Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 13

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

→

Commas and places

Does anyone object to an addition along the following lines (and can anyone suggest better wording?):

"In constructions such as 'city, country,' or 'city, state,' use a comma or other appropriate punctuation after 'country' or 'state'." Maurreen 04:17, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Support, obviously. But perhaps using italics instead of quote marks, to avoid the whole vexed issue of commas-before or commas-after. Thus: "In constructions such as city, country, or city, state, use a comma or other appropriate punctuation after country or state." And throw in an example to make it abundantly clear: "Acapulco, Guerrero, is a city and major sea port..." –Hajor 04:33, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I don't think we should prefer one style over another here. Personally, first I prefer to try to avoid such constructions, but if I can't avoid them, I'd not have a second comma. I looked in all my favourite style guides, and couldn't find anything about the subject - so I guess it's not really a great hot potato. In Hajor's construction, would it anyway not be better to write "Acapulco is a city and major sea port..."?

I note that in general terms, on this side of the Pond, the trend is towards having a minimum of punctuation. It's best to stay silent on the matter and enjoy the wonderful mélange of styles that is Wikipedia than issue a directive that will be largely ignored, jguk 06:59, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

OK, so that's what I get for trying to combat systemic bias in examples. Miami, Florida, then. sigh But more importantly: modern British punctuation doesn't hold that a phrase in apposition (which is what these are) needs setting off with commas? –Hajor 07:28, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I don't understand. What's the systemic bias you are trying to combat? As far as the particular British English style, I've looked for an example of what people may use - but have failed. I think it's more a case of there not really being a need for constructions of "Place, Country" other than at the end of a clause. All the best, jguk 08:10, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The Wikipedia project has a systemic bias that grows naturally out of the demographic of its contributors, which is why I took my example from the least well known of the big three North American federal countries. Perhaps Nogales, Sonora, would have been a better option; too late now, I suppose. Re the UK usage, running a Google search on "in-newport-gwent site:guardian.co.uk" (or bbc.co.uk, telegraph.co.uk, etc.) is informative but, of course, not conclusive.

On a related note, the current punctuation on "ITN" -- Charles, Prince of Wales weds Camilla Parker Bowles, who is now known as the Duchess of Cornwall -- looks dead wrong to me, but the comma I inserted arguing phrase-in-apposition was reverted, with the argument that it wasn't apposition, but rather his name. Counter-intuitive to me, but who am I to say? –Hajor 15:53, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

In general, I believe that place names should be given without any country/state information in article titles. However, when a number of places have the same name, it is usual to disambiguate by giving the location after a comma. Particularly in the United States, rapid settlement patterns led to numerous places sharing the same name, and the disambiguating style has become the norm even for unambiguous place names. This does not mean that this style is only used in the US: Newport, Gwent, is an obvious British version of this style (there are other Newports in Britain); Boston, Lincolnshire, is an international disambiguation that doesn't sound at all round. Local style and good English usage should work together to determine which system is more appropriate. Technically, when a comma is used in this way, it is a bracketing comma rather than a listing comma. Therefore, in text another comma is required after Miami, Florida, for the flow of the sentence not be interrupted. I think this style is better than parentheses in titles when it is called for. --Gareth Hughes 19:47, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Those advocating a second comma after a state or country name are suggesting adoption of a construction that is used with ever decreasing frequency on both sides of the pond. It would be mistaken to make this official policy. Fawcett5 22:35, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Concerning the "ever decreasing frequency": Do you have anything to back that up, or is it just your opinion? Maurreen 02:25, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yes, it is being used less frequently, but that doesn't necessarily make it right. There is some misconception that the comma is part of the name, and thus exists for itself. A comma always has to have a role in the syntax of a sentence. I think the misconception is that it is a listing comma. When I write my address, I sometimes use listing commas to separate each element (when I can write it on different lines, I don't need them: they've gone out of fashion!). These place names look a little like addresses, and so the comma may feel like a listing comma. However, the comma is bracketing off additional information: the where and which of places with the same name. As a bracketing comma, unless the phrase appears in isolation, or immediately before another punctuation mark, it should take a closing bracketing comma. This is as important, albeit not as glaring, as opening parentheses and not closing them. --Gareth Hughes 13:32, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm going to have to agree with Garzo there. If it's being used less frequently, that's only out of sheer laziness. When attention is paid to the proper placement of commas, even if it may not be entirely possible to regulate such a thing, it greatly increases Wikipedia's credibility. Improper punctuation smacks of poor workmanship. Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 02:08, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

Citation-Style Recommendations?

