Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
WikiProject iconManual of Style
WikiProject iconThis page falls within the scope of the Wikipedia:Manual of Style, a collaborative effort focused on enhancing clarity, consistency, and cohesiveness across the Manual of Style (MoS) guidelines by addressing inconsistencies, refining language, and integrating guidance effectively.Manual of StyleWikipedia:WikiProject Manual of StyleTemplate:WikiProject Manual of StyleManual of Style articles
Note icon
This page falls under the contentious topics procedure and is given additional attention, as it closely associated to the English Wikipedia Manual of Style, and the article titles policy. Both areas are subjects of debate.
Contributors are urged to review the awareness criteria carefully and exercise caution when editing.
Note icon
For information on Wikipedia's approach to the establishment of new policies and guidelines, refer to WP:PROPOSAL. Additionally, guidance on how to contribute to the development and revision of Wikipedia policies of Wikipedia's policy and guideline documents is available, offering valuable insights and recommendations.
WikiProject iconWikipedia Help A‑class Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis page is within the scope of the Wikipedia Help Project, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's help documentation for readers and contributors. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. To browse help related resources see the Help Menu or Help Directory. Or ask for help on your talk page and a volunteer will visit you there.Wikipedia HelpWikipedia:Help ProjectTemplate:Wikipedia Help ProjectHelp articles
AThis page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
TopThis page has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Welcome to the MOS pit


    Style discussions elsewhere

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

    Current

    (newest on top)

    Capitalization-specific:

    This section is an excerpt from Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters § Current.[edit]

    Move requests:

    Other discussions:

    Pretty stale but not "concluded":

    Concluded

    Extended content
    This section is an excerpt from Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters § Concluded.[edit]
    Capitalization-specific:
    2023
    2022
    2021

    Note about quotation marks

    A note about the use of curly quotation marks reads as thus:

    Curly quotation marks and apostrophes are deprecated on the English Wikipedia because:

    • Consistency keeps searches predictable. Though most browsers treat curly and straight quotation marks interchangeably, Internet Explorer does not (as of 2022), so using the browser's find function to search a page for Alzheimer's disease will fail to find Alzheimer’s disease and vice versa.
    • Straight quotation marks and apostrophes are easier to type reliably on most platforms.

    Internet Explorer has been deprecated, so the first point is moot, unless we find another major browser that does distinguish the two sets of quotation marks. What should we do about this argument?

    Note: I'm not advocating the revocation of this rule. --ItMarki (talk) 16:52, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    @ItMarki: Is it the case that all browsers now require ticking a "Match Diacritics" box (or similar) in order to distinguish the different kinds of quotation marks? 0DF (talk) 03:14, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Pretty much nothing can be true of "all browsers" when it comes to their interface controls, because they're made by completely different software companies (or free-software dev teams).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  18:06, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    IE represents 0.4% of desktop browser usage—obviously it's less when factoring in mobile, but arguably the find function is really most relevant for desktop users anyway. I actually made the same change approximately a year ago, when it was about 1%. That change was reverted on the basis that 1% may represent millions of users and the bug may happen in other browsers as well, but I think neither of those make much sense. Millions of people are not using IE's find function in searches that include quotes or apostrophes, and I have been unable to find another browser that behaves the same way. (I prefer to see positive evidence for supposedly similar browsers rather than mere possibility.)
    At this point the overwhelming practical concern is that curly quotes are hard to type. I think it is sensible to cut the search rationale. — HTGS (talk) 01:53, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Chrome suffers from the opposite problem – it's not possible to restrict a search to either straight or curly apostrophes/quotation marks, behaviour that makes targeted editing of MoS compliance impossible. Keeping the current practice (not having curlies) makes that easier. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 04:14, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Not "impossible", since wikEd and various other tools provide better in-text search functions. (I use one all the time, though I honestly am not certain where it came from; it's not wikEd nor one of the other Gadgets or Betas from what I can tell, and I'm not seeing it in my common.js, but it provides an hourglass search icon at the righthand side of the toolbar when in editing view, and that search function distinguishes between these glyphs. Anyone know what this is?)  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  08:48, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Update: I did figure it out; it's part of the default built-in editor, under "Advanced", and available even to IP users.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:03, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Michael Bednarek: I’m not sure I understand why Chrome’s function changes much? But in any case, I can’t see that the function of a functionally-dead browser matters much. Nobody uses IE; can we just cut that first bullet? — HTGS (talk) 04:22, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I would not object to rephrasing that note to "Though most browsers treat curly and straight quotation marks interchangeably, Internet Explorer does not (as of 2022)some do not, so using …". -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 04:35, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I cannot find any other browsers that function the same way, do you know of any? At this point it should be straightforward to just cut the whole thing, especially as IE is now rounded down to 0.0% of all traffic (desktop and mobile). — HTGS (talk) 04:50, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, it's a bit more complicated. As I wrote above, Chrome has no way of searching for straight or curly signs specifically. That makes searches for non-compliant signs impossible. This is admittedly not a concern for readers. However, as long as we have the rule MOS:STRAIGHT, that's a concern for editors. I don't know whether this needs to be mentioned in that footnote. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 05:41, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    "That makes searches for non-compliant signs impossible.". Nah. In the standard editing tools (if you haven't replaced them with WikEd or VisualEditor), if you click "Advanced" in the top toolbar, you get a secondary toolbar right below it, and the far-right of that has a magnifying-glass search icon. This search feature is glyph-specific (and also has a regexp feature). WikEd itself, I'm told, has similar features. So, the only ones left out are VisualEditor users.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  08:02, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Visual Editor can and does distinguish, and a simple [“”] in regex will find both characters, while avoiding ".
    Unless anyone objects with good reason, I am going to just remove that bullet point about IE, per ItMarki's original comment. — HTGS (talk) 22:26, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Hyphenating racial identities, again

    Back in 2021, there was a discussion about hyphenating ethno-racial descriptors like "Asian American". There was never a formal closure, but it might reasonably be said that there was either no consensus or consensus to recommend against hyphenation. In June 2022, that guidance was added to MOS:HYPHEN. As far as I can tell, it's been in the MOS ever since.

