Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 312: Line 312:
::::::::::::Oh my fucking lord, you really are completely off your rocker. [https://www.google.com/books/edition/How_Tough_Could_It_Be/sefPEuc4BpQC?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=bill+bennett+national+scold&pg=PA128] [[User:EEng#s|<b style="color: red;">E</b>]][[User talk:EEng#s|<b style="color: blue;">Eng</b>]] 22:08, 14 March 2019 (UTC) <small>P.S. Watch it with the comma splices.</small>
::::::::::::Oh my fucking lord, you really are completely off your rocker. [https://www.google.com/books/edition/How_Tough_Could_It_Be/sefPEuc4BpQC?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=bill+bennett+national+scold&pg=PA128] [[User:EEng#s|<b style="color: red;">E</b>]][[User talk:EEng#s|<b style="color: blue;">Eng</b>]] 22:08, 14 March 2019 (UTC) <small>P.S. Watch it with the comma splices.</small>
::::::::::::: Please show where I have stated I am mentally ill, or retract your statement. Your macho locker room "jokes" appear to be thinly disguised personal attacks intended to drive people away from sensible discussion about gender. --[[User:Fæ|Fæ]] ([[User talk:Fæ|talk]]) 22:30, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
::::::::::::: Please show where I have stated I am mentally ill, or retract your statement. Your macho locker room "jokes" appear to be thinly disguised personal attacks intended to drive people away from sensible discussion about gender. --[[User:Fæ|Fæ]] ([[User talk:Fæ|talk]]) 22:30, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
::::::::::::::[[User:EEng#s|<b style="color: red;">E</b>]][[User talk:EEng#s|<b style="color: blue;">Eng</b>]]: "scold" [https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/scold absolutely has a gendered meaning]. Regardless of whether that was your intent, your comment there was an unambiguous personal attack that added nothing to the discussion. I think you should strike through it or another uninvolved editor should do so and/or hat this portion of the thread. [[User:Nblund |<span style="background-color: #CC79A7; color:white;">'''Nblund'''</span>]]<sup> [[User talk:Nblund|talk]]</sup> 22:52, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

: I think you're missing this line from GENDERID: {{tq|This applies in references to any phase of that person's life, unless the subject has indicated a preference otherwise}}. This subject clearly had a delineated preference - private vs. professional. This means that in the portions of the article which discuss their professional setting, we should firmly use the male name and identification. In sections about their personal life, we use the female. And in portions which are mixed, we can avoid awkward constructions - like using only their last name, etc. As far as the title, it should be based strictly on the context of their most solid basis of notability and most likely search vector - in this case, their professional legal identity. -- [[User:Netoholic|Netoholic]] [[User talk:Netoholic|@]] 17:23, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
: I think you're missing this line from GENDERID: {{tq|This applies in references to any phase of that person's life, unless the subject has indicated a preference otherwise}}. This subject clearly had a delineated preference - private vs. professional. This means that in the portions of the article which discuss their professional setting, we should firmly use the male name and identification. In sections about their personal life, we use the female. And in portions which are mixed, we can avoid awkward constructions - like using only their last name, etc. As far as the title, it should be based strictly on the context of their most solid basis of notability and most likely search vector - in this case, their professional legal identity. -- [[User:Netoholic|Netoholic]] [[User talk:Netoholic|@]] 17:23, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
::Is there a source for the claim that Burgess indicated some other preference? Coverage at the time refers to Burgess's previous name, but calls her a woman and uses female pronouns when discussing her. And [https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-london-16167368 the BBC says] Burgess "wished to be known as Sonia and dressed as a woman." So the most up-to-date reliable sources indicate that Burgess lived as a woman and wanted to be called Sonia. I don't see much ambiguity as far as [[WP:GENDERID]] goes. {{ping|Blueboar}}: I think the "recognizably" argument could apply to anyone who became famous before transitioning. That's what redirects are for. [[User:Nblund |<span style="background-color: #CC79A7; color:white;">'''Nblund'''</span>]]<sup> [[User talk:Nblund|talk]]</sup> 23:59, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
::Is there a source for the claim that Burgess indicated some other preference? Coverage at the time refers to Burgess's previous name, but calls her a woman and uses female pronouns when discussing her. And [https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-london-16167368 the BBC says] Burgess "wished to be known as Sonia and dressed as a woman." So the most up-to-date reliable sources indicate that Burgess lived as a woman and wanted to be called Sonia. I don't see much ambiguity as far as [[WP:GENDERID]] goes. {{ping|Blueboar}}: I think the "recognizably" argument could apply to anyone who became famous before transitioning. That's what redirects are for. [[User:Nblund |<span style="background-color: #CC79A7; color:white;">'''Nblund'''</span>]]<sup> [[User talk:Nblund|talk]]</sup> 23:59, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Revision as of 22:52, 14 March 2019

Style discussions ongoing [keep at top page]

Add new items at top of list; move to Concluded when decided and summarize conclusion. Comment at them if interested. Please keep this section at the top of the page.

Current

(newest on top)

Concluded

Extended content
  • May I suggest that this section be kept at the top of the page? It's a losing battle keeping it at the bottom. BTW I added a hidden "Do not archive until 2029" tag so that problem's handled. EEng 08:05, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not much caring; someone wanted to put into some kind of sidebar template or something. I only bother moving it back to the bottom when updating it anyway. [shrug]  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  11:04, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    This should probably be on Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Discussions of note or some such (deliberately not using the 'noticeboard' nomenclature given the past-year-or-two's discussion about having a MOS noticeboard), with some active content transcluded here into some {{to do}}/{{cent}}-ish kind of thing and the inactive content not. --Izno (talk) 13:56, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps Izno is right, but I've moved this to the top of the page for the time being. EEng 14:20, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, there are multiple ways to approach this. I didn't recall that the noticeboard idea had been discussed that recently (it was an RfC something like 5–8 years ago). I don't think a noticeboard is an appropriate direction, since we do not "enforce" MoS like a policy, and there's already been F-loads too much drama resulting from certain individuals' attempts to make MoS excessively emphatic, nit-picky, and at times nationalistic. We don't need a bureaucracy for handling formatting trivia, and tensions already run too high too often about such matters. (If someone's being genuinely disruptive, ANI or AE or ANEW can and does already handle it.) The kinds of "not a noticeboard" informational pages used for topical tracking of deletion discussions are probably a better model (e.g. Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting (sports)).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:29, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hyphens vs. dashes in geographic names

It seems there's no clear guidance on which of the two alternatives should be used in geographic names. E.g. in the case of Austria-Hungary, a hyphen is advised by the MOS. Whereas, logically and per closer reading of the en-dash/hyphen policies, even this case is not so clear. Specifically, Austria and Hungary were essentially two parts joined together, and so per most other similar cases there should be an en-dash (Austria–Hungary). On the other hand, it has also been known as Austro-Hungary (where it's clearly the combining form that's intended here, and hence the hyphen).

Other recently discussed cases are:

In the case of KC and KB, the original Russian versions of their names both use the combining form (similar to Greco-Roman or Anglo-American), namely Russian transliterations are Karachayevo-Cherkesiya for KC (I'm ignoring -siya to -ssia transition as not relevant to the subject) and Kabardino-Balkariya for KB. But then somehow KB is the only one that retains this Russian form in English: KC changes what should have been "Karachayevo-" to "Karachay-", whereas KB forms what seems to be a combining adjectivial form "Kabardino-" from the noun "Kabardin" (a variation of the name for Kabardians).