I've been trying to find a proper manual or recommendation for how to cite my sources in wikipedia. Should I just adopt MLA, Chicago, APA, etc, etc? I assume I ought to use foot/end-notes, is this correct? Have I just missed the page entirely in my searches? If it does exist, I believe it at least ought be linked to the manual of style. Jxn 07:18, 2005 Apr 14 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Cite sources. -- Jmabel | Talk 16:19, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)
- Thanks, I added a link to the guide on the main manual of style to save others the trouble I went through. Jxn

Example

Does there exist an example page (ie: a dummy sample) that possesses most/all of the aspects from the Manual of Stlye that I can refer to? I think it would be easier to use than trawling the Manual of Style. --Commander Keane 12:14, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

No. Most articles of any length - including almost all featured articles, are inconsistent with it in some respect. This is a fault with the MoS, rather than the articles, as the MoS has not adapted to deal with the expansion of WP and the variety of equally valid styles that different users use, jguk 19:22, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think Commander Keane is asking if we could create a short article that actually fits the MoS and shows off the styles. The problem is that some of the style points are restrictions, such as no curly quotes, or too specific, such as the italicization of genus and species. --Sean κ. ⇔ 19:28, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

That's what I thought he meant too. It's just that, with respect, I do not think it is a very good idea - some parts of the MoS are ignored more often than they are adhered to, and I don't think it would be useful to encourage people to change WP wholesale to comply with it. To see what well-written articles look like I would advise looking at Wikipedia:Featured articles and copying the styles there, jguk 18:04, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Annotated article might be helpful. Maurreen 02:12, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Also, just for clarification, No. 8 in the featured article criteria is: "Comply with the standards set by any relevant WikiProjects, as well as those in the style manual." Maurreen 02:18, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

National varieties

The first words of the article Internationalization and localization were recently changed from "Internationalization and localization" to "Internationalization (or internationalisation) and localization (or localisation)". Given that no human being could possibly understand one of these spellings and fail to understand the other, this seems just plain silly to me. As I understand our section on National varieties of English, it is also against policy. Could someone who has not got a personal stake in that article (which I do) please comment here and maybe revert? Thanks. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:03, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)

Deities begin with a capital letter

Proper names begin with a capital letter. Thus "There is no god but God, and God is the god both of Christianity and Islam, and his name is God.".

I have often erroneously used philosopher quotes instead of italics when using words as names for themselves. Maybe there should be a mention in "quote usage" referring back to "words as words".

Pmurray bigpond.com 00:09, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

More capitalisation: "the Church" vs. "the church"

I've had a couple of discussions in different contexts about this, but it probably needs a bit of "democratic centralism". Where a particular church is being referred to, should it be referred to as "the Church", on the grounds of an abbreviated reference to a full title containing the capitalised word "Church" (Catholic Church, United Methodist Church, etc), or should it be referred to as "the church", on the basis of referring to it as a descriptive, non-proper noun, and avoiding any possible implication of uniqueness, definitiveness, etc? (I think there are at least two NPOV issues: bodies which are incontestably churches, and which make contested claims to be "The Church" in some sense; and bodies which are contested even to the churches, but which indubitably have the word "Church" in their titles.) Alai 05:32, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The obvious point first (just in case anyone misses it): the word should be capitalised in a proper name — the United Methodist Church and St Andrew's Church. I believe that the word should also be capitalised when refering to the theological concept of the unity of Christian believers, the Body of Christ, the Church — "Pentecost may be described as the birthday of the Church". Where, dogmatically, a Christian denomination understands itself to be the only true church, it might be described as Church. Thus, "Pope Benedict XVI is the new leader of the Church". I think this form should be avoided, as POV (it suggests that other churches are not part of the Church), and that individual organisations and Christian buildings be referred to as church.

Church — in proper names and for the theological concept.
church — all other instances.

--Gareth Hughes 11:30, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Two direct analogies, obviously, are Museum and Government. If the specific museum or denomination has been mentioned, capitalization is an option. If the idea of government is the issue, capitalization is an option.

Wikipedia does not capitalize Reality or Life or Church otherwise. --Wetman 15:33, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

My feeling is that when "church/Church" is being used as a referent to an entity whose proper name includes a capitalized "Church", then the capitalized form of the referent should be used as well. I believe it is well-understood in such cases that "the Church" is a shortening of the proper name and not an endorsement of special status for that particular entity. As Wetman points out, a similar situation occurs with "Museum", which I think perhaps illustrates less contentiously the principle we should be applying: if the subject has already been established to have "Museum" in its name, to have it referred to by "the Museum" is only natural. Example: "... tried to donate his masterpiece to the Museum of Bad Art; however, the donation was declined. A spokesperson for the Museum explained the decision as ..." This is what seems natural to me, but YMMV. -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:00, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The standard rule is straightforward. Is the word church being used generically or as a shortened proper noun for a specific religion (ie, is it just a way to avoid constant usage of the full name)?

For example.

Visitors to the church were amazed by its stained glass windows. (There 'church' is simply referring to a building.)
Pope Benedict XVI is the oldest pope in the History of the Roman Catholic Church for 250 years. John XXIII, though often thought of as older, actually was a younger head of the Church. (There 'church' is simply shorthand for 'Roman Catholic Church'.)
The Anglican Church's Lambeth Conference of that year was crucial to the Church's evolution of teaching on sexual matter. (Again 'Church' there means Anglican Church, so it is capitalised.)
The Christian Church of the years after the apostles lacked a central structure. Yet still the Church survived. (There too the 'church' is specific, and short for a proper noun, the 'Christian Church', so is capitalised.)
There are many churches in the United States. (There the term is used generically, not specifically referring to any specific one.)

