Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 175

Archive 170

←

Archive 173

Archive 174

Archive 175

Archive 176

Archive 177

→

Archive 180

UK punctuation

MoS currently offers substantive advice on "National varieties of English", but on punctuation remarks curtly "The accepted style of punctuation is covered in § Punctuation, below". In my observation the guidance there on dashes does not reflect the usual British practice, whereby m-dashes – which are used only as stops – have spaces before and after; while date or time ranges (such as 4-13 November) use hyphens rather than dashes. Deipnosophista (talk) 12:00, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Deipnosophista, in your query – above – you have en-dashes—is this intentional? However, yes, date ranges such as upcoming holidays circa 24–25 December do preferably use en-dashes, not hyphens. —Sladen (talk) 12:50, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

This is not a query, but an assertion that the policy is unacceptably US-centric, and should be subordinate to WP-TIES. Deipnosophista (talk) 16:40, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Likewise, I wanted to get the use of the likes of "Isil" and "Nato" permitted on the basis of ENGVAR, but that was to no avail. Regardless, the issue with dashes is so minor as to be not worth arguing over. It is already standardised, and standardisation is desirable, as it limits conflict. Have you not noticed that this style guide prefers logical quotation, for instance? RGloucester — ☎ 17:02, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Just because the MoS does something incorrect doesn't mean it needs to keep doing it. The rule that RG cites here, WP:LQ, requires that all articles, even those written in American English, use British punctuation styles. It has low compliance in the article space, even in featured articles, and is probably the single most challenged part of the MoS. If Depnosophista is right and the MoS requires that articles written in British English use a punctuation system that is incorrect in British English, then we should of course correct the MoS. Darkfrog24 (talk) 17:09, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

How do we know it is incorrect? Is there a reliable source I can read that will tell me this? --Jayron32 17:20, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

DrKay has provided this information from a sourced Wikipedia article. Darkfrog24 (talk) 17:34, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Our articles on English punctuations topics are mostly a farcical shambles, and are not reliable sources for anything other than the conclusion "these articles badly need work". I've already done the source research to improve one of them, but haven't had to time to spare to work on it in detail. And compliance with LQ is quite high in mainspace, and has been since the project started. If people are not willing to do the source research to back their claims of some ENGVAR grievance, the thread should simply be closed and archived. WT:MOS spends to much time dealing with these "I want unsupported style nitpick inserted into MoS" demands. Even if a usage is sourceable doesn't mean that consensus here will adopt it. Style is largely arbitrary, and stability is more important than any particular line item's exact wording in the MoS. Some changes to MoS could affect quite literally millions of articles and tens, maybe hundreds, of millions of lines in them, and thus should not be implemented unless there are overwhelmingly compelling reasons to do so.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  22:21, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

No, compliance with WP:LQ is not high in the mainspace. While we're on the subject of doing the research, a while ago, I actually counted how often featured articles were in compliance with WP:LQ, and a few other editors did the same assessment in non-featured articles. It was about 60% in featured articles (sample size ≈365 articles) and in the 30–40% range for American and Canadian articles (sample size ≈40 articles). But by all means go count them yourself if you don't want to take anyone else's word for it.

But there's no need to scold Deip for not doing the research. Maybe he or she just didn't know that that's how things work around here. We have someone who showed up with a problem. We asked for sources to confirm that the problem was real. Said someone did not complain about it. That means the system's working. Darkfrog24 (talk) 04:09, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict): "Isil" and "Nato" are not permitted because they're confusing, and not standard English. It's certainly not an ENGVAR matter, and this usage isn't supported by anything but a small number of minor journalism style guides (both US and UK). No major style guides support it, journalistic or (more importantly) academic. We already examined and established that pretty recently.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  22:21, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

EDIT CONFLICT: In general, I agree that ENGVAR has its place in the MoS. Let's start there. Deipnosophista, do you have a source, like a mainstream style guide, that gives British practice vis a vis dashes and hyphens? A group of specifically British sources that stipulate "do this" would be good, but one that says, "British/U.K. practice is to do this as opposed to other practices that do that" would be better.

Yes, yes, I know not everyone here thinks that the MoS has to be sourced, but establishing what British practice is is a question of fact. Even those of you who think that the only authority we need is our own decisions should not object to basing those decisions on a solid foundation. Darkfrog24 (talk) 17:04, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Dash#Spacing and substitution says mdashes are not spaced in the Oxford style guide and are spaced in the New York and AP style guides, which is the opposite way 'round to what is suggested above. It also says at Dash#Ranges of values that hyphens in date ranges are used by the AMA style guide but not the APA style guide, which indicates no preference for hyphens versus dashes in dates in the United States. DrKay (talk) 17:07, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

It's not really a matter so much of this publisher vs. that one, but the simple fact that virtually no journalism style guides even concede that the en dash exists; they use a hyphen for all situations where other publishers would use an en dash, or even a minus; for short horizontal lines they have nothing but the "hyphen-minus", used singly as a divider/conjunction, and the em dash, used (as in other styles) paired for emphasized parenthetical markup, and singly to indicate truncation or a syntactic break. WP doesn't care, because WP:NOT#NEWSPAPER and is not written in news style. Our article structure has only passing similarity to that of a newspaper article, and our prose style is nothing like that of news copy, unless you compare us to a Facebook post or a letter from Grandma. Being an online development from the formerly all-book world of encyclopedia publishing, WP style is based primarily on academic book publishing styles, with some influence from journals, and very little influence from journalism style (which typically sacrifices precision for economy due to space and reader-attention constraints, and is heavily influenced by PR and fiction styles). The primary inspirations for MoS's rules are The Chicago Manual of Style, The Oxford Guide to Style (under various titles) and the Manual of Scientific Style and Format, and the Modern Humanities Research Association Style Guide.

As for the original question, I've done, below, about 40% 80% or so of the necessary research. I don't see any sources yet drawing a sharp distinction between US and UK style on this (and MoS does not always care if there is one, if it's more trouble to implement than it's worth). The closest so far is Oxford/Hart's, suggesting that spaced en dash (versus unspaced em dash) is primarily a British style, but is not universal among British publications (Oxford style itself does not use it). So, there is no evidence of a strong national tie (so far). More to the point, I find no evidence in support of either of the OP's assertions, that "British style" may use spaced em dashes for commas (stops) in parentheticals, and that it uses unspaced hyphens to separate numbers in spans/ranges. I firmly predict that the latter will appear only in journalism style guides (which it does on both sides of the Atlantic, as demonstrated below) and that the former is simply wrong. All the British sources cited so far do not agree with the OP.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  22:21, 26 November 2015 (UTC)</a>

40%? I'd say you've gone above and beyond, SmC. Darkfrog24 (talk) 04:09, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Heh. That was from the draft stage; I'd meant to update that to 80. :-) I'm cursing myself for not including page numbers though; need to dig them all up so this can be used for article sourcing, which is more important than MoS discussions. I'm going to try to remember to dual-purpose any such sourcing runs from now on.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  09:50, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

External sources on possible ENGVAR issues with spaced en dashes

MoS doesn't need external sources cited in it to offer any advice (which is determined by consensus on what's best for WP), but it's often helpful to formation and maintenance of consensus to review what they're doing (sometimes these things change in "the real world" faster than most people think they do, e.g. the decline in "U.S." outside of certain publishing contexts over the last decade). I'm eliding various nitpicks like use of dashes next to other punctuation, and use of spaced em dashes in indexes and dictionaries to indicate repetition of a headword, or doubled em dash (= 2-em dash character) to indicate repeated author name in a bibliography, etc. We don't care about that stuff.

Wikipedia is written in academic style, not news style. Here's some key academic style sources on dashes [more later, when I get home again]:

