Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style

See also
Wikipedia talk:Writing better articles
Wikipedia talk:Article titles
Wikipedia talk:Quotations
Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)
Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/quotation and punctuation

Possessives: section revised after recent discussion

Following recent discussion (see above), I have revised the Possessives section. Here is the text:

I have carefully reviewed all of the contributions to the discussion in the section above, and waited till seven days had elapsed since the last comment was made there. I have adopted what I can of other people's suggestions.

Given that more editors preferred the version I proposed above than any other version, given that I have waited and considered so long before offering this more developed form of it, given that I have consulted fifty (yes, fifty) hardcopy sources to ensure that what I propose fits with the broad consensus of style guides, and given that this new form ensures stability by contradicting nothing of importance in earlier forms of the guideline, I make this request: Please do not edit the guideline without patient and diligent consultation here first. To be frank, it is unlikely that a hasty assessment will be an accurate one; and the content and expression are of necessity finely balanced. It is long because of the intrinsic difficulty and because it covers almost all likely situations. (If I were writing just my preferred practice, incidentally, the text would be much shorter. This is a meticulously crafted compromise.)

A particular innovation is this inline note:

<!--NOTE: This topic is difficult and controversial in the major style guides, with consensus and stability hard to achieve; but the present comprehensive and streamlined version preserves the essential content of earlier versions. Please visit the talkpage BEFORE contemplating any change. Please maintain a permanent record of archived discussions at the head of any new discussion. If there is no current discussion, link the most recent archived discussion right here, in this note. (There IS discussion at the talkpage now.)-->

My broader suggestion is this: a moving record of the state of opinion can be put in place for any difficult guideline. When there is no discussion of possessives on the talkpage, the inline note can show the latest archived discussion. And there will be located a list of all earlier archived discussions, such as we see in the section I refer to, above. I propose this as an efficient general solution for the recording of consensus in our discussions.

Rather than comment on any details in my editing of the Possessives section, I now hope for comments, and the opportunity to explain some of the subtle choices that had to be made (particularly in the examples). And of course, we can weigh up together how things might be adjusted, if things have to be made even clearer. In conclusion: The English possessive has always been controversial, and the chaos of modern practice shifts faster than opinions do. What we DO need is a guideline that guides according to the best-researched consensus, that covers difficult cases, and shows how to settle any uncertainties. I truly believe we now have that. I have trodden cautiously, and I look forward to others doing the same.

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 12:02, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

:Oh, I went there first and tweaked the new version, but without making substantive changes. I think it's very good, at first reading, except that I wondered about this:

"Where there is disagreement over a pronunciation, the choice should be discussed and one practice adopted for the article. Possessives of certain classical and biblical names have traditional pronunciations which may take precedence: Moses' leadership, Jesus' answer, Xerxes' expeditions, but Zeus's anger. In rare cases where such discussion yields no solution, rewording may be an option (The location of Vilnius is strategically important)."

"Such discussion" appears to refer back to "disagreement ... be discussed ... " concerning pronunciation WRT the preferred Option 3, despite the intervening treatment of biblical names et al. Or does it refer to discussion about biblical names as well? Noetica, can you clarify it in the text, either by relocating the final sentence or explicating that "such discussion" refers to all of the foregoing? Tony (talk) 12:12, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

On second thought, I have to disagree with editorial practice that arrogates the right to change MoS, but then then reverts subsequent copy-edits. I believe Noetica's version should be withdrawn and discussed here first. In particular, this "innovation" of what amounts to a local block on editing is a bit hard to swallow. Another major problem is the opaqueness of the categorisations into "More easily decided" and "Less easily decided" to the normal editors who come here for clear, simple advice. This version is not going to work in its current state, I'm afraid. Tony (talk) 12:17, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

"I believe Noetica's version should be withdrawn and discussed here first." ditto - discussion before editing is a great policy, and it needs to apply to everyone.

is "the third practice, endorsed in some form by most style guides, is recommended" meant to override the usual stipulation that editors should not change an article from one accepted style to another without a substantial reason unrelated to mere choice of style?

"according to how the possessive is most often pronounced" doesn't seem helpful to resolve doubts or disputes. even editors whose first language is English have different pronunciations/perceptions (do most people really pronounce the possessive of Jesus the same way as the non-possessive??).

what is the aim of the "more easily decided" and "less easily decided" categories?

and some fine-tuning: it's not going to be obvious to every editor that in the third option, 's would be added when the possessive form is pronounced with an added syllable; that needs to be stated explicitly, with IPA provided. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sssoul (talk • contribs) 13:52, 22 August 2009

Explicit IPA would be overkill, but we can replace the third point with:

1. Just add an apostrophe if the possessive is pronounced the same way as the non-possessive name; add "'s" if the possessive has an additional /ɪz/ at the end:
   • Jan Hus's life, Sam Hodges' son, Morris's works, the bus's old route.
   • Some possessives have two possible pronunciations: James's house or James' house, Brahms's music or Brahms' music, Vilnius's location or Vilnius' location, Dickens's novels or Dickens' novels.

I'd keep the subsequent explanation intact. --___A. di M. 14:38, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

smile, A di M: what you've done with the IPA is what i meant, so i guess it's not overkill. but instead of "Just add an apostrophe" it should read Add only an apostrophe; and we need to provide a few examples of each form separately - Sam Hodges' son looks more like a typo than an example in that series.

your second point about two possible pronunciations is true, of course, but what form of possessive are Wikipedia editors supposed to write in those cases - whose pronunciation "counts"? Sssoul (talk) 15:25, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I thought you was suggesting to give IPA for every single example. Replaced "Just add" with "Add only". As for your question, there already is a paragraph addressing that ("Practice must ... ... strategically important"). --___A. di M. 15:37, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

"Where there is disagreement over a pronunciation, the choice should be discussed" doesn't offer any guidance to resolve disagreements – and as we already know, editors can get very heated about this kind of thing. Sssoul (talk) 15:53, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Noetica did an excellent job of incorporating and resolving the practices recommended by the various style guides and other sources. At some point, someone has to take a stand and edit the project, and Noetica clearly did sufficient research to support the guidelines presented. People may disagree on the more easily vs. less easily resolved examples—but they're just examples, and they make their point. If I were to change anything (and I'm not advocating change), I'd more strongly stress that the way to resolve editorial dispute is to recast the sentence, removing the possessive altogether. But any changes made should be to presentation rather than content. ThreeOfCups (talk) 20:12, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

It is weird, to say the least, that someone who campaigned loudly about the protected status of the guideline should make a massive edit to a section and place a sign on it saying do not dare edit this. I do not support the new version. Tony (talk) 00:19, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

• I agree in part with both sides here. There is a legitimate mixed style; so far so good. Including it is an advantage to Wikipedia.
• I don't think basing the distinction on pronunciation is helpful; Charles's has an extra syllable, Charles' doesn't; but which of them is correct? That just pushes it back a step, to a question which it is very difficult for non-anglophones to answer at all, and almost impossible for editors to compare evidence.
• Fowler based the distinction on tone and subject; Jesus' and Socrates' are classical figures, treated in a solemn manner. This may be a good guide; but a simpler rule of thumb is that (unlike James and Charles) Jesusand Socrates have a sounded vowel before the s. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:31, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Septentrionalis may not think "basing the distinction on pronunciation is helpful," but many style guides do. People hear words in their head as they read, so the way possessives are written should accord with how they're pronounced. Non-native speakers should defer to editors who are native speakers in resolving any dispute. The presence or absence of a sounded vowel immediately before the s is a good guide to pronunciation, though not infallible. ThreeOfCups (talk) 20:50, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Non-native speakers should defer to editors who are native speakers in resolving any dispute. If that were done, we would have significantly fewer disputes; but it isn't. Any guidance which assumes that the decision will in practice be made by anglophones is begging for trouble; we can get much the same results, rather more simply, by recommending consultation of usage (in printed books, for example). Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:22, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Septentrionalis, you seemed to be suggesting that non-native speakers would have difficulty determining the correct pronunciation. I'm only suggesting that they then defer to native speakers in that particular case. Written texts don't provide sufficient guidance because style guides disagree. That's why we're having this discussion. ThreeOfCups (talk) 01:30, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) "but many style guides do" – true, but other style guides can assume a piece of writing has a limited number of editors for a limited period of time, and then becomes stable. that's not the situation the Wikipedia MoS is dealing with. and it isn't only non-native speakers who have doubts and disagreements about which pronunciation "sounds right" or "makes sense" – that's apparent just from the discussion here on this page. whose pronunciation should be deferred to in those instances? the MoS needs to give clear guidance on that if a pronunciation-based option is going to be included.
the version in which it depends whether the noun/name has a sounded vowel before the final /s/ or /z/ sound might be worth considering as a compromise – it doesn't fit my pronunciation, but maybe it would be clear-cut enough for Wikipedia purposes ... but then, i thought the OUP policy (just apostrophe when the final syllable is pronounced like the verb is) was clear-cut enough too, and it turned out to be misunderstandable.
meanwhile, i agree with Tony about the "innovation" of the added note aimed at stifling alterations to this section - i might sympathize with the sentiment, but that note should be removed. Sssoul (talk) 11:43, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I think the note was more of an entreaty than an attempt to stifle alterations. Also, let me reiterate that my statement about non-native speakers was intended to address only the concern that some people might not know how the word is pronounced, and therefore the pronunciation guideline would not be useful to them. As for disagreement about pronunciation, the best choice is to recast the sentence to eliminate the possessive, as the article states. ThreeOfCups (talk) 00:11, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

the entreaty should be removed, in that case - we all know the feeling, i'm sure, but it doesn't seem appropriate, especially when Option 3 as it stands isn't adequate to resolve editors' doubts or disputes, and there's no reason to recommend it over the other two options. i also disagree that in disputes it's necessarily true that "the best choice is to recast the sentence"; it may be that a better choice is one of the other two options (either just apostrophe throughout, or apostrophe-s throughout). Sssoul (talk) 06:20, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I do not think that we should recast sentences because of external causes, such as disputes between editors. We should only do that when the words themselves are awkward or otherwise problematic. Good, encyclopedic writing should come first. Darkfrog24 (talk) 13:56, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I like Noetica's suggestion on top, but I do agree that in some circumstances "In rare cases where such discussion yields no solution, rewording may be an option" amounts to cutting the nose to spite the face. I'd rather replace that with "In rare cases where such discussion yields no solution, stick to the spelling used by the first editor who added that possessive to the article." --___A. di M. 14:27, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

If intelligent editors can't agree about how the possessive should be spelled, chances are, either choice is going to be jarring to some portion of the readership. Yes, good writing comes first. But part of good writing is recognizing that when intelligent people disagree, maybe it's time to look for a different option that everyone can agree on. Is "Venus's temple" (or "Venus' temple") really better stylistically than "the temple of Venus"? I don't think so. But I can go along with the idea that if the text reads "Venus' temple," an editor shouldn't change it to "Venus's temple." That's just asking for trouble. ThreeOfCups (talk) 17:32, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually, no it isn't. Recognizing that intelligent people can disagree is a good thing, and so is eating a balanced diet, but neither of those are part of good writing. Darkfrog24 (talk) 23:58, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

My view is that if there are native speakers pronouncing /tʃɑrlz kɑr/ and native speakers pronouncing /tʃɑrlzɪz kɑr/, then both Charles' car and Charles's car are acceptable, so the ArbCom decision about optional styles applies. Writing the car of Charles so that neither group of editors is discontented is just plain silly. In some cases it can also change the meaning: James's statue is a statue owned by him, the statue of James is a statue depicting him. --___A. di M. 12:32, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Possessives still need clarifying

(outdent) for the time being i propose removing the crossed-out bits below - there's no sense in recommending Option 3 over the other options when it's considerably less clear than the others; and the other crossed-out bits are simply confusing:

Add either 's or just an apostrophe, according to how the possessive is most often pronounced:

• More easily decided: Jan Hus's life, Sam Hodges' son, Morris's works, the bus's old route.
• Less easily decided: James's house (or James' house), Brahms's music (or Brahms' music), Vilnius's location (or Vilnius' location), Dickens's novels (or Dickens' novels).

Practice must be consistent within an article; the third practice, endorsed in some form by most style guides, is recommended. Where there is disagreement over a pronunciation, the choice should be discussed and then that possessive adopted consistently in an article. Possessives of certain classical and biblical names have traditional pronunciations which may take precedence: Moses' leadership, Jesus' answer, Xerxes' expeditions, but Zeus's anger. In rare cases where such discussion yields no solution, rewording may be an option (The location of Vilnius is strategically important).

Option 3 still needs a lot of clarification and finetuning, but those crossed-out bits seem (for assorted reasons) especially unhelpful and i feel they shouldn't be hanging around in public while the section is still under construction. can i go ahead and remove them, while we continue to try to reach consensus on the option and wording? Sssoul (talk) 15:05, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

the silence is rather ambiguous! so how about something like this:

[options 1 & 2 as they are currently described]

3) Add either 's or just an apostrophe, according to how the possessive is pronounced:

• Add only an apostrophe if the possessive is pronounced the same way as the non-possessive name: Sam Hodges' son, Moses' leadership;
• Add 's if the possessive has an additional /ɪz/ at the end: Jan Hus's life, Morris's works.
• Some possessives have two possible pronunciations: James's house or James' house, Brahms's music or Brahms' music, Vilnius's location or Vilnius' location, Dickens's novels or Dickens' novels.

Whichever of the above three options is chosen, it must be applied consistently within an article. When using the third option, if there is disagreement over the pronunciation of a possessive, the choice should be discussed and then that possessive adopted consistently in an article. (In some cases – particularly possessives of inanimate objects – rewording may be an option: the location of Vilnius, the moons of Mars.)

the third option still needs to be clarified considerably, but that would be better than what's out there now.

and can we please discuss replacing this very open-ended Option 3 with the OUP style mentioned in a now-archived discussion? ie: just apostrophe when the last syllable of the name is pronounced like the verb is; apostrophe-s in all other cases - it has the major advantage of being easy to explain clearly and to apply. Sssoul (talk) 15:54, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

That is so obviously better than what we had now that I've been bold and implemented it (except that I didn't remove the mention of classical names). --___A. di M. 16:13, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

thanks, A di M - i fidgeted with it a bit more out there: "Moses' leadership" is used as an example of "no-extra-syllable" pronunciation, so it doesn't make sense to use it again as an example of "traditional" pronunciation; and i toned down the "traditional" pronunciation part a little because i know too many people who pronounce those possessives differently than presented. something still needs to be added about how to resolve disagreements about pronunciation when using Option 3 ... unless we change Option 3 to the much clearer OUP recommendation (just apostrophe when the last syllable of the name is pronounced like the verb is; apostrophe-s in all other cases). Sssoul (talk) 16:39, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Option 3 still needs work so that it provides clear advice to editors who come to the MoS in search of help with doubts or disputes; it's not helpful at all to just leave it at "discuss it and decide". so when the pronunciation of a possessive is debated or in doubt, what should the MoS recommend?

• a] use the OUP recommendation (just apostrophe when the last syllable of the name is pronounced like the verb is; apostrophe-s in all other cases)?
• b] leave pronunciation out of it and use either Option 1 or Option 2 throughout the article instead?
• c] stick with the probable pronunciation of earlier editors: if the article already includes the possessive of a noun ending in a single pronounced s, use that; if it's not the same possessive as the one you're in doubt/dispute over, maybe you can guess what that earlier editor's pronunciation of the possessive currently in question might be; and if there are no such possessives in the article yet, go back to a or b above, or see what articles on related subjects use, or just flip a coin, or ... ???

maybe it's clear that i think a or b will be more useful advice than c. any other ideas? Sssoul (talk) 15:38, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Option C works for English dialects and date formats in non-region-specific articles, for the choice between spaced en dashes and unspaced em dashes, for the choice between italic d or upright d for the differential, and for anything else; besides, it has been endorsed by the ArbCom umpteen times. Why wouldn't it work for possessives which can be pronounced in two different ways? --___A. di M. 17:47, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

because the pronunciation of possessives varies a lot more than those other issues do. a previous editor left Moses' right hand in an article. now i'm adding something about a new analysis by someone surnamed Charles, and if i find myself in a disagreement with another editor over how to write the possessive of that surname, no one has any way of guessing how that previous editor would pronounce the possessive of Charles. and no matter how we settle it for Charles, the same problem will come up when the next editor needs to add something about the even newer analysis that Richards came up with. Sssoul (talk) 18:52, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Paragraph breaks between a pronoun and its antecedent

Am I the only one who finds paragraphs starting with stuff such as Because of this (where "this" refers to something in the previous paragraph) to be slightly awkward? Whenever I see that, if both paragraphs are reasonably short, I just remove the break between them. Would it be useful to mention this somewhere in the MoS? --___A. di M. 16:38, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Is MOS supposed to include general grammar and style issues, or just things specific to Wikipedia usage? --Auntof6 (talk) 20:58, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Just Wikipedia, Auntof6. General grammar and style issues sometimes have their own encyclopedia entries, though. Case in point, Wikipedia's take on quotation marks differs significantly from standard American English, differs somewhat from British English and would be inappropriate outside of Wikipedia (though my own take is that it's also inappropriate here). Darkfrog24 (talk) 22:11, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

It's natural for paragraphs to lead into one another. This is another case of something that's awkward some of the time and just fine the rest of the time. It can even be good. Darkfrog24 (talk) 22:11, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

1. Often what needs changing is the vague or indefinite pronoun, as in "Because of this" (because of this what?) Wikipedia tends to like long paragraphs, but depending on the subject, shorter ones are often much easier on the reader. And as you build up the chronology of your narrative or the logic of your exposition, the reader needs to see the progression or the contrast, which is what those little connective phrases do. "Because (as we have shown) these two elements are normally hard to fuse...", "After this series of alleged provocations...", "Once the stage had thus been set...", "Following these setbacks in the campaign...", "Without this promised foreign aid...", "Since neither of these conditions would hold...", etc.
2. If A. di M. comes up with a narrower piece of advice that wins more acceptance here, then that would be another example of something helpful that doesn't seem to have a home right now, like the proposed guideline about shorter sentences. —— Shakescene (talk) 08:17, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

   Looking at my contributions list, I've found this; I thought that was not the only instance of something like that, but maybe I did the other ones while logged out or with vague edit summaries. A rough draft wording could be: “Avoid using pronouns such as this, as well as demonstrative adjectives with vague nouns such as this rule, near the start of a paragraph when they refer to something introduced in the previous paragraph; consider merging the paragraphs if they are short enough and they discuss one idea, otherwise use more specific noun phrases such as the Madelung energy ordering rule.” For some reason this wording doesn't sound too right to me, but I hope you get the idea. --___A. di M. 12:12, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

This might belong someplace like WP:BETTER. Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:33, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

• Once we stray into more than a little advice about cohesion, tone, etc—those more complex and subtle aspects of writing—we'll open the floodgates for a whole lot more text. I can think of loads of stuff I'd put in before the para-break back-reference issue. Tony (talk) 01:52, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
  • "Floodgates" indeed. The purpose of the MOS is not to document every conceivable problem with prose. We all speak English and we can all come to agreements on a case-by-case basis when it comes to simple issues like this. If an article has a clumsy sentence, just fix it. —Werson (talk) 04:03, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Manual of Style (France & French-related) has been marked as part of the Manual of Style

Wikipedia:Manual of Style (France & French-related) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has recently been edited to mark it as part of the Manual of Style. This is an automated notice of the change (more information). -- VeblenBot (talk) 02:01, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Many more pages are listed at Category:Wikipedia style guidelines. -- Wavelength (talk) 02:11, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Now just a minute there: I can find no consensus that such a page should suddenly be given the status of a MoS page. Please point me to it. The page itself needs a copy-edit, and who knows what kind of contentious guidance it gives? Let's not find out two weeks down the track that there's violent disagreement. Tony (talk) 09:35, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

My post pointed to related information, without advocating what should or should not be an MoS page. I do not know about whether there is or has been consensus for such status, but there are some fundamental abstractions which need to be decided and clarified.

