Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 108

Archive 105

Archive 106

Archive 107

Archive 108

Archive 109

Archive 110

→

Archive 115

Proposal to standardize official websites in lede infoboxes

When our readers look at some infoboxes it says "Official website" or similar but to find out what the website is you have to click on it or otherwise take steps to access the information. This is fine for some users and web-browsers but certainly not all. This seems to be a non-universal technical tweak - perhaps in an effort to discourage vanity - that appears in some high-profile infoboxes, like Template:Infobox Actor. Many people and groups have more than one official site further compounding the issue, and yes, they may have three or more official websites. Since the infobox is part of the lede and highly visible I propose that use of forcing "Official website" be deprecated and offered as an alternative only if needed for extra long website formatting issues. The number of article subjects with official websites is only growing; surely we don't want them all to simply read "official website" which only confirms that a website exists? This is also likely an accessibility issue as I believe some users simply print out articles or otherwise can't easily confirm what is hidden below a link. Many users also pay for each second they are online so having to find ways to see information we are hiding also seems unhelpful.

I don't think we should tease readers. With the rare exception of web addresses that are too long there is no reason to do this. Which is more helpful?

Official Website

En.Wikipedia.org

I think it's clear that we need to share information rather than tease its existence.

http://www.example.org/ should be displayed as Example.org, multiple websites that are official are fine. The only reasons to limit websites, that come to mind, is 1. extra lengthy websites that cause formatting problems forcing an inforbox to grow into the text needlessly and 2. more than a handful of websites that seem unhelpful to list all in an infobox. In this case editors should strive toward consensus to find a workable solution, possibly employing the external links section to display the full list. The other suggestion regarding this is this, is that websites be formatted for clarity - jimbosmajicsite.edu should be displayed as JimbosMajicSite.edu so it is more readily apparent that users are directed to the right website. -- Banjeboi 04:08, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

What exactly is the problem here? In {{Infobox Actor}} the parameter should be used only for an official website, so the "Official website" description should be applicable in all cases. PC78 (talk) 11:55, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry if I didn't explain this well. Currently some infoboxes have technically forced the parameter to read

Official Website, instead of

En.Wikipedia.org.

There is a messy workaround to get the website displayed but "Official Website" is still forced in as well. It simply isn't needed and surely hundreds of infoboxes stating "Official Website" instead of the actual website isn't benefiting the reader's understanding by teasing that there is an "Official Website" but making them take extra steps to confirm the actual address. -- Banjeboi 13:26, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I think Benjiboi's proposal makes sense. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 15:23, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I've had to workaround that on a few infoboxes, myself. "Official Website" should not be displayed if there is more than one "official website". — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:40, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I still don't see the problem here. What is wrong with having an infobox formatting links to read "Official website"? This is consistant with other external links templates. If the website is official, then how is saying "Official website" in any way misleading? Why does the actual website address need to be displayed? PC78 (talk) 15:54, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I don't think "Official Website" should be displayed instead of the actual web address at all, with the main exception being that the web address is so long it expands the infobox too much. Some government websites, for instance, are extremely long. PC78, people look to Wikipedia for a variety of reasons, including verifying which website(s) is actually the correct one for an artist or company. Many Internet users are at less sophisticated technical levels and abilities. If someone goes to look at Pop Star Foo's article there's simply no good reason the infobox can't openly share what Pop Star Foo's website is instead of stating "Official website" which only convey's that one exists. There's no need to mask or hide this information just like we frown on wikilink surprises, we should be clear and upfront with information. -- Banjeboi 16:01, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Again, I don't see a problem, so I guess I will have to disagree with you on this. When a reader clicks on a link that says "Official website" there should be no surprises unless they are taken to a website that isn't official, in which case the infobox parameter has been misused. I do not think that we are "masking" information here. Presumably you have a similar problem with the use of {{official}}? PC78 (talk) 16:15, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Just to follow up on what you said at Template talk:Infobox Actor, I guess I don't see the inherant value in displaying a full URL, but I'm willing to concede that point if others do. However, I don't see a problem with formatting the link in an infobox, where space is often limited. Perhaps it would be better to insist that the full url is displayed in the "External links" section of an article instead? PC78 (talk) 16:23, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

For clarity on this, can you explain more fully why

Official Website is better than

En.Wikipedia.org?

I see no net gain by concealing the web address when it's agreed this is indeed the official website. -- Banjeboi 02:30, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Because the template provides a consistant format that applies to all such links. It eliminates the need for users to manually format the link, which in practise is likely to be highly inconsistant. Even URLs of moderate length can strech an infobox. As I said above, I would not oppose displaying a full URL in the appropriate section of an article ("External links") if it is felt that this is a worthwhile piece of information in itself. Can you clarify your own position? How does your second example make the link more accessable to someone who will most likely just want to click it? PC78 (talk) 02:43, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) I spot-checked a handful of infoboxes, and found no real consistency. Some displayed URL, some used an "Official website" or similar named link. Even passing the website= parameter varies (sometimes full URL, sometimes just the site without "http://"). Each "makes sense", each is confusing to editors and each encourages different hacks to make the layout look "the other way" from how it is. Many that display full URL prefix it with a text string like "homepage:" (either as title in first column with URL in second, which makes even less space for long URL) or in a line above, which makes it harder to relate that title to the URL visually).

My major problem with the "concealed" approach is that I think the URL itself is part of the encyclopediac information. That is, it's more than just a case where one might want "some place to click to learn about something" (i.e., citation for a fact, cross-ref for a word, or external additional information source). We kinda expect that entities have websites, so saying "here is the link to the website" is a navigational aid but doesn't add as much information as seeing the URL does. A reader might want the URL itself for his own linking purposes rather than just being able to go there and read. The formatting issue is important (long URL widens the box), but doesn't make the page totally unusable, and WP has long appeared to lean towards content and accessibility (another argument made above) at the expense of perfect layout. I'm still using FFox2, which I know does a poor job of "intelligent" line-breaking by modern standards. Are FFox3 or others automatically able (or can be taught via div styles?) to break "too long for space" lines at slashes or somehow else have some optional-break (but not "insert hyphen if break") invisible chars? another option is to make the long-side side-scrollable. We use this solution in the chemistry infoboxes, where we have very long chemical names and other data-strings. A final option is to hide the URL behind "Official website" named link, but also have the URL itself visible in a collapsed-by-default frame there. That would avoid breaking layout but also have the URL plainly accessible for whatever purpose. DMacks (talk) 03:05, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Exactly, this will hopefully strive for transparency and consistency. We can't presume someone wants to click through, although they may, anymore than we presume they read any of the other infomation or click any wikilinks. The benefit of

En.Wikipedia.org

is that you don't have to do anything to know what the web address is. No clicking, scrolling, or any other steps to see this is the web address. I am also opposed to a click to see option as that's also hiding this information. The side-scrolling solution for very long addresses may make sense although I'm not a specialist in accessibility issues. -- Banjeboi 04:20, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm still not seeing a need to display such information in the infobox. Have it at the foot of an article by all means, but in the infobox it's superfluous. We're hardly "concealing information" here. Autoformatting the link works for the reasons I gave above, plus it prevents (in theory) misuse of the parameter by those who would add links to fan sites, blogs, IMDb links, or other such nonsense. Even at best I don't think it's something that needs an MOS ruling; better to determine how appropriate this is on a case by case basis. PC78 (talk) 12:29, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, vandalism happens regardless and fansites will be injected and reverted no matter what we do. Just like someone can sneak a false weblink ina reference they can do so almost everywhere. By the logic that it doesn't need to be in the infobox then your position is that no website should be displayed at all and instead in the external links? Seems also like a foolish idea, this is, after all, a web-based encyclopedia. It is through the use of web addresses that people get to us. Just as we feel a company's name and city, and industry etc is important so is their website. Just as almost every musician advertises their website prominently on ... everything. It is a chief part of their branding identity. This certainly seems to be key information and is only growing in usage. If, on specific articles editors decree that no website should be linked in the infobox that may make sense - not sure, personally - but some editors have forced the use of "official website" in templates that are highly visible so this is certainly a MOS issue. Someone else can cite how many articles we have this on. And i can assure you there is already edit-warring going on over this so case-by-case will only be a prolonged, community-draining, process that won't really do anything different than the mess we currently have. -- Banjeboi 13:07, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Well no, clearly you've missed my point entirely, and I still don't see why you have a problem with using "Official website" for official websites. Vandalism may happen regardless, but that doesn't mean we should discourage it. Messy workarounds like the one you've employed in John Inman should not be used; they aren't needed, and you certainly shouldn't be edit waring to force them in. If you think we need to display a full url in an infobox merely to promote the "branding identity" of celebrities, then frankly your reasoning is way off. PC78 (talk) 20:52, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, I don't see your point. I see no reason to see

[http://En.Wikipedia.com Official Website]

over

Official website: http://En.Wikipedia.com

The latter seems quite clear. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:13, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

The latter may stretch some infoboxes; longer URLs certainly will. With regards to printing pages, it simply won't be an issue if the full URL is displayed at the foot of an article. PC78 (talk) 13:13, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I favour exposing URLs (or at least domain names). Consider people who print pages for later reference. An additional benefit of using that method is that we can apply markup (e.g. <span class="url">http://En.Wikipedia.com</span>) to the URL, in infoboxes which emit an hCard microformat, thereby including the URL in the emitted metadata. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 22:28, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

• I too support making it visible for the reason Pigsonthewing cites - if someone prints out the article, the official website URL should be visible. I've recently made this comment at Template_talk:Infobox_Writer#Display_url_of_website.3F, though there's been no reply yet. PamD (talk) 11:35, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Template:Article issues—Saying issues when we mean problems

I started the following discussion at Template talk:Article issues#Saying issues when we mean problems. In my opinion, participation by the style experts here would contribute to the quality of discussion over there. Finell (talk) 03:06, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Saying issues when we mean problems

I know this was discussed very briefly several months ago, but I propose, for discussion, changing the word issues to problems in this template. This usage of issues began in the software industry as a euphemism for bugs, which itself was a euphemism for defects. Regrettably, this new usage has spread, virus-like, into the real world, as in, "Jane obtained a restraining order because Dick has issues". In my opinion, this usage has no place in formal writing. It is a misuse of a word that has a different, well settled meaning in place of another word that means what the writer intends. In the case of Wikipedia:

• The undecided question of whether something in an article should be changed is an issue to raise on the article's talk page.
• This template, on the other hand, is a pronouncement that an article has problems that should be fixed.

I invite the opinions of other editors. Finell (Talk) 02:00, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Little guidance on "thatgamecompany"

I moved thatgamecompany to ThatGameCompany per MOSTM guidelines on but it was recently changed to Thatgamecompany by another editor. I have stated on the article's talk page that I believe it should be ThatGameCompany (CamelCase) because it makes the trademark easier to read and indicates how the word should be read. Before I change it back, I wanted to get a second opinion? Is Thatgamecompany correct or should it be changed back to ThatGameCompany? Thanks. ChimpanzeeUK - User | Talk | Contribs 23:53, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Answered on article talk page. Thanks. ChimpanzeeUK - User | Talk | Contribs 10:25, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Single Letters

I couldn't find anything about this, but I'm not sure if I tried searched hard enough...is there anything regarding how to type single letters? For example should it be: "the letter "o" is..." or "the letter o is..." or some other way? That's my two scents 22:02, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Italics (subsection "Words as words").

-- Wavelength (talk) 19:02, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

[I corrected section to subsection. -- Wavelength (talk) 20:03, 13 February 2009 (UTC)]

Gender of gender-ambiguous persons

"A transgender, transsexual or genderqueer person's latest preference of name and pronoun should be adopted when referring to any phase of that person's life" - MOS:IDENTITY

This part sounds troubling to me because it lets a person's whim rule the language; isn't there a more objective standard that WP could use? For example: has penis, is man, has vagina, is woman (sorry if I sounded like Captain Obvious now). -- Stormwatch (talk) 03:39, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

No, for several reasons, one of them being the lack of reliable sources for the presence or absence of this or that sexual organ for most living people, porn performers accounting for most of the exceptions. -- Hoary (talk) 03:44, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

English usage would be a possible objective standard; it would normally agree with the above, and would also cover cases it does not - such as the Chevalier d'Eon. The present rule also fails its own objective of permitting self-identification to reign; the choice of saying "I was male; I am female" is arbitrarily excluded. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:53, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Hoary, in the age of Photoshop, I think your point about pornstars is highly suspicious. Tony (talk) 07:00, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

A person's self perception of his or her gender should normally be used as the gender to use when talking about this person. In most cases there is a (court-) decision based on a legal process whether a person is to be considered male or female. WP must respect these official rulings, regardless of the absence or presence of generally defining criteria (genitalia). If there has no legal process occurred, the self perception should be used, because the gender role cannot be defined based on external characteristics. In most cases this is not a whim. --Goodgirl - talk to me 18:43, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Why? We don't respect most official rulings, although we mention them; often it's a POV question whether an official ruling is correct (for example, the contending official rulings of the Republic of Cyprus and the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus, or the numerous official decisions of the People's Republic of China on Falun Gong; if we respected the last, the Great Firewall might come down). Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:07, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

We disrespect rulings in controversies, which I support to keeping the NPOV. Rulings regarding the legal gender status of a person are made according the persons self perception and unanimously -- in most cases. So I feel your objection misses the topic. --Goodgirl - talk to me 23:48, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I know a number of people who prefer to be addressed by Spivak pronouns as a way of protesting the gender binary, and at least one person who like to be addressed as "it." I object to the suggestion that transsexuals are of "ambiguous" gender; they are of their chosen gender, whether or not they have had the operation. Any other attitude would generally be offensive to them. Some genderqueer people are fine with having either pronoun applied to them - in that case I'd say it's up to editor discretion and consistency is what's important. Dcoetzee 02:30, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

RfC on the use of ambiguous terms

I have started an RfC regarding adopting a policy on the definition and use of ambiguous terms.

Any comments are extremely welcome.--FimusTauri (talk) 11:16, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

This is about the use of the word "myth", and possibly other words used in articles about religion. My preference would be that we not try to nail down the NPOV content of problematic words in the style guidelines; however, I lost that battle over at WT:AVOID. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 21:13, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

The above comment is in error. Whilst I am also arguing about the use of "myth" in the context of religious articles, it was during research for that discussion that I realised there is a significant gap in overall policy on the use of ambiguous words. Quite significantly, the proposal actually allows for the use of the word "myth" in any article. All the proposal asks is that, where a word has any ambiguity, then the context in which the word is used provides clarity. This proposal is about the use of language in general. The discussion about "myth" is an issue of NPOV and quite seperate.--FimusTauri (talk) 13:23, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Minor inconsistency

In the use of adjective meaning "of the Xth century", in one section (Wikipedia:MOS#Longer_periods) the en dash is used, while in another (Wikipedia:MOS#Numbers_as_figures_or_words) the hyphen is used. From the punctuation section I understand that the hyphen is probably the right one, but I would like a confirmation.Baltaci (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added on 00:54, 19 February 2009 (UTC).

• I don't see any inappropriate en dashes in adjectives (only in ranges, as in 1991–1997, where it's correct). Can you point out exactly where you found one?--Kotniski (talk) 08:15, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

See a 19th-century book (en dash) vs 19th‑century painting (hyphen). (use the find function of your browser)Baltaci (talk) 13:08, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

A hyphen should definitely be used in the above examples. I have to say they both look like hyphens to me. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 15:36, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

To me too. If you're seeing any as something other than ordinary hyphens, please correct them. --Kotniski (talk) 16:34, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I was wrong after all. Actually they're both hyphens, just the second is a non-breaking hyphen(U+2011), while the first is a regular one(U+2010). They look different on my system (the regular one is somewhat longer), so I thought the first was a dash. I have no idea which one to choose, so I won't modify it.Baltaci (talk) 20:02, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Off-topic question

Quality of Wikipedia is pretty poor since it requires every little trivial bit sourced, and doesn't allow generalizations on most subjects, this makes it a tedious read on most subjects^{[citation needed]}. Why the images are not required to be sourced, also? It is very easy to mislead a non-native, or a slow reader, with these. 80.186.223.203 (talk) 05:58, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

• You probably want to bring this up at WP:Verifiability.--Kotniski (talk) 08:15, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Printer-friendly MoS?

Is there any way that a printer-friendly version of MoS could be produced? maybe in pdf or even just rtf. I imagine a suitably enthusiastic editor could create one manually, but I was wondering if one could be generated automatically. I am assuming there isn't one at the moment - if there is, could a link to it be added.--FimusTauri (talk) 09:30, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

How would it be different from the page got using the "Printable version" link at the left of the page? [1] Shreevatsa (talk) 14:06, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Mainly because there are so many different pages that comprise the MoS, not just a single web page. I suppose I should have specified a 'collated' printer-friendly version. Besides which, "printable" is very different to "printer-friendly". --FimusTauri (talk) 14:10, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Probably wouldn't be a great idea. Whether or not a page has "manual of style" in its title is no great guide to its contents. Different people have different ideas as to what kind of guidance constitutes "style" guidance. Much style stuff is on non-MoS pages; and much non-style stuff is on MoS pages (depending on your definition). <standard moan> It would be nice to sort this out, but making even minor changes to the names and structure of guideline pages always requires a massive argument with people who think it spells the end of Wikipedia as they know it... </standard moan> --Kotniski (talk) 16:42, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Tennis

Which dashes are used for tennis scores? ("3-6, 6-2, 6-2", etc.) I was looking at Anna Kournikova and it seems to use em dashes, which look too long to me: I would have thought the right character was an en dash, or even a hyphen. Shreevatsa (talk) 14:08, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

You should use an en-dash: see "Wikipedia:Manual of Style#En dashes". — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 15:34, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I fixed that article. Someone should probably look at other Tennis articles and make similar fixes, with a bot or something... Shreevatsa (talk) 20:31, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

1. Image location 2. Table border

Two problems:

1. How can I locate images to the right when there is already a right-floating box (a chronology)? I have used a table kludge at the top of Dura-Europos. I hope there's a better more consistent way. There are a few other images that I have moved left because of the chronology, but would like on the right and if there is a better way I'd happily use it. Using a table will make editing difficult.

2. How would I get a table which was a border like class="wikitable", but which allows me to use cellpadding. When I tried cellpadding to give text a bit of air in a wikitable, it didn't work. So, how would I get both cellpadding and a fine border?

Thanks for any pointers. -- spin^control 21:21, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I suspect there are no satisfactory answers (they sound like problems I've had in the past and failed to solve), but the right place to ask is probably Help talk:Table.--Kotniski (talk) 20:44, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip. I'll give it a try. -- spin^control 21:42, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Subordinating conjunctions; should as be capitalised in the middle of a title?

Following copied from Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions

Hi I asked this at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (capitalization) but got no replies so I'm trying here:

[2] seems to suggest it is a subordinating conjunction, rather than a coordinating conjunction; is this distinction significant? Other subordinating conjunctions with fewer than five letters are:

1. if
2. that
3. till
4. what
5. when
6. as if
7. as long as
8. even if
9. so that

(each word of the compounds has fewer than five letters)

Current usage on Wikipedia is mixed, although lowercase seems to dominate to me (no absolute figures to prove this) e.g.:

• As Slow As Possible
• Victoria Wood As Seen On TV (but on certainly should not be capitalised)
• Dry As a Bone (note a is not capitalised, which is correct)

vs.

• Venus as a Boy
• Justice as Fairness
• Life as a House
• Thick as a Brick
• A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man
• I Wandered Lonely as a Cloud

It seems to me that strictly conforming to the letter of the manual means as should be capitalised, but is that how it is actually applied, both on the Wiki and elsewhere?

Any guidance gratefully received. --Rogerb67 (talk) 01:59, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

It seems there isn't any clear rule one way or the other. Try asking at WT:MOS - people there tend to know these things.--Kotniski (talk) 15:39, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

end of section copied from Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions

Asking here as suggested. Thanks in advance for your advice. --Rogerb67 (talk) 21:44, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

The last two examples, from Joyce and Wordsworth, are certainly usage; since as here has much the same function as a preposition, it is sensible to treat them the same way. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:20, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

• The distinction between coordinating and subordinating conjunctions is significant, but is not relevant to any of your examples, because "as" is not a conjunction in them. An example of "as" used as a conjunction is: I must be leaving soon as I have to get up early tomorrow. A title would rarely have a subordinating conjunction in it, because the latter joins two clauses, and most titles don't contain full clauses. (The exception here is I Wandered Lonely as a Cloud, but "as" is not a conjunction here.) But what you really want to know is whether "as" should be capitalized. I'm afraid I don't know a solid general rule to answer that question, but if your examples are, in fact, titles (I know that at least some of them are), you should copy whatever capitalization the original work uses. --Unconventional (talk) 02:24, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks, that was helpful. What parts of speech are they in my examples? Could you point me to the policy that supports "you should copy whatever capitalization the original work uses"? What I see is WP:CAPS "In general, each word in titles of books, films, and other works takes an initial capital, except for articles ("a", "an", "the"), the word "to" as part of an infinitive, prepositions and coordinating conjunctions shorter than five letters (e.g., "on", "from", "and", "with"), unless they begin or end a title or subtitle." This doesn't mention the original capitalisation at all. The policy article also mentions several examples of titles, which would be rather strange if this were true. --Rogerb67 (talk) 03:20, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Correct spelling of Spanish language titles

I noticed that many of the Spanish language titles are incorrect in English Wikipedia. According to the Royal Spanish Academy Official Orthography, only the first word of any artistic work goes with initial upper case, every other word should be written with lower case, except, of course, the proper names within the title. So, titling like "Entre El Mar Y Una Estrella" (which may be correct in English), is wrong in Spanish. The correct form is: "Entre el mar y una estrella". This is valid for all titles, also for two-word-titles as "Piel morena", "Ten paciencia", "Tú y yo".

For reference, see "mayúsculas" in Royal Spanish Academy's Panhispanic Dictionary of Doubts:

"[Se escriben con inicial mayúscula las palabras siguientes:]

4.17. La primera palabra del título de cualquier obra de creación (libros, películas, cuadros, esculturas, piezas musicales, programas de radio o televisión, etc.); el resto de las palabras que lo componen, salvo que se trate de nombres propios, deben escribirse con minúscula: Últimas tardes con Teresa, La vida es sueño, La lección de anatomía, El galo moribundo, Las cuatro estaciones, Las mañanas de la radio, Informe semanal. En el caso de los títulos abreviados con que se conocen comúnmente determinados textos literarios, el artículo que los acompaña debe escribirse con minúscula: el Quijote, el Lazarillo, la Celestina."

So, I suggest a revision for all Spanish language titles and their correction or rename according to this. I know that unfortunately the same artists are not aware of the official rules and write the titles of their works as they want, but I think in an encyclopedia we must keep the Royal Spanish Academy's official spelling rules.

Regards, --El Mexicano (talk) 11:56, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I think we should use whatever reliable English language sources use, and not base our rules based on a foreign language rule book, unless the English language sources are not clear on the issue, in which case more weight can be given to a foreign language rule. --PBS (talk) 18:47, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

The RAE rules are clear and sensible, and avoid any arguments about what is a "reliable English language source". Physchim62 (talk) 18:52, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but I think that if a title is in a foreign language, you must write it according to the rules of that language, and neither any English nor any Wikipedia rules should overwrite an official spelling rule for a foreign language. So I must agree with Physchim62. Of course, languages that do not use the Latin alphabet, are an exceptional case, where conventional English transcription rules will be valid. But Spanish is not that case. --El Mexicano (talk) 17:57, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Chicago agrees with you in most cases, but because they're looking for a simple rule that works in a lot of cases, not because a Spanish authority says so (specifically, although that probably was taken into account): 10.3, Capitalization of foreign titles: For foreign titles of works, whether these appear in text, notes, or bibliographies, Chicago recommends a simple rule: capitalize only the words that would be capitalized in normal prose. But AP Stylebook at composition titles says: Translate a foreign title into English unless the work is known to the American public by its foreign name ... "The Magic Flute", "Die Walkuere". Note that "Die Walkuere" is what a German would write only if they're writing very informally or for an English audience; almost all the time, Germans write "Die Walküre", but AP Stylebook in general recommends American English orthography. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 21:33, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

when El Mexicano wrote "Of course, languages that do not use the Latin alphabet are an exceptional case", i suppose he/she meant "languages whose alphabets have no upper- and lower-case differentiation", which is not the same thing. Cyrillic has upper- and lower-case letters. Sssoul (talk) 06:05, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Of course. I meant a language like Arabic or Chinese. Also note that this rules in Spanish is very new: the academic Ortografía of 1999 still allowed that in "composition works" like series, albums, etc. the nouns and adjectives go with Upper case (but never the conjunctions and prepositions, that was always wrong); but Diccionario panhispánico de dudas ("Pan-Hispanic Dictionary of Doubts") of 2005, instead, says categorically that in every title of creation work should only the first word be written with upper case (except for the proper names in the title, of course). --El Mexicano (talk) 07:36, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

The Opera project always use the native style for foreign titles guideline here, but the Visual arts project usually uses whatever art historians writing in English predominantly use (often the same, but not always) guideline here. Either approach seems fine to me, but it is helpful if there is a guideline by subject area saying which is preferred. I think this question is best decided at project or article level, & anything here should be left flexible, after explaining that there is an issue. Johnbod (talk) 13:57, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, it was the Music Project Wikipedia page where I first added this note, but there were no answers and no reactions. I've done it also twice. Then I wrote a message to User:Efe as I noticed he is the most involved in the project, and he told me to come here, because the experts were here. :) --El Mexicano (talk) 19:32, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

• If this is new and catches on throughout Spanish America, doubtless English will follow in time. We can move all these articles when that happens and not before; spelling reformers have been known to change their minds.
• There is no particular reason to change old titles even then, unless it becomes customary to do so; that has a certain silliness, like revising the established English form of Don Quixote away from Cervantes' own form. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:29, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Transparent layers

I think that transparent layers should not be used in wikipedia images as this mixes the content of an image with the colour of the web page. I browse the web with the browser and operating system set to white text on a black background, and this means that many images with transparent layers are unviewable. Also the keys to maps becomes invisible. Images would be accessible if they use the full colours that the images are supposed to represent instead of using transparent layers which rely on the web page background colour.

For discussion of this see: Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Transparent backgrounds in images. Charvest (talk) 17:46, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Foreign words in English language quotes

A difference of opinion about editing a quote has come up. The quote is:

"Achtung! Achtung! Achtung! The lead aircraft of the major enemy bomber forces have changed course and are now approaching the city area."

It is a quote from British historian Frederick Taylor (in Dresden: Tuesday 13 February 1945. London: Bloomsbury, 2005, ISBN 0-7475-7084-1. page 280.) Taylor being British will assume that his readers will understand the word Achtung means, should such a word in a quote be translated by a Wikipedia editor eg:

"Attention! Attention! Attention! The lead aircraft of the major enemy bomber forces have changed course and are now approaching the city area."

or should the words be left as they are on the assumption they are inside a quote from an English language source that is written for a general reading public and not specialist audience, or should a footnote be provided with a translation.

Currently AFAICT the Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Quotations does not give explicit guidance on the issue of foreign words embedded in English language quotes. As foreign words are not in the exceptions section of the section on quotes one could assume they should not be translated, but perhaps this needs to addressed should it be? --PBS (talk) 22:42, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Direct quotes really shouldn't be tampered with. If a translation is required, then a footnote should be sufficient. PC78 (talk) 22:47, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Taylor's assumption that all Brits would know what "Achtung" means doesn't hold for American readers. I would be greatly surprised if even 1 in 4 recognized it as anything other than a reference to a U2 album. He obviously translated "The lead aircraft of the major enemy bomber forces have changed course and are now approaching the city area" rather than quote it verbatim; the same should hold for the word he chose not to translate because he thought all English speakers would know what it meant. arimareiji (talk) 14:27, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

PC78 is right. The words in a quotation should not be altered. If a translation is needed, this should be put into a footnote. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 15:32, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. If you're going to quote rather than paraphrase or summarize, the words within the quote marks must not be substantively altered from how they appear in the source being quoted.—DCGeist (talk) 20:27, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

So what if the phrase in quote marks is itself a translation of the original, non-English, wording? Where multiple possible translations could be made, how is an authoritative version to be arrived at? Kevin McE (talk) 22:12, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

That doesn't matter. If you are quoting from a particular published English translation, then you shouldn't alter any of the words in that quotation. If you are quoting from the original in, say, German, I would suggest setting out the original German text and providing a translation in English. See, for instance, "Bucentaur#The 1727 bucentaur". — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 05:53, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

wikt:Achtung. Wikilink to Wiktionary for foreign terms (the English edition usually has definitions for foreign terms). Keeps the original quote intact (which is much more important than the reader's confusion), but also provides a definition for users. Problem solved. EVula // talk // ☯ // 22:18, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Great. Now I'm going to have "Esteem! Esteem! Esteem! The lead aircraft of the major enemy bomber forces have changed course and are now approaching the city area." stuck in my head thanks to the semiambiguous link. Thaaaaanks, EVula. ;-) arimareiji (talk) 23:37, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Man, Esteem Baby had some pretty good tracks on it.
Fair enough comment. It could always become wikt:Achtung#Interjection. EVula // talk // ☯ // 06:54, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

What I'm confused about here is why PBS and/or Arimareiji think that Americans won't understand Achtung. Our primary and secondary education systems have issues, but we're not idiots, and we do watch the old war movies from time to time. Or at the very least, Hogan's Heroes. --Trovatore (talk) 21:51, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

US Congressmen

In the press, it's common to see US Reps or Senators referred to as Mr. John Doe (Party-State), ie, Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV). On Wikipedia, should the (Party-State) parenthetical ever be used? If so, in what way? D-NV, D-Nevada, Democrat-Nevada, etc? Copysan (talk) 06:21, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I'd suggest the more transparent "Nevada Senator John Doe" or "Senator John Doe of Nevada." It's brief enough and not nearly as cryptic. Dcoetzee 06:47, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

But with care. "Nevada Senator John Doe" is more likely to mean, and "Senator John Doe of Nevada" can mean, a member of the Nevada State Senate, not a Senator of the United States. Probably (Democratic-Nevada) once in the article, and then (D-NV) for all senators (possibly spelling out Republican for R once too). Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:02, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I'd just point out again that we do not use prenominal titles. Preferred would be John Doe, Democratic senator from Nevada (note the lowercase s in senator). --Trovatore (talk) 22:09, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

We don't? I get 37 hits on "Senator Henry Clay", which is idiomatic in my native tongue; I don't know about Trovatore's. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:37, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Certainly it's idiomatic. So is Mr. Henry Clay or Dr. Henry Clay; we don't use those either. --Trovatore (talk) 02:50, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Should "Strong national ties" include English media usage in non-primarily-English speaking countries?

If an article has strong national ties to a country, which does not use English as it's primary language, but which does favor a certain variety in its English language media, should Strong national ties to a topic be used in favor of Retaining the existing variety? It not with the present wording, should the wording be changed? (This has been suggested in this discussion.) -- Tcncv (talk) 05:05, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

The only reason I can see for having this only apply to primarily English-speaking countries is that in other cases there may be no spelling tradition apparent. But in cases where a clear leaning can be determined, I don't see any reason not to. Equazcion •✗/C • 05:42, 23 Feb 2009 (UTC)

Well, it depends on what sort of country you mean, I think. If we're talking about a country that, while English is not its official or primary language, nevertheless has a distinctive variety of its own, then sure (India is the obvious example).

But if you're talking about the tendency of Continental European sources to favor British English, then absolutely not. There is no distinctive English variety from Continental Europe. --Trovatore (talk) 05:45, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Well it would be a decision based on individual country, not continent, and many countries do have a distinct variety. Equazcion •✗/C • 05:47, 23 Feb 2009 (UTC)

And I would say you should use whatever most of the readers of that country are used to seeing: what the English media of that country uses, etc. Shreevatsa (talk) 05:49, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

No, I think that's absolutely wrong. If the population mostly doesn't read English, then what's in those few publications that do use it is irrelevant. --Trovatore (talk) 05:54, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

A lengthy exchange was moved to User talk:Equazcion to unburden this section. Equazcion •✗/C • 11:15, 23 Feb 2009 (UTC)

My purpose for starting this discussion here was to solicit the experienced opinions of those who frequent this forum. I'd rather see the discussion continue here, especially since it involves the interpretation and possible revision of the "Strong national ties" guideline. -- Tcncv (talk) 14:28, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I only moved the portion that was mainly a heated back-and-forth with me and just one other user. I didn't want others to be discouraged from voicing their opinions here out of fear of butting in to a private feud. In that regard I also regret my part in that exchange, which I should have stopped responding to towards the beginning, so I felt it best to move it to my talk page instead. The general discussion should continue here. Equazcion •✗/C • 14:32, 23 Feb 2009 (UTC)

To confuse things further: how is "English-speaking country" defined? As 89% of people in Sweden can speak English, does that make it an English-speaking country, despite it not being an official language? --ascorbic (talk) 14:20, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

If there is a disagreement, it would be difficult to find a convincing source to settle the matter. Suppose there is a disagreement about whether Sweden mostly uses the British or American variation of English. Where would we find a publication that surveyed the usage of English in Swedish media to determine what variety of English would be used. I seriously doubt we would find a publication titled The Swedish Heritage English Dictionary or The Stockholm University English Dictionary.

Also, this would put a burden on the English speaking editor, who may not be familiar with English language media in Sweden. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 15:48, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

It would put an equal burden on the UK/European English speaker who isn't familiar with American English. Also, with the sources argument you're applying our content sourcing rules to the spelling variety issue. There's nothing that says we need a reliable source to tell us explicitly that a country uses a certain variety. A cursory examination of their English-language media should, I think, suffice. Equazcion •✗/C • 16:46, 23 Feb 2009 (UTC)

There is no such thing as "European English". Granted, a lot of (Continental) Europeans speak English, even very well in a reasonable fraction of cases. But as something they learned in school, not as an organic thing. You can't count that as a variety. --Trovatore (talk) 20:22, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

The burden I speak of for the English speaking editor who writes, in English, about a foreign topic is figuring out what variety of English is usually used in the country in question. If it is a new article, under the present convention, the editor could just use whatever variety he/she is most familiar with. If the editor does not live in the country in question, the editor may not know what English-language media outlets exist, or the relative popularity of the outlets. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 17:24, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

To repeat a comment that I made earlier (and was removed): I agree with Trovatore that there is a "fragile balance" in the usage guidelines. Looking back in the MOS history, that balance has been essentially unchanged in at least five years. The 7 January 2004 version included the statement "Articles which focus on a topic specific to a particular English-speaking country should generally aim to conform to the spelling of that country." I believe the "English-speaking country" part was intentional and was meant not to include other countries where English is not the/a primary language. I suspect that all countries likely have some English-speaking segments.

So the question is: Should the guideline be reworded to change or refine what we consider to be an "English-speaking country"? (Personnaly, I think this is a can of worms better left alone.) -- Tcncv (talk) 07:23, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

That's the question. In the case of the Pirate Bay trial article, there is a dispute and it's a relatively new article. All we have to go on is the fact that the article creator used American style for a single word -- which I think is pretty shaky grounds and therefore understandably isn't turning out to be much of a dispute settler. I want to clarify that my personal take on this proposal is that this should only be a stipulation to be used as a dispute settler, in cases such as this, where the proper course of action isn't readily apparent -- not as a steadfast rule to be applied to articles that already have a clearly-established variety in place, or even as a rule that article creators need to worry about abiding by. Equazcion •✗/C • 21:38, 23 Feb 2009 (UTC)

While most Swedes know English, I doubt they would read much (or indeed any) of the "English-language media" in Sweden. What would be the point, since all that and more is available in their Swedish media? They're much more likely to read the occasional English Wikipedia article, blogs and the like, or novels written in English. -- Coffee2theorems (talk) 23:58, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

E.g., i.e., and etc.

Hello, fellow editors … I did a blanket italicize of e.g., i.e., and etc. … this was something impressed upon me over 20 years ago (in the dawn of electronic publishing) while working on an ANSI standard … OTOH, I realize that today there are many editors who share the opposing view of using italics for these abbreviations, so rather than just revert them (if you disagree), I wish you would post your reasons here. Happy Editing! — 138.88.32.143 (talk · contribs) _{16:24, 25 February 2009 (UTC)}

• Of course they should be italicized; they're foreign phrases. (Usage may be changing for etc., which is the most common; but we can follow when it happens.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:28, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Good call ... I guess that "foreign" trumps "abbreviation." — 138.88.32.143 (talk) 16:48, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
    • No, do not italicize i.e., e.g., or etc. They are very common terms that have been adapted into the English language. They should be familiar to readers so italics are completely unnecessary. Reywas92^Talk 16:44, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
      • I tend to agree. These are so well known that people use them without knowing or caring what the original Latin was, and more normal usage is without italics, surely? What do modern style manuals say? --Kotniski (talk) 17:22, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
        • But literate convention is to italicize them (etc. may be shifting, but hasn't finished): not because they're unfamiliar, but because they're Latin, like ex post facto. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:26, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
          • Is this a U.S./UK thing? To me on the right side of the pond, the italicized versions look fussy and pedantic. (As do the commas following i.e. and e.g., which I understand Americans tend to use.)--Kotniski (talk) 17:38, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
            • • I doubt it; American is my native tongue, but British pedants advocate italicization. Commas around parenthetical phrases may be more common in American, but e.g. should normally have the same punctuation as for example. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:43, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Ex post facto is not used in everyday language and most people don't know what it means, so it should be italicized. Everyone uses etc., i.e., and e.g., and their meanings are more well-known to English-speakers; they can be found in English dictionaries whereas other terms are not. There should not be commas after them, and that would be an error, not just an Americanism. Reywas92^Talk 18:01, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Not in Reywas's every-day language, clearly; the United States Constitution, however, is not alien to literate American, which many of our articles should use. Similarly, i.e. and e.g. are italicized in literate English; as far as I know, of every dialect. I await actual evidence. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:08, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I would generally italicize e.g., etc. and i.e. because of their Latin origin, as other editors have pointed out, but am not fussed if other editors choose not to. However, I would disagree with Reywas92 that commas are not to be used after them. E.g. means "for example", etc. means "and so on", and i.e. means "that is"; therefore, punctuation should be used with the abbreviations as they are used with the English phrases that they represent:

Incorrect: Schools should focus on core skills e.g. reading, writing and mathematics.

Correct: Schools should focus on core skills, e.g. [for example], reading, writing and mathematics.

Incorrect: We need to purchase some bread-baking ingredients such as eggs, flour, yeast etc.

Correct: We need to purchase some bread-baking ingredients such as eggs, flour, yeast, etc. [and so on.]

— Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 18:34, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Well we know to put the comma before e.g., i.e., and etc., it's after them that's debated. The following guides say not to italicize any of these three abbreviations:

• "Do not use italics for the following expressions:... eg, etc ... ie..."
• "I.e. and e.g. are such common Latin abbreviations that they do not require italicization."
• "Use a comma after usual italicized abbreviations, cf., e.g., et al., i.e., per se, a priori"
• "(no italics for: e.g., i.e., et al., etc., cf.)"
• "Please do not italicize words and abbreviations generally accepted in the English language (eg, inter alia, de facto, passim, ibid, ie etc)."
• "with the exception of very common expressions such as "i.e.," "e.g.," "et al.," "in vitro," "ex vitro" and "etc."
• "e.g., use parentheses, no italics...i.e.,: use parentheses, no italics"
• "(a priori, etc., i.e., e.g., et al., ex ante, and ex post are not italicized)."
• "Use roman for: etc.; cf.; e.g.; i.e.;"

This one says to italicize i.e. and e.g., but not etc., and that they are never followed by a comma:

• "Please note that "e.g." and "i.e." are in italics but "etc." is not. (All are preceded by a comma but never followed by one, and are always in lower case.)"

I see no reason why these very common abbreviations need to be italicized. Reywas92^Talk 19:05, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree. I've hardly ever seen them italicised, certainly not in encyclopedias. They're so widely used that they are as much part of the English language as literally millions of other words imported from other languages, that are not italicised. Ok, they are abbreviations of phrases, not of single words, but a lot of people wouldn't know, or care, what those phrases were, and so the only purpose in italicising them is for the writer to let the reader know that the writer knows they were originally a foreign phrsse, but without letting on what that foreign phrase was. That reeks of "I know something you don't know, but I'm not telling". It's dumb and silly. If they were spelled out, there might be a case for italicising them, but not when they're abbreviations. -- JackofOz (talk) 19:22, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Is there any consensus among Wikipedia editors about the italicization of, and use of a comma after, e.g., etc. and i.e.? If not, then I would suggest that the MoS be amended to mention that either usage is fine provided there is consistency within each article. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 19:13, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Is there actually any good reason to use these in articles? They're abbreviations, and abbreviations for things that aren't that long. While undoubtedly some abbreviations are OK in an encyclopedia article (no one wants to write out Philosophiae Doctor), I would think that the correct solution is almost always to substitute that is and for example. --Trovatore (talk) 20:38, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

That's true. I hardly use them myself. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 20:55, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

<Sigh!> There does not appear to be a consensus on this issue … I'll just chalk it up to the generation gap and MOVE ON … Happy Editing! — 138.88.32.143 (talk · contribs) _{15:48, 26 February 2009 (UTC)}

Time zones

When a time of an event is specified, it should be given in both local time (if applicable, and taking DST into account) and in UTC. GMT cannot be used as a substitute for UTC because it is not equivalent, and not traceable to UTC. --  Denelson83  02:02, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I think GMT and UTC are the same; UTC is maybe just a little more precisely defined. But how imprecise can GMT be? A second or two, max? Very very few WP articles need to state times more precisely than that; if they do, then fine, specify UTC, but it seems a little silly to worry about it in the general run of article.

On a similar note, I see no need to translate everything to GMT/UTC. If you're talking about, say, an event in space, then sure, makes sense. But why would you give, for example, the time of Barack Obama's inauguration in GMT? It didn't happen in London. --Trovatore (talk) 02:56, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

UTC did not come to exist until 1961, so can't be used for dates before then. The general term, which can be traced back as far as desired (with gradually decreasing precision), is UT. UT is not really necessary except when events in various parts of the world need to be compared. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 03:22, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

GMT properly refers to UT1, a special case of solar time. UTC is tied to atomic clocks, and time zones around the world all use offsets from UTC.

Okay, then a dual UTC/local time stamp should only be applied if the referred event occurs after January 1, 1961, since that is the first day of UTC. Also, if you gave the time of an event of worldwide significance in UTC, it can potentially make it simpler for the reader to convert that time into the time in his/her own local time zone. --  Denelson83  04:29, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Even if you are correct that "GMT properly refers to UT1" (our article UT1 disagrees), my point stands — the difference between UTC and UT1 is less than a second, so it's a useless distinction in 99.9% of the cases. On those extremely rare instances where there's any value in giving times to a precision of less than a second (I imagine these will be primarily astronomy articles) then sure, specify which time you mean.

I don't agree that making it slightly easier to determine when an event happened in one's own time zone is sufficient justification to make some encyclopedia-wide edict about giving London time for everything. What is this even good for? Do you really read about something that happened at 3:30-ish in Topeka and say "hey, what was I doing at that moment"? And if you do, well, it's not hard to figure out. --Trovatore (talk) 04:49, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I tend to agree. Local time is sometimes useful to provide context (day/night/morning/evening) or to show a timeline of events (such as for Chernobyl), but I do not think it should be mandatory to convert to UTC. If needed, a timezone reference may be just as appropriate, and avoids the need to deal with date boundaries. As for UTC vs GMT, I recognize that UTC is technically the preferred term, but I also believe that GMT is a common-usage equivalent for UTC when sub-second accuracy is not required and may even be more recognizable to the general audience outside the technical and scientific community. Even NASA uses GMT in many of its public relations materials. So in both cases, I'd suggest leaving the options open for editors to use their discretion. -- Tcncv (talk) 05:36, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I think that times should always be given in local time. Additionally, I think that the UTC time should be given once for any specific sequence of evenmts in an article. For example, in describing the September 11 attacks (all the events happened in the United States Eastern Time Zone during daylight savings time, which is UTC-4), it should say "At 8:46 a.m. (12:46 UTC), American Airlines Flight 11 was..." (this is the first reference to a specific clock time); in the rest of the section, it should just mention the local times. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 06:40, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Now that makes much more sense to me. Mention the UTC time, but don't overdo it. If anyone wants to know all of the times in UTC, it just comes down to simple arithmetic if all of the times are within a relatively short duration. --  Denelson83  07:30, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Of course, the time of the September 11 attacks is not known to sub-second accuracy, but strictly speaking, civil time in the US was not defined to be an offset from UTC until the passage of H.R. 2272: 21st Century Competitiveness Act of 2007. Before then, it was an offset from GMT and the precise meaning was up for grabs. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 18:43, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I think there's an important point that I'm not getting across here. It's a general principle that precision should not exceed accuracy (or at least, should not exceed it by much). You wouldn't, for example, say that Noah's ark was 30 cubits (15.572894 meters) across.

Similarly here. If we're quibbling on GMT versus UTC, it suggests that we know times to less than a second, which is almost never the case. If UTC were the recognized term even when one doesn't have that sort of accuracy available, then I suppose that would be OK, but it isn't (it's come out in the discussion that it wasn't even defined before 1961).

So when it is really necessary to give a world-wide time (I think this is rare) just stick with good old-fashioned Zulu, unless the accuracy needed to make the distinction is really there (and there's some reason to want to make it). Anything else is misleading. --Trovatore (talk) 20:46, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

"Zulu" is not an appropriate term because it is rather colloquial and is only one of several phonetics for the letter "Z". It is really the letter "Z" that is widely understood to mean Universal Time. I suggest that "UT" is a better term because it is well defined yet not specific as to which of several related time scales is intended (UT1, UT2, or UTC). --Gerry Ashton (talk) 20:56, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I didn't literally mean to put the word Zulu in the article. I meant put GMT in the article (in what I still maintain is the rare case that it's useful to have a worldwide standard); I was just calling it "Zulu" in a conversational tone. Sorry to have caused confusion.

I think GMT is better than UT because it's more widely understood, and precisely because it's not precisely defined. Precision should not exceed accuracy; vide supra. --Trovatore (talk) 21:35, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I did a bit of original research by conducting a survey of one (my daughter). I asked if she knew what GMT was – she did. I asked her if she knew what UTC was – she didn't. After I briefly explained the difference, she commented that she had always heard it referred to as GMT. I realize this was a severely limited and unscientific survey, but it does support the case that GMT is a more recognizable common-use term outside the technical community. Thus I think this term should be allowed or even preferred in non-technical articles and should be left intact if already present. -- Tcncv (talk) 02:09, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Curly quotes again, II

We had this one here. Yet I thought it was time to bring it up again.

The exclusive use of straight quotes and apostrophes (see preceding section) is recommended. They are easier to type in reliably, and to edit.

This recommendation doesn't make any sense. Yes, “xyz” is harder to type than "xyz", but that's what the MediaWiki:Edittools are there for. The MoS also encourages the use of en dashes (–) and em dashes (—) instead of hyphens (-) or double-hyphens (--), although it's a lot easier to type that last one. In my opinion, this recommendation should be reversed, saying curly quotes are actually the ones recommended. --bender235 (talk) 10:22, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Hell no, they are ugly as hell(I was thinking of the french quotes, still opposed to the idea however) and a pain to edit. Straight quotes is much saner to recommend. The analogy with en dashes and em dashes is flawed, the first indicates a union, the other indicates a break. Curly vs straight doesn't change anything in meaning. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 11:12, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, the quotes differentiate openings from closings; and the world obviously doesn't concur with your view that they're ugly (since they are used as standard in print). I don't see why they can't be generated automatically by the software (except in a few exceptional cases where we might need a special wikitext syntax).--Kotniski (talk) 11:59, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I thought the main reason for avoiding the use of curly quotation marks and apostrophes was that "Mixed use interferes with some searches, such as those using the browser's search facility (a search for Korsakoff's syndrome could fail to find Korsakoff’s syndrome and vice versa)": Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Quotation characters. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 13:34, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

1. They're still ugly, and there may be a difference in standards between print media and online media.
2. The search problem seems a compelling reason for not using them in contractions and possessives, but doesn't really seem definitive for quotations. More to the point, this distinction probably means it cannot be generated automatically. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:42, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

MS Word seems to manage it. In fact, in the font I always see WP pages displayed in, the curly ones don't look curly anyway. But it makes a difference in page titles (and in some other header styles I think). And I guess it depends whether you grew up reading books or computer screens, but for me the curly forms are aesthetically superior.--Kotniski (talk) 16:17, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

JackLee, this is not about article naming. It's only about the text in the article. Matter of fact there are characters for openings and closings of quotations (“”), so it's is clearly better to use them then using the poor substitute (") just because it happens to be on your average keyboard. We also use ′ (′) and ″ (″) for ft and in or min and sec instead of apostrophes (') and quotations ("), simply because the latter would not be correct typography. --bender235 (talk) 18:49, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

• I don't disagree that curly quotes look nicer, though I've grown used to the straight ones.
• From my reading of "Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Quotation characters", the concern is that a reader using his or her browser's search facility (e.g., CTRL-F) to search for terms containing quotation marks and apostrophes would be unable to find them if the curly versions were used, since ' is considered a different character from ’. Arthur Rubin is probably right in saying that this is more an issue for apostrophes rather than quotation marks since it's less likely that people will search for text fragments with quotation marks in them. Of course, a reader can avoid the problem by searching for, say, "Korsakoff" instead of "Korsakoff's syndrome", but this assumes that the person realizes the difference between ' and ’.
• I suppose it is also not likely that users will search for text with ′ and ″ in it. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 20:55, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Real curly quotes (like, say, the ones you get in LaTeX) might look nicer. Unfortunately they're not an option, at least with my fontset. The so-called curly quotes get rendered as basically two rectangles stuck together, with the wider rectangle at the bottom on the left set of quotes, and at the top on the right. In my judgment these are hideous, and as long as they're the best we can do, we should stick with straight quotes. --Trovatore (talk) 10:26, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

We got the decision wrong with dashes and have rendered them unsearchable as a result. We should not be repeating that mistake anywhere else. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:14, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Seriously, who is searching for a dash or a quotation mark? I mean, for example, if you were looking for that quote (“phased redeployment of U.S. troops from Iraq”) in the Barack Obama article, using CTRL-F in your browser, why would you type it with quotation marks? Type it w/out the marks, and you'll find it. I really don't see why we should use incorrect typography just because of some peoples inability to use their browser search. --bender235 (talk) 21:52, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Because if you don't use quotation marks, you'll find any article which contains all the words, in any order. If you're searching for something that doesn't contain buzzwords of 2009, that's not enough. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:34, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Are we still talking about the browser search (CTRL+F), or did you switch to Wikipedia search? --bender235 (talk) 11:12, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm talking about find-in-page, along with finding in text editors. If you don't think searching for a dash is a common use case, you've never tried to look for "07-08" in a list of football statistics. But thanks for the regular dose of "you're a moron, we shouldn't cater to you and your barbarian hordes" we've come to look forward to in WT:MOS. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:48, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

If you can't find "07-08", why not search "07–08"? Again, why should Wikipedia use wrong typography only because some people might not know how to use a browser search. Or do you try to obviate the risk that some one might be unable to find a certain quote because he doesn't realize he better type it in his browser search without the quotation marks? That's just ridiculous. What's next? Ban the use of special characters like ð in Jóhanna Sigurðardóttir, just because a slight percentage of people might not find that character on their computer? Seriously, you need to realize that hyphens, minus signs, and en dashes are different characters for a reason. Using a hyphen where a en dashes belongs is wrong typography. Using an x where a × belongs is wrong typography. Using a quotation mark (") where a prime (″) belongs is wrong typography. Once again, we don't do ASCII art here. --bender235 (talk) 14:24, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm nor sure where you got a keyboard with an en dash one it, but mine doesn't have one. Personally, I think we should be optimising for people who want to search for text with their keyboards rather than striving for a typographical purity which makes regular editing impractical for mortals with small character sets. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 14:51, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

You mean searching by readers, not editing, I presume? (Editors have all the characters supplied under the edit box.) To provide the best service to readers, we have to take various factors into account (including correctness of typography, ease of searching and others.) I think the majority of our readers would value correctness above the ability to search for something they hardly ever search for (and can copy-and-paste from the text in many cases). We can hope that browser manufacturers will improve their search functions so that hyphens match dashes and curlies match straight and so on; this isn't a problem that applies only to Wikipedia pages.--Kotniski (talk) 15:05, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

If you think all our editors are happy using that little Javascript box to enter characters as mundane as a dash then - well, actually, considering that you seem to think that it's obvious that readers "value correctness above" whatever, then I'd love to hear your explanation for why we've discouraged curly quotes outright for all this time. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 15:30, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Okay, so the character set allowed in Wikipedia articles should be limited to what's on your keyboard? So I guess that's it for all articles containing π, ß, ¿ or €. And numerous others. --bender235 (talk) 14:59, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

There is a difference between searching for a character which is very obviously not in the standard ASCII character set and once which differs from its analogue in the ASCII character set only in the minds (and indeed the eyes) of a minority of editors. Yes, browser search functionality could be enhanced to catch these, but it's unlikely that in the near future any browser edit box will be able to seamlessly pair off curly quotes with one another as word processors currently do. I am somewhat non-keen to go through another round of beating down straw men on this issue. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 15:30, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I think you seriously need to realize that despite - and – or " and ″ might look alike, they're still totally different characters. They are not interchangeable. It's not about what looks correct in my eyes, but what in fact is correct. You can't subsitute ß for β, or p for ρ, or a for α. It's just not correct. ––bender235 (talk) 16:01, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

You're clinging to a fantasy. The only convention Wikipedia must follow is that which it chooses for itself, and in making that choice there is no single factor that automatically trumps all others. Yes, it'd be nice to achieve what you mistakenly call orthographic "correctness", but not if it's at the expense of more important principles. Ilkali (talk) 16:15, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Okay, so let's give up correct orthography and typography. It just has to look like it is correct. So who cares if there's a p for a ρ? Heck, why not use I instead of l. Spell Illinois or lIIinois – it looks alike, so who cares? Am I right? This is ridiculous. --bender235 (talk) 18:24, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

"Spell Illinois or lIIinois – it looks alike, so who cares? Am I right?" No, you're wrong again. The latter rendering would cause problems for searching, computational analysis, etc, and there's no benefit to not spelling the word the normal way. Are you beginning to see yet? We don't follow external conventions just because they're there. Ilkali (talk) 19:18, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

So you assume people can tell a l from a I (look alike, but not that same character), but not a - from a — (also look alike, but not the same character). Okay, I got it. We'll never solve that one. --bender235 (talk) 17:13, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

"So you assume people can tell a l from a I". Did you even read my comment? I didn't say anything about visual distinctiveness. Ilkali (talk) 17:23, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I read your comment. You say people who'd type "lIInois" (incorrect) in their browser search wouldn't find "Illinois" (correct), because it's wrong characters. Also, if they type "07-08" (incorrect) they won't find "07–08" (correct). That implies that you assume Wikipedia readers to think that Wikipedia is written with wrong characters on purpose, in terms of characters not on keyboards. Yet I don't agree with that. --bender235 (talk) 17:47, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

This concept of "wrong typography" is nonsensical. There is no right or wrong in semiotics, just conventional and unconventional. What you don't understand is that conventions are observed for the reason that, and to the extent to which, they make communication more effective. There is no divine mandate to follow an externally-defined convention in cases where it makes things more difficult for everyone. Different contexts carry different constraints and call for different conventions. Live with it. Ilkali (talk) 15:20, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

← The hyphen, en dash, and em dash have distinct roles (adjunction, disjunction, and break/parenthesis, respectively) in English, as do the letters 'I' and 'L'; the p and ρ; etc. A pair of curly quotes and a pair of straight quotes do not. The prime may be an exception—I recall most Internet sources replacing it with an apostrophe, so I suppose that it's just common practice. π, ß, ¿, and € are not replaceable by any ASCII characters, but curly quotes are (by straight quotes).

Bender, to address the statement on your talk page ("This rule (using wrong characters just because it's easier that way) just doesn't make any sense, so ignore it."): Straight quotes are not wrong characters. My conjecture would be that Wikipedia prefers ASCII over Unicode if the ASCII char does not play a distinct role, but exceptions can be made if the vast majority of people use Unicode (e.g. apostrophes in place of primes, Greek variables in math articles). —LOL ^T/_C 18:15, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

The hyphen, en dash, and em dash have distinct roles (adjunction, disjunction, and break/parenthesis, respectively) in English, as do the letters 'I' and 'L'; the p and ρ; etc. A pair of curly quotes and a pair of straight quotes do not.

That's where you're wrong. A “ marks the beginning of a quotation, while ” marks the end. Replacing them with "" doesn't do the trick (just 50% of it, actually). But okay, it seems like there's an overwhelming majority in the English Wikipedia advocating the use of "" instead of “” (it's exactly the opposite situation in the German Wikipedia, so you know where I'm coming from). I can live with that. --bender235 (talk) 18:30, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

It's true that the left curly is different from the right curly, but I was trying to say that "A pair of curly quotes and a pair of straight quotes" (emphasis added) are no different. That is, ”foo“ is incorrect, but there is no difference between “bar” and "bar" as far as English is concerned (I don't know about German, though). I don't see how straight quotes don't do the trick for humans; I have no trouble identifying the beginning and end of each quotation (and the Wikipedia font on my computer is Arial)! —LOL ^T/_C 18:52, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Now I'm wondering if the MOS contradicts itself; here are some excerpts:

1. "There are two options when considering the look of the quotation marks ...
   • Typewriter or straight style ...
   • Typographic or curly style ..."
2. "Styling of apostrophes and quotes ... should all be straight, not curly;"
3. "The exclusive use of straight quotes and apostrophes ... is recommended."

Does #1 contradict #2 and #3? —LOL ^T/_C 07:49, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Not really. #1 is really just pointing out the existence of two different prevailing forms; it isn't saying that either may be used. if the reader is left uncertain by #1, he's not going to be left uncertain by the time he gets to #2 and #3. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 14:43, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

That's what I had hoped for, but I'm afraid that users may misinterpret "There are two options" (in existence) as "There are two options to be used in Wikipedia articles" (example), and then don't get to #2 and #3. Do you think we can reword it in such a way that it cannot mislead readers? I'm thinking about mimicking the format of WP:ELLIPSIS, so:

There have traditionally been two styles concerning the look of the quotation marks (that is, the glyph):

• Typewriter or straight style: "text", 'text'. Recommended.
• Typographic or curly style: “text”, ‘text’. Not recommended.

—LOL ^T/_C 03:25, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Fine by me. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:47, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Floating TOC - when can it be used?

I have recently encountered, forced more pointedly, a small cadre of editors that demand that a TOCright is not acceptable. Reasoning with them that it removes white space, makes article easier to read, and allows the article to appear more like "hard print" articles are met with those being insufficient to merit its use. In reviewing guidelines I have yet to find when it can and when it can't be used. In addition, it seems like these editors ignore all attempt at consensus because TOCright is not the norm. I know this topic has been discussed here and elsewhere. The current guidance here just leaves it open-ended. Some further guidance would be appreciated. Cheers. --^StormRider 21:12, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Alert! The request above comes with baggage and contains language that represents only one side of a dispute regarding Storm Rider's strong protection of his favored format. Here are the relevant links:

• Formatting discussion

• More eyes needed at Golden Plates

Please read them first and factor them into any response. One admin has already expressed a willingness to censure or block Storm Rider for his "personal attacks and other such nonsense" in this matter.

OTOH, the request contains elements that do deserve an answer independently of any existing dispute(s). -- Fyslee (talk) 22:23, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Please do not confuse the issue; your hounding is again noted. The only topic I am addressing is floating TOC (right or left). Your unwelcome desire to confuse the issue is dissappointing. I get it that you have begun to follow me around and begun to edit articles that you have never edited before and are areas that I have long participated; regardless, the only topic we are discussing is floating TOC. --^StormRider 22:16, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I have answered on your talk page. BTW, I have always been interested in Mormonism. My parents lived in Provo for several years and I received (yes, free!) the Book of Mormon when in the temple in Salt Lake City and then acquired the Pearl of Great Price and Doctrine and Covenants and read them all. Interesting reading. -- Fyslee (talk) 05:44, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Ignoring the personal attacks (which are really another issue entirely), it's that TOCright isn't the norm which is the problem here rather than any other consideration. In my experience, TOCright is frequently used in situations where either {{TOClimit}} would suffice or where there's no need for an override in the first place. Golden plates is no different from any numberof articles which cope fine without overriding the TOC, and in addition has a lede image which would interfere with it. Those who advocate the use of TOCright in the general case (i.e. where there's no specific reason for overriding other than the general subjective concerns expressed in Storm Rider's first post in this thread) should be trying to get the default changes rather than causing the layout of the odd article to be arbitrarily inconsistent with the rest of the encyclopedia. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:05, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

What about TOCleft, which is Storm Rider's normally preferred format? Would it be appropriate to tweak the guidelines to include something like this: "Personal preference is not a legitimate reason for not using the default TOC. Other, significant reasons should be used to justify deviating from the default TOC." ? BTW, he has also left a slightly different version of his comment here. -- Fyslee (talk) 15:21, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Left-floated elements should be used sparingly if ever. Again, the chief issue is that adding them without any further justification than "I like this layout generally" should be discouraged on the grounds that it burdens the reader with a harder task of finding and using the TOC if its placement is entirely dependent on the whims of the article's last editor. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 15:36, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Sparingly is not very clear. The TOC delete discussion provided that there were only a few hundred articles in 2006 that used it. I believe I stated above that the reason I prefer use a floating layout was to remove white space, make articles easier to read, and reflect hard printing styles where white space is anathema. I find it difficult to believe that readers will be confused when they find a TOC on the left rather than the right and that confusion will lead to being unable to read the TOC; that seems a specious argument.

To provide more clarification as to when floating may be used will prevent exactly the arguments you present above, "I like it this way" and "I prefer it the other way". Currently, no direction is given except that it may be used and now the only discussion can really evolve around how many people on a given article prefer it one way or the other, which seems fruitless. Clarification will end this discussion in its entirety. --^StormRider 16:06, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I've replied below. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 16:17, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

My motivation for asking the question is bigger than one article; it applies to Wikipedia as a whole and really is about TOC floating. There is a default setting so that any editor can begin a new article and the TOC defaults to a specific place; it simplifies the editing process. However, as editors learn more about editing, they gain the ability to choose where to place items, TOC in this instance, but what is not provided is when can we manipulate TOC placement. It appears to me that it can be very subjective. When you review the discussion marked above for TOCright (TOC floating in general) to be deleted, there was a multiple of editors that voted to keep it rather than to delete. Editors did express a reserve about when it should be used, but no clarification was then provided to guide. Is it always subjective? Are default settings inflexible? If consensus is to guide, does every article formating need to be discussed/argued? When articles appear "different" in this minor formatting does it destroy the reading experience of readers? Is uniformity valuable above all else? Can some diversity in the formatting of TOC be allowed and if so under what parameters?

For me personally, I detest white space. I enjoy seeing a flow from the introduction into the body with boxes, pictures, TOC, tables etc. interspersed throughout without a break or introduction of white space. I appreciate when our articles reflect the same standards of hard print articles. I would like to see more clarification provided so that format diversity are allowed and direct under what circumstances diversity can exist. Doing so will further minimize edit warring and all editors will be empowered to know when it acceptable and when it is not. Cheers. --^StormRider 15:58, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, the answer to "when can it be used" is simple. When both of the following conditions are met:

1. It is established that the readability / presentation of the article, were it to use the standard TOC layout, would be adversely affected compared to regular articles;
2. There is consensus to do so.

That one may place a TOC where one wishes does not imply that one should. Despite this being framed as "a few zealous editors removing TOCright out of personal preference", it seems obvious that only a few editors believe that the TOC's default placement adversely affects the project; in general, leaving the defaults as they are ensures that our article structure is more consistent, easier to emulate when writing new articles, and furthermore easier to adjust if the default TOC styling every is changed (as all articles which don't currently override it will pick up on the change). It should certainly not be overridden lightly based on personal preference. This is basically the same rule that applies to everything prescribed by the Manual of Style. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 16:17, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

So then how does one determine "adversely" affects the project? Does white space qualify or not? Is concensus the only determinator then? It seems subjective to the group involved; a group of editors decides the article default adversely affects format, consensus is achieved, TOC if floated. Six weeks later editor X comes by, sees a format not in default format, changes it to default and instant edit war ensues. I think the MOS needs to be more clear because it currently is anything but clear and the only parameter is can consensus be achieved. There is no definition to "adversely affects". Adverse to one is welcomed by another. --^StormRider 21:54, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

By discussion, precedent, and proposed changes to the wording which would clarify it. For instance, the article referred to earlier (golden plates) has a very common layout, and empirical evidence suggests that it is extremely uncommon that the TOC is floated in similar articles. On the other hand, List of diseases (S) is so long that it uses its own entirely unique, hand-hacked TOC. It would appear from the wording you've used in your replies thus far that you have a rather different standard to that of most editors when it comes to TOC placement; you may vey well have a point, but you'd be better trying to effect a global change in the TOC placement guidelines rather than arguing piecemeal for their inclusion on a given set of articles. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 22:19, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Can you please direct me to a description of that process so that I may begin it. My only objective is to create, contribute to, and assist in maintaining excellent articles. There is no reason for an edit war on this simply topic. Format is important and clarifying the language and seekingn consensus would be beneficial for all. --^StormRider 22:32, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm no expert on such global guideline shifts. Many of the regulars on WT:MOS are, however; hopefully one of them can assist. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 22:42, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I will wait for one of them to offer some guidance. --^StormRider 23:33, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I too think Storm Rider's interest in getting clear(er) guidelines is legitimate and that would help the situation. Right now the default is an automatic TOC (no use of a TOC code) that automatically creates white space, so the default (deliberately intended result) for nearly all (99.999%? ;-) regular articles and lists is white space after the LEAD and before the first heading.

Personally I am more interested in consistency throughout Wikipedia than I am with white space/no white space. We just need consistent formatting. If we decide that no white space is to be the default, that would be fine with me. In the current dispute, the TOCleft was creating a messed up article with both right and left margins darting in and out around the TOCleft and an image. It didn't look good, so for me it was detrimental to the appearance of the article, which is a reason given for not floating the TOC. Normally we shouldn't use the code at all, except in lists and under very unusual circumstances with very good objective grounds for deviating from the default. Subjective preferences are not (never?) legitimate grounds for deviating from the default MOS. When it comes to MOS, especially formatting, I don't think personal preference or editorial consensus among the few editors at some article should be allowed to override defaults. Those defaults should be universal and decided at policy/guideline level.

If we go for a floated TOC with no white space, I'd vote for a TOCright, and any images nearby also to stay on the right, so the text is in one block on the left. Why? Because it's most important that the left margin is preserved all the way to the left. -- Fyslee (talk) 05:20, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Freedom of the City

What would be the correct capitalization of this? Freedom of the city redirects to Freedom of the City which starts "Freedom of the city is an honour...." --Derek Andrews (talk) 12:04, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

A Google search seems to strongly favour the capitalization of the 'C'. Have you considered asking at Talk:Freedom of the City? —LOL ^T/_C 12:29, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

"Freedom of the City" is the honor usually called "Key to the City" in the U.S., an honorary award. Because "He was given a key to the city" or "He was given the freedom of the city" might easily be misinterpreted, especially by someone from another country who isn't familiar with the phrase, and since in any individual instance, it's a proper noun, capitalize it as a proper noun in Wikipedia. But I can't see capitalizing "keys to the city" because one requirement for being a proper noun is that there's just one of them. ("Both Senators Schumer and Franken ..." is okay because it's elliptical for "Senator Schumer and Senator Franken"; compare with "two senators, Schumer and Franken, ...") - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 12:59, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm against capitalizing senator and using it as a title in Wikipedia. We don't call people Mr. or Dr., so we shouldn't call them Senator. Use it lower case and postnominally only. --Trovatore (talk) 20:43, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you both.--Derek Andrews (talk) 18:56, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Italics within italics

There is no mention of how to cope with this. Specifically when you are using a title that references another title.じんない 07:53, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Generally, the internal phrase that would normally be italicized as a title loses its italics, e.g., "Shakespeare's Macbeth and its Impact on Scottish Identity". — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 09:10, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm also talking about when using descriptive titles in citations which are unofficial, specifically for translated works or sites that do not have a title (while rare with reliable sources, it does happen) since the citation template for cite web auto-italicizes all titles.

There are also some times when such titles do still italicize the original work.じんない 09:39, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean exactly. Can you provide an example? {{Citation}} allows you to reverse the italicization of certain parts of a title, but I don't know about {{Cite web}}. See the example below:

Wikitext: {{citation|author=Bill Testing|title=Shakespeare's ''Macbeth'' and its Impact on Scottish Identity|location=Testingland|publisher=It's a Test Publishing|year=2009}}.

Result: Bill Testing (2009), Shakespeare's Macbeth and its Impact on Scottish Identity, Testingland: It's a Test Publishing.

— Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 05:37, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Manual of Style (chemistry) ratified

Pleased to announce that the Chemistry MOS has been ratified by WP:CHEMISTRY. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 18:22, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

MOS:SCROLL duplicated shortcut

Just noticed that MOS:SCROLL is the shortcut for WP:MOS#Scrolling lists but also claims to be the shortcut for WP:ACCESS#Scrolling and collapsible sections. Which should it be? Am also posting this at WT:ACCESS#MOS:SCROLL duplicated shortcut as I don't know where the best place for the discussion would be. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 22:38, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Musician infobox

Hello there. I've just got a question here. A while ago, I tried to put line breaks between genres in an artist infobox, but I was told that according to the Manual of Style, they have to be listed as a sentence, only the first genre is a capital, and it has to be alphabetical order.

I then noticed someone who tried to do what I did. I reverted him, citing those reasons, and I explained on his talk page. He's ignored me and did it twice more. The diffs is question are here, here, and here. The anon who did it was 74.81.243.250.

Was what I did correct? Are the genres supposed to be listed as a sentence, only the first genre has a capital, and it has to be listed in alphabetical order? If so, was my warning to the guy justified since he did it more than once? If my warnings were justified, what action can be taken to prevent him from repeating this action?

Thanks! 58.166.184.238 (talk) 03:38, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Which part of the Manual of Style are you relying on for the proposition that different musical genres must be listed in a sentence in the Musician infobox? I don't believe MoS addresses this issue at all. This may be a guideline laid down by the editors active at the WikiProject which uses the Musician infobox, in which case the discussion should be taken there. Personally, both methods of presenting musical genres (list vs. sentence) seem fine to me, though of course the list method makes the infobox longer, which may disrupt the layout of the article. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 08:07, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

The relevant topic is actually WP:accessibility. Infobox data fields should contain one point per cell; line breaks confuse screen readers. This either means changing the infobox or mandating that commas be used instead of line breaks. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:45, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

So, are both methods acceptable? I'm afraid I don't really understand what you mean. Are you saying there's a mandate that commas be used, or are you saying something completely different? (Sorry for the trouble). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.166.184.238 (talk) 15:19, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

It's not widely listened to in some parts of the project, but yes - line breaks should not be used as delimeters in infobox data fields. Ideally, there should be one item per table cell, but if not then commas will do. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 16:30, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Ah, righto. Thanks for that. So, if I see the user do this again, what would be the best course of action? 58.166.184.238 (talk) 06:34, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Revert the change, and politely explain in the edit summary or on the talk page that you are doing so to comply with "Wikipedia:Accessibility". — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 09:38, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.166.184.238 (talk) 10:07, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Hello. He's done it again. I told him on his talk page. What do I do if it happens again? because he's ignored me three times before. 58.169.162.12 (talk) 05:48, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

If the editor has violated the three-revert rule and refuses to discuss the matter on his talk page or the talk page of the article (probably a better place for the discussion to take place since the editor is an anonymous IP), then report the matter at "Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring". You might also try to have the article semi-protected by filing a request at "Wikipedia:Requests for page protection", but the administrators managing that page are usually reluctant to protect pages unless there is persistent vandalism. Also, since you are also an anonymous IP, page protection would prevent you from editing the article. (Have you considered creating an account for yourself?) — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 07:01, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

He hasn't violated 3RR; I think he's on the other side of the globe from me, so our edits are pretty far apart. i suppose I'll bring it to the article talk page, and request page protection if it happens again after that.

About creating an account, I have considered it, but for now I feel more comfortable editing anonymously since I don't edit all that often. I will probably create one if a few of the pages I go to get semi-protected around the same time.

Thanks for your input! 58.169.162.12 (talk) 03:41, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Long guideline

This guideline is pretty freakin' long. Anyone think some sort of split is warranted? Equazcion •✗/C • 04:08, 4 Mar 2009 (UTC)

I agree it is long, but this may be a case were it is justified. It is advantageous to have a summary of the most commonly referenced style guidelines in one place, so that once an editor finds this page, the topic of interest is likely only one click away from the table of contents. That said, I also believe that a detailed table of contents is needed for this guideline, so I disagree with the use of {{toclimit|limit=2}} in the current version. For example, if I'm looking for guidance on dashes I must click Punctuation and then scroll down seven or eight pages. I'd rather be able to view the full TOC (even if I have to scroll) so I can pick out a detailed topic, such as Em dashes. -- Tcncv (talk) 07:28, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

At least as far as the TOC is concerned, I think they become useless and ignored when they get that long. TOCs are suppose to be a means of cutting to a general section of a page, rather than an extensive list of specifics on a page. There are too many specific headers in this page for it to be of its intended use if left unchecked. But let's see what other have to say about that. Equazcion •✗/C • 07:54, 4 Mar 2009 (UTC)

The real solution is to trim. We don't need to say most of this stuff, and much of what we say isn't what English does. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:30, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Or... We could try out something original. What about a two-step approach? Restrict the table of contents to primary headings, and create secondary ToCs for each section (except those with only one sub-section). It would divide the page into easily manageable segments for navigational purposes, and allow editors unfamiliar with the Manual to go quickly where they want, without getting lost in a long list.

Either that, or a custom-made ToC for the top, more table-like, with prominent section names or some other feature (I am not sure collapsibility is possible) allowing for clear grouping of the primary sections. I do think, in any case, that navigation is the element we must pay attention to, if we take it as a given that the page cannot be subdivided. It's supposed to be for general reference, after all. Waltham, The Duke of 00:30, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I like the custom TOC table idea. Good thinking. Equazcion •✗/C • 00:37, 7 Mar 2009 (UTC)

Here is one possibility. The words still need to be somehow made links to the headings.

1 General principles 1.1 Internal consistency 1.2 Stability of articles

2 Article titles, headings, and sections 2.1 Article titles 2.2 Section headings 2.3 Main article link 2.4 Section management

3 Capital letters 3.1 Titles of people 3.2 Religions, deities, philosophies, doctrines, and their adherents 3.3 Calendar items 3.4 Animals, plants, and other organisms 3.5 Celestial bodies 3.6 Directions and regions 3.7 Institutions

4 Acronyms and abbreviations

5 Italics

6 Non-breaking spaces

7 Quotations

8 Punctuation 8.1 Apostrophes 8.2 Quotation marks 8.3 Brackets and parentheses 8.3.1 Sentences and brackets 8.4 Ellipses 8.5 Commas 8.5.1 Serial commas 8.6 Colons 8.7 Semicolons 8.8 Hyphens 8.9 Dashes 8.9.1 En dashes 8.9.2 Em dashes 8.9.3 Other dashes 8.10 Slashes 8.10.1 And/or 8.11 Punctuation at the end of a sentence 8.12 Punctuation and inline citations 8.13 Punctuation after formulae

9 Geographical items

10 Chronological items 10.1 Precise language for dates 10.2 Times 10.3 Dates 10.4 Longer periods

11 Numbers 11.1 Numbers as figures or words 11.2 Large numbers 11.3 Decimal points 11.4 Percentages

12 Units of measurement 12.1 Which system to use 12.2 Conversions 12.3 Unit symbols and abbreviations 12.4 Clarify ambiguous units 12.5 Unnecessary vagueness

13 Currencies

14 Common mathematical symbols

15 Simple tabulation

16 Grammar 16.1 Possessives 16.2 First-person pronouns 16.3 Second-person pronouns 16.4 Contested vocabulary 16.5 Contractions 16.6 Instructional and presumptuous language 16.7 Subset terms 16.8 Plurals 16.9 Ampersand 16.10 National varieties of English 16.10.1 Consistency within articles 16.10.2 Strong national ties to a topic 16.10.3 Retaining the existing variety 16.10.4 Opportunities for commonality 16.11 Foreign terms 16.12 Identity 16.13 Gender-neutral language

17 Images 17.1 Images as text

18 Captions 18.1 Usage 18.2 Formatting

19 Bulleted and numbered lists

20 Links 20.1 Wikilinks 20.2 External links

21 Miscellaneous 21.1 Keep markup simple 21.2 Formatting issues 21.2.1 Color coding 21.3 Scrolling lists 21.4 Invisible comments 21.5 Pronunciation

22 See also

23 Notes

24 Style guides on other Wikimedia projects

25 Further reading

-- Wavelength (talk) 01:09, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Scrolling is easy. I am not dissatisfied with the size of the table of contents, but some editors are. It is for them that I suggest this alternative as a concession. -- Wavelength (talk) 05:41, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Attempts to re-introduce fragmentation to the styleguides on linking

Regulars here will be aware of the long-standing and widely recognised need to rationalise WP's Manual of Style, which has spread like topsy over the years. A particular problem was our advice on linking, for years expressed at no fewer than three locations: MOSLINK (now WP:LINKING), WP: CONTEXT, and the small Build the web. User:Kotniski did a fine job several months ago of rationalising them into one page (MOSLINK), and gained local consensus, after a merger had been flagged on all three pages for months. Compromises were made to gain the support of Build the web people. I'm sure editors have since been grateful to find advice on linking in just one place.

