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
→"She" vs. "it" for ships: fix sp " accepmoted"? User:Beland -- am I allowed to?
Undid revision 927595912 by DePiep (talk) nope, WP:TPO
Line 144: Line 144:
* "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 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]]).
* "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.
* "It" for ships is already an accepmoted Wikipedia style and does not have any of these disadvantages.
-- [[User:Beland|Beland]] ([[User talk:Beland|talk]]) 13:48, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
-- [[User:Beland|Beland]] ([[User talk:Beland|talk]]) 13:48, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
:I have notified [[WP:MILHIST]] and [[WP:SHIPS]].
:I have notified [[WP:MILHIST]] and [[WP:SHIPS]].

Revision as of 14:45, 23 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

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]
On this point, I think there has been discussion, but consider that transport wreckage might reasonably exist but not meaningfully exist (such as Peter Iredale). --Izno (talk) 23:12, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I am not defending the word "meaningfully" at all costs and think it could be considered redundant with "as such" (and vice versa). But I would give the author of this phrase the benefit of the doubt in (apparently) formulating it with a view to the Beatles example. Sometimes we unconsciously prefer redundancy for emphasis. I might prefer to eliminate it in a standard article, however. Jmar67 (talk) 01:24, 23 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"[2], or "quaint or poetic"[3].
  • "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.[4]
  • "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 accepmoted Wikipedia style and does not have any of these disadvantages.

