Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style

What is this? Arabic vs. Muslim/Islamic

Can someone explain the origin of this bizarre note "The adjective Arab (never to be confused with Muslim or Islamic) refers to people and things of ethnic Arab origin. The term Arabic refers to the Arabic language or writing system, and related concepts (Not all Arab people write or converse in Arabic)"? Perhaps the note itself is fine, but the parenthetical "(never to be confused with Muslim or Islamic)" is absolutely absurd. I wonder why we have a specific note on this matter at all, given that no other ethnicity is given this special treatment. I also wonder who would confuse "Muslim or Islamic" with "Arab". Are we writing for the lowest common denominator, here? This just seems downright odd. RGloucester — ☎ 17:53, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

As no one seems to know why this note exists, I'm considering boldly removing it. RGloucester — ☎ 06:00, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

There have been lots of articles about Arab or Islamic scientists such as Alhazen where editors argue over whether to characterize them as Arab, Islamic, Arabic, or something else. I expect it arose out of some of those disputes. Dicklyon (talk) 06:10, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

I think you'll agree with me that the idea of confusing "Arab" with "Islamic" or "Muslim" is absurd, no? This strikes me as instruction creep, and downright absurd instruction creep at that. RGloucester — ☎ 06:19, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

I think it's unclear to a lot of people how to refer to someone from that region and era, when they were both Arab and Islamic. Look at the usage stats. I'm not saying it's a great comment, just letting you know why it probably came to be put there. Dicklyon (talk) 06:27, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't see how it is unclear. They are not mutually exclusive. "Muslim" is not an ethnic identifier, and never has been. Regardless, perhaps that is how it arose, but that's not at all reason for a blurb in the MoS. I can easily name much more complicated ethnic/national identities that are not mentioned, and which are much more problematic. RGloucester — ☎ 06:43, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't think the unclarity is related to any issue of mutual exclusivity. Dicklyon (talk) 07:02, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

What is the issue? Follow reliable sources. Otherwise, if someone is "Arab" and "Muslim", one can call that person "an Arab Muslim". I don't understand what is hard about this. That's what the article you mentioned, Alhazen, does. RGloucester — ☎ 07:12, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

In protracted arguments that I have seen, the sources are mixed, and in some cases seem to themselves be confused. It's very hard to know how to characterize people from distant history, in terms of the presumed religious, ethnic, and cultural situation of their time and place. Like the thing about whether Maxwell is of Scottish nationality. Simple question, complicated arguments. Maybe you can straighten them out. Dicklyon (talk) 07:22, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

It seems to have been inserted as part of this 2007 edit. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 06:38, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Clarification over the use of "Arab" vs "Arabic" was included in February 2005 and reworded in July 2005. RGloucester had deleted it entirely but I have restored it sans the unnecessary "Muslim or Islamic" remark as the advice is otherwise useful and has been fairly stable for almost a decade. The above discussion was mainly about the "Muslim or Islamic" remark rather than the "Arab" vs "Arabic" advice as a whole. —sroc 💬 19:36, 29 December 2014 (UTC) [added link to July 2005 version 19:43, 29 December 2014 (UTC)]

If we're doing that, it seems odd that "Arabian" is not included. "Arabian" is used to refer to things from the Arabia, i.e. the Arabian Peninsula. RGloucester — ☎ 19:38, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

If we're doing what? The current wording has barely changed since July 2005. You were querying the "(never to be confused with Muslim or Islamic)" remark which is now gone. If you want to propose another change, do so, but is there any indication that further clarification on proper usage is suddenly needed? —sroc 💬 19:47, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

My opinion is that it should be eliminated all together. Unless we are going to provide a breakdown for all ethnicities, there is no reason why we should give special treatment in the MoS to "Arab" and "Arabic". This is instruction creep. If we're going to include this little note, then we should be comprehensive and include "Arabian", as well. RGloucester — ☎ 19:58, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

By the way, I think someone should take a look at the "Ethiopian"/"African" example, as that seems to be positing some kind of colonial point of view. RGloucester — ☎ 19:58, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

If it's instruction creep, it's a very slow creep – it's been there for a decade! "Arab"/"Arabic" is a special case because it has variant forms (and presumably it has been a source of confusion) so an explanation is justified to guide editors on proper usage. Same goes for the note on preferring "Jew" over "Jewish people". It doesn't mean other ethnicities or religions need mentioning for the sake or balance or completeness. Do you have any specific proposals on what to say about "Arabian" – or do you just have a vague sense that something must be said? —sroc 💬 21:24, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Merely because it has been there doesn't mean it should be. "Presumably it has been a source of confusion" is an odd thing to say. There has been plenty of confusion about "British/Scottish/English/Irish/Welsh, &c.", as mentioned by Mr Lyon, but I don't see a note saying "British, never to be confused with English", or any such similar nonsense. The note about "Jew" is an example, not a special note dealing with usage of the word "Jew". Why does this particular case, which doesn't seem that confusing at all, have its own special bullet in MOS:IDENTITY? What does it even have to do with "identity"? Regardless, if we must have a note on the "variant forms" you mention, it does not make sense to exclude one of those variant forms, i.e. "Arabian". RGloucester — ☎ 21:32, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

• The advice on proper use of "Arab" vs "Arabic" is good and Wikipedia is better for having it.
• The fact that its inclusion hasn't led to a plethora of notes on other ethnicities proves instruction creep isn't a concern.
• You still haven't indicated what you think should be said about "Arabian", only that something should be said. (The reasoning "We say X so we must say Y too" would be a symptom of instruction creep that you were apparently concerned about.)

—sroc 💬 02:52, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Why is Wikipedia "better" for it? What exactly does it accomplish? Nothing. It doesn't make any sense. It is an oddly specific note. No one has demonstrated what purpose it actually serves in the MoS. In this, it reminds me of the British milk rule at MOS:UNIT. Regardless, if you want to write it properly, it must be as follows: "The adjective 'Arabian' refers to people and things from the Arabia, i.e. the Arabian Peninsula. Not all Arabs are Arabian, and they are never 'Arabic'. 'Arabic' refers solely to the Arabic language, writing system, and related concepts. The adjective 'Arab' can refer to people or things from across the Arab world. Not all Arabs speak or write Arabic, and most Arabs are not from Arabia.

The present guidance is actually wrong, in that it says that "Arab" as an adjective refers to things of "ethnic Arab origin". "Arab" refers to a wider linguistic and cultural identity that is not based on ethnic origin, and includes many arabised peoples. RGloucester — ☎ 03:08, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

RG, English-speaking people in general often confuse "Arab" with "Muslim"/"Islamic." It's a common mistake made by nonprofessional writers. English-speaking people in general and nonprofessional writers are Wikipedia's editors and the MoS's audience, so a pre-emptive correction is offered (not even pre-emptive if people were making this mistake in the article space years ago). In contrast, people don't generally say "Irish" when they really mean "Catholic" or "Baptist" when they really mean "Texan," so there's no need to offer any instruction on the matter (per WP:NOTBROKEN). This is comparable to telling people how to use apostrophes in possessives of words that end in S. People often mess it up; the MoS provides clarification.

