passage through Latin or by Latin practice. The first element means "straight, right", as in orthography ("straight writing") and orthodoxy ("straight belief"). The noun from which the second element is formed can be transliterated paideia. It means "rearing of children", and pais (paid-) means "child".
Now, that digression becomes relevant when we turn back to the topic. How to spell a word founded in Greek (with its different alphabet), through learned Latin (with its rather systematic Latin adaptations of Greek spelling)? Different varieties of English make different choices, and certainly these have varied across time. Look at another derivative of pais: "pederasty". Here is the SOED account of its etymology:
[mod.L paederastia f. Gk, f. paiderastēs, f. paid-, pais boy + erastēs lover.]
OED used to cite the word as "pæderasty, ped-" (note the "æ"), but not simply as "pederasty" (the current entry). Current OED gives this historical information:
16 paederastie, 17– paederasty, 18– pederasty.
Now some questions for you: Which of those forms in OED is "right"? When did it become "right"? Who decides?
I am a conservative in many of these matters; and being an Australian I resist thoughtless adoption of American spelling. I am not singlemindedly opposed to American ways with the language, and fully accept American practices when they plainly have rationality or practical convenience on their side. This is not such a case. There are simply two ways to spell the word "orthopaedic", and neither is right in all contexts, for all time. You would write "pederasty", correct? So would almost everyone. No doubt some objected to the reduction to "pederasty"; perhaps some still do. Practicality has settled for us a simplified "orthotised" form. A hyperpædantic purist might insist on "paiderasteia", or insist that we speak and write Greek.
I sympathise – or as my American colleagues and many others would have it, I sympathize. But the advocates of "orthopedic" have as strong a case as you do. And our guidelines want the existing style for the article to stay. I strongly support the "rule of law"* on Wikipedia, with no exception for "mere" style guidelines. So I support retaining the original spelling here (repellent as it may appear); unless a case can be made from existing Wikipedia guidelines or policy for overturning it.
[*No, I am not trying to elevate the status of MOS recommendations. They are guidelines, and as such they ought to be followed by all Wikipedians unless there is a compelling and specific reason to do otherwise.]
@NoeticaTea Thank you for your message. I would consider it a compromise to have the spelling decided by whomever has last written the article. If I spend a day transforming the limping dog of an article on orthopaedic surgery into a thorough-bred canine, using countless citations and research, maybe even making new articles as a branch to it, can I have it as 'orthopaedic'? You have to remember that in doing this research I am going to be sitting down and reading books that spell it 'orthopaedic'. Now, if an American who is better informed than me on the subject, and there are many in America who are, wishes to better the article then let he or she do so with the spelling 'orthopedic' Thedaveformula (talk) 00:21, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
You want us to adopt a policy of switching from one English variety to another, depending on who last edited the article? Or would this be limited to instances in which an editor is "better informed" than those who edited it previously? (If so, how are we to determine this?)
"If I put in hours of work ... I want to write it the language I use." So do Americans. That's why we have endless arguments like this one. And that's why we have a rule. It's one of the best-known rules on Wikipedia. If it ever changes, it will be after months of debate by hundreds of editors. And it won't depend on what happens to one article. English Wikipedia has 6,931,249 articles. Art LaPella (talk) 00:16, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
Comment I think I know where this will ultimately end up, but if everyone with more knowledge about this just humor me for a bit, perhaps we can get at least a little bit of discussion going. Why can't we just split up the wiki.en, and have a separate American and separate British version? I mean really, this isn't the first time we have had these British vs American spelling debate. Or which title of Harry Potter we should use. I know its a small inconvenience to the various readers to have to have to be, how did TheDaveFormula put it, subjected to unfamiliar spellings, but its at least worth discussing. Isn't it? --JOJHutton00:19, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
I believe that such a fork is prohibited under the Wikimedia Foundation's rules.
Setting aside that issue, why stop with American and British versions? What about Australian English, Canadian English, Caribbean English, Hiberno-English, New Zealand English, South African English, and every other English variety in existence?
The logistical difficulties of even a single split (assuming that it's desirable, with which I disagree) are insurmountable. Imagine the effort required to convert articles from one English variety to another. And then how would the separate versions be maintained? —David Levy01:54, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
And it terms of 'subjected' to American English, well ... yes. Because I don't want to see British English or Australian English die out, and having American English as the main variation on a universal medical topic such as orthopaedic surgery, on a major, major site like this, is one sure fire way of heading towards American English for the whole world. Not a nuclear disaster, sure, but a real cultural shame. I don't want to see a break up into American v British English and that would never happen anyway and would be futile, I just want to write 'orthopaedic', that's it, and not be ashamed of it or have it corrected by someone in OhioThedaveformula (talk) 00:23, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
I'm British, and I often write articles in "American" (or try to - I'm not perfectly bilingual) because the subject matter is American. It's no big deal. Whatever you write here will be rewritten by other people anyway - to me, spelling of words is one of the least important of issues here. I think you may be overestimating the amount of personal influence you may have over language change. Ghmyrtle (talk) 00:37, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
@Thedaveformula. Orthopaedic is not the only word that may appear to be misspelled by the vast majority of North AmericansWikipedians within this encyclopaedia; consider for example how the artefact article deals with the matter. In actual fact, the OED gives the etymology as French: orthopédique dated 1711 in Robert Dict. Alphabétique et Analogique and the first English spelling as orthopedic in the Lancet on 30 May 1829 --Senra (Talk) 00:43, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
1. This is a single article. If we accept your premise that the use of American English for "universal medical topics" contributes to the demise of British English (and similar varieties), what's the solution? To mandate the latter's use for all such subjects?
And if you're right, won't that contribute to the demise of American English?
2. Has it occurred to you that someone in Ohio might want to write "orthopedic" and not be ashamed of it or have it corrected by someone in the UK?
The solution is that I write a very well researched article on 'orthopaedic surgery' and if someone from Ohio has a better one then he or she can edit it and label it 'orthopedic surgery'. Thedaveformula (talk) 02:53, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
And how do we determine whose contribution (yours or that of the hypothetical editor from Ohio) is "better"? I asked you this above. I also asked you to explain how this would improve the site.
Wikipedia is collaborative, not competitive. If you wish to use British English exclusively, you're welcome to fork the content and create your own encyclopaedia. —David Levy03:18, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
And by the way, I'm talking about writing a really good page. A very in-depth page on orthopaedic surgery with excellent citations, biography of its early proponents, explanations of its micro-disciplines, past and contemporary case studies, and all I want, is to call it 'Orthopaedic surgery' Thedaveformula (talk) 02:59, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
The article is well written now, but could always be added to. If you wish to contribute, that's great, as long as you follow standard Wikipedia policy, guidelines, and MOS. But you can't make changing the spelling conventions a condition of improving the article.--JOJHutton03:04, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
@Jojhutton Yes I could improve on it, dramatically. I regard it as well written in the sense that it is as well written as those previously involved could make it. I do not claim to have many talents but I can certainly bring much to the table on orthopaedic surgery. Thedaveformula (talk) 04:43, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
We're talking about dialects, one of the most perennial time-wasting arguments in Wikipedia. If we changed the rule to favor whoever writes the best article, do you think the arguments would subside? My article is better! No, mine is! MINE IS!!!!! CAN'T YOU READ, YOU @#$%#*$%!!!? MINE IS!!!! Art LaPella (talk) 03:13, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
This may shock you, but for some of us the quality of the article on orthop(a)edic surgery is not the single overriding consideration in determining the guidelines for how the 3M+ articles on Wikipedia are to be written. Without taking anything away from the fact that, of course, improvements to that article are a good thing, and if you can achieve the result you claim, I'm sure we'd all like you to do it. But not so much as to let you dictate terms for the whole encyclopedia. --Trovatore (talk) 03:28, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
1. There is some precedent for things like this. Isn't "aluminium" always used in articles in the Chemistry Wikiproject?
2. But remember that Wikipedia is a general-readership publication. The articles are not written for orthopedic/orthopaedic professionals; they're written for ordinary readers. Please tell me how requiring the spelling "orthopaedic" would help these readers? Isn't the truth of the matter, as you put it, that this word has two accepted spellings? Darkfrog24 (talk) 02:40, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
As to your point (1), I think that's because aluminium is (unfortuntely, imho) the official IUPAC spelling, and (again unfortunately) Wikipedia tends to give a lot of weight to the pronouncements of these meddlesome standards bodies. --Trovatore (talk) 02:44, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
Just to piss off everyone equally, that same standard calls for "sulfur" instead of "sulphur". Decreeing "this is the spelling to use" is a solution, but it only could get traction when there is a "higher power than WP" making the standard very clear and has to be done individually for each word. That's a huge burden for...no substantive gain to readers or other editors. DMacks (talk) 03:05, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
Of course the matter is not settled absolutely. Myself, I was just concerned to see policies and guidelines respected. But WP:TITLE highlights consistency between articles, not just within them. This, one of five key criteria in policy there, is often missed: "Consistency – Does the proposed title follow the same pattern as those of similar articles?" But see 14 article titles with "orthopedic", and 29 article titles with "orthopaedic". A case can certainly be made, and the dominant specialist use seems to be "orthopaedic", as reflected in names of professional organisations, journals, and the like. (Those are the truly reliable sources, we might think.) But let the case be made according to policy and guidelines.
"A case can certainly be made, and the dominant specialist use seems to be "orthopaedic", as reflected in names of professional organisations, journals, and the like. (Those are the truly reliable sources, we might think.) But let the case be made according to policy and guidelines." Yes my friend this a case that cannot be thrown out and I intend on winning this case. I do not want to change Wikipedia's entire language policy, I am not delusional in that regard, but I believe the correct term to be 'Orthopaedics' and I will persist with it. Even if I have to go up and up, right up to Mr. Jimmy Wales. I am a man on a mission. Thedaveformula (talk) 04:43, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
Editors who use words like "I intend on winning this case", "I believe the correct term to be..." and "I will persist with it" have, essentially, no place in this project, whatever the quality of their contributions might be. People with that sort of approach do not (generally - we all know exceptions!) last here very long, and, unless you enjoy becoming extremely angry and frustrated at the views of your fellow editors, it might be better if you don't start off on that track. Mr Wales, I'm sure, has more important issues to concern him than the spelling of "orthopaedic". If you were to take a more collegiate approach, of course, your input would be greatly appreciated. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:34, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
I think the way engvar has evolved at en.WP is one of the most successful things about the project. Oh, and dialects is far too strong a word. Varieties more accurately suggests the extraordinary homogeneity of the language, given its geographic dispersion. Tony(talk)08:37, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
The term is consistently spelled as 'orthopaedic' throughout professional American institutions and around the rest of the world and the fact that it is being spelled 'orthopedic' in the article is counter to the truth. It is portraying to readers an inaccurate representation of the title and thereby goes against Wikipedia's neutrality. Regarging 'dialects', yes this is too strong a word and it was not I who used the term - I am referring to the other variations of English who use the term as I would also like to use it. I am also highlighting, by way of demonstrating of the terms consistency of use within the field itself, the use of the spelling 'orthopaedic' within the American medical community at such as high level as the journals and organisations aforementioned. I honestly with the greatest respect think that there must be some change to the current rules which allow for the opportunity to write an article using the spelling in which it is most widely accepted within its discipline and across its global readership. Thedaveformula (talk) 12:45, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia articles are written in the most common name and not written as professionals would write it. Otherwise the article on Salt would be written as NaCl, because that's the way the scientists use it. It's an absurd argument and one that is already covered in the MOS on Common Names.--JOJHutton12:57, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
I refute the definition of commonality in this regard. Let me suggest how we might proceed to a conclusion with this case. As the plaintiff I will outline a closing statement of around the length of the statement by which I opened, it will then be the turn of an elected proponent in defence of the other side to outline his or her closing statement. A high level editor will then consider all the evidence and in due course return a verdict. Thedaveformula (talk) 13:12, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
So far you have made 100 or so edits on Wikipedia, the majority of them on this page, proposing a change to a well-established consensus. There are thousands of other editors here, many of whom have made tens of thousands of edits on different articles, over several years. Many have different views to you. Do you not consider you are being just a teeny bit presumptuous in "refuting" arguments, and in trying to suggest a way forward that bears no resemblance to how this site works? Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:31, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
Regardless of whether Wikipedia should make an aluminium exception for orthopaedic, spelling it "orthopedic" is not counter to the truth. The truth is that there is more than one correct way to spell this word. Darkfrog24 (talk) 13:42, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
It does not matter how many edits I have made to Wikipedia, it has no bearing on the principle in question. What you are suggesting is akin to arguing that a fruit seller cannot criticise another fruit seller for calling a banana a pear because the latter fruit seller has been in the business longer. And may it not have occurred to you that the value people have on Wikipedia lies not on how many edits they have made but the effort they make in improving articles in terms of quality. I don't have the time to constantly edit wikipedia, perhaps because I am involved in the subject I am talking about. I am not interested in going into my professional activities but I will say that it is not the number of edits I have made that define me but the quality of my work. So, new to Wikipedia, yes, new to the subject of orthopaedic surgery, no, and I have the right to contribute to the page and to this page too. My opinion will be heard just as others'. All this having been said I now throw it open that closing statements be made by either side and a verdict returned, if only for the temporary purpose of allowing everyone to get on with the job of contributing to the betterment of their chosen topics without having to daily engage in this debate. Thedaveformula (talk) 14:04, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
Comment – the relevant guideline is WP:COMMONALITY (not WP:COMMONNAME that JOJ is confusing it with). If it can be agreed that "orthopaedic" is common to all varieties of English, as appears to be the case, then there's no need to retain the America-only spelling. And no need to change the rules. Dicklyon (talk) 14:49, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
Neither form is absurdly rare in either major English dialect,[36][37] and overall orthopedic seems to be more common worldwide (but still within a factor of 2.5 of orthopaedic), so the concerns of the OP seem unfounded to me. If I were forced to make a choice based on a factor other than the first major contributor, I'd pick the -pedic spelling because its dominance in AmE is stronger than that of -paedic in BrE, but I'm not. (Plus, neither term can be confusing to speakers of any dialect, unlike in cases such as inflammable~flammable.) ― A. di M.17:18, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
My Conclusion - It's clear to me that I am not going to win this debate because the numbers simply aren't on my side. 60% of English speakers may live in the United States of America, but I am more interested in the opinions of American ordopaedic clinicians within that 60% - if the latter were to be consulted then I believe this would be an open and shut case in favour of my argument. Having taken into consideration that a battle against a world superpower over spelling is futile, I still reserve the right to say I think I am correct and that this debate should be archived in case my side of the point is retrospectively justified. With regards to the page on Orthopaedic surgery I have decided to go ahead and improve it considerably, using the American spelling, because I believe that the betterment of education in this field of medicine is more important than the exact spelling of the word. Expect the ordopaedic surgery page to improve substantially over time. I have nothing further to add to this subject but may return to this page if I have any other ideas I wish to bring up for consultation. Thedaveformula (talk) 23:54, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
I'm glad that you've decided to drop the ultimatum and contribute to the article. Thank you.