-- Wavelength (talk) 15:17, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

WP:MOS is on my watchlist, so please post any response(s) here. -- Wavelength (talk) 16:33, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

A list of all Wikipedia namespace pages beginning with the character string "Manual of Style" can be found here.

-- Wavelength (talk) 15:47, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

• I think this sudden unilateral elevation to MoS status should be reverted until the WikiProject MoS has a look through it and endorses it. Otherwise, what is to stop anyone from creating their own guide and stamping MoS on it. I might do this for articles to do with religion, and put my own subtle POV into it. No problems, just whack the MoS sign at the top and you're done. Tony (talk) 01:55, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Tony, you might want to discuss the status of that page with the editor who edited it. -- Wavelength (talk) 00:18, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

No doubt, what about Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Arabic), and all the other pages not officially part of the MoS yet they're titled with the "Manual of Style" prefix? Something's not right. -- œ^™ 03:50, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

OE and Wavelength: this issue has been bubbling away for years, but no one has done anything about it. I believe an RfC is required to settle the matter—that applications for MoS status be made to WP:WikiProject Manual of Style for scrunity. In fact, the only way to have a proper audit to rationalise and ensure coordination and quality in the ants' nest of MoS pages that has already grown is to for that Wikiproject to elect a panel of scrutineers. This would also need to be endorsed by an RfC. Tony (talk) 05:08, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, this issue has been bubbling away for far too many years, and this trend should stop. A small group of editors should not be able to add pages to MoS without significant community input and review. MiLHist and MEDMOS gained significant community input before they were added to MOS; since then, I've seen numerous pages added without any apparent review for consistency or overlap with other MoS pages, community-wide consensus, or any apparent community-wide process for elevating the work of a few editors to guideline level. This needs to stop, and a review of all MoS pages added in the last few years to MoS should be undertaken. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:19, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Placement of Jr suffux in citations

I see this was asked on the page Talk:Suffix, but I was wondering what we should do as editors. Where should the suffix be placed when the name is rendered in "Last, First" order? Should it be "Williams, Hank Jr." or should it be "Williams Jr., Hank"? Sabine's Sunbird talk 01:57, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

In medical articles, the usual style is "Williams H Jr", with no comma or period. That is what PubMed uses, and many medical Wikipedia articles use that style. Numeric suffixes are used after that, e.g., "Collins WF 3rd", "Li S 4th" (these are all actual PubMed-listed authors, including "Williams H Jr"!). Other fields no doubt have different traditions. Eubulides (talk) 04:08, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

The suffix is attached to the entire name; it is not an element of the surname and therefore should not go before the comma when the surname is placed first. I would be surprised to see any fields that treat suffices differently. Powers ^T 12:11, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

ACS style is "Stephenson, G. J., Jr.; Goldman, T. Phys. Lett. 1998, 440B, 89." (that's a genuine reference from an issue of Chemical Reviews I happen to have lying around!) Physchim62 (talk) 20:55, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

En dashes in page names

En dashes in page names is not something that this guideline should give advise on. It is something for the Naming conventions. --PBS (talk) 18:30, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. This page provides advice on dashes and hyphens, and it's unacceptable that there not be coordination between the main text and article titles. Tony (talk) 05:11, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Why is it unacceptable? Which are people looking for a name more likely to type into their computer a hyphen or a dash? --PBS (talk) 14:40, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

It says you need to place a hyphen redirect for it. Non-issue, surely. Tony (talk) 14:45, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

See what I said in the first paragraph. -- PBS (talk) 17:48, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

• I've read it again. It looks to be in the form of an order. Tony (talk) 06:18, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

No it is not an order, and you are an order and you are an experienced enough editor to know that it could not be an order. I would and have made the same statement about naming conventions that trespass into the area of style because such cross functionality lead to confusion when two different guidelines from different areas of the project give different advise. See for example this naming convention, Wikipedia:Naming conventions (chemistry)#Element names, and my comment on the talk page of that convention: Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (chemistry)#Use in the articles) -- PBS (talk) 18:59, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

MoS is bloated and difficult to use

I think MoS is pretty good in many ways, thanks to the efforts of many talented editors. However, recent complaints at WT:FAC give us reason to look carefully at the utility of the page. FAC nominators were mostly critical of what they felt was "instability"; however, I think the underlying problem is the sheer size and, in parts, inaccessibiltiy, of MoS. Not including the lead, the ToC and the five appendix-type sections at the end, MoS is now 19,400 words long; when I copied that portion of it to a Word document, it stretched to 48 pages!

A whole section is devoted to heraldic terms written in Anglo-Norman: why? I see the trotting out of options that are explicitly not recommended (that is a sign of lack of confidence, frankly). There are sometimes three examples when one would do. There's a slight sense of wanting to educate WPians, possibly more broadly than is wise if the page is to be an accessible and widely used tool for textual cohesion and improvement.

I suspect that editors might want to either (1) quickly consult MoS to find out what to do in a certain instance, or (2) try to absorb it from start to finish as a way of increasing their knowledge of style, and thus their ability as a WPian editor. However, the current size makes both purposes unnecessarily daunting, and puts off all but the hardy few. I believe it could be summarised without losing much of what really matters to editors down to less than 20% of its current size, as a subsidiary resource, retaining the current document as the "master", which has ultimate authority. Tony (talk) 14:58, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

That would be extremely useful, Tony. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 15:04, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I strongly agree. For a very rough comparison, think of the "style sheet" that many newspapers, publishers and other employers hand to new employees with the expectation that it can be read and digested fairly quickly and easily, with the dense bound volumes put out not only by academic authorities (e.g. Fowler, Chicago and the MLA) but even by news organizations like The Associated Press and The New York Times. There also has to be some distinction (which human nature, stylebots and the nature of Wikipedia have inhibited) between useful stylistic advice (which the article on blazon happens to be but in a very specialised field), indications of common practice, and guidelines that in practice serve as rules. —— Shakescene (talk) 17:34, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Disagree. While we might find a bloated phrase or unnecessary example here or there in the MoS, I find that we should not go through it for the specific purpose of reducing its length on the assumption that this will be an improvement.

The thing about printed style sheets and bound style guides is that when the user sees them and picks them up, he or she gets an immediate sense of how big they are and roughly how much information they contain. A person can do this with a set of Wikipedia instructions only if they are all contained on one page. I've often gone looking for Wikipedia instructions only to find that I have to skip around through five and six pages before getting the full story. It is much easier when they are all on one big page.

As for examples? They make the page longer but they also make it easier to use, not more difficult.

This particular WP page might be long, but it's very well organized, which makes Tony's purpose (1) above easy to accomplish. The core issue here is that we just need to accept that people aren't going to be able to do purpose (2), and that this is not because this particular page is long but rather because there are so many pages of its kind scattered around with little apparent rhyme, reason or hierarchy. When I first joined Wikipedia, I went looking for a list of rules and policies but there were so many different pages (and no central page giving me an overview of how many there were) that it seemed better to just dive in and learn as I went along. This particular page, once I found it, actually struck me as pretty easy to use, but I was checking the ToS and going only to the sections that I needed, not reading it from end to end. Darkfrog24 (talk) 13:18, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

But you are, relatively speaking, an expert. We expect far too much staying power by general editors, yet we need to reach them. The nominators are complaining over at FAC: why?

MoS is mostly well-organised, but there are a few repetitions and structural oddities. However, the biggest problem is bloat—not of excessive scope or number of sections, but within the sections. As Shakescene is getting at above, many style guides are pleasingly succinct: they have dropped the mid-20th-century notion of legislative thoroughness and aim to get across their point in a more user-friendly way, given the time-poor environment we now live in. The ABC Radio National online styleguide, I think modelled in some ways on the The Guardian's online styleguide are good examples. It's not that we would want to ape those resources in structure or content (or to approach them in size); but I think we can learn from their style and tone on the micro-level. Twenty thousand words and still counting, I ask you ... and that is just here at MoS main page, in display mode. Tony (talk) 13:38, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Tony, but I think the problem is that we are trying to provide both general guidance on how to write encyclopedic text well, and a description of Wikipedia's house style. In my view we would do well to split the former out into a Wikibook. Hesperian 13:50, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

For the record, I suppose this whether my comment above is taken up or not. Hesperian 02:25, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Then that is where we disagree, Tony. I find sprawl to be a much more serious problem for learning Wikipedians than bloat.

I agree with Hesperian. We should make it clear that this document contains instructions for use on Wikipedia. Darkfrog24 (talk) 15:22, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I think a concise version about 20% of the current size should be trialled. I suspect it would become the primary reference for editors.Tony (talk) 15:42, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

20%?! Holy crud in a hat! You know what, it's probably clear by now that I don't think this is a good idea, but the fact that it is way more ambitious than I was expecting from your initial proposal makes me want to hear more about it. This is apparently not about going in and removing "a few repetitions and structural oddities," but rather a major restructuring. How would you expect this plan of yours to work?

(Note: Repetition can be good for the MoS in the case of the same information repeated in two different sections. As per purpose (1), we may expect that users are reading only one section per trip.) Darkfrog24 (talk) 18:48, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and the thing that I originally came here to say: If it is a matter of pruning, we should consider how text gets bloated in the first place. People fight and fight and fight over what to say and sometimes the compromise text contains extra words to please and placate. Going back a few weeks or months later with fresh eyes and cool tempers to reevaluate said text is more than valid to my mind. Darkfrog24 (talk) 18:52, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to have to agree with Darkfrog on this one. While the current MOS is rather large, the need for a central depository of guidelines is important, as a one-stop reference for editors to check against without having to search all over the project. The size of it can be unwieldy, but the ToC provides the shortcuts editors need for finding the right section. I can understand what Tony's saying about the size being difficult for someone trying to read it comprehensively, but I don't think that should be the purpose of this page. oknazevad (talk) 19:14, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, if it's not this page, there should be another page that the average editor could comfortably read through and absorb in one or two sittings, at least to become aware where Wikipedia style differs significantly from common styles, especially for non-trivial reasons such as accessibility, readability, ambiguity, technical limits, libel, copyright, civil liability, possible insult, trans-Atlantic variation or universally-grasped measures and currency. The less this knowledge is gained through (naturally-resisted) reversions by some stranger or robot shouting WP:INCOMPREHENSIBLEABBREVIATION in the edit summary, the better. WP:Please do not bite the newcomers. —— Shakescene (talk) 22:52, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

¶ As for the entire database, I tried for amusement, for instruction, or out of sheer perversity to count all the current members of style categories (there's some overlap, but not much):

1. Category:Wikipedia style guidelines: 99 pages
2. Category:Style guidelines of WikiProjects: 89
3. Category:Wikipedia naming conventions: 70

Also listed in the categories are these proposals and derivative pages:

1. Category:Wikipedia_style_guideline_proposals: 42 pages
2. Category:Style_guideline_templates: 21
3. Category:User_style_guides: 32
4. Category:Wikipedia naming conventions proposals: 10
5. Category:Templates for redirects based on naming conventions: 3
6. Category:Redirects based on naming conventions (comics): 10

How many of these pages has anyone here seen? How many do you think even experienced editors know about? (By the way any category-mavens here could accomplish some useful clean-up, since significant pages such as Naming Conflicts get buried inconsistently at the end of category or sub-category pages under W or lower-case letters.) —— Shakescene (talk) 23:08, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Interesting idea, Shakescene. Perhaps such a page could be added to the list of those already sent to new members after registration. Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:36, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Now there seem to be two issues: the plethora of MoS pages (yes, it's out of control), and the puffiness of MoS main itself. It's the second issue that I was addressing, not the first. As I stated above, Darkfrog, it's not the structure of MoS main that is the problem, but the bloat within it.

On the second matter, no one seemed to support my objection that a French-related style page can suddently elevate itself to MoS status without proper process. This is why the MoS infrastructure has become such a mess. We need to address this too: I suggested an RfC proposal that a team be elected at Wikiproject MoS to coordinate, scrutinise, amalgamate. Silence. Or perhaps we should simply self-appoint a team and go for it, using our knowledge and intellectual strength to put pressure on the system to rationalise itself. We need at least to produce a game-plan, a set of ongoing proposals. Tony (talk) 01:46, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, Tony, I understand that you believe bloat to be a problem with the MoS. I do not share that belief, at least not to the point of reducing its length by 80% (trimming extraneous phrases here and there is, in my opinion, something that editors don't need beforehand permission to do). But I'm listening if you want to say more about your game plan, how it would work and why you think it would help. I think we need to accept that the MoS is not probably going to be able to serve purposes (1) and (2) at once, at least not well, but if you see a way in which it could, I'd love to hear it. What are your specifics? Darkfrog24 (talk) 02:19, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

As I understand it, Tony is not proposing to reduce the length by 80%. The MOS will be the same length that it always was. But the front page will leave a whole lot more detail to the subpages, and do a whole lot less of the work itself. Hesperian 02:23, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I was interpreting, "I think a concise version about 20% of the current size should be trialled," to mean that he wished to reduce the size of the MoS, by which I mean the page attached to this talk page, by 80%.

I believe that decentralizing the MoS is a bad idea. This creates more sprawl which, to my mind, is already a bigger problem than bloat. Instructions and policies are harder to find if they're scattered over many pages. I can never tell if my search is going to take one, six or ten pages of reading to find. If they're all on one big page, then an answer is just a CTRL-F away. Darkfrog24 (talk) 02:36, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

It is possible to retain the main page of the Manual of Style in its present size and complexity for editors who appreciate it in that state, and also add a smaller or simpler main page of the Manual of Style for editors who prefer the latter. Please ponder the following pages as representing smaller or simpler versions of larger or more complex entities.

• Wikipedia:List of Introductory Articles
• Lists of basic topics
• Lists of topics
• Wikipedia:Vital 100
• Wikipedia:Vital articles
• Wikipedia:Vital articles/Expanded
• Wikipedia:Core topics - 1,000
• Wikipedia:Core content policies
• Wikipedia:Five pillars
• Wikipedia:Simplified ruleset

For a smaller or simpler main page of the Manual of Style, who is going to decide which 20% of the material is the most basic or the most important?
-- Wavelength (talk) 06:15, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
[I revised my message by adding the underlined text. -- Wavelength (talk) 14:10, 7 September 2009 (UTC)]

I agree with Tony, SlimVirgin, and Shakescene. The first place to start is by ending additions to MoS that haven't garnered community-wide consensus or been reviewed for overlap and inconsistencies. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:22, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh, that's not quite what I meant: I think the place to start is the current page; that is, to change the guideline substantively as well as to make it user-friendly is to shoot at two targets at once. Not doable. Tony (talk) 14:25, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't necessarily disagree with the Wavelength's point about summary articles, but note that only his/her three last examples are summaries; the rest are lists. We already have lists of guidelines — so many, in fact, that they're a little hard to find. My list of style-guide categories was actually a trimmed and simplified distillation from the category lists you'll find at the sources. —— Shakescene (talk) 19:06, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I apologize for a lack of clarity. Wikipedia:List of Introductory Articles lists articles which are simplified versions of other articles. At least some entries in Lists of basic topics correspond with at least some of the entries in Lists of topics. Wikipedia:Vital 100 is a smaller version of Wikipedia:Vital articles, which is a smaller version of Wikipedia:Vital articles/Expanded, which is being considered for being merged with Wikipedia:Core topics - 1,000, which is a smaller version of the set of all the articles in English Wikipedia. Therefore, all the pages in my list represent smaller or simpler versions of larger or more complex entities. When I used the word "represent", I sacrificed a bit of clarity for the sake of brevity. I was hoping that sharp minds would perceive what I really meant. Once again, I have been apparently misunderstood and have been reminded not to take clarity for granted. -- Wavelength (talk) 22:10, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I like Hesperian's interpretation of Tony's proposal, "But the front page will leave a whole lot more detail to the subpages, and do a whole lot less of the work itself." As for "who is going to decide which 20% of the material is the most basic or the most important?", I'd propose the rule of thumb: if it affects more than 50% of articles, it should be at WP:MOS; if not, it should be in a sub-page. A few cases would be non-obvious and would need to be discussed, but it is clear that far, far fewer than 50% of articles are affected by WP:MOS#Blason, and far, far more are affected by WP:ENGVAR. --___A. di M. 22:43, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not in favour of reducing the scope and reach of the full version much at all. Perhaps an 80% reduction was a little ambitious; 75% might be doable. Tony (talk) 16:31, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

That's still pretty huge, Tony. Frankly, even reducing the MoS by 20% strikes me as extremely problematic unless we're removing rules. I don't see how there is that much fat to cut. If not fat and not flesh, then what?

With regard to Hesperian's proposed "Does it affect more than 50% of the articles?" rule of thumb, the MoS seems to be mostly in compliance with it already. We'd only be removing the "Miscellaneous" section. With regard to advice on, say, capitalization of celestial bodies and common mathematical symbols, better that they're here where people can find them than buried where people can't. Darkfrog24 (talk) 17:35, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

On how many articles could one want to use uncalibrated radiocarbon dates? or "Abbreviations indicating long periods of time ago—such as BP (Before Present), as well as various annum-based units such as ka (kiloannum)"? Or images with so much detail that should be displayed more than 400px? Or the distinction between "Arab", "Islamic" and "Arabic"? Or transliterated foreign names? Maybe reducing to 25% would be impossible, but a significant reduction can be attempted. If people wouldn't be able to locate stuff if it's moved to WP:MOSMATH or WP:MOSCAPS, that's another issue. --___A. di M. 19:21, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Use of "The" mid-sentence

I find the example that currently refers to a generic "the" confusing. A definite article cannot be generic. A noun phrase can be a proper name or it can be "generic", but not the definite artice itself. If the noun phrase is "generic", of course, there is no question of capitalization; and the United Kingdom is not generic. The noun phrase "the united kingdom" can, of course, be used generically: Britain is not the united kingdom that it used to be. I think what we need to say is that, other than in titles, the definite article is conventionally not capitalized, even when it is (or could be regarded as) part of a proper name: the United Kingdom, the Hebrides, the President of the United States. We should perhaps also state somewhere that the names of newspapers (such as the Guardian are not normally treated as titles in the same way as book titles (such as The Origin of the Species).

However there are a few conventional exceptions to this rule. I suggest we actually list the known exceptions, since there appears to be no general rule. "The Hague" is already given as an exception. Other candidates might be The Times and The Beatles. We should perhaps also discuss the exceptions to the exception, such as the Hague ruling, the Times article, and the Beatles song, where "the" is neither capitalized nor repeated. --Boson (talk) 15:47, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

See several threads in Talk:The Bronx for extended discussion of whether The Bronx should be so capitalized mid-sentence (consensus, which varies from that of many New Yorkers: no), combined with discussion of whether The is part of the Bronx's name (consensus: yes, except for the County of Bronx and the postal address Bronx, NY). ¶ By the way, I think that if a newspaper includes "The" in its name on the front page and in its masthead (something different), then "The" should probably should be both capitalized and italicised. It should certainly be italicised in "the Chronicle article". —— Shakescene (talk) 17:09, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I see that The Oxford Guide to Style (like other incarnations of Hart's Rules?) says:

For periodicals, capitalize The only for one-word titles: The Times, The Spectator (but today's Times, the Spectator article); the New Yorker, the Yearbook of English Studies.