Please clarify your position. Do you think that Arabs and Muslims are the same (in which case I can show you some evidence that might put your mind at ease) or do you just think the MoS shouldn't mention it? Darkfrog24 (talk) 03:21, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

No, I don't think "Arabs" and "Muslims" are the same, and no one else does either. No one confuses "Arab" with "Muslim". Please cite some sources that show that people are so idiotic as to confuse ethnic/national identity with religion. No one says "Irish" when they mean "Catholic", nor does anyone say "Arab" when they mean "Muslim". That's the most outrageous neo-colonial outlook I've ever heard. It seems that your definition of "people in general" is the lowest common denominator of idiots in western countries who are so parochial as to not understand a basic distinction. RGloucester — ☎ 03:27, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Your request for sources showing that confusing "Arab" and "Muslim" is a common mistake is more than reasonable. I found these in a brief Google search: See first line [1]; according to this, the New York Times made this mistake at least once [2]; and this one [3]; also, remember the time at one of McCain's 2008 presidential campaign speeches when the old lady called Obama an "A-rab"?

But if you run a similar search for "Irish" vs "Catholic," you won't see this kind of mistake. That's why the MoS should provide guidance for Arab/Muslim but not for, say, Irish/Catholic. Darkfrog24 (talk) 22:15, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Capitalization of "sun"

This has come up before, but It doesn't appear that a true, official consensus was formed.

i believe "sun" should never be capitalized unless it is the first word in a sentence, or other extenuating circumstances. Although the sun presently refers to a specific star to us, that was not known at the time the word came into being. And, if, let's say, what if you speak English but live on a planet in another solar system? Wouldn't the star your planet orbits be "the sun"? In English-language sci-fi literature and film, usually stars with planets orbiting them are referred to as "suns," as in the Star Wars universe, Tatooine has "two suns." In the Superman universe, Krypton had a red sun and Earth had a yellow sun that give him his powers. It simply doesn't make sense that all of a sudden the capitalization of a word would change. And NO, I don't want to call it 'Sol'. -- Dougie WII (talk) 08:49, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

I think experts in the field would riot at the idea of downcasing the Sun, that is, "Sol", to give it its titular name. But your example of "the two suns" is perfectly correct—I suppose it's "the two stars" in a local solar-system context (just not our solar system). Tony (talk) 13:11, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

• Experts haven't been downgrading the sun, it's been the populous that has been upgrading it. Historically it has always been a common noun. -- Dougie WII (talk) 09:13, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

@Dougie WII: For future reference, the word you want there is "populace", not its homophone. --Thnidu (talk) 04:13, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

If the context is limited to the :olar System, as in "the sun rose", sun can usually be interpreted as a common noun, but proper nouns should always be capitalized, as in

• "Fomalhaut b is a recently discovered exoplanet about 25 light-years from the Sun."

--Boson (talk) 13:44, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

The guideline here seems confusing:

When used generally, the words sun, earth, and moon do not take capitals (The sun was peeking over the mountain top; The tribal people of the Americas thought of the whole earth as their home), except when the entity is personified (Sol Invictus ("Unconquered Sun") was the Roman sun god) or when the term names a specific astronomical body (The Moon orbits the Earth; but Io is a moon of Jupiter).

The instruction to capitalise "when the term names a specific astronomical body" suggest capitalising Sun and Earth when referring to those in our Solar System and Moon when referring to the Earth's moon, contradicting the first two examples (i.e., should it be The Sun was peeking over the mountain top and The tribal people of the Americas thought of the whole Earth as their home?). The guidance at MOSCAPS is much clearer:

The words sun, earth, moon and solar system are capitalized (as proper names) when used in an astronomical context to refer to a specific celestial body (our Sun, Earth, Moon and Solar System): The Sun is the star at the center of the Solar System; The Moon orbits the Earth. They are not capitalized when used outside an astronomical context (The sky was clear and the sun felt warm), or when used in a general sense (Io is a moon of Jupiter). However, they are capitalized in personifications, as in Sol Invictus ("Unconquered Sun") was the Roman sun god.

Can MOS be revised to more clearly reflect MOSCAPS on this? —sroc 💬 14:17, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

It really can not be improved because it can be confusing in instructional use everywhere. According to some instructions: Correct; "I live on earth.", "I live on Earth that is warmed by the Sun" (used with other capitalized celestial bodies). "The Earth we live on is warmed by the Sun." (same). Earth (or Sun) as a proper noun is capitalized. Common nouns are generally not especially when following an article such as the earth, a sun, or a planet. A "specific" astronomical body would be a proper noun. Using earth or sun in reference to a surface or stratum would not be capitalized like "the surface of the earth", "the surface of the sun", "...hotter than the surface of the sun", However, "The Sun is very hot" would be capitalized. Following the above it would seem that Krypton had a red sun and Earth had a yellow sun (specific astronomical context and two used in the same sentence,) would be wrong except that when sun is used as a synonym for star, Krypton is not in our Solar System, and both are following "a". Confused yet?` — Preceding unsigned comment added by Otr500 (talk • contribs)

@Otr500: "It really can not be improved..." Well, it can and it must. The current guidance at MOS is confusing as "generally, the words sun, earth, and moon do not take capitals" is at odds with "when the term names a specific astronomical body" which implies that "Sun", "Earth" and "Moon" should be capitalised when referring to the Sun, the Earth (is there any other, apart from "dirt"?) and the Moon – and it's contradicted by MOSCAPS. The guidance at MOSCAPS is clear and we'd be better off just copy-pasting it here. At the very least, it should be amended along the lines:

When used generally, the words sun, earth, and moon do not take capitals (The sun was peeking over the mountain top; The tribal people of the Americas thought of the whole earth as their home), except when the entity is personified (Sol Invictus ("Unconquered Sun") was the Roman sun god) or when used as the names of specific bodies in an astronomical context (The Moon orbits the Earth; but Io is a moon of Jupiter).

The words "When used generally" are also misplaced, since the exceptions fall outside the "general" uses. —sroc 💬 18:58, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

@Sroc:: Concerning "It really can not be improved...": My bad, I actually meant the overall capitalization concept has issues depending on what style is consulted. We can certainly make whatever improvements we need so that it will make more sense when presented here. I hit an edit conflict (twice today) and see I missed re-signing my comments. Anyway, we do need to reconcile to conflicting areas as best we can. You didn't mention issues with what I stated and I don't argue with needed improvements you mentioned. Either someone else needs to chime in or just boldly fix it and we can deal with anyone that gets ruffled feathers. Otr500 (talk) 23:31, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

I've already boldly fixed it. —sroc 💬 02:46, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't see consensus sufficient to reverse the longstanding practice here. "The Sun", when referring to Sol, is a proper name, astronomical context or not. --Trovatore (talk) 04:20, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

@Trovatore:What do you mean "reverse the longstanding practice"? The change that you reverted merely brought the summary at MOS in line with the specific guideline at MOSCAPS, as discussed above. —sroc 💬 04:38, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