I hope that you eventually come to realize that this isn't "a battle against a world superpower" or any other sort of combative situation. —David Levy00:07, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
It is worth noting in WP:MOS such a clear departure from the use of default double quotes, so that no one cites this page against well-settled exceptions (as I wrongly did at an RM, till I was corrected). We don't want conflicts between guidelines; and this exception is an excellent example of clarity and accuracy for MOS. I propose this amendment (new text underlined):
Double or single
Enclose quotations with double quotation marks (Bob said, "Jim ate the apple."). Enclose quotations inside quotations with single quotation marks (Bob said, "Did Jim say 'I ate the apple' after he left?"). This is by far the dominant convention in current practice; see other reasons, below.
There are rare exceptions, such as single quotes for plant cultivars (Malus domestica 'Golden Delicious'); see WP:FLORA.
Comments?
[Addendum: My change adding explanations for the quotes guideline was recently amended. I accept the correction of that slip. My text had been on display here for a full week!]
I support the amendment, although is not the use of the term "rare" slightly misleading - it implies plant cultivars are not often encountered. Would it in fact be preferable to either delete "rare", or substitute with "some"? PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 22:37, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
Support. Like the prominent link to WP:FLORA, as the rules for when to use the single quotes and when not to are not self-explanatory (registered cultivar name versus trade name, etc). As for "rare", deleting that word would be my suggestion (a qualification like "specialized" or "in certain contexts" might be the most accurate, but I'd keep it short unless people think that the short wording would seem to apply to things like quotations). Kingdon (talk) 13:12, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
Support. The amendment simply reflects what is already established practice. (The introduction above omits to point out that the names of cultivated plants are regulated by the International Code of Nomenclature for Cultivated Plants rather than the former International Code of Botanical Nomenclature. The ICNCP is very firm on single quotes; Article 14.1 says "Cultivar status is indicated by enclosing the cultivar epithet within single quotation marks. Double quotation marks and the abbreviations cv. and var. are not to be used within a name to distinguish cultivar epithets; such use is to be corrected." Peter coxhead (talk) 14:11, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
Thanks to all who have commented, and who have made improvements to the background information. I do think "rare" is appropriate: it is not that instances of mentioning cultivars are rare, but that this category of use is rare, among the many ways of using quotes. Still, to avoid any wrong impression and to continue the guideline's strong insistence on double quotes generally, I amend to this (along the lines Kingdon had in mind):
There may be some conventional codified exceptions, such as single quotation marks for plant cultivars (Malus domestica 'Golden Delicious'); see WP:FLORA.
Assuming that this meets all concerns, I'll make the addition now.
Sorry, but how is the name of a plant cultivar a quotation? By mentioning plant cultivars as an exception, we are extending the scope of the sentence. It appears that we are not currently giving any advice on how to deal with the use-mention distinction, and I think single quotation marks are probably standard for that. By adding this 'exception' (not my use of single quotation marks to disinguish irony markers from quotations) you are making it easier to defend the single-quote non-quotations that are mentioned explicitly, but harder to defend those not mentioned explicitly. I am boldly amending the formulation accordingly per WP:BRD. HansAdler23:17, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
Hans, your boldness is noted and appreciated. But in this case it would be better to slow down and discuss things here first. That is how we had been managing this. You seem to have ignored this, which immediately precedes the provision under discussion:
The term quotation in the material below also includes other uses of quotation marks such as those for titles of songs, chapters, episodes, unattributable aphorisms, literal strings, "scare-quoted" passages, and constructed examples.
I invite you to reconsider your well-meant edit, which I think lengthens the guideline unnecessarily. Also, for convenience in this discussion, would you please show the content involved here on the talkpage?
Judging by his first sentence in his edit, I think Hans may have overlooked that the section in question specifically deals with quotation marks, and not just with quotations, which are dealt with in a previous section. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 23:39, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
(ec) No need for further discussion on the specific edit as I was clearly wrong and have self-reverted. As a general rule, I consider such counter-intuitive redefinitions of terms inappropriate. Apart from being a likely cause of the kind of mistake that I just made, they also have a tendency to become used in discussions and then turn into technical terms. We already have enough Wikipedia-specific technical terms that are not recognisable to new editors because they are superficially related to the normal meaning of the words, and it would be unwise to produce new ones in this way. HansAdler23:44, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
Well done, Hans. I understand your concern with counterintuitive redefinitions; but on balance I do not think that this qualifies. Already the term "quotation mark" may be considered counterintuitive, if we want to take it right down to axioms. We can glimpse some justification for "non-functional" alternatives, like the British term "inverted commas" (yuck!). The terminology of punctuation (and even the semantic extension of that term) is deeply problematic. We do the best we can, for accuracy, clarity, completeness. And practicality, of course.
Anyone mind if I ignore the recommendation to use last name only (with no modifiers) in biographies whenever an experienced copyeditor would ignore it? This is coming up in a (non-biographical) FAC where someone doesn't want to mention twice that "Daniels" was Secretary of the Navy ... but the first mention is peripheral, and I doubt that most readers would remember who he was by the time they get to the second mention. (On top of that, top military and political positions change frequently, so saying "Secretary of the Navy Daniels" at the second mention is a compact way of letting the reader know that 4 years after the first mention, he was still in the same position.) - Dank (push to talk) 14:26, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Hm ... although I've generally seen WP:SURNAME used to suppress mentioning office or rank, you could make the case that it doesn't deal with that issue, that it's about suppressing first names and honorifics such as "Mr." and "Dr.". Thoughts? - Dank (push to talk) 14:42, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
This links to a section or anchor "Clarity" which is no longer present. Could someone work this out (or have I got it wrong?)? Grandiose(me, talk, contribs) 17:38, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
Oppose As frivolous. All Wikipedia guidelines, policies, and Manual of Styles begin with Wikipedia. No teeth in this request.--JOJHutton00:34, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
oppose the proposed title would imply that this is a regular article when in fact it is a Wikipedia guidline. Also unless I am mistaken a guideline is not considered an article so the MOS does not need to be followed here.--70.24.215.154 (talk) 02:32, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
It's pretty much over. The guy who started it already apologized for his ignorance of British/American differences in treatment of number of collective nouns. Dicklyon (talk) 02:24, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
An article now at FAC contains the phrase, "Following the landings at Nadzab and at Lae". I'm inviting comment on whether I should get rid of the second "at". I'm not taking a position, but I can think of three possible reasons to keep it: Lae occurs later in the paragraph, Lae is an WP:EGG problem, and there are plenty of (singular) actions described as "the landings at X and Y"; I want to make sure people know that this was two separate landings. - Dank (push to talk) 20:36, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
Quotes, pull quotes, blockqute templates, and cquote templates.
Of one thing we may be sure: the mid 20th Century is the apothesis of page design. Even if (God forbid) some sort of heathen 'Electric book' is invented, we must never depart from accepted practice!
Fenton Q. Dullard, Principles of Page Design (1947)
According to WP:QUOTE (repeated at Wikipedia:Quotations and elsewhere), we're to use {{Quote}} and variants for quotations. {{Cquote}} is only for pull quotes -- where the material is already elsewhere in the article, and you're just highlighting it (which is rare, I suppose).
Why? I don't like this. The blockquote templates are ugly. The cquote templates are pretty. (If the reader considers the term "pretty" too la-di-da, insert such phrases referencing information design, principles of page layout, interface allure, and so forth as needed to make the point.)
“
I embrace the reader, I kiss the reader, with my quoty goodness! I fly from the page on gossamer wings!
”
— Belle Beraviglioso, Poesia D'amore Per Te (2012)
Apparently, editors have been voting with their feet on this, using cquote type templates for regular quotes (I've done this myself (I stopped doing it when I realized it was proscribed)). Consequently a proposal was made and adopted (it was not well attended) to put these this in a category so that they can be ferreted out and quashed.
This seems exactly backwards to me. Better to change the MOS to accommodate what editors find useful than to prescribe a functional behavior to fit the MOS. Right? I mean if there's a good reason to not use the cquote templates for regular quotes, that's different. But I haven't seen one put forward.
My inclination is to run an RfC changing the MOS (and template documentations) to allow the editor to use cquote-type templates for regular quotes if they want to. ut before I do that, is there anything I'm missing here? (It's not really a question of "Well, I like the blockquote boxes better". Fine, keep using them. I don't, at least for pages that don't have any pictures, so don't make me use them when there's something available that I think looks better.) Herostratus (talk) 15:49, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
Go for it. I expect you will win your point of view with the shiny argument. Then we can add decks, kickers and bylines and turn this into a slick magazine. ---— Gadget850 (Ed)talk15:56, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
The serious objection is that Wikipedia is viewed more and more on devices like smart phones and tablets with small screens. Fancy layout like that above is then unhelpful, often sandwiching text in the way that images are forbidden to do by MOS:IMAGES. Peter coxhead (talk) 16:05, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I've heard tell of these so-called "portable telephones" and so forth, so that's a cogent argument. But if it's true:
The {{Quote box}} template (used for Dullard's quote at the upper right) is an allowed use for quotes, while while {{Rquote}} (used for Beraviglioso' quote lower down on the left) isn't (except pull quotes). Is there a significant difference on how these show on the small screen? I don't know.
I think the real issue is not the appearance per se (boxes, large left and right double-quote marks, etc.) but allowing text to flow around them rather than placing them centrally on the page with no text either side, as boring old blockquotes do. Peter coxhead (talk) 22:51, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
There is perhaps a subtler issue here, linked to appearance. To me personally, the blockquote presentation is more neutral, in the sense that the words quoted could be from speech or text, whereas I find that the Rquote presentation gives more of an impression of a spoken quote. This is my particular 'take', but the wider question is this: do the different presentations impart different impressions on the reader, not just in how they look in themselves, but in their effect on the way the text is interpreted? PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 23:32, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
Now that I think about that, I get that same impression too. (I'd also use rquote and the like very sparingly in articles; they are more for project and user pages, as far as I'm concerned.) ― A. di M.14:49, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
I support the proposal to move to the stylised quotes. Signficantly better looking and easier to read on both computer and high res smart phone screens (the three makes i've tried anyway), which make up the vast majority of the user base. OwainDavies(about)(talk) edited at 09:47, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
ArbCom election reminder: voting closes soon
All editors are reminded that voting closes for ACE2011 in just over a day's time (Saturday 10 December at 23:59 UTC). To avoid last-minute technical logjams, editors are asked to vote at least an hour before the close, that is, by:
Saturday 15:00 (3 pm) on the west coast of North America;
Saturday 18:00 (6 pm) on the east coast of North America;
Saturday 23:00 (11 pm) in the UK and Ireland;
Sunday 01:00 (1 am) in South Africa;
Sunday 06:00 (6 am) on the west coast of Australia; and
Sunday 10:00 (10 am) on the east coast of Australia; and
Comment: Thank you for your contributions concerning this area of MOS, Michael. It has often been queried, but there is a good deal of stability in it. I do not agree that it "has some problems"; at least, it has very few, and they could be easily fixed.