I actually thought the OUP only capitalized The Times, not the Guardian, as seems to be confirmed here and here, although the Guardian masthead has The Guardian. The Guardian style guide has:

newspaper titles: the Guardian, the Observer, the New York Times, etc, . . .

The Times style guide has:

newspapers and journals; use italics for titles and make sure to use The in the title whenever appropriate. . . . In the UK and Ireland with The in the masthead: . . . The Times, The Sunday Times, The Sun; The Guardian. . . .

Chicago (14th ed.) has:

When newspapers and periodicals are mentioned in the text, an initial The, omitted in note citations, is set in roman type and, unless it begins a sentence, is lowercased.

. So practice varies quite a lot.--Boson (talk) 20:24, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I was just saying (as an aside) what I think, as opposed to whatever consensus might exist, but there's certainly a lot of variation, in practice as well as in formal style-guides. Newspapers didn't like to use italics for various reasons, but they often capitalized The in newspaper's names (in roman type) within the body text. Now italics aren't so difficult, but many newspapers have dropped "The". The Guardian itself seems to be of several minds about what to call itself, partly because different departments or different generations have different feelings about its origins as The Manchester Guardian [and Manchester Evening News]; on the one hand you have The Manchester Guardian Weekly and on the other, "guardian.uk" (describing the website). I find it much easier to see that (for example) "the Observer" refers to the newspaper if it's italicised or The is capitalised, or preferably both, because the Observer (or the Guardian or the Appeal), even capitalised, could refer to something else. —— Shakescene (talk) 21:04, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

On the grounds of accuracy, I think my personal preference for newspapers would be the same as yours, i.e. capitalize (and italicize) The if it is the name printed on the front page and in the masthead, but I haven't thought through all the consequences; compliance might be a problem if it requires knowledge of the masthead. I would also omit "The" when the name is used attributively (. . . the Times article). I am still wondering about consistent rules for foreign language periodicals; I would personally tend to write according to a report in Der Spiegel but . . . in spite of the Spiegel's reputation for getting its facts right; on the other hand I would probably write . . . in spite of Le Monde's reputation for getting its facts right, and the use of italics followed by a roman apostrophe is a bit of a problem for Wiki markup (and possibly for legibility). Do we actualy have a rule on the use of a roman apostrophe following an italicized name. --Boson (talk) 10:47, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't consider the article in "the United Kingdom" or in "the President of the United States" as part of the proper name, but I would in "The Origin of the Species" and "The Hague". So I would do something like that:

The definite article is not normally capitalized in the middle of a sentence, except when it is part of a proper name. There are idiomatic exceptions both ways: for example, titles of newspapers and other periodicals, especially those where several words follow the article and those of periodicals not published in the UK or Ireland, are usually treated as if the article were not part of the name, even if it is.) Common usage should be followed on a case-by-case basis. As usual, it is a good idea to consult the sources of the article.

Incorrect

He had read an article about The United Kingdom.

Correct

He had read an article about the United Kingdom. (The name is "United Kingdom".)

Incorrect

There are two seaside resorts in the Hague.

Correct

There are two seaside resorts in The Hague. (The name is "The Hague".)

Incorrect

Homer wrote The Odyssey.

Correct

Homer wrote the Odyssey. (The title is "Odyssey".)

Incorrect

Tolkien wrote the Lord of the Rings.

Correct

Tolkien wrote The Lord of the Rings. (The title is "The Lord of the Rings".)

Incorrect

He had read an article in The New York Times.

Correct

He had read an article in the New York Times.

I think "the Beatles" is a special case: "Beatle" is often used as a countable noun to refer to the members of the band (whereas no-one would refer to Jim Morrison as a Door), so there's nothing to stop you from claiming that when writing "the Beatles" you are simply using the noun for the members of the band, especially if you use a plural verb, as usual in British English. --___A. di M. 11:11, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

But can it be succinctly put? In about 20% of the words? Tony (talk) 13:55, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

... sorry, but who decided the title of the newspaper isn't The New York Times??

and in my experience editing music articles, on Wikipedia "The Beatles" isn't an exception; the "the" in band names gets capitalized mid-sentence more often than not: "a member of The Doors/a founder of The Rolling Stones/the drummer in The Clash" - it's not what i do in my normal writing, but it's one of those Wikipedia Style Things i've gotten used to. (and by the way, A di M, the use of a plural verb after "(the) Beatles" isn't British English - it's internationally normal. i think you're thinking of the use of a plural verb in some situations after a singular collective noun like the band are ready to go - that is indeed way more British than American.) Sssoul (talk) 15:42, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Taking a look at the leads of some articles in WP:FA#Music about American bands, I see "Alice in Chains is an American rock band ...", "Audioslave was an American hard rock supergroup ...", "Megadeth is an American heavy metal band ...", "Metallica /məˈtælɨkə/ is an American heavy metal band ...", "Nine Inch Nails is an American industrial rock project ...", etc. I guess the reason for the plural verb for "the Beatles" is the same one (you wouldn't refer to Trent Reznor as a Nine Inch Nail). British (and Irish) English appears to use the plural consistently: "Radiohead are an English alternative rock band ...", "Motörhead are a British rock band ...", "U2 are a rock band formed in Dublin, Ireland." (BTW, the argument about "the Beatles" was the other way round: there are people writing it with a lower-case "the"[1][2], but you wouldn't want to do that with "The Doors". --___A. di M. 16:09, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

So how does one treat Bob Dylan's former backup, The Band?. I wouldn't write "... the Band are well-known ..." or "...the Band are a well-known band ..." —— Shakescene (talk) 17:07, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

That would depend not on whether the band in question had an American or British affiliation, but whether the article did. Since the Band is American, its article would probably be written in American English, so we'd say "the Band is/was," but if the Band got a mention in any article that, for whatever reason, was written in British English, we'd say "the Band are/were."

Using a plural verb on a singular noun strikes me as off and wrong, but hey, so does spelling "color" with a U. Darkfrog24 (talk) 18:42, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The article uses the singular when referring to the band as a whole ("The Band was a rock music group ..."), which is fine in American English (I assume Canadian English does the same); but I'm not sure I'd write "the Band" with a small tee as the article does. --___A. di M. 18:46, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

• OK, it's worth inserting this, as has been done, and well done for spotting the issue; but the addition is 136 words long! It can be done in 41 words, in addition explicitly capturing the account-for-usage issue ("the UK", but "The Hague"). Tony (talk) 04:04, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

sorry about the singular/plural digression - it's not the case that British English always uses plural verbs after singular collective nouns, and Nine Inch Nails is an interesting case - but that's not the question here. all i meant to point out was:

• if Wikipedia is adopting a standard not to midsentence-capitalize the "the" in band names, it's fine with me, but it will be a significant change from current practice; and
  
• why is "The New York Times" suddenly deemed incorrect, when the name of the paper includes the article? Sssoul (talk) 06:52, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to second Triple S here, the The is fully part of the name of The New York Times, and should be capitalized when the full name is used. When the abbreviated form "the Times" is used, it can be lowercase, as it's not part of the actual, full title there, but it should be capitalized for the full titleoknazevad (talk) 02:15, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

• From the boxed text above: isn't the name—grammatically—"the United Kingdom", not "United Kingdom", at least as a noun, even though we drop the "the" in short texts and by convention in other contexts (Liverpool, UK), and as an adjective ("her UK passport"). So there's a difference, is there, between a grammatical unit as title, and a title title ("the" vs "The), maybe? I'm thinking through ... "the The Hague City Council" ... weird. I'm lost. Tony (talk) 11:04, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to interrupt, but first of all I'd like to say that I haven't read this whole arguement, but in the ESL business we haven't been able to come up with a better summary of the rule than this:

Capitalize "the" if it is an integral part of the name.

(The "mid-sentence" part is covered in the rule about starting sentences, but you might like to keep it.)

For example: They call him The Hulk. but You know, the Hulk Hogan from the new reality show is a very different Hulk Hogan from that of my childhood.

I would definitely caution against trying to spell out in so many words what exactly would constitute "an integral part". Believe me, it's not a simple matter - take it from me, I've had to look it up and prepare lesson plans for groups of Slavic and Asian language students, and it takes a long time to master and then you really never get down to real rules, only general guidelines with an unsatisfying number of exceptions (yes for newspapers, no for rivers, ad nauseam.)

Another reason not to try to spell out "an integral part" is the fact that it's unnecessary. You're not teaching ESL here, and you have to assume that the authors of text on English Wikipedia know English or they'd be at the Chinese one or something. People who know about The Beatles or Talking Heads are responsible to know if the definite article is an integral part of the name or not in a particular context. Let them check the sources or argue it out on the proper talk pages if there's some doubt.

I hope this helps! Chrisrus (talk) 04:44, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

'Capitalize "the" if it is an integral part of the name and let individual articles sort out the application of that for themselves' sounds right to me, but it's probably worth adding a caveat that the titles of Wikipedia articles are not a reliable guide. (as Tony points out, it's the [or The] United Kingdom, even though the title of the Wikipedia article omits the article.) Sssoul (talk) 04:58, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

One good rule of thumb for determining whether something is an integral part of a name is whether or not "the" would be set off from the body text along with the rest of the name. It's not The New York Times or the New York Times. It's The New York Times.

Of course, it doesn't work all the time. Also, I'm not sure if "integral part of the name" necessitates that the definite article must be categorized. We almost never refer to the Hulk as just Hulk, but the "the" is uncapitalized. Darkfrog24 (talk) 13:32, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, maybe The Hulk is not always written with a capital T on the definate article, but it absolutely should be, because that's his name: The Hulk. Why would you say that The Hulk is not written with a capital T? It is too! Chrisrus (talk) 06:35, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

That is one of the things that was being discussed: whether Wikipedia should always capitalize "the" when it is part of a name; and if not, what criteria to apply. Different publishers observe different conventions. Otherwise everybody would write "The Argentine", "The Hebrides", "The Guardian", "The United Kingdom", etc. --Boson (talk) 08:37, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

That's what we're talking about. Just because an article is part of the name doesn't mean that it's a capitalized part of the name. If you pick up a copy of Marvel Zombies 2 (delightful, by the way), you will see the characters refer to Hulk as "the Hulk." Darkfrog24 (talk) 13:37, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

As Darkfrog24 rightly says, "the" is not an integral part of the proper name when referring to the Hulk. It is with the formal title The New York Times or The Hague, but not with the Hulk, the Joker, the Spirit, or the Phantom (the character, although the comic strip is formally titled The Phantom). Please see these blue-linked examples. Consistency is important in order to keep all of us on the same page and avoid the encyclopedia looking sloppy.-- Tenebrae (talk) 14:46, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Although "integral part of the name" sounds intuitively correct in some undefinable way, I don't know if it is much use. One could put it round the other way and judge if "the" is an integral part of the name based on whether you would capitalize it. "The" is an integral part of the name, in the sense that it is always included, even in names where "the" is not normally capitalized in running text. The exception would seem to be that the is always omitted when the name is used attributively (so you don't write several The Hague tribunals). I am also not sure that we can leave it up to the sources, since different publications have different house styles, which they apparently use consistently. Wikipedia apparently uses The Guardian, and this seems to be confirmed by The Oxford Guide to Style but the newspaper in question refers to itself as the Guardian. I also have a feeling that "the" might be capitalized in things like lists, e.g.

• The Federal Republic of Germany
• The United States of America
• other sovereign states

This is probably not very helpful, but the rule seems to be that in running text the, as the first word of a name or title, is normally not capitalized, except for some (or all) names of newspapers and other specific individual exceptions (not including all bands and fictional characters). I am tempted to draw a line between names and titles. --Boson (talk) 16:40, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I think it's time to consult some more guides on this. If Oxford, MLA and Chicago all agree that "the" should not be capitalized unless it either leads a sentence or is part of a specific title such as "The Hague," then perhaps we should replace this wording with, "Do not capitalize 'the' mid-sentence unless it is part of a specific title." Darkfrog24 (talk) 18:12, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

re: "I am tempted to draw a line between names and titles" - so is The Guardian (and other such newpapers' appellations) a name or a title?

and re: "unless it ... is part of a specific title name such as 'The Hague'" - that leads directly back to the very same question you find problematic: how does one determine whether or not it's part of a name - why The Hague but not The Hulk, The Everly Brothers, The UK and The Mail on Sunday? Sssoul (talk) 06:20, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Here is a test you can apply to determine whether The is part of the name of some entity. Suppose you have an occurrence mid-sentence like an article in The New York Times – or should that be an article in the New York Times? Just replace the name by the name of an analogous entity that does not start with The, for instance Le Monde. What do you get? This: an article in Le Monde. This shows that in this example The is part of the name and should be capitalized.

However, even if The is part of the full name of some entity, it is not always part of the name when used before the name without The. Take as an example an occurrence mid-sentence like a member of the New York Times staff. Or should that be a member of The New York Times staff? You can apply the same test. Replace the name by Le Monde as before, and you get: a member of the Le Monde staff. You can see that in this example the word the is mandatory; so in this example it is the standard grammatical definite article and not part of the name. Therefore it is also a member of the New York Times staff. You might possibly use a member of the The New York Times staff, but that sounds strange and is unusual. Or you could use a member of The New York Times's staff, just like a member of Le Monde's staff.  --Lambiam 07:23, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

This is why I think we need to consult the style guides again. I begin to recall that we are supposed to write "the New York Times" for newspapers whose names are in English. I remember that exceptions are made for Le Monde and its ilk because English-speaking writers should not always be expected to know which words translate to "the" and which do not. Darkfrog24 (talk) 13:19, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I think the test of replacing it with a name that doesn't have "the" works to determine if the is part of a proper name, but that does not necessarily mean that "the" is capitalized. For instance:

• Washington is a town in America.
• London is a town in the United Kingdom (but Hollywood is a district in Los Angeles).

Using the Le Monde analogy, one should then write a member of the The Guardian staff, but one doesn't when the name is used attributively, perhaps partly in order to avoid repetition of the. I suspect that titles of books (as opposed to names of newspapers) are not normally used attributively (so you can write a typical Times viewpoint but you should not write a typical Origin of the Species viewpoint.

Perhaps the rule (with exceptions like The Hague) is that in running text the is not capitalized in names but is capitalized in titles, and that the names of newspapers are sometimes treated as titles (like books).--Boson (talk) 18:50, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) ... i love going around in circles! it's similar to the situation with possessives, above: other styleguides recommend all kinds of different things, and meanwhile Wikipedia needs a principle that's clear and easy to explain and to apply. "capitalize 'The' when it's an integral part of the name" is not what i do in my own off-Wiki writing, but it is clearer and easier than anything else that's been proposed so far (as long as a caveat is included that the titles of Wikipedia articles do not reliably reflect whether "the" is part of a name - cf United Kingdom). Sssoul (talk) 08:43, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

What's clearer and easier is: "Capitalize the 't' of 'the' when it's at the start of a title or subtitle; not elsewhere." ¶ I dropped my wristwatch into The Thames; last week I flew across The Pacific; you should take that to The United Nations; I wonder how The United States will respond; will there ever be another André The Giant; is there a man on The Moon? All pretty silly if you ask me. When I was a kid I liked the Beatles and the Rolling Stones but I wasn't so fond of the Who: all perfectly fine. This nervous capitalization of "T" looks to me like some kind of overcompensation; it reminds me of "They invited my husband and I". -- Hoary (talk) 09:00, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

yep, i'd go along with that too, as long as we can specify succinctly what's meant by titles/subtitles as opposed to names (and whether or not The Hague is an exception). Sssoul (talk) 09:12, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

When I first read that comment I had no idea what you meant. Name, the Thames; title, The Listener. But it occurs to me that you might mean something like "the Duke of Edinburgh". All right then: "Capitalize the 't' of 'the' when it's at the start of the title or subtitle of a creative work or publication; not elsewhere." I'm perfectly happy to write "the Hague", but the last time I said that hereabouts I got a bollocking from the regulars, so OK we add a third sentence: There are a handful of exceptions and either list them or point people to the refreshingly unpompous Guardian style guide. ([http://www.guardian.co.uk/styleguide/t This is good, though it oddly seems to prescribe "The Thames" etc.) -- Hoary (talk) 09:32, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

re "oddly seems to prescribe "The Thames" etc": damn, so we're going around in circles again? that can be fun for a while, but i vote for not recommending stuff that contradicts what we're trying to propose.

what i meant was "title of a creative work or publication" (does it need to include "website or broadcast" too?); i think it's necessary to be explicit about that, because someone above calls "The Hague" a title, and there was some back-and-forth about whether newspapers have titles or names. but the point about not meaning honorific titles needs to be clarified as well, lest we get The King of Spain, The Queen of Soul, etc. Sssoul (talk) 09:43, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

So don't recommend it. Here you go: Capitalize the 't' of 'the' when it's at the start of the title or subtitle of a creative work or publication; not elsewhere. If the result seems odd, look up the particular term at The Guardian's style guide (available online here) and follow its advice. -- Hoary (talk) 09:56, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

So for these purposes, it's a title if in italics or quotes? I read the Guardian, but I read The Guardian and I read "The Guardian"? Tony (talk) 10:28, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

My personal preference would be to allow either "I read The Guardian" or "I read the Guardian": insistence on the former seems a bit pedantic. But insistence on it is likely to be most people will want hereabouts, so fine. "I routinely read The Guardian", "I thrice read The Mezzanine" (novel by Nicholson Baker), "I twice watched The Magnificent Ambersons", "I read 'The Size of Thoughts'" (essay by Baker within a book so titled), "I chuckled at 'The Admirable Crichton'" (chapter within The Exotics by Morris Bishop), "I turned my nose up at 'The Adventures of Id'" (poem within A Bowl of Bishop; need I specify the author?). All so simple, even a Wikipedia contributor can understand it. Oh all right, pedant-fodder for y'all: last week I read The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, as it was a photographic reprint of the first British edition, which has the definite article to which some Twainologists loudly object. -- Hoary (talk) 10:44, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I am starting to think that this is a can of worms, and that a centralised style guide might be better to advise editors to go with the consensus in the English-language sources, to be consistent within an article, and to use common sense to avoid what might look awkward. I've just been at an article that has "The Beatles, The Crickets, The this and that", then "the Crickets" further down. Tony (talk) 12:49, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

When capitalizing the T mid-sentence would be incorrect, the MoS should not recommend it, regardless of what most people want or seem to be doing. I like most of Hoary's text, but I don't know if we should endorse one external style guide in particular. Finding a consensus within style guides might be good. Darkfrog24 (talk) 13:07, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

finding something that be easy to explain and apply on Wikipedia would be excellent. Hoary's proposal seems to be coming close, except i still don't understand recommending the Guardian styleguide if it recommends "The Thames, etc", which is contrary to Hoary's basic proposal.

meanwhile, Tony's remark puzzles me. sure, there are articles where editors mistakenly use various capitalization styles, because (as the discussion here shows) in the outside world practices vary a lot, and that includes sources and styleguides. that doesn't mean Wikipedia's styleguide should avoid recommending anything! Sssoul (talk) 13:19, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Maybe you're right, Sssoul. But I'm finding this one too hard to resolve in my head. Tony (talk) 13:42, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

• How about this:

Inter-sentence capitalization of "The" in proper nouns

• When the word "the" is formally part of a proper noun; e.g., The New York Times and The Hague, capitalize the word "The"; e.g., After long deliberations, The Hague issued its decision on….
• When "the" is to be used as a definite article (to indicate a particular one or ones) immediately preceding a proper noun that begins with "The", use "The" only once and capitalize; e.g., Scott Martens’ article first broke in The New York Times after… and not …first broke in the The New York Times after… and not …first broke in the New York Times after…

Greg L (talk) 16:09, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Despite my earlier beliefs, I am pretty sure that it is "the New York Times" even though "the" could be said to be part of the name. Darkfrog24 (talk) 16:28, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

• Just go to their Web site: The New York Times, all in their logotype. The *newspaper* is “The New York Times”. The *company* is “The New York Times Company”. Greg L (talk) 16:50, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but that doesn't mean that the definite article should be capitalized all the time. Lots of companies use different capitalization in logos. And, this is more visible in their science articles, NYT doesn't always get it right, especially not in their bloggier articles. On issues of grammar and capitalization, we should consult the most reputable style guides. Darkfrog24 (talk) 17:34, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

adverb + hyphen + past participle

The MOS doesn't specify exactly what to do in the case of an adverb-past participle hyphenation.

