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
Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit
Line 193: Line 193:
:: The later example corresponding to this phrase is "The Beatles were an English rock band...". Although McCartney and Starr are still living, the band effectively ("meaningfully") no longer exists. I don't have a problem with the current wording, except that I would say "subjects ''who'' are dead or that no longer meaningfully exist...". [[User:Jmar67|Jmar67]] ([[User talk:Jmar67|talk]]) 11:06, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
:: The later example corresponding to this phrase is "The Beatles were an English rock band...". Although McCartney and Starr are still living, the band effectively ("meaningfully") no longer exists. I don't have a problem with the current wording, except that I would say "subjects ''who'' are dead or that no longer meaningfully exist...". [[User:Jmar67|Jmar67]] ([[User talk:Jmar67|talk]]) 11:06, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
:::Do you have an example of something that would actually exist but not meaningfully exist, to justify the retention of the word “meaningfully” in the MoS? The Beatles isn’t such, since the band doesn’t exist at all [[User:MapReader|MapReader]] ([[User talk:MapReader|talk]]) 11:44, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
:::Do you have an example of something that would actually exist but not meaningfully exist, to justify the retention of the word “meaningfully” in the MoS? The Beatles isn’t such, since the band doesn’t exist at all [[User:MapReader|MapReader]] ([[User talk:MapReader|talk]]) 11:44, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

== "She" vs. "it" for ships ==

In the spirit of the essay [[Wikipedia:Use modern language]], I propose standardizing on "it" for ships instead of "she". This would mean removing the gender-neutral language exception at [[MOS:GNL]] and the copies at [[WP:GNL#Ships]], [[WP:SHE4SHIPS]], and [[WP:SHIPPRONOUNS]]. Rationale:
* "She" for ships sounds "old-fashioned"[https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/she], or "quaint or poetic"[https://www.grammarphobia.com/blog/2010/12/ships.html].
* "She" for ships is uncommon and is becoming less common in the sources we cite. It is not found in mainstream media, and even the nautical publication Lloyds List abandoned "she" two decades ago.[https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1388373/Lloyds-List-sinks-the-tradition-of-calling-ships-she.html]
* "She" for ships is disrecommended by reputable usage authorities, including ''[[The Chicago Manual of Style]]'', ''[[The New York Times Manual of Style and Usage]]'', ''[[The Associated Press Stylebook]]'', and even the [https://www.navy.mil/submit/navyStyleGuide.pdf U.S. Navy style guide], which includes the AP Stylebook by reference.
* "She" for ships is confusing, especially for readers with English as a second language. It violates the general English rule that inanimate objects are referred to by "it" because English has no [[grammatical gender]]. It is even more confusing when referring to ships with masculine names (like the [[USS John McCain]]).
* "It" for ships is already an accepted Wikipedia style and does not have any of these disadvantages.
-- [[User:Beland|Beland]] ([[User talk:Beland|talk]]) 13:48, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Revision as of 13:48, 22 November 2019

WikiProject iconManual of Style
WikiProject iconThis page falls within the scope of the Wikipedia:Manual of Style, a collaborative effort focused on enhancing clarity, consistency, and cohesiveness across the Manual of Style (MoS) guidelines by addressing inconsistencies, refining language, and integrating guidance effectively.Manual of StyleWikipedia:WikiProject Manual of StyleTemplate:WikiProject Manual of StyleManual of Style articles
Note icon
This page falls under the contentious topics procedure and is given additional attention, as it closely associated to the English Wikipedia Manual of Style, and the article titles policy. Both areas are subjects of debate.
Contributors are urged to review the awareness criteria carefully and exercise caution when editing.
Note icon
For information on Wikipedia's approach to the establishment of new policies and guidelines, refer to WP:PROPOSAL. Additionally, guidance on how to contribute to the development and revision of Wikipedia policies of Wikipedia's policy and guideline documents is available, offering valuable insights and recommendations.