Editors: Procedurally I suggest that we implicitly include apostrophes by default in the discussion below, except where they are naturally excluded (there being no "double apostrophes", for example).
Traditional quotation marks apparently are acceptable, but not recommended. So can we balance out this section by listing their advantages, alongside the “Reasons to prefer straight quotation marks and apostrophes?” —MichaelZ. 2011-12-09 23:59 z
MOS has long recommended only straight quotation marks. Curly ones are no more "acceptable" than any other use of non-recommended styles in MOS; it's just a matter of protocol and wording. When MOS recommends or "permits" more than one style, it says so. The serial comma is an example of that.
Comment: The section is already balanced, because it mentions certain advantages of single and curly quotes. For the very reason that the matter is little understood, there is (exceptionally) a detailed explanation of the MOS recommendation. This explanation was on display for comments here for more than a week before it was incorporated, after some tweaks responding to editors' suggestions. NoeticaTea?02:44, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Well, there's at least the problem that this is unclear, because I don't interpret it the way you do. Grave accents and backticks are marked “do not use,” but “there are two possible methods” for quotation marks, one “recommended,” the other not recommended or preferred, but also not prohibited.
If we are not to use typographical quotation marks, then why are they omitted from the line that starts with “Do not use. . . ?” If my interpretation is wrong, then the text should be clarified. —MichaelZ. 2011-12-10 22:12 z
Relevance
In its search form Google uses double quotation marks to search for phrases. Google ignores any punctuation marks in the pages it is searching. —How does it follow that we should use neutral quotation marks or double quotation marks in articles? Let's amend the text to explain its relevance, or delete it. —MichaelZ. 2011-12-09 23:59 z
Wikipedia's search facility, and the prompts that appear as users insert text, ignore double quotation marks, but treat single quotation marks as significant. They also distinguish straight and curly forms (neither ‘occupy’ protests nor “occupy” protests will find the title "Occupy" protests directly, especially in prompts).
The example is fake: the article's title is Occupy movement, with no punctuation. Let's use a real one.
It appears that this only affects the type-ahead prompts, and not the search. protests "occupy" gets the same results as protests “occupy”, regardless of quotation mark style in the search.
This is a good argument on how to search (without any punctuation), and how to add useful redirects, and how to prefer simpler titles, but in practice has little effect on titling articles, and none on writing them.
There is only a tiny handful of articles whose titles start with the characters in question (see indexes:[38][39] most of these links represent redirects to articles without punctuation in the title), but using any particular characters in searches doesn't help anyway. That's because actual practice in these titles includes the use of neutral double quotation mark ( " ), neutral single quotation mark/neutral apostrophe ( ' ), opening single quotation mark ( ‘ ), closing single quotation mark/apostrophe ( ’ ), turned raised comma ( ʻ ), grave accent ( ` ).
Let's define a practice that reflects reality, as well as offering a real example. —MichaelZ. 2011-12-09 23:59 z
Comment: The current recommendations represent reality. They reflect best practice, as adopted by the majority of serious publishers across all regional varieties of English. This best practice is followed by default by the majority of editors and in the majority of articles; MOS codifies and simplifies what is by far the dominant preference.
The example "Occupy" protests was till recently a relevant and current example (it is still a redirect page, relevantly). Of course it can be replaced. No problem with such adjustments. NoeticaTea?02:44, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Straight quotation marks are easier to type in reliably, and to edit. What does “reliably” mean? Is there an easy but unreliable method to type in traditional quotation marks? —MichaelZ. 2011-12-09 23:59 z
Comment: For one thing, some editors use external editing applications. But in Word, for example, smart quotes (those made automatically curly) may sometimes come to face the wrong way; and material pasted into Word retains straight quotes without the editor noticing. Such inputting is easy, but unreliable in producing either the desired results or consistent results. All of this can be overcome with knowledge and a modicum of skill. But MOS is constructed with all kinds of editors in mind. NoeticaTea?02:44, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Accuracy
Browser searches (of displayed text, perhaps a Wikipedia page) distinguish between single and double quotation marks, and also between curly and straight forms. —Actually, Safari's on-page search is permissive, so that any of the double quotation marks ( “ " ” ) will find each other, as will the single ones ( ‘ ' ’ ). The page should be corrected to reflect the reality. —MichaelZ. 2011-12-09 23:59 z
Comment: How nice for Safari users. Two points though:
That's one browser; others (with more adherents) behave differently. I agree: the point could be put into MOS like this, for accuracy: "Some browsers' search facilities ...".
Safari's capability can be a disadvantage. If an article is to be made uniform, you want to distinguish straight and curly. This suggests yet another reason to have a simple unitary recommendation.
Incidentally, the disadvantage is far outweighed by the advantage (hacek also finds háček, for example), since browsers don't let you search-and-replace anyway. —MichaelZ. 2011-12-10 22:17 z
Requested move 2
The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
Oppose. (Note: this is a serious vote, if it needs to be.) The capitalisation is standard, and meets Wikipedian style requirements and conventions. See names like this: Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine. Why is "Medicine" capped? Because that is the name of a particular unique entity that is not a mere definite description, or one of many "wikiproject medicines". And this present page is the core of the Manual of Style, not a project page devoted (somehow) to manuals of style on Wikipedia. NoeticaTea?04:32, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
Oppose, but without necessarily agreeing with rationales for oppose given above. There is essentially a virtual book, published by Wikipedia, called Manual of Style, which serves as the style manual (or manual of style, if you prefer) for this project. Our page titles cannot be italicisied, but this is consistent with the MoS as a case of using wp:Manual_of_Style/Capital_letters#Composition_titles. Note that I have put MoS in italics there: that is the logical, but universally overlooked, consequence of the way we treat the matter. Kevin McE (talk) 09:29, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
Oppose, basically as Kevin says ("Manual of Style" is not the subject of this page; it's effectively the title of a work). But I still think we should follow English punctuation rules and put a space between "Wikipedia:" and what comes after it (this can easily be done without causing any technical problems, or even moving the page).--Kotniski (talk) 19:11, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
Weak oppose. It's Wikipedia's manual of style, but it's also a document called "Manual of Style". Therefore both capitalisations are acceptable and there is no need to change the long-standing name. HansAdler20:06, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
Oppose This is a specific document and the title is a proper noun. If we rename this page,then we have to rename all the other pages... yet again. ---— Gadget850 (Ed)talk20:52, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
All the MOS pages were moved to subpages of this one at the end of August 2011. If this page is moved, then the subpages must be moved as well and I think there are too many for an automatic move. And then the fixes for shortcuts and other links. I just found and linked a number of archives that sort of got lost. ---— Gadget850 (Ed)talk22:12, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
Another one at FAC
Another one at FAC ... I can't decide, which do you guys prefer? "The landscape was mostly devoid of features that would aid in defense,
... but one low rise, Blocher's Knoll, provided an entrenchment site for von Gilsa's men."
... but one low rise, Blocher's Knoll, soon saw von Gilsa's men entrenching on it."
I agree that Option 2 is ugly. Option 1 and Option 3 have different shades of meaning to me too; the first doesn't necessarily meant that they actively entrenched there. So decide which you mean! Peter coxhead (talk) 20:55, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Piped links in templates
I have been dealing with User:Aspects removing a minor stylization of a piped link at Template:Kamen Rider (where he has been changing [[Kamen Rider Black|BLACK]] (which resembles the Japanese title) to [[Kamen Rider Black|Black]] based on a single section on WP:MOS-JA that states that all caps forms of Japanese titles are not an acceptable form, but I am fairly certain that only applies to article titles and prose.
I am frankly tired of dealing with this edit every month since August ([Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Japan-related_articles/Archive_25#Templates August], September, November, December; I've since only had the capitalization on the Kamen Rider Black link [the article was at "Kamen Rider BLACK" for several years). I've assumed that WP:BRD would have been sufficient, but we've come to a stalemate where Aspects claim that this is forbidden by the MOS while I cannot find anything preventing this particular instance of template formatting.
This is an issue I raised at WP:MOS-JA, but no one other than the two of us ever commented on it and it was archived.
After our discussion, Ryulong made this edit, [40], with an edit summary of "eh." Which made me believe that he had come to the conclusion that all capital letters should not be used in the template. Today, I noticed that he had left one in all capital letters and I honestly thought he had just missed this only one all capital letter link and so I change it back to make the links across the template consistent.
As for overall templates, in my experience on Wikipedia piped links should not use a different style than the title of the article being linked to. (Edit to add) This is the section I quoted from WP:MOSJP: "However, these names and name elements are not excluded from the guidance provided by the main manuals of style for English-language Wikipedia, listed above. Words should not be written in all caps in the English Wikipedia." Since templates are a part of Wikipedia, they should also follow this guidance. Aspects (talk) 20:33, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
I'm perplexed as to why templates would be excluded from our normal style conventions (as you suggest above). I agree with Aspects that they aren't. —David Levy20:46, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
I agree too. "Words should not be written in all caps in the English Wikipedia" seems pretty clear to me. To a reader the output of a template is just text – it doesn't matter how it was produced, so why would the fact that it's in a template matter? Peter coxhead (talk) 20:52, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Well if they're not exempt, why am I not allowed to make an exception for this one link? I have been encountering this a lot concerning the manual of style in that no one will allow any exception to it.—Ryulong (竜龙) 04:39, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
Why does there have to be a rationale? Why can't myself and some other editors decide that for this particular link to write it as "BLACK" instead of "Black"? Why does one editor who never edits any other pages in the topic area other than to force them to be entirely in line with the MOS decide that it's not proper? And, again, he's picking a random part of the MOS that discusses a completely different issue. It is just a piped link in a single template, which in my opinion should be a non issue, but Aspects keeps coming back citing a part of the manual of style that doesn't discuss this matter at all (I'm not even saying it is a "This doesn't mention templates" issue, but he's citing something that says articles shouldn't be at titles in all caps even if they are known by an all caps name in Japan) and changing it. I've tried to go through BRD. He made a bold edit, I reverted it, and then brought up the discussion on his talk page. Then he does it again a month later and I go to WP:MOS-JA. And then he does it again and now I'm here.—Ryulong (竜龙) 08:03, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
The community decides what styles are "proper" in Wikipedia and documents these determinations in the MoS. Exceptions can and do arise, but I'm a bit taken aback by your apparent belief that "I feel like it" is a valid justification. Were that so, we'd abandon the MoS and allow everyone (or those who dominate a "topic area") to use whatever styles they please.
I don't view this as a "Japan-related articles" issue. Please see MOS:TM, which describes our project-wide practice of overriding nonstandard (including all-uppercase) formatting.
Indeed, you came here and requested outside opinions on the matter. Peter and I have provided ours. Whether Aspects followed the appropriate editing procedure is immaterial to the style matter at hand. —David Levy08:34, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
And I finally found outside opinions. I just find that it extremely difficult to get any sort of exception or change made when it is a common sense item being discussed but the manual of style is not a plastic guideline according to those who oppose the exceptions.—Ryulong (竜龙) 09:58, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
Please cite examples of the situations to which you refer. Do you include the above-discussed instance? If so, I disagree that there's any common-sense basis for the deviation. In fact, I haven't even seen a non-obvious reason mentioned. (I understand that you want to make a special exception for the link, but I don't understand why.) —David Levy10:19, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
Added example for EngVar glossing
I added a small example into WP:COMMONALITY in this revision. The purpose of the example is to illustrate the glossing approach. The intention is not to add or change any guidance, but only to add an example. Background: I was trying to figure out how to do glossing for English variations, and it took me awhile: the example should aid future readers. If anyone knows of a better example, feel free to improve it. --Noleander (talk) 14:46, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Speaking of WP:COMMONALITY, the glossing bullet has the sentence: "Insisting on a single term or a single usage as the only correct option does not serve the purposes of an international encyclopedia." It looks to me like that sentence applies to all bullets .. I don't see how it is specific to glossing. So that sentence should be moved to the top of WP:COMMONALITY, true? --Noleander (talk) 14:50, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Indefinite articles before certain words beginning with a (pronounced) 'h'
Is there a policy on this? i.e. is it preferred to write an historic market town over a historic market town? My assessment of the current de facto position in spoken British English is that both are used, with the former favoured by older and careful users, but the latter still deemed acceptable, at least in speech. I couldn't see any reference to this issue in the MoS contents box. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 18:48, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
In some influential British accents, the h sound used to be dropped (otel, istoric). We still do this for "hour" and "honest". But it's now a pretence to say "an history". Tony(talk)02:47, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
I disagree with Tony if the intent is to disparage "an historical". For centuries no one has said "an history", of course. But "an historic" and the like? This is an individual style choice, with impeccable heritage. A completely innocent variation in the use of the indefinite article. I would not want to see any recommendation in MOS about it. Articles should be consistent in the matter; and that is not always going to be simple, since people imagine the rule differently. I have a very precise version of the rule myself (seen nowhere else); but I will not push it.