The closest rule is under WP:HYPHEN, subsection 3, bullet 4:

“ A hyphen is not used after a standard -ly adverb (a newly available home, a wholly owned subsidiary) unless part of a larger compound (a slowly-but-surely strategy). A few words ending in -ly function as both adjectives and adverbs (a kindly-looking teacher; a kindly provided facility). Some such dual-purpose words (like early, only, northerly) are not standard -ly adverbs, since they are not formed by addition of -ly to an independent current-English adjective. These need careful treatment: Early flowering plants evolved along with sexual reproduction, but Early-flowering plants risk damage from winter frosts; northerly-situated islands. ”

I bring this up because someone changed some hyphenations on an article I made, citing WP:HYPHEN, but it's not really covered.... I went a-googling and found numerous pages saying that, as a non-American, I'm correct; a couple of examples here: [3],[4]. In other words, it's a regional thing. However, it seems like the rules for punctuation on Wikipedia are prescribed, whereas the rules on spelling, grammar, etc., basically say "just be consistent". (←and that right there is another example of where American punctuation rules differ from that of other countries, even just 40 minutes north of the border!)

So, what's the deal on this? I'm tempted to edit the MOS to at least bring up this important point....

International sources are cited at User:David Kernow/Internet sources re hyphens and adverbs. -- Wavelength (talk) 04:22, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I am of the opinion that punctuation should follow ENGVAR. Darkfrog24 (talk) 13:26, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Don't hyphenate: it's not ambiguous or harder to read without a hyphen. I don't notice a trans-Atlantic difference on this point. Tony (talk) 13:45, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Dashes in category names

Please see here. Comments, ideas, and suggestions would be welcome. Thank you, –BLACK FALCON ^(TALK) 22:44, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Query

Centuries and millennia are written using ordinal numbers, without superscripts and without Roman numerals: the second millennium, the 19th century, a 19th-century book.

"the second millennium" appears to be at odds with this, and if it's trying to prove a point about spelling out / numerals, it's not working there. Tony (talk) 02:45, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

For the tiny bit it's worth, this is exactly the annoying and unnecessary kind of rule that makes the Manual so unmanageable and so unread, and that I'd very dearly love to see disappear so the important stuff is visible.† From my point of view, the guidance (not rule) should be (1) consistency within an article is desirable; (2) it's easier to see sentence breaks when sentences begin with (for example) "Nineteenth" than with "19th"; (3) per contra, when centuries in the same article begin with the same letter and are roughly the same length (i.e. First, Fourth & Fifth; Fourteenth & Fifteenth; Sixth & Seventh; Sixteenth & Seventeenth), it's often easier for the reader to distinguish numerals (1st, 4th, etc.); and (4) use your own judgement. The price of absolute consistency over three million articles is far too high, no 'bot will spot the peculiar reasons that might make an editor or group of editors prefer a variation, and not one reader in a thousand will even notice a difference. Far fewer than that will care one jot.

† Another example came over my watchlist today: someone using AWB to change "world-wide" to "worldwide". I may happen to prefer the former slightly, but I'm not going to impose my choice on others. —— Shakescene (talk)

The "second millennium" example is not at odds with the preceding rule. It is written as an ordinal number. Because this number is under ten/takes two words or fewer to say, it is written as a word rather than as a numeral. That being said, I agree with Shakescene that, within the bounds of encyclopedic tone, we should allow users their freedom to choose from among correct styles. Darkfrog24 (talk)

I have no problem with changing the clunky "world-wide" to "worldwide"—just as publishers dropped "to-day" in the 1950s and 60s. Treat that editor's work as a free meal, I'd say. Now, "second millennium" is simply clouding the issue at hand by pointing (silently) to another issue that is dealt with elsewhere anyway. Disorganised and impenetrable. Our readers should not have to stop and ponder WTF it all means. Tony (talk) 04:09, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. If we did not have an ordinal-number word in the example, readers might think that it applied only to ordinal numbers written as numerals. Darkfrog24 (talk) 12:04, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

But it says "without superscripts ... Tony (talk) 12:15, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Tony, are you unsure of what the "without superscripts" phrase is getting at? I think it means don't write 19^th. Or perhaps you are saying that since the rule has a provision that can only apply to numerals, the entire rule can only address numerals. I don't think that's the case. A rule can incorporate a provision that is only applicable to some of the subject matter of the rule. --Jc3s5h (talk) 13:36, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

• Jc, it's very confusing to the readers when the first of the three examples can't have a superscript. Made me think hard. MoS has to be user-friendly. Tony (talk) 14:30, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I didn't find it confusing, but I would certainly see no problem with writing, "the 19th century, the second millennium, a 19th-century book" instead of putting "second" first. Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:20, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Three examples are too many, I think, given the need to chop, tuck, nick. Why not keep just the first one, since the hyphenated double-adjective and the spell-out / use-numeral issue are both treated elsewhere. This one should be focused on the point at hand, which is not to superscript the ordinal number. Would anyone write "19 century", I wonder? Or XIX century? I don't think I've ever had to correct them. Is this why MoS is 20,000 words long? Tony (talk) 01:12, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Because that's not how this document is used. People come in, check the table of contents, and then go to the one section that seems most relevant. We should not force people to skip around to two and six and ten unpredictable parts of the document to get the answers to their questions. All things considered, including a hyphenated ordinal number as an example is a remarkably concise way to cover this common problem.

This is not one of those times when making something shorter would make it better. Maybe if these three were full-sentence examples, but they're not. The information to space ratio is very high. I understand that you feel the MoS is too long, but we're talking about this section right now. Focus on what would make it better, not longer or shorter. The results will be shorter often enough. "Three examples are too many" is a bad rule of thumb. We should be asking, "Are any of these examples redundant? Does this section need an additional example to make its point or cover any common problem cases?" In this case, we have one as-word ordinal number, one non-hyphenated ordinal number and one hyphenated one, all taking up less than a line together. I think we're good to go. Darkfrog24 (talk) 11:49, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Another query

"In general, prefer units approved by the Bureau International des Poids et Mesures (BIPM). SI units, SI derived units, and non-SI units accepted for use with SI are preferred over other units, so 25 °C (77 °F) rather than 77 °F (25 °C)."

Many readers, me included, will wonder whether BIPM comprises SI units, SI derived units, and non-SI units accepted for use with SI. There seem to be two sets of preferences. Can someone explain, please?

Why are Centigrade and Farenheit given alternately as main and converted units as an example? Is this all about main and converted? My head is spinning. Tony (talk) 06:32, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I've updated it to be a summary of the current version of WP:UNITS. --___A. di M. 21:54, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks ADM: that's much better. However, I have a hard time with this bit: "Nominal and defined values should be given in the original units first, even if this makes the article inconsistent: for example, When the Republic of Ireland adopted the metric system, the road speed limit in built-up areas was changed from 30 miles per hour (48 km/h) to 50 kilometres per hour (31 mph). (The focus is on the change of units, not on the 3.6% increase.)"

"Nominal and defined" seems opaque to me, so won't it be so to most readers? And the "focus" bit at the end is so subtle I can't fathom it. I wonder whether this whole point can be removed. I mean, the previous statement says to normally be consistent ... isn't that clear? Tony (talk) 03:40, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Instead of "Nominal and defined values ...", how about e.g. "Values stated in regualtions, standards and other important specifications ..."? --Philcha (talk) 09:42, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Also, I do wonder about the three opening principles. Do they help? The first two, about avoiding ambiguity and lack of clarity, and minimising the need for readers to look up definitions, seem to apply to all writing. The third one might well be covered in the detailed points. I'd drop 'em all. Tony (talk) 03:44, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

ADM, what are they doing over at MOSNUM? "for the UK Imperial units for some topics and metric units for others, and a mixture of units for others" ... and then it tells us immediately: "Normally, use units consistently in each article". EEEEEIUUUUW. Tony (talk) 03:59, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

The UK's use of units is very messy. In the sciences, SI rules. In UK regulations, it's now illegal to sell most products in non-metric units, but some length and volume units are still imperial - so for example road signs have longer distances in miles, but countdowns to junctions and roadworks in metres; and we now specify a car's fuel economy in miles per litre! There are also cases, especially in construction-related activities, where Imperial units dominate or at least co-exist with metric - mostly for compatible between new components and existing ones that mave a lifetime of decades, for example a standard ceiling joist is stiil 4x2 inches in cross-section, and in plumbing there are converter couplings in which side is one of the old Imperial sizes and the other is a metric size. --Philcha (talk) 09:42, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

As far as that single point is concerned, the version we had until yesterday looks a lot better, don't you think? I like the other imports from MOSNUM, though. Tony (talk) 09:45, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

(Replying to your post of 03:59.) It's supposed to mean that if you measure heights of hills, you must either do it consistently in feet or consistently in metres, and if you measure road distances, you must either do it consistently in kilometres or consistently in miles; but it is OK to consistently measure heights of hills in metres and road distances in miles in articles about the UK, because that is what is most commonly done there. But I agree the wording is confusing; how would you clarify that? --___A. di M. 10:04, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, the imported bullet from MOSNUM highlights dissonance between the two pages on this matter: it has changed the substantive meaning, as well as complicating it in an opaque way. Here, it was so simple until yesterday: "UK-related topics may have either SI (generally preferred) or imperial units as the primary units." Is it really necessary to switch from SI to imperial within an article, having chosen one? I'm very uncomfortable about going against the very next point, both at MOSNUM and here, which is about within-article consistency. And let's not forget that conversions are always provided, whichever global choice is made for a UK-related article. Tony (talk) 11:15, 8 September 2009 (UTC)PS The Times online styleguide, which is linked to in the imported version, says, inter alia: "The main aim is to avoid confusing the reader, so try not to mix the two systems in a single article. In general, we should prefer the metric, with imperial conversions in brackets at first mention." <cough, cough> Tony (talk) 11:32, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

The old version was often understood as saying that if you measure the distance between London and Oxford in miles, then you can't measure the mean January temperature in Oxford in degrees Celsius; what's the point of that, when that is by far the most common combination of units for there measures in Britain? BTW, I suggest With topics strongly associated with places, times or people, put the units most appropriate to them first. In US articles, they usually are United States customary units; for the UK, they usually are metric units for most measurements, but imperial units for some measurements such as road distances and draught beer (see, for example, Metrication in the United Kingdom and the the Times Online style guide under "Metric"). --___A. di M. 12:08, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I think the language imported from Mosnum is unnecessarily complex. Take this sentence:

Except in the cases mentioned below, put the units first that are in the most widespread use in the world. Usually, these are International System of Units (SI) units and non-SI units accepted for use with SI; but there are various exceptions for some measurements, such as years for long periods of time or the use of feet in describing the altitude of aircraft.

Why not:

Except in the cases mentioned below and occasions when other measurements are used (e.g., years, or the use of feet in describing the altitude of aircraft), put International System of Units (SI) units and non-SI units accepted for use with SI before other units.

Instead of:

If editors cannot agree on the sequence of units, put the source value first and the converted value second. If the choice of units is arbitrary, use SI units as the main unit, with converted units in parentheses.

Consider this:

In general, put the source value first and the converted value second. If the choice of units is arbitrary, use SI units as the main unit, with converted units in parentheses.

Instead of talking about carrots and potatoes as if it was a shopping list, what about this:

Avoid inconsistent usage. Write a 600 metre (2000 ft) hill with a 650 metre (2,100 ft) hill, not a 2,000 foot (610 m) hill with a 650 metre (2,100 ft) hill.

Instead of this incomprehensible mess:

Nominal and defined values should be given in the original units first, even if this makes the article inconsistent: for example, When the Republic of Ireland adopted the metric system, the road speed limit in built-up areas was changed from 30 miles per hour (48 km/h) to 50 kilometres per hour (31 mph). (The focus is on the change of units, not on the 3.6% increase.)

consider this:

However, when comparing systems, don't hesitate to vary the above rule. for example, When the Republic of Ireland adopted the metric system, the road speed limit in built-up areas was changed from 30 miles per hour (48 km/h) to 50 kilometres per hour (31 mph). (The focus is on the change of units, not on the 3.6% increase.)

I also think there is merit in reverting to the simple wording of

"UK-related topics may have either SI (generally preferred) or imperial units as the primary units."

Michael Glass (talk) 13:33, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Verb tense: present perfect versus preterite

I have noticed that there is a tendency to use the present perfect verb tense (I have gone) instead of the preterit (I went), which is evident in as many as ten to twenty percent of Wikipedia articles in the English language. The tendency appears to be almost exclusively to use the present perfect instead of the preterit, possibly because they are more interchangeable in French, German and Italian than in English. (In Spanish, there seems to be a difference between Old World and New World style in this regard, and there may be a touch of an Old World-New World dichotomy in informal (but not formal) English.) These tenses have different meanings in English, with the present perfect referring to actions in the recent past which have may some continuing present implication and/or may not be fully concluded in the present (e.g., she has gone, but she'll come back) and with the preterit referring to actions that are fully concluded in the past (e.g., she went away; she won't come back). See Article on tenses. Here is one example: the article Zoroastrians in Iran states: "Prophet Zoroaster and his first followers have been the proto-Indo-Iranians that lived between the Stone Age and Bronze Age (est. 1400-1200BC)." It must be that what is meant is "were" and not "have been" because the passage refers to the Bronze Age, for which all action is concluded. This is not an isolated occurrence but, as noted, seems to occur in ten to twenty percent of Wikipedia articles in English. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bob99 (talk • contribs) 15:10, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

The Zoroastrianism example is certainly incorrect. However, I think you may be overthinking what causes this. Consider that many English-speaking contributors speak just the one language. It's probably that the past perfect sounds more correct and formal and encyclopedic than the preterit, even when it isn't.

As far as correcting the problem... I do not believe the word "tense" even appears in the MoS in its current form. Shall we correct this with a brief sentence on preferred tenses? Darkfrog24 (talk) 17:21, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

i don't think grammar lessons are an effective function of the MoS. let's just correct the errors when we find them. Sssoul (talk) 17:33, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Yep, it's too big already, and we could end up tripling the size to 60K words if we want to teach everyone how to write. It has to be rationed to be usable by editors. Tony (talk) 08:34, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Guys, don't think about whether the MoS is too long. That is a separate issue. Think about whether we need to tell writers, "the preterit tense is standard for encyclopedic prose" or whether "use encyclopedic style" already covers that. Focus on better, not longer or shorter. Darkfrog24 (talk) 13:41, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

No need to include this, per Sssoul. Not a grammar textbook. --LjL (talk) 13:46, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I'd never heard of "preterite"—thought it was species of dinosaur. Tony (talk) 08:56, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Most of us just say "past tense." Darkfrog24 (talk) 13:37, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

"Focus on better, not longer or shorter" - that's what i'm doing, thanks: teaching the use of English-language tenses isn't something the MoS can effectively do. "the past tense is standard for encyclopedic prose" isn't true. "use encyclopedic style" covers it. when we find mistakes, we can correct them. Sssoul (talk) 14:32, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Citations and identifiers

A discussion to uniformized and tweak the appearence of the various identifiers (such as JSTOR 01234567 and ASIN 01234567) is currently going on at [5] and [6]. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 23:32, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Digit grouping style (notice of discussion)

In case anyone is interested, a discussion about digit grouping styles is taking place at Village Pump (policy), related to this question:

On Wikipedia, should the selection of digit grouping styles depend upon regional and topical conventions used in the English language?

Please refer to that page for details and discussion. TheFeds 04:09, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

ENGVAR query

Under Strong national ties to a topic, it says:

In a biographical or critical article, it may be best to use the subject's own variety of English (where there is a definite preference), especially if the author's writings are quoted in the article. For example, avoid American English commentary on quotations from Tolkien's very British prose.

Why should American English commentary be avoided? Surely if it's directly quoted, the US spelling is retained, and it it's paraphrased, BrEng is used. Shouldn't this be made clear? Tony (talk) 08:31, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I think the point is that no quote using US spelling will be derived from Tolkien's work. The MoS advises the use of the English variant adopted by the subject in biographical articles, especially in the case that the subject is quoted. That seems fair enough to me and fits in with old precedents. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 08:40, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your note, AnonDiss. However, it does say "commentary on", not the actual prose. "Very British" is a little subjective, too, in such a formal context. I do think this needs surgery. Does it have to be very British prose to rule out American English in an article on it? I'm not being perverse; I just think this section is unduly hard for editors to absorb. Tony (talk) 10:27, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

"Very" is indeed unbecoming of this manual; and "very British" has precious little concrete meaning anyway. If nothing else, that particular word should be eliminated. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 12:16, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

the way i understand that MOS passage, it doesn't mean quotes from US literary critics should be avoided; it means Wikipedia editors should avoid using American English when they write about ("comment on") Tolkien's work. i agree that it's unfortunately phrased; it would be clearer if it said: "Avoid using American English in articles about British literary works, and vice versa." quotations don't have anything to do with it, i think. Sssoul (talk) 11:54, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

OK. How recently was that bit put in? It certainly wasn't there when I rewrote this section about two years ago. Does it mean an article that just includes commentary on The lord of the rings, among other matters, has to be written in BrEng? Or does it have to be the overall theme of the article? I think this is way too problematic, and I'm unsure it was thought through properly when entered. We could take the view that the guideline for ENGVAR is quite strong enough, clear enough, without that sentence. Tony (talk) 12:23, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

It is part of the rationale for using BrE in the article about Tolkien, or about one of his works. Of course, if for some reason we were quoting The Lord of the Rings in an article written in American English (e.g. one about an American writer), it'd be OK to talk about that quote in AmE. --___A. di M. 12:59, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I think we must be misinterpreting the word "commentary." A Wikipedia article about Lord of the Rings would certainly be in British English, and there would certainly be many articles written in American English about Lord of the Rings and, when directly quoted, the American English spelling and punctuation must certainly be preserved. I think this rule must really mean to say that Wikipedians' own "comments" (by which it must mean additional encyclopedic text because we're not supposed to add personal comments to articles) must then be written in British English. Also, instead of saying "avoid American English," we should be more direct and say "use British English," so as not to imply that the Canadians, Australians and others don't exist.