Other cases from the fairly modern history include:

  • Checheno-Ingush Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic, where again two nationalities have formed the name on essentially equal terms. And so either Chechen–Ingush (with a dash) or Checheno-Ingush (with a hyphen) would be appropriate – solely depending on which grammatical form is used.
  • Same goes for Buryat-Mongol Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic and State of Buryat-Mongolia. The first is the equal-terms use: both "Buryat" and "Mongol" are nouns denoting nationalities – and so it should be used with an en-dash: Buryat–Mongol ASSR. Whereas the second one seems to be a combining form: it would be Buryatiya–Mongolia (like Austria–Hungary) if it were an equal-parts form, but instead it's on the pattern of Austro-Hungary (with a hyphen).

And so by looking at these examples, it seems that the choice between hyphen and en-dash should be guided by the grammatical/semantical meaning of the compound name in question, instead of applying a hard and fast "always use hyphen" exception rule (as seems to be superficially prescribed by MOS).

Pinging editors from other related recent discussions to opine on this: SMcCandlish, Dicklyon, Tony1. cherkash (talk) 02:57, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Where it's two parallel names that connected, I prefer the en dash. But I often don't know how to interpret whether that's what it is. Sounds like you've figured some out. Dicklyon (talk) 03:07, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I also prefer the en dash as reasoned and described above. (I would also prefer a dash for Austria–Hungary even though it is almost always found in printed sources as the hyphenated Austria-Hungary). Doremo (talk) 03:21, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Also, "the original Russian versions of the names" is a red herring. The Russian language has its own orthographic rules which differ from those of English. WP isn't dictated to by officialese much less non-English officialese, or transliteration by non-native English speakers from foreign officialese into the Latin alphabet.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  08:39, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • En dash. The entire point of the en dash (in such a construction – it's also used for an unrelated syntactic purpose, as in this parenthetical) is juxtaposition of two or more equal, comparable, or parallel entities, to indicate a relationship among them, a conflict between them, their joint output, or their merger. Incidence of hyphen usage in place of this is frequent primarily because some style guides eschew dashes for this purpose, including most news style guides, but not academic ones. An encyclopedia is essentially an academic work, not news, so we use the en-dash style for a reason. Informal online writing and the fact that most keyboards have a hyphen key but no dash key is another cause of hyphens substituting for dashes, but WP is not written in random lazy schmoe's blog and forum posts style, either.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:55, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • SMcCandlish: Did you ignore the cases using a combining form (Kabardino-Balkaria, Austro-Hungary) on purpose? It doesn't seem that either "always use hyphen" (as advocated by the MOS) or "always use dash" (as advocated by you) could be the answer here. I think we'll have to keep distinguishing between the two depending on the etymology and semantics of the name. cherkash (talk) 04:22, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Combining forms always use a hyphen because they are prefixes and prefixes that are not fully merged into a word are hyphenated. Thus Austro-, Sino-, etc., just like pre- and post- and meta- and semi-. They aren't names in their own right, but derived 'of or relating to ...' adjectival prefixes. (There's a special exception for converting a prefix's or suffix's hyphen into an en dash when the affix is added to a unitary compound that has its own internal hyphen or space: pre–Austro-Hungarian, post–Winston Churchill Britain. Various style guides omit that idea (besides journalism ones which are just anti-dash), while some don't; we've retained it, though it may be a bit fussy.)  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  08:36, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • Ok, I'm with you here, SMcCandlish. But this latest comment of yours contradicts your top-level comment that starts with the bold "En dash" (which I construed as "always use an en-dash" – was that not your initial opinion?) – and in fact calls for distinguishing between hyphenated and dashed cases, as I hinted towards in my original inquiry here. cherkash (talk) 02:06, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
          To be clear, I'm not contradicting your original comment; it should obviously be "Austria–Hungary". In news style, this would be written "Austria-Hungary", just because news is the anti-dash realm. Since WP isn't written in news style (WP:NOT#NEWS), MoS has no reason to care. Some non-news publishers are also anti-dash and use hyphens for everything like this; the ones that would write "Austria-Hungary" would also write "Mexican-American War" and "Dunning-Kruger effect". WP isn't among them, so we shouldn't be writing "Austria-Hungary". It just causes confusion. The material probably needs to be clarified (see below).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  13:20, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. This parses as: we are using em--da because we are academic, and we are academic because we are using em--da. Part of the people will say this is a circular-reasoning, to underline that circular shape is combined with reasoning, allowing to build a higher concept. Part of the people will say this is circular--reasoning, to underline the juxtaposition between reasoning and fallacy (oxymore). Dissenters will use circular---reasoning to underline the opposition between the two concepts (oxy--more and more). Indeed, how academic we are ! Pldx1 (talk) 09:12, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree with SMcCandlish. And the number of academics who don't "bother" with en dashes is striking – even for page ranges, where all of the major US and UK styleguides insist on one. Wikipedia is more professional than that. Tony (talk) 09:44, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Pldx1's circular-reasoning fantasy is just that: imaginary. We're academic because we're an encyclopedia, which is an academic book-publishing endeavor, not fiction, not editorial, not humor, not news, not govermentese, not signage, not research papers, not advocacy material, not anything else. It's written like an academic book because it is one. Almost all of our style disputation is caused by people refusing to accept this and expecting to be able to write like this is a blog, a newspaper, a novel, a legal document, an action alert, or a paper in Journal of Applied Econometrics. We use academic style based on that of leading style guides for academic book publishing because of WP's academic-book nature; it isn't the use of that style that makes WP an encyclopedia and not something else; WP:ENC, WP:5P and other founding principles define what WP is.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  08:36, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here's the problem: It looks to me like "Wrong: Austria–Hungary; the hyphenated Austria-Hungary was a single jurisdiction during its 1867–1918 existence" was added by someone to encapsulate some kind of personal opinion or to rationalize an existing article title instead of moving it, and without any consideration of conflict with the rest of the dashes guideline and with actual practice (virtually all of our articles on places that are merged polities and whose names have a horizontal line in them separating the two formerly separate place names use an en dash, and RM regularly moves them to do so). All such places are "single jurisdictions during [their] existence" under the compound name, so the rationale in that quoted bit just doesn't work. I think this line should simply be removed. I'd been wondering why we keep getting recurrent confusion about dashes and hyphens in place names, and this is clearly the source of it. (Or most of it. Odd cases like Guinea-Bissau, "the Guinea of Bissau", and Wilkes-Barre, a town named in remote honor of people with no connection to the place, generate some questions. However, they reflect patterns of hyphen usage that no longer survive in contemporary English. They're nomenclatural fossils, like all the "St James Church"-style locations in the UK and Ireland without a possessive apostrophe.)  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  13:20, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Explanatory supplements to this guideline. Wikipedia:Specialized-style fallacy

Is Wikipedia:Specialized-style fallacy an explanatory supplement to this guideline? If yes, it should be linked prominently. If no, that page should not be making the claim. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:43, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would call it a strongly supported essay (at least it is strongly supported by the editors who regularly contribute to discussions on MOS pages) related to MOS guidance. I’m less sure that “supplement” is the right word. Blueboar (talk) 14:53, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure about the word “supplement”, but it is not the worst choice, and that word is used on many essays that have been decided to not be mere opinion but an important explanation that should be read when interpreting policy on a particular angle. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 15:01, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

SmokeyJoe: So where have the proposed links been placed, specifically? I couldn't find any new links, despite this discussion and its contributors seeming to agree on the need for them. cherkash (talk) 02:16, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

IAR for MOS:IM

The MOS is also quite clear with regards to certain image placement: "Each image should be inside the level 2 section to which it relates, within the section defined by the most recent ==Heading== delimited by two equal signs, or at the top of the lead section. Do not place images immediately above section headings."