    Given the uncertainty of consensus on this point, I'd appreciate some input on whether the current guideline is supported by consensus and common practice. I'm prompted by some recent page moves conducted by Iljhgtn, whose thoughts I'd like to hear. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:49, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    The standard "rule" I follow is no hyphen when used as a noun, hyphen when used as an adjective: thus eg, 'Asian Americans are . . .' and 'the Asian-American history movement . . .'. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:56, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    i came across that "rule" where it is noun vs.adj only according to grammar blog site grammarist, the article can be read here. Iljhgtn (talk) 14:02, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, it's pretty standard grammar that compound adjectives always get a hyphen because they are meant to be read as one thing, not two things, modifying/describing something else . Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:08, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm surprised grammarist hasn't been evaluated at WP:RSP yet. ~TPW 14:09, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    good side point, grammarist sure should be on there. Iljhgtn (talk) 14:18, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    looking at the MOS i concluded that the african american should not be hyphenated. also, seems to be the decision of the APA in 2019 and other guidelines, as well as nearly all african american museums do not use it see here, here, here, here, here, here and literally every single other one that I can find. Iljhgtn (talk) 14:00, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    When it is part of a name, you are not going to use a hyphen. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:05, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    all of those museums also officially give their blessing to the no hyphen more generally, from what I can find, see the educator resource from the National Museum of African American History & Culture. Iljhgtn (talk) 14:23, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Iljhgtn changed more than a dozen article names, and I think such changes should have been discussed. Since our normal, established style is with hyphen (when used as a modifier), those changes only cause inconsistencies. Rsk6400 (talk) 15:37, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    @Rsk6400: That's why we have Wikipedia:Requested moves#Requests to revert undiscussed moves.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  18:45, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    there was already a inconsistency, it should be corrected on all articles, but i am not going to edit any others right now. Iljhgtn (talk) 15:58, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Why would we need to go over this yet again? If it's a noun phrase, don't hyphenate: She is an Asian American. If it's a compound adjective, hyphenate: an Asian-American social organization. There's nothing even particular to ethnicities about this; it's how we handle writing in general: Carom billiards uses two cue balls.; a complex cue-ball path.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  18:04, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    See also the middle entry in this move log. Rsk6400 (talk) 18:18, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    At least it seems American English does not agree with that. all of the African American museums, as well as the American grammar styles APA, MLA, etc., all appear to drop the hyphen for ethnicities at least post-2019 or thereabouts. We may want to distinguish this with an ENGVAR component then too. Iljhgtn (talk) 18:19, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, MoS isn't determined by the APA or MLA house styles (I'm hard-pressed to think of anything at all that we've adopted from either of them in particular), much less those of some particular museums. Two book examples isn't "all". Garner's Modern English Usage (one of the style guides MoS is actually based on) is entirely clear about the noun phrases versus compound adjectives split and makes no special exception for ethno-cultural terms. Same with The Penguin Handbook, the main style guide used for university-level writing in the US. The Chicago Manual of Style (another MoS-formative style guide) does now prefer the unhyphenated form for such terms as a special class, but provides no rationale for why. They say elsewhere that they have switched to a "hyphen minimizing" style, so that is probably the explanation. (MoS, meanwhile, has not; given the breadth of our readership, the meaning precision provided by some hyphens that Chicago now considers optional is more important than the expediency Chicago seems to be moving toward, at least on this particular point.) So we have a conflict in the sources that MoS is actually built from, but no clear reason to prefer Chicago style over Garner style, expecially since the former is inconsistent with all the rest of our practice, and produces reader-confusing constructions.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  18:45, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    SMcCandlish, sorry to be bringing it up again. Your analysis is at odds with the current guideline. My understanding of the mixed state of external style guideline advice and of the best choice for the MOS matches yours. I'm hoping we walk away with either a clear endorsement of the current guideline or a removal of it. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:52, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The key question to me is, what could we possibly gain from dropping these hyphens? It produces confusing constructions, and is generally incompatible with our entire approach to compound modifiers, but to what end? A "consistency" with some subset of external writers that some editors prefer? Why would we trade actual internal consistency for a half-assed and biased pseudo-consistency with off-site interests, at the expense of clarity to boot? I just don't see a good rationale for doing this. It would make no objective improvement to the encyclopedia, only satisfy a couple of activistic interests who keep trying to conform our style guide to those of organizations they are personally alinged with for socio-political reasons.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  18:59, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with most of that, and my disagreement—mainly about the motives of those advocating for the hyphen drop—isn't particularly important. Since we both think the current guideline is unhelpful, why not keep discussing it? There's a fresh multi-page move discussion in which a "per MOS:HYPHEN" argument is likely to win the day, I'm thinking this is the time to question whether the current guideline has enough support to stick around (or if it ever did). Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 20:04, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The poorly written "magical exception" for ethno-national terms that someone injected in there without a clear consensus has been removed by someone else already. I tracked it to this edit by Caorongjin who says it was their "2nd attempt", so it must have been reverted previously (it was, by Imaginatorium). Cites this archive thread as their rationale for adding this "rule", but that discussion did not come to a consensus in favor of the idea. Four editors favored retaining the hyphen on various grounds ranging from clarity and consistency, to opposition to instruction creep. The supporters of the change were also four, on arguments that range from "a trend" in other style guides (ones with almost no impact on MoS, actually) of dropping the hyphen, a suggestion that the hyphen somehow suggests a bias, a strange claim that "we could definitely use the consistency" when this would just lead to obvious inconsistency with all other compound modifiers, and in one case no rationale but the common-style fallacy. The opener of the question did not take a position on it, and two other editors also commented without taking a clear side. That's hardly a consensus to change long-standing consistent treatment of these modifiers, in ways that would affect the content of tens of thousands of articles and titles of at least several hundred (and the fact that it was in there for over a year without having any actual effect on our content suggests there is no community appetite for it at all). There's yet another whiff of misusing Wikipedia for "culture warrior" language-change-advocacy activities about this.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:58, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    First, thank you for tagging me, as I would not have known this conversation was going on otherwise. This talk page is really hard to follow, tbh. Having said that, I'd appreciate it if you do not dismiss my changes as "magical". I have tried to be clear of intentions and engage in discussion as best as I could; and, as you have noted, I have documented in this (unwieldy) talk page the two times I made a change to the article page. The "2nd attempt", as I described it, was meant to convey that it was taking @Imaginatorium's comments into consideration; I was not intending to convey I was edit warring or anything of that sort.
    It is inaccurate to describe dehyphenation as a common-style fallacy, which, as described in that essay, is "flawed reasoning that if a particular typographic stylization turns up commonly in newspapers, blogs, and other popular publications with a less formal register of English usage than the precise language of encyclopedic writing" that is "newsy or bloggy stylization." If this is the case, you are calling MLA, APA, and CMOS popular style guides that are newsy or bloggy (I suppose that can be applied to AP, if you stretch it).
    It is also inaccurate to say the previous discussion had 4 oppose and 4 support. Perhaps they can speak for themselves, but the supports seem to include @Bagumba, @Kokopelli7309, @Jurisdicta, @Chumpih, @Almaty, and @Caorongjin (myself). It was also suggested by @Andrewa that my first attempt was a good consensus, and suggested a second attempt. So is that not 6 or 7 who voted in support?
    As I see it:
    • The main argument against dehyphenation is English grammar has different rules for adjectival or nominative uses. True… to an extent. English is a living language, making the grammar an evolving set of rules. English grammar has pluralization rules around pronouns as well; but now due to changing arguments around gender identity, there is the use of the singular they. And the (growing) academic consensus is to dehyphenate ethnic descriptors, due to a large extent to the century plus problem of hyphenated American.
    • The main argument in support of dropping the hyphen is around WP:COMMONNAME, both of organizations and of how all of these subjects are discussed in the majority of English-language sources, especially academic sources. This latter point is partly due to the increasing changes in styleguides, academic and otherwise, to attend to these differences; but the dehyphenated forms also predate these changes.
    —Caorongjin 💬 08:10, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    right, all the style guides, as well as all institutions (nearly all) that use the phrase "African American" in particular, are dropping the hyphen. this is not a case of "righting great wrongs", but is just wikipedia catching up to the conventions and norms related to the hyphen being dropped in african american.
    though honestly, i do not care strongly either way, and will get back to editing other things. this conversation itself is getting unwieldy.  Iljhgtn (talk) 11:06, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Microsoft grammar checking now also marks as an error "African-American" too. with a double underline and something to be corrected for. just hope that we can at least add in to the MOS that it is wrong or incorrect sometimes, and make that distinction, and not leave it in all cases, even though it is only on wikipedia and no where else that it will remain.. for whatever reason we want to retain it here.. Iljhgtn (talk) 11:14, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Two or three books is not "all". And WP doesn't care what Microsoft thinks is proper writing; their house style is not our house style (nor does a double underline in Word indicate an "error", but rather somoething their software suggests you might want to change; the most common case is two spaces after a period, which is not an error but a style choice.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  12:25, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    not two or three books, all american style writing books, as well as academic institutions, museums, and other orgs use "African American" not "African-American." But if wikipedia wants to go its own way then it is what it is. Iljhgtn (talk) 13:55, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    If you want to go long-form, I guess we can go long-form. I didn't say you personally were engaging in a WP:CSF, I said one of the respondents in the earlier thread was. The fact that one style guide MoS is based on, CMoS, is going along with the hyphenless form for unrelated reasons (a general shift away from using hyphens the CMoS editors don't consider necessary, for the kind of academics-writing-for-other-academics writing CMoS is principally concerned with) isn't much of a point in favor of the idea; it's coincidence. Two style guides MoS is not based on, APA and MLA, supporting such a change is probably an argument in its favor (though I want to see whether they, too, are dropping other kinds of hyphens), but not a terribly strong one. That's because our reasoning for using the hyphenation is clarity and to a lesser extent consistency, not tradition or popularity. We'd need to see a near-universal dropping of this hyphen to drop it ourselves. I.e., proof that for whatever reason(s), nearly all modern writers had dropped it in spite of the improved clarity of using it and in spite of the blatant inconsistency of dropping it. (It is fair to characterize the idea as a "magical" exception; it's one not grounded in any reasons that have to do with grammar, clarity, or other concerns related to writing well, but rooted in extraneous reasons of being seen as aligned with a particular socio-political stance.)
    The ongoing evolution of English has only the slowest and most cautious of effects on WP's own style, which does not change on much of anything unless there it is objectively a writing improvement, or on a more subjective idea that comes at real costs like this one, if there is overwhelming evidence of a change across all of contemporary English writing, including most or all of the style guide ours is based on, not just one of them. A couple of other organizations' house-style manuals don't change anything; their house style is not our house style, by definition. Nor do we care at all about a style guide for newspapers (WP:NOT#NEWS: "Wikipedia is not written in news style."); MoS has borrowed either nothing or very, very close to nothing from AP Stylebook. It took about a decade of on-site debates about growing acceptance for singular-they to turn into actual acceptance of it on Wikipedia (and there are still many editors who would rather write around it), and it didn't happen until after the usage became accepted across CMoS, Garner's, Fowler's, and New Hart's/Oxford, and even then after a tremendous amount of evidence-showing that usage had palpably shifted to support it across all sorts of writing (not just news or a few particular organizations). See also several years of still-ongoing debate about whether we should stop using the phrase "committed suicide" (last result: no consensus reached, despite arguments that closely mirror this case: support for the change in some organizational style guides, some but not overwhelming evidence of general usage change, and activist stance-taking in favor of the change).
    COMMONNAMEs of organizations are irrelevant; we don't rewrite organizations' actual names to comply with MoS ideas. (And the implication, that organizations have all dropped the hyphen, is false anyway. Maybe you'd like to write a letter to the Scottish-American Military Society and surely hundreds of others and tell them their own names are wrong and have to change? Next will you write to Bob Callahan and tell him his The Big Book of Irish-American Culture has to be republished under a hyphenless title? Will you tell the Library of Congress it's wrong for using "African-American" as an adjective[1]? And so on.) The fact that hyphenless forms of these terms pre-date some style guides recommending them is obvious and irrelevant; style guides don't recommend imaginary usages, and both news-speak and bureaucratese have been engaged in something like a war against hyphens for about a century. Trying to bring the "hyphenated American" insult that was in vogue from 1890 to 1920 into this is also irrelevant, and contradictory of your 'English is a living language and its usage can change' lynchpin argument. It also makes it clear that, as I suspected, this is some kind of highly Americans-specific WP:GREATWRONGS thing. And one that is easy to argue against: e.g., referring to Obama as "the first African American President" instead of "the first African-American President" actually directly undermines the perception of his Americannness and just helps to feed "birther" conspiracy-theory nonsense about him really being from Kenya. I'm also strongly reminded of various provisions in MoS about not inappropriately stressing ethnicity (or origin-nationality), which the hyphenless usage does, and also reminded of the RfC that removed the |ethnicity= parameter from {{Infobox person}} because it was so often misused for such inappropriate attention-drawing. "The main argument against dehyphenation is English grammar has different rules for ..." - Except no one in either edition of this debate has ever mentioned English grammar "rules" as a rationale, so you're just making stuff up. As for propriety, it was quite inappropriate to push in a change you knew had substantial principled opposition, then do it again after being reverted, and just pseudo-announce the change by editing an archive page virtually no one would ever look at. Even worse is you WP:CANVASSING now by pinging everyone you think is on your side from the old debate, but no one else.
    I'm going to repeat my earlier question, because nothing I raised was addressed at all: What could we possibly gain from dropping these hyphens? It produces confusing constructions, and is generally incompatible with our entire approach to compound modifiers, but to what end? A "consistency" with some subset of external writers that some editors prefer? Why would we trade actual internal consistency for a half-assed and biased pseudo-consistency with off-site interests, at the expense of clarity to boot? I just don't see a good rationale for doing this. It would make no objective improvement to the encyclopedia, only satisfy a couple of activistic interests.
     — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  12:25, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm glad that sneakily added bit has now been removed. The only discussion in 2022 was this remark added to an already archived discussion. Dicklyon (talk) 00:19, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    @Plifal, EEng, Only in death, Tvx1, Blueboar, Khajidha, Firejuggler86, and Mikehawk10: pinging everyone from the previous round of this discussion (2022) that Caorongjin left out in his ping of just people who supported his viewpoint. If we need to RfC this to reach a resolution this time, then we should just do it.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  12:25, 20 September 2023 (UTC) @Red-tailed hawk: re-pinging user whose username changed.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  12:31, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    sounds like resolution one way or the other should be found. the only one i asked about was African American, but a more general rule would cover that one as well. Iljhgtn (talk) 13:57, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Editing-in a new exception to the Wikipedia MOS? What you mean to do (whether you know it or not) is to force Wikipedia editors to change the way they write, when they write in a way that is common for clarity. Such an anti-hyphen move is worse than worthless. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:04, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    • If one writes "an African-American senator," it refers to a senator who is African American, while if one writes "an African American senator," it would refer to an American senator who is African. Why on Earth would one adopt a rule that banned the use of such a clarifying hyphen? AuH2ORepublican (talk) 21:08, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Without revealing on which side I fall in this debate, I'll point out that if one writes "high-school student", it refers to a student in high school, but if one writes "high school student", it would refer to a school school student who's smoked a little weed. Or does it? EEng 21:49, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Is the "school school" smoking weed because it's cool cool? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 21:54, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Man, you are a COMPLETE BUZZ KILL. EEng 23:20, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      You'd have hated my college friend group. We used to get high, put on some instrumentals, and criticize each other's grammar. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 00:20, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      dont ask me. this is not my idea, this is what the USA and the American English speaking world decided. the "righting great wrongs" side of things therefore falls on those that wish to include the hyphen as African-American. Otherwise, there is a change that needs to be made over at African American (currently hyphenless) and many other pages... as of right now, while it might be "wrong" to include the hyphen, it is not our job on wikipedia to "right" such "wrongs", from WP:RGW, "We are, by design, supposed to be "behind the curve". This is because we only report what is verifiable using secondary reliable sources, giving appropriate weight to the balance of informed opinion." Thus, at least as of September 2023. The no hyphen "African American" is what all American English manuals for writing suggest using, as well as every African American Museum in the United states.
      Seems to me that the rule should only apply then for ethnic groups that have a strong United States connection. I don't know if anyone proposed that though? Might be more worthwhile given that there are such strong feelings to the contrary coming from the United Kingdom editors. For what its worth, I am in Richmond, Virginia, so attribute any bias that i might have tied to my geography accordingly. Iljhgtn (talk) 22:36, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Repeat: What could we possibly gain from dropping these hyphens? It produces confusing constructions, and is generally incompatible with our entire approach to compound modifiers, but to what end? A "consistency" with some subset of external writers that some editors prefer? Why would we trade actual internal consistency for a half-assed and biased pseudo-consistency with off-site interests, at the expense of clarity to boot? There is no sensible rationale to make some "magically special" carve-out for ethnic terminology in a particular country. That would just compound the confusing inconsistency.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:16, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Joking aside, "it would refer to an American senator who is African" is not an idle concern at all. See List of foreign-born United States politicians.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:16, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Slight diversion:Anglo-American, etc.