Build the web comprises just a few paragraphs that were mostly unobjectionable and obvious in the context of a wiki, but of a tone and content that IMO is largely unsuitable for a style guide; it contained almost nothing that is not now at MOSLINK (LINKING), whether using the same words or paraphrased.

Over the past week, however, a few editors have come in and resurrected WP:BTW without substantive reason (none has been expressed, at least), insisting that it be an official guideline. On its talk page, I have written out and numbered each of the sentences at BTW, asking that reasons for their existence at a separate MoS be provided.

Thus far, there has been absolutely no response on that count. Instead, suggestions that BTW should go back to being an historical relic, as originally agreed, are met by accusations by a User:Locke Cole such as that Kotniski and I are "expanding [our] MOS power grab beyond MOS pages".

I bring this to your attention because it is disappointing to see mighty pressure to turn back the clock on a progressive move towards rationalising the MoS. I hope that it's not a spin-off from the "date-delinking" case, still going, at ArbCom (although I have no evidence of that). If it succeeded, it would call into question the long-term viability of the Wikipedia:WikiProject_Manual_of_Style, which was set up only last year to try to encourage and manage such rationalisations. Perhaps Kotniski and I are failing to understand something of which experienced editors here might be able to apprise us. Tony (talk) 11:44, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

• • How editwarring over a non-MOS page (like Build the Web) is "rationalizing MOS" is a mystery.
  • Tony's use of fragmentation, however, is worthy of Humpty-Dumpty: "When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean – neither more nor less." The "fragmentation" consists of having a merge, determined upon in January by a small bunch of editors, over protest, undone in February. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:31, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

An ARBCOM-proposed RfC on date linking/autoformatting

As many of those who keep tabs here know, there has been an ongoing arbitration case on (de)linking chronological items. One of the clerks has started the framework for perhaps the most intricate RfC on the issue yet, which includes date autoformatting and other definitions of said feature. Please see User:Ryan Postlethwaite/Date linking RfC for the draft of the RfC and discuss its scope and questions at its corresponding discussion page. Opinions on the formatting of such an RfC are welcome here. Dabomb87 (talk) 18:39, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Use of period

I came across a series of edits today wherein the editor was adding an additional period (.) at the end of sentences that ended with p.m. or a person's initials, as [As well as a small role in All Grown Up!, as Sulky Boy's band member J.T.. here]. I'm a bit confused and don't know for certain if this is erroneous or not. Could someone provide some insight here? Wildhartlivie (talk) 23:16, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

That's absolutely improper. An abbreviating period and a terminal period are never used together in English. One period and one period only in all the cases you describe.—DCGeist (talk) 23:25, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

American vs. British English - consistency within an article and templates

If a template transcluded across pages (such as {{Current MKs}}) contains a word with different American and British spellings, and different pages which transclude it use different spellings (in this case, Dan Meridor and Amir Peretz use British spellings, while most MK articles use American), which spelling should the template use? עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:29, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Ideally, I suppose, the template ought to contain a parameter which determines the spelling, using syntax something like:

{{#switch:{{{spelling|}}}|GB=colour|color}}

Or have two different versions of the template.--Kotniski (talk) 10:34, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Having 2 different versions of a template which is likely to be changed about half a dozen times a year is probably a bad idea. The specific template I'm talking about is {{Current MKs}}, which has a link to the Israeli Labo(u)r Party. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 10:47, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, if it's going to be changing, better to use a parser function. I've updated the template and will try it out on the two pages you mention.--Kotniski (talk) 11:03, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

• What, is this the Israeli Labor Party, again? Learn to live with it, as we learn to live with other alternate spellings in infoboxes. (I am moderately surprised that this has not been resolved by adopting the u, as we do with the British Labour Party; Labour is not uncommon in American coverage of Israel, being the party's own spelling since it was formed under the British Mandate.) In the meantime, we can be inconsistent once within some articles without Wikipedia collapsing; if we had a See Also to the Party, would anybody care if it used the u or not? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:24, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

This navbox is present on several pages, including Benjamin Netanyahu, who can reasonably be considered American - I would think it would be wrong to use British spelling for his article. It's also likely that (maybe not now) there is an MK who can be similarly be considered British. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 17:16, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

The purpose of WP:ENGVAR's remarks on strong ties is that some articles will be read, and will normally be written, almost entirely by one nationality; thus, for example, Thomas Jefferson should not use colour or defence because they will be stumbling blocks to most of the article's readers, in the (unlikely) event that they occur there in the first place. We should probably explain this in the section.

If Netanyahu were strongly tied to America, in this sense, you would not have been tempted to spell his first name Binjamin, but would have used Benjamin. American grandparents are not enough; by that standard Jefferson is strongly tied to Great Britain - his grandparents were the immigrants. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:34, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

The reason I was tempted is because that's how the way his name in Hebrew would be transliterated into English, as Binyamin. And he is American based on some of the categories the article is in, and by the fact that he spent the later part of the 1970's in America, see the first section of the article. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 17:40, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

And Bill Clinton spent the late 1960's in England; but his article is in American, because Americans wrote it and may be expected to read it. The converse does not apply to Netanyahu, MIT graduate or not. We really should clarify. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:46, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Regardless of this, to go every 2-3 years and confirm that 20-30 articles are written in the same type of English as the navbox would seem to be unreasonable. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 17:58, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Fortunately, the solution is simple: not to worry about the furschlogene navbox. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:02, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

• Clarified. Native country may need thought; Wodehouse and Auden both emigrated, and both write mid-Atlantic English, so this should probably not apply there. and recast. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:02, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
  • This is primarily intended to avoid the (unlikely) case in which an article which will be overwhelmingly read by one nationality has been written in another national dialect. Australians should not stumble over Americanisms in Australian Defence Force; Americans should not find Anglicisms in American Civil War. Using an author's chosen variety of English may also be desirable, especially if the author's writings are quoted in his article; some readers will be disconcerted by the shift between Tolkien's very English prose and another dialect, for example. Some authors, like Sir Pelham Grenville Wodehouse, intentionally mix national varieties of English in their own prose.

The third sentence the best reason I can think of for requiring British English for Tolkien, as in the list of examples, which existed before; if it is not persuasive, we should consider removing him from the list. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:18, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

That's the best I can do. Discussion? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:09, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Being it a proper name, shouldn't we use the spelling that party use themselves when writing in English? --A. di M. (talk) 10:47, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

For Israeli Labour Party? I don't think the Israelis are consistent on the spelling. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:22, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

WP:1P

While there is a shortcut for WP:YOU, there is none for First-person pronouns. WP:I is already taken, how about WP:1P and/or MOS:1P as shortcuts?

Are there templates to flag uses of first-person pronouns? —Preceding unsigned comment added by DavidBiesack (talk • contribs) 16:38, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Year ranges to present day

Hi all. I've been working on this table, which includes data on the years in which teams have participated in the league. At the moment, I've left trailing endashs to indicate where teams are involved from a certain year to the present day, but is this correct? Or is it better to say 1984–present, for example? Bettia (bring on the trumpets!) 15:34, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

MOS:DATE#Other_date_ranges specifically allows the open-ended form 1996– in lists (which I interpret as including tables), and it recommends against using the 1996–present form. Looks like what you have is fine. -- Tcncv (talk) 02:14, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Excellent. Thank you very much for your help! Bettia (bring on the trumpets!) 14:51, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Discourage use of "Research" in section headings

I added the following rule of thumb to Wikipedia:Words to avoid#Article and section titles:

Sections containing many references to various studies are preferably not simply titled "Research" without further specification. Unless the contents relate to basic principles in researching and could fit into the main article Research, the titles of such sections are better specified with what the studies and their results are aimed at. This does a great favor to the reader, who probably prefers to know the relevance of the studies for the subject at hand rather than the research itself.

However, it was suggested [3] that it would fit better here (seems to me to be in Wikipedia:MOS#Section headings). However, I still think it fitted better in Wikipedia:Words to avoid#Article and section titles. What do you think? Mikael Häggström (talk) 15:44, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Manual of Style -> Manual of style

Could an admin please move this page to Wikipedia:Manual of style in keeping with Wikipedia:Manual of style#Capital_letters? This page might as well follow its own guidelines. Thanks, --Roger Chrisman (talk) 20:48, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Which part of the manual are you citing? Ilkali (talk) 20:55, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Specifically Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Article_titles. --Roger Chrisman (talk) 01:28, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

It's capitalized because it's a proper noun, as it's *the* Manual of Style, not *a* manual of style. Example: The Chicago Manual of Style. Mushroom (Talk) 21:01, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

By that logic every Wikipedia article would use title case -- *the* Wikipedia Flowering Plant article, not *a* Wikipedia flowering plant article. Wikipedia has chosen specifically and somewhat uniquely not to use title case for Wikipedia article names. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Article titles. The unique Wikipedia article Wikipedia: manual of style is no more a proper noun than the unique Wikipedia article flowering plant. Wikipedia is a proper nown. Manual of style is not. Shall we use title case for all pages in the Wikipedia: name space? Just some? Have no style guidelines there at all? I suggest for simple clarity the Wikipedia: name space follow the wp: manual of style, including the wp: manual of style#Article titles guidelines. --Roger Chrisman (talk) 01:28, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I do not agree. The flowering plant article is about the general concept of "flowering plant", and style guide, likewise, is about the general concept of "style guide". Wikipedia:Manual of Style, however, is the specific style guide whose rules apply to Wikipedia, and its title is Manual of Style. Just like the title of The Chicago Manual of Style, the AP Stylebook, or any other manual, it is a proper noun and it should use title case. Mushroom (Talk) 02:46, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

It probably would have been better to lowercase Manual of Style in the first place, but it will break a lot of links to change it now, so let's leave it. The capitalization does imply that it's a proper noun, and treating a page title as a proper noun is a little out of line with Wikipedian convention, but we'll live. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 12:48, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Main Page is another similar one. I don't think these are really out of step with convention - it's very rare for a page to be called after what it is rather than what it's about, but when it is called after what it is, it makes sense to use title capitalization.--Kotniski (talk) 13:17, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Then we should call it after what it's about: WP:Style. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:28, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I think the issue is about obeying the basics of the English language, which is this; it's a title, regardless of how you slice it. All titles should be capitalized, per standards of the English lanuage, which capitolizes every major word in a title... if it were another language, I couldn't comment, but since this is English, my first instinct is to capitolize all the major words, simply because it is a title... Magus732 (talk) 03:14, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Blockquote example

Maybe a nit, but shouldn't the blockquote example be 4 lines or more to be consistent with the guidelines? (John User:Jwy talk) 15:33, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

It is four lines, and it is also required to be in a block because it is two paragraphs. --Jc3s5h (talk) 16:35, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

The finished blockquote example is not four lines, but one line and an authorship tag. Of course, it depends on the width of your screen how many lines it is. But that quote is so short, it would take a screenwidth of about 6" to make it four lines. (Taivo (talk) 16:55, 12 March 2009 (UTC))

Transitive verbs versus gerunds.

I have noticed the tendency - particularly among younger persons - to attempt to use gerunds as transitive verbs. A transitive verb is an action word. A gerund is the name of an action and is used as an adjective or noun only .

Here's an example of someone who tried to use the gerund 'managing' as a verb: "She contacted the person managing the desk." Common sense (along with the rules of good grammar) dictates that a person does not 'managing' a desk. They 'manage' it. The correct grammar should be: "She contacted the person who manages the desk."

I don't know whether the rules of good English are no longer taught or if it's simply a very cavalier (and uncaring?) attitude toward one's own writing and speaking attributes and abilities. Perhaps it's just a basic desire to 'go along with crowd'... even if what the crowd does is 'wrong'?

What are your thoughts?

Gynomann (talk) 12:11, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, Gynomann, but that example you give is not a gerund, but a present participle and is perfectly grammatical. It is exactly equivalent to "I saw the man chained to the bed" with a past participle instead. Indeed, both are shortened forms of "She contacted the person who was managing the desk" and "I saw the man who was chained to the bed", before the removal of the relative pronouns and auxiliary verbs. Neither of the main verb forms are gerunds, they are both participles. A gerund is a verb acting like a noun (never as an adjective), but in your example, the verb is acting like an adjective (not a noun) modifying "person", which makes it a participle. Examples of gerunds are "Running is good for the soul" and "John dislikes managing the front desk" where both verb forms are clearly nominal in usage. A century ago, it was not common to see present participles used adjectivally as in your example, but in contemporary English they are quite common (and perfectly grammatical). If your "beef" is just poorly worded and your real gripe is the difference between using an active participial phrase (which requires a present participle) versus a passive participial phrase (which requires a past participle), then you need to be more accurate in your wording. Grammar constantly changes in language, you can't prevent it. Forms that might not have been acceptable a century or two ago are perfectly acceptable today. There's nothing ungrammatical about the sentence you cited and nothing stylistically awkward about it. (Taivo (talk) 13:02, 13 March 2009 (UTC))

Abbreviated first names - periods and spaces

At Talk:M.C. Escher#M.C. / M. C., there is a brief discussion about whether to prefer "M.C. Escher" or "M. C. Escher". I think this issue should be addressed by the manual of style, rather than discussed per case, but I cannot find anything about this. The closest thing is Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Acronyms and abbreviations, subsection Periods (full stops) and spaces - but it neither gives an answer, nor states clearly that no general answer is given for such cases.--Noe (talk) 09:55, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Naming conventions (people)#Middle names and abbreviated names. I'm not sure this is a correct statement of our conventions, since there used to be a strong feeling for including the space (unless it never occurred in the sources), but it should be discussed there. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:02, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

OK, perhaps the MOS section I cite should link to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (people)#Middle names and abbreviated names?--Noe (talk) 14:12, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I investigated this question some years ago. Basically, separate initials, like M. C., used to be the only form in use (also true in French and German typography), but in more recent times (I think beginning in the 1960s), M.C. came to be preferred in the United States. The Chicago Manual of Style is the most authoritative source on this point for American usage. VikSol (talk) 05:36, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I can't prove it, but I'm 99% sure that the use of M.C. without a space comes from the era of typewriters with fixed-width characters. The period was always positioned in the left part of the interval, so that "M.C." would appear to have about half a space before the "C" and a whole extra space would look excessive. These days are gone and this practice should go away too. McKay (talk) 05:47, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

This talk page

WP:TL;DR. What the heck's going on? Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 05:26, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

"Wikipedia talk:TL;DR" seems to say it all. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 15:08, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Which is it (i.e.)?

There's a minor battle going on in this article over whether the MoS recommends that "i.e." should be italicised or not. Not helped by the fact that although Wikipedia:Manual of Style (abbreviations) appears clear that it shouldn't be, this page itself actually does use italics, here. One obviously needs to be changed, but which one? --Malleus Fatuorum 13:19, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Italicization of "i.e." was introduced by User:138.88.32.143, reverted by User:Reywas92, and re-introduced by User:Pmanderson, all on 25 February 2009. -- Wavelength (talk) 14:41, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I suppose the inconsistency in the MoS should be sorted out. As for the article, why not agree to eliminate the problem by substituting in other words or that is for i.e.? — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 15:09, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

That would at least stop the silly editwarring during its FAC, so I suppose it's the sensible thing to do. --Malleus Fatuorum 20:11, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

In the Manual of Style, I have replaced "i.e." with "that is" in each of its four occurrences. I also added a comma after "that is" in the fourth occurrence. -- Wavelength (talk) 19:11, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Then the MoS is now clear and consistent that "i.e." ought not to be italicised, as here? --Malleus Fatuorum 20:11, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

No, it evades the subject, as it ought to do. Malleus' table permits etc. to be italicized; we should also indicate that usage varies on i.e., which appears to be italicized more often. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:10, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Sigh. This brings up an issue I've been considering for a while: I'd prefer to leave WP:MOS out of my monthly update to the general style guidelines, for several reasons, none particularly more important than the others:

• It takes too much damn time. Every month, someone decides that all X's should actually be Y's (for various X and Y), which means the diff page is a sea of red and green. I have to manually and laboriously compare the left and right for 50 paragraphs.
• This page, along with the two pages on linking, might promote the impression that general style guidelines are much more fraught with intrigue and danger than they actually are. Most of them are pleasant and boring; make the wrong move at MOSLINK, and you're likely to wind up at ArbCom. I don't feel strongly about this point; I just think we want to push in the direction of being welcoming, of promoting the sense that the common editor can discuss and do a little fiddling with general style guidelines without expecting the Spanish Inquisition.
• It's too damn dangerous, for me. So far, I've managed to give monthly summaries on general style guidelines and enforcement and content policies at WP:Update without getting my wrist slapped that I missed some small point that someone thought was crucial, but it's only a matter of time. If I keep updating WP:MOS, it's going to be a short time: there are many small changes every month, some of which are fiercely fought over.
• With WP:MOS more than any other page, no one is likely to interpret it as a "demotion" if I just stop working on it and/or if it's removed from the general style cat. WP:MOS is what it is, I didn't give it a promotion when I added it to the general style cat, and no one's under the illusion that anything I do will demote it. Thoughts? - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 18:02, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

• Seems perfectly understandable to me. PMAnderson (above) sums up quite nicely why so many find the MoS at best to be an arbitary and crashing bore. He is quite right in saying that usage ("in the real world") varies between "i.e." and "i.e.", but so what? The purpose of a manual style is to give guidance to writers, not to give them a playground where they can can play childish games over things that, to be brutally frank, very few really give a damn about. So just say the standard is "i.e." and let's move on. Personally I've always favoured (not favored) encyclopaedia over encyclopedia, and you will never catch me anywhere else but here writing "aluminum". All most of us want to know is what the style guidelines are, and to have some confidence that they won't be different tomorrow ... and different again the next day, and the next ... --Malleus Fatuorum 21:32, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
  • More of the actual contributors to encyclopedic content will know (and care) about usage elsewhere than know or care about MOS (much less have read its innumerable pages in detail). Therefore editors will use both "i.e." and "i.e." for the same reasons they use both "favor" and "favour"; although using "that is" may be kinder to our readership. Note both fonts, permit both, encourage consistency within articles, and discourage FAC from twisting itself in knots about this when it could, just possibly, be discussing the actual quality of the article before it; then move on. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:17, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
  • I note with relief that the actual FAC mentioned above appears for once to be discussing substance, not font choices. Good. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:23, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
    • I agree that noting both are acceptable but insisting on consistency with a single article is a perfectly acceptable compromise, which is what I believe the MoS currently says now that it's been changed. So far as the FAC that triggered my question is concerned, I'll bet you're not half as relieved as I am that it's moved on to substance without any further warring over fonts. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:05, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
      • I never thought that my edits could spark so much discussion. My take: italicize it or not, just make it consistent within the article. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:50, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
        • This particular article only used "i.e." once. So either representation would have been consistent. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:56, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
          • Alright, so then I shouldn't have edited it. My apologies for starting this whole issue. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:02, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Okay, two supporting, none opposed, removing this page from the general style cat, but it's not too late to holler about it. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 16:08, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Flipping images so that subject faces center of page

A recent point made on the main page's discussion page, that images should not be flipped so that the subject faces the center of the page, seems incongruous with part of MOS:IMAGES: "It is often preferable to place images of faces so that the face or eyes look toward the text. Multiple images in the same article can be staggered right-and-left (for example: Timpani). However, images should not be reversed simply to resolve a conflict between these guidelines; doing so misinforms the reader for the sake of our layout preferences. If an image is reversed or otherwise substantially altered, there should be a clear advantage to the reader in doing so (for example, cropping a work of art to focus on a detail that is the subject of commentary), and the alteration must be noted in the caption."

Is there a good example of when an image should be flipped? It seems that almost any instance of reversing images could be opposed on the grounds that "it misinforms the reader for the sake of our layout preferences" (or some variation of that phrasing). This was at least the argument for not reversing the | image of Maurico Funes, which faced away from the text in the main page's "In the news" section. I was under the impression that flipping images like this was standard practice at FAC and on the main page. Emw2012 (talk) 19:46, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

File:Sigismondo Pandolfo Malatesta - Piero della Francesca.jpg

If by "flipping" you mean creating a laterally inverted version of an image, then I agree that this is an undesirable practice for the reasons you stated. I think the way to avoid creating flipped images while improving the layout of articles is simply to left-align a photograph with a person facing right, and to right-align a photograph with a person facing left. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 19:55, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Are you saying that flipping images so that the subject faces toward the text is never acceptable? If you are not implying that, then could you give an example of when an image should be flipped? I'm aware that the practice of flipping (i.e., laterally inverting) images is discouraged when there is a conflict with the policy on right-and-left staggering on images. Thanks for your reply. Emw2012 (talk) 20:39, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

It'd be very rare when it'd be acceptable to flip an image. It'd have to be something in which the flip is not deceptive in any way, so perhaps if it were some artwork created by some user and uploaded under license. If it's a photo of a person, the flip would distort the look of the face (placement of hair, moles, whatever), and if it's a famous painting or other image it's always deceptive. DreamGuy (talk) 21:26, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I think people take this guideline too seriously sometimes. Once I saw an photo that was awkwardly floated on the left, just because the guy's eyes appeared to be glancing toward the viewer's right (his left). His nose, however, pointed directly toward the camera. Floating things on the left typically make a mess of the layout, especially if it's part of a list. Two floating images directly across from each other looks even more awkward, especially if they are of different proportions. Sometimes the size is set so large that they overlap or leave only a tiny space for the text to flow through the center (with only a few words per line). — CharlotteWebb 13:23, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree. The only situation I can think of where lateral inversion of a photograph of a person might be acceptable is if it is a completely generic photograph of some random person (for instance, a photograph of an unidentified police officer in an article about policing). "Flipping" should never be done for identified individuals or artworks because it gives a false impression of what the person or art piece looks like, as DreamGuy has pointed out. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 06:54, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Multiple infoboxes in one article

Is there a MoS on multiple infoboxes in one article. I can understand it in articles like Désenchantée (although I still don't think it is necessary) but the three infoboxes in John Glenn really look simple to me. Garion96 (talk) 21:41, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh you think that's bad check out Arnold Schwarzenegger. I wrote about this a couple years ago, see:

• "[WikiEN-l] {{spoiler}} {{infoboxrequired}} and the root of the problem".

For better context, read the whole thread, which starts here. — CharlotteWebb 12:53, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

junior/senior suffixes

Somebody told me once that in certain contexts it is better to spell out the words "junior" or "senior" at the end of a person's name rather than using the standard abbreviations "Jr." and "Sr.", but I can't remember what the alleged criteria were for this. Even if this is preferred for certain articles, shouldn't the junior/senior suffixes at least be preceded by a comma and/or capitalized (as a de facto part of a proper name)? See Joe Hardstaff for a couple examples. — CharlotteWebb 13:03, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Don't know the answer to your first question, but have a look at the related discussion "Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (biographies)#Comma before Jr., Sr., II, III?". — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 15:30, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

That's very odd (?) as I recall my English textbooks always specified that there should always be a comma after a person's name and before Jr., Sr., Esq., Ph.D., O.B.E., and any other abbreviations which follow it (and I'm not that old). Obviously "Henry VIII" would be handled differently as Roman numerals are not abbreviations. Feel free to move this discussion to some other page if you think it would yield a helpful response. — CharlotteWebb 16:05, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Opposition to having a style manual

This is the only time I've seen opposition to the existence of a style manual. Michael Hardy (talk) 19:55, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I'll join. The existence of something called a Manual of Style is largely responsible for the present date delinking nonsense, perhaps the lamest controversy I have seen on Wikipedia; although the contest between Bolzano-Bozen and Bozen-Bolzano is difficult to equal.

0

It is also largely responsible for the vacuity of FA discussion; it is always much easier to edit war over the italicization of i.e. (see a couple sections up) than to consider the accuracy, neutrality, verifiability, or clarity of an article - so FA has a lot of eager volunteers to do the latter former. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:59, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

While not wanting in any way to be pedantic, I think you mean the former… ;) Physchim62 (talk) 21:05, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Much obliged. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:07, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

What "delinking nonsense" are you referring to? Michael Hardy (talk) 23:03, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

In a nutshell, this. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:33, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Does that really fit into any nutshell, except perhaps Stephen Hawking's one? :-) --A. di M. (talk) 02:15, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Metric/Imperial muddle

A quick look at some articles shows that when it comes to measures of distance, they are in a muddle. Take Jabal al-Tair Island:

The island is roughly oval, approximately 3-km (2 mile) long, covering an area of 1.54 square miles (3.99 km²). It lies nearly half way between Yemen (115 km/70 miles to the east) and Eritrea (approximately 150 km (93 mi) south west). It is about 82 km (51 mi) from the Yemeni Kamaran Island; the Saudi Arabian Farasan Islands lie to the north east.

The island comprises the basaltic stratovolcano Jabal al-Tair (Tair Mountain; Arabic: جبل الطير Jabal aṭ-Ṭayr, literally, "Bird Mountain") rising from seabed some 1,200 metres (3,940 ft) below the surface of the Red Sea, continuing for 244 m (801 feet) above the surface up to the summit of the crater. The volcano was considered "recently extinct" as of 1982. It was the northernmost known Holocene volcano in the Red Sea, with one central vent, Jebel Duchan. It lies in the volcanic and geologically active region of the Red Sea Rift, the divergent boundary between the African Plate and the Arabian Plate.

The island has no natural water supply, and had a high conical peak rising above a basalt bluff some 300 feet (90 m) above a gradual littoral. The prominent profile made it an ideal landmark for Red Sea shipping, and the steep drop-off below sea level meant that it might be safely run for. The island lacks a settled population, but some parts of the island have allowed for the seasonal presence of fishermen.

The article swings forwards and backwards. Sometimes Metric comes first, sometimes it is feet and miles. There is no consistency. And yet, according to the manual of style, it should be metric first. Also, if it's not metric first, which of the several varieties of non Metric measures should predominate? What can be done to deal with this inconsistency? Michael Glass (talk) 02:35, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the articles should only be internally consistent. That is the point that is being made throughout the Manual of Style--don't change the style that the first major editor used. That means that BC stayes BC and BCE stays BCE, feet stay feet and meters stay meters, hyphens stay hyphens and en-dashes stay en-dashes, italicized i.e. stays italicized and non-italicized stays non-italicized. The use of automated bulldozer bots is inappropriate. The article you cited should be edited to a single standard, but articles that are internally consistent should stay the way they are. (Taivo (talk) 03:35, 22 March 2009 (UTC))

Since Wiki is international, if we even use imperial, metric should come first unless there is a credible reason for imperial coming first--such as rounded imperial measurements being used in the sources and being retained in Wiki for precision. But even where that is the case, we don't need to convert the entire article to imperial. kwami (talk) 03:48, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

If the reliable source upon which an article is based used imperial, and the article doesn't use a source that is metric, and the first major editor used imperial, then it is falsification of the data to switch everything to metric. Articles on the American Civil War, for example, will be exclusively based on material that is in feet, yards, and miles. These should not be converted to metric, especially since the subject matter is exclusively American. This is especially true of estimates. "The average solder could march about 10 miles a day" should not be converted to "The average soldier could march about 16.09 km (10 miles) a day". Subject matter, original editor's usage, and source material all make a difference. Do not set the bots free to work their destructive "magic" on these articles. The articles should be internally consistent, but not universally consistent. (Taivo (talk) 03:54, 22 March 2009 (UTC))

Nothing that anyone wrote above justifies the muddle in the article that I quoted. It is not internally consistent. I mentioned nothing about an automated bulldozer (though that would be a great temptation, I admit!). I mentioned nothing about articles that are internally consistent, only about those that are not, like the one I quoted. I don't think people in America and Britain realise that non-Metric usages are a foreign language, not only to speakers of English as a second language, but to millions of English-speaking readers, whose parents and grandparents gave up the old system a generation ago. As Kwamikagami said, we need the translation, even when the source document is in feet and miles. It's exactly the same problem as we face if a document quotes money in pounds, shillings and pence: we quote the price as it is put in the original, and then provide a translation.Michael Glass (talk) 06:30, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Where to place footnotes when chapter consists only of a heading and a table

Where should I put my footnote when a chapter consists only of a heading and a table? It doesn't look neat if I put the ref in the section heading: [4]. But putting it into every field of the table would be overkill. Another option would be to insert a small statement between the heading and the table, such as "the following information comes from source X," or something like that. But that doesn't look good either. I have not been able to find any style recommendation on this. I would be grateful for any advice you can give me. Offliner (talk) 06:41, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Does this look any better to you? It's the sort of solution we use from time to time in chemistry. Physchim62 (talk) 08:03, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

It looks a lot better. Thank you! Offliner (talk) 08:06, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Strong National Ties section

In the section Strong National Ties.... can an example of Indian English be added?

--Rsrikanth05 (talk) 15:00, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Italicizing titles within titles

Should the title of a magazine be italicized when it is contained within the title of an article or feature in the magazine? Specifically, the magazine Billboard features a number of music charts such as Hot Digital Songs and Pop 100. The magazine's two cornerstone charts, The Billboard 200 and The Billboard Hot 100 also incoporate the title of the magazine into the title of the chart. Please note that the titles of these two charts in Billboard also include the definite article "the" while this is omitted from the titles of the wikipedia articles. The wikipedia articles Billboard 200 and Billboard Hot 100, as well as Wikipedia:Record charts italicize the title of the magazine Billboard within the title of the record charts so that they appear as Billboard 200 and Billboard Hot 100. I don't think it was the intention of the editors to create a hybrid title combining the title of the magazine Billboard with an abbreviated title of the chart "200", but that is what it looks like. Should the entire title of the chart be italicized (The Billboard 200 or The Billboard Hot 100), enclosed in quotation marks like the title of an article ("The Billboard 200" or "The Billboard Hot 100") or not at all (The Billboard 200 or The Billboard Hot 100), or should it be a hybrid where only the magazine title contained within the chart title is italicized? Piriczki (talk) 14:16, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Straw poll

A straw poll on the usage of the name of the Republic of Macedonia/FYROM on the article Greece has started here. Advertisement on this talk page should be most relevant, as the proposal taken to the poll involves the application of Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Internal_consistency on that article. Húsönd 19:43, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Date formatting and linking poll

The above link leads to a community poll regarding date linking on Wikipedia. The poll has not yet opened, but the community is invited to review the format and make suggestions/comments on the talk page. We need as many neutral comments as we can get so the poll run as smoothly as possible and is able to give a good idea of the communities expectations regarding date linking on the project—from User:Ryan Postlethwaite. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:30, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Note The first phase of this poll will start on 30 March. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:00, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Units of measurement in general articles.

[Moved to WT:MOSNUM. --A. di M. (talk) 01:16, 28 March 2009 (UTC)]

Can someone please explain this about infoboxes?

The MOS says this, regarding toggle boxes:

Scrolling lists and boxes that toggle text display between hide and show are acceptable in infoboxes and navigation boxes, but should never be used in the article prose or references, because of issues with readability, accessibility, and printing.

What is it about infoboxes and navigation boxes that obviates the readability, accessibility and printing issues? -GTBacchus^(talk) 22:08, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

They don't mirror (on mirror sites), and they don't print. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:03, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Scrolling/hiding is presumably not an accessibility issue in infoboxes and navigation boxes because infoboxes and nav boxes are bonus content—infoboxes merely summarize the actual content, and nav boxes are for getting to other articles. The actual article content needs to be readily accessible, though, and there are multiple accessibility issues with hidden/scrolling text: for starters, screen readers cannot see text in hidden sections in order to read it (see Scrolling and collapsible sections); users with motor disabilities, especially those unable to use a mouse or those using assistive devices, may be unable to click 'show' links; and non-standard access devices may not have CSS/Javascript capability to handle scrolling or hidden text (see Users with limited CSS/JavaScript support). Maralia (talk) 04:41, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

What about an image in a toggle box? I'm not worried about scrolling lists, but we're discussing adding an image to Abortion, and some people would be more comfortable with that if it were in a toggle box so people could choose whether or not to see it. Is an image "bonus content" as well? -GTBacchus^(talk) 13:14, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Either have an image or not, but please don't try to hide it or make it optional. I thought that was one of those perennial proposals. Garion96 (talk) 13:49, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

It's not a perennial proposal coming from me — I don't necessarily even propose it. It's an attempt at a compromise in an extremely intractable discussion, and it's one of several ideas on the table. I'm finding my ability to discuss the idea hampered by my lack of knowledge of the technical problems involved. I came here to maybe learn some of that technical knowledge, and telling me that I shouldn't even be asking the question is rather different from teaching me. How can I answer later, when someone asks me about the technical side of toggle boxes? What's the harm in letting me know what I want to know? I'm not trying to censor anything, and I don't think that a toggle box is a good solution. I am frustrated by the above reply. -GTBacchus^(talk) 14:14, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

What is frustrating about it? You ask about a way to make the display of an image optional. I think that is a bad idea. I don't say you can never ask. I also am not technical so I have no idea how to implement it. Garion96 (talk) 14:58, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

It's frustrating because I already agree that it's a bad idea, and that has very little to do with the question that I'm asking, or the reason that I'm asking it. -GTBacchus^(talk) 15:08, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Garion96, what do you think of this?Ferrylodge (talk) 14:16, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

You didn't ask me, but I think we should deal with the bigger issue rather than try to hide it (but I know that will never happen). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:20, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't know how you could know such a thing. Bigger mountains have been moved. I think I can safely say that those of us working on this toggle box have NO desire to hide anything. People who want to open doors don't like doors that are open just a crack, but we'll take that as an incremental improvement over shut. -GTBacchus^(talk) 14:26, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Bad, on an article about autofellatio one could expect an image. I also don't like it because of slippery slope reasons. The next one where that will be implemented will be here, here and here. Garion96 (talk) 14:58, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

That's funny, because there's another slippery slope involved. Personally, I think the abortion article should have the image in question, and that if we placed it there in a toggle box, it would already be on the slippery slope towards WP:NOTCENSORED, because there are more of you here than there are of Ferrylodge. The idea that putting an image in a toggle box creates a slippery sloped in that direction is belied by the clear fact that, when they've been implemented, the prevailing winds have always blown them away. -GTBacchus^(talk) 15:12, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

True, so far all these measures have been removed. But when just one implementation stays, more will follow. That is unfortunately the wiki way, look at all these {{future}} templates. Fwiw, I also think the abortion article should have the image in question. Garion96 (talk) 15:30, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't see one staying. I think the wiki way tends in the direction of greater information freedom the vast majority of the time. I could rattle off a dozen examples, if you like. -GTBacchus^(talk) 15:58, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Right. The toggle box in the abortion article (either at the top or in an article section) is intended to prevent complete exclusion (read:censorship) of highly relevant information. See here.Ferrylodge (talk) 14:42, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

<-- Attempting to wrest the topic back to my question... I think I'm finding some things out. From what I've seen so far, there isn't a technical issue that specifically prevents a toggling image, for reasons of accessibility, reading, or printing. That helps us separate the WP:ACCESS side of the question from the WP:NOTCENSORED side, and whatever other sides are out there. If what I've just said is incorrect, then I hope someone will explain why. -GTBacchus^(talk) 14:48, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

FWIW, the access issues I presented above would likewise apply to an image in a collapsible box. An image is not 'bonus content'—it is not summarized info available elsewhere in the main text (like infobox data) nor is it ancillary information about related topics (like nav boxes). Maralia (talk) 15:44, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm happy to agree that an image is not 'bonus content' - that's not essential to anything I'm saying, and I don't agree with it. For the technical issues, I've actually posted at WT:ACCESS. I think your answer above is helpful, and I'm starting to see that accessibility could be an issue. Thanks everyone for the input. -GTBacchus^(talk) 15:56, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Avoid using time-specific dates

I get annoyed when Wikipedia articles say "at the present" or :: when I'm pretty sure they were written two years ago. Is it possible to suggest this in the Manual of Style? Instead you could use "as of". --Matthew Bauer (talk) 01:30, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

"As of"? I suggest "in" (a year or month) or "on" (a day). -- Hoary (talk) 10:08, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

They don't have the same meaning: "He has served from June 2005 to present (as of February 2007)" means that we haven't updated the article since then and hence we don't know whether he's still in office, whereas "He served from June 2005 to February 2007" means that he left office in that month. (BTW, it is already suggested somewhere in MOS:NUM.) --A. di M. (talk) 11:06, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

"this year" is terrible. "at the present" can cover a variety of time ranges, some of which are not a problem, e.g. on geological timescales that's about 10K yrs for climate (since end of last ice ice age) to over 10M years (for positions of continents). OTOH it can also refer t less than 5 years, where it needs to bel examined case by case. E.g. for political offices "at the present" is usually bad and e.g. "president since ..." is much better; but "at the present" may be OK for scientific consensus - that can change in 6 months or last 20 yrs, but it's very hard to say when an idea became consensus and "at the present" may be the lesser evil. --Philcha (talk) 11:18, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

""He has served from June 2005 to now [February 2007]" -- Hoary (talk) 16:23, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Capitalization of “Internet”/“internet”

I think we should standardize on how to capitalize “Internet”/“internet”. I suggest “Internet”, since that’s what is currently used the most here (and by the folks that created and maintain it). Internet capitalization conventions describes the issue. —Wulf (talk) 14:48, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

The issue is identical to "moon" vs "Moon". A moon is a natural satellite of a planet; an internet is an interconnected network. The proper name of Earth's only moon is Moon, and the proper name of the public world-wide internet using TCP/IP is Internet. But you don't need to refer to things by proper name when it is clear what you are referring to: for example, I would usually just say "Let's go to the cinema", not "Let's go to the Multisala Moderno" when talking to my neighbour if the Multisala Moderno is the only cinema in my town; but the latter wouldn't be incorrect, and might be more appropriate for an encyclopedia. Likewise, you don't need to refer to the only moon your planet has or to the only internet you have access to by their proper names "Moon" and "Internet", but doing so would not be incorrect, and might be more appropriate for an encyclopedia. Correct me if I'm wrong... --A. di M. (talk) 16:18, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

"Wrong" is rather strong, but thank you for the invitation. Yes, there is only one Internet. However, there is also only one Atmosphere into which cows belch methane. And, although we don't yet know what it is, this Earth has only one Future. Indeed, it only has one Past. Although there have been many centuries, there was only one Eighteenth Century, and back then (or perhaps I should say back Then, as there was only one Then), writers of English liked to capitalize; now, however (and there's only one Now) most of us don't. Still, thank you again for the [singular] Invitation to comment. :-) sez [only one] Hoary (talk) 10:15, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

No, there isn't only one internet (see internetworking), although most people are only familiar with one of them, whose proper name happens to be the Internet. And there isn't only one atmosphere (other planets such as Venus have atmospheres too), although most people are only familiar with one of them; I don't think this particular atmosphere has a proper name, though, as the Wikipedia article about it is simply titled "Earth's atmosphere". (As for the particular article, if it specifically concerns with dial-up access to the public international internet using TCP/IP whose name happens to be the Internet, then the I should be capitalized; if it concerns dial-up access to internets in general, it should be lowercase.) --A. di M. (talk) 11:20, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh certainly there are several atmospheres, but when we talk about Hummers farting CO2 and particulates into the atmosphere, we all know which one atmosphere it is. And unless We Are Very Eccentric, we don't capitalize it. Your strongest argument is that it's a proper name and as such needs to be capitalizing. That seems a valid POV, and apparently it's shared by the NYT: "Internet" (though not always). Another is that it's analogous to "the phone system": there's only one, connecting everyone (or anyway everyone outside prison or North Korea) to everyone else, payment permitting; yet people don't take it as a proper name. The Guardian: "internet", I think universally. Which is better? Let's cut a deal: I shan't insist that you use "i" if you don't insist that I use "I". If an article already uses one or the other, then that's what that article should use consistently. -- Hoary (talk) 16:21, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

I should note that I had suggested renaming Dial-up internet access to Dial-up Internet access, and that’s what sparked my post here. It just occurred to me that the responses there might be relevant to this discussion. See Talk:Dial-up internet access#Move?. —Wulf (talk) 21:26, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Technically, an internet is any combination of networks. The Internet is is a specific internetwork. The fact that there is a technical difference, which is recognized by actual technically competant people, suggests we need to make some distinction. Capitalization seems simplest. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:02, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Measurements in Imperial and US units should always appear with metric equivalents.

This suggestion would only affect those few articles that contain Imperial or US Customary measures without a metric equivalent, such as [5]. The present guidelines state,

• "Conversions to and from metric and imperial/US units should generally be provided. There are two exceptions:.."

However, this guideline could be strengthened. In the section on which unit to use, this statement should appear:

• Measurements in Imperial and US units should always appear with metric equivalents.

Notice that the wording is so framed that it talks about measurements rather than names or expressions, e.g. Three Mile Island.

Although it could once be assumed that English-speaking people used and understood the traditional measures, this is no longer the case. The metric system was adopted in India in the 1950s and in Australia, New Zealand and Canada in the 1970s and 1980s. As a result a whole generation of people has grown up in these countries without any formal knowledge of the older measures. Use of the older measures without their metric equivalents does a disservice to these readers, so I seek consensus to add this point to the "Which unit to use" section.

What do other editors think? Michael Glass (talk) 00:22, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely ... only make it

• Measurements in imperial or US units should always appear with metric equivalents.

JIMp _talk·cont 08:36, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Another factor is that there are a lot of non-native speakers of English who use Wikipedia, many of whom are not otherwise exposed to traditional English units. --Hans Adler (talk) 09:33, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose The current wording seems adequate. The word always is too absolute and would result in ugly and unnecessary conversions. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:47, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

If the current wording is adequate, how did we end up with an article like Jason Islands? If the always is too strong, how about just removing it? MOSNUM is, after all, a guideline to be ignored wherever there is strong enough reason to do so ... though, no good reason to allow imperial/US measurements to go unconverted to something comprehensible to a non-British/Irish/American/Canadian springs to my mind (except if repeated in the same section). JIMp _talk·cont 10:03, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

99% of our articles have yet to attain GA/FA status and so there is generally much editing work to be done per WP:IMPERFECT. Absolute principles and rules tend to impede such work - please see all the fuss about date formatting. The article Jason Islands contains conversions now so there is not a problem - it is just a matter of normal editing, not the occasion for a holy war. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:11, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't see any holy war here nor am I sure we can just say that absolute rules and principles always tend to impede editing work. There may have been some fuss over it but since the depreciation of date linking I believe we've seen a lot of good progress in terms of the removal of these irrelevant links. JIMp _talk·cont 10:34, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Colonel Warden; I didn't think this through. When a non-metric measurement is repeated a few lines later it would be absurd to convert it again. If the wording is tweaked it may be a good idea, but I am actually not convinced it's necessary. --Hans Adler (talk) 11:04, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

If always is the sticking point, I would be willing to compromise by dropping that word so that the rule appears:

• Measurements in imperial or US units should appear with metric equivalents.

By framing it this way it would act as a guide to editors without over-stressing the point. It should be borne in mind that most article do provide these conversions already. I don't think it would be many articles that would be affected. Michael Glass (talk) 07:10, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Date formatting and linking poll now open

The date linking and formatting poll is now open. All users are invited to participate. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 23:01, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I'd participate, but I see no "edit" links - and yes, I'm currently logged in. --Philcha (talk) 23:11, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry Philca, I started it an hour early so the protection hadn't been removed. You should be able to participate now. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 23:23, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Clarification regarding images

In the MoS there are the following two points, which potentially contradict each other.

• Start an article with a right-aligned lead image or InfoBox.
• It is often preferable to place images of faces so that the face or eyes look toward the text. Multiple images in the same article can be staggered right-and-left (for example: Timpani). However, images should not be reversed simply to resolve a conflict between these guidelines; doing so misinforms the reader for the sake of our layout preferences. If an image is reversed or otherwise substantially altered, there should be a clear advantage to the reader in doing so (for example, cropping a work of art to focus on a detail that is the subject of commentary), and the alteration must be noted in the caption.

I interpret this as that the lead image should always be on the right, regardless, and following images should follow the rule below. Could someone please clarify how this *should* be interpreted please, maybe a subtle reword is needed in this respect? Jenuk1985 | Talk 11:03, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

There seems to be a clear consensus (reflected in the guideline) that if an image is to be used at the top of an article, it should be right-aligned. I don't think there is a necessary conflict between that rule and the second one. The way to read them harmoniously is to try and avoid using a portrait of a person that is right-facing at the top of an article. But I would not be overly rigid about this. If the only available portrait is a right-facing one, then I would say go ahead and use it. Note that the second rule says "[i]t is often preferable" and not "you must". Someone may come along with a better image later on. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 16:43, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Measurements in imperial or US units should appear with metric equivalents.

I propose adding the following sentence to the present policy. Having studied the previous correspondence, this would seem to be the wording that would act as guidance for editors but not be a rigid rule that people would find oppressive or over the top. I remind people that many users of Wikipedia are not native speakers of English, or they live in English-speaking countries that converted to the metric system a generation or more ago.

Are there any further comments? Michael Glass (talk) 09:10, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Already covered. By the "convert when appropriate" section.Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 07:07, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Level 3 headers instead of level 2?

I have noticed several articles lately where level 3 headings are used (===) instead of level 2 headings (==). For an example, see this diff [6] – shouldn't the references section have a level 2 header? This is only one example, I have seen other pages like this.

It's hard for me to believe this would be sanctioned by the MOS. The style of level 2 headings should be fixed in the skin, not by using level 3 headings instead. — Carl (CBM · talk) 18:00, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes Refs are a Level 2, for any example check the day's FA, as they all conform to MOS. Darrenhusted (talk) 13:38, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Guidance on calendars

I believe that dates should always be given in the common calendar and the Style Manual should state that when other calendars (Islamic, Jewish, Roman and Buddhist) are used, the date should also be expressed in the common calendar that we all use. What do other editors think?

That's fine after 1752, when the Gregorian calendar was adopted in English-speaking countries (this is, after all, the English Wikipedia). Before that, it isn't so clear. --Jc3s5h (talk) 01:15, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I wasn't thinking about problems with the changeover from the Julian to the Gregorian calendar, but issues that were discussed here [7]. In this case an article has purely Islamic dates. See [8]. The problem is not that there are Islamic dates, but that we do not have the relevant Julian dates in the article.

However, I take your point. I should have written Gregorian or Julian calendar. Michael Glass (talk) 03:32, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

if you're formulating a guideline about this, it would need to be stated that the requirement to include Julian/Gregorian equivalents doesn't apply to dates of recurring holy days/celebrations in lunar or solar/lunar calendars. (that will be obvious to people who are familiar with such calendars, but guidelines need to be clear to everyone.) Sssoul (talk) 04:23, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

'Which units to use'

I have rearranged this section to bring together those points that directly bear upon the choice of units for articles. The exception for using non-metric measures in US and UK articles now have their own dot points, which have been double indented - thus helping to make them stand out. One slight change in wording states that US customary measures are generally the primary units in US related topics. This qualifying adjective is necessary because of the occasional use of metric measures in US articles. For example, the water quality section in the article on Lake Erie mentions a mussel that filters a litre of water a day. The word generally covers such exceptions.Michael Glass (talk) 14:21, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

• I'm basically OK with these guidelines, which seem to codify current best practice. However, I think it would be helpful to give a little more weight in the guidelines to the use of source units. For example, nautical miles are almost universally used in shipping and air transport, even in countries which otherwise use "metric" units: a (hypothetical) ship which was boarded 11 nautical miles from the coast should be described in that way, not 20 km (11 NM) from the coast. Horseracing with its use of furlongs is another example that springs to mind. The use of source units would also cover most of the problems with use of U.S. customary units in non-scientific articles, AFAICS. Unfortunately, it might lead to more examples of mixing primary systems of units in the same article: for a hypothetical example, "the boat sank 8 nautical miles (15 kilometres) from Port Starboard, which is 389 kilometres (242 miles) north of Well Known Big City in the Metric Republic." Physchim62 (talk) 15:45, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
  • I like your simplification of the first dot point. I believe that the first two dot points could be combined. I'll work on that later. not sure about the business of nautical miles. They are not much used in Australia. Perhaps the practice is different in other countries. Michael Glass (talk) 16:08, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

• Only one primary unit should be chosen in an article, except in direct quotes. That's what writing a coherent article from diverse sources is all about. Also, a balance must be struck between an article being easy to understand by readers who are not very familiar with the field (that's why they're reading an encyclopedia, rather than a research journal), and introducing readers to the units that are generally used by professionals in the field. For example, an article on marine navigation might use nautical miles as the primary unit, while an article about piracy might use kilometers as the primary unit, since navigation is not the main topic of the article. --Jc3s5h (talk) 16:15, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I can see plenty of reasons why one might want to measure the length of some cable between two US cities in miles, but its thickness in millimetres or micrometres. And if the source does so, I think it is fine to do the same on Wikipedia; I can see no urge to be consistent and use either kilometres and millimetres, or miles and thous, as the primary unit. Everyone except theoretical physicists use different units for time and space despite them being fundamentally related, as any unit of time long enough to be of practical use in everyday life would be ridiculously long as a unit of length, and any unit of length short enough to be of any practical use would be ridiculously short as a unit of time. Nobody is ever bothered by that (except when having to mind those c's in theoretical calculations). --A. di M. (formerly Army1987) — Deeds, not words. 09:30, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Letter X vs. multiplication sign

Since this edit of mine has been reverted, I wonder if there is any MoS recommendation whether to use "x" or "×" (×) for things like "three-time MVP" ("3x MVP" or "3× MVP")? As far as I can see MoS only says that "unspaced letter x is accepted as a substitute for by in such terms as 4x4" which is not the case here. So it should be × in my mind. --bender235 (talk) 22:43, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Anyone? --bender235 (talk) 09:23, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree with using × for "times" in things like "3× MVP". -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:33, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Poll: autoformatting and date linking

This is to let people know that there is only a day or so left on a poll. The poll is an attempt to end years of argument about autoformatting which has also led to a dispute about date linking. Your votes are welcome at: Wikipedia:Date formatting and linking poll. Regards Lightmouse (talk) 09:12, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Consistency and diversity in weights and measures

Wikipedia rightly strives for both consistency and diversity in usage. In some cases this means making a choice between competing usages; in other cases, the differing usages are accepted. So, the differences between British and American spelling is accommodated, while, sensibly, the rules state that individual articles should be internally consistent. The same rule applies to weights and measures, only here we generally need to supply both SI and Imperial/US Customary units for the sake of readers who often are not familiar with one or the others.

However, there is a problem with inconsistency between similar articles, which can quite arbitrarily swing between metric and Imperial/US Common measures. This may be seen in the following table:

Metric first	Imperial first
Cornwall	Devon
Skye	Lewis and Harris
Shetland	Orkney
Cambridgeshire	Oxfordshire
Staffordshire	Leicestershire
Dorset	Hampshire
Jersey	Guernsey, Alderney, Sark
Niagara River	Niagara Falls
East Falkland, West Falkland	Falkland Islands

Now a certain amount of inconsistency is inevitable when editors have different preferences for weights and measures, but these variations are more Monty Python than encyclopedic. Now I know full well that we can't impose a rigid rule on people. However, I believe that we could put in place guidelines that would nudge editors towards more consistency. I suggest that the following wording be considered:

Add to the principles:

• Consistency of usage, in articles, text boxes, tables and between articles dealing with similar subjects.

Revise this point from this:

• Use units consistently. An article should have one set of primary units (e.g., write A 10 kg (22 lb) bag of potatoes and a 5 kg (11 lb) bag of carrots, not A 10 kg (22 lb) bag of potatoes and an 11 lb (5 kg) bag of carrots.

to this:

• Use units consistently. An article should have one set of primary units.
  • Text boxes and tabular material should be SI first.
  • Where articles dealing with similar subjects are inconsistent, aim for consistency, with SI measures first.

What do other editors think? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Michael Glass (talk • contribs) 01:10, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I can see your point, but it does seem an awful lot of work to ask editors to change all these articles for a minuscule improvement in quality. I would plead de minimis non curat praetor! Physchim62 (talk) 11:00, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I wish the MOS really didn't curat de minimis... --A. di M. (formerly Army1987) — Deeds, not words. 12:06, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose We should follow the usage of sources rather than proselytising in a dogmatic way. Note that SI/metric is far from consistent itself and so everywhere there are still customary units such as the hour, rather than the kilosecond, and the litre, rather than the cubic metre. Colonel Warden (talk) 21:27, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment: That is nonsense. A litre is a cubic decimetre. And hour/min have never been part of the metric system. --bender235 (talk) 21:34, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

• So you're suggesting that our articles should consistently use seconds when talking of time? That won't fly. Colonel Warden (talk) 21:51, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
• It's precisely because one litre is exactly one cubic decimetre that it is pedantry at its most pathetic to change litres for cubic decimetres, especially for liquid measures. Some editors do, though, and they should be discouraged. Physchim62 (talk) 23:00, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
• Hours, minutes, and litres aren't SI units, but they are "Non-SI units accepted for use with the SI". --A. di M. (formerly Army1987) — Deeds, not words. 00:50, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree with A. di M that we can't impose a rigid rule on people and with Colonel Warden that we can't be too dogmatic. However, the Style Manual can make recommendations. As it recommends that SI should generally be preferred and that articles should be internally consistent, the Style Manual could also recommend that they apply to British articles. Over time, this could help to reduce the excessive variation that I have documented above. Michael Glass (talk) 12:01, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Solution

A solution to the problem outlined above is to state explicitly that SI and SI-related units should be preferred in UK based articles. At the same time I stated that US articles have conversions to SI units. This is also stated in the Conversions section that follows. It is also standard practice in US-based articles and is a description rather than a prescription.

Question re: italicized words/phrases that appear multiple times

What is the Wikipedia rule for using italics for a foreign word/phrase when the word/phrase appears multiple times in a paragraph or in an article? Is the word/phrase italicized only when it appears the first time but not when it appears additional times thereafter? Or is the word/phrase italicized each and every time it appears? ask123 (talk) 23:07, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I keep italicizing it. Using it twice in the same article doesn't magically make it suddenly an English-language term. I don't ever recall being reverted on an edit to fix things in that direction, either. Keep in mind that terms that have been fully assimilated into English do not ever need to be italicized, unless they are being discussed in their original, non-English context and the meaning is different (which is often the case). E.g. "Angst" in German and "angst" in English do not actually have the same meaning. See WP:MODENG for some discussion of this. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 05:35, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Possessive apostrophes

I'm hoping that someone with good knowledge of punctuation can assist in a discussion at Talk:Charles, Prince of Wales#Possessive punctuation, wherein one user is claiming that in British English the form s' is unacceptable, and another editor is countering this claim. Cheers. --Miesianiacal (talk) 01:13, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm no expert, but from my grammar school days (in the U.S.), I was taught that the lone trailing apostrophe was used only after an s, es, or ies that itself was added to make a plural noun, but not when the s was at the end of a singular noun. Thus, I would write the Jones's house (pronounced "Jones-es") and not the Jones' house. I would do the same for Charles, yielding Charles's Aside from that, if this becomes a WP:ENGVAR issue, I believe the most common British usage should be used for this article. -- Tcncv (talk) 01:58, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

both Charles' and Charles's are acceptable in both varieties of English, so either form is fine on Wikipedia as long as there's consistency within given articles. instead of battling about it, the editors should see Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Possessives plus the miles of discussion in the MOS talk page archives. Sssoul (talk) 05:18, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

That was the precise section of the MoS that I directed the other editor to. He claimed, however, that the MoS was wrong; for the UK, at least. --Miesianiacal (talk) 13:43, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

This is one area where many people learn different things in school, and each person assumes that what he or she learned is "the truth" of the matter. In reality there are many variations that are used in edited prose; there is no universal style that we could adopt. So the rule of thumb on WP is to just leave things as they are. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:52, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

This is what Merriam Webster's Dictionary of English Usage says on the matter:

There is mixed usage with regard to indicating the genitive case of a singular noun ending in an \s\ or \z\ sound with an apostrophe plus s or an apostrophe alone. Our evidence shows that for common nouns more writers use 's than the apostrophe alone: the boss's desk, the princess's wedding are more common than the boss' desk, the princess' wedding. But when a polysyllabic s or z noun is followed by a word beginning with an s or z sound, the apostrophe alone is more frequent: for convenience' sake.

This same basic observation can be made of proper nouns: Jones's house, Dickens's novels are more common than Jones' house, Dickens' novels. There are more exceptions with proper names, however: Jesus' time, Moses' law. Multisyllabic names and particularly those of bibilical and classical origin usually take only the apostrophe [...].

Looks like there is a slight preference for "Jimbo Wales's beard". However, if the Royals fall under the same exception as biblical and classical names and if the syllable for "Prince" is counted (I don't know, but both assumptions seem plausible), then "Prince of Wales' bicycle" could be more common. There seem to be no US–UK differences, since they are normally mentioned. --Hans Adler (talk) 14:52, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Multisyllabic is misleading; it would be more useful to ask whether the vowel before the terminal s is pronounced; i.e, whether Charles is two syllables. To most speakers, it is. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:22, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

[outdent] My lord, are we still going over this? It's really, really simple: Always use apostrophe-s, including after a name like Jones or Frances, with the exception (which even some disagree with) for names from antiquity like "Moses'" and "Jesus'". The only reason we have (according to some but not all style guides) that exception is because the King James Bible did it that way and this has influenced certain populations of writers, despite us rejecting every other abandoned quirk of Middle English. Yes, I am aware that one style guide or another says it should be based on (imagined – this is writing, not speech) pronunciation, in which we would have "James's" but "Moses'", but really, how can we expect the average WP editor to memorize this nonsense along with every other MOS point?!? Just stick with something simple. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 04:55, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

PS: And why on earth would "the Royals fall under the same exception as biblical and classical names"? They are neither biblical nor classical. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 05:18, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment on "the Jones's house": That might apply if there were only one Jones, and he/she were referred to as "the Jones". Highly unlikely in both cases. Since the house belongs not to a single Jones, but to the Joneses, their house would be "the Joneses' house". -- JackofOz (talk) 05:03, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Not sure I follow you. If this is in reference to my example, "Jones's house", then, well, there are in fact a large number of single homeowners named "Jones". I did not mean "the house of the Joneses", in which case we have "the Joneses' house". I meant "the house of that person we call Jones", "Jones's house". If this is in response to previous threads about "Jones" and houses, then please ignore this. Maybe I shouldn't've outdented... — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 05:18, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

No, I was commenting on Tcncv's post up top (I should have mentioned that). -- JackofOz (talk) 05:27, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Okay. I am almost certain that the MWDEU quotation cited way up there refers to the same singular usage that I did ("Jones" not the "the Joneses"). — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 05:39, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Admittedly, that wasn't a very good example. My intent was for it to be a singular possessive. I probably should have picked a name like Nicholas and referred to Nicholas's house. But I now see that there is enough usage of the shortened form, Nicholas', to treat both forms as acceptable. (Wikipedia MOS used to state a preference for 's, but that was taken out about 18 months ago.) As Sssoul pointed out immediately after my first post, the archives are full of this recurring discussion. Also, as Miesianiacal mentioned in the article's talk page, the Charles' form has been stable for a while in an article presumably edited by a number of British contributors. So I've reversed my earlier opinion and now support the view that either is acceptable. -- Tcncv (talk) 06:30, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

"Nicholas' house" (without the "the") is a lot closer to the mark. Me, I always take the view that we should write as close to the way we speak, consistent with good writing principles, as we can. I would always say "nikələsəz house", so I'd always write "Nicholas's house", never "Nicholas' house". But I'd never say "jeezəzəz parables", so I'd never write "Jesus's parables", always "Jesus' parables". Nothing to do with biblical or classical names, simply aligning writing to speech as far as possible. Berlioz - we often see "Berlioz' music", but everyone actually says "berliozəz music", so we should write "Berlioz's music". Brahms - it depends on the article. If it's mostly "Brahms' symphonies", I'm happy to leave it at that. If it's half and half, I change them all to "Brahms's symphonies". There's really no good case for not adding -'s to a singular noun, except where contraindicated by the sibilance of the result, e.g. Jesus's or Moses's; or The gibbon's tail is long, as are the rhesus's rhesus' and the capuchin's. -- JackofOz (talk) 06:56, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Interesting. There must be significant variation in common pronunciation too. I would quite naturally say "jeezəzəz parables". I also pronounce Charles as a single syllable "Charlz", apparently different from PMAnderson's pronunciation. -- Tcncv (talk) 07:10, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Yep, there's plenty of variation in pronunciation, just to keep us all on our toes. But I'm with you 100% on Charles. I've heard anyone need 2 syllables to get it out, and if I did ("char-ləz"?), I'd assume they were newbies to English. -- JackofOz (talk) 07:18, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

/char-əlz/, but that may be an Anglo-American difference; variants on the realization of vocalized 1. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:25, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

CKatz is apparently WP:INVOLVED in Anderson's change to the MoS template

I am sorry to say that this admin appears to be in flagrant breach of the policy concerning conflict of interest by admins. The policy is quite explicit in requiring non-involvement, even where there's doubt about the admin's involvement. Anderson has been whittling away at the MoS template (once on 22 March, and a whole raft of changes today), which I reverted back to the long-standing wording. Anderson reverted my revert, calling me a "liar" in the edit summary, and CKatz was there at Anderson's beckoning immediately to place an indefinite locking on the template.

The problem is that CKatz and I are involved in an extended dispute at the dates poll, which has just finished. This is a clear case of admin involvement that needs to be undone. I question the action in the first place, and the accusation on my talk page that I was edit-warring. He should be extra-careful bandying about such accusations, given his highly adversarial position in the dates issue. Tony (talk) 06:15, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Tony, I've already told you what I think of your unfounded threats and accusations in our discussion on your talk page. However, it is important for you to note that PMAnderson's notice on my talk page came eleven minutes after I had protected the template, and six minutes after I had left identical warnings on both of your talk pages. Unless I've got a TARDIS, it seems unlikely that things played out as you have claimed. --Ckatz^chat_spy 06:31, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Further to this, the March 22 edit you refer to is a separate edit from last year. All of PMAnderson's edits with regards to this matter occurred today, and you didn't revert back to the "long-standing wording". You actually did an edit that you described as a "c-e", which PMAnderson reverted, and you reverted back to, and he reverted again, before I then rolled both of you back to David Levy's version from February. Please, if you're going to make spurious accusations, at least check the history first. --Ckatz^chat_spy 06:38, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

"Spurious accusations", "unfounded threats"": so let me get this right—pointing out admin breaches of basic policy now consitutes "unfounded threats", does it? I note that you wiped my posts from your talk page soon after each entry. OK, it's not nice to be accused of breaching WP:INVOLVED; however, this is the second time I've had to deal with this from you—not the one you cite on my talk page, but an earlier, blatant instance. I can dig it up if you want (it was in 2007, and you took no notice). And thank you, I'm pleased that you've now put a time-limit on this locking of the MoS template. My copy-editing below the template has gone to waste, hasn't it. Tony (talk) 06:52, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Tony, I'll not continue a squabble on this page; if we're just going to argue back and forth, we can do it on our talk pages. If others wish to weigh in regarding the actual edits to the template, then great, I'll be glad to participate. However, it is tiresome having to defend myself against your unfounded and unjustified accusations, which anyone can see here and in our discussion on your talk page. I would, however, appreciate it if you could restate your case to reflect the actual events, given that they are very different from what you have outlined above. --Ckatz^chat_spy 07:12, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree, it's tiresome to have the admin policy pointed out in blunt terms. You are right, I assumed the wrong order in which Anderson posted and your indefinite locking of the MoS template (now at least end-dated); however, the "uninvolved" issue remains, as does your failure to deal with Anderson's personal attack in the edit summary you saw, in which he referred to me as a "liar". I wouldn't want to think that your involvement would colour your judgement on that. Tony (talk) 08:08, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

• Tony has no rational complaint against CKatz; he protected to the version that was there two days ago; from my PoV, it's the Wrong Version. (Oh, well.) How he is involved with me is a mystery to me, as to him. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:12, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
• Looking at Template talk:MoS-guideline#Wording and the next section, I saw, and still see, a wide support for the shorter and clearer text: This page is part of the Manual of Style, and a guideline. Use common sense in applying it; it will have occasional exceptions. Indeed, the chief discusssion was the argument to include occasional exceptions.
• I discussed this on talk while completing the restoration; Tony reverted until the page was protected, without discussion.
  1. 04:56 14 April with the edit summary c-e. This is the lie; it was no copyedit, but an exact and substantive reversion on the substance; it also added a clumsy repetition to the final sentence.
  2. 05:24 Another exact reversion.\
  • After the page was protected, I directed CKatz to the discussion, to which Tony has not, even yet, bothered to contribute, preferring to rant here.
• This is the problem with MOS as a whole: when someone edits it, the handful of owners revert without discussion; when someone else complains, they claim that it is stable when it is only stable because of obscurity and revert-warring. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:12, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
• Current discussion is here. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:32, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Subdivisions of the manual of style

I notice that certain projects have their own supplemental to the manual of style, like medicine or military history. What projects or task forces may develop a supplemental to the manual of style? kilbad (talk) 16:55, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Anybody; this is the encyclopedia that anybody can edit. By the same token, anybody who chooses to ignore a rule is free to do, so it is a good idea to check that project guidelines do in fact represent the views of Wkipedia as a whole; MOS has not done this as often as it might. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:23, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, I have been working on dermatology-related content for a while now, through WP:DERM, and wanted to know if it would be ok to develop (through consensus) a small manual of style for dermatology-related articles? The goal would be to address a few dermatology specific issues. Perhaps, the guidelines might flow like this: an editor looking for guidelines about dermatology-realted content could reference the Manual of Style (dermatology-related articles), and if a topic was not covered there, the user might then reference the Manual of Style (medicine-related articles), or, if not there, ultimately the main Manual of Style page? ---kilbad (talk) 17:30, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Just as well to compile your manual, tag with {{proposed}}, and mention it here and at WP:VPP, to see if anybody disagrees. Slso, the idea of our guidelines is to sum up what everybody says, more than attempting to legislate; MOS is a bad example; see WP:Policies and guidelines. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:36, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Acronyms and abbreviations

Under "Periods (full stops) and spaces" op. cit. is used as an example. Seems a poor example when op. cit. is deprecated as per {{ibid}}. I feel we should use another example. Having looked for an example to replace it I've only encountered examples that blatantly contradict the rule that op. cit. is intended to illustrate, i.e., L/Cpl, and GySgt. Having found the UK example of Lt Col, it appears the US usage (Lt Col or LtCol) is service dependent. I have to ask, is this rule really a rule? Bazj (talk) 15:27, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

See List of acronyms and initialisms and Lists of abbreviations. -- Wavelength (talk) 16:50, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Where you can find multi-word abbreviations obeying and breaking this rule. It really isn't a rule at all, is it? Bazj (talk) 17:55, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

It may be the case that many such abbreviations have multiple forms (outside Wikipedia) regarding periods and spaces, and that editors of the Manual of Style for Wikipedia chose one basic form as a standard in order to simplify decisions by editors. -- Wavelength (talk) 04:29, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Images

Currently the images section states

"Multiple images in the same article can be staggered right-and-left"

It is my opinion that this meaningless, I havent seen an article where staggering images right-and-left that has not improved the quality. I would propose that this should be changed to something along the lines of

"Ideally multiple images in the same article should be staggered right-and-left, however ..."

and then list the situations where this should not be done Fasach Nua (talk) 11:49, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

In "havent seen an article where staggering images right-and-left that has not improved the quality", what do you mean by "improved the quality". UI much prefer all images to be right-aligned, which makes reading easier because the reader's eye jumps to a fixed X co-ordinate for a new line. Staggered images for ce the reader to search for the start fo each line. --Philcha (talk) 12:25, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I'd agree with that. What's more important? Easy to read or (arguably) prettier on the eye? Surely it's no contest? I certainly don't think that staggering images could ever be called "ideal" in any event, so I'm very much against this proposed change in wording. --Malleus Fatuorum 14:01, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

• I support staggering images generally, which is also less likely to lead to difficulties in reading at different image size preferences, and on different size screens. Somewhere else, or here (?) there is something about not stacking all the images to the right. I'm not wholly sure the text needs changing though. Having directional images face in to the page is generally more important. Johnbod (talk) 15:16, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

• Could you explain how it is that staggering images helps with different screen sizes? At first blush I'd say the reverse was true. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:40, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

• If the images are all stacked right then when viewed at different settings you tend to get either a) huge white gaps on larger settings if they are placed separately, or b) if they are all edited in together they lose connection with the relevant bits of text (if this applies) at different settings. Certainly left-right placings can lead to images on both sides of the screen at larger settings than the editor thought of, but on the whole I think it handles the problems better. I don't myself find left-right harder to read. It certainly represents what professional book and magazine designers use. Johnbod (talk) 12:59, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Agree with the idea of staggering images, especially in articles with long text; for both visual interest and for relief from repetition....Modernist (talk) 15:27, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Could you please explain why staggered images provide visual interest and / or relief from repetition, and why these shoudl be more important than ease of reading? --Philcha (talk) 07:10, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I think the guideline is fine as it is. I'd rather that editors be given the option whether to stagger images left and right rather than be mandated to do so, since there is no consensus on the matter. Personally, I do think it is rather strange for all the images in an article to appear on the right side because it looks unbalanced. A visually interesting layout is more likely to attract readers to an article. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 07:51, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm happy with JackLee's "I'd rather that editors be given the option whether to stagger images left and right ..., since there is no consensus on the matter." --Philcha (talk) 13:07, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Question about headers

Another user and I are currently discussing the use of a header titled "biography" in articles (for example, this version of an article). Our discussion began on my talk page, and as we have different opinions, we're unable to agree 100 percent. Since none of the project pages clearly state the use of such a header, we've brought our question here. Is it appropriate to have ever have a "biography" header (as in the example given above) in an article? — Σxplicit 22:29, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

You're probably asking this question in the wrong place, but it seems clear to me that in the specific article you've given as an example the Biography section is nothing of the sort—Future works? Why not look at comparable FA/GAs to see how such articles ought to be written? --Malleus Fatuorum 22:37, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Reading WP:HEAD, it was suggested to bring the discussion here. We've looked over FAs; some use the "biography" header, some don't. I argue that the header in necessary because it distinguishes (in this case) the musician's personal life and career endeavors from her musical style and all the following sections. The other user argues that the header is unnecessary because the entire article is a biography and there's nothing to distinguish. This is where we clash and are unable to arrive to a consensus. — Σxplicit 22:46, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I wonder if this discussion is better taken to "Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (biographies)" or "Wikipedia talk:Layout". I suspect that discussion on this matter has already occurred before on one of those talk pages. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 06:47, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

BC/BCE

This is the currect MoS statement:

"Either CE and BCE or AD and BC can be used—spaced, undotted (without periods) and upper case. Choose either the BC-AD or the BCE-CE system, but not both in the same article."

A couple of months back I argued at length, on the talk page of Nativity of Jesus (and following), there are three reasons not to use BC/AD. It is

1. POV (for other religions and non-Christian cultures; for US citizens it constitutes a violation of constitutional right, the which precludes, for example, nativity scenes from public buildings),
2. non-scholarly (in the field of religious studies), and
3. erroneous (Christ was born before the death of Herod who died four years before Christ).

The one response, besides denial, was that BC/AD was used by most English speakers, to which I replied is something NPOV merely because it is popular? It is true that many people who use BC/AD do not think about its significance and so are unaware of the POV -- to which I replied most people who used the term "nigger" in the US were unaware of the POV. I had suggested that if people were so convinced that BCE would be difficult to understand one could link the first reference to BCE and/or CE to the Wiki article on the common era to facilitate understanding.

My principal objection here is that I am forced to use POV if an article already contains the POV. I've just discovered that although I've added by far the most dating information on a page I was working on (here), using the NPOV dating nomenclature, it has all been changed to BC/AD. I could change it all back to NPOV, but the MoS, here being POV, favors the biased nomenclature if it has already been used.

Because of the POV of the MoS on BC/AD I tried to invoke Ignore All Rules in the Nativity BCE discussion, but local consensus proved sufficient to block its application.

Wikipedia is built on five pillars, one of which is NPOV. The MoS sanctioned use of BC/AD negates that principle. What do I have to do to be allowed to be NPOV in the issue? -- spin^control 06:06, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree that there is a problem with using BC/AD rather than BCE/CE. The points that have been well summarised by Doktorspin above, though I would put them in a different order.

• BC is actually a nonsense, since Jesus was born about 6 BC. Call it 6 BCE and the difficulty disappears. Jesus was simply born 6 years before the beginning of our common era.
• In the field of religious studies, scholars prefer BCE and CE.
• In a multi-faith world, and a world where many people have no religious affiliations, the term AD (meaning 'the year of our Lord') is inappropriate for many users.

However, the overwhelming majority of people are used to the BC/AD names.

What then can be done? I believe that it is in order to point out to people that there are problems with the BC/AD usage. This should not be prescriptive, but educational, and it will quietly do its work of educating Wikipedia editors. Then we should be patient, and wait for time and education to do its work. Michael Glass (talk) 09:37, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments, but my issue wasn't about prescribing anything for other editors. I want to be able to be left to use the NPOV forms. As I said, I used the NPOV forms in an article in which I contributed a lot of material, then someone, who has done nothing else for the article, comes along and changes it all to BC/AD. If I change it back, I get into another shitfight. I'd rather find another way forward -- for example to do away with "but not both in the same article" (and I acknowledge the potential of claiming that it could be confusing). -- spin^control 12:02, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

So just use CE/BCE yourself, and let others change it if they wish (they shouldn't change it if you started the article and used CE). I don't see that one system is any more "POV" than the other - they're just conventions. This has been discussed at great length and I think the solution we have is the best one for avoiding pointless fights.--Kotniski (talk) 12:28, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Do you think that "Before Christ" and "Anno Domini" are acceptable to the Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Chinese and any other non-Christian cultural backgrounds? This is another aspect of the reason why plaques with the ten commandments and nativity scenes have been removed from courthouses and other public buildings and grounds in America. Now in comparison how do you think "Before the Common Era" can be POV? -- spin^control 15:35, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Er... because it says that the Christian era is common to everyone? I can't speak for the religious sensitivities of the entire world, but if I were one who bought into any of these belief systems, I think I would have no problem with acknowledging that 100 BC is, factually, 100 years Before (someone's mistaken estimate for the birth of the person commonly called) Christ, but I might well have a problem with acknowledging that the era based on this Christ person is "common" to us all. Anyway, as has been pointed out, this issue has been discussed to death, so however strong your personal opinions on it, it's probably something you need to let go.--Kotniski (talk) 07:19, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

The current year is 2009. It is commonly used by most countries around the world without needing to buy into the origins. However, the origin is an error based on an erroneous calculation which put the birth of Jesus Christ some years after the death of Herod the man whose death he was born before. By changing the name of the system, not the dates, we alleviate the error implied and the POV contained in the BC/AD nomenclature. It is not necessary to use BC/AD to use the common dating system. The common era is that which has this year as 2009. No POV issues. Call it the "Christian era" and we start to have POV problems because the system is used by various non-Christian cultures.