The same user as above believes that because "MOS is not policy, it is not mandatory" that this should be ignored for no clear reason. He claims it provides "VISUAL BALANCE" to the article, but in this case the images are cleanly alternating left and right with no excess images stacking on top of each other so putting the images within the relevant sections is perfectly visually balanced. I think they look bad being in the wrong section and breaking the horizontal header line. What would be a good reason to ignore the MOS for image placement? Reywas92Talk 19:55, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(a) I can't even tell what the section you quoted is trying to say, and (b) MOS is to be applied with common sense, which may override rigidly stated rules. I can't really tell what's going on in the particular article you linked. EEng 00:53, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Same user as in the IAR thread above, already blocked for similar "my way or the highway" editwarring. It's not a valid WP:IAR, since what the editor wants to do isn't an improvement of any kind, but introduced problems for no benefit. For one thing, it separated the image from the material to which it pertains, and as a more immediately obvious problem, it confusingly caused the heading to wrap to the right of the image (though this might vary by viewport size, etc.)

Meta: We (the entire community, or rather the image and layout geeks in it, who care) may need to revisit MOS:IMAGE, Help:Pictures, and image-related parts of MOS:ACCESS to make sure they all still make sense in 2019 and on mobile devices. I'm not sure all of this material has kept pace with display issues, former display issues possibly no longer being issues, changes to MediaWiki, and so on. A lot of this stuff probably needs a round of focused test-casing to see what actually happens today under what circumstances, on the desktop and mobile sites, and on different devices.
 — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:25, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This section says that the images should be placed in the relevant section below the header like at [2], not in the previous section above the header like at [3]. I see no common sense argument that the latter should override the MOS-compliant former. Reywas92Talk 08:12, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently my bringing Daniel Burnham into compliance with the MOS is "harassment". User:Beyond My Ken has placed the images back above the header lines in the previous section, claiming "better layout" with no explanation why this is better. Thoughts? @SMcCandlish: Reywas92Talk 08:11, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Reywas92: I put it back to what it's supposed to be [4].  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  11:12, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yet another dash question

Very simple question: should it be Deer Park–West Werribee railway line, or Deer Park – West Werribee railway line?

I moved it to its current location a while ago after noting "Los Angeles–New York flight" was preferred by MOS:DASH, but now I’m not sure if it falls into the category of ranges with spaces in the elements. Any advice is appreciated. Triptothecottage (talk) 09:41, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oh boy, this will really put the cat among the pigeons. EEng 09:58, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
To put it another way, there is an inconsistency near MOS:ENBETWEEN, where the first bullet includes this example:
a New York–Los Angeles flight
(unspaced), but the subsection just before that says:
The en dash in a range is always unspaced, except when either or both elements of the range include at least one space
and lists examples like:
Christmas 2001 – Easter 2002
I suggest that the first example shown above be changed to:
a New York – Los Angeles flight
(spaced) to be consistent with the written text. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 11:58, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The difference is the first range are dates, while the flight example are places. When the section was hashed out in a massive RFC some years ago, there was strong opposition to having "New York–Los Angeles flight" be punctuated differently from "Chicago–Atlanta flight". I don't think it should be changed. oknazevad (talk) 13:49, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Some of us didn't like the spaces in dates, either, but that's how it came down. I would not be in favor of re-opening any of this, given all the last 8 years of working toward consistency with the consensus guidelines. Dicklyon (talk) 19:25, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. This isn't worth changing, even if we could agree on what to change it to.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  10:20, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any inconsistency. MOS:ENTO (ranges that might otherwise be expressed with to or through) and MOS:ENBETWEEN (compounds when the connection might otherwise be expressed with to, versus, and, or between) are distinct, separate subsections. I don't see any reason to presume that the spacing rule described under MOS:ENTO would apply to MOS:ENBETWEEN. --Paul_012 (talk) 18:59, 24 February 2019 (UTC) PS Well, one could say that prescribing different styles for different uses of the dash is inconsistent, but the guidance is clearly structured, and I don't think there's significant potential for confusion in the way the MOS page itself is written. Though it is indeed a bit counter-intuitive and could confuse editors who hadn't taken the time to study the MOS. --Paul_012 (talk) 19:12, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
When I wrote the above, I missed the hatnote on the earlier section Here the ranges are ranges of numbers, dates, or times.... I change my objection to that it's inconsistent and counter-intuitive to have different styles depending on the use case, even acknowledging there may be underlying reasons for it. MOS should not be just (or even primarily) for use by experts – they don't need it. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 20:05, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Good grief. Thanks for the answers – I was not interested in upsetting anyone's apple cart, I just wanted to know what the correct interpretation of the consensus guideline was. I missed the hatnote too, which makes it quite plain. Triptothecottage (talk) 11:28, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

First-magnitude star or First magnitude star?

Circling back to the compound modifier question from above once more, it seems I have been "corrected" here, when someone said should be "First magnitude star" rather than "First-magnitude star". Does that qualify as a valid exception? Usage in sources seems mixed. Pinging @Modulus12: who made the change.  — Amakuru (talk) 23:44, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it's mixed. Useful hyphens are very often dropped in such contexts. For our readers' sake, we prefer not to drop them. Dicklyon (talk) 23:58, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, I do see the compound-modifier question above, but not a compound modifier question, if you get my drift. Dicklyon (talk) 00:01, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
 — Amakuru (talk) 00:05, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Your ping didn't work because you didn't add it on a new line (see Help:Fixing failed pings) but luckily I have this page on my watchlist. I've no objection to adding a hyphen now that the article has been moved. And in related POTD style discussions, I saw that the Coup d'état article was swapped back to italics... Not sure if anyone wants to re-open that debate. Modulus12 (talk) 02:17, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ha, that is ridiculous. There can be no "debate" - "coup d'etat" is a vastly more common English term than the actual textbook example of a non-foreign term "esprit de corps", which is given at MOS:FOREIGNITALICS. If people want to apply different rules then they should do it via a change in the MOS, not via individual articles. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 09:35, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hyphenate it. This is another WP:SSF case. A phrase like this, without the hyphen, is only sensible to people already familiar with the subject matter. Without the familiarity, one wonders "What's a magnitude star, and which one came second?".  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  10:55, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Contradiction between MOS:HYPHEN and MOS:ENBETWEEN

There seem to be two contradictory lines in the manual of style:

  • But never insert a hyphen into a proper name (Middle Eastern cuisine, not Middle-Eastern cuisine) (from the MOS:HYPHEN section)
  • but a family of Japanese-American traders or a family of Japanese Americans (from the MOS:ENBETWEEN section)