The trick is simple. When one reads back the sentence, can the name of a clear specific organisation be fitted in to the text before the word 'church', with 'church' simply a shortened version of the full name. If it can, it is capitalised. If it can't, it isn't. FearÉIREANN 23:17, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm aware of this usage, but it's not at all clear to me that it rises to the level of a "standard rule". Do you have a reference? (Ideally a publisher's or newspapers style guide or something at such a level.) Alai 02:18, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I agree that the above is not standard (which is not to say that there is an opposing standard). The above would at least generally not comply with Associated Press style. Maybe we should leave it up to individual editors. Maurreen 05:54, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Judging by the Guardian Style Guide's take on capitalisation issues, I'd predict they wouldn't, either. Any such source that definitely would? Alai 01:42, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It is elementary English taught in schools - sometimes called Implicit Proper Nouns (IPNs) and Explicit Proper Nouns (EPNs). If a word though appearing not be a proper noun is in reality a shortened version of a proper noun then it is treated as a proper noun for capitalisation purposes. It is a way to avoid clumsy repetition of long proper nouns that make text complicated to read.

Two examples Number 1

Rather than writing The Roman Catholic Church's decision to elect as Roman Catholic Church's head one of the Roman Catholic Church's most outspoken conservatives has shocked many members of the Roman Catholic Church (which is a tangled mouthful) one can write The Roman Catholic Church's decision to elect as the Church's head one of its most outspoken conservatives shocked many members of the Church. The capitalisation tells the reader that the word church is not generalised but is specific: the same church named in full at the start of the sentence. Technically if you lowercase the last church it could be misinterpreted as meaning the church is in broadest sense, ie, not specifically Roman Catholic but the broad Christian Church.

Number 2

Example 1: Various Church leaders attended the installation of the head of the Roman Catholic Church.
Example 2: Various church leaders attended the installation of the head of the Roman Catholic Church.

Both sentences look the same but mean something different. In Example 1 the capitalised Church shows it is an Implicit Proper Noun, linking it to the proper noun in the sentence, Roman Catholic Church. So the Church leaders are Roman Catholic Church leaders: cardinals, bishops, etc. Example 2, by lowercasing church shows that it is not an IPN. So the church is generic, not specific. So church does not mean Roman Catholic Church but any church. So it refers to non-RC figures like the Anglican Church's Archbishop of Canterbury, the head of the Lutheran Church in Rome, etc etc.

It is something English teachers recommend strongly to ensure that the reader knows unambigiously what church is meant in the sentence. Copywriters do it all the time in academic texts and encyclopaedias. It is more used in British English than in American English but my American publishers are sticklers for it; they say they prefer Irish and British authors to American ones because there is less work involved in copyediting, as the meaning of sentences are clearer on account proper use of IPNs.

Newspapers (and so their style guides) used it less often for technical reasons.

1. It was more difficult to do in the pre-computerised days of hard metal. They tried to avoid cutting between upper and lowercase letters because it was more time-consuming to do in a job where you hadn't much time (and once a style is decided in a newspaper, it is next to impossible to change it even when technologically there is no need for some of the rules anymore. If you think wikipedia has a lot of rules, you should try working in a newspaper!)
2. Their attitude was - the paper will be used for wrapping chips in tomorrow so who cares if we don't get every capital (or even every spelling) right.

But what is written here is appearing in an encyclopaedia, not a newspaper, so it has a far longer shelf-life. Many articles deal with far more complicated subjects, at far longer length, than a 300 word piece in a newspaper. And we are using modern technology. So there is no justification in using a standard that loses the benefits of capitalisation, when the whole point of upper casing is to add clarity to sentences and minimise misunderstanding. Wikipedia is already poorly regarded academically, not because of the standard of its contents (some of which is first class, some not so) but because of its notoriously illiteracy and poor use of grammar. (I have already heard one academic roar with laughter because some idiots kept lowercasing an article's use of capitals that were there to specify that the article was about a formal legal term. What the lowercasers didn't realise was that when lowercased the term meant something totally different, and the article went from being a first class piece to a semi-literate piece of junk.

From marking academic papers and theses, I know that failure to use IPNs in many universities will result in an automatic docking of 8%. Overall failure to capitalise correctly will see 18-25% docked automatically. If wikipedia wants to be taken seriously it needs to follow high standards in a number of areas, and one key one is to know how and when to capitalise. And that flows from knowing why somethings are capitalised and some things aren't. That key to that is knowing whether some words though at first glance look as though they should be lowercased are actually implicit proper nouns that as a result should be treated as a normal proper noun. FearÉIREANN 02:34, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This is another archaic holdover that's not in common usage everywhere. Capitalizing a word that is not within a proper noun context just ecause it could be used that way really doesn't make a lot of sense. To claim that newspapers don't do it because it was hard to typeset and they didn't care if they got it right or not is complete nonsense, as the guidelines have been used and enforced long after those two feeble explanations were even issues. It's used because it makes more sense logically. DreamGuy 03:34, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)