Sourcing batch 1

The Oxford Guide to Style (a.k.a. Oxford Style Manual Part 1, a.k.a. New Hart's Rules; UK); I'm using the OGS in the OSM of 2003, because the NHR version that postdated it was abridged, and I don't have the brand new version of NHR to see whether they've fixed that. Oxford/Hart's distinguishes the role of the dash, as a parenthetical separator (usually paired) from other uses of en and em dashes, and permits either glyph to be used in this role. En dash is used in this role fully spaced on either side; the book says this is particularly common, in favor of the unspaced em dash, in British publications, but Oxford U. Press itself prefers the em dash usage in its own operations. So, neither style has a strong national tie to the US or the UK; the unspaced em dash is simply more common in general, despite the readability problems it presents. [It's likely because of a century of typewriting, in which an en dash can be simulated with a hyphen, and am em edash with two hyphens, leading to a desire to use the double-hyphen, to distinguish from other, more conventional uses of the hyphen as such.] In this particular book, OUP does not even use hair spacing to kern the use of the em dash, but this is not consistent throughout their publications (Garner's, below, is also published by OUP, for the American market, and uses thin spacing). Anyway, this use of the dash, in either form, is to clarify sentence structure; express a more pronounced structure break than commas would; and to emphasize such a break more than parentheses would; but do not over-use. Used singly to introduce a phrase at end of sentence; and to optionally replace an introductory colon. On en dashes (en rules) in other roles: Used for ranges ("pp. 23–36", "Joe Bloggs (1960–)", but does not address constructions like "11:30 a.m. – 4:00 p.m."; used for juxtapositional conjunction, "to express the meaning of to or and between words of equal importance ("Dover–Callais crossing", "editor–author relationship", "Permian–Carboniferous boundary", "on–off switch", "cost–benefit analysis"; used between names of persons credited in the name of something, e.g. a published work ("Bouger–Lambert–Beer law", "Einstein–de Sitter universe"). These are all unspaced; Oxford/Hart's considers "Winston Churchill–Anthony Eden government" awkward and suggests rewriting (it curiously does not suggest the more obvious solution: "Winston Churchill – Anthon Eden government"). It says to use a spaced en dash to indicate a missing letter: "F – – – off!" [and yes, it actually has that very example!] However, this looks terrible in practice, and what they actually did in typesetting the book is use thin spaces, which is sane: "F – – – off!"; this is what most publishers actually would do, if they didn't just use an em dash or 2-em dash (i.e., if they thought it important to indicate the number of missing letters). On em dashes/rules in other roles: Used spaced to indicate omission of a word or words (and 2-em or longer spans can be used to approximate word length "as an aid to imagination"); similarly used, but unspaced, for omission of part of a word; used unspaced to indicate truncation/interruption of a statement [though this directly contradicts previous rule for indicating missing words; it would only make sense to do this unspaced if the truncation happened before word completion: "We can deal with that tomor—"]. On the side question (raised above in the same thread) of "NATO" vs. "Nato", Oxford/Hart's says to fully capitalize: "An acronym is distinguished from other abbreviated forms by being a series of letters or syllables pronounced as a complete word: NATO and UEFA are acronyms, but MI6 and BBC are not." So much for the idea that "Nato" is "British style" and thus any kind of MOS:ENGVAR matter. [Aside: One date-related note: "The solidus [forward slash] replaces the en rule for a period of one year reckoned in a format other than the normal calendar extent" such as fiscal years and sports seasons. This is why this usage is frequently insisted upon by certain sports wikiprojects. It's also appropriate when calendars do not align exactly; the book gives this example: "AM 5750 = 1989/90". It also says to join a span of such years with an en dash, e.g. "1992/3–2001/2". As we've discussed before, this is a blecherous format that's easily mistaken for abbreviated YYYY/M constructions, and the clearer way to do this is "1992/1993 – 2001/2002" or you could probably get away with "1992/92–2001/2002" in a table and still be understood, mostly.] Fowler's Modern English Usage, revd. 3rd ed (Burchfield's version, 2004, UK). On en dashes (en rules): Use to denote a span ("23–94"); as juxtapositional conjunction/preposition replacement ("the Rome–Berlin axis", "the Temple–Hardcastle paper"); not spaced (does not address complex constructions like "11:30 a.m. – 4:00 p.m."). On em dashes/rules: Use as a form of parenthetical (does not specify that this should only be done for something already punctuated by commas); or to precede an explanation or elaboration. Does not illustrate spaced em dashes. The Chicago Manual of Style, 16th ed. (2010), the dominant academic and non-fiction guide for North American publishing. On en dashes (§6.83 ff.): Use for to, through, up to and including (i.e., in ranges like "1998–2002", not spaced); in place of a hyphen in a compound modifier when one of its elements is itself a compound; not as a minus sign (observes but deprecates that usage). CMoS is essentially self-contradictory on juxtapositional conjunctive use, advising both "U.S.-Canadian relations" (hyphen) and "University of Wisconsin–Milwaukee" (en dash). On em dashes (§6.87 ff.): Don't use more than two per sentence. Use for amplifying or explaining; for separating subject or list of subjects from pronoun [in a broad interpretation of "pronoun"] (e.g.: Dogs, cats, birds—the pets so many of us keep); for indicating sudden breaks; doubled (or a 2-em dash character) to indicate a missing word. All of these uses are unspaced, though CMoS itself kerns with hair spacing for legibility. In a variance from WP style, CMoS does not use spaced en dashes for to in ranges even for complex constructions. Where WP and many other publications would use 11:30 a.m. – 4:00 p.m., CMoS uses the visually confusing 11:30 a.m.–4:00 p.m.. This is very odd, giving CMoS usual insistence on clarity and on doing things for the sake of parallel construction (including elsewhere in the section on en dashes). CMoS defers to the CSE manual (below) in more technical contexts. On acronyms: Capitalizes them (&sect. 10.6), giving the example "NAFTA (not Nafta)", emphasis in original. Scientific Style and Format: The CSE Manual for Authors, Editors and Publishers, 8th ed. (2014, US). Presently published by Chicago U. Pr., it was formerly published by Cambridge U. Pr., and it's sometimes instructive to compare these trans-Atlantic editions, to detect changes CUP has essentially forced on it to better "marry" its advice to that of the CMoS; some of these changes have not been widely adopted outside of some percentage of US-based journals and science book publishers. I'm not sure there will be any conflict between them on this point, so I'll look at both, starting with the 8th ed. On en dashes: Use in place of and or to, to link words or terms representing items of "equal rank", including compound modifiers ("north–south avenues", "cost–Benefit analysis", "Italian–Canadian relations" [but "the Rio San Juan–Lake Nicaragua Route" where WP would use "the Rio San Juan – Lake Nicaragua Route" for easier parseability, especially on mobile devices]); to connect names in eponymous terms ("Michaelis–Menten kinetics"); as a coordinate connector in a term that includes hyphenated elements ("the Winston-Salem–Raleigh test data"), optionally for number ranges (but not when a number in the range is negative); to represent chemical bonds ("C6H5CO–O–COCH3"). On em dashes: Used to set of parentheticals, to indicate a break in the line of meaning, usually in a way that defines, elaborates, emphasizes, explains, summarizes (and typically a "sharp" break, tangential, not vital to central message of the sentence; to set of introductory elements in a sentence that explains significance (the example give is actually of an explanatory set-off that follows, not introduces, so CSE clearly permits both); before attribution for a quotation or editorial statement. [The attribution style illustrated is awkward and one that WP, and few other publishers would use: "What is a doctor? A licensed executioner.—Mazarinade", but this is really a matter of kerning, and the "with other punctuation" rules I've not detailed here from other guides, would pretty much universally disagree with running together the ".—" construction, and would have the quotation in quotation marks anyway: '"... executioner." –Mazarinade', or it would be a block quote, if long, with the attribution below it. Actually I think this spacing weirdness is a transcription error in the transition from TeX or whatever to HTML; I'm seeing this run-togetherness in the online edition, but the paper 6th ed. clearly has a full space there, or at least a thin space (it's hard to tell between "." and "–" in a proportional font), and is also hair-space kerning between dash and author.] CSE also calls for a 2-em dash to represent spans of illegible or missing letters in words; and missing/censored words. The wording seems to imply that a dash this wide would be used for a single missing character, but no other style guide I'm aware of would agree, and CSE does not illustrate such an extremity. Like the others, it does not address complex and potentially spaced en dash constructions like "11:30 a.m. – 4:00 p.m." I've compared the online 8th ed. to the 6th ed (1994, UK), and the advice is consistent except for the kerning note above, and an additional use of parenthetic em dashes as a third level of parenthetic nesting within round and square brackets, a "type of construction [that] should be avoided"; example: "...species of birds (the house sparrow [common in bushes—especially ...—as well as in trees] is the most common) and ...". We can see why that was dropped. Also, about the en dash's conjunctive use, it the older version spells out that the hyphen is used between items of "different ranks"; the examples it uses are "IUPAC—IUBMB" two separate organizations, and "NC-IUB", where on is a subset of the other. It doesn't illustrate anything but initialism usage, and this advice was dropped anyway. On acronyms, it fully capitalizes them: 'For abbreviations (acronyms or initialisms) of multiword terms, the initial letter or internal letters of words forming the term should be capitalized even if the term is not normally capitalized in running text. AM [for "ante meridiem"], AIDS [for "acquired immunodefinciency syndrome"]', (square brackets in original). MLA Handbook for Writers of Research Papers, 7th ed. (2009): Use em dashes to set off something already punctuated by commas; to mark an abrupt change of thought; to introduce words that summarize a preceding series, as in "ruthlessness, greed, compassion—his contradictory qualities are..."; optionally in place of a colon to introduce a list or elaboration. Does not address en dashes. Oddly, does not illustrate a "France–Germany relations" construction, even in the dashes section. I ascribe this to the book's intent being for students typing research paper for classes (it even specifically says "to indicate a dash, type two hyphens, with no space before, between or after. Your word processor may convert the two hyphens into a dash, as seen in the examples below."); it's a slim volume that glosses over many details. I can't find my copy of the professional edition, the MLA Style Manual and Guide to Scholarly Publishing, 3rd ed (2008, US), which probably does cover this, so someone else can perhaps dig that up. Anyway, this appears to be a preference for unspaced em dashes, and says nothing about en dash use and styling. The book itself uses hair spacing between em dashes and the material before/after them. On acronyms: It fully capitalizes them. Garner's Modern American Usage, 3rd ed. (2009, US). On en dashes: Used to show a range; as a conjunction that "indicates movement or tension (rather than cooperation or unity), and "often equivalent to to or versus (and preferable to a slash a.k.a. virgule); for joint authorship; as a hyphen replacement in phrasal modifiers where one component is complex. He notes that: "In typewriting and newspaper journalism, the en-dash is commonly represented by a single hyphen". These uses are not spaced, but the book does not address complex cases like "11:30 a.m. – 4:00 p.m." On em dashes: Use to mark an interruption in the structure of a sentence. More specifically, use in a pair to enclose a parenthetical (does not specify that this should only be done for something already punctuated by commas), especially to clarify a sentence clogged up with commas, and to highlight a particular construction ("Unfortunately, more beauty in art—like physical beauty in a person—is extremely perishable"); use in a pair to indicate ending and resumption to material interrupted by an interlocutor (especially if the result would be a comma splice should commas be used); use alone as an alternative to a colon, to set off an explanation or elaboration. Don't use more than two per sentence. In typewriting, it is often written as two hyphens unspaced from each other but sometimes spaced apart from the surrounding text sometimes not. Garner's examples are unspaced, then kerned with thin spaces. About spacing, it states (repeating NYT's obsoletism) that its permissible to put full spaces around em dashes for line-breaking reasons (this rationale is no longer valid in modern operating systems). It observes further that book publishers do not do this, and use "fine typography" (read: kerning). On acronyms: Uses "UNESCO", "the CARPE Rules", etc. Garner observes that the "Unesco" style exists, but wrongly calls it British, apparently unaware of the New York Times use of it, or many British publishers' (including Oxford's) avoidance of it. This is the same sort of unfortunately published research error or simply expedient overgeneralization that some editors here have been quick to latch onto as "proof" of something. It's not, since it's already disproven by other evidence. This is a really simple WP:NOR matter, but misuses of sources in such a way still tends to happen frequently with regard to style and titles discussions, and it really has to stop. The Copyeditor's Handbook: A Guide for Book Publishing and Corporate Communications (2011, US); as its name suggests, it includes both academic and PR style. On en dashes: Used for ranges, as hyphen replacement in phrasal modifiers when one element is complex (but not for attaching a prefix to hyphenated item as in "non-English-speaking"); and for scores or tallies ("a 5–3 win"). These uses are not spaced, but the book does not address complex cases like "11:30 a.m. – 4:00 p.m." On em dashes: used singly to indicate truncation of a statement or censorship of a word [in practical terms this must be thin-spaced or it will not be legible in some fonts]; used doubled together (or 2-em dash character) to indicating missing/illegible material; used in pairs as a parenthetical interrupter, especially for material already punctuated with commas, to mark a break in syntax, to emphasize the interruption, or when the interruption is lengthy; used singly as one way to join independent clauses, but only for special effect, usually a punchline or U-turn ("Half of all advertising is wasted—but no one knows which half.") On acronyms: "All the major style manuals recommend that acronyms be set in uppercase letters with no internal periods." It observes that the New York Times style (see below) also exists, in which "Unesco" would be written such because it's more than four letters. It does not acknowledge the Guardian style which would even write "Nasa". Of the NYT style, this book calls it "a newer convention [that] has been adopted by many newspapers", but there's no evidence (in or outside that book) for either prong of that assertion. NYT has been pushing this style since the 1980s (the 1976 edition of their guide does not use it), so it is hardly new, and I cannot find a single other style guide agreeing with it, meanwhile the NYT guide has very little influence on other newspapers, and is infrequently published, intended for everyday people, not as a journalistic manual like the much more influential annual AP volume (which has no equivalent in British journalism publishing). Modern Humanities Research Association Style Guide, 2nd Ed., Rev. 2.3 (2009, UK). Recognizes both em and en dashes (rules). On en dashes: Explicitly uses en dash for "the England–France match", and for number ranges/spans (unspaced in both cases, does not address spacing in complex cases). On em dashes: used paired to enclose parentheticals; used single to donte a break in the sentence; used sparingly, and other punctuation often more appropriate. Oddly, it suggests that em dashes are used "often with a space on either side". This is manifestly false (except perhaps in journals that follow MHRA style closely), and appears to be a confusion with spaced en dashes being used in this role. On acronyms: Uses upper case; does not even mention the "Unicef" style, despite the allegation that it is a "British" style.

Sources that comment on the matter seem to agree that use of pair of dashes as parenthetical interruptors—like this—will emphasize the interruption more than use of commas does. The MLA Handbook, adds: "Dashes make a sharper break in the continuity of the sentence than commas do, and parentheses make a still sharper one". The Copyeditor's Handbook observes "a pair of commas is the neutral choice; dashes emphasize the interrupter, while parentheses de-emphasize it." These views are not mutually contradictory, as the former is about syntactic relationship to the core of the sentence, and the latter is about visual and perhaps mental parsing impact. Oxford/Hart's somewhat combines these observations: "Use the dash to ... express a more pronounced break in sentence structure than commas, and to draw more attention to the enclosed phrase than parentheses."

Journalism style guides, which have little effect on MoS, non-fiction books, journals, or other forms of academically-oriented writing:

Sourcing batch 2

Associated Press Stylebook (2015, US), the dominant North American journalism style guide: Use em dashes to indicate an abrupt change in thought; to set off something already punctuated by commas; before attribution of author's name after a quotation; in datelines, as in "New York (AP) – Content here"; as list-item bullets. AP doesn't mention the distinction between em and en dashes at all, and presumably consider them interchangeable glyphs. It calls for spacing around the dash (including em dash) "except the start of a paragraph and sports agate summaries" (the last in news jargon translate: "sports summaries in a reduced font size"; such print is refered to as "agate" copy in US journalism and "ruby" copy in British). In actual practice, the AP Stylebook uses thin spacing not full spacing around the em dashes it illustrates. It mentions nothing about dash or use for constructions like "France–Germany relations" (I checked the "Punctuation" chapter). It not not be possible to ascertain AP's practice without insider access to AP's direct feed, since all AP newswire papers that use AP's material reserve the right to do their own copyediting. The AP.org website does not provide enough sample articles to to tell, and what they do provide is obviously based on a raw teletype-style basic text feed: It uses literal double dashes in lead introductions, not em dashes [1]. It's CustomWire.AP.org site does not follow it's own style manual, and uses single dashes not em dashes in leads ("BEIRUT (AP) - The latest developments ...") [2], which tells us nothing other than that AP doesn't take its own hyphen/dash rules seriously. On the side question (raised above in the same thread) of "NATO" vs. "Nato", AP uses "NATO" and "UNESCO", and does not even acknowledge the existence of some "Nato" and "Unesco" style. The Guardian and Observer Style Guide (2015, UK) [3]: Specifically states "Dashes should be N-dashes rather than M-dashes or hyphens", and uses them spaced on both sides. Advises on en dashes: Use singly to emphasize the conclusion of a sentence. Use in pairs for parentheticals as alternative to commas or round brackets "when you want to draw the readers's attention to something surprising or unusual". Compares it to underlining, in effect. Do not overuse; more than two per sentence is confusing, so use commas, round brackets (sparingly) or semicolons as needed. Does not discuss any other uses of dashes of any length. Neither the section on dashes nor the section on hyphens [4] mentions cases like "France–Germany relations". On the side question of abbreviations, The Guardian is the progenitor of the idea that acronyms (letter-based abbreviations that are pronounced as words) should be spelled like "Johnson" or "Japan", with only an initial capital letter, while initialisms (letter-based abbreviations that are sounded out one letter at a time) should be given in all caps [5]. It thus calls for "Nasa", "Nesta", and "Unesco", versus "NAO", "NASUWT", and "UNHCR". However, it does not apply this consistently, and uses "UNAids", for example (which is kind of insane, since the disease is AIDS, not "Aids", and it's an agency dealing with the disease, not providing "aid" in a general sense). The Guardian appears to be attempting to emulate how a newscaster would say the name aloud. This is basically an aberrant "look at us, we're different!" idiosyncrasy, not supported by other style guides, even British ones, and certainly not by the academic, formal English ones that MoS is based on. It's a lowest-common-denominator appeal to reading speed. It also results in some ridiculous, confusing output that WP would never tolerate, e.g. referring to season affect disorder as "Sad" (yes, capitalized), and referring to personal identification numbers as "pin numbers" (lower case start, inconsistently), which is redundant on top of the "hide the fact that this is an acronym" problem. Even other journalism organizations avoid this kind of nonsense. New York Times Manual of Style and Usage, 5th ed. (2015, US): Use em dashes to set off something already punctuated by commas; to mark an abrupt change in continuity of, or cutoff of expression; optionally before "viz.", "namely", etc.; not more than one pair per sentence. It has some now-obsolete technical advice that in the writing phase they should be spaced to allow line-breaking at them when justifying type in narrow columns (I'm unaware of any modern system that today does not auto-allow wrapping at an em dash). WP doesn't use word-spacing justification anyway, and the book's own usage of em dashes does not use spaces, though it does use kerning for legibility, as do most other publications (including the NYT newspapers). This would normally be done with the thin space character. NYT Manual boldly asserts "The dash used in news copy is one em wide. Do not use the shorter en dash (–) except as a minus sign." WP is not news copy, and Unicode now provides a proper minus character (−) so what NYT says here is meaningless to us. NYT Manual avoids dashes entirely in "headlines (other than banks)", which is also meaningless on WP. Because this source would not use en dashes, other than incorrectly as minuses, one presumes that they would use hyphens in constructions like "France–Germany relations", though they do not say so outright, including in the hyphens section. A quick search shows that their website uses hyphens for this purpose [6]. WP essentially doesn't care, since NYT's writing milieu, and the style decisions they've made with regard to it, are foreign to WP's needs. Spacing: In comparing to other texts, it looks like the exact spacing used in the NYT Manual is actually hair spacing, but this was probably decided by Three Rivers Press, the actual publisher. Not sure what the actual newspaper does. The website uses spaced em dashes in "BERLIN — Over recent months ..." leads, bu On the acronyms questions, the NYT, like The Guardian, has it's own made-up rule. While it uses "NATO", it would use "Unesco", on the basis "When an acronym serves as a proper name and exceeds four letter, capitalize only the first letter: Unesco, Unicef." This is too idiosyncratic for WP to care about, and is even more arbitrary and pointless than the Guardian approach. However, while it demonstrates that the only-capitalize-first-letter approach has no consistent rationale, and we can see that most sources ignore it, it happens to disprove that this is a British idea; it is therefore no WP:ENGVAR matter. PS: Given the large number of points on which the NYT conflicts with AP style, this appears to be an overall market positioning strategy, a PR move to set apart itself and the few (mostly conservative, US East Coast-based, and financial/government-oriented) papers that follow its style, as recognizably distinct from the widespread "rabble" of populist newspapers. WP really WP:DGAFs about this kind of language manipulation to make a point, and can simply ignore it, as it can The Guardian's similar attention-seeking antics on the other side of the Pond. The Economist Style Guide, 11th ed. (2015, UK): Refers to "dashes" without distinguishing between em and en, and does not provide examples in that section. Probably assumes, as we think AP does, that they're simply alternative glyphs for the same thing. Throughout its text, it uses en dashes, spaced on both sides. It says to use dashes "as parentheses", i.e. to set off material from the rest of the sentence, but does not specify that this should only be done for something already punctuated by commas; not more than one pair per sentence, preferably per paragraph. Quotes an external source "Gowers" (presumably The Complete Plain Words by Ernest A. Gowers) for some other uses: "to introduce an explanation, amplification, paraphrase, particularism or correction ... to gather up the subject of a long sentence ... to introduce a paradoxical or whimsical ending to a sentence". Says avoid using it as catch-all punctuation device, as semicolons are often better. Does not address "France–Germany relations", does not address spacing. Does not illustrate spaced em dashes. It's extensive section on hyphenation does use hyphens for ranges/spans of number, but provides zero examples of the "France–Germany relations" sort. On the acronyms question: Says clearly to use "NATO", etc., and never even mentions the weird "Nato" style. This, together with the BBC (see next entry) proves that "Nato" is not "British style", it's simply The Guardian style. BBC News Styleguide (2003, UK; you can find the PDF around online, but I'm not sure of the legality of the copies, so I won't link to them): Gives no rules for dashes or hyphens at all. However, throughout, and quite frequently, it demonstrates the use of spaced en dashes as emphasizing clause dividers ("This is a sample – there are lots more where these came from."). It also uses them between items and their descriptions in lists (a fairly common style on WP: * Foo – content about foo. To address the acronyms side topic raised in the discussion above: It says to use "NATO", etc., not "Nato". [Off-topic aside: This guide is concise enough to read in an hour and has a lot of very useful general writing advice. One of my favorites is on "buzzword bingo" modifications of words: "Standard English has accepted verbs such as finalise, editorialise, publicise and miniaturise, but will it be so receptive to others? Our listeners and viewers must not be offended or have their attention diverted by the words we use." It uses constructions like guested, civilianise and casualise as examples of questionable usage. MOS itself should say essentially the same thing somewhere.] The Times Style and Usage Guide (2011, UK) [7]: Uses spaced en dashes, illustrates them as parenthetical emphasizers. Says to avoid over-use. "As a rule of thumb, on pair per 500 words is enough". Does not address single-dash use to set off end of sentence. Does not address (I checked under "dashes", "hyphenation", "punctuation") cases like "France–Germany relations). On the acronym question, it it bizarrely inconsistent. It actually wants to see "Nafta" not "NAFTA" and "Ucas" not "UCAS", but "UMIST" not "Umist" and IATA not "Iata"; there is no rhyme or reason to this (not even The Guardian's "is it pronounced as a word or as a string of individual letters?" idea), so The Times can simply be ignored as noise on this question. The Telegraph Style Book (2008, sporadic revisions inserted up to 2015; UK). Refers to "dashes", and uses en dashes, spaced. On dashes: Not used as routine replacement for commas, but "useful to indicate the written equivalent of a change of tone in speech" when setting off a parenthetical; also used to set of such a segment when it is already punctuated with commas [8]. Neither that section nor the one on hyphens address constructions of the form "France–Germany relations" [9]. Acronyms: Oddly, it has no section on acronyms and abbreviations at all. However, looking through its A–Z entries: Nato, Nafta, UNHCR, IRA; it appears to be following Guardian style, not NYT style, in favoring some form of lower-casing, but it does not actually articulate a rule, so this is a guess. Regardless, this is (despite being Web-accessible) an internal house style document, not a publication intended as public style advice, unlike the AP, NYT, and Guardian journalism style guides, so it's essentially irrelevant to this question. Los Angeles Times Stylebook (1981, US). "Dashes are to separate, hyphens to unite." Only shows em dashes, and doesn't seem aware of the existence of en dashes. Use dashes to: indicate abrupt change in thought, continuity or pace; introduce author credit for a quotation; as list bullets; not for dialogue or Q-and-A formatting. On hyphens and exactly how to use them: "Even the experts are driven to despair." [WP's sometimes arbitrary decisions regarding them are, like those in all other style guides, thus never going to please everyone at a the same time. So it goes.] Neither section addresses constructions like "France–Germany relations". This source is so old (and has not been republished in a newer edition that I know of) that we probably don't care about it. It pre-dates the ability to type command-hyphen (Mac) or alt-0150 (Windows, and requires left-alt and numeric keypad numbers), or use a floating character palette or other character entry tools. The "game has changed" in the last generation or so with regard to dash usage, with the barriers to compliance with formal, academic style greatly reduced. On acronyms: Uses all-caps, with examples like "SALT talks" and "DEW line".