It seems to me that Japanese American would count as a proper name in the smae way that "Middle Eastern" would. This became an issue at WP:ERRORS, regarding today's OTD entry "African-American teenager Trayvon Martin was killed while walking...". Should "African-American" be hyphenated? I don't have a strong opinion one way or the other, but it seems like one or other of the above lines needs amending. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 09:23, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Amakuru, Middle Eastern cuisine is a proper name. Japanese-American in Japanese-American traders is an adjective. Right above that section in ENBETWEEN it says for people and things identifying with multiple nationalities, use a hyphen when applied as an adjective or a space as a noun. I am not sure there is a contradiction. PopularOutcasttalk2me! 10:13, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@PopularOutcast: so are you saying that the "Japanese American" and "African American" constructs are not equivalent? Because obviously "African" is a not a nationality, and the phrase "African American" is not meant to imply any connection with the continent of Africa. So the line you mention can't apply there. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 10:19, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Amakuru, I am saying they are equivalent. Your initial argument didn't seem to indicate that you objected to this format because you do not consider African a nationality. You may want to take a look at African Americans, specifically the lead and the section on terminology. PopularOutcasttalk2me! 10:31, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Editing to add that on the front page African-American was used as an adjective in African-American teenager. PopularOutcasttalk2me! 10:39, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@PopularOutcast: I don't "object" to anything, I'm just saying there's a contradiction that needs clearing up. Even if you think it's all crystal clear, the two lines are still open to different interpretations. Perhaps "Middle Eastern" (the adjective form of Middle East) and "African American" (the adjective form of African American) are different things, but if so that should be explicitly stated, and why. So that we don't need to debate this issue in the future. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 10:45, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Amakuru, Right, so then back to my original reply. ENBETWEEN makes the distinction to add a hyphen for people or things that identify with multiple nationalities when used as an adjective. Middle Eastern is not multiple nationalities. I will stop here though because I don't see the contradiction and someone else might be better able to assist the both of us. Cheers. PopularOutcasttalk2me! 11:00, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, thanks. If what you say is correct, we just need to add a clarifier to the Middle Eastern line to that effect, but let's wait for some more views. (Although as I already noted, African is not a nationality... and an African American is not someone with dual citizenship between Africa and United States, just so that's clear!)  — Amakuru (talk) 11:05, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Right, since "African American" is not a case of someone holding a dual citizenship or such, but the name of an ethnic group in one country, it shouldn't be hyphenated when used as an adjective. A quick survey of news and book sources confirms this. Removal of the hyphen was the correct action. And the sentence at the African Americans article should be removed; neither reference attached to it actually supports its claim, and they're just general references to the definition of the term that probably were separated from the preceding sentence (which they actually support) in a careless previous edit. oknazevad (talk) 13:06, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
PS, I did remove that sentence. I also want to note that recently there was a large set of proposed moves that was withdrawn by the proposed that essentially release on that sentence for arguing against those moves, which means the justification was in error. See Talk:African-American gospel. oknazevad (talk) 13:23, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree with oknazevad, PopularOutcase et al. Tony (talk) 13:09, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Tony1: As far as I can tell, oknazevad and PopularOutcase are saying the opposite thing. ok is advocating no hyphen in African American teenager, while Popular is saying there should be a hyphen. What think you?  — Amakuru (talk) 16:44, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    My bad. I agree with Oknazevad. No hyphen is by far the most-commonly used. And I somehow get the feeling (unverified) that African American writers prefer it. I presume the hyphen is used when it's a double adjective (is it? ... "African-American health statistics"?). Tony (talk) 04:28, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I would use the hyphen. African American is a compound noun, and we don't really mean an American teenager who is African, but rather a teenager who is an African American. It's a subtle enough difference in this case that dropping the hyphen is common and not really harmful, but I prefer consistent use of the hyphen to make it read easier. And African American is a compound of two proper name terms, but is not a proper name like Golden Gate is (which is why we don't write Golden-Gate Bridge). Dicklyon (talk) 16:06, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Dicklyon—I doubt either "African" or "American" is a proper name. Unsure of what a "proper name term" is, too. Tony (talk) 08:15, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
True. But they're derivations from proper names, of the sort that get capped. Dicklyon (talk) 16:04, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
But that's just it, "African American" is a single proper noun term, being the name for the ethnic group of people descended from slaves of the American south. I mean, at this point we're getting into fraught realms of discussion involving ethnic identities and national origins and such, which are almost inherently minefields, but it remains that while etymologically coming from two words, it's not a compound of two separate words but a single term. oknazevad (talk) 17:07, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree that African American is a name for a group. It's a descriptive compound. Here is one analysis that agrees with me. I expect you have some on the other side? Dicklyon (talk) 18:52, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, they're all over the African American article. oknazevad (talk) 18:58, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • For those advocating no hyphen, please consider Japanese English teacher (a Japanese teacher of English) versus Japanese-English teacher (a teacher of dual cultural backgrounds). Without the hyphen, the "Japanese" describes "English teacher": [Japanese [English [teacher]]] vs [Japanese-English [teacher]]. Thus it's possible to misparse African American teenager as [African [American [teenager]]], whereas African-American teenager is unambiguous. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:44, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. WP is not here to promote grammatical consistency or improvement, but to convey information to readers. Phrases of the form "African American teenager" can be confusing to many readers if we don't hyphenate, so we hyphenate. It's a simple as that. --A D Monroe III(talk) 18:20, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I disagree strongly with Oknevazad, for four reasons: Most strongly, it's for the same ambiguity-avoiding reason that Curly Turkey and A D Monroe III object. It's also a random-looking and, to many, inexplicable inconsistency with all other compound modifier hyphenation. The underlying premise is faulty; it's a true compound referring to Africa and [the United States of] America; there is no place "African America", so it it not like "New York" or "United States" not having a hyphen in them when used adjectivally. Finally, the claim that the non-hyphenated form (as an adjective) is the most common is failing to account for the fact that news style (which WP is not written in) accounts for the vast majority of occurrences of things like "African American traditions", and news style is unusually hostile to hyphenation, thus badly skewing the results; it's invalid statistics. And on a matter like this, we don't care about statistics anyway, but consistency and the likelihood that editors will comply with it rather than argue to death over it.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  10:31, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    That's all well and good, but in this case our MOS clearly says not to hyphenate proper names. And African American is clearly a proper name. Much like Middle East is. So we're in keeping with reliable sources and our house style by not doing so. Let's be honest, the phrase "African American teenager..." cannot possibly be misconstrued. But anwyay, I was thinking from Tony and Oknazevad's comments that this would be a fairly easy one to resolve, but it seems from the more recent comments like an RFC may be required to nail this one down properly. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 21:31, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    "African American" is not a name (a type of noun), and not a noun at all. It is an adjective, as you clearly understand yourself when you use it to modify the noun "teenager". And for that matter, it is also incorrect that we must avoid hyphenating proper names. Peter Swinnerton-Dyer, for instance, should be hyphenated. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:38, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @David Eppstein: yes, I know "African American teenager" is an adjective, but then so is "Middle Eastern" in the textbook example at MOS:HYPHEN, "Middle Eastern cuisine". The point is that the terms are adjectives which are derived from proper nouns. So we need to either (a) hyphenate both "African American" and "Middle Eastern" when they are used as adjectives, (b) hyphenate neither of them, or (c) explain in the MOS why one is hyphenated and the other is not. I don't mind which of a, b or c we choose, but we should do one of them. That's the purpose of my post here. As for Peter Swinnerton-Dyer, that's a bit of a red herring. The hyphen there is because it's part of his name, and is present in the noun form too. The more relevant point is that if he had, say, a theorem named after him we would always call it the "Peter Swinnerton-Dyer theorem", not the "Peter-Swinnerton-Dyer theorem", even though in that case his name is being used as a compound modifier.  — Amakuru (talk) 07:11, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    They're still not grammatically parallel. If they were parallel, there would be an "African America" that African American people come from, but there isn't; "African" modifies the people, not the place. However, Middle Eastern people are not the same as Eastern people whose ancestors came from the Middle; they are people from the Middle East. So since these are constructed differently I don't see why it is obvious that they should be hyphenated identically. As for things named after S-D, the one you're looking for is probably the Birch–Swinnerton-Dyer conjecture. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:18, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    That's also not a parallel case. Birch and Swinnerton-Dyer are two different people, and that is a dash, not a hyphen. We would call it the Birch–Swinnerton conjecture even if there were no Dyer in the mix at all. The kind of example I'm talking about is Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories rather than Barack-Obama citizenship conspiracy theories. Anyway, I don't dispute your opinion - if you and the the rest of the community think it should be "African-American teenager" then that's fine. But it's clear, from the differing opinions on the issue expressed here, that this is an issue that needs resolution. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 07:49, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    "Double-barrelled" surnames aren't a parallel case; they "arrived" here pre-hyphenated. The hyphen is a formal part of such a name (for individuals and families that use the hyphen) for the same reason the diacritic belongs in the name of Abimael Guzmán but not Ryan Guzman. "New York" has no permanent hyphen in it, so it is not hyphenated internally in an adjectival construction, like "New York-style pizza".  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  10:42, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Amakuru: What do we gain by granting "African American" a no-hyphen exception? What do we lose by not granting this exception? What concrete problem would be solved by avoiding "African-American teenager"?—and think of how "wrong" it'd look to see "African American and Mexican-American teenagers ..." Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 00:54, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Curly Turkey: I don't know what we gain or lose, perhaps nothing. But like I say, I don't myself favour one form or the other, I think we just need to clarify. Is there a fundamental difference between "African-Amreican teenager" and "Middle Eastern cuisine" that means we hyphenate one but not the other? I think whatever we decide should probably cover "Japanese-American teenager" and "Mexican-American teenager" too, as well as "African-American teenager", as I don't think there's a fundamental difference between those. None of those terms are strictly about simple dual nationality, they are more a description of a group of people, i.e. Mexican Americans, Japanese Americans... those are Americans (perhaps with no other citizenship), but who are culturally or through ancestry linked to Japan/Mexico/Africa. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 07:11, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I have no problem with (maybe even would prefer) "Middle-Eastern cuisine", and prefer it to a rule with numerous hard-to-understand exceptions. I hoped the "Japanese[-]English teacher" example would clarify that the presence or absence of a hyphen has semantic importance. Somebody pointed out that "Africa" is not a country, but neither is "Asia" or "Jew", and I'd hyphenate "Asian-American teenager" and "Jewish-American teenager". Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:23, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I wasn't intending to imply above that it has to do with "countries" in particular (a word with more than one meaning anyway). "African American" isn't a unitary noun like "New York", but a descriptive compound, a shorthand for "American of African ancestry" (New York isn't a new part of York, or York moved from one place to another; it's evocative not descriptive). There are edge cases; is "Middle East" a shorthand for something like "the East, but the middle-ish part of it"? It arguably was 100 years ago, when terms like "Near East" and "Middle East" were used in a subjective, hand-waving way without very concrete meanings – "Near East" even included Ottoman-controlled parts of Europe for some people. But not today. MoS didn't make this stuff up; it's just following what other English-language style guides advise (other than news ones, which lean anti-hyphen about everything). And that would not have a hyphen in "Middle Eastern cuisine". Such a hyphen isn't conventional in unitary placenames (even unofficial ones), but it is in "A modifying B" compound adjectives, as in "a Filipino-Canadian pool player", while an en dash is used in "A relating independently with B" ones, as in "the Philippines–Canada trade agreements". Neither relationship exists between "New" and "York" in "New York politicians" or "Middle" and "East" in "Middle Eastern cuisine", though this is maybe less certain about the latter case. N-grams are not terribly helpful on this; they always show suppression of the hyphen for all such constructions, because news style is anti-hyphen in general, and skews the results (Google's N-gram database is full of news material). However, if you compare plots of phrases like "Middle[-]Eastern politics" to those for, say, "African[-]American actor", you'll find that the hyphen nearly never occurs in the regional reference, while its suppression in the ethnic one is much milder.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  10:42, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I sense that, with a few notable dissensions, we may have a consensus here that the preferred usage is: "African-American teenager", "Mexican-American teenager" etc. but retain "Middle Eastern cuisine", "New York train crash", "Birch–Swinnerton-Dyer conjecture", "Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories" etc. If there's general agreement for this, perhaps some sort of explanatory note can be added to the proper name line because it may not be immediately obvious that African American does not count as a regular proper name in this context. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 10:44, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