    I not-so-guiltily confess that I haven't had the tima and patience to read through and absorb all of the discussion above, let alone the related discussions elsewhere, but one secondary point (if it hasn't been raised before) is that formulations such as Anglo-American and Franco-American usually demand a hyphen because Anglo and Franco are not usually stand-alone words. [In fact omitting the hyphen in Anglo American would now make that combination refer to an American of Anglophone or non-Hispanic extraction or identity, while an Anglo-American would mean someone who has both English (or British) and American birth, ancestry, citizenship or identity]. This is becoming rarer as combinations such as Italian-American (or Italian American) have gradually supplanted the once-more-common Italo-American. Afro-American was certainly hyphenated, but has given way to African American (or African-American) — which raises at least the possibility of a parallel distinction between Americans born in Africa or whose parents or grandparents were African, and African-Americans (or African Americans) descended from many generations of American-born ancestors. I apologise for any incoherence in my language or logic and I don't know where this would lead in the debates above. —— Shakescene (talk)

    No one seems to be proposing to not use hyphens with prefixes such as Anglo-, Franco-, Sino-, etc.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:35, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    MORE THAN A COINCIDENCE??? EEng 07:46, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Clearly a conspiracy.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  13:01, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That is right. If you look at even the African American page, Afro-American is considered acceptable. Again, this isn't my choice one way or the other. Wikipedia follows established trends and manners related to all of these things. i didn't say it was always consistent or made perfect sense, but that is not for us humble editors to decide for the world. Iljhgtn (talk) 12:26, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You misread and misconstrue the Wikipedia African American article, first it's not an article on English writing, and second, African American as a noun or the subject or title of an article does not get the hyphen, only when it is used as a modifier, see eg the Juneteenth article has African American, when a noun, and African-American _______, when an adjective. ("African Americans were often prohibited . . . African-American memories" - that last part is not talking about "American memories" in general, it is clearly referencing "African-American memories" in particular) -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:32, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    do we spell out that difference between nouns and adjectives in the MOS already? If so where? Iljhgtn (talk) 16:36, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The MOS section we are talking about is all about modifiers, the textbook modifiers are adjectives and adverbs. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:52, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    frequently i see both "african american" written in articles, even when it is not a modifier. I just wanted clarity in all cases, which is correct to use? If there is no disagreement, and its "noun" (African American) "adjective" (African-American) then we could close this conversation and make sure the MOS just makes that extremely clear. Iljhgtn (talk) 17:08, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I think most all the time in prose, it will be clear whether its used as in subject/noun, and when it is used in describing/modifying some other subject. And feel free when a noun or subject, to remove the hyphen if you think it's improved, or add hyphen when it is used as a modifier, as needed. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:37, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The problem is the usage is generally consistent, with the exception of ethnic nomenclature. For instance, you will be hard pressed to find hyphenated usage of "African-American studies" or "Asian-American studies" even though they are being used as adjectives. —Caorongjin 💬 19:02, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    "You will be hard pressed to find ...." - Nope. From very first page of search results: "African and African-American Studies", Kansas U. (note also "African-descended", another modifier) [2]; "Institute for Research in African-American Studies .... The Institute for Research in African-American Studies was established .... The African-American studies curriculum explores the ....", Columbia University [3]; A Companion to African-American Studies by Gordon & Gordon, Wiley Press [4]; "Social Movement Tactics, Organizational Change and the Spread of African-American Studies" by F. Rojas, Social Forces journal; U. of N. Carolina Pr. [5]; "Departmental Conditions and the Emergence of New Disciplines: Two Cases in the Legitimation of African-American Studies", M. L. Small, Theory and Society jnl., Springer [6]; and so on. It is true that universities tend to avoid hyphens in any of their curriculum names, but this isn't particular to ethnic terms, and doesn't have anything to do with encyclopedic writing. It is probably because, firstly, academic institutions' house-style is based on marketing and news writing, which is generally anti-hyphen, and secondly, as someone else observed below, "African[-]American Studies" is itself a noun phrase, so some people aren't sure whether to hyphenate the modifier inside it.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  05:29, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Are those current usage? Hard pressed to find post c. 2019 when this change seems to have gone mainstream. That is an important timing point. Iljhgtn (talk) 11:50, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Hard pressed is not the same as impossible. FWIW, my Google search found one entry of "African-American Studies" on the second page (University of Kansas), one on third page (Columbia University), and none until sixth page (University of Central Arkansas). The same query for "Asian-American Studies" returned one as the last entry of the eighth page for Merritt College.
    Re: @SMcCandlish and @Alanscottwalker's comment about noun phrase (completely honest question): how are you differentiating between a noun phrase and an adjectival usage? The only noun phrase mentioned thus far is that "XY Studies" is a noun phrase (and the "Studies" should be capitalized, although they have been lowercased in Wikipedia). What about XY… literature, film, history, experiences, culture, society, etc.? —Caorongjin 💬 18:21, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Ultimately, why care? We have our own style guide for a reason, and there is no compelling rationale to make a "special exception" in it to the general, across-all-topics "hyphenate compound modifiers" rule just become some other publishers who are not us like to make an exception. I'm going to repeat myself yet again, because no one can answer this question so far, much less do it satisfactorily: what could we possibly gain from dropping these hyphens? It produces confusing constructions, and is generally incompatible with our entire approach to compound modifiers, but to what end? A "consistency" with some subset of external writers that some editors prefer? Why would we trade actual internal consistency for a half-assed and biased pseudo-consistency with off-site interests, at the expense of clarity to boot? I just don't see a good rationale for doing this. It would make no objective improvement to the encyclopedia, only satisfy a couple of activistic interests. PS: In answer to your first question, the "African-American" in "African-American [noun here]" noun phrases is a compound modifier and should thus be hyphenated. This is pretty obvious, but some people seem somehow confused by it, even though they don't seem terribly confused when something other than an ethnical label is in question. Who doesn't understand that "curly-coated dog" or "second-stage rocket" are noun phrases that contain compound modifiers?  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  18:49, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Why care? WP:COMMONNAME
    And, honestly, "pretty obvious"... "somehow confused". This is just such a belittling and condescending response. —Caorongjin 💬 21:01, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Said this before about 1,000 times: COMMONNAME is about what basic name is used for something (e.g. "African[-]American studies" versus "Black studies" versus "Afro-American studies" versus "African diaspora studies", versus etc., etc.), regardless how it is styled; it is not about what style to apply, and it logically cannot be or it would not be possible for WP to have a style manual (at least not one that could ever apply to titles). We would necessarily never do anything but choose the most popular style in the majority of sources. Yet this is not at all how article titling is done on Wikipedia. We every single day apply MoS to article titles, and we expect our title style and our prose style to be in agreement at our articles. You're engaging in what's known as the common-style fallacy, the false assumption that whatever the most common stylization of something is in the sources we happen to have found for it is the style WP must use. Various people in the past have proposed trying to shoehorn style considerations into WP:AT policy, and they have failed every single time.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:18, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I never said WP:COMMONNAME was the rational for changing WP:MOS. I am saying the debate outside of Wikipedia is or has been siding with no hyphen, and this is reflected in both (1) common usage and (2) academic (and newspaper) style guides. It is because of the latter, external style guides, that I made that change. And it is also because of the academic guidance and usage that I don't see it falling under WP:CSF.
    You say WP:MOS is based off of x, y, and z style guides and not k or l. OK. I was not aware of that. But this does not mean that the change is invalid but, rather, that it needs to be discussed. We are clearly of different opinions and, it seems, cannot convince one another otherwise.
    You said in a separate post "If we need to RfC this to reach a resolution this time, then we should just do it." Can you please just start an RfC about this (tbh, I am not sure how to do so but can if you point me to the appropriate guidance)? —Caorongjin 💬 08:14, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't said that you said COMMONNAME was "the rational[e] for changing WP:MOS". You're misusing it as a rationale to change article titles in a way that is incompatible with MoS (not just with a line-item in it, but with its entire treatment of compound modifiers as a class), and that is fallacious and problematic. Yes, I can open an RfC on this, but the currently ongoing discussion should wrap up first, either with a consensus (obviating a need for an RfC) or without one, but we should not have two competing discussions going on at the same time (WP:RFCBEFORE, WP:TALKFORK).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  09:27, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    i just want to mention that this was not about article titles per se, but about all uses of these hyphens when between ethnic words. i read above a few mentions where it seems like this was just about article titles only. Iljhgtn (talk) 11:16, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    And COMMONNAME has nothing to do with article content anyway. I think you simply do not understand the policies and guidelines enough to be constructive in this discussion. Again, the usage in the prose needs to match the usage in the title, so trying with one hand to make it about title policy is a non-starter, and trying with the other to make it about content guidelines as severable from titles is also a non-starter. I'll repeat myself again: every single day, we apply MoS to article titles as well as to in-article content.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  11:27, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    its fine to do that, to apply it to both, but i was just saying not to apply (seemingly) to just one or the other. i am on eastern usa time by the way, and just starting my morning. where are you? I feel like were discussing this both when i went to sleep and now first thing in the morning. i will edit other articles now.. Iljhgtn (talk) 11:30, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Is it possible that some orthography/usage/syntax/mechanics of words in specific combinations is just as clear, without hyphen? Sure, for some readers. Anything is possible, and "African American Studies" because of the combination of capitalization may be just as clear for quite a few readers, but we at Wikipedia have set for ourselves to be writing for the broadest audience possible across all national borders and even whether English is first, second, or third language, and the default hyphen-when-modifier, answers that call, most all the time. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:30, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    i just ask is it for us wikipedia editors to decide? or is the decision made by others? grammar guides? reliable sources? museums and other institutions? Iljhgtn (talk) 20:40, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm finding it hard to believe you're even asking this question. Of course it is for Wikipedia editors to decide, like all other style matters here (and all other matters that pertain to how we build this encyclopedia, with the sole exception of legal requirements imposed by external forces). It would be literally impossible for WP to have its own MoS if we were beholden to external third parties to make style decisions for us. We take their views and the rationales for them into consideration when making our decisions, of course. But so far no consistent rationales are even emerging. Some have exceptionally dubious socio-political claims behind their decision to not hyphenate these particular terms; others have a generally hostile stance to hyphenation in general; and others provide no rationale at all. The rationales are not compatible with each other, and do not (singly or together) somehow overcome our own internal concerns with regard to clarity, precision, and consistency for our readers.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:51, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    "African American Studies" is a noun phrase so what you should be doing is capitalizing [S]tudies, which makes that clear. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:53, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    in the titles of many of these articles would need to change maybe Iljhgtn (talk) 19:56, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Alanscottwalker Just a heads up, that is not the style used on Wikipedia. Please use African American studies or African-American studies, per MOS:FIELD. — HTGS (talk) 00:46, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    if that is the case, we really should make that clear in the MOS. that is consistent with my findings @Caorongjin Iljhgtn (talk) 19:11, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't believe that it is standard for universities to write "African-American Studies" without the hyphen; it's use certainly varies, even though it is pretty common to forgo the hyphen in the adjectival phrase when the modified noun is in uppercase (as generally is the case for the word "Studies" in a college faculty or a course name). And as for those who claim that ethnic nomenclatures should never be hyphenated--even when the rules of grammar dictate that they should, as in the case of modifiers--because the elimination of such hyphens somehow makes language more "inclusive," please note that Alabama State University, which is a historically black university and a member of the Thurgood Marshall College Fund (and thus unlikely to be insensitive to the concerns of African Americans), has an "African-American Studies" department with a consistently used hyphen: [7].
    Grammar is grammar, and adjectival phrases should be hyphenated, whether one is referring to a "red-tailed hawk" (a species of hawk with a red tail; a "red tailed hawk," on the other hand, would be a red hawk that has a tail), an "English-muffin recipe (a recipe for English muffins; an "English muffin recipe" would be a recipe from England for perhaps blueberry muffins) or "Chinese-American cuisine" (cuisine created by Chinese Americans; "Chinese American cuisine" would be American cuisine as served in China, such as at a Beijing burger joint). AuH2ORepublican (talk) 23:09, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Just sharing this here in case others have not read it. This has a larger component at play, when the racial/ethnic component is involved only. that is all this discussion entails. And to be clear, this discussion already in the united states seems to have been undertaken, so it is not a WP:RGW to keep the hyphen, in fact, we are "righting" it it seems only if we are keeping the hyphen at this point. all of the perfectly sound grammarian arguments above notwithstanding... [8]https://daily.jstor.org/on-hyphens-and-racial-indicators/ Iljhgtn (talk) 23:29, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    maybe it makes sense to restrict the scope of this further to just racial or ethnic descriptors within the united states. I know the united kingdom readers had strong feelings against, and i do not see anything to think that this should apply to the british english pages, but only american english, and thereby this is an ENGVAR thing too, and does not need to be made universal. Iljhgtn (talk) 23:30, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    FYI, I am not a Brit; I'm American. Do you think that Brits are the only ones who use proper grammar? And the articles from which you removed all hyphens from "African-American" when used as a modifier, both in the title of the article and in its text--without even discussing it with editors, much less obtaining a consensus--were articles about American politics written in American English and edited by Americans. And I doubt very much that Alabama State University has a lot of Brits in its faculty, much less within its African-American Studies department, and they sure rock that intra-modifier hyphen: [9]. AuH2ORepublican (talk) 03:22, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    My understanding is that the main difference in hyphen usage between UK and US English relates to words that are commonly run together or compounded in American English, like midline or readjust, which British English would tend to hyphenate, as mid-line or re-adjust. That isn’t relevant here. Otherwise in both my understanding is that hyphens are typically used for compound adjectives but not compound nouns, so ‘he is an Italian American’ but ‘he is an Italian-American gangster’ and also used when there could otherwise be ambiguity, thus ‘he is a small-businessman’, to avoid it otherwise looking like a comment on his size. (Edit/ other sorts of gangster are of course available, before anyone complains) MapReader (talk) 03:43, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, all of that is consistent with a detailed read across a bunch of major academic-leaning style guides, on both sides of "the pond" (which is how MOS:HYPHEN arrived at what it says, after all; it's not like WP editors just made it up out of nowhere). Now, long after the fact, a few style guides (only one of which MoS is in part based on, Chicago) want to make an exception, but no clear rationale is provided for doing so, much less one that overrides our precision/clarity needs for our audience.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  05:34, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    'frequently i see ... "african american" written in articles, even when it is not a modifier.' It's supposed to be written as "African American", no hyphen, when it's not a modifier. How is anyone still confused about this? It's exactly the same as writing "the author is well known" (not a modifier) versus "a well-known author" (modifier). Or "I spent a long time in the organization" (not a modifier), "my long-time association with the organization" (modifier). PS: I don't think we're in a position to take any kind of style advice from someone who doesn't capitalize anything, including "African[-]American".  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  05:15, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I had a thought today that i do not think has been introduced into this conversation, so let me introduce it.
    I think this whole conversation relates to how most sources are now treating "African American" vs. "African-American", which are, or at least can be, two different things.
    African American refers to an American that may have some distance African heritage. African-American on the other hand, may refer to relations of the two countries, such as if Uganda were to enter into a pact with the USA over some trade deal, this would be an African-American trade deal. I think this is also addressed in the noun versus adjective discussion above, but I think one refers to actual African country known connections, whereas in the case of many African Americans today, there may be no way to know what "African" lineage the person in question may or may not have, and therefore the fact that they are really not both "African" and "American", these two things are not being merged together or connected, but are in essence one and the same thing. Sorry if I am not making sense... I can try to explain more if needed. Iljhgtn (talk) 13:44, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    African–American with an en dash refers to relations between Africa and the US (see MOS:DASH). And Africa is not a country.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  16:12, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Ever since Jesse Jackson popularized the term "African Americans" to refer to the people to whom theretofore had been referred as "blacks" (and, a bit before my time, as "Negroes"), the term has been used in precisely the same way as the terms "Mexican Americans," "Italian Americans," etc., had been used for decades: to describe Americans of (sub-Saharan) African descent. It has nothing to do with relations between the United States of America and the continent of Africa.
    And the presence of the hyphen varies based solely on whether or not the term was used as a modifier, not on whether one is talking about a hypothetical "African–American cultural exchange (which, as previously noted, required an "en dash," not a hyphen). The terms "African American" and "African-American" are used in exactly the same way as are "Mexican American," "Mexican-American," "Italian American" and "Italian-American." For example, just as we write that Nomar Garciaparra is a Mexican American and that Selena Gomez is a Mexican-American actress, and that Frank Sinatra was an Italian American and that Joe DiMaggio was an Italian-American ballplayer, we write that Jackie Robinson was an African American and that Diana Ross is an African-American singer. There is absolutely no difference in the usage of those terms, and it makes no sense to try to create a distinction where there isn't one. AuH2ORepublican (talk) 17:51, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Well said AuH2ORepublican. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:08, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    i dont think my keyboard can even make an en dash. anyone know how to do that on a dell/pc computer? Iljhgtn (talk) 22:58, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    A standard keyboard only provides access to a hyphen. However, text editors (such as the standard WP editing interface) do provide access to extended character sets. On the standard WP interface, both the en-dash an the em-dash have quick access from the section immediately below the editing screen immediately after the text Insert: which appears in bold. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:15, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    And even if you've done something to somehow mess up the built-in Wikipedia interface tools, a "Dell/PC", i.e. any Windows computer, has a built-in program called Character Map. It's very handy, though I prefer the (non-free) program PopChar for access to non-keyboard characters. Also exists for Mac.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:39, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Or you use the numeric keypad and type Alt+0150. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 03:59, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Is Windows the only platform for computers? Tony (talk) 08:02, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    "Is Windows the only platform" - naughty, don't mock the afflicted. :) More seriously: Compose--. for Linux implementations. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 08:58, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    On a Mac, it's even easier: Option-hyphen (Option-Shift-hyphen makes an em dash).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  12:42, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    am i able to see that "insert" here in this reply? I don't see it. Iljhgtn (talk) 22:56, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    or you just mean when making edits on pages? Iljhgtn (talk) 22:57, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    When making edits on article pages—or here, if you click on "Edit" and not on "Reply." AuH2ORepublican (talk) 23:05, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Any page you edit. Use Ctrl+F and type in insert in the search box to find it. But this is if you are using the standard classic editing box. If you are using another editor it might be a bit different. Cinderella157 (talk) 23:15, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Cartoon from Puck, August 9, 1899, by J. S. Pughe. Angry Uncle Sam sees hyphenated voters and demands, "Why should I let these freaks cast whole votes when they are only half Americans?"
    Discussing about emdashed Americans seems to be a method for refusing the existence of the Hyphenated-Americans. And pretending that this could depend from whatever Manual of Style appears rather as a kind of blindness from some White-White-Americans, you know these English-Americans whose faces are ranging from pink to red(emdash/endash/hyphen)pink --don't ask why. May be there is some letter soup item about inclusiveness. Pldx1 (talk) 16:03, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    maybe that was the correct use in 1899, but in 2023, the unhyphenated appears to be the widespread use. Iljhgtn (talk) 16:19, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Section-specific terminology hatnotes