That is a classic. You write about clarity of language in one of poorest written comments on the page, littered with grammatical, linguistic and spelling errors!!! Usage of PNs is elementary english that 12 year olds learn in most of the english-speaking world even if not maybe in your school. As to the newspaper stuff, that is what the newspapers themselves say. I write for newspapers. I have done copy-editing for newspapers. And if you had actually read and understood what I wrote you would know that style books for newspapers all originated in the hot metal age. The newspaper industry is notoriously bureaucratic and once a rule has been set down it does not change. So rules set when they could not for practical purposes use capitals except in limited cases are still followed because of archane demarcation rules about changing the conditions of work of journalists. One of those conditions (I know from personal experience in the National Union of Journalists) was that 'we didn't have to obey IPN standards under our 'hot metal' contracts. You can't change the rules without giving us (financial) compensation.' And newspaper bosses aren't going to pay more money, so the hot metal style remains, even though it is notoriously illiterate. If you are going to write about clarity of language, DreamGuy, it would help if you actually possessed some. FearÉIREANN 04:15, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It is not helpful to insult people.
Possibly some of this is regional differences.
Not all newspaper style is as cemented as the experience of FearÉIREANN apparently suggests. At my newspaper, for example, we make some style changes every year.
If we want to get into this deeply, my suggestion would be to use some references.
Another option is we could just drop it, move on, and leave the issue to individual editors. Maurreen 05:20, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Here's an example, from the Concise Columbia Encyclopedia, third edition: "Roman Catholic Church, Christian church headed by the pope, the bishop of Rome. ..." Maurreen 05:28, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think the usage of "the church" is more NPOV and should be the established standard regardless of usage in other areas, including for uses of the body of Christ since using "the Church" pushes a specific theological concept that is not accepted by all Christians. I can see some logic in using "Church" for an IPN but only if such a style is standardized in the US and UK. Trödel|talk 16:36, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Disagree (and I am not a Christian). A "church" is typically a building or a single congregation, a "Church" is a denomination. -- Jmabel | Talk 15:42, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)

A month on: has anyone found a pronouncement in an authoritative style guide (or anything even vaguely resembling such) to justify either position? Either particularised to churches (as per the buildings vs. denominations argument/suggested usage), or as regards references vs. abbreviated proper nouns in general? I've drawn something of a blank on this in the Oxford Guide to Style (though I'm still pretty sure what the Guardian'd say). Alai 22:01, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Punctuation and brackets

I did not find any rules on where to put punctuation, when brackets are used. Should it appear inside the brackets (like this,) or outside (like this), or should there be any different rules for commas, full stops and question marks (like this)? −Woodstone 20:30, 2005 Apr 23 (UTC)

Punctuation goes where it belongs. (A sentence wholly inside brackets will have its full stop within those brackets.) This means that bracketed clauses at the end of sentences do not include a full stop (if you see what I mean). Kind regards, jguk 20:43, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable. I just wondered, because I saw so many differences existing in arcticles. I will add this guideline to the styleguide. −Woodstone 21:22, 2005 Apr 23 (UTC)

The explanation I like is that if you were to remove the bracketed part (with its brackets), then what remains should be grammatical. (norman@dcs.st-and.ac.uk)

Proposed style for episodic descriptions

I have been working on the Ed, Edd n Eddy entries for the past several days, and have conceived a rather straightforward 'template' of sorts for this type of article. Please look at the layout I have applied to this article and sub-articles (the episodes) and tell me if you like it, and if it should be appended to the Wp MoS.
Ed Otto 2300, 2 May 2005 (IST)

Dashes

Caesura's edit to change a pair of en dashes to em dashes was reverted. May I ask why? According to Chicago, em dashes are used for breaks of this nature, whereas en dashes are used for ranges, open compounds, and so on. Is it different elsewhere? — Knowledge Seeker দ 07:57, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

I'd un-revert it and cite Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dashes). —mjb 09:27, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry. I've never seen em dashes used parenthetically anywhere else in Wikipedia, only en dashes. After I checked the dash#Em dash article, it seems they were incorrectly spaced, but the re-revert fixed that. Noisy | Talk 10:21, May 3, 2005 (UTC)

Serial comma

The following was removed from the article:

Serial comma can also be problematic: consider "They went to Oregon with Betty, a cow, and a piano." See serial comma for further discussion.

The comment on removal was:

removed sentence which is problematic only if serial commas used inconsistantly; also, the MOS should follow the MOS in puncuation placement

I am not convinced that this is only a problem with serial commas used inconsistantly, but I don't think this example adds to the MOS, so I ahve moved it here. -- Chris Q 15:09, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

I agree with the removal.

Nohat, please notice that three people have disagreed with your addition. If it's important to you, please try to build consensus on the talk page. Maurreen 16:22, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

I think the current situation is misleading—it makes out the Oxford comma to be some kind of punctuation panacea, which it is not. Some kind of nod should be made to the fact that a policy that always uses the serial comma can result in ambiguities. Nohat 16:28, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

For one thing, can you find a more realistic example: one that has been published without being contrived for demonstration purposes? Maurreen 16:33, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

I do not like or use the serial comma as I find it generally unnecessary. However, I do acknowledge that there are some circumstances where a serial comma can be helpful: this is when an item in a list includes a conjunction. I don't think the serial comma leads to ambiguities, but I think it can overburden the punctuation of a sentence. --Gareth Hughes 18:13, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

But serial comma does create an ambiguity in the sentence "They went to Oregon with Betty, a cow, and a piano" or for that matter any NP of the form [NP1, NP2, and NP3] whre NP2 can be interpreted as an appositive of NP1. Another example: "After the lights came back on, the only people left in the room were Betty, a maid, and my sister." Nohat 19:04, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

Is this really an issue with the serial comma? It seems the following sentence has just as much ambiguity: "They went to Oregon with Betty, a cow, Hank, a horse, Jimmy, a pig, and Joseph." Are there seven travelers or four? —Sean κ. ⇔ 22:45, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