RfC on drug name

Requests for comment are sought at Talk:2010–2017 Toronto serial homicides § RfC on drug name on how to state the name of a drug mentioned in court documents about a living person. – Reidgreg (talk) 16:34, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Punctuation (commas) in connection with title(s) and honorific suffixes

AlbanGeller (talk · contribs) and myself had a discussion on his talk page regarding when/where/whether to use commas where title(s) and honorific suffixes occur (such as in the article Peter Carington, 6th Baron Carrington), and he suggested that I bring the subject up here to see if there could be more input.

HandsomeFella (talk) 08:49, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Use the comma. It's just better semantics with an appositive. Maybe more importantly, anyone not intimately familiar with generational labeling in English (and MOS's particular take on how to write that labeling), and British treatment of post-nominal titles, could easily misinterpret "Peter Carington 6th Baron Carrington" as "Peter Carington VI, Barron Carrington". Some people's "death to commas" habits (generally imported from news style and highly specialized technical writing) has to give way to clear communication at Wikipedia. The majority of actual British usage I've seen (off-site, I mean) favors the commas, though I've not exhaustively researched this. FWIW, Encyclopædia Britannica also includes the comma [5].  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  10:39, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it was the comma after Lord Carrington's lifespan I was referring to. Pinging @SMcCandlish and AlbanGeller:. HandsomeFella (talk) 19:14, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Footnote k under MOS:COMMAS doesn't address round-bracket parentheses in particular, but it also doesn't suggest that what it does address is an exhaustive list. Since a clause-delimiting dash would merge with and replace the final comma of the appositive (in this case, a post-noms list with its own internal commas), and a dash-delimited parenthetical can be converted into a brackets-delimited one and vice versa, a round bracket in this kind of construction should also merge away that final comma. But if a bracketed parenthetical were properly part of an item being bracketed, it would still get a comma after it. That is, if the second post-nom in the list had its own brackets, e.g. "XY (Z)", a comma would come after that in the list of them. Unless it were the last of them and were followed by comma-replacing alternative punctuation per footnote k.  :-)  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:19, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No, you absolutely do not need a comma after the dates. It looks ridiculous and it's not standard practice. I've deleted many of these extraneous commas over the years. As well as final commas after the list of postnoms but before the dates. Also completely pointless. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:28, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with others above. This is a case of two consecutive parentheticals: the comma-delimited post-noms and the parenthesis-delimited dates. Without the post-noms, no comma is necessary. With them, it could seem reasonable to include the dates as well (with a trailing comma to complete the list), which is what the Carington editor appears to have done. I would prefer to keep them separate because they have different purposes and delimiters. The left parenthesis terminates the post-noms and no comma follows the dates. Would be good for MOS to address this issue. Jmar67 (talk) 05:13, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Why did my addition get reverted? (Word Variation and Repetitiveness)