The difference between history and historic is that the h of the former is in a stressed syllable, whereas in the latter it isn't. Stressed syllables are generally more resistant to reductions. ― A. di M.15:24, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
[This distinction is like the distinction for possessives of words ending in s, in that differences in spelling reflect differences in pronunciation. Also, the two distinctions might present to a narrator of a spoken article spellings with pronunciations different from what that person prefers.
I agree with Wavelength; the distinction is similar. But it differs in an interesting way.
Some guides call for omission or addition of "s" after the apostrophe regardless of pronunciation. These are in a minority, and I think they are foolish and retrograde. CMOS16 is confused on this; so are several lesser guides. I hope we can one day review the section MOS:POSS, to make it more readable and to reduce the three-way choice for /s/ and /z/ to just one clear recommendation (the current third option). Look at the recent messy discussion over the possessive at Steve Jobs, and the inconsistencies with (and at) Bill Gates.
The "an" in "an hilarious suggestion" is universally intended to be pronounced with /n/, deprecated though the choice of "an" may be. And conversely for the "a" in "a hilarious suggestion".
Well, options 1 and 2 currently in MOS can be seen as special cases of option 3 if the writer's dialect treats all such names the same way. (Anyway, it could be useful to mention features which correlate with the choice of pronunciation, such as that the extra s is more commonly used if the name is monosyllabic than if it isn't, it is more common if the name ends with a voiced /z/ preceded by a consonant than if it ends with a voiceless /s/ or a voiced /z/ preceded by a vowel, and it is more common with classical names than with modern ones. ― A. di M.15:42, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
My initial question was prompted by a recent edit to Dorchester, Dorset, in which "an historic" was changed to "a historic", and I was unsure if I should change it back. My own personal preference is for "an historic", but I was aware that this is not the universal position. I am (almost) happy to leave it standing as "a historic", although I have not as yet had time to search through the whole article to check if this is consistent throughout. This is not the first time that I have seen this particular type of edit made, and my feeling is that for any given article, over time there will be continual flipping between the two versions as individual editors (often IPs) correct to the one they individually prefer. Should this be accepted, or should some sort of first-use precedence be maintained? PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 09:30, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
As noted above, the use of "an" implies that the following "h" is not pronounced. In standard British English, the "h" is now pronounced in "historic", so therefore it should be "a historic". The only possible contrary argument is that the pronunciation "istoric" in British English is covered by WP:ENGVAR. I see no evidence that this is true of the register of English that is used in writing an encyclopedia. (I'm less sure about the example at the start of Herb where it has been claimed that "erb" is an acceptable American English pronunciation, but I leave that to speakers of standard American English to decide.) Peter coxhead (talk) 13:59, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
It's my understanding that "an historic" used to be acceptable in American English but isn't any more. However, I can see this as sufficiently fuzzy as to not necessitate a rule unless it becomes a problem. If people are edit warring over it and come here for guidance, then we should do something about it. And yes, the word is pronounced "erb" in American English. [44]Darkfrog24 (talk) 15:11, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
I'm not convinced that it's fuzzy in the specific case PaleCloudedWhite asked about. The article is about a place in southern England. People in Dorchester talking in the register appropriate for Wikipedia will pronounce the "h", so "an" is correct and "a" is wrong "a" is correct and "an" is wrong.
(There's a lot of snobbery in England about "dropping aitches", sometimes quite subtle. In the 1970s, history academics at Cambridge University with whom I worked said "istory" and "istorian": 'hypercorrection' of h's was regarded as a middle class feature – those both above and below in the English social hierarchy preserved older h-dropping forms. My impression is that middle class usage is now universal in formal registers.) Peter coxhead (talk) 16:33, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
(The place where things start getting really funny is a(n) HTML document; the letter H is usually called aitch by Protestants and haitch by Catholics. I'd rather never have to deal with such an issue in Northern Ireland-related articles. ― A. di M.15:28, 13 December 2011 (UTC))
PS: I thought I had used a rather than an in this edit on the grounds that Brazil was predominantly Catholic, but my memory failed me. I can't be bothered to change it now, though. ― A. di M.15:34, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps you mean Northern Irish Protestants and Northern Irish Catholics. Not the U.S., whose 23.9% Catholics talk like everyone else; I've never heard of a "haitch". Art LaPella (talk) 23:21, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
The band An Horse was so named as a sort of a joke in honor of someone the band knew who, bizzarely to them, insisted that it was actually correct, which to my ear definately isn't. But yesterday, I saw a movie trailer for War Horse in which the protagonist, who speaks in a working-class British accent, which, as you may know, are famous for "h" dropping ('Ello Gov'na!)" actually says "An Horse"; check it and see. So to answer the question, "is there a guideline or not"? I would say no, I don't think there is, but there should be, and it should be that whether or not "an" is correct depends on one thing and one thing only, whether the "h" is pronounced or not. Which of course would depend on who is talking, but the guideline could leave that to be battled out on discussion pages and such. Chrisrus (talk) 00:06, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
I would suggest, then, that the guideline is WP:ENGVAR, modulo WP:COMMONSENSE and WP:V - if there's no verifiable evidence for a preference for "an h[something]" with the specific h-word at issue in a formal register in the English variety in question in modern times (post-WWII, probably, since few speakers/writers are still alive from any earlier), then use "a h[something]". I also don't buy the Catholic vs. Protestant thing; don't confuse Northern Ireland English, which has a heavy Scottish influence because of post-Jacobite plantation of uprooted Scots from the Highland Clearances, versus the "native" Hibernian English of the rest of the Island, on the one hand, with some kind of religious preference on the other. It's sheer coincidence, and is not reflected in other dialect ranges, like American English and Canadian English. — SMcCandlishTalk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀContribs.01:42, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
In response to Chrisrus, what people say when talking is not sufficient evidence by itself because of the issue of register. The question is whether the "h" is pronounced when speaking in the formal register of a particular dialect, as appropriate to writing in Wikipedia. Many English people may say "erb" for "herb" when speaking quickly in an informal context, but won't when giving a formal speech or being interviewed for a job, so the appropriate form for Wikipedia in modern English English is unquestionably "a herb". (It's awkward that the adjective for the country and the word for the language are the same so we don't usually write "English English". One result is that "British English" is often used instead when this is incorrect. Formal Scottish English, for example, has notable differences in vocabulary and pronunciation from formal English English.) Peter coxhead (talk) 11:28, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
The usual solution is to say “Southern British English” – technically it also includes Wales, but the English dialects from Wales aren't so far away from those from England that you'd normally want to include all the latter but none of the former. ― A. di M.14:47, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
I'm aware of only two opinions ever, the nominator's and mine, both currently favoring Jud Süss (1940 film). The ngram for books.google.com gave no hits on the current title, ever. Does anyone want to argue for the current title? - Dank (push to talk) 00:36, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
Google Ngrams used OCR to read books, which might have had problems with ß. (Don't interpret this as a vote in support of the current title: I had never heard of that film before FWIW.) ― A. di M.00:43, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
Below some threshold ngrams will show zero because the ngram is not in the index. If you try "Jud SuS" you also get zero, but if you try an ordinary book search for that, you'll see that it's the typical misrecognition of "Jud Suß". Still, Jud Süss seems to be more common, especially if want an anglicized name (we do). Dicklyon (talk) 01:18, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
What is the basis for the statement at Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Capital_letters that "There are differences between the major varieties of English in the use of capitals (uppercase letters)"? I've seen lots of discussion of caps, but pretty much none of it has been related to Engvar. Is there a source that supports this as an issue? Or can we just take it out? Dicklyon (talk) 02:56, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
Ah, I see it evolved, e.g. here, from a comment about titles. There might be something to that; if so, it should probably go back into an appropriate subsection. Dicklyon (talk) 03:12, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
But it's mentioned here, too, so we need to address it as well. "There are differences between the major varieties of English in the use of capitals (uppercase letters). Where this is an issue, follow the guidance under National varieties of English above."
I find this to be an overstatement and lacking in sources. The differences between personal styles, and between much general usage and that of corporations and some professions and research fields dwarfs any difference among the varieties of English. This alone makes the statement unbalanced. Tony(talk)03:52, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
I can't think of any example where a word would usually be capitalized in a dialect but not in another, so I've tagged that text with Template:Example needed. On the other hand, since capitalization (say) of adjectives derived from proper names such as abelian and Riemannian is pretty much unpredictable, I wouldn't bee too surprised to find out that some such word has different capitalizations in different dialects. ― A. di M.17:47, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
Would I be right in saying that US English is less given to capitalising the names of curricular subjects? It would not be unusual in UK English to say that a pupil was in a Geography class, but ISTR that his American cousin would be more likely to be attending a geography class. If anyone has access to The Cambridge Guide to English Usage, they might be able to verify or rebut the assertion at grammar.about.com that 'one Pam Peters has observed, "British writers and editors are more inclined to use capital letters where Americans would dispense with them" ' Kevin McE (talk) 18:07, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
N-grams suggest a bit more tendency to capitalize Geography in British, but still a good majority don't. We'd need a better example than that if there's anything to this. Dicklyon (talk) 20:49, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
Noetica's latest ngram result is skewed by the fact that the count for "the geography class" fell below the threshold, so we get no info except that it's less than "the Geography class". That's why I left of the "the", so get a comparison. Sure, it may have some bias from sentence-initial uses, but probably not a lot. Dicklyon (talk) 07:21, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
Whatever we are to make of that remark about a threshold, I agree that my ngram report is not final. As usual, to get to the bottom of a complex story you'd have to take care in designing a series of ngrams, perhaps complemented with a nuanced and accurate Googlebooks report, and so on. I think we need to get serious about a tutorial project: for all searches on the web, as used here and in determining titles (at RMs or initially). Dick, I hope we can work on that some time. I'm flat out with real work till January. But it's getting urgent. The search evidence at many RMs is worse than useless; and people are believing it. NoeticaTea?08:14, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
As for the Cambridge guide, you can "search inside the book on Amazon". It does have a few items on capitalizations (pages 93, 95) where it discusses differences between British style and American style; mostly about titles like Prime Minister and the word Government. I think these are not so much an ENGVAR difference (a language or dialect issue) as a typographical style difference; as such we should probably try to unify under a WP style rather than trying to make an article's style track its English variant, don't you think? In any case, if we want this, it should be moved back into the section on titles, which is where it has some basis. Dicklyon (talk) 20:49, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
The sentence is at worst misleading and at best useless to editors. It should be removed, not the word may introduced, as proposed by A di M. Tony(talk)00:35, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
I agree; unless it is really clear that this is a regional thing, then for consistency it would be preferable to develop a WP style instead of making up ways of being inconsistent. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 06:55, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
ENGVAR doesn't only cover differences between countries; for example it allows British editors like me to use Oxford spelling which I strongly prefer but which is a minority usage in the UK. Capitalization of the common names of plants and animals is endlessly argued about in various biology-related WikiProjects, with no clear consensus, other than agreement on the need for consistency within an article and the need to follow at least one reliable source, given that they differ. I see no need to impose a general overall standard for capitalization in Wikipedia text other than these two points. Peter coxhead (talk) 12:05, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
Conversely, I see no need to permit the inclusion of every style variant in existence.
In numerous instances, we've decided to favor one convention over one or more others (either for the entire encyclopedia or for articles written in applicable English varieties). This is especially practical when a particular style clearly predominates.
While Oxford spelling is quite familiar to me (an American), I disagree with the decision to allow its general use in British English articles, which renders their maintenance needlessly complicated and confusing. I'm expected to use logical quotation (even in American English articles!), so I don't see why it's necessary to accommodate your minority spelling preference (no offense intended). —David Levy18:02, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
Well, it is a close minority (about 40% vs 60%[45]); allowing only the most common spelling in all cases where there's a predominance like this or stronger would be a pain in the neck. (Are burned and burnt both OK? Let me check... Yes they are. What about dreamed and dreamt? Nope, the former is about twice as common. And so on, ad infinitum.) If anything, I'd discourage Cambridge spelling (-ise) instead in non-country-specific articles on WP:COMMONALITY grounds. (One might say it's not clear that WP:COMMONALITY applies because it's not like seeing organisation is particularly confusing for an American; but then IMO neither airplane nor aeroplane is particularly confusing for anybody, at least not enough to prefer fixed-wing aircraft over either of them.) ― A. di M.19:23, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
I don't assert that it inherently makes more sense to use Cambridge spelling in British English articles. But we usually do, making it the de facto standard. (I assume that the common perception that -ize is an Americanism plays a role.) So when Oxford spelling is used instead, the likelihood of complications (e.g. inconsistencies, confusion about what spelling to use, well-meaning "correction" attempts, and resultant edit wars) is greatly increased, simply because the text appears erroneous (which isn't so in the "burned/burnt" and "dreamed/dreamt" examples).