By the way, this has been the guidance at MOSCAPS since it was created in 2006. —sroc 💬 04:46, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

The reference to "an astronomical context" was removed in this edit in 2009 by Greg L which, in my view, causes confusion in cases where the names of celestial bodies are used generally. The reference to "astronomical context" should be restored to clarify this distinction and maintain consistency with MOSCAPS. —sroc 💬 05:11, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

I disagree. MOSCAPS should be changed to capitalize all the proper-noun instances; that is, all the cases where "Sun" or "Moon" is being used as the name of a unique body, rather than a description of it. --Trovatore (talk) 05:32, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Then you need to raise this at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters. Note that the advice at MOSCAPS has stated to use lowercase for general use since 2006 when it was ported from MOS. The advice here at MOS still maintains this, it is just poorly written. If you want to change the guidelines, you need to establish consensus. Otherwise, my correction here should be reinstated for the sake of clarity and consistency with MOSCAPS. —sroc 💬 06:49, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

This has been the rule here for years, and lots of the MOS regulars always insist that in cases of conflict, the main MOS takes precedence. I think you're the one who needs to establish consensus for a change. --Trovatore (talk) 07:08, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

I think you are mistaken as to what MOS currently says, namely:

When used generally, the words sun, earth, and moon do not take capitals (The sun was peeking over the mountain top; The tribal people of the Americas thought of the whole earth as their home), except when the entity is personified (Sol Invictus ("Unconquered Sun") was the Roman sun god) or when the term names a specific astronomical body (The Moon orbits the Earth; but Io is a moon of Jupiter).

Thus, MOS already says that the use of "sun", "earth" and "moon" are lowercase in everyday context (e.g., "The sun was setting") but not in an astronomical context (e.g., "They re-entered Earth's orbit"). I only seek to clarify the wording as this seems to be a source of confusion. What you are seeking to do is to change the rule to say that "the Sun", "the Earth" and "the Moon" should always be capitalised (e.g., "The Sun was setting") which would be a substantive change to both MOS and MOSCAPS, and therefore would require consensus. —sroc 💬 13:20, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

It says "names an astronomical body", not "in an astronomical context". I think this is important. If it's the named body in question, then it should be capitalized, whether we're talking about astronomy or not.

I might give you "the sun was setting", because the Sun does not really set. You could maybe stretch a point to claim that it's the sun, in the sense of sunlight, that's disappearing.

But here's a non-astronomical context where I would really want to insist on "Sun": Communications were disrupted by interference from charged particles coming from the Sun.. --Trovatore (talk) 20:55, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Cant we just say "our sun"? -- Dougie WII (talk) 09:31, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

It looks to me like book usage is mostly lower case even in cases that would be interpreted as referring specifically to the Earth's sun, as in "The sun", "our sun", "rising sun", "setting sun", etc. There must be some more specific context in which capitalization is considered to be appropriate, or required. Perhaps "astronomical context" is good guidance for caps? Dicklyon (talk) 06:44, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

You may very well be right that that is the more popular usage in books. But this is a case, like logical punctuation, where we have had the better rule, the more "logical" one, in place, and I would be very reluctant to backslide on that.

The common noun/proper noun distinction, in English, is the distinction between something being described and being named. Granted, there are fuzzy cases, where you have a description that only one object satisfies, and it's not entirely clear whether it's being used as a description, or as a name.

But I would argue that it's quite clear in the cases at hand. The Sun is a particular hot ball of gas. Other hot balls of gas are poetically "suns", but the more common common-noun use of "sun" is in the sense of "sunlight". It's perfectly clear which of these to treat as a name.

Similarly with Earth, a particular ball of rock, versus earth, which is dirt. There's earth on Mars, that good red Martian earth.

We should keep this distinction. --Trovatore (talk) 07:04, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

I see a confusion creeping in in the last couple of posts. Try substitution of other objects and compare. "The cow jumped over the moon" refers to a specific cow and a specific moon by virtue of the article "the", yet the linguistic use is of a common noun, not a proper name: we do not capitalize "cow" when preceded by "the". Proper names sometimes include a pronoun, as in "the Beatles", even though it is not necessarily capitalized. Imagine that we had two moons, as Mars does. The sentence "The cow jumped over the moon" would still make sense, but would imply that which moon was being referred to was obvious from the context (e.g. by virtue of being visible or previously selected, while the other wasn't). Similarly, we could have had a binary primary: two suns, and would still have used "the sun" when context dictated which sun was being referred to. The determination of whether the intended interpretation is of a common noun or a proper name is quite subtle, but I would suggest that if preceded by an article, unless there is clear reason to regard it as a label used to specifically distinguish it from other objects of the same class (resp. suns, earths and moons), "sun", "earth" and "moon" should always be treated as common noun. —Quondum 20:34, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

"The cow" is a description, not a name. We are referring to a specific cow, yes, but she is not named "Cow". At least she probably is not. All that we are saying is that we have a specific individual in mind, who satisfies the predicate "is a cow".

On the other hand, "the Moon" is a name, not a description, like "Luna" in Latin or "Selene" in Greek. Yes, if we had two moons, then you could indeed say "the cow jumped over the moon", and you might not be sure without further context which moon was being referred to. But in that case they would probably have individual names, distinct from "Moon".

If you are saying that you think that that English phrase is using "moon" as a description rather than a name, then I'm afraid I just think you're wrong. I admit I'm not sure how to prove it. --Trovatore (talk) 20:44, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

I think it is easy to disprove though. Names conventionally start with a capital letter. If "moon" was a name, you would always see it with capital letter and style guides would not advise against using one. It's not a moon called Moon, it's just the moon. Except in specific contexts (where an exception to the rule might apply), it doesn't need a name, so it doesn't have one. Formerip (talk) 21:46, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm in full agreement with FormerIP here. Sometimes triviality confounds our initial impulses. Trovatore seem to be insisting that a set with one element suddenly implies that the description of the set necessarily becomes an identifier for the solitary element. In this instance, we are dealing with a particular set of moons. —Quondum 21:54, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

No, I'm not insisting that, not at all. Something can be a description even if there is only one object that answers to the description. However, "Sun", "Earth", and "Moon" are all names. --Trovatore (talk) 22:05, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Suggesting that they should never be in lower case? Ever? That to refer to the moons of Jupiter is incorrect English, and that we should be saying "the satellites of Jupiter", and that we should say that extrasolar planets orbit their own stars, never their own suns? —Quondum 22:12, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I can't resist: "Moon orbits Earth, which in turns orbits Sun." —Quondum 22:15, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Huh? No, not at all. The common-noun meaning of "moon" is "natural satellite". But when we talk about the Moon, we mean the natural satellite of the Earth, which is a named entity. If we were having this discussion on Mars, "the Moon" would still mean Earth's natural satellite, not one of the Martian ones. --Trovatore (talk) 22:22, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

I doubt it. Following your logic, though, why do we not use capitals for "the sky", "the world", "the government" and so on? Formerip (talk) 22:45, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Pockets of Over-capitalization

Every now and then I run into a cluster of articles titled with caps, and riddled with over-capitalization internally. I used to just fix them, and usually got no comments when doing so. But it seems that more often I'm finding a few zealots who want their stuff capitalized as "proper names", even though sources are very mixed, or in some cases even overwhelmingly lowercase. There's no question that WP:NCCAPS and MOS:CAPS call for lowercase in these situations, yet the "fist shaking" (as SMcCandlish puts it) of the zealots, and the general apathy of most editors about matters of style, sometimes make it hard to get the obvious outcome if these are taken to Requested Move discussion. And even when the consensus seems clear, it appears that admins fear to close them (see the backlog at WP:RM, which includes the Pottawatomie Massacre discussion that's over 3 weeks old, for what looks like an easy case).