    Is there any MOS guidance about section specific hatnotes noting linguistic conventions? If not, would it be best to use {{hatnote}} to templatize this guidance on linguistic conventions? — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 20:54, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    @BillHPike: See this for a solution: special:permalink/1181333207#Chinese—Alalch E. 11:39, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Another tentative application of the same approach: special:permalink/1181358259#References (hatnotes also don't show in the printable version, and a note with this content shouldn't show in the printable version however it may be formatted, in my opinion). —Alalch E. 15:40, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Why on earth would you use an annoyingly decorative pseudo-hatnote like that? By including what amounts to a big blue "block" icon, it is against MOS:ICONS: "For the purposes of this guideline, icons encompasses ... other decoration, whether produced by small image files, typographic dingbats, emojis, or CSS display manipulation." This is the last of those cases.) The style in question is used by warning templates to flag article problems that readers should be aware of it; it is not for generic cross-referencing. If you want to create a custom hatnote, that is what {{hatnote}} (indented) and {{crossreference}} (not indented) are for.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:20, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Neither of those solutions which you suggest are good either, because the purpose of hatnotes per WP:HAT is to help readers locate a different article if the one they are at is not the one they're looking for, and this is not such a case. I think that this is good: Special:Diff/1189104552. Just not sure about indenting or not. Maybe unindented but italicized makes the most sense. (Also, I don't agree with you that the generic notice template serves only to flag problems, but we don't have to discuss that, as I don't intend to pursue replicating the above approach.) —Alalch E. 18:57, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Putting an end to using "Caucasian" for white Americans

    There is an unfortunate, US-centric trend of using the term Caucasian to refer to white people, especially in medicine. This use is not quite accurate for obvious geographic reasons, but because the term is/was widely used by RS, it's very much NPOV and uncontested by the current standards of MOS:IDENTITY. Examples:

    • Eye color: Studies on Caucasian twins, both fraternal and identical, have shown that eye color over time (referring to an US study)
    • Doctor–patient relationship: According to a study of 618 medical encounters between mainly Caucasian physicians and Caucasian and African American patients... (US, again)
    • Factor V Leiden: Suspicion of factor V Leiden being the cause for any thrombotic event should be considered in any Caucasian patient below the age of 45... (US, of course)

    Should we do something to discourage this kind of use, and in fact encourage rewriting the "Caucasian" in sources about e.g. US population genetics and case reports to "white"? The change needed might be as simple as adding example under the use specific terminology part of MOS:IDENTITY, or arguing that it's "Contested vocabulary" using non-American English sources (themselves being a minority, eh). Artoria2e5 🌉 05:24, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    We can't re-interpret sources or what they meant by "Caucasian". Maybe they included people from the archaic racial category which is wide-ranging across multiple continents and could potentially include people from the Caucasus, Middle East, North Africa, and Indian subcontinent, as well as Europe, or perhaps they meant some variety of "white", whatever that means. We need to stick to what the sources say in quoting or paraphrasing them, otherwise would involve some OR/SYNTH. —DIYeditor (talk) 05:39, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    At the very least, we should link to the Caucasian American article on first use if the study explicitly talks about "Caucasian" people in an American context. Oh wait what's that, a redirect?
    Look, in many cases, no OR/SYNTH at all is needed to figure out that we aren't talking about Georgia and Armenia.
    • The eye color article's source, doi:10.1001/archopht.1997.01100150661017, directly says "whites" in the abstract. Someone actually bent that into Caucasian to sound fancy.
    • Same goes for DPR article, doi:10.1016/S0277-9536(99)00338-X, right in the abstract.
    • FVL article quote is unsourced, but lower down we have Studies have found that about 5 percent of Caucasians in North America have factor V Leiden. Data have indicated that prevalence of factor V Leiden is greater among Caucasians than minority Americans. That's zero guesswork involved to know it's about "Caucasian Americans". The source PMID 9415695 does use Caucasian for once.
    --Artoria2e5 🌉 07:20, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Considering the first two sources actually use "white", anyone contesting a change to those articles would need to justify it since the "Caucasian" term isn't actually used. As for the third, unfortunately the term is used in the source, so it needs to be used for accuracy here. That said, I would have no qualms about a general statement that the term is dispreferred because it represents an outdated (and throughly discredited) form of pseudoscientific racism. oknazevad (talk) 12:58, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Re This use is not quite accurate for obvious geographic reasons: "White" is not quite accurate for obvious color reasons. (Very few of us Caucasians/white people are albino.) But words are understood to mean what they're understood to mean, and "Caucasian" isn't a pejorative term. However, I wonder what people these days think "Caucasian" means. When I was a kid (1960s), a resources I had (I think it was a Rand McNally world atlas) presented a tripartite division of the human species: Caucasian, Negroid, and Mongoloid. We generally find a finer categorization today, with the some people classified as "Middle Eastern" or "South Asian", for example. I think that older sources would have counted Middle Easterners and South Asians as Caucasian while newer sources might not. So what "Caucasian" means is going to be inconsistent as one goes from source to source to source. So I agree it isn't a cut-and-dried matter, but I don't think that changing "Caucasian" to "white" would solve that problem. Largoplazo (talk) 12:26, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree here I am also a 60s kid and without doubt the meaning has been refined. When i deal this the I simply use quote marks so its clear its a term from the source Of the 36.3 million people enumerated in 2021, approximately 25.4 million reported being "White", representing 69.8 percent of the population. The major panethnic groups chosen were: "European" (52.5 percent)..... Moxy- 13:13, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not a 60s kid, but the tripartite racial classification still being taught in China today is basically the same thing (with color-based names), so I get the concern about blurry buckets. I think that quotation marks and a general statement discourage de novo (uh, not-in-the-source) uses of the term is good enough for me. Given current NIH reporting recommendations, the term should die out. --Artoria2e5 🌉 02:08, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you SURE that American English sources are a minority within English sources? Given the proportions of native speakers within and without the US, I wouldn't be so sure.--User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 13:21, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Uhhh Khajidha, I said non-American English sources (themselves being a minority, eh). That means that I believe Am Eng is the majority, and non-Am is the minority. You know what? That's bad punctiation on my part. If it read "non–American-English", it might make more sense. Artoria2e5 🌉 12:57, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure if that would have helped. I was understanding the sentence to say that you were proposing to use sources not in American English to establish the status as contested because Americans are the minority. I'm not sure now if the problem was your phrasing or my brain. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 14:04, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The use of "Caucasian" to refer to white people is not US-specific. It's also used in many other countries (it's certainly long been used in the UK). It isn't pejorative and it's no less inaccurate than calling people "white" or "black" or saying "people of colour" (what colour? Does that mean white people are colourless?). It's a commonly used and perfectly acceptable term. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:11, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    From a biological and genetic perspective, the terms Black, Caucasian, Negro and White are all problematical, lumping together people with different genetics and splitting people with similar genetics. For people of mixed ancestry, the terms become positively ludicrous. In the US, a person with mostly European ancestry and a small amount of African ancestry is called Black, which is difficult to explain on any basis other than slave-era prejudice. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 15:05, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    These days, I would actually have said it was precisely the opposite! Mixed-race people often identify as black themselves, even if they have more European than African ancestry. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:09, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    There's also the issue that Africa is culturally and genetically diverse, even if you only look at West Africa; IMHO, our language should respect that. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 15:40, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Nobody thinks all White people are clones of each other, nor that all Black people are clones of each other. We all know there's genetic (as well as cultural) diversity among both groups. The use of those terms doesn't imply otherwise. Largoplazo (talk) 17:05, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Succession box entry for new and abolished positions