Hi Wikipedia folks, I would like to know why my addition to the article with the section titled “Word Variation and Repetitiveness” was reverted/deleted. Repetitiveness is a problem I see in Wikipedia pages sometimes, and there’s no mention of it on this article, even though this would be the perfect place to have it. As the spirit of that addition would be productive and helpful for the article, at the very least we should talk about it here instead of reverting it. Or I can make the addition, and the other users who are more knowledgeable about how these pages work can tweak and edit it as they see fit. I greatly welcome and appreciate any feedback, insights, or comments. Thanks everyone! Thanks Mrbeastmodeallday (talk) 21:44, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to be: New content added to this page should directly address a persistently recurring style issue. As this page, including this talk page, applies to all articles, it should be read by many people. There is an unusually high bar for additions to the article page, and even for this talk page. Gah4 (talk) 22:07, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Our Manual of Style is already very long; it has to be because Wikipedia is an international encyclopedia that covers almost everything, but it doesn't need to cover every aspect of good writing. It just needs to cover the things that are particular to Wikipedia, things that have caused conflict, places where standardization is helpful, etc. We want the MoS to be readable and no longer than it needs to be. I hope that helps.  SchreiberBike | ⌨  22:20, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Repetitiveness and other forms of redundancy are frequent writing faults, but a matter of basic copy-editing; they're not the sort of thing that people fight about. Most everything in MoS was added to forestall cyclical, same-every-time editorial disputes, and the few exceptions are matters of technical need. WP:How to write better articles is a better place for general writing advice, including on redundancy.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  10:09, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

HTML character code &#8202; in Other uses (em dash only)

Let's preclude the first example in MOS § Other uses (em dash only) with a clarification that a hair space will be used. It may prevent readers from unnecessarily looking up the HTML character code mentioned—&#8202;. Turns out it's explained in the very next sentence, yet this is easily overlooked when a reader's first inclination may be to immediately look it up without reading on, as was the case for me. Perhaps it's barely worth suggesting, but I believe it will be an improvement, slight though it may be.

Current paragraph:

An indented em dash may be used before a name or other source when attributing below a block quotation, poem, etc. For example, {{in5}}—&#8202;Charlotte Brontë will produce:

     — Charlotte Brontë

This dash should not be fully spaced, though it is best for metadata and accessibility reasons to hair-space it from the name with the HTML character code &#8202;. Most of Wikipedia's quotation templates with attribution-related parameters already provide this formatting.

Amended:

An indented em dash may be used before a name or other source when attributing below a block quotation, poem, etc. This dash should not be fully spaced, though it is best for metadata and accessibility reasons to hair-space it from the name with the HTML character code &#8202;. Most of Wikipedia's quotation templates with attribution-related parameters already provide this formatting.

For example, {{in5}}—&#8202;Charlotte Brontë will produce:

     — Charlotte Brontë

I can't imagine anyone would object. Nothing's rewritten and the only difference is that I moved the example to end of the paragraph. I'd do it myself, but I'm hesitant. Prior MOS edits I thought were minor and non-controversial have been reverted nonetheless.

Anyways, I'm curious to hear your thoughts. Regards, Jay D. Easy (talk) 19:23, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Many are cold, but few are frozen.

— Matthew 22:14

We shouldn't be encouraging use of {in5} and other such debris. {{quote}} has an |author= parameter which adds the emdash and spacing anyway. For some reason {quote box} doesn't add the dash -- what a mess Wikipedia templates are -- so a good example might be
{{Quote box |salign=right|quote = Many are cold, but few are frozen.|author = {{mdash}}{{hsp}}Matthew 22:14}}
which gives the result seen at right. I don't know why we'd bother with the #8202 fiddling when we have nice mnemonic templates. EEng 21:38, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm fine with Jay D. Easy's rearrangement. I see where EEng is coming from, but MoS wants people to use {{quote}} (which supports the parameter he mentioned, and which we already explain will do this markup for you), or <blockquote>...</blockquote>, which does not (thus the explanation). {{Quote box}} isn't one of our standardized quotation templates, but old detritus that should probably be merged out of existence, or at best confined to use outside mainspace, like on people's talk page or whatever. We don't have a reason to use it in an example. And {{in5}} isn't "debris", it's one of the recommended ways of indenting, unlike abuse of : description list markup to produce a broken d-list just to get the visual appearance of an indentation.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  16:02, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • There certainly are times articles fitly use {quote box} but it doesn't matter to me -- I was just looking for a use case to exemplify hairspace.
  • Where would we ever use {in5}?
  • Since {quote} has the |author syntax which does all this formatting, and < blockquote> doesn't, then let's just tell people to use {quote} with |author and drop this stuff about hairspaces and so on.
EEng 16:54, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There is no {{Quote box}} usage in any article that could not be replaced with another template that behaved more consistently. We would "ever" use {{in5}} any time we wanted to indent a short line (there's another template, {{block indent}}, for larger material); this is covered at MOS:INDENT. We don't have any reason to try to force people to use templates when HTML <blockquote> works fine and is easier for some of them and more flexible in some situations (various block templates don't behave well inside other blocks, next to images, etc.). I.e., basically you're doing WP:CREEP to try to avoid doing WP:CREEP. :-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SMcCandlish (talk • contribs) 16:02, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well, mystery person, what template would we use instead of {quote box}, and please give an example of a use if {in5} in an article. Oh, and I believe the problem with quotes and images was fixed long ago. EEng 13:08, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That was me. For other quotation templates, see Category:Quotation templates; AFAIR, only {{quote box}} has inconsistent output (if you want to cite the source below the quotation, you have to manually include the em dash, and this makes it difficult to convert between quotation templates, requiring manual re-editing, not just a template replacement. [I think the fix for this would be to create a temporary copy that auto-dashed like all the rest of these templates, then use AWB or something to first point all extant calls to the new copy, then change then original to use the same in-built dash code as the other templates, then tediously replace all the extant calls to the temporary template to now not have manual dash markup and to call the (repaired) original template again, finally redirect the copy to the original (or just remove the copy). That would fix the issue without there ever being instances of in-article content both having a manual dash and a template-provided one, and it would preserve the page history of the original template. More of a pain in the butt than I would take on personally.] Articles with {{in5}} include: Lyndon B. Johnson, Supreme Court of the United States, Methylphenidate, Community (TV series), 2017 NFL Draft (and other articles in that series), 1966 FIFA World Cup (and other articles in that series), Bengal cat, Warsaw Ghetto Uprising, O Canada, San Francisco, DNA virus, Mars Science Laboratory, etc.. There's still lots and lots of abuse of : (i.e, of <dd>...</dd>) for visual indentation to fix in mainspace, and that might be something a bot can do. It needs to be fixed since it generates invalid markup (as in actually fails validation). A perhaps simpler fix would be to have MediaWiki generate different HTML when : is used, depending on whether it's preceded by a ; (<dt>...</dt>) line, but over a decade after the devs were asked to do this, zero progress has been made, and we're left with working around it directly. Talk pages are pretty much a lost cause, though fixing this at the MW level would also make our talk pages much more palatable for blind editors.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  13:44, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The birthplace that changed

Is the way that birthplaces are described in the infoboxes at Gandhi, Miloš Zeman and Andrej Babiš described in a MOS somewhere? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:28, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Is this what you mean? Not sure if you meant that those infoboxes are using "now" in the birthplace. Also Template:Infobox_person has some guidance in the table, but that's not the infobox being used in those articles. I often take out "now" or "present day" out of articles. It depends on the situation. But I figure that most of the place names are linked anyhow and if anyone really wants to know, they can click the link and see what the current place name is. I just did this for an article that kept saying something like "Bombay (present day Mumbai)". Other editors may have additional guidance. PopularOutcasttalk2me! 14:58, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for replying. What I meant was "British India" vs just "India" etc. Your first link says "If a different name is appropriate in a given historical or other context, then that may be used instead, although it is normal to follow the first occurrence of such a name with the standard modern name in parentheses." The template says "Use the name of the birthplace at the time of birth, e.g.: Saigon (prior to 1976) or Ho Chi Minh City (post-1976)." IMO this is clear enough, but that is my view. Thanks again! Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:01, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Request for neutral input regarding Mormons