That's not a good example, since it can only mean that there are seven travelers. If there were four, semicolons would be used, as follows: "They went to Oregon with Betty, a cow; Hank, a horse; Jimmy, a pig; and Joseph." Note that the use of a semicolon before "and" is accepted much more widely than the use of a comma before "and." In fact, I don't know of any style guides which forbid the serial semicolon, though there may be some. Factitious 09:14, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

I'd only use a serial semicolon after a colon, and I wouldn't use a colon there. Brackets, maybe. Mark ¹ 09:41, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Most style guides advise using semicolons whenever the items being listed contain commas, as they do in the above example. Factitious 01:05, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

The MoS says "pages will either gradually be made to conform with this guide or this guide will itself be changed to the same effect". Here many pages do not use the Oxford comma (which is the serial comma's more common name this side of the Pond) and many pages do. There should be no surprise about this - whilst having or not having a mandatory Oxford comma is permissible in all forms of English, in North America more people use it than don't, and outside North America more people don't use it than do. Though this is not a rule - there are plenty of counter-examples both ways, but the point is that there is a large proportion of people that don't and a large proportion of people that do use the mandatory Oxford comma.

Therefore, as long as WP encourages edits from anyone wherever they are in the world, some pages will be written without Oxford commas, others will. Since both styles are permissible in standard written English - and if we actually tried to enforce either a pro- or and anti-Oxford comma we'd piss a lot of people off very quickly, I suggest that this guide is changed so that it conforms with what is already standard WP practice and makes clear that both styles are OK, jguk 19:00, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

I agree with jguk. I was taught to not use the final comma: in those circumstances where ambiguity exists, you should use the semicolon. In my nigh on fifty years of reading fiction and non-fiction, I don't recall ever seeing a final comma ... and I'm sure it would have stuck out like a sore thumb if I did. Noisy | Talk 19:40, May 3, 2005 (UTC)

I'm one of the "use serial comma" people. We were taught to use it. It also seems more natural to me, as commas are often used where pauses occur in sentences and when I read aloud "Cheese, bacon, and mayonnaise make everything better", I pause after both "cheese" and "mayonnaise". — Knowledge Seeker দ 20:01, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

Strange that there's no mention of semicolon (";") in this (nearly non-) debate or in the serial comma article. If you have a list of items in which one of the items is a phrase that contains commas, be it for appositives or otherwise, then you just use a semicolon instead of a comma as the separator between list items, right? However, in the case of "Betty, a cow, and a piano", if Betty is the cow, then the ideal phrasing would probably, IMHO, be "a piano and Betty, a cow". Perhaps someone should look this up in Chicago? — mjb 21:27, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

Chicago says, and I quote:

"In a series consisting of three or more elements, the elements are separated by commas. When a conjunction joins the last two elements in a series, a comma is used before the conjunction . . .:

Attending the conference were Farmer, Johnson, and Kendrick.

We have a choice of copper, silver, or gold."

(Chicago Manual of Style, 14th Edition, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1993, Chapter 5.5.)

However, I would also go with the semicolons as they leave no room for confusion. Onlyemarie 22:29, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

I also agree with jguk. Official policy should not take a stand on this issue. Nohat 21:29, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

Now, that is good. I believe that the use and non-use of the serial comma both have pros and cons, and none of these are all that significant. Let each editor follow their own aesthetic on this matter, and let us agree only to worry about a serial comma when its presence or absence might confuse. --Gareth Hughes 21:40, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

What about having a section along these lines (feel free to propose improvements):

Oxford comma

The Oxford comma (sometimes known as the serial comma ) is the optional last comma in a list that ends in "and" or "or". For example, it's the second comma in "ham, egg, and chips". Many writers always use an Oxford comma in these situations, others only use an Oxford comma where it is necessary to avoid ambiguity or otherwise improve the reading of a sentence. Wikipedia has no preference between these two styles.

jguk 12:07, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

I would prefer to use the title serial comma for it. It is also known as the Oxford comma and the Harvard comma (and perhaps has other names). However, serial comma is the most neutral. The Chicago has great influence in USA, where the use of the comma is the norm. Elsewhere, there is much more freedom whether to use it or not. I don't believe that this MoS should compel editors to use or not use this comma. The occurrences of lists where the presence or absence of a serial comma affects comprehension are not all that common: let's just use common sense with it. --Gareth Hughes 12:41, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

Agree with the title change to "serial comma" since many editors are not familiar with the other names and it is more descriptive. Trödel|talk 14:07, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

Happy to change "Oxford" to "Serial" and "Serial" to "Oxford" in the above. (Note that "Oxford comma" is the more common name for it in the UK - and also that "serial" can be misleading in that it only refers to the last optional comma in a series, not the other mandatory commas.) jguk 16:23, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

I was taught that it isn't necessary, not that you shouldn't use it (I'm from the same side of the pond as jguk). I generally do use it as it reads closer to the way I think of the list, but if it is ambiguous at all I don't use it or substitute it. I like this proposed version, as it fits nicely with most the regional varieties of English guidelines, and this seems to be a case of similar usage differences. I have a mild preference for "Serial comma" over "Oxford comma" as that is where the article is, and it seems to make sense for Wikipedia's MoS to be consistent with the title of a Wikipedia article. Thryduulf 19:56, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