If you are American, are you willing to state that you are prepared to violate the spirit of the 1st Amendment in order to maintain the status quo on dating nomenclature which interferes with the free exercise of others' religion? -- spin^control 16:08, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

It's not POV (no-one's really claiming that Jesus was born in 1 AD; it's just a convention, like we name the days after Germanic gods and planets after Roman ones, and no-one gets in a religious huff about that) and I'm guessing it doesn't breach the constitution either, or we would have heard about it by now. Anyway, this is my last response on the matter - as you see, people disagree strongly about this, and the guideline we have now is probably the best we can do to be inclusive to people on both sides. I hope people aren't discouraged from contributing to WP over silly things like this, but if it really is a problem of conscience, then there are plenty of areas of WP where you can edit without the CE/AD question ever needing to come up.--Kotniski (talk) 17:54, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, you're not dealing with the discussion. Does enforcing the use of a religiously loaded term on people of different religious persuasions not constitute interference with the free exercise of religion? -- spin^control 18:06, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

It looks like Doktorspin is talking about a dispute at an article that has used the BC / AD system for quite awhile (Nativity of Jesus), so he shouldn't change the system without consensus to do so. The discussion at Talk:Nativity of Jesus hasn't resulted in such consensus, so the article should stay with the system that was initially used. I don't think one system is more biased than the other, and I think the amount of energy put into disputes about BC / AD / CE / BCE would be much better employed fixing substantive problems with articles (of which there is no shortage). --Akhilleus (talk) 12:37, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry I'm not too interested in opinions such as this, judgments about how one's time should be spent have nothing to do with this issue. Such argument is irrelevant to the POV and error implied by BC/AD. As to fixing substantive problems with articles, you should be aware that I have been working quite a lot on the Julian article and seeking comment on possible improvements, though no-one has come forward to say anything so far.

If NPOV is meaningful to you you need to consider the arguments rather than simply giving unsupported counter-opinions, as though unaware of the substantive discussion on the subject. You are correct about the lack of consensus Nativity of Jesus article. However, the issue here, you should realize, is a somewhat different one from that of the Nativity discussion. I would like to be left to use the NPOV form without hindrance. -- spin^control 15:35, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

NPOV is very meaningful to me. I've looked at your arguments at Talk:Nativity of Jesus, and seen similar arguments at other articles, and I have never been convinced that BCE / CE is more neutral. And anyway, the point of NPOV is that an article should represent all significant views that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each--it does not mean that we try to avoid offending people when we write articles.

So, if you're starting an article from scratch, feel free to use BCE / CE. If you're editing an existing article, use the system that the article first used. If it's important to you that the article use a different dating system than the one it's got, see if you can get consensus to change it.

You seem unaware that this issue has been discussed to death on Wikipedia--see Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/(dates and numbers)/proposed revision, Wikipedia talk:Eras, Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(dates_and_numbers)/Eras_-_Archive3, and Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Jguk for starters. This is why I say it's a waste of time to spend energy on disputes about BC / AD / CE / BCE--it's been discussed from here to the moon, further discussion is unlikely to change anything. There's a guideline already--WP:ERA--just follow that. --Akhilleus (talk) 18:11, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

The reason why I am discussing the issue here on the talk page for the MoS is because I felt that's where the issue should be discussed. I am quite aware of the other discussions, so why should you think I was not?? You still are not dealing with my issue. And please don't keep telling me that it is a waste of time. That is extremely presumptuous.

Your difficulty with the POV of BC/AD needs to deal with the comment I've made on the subject. Otherwise it appears baseless. Do you not think that "Before Christ" and "Anno Domini" discriminate against all non-Christians? If not, why not? Don't you think that forcing non-Christians to use BC/AD would be a contravention of the 1st Amendment of the US Constitution? If not, why not? -- spin^control 18:41, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

(new indent) No, I don't think it is discriminatory for the reason you have already acknowledged; most people don't know, think about, or care what the actual meaning of the terms BC and AD. It is only a construct used to define time. Should each of us be offended that other societies and cultures use a completely different fashion of reckoning time? Of course not! When using their language and talking in their language we use their accepted form of reckoning time. Without a doubt there are people that are personally offended by the use of words of others, but that is a personal issue. More importantly, what is a fact is that this has been thoroughly covered before and none of your points are new or original. If you want to bring this up for another vote on consensus I am sure it can be done; better that then an additional discussion by a few editors. BC/AD have long since passed the point in Western society that it is a religious designation; it is a cultural one. Yes, academia, in their ever evolving sense of being PC, has developed another term, but it is neither better at telling time or communicating to others what year is being discussed. The current MoS policy is best and I would vote to keep it. Let's move to a vote because this will get nowhere. --^StormRider 19:24, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

You mightn't know the significance of the terms involved, but any non-native English speaker learning English usually learns them. Many native speakers from other cultural backgrounds know their significance. Most people who used the term "nigger" didn't consider it discriminatory. I guess it had become cultural.

As you have happily avoided the issues involved, you want to move to a vote on what exactly? -- spin^control 19:59, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I am sorry. I thought you had proposed to change the current MoS policy to only allow BCE/CE in articles. That has been discussed before and editors have produced the current policy. If you are now saying you are comfortable with the current policy; we're done. If I misunderstood you, please correct me. Also, do you have any references that support your position that all non English speakers interpret BC/AD as a strictly Christian format and not simply a cultural use in Western Civilization? You have made some pretty broad generalizations. Also, please never assume what other editors know or don't know. That type of presumption leads to far too many unnecessary conflicts and will genearlly make you look less than intelligent. I have not evaded your particular little soap box, but I have refused to acknowledge the position as legitimate until references are produced. So far, this is just you sharing your POV on an issue that has been settled. I am happy for the conversation to begin anew, but it really needs to focus the input of far more editors than read this page. Cheers. --^StormRider 00:11, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

While you react intellectually to the issue like a cat to water, it might be useful to read the discussion. -- spin^control 03:43, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Ye who would learn from history, please see Wikipedia:Eras, and the associated talk page. -GTBacchus^(talk) 03:59, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

At least this is good for a laugh; pseudo-intelligence always parades in this manner...rejecting all who dare contradict their personal opinion. This current example leaves me rolling on the floor. Let's just review this diatribe above, and I quote, "The MoS sanctioned use of BC/AD negates that principle. What do I have to do to be allowed to be NPOV in the issue?" BTW, nice touch with the heart-felt plea for neutrality...it infers that only bigots can oppose your more enlightened position, but I digress. The deduction from your statement is to change MoS to meet your personal POV. Please stop trying to say it is something else and we just don't get your POV. When the discussion is immediately available it is impossible to continue this little charade that know one understands. There appears no reason for further attempts at discussion because what you really seem to want is the opportunity to stand on a box and tell us you are righteous. You might just want to get a blog and have a good time of it; please let me know when to vote no. --^StormRider 06:53, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for finally reading what my issue was about. When the significance sinks in, I look forward to some sensate comments. -- spin^control 13:28, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Doktorspin, have you spoken with User:Slrubenstein about this? I know he has been keenly interested in the question, and I think you and he might be on similar wavelengths. Perhaps he could share some of his experiences that you might find it helpful to know about. When we were discussing this in '05, he had already been around the block with this issue more times than I ever care to go. -GTBacchus^(talk) 18:06, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Slrubenstein did comment on the Nativity talk page on the BC/BCE issue, but I was moving house and off the web for a while and missed the occasion to continue the discussion. I guess I should follow your recommendation. -- spin^control 08:16, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Doctorspin asked "If you are American, are you willing to state that you are prepared to violate the spirit of the 1st Amendment in order to maintain the status quo on dating nomenclature which interferes with the free exercise of others' religion?" To date, both the US government and the Florida government seemed to be obeying the requirement, placed on them by the 1st ammendment to the US Constitution, to allow the Wikimedia Foundation to exercise its right to freedom of the press and freedom of religion, including the right to allow editors to edit articles in accordance with policies either established by Wikimeda, or allowed to develop through benign neglect.

Also, as an American (that is, an individual citizen) it is impossible for me to violate the 1st ammendment because I am not the government, and only the government is restrained by the ammendment. --Jc3s5h (talk) 22:58, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

You might have noticed that I talked about violating "the spirit of the 1st Amendment" in what you cited, not violating the amendment. The attempted pedantry wasn't necessary. The government couldn't obey the requirement by endorsing an organization forcing someone to use religiously based terminology against their religious views. You need a refresher on the constitution. -- spin^control 08:16, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Just my 2 cents: the original expansion of an acronym needn't have anything to do with its current meaning. LAME is an MP3 encoder but it wasn't renamed LIME, the CERN is no longer a council but an organization but it wasn't renamed OERN, 10am isn't actually two hours before noon, not ten (logically it should be post mediam noctem not ante meridiem), yadda yadda yadda. I also agree with Kotniski's comment of 07:19, 3 April 2009 above. OTOH I don't have any problem with CE: if most English speakers understand it (I'm not a native English speaker and I don't live in an English-speaking country myself, so I don't know), then I think the current MOS recommendation, i.e. "pick one and use it consistently in each article", is perfectly fine. --A. di M. (talk) 09:22, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't really see the point of the first part of your comment for there is no doubt as to the meaning of BC/AD, but it isn't hard to link to the Common Era article the first time you use BCE/CE which will explain the abbreviations for anyone who isn't aware. Wiki is attempting to educate people by supplying information. I don't see why there is the need to be so conservative about it. -- spin^control 08:16, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

As a near-atheist, semi-Buddhist Jew, I'm perfectly comfortable with BC/AD...just as I am with BCE/CE (though, I admit, to my proudly Semitic nose the latter does reek a tad of tortured political correctness). Mr. Spin, you misunderstand and thus misapply the notion of neutral point of view. It has to do with substantive matters, not with idiomatic conventions. Really. You really do misunderstand. Please read (or reread) Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.—DCGeist (talk) 09:44, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Some things are substantive to other people, while they are not substantive to you. It happens. -- spin^control 08:16, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I have changed the text to make it more descriptive and less prescriptive, to refer readers to Common Era for information (the article contains a summary of the arguments both for and against the usage) and to remove a statement that a date without either notation means BC/AD when the numbers are identical in both systems and so the reference could be to either system. -- Apparently {Michael Glass}, 5 April 2009

That statement meant that "2009" without any signifier refers to the year AD 2009 a.k.a. 2009 CE a.k.a. +2009, not to the year 2009 BC a.k.a. 2009 BCE a.k.a. −2008 which is over four millennia earlier. It was obvious but true. --A. di M. (formerly Army1987) — Deeds, not words. 14:20, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Just as "nigger" refers to "coon", a.k.a. "darkie", "black" or "African American"? We are calling a spade a spade, aren't we? Words are deeds. You might be happy with words that others aren't happy about, but I'm sure I could hit you with words that you wouldn't be happy about. -- spin^control 19:08, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

"Deeds, not words" is part of my signature. (Should I somehow make it clearer?) Also, I see nothing wrong with saying that "2009" without any specifier refers to the year Obama was innaugurated and not to the year the funerary temple of Mentuhotep III started to be built — precisely what the statement which was removed and re-added said. The timestamp at the end of your post is "19:08, 5 April 2009 (UTC)", not "19:08, 5 April 2009 CE (UTC)" — and I can see nothing wrong with it. Also, please do not move other people's comments, or you could make it impossible to understand whatever the heck they are replying to. --A. di M. (formerly Army1987) — Deeds, not words. 20:00, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry about the move. I was attempting to make sense of your comment. And I didn't do a good job.

Do you think I didn't understand your "Deeds, not words", caro mio? It's very 19th century boys' books.

Words are manipulators. Words are weapons. Words are controllers. Words are the world as it is constructed for us. Words are your prison and your prison guards. Deeds are words in the constructed world. If you think you can do anything without words, you would merely be using your cerebellum. Words are your knife and fork and brain food. There was an internecine bloodletting in the church for much of the fourth century over a vowel. And the whole American population turns to blubber when one defends the word "democracy". Politicians go down over the misuse of one word. In the beginning was the word. It underlies everything and suffuses everything and without it nothing exists. Without it you would be grunting for a share in the latest kill, looking forward hopefully to a full belly, a belch and a good fart, as the main joys to life.

But here you are up to your eyeballs in words, pretending they're trivial. "Deeds, not words" you assert in a perverse act of linguistic defiance, verging on delinquency. What one says impacts on the world, the linguistic world, we inhabit.

Different expressions may refer to the same notion, but they don't mean the same thing. It is your responsibility to know the weight of words. Something as apparently trivial to you as whether one uses BC/AD or BCE/CE has taken up a lot of space on talk pages of Wikipedia for a reason. If we take out those who trivialize, we are left with two different groups, one of conservatives who will hang on to things so that they can keep up the appearance of no change (in a rampantly capitalist world of continual change) and one of dealing with the underlying content of the terminology. The issue itself only has direct significance to the last group, those for whom it is transparently ideological -- the ones who defend the maintenance of ideological hegemony and those who oppose it. It is just one skirmish, but it is always worth getting things right, fighting the hegemony. If words are so important, we need to have some control of them, rather than they of us. -- spin^control 13:23, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

The "sense of [my] comment" was that Michael had misunderstood the statement he deleted. It was since readded, and Michael himself clarified the wording so that other people won't be misled the way he was. It's all over, and All's Well That Ends Well. As for my signature, I didn't chose it because of this particular dispute, and it is intended to be a statement of hope, not of ridicule: the world would be much better if we didn't waste time, energy and blood on words, as with the "internecine bloodletting in the church for much of the fourth century over a vowel". Most of the disputes I have seen, both on Wikipedia and in the meatspace, have been between people who actually agree with each other but don't realize it because they're talking at cross-purposes. But maybe I'm a utopian... --A. di M. (formerly Army1987) — Deeds, not words. 16:38, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Interestingly, that's just a word. -- spin^control 18:55, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Just an observation. I grew up in the U.S. and graduated from high school in the late 1980s. It wasn't until I returned to college a few years ago that I ever even heard of the terms CE/BCE. The resistance you are seeing to the term is probably less due to POV than it is to simple unfamiliarity with the term. It took me almost a year to become somewhat comfortable using it. After college, I dropped the usage again, because nobody I spoke to or wrote to understood that "jargon" I was using. Give it a generation or so, and AD/BC will seem like a "quaint" thing that only "old people" use, and everyone else will be using CE/BCE since that's what is being taught in colleges (and hopefully lower grades). The question is, should Wikipedia wait a generation? Nope. It should embrace the change and indicate a strong preference for CE/BCE, unless there is a compelling reason to do otherwise (like an historical article where AD/BC is a key factor in the events discussed). As to the implied POV, I see the other side of the issue. I don't actually like taking "God" out of the vocabulary, but then again, I'm a Christian, so I'm perfectly comfortable with that meaning (not that I ever really think about it). To me, AD=CE and BCE = BC (just one annoying letter longer). But, I am very sensitive to other cultures and beliefs, and if there is a perfectly valid alternative that reduces a lot of people's discomfort without introducing an equal amount of harm for others, then go for it. --Willscrlt (→“¡¿Talk?!”) 13:12, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't see why BC/AD would be POV, and especially I can't see why BC/AD would "offend" non-christian Wikipedia users. Actually, it's the other way, because if we'd say "2000 B.C." should be "2000 B.C.E" (before Common Era), we'd subtly claim that the Islamic calendar (or other) something uncommon or whatever. I think we should use BC/AD because this is what we count. --bender235 (talk) 13:31, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm inclined to leave MoS policy as it is. Both BC/AD and CE/BCE are commonly used in respectable encyclopedic and academic writing. In certain contexts one may be more appropriate than the other. Majoreditor (talk) 03:23, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

The arguments for using BC/AD appear to be it's traditional, it's more common, it doesn't trouble me so it shouldn't trouble you, other system is simply another manifestation of political correctness and it's possibly a sneaky attack on Christianity.. The arguments for using BCE/CE are that the other usage is inaccurate (Jesus was born in 6 BC), inappropriate and potentially offensive (Jesus is not lord to Jews, Muslims and others) while BCE/CE is gaining ground because it is religiously neutral. The first step in working out policy is to acknowledge that people feel strongly about this issue. The second thing is to work out ways of minimising conflicts and edit wars over the issue. The present policy says that the usage should not be changed without substantial reason. This may need to be strengthened, since every zealot believes his or her reason is substantial. Also, instead of referring readers to the article on Common Era, a better approach may be to summarise the issues that have led to the growing use of this term. I suggest that the following wording may be considered.

AD and BC are the traditional ways of referring to years before and after the birth of Jesus. However, the CE and BCE is becoming more common in academic and some religious writing. The article Common Era gives information on this usage. As both usages have strong supporters and detractors, the following guidelines should be followed:

• Do not use CE or AD unless the date would be ambiguous without it. e.g. "The Norman Conquest took place in 1066." not 1066 CE or AD 1066.
• CE and BCE or AD and BC are written, in upper case, spaced, and without periods (stops).
• Use either the BC-AD or the BCE-CE notation, but not both in the same article. AD may appear before or after a year (AD 106, 106 AD); the other abbreviations appear after (106 CE, 3700 BCE, 3700 BC).
• Do not change from one style to another unless there is substantial reason for the change, and consensus for the change with other editors.
• The Manual of Style accepts either system in articles, provided the usage is consistent. However, common sense should be used to avoid possible offence (e.g., In Jewish, Islamic or Buddhist articles). Refer to Common Era for information on the usage.

Michael Glass (talk) 22:02, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I have revised the wording along the lines I proposed. However, I have changed the wording to make it more even-handed. Here is the wording as posted:

• • • AD and BC are the traditional ways of referring to years before and after the birth of Jesus. However, the CE and BCE is becoming more common in academic and some religious writing. The article Common Era gives information on this usage. As both usages have supporters and detractors, the following guidelines should be followed:
      • Do not use CE or AD unless the date would be ambiguous without it. e.g. "The Norman Conquest took place in 1066." not 1066 CE or AD 1066.
      • CE and BCE or AD and BC are written, in upper case, spaced, and without periods (stops).
      • Use either the BC-AD or the BCE-CE notation, but not both in the same article. AD may appear before or after a year (AD 106, 106 AD); the other abbreviations appear after (106 CE, 3700 BCE, 3700 BC).
      • Do not change from one style to another unless there is substantial reason for the change, and consensus for the change with other editors.
      • The Manual of Style accepts either system in articles, provided the usage is consistent. However, common sense should be used to avoid the problems of either usage.

Michael Glass (talk) 22:00, 20 April 2009 (UTC) I think we will have to revisit this issue in the coming months. The CE and BCE usage is more common in academic circles and as Wikipedia becomes a more and more popular reference site, it should adopt the more academic terms. I will refrain from rewriting the main MoS page right now, but someone will have to sooner or later. The Bearded One (talk) 19:14, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

I think Michael Glass’ revised version is quite fine (although in the first sentence, I’d swap "before" and "after" for correct structural parallelism). While Doktorspin finds offense in AD/BC, others take just as much exception to BC/BCE; sometimes there’s no way all possible views can be reconciled, which is why WP relies so strongly on consensus, particularly on a by-article basis. What often tends to be forgotten in these discussions is that our work product is not for ourselves, but for all readers. That behooves us to rely more heavily on what is most customary for the majority of those readers. Currently, CE/BCE is rather restricted to scholarly use (a rather small segment of our readership). If and when it becomes dominant among the general readership, then we should look seriously at changing to it wholesale. In the meantime, using what is consensus on a "by-application" basis seems best – including from an NPOV perspective – since it doesn’t require us to uniformly favor one fashion over the other. Askari Mark (Talk) 21:34, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Good point about structural parallelism. I'll swap the positions of CE and BCE to put them in chronological order in the section. Michael Glass (talk) 22:07, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Italic titles

I originally started this discussion at the Village Pump, but was referred here. Basically I noticed the article Puijila has an italic title (caused from {{Taxobox name}}). This seems to agree with the the MoS. However, the majority of articles eligible (newspapers, films, computer games etc.) don't have an italic title. I think we need to clarify if the actual title (not the prose) should be italicised. This potentially affects thousands of articles and IMO the italicised titles look strange. However I thought I should garner more input before attempting to remove this formatting. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 18:00, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

There have been a few other discussions at the Village Pump about this. If you haven't already seen them, see Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)/Archive_56#Italic_titles_for_names and Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)/Archive_58#Italics_in_article_name. Regards. PC78 (talk) 22:42, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Question on alphabetizing

When alphabetizing a list of names by surname, how are names beginning with "Mc" listed . . . at the beginning of the "M"s or after "Ma"? I have seen it both ways but cannot seem to find the Wikipedia convention. Thanks, Alanraywiki (talk) 22:13, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

There apparently is not a convention for that at the present time, although I discussed the idea of developing a set of conventions with other Wikipedians a few months ago. See the following.

• Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 107#Alphabetization and collation
• Wikipedia talk:Lists#Alphabetization and collation

Interest just might be undergoing a re-awakening, so if you wait awhile, you just might see a convention for your question.

-- Wavelength (talk) 22:26, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Before computers, "Mc" was correctly alphabetized by placing it as if it were spelled "Mac." With the advent of computers and their ability to alphabetize, "Mc" started being alphabetized as "Mc," i.e. as if the second letter was “c” and not “a.” Yanq (talk) 07:48, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Why is the “search” function for article titles case sensitive, except for the first word? I don’t see why you would require all other words (beyond the first word) to be case sensitive in a search. If one doesn’t input the correct case, and there is no redirect, then the article won’t be found. Why would you require knowledge of the correct case in a search function? Yanq (talk) 07:57, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

I thought this "bug" had been fixed some time ago. Can you give an example where it doesn't work?--Kotniski (talk) 08:23, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

I stand corrected. I was relying on Wikipedia's documentation, which I believe still states that titles are case sensitive except for the first word. When I have actually tried intentionally using the incorrect case letter of a word, I have been redirected to the correct page (with the page containing a note that I have been redirected there). I must falsely be assuming that someone manually put that particular redirect in place. Perhaps these redirects were created when you "fixed the bug." Yanq (talk) 18:05, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Use of metaphor and simile

At Quantitative easing, Vexorg (talk · contribs) insists on using metaphors to describe the subject of the article rather than using literally accurate language. He claims that he is just trying to make the article easier to understand (for people with less education in economics). Is the use of metaphor or simile condoned by the Manual of Style? Is there another standard which bears on this topic? Thank you for your help. JRSpriggs (talk) 11:06, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Make technical articles accessible is relevant. "out of thin air" is standard UK English, but I don't know its status in other countries. How about "out of nothing"?

BTW I'd avoid gratuitous Latin like ex nihilo. --Philcha (talk) 15:13, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

To Philcha: Thank you for the link to WP:MTAA, but I do not see any mention in it of metaphors.

Please notice that while Suicup (talk · contribs) and Vexorg are only fighting about that one phrase, Vexorg and I are fighting about the whole paragraph which is the lead. My version is:

Central banks engage in quantitative easing when they increase the monetary base by a pre-determined quantity via open market operations. This new money is injected into the private banking system when the accounts of the vendors of the securities purchased by the central bank through the open market operations are credited. This begins a process to increase the money supply. Quantitative easing is a monetary policy different from the more usual monetary policy of setting a target for a specific interest rate (such as the federal funds rate) and continuously adjusting the amount of money to achieve that target. Central banks switch from interest rate targeting to quantitative easing when the interest rate is zero and they want to ease further.

Vexorg's version is:

The term quantitative easing refers to the creation by a central bank of a pre-determined quantity of new money out of 'thin air' as the start of a process to increase the country's money supply. This new money is injected into the private banking system by using it to purchase government securities and crediting the bank accounts of the vendors of those securities (a process called open market operations). Quantitative easing can basically be understood as a method of 'printing money' although today the new money is generally created electronically rather than physically printed. The usual method of increasing the money supply is by decreasing the interest rates at which the central bank lends to private banks and the monetary policy of quantitative easing is usually only applied when the interest is at or close to zero and there's still not enough money in circulation to stimulate the economy.

As you can see, these are quite different. JRSpriggs (talk) 19:31, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

IMO the tone of the latter version is somewhat too informal for an encyclopedia, but the former is almost incomprehensible for lay readers, which is against WP:NOT PAPERS. "A theory that you can't explain to a bartender is probably no damn good." I'd go with the second version, but removing the phrase "out of 'thin air'" which is essentially redundant with "create". (If it isn't, I agree that "thin air" is too informal, but how is "ex nihilo" any better than "out of nothing"? They are verbatim translations of each other and this is the English Wikipedia, not the Latin one.) --A. di M. (formerly Army1987) — Deeds, not words. 23:06, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

To A. di M.: Thank you for your comments (although I am disappointed that you did not take my side). Perhaps you could convince Vexorg that "out of 'thin air'" is redundant. I tried but, he neither agreed nor was able to explain (to my understanding) why it was not redundant with "create". JRSpriggs (talk) 00:08, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, I know very little about economics, and I had never heard the phrase "quantitative easing" before reading this thread (I had once read a rough explanation of how money is created, but I don't remember where it was.) So I won't go discuss the article itself; I just wanted to point out that the first sentence of an article should be understandable by as many people as possible even if it's simplified, whereas more detailed explanations using technical jargon belong to other sections. And using phrases such as "ex nihilo" is a lose-lose situation: it is neither more understandable nor more accurate than "out of nothing": I don't see the point of use them (unless they have a technical meaning which is more specific than the literal meaning of the phrase in Latin). --A. di M. (formerly Army1987) — Deeds, not words. 10:23, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

WP:MTAA says "Use analogies ...".

I suggested "out of nothing" for the reasons mentioned by A. di M..

For what it's worth, I think Vexorg's version is much easier for non-specialists to understand (PS economics was one of the subjects I studied at university). Even so, I'd add one further explanation: the purpose of all this is to mitigate a recession and avoid a deflationary spiral. --Philcha (talk) 02:17, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Capitals for scientific theories? Why?

Currently the MoS says:

Physical and natural laws and parodies of them are capitalized (the Second Law of Thermodynamics, the Theory of Special Relativity, Murphy's Law; but an expert on gravity and relativity, thermodynamic properties, Murphy's famous mock-law).

But in actual use in modern English, only person names and adjectives derived from them are capitalized in such names (the second law of thermodynamics, the theory of special relativity, Murphy's law). Taking a glance at the table of contents of Feynman's Lectures on Physics, it uses "Newton's Third Law" once, but otherwise "The uncertainty principle", "Kepler's laws", "First principles of quantum mechanics", "Maxwell's equations", etc. So, is it OK if I remove that sentence? --A. di M. (formerly Army1987) — Deeds, not words. 20:02, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I'd support removing that statement. What is a "name of scientific theory" and what isn't is pretty arbitrary. Writing big bang or Big Bang are both fine (although again, consistency and yadda yadda yadda). Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 20:19, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

"big bang" and "Big Bang" mean different things. The first is a loud, sudden, explosive noise, and the second is the expansion of the Universe from a dense state. --83.253.250.239 (talk) 10:39, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

My quick and rough, non-natively-English-speaking layman's take on this:

If it is a name, it should be capitalized. That is: If a phrase is grammatically and contextually treated as being a name, then it is a name (especially if it is well-established usage, and especially if the phrase/name has been specifically coined), and it should be capitalized. But if a phrase is used merely as a description, then it shouldn't be capitalized, perhaps even if that same phrase sometimes functions as a name for what is discussed. But there obviously is a fuzzy zone in-between.

The quoted part of the mos MoS could be improved (The names of physical and natural laws ...), but I think it is correct and shouldn't be removed (unless, perhaps, it is redundant). --83.253.250.239 (talk) 10:14, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Maybe I agree that "Big Bang" should be capitalized (and, in fact, it often is) to avoid confusion with the literal meaning of "big bang"; but why "Second Law of Thermodynamics" or "Theory of General Relativity"? They're unambiguous, and nobody actually capitalizes them (excepts in titles and the like). Note that our featured articles General relativity and Introduction to general relativity consistently use a lowercase r, and also lowercase g if it's not at the beginning of a sentence, except in book/chapter titles and the like. --A. di M. (formerly Army1987) — Deeds, not words. 11:21, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

(Note that I'm just suggesting to remove the sentence, not to replace it with anything else. Without any explicit guidance, I expect that most editors would just copy whichever capitalization is used in the source they're using, which is usually the right thing to do. --A. di M. (formerly Army1987) — Deeds, not words. 11:31, 5 May 2009 (UTC))

It seems the rule is generally not followed, so it's wrong. E.g. Newton's law of universal gravitation, Murphy's law, Muphry's law (I didn't know this one, nice idea), but Murphy's Law (disambiguation). Big Bang seems to be an exception.

Yes, just removing the guidance might be the right thing to do. --Hans Adler (talk) 11:34, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

• Newton's Third Law is a proper name; First principles of quantum mechanics isn't (quantum mechanics is debateable, but it is abbreviated QM). Removing the sentence may restore the situation, or may let loose the unthinking editors who will decapitalize everything as "Wikipedia policy". Let's see what happens. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:17, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

  Huh? Almost all acronyms are spelt in capitals regardless of the case of the full spelling, so "quantum mechanics" isn't any more debateable than "uniform resource locator" (URL) or "digital signal processing" (DSP) for that reason alone. (Or did I misunderstand you?) As for "unthinking editors", is there any other guideline which would otherwise suggest lowercasing "big bang"? As I said above, really unthinking editors would just copy whichever spelling is used in the sources, which is usually the right thing to do. --A. di M. (formerly Army1987) — Deeds, not words. 22:16, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

  Which is why much of this page should be replaced by "do what the sources do". The uncustomary "big bang" will be derived from WP:MOSCAP: Wikipedia's house style avoids unnecessary capitalization, frequently repeated there and here; I do not say this is rational, or the intended meaning of MOSCAP, but MOS does not tend to attract rationality. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:40, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I have ventured to add a paragraph on "do what your sources do". This, even more than the rest of MoS, is a rule of thumb, not to be followed blindly; but I hope this is now clear. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:02, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Letter X vs. multiplication sign ×, part II

After sparse reactions the first time, I have to bring that topic back up, because User:Yankees10 keeps reverting my edits. Is there any consensus here that we use the × symbol × for things like "three-time MVP" and "five-time All-Star"? In my mind, using letter x (like "3x MVP") is wrong typography, like separating a parenthetical thought with a hyphen instead of a em dash. --bender235 (talk) 16:15, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

It says only for a multiplication sign and this is not that. So you are not interpreting it right--Yankees10 16:18, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

"Times" is multiplication. The symbol should be used rather than the letter ex. The symbol looks better. The article needs an audit for en dashes (I've fixed some). Tony (talk) 16:52, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

For decisions between using x and using ×, see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Common mathematical symbols, point 2. -- Wavelength (talk) 18:22, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

And this means in this particular case … ? --bender235 (talk) 19:12, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

If this is prose, not an infobox or caption, the word "time/s" would be better than either. dramatic (talk) 19:21, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

The reason x is used is to save space--Yankees10 19:24, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

However, we are talking about infoboxes, so what would you prefer? "3x MVP" or "3× MVP"? --bender235 (talk) 22:38, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Right. And the symbol for times is "×". I could see an "x" being used if it were actually pronounced "ex" as in "3x increase in sales". The only exception I could see in this case (being pronounced "times") that would make me think "x" is sensible is if the baseball literature reliably used the letter not the symbol; otherwise I see no reason to use anything but the times symbol. —Ben FrantzDale (talk) 17:06, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

(Unindent) When gauging what constitutes normal typography, one must recognize that some publications lack sophisticated typographic capability, or lacked such sophistication until recently. So when looking to see if the baseball literature uses "x" or "×" one must discount publications that lack the ability to use "×" and writers who have become accustomed to using "x" because it was all that was available until recently. Failure to take these factors into account would be like saying "UM" is a correct abbreviation for micrometer just because computer systems of the 1980's often used printers that lacked lowercase letters, and so many computer printouts from that era used "UM" for micrometer. --Jc3s5h (talk) 17:48, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

The symbol for micro- is the Greek letter mu (μ). -- Wavelength (talk) 14:27, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

There comes a point when abbreviation obscures, and this reduction in clarity becomes a more major factor than, say, saving space (even though saving space is an important factor). I think perhaps that point has been reached in the current case, whichever symbol is used, and the word itself should be used. PL290 (talk) 09:23, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Capitalization of words within section headings.

One of the rules for section headings refers to how to capitalize words:

Capitalize the first letter of the first word and any proper nouns in headings, but leave the rest in lower case. Thus Rules and regulations, not Rules and Regulations.

This doesn't make sense to me - surely the first sentence means that the capitalization should be "Rules and Regulations". But the second sentence directly contradicts this.

Am I just being dumb? Or was the second sentence meant to read

Thus Rules and Regulations, not Rules And Regulations.

GeoffMacartney (talk) 16:32, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

No, regulations is not a proper noun here, unless the section header is about a Handbook of Rules and Regulations or some such. The rules and regulations that apply to the subject of the article should be headed as shown. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:44, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

You're not dumb. As I see it, the formatting of the quote is a little off. It ought to read:

Thus, "Rules and Regulations", not "Rules And Regulations".

Where "Rules and regulations" is the example of a title. Faulah (talk) 02:49, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Citation style vs citing sources

I think it would be helpful to separate citation style from guidance re citing sources; how to cite, and what to cite, are two different topics, and how to cite belongs here. --Una Smith (talk) 15:48, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Una Smith, long time no see. Logically I suppose you're right. But I think the people who need the most guidance - on any of WP's standards - are inexperienced editors, and I think what they need most is simple and practical guidance. To me that means a 1-stop shop where they can get info on:

• What statements need citations - "if in doubt, a citation is needed".
• What sort of sources - although I think at present WP:RS is both a blunt instrument and a broken reed.
• Citation formats, i.e. how they might look on a page and links to achieve those layouts.
• Advantages of using citation temples - knowing this place, if they're not compulsory now they soon will be.
• Tools that help, e.g. refTools.
• Links to more detailed pages.
• Where to ask real people for further guidance. --Philcha (talk) 16:11, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

(Hi Philcha) Maybe so, but I have noticed that adding refs and formatting refs are tasks often performed by different editors. Also, those tasks involve different skill sets. --Una Smith (talk) 17:25, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Re "often performed by different editors", I think that's true but undesirable - you know what a PITA it is formatting someone else's refs if you want to get an article promoted. It's also unnecessary, as refTools would take the hassle out formatting nearly all refs up-front. "different skill sets" may be an exaggeration, as getting into the habit of using refTools takes only a few days and requires very little skill. And, like all good habits, it should be acquired as soon as possible. --Philcha (talk) 06:52, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I find it simpler and easier to write citations by hand; it's only formatting, after all. Some of the notes I write don't fit easily into mechanical citation-writers anyway. I'm sure I'm not alone. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:44, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

MoS Doesn't specify Wiki markup

The style guides for Wikipedia articles do not specify what WikiMarkup should be used to conform to a style.

It seems to me self evident that the MoS is implicitly saying this, so similarly, concensus is implicit. So I've put the above sentence as the first sentence under the General principles heading, if it was going to go anywhere it seems the obvious place; where else? HarryAlffa (talk) 20:06, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I've re-instated that sentence. Ckatz seems to be confusing consensus with seeking his permission. He seems to be following me around and being awkward for the sake of it. Maybe? Anyway, a quote from WP:CONS, "Wikipedia does not base its decisions on the number of people who show up and vote; we work on a system of good reasons". Can someone help him out and tell him were my reasoning might be at fault, because he doesn't give reasons? HarryAlffa (talk) 19:08, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Harry, drop the persecution complex please. You'll find that others are more willing to listen to you if you stop slagging everyone who disagrees with you. (BTW, it is hardly "following" if you edit pages I've long been a part of - perhaps you're in fact following me?!?) --Ckatz^chat_spy 21:23, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Ah, still no reasoning. HarryAlffa (talk) 22:59, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

A false accusation of "slagging everyone off who disagrees with you" is a personal attack. I noticed you said, "long been part of". I take it you want us to think you've been here recently and also for a long time. If in fact it's been some time since you last contributed here, then it's quite some coincidence you showing up to have a go at me on my first time here. Do you care to tell the ladies and gentlemen when it was you last contributed to the article, and the talk page? HarryAlffa (talk) 17:50, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

You're of course correct, Harry, and you've caught me out. I must now confess to one and all that it is very unusual for Ckatz to take an interest in MoS-related issues, especially those related to linking. In fact, it has all been an effort to cover up a plan to seek out and target your edits. I thought I could fool you, but you've apparently managed to call my bluff. I defer to your obvious wisdom with respect to these matters. --Ckatz^chat_spy 18:28, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Ah, so you confess to backwards thinking. You followed me here from WP:Link talk page, and in order to protect your view on the special case of self-links. You thought you'd better make sure General principles wasn't made explicit. Do you have any other reason than this? HarryAlffa (talk) 19:22, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

No, actually, I only confess to being sarcastic in my last post. If you wish to entertain delusions about people "following" you, pursuing imaginary agendas, well, that is your choice. Good luck with it. --Ckatz^chat_spy 19:30, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Ah, more personal attacks - instead of reasoned answers, any chance of any of those? HarryAlffa (talk) 19:49, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Why say it?

I was reverted elsewhere (an encyclopaedia article) for changing wiki markup for bold-face from the usual explicit '''Bold text''' to different but still perfectly valid & safe markup, and the Mos was cited as the reason. On the bold face of it, that seems a stupid thing for someone to do, but I can see were the other editors coming from as it's a special case of markup behaviour, and it took a bit of thought for me to explain my reasoning, so please visit the WP:Link talk page for a discussion on this, and what the alternative markup for bold face might be! I hope to convince you there of that usage, which will then cascade back to keep the edit on this page! :) HarryAlffa (talk) 20:06, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

This issue has come up before: see "Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 107#Using self links as bold reiteration". — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 18:41, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Sounds familiar. Please visit the WP:Link talk page for a discussion on this. HarryAlffa (talk) 19:14, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Harry, see Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Archive_107#Using_self_links_as_bold_reiteration, which reached consensus that links should not be used to create bold text (except in the case of templates). Also, keep in mind that there is a big difference between a perceived lack of direction in the MoS, and directly incorporating a statement that there is no direction. The first is ambiguous, while the second implies that the ambiguity is intentional (and that editors are free to do as they wish). You have explained your opinion regarding the ambiguity, but you have not demonstrated consensus for your position that it is intentional. Hence, the removal of the text, which is not a statement so much as it is a change in direction. --Ckatz^chat_spy 21:23, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

• Ah, still no reasoning - that applies.
• The reasoning you supplied (you actually gave some!) applies to a Special Case

• A Special Case may be an exception to a General Principle
• An exception is not a General Principle.

• The edit I made was to General Principles.
• You have given no reasoning that applies to General Principles.
• Please move your contribution above to the WP:Link talk page for a discussion on the points you made - they don't belong here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by HarryAlffa (talk • contribs) 23:44, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

---

The style guides for Wikipedia articles do not specify
what WikiMarkup should be used to conform to a style.

There can be no doubt from any general reading[9] on Separate structure and presentation (from W3), and CSS lead, that making such a statement in General principles conforms to the fundamental outlook being advocated by this World Authority on matters of markup languages.

Experience has shown that separating the structure of a document from its presentational aspects reduces the cost of serving a wide range of platforms, media, etc., and facilitates document revisions.[10]

That is why I strongly advocate that we adopt this as a General principle. Any possible exceptions can then be dealt with elsewhere. HarryAlffa (talk) 17:51, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I can't help feeling that you're making far too big an issue of this. Generally speaking people don't care that much about what Wiki markup is used to produce particular effects, although certain conventions are preferred (more by custom and obvious efficiency than by being recorded in guidelines). If there are guidelines, however, then they might as well be in the style guides as anywhere else - it's a natural enough place for people to come and look for that information. (Of course the style guides and other guidelines could be much better organized, but that's another matter.) But in any case, the importance of the issue to most people is so small that there seems little point giving it headline space among the "general principles" - that just distracts attention away from information which might actually be important.--Kotniski (talk) 08:00, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes. And to be clear: I oppose the general principle that MOS should not speak about markup choices. If fundamentally opposing markup decisions that are so fundamentally agreed on that so far nobody bothered to codify them suddenly becomes fashionable, then we will need a place to document the general practice. MOS is the most natural place, and starting a different guideline for this purpose would be policy creep and confusing. That MOS sometimes goes slightly beyond the strict scope of a manual of style is a good thing. E.g. it's very valuable to have all information about linking in one place, WP:LINK. Pedantic lawyering about the scope of a guideline certainly doesn't contribute to building an encyclopedia. --Hans Adler (talk) 09:23, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Hans, as a wiki environment blurs the conventional structure/presentation division (as addressed by w3c and the like), which applies more in this case to the MediaWiki back-end and CSS design than to WikiMarkup. Since a large part of site usage involves users changing both presentational and structural aspects of articles, it is only natural that conventions arise to facilitate regular and efficient practice in both. Codifying the conventions is a logical step where they are found effective (and where deviation from them may cause confusion or inconvenience). /Ninly (talk) 16:57, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Kotniski, as you say, and Hans Adler & Ninly indicate agreement, the style guides are a natural enough place for people to come looking for markup guidance, but as MoS carefully avoids doing that, then telling people straight up that the MoS doesn't do that, and they won't find such guidance, seems like a good idea. Other than showing how to do a couple of structural things it makes no prescriptions on the markup to be used to achieve a style - except to say to keep it as simple as it's purpose allows.

Hans, I titled this talk-topic "MoS Doesn't specify Wiki markup", then said, "It seems to me self evident that the MoS is implicitly saying this". Who is fundamentally opposing markup decisions? Not me! I'm all for choice of markup. The MoS only says "Keep markup simple". Pedantic lawyering - woah, steady tiger!! See the talk-topic immediately following this one. :)

Ninly, as you indicate, the MediaWiki takes great cognisance of the W3's work on separating structure from presentation in converting wiki-markup to HTML & CSS. Editors can change structural aspects, like heading levels, and the MediaWiki will alter the presentation of the heading, but it is not the editor who chooses this presentational style, it is the WikiMedia. So I think it is quite incorrect to say that this wiki environment blurs the distinction between structure and presentation.

Under Miscellaneous: Keep markup simple; Formatting issues the MoS only shows CSS examples, not any markup examples, which is proper for a Style Guide, as CSS is exclusively for styling, not structure.

Hans, you are right, the MoS does sometimes go slightly beyond style guidance, an example of markup in this MoS to achieve structure, like Headings; where presentational markup is excluded "The triple apostrophes that make words appear in boldface are not used in headings", and how to leave comments in the wikimarkup. HarryAlffa (talk) 14:50, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Edit request: CE v. AD nomenclature

{{editprotected}}

Please insert the following text into Wikipedia:MOS#Longer_periods, as the penultimate bullet point – before the bullet point which begins "Do not change from one style to another…" – in the list of "BC/AD vs. BCE/CE" bullet points:
The BCE/CE nomenclature is preferred if BC/AD would clash with the article's subject, e.g., articles on non-Christian persons or topics. --Goodmorningworld (talk) 11:16, 11 May 2009 (UTC) --- This is a modification of the wording here, which is supported by a 3-to-1 majority, hence consensus. Also, please fold this edit into Wikipedia:MOSNUM, too. --Goodmorningworld (talk) 11:30, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure this is worded quite right. This would mean that BC would almost never be used (not many Christian persons or topics around in that era). Do you mean "topics relating to modern non-Christian religions or their adherents" or something like that?--Kotniski (talk) 12:28, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Alright, then let's shorten it to The BCE/CE nomenclature is preferred if BC/AD would clash with the article's subject.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 12:33, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Do you think this is clear enough? Obviously it is to us, because we know what we're talking about, but would a cold reader get it?--Kotniski (talk) 12:41, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, let's see. Either elaborate on the principle or give examples:
*The BCE/CE nomenclature is preferred if BC/AD would clash with the article's subject, as determined by reliable sources.
*The BCE/CE nomenclature is preferred if BC/AD would clash with the article's subject. Examples: Muhammad takes CE, Maccabean Revolt takes BCE, Augustinus takes AD, Julius Caesar takes BC.
What do you think? --Goodmorningworld (talk) 13:11, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

What exactly do you have against the wording I gave above ("topics relating to modern non-Christian religions or their adherents")? Is that not what you mean, or is it just too hard to understand? --Kotniski (talk) 13:16, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't grasp that you were proposing that specific wording. "Religions or their adherents": I believe this could lead to problems if, say, someone were to write "N.N. [who is a famous secular Jew] (b. 19XX AD)." Not a good example because we would probably never write either AD or CE in a 20th-century biography but I am just trying to illustrate my point … --Goodmorningworld (talk) 13:36, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

So how about "with a strong connection to any of the living, non-Christian religions"?--Kotniski (talk) 15:35, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

The current guideline is no preference for one style or the other. Expressing a preference on a religiously charged issue should not be done (even in specific situations) without a widely-publicized Request for Comment. --Jc3s5h (talk) 15:42, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Hey, fuhgeddaboudid! I had no idea this was one of WP's perennial trench wars.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 16:59, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Of course it is. That was the issue in the Jguk case, which is referred to in the lead of this page (and often at WP:ARBDATE); that's why some of us have no use for Date Warriors of any variety. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:07, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

All dates should be stated A.U.C., with negative numbers being used for events before that epoch, in the interests of NPOV. Physchim62 (talk) 22:09, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

It's a difficult call to decide whether to put something in about not offending people, or leaving it to the good sense of people to work it out on a case-by-case basis. My feeling is that time is on the side of BCE/CE because of its religious neutrality, and this will eventually carry the day. The present policy makes it clear that BCE/CE is becoming more common. I think that is enough, even though some would prefer the policy to come down firmly on the side of BCE/CE. Michael Glass (talk) 11:54, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

And some would prefer it to come down firmly on the side of BC/AD, since that's much more widely understood among English speakers. (And isn't any more religiously unneutral than Wednesday or Jupiter.) But as you say, best to leave the current wording alone.--Kotniski (talk) 12:02, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Thinking about it some more, I am now convinced that The BCE/CE nomenclature is preferred if BC/AD would clash with the article's subject. is best. Taken in context of the section, it's clear that no letters next to a year numeral are preferred, the next most common choice is BC/AD but there are exceptions in which BCE/CE is more appropriate and these exceptions are frequent. Of course, any attempt to introduce this into the Manual of Style would be like throwing red meat in front of certain Wikipedians who'd like nothing better than to obstruct 24 hours a day and 7 days a week.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 21:03, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

That is both vague and tendentious. More tendency to the Sympathetic Point of View, which would make us Wikinfo. If that approach is ever justified, it is covered by "follow the sources"; if they have inclined to political correctness, so can we. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:22, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

The reason we use both BCE and BC in Wikipedia is because they are, together, the most widely acknowledged and used dating system. We must remember that Common Era is still biased; both it and anno Domini are basing their start point from a 6th century estimation of Jesus' birth year (BCE simply doesn't acknowledge this fact). Your argument makes it seem as if BCE is less biased than BC, when in fact it is not. Only a calendar based on an arbitrary date, say the beginning of the universe, would be free of cultural bias. Until we have such a calendar in widespread usage, both BCE and BC (which are equally notable) should be given equal support within Wikipedia. — ^{`</sup>CRAZY`(lN)`SANE<sup>`} 10:33, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

One of the most toxic mindsets in modern culture is "because perfection is unattainable, there's no reason to try at all". It doesn't get stated that baldly, of course. A common instance is "there is no such thing as objective journalism", used as an excuse for unadulterated propaganda. (That one has, fortunately, failed so far to take root at Wikipedia.) All dating systems have some bias. Check. But, reality check: Because of what the C's stand for, BC asserts that Christian mythology is true, whereas BCE does not assert that it's true. Asserting the truth of Christian mythology is more biased than not doing so. Pi zero (talk) 11:54, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Does calling the third day of the week Woden's day present bias toward Anglo-Saxon paganism? Should Wikipedia resort to calling Wednesday "Third Day" or some variation thereof because of this? Ridiculous. "BC" is convention, and "BCE" is simply a notable neologism to this convention, which has become popularized thanks to political correctness. I'm not saying we abolish use of "BCE", I'm saying we should use both equally as we are already doing. "BCE" may be "less biased" in your mind, but "Third Day" (once used by the Quakers) is also less biased than "Woden's Day", so why don't we use that?. And please don't get into a tangent of semantics by saying that "Before Christ" actually asserts Jesus' divinity while simply stating that Hump Day "belongs" to Woden doesn't. I've gotten into that before. The term "Christ" is used by secular people to refer to Jesus all the time— ^{`</sup>CRAZY`(lN)`SANE<sup>`} 03:41, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I have neither expressed nor implied a preference on when one should use BC vs. BCE; I said that they differ significantly in their degree of bias, because it seemed to me to be an important point to get straight. I certainly agree that there exist things that don't carry significant bias, and that the remote etymological connection of "Wednesday" with Woden is an example of such a thing (though actually calling it "Woden's day"... would get reverted because it's bizarre, so there's no need to gauge its bias). I don't think the insignificance of bias in that case has any bearing on the significance of bias in this case, though. And I don't think the use of "Christ" versus "Jesus" makes nearly as much difference as you seem to be claiming I do; in any case, "Before Jesus" isn't a contender here, the relevant distinction is "Christ" vs. "Common". Pi zero (talk) 15:56, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

That is your taste. Others will differ; to many there seems no more bias in AD than in Wednesday, especially since Anno Domini is in the "decent obscurity of a learned language". Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:32, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Ah! I believe I see a possible source of misunderstanding here. When I say "BC is more X than BCE", that's understood to be my opinion unless X is something obviously objective (like, having fewer letters) or unless I have a sociological study or something to back it up — but it isn't necessarily a matter of taste, i.e., personal preference. If I said "BC is more beautiful than BCE" I would almost certainly be expressing personal preference. However, with X=bias, I could easily be talking either about how it affects me or about how it's apt to affect third parties. In fact I'm talking about third parties, whereas it seems you have assumed I was talking about my own perceptions. That would certainly account for the discussion feeling out of synch.

BTW, I agree that AD is somewhat less effectively biased than BC (but they come as a matched set; and we've been comparing BC with BCE, not AD with CE). Pi zero (talk) 12:17, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Centre-facing images and L2 headers

A recent discussion on WP:ANI#Rotational has raised a couple of possible conflicts between two MOS guidelines. Please could people offer their opinions on the following issues?

1. How should right-facing portraits be handled in the lead section? MOS suggests that "It is often preferable to place images of faces so that the face or eyes look toward the text." Is it appropriate to swap positions of the TOC and the lead image, as in this edit?
2. Is it appropriate to convert L2 headers to L3 for aesthetic reasons, such as this edit? Papa November (talk) 18:04, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Re (2), I asked the same thing on this page a little while ago, but didn't get much feedback.[11] It seems completely obvious to me that the top-level headers in each article should be level 2 (==) not level 3 (===). — Carl (CBM · talk) 18:09, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

• For what it is worth, I offer the following;
  1. This is a conflict of competing goods; it is appropriate to do it either way, since some readers will value both. If the switched way were widely offered and widely rejected, it might be appropriate to consider that very few readers find "facing inward" the Most Important Thing; but I don't see that that is true. Few readers care.
  2. This esthetic judgment can (and should) be implemented by adjusting reader settings. But if an occasional article has level 3 headers, so what?

IN neither case are these worth revert-warring about. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:09, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

The first dot point of the "images" section is "Start an article with a right-aligned lead image or InfoBox." I think the wording suggests that this trumps "It is often preferable to place images of faces so that the face or eyes look toward the text.", and so it should. Specifically,

1. No, the layout in that diff looks horrible. If that is the result of allowing left-aligned lead images, then the MOS should be clarified to make it even more clear that they are discouraged.
2. I largely agree with Septentrionalis' "if an occasional article has level 3 headers, so what?"; but note that that diff also demoted the References section to level 4, making it subordinate to the Asteraceae section. Look at the contents box:

105 Acanthaceae
106 Rubiaceae
107 Asteraceae
  107.1 References

That is completely wrong; indefensible even.

Hesperian 23:56, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually the number of articles with a level-3 references section is vanishingly small (under 3000). I checked. Once you remove from that the ones that have "references" as a subsection of "notes and references", and a swath of stubs that seem to have been autogenerated with level 3 headers, the number left is small enough to attribute solely to users unfamiliar with how to format wikitext. — Carl (CBM · talk) 00:01, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I would not have switched the image and the TOC, but I think the switched version looks well enough. But the matter seems to have been settled by blocking the advocate. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:44, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

He has not been blocked this time; a discussion at ANI, that I did not participate in, led to a sanction that he cannot revert this sort of change if someone else reverts him. He is still able to edit normally in every other way. Which seems like a reasonable solution to me. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:52, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

"It is often preferable to place images of faces so that the face or eyes look toward the text." Is that really a modern stylistic rule? Or does it belong to the 1930s and 1940s, when vehicles in movies (especially trains) were expected to be pointed to the right when moving eastward and left when moving westward? --John Nagle (talk) 17:37, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

It's still a rule. It looks odd when a face is pointing off the page; in addition, readers' eyes tend to follow the direction of the face, and we don't want to point them away from the text. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 17:45, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

• Looking at the examples (and several other versions) here's my 3 cents
  1. Right facing portraits in the lead should be on the LEFT. But if they are enclosed in a valid infoboxthen the right-side is okay. Right-facing portraits look awkward and horrible when placed on the right side if they are not in an Infobox
  2. Yes it is appropriate to convert L2 headers to L3 headers if the situation warrants it (i.e. for aesthetic reasons). I'm not sure if aesthetics was the original claim at the diff referenced above, but the page itself calls for L3 headers. L2s are reserved for Section Headings: The whole page there is one section (L2 level). Consequently, every entry there is, by definition, a sub-heading (L3). Sub-headings are supposed to be L3. Joe Hepperle (talk) 10:04, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

• • • If there are no section headings, the entire article is at the L1 level, not the L2 level. The L1 header is the article title; more can be produced with a single = sign but convention is that we do not use them. An L3 header is for a subsubheading. — Carl (CBM · talk) 05:21, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Length of time in years

The length of time sometimes gets put into Wikipedia, which has a potential to lead to incorrectness. For example, there are many pages which say something like: "She has been married to her husband for twenty-eight years."

The problem with such a statement is that in five years from now, who will know how many years those people have been married for? Therefore, I can think of a couple of ways to resolve this problem:

• Wikipedia includes a mechanism for inserting a hidden date, and automatically updates the duration.
• Wikipedia style guides against such a statement in favor of: "She has been married to her husband since 1991."

Is this really an issue? Or is there another way to improve the durability of Wikipedia? It just seems like Wikipedia's not going to remain fresh if people continue to write the way that they are. Twocs (talk) 07:48, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

The "Precise language" section of the MoS already suggests to avoid such statements. If you want to use auto-updating counts, "for {{age|1991|03|17}} years" outputs "for 33 years", automatically updated on 17 March every year. (I don't know if a similar template spelling out the number exist.) But personally I prefer "since 1991". --A. di M. (formerly Army1987) — Deeds, not words. 14:34, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

{{Numtext|{{age|1991|03|17}}}} gives "thirty-three". See {{Numtext}} for a statement about overhaul/subtemplates. Sswonk (talk) 19:59, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Awesome. Thanks! Twocs (talk) 08:13, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

WP:MOS#Quotation marks

[Just noticed this (re: "inside or outside"), which I point out in an article talk page and am copying here, for others' information, if useful:] An example called a "sentence fragment" in the section linked on "Quotation marks" ("Come with me."--mispunctuated as "Come with me") is actually not a "fragment" of a sentence; it is a full sentence: an imperative command ("Come with me." is a sentence based on the imperative usage of the verb "to come"; "Come." signifies "I am telling you to come," just as "Come with me." signifies "I am telling you to come with me." (It may appear elliptical ["a fragment"] to some, but it is an imperative.) --NYScholar (talk) 00:47, 26 May 2009 (UTC) [Also added to section above: #Punctuation: Quotation marks: Inside or outside. --NYScholar (talk) 00:57, 26 May 2009 (UTC)]

[Please see Imperative mood#Usage: in the above example ("Come with me." v. "Come with me") in the current version of this project page re: "inside or outside" quotation marks, what is labeled as "correct" is actually incorrect, and vice versa. (I added Wikified link above too.)--NYScholar (talk) 03:08, 27 May 2009 (UTC)]

Article Titles

I think some mention should be made in this section of when italics should be used in the title. For example species and genuses should have their titles in italics. This can be done either by removing the "name" section from the taxobox if the article name is the same e.g. [12] or by adding {{italictitle}} if the name section is different (e.g. it's a common name in the taxobox) or there is a bracketed part in the title e.g. on Homo (genus). I'm not sure, but should books and songs also have italicised titles? I assume using {{italictitle}} would be easiest for this too. Smartse (talk) 08:45, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Colons and semicolons with quotation marks

The section on quotation marks with other punctuation says "Punctuation," implying all punctuation, is placed in or outside the quote marks according to the stop rule. However, in both British and American English, colons and semicolons are always placed outside the quote marks. It seems likely that the phrasing is an oversight on the part of some previous contributor. What do you guys think of "Colons and semicolons are placed outside the quotation marks. Question marks, exclamation points, periods and commas are placed inside the quotation marks only if the sense of the punctuation is part of the quotation." Darkfrog24 (talk) 04:15, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

See Quotation mark#Punctuation: "In both styles, question marks and exclamation marks are placed inside or outside quoted material on the basis of logic, but colons and semicolons are always placed outside." -- Wavelength (talk) 05:42, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

What's the point of describing styles that we don't prescribe? In logical quotation, colons and semi-colons are treated identically to any other punctuation, so there's no need to talk about them specially. Ilkali (talk) 10:02, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Mentioning placement of colons and semi-colons is useful for the sake of completeness and to avoid confusion. Likewise, describing both systems explains the choice made in the MOS and the reasons for that choice. Must every little thing be the subject of argument? Finell (Talk) 02:32, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Concur. For straightforwardness's sake, I'd also advise adding a line stating that the system differs from both standard British English and standard American English as part of the explanation, already shown, of why Wikipedia adopted this policy. Darkfrog24 (talk) 04:40, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that getting into usages on either side of the Pond is more likely to confuse than to clarify: some U.S. publications (a minority) use the so-called logical or British style, while some British publications (a minority) use the so-called American style. Omitting mention of the placement of colons and semi-colons, on the other hand, might lead some editors to conclude, erroneously, that the MOS does prescribe the placement of these punctuation marks. Finell (Talk) 11:31, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

To be clear: As so-called at Quotation mark#Punctuation, logical quotatation is different from the British style. The difference between them (or at least a difference between them) is that logical quotation treats semicolons and colons the same way as it treats all other punctuation marks, whereas the British style treats semicolons and colons differently. Pi zero (talk) 11:58, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

True. As I mentioned at the time, I found a source yesterday that said this. One source concurring with a POV is a hundred times more effective than a thousand people singing its praises without one. Darkfrog24 (talk) 13:20, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Logical quotation is neither the British style nor the American style. Logical quotation is sometimes used by scientific and technical publications because of its precision, regardless of what variety of English they use. Both the British style and the American style treat colons and semicolons differently from other punctuation, but logical quotation does not treat them any differently than any other punctuation. Some of the phrasing over at Quotation mark#Punctuation may be too easily misunderstood on this point. The term logical quotation there is presented in a sentence that also mentions typesetters' quotation, apparently another name for the American style, and then in describing use of logical quotation it says that it is sometimes used "even in the U.S.". The phrase "even in the U.S." apparently assumes that the use of logical quotation in the U.S. is more surprising than its use elsewhere, since logical quotation deviates more from American style than it does from British style; but the phrase might be misconstrued as equating logical quotation with the British style, and the seeming contrast of logical quotation with typesetters' quotation doesn't do anything to disabuse readers of that impression. Perhaps the article section Quotation mark#Punctuation could be made clearer, but this isn't the place to get into that. Pi zero (talk) 13:12, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

With regard to just colons and semicolons in this MoS for now, it still looks like "Punctuation" is just a typo. I'm checking NASA style guide, British sources, U.S. sources, scientific societies, anything I can find online, and so far no one ever seems to put colons or semicolons inside the quotation marks, regardless of how they treat periods and commas. Many of the style guides aren't available online, though. Darkfrog24 (talk) 13:44, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I took a search through the archive of this page. It doesn't seem that this matter has come to anyone's attention before. Suggests that colons/semicolons are easy to overlook. Darkfrog24 (talk) 13:53, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Suggests that they follow the same rules as everything else in logical quotation and don't merit special mention. Ilkali (talk) 14:09, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

That's the beauty of logical quotation: it's logical. There's nothing special about colons or semicolons. The rule is simple: what's part of the quote goes within & what's not goes outside. JIMp _talk·cont 17:38, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

After much searching, I have found one source that conforms with this position. Whether or not Wikipedia should employ this policy is another question, but for now I'm satisfied that "Punctuation" was not necessarily a typo. Darkfrog24 (talk) 17:53, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

OK, I'm having a little trouble following this. In logical quotation, the only time the last symbol before the end-quote would be a semicolon is if that's what the person being quoted wrote. It's a little hard to imagine such a case. Maybe something like

The note continued, "my typewriter's period key is broken, so I must end this missive with a semicolon;".

but I think we can agree that this is sort of bizarre. The question that could arise is, in the non-logical style (don't like to call it American, because I love this country), are semicolons ever transported inside the quote, even though they would logically be outside? That is, would you ever write

He said, "when you shoot, shoot — don't talk;" however, he did not in fact shoot.

?

The answer I was taught in school is no, but my brother-in-law's dissertation moved semicolons inside the quotes in this manner and he claimed the MLA backed him up. --Trovatore (talk) 23:22, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

According to this [13], the MLA does not back him up. It says it's MLA, but it looks like someone's presentation. This one concurs [14] but this one doesn't [15]. Most of the stuff I've found, MLA-citing and otherwise, says that semicolons and colons go outside the quotes all the time.

Please don't call the American system non-logical. It's inaccurate and insulting. You could call it the American system or the typographical system or the comma-inside system...Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:00, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

It's a stupid system. I don't like to call it "American" because I want the word American to be associated with good things, not bad things. --Trovatore (talk) 01:13, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Don't call the American system stupid. It's neither true nor nice. You not liking it doesn't mean it's bad. Also, if you look at this discussion page, you'll see that lots of people here are attached to the American system, and saying that it's stupid isn't the best way to discuss this or any other Wiki page. If you don't want to say "American" then there are other things you could call it, both neutral and complimentary. Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:32, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't want to compliment it, and I don't want to be neutral. It is bad. It should go away. --Trovatore (talk) 01:36, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Okay, you've established that you don't like the American system, but I'm you can probably find a way to express that without resorting to name-calling. Lots of contibutors to this discussion page have done so, if you need examples. Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:42, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Dear Trovatore: Anyone who thinks that a style that is favored by the overwhelming majority of professional publishers, typographers, page designers, and style guides in the U.S.—or, for that matter, in the UK—is, if you will pardon the expression, stupid. It is a fallicy to belive that those who disagree with your opinion, about something that is a matter of opinion, is wrong or is inferior to you. Please adjust your attitude. Thank you. Finell (Talk) 11:31, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to jump in, but I think your first sentence is a little unintelligible. In any case, I agree with your second comment, but I would like to know where you were going. Did you mean "is [stupid, is], if you will pardon the expression, stupid"? - Best, Miguel Chavez (talk) 15:42, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Finell, you forgot to finish your first sentence. You wrote: "Anyone who thinks that a style that is favored by the overwhelming majority of professional publishers, typographers, page designers, and style guides in the U.S.—or, for that matter, in the UK—is, if you will pardon the expression, stupid." Please read that carefully. Michael Hardy (talk) 20:48, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I am right; they are wrong. My attitude is just fine. --Trovatore (talk) 19:45, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Trovatore is right and your argument is obviously faulty because it could also be used to defend a system of weights and measurements in which a mile is 1760 yards (as opposed to a kilometre being 1000 metres like everywhere else on the globe except in the UK), there is no general agreement whether a yard is precisely 0.9144 metres as in the UK or precisely 3600/3937 metres as it used to be, a pint is 0.473 litres unlike in the UK and Canada where it is 0.568 litres, or almost everywhere else where it is 1/2 litre = 1/2 cubic decimetre, etc. etc. It is a fallacy to think that the traditional way of doing things is necessarily the best, most natural, and most suitable in the modern world. [16] --Hans Adler (talk) 20:14, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Hans--There is a section of this talk page dedicated to the discussion of quotation marks with other punctuation with regard to the American, British and technical systems. It is [here]. In the interest of keeping this page easy to read, I request that you repeat your arguments there. You may find that they have already been addressed. Darkfrog24 (talk) 21:27, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I was of course addressing the incivility above. ("Anyone who thinks that [...] is stupid.") But there is nothing more effective to abort a heated discussion than a complete non sequitur that disguises as an on-topic comment, so I must congratulate you for this brilliant move. --Hans Adler (talk) 21:01, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

As for whether there are any circumstances in which the colon or semicolon would go inside, I suppose Wikipedia's system would permit it in cases in which a person is quoting a sentence fragment that ends in a semicolon or colon. Of course, it would be just as easy to remove the original end punctuation and stop the quote at the last letter of the last word. Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:03, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

You answered your own comment. There would never be a good reason to include a colon or semicolon at the end of a quotation. Please feel free to delete your comment and this reply. Finell (Talk) 02:32, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh, the above passage is a response to Trovatore's inquiry about whether there are any circumstances under which the Wikipedia system would permit semicolons or colons inside the quotes, not any comment of my own. It seems that the system would permit it, even if it were never strictly necessary. Why delete it? Darkfrog24 (talk) 05:00, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Because a small group of people find this debate rather uncomfortable. They decided these issues long ago, you see, which makes it equivalent to Gospel. So if you know what's good for you, you'll just shut up and run along. Best, Miguel Chavez (talk) 09:00, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Mchavez, it is not okay to tell people to shut up, regardless of whether you say "best" afterward. The comment that Finell asked me to delete has nothing to do with whether or not Wikipedia should use the American style. I am only answering someone's question about how the so-called logical style seems to treat colons and semicolons. Darkfrog24 (talk) 13:33, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry if you took my joke to heart. I had hoped that my tone had made the sarcasm implicit. It was actually a reference to what was said to me by a discruntald participant on this talk page. Best, Miguel Chavez (talk) 15:24, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

What a relief. I understand what you were trying to say now. Still, might be best to play it straight with people's emotions running high. God I love that so many people care about proper punctuation. Darkfrog24 (talk) 16:57, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

You must be a teacher! ;) Best, Miguel Chavez (talk) 17:46, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

You take that back!! Darkfrog24 (talk) 21:27, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

The debate does not make me uncomfortable, and I have seen no indication that it make anyone else uncomfortable. The problem I have is that the debate is futile: it is repeated here periodically, and the conclusion is always that there is no consensus for change. Personally, I actually prefer the so-called typographical convention because placing a period or comma after a closing quotation mark looks ugly to me. I've edited an academic journal, written a style manual for an organization I worked for, and studied some typography; I am probably more aesthetically sensitive than the majority of people who enjoy better mental health. However, I support continued use of so-called logical quotation on Wikipedia for the following reasons:

1. When all is said (over and over and over) and done, there is substantial consensus for the current guideline.
2. Unlike many other MOS guidelines, this one is actually followed a very substantial majority of the time in Wikipedia articles.
3. A stronger consensus and very good reasons—something beyond some editors preferring a different style for the same reasons previously stated by the same or other editors—should be required to change a long-standing style guideline.
4. It is a clear guideline with a persuasive rationale.

So, I would like to see this debate ended and not repeated because it is a pointless waste of time and energy, and because it leads to useless (as opposed to constructive) conflict. Peace, Finell (Talk) 11:31, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Well I'm glad you're willing to engage the issues and not just skirt them under the rug, as was suggested to me by your previous comments to "leave it alone." I also find it interesting that you prefer the so-called typographical convention, but have decided to abandon it here in light of overwhelming consensus. Which leaves me confused. Maybe I'm having trouble reading the tea leaves, but this consensus you speak of strikes me as a chimera. I have seen much disagreement and conflict over this issue, which you state is "repeated here periodically" and is argued about "over and over and over." Perhaps I'm looking at this issue through prejudicial eyes, but I see this guideline as overly controversial. People are even getting upset, others angry (even rude), others frustrated to the point where they feel they have to leave. All this is over where we put the period; on this side of the squiggly line, or that side of the squiggly line.

Second, I don't think the current policy is being followed through by a substantial majority of the articles. Maybe it could be sample bias, but I've seen widespread discontinuity, often favoring the American convention, depending predictably on the article's subject matter. Which is just odd, considering "logical quotation" is, as you mentioned, a "long-standing style guideline," which makes it therefore a self fulfilling prophesy (which has not come to fruition).

Third, it is important to remember that consensus is not required to change things on Wikipedia. It is required to suppress, revert, or to keep the status quo. Wikipedia encourages bold changes, and the burden of consensus rests upon those who wish to keep things the same. Furthermore as the Wikipedia consensus guideline states, in "the case of policies and guidelines, Wikipedia expects a higher standard of participation and consensus than on other pages." I think it should be obvious to all that this higher standard has clearly not being met. Lastly, just because something is "clear" does not make it right. I, among others, have put forward at least five lines of argument against the current guidelines. Care to take a guess at how many have been addressed? All the best, Miguel Chavez (talk) 15:24, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I most certainly have not abandoned proper American punctuation. My question was whether or not the choice of the word "Punctuation" in the given passage was a mistake. That question has been answered to my satisfaction. I am as stout an advocate of American punctuation as ever. I agree with many of the points you've made--variation of usage in article, consensus for changing the policy not yet been met, etc.--but perhaps we should continue discussing the matter of quotation marks and other punctuation in the section of the talk page that has been dedicated to it. Darkfrog24 (talk) 16:45, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Miguel Chavez (talk) 17:46, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

As has been made clear repeatedly in the very lengthy discussion of this topic, Wikipedia's choice of the so-called logical quotation convention has nothing to do with a choice between American English and British English usage. Please drop this from further discussion of the issue here. Thank you. Finell (Talk) 02:32, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually, no one in this section seems to have been talking about that in the first place. Are you referring to the conversation in the "inside or outside" section? Darkfrog24 (talk) 04:48, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I am referring to the inside versus outside question. However, I see that question and American versus English usage discussed in this section as well; hence my comment here. Finell (Talk) 11:31, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

The topics in this section are 1. whether or not the MoS's use of the word "Punctuation" was a mistake. 2. Whether or not it's okay to call the American system "stupid." The answers are no and no. The question of whether Wikipedia should use the American system or not was not mentioned here.

I strongly disagree with the idea that the topic should be forbidden. It was a controversial decision that requires explanation, which people can get here. People talk about it because they care about proper punctuation, and that should be encouraged right alongside polite debate. Darkfrog24 (talk) 13:29, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I guess FInell's frustration arises from the fact that this one is dredged up here about three times a year. Usage varies among the anglophone countries, although US and anglophone Canadian schools seem to teach solely the "inside" version. Unfortunately, we have to unlearn most of what we learn at school, no matter which jurisdiction the damage occurs in. <grin> WP is particularly strong on the outside method because it is consistent with the pillar of being as faithful as possible to our sources. There is also the logic of the hierarchy involving main sentence and quoted material. Tony (talk) 17:17, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I have to concur with both Wavelength and Pi Zero. This is a non-issue. It is not the purpose of MOS to describe every possible quotation style, only to recommend a single one for WP purposes, which happens to be one in which punctuation goes outside, unless a) it is terminal punctuation (. or ? or !) and b) is part of the sense of the quoted material. That makes this semicolons and colons issue moot. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 20:49, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

En dashes vs. hyphens

Following the section here on en dashes, I moved Ural-Altaic languages to Ural–Altaic languages. However, I've gotten complaints saying that a hyphen is used in the literature, and that takes precedence over the MOS. Since punctuation varies from source to source, it doesn't seem that clear-cut to me. So I'd like your input:

1. Does the punctuation of academic literature take precedence over wikipedia's MOS? (per complaint, "they are inappropriate in established linguistic names", as in #2 below)
2. When a language family is named after two languages (Yuki–Wappo, named after the Yuki and Wappo languages) or geographic areas (Niger–Congo, spoken along the Niger and Congo rivers), and neither is a prefix, should we use the en dash? A hyphen is always used in the lit, but is this an orthographic issue, or a punctuation issue?
3. What if one of the names is shortened to its root form? "Uralic–Altaic languages" I think should be en-dashed, and "Uralo-Altaic languages" clearly should be hyphenated, but what about "Ural-Altaic/Ural–Altaic languages", which is Ural Mountains plus Altai Mountains plus the suffix -ic?

I've also gotten more general complaints:

"En-dashes are also ridiculous since they are not easy to type. Use them in mathematical formulas, but not in connected English text or in hyphenated vocabulary items." [I'm not sure what use they would have in math formulas.]

kwami (talk) 00:50, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

This seems to me a case where a hyphen is correct. The use is for conjunction, not disjunction. There is not a from–to, versus, or opposition sense between the two terms that would indicate en-dash usage. But I'm not an expert, wait for other opinions. -- Tcncv (talk) 06:52, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

You could argue Niger-Congo is a from-to (spoken from the Niger to the Congo). kwami (talk)

See the "Usage guidelines" subsection under Dash#En dash. --Wulf (talk) 09:10, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that is what we are discussing, but what is your interpretation? -- Tcncv (talk) 18:51, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

To me these seem very much like Bose–Einstein condensate, which the CMS would not require an en dash for, but which has an en dash in the title here on wikipedia. I've never seen that phrase with an en dash in the academic lit either, so it does seem to be a good illustration for my question.

Another objection I've heard (see my talk page) is that readers looking things up will be constantly redirected from hyphenated search strings, wasting their time and concentration wondering how what they entered was wrong. Is this a concern for anyone else? If it is, should we set up a bot to fix links to en-dashed article titles? kwami (talk) 10:04, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I am retracting my earlier opinion. It appears that Wikipedia MoS also prefers en-dash usage for "and" relationships, which (I believe) include both the Bose–Einstein condensate and Niger–Congo languages cases. It appears that other style guides are mixed on this issue, with some (such as Chicago) preferring dashes. Again, I am not an expert. (As a side note, is it just me, or is it confusing to have the "and" condition covered under "disjunction"?)

Other opinions are requested. -- Tcncv (talk) 18:51, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

This is another case in which WP:MOS has been written to "reform" English, rather than to record what it does. This should be fixed. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:14, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

This is also an archaic preservation of typesetting style which is inappropriate for computer usage. Hyphens are all that are required. The distinction between an en-dash and a hyphen is strictly a holdover from the printing industry. In linguistics, we never use en-dashes in formulations like Niger-Congo and Ural-Altaic and Amto-Musan, etc. An additional objection to the silly wording of this MOS concerning en-dashes is their use in "and" constructions. That would require them in "hyphenated" names, then, as well, such as Meredith Whitney-Bowes, for example. I am looking at the January 2008 issue of International Journal of American Linguistics right now. Page 2 "Patla-Chicontla Totonac" [hyphen], page 59 "Uto-Aztecan" [hyphen], page 89 "Proto-Cholan" [hyphen]. These are constructions of language names. However, in the formulation on page 141, an en-dash is correctly used in the formulation "Cherokee—English Dictionary". "Cherokee-English" is not an accepted linguistic formulation and the dictionary is clearly "from" Cherokee "to" English. On page 142, we also see "Eastern Ojibwa—Chippewa—Ottawa Dictionary" with en-dashes. Thus, the formulation "from—to" is a correct usage of the en-dash, while the "and" construction is not. ("Niger-Congo" is not a "from—to" construction, but is an "and" construction--"the languages of the Niger and Congo Basins"). (Taivo (talk) 22:26, 9 March 2009 (UTC))

Playing devil's advocate, "proto-" and "Uto-" would always be hyphenated, because they're prefixes.

I'm not so sure "Niger-Congo" is an "and" formulation: language families are frequently named for their geographic extremes, in effect 'the languages from A to B'.