I believe that this is a misapplication of WP:ENGVAR, which is intended to cover "national varieties of English," not the myriad conflicting conventions contained therein.
Regarding the "Fixed-wing aircraft" title (and a proposal to emulate it by renaming the Maize article "Zea mays" in an attempt to placate those who prefer the title "Corn"), I recently wrote the following:
There's precedent for the practice of going out of our way to ensure that no one "wins" (i.e. that everyone loses) naming disputes. Let's not repeat that here. I'm an American who travels by airplane, but I'd strongly prefer the title Aeroplane to an obscure term that almost no one uses in real life. Likewise, I eat corn, but I see no problem with the title Maize.
Well, if you ask me, OUP took a commercial decision not to move on with the rest of non-North-American anglophones in the 1970s, who switched to "s". The commercial reality is that there's just a slight advantage in extending OUP's product to the American market in going "half way" towards AmEng. (BTW, Oxford's superb New Hart's Rules is firmly aimed at both sides of the Atlantic, and North American editors should have a copy, just as British, Irish, Australian, and NZ editors should have access to CMOS.) Me, I'd stick to my guns with the "s" in non-North-American English: it's so much much easier for kids and non-natives to learn, and when you get used to it, seems smoother. But on WP, we have a slightly different emotional/national-ego situation to deal with. Being distinct from the US old-style "z" is not a commercial matter; rather, it involves other dimensions. Tony(talk)02:35, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
The list of organizations and publications at WP:IZE that use en-GB-oed is clear evidence that this is not simply an issue of a commercial decision by OUP. But to return to my point: WP:ENGVAR doesn't impose one style within a national variant of English, whether on "-ize" spelling or capitalization. Some may think it should, but at present it doesn't, a position I strongly support. Peter coxhead (talk) 14:12, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
Indeed, WP:ENGVAR doesn't impose one style within a national variety of English. It doesn't address the matter at all. In an earlier message, you appeared to suggest that WP:ENGVAR covers (and actively protects) the use of multiple styles within a national variety of English. This is incorrect. Such decisions are made on a case-by-case basis. WP:ENGVAR has no direct relevance. —David Levy14:47, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
So is the set of Google ngrams I've shown, unless someone seriously believes that 40% of the books published in the UK are published by the OUP. (But this is something with which it's not useful to talk about non-North-American English as if it was one entity: according to the relevant Wikipedia article at least, -ise is much rarer in Australia and New Zealand than in Britain. (I've seen no source about Ireland and I can find no freely accessible corpus of Hiberno-English, but from what I've seen during my stay there AFAICT -ise and -ize are approximately equally common, with maybe a very slight predominance of the latter.) Also: “it's so much much easier for kids and non-natives to learn” – [citation needed], and “when you get used to it, seems smoother” – beauty is in the eye of the beholder. ― A. di M.15:56, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
David Levy: I agree that what I wrote earlier wasn't clearly expressed. WP:ENGVAR does have some relevance, in that it first determines which national variety of English should be protected from change within an article. After that, yes, variants within a national variety, such as en-GB-oed, are outside that policy so are neither encouraged nor forbidden by it.
It's not clear to me whether anyone is objecting to the idea of taking out the sentences in question here. If someone is objecting, please say so, and say if the objection would go away if the Engvar difference were taken back to its original narrower application to titles. Dicklyon (talk) 07:26, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
Government added to article as an example, originally suggested by User:Dicklyon. I wouldn't have jumped in but I saw that User:A. di M. had given us a deadline to meet! --Old Moonraker (talk) 12:01, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I found that one in the Cambridge guide. But I didn't find a statement of a general difference of tendency to capitalize. It's still not clear if you're objecting to my removing the statement. Dicklyon (talk) 05:59, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
Comment: In al my years as an editor on the multi-national English Wiktionary, I have never once seen a dispute about regional capitalization in English. The only variation I can attest to in English is historical, as may be verified by examining facsimile copies of the works of Shakespeare, Milton, Fielding, or Locke. There was more of a tendency in the past to capitalize nouns, sometimes seemingly at random but later primarily when the noun was an abstraction, a philosophy, or to be emphasized. Some major style guides still allow capitalization for emphasis, though this isn't as common as it once was. So, I would certainly favor the removal of the doubtful text in question. --EncycloPetey (talk) 05:38, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
Comment: A severe problem with WP:ENGVAR is that there is, of course, no such actual thing as a "national variety of English". Linguistic processes do not recognize political boundaries. "American English" and "British English" etc., are aggregate summari[s|z]ations of what is really going on, which is clearly a large number of dialects (and registers within them) interacting, more and more over the last several generations because of television, radio and affordable travel. — SMcCandlishTalk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀContribs.18:03, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
RFC on coordinates in highway articles
There is currently a discussion taking place at WT:HWY regarding the potential use of coordinates in highway articles. Your input is welcomed. --Rschen775401:37, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
Grammatical errors page
Is the page Wikipedia:Common grammatical errors of any use? Some of the errors listed (e.g. regarding contractions) do not seem to be relevant in the Wikipedia namespace; other so-called errors reflect only American typographical usage (and are not grammatical errors at all). Most of it is probably redundant. If any of the advice is supposed to be followed, wouldn't it be better here at WP:MOS? I suppose this could be called a merge proposal. --Boson (talk) 20:31, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
The first bullet point, "Periods and commas ..." is inconsistent with WP:LQ, and I don't think any English "places all following punctuation after the quotation marks." Art LaPella (talk) 22:15, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
It's not clear what sort of thing it's supposed to be. Is it a guideline-in-progress, an essay, or something else? Whatever it is, I don't see the point of it — recommend MfD. --Trovatore (talk) 22:23, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
Well the solution to that would be to change WP:LQ to follow ENGVAR. In the meantime I just corrected the description of British-style punctuation. There's no sense giving people misinformation. Darkfrog24 (talk) 15:45, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
I agree with those above who say it should be junked. It's just a hodgepodge of spelling errors and punctuation tips—a rambling echo of of the MoS. There's no point in treating it as a merge; there's nothing in that page worth integrating into the MoS. Zueignung (talk) 16:35, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
Gender-neutral pronouns: can the female precede the male?
Adding another question to the gender-neutral discussion: substituting "he or she"/"him or her" is an accepted technique to avoid using "they" while remaining gender-neutral, but WP's writing conventions do not make it clear whether the female pronoun may come first. I have had an ongoing dispute on the subject with an editor who refuses to explain their actions or engage with me, and at the urging of a different editor I am bringing the subject up here with the hope of consensus or at least a good discussion. I've had a productive conversation with another user in the talk page on the gender-neutral language project entry; please refer to its contents for an in-depth explanation of my motives and justifications for bringing up this question. A short version for those who don't want to read: demanding that the male pronoun always come first in such pairs does little to mitigate the problem of gender-biased language; Wikipedia should allow writers to use male and female pronouns interchangeably in this specific setting. I am not looking for a fight or political debate, simply informed opinions that can produce some sort of agreement. Thank you and I look forward to hearing everyone's thoughts. Helsabott (talk) 02:15, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
Everything that's not forbidden is permitted. We don't prescribe either "he or she" or "she or he". It's up to the writer. A lot of things are. We don't, can't, and won't prescribe down to that level.
That being said, "he or she" is common and sounds right and "she or he" is somewhat idiosyncratic. I don't know why this is so, but some things are like that... "Great green dragon" is OK but "Green great dragon" isn't. If the editor is objecting to "she or he" this is probably his (or her!) point. It's not something that can be solved by a style guide.
Generally speaking, it's not worth worrying about. If I write "the great ship foundered" and another editor changes it to "the huge ship foundered", that's annoying and just pointless roiling of the material to no gain, but I generally let it go. If I don't want to let it go, then I revert it and the other editor lets it go. If neither of you is willing to let it go, then I dunno what to tell you. Just keep discussing it until one of you is convinced or gives up, I guess.
Generally speaking, in my opinion editors should leave stuff like this as they found it. However, I can also see the case for changing to "he or she" here, because that's the more common term and the other sounds just a bit off. So the person preferring "she or he" should concede on this basis, in my opinion. Herostratus (talk) 04:48, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
The question brings to my mind statements such as "A registered nurse does what she or he can." It also brings to my mind the plus-minus sign and the minus-plus sign, but I do not mean to associate positivity and negativity with gender.
"She or he" sounds awkward in English, kind of like "services and products." "She or he" makes it sound like someone is trying way too hard to push an issue. I would not support punishing people who wrote "she or he," but I would change it to "he or she" if I saw it in and article. Darkfrog24 (talk) 14:02, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
I can see very limited cases where the topic is more personified by a female role (eg, if the topic was about bras, for example) where "she or he" would be more appropriate, but it seems always better to rework language to avoid the awkwardness. But if the topic is gender-neutral, forcing "he or she" to "she or he" is definitely POV'ing. --MASEM (t) 14:10, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps a fair question, A di M (a rude one also). For what it's worth, I say that "she or he" is as thoroughly acceptable as "he or she" is in almost all contexts, though by generalisation of what Wavelength and Masem point out, one form or the other is sometimes at least arguably preferable.
People have idiosyncratic responses to a less common ordering; but given the assumption of sexual equality which* "X or Y" is intended to reflect, they had better just get over it, just as they earlier had to get over the use of "he or she" itself. Not a point for MOS to address, I say.
* Note my "which" unaccompanied by a comma but intended non-restrictively, deployed opportunistically for political purposes.
If it's not part of normal English usage, we shouldn't do it. But it is, so we can. See books n-grams, which shows that "she or he" is only about a factor of 10 behind "he or she", starting from zero in about 1970. Dicklyon (talk) 21:58, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
AdM's question is indeed fair and relevant. I have seen this issue come up in an article. I think it was Gender.