Given these journo stylebooks, I think it is safe to conclude that some WP editors' loathing for the use of the en dash in "France–Germany relations" constructions is most often directly tied to individual familiarity with and preference for news style, probably especially the AP and Guardian stylebooks (the NYT guide is not widely used, while AP style has even had a bit of influence on British and other journalism that can be detected if you study changes in British style guides over time).

It's also clear that the "Nato" style of giving acronyms is simply The Guardian's own house style. The one attempt I can find to emulate it, by The Times of London, didn't even get it right and isn't self-consistent. While the NYT proposes something similar, it's only for long acronyms, has a different rationale, and directly conflicts with Guardian usage except where they converge on longer acronyms like UNESCO -> Unesco by accident. It's not "British style", it's simply expedient at the cost of precision, and has no place here. That said, all these sources – UK, US, academic, journalism – accept full lower-casing of acronyms that have been reinterpreted and integrated into English as everyday words, such as "laser" and "radar", which most people don't even know are acronyms. Exactly what words qualify varies from sources to source (when they provide many examples at all), but is essentially a matter of linguistic description not prescriptive grammar; MoS thus need not try to provide a list, and we can just leave this up to editorial discretion at articles, since it's liable to vary by context anyway. There's also broad agreement that company names that originated as acronyms (Exxon, Ikea) may be written in mixed case when it's conventional to do so, and may remain upper case when conventional for those companies (GEICO). All the guides also accept lowercasing of some "functionary" initialisms and acronyms, like "e.g." (whether to use dots varies by guide, with the no-dots style only appearing in British one, and only in some of them); there's disagreement about a few of these, e.g. "a.m. / p.m." versus "AM / PM".

PS: A template-coding upshot of all this is that almost everyone thin-spaces or at least hair-spaces em dashes, so our own — template should be doing this (I've sandboxed this at Template:Em dash/sandbox just now, and had already used such kerning on all the quotation templates several months ago (except one, I think {{quote box}}, which does not preprend a dash before the cited author the way the rest of them do).

To-do?: This is just a quick run through some handy volumes; I could pull up plenty more if it's wanted, but I have a holiday party to get to, so I have to run for now. In particular, I've not gone over legal style guides, the ACS, AMA, & APA manuals, the Columbia, McGraw-Hill and American Heritage guides, the guides included in major dictionaries, the UN's various "international English" guides, Writing for Scholarly Journals, The Blue Book of Grammar and Punctuation, The Handbook of Good English, and a few others that might be worth looking at (I have a Canadian and an Australian one around). The odds that I'll bother with that are low, however, since this is time consuming, and we already have enough evidence at hand to put to bed the various complaints raised.

Conclusions so far:

• No particular dash usage has a strong national tie (though unspaced em dashes are more common in AmEng than spaced en dashes, for uses in which either are acceptable).
• The uses of en dashes we outline in MoS are not made up WP-isms.
• The substitution of hyphens for en dashes (and even minuses) is a journalistic expediency, not supported in academic style guides.
• When en dashes are used in place of em dashes, they should be spaced.
• Em dashes are not spaced in most uses.
• En dashes are not spaced in constructions like 1997–2002.
• Acronyms should be written UNESCO not Unesco, except where they're company names or the like for which the convention is to treat them otherwise (Ikea, Exxon), or where it's conventional to give them all-lowercase (e.g., i.e.), or where they've been assimilated as words (scuba, laser).
• The "Unesco" style is not "British", it's just an expediency favored by a small number of US and UK newspapers, who do apply contradictory rules, rationales, and results to the question.

The only thing I did not run across in this sourcing spree is spacing of en dashes in complex ranges. But who cares? It's entirely and perfectly sufficient that WP has arrived at a consensus to do it that way for readability. The style exists off-WP, even if a morning's research didn't turn up a paper-book rule for it.

— SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  22:21, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Way to bring it, SmC. Darkfrog24 (talk) 04:09, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Happy to do it, when it settles a dispute. Several at once, in this case.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  09:40, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Followup sourcing

Arbitrary break. And I am so full of [American] Thanksgiving dinner I'm in pain. >;-)

I went thru some of that too quickly, and forgot some stuff; have also added one source:

Sourcing batch 3

In some sources I noticed but didn't differentiate (and have thus forgotten where I saw it) an en dash rule to use it for forming compound modifiers with complex components generally, versus doing so only when one of the components is already hyphenated. At least two, maybe three or more, of the sources cited above specifically used the more general approach, and at least one used the more limited one. Another source, The Yahoo! Style Guide (2010, US, and specifically about online writing, thus very relevant to WP) gives on p. 213 a non-general but different rule: "Use the en dash to: ... Construct a compound adjective that includes a proper noun of more than one word. ... Examples: ... Jim was interested in the pre–Civil War era." I think one other guide might have said this. I also think one or more non-journo manuals, in favor of the when-part-is-hyphenated-already variant would not agree. Moving on, YSM also says to use en dashes for numeric ranges. It recognizes the use of the hyphen as an alternative for this purpose, but only in contexts in which the en-dash cannot be coded/rendered (the 2010 examples it gives, of RSS feeds and non-HTML e-mail, are no longer even technically applicable; even Unix e-mail systems can handle the lower Unicode ranges these days). It uses em dashes to: indicate a break in a sentence; set off an explanatory or amplifying parenthetical; separate noun or noun phrase(s) from a summarizing clause; and denote an open range, such as a date range with no ending date, e.g. Jane Smith (1960—). That last seems to be aberrant and is not supported in other sources which use an en dash for this as in any other range (or a hyphen for it, in journalism guides that do not recognize the existence of the en dash). They even give an example that looks ridiculous: "Mick Jagger (1943—), Brian Jones (1942–1969), and Keith Richard (1943—) were among the band's original members." This usage appears to have been quasi-popularized if not originated by the blog A List Apart in 2001 in a then-important article [10] (some of the technical details and admonitions in it are obsolete, though it also popularized the "learn that these are different characters" idea in Web typography, including the use of the en dash for ranges). On spacing: YSG does not space the prescribed en dash uses. It says that spacing the em dash is optional, and should be done consistently one way or the other (unusual, but at least one other style guide also allows spacing of em dashes, as already noted above). It's reasonable to assume, I would think, that YSG would thus permit but not require spacing of en dashes used in the role it prescribes for em dashes, though it does not say so outright. On acronyms: It capitalizes them, other than the conventional exceptions like "i.e." and "scuba". However, it suggests that this is an American norm – without saying anything else. It doesn't suggest that any other area/dialect in particular has any particular alternative, nor that all-caps isn't also the norm in many other places/varieties, nor even that it isn't distinguishing between all-caps and the small-caps style. A nit-pick I did not mention in the earlier sourcing run: As far as I can recall, zero of the already-examined sources required small-caps style for acronyms. A few, mostly American and journalistic, suggested it as optional, with at least recommending it particularly on pages that have a lot of acronyms, to reduce the "alphabet soup" effect. MoS has had various prior discussions about that style, and repeatedly rejected it. Despite the lower letter-height, it ends up looking like some form of emphasis, the opposite of the desired effect, and it is in fact used as emphasis, e.g. in rendering the Tetragrammaton (see {{LORD}}). Another minor point: Some sources permit but usually do not require "(1943– )", with a space, as improving readability, a view I'm kind of neutral about.

Anyway, I was in a bit of a hurry when I did all of the above, and should have thought to input the page numbers as I was going along, so that all of this could be used to improve our actual articles on dashes with source citations. I guess I can re-examine this stuff tomorrow and add that info, as I now want to look at the "en dashes for compound, complex modifiers" material again more closely. There seem to actually be three divergent rules: Do it generally, do it when there's already a hyphen, do it with or without a hyphen if it involves a multi-word proper name. MoS should probably use the generalized version, since editors familiar with either rule are apt to follow it, it improves readability, and it's backed by multiple sources. The last matters because it means a lot of editors and readers will expect it to work that way and be confused by with the narrower, conflicting approaches, not because MoS "needs to be sourced". What does need to be better sourced are our shaky grammar and style articles.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  09:40, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Should Wikipedia use made-up or neologistic pronoun replacements in Wikipedia's own voice?

FYI

 – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

This has come up before, but here it is again: Talk:Genesis P-Orridge#RFC: is the idiosyncratic use of s/he and h/er acceptable in this article?  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  21:26, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

We don't need special pronouns for transgender people. A trans woman should be referred to as she/her throughout her life. The only times we refer to a trans woman as he/him are:

1. Direct quotations (direct quotations must keep their original words; this rule takes priority over all other rules except the need to avoid foreign languages.)
2. Titles of works (e.g. if somebody wrote a book called "Bruce Jenner: How He Did at the Olympics", we would keep the old title.
3. Situations where the statement that someone is transgender is an un-verified rumor, per WP:VNT.

Any how abouts?? Georgia guy (talk) 22:44, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm going to go with no. Wikipedia should not use made-up words. If some kind of gender-neutral pronoun enters the lexicon, we can start using it then. Darkfrog24 (talk) 22:56, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

• This was a pointer to an ongoing thread on another page not an attempt to forum-fork it. And to clarify (since one respondent here knew what I meant but one did not) this isn't about pronoun use in general, but about adopting neologistic ones preferred by the subject and using them in WP's own voice.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  10:01, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Proposed ArbCom decision will directly affect "language activism"

WP:MOS (and WP:AT, and WP:RM) are frequently beset by language change advocacy, and we'll shortly have something to use against this particular form of PoV pushing. The upcoming ArbCom decision at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Genetically modified organisms/Proposed decision: The purpose of Wikipedia is to create a high-quality, free-content encyclopedia in an atmosphere of cameraderie [sic] and mutual respect among the contributors. In particular, it is not the purpose of Wikipedia to right great wrongs; Wikipedia can only record what sources conclude has been the result of social change, but it cannot catalyze that change.