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

I have notified WP:MILHIST and WP:SHIPS.
—Trappist the monk (talk) 13:57, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This makes sense to me. I'm always in favour of a more modern, plain-English style. Popcornduff (talk) 14:00, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Agree Keith-264 (talk) 14:03, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Another modern style guide, the Guardian style guide, does not use "she". Popcornduff (talk) 15:10, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Go slowly on this... and expect a LOT of pushback. While the style guides may favor “it”, “she” is still more commonly used in real life. Blueboar (talk) 14:06, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Absolutely not. Why go against common English usage? Nothing "old-fashioned" about it. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:09, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Necrothesp: Could you cite an English language authority that documents that? "Old-fashioned" is the label applied by the Cambridge Dictionary, which seems relatively objective and well-researched, so I'm wondering on what basis we'd doubt it? -- Beland (talk) 15:48, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • The Royal Navy, for a start. [5], [6], [7], [8]. Then we've got BBC News, ITV News, HMS Victory, HMS Unicorn, the Ministry of Defence, the National Museum of the Royal Navy, HMS Warrior, the Royal Australian Navy, the Port of London Authority, the Scottish Government, etc, etc. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:18, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • Excellent; thanks for those! It looks like several of them are actually just various parts of the Royal Navy or UK government agencies, so are a bit duplicative. But certainly the BBC and ITV are general audience media outlets, so that's a strong argument. Though there are some UK sources (Lloyd's List, the Guardian) that are against "she", the other style guides and navies I've seen documented are American, and the sources you've cited are British and Australian. Perhaps this usage is less acceptable in American English compared to other varieties? A lot of times British usage does sound quaint or old-fashioned to American ears. Should we try making a distinction between articles about American ships vs. those from other English-speaking countries? -- Beland (talk) 16:32, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
          • You can also add in the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea which are published by the International Maritime Organisation which is a specialised agency of the United Nations with 174 countries as members. Any master of a vessel navigating "upon the high seas and in all waters connected therewith navigable by seagoing vessels" is required to know and abide by the regulations. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 17:41, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
            • Which style do they follow? It's worth pointing out that this is a technical source and not meant for a general audience. -- Beland (talk) 18:51, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
              • Sorry, from the context I thought it clear that they used "she". We could discuss "general audience", but the mandated audience includes all power, sailing and manually propelled vessels from supertankers down to paddleboards, including dinghies, canoes, windsurfers and jetskis. The UN is also usually regarded as a fairly reliable source! Martin of Sheffield (talk) 22:44, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
                • Given sailboats and supertankers don't read, I assume you mean the audience for those UN regulations is all operators of those watercraft? The audience of people who operate boats on the sea is pretty specialized compared with the audience of everyone who might read about boats because they are curious how they work or their role in history or something. I've rowed a canoe and powered a paddleboat and steered a small dinghy but never had to read any UN regulations - or any regulations whatsoever - though perhaps that was because we were on rivers and lakes? -- Beland (talk) 23:08, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Oops, yes - clearly the masters and watchkeepers. The colregs apply to "the high seas and in all waters connected therewith navigable by seagoing vessels", so a lake or river into which a seagoing vessel could not navigate is not included in them. On the other hand, most national bodies extend a modified version of the international regs to include enclosed waters. Depending upon which country you are in, the regulations may be promulgated by the Coast Guard or a similar organisation and made into law by your national govenment. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 23:35, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
                  • I'm in the United States; there are lots of complicated and disputed rules about which water is subject to federal vs. state law, so I don't know if federal jurisdiction applied to my situation or not. But there's no one at the beach stopping me from putting my paddleboard into federal waters until I've read the relevant Coast Guard regulations, and no one expects me to have done so. Even for driving, where the roads are clearly governed under state law and I had to get a license and pass a test, hardly anyone actually reads the laws, which are written in legal jargon. The state produces a driver's manual which is written in language appropriate for a general audience. -- Beland (talk) 00:03, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly Oppose. Never come across an RS we use on ships articles which doesn't use the feminine form Lyndaship (talk) 14:11, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Lyndaship: Out of curiosity, do you write articles about military ships, civilian, or both? I'm curious if there's a difference in practice. Also curious if these sources are post-2000? There seems to have been a significant change in the acceptability of this usage from prior decades. -- Beland (talk) 15:48, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's an interesting point which I can't really answer as the vast majority of books I use were first published before 2000, looking in the few more recent ones they all use she. They are mostly on military ships Lyndaship (talk) 16:15, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • These are easy to find - for example, coverage of ships in sources such as the Guardian.[9] Popcornduff (talk) 15:50, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • The Guardian bless its (her) cotton socks is not usually a source of first call for writing a ship article. The Guardian in another article quotes a Royal Navy spokesperson as saying they will always use she for ships Lyndaship (talk) 16:03, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • But the Guardian is written for a general audience, like Wikipedia, but the Royal Navy is more like a technical source that has its own jargon. Given the trend of language change, I doubt it will "always" use "she"; the US Navy in contrast has already declared a change. -- Beland (talk) 16:07, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