As long as we're reopening the issue of the serial comma, I'd make the following suggested policy: that both uses are allowed, and, unlike the British/American English policy, we also allow editors to freely change either to the other. This seems to be pretty much what people are doing anyway; build the sidewalks where people walk. Of course, any ambiguous wording should be avoided and corrected, in general. Deco 23:52, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

If the style is going to be changed, I suggest being more concise, perhaps like this: "Wikipedia has no preference concerning the serial comma." Maurreen 03:30, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

I'm all in favour of being concise. One option would be to remove the comments on the comma completely - leaving it implicit that we have no guideline. However, this would have the disadvantage that anyone looking here for guidance would not know that we had no preference. If we are to be explicit (which seems the better option) then I think:

(1) We need to explain what we mean - and I think the term "serial comma" is not so self-explanatory as to require no explanation.

(2) Explain why it is an issue.

(3) Make the advice as accessible to all - ie use straightforward language, and acknowledge that the more common term in the UK by far is the "Oxford comma", rather than the "serial comma".

I partly agree with Deco's point. I am unconcerned if editors freely change from one approach to another (as long as an editor trying to change a style backs away from doing so if edited back, and as long as no editor deliberately goes out of their way to edit as many pages as possible into their preferred style). The bit I disagree with is the need to state that point here. It would make the advice more complicated and, as Deco notes, people are already doing what he proposes anyway - and the revised guidance won't pretend to ban that practice either.

Amending my earlier suggested wording, I have the following for further (brief - as it seems we are agreed on the basic tenets) discussion:

Serial comma

The so-called Oxford or serial comma is the optional last comma in a list in phrases such as "ham, egg, and chips". Many writers always use a serial comma, others only to avoid ambiguity or to improve the reading of a sentence. Wikipedia has no preference between these two styles.

jguk 09:16, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

I like it; I think that should be the wording. We may just want to draw attention the point in question, "ham, egg[,] and chips", but otherwise it's grand. --Gareth Hughes 16:44, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

Post Change discussion

There being no other comments for a couple of days, and there being general agreement on the principle of the change, I have added the text suggested above to the MoS. Kind regards, jguk 18:23, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

I reverted the revert since there were no objections raised in talk and the reverter did not explain his position here. Trödel|talk 21:36, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. This change represents the consensus that there should be no specific guidance. Nohat 21:46, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

I have significant reservations about this change. I must admit that I'm not a serial comma user, rather dislike it, and consider the arguments for it being in any sense logical, as opposed to merely an arbitrary convention, to be pretty weak; so in that sense I'd not be at all sad to see it go. But I'm concerned about the precendent that a change to a "do your own thing" stance sets: one could iterate such "but some people won't like it" arguments over every point in the MoS, and end up saying nothing about any of them -- a "comparative essay on usage", and in effect no house style whatsoever. (Indeed, jguk's proposal is a further step on the way to doing as much -- and if there's any danger of a "package deal" effect coming into play, I'd far prefer serial commas and "logical" quotes, as at present, than end up with no serial comma and "aesthetic" quotes, or some system where we have to determine stylistic questions on a per article basis, or otherwise balkanise the article into different usages, as already arises with US vs non-US spelling.)

If such a change is to be made, I'd prefer it were in the form of an outright deletion. Having a "Manual" that discusses something without coming to any conclusion as to the correct use seems to me to be pointless: "instruction creep" in the form of a longer document, without the benefit of any actual "instruction". Alai 22:32, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

I think a compromise of the above suggestion and the existing solution would be best. My suggestion is therefore:

A serial comma is the optional last comma in a list in phrases such as "ham, egg, and chips". It should be used whenever there may be ambiguity in the sentence. For example, "The author would like to thank her parents, Sinéad O'Connor and President Bush" may imply that those two people are the author's parents.

Contrary to this, it is common convention to not use a serial comma when specifying the name of a railroad. For example, "Cleveland, Cincinnati, Chicago and St. Louis Railroad", not "Cleveland, Cincinnati, Chicago, and St. Louis Railroad"

I prefer using one to not, but there are too many people that don't use it for us to force it on them. violet/riga (t) 22:43, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

The problem here is that, quite frankly, you shouldn't use a comma to disambiguate in "The author would like to thank her parents, Sinéad O'Connor and President Bush". It'd be bad writing to have such a sentence in the first place - the syntax is poor. To see my point, think about how you might read the sentence to someone in a way to avoid the same ambiguity. It's difficult, if not impossible, to succeed. What would be better would be to recast the sentence: "The author would like to thank Sinéad O'Connor, her parents and President Bush", jguk 05:16, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

The first paragraph is reasonable (I thought about suggesting that should be become may be, being against prescription). The second paragraph is a nonsense: railways should not have their own style. The absense of the serial comma is due to the list being one of modifiers to the verb. Anyway, I don't feel that to not use is a place to boldly go without thinking where it might lead. --Gareth Hughes 23:46, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Actually this isn't a "railways" rule, but a rule for proper use of a proper name. As Strunk said "In the names of business firms the last comma is omitted, as "Brown, Shipley and Company." [1]

Oh dear: special case within a special case. But surely this is covered by the more general rule of preserving original usage? Whether that usage is itself "stylistically correct" is a subsidiary issue. Alai 01:24, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