    In succession boxes, the "before=" and "after=" parameters often have no meaningful values, if the position was its first or last time. In these cases, for new we see "New Position", "(new position)", "(no predecessor)", "(none)", "(-)" and such for "before=", and "Abolished", "Abolished Position", "(Position abolished)", "(abolished)", "(post vacant)" etc. for "after=". Personally, I think the parenthesized lowercase entries make the most sense, not looking like a proper name but explaining why there's not one. Do we have any guidance on this? Should we? Dicklyon (talk) 17:52, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    I'd recommend, if the office holder had no predecessor or successor. The officer holder should have no succession box. GoodDay (talk) 17:59, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Of course. I apologize for misleading you by putting "and" where I should have said "or". Dicklyon (talk) 19:08, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This actually should probably be settled on as a prescribed style, then built into the boxes as parameter values that emit that. I.e., detect "none" and perhaps "new", "abolished", and "vacant" (any others to account for?) as values that will emit something in a consistent format, e.g. (none), (new), (abolished), or (vacant), if we agree on this parenthetical style. Throw an error if people try to add randomly made-up annotations. And, yes, if the position only had one holder such that there is neither a predecessor nor a sucessor, then such a template should not be used and would just be pointless visual noise. PS: I'm not even sure "vacant" has a use case. Even if the previous office/title/position holder had been two centuries earlier, that is still a predecessor.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  18:48, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Let's see if we can agree on a style first, then worry about the mechanics of how to get there. I recommend lowercase parentheticals, "(new position)", "(abolished)", and similar if other cases such as "(vacant)" or "(none)" are needed for some reason. Dicklyon (talk) 19:25, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Recommend visual examples (i.e boxes) of proposals. Give us a more direct look at what we're dealing with. GoodDay (talk) 19:42, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Current version
    Preceded by
    Created
    		 Office
    2023–2025     		Succeeded by
    Abolished

    Here's what I see as most common and what I propose (though as noted you wouldn't have a succession box at all if the position has no before or after like this): Dicklyon (talk) 23:58, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Current version
    Preceded by
    New Position
    		 Office
    2023–2025     		Succeeded by
    Abolished
    Proposed version
    Preceded by
    (new position)
    		 Office
    2023–2025     		Succeeded by
    (abolished)

    @Dicklyon, GoodDay, and SMcCandlish: I think the templates already have a solution for this. Template:s-non can be used in place of the before {{s-bef}} or after {{s-aft}} box. Using the example above it looks like this:

    New Position Office
    2023–2025     		Abolished

    Hope that helps, Rjjiii (talk) 05:25, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Yup, that version looks great. GoodDay (talk) 05:28, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with the proposed version. The capitalization in the original was weird, and the {{s-non}} stuff is just confusing (maybe not when there are multiple succession boxes for multiple positions indicating a before/then/after relationship between the fields, but one by itself wouldn't make much sense to the reader).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  05:35, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @GoodDay and SMcCandlish: are y'all supporting the capitalized version by Rjjiii, or the lowercase parenthetical by me? As far as I can tell, the Template:s-non thing just copies the reason string, so it has no influence on what style the editor uses. It helps, but leaves a question; perhaps sentence case "New position" would be sensible there instead of what Rjjiii showed. Dicklyon (talk) 17:37, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    My primary choice, would be to have 'no succession box' used, if there's no predecessor or successor. But, if we're to have a succession box in those circumstances? then Rjjiii's version is acceptable. GoodDay (talk) 18:34, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Lowercase parenthetical. The capitalization isn't necessary. But yes, if there are neither a predecessor nor successor, then no such template should be used, since no navigational function can be served by it.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:35, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Style for group of articles

    We are a group of editors who have been having a discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Date format for year articles on adopting a policy/standard that all articles about generic years (e.g. 1998) should be written using the DMY date format. (For the reasons why, read the discussion itself). I and several other editors do find it beneficial and desirable that such a narrow group of articles consistently use the same format not just within one particular article but across all year articles. However, according to MOS:VAR: "If you believe an alternative style would be more appropriate for a particular article, discuss this at the article's talk page or – if it raises an issue of more general application or with the MoS itself – at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style".

    The policy only grants the right to change format based on consensus within one article. As it would take a lot of time to go through individual discussions on all +2000 year articles, I would therefore like to suggest changing the policy in a way that (in very rare cases) allows for establishing a consensus on a place like the village pump to change the date format (or questions about styles in general) on a group of articles, and not just individual ones. I do think this makes sense with regard to years.--Marginataen (talk) 17:00, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    You say that those proposing this change find it beneficial to have conformity between year articles (and not just within a given year article, as is current guidance). Could you elaborate on that and explain precisely what the benefits would be? Blueboar (talk) 18:06, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm likely to be strongly against any change to the policy. Johnbod (talk) 20:39, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a guideline, not a policy. And it's entirely normal for wikiprojects to set some basic style standards for articles within their scope, as long as it a) isn't making up an "anti-rule" that is against site-wide policies or guidelines, b) doesn't conflict with style asserted by other wikiprojects for whom the articles are also in-scope, and c) isn't advanced in a WP:OWN/WP:GANG manner, e.g. to thwart a consensus discussion at a particular article that concludes to diverge from the default style for that category of articles (cf. WP:CONLEVEL). This sort of wikiproject setting of default styles in a category is mostly done with article layout (what sections should typically be present in a football bio, or whatever), determining what to put in topical infoboxes, standardization of tables and charts at similar articles, and so on. (For a rather large collection of such wikiproject style advice material, which has the authority level of essays but is nevertheless generally followed, see WP:WikiProject Football#Manual of style.) But there's no particular reason something like this couldn't apply to the date format in a consistent and programmatic series of articles on years. It's not any different from the consensuses to format them all as the same sort of list, to give them all consistent introductory leads, to have the same trio of infoboxes in the same order, to have the same major sections for Events/Births/Deaths, to all use the section title References (instead of some altenative like Citations, Sources, etc.), and so on. Remember that Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy and we are not here to wikilawyer about rules in a way that impedes working on the encyclopedia. A consensus to treat several hundred near-identical articles in the same category in a consistent matter is not magically invalid because it didn't redundantly happen several hundred times on separate talk pages, article-by-article. Cf. also our WP:RM, WP:CFD, and other processes that support multi-page nominations (which very often involve MoS matters); we systemically permit multi-page consensuses because re-re-re-re-arguing the same thing at hundreds of pages of the same sort would be a stupid waste of editorial time and energy. WP:VPPRO is a perfectly fine venue at which to come to a broad-participation consensus in favor of or against this wikiproject's narrow style consistency idea (though there's been so much workshopping of text in mid-discussion that I suspect it will require a second round). And Johnbod is correct that there is no rationale to make a change to this guideline, or to any policy, in response, any more than we would rewrite MOS:LAYOUT to account for what is said about football/soccer articles at WP:WikiProject Football#Manual of style; wikiprojects have broad latitude to provide consistent style advice as long as it's not directly against site-wide norms that apply to all articles (and the project in this case is not proposing some new date format that MOS:DATE doesn't sanction). (All that said, the football project's section I mentioned should probably be renamed to "#Style advice" to stop implying it is part of the Manual of Style guidelines.)  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:17, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure that "set some basic style standards for articles within their scope" is the right way of putting this. One would hope that editors who are particularly familiar with and enthusiastic about improving articles within a self-chosen area would provide some optional advice (and we call them WP:Advice pages for this reason), but they're not really "setting standards"; they're just giving us the benefit of their experience. (Also, hopefully not directly contradicting the best advice from other groups, because it's not unusual for an article to be supported by multiple groups. See also the problem with {{drugbox}} and {{chembox}} both being relevant for many articles, and it not always being obvious which one should take priority.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:15, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I already covered both of those points in my original post ("has the authority level of essays", and "doesn't conflict with style asserted by other wikiprojects for whom the articles are also in-scope"), but okay.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  07:13, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I said my piece over at the Village Pump, but... I agree with SMcCandlish that there isn't a problem with some sort of "unified discussion" of a group of articles. However, I do object to the grounds on which this proposal is made. The spirit of ENGVAR (and, in this particular case, DATEVAR) is that discussions on preferred style of English are highly discouraged, and when an over-eager editor goes around trying to impose "consistency" on what is coincidentally the format they're used to, they're told to stop. We just don't do that. And there are good and proper reasons for this that have to do with editor retention: if one editor has an article they maintain with Commonwealth English, and another one with Pakistani English, and another one in Canadian English, Who Cares. Let them be. I haven't found any other rationale other than "DMY is my favorite format and a more global format" which goes directly against the ethos of ENGVAR, where if the first major editor to an article slaps a South African English tag on it, that's how it stays regardless of how global it is or isn't. A general discussion is fine, but it should be for something like how articles on the US Military use DMY because that's what the sources use. No such argument has been provided for year articles. If this precedent goes through, then what's to stop there from being chips in the wall until nothing remains of DATEVAR? We could hold the same vote for articles on electronics, or articles on games, or articles on clothing, and generate ENGVAR flame wars each time where the "losing" side will feel embittered for no reason. SnowFire (talk) 06:19, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I made a follow-up proposal in VPP which I would suggest as an alternative: if the goal is merely consistency, then the way to keep the truce of ENGVAR is to vote for consistency or not, and if consistency wins, randomly select one of DMY / MDY. That way any sort of ENGVAR debate is avoided. Both formats work, and the "losing" side at least lost to a coin toss rather than not wasting time on an unproductive vote. SnowFire (talk) 06:19, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Two issues I have with this are a) there doesn't seem to be an established on-wiki way to generate a random result, and b) this "terriblizing" scenario of going topic-by-topic with RfC after RfC to set a date standard is nowhere in sight. Such a category-wide standard has never been proposed before (that I know of), is only being proposed in this particular case because the articles are themselves about dates and people are very apt to navigate from one to another and be subjected to more-jarring-than-usual inconsistency, and there is no reason or rationale to try to impose a similar standard across articles on electronics or clothing. In short, this looks like the fallacious version of the slippery slope argument to me.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  07:18, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @SMcCandlish: As I understand you, your assesment is that the discussion on the village pump on whether to establish a standard for using the DMY format consistently across WikiProject Years is completely valid. Not that it is a good idea, but that it is a valid request to discuss on the Village pump as venue. How do we move forwad from here? Marginataen (talk) 09:30, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Of course it's valid; editorial consensus can be determined on anything (other than to undo WP:OFFICE actions and other legal matters imposed on us externally by WMF), provided the discussion has broad enough input. The discussion as it stands now is kind of a messy one. I don't think it's going to come to a clear consensus. It would probably be necessary to do it again later. And it might still result in no consensus, or a consensus to have no standard, to a consensus to have a standard that isn't the one you favor.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:51, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    All right, with the validity of both the request and the venue for its discussion established, I am considering to start a whole new discussion about it at the village pump since the current one indeed is a mess. Would this be permissible/recommendable, SMcCandlish? Marginataen (talk) 16:06, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    "That which is not forbidden is permitted." As for recommendable, probably not, until the current discussion completely dwindles. Or start a subthread under the existing discussion if you think that would be effective. But just WP:TALKFORKing while the current discussion is still ongoing would probably not be well received.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:54, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Consolidate and clarify non-English orthography advice

    I've read through MOS:FOREIGN, MOS:FOREIGNITALIC, WP:Manual of Style#Foreign words (which has no shortcut; it's part of MOS:ITAL), MOS:FOREIGNQUOTE, MOS:FOREIGNITALIC, and MOS:OTHERLANG, and what is conspicuously absent is the instruction to use the capitalization orthography of the original language when presenting non-English text (other than loanwords/loanphrases that have been fully assimilated into English).