What about cases where one or both of the joined names contain more than one word? Or hyphenating an already hyphenated name, as often happens with "proto-"? kwami (talk) 23:03, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Linguistic usage always prevails--hyphens all the way. And we all know that the "Niger-Congo" family extends far beyond the Niger and Congo Rivers. Indeed, Atlantic-Zambezi would be a more accurate "extension" description. The argument for "geographical" extension works (in archaic typesetting terms if necessary at all) only for terms that are not accepted linguistic names. Accepted linguistic names should always be hyphenated because they are proper names. In examining linguistic usage, the only time one finds en-dashes (or, better, em-dashes) is in forms (as cited above) that are dictionary names, "From Cherokee to English". These are not geographical ranges, but "translation ranges" only. But, in the end, en-dashes are silly retentions from typesetting and have no real function in the modern, computerized world. (Taivo (talk) 23:58, 9 March 2009 (UTC))

Your "proper names" argument may be the way to go. That would take care of hyphenated surnames as well. (Except that dictionary titles are also proper names. "Unitary terms", perhaps?) However, em dashes are not appropriate for dictionaries. An em dash would give a bizarre reading, rather like a colon, such as the title is "Cherokee" and that it's an English dictionary. kwami (talk) 00:19, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

When combining hyphenated forms into larger units, older sources that were typeset sometimes used en-dashes to combine hyphenated forms. Thus, in the Handbook of Native American languages, Volume 10, Southwest (1983, typeset by linotype), on page 115 we find "Proto-" added to "Uto-Aztecan" with an en-dash. But in Mithun's The Languages of Native North America (1999, computer typeset) we find "Athapaskan-Eyak-Tlingit" with all hyphens (page 346 ff) and on page 123 "Proto-Uto-Aztecan" with all hyphens. In linguistics books, all the linotype-typeset (precomputer) books I checked have occasional (although not universal) en-dashes in places and all the computer-typeset books I checked have hyphens all the way. This WP:MOS appears to be a misguided attempt to turn back the clock to a precomputerized typesetting era. (Taivo (talk) 00:12, 10 March 2009 (UTC))

What we'll end up with then is differing punctuation standards depending on the topic of the article. That doesn't seem to be a tenable situation. (I don't see the point of the AET example, but pUA captures the diff.)

There's also the issue of precision. Within linguistics, the meaning of these names is obvious. However, they're not always so obvious to the non-linguist. Granted, hyphens are not wrong, but en dashes help disambiguate. This reminds me of punctuation in quotations. A final period or comma may come before or after the quotation mark, depending on the style guide we're following. However, here on WP we've decided to follow logical order, as being an encyclopedia warrants precision in such matters. kwami (talk) 00:19, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for not being more specific--Athapaskan-Eyak-Tlingit is a combination of Athapaskan-Eyak with Tlingit. What you are implying about the precision comment is that books published by linguists are imprecise and that Wikipedia is somehow more precise. Ahem. Within linguistics, hyphens are now standard usage for all proper names of languages. That's the Manual of Style which should be followed for all language and linguistics articles. Within our field, we get to establish what is standard usage and what is not. These are proper names in the same way that Meredith Baxter-Birney is a proper name. When you start using an en-dash in her name, then you have a valid argument for using them in linguistics proper names. Otherwise, there is no valid contemporary reason for using en-dashes in linguistic names when the specialists within that field don't use en-dashes. (Taivo (talk) 00:33, 10 March 2009 (UTC))

Oh, yeah, I got that much. It's just not clear to me that AET isn't just a list of the three branches of the family, without trying to subclassify them. Yes, I agree with your surname analogy, as I've said above. kwami (talk) 00:38, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

One further point about en-dashes within linguistic proper names. If linguists are using hyphens in all proper names of languages and language groups, then who will be decided which names get en-dashes and which ones don't? Non-linguists? I hardly think that they have the authority to decide such matters. Out in the world of linguistics, there aren't any en-dashes, so adding them into Wikipedia articles is actually a falsification of the data. (Taivo (talk) 00:36, 10 March 2009 (UTC))

It's a punctuation standard, not decided on a case-by-case basis. So there is no "decision". Illustrations from some of the Papuan families: Trans–New Guinea, East Bird's Head–Sentani, Left May–Kwomtari, Ramu–Lower Sepik, Yele–West New Britain, Reefs–Santa Cruz, but a hyphen in Eastern Trans-Fly. (Per the MOS, most of these should actually have spaces: East Bird's Head – Sentani.) I don't know about the spaces, but even if we stick with hyphenating Niger-Congo, I think we should follow Linotype-level precision for protolanguages (which does not contradict linguistic custom), and keep the en dashes in these Papuan families, which otherwise are ambiguous. I think precision is valuable for its own sake, even if specialists don't bother with it. kwami (talk) 00:50, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

But you are applying two different things in your examples. First, "proto-" and "trans-" are prefixes and prefixes should always be attached with hyphens and not with en-dashes. "co-operate" should never have an en-dash any more than "proto-" or "trans-". Thus, your example of Trans-New Guinea is in a different category than an example such as Athapaskan-Eyak-Tlingit. None of these examples from New Guinea are complex, all are simple: A + B. The only ambiguous cases are where you have formulations such as: A+B + C+D. But again I ask, who is going to make the decision where to put en-dashes and where to put hyphens? If you put en-dashes throughout in Athapaskan-Eyak-Tlingit, then you've violated your argument about precision. I'm not willing to trust these decisions to anyone except the original linguist author, but they all have used hyphens. So using en-dashes here and there where the original authors did not is a falsification of the data. (Taivo (talk) 00:59, 10 March 2009 (UTC))

You're conflating different phenomena. The MOS description isn't very clear: Indo-European and Proto-Indic both take hyphens, because they involve prefixes. Proto–Indo-European, however, takes an en dash, because the prefix docks to an already hyphenated form. This is established usage in linguistics, as you yourself showed. (It being obsolete is a different argument entirely.) Besides using en dashes when conjoining already hyphenated terms, it's also standard to use them when conjoining multi-word terms, as in the Papuan examples. That has nothing to do with something like Niger-Congo, where your surname argument is convincing. kwami (talk) 01:16, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Just for a control, I looked all the way back at Voegelin and Voegelin's Classification and Index of the World's Languages (1977, long before computerized typesetting) and they used hyphens. As just a sample, on page 243, I found "Athapascan-Eyak", "Na-Dene", "Sino-Tibetan-Na-Dene", "Kuki-Chin", "Naga-Kuki-Chin", and "non-Indo-European". All with nothing but hyphens and some of them constructed themselves from other hyphenated forms. (Taivo (talk) 00:40, 10 March 2009 (UTC))

The quality of the linguistics has little to do with the quality of the printing or typesetting. For all we know, V&V wrote the book on a manual typewriter and expected the typesetters to take care of such issues, and the typesetters didn't know the difference with these unfamiliar names. And even if they chose to be imprecise, I don't think we should go with the lowest common denominator. I can go along with "Na-Dene", as that is consistent with broader English usage, but "Sino-Tibetan-Na-Dene" is just stupid. Within the linguistic community, okay, everyone knows what they mean. But for a broader audience it definitely needs an en dash: "Sino-Tibetan–Na-Dene". kwami (talk) 00:50, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

• This sounds like support for Do what reliable sources in English do, leaving the present elaborate distinction as a rule of thumb when sources conflict, or taking them out altogether.
• Which, if either, should we do?
• Other comments?
  • I should think the difference between the two junctions in non-Indo-European worth marking, myself; but if sources don't....00:44, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Actually, using en-dashes does violate linguistic custom. All linguists are currently using hyphens for "proto-" and most have used hyphens in the past. The problem is that any use of en-dashes violates contemporary linguistic usage and much of past usage. En-dashes are extinct in linguistic literature and were never very common even in the past. (Taivo (talk) 00:43, 10 March 2009 (UTC))

Yes, "Proto-Indo-European" is almost universally hyphenated. However, this is not restricted to linguistics: prefixes on already-hyphenated forms are generally hyphenated themselves, regardless of the field. Therefore I think this is an argument for amending the MOS, not for making linguistics an exception.

I don't have a problem with hyphenating "Proto-Indo-European", "Niger-Congo", and "Amto-Musan". However, I do object to hyphenating "Sino-Tibetan–Na-Dene", "East Bird's Head–Sentani", and "Yele–West New Britain", as the results are difficult to parse.

I'm finding that TNG is often not conjoined at all: "Trans New Guinea", but that when it is, it is often en-dashed: "Trans–New Guinea". It seems that the current trend is to write it as three separate words, despite the fact that one is a prefix. This is a clear indication that people find hyphenation problematic in this case. kwami (talk) 01:41, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Looking through the MoS Talk archives, it is apparent that dash usage is either the most recurring topic or is close to it. I think that points to a systemic problem either in the way Wikipedia defines its dash guidelines or in its expectations of its editors, and the repeated debates are a distraction from other MoS issues. Short of abandoning dashes (which I'm sure has no chance of happening), I think the dash guidelines should start with a clear and concise summary on which the rest of the guideline can build. The best, clearest, and most concise summary I've come across in recent discussion was by The Duke of Waltham (talk · contribs) in this earlier discussion.

“

• Hyphens for conjunction
• En dashes for disjunction
• Em dashes for interruption

Simple, isn't it?

”

Of course, hyphens have many other uses such as prefixes (Proto-Indo-European) and phrasal adjectives (hard-boiled egg), but I think there is general agreement on these uses. Unfortunately (IMHO), Wikipedia guideline does not distinguish the conjunction ("and") cases from the disjunction ("to" and "verses") cases and specifies that en-dashes be used for both. Thus the conjunction in "Michelson-Morley experiment" uses an en-dash, and as I interpret the current guideline, Ural-Altaic languages should also use an en-dash. However, for those familiar with other styles such as The Chicago Manual of Style, this seems unnecessary.

I would propose relaxing the dash guideline to recognize (and even encourage) the use of hyphens as an alternative to en-dashes for conjunctions. Disjunctions would continue to use en-dashes. There is precedent for this in the allowance of spaced en-dashes as an alternative to unspaced em-dashes for interruption. -- Tcncv (talk) 03:23, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Since the linguistic usages of hyphenated forms falls within the "conjunction" guideline, this follows current linguistic usage of hyphens as found in the journals. (Taivo (talk) 03:38, 10 March 2009 (UTC))

"Michelson-Morley experiment" sounds like an experiment by some guy named Michelson Morley, whereas "Michelson–Morley experiment" makes it clear that there were two people, Michelson and Morley. This is I believe an important distinction to maintain.

VikSol's comments from my talk page:

The requirement for n-dashes is an instance of prescriptivism, as in prescriptive grammar. I think practical utility is a much more important consideration than formulaic correctness. I doubt very many readers ever notice when an n-dash is used rather than a hyphen or are even aware of the existence of both. I think the requirement for n-dashes in certain formations is a harmless conceit as long as it doesn't interfere with the use of the encyclopedia. In this case, it does. Practically no one has an n-dash key on their keyboard and only a few know where to find one. This is proved by the fact that the editors who replace hyphens almost always use the "& n d a s h ;" command > "–", which makes text harder to read for editors, rather than a "physical" n-dash "–". Evidently, it is not widely known that the physical n-dash even exists. Because the n-dash character is a hangover from the print industry, and no one has it on their keyboards, everyone who types in a search is going to use the hyphen, e.g. "Eskimo-Aleut languages" rather than "Eskimo–Aleut languages". The result is that every single search of this kind is going to bring up the "Redirected from Eskimo-Aleut languages" message or the like. The readers feels this as a slap in the face, wondering "what did I do wrong?" S/he may then scrutinize the typed message to see if it was mistyped and lose time figuring out an n-dash was required or, more likely, giving up in frustration. By this time precious seconds have been wasted, the reader's chain of concentration is likely broken, and their reaction to Wikipedia begins to turn from positive to negative, because we are not anticipating their predictable reactions. If it was possible to devise a fix whereby searches using hyphens automatically produced the article with n-dash without the "Redirected" message, we would again have a harmless conceit, especially if this fix was automatic and did not require a further effort by the editor, but it would, IMHO, be a waste of time, which is what is scarcest on this planet. In sum, the MOS guideline, if it requires n-dashes in titles, should be changed. Most Wikipedia guidelines are not rigid, recommending that common sense be used and the particular situation considered. If this isn't so here (Kwami, could we have a link to the guideline?), one would want to know why not. Why would this particular bit of typographical traditionalism be allowed to run roughshod over common sense and practicality?

and,

Wikipedia does not generally follow typesetting principles derived from the print industry but remains close to what people type on their computer screens. For example, it puts a line between paragraphs rather than indenting the first line. The purpose of this I think is to maintain editability, i.e. to make it easy for the average user to edit Wikipedia without special knowledge. This is really one of the last holdouts in the computer world to the era of DOS and other user-editable operating systems, which has since been totally eclipsed by systems that freeze out the user and keep him dependent on a handful of corporate monopolies. It's the last glimpse of a world as it might have been. The mere fact that people don't naturally type an n-dash under any circumstances is a sufficient argument against using it, in my opinion. Why spend all this time and effort putting in n-dashes when almost nobody is ever going to notice whether an n-dash or a hyphen was used or not? As I see it, it would be better to remove the use of n-dashes altogether, thereby making the use of dashes/hyphens consistent with the general principle of Wikipedia typography, namely that it's not an imitation of print typesetting but sacrifices some of its refinements in order to maintain direct contact with the average user. All this in a totally non-dogmatic spirit, I hope it's clear. User:VikSol

Ah, here's another example which I think cries out for an en dash: Trans-Fly–Bulaka River, as opposed to Eastern Trans-Fly. kwami (talk) 07:52, 10 March 2009 (UTC) kwami (talk) 07:42, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

If you want to write new text, kwami, with en-dashes, ok, but don't go changing existing text or existing article titles. There are tons more useful things that you could be doing in the linguistics articles other than turning hyphens into en-dashes. That's just a waste of time, IMHO. (Taivo (talk) 02:23, 11 March 2009 (UTC))

Actually, I've reverted all the changes along the lines of Niger-Congo. kwami (talk) 02:29, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

These should be counter-reverted; we should not invent usage. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:48, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

No, Pmanderson, these should not be "counter-reverted". Wikipedia is the inventor of usage here, not linguists. Linguists nearly universally use hyphens here now and have generally abandoned en-dashes. Wikipedia should follow the field, not the other way round. And, Kwami, you have a point about readability, but at what point do we end the hyphen/en-dash madness? How about South Bird's Head-Timor-Alor-Pantar, which is composed of South Bird's Head + (Timor + (Alor-Pantar))? Should we then use an em-dash to add another layer of detailed understanding: South Bird's Head—Timor–Alor-Pantar (I don't know if I got the right symbols inserted since their appearance here on the edit page is not the same as their appearance on the article page--another argument for just using hyphens). (Taivo (talk) 19:53, 11 March 2009 (UTC))

I've reverted to just using en dashes to join multi-word terms. So "Bird's Head–Timor-Alor-Pantar". One en dash to join Bird's Head, with a space in it, to Timor-Alor-Pantar, with hyphens in it. From what I've seen in print, you generally use en dashes for the highest level in the taxonomy, and reduce everything else to hyphens.

Em dashes would never be used. If we want to be sticklers, the way to join phrases which contain spaces would be with en dashes with spaces. So theoretically we could have "Bird's Head – Timor–Alor-Pantar". However, I don't see any point in doing that, as it doesn't improve legibility, and have reverted the few families where I had spaced en dashes following the MOS. kwami (talk) 21:18, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually, Taivo, in the classifications I'm familiar with, TAP is not a family with two branches, Timor and Alor-Pantar, but rather one with multiple branches spread over three islands, Timor, Alor, and Pantar. Therefore simple hyphens are all that is needed: Timor-Alor-Pantar. Where the en dash would come in is in "West Timor–Alor-Pantar", as it specifies that "West" applies only to Timor, not to the whole of *Timor-Alor-Pantar. Omitting the en dash would imply that it might contrast with *East Timor-Alor-Pantar, rather than with East Timor, as it actually does. kwami (talk) 21:26, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

(Makasai-)Alor-Pantar is contrasted with ungrouped languages of Timor in Ethnologue, Ruhlen, and International Encyclopedia of Linguistics (which all follow Wurm's classification). In fact, none of my references have Alor-Pantar ungrouped--all group them together against the languages of Timor. I'd be curious as to who isn't following Wurm's lead in this particular grouping. But the point still remains--if you want to use en-dashes for clarity, then you must use an em-dash when you have A+(B+(C+D)). The journals, however, are still in favor of hyphens all the way, though. OK, I just decided to look at a journal that I don't subscribe to and found a real mess--Oceanic Linguistics. I love OL and read it on-line regularly, but it's got a real mess. In the first article of the Dec 2008 issue I found "Proto-Oceanic" (hyphen), "Central Malayo-Polynesian" (hyphen), "Central-Eastern Malayo-Polynesian" (hyphens), but "South Halmahera–West New Guinea" (en-dash), "Pre–Proto-Oceanic" (en-dash and hyphen), "Proto–Central-Eastern Malayo-Polynesian" (en-dash and hyphens), "Proto–Central Malayo-Polynesian" (en-dash and hyphen), "Proto–Western Malayo-Polynesian" (en-dash and hyphen), and, perversely, "Proto-Eastern-Malayo-Polynesian" (all hyphens-not a typo, but consistently throughout the article). So some "proto-"s have hyphens and some have en-dashes. It also has "Proto–Trans–New Guinea" (en-dashes). In the third article of that issue, I found "Proto-North–Central Vanuatu" (hyphen and en-dash, not a typo, but consistently). Contrast this with the first Squib of that issue which has "Proto–North-Central Vanuatu" (en-dash and hyphen, not a typo, but consistently). In the fourth article, there was "Timor-Alor-Pantar" (all hyphens). My point is that there is no real consistency even when editors of articles subject to typography try to distinguish between en-dashes and hyphens. Wikipedia is not a typeset article and I find it pretentious to think that it is. And when the same editor in a prestigious journal like Oceanic Linguistics mixes en-dashes and hyphens in the same form in two different articles just proves what a confusion they really are and not the enlightenment you would like them to be. And to think that we are encouraging non-linguists to use en-dashes...... (Taivo (talk) 23:38, 11 March 2009 (UTC))

Actually, Taivo, you pretty much prove my point.

• In none of your sources is Timor a genetic node apart from Alor-Pantar. Therefore Timor-Alor-Pantar is not an (A+(B+C)) cladistic description, but an (A+B+C) geographic description like Niger-Congo, and hyphens are all that is needed. Your OL citation supports this.
• Good examples from OL, which show that en dashes still are used in the linguistic lit. It's actually not bad at all. There are only a few inconsistencies. "Proto-" vs "Proto–" is a case in point: en dash when prefixed to a hyphenated term, hyphen otherwise. Perfectly consistent except for "Proto-Eastern-Malayo-Polynesian", which we'd expect to be like Proto–Central Malayo-Polynesian. Evidently an author who doesn't use en dashes, but IMO that's still a pretty good batting average. And as noted above, hyphens may be universally substituted for en dashes, so really it's just a stylistic difference, just as placing punctuation inside or outside quotation marks is a matter of style. Same consistency with the other prefixes, Pre– and Trans–.
• "Proto-North–Central Vanuatu" is clearly an error. Perhaps a typo in the custom spell checker? Are you really claiming we must abandon en dashes because you found a typo?
• No, we never use em dashes for compounds. I don't know where you get the idea that we "must" do this. Any sources to support your claim?
• As far as professionals getting it wrong, so what? I bet they misspell words too. Should we abandon standard spelling because the professionals sometimes get it wrong? But the professionals very rarely got it wrong: One abandoned en dashes for all hyphens, which is a stylistic difference, while only one name was actually incorrect, and that in only one of the articles you found it in. So no, I would not agree that this is "a mess", but rather an excellent guide to what we should be doing. kwami (talk)

Okay, another few cents' worth: (1) What the discussion above shows is the Byzantine complexity of the rules for using n-dashes, along with their variability, not only between English and French etc. usage but within English usage itself (and we haven't even really factored in here the differences between American and British usage, and various schools thereof). If people dripping with graduate degrees, specialized knowledge, and long versed in Wikipedia can't figure it out, who can? Obviously, there is no chance that the average editor coming to Wikipedia for the first time can. (2) It is impossible to devise a practically applicable standard for the use of n-dashes, because there are so many different ways to think about an expression like Proto-Uto-Aztecan and the like. (3) Linguistics provides some ways to think about these problems, and indeed it is the science best placed to do so. (a) What we have here is arguably a conflict between the two poles that govern language change, ease of expression and ease of understanding. E.g. it's easier to assimilate sounds to nearby sounds but after a certain point harder to understand the result. Languages generally arrive at a compromise. (b) The fundamental problem is not of our making and has no solution: it's that English is conflicted about the process of compounding. In German for instance there is never any doubt about whether a word should be compounded or not: Urindogermanisch is one word, unlike its English equivalent, 'Proto-Indo-European' or more literally 'Proto-Indo-Germanic', but on the other hard it's disarticulatable into its component elements, rather like the inflections of an agglutinating language, whereas in English once elements are joined in a word they stay joined, if the compounding has passed the point of hyphenation (or n-dashing). Thus English, unlike German, has all sorts of different levels of compounding, sometimes linked to accent and type of word, sometimes not: e.g. some manuals of style will tell you to write "the twentieth century" (nominal) but "twentieth-century events" (adjectival). But this principle is not consistently observed, even in principle, i.e. the language is unsettled on its principles of composition. (4) We could use hyphens only in article titles, as in "Na-Dene languages", and n-dashes inside the articles, as in "Na–Dene languages". But the result would be that using a hyphen in the search box and hitting "Go" would find the article title, but clicking on the "Search" button would fail to find the instances with n-dashes inside articles. I haven't actually checked this, and perhaps there is some fix. (5) But - and I strongly agree with Taivo on this - why go to all this effort? Every time someone edits one of these articles, an army of bots must crawl into place, we editors concerned with linguistics issues must drop what we are doing and spring into action, and the poor sap who has used a hyphen sees his edits squashed by some know-it-all (as he is likely to see it). (6) No one can ever hope to master the Byzantine complexities governing the use of hyphens versus n-dashes. To do so would require an army of lawyers, who would be just as productive as the English real estate lawyers of the 19th century who liked to keep lawsuits going for generations (a steady income, don't you know). It is as much as we can do to keep up with the two-way distinction between hyphens and m-dashes, as illustrated by the fact that some people prefer an m-dash as a mark of punctuation, others an n-dash with two spaces (potentially micro-spaces - the Byzantine complexities multiply). (7) It's true that an n-dash can help to differentiate expressions of the A-B + B-C form. But, referring to point (3a) above on the struggle between ease of expression and ease of understanding, is it worth it? (a) Most people are unaware of the distinction and don't notice it, so the benefits are reserved to an elite. We could try to educate people about this, but the fact is that spontaneous understanding is not there, and we are not writing for typesetters alone. (b) If we use n-dashes, we must define when they are to be used, and as this entire discussion shows, there is no realistic way to do so. Every attempt to do so founders on the lack of any clear standards in either American or British / Commonwealth usage, and this lack of clear standards is ultimately related to the fluctuating status of compounding in the English language and English orthography. (8) In conclusion, given the practical and real impossibility of defining any standards that are (a) consistent and (b) simple enough to be generally used, I suggest that Wikipedia should abandon the use of n-dashes altogether, even in date ranges (where, again, nobody types an n-dash spontaneously), but at a minimum and most definitively in all linguistic names of languages and language families. That is a way to end the confusion, to ensure that searches find what they are looking for, and to simplify the tasks of editors, and it will work. Regards to all, VikSol (talk) 23:53, 11 March 2009 (UTC) PS- I think that Taivo's point above that Wikipedia is not typeset deserves to be taken very seriously. For example, footnote numbers and other superscripts bump up the line separation unevenly - hardly esthetic, but tolerated. This is a much more serious defect than any wandering between n-dashes and hyphens, but so far there's no practical fix. We are a long way from the refined standards of the print industry (when it managed to apply these), but then again, democratic culture has its advantages. Why imitate something that is different by nature? VikSol (talk) 00:06, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

IMO, it's all quite clear. We can discuss which style guidelines are most appropriate to follow, but if we're going to throw up our hands and say "we're confused!", we might as well abandon spellings, pronunciations, calendars, technical terms, and units of measurement we find confusing. The use of the en dash as Taivo illustrated in OL serves a valuable disambiguating function, and IMO it should be preserved. kwami (talk) 00:27, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

But we are confused! If you are saying, "we now use hyphens, but use n-dashes only to disambiguate", as in A-B–C-D, fine, then we have a simple principle, but one that innovates. If this does not inhibit searches, then it does no great harm. It remains true that no one will notice it, except for a few ultra-professionals. So my point above about "is it worth it?" stands. If you want to try to spell out some clear principles we should follow, then fine, I'll look at them with interest. But at the moment no coherent set of principles is in view. Also, I am not advocating orthographic anarchy, but a clear and simple principle: hyphens in all compounds, n-dashes not at all (preferably) or only in date-range expressions like 1900–1910 (because the usage is relatively well established). A principle simple enough for everyone to follow. The idea is that we sacrifice a little ease in comprehension (the possibility of disambiguating A-B–C-D from A-B-C-D) for a lot of ease of expression. No doubt, there is a real advantage either way. But the relative balance of advantages seems clear to me. VikSol (talk) 01:15, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

[outdent] En dashes when compounding words which contain spaces or already contain hyphens. En dashes when compounding two people's names, vs. hyphens for compounding the name of a single person. Both pretty standard. Comprehension on the part of the reader trumps ease of input for the editor. Of course, there are situations where we may disagree on usage, but that's no different than differences on capitalization. Just came across an example: An editor abbreviated "East Fijian-Polynesian" as "East" in a table, evidently thinking it meant East (Fijian-Polynesian), when actually it meant (East Fijian)-Polynesian. With an en dash, "East Fijian–Polynesian", the structure of the compound is clear. kwami (talk) 03:01, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

You ignored one of my main points, Kwami. The same editor used both Proto-North–Central Vanuatu and Proto–North-Central Vanuatu. It was not a typo since each was 100% consistent within the article in which it occurred. The rules are silly and confusing to the point that the same person used two different combinations for the same term on two different days. And don't go all warm and bubbly because one of the journals I regularly read uses en-dashes. The other half-dozen or so that I regularly read do not. Indeed, an increasing amount of linguistics is being published from camera-ready copy and not being typeset at all. It should go without saying that virtually all camera-ready copy is being done with hyphens and not en-dashes. I second everything that VikSol is saying about the needlessness of en-dashes in an on-line, user-edited format such as Wikipedia. And your suggestion that this can be done with bots is absolutely ludicrous. Bots are not thinking machines, they are stupid computer programs that don't know anything beyond 1 or 0. In the 1960s, the Air Force and NASA agreed that solid rocket propulsion would be called a "motor" and liquid rocket propulsion would be called an "engine". The next proposal that came out of Thiokol included the mechanical replacement of "engine" with "motor" for consistency. Thus, the buildings were protected by an independent fire department and its "fire motors". I can't tell you how many times I've seen bots do silly things here. You think I'm going to trust a computer program to correctly place en-dashes when I don't trust anyone who doesn't have a linguistics degree? Get real. En-dashes are a relic from an age of typesetting and have no place in Wikipedia. (Taivo (talk) 04:33, 12 March 2009 (UTC))

Ah, I didn't catch that it was the same editor. Still, the fact that all but one term was correct, and even that term was correct in one of the articles, tells me it's not all that difficult for other people. You make it sound as if I'm the only one who understands this. And if someone makes a mistake, so what? This is a wiki, and someone else will come along and correct it, just as they do with capitalization, quotations, and other formating issues. Most people will continue to write with hyphens, and that's fine. In the infrequent cases where a hyphenated name is ambiguous, we can make it more precise. I never said bots should make the decision, but once an article is moved to a name with an en dash, bots can fix the redirects and other mentions of the name. I don't see what the problem is: precision vs. ease of data entry, and meanwhile it's okay to use the easier form of data entry.

Anyway, you've convinced me to abandon the more extreme interpretation of when to use en dashes, and there are few linguistic articles which compound multi-word terms. kwami (talk) 09:43, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Kwami, I am concerned that you have been replacing n-dashes with hyphens in articles and article titles such as "Proto-Chukotokto-Kamchatkan", now changed to "Proto–Chukotko-Kamchatkan". (1) I had the impression that the discussion here was moving toward a consensus, but the principles to be followed have not been spelled out comprehensively. Please have a little more patience with Taivo and me and the other persons concerned until the positions are clearly defined. If some parties then don't get their way, fine, but we should have the principles spelled out clearly as well as the grounds for decision. (2) Adding an n-dash after "Proto" raises two real concerns: (a) As we all agree, it has the drawback of complicating searches, by bringing up a "Redirected" message. (b) A further concern is that, if n-dashes are used after "Proto", this conflicts with the use of n-dashes to disambiguate expressions like Uralo-Indo-European by transforming them into Uralo–Indo-European, since we then have to sometimes speak of Proto–Uralo–Indo-European - two uses of an n-dash that use conflicting rules, indicating a contradictory and therefore confusing system. I think we should try to achieve consensus here before changing any more article titles. Regards, VikSol (talk) 02:25, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Concern noted, VikSol. Not very many articles are affected, so it won't be hard to undo, and I'm quite willing to compromise on the protolanguages.

An alternative to your "Uralo–Indo-European" example would be "Uralo-Indoeuropean". You're right, with only two levels of conjunction (hyphen and en dash), you can get two en dashes in terms like "Proto–Uralo–Indo-European". I've seen this in print, actually, with "Proto–Trans–New Guinea". As for other hyphenated protolanguages, I can't see that there would actually be much chance of miscomprehension, so a hyphen on proto- wouldn't be problematic. On the other, besides being typographically correct, we've seen that en dashes are still used in the linguistic literature for such protolanguages.

Given that the world's most cited protolanguage, pIE, is (nearly?) always doubly hyphenated, I don't see a problem with deciding to hyphenate prefixes (proto-, macro-, pre-, post-) on all hyphenated family names. There are so few en-dashed names that we can take them on a case-by-case basis. Where I really think that in the interest of clarity we should have en dashes is in families which join two multi-word terms. "Uralo-Indo-European" looks like a tripartite name composed of Uralic, Indic, and European. Since most of these will be extremely obscure names (otherwise someone would have come up with something shorter!), we can't expect people to understand them just through familiarity. kwami (talk) 07:05, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

[replying to multiple people at once, so outdent] Taivo: You said "this WP:MOS appears to be a misguided attempt to turn back the clock to a precomputerized typesetting era." However, using that argument would suggest that proportional fonts are unnecessary and we should all just use Courier (with two spaces after periods, no less). Hyphens are sometimes used on computers not because the underlying thinking has changed, but merely due to simple technical limitations. Therefore, typographically correct characters should be used whenever possible. I'm in favor of an en dash in this case. "The [computer] is not a typewriter". --Wulf (talk) 05:45, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

There is a fundamental difference between proportional fonts and en-dashes. One is automatic and the other is not. We don't need to insert any special commands in order to use proportional fonts--the kerning is built into the font. It also does not require the use of any special characters. It takes the characters typed on the keyboard and mechanically spaces them proportionally. An en-dash is a fundamentally different thing--it is a character that is not found on anyone's keyboard. It is a highly specialized creature that (as I illustrated above with the same editor using en-dashes in two different places in the same word) has no real rules of usage outside the world of typography (and even then the rules are arcane and not-well-known). It is not an ASCII character, it is not a character in any phonetic font, it is just a leftover from another era. It is not "the typographically correct" character, it is just an archaic option. (And, BTW, I do use two spaces after periods.) (Taivo (talk) 06:11, 13 March 2009 (UTC))

Okay, now you're making sense. You just accidentally proposed that MediaWiki convert double hyphens to en dashes. Also, the "leftover from another era" is when we had to cram as many characters as we could into 7-8 bits. Wikipedia does not use ASCII, nor does anybody else these days. By your reasoning, we should use the asterisk as a multiplication sign because the true multiplication sign "is not an ASCII character". There was never a sea change in typography, just a comparatively very brief period of technical limitation which we have now passed... --Wulf (talk) 03:52, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Fortunately, without your "help", kwami decided that current linguistic usage superseded Wikipedia's misplaced efforts at making editing more difficult rather than less difficult. (Taivo (talk) 04:57, 14 March 2009 (UTC))

Maybe I'm missing something here... Remind me why you believe Ural-Altaic should have a hyphen, yet Bose–Einstein condensate gets to keep its en dash? --Wulf (talk) 08:33, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

For me, it's simply a matter of disambiguating. "Ural-Altaic" means basically the same thing, whether you read it as one family spread from the Urals to the Altai, or the combined Uralic and Altaic families. Bose-Einstein, however, could be misunderstood as somebody named "Bose Einstein". (Not likely with that name, perhaps, but much more ambiguous with other names.) kwami (talk) 09:57, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Because Ural-Altaic (hyphen) is standard usage among linguists and has never had an en-dash in it. Linguistic usage favors hyphens over en-dashes. And, as Kwami says, there's no ambiguity, but ambiguity is not so much a factor in contemporary linguistic usage. Our field uses hyphens generally now and it isn't Wikipedia's place to try to impose its will on it. Ural-Altaic is conjunctive, not distributional in nature and most linguists will interpret it as conjunctive. (Taivo (talk) 11:02, 14 March 2009 (UTC))

Hmm, it took me a while to figure out that Gay-Lussac is one person but Boyle–Mariotte are two, when I was in high school. --80.104.235.34 (talk) 12:32, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm just not sure how what most people in a particular field happen to use has to do with Wikipedia's standardized style manual and the consistent application thereof. Should we now have separate style manuals for each WikiProject? (And, speaking of WikiProjects, shouldn't WikiProject Typography be consulted on this?) --Wulf (talk) 21:37, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that's a good example for this project page. kwami (talk) 21:18, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

en dashes vs hyphens (cont.)

(1) For years, everyone has been happily naming articles "Proto-Indo-European language" and the like and finding them in searches without any difficulty. Thus, established and settled usage on Wikipedia is to use hyphens in all names of languages. Kwami has been innovating in changing this established and settled usage. But this usage has never posed the slightest practical problem. Changing it will not increase the encyclopedia's ease of use. It will, on the contrary, decrease it by afflicting users with constant "Redirected from ..." messages, among other problems, including but not limited to increased difficulty of editing and the need to constantly update edits.

It's true the current MOS guidelines can be interpreted to require n-dashes in article titles when they are used in language names. But the more fundamental question is: is it a good idea to do so?

When an n-dash is used in a range of numbers, such as 1914-1918, it is an ideogram, read in practice as “to” in most instances. According to Tcnv above, it disjoins the numbers. When an n-dash is used to write a compound, it is used to conjoin, the opposite usage. Thus, the use of an n-dash in these cases follows a different rule in each case and the two rules are directly contradictory. This is our first warning that we are entering arcane territory here, with no safe footing for the average user of language.

(2) Kwami has flagged the complicated instance of Uralic-Altaic versus Uralo–Altaic and Ural–Altaic. I believe this illustrates the impossibility of arriving at a system simple and logical enough for the average person to utilize.

For Uralic-Altaic, there is no problem. Uralic-Altaic means “Uralic and Altaic”. It is similar to Sanskrit dvandva compounds, a well-known form in linguistics.

For Uralo-Altaic, the issue is more complicated. At first glance, Uralo- looks like a prefix, like proto-, neo-, geo-, turbo-, as well as trans-, pre-, etc. But Indo-European developed the use of -o / -ō as a combination form, followed in this by several of its daughter languages, in some cases by inheritance (e.g. Greek), in others by drift (e.g. Avestan). This is what is going on here. Uralo-Altaic means “Uralic and Altaic”, but the primay suffix -ic has been replaced by the secondary suffix -o. It appears to be a combination of prefix and nominal, but in fact it is a combination of two nominals.

Similarly, in Ural-Altaic, the -ic suffix has been elided in the first element, a procedure well known in languages, rather like gapping in syntax.

Uralic-Altaic, Uralo-Altaic, and Ural-Altaic, then, are all identical in meaning, in spite of first appearances.

As these examples show, the distinction between coordinate forms (as Uralic-Altaic obviously is) and prefixed forms (as Uralo-Altaic appears to be at first glance) is not always easy to tell.

Furthermore, there is no way to tell from the form of the first element what its function is. For example, Indo-European is the language family from which many of the languages of India and Europe are derived — in this case the elements are coordinate — but Indo-Aryan is those forms of Aryan spoken in India — in this case “Indo-” is a prefix qualifying “Aryan”.

As I understand it, because of such issues Kwami has now abandoned the “complicated” version of using n-dashes in favor of a somewhat simpler system, detailed below.

(3) Let me try to sum up the evolving positions. I think there has been and will continue to be some movement in everybody’s position and this is the purpose of the discussion.

Taivo and I, along with various other people (see discussion of “curly quotes” in the section just archived), would ideally like to see n-dashes eliminated from Wikipedia and entirely replaced with hyphens both in compound words (including language names, such as Proto-Uralic) and in number ranges (such as 1914–1918). But, above all, we would like to see the existing de facto custom of hyphenating all language names continued.

I am beginning to grasp what Kwami has been trying to get across about the advantages of n-dashes in disambiguation, e.g. Uralo–Indo-European versus Uralo-Indo-European. I think these advantages are real and must be weighed in the balance.

Kwami is taking the view that:

• In names of languages that are compounds, the hyphen is the basic form – the default. Example: Indo-European.

• The hyphen is replaced with the n-dash in several different circumstances:

When an element is added to a name separated by a space. Example: Trans–New Guinea.

When an element is added to a name that is already hyphenated, in several specific circumstances:

When a simplex name is added to a name that is hyphenated. E.g.: Uralo–Indo-European.

When two hyphenated language names are conjoined. Example: Indo-European–Hamito-Semitic.

When a prefix is added to a hyphenated name. Example: Proto–Indo-European.

The most important point here is that, as I understand it, Kwami is now advocating a system in which a first compounding is indicated with a hyphen, a second with an n-dash. Thus we get Indo-European, but Uralo–Indo-European and Proto–Indo-European.

(4) There are several problems with this.

(a) A fairly serious problem is the fluctuation that results from these principles in prefixing “Proto-”. For example, we get “Proto-Uralic” (hyphen), but “Proto–Chukotko-Kamchatkan” (n-dash). Here there is no advantage whatsoever in disambiguation, since the expressions are totally unambiguous: a proto-language being a single language by definition, there is no possibility of misunderstanding Proto-Chukotko-Kamchatkan as “Proto-Chukotko plus Kamchatkan”.

(b) Another problem is: what do you make of expressions like Pre-Proto-Indo-European, actually fairly frequent in some works? What about Proto-Uralo-Indo-European or Pre-Proto-Uralo-Indo-European? Obviously, we have long since run out of different forms of hyphens and dashes.

There is a simple solution to these arcana and inconsistencies: eliminate — or more precisely continue to avoid — n-dashes and keep using hyphens, as everyone has been doing on Wikipedia for years.

VikSol (talk) 22:54, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Hyphens are almost always an acceptable substitute for en dashes. As you've pointed out, en dashes are sometimes useful for disambiguation. For me, that's the relevant issue, not legalistic adherence to the guideline. So, for example, per the MOS, pIE should be en-dashed, and with several other protolanguages, en dashes are found in the literature. In the IE lit, however, it's always hyphenated, or nearly always so. Per your point in (4a), there is no ambiguity, so on the balance I'd say we should probably go with hyphens. The MOS after all is a guideline, and we need to take other considerations into account.

However, with something like Trans–New Guinea or Indo-European–Hamito-Semitic, en dashes are found in the lit, or sometimes there is no established usage, and there is potential ambiguity. Here I think the advantage of en dashes is the overriding factor. Also, there are relatively few such language families, and even fewer have dedicated articles (most are branches intermediate between better-established families which do have articles), so they're not disruptive.

As for your question in (4b), there are only two levels, hyphen and en dash. Once you reach an en dash, everything from there on out is also an en dash: Proto–Indo-European–Hamito-Semitic, Proto–Trans–New Guinea. (The latter at least attested in the ling lit.) Theoretically you might think we'd need further dab'ing. However, human language is not infinitely recursive. We quickly reach a cognitive processing limit, which IMO is why we don't see many terms where a third level would be useful. In the very few cases were we come across such terms, we could go with the en dashes, or take advantage of acronyms, which is what is generally found in the lit anyways: proto-TNG, pre-proto-TNG, etc.

I occasionally see hyphens replaced with spaces, as in "Trans New Guinea" and "Meso Philippines". I don't see any advantage to such usage, but maybe someone else here does? kwami (talk) 23:52, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I think that the linguists here--kwami, vik-sol, and myself--seem to have come to a workable solution for 99% of all cases--hyphens all the way. Now, the "problems" and "ambiguous cases" that kwami cites are mostly smoke and mirrors since no one talks in the literature about Proto-Uralic-Indo-European in any realistic sense since there are virtually no contexts in which such an artificial formulation would be used. There are probably only a dozen truly ambiguous cases that are actually likely to be used in Wikipedia and they are nearly all in New Guinea. We can arm wrestle over each of them if they start to cause problems of interpretation, but since the number of people who are actually ever going to write or edit (or even read) an article on a language of the Trans-Fly-Bulaka River family can be counted on the fingers of one hand (with a few fingers left over), the problem is probably moot. I don't give a hoot about the non-linguistic uses of en-dashes versus hyphens, so the non-linguists who have been involved in this discussion can argue about the Barnes–Noble Paradigm versus the Barnes-Noble Paradigm and I don't really care. (Taivo (talk) 00:59, 15 March 2009 (UTC))

The only top-level families are Trans–New Guinea, East Bird's Head–Sentani, Ramu–Lower Sepik, and Yele–West New Britain (assuming that's valid), all in New Guinea. There are also some branches of Austronesian such as South Halmahera–West New Guinea, also mostly in NG, or at least in Melanesia. kwami (talk) 01:19, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

But I honestly don't think there's any real ambiguity in any of these. I find the use of an en-dash after a prefix especially inappropriate (trans-, proto-, pre-). But, in actuality, these are very minor issues since the use of any of these is so rare (except, perhaps, for Trans-New Guinea). (Taivo (talk) 01:44, 15 March 2009 (UTC))

I think it's telling that the trend for TNG seems to be writing it as three words, "Trans New Guinea", despite trans being a prefix. Maybe people object to treating "trans-new" as if were a unit? And South Halmahera–West New Guinea is difficult to parse with just a hyphen. kwami (talk) 01:58, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Do you have any published sources for this trend? (Taivo (talk) 03:43, 15 March 2009 (UTC))

Again, what does this have to do with linguistics/linguists? I see this as a simple typography issue... You'll notice that the punctuation, hyphen and dash articles all belong to Category:Typography -- not Category:Linguistics or anything related. --Wulf (talk) 03:59, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Wulf, Thanks for the links, they are most useful. I quote from the article Dash:

====Usage guidelines====

The en dash is used instead of a hyphen in compound adjectives for which neither part of the adjective modifies the other. That is, when each is modifying the noun. This is common in science, when names compose an adjective as in Bose–Einstein condensate. Compare this with "award-winning novel" in which "award" modifies "winning" and together they modify "novel". Contrast "Franco-Prussian War", "Anglo-Saxon", etc., in which the first element does not strictly modify the second, but a hyphen is still normally used. The Chicago Manual of Style recognizes but does not mandate this usage and uses a hyphen in Bose-Einstein condensate.

Thus, "Bose–Einstein", taken as a supposedly unshakable example of the use of an n-dash, is contradicted by the most prestigious manual of all, The Chicago Manual of Style. There could be no better example of the confusion that reigns in this area, which we must not inflict on Wikipedia users. VikSol (talk) 04:59, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Let me try to characterize the discussion to this point:

(1) There is consensus that the prefix “Proto-” does not need to be n-dashed, since there is no ambiguity. I will hazard that the same principle would apply to “Pre-”, as in the title of Winfrid P. Lehmann’s book ‘’Pre-Indo-European”.

(2) The next question to consider, I think, is whether this principle applies to all prefixes, or to these prefixes only? I suggest it should apply to all prefixes, on these grounds:

• The treatment of prefixes should be consistent, as much as practical.

• Prefixes, by their nature, do not give rise to ambiguities of the type “Indo-Germanic-Semitic” (which I recently had to use to translate Hermann Möller’s indogermanisch-semitisch).

• The confusion of a prefix with a language name is nonexistent or so rare as to be unimportant. As far as I know there are no languages named Pre, Trans, Macro, or any other letter combination identical to an English prefix. (I did once wonder whether Macro-Ge involved a language called Macro, but one gets beyond such things.)

In consequence, all prefixes should be hyphenated, since they do not involve ambiguity.

(3) But what of the case where the prefixed expression involves two separate words, as in Trans–New Guinea? Here there does appear to be a frequent usage of an n-dash. However, with regard to Trans–New Guinea, it seems to me that, “Trans-” being simply a prefix like “Proto-” and “Pre-”, and no more ambiguous than them, there is no reason to n-dash it simply because the following words are not hyphenated.

(4) This leaves the case of disambiguation, but let’s leave that for later.

My suggestion, then, is that we adopt the principle that a hyphen should follow all prefixes in language names. Examples: Proto-Indo-European, Pre-Indo-European, Pre-Proto-Indo-European, Macro-Ge, Trans-Eurasian, Trans-New Guinea.

VikSol (talk) 04:37, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Concluding remarks (?)

(1) If I am not mistaken, there is now consensus that hyphens should be used after all prefixes. (Assuming my argument above about forms like Trans-New Guinea is accepted.)

We could provide a more linguistically precise definition of “prefixes” here, but this does not seem to be of immediate relevance.

(2) The remaining issue on the table is disambiguation.

Taivo and I have signaled that we will not fight this one to the bitter end.

There is general agreement that the decision depends on balancing competing considerations. I will try to sum these up.

(3) There is a genuine advantage to the use of an n-dash to disambiguate terms. The forms concerned are primarily:

A + B-C. Example: Uralo–Indo-European.

A-B + C. Example: Indo-Germanic–Semitic.

A-B + B-C. Example: Indo-European–Hamito-Semitic.

Also theoretically possible and sometimes really occurring are such forms as:

A + B-C + D. Example: Korean–Japanese-Ryukyuan–Ainu. (Made-up term, discussed below.)

A B + C. Example: East Fijian–Polynesian.

A (B) + C D. Example: North–Central Vanuatu.

A (B-C) + D E-F. Example: Central–Eastern Malayo-Polynesian.

etc.

(4) Let me point out that many of the so-called ambiguous forms are not that ambiguous when closely considered. The language is pretty smart and already has built-in ways to avoid ambiguity. In particular, most of the compound junctures are disambiguated – in the spoken language itself – by the combination form -o or the use of English terms like "West" which could never (as a practical matter) constitute a language name. So actually such forms as South Halmahera-West New Guinea, North-Central Vanuatu, and Central-Eastern Malayo-Polynesian are not ambiguous at all.

What happens in such cases in that we get again into the hair-splitting we encountered in such series as Uralic-Altaic, Uralo-Altaic, and Ural-Altaic. The grounds for deciding whether a hyphen or an n-dash is needed are so obscure, subject to individual interpretation, and hypertechnical that no non-linguist can reasonably be expected to grasp them all, and no two linguists may agree on all interpretations.

In other words, a disambiguation that produces ambiguity is no progress.

(5) In other cases, solutions may be possible short of the use of an n-dash. For example, some forms can be disambiguated by combining them, a possibility Kwami has raised above. For example, we could write Indogermanic-Semitic rather than Indo-Germanic-Semitic. This is justified by usage fairly often. For example, the terms Afroasiatic and Afro-Asiatic are both in current use.

Other forms can be avoided in practice. For example, some linguists prefer Uralo-Indo-European to Indo-Uralic, but the shorter term is much more prevalent. Joseph Greenberg spoke of Japanese-Ryukyuan, but Korean-Japanese-Ainu, presumably to avoid a lengthy and ambiguous term. Indo-European–Hamito-Semitic could be abbreviated to Indo-Semitic.

This raises the reflection that the very complex names tend to be reserved for new proposals and controversial groupings. When a language family is well established it tends to get a simple name, for obvious practical reasons: it’s simpler to work with and linguists already know what languages it groups. I note in Kwami’s list of language families (Template:Language families) that none of the established upper-level families have very complex names – at most something like Yele–West New Britain.

Usually, a new or controversial proposal will not get its own article but will be explained in some other context, e.g. Korean-Japanese-Ainu is explained under “Altaic languages” and “Classification of Japanese”. The famous but controversial proposals already have short names, e.g. Nostratic and Amerind.

What I am trying to get at is that the ambiguity problem is one of very limited scope, so limited that the occasional useful n-dash is likely to puzzle people, since they will have encountered it so rarely.

(6) Other objections may be catalogued as follows.

• Most people do not know that such a character as an n-dash exists. I discussed this whole set of issues with one of the top legal draftsmen in the country, a Harvard JD, who had never heard of n-dashes. This is after twenty years of work in a field that demands extreme precision of language. A character that is not recognized by probably over 99% of readers does not disambiguate anything. It just gives the impression the typography is inconsistent (even when it’s not). And the few who recognize it, such as Kwami, already know perfectly well what the expressions mean.

• The latest edition of The Chicago Manual of Style gives increased preference to hyphens over n-dashes and is also concerned to adjust typography to the computer era. I think these things are not an accident and that close scrutiny of the manual would reveal that it is because of the computer era that the n-dash is falling from favor.

• The issue of searches is of great importance. When n-dashes were adopted, there was no way to search a text electronically. It did not matter to a reader glancing across pages, flipping through a book, or reading down the columns of an index whether the typesetter had used hyphens or n-dashes. Today it does. Yes, our computers are dumb and can’t even do accents properly. But this is the way things are. I am not sure that the cognitive dissonance provoked by adding an n-dash key to the computer keyboard would be worth it. Compare Martinet’s Economie des changements phonétiques on the disadvantages of having too many phonemes that are too similar.

Obviously, we cannot have forms with hyphens in titles and forms with n-dashes in the text. It’s all or nothing.

(7) My sense is that, given the minimal advantages of disambiguation in practice, the rarity of the character that would result, the practical impossibility of defining usable criteria, and most crucially the issue of searches, on balance the n-dash should be avoided in language names. Let the physicists sort out whether they want to use “Bose–Einstein” or, per the new Chicago Manual of Style, “Bose-Einstein” (see Dash).

I too like the advantages of being able to disambiguate Indo-Germano-Semitic and similar expressions. But there are workarounds and these may be preferable to adopting a character of rare application, obscure usage, and diminishing currency.

VikSol (talk) 21:24, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I came late to the game. For technical language such as linguistics or physics, I would think the Wikipedia MoS should defer to the technical language, so it should be Bose–Einstein condensate but if linguists really don't care about the en-dash–hyphen distinction, then technical linguistic terms should appear as they do in the linguistics literature.

I have to agree with Wulf that CMS15 has much more to do with the dark ages of computer typography than it does about what formal published work should contain. I think it's notable that the fields that are particular about their dashes—math, physics, and computer science—are the fields that have had access to powerful typesetting software (TeX/LaTeX) the longest. I would argue that Wikipedia should do what it can to make typographically beautiful articles even if that means typography geeks like ourselves are running around putting in directional quote marks and en-dashes.

As for searches, I think that's the job of the search engine and of redirect pages. Google doesn't have any problem with a search for "Bose-Einstein condensate" (although Google does find the page with the hyphen that redirects to the page with the en-dash). —Ben FrantzDale (talk) 23:35, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Just a comment--Wikipedia is not typeset and never will be because it would never pass peer-review. As careful as we specialists are with individual articles, this is still a user-edited document, and, as such is a computer-only thing. Therefore, following Viksol's admonishment that this should be easy for computer searches is paramount. Leave out the en-dashes and directional quotation marks because they are just arrogance. (Taivo (talk) 00:52, 16 March 2009 (UTC))

Where do you keep getting this idea that typesetting == letterpress or something? As the relevant Wikipedia article opens, “typesetting involves the presentation of textual material in graphic form…”. As far as Wikipedia being a “user-edited… computer-only thing”, must I mention Wikipedia:Books – or the article in Nature which compared Wikipedia with the Encyclopedia Britannica? (Although what does peer review or being in print have to do with good typography anyway?) You also complained about searching, but – as Ben had already said – Google already handles it fine. There is also a bug filed with Mozilla regarding the find bar, and other browsers will assuredly follow shortly. MediaWiki already utilizes Unicode normalization, and it would be fairly straightforward to normalize searches as well (which would mean that Unicode characters and their equivalents would be properly treated as just that – equivalent).

Oh, and you’ll notice that this post is written using only proper, semantic, typographically-correct characters – all of which were entered using the buttons below every Wikipedia edit box. Proper punctuation and typography are no more arrogant than proper spelling and grammar. —Wulf (talk) 03:38, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

The issue has been resolved for linguists. You can believe the conceit, Wulf, that Wikipedia is on a par with EB, but there's not a college professor that I know who will accept it as a legitimate source for a term paper. (Taivo (talk) 04:56, 17 March 2009 (UTC))

Wikipedia is not “a legitimate source for a term paper” because it’s a tertiary source, not so much because it’s unreliable (not that it is). But that’s why we have a thorough citation system. I have to ask: if you think so little of Wikipedia, why bother contributing? —Wulf (talk) 08:58, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Great post, and thanks for pointing out the connection between availability of powerful typesetting software and being particular about dashes and such. I’d never noticed that. —Wulf (talk) 03:38, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

If it makes no practical difference which form we use, then it doesn't really matter. But when using a hyphen is misleading, I don't think that we should dumb down an article because we think our readers won't understand what a dash is. That's the same argument people make for abandoning the IPA: spelling pronunciations are precise enough for our purposes, my dictionary doesn't use the IPA, it's too much to ask people to learn just to use Wikipedia, etc. If linguists expect others to learn the IPA in order to figure how to pronounce the name of a moon, a literary character, or a chemical element, then I don't see why others can't expect linguists to learn basic punctuation. kwami (talk) 09:24, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Usage, my friend--description and not prescription. That's the key to linguistics and why using hyphens to describe our field is much more important than trying to impose an en-dash where all our colleagues use hyphens. That's been my point all along--linguistic usage is hyphens all the way. VikSol has more subtle (and just as valid) arguments, but my principal point has always been usage takes precedence over all other factors. And Wulf's point, that Wikipedia is a tertiary source, makes usage in the primary and secondary sources all the more important since a tertiary source should never impose its will upon the more important sources. So, since usage is most important, and since the vast majority of primary and secondary sources use only hyphens.... (Taivo (talk) 12:10, 17 March 2009 (UTC))

One thing I still don't understand is how using an n-dash in an expression like Trans–New Guinea instead of Trans-New Guinea disambiguates anything.

If the purpose of an n-dash is to express a higher level of separation, then Trans–New Guinea means a language called "Trans" plus a language called "New Guinea".

I guess the idea is that the space in New Guinea represents a higher level of separation than the hyphen in Mixe-Zoque, so the space needs to be trumped by a still higher level of separation, that of an n-dash. But an n-dash, being a conjoining symbol here, like the hyphen, logically indicates a lower level of separation than a space. The poor reader has nowhere to turn:

• If he guesses the n-dash is a disjoiner, as in "the evolution–creation debate", then he reads the expression as meaning "the Trans language plus the New Guinea language".

• If he guesses the n-dash is a conjoiner, and therefore weaker than a space, then he reads "the Trans-New language of Guinea" or "the Trans-New form of the Guinea language".

• If he is aware of the principle that prefixes receive hyphens, not n-dashes (on which Taivo, Kwami, and I have reached consensus for expressions where no space occurs), he expects Trans-New Guinea, and wonders why an n-dash was used instead of a hyphen.

I think this usage just adds a layer of confusion and should be dropped. I am not speaking here to the merits of cases where the n-dash really disambiguates. VikSol (talk) 23:25, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

TNG is not named for a language, but for a geographic area, like Niger-Congo. It is trans-(New Guinea). With a hyphen, it would imply (trans-new) Guinea, which is on the wrong continent. The use of an en dash when joining hyphenated or interspaced terms is a basic rule of punctuation. True, we can substitute a hyphen without much loss of comprehension. But then we could also drop capitalization without much loss of comprehension: trans-newguinea. That doesn't mean we should.

As for Taivo's point, you're proposing that we use a different system of punctuation for each field of knowledge in an attempt to remain authentic to the lit, which would be a complete mess. This is just punctuation. True, the literature should be considered, but we should come up with one standard for wikipedia. Most linguistics sources use seriffed fonts too. Should we force all linguistics articles to display with seriffed fonts in an attempt to be authentic? kwami (talk) 00:06, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the WP:MOS already specifies that very thing:

An overriding principle on Wikipedia is that style and formatting should be applied consistently within articles, though not necessarily throughout the encyclopedia as a whole. One way of presenting information may be as good as another is, but consistency within articles promotes clarity and cohesion.

The Arbitration Committee has ruled that the Manual of Style is not binding, that editors should not change an article from one guideline-defined style to another without a substantial reason unrelated to mere choice of style, and that revert-warring over optional styles is unacceptable.

Where there is disagreement over which style to use in an article, defer to the style used by the first major contributor.

Just quoting what the WP:MOS already says. (Taivo (talk) 03:46, 18 March 2009 (UTC))

…How does that quote back you up here? Nowhere does it advocate a different style for each field of knowledge. It just says we shouldn’t modify existing articles back and forth as the guide changes – nothing about it not being ideal to have consistent styling across the entire site. If we were to have different styling for each field, then there would be no central Manual of Style (its duties being performed by a myriad of WikiProject subpages). There’s a bit of flawed logic in your mere inclusion of that quote in the first place, but the circular nature of it would require a rather long explanation… Suffice it to say I think that quote has no relevance in this discussion. —Wulf (talk) 00:20, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Good riddance to a "central Manual of Style". Yes, each field should be allowed to practice its own habits within Wikipedia. Otherwise, it is falsification of data to change a style just because some dilettante in Wikipedia with no experience in the field desires it. The quote clearly states that the style of the original editor has priority. (Taivo (talk) 04:28, 23 March 2009 (UTC))

Bit of a problem with that… There is a manual of style, and I seriously doubt it’ll ever go away. It may give preference to original article styles, but page titles are far more important and should be uniform. Besides, it seems the quote you are using regarding consistency within articles is more about American vs. British English than mandated proper typography. For example, see the most recent reference given for the relevant section in the MoS:

Wikipedia does not mandate styles in many different areas; these include (but are not limited to) American vs. British spelling, date formats, and citation style. Where Wikipedia does not mandate a specific style, editors should not attempt to convert Wikipedia to their own preferred style, nor should they edit articles for the sole purpose of converting them to their preferred style, or removing examples of, or references to, styles which they dislike. [emphasis added]

Wikipedia:Naming conventions#Special characters says “for the use of hyphens and dashes in page names, see Manual of Style (dashes)”, which says “when naming an article, a hyphen is not used as a substitute for an en dash that properly belongs in the title…”. Furthermore, Dash says “the en dash is used instead of a hyphen in compound adjectives for which neither part of the adjective modifies the other.”. —Wulf (talk) 14:05, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Re "This discussion is in need of attention from an expert on the subject", please bear with an intrusion from a newcomer working in a different research community.

From the foregoing discussion it seems plain that there can be no such expert, in any universal sense, because it seems plain that different communities have different en-dash conventions.

For instance, in my own community (mainly classical physics, mathematical physics, and climate research) there is an obsolescent convention of the "Bose--Einstein" sort.

The trend represented by recent editions of the Chicago Style Manual is also exhibited by some of the recently founded online journals in my field, specifically, those of the European Geosciences Union. They all follow the suggestion that in-text en dashes should all be replaced by hyphens. Surely that's the way of the future.

The tiny minority of readers who care about the difference can easily think of some of the hyphens as "really" being en dashes.

I agree that the issue of searches is of great importance... EdgeworthMcIntyre (talk) 18:08, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

PS: Wikipedia could do a great service to humanity by slightly redesigning its typography such that en dashes look exactly the same as hyphens. It would be easy to make hyphens a touch longer and thinner, and en dashes a touch shorter and thicker. In the computer code they could all be hyphens, helping toward bug-free searches.

It would be wonderful if everyone's opinion as to how to arrange hyphens and en dashes were equally well served by what's on the screen. Indeed, perception psychology ("categorical perception" etc) tells us that those with the strongest opinions might well, in fact, see the particular arrangement they like. EdgeworthMcIntyre (talk) 11:33, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, another solution would be a major military conflict over the issue of dashes....... Michael Hardy (talk) 13:30, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

A Hyphen War, perhaps? ^^ —Wulf (talk) 15:36, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm fine with tweaking MOS to be more tolerant of hyphens. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 04:09, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Ditto. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 05:31, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

• Who on earth is even going to notice the difference between a hyphen and an en-dash? This really is just such a waste of time. Much more offensive, to me, is the statement in the MOS that an EM dash should not have a space either side of it. I think it should, and then it doesn't matter whether what is written between the spaces is an em dash, an en dash, or a hyphen. Alarics (talk) 21:28, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Sometimes it does, sometimes it doesn't, depending upon usage. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 05:31, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Check a style guide. Em dashes should technically have hair spaces, which is impractical on computers (more so than dashes). With proportional (i.e. not monospaced) fonts, the hair spaces are (at least in theory) taken care of by the font. However, I seem to recall one style guide recommending en dashes over em dashes just to avoid all the confusion over it, as nobody argues for a lack of spaces around en dashes. —Wulf (talk) 18:06, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Moving forward again

This discussion is getting longwinded and off on tangents. For my part I am (surprisingly?) in agreement with Septentrionalis/PMAnderson that MOS is being overly prescriptive rather than descriptive on some aspects of this issue, and also agree with many related points raised by Tcncv and Taivo. I also agree with much of what MOS says about use of en-dashes in the sense of "to" or "through", as in "1990–1998", as well as the juxtapositional use as in "Canada–UK relations", but feel as many do here that "Ural–Altaic" is taking it too far. I think such a usage is a misconstruance of the purpose of en-dashes, to the extent there is any (including off-Wikipedia) consensus on their use to begin with. So, the question before us is what should MOS say on the matter? I think we need to refocus on what what we can come to consensus on that en-dashes are actually useful for (with reference to an overall sense of what off-WP style guides say), and reformulate from there. I would suggest that deference is generally given to the hyphen, based on a preponderance of external evidence, from post-Internet communication styles, to current academic journals, and so on. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 05:31, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Coming late to this debate, that sounds good to me. (I am currently engaged in a discussion over Weaire-Phelan structure vs. Weaire–Phelan structure). The Chicago Manual of Style and most search engine hits are on my side, but WP:ENDASH is against me. The Dash article says that "A 'simple' compound used as an adjective is written with a hyphen; at least one authority considers name pairs, as in the Taft-Hartley Act to be 'simple',[5] while most consider an en dash appropriate there[citation needed]. That "most" seems highly suspect in the light of this discussion, and I really do wonder whether that missing citation actually exists. If it doesn't, then WP:MOS should surely be revised to follow the real world. -- Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 2danish oi0:35, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 105#Guideline-by-guideline citation of sources. Wavelength (talk) 21:53, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Also coming lamentably late to the discussion, but wanted to harp a bit on the notion that establishing a (good) style guide, unlike doing (good) linguistics, is always a fundamentally prescriptive endeavor. That said, style is not prescriptive in the sense that using a given feature (hyphen, en dash, whatever) is the ultimately correct way of using a language, but insofar as consistency in presentation is desirable for a given publication (in this case, Wikipedia as a whole). While it is certainly in Wikipedia's best interest to reflect the informed usage of experts, it is a confusion of logical levels to refer to such as "descriptivism", at least when it comes to establishing style.

While I have extreme respect for linguists and linguistic expertise, linguists are not the experts to which we should ultimately defer in matters of typological style. Scientists' work involves technical distinctions within their fields, not those of typography, and (more to the point) scholars publish in journals, which have their own styles and their own economy of production. In my editorial experience, periodical literature (including many, but not all, scientific and medical journals) tends away from hyphen/en-dash distinctions, whereas you'll find them quite closely observed in other contexts and fields.

To cite the typographical tendencies of experts in a specific field, especially when using their technical vocabulary, as evidence to call for a specific stylistic usage in a broad context (WP) is a little mixed up. To say "linguistic usage always prevails" strikes me as a creeping prescriptivism of the wrong kind – although a linguist's expertise regarding the geographical extent of a language family (and thus whether the terms Niger-Congo and Ural-Altaic are disjunctive or otherwise) is most welcome in deciding on how to implement the local typographical style. But to that end, the linguist is the expert on the language family and the substantive aspects of its naming, not necessarily on how the name is punctuated. And to call a style that differs from the specialist's usage an attempt to "reform" the language misses the mark.

Of course, the point of style is to give coherence and consistency, deviations from which can detract from the publication's voice (in this case, an encyclopedic voice). I do think that en dashes provide useful distinctions in formatted text and shouldn't be tossed away as some archaism based on a subset of formatting conventions. When it comes to specifics, I pretty much agree with SMcCandlish's position above, but wanted to point out my reservations about some of the discussion that led to it.

Just a quick additional comment on the discussion above: hyphen usage with prefixes is only relevant in contexts where the prefix is attached to a capitalized item (Trans-Siberian, but transcontinental), or where hyphenless treatment results in phonological ambiguity (re-elect). Affixes in English are generally run in without space except where circumstances demand otherwise. Sorry if that was already obvious to the group here. /Ninly (talk) 06:38, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Proposal

I have just checked through some maths books for conjunctive name pairs. Cambridge University Press (e.g. Cromwell's Polyhedra). use en dashes. Allen Lane (e.g. Mlodinow's Euclid's window) use hyphens. The only Dover books I have to hand are older works (e.g. Coxeter's Regular polytopes, 2nd Edn), also using hyphens. I find the same name-pair with hyphen in one book and en dash in another.

En dashes are a pain to maintain. The practical approach for Wikipedia is to use hyphens unless there is a clear, referenced usage of en dashes in any particular field - irrespective of the publisher.

I propose to amend WP:MOS accordingly. However I do not know the etiquette - should I just do so, or is there a protocol to work through first? Certainly, the discussion aspect has been done to death. Should we vote on it? -- Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:28, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

• My vote is for. -- Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:28, 4 May 2009 (UTC).

  Specifically, I see no reason to flout The Chicago Manual of Style, which prescribes hyphens. -- Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 11:07, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

• Opposed in the interest of stylistic consistency (comments in above subsection) and because I don't think en dashes are a pain to maintain. /Ninly (talk) 06:42, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
• support. ndashes provide no visible benefits to users, while mdashes w/o spaces look too much like hyphenated terms. Both ndashes and mdashes are a pain to use - especially in tools like refTools, where the edit box "Insert" facility doesn't work. As for the 7-char HTML entities that you have to get absolutely right first time otherwise the text becomes a dog's breakfast ...! --Philcha (talk) 09:41, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose for the same reasons as Ninly —Wulf (talk) 03:21, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose endash and emdashes aren't hyphens, no need to behave as if they were. If you don't like endashes and emdashes, don't use them and someone will clean up after you eventually.Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 04:33, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose: Those who say that typographical conventions for using em- and en-dashes should be changed (to hyphens) for the computer era have it backwards. Single and double hyphens were used on typewriters in place of dashes because typewriters did not have keys for dashes, and there were practical limitations on the number of typewriter keys. Computers do away with that and other limitations, and permit the correct use of all typographical conventions. There is no reason to "dumb down" dashes to hyphens. Finell (Talk) 12:10, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose: I agree with with previous votes of opposition that many editors are willing to clean up em 'n' en for people who find it too cumbersome to employ them, and that computers (and WP's edit tools) allow for the easy application of these characters. Continue to use dashes properly, even when scholarly or published sources misuse them (except written quotations). TEPutnam (talk) 19:37, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
• Support as abolishing recent and pointless distinctions, unsupported by usage. The idea that CUP is typeset on typewriters is praeposterous. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:40, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Comment: I don’t think anybody is suggesting that typewriters are still used in 2009 (that would indeed be preposterous), just that typewriters were a limitation in the past that made some people forget proper typography… See the link that TEPutnam gave. —Wulf (talk) 02:20, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

[See Ding, click clack -- typewriter is back. -- Wavelength (talk) 03:01, 22 May 2009 (UTC)]

• Support The linguists have shredded xdashes (see above), the Chicago MOS is moving towards hyphens, xdashes are hard to distinguish from hyphens at WP's default font and size (which is what unregistered readers see) and xdashes are a PITA. --Philcha (talk) 08:03, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose. I prefer having a way of visually distinguishing between something named after a single person with a hyphenated name and something named after two people. These things are very common in mathematics (e.g. the Birch–Swinnerton-Dyer conjecture, named after Birch and Swinnerton-Dyer). —David Eppstein (talk) 15:04, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose—En dashes are distinguished from hyphens in most of the hard-copy styleguides. Presumably, this is because they add a layer of meaning: the conjunction of the hyphen—the mere joining of two words—versus the disjunction of the en dash, movement from–to, relationship, range). Surprisingly, in most fonts and on most browsers, en dashes make page and year ranges signficantly easier to read and look better. Tony (talk) 09:35, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?

Does anyone really believe that the outcome of this discussion will make one iota of difference to the quality of experience that our readers get from this encyclopedia? Phil Bridger (talk) 22:27, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, actually. —Wulf (talk) 07:33, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Same here. When readers who aren't grammar/punct nuts look at a piece of poorly punctuated writing, they can tell that it looks sloppy and amateurish, even if they are not immediately able to figure out why they feel so or where the mistakes are. Darkfrog24 (talk) 04:24, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Including boldface section from WP:MOSTEXT in WP:MOS

finding the proper convention for use of boldface [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MOS:BOLD#Boldface ] would be easier if this convention was discussed in [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Article_titles.2C_headings.2C_and_sections ]. this is also the logical place to look for the use of boldface when a new user first edits wikipedia. specifically, WP:MOS "Article titles, headings, and sections" should include "Boldface is used to separate the article name from ordinary text. It is typically used in the first paragraph of an article, used with proper names and common terms for the article topic, including any synonyms and acronyms. Do this only for the first occurrence of the term; for instance, you should avoid using boldface in both the lead section and the caption of the lead image." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MOS:BOLD#Boldface) diremarc (talk) 19:17, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure I follow you. I don't see any particular overabundance of boldfacing. As opposed to italicization, which is constantly abused, both for magazine-style, non-encyclopedic overemphasis, and as a mistake replacement for (or worse yet, adjunct to) quotation marks. Anyway, the saying goes: "If it ain't broke, don't 'fix' it." Where is it broken? — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 08:54, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

it is not the convention that is broken, it is the difficulty in finding it. there may not be an overabundance of boldface because its overuse is quickly corrected. i am suggesting an update to WP:MOS so a beginner wiki editor can easily learn the proper use of [[]] used for self reference in a page, without subsequent corrections. diremarc (talk) 18:01, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Okay, that sounds reasonable enough. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 18:19, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Archives of this page

Why do archives 8, 9, 66 and 67 of this page appear to be redlinks in the {{talkheader}} at the top of this page?  Skomorokh  19:44, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I was wondering the same thing... — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 04:15, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Editing Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 8 has this message: 14:18, 25 February 2009 Od Mishehu (talk | contribs) deleted "Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 8" ‎ (G2: Test page). -- Wavelength (talk) 14:45, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

The other three do not have such a message. -- Wavelength (talk) 14:47, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't really help, but I can confirm that Archive 8 had a single edit to it that was actually a test edit before it was deleted. Why the numbering sequence is wrong, I do not know. MBisanz ^talk 15:21, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

This is what I discovered from the Internet Archive Wayback Machine.

http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Archive_8

http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Archive_9

http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Archive_66

http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Archive_67

-- Wavelength (talk) 19:46, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I found the following information.

• Archive 7 ends on 16 February 2005 and Archive 10 begins on 22 January 2005.
• Archive 65 ends on 14 February 2007 and Archive 68 begins on 1 February 2007.

-- Wavelength (talk) 22:29, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi Wavelength, the archives were a mess when I last checked. Someone decided many years ago to archive according to topic, rather than chronologically, which meant no one could ever find anything. I started trying to clean it up a year or two ago, and gave up after a short while because it's such tedious work. I really ought to try again but I can't promise I will. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 04:15, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't know what happened to 8 & 9. Maybe this would help. I found 66 & 67. There was a misspelling. JIMp _talk·cont 13:13, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I second SV on this; it was a well-intentioned but disastrous change to the archiving that should not be repeated elsewhere. I wonder whether a kind soul might be found elsewhere who'd be willing to make a valuable little contribution in fixing this up. Tony (talk) 13:22, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Where are the discussions that need to be archived properly? Where are the instructions for archiving the discussions?

-- Wavelength (talk) 23:55, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

To answer your second question, the instructions are at Help:Archiving a talk page. JamesMLane t c 00:28, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Can the discussions be found by a search of Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive Directory?

-- Wavelength (talk) 20:18, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Micro sign

After having observed several instances of µ being replaced with the micro sign it produces, with the reason being: "MoS says keep markup simple", I wonder how µ can be considered complex when editors routinely cleanup markup by sticking in nbsp, ndash, mdash, etc. at every opportunity. Is µ really that difficult? Isn't it obvious? It has "micro" in it after all. I would expect a layperson to trip over   first. Using µ instead of µ is advantageous as it is easy to determine if the micro sign is used instead of Greek small letter Mu. So is use of µ really forbidden or is it the matter of personal preference? Rilak (talk) 08:27, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

In my memory of the situation, certain editors felt that Unicode characters were "simpler" or "easier to use" for some reason, while others including myself found HTML entity codes to be both. This never did reach consensus, but bits of MOS have been changed anyway to recommend Unicode. I'd like to see this undone. For one thing, in many fonts it is virtually impossible to see whether a hyphen, minus, en-dash or em-dash has been used if Unicode has been employed instead of character entities. I routinely change Unicode en- and em-dashes into – and — for this reason. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 18:02, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Uh, isn't that just a matter of how your text editor presents it? Does it actually make a difference to what is stored in the Wikipedia's underlying database? In any case, WikEd now shows them clearly even though editing is done in monospace. I see for example that you have a real em-dash before your signature, even though you prefer to type/use the entity? Or do I see characters (where they exist) regardless of how you entered the text originally? Długosz (talk) 18:27, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

"mu" and "micro" are the same symbol so use whichever you prefer. Just don't editwar over it. However mu is shorter to type so I really don't know why someone would prefer micro over mu. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 00:24, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

The Unicode micro symbol is U+00B5 and unambiguously refers to the unit. That is different from U+03BC, the greek small letter mu. The HTML Entities reflects this as well, as they are different characters. They look alike. But so do | and I and 1. Długosz (talk) 18:27, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I am quite aware that the symbol for "micro" is mu. But not all fonts have identical glyphs for the micro sign and mu. Some fonts do not even have the glyph for mu. Using the HTML entity for the micro sign in the markup enables editors to easily determine that it is used instead of mu. Rilak (talk) 17:07, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Then if they look different it should be mu all over. The situation were someone has a browser which doesn't recognize mu but recognizes micro isn't likely to happen considering IE, FF, Safari and most if not all cell-phone browsers all have default fonts which recognizes them. And assuming there is a problem recognizing mu, there would be problems much worse with that browser anyway. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 00:16, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Why should mu be used when it is not guaranteed a font will have it? Rilak (talk) 13:03, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm no expert on which browsers have which fonts, but Wikipedia uses many characters that are not available in the simpler fonts that preceeded Unicode. It seems to me that if someone is browing Wikipedia with a font that lacks mu, they are going to be missing a great deal of content; the mu will be one of many proplems. We should strike a happy medium between not requiring our readers to have the latest hardware and software, and not catering to the weakest conceivable hardware and software. (Sorry readers, but Wikipedia does not support Teleprinters.) --Jc3s5h (talk) 15:59, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Dash spacing in categories

If I remember correctly, categories shouldn't have fancy dashes because redirects won't work properly. But what about spacing? Should Category:St. Louis-San Francisco Railway be moved to Category:St. Louis - San Francisco Railway? --NE2 03:01, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I believe this issue has come up in discussion elsewhere about the use of dashes in categories, in which there strong arguments put both ways. I'm going to ask User:The Duke of Waltham, who alerted me to this matter when it arose (last year, can't remember where). My personal belief is that categories should be treated exactly the same way as the rest of WP's text: a spaced en dash is required (Category:St. Louis – San Francisco Railway). Spacing the squidgy hyphen is a step in the right direction, but is consistency here a technical/search problem? I'd not have thought so. Tony (talk) 08:15, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that if there's a fancy dash in the category name, you can't just type the category using your keyboard. --NE2 11:11, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

NE2, I'd have thought there was nothing fancy at all about a plain old dash. If you don't have a full Windows keyboard (bottom-left and top-right buttons) or a Mac (option-hyphen), just hit the very first symbol below the edit box to the right of the "Insert" tab. Please let me know if you have further queries. Tony (talk) 13:56, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

That assumes, does it not, that  (1) only someone who's editing a page would want to type the name of the category, and  (2) only someone who has Javascript enabled would want to type the name of the category. I disagree with both of those assumptions. Pi zero (talk) 02:12, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

You've lost me, totally; can you explain in dummies' language? Is this about search capability? If so, I believe the en dash and hyphen are inclusive in searches. Tony (talk) 04:25, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Say I'm writing an article on something related to the St. Louis – San Francisco Railway. I add the category, but even though I've typed it as it appears, it's showing up red. The existence of different dashes is not something you nromally learn in school. --NE2 06:45, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

(3) that the editor realizes that there are different dashes, and which one is correct. --NE2 06:42, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Example error

It seems to me that one of the examples in the Use of "The" mid-sentence is incorrect. In the New York Times example, it says "There was an article about the United Kingdom in the New York Times." is correct, but The New York Times should be italicized since it is the title of a newspaper. Also, I've been seeing the formatting of publications with similar names done a few different ways lately. Could someone tell me in the above example, how "The New York Times" would be italicized, whether "The" would be capitalized and where the wikilink brackets would go around it? Thanks. - kollision (talk) 10:41, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Probably a bad example, since "The" appears to be part of the name of the newspaper. New York Post might be a better example. Powers ^T 13:38, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

My view is that if the The forms part of the name of the newspaper, it ought to be capitalized and italicized, i.e., "There was an article about the United Kingdom in The New York Times". Furthermore, since the The is part of the name, it should be included within the wikilinking brackets (and if the article that is wikilinked to lacks the The, it should be moved). — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 13:59, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I believe that the house style of the Times itself prescribes that the The is included and capitalized in the title, but according to other prevalent styles (with which I agree on this point), including Chicago, this should be ignored in general (so, the New York Times). However, we should probably just use the New York Post or some other paper in the interest of having a definitive example. /ninly (talk) 15:49, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

See here for an example of usage in "The New York Times manual of style and usage" itself. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 02:02, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Another questionable example

"Homer wrote the Odyssey." I think the title is "The Odyssey", at least according to the two book covers we use (File:Fagles-odyssey.jpg and File:Odyssey-fitz.jpg). Also there's no "Incorrect" way for this line unlike the others. 75.4.146.213 (talk) 11:54, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

The Odyssey has a long history of being used as a title independent of its definite article. Book covers capitalize the "The" because it's the first word on a line (and because these two are in all caps). Darkfrog24 (talk) 12:45, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I believe "Homer's Odyssey" is a common construction. Powers ^T 14:02, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I think the OP referred to the fact that the covers read "THE ODISSEY" rather than just "ODISSEY", not to capitalization. But I think it is more a matter of the title so classical that it's being used as a noun (as in "the Bible" or "the Kama Sutra"—compare with modern titles such as Pulp which aren't preceded by an article), than the article being part of the title as in The Godfather. --A. di M. (formerly Army1987) — Deeds, not words. 14:51, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, that's what I meant. After searching around a bit: "Homer's Odyssey" and "The Odyssey" are by far the most common forms used as a title by itself (like on a book cover), however, when it's referred to in a body of text, it's usually "the Odyssey". 75.4.146.213 (talk) 01:47, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Quoting from the preface to the first edition: "The 'Odyssey' (as every one knows) abounds in passages borrowed from the 'Iliad'; ...". (see here).