As for "he or she" vs "she or he," Wikipedia is not the place for revisionism. Maybe after twenty or thirty years (of linguistic activism outside of Wikipedia) the two orders will be seen as interchangeable, but right now they're not. We say "X and Y" but not "Y and X." Darkfrog24 (talk) 05:05, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
Anyway... If I really had to, I'd use he or she, but I couldn't be bothered to edit an article just to change she or he to he or she. Anyway, that construction strongly smells like legalese to me (and old-fashioned legalese at that – I've seen the singular they in a lease agreement, and IIRC the EU style guide recommends it), so I'd almost always find a way to avoid it altogether – though I guess Gender indeed may be one of the rare places where avoiding it would be impossible or much worse (I've not read that article yet). ― A. di M.12:46, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
An editor came in and made a big fuss about how always saying "male and female" was sexist and that we should switch back and forth with "female and male." The discussion is still on the talk page. Darkfrog24 (talk) 15:45, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
I'd lean toward the singular they myself, because it avoids the baggage associated with gender roles and identity entirely. Failing that, if gender is not a big factor in the topic at hand, then there's no problem—let the editor do what they want, subject to good taste. (Edit warring is not in good taste.) That something is uncommon (but otherwise correct, inoffensive and clear) is not a sufficient reason for it to be proscribed. If there are traditional/expected/existing gender associations inherent to the topic, and the phrasing inverts that expectation, it's still not necessarily wrong—it's instead an item for discussion on the talk page. Is the editor trying to make an argument about the topic (if so, they need to cite appropriate sources), or are they just choosing one construction when the other would do equally well (and hence, there's no reason to change it). In any event, to make a rule that "he" shall precede "she" only serves to give ammunition to those who would say we were enforcing archaic stereotypes—leave it unsaid and fight those battles one at a time, and at least you can have plausible deniability. Make the rule that entrenches the status quo, and it becomes a lightning rod for (justifiable) criticism. TheFeds18:40, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
Heh. The singular they is a separate issue here. We've never really come up with a clear decision (probably because singular they holds middling status in the language itself). My own take is that it's too informal for an encyclopedia. Darkfrog24 (talk) 14:29, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
I thought MOS said not to use "he or she" constructions if they can be avoided, anyway. Did this change? A lot of wording at WP:MODLANG depends on this, giving example of how to re-write (or it did last I looked at it). — SMcCandlishTalk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀContribs.07:29, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
It was shortly after the start of the century that the Oxford style officially accepted the singular they. I don't know what you mean by "middling status", DF, but many things have that irrespective of their relative formality or informality (two different issues). Singular they has been used by Jane Austen and Shakespeare, among hundreds of prominent literary figures. This is starting to look like a war against splitting the infinitive. Tony(talk)23:49, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Linking within quotations
Is it really the popular opinion that linking within quotes should be avoided because it "may clutter the quotation, violate the principle of leaving quotations unchanged, and mislead or confuse the reader"? I was directed to WP:MOSQUOTE when some wikilinks I had added to a quote were removed (here). I'm fine with their removal because the guideline does seem pretty clear that they shouldn't be there, but I'm having trouble understanding why they shouldn't be there; the links look helpful to me. (I guess I'm also puzzled as to what circumstances would be the exception, since the guideline says to avoid the links "as much as possible.") Theoldsparkle (talk) 17:27, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
I don't accept the notion that adding a link alters a quote. Also, I don't accept the notion that it reduces clutter, because if the link is helpful, then additional words will have to be added to the article to accommodate the link. I don't think the guideline should extend any further than to suggest that if there are several appropriate locations for the link, it would be better to place it outside the quote. Jc3s5h (talk) 17:33, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
That's not always even true, in my view. Trying to explain what a quotation meant with linked verbiage after the quotation can get wordy, awkward and even push WP:NOR limits. I raised the issue myself here, and seemed to get a lot of traction, but then this abbreviated discussion contradicted. That this keeps coming up without getting resolved is further evidence that my frequent complaint that this page is archived too fast has merit. Anyway, the "as much as possible" wording really doesn't make any sense without context, since 100% of the time is "possible". I could even write a bot that enforced it 100% of the time and left tooth-gnashy WP:UWT warnings about it. — SMcCandlishTalk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀContribs.18:25, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
I've discussed this here before, and my views haven't changed. In certain cases, it is preferable to ignore WP:MOSQUOTE. However, I feel the guideline is sound, and should be observed in the majority of cases. Joefromrandb (talk) 01:55, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Singular They use because the subject prefers to use gender neutral pronouns
There's an editing conflict (See [46]) going on in the Jiz Lee article where people have been using the singular they or their to describe Lee out of respect for her because that's how she describes herself. Is this proper? I've read the discussions in the archives and none really touch the way it is being attempted to use currently. I've been taking the position that the subject does not control the conventions of English on Wikipedia (except for national differences of language of course). I believe that the way the "singular they" has been used is improper since it is referring to a specific person, Lee. Morbidthoughts (talk) 19:48, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
I thought it recommended rewriting to avoid the construction, which seems to be the way this discussion is going, but that's worth looking into. I'm the principal author of that essay, and did not think of this case at the time. For the record, I think I'd side with going with the preference of the subject, if it can be sourced, including use of "they"/"them", for their post-gender-reidentification life, but otherwise going with basic logic (i.e., use "she", or if sourcedly preferred, "they", when referring to a M-to-F transsexual, post-gender-reidentification, but use "he" when referring to that person's childhood). There's nothing more jarring than seeing something like "Jane Smyth (born Oscar Smith)... blah blah blah ... When Oscar was in born in London, Ontario in 1978, her parents..." It's just infuriatingly "p-c" for no benefit, at the cost of making Wikipedia look like it's written by a bunch of illiterates who can't formulate even the most basic logical thoughts. — SMcCandlishTalk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀContribs.07:26, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Yes, it recommends rewriting. My point is that without specifying an alternative, it sounds like: Don't call me Art. Don't call me Art LaPella. Also avoid Arthur, Artie, Arthur LaPella, Arthur Michael LaPella, ALP, Arthur M. LaPella, Mr. Arthur LaPella, and Hey You. Rewrite to avoid the construction. Art LaPella (talk) 22:10, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
In that particular article it might be possible, with a little thought, to side-step the issue by avoiding the terms he/she/them/they altogether. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 23:31, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
Art, the register you point to mentions that the singular they is often used in informal speech when the person is indeterminate though. I would accept that rationale. However, the way it's used in the disputed article is to refer to a specific person. Morbidthoughts (talk) 18:38, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
Your position is sound: a subject can decide whether we should use "he" or "she", and we respect that, but there are no other choices the subject can make in the type of English that is appropriate for an encyclopedia. — Carl (CBM · talk) 23:34, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
Perfect? It seems like a good strategy for the wording, but is the intent to hide all clue about Lee's birth gender or whatever you call it? Is this something that reliable sources do? Maybe a brief mention of the direction from which Lee came to be gender neutral could be included somewhere? Dicklyon (talk) 21:38, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, there being not even a picture of Lee makes it hard to decide whether Lee is the kind of person most people would consider a guy, or the kind of person most people would consider a girl; OTOH, the fact that she/her is mentioned among pronouns Lee doesn't like but he/him isn't suggests the latter (though maybe not strongly enough?), and there are the titles of the awards Lee was nominated for and of the external links. (BTW, this approach would be much less graceful for a person with a polysyllabic last name.) ― A. di M.21:59, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
MoS/Chemistry and ENGVAR
It is my understanding that the preference of WikiProject Chemistry for sulfur and aluminium has always been taken to control only in articles that are primarily chemical in nature. When their usage notes were made part of the MoS, this (hopefully inadvertently) appeared to expand this choice to all articles. I have added a note restricting this choice to chemistry articles — I hope people agree that there is no need to override ENGVAR in non-chemistry articles. --Trovatore (talk) 19:23, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
I agree. An article on mining in the U.K. should say "sulphur" and an article about the Pepsi bottling plant should say "aluminum." Darkfrog24 (talk) 21:44, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
Dunno if I was writing an article myself, but this is enough for me to not bother editing an article about mining in the UK to change sulfur to sulphur (pace my spell checker which doesn't like the former). ― A. di M.22:58, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
Well, that's a detail to be settled in applying ENGVAR. The principle I want to clarify is that, in such articles, the relevant guideline is ENGVAR, not MOSCHEM. --Trovatore (talk) 00:26, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Sure. (I should learn to make clear that when I'm disputing some small detail I'm not disputing the main point as a whole: this is not the first time I'm misunderstood.) ― A. di M.11:34, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Or you could just say "I wouldn't go in and change X to Y" so that people may reasonably construe that you're talking about your own actions rather than what the rules should say. What the Google results show is that British English has two correct spellings of sulph/fur. Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:05, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
They show nothing of the kind. No dictionary of British English that I have found gives "sulfur" as the correct spelling. What they show is one or both of the following: (a) it's difficult for Google to define the corpus of British English precisely (e.g. books republished in Britain from US originals can show up in the corpus; books written by British authors and first published in the UK may use American spelling because the publishers anticipate more sales there – this is particularly true in my experience of student textbooks) (b) the incorrect spelling is sometimes used. Peter coxhead (talk) 14:46, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Wow, an actual sourced counterargument. Very well then, my position is modified: If common British English usage uses both sulfur and sulphur but the dictionaries have not yet endorsed it, then Wikipedia should also hold off on endorsing it until they do. But I would like to know the names of the dictionaries you checked. Darkfrog24 (talk) 16:09, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
My paper dictionaries are mostly fairly old. I looked in an old 1970s edition of Cassell; the full paper OED (not sure of the edition now because I did it at the university) – this is an important check because sometimes American spellings preserve older British spellings which the full OED acknowledges but other dictionaries don't. The 1996 Oxford Concise Dictionary of English Etymology has "sulphur, US sulfur". The Cambridge British English Dictionary online says of "sulfur": "US for sulphur". I've since also checked some British school and university textbooks for which Google has "search inside" enabled (a smaller proportion than of American textbooks, which is an issue in biassing Google searches). All only have "sulphur" (e.g. here). As former chemist and latterly a computer scientist I'm used to reading books and papers in both American and British spellings. Although in computer science we regularly use what were originally American spellings (e.g. program, disk), I've never seen this in chemistry. I can't find a single genuinely British source which has anything but "sulphur"; I strongly suspect that the sources in the Google corpus are not actually British or else they are noting that "sulfur" is the American spelling. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:56, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
Does WP:MOSTM apply to ALL phrases that happen to be trademarks, in ALL uses?
That question is put here. I draw it to editors' attention as relevant in a few recent requested moves (RMs), and potentially in many more to come.
The edit summary said it was removed along with other stuff for being redundant with other [MOS] pages, and the fact that it's still in MOS/Images would seem to bear this out. There's not been a consensus to remove it from MOS entirely, that I've seen, and it is still in an MOS page, so FAC should still care. I'm not sure removing it from MOS proper was a great idea, though. Is it important/common enough to be here, or is it okay just in the /Images subguideline? — SMcCandlishTalk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀContribs.08:19, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
There was some discussion at FAC, that sandwiching is usually less an issue than people thing. If it is a very wide view monitor, then the sandwich does not cause the text to be too small. If very narrow, less likelyn for the sandwich to occur (text pushed down). Just a useful insight. No biggie.TCO (Reviews needed) 21:28, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
I also think this is a very important point that should remain. Comes up often for me. In fact now that a few have voiced concern about the change, should it not be reinstated and a wide talk on the matter made more visible for the greater community to talk about? Moxy (talk) 00:43, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Middle-Eastern cuisine??
An editor recently movedMiddle Eastern cuisine to Middle-Eastern cuisine based on his reading of the MOS. I read the relevant section of the MOS, and sure enough, it appears to encourage the use of a hyphen here. This seems wrong. A Google search for "Middle Eastern cuisine" finds only 3 snippets out of the first 100 search results that use a hyphen. Surely we aren't going to start writing "South-Asian climate", "East-Asian politics", etc.? I am not quite sure how to formulate this case -- perhaps other editors can help -- but I'm pretty confident that the hyphen is not idiomatic here, and the MOS should be edited to reflect that. --Macrakis (talk) 23:43, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Google counts are needlessly difficult and aren't reliable for things like this, although a real corpus search gives similar results this time. Good free corpora that can handle punctuation are COCA, the Corpus of Contemporary American English...
I don't know any ways to do comparable searches for any other countries. However, I think this shows that standard usage doesn't call for a hyphen, and I see no advantage in clarity, so I agree in thinking the MOS should call for not using the hyphen. —JerryFriedman(Talk)00:35, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
And after all that, I don't see where the MOS says anything about "Middle Eastern" and related compounds one way or the other. Can you point me to the spot? —JerryFriedman(Talk)00:58, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
Presumably User:Ich interpreted Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Hyphens, section 3 "compound modifiers" bullets 1 and 2, as encouraging the use of a hyphen in Middle-Eastern cuisine, as in government-monitoring program -- that is, it is the cuisine of the Middle East, rather than the middle part of Eastern cuisine. --Macrakis (talk) 04:32, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
The way I was taught, that rule is never applied to insert a hyphen into a proper-name-based compound. So I added that to Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Hyphens; we'll see if it sticks. Noetica will probably come up with a more learned alternative... Dicklyon (talk) 06:13, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
That addition is perfectly sound and useful, Dick:
However, hyphens are never inserted into proper-name-based compounds (Middle Eastern cuisine, not Middle-Eastern cuisine).
The proper name in question is the Middle East. Compare the United States delegate, a Leonard Cohen fan, University of Sydney graduates.
The text was already flexible ("A hyphen can help to disambiguate ..."); and it concludes with this general observation: "Hyphenation involves many subtleties that cannot be covered here; the rules and examples presented above illustrate the broad principles that inform current usage." We do need to consider the whole WP:HYPHEN section systematically some time, now that WP:DASH is sorted out. There are similar well-established exceptions to cover, like carbon monoxide concentration. It's pretty good right now though; and we will never be able to include everything.
Yeah, "I'm a Leonard-Cohen fan" really makes it clear that one doesn't do that. Unless the modifier was compounded before it became a modifier no hyphen. E.g.: "Some people call it the Middle East, others the Mid-East, so Middle Eastern food can also be called Mid-Eastern food." — SMcCandlishTalk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀContribs.08:08, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, Macrakis, for answering my question. I guess I just never thought of "Middle Eastern cuisine" as being in any way connected to "government-monitoring program", but I can see it now.
As Noetica pointed out in another context, the key point is that the elements that would be linked by a hyphen are capitalized, not that they're based on a proper name. Thus "French-style" and "Academy Award-winning" need hyphens. So I suggest, "If a compound is capitalized, showing that its elements belong together, a hyphen is never inserted (Middle Eastern cuisine, not Middle-Eastern cuisine).