          • The Guardian tends to reflect its PC readership rather than been written for a general readership. Looking at sources online which we use in ships articles such as uboat.net and wrecksite.eu "she" is used, on other sites I see some of "the ship" but not "it". God bless it and all who sail in it? Lyndaship (talk) 16:47, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
            • The Guardian is just one example - the point is that many RSs aimed at a general readership use "it", so maybe we should do the same. Popcornduff (talk) 17:25, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
            • But only the Guardian has been given as an example. Hers some links to the Daily Telegraph [10], Daily Mail [11], The Times [12], Daily Express [13] and The Sun [14] who all use the feminine form and all have alarger circulation than the Guardian Lyndaship (talk) 18:08, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
              Hers some links – Funny how the mind plays tricks. EEng 19:09, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
            • I don't think leaning liberal or leaning conservative disqualifies a source from being intended for a general audience, as opposed to a technical audience. I wouldn't dismiss a public news outlet that uses "she" for ships because it was too conservative. -- Beland (talk) 17:48, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
              • "God bless her and all who sail in her" definitely sounds more old-fashioned to me compared to "God bless it and all who sail in it", but these are phrases that would be spoken in a formal, highly traditional and old-fashioned ship-blessing ceremony, not something that Wikipedia or the even the BBC would say in its own voice. A substantial portion of readers don't even believe in God, so it would not be neutral either. -- Beland (talk) 19:00, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Use the sourcing preference. I would expect that for most ships pre-1980/2000-ish, "she" and other female pronouns were used commonly, and would be used today for talking about older ships (eg Titanic), but for newer vessels, non-gender pronouns like "it" are more common. If it is not clear from sources, I would say if the vessel was launched post 2000, we should try to default to "it" over "she". --Masem (t) 14:31, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • We should use the pronouns the subject prefers, and if the subject hasn't expressed a preference use singular they. EEng 14:58, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Next time we'll have to remember to ask the ship their preference! -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:04, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Nowadays more and more vessels are openly transoceanic, and pronoun choice requires special sensitivity in these cases. EEng 16:41, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly oppose. As someone whose mother tongue is not English, I can tell you that referring to ship as 'she' is not confusing at all. Ships also referred to as 'she' in foreign languages. Moreover, the statement implies that all foreigners are dumb and stupid and I have an issue with such a blanket statement. Since it is already optional to use either 'she' or 'it', the whole matter should be decided by people who actually spend time and resources writing such articles as seen fit. The usage of 'she' is historical and used in most sourcing materials in XIX or XX centuries. It is also plain, obvious and unambiguous.Crook1 (talk) 15:06, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, not all people who are learning English as a second language are foreigners of whatever country you're talking about. I'm a native English speaker, and on occasion I've been momentarily confused as to what the female pronoun is referring to. I would hope no one would feel stupid for being confused by bad writing that's not their fault. History articles about the 1800s don't use the grammar and vocabulary of the 1800s; that would be too difficult for modern readers to understand. I don't see why we'd make an exception just for ships. -- Beland (talk) 15:45, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: We can't base our MoS entirely on how external sources write. For a start, sources usually write in different ways (some RSs use "she", some don't). Besides, we have to create a style that suits our own needs and goals, and is consistent across articles and Wikipedia's general tone of voice. As far as I know WP:RS is not a requirement to reflect the language choices of sources, only facts. Popcornduff (talk) 16:00, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Parts of the overall MOS defer to sources for guidance. MOS:TM particularly for things like stylized names, etc. Nothing different at play here. I know there's something comfy in an absolute MOS rule, but we have to be flexible. --Masem (t) 17:18, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, I understand that we need localised consensus for different areas of the encyclopaedia, because it needs to write about different things. What I mean is that we also have many MoS standards that apply to the encyclopaedia as a whole. But that was probably an irrelevant point to raise - the thing I'm trying to get at is that we needn't slavishly reproduce the writing styles of RSs simply because they're RSs. Popcornduff (talk) 17:22, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    MOS:TM does the opposite of deferring to sources. It's quite clear that we choose, from among styles in use, the one that's closest to a normal-looking proper name. Hence Lego, not LEGO, even though the latter is more common in sources. Dicklyon (talk) 06:49, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Masem, also per WP:RETAIN if that usage was already established in the ship's article. For an older ship's article that is recently created, use the usage per the sources for that ship. Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 16:12, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Our current policy and guidance would support this approach. Currently, BOTH usages are considered acceptable (with the caveat that we be consistent within any given article), and once a usage is established we should not change it without discussion and consensus. We could thus adopt Massem’s suggestion with minimum disruption. It can be seen as a clarification of current guidance, not a rejection of it. Blueboar (talk) 17:07, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well, this is a discussion about changing the usage, so I'm not sure "we should not change it without discussion and consensus" is an argument one way or the other? -- Beland (talk) 18:44, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly oppose. Plenty of good reasons why, given already. I also strongly defend use of the definite article in front of a ship's name as well. There is nothing archaic about it or difficult to understand. People who relad the Wiki understand what they are reading, though some here think they are morons. We should retain, If for no other reason, to vary the script, rather than emulsifying it into bland porridge which is what you mean to do with it. I view this motion as a form of troll baiting and yet another reason why I should never have started on the project. The English language is fluid and this sort of thing seeks to limit it. This sort of style creationism is akin to original research. It's not the Wiki's job to change the language. I am here to put something constructive into articles not waste my energies on this. Broichmore (talk) 18:20, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I respect your opinion on this usage question, but I don't feel that accusing me of "troll baiting" is compatible with Wikipedia:Assume good faith. My aim was to have Wikipedia keep up with a documented language change, in what you rightly point out is a fluid language. I realize this is a controversial question, but we have to be able to have discussions about controversial subjects now and again, and to do so in a civil manner. -- Beland (talk) 18:39, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly oppose. (1) Looking at the essay WP:MODERNLANG, it says, for example: "... Note: Although they can safely be replaced with among and while, amongst and whilst are still commonly used in British English." So, if a form is becoming archaic, but is still in use, it is OK to use in Wikipedia. (2) To what extent is "she" (for ships) archaic? Lots of actual and implied cites from both sides of the argument here - so I suggest it has some way to go before it could be labelled archaic. As a cited form, I would add Practical Boat Owner, a widely respected magazine that uses "she" (e.g.[15]) - I suspect that doing otherwise would lose them readers. (3) The fact that both forms are to be found outside Wikipedia seems to be a good case for maintaining the status quo within Wikipedia - i.e. both "she" and "it" are acceptable, but you may not swap an article to the other form. (4) Is anyone offended by "she" for a ship? I don't know, but if they are, then they should be offended by (in Latin) mensa (f) (a table) or (in French) la plume (f) (the pen). (4) The argument: "but language evolves". This statement is correct, but it should be allowed to evolve at its natural rate. That allows us and future generations to understand reasonably fully William Shakespeare and the King James Bible, and with no difficulty William Wordsworth, Charles Dickens, Thomas Hardy, and many others. I do not believe that the essay on which this proposal is based seeks to unnaturally accelerate language change. However, I think the proposal does. Therefore the proposal should be rejected. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 20:07, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, some people are offended about the use of "she" for ships to the point they are moved to repeatedly vandalizing the Scottish Maritime Museum, which is changing its signage in response. There are certainly movements to deal with some unfortunate implications of grammatical gender in other languages, but I don't see how those are relevant to an English usage question. I also haven't proposed "some people find it offensive" as a reason for changing the guideline, though that may be the reason the language is itself changing. -- Beland (talk) 23:13, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      In considering offence, I was looking for any possible justification for following your proposal. I have to add that I react badly (i.e. a detuned sort of offence) to people trying to mess with the English language and the associated maritime heritage. Of course, you might well regard that as a little precious (most instances of anything approaching offence are susceptible to such an accusation). I am not alone in this sort of thinking - so being offended by the choice of usage is not just the preserve of those who advocate "it". Of course, I would hope never to vandalise a museum label and I can get along (I hope!) with any diversity of opinion within Wikipedia. What I am advocating is that we continue with the existing rule on "she for ships", which is acceptance of diversity of opinion.ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 23:54, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Interesting that Practical Boat Owner is also British, which fits in with the American/Commonwealth differences cited above. -- Beland (talk) 23:15, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      So is this a British English versus American English issue? What about the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea using "she/her" - surely this is an intergovernmental organisation?ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 23:31, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Look, let's get one thing out of the way — saying that an argument is ILIKEIT or IDONTLIKEIT is not a refutation; not on style issues. Although we will never go too far from what other publications are doing, there is no "reliable source" for what our style should be. It is always, at some level, going to come down to preference.
    Popcornduff is "always in favour of a more modern, plain-English style", and is absolutely entitled to that preference and to push for WP to move closer to it. But others are just as entitled to favor a more traditional, elegant style, and to militate for that preference.