Quoting from the preface to the second edition: "Butler's Translation of the 'Odyssey' appeared originally ...". (see here). Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 02:02, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

• I think there's no doubt that "the/The" is grammatically part of a name, and that where the owner insists or it is otherwise customary, upper-case T is probably best. It's bound to continue to be an area of tension in the langauge. I believe The Beatles insisted on the T, although some people object and use t: I don't care much, but it needs to be consistent throughout an article's internal text. Tony (talk) 03:42, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

While a capital T is part of some names, it is not the owner's preference that determines this. [WP: Trademark] states, "choose the style that most closely resembles standard English, regardless of the preference of the trademark owner." In other words, "The New York Times" but "the Beatles," etc. Darkfrog24 (talk) 12:18, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

That would seem to contradict both this policy and current practice, vis a vis The New York Times but the New York Post. Powers ^T 14:24, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) WP:MOSTM sounds somewhat unreasonable to me, and (fortunately?) it is not followed consistently. I guess nobody would ever dream of moving CERN to Cern, despite the fact that it's not pronounced cee-e-ar-en and that it's not an acronym (though it used to be one). So, why must it be Kiss (band) and not KISS (band)? I don't get it. Also, over-zealous application of WP:MOSTM sometimes produces borderline original research: we have an article titled Year Zero Remixed about an album which most reliable sources (not just the trademark owner) refer to as Y34RZ3R0R3M1X3D, and almost nobody as Year Zero Remixed. So I think the wording the style that most closely resembles standard English encourages name mangling too much. If we want to avoid really bizzarre things such as "adidas" with a lowercase A, a better way to do that without throwing the baby away with the bathwater would be writing the style which is most commonly used in running text in English by reliable secondary sources, or something like that. --A. di M. (formerly Army1987) — Deeds, not words. 15:46, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Periods and full stops

This is very minor (read: pedantic), and not even close to being worthy of an {{editprotected}} tag, but at some point, the words "period" and "full stop" should probably be harmonized on this page to one or the other, except where it requires explanation that they mean the same thing. Of course, we'd need to decide which wording to use.

Also, as a related point to this, the use of "period" is the norm in Canada as well, so the explanation in Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Punctuation_at_the_end_of_a_sentence should probably read "non-North American English".

If others agree, I'd be happy to do it whenever this page is once again unprotected, unless someone else feels some urgent need to do so. --Rob (talk) 21:07, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Rob, you are surrounded by grammar/punct enthusiasts. Chances are, we will not see you as too pedantic.

[Rude interjection in Darkfrog24's message: Too pedantic is an oxymoron. Finell (Talk) 05:02, 15 June 2009 (UTC)]

Might be a bit of a digression, Finell, but I don't think you're being that rude. Actually, since "pedantic" means "overly ostentatious about one's learning," then "too pedantic" is not an oxymoron. Could be overkill, but that's not the same thing. Darkfrog24 (talk) 12:54, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

It's too redundant, is the problem. ;) /ninly (talk) 02:17, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't feel that it's necessary to harmonize the terms. Parenthetical explanations are frequent enough to avoid confusion. This way, the article appears less regional.

Concur with change to "non-North-American English," but it needs another hyphen. Darkfrog24 (talk) 21:19, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Good point about the non-regional presentation, Darkfrog24, I hadn't thought of it from that perspective. Thanks for the hyphenation tip...I've seen both ways before, but wasn't sure about official grammar rules (which, of course, vary by country and source and so forth anyway, as evidenced by the logical quotes debate). It always confuses me because, of course, if you just said "North American", ^{(guess that's a vote for logical quoting <g>)} you wouldn't hyphenate it. But I can see the logic in hyphenating it when it's negative, since you want to make it obvious which part(s) of the term is being negated. After all, on its own, "non-North American" could well imply "Central/South American". :) So yeah, I'm with you on the hyphenation here now that you bring my attention to it. --Rob (talk) 21:34, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

This isn't a geometry logical formulation. What it reminds me of is someone having the right of way and driving though a green light and being dead right because of a truck running the red light. I have never seen anyone write non-North-American, and would have no way of discerning the intended meaning. However, I do see that Google has seen it,[17][18] but I have no idea the intended meaning (both appear to be geekspeak, one from the ACM, the other from the IEEE). 199.125.109.99 (talk) 14:03, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

¶ The discussion at Wikipedia talk:MOSNUM over what articles should begin with metric or Imperial or U.S. Customary units assumes that most Wikipedia readers are outside North America (and consequently more familiar with metric units). Although I'm British and have lived in the U.S. for half a century, I think "period" may be as ambiguous and strange outside North America as "full stop" is within. And I think that "period" (like "stop") can have other meanings in punctuation, prose style, typography and layout. Since it would also read more smoothly (with fewer negatives and hyphens), my leaning is towards rearranging that sentence into something like this:

“ Full stops (usually called periods in North America), question marks, and exclamation marks are the three sentence-enders: the only punctuation marks used to end sentences. ”

—— Shakescene (talk) 21:40, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

That probably works better. :) --Rob (talk) 21:49, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Or even just

“ Full stops (periods), question marks, and exclamation marks are the three sentence-enders: the only punctuation marks used to end sentences. ”

Darkfrog24 (talk) 22:10, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Or even just

“ Full stops (periods), question marks, and exclamation marks are the only punctuation marks used to end sentences. ”

It was overformatted and contained background redundancies. Tony (talk) 03:49, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Or (sacrificing a little consistency for clarity and trans-Atlantic balance):

“ Full stops (periods or "."), question marks (interrogation points or "?"), and exclamation marks ("!") are the only punctuation marks used to end sentences. ”

(Someone better-trained than I/me can insert large green type where desirable.) —— Shakescene (talk) 06:20, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

• Shakescene, this last example is hyper-cluttered. If someone doesn't know what a period / full-stop is, let them click on the link: that is its purpose. "Interrogation point"? O come now. Highly technical terms and symbols are not necessary here: they are undesirable if you want the MoS to be slim and trim and easily comprehensible. Tony (talk) 08:51, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

• • I was mainly throwing that version out for discussion, Tony, rather than as a preferred alternative to your own. "Interrogation point" isn't technical, just (so far as I can recall from my own English childhood) a common name for the symbol in Commonwealth countries. But while it might still perhaps strike some as an Americanism, "question mark" is clear enough intuitively that it really doesn't need an explanation, whereas neither "full stop" and "period" is instantly understandable outside its area of prevalence. It still wouldn't hurt to show .,? and ! as symbols, too, as do most style manuals. Very few of those who aren't registered users with enabled pop-ups actually interrupt their reading twice by jumping to a wikilink to learn a meaning, just as we don't carry a dictionary to a cocktail party, play or lecture.—— Shakescene (talk) 19:12, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

When I think of the word period, I think of a typographic symbol having the form of a dot and positioned on at the baseline of a line of text, as distinct from an interpunct, which is vertically centered.

When I think of the expression full stop, I think of a period in one of its several functions, namely, that of indicating the end of a statement. In languages written and read from left to right, this means the extreme right end of the statement. A period is used as a decimal separator in some countries, and as a digit group separator in other countries. Paragraph 2 of Interpunct#In mathematics and science says: "In situations where the interpunct is used as a decimal point (as noted above, by many mathematics teachers in some countries), then the multiplication sign used is usually a period, not an interpunct." The German language uses the period to abbreviate ordinal numbers, as in de:1. Buch Mose (the first book of Moses), referred to in English as Genesis; 1. Januar (the first day of January); and de:1. Kongress der Vereinigten Staaten, referred to in English as 1st United States Congress. Periods are used in web addresses and in computer file names in general. Some people use them in telephone numbers. They are used in lists (for example, "4." and "a."). They sometimes indicate sections and subsections (for example, "sub-sub-subsection 2.3.4.5"). They are used in abbreviations. Different dictionaries and other reference works have various styles for using them in listed entries and elsewhere. An ellipsis can be formed as a row of periods, or by the use of a Unicode ellipsis symbol. Periods can be used as leader dots:

Chapter 1 ............................................3

Chapter 2...........................................11

Chapter 3...........................................22

Chapter 4...........................................35

Does anyone call a period a full stop in all of those functions?

Just as a period can perform several functions, so too can the function of a full stop be performed by various typographical forms in different languages. (See Punctuation#Other languages.)

I recommend that Wikipedia show the distinction between the word period (denoting form) and the phrase full stop (denoting function). -- Wavelength (talk) 16:58, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

[I revised my message. -- Wavelength (talk) 20:10, 14 June 2009 (UTC)]

Iff that is a true reflexion of the meanings of these terms in English. As for my dialect of English, the term period has nothing to do with punctuation ... I'd use the term dot (but this doesn't specify position). JIMp _talk·cont 17:08, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Taking Wavelength's point into account, the text should then read

“ Periods (full stops), question marks, and exclamation marks are the only punctuation marks used to end sentences. ”

to both show that the period is here discussed in its full stop function and to ensure that non-North-Americans will understand what is meant. Darkfrog24 (talk) 18:19, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't get Wavelength's point at all. What's apparent to him seems quite different from what non-Americans would understand in everyday life. Today is the first time, for example, (not being a palaeographer or a coder) that I've ever heard of interpuncts, and while I wouldn't use the words "full stop" in any of Wavelength's examples, I wouldn't, living in the U.S., use the word "period" either. (Most people say "dot dot dot" to mean "..." and "dot-com" to mean ".com"; Wikipedia can tell them that grammarians call "..." ellipses, but should speak to them in the language they use already.) Since I think "full stop" may be familiar to more of our readers than "period", and since "full stop" is less ambiguous, I'm still inclined to flip the order, for example, something (considering that every rule has an exception) like:

“ Full stops (periods), question marks, and exclamation marks [ . ? ! ] are normally the only punctuation marks used to end sentences. ”

(outdent) I see what you mean about "grammar/punct enthusiasts", Darkfrog24. <g> At this point, I'm going to Unwatch this page, cuz it's cluttering my Watchlist. I'll trust one of you to make whatever changes you eventually decide on. :) --Rob (talk) 20:52, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

"I wouldn't, living in the U.S., use the word "period" either. … I think "full stop" may be familiar to more of our readers than "period""

I find that very strange. I grew up in the US, and my perception is that "period" is the normal term, and "full stop" is unheard of. I certainly didn't encounter it growing up. It's "period" on Seseme Street and other PBS shows, and "blah blah blah, period!" is an idiom. Długosz (talk) 19:42, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

It's the same in my part of the U.S. We say "period," not "full stop." Darkfrog24 (talk) 20:26, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

For the record, I am fine with either "Full stops (periods)" or "Periods (full stops)," but since 1. addressing Wavelength's issue takes so little space and doesn't make the page any more confusing and 2. the two phrasings are roughly equal in other respects, I'd lean more toward "Periods (full stops)." Darkfrog24 (talk) 21:13, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I concur with Darkfrog24's position that "periods (full stops)" is more sensible. In American English, the most common context in which one sees the phrase "full stop" (and for most Americans, the only context in which they have ever heard the phrase) is in the context of driving, as when a driving instructor reminds students to make a "full stop" at a stop sign and look both ways before proceeding through the intersection. A "full stop" or "complete stop" in American English is contrasted against the "California stop" or "rolling stop" where one slows to less than 10 mph but fails to actually obey the stop sign. See, for example, this article from the San Bernardino Sun about a new red light enforcement camera. --Coolcaesar (talk) 07:09, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't mind it. I'm keen to keep the main text plain, short and simple. There is talk of making fine and subtle conceptual distinctions; users here may consider writing these prominently into the linked articles on these items. Tony (talk) 08:47, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Space after number sign

In the case where a number sign (#) is to be used (e.g. inside a tight table), should a space be placed between the sign and the number? For example, should one write "# 3" or "#3"? —LOL ^T/_C 02:11, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not inclined to use a space there. Does our current practice vary much, or do we generally favor the no-space option? -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:18, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I've seen it both ways, but the spaceless one looks like it would be better for a table. In most cases, though, I don't use # at all when making a list, just "1." etc. Can you give us a link to one of the tables you mean? Darkfrog24 (talk) 02:39, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I can't find a good example right now, but I'm asking this because there are several tennis-related articles that use number signs for seeds and rankings. —LOL ^T/_C 02:55, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I'd have to see some examples myself, but for orders. seeds and rankings, it might be as clear or clearer to use ordinals: 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 11th, 13th, etc., at the cost of maybe one more character (or none if # is followed by a space). —— Shakescene (talk) 03:18, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

¶ I find it easier to read with a space, since on first glance, # resembles a digit. If you're scanning down a column to catch 7. 8, 9, 10, 11, etc. it's easier with a space in front than if the first thing you see is identical #'s. I'm not sure which way this argues, but unspaced # is also a wikilink shortcut to sections and subsections in the same page, as in #Space after number sign. Although I'll probably go back some time to clean up my newcomer work, I used unspaced # before years this way in some lines of New York City mayoral elections#How the Boroughs voted. Also consider that # is more frequently used in North America for "No." than in other places, so it's not so instantly recognisable everywhere. As in so many other things, however, I think this is the kind of thing where guidance and advice are helpful, but prescriptions and rules are not. The last thing I want to see is some outside 'bot mechanically adding or removing intervening spaces which may have been deliberately inserted or omitted for specific reasons (clarity, space, legibility, subject-matter) by a table's creator or editors. —— Shakescene (talk) 02:49, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

The usage of spaced and unspaced number sign I've seen seems to be indicative that when it's an identifier (such as article #15234) it's unspaced, and when it's a rank or jersey number, it's spaced (Jersey # 24, ranked # 4 in the league). I don't particularly care either way, and I don't think the MoS should prescribe anything here, as the use of a number sign is probably field-dependant, but obviously articles should be consistent, and non-breaking spaces should be used to space.Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 15:04, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Headbomb, namely use what's typical for the particular field involved with the article. While generally I believe the inclusion of a (non-breaking) space looks better and more readable, it isn't universally used, and sticking with whatever the source uses is a way to ensure a modicrum of consistancy. oknazevad (talk) 00:31, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

• A thin space if at all. Jersey # 24 looks odd, as opposed to Jersey # 24 or the more usual Jersey #24. I'm happy with no space. Tony (talk) 13:24, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Large numbers of images

In Talk:Color wheel#Lots of images I raise the point that the article IMO has too many images of a similar purpose scattered across the page. Fair use is not an issue in this case since the copyrights on the images have expired, but the main contributors to the article believe this is a good thing and that they serve a decorative purpose. I was wondering what style policies there are in this regard? I'm not sure "decorative" is a sufficient criteria. WP:MOS#Images says, "Images should be inside the section they belong to (after the heading and after any links to other articles), and not above the heading." When the images are scattered across the page in this way then they are not contained in a relevant section. WP:LAY#Images also says, "You should always be watchful not to overwhelm an article with images by adding more just because you can." In this case a gallery or link to the commons category would suffice, IMO. I'd appreciate any feedback on the matter, thanks. SharkD (talk) 21:10, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:How to fix bunched-up edit links. -- Wavelength (talk) 14:05, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Someone started a similar discussion here. SharkD (talk) 11:10, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

It would be preferable to have the discussion in one place or the other, but not both. Wikipedia talk:Images#Number of images in an article is a better place than here because it is on the talk page for the specific guideline involved. Finell (Talk) 20:54, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

That page gets lot less traffic, though. SharkD (talk) 02:16, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

The traffic that it does get is generally by editors more specifically interested in the topic of images. There can be a discussion here, and, after it has been concluded, another discussion there. -- Wavelength (talk) 19:23, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Unprotect the MoS?

Admin Shell Kinney has suggested at ANI that it might be time to unprotect. I said I'd post here to ask regular participants whether they are prepared to respect the need for stability—in particular, to make contentious changes only after gaining consensus on the talk page.

Will this be the case? It would be embarrassing to have the page protected yet again after a couple of days. Tony (talk) 10:02, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

What's the outcome of the "punctuation marks inside or outside quotation marks" discussion? No consensus? That debate was the main reason why the guideline was protected. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 12:43, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Sort of correct. There was no consensus for adding an explanatory paragraph, and no consensus for changing the policy itself, but there was a consensus for changing the phrasing of the article to the imperative. The page's current appearance reflects these three things. Darkfrog24 (talk) 13:27, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

So much for the outcome of the discussion. However, the MOS was protected because of edit warring, not because of what the edit warring was about. Subsequent discussions (up to and including this one) have left me uncomfortably uncertain that the instigators ever correctly understood the problem — an uncertainty exacerbated by the fact that the problem occurred a second time despite rather stern warnings after the first incident. Nobody (including me) really wants to raise this sort of issue, of course, as the opportunities for ill will all around are rife. Speaking of which...

I am on record suggesting, in all seriousness, that the best way to foster positive community spirit (among other advantages) would be to leave the MOS protected indefinitely. I gave a detailed rationale for this position here.  :--Pi zero (talk) 13:44, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Pi zero, I don't dismiss your idea completely, but there are four problems with it: (1) it trashes the "everyone can edit" idea that is central to WP; (2) it inhibits the flexibility and gradual evolution of the MoS; (3) it sets a bad precedent for permanently freezing any article or page that is the subject of disputes; and (4) it's cumbersome for both MoS editors and the poor admins who have to respond to calls to override the protection (in practice, admins would be cast in the role of proxies for all MoS edits, as if they're not hard-pressed enough already to manage the project). MoS has managed well enough for many years: why now should it be permanently gummed up? I'd like to think we're mature enough to work through our difficulties on this page and not use the MoS itself as a sandbox. Tony (talk) 14:11, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

The added burden on admins is a telling point. (In the interest of leaving a clear trail of thought in the record, I will make one comment rebutting some of your other points: The MOS has peculiar status as a prominent community resource, arguably falling within the penumbra of the "Pages that are very visible" item at Wikipedia:Protection policy#Permanent protection.)

Back on the immediate situation, there still remains the question of whether misunderstanding is any less likely to cause a third incident than it was to cause a second. --Pi zero (talk) 15:12, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

My feelings on whether the MoS page remains protected are not strong either way. However, if there is a page for which being less accessible to editing would not necessarily be a bad thing, it's this one. Darkfrog24 (talk) 15:44, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I should remind those posting above that MoS is not policy, so the claims of "no consensus to change policy" above are pointless. If the MOS continues to insist that we use punctuation rules that do not follow standard rules of any country at all, or more importantly the rules of the country whose grammar and spelling rules we use per WP:ENGVAR, then all sensible editors will just ignore what the MoS regardless if some people dedicated to making their own rules up want to try to claim there is no consensus. The whole world of usage both in the real world and on this project overrule the MoS. Lock or unlock this page and people will still use the real punctuation rules instead of the quixotic standards some nobodies cooked up without getting the consensus of Wikipedia editors as a whole in the first place. Doing something that nobody objects to because they didn't know what you were doing is not consensus an never has been. DreamGuy (talk) 13:27, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

While I agree with some of the stuff you've said, DreamGuy, I must point out that the editors who selected Wikipedia's current punctuation style didn't make it up, per se. The system was already in use in computer programming and the ACS. While I do not feel that that system is best for Wikipedia, I would prefer it if you'd express yourself a bit more gently. We are not nobodies. We're Wikipedians who care about article quality, even in small details. Darkfrog24 (talk) 19:09, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

It also isn't constructive to assert that anyone who disagrees with you is not sensible. Such rhetorical devices interfere with rational discussion, which is unfortunate since mixed in with the rhetoric you raise several interesting points that, on their own merits, might be fruitful subjects for rational discussion. --Pi zero (talk) 20:04, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Italicisation of dates is still going on

I have left a message with Stilltim asking what his reasons are for imposing italic face on dates. Italics are slightly more difficult to read than roman face, and the more redundant formatting used, the more it's diluted. If there's no satisfactory resolution to this, I think an RFC will be necessary. Tony (talk) 01:02, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

• Tony, thanks for your gentle comments. It's nice to be discussing this professionally. For several years I always posted dates linked to the calendar, so they displayed blue, but not italizised. I thought it was fine. However, I was very strongly encouraged/forced by many of my sometimes over zealous colleagues, to drop that link and just show the date. Somehow the appearance seemed less effective, harder to find. So I experimented and found the italics largely solved the appearance problem, the reader could easily find the date amongst the mass of other information. And recogizing the negative aspects of italization you correctly point out, I have limited its use to the Infobox and introductory paragraph. Further, I researched the MOS (dates and numbers) and much to my delight I found this very method used as an example of an acceptable format under "full date formatting."

• So I started trying it out. The reason for doing it is to make the dates more visible or perhaps findable, believing it to be a key piece of biographical information. Yes we could italicize names and places, but doing both would reduce the visibility, I think. Dates are important and need to be found easily, blue, italized or through any other vehicle that could be thought of. You should know italicization is not sacred to me, nor would I have the slightest hestitation in reverting to some other presentation, it's simply experimentmental, a way to develop a vehicle for a better display to a casual, quick reader. It may be wrong, but how do we find out without trying? Of all subjects little unimportant Delaware history seemed like a good place.

• Generally I am the strongest apostle of the concept of consistent display throughout these articles. I am constantly fighting the "fly by night" writer or even a well-meaning editor, dropping a "bright idea" into one of hundreds of articles I am trying to make consistent. This is a real WP problem. I have dropped countless preferences of my own to meet the consistently concept, only to be trashed for failing to follow some one seemingly trivial attempt at improvement. Both consistenty and improvement are needed. You have not trashed and are clearly well informed, hence my long response. However, I have found these oftentimes endless discussions stacked with diverse and unclear meaning and goals, enourmously time consuming, preventing me effectively writing and improving good articles- which is my calling. Please feel free to give me guidance or have further discussion if you wish. I welcome it. stilltim (talk) 10:59, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Stilltim. I'm not convinced that a person's dates of birth and death are so much more important than other information about the person that they require some sort of additional emphasis, italics or otherwise. In any case, I think there is little chance of such information being lost among a "mass of other information" – "Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies)#Opening paragraph" stipulates that the opening paragraph of a biographical article should state the subject's dates of birth and death, and if there is an infobox the information will also appear in it. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 13:04, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Tim, sorry, I replied on your talk page to your post on my talk page, not realising you'd commented here. WP has largely gone for the judicious use of highlighting, and is way ahead of most "personal" styles I encounter in my RL work (the subheadings in caps, bolded and underlined—not uncommon). The bleaching effect creeps up on the reader. While italicised dates look kind of pretty (as long as no other italics appear in the vicinity), they are slightly harder to read, and like Jacklee, I wonder why they're not already sufficiently salient with their unique array of numbers and—usually—a spaced en dash to show the range. PS Please let us know if anyone "trashes" you, especially in what I see is your valuable gnoming work. Tony (talk) 13:25, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Quick pointer: articles should indeed be standardised - to Wikipedia standards. You've been changing hundreds of articles to your own standards, which is counterproductive and goes directly against your stated goal. Ironholds (talk) 14:13, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Aren't birth and death dates already in parentheses in most cases? That seems like enough highlighting to me. Powers ^T 14:18, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I see no good reason to highlight dates, as noted above, their degree of visibility already outweighs their importance. JIMp _talk·cont 22:45, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Reuters has Handbook of Journalism that may be of interest

Reuters has a Handbook of Journalism similar to the WP:MOS. The link is here ([19]) with the handbook being 536 pages in length. Even though Reuters has come under fire for their doctored war photo in 2006, they also have a set of absolutes that can be applicable to Wikipedia (see page 2). Chris (talk) 22:51, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I think it would be incorrect to suggest that journalistic standards can apply directly to WP, but thanks for bringing it to our attention so people can have a looksee. I'm sure if anyone sees something they'd like there will be a proposal here or elsewhere. Ironholds (talk) 01:15, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedians can read about a familar concept on page 11: "Take no side, tell all sides". -- Wavelength (talk) 04:40, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Ironholds, I'd say not "incorrect", but worth looking at cautiously. Each style guide should ideally be related to the particular circumstances of the text over which it claims authority. There are similarities and there are differences between the circumstances of WP's text and those of Reuters' text. Tony (talk) 11:00, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

My statement was essentially "it is incorrect to say that the single journalistic standard can apply directly to WP", which I'd say is broadly true - I can't think of any other standard which can directly (i.e without tweaks) apply to the frankenstein-esque system we've built up around ourselves. Ironholds (talk) 17:26, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

My reason to call this out is to see if there is anything in these standards that are better than ours and apply them our current set of standards. That is all. Chris (talk) 22:20, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

And we may find a way to do that. Thanks, Chris. Do you see any such situation in particular? Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:02, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

On page 112, there is the guideline against hyphenating an adverb ending in ly with an immediately following adjective. However, the handbook itself contains three errors in this regard. This is a situation calling for Reuters employees to assume good faith and to do as the handbook says and not as it does. Wikipedia has a similar guideline at WP:HYPHEN, sub-subsection 3, point 4.

-- Wavelength (talk) 02:03, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Proper style for Soviet place of birth

Hi, on all ice hockey rosters it seems the WP:Ice Hockey (whom I'm a member of, have raised this question but it went ignored) write for place of birth as "City, U.S.S.R." This form, as I've searched on here, fullstops shouldn't be used (unless it's something like U.S., I get the idea)

My questions are:

1. Since state (or any other) abbreviations aren't used...What should be used, "USSR" or "Soviet Union"?
2. Since US and Canadian sub national units (state/province) are used, should the Soviet state be inserted? (ie. Kiev, Ukrainian SSR, Soviet Union)

these things apply to WP:BIO style as well, so wanna get it straightened out for future edits by myself as well. thanks in advance.--Львівске (talk) 22:31, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Didn't the Soviet Union cease to exist as a unified political entity in 1991? So shouldn't you use the current name of the country in which the player's city of birth is now located? I can see how "former U.S.S.R." might be useful at times. It is a commonly understood name. Darkfrog24 (talk) 23:32, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

No. Since a birth is a historical event, the name of the country at the time of the event should be used. —C.Fred (talk) 23:34, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Correct, place of birth is engraved in history.--Львівске (talk) 23:42, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree. E.g. Albert Schweitzer was born in Germany, even though the village he was born in is now in France. In this situation an explanation makes sense, but I think we can really expect readers to know that the Soviet Union no longer exists. Hans Adler 23:44, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Let's use Soviet Union. GoodDay (talk) 00:13, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

It's fine to say "let's use A, B, or C", but what is most commonly used in media and other outlets? Find the most common way and let's look at that. Masterhatch (talk) 01:31, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

On wikipedia there doesn't seem to be a strict style guide in place, every Russian I check out has a different syntax for the POB line. Guys like Putin or Gorbachev use the City>State>Soviet Union form. For outside of wikipedia...where do you suggest? Seems to be all over the place as well in terms of how to write it.--Львівске (talk) 02:04, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

• And let's keep the fly-specks out of the initialism: "the USSR" (like "the UK"). Tony (talk) 04:29, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

¶ In almost every case, what is now a sovereign nation (including the Russian Federation, formerly the Russian Soviet Federated Socialist Republic, or RSFSR) was one of the fifteen constituent republics of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, so it shouldn't be too difficult to finesse the issue without distortion. If a skater was born in Kiev, it's no distortion to say that she was born in the Ukraine, whether it was in 1955 or 1995. If it's necessary to indicate why she belonged to the Soviet or Unified Olympic team, you could add USSR. By way of analogy, someone born in Hawaii before 1898 was not born in the United States, but was still born in Hawaii. Michael Collins was born in Ireland when it was still part of the U.K. and died in the Irish Free State he helped found, but he was still born in Ireland and killed in Ireland. I was born in London, England, and if it's absolutely necessary to state the obvious, say London, England, G.B. or U.K. (depending on context), but I never ever say "London, U.K.", even though I'm a moderate Unionist. (Nor do I ever say "London, Canada" for "London, Ontario" or "London, Ont., Canada".) —— Shakescene (talk) 07:16, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Interesting take, seeing as this is against the grain I usually see. That said, I think it's fair. It's true that nobody says "London, UK". For hockey's sake (since that's what I'm dealing with), Owen Nolan (a player) is listed as "Belfast, United Kingdom" on his team roster. Sound weird to you too? I think if for the Soviet example we drop USSR altogether, it be "Moscow, Russian SFSR" rather than "Russia" straight up, as even Russian Empire isn't referred to as "Russia" proper. I think the "SFSR" part kinda sorta implies it's part of the Soviet Union, eh? What do you think? --Львівске (talk) 07:27, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Remember, if you want a really baroque twist on your problem, that any players born in Latvia, Lithuania or Estonia before 1940 (or, according to the most common interpretation, between June 1941 and 1944) weren't born in the USSR, although they may have ended up playing for the Soviet or Red Army team. This, however, will probably apply more to basketball than to ice hockey. On the other hand, I doubt that you'd want to classify any Baltic or Byelorussian players unfortunate enough to have been born in the early 1940's with a birthplace of Reichskommissariat Ostland. —— Shakescene (talk) 10:41, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

You may wish to note the massive discussion at "Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Country of birth". — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 07:52, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I'll comb through it, thanks!--Львівске (talk) 07:56, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

The last paragraph in WP:MOSPN#Place names ("Romans invaded Gaul, not France") says that the name of that place which was in use at the time is to be used. So, the current political status of Ukraine is irrelevant. Now, would someone in 1980 have written "Kiev, Ukraine" or "Kiev, USSR"? By analogy with "West Bromwich, England" or "Lafayette, Indiana", I'd say it's the former. --A. di M. (formerly Army1987) — Deeds, not words. 09:42, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Both of those analogies you list are the same CITY>STATE format, though...--Львівске (talk) 15:46, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Huh? What do you mean? I'm saying that it should be "Kiev, Ukraine" rather than "Kiev, USSR" much like it should be ""Lafayette, Indiana" rather than "Lafayette, U.S.". So what the "though" refers to? --A. di M. (talk) 15:59, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

My bad, thought you were comparing between England/Indiana rather than Ukr/USSR, whoops--Львівске (talk) 17:04, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I prefer using birth countires. If one's born before December 25, 1991, it's Soviet Union. As for American & Canadian cities? I prefer for example: Toronto, Canada or Seattle, United States. GoodDay (talk) 20:38, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Straw poll

Can you guys reading here give me some sort of conensus on which to go with? I went with the change and now we're getting intro problems. I'll post an example and just sign underneath what you prefer:

For City>State _{ex. Kiev, Ukrainian SSR / Belfast, Northern Ireland / New York, New York}

This is certainly better than the other one (Dallas, United States is just incredibly jarring). But I'd skip the "SSR" bit. Kiev, Ukraine is accurate for both Soviet-era and post-Soviet-era dates. It's more complicated in cases of border readjustment; then both the historical and modern political entities should be noted, but as far as I know Ukraine's borders haven't changed much, it's just become independent. --Trovatore (talk) 07:20, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

• Support: in the previous discussion at "Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Country of birth", I generally supported this view. But this is the simplest situation; I would suggest that more complicated situations be dealt with as follows:
  • Nations made up of distinct countries: city > constituent country (> nation, if city is not well known). Examples: "Cardiff, Wales"; "Makhachkala, Dagestan, Russian Federation".
  • Nations the borders and/or political structure of which have changed: city > former state/constituent country (if any) or nation (now present state/constituent country (if any) or nation). Examples: "Berlin, East Germany (now Germany)" or "Berlin, German Democratic Republic (now Federal Republic of Germany)"; "Prague, Czechoslovakia (now Czech Republic)".

It may be worth creating an essay and then initiating discussion on the talk page to see if there is consensus for it to become policy. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 08:06, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

• Support: WP:PLACE already uses this for US,Canada, and UK. I don't see why the constituent countries of the USSR are an exception. This is especially the case with Byelorussian SSR & Ukrainian SSR being separate founder-nations of the UN, along side the Soviet Union. Add in the Latvian debacle where it's disputed they were ever part of the USSR, simply saying "Riga, Soviet Union" could lead to a lot of problems.--Львівске (talk) 17:51, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

For City>Union _{ex. Minsk, Soviet Union / London, United Kingdom / Dallas, United States}

I'm in favour of this style. GoodDay (talk) 22:49, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

"Springfield, United States" is ambiguous and "Belfast, United Kingdom" sounds weird. --A. di M. (talk) 19:00, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Agree. I have heard Springfield was chosen for the Simpsons precisely because there is a Springfield in more states than any other name thus deliberately not pinning it down to a particular place. Deliberately not looking up whether that is true, only what I have heard, and considering I don't watch TV and I know it was chosen for its vagueness it would tend to confirm it is too vague.

As for Belfast, UK this could also seem to be needlessly antagonistic in that of course there are many who would prefer that Belfast was not in the UK. While Belfast, Ireland is unacceptable as either simply wrong (given the RoI vs Ireland debate and whether it is used in a political or geographical sense), Northern Ireland is undoubtedly the best unless we all go WP:WEASEL and start saying "Belfast, Northern Ireland or The Six Counties", or whatever.

I don't know if this is of relevance but maybe. I have a Hungarian friend and on a variation of "three famous Belgians" I occasionally remember someone was Hungarian; in this case it was Houdini. We did a quick scan of some WP leads to see how his nationality was listed:

• On the English WP he was Jewish-Hungarian-American
• On Hungarian WP he was a Magyar [Hungarian] with American nationality
• On French WP he was an American prestidigitator of Hungarian origin
• On German WP he was American
• On Dutch WP he was Hungarian-American
• On Simple English WP no mention (in the lead)
• On Spanish WP he was a Hunarian of Jewish origin

etc etc etc.

I know that's not directly relevant since different WPs can do their own thing and we are only concerned with English WP, but it shows that national or racial bias is hard to avoid and, I suspect in the case of the English WP, the fact that Jewish was put first is deliberate. SimonTrew (talk) 00:44, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Content style guideline not a page name guideline

This sentence should not be in this style guide: "When naming an article, a hyphen is not used as a substitute for an en dash that properly belongs in the title, for example in Eye–hand span." because this is a content style guide not a page title style guide. The name of the page should reflect common usage, not a style rule. If "Eye–hand span" is the common name for this subject then fine but if it is something else such as "Eye-hand span then that is the name that should be used. --PBS (talk) 17:45, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

This style guide includes article titles—there is a whole section about them. --Laser brain (talk) 22:41, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

The first 40 Google hits for "Eye–hand span -Wikipedia use a hyphen, so I guess we should use it too per WP:UCN. Whadd'ya think? --A. di M. (talk) 22:58, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Although we do have WP:Naming conventions, it permits either dashes or hyphens, specifying only that hyphenated redirects be provided for names using dashes. On the other hand, it specifies common usage, and I don't know anyone who speaks using en dash. It also refers the reader to the MOS. NC should perhaps be more discussive of the issue, but why should the MOS not apply to titles as well as text? Eaglizard (talk) 23:01, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps a little coordination is in order with the Naming conventions page; the idea that article/category titles should be differently formatting from the rest of the text is kind of silly. A di M: the first 40 Google hits for "Eye–hand span" use the hyphen, not the en dash. This is precarious evidence for a couple of reasons: (1) The order of Google hits is determined by the web-connectivity and popularity of the site, not by anything to do with encyclopedic or even published style. (2) Google hit-reports might not retain original forms of punctuation. However, a Google book search may be more useful. Strangely, with these the form of the punctuation is even less likely to be faithfully represented in the list of hits. You have to go to the sources. Here is a particularly interesting one: [20]

[A di M's insertion at this point is now moved to below Tony's contribution.–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T–]

See how the heading on p. 124 has the en dash, but the section under the heading (going onto p. 125) is wildly inconsistent? This is all masked in the Google-book hits themselves, which are usually the result of OCR from scans; and most OCR programs favour a plain vanilla hyphen, to interpret that short line flanked by letters. Here are some in which en dash is used consistently: [21], [22], [23], [24], [25].

Here are two special cases: first, one that uses en dash in the text, but (for bibliographic regularity) a hyphen in referencing (this is a common and rational practice): [26]. And second, one that uses the en dash in the title and a hyphen in the text: [27]. That is another common-enough choice, and it too has a rationale. That second-last one cites the same piece bibliographically, in two separate reference lists following separate chapters: once with en dash and once with hyphen.

Those finds were selected pretty randomly from the first 100 Google-book hits searching on "Eye–hand span" (and the engine ignores punctuation entirely, remember). In my random sampling, about an equal number yielded hyphen only. A browser search of the hits revealed not one en dash in the reports of these 100 hits. User:Noetica has previously said that the APA style guide is equivocal, calling for a hyphen OR an en dash in such compounds (except where one might be tempted to use a slash: APA wants "test–retest", for example). Since a great number of the articles that include "eye[–]hand span" would be conforming to APA style, it is not surprising that the en dash and hyphen are used about equally. So we can't generalise well from this phrase. The APA guide is about how to PRESENT manuscripts for publication. It is more certainly in favour of the en dash in these compounds in actual printed publications; but its advice is directed to authors more than it is to publishers. We may take it, then, that inconsistencies or consistent hyphens in "eye[–]hand span" are attributable to poor copy-editing. Compare WP, where authors are also copy-editors. Tony (talk) 14:39, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I invite everyone watching this discussion page to see Wikipedia:Search engine test. -- Wavelength (talk) 21:07, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

[A di M, I have moved the following response to Tony, so that his contribution will remain intact and readable, and so that I can answer you here without confusing the sequence of posts.–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 14:12, 16 July 2009 (UTC)]

As for (2), if I just search for "Eye–hand span" without excluding Wikipedia, the first hit is our article "Eye–hand span" with an en dash; the 70th is an article titled "Spatial Transformations for Eye–Hand Coordination" with a dash, which uses a dash in page ranges but a hyphen in the phrase "eye-hand span"; so do a few other hits in subsequent pages. So Google does preserve punctuation in the "preview" of the hit. As for (1), even if the order were random, that would imply that probably fewer than 2.5% of results use the dash. BTW I've just seen the first 100 hits for "Eye–hand span", and only Wikipedia uses a dash in that phrase; so the percentage is likely closer to 1%. That seems a clear case of WP:UCN. Sure, using a hyphen in that phrase doesn't make much sense, but many names don't, either, and yet we don't "fix" them. --A. di M. (talk) 16:40, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Tony has been very ill for a couple of days, and cannot join discussion here this time. Myself, I have been monitoring this page over the last seven months without contributing to it. Lately I have been waiting for the absurd impasse to be resolved, so that WP:MOS can be unprotected and edited. There is a good deal of housekeeping to catch up on. But I could not stand by and see A di M's statements go unanswered, so here I am.

A di M, let's examine what you say. Tony wrote:

(1) The order of Google hits is determined by the web-connectivity and popularity of the site, not by anything to do with encyclopedic or even published style.

You wrote:

... even if the order were random, that would imply that probably fewer than 2.5% of results use the dash.

That proportion is certainly misleading; but first I want to challenge the substance of your assertion. In fact, the first 100 hits are not a random sample, and they may be slanted. They come first because they are popular and well linked with other pages on the web, so they may not be an unbiased sample of anything interesting, let alone scholarly or encyclopaedic practice. They may very well underestimate the use of the en dash generally, but also in careful, edited work. That said, there are fewer than 200 hits in all, so it would not be too hard to examine more than 100. The more serious point is that these Google hits do not represent punctuation accurately. You go on:

BTW I've just seen the first 100 hits for "Eye–hand span", and only Wikipedia uses a dash in that phrase; so the percentage is likely closer to 1%.

OK, let's have a look at the first 100 hits. (Technical points: Google hits vary not only over time, but also according to which of their servers you happen to get connected to; they are not all in synchrony. The search will ignore case and punctuation, so we are effectively searching on the phrase "eye hand span" – yes, editors: with those quotes). Now, you found this one with an en dash: "Spatial Transformations for Eye–Hand Coordination", and you say that it

uses a dash in page ranges but a hyphen in the phrase "eye-hand span"; so do a few other hits in subsequent pages.

This is inaccurate. There are two hits for that article in the first 100: one (showing an en dash) is for the PDF of the whole article ([28]), which consistently uses the en dash in "eye–hand span", except in bibliographic entries, where a convention to convert to a hyphen is observed (see for example the reference for the Furneaux and Land article, [29], which has en dash in the source but hyphen in this reference, and in most other articles where it is cited). The second hit is for an HTML variant of that article ([30]): consistent en dashes, except in the bibliographic references; but in the Google-hit snippet for this version, the en dashes are converted to hyphens. In most of the other PDFs in the 100 hits, no en dashes are used: not even for page ranges. Just a few use en dashes for page ranges, but for no other purpose at all. Yes: that is a widely used option. But it is not consistent with our established usage at Wikipedia (since we use en dashes in date ranges, for example). Other finds through Google are just oblivious to matters of punctuation generally, and just don't deserve our attention.

I find 9 Google-book hits among the 100 Google hits. Of these, 4 use no en dashes at all; 1 (which Tony noted earlier) is inconsistent in reproducing original en dashes in its references, but uses them in the body of the text; and 4 use en dashes consistently (or with the occasional lapse), though the Google hits suppress this information, converting them to hyphens.

Many of the other citations (not PDF, not Google books) are to mere citations, or more "casual" HTML documents that are not edited with a view to serious publication.

It is clear, therefore, that any examination of practices that merit our respect has to be more careful than yours, A di M. Please do take more care not to mislead editors, and not to send them off on a time-wasting review of your research to reveal its inadequacies. And once again, we observe that Wikipedia is in a unique position, on the web and in the world. Our guidelines need to be developed in a far more sophisticated way than this.

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 14:12, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I kinda roughly know how Google hits are sorted; while the criteria have nothing to do with scholarly practice or anything, I can see no obvious reason why entries using a dash, all other things being equal, would be more likely to be in lower positions. Anyway, WP:UCN mentions "common names", not "scholarly practice": indeed, our article is Common cold, not Acute viral rhinopharyngitis. As for the article "Spatial Transformations ...", it never uses the phrase "eye–hand span" in the text itself (excluding the citations) either with a dash or with a hyphen, just "eye–hand coordination". --A. di M. (talk) 16:28, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

It's good that you know how Google hits are sorted, A di M. Others don't, or didn't, and these things need to be recorded for everyone. If people here would acknowledge where they have been corrected, not only where they still think they were right, we might be able to move things forward.

Unless one surveys deep under the surface, a Google search can be utterly misleading – especially about punctuation. Google not only ignores punctuation in a search, it distorts punctuation in its reports of hits. Even where it does not impose the distortion itself, often the report is of a secondary or merely bibliographic source that alters the original usage. Acknowledge it.

I acknowledge that the "Spatial Transformations" article ([31]) only uses "eye-hand span", and only in one bibliographic citation. Obviously the article aims at consistent use of the pattern "A–B[–...] X", where A and B are used as described in our present guideline for the en dash: "eye–hand coordination"; "eye–hand visuomotor system"; "eye–hand alignment"; "eye–hand–target coordination". In the references, it consistently converts original en dashes to hyphens, with one lapse: "The Duncker illusion and eye–hand coordination", where an original en dash is preserved (see [32]).

I note your point about various registers, and "common names" versus "scholarly practice". That could be discussed further also, provided we don't all just circle around our starting positions. Certainly we aim to be "encyclopaedic", and encyclopaedias respect scholarly usage. Beyond that, I'll confine myself to one point: en dash versus hyphen is not a matter of names at all, but of precise implementation of punctuation. Even academics aren't generally aware of this issue with en dashes for the specialised terms they use: not until they need to go to publication, and even then a copyeditor will be the one to fix things – with luck! Here, on the other hand, we make guidelines for authors, copyeditors, and author-copyeditors.

Articles in the journal and monograph literature broadly are divided concerning "eye[–]hand + noun", but they are all under the regulation of style guides that articulate requirements. Every respectable publisher, and every respectable journal, does set a standard for such cases. So should we. Our situation is unique, but it demands serious, intellectually honest efforts toward rational guidelines, just as much as if Wikipedia were a traditional publisher. In fact, our task is surely harder, given this online collaborative environment. We need to analyse the evidence meticulously, and argue collegially toward transparent and durable consensus. Anything less is a ruinous waste of time, and I will not stay here for that – whatever others may choose to do with their lives.

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 01:11, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Format of "See also" section

The IP user 123.108.204.49 has undertaken a campaine to change the format of "See also" sections from simple bulleted lists to mulit-column tables. I think this looks bad. See this edit for a before and after example.

Should this conversion process continue? --Jc3s5h (talk) 15:12, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I do not think this is really the right place to report this, but no, the process should most definitely not continued, and I have warned the user (about this and other in my opinion highly dubious kinds of edits from them). --LjL (talk) 16:32, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

We've allowed columns for some lists like this, but usually if there are so many that we need columns there are two many. On top of that this particular version has indents under main heading, which looks awful. Anything indented should be considered as reachable underneath the main article and would not need to be listed. DreamGuy (talk) 16:58, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

True, that should be fixed (and I did mention in my warnings that trimming down irrelevant link is the better option), but the same thing has been done by that user on other articles where this was not at all an issue. --LjL (talk) 17:09, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

In your opinion it looks awful. But the white space it had looks awfuller. I don't see the matter with row-aligned lists; they are not prose, so you shouldn't read them as if they came in blocks. My answer on the above talk page rebuts LjL's claim they go against MoS. -lysdexia 01:18, 19 July 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.225.251.134 (talk)

My own preference is for see-also entries to have about a sentence worth of prose each, explaining what the entry is about and how it is relevant to the article it is listed in, much as we often have similar prose in disambiguation pages. When such prose is added, it looks better for the lists to be a single column. Also, the lists get shorter when the unjustifiable entries get removed. In the case of the list linked to at the start of this section, it should be made shorter for another reason: many of the entries are already linked from the main text of the article, and for that reason shouldn't also be included in the see also section. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:37, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

LjL insists on column templates for all long lists—but they are awful! See the huge white space they leave between the lists? The templates make reading and clicking tougher—they must break accessibility guidelines. -lysdexia 01:54, 19 July 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.225.251.134 (talk)

Query re: referring to renamed buildings

I am posting this question here in hopes of getting a quick, authoritative response regarding passages referring to buildings which have been renamed but were under the original name at the time of reference. Here is a representative sentence:

Fenway Park broke the all-time Major League record with its 456th consecutive sellout, surpassing the previous record held by Jacobs Field (now Progressive Field) in Cleveland, Ohio.

An editor revised this to read:

Fenway Park broke the all-time Major League record with its 456th consecutive sellout, surpassing the previous record held by Progressive Field (formerly Jacobs Field) in Cleveland, Ohio.

I reverted to the first sentence, thinking that the record was previously set and held by the building as "Jacobs Field", which is how any contemporary news accounts and histories would also refer to the building. I have seen the style used in other contexts for a similar reason, for example the birthplace of John Adams referred to as "Braintree (now Quincy), Massachusetts", as Braintree was divided into four towns after Adams' birth, and "the Bucks drafted Lew Alcindor (now Kareem Abdul-Jabbar)". I am hoping to receive comments about the correct style, and also links to any page or pages within the project namespace that address this issue. Sswonk (talk) 02:01, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree, use the old name. JIMp _talk·cont 02:45, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Agree as well. If the building was called Jacobs Field at the time of the record, then that should be the first reference. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 12:58, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Agree, it's correct to use the name at the time of the event. There may be some parallels at the hard-fought article Gdańsk, which uses the city's Germanized name Danzig when describing events during World War II, then reverts to Gdańsk thereafter. --CliffC (talk) 14:25, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree, for the reasons given by other editors. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 06:06, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Formal Name of an Office

The "titles of people" section states that "the formal name of an office is treated as a proper noun." This rule seems too vague. My preference would be for it to be eliminated altogether, but if it is retained, there should at least be some guidance as to what qualifies as an "office." Many pompous people consider their job title (e.g., "attorney") to be an "office" worthy of capitalization. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.231.6.87 (talk) 20:20, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I am not going to quote right now, since it is early days and not worth getting 101 slightly different sources, but at least ib British English a cap is used as a singular position and without cap for the collective. e.g. the Government is the people ruling you badly, a government is any of many governments ruling you badly. And mutatis mutandis. In British English we would write Road-Sweeper or Rat-Catcher with caps or minuscule depending on context.

The classic example here is the City of London (from an American, and I have lost the book but can find it, about 1930 but not Thurber's style). You can be in the city without being in the City, but you cannot be in the City without being in the city.

Best wishes SimonTrew (talk) 00:04, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Diacritics - Use if unsourced?

I know the diacritic thing has been done to death, but let me pose this question:

Should diacritics be allowed if the word/name with diacritics in question is never used in English media?

This is an ongoing issue with the hockey article I edit. There are a couple of die-hards who use the 'ignore all rules' protocol to constantly revert all changes so that all Czech, Swedish, Slovak, Latvian, etc. names have diacritics regardless of popular usage or even any usage at all. --Львівске (talk) 21:09, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

The MoS is clear on this issue—see Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English), specifically:

• "Use the most commonly used English version of the name of the subject as the title of the article, as you would find it in verifiable reliable sources"
• "Names not originally in a Latin alphabet, as with Greek, Chinese or Russian, must be transliterated into characters generally intelligible to literate speakers of English."

Seems cut-and-dried to me, but I'm also aware that people enjoy introducing nationalism into this debate as seems to be the case from reading the Talk page of Talk:Sandis Ozoliņš. --Laser brain (talk) 21:17, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, it seemed pretty cut and dry to me and I made my case on WT:Hockey but the user, DJSasso, just watches every player and reverts any diacritic changes regardless of the rules, citing WP:IAR, WP:BOLD, etc.

Sandis Ozolinsh is a good example...though a user recently reverted it back to the Latvian language. How how about a guy like Jaromir Jagr? His name, "Jagr" has been spelled as such his entire, well documented, career. Why should Wikipedia be the only source in the world using diacritics on his name? How about Peter Statsny? Why should his surname be spelled differently than his sons, because he was born in Slovakia and they the US?

In keeping with Latvians, even the Dinamo Riga (their top team) website (english version) keeps diacritics out,link, yet the wiki page and roster insists on using them.

I'm not against diacritics. They have their place (see: Häagen-Dazs, Brüno) when they have common use. But is there no recourse or solution to this? Or just endless edit wars of those who follow the rules vs. nationalists?--Львівске (talk) 21:47, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't really know what to tell you about the hockey project. My understanding was that they had developed a consensus to use diacritics, but you are making it sound like it is one editor. Which is accurate? I don't happen to agree with them, but I'm not really motivated to do battle about it. It does seem a bit odd when you explain it they way you've presented it. --Laser brain (talk) 02:43, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I am just reverting to the consensus the hockey project has come to. If you have an issue with the situation by all means get the consensus to change. More than just me told you that the hockey project has come to a consensus on how the naming works so don't go saying I watch every page and just readd them, I also remove them on the pages that the hockey project has deemed they should be removed on. And I must admit I find it funny you would imply I am a nationalist since I do not come from nor am I descended from any country that uses them. I am about as English you can get. Also there have been basically zero edit wars on this subject in about a year and a half until you started arguing the issue. -Djsasso (talk) 03:02, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I didn't imply you were a nationalist, that was about the Latvian editors. You certainly seem to defend their cause, though. As far as consensus goes, that doesn't seem to be the case as I've seen it. As GoodDay described the situation to me, it was more of a "hostile takeover" to the point where one can't keep up with the edits to keep them without, as these editors have taken ownership of the language on the articles in question. Regardless, I don't see how the consensus of a handful of people on the hockey WP overrules WP:BIO and WP:MOS basic style and form. Common use trumps the selective use of editors pushing an agenda.--Львівске (talk) 03:23, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Hockey isn't actually the only sport that uses them. The problem is that all across this wiki are some projects that use them and some projects that don't use them. I personally believe using them still complies with "Use English". I don't think adding them stops the word from being English. I do however find removing them to be a misspelling and an insult to the individual. I don't believe that wikipedia should perpetuate the mistakes that other mediums make. GoodDay is probably the least reliable person to listen too, even editors that agree with his opinion that no diacritics should used say he gets a bit to insane on the issue. Basically the story you got was from the most extremist of the "removal" side of the debate. There was a relatively large number of people who agree on the current situation to stop the edit was, because the addition of them and removal of them mostly come from IP editors and people like GoodDay were waring with them up to 30 or 40 edits and the only way to get it to stop was to come to this compromise. The only time I actually add or remove them is when someone who knows the consensus blatantly ignores it. I have always been of the opinion that people should use the ENGVAR version of dealing with them, "use what was originally there", so if you come to a page and they are there leave them...if you come to a page that they aren't there then don't add them. -Djsasso (talk) 03:46, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Anit-diacritics extremist, me? Yep. Un-reliable? that's for each to decide. The WP:HOCKEY compromise? a joke (concerning the Quebec articles & NHL player's birthplaces). GoodDay (talk) 18:15, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

To get back to the question. The consensus of the hockey project is to use diacritics on players own articles. Players names are present both in North American English media AND in international media. You would expect to find the name in diacritics on an European web site. The consensus of the hockey project on North American league articles is to NOT use diacritics by and large, because those articles are North American in scope and you see players' names in print and media commonly. The hockey project allows place-names with diacritics on league articles. I believe this is explained that the names don't have an English common usage and the various leagues just ignore them, so we have no reliable source for a translation. So, by and large, we are following the rules and we are putting forth a valid compromise. You can tell because no-one is perfectly placated. :-) Alaney2k (talk) 21:07, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me, but what European (English-written) sources use diacritics? The IIHF doesn't, EuroHockey.net doesn't...Shouldn't we be following the NHL, IIHF, KHL, and other league/team/official sources on this? This isn't the Esperanto Wiki... --Львівске (talk) 22:26, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

 Nor is it Simple Wiki. —Krm500 ^{(Communicate!)} 22:45, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

This isn't going to get solved here, because it's clear that wider input is needed. Львівске, if you would like to see if there is a shift in consensus on this issue, I suggest opening an RFC at the hockey project. --Andy Walsh (talk) 22:40, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

The editors who put those diacritics in can answer the question. The main point, I think, is that in Europe it would not be uncommon to use diacritics, as we all know. Alaney2k (talk) 22:47, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

That's simply not true.--Львівске (talk) 22:55, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

We'll agree to disagree then. Ask the Swedish editors in wp:hockey. They're able to find links in English quite quickly when the debate rages... Alaney2k (talk) 23:17, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

He is correct, we quite regularly find references using diacritics in english when this debate comes up. -Djsasso (talk) 15:03, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

If it were up to me, all diacritics would be eliminated from Hockey related articles. Which of course, doesn't surprise anyone. GoodDay (talk) 22:57, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

You can't just impose your will, as I've learned. As I figure it, if it completely satisfies no-one, then it's just about the right compromise. Everyone has their opinion of what is the right way on things like this. I think this pops up in every wt:hockey archive. Anyway, the eds who put them in have found references. Maybe we could impose a policy of prove it. But I think the dio eds would prove it. Do we have to count up the references? Do we have to count up the paper media references? Alaney2k (talk) 23:17, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

The best I can hope for (these days), is that the dios remain off the NHL template roster's player names. GoodDay (talk) 23:21, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Wait, let's get back to the original question. Is it really settled convention for the hockey project that diacritics be used no matter what? If there are no English-language sources that use the diacritics, how can we justifiably use them? Powers ^T 15:49, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

To answer the question, no, there is no settled convention. Right now it's just a "compromise" to allow player bios to have them (re: too hard to keep reverting the changes) but bar them from team pages. This discussion is ongoing at the WP, but it seems regardless a good proposal to follow logic and wiki rules, it's fought with people pushing their own opinion-based POV and the WP:IAR and WP:BOLD proposals.--Львівське (talk) 16:22, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Punctuation: Quotation marks: “regular” vs. "straight"

I would like to re-open for deliberation the long-standing issue of regular (or “typographical”, or “curly”) quotes, versus the upright (or "typewriter", or "straight") quotes.

The issue has a long history. Apparently it originated in an “omnibus bill” of Archive 3, where it didn’t get much of attention because people were more bothered with British vs. American location of punctuation, and attracted by Hawaii. The real discussion started only in archives 18 and 19, where no consensus has been reached and therefore the recommendation of which quotes ought to be preferred had to have been removed (although it wasn’t). In later years the discussion has been revisited many times: see archives 94, 100, 103, 104, 108). So why am I beating the dead horse then and pester the community about this question once again? Well, it just so happens that as time goes by, the arguments in favor of regular quotes become stronger, while the arguments in favor of typewriter quotes fade, so by the intermediate value theorem there’s bound to be such moment in time when we’ll change the policy regarding this issue. So the purpose of this discussion is to find out whether such momement is already at hand.

In order to save the time and effort of many people who are interested in this discussion, I’ll try to give my overview of the past discussions (the overview will probably be slightly biased, but then bias is sometimes even welcome).

Basically, there are two major camps of thought here:

• Pro-choice: people who believe that it is editor’s right to make a choice between the curly and straight quotes, and the official MoS ought not to declare the former as deprecated; and
• Pro-life: people who believe that those in the first camp have to get a life and stop revisiting this issue over and over and over again...

I’ll try to list the major arguments and counter-arguments for both sides, it will (hopefully) help to avoid the unnecessary repititions in the follow-up.

Pro-choice

N	Argument	Rebuttal
C1	Curly quotes look aesthetically more pleasing.	Depends on the platform, and in any case beauty is in the eye of the beholder. On Netscape 4.7 browser for example curlies look quite ugly.
C2	Curly quotes are the only typographically correct symbols to denote quotation; any printed book will serve as a proof of this fact, the Unicode standard strongly recommends them too.	Computer screens are different from printed material.
C3	Curly quotes look aesthetically more pleasing.	That’s C1 repeated again.
C4	Curly quotes allow for easier understanding of the material. After all Wikipedia must be for the benefit of the reader, not the editor.	This benefit is actually quite miniscule.
C5	Articles formatted with curly quotes look more respectable and professional.
C6	If browser compatibility is the concern, then it is possible to add a user preference to convert all curly quotes into regular ones on the fly when sending the page to a user with such an option turned on. It cannot work in the opposite direction though.
C7	There is no single reason to forbid the editors to use curly quotes if they’d like to.	Lots of reasons, see the Pro-life section.
C8	Curly quotes, or indeed any quotes which have different opening and closing glyph, are capable to delimit the quotation unambiguously from computer's standpoint. It means for example that a text reader for blind people will be able to understand “hello” and render it as a quotation, but not the "hello".

Pro-life

N	Argument	Rebuttal
L1	Curly quotes are not on the standard keyboard so they are difficult to type.	Wikipedia is for the benefit of reader, not the editor. Every single rule in MoS makes editors’ life more difficult while readers’ comprehension better. The curly quotes should not be exception. Besides, there are easy keystrokes on Mac, Linux, and some Windows platforms to produce such characters; if your computer is missing their support then you might want to reconfigure it.
L2	Legacy browsers may not recognize such quotes and render them as square boxes or worse.	Curly quotes pose no more challenge to the browser than already widespread symbols of m-dash, n-dash, extended Latin, Greek, etc. See also C6
L3	Curly quotes cause problems with search function.	This one is entirely made-up. All search engines strip down punctuation from their search strings anyways. Besides there’s no real reason one would want to search for a string with quotation marks in it... And no, let’s not discuss apostrophes here.
L4	Curly quotes present problems with in-browser search function.	People hardly ever search for quotation marks anyways. No I mean: really, do they? Also modern browsers are (or should be) capable of performing search which does not discriminate between curly and regular quotes.
L5	Straight quotes are a “long established consensus”, there is no real reason to change it.	Actually it was never a consensus, the issue was disputed over the years. As for the reasons, see C1-C8.
L6	I hate those curly things, I'm not going to tolerate them!!!	(Yes this was indeed brought up as an argument on several occasions). Luckily, Wikipedia is a community. Nobody expects a colorblind person to contribute pictures; nobody expects a non-native English speaker to produce a perfect prose; nobody expects a person unable to appreciate the beauty of professionally typeset text to produce such a text. Chill.
L7	Curlies might have been common in the old times, but nowadays straight quotes are perfectly acceptable.	They might be acceptable in a text which is designed for only a handful of readers: an e-mail, or a blog; however when the potential audience is large the text must meet a higher standard of quality, which includes the use of “correct” quotes. And even when something is widespread (0MG!!! (00!_ !_()L) does not necessarily mean we should use it.
L8	Curly quotes are difficult to type.	That's repetition of L1. Oh and incidentally, this is exactly what the «"» is good for: —"— to indicate repetition of the previous line.

Discussion

So let the discussion begin. I will add from myself the following: it appears that all the arguments in favor of curly quotes work best with better computers, better monitors, etc; at the same time most of arguments against the curlies emphasize problems with ancient computer systems. This is a crucial point: the monitors slowly upgrade their quality and are able to pack more and more pixels per square inch, while old computers slowly go out of use. It means the monitors will eventually reach the point when the quality of on-screen display will match that of the printed copy. At that point it will be already obvious that curly quotes are vastly superior; however due to continuity of the process the actual “switch” point when it becomes beneficial to use curlies will happen much earlier, maybe it happened already.

Oh and while we're at it, we might also touch the issue of implementing the hanging punctuation, i don't think it has ever been discussed here. ... stpasha » talk » 05:02, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I think the bigger question is should we italicize quotes, i.e. "Hello" vs. "Hello". To me, the former is more aesthetically pleasing :). — ^{\`</sup>CRAZY`(lN)`SANE<sup>`/} (talk • contribs) 05:09, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

This is indeed a bigger question, not quite within the current topic. However it appears to me that we'd run into the problems once the quote spans several sentences or even paragraphs. Too many of italic text will defeat the entire purpose of italicizing. Maybe use color, like “Hello”? ... stpasha » talk » 05:24, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Point taken, I would perhaps be in favor of using italicized quotes sparingly, in a quote of perhaps no more than one sentence. Also, songs, which are always placed in quotation marks, could be italicized. I'm not sure what I think about your color idea though, I think it would be too unprofessional-looking and messy. — ^{\`</sup>CRAZY`(lN)`SANE<sup>`/} (talk • contribs) 05:27, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

No on italic quotes. Italics are more difficult to read, and jarring to the eye. There's a reason that italicing quotes isn't standard practice. And songs are always in quote marks because they are short-form works or portions of long-form works, like poems, short stories, magazine articles and episodes of television series. Italics would imply that a single song is long-form like an album. oknazevad (talk) 07:55, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

No, please don't use color. It is harmful for visually impaired users, either those using text-to-speech browsers or those who, for example, simply have colorblindness or work in poor light environments. Try to keep the article as plain as possible, that always has seemed to be the WP way.

Of course use of color can be good (e.g. in images) but color should never be used as the sole basis of distinguishing information.

For similar reasons I prefer straight quotes as I know they work better over a broader range of browsers, even if my particular browser does quite a nice job of quotes. Ideally I think there would be recommendation to use a template for inline quotations; then all discussion could be hoist out of MoS into the template talk page, though (like with MOSNUM and {{convert}}) the two would tend to walk in lockstep.

Having not really bothered with this discussion page before, I now find myself less, not more confident in MoS. If it is always being changed, any article I write or revise will almost inevitably not conform to MoS, within a matter of days. That does not help MoS. The rule to me would simply be that of consistency: use straight quotes or curly quotes as you prefer, but use them consistently throughout the article.

BTW "minuscule" is so spelt (not "miniscule").

best wishes SimonTrew (talk) 07:21, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Simon here, color is a poor choice to distinguish one type of text from another. I disagree with the spelling of miniscule vs minuscule, though. Both are acceptable spellings. See here: [33]oknazevad (talk) 07:47, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Right now, raising the question of curly quotes is futile. Instead, people might usefully focus on the fact that the page is blocked for editing. A disgrace. With goodwill and focus, that problem could be solved. Until it is solved, why bring up a matter that is guaranteed to waste vast resources in time and attention, when in the unlikely event that consensus is achieved the page cannot even be edited to incorporate the changes? Not without calling on an admin, that is. Shame!

In any case, the arguments to and fro above, as stpasha presents them, are incomplete. Take two examples:

1. Searching within any current browser for curly quotes (or apostrophes, of which there is no mention) will find only the curly variant; searching for straight ones will find only the straight variant. This makes editing a real pain. The same would apply in many separate editing applications that some of us use. Having curly quotes that most users can't type in thwarts their searches within a browser, also. So much for looking after the needs of those who consult Wikipedia.

2. It is easy to find printed books that use not curly quotes (or "directed quotes", as they have been called) but quotes that lean to the right – the same for left and right.

Get the facts right, stpasha, rather than complicating things with cute repetitions in what purports to be a rational tabulation of the arguments. Or better, put your energy into addressing the bigger picture: the problems that perennially beset this page, and have now left it locked for weeks because of two or three editors' intransigence.

I'm inclined to stay away until that's sorted out, myself. I've had my share of futile discussion over MOS, in which glaring faults and inconsistencies have lingered for months without people so much as noticing, let alone maintaining quality with good housekeeping. If I do rejoin discussion here, I'll want to see some intelligent treatment of several other overarching issues, before we are at all ready for details such as stpasha raises yet again.

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 06:02, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Just because the page is blocked for editing doesn't mean that we can't or shouldn't discuss other things. Edits have been discussed and made during this time. Darkfrog24 (talk) 13:15, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

To take the part of Noetica's post that is strictly relevant to the curly/straight issue—that "the arguments are incomplete", with "two examples:

1. Searching within any current browser for curly quotes (or apostrophes, of which there is no mention) will find only the curly variant; searching for straight ones will find only the straight variant. This makes editing a real pain. The same would apply in many separate editing applications that some of us use. Having curly quotes that most users can't type in thwarts their searches within a browser, also. So much for looking after the needs of those who consult Wikipedia.

2. It is easy to find printed books that use not curly quotes (or "directed quotes", as they have been called) but quotes that lean to the right – the same for left and right."

I agree entirely. Tony (talk) 10:36, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I believe that we should take aesthetics out of this discussion. Straight quotes look prettier to some people and curly quotes to others. Aesthetics has no logical weight on its own. If there were an overwhelming wave of people who felt one way or the other, then we would be right to take aesthetics into account despite this, but I don't think that's the case here.

Stpasha raises an excellent point that one day many of the compatibility arguments in favor of straight quotes will become obsolete. It is not my opinion that that day has come. Not everyone who reads the English Wikipedia lives in a country where newer computers are common. Wikipedia must serve those readers as well. Darkfrog24 (talk) 13:15, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree, I missed that argument (I did read all the archives linked at the beginning of the post, although haven't found strength to re-read them second time when summarizing). If nobody minds I'll update the list to include it. And certainly the counter-argument against the in-browser search function are two-fold: first, it is nearly impossible to imagine a real-life situation where one would want to search for quotation marks (though apostrophes problems are pretty common). But then you'd have exactly the same problem if you'd try to search for "Gauss–Markov theorem" for example (note the n-dash). An intelligent in-browser search engine must take into account unicode equivalent classes when performing the search (so that ’=‘=′=', and “=”=″="=«=»=etc...), and also attempt to guess common word modifications using the dictionary (such as Canada=Canadian=etc; this problem gets much more complicated in other languages). The problem with quotes is of minor importance compared for example to the problem with dashes or apostrophes...

As for "straight quotes look pretier to some while curlies to others" -- that is certainly true. However it is quite an established fact in typography industry that in printed text curlies do look better (the fact that the majority of modern books use them serves as an indirect proof). The major difference between printed text and monitors is that the latter has less DPI. Which means that as techonology progresses, eventually DPI of the monitors will be sufficiently high that curlies will look unequivocally better. Of course that moment won't bang on our front door and say "I AM COME", at which point we'll hastily run up to our computers and fix all the 10+ million wikipedia articles in a jiff. Instead we have to recognize the fact that the moment is indeed coming and start working towards meeting it, before it's too late :)

And Darkfrog, I'm afraid we can't "leave aesthetics out of this" -- that's the basepoint of all arguments in favor of curlies. Aesthetics is indeed important, in fact the purpose of entire MoS is aesthetics (that is, a text which violates every single point of MoS will probably be still understandable only rather unpleasant to read). And the reason why we value aesthetics so much is because it is paramount to conveying the information to the reader. How many times has it been in the history of science that publications remained unnoticed because they were too vague or obscure? How many theorems and methods do not bear the name of their inventor simply because somebody else had to popularize them? ... stpasha » talk » 15:58, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

One thought that comes to my mind on this, is that we should account for the possibility that reader's expectations may have changed. While Stpashal is correct that printed material typically uses curly quotes, he's also correct that, until recently, computer monitors have largely not used them. With the increase in importance and prevalance of digital text, there are likely a great many readers who consider straight quotes to be the norm.

Also, as for the "proven better" arguememt, I don't believe such a claim can be made. The prevalance of curly quotes in one form, print, does not make them inherently superior. The arguememt could be made that the universal nature of straight quotes, that is to say they're the same symbol, regarless of on which side of the quote they appear, makes them a more useful and practical choice, and a simpler, easier to understand system that requires fewer resources. Indeed, that may very well be the reason they were selected in the early days of computing.

Technological advances have rendered these arguememt less compeling, but that goes back to the first point, that while no longer neccessary, the norm of straight quotes in modern digital text has become established in the meantime. oknazevad (talk) 19:13, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I must correct you on one point, StPasha. The MoS is not about what is aesthetically pleasing but about what is correct. There are plenty of people who'd think that capitalizing words like "North," "Summer," and "West" would look better, but it is not proper to do so, so the MoS advises against it. When I say that we should take aesthetics out of the discussion of curly vs. straight quotes, I mean that we should look at what is right, not what is beautiful.

I agree wholeheartedly that the prevalence of curly quotes in print should not be taken as proof of their superiority over straight quotes in all media. There are any number of reasons why formal printed media prefer curly quotes. I do seem to recall hearing something about curly quotes being easier to track on a page, but even if I remember correctly, reading off a monitor is a different experience. With a monitor, the light source is/is behind the text and with a printed page it's behind the reader. (I do specifically recall hearing that fonts with bars are easier to read in print and fonts without them, such as Arial, are easier to read on screens.) Has any research been done to see whether there is some evidence of curly or straight quotes being literally easier on the eyes on a glowing screen? Darkfrog24 (talk) 21:10, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Historic remark: in the days of pre-computer era typewriters were designed so that to have the least amount of keys possible. Each extra key would have meant additional complicated mechanics, and would increase the possibility of clashes (that is when 2 of the keys were pressed in a quick succession one of the strikers may not have been able to return to its position yet and they jam). It also means that typewriter's keyboard was designed in such a way to make keys that are frequently pressed in succession (such as s+h, t+h, etc) to be pretty far away. When computers came they adopted typewriters keyboards in order to economize on the cost of re-training the typists. There is a sufficient evidence for example that Dvorak keyboard layout would have been better to use, but it's already too hard to switch now. Anyways, that's why we're stuck with keyboards that have straight quotes on them. And yes, they do require fewer resources (which was an important point in the epoch of ASCII, but certainly not now).

Regarding the monitor vs. printed media. It is indeed true that many web-designers advocate for the use of sans-serif fonts for screen media. The reason is again the DPI: when output DPI is high, serifs serve as a kind of guideline, allowing the person to follow the line of text more easily. When the DPI is low however, serif marks become more of an obstruction, making it more difficult to recognize the glyph's shape. I would hazard a guess that again, as technology progresses, we'll see more and more serif fonts on the web until one day they become prevalent.

As for the “proof”, I'd really like to see one myself. I mean alright, there is a LaTEX guide (LATEX is used for creating both PDFs and printed documents, maybe with more emphasis on the latter) which says that "straight" quotes must not be used without giving any references as to why is it so (well, Donald Knuth is an authority). Manuals for web-design also stress the importance of using curlies (for example here, or here). ... stpasha » talk » 00:28, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

[Outdent] As I predicted. Yet another tedious iteration of discussion we are not ready for. And as always when this topic comes up, failure to adduce evidence of how users really interact with Wikipedia, and failure to deal with issues that have long been on the table.

Browsers have a search facility for a reason. You may assert that users don't need to search for quote marks displayed by their browsers. But assertion is one thing; evidence another.

Confront this long-established fact too, for a change: Wikipedia's own search facility treats curly quotes and straight quotes differently. Go on: actually investigate, instead of theorising on empty. Enter “Hole saw” and see what you get; then enter "Hole saw" and see what you get.

Contrived a sophistical argument that you imagine will dismiss that hard reality yet? OK, now try searching on Cayley's theorem, followed by Cayley’s theorem. Then think. Think hard.

The ground assumptions behind these blinkered tinkerings cry out for attention. Meanwhile, to Darkfrog: May we have a progress report? I mean, on your continuing efforts to overcome the current block on MOS, brought on by your actions several weeks ago?

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 22:26, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

It's good to encourage people to get their facts straight. If you look at the page history, Noetica, you will see that the MoS was blocked because of an edit war in which I did not participate. Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:56, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes Darkfrog, it is indeed good for us all to get facts straight. I would encourage people to look at edits on and around 30 May 2009 in WP:MOS, to see who, by several non-consensual edits and reversions, introduced instability in the quotations guideline. I said, with all caution, "brought on by your actions". Whatever technical excuse you may pretend to find, I'm sure others would still like an answer to my question, trimmed to its essentials: "May we have a progress report? I mean, on your continuing efforts to overcome the current block on MOS [...]?" You cannot deny that you were centrally involved, except by transparent evasive manoeuvres.

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 03:11, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Very well then. No you may not. It is not my or any other editor's responsibility to report to you or to anyone else on Wikipedia. Nor is it necessary; the entire discussion is available on this page and in the archives if you want a look at it or join in. Judging by the fact that you have directed your request at me and not at any of the other people who have participated in said discussion, not even the ones who, unlike myself, were actually involved in the conflict that directly precipitated the current blocking, I must interpret your request as a personal attack on myself. Please stop now. Darkfrog24 (talk) 04:25, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying your attitude, Darkfrog. Let me clarify mine in return. I am not interested in attacking you, nor have I done so. I asked you to explain something; and you have refused to do so. I accept that as your choice. If you don't want to account for your actions and inactions, fine. You are under no compulsion. You are not responsible, to me or anyone else. Very well.