While that's not an MOS/AT case in particular, this is a general statement of principle, and its reasoning obviously applies broadly, including to various sorts of campaigning that are brought to MOS and AT.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  01:39, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Skimming the PD I'm not seeing much in the way of reasons why this was brought up. It's kind of unfortunate that "follow the sources" has to even be said, but there /have certainly been several cases (Bradley/Chelsea Manning) where that principle has gotten lost with poor results. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 04:06, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Well, yes. I brought it up because that's true, it's been true in other areas like GMO articles, and ArbCom is finally spelling this principle out clearly. Most of the quoted passage is just summary of policy, but the new part is "Wikipedia can only record what sources conclude has been the result of social change, but it cannot catalyze that change." It's liable to come up repeatedly henceforth.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  15:34, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

No question that we have to be vigilant about people trying to use WP as a vehicle for language reform. But no arbcom decision is going to be a magic bullet. It just has to be addressed case-by-case. As I understand it, ArbCom decisions, in theory, don't even set precedent. --Trovatore (talk) 06:53, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Sure would be nice. Darkfrog24 (talk) 13:19, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

(ec) They don't set precedent, in the sense that ArbCom does not consider itself bound by previous decisions in addressing new cases; in this, it's more like a civil law than common law system. However, in actual practice there's a strong influence from one similar case to the next (easily observable by the increasing number of boilerplate Principles and Remedies reused in similar cases); admins and the community at large apply reasoning in decided cases to similar situations (aided by the "broadly construed" language in various remedies); and ArbCom, AE, ANI, etc., look strongly askance at WP:LAWYER / WP:GAMING attempts to evade application of accepted principles on the basis that it was from a particular case and can't be applied just because the page in question is different from the one[s] in the case[s]. Yes, no magic bullet, but I expect it will have a significant effect. If the constant battlegrounding about how we write about transgender individuals, for example, were to continue (I seem to recall at least four different mile-long Village Pump debates about this in the last 6 months or so, as well as several years of "slow editwarring" over the content of the applicable section at MOS), I have no doubt that it'll end up at ArbCom, and that a similar MOS-specific Principle that "WP ... cannot catalyze that change" will be in the decision in that case, perhaps directly copy-pasted from the one in the GMO case. This is overdue and badly needed; I doubt any of us are unaware that WP being in the top 5 websites in the world, and millions of people's go-to source for basic information about just about everything, has markedly increased special-interest pressure on our content and self-governance from outside parties with advocacy/propaganda goals.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  15:34, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Well, with transgender pronouns there's really no way to not take a position. Say "she" and you say that the trans woman really is a woman. Say "he" and you say she isn't. Switch back and forth and you say that human beings can change gender. Don't switch back and forth and you say they can't. We could never talk about transgender individuals, but that's taking the position that they shouldn't be talked about. But for most issues, yes, there's some neutral or standard or at least prevailing option that can be used. Darkfrog24 (talk) 18:19, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

So avoid pronouns (at least in historical material before the change / public coming out). The only cost of that avoidance is some rewording time and sometimes a little bit of extra use of a surname. "Foo produced the play Bar in 1997. In 2000, Foo then ..." instead of "Foo produced the play Bar in 1997. In 2000, he then ...". It's certainly much less painful than two months of flamewarring on the talk page about whether to use "he", "she", "he/she", "(s)he", etc., etc.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  18:41, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

The surname solution does work much of the time, always avoiding pronouns is poor writing. Darkfrog24 (talk) 02:13, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

For most subjects, the "before" material won't be all that much of the article (Jenner is an exception, due to the unusual lateness in life of the transition). Some awkwardness in writing is preferential to years of continued editwarring about the matter at article after article, surely. Because English is itself in transition on this issue, every possible way to attempt to write about such subjects is going to be awkward, even uncomfortable, for a significant portion of our audience, no matter what. I think I'm mostly re-stating what you're saying, on a re-read, but not coming to the same conclusion (?). Anyway, I wasn't trying to create a redundant thread about what we should do about TG subjects; I was just using it as an example of what this kind of ArbCom reasoning will probably be applied to sooner or later.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  10:16, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Proposal for the deletion of all the galleries of personalities from the articles about ethnic groups

Seemingly there is a significant number of commentators which support the general removal of infobox collages. I think there is a great opportunity to get a general agreement on this matter. It is clear that it has to be a broad consensus, which must involve as many editors as possible, otherwise there is a big risk for this decision to be challenged in the near future. Consequently, I will open the RfC process, hoping that more people will adhere to this proposal.

Everybody is welcome to their view here. Hahun (talk) 23:08, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Confusing gender constructions

Moved from User talk:Peter coxhead § MOSID

There's been a bunch of back-and-forth just now over the wording of the "avoid confusing constructions" advice at MOS:IDENTITY. The advice to avoid confusing constructions very clearly does reflect consensus, and is an in-context application of the MOS lead's common-sense advice to rewrite around intractable conflicts. Ongoing debate at the Village Pump, in discussions that have not even concluded yet, doesn't change that. Reviewing this, it's clear that the contentious part is the suggestion, in the example, to revise by using a pronoun-based construction that is presently hotly disputed at VP, and has previously been disputed at VP and at MOS, and at other places. The solution half of an example being disputed is not a dispute about the identification of the problem.

The obvious workaround is using example language like this instead: "Avoid confusing constructions (she fathered a child) by rewriting (e.g., Smith became a parent)." Or not providing an example of what to rewrite to, and only preserving the example of what we mean by confusing constructions. (And, yes, it was pulled from an actual article; in a search during the previous round of debate, I found at least half a dozen cases of "she fathered a child" or "he gave birth" in real articles, and that was long after the advice had been in MOS, meaning there used to be even more of them, that triggered that addition to MOS in the first place and got cleaned up afterward).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  13:51, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

"Smith became a parent" sounds good. Darkfrog24 (talk) 13:57, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Sounds good to me too. Peter coxhead (talk) 14:56, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Sounds good to me as well.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 16:37, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

It looks like this points towards the idea that transgender people should not be referred to with pronouns at all before the transition. Any clarification on the exact rule?? It says:

Any person whose gender might be questioned should be referred to by the pronouns, possessive adjectives, and gendered nouns (for example "man/woman", "waiter/waitress", "chairman/chairwoman") that reflect that person's latest expressed gender self-identification. This applies in references to any phase of that person's life.

But this points towards the idea that it should go:

Any person whose gender might be questioned should be referred to by the pronouns, possessive adjectives, and gendered nouns (for example "man/woman", "waiter/waitress", "chairman/chairwoman") that reflect that person's latest expressed gender self-identification, as long as no confusion can result from wordings. If confusion can result, then try to avoid pronouns.

Any corrections on the wording?? Georgia guy (talk) 15:01, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

This section was recently discussed. A good point raised in that thread was that part of the problem comes from putting undue emphasis on biology in ways we wouldn't normally do. The phrase "fathered a child" is only used in 244 articles, which appear to mostly deal with situations where there is some doubt as to paternity. However "became a parent" is even rarer, appearing 18 times, many of which are "became a parent figure/company/etc.". By my count, only three of those uses are intended as direct statements about a real person having a child. I think part of what makes this advice stick out is that the language being recommended isn't much of an improvement over what is being proscribed.

A possible rewording could be: "Avoid confusing constructions and placing an undue emphasis on biology (e.g., she fathered a child) by rewriting (e.g., Smith had a son)."--Trystan (talk) 16:48, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Trystan, I can't believe that you disagree with the absoluteness of the original rule; you're the one who wrote the Wikipedia:Gender identity essay, and included as one of the questions "Isn't it confusing??" Georgia guy (talk) 16:59, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

For clarification on what I'm talking about, this is the second question in the "Retroactivity" section of the Wikipedia:Gender identity essay. Georgia guy (talk) 17:00, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't see a conflict. I do support a presumption of retroactivity when someone comes out as trans (as opposed to the presumption that someone changed genders). The essay also says that clear drafting is the antidote to confusion, and in some cases it is clearest to simply write around the pronoun, rather than going into undue detail about someone's gender identity and gender presentation at a given time. I don't know that I agree with the absoluteness of any MoS rule.--Trystan (talk) 17:36, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

It's not clear what "An undue emphasis on biology" is. Dingsuntil (talk) 23:02, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't like "Smith became a parent" because it's not obvious how Smith became a parent. Did Smith provide sperm? An egg? Did Smith adopt? I don't know of any English word besides "Fathered" which indicates that Smith actually did. "Smith had a child" is better than "Smith became a parent" in that it indicates that Smith is the natural parent of the child. I still prefer "Smith fathered a child." Dingsuntil (talk) 23:00, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

You mean, for you the Smith we're talking about should be treated like a man for this purpose, not a trans woman?? Georgia guy (talk) 23:31, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

It sounds like you're picking a fight. If you are, don't. If you aren't, clarify. Dingsuntil (talk) 08:21, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

WP:MOS says treat trans women like women. "Father" as a verb means become a father, meaning that you prefer the article should treat Smith like a man. Georgia guy (talk) 21:38, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) If it needs to be clarified, we'd clarify it with a sentence explaining what happened. It's senseless in this area to attempt to rely on hotly disputed pronouns to do this for us. Especially given that it's physically impossible for a transwoman, born biologically male, to have provided the egg in the process for forming a baby. The question simply doesn't arise. If you adopt, you aren't becoming a parent, you're become and adoptive parent, and regardless, we'd say "The Smiths adopted a son", or "Smith and Jones adopted a daughter" or whatever, anyway, using prose that doesn't read like it was written by a robot. :-) I return to the MoS lead's common-sense admonition: Rewrite to avoid confusion and conflict.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  10:12, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Adoptive parents are parents. Also, you can't solve this problem by assuming other people will write their articles a certain way. Consider saying Smith had/fathered a child vs Smith became a parent in an article where it isn't obvious when Smith transitioned. Dingsuntil (talk) 08:34, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Anything that states or implies that transgender subjects should never be referred to with pronouns should be chucked. Yes, most of the time we just use the surname for any subject, but requiring it in all instances requires poor writing. Does it need to be obvious how Smith became a parent? "Smith's son was born," "Smith had a daughter," etc. are also good in my book. As for the text of the guideline proper, that's under discussion at the village pump and currently awaiting closure. We should probably wait for that to finish before making any other changes. Darkfrog24 (talk) 04:39, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

I support including advice to prefer "became a parent" or "had a child" to "fathered a child" for reasons I outlined in last month's discussion; I oppose bringing a preference for names vs pronouns into this, especially since it contradicts the guidance earlier in the paragraph to use (gender-identity-based) pronouns. Let's stick with the wording we currently have ("name → name"), or else go back to the "pronoun → pronoun" language which had been in the MOS, unless there's consensus specifically to switch from those to a construction that deprecates pronouns. @Dingsuntil, noting who provided sperm would generally be undue, in Wikipedia parlance, if sources only consider "A is B's parent" important and not details of how "[trans woman A] used her sperm to become the father of B with an ovum from C via penis-in-vagina sexual congress". -sche (talk) 07:13, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

I concur with -sche on this, in the interests of "cleanness of consensus". We need to address this one part at a time, or more flamewarring will surly erupt. While I dispute recent changes that seem to suggest rewriting history, and dispute that they represent consensus more specifically, it's clear that there's a consensus to advise avoiding constructions like "she fathered a child" and "he gave birth", and we can fix that independently of any other questions, and come back to those separately. The less we commingle these issues, the more stability we'll achieve.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  10:08, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

It's not that it was important that Smith used sperm to become the father of Biff, which I agree will often be undue, but that Smith is Biff's natural parent, rather than his adopted parent. That Smith is the natural parent of Biff is highly likely to be considered relevant by sources in cases where Smith subsequently changed genders. Hence my opposition to an instruction which directs editors to use language which obscures this fact. To do so would be that language activism we're supposed to avoid. Our description should be as obscure as our sources. Dingsuntil (talk) 10:38, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

To clarify, I say "Smith had a child" is, I hope, what we can all agree on, even though it has female-specific connotations when used in respect of an individual (as opposed to a couple). These connotations are why I prefer "Fathered." If we have to use a word with biological connotations, we should use the term with the right biological connotations. But "had a child" is more ambiguous, so I guess we can live with it. Dingsuntil (talk) 10:45, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

“ Publication style is largely about consistency and polish, which in turn can represent credibility – if we can’t decide whether we use gray or grey, can you trust our attention to detail in stories about campaign finance or nuclear weapons? But it's also about not looking weird, not distracting readers. ” — Bill Walsh (December 4, 2015). "The Post drops the 'mike' – and the hyphen in 'e-mail'". WashingtonPost.com. Retrieved December 6, 2015.

We don't need to prescribe any allegedly perfect wording that won't please everyone, just proscribe really poor wording that confuses readers (or which is pushing some kind of language "reform" WP:SOAPBOX and misusing the encyclopedia as a soci-political messaging platform). "Smith's second child was born in ...", "Smith became a parent for the third time in ...", "Smith's second daughter and fourth child was born in ...", etc., etc., are all just as good (provided the context works for the details) as "Smith had a child", which, yes, does potentially imply motherhood to some readers, but even that is better than "she fathered a child". Basically, zero imaginable options are worse than that (or the gender-flipped version, "he gave birth"). It's shades of "Early one morning, late at night, two dead boys got up to fight ...." I'll quote (in sidebar) a recent summary of what style is all about, by Bill Walsh, the style guide editor of (and regular writer for) The Washington Post, also one of the best-selling authors of grammar and style books; he sums up perfectly why we need to get this right. Which means do it in a way that makes WP look collectively sane, intelligent, and competent (or at least not look like any of the alternatives; when writing is done well, it's essentially transparent to most readers, just as the typical moviegoer is not thinking about lighting or camera angles unless the director's doing something poorly, or intentionally distracting the audience to make some kind of point that chips away at the fourth wall).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  04:19, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

I saw "Smith became a parent" as an example, not a requirement. After all, not every article is about someone named "Smith." But in general, I agree with SmC's point. If the issue is that people are doing something that causes a problem, then just make a rule against that thing. They may find other affirmative solutions that have not occurred to us. Darkfrog24 (talk) 05:06, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Proposal: Titles

AP Stylebook: "In general, confine capitalization to formal titles used directly before an individual's name" (my italics).

Example: "Capitalize president only as a formal title before one or more names." Sca (talk) 02:36, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

This is general practice in U.S. journalism and publishing. There's no logical expository reason to capitalize common nouns such as king, president, etc., unless referring to a specific person. (No more than with organizational titles, such as chairman, director, general, etc.)