The latest cluster I noticed is around the term "Championship Game". Sources are clear, but WP titles are way over-capitalized.

Example: User:AAlertBot makes alerts to wikiprojects such as Wikipedia:WikiProject Politics, where Talk:African-American Civil Rights Movement (1954–68) is included under Announcements, which is possibly why User:Calidum, a member of that wikiproject, shows up to oppose the capitalization fix, giving no reason except "forgive me for not wanting to rehash every argument presented by those opposing the move".

Would it be a sensible idea to advertise here at WT:MOS all RM discussions that invoke MOS style issues? Many wikiprojects seem to list related RMs automatically, bringing out their specialists thereby. Would it be bad form for people who care about style guidance to have such a scheme, too? Dicklyon (talk) 05:18, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

That's canvassing, pure and simple. This "we know better than you" attitude reminds me of "Esperanza". Who exactly are "people who care about style guidance"? That sounds like the recipe for a cabal. You can try asking at Wikipedia talk:Canvassing, but I don't think the reception will be positive. RGloucester — ☎ 05:20, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

RGloucester is no doubt chief zeolot, who presents not-very-convincing yet loud challenges to evidence of clear majority downcasing from ngrams; I think a number of editors are becoming sick of this negative input. Just recently, he reverted my downcasing of several titles in the area of Australian federal politics: "[Surname of prime minister] Ministry" (an area, incidentally, in which the main texts are riddled with vanity capping that look suspiciously like contributions from ministerial staffers). This is despite the fact that the articles on Australian state ministries tend to be downcased—a matter RGloucester seemed to pass over. RGloucester, please calm down and stop the zealotry, which at times can be a little aggressive. Tony (talk) 05:38, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Cease with the personal attacks. I'm no "zealot" (I've agreed with the vast majority of the changes, but disagreed with the procedure), and said that I would support a decapitalisation of those articles if done in bulk at an RM to avoid inconsistency in the category. You've not opened the RM. RGloucester — ☎ 06:03, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Actually, RGloucester has backed off on that, but finds other ways to throw wrenches into discussions, as at Talk:African-American Civil Rights Movement (1954–68), where his Oppose vote says he favors the decapitalization that I proposed. Dicklyon (talk) 06:06, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

I've not thrown a single spanner in my life. It's a crap constructed title, fails WP:UCN, WP:CONCISE, and a variety of other junk. I'm not going to support a junk title. I hope people see the light and support my proposal, which is better for the encylopaedia. I hope you understand that the bot sending notices to Wikiprojects that have tagged an article is acceptable, but you canvassing support from "people who care about style guidance" is not. That's a form of advocacy, and I don't see why you can't understand that. As far as the particulars of !votes with no substance, the closer is supposed to strike those, as I'm sure you know. By the way, you pinged Calidum, so I don't know why you're bringing up this canard in this instance. RGloucester — ☎ 06:10, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Good point on the ping! So, abstractly, does advertising at projects seems like a fair thing if we can't advertise here? Dicklyon (talk) 06:19, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Tony1, I'm not really referring to RGloucester, as much as to the fact that each area or wikiproject is likely to have one or a few zealots of this sort. He was the zealot for riots and massacres, but not due to a wikiproject as far as I know. And Randy Kryn is the zealot for the civil rights movements articles; he didn't come via a project either; but some of those supporting him likely did. RG says this kind of project advertising is OK, but if we do advertising here, that would be canvassing. Does that make sense? Dicklyon (talk) 06:17, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

It does, because this is not a project. It does not tag articles. You are outright saying that you want to come here and ask people that "care about style guidance" to influence move discussions that they would not otherwise be apart of, for the express purpose of supporting your position. As I said, you should ask at Wikipedia talk:Canvassing. If you want to "bring titles into accord with guidelines", you are still subject to the same processes as everyone else. File a requested move. RGloucester — ☎ 06:28, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Right, we at MOS do not tag articles, since our guidance, and our concerns, span all articles. So we can't get AAlertBot to make automatic announcements for us. So, is there some other way to keep informed about relevant workflow items? And yes I expect that they would likely support my position if they care about style issues and the guidance of MOS, but they might not support me if my position is wrong. More generally, many others propose RMs with style issues; sometimes they will be supported by those who believe in the guidance of MOS, and sometimes they will not be. Dicklyon (talk) 06:49, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Who is "us"? There are no members of the MoS. It is not a project. Please use the existing channels. RGloucester — ☎ 07:01, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Exactly. No members. This talk page is a central place for people who care about MOS style issues. Dicklyon (talk) 07:07, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

No, it is a page for discussing changes to the guideline. RGloucester — ☎ 07:09, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

OK, this page is for discussing changes to MOS. Where do we take discussions of application of MOS then? Dicklyon (talk) 07:12, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

To the pages in question. File an RM like everyone else in the world does when they want to change a longstanding article title. RGloucester — ☎ 07:17, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

(I've added a comment below, thanks) Randy Kryn 12:32 30 December, 2014 (UTC)

A 'zealot' for the civil rights articles, am I? Thank god for that, someone has to step in at some point. I came to be a zealot because Dicklyon changed all the titles of the CRM pages to lower-case, and I reverted. He then gave me the Dick-lyon treatment on my talk page. I found, through looking at his recent contributions, that he was trying to decapitalize such long-standing event names as the Pullman Strike, the Homestead Strike and Watts Riot - all of which have become proper names used by labor historians, historical societies, and universities. I opposed those changes, as I've done the attempt (on a week when many people are on holiday or otherwise occupied) on the CRM pages, which have been consistent and correctly titled since their inception. Methinks the term 'zealot' may be being used here as a mirror effect. In my limited viewpoint of this issue, and this is a personal viewpoint from coming in in the middle (or is it the endgame? See how personal viewpoints work...) of what I'm becoming aware is a long-term effort, what I see is an editor looking to de-emphasize, on Wikipedia, the major labor and social movements of the 20th Century. I may have come upon this late, and do not know what has occurred before these attempts, but I do know that the capitalization of the proper names of the civil rights movement pages is very common, very sensible, has clear concise arguments why they should remain as they are, and if trying to protect Wikipedia's legacy in this field is being a zealot then I'll borrow a childhood favorite's sword and cut a large 'Z' on my clothes (or is it applied as a scarlet letter on this go-around?). Bottom line, this site has the best civil rights movement pages on the web, imnho, and they can only continue to improve as more data is added and refined. Randy Kryn 12:26 30 December, 2014 (UTC)