Nevertheless, I identify your well-documented actions on and after 30 May 2009 as a major factor leading to the present impasse at MOS; and I am surprised that you show no interest in doing anything about it. You are entitled not to do anything about it; and I am entitled to be surprised at that attitude. If you say that others are responsible for the impasse, I hope you will join me in asking what they are doing about it, since the impasse is a far more pressing and immediate problem than this re-stirring of an old pot. I note that you too, below, are re-hashing yet again the same tired arguments that we have been through before. Let me say quite clearly: you are entitled to do so, even if I think it is a complete waste of everyone's time. Good luck!

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 05:20, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I didn't have to ask them. The matter was discussed on this page weeks ago. It's in the archives. Darkfrog24 (talk) 12:53, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Please explain, Darkfrog. I said: "I hope you will join me in asking what they are doing about it." Presumably prompted by that, you said: "I didn't have to ask them. The matter was discussed on this page weeks ago. It's in the archives."

¿Qué? I am interested in what people (you, and the others involved) are doing now, to fix the problem with MOS. It is locked for editing. How's the program for fixing that coming along? It is mystifying: to refer to the archives for a current problem, yet to rehearse again and again these tired old discussions of a subordinate issue, repeating afresh all the follies of the past that are themselves recorded in the archives! Since you are determined not to do anything about the present and continuing results of your disruption of seven weeks ago, I'll not persist. I'll just wait for those responsible to fix the problem they have brought on.

Dwell on what lesser matter you will. But don't dismiss my reasonable and weighty question with inconsistencies and irrelevancies, as if I had done something damaging to our work at MOS, or wasted time here.

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 00:33, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Whoah! That's a really cool example. Now you probably have noticed that there is a page on Wikipedia called «“hole saw”» (which redirects to Drill Bit), so that when you enter «“Hole saw”» in the browser it somehow converts capital H into small h and makes the match. There is also a different article in Wikipedia called «Hole saw», so that when you enter «"Hole saw"» into the search string the quotation marks get stripped and the match is performed. Now if you think about it a little, you would probably come to the conclusion that curly quotation marks are actually the ones compatible with search function, while straight quotes are not. Simply because you can search for curly quotes, whereas straight quotes get removed from the search string.

Now regarding the «Cayley's theorem». (I wonder why you keep bringing in apostrophes here? maybe you secretly like them (: ). It is true that Wikipedia's own search engine cannot treat ’ properly. Well, Google search does that pretty well though... If you really want to deprecate the straight apostrophes and promote "curly" ones, then there are 2 options: (1) fix the Wikimedia search engine (hard but not impossible), (2) create redirect pages such as Cayley’s theorem => Cayley's theorem (quite easy with a bot actually). ... stpasha » talk » 00:28, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

That is an interesting historical note, StPasha. But we shouldn't assume that just because the original purpose of a rule has phased out that it no longer serves any purpose at all. Back in the typewriter days, straight quotes served the purpose of keeping keyboards small, but they've developed other purposes since then. The question is whether or not their benefits, such as avoiding problems with temperamental search engines etc., outweigh their disadvantages right now. Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:56, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I just tried the following exercise: “Increase the font size in your browser to the largest possible”. Curlies look much better. In fact i even tried to switch to the Times New Roman font — and it looks better at large scale too! (best part about serif fonts at large magnifications is how they handle italics; in fact Arial font italics is barely noticeable in large font size, for some reason). Well, then of course i also reduced the font size in my browser below the Normal setting. And certainly enough, at small scale serif fonts look horribly, and curly quotes are indistinguishable from straight ones. Well, so I guess it all actually depends on what default font size your browser is using, as well as monitor’s resolution.

I also think there could be a compromiss, only it's harder to implement than merely editing the MoS. We could change the Wikipedia engine so that there is a new user preference: whether or not to convert curly quotes to straight ones. By default this option can even be set to “convert”, so that a regular person would see the text with straight quotes only. However articles would internally be stored with curly quotes, so that for those people who use large font sizes (visually challenged people, or simply those who like to sit far away from the monitor), or who'd want to make a print copy of an article, it could be send in the unmodified form. ... stpasha » talk » 01:53, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Does anyone actually have the curly quotes on their keyboard? Who really has the constitution to use them or figure out how to type them? I bet if you query 100 random editors, fewer that 1 of them would respond that they like to make a habit of "producing" curly quotes. We can never recommend them, because that would be introducing an unacceptable level of complexity for editors. We can't remove the recommendation altogether, because editors will see them and either: 1) Recognize them and come here to see if they're allowed (unlikely), or 2) Not know what the hell they are or how to reproduce them if they want to improve or expand the article (likely). Bad idea, sorry. --Andy Walsh (talk) 03:49, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Utility is certainly an issue. But we don't have m dashes on our keyboards either, and the MoS advocates their use where appropriate. The matter is handled by a list of special characters below the editing window. Darkfrog24 (talk) 04:32, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

• What kind of keyboard has no em dash? Tony (talk) 06:44, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

aha - now i understand an enigmatic remark you made in my direction a few months ago! my (major brand uk-style) keyboard has no dashes - just a hyphen. it's clearly not unusual for keyboards to lack dashes, and not everyone knows the code for them. Sssoul (talk) 13:54, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

But it depends on the operating system too: while no keyboard using the major operating systems has either en or em dash morphologically speaking, they are usually available with simple combinations.

• Mac: opt–hyphen, op-shift-hyphen.
• Windows full keyboard: cntrl-(minus sign), cntrl-shift-(minus sign). [Minus sign is very top-right, alphanumeric pad.]
• Windows lapdog: you're stuck.

Um nope - when I type ctrl+numpad- in the edit window, it zooms the page to 20%. ctrl+shift+numpad- does nothing. (Vista, full keyboard, Opera). Also, if you choose to turn off the silly editing buttons the characters below become static (needing cut'n'paste) rather than insertion links. dramatic (talk) 17:53, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Otherwise, as Darkfrog says, use the easy-to-locate edit tools below the edit-window; or make an Auto-Hot-Key shortcut, which is stunningly easy and effective. Or get a Mac. Tony (talk) 14:07, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

• • Ah have a whole type case full a d!ngbats that I throw at de screen whenever!

✁ ✂ ✃ ✄ ☎ ✆ ✇ ✈ ✉ ☛ ☞ ✌ ✍ ✎ ✏

✐ ✑ ✒ ✓ ✔ ✕ ✖ ✗ ✘ ✙ ✚ ✛ ✜ ✝ ✞ ✟ ✠ ✡ ✢ ✣ ✤ ✥ ✦ ✧ ★ ✩ ✪

Heck, ah am my own dingbat!Ah just hurls myself into de computer monitor when I feels like it! --Goodmorningworld (talk) 07:32, 22 July 2009 (UTC) (duH)

My (theoretically UK layout) keyboard has no em dash, nor en dash; but that is no great problem, since I can write — or –. Laptop keyboards typically cut down on the keys, in particular the numeric keypad, which makes it very fiddly to type Unicode numbers with Alt+number. (In Windows.) Similarly it does not have directed quotes on the keyboard. Similarly, US keyboards tend not to have a £ sign. My keyboard does not mark a € sign (AltGr + 4) although it works anyway. It should be remembered that, yes, these can generally all be had in some way (e.g. in Windows at worst using charmap to grab the characters) but can be very fiddly if there are lots of characters that are not on your keyboard: with quotes it is especially fiddly since the openers and closers are different so one needs to jump through hoops to copy both (e.g. to Notepad) then only select one of the two to copy into the article.

By the way I imagine somewhere there is a debate on what # is called, the US tends to call it a pound sign, which confuses UK readers for whom a pound sign is £ (# is a hash).

But in any case, it is better to do this with markup, I think.. You simply mark it up (with a template or HTML tag) as "this is a quote" and the way that the server (WP) or client (browser) decides to display that, is rightly out of your hands. That way a user can choose to display it how they prefer. Although there are templates for quotes, I am not sure that there are for inline quotes? I shall be pleased to be pointed to them if I am wrong.

Similar issues arise with translated articles, or translated phrases, whether to use italic or not, or put the English in italics and the original language in straight, or vice versa, and so on. The {{lang}} template is silent on the matter and articles vary; all one can say, I think, is use the template and then (one hopes) if a prevailing style is adopted the template will be changed to fit. This happens for example with WP:MOSNUM and {{convert}}, which is far more complicated than doing quotes, yet is usually pretty much in line with MoS, and if not then one or the other gets fixed, and if it is too big a fix, MoS is ignored as being unreasonable or unwieldy, but with arguments reached by consensus (they are all sensible people in the MOSNUM and convert talk pages).

Best wishes SimonTrew (talk) 07:49, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, that's a wonderful idea: we could use either <q>lorem</q> html markup or we could use a template: {{q|ipsum}}. Apparently that template even existed once but was deleted :( And for some reason Wikimedia foundation is unwilling to support Q html tag. ... stpasha » talk » 08:15, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

# a.k.a. "the marijuana sign" <g><g><g>--Goodmorningworld (talk) 09:34, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

My keyboard doesn't have an em dash, just a hyphen and an underscore. I have to type out the code or go to Word if I want an em dash. I believe that straight are best for now, but there is some precedent for advocating non-keyboard-ready characters when it is correct to do so. "They're not on the keyboard" is not, by itself, a deal-breaking argument against curly quotes. Darkfrog24 (talk) 12:37, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Darkfrog wrote "The matter is handled by a list of special characters below the editing window". This list is entirely useless for similar-looking characters, because the names of the characters are not given. Even for characters that reasonably distinct, it would still be useful to be provided the Unicode character name. A person just beginning to care about typography will have trouble telling the difference between - and –. Few editors can tell the difference between “, ”, and ″ as they appear in Internet Explorer 7 below the edit window. --Jc3s5h (talk) 14:14, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Hm, good point Jc3. Do you think we need to make the list more accessible to neophytes? Darkfrog24 (talk) 16:15, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the list should be made more accessible to everyone (perhaps giving the Unicode name of the symbol during mouse-over). Furthermore, this should be finished before entertaining the idea of curly quotes. --Jc3s5h (talk) 20:22, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I consider these to be two separate issues, but on a practical level, since the time for curly quotes is so far off, it would be better to deal with the unicode strip first. Darkfrog24 (talk) 20:49, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

<rant>Why on Earth did Unicode decree that U+0022 is “neutral (vertical), used as opening or closing quotation mark; preferred characters in English for paired quotation marks are U+201C LEFT DOUBLE QUOTATION MARK & U+201D RIGHT DOUBLE QUOTATION MARK”? Had it not, fonts could use right-leaning quotes (as many of them used to do in the past decades), or even a “-like glyph at the beginning of words and a ”-like glyph at their end (as many fonts do for Arabic letters with different contextual forms), there wouldn't be separate “ and ” characters, and we wouldn't even be discussing this. Everyone could choose a font using their favourite glyphs.</rant>

Personally I'm pro-choice about this. Curly quotes are not harder to type or search for than, for example, the minus sign, but then we don't suggest to use the hyphen-minus instead because it's easier to search. BTW, some other Wikipedias preferentially use the quotes which are used in print («like this» in Italian, « like this » in French, „like this“ in German), and the sky hasn't fallen on them. Also, I can't imagine a situation in which one would search for quotation marks themselves (rather than using them to delimit a string). OTOH, I agree that what looks best in print isn't always what looks best on screens. (The master example is $\Rightarrow \,\!$; if the horizontal lines were perfectly parallel, an optical illusion would make them appear to converge rightwards, so TeX, which was originally designed with print in mind, draws them slightly converging leftwards to compensate; but this looks awful on screen.) But this is in the eye of the beholder; for one, I like the look of “” more than that of "" on my screen.

So I think the best solution would just be “use whichever you want, but be consistent in each article”, which is what we do for most style choices. (But if there's consensus against this, I can continue using straight quotes in articles just fine. I have more important things to worry about.)

As for the character palette below the edit box, it looks just fine to me, but if it doesn't for some users, as Jc3s5h points out, we should use a larger type for it. --A. di M. – 2009 Great Wikipedia Dramaout 13:12, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

[Outdent] And I’m back. So, the issue has been discussed over the past few weeks and there appears to be no real argument in favor of recommending the straight quotes. Well, at least there is no argument which would survive a simple exercise of replacing the words “curly quotes” with “n-dash” and “straight quotes” with “hyphen”. Examples:

Curly quotes are difficult to type	N-dashes are difficult to type
Curly quotes are not in the standard ASCII encoding and thus old computers may have difficulties with rendering them.	N-dashes are not in the standard ASCII encoding and thus old computers may have difficulties with rendering them.
People will have difficulties with searching for curly quotes and apostrophes, example: Cramer’s rule	People will have difficulties with searching for n-dashes and m-dashes, example: Cramér–Rao bound
It became standard on the web to use straight quotes instead of curlies.	It became standard on the web to use hyphens in place of n-dashes.
Curly quotes have no real utility: people are perfectly capable of interpreting "…" as opening/closing quotation pair. (Re: they do have utility, “ denotes opening quote, and ” denotes closing quote. And people are capable of recognizing teh for the, it doesn’t mean we shouldn’t watch our grammar).	N-dashes have no real utility: people are perfectly capable of interpreting Cramér-Rao as a disjunctive dash. (Re: n-dashes do have utility: – denotes a disjunctive dash, while - denotes a hyphen. And people are capable of recognizing teh for the, this doesn’t mean we shouldn’t watch our grammar).
etc…

All this is an attempt to prove that curly quotes merit exactly the same treatment as currently n-dashes do (and I bow before those brave people who shouldered the difficult task of persuading the community that correct dashes have to be respected).

Now the good news. I found this nice program http://ilyabirman.ru/english/typography-layout/ which installs new keyboard layout that makes entering all common typography glyphs a breeze. This program is available for Windows and Mac platforms; as for the Linux you can use the standard xmodmap utility to modify the key bindings on system level. Cheers :-) ... stpasha » talk » 15:51, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

In theory, I'm strongly in favor of using curly quotes whenever possible; they are simply correct and straight quotes are simply incorrect. We should find a way to do it. However, changing the MOS to recommend that editors type curly quotes into the edit box is not acceptable in my opinion. There are far too many technical issues, as thoroughly outlined above. The comparison to en dashes is correct in theory but completely wrong in practice. The fact is, en dashes are very very rarely used. The majority of articles do not contain them; the vast majority contain less than, let's say, three. Quotation marks and apostrophes, on the other hand, can be found in almost every paragraph. So the slight technical inconvenience of using en dashes is overruled by correctness, because the use cases where actual problems are caused are so unlikely. Conversely, the slight technical inconvenience of using curly quotes completely overrules correctness, because the use cases where actual problems are caused are legion. This is "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit", accessibility and usefulness overrule all other concerns. Forcing users to use difficult technology is being disrespectful to their needs. Furthermore, it's completely unrealistic to expect this to gain any traction; we're at three million articles, for crying out loud. Converting every article (manually or botwise) would be far too drastic and messy.

However, as I said, I am a curly quotes advocate. What I propose is a MediaWiki extension (I'm assuming a dozen PHP libraries exist for this purpose) that can be controlled (and is, by default, disabled) in the user preferences. Turn it on when rendering a print version. That's a decent compromise that helps promote curly quotes without being incredibly unfriendly to our users.

There are steps to be made toward typographic zen, but we're just not there in 2009. We'll be there in 2020. Maybe 2015. But not now. —Werson (talk) 03:30, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

While I don't agree with the idea that straight quotes are incorrect or that the time for curly quotes has come, I find your idea that there would be no point to making a change of this kind equally flawed. So what if it would not be practical to go in and change every last article? Why not change the rule and say "Write new articles with [new way]. If you're editing an existing article for any reason, feel free to also change the [old way] to [new way]"? Then the change happens slowly over time. Darkfrog24 (talk) 04:53, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, some changes to MoS are certainly desirable. For instance the {{cite ref}} template currently uses typographic quotes to enclose the article’s title. It would be easy for them to change to curly quotes (or at least to add an option quotes = curly|straight|none) but they don’t do that because MoS “discourages” curlies. ... stpasha » talk » 06:20, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrary subsection break

Although I support the use of curly quotes in theory, they cannot be declared the norm without a technical solution. On the operating system used by the large majority of Wikipedians (most of whom have no understanding of the issue), the default rich-text editors insert characters #147 and #148 (IIRC) as curly quotes - this is Microsoft providing legacy support so that documents written in pre-unicode days still work in their software. Unfortunately, the code range 128 - 159 is declared void in Unicode (because if there is a 7-bit conversion these map to control code range 1-31). Internet Explorer faithfully renders any characters in this range according to the default code page, but Unicode-compliant browsers (i.e. most others) do not, displaying boxes or error marks. So, the Wikipedia software would need to immediately reencode such input as valid unicode. dramatic (talk) 18:04, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Splitting off punctuation disputes?

Currently more than half the talk page is dedicated to a single, ongoing (and seemingly endless) debate over American/British/logical punctuation. Then further down the page we have another immortal behemoth of a discussion over quotation mark glyphs. Can we please put these in a subpage (WT:MOS/Punctuation, maybe) so that the rest of the discussions have some room to breathe? Strad (talk) 22:21, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Oppose. Punctuation is part of the MoS, so the MoS talk page is the place to discuss punctuation for Wikipedia articles. Also section 8, Punctuation, ties with section 16, Grammar, for largest subsection of the MoS, so it's not all that surprising that punctuation discussions take up a big portion of the talk page. Darkfrog24 (talk) 23:22, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Oppose. Neutral I don't necessarily have the same views as the others that have posted here, who are all intelligent and sensible. It needs to be kept in MOSTALK as per Darkfrog. SimonTrew (talk) 23:38, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Now I think about it, I tend to more look at MOSNUM (and {{convert}}, which are siamese twins) so if you have MOSNUM I can't see why you can't have MOSPUNC. If it is large then split it off. SimonTrew (talk) 23:44, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you there, Trew: If the punctuation portion of the MoS were its own separate page, then it would make sense for punctuation discussions to take place on a separate talk page. However, whether or not punctuation should be split off from the main MoS is another question. My take is that a separate punctuation page is not necessary at this time. Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:05, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Agree, but MOSNUM is still part of MOS — just it has its own chat page so it doesn't clutter MOS talk. It is still part of the MOS (which of course comes under WP:COMMON anyway) but it means that discussions can happen off the main page and not waste others' time.

Best wishes SimonTrew (talk) 11:08, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

For full disclosure, I dislike Wikipedia's punctuation style. But I follow it because that is the style. Consistency is most important. I am more than happy to argue whether to use this quote or that dash or whatever but consistency is what we want, I think. This is not the place to argue the details, just wanted to disclose that. SimonTrew (talk) 11:21, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, MOSNUM is part of the MoS project, but this [34] and this [35] are two separate pages, so it makes more sense that numbers would have a separate talk page than that punctuation would. Darkfrog24 (talk) 11:55, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Slight lean towards support: Even though Wikipedia talk:MOSNUM stands alone (like Wikipedia talk:MOSICON, etc.) because it's attached to the stand-alone MOS page for dates and numbers (WP:MOSNUM), that Talk Page itself had to be split in order to allow other questions room to breathe during The Great Date Auto-Formatting War of 2008. I don't think the punctuation debates have reached that level (they're certainly far more civil), but should they grow so long that they crowd out everything else, there is a precedent. On the other hand, punctuation (unlike spelling) is harder to split cleanly from other questions of grammar and style.

What I do think we might come to agree on is that when the time comes to archive all or part of the punctuation debates, they should have a separate, clearly-marked archive of their own (rather than being buried with unrelated questions in number 110 or 111 — if I'm keeping correct count), which would make retrieval far easier for everyone. —— Shakescene (talk) 21:44, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Oppose, based on the substance of the proposal. But even before we look at that substance, we are not ready to have this discussion.

The solution to the present disruption is for Darkfrog, and any others she or he nominates as involved, to repair the damage they have brought about. The solution is not to have the main MOS page split as a further consequence of their mischief.

Those perpetrators have no place in a discussion of this sort, until they have done that work. Why should we others, and the Wikipedia community as a whole, suffer because of their irresponsible behaviour, and their obdurate refusal to focus on what is obviously their most urgent task?

We others, who want to get on with plain housekeeping and incremental improvement of MOS, are justified if we urge them away from discussions like this. Let them go back and fix things first. Then we can accept them as participants in new discussions.

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 23:13, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Oppose. Tony (talk) 05:06, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Oppose—Past experience has shown that moving discussions off to subpages is not very helpful. The subpage gets ignored by all but a few editors who are really into the issue and who come back with a "consensus" which really counts for nothing. Unless the page itself is split, let's not split the discussion. JIMp _talk·cont 08:33, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Oppose Reduces visibility of discussions when we actually need more opinions. Dabomb87 (talk) 17:31, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Oppose nothing warrants splitting punctuations to it's specific subpage. Numbers and Dates are huge sections, with a million different cases to cover. Punctuation is not nearly as big as them, nor so clearly distinguishable from the rest of the MoS. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 14:55, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Linking in quotes

My attention's just been drawn to this:

Unless there is a good reason to do so, Wikipedia avoids linking from within quotes, which may clutter the quotation, violate the principle of leaving quotations unchanged, and mislead or confuse the reader."

I disagree that wikilinks clutter, violate a principle, mislead or confuse. Indeed, they do the opposite: they enlighten and help the reader, who will obviously be aware that the person quoted wasn't speaking in wikimarkup. If it is correct that wikilinks clutter, mislead and confuse, we should all give up, because that's how this encyclopedia works. --Dweller (talk) 13:40, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikilinks are part of the genius of wikis. However, WP in particular holds the sanctity of directly quoted material in high regard. This has been argued before here a number of times. Problems arise because linking an item within someone else's text assumes that they endorsed the linked article. Linked articles can also change over time, with unfortunate, unintended consequences for the interpretation of the quotation. Tony (talk) 13:53, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

No wonder it's been brought up before - your reply makes far more sense than the rot that's currently in the MOS as justification. It should be changed. Your arguments hold water, although I'm still not 100% convinced. Would reasonable people really assume the author endorsing argument? And the changes over time argument applies to every single wikilink in the whole cyclopedia - but we don't stop ourselves from doing it.

Here's a practical example: ([36]) The new version loses useful wikilinks for terms like dorsal fin and River Nene which won't be repeated outside of the quotes. I think the reader loses out substantially. --Dweller (talk) 14:05, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Wow, that is an eccentric article! The information about this unusual situation kind of leaks out as you hunt for it. I think a kinder lead would be good. Lots of things need fixing, apart from the link-in-quotation issue.

The more important links could easily be either (1) put in the "See also" section—ideal for this purpose, although the reader won't know the links are there until the end of the article; or (2) mentioned in the vicinity outside the quotes. Or not linked at all, like "anglers", which is a dictionary-type word. Let me know if you like it now. Tony (talk) 14:42, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll take a peek. I listed the terms that I thought needed to be in the text, but would be unlikely to be repeated, so didn't mention angling or common carp. I'll take a look at your version. I enjoyed writing it - I don't often write outside of football and cricket, so it made a nice change. --Dweller (talk) 15:05, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I think the wriggle-room in the current MOS ("Unless there is a good reason to do so") means that dorsal fin and River Nene can and should be wikilinked in the quotes. But not the other words. But you guys really need to reword the justification. --Dweller (talk) 15:11, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I've sussed this by adding material, without quotes and including wikilinks to the Lead, but I only had the luxury of doing this because the Lead was short and the article was low on other Lead-worthy material. I haven't a clue how I'd do it for a single reference to a technical term in a quote in a massive article like Roman Catholic Church for example, other than by using the exclusion built into the MOS currently, that there's a good reason. --Dweller (talk) 15:28, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Altviewer rather than checkALTtext

In practice at WP:FAC and WP:FAR editors are using the Altviewer tool to check for alt text instead of the User:Proteins/checkALTtext.js script suggested on this page. To reflect common practice I propose changing "A script for checking whether an article's images have alt text is given here. " to "The Altviewer tool displays an article's alt text.". Eubulides (talk) 23:13, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

No further comment so I installed it. Eubulides (talk) 20:08, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Use of the article before the name of a ship

A sizable number of Wikipedia articles omit the "the" before the name of a ship, and in many cases usage is inconsistent, RMS Titanic is an example. Entries about navy ships tend to forego the use of the article frequently (military jargon?). The Little, Brown Handbook (ninth edition, 2004, page 343, ISBN 0-321-10350-5) indicates that the article is used before ships ("the Lusitania"), Melville left us a description of "the Pequod", and "Sink Bismarck" just does not sound right. Shouldn't we use the article before ships in Wikipedia? Ekem (talk) 03:10, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't it depend on whether the article is part of the registered name of the ship or vessel? — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 10:05, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm confused myself, but at least I think it's rare to keep an article after Her Majesty's Ship (H.M.S.), His Majesty's Canadian Ship (HMCS), Royal Mail Ship (R.M.S.), United States Ship (U.S.S.), etc. Thus, Raise the Titanic! but H.M.S. Pinafore. The Player's cigarette box is famous for the incorrect inscription on the Royal Navy sailor's cap, which reads "Hero" and not "HMS Hero" or "The Hero". On the other hand, inscriptions on a ship's stern usually read "Hero/Bristol" and not "The Hero/Bristol". If you're not near a dock, look at just about any Tintin story. —— Shakescene (talk) 21:53, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

:-D I seem to recall a ship called the Kanchenjunga... — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 09:02, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

As to the names of American Navy ships, I can tell you that there doesn't appear to be consistancy as to the inclusion of 'the' when referring to a ship. Navy ships are often referred to just by name, without stating 'USS', but I've heard some sailors (and ex-sailors) say "the Midway" while others just say "Midway". Personally, I prefer to not use 'the', I think it personifies a ship more. After all, you wouldn't refer to your girlfriend as "the Jennifer" . . . or would you? OLEF641 (talk) 09:52, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree. I'm quite sure there isn't any consistent usage. I think if one is stating the official name of the ship, then one should try and find out whether the definite article is part of the official name. However, in other references to the ship, I think it is acceptable to either leave out the The or retain it, depending on what suits the sentence best. Here's a twist, though – what if the definite article is in another language, e.g., what if the ship is named La Traviata? Should it be referred to "the La Traviata" or "the Traviata"? Hopefully this problem won't happen often. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 19:47, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Hello, again. Found this in the Wikipedia article "Ship prefix":

"Note that while calling a US ship "the USS Flattop" may make grammatical sense, the preliminary article "the" is discouraged by nearly all style guides, and the U.S. Navy. The U.S. Navy uses ship names without article, except for USS The Sullivans, named for the five Sullivan brothers, all lost at sea during World War II. Its British equivalent ("the HMS Flattop") is also discouraged, since "the Her Majesty's Ship" would be grammatically incorrect."

I agree that there are times that use of an article makes for less awkward phrasing, c.f. "Raise the Titanic!" above.

As for doubled articles, here in Los Angeles, we have a famous landmark usually referred to as "The La Brea Tar Pits". For those of you who don't read Spanish, this is literally "The The Tar Tar Pits" -- say it rhythmically with a kick at the end and you get a great conga lyric, but I digress ;-) OLEF641 (talk) 00:47, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I am trying to summarize what may have been said: 1. There is no article before the name of a ship (xxx) when it is grammatically incorrect (example: "HMS xxx", never "the HMS xxx"), 2. It seems to be customary to omit the article before the name of ship of the US Navy at least in official use (I agree with OLEF642 that sailors use the article, i.e. "I served on the Lexington"), thus "USS xxx" may be preferable over "the USS xxx". 3. Otherwise it appears that the article is generally used, thus "the Santa Maria", "the Pequod", "the Titanic", etc. The article is, of course, always included when part of the name. Is this correct? Ekem (talk) 03:12, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I generally omit the definite article when referring to a ship by name, with the exception of when there is a qualifier before it (ex: "The Japanese signed the official surrender document on the battleshipMissouri..." but "Prince of Wales sank after having been torpedoed several times..."). The way I see it is the ships are given names; you wouldn't say "the Jeff went to the grocery store" (and if you do, you sound like a pretentious idiot, but I digress). That's just my 2 cents. Parsecboy (talk) 23:02, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

The comment by Parsecboy sums up my view as well. I previously added a request for comments here to the WT:SHIPS page. Sswonk (talk) 23:17, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Parsec took the works right out of my mouth. —Ed (Talk • Say no to drama) 03:15, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Yep; The Parsecboy is correct ;) Ian Toll's Six Frigates is an excellent book but he uses 'the' before every ship name which needless to say drives The Brad insane. --Brad (talk) 12:32, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

According to the [U.S. Navy Style Guide] under "ship names," "Do not use 'the' in front of a ship's name: 'USS San Jose,' not 'the USS San Jose.' " Darkfrog24 (talk) 13:44, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Another source, The Guardian (UK) Style Guide, uses the phrase "mariners shun the definite article" when talking about ships. An observation I personally might add is that the confusion may stem from the concept of ships as structures, as with "the Empire State Building" or "the Brooklyn Bridge". This use of the definite article is different because the structure name is in the form adjective-noun, building or bridge being the noun. Ships, to me, are not unlike thoroughbreds in that the name is a proper name like "Secretariat" or "Man o' War" (!) although the ship name has often had "the" added by writers in the past because of the confusion with buildings. Therefor, I would say that the above summation by Ekem is wrong on the third point, it should be "the article is generally not used" with the PDF I'm linking above providing a further explanation (under the "Military tendency" heading). Sswonk (talk) 14:56, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I think a global rule on the use of the definite article would be a mistake. For instance, I would never say "I got seasick a once while riding James." when I meant "I got seasick once while riding the James." FWIW, in day-to-day operations, the only time I don't use "the" before my ship's name is on the radio, for example i.e. "Suez Pilots, this is Fredericksburg," but "The Fredericksburg was a deathtrap." and "I'm so glad we scrapped the Fredericksburg." Examples on both sides go back at least as far as the Argo. Cheers. Haus^Talk 04:12, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

There are strong examples for the use of the article and it will be hard to ignore Melville, Conrad, O'Brian or the New York Times (i.e. [37]). This is a nice observation of the dual use, though, and I concur (personal observation) the article is omitted on the ship radio, yet when talking about a boating experience the article tends to be used. Checking on cruise ships, companies refer to their ships without article (at least the two lines I looked at), but people would say "we went on the xxx" when talking about their cruise ship. So, is there a distinction between a "mariner/operational use" and a "literary/general use" - I am struggling with these terms but throw them out here to help us move forward - ? Ekem (talk) 13:33, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Certainly it seems that when the ship is personified or being portrayed as an active agent (as in, for example, when it is the ship herself that is figuratively making a radio call), omission of the article is much more common than in other situations. Powers ^T 14:50, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

All very good points. One of my motivations to make the suggestion above, "the article is generally not used", was that "the" isn't used in a lot of the articles (this can be dangerous i.e. Article (grammar) vs. Article (publishing)) in WP:SHIPS that are FAs, see USS Constitution and SS Kroonland. Another good example might be Vasa (ship) where "the" is used sparingly (once) when talking about the ship but multiple times when talking about books, a museum, in the map and so on. So if a standard isn't spelled out properly I would fear having to chase down edits to these and other articles where the well meaning editor decides all of the mentions of the ship need to have a definite article. Sswonk (talk) 15:09, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Are you saying here, it does not matter what may be the correct answer as we moved already into the "no article" version?Ekem (talk) 01:46, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

No, that wasn't me saying it doesn't matter. I wrote about FAs under the scope of the WP:SHIPS project and also the very good and careful eyes of many of its members. What I meant to convey there was that these articles have passed our highest form of vetting and stand as good examples. There are also the examples of the two published style guides cited and the comments I and other editors provided above. The problem is popular usage, which sometimes represents a different standard than what is correct. This happens with subjunctive (also see) mood verbs: "I wish I were going to the park" is correct for formal writing but "I wish I was going to the park" though incorrect is often found in popular usage. Judging by Google hits, "was" is more common by a wide margin: searching the exact string "I wish I were" produces 3.6+ million hits while "I wish I was" produces 16.1+ million hits. The same might be true here. So I would absolutely not say "the article is generally used"; in spite of the usage in novels (not formal writing, possibly in character etc.) and the New York Times (anecdotal examples), the other examples show a strong preference for the proper name style among mariners and people here who write about ships. Presenting both versions with explanation in this style guide might be possible, but ultimately pointless, as I don't think we are going to be able to say either form is truly correct or even "generally used". Sswonk (talk) 05:03, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I respect people who are writing here immensely, but -just on their own- they are not reference points for style. I would think that reference points are literature, popular use, style books, and major newspapers (this includes the New York Times - the Times also writes about "the USS Ronald Reagan" - and the Times' use of the article has been consistent over time and (print)space, not "anecdotal"). It appears to me that the omission of the article is seen primarily in writings by mariners and in some recent mariner literature. Ekem (talk) 01:54, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

To clarify, I used the word "anecdotal" to describe the use of random example articles to show usage in the Times as opposed to use of an entry in the Times official style book, if such an entry has existed at any point in time. Of course I did the same thing with the example FAs, it is just a distinction of the source of the information that I was making. Sswonk (talk) 13:13, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Here is another try to summarize: Literature, major newspapers (not only the NYT but others including the above mentioned Guardian), Style book(s) (only one mentioned above), and general use apply the definitive article before the name of a ship (including "the USS (xxx)"), while mariners may use or omit (including the US Navy) the definitive article (above are examples for both). A pronoun within the ship prefix (ie HMS) makes, of course, the definite article grammatically superfluous. In Wikipedia editors have been applying both usages, even within articles, apparently based on the preference of the editor. Ekem (talk) 00:13, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

That seems accurate to me. The guideline Wikipedia:Naming_conventions (ships) has allowed both cases for years. Here's another old conversation on the same topic. Cheers. Haus^Talk 00:17, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Tiny tiny images

An example of a thumbnail image that is too large if the size isn't fixed

Why is it that most FACs I review now have microscopic images that are utterly useless unless you double-click on them? Is there scurrilous guidance here that is making nominators ruin this already-weak part of WP (criticised in an external report written up in the most recent Signpost, I think). It seems weird. Have our readers got Internet connections that are so snail-paced we have to go backwards to the 20th century? And, BTW, who wants to see tiny-wrap skyscraper-tall captions with one-to-three words in most lines? They look ridiculous. See here, for example. Tony (talk) 12:17, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

A map of the Norse-Gaelic zone, with region names as they are described in the sources of the period; Gallgaidelaib is the word Galloway (see text), Airir Gaidel is modern Argyll, Cenn Tire is Kintyre, Innse Gall is the Hebrides, Na Renna is Wigtownshire, and Mann is the Isle of Man

As an aside, I agree with Tony that the example was ridiculously small, and have fixed it in the Donnchadh, Earl of Carrick article. On the left is original the example again, so that you can see what it was like before it was fixed. Eubulides (talk) 23:13, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Good heavens, is it possible for you to write a criticism without sounding apoplectic? Anyway, the article you linked looks fine to me. Maybe you can adjust your thumbnail size in preferences? Powers ^T 12:38, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Tony, there seems to be something in the MoS that makes editors think only thumbnails are allowed, except for the lead image. Certain editors go around removing image sizes, citing the MoS. With a couple of articles I've written, I've suggested on the talk page that we could try to get them to FA standard, and one of the first responses has been, "You'd need to get rid of the fixed image sizes." The problem with using thumbnails is that the sizing is inconsistent. Most of the time they took tiny, and sometimes enormous; see right for an example of the latter. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 12:48, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Re "something in the MoS that makes editors think only thumbnails are allowed, except for the lead image" - it's the "one size fits all" approach of some MOS zealots, and their forgetting that MOS is a guideline, i.e. WP:IAR applies. The idea that "only thumbnails are allowed" has clear weaknesses, e.g.:

• It's no use to readers, most of whom are unregistered so can't set prefs.
• It depends on the pic. E.g. a simple pic such as most flags can be shown pretty small, but many maps and diagrams need to be larger.
• It also depends on the use. For example File:Atrax robustus.jpg can be shown if it's just a pic of the Sydney funnel-web spider or of spiders in general, but needs to be enlarged if it's used to illustrate the modification of the chelicerae into venom-injecting fangs, which is spiders' signature feature.

Such points should be left to the judgement of editors and reviewers. --Philcha (talk) 13:06, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

We've had this discussion several times on this page that I recall, and every time there is no consensus to force people to use thumbnails, yet somehow it has crept into the MoS: "Generally, use the thumbnail option ("thumb"), which is available in the image markup. ... As a rule, images should not be set to another size (that is, one that overrides the default)." SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 14:02, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Something I've suggested on the WT:FAC page that I think could be considered: We ask for thumbnails for images when they are to be flush alongside text. As we are still (?) designing towards a 800px resolution monitor, these should never be beyond 300px to avoid blocking off too much text. Yes, we should avoid setting a size and let "thumb" do its job, but that shouldn't be a hard-set rule. But there are points where images need to realistically be larger than 300 px horizontally to do their job on the printed version of the page. In this case, I propose that if the image needs to be displayed (and for print) at a size larger than 300px (and all NFCC considerations are met for that, if non-free), that we allow for "inline" images that do not run flush on text (see, for example, the Los Angeles panoramic view). This would need to use some special formatting to make sure there's text clear breaks on both sides if the image is >300 but less than 800 px, but technically not an issue. --MASEM (t) 14:10, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi Masem, two questions: first, why do we ask for thumbnails? There has never been any consensus for that, so far as I know. And secondly, what do you mean by "flush on text"? I don't really understand the point you're making. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 14:20, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I would support a change to the MoS allowing editors to use the image size best suited to the article. Darkfrog24 (talk) 15:05, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I personally don't know the initial reasons why we ask for thumbs, but I would say that now they serve two purposes: they help to normalize the sizes of images in articles when the various images are all ranges of sizes (from what could be freakin' huge 2000x2000 free images to, say, reduced non-frees of standard TV/computer size dimensions (eg 320x240); and using thumbs from 180 to 300 px help to keep the page layout across WP pretty consistent without having to worry about browser/OS/font size issues (eg, we are trying to avoid pixel-perfect placement).

"Flush" means, as the example at the top of this section, the text runs as close as possible (with some margins) next to the image. This is compared to, say, if I were to put an image on a line by itself with no text running flush along either side of it. --MASEM (t) 15:21, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

BTW, the image I cited at the top of this section has a caption that is ... wait for it ... 14 lines deep, most of them three or four words across. Here is the current text that appears relevant to this issue:

• Most pictures should be between 100 and 400 pixels wide. Generally, use the thumbnail option ("thumb"), which is available in the image markup. This results in a default width of 180 pixels (140 pixels if the "upright" option is used as well), although logged-in users can set a different default in their user preferences. As a rule, images should not be set to another size (that is, one that overrides the default). Where it is appropriate to select a particular size, images should generally be no more than 300 pixels wide, so that they can be comfortably displayed on 800x600 monitors. Where appropriate, the {{Wide image}} template can be used to fit an image into the width of the browser window (similarly, {{tall image}} may be used for abnormally tall images). Examples where size-forcing may be appropriate include:

• Images with aspect ratios that are extreme or that otherwise distort or obscure the image
• Detailed maps, diagrams, or charts
• Images containing a lot of detail, if the detail is important to the article
• Images in which a small region is relevant, but cropping to that region would reduce the coherence of the image
• Lead images, which should usually be no larger than 300 pixels

This is what I suggest, although I'm an amateur at image control, so please weigh in with your suggestions and we can create another draft below if necessary. In particular, I've no idea about the 300 versus 400 pixel issue:

Images are normally up to 400 pixels wide, although an upper limit of 300 pixels is typical so they can be comfortably displayed on 800 x 600 monitors. Editorial judgement should generally be used to set an image to a size that is neither so large that it "crowds" the text which wraps along its side, nor so small that its details are uncomfortable for readers to discern and the caption text is wrapped in an over-narrow column. Other reasons for forcing size may include that an image:

• has aspect ratios that are extreme or otherwise distort or obscure the image;
• is of a detailed map, diagram, or chart;
• contains a small region is relevant, but cropping to that region would reduce the coherence of the image;
• is in the lead, in which cast it should usually not be larger than 300 pixels.

Alternatively, the thumbnail option ("thumb") is available in the image markup, which results in a default width of 180 pixels (140 pixels if the "upright" option is used as well), although logged-in users can set a different default in their user preferences.

Where appropriate, the {{Wide image}} template can be used to fit an image into the width of the browser window (similarly, {{tall image}} may be used for abnormally tall images).

Tony (talk) 16:34, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Nice. The line about editorial judgment is exactly what we need. However, I think it would be best to distinguish more clearly between description and instruction. This stuff is confusing for beginners and I don't think we want to confuse information on what images are with instructions on what we want the users to do. For example, "Most images are 300 pixels wide" is confusing because I've seen images of all shapes and sizes.

On Wikipedia, most images should be no wider than 300 pixels, with a maximum for most articles of 400 pixels wide. This is so images can be displayed comfortably on 800 x 600 monitors. However, editorial judgment should be used to set each image to a size that is neither so large that it crowds the text that wraps along its side nor so small that its details are difficult for readers to discern and its caption text wrapped in an overly narrow column. Some other situations in which forcing image size may be desirable include the following:

• Images with aspect ratios that are extreme or that otherwise distort or obscure the image.
• Detailed maps, diagrams, and charts.
• Images in which a small region is relevant but cropping to that region would reduce image coherence.
• Lead images, which should usually not be larger than 300 pixels.

Alternatively, the thumbnail option ("thumb") is available in the image markup, which results in a default width of 180 pixels (140 pixels if the "upright" option is used as well), although logged-in users can set a different default in their user preferences.

Where appropriate, the {{Wide image}} template can be used to fit an image into the width of the browser window (similarly, {{tall image}} may be used for abnormally tall images).

Darkfrog24 (talk) 16:59, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I think any solution that puts the "thumb" option as the secondary option under "allow the editors to decide" is going to be a problem. Knowing those that love to use images, if you give them up to 300px, they will use 300px, even if its not necessary for an image. You've also just nuked the reason a user may choose a different image thumb preference.

An optional approach may be to consider changing the default thumb size from 180 to around 220-250px (a setting in the WP wiki config, I believe), with the noted allowances for going beyond this if necessary. This would fix most of the "walls of caption text" that seem to be at issue, and retain the user preferences aspect. If anything, we then need to emphasize that it is appropriate to break out of the "thumb" size when it makes sense, being a lot more lenient and IAR-ish about that fact. The only limiting factor is why we chose 180px in the first place - if it's for NFCC issues or the like, we may have to stick to that. (That subtly comes into play here, it should be noted). If the 180px was due to file size and typical transmission issues, that's likely no longer a valid reason of concern with the proliferation of high-speed today. --MASEM (t) 17:13, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

• How about starting: "On Wikipedia, most images are narrower than 300 pixels, with a maximum for most articles of 400 pixels wide."? Tony (talk) 17:40, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
  • I think we've got two aspects going on here. We want to try to funnel images to <300px (what that is, well, that's an issue). The next question is that when an image has to go over 300px for good reason, how do we deal with it? And that's where the 400px is - it's not really a maximum image size, but a size where we now span over half the page at 800px, and thus needs special treatment beyond that. If it is larger than 400px then it should be placed without flush text per the {{wide image}} template; if it's less than 400px, then it should be placed aligned in text. --MASEM (t) 17:47, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Three things about Tony's proposal:

• He's right about editorial judgement being the final arbiter. Whether it's deciding what info the pic needs to convey or how to solve layout problems (which are harder on widescreen monitors), the editor can often produce a better solution than a set of rules can.
• I agree with Masem that the "thumb" option should be presented as the preferred option in most circumstances, simply because thumbs adapt more easily to change - for example perhaps we'll all have portrait monitors in 5 years.
• We need to avoid the word "should" because it's ambiguous - some treat it as "is preferable", others as "must", and we already have enough arguments over interpretation of "should" and "should not".

So here's my attempt for y'all to shoot at:

Wikipedia's recommendations on image size are a guideline rather than a policy, and therefore may be overridden if common sense shows than an alternative approach is better for readers. In most cases the default "thumb" option of the image markup is the best option for many reasons, for example:

• Logged in users can override this in their preferences.
• It produces images of the same width and thus avoids a ragged appearance.
• It can be adjusted globally if circumstances change, for example if new types of monitor become common.

However there are several types of situation where editors may find it necessary to specify sizes, including:

• Providing larger sizes for detailed diagrams, maps, charts, etc.
• Reducing the size to avoid cramping the text between or to one side of one or more images.
• Reducing the need for gaps between sections or paragraphs in order to keep images alongside the text they illustrate.
• Presenting lead images. If the article has an infobox, the lead image should fill all its width apart from a small margin on each side, and this will often require a fixed size. In other cases lead images are expected to be less than 300 pixels unless it can be shown that a larger size provides clear benefits to readers.

--Philcha (talk) 17:53, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not in favor of saying the thumb is better, or the default, because it encourages editors to go around removing image sizes, which is the problem with the current wording. I prefer Tony's version, where we stress editorial judgment. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 18:02, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

This makes two separate issues: the legitimate complaint against the MOS's prescription of using "thumb" which presently defaults to 180px, mostly due to 180px being too small, and the behavioral problem of those that forget that the MOS, while policy, needs to be treated in an IARish manner, and that going around removing "thumb" without consideration of editorial decisions is not good editing practice. The latter is something outside the bounds of MOS beyond using the best language possible to convey this, but continued "abuse" of the MOS in this manner should be dealt with in appropriate dispute resolution.

So if you take the behavior out of it, we're still at the case where, at least to me, we want to still encourage and funnel users to use "thumb", with strong consideration of upping the default thumb size to 220-250px, but emphasizing that they may consider other sizes if they deem it necessary. --MASEM (t) 18:21, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

You can't take the behavior out of it, and it's not reasonable to ask us to engage in dispute resolution every time someone tries to enforce the MoS. The wording needs to be changed, so as not to encourage people to impose thumbnails on articles. There's anyway no good reason to use thumbnails. I have no problem setting parameters—no smaller than X, no larger than Y—but otherwise editors have to be allowed to use their judgment. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 18:26, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

If people are interpreting, as it is presently worded "Generally, use the thumbnail option ("thumb")...", as that we require thumb sizes, then those people are overstepping their editing bounds. This is a human-decision-based clause, it cannot be done purely mechanically. --MASEM (t) 18:32, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

• How about changing the default thumb size as suggested by MASEM, and changing the guideline to keep the basic encouragement to use the thumbnail option, but adding encouragement to use proportional image scaling where appropriate. Suggested wording:

• In general, pictures should be between 100 and 400 pixels wide. Basic practice is to use the thumbnail option ("thumb"), which is available in the image markup. This results in a default width of 180 pixels (140 pixels if the "upright" option is used as well), although logged-in users can set a different default in their user preferences.
• Where images have a lot of detail or small lettering, larger images can be used for clarity. Adding the parameter |upright=2.2 gives a scaled image equivalent of a 400 pixel wide image, making the number larger or smaller changes the image size accordingly. Where appropriate, the {{Wide image}} template can be used to fit an image into the width of the browser window. It is also possible to fix the image size using the parameter |px=300, in which case images should be no more than 300 pixels wide, so that they can be comfortably displayed on 800x600 monitors. Where tall images appear unduly large, {{tall image}} may be used to force a smaller size. Examples where size-forcing may be appropriate include:

• Images with aspect ratios that are extreme or that otherwise distort or obscure the image
• Detailed maps, diagrams, or charts where text appears too small
• Images containing a lot of detail, if the detail is important to the article
• Images in which a small region is relevant, but cropping to that region would reduce the coherence of the image
• Lead images, which should usually be no larger than 300 pixels

That way we get away from the problems which seem to be associated with |px=400 or other fixed sizes. The ideal or maximum ratio for |upright= should be given, alternatively clear advice could be given on using {{tall image}} which seems to duplicate the |upright= parameter. . dave souza, talk 18:09, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Dave, what is wrong with letting editors set image sizes (in words a completely non-technical person will understand, if possible)? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 18:28, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I wrote the above before seeing your comment, but left it as "Basic practice is to use the thumbnail option" simply says what the basic way of doing it is, without saying you must do it. Don't mind if you've got better wording, perhaps "The simplest approach is...." My aim is to set out clearly the best ways to change image sizes, and state what the limitations are, if any. The proportionate method using |upright= sounds as though it may fix the problem of |size=400px, but technical advice is needed. Part of the problem is that the same thumbnail view or enlarged view looks much larger in Camino than it does in Safari, don't know about other browsers. The aim is a simple way for editors to play about with image sizes and reach workable and reasonable layouts. . dave souza, talk 19:20, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, exactly. Everything depends on the image, the shape of it, what it shows, what it's being used for, where in the article it's going, whether it'll be near other images, templates etc. We can't have one-size-fits-all. Look at the image I posted at the top of this section, for example. That's a thumbnail, but clearly too large. I think we need to remove anything that suggests thumbnails are required or preferred. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 19:30, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

This section got pretty long, so I created a new section #Image size rewording below for further comments. Eubulides (talk) 23:13, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Image-size rewording

As it happens, over the past couple of weeks I've rewritten WP:Picture tutorial, particularly its image-size section. I read through the above discussion and a lot of it makes sense, but there are some problems:

• The current and proposed text sometimes suggests 300px, sometimes 400px. It should be consistent. The 300px limit comes from old desktop and laptop displays that are 800px wide. These displays are obsolete and are no longer of practical importance to Wikipedia. Currently, the narrowest displays in widespread use on desktops and laptops are 1024 pixels wide. Of course there are mobile devices with displays narrower than even 800px, but they use different techniques to show Wikipedia images, which won't be affected much by changing suggested max width from 300px to 400px.
• Dave souza's draft has some good suggestions, particularly about proportional image scaling, but it also has some problems, e.g., it doesn't address non-thumbnails and it uses some syntax like "px=300" that doesn't work.
• It's OK to say that thumbnails are in common use (as they are); this doesn't mean they are required or preferred.

The following draft attempts to address the above issues. A sandbox diff shows the difference between this text and what's currently installed.

(This draft is now obsolete; please see the #MistyRose proposal below. Eubulides (talk) 08:06, 4 August 2009 (UTC))

• Most pictures should be between 100 and 400 pixels wide. Common practice is to use the thumbnail option ("thumb"), which is available in the image markup and normally floats the image to the right. This results in a default width of 180 pixels, although logged-in users can set a different default in their user preferences.
• A picture may benefit from a size other than the default. Adding the parameter "|upright=2.2" (or "|frameless|upright=2.2" for non-thumb images) scales an image to about 400 pixels wide by default; making the number larger or smaller changes the image size accordingly. A floating image should generally be no more than 500 pixels tall and 400 pixels wide, so that it can be comfortably displayed next to text on the smallest displays in common use; a nonfloating image can be somewhat wider if it stands alone. The {{Wide image}} and {{Tall image}} templates can display images that would otherwise be impossibly wide or tall. Examples where adjusting the size may be appropriate include:

• Images with aspect ratios that are extreme or that otherwise distort or obscure the image
• Images containing important detail. For example, a map, diagram, or chart may contain important text that would be unreadable at the default size.
• Images where detail is relatively unimportant. For example, a national flag may be easily recognizable even at a small size.
• Images in which a small region is relevant, but cropping to that region would reduce the coherence of the image
• Lead images, which should usually be no wider than "upright=1.67" ("300px")}}

Eubulides (talk) 23:13, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I see no problem with the above (and yes, agree the 300px is probably out of date.) 400px is probably the best limit to stick with as to consider the issues with NFCC (as if you take most NFC, being from screenshots, a 400px width image will get you an image file that is just around 0.1 megapixels, which has been suggested as the "ideal" low resolution image, though by far not a hard limit).

I still say we talk about increasing the default "thumb" size to 250px based on the same logic above. --MASEM (t) 23:18, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

The default thumb size could well be increased too. The above proposal is designed to make sense no matter what the default is, though of course its specific numbers would need to be changed to match whatever the default is. Eubulides (talk) 03:06, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

If this is aimed at newcomers as well as the technically proficient, it might be a good idea to avoid the word "parameter", which startled me as a non-techie, even though its meaning later becomes apparent. There are several other phrases that mean nothing to newcomers, such as "floating", and others which suggest complexity such as the templates. The style just looks too technical and daunting, I'm sorry to say.

I think, however, that it might be a good guideline if converted into the language of an ordinary reader who just wants to post a picture (which is quite complicated enough already by the multiple-stage process of uploading not to Wikipedia but to the Wikimedia Commons, certifying the rights, and then transcluding it — if that's the correct term).

As for image size, my Compaq FS7600 monitor (on Windows Vista Home Basic) is I think 800 x 600 pixels, but I deliberately used a 400-pixel-wide image of a New York Times cartoon so that the important words within the image would be legible on small screens like mine. (Originally it had been 550 pixels wide, but that caused problems for other users. See Talk:New York City mayoral election, 1917#Formatting and the article itself. See also, for comparison, Talk:New York City mayoral election, 2009.) Although I'd agree that it's bad style to have too much of it, I see nothing wrong in occasionally squeezing wrap-around text so long as the text is suitable for such squeezing (in the 1917 mayoral example, it was a set of bullet points) and you're conscious of what you're doing. —— Shakescene (talk) 06:00, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks for the comments. I attempted to reword the draft to make it less technically daunting, and the result is in the #MistyRose proposal below. Unfortunately some of the stuff can't easily be omitted (e.g., "upright=2.2"), but the words you mentioned ("parameter" and "floating") can be removed, and wikilinks can be added for parameter names like "upright".
• The Compaq FS7600's recommended resolution is 1024×768, as per its user's guide (PDF). Like most CRTs, one can run it in 800×600 mode and it will display larger text that way; this sort of thing used to be more common but I think it's relatively rare nowadays. But perhaps this point is moot if 400px looks OK on your screen.

Eubulides (talk) 08:06, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

You're right; once I remembered the easy way to look up my resolution, it was indeed 1024 x 768 pixels. The FS7600 is smaller than my previous 19" screen, so the higher resolution gets swallowed up by the tiny display (sometimes commas are hard to distinguish from periods/full stops; and umlauts, tildes and circumflexes from each other.) While I don't have the time or patience to do it right now (being exhausted by trying to reconstruct who was Chairman and who President of the Reconstruction Finance Corporation, and when), perhaps someone would like to see what in fact does happen to New York City mayoral election, 1917 when seen in an 800 x 600 resolution. —— Shakescene (talk) 08:21, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Reasons for defaulting

All of the above proposals are articulate on why it is good to set image sizes, and make no mention of why it is good to use the default. Some people have tiny screens or terrible bandwidth. These people can improve their browsing experience by setting their preference for very small thumbs. But only if we honour those preferences. When you decide that an image looks better at 350px than your default 300px setting, you're also telling people with a 120px preference that they are going to take this image at 350px whether they like it or not.

There are so many different screen sizes, font sizes, browser layout engines, aesthetic preferences, etcetera, that you are fooling yourself if you think you can construct a layout that looks nice to everyone. In reality, all you are doing is making the layout look nice to you, on your screen. I wish I had a dollar for every edit where someone shrunk an image (for me) with edit summary "bigger image".

My preference is for honouring thumbing. But, failing that, at least don't give us a policy statement that provides a persuasive rationale for only one side of the debate.

Hesperian 23:33, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Bingo. There is a reason why thumbnails were preferred, and it's so that users can see smaller images if they want to see smaller images. Or larger ones if the have the space; my default is set to 250px, for example. Powers ^T 02:02, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

The #Beige proposal (above) addresses both of the previous comments, because it suggests using the "upright=Factor" option instead of absolute pixel sizes. The upright option causes the image to scale according to your preferences. For example, if an article's editor wants a larger image and uses "upright=1.5" to get it, you the reader will see a 375px image if your preference is 250px, and no reader will get an image smaller than they would have otherwise got. Eubulides (talk) 03:06, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Just to be clear, 99% of the people who read Wikipedia are not logged in, and have no option to change their viewing preferences. Since the default thumb setup (which is what unlogged readers see) is clearly unsatisfactory to the majority of viewers here, it can be extrapolated that it is likely a problem for unlogged readers too. I can assure you that when I was using a public computer to view some stuff (and was not logged in), the images were so small they were nearly pointless. Thanks to those who are working to let us have pictures that are big enough to see. Risker (talk) 04:12, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Risker puts it very well. In this respect, it's like our discovery last year that date-autoformatting didn't work for 99.99% of readers, and prevented us from noticing the glitches that lie behind the display, which had always been there for our readers to see. As a general rule, I strongly advocate that the editors who are responsible for crafting the appearance and formatting of our articles should see what the consumers see—they are the only readers who really count. I'd go so far as to say that WPians should disable their thumbnail-size preference, so they can make proper judgements as to detail and text wrapping for each image in an article.

Dave Souza's version(s). (1) It seems to have lost some of the good bits of mine, in particular the need for editors to balance the amount and size of detail in a pic with the need to avoid the uncomfortably narrow wrapping of text. I think we need to emphasise editorial judgement; we need to encourage editors to treat image size (and placement) seriously as an integral part of a high-quality product. (2) In the green box, Dave's bullets refer to both up- and down-sizing. In the beige they refer to down-sizing (?). It needs to be explicit so normal editors can easily understand it. (3) Except for flags/icons etc, I find 180px to be almost never worth bothering with. Dave's text still seems to encourage or condone the wide use of 180px. If you want a good example of how numerous superb historical pics we are able to use are basically ruined from an in-article reading perspective, have a look at the current FAC "Operation Charnwood". The vividness and life of the large infobox image are completely lost further down. You'll first need to disable your thumbnail size prefs, if you haven't already. This is nano-pic land; whereas this is after I've gone through to force a bigger size on the pics, all still thumbnails. The "Handley Page Halifax" pic under "Preliminary attacks" no longer looks like a close-up of a mineralogical sample: now it's an airplane above the chaos of war. I'd have it even larger—the accompanying text seems to demand it—but I'm being cautious.

Norse–Gaelic example still dysfunctional. I still have a problem with the map I exemplified at the opening of this debate. It is now displayed just below Slim's plastic bottle example of why we need to move on from the one-size-fits-all. Eubulides enlarged the map to 1.8 thingies, but I found that still too small to work out up from down, not even considering the nanoprint. I've raised it in the article to 2.0, but still, the print is undecipherable; you are forced to divert to the original image to learn what any word actually is, and this despite the fact that the caption refers one by one to words on the map. It is dysfunctional in these ways. So ....

Font size. Until now, we have included no advice about the size of lettering on maps and diagrams. It's a pet issue for me, since my clients often have to be encouraged to use larger font-sizes on their diagrams and pictures to avoid irritating the assessors. I don't know why people aren't fussy about this when there's plenty of space in which larger font-size can lie, such as on that map. (PS In fact, I find it very hard to decipher the wording in the original, large version. The dark-green colour doesn't help one bit, but even the yellow-background font needs significant boosting. I note also that some editors have complained about the inclusion of image titles in the image itself, as here; I have sympathy for this complaint.)

Brevity in captions. Whenever I look at a caption, I seem to be able to find ways of removing words with no loss of meaning. We have never encouraged editors to be vigilant about language bloat in their captions—particuarly the usual redundancies. I don't advocate stubby, truncated language in captions, but I do think it's even more important to avoid the vertical rise effect where it's easy to do so.

Therefore, I wonder whether there is support for include brief, "soft" advice to editors on font size within images and the need to avoid redundant wording in captions. This could be included at the same time as we get the advice on image size right. Again, the emphasis should be on encouraging editors to skill up and use their creative judgement for our readers' sakes, by outlining the editorial issues at stake. Tony (talk) 04:30, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

We do need to set up some guidelines for fonts in maps and charts, and in fact the encouragment to generate free versions of these in SVG when possible to avoid the destruction of readibility when images are shown at low size. But that's a much larger issue and doesn't seem as pressing to make sure we guide those actively seeking to limit images to "thumb" size to avoid doing that.

That said, there is still an issue of why 180px was picked in the first place that my Google-fu is not easily figuring out from talk page archives. It may be associated with NFCC policy, in which case, then, there's likely good reason to stick with it as the default thumb size. But if it's "just because" then damn the torpedos and lets get the default thumb up to 250px and emphasis IAR in allowing larger images. --MASEM (t) 04:55, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

The NFCC concerns are not related to default thumbnail widths; please see #NFCC and default width below. Eubulides (talk) 18:17, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Just in case it's getting lost in the details, the original problem that we're trying to correct is that some users (mis)interpret the current phrasing of this section of the MoS to mean that thumbnails are required rather than recommended. It is my understanding that people have been going in and changing other-sized images to thumbnails solely because they believe it is required by the MoS. The conversation has transitioned toward discussing default image sizes, but we must be careful to remember to correct this problem as well.

It is also my understanding that a phrase that precedes a colon must be an independent clause, even if it is introducing a list. Ergo, our final text should read "includes the following" rather than stopping at "includes."

As for adding soft advice, I don't think it's a good idea, not even if we can all agree on whether short or long captions are best. We've already seen people can misinterpret "recommended" to mean "required." I feel that overly verbose captions are the sort of thing that we should allow users to fix as they go. Darkfrog24 (talk) 05:02, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

People here do seem to agree that editors shouldn't be going around changing image sizes to thumbnails over objections. I've therefore removed the parts of the MoS advice that were causing that, particularly the sentence, "As a rule, images should not be set to another size ..." [38] SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 05:51, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Nice, but we could use a "the following" after "are not limited to." Darkfrog24 (talk) 05:58, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Re SlimVirgin's "People here do seem to agree that editors shouldn't be going around changing image sizes to thumbnails over objections" (05:51, 4 August 2009), I'd add a clause: "except where the objection is only that use of thumbs is standard practice" or equivalent - in other words the objectors must also consider the effect on the (unregistered) reader of the size of the specific image in the specific place in the specific article. --Philcha (talk) 06:33, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Several good points were made in the previous comments. The specific wording proposals that I gleaned from them, relative to the #Beige proposal above, are

• SlimVirgin's wording change, already installed.
• Shakescene's suggestion to use less jargon.
• Darkfrog24's suggestion to put "the following" before ":".

I incorporated these suggestions into the #MistyRose proposal below. Eubulides (talk) 08:06, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Re "this is after I've gone through to force a bigger size on the pics, all still thumbnails" above: A problem with changes like those, which inserted exact widths like "200px" into Operation Charnwood, is that this makes the images smaller for readers who've expressed their preference for larger thumbnails by changing their default widths to 300px. It's better to use "upright=1.1" instead, as this does not shrink the image for anybody. I changed the article to use "upright=Factor" rather than "Widthpx"; this won't affect the appearance for IP users or for users who have not changed their default image widths, and will behave better for users who have changed their defaults. Eubulides (talk) 08:30, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I made my edit earlier not realizing the page was protected. I've requested unprotection. If it isn't granted, I'll revert my edit. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 09:50, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for making that change, SV. I don't think anyone here disagrees with it, so I hope it's not reverted. I'm off to tell WT:FAC the good news. Tony (talk) 11:03, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

MistyRose proposal

This is an updated version of the #Beige proposal for improving the guideline for image sizes; it takes into account the comments noted above.

• On Wikipedia, most pictures should be displayed so they are between 100 and 400 pixels wide. The thumbnail option ("thumb") results in a default width of 180 pixels, although logged-in users can set a different default in their user preferences.
• A picture may benefit from a size other than the default. The "upright=2.2" option (or "|frameless|upright=2.2" for plain pictures) resizes an image to about 400 pixels wide by default; making the number larger or smaller changes the image size accordingly. An image should generally be no more than 500 pixels tall and 400 pixels wide, so it can be comfortably displayed next to the text on the smallest displays in common use; an image can be somewhat wider if it uses the "center" or "none" options to stand alone. The {{Wide image}} and {{Tall image}} templates can display images that would otherwise be unreasonably wide or tall. Examples where adjusting the size may be appropriate include, but are not limited to, the following:

• Images with aspect ratios that are extreme or that otherwise distort or obscure the image.
• Images in which detail is relatively unimportant (for example, a national flag may be easily recognizable even at a small size).
• Images containing important detail (for example, a map, diagram, or chart may contain important text that would be unreadable at the default size).
• Images in which a small region is relevant, but cropping to that region would reduce the coherence of the image.
• Lead images, which should usually be no wider than "upright=1.7" ("300px")

The difference between the currently-installed version and this version is available. Further comments are welcome. Eubulides (talk) 08:06, 4 August 2009 (UTC) updated 20:09, 4 August 2009 (UTC) updated again 05:59, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Is there any benefit to recommending editors write "upright=x," as opposed to "xpx"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by SlimVirgin (talk • contribs) 08:45, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, as explained above; an explicit size like "250px" undesirably makes a thumbnail smaller for a reader whose width preference is 300 pixels. In contrast, "upright=1.4" makes the thumbnail larger for all readers. Eubulides (talk) 09:21, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Very few readers have set their width preferences. We need to cater to the average reader, and if an editor wants an image to be 250px, there's no reason not to allow him or her to do that, surely. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 09:24, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, there's no reason not to allow 250px settings; in some cases they make perfect sense, for example when sizing one image to fit against another small-resolution image. The proposed wording does not disallow or state a preference against settings like that. Eubulides (talk) 20:09, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

We should not be encouraging editors to try to produce pixel-perfect layouts. There's too many target platforms that WP serves that the work of a user Editor-Using-IE8-on-1200x1068-Monitor-with-10pt-Ariel to make the layout perfect by assigning pixel sizes to image to get it to look right on their monitor will undoubtedly screw up on any other platform.

Hmm. Anyone know if there's a way to have images show up as a percentage of the box width that it is in? --MASEM (t) 15:33, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

That would be a very nice thing to have. As far as I know it is not possible with the current MediaWiki software. If there's some way to do it, I will document it in WP:PIC. Eubulides (talk) 20:09, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Agree. Please let's not get to prescriptive here. --Joopercoopers (talk) 15:08, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

• "Most pictures should be between 100 and 400 pixels wide" -- I hope this doesn't mean image uploaders will only upload images between 100 and 400 pixels wide now, citing the MOS "policy". Perhaps, "Most pictures, when included in articles, should be resized to between 100 and 400 pixels wide"? Matthewedwards :  Chat  17:13, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
• Agreed. Let the actual stored image size be a concern of NFC, let the display size be the concern here. --MASEM (t) 17:18, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
• Thirded. That's a very good way to phrase it. Darkfrog24 (talk) 17:19, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks for this suggestion. I adjusted the proposal to say "Most pictures in articles should be displayed with widths between 100 and 400 pixels.", which I think captures the suggestion more succinctly. Eubulides (talk) 20:09, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

It's a bit ungainly. Try this: "On Wikipedia, most pictures should be displayed so that they are between 100 and 400 pixels wide. [Explanation about monitor size.]" Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:34, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, that's better, and I reworded it that way. Eubulides (talk) 05:59, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Eubulides and the others who have contributed, Misty Rose looks very well-worded—nice work indeed. I took the liberty of tweaking in a few places (no substantive change in meaning). A few queries:

• "so it can be comfortably displayed next to the text on the smallest displays in common us"—will that get us into trouble if Blackberry/mobile displays are construed as this? Perhaps not, but those more familiar with such issues might consider the option of simply finishing the statement on "text".
• Can we remove "somewhat", since it doesn't seem to add anything?
• "The {{Wide image}} and {{Tall image}} templates can display images that would otherwise be unreasonably wide or tall." Can we remove "can" (or don't those templates always have good effect)? And just from my dumb perspective (which is a good target to address), the alternative to using those templates would be what? Would it not be clearer to write: "... templates moderate the dimensions of images that would otherwise be unreasonaly wide or tall."?
• As I mentioned above, the bullets mix the reasons to up-size and the reasons to down-size; it would be a little easier if the reasons to down-size were all listed together (say, first), and then the reasons to up-size. I've swapped the location of one bullet point to this end, but I'm wondering whether the last one (lead, no more than 300px) is meant to be up- or down- or either? If either of up-size only, it could stay at the end. If down-size only, it could go up the list with its siblings.

There's just one issue rootling around in my mind: several editors have expressed a clear dissatisfaction with the thumbnail default of 180px, which is how the vast majority of images that have been thumbnailed because of the MoS wording will appear to our readers. Is there any reason we shouldn't lobby for this to be increased to, say, 200px? If there were consensus, this could be done as a second phase, after misty rose is implemented. Tony (talk) 07:55, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Indeed we should; this is often raised at WP:IMAGE & elsewhere, but is not pursued. Johnbod (talk) 15:50, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

• One minor wording issue I have is that none of the drafts above make it clear that even with forced sizes you still need to include the "thumb" parameter or you lose the caption & formatting. I certainly support editorial choice in the matter, allowing as far as possible for different screen sizes etc. Johnbod (talk) 15:50, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

• Could you propose brief wording to fix this? Eubulides (talk) 20:06, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

There seems to be consensus for this change, so I installed it, with Tony1's suggestions to remove "can" and "somewhat". Further improvements are of course welcome. Eubulides (talk) 20:06, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

NFCC default width

Heck, I'd lobby for 250px instead of 200px. The only issue which I cannot google-fu well enough to determine is if there is any NFCC concerns for non-free images by going above 180px as the default. Those that complain about that being too big on their layout are likely registered users and can change it. --MASEM (t) 15:54, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

• Blackberries and mobile displays are not an issue. They ignore our width advice entirely.
• The NFCC argument seems to be based on a misunderstanding of how default widths apply. If an image's native width is (say) 200px due to NFCC concerns, then any default width above 200px is ignored; the image is never displayed above its native resolution merely due to default widths. So if we change the default width to (say) 250px, there cannot possibly be any NFCC concerns with the resulting article that are not already present in the native image (which is readily available). Now, there may indeed be concerns about blowing up a 200px image to (say) 600px, using an explicit width; but a default-width image should always be OK.
• Tony, removing the "somewhat" and the "can" is fine. However, the Wide and Tall image templates do not "moderate dimensions"; they display the images in a little window that's scrollbarred. I'm not sure it's worth putting details about that here. If you can redo the wording to make it more logical, please do so.

Eubulides (talk) 18:17, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

MASEM, sure, I'd go for 250px too. Does anyone object? WP is being criticised for being weak on images. Tony (talk) 09:37, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I'd say 250 as well. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:48, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Follow the sources

I suggest adding something to the section "Follow the sources" to reduce the endless debates and huge amounts of time constantly wasted in usage discussions on hundreds of WP articles. Discussions on content usually improve the quality of WP articles, but most discussions on usage do not improve article quality or make WP less amateurish. The main cause of the current chaos (including polls decided on the basis of the personal preferences of people who happen to notice a poll or are alerted by others) is that Wikipedia does not yet prevent OR in deciding usage.

Most editors are at best interested in or even experts in an article's topic, but they are almost never experts on English usage in general. Even those that are aware that usage may be different in general reference works or other English-speaking countries from what they're used to tend to bitterly defend either their personal preferences or at best those of one or more experts in a field. A good example is the endless discussions on the capitalisation of compact disc, whose result is in addition simply amateurish and would not be possible in any major publishing house. As shown here, Wikipedia is apparently the only major reference source that currently uses the uppercase spelling "Compact Disc" and apparently all major UK and US reference works use the lowercase spelling "compact disc" (or "compact disk").

The arguments against lowercase spelling presented in that discussion (and arguments in thousands of other discussions) show that most WP editors don't understand how modern dictionaries and other reference works are compiled. Many seriously believe they can do a better job at deciding what is current usage than the constantly updated online versions of dictionaries. Most WP editors for example don't understand that it is simply OR trying to decide if a trademark has become genericised. I therefore suggest the following:

Follow the sources

Many points of usage, such as the treatment of proper names, can be decided by seeing what other writers do. Unless there is some clear reason, it is generally a good idea to follow the usage of reliable secondary sources in English on the subject. If the sources for the article can be shown to be unrepresentative of current English usage as a whole, follow current English usage instead—and consult more sources.

It is however very important to realize that it is very unlikely that you are an expert on English usage even if you have collected many reliable sources or are perhaps even an expert on a topic. The same reasoning that prohibits use of primary sources and original research in determining the contents of a Wikipedia article implies that editors should not try to decide what language usage a Wikipedia article follows if usage in secondary sources varies or is different from that in major dictionaries. Even when secondary sources specifically address a usage issue, they are almost always simply the opinions of someone who is an expert in the field but not in English usage.

Often experts in a field believe they should and can dictate or even change how terms from their field are used in general English. This kind of prescriptive approach to usage was common in dictionaries in the past, but nowadays all major English dictionaries try to be descriptive. They use extensive professional experience in collecting and processing extensive collections of citations from reliable sources, so they should be the main sources for usage questions in Wikipedia articles.

• Instead of trying to determine usage on the basis of secondary sources when these do not agree with each other or with major dictionaries, which would be original research, it is better to follow the usage that dictionaries and other reference works say is the most common.

• If a majority of major dictionaries and reference works agree on a certain usage, this should be used in Wikipedia even if some experts (on a topic, not usage) disagree, or if, for example, the preferred usage of a copyright owner is different. In cases where most British dictionaries record a different usage than American dictionaries do, the general MOS principles on national varieties of English apply.

• Exceptions to this rule include new technical terms (and slang) that are not (or not yet) recorded in reference works or, for example, names of countries that have changed since the reference works were published.--Espoo (talk) 14:14, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

"The same reasoning that prohibits use of primary sources and original research in determining the contents of a Wikipedia article... is not true. Primary sources are allowed in determining contents, although must be used with caution. --Jc3s5h (talk) 16:56, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps instead of telling people not to bother trying to figure out proper usage, we should instead encourage each Wikipedia editor to focus on his or her area of expertise: content for some, usage for others, content and usage for a few. However, I doubt that this or anything else will stop people from arguing about usage when they feel that it is the right thing to do. If you feel that the editors in question are wasting their time, then the only thing for it is to step back and let them waste it. Sometimes it results in better articles. Darkfrog24 (talk) 17:37, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

DF writes: "We should instead encourage each Wikipedia editor to focus on his or her area of expertise: content for some, usage for others, content and usage for a few." I couldn't agree more. I fervently wish that editors who are not experts in style – and who know little about precedents, style guides, and such basics – would concentrate more of their effort away from this page; or at least that they would see how their competence is limited. Until they learn more. (I say all this generally, not as a comment on the present discussion.)