I dislike "Academy Award-winning" and wish we could require "Academy-Award–winning", or just avoid this journalistic formation, but neither of those is going to happen. —JerryFriedman(Talk)17:16, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
As you say, Noetica, a comprehensive guide to hyphenation would be a huge job. However, maybe there can be a consensus on adding one rule:
"All compounds in which the second element is a past participle and the first is an adjective or a noun are hyphenated (left-handed, four-legged, science-based, God-forsaken)." The current rule mentions this only as hyphenation in bird names (of all things). —JerryFriedman(Talk)17:32, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
That alone is reason enough to make the change. >;-) I cannot begin to express how tired I am of that one project trying to influence everything on the system to favor its styles. But, seriously, that does make sense. It might be a bit too language-geeky, as worded (I have a linguistics background so I understood it, but many wouldn't, and even I had to concentrate to parse it). And the point about "Middle Eastern" is worth adding too. — SMcCandlishTalk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀContribs.21:11, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
As a member of WP:BIRDS, I'm glad you weren't serious. :-) Anyway, if others agree on adding this rule, I'd certainly be happier with an easier-to-understand (there's another rule!) version. How about "All compounds whose second element is a past participle are hyphenated [examples]. There is an exception: if the first element is an -ly adverb, the rule above applies and the compound is not hyphenated"? Or maybe someone else can come with a good version. —JerryFriedman(Talk)01:11, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Or "Hyphenate compound modifiers in which the second part is a past participle and the first part does not end in -ly."? No, that won't work; still needs an exception for certain sly-mannered fellows. Dicklyon (talk) 01:15, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
I agree about the strange prevalence of bird-fanciers' predilections, bless 'em. But I point out that WP:HYPHEN, though it has historically been the scene of many battles, is well-considered and stable, accords with best practice in publishing as set out in style guides, and in some respects does a far more rigorous and precise job than any of the major guides. I suggest leaving WP:HYPHEN alone for now – at least while other matters are the subject of spirited debate. Even Dick's valuable addition is one that was reverted (um, by me) when the climate was more volatile just after the achievements of the Great Dashfest of 2011. Note: the mention of a proper-name-based exception hints that there are no other similar exceptions; but there are some, as I have pointed out. Let's take our time.
Are you suggesting that during a time of other spirited debates, adding a rule on hyphenation and revising another one are too likely to lead to acrimony? Or that people are spending their time on the other debates and won't be able to comment on this one? Or both, or something else? Anyway, if this isn't a good time, I'd hope to be able to participate when a good time comes up. —JerryFriedman(Talk)16:19, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Both, and perhaps something else. The provisions at WP:HYPHEN are finely tuned, the outcome of considerable research and much prolonged wrangling back in the darker days of MOS. The provisions at WP:DASH (similar, and necessarily intertwined with WP:HYPHEN) took months of work under ArbCom supervision to get to their present consensual state. They are a superbly nuanced and accurate reflection of principles used in current publishing, selected and adapted for Wikipedia's unique environment. Both guidelines would need to be considered, when WP:HYPHEN comes up for review. So would WP:SLASH, and perhaps one or two others. At the best of times this is a delicate and complex undertaking; and now is not even the best of times.
I hope we can get to all that when the bird issues are more settled. People will do what they like, when they like. I simply make a recommendation; and I reserve the option of responding conservatively if changes to this especially sensitive area are made insensitively. I do hope you will participate when hyphens come up for systematic treatment.
Section titles and definite and indefinite articles
One person interpreted the sentence "The provisions in Article titles (above) generally apply to section headings as well (for example, headings are in sentence case, not title case)." in the "Section titles" section as saying that section titles within articles are forbidden from starting with "a", "an", or "the". It's completely standard in print to have section and chapter titles in books and papers that begin with these words. I assume that this is really just an oversight in the MOS phrasing, right? — Carl (CBM · talk) 21:47, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
Here is a link to a revision in which I removed “The” from “The priority method” in a subheading of the article “Computability theory”.
That's a good example where the "The" makes a clear difference in the sound of the title. There's a fine line: most section titles should not have "a", "an", or "the", but there are some situations like this where the words are necessary to give the header the right tone. Another example is in the FA Helium. The section title "The helium atom" would sound very strange without the article. — Carl (CBM · talk) 22:23, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
Whatever the reason, I think those were places where removing "the" was a good move. And I agree that sometimes "The" is OK. Dicklyon (talk) 22:24, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
I have temporarily suspended my systematic checking and editing of section headings in articles listed in "Wikipedia:Vital articles/Expanded", and I await a timely and well-organized resolution of this impasse. Perhaps there is a time limit beyond which I would be encouraged to resume according to the current version of the guidelines. Here is a permanent link to the current version of the guidelines.
On a side note, can someone explain to me what's going with this linguistically? It seems to have something to do with the fact these are singular countable nouns. So "Derivative" sounds bad as a section title, but "The derivative" or "Derivatives" are better. Same with "Helium atom", "Priority method", and all the other examples I can think of at the moment. — Carl (CBM · talk) 22:46, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
All countable common nouns have a general usage that refers to individual items named by that noun, but also have a second usage that names the class of all those objects collectively. The collective sense acquires some properties of a weak proper noun. As an example: "a cat entered the room" refers to an individual feline named by the common noun "cat", but "the cat is a mammal" refers collectively to the class of objects named by the noun "cat". The class usage, as a pseudo-weak proper noun, usually requires a definite article. --EncycloPetey (talk) 05:26, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
Anyway, it seems to me that nobody would object to clarifying that the article thing doesn't apply to section titles, right? I'm going to do that; if I'm wrong, please revert me. ― A. di M.12:36, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
Now what is it again that distinguishes section and article titles in this respect? (I've come here because MoS has just been changed with major implications). Tony(talk)12:43, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
I have no idea, but I do agree with CBM that section titles like that sound bad, and for some reason I don't get the same sensation in article titles. ― A. di M.11:22, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
I don't have a strong feeling one way or another ... but I did submit an article for Peer Review recently, and an FAC expert (who has many FAs to their credit) told me to remove the leading "The ..." from my section titles (I think there were two out of about a dozen sections). So, apparently the FAC folks are enforcing a general rule against leading The/A/An. --Noleander (talk) 15:52, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
If it's causing WP:FAC and WP:GAN to make nitpicky demands that result in poor writing, then, yes, let's do something about that here, but I echo Tony1's suggestion that changing something here can have unintended consequences. In particular, we need to ensure that we are not giving blanket license to put A/An/The all over the place, only when it is actually necessary for clarity. — SMcCandlishTalk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀContribs.18:12, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
The practice of omitting the initial the or a was new to me when I first came to WP's MoS. But it seemed intuitive and much-practised by writers when I thought about it (although it's not a universal practice). I think on balance it's a good rule for WP's article and section titles: the deictic meaning is usually not at issue in such "short texts" (as Halliday calls them when he explains their particular grammar); and titles are best short, aren't they? Tony(talk)01:16, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
"Dirty language", "The dirty language" and "Dirty languages" all suggest different things to my (perhaps wayward) mind, so I think it depends a bit on how likely the reader is to immediately get the meaning when we leave the definite article off. Usually, they'll get it. - Dank (push to talk) 03:21, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
Another example: it's easy to guess that Myth of the Flat Earth is about the myth, not a particular myth, because it's a title; as a heading, I couldn't be sure until I read the section, so I'd be inclined to allow the initial the in a heading to disambiguate (but not in the title). I don't have a preference on whether to mention this specifically at WP:MOS; a short MOS is a happy MOS. I'll remember that we talked about it and I'll save the link. - Dank (push to talk) 04:10, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
I don't understand the distinction here. So far we treat headings and titles pretty much equivalently. How is there a difference and why does the difference relation more to "the" than to other aspects? Rather than invent a different, can't we just say that "the" is usually not necessary, so not used? Dicklyon (talk) 05:51, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
It might have to do with the fact that articles are supposed to be able to stand alone and hence to deal with “whole” topics, whereas sections can (or can not) be more “specialized”, if that makes sense. Anyway, once an irregularity is acknowledged to exist in a natural language, coming up with rationalizations as to why it exists is not necessarily the best use of one's time, or even necessarily a meaningful question. Why are reflexive pronouns in English formed with the genitive when 1st or 2nd person (myself not meself) and with the accusative when 3rd person (himself not hisself)? Why does that question matter and what does it even mean, anyway? ― A. di M.10:44, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
Yes. Article titles are encyclopedia entries; section titles can be many things, including examples, and occasionally need an extra word or two to disambiguate among the possible meanings. - Dank (push to talk) 18:58, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
Re Tony: "titles are best short" is good advice in general, but if someone changed a section title "The horse as a metaphor" to "Horse as a metaphor", I hope your ear would notice the second is violently wrong. I think we generally avoid "The" in article titles because this is standard in encyclopedias and dictionaries. On the other hand I doubt the omitting "the" when doing so sounds awful is common anywhere. If editors were to rewrite the titles to make them sound better (e.g. by making them plural, as in "Horses as metaphors") that would be different. Of course, others might claim that the guidelines forbid plural section titles as well... — Carl (CBM · talk) 18:46, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
I can't see the relevance of the latter link... AFAICT it says that articles should be disregarded for sorting purposes (and my iPod does that, e.g. the song "The Battle of Evermore" is sorted under B), but I can see no situation where you'd want to sort sections alphabetically. Am I missing something? ― A. di M.21:56, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
It says "Initial articles may also simply be deleted in the formulation of the heading."
But that's about cataloging, not about writing the title in the first place. The previous MOS discussion doesn't really show a lot of support for the rule, and in particular the justifications given there seem to be somewhat circular, justifying the rule in terms of itself rather than giving any argument why it's desirable. Using "the" appropriately is well established in scholarly literature, and even part 1 of the CMOS is titled "The Publishing Process" rather than "Publishing Process". — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:29, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
I am still awaiting a resolution. Please do not abandon this discussion.
Are you? This doesn't look like “awaiting” to me. (Note how Electromagnetism and the speed of light would follow the letter of the guideline, which shows how silly it is to follow the letter of a guideline as an end in itself.) ― A. di M.23:32, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Would it help if I copy some more examples of articles in section titles in professional publications (in addition to the example of the Chicago Manual of Style)? — Carl (CBM · talk) 00:57, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
That depends on how the editors of the Manual of Style evaluate those examples, and on whether they all agree on what the Manual should say.
There is a common theme that sometimes the article can be omitted, but the whole section title needs to be rewritten, either by adding other words or pluralizing. — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:42, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
“
Sigh… The old "you could rephrase it completely" nonsense is surely the last resort of the idiot prescriptivist caught in a position of having needlessly banned the best way to express a particular thought.
Well, I started this section because I noticed some painful results on my watchlist when the articles were just removed from section titles. For editors who insist on removing them, rephrasing or pluralizing the titles would at least leave decent sounding results. — Carl (CBM · talk) 22:43, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
On the potentially controversial side, I've made it clear, where it arises, that WP:BIRDS' position that common names of birds should always be capitalized remains controversial (which it does). My personal preference is to simply remove any suggestion that the bird-caps idea is acceptable, but this isn't about me. It's about making six (so far) guidelines stop contradicting each other and stop misrepresenting the truth. There is a default, and it does apply to plants, and it does apply to animals, even if WP:BIRDS claims an exemption and the insects project doesn't really care one way or another. We cannot have "official" guidelines telling editors six different things, some of them backasswards. — SMcCandlishTalk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀContribs.07:51, 6 January 2012 (UTC) Keywords for archive search: capitalization, capitalisation, capitalize, capitalise, capitals, upper case, lower case, uppper-case, lower-case, sentence case, title case
I support the sentiment, although I have long since despaired that MOS will ever resemble a complete, coherent and stable set of guidelines that editors can learn once and then use. I think it is less helpful to make lots of complex moves and then suggest discussion afterwards - especially as these guidelines will already have been used by innumerable articles. It would be help me if you could be specific about what it is you want to change. BenMacDui08:32, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
What about the changes wasn't clear? Our guiding document on this is WP:MOS. Some wording at WP:CAPS was a little clearer, but meant the same thing, so I merged the wording, then propagated this (in spirit, not always word-for-word - that would be tedious, and undermine the purpose of having multiple documents) to the other relevant, subordinate pages, in the interim cleaning up a lot of blatantly false information, such as the suggestion that WikiProjects just get to make up their own rules (a direct contradiction of policy at WP:LOCALCONSENSUS), or that there is no default. — SMcCandlishTalk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀContribs.11:18, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
WikiProjects possess no special editorial authority. Even if there were unanimous agreement within WP:PLANTS, it wouldn't override a conflicting consensus within the Wikipedia community as a whole. —David Levy10:06, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Indeed. The fact that WP:PLANTS has no consensus about that is completely moot, since WP:MOS does. This WP:NC subpage on plants, WP:FLORA, is a WP-wide page, not a WP:PLANTS subpage, and it has to be consistent with WP:MOS, which is pretty much the #1 most used and accepted guideline (i.e. non-policy) on the whole system except maybe for WP:RS. And WP:MOS already has a consensus that the default is always lower case. The fact that WP:BIRDS has gotten a tenuous and perennially contentious exception is only because this happened before WP:LOCALCONSENSUS became policy. This has nothing to do with "changing policy"; there is no policy at issue here (WP:NC is policy, but it doesn't speak on the matter, and its topical subpages are guidelines). And it has nothing to do with changing consensus at some project, since projects don't own WP guidelines. If WP:FLORA is in conflict with WP:MOS, or WP:PLANTS is in conflict with WP:FLORA, it's pretty clear what direction the flow of change goes. It's notable in this regard that the other projects, from primates to cetaceans, have given up trying to invent, or from some deep realm of academe import, a conflicting, pro-caps style. The boat has long since sailed. — SMcCandlishTalk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀContribs.11:18, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
I would point out that the admonition to italicize binomina always is incorrect. Correctly, the only stipulation is that the binomina should be rendered in a different font style than surrounding text. This usually means they should be italicized within regular text; but it also means they should not be italicized when within italicized text. e.g. "All modern humans are Homo sapiens sapiens." and "All modern humans are Homo sapiens sapiens." are correct. "All modern humans are Homo sapiens sapiens." and "All modern humans are Homo sapiens sapiens." are not. I'm not sure how to put that forward so its easy to understand though.