    One of the things Wikipedia does best, given this sort of dispute, is simply not choose between them. I think that's what we should do here. --Trovatore (talk) 22:07, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I must object to the suggestion that a more modern style is less "elegant". ;P Popcornduff (talk) 22:47, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You don't find it less elegant, but many do. I think this is necessarily going to come down to subjective questions like that, and we might as well accept that and get on with it. --Trovatore (talk) 23:43, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It is a simple matter of logic that the "more modern" style is less "elegant", because a writer using the "older" style has available (in many situations) 2 pronouns to use ("it" and "she" or "its" and "her"), so allowing sentences that employ these pronouns to refer to 2 different entities (when one of them is a ship or a boat). In short, there are situations when use of "she/her" is easier to read.ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 23:15, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That has to be some of the most desperate reasoning I’ve ever heard. EEng 04:55, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Question! Given the research editors have done in response to this question, it looks like there may be a strong divide between American usage, which seems to be against "she" for ships (haven't seen an exception so far) and British/Commonwealth usage, where the practice is disfavored in some general-audience publications but continues in some important ones like major broadcasters. How would editors feel about keeping the two varieties but more closely following national practice? Specifically, I mean changing the advice to say that articles written in American English should use "it" for ships, but articles in other varieties of English are free to use either variety as long as they do it consistently and aren't changed back and forth arbitrarily? -- Beland (talk) 23:22, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is just going over already very well-trampled ground. Links to the even longer previous discussions are needed. Johnbod (talk) 23:30, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Johnbod: Any pointers? The only previous discussion I found was from almost 20 years ago, and was arguing about whether or not this usage was offensive, which is a different question than whether or not it is archaic or regional or confusing or advised against by widely accepted style guides or general-audience publications. -- Beland (talk) 00:09, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There was a huge one, I think in the last 2 years. I'm not a nautical editor - ask at the specialist pages, & MILHIST. This discussion shouldn't proceed without notifying specialist projects. Johnbod (talk) 00:12, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Johnbod: WP:MILHIST and WP:SHIPS have already been notified; I'm not sure what else you might be referring to? -- Beland (talk) 02:33, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, good. Well, it certainly wasn't 20 years ago (well before WP was online, btw). Let's hope someone with a link comes along. Johnbod (talk) 02:46, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Here is an example of US usage of "she" in Wooden Boat magazine[16]. I found this in less than a minute. I suspect there are plenty more.ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 00:02, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The attribution at the bottom says the author is based in Nova Scotia, so that seems like an example of Canadian English, which tends to be partway between American and British. -- Beland (talk) 00:09, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
So try another article from Wooden Boat - here[17] is one written by an US writer who teaches teaches writing and literature at Phillips Academy, Andover. He also holds a 100-ton masters license and has logged over one hundred thousand miles at sea, mostly in traditional working vessels. Needless to say, he uses female pronouns for ships.ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 09:35, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - there is no need to change the accepted convention that it is the writer of the article's choice on whether to use "she" or "it". If you want more ship articles written in the neuter, then there are many thousands of ships that have redlinks and need articles writing on them. The solution is at your fingertips. Mjroots (talk) 03:51, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Either "she" or "it" is acceptable. Best left to editorial discretion, with discussion on Talk pages, one argument being the pronoun used most prominently by the sources used to support the article. Bus stop (talk) 05:40, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is shamefully sexist to continue this gendered language for ships. But anyone who dares to challenge the entitled old men who rule in parts of WP will be utterly savaged. They really need to be taken on, but it must be a concerted push by people who want to follow the increasing acknowledgement in English-language style that gendered pronoun usage is part of the sexist male pushback. We should not give a damn what the British or whatever navy says it wants. Tony (talk) 06:02, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    It might be sexist, but are we here to right great wrongs? Bus stop (talk) 06:21, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support it – Most of my life it has seemed to me that "she" is both old-fashioned and sexist. Most modern style guides seem to be against using she, and so should ours. Dicklyon (talk) 06:30, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Use it. We've been over this many times before, seemingly about every year or so. I concur various respondents above (and in every previous round of this recurrent discussion) that she is archaic and rather sexist, as well as peculiar to a few narrow spheres of writing (and outside them to a few particular publishers who like to do some old-fashioned things as a branding mechanism), to the extent it's still used at all any longer beyond historical fiction. "Well, sailors and navy people do it" = WP:SSF. WP does not care what specialists do when writing for other specialists, because WP isn't a specialist publication, and it is not possible to account for every stylistic whim of every specialization, or WP would basically be unreadable, and editors would spend almost all their time fighting for control over articles that are within the scopes of multiple specialties.