Style discussions elsewhere

Add a link to new discussions at top of list and indicate what kind of discussion it is (move request, RfC, open discussion, deletion discussion, etc.). Follow the links to participate, if interested. Move to Concluded when decided and summarize conclusion. Please keep this section at the top of the page.

Current

(newest on top)

Concluded

Extended content

What are "strong ties"?

The guideline as currently written says that "an article on a topic that has strong ties to a particular English-speaking nation" should use the English dialect of that nation.

Okay, that makes sense – but, what are strong ties? How does one identify that? How would we actually explain the concept?

I came to this problem when noticing an editor who has been changing a lot of articles to use British English regardless of whether the subject was American or otherwise.([2]) I wanted to let this editor know what our rule is on this point, but discovered I can't, because MOS:TIES doesn't actually explain it. It gives a list of examples but no overview of the underlying idea. It doesn't even cover the most commonly encountered cases, which I would say are biographies or creative works produced primarily in a given country.

I observed that most such articles make the tie clear by stating the subject's nation of origin (or location), typically in the lead. This was agreed with, yet simultaneously rejected: [3].

I'm not married to any particular phrasing or rule of thumb. But if you needed to explain, in plain English, what our rule is on when an English variety should be used for a given article, what phrasing would you use?--Father Goose (talk) 19:29, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If the subject of an article is specific to a particular English speaking country, then it should be written in the English of that country. For example, Barack Obama, Houston, Texas, and the Liberty Bell all are specifically American and should be written about in American English. Tony Blair, Glasgow, and Big Ben are specifically British and should be written about in British English.--Khajidha (talk) 19:52, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, you're going for the difficult examples, then! Johnbod (talk) 17:02, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
So, could we use what you just wrote, or a modified form of it, in the MOS:TIES section? It's clearer than what we've got right now.--Father Goose (talk) 16:24, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Diffs, please, of three or four of the article changes you mentioned. EEng 05:37, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what you're asking here.--Father Goose (talk) 16:24, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm asking for diffs showing the undesirable changes by this "editor who has been changing a lot of articles to use British English regardless of whether the subject was American or otherwise" – all you linked above was this editor's full contributions history. EEng 00:09, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
[4][5][6]. This specific editor's changes are not the issue, though – hundreds of editors make ENGVAR changes of this nature. Why I'm here is because if I want to tell an editor making such changes what our policy is, I want to be able to point to guidance that explains it in a clear way. That's absent from our guideline at this time.--Father Goose (talk) 15:27, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The changes you diffed were clearly not allowable under the current guidelines, so they don't support the idea that the guidelines need changing. Someone who doesn't read the guideline isn't going to follow it no matter what it says. EEng 21:04, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't worry, there are infinitely more editors changing British to American English, often out of blissful ignorance ("correct grammar" is a favourite edit summary). In practice this leads to few disputes - Sylvia Plath should use AmEng, despite her living in England, but T.S. Elliot British English, as it does. Where there are problems it tends to be in conceptual articles with claims to strong ties pulling in different directions - something invented say in one place, but later mainly used in another. Johnbod (talk) 17:02, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    My view is that where something was invented is usually irrelevant. Math, science, engineering have no nationality. If it's a gadget that's very important to one country on a cultural level, and not to others, that's different. I don't have a good example at the moment, but that's the approach I'd use to thinking about it. --Trovatore (talk) 20:57, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I would offer the following: TIES is mainly for biographies and geographical articles (and only where the subject is from/part of an English-speaking country). If you take out those two categories, the overwhelming remainder of articles are in the domain of RETAIN.
Of course there are exceptions; they can even be grouped into some broad classes, and removing those classes makes the exiguity of TIES-governed articles even more pronounced. Political/legal concepts specific to an English-speaking country. Historical events that happened in a single English-speaking country. Immovable physical artifacts located permanently in an English-speaking country (e.g. buildings). Stuff like that. (Not where something was invented, please!!!)