I have absolutely no horse in this race and couldn't care less on whether the Mormons call themselves "LDS" or "COJC", but, as pointed out here, the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Latter Day Saints#changes based on recent style request from LDS Church? has fizzled out without any kind of consensus as to what Wikipedia should be calling these people, so there are minor good-faith back and forth changes and reverts going on all over the project. While I normally feel the MOS is too overreaching, this is something Wikipedia should micromanage to the extent of coming up with a single approved name otherwise people will be changing "Mormon", "Latter-day Saint" and "Church of Jesus Christ" back and forth for eternity; if people have a spare few minutes can they pop over there and try to get this settled on one name or another? ‑ Iridescent 09:11, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

back and forth for eternity. Does this proves the True Eternity for ever ? Or do we have Jesus cries, but the caravan goes further ? Pldx1 (talk) 09:48, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedia style guidelines is confusing for a new user

Category:Wikipedia style guidelines is confusing. It lists both legitimate guidelines and essays. Essays are not guidelines, yet are listed there. They are two: 1 and 2. I suggest making them separate from the legitimate guidelines for the sake of preventing new users' confusion.--Adûnâi (talk) 12:11, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Be bold. --Izno (talk) 14:12, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
We have this problem all over .....that is essays and user pages are seen in policy and guidelines cats.--Moxy (talk) 03:15, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed that one. You linked to the same page twice. The essay's categorization error was caused by attempting to pipe-link a category without preceding its name with ":"; the fix was just doing [[:Category:Wikipedia style guidelines|style guidelines]]. It wasn't an intentional attempt to mark the page as a style guideline. I also added Category:Wikipedia essays on style to it. I did find another essays in there, Wikipedia:Use feminine pronouns, which was intentionally mis-categorized, and I've fixed that.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  14:46, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed some pages that were essays from the category, but I'm not sure what the status is for the following guidelines - Wikipedia:Manual of Style/India-related articles, Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Serbia-related articles, Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Russia-related articles, Wikipedia:WikiProject Athletics/Manual of Style/Competitions, Wikipedia:WikiProject Athletics/Manual of Style/Biographies, Wikipedia:VG/MOS/ESports, Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Accessibility/Colors and Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Article message boxes. Are these guidelines? --Gonnym (talk) 14:54, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The esports one is definitively a draft. The color one I think could reasonably be called a supplement (in the true sense of the word) since it doesn't provide any guidance at all from what I can see, though it reasonably follows from the rest of the accessibility pages that if you want to be AAA compliant (which I don't believe we mandate), those are the colors and hues to use. --Izno (talk) 17:29, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"I've removed some pages that were essays from the category" – which pages? As for MOS:ACCESS subpages and such, I would leave them categorized as-is; they're part of MOS:ACCESS, basically, just broken out into subpages. Maybe we could create some kind of MoS supplements category for them, if we really want to. [Never mind; that already exists, and the subpages of MOS:ACCESS and MOS:CHEM are now in it.] The ones created by and living under wikiprojects are WP:PROJPAGE essays. I'll re-cat. those as needed (and rename the e-sports one to have a name that makes sense). The athletics ones are categorized as PROJPAGEs, in Category:WikiProject style advice and in a category called Category:Wikipedia Manual of Style (sports). I'm not sure we need that category, since there is no such MoS page and most sports-related style pages aren't part of MoS. But it probably won't do any harm; I've added a note at the top of it explaining that the category's contents range from essays to guidelines. As for the others, I'm not really sure. I guess the question is primarily whether the ones on India, Russia, and Serbia are actually followed.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:06, 12 March 2019 (UTC); updated: 00:17, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Updates:
 — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:03, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You can check my contributions as I haven't done a lot of editing since so they are at the top. I think, based on the text description placed in Category:Wikipedia style guidelines, that pages added to this category AND to its sub-categories should all be guideline-level pages. Those I removed from the category (and placed in Category:WikiProject style advice/Category:Wikipedia style guideline proposals/Category:User essays on style) all did not have the guideline tag at the top. As a side note, I think that pages which aren't guidelines, should not be sub-pages of the manual of style, as that misrepresents them as part of the accepted MoS. --Gonnym (talk) 21:44, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
We need not get too nitpicky about the page naming and categorization. These are not article categories, but internal categories for our own page-management purposes. Something has the force of a guideline because it represents actual best practices, editors who care to have discussed it, and editors in general follow it; not because of what template is at the top of it. E.g., WP:BRD, WP:COI, WP:ROPE, WP:AADD, WP:NOTHERE, and WP:ENC have an authority verging on policy level (the community treats them as actionable, including for deletion, user blocking/banning, and so on), but are essays. Similarly, WP:5P is effectively a policy but not tagged as anything, and WP:MEDRS verges on policy but is technically a guideline. It's more utilitarian to keep things like MOS:ACCESS's sub-pages grouped with the main guideline. They're basically giant footnotes that have been moved to subpages to reduce clutter, and same goes for those of MOS:CHEM. Anyway, I tracked down what you were doing, and made some further cleanup, including applying the right templates and categories, merging some shortcut templates into banners, removing duplicate banners, etc., etc. Removed some wording from the MoS subpages that seemed to indicate wikiproject control, and removed "guideline" and "part of MoS" claims from the wikiproject pages. I put the MOS:CHEM subpages back in the MoS category tree, under a new Category:Wikipedia Manual of Style (chemistry) and tagged them as supplement essays; same with Category:Wikipedia Manual of Style (accessibility), other than many of them are how-tos or other material, not guideline supplements. I think these are the only two MoS guidelines with a pack of sub-page stuff around them.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:13, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nice work on the cleaning. I do however, disagree with your opinion that it doesn't matter if we add non-guidelines to a guideline category. The category tree makes it perfectly clear, that if it is a guideline it belongs in category X, if it is an essay in Y and so on. I agree that having stuff in the MoS category is for our own management purposes, but if the category is a mix of two (or more) different "things" then it is not useful. There is a reason why there is a category for Category:Wikipedia Manual of Style and one for Category:Wikipedia essays and information pages about the Manual of Style. Not going to revert your changes, but just stating it out there that I don't agree with them. --Gonnym (talk) 10:00, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

MOS:GENDERID and death

There's a discussion over at Talk:Sonia Burgess.

Sonia Burgess was a trans woman who it seems had started socially transitioning - among friends and family and in public. At the time of her death she was still presenting male and using her old name at work. Her friends and family used her new name and pronouns when quoted by the press after her death.

Some are arguing that the article name should not be changed because she continued to use the old name at work, and that she hadn't made a statement herself in a reliable source about which name she preferred to be called.