We should change this line so that it reads "...outside of direct quotes from non-British scholars and critics, use British English in Wikipedia articles about J.R.R. Tolkien." Darkfrog24 (talk) 13:38, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Let me toss a tiny spanner (US: monkey wrench) in the general direction of the works. When a British book is republished in the US, or an American book republished in Britain, the publishers (and/or printers) are usually quite careful to convert the spelling and punctuation to their own nation's, and their own readers', conventions (usually the publisher's own house style). Before international anti-cartel rules kicked in a decade or two ago, there used to be explicit agreements between publishers, so that, for example, Thomas Nelson would publish the British edition of W. W. Norton books, and Norton publish the US version of Nelson's. This is true even when the publisher's owner is on the other side of the Atlantic, as you can see by looking at a British book published by the U.S. branch of the Oxford University Press. So when an American editor has a copy of Tolkien's work (or J. K. Rowling's) published by an American house (which is more likely than having a British-published copy), the spelling and punctuation is most likely to be American. In citing or quoting from his or her American copy, the editor could try to reconvert back to what might have been the original British spelling and punctuation, but there's no real guarantee that that's what will actually come out, as there are many British variations, e.g. in spelling realize/realise. The same is equally true in reverse about a British editor citing from a British copy of an American work, say by J. K. Galbraith (Canadian-born, I know, but a U.S. citizen and former U.S. ambassador).. —— Shakescene (talk) 14:37, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Darkfrog, I presume you mean "... be many sources written in ...". Perhaps it wasn't intended to refer to WPs' comments (NOR). Instead, it may be an obtuse way of making a distinction between directly quoting sources (preserve its variety) and paraphrasing them (use the global choice of variety for the article? This distinction does need to be made, and is not present in ENGVAR. Why don't we assume that this is the intended meaning and clarify the text accordingly?

Shakescene (e.c.) The issue of US or UK edition seems irrelevant: what counts, I think, is the variety used by the "subject", i.e., the author. "In a biographical or critical article, it may be best to use the subject's own variety of English (where there is a definite preference), especially if the author's writings are quoted in the article." I must say that this statement is fluffy and woolly though! Tony (talk) 15:17, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

No, I meant articles, as in articles in literary journals. I did not happen to mean Wikipedia articles. Darkfrog24 (talk) 18:47, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

British and American editions

I'm moving this to a subheading to avoid further interruption of the earlier exchange.

As my thoughts clarify, I guess the question is what guidance, if any, should be given to someone who owns a book written in Britain but published in the U.S., or vice-versa. I happen to own both the British (John Murray) and American (Houghton Mifflin) editions of Parkinson's Law and have a long-postponed aim of adding more-concrete citations, with brief quotations, to WP:Bicycle shed. Of course, I would copy from the British edition, since the late C. Northcote Parkinson was British. But suppose I had only the U.S. edition. Should I be advised to transpose the American spellings and punctuation to what I think are the original English ones, hoping that the owner of a British edition might be able to step in and fix any errors? Being born in London to London-born parents but living in the U.S. for five decades, I'm much more aware of, knowledgeable about and interested in the differences than the average editor or reader, but I wouldn't always be able to know where the original British punctuation had been within or outside quotation marks, or how the original spelt words like "realize", "analyze", "discoloration" or "glamorous". Or is it better to advise such editors (especially non-experts) to keep the format of their own text, and let owners of the original text make the corrections? —— Shakescene (talk) 22:35, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Quotations should match the source. That's why it is important to name the publisher and edition of a book in the citation, because different versions may exist. It would be especially important to match an online source, since the reader may use the quote to search for the relevant phrase in the online source. --Jc3s5h (talk) 22:39, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

"We could take the view that the guideline for ENGVAR is ... clear enough without that sentence." it's pretty plain from this discussion that the sentence is less than comprehensible. can we delete it, please? Sssoul (talk) 06:22, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Are stages of a competition, and final positions, proper nouns?

At the end of a competition or the judging of an award, is the Winner, or the winner, established? Does an Olympian get a Bronze Medal for coming in Third Place, or is a bronze medal given for third place? Is the Final contested between Finalists, or do finalists reach a final? Kevin McE (talk) 10:37, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

My hunch says it's "Olympian" and maybe "Bronze Medal", but lower-case for all the other. --___A. di M. 12:04, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Further queries

I'm sorry to keep posing questions, but I'm reading through MoS properly for the first time in ages.

Identity

The Identity section includes this:

Disputes over how to refer to a person or group are addressed by policies such as Verifiability, Neutral point of view, and Naming conventions where the term appears in the title of an article.

Why is it only "where the term appears in the title of an article"? It seems to tell us that if the term appears elsewhere in an article, but not in its title, these policies have no status. Should the last 10 words simply be removed? Tony (talk) 14:32, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

My blind, uninformed guess is that the intended meaning might have been that everything should conform to policies like verifiability and neutral POV, and that when the term appears in an article's title, it should also conform to Naming conventions (which I understand to mean "conventions about naming and re-naming articles"). —— Shakescene (talk) 14:43, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Unless someone comes up with a better hypothesis in the next 24 hours, I'm gonna change it to "... view, and, where the term appears in the title of an article, Naming conventions." --___A. di M. 15:02, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I should have thought of that. Why not just remove the reference to article titles? Readers who are following up this point are going to hit each link, and will work it out; and what goes in the article title needs to be consistent with the rest of the article. I don't like "such as"; can we give the impression of precision, rather than hinting that there's more without specifying? (BTW, there's a complete rewrite going on at NC, with a copy-edit tag at the top and a lack of consensus about fundamental structure – it's chaos there at the moment, and I hope it can be resolved within a month or two.) Tony (talk) 15:27, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Sports teams

Names of towns and countries take plural verbs when they refer to sports teams

I know this is discussed from time to time. Two issues. (1) surely the result (in WP:MOS#Plurals was never to enforce collective plural for sports teams, but rather just to allow it? I wasn't aware that AmEng was quite so keen on the practice ("Manchester give their all"). (2) It's not just the verb that is plural: the Manchester example shows that the town or country name is merely a stand-in for the team's name, which itself is treated as a collective plural ("their", above). It's misleading and only half the grammatical story to say that the town/country name takes a plural, or that the verb alone is plural.

What about "Names of sports teams can be used as collective plurals, especially in British English (Manchester are the first-ranked team)."?)

Also, if this were used, do Americans say "sportS"? Tony (talk) 16:01, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

That should certainly be permissive, rather than prescriptive, and it should be clear that this is ENGVAR dependent. But that is an extraordinarily unBritish example of British English: first-ranked is not usually used, and if the example is meant to refer to football/soccer, then which Manchester team is intended? Kevin McE (talk) 18:15, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, we use "sports" as an adjective. "Sport" is almost never used in modern American English except when it means to wear something, as in "to sport a red scarf." I do not believe that we commonly refer to sports teams as plural without making the word plural. We don't say, "Notre Dame give their all." We say either, "Notre Dame gives its all," or, "The Notre Dames give their all," though this last is informal. It's the sort of thing one would hear from a sportscaster. Darkfrog24 (talk) 18:27, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Of course, when the team's name is plural, such as the Philadelphia Phillies, Americans usually use the plural. ("The New England Patriots are preparing for next week's game against the New York Jets, who have just beaten the Cincinnati Bengals", but "New England is sure to beat Miami.") There's an ambiguous area (I think, but I'm no close sports fan) when the team uses an adjective, rather than a singular noun, as I don't think it would be wrong to say "the Crimson are eager for their classic battle with the Yale Bulldogs" where few Americans would say "the Crimson Tide plan to crush Auburn." And the Fighting Irish of Notre Dame are treated as plural Hibernians, regardless of race, creed, color or national origin ("Notre Dame is a proud team today, as the Fighting Irish have always been.") Although an American might have just spoken or written in the previous sentence about the Chicago Cubs, he would almost always write "Chicago is still demoralized by its loss to St. Louis."

At the moment, the only teams in Major League Baseball which don't end in a plural "s" are the Boston Red Sox and the Chicago White Sox , which poses the opposite problem: there's no graceful, generally-accepted way of referring to one of their players except as part of the collective Sox, e.g. "Mark Buehrle, the White Sox pitcher" or "Jason Varitek, a member of the Red Sox", but rarely and awkwardly "Jon Lester is glad to be a Red Sox" and never "a Red Sock". —— Shakescene (talk) 21:10, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

But on the main point, I agree: the current guideline's absurd. No doubt someone who'd written "Arsenal are a famous team" was upset when his handiwork was changed to "Arsenal is" or when an edit war started over the singular and plural, and the guideline was instituted to stop such edits. But Americans aren't going to be happy to read that "Green Bay are a team in the National Football League." Permissive language can be very helpful, with a strong nudge towards WP:ENGVAR, but prescriptive language is not. ¶ And Americans do refer to "sport" for an individual sport: "The King of Sports and the Sport of Kings" (horseracing), "gymnastics is becoming a popular sport among boys", "which sport are you going out for this year?". —— Shakescene (talk) 21:50, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

• (1) Does anyone get it wrong? (2) Do we need a whole subsection on it? (Can it be part of Identity)? (3) Can it be general advice in a single sentence, just to answer people's queries? Tony (talk) 01:20, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

diatribe

We all care about WP's MoS here, and we've invested significant time and talent into it. It is thus appropriate that you be aware that MoS is being denigrated big-time at WT:NC, right at the moment. It upsets me to see my colleagues' work being criticised in such strong language:

"... there is only one reason why literate editors care what those non-consensus essays say: to avoid having prose incompetently reworked by junior high school students who believe that MOS knows what it is talking about ... bad advice ... No, a half-dozen editors have hammered one together out of bits and pieces; the result is not anybody's usage - some would call it dubiously literate ... that waste of electrons ... indeed MOS is; a crusade by a handful of Language Reformers to impose some provinciality on the whole of Wikipedia - as harmful as Anglo-American warring ... it's an unsourced bunch of rules of thumb made up in school one day.

I find it hard to engage with this hot gale; personalising it will get no one anywhere useful, and would be a breach of WP:CIVILITY. Sorry to bear these tidings, but perhaps it reinforces our aim of fostering the continual improvement of MoS. Tony (talk) 17:01, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

• Taking a quick scan of who comes down on what side of the issue, it appears to me that PMAnderson is once again editing against consensus. His written arguments (MOS:DASH, as usual, covers dashes badly; it's an unsourced bunch of rules of thumb made up in school one day. At least dash has sources and cites them.)… show that he has great conviction, but that doesn’t matter on Wikipedia. It appears that the consensus view of the editors involved in that discussion (who appear to me to have explained their positions with nuanced reasoning founded upon practical realities and what appears to be common sense) is contrary to PMA’s wishes. From PMA’s point of view, the others may be very wrong at some level—or many levels—but that falls under the heading “so sad—too bad.” The “right thing to do” on Wikipedia is not determined by who incessantly reverts text on our style guides. The community shouldn’t have to continually be faced with these two options with PMA: 1) *sigh* and cave to his wishes, or 2) start WQAs over this pattern of behavior.

  To avoid this constant trend of edit-wars, it is important for editors, faced with opposition to a particular style-guide edit, to allow the edit to be reverted to the previous version and discuss the matter on the talk pages. IF the Wikipedia-style consensus, after that discussion, is in support of the change, then so be it. If not, then leave the style guide alone—even if the editor is absolutely convinced he or she is *right*. Greg L (talk) 17:14, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

COPY EDITING FROM MOSNUM

The version that was copied from MOSNUM was not from the latest version. I have corrected that. Now, whatever might be said for or against the policies, at least they are the same. I personally think that this section could be edited into simpler language. At the moment the policy is unnecessarily verbose. The same thing could be said more simply and directly. Michael Glass (talk) 01:23, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

MOSNUM needs to be merged into MoS

Michael Glass, thanks for picking that up and pasting in the more up-to-date version from MOSNUM's Units of measurement (see the section immediately above).

This, prompted by A. di M.'s good move in this direction the other day (well, except for the UK bit, in my view), highlights the absurdity of having two different pages, when MoS main, here, covers just about all of the scope of MOSNUM. There is insufficient difference in the two scopes of MoS main and MOSNUM to warrant the fragmentation of guidance, discussion and monitoring.

Our style guides are far too fragmentary, and it would go some way towards serving the project better to merge at least MOSNUM into this one. All of the main sections (except, oddly, Currencies, which is a pretty important one for general editors), are here.

Why don't we make things easier for ourselves? The highly specialised guidance in MOSNUM that is not here could easily be sequestered into either a separate subsection or—better IMO—an appendix, here. The merger should not add much text to MoS main (indeed, everything needs significant rationalisation on the micro-scale). Tony (talk) 10:52, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Michael Glass (talk) 11:04, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely. The whole point of MOS is to not have to look all over the place for a guideline, so let's just put them together. There's no reason to have separate pages with such a big overlap. Werson (talk) 04:14, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I have a rather nasty feeling that there would prove to be a secondary or external reason to keep MOSNUM segregated (whatever the prima facie principal reasons for or against merger): so that bloodthirsty Talk-Page/edit wars like Date Autoformatting can be quarantined from the current ("timeless" or "innumerate") Manual of Style, and so that page protections for one page don't paralyze the other. Think what this talk page would have looked like if it had been merged with MOSNUM Talk at the floodtide of the Great Date-Autoformatting War. This may be a terrible and not very rational argument in principle, especially if it's arguing against greater convenience and transparency for Joe or Maria Averageditor, but unpleasant recent history has to be at least acknowledged. —— Shakescene (talk) 05:20, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, an overwhelming topic can always be given its own talk subpage. Werson (talk) 06:01, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

• (1) Yes, it can. (2) I don't think we'll ever see another event like the date wars. (3) I don't mind if style guides are protected. (4) There are several options on the table, one of which is to retain only the specialist sections at MOSNUM, leaving the guidance more applicable to 95% of editors in MoS alone; this is probably the cleanest and simplest. Another is to retain it all at MOSNUM but to trasclude those non-specialist areas into MoS. Either way, keeping two separate sections on dates, on numbers, etc is crazy—they diverge naturally. Tony (talk) 08:51, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

  I'd go with the latter option but replacing "transclude" with "summarize" (with the understanding that whenever a non-trivial change is made on the "master" section at MOSNUM, its summary at MOS main be updated to reflect the change). --___A. di M. 11:21, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

ADM, that has been the current situation since 2006, and although there was an "understanding" to update changes (why not have all changes updated automatically not just non-trivial changes?), it has been impossible to achieve, despite the overlapping of personnel at both talk pages. Who, I ask, will take responsibility for this high-maintenance task? There are four options, as far as I can see, all involving mutual wikilinks:

Option A—do nothing: allow the disparities to continue and grow unless someone volunteers to be a go-between, faithfully and promptly making the changes at MoS manually. This clearly does not work: we're all too busy, and it's a tiresome and, I believe, unnecessary chore.

Option B—transclude "general" sections to MoS, including the current MoS sections covered: (i) do a little re-organisation of a few sections in MOSNUM to sequester the highly specialist stuff from what general editors need to know, and (ii) transclude those "general" sections alone to MoS?.

Option C—smaller, specialist-only MOSNUM: give MoS the general sections, retaining only the specialist ones in MOSNUM (there are quite, quite enough for a style guide). No transclusion and no duplication.

Option D—delete MOSNUM: Move the part of MOSNUM (25%?) that is not covered at MoS into MoS and delete MOSNUM, with the general versus specialist sections all at MoS.

Talk-page issue: I am uneasy when editors ask questions about dates/numbers at MoS and MOSNUM editors are not around; on the other hand, the more specialised debates at MOSNUM do become incredibly long and involved at WT:MOSNUM, so Option D might be a disadvantage in that respect. Tony (talk) 12:53, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

The fact is that some sections contain both general and specialist aspects of the same issue; so, under option B) disentangling them so that only the more general parts of such aspects could be not-so-trivial to do; and under option C) it is weird that a page should only contain the details of some rule without mentioning the general one. --___A. di M. 13:20, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I have no fear of long, involved MOSNUM discussions on the talk page. It's not as if we have limited space. We've already seen that people who don't consider a given topic to be their area of expertise don't have to participate.

My view on the matter is generally that things are easier to find if they're all on one big page rather than a lot of little pages, but not knowing exactly how specialized the "specialist" portions of MOSNUM are, I could go with either a full combination or a retention of the common material here and a small specialist page elsewhere. However, this last leaves us with the problem of people going to the small MOSNUM page and finding only specialized material, not realizing that the general material is elsewhere. I'd like to minimize page-jumping. Darkfrog24 (talk) 13:40, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Re "that has been the current situation since 2006": Yes, it is a "summary" strictly speaking, but it is a summary which is more than one third the size of the original text. (MOSNUM and the transcluded protected page about dates together are 75 KB of wiki source code, whereas sections 10–14 of MOS are 27 KB.) A truly useful summary would be less than 25% of the original text (i.e. less than 19 KB in this case). Shorter summaries, as well as avoiding going into useless detail which doesn't matter to most editors, would also be much easier to maintain. --___A. di M. 18:59, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I mentioned over at WT:MOSNUM that I thought we should probably put general guidance in WP:MOS, and put details in WP:MOSNUM. (I always wondered about the duplication, and would definitely support removing contradictions, and minimizing redundancy.)

I'm worried about a few things, though. Firstly, the talk pages. I think centralizing the discussion is a good idea, so we don't have WP:MOSNUM and WP:MOS doing their own things and diverging. We don't benefit from people with knowledge of writing style or math style being segregated in their own little MoSs.

But as a technical matter, I'm not sure what to do about long discussions edging out other conversations, or making the page too large. I appreciate Shakescene's concern, and I think Werson's suggestion of filtering discussions into subpages is a good idea, so long as we can make sure to keep the archive straight afterwards.

Another issue is related to the one A. di M. raises: how do we decide what's for general eyes, and what's too specific? After all, it's all intended to be binding, and different editors with different priorities will disagree on what merits inclusion in the basic MoS, and what is relegated to MOSNUM. We should try to think up a simple principle that articulates the resolution of this discussion, or else we'll be arguing for a long time about why some pet topic is isn't in the MoS.

Maybe the general test for inclusion in WP:MOS should be (something like) "simple stuff that gets used in nearly every article", while the specifics in WP:MOSNUM cover the rest. If we're especially crafty, we could try to open each MOSNUM topic with a short summary paragraph that gets transcluded from MOS to MOSNUM, and continue the rest of the explanation seamlessly thereafter—but if that's more of pipe dream, or a long-term objective, we could do reasonably well with a summary, like A. di M. said. I think that looks a lot like option B.

C might work too, but we'd have to be able to say with certainty that some things don't need to be considered by the average MoS reader, and can be safely relegated. I think that's less likely to work out than B.

One more issue to throw on the fire: I noticed that some of the folks at WP:VPP were getting a little annoyed at MOS and MOSNUM editors, because we were off doing our own thing while the rest of the community is busy adding article content, irrespective of what's happening here. It might be worth bringing a couple of them on board to get some fresh perspective on what editors need to see, and what editors can be counted upon to ignore, even if we it state it clearly here. TheFeds 06:32, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Some suggested edits to the weights and measures section

I want to suggest some simplifications of wording to the weights and measures section. My idea here is to say the same thing more concisely. Here is a suggested draft:

When parts of the English-speaking world use different units for the same measurement, follow the "primary" unit with a conversion in parentheses. This is to enable readers from all over the world to understand the measurement: for example, the Mississippi River is 2,320 miles (3,734 km) long; the Murray River is 2,375 kilometres (1,476 mi) long. (See {{Section link}}: required section parameter(s) missing below.)