Furthermore subspecies, varieties and other infraspecific ranks (which shouldn't be capitalized); subgenera and sections (which should be capitalized but rarely included in binomina); and others like cultivars and cultivar groups, etc. are not mentioned. e.g. Homo sapiens sapiens, Prunus (Padus) cornuta, Musa acuminata × balbisiana (AAB Group) 'Silk'.
Common names as an issue is dependent on WikiProjects and the individual editors. It is not usually enforced. It is true, however, that sentence case is preferred for common names in most animal WikiProjects under TOL, but it's not really a big deal and constantly arguing about it just wastes time. AFAIK most regular TOL members are already aware of this, and people who do not regularly create taxonomical articles do not usually read the MOS anyways.-- Obsidi♠nSoul09:37, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
A lot to cover.
Kind of a WP:CREEP issue, really. In any normal Wikipedia context it will be italics, and where a binomial appears like felis catus in an already-italicized passage it is auto-deitalicized, just like you would want. If you wanted to add something in there to address some case you're seeing where the style is being a problem, that might make a good new topic for discussion, but this thread's really just about synching the same basic thing in 6 places, not extending it.
Different taxonomic levels maybe should be covered on one of these 6 pages, but probably not the main WP:MOS; it's too much of a drill-down into detail.
Sure, substantive links are rarely unhelpful.
The entire point is that there is long-standing, stable consensus at MOS, one of the site-wide guidelines with the most collective mojo, that this it is not an issue dependent on WikiProjects, and that there is a clear preference for lower case. The "whatever projects want" approach was tried for about 6 years and it just resulted in confusion, chaos and strife (it is a big deal). Projects (primates, cetaceans, mammals generally, etc.) have been lining up with this new direction with what seems to be relief. We recognize that WP:BIRDS is opposed, and that WP:PLANTS is fence-sitting, and, well, that's that. One or two holdouts do not filibuster a general consensus. There's just no excuse for our guidelines to contradict each other, and minor subpages of the naming conventions certainly don't trump MOS, nor does its own child page (again per WP:LOCALCONSENSUS). WP:TOL does appear to acknowledge MOS on this issue, and while I see that they also observe that some projects are trying to go their own way on the matter, they are no longer actively encouraging projects to make up their own standards. TOL doing so at some point, kinda-sorta, was the last shred of any reason to have any of these guidelines doing so, and that reason is now gone. Constantly arguing about it is certainly a waste of time. I've only barely begun cataloguing the amount of strife it's caused over the last half-decade. Most of it stems from the guidelines being inconsistent, so that any given project can say "well, we follow this guideline [that they've spent years tendentiously bending to their whim] and we don't care for that guideline [which they just ignore as magically not applicable to them]." It has to stop. Not just because it pisses off MOS geeks like me, but because it upsets, confuses and discourages all sorts of readers and editors. Noobs: Sure new users don't read the MOS, but fewer and fewer biological articles are created by them, since the obvious ones are increasingly "taken", and even when they do, they'll usually model them on what they see done in other articles, which is why this does actually matter. The fact that I just had to move Przewalski's horse from Przewalski's Horse, like it was a children's book title, is shameful, especially given clear consensus at WP:MAMMALS for years now that mammal common names are never capitalized, on top of MOS saying this by default. It's a frakkin' free-for-all because of the guideline mess I'm trying to clean up. — SMcCandlishTalk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀContribs.11:58, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
I strongly support these efforts. WikiProjects are extremely helpful, but they don't own "their" articles and aren't entitled to establish editorial conventions contradicting those of the Wikipedia community at large. —David Levy10:06, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
The default is to begin each word in common names with lower case
except were proper names appear in them (or the word begins a sentence or list item – obvious exceptions)
This applies to all common names (families, orders, subspecies, etc.) not just species: "vertebrates", "the snakes", "European wildcat", etc.
WP:WikiProject Birds proposes an exception and prefers to capitalize all parts of bird common names except those immediately after a hyphen; this remains controversial.
This proposal does not add anything to MOS, other than clarification that the exception WP:BIRDS claims isn't agreeable to everyone, and the obvious proviso that it's not just limited to species (i.e., don't capitalize "fish").
And that's it. I'm not trying to change anything major like "forcing X project to do Y" or "changing policy". Just stating the facts accurately and fairly and ensuring that all 6 relevant guideline pages do not conflict on these matters any longer. It is emphatically not necessary to go into some long-winded, wishy-washy ramble on any guideline about how this project on plants or that project on insects don't really have a consensus, blah blah blah. No one cares. Wikipedia has long had a consensus on this, even if WP:BIRDS is a holdout for an exception, and some projects never really made up their minds (they were in the way, and consensus simply went around them, like stalled cars). Most importantly, it is simply not permissible for two of these guidelines to continue to encourage WP:LOCALCONSENSUS policy violations.
My contention is that #1 has been the clear consensus here for quite a long time now, and in the naming conventions at WP:CAPS. The page history of MOS and CAPS bears this out, as does every single instance of the capitalization debate appearing here. It's what all encyclopedias do, it's what virtually all general publications like mass-market books and magazines do, its what most style guides say to do when their not being vague like Chicago, and it's even what the vast majority of biological specialist publications do. Obviously #2 is incontrovertible (we mention it at all just so upper-casing here doesn't get confused with lower-casing of proper names that have become part of binomials). And #3 is likewise a no-brainer (yet still needs to be specified; my incomplete User:SMcCandlish/Capitalization of organism names archives index already shows a frequent complaint by non-bird biology editors that people are doing things like "the Tiger comes in various species and subspecies" in response to seeing capitalized bird names everywhere). At this juncture, we need not mention breeds, cultivars and other quasi-taxonomic issues, since they are separate topics, and don't seem to cause strife or confusion. Point #4, as much as I dislike giving the "caps are okay" idea any credence at all, fairly and accurately summarizes the situation, leaves the uneasy, provisional exception for birds in place, and serves the secondary purpose of discouraging any notion that it's generally okay for WikiProjects to ignore site-wide guidelines, a perennial problem of its own that ArbCom has had to come down hard on more than once, and why the LOCALCONSENSUS policy was added to WP:CONSENSUS. My afore-linked archive index already conclusively proves that capitalization remains controversial.
If anyone really wants to contradict these points, I'm curious to see on what grounds. I'm not wedded to any particular wording, but what's on the MOS main page right now seems to get the points across, and is why I've moved to have the other 5 guidelines use similar wording. — SMcCandlishTalk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀContribs.19:41, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Question: OK, is there actually an existing consensus that sentence case should be used everywhere or by default, even excluding birds? Some editors assert below there is not for plants, and in the last discussions I saw (for example at WT:ANIMAL and the naming conventions pages) there wasn't a resemblance of consensus, just that those participating who wanted standardisation if only at the lower level of groups of organisms/projects went along as if there was. It's not controversial that names of taxa of higher rank than species (including birds) should not be capitalised—so basically this proposal could be simplified to: "use sentence case for all common names, except for birds even though this is wrong". —innotata18:13, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Yes, there is such a consensus. The MoS has said so for years. It is also the case that WP:BIRDS disagrees with regard to birds (and WP:PLANTS is apparently on the fence with regard to plants), but per WP:CONSENSUS policy, especially WP:LOCALCONSENSUS this does not mean that there is not a general consensus on a general default. We're even going out of our way to acknowledge the WP:BIRDS position (I disagree with doing so, but I'm not trying to change the guideline, only streamline the main guideline and make the subordinate ones stop conflicting). WP:ANIMALS doesn't set style guidelines. The wording and discussions at that project have been reflecting the fact that some projects once wanted to do things differently from the default (they all gave up except WP:BIRDS, a separate issue, discussed in another thread; controlling policy is LOCALCONSENSUS) and some are uncertain what to do (obvious answer: go with the default). There has been uncertainty mainly because the guidelines have not been synched and some have leaned toward dwelling on project uncertainties like WP:ANIMALS has – which is maybe okay for a meta-project but highly inappropriate for site-wide guidelines to be doing – instead of on what the default is, which is a MOS matter. On one level I do like your more abrupt wording, but WP:BIRDS would never accept it because the proponents of capitalization there believe their practice isn't wrong. — SMcCandlishTalk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀContribs.20:07, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
I mean, how was this consensus reached, to use sentence case by default? All you've said is that there is a consensus. In the discussions I've seen especially at naming conventions, there didn't seem to be consensus for quite what you describe. (I know what your opinion is on bird articles, but that is being discussed in other subsections.) As far as the wording of the proposal, removing uncontroversial matters, all it does is state that sentence case should be a rule everywhere but birds (whereas currently this and other pages say vaguely that sentence case is default; I'm asking about this claimed consensus). (And as a minor point it makes an opinionated comment on the position of birds editors.) —innotata23:58, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
See the Manual of Style archive entries in the index of discussions about the topic in the list I've been compiling to better keep track of this issue. It' almost 2am my time, and I'm too tired to figure out when exactly it was added in wording that is clear enough for your purposes, but setting history view to 500 and paging back and back and back for several years, the advice has remained consistent: Capitalize just proper names that are part of common names, and birds are permitted as an exception, both of which are still the case with my proposed 4 points here. It had some wishy-washy wording in it that evolved out along the way, and that tightening never did make it into the other, related pages, thus my push for belated synchronization. All that's substantively changing is that MOS would acknowledge that the birds exception is obviously controversial (the fact that this page has erupted about it yet again in controversy is proof of that, as is my list), which it should have done from the start. It's regular practice in MOS and its subpages, as in other guidelines, to indicate where consensus is uncertain. Either that or to remove the disputed material entirely (here, that would mean not mentioning birds at all, just the default, and I know WP:BIRDS would raise hell about that). I don't care what the wording really is about birds, as long as the fact that it's disputed/has uncertain consensus/isn't well accepted/is one of the longest-running perennial debate topics on the entire system/is controversial/take your pick, is clear, so that editors of horse articles and fish articles and mold articles and whatever stop coming to conclusions like "oh, birds are capitalized, I guess I can capitalize monkeys too, since I like monkeys and it's not fair that birds get caps and my animal doesn't." This is presently a very severe and rapidly growing problem, already affecting thousands and thousands of articles. It needs to be stopped ASAP before it becomes totally unmanageable. Every time I've raised the issue here, I've been met with agreement on such points (as distinct from agreement and disagreement with my push to eliminate the birds exception, which is an entirely different matter). The only problem has been that the rather hard-core archivebot here archives these threads before they get acted upon, thus my making the edits first (in my view, they already have consensus, from previous threads here), and raising the discussion again secondarily. Anyway, the MOS for years and years has stably recommended capitalizing just the proper noun elements (and left WP:BIRDS alone). Given how often MOS is edited, that's an obvious demonstration of consensus on what the default is. PS: An entirely different way of looking at this is that "sentence case by default" is the general consensus default in real life for everything in the English language. No Wikipedia-unique consensus ever needed to actually be shown, any more than we need a consensus discussion to establish that sentences begin with capital letters or that quotations are put in quotation marks not italics. (That said, I'm sure we have had such discussions here, unnecessary as they may have been.) — SMcCandlishTalk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀContribs.09:03, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
NB: The earlier wording was actually much stronger: "Common (vernacular) names of flora and fauna should be written in lower case–for example, oak or lion." I'm of half a mind to propose we simply return to that wording. — SMcCandlishTalk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀContribs.10:03, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
I was expecting this would show the assumption of pre-existing consensus was correct to some extent, rather, I looked through all the Manual of Style discussions tha you linked on your userpage, and clearly enough none of them resulted in any consensus. All the proposals to change the text to say sentence case should be used by default for common names or even "motions to close" ended inconclusively, like Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 87#Common names of animals. I don't see how the MoS ended up with its old or new wording, and I still don't think it's fair to editors who disagreed with sentence case (even excluding birds) in discussions with more participation, especially at Naming conventions. I also don't see why this discussion is marked as stale, since the new one is no different for the reasons I gave above. —innotata16:29, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Support – and if we're keeping the Bird exception, it makes sense to flag it as an exception, and a controversial one at that. Dicklyon (talk) 22:01, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
Unresolved
Stale