But if you're reaching to find a "national tie", just don't. Let the established variety stay. Or get a consensus on the talk page to change it, if there's some good reason. If there isn't an established variety, do what you like. --Trovatore (talk) 01:55, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Works of art are invented. Would you deny TIES for The Adventures of Tom Sawyer, Appalachian Spring, Enigma Variations, The Hay Wain, Pride and Prejudice or Whistler's Mother? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 08:22, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I would say works of art are "created" rather than invented. I won't argue with you if you want to use the word "invent" in that way in your own speech, but it's clearly not what I meant, and I don't think it should have been confusing. --Trovatore (talk) 15:54, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I would emphasise the word 'strong' in 'strong ties'. If someone was born in Britain and spent most of their life in Britain, then that is a strong tie to Britain and hence British English. If someone was born in America (eg Plath) but then spent considerable time in Britain then there are ties to both countries and therefore neither tie is a strong tie - in which case continue to use whichever variety of English the article started in and don't change it.  Stepho  talk  09:07, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
These are the edge cases, where there are competing ties. And the guideline should address what to do in those cases too. But what is the core advice that it should offer? I'm not seeking an answer for my own elucidation – what I'm asking is, what plain-language sentence or two can we put in the MOS:TIES section to give the general idea of what a "strong tie" is? Some candidates so far:
  • If the subject of an article is specific to a particular English speaking country, then it should be written in the English of that country. For example, Barack Obama, Houston, Texas, and the Liberty Bell all are specifically American and should be written about in American English. Tony Blair, Glasgow, and Big Ben are specifically British and should be written about in British English. (Khajidha's explanation, above)
  • Such ties are typically stated in the lead of the article, such as a film that is described as "American", or an individual who is described as "Irish", or a geographical subject that is sited within a given nation. (my original suggestion, which I still think is pretty workable)
  • Please offer alternatives below if you disagree with the above initial candidates.
--Father Goose (talk) 15:27, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Of course the Liberty Bell is a work of art created in England, albeit messed aroung with later.<grin/> Martin of Sheffield (talk) 16:11, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think people are over thinking this. The reason we created ENGVAR was to stop endless edit warring over spelling. What we came up with is actually quite simple... Use the variety that makes the most sense given the topic. If you really think the variety used should change, discuss it on the article talk page and gain consensus to change it. If there is any doubt, don’t change it. It isn’t worth arguing about. Blueboar (talk) 17:01, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, thank you; nicely summari[z|s]ed. --Trovatore (talk) 17:21, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree. EEng 21:04, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm still waiting for examples of real-world situations in which an expanded guideline would have helped. Examples of people blithely changing articles, apparently in ignorance of the existence of the guideline, aren't enough. What we need is multiple talk-page discussions in which editors are wrangling over how to interpret the current guideline. EEng 21:04, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Biographies of Dutch politicians

Since February of this year, User:TheDutchViewer is contributing to Wikipedia. His main interest is to expand biogrophies of Dutch politicians. Though I appreciate the efforts this user is making, I cannot say his/her edits improve the quality of the articles. Just see some examples:

Joris Voorhoeve

Please cread this article and see what I mean:

  • all subheaders are gone;
  • the contents merely gives a resume in prose, as translated from the "Parlement & Politiek"-website. And then the lead only supplies the offices Voorhoeve held, focusing very much on dates and functions, and hardly what he did during his career.
  • for example, his involvement in the Srebrenica massacre, which is the main reason he is notable, is only mentioned under an image.

Max van der Stoel

Here the lead-section overshadows the article. Per MOS:LEAD, the intro should give "the basics in a nutshell and cultivate interest in reading on;" but this lead sucks away all interest to continue reading. And again, nothing in the lead shows why Van der Stoel was such an interesting personality. After User:TheDutchViewer edited the article for the first time, I tried to spread the lead through the different parts of the article. However, the discussed viewer reverted my edits back to his own (and current) version.