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 23:03, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

The problem is not confined to writing style. It is the same in most subject areas, where you see well meaning, clueless people who think they understand something arguing with university professors and other experts. The problem is endemic to, and inherent in, wikis where the contributors' respective qualifications are unknown to one another. (I do not believe that well meaning people requires a hyphen.) —Finell (Talk) 19:04, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

And, to a lesser extent, that's going to be a problem on an "encyclopedia that anyone can edit." It's the tradeoff that we make. I think this is something that we've just got to accept. With regard to Espoo's specific proposal, "Follow the sources," I don't think that it's our answer. As TexasAndroid has brought to our attention in the matter of first names vs. last names, many valid sources, in that case in the entertainment media, deliberately (and often rightly) choose a tone less formal than the encyclopedic one preferred on Wikipedia. So the way I see it, following the exact expressions used in the sources may not be best even when no one is doing anything explicitly incorrect. Darkfrog24 (talk) 19:46, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

"The same reasoning that prohibits use of primary sources and original research in determining the contents of a Wikipedia article implies that editors should not try to decide what language usage a Wikipedia article follows if usage in secondary sources varies or is different from that in major dictionaries." Nonsense. In the unlikely case that I found ten major abstract algebra textbook giving the same identical definition for field (mathematics), and two major dictionaries giving a slightly different definition (e.g. omitting the requirement for commutativity, essentially defining field as a synonym of division ring), I would use the definition of the textbooks, not that of the dictionaries, and refuse to use the word field to refer to a non-commutative division ring. "English usage" depends on what you are speaking about, and the people who most often speak about something are the ones who generally know better how you should speak about them. --   A. di M. 20:50, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

(As for "well-meaning", that's a compound adjective, not the adverb "well" modifying the adjective "meaning", which would make no sense. So I'd use a hyphen in it, and the dictionary currently closest to my hand agrees with me. --   A. di M. 20:54, 15 August 2009 (UTC))

The "hyphen" article in Fowler's 2d ed. (my fave), if I understand it correclty, counsels that in an adverb adjective noun construction, a hyphen is only necessary where its presence or absence would change the meaning, as where the adverb might be mistaken for another adjective. For example (his), "a little used car" versus "a little-used car". According to the "well and well-" article, hyphenating "His well-known courage" is common but unnecessary. —Finell (Talk) 23:20, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Well now that it's come up, the Bedford Handbook places hyphens in compound adjectives when they precede the noun, giving as one example, "well-known candidate." Fowler's is British, isn't it? This might be a U.K./U.S. thing. Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:38, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

¶ For those contortionists here who can contrive no better way of spending Saturday night than tying themselves in Gordian knots,

1. If you want to become completely confused, try reading the article on "hyphen" in the first edition (1926) of H.W. Fowler's Modern English Usage (dedicated to the memory of his brother F.G. Fowler, who didn't make it with him through the war that began 95 years ago this month). Among many other things, Fowler goes to great lengths to avoid hyphens and the situations we try to resolve here with en-dashes, em-dashes and spacing around them (e.g. the Campbell-Bannerman — Asquith — Lloyd-George — Bonar Law succession of 1905-1923).
2. I don't think that "well" in "well-meaning" is either an adverb or an adjective. It's an object or predicate of some kind governed by "meaning". "Well" is an adverb in the Well-Tempered Clavier, because it governs "Tempered" (and not "Clavier"). But other uses are far murkier to my feeble eyes, such as well-intended, well-meant and well-meaning. Consider what happens when you replace "well" with "harm" as in "he means you no harm" or "he intended no harm". "Harm" is a noun serving as the direct object of the verb. I almost always hyphenate in such a case, if only because English verbs usually come after the subject and before any object. (Thus, "I glimpsed a gut-wrenching scene through my view-finder."). Now replace "harm" with "ill" as in "he means you ill." Are "well" and "ill" nouns (and thus objects) here? Do "well-meant" and "well-meaning" have the same syntactical structure and the same (...well...) meaning? —— Shakescene (talk) 04:32, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I must say that was well-argued. You've convinced me. ;-) Hesperian 04:53, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

(I couldn't resist that rogue hyphen, but I'm not trolling you. I really do think you've made a pretty compelling point there.) Hesperian 04:53, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

"Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe..." — John F. Kennedy's inauguration speech, 20 January 1961. Well-wishers are always welcome, especially the well-educated and the well-spoken. ;-) —— Shakescene (talk) 10:02, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Recent changes to the "Possessives" section

the major changes regarding possible correct forms of possessives of nouns ending in a single s don't seem like an improvement to me: what's now presented as a third option is not clarified well, and i have serious doubts about the assertion that it is "the most commonly used" (which i have now removed). can we please revert to the previous version of this section and discuss any proposed changes? thanks Sssoul (talk) 05:39, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

It may not be obvious to you why changes were urgent in that section, Sssoul. But all can be explained, and will be as required. I had sought to made minimal and obvious changes, but there is a great of confusion about possessives in English, and our guideline was not free of them. Nor are most WP editors, nor are most MOS editors, nor are most published style guides. It's all quite tricky.

Of course if all the changes I made to that section are controversial, or likely not to reflect consensus, then they should all be reverted until all have been discussed. I acquiesce quite happily in your reversion of the recommendation that I added; I am confident enough that it will be found acceptable after analysis and discussion.

The section as it stood was incomplete and aberrant. It is simply not true that there are two main bodies of practice, each taking an extreme view. In fact, while that was said, other points were made that were inconsistent with that dichotomous view. I am surprised, Sssoul, that you think the third option that I added is not explicated well; and I am surprised that you have serious doubts that it is "the most commonly used". I can assure you, from a long study of style guides major and minor, and of practice from many publishers, that most adopt some version of that compromise position.

Anyway, let's do some analysis. (As a preliminary, it might best if editors wanting to participate read the English-language sections of the article Apostrophe, which surveys the field in great detail.)

Here is the section as it stood, before I amended it:

Possessives section before Noetica's editing

For thorough treatment of the English possessive see Apostrophe. See also Apostrophes, above. It's is the short form of it is or it has (as in it's a nice day, it's been a nice day); the possessive its (as in the dog chased its tail) has no apostrophe, nor do hers, ours, yours, theirs, and whose. The possessive of a singular noun is formed by adding 's (as in my daughter's achievement, the boss's wife, Glass's books, Illinois's legislature). For a singular noun ending in one s, there are two widely accepted forms: Add 's: James's house, Euripides's plays, Moses's early life, Brahms's music. This style is more common for modern names and common nouns. Add just an apostrophe: James' house, Euripides' plays, Moses' early life, Brahms' music. This style is more common for biblical and classical names (Socrates' wife; Moses' ascent of Sinai; Jesus' last words). Either of those forms may be acceptable in Wikipedia articles, as long as consistency is maintained within a given article. According to some it depends on perceived pronunciation, such as whether one would say James' house or James's house, but at least be consistent within an article. The possessive of a plural noun ending in s is formed by adding just the apostrophe (my daughters' husbands). The possessive of a plural noun not ending in s is formed by adding 's (women's careers, children's toys). Official names (of companies, organizations, or places) should be made to conform to a specific style.

And the section after my editing (before Sssoul's removal of the recommendation that I added, and with left parenthesis now placed properly):

Possessives section after Noetica's editing

For thorough treatment of the English possessive see Apostrophe. See also Apostrophes, above. What follows are the most basic principles. It's is the short form of it is or it has (as in it's a nice day, it's been a nice day); the possessive its (as in the dog chased its tail) has no apostrophe, nor do hers, ours, yours, theirs, and whose. The possessive of a singular noun is formed by adding 's (as in my daughter's achievement, the boss's wife, Glass's books, Illinois's legislature). For a singular noun ending in just one s (a pronounced s, not as in Illinois or Descartes), there are three practices: Add 's: James's house, Euripides's plays, Moses's early life, Brahms's music, Dickens's novels, Doris's opinion. Add just an apostrophe: James' house, Euripides' plays, Moses' early life, Brahms' music, Dickens' novels, Doris' opinion. Add 's or just an apostrophe according to the assumed pronunciation: Socrates' wife; Moses' ascent of Sinai; Jesus' last words (and similarly for most classical and biblical forms); but Doris's opinion, and James' house or James's house depending on the assumed pronunciation. Any of these three practices may be acceptable in Wikipedia, with consistency in an article. But the third option is recommended as by far the most commonly used. The possessive of a plural noun ending in s is formed by adding just the apostrophe (my daughters' husbands). The possessive of a plural noun not ending in s is formed by adding 's (women's careers, children's toys). Official names (of companies, organizations, or places) should not be altered to conform to a specific style. For example, St Thomas's Hospital, being the official designation, should not be rendered as St Thomas' Hospital, even for consistency.

Here's a good place to start in considering these two versions. Suppose an editor comes to MOS wondering how to manage the four possessives in this sentence:

Sentence A. These are Doris'[s] copies of Morris'[s] books on Socrates'[s] and Descartes'[s] philosophies.

(Rewording would just be an evasion, and is to be thought unavailable.)

Question 1: What forms should MOS recommend for the whole of Sentence A?

Question 2: Why?

Question 3: How well and how clearly does the unmodified guideline settle things for the editor? (Explain in detail.)

Question 4: How well and how clearly does the guideline with modifications settle things for the editor? (Explain in detail.)

I suggest that editors offer their answers, below. For myself, I cannot give good answers regarding the earlier version; but I can for the modified version.

Please post after this contribution.

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 06:17, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

... why is rewording "just an evasion and to be thought unavailable"?? i don't see any value in using implausible examples. (for the record, i don't consider "Illinois's legislature" a felicitous example either, since one would normally talk about the Illinois [state] legislature .)

i find the explanation of Option 3 far less clear than the previous concise (and true) note that some people (and some styleguides) consider it dependent on pronunciation. but a] since other people (and styleguides) do not view it as dependent on pronunciation, what are the grounds for recommending that as the "most commonly used" option? and b] how does one determine whose pronunciation "counts"? (by the way, in the old version as well, examples of pronunciation should use IPA - simply spelling them doesn't clarify anything.)

it's also thoroughly unclear how your proposed Option 3 relates to the principle of consistency within an article - until further notice, it seems like you're recommending that consistency be abandoned in favour of someone's ideas of pronunciation. which is not a helpful guideline. Sssoul (talk) 08:25, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Sssoul, I am sorry that you do not grasp the value of the "implausible example" I propose as a starting point. Of course I could have proposed something more "lifelike", but it would have been much longer and far less efficient. Concerning implausible examples generally, note that they are purified "laboratory specimens" that help us to approach problems rationally and scientifically. Apart from that, all sorts of oddities really do turn up, and often you can't simply reword. Sometimes you need to represent a speech in written form, and you must choose the punctuation without changing the wording.

I designed the example with great care, to elucidate the differences in the two versions of the guideline: along with the questions that I then put forward. It is unfortunate that you did not engage with this exercise. Have you read the sections of Apostrophe that are relevant to our guideline?

For the rest, it is irrelevant that you deem Illinois's legislature infelicitous as an example. First, it is present in both versions anyway; second, it or something similar to it could easily turn up (Arkansas specifically legislated for the form Arkansas's, because the question did come up all the time); third, it represents a whole class of English words ending in silent s that turn up in our articles – distinct from cases like Descartes'[s]. You prefer the way pronunciation is dealt with in the unmodified version? Well, if you worked through the task that I recommend above, you might see why it is seriously inadequate. Both versions call for consistency; but with the unmodified version, consistency is undefined, since the recommendations are scattered illogically, with contradictions and avoidance of the very cases that those consulting MOS will want guidance with. Far from being infelicitous, they are the very cases that test the robustness of our guidelines. We need to know what to say about Illinois'[s], Doris'[s], Morris'[s], Socrates'[s]; and we need to have guidelines that show what our recommendations are. We cannot (and should not) prescribe every detail: no style guide attempts that for all cases that might turn up; but we do need to be comprehensive and decisive in laying out principles. Finally, IPA pronunciations are a red herring in this context. We simply appeal to what editors take to be the best pronunciation for the possessive of James. If they say James's, they can confidently write that; if they say James', then they can write that. If their understanding of the pronunciation happens to be questioned, the matter can be resolved by discussion. That sort of simplicity and clarity is the best we can hope for!

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 11:06, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) if simplicity and clarity are the priorities, the previous version was simpler and clearer: there are two correct/accepted forms - and also differing views about whether or not pronunciation has anything to do with it - which means that in Wikipedia articles, there's no reason to change from one correct form to the other, except to maintain consistency within an article. changing that to a recommendation that the choice of form should be based on one's preferred pronunciation is a very major change, which calls for discussion and consensus, so i hope other editors will state their views. Sssoul (talk) 11:57, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I think I like Noetica's amended text. However, may I make a plea that bold face not be scattered about? If anything, I'd make the pre-colon opening of each of the three bullets bold, but nothing else. Tony (talk) 12:12, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Sure, Tony. I tried to salvage as much as I could of the earlier version, so I retained that highlighting. Of course formatting can be improved – and other details too.

With respect Sssoul, all that has been demonstrated is that you have not understood either version of the guideline: neither the way it was, nor my modified version. This may suggest a need for further clarification. That I concede!

If the previous version was "simpler and clearer" as you assert, it remains illogical, indeterminate, and therefore an inadequate guideline. In particular, it recommends consistency but fails to show what would count as consistent! Is an article consistent if it has both Socrates's and James'? That version does not give an answer; the version I put forward does.

You ignore my evidence and my arguments, and my suggestion that you read the highly relevant material at Apostrophe, and my specific analytical points above, and the challenge that I construct above (to demonstrate the differences in the two versions). I have laboured long to address all that you say, and I can help you no more. Indeed, let's see what others have to say. (I cannot do any more here right now, since I have work to do in the real world.)

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 12:23, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

peace, okay, Noetica? the fact that i'm trying to keep my replies brief doesn't mean i'm ignoring your points. my main point is simply these changes need to be discussed - by more than just the two of us - and whatever is decided on needs to be phrased clearly. thanks for conceding that! Sssoul (talk) 13:08, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I consider the original version clearer. We should attempt to explain the choice between 's and the single apostrophe within the confines of their respective bullets, rather than presenting the information as a third "practice". Do not construe this preference as an endorsement, though – the original does need work, and does not read well. It's the basic structure that is superior. Be aware that this is merely a cursory opinion given whilst skimming through the MoS and its talk page. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 12:39, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Very briefly: AD, that's part of the problem. On a superficial reading the earlier version appears to be OK. But analysis shows that it fails to give determinate guidance, exactly where guidance is needed. And it contradicts itself. If people would read the points I make above, and take the test that I propose, they would see how.

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 12:49, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I see that the old version fails in effectively instructing the reader in when to use the apostrophe-s and when to use the apostrophe; this concession is (intendedly) implicit in my first comment. My point is that your layout creates a problem in removing a problem – that is, it introduces a bullet structure that is not intuitive (option to use 's, option to use single apostrophe, explanation of the choice) for the sake of clarifying the disparity. Tests aside, I think we should work on giving the explanations within a two-bullet layout, because it simply makes better sense; two options: two bullets. To give due credence to your point of view, though, I will be sure to return in a few hours to analyse your comments more thoroughly and to take the test of which you speak. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 13:16, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

There seem to be two issues with Noetica's changes. 1. Noetica altered the wording. 2. Noetica added a third option for possessives where only two had been before. The second is more important. Is this third option used in the English language? Sure. The question is whether or not it should be used here. The purpose of the MoS is not to describe what people do elsewhere; it is to tell Wikipedia editors what to do here. I consider this to be the sort of change that is substantive enough to merit discussion, if not ahead of time, then now.

I would also add that, with regard to intra-article consistency, it is my understanding, it is the principle that must be consistent, not the appearance of the punctuated material. Otherwise, the American system would be the only acceptable way to deal with quotation marks on Wikipedia (though it does make things look neater and more professional, heh heh). Therefore idea that the third offered option is not consistent should not, alone, be used to discredit it. Darkfrog24 (talk) 12:46, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Again very briefly, Darkfrog: yes, I did transparently alter what is demonstrably a poor guideline. Practice with possessives, here and everywhere, is complex and subject to exceptions. I happily accept reversion (for now) of the recommendation that I put in, but a close reading of the versions and the discussion above will show that what it replaces is very poor. Especially, I stress yet again, there is no point calling for consistency if we don't say what consistency would amount to!

Please read those parts of Apostrophe; please take the challenge I propose above. I suggest a definite procedure. It might be useful if some editors would give that carefully designed procedure a try.

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 12:57, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

... by "that carefully designed procedure", do you mean the sentence about Doris, Morris, et al? my principles for possessives of nouns ending in s cope with that one just fine - but that doesn't mean it would be appropriate for me - or the MoS - to impose my principles on Wikipedia articles in which another correct/acceptable standard is used consistently. (as for what "consistency" means: yes, there is a school of thought that would support "James's portrait of Euripedes' wife", but within one article we should not have both "James's portrait" and "James' portrait".) Sssoul (talk) 13:30, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

[Outdent] Patiently and with all due respect, Sssoul: It will be worth discussing this with you if you answer my clearly articulated points, just as I respond to yours. My "carefully designed procedure"? Yes: I posed four numbered questions in my first contribution, above. Please give answers, instead of fragmentary assertions addressing nothing anyone else has said.

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 23:44, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Anonymous Dissident (relevant to others' comments also), you write:

Tests aside, I think we should work on giving the explanations within a two-bullet layout, because it simply makes better sense; two options: two bullets.

My points in response:

• First, the test I set up above is systematic and revealing. Please do return to it, as you said you would.
• Second, your brief analysis does not fit the structure of the problem. No one disputes that there are two endings used to form the possessives of nouns: -'s or simply -'. But there are not just two extreme practices to distinguish. Hardly anyone uses just one of the two endings for all nouns ending in a single -s; and only a couple of minor or old-fashioned guides come close to proposing that. Current guides advocate an intermediate way, and so should we. Clearly! That is implicit in the old and confused version of our guideline; it is explicit in the version I put forward.
• Third, I stress yet again that the field is vexed and complicated. We cannot evade the issues in a flurry of hand-waving, with genuflections toward consistency and motherhood. Sssoul now says, above, that consistency would be not using both "James's portrait" and "James' portrait" in the same article. Well of course! That much is obvious. Now how about "Gibbs's portrait" and "Biggs' portrait"? "Descartes's philosophy" and "Dumas' novels"? "Socrates' discourse" and "Rameses's tomb"? "Socrates's discourse", "James' dissertation", and "Carlos's debt"? To settle these consistently – to give guidance – we need an articulated principle. The old version did not offer one. Most style guides do offer that, and the guideline I put forward follows their broad consensus.

Try it, using the test I propose.

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 00:16, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I've given this matter some thought over the past few days. It seems to me that punctuating possessives according to pronunciation, even variable pronunciation (James'[s] can be pronounced "James" or "Jame zz.") is a correct system and we do not have a clear and substantial reason to tell Wikipedia editors not to use it. However, I also feel that we should not recommend this system above the other two as either more common outside of Wikipedia or more desirable within Wikipedia, especially not without a source. It is not clear to me that it is either more effective or more common. More than that, I am of the opinion that the MoS is not the place to make descriptive statements like that. We should offer a link to an article where the matter can be discussed in detail in its proper place. Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:34, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I was just over there taking another look around and I noticed something: We explain singular nouns ending in just one s and we explain plural nouns, but this will leave the reader wondering about singular nouns like "princess" and "governess." Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:37, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

it may be that a few bits of the previous version could use rewording for clarity, grace, etc. but the previous version deliberately described two correct/acceptable options without prescribing either of them. if you look into archived discussions you'll see that this 's-vs-just-apostrophe question has been a hugely divisive issue for Wikipedia editors. it's not okay to switch to a prescriptive stance (prescribing either of those options, or a "third" version that mixes the two) without first establishing a clear consensus on the issue.

and yes, Noetica, it is indeed obvious what "consistency within an article" means, and there's no need to cloud it up. thank you for conceding that.

Darkfrog, nouns ending in a double s take apostrophe-s form of possessive. an example (the boss's wife or something like that) is included among the non-controversial forms (unless its been eliminated in recent revisions). Sssoul (talk) 05:41, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Darkfrog:

• Sssoul is right about this: both versions say what to do with nouns ending in -ss.
• We do have a reason for recommending the system that respects pronunciation, for singular nouns ending in just one s. We have a solid reason to set aside uniform use of -'s, and also uniform use of -'. Even without consulting my collection of published style guides, I can assure you that these three current and respected works support the third option that I have put forward:

1. Gregg Reference Manual, 10th edition 2004. (This celebrated and meticulously detailed style manual, 688 pages long, gets 5/5 stars from 47 of its 50 reviewers at Amazon.)
2. Perfect Punctuation, new edition 2007. (A comprehensive and widely distributed guide from an established writer on English style.)
3. How to Punctuate: Penguin Writer's Guide, 2006. (Penguin's current 304-page flagship treatise on the topic.)

Several more can readily be found.

• You write: "It is not clear to me that it is either more effective or more common." Well, is it clearer now? Please furnish your sources to support such alternatives as these: "Gus' ideas"; "the bus' helpful driver"; "Xerxes's expedition".
• You write: "More than that, I am of the opinion that the MoS is not the place to make descriptive statements like that." So, what do you want? No description? No prescription? I am mystified.

Sssoul:

• You write: "... the previous version deliberately described two correct/acceptable options". May we see your sources to support your claim for those options, as I have done for the third option (and can do again)?
• You write: "it's not okay to switch to a prescriptive stance (prescribing either of those options, or a 'third' version that mixes the two) without first establishing a clear consensus". You assert that it is not OK to "switch to a prescriptive stance", but my version does not prescribe: it recommends, while listing alternative ways also. What's more, it recommends with firm backing from the broad consensus of major published guides. Nevertheless, I immediately accepted your reversion, and am quite happy to discuss the matter. But ever since you raised the matter by starting this thread, you have been evasive. Why raise it at all, if you won't take carefully articulated responses on board?
• You fail to understand my point about consistency, yet again. You write: "yes, Noetica, it is indeed obvious what 'consistency within an article' means". I have shown that it is not obvious. Of course everyone knows not to put both "James's portrait" and "James' portrait" in the same article. You completely ignore the issues of consistency beyond that primitive level.

Quite frankly, Sssoul, someone has to give this advice: if you don't know things, don't say things; if you have no evidence, don't make substantive claims; if you can't answer fair questions honestly (or at all), don't raise topics in discussion here; if you don't know the sources (even our own article Apostrophe), don't pretend to be able to make MOS guidelines until you remedy that situation. You wouldn't do it at Nuclear fission, would you? So why do it here?

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 06:51, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) ... peace, Noetica, okay? you've already made it clear what your strongly-held view is; it's still the case that changes like the one you're proposing need to be based on consensus and collaboration. so let's proceed with that, all right? without the dissing, preferably - it doesn't become you. thanks.
as you've noticed, i'm not interested in engaging in a debate with you over which option is "best". i'm asking whether or not interested Wikipedia editors (note the plural!) agree that it's time for this part of the MoS to "recommend" a particular approach, instead of just describing acceptable options. Sssoul (talk) 10:50, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I will clarify what I said earlier: There seem to be three practices for plural nouns that end in s: 1. Add an '. 2. Add an 's. 3. Go by pronunciation. I am saying that "Go by pronunciation" is a correct style. I am saying that the MoS should not forbid writers to do what is correct and proper unless it has a very clear, solid, real and good reason to do so. I am saying that we have no such reason. In other words, I do not feel that the MoS should recommend a particular approach instead of just naming acceptable options. However, nothing shows me that this third option is any better than the other two—and yes, Noetica, I have read your posts quite thoroughly—so neither should the MoS put this option above the other two. Darkfrog24 (talk) 11:23, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Sssoul:

I'm interested in rational discussion, not this dissing that you speak of. But you show complete disrespect for fellow editors and the principles of Wikipedia. You start up a thread for discussion, presumably towards understanding and consensus, then you refuse to engage. How are we to proceed, if not by putting questions for others to answer, and presenting hard evidence and solid arguments for colleagues to address? SEE ABOVE! It is now clearer to me. Unfortunately, you are not able to focus on the questions and evidence that I lay out for discussion: with regard to precedent, clarity, ranking and selection of alternative recommendations, or anything else. If you refuse to budge no matter what the evidence shows, then there is nothing anyone can do. You have your opinion, and that's final. We assume rationality here; but if it is missing, we hit a dead end. Don't blame me: I've done all I can. I will not labour to present further evidence, since there is obviously no point.

Darkfrog:

I still can't tell what you want us to do here. You don't think we're ready to make any prescription concerning these possessives, but you don't want descriptions either (see earlier: "I am of the opinion that the MoS is not the place to make descriptive statements like that"). Have I got it right? So what do you want to see concerning possessives in MOS? I have given solid evidence that major guides favour a mixed approach. I have asked for, and still await, your evidence of guides supporting the two extreme approaches that our guideline lists. It really does seem that no imaginable evidence would make the slightest difference to your stance – whatever that stance is, which remains elusive. You write: "nothing shows me that this third option is any better than the other two". Well, if the bizarre examples I give above do not shift you a millimetre, and if you completely ignore the verdict of weighty authorities (and you cannot present countervailing precedents), then I see no reason to continue this discussion. As I said above to Sssoul, why bother to show any more evidence, or present the further arguments that I have available? No one takes the slightest notice. Your claim to be paying attention is belied by everything else that you say.

The level of discussion here has seriously degenerated. I hope we will see editors returning who are capable of supple, rational, discourse toward consensus. I don't mind being proven wrong; but I do object to wasting my time with editors for whom precedent, argument, evidence, and rationality are mere trifles that we can dispense with on a whim.

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 13:00, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Obviously, editors here feel strongly about many aspects of the style guide. However, I want to make a strong plea for people to cool it. I believe it's quite within our ability to interact more positively than this section suggests is occurring at the moment. As an incentive, are you all aware that ArbCom is scheduled to examine the stability of the style guides next month? I suggest that we voice our differences in a way that suppresses overt irritation with each other, and heightens a sense of collaboration and friendliness. We all have skills to offer. Tony (talk) 13:07, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree. First, changing MoS makes lots of existing articles that were conformant now not conformant. Second, we recognise people speak differently and write differently and that all varieties of English are equally good.

Now, to the possessives in particular. Fowler on this for example says write -s's if that makes sense and just s' if that makes sense. That is bound to depend on your pronunciation. Personally I think it is best that the MoS keeps quiet on the matter or says, at often does, just be consistent within the article. As a regular sub I often have a dificult to choice to make and I go one way and someone corrects it under MoS. That is fine, but if it is the toss of a coiin it is just down to one editor's preference over another's. Proper spelling and grammar is very important I think, but if it is simply a toss-up well what is better, improving the content or fighting over apostrophes? SimonTrew (talk) 13:39, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Let's start anew and solve this?

Now, I haven't been following this section, but I'm VERY concerned that my colleagues are at loggerheads about the "Possessives" section ... and you are all experts in your areas. I'm keen to resolve this swiftly and amicably, guys, since we need to work together to improve the MoS—it won't happen overnight.

Here's the section as Noetica edited it (from the edit history). I've removed the MoS-breaching scattered bold face, added "either", and changed "but" to "however"; these changes make no difference to the substantive meaning, but I can't help myself. The bits in contention are underlined.

The possessive of a singular noun is formed by adding 's (as in my daughter's achievement, the boss's wife, Glass's books, Illinois's legislature). For a singular noun ending in just one s (a pronounced s, not as in Illinois or Descartes), there are three practices:

• Add 's: James's house, Euripides's plays, Moses's early life, Brahms's music, Dickens's novels, Doris's opinion.
• Add just an apostrophe: James' house, Euripides' plays, Moses' early life, Brahms' music, Dickens' novels, Doris' opinion.
• Add either 's or just an apostrophe according to the assumed pronunciation: Socrates' wife; Moses' ascent of Sinai; Jesus' last words (and similarly for most classical and biblical forms); but Doris's opinion, and James' house or James's house, depending on the assumed pronunciation.

Any of these three practices may be acceptable in Wikipedia, with consistency in an article; however, the third option is recommended as by far the most commonly used.

• The possessive of a plural noun ending in s is formed by adding just the apostrophe (my daughters' husbands). The possessive of a plural noun not ending in s is formed by adding 's (women's careers, children's toys).
• Official names (of companies, organizations, or places) should not be altered to conform to a specific style. For example, St Thomas's Hospital, being the official designation, should not be rendered as St Thomas' Hospital, even for consistency.

A quick flick upwards suggests that Sssoul and Darkfrog are uneasy about:

• (a) the insertion of the third bullet point, starting "Add 's or just an apostrophe ..."; and
• (b) the sentence below, italicised in the box: "But the third option is recommended as by far the most commonly used." (This one has been removed since Noetica's edit.)

Could we start afresh, respecting each other's expertise, by getting to the nub of why this third option, slightly favoured, might or might not be unwise to include in the style guide? I myself would have been happy with just the third bullet alone, and I wonder why having all three bullets might not be construed as a compromise already, even with the slight favouring of the third bullet in the text at the bottom? (I think I remember it from as far back as Fowler.) But I should shut up and let others talk.

I invite concise statements by Darkfrog and Sssoul first, please, and from anyone who hasn't yet contributed who would like to. Can Noetica hold off until at least DF and S have written here? Tony (talk) 14:38, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

That pretty much sums it up, Tony. All three of these are correct systems, and I do not feel that Wikipedia should forbid a correct system without a significant, non-imaginary reason to do so, which we do not have. However, I do not feel that Wikipedia should recommend the third system above the other two. I feel that this would cause problems with people believing that the third system is required and give us the same sort of edit wars that we've seen over thumbnail sizes.

In fine: Keep the bullet point specifically allowing the by-pronunciation system. Lose the line saying that the by-pronunciation system is recommended. Darkfrog24 (talk) 15:23, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I haven't commented here yet, but I prefer the third bullet above as our advice. The first two bullets do not provide advice for tricky cases, which is why people will come looking. I will note that none of this is what I was taught: Single apostrophe if the word is one syllable (James's book) and apostrophe-s when two or more (Delores' radio). Does anyone know what reference teaches that approach? I must be for simplicity's sake. --Andy Walsh (talk) 15:25, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I found something similar in Fowler's Dictionary of Modern English Usage. See next section. Hans Adler 21:40, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

thanks, Tony. i don't object to the idea of the third option, as long as there's (civil) discussion of it and evidence of consensus for adding it. i do object to the idea of recommending any option over the others without evidence that there's broad support for that kind of change, because there's a history of editors getting pretty het up over attempts to prescribe one style of possessive.

if there is consensus for adding a third option, the addition needs to be phrased clearly, and it needs to address questions like "whose pronunciation counts?" IPA (or something a lot like IPA) should be used to clarify what pronunciation James' book and James's book are supposed to represent – spelling doesn't convey pronunciation, and in this proposed third option, something needs to convey the pronunciation of the examples given.

whether or not the addition is made, the section could use improvements. the examples used should be plausible within the context of Wikipedia (William Morris'[s] designs would be more apt than Doris'[s] opinion); and it's worth pointing out that when in doubt (or in conflict) rephrasing may be an excellent way to go (eg the trial of Socrates, the Illinois [state] legislature, the bus driver). Sssoul (talk) 16:23, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Sssoul, it seems to me that either you missed Noetica's point about useful examples or you chose to ignore it. Which is the case? If the point is invalid, why is it invalid? Earlier, Noetica said, at 11:06, 6 August 2009 (UTC):

Concerning implausible examples generally, note that they are purified "laboratory specimens" that help us to approach problems rationally and scientifically. Apart from that, all sorts of oddities really do turn up, and often you can't simply reword. Sometimes you need to represent a speech in written form, and you must choose the punctuation without changing the wording.

You have just said that "the section could use improvements. the examples used should be plausible within the context of Wikipedia". [sic]

Suppose that you are in a bookstore, looking for a travel guide to assist you during your trekking in the Australian outback. You tell the bookseller that you specifically want guidance for the possibility of encountering a crocodile in the wild. The bookseller tells you that such an encounter is extremely rare, and claims that the likelihood of crocodile attacks against humans has dropped dramatically in recent years. Despite your insistence on guidance for such an encounter, the bookseller persists in urging you to purchase a travel guide which obviously lacks any mention of crocodiles. What would you think of that bookseller? What would you think of that bookstore?

-- Wavelength (talk) 15:00, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

yes, i read what Noetica wrote about the implausible example s/he proposed as a "test case"; what i wrote refers to examples used in the MoS itself. what i mean is: this is the Wikipedia MoS, so (i feel) Wikipedia-like examples are more useful to people consulting it. right, rephrasing isn't always possible - but that doesn't mean "the bus'[s] friendly driver" is a good example of anything except poor usage. "Illinois's largest employer" would be a clearer-cut example than "Illinois's legislature", since the latter is normally referred to as "the Illinois [state] legislature". and "William Morris'[s] designs" is a type of construction more likely to occur in a Wikipedia article than "Doris'[s] opinion", so why not use it? it illustrates exactly the same point.

please note that i'm replying to you to be courteous, not because i'm trying to insist that my view of this must prevail. i'm not interested in debating; i'm interested in collaborating. and in any case the choice of examples is not a major issue compared with establishing whether or not there's consensus for including the third option and (if so) getting it formulated clearly, including practical principles for deciding whose pronunciation "counts" when there are disagreements. Sssoul (talk) 15:38, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Sssoul, comprehensiveness is more useful than plausibility in style guides. You might buy a travel guidebook that advises you what to do if you encounter an echidna, a kangaroo, a kiwi, a kookaburra, a platypus, or a wombat, but says nothing about crocodiles. You would probably consider that guidebook to be seriously deficient if you encountered a crocodile.

You might be considering the purchase of an insect repellent or insecticide. Do you want protection against only the most common insects, or do you want protection also against the most dangerous ones? If your trek takes you into territory inhabited by insects which transmit dengue fever, would you want to omit being protected against the risk, just because the risk is not common, not plausible, and not likely to occur?

Buyers and sellers of insurance tend to be realistic about assessing the relative likelihood of different events, the relative seriousness of different events, and the relative usefulness of different insurance coverages. An encounter with a kangaroo is probably more common than an encounter with a crocodile, which you might consider when you buy travel insurance. However, which insurance coverage is more useful? You would probably say that the insurance coverage for an encounter with a crocodile is more useful (and therefore more expensive), especially if it also includes coverage for encounters with kangaroos.

Noetica's example is comprehensive enough for some unusual cases, but does not hinder guidance for more common cases. -- Wavelength (talk) 20:06, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

[I revised my message. -- Wavelength (talk) 20:43, 10 August 2009 (UTC)]

I found the following possessive forms in current versions of Wikipedia articles, linked here with permanent links. A search for a character string ending with an apostrophe finds both forms if they exist, whereas a search for the same character string followed by a space finds only the shorter form if it exists.

Doris' and Doris's: 0 instance and 1 instance respectively

Doris' and Doris's: 1 instance and 0 instance respectively

Doris' and Doris's: 1 instance and 0 instance respectively

Doris' and Doris's: 0 instance and 3 instances respectively

Doris' and Doris's: 0 instance and 1 instance respectively

Doris' and Doris's: 1 instance and 1 instance respectively

Doris' and Doris's: 3 instances and 0 instance respectively

Doris' and Doris's: 0 instance and 1 instance respectively

Morris' and Morris's: 2 instances and 27 instances respectively

Morris' and Morris's: 3 instances and 6 instances respectively

Morris' and Morris's: 21 instances and 8 instances respectively

Morris' and Morris's: 1 instance and 0 instance respectively

Morris' and Morris's: 2 instances and 4 instances respectively

Morris' and Morris's: 0 instance and 1 instance respectively

Morris' and Morris's: 2 instances and 3 instances respectively

Morris' and Morris's: 0 instance and 1 instance respectively

Socrates' and Socrates's: 34 instances and 1 instance respectively

Socrates' and Socrates's: 12 instances and 6 instances respectively

Socrates' and Socrates's: 13 instances and 0 instance respectively

Socrates' and Socrates's: 2 instances and 0 instance respectively

Socrates' and Socrates's: 1 instance and 0 instance respectively

Socrates' and Socrates's: 1 instance and 0 instance respectively

Socrates' and Socrates's: 7 instances and 0 instance respectively

Socrates' and Socrates's: 2 instances and 0 instance respectively

Descartes' and Descartes's: 26 instances and 1 instance respectively

Descartes' and Descartes's: 11 instances and 0 instance respectively

Descartes' and Descartes's: 4 instances and 0 instance respectively

Descartes' and Descartes's: 3 instances and 0 instance respectively

Descartes' and Descartes's: 1 instance and 0 instance respectively

Descartes' and Descartes's: 2 instances and 0 instance respectively

Descartes' and Descartes's: 5 instances and 1 instance respectively

Descartes' and Descartes's: 4 instances and 1 instance respectively

-- Wavelength (talk) 21:26, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I have started preparing answers to Noetica's four questions, but I have not finished them, and I might change my answers. At this stage, they express my personal preferences, although I am ready to make allowances for preferences of other editors. I spell the possessive of Doris as Doris' and I pronounce it the same as Doris.

I have here some information which is causing me to reconsider re-evaluate my own preferences. The following are given names: Andrea (English female), Andreas (German male), Carlo (Italian male), Carlos (Spanish male), George (English male), Georges (French male). Therefore, the following statements are ambiguous.

• These are both Andreas' books.
• These are both Carlos' books.
• These are both Georges' books.

The English language has many surnames formed by the simple addition of s to a male given name, for example, Andrews, Edwards, Peters, and Williams. Therefore, the following statements are ambiguous.

• These are both Andrews' books.
• These are both Edwards' books.
• These are both Peters' books.
• These are both Williams' books.

Someone who owns a duck called Emus (rhyming with deem us) might say: Emus' wings are not flightworthy. In written form, that is an ambiguous statement.

I am prepared to accept a single, simple standard for Wikipedia, even if it happens to be different from my own preference. (Incidentally, when I have a choice, I do not follow any supposed supposedly "national" variety of English, and I doubt that many people do so completely.) If I travel to a country where the traffic moves on the other side of the street, I am prepared to adapt to the difference. Following the middle of the road in that situation would not be appropriate.

(Also, please see my comments at Talk:Apostrophe.)

-- Wavelength (talk) 20:56, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

[I revised my message. -- Wavelength (talk) 20:43, 10 August 2009 (UTC)]

What some style guides say

• I am very happy with Noetica's version, but it's worth noting that there are indeed a few other conventions out there in the wild. The AP Stylebook rule is to use an apostrophe without s in the following situations only: (1) Nouns ending in s with the following exception: Common nouns that are singular in form and meaning and which have a different plural form get 's unless they are followed by a word that starts with s. (2) In the two special expressions "for appearance' sake" and "for conscience' sake".

I don't consider this a particularly good rule. Their formulation is also confusing and unclear/inconsistent in some corner cases such as "the headlice'(s) symptoms". I guess the reason for the complicated rules is that they tried to codify a possible variant of pronunciation practices. Hans Adler 15:28, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

• The Economist Style Guide has a more practical rule: Use an apostrophe without s in the following situations only: (1) Nouns ending in s if they are plural in form and function. (2) Proper names ending in s if they are plural in form. It also gives specific guidance on how to treat "people", although that follows from their general principles. (Whereas according to a literal reading of the AP Stylebook it must be "the American people' power".) Hans Adler 15:47, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

the exact statement of The Economist's principle is here: "Use the ending s' on plurals that end in s — Danes', bosses', Joneses' — including plural names that take a singular verb, eg, Reuters', Barclays', Stewarts & Lloyds', Salomon Brothers'."

• Fowler's Dictionary of Modern English Usage (1965 edition) says general practice is moving from the second bullet (apostrophe-only for words in s) to the third (depends on pronunciation). It follows from this that in poetic or reverential contexts the apostrophe-only version always applies, and that in ordinary speech the 's version applies for all one-syllable words and possibly for all others as well. A special rule governs "for X's sake": If X ends in an s sound and has at least two syllables, this becomes "for X' sake" or even "for X sake". Hans Adler 16:08, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
• Strunk & White (1918 and 2003 editions) says, citing the United States Government Printing Office and Oxford University Press as authorities, that possessives of nouns which end in s always get 's, the only exceptions being Jesus and ancient proper names ending in es or is. Hans Adler 16:22, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
• a short form of OUP's recommendation is: Use apostrophe-s to form the possessive of singular nouns except when the final syllable (of a noun ending in a single s) is pronounced like the verb is: Moses' mother and Lloyd Bridges' career, but Isis's husband and William Burroughs's reputation. Sssoul (talk) 14:06, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Resolution

The discussion seems to have come to an end. There appears to be more consensus for Noetica's proposal than for any other version, here and—I think I'm right in saying this—as most often recommended in other style guides. I propose that the most straightforward solution is that the sentence slightly favouring the third bullet be reinstated, along with the trivial copy-edits I made in the yellow box above. Tony (talk) 05:22, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

smile: the Wikipedia MoS very often adopts principles that are not "what most other style guides" recommend; and the "consensus" is among ... what, five or six editors? but anyway!

Tony and others, what practical guidance should the Wikipedia MoS include for determining whose pronunciation "counts" when applying Option 3?

and are you suggesting that the "slight favouring" of the third option should override the usual Wikipedia MoS point about not changing from one acceptable style to another without compelling reasons for the change? Sssoul (talk) 06:04, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

in the spirit of collaboration, this is as far as i've been able to get in formulating something clear. i hope someone can address the parts i've put in bold, because they are really puzzling me:

The possessive of a singular noun is formed by adding 's (as in my daughter's achievement, the boss's wife, Glass's books, Illinois's largest employer). For a singular noun ending in just one s (a pronounced s, not a silent s as in Illinois or Descartes), three practices are acceptable in Wikipedia articles:^{[footnote - see below]}

• Add 's: James's house, Euripides's plays, Moses's early life, Brahms's music, Dickens's novels, Morris's designs.
• Add just an apostrophe: James' house, Euripides' plays, Moses' early life, Brahms' music, Dickens' novels, Morris' designs.
• Add 's or just an apostrophe according to the pronunciation used by ... well, by whom? For many people this may entail:

°adding just an apostrophe to most classical and biblical forms: Socrates' wife; Moses' ascent of Sinai; Jesus' last words;

°adding 's to most nonclassical/nonbiblical names: Morris's designs, Dickens's novels, Burroughs's birthdate, Thomas's career;

°using either James' house or James's house, depending on the particular editor's pronunciation. When editors' pronunciation differs, the choice should be based on ... well, what?

Any of these three practices can be used on Wikipedia, but should be applied consistently within an article. As usual when Wikipedia accepts more than one style, ArbCom's stipulation about stability applies: Editors should not change an article from one style to another without a substantial reason unrelated to mere choice of style.

the footnote: For details on the different forms and the rationale for their use, see Apostrophe. Evidence that this issue is largely unsettled among professional style guides and among Wikipedians can be found in the archives at WT:Manual_of_Style/Archive_92#Possessives of proper names ending in "s", WT:Manual_of_Style/Archive_100#Singular possessives ending in "s", WT:Manual_of_Style/Archive_102#Possessives, WT:Manual_of_Style/Archive_104#Possessive, and WT:Manual_of_Style/Archive_105#Possessives of common nouns in s.

hope that helps get this proposed change formulated so that it provides Wikipedia editors with clear, practical guidance. Sssoul (talk) 08:22, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Sssoul, this is not one of my areas, I have to admit. When there is more than one pronunciation that might suggest a different usage WRT bullet 3, I'd say it could be negotiated by the editors at the time; what do you think? Are there any examples? "Mars' desire" as Marz or Marzuz desire? I'm not sure.

Isn't the principle about not changing from one to the other announced at the top of the MoS? It seems unnecessary to repeat it here—I'd have thought it would be good enough to refer to it WRT its more prominent location.

To put it in summary, I don't care much which (I myself, in my own RL editing, go for the "always" ad 's no matter what—it's just simpler), but I appreciate the need to keep the peace and to maintain within-article consistency. Tony (talk) 12:01, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Tony, there are miles of cases where pronunciation varies/might vary, and (smile: believe it or not!) editors can get pretty heated over things like this (check out the archived discussions linked in that footnote). the MoS needs to provide clear guidance.

i pronounce the possessive of both Jesus and Moses as three syllables, but i know there are people who pronounce one or both of them as two syllables. someone earlier in this discussion stated that they pronounce the possessive of Doris as two syllables, while many people pronounce it (and similar possessives) as three; some editors might not feel sure how they'd pronounce Dos Passos'[s] parents; and so on. so whose pronunciation should count, under Option 3?

also, since i have no way to guess how another editor pronounces the possessive of Lloyd Bridges'[s] surname, when i see it spelled with just an apostrophe in a wikipedia article, does that mean i should follow Option 2 or Option 3 in that article?

that kind of thing needs to be set forth clearly in the MoS if this is supposed to be a practical guideline that lets editors know what to do in "tricky situations". the other two options do provide clear guidance: use 's in all cases, or use just an apostrophe in all cases, without worrying whether it's a "tricky case" or what other style guides recommend. Sssoul (talk) 13:45, 11 August 2009 (UTC) ps: once again: i am not against the idea of including an Option 3, but it needs to be expressed clearly enough to actually help editors who disagree, and/or who aren't sure how many syllables there are in Mars'[s] or Burroughs'[s].

One good way to "slightly favor" one style over another two would be to simply list it as the first bullet point of the three. Darkfrog24 (talk) 12:42, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

You're right, DF. Tony (talk) 13:00, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) like Tony, i personally am satisfied using apostrophe-s all down the line, but if a pronunciation-based option is wanted, would the OUP option i just posted under "what other styleguides say" (above) be acceptable to people? it has the advantage of being clear-cut, which is a pretty major advantage on Wikipedia: Use apostrophe-s to form the possessive of singular nouns except when the final syllable (of a noun ending in a single s) is pronounced like the verb is: Moses' mother and Lloyd Bridges' career, but Mars's sister, Isis's husband, Burroughs's reputation, Euripedes's plays and Delores's nickname. Sssoul (talk) 14:18, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

... are there any ideas about how to decide whose pronunciation counts when editors disagree about how to apply Option 3? to be of any practical use as a guideline, it really needs to address that. Sssoul (talk) 07:17, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

The rule as you described it seems almost fine to me, except it also refers to pronunciation, albeit much less critically. But your example Isis's husband irritates me like hell because I can't guess what pronunciation you are using that takes you there. Do you really mean it as an example, not as an exception? (An exception would make some limited sense because the final s is a Greek addition and pedants might decide not to pronounce it.) Or perhaps you just pronounce the verb is in a way that I am not familiar with, so that it sounds more like in Delores than in Isis??? The other problem is that your rule seems to require Jesus's, and Jesus' being the one constant case throughout most of the different rule sets this simply doesn't seem right or practicable. Hans Adler 08:01, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

sorry Hans Adler - i've only just now noticed your question. the final syllable of Isis (like the final syllable of Delores) is not pronounced like the verb is. the verb ends with a /z/ sound; both Isis and Delores end with an /s/ sound. and yes, the OUP rule recommends Jesus's (which matches my pronunciation anyway, so it's fine with me). Sssoul (talk) 14:08, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

(I'm kind of surprised that it's not more biased toward apostrophe-s if at least Noetica, Tony, and Sssoul [and I] all prefer it). I know I've arrived late, but really wish it were firmer toward that in most cases. I don't know which it recommends to the unfamiliar person for these names. Although its pronunciation should be common sense, I'm disturbed that on René Descartes people think it's "Day-kart influence" instead of "Day-kart's influence". I doubt the MOS would change much, but here's my general preference:

• The possessive of all singular nouns is formed by adding 's. Since the rule for plurals is to add only an apostrophe, the only possible exceptions are those that are pronounced like a plural: James (Jame), Mars (Mar), Socrates (Socratee), not anything ending in ss (boss), silent s (Illinois, Descartes), or wouldn't make sense pronounced without it (Doris, Morris).

But since I think the consensus above is that Descartes's pronunciation requires it, could someone take that to René Descartes? Reywas92^Talk 23:14, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I did not notice that is says "(a pronounced s, not as in Illinois or Descartes)". However, it doesn't directly say that those do need an apostrophe-s. That article still needs to be corrected though. Reywas92^Talk 23:10, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

MOS:IDENTITY

Should we add Intersex? Bit of confusion over at Caster Semenya. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 15:16, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Are you suggesting changing "A transgender, transsexual, or genderqueer person's latest preference..." to "A transgender, transsexual, genderqueer, or intersexual person's latest preference..."? If so, I'd agree. It seems a glaring omission. ThreeOfCups (talk) 20:20, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Agree, but perhaps we should phrase it "Use a transgender, transsexual, intersex or genderqueer's preferred or most recently preferred pronoun on a case-by-case basis." It's my understanding that being intersex is not something that causes changes in pronouns over the course of one's life the way being transgender does. Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:15, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, it doesn't change. Not sure how to word it exactly. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 00:25, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it looks like this policy has been written with the assumption that transgender etc ppl should be referred to by their preferred gender, and it then goes beyond that to say that even their past events should be referred to by their new gender. It would seem odd that we have this policy, whilst saying that in other cases, we don't refer to people by their preferred gender. So perhaps we need a previous statement that says "People should be referred to by their preferred gender nouns and pronouns", and then we can give the more specific statement for cases where a person's gender identity has changed.

Also note that a transsexual's gender identity doesn't necessarily change either (it's their body that they change, often they may have always identified as that gender). So it would be silly to suggest that the policy doesn't apply to them either. Mdwh (talk) 14:16, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I'd argue that the policy should simply apply to everyone. I think that's the intent - the only reason it says "transgender, transsexual, or genderqueer" is simply because that's the people it refers to, but there's a risk that people might conclude this policy shouldn't apply to other people - as some have been arguing for Caster Semenya.

I think their logic is flawed. Either someone's sex is what they identify as (in which case, it goes without question that those pronouns be used), or they don't - in which case they count as transgender or genderqueer (which is a pretty broad term) by definition, and hence are included.

Suggesting that someone shouldn't be referred to as female because others have questioned her gender, whilst also claiming that she isn't covered by this policy (implying that she is female after all) seems rather odd logic to me.

So I wonder if it might be clearer simply to say "A person's latest preference in gendered nouns and pronouns should be adopted when referring to any phase of that person's life" (perhaps then giving transgender, transsexual, or genderqueer as examples of where this policy might apply. Mdwh (talk) 14:12, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

This is not a good example, although it may be a good question; Caster Semenya does not, it appears, identify as intersexed; as far as our article goes, she denies it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:33, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, although if she's biologically female, not intersex or male, then there should be no question about using female pronouns in the first. But some are arguing that which pronouns we should use should depend on the results of a gender test, or even that we should refrain from using any gender pronouns until the results are known. The argument being made here is that even if she was intersex we would still be using female pronouns. Mdwh (talk) 20:41, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Semenya should be referred to as female. Only if it later turns out that Semenya is a man who knowingly lied about his gender should we even consider referring to Semenya as "he," and that doesn't seem to be what happened. Darkfrog24 (talk) 02:57, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

To be fair, there's only I think one contributor who's actually tried to argue that we should follow the rather odd notion of using the proper/preferred pronoun for a transgendered, transexual or genderqueer individual but not using it for someone who has identified as female all her life. Agree with PManderson and Mdwh however that this does highlight that it may be good to reword the section both to avoid this in the future and since we don't mention self-identified intersex individuals who may not really fall into any of the categories we do mention Nil Einne (talk) 21:46, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Subsection B

First, I’d like to say that, even though I’m here talking about this as a result of the recent events regarding Caster Semenya, I’d like to separate this discussion from any discussion regarding that case. I wouldn’t want anything that follows to be thought of as referring to that case, but rather about how MOS:IDENTITY would react to various scenarios. Chrisrus (talk) 02:27, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

1. Someone known to have knowingly hid his/her known gender, to have posed as the other gender, perhaps to hide or get a job or something.

2. Someone who used to believe that they were one gender, but has since realized and accepted that they are in fact the other.

3. Someone who claims to be of one gender for some reason, but the references we cite don’t believe it.

4. A person who has lost his or her mind, and now believes himself to be Queen Elizabeth, or herself to be Napoleon.

5. A person who is a true hermaphrodite and believes him/herself equal parts male and female.

"A transgender, transsexual, or genderqueer person's latest preference in gendered nouns and pronouns should be adopted when referring to any phase of that person's life, unless this usage is overridden by that person's own expressed preference. Nevertheless, avoid confusing or seemingly logically impossible text that could result from pronoun usage (for example: She fathered her first child). "

My take on your list:

1. This has happened. During the American Civil War alone, we have documented cases of women pretending to be men so that they could join armies. They are "she."

2. This is what most transsexuals are. We use their latest preference.

3. Wikipedia maintains an encyclopedic tone even when our sources are academic, flippant, comical or technical, so we should use encyclopedia-appropriate gender pronoun rules regardless of what our sources do.

4. In the case of a genuine psychosis, such as a man who believes himself to be Queen Elizabeth, we should not follow the person's preference. However in so doing, we should remain sensitive to the fact that transsexuals were once considered crazy by the medical establishment.

5. The limits of the English language require that we pick one pronoun or the other because it is not appropriate for use with a human person. This is one case in which I would use a source, preferably an autobiography or authorized translation of an autobiography, to give us our standard. Darkfrog24 (talk) 02:54, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree, although just to add for point 5, in some cases such people may still have a preferred pronoun, in which case that would apply (indeed, when talking about whether MOS:IDENTITY should apply to intersex, I'd say it's even more important - even if a woman was found to be intersex, it doesn't make sense to use "he", as she still isn't male, and as you say, "it" is not appropriate). Perhaps a more contentious issue is that some such people prefer gender neutral pronouns, such as "zie", or singular they - whilst I have no problem with using such pronouns for them, I can imagine that some might object that it was ungrammatical? But yes, looking to see what sources say (preferably reliable, authorised ones as you say, as opposed to tabloids etc) would be worth doing in that situation. Mdwh (talk) 10:05, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Fake words? No way.

I'm not talking about reliability. I'm talking about tone. The entertainment news might be perfectly reliable for information on what celebrities are doing, but they often jazz things up with flippant phrases and neologisms. I'm saying that, outside of direct quotes, we should translate what our sources do into a form that is correct for Wikipedia.Darkfrog24 (talk) 12:37, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

With regard to Scenario #5, I think I might have found an example: Jim Sinclair (activist). Note that, because the article is written in Enlgish, as opposed to probably just about any other language, it is written in purely gender-neutral terms. All you have to do is avoid any singular possessive pronouns, personal pronouns, or possessive adjectives. Intersting, huh? Chrisrus (talk) 05:02, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, interesting, but it wouldn't work for most cases. It is very difficult to talk around gender-specific words and still have the article come out smooth and encyclopedic, like this one happens to. It probably wouldn't work as a general policy. Darkfrog24 (talk) 12:01, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Article title with full name and its abbreviation

The article International School of Management (ISM) (permanent link here) has the full name of an entity and its abbreviation both together in the title of the article. Is there a guideline explicitly against that practice? -- Wavelength (talk) 18:31, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Article names should be short per WP:MOS. Abbreviations in the title are redundant. They should be in the article itself. Article names should be chosen on the principle of least suprise. It is hightly unlikely that someone will type in "International School of Management (ISM)" to do a search but the will type in "International School of Management". See also Wikipedia:Naming conventions. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 20:31, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

A parenthetical abbreviation shouldn't ever be in an article name, but it SHOULD be in the lede, if the abbreviation is common (like MIT). --King Öomie 20:40, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Ah. Just discovered that International School of Management is a dab page. hence the abbreviation. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 20:41, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

It shouldn't be, to be honest. The other, Lithuanian ISM has a different name already- I'm thinking that the more famous ISM should link to the other in its hatnote, but a disambig isn't required for two articles (and four redlinks). --King Öomie 22:19, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Setting cquote free

Is it possible we could drop the prohibition against the use of cquote except for pull quotes? I know this has been discussed before , but cquote now seems to be widely used in articles. I think because lots of us feel it tends to make article more visually appealing. Its been said that users who want more attractive quotes can change the default skin - which is fair enough but surely we ought to be making articles look attractive for our general reader base not the < 0.1% tech savvy minority. Recently ive heard some developers saying W3 have been softening their stance regarding combining presentational elements with content. Is the time right for a change? FeydHuxtable (talk) 12:37, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I'd say it's time to change the practice, not the prohibition. It's a matter of judgement whether or not cquote makes articles look "more visually appealing". Personally I don't like them, they're too intrusive when used in the body of an article. --Malleus Fatuorum 12:43, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

The supposed improvement that cquote brings to the visual appeal of block quotes is contentious at best. Unadorned block quotes are standard typographic practice; why do we need to add bells and whistles? Strad (talk) 05:23, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Because in online text, indented text doesn't stand out as a quotation the same way as it does in printed text. It lacks visual prominence. The use of cquote conveys meaning that indentation doesn't. ThreeOfCups (talk) 22:33, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I fail to see how indentation is any less prominent in online text than in print. Indentation is indentation. Strad (talk) 03:18, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Possessives: section revised after recent discussion

Following recent discussion (see above), I have revised the Possessives section. Here is the text:

Current possessives section

Possessives For thorough treatment of the English possessive see Apostrophe. See also Apostrophes, above. Nouns For the possessive of most singular nouns, add 's (my daughter's achievement, my niece's wedding, Cortez's men, the boss's wife, Glass's books, Illinois's largest employer, Descartes's philosophy, Verreaux's eagle). Exception: abstract nouns that end with an /s/ sound, when followed by sake (for goodness' sake, for his conscience' sake). For the possessive of singular nouns that end in just one s (sounded as /s/ or /z/), there are three practices: Add 's: James's house, Sam Hodges's son, Jan Hus's life, Vilnius's location, Brahms's music, Dickens's novels, Morris's works, the bus's old route. Add just an apostrophe: James' house, Sam Hodges' son, Jan Hus' life, Vilnius' location, Brahms' music, Dickens' novels, Morris' works, the bus' old route. Add either 's or just an apostrophe, according to how the possessive is most often pronounced: More easily decided: Jan Hus's life, Sam Hodges' son, Morris's works, the bus's old route. Less easily decided: James's house (or James' house), Brahms's music (or Brahms' music), Vilnius's location (or Vilnius' location), Dickens's novels (or Dickens' novels). Practice must be consistent within an article; the third practice, endorsed in some form by most style guides, is recommended. Where there is disagreement over a pronunciation, the choice should be discussed and then that possessive adopted consistently in an article. Possessives of certain classical and biblical names have traditional pronunciations which may take precedence: Moses' leadership, Jesus' answer, Xerxes' expeditions, but Zeus's anger. In rare cases where such discussion yields no solution, rewording may be an option (The location of Vilnius is strategically important). For a normal plural noun, ending with a pronounced s, form the possessive by adding just an apostrophe (my sons' wives, my nieces' weddings). For a plural noun not ending with a pronounced s, add 's (women's careers, people's habits; The two Dumas's careers were controversial, but where rewording is an option, this may be better: The career of each Dumas was controversial). Official names (of companies, organizations, or places) should not be altered (St Thomas' Hospital should therefore not be rendered as St Thomas's Hospital, even for consistency). Pronouns The possessive its (the dog chased its tail) has no apostrophe, nor do hers, ours, yours, theirs, whose, and of course his, mine, and so on. (It's is the short form of it is or it has: it's a nice day, it's been a nice day.) Possessives of non-personal pronouns such as everyone, nobody, and anyone else are formed as if they were nouns (everyone's mother, nobody's hat, anyone else's opinion).

I have carefully reviewed all of the contributions to the discussion in the section above, and waited till seven days had elapsed since the last comment was made there. I have adopted what I can of other people's suggestions.

Given that more editors preferred the version I proposed above than any other version, given that I have waited and considered so long before offering this more developed form of it, given that I have consulted fifty (yes, fifty) hardcopy sources to ensure that what I propose fits with the broad consensus of style guides, and given that this new form ensures stability by contradicting nothing of importance in earlier forms of the guideline, I make this request: Please do not edit the guideline without patient and diligent consultation here first. To be frank, it is unlikely that a hasty assessment will be an accurate one; and the content and expression are of necessity finely balanced. It is long because of the intrinsic difficulty and because it covers almost all likely situations. (If I were writing just my preferred practice, incidentally, the text would be much shorter. This is a meticulously crafted compromise.)

A particular innovation is this inline note:

<!--NOTE: This topic is difficult and controversial in the major style guides, with consensus and stability hard to achieve; but the present comprehensive and streamlined version preserves the essential content of earlier versions. Please visit the talkpage BEFORE contemplating any change. Please maintain a permanent record of archived discussions at the head of any new discussion. If there is no current discussion, link the most recent archived discussion right here, in this note. (There IS discussion at the talkpage now.)-->

My broader suggestion is this: a moving record of the state of opinion can be put in place for any difficult guideline. When there is no discussion of possessives on the talkpage, the inline note can show the latest archived discussion. And there will be located a list of all earlier archived discussions, such as we see in the section I refer to, above. I propose this as an efficient general solution for the recording of consensus in our discussions.

Rather than comment on any details in my editing of the Possessives section, I now hope for comments, and the opportunity to explain some of the subtle choices that had to be made (particularly in the examples). And of course, we can weigh up together how things might be adjusted, if things have to be made even clearer. In conclusion: The English possessive has always been controversial, and the chaos of modern practice shifts faster than opinions do. What we DO need is a guideline that guides according to the best-researched consensus, that covers difficult cases, and shows how to settle any uncertainties. I truly believe we now have that. I have trodden cautiously, and I look forward to others doing the same.

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 12:02, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

:Oh, I went there first and tweaked the new version, but without making substantive changes. I think it's very good, at first reading, except that I wondered about this:

"Where there is disagreement over a pronunciation, the choice should be discussed and one practice adopted for the article. Possessives of certain classical and biblical names have traditional pronunciations which may take precedence: Moses' leadership, Jesus' answer, Xerxes' expeditions, but Zeus's anger. In rare cases where such discussion yields no solution, rewording may be an option (The location of Vilnius is strategically important)."

"Such discussion" appears to refer back to "disagreement ... be discussed ... " concerning pronunciation WRT the preferred Option 3, despite the intervening treatment of biblical names et al. Or does it refer to discussion about biblical names as well? Noetica, can you clarify it in the text, either by relocating the final sentence or explicating that "such discussion" refers to all of the foregoing? Tony (talk) 12:12, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

On second thought, I have to disagree with editorial practice that arrogates the right to change MoS, but then then reverts subsequent copy-edits. I believe Noetica's version should be withdrawn and discussed here first. In particular, this "innovation" of what amounts to a local block on editing is a bit hard to swallow. Another major problem is the opaqueness of the categorisations into "More easily decided" and "Less easily decided" to the normal editors who come here for clear, simple advice. This version is not going to work in its current state, I'm afraid. Tony (talk) 12:17, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

"I believe Noetica's version should be withdrawn and discussed here first." ditto - discussion before editing is a great policy, and it needs to apply to everyone.

is "the third practice, endorsed in some form by most style guides, is recommended" meant to override the usual stipulation that editors should not change an article from one accepted style to another without a substantial reason unrelated to mere choice of style?

"according to how the possessive is most often pronounced" doesn't seem helpful to resolve doubts or disputes. even editors whose first language is English have different pronunciations/perceptions (do most people really pronounce the possessive of Jesus the same way as the non-possessive??).

what is the aim of the "more easily decided" and "less easily decided" categories?

and some fine-tuning: it's not going to be obvious to every editor that in the third option, 's would be added when the possessive form is pronounced with an added syllable; that needs to be stated explicitly, with IPA provided. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sssoul (talk • contribs) 13:52, 22 August 2009

Explicit IPA would be overkill, but we can replace the third point with:

1. Just add an apostrophe if the possessive is pronounced the same way as the non-possessive name; add "'s" if the possessive has an additional /ɪz/ at the end:
   • Jan Hus's life, Sam Hodges' son, Morris's works, the bus's old route.
   • Some possessives have two possible pronunciations: James's house or James' house, Brahms's music or Brahms' music, Vilnius's location or Vilnius' location, Dickens's novels or Dickens' novels.

I'd keep the subsequent explanation intact. --___A. di M. 14:38, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

smile, A di M: what you've done with the IPA is what i meant, so i guess it's not overkill. but instead of "Just add an apostrophe" it should read Add only an apostrophe; and we need to provide a few examples of each form separately - Sam Hodges' son looks more like a typo than an example in that series.

your second point about two possible pronunciations is true, of course, but what form of possessive are Wikipedia editors supposed to write in those cases - whose pronunciation "counts"? Sssoul (talk) 15:25, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I thought you was suggesting to give IPA for every single example. Replaced "Just add" with "Add only". As for your question, there already is a paragraph addressing that ("Practice must ... ... strategically important"). --___A. di M. 15:37, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

"Where there is disagreement over a pronunciation, the choice should be discussed" doesn't offer any guidance to resolve disagreements – and as we already know, editors can get very heated about this kind of thing. Sssoul (talk) 15:53, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Noetica did an excellent job of incorporating and resolving the practices recommended by the various style guides and other sources. At some point, someone has to take a stand and edit the project, and Noetica clearly did sufficient research to support the guidelines presented. People may disagree on the more easily vs. less easily resolved examples—but they're just examples, and they make their point. If I were to change anything (and I'm not advocating change), I'd more strongly stress that the way to resolve editorial dispute is to recast the sentence, removing the possessive altogether. But any changes made should be to presentation rather than content. ThreeOfCups (talk) 20:12, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

It is weird, to say the least, that someone who campaigned loudly about the protected status of the guideline should make a massive edit to a section and place a sign on it saying do not dare edit this. I do not support the new version. Tony (talk) 00:19, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

• I agree in part with both sides here. There is a legitimate mixed style; so far so good. Including it is an advantage to Wikipedia.
• I don't think basing the distinction on pronunciation is helpful; Charles's has an extra syllable, Charles' doesn't; but which of them is correct? That just pushes it back a step, to a question which it is very difficult for non-anglophones to answer at all, and almost impossible for editors to compare evidence.
• Fowler based the distinction on tone and subject; Jesus' and Socrates' are classical figures, treated in a solemn manner. This may be a good guide; but a simpler rule of thumb is that (unlike James and Charles) Jesusand Socrates have a sounded vowel before the s. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:31, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Septentrionalis may not think "basing the distinction on pronunciation is helpful," but many style guides do. People hear words in their head as they read, so the way possessives are written should accord with how they're pronounced. Non-native speakers should defer to editors who are native speakers in resolving any dispute. The presence or absence of a sounded vowel immediately before the s is a good guide to pronunciation, though not infallible. ThreeOfCups (talk) 20:50, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Non-native speakers should defer to editors who are native speakers in resolving any dispute. If that were done, we would have significantly fewer disputes; but it isn't. Any guidance which assumes that the decision will in practice be made by anglophones is begging for trouble; we can get much the same results, rather more simply, by recommending consultation of usage (in printed books, for example). Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:22, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Septentrionalis, you seemed to be suggesting that non-native speakers would have difficulty determining the correct pronunciation. I'm only suggesting that they then defer to native speakers in that particular case. Written texts don't provide sufficient guidance because style guides disagree. That's why we're having this discussion. ThreeOfCups (talk) 01:30, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) "but many style guides do" – true, but other style guides can assume a piece of writing has a limited number of editors for a limited period of time, and then becomes stable. that's not the situation the Wikipedia MoS is dealing with. and it isn't only non-native speakers who have doubts and disagreements about which pronunciation "sounds right" or "makes sense" – that's apparent just from the discussion here on this page. whose pronunciation should be deferred to in those instances? the MoS needs to give clear guidance on that if a pronunciation-based option is going to be included.
the version in which it depends whether the noun/name has a sounded vowel before the final /s/ or /z/ sound might be worth considering as a compromise – it doesn't fit my pronunciation, but maybe it would be clear-cut enough for Wikipedia purposes ... but then, i thought the OUP policy (just apostrophe when the final syllable is pronounced like the verb is) was clear-cut enough too, and it turned out to be misunderstandable.
meanwhile, i agree with Tony about the "innovation" of the added note aimed at stifling alterations to this section - i might sympathize with the sentiment, but that note should be removed. Sssoul (talk) 11:43, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I think the note was more of an entreaty than an attempt to stifle alterations. Also, let me reiterate that my statement about non-native speakers was intended to address only the concern that some people might not know how the word is pronounced, and therefore the pronunciation guideline would not be useful to them. As for disagreement about pronunciation, the best choice is to recast the sentence to eliminate the possessive, as the article states. ThreeOfCups (talk) 00:11, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

the entreaty should be removed, in that case - we all know the feeling, i'm sure, but it doesn't seem appropriate, especially when Option 3 as it stands isn't adequate to resolve editors' doubts or disputes, and there's no reason to recommend it over the other two options. i also disagree that in disputes it's necessarily true that "the best choice is to recast the sentence"; it may be that a better choice is one of the other two options (either just apostrophe throughout, or apostrophe-s throughout). Sssoul (talk) 06:20, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I do not think that we should recast sentences because of external causes, such as disputes between editors. We should only do that when the words themselves are awkward or otherwise problematic. Good, encyclopedic writing should come first. Darkfrog24 (talk) 13:56, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I like Noetica's suggestion on top, but I do agree that in some circumstances "In rare cases where such discussion yields no solution, rewording may be an option" amounts to cutting the nose to spite the face. I'd rather replace that with "In rare cases where such discussion yields no solution, stick to the spelling used by the first editor who added that possessive to the article." --___A. di M. 14:27, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

If intelligent editors can't agree about how the possessive should be spelled, chances are, either choice is going to be jarring to some portion of the readership. Yes, good writing comes first. But part of good writing is recognizing that when intelligent people disagree, maybe it's time to look for a different option that everyone can agree on. Is "Venus's temple" (or "Venus' temple") really better stylistically than "the temple of Venus"? I don't think so. But I can go along with the idea that if the text reads "Venus' temple," an editor shouldn't change it to "Venus's temple." That's just asking for trouble. ThreeOfCups (talk) 17:32, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually, no it isn't. Recognizing that intelligent people can disagree is a good thing, and so is eating a balanced diet, but neither of those are part of good writing. Darkfrog24 (talk) 23:58, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

My view is that if there are native speakers pronouncing /tʃɑrlz kɑr/ and native speakers pronouncing /tʃɑrlzɪz kɑr/, then both Charles' car and Charles's car are acceptable, so the ArbCom decision about optional styles applies. Writing the car of Charles so that neither group of editors is discontented is just plain silly. In some cases it can also change the meaning: James's statue is a statue owned by him, the statue of James is a statue depicting him. --___A. di M. 12:32, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

ENGVAR query

Under Strong national ties to a topic, it says:

In a biographical or critical article, it may be best to use the subject's own variety of English (where there is a definite preference), especially if the author's writings are quoted in the article. For example, avoid American English commentary on quotations from Tolkien's very British prose.

Why should American English commentary be avoided? Surely if it's directly quoted, the US spelling is retained, and it it's paraphrased, BrEng is used. Shouldn't this be made clear? Tony (talk) 08:31, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I think the point is that no quote using US spelling will be derived from Tolkien's work. The MoS advises the use of the English variant adopted by the subject in biographical articles, especially in the case that the subject is quoted. That seems fair enough to me and fits in with old precedents. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 08:40, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your note, AnonDiss. However, it does say "commentary on", not the actual prose. "Very British" is a little subjective, too, in such a formal context. I do think this needs surgery. Does it have to be very British prose to rule out American English in an article on it? I'm not being perverse; I just think this section is unduly hard for editors to absorb. Tony (talk) 10:27, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

"Very" is indeed unbecoming of this manual; and "very British" has precious little concrete meaning anyway. If nothing else, that particular word should be eliminated. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 12:16, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

the way i understand that MOS passage, it doesn't mean quotes from US literary critics should be avoided; it means Wikipedia editors should avoid using American English when they write about ("comment on") Tolkien's work. i agree that it's unfortunately phrased; it would be clearer if it said: "Avoid using American English in articles about British literary works, and vice versa." quotations don't have anything to do with it, i think. Sssoul (talk) 11:54, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

OK. How recently was that bit put in? It certainly wasn't there when I rewrote this section about two years ago. Does it mean an article that just includes commentary on The lord of the rings, among other matters, has to be written in BrEng? Or does it have to be the overall theme of the article? I think this is way too problematic, and I'm unsure it was thought through properly when entered. We could take the view that the guideline for ENGVAR is quite strong enough, clear enough, without that sentence. Tony (talk) 12:23, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

It is part of the rationale for using BrE in the article about Tolkien, or about one of his works. Of course, if for some reason we were quoting The Lord of the Rings in an article written in American English (e.g. one about an American writer), it'd be OK to talk about that quote in AmE. --___A. di M. 12:59, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I think we must be misinterpreting the word "commentary." A Wikipedia article about Lord of the Rings would certainly be in British English, and there would certainly be many articles written in American English about Lord of the Rings and, when directly quoted, the American English spelling and punctuation must certainly be preserved. I think this rule must really mean to say that Wikipedians' own "comments" (by which it must mean additional encyclopedic text because we're not supposed to add personal comments to articles) must then be written in British English. Also, instead of saying "avoid American English," we should be more direct and say "use British English," so as not to imply that the Canadians, Australians and others don't exist.

We should change this line so that it reads "...outside of direct quotes from non-British scholars and critics, use British English in Wikipedia articles about J.R.R. Tolkien." Darkfrog24 (talk) 13:38, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Let me toss a tiny spanner (US: monkey wrench) in the general direction of the works. When a British book is republished in the US, or an American book republished in Britain, the publishers (and/or printers) are usually quite careful to convert the spelling and punctuation to their own nation's, and their own readers', conventions (usually the publisher's own house style). Before international anti-cartel rules kicked in a decade or two ago, there used to be explicit agreements between publishers, so that, for example, Thomas Nelson would publish the British edition of W. W. Norton books, and Norton publish the US version of Nelson's. This is true even when the publisher's owner is on the other side of the Atlantic, as you can see by looking at a British book published by the U.S. branch of the Oxford University Press. So when an American editor has a copy of Tolkien's work (or J. K. Rowling's) published by an American house (which is more likely than having a British-published copy), the spelling and punctuation is most likely to be American. In citing or quoting from his or her American copy, the editor could try to reconvert back to what might have been the original British spelling and punctuation, but there's no real guarantee that that's what will actually come out, as there are many British variations, e.g. in spelling realize/realise. The same is equally true in reverse about a British editor citing from a British copy of an American work, say by J. K. Galbraith (Canadian-born, I know, but a U.S. citizen and former U.S. ambassador).. —— Shakescene (talk) 14:37, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Darkfrog, I presume you mean "... be many sources written in ...". Perhaps it wasn't intended to refer to WPs' comments (NOR). Instead, it may be an obtuse way of making a distinction between directly quoting sources (preserve its variety) and paraphrasing them (use the global choice of variety for the article? This distinction does need to be made, and is not present in ENGVAR. Why don't we assume that this is the intended meaning and clarify the text accordingly?

Shakescene (e.c.) The issue of US or UK edition seems irrelevant: what counts, I think, is the variety used by the "subject", i.e., the author. "In a biographical or critical article, it may be best to use the subject's own variety of English (where there is a definite preference), especially if the author's writings are quoted in the article." I must say that this statement is fluffy and woolly though! Tony (talk) 15:17, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

No, I meant articles, as in articles in literary journals. I did not happen to mean Wikipedia articles. Darkfrog24 (talk) 18:47, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

British and American editions

I'm moving this to a subheading to avoid further interruption of the earlier exchange.

As my thoughts clarify, I guess the question is what guidance, if any, should be given to someone who owns a book written in Britain but published in the U.S., or vice-versa. I happen to own both the British (John Murray) and American (Houghton Mifflin) editions of Parkinson's Law and have a long-postponed aim of adding more-concrete citations, with brief quotations, to WP:Bicycle shed. Of course, I would copy from the British edition, since the late C. Northcote Parkinson was British. But suppose I had only the U.S. edition. Should I be advised to transpose the American spellings and punctuation to what I think are the original English ones, hoping that the owner of a British edition might be able to step in and fix any errors? Being born in London to London-born parents but living in the U.S. for five decades, I'm much more aware of, knowledgeable about and interested in the differences than the average editor or reader, but I wouldn't always be able to know where the original British punctuation had been within or outside quotation marks, or how the original spelt words like "realize", "analyze", "discoloration" or "glamorous". Or is it better to advise such editors (especially non-experts) to keep the format of their own text, and let owners of the original text make the corrections? —— Shakescene (talk) 22:35, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Quotations should match the source. That's why it is important to name the publisher and edition of a book in the citation, because different versions may exist. It would be especially important to match an online source, since the reader may use the quote to search for the relevant phrase in the online source. --Jc3s5h (talk) 22:39, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

"We could take the view that the guideline for ENGVAR is ... clear enough without that sentence." it's pretty plain from this discussion that the sentence is less than comprehensible. can we delete it, please? Sssoul (talk) 06:22, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Paragraph breaks between a pronoun and its antecedent

Am I the only one who finds paragraphs starting with stuff such as Because of this (where "this" refers to something in the previous paragraph) to be slightly awkward? Whenever I see that, if both paragraphs are reasonably short, I just remove the break between them. Would it be useful to mention this somewhere in the MoS? --___A. di M. 16:38, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Is MOS supposed to include general grammar and style issues, or just things specific to Wikipedia usage? --Auntof6 (talk) 20:58, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Just Wikipedia, Auntof6. General grammar and style issues sometimes have their own encyclopedia entries, though. Case in point, Wikipedia's take on quotation marks differs significantly from standard American English, differs somewhat from British English and would be inappropriate outside of Wikipedia (though my own take is that it's also inappropriate here). Darkfrog24 (talk) 22:11, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

It's natural for paragraphs to lead into one another. This is another case of something that's awkward some of the time and just fine the rest of the time. It can even be good. Darkfrog24 (talk) 22:11, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

1. Often what needs changing is the vague or indefinite pronoun, as in "Because of this" (because of this what?) Wikipedia tends to like long paragraphs, but depending on the subject, shorter ones are often much easier on the reader. And as you build up the chronology of your narrative or the logic of your exposition, the reader needs to see the progression or the contrast, which is what those little connective phrases do. "Because (as we have shown) these two elements are normally hard to fuse...", "After this series of alleged provocations...", "Once the stage had thus been set...", "Following these setbacks in the campaign...", "Without this promised foreign aid...", "Since neither of these conditions would hold...", etc.
2. If A. di M. comes up with a narrower piece of advice that wins more acceptance here, then that would be another example of something helpful that doesn't seem to have a home right now, like the proposed guideline about shorter sentences. —— Shakescene (talk) 08:17, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

   Looking at my contributions list, I've found this; I thought that was not the only instance of something like that, but maybe I did the other ones while logged out or with vague edit summaries. A rough draft wording could be: “Avoid using pronouns such as this, as well as demonstrative adjectives with vague nouns such as this rule, near the start of a paragraph when they refer to something introduced in the previous paragraph; consider merging the paragraphs if they are short enough and they discuss one idea, otherwise use more specific noun phrases such as the Madelung energy ordering rule.” For some reason this wording doesn't sound too right to me, but I hope you get the idea. --___A. di M. 12:12, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

This might belong someplace like WP:BETTER. Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:33, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

• Once we stray into more than a little advice about cohesion, tone, etc—those more complex and subtle aspects of writing—we'll open the floodgates for a whole lot more text. I can think of loads of stuff I'd put in before the para-break back-reference issue. Tony (talk) 01:52, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
  • "Floodgates" indeed. The purpose of the MOS is not to document every conceivable problem with prose. We all speak English and we can all come to agreements on a case-by-case basis when it comes to simple issues like this. If an article has a clumsy sentence, just fix it. —Werson (talk) 04:03, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Verb tense: present perfect versus preterite

I have noticed that there is a tendency to use the present perfect verb tense (I have gone) instead of the preterit (I went), which is evident in as many as ten to twenty percent of Wikipedia articles in the English language. The tendency appears to be almost exclusively to use the present perfect instead of the preterit, possibly because they are more interchangeable in French, German and Italian than in English. (In Spanish, there seems to be a difference between Old World and New World style in this regard, and there may be a touch of an Old World-New World dichotomy in informal (but not formal) English.) These tenses have different meanings in English, with the present perfect referring to actions in the recent past which have may some continuing present implication and/or may not be fully concluded in the present (e.g., she has gone, but she'll come back) and with the preterit referring to actions that are fully concluded in the past (e.g., she went away; she won't come back). See Article on tenses. Here is one example: the article Zoroastrians in Iran states: "Prophet Zoroaster and his first followers have been the proto-Indo-Iranians that lived between the Stone Age and Bronze Age (est. 1400-1200BC)." It must be that what is meant is "were" and not "have been" because the passage refers to the Bronze Age, for which all action is concluded. This is not an isolated occurrence but, as noted, seems to occur in ten to twenty percent of Wikipedia articles in English. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bob99 (talk • contribs) 15:10, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

The Zoroastrianism example is certainly incorrect. However, I think you may be overthinking what causes this. Consider that many English-speaking contributors speak just the one language. It's probably that the past perfect sounds more correct and formal and encyclopedic than the preterit, even when it isn't.