Except in the cases mentioned below, put International System of Units (SI) units and non-SI units accepted for use with SI first.

• There are some exceptions for measurements such as years for long periods of time or the use of feet in describing the altitude of aircraft.
• With topics strongly associated with places, times or people, put the units most appropriate to them first. For example, in US articles, they usually are United States customary units; for the UK, they usually are metric units for most measurements, but imperial units for some measurements such as road distances and draught beer (see, for example, Metrication in the United Kingdom and the the Times Online style guide under "Metric").
• If editors cannot agree on the sequence of units, put the source value first and the converted value second. If the choice of units is arbitrary, use SI units as the main unit, with converted units in parentheses.
• Avoid inconsistent usage. Write a 600 metre (2000 ft) hill with a 650 metre (2,100 ft) hill, not a 2,000 foot (610 m) hill with a 650 metre (2,100 ft) hill. However, this may be varied when the name of the unit is the focus: When the Republic of Ireland adopted the metric system, the road speed limit in built-up areas was changed from 30 miles per hour (48 km/h) to 50 kilometres per hour (31 mph). (The focus is on the change of units, not on the 3.6% increase.)
• Avoid ambiguous unit names (e.g., write imperial gallon or US gallon rather than gallon). Only in the rarest of instances should ambiguous units be used, such as in direct quotations, to preserve the accuracy of the quotation.
• In scientific articles, use the units employed in the current scientific literature on that topic. This will usually be SI, but not always; for example, natural units are often used in relativistic and quantum physics, and Hubble's constant should be quoted in its most common unit of (km/s)/Mpc rather than its SI unit of s⁻¹.
• Some disciplines use units not approved by the BIPM, or write them differently from BIPM-prescribed format. When a clear majority of the sources relevant to those disciplines use such units, articles should follow this (e.g., using cc in automotive articles and not cm³). Such non-standard units are always linked on first use.
• Use familiar rather than obscure units—do not write over the heads of the readership (e.g., a general-interest topic such as black holes would be best served by having mass expressed in solar masses, but it might be appropriate to use Planck units in an article on the mathematics of black hole evaporation).

Any comments or suggestions? Michael Glass (talk) 11:23, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

• First query: "There are some exceptions for measurements such as years for long periods of time or the use of feet in describing the altitude of aircraft." Years? Can you explain more? I'd rather like to have a metric equivalent of 30,000 feet (I can't conceive it easily otherwise). Don't they do this on passenger aircraft, for dummies like me? If so, WP should convert, I think. Tony (talk) 11:55, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

  You'd rather want to measure Obama's age in years than in gigaseconds, even if the year is neither a SI unit nor a unit accepted for use with the SI. As for aircraft height, there's nothing forbidding a conversion, it just says you should put feet first as it is the most widely internationally used unit for that. (Personally I'd rather use inches for the diagonal of television screens as the example, as it is something far more familiar to most readers; but Michael Glass has some objection with that which I can't understand.) --___A. di M. 12:40, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

My objection to the screen sizes is one of triviality. It really doesn't matter. However, it does matter if there is widespread use of feet in measuring altitude for aircraft. Actually, it may be better to omit all examples. Michael Glass (talk) 21:23, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

While lots of the points seem well-thought-out and well explained, the corpus of the proposal is too SI-centric, and doesn't give enough deference to common usages in a particular field. For example the nautical mile is much used in navigation, the micron (identical, of course to the micrometer, but a different name) in electrical engineering, and so on. Wikipedia is not an adjunct of the CGPM and should not give it any more deference than it is in fact given in practice. --Trovatore (talk) 22:39, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Another point: Any guideline should spell out that editors should avoid misleading precision, things like (to take an extreme obvious example) Johnson declared that he would walk a thousand miles (1609 km) to achive this goal. --Trovatore (talk) 22:44, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't believe that electrical engineers use the micron anymore, at least in writing. It might still be used in speech. --Jc3s5h (talk) 22:55, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Not true; it's used frequently. Do a Google Scholar search on "IEEE micron". --Trovatore (talk) 22:58, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

OK, "micron" is still used. However, "μm" is used a great deal too. And some of the "micron" references are to company names rather than the unit of measure. --Jc3s5h (talk) 23:09, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Curiouser and curiouser

The third "principle", right at the top, is paraded thus:

Follow the sources

See also: WP:MOSTM and WP:NOR

Many points of usage, such as the treatment of proper names, can be decided by seeing what other writers do about the problem. Unless there is some clear reason to do otherwise, it is generally a good idea to follow the usage of reliable secondary sources in English on the subject; the sources for the article itself should be reliable. If the sources for the article can be shown to be unrepresentative of current English usage as a whole, follow current English usage instead—and consult more sources.

This is confusing to the reader. "Many points of usage ... can be decided by seeing what other writers do about the problem? Perhaps this refers to many points the reader is about to encounter in MoS. Which ones? Why would we bother including points in MoS having already told editors to go to secondary sources instead? And why does usage have to be framed so negatively, as a "problem"?

If this is a reference to WP:Naming conventions, it is obtuse and so broadly worded as to undermine the whole of MoS. WP:NC receives quite adequate reference in the links beneath titles. (NC is a messy war-zone at the moment, anyway; whether it will drag itself out of it is yet to be seen.) Or is it a reference to the "Consult the sources principle for Units of measurement?

Why is WP:No original research relevant? And why on earth is the MoS subpage on trademarks (MOSTM), of all things, elevanted to such a prominent status, and why is it relevant?

I suggest that this third "principle" die a quick death: MoS deals with secondary sources where necessary within sections. Tony (talk) 11:03, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, it's talking about proper names, so trademarks will show up. It's talking about following sources, which is relevant to NOR. But it is very chunky and confusing. This is one of those times when "better" means "shorter." We should try to figure out what this was originally supposed to mean and, if it's important, say that clearly. My current guess would be "For the treatment of proper names, it is best to follow the usage found in reliable secondary sources unless there is a clear reason not to." Hmm... Still pretty iffy... Darkfrog24 (talk) 13:23, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. That so-called principle (which is fine, but has to compete with lots of other notions that could also be principles) is well catered for in links to WP:NC on the section level. It must be a fairly recent bloat-bubble. The principles, I believe, could be expressed in two bullet points, each one sentence. The effusion of didactic text at the top rivals the Australian Constitution ... not a good document to model anything on, frankly. I really think we should change the tone so it doesn't offend editors (or daunt them, or put them off). Short, pithy, to the point. Get straight into it. Don't waste their time. Don't lecture at them beyond telling them what to do and what not to (in terms of the guideline). This is the message we're getting from FAC nominators, many of whom are fed up with the style guides. Tony (talk) 13:33, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

It does contain one good point. When deciding on usage, one should look to the consensus of as many of the the English-language sources as you have time to deal with, not just the sources for that particular article. Otherwise the article can be unstable as sources are added and deleted, especially when you consider that those revising the article will have access to different subsets of the sources.

This point is often overlooked when something is inserted into one of the family of style manuals about "follow the sources". I find myself wondering if there is some other mention of "follow the sources" in this manual which relies on the passage-under-discussion to define "follow the sources". --Jc3s5h (talk) 14:00, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

• It's badly written and framed, and needs to come down from that pedestal, I think. It was reasonably well handled before right at the top, without appearing to be a fuss. But I think your point about "as many as possible" might be a little fine-grained here. As far as instability arising from the addition of new sources ... well, it is a wiki. The whole point is flexibility, adaptation. Tony (talk) 14:14, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

To give some guidance as to why this section may exist, there recently was a debate at Talk:Fox Broadcasting Company over the proper capitalization of Fox vs FOX, namely whether Fox's internal usage of the all-caps version should be used here, when most sources use the common English styled initial capital. This section of the MOS, in conjunction with the naming conventions, would help determine the proper usage, exactly the sort of thing the MOS is supposed to do. oknazevad (talk) 15:19, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Another guiding example, this one not involving proper names: there is currently a long discussion at Talk:Water fluoridation #More controversial edits recently installed whether the lead sentence should define fluoridation to be the "addition of fluoride" or "the addition of a chemical". Pertinent evidence being brought up in the discussion is the terminology used by reliable sources in their definitions of fluoridation. Choice of terms can greatly affect POV; and we should look to reliable sources for guidance on terminology to avoid imposing our own POV. Eubulides (talk) 18:32, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

This involves choice of terms in a field, I presume, whereas MoS deals with this only peripherally. That is why it's so odd to have this elevated to the status of a basic principle, right here at the top of MoS (and a recent addition, too). As well, it's a blow-by-blow process description ("if not X, do Y and do Z"), and is filled with repetitive fluff. If it's retained at the top at all, it needs to be tight and short:

In the choice of terms within an article, generally follow the usage of reliable secondary sources in English on the subject.

But I'd prefer this to be in the body of MoS. Tony (talk) 03:01, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Formal name / ampersand question

Question - I've read over the bit about ampersand usage in articles and it makes sense, but I have a question (or else why would I even be here?) Drexel University's Antoinette Westphal College of Media Arts and Design uses an ampersand on their website in place of the "and" in the title. I would normally think that it's a formal name and change "and" to "&" but the university (as well as the college itself) seems to use & and "and" interchangeably on their websites. So I'm a bit confused as to which would be considered a formal name (if any) and whether or not the "and" should be changed to an ampersand? Thanks, --ImGz (t/c) 21:58, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Write "and." Use standard English. University webpages vary in formality. The "&" comes up more often in logos and graphic representations of the name, right? It's artistic license. Since Wikipedia articles are mostly body text, use the "and" that would occur in body text. WP:TRADEMARK Darkfrog24 (talk) 22:11, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I figured as much but wanted a second opinion since, at one point, I was getting more ghits with the ampersand than the "and". I'm not sure how I was getting that result now, it's just been a long day... --ImGz (t/c) 23:34, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

You might want to look at how the media writes it. There's probably not a specific naming convention here, but the railroad convention is to use "and". --NE2 02:58, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

But also see the discussion behind it, referring to still-earlier discussion, at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Trains/Manual of style#Erroneous use of "and". —— Shakescene (talk) 06:18, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Proposed tweaks to Template:Convert's default precision

See the discussion at Template talk:Convert#Some suggestions for changes to the default precision. --___A. di M. 21:02, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Question

I have a question about two of the image requirements, which I often see raised at FAC.

1. Avoid sandwiching text between two images that face each other.

2. Do not place left-aligned images directly below a subsection-level heading (=== or lower), as this sometimes disconnects the heading from the text that follows it.

I'm someone who likes to do both: I like sandwiching, and I often use left-aligned images directly under a subsection heading. I often use them when the image (if it's a person) on the left is looking directly at the image on the right, and vice versa. When the text in between is about some issue these people are having with each other, it means the article visually represents the text.

I've never seen left alignment under a subhead, or text sandwiching, cause a problem (unless there are other templates or quote formats in the way). Are there still solid reasons for having these requirements in the MoS? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 12:49, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I fully agree with Slim on the left alignment under a heading (why is a No. 2 heading OK but not a No. 3 heading, anyway?). I do have a problem with sandwiched text, although I concede that it might occasionally work thematically, and partly depends on the text size a reader's browser is set at, and indeed the image sizes forced by the editors or the default size for thumbnails chosen by a WPian. The trouble is that most editors are not aware of the need to be cautious when it comes to images placed horizontally adjacent—to try to make it work or to use alternative placements it it does not. Perhaps we might consider expressing the guideline in a way that cautions (e.g., "usually") but does not forbid. Tony (talk) 13:11, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Apparently there is an accessibility issue with putting left-aligned images under subsection headers. I'll ask at WT:ACCESS for clarification. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:31, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Cautioning without forbidding would be great. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 13:57, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I think "sandwiching" would look real crappy when the images aren't very narrow and the browser window isn't very wide. Some users (e.g. of netbooks, smart phones, etc.) might have to read text in a column with a width of two or three words. But I think that it'd be more useful to just say something amounting to "when adding many images in the same section, narrow your browser window to about 800 pixels or so and make sure that the layout still doesn't look crappy that way", than to give a number of rules which, in absence of a rationale, sound like someone pulled them out of their ass.--___A. di M. 14:22, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

A, can you advise how to narrow the browser to 800 pixels i.e. how we would know when it was narrowed to that degree? Sorry if that's a stupid question. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 14:34, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

For example, you could open or create a picture of that width, and narrow the window to that it fits in the picture horizontally. --___A. di M. 14:44, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I see, thank you. :) SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 15:41, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I have nothing to add to what I already said at this discussion. Also see Eubulides' comment there. I don't know how sandwiching of images would affect users, because I exclusively use a screen reader. Graham87 15:43, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Graham. To judge by the discussion you linked to, there seems to be no good reason to have this requirement in the MoS. I'm wondering if it's one of those things that has acquired a life of its own over the years, so everyone assumes there's something to it. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 15:46, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

• I agree that there doesn't seem to be any WP:ACCESSIBILITY reason for the requirement. I suspect (without really knowing) that it is an aesthetic preference, as some editors might object to a layout that looks like this (the Xs are an image):

          Subsection header                     [edit]
          XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX  The first sentence
          XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX  of the subsection
          XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX  starts here and then
          XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX  there's more text
          that eventually flows under the image.

because there's a wide visual gap between the subsection header and the first sentence. In contrast, a top-level section looks like this:

          Section header________________________[edit]
          XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX  The first sentence
          XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX  of the section
          XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX  starts here and then
          XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX  there's more text
          that eventually flows under the image.

and the horizontal line draws the eye from the section header to the first sentence. If my hypothesis is correct, this stylistic preference, while perhaps being a reasonable preference for the default skin, is to my mind too weak to be a guidance that should appear in the MoS.

• In light of the above discussion, I propose that we delete the bullet 'Do not place left-aligned images directly below a subsection-level heading (=== or lower), as this sometimes disconnects the heading from the text that follows it. This can often be avoided by shifting left-aligned images down a paragraph or two.'
• For the sandwiching suggestion, I propose removing 'Avoid sandwiching text between two images that face each other.', and capturing the more-general idea by prepending the sentence 'Images should be laid out so that they work well with browser windows as narrow as 800 pixels and as wide as 2000 pixels.' to the bullet 'See this tutorial for how to group images and avoid "stack-ups".'

Eubulides (talk)

I'd be fine with that. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 17:42, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I support this change. Don't forget to update this on all style guidelines. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:42, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Images can work in very strange ways with section and subsection headers, so there might indeed be a reason, but I'd like to see it articulated somewhere. On the other hand, there can be a definite problem with right-aligned images and tables, because not only the information box, but various medallions hang down from the right (see, e.g. New York City mayoral election, 1917) and can push right-aligned images, maps and tables down in very awkward ways, besides threatening severe sandwiching problems with left-aligned images. Caught between the Devil and the Deep Blue Sea or Scylla and Charybdis. —— Shakescene (talk) 05:43, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

• Has the guideline been changed yet? Could we have the new and the proposed texts here, first? Tony (talk) 12:08, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

  I haven't changed it yet, to give time for discussion. The new and proposed texts are here; please see the two words "propose" earlier in this thread (which I've just now boldfaced). Eubulides (talk) 16:21, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

The proposal is to:

1. remove "Do not place left-aligned images directly below a subsection-level heading (=== or lower), as this sometimes disconnects the heading from the text that follows it. This can often be avoided by shifting left-aligned images down a paragraph or two."

I'm going to go ahead and do that, as there seems to be consensus, and:

2. remove "Avoid sandwiching text between two images that face each other," and replace it with, "Images should be laid out so that they work well with browser windows as narrow as 800 pixels and as wide as 2000 pixels." Then I didn't understand the next part of Eubulides proposal above, which was to prepend the above to the bullet "See this tutorial for how to group images and avoid 'stack-ups'." SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 15:59, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I followed up in #Sandwiching text below. Eubulides (talk) 23:34, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Sandwiching text

Here's proposal 2 in more detail (inserted text, deleted text):

• Images should be inside the section they belong to (after the heading and after any links to other articles), and not above the heading.
• Avoid sandwiching text between two images that face each other.
• Use captions to explain the relevance of the image to the article (see Captions, below).
• Images should be laid out so that they work well with browser windows as narrow as 800 pixels and as wide as 2000 pixels. See this tutorial for how to group images and avoid "stack-ups".

Eubulides (talk) 19:54, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

• I welcome the removal of the left-facing bit, but don't understand how sandwiching works with image preferences. I have mine set as 300px (as any sane registered user surely does) and sandwiching of non-forced images always looks awful on my 1024 x 768 - you get 2 to 3 words per line. Or can I now go round saying anything I think doesn't "work well" on my screen is contrary to the MoS? It seems rather subjective. Johnbod (talk) 05:46, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm traveling and haven't been able to keep up with all of these discussions; when all is set, would someone summarize the changes to WT:FAC so reviewers will be aware? It escapes me why this (no left-aligned images under third-level headings) was part of WP:ACCESS for so long if it's not an accessibility issue, particularly since I worked so hard to make sure FAs complied with accessibility ... but ... it is what it is. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:00, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

On further thought, the proposed 800–2000px requirement may be too weird. We can't reasonably expect editors to test lots of browsers and window sizes. And the builtin parts of the Wikipedia skins handle 2000px windows so poorly that there's little point to trying to optimize for such display (a phrase involving "lipstick" and "pig" comes to mind ...). Eubulides (talk) 23:34, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose. My old desktop is only 800px, and any sort of sandwiching looks terrible. Even on my wide laptop I don't like the look of sandwiched images at all. They should be staggered or limited. Sandwiching also looks bad on my iPhone. Saying 800 to 2000px is not always understood and is too specific when all sandwiching looks bad. Reywas92^Talk 00:18, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose. My general usage screen measures a health 1440px, with my screen generally around 1000-1200px wide, and sandwiching still looks bad. Image stacking and sandwiching just doesn't look great (neither does left aligned images breaking up section headings, either, in my opinion.) It basically adds visual clutter and decreases the image afforded to any one image, as a result they all mean a lot less. I think simply saying "Try to optimize image flow for a variety of screen resolutions" would be the best wording. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 00:47, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose per my comments 3 or so up, & D. Fuchs & Reywas. Johnbod (talk) 04:23, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Concern over upright= method

This may be used as an alternative to the pixel method ("upright=1.5" as opposed to "270px"). In this case, it's 1.5 times whatever a logged-in user has preferenced for default image sizes (1.5 times 180px). I find this to be most unsatisfactory. Here's why:

1. Editors have somehow been encouraged not to pixel-size thumbnails up from the default, which in many cases is tiny at 180px.
2. Because many images are sized by this tiny default, some WPians choose a larger default (say, 300px).
3. In a circular pattern, if editors upsize their images using the multiplier method, 300px, for example, becomes a gigantic 450px for that logged-on user (but a more reasonable 270px for all othersand our readers, for whom the multiplier is based on 180px).
4. Yet a logged-on, preferenced user who has chosen a default of 300px for thumbnails might object if she sees an image forced to, say, 250px, which overrides their higher default setting.