Championship Game titles

And how might we go about bringing the Championship Game titles into accord with guidelines? Dicklyon (talk) 06:22, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Maybe by....leaving them alone? Championship Game seems like something which would be a proper name, when applied to games with teams I like. When it's teams I don't like, even if other people do, then change them to lower-case! That'll teach 'em. Am I playing the game right? Randy Kryn 13:05 30 December, 2014 (UTC)

Exactly how do you define "proper name", Randy? This is a critical question that the capping brigade just ... will ... not ... answer. Could you break the impasse, then, here? Tony (talk) 13:07, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

My comment in this section was more or less going on expressions like 'The Big Game', etc. (will 'Super Bowl' ever be 'Super bowl' - in effect, just another dish?). But with something like the African-American Civil Rights Movement pages, the proper name comes when a series of events are looked at by historians and others as a unit, an era in which major shifts in societal agreements were looked at and acted upon by a small group of people (the core of the movement was really about 20 people or less - pulling that number out of my hat but it seems about right, with the top-tier of the movement actually ending up to be two people), which created a national dialogue, and that dialogue (brought about by concise and well-planned use of Gandhian-principals and nonviolent technology) then changed agreements which had been in place for hundreds, if not thousands, of years. This was done, or at least finally accomplished, from 1960 to 1966, by people who had the know-how to do it. It is as important an era, an event, in world history as the American Revolution, or French Revolution. When things reach that level, I and many others see them, experience them, as proper names. Maybe what constitutes a proper name is when a large percentage of a population, or a large percentage of academics and historians, see the topic as such. For those of us who, for example, see the 'Pullman Strike' as a single-event (although made up of hundreds of other events), the capitalization seems not only appropriate but essential. It all comes down to, as everything does, viewpoint, and sometimes accepting that other viewpoints are valid, especially on pages here which have had the same names since their inception, is as easy as just letting them alone. If my experience with disagreements like this check-out, Dicklyon and I may become buds at some point, and take turns buying each other real or virtual beers (or buds). Right now there is a point of view difference, I've been called a zealot because of that (huh?), and am having my Zorro cape and mask darned (actually I used to have a Zorro cape and mask as a kid, wish I'd kept them). Thanks for being polite. Randy Kryn 13:40 30 December, 2014 (UTC)

I'm glad you admit the parallels between the different things that people hold dear and want to honor by capitalizing. But that is not WP's style. I don't think you have to worry about "Super Bowl", as it is consistently treated as a proper name in sources, like the "French Revolution" is. Dicklyon (talk) 22:30, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

That's quite a selective reading of my comment. That's what you saw in it, what you took from it? Okay. As for the Super Bowl, that was a satiric comment, of course nobody would attempt to change an obvious name (I heard that someone actually tried to change Monroe Doctrine to Monroe doctrine once). Randy Kryn 19:42 31 December, 2014 (UTC)

Not so much a selective reading as a selective thanking. Cheers! Dicklyon (talk) 00:42, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

The problem is that an RM discussion will probably attract mostly football fans, and they'll want to capitalize what's important to them, as Randy does with what's important to him. To me, these things are all important; I have nothing against football championship games, or civil rights movements, or riots and massacres, but I tend to agree that WP looks more professional as we work to implement the style guidelines. There don't seem to be enough people who agree with me anymore though, so maybe I'll give it up; at least until I retire and have nothing better to do... Dicklyon (talk) 23:18, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Deciding what to capitalize

@Tony1: as I suspect you well know, Tony, there is no clear definition which applies to all proper names in English. "Prototypical proper names" like Jane, John Doe, Washington or New York, are easy to recognize using grammatical tests, and it seems that we all agree to capitalize them. "Non-prototypical proper names" like White House, Prime Minister, French Revolution or General Strike (in each case referring to one unique entity) are not easy to recognize by grammatical tests. Their capitalization is a convention which has changed over time and is still changing, and which differs somewhat between variants of English. Thus as an elderly Briton, I would capitalize Prime Minister in both "The Prime Minister spoke to the press today" (meaning the current British Prime Minister) and in "Many Commonwealth countries have a Prime Minister", whereas other people would decapitalize either the second or both. All we can hope for in Wikipedia is some measure of consistency (so why Prime minister but Secretary of State?). Peter coxhead (talk) 23:28, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

I think that's why MOS:CAPS suggests the test "consistently capitalized in sources"; where that's not the case, the caps are "unnecessary". Dicklyon (talk) 04:25, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

@Dicklyon: the problem with "consistently capitalized in sources" is that in many problematic cases there isn't consistency, so people pick their sources (e.g. if you want the English names of species in lower case, you disregard all "specialized" sources; for other capitalization cases you choose your ENGVAR carefully). This quickly becomes circular: "X isn't a reliable source because it does/doesn't capitalize." Clear rules for categories of noun phrase, like job titles, are easier for everyone to follow and ensure greater consistency. Peter coxhead (talk) 13:13, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

I've seen that problem only a little. In the case of species common names, the specialist sources are a minority anyway, so excluding them doesn't change the picture. Changing ENGVAR seldom makes much difference, and seldom comes up, but if it did and it was shown that caps are consistent in the variety that the article is written in, that would seem like an OK argument at least. I certainly agree on the need for more clear rules; we have that written down already for some things, like job titles, and that helps a bit. Perhaps the Chief Mechanical Engineer was the odd corner case where the more consistent caps in British English conflicted with our stated rules, but even if that's what you're getting at, that's a one-in-a-thousand problem. I'm talking about the everyday overcapitalization of things like riots, strikes, movements, games, and so many other things, including many where caps are not even very common, and people still insist they're "necessary" in some made-up sense. Dicklyon (talk) 16:13, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Peter, I want to know how Randy defines proper names, since he's made his case depend on it. Still waiting to hear from him on this. "Secretary of state" should definitely be downcased if not attached to a specific secretary of state. The fact that you're elderly (I am almost that) is no explanation or justification for rigidity. Tony (talk) 05:12, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Tony, re rigidity, I agree, but equally I'm as entitled to my preferences as anyone else is to theirs, and the truth is that a lot of the argument about capitalization and other style issues is ultimately just a matter of preference. If you want to apply the "consistently capitalized in sources" test, by the way, according to Google ngrams, "a Prime Minister" is marginally more common in British English than "a Prime Minister" and "a Secretary of State" more common in US English than "a secretary of state", so both should be capitalized on this test. Peter coxhead (talk) 13:13, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Peter: "more common" and "marginally more common" don't equal "consistently" capped. Tony (talk) 14:53, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