LOL - I agree the original usage is a better way to go - it also is supported by the fact that we should generally call people/companies/groups by the name they call themselves. Trödel|talk 01:30, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

I strongly object to a few days discussion among a small number of people making such a drastic change to a long-standing part of the MoS, that affects the entire project. A handful of opinions expressed within a few days of the issue being re-raised hardly represents a consensus among the thousands of Wikipedia editors. Was the issue publicized on the Village Pump? Going's on? Mailing list? Anywhere? I don't want to have to take to checking this talk page every couple days to see if there is an issue I care about that has been re-opened. Chicago and Strunk & White both support serial commas, serial commas solve ambiguity more often than they cause it, and have been the Wikipedia standard for years. I strongly object to this change. And I am sick of people making this an AE vs. BE issue--I attended public school in the US and was taught to NOT use them--it wasn't until I was an adult professional writer that I adopted that style. Niteowlneils 23:56, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

I supported the change in support of the KISS principle. Additionally, sometimes making the change is the only way to see if there are in any true objections. This is a wiki, if concensus is truly against the change it will be obvious to all soon. Trödel|talk 01:04, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

Just to put in my perspective: I agree with Niteowlneils's views as expressed above. I personally prefer the serial comma for noun lists, since that is how I was trained to write. Although, I have to admit I didn't know the Strunk rule about business firms — I just looked up the names of several famous American law firms and they all follow that rule. --Coolcaesar 01:20, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

Incidentally, and in response to Niteowlneils, the change does not affect the entire project - all it does is to bring the MoS in line with what has already happened on the project. The previous guidance just didn't reflect what has actually happened on Wikipedia where many, many articles do not use the mandatory Oxford comma convention. The MoS has always stated that if it goes out of kilter with what is happening on Wikipedia, it will change. The revised wording is just following that principle. Kind regards, jguk 05:16, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

If this was "already what happened in the project", why did a majority of editors in the last POLL reject your proposal to remove the longstanding rule? (And that wasn't the first time.) Why, if it's "what already happened", did you not advertise that you were going to strike a whole section of the style guide, other than a few comments in the middle of one talk page? Jonathunder 05:59, 2005 May 10 (UTC)

You'd have to ask them - but from memory there was only 1 vote in it (it was certainly evenly balanced) - and certainly not enough to say there's a big wave in support of forcing everyone to use the mandatory Oxford comma. It's quite a minor change (not a big, earth-shattering amendment) and it was discussed above. I did not advertise the change as, although I proposed the new wording, I did not initiate the discussion, which was already tending towards allowing a variety of styles (which is what already happens in practice) before I added my support. And I strongly disagree that every change to this page needs to be advertised everywhere, jguk 06:28, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

I understand, Jguk, that you would prefer the Manual of Style to be less prescriptive and to have editors follow their own preferences more often; however, I disagree. Having a consistent style is preferable, in my opinion. I am not crazy about using "logical quotes", and I detest not capitalizing all the major words in article titles. But I prefer those to haphazard mixtures, especially within the same article. I would like the text to stay the way it was. — Knowledge Seeker দ 06:31, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

As noted, we already have inconsistent practice throughout WP on the Oxford comma - this change to the MoS merely reflects that. There will be no changes to WP at all as a result of the MoS change. I look forward to your comments on straight quotation marks below:) jguk 06:55, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

I have been asked to comment on this most recent incarnation of a never-ending debate, presumably because I've passionately argued in the past to recommend (but not necessarily require) final serial comma use. Here are my observations, for whatever they're worth:

Anyone making edits to the Manual of Style who can't be bothered to spell correctly should be automatically reverted. (It's inconsistent, not inconsistant, no matter what common dialect you use.)
Anyone making edits to the MoS based primarily on what they learned in school, insisting it's the right way, should also be automatically reverted. They display an amazingly parochial view of the world, and are too foolish to be considered responsible editors.
Most others making edits to the MoS tend to promote only those arguments that support their position and work hard to refute even logical arguments against them. There is little spirit of broad consideration and reasonable compromise.

We don't expect people without a serious mathematics background to make appropriate changes to Axiomatic set theory, yet everyone feels qualified to update the Manual of Style because they've learned how to speak English in grammar school. Many MoS editors make changes without troubling themselves to read prior debates on their pet causes. As a result, the MoS can be expected to suffer from its own style whiplash, rendering it impractical as a guide. Frankly, I (and likely many other otherwise responsible editors) no longer pay any attention it, so there's no point in asking for my unworthy opinion. — Jeff Q (talk) 07:12, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

Are we ready to re-insert the revised version (there seems to be little support for continuing including guidance that does not reflect current practice)? jguk 19:11, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

No. Have you not read the comments above? Have you not looked at the last poll on the subject, where a majority specifically rejected this? Have you not read the many comments there and in the archived pages since by editors on both sides of the Atlantic who said the serial comma is not what they were originally trained to use, but that they do use it because it reduces ambiguity? Jonathunder 22:05, 2005 May 13 (UTC)

The change is not prescriptive. It doesn't suddenly say you must not use the mandatory Oxford comma. It recognises that there are also those who have been taught not to use the mandatory Oxford comma, and that in some parts of the world it is rare (for instance, over here, the main national newspapers, most publishers and everyday business language does not use the mandatory Oxford comma). It also recognises that already very many WP pages do not use the mandatory comma. It also recognises that users of one style of English should not on WP prescribe to others that their usage is wrong. And so it is permissive - making it quite clear that pages may or may not adopt the mandatory Oxford comma. It also makes it clear that the alternative to not using the mandatory Oxford comma is not to never have an Oxford comma - it is to use it only where it is necessary to avoid ambiguity or to improve style.