I must say that I'd be happy to end the multiplier method and stick with resizing through the specification of actual pixels. This is by far the more common method: what we see is what we know our readers will see. Editors, IMO, should be encouraged to resize images gradually over the next few years using the px method. Tony (talk) 03:13, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

• The absolute-pixel method has a real problem. Suppose a reader prefers large images and specifies 300px thumbnails. Suppose also that an editor wants the image to be somewhat larger than usual and specifies 200px to make it so. (This is a common scenario; it happens to me often.) Now, the reader and the editor both want the image to be larger than usual; but the result of their efforts is to make it smaller than usual for the reader: it is 200px rather than the default 300px.
• On a high-resolution screen, 450px is not gigantic. It's fairly small. It's relatively common these days to have desktop screens that are 1920 pixels wide, and 450px is less than a quarter of the way across these screens. Many editors with big screens set default thumbnail size to be 300px because they don't like Wikipedia's tiny default size. Wikipedia articles should work well on these popular large displays. Absolute pixel widths generate articles that scale relatively poorly to these high-resolution monitors.
• To some extent this problem has always been with us: after all, there have always been some readers with higher-resolution screens, and some with lower. But the problem is getting worse now, due to the divergence between desktops (where 2 megapixels is now quite common) and netbooks (where 600 kilopixels is fairly standard). It's likely that the variance between monitor sizes will get even greater in the future. Furthermore we should keep in mind the problems of visually-impaired (but not blind) readers, who have to deal with far fewer than 600 kilopixels effective. Wikipedia articles should aim to display well on the broad class of displays in current use; we should not attempt to retreat back to the circa-2000 world where specifying fixed-size images was good enough.
• I'd rather not rely on a solution that requires editors to modify all the sizes of all the images by hand, each several times, over a period of several years. Aside from the fact that this scheme assumes an obsolescent world where monitor resolutions don't vary so much, there has got to be something better than that. (Just think of all those wasted editor hours! not to mention edit wars!)

Eubulides (talk) 04:05, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

• The upright= method also has at least one real problem, that a)for several years editors have mostly been working with the other method, and b)I don't think the change was discussed nearly widely enough. I normally think I keep up with image discussions llike this, but this one I never saw - perhaps I was on holiday, like most of the rest of the world. The solution to the problem with pixel size, which at one point was the guideline, is to avoid fixing pixels below 300 in all normal circumstances. This worked as well as anything can, given the range of kit people use WP on. If the MOS stays as it is, how long will it be before all articles are changed over? In the meantime preferences have to be reset every time an article using the current policy is encountered (happily still very rarely). It is surely the new policy that will cause thousands of wasted editor hours. I think it should be debated more widely, & I would support reversing it. Johnbod (talk) 04:23, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Determining which sources need access dates

I'm confused about the convention in applying access dates to references. I've been told they should be used in {{cite journal}} references if the journal is wholly online. However, I notice in the References section for Electron -- a top importance article which passed FAC last month -- that access dates are also applied for journals that are very much available in print, like Science. Examining references to Science in the Electron article doesn't help me much: access dates are lacking for most old articles and present for newer ones, but the underlying rule remains unclear. If someone could shed some light on the guidelines for which types of journal citations warrant access dates, I would appreciate it very much. (For some background information, see the discussion from which this query stems here.) Emw2012 (talk) 20:27, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

The rule of thumb I have always held to is that an accessdate should be used for any resource which can be expected to change over time, and where the changing versions cannot be otherwise identified. So, while different versions of a single book are differentiated by oclc identifiers, different versions of a webpage are not; the latter requires an accessdate, the former does not.  Skomorokh  20:31, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

That's what I've understood as the purpose of access dates. In that logic, it seems adding access dates to {{cite journal}} references is unnecessary: to my knowledge academic journal articles do not change after publication. Unfortunately your answer still leaves me wondering why access dates in FA's are being used as I described in my previous post. I'm current bringing Homologous recombination through a GA review and concerns around this issue -- on whether journal citations warrant access dates (and if so, which journals) -- remain unresolved. Emw2012 (talk) 23:16, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

My $0.02, if the source is an article from a print journal, no access date is needed, even if it is read in an on-line library, as the print version is the master source, which doesn't change once published. In other words, the print version is the cited source, which doesn't depend on what date it was read. oknazevad (talk) 05:15, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Some online versions differ from the print version. This can be the case with newspapers particularly, where there are different editions and updates. Ty 01:21, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

For {{citenews}} and {{citeweb}}, I can understand and agree with that, but the original question was about {{citejournal}}, particularly online versions of print journals. Since scientific journals are subject to peer review, to change anything in the online version (other than typoo fixes) would be considered dishonest, so they are far more faithful at reproducing the print versions. Either way, due to the peer reviewed nature of a (print) scientific journal, citations should be written crediting the print version, not an online library. oknazevad (talk) 02:35, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I've always wondered why we require access dates for anything. If we source something to an unstable website, and the supporting material disappears, and then someone challenges the material saying it's unsourced, a new source will have to be found. It's not clear to me how having the access date of the old source helps. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 01:05, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

To be blunt, accessdates are essential to unstable website sourcing because of the wayback machine.  Skomorokh  01:07, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it can be very helpful knowing which date to start searching through the Internet Archive, when the same URL can sometimes have a few years worth of pages stored. Ty 01:23, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

# in British English

I haven't found any discussion of this so far on American and British English differences or Wikipedia:Manual of Style so wanted to bring up this topic.

At Number sign#Usage in the UK and Talk:Number sign#Use_in_UK.3F we've determined that there's aren't any reliable sources for the use of # as "number" in British English. While investigating this, we found a number of Wikipedia pages to do with British musicians that refer to "reaching #1 in the UK album charts" etc. Should these be replaced by "No. 1" and a note made in the Manual of Style? The only source we've found says # is used very rarely in British English [7] but the # usage does seem very common on Wikipedia even though we can't find a relaible source

Examples are:

• Calvin Harris
• McFly
• Leon Jackson

Alexd (talk) 21:17, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, really I wouldn't mind if we deprecated this usage for all articles, regardless of dialect. It strikes me as insufficiently formal for an encyclopedia. I say this as a speaker of American English who certainly has no trouble interpreting the number sign.

Not sure about the No. usage either. Maybe write out number, or else reword. --Trovatore (talk) 21:21, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I didn't understand "#" when I came over to the States in 1961 at age 11. I can't see it being appropriate (outside quotations) in the body text, but there might be tables where compression might make its use expeditious, although in that case there should be some explanation for non-Americans. I can't see much use for "No." in body text either (unless it's in a quotation or part of a name such as Chanel No. 5), but there are places where it's the clearest and most efficient notation in tables, Info Boxes, etc. And remember that widespread though "No." is, many readers are non-English-speakers who sometimes would use a different abbreviation (that would confuse Anglophones), such as "Nr." —— Shakescene (talk) 05:29, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Regardless of whether "#" or "No." would be too informal, I concur that ENGVAR would apply here. Use the encyclopedic term most common and appropriate in British English. Darkfrog24 (talk) 05:32, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I've looked at the addition. Thank the blessed lord we can now get rid of those hedgehog #s that litter popular music articles. The appropriate WikiProjects need to be informed. However, I'm not sure I like "number 1" without the "N", I guess because I'm not used to it. It is standard? Also, I'm unsure that "No. 1" should be outlawed from running prose.

Another issue is that I think we should allow the abbreviated forms in tables and infoboxes (not the very informal № 1, but at least No. 1 and #1). Tony (talk) 12:05, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

If "#" could cause confusion, then there's really no need to keep it, as "No." is widely enough recognized in most forms of English as to be suitable for all.

I also don't think we need to get rid of "No." from running text, though, as it is an abrreviation most similar to "Mr." or "Ms.", which are rarely spelled out, even in formal writing.

And as a note to Shakescene, I don't think we need to worry about what abbreviations are used by speakers of other languages, as this is the English Wikipedia. I understand not wanting to confuse non-native speakers who might be used to other abbreviations, but I don't believe it unreasonable to expect someone to learn the standard abbreviations as part of learning the language.oknazevad (talk) 19:21, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. We should not deliberately make things difficult for non-native English speakers, but using ordinary English abbreviations does not constitute making things difficult. Darkfrog24 (talk) 21:14, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Religious movements and capitalization

I am trying to bring some uniformity to articles on religion. I need a consensus on capitalzation of religious movements. Most of the articles on religion go crazy on capitalization, probably out of respect for the particular sect. We have agreed that Pentecostal and its adjectives should be capitalized the same as Methodist. But there are many movements-oneness, higher life, evangelical, fundamental, holiness, etc. The manual discourages rampant capitalization. What shall I do with all these religious movements? We may run out of capital letters! R/T-รัก-ไทย (talk) 01:05, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

This topic did come up recently, although I can't remember the location or the outcome, if any. Sometimes a word like reformed or evangelical or orthodox is descriptive or qualifying and should not be capitalized (in my strictly personal opinion) to avoid ambiguity ("X's views were strictly orthodox in this regard" or "the Maryknolls are an evangelical order" or "the reformed Anglican diocese proved far more effective"), since the capitalized Evangelical often distinguishes Lutheran churches, the capitalized Reformed often refers to Calvinist, Zwinglian, Congregational or Presbyterian churches, and Orthodox is contrasted from Roman Catholic (and Protestant) among Christians, and from Conservative, Reformed and Reconstructionist Judaism among Jews. —— Shakescene (talk) 05:19, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Just as a note, though, while it is true that (capital E) Evangelical = Lutheran historically, and remains such in European contexts, in American usage, the distinction is no longer common, as many churches (especially non-affiliated ones) use it as part of their names even if they have no specific Lutheran background. oknazevad (talk) 17:51, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Typographic-style punctuation marks

The issue of typographic quotation marks has come up a number of times on this talk, and I looked through the archives but didn't find much clarification... A while ago, I came upon an editor who prefers typographic punctuation marks such as ’, “, and ”. He did not take kindly to my recommendation of following wp:punct, or my later quoting of wp:style:

"The Arbitration Committee has ruled that editors should not change an article from one guideline-defined style to another without a substantial reason unrelated to mere choice of style, and that revert-warring over optional styles is unacceptable."

His exact response was: "You should learn to understand the difference between 'forbidden' and 'not recommended'. As long as “ and ” are not forbidden, I’ll continue to use them." And, indeed he has, including continuing to make edits solely to modify articles to utilize his preferred style. To what extent is the preference to avoid typographic-style punctuation marks enforced, if it is enforced at all? user:J aka justen (talk) 10:16, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

You are right and this other editor is wrong. Where is this? Tony (talk) 12:06, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Concur. If this were the difference between spaced en dashes and unspaced em dashes, then there would be no reason to change it; here, the MOS explicitly prefers one over the other, and IDONTLIKEIT is not a good reason to ignore the guideline. Dabomb87 (talk) 12:43, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Originally at Haiku (operating system). More recently at Akonadi, KDE 4, Arch Linux, and, I imagine, elsewhere. The "discussion" with the user, if you can call it that, took place here. user:J aka justen (talk) 13:17, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

You’re kidding, right? Mere two users decide how I should write my articles without even involving me? Yeah, right.... The “Insert” drop-down menu still includes typographic quotation marks, so they are obviously meant to be used. Neither of you two seems to be an admin. So on which authority do you think you have over me? Remove the quotation marks from the “Insert” drop-down menu and I shut up. As long as they are there, a real admin wants users to use them. --KAMiKAZOW (talk) 14:23, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

The three folks who have discussed the issue here didn't decide how you should write your articles; the countless editors who help develop the style guide determine what preferences should be applied across this project. The Arbitration Committee for this Wikipedia has decided, as well, that those style guidelines shouldn't be ignored by any one editor based on their own preferences. Features that are or are not enabled in the MediaWiki software, such as including the typographic marks in the insert section, do not trump consensus. user:J aka justen (talk) 14:57, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

KAMiKAZOW: You don't write your articles. You contribute to building an encyclopedia, subject to consensus and governed by policies and guidelines. See WP:OWN. —Finell (Talk) 15:53, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Two (or three) people are not a consensus (especially if you discuss matters about me over my head) and PUNCT clearly states “not recommended” as opposed to “forbidden”. If in the future a real democratic decision is made, I’ll happily follow it. I don’t follow a handful random people who try to impose their taste on other people.

MediWiki is FOSS. Some admin should remove the “Insert” drop-down menu if it opposes some alleged consensus. --KAMiKAZOW (talk) 14:36, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

The style guidelines were developed by consensus. The Arbitration Committee has indicated that ignoring that consensus based on your own preference is unacceptable. The three editors attempting to convince you of this here did not singularly develop that consensus, we're simply three people who are attempting to convey it to you at this point in time. user:J aka justen (talk) 15:09, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Summary of MOSNUM started

Following Tony1's proposal, I've started writing a very brief summary (my goal is approx. 25% of the full text) of WP:MOSNUM, intended to eventually replace sections from 10 to 13 of WP:MOS. Feel free to collaborate at User:A. di M./MOSNUM. --___A. di M. 21:05, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Sections and common content

A discussion on Further reading section use and templates over at the Lighthouses WikiProject is ongoing. As this projectspace page looks at when and how to use Further reading sections, while covering section management, participation from those active here would be welcome. Thank you. –Whitehorse1 21:27, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Manual of Style (pronunciation)/IPA vs. other pronunciation symbols has been marked as part of the Manual of Style

Wikipedia:Manual of Style (pronunciation)/IPA vs. other pronunciation symbols (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has recently been edited to mark it as part of the Manual of Style. This is an automated notice of the change (more information). -- VeblenBot (talk) 02:00, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, I don't think this is legitimate unless consensus is demonstrated. Can you link us to it, please? Tony (talk) 03:45, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Seconded. This issue was already raised earlier. If it's as easy as that to make something officially part of the MoS then why the delay? Who needs discussion, just mass move everything from Category:Wikipedia style guideline proposals straight into Category:Wikipedia style guidelines and be done with it. -- œ^™ 04:13, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

In defense of this addition, this is merely a handy chart of the IPA (which as a less-than-familiar American, I appreciate) on a subpage of a page that's already part of the MOS, apparently separated out to make direct linking more convnient. This is simply a bit of rearranging the existing content. And I wouldn't expect too much of a response from the notifier, as it was an automated bot. I don't think it'll respond.oknazevad (talk) 04:43, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, we do need to keep tabs on proposals. It is not acceptable that any page can be suddenly called a MoS page without an audit. Otherwise, the name MoS is distinctly wobbly. Tony (talk) 08:22, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Where should we keep our tabs? -- Hoary (talk) 10:46, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Generally, I concur about the addition of new material to the corpus of the MOS, but my main thought here is that this isn't a new addition, just a division of an existing page, therefore it isn't an issue. oknazevad (talk) 00:21, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

BIt missing

I notice that this is missing:

Initial capitals are not used in the full name of an item just because capitals are used in the abbreviation.

• Incorrect (not a name): We used Digital Scanning (DS) technology
• Correct: We used digital scanning (DS) technology.

It was there in February, my spot-check, and had been there for years. I think it should go back in. Tony (talk) 03:53, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Now it's in the "Acronyms and abbreviations" section. --___A. di M. 09:08, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Linking units on first occurrence

Why, in a scientific topic, must "kilometre" always be linked on first occurence? Tony (talk) 09:18, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Because, if you do not give a conversion to miles, readers who don't know how long a kilometre is (and there are hundreds of millions of them) will have to look the conversion factor up. And converting all metric measures to US customary or imperial in a scientific article is as pointless as converting all yards to metres in articles about American football. (For everyday measures such as the kilometre, adding a footnote stating that "1 km ≈ 0.621 mi" would be a valid alternative, but for more technical units such as the pascal, I'd always link the unit rather than (or as well as) giving a conversion to pounds-force per squared inch.) --___A. di M. 09:28, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia (not a reliable source, I know) tells us that Use of the mile as a unit of measurement is largely confined to the United States and the United Kingdom where it remains customary. I believe that every Brit who is not mentally impaired and is between infancy and dotage is acquainted with kilometres, with the exception of those whose poor command of English (probably not their fault) or extreme sloth or bloody-minded incuriosity would anyway render them unlikely to want to read up on scientific subjects. As for the Youessians, they have land borders with two nations that use kilometres. My reading of Jonathan Kozol tells me that knowledge is distributed very unevenly across the US, but I'm surprised to hear that there are hundreds of millions who don't know what a kilometre is. Are you sure of this? -- Hoary (talk) 10:42, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm curious as to how a UK or US reader who has trouble imagining how long a km is would be assisted by kilometre, which opens:

The kilometre (American spelling: kilometer), symbol km is a unit of length in the metric system, equal to one thousand metres and is therefore exactly equal to the distance travelled by light in free space in 1⁄ 299,792.458 of a second.

It is the conventionally used measurement unit for expressing distances between geographical places in countries which use the metric system. While it is defined exactly as 1000 m, it equals roughly a ten minutes' walk [excuse the grammar].

Slang terms for kilometre include click (sometimes spelled klick or klik) and kay (or k).

Then it goes on about pronunciation.

Ten minutes' walk is the closest we get, but how far would a seven-year-old schoolgirl or an 80-year-old man who has consulted the scientific article walk in that time?

What I'm concerned about is the assumption that linking, and linking in every article, is regarded as useful per se. Tony (talk) 11:27, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Just look how bold I've been! What I wonder about is the location of these hundreds of millions of people who don't know what a kilometre is and yet want to read up on science. I've a hunch that Stephen Colbert could give a convincing explanation. -- Hoary (talk) 11:43, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Tweaked it further. (Can a native speaker of British English confirm my suspect that it uses the plural in "0.6214 miles"?) The assumption that linking in every article is regarded as useful per se is wrong, but the assumption that, when an article is bad, hiding it away by removing non-useless links to it is a valid solution isn't 100% correct, either... (BTW, in the case of "kilometre" I agree that the link isn't vital, but I think the piece of instruction we're discussing about is more intended to deal with such units as the joule, the pascal, the kelvin, and similar, when used in the discussion of experimental results; writing "It lies in a tunnel 27 kilometres (17 mi) in circumference" with a conversion and no links in the article about the LHC is perfectly reasonable, IMO.) --___A. di M. 15:02, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Punctuation, inside or outside

The MoS advocates placing punctuation outside quotation marks. I'd like to change that, because it's advocating something that most Wikipedians don't do.

• Inside (see placement of period/full stop): John said, "I hope the period's inside, not out."
• Outside: John said, "Nope, wrong again".

The MoS currently says:

On Wikipedia, place all punctuation marks inside the quotation marks if they are part of the quoted material and outside if they are not. This practice is referred to as logical quotation. It is used by Wikipedia both because of the principle of minimal change, and also because the method is less prone to misquotation, ambiguity, and the introduction of errors in subsequent editing.

Most North American editors place punctuation inside. I don't know what Australia/New Zealand does. Some British editors place it outside, but I'm British and I've always placed it inside. Most publications place it inside, including those outside north America. Just to pull one example up at random from today, The Times of London quoting the prime minister, "Growth is the best antidote to debt." [8]

I frequently find articles I write being changed from inside to outside, especially if they're connected to the UK, but even when they're not. I feel that this violates the spirit of the MoS, which is not to go around making style changes for no good reason. But so long as the punctuation advice is in the MoS, it's bound to happen.