    This instruction is present in two places (at least):

    • MOS:LIFE has "... foreign-language terms: italicized as such, and capitalized only if the rules of the native language require it."
    • MOS:TITLECAPS has "Capitalization of non-English titles varies by language", with a cross-reference to MOS:FOREIGNTITLE below it: "Capitalization in foreign-language titles varies, even over time within the same language. Retain the style of the original for modern works. For historical works, follow the dominant usage in modern, English-language, reliable sources." (And provides some examples.)
    • The principle is also clearly illustrated at MOS:LEADSENTENCE, which provides the lead sentence from Spanish–American War, including proper casing in English, Spanish, and Filipino.

    So, unless there's some principled objection, I plan to add at MOS:FOREIGN something along the lines of Use the capitalization orthography of the original language when presenting non-English terms that have not been fully assimilated into English. This will be consistent with the advice we do have in at least two places, and (more importantly) will be consistent with actual practice. If we want, some examples can be added, such as Festchrift (German capitalizes all nouns) but bratwurst (German loanword assimilated into English); copo americano (Portuguese generally does not capitalize adjectives derived from proper names), but Superliga Nacional de Futebol Americano (proper name spelled that way both in Portuguese and English sources). I don't really think examples are necessary, though I know some editors prefer MoS sections to have some.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:32, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    I agree with this. I wonder if we can also standardize capitalization for translations from non-cased scripts? I tend to prefer sentence case when translating titles and names, but I'm sure someone could hold the opposite position. Remsense聊 20:03, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That would seem to be a separate discussion. And, yes, I think people will argue the opposite position, that when giving a translation from a caseless language, we should follow the norms of English title case given at MOS:TITLES; i.e., since it's arbitrary in such an instance anyway, follow the default instead of doing something unusual. A third group of editors would (perhaps unhelpfully) argue for doing it differently on a title-by-title basis, following the predominant style used for that specific title in English-language sources.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:02, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    "Foreign terms": rename a subsection?

    Under "Foreign terms", the first subsection is called "No common use in English". This subsection title is genuinely ambiguous, especially in the context of a manual, because the word "No" appears to be prohibiting something. I'm sure the person who wrote it merely wanted to avoid wordy headings, and the topic was so familiar to them that they didn't see the confusion.

    Just in the interest of trying to keep it short, I might suggest something like "If not commonly used in English" or "Words not commonly used in English", but my preference is to give up trying to condense the idea, and put "When the word is not commonly used in English".

    If a change is made, the subsection that follows it should probably be renamed correspondingly. TooManyFingers (talk) 18:21, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    There isn't any other MoS section that start with "No" and is a rule against something, and if we do have a rule against something, it is not given in the form "No [whatever]".  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:40, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not among those who had planned to read the whole manual just in order to discover the situation you described. I can't imagine I'm alone in that, so your response doesn't seem reasonable to me. And even if it is expected that everyone will just know they have to read the whole manual before reading this part, there are other ambiguities in this heading that make it unclear what it's even referring to, and it's easily fixed. Of course you know what it means, but that isn't really relevant – you were already familiar with it. TooManyFingers (talk) 23:31, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    "No common use in English" is a descriptive phrase and has no verb in it, so it cannot be an instruction. I honestly don't care much whether the wording is tweaked, but none of the suggestions above strike me as improvements. "If not commonly used in English" looks like a fragementary question. "Words not commonly used in English" is too specific, since the material applies to multi-word phrases. "When the word is not commonly used in English" has the same issue.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  12:36, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    The name might be re-titled too. America is "foreign" where I live. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 12:14, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Doesn't have anything to do with the US. It's about foreign to English, not foreign to a particular geographic location.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  12:36, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Then why not say that directly rather than approach it obliquely? I suspect when it was written many many moons ago, the author unconsciously channelled the US phrase "foreign and domestic". Wikipedia is a world-wide encyclopedia, nowhere is "foreign". --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 17:11, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure, but this is not the MOS for Wikipedia. It's the MOS for en.wiki. That said, I agree "foreign" is not quite precise. --Trovatore (talk) 17:48, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    (As an aside, I think the project of trying to make Wikipedia a single encyclopedia that you can read in multiple languages is a bit overdone sometimes. The different languages are different encyclopedias, between which there is a certain amount of coordination, but there is no need to try to make them all just article-for-article translations of one another.) --Trovatore (talk) 17:51, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, and what's striking to me here is that this particular material has been stable for years and years, then suddenly out of nowhere two people want to change it (without a good idea for what to change it to), both with rationales that indicate problems understanding the clear meaning of the material, which no one else seems to have any difficulty with.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:09, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This should resolve it, with a minimal amount of change, and no substantive change.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:09, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree with SMC’s “tweak”. Should resolve the issue. Blueboar (talk) 17:17, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    "UK government" vs "British government"?