The problem is cases where the proper name of a game, or anything for that matter, is identical, except for the capitalization, to a simple descriptive phrase. For example, the "NFC Championship Game" is just what it says on the tin, the championship game of the National Football Conference, one of two in the NFL. Just because that is the case, and newspapers and other writers may use the non-proper-noun descriptor version ("NFC championship game") in use does not make it any less of a proper noun. Just that they're getting it wrong. And proper nouns are capitalized in English. It's not about importance, promotion or any other such assumption of bad faith it's factually correct. Hate to tell you this, but newspapers and magazines, the principle source of sports writing and sports writers aren't exactly the most careful when it comes to grammatical rules because of the deadlines they work under (and yes it bleeds into their books too). We aren't under such a deadline, so no reason we can't actually treat proper nouns as proper nouns, even if the non-proper version is a perfectly accurate descriptor as well. oknazevad (talk) 17:14, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

@Oknazevad: but this is where Tony's earlier challenge comes in – provide a clear definition of a "proper noun/noun phrase/name" independent of whether it is capitalized or not. This is exceedingly difficult to do, so it's not a helpful rule to say that "proper nouns are capitalized in English". Peter coxhead (talk) 22:09, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

For a comical example of the bullshit that people will emit to avoid complying with MOS:CAPS, see Talk:Rose Bowl Game#Requested move 31 December 2014. I didn't expect much better, based on last time, but I didn't expect to attract two new parroters of the theory that didn't pan out last time. Dicklyon (talk) 04:25, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

This comment is exceedingly asinine. Personal attacks, assumption if bad faith, canvassing and authoritarianistic tendencies all rolled into one. Instead of actually, just maybe accepting that you're wrong about the facts or the interpretation of guidelines you immediately call the opinion of anyone who disagrees with you "bullshit". You're not some specially enlightened being we must all defer to. You're just another editor who is incorrect. Again. Happens. But most people can accept that when numerous other editors point I out to them. Instead you arrogantly insult everyone else. Utterly unacceptable. oknazevad (talk) 17:12, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Here bullshit is a term of art meaning 'nonsense', especially in a rebuking response to communication or actions viewed as deceiving, misleading, disingenuous, or false. The claims that "Rose Bowl game" might frequently mean something other than the Rose Bowl Game is demonstrably false, and was invoked here in a misleading and disingenuous way, in my opinion. If nobody has been able to find a single example of what they are claiming to be skewing the book usage statistics, why are they repeating that silly claim except to deceive? (It might not be clear, but this comment was posted here after just the first two responses there; the ones that invoked this known-false strawman; it was not intended to say that everyone there is emitting bullshit, just the first two. Though JonRidinger's point added later is also bullshit.) Dicklyon (talk) 17:41, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

I read the section, and if the full title 'Rose Bowl Game' is used then it's correct (there are many games played in Rose Bowl Stadium, but only one Rose Bowl Game), but I have no idea why the page isn't named 'Rose Bowl', the common name of this game. Like dogs barking up the wrong tree, that should be the discussion on that page, not the other. But yeah, Dicklyon, you are a little harsh in your comment here about that perfectly reasonable talk in progress. Still, it seems they're talking about the wrong thing. Randy Kryn 19:37 31 December, 2014 (UTC)

Randy, you're just regurgitating their bullshit. Have you found a single instance of where "Rose Bowl game" refers to a game played in the Rose Bowl other than the bowl game? The proper way to disambiguate the stadium from the game is also under discussion; I'd prefer natural disambiguation, but I'm losing that one, too. So it goes. Dicklyon (talk) 00:42, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

To throw oil on troubled water (and light it), these are time-varying proper nouns, and probably shouldn't be used at all in an encyclopedia, except with the year, which would make them proper adjectives, which should not be capitalized. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:31, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

I have no idea what you're talking about. But it's New Year's Eve, so light it up! Dicklyon (talk) 00:42, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Other humorously stupid (stupidly humorous?) comments against decapitalization come from people who don't bother reading what the question is about, or what the evidence says, like [4]: "[caps] are necessary to show that they are proper names and not names of a generic phenomenon ("Let's have a pullman strike this week.") or a descriptive (Who struck which "pullman"?)" Sheesh. Dicklyon (talk) 03:53, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

And another fairly idiotic nonsequitur: "Something has to be the most common word following "Rose Bowl". That doesn't mean that word should part of the proper name.". Why don't people think? Dicklyon (talk) 05:57, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

I never knew this, but it does seem the real name of the game (although I'd say "Rose Bowl" would be its common name) is 'Rose Bowl Game' with the capital 'G'. It was all over the television presentation of the game yesterday, and was used in other forms. As the old football saying goes, "I learn something new every day (or is it 'knew' every day, as in "I knew the name of the game is Rose Bowl and now I know it is 'Rose Bowl Game'"). Who gnu? So I guess the voters on the page were right, although if you go for a common name change I'd vote on that one (I wonder when people are going to try to add the corporate sponsors to the 'Common names' of bowl games). Randy Kryn 10:40 2 January, 2015 (UTC)

Not clear what you mean by "real name". The "official name" is given in the article, but it's too long to use. The common names are "Rose Bowl" and "Rose Bowl game", according to usage stats. Dicklyon (talk) 16:34, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Back to the question

The question is really about how to make progress. I felt it was useful to work toward consistency with guidelines, but nowadays that is made difficult by editors who are unwilling or unable to look at the evidence from sources, unwilling to treat guidelines as important, and zealous about protecting the capitalization of things important to them. We got past this on birds, and on lots of small pockets of over-capitalization that I hesitate to mention, but now we're hung up on a few oddities like Watts Riots and Pullman Strike and Rose Bowl Game, as well as the African-American Civil Rights Movement articles. The only thing special that I can see about these is their fan base that is perfectly willing the ignore the preponderance of lowercase usage in books, or make up flaky theories for why that might be, and/or perfectly happy to proposed new reasons to capitalize that are contrary to WP:NCCAPS and MOS:CAPS.

So I'm open to advice about how to proceed. Mostly likely I'll just give it a pause, as I have a book to finish... Dicklyon (talk) 18:27, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Sir, there have been many logical reasons put forward on all of those pages by quite a few different people which detail why they see and use them as proper names, and they present data which shows a large percentage of source material data lists them as proper names. Now you're are adding Rose Bowl Game to your list, and ignoring actual information about it. As I wrote above, which maybe you didn't see, if you watched the game yesterday the capitalization was all over the broadcast. It's the legal name of the event. How can you just ignore and discount that? I'm all for voting on its common name being "Rose Bowl", but the proposal you put forward is to decapitalize "Rose Bowl Game" to "Rose Bowl game" which seems, given the data, inaccurate. As for calling people who point things out to you a "Fan base", kind of a condescending way to describe fellow editors who care about these pages, no? Editors who have presented as much, if not more, evidence as you that those names are rightfully proper names, rightfully capitalized, and have been since their articles were first created on Wikipedia. In the case of the African-American Civil Rights Movement pages, lower-case redirects did not even exist until recently, showing that people coming to or editing Wikipedia have never thought about it enough to do even that. Sometimes a rose is just a Rose, and sometimes capitalization is appropriate, sometimes it isn't (one fan base I'm a glad member of consists of basers who appreciate Anne Hathaway's amazing performance in Les Miserable). Randy Kryn 19:28 2 January, 2015 (UTC)