    We developed an in-house style guide for very good reasons, and it follows contemporary, mainstream, formal English for very good reasons. WP isn't written in salty dialect, headache-inducing jargon, bleeding-edge slang, or quaint Victorianisms. When other major style guides are in favor of it, then so is WP, for the same reason we don't write ain't, refer to problems as ornery, conclude that positive reviews make a movie badass, introduce a quotation with sayeth, or refer to a hiccup as a synchronous diaphragmatic flutter. Maybe more to the sexism point and the inappropriateness of writing the encyclopedia in the in-group lingo of one of our subjects, WP does not refer to the girlfriend of a male rapper or a Hell's Angels biker as his "bitch". It does not matter that he does and that his fellows do, or even that hip-hop and biker magazines might also do it.

    Soon or later it just has to sink in that WP follows topical sources for facts pertaining to the topic not for how to write about the the facts and the topic for an encyclopedic audience. How can we still be having this kind of discussion after 18 years? And with the same few people who absolutely know better by now, but for some reason just will not give up trying to make WP write like insider publications, no matter how many times the answer is "no". It just boggles the mind.
     — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  09:24, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the use of "she" in reference to ships is sexist. But I would concede that the use of "bitch" in relation to "the girlfriend of a male rapper or a Hell's Angels biker" is sexist. Bus stop (talk) 13:49, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support it. These days, when I hear non-mariners referring to ships as she, my general impression is that they are trying too hard to sound "in the know". It's not at all wrong to use it, it doesn't sound awkward or affected, and if it offends fewer people, I personally don't see the harm in it. CThomas3 (talk) 09:49, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support it There is zero benefit using "she" for inanimate non-sentient vehicles. Wikipedia should strive to being as objective and neutral as possible. "She" and "it" are not equal whatsoever in this case.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 09:53, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support it as the dominant pattern for the past 80 years. Doremo (talk) 10:14, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - support status quo. It is clear that there is still a significant amount of published writing using "she" (about a third, if I have understood the overall Ngram correctly, and not on an inexorable downward trend) - indeed limiting to "English Ficton", to reduce any dominance of specialist writers on shipping, gives an even more marked picture in recent years. There is no basis here for suggesting that the users of "she" has shrunk to a few inflexible old salts. I think that the present guidance in WP:SHE4SHIPS (either is OK, no mixed usage, and no reverting without talk-page consultation) still serves WP well, even if feels a little awkward sometimes, no doubt from editors with either preference. Davidships (talk) 14:31, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