    This question is being discussed at Talk:Elgin Marbles#UK vs British. Does the Manual of Style makes any distinction or express any preference between these two? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:20, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't personally have a preference but the title of the Prime Minister is Prime Minister of the United Kingdom. The government is elected under United Kingdom Local Elections. I'm more bothered about not switching between the two in that article. British might read better for people. Knitsey (talk) 12:43, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    United Kingdom is a subject or (as in your first example) object. British is more common as an adjective. MapReader (talk) 12:47, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I'd say United Kingdom was a proper noun. But it has been suggested that, in this case, its abbreviation "UK" can also be used as an adjective. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:59, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that’s a practice more common in American English, because the Americans clearly do use ‘US’ as an adjective - for example ‘US Navy’ or ‘US Army’. Whereas it’s the Royal Navy and British Army. If the article is in American English then using UK as an adjective would be more in order than it would for a British English one. MapReader (talk) 18:46, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That's not an adjective. That's a noun adjunct. May not matter for this discussion, but good to keep these things straight. --Trovatore (talk) 02:13, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The idea that "UK government" (with or without a capital G) is an Americanism isn't demonstrable, as shown by a quick search for this quoted string in news from the UK [10]. It's quite frequent, and simply not the preference of a few specific publishers such as The Guardian.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  08:06, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    For what it's worth, the UK Government's Digital Service style guide (www.gov.uk/guidance/style-guide/a-to-z-of-gov-uk-style) says: Use UK and United Kingdom in preference to Britain and British (UK business, UK foreign policy, ambassador and high commissioner). But British embassy, not UK embassy. -- DeFacto (talk). 14:00, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Too bad it doesn't mention "UK government". It doesn't even give those as "e.g."? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:12, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Both "UK government" and "British government" are in widespread common use, and both are used in official sources like gov.uk. In that context, I don't think it would be appropriate for WP to prescriptively pick one over the other. I would say we shouldn't arbitrarily switch between them, but that is more an issue of the problem with elegant variation generally than this specific usage.--Trystan (talk) 15:02, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, Googling on just "https://www.gov.uk" gives 4,910 hits on "British government" and 1,870,000 hits on "UK Government". -- DeFacto (talk). 15:08, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    errrrm, we never use Google hits as the basis for MoS (for a whole host of reasons)? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:11, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That's as maybe, but it makes an informative contribution to the discussion, that's all. -- DeFacto (talk). 15:22, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, as I suggested at Talk:Elgin Marbles, unless we know the reason(s) why each of those cases was used in each particular example, we're really no further forward. I don't think its a case of "UK government wins by 1,865,090, because that's what the gov.uk website says." Martinevans123 (talk) 15:27, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, it does. In the "U" section it says:
    UK government
    Never HM government.
    And in the "G" section it says:
    government
    Lower case unless it’s a full title. For example: 'UK government', but 'His Majesty’s Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland'
    Also 'Welsh Government', as it’s the full title.
    -- DeFacto (talk). 15:03, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I see. Well we have no examples of "HM government" and no examples of "Government". So no issues there. But, as Trystan says above, it's probably not appropriate for WP to prescriptively pick one over the other. And certainly not on the basis of advice offered by a single external website? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:09, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd go by the related pages - You've got Parliament of the United Kingdom, Government of the United Kingdom & Monarchy of the United Kingdom. Although, you've also got British royal family. -- GoodDay (talk) 15:33, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    We've also got British Empire, which was kind of when all this Elgin Marbles fuss kicked off? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:39, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Haven't read the bio page. Are there any other governments mentioned? GoodDay (talk) 15:47, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Unsurprisingly we also have Greek government (which redirects anyway). Martinevans123 (talk) 16:17, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    FWIW, that page should re-direct to the Government of Greece page. GoodDay (talk) 16:22, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Retargeted it. Note that Greek Government already pointed to Government of Greece, so this is just a matter of consistency. oknazevad (talk) 16:54, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    As posted on the article talk page, pre 1800 it was the British Government, after 1800 it was changed to UK Government. The events surrounding the Marbles started just before 1800 (if my memory serves me right) but the removal, after the casts were taken, began 1801(?).
    I don't know if this [11] is applicable, While many government powers have been delegated to the devolved institutions in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, only the UK Government can speak on behalf of the UK and represent us abroad. Knitsey (talk) 15:53, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    "British" is the standard adjective for the United Kingdom. It should be "British government". The use of "UK" as an adjective is very poor English. You wouldn't say "the France government" or "the Canada government". -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:52, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That's true. But you would say "US government"? Martinevans123 (talk) 16:15, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, because US is commonly used as an adjective and always has been. You wouldn't, however, say "USA government". -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:27, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Necrothesp, just like "UK" then, which is commonly used as an adjective too. Your argument against "UK government" is illogical. -- DeFacto (talk). 17:54, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Necrothesp, "British" is one of the standard adjectives. The other is "UK", and neither are poor English. -- DeFacto (talk). 16:21, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    My point is that it is poor English. Bad English is not an excuse for bad English. This is an encyclopaedia, not a populist social media site. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:27, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    And bad British is not an excuse for bad UK! The article ought to be consistent, where it can be. (but nothing is set in stone, lol) . Martinevans123 (talk) 16:44, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Necrothesp, what's poor about using the common adjective "UK" as an, err, adjective? Of Britain and UK even the Guardian's style guide here says: "These terms are synonymous: Britain is the official short form of United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Used as adjectives, therefore, British and UK mean the same". -- DeFacto (talk). 17:11, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    We'll have none of those pinko, lefty, subversive grammar ideas here, thankyou very much! Martinevans123 (talk) 17:14, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, as in UK Empire, UK Raj, UK Army, UK Airways, etc. etc..... Martinevans123 (talk) 17:18, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Quite! -- Necrothesp (talk) 17:32, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    There's an obvious difference though between those examples and "UK Government". The latter is in common usage, as "US government" is. The others are not, and are comparable to "US pie", "US Dream", "US football", "US Revolution", and "US Samoa". -- DeFacto (talk). 17:51, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I maintain that "UK" and "British" are not synonymous. Far from it, in fact. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:27, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    When "the UK" is used as an adjective before a noun, as in "the UK government", it means "the government of the UK" (and there "the UK" is used as a noun). "The British government" can also mean "the government of the UK", so clearly it is synonymous in that case, although it is a more ambiguous way of saying it. -- DeFacto (talk). 16:42, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Why is it "more ambiguous"? Martinevans123 (talk) 16:57, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    "British government" is ambiguous because "British" has two common meanings:
    1. of or relating to the United Kingdom
    2. of or relating to Britain
    The second is the problem as "Britain" has two common meanings too:
    1. an informal name for Great Britain (England, Scotland, and Wales)
    2. an informal name for the United Kingdom (England, Northern Ireland, Scotland, and Wales)
    -- DeFacto (talk). 19:37, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I would suggest that the phrase "the British government" may be ambiguous in isolation, but that the context in a sentence/ paragraph/ section/ article, etc., will generally help to demote what is being referred to. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:22, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    For my part, I wasn't even sure that "the British government" might sometimes be ambiguous, but rather "British government" without the definite article (which suggests "the government of Britain" rather than the vague "a government in Britain"). I.e., the ambiguity is probably only in constructions like "according to several British government sources" or "subsidized by British governmental funding". And Zacwill's point below about "Spanish government" not being seen as ambiguous despite some self-rule autonomous areas within Spain is valid, so I'm less enthused about my own ambiguity argument now than when I began (and it seems not very persuasive to anyone else anyway). I don't want to die on a hill at all, much less this one. Heh.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  10:59, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Seeing as "Greek government" is being used in the said-bio page? Then "British government" should likewise, be used. Bring it all into consistency. GoodDay (talk) 16:56, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    @GoodDay, would you insist on using "American government" if the US were involved? Would you similarly eliminate other synonyms in use in the article? -- DeFacto (talk). 17:59, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Depends on what's being used in a page. If "UK government" is used in a page, I would use "US government". If "British government" is being used in a page, I would use "American government". Consistency within the page. GoodDay (talk) 18:01, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    But "American government" isn't how it's usually referred to, by a wide margin[12] (and definitely not a proper name), and would be considered by various people to be some combination of misnomer, ambiguous, or even offensive (mostly to people from Latin American countries who object to use of "America[n]" to refer to the US in particular). While "American government" is not exactly a neologisms and can be attested in sources, it is a far-minority usage and readers may mentally rebel at encountering it, so it should probably be avoided. It is much more important to be clear and neutral than to use precisely parallel constructions that hardly anyone but a linguist would notice.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:52, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I would favour "UK" [in the modern context, not for pre-1800 matters] because "British" includes "Scottish", but Scotland for some time has had its own devolved (rather unfortunate term) separate Scottish Government. While Scotland is still subject to some UK-wide legalities and regulations that aren't covered by the devolution, it is increasingly self-governing, and "British government" is misleading. It's also more of a descriptive term, not really a proper name like Scottish Government and arguably Government of the United Kingdom (in practice, though I think His Majesty's Government is the official name of it, albeit disused by sources and the public). As a descriptive "British government" phrase, or an alleged proper name "British Government", it is apt to be confusing in some ways to various readers.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:06, 1 December 2023 (UTC); clarified 01:52, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, SMcCandlish. I was really only asking about usage at Elgin Marbles. I am guessing that you are offering advice here about usage in general. Are there any aspects at Elgin Marbles, particularly to do with the historical era involved, that might lead you to tailor that advice? Thank you. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:26, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure. For a historical subject the principle to not "rewrite history" would include avoiding confusing anachronisms. Elgin's activity came after the Acts of Union 1800 that established the United Kingdom, but the lead as of this moment confusingly says "Elgin sold them to the British government in that year.... In 1983, the Greek government formally asked the UK government to return them.... The UK government and British Museum declined UNESCO's offer of mediation. In 2021, UNESCO called upon the UK government to resolve the issue at the intergovernmental level." The "UK" version already dominates in the material in reference to both the government and parliament, with a stray instance of "British government" in there that seems to imply it is something different from the UK government but existed at the same time, the way the present UK and Scottish governments/parliaments co-exist. (The presence of "British Museum" in the same material is fine; it's a proper name and no one calls it the "UK Museum".) Should generally be made consistent throughout the article (e.g. "Goethe thought the British government's decision to buy the marbles..." → "Goethe thought the UK government's decision to buy the marbles..."), except here: "In November 1798, the Earl of Elgin ... had approached officials of the British government to inquire ...". In 1798, the UK as such didn't exist yet, so "British" should be retained. But later in the same section, "The excavation and removal was completed in 1812 .... Elgin sold the marbles to the British government for £35,000" should read "UK" not "British", being post-1800.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:52, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I don’t think the suggestion that using ‘UK-‘ as an adjective for situations after 1800 reflects the most common practice in British English commentary. It’s British English, after all, not UK English. The British Army, the British Royal Family, etc. In the same way as you observe above that American readers would expect to see ‘US Government’ rather than ‘American government’ (the latter nevertheless being not uncommon in British English), British readers would think phrases such as ‘UK Army’ and ‘UK Royal Family’ rather odd constructions, regardless of historical or contemporary geographical accuracy. For the Olympics the country competes as Team GB, and rejected a suggested switch to Team UK, and in either case were the qualifier to be put before the noun as an adjective it would have more commonly been switched to ‘British team’ rather than ‘GB Team’ or ‘UK Team’. MapReader (talk) 06:23, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Already addressed this: Example text The fact that "British" is casually used more often in various constructions is irrelevant; in this particular construction it's ambiguous and often confusing. It's also irrelevant that various British publishers dont' care are use it anyway, since it provable no done near-universally, and WP is not bound to write about the UK like some particular newspapers choose to write about the UK; we have our own style guide for a reason. The fact that more than on government and parliament exist in [Great] Britain alone is sufficient to not use the confusing term, even if it's common.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  09:48, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    FWIW, just because Scotland, Wales & Northern Ireland have devolved governments, doesn't mean they're no longer governed by the UK/British government. Scotland, Wales & Northern Ireland aren't independent. In other words - What the British gov't hands over? the British gov't can take back. GoodDay (talk) 17:03, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The difference between UK and British lies in including Northern Ireland. The country's name is "The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland", so equating the mainland of GB to the whole of the UK can give offence in some quarters. In passing, and I don't want this to become a lengthy debate, why SMcCandlish is "devolved" a "rather unfortunate term"? Power and authority devolve from the national government to constituent parts, the word seems to me to be precise and appropriate. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 17:40, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Disagree. That's the difference between the proper nouns United Kingdom and Great Britain. But the adjective British is not limited to referring to GB. Its common use in relation UK-wide things is entirely valid. That is clear from the Government's own style-guide, odd though it may seem. My passport has the name of the state in full, and above that - in larger letters - British Passport; and within, all adjectival uses are "British" (excepting, of course, "Britannic Majesty"). I have never heard of NI Unionists objecting to British citizenship or being British nationals. Davidships (talk) 18:46, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Being very careful here about sensibilities, but NI Republicans can use the term "British" to imply that GB doesn't really care for NI and reinforce claims for a united Ireland. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 20:44, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The laws and regulations of the UK generally apply also to NI, so "UK government" would be more accurate a term anyway, since some interpretations of "British" exclude NI (even if Davidships might argue that most of them don't). PS: Martin, I called devolved an "unfortunate" term because devolve is also, with a different meaning, the opposte of evolve and in that sense implies a degeneration or retrogression. I get the sense that various of the English (and even some Scots) actually take a bit of delight in this pun as it applies to the devolved Scottish Government. Not something RS would cover propbably, but I've encountered use of it sarcastically in social media. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:52, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    (As far as I can tell, SMcCandlish, in the UK the term "devolution" is used by everyone without the slightest intention or suspicion of a pun.) the other Martin (talk) 11:17, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    So, in a side matter that really has no bearing on the thread, you just randomly feel like calling me a blantant liar that I've seen it used with sarcasm/irony? The fact that you haven't personally run into this usage doesn't mean it doesn't exist. FFS.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  09:56, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Not sure that I was intending to "just randomly call you a blantant liar." It was just an observation on my part. We have apparently seen different things, that's all. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:51, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Your opening phrasing is contestable, not only because of devolution but because the Brexit settlement, built on the Good Friday Agreement, leaves NI still subject to much EU law. But usage isn’t merely about strict geographical or historical accuracy, anyway. MapReader (talk) 06:29, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    SMcCandlish, do you think the WP:MoS needs to say something about the use of "the UK government" and "the British government"? Surely there are times in British history when use of "the UK government" would be anachronistic? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:13, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It would be anchronistic pre-1800, but MoS need not address it unless it's a frequent bone of contention (MOS:BLOAT). I would think that in any article improperly using "UK government" for something happening in 1745, that pointing out it was anachronistic and changing it to British would not go opposed. And anyway, I don't seem to be changing anyone's mind that using "UK government" instead of "British government" is a better post-1800 option anyway (and am not inclined to argue it any further; I've given the rationales I have and would just be repeating myself annoyingly), so the usage is apt to remain "British" most of the time regardless.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  10:48, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Aint' this discussion kinda getting off topic? GoodDay (talk) 02:39, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes, but just to point out, British government, indeed all things British are things that have something do with the British Isles which includes Northern Ireland. So if anything, it's not NI that would be upset but the Republic. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:38, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Suggesting that the British government is a government of the British Isles might raise a few eyebrows, if not hackles, in the Republic of Ireland. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 12:31, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That's my, "if anything" clause above. But the British government still has 'something to do with the British Isles', nonetheless. (I rather doubt most in the Republic care that it's called the British government -- it's little different than calling the Irish government, the 'Irish government' -- although they might not prefer what the term 'British Isles' encompasses.) Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:16, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    At any rate, slightly more on topic, I just don't think anyone is confused by the phrase 'British government', in the present, or in the past 300 years or so. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:54, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I wholly agree. I just don't see from where all this alleged ambiguity/ confusion is supposed to arise. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:57, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    To spell it out again: For some time now there has been more than one government that is British, and this was also true before the Acts of Union. The time period in which "British government" has had only one possible referent is not the present, and it might (I would have to do some word history investigation to be sure) not even be the majority of the time that "government" has been a term used in Britain. You're depending on every reader interpreting the word "British" to mean "encompassing all of Britain" and never "within Britain", despite the word having multiple meanings. There's less potential confusion when "British government" is preceded by "the", but this will not always be the case. And "UK goverment" (for the 1800-onward period in which it is applicable) is ambiguous in no way to anyone (is precise) and is well-attested in sources, including British ones, even if it isn't the most common way someone would express it over a pint at the pub. It's is better to use clear language than the most common language when the latter may be unclear (especially to people outside a particular country).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  10:10, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Errrrm no, I'm depending on every reader (or just most readers) to see a phrase such as "in 1801 the British government" and to realise that this refers to the government of Great Britain (i.e. those guys sat in the Houses of Parliament in Westminster) in 1801. Very sorry if that's asking too much. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:31, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a bit like claiming that Spanish government is an ambiguous term because the various autonomous communities each have their own devolved governments. There is no possibility that someone could see the phrase "British government" and assume that it referred to anything other than the national government seated in Westminster. Zacwill (talk) 00:42, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Since the Elgin Marbles page is using "Greek government"? Then that page should use "British government". Or do ya'll want to have something adopted for the entire Wikipedia, concerning the governments of the UK & USA. GoodDay (talk) 18:03, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    It was my edit here (subsequently reverted by DeFacto) that started this discussion. I have no wish to enact a sitewide policy, but I would prefer to see "British government" in the article, simply because it is a more encyclopedic term. Zacwill (talk) 00:35, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    There's nothing "unencyclopedic" about "UK government", in which "UK" is used adjectively just as "Greek" is being used. The fact that "Greek" is not (in this sense) also used as a noun is irrelevant. A closer comparison would be "New Zealand", a noun phrase that is routinely also used adjectivally ("New Zealand government" or in short form "NZ government"; use of "New Zealander government" is almost unheard of). The fact that "British government" is more commonly used, by writers who care less about potential ambiguity, doesn't mandate that we use it. Not sure how to make this clearer. This ambiguity reason really isn't much different from "United States government" and "US government" (or "U.S. government" if you really insist on that excrescent style) rather than "American government". It's not really material that "American government" and "British government" aren't ambiguous to everyone all the time. There's enough ambiguity for some readers some of the time for us to avoid the problem.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  10:08, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    As I tried to explain above, the context ought to be sufficient to remove any ambiguity. If "some readers" just ignore the context, and still see ambiguity, they must really be somewhat stupid. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:15, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair enough. I'm inclined to concede on this, though I don't think there should be any editwarring or meatbot activity to force "British" everwhere. But the usage should be consistent in the same article (except don't make it "UK" if it's anachronistic; an article that needs to use a "X government" term for pre-1800 events should probably use "British" consistently and avoid the "UK" construction).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  15:57, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Oooooh.... "editwarring or meatbot activity". Criminy! Whatever next. But many thanks for your input. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:39, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Strange WP:FAITACCOMPLI behaviour sometimes ensues (including from rather random quarters, like very recent editors) when they think there's a "mandate" to prefer one style over another. It happens.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  08:08, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll try and reign in my recent user meatbots on this one. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:31, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    If they are plump and juicy, set them aside for barbecuing later.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:47, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Decoding US Naval Ship Hull Numbers: Format Matters