No policy should be maintained merely because it's established practice or tradition. That's how institutions become ossified relics. Sca (talk) 22:51, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

See MOS:JOBTITLES.—Wavelength (talk) 23:14, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, this is already covered, in the direction you're proposing. If you're encountering people who ignore this point and over-capitalize in constructions like "Smith is an Electrical Engineer and a Systems and Network Administrator at FooCorp", it's because a) they're more familiar with "business English" not formal writing and have not noticed or absorbed the MoS (and CMoS and Oxford, etc.) way of doing it, or b) they're ignoring it on purpose in pursuit of a WP:Specialized style fallacy, which is especially common with government job titles, and with unusual ones (mostly in the tech industry, e.g. "framework evangelist", etc.). It's safe to just lower-case them and move on, citing MOS:JOBTITLES, as Wavelength suggests.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  00:51, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

As disclosure, there was a recent dispute about this over on Main Page errors. The contentious issue was not about job titles in general (no one is arguing that every instance of king/president/electrical engineer should be capitalised), but about the third exception of MOS:JOBTITLES: When the correct formal title is treated as a proper name (e.g. King of France; it is correct to write Louis XVI was King of France but Louis XVI was the French king). Does this caveat hold true, or should (like what I think the proposer is suggesting) we reclarify this? Fuebaey (talk) 23:14, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Gender identity: biographical articles thread has been closed

We have official closure with no consensus and a recommendation to "rerun in the future with a clearer layout and [fewer] options." (Sigh) It had fewer options before people started adding more. Darkfrog24 (talk) 16:22, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Supports

Thread retitled from "Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Sources".

See also: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 105#Guideline-by-guideline citation of sources (November 2008)

I have started Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Sources, and I invite editors to populate it with sources.
—Wavelength (talk) 23:35, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

If you mean to list sources that support existing MoS content, then I'm pleased to say that we've gotten started. If you want the actual sources that were used to place the rules there in the first place, that might be harder.

I was against the MOS:REGISTER when it was first proposed, but it's quite won me over. Darkfrog24 (talk) 03:54, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your support. Sources that support existing MOS content are adequate. (The external links at User:Wavelength/About English/Adverbs and hyphens#Google Search may be helpful.)

—Wavelength (talk) 04:16, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

I am considering the shortcut "MOS:SOURCES", but I have found that "MOS:SOURCE" is already in use.

—Wavelength (talk) 05:02, 25 November 2015 (UTC) and 05:26, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

I have applied the shortcut "MOS:SUPPORT".

—Wavelength (talk) 05:35, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

I have renamed the new subpage as "Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Supports" and I have revised the shortcut to "MOS:SUPPORTS". I am revising the heading of this section from Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Sources to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Supports, in harmony with WP:TPOC, point 12 (Section headings). Please see Microcontent: How to Write Headlines, Page Titles, and Subject Lines. The new heading facilitates recognition of the topic in links and watchlists and tables of contents.

—Wavelength (talk) 16:28, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Now it looks like "things that the MoS supports." Given that we're on Wikipedia, the word "sources" is a little more recognizable. EDIT: I think it's the plural that's knocking the meaning out. Darkfrog24 (talk) 19:54, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

The word "Supports" is a noun (not a verb), as it is in "Wikipedia:Supports".

—Wavelength (talk) 20:20, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, a plural noun. Still sounds funny. Both here and in this page you've cited, it would work better as "Support." Darkfrog24 (talk) 22:04, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

As I explained in June 2015 (User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 189#Wikipedia:Supports), English readers might initially be alarmed by what appears to be a command ("Support!"). Also, English "sources" is like English "supports" in being both a noun and a verb. Do you prefer the singular form "Source"? If you or I change it back to "Sources", what would be a suitable shortcut? Alternatively, what other one-word options are available for the name of the subpage? If this issue is important for you, I can try to find another name, possibly with more than one word (such as "Supportive style guides"), and a corresponding shortcut (such as "MOS:SSG", in which "SSG" is unfortunately close to "SSF" in "WP:SSF" on a QWERTY keyboard).

When I changed the name to "Supports", I actually anticipated that you would find it to be better than "Sources", as I found it to be. Not all the MOS guidelines are necessarily supported by outside sources, because in a few cases MOS guidelines are based on the unique needs of Wikipedia.

—Wavelength (talk) 23:02, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

In case this isn't clear, this is a "huh, sounds funny" objection and not a "no no no no no!" objection.

"Sources" is clearly not being used as a verb in "Manual of Style Sources." "Supports" does look like a verb in "Manual of Style Supports," while "Manual of Style Support" looks like it means "Support for the Manual of Style." Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:21, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

"Manual of Style External Support"? "Manual of Style Independent Support"? "Manual of Style Third-party Support"? Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:23, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Skillful reading is like skillful driving, inasmuch as one needs to pay attention to all the important signs. (Commercial billboards are not important.) Ignoring a virgule can have undesirable results, and ignoring an important traffic sign ("Stop", "Slow", "Merge", "Yield", "Detour") can have undesirable results. The article "Non-restrictive clause" illustrates how the meaning of a statement can be affected by the presence or absence of a comma. The virgule in "Manual of Style/Supports" is a sign performing an important function, and it should not be ignored.

—Wavelength (talk) 05:28, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

"Should not be ignored" is one thing. "Will not have an effect during a new reader's first impression of the phrase" is another. Darkfrog24 (talk) 11:35, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Here is a point-by-point analysis of the situation.

• The word "supports" can be a plural noun or a singular verb (a third-person singular present indicative active verb).
• The word "support" can be a singular noun or a verb (a third-person plural present indicative active verb, a first- or second-person present indicative active verb, an infinitive verb, a subjunctive verb, or an imperative verb).
• The plural noun "supports" is valid as a reference to various sources supporting WP:MOS guidelines.
• The singular noun "support" is valid as a reference to those sources collectively.
• The verb "supports" can be a problem for a reader who ignores the virgule.
• The verb "support" (especially the imperative verb "support") can be a problem for a reader who pays attention to the virgule.
• Tailoring the subpage name for readers who ignore the virgule disadvantages the readers who pay attention to it, and vice versa.
• How far should we go to accommodate the less competent readers? I believe that, in matters like this one, accommodating incompetency tends to promote incompetency. On the other hand, accommodating competency tends to promote competency.
• At this moment in the history of the World Wide Web, many readers (possibly most readers) are already familiar with virgules in web addresses, so they are accustomed to paying attention to them.
• Therefore, the form "supports" in the subpage name is the preferred option for the benefit of readers who pay attention to the virgule, and also even for the benefit of readers who ignore it (briefly at first).

—Wavelength (talk) 20:23, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

"Competency" vs "incompetency" might be a little extreme for this situation. I've been using the Internet for as long as it's existed, and that's how I parsed this title when I saw it, and I already knew what the page was for. Wikipedia is known for flippant and non-standard use of essay titles. "Things that the MoS supports" is a reasonable first-impression interpretation. Darkfrog24 (talk) 04:13, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

A better exercise would be trawling the archives to identify where consensus was established for each particular !rule. A listing of external sources for particular items does Wikipedia zero good IMO. --Izno (talk) 00:42, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

We already have that, Izno. It's MOS:REGISTER. As for what good this new page does, it establishes that the MoS is not entirely based on the whims and arbitrary personal preferences of a clique (though it is partially based on them; we've got to work on that). Think of someone coming to the MoS and saying, "Why should I follow this rule if you guys just made it up because you felt like it? What makes you so much better than I am? I just don't feel like it, so it all cancels out." Even if you don't think that sourcing is necessary, I don't see how it does any harm. Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:21, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Consensus doesn't work that way. It doesn't work that way anywhere on WP, so there's no reason to expect it to work that way at MoS. The fact that MoS is sometimes approached as if it were specially different, as if normal consensus operation doesn't or shouldn't apply here, and as if WP:LOCALCONSENSUS policy doesn't exist or somehow doesn't apply to a particular wikiproject or pet topic, is the #1 reason that WT:MOS flares up in perennial flamewars and WP:MOS and its subpages are subject to perennial bouts of editwarring. Maybe MoS's lead needs to just be clarified a bit more.

Fixing the Register: It would be useful if it were well-developed, but it's very incomplete, and is cherry-picked too much to highlight particular threads that a small number of editors want to highlight about particular style points (a natural result of someone taking the time to dig through pages to settle some question, but a strongly biasing factor nonetheless). Large segments of it have nothing at all, and those that do are gappy as to their inclusion of the actual discussions that took place about the topics in question (people tend to stop digging and cataloguing when they find what they're looking for).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  07:52, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

• WP:MFD (perhaps to userspace) Merge to MOS:REGISTER, what little material there is in there. I disagree with the rationales for such a "/Supports" page (however named), I do agree with Izno that it would be a better expenditure of "process editor" energy (and agree with Darkfrog24 that the Register is where it belongs) to improve the indexing of consensus discussions in the Register, than to start up an essentially competing side project for the pointless exercise of trying to externally source every single thing in an internal, consensus-based document. However, a list of point-by-point pro and con sourcing is a WP:POLEMIC that belongs in userspace or deleted. The more obvious problems with such a diversion of volunteer labor:

Six rationales against this idea

This kind of sourcing research should be done for, and in, our actual articles. Our articles on English grammar, punctuation, and style mostly are in only poor-to-fair shape. It's one thing to do some sourcing at WT:MOS to settle an actual, ongoing dispute claiming that part of MoS is "wrong". It's a very different matter – one that is likely to look like or mutate into WP:NOTHERE, WP:LAWYER, and WP:BUREAUCRACY for its own sake – to launch a whole new side project to do this in an ongoing, never-ending manner for every line-item in MoS. Does not compute! Whatever the intent of it, it's difficult to see how this would not turn into circular process-wonkery and provide a further avenue for editwarring. (Cf. the history of Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/FAQ for strong evidence that this is exactly what the result would be. I can even firmly predict a dozen or so of what the disputes will be, what OR would be used to push PoVs about them, even specific paragraphs in some sources that would be misused.) WP consensus does not have to demonstrate to anyone that it derives from or agrees with any off-WP viewpoint. Like all of WP:POLICY, including guidelines, MoS is based on an internal WP:CONSENSUS about what is best for and works best on WP for our readers and, secondarily, our editorial pool. Consensus may change, but it does so through the same processes at this guideline as anywhere else on WP, not by wrongfully trying to "disprove" WP editorial consensus about WP-internal matters by resorting to the obvious fallacy of argument to authority. The only authority for how to best write Wikipedia is the collective experience of WP's own editorial pool, just as no third-party body can tell us what we consider to be sufficiently reliable sources (or insert any other guideline or policy of your choice). We do that, and only we can do that, even if some off-WP writings sometimes help inform our approach to such questions. Consensus is never magically trumped because someone outside of WP does things differently or recommends that they be done differently. We have a long, multifaceted policy about this at WP:NOT. It's hard to think of anything to even add to that page, it is so comprehensive in driving home the point that WP is its own unique thing with its own principles, standards, rationales, and goals. We would never consider any such thing for any other guideline or policy. Can you imagine someone saying "We need a WP:Identifying reliable sources/Supports page, citing other publications'/publishers' rules about how they go about determining what sources they consider reliable, otherwise our own internal rules that we come to, based on our judgement about our project, are invalid"?! No one would take that seriously for five seconds. That's why virtually no one appears to take this notion seriously here, either, no matter how many times it's been advanced. Improving the MOS:REGISTER will automatically make this "/Supports" page moot. The Register is arguably a legitimate side project, in that it catalogues consensus discussions better and thus protects MoS's stability better, in turn protecting the whole encyclopedia's content stability and consistency. Since the sourcing that some of us do on this talk page to resolve particular disputes here also gets archived here, improving the Register will automatically catalog and make it easier to find the source material, rendering the proposed page redundant. If anyone wants to add sources that did not happen to be raised in prior discussion yet, just add a "References" subsection under that subtopic on the Register page. There are no rules about how the Register page is structured and what material it may contain, after all. It would probably be genuinely helpful to copy-paste citations from discussions and add them to a cited-sources subsection at the bottom of each Register segment. Certainly a plausible task, compared to sourcing the entire MoS, much of which is based on internal consensus, not slavish adherence to some particular external work. Only a tiny number of editors have ever suggested "source the MoS", and they don't do the work. Thus, it likely would not actually happen anyway. The page would, rather, be a breeding ground for gaming the system, in POINTy, cherry-picking attempts at "winning" on some particular nit-picking peeve, at the expense of MoS's and WP's content stability. It is not possible to source all of MoS. Even aside from the fact that it's based on internal consensus, there are nearly zero style matters that MoS ever mentions that do not have sources in the off-WP world that directly contradict each other (otherwise MoS would not need to mention them; we need no rule that sentences do not end with the % character, or that people's names are not written backwards, or anything else that all style/grammar books agree on. The entire point of MoS is to identify places where there are conflicting rules, and to just pick one, so people stop arguing about them (or to explicitly allow MOS:ENGVAR variation where there is a strong "national" [real linguistics: dialectal] tie to a particular usage, like "colour" vs. "color"). In virtually every single case, contradictory sources are going to be found. The only practical use for ever sourcing anything in MoS is settling false claims about things like alleged strong national ties. Very few things in MoS raise such debates, so trying to source all of MoS is a total waste of time on multiple levels. BF: Anyone aiming to tilt at "MoS is OR" windmills in hopes of making ENGVAR "rule everything" need to consider carefully the fact that ENGVAR is the most OR thing in MoS.

Tl;dr version: This is not what we're here for. Given that the articles badly need work, the Register is incomplete and renders the proposed page redundant anyway, while the proposed one would likely just perpetuate the same perennial disputes, and is based on fallacious argument to authority, there would seem to be no point in launching it. It looks like WP:MFD fodder, especially if (as is likely) it would primarily be bent to the end of campaigning against various long-standing consensuses at MoS.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  07:52, 27 November 2015 (UTC) Updated after I changed my mind about the Register being a good place for this.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  21:36, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

SmC has just demonstrated something very important: Some people care about sources and other people care about discussions. I guess MOS:REGISTER and MOS:SUPPORT(s/etc.) could work as one page, but since there are two such different mindsets, maybe two pages are best. I was originally thinking that they'd be heavily cross-linked.