I believe this to be abiding by the letter but not the spirit of MOS:GENDERID, and I wonder if the guideline could be improved to account for situations like this where the wishes of the article subject are obvious and clear but they never made a "self-designation" in a reliable source. --Wickedterrier (talk) 12:10, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The key here is the concept of Recognizability... we need to ask: which name did the subject use in public? And: Which name would a reader searching for information about the subject expect us to use. Blueboar (talk) 12:43, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Not the overriding concern for BLPs, in this case Burgess lived their life as Sonia Burgess and at the time of their death, appears to have only used the name David Burgess when working at the legal practice. The "most correct" and "most respectful" self-identification should default to "under what name did they live their life", not what name did they write under, or what name did they use to avoid discrimination. --Fæ (talk) 14:27, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
And why does Burgess have an article at all? Because of their professional life, in which he was David Burgess, not their personal life, in which she was Sonia Burgess. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:08, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. We use the name readers are more likely to recognize -- for example, stage names for actors, pen names for authors. EEng 15:12, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"why does Burgess have an article at all?" - Let's be honest, because we all know the real reason... the article exists only because of their trans status, in violation of WP:NOTMEMORIAL by trans activist editors. Otherwise this is WP:ROUTINE tabloid coverage of the murder of a WP:RUNOFTHEMILL lawyer. --Netoholic @ 16:41, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't really the place to talk about the Sonia Burgess article, but I'll say one thing: if you look through the page's history and talk page, you will see that the person who created it (and has made the most contributions to it) has, over the years, successfully resisted any attempt to have the article use the name Sonia or female pronouns. There might be genuine cause to question the subject's notability, but this idea that the article only exists because of some sinister cabal of trans activists reveals a pretty warped perspective. WanderingWanda (they/them) (t/c) 23:27, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Collegiate discussion on tangents
What a bizarre personal attack to make against all editors with an opinion different from yours. Are you really stating that those of us that write about how GENDERID should be used respectfully for transwomen, is now condemned as a "trans activist editor"? Classic WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour which, "let's be honest" increasingly looks like lobbying to knock collegiate discussion off on tangents. --Fæ (talk) 14:12, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That's a rather startling statement given so many of your comments at WP:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2019-02-28/Humour. EEng 15:38, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Are you really subscribing to the conspiracy theory that the article exists only because of their trans status, in violation of WP:NOTMEMORIAL by trans activist editors?
There is a definite battleground environment being created here, a pattern established by the same old suspects trying to provoke and trigger editors with opinions they do not like to see freely and logically expressed so that their targets fall foul of Wikipedia policies. If you love free speech, why not try letting others express their views without making hostile personal attacks and scaring away anyone that might feel differently, that would be a good start. --Fæ (talk) 16:12, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'm not subscribing to any conspiracy theory. I am saying that for you to complain about "personal attacks ... against all editors with an opinion different from yours" is laughable. Stop trying to control everyone. EEng 20:19, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If you love free speech, why not try letting others express their views- that's a bit rich considering that you just tried to remove harmless picture illustrating "tangents" on this page on the grounds that it was "hostile".Removing others' contributions on talk pages is against WP:TPO,do not do that.Smeat75 (talk) 16:44, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I was illustrating the difference between collegiate and collegial. EEng 20:19, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Trimming an irrelevant and deliberately sarcastic image from a discussion, is not against TPO. However precisely following those guidelines I have converted the image to a link, as per TPO the only purpose of which is to take this discussion off on irrelevant tangents and was never the subject of this discussion. Thanks for the advice. --Fæ (talk) 16:54, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
See, here you go again with the "only purpose" mindreading. What a narrowminded scold you are. Wherever you work must be one sad and dreary place. EEng 20:19, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Again the word "scold", being provocative by using language that has a long history of degrading women. It appears that you know exactly what you are doing, you have encouraged me to take better look these patterns. --Fæ (talk) 20:50, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oh my fucking lord, you really are completely off your rocker. [6] EEng 22:08, 14 March 2019 (UTC) P.S. Watch it with the comma splices.[reply]
Please show where I have stated I am mentally ill, or retract your statement. Your macho locker room "jokes" appear to be thinly disguised personal attacks intended to drive people away from sensible discussion about gender. --Fæ (talk) 22:30, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
EEng: "scold" absolutely has a gendered meaning. Regardless of whether that was your intent, your comment there was an unambiguous personal attack that added nothing to the discussion. I think you should strike through it or another uninvolved editor should do so and/or hat this portion of the thread. Nblund talk 22:52, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're missing this line from GENDERID: This applies in references to any phase of that person's life, unless the subject has indicated a preference otherwise. This subject clearly had a delineated preference - private vs. professional. This means that in the portions of the article which discuss their professional setting, we should firmly use the male name and identification. In sections about their personal life, we use the female. And in portions which are mixed, we can avoid awkward constructions - like using only their last name, etc. As far as the title, it should be based strictly on the context of their most solid basis of notability and most likely search vector - in this case, their professional legal identity. -- Netoholic @ 17:23, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a source for the claim that Burgess indicated some other preference? Coverage at the time refers to Burgess's previous name, but calls her a woman and uses female pronouns when discussing her. And the BBC says Burgess "wished to be known as Sonia and dressed as a woman." So the most up-to-date reliable sources indicate that Burgess lived as a woman and wanted to be called Sonia. I don't see much ambiguity as far as WP:GENDERID goes. @Blueboar:: I think the "recognizably" argument could apply to anyone who became famous before transitioning. That's what redirects are for. Nblund talk 23:59, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it certainly does apply to anyone who became notable under one name, and then (subsequently) changed to a different name - regardless of the reason for the name change. Blueboar (talk) 16:31, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
And MOS:GENDERID clearly applies in those cases (e.g. Chaz Bono, Caitlyn Jenner, Chelsea Manning), so how is it not a spurious argument to say that the key question is recognizability when that appears to be contradicted by both practice and by the explicit wording of the policy? Nblund talk 16:53, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I am not familiar with the history of the Bono article, but I am familiar with the Manning and Jenner articles... in both of those cases we actually delayed adopting the name changes until it was clear that the majority of reliable sources had adopted the “new” names. In other words, we waited until the subject could be considered notable under the new name. In both cases, the “new” name was initially rejected... then (as more sources used the “new” name) it was adopted here as a redirect while the article stayed at the “old” name... and finally (as the number of sources using the “new” name increased) the “new” name was adopted as the article title and the “old” name was shifted to being a redirect. In the Manning case, this shift happened somewhat quickly (over about a week)... Jenner took longer (a few months). The key was that those who supported change were able to demonstrate that both Jenner and Manning were now just as Recognizable under their “new” names as they were under their “old” names. It also helped that both Manning’s and Jenner’s transitions were two of the first very public cases of transition. They both could claim that their transitions were a second claim to notability - beyond their original deeds. One last comment... Today, transitioning isn’t viewed as being such a big deal (the general public is much more used to the idea than it was back when Manning and Jenner announced). What this means is that an announcement may relult in less press coverage. Paradoxically, the more people accept transitioning as a concept, the longer it will take for a specific person’s transition to become recognizable. Blueboar (talk) 18:07, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That's explicitly not what MOS:GENDERID says. It says that we should defer to the most recent self-identity regardless of what most sources say. Perhaps the Manning case predates the consensus on this. In Jenner's case, I don't see any serious debate about how to do things: this RfC, in which an editor argued that WP:COMMONNAME applied to the bio in was snow closed just over a week after Jenner came out on 20/20. Editors unanimously cited the MOS:ID text to note that there was no reason to wait to rename the article, and I don't see any pushback on that point. That seems to fly in the face of what you're saying - can you cite some kind of recent discussion on this? Nblund talk 19:22, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to reiterate that there is a RM discussion happening right now over on the Burgess talk page: Talk:David_Burgess_(immigration_lawyer)#Requested_move_12_March_2019 WanderingWanda (they/them) (t/c) 18:52, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style&oldid=887801756"