Instead of recommending one over the other, can we not simply describe both practices, say the article must be internally consistent, and that we should stick to the style of the first major contributor? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 16:19, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Logical punctuation seems more, well, logical. The place where it makes a difference would be where inserting punctuation inside the qutation marks suggests an ambiguous or misleading interpretation that was not part of the original quotation. For example, if a person says "I was not hurt so much as deeply offended", we are misleading the reader if we report that the person said "I was not hurt." Inserting the period in that location gives the misleading impression that this was the end of the sentence. Conversely, suppose an artist is asked who influenced him in his life responds "There is only one -- my dear mother." But when asked whose art he emulates, mentions Klee and Giacometti. For us to say he credits as influences his "dear mother," Klee, and Giacometti incorrectly suggests that his mother was part of a list. I know these examples are a little forced but I do run into this in editing. In any case, if we do decide to leave the matter entirely up to editors' discretion I don't think we should have a "first major contributor" rule - that's too rigid. Perhaps we just say it's up to the editors, note that people should not be revising entire articles to shift style choices, and leave it up to them after that. Wikidemon (talk) 16:32, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure I really follow your examples, WD. How could inside/outside punctuation affect the meaning of, "I was not hurt so much as deeply offended"?

But the point here is not what we personally like or don't like, but what most people do. Most Wikipedians use inside punctuation, and so do most publications (north American and otherwise) that I am aware of. Given that it's a preference issue, I think we should recommend internal consistency, and deferring to the first major contributor. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 17:17, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

In my example, the person quoted was hurt. Without the period the statement refines and makes precise the nature of the offense taken. With the period it looks like a simple denial. Again, this may not be the best example. One would also best distinguish between problems caused by American-style punctuation from the more general issue of taking quotations out of context. My overall point is that punctuation or lack thereof sometimes changes the meaning of a statement. By blurring the distinction over whether the punctuation is that of the speaker's versos that of the the editor's, inserting or removing punctuation within a quotation runs the risk of misleading the reader and changing the meaning of the statement. It's hard to know from my personal experience which version is common. I read the logical punctuation section early in my stay here and began to follow it, and because I work on lots of stub and start articles I tend to be the only major contributor to most of them. I would think we want to look at most A / GA / featured articles for guidance, not all the new and messy ones. I agree that consistency within articles is important, although I think the "first major contributor" rule is unduly formulaic where a more flexible common sense courtesy approach might apply more generally. I do like rules where they work, though. Are there examples where "first major contributor" has been codified in any other matters of stylistic choice? Wikidemon (talk) 18:41, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Regarding your last point, yes, where there are style conflicts, the first major contributor's approach should be respected, per WP:CITE, a couple of ArbCom rulings, and per the MoS itself (#1.2 Stability of articles). But adding a courtesy clause to the punctuation section would be fine with me too. What I would like to avoid is people turning up only to change punctuation.

Regarding how many articles use what, it would be difficult to judge by FAs, because when something is submitted for FA, it's invariably changed from inside to outside punctuation, particularly if it concerns anything British. I suppose all we can do is keep an eye open, and perhaps try some random articles.

I still don't get your "hurt" example. Sorry if I'm being dense. :) SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 19:55, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) i'm real sorry to see this issue rear its head again so soon - SlimVirgin, do you need a link to the very recent and lengthy discussion where consensus was established once again for the so-called "logical" style? i disagree completely that that style is "something that most Wikipedians don't do" - all the articles i frequent use it, and i'm all for it. Sssoul (talk) 18:00, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, please, that link would be very helpful. I don't know how we can judge for sure what most articles use. All I know is that I've made 80,000 edits over five years, and the overwhelming majority of articles I edit use inside punctuation. But then so do most publications in general, both in North America and Europe, so I'm a bit mystified as to how outside punctuation managed to get into the MoS as a rule.

That's why I'm suggesting we simply describe the different forms, and allow editors to choose for themselves. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 18:04, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't see why the examples above are relevant to a proposal to change the MoS. All the examples conform to the current MoS. The first example given in this thread, which is of "inside" punctuation:

John said, "I hope the period's inside, not out."

exactly mimicks the style given in the first "correct" example in WP:LQ:

Arthur said, "The situation is deplorable and unacceptable."

Since "inside" punctuation is just fine in all the examples given in this thread, no reason has been given to change the MoS. Eubulides (talk) 20:02, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

true, the question is not "inside or outside" - it's "is the punctuation part of the quote or not". the most recent discussion of this is in Archive 111 of this page.

re "I don't know how we can judge for sure what most articles use": smile: so please don't use the argument that the style you prefer is "what most Wikipedians/people do". Sssoul (talk) 20:10, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

This is a job for ENGVAR. Articles that use American spelling should also use American punctuation and articles that use British English should use British punctuation.

The main argument in favor of logical/technical punctuation is the idea that putting commas and periods inside the quotation marks can cause confusion. However, this doesn't happen in practice. In American English, it is understood that periods and commas may be changed as part of the quotation process. What is the point of solving "problems caused by American punctuation" if it doesn't cause any problems?

American punctuation already makes exceptions for those few cases in which it might cause confusion. For example, we'd say, that the song performed by Jefferson Airplane is called "White Rabbit," but we'd say that to put a long dash on Wikipedia, type in "—". No one is actually going to think that the comma is part of the name of the song, so there is no reason to put the comma outside in any article written in American English. However, the character-by-character instructions could be misunderstood, so American English makes an exception. The system is fine.

With regard to quoting dialogue, it is understood that commas and periods may be changed in American English. Wikidemon's example is misleading not because it uses correct American punctuation but because the second half of the sentence is chopped off. Look at it this way: 1. He said, "I was not hurt." 2. "I was not hurt," he said. They are equally misleading, in both cases because the words "so much as deeply offended" are not included. (Please note that 3. "I was not hurt," he said, "so much as deeply offended," is not misleading at all, despite the fact that I have added a comma and changed a period to a comma as well.)

HOWEVER I do not feel that we should impose American punctuation on British English articles. That would be an insult to British English Wikipedians, as bad as forcing Americans to spell "center" with a "t-r-e." Darkfrog24 (talk) 20:34, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree with everything you say, Darkfrog, except the last sentence. I'm British, and was educated in the UK, and I'm constantly bemused by an MoS that tells me British English doesn't say September 15, when I do, or British English doesn't write "organized," when I do, or British English doesn't use inside punctuation, when I do. These things are a matter of preference and of individual style guides that publishers use. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 20:41, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Then whatever form of English is American and not British, that is the form that should not be imposed upon British English articles. If "organize" and tucked-in commas are acceptable in correct British English, then they should be acceptable on British English Wikipedia articles unless there is some serious reason not to. (We use double quotes instead of single because of the limitations of search features.) However, I personally would want to see confirmation of this in at least one reliable British style guide. Darkfrog24 (talk) 20:48, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Sssoul, thanks for the link to the Archive 11 discussion. I've not read it yet, but the fact that it has to start with a caution about feelings running high suggests there's no consensus for this advice to be in the MoS. Why do we need it? What's wrong with articles simply being internally consistent? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 20:45, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, when you read the archived discussion you'll see that the emotions were on the part of two or three editors. i know you know that just because someone has strong feelings that doesn't mean they're right, or that they have consensus. Sssoul (talk) 08:16, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

It seemed to me that almost everyone who participated in that discussion had strong feelings about it. Let's not mischaracterize people. In this case, the people who had the strong feelings toward keeping American style banned were the ones who had consensus. Darkfrog24 (talk) 13:10, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

1. It's not that there's no consensus so much as that there are lots of people who like technical quotation a lot more than American quotation and believe, incorrectly in my assessment, that American quotation causes problems. This particular part of the guideline gets challenged a couple of times each year. The discussion in archive 111 resulted in the current wording but didn't result in any change to the rule itself. 2. We don't need it. Darkfrog24 (talk) 20:48, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I think American should not be imposed on British, and British should not be imposed on American, but also that people shouldn't be telling other people what is and isn't British or American, and the preference of Mr X should not be imposed on Ms Y, and so on. :) In other words, let's go for internal consistency and otherwise not advise. If it's being challenged regularly by established editors, it really shouldn't stay as it is. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 21:06, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

NOT AGAIN, please. We just went through this a couple of months ago, at length. This is one long-stable guideline in the MOS. Some people, mostly in the U.S., who are more familiar with the "trailing periods and commas always inside" style, as I am, object when they see the MOS guideline or examples of it, which I don't. (For what it's worth, I use and prefer the punctuation inside style in all my own writing; it is the convention where I write, and it is the convention in most printed material in the U.S.) The reasons why it was adopted for Wikipedia are explained in the MOS section, and have nothing to do with U.S. versus UK (i.e., ENGVAR). Despite MANY lengthy arguments, the result is always the same: no consensus to change the guideline. So I repeat, NOT AGAIN, please. Thank you. —Finell (Talk) 21:20, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Just because this part of the guideline has been discussed before doesn't mean that new people like SV shouldn't state their opinions and no one should badger or bully them into shutting up before they've had their say, so please no one start. SlimVirgin has provided a new look at this issue.

Finell, if you are tired of this discussion, then, if you want, I can message you on your talk page if it looks like we're about to change the guideline. That way, you won't have to bother watching the discussion and you will get your $0.02/vote/contribution to consensus in regardless. Would you like me to do this? Darkfrog24 (talk) 21:43, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Darkfrog, please. I haven't badgered or bullied anyone, and I resent that characterization. I expressed weariness at going through this again (I've been through it a couple times before you arrived on this page, and then the last time, when you were the lead protagonist) and the wish that we wouldn't have to so. —Finell (Talk) 22:05, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I am not accusing you, Finell. You will see that I said, "...before they've had their say, so please no one start." There was a lot of that sort of thing last time and I want to head it off. On another note, I can appreciate that you're tired of talking about it, but the bottom line is that you do not have to. There is no reason to tell SlimVirgin not to start a new discussion because you are under no obligation to participate if you don't want to. SV's comments put no burden of any kind on you. My offer is serious, by the way. Just message me if you want to take me up on it, but I won't bring it up again. Darkfrog24 (talk) 22:21, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

If anything, the fact that this part of the guideline is questioned so often should be a big clue that it may not be ideal.

Either the current system is British, in which case it's inappropriate for use in American English articles or it is logical/technical, in which case it's unnecessary throughout almost all of Wikipedia. Either way, it should not be imposed upon American English articles in which it is incorrect and unnecessary.

SlimVirgin, I wouldn't go that far. Even if 300,000 people make a mistake, it's still a mistake. We shouldn't force one group of people to forego their own traditions and use a foreign set of rules, but neither should we allow Mssrs. X and Y to make things up willy-nilly. It's not about what most people are doing. It's about what's correct. Darkfrog24 (talk) 21:43, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Hang on, Finell, if it keeps being raised, there is no consensus for it. It isn't explained at all in the MoS, which says, "[Logical quotation] ... is used by Wikipedia both because of the principle of minimal change, and also because the method is less prone to misquotation, ambiguity, and the introduction of errors in subsequent editing."

1. What is "the principle of minimal change"?

2. There is no ambiguity, or misquotation issue. If you think there is, can you give a clear example?

3. What is meant by "the introduction of errors in subsequent editing"?

Finell, what do you see as the advantage of recommending this, rather than recommending internal consistency and leaving it at that? Because that would finally put the issue to rest, which is what you seem to want. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 21:46, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

(interjecting, after edit conflict, since SlimVirgin asked me specifically)

I'll try to answer your questions briefly. However, if you want to see every possible argument that can possbily be uttered on the subject, please consult the archives of this talk page (and I don't just mean the last go-round).

1. From Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Quotations, under the sub-heading Minimal change: "Preserve the original text, spelling, and punctuation." Suppose a Wikipedia page legitmately quotes part of that in the following passage: The MOS succinctly prohibits altering the spelling of quoted text: "Preserve the original text [and] spelling". The period follows the closing quotation mark because it is not part of the original text. The so-called typographical or American style would render the same passage as follows: The MOS succinctly prohibits altering the spelling of quoted text: "Preserve the original text [and] spelling." The period, although not part of the quoted material, is placed inside the closing quotation mark because that is more aesthetically pleasing (the aesthetic difference is more pronounced in formally printed work, using a seriffed, proportional typeface and so-called typographical quotation marks). But, this version of the page violates the principle that it is stating: it inserts a punction mark that was not part of the quoted text.

2. Suppose source material reads: The judge demanded, "Bring the prisoner to the bench, and button your jacket before you address the court. The prosecutor silently, very slowly, fastened the four buttons of his jacket, one by one. Then he escorted the prisoner, handcuffed, to the bench, the judge towering over both of them. A Wikipedia article says, following the MOS guideline: The judge said, "Bring the prisoner to the bench". Prosecutor Stone complied. The reader, and also a subsequent editor, knows that the quotation is not a complete sentence because the period is outside. Using the other system, the article reads: The judge said, "Bring the prisoner to the bench." Prosecutor Stone complied. Is the quotation a sentence or a fragment?

3. If Wikipedia switched to the other system, a subsequent editor might erroneously revise this material as follows: The climax of the courtroom drama begins with this sentence: "Bring the prisoner to the bench." The prosecutor complies, but the judge's scolding, uninterrupted, fill the next eight pages. (The editor added the scolding bit by combining the next sentence in the imaginary article.) The article misrepresents the fragment as a sentence.

The reasons stated in the guideline persuaded me, contrary to my aesthetic prevference and the punctuation that I learned, that the guideline is the better choice for Wikipedia. In my opinion, the underlying objection of most objecting editors really reduces to WP:IDONTLIKEIT, most likely because WP:THATISNTHOWILERNEDIT. I disagree with the proposition that, "if it keeps being raised, there is no consensus for it". Consensus does not imply unanimity. Some Wikipedians (and I sincerely do not not include SlimVirgin in this category) will argue about anything. —Finell (Talk) 00:46, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

One could just as easily say that WP:IDONTLIKEIT is how this policy got here in the first place. The question of not being able to tell whether a quotation is only part of a sentence is not a real problem. That is why almost every academic discipline in the U.S., no matter how strict, uses U.S. punctuation. Again, the problem in the examples provided is that the information itself is left out, not that the punctuation causes confusion. Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:08, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Then I did not explain properly. This does count as consensus even though not everyone agrees. Whenever a Wikipedia guideline is to be changed, there must be consensus for the change. It's sort of like the burden of proof being on the prosecution. If the two sides can't agree, then the change doesn't happen. It is more a case of people who want to include American punctuation being outnumbered. The burden of forming a new consensus is on the people who want to make the change.

1. The principle of minimal change is the idea that, in direct quotations, the text from the source should be changed as little as possible. Some Wikipedians believe that American punctuation violates this, but it does not.

2. Correct.

3. Some people believe that if one editor uses American punctuation, and then six months later another editor rewords the passage, that this will introduce errors. However, this is a risk regardless of which style of punctuation is used. The editor must be conscientious and look at the original text. Period.

The bottom line is that in order to know exactly how the original text was punctuated, one must look at the original text. This is just as true of British and logical/technical styles as it is of American style. Darkfrog24 (talk) 22:01, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

My main concern

Just to clarify, I don't mind how most articles tend to be punctuated. It's not a big deal. I do mind editors arriving at articles I'm writing, and changing the punctuation, which means I have to try to remember to write differently, or else the article will end up inconsistent. Or I have to change it all back again. I think that's discourteous, and it violates CITE and the MoS itself. So I am proposing one of two things:

1. We change that part of the MoS to describe the two different punctuation methods, and let people choose which to use, without the MoS recommending one or the other (this would be my preference); or

2. We add a note to that section reminding people not to change the style in stable articles i.e. a courtesy provision.

I don't mind which we do. But I would like to see an end to people imposing this on articles they're otherwise not involved in writing. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 21:56, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

See, most of us do think that punctuation is a big deal. I support 1. with the exception that I would have the punctuation tied to the spelling style. It doesn't matter who's involved and who isn't. It's about what's correct. If I'm reading an article out of the blue and I see a typo, then it's perfectly all right for me to jump in and fix it. Darkfrog24 (talk) 22:01, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, if it's a typo, but there is no right or wrong here, just preference. I don't like to have spent months writing an article, and have someone arrive for three minutes to change my punctuation. It's very annoying. :) Especially because it means I have to keep remembering to write in the same way from that point on, and I never can remember.

I really would not want to see this tied to spelling style. That reinforces, "This is British and therefore must be written this way," even if you, as a British editor, have never done it. I am tired of feeling disenfranchised by that absolutism. :) SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 22:17, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

See, people shouldn't be making style changes for no reason regardless of whether they've been involved in the article before or not. It would have been just as wrong for that person to come in and change one acceptable style to another even if he or she had made a major contribution to that article in the past. That's what I'm talking about.

I happen to be an American, actually, just a rather stuffy one. Darkfrog24 (talk) 22:27, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) for the record, the point about not changing styles in stable articles only applies when the MoS accepts more than one style. so unless consensus is demonstrated for adopting another punctuation style in addition to the so-called "logical style", that kind of "courtesy provision" wouldn't be appropriate. Sssoul (talk) 08:16, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Since this issue keeps coming up, and since a consensus hasn't been reached on this page, would it be worthwhile to open a community RfC? While I understand the reasons why the guidance is there, I suspect that this is one of the most widely-ignored instructions in the MOS, and I doubt that most readers even recognize its significance. It may be useful to get more opinions. Karanacs (talk) 01:07, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Common misconception: There was a consensus according to Wikipedia's operational definition of the term, just not a universal one. I don't know that we need an RfC on this one. Yes, this part of the MoS is frequently challenged, and yes, I feel that that should be a big fat clue, but challenging and changing things is part of the Wikipedia consensus process. New people come in with new ideas, then the issue is discussed again and then the community either forms a new consensus or keeps the old one. This particular issue may bring out strong feelings, but this is how it's supposed to work. 24.187.189.117 (talk) 04:38, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

New-look Manual of Style

A few weeks ago there was extensive discussion on FAC talk about the vast size, complexity and instability of the Manual of Style. On reviewing the text of the MoS, I agree that the Manual is much larger than necessary to cover the areas it does: about 20 thousand words. In particular:

• it is often wordy;
• it provides more examples than necessary;
• it lectures around some of its points in a way that is not strictly necessary;
• it is a little repetitive and disorganised.

As a service to featured-content nominators and reviewers, and editors at larger, I've created a new, user-friendly version of the MoS that is only 40% of the size of the full version. There are no intended changes in substantive meaning. The new version has the following features:

1. brevity and directness of language, including the default use of active voice and contractives;
2. new inline headings for every point, for ease of navigation;
3. the removal of highly specialised points about numbers and dates, which are treated by MOSNUM;
4. the removal of a few other sections that appear to be on the fringe, including Blason;
5. the addition of a Currency section, summarised from MOSNUM.
6. improvements in structural organisation;
7. the use of links by asterisk, to reduce clutter.

Any changes to the full MoS as reflected in the new version will be notified, at the start of each month. Your feedback is welcome on the talk page.Tony (talk) 02:49, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I find some of your shortened texts more confusing than their longer counterparts. Some of it presupposes knowledge of Wikipedia-specific terms and ideas, which is not ideal for a beginner's manual. Overall, it seems pretty good, though. My concern is that its only virtue seems to be that it's shorter. Wouldn't it still be intimidating for new users, even at its current size? Darkfrog24 (talk) 03:08, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Darkfrog, it would probably be most useful to Tony if you could delineate your specific issues on the Talk page set up for such. I think it is far less intimidating than the traditional page and sub-pages approach. --Andy Walsh (talk) 04:39, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Italics for shorthand names of book series?

Against the Giants. It's series of D&D books. Each has its own name, like Steading of the Hill Giant Chief. Each also has a "module code", like G1. The three G books were combined into one book called Against the Giants, with code G1-3 (or maybe G1–3). This happens with a lot of DnD books. Do I italicize the "G"? Would it be "G series", or G1, "G series", or what? There are a ton of article like this, and I'd like to do this correctly. Thanks. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 04:59, 16 September 2009 (UTC)