If you read the comments in the most recent discussion you will see comments both from those who use and those who don't use the mandatory Oxford comma - but are quite prepared to accept that there are those who write in a different style than them and do not seek to dictate that their preferred style is followed.

Also, please bear in mind that in reality the change will have no impact whatsoever on any WP article. It is merely bringing the MoS in line with existing practice. Kind regards, jguk 22:18, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

I still don't get it... WP is riddled with spelling errors. Does that mean the MoS should allow misspellings? No: There are inconsistencies, and when we see them we fix them. The MoS needs to take a stand or else it's useless. It doesn't matter if it doesn't reflect current usage. For the record, I disagree with the recent change. —Sean κ. ⇔ 23:23, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

BTW, I propose arbitration. Get a committee together, decide a policy, and set it in stone. This wavering is getting ridiculous. —Sean κ. ⇔ 23:34, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

I don't care much about serial commas either way. But because Jguk says WP tendency is not to use them, it would help if he provided evidence that shows a representative proportion. Maurreen 02:11, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

I make my observations having read many WP articles. Given that we have over half a million articles, it's not really practical for me to list out all the articles that do not have a mandatory Oxford comma and compare them to the number of articles that have an Oxford comma which would probably not be added by someone who does not automatically use it. I can only suggest you look at more articles - particularly those that have large contributions by non-American editors, as the mandatory Oxford comma is much more prevalent amongst American contributors.

Regarding Sean's point, I strongly beg to differ. One of the reasons WP has expanded so fast and worldwide has been the acceptance of different styles. Any editor can edit an article without his style being arbitrarily changed (as opposed to improved) - and therefore editors do not suffer the annoying habit of their texts being arbitrarily changed. This approach also makes WP a more welcoming approach to users worldwide. For example, I'm sure if WP had adopted a policy of only using one form of standard English throughout all WP, it would have only a fraction of the editors and readers that it has.

The policy that we really need on usage can be reduced to three bullet points:

Any form of standard English is permissible
Be consistent within each article
Do not arbitrarily change which form of standard English is used

As a practical matter, it would also be sensible to observe that where a particular article relates to a topic closely-related to one part of the English-speaking world there is a tendency for that article to use a form of standard English used in that part of the English-speaking world. However, it would be best if this remained an observation rather than a firm requirement.

Kind regards, jguk 07:18, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

Compromise?

The Oxford or serial comma is the last comma in a list in the phrases such as "ham, egg, and chips." In a series of three or more terms with a single conjunction, use the serial comma. However; if the serial comma creates ambiguity or if there is more than one conjunction, clarity is preferred over this convention. For example: "They went to Oregon with Betty, a cow, and a piano." Additionally, for business firms (railways) the serial comma is usually (always) omitted.

I am proposing a compromise. I think the current "there is no guidance" is not useful since 1) it is A style guide, 2) this is not an official policy page, and 3) best practices should be encouraged. Note that after reviewing my Strunk & White from 11th grade English I have changed my view (see my comments above). Trödel|talk 21:53, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Trodel, if you were to pick almost any style guide outside N America (except for OUP and Fowler's, which is published by the OUP) you will see the opposite guidance given. The other problem is that where there is potential ambiguity, more often than not it is because the sentence is written badly, and changing the syntax to avoid the ambiguity would be better stylistically. Kind regards, jguk 06:36, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

I agree re rewriting. The rule I really like instead is: In a series of three or more terms with a single conjunction, use the serial comma. If the serial comma creates ambiguity consider rewriting the sentence. For example: "They went to Oregon with Betty, a cow, and a piano." should be "Betty went to Oregon taking only a cow and a piano."

I didn't realize this is a 'cros the pond issue. I won't worry about it. Jesus is the Christ 21:44, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

I'm willing to accept the compromise, largely as writen now, with just three more statements: 1) Ambiguity should be avoided. I don't know why that sentence was removed. Our aim is clear writing. 2) If we can avoid ambiguity by adding one simple comma rather than rewriting the sentence, editors are free to do so. 3) In the style guides listed, include the OUP and Fowler's. They are both influential and highly regarded by many throughout the English speaking world. Jonathunder 09:02, 2005 May 19 (UTC)

it's perhaps worth pointing out something that seems to have been unmentioned so far (though I might have missed it): the use of the serial comma isn't just about avoiding ambiguity, but about helping the reader. With the comma, the reader knows when she sees "..., and ..." that the end of the list has been reached; without it, she has to read on before discovering that. I've certainly been aware of the slight jar caused by this when reading text without the comma. Good writing should surely make things as clear and easy as possible for the reader. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 07:52, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm happy with the current phrasing, but wanted to mention here that I ran across another case where the serial comma alleviates ambiguity: when the second-to-last item in the list is qualified but the last item is not. For example, hair, a very small tail and feet. — Are the feet small like the tail? Assuming they're not, I must either rearrange the list so that the unqualified items come first, or insert a serial comma. — mjb 6 July 2005 17:13 (UTC)