Even though you don't think the MOS needs sources, SmC, surely you don't think that proving that we're not making things up does any harm. Darkfrog24 (talk) 14:27, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

"surely you don't think that proving that we're not making things up does any harm." is a non sequitur. The only thing, and I'll echo SMC here, that we should care about here is whether or not there is consensus for a change. That's it. Bringing sources to bear in the context of those discussions can help us make a decision, but is not what we have PAG for. Having a separate page just for us to "add sources to" (a document that doesn't need them) places the wrong focus/understanding of utility on those sources rather than the decisions that we have come to consensus on. That's why the "MOSSOURCES" page is not useful and MOSREGISTER is. Also like SMC, I'll echo that there are likely a large number of mainspace pages that could use this proposed sourcing. Comma, full stop, and diacritic await your sourcing. --Izno (talk) 16:27, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

So if I were trying to convince you personally that you should do what the MoS says, I should steer you to MOS:REGISTER because you find discussions more convincing than sources. I'm not seeing how it's harmful to create a document that people who give more credence to sources would find convincing. (My assumption here is that "Here is why you should follow the MoS" is one of the purposes of both of these pages.)

Which suggests to me that MOS:SUPPORTS could be a useful resource to anyone seeking to improve those pages. I've used sources that I found in MoS discussions on such pages, and a whole page listing them would have been more convenient. Darkfrog24 (talk) 22:36, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

"So if I were trying to convince you personally that you should do what the MoS says, I should steer you to MOS:REGISTER because you find discussions more convincing than sources." is attacking a strawman. I am saying that anyone and everyone should be steered to REGISTER because the only thing that matters with !rule change is the consensus of previous editors (and that consensus can change). You are being obtuse on this point.

IMO, the point of REGISTER is actually not why one should follow the MoS, but rather why one should not idly propose change. This is a subtle distinction. The purpose of a "SOURCES" page however is obviously an attempt to runaround prior consensus and could be used for pointed attempts at changing that consensus when (in many cases) a prior consensus has strongly identified that particular !rule as important. Therefore, what is useful is actually improving the mainspace with the exact same content as is proposed to be placed on this SOURCES page. --Izno (talk) 17:24, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

There's no need to call people names. So you think that the existence of MOS:SOURCES would cause harm because you think it's an attempt to sneak around Wikipedia's consensus rules. I don't agree with this, but now I have an idea of what you're talking about.

Frankly, if the consensus contradicts the sources, then revisiting it is valid. But it sounds like what you'd want this page to do is help turn away people who don't like existing consensus or don't understand the consensus process and are proposing unconsidered changes. Having a place to point to: "Here; look at this, then," would help, with the plus side that it could only be used on those parts of the MoS that have external support (which is most of the MoS). Darkfrog24 (talk) 21:41, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

EDIT: One more thing. You think I'm being obtuse, but that might be a side effect of my attempt to AGF, in this case the assumption that you mean exactly what you say and aren't hiding or talking around anything yourself. However, I've guessed that it's also possible that what you really don't like about this is something else: You don't like the idea that sources are important to the MoS or the suggestion that we shouldn't do whatever we want or just make up rules based on whatever looks good to us, even if it contradicts those rules, and you feel that listing external support for the MoS legitimizes this idea. Is that what's really going on? Darkfrog24 (talk) 21:44, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

My 2c: If this page is kept, it should be titled "Sources" or "Support" or something other than "Supports", which does sound like a verb. But it would probably be sensible to combine it with MOS:REGISTER (list the sources in a thread here or wherever is appropriate, and then add a link to that thread to MOS:REGISTER). -sche (talk) 19:02, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Each of the words "Source" and "Sources" and "Support" and "Supports" can be either a noun or a verb. The word "Support" sounds like an imperative verb. It is better to keep the new page separate from MOS:REGISTER to avoid one page becoming eventually too long. Also, separate pages make it easier for editors to search for either sources or discussions. However, the two pages can definitely be cross-linked.

—Wavelength (talk) 00:09, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, but not all of them are going to read the same way when parsed for the first time.

A lot of this problem could be solved but adding another word to the article's title (though not necessarily to the shortcut): "Manual of Style Outside Support," "Manual of Style Third-party Support," "Manual Style Corroboration" (eh, too vague), "Manual of Style External Support," "Manual of Style RS Support." Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:27, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

It's not an "article", and the very diversion of such sourcing efforts away from real articles to this internal-only battleground over style nitpicks the entire problem in a nutshell!  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  21:36, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Regarding diversion of resources, you're assuming that the fact that someone adds a source to MOS:SUPPORTS means that they won't use their time and energy to perform a similar task elsewhere. That's not how it works. Editing work isn't a matter of Newtonian fluids. If anything, placing sources in MOS:SUPPORTS, a handy, centralized location, makes it more likely that that editor or someone else will add them to the articles. I've given an example at your longer comment below. Now for civility: "Nitpicks" has got to go. It's rude. And remember that lots of editors think that all the things we care about here in the MoS are nitpicks. Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:16, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Darkfrog24, I am willing to accept a page move to "Wikipedia:Manual of Style/External support" (still a subpage).

—Wavelength (talk) 02:01, 28 November 2015 (UTC) and 02:46, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Also, I propose that we use the letters "M" and "R" and "S" for cross-links to the Manual and the Register and the new subpage respectively. We already use the letter "R" to cross-link from the Manual to the Register.

• from the Manual: (R) to the Register, (S) to the new subpage
• from the Register: (M) to the Manual, (S) to the new subpage
• from the new subpage: (M) to the Manual, (R) to the Register

If you believe that this requires that we capitalize the word "Support", then I am willing to accept a page move to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/External Support (still a subpage).

Please see Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 113#Wikipedia:Manual of Style Register has been UNmarked as part of the Manual of Style (January 2010).

—Wavelength (talk) 10:24, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

I have moved the subpage to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/External support.

—Wavelength (talk) 02:54, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Replying to the thread as a whole:

• Re: "The only thing ... that we should care about here is whether or not there is consensus for a change. That's it." Exactly. Citing an external source for something (not just here, but e.g. with regard to how to approach consensus-building, or how to define harassment, or whatever – any WP:POLICY matter) is often an aid in forming consensus on the talk page of the policy/guideline in question. It doesn't belong in a policy/guideline page except where WP is explicitly adopting an external standard, as with citations to WCAG or ISO standards for particular things, or WP:COPYRIGHT referencining specific intellectual property laws.
• Re: "Some people care about sources and other people care about discussions." – That, too, is essentially thus a non sequitur, and a false dichotomy. We all care about discussions when it comes to policies, guidelines, and processes on WP, since that's how they're determined. We all also care about sources in these discussions when they're helpful to use in forming consensus. The need for them to source any actual wording of any policy or guideline is very rare, and we don't need a page to list it out. With regard to MoS discussions, the Register can be used to list sources that were presented in discussions, as an aid to copy-pasting them into rehash threads that arise later, to save time re-proving the same point again. A guideline itself cannot, logically speaking, be sourced externally, since there is no external source for an internal consensus. Moving the quixotic attempt to do so to a separate page is pointless.
• Re: "[opponents' argument is that] MOS:SOURCES would cause harm because you think it's an attempt to sneak around Wikipedia's consensus rules" – No such bad faith assumption is required; something that is ripe for WP:GAMING should not be implemented; its gameability is a sufficient rationale against it, no matter what the intent of the original proponent.
• Re: '"Here is why you should follow the MoS" is one of the purposes of both of these pages' – That's not a legitimate purpose for a subpage of a guideline (and is definitely not one of the purposes of the Register). Policies and guidelines should be followed because they're the WP editing community's consensus on WP best practices. We need no segments within or attached to guidelines propounding someone's additional or different reasons for doing so. If someone wants to write one, they can go create a WP:ESSAY. And it will likely be userspaced, because we userspace essays that do not reflect consensus (per WP:USERPAGE policy, and WP:POLICY's own material on userspacing of essays).

Finally, even if we do posit that having a pile of citations about style matters in some page might be useful for improving actual articles, that's out of MoS's scope. If such a page were kept at all, it should be a sandbox page under an article, or just kept in someone's userspace while needed, since after the sources are integrated into the relevant articles, it will no longer need to exist as a page. Basically, this just needs to be WP:MFDed for deletion or relocation at a less misleading name. It is not part of MoS, and is not part of MoS process.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  21:21, 30 November 2015 (UTC) [Added one bullet point that edit-conflicted with Peter coxhead's comment, below.]  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  21:55, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

On this subject, I agree entirely with SMcCandlish. Anything that implies that the MOS requires sources (as opposed to being informed by sources), as a "Supports" page does, will be used to argue against established consensus. Anyone who doesn't realise that can't have been reading many MOS talk pages. :-) Peter coxhead (talk) 21:42, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Let's forget for a minute that MOS:SUPPORTS exists. Let's say someone wants to change consensus. Bringing reliable sources to the table in such a case is a good thing. Darkfrog24 (talk) 02:16, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Seems non-sequiturial again; no one has disputed that we often use sources in consensus discussions on the talk page (I do it probably more than anyone else); that's not what's under discussion.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  22:55, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

In my latest revision of Wikipedia:Manual of Style/External support (at 23:47, 30 November 2015 [UTC]), I added this statement.

• Although those sources inform MOS guidelines, they are not required for MOS guidelines to be valid for Wikipedia articles.

—Wavelength (talk) 23:51, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Which very partially addresses one of about a dozen problems with this proposal.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  00:39, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

We do use sources to establish what is and isn't correct English, and informing Wikieditors of how to use correct English on Wikipedia is the point of the MoS.

Before seeing this conversation, I changed Wavelength's new line. To my knowledge, it's never been officially established that the MoS may ignore reliable sources, and neither MOS:SUPPORTS nor any other page should claim otherwise. I changed it to an advisement that the specific sources listed there support the MoS but that the MoS was not necessarily based on them, which is true. Darkfrog24 (talk) 02:16, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

I'll explain my "Some people care about sources and other people care about discussions" because it looks like you don't understand it. If someone comes to the MoS for the first time and sees a rule that they don't want to follow, "it's consensus" boils down to "do it because we say so," and "here's a source" boils down to "do it because it's the right thing to do and we can prove it." That's the way we do it in the mainspace and there's no reason not to do it that way here. Of course there are people who care about both discussions and sources. For them, it's "do it because we say so and we can prove that it's right." Darkfrog24 (talk) 02:19, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Re: "it's never been officially established that the MoS may ignore reliable sources – This is another non sequitur, several times over. Aside from legal impositions of WP:OFFICE there is no "official establishment" of anything on WP. Style matters vary from source to source, so very close to 100% of MoS consensus decisions ignore various sources. Many MoS decisions, like all policy and guideline decisions, don't relate to anything external at all. Consensus on internal matters is not dependent on what external sources say. How many editors have to say this how many ways before it's understood? How many times does this discussion have to be had? It's been coming up for ca. 7 years (raised by the same party), and the answer and the result (consensus against the idea that MoS is or should be externally sourced) is always the same. The reasons that WP:POLICY is not subject to WP:CORE have been explained here and elsewhere innumerable times.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  02:42, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

By "officially established," I mean can you point to a discussion that established consensus for "the MoS doesn't need sources"? That's why I said "to my knowledge." I haven't personally read every page of the archive. For example, you know how I hate WP:LQ but if someone asked if there was consensus for it, I could point to many pages in the archive that have discussions and RfCs, some with formal closure.

Almost 100% of the MoS ignores sources? SmC, I haven't counted every guideline, but I'd say over 80% of it is consistent with sources, probably more. For most of the MoS, this is a moot issue.

Who's been bringing up whether the MoS has to be sourced for seven years? Darkfrog24 (talk) 02:52, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for finally conceding the consensus in favor of logical quotation on WP. Moving on, every time the idea that the MoS should be externally sourced has been raised and failed to gain consensus (i.e., every time it has been raised) establishes and continues the consensus that it should not be. Far more importantly, every more general discussion that concludes, from WT:POLICY to WP:MFD, that WP:V and the other WP:CORE content policies do not apply to projectpages, establishes and continues the consensus that projectpages are not externally sourced; MoS is not some magical fiefdom that operates differently from the rest of WP:POLICY. Next, I challenge you to find any non-trivial (i.e. not "sentences begin with capital letters") point in MoS that has universal agreement in external sources. Every time MoS picks one variant of a "rule" over another (which is the case in most style matters), it's ignoring any number of sources that prefer another way.

As for the old history: One editor in particular (see if anyone can guess who :) has been trying to externally source nitpicks in MoS since at least May 2009 [11] – in the cluster of their very first edits here – and again a month later [12]. That one-editor penchant for trying to rely on external sources for (or against) internal consensus discussion (much of that month's discussion on MoS involved this) was remarked upon by a third party not long after [13] (and the same editor who said "One source concurring with a POV is a hundred times more effective than a thousand people singing its praises without one" in conceding one part of that discussion [14] replied in the other to this question of whether they themself had any sources to back their view, "No, but it's a pretty reasonable assumption to make" [15]. So I guess I was off by a few months, since that was "over 6 years" rather than quite "7 years" ago. I don't recall the exact date of that editor's first explicit proposal to "source the MoS" programmatically, despite the double-standard approach that said editor's own assumptions are good enough. But it could not have been long after that exchange (and its genesis is clearly right here, on June 6 of that year). Just scratching at the tip of the iceberg. I have real work to do today, and can't waste hours on a diff hunt we don't actually need in order to understand that this has gone on way too long.

Everyone else appears to accept that guidelines and policies are not externally sourced, so let's just allow this pursuit too, like that against LQ, to come to its overdue end. We all badly need a rest from it. It's been tired rehash for years. A span of "almost 7" years is more than long enough to show isn't going to happen. PS: As far as userspacing goes, Wavelength has already been keeping this sort of material in his userspace since June 2009 [16], so it's pretty obvious to move it there.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  22:34, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

User:Wavelength/About English/Style guides is a list of style guides, and not a list of style guidelines (or a "guideline-by-guideline citation of sources").

—Wavelength (talk) 23:49, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

A list of style guides, most if not all which have been consulted by one or more parties in prior MoS-related discussions arranged a) alphabetically, or b) by MoS section, is simply a re-formatting choice.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  19:02, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Careful there, SmC. You get very displeased when you think other people are putting words in your mouth, so keep them out of mine. "Finally conceding consensus"? Welcome to a couple years ago. If consensus is a majority vote and no more, then my position is not that consensus for WP:LQ does not exist but that it is wrong. If consensus requires sources and logic, or even unbiased wording in the RfC, then not so much. I still support changing this rule. Don't forget that it's challenged every year by editors who don't know me or each other.

Rules don't need universal, 100% support, but I suppose most of the MoS is consistent with sources most of the time. That's a bit of a straw man, there, SmC.