    Hull numbers on US Naval ships serve as unique identifiers, much like personal names. Altering their format or inserting punctuation changes their intended identification. Just as "Bob Ross" is distinct from "Bob-Ross," CVN 77 and CVN-77 represent separate designations. These hull numbers are specifically structured to convey essential information, and any deviation from their intended format leads to potential confusion and inaccuracies. Just as one wouldn't arbitrarily modify a person's name, altering the format of a hull number can distort its precise meaning and hinder effective communication within naval operations, emphasizing the importance of maintaining the correct format for these vital identifiers.

    The resulting impact, at a minimum, is a prevalence and perpetuation of incorrect format across the shipyard industry.

    All US Naval ship designations should have hyphens removed. 50.231.20.123 (talk) 15:07, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Whoah. Well, USN doesn't agree about the hyphen. For example USS Abbot (DD-629) in the two key official USN-published reference sources:
    A choice was made on WP some while back: see WP:SHIPNAME "On Wikipedia, US Navy and US Coast Guard hull numbers are hyphenated (the US Navy itself is not consistent in this respect)".
    If you wish to pursue this, I suggest that you raise it at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ships. Davidships (talk) 16:11, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I would add that the rationale from the anon was self-defeating from the outset. If "the shipyard industry" shows "prevalence" of the usage with the hyphens, then it is strong evidence against removing them. And the rant asserts that using hyphens "changes their intended identification ... leads to potential confusion and inaccuracies", but has illustrated no such problems, e.g. two different ships designated "CVN 77" and "CVN-77", respectively, that have to be disambiguated.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  10:14, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    NOWRAP on sports scores

    Hi! I'm looking for some input on something that's come up on an article. Following a chat on my talk, it seems as though scores separated with an endash (no spaces) are default wrapping on a specific browser (Edge on Windows 10). I was under the impression that items like 6–4 wouldn't wrap. It doesn't on my browser, but there have been articles with these scores put into {{Nowrap}} tags; which I don't think is usual policy. Can anyone shed s some light on this? Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:57, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Of course sports scores (3‍–‍2) should never wrap. Whether {{nbnd}} or {{nowrap}} is used to achieve it is immaterial. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 23:36, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I think what I'm getting at, is that currently we don't use either in any MOS or style guide. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 07:07, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    We don't need a rule to do the sensible thing. All sorts of things should be no-wrapped to prevent line breaking, and we don't catalogue all of them. Is there some long-term, intractable fight going on, with people revert-warring against no-wrap templating?  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  10:09, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    There is no edit-war going on at all. Just a polite discussion.  Alan  (talk) 10:35, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Not really. I didn't even know that this dash would wrap. I was just looking for some sort of consensus to update our MOS (such as at MOS:SNOOKER, but also maybe a paragraph here) and make it the suggested formatting. Otherwise we'll just end up with other sports, etc. having the same conversation. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 10:37, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Because it would be such a small addition, and because the problem could be widespread, I don't think I'm actually going to object to adding this to MOS:NUM in the sport scores and vote tallies section, and I think I saw that someone had already done it anyway. If at least two browser have this issue, and it affects all sports (and votes, and other things formatted like this), then I suppose it's a real enough issue to address it.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  10:33, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Well spotted. MOS:SCORES says: "To avoid potential line breaks, {{non breaking en dash}}, or {{nbnd}} for short, can be used."  Alan  (talk) 10:51, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure. I'm happy-ish now. It's going to be a bit more processing for pages, but not too bad. I would prefer it to say "should" be used, else we are still leaving it up as a style preference thing, which I don't think it is. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:56, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It depends on context. There is no potential for unwanted line breaks in many sitations, so 'should' seems too strong. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:03, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with Lee Vilenski. I also think that using "should" is better than using "can" in this case. In what situation is there no potential for unwanted line breaks? Example?  Alan  (talk) 13:42, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Right near the start of a sentence (or equivalent, e.g. beginning of an infobox parameter or near start of an image caption) and probably in a table column that consists of nothing but scores.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  15:46, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Understood - and that's fair enough, but I still don't think that "should" is too strong. "Should" is making a suggestion. "Must" would be too strong in being an instruction. But "can" is very weak.  Alan  (talk) 16:32, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That would be the start of a paragraph, rather than a sentence. I think suggesting it as "can", has the idea that it could be reverted as not being required, as it isn't wrapping on their display. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 17:53, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yep, I mean "paragraph". Derp.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  08:11, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It might be better to reword it to say something along the lines of: "A {{non breaking en dash}}, or {{nbnd}} should be used to avoid a potential line break unless a line break is unlikely to occur."  Alan  (talk) 18:57, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Or better still something like: "A {{non breaking en dash}}, or {{nbnd}} for short, should be used to avoid a potential line break, except where a line break is unlikely to occur, such as at the beginning of an infobox parameter or at the start of a paragraph." in MOS:SCORES  Alan  (talk) 19:22, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    But then it's getting longwinded and WP:CREEPy. We don't go into this detail in other places where nbsp is mentioned.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  08:11, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair point. So what do you suggest.  Alan  (talk) 08:57, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Just leave it as "can" or change it to "should" if you really, really think this is necessary (though expect someoen to later revert it as too emphatic), and don't add a bunch of conditional verbiage. We don't need it for any other such case, so we don't need it here. :-)  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  10:41, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I would be happier having it changed from "can" to "should", which I don't think is too emphatic, and I think Lee Vilenski would agree. But it would be better to get a wider consensus than just the two or three users who have contributed to this discussion.  Alan  (talk) 11:02, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Help:Line-break handling says that {{nowrap}} is good for short text sections like "10 kg (22 lb)", which should always stay together. This, I think, applies to scores. The MOS says It is sometimes desirable to force a text segment to appear entirely on a single line‍—‌that is, to prevent a line break (line wrap) from occurring anywhere within it. and I think this applies here also.  Alan  (talk) 10:33, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    To clarify, the problem seems to be browser specific. I use Microsoft Edge on Windows 10, but the same occurs, apparently, on an iPad. I'm told that it is not a problem using Firefox. The following table (column headed "plain") will look horrible on some browsers but OK on others. Using {{nowrap}} or {{nbnd}} fixes it:
    {{nowrap}} plain {{nbnd}}
    {{hyphen}} Text before 6-4 Text before 6-4 N/A
    {{ndash}} Text before 6–4 Text before 6–4 Text before 6‍–‍4
    {{mdash}} Text before 6—4 Text before 6—4 N/A
     Alan  (talk) 13:41, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just say "Use {nbnd} to prevent linebreak." That sounds sort of imperative ("Do this!") but also admits a reading where you might not bother with {nbnd} in a situation where you're sure it's not needed ("Do this in order to achieve this goal -- assuming, of course, that the goal is relevant in your situation"). Having said that, I always use {ndash} for ndashes (never the literal – character, nor –), so actually {nbnd} is easier to type in, so why not just use it for all scores? EEng 03:38, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      We shouldn't effectively mandate a particular template when there are multiple approaches. E.g. just doing {{nowrap|12–3}} or the alias {{nobr|12–3}} works fine and are both more intuitive/memorable for various editors and clearer in the source code about what is going on (since {{nbnd}} isn't familiar to many editors and not a very intuitive name if you don't already know what it stands for). PS: Some of us are fond of using the actual "–" character since it's right there in the "Wiki markup" section of the built-in editing tools and is concise.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  13:14, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Yeah, well, your mother wears army boots. EEng 03:28, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      @EEng: Your comment seems to be off-topic and unconstructive. See WP:CIVIL.  Alan  (talk) 09:10, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      He's just a-kiddin'. I know EEng's humour pretty well by now. :-)  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  10:28, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      I guess I forgot to say [FBDB]. EEng 11:19, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      I had to get it from somewhere!  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  10:28, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would change the wording to "should use" and suggest any of the valid templates. We shouldn't be enforcing one template when all of them have effectively the same outcome. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:03, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      So that would mean changing the wording to something like:
      "To avoid potential line breaks, {{nowrap}} should be used around the entire score construction, or use {{non breaking en dash}}, {{nbnd}} for short, between scores."
       Alan  (talk) 09:31, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Works for me, even the "should" I was initially skeptical about, since "To avoid potential line breaks" puts a logical rationale/condition on it.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  10:32, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      I'm happy with the "should" at MOS:SCORES but my reading then is that it would say that to "avoid potential line breaks" you "should" use x or y, but it doesn't say that you should be trying to "avoid potential line breaks". Personally I'm happy with that since some projects may be happy with the potential line breaks, which to me are no big deal. Nigej (talk) 11:03, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      I agree that 'should' would be preferable to 'can' in whatever the consensus wording ends up as. As mentioned previously the wording in MOS:SCORES – "A {{non breaking en dash}}, or {{nbnd}} for short, should be used to avoid a potential line break, except where a line break is unlikely to occur, such as at the beginning of an infobox parameter or at the start of a paragraph." – appears sensible enough to me. Steveflan (talk) 11:44, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Too longwinded. No need for all the detail.  Alan  (talk) 11:57, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      It's gone quiet in here, so I decided to be WP:BOLD and change MOS:SCORES.  Alan  (talk) 12:03, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • All the debating about "should be used" vs. "can be used" is basically mooted by writing simpler and avoiding both, as I did here. The entire-section context of the material, which starts off advising {{ndash}} by default, make it clear that the meaning of the new material is "If the score string is positioned in the text such that a line break might occur in the middle of it, that splitting result would be undesirable, so here is how to prevent that from happening". No "should" or "can" wording is needed at all.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  12:58, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    MOS:OVERLINK and the word "Irish"

    Is this edit by Bastun correct? Bastun states that [[Irish people|Irish]] is an absolutely standard link on Irish BLPs, but there is no mention of this at MOS:OVERLINK, which advises against the linking of major examples of nationalities, ethnicities or descent (e.g., British, Japanese, Turkish, African American, Nigerian). Neveselbert also removed the link with this edit. Khiikiat (talk) 22:17, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Looking for examples of such linking, I'm now finding it hard to find any - possibly a bot has been at work? In the particular case of Shane MacGowan, though, there is some controversy over whether he is Irish, English