- - - - - -

And these are just two examples of his edits. He gave many other biographies of Dutch polticians a similar treatement. I tried to reason with this user on his talk-page, but I did not get any response.

Now, dear fellow-editors: are my concerns regarding TheDutchViewer's way of editing justified? And if so: what are the best next steps to be taken? Best regards,Jeff5102 (talk) 08:36, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest continuing to followup on their talk page. Per WP:CIVIL, Editors are expected to be reasonably cooperative ... and to be responsive to good-faith questions. If specific MOS issues persist, consider posting with history of diffs— including the edits in question and attempts to discuss—which you can open up for disucssion at say WP:AN. Sometimes a simple block can be placed, merely asking that a user acknowledge that they at least know they have talk page messages.—Bagumba (talk) 06:00, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Addition to dash advice

I propose we slightly extend the section MOS:DASH#Instead of a hyphen, when applying a prefix or suffix to a compound that includes a space to say ... to a compound that includes a space or a dash, so in addition to ex–Prime Minister Thatcher and pre–World War II aircraft we'd have post–Hartree–Fock as opposed to the current article title Post-Hartree–Fock, which wrongly suggests a parallelism between post-Hartree and Fock. OK?

Also, when did "or suffix" get in there? Ah, here it is; did it get discussed? This was explicitly not part of the big 2011 powwow agreement. If we want to keep it, shouldn't we put back the example (or a better one than the one removed here)? Dicklyon (talk) 15:53, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Omit needless words"

Regarding this sentence (in the MOS:TENSE section): Generally, do not use past tense except for past events and subjects that are dead or no longer meaningfully exist as such: I'm a little bothered by the phrase no longer meaningfully exist as such. ...Meaningfully and as such both feel like unnecessary verbosity to me, and I would cut one or both phrases. (I've been asked to bring this to the talk page.) (Note that this is not inspired by any article dispute or desire to change the practical effect of the section.) WanderingWanda (talk) 05:37, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Verbosity isn't so much the issue, as ambiguity. "Past events" covers events, "are dead" covers people, and "no longer exist" is intended to cover inanimate objects. However the words "meaningfully" and "as such" add nothing except potential confusion and would be best deleted. MapReader (talk) 09:08, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The later example corresponding to this phrase is "The Beatles were an English rock band...". Although McCartney and Starr are still living, the band effectively ("meaningfully") no longer exists. I don't have a problem with the current wording, except that I would say "subjects who are dead or that no longer meaningfully exist...". Jmar67 (talk) 11:06, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have an example of something that would actually exist but not meaningfully exist, to justify the retention of the word “meaningfully” in the MoS? The Beatles isn’t such, since the band doesn’t exist at all MapReader (talk) 11:44, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"She" vs. "it" for ships

In the spirit of the essay Wikipedia:Use modern language, I propose standardizing on "it" for ships instead of "she". This would mean removing the gender-neutral language exception at MOS:GNL and the copies at WP:GNL#Ships, WP:SHE4SHIPS, and WP:SHIPPRONOUNS. Rationale:

  • "She" for ships sounds "old-fashioned"[7], or "quaint or poetic"[8].
  • "She" for ships is uncommon and is becoming less common in the sources we cite. It is not found in mainstream media, and even the nautical publication Lloyds List abandoned "she" two decades ago.[9]
  • "She" for ships is disrecommended by reputable usage authorities, including The Chicago Manual of Style, The New York Times Manual of Style and Usage, The Associated Press Stylebook, and even the U.S. Navy style guide, which includes the AP Stylebook by reference.
  • "She" for ships is confusing, especially for readers with English as a second language. It violates the general English rule that inanimate objects are referred to by "it" because English has no grammatical gender. It is even more confusing when referring to ships with masculine names (like the USS John McCain).
  • "It" for ships is already an accepted Wikipedia style and does not have any of these disadvantages.

-- Beland (talk) 13:48, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style&oldid=927432131"