Oh for heck's sake. My pointing out that WP:LQ contradicts reliable sources among the reasons why we should replace it is not the same as a formal proposal that the MoS be sourced. My asking you if you had sources for that proposal of yours[17] and you complaining about it is not the same as a formal proposal. As for the rest of your links here, I know more about RS, Wikipedia's relationship to RS, and the punctuation styles themselves now than I did when I was a new Wikieditor, and that shouldn't be effing shocking. To the best of my memory, I usually just took people's word for it that they'd seen sources, and I don't any more. I also wasn't nearly as good at distinguishing RS from non-RS . Case in point: Full stop used to cite a listserv for information on BQ/LQ, and back then, I didn't think of that as strange. (Times have changed: [18]) That is why I used to believe that British and logical were two different things. I was trying to get along with everyone. (I do still hold by some of this stuff, though. One source is better than a thousand what-I-feel-likes. The MoS should not require users to do anything that cannot be supported by at least one source.)

As for what "everyone else accepts," you're only guessing because it looks like no, we never actually sat down and established whether the MoS does or does not require sources. Right now, MOS:SUPPORTS doesn't say whether it does or that it doesn't, and it should probably stay that way for now. Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:58, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

I decline to be dragged into another circular debate with you on this talk page. I've already clearly laid out the following: There is no consensus for the idea that MoS should be sourced point-by-point even after nearly 7 years of this idea being advanced again and again. Trying to do it in a separate page doesn't change that, nor does that somehow make this part of MoS's proper scope, so this is does not belong under WP:Manual of Style/ sub-namespace. Various nitpicks you raise do not address any of that, and basically are off-topic. Multiple editors object to this "source the MoS" putsch, and we all do so for the same basic reasons, which you and Wavelength never address.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  19:02, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

The four people who've commented on this issue in this thread are not a statistically significant sample. If you think that I was formally addressing whether the MoS must be sourced seven years ago, then you are mistaken. It sounds like not only has the role of sources in the MoS not been addressed "again and again" but that it has not been addressed even once. I'm going to have to insist that you stop demanding that I share your position on this matter and stop characterizing my concerns as nitpicks and putsch. It got rude a while ago. Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:32, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

WP:CONSENSUS is not based on statistics, but is determined by the reasoning presented by whatever pool of WP editors expresses an interest in resolving the matter. That a larger pool might be helpful is why I suggested MfD, the entire purpose of which is to draw a broad cross-section of editorial input on whether a projectpage is useful or not and belongs in the Wikipedia namespace. But far more than 4 editors have consistently opposed these "source the MoS" demands over the last 6+ years, and it's been explained many times dating back to at least 2009, that WP:POLICY is based on consensus, period. Denialism of this is not constructive but is evidentiary of a WP:NOT#SOAPBOX problem. I provided some diffs directly in response to, and only responsive to, your own demands for evidence of your advocacy on this matter going back [nearly] 7 years; I've not completed, yet, the diffs proving how frequently the "source the MoS" idea has been advanced, by so few, and has been rejected yet reinjected repeatedly as if not already rejected. (It seems like a time waste to continue diffing that, since we already know there's a WP-wide consensus against the idea that WP:POLICY is subject to WP:CORE; if I'm arm-twisted into doing that diff-digging, I won't do it to satisfy a minor point in a thread like this.) No one is expecting any one particular editor to share any one other particular editor's viewpoint; it's expected of all editors that they abide by consensus even if they didn't get the answer they want. No one has characterized your particular views as nit-picks; all style matters are essentially nit-picks. Not everything is about you. PS: "I usually just took people's word for it that they'd seen sources, and I don't any more. – On what basis?  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  21:36, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

If you don't want me to think it's about me, then stop making it about me, SmC. And yes, you did characterize my complaints as nitpicks. That is based on what you said. If that's not what you meant, then change the way you say things. If you don't mean your comments as demands that I ignore my own judgment and take your interpretation of the facts over my own and to be unnecessarily confrontational, then take it from me that you are not coming off the way you intend, so you should change the way you express yourself.

There is a difference between pointing out that one part of the MoS directly contradicts reliable sources and should be changed and directly and formally establishing the role of sources in the MoS as a whole. My understanding of the way WP:V, the MoS and WP:RS work has improved since I first started out on Wikipedia. It is perfectly natural for positions to change over the years.

As for consensus not being a vote, it's more like it's not supposed to be a vote. Consensus is supposed to be about the preponderance of sources and logical arguments, but that's usually not how it actually works.

"Accepting consensus" means that I'm not allowed to do things that the MoS specifically says not to do in articles. It does not mean that I'm not allowed to try to get the MoS changed. Darkfrog24 (talk) 04:47, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

 SMcCandlish ☺, this is my reply to your post of 21:21, 30 November 2015 (UTC). Sometimes people care about sources and sometimes people care about discussions. If you can accept the inclusion of sources in the Register, why can you not accept a list of them on a separate subpage? How is a subpage listing sources something that is ripe for gaming?

—Wavelength (talk) 00:07, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

I'll add that when MOS:REGISTER was proposed I was worried that it would be used as to game the system. Not only has that not turned out the way I thought it would, but it's really a neat little thing. MOS:SUPPORTS and MOS:REGISTER are very different from each other in some ways, but it's still worth noting. Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:32, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

I actually rescind my idea of using the Register to list sources; it's more practical to just note in the Register that a particular thread included source citations, since some of the source lists are very long. I'll bulletize the rest of this for easy reading:

Seven additional rationales against this idea

* A list of sources that were used in discussions, listed out for re-use in later discussion as a potential time-saving aid, would be completely different in nature and intent from someone's point-by-point list of sources that allegedly support or oppose specific line-items being retained in MoS itself (a WP:POLEMIC and a WP:BATTLEGROUNDing tool), even if piling them all together, and stripped to a bare, alphabetized list of citations would produce near-identical lists of works. * There's an obvious pointlessness problem: We already all understand that most potential sources for or against any point in MoS, when it's not an entirely internal matter to begin with, are other style guides and similar works (usage manuals, etc.), and that they disagree with each other, and that consensus on what to have MoS say is based on WP problem solving, not argument to authority. If we work to take Style guide and List of style guides to pass even WP:GAN, then we already have our list of key MoS sources. If we work to improve articles like English subjunctive and articles with section like Comma#Uses in English to GA level, then we already have our micro-topical lists of sources for those particular points. * It's an omphaloskeptical time-suck – a drain on editorial productivity – to dwell on exactly which other style guides disagree with which other ones on what nit-picks, outside of mainspace. For the projectspace, all we need is consensus to do one thing, to do another, or to not have a rule about something because variation on a particular point (tire vs. tyre) does not affect anything significant. * The Register is in fact non-neutral and gameable already; I already pointed this out in detail earlier and am not going to repeat myself. New: The basic problem is WP:DGAF – who, aside from somewhere between 1 and 4 editors at any given time, even cares that the Register exists, much less will devote any real work to it (generally 0 to 1 editors, a no-improvement or a bias problem, respectively), especially since working on it much is liable to draw WP:NOTHERE accusations (arguably correct ones)? Some MoS sourcing hitlist is not viable or salvageable at all for this reason, too, among the many others already given. * The length problem is a real one. As demonstrated on this talk page right now, even partial sourcing of a single question to resolve a talk page dispute (not to provide citations to insert into a guideline!) can take a quite large amount of material, and I did two other sourcing runs of similar length in semi-recent months myself for the same reason (all with an eye to reusing the work in mainspace). If they were actually exhaustive, they'd be 2 to 3 times longer. That's all going to add up to too much material for a single page very quickly. If it were reduced to just bare citations without any info on what they say (i.e., a list with no actual utility), this would be little or no better than simply Googling guide OR manual OR handbook OR stylebook +"style-related keyword[s]" -wikipedia, which will usually turn up sources we missed earlier anyway. * Both of these ideas for digging up source material from MoS discussions to create a special page for it are a) redundant with the searchable archives themselves, and b) easily bent to PoV-pushing purposes. It's an unreasonable amount of work that no one is going to undertake on any particular question unless they have a belief to defend. Everyone else will have better things to do than reduplicate all the pointless, not-encyclopedia-constructive research into a decade-and-a-half of discussions that would be required to ensure that the information is being collected neutrally and not cherry-picked, subconsciously or otherwise, to exclude whatever evidence someone doesn't like. * Multiple editors have already identified the GAMING and other problems with such an idea, in detail, so replying with sheer disbelief and denial is "proof by assertion", not a productive response, much less an actual rebuttal.

I'll close with the observation I opened with in a previous post, since it is worth repeating, being the central point at issue: Source research should be undertaken to improve articles not change/defend projectpages. It takes the same effort, time, and skills, but we're not here to write the world's most compromising style guide and the world's best defense of such a thing; we're here to write the world's best encyclopedia. To the extent any of our time is spent on an internal style guide, its purpose is to facilitate WP editing, and does not exist to represent any external grammatical prescription or linguistic description. The sooner a couple of editors absorb the fact (and attendant implications) that MoS is not an article, the sooner most of the perennial strife on this talk page simply stops.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  21:36, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

I agree that any sources that were actually used to create the rules in question during their initial placement in the MoS should be given special consideration and clearly marked, whenever we can identify them.

Just because style guides don't all agree with each other on everything (by which I mean that they do agree on most things) doesn't mean that citing them to support the MoS is futile. For example, I personally think WP:LQ should be removed from the MOS ASAP, but I still added sources that support it. Someone objecting to WP:LQ can still say "That's not right in American English" but we can prove them wrong if they say "You guys just made that up!"

Again, you're assuming that time spent on MOS:SUPPORTS is time taken away from other articles, and that's not so. Providing a list of sources in a centralized place (with refs ready-formatted!) makes it easier and faster to edit articles on similar subjects. Case in point, when I was working on the part of Full stop that covered periods and quotation marks I went back to Quotation marks in English so that I could simply copypaste some of the sources that I'd already formatted for ref tags there (re-checking the pages and updating the accessdates just to be sure, of course). I actually do this quite a lot when working on articles that are similar to each other. Wasting time is, to use your words, another non sequitur because no one's insisting that you use up any of yours. If you want to spend your own energy doing things that you find more satisfying or productive, go ahead.

The MoS might not be an article, but unlike, say, a policy page, it asserts facts. (That's one of the reasons it really should be worded in the imperative.) All of those facts must be verifiable or they don't belong here. Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:16, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

The simple and obvious solution is remove out-of-place editorial commentary from MoS. The guideline's sole purpose is to advise how to write WP articles, period. Anything not consisting of that advice, and examples of its application, is dead weight. MoS asserts facts about what decisions WP has made with regard to how styles will be used on WP. There can be no external sources for those assertions, and nothing will make that fact go away. To the extent MoS ever says anything about external usage, it's generally because the proponents of this "source the MoS" stuff (and a handful of others, mostly retired as editors) have insisted that it do so on certain points (and these "observations" are often counterfactual), despite no need for MoS to do anything of the sort. Commentary in MoS itself on what other sources do is off-topic clutter, and because WP:CORE cannot be applied to WP:POLICY material, such commentary always runs the risk of being WP:BOLLOCKS. The rehashing of this same basic "source the MoS!" thread for 6+ years is concrete proof that this clutter is disruptive and should be excised: The entire rationale for it – circular reasoning and WP:FAITACCOMPLI – is to source extraneous junk material that does not belong in MoS to begin with, but should be covered at our articles on grammar and style matters. Which leads us right back where we started: Sourcing belongs in articles, not in guidelines or their subpages. The confusion on this point simply breeds more of the same confusion and strife about it, and removing the material causing the confusion will bring that vicious cycle to a rapid end. I'm strongly reminded of item #10 at User:SMcCandlish#Funniest things I've seen on Wikipedia (the "moved spam down" case). When there's crap in a page, the solution is to wipe it away, not try to perfume it.

Providing a list of supposed sources for line items in MoS does not do anything to source, or aid in the sourcing of, actual articles, other than what is better done at the articles directly. This isn't difficult to reason through in a few obvious steps:

Six additional points of logic, against "sourcing the MoS = better articles"

If one needs to cite sources for a grammar or style article, it takes 100% as long to generate a citation to use in the article as it does to generate it for this pointless source-the-MoS page or vice versa. If a source needs to be reused in multiple articles, then (as the above post self-defeatingly points out) the usual way to do this is to copy the base data of the cite from one article to another, and adjust the details. "Storing" the cite in a projectpage adds no utility, but makes the citation material harder to find (known only to MoS "regulars"), and more likely to be skewed by WP-insider bias (the reasons WP editors might consider a source useful for an internal matter may have no connection to its reliability as a source on a general English-usage question). It even makes bias harder to detect, because if the cite were in an article and there were a reliability issue with the source, other editors would be likely to challenge and/or replace it. This will probably never happen on some disused projectpage no one cares about but the two editors advocating it. If it were felt that storing up catalog[ue]s of sources in WP namespace were useful, we'd be going that for all topics, but we're doing it for zero of them. Not-used-yet sources get stored in article talk. Even if it did happen that someone called out an obsolete or otherwise poor source that had been used in MoS discussions and logged in some "MoS Supports" page, it would not necessarily result in a change. This is already demonstrated many times over, most recently by my earlier observation that a rule we adopted in the late 2000s directly from CMoS 15th ed., and for no apparent reason other than it being in CMoS, is still with us, despite CMoS 16th ed. abandoning the "rule" in question, no other major style guides supporting it, and no need to keep such a rule in MoS. Consensus in a guideline often has far more inertia than it does in article content, and we do not want that immovable weight to transfer to mainspace. People would not always (maybe not even often) remember or care to go add the material and citation(s) to the article(s) after doing the work at this "MoS supports" essay. This is already proven by the fact that very few citations ever generated in MoS talk ever end up in articles. We actually need sources in articles, as a matter of policy. We do not need (per policy or per WP:COMMONSENSE) sources in non-articles. This was established the year WP started, it has never changed, and it's reaffirmed continually when people wrongly make V/RS/OR arguments in internal discussions, e.g. at MfD. Ergo, put them in the articles first and foremost, when they can be used in articlespace. But, the sources needed and relied upon at the article may differ markedly from those that were used in a MoS consensus discussions, which are often concerned primarily with the reasoning provided by any given source(s), and or with sheer volume of sources (e.g. an analysis of "US" vs. "U.S." that is valid in talk to inform MoS consensus discussion but which would be OR in mainspace). An article is mostly concerned with influence exerted by a source on other sources, and in an article we want to cite only one or a small few of the most influential, for any given point (see WP:OVERCITE). By contrast, in a MoS thread, we might want to examine 30 sources for the same nit pick. In mainspace, consideration of the validity/utility of the reasoning presented by a manual's authors, much less an analysis and synthesis of what the best-for-WP answer is, would be PoV and OR again. And plenty of MoS decisions are based on our own utility and other reasoning, not related to any external works at all. Because MoS is based on consensus, not citations, and even where sources exist for a particular point they'll most often be mutually contradictory, an inordinate amount of time will be wasted trying to source things in MoS that end up simply being a matter of WP having picked whatever solution seemed best to us for our internal purposes and reasons, and this does nothing at all to help an article on a style/grammar question be correctly and neutrally linguistically descriptive. This of course would lead inexorably and directly to another set of PoV and OR problems (especially WP:UNDUE in pursuit of personal prescriptive grammar bugbears, something that's already been happening, with one or another MoS editors trying to bend actual article content to support their MoS WP:GREATWRONGS stance).