Randy, why should I pay attention to your opinion, if you back it up with blatant lies? Dicklyon (talk) 21:04, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Few people have accused me of lying, because I try not to, and do so to a fault. I said that the titles provided in the references which include the words 'Pullman Strike' capitalize it. Every one does. The titles of the sources use capitalization. What kind of stretch did you put on this to call it a lie - and lying means deceiving on purpose, a game I do not play. Randy Kryn 4:08 3 January, 2015 (UTC)

If your statements are not lies, they are just confusion. I accept that your sources capitalize "Pullman Strike" in their titles, and maybe that was all you were saying. That is hardly the point, though, when it comes to looking at whether they treat it as a proper name. If in the text they use "Pullman strike", without capitalizing "strike", then that's evidence that they do not treat Pullman strike as a proper name; you cite these as evidence for the opposite of what they show. That kind of confusion is BLATANTLY FALSE even if not an intentional lie. What would you prefer that I call it? Dicklyon (talk) 04:18, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

I said titles, I meant titles. It was an observation I made upon having a quick look at the reference section. Please, if people disagree with you on Wikipedia, assume good faith. In this case that assumption would have been correct. Randy Kryn 4:24 3 January, 2015 (UTC)

You actually said "It looks like almost all if not all the references which include the words 'Pullman Strike' in their titles capitalize the phrase." It would have been more correct to say "It looks like almost all if not all the references which include the words 'Pullman Strike' in their titles do not capitalize the phrase when they use it in a sentence." or "It looks like almost all if not all the references which include the words 'Pullman Strike' in their titles treat it as NOT a proper name." You are throwing out BS as if it is evidence, when it really supports the opposite of your point. Dicklyon (talk) 04:29, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

• Dick... you are probably not going to like my advice on how to proceed, but I will give it anyway: If you are finding that consensus is to not follow the MOS in certain articles... just accept it. Think of them as WP:Ignore all rules situations if you are having difficulty letting go. Consensus rules... even when you think consensus may be "wrong". Blueboar (talk) 02:00, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

OK, good point. When most editors of an article want to ignore all rules, and make up bullshit reasons to do so, I should just move on. I will. Not ready to give up on Pullman strike yet, but certainly not going to sweat the football fans at Rose Bowl Game. Dicklyon (talk) 03:50, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Blueboar, when "most" editors of an article want to breach our style guidelines, it's up to them to present special justification. This is sometimes quite possible—has been done in the past and will be in the future. But there's no open slather on the matter, not on such a densely populated site as en.WP, where our centralised style guidance minimises arguments on talkpages. Tony (talk) 08:03, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

In the Infoboxes case, ArbCom ruled that editors seeking to do maintenance on articles had to defer to the preferences of the content creators. So it is up to the editors wanting to enforce the MOS to justify their stance, and seek a new consensus. If the content creators stick to their guns, then the editors seeking changes must back down. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:21, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

That would be consistent with WP:FIVEPILLARS which mentions "Seek consensus" and "Wikipedia has policies and guidelines, but they are not carved in stone ..."—Bagumba (talk) 01:05, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Nationality of people from the United Kingdom

On Wikipedia talk:Nationality of people from the United Kingdom it says- "It is suggested that you notify editors active at "Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies)" of discussions on this essay taking place here by leaving a message at that guideline's talk page." So I am. 71.228.66.131 (talk) 05:05, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies) is over there (and so is its talk page). Pburka (talk) 22:43, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Language question

Concerning this edit at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/January 1, 2015: does anyone want to offer an opinion whether "a number of" and "several" have the same connotation? (I ask because there's a little evidence in AmEng dictionaries that they don't ... and if they don't, then the linked edit was probably the right call ... but it's not a call I want to make.) - Dank (push to talk) 23:06, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

In that context, "number" means "positive natural number".

—Wavelength (talk) 00:02, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

:) - Dank (push to talk) 00:12, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Wavelength, taken in context "a number of" and "several" mean the same thing (or close enough that it makes no difference). The change was very petty. However, since it really does not make any difference to the meaning, it would be even more petty to challenge the edit or try to change it back. Blueboar (talk) 00:22, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

I would agree with John that "several" conveys the point more fluidly than "a number of", which sounds more artificial and vague, even though it means the same thing normally. Dicklyon (talk) 02:21, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

I've been changing out "a number of" for "some" or "several" for a number of years now. It is one of a number of examples of stodgy prose which deserve to be shot on sight. I think a certain kind of writer may think that a number of sounds better than several or some. It is often found with its relatives additionally (instead of and), therefore (so) moreover, notably, and however. On Wikipedia we are not being paid by the word or the syllable, and short simple phrases which convey the same meaning as stodgy pompous ones should always be favoured. Whether one calls this "petty" or "copyediting towards clarity" is I suppose a judgement call. I am pretty secure in my belief that "some" is better than "a number of". The regular requests I receive to do copyedits during FAC seem to bear out my belief. --John (talk) 12:49, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

The words additionally and and are not interchangeable. The former is an adverb for modifying clauses, but the latter is a coordinating conjunction for joining clauses. Likewise, however is an adverb, and but is a coordinating conjunction. The words though and although are subordinating conjunctions. Where though or although introduces a subordinate clause, the sentence requires a main clause, either before or after the subordinate clause.

—Wavelength (talk) 01:16, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

I wouldn't make a habit of changing text for your minor preferences. Others have other preferences, and as far as I know there's nothing in the WP:MOS to encourage such changes. Dicklyon (talk) 02:21, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Slight preference for "several", but agree with Blueboar—unnecessary to change or revert. Tony (talk) 08:01, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

"Does anyone want to offer an opinion ...?" I can't resist, so I regret visiting this page!
"Several" connotes more than a few --and denotes more than a few in American English as I learned it-- where "a number of" covers both few and several. The full article identifies more than a few respects in which this rendition was first among Rose Bowls, so the writer who digested the full article for Today's feature (several days ago) might well have used "several"; should have used it, in my opinion; and the revision by User:John is "copyediting towards clarity" per John.

Otherwise,

• Zero is a number, as John said in edit summary. So is one. But "a number of plurals" and "some plurals" both connote more than one and it's reasonable to pay attention to connotations as well as stricter meanings.
• I prefer "some" to "a number of", where "several" is not accurate, and in the course of other editing I routinely replace "a number of" with some where the context does not support either "several" or "[a] few".
• The digest-writer selected one among several firsts identified in the full article for identification in Today's feature. I agree with that judgment but would go further; reword something like these:

It was the first Rose Bowl broadcast by radio, and first in other respects.

It was the first Rose Bowl broadcast by radio.

Probably the short version, but I would accept the long one here (or "some other", or "several other", etc).

These remarks pertain to the lead section and body of an article, same as to a digest and a full article.

--P64 (talk) 18:46, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Present data in tables, not in narrative

The example paragraphs below happen to be from the page for Alameda, California, but the same style seems to be followed everywhere in Wikipedia. Presentation of simple data in narrative (paragraph) format is awfully hard to read. I suggest that all such data, on every relevant Wiki page, would be better presented in simple, clear, easy to read tables, and that the style manual be revised accordingly. Thank you for your consideration.