MOS:TIES and local variations in usage

There is a discussion taking place over whether references to features in Shetland - a group of many inhabited and uninhabited islands - should refer to being "on" or "in" the particular island. My view, as a speaker of (more or less) conventional British English, is that a feature should be described as "on" the relevant island (such as Foula, where this discussion began). However, Griceylipper, who is resident in Shetland, is of the view that that is locally seen as incorrect and "disrespectful", and the Shetland Scots usage of "in" rather than "on" should be used. There is discussion on this at User talk:Griceylipper#In/on islands. Should local usage outweigh conventional national usage in this way? Do editors here have a view? Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:56, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would split the difference by using “on” when speaking geographically, and “in” when speaking politically/culturally.

Thinking about this again... it isn’t quite so clear cut. For example, here in America we would say: “Central Park is IN Manhattan” ... yet “The Dutch city of New Amsterdam was founded ON Manhattan”.Blueboar (talk) 20:13, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it would help if you could take a look at these edits and see what you think. Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:32, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ghmyrtle Thanks for bringing some wider attention to this. For the sake of editors wanting my view on this - for pretty much every inhabited or previously inhabited island in Shetland, the usage here by locals is exclusively "in", e.g. "in Foula", "in Yell", etc. The two main local news sources - The Shetland Times and The Shetland News apply this usage, here are a couple examples. BBC Radio Shetland uses this usage in their (skip to 4:15 - with reference to Whalsay, "in the isle"). There far too numerous examples to link - just google "in [island name]" and you'll get tons of articles.
To those who think this sounds odd, just consider some other islands like Tenerife, Nantucket or Manhattan - I admit they are all varying degrees larger than the likes of Foula, but doing a Ctrl-F for "[in/on] [island name]" for any of these places shows both "in" and "on" in use without controversy, and I don't think you'd notice anything remotely odd about "in Tenerife", "in Nantucket" or "in Manhattan". Therefore I don't think it can be argued that the usage of "in" is inherently more confusing to general readers than any of the many other quirks that go unquestioned in English by native speakers.
I also can't see there being any means to determine a specific cutoff criteria by which any island must be classified to use either "in" or "on" by size, population, regional classification, etc. The only thing I think is fair to base it on is local usage by the islanders themselves - especially when in Shetland, the term "on" is deemed to create a sense of islanders of being "other" to those using this term. In my opinion, "on" seems to imply that you might get washed "off" by the sea at any moment, and you're clinging on for dear life! To islanders like myself, islands are our homes - you come "in", and you go "out", just like the front door of your home. I think we should respect islanders preferences on this matter. Griceylipper (talk) 20:45, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure the Manhattan usage here really connects with what you're speaking about, because generally when people are talking about in Manhattan they're talking about the borough, not the island. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 21:14, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
David Fuchs Assuming the boundary of the island and the borough are the same, is it possible to discern whether the island or the borough is being referred to when "in" is used? It could be either equally. Griceylipper (talk) 21:37, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
MOS:TIES does not allow "local variations in usage" and has never done so. Please use standard English (as standard as the language gets). Landmasses are "on" and administrative units are "in". (I'll let you consider all the "local variations" of English we definitely do not want to be used here.) --Izno (talk) 23:37, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Izno So, for Shetland the following islands have their own community councils:
So according to what you say, you can be "in" any of these places. But because Burra and Trondra is part of a single community council, and are three islands (East Burra, West Burra and Trondra) in one administrative unit, you'd be "on" any one of those individual islands, despite the two Burras being some of the most well connected and densely-populated areas in Shetland? Whereas Fetlar, which is considered much more remote, and has a much smaller population can use "in". Can I just confirm this is what you are meaning? It's just this seems very bizarre and contrived to me. Griceylipper (talk) 00:24, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Being on an island is parallel to long usage in English of being on the sea, distinct from being in the sea (i.e., partly or wholly submerged). I believe this arises from human experience of the sea and land relating to a mostly planar surface. Burroughs (and similar constructs) are typically characterized not by a surface, but by boundaries, such that one is "in" or "out". ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:13, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
J. Johnson I would agree with you if islands floated, but I think there is probably more of the island "in" the sea than "on" it by virtue of it being attached to the seabed. And as for planar, well, you just need to look at Foula to see how un-planar it is! Seriously though, I appreciate the insight. Griceylipper (talk) 00:36, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"Planar" is largely a matter of scale (consider the scaled height of the Himalaya Mtns. on a globe of the Earth), but the surface I have in mind is the mainly two-dimensional (or "2.5 D") of the air to land/sea interface where most human experience occurs. Note that while an island is considered "in" the sea, humans are usually "on" islands. Consider also icebergs: big difference in being on rather than in an iceberg. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 01:08, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

1st sentence bolding details

Over at WT:ELEMENTS, #First_sentence, we have concluded about the id's in an isotope intro. Initial text should be

Technetium-99 (99Tc, Tc-99) is ...

All fine, all three elements are identifiers. My question is: should the bracketed id's be bolded? Being an ID would say yes, for readability I'd say no ("lede is important, but no don't bold the whole lede"). -DePiep (talk) 00:51, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like a reasonable application of MOS:BOLDSYN, since these are alternative titles which redirect to the article. The nearby placement of the bold terms does create a bit of a "sea of black" effect, where it might not be immediately obvious that these are three separate names. You could argue for breaking it up using wording such as:
Technetium-99 (abbreviated 99Tc or Tc-99) is ...
But that's a judgement call. Colin M (talk) 01:25, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I would say a case like with Dr. Strangelove where you would have a huge chain of bold without the extra words makes sense to avoid. --Masem (t) 03:18, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, will add words (BTW it is a symbol/formula not an abbr) like
Technetium-99 (also 99Tc or Tc-99). -DePiep (talk) 13:56, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style&oldid=927596732"