There are more, but this is enough fuel to launch the "sourcing the MoS = better articles" rocket straight into the sun.

The rest of that post was basically just more rehash, straw men, and other fallaciousness. I'll address it one more time, but I'm going to collapse-box that, too, so everyone else can just skip it.

Here we go again.

I never said anything like sources used to create MoS "should be given special consideration", so the above does not "agree" with me in suggesting that. Sources and their utility change over time. In an earlier thread, I already pointed out how our reliance almost exclusively (bordering on plagiarism) on the 15th ed. of CMoS for one particular point has bitten us in the a[ss|rse]; we still recommend something (arbitrary) that CMoS itself abandoned in 2010, and which other style guides don't recommend, and our own reason for doing it simply seems to have been "CMoS says ...." (Never mind that one of the parties in this discussion is still relying on the 14th ed. of that same manual, dating to 1993 ....) This is a great example of why a bible-thumping approach to style is strongly contra-indicated at MoS (for more than one reason, not just that one). Another of those reasons: All the "bibles" have different "scriptures". Style guides do not "agree on most things" (even when different editions of the same guide don't contradict each other). It's an assumption that is rapidly disproved by comparing the advice in even a handful of them, on virtually any question. If you go through a large collection of them, as I regularly do, you'll find that there are nearly zero points on which they are unanimous (and those are the things that are so obvious MoS would never need to say them, e.g. that singular noun and verbs has to agrees [sic]. No one said citing sources in MoS-related discussions is futile, a point I've made several times already. Trying to source MoS itself is futile, since it's based on consensus, not on argument to authority. Not sure why that isn't getting through. I think this is the third time I've said this in this comparatively short discussion, and many others have before, going back to at least 2009. The idea that no editorial time would be wasted in such a backwards approach to encyclopedia work just because my personal time, alone, need not necessarily be wasted is transparently fallacious. Two minor bits: Credit where due goes to Izno for pointing out that the central argument in favor of this "source the MoS" business is a non sequitur; I simply pointed out 3 additional ways in which it is. And if anyone says LQ is "not right in American English", they're making a factual error (a compound one: an overgeneralization based on familiarity only with specific kinds of writing; selective misreading of certain particular sources (e.g. CMoS, which actually prescribes logical quotation, without labeling it with that name, for various purposes in American English); and confusing personal prescriptive grammar beliefs with objective linguistic description). This "source the MoS" business being championed by someone advancing a three-way error regarding a point they feel they've done the sourcing for is among the strongest indications of why it's an unworkable idea and would do nothing but foster dispute. MoS being written in imperative not wishy-washy language is because it's purpose is directing how editors write; it has nothing at all do with MoS containing any extraneous (and frequently dubious) commentary about off-WP usage.

Anyway, so far I've provided 19 enumerated rationales against this idea (including rebuttals against those offered in favor of it). I think that's sufficient.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  07:32, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Too bad most of those enumerated reasons don't hold water:

Response to enumerated and non-enumerated points

1) Nope. Copy-pasting is much faster than writing a ref from scratch. 2) But in which part of which article would such a source be found? Cross-article use is good enough, but MOS:SUPPORTS would be even better organized and even more convenient. 3) This is actually a good point, but because MOS:SUPPORTS will be providing an additional resource rather than replacing anything that already exists, it's not a don't-do-it-level problem. 4) The fact that we don't update the MoS when parts of it are proven wrong would probably get better if we focused more on sources, not worse. 5) Well of course. Those are two different jobs. The idea is that MOS:SUPPORTS would provide a side benefit of making articles easier to source, but its primary purpose is to support the MoS and increase its credibility among source-minded Wikieditors. Even if I'm wrong and the articles don't get better, they wouldn't magically get any worse. 6) You seem to be saying that MOS:SUPPORTS might not list exactly the right source for the external article. But that ideal source doesn't magically get harder to find just because MOS:SUPPORTS lists the next-best one instead. In fact, someone might need a source for commas, notice that the one listed under commas rules isn't quite right, but get ideas of where to look for one while scrolling past the section on quotation marks. 7) Manuals of style are inherently about telling people what to do. The articles are where to describe what generally happens, so long as you can find the published surveys and sociolinguistic studies to support the content. Our job here is inherently prescriptive. Although what is and isn't correct English does change over time and is relative to context, at any given time, things are correct and incorrect (our context: "writing an encyclopedia"). If you feel that a specific source merely "allegedly" supports a given rule, then challenge it. The format that we're using so far in MOS: SUPPORTS involves quoting the exact text, so this should be easy. I was worried that REGISTER would be gamed, used as a way to bully new people into shutting up and tricking them into thinking that their contributions don't matter, but that hasn't been borne out. Primarily, it's just been a handy way to find previous discussions. The idea of MOS:SOURCES getting to big eventually? That actually might hold water, but that's a cross-that-bridge-when-we-come-to-it problem. I see MOS:SOURCES growing slowly, the way MOS:REGISTER has, with people adding sources as they come across them. I've often suggested "move that to the article space where it can be sourced," but it doesn't usually fly. In fact, I removed such assertions from WP:LQ a few times, and you yourself put them back, SmC. You might believe that the MoS's only purpose is to tell people what to do on Wikipedia, but that is not the only way that it is read. The readers have to be able to trust that the MoS's content is correct per the English language, which exists outside of Wikipedia, so outside sources are appropriate. You could argue that people shouldn't use the MoS this way—and I've supported text warning them not to—but they do. It is not true that providing links to source the MoS would not help the sourcing of articles. I've already explained how it probably would make finding sources easier and how I've already actually done something similar myself. Ummm, when did you say that relying on Chicago 15 bit the MoS in the rear? I'm not sure to what point you're referring. And if you're going to be so picky about exactly what you said, then remember that I didn't say "unanimous." I meant "most things." Use the same litmus test that we'd use in the article space: If enough sources say the same thing, then there is consensus among sources, even if one or two fringe or specialist sources contradict the others. As for wasting time, I'll explain again. You seem to be imagining an editor who has exactly X minutes to edit Wikipedia and every minute spent on one thing is by definition not spent on something else. That's not how editing works. When an editor is interested, he or she spends more time (>X min) on the project. Otherwise, he or she spends less or none (<X, 0). Then add in that MOS:SUPPORTS is likely to serve as a convenient list of sources for other articles, it's a double gain. Even if I'm wrong and the time is wasted, it is their time to waste. Actually, it is 100% true that WP:LQ is not right in American English, and I can cite sources to prove it (and will do so upon request, but you personally have already seen them, SmC). And since you're so picky about being misquoted yourself, do not claim that CMoS 14, 15, or 16 recommend what you like to call "logical quotation" and they call "British" in American English writing. Chicago 15 reserves it for specific, specialized types of writing, as in the kind we don't do on Wikipedia.

Summary: The articles might get better if MOS:SUPPORTS catches on, but they won't magically get worse. The MOS won't magically get less respect. If you think it's a waste of time, don't spend any of yours on it. Darkfrog24 (talk) 22:01, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Plural verbs for certain collective noun-named rock groups (American English)

Although American English generally does not use plural verbs after collective nouns (not ending in -s). The Wiki manual, however, does acknowledge certain exceptions for nicknames of sports teams. I would guess that, the same reckoning could (sometimes) apply to collective noun names of rock bands and musical groups (with names not ending in "s"). For instance, if discussing a musical group such as the Purple Gang, we could say "the Purple Gang were..." rather than "the Purple Gang was..." as not to confuse readers with the more commonly known 1930s gangsters, the Purple Gang. If we were to say "the Purple Gang was..." then we might accidently confuse the readers into making a false referent. So, wouldn't it be better use the plural verb "were" to subtly distinguish the name of the musical group from the gangsters they were named after? What would be the best choice? And, if the plural verb could be used in this case, shouldn't Wiki specify an exception for names of musical acts (as they do for sports teams) in the manual? Garagepunk66 (talk) 02:44, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Why would a band be plural and an actual gang not, or vice versa? They're both a group of people known by a collective name. Aside from the fact that one is a musical organization and one a criminal organization, there would appear to be no difference.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  02:45, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

You can add the word "members" and use a plural verb. See MOS:COMMONALITY. (Please see wikt:accidentally.)

—Wavelength (talk) 03:06, 1 December 2015 (UTC) and 03:25, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

In either the band or the criminal enterprise case.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  22:55, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes, but according to the manual, exceptions can be made for sports teams, so couldn't exceptions be made for musical acts in a similar fashion? They seem to fall under a similar domain (i.e. often having names that are often chosen as mock derivatives of prior referents)? Garagepunk66 (talk) 02:07, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

It actually says "the major exception is when sports teams are referred to by nicknames that are plural nouns"; that doesn't often apply to a band, and doesn't address the question here.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  18:52, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Follow the sources. What do reliable sources use? --Jayron32 02:20, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

The underlying issue (aside from the fact that how music journalists write about bands for their audience doesn't force WP's hand in how it encyclopedically writes about bands for our audience) is that that handling of this minor issue varies by source; one will write "The Presidents of the United States of America are a band from ...", and the next will use "The Presidents of the United States of America is a band from ...". In a -s construction like that, "are" tends to be a bit more common because it rolls off the tongue a little easier. When it comes to a choice between "The Foo is a band from ..." vs. "The Foo are a band from ...", and "Foo is a band from ..." vs. "Foo are a band from ...", the opposite is more likely to be the case, based primarily on what sounds better, not what makes the most sense from a phrasal logic perspective. If someone does apply that kind of reasoning, they're more apt to treat the band as a unit, especially when writing about overall band history/milestones, but might be more likely to use a plural if the nature of their piece focuses more on personalities in the band and their lives. I've noticed a tendency for bands who have had a lot of membership churn (e.g. The Damned), and thus an unclear idea of who is in the band at any given time, to be treated as a singular noun, and so on, but even The Residents (mostly anonymous) tend to be written about as "The Residents are ..." because of the -s construction, probably. The more famous the individual members of a band are, the more likely a writer is to use a plural form ("Led Zeppelin were a band ..."), or so it seems. I'd bet real money, though, that there's a shift in average distribution of singular vs. plural forms between academic vs. journalist sources.

Anyway, either approach used on WP is following the sources (some of them), and ignoring others, simultaneously. A quick skim suggests that something like half of our band articles are written using the plural, both for present and former bands, and that it doesn't have all that much to do with a -s suffix ("Foo Fighters is an American rock band ..." but "Stray Cats were an American rockabilly band ..."; "U2 are an Irish rock band ...", but "Front Line Assembly (FLA) is a Canadian electro-industrial band ...). I lean toward the singular because it's conceptually cleaner, and doesn't lead to awkward constructions like "The band have sold more than 100 million records worldwide", which is a questionable statement (if you're taking the plural approach on the basis that a band consists of its individual members, then solo and other projects' albums involving those people could be counted toward that total; just one example of where this can lead to problems).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  18:52, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Specialized-style fallacy (WP:SSF).

—Wavelength (talk) 19:21, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Summarizing and combining Jayron's and SmC's responses, I'll say it looks like neither practice is forbidden, so Wikipedia's "keep the article internally consistent" rule is the only one in play. Use your judgment but don't edit war. Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:25, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

This has come up in enough RfCs that they should probably be reviewed to see if a consensus emerged from them. It's been a debate subject at Talk:The Beatles many times [19] (with repeated assertions, without sources, that it's some kind of British vs. US English matter, which is highly dubious), and I've seen it raised on a lot of other talk pages about bands, sports teams, etc.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  01:09, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

My 2¢ as the person who added the North American sports team bit to MOS. I made that addition because the use of plural verbs for North American sports teams that have plural nicknames (like Patriots, Royals, Warriors, Blackhawks, Timbers etc) is universal in sports writing and general journalism in both Canada and the US. This is true whether the full name (eg, the Kansas City Royals are a baseball team) or just the nickname (the Royals are members of the American League) is used, but not for just the geographic portion (Kansas City has won the 2015 World Series). This is so common in American and Canadian English (and not just in sports sections, so WP:SSF does not apply) that to do otherwise just looks wrong.

So what does that mean for bands? Absolutely nothing. Bands are treated far less consistently, so there's no steadfast convention like sports teams have. And trying to extrapolate a rule for them from the established sports team convention is apples and oranges. So I agree with Darkfrog. As long as it's consistent on the page, it's fine. (That said "Foo Fighters is" just sounds weird to me.) oknazevad (talk) 16:24, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Proposal: tense in biographies of non-living people

I would like to "borrow" the sentence about making references to TV shows in the present tense and apply it to biographical articles, you know, articles about people like Lady Di, John Lennon or Mother Teresa on the grounds that, even though the three are examples of dead people, their work (e.g. John Lennon's work with The Beatles or Lady Di's work for England, hence her appelative, "Englad's rose") still lives in our hearts, right? --Fandelasketchup (talk) 21:20, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

The exact sentence I would like to "borrow" from said strand of this Manual of Style is the following:"References to the show should be in the present tense since shows—even though no longer airing—still exist, including in the lead (e.g. Title is a...)" but adapting it for articles of living and dead people --Fandelasketchup (talk) 21:27, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

What's the precise wording you're proposing? It seems awkward to say "...people—even though dead—still exist..." Nor do I think we want to write "Dianna Princess of Wales is a..." in the lead. Pburka (talk) 22:26, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't believe this is standard practice for biographies of non-living people on or off of Wikipedia. Do you know of a precedent for it anywhere, Fandelasketchup? Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:22, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

This would be pretty aberrant with regard to normal English language use, and very confusing for our readers. Even our present-tensing of canceled TV shows is problematic in the views of some; extending it to humans would be going way too far.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  00:44, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

I totally get the point, but there is a strong tradition in our society of defining a person as something which ceases to exist upon death. But it gets confusing (to me anyway) when we refer to a person's continuing role, as in, "Isaac Newton is the founder of the scientific method", where Isaac Newton exists only in the past, but his status as founder is present. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 18:37, 12 December 2015 (UTC)