"The 2010 United States Census[24] reported that Alameda had a population of 73,812. The population density was 3,214.9 people per square mile (1,241.3/km²). The racial makeup of Alameda was 37,460 (50.8%) White, 4,759 (6.4%) African American, 426 (0.6%) Native American, 23,058 (31.2%) Asian, 381 (0.5%) Pacific Islander, 2,463 (3.3%) from other races, and 5,265 (7.1%) from two or more races. Hispanic or Latino of any race were 8,092 persons (11.0%)."

"There were 30,123 households, out of which 9,144 (30.4%) had children under the age of 18 living in them, 13,440 (44.6%) were opposite-sex married couples living together, 3,623 (12.0%) had a female householder with no husband present, 1,228 (4.1%) had a male householder with no wife present. There were 1,681 (5.6%) unmarried opposite-sex partnerships, and 459 (1.5%) same-sex married couples or same-sex partnerships. 9,347 households (31.0%) were made up of individuals and 2,874 (9.5%) had someone living alone who was 65 years of age or older. The average household size was 2.40. There were 18,291 families (60.7% of all households); the average family size was 3.06." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.90.232.246 (talk) 17:09, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

I disagree. People come here to read an encyclopedia, and paragraph form is standard for this type of information in encyclopedias. If someone were to make a really great table that used space efficiently, there wouldn't be much reason not to include both in the article. That's more or less why we have infoboxes in so many. Go ahead and start adding them if you want, but I wouldn't support a rule preferring them to text. Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:49, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Sometimes prose is better than a table; sometimes a table is better than prose. For example, to list out the population of the three major countries on the North American continent, I'd do that in prose. To do all 200-some countries in the world, I'd want a table. It really depends on the data to presented, how much, and the like. But there's very few hard and fast rules here. --MASEM (t) 01:08, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

See WP:WHENTABLE. --  Gadget850 ^talk 01:36, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree with 76.90.232.246. This kind of information is very laborious to read and assimilate in this prose form. A formatted layout would be better. 109.153.227.154 (talk) 22:49, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

US demonym

At a biography article, an IP editor changed the subject's demonym from American to United States of America declaring "I replaced his nationality "American" because America is two continents, not a country".[5] I disagree. What is Wikipedia's stance on what to call an American in the infobox, and where is the policy stated?– Gilliam (talk) 19:57, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

People and things from the United States of America are called "American". "American" refers to a country in English-language usage, where there is no such debate or ambiguity. Foreign languages have no relevance on what we do here. Americans are called American. That's simple. RGloucester — ☎ 20:23, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

The IP editor is flat-out wrong. In American English, "America" means "the United States." In other varieties, it has two meanings. It can mean either "the United States" or "the Americas"/"North and South America" in some contexts. However, there is no English-language demonym other than "American" to refer to citizens of the U.S.

One note: In Spanish, this is not the case. "Americano" means what AmE speakers would call "New World"/"from the Americas" and "estadounidense" means "American." This can also be a very touchy political issue in Spanish-speaking countries because many people see the use of the name "America" as symbolic of American hegemony and imperialism (historical note: while the hegemony part has a basis in fact, the name was picked out long before the Monroe Doctrine). Darkfrog24 (talk) 20:30, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Not to be picky, but is "Nationality = United States", actually wrong? I agree that the demonym is "American", but it isn't clear to me that it the template actually requires the demonym. To give a different example, if he had been French, it isn't obvious to me whether "Nationality = France" or "Nationality = French" (or either) is the appropriate usage. {{Infobox person}} doesn't seem to give any guidance. If the demonym is definitely preferred in cases like this, then that should probably be documented somewhere and there are literally thousands of examples of "Nationality = United States" that would need to be fixed. Dragons flight (talk) 21:58, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Lists of people by nationality and [6]. Nationality usually uses a demonym. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:09, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

That's fine. The problem I have is with an IP editor (maybe the same one the OP is talking about) that is not just changing infoboxes but replacing all instances of "American" with "U.S." or "United States." See for example this edit to Alice Paul. Ltwin (talk) 22:09, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

See "List of adjectival and demonymic forms of place names".

—Wavelength (talk) 22:07, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

What others say, yes.

Some years ago I learned to link American and British and Irish as here, to their people articles -- same as German where the sense it not German language. In the last couple years I learned that those links are systematically deleted by some editors, so I do not routinely provide them.

--P64 (talk) 18:58, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Well those are things that should not normally be linked to anyway, as too well known (except possibly Irish), unlike say Bhutanese people (which I now have to set up as a redirect, sigh!). Wiki CRUK John (talk) 21:06, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Colons in quotemarks section

I'm editing on a smartphone, and I saw a confusing ambiguity due to screen width, in MOS:QUOTEMARKS under Quotation characters. The change explanation I put in is too long and gets truncated, so I'm copying it here:

Inserted colons before "Recommended at Wikipedia" and "Not recommended at Wikipedia". Reason: in mobile beta on narrow screen, each of these takes up exactly one line, which is not indented as on desktop site, and at a glance "Recommended..." looks like a subhead over the form that is not recommended.

--Thnidu (talk) 00:45, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for that. - Dank (push to talk) 01:14, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Article Titles: Paintings

Should the title of an article about a painting be in the original language, or should it be translated into English? For example, if you look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Matisse, it seems to be a random mixture. I cannot discern any rationale. 109.156.50.255 (talk) 04:15, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Definitely seems to be inconsistent. Which seems to mean, to me at least, that there is no standard rule, other than to call each painting by what it is most commonly called in English language sources. Some paintings are well known by an English title, which may be a full or partial translation of a title in another language, and maybe not always the obvious one. For example, The Scream is the very common English title of Munch's painting, but it's actually a partial translation of its original German title, as the painting was completed and first exhibited in Berlin; this sometimes throws off those who know Munch was Norwegian by birth, and think it's a grammatically incorrect translation of the common Norwegian name Skirk. Other paintings may not have such common English titles. For those, any single English translation would be inappropriate as a title because it wouldn't be truly common. Indeed, the most common title in sources is likely the original language title, so long as it is easily rendered in Latin script. In short, there's no hard and fast rule beyond COMMONNAME, which is a Wikipedia-wide rationale. oknazevad (talk) 07:16, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

You know we have Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Visual arts? No? Well, we do. It says:

• Foreign language titles are generally only to be used if they are used by most art historians or critics writing in English – e.g. Las Meninas or Les Demoiselles d'Avignon. In that case they should be used in the form used by most art historians writing in English, regardless of whether this is actually correct by the standards of the other language. It is not necessary to give the original language version of titles of standard religious scenes or portraits, but for other titles this may be desirable, for example:

The Third of May 1808 (in Spanish El tres de mayo de 1808 en Madrid; Los fusilamientos de la montaña del Príncipe Pío or Los fusilamientos del tres de mayo) is a painting completed in 1814 by the Spanish master Francisco Goya.

It probably becomes more tricky with art since 1900, where lots of English writers use the English titles, and lots don't. The Matisse assortment might be fully following the MOS, or completely random. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 12:13, 6 January 2015 (UTC)