As far as correcting the problem... I do not believe the word "tense" even appears in the MoS in its current form. Shall we correct this with a brief sentence on preferred tenses? Darkfrog24 (talk) 17:21, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

i don't think grammar lessons are an effective function of the MoS. let's just correct the errors when we find them. Sssoul (talk) 17:33, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Yep, it's too big already, and we could end up tripling the size to 60K words if we want to teach everyone how to write. It has to be rationed to be usable by editors. Tony (talk) 08:34, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Guys, don't think about whether the MoS is too long. That is a separate issue. Think about whether we need to tell writers, "the preterit tense is standard for encyclopedic prose" or whether "use encyclopedic style" already covers that. Focus on better, not longer or shorter. Darkfrog24 (talk) 13:41, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

No need to include this, per Sssoul. Not a grammar textbook. --LjL (talk) 13:46, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I'd never heard of "preterite"—thought it was species of dinosaur. Tony (talk) 08:56, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Most of us just say "past tense." Darkfrog24 (talk) 13:37, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

"Focus on better, not longer or shorter" - that's what i'm doing, thanks: teaching the use of English-language tenses isn't something the MoS can effectively do. "the past tense is standard for encyclopedic prose" isn't true. "use encyclopedic style" covers it. when we find mistakes, we can correct them. Sssoul (talk) 14:32, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

En dashes in page names

En dashes in page names is not something that this guideline should give advise on. It is something for the Naming conventions. --PBS (talk) 18:30, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. This page provides advice on dashes and hyphens, and it's unacceptable that there not be coordination between the main text and article titles. Tony (talk) 05:11, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Why is it unacceptable? Which are people looking for a name more likely to type into their computer a hyphen or a dash? --PBS (talk) 14:40, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

It says you need to place a hyphen redirect for it. Non-issue, surely. Tony (talk) 14:45, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

See what I said in the first paragraph. -- PBS (talk) 17:48, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

• I've read it again. It looks to be in the form of an order. Tony (talk) 06:18, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

No it is not an order, and you are an order and you are an experienced enough editor to know that it could not be an order. I would and have made the same statement about naming conventions that trespass into the area of style because such cross functionality lead to confusion when two different guidelines from different areas of the project give different advise. See for example this naming convention, Wikipedia:Naming conventions (chemistry)#Element names, and my comment on the talk page of that convention: Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (chemistry)#Use in the articles) -- PBS (talk) 18:59, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Summary of MOSNUM started

Following Tony1's proposal, I've started writing a very brief summary (my goal is approx. 25% of the full text) of WP:MOSNUM, intended to eventually replace sections from 10 to 13 of WP:MOS. Feel free to collaborate at User:A. di M./MOSNUM. --___A. di M. 21:05, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Manual of Style (pronunciation)/IPA vs. other pronunciation symbols has been marked as part of the Manual of Style

Wikipedia:Manual of Style (pronunciation)/IPA vs. other pronunciation symbols (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has recently been edited to mark it as part of the Manual of Style. This is an automated notice of the change (more information). -- VeblenBot (talk) 02:00, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, I don't think this is legitimate unless consensus is demonstrated. Can you link us to it, please? Tony (talk) 03:45, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Seconded. This issue was already raised earlier. If it's as easy as that to make something officially part of the MoS then why the delay? Who needs discussion, just mass move everything from Category:Wikipedia style guideline proposals straight into Category:Wikipedia style guidelines and be done with it. -- œ^™ 04:13, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

In defense of this addition, this is merely a handy chart of the IPA (which as a less-than-familiar American, I appreciate) on a subpage of a page that's already part of the MOS, apparently separated out to make direct linking more convnient. This is simply a bit of rearranging the existing content. And I wouldn't expect too much of a response from the notifier, as it was an automated bot. I don't think it'll respond.oknazevad (talk) 04:43, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, we do need to keep tabs on proposals. It is not acceptable that any page can be suddenly called a MoS page without an audit. Otherwise, the name MoS is distinctly wobbly. Tony (talk) 08:22, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Where should we keep our tabs? -- Hoary (talk) 10:46, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Generally, I concur about the addition of new material to the corpus of the MOS, but my main thought here is that this isn't a new addition, just a division of an existing page, therefore it isn't an issue. oknazevad (talk) 00:21, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Religious movements and capitalization

I am trying to bring some uniformity to articles on religion. I need a consensus on capitalzation of religious movements. Most of the articles on religion go crazy on capitalization, probably out of respect for the particular sect. We have agreed that Pentecostal and its adjectives should be capitalized the same as Methodist. But there are many movements-oneness, higher life, evangelical, fundamental, holiness, etc. The manual discourages rampant capitalization. What shall I do with all these religious movements? We may run out of capital letters! R/T-รัก-ไทย (talk) 01:05, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

This topic did come up recently, although I can't remember the location or the outcome, if any. Sometimes a word like reformed or evangelical or orthodox is descriptive or qualifying and should not be capitalized (in my strictly personal opinion) to avoid ambiguity ("X's views were strictly orthodox in this regard" or "the Maryknolls are an evangelical order" or "the reformed Anglican diocese proved far more effective"), since the capitalized Evangelical often distinguishes Lutheran churches, the capitalized Reformed often refers to Calvinist, Zwinglian, Congregational or Presbyterian churches, and Orthodox is contrasted from Roman Catholic (and Protestant) among Christians, and from Conservative, Reformed and Reconstructionist Judaism among Jews. —— Shakescene (talk) 05:19, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Just as a note, though, while it is true that (capital E) Evangelical = Lutheran historically, and remains such in European contexts, in American usage, the distinction is no longer common, as many churches (especially non-affiliated ones) use it as part of their names even if they have no specific Lutheran background. oknazevad (talk) 17:51, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I'd have to agree, just as the "Episcopal" in African Methodist Episcopal (A.M.E.) and African Methodist Episcopal Zion (A.M.E.Z.) is part of the name, indicating that these churches have bishops, not that they're an integral part of the Anglican Communion or the Episcopalian Church. If Evangelical or Orthodox or Episcopal or Reformed is part of the church's or congregation's title, capitalize it. If it's descriptive, it's usually better not to ("the A.M.E.Z. Church has an episcopal structure.") But of course the more difficult question that was posed is how one treats descriptions of a church's adherents or activities as opposed to the institution itself. —— Shakescene (talk) 06:18, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Use of "The" mid-sentence

I find the example that currently refers to a generic "the" confusing. A definite article cannot be generic. A noun phrase can be a proper name or it can be "generic", but not the definite artice itself. If the noun phrase is "generic", of course, there is no question of capitalization; and the United Kingdom is not generic. The noun phrase "the united kingdom" can, of course, be used generically: Britain is not the united kingdom that it used to be. I think what we need to say is that, other than in titles, the definite article is conventionally not capitalized, even when it is (or could be regarded as) part of a proper name: the United Kingdom, the Hebrides, the President of the United States. We should perhaps also state somewhere that the names of newspapers (such as the Guardian are not normally treated as titles in the same way as book titles (such as The Origin of the Species).

However there are a few conventional exceptions to this rule. I suggest we actually list the known exceptions, since there appears to be no general rule. "The Hague" is already given as an exception. Other candidates might be The Times and The Beatles. We should perhaps also discuss the exceptions to the exception, such as the Hague ruling, the Times article, and the Beatles song, where "the" is neither capitalized nor repeated. --Boson (talk) 15:47, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

See several threads in Talk:The Bronx for extended discussion of whether The Bronx should be so capitalized mid-sentence (consensus, which varies from that of many New Yorkers: no), combined with discussion of whether The is part of the Bronx's name (consensus: yes, except for the County of Bronx and the postal address Bronx, NY). ¶ By the way, I think that if a newspaper includes "The" in its name on the front page and in its masthead (something different), then "The" should probably should be both capitalized and italicised. It should certainly be italicised in "the Chronicle article". —— Shakescene (talk) 17:09, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I see that The Oxford Guide to Style (like other incarnations of Hart's Rules?) says:

For periodicals, capitalize The only for one-word titles: The Times, The Spectator (but today's Times, the Spectator article); the New Yorker, the Yearbook of English Studies.

I actually thought the OUP only capitalized The Times, not the Guardian, as seems to be confirmed here and here, although the Guardian masthead has The Guardian. The Guardian style guide has:

newspaper titles: the Guardian, the Observer, the New York Times, etc, . . .

The Times style guide has:

newspapers and journals; use italics for titles and make sure to use The in the title whenever appropriate. . . . In the UK and Ireland with The in the masthead: . . . The Times, The Sunday Times, The Sun; The Guardian. . . .

Chicago (14th ed.) has:

When newspapers and periodicals are mentioned in the text, an initial The, omitted in note citations, is set in roman type and, unless it begins a sentence, is lowercased.

. So practice varies quite a lot.--Boson (talk) 20:24, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I was just saying (as an aside) what I think, as opposed to whatever consensus might exist, but there's certainly a lot of variation, in practice as well as in formal style-guides. Newspapers didn't like to use italics for various reasons, but they often capitalized The in newspaper's names (in roman type) within the body text. Now italics aren't so difficult, but many newspapers have dropped "The". The Guardian itself seems to be of several minds about what to call itself, partly because different departments or different generations have different feelings about its origins as The Manchester Guardian [and Manchester Evening News]; on the one hand you have The Manchester Guardian Weekly and on the other, "guardian.uk" (describing the website). I find it much easier to see that (for example) "the Observer" refers to the newspaper if it's italicised or The is capitalised, or preferably both, because the Observer (or the Guardian or the Appeal), even capitalised, could refer to something else. —— Shakescene (talk) 21:04, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

On the grounds of accuracy, I think my personal preference for newspapers would be the same as yours, i.e. capitalize (and italicize) The if it is the name printed on the front page and in the masthead, but I haven't thought through all the consequences; compliance might be a problem if it requires knowledge of the masthead. I would also omit "The" when the name is used attributively (. . . the Times article). I am still wondering about consistent rules for foreign language periodicals; I would personally tend to write according to a report in Der Spiegel but . . . in spite of the Spiegel's reputation for getting its facts right; on the other hand I would probably write . . . in spite of Le Monde's reputation for getting its facts right, and the use of italics followed by a roman apostrophe is a bit of a problem for Wiki markup (and possibly for legibility). Do we actualy have a rule on the use of a roman apostrophe following an italicized name. --Boson (talk) 10:47, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't consider the article in "the United Kingdom" or in "the President of the United States" as part of the proper name, but I would in "The Origin of the Species" and "The Hague". So I would do something like that:

The definite article is not normally capitalized in the middle of a sentence, except when it is part of a proper name. There are idiomatic exceptions both ways: for example, titles of newspapers and other periodicals, especially those where several words follow the article and those of periodicals not published in the UK or Ireland, are usually treated as if the article were not part of the name, even if it is.) Common usage should be followed on a case-by-case basis. As usual, it is a good idea to consult the sources of the article.

Incorrect

He had read an article about The United Kingdom.

Correct

He had read an article about the United Kingdom. (The name is "United Kingdom".)

Incorrect

There are two seaside resorts in the Hague.

Correct

There are two seaside resorts in The Hague. (The name is "The Hague".)

Incorrect

Homer wrote The Odyssey.

Correct

Homer wrote the Odyssey. (The title is "Odyssey".)

Incorrect

Tolkien wrote the Lord of the Rings.

Correct

Tolkien wrote The Lord of the Rings. (The title is "The Lord of the Rings".)

Incorrect

He had read an article in The New York Times.

Correct

He had read an article in the New York Times.

I think "the Beatles" is a special case: "Beatle" is often used as a countable noun to refer to the members of the band (whereas no-one would refer to Jim Morrison as a Door), so there's nothing to stop you from claiming that when writing "the Beatles" you are simply using the noun for the members of the band, especially if you use a plural verb, as usual in British English. --___A. di M. 11:11, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

But can it be succinctly put? In about 20% of the words? Tony (talk) 13:55, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

... sorry, but who decided the title of the newspaper isn't The New York Times??

and in my experience editing music articles, on Wikipedia "The Beatles" isn't an exception; the "the" in band names gets capitalized mid-sentence more often than not: "a member of The Doors/a founder of The Rolling Stones/the drummer in The Clash" - it's not what i do in my normal writing, but it's one of those Wikipedia Style Things i've gotten used to. (and by the way, A di M, the use of a plural verb after "(the) Beatles" isn't British English - it's internationally normal. i think you're thinking of the use of a plural verb in some situations after a singular collective noun like the band are ready to go - that is indeed way more British than American.) Sssoul (talk) 15:42, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Taking a look at the leads of some articles in WP:FA#Music about American bands, I see "Alice in Chains is an American rock band ...", "Audioslave was an American hard rock supergroup ...", "Megadeth is an American heavy metal band ...", "Metallica /məˈtælɨkə/ is an American heavy metal band ...", "Nine Inch Nails is an American industrial rock project ...", etc. I guess the reason for the plural verb for "the Beatles" is the same one (you wouldn't refer to Trent Reznor as a Nine Inch Nail). British (and Irish) English appears to use the plural consistently: "Radiohead are an English alternative rock band ...", "Motörhead are a British rock band ...", "U2 are a rock band formed in Dublin, Ireland." (BTW, the argument about "the Beatles" was the other way round: there are people writing it with a lower-case "the"[39][40], but you wouldn't want to do that with "The Doors". --___A. di M. 16:09, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

So how does one treat Bob Dylan's former backup, The Band?. I wouldn't write "... the Band are well-known ..." or "...the Band are a well-known band ..." —— Shakescene (talk) 17:07, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

That would depend not on whether the band in question had an American or British affiliation, but whether the article did. Since the Band is American, its article would probably be written in American English, so we'd say "the Band is/was," but if the Band got a mention in any article that, for whatever reason, was written in British English, we'd say "the Band are/were."

Using a plural verb on a singular noun strikes me as off and wrong, but hey, so does spelling "color" with a U. Darkfrog24 (talk) 18:42, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The article uses the singular when referring to the band as a whole ("The Band was a rock music group ..."), which is fine in American English (I assume Canadian English does the same); but I'm not sure I'd write "the Band" with a small tee as the article does. --___A. di M. 18:46, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

• OK, it's worth inserting this, as has been done, and well done for spotting the issue; but the addition is 136 words long! It can be done in 41 words, in addition explicitly capturing the account-for-usage issue ("the UK", but "The Hague"). Tony (talk) 04:04, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

sorry about the singular/plural digression - it's not the case that British English always uses plural verbs after singular collective nouns, and Nine Inch Nails is an interesting case - but that's not the question here. all i meant to point out was:

• if Wikipedia is adopting a standard not to midsentence-capitalize the "the" in band names, it's fine with me, but it will be a significant change from current practice; and
  
• why is "The New York Times" suddenly deemed incorrect, when the name of the paper includes the article? Sssoul (talk) 06:52, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to second Triple S here, the The is fully part of the name of The New York Times, and should be capitalized when the full name is used. When the abbreviated form "the Times" is used, it can be lowercase, as it's not part of the actual, full title there, but it should be capitalized for the full titleoknazevad (talk) 02:15, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

• From the boxed text above: isn't the name—grammatically—"the United Kingdom", not "United Kingdom", at least as a noun, even though we drop the "the" in short texts and by convention in other contexts (Liverpool, UK), and as an adjective ("her UK passport"). So there's a difference, is there, between a grammatical unit as title, and a title title ("the" vs "The), maybe? I'm thinking through ... "the The Hague City Council" ... weird. I'm lost. Tony (talk) 11:04, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to interrupt, but first of all I'd like to say that I haven't read this whole arguement, but in the ESL business we haven't been able to come up with a better summary of the rule than this:

Capitalize "the" if it is an integral part of the name.

(The "mid-sentence" part is covered in the rule about starting sentences, but you might like to keep it.)

For example: They call him The Hulk. but You know, the Hulk Hogan from the new reality show is a very different Hulk Hogan from that of my childhood.

I would definitely caution against trying to spell out in so many words what exactly would constitute "an integral part". Believe me, it's not a simple matter - take it from me, I've had to look it up and prepare lesson plans for groups of Slavic and Asian language students, and it takes a long time to master and then you really never get down to real rules, only general guidelines with an unsatisfying number of exceptions (yes for newspapers, no for rivers, ad nauseam.)

Another reason not to try to spell out "an integral part" is the fact that it's unnecessary. You're not teaching ESL here, and you have to assume that the authors of text on English Wikipedia know English or they'd be at the Chinese one or something. People who know about The Beatles or Talking Heads are responsible to know if the definite article is an integral part of the name or not in a particular context. Let them check the sources or argue it out on the proper talk pages if there's some doubt.

I hope this helps! Chrisrus (talk) 04:44, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

'Capitalize "the" if it is an integral part of the name and let individual articles sort out the application of that for themselves' sounds right to me, but it's probably worth adding a caveat that the titles of Wikipedia articles are not a reliable guide. (as Tony points out, it's the [or The] United Kingdom, even though the title of the Wikipedia article omits the article.) Sssoul (talk) 04:58, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

One good rule of thumb for determining whether something is an integral part of a name is whether or not "the" would be set off from the body text along with the rest of the name. It's not The New York Times or the New York Times. It's The New York Times.

Of course, it doesn't work all the time. Also, I'm not sure if "integral part of the name" necessitates that the definite article must be categorized. We almost never refer to the Hulk as just Hulk, but the "the" is uncapitalized. Darkfrog24 (talk) 13:32, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, maybe The Hulk is not always written with a capital T on the definate article, but it absolutely should be, because that's his name: The Hulk. Why would you say that The Hulk is not written with a capital T? It is too! Chrisrus (talk) 06:35, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

That is one of the things that was being discussed: whether Wikipedia should always capitalize "the" when it is part of a name; and if not, what criteria to apply. Different publishers observe different conventions. Otherwise everybody would write "The Argentine", "The Hebrides", "The Guardian", "The United Kingdom", etc. --Boson (talk) 08:37, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

That's what we're talking about. Just because an article is part of the name doesn't mean that it's a capitalized part of the name. If you pick up a copy of Marvel Zombies 2 (delightful, by the way), you will see the characters refer to Hulk as "the Hulk." Darkfrog24 (talk) 13:37, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

As Darkfrog24 rightly says, "the" is not an integral part of the proper name when referring to the Hulk. It is with the formal title The New York Times or The Hague, but not with the Hulk, the Joker, the Spirit, or the Phantom (the character, although the comic strip is formally titled The Phantom). Please see these blue-linked examples. Consistency is important in order to keep all of us on the same page and avoid the encyclopedia looking sloppy.-- Tenebrae (talk) 14:46, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Although "integral part of the name" sounds intuitively correct in some undefinable way, I don't know if it is much use. One could put it round the other way and judge if "the" is an integral part of the name based on whether you would capitalize it. "The" is an integral part of the name, in the sense that it is always included, even in names where "the" is not normally capitalized in running text. The exception would seem to be that the is always omitted when the name is used attributively (so you don't write several The Hague tribunals). I am also not sure that we can leave it up to the sources, since different publications have different house styles, which they apparently use consistently. Wikipedia apparently uses The Guardian, and this seems to be confirmed by The Oxford Guide to Style but the newspaper in question refers to itself as the Guardian. I also have a feeling that "the" might be capitalized in things like lists, e.g.

• The Federal Republic of Germany
• The United States of America
• other sovereign states

This is probably not very helpful, but the rule seems to be that in running text the, as the first word of a name or title, is normally not capitalized, except for some (or all) names of newspapers and other specific individual exceptions (not including all bands and fictional characters). I am tempted to draw a line between names and titles. --Boson (talk) 16:40, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I think it's time to consult some more guides on this. If Oxford, MLA and Chicago all agree that "the" should not be capitalized unless it either leads a sentence or is part of a specific title such as "The Hague," then perhaps we should replace this wording with, "Do not capitalize 'the' mid-sentence unless it is part of a specific title." Darkfrog24 (talk) 18:12, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

re: "I am tempted to draw a line between names and titles" - so is The Guardian (and other such newpapers' appellations) a name or a title?

and re: "unless it ... is part of a specific title name such as 'The Hague'" - that leads directly back to the very same question you find problematic: how does one determine whether or not it's part of a name - why The Hague but not The Hulk, The Everly Brothers, The UK and The Mail on Sunday? Sssoul (talk) 06:20, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Here is a test you can apply to determine whether The is part of the name of some entity. Suppose you have an occurrence mid-sentence like an article in The New York Times – or should that be an article in the New York Times? Just replace the name by the name of an analogous entity that does not start with The, for instance Le Monde. What do you get? This: an article in Le Monde. This shows that in this example The is part of the name and should be capitalized.

However, even if The is part of the full name of some entity, it is not always part of the name when used before the name without The. Take as an example an occurrence mid-sentence like a member of the New York Times staff. Or should that be a member of The New York Times staff? You can apply the same test. Replace the name by Le Monde as before, and you get: a member of the Le Monde staff. You can see that in this example the word the is mandatory; so in this example it is the standard grammatical definite article and not part of the name. Therefore it is also a member of the New York Times staff. You might possibly use a member of the The New York Times staff, but that sounds strange and is unusual. Or you could use a member of The New York Times's staff, just like a member of Le Monde's staff.  --Lambiam 07:23, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

This is why I think we need to consult the style guides again. I begin to recall that we are supposed to write "the New York Times" for newspapers whose names are in English. I remember that exceptions are made for Le Monde and its ilk because English-speaking writers should not always be expected to know which words translate to "the" and which do not. Darkfrog24 (talk) 13:19, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I think the test of replacing it with a name that doesn't have "the" works to determine if the is part of a proper name, but that does not necessarily mean that "the" is capitalized. For instance:

• Washington is a town in America.
• London is a town in the United Kingdom (but Hollywood is a district in Los Angeles).

Using the Le Monde analogy, one should then write a member of the The Guardian staff, but one doesn't when the name is used attributively, perhaps partly in order to avoid repetition of the. I suspect that titles of books (as opposed to names of newspapers) are not normally used attributively (so you can write a typical Times viewpoint but you should not write a typical Origin of the Species viewpoint.

Perhaps the rule (with exceptions like The Hague) is that in running text the is not capitalized in names but is capitalized in titles, and that the names of newspapers are sometimes treated as titles (like books).--Boson (talk) 18:50, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) ... i love going around in circles! it's similar to the situation with possessives, above: other styleguides recommend all kinds of different things, and meanwhile Wikipedia needs a principle that's clear and easy to explain and to apply. "capitalize 'The' when it's an integral part of the name" is not what i do in my own off-Wiki writing, but it is clearer and easier than anything else that's been proposed so far (as long as a caveat is included that the titles of Wikipedia articles do not reliably reflect whether "the" is part of a name - cf United Kingdom). Sssoul (talk) 08:43, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

What's clearer and easier is: "Capitalize the 't' of 'the' when it's at the start of a title or subtitle; not elsewhere." ¶ I dropped my wristwatch into The Thames; last week I flew across The Pacific; you should take that to The United Nations; I wonder how The United States will respond; will there ever be another André The Giant; is there a man on The Moon? All pretty silly if you ask me. When I was a kid I liked the Beatles and the Rolling Stones but I wasn't so fond of the Who: all perfectly fine. This nervous capitalization of "T" looks to me like some kind of overcompensation; it reminds me of "They invited my husband and I". -- Hoary (talk) 09:00, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

yep, i'd go along with that too, as long as we can specify succinctly what's meant by titles/subtitles as opposed to names (and whether or not The Hague is an exception). Sssoul (talk) 09:12, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

When I first read that comment I had no idea what you meant. Name, the Thames; title, The Listener. But it occurs to me that you might mean something like "the Duke of Edinburgh". All right then: "Capitalize the 't' of 'the' when it's at the start of the title or subtitle of a creative work or publication; not elsewhere." I'm perfectly happy to write "the Hague", but the last time I said that hereabouts I got a bollocking from the regulars, so OK we add a third sentence: There are a handful of exceptions and either list them or point people to the refreshingly unpompous Guardian style guide. ([http://www.guardian.co.uk/styleguide/t This is good, though it oddly seems to prescribe "The Thames" etc.) -- Hoary (talk) 09:32, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

re "oddly seems to prescribe "The Thames" etc": damn, so we're going around in circles again? that can be fun for a while, but i vote for not recommending stuff that contradicts what we're trying to propose.

what i meant was "title of a creative work or publication" (does it need to include "website or broadcast" too?); i think it's necessary to be explicit about that, because someone above calls "The Hague" a title, and there was some back-and-forth about whether newspapers have titles or names. but the point about not meaning honorific titles needs to be clarified as well, lest we get The King of Spain, The Queen of Soul, etc. Sssoul (talk) 09:43, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

So don't recommend it. Here you go: Capitalize the 't' of 'the' when it's at the start of the title or subtitle of a creative work or publication; not elsewhere. If the result seems odd, look up the particular term at The Guardian's style guide (available online here) and follow its advice. -- Hoary (talk) 09:56, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

So for these purposes, it's a title if in italics or quotes? I read the Guardian, but I read The Guardian and I read "The Guardian"? Tony (talk) 10:28, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

My personal preference would be to allow either "I read The Guardian" or "I read the Guardian": insistence on the former seems a bit pedantic. But insistence on it is likely to be most people will want hereabouts, so fine. "I routinely read The Guardian", "I thrice read The Mezzanine" (novel by Nicholson Baker), "I twice watched The Magnificent Ambersons", "I read 'The Size of Thoughts'" (essay by Baker within a book so titled), "I chuckled at 'The Admirable Crichton'" (chapter within The Exotics by Morris Bishop), "I turned my nose up at 'The Adventures of Id'" (poem within A Bowl of Bishop; need I specify the author?). All so simple, even a Wikipedia contributor can understand it. Oh all right, pedant-fodder for y'all: last week I read The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, as it was a photographic reprint of the first British edition, which has the definite article to which some Twainologists loudly object. -- Hoary (talk) 10:44, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I am starting to think that this is a can of worms, and that a centralised style guide might be better to advise editors to go with the consensus in the English-language sources, to be consistent within an article, and to use common sense to avoid what might look awkward. I've just been at an article that has "The Beatles, The Crickets, The this and that", then "the Crickets" further down. Tony (talk) 12:49, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

When capitalizing the T mid-sentence would be incorrect, the MoS should not recommend it, regardless of what most people want or seem to be doing. I like most of Hoary's text, but I don't know if we should endorse one external style guide in particular. Finding a consensus within style guides might be good. Darkfrog24 (talk) 13:07, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

finding something that be easy to explain and apply on Wikipedia would be excellent. Hoary's proposal seems to be coming close, except i still don't understand recommending the Guardian styleguide if it recommends "The Thames, etc", which is contrary to Hoary's basic proposal.

meanwhile, Tony's remark puzzles me. sure, there are articles where editors mistakenly use various capitalization styles, because (as the discussion here shows) in the outside world practices vary a lot, and that includes sources and styleguides. that doesn't mean Wikipedia's styleguide should avoid recommending anything! Sssoul (talk) 13:19, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Maybe you're right, Sssoul. But I'm finding this one too hard to resolve in my head. Tony (talk) 13:42, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

• How about this:

Inter-sentence capitalization of "The" in proper nouns

• When the word "the" is formally part of a proper noun; e.g., The New York Times and The Hague, capitalize the word "The"; e.g., After long deliberations, The Hague issued its decision on….
• When "the" is to be used as a definite article (to indicate a particular one or ones) immediately preceding a proper noun that begins with "The", use "The" only once and capitalize; e.g., Scott Martens’ article first broke in The New York Times after… and not …first broke in the The New York Times after… and not …first broke in the New York Times after…

Greg L (talk) 16:09, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Despite my earlier beliefs, I am pretty sure that it is "the New York Times" even though "the" could be said to be part of the name. Darkfrog24 (talk) 16:28, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

• Just go to their Web site: The New York Times, all in their logotype. The *newspaper* is “The New York Times”. The *company* is “The New York Times Company”. Greg L (talk) 16:50, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but that doesn't mean that the definite article should be capitalized all the time. Lots of companies use different capitalization in logos. And, this is more visible in their science articles, NYT doesn't always get it right, especially not in their bloggier articles. On issues of grammar and capitalization, we should consult the most reputable style guides. Darkfrog24 (talk) 17:34, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

• The Associated Press’ on-line manual of style has an “Ask the Editor Questions” section. There is a thread that deals fifteen times with The New York Times (either of the two links here). The editors’ answers there seem authoritative and clear enough to me on this issue. Greg L (talk) 17:10, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

The Chicago Manual of Style also says not to capitalize "the" in "names of periodicals." Darkfrog24 (talk) 17:49, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

• Well, the options are A) do nothing, B) flip a coin, C) choose what looks most natural, D) have MOS remain silent, E) or argue about this until the heat death of the universe. I prefer the A.P. method myself. I think it looks most natural by far. I think the A.P. properly decided that “The New York Times” should be treated the same as “The Hague.” Perhaps you don’t. I’m done here. Goodbye. Greg L (talk) 22:44, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm okay with option A. The MoS's current take on the matter advises looking at things on a case-by-case basis. That looks like it'll do for now. Darkfrog24 (talk) 23:04, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Determining which sources need access dates

I'm confused about the convention in applying access dates to references. I've been told they should be used in {{cite journal}} references if the journal is wholly online. However, I notice in the References section for Electron -- a top importance article which passed FAC last month -- that access dates are also applied for journals that are very much available in print, like Science. Examining references to Science in the Electron article doesn't help me much: access dates are lacking for most old articles and present for newer ones, but the underlying rule remains unclear. If someone could shed some light on the guidelines for which types of journal citations warrant access dates, I would appreciate it very much. (For some background information, see the discussion from which this query stems here.) Emw2012 (talk) 20:27, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

The rule of thumb I have always held to is that an accessdate should be used for any resource which can be expected to change over time, and where the changing versions cannot be otherwise identified. So, while different versions of a single book are differentiated by oclc identifiers, different versions of a webpage are not; the latter requires an accessdate, the former does not.  Skomorokh  20:31, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

That's what I've understood as the purpose of access dates. In that logic, it seems adding access dates to {{cite journal}} references is unnecessary: to my knowledge academic journal articles do not change after publication. Unfortunately your answer still leaves me wondering why access dates in FA's are being used as I described in my previous post. I'm current bringing Homologous recombination through a GA review and concerns around this issue -- on whether journal citations warrant access dates (and if so, which journals) -- remain unresolved. Emw2012 (talk) 23:16, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

My $0.02, if the source is an article from a print journal, no access date is needed, even if it is read in an on-line library, as the print version is the master source, which doesn't change once published. In other words, the print version is the cited source, which doesn't depend on what date it was read. oknazevad (talk) 05:15, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Some online versions differ from the print version. This can be the case with newspapers particularly, where there are different editions and updates. Ty 01:21, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

For {{citenews}} and {{citeweb}}, I can understand and agree with that, but the original question was about {{citejournal}}, particularly online versions of print journals. Since scientific journals are subject to peer review, to change anything in the online version (other than typoo fixes) would be considered dishonest, so they are far more faithful at reproducing the print versions. Either way, due to the peer reviewed nature of a (print) scientific journal, citations should be written crediting the print version, not an online library. oknazevad (talk) 02:35, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

How about a peer-reviewed journal that does not put out a print version? Whereas access dates are used for mutable sources and even wholly online journals (e.g. PLoS Biology, PLoS Genetics and the other PLoS journals) are not changed after their articles are pushed online, wouldn't access dates be unnecessary here? Also, with regard to referencing the print version of a journal article and not the online library (i.e., version?) -- how would this be differ from the current practice of filling out references? Would it imply not providing URLs to the article: no DOIs, no PMIDs, no PMCIDs? Emw2012 (talk) 17:26, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

There's typically no need for access dates for archival journals like PLoS Biology, as their URLs are stable and the articles do not change once published. This is independent of whether these journals publish print versions. One rule of thumb is that if a source has a DOI, it's not likely to change. The rule isn't infallible (some journals move URLs around; and some archival journals lack DOIs) but it's a reasonable first cut. Eubulides (talk) 18:02, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I've always wondered why we require access dates for anything. If we source something to an unstable website, and the supporting material disappears, and then someone challenges the material saying it's unsourced, a new source will have to be found. It's not clear to me how having the access date of the old source helps. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 01:05, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

To be blunt, accessdates are essential to unstable website sourcing because of the wayback machine.  Skomorokh  01:07, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it can be very helpful knowing which date to start searching through the Internet Archive, when the same URL can sometimes have a few years worth of pages stored. Ty 01:23, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

It has never taken me more than a few seconds to find a version on the Internet Archive that supports the material, assuming the URL has been archived at all. Also, if you're going to use as a source a website version that someone decided to remove (i.e. they not only took the website down, they removed that particular material before doing so), it really wouldn't be a good idea to rely on it as a source.

Can anyone give an example of an access date having been essential, or even just helpful, in tracking down a reliable source that someone has used? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 21:17, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) I agree with Eubulides that scholarly journals don't generally need an access date. In addition, on medical articles, we tend to only supply the URL when the full article text is freely available without subscription or extortion but I don't know what the convention is on other sciences. Therefore, we have have the position where an editor read the material online (as most do these days) but does not provide a link. I don't know of a case that answers SlimVirgin's point but note that other citation rules, such as the Uniform Requirements (Vancouver style)[41] require "updated 2001 Aug 23; cited 2002 Aug 12" both date and access-date attributes. Colin°^Talk 22:00, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Punctuation, inside or outside

The MoS advocates placing punctuation outside quotation marks. I'd like to change that, because it's advocating something that most Wikipedians don't do.

• Inside (see placement of period/full stop): John said, "I hope the period's inside, not out."
• Outside: John said, "Nope, wrong again".

The MoS currently says:

On Wikipedia, place all punctuation marks inside the quotation marks if they are part of the quoted material and outside if they are not. This practice is referred to as logical quotation. It is used by Wikipedia both because of the principle of minimal change, and also because the method is less prone to misquotation, ambiguity, and the introduction of errors in subsequent editing.

Most North American editors place punctuation inside. I don't know what Australia/New Zealand does. Some British editors place it outside, but I'm British and I've always placed it inside. Most publications place it inside, including those outside north America. Just to pull one example up at random from today, The Times of London quoting the prime minister, "Growth is the best antidote to debt." [42]

I frequently find articles I write being changed from inside to outside, especially if they're connected to the UK, but even when they're not. I feel that this violates the spirit of the MoS, which is not to go around making style changes for no good reason. But so long as the punctuation advice is in the MoS, it's bound to happen.

Instead of recommending one over the other, can we not simply describe both practices, say the article must be internally consistent, and that we should stick to the style of the first major contributor? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 16:19, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Logical punctuation seems more, well, logical. The place where it makes a difference would be where inserting punctuation inside the qutation marks suggests an ambiguous or misleading interpretation that was not part of the original quotation. For example, if a person says "I was not hurt so much as deeply offended", we are misleading the reader if we report that the person said "I was not hurt." Inserting the period in that location gives the misleading impression that this was the end of the sentence. Conversely, suppose an artist is asked who influenced him in his life responds "There is only one -- my dear mother." But when asked whose art he emulates, mentions Klee and Giacometti. For us to say he credits as influences his "dear mother," Klee, and Giacometti incorrectly suggests that his mother was part of a list. I know these examples are a little forced but I do run into this in editing. In any case, if we do decide to leave the matter entirely up to editors' discretion I don't think we should have a "first major contributor" rule - that's too rigid. Perhaps we just say it's up to the editors, note that people should not be revising entire articles to shift style choices, and leave it up to them after that. Wikidemon (talk) 16:32, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure I really follow your examples, WD. How could inside/outside punctuation affect the meaning of, "I was not hurt so much as deeply offended"?

But the point here is not what we personally like or don't like, but what most people do. Most Wikipedians use inside punctuation, and so do most publications (north American and otherwise) that I am aware of. Given that it's a preference issue, I think we should recommend internal consistency, and deferring to the first major contributor. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 17:17, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

In my example, the person quoted was hurt. Without the period the statement refines and makes precise the nature of the offense taken. With the period it looks like a simple denial. Again, this may not be the best example. One would also best distinguish between problems caused by American-style punctuation from the more general issue of taking quotations out of context. My overall point is that punctuation or lack thereof sometimes changes the meaning of a statement. By blurring the distinction over whether the punctuation is that of the speaker's versos that of the the editor's, inserting or removing punctuation within a quotation runs the risk of misleading the reader and changing the meaning of the statement. It's hard to know from my personal experience which version is common. I read the logical punctuation section early in my stay here and began to follow it, and because I work on lots of stub and start articles I tend to be the only major contributor to most of them. I would think we want to look at most A / GA / featured articles for guidance, not all the new and messy ones. I agree that consistency within articles is important, although I think the "first major contributor" rule is unduly formulaic where a more flexible common sense courtesy approach might apply more generally. I do like rules where they work, though. Are there examples where "first major contributor" has been codified in any other matters of stylistic choice? Wikidemon (talk) 18:41, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Regarding your last point, yes, where there are style conflicts, the first major contributor's approach should be respected, per WP:CITE, a couple of ArbCom rulings, and per the MoS itself (#1.2 Stability of articles). But adding a courtesy clause to the punctuation section would be fine with me too. What I would like to avoid is people turning up only to change punctuation.

Regarding how many articles use what, it would be difficult to judge by FAs, because when something is submitted for FA, it's invariably changed from inside to outside punctuation, particularly if it concerns anything British. I suppose all we can do is keep an eye open, and perhaps try some random articles.

I still don't get your "hurt" example. Sorry if I'm being dense. :) SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 19:55, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) i'm real sorry to see this issue rear its head again so soon - SlimVirgin, do you need a link to the very recent and lengthy discussion where consensus was established once again for the so-called "logical" style? i disagree completely that that style is "something that most Wikipedians don't do" - all the articles i frequent use it, and i'm all for it. Sssoul (talk) 18:00, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, please, that link would be very helpful. I don't know how we can judge for sure what most articles use. All I know is that I've made 80,000 edits over five years, and the overwhelming majority of articles I edit use inside punctuation. But then so do most publications in general, both in North America and Europe, so I'm a bit mystified as to how outside punctuation managed to get into the MoS as a rule.

That's why I'm suggesting we simply describe the different forms, and allow editors to choose for themselves. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 18:04, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't see why the examples above are relevant to a proposal to change the MoS. All the examples conform to the current MoS. The first example given in this thread, which is of "inside" punctuation:

John said, "I hope the period's inside, not out."

exactly mimicks the style given in the first "correct" example in WP:LQ:

Arthur said, "The situation is deplorable and unacceptable."

Since "inside" punctuation is just fine in all the examples given in this thread, no reason has been given to change the MoS. Eubulides (talk) 20:02, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

true, the question is not "inside or outside" - it's "is the punctuation part of the quote or not". the most recent discussion of this is in Archive 111 of this page.

re "I don't know how we can judge for sure what most articles use": smile: so please don't use the argument that the style you prefer is "what most Wikipedians/people do". Sssoul (talk) 20:10, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

This is a job for ENGVAR. Articles that use American spelling should also use American punctuation and articles that use British English should use British punctuation.

The main argument in favor of logical/technical punctuation is the idea that putting commas and periods inside the quotation marks can cause confusion. However, this doesn't happen in practice. In American English, it is understood that periods and commas may be changed as part of the quotation process. What is the point of solving "problems caused by American punctuation" if it doesn't cause any problems?

American punctuation already makes exceptions for those few cases in which it might cause confusion. For example, we'd say, that the song performed by Jefferson Airplane is called "White Rabbit," but we'd say that to put a long dash on Wikipedia, type in "—". No one is actually going to think that the comma is part of the name of the song, so there is no reason to put the comma outside in any article written in American English. However, the character-by-character instructions could be misunderstood, so American English makes an exception. The system is fine.

With regard to quoting dialogue, it is understood that commas and periods may be changed in American English. Wikidemon's example is misleading not because it uses correct American punctuation but because the second half of the sentence is chopped off. Look at it this way: 1. He said, "I was not hurt." 2. "I was not hurt," he said. They are equally misleading, in both cases because the words "so much as deeply offended" are not included. (Please note that 3. "I was not hurt," he said, "so much as deeply offended," is not misleading at all, despite the fact that I have added a comma and changed a period to a comma as well.)

HOWEVER I do not feel that we should impose American punctuation on British English articles. That would be an insult to British English Wikipedians, as bad as forcing Americans to spell "center" with a "t-r-e." Darkfrog24 (talk) 20:34, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree with everything you say, Darkfrog, except the last sentence. I'm British, and was educated in the UK, and I'm constantly bemused by an MoS that tells me British English doesn't say September 15, when I do, or British English doesn't write "organized," when I do, or British English doesn't use inside punctuation, when I do. These things are a matter of preference and of individual style guides that publishers use. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 20:41, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Then whatever form of English is American and not British, that is the form that should not be imposed upon British English articles. If "organize" and tucked-in commas are acceptable in correct British English, then they should be acceptable on British English Wikipedia articles unless there is some serious reason not to. (We use double quotes instead of single because of the limitations of search features.) However, I personally would want to see confirmation of this in at least one reliable British style guide. Darkfrog24 (talk) 20:48, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Sssoul, thanks for the link to the Archive 11 discussion. I've not read it yet, but the fact that it has to start with a caution about feelings running high suggests there's no consensus for this advice to be in the MoS. Why do we need it? What's wrong with articles simply being internally consistent? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 20:45, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, when you read the archived discussion you'll see that the emotions were on the part of two or three editors. i know you know that just because someone has strong feelings that doesn't mean they're right, or that they have consensus. Sssoul (talk) 08:16, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

It seemed to me that almost everyone who participated in that discussion had strong feelings about it. Let's not mischaracterize people. In this case, the people who had the strong feelings toward keeping American style banned were the ones who had consensus. Darkfrog24 (talk) 13:10, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

1. It's not that there's no consensus so much as that there are lots of people who like technical quotation a lot more than American quotation and believe, incorrectly in my assessment, that American quotation causes problems. This particular part of the guideline gets challenged a couple of times each year. The discussion in archive 111 resulted in the current wording but didn't result in any change to the rule itself. 2. We don't need it. Darkfrog24 (talk) 20:48, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I think American should not be imposed on British, and British should not be imposed on American, but also that people shouldn't be telling other people what is and isn't British or American, and the preference of Mr X should not be imposed on Ms Y, and so on. :) In other words, let's go for internal consistency and otherwise not advise. If it's being challenged regularly by established editors, it really shouldn't stay as it is. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 21:06, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

NOT AGAIN, please. We just went through this a couple of months ago, at length. This is one long-stable guideline in the MOS. Some people, mostly in the U.S., who are more familiar with the "trailing periods and commas always inside" style, as I am, object when they see the MOS guideline or examples of it, which I don't. (For what it's worth, I use and prefer the punctuation inside style in all my own writing; it is the convention where I write, and it is the convention in most printed material in the U.S.) The reasons why it was adopted for Wikipedia are explained in the MOS section, and have nothing to do with U.S. versus UK (i.e., ENGVAR). Despite MANY lengthy arguments, the result is always the same: no consensus to change the guideline. So I repeat, NOT AGAIN, please. Thank you. —Finell (Talk) 21:20, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Just because this part of the guideline has been discussed before doesn't mean that new people like SV shouldn't state their opinions and no one should badger or bully them into shutting up before they've had their say, so please no one start. SlimVirgin has provided a new look at this issue.

Finell, if you are tired of this discussion, then, if you want, I can message you on your talk page if it looks like we're about to change the guideline. That way, you won't have to bother watching the discussion and you will get your $0.02/vote/contribution to consensus in regardless. Would you like me to do this? Darkfrog24 (talk) 21:43, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Darkfrog, please. I haven't badgered or bullied anyone, and I resent that characterization. I expressed weariness at going through this again (I've been through it a couple times before you arrived on this page, and then the last time, when you were the lead protagonist) and the wish that we wouldn't have to so. —Finell (Talk) 22:05, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I am not accusing you, Finell. You will see that I said, "...before they've had their say, so please no one start." There was a lot of that sort of thing last time and I want to head it off. On another note, I can appreciate that you're tired of talking about it, but the bottom line is that you do not have to. There is no reason to tell SlimVirgin not to start a new discussion because you are under no obligation to participate if you don't want to. SV's comments put no burden of any kind on you. My offer is serious, by the way. Just message me if you want to take me up on it, but I won't bring it up again. Darkfrog24 (talk) 22:21, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

If anything, the fact that this part of the guideline is questioned so often should be a big clue that it may not be ideal.

Either the current system is British, in which case it's inappropriate for use in American English articles or it is logical/technical, in which case it's unnecessary throughout almost all of Wikipedia. Either way, it should not be imposed upon American English articles in which it is incorrect and unnecessary.

SlimVirgin, I wouldn't go that far. Even if 300,000 people make a mistake, it's still a mistake. We shouldn't force one group of people to forego their own traditions and use a foreign set of rules, but neither should we allow Mssrs. X and Y to make things up willy-nilly. It's not about what most people are doing. It's about what's correct. Darkfrog24 (talk) 21:43, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Hang on, Finell, if it keeps being raised, there is no consensus for it. It isn't explained at all in the MoS, which says, "[Logical quotation] ... is used by Wikipedia both because of the principle of minimal change, and also because the method is less prone to misquotation, ambiguity, and the introduction of errors in subsequent editing."

1. What is "the principle of minimal change"?

2. There is no ambiguity, or misquotation issue. If you think there is, can you give a clear example?

3. What is meant by "the introduction of errors in subsequent editing"?

Finell, what do you see as the advantage of recommending this, rather than recommending internal consistency and leaving it at that? Because that would finally put the issue to rest, which is what you seem to want. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 21:46, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

(interjecting, after edit conflict, since SlimVirgin asked me specifically)

I'll try to answer your questions briefly. However, if you want to see every possible argument that can possbily be uttered on the subject, please consult the archives of this talk page (and I don't just mean the last go-round).

1. From Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Quotations, under the sub-heading Minimal change: "Preserve the original text, spelling, and punctuation." Suppose a Wikipedia page legitmately quotes part of that in the following passage: The MOS succinctly prohibits altering the spelling of quoted text: "Preserve the original text [and] spelling". The period follows the closing quotation mark because it is not part of the original text. The so-called typographical or American style would render the same passage as follows: The MOS succinctly prohibits altering the spelling of quoted text: "Preserve the original text [and] spelling." The period, although not part of the quoted material, is placed inside the closing quotation mark because that is more aesthetically pleasing (the aesthetic difference is more pronounced in formally printed work, using a seriffed, proportional typeface and so-called typographical quotation marks). But, this version of the page violates the principle that it is stating: it inserts a punction mark that was not part of the quoted text.

2. Suppose source material reads: The judge demanded, "Bring the prisoner to the bench, and button your jacket before you address the court. The prosecutor silently, very slowly, fastened the four buttons of his jacket, one by one. Then he escorted the prisoner, handcuffed, to the bench, the judge towering over both of them. A Wikipedia article says, following the MOS guideline: The judge said, "Bring the prisoner to the bench". Prosecutor Stone complied. The reader, and also a subsequent editor, knows that the quotation is not a complete sentence because the period is outside. Using the other system, the article reads: The judge said, "Bring the prisoner to the bench." Prosecutor Stone complied. Is the quotation a sentence or a fragment?

3. If Wikipedia switched to the other system, a subsequent editor might erroneously revise this material as follows: The climax of the courtroom drama begins with this sentence: "Bring the prisoner to the bench." The prosecutor complies, but the judge's scolding, uninterrupted, fill the next eight pages. (The editor added the scolding bit by combining the next sentence in the imaginary article.) The article misrepresents the fragment as a sentence.

The reasons stated in the guideline persuaded me, contrary to my aesthetic prevference and the punctuation that I learned, that the guideline is the better choice for Wikipedia. In my opinion, the underlying objection of most objecting editors really reduces to WP:IDONTLIKEIT, most likely because WP:THATISNTHOWILERNEDIT. I disagree with the proposition that, "if it keeps being raised, there is no consensus for it". Consensus does not imply unanimity. Some Wikipedians (and I sincerely do not not include SlimVirgin in this category) will argue about anything. —Finell (Talk) 00:46, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

One could just as easily say that WP:IDONTLIKEIT is how this policy got here in the first place. The question of not being able to tell whether a quotation is only part of a sentence is not a real problem. That is why almost every academic discipline in the U.S., no matter how strict, uses U.S. punctuation. Again, the problem in the examples provided is that the information itself is left out, not that the punctuation causes confusion. Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:08, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Then I did not explain properly. This does count as consensus even though not everyone agrees. Whenever a Wikipedia guideline is to be changed, there must be consensus for the change. It's sort of like the burden of proof being on the prosecution. If the two sides can't agree, then the change doesn't happen. It is more a case of people who want to include American punctuation being outnumbered. The burden of forming a new consensus is on the people who want to make the change.

1. The principle of minimal change is the idea that, in direct quotations, the text from the source should be changed as little as possible. Some Wikipedians believe that American punctuation violates this, but it does not.

2. Correct.

3. Some people believe that if one editor uses American punctuation, and then six months later another editor rewords the passage, that this will introduce errors. However, this is a risk regardless of which style of punctuation is used. The editor must be conscientious and look at the original text. Period.

The bottom line is that in order to know exactly how the original text was punctuated, one must look at the original text. This is just as true of British and logical/technical styles as it is of American style. Darkfrog24 (talk) 22:01, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

My main concern

Just to clarify, I don't mind how most articles tend to be punctuated. It's not a big deal. I do mind editors arriving at articles I'm writing, and changing the punctuation, which means I have to try to remember to write differently, or else the article will end up inconsistent. Or I have to change it all back again. I think that's discourteous, and it violates CITE and the MoS itself. So I am proposing one of two things:

1. We change that part of the MoS to describe the two different punctuation methods, and let people choose which to use, without the MoS recommending one or the other (this would be my preference); or

2. We add a note to that section reminding people not to change the style in stable articles i.e. a courtesy provision.

I don't mind which we do. But I would like to see an end to people imposing this on articles they're otherwise not involved in writing. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 21:56, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

See, most of us do think that punctuation is a big deal. I support 1. with the exception that I would have the punctuation tied to the spelling style. It doesn't matter who's involved and who isn't. It's about what's correct. If I'm reading an article out of the blue and I see a typo, then it's perfectly all right for me to jump in and fix it. Darkfrog24 (talk) 22:01, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, if it's a typo, but there is no right or wrong here, just preference. I don't like to have spent months writing an article, and have someone arrive for three minutes to change my punctuation. It's very annoying. :) Especially because it means I have to keep remembering to write in the same way from that point on, and I never can remember.

I really would not want to see this tied to spelling style. That reinforces, "This is British and therefore must be written this way," even if you, as a British editor, have never done it. I am tired of feeling disenfranchised by that absolutism. :) SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 22:17, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

See, people shouldn't be making style changes for no reason regardless of whether they've been involved in the article before or not. It would have been just as wrong for that person to come in and change one acceptable style to another even if he or she had made a major contribution to that article in the past. That's what I'm talking about.

I happen to be an American, actually, just a rather stuffy one. Darkfrog24 (talk) 22:27, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) for the record, the point about not changing styles in stable articles only applies when the MoS accepts more than one style. so unless consensus is demonstrated for adopting another punctuation style in addition to the so-called "logical style", that kind of "courtesy provision" wouldn't be appropriate. Sssoul (talk) 08:16, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Since this issue keeps coming up, and since a consensus hasn't been reached on this page, would it be worthwhile to open a community RfC? While I understand the reasons why the guidance is there, I suspect that this is one of the most widely-ignored instructions in the MOS, and I doubt that most readers even recognize its significance. It may be useful to get more opinions. Karanacs (talk) 01:07, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Common misconception: There was a consensus according to Wikipedia's operational definition of the term, just not a universal one. I don't know that we need an RfC on this one. Yes, this part of the MoS is frequently challenged, and yes, I feel that that should be a big fat clue, but challenging and changing things is part of the Wikipedia consensus process. New people come in with new ideas, then the issue is discussed again and then the community either forms a new consensus or keeps the old one. This particular issue may bring out strong feelings, but this is how it's supposed to work. Darkfrog24 (talk) 04:39, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

In other words, yes I think that this rule should be changed, but not because there wasn't a consensus for it in the first place. There was. Darkfrog24 (talk) 04:40, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I see no consensus for change. Tony (talk) 04:51, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

A relevant observation (out of the previous round of discussions ad nauseum on logical quotation): Logical quotation isn't a matter of style, it's a matter of content. Regional spelling variations don't change the information content of articles, but the British and American quotation "styles" convey less information about the source than does logical quotation. That's essentially the definition of logical quotation, that it consistently uses placement of final punctuation inside or outside the quotation marks to convey information about the source, rather than subordinating conveyance of information to regional stylistic convention. --Pi zero (talk) 13:35, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

(1) Your statement would be true if Wikipedia used logical quotation consistently, but that's not the case and unlikely to become the case in the near term. When you see "This means war." on Wikipedia you get no information about the source. That might be logical quotation or US style. The only way to know is to look at the original source.

(2) Adjusting US-style quoted text to logical quotation is quite difficult and requires access to all the original sources. This seems like a large burden of work to place on copyeditors. Assuming that at the very least a large minority of contributions continue to be made using the common US method, do we have enough editors interested in doing this research to accomplish the work of fixing those articles? If not, Wikipedia is unlikely ever to adhere substantially to this aspect of the MOS and it may be more useful to adjust the MOS to reflect a perhaps less ideal, but more achieveable standard. Christopher Parham (talk) 14:17, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Consensus in favour of logical quotation was reached long ago. Though challenged from time to time there has never been consensus to change this guideline. I doubt there ever will be. JIMp _talk·cont 14:27, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

My position on this is the same as my position on all other style issues: if an article is internally consistent, and if it uses styles recognized by mainstream style guides, and if it is stable, and if the writers of the article are happy with it, then editors shouldn't arrive at the article simply to change from one style to another citing the MoS. That is, in effect, what the MoS itself says at section 1.2: Stability of articles.

Does anyone mind if I add a very brief point about that to the section about punctuation? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 16:03, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

"Does anyone mind ... ?" yes. as noted above: section 1.2 refers to situations when there's more than one guideline-defined style. so doesn't apply to this issue unless/until consensus is demonstrated for the MoS to recommend more than one punctuation style. Sssoul (talk) 17:35, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

While Wikipedia's rules do not require that changes, even major changes (such as this would be), be discussed on the talk page ahead of time, that's probably best for this case. If you made that change, then someone would just change it back. In other words, I don't mind, but in this case it is necessary to establish a consensus for the change before that change is made. I personally believe that Wikipedia should not forbid editors to use correct styles so long as they are consistent or unless there is a very clear and unambiguous reason not to (case in point: use of single quotes can mess with search features, so Wikipedia prefers double). I would support such a change, though I would prefer to tie it to ENGVAR. Darkfrog24 (talk) 17:43, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

To be clear, nobody is forbidding users from employing US style quotes. But I agree with your general view. Modifying articles that already consistently employ a widely used and understood style is probably not a good use of time in any case. Especially in this one where such modification is likely to be unusually burdensome. Christopher Parham (talk) 19:05, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually, Parham, the MoS does ban the use of American-style punctuation. Darkfrog24 (talk)

No, the MOS says that American-style punctuation does not represent Wikipedia's best style; it doesn't have the authority to "ban" anything. Quality content contributions using American-style punctuation, or otherwise ignoring MOS formatting details, are generally encouraged. (e.g. the premise of SV's comment is that she is writing an article using American style quotes and nobody in this discussion has suggested she should stop doing so.) That's part of the problem with the current wording: regardless of what MOS says, we will have many people adding content using American style punctuation, because they are accustomed to that style having grown up in an environment where it is overwhelmingly standard. It is then very difficult to convert that text to conform to the guideline. This is quite different from say, the dash rules where an article using hyphens takes seconds to reform using automated tools.Christopher Parham (talk) 22:06, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I really wish that were how it worked, but it isn't. I got called up for an AN/I for tucking in stray commas in articles that already used American punctuation as their prevailing style. If that's not a ban, then I don't know what is. Ergo, we may call them guidelines, but they're rules. Darkfrog24 (talk) 22:36, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Tucking in stray commas (i.e., making purely stylistic changes to existing text) is just about the opposite of the "quality content contributions" I was talking about. You were not rebuked for use of American style quotes but for altering existing formatting from conforming to non-conforming, as I understand it. I can assure you that I have written quite a few articles, including FAs, using American-style quotations exclusively, and had no issues with it. Christopher Parham (talk) 15:40, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

No Chris, I was tucking in the strays while making other changes. These changes would count as gnoming rather than content, fixing awkward phrases and the like. The point that I was trying to make, though, was that if the MoS did not constitute a ban on American punctuation, then no one would have objected to my making such changes, as they improved each article's internal consistency. Darkfrog24 (talk) 19:15, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

re: "Does anyone mind". Yes. If your position is "don't change what is stable/reasonable/not-broken" on all style issues, then why are you arguing for a specific reminder/get-out-clause for this style issue. We can't have our guideline pages littered with "use common sense", "don't be disruptive", etc. reminders next to each of the slightly contentious issues. Colin°^Talk 20:18, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I understand that consensus on this was reach a long time ago. I question whether the consensus has changed, and whether the opinions of the editors who frequently comment here accurately reflect a Wiki-wide consensus on this issue. As Christopher Parnum pointed out, many, many editors do not use logical quotation, and it is not easy to tell when looking at an article which practice was intended. Karanacs (talk) 16:09, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't frequently comment here, but I support the logical quotation system for the simple reason that it doesn't alter the quotation. That many editors are ignorant of this guideline, or that the style in-use is hard to spot, doesn't change the reasons for preferring this guideline, which is nearly as old as the MoS itself. I'm also worried about the tone of WP:OWNership about folk fiddling with "articles I'm writing". Colin°^Talk 20:18, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

That would hold weight, except American style doesn't alter the quotation either. Darkfrog24 (talk) 21:10, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes it does, and that is the point. So-called typographic or American punctuation puts ending commas and periods in the quotation when the quoted text did not have them. And this has always (or at least for a very long time) been explained in the MOS as the reason for the guideline. Finell (Talk) 17:04, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

It does not alter or disrespect the quotation any more than the quotation marks themselves do. The terminal period or comma is understood to be part of the process. Darkfrog24 (talk) 19:17, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Never understood

Re Finell: I have long wondered about this idea of "not changing the punctuation". If I take the examples in the present MOS too literally, I will go from:

Arthur said, "The situation is deplorable and unacceptable." (The period is part of the quoted text.)

Arthur said that the situation was "deplorable". (The period is not part of the quoted text.)

to

Arthur said that the situation was "unacceptable." (The period is part of the quoted text.)

But that is certainly not the intention of the MOS.

Now we all know that if I wanted to cut off the first quotation after "deplorable", I would need an ellipsis:

Arthur said, "The situation is deplorable ...".

But the principle explicated by the present MOS suggests that the ellipsis can be omitted, leading to

Arthur said, "The situation is deplorable". (The period is not part of the quoted text.)

That is clearly not what we want. So what conclusions do I draw when I reflect on best practice?

(1) If you quote a single word, you will probably ignore any puncuation in the original text anyway.

(2) If you quote a phrase from the original, you will need an ellipsis if you cut off a sentence.

In either case, there is no possibility of confusion with the American system tat is not also present in the current MOS recommendations. — Carl (CBM · talk) 18:00, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Finell is not on trial here. Surely you mean to address the entire board so that anyone may answer. I agree that the logical/technical style has no application in the quotation of words as words. (The word "gender," unlike "sex," does not have lascivious connotations.) Darkfrog24 (talk) 19:31, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually, a change in the guideline (made in connection for the last dispute, if I recall correctly) is responsible for the problem you raise. Given the contentiousness of this guideline, I decided not to fix it. I believe the guideline previously said to include the end punctuation if it is part of the sense of the quoted text (please forgive me for not taking the time to look up the diff). I construed that to mean that you do not include a period (full stop) just because it follows the last word of the quotation (e.g., if you are only quoting a word or phrase at the end of the sentence); this is the practice that I still follow under the current guideline. Further, the punctuation guideline does not override the use of ellipses (which, like square brackets, are understood to indicate something omitted or changed). If the logical quotation system is followed correctly, there are fewer opportunities for ambiguity, and therefore errors by subsequent editors, and even those can be eliminated with careful writing—such as by quoting more or less). The second example from the MOS eliminates ambiguity and the need for ellipses by paraphrasing and quoting less. And I do hope that a citation, with the page number, will follow the quotation! Finell (Talk) 19:40, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Thing thing that I don't see is how the American system actually introduces ambiguity. For example, consider the sentence

Jones: All cars are fast, but some are faster than others.

Apparently one argument for "logical punctuation" is that

(1) According to Jones, "All cars are fast."

is bad. Yes, it is bad, but

(2) According to Jones, "All cars are fast".

is equally bad. Both require an ellipsis, because both cut off the quote in mid-sentence. I am not a frequent participant in these discussions, and so it may be that there are better examples that actually show ambiguity reduced by correct use of logical quotation over correct use of American quotation. But replacing (1) with (2) is hardly in improvement in clarity and accuracy. — Carl (CBM · talk) 21:16, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

In case someone asks, I am referring to what the Chicago Manual calls the "rigorous method"; see e.g. section 11.65. — Carl (CBM · talk) 21:31, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Anyone? I'd like to understand this issue, since the present MOS language has always seemed like a distinction without a difference. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:13, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) the examples in the MoS don't make the point very well, i agree. maybe it becomes clearer when one considers that the so-called "American style" wants all end punctuation inside the quote marks, not just periods and commas, and it wants them there within titles as well as quotations:

• Who wrote "You Can't Always Get What You Want?"
  

is an example where the so-called "American style" is misleading in a way that so-called "logical style" is not:

• Who wrote "You Can't Always Get What You Want"?
  

there's not as much potential for ambiguity when periods and commas are involved, but it is more accurate not to misrepresent titles by making it look as if they end with punctuation that they don't in fact include. Sssoul (talk) 05:59, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

That is not a correct assessment of American-style punctuation. Here is an example verbatim from section 6.9 of the Chicago Manual:

Which of Shakespeare’s characters said, “All the world’s a stage”?

Indeed, the rule is:

6.9: Colons, semicolons, question marks, and exclamation points  Unlike periods and commas, these all follow closing quotation marks unless a question mark or an exclamation point belongs within the quoted matter.

So it is only with periods and commas that punctuation might be moved inside the quotation marks, unless that punctuation is part of the quoted material. — Carl (CBM · talk) 10:56, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

okay, i'm glad to hear it and i'll strike my misconception (which matches the common misconception that either "British style" or "logical style" always puts the punctuation outside the quote marks). what's left is: i agree that it's difficult to think up an ambiguous example with just periods or commas, but it is still more accurate not to misrepresent titles (or quotes) as including punctuation when they don't. Sssoul (talk) 12:10, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm asking specifically about quotations from prose, since this is the justification the MOS gives for the logical quotation system. The issue of periods in the titles of artistic works is a much less significant issue than the alleged loss of accuracy in quotations. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:29, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

smile: there are different points of view - to me the proper representation of titles is a much more significant issue. but anyway: i'm not sure what you mean by "the alleged loss of accuracy in quotations" - are you talking about my allegation above, that it's more accurate to represent titles (and quotes) without additional punctuation, or something in the MoS? Sssoul (talk) 14:21, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

The MOS itself says that logical quotation "is less prone to misquotation, ambiguity, and the introduction of errors in subsequent editing." I am asking for an actual example of that in which both the American-style quotation and the logical-style one are properly formatted, including ellipses for omitted material as required by WP:MOSQUOTE. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:26, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

• It is not "the American system". Many publications and sites outside North America use internal. Wikipedia simply has sound reasons for being very fussy about leaving quotations be, where possible. Tony (talk) 14:00, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
  • I am asking, what are those sound reasons? There are claims about accuracy of quoted material being improved by logical quotation, but the examples in the MOS do not appear to support such claims. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:26, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I understand that not many publications outside the U.S. use American punctuation, but many of them use American English as well and that doesn't make it any less American English. (Hey, if I have to call Wikipedia's system "logical" for people to know what I mean, then calling the American style "American" isn't too much of a jump.) Darkfrog24 (talk) 19:08, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

(ec) here's what i reckon the MoS means by proneness to ambiguity and misquotation:

• She stated: "I have no objection to anything he said." if that's punctuated in the so-called American-style, the reader can't tell whether or not that was her full statement, whether the editor who punctuated it has read WP:MOSQUOTE, used ellipsis properly, etc.; but if it's in the so-called logical style, the reader can rest assured that that was indeed the end of her sentence.

and when i recycle that same quote in my own publication, which uses so-called logical style, the so-called American-style is more prone to misquotation because i have to guess whether or not that was the end of her statement. (smile: i know i know – obviously i should look her statement up elsewhere instead of relying on Wikipedia! but there are loads of journalists who don't bother have time for that.) Sssoul (talk) 15:12, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually, in American style (e.g. "rigorous" Chicago style), you do know that it was the end of her statement, because otherwise there would have to be an ellipsis. You can't use an example where someone didn't follow American style as an example of problems with American style, because that agument applies equally well to logical style: how do I know the author followed logical style correctly, just because the MOS requires it? So we have to assume that the writer did follow the appropriate style as it requires. I am becoming more and more convinced that there is no example where correctly-written quotes actually have a problem, as I will explain below. — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:24, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

(ec) smile: somehow i had a feeling you were going to reject that example of ambiguity, CBM - but it's what i believe the MoS means anyway. (i could point out that using so-called logical style does imply that someone has at least looked at the MoS, since it's what the MoS recommends - but ... go ahead with the explanation you want to give us.) Sssoul (talk) 15:34, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

After thinking about this more and looking at the MOS, I am becoming more and more convinced there is no example involving quotations (not titles of works) where the American/logical style distinction makes a difference. Here is why:

(1) For short quotes that could not be confused with a whole sentence, I have been assured that we ignore the punctuation of the original anyway. Thus we write,

She said he was "boring".

rather than

She said he was "boring,".

(2) For longer quotes, WP:MOSQUOTE already requires an ellipsis for omitted material, as does the "rigorous style" in the Chicago Manual. Thus we already cannot write,

She said, "I am coming to the ball".

because either that quote is a whole sentence, in which logical style would say to use

She said, "I am coming to the ball."

or the quote is not a whole sentence, in which case MOSQUOTE requires

She said, "I am coming to the ball...".

This seems to only leave the issue of titles of works. Now, I don't really care one bit about which style we pick on Wikipedia, but we should be more upfront that the issue is one of style rather than somehow an issue of accuracy with quotations. — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:32, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Can we all concede that taking a one-sentence quotation such as "I was not hurt but rather deeply offended" or "I have no objection to anything he said" and cutting it down to "I was not hurt" or "I have no objection" would constitute a misquotation regardless of which system of punctuation is used? Neither logical/technical nor British nor American punctuation would be able to turn "I was not hurt" into something that could reasonably imply the original quotation's true meaning.

So far, I haven't seen any sound reasons for banning American punctuation, only imaginary reasons. Darkfrog24 (talk) 19:08, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Possessives still need clarifying

(outdent) for the time being i propose removing the crossed-out bits below - there's no sense in recommending Option 3 over the other options when it's considerably less clear than the others; and the other crossed-out bits are simply confusing:

Add either 's or just an apostrophe, according to how the possessive is most often pronounced:

• More easily decided: Jan Hus's life, Sam Hodges' son, Morris's works, the bus's old route.
• Less easily decided: James's house (or James' house), Brahms's music (or Brahms' music), Vilnius's location (or Vilnius' location), Dickens's novels (or Dickens' novels).

Practice must be consistent within an article; the third practice, endorsed in some form by most style guides, is recommended. Where there is disagreement over a pronunciation, the choice should be discussed and then that possessive adopted consistently in an article. Possessives of certain classical and biblical names have traditional pronunciations which may take precedence: Moses' leadership, Jesus' answer, Xerxes' expeditions, but Zeus's anger. In rare cases where such discussion yields no solution, rewording may be an option (The location of Vilnius is strategically important).

Option 3 still needs a lot of clarification and finetuning, but those crossed-out bits seem (for assorted reasons) especially unhelpful and i feel they shouldn't be hanging around in public while the section is still under construction. can i go ahead and remove them, while we continue to try to reach consensus on the option and wording? Sssoul (talk) 15:05, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

the silence is rather ambiguous! so how about something like this:

[options 1 & 2 as they are currently described]

3) Add either 's or just an apostrophe, according to how the possessive is pronounced:

• Add only an apostrophe if the possessive is pronounced the same way as the non-possessive name: Sam Hodges' son, Moses' leadership;

• Add 's if the possessive has an additional /ɪz/ at the end: Jan Hus's life, Morris's works.

• Some possessives have two possible pronunciations: James's house or James' house, Brahms's music or Brahms' music, Vilnius's location or Vilnius' location, Dickens's novels or Dickens' novels.

Whichever of the above three options is chosen, it must be applied consistently within an article. When using the third option, if there is disagreement over the pronunciation of a possessive, the choice should be discussed and then that possessive adopted consistently in an article. (In some cases – particularly possessives of inanimate objects – rewording may be an option: the location of Vilnius, the moons of Mars.)

the third option still needs to be clarified considerably, but that would be better than what's out there now.

and can we please discuss replacing this very open-ended Option 3 with the OUP style mentioned in a now-archived discussion? ie: just apostrophe when the last syllable of the name is pronounced like the verb is; apostrophe-s in all other cases - it has the major advantage of being easy to explain clearly and to apply. Sssoul (talk) 15:54, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

That is so obviously better than what we had now that I've been bold and implemented it (except that I didn't remove the mention of classical names). --___A. di M. 16:13, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

thanks, A di M - i fidgeted with it a bit more out there: "Moses' leadership" is used as an example of "no-extra-syllable" pronunciation, so it doesn't make sense to use it again as an example of "traditional" pronunciation; and i toned down the "traditional" pronunciation part a little because i know too many people who pronounce those possessives differently than presented. something still needs to be added about how to resolve disagreements about pronunciation when using Option 3 ... unless we change Option 3 to the much clearer OUP recommendation (just apostrophe when the last syllable of the name is pronounced like the verb is; apostrophe-s in all other cases). Sssoul (talk) 16:39, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Option 3 still needs work so that it provides clear advice to editors who come to the MoS in search of help with doubts or disputes; it's not helpful at all to just leave it at "discuss it and decide". so when the pronunciation of a possessive is debated or in doubt, what should the MoS recommend?

• a] use the OUP recommendation (just apostrophe when the last syllable of the name is pronounced like the verb is; apostrophe-s in all other cases)?
• b] leave pronunciation out of it and use either Option 1 or Option 2 throughout the article instead?

• c] stick with the probable pronunciation of earlier editors: if the article already includes the possessive of a noun ending in a single pronounced s, use that; if it's not the same possessive as the one you're in doubt/dispute over, maybe you can guess what that earlier editor's pronunciation of the possessive currently in question might be; and if there are no such possessives in the article yet, go back to a or b above, or see what articles on related subjects use, or just flip a coin, or ... ???

maybe it's clear that i think a or b will be more useful advice than c. any other ideas? Sssoul (talk) 15:38, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Option C works for English dialects and date formats in non-region-specific articles, for the choice between spaced en dashes and unspaced em dashes, for the choice between italic d or upright d for the differential, and for anything else; besides, it has been endorsed by the ArbCom umpteen times. Why wouldn't it work for possessives which can be pronounced in two different ways? --___A. di M. 17:47, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) because the pronunciation of possessives varies a lot more than those other issues do. a previous editor left Moses' right hand in an article. now i'm adding something about a new analysis by someone surnamed Charles, and if i find myself in a disagreement with another editor over how to write the possessive of that surname, no one has any way of guessing how that previous editor would pronounce the possessive of Charles. and no matter how we settle it for Charles, the same problem will come up when the next editor needs to add something about the even newer analysis that Richards came up with. Sssoul (talk) 18:52, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

or Davis, Harms or Dos Passos. the pronunciation-based option still needs finetuning to cover cases where there's doubt or dispute. again: the "when in doubt, follow the first editor" principle won't work here, because there's no way to guess what a previous editor's pronunciation was. does it make sense to adapt that principle to "when the pronunciation is in doubt or dispute, follow the spelling/punctuation of the first major contributor to use the possessive of a name ending in a single s"? (and isn't that tantamount to recommending Option 1 or Option 2 instead of a pronunciation-based style? Sssoul (talk) 06:14, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Huh? If the possessive of Charles does not occur in the article until now, then you are the first editor adding it, so it's your choice. What you're saying is akin to saying that if a editor writes an article in British English but uses no verb which can end with either -ise or -ize in BrE, then if you want to use such a verb you have to guess what spelling the original editor would use. --___A. di M. 20:00, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Concur here. That's silly. Users should just use common sense. If the article is written in BrE, then the contributor should not use a system that is incompatible with or incorrect in BrE, but other than that, leave them their freedom. Darkfrog24 (talk) 20:22, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

A di M, re "If the possessive of Charles does not occur in the article until now, then you are the first editor adding it, so it's your choice": but the question at hand is what to do when there's doubt or a dispute over the pronunciation, and i don't see how "it's your choice" helps, any more than "just discuss it and decide".

and Darkfrog, does ENGVAR have something to do with the question of how to settle disputes over the pronunciation of possessives? i don't see the connection.

as for common sense: that varies as much as the pronunciation of the possessive of Charles. 8) my common sense, for example, tells me that using apostrophe-s in all cases saves an awful lot of bother; but that if the Wikipedia MoS really wants to include a pronunciation-based option, the clear-cut OUP principle mentioned above would be a lot more functional for Wikipedia than the very vague Option 3 we have now. Sssoul (talk) 06:55, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

For ENGVAR, please see A. di M.'s comment. Where an article is already written in one form of English but does not yet use any possessives, then the next editor should select some form of possessive that is not incompatible with that form of English him or herself, not try to guess what the first major contributor would have preferred. Darkfrog24 (talk) 13:56, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

smile: all right, never mind – the spelling/punctuation of possessives isn't an ENGVAR issue, and i don't think A di M meant that it is (s/he just used -ise/ize as an example of something s/he views as similarly non-problematic). meanwhile, i do grasp that no one other than me sees any need to clarify the existing non-advice. oh well – i tried. 8) Sssoul (talk) 14:32, 22 September 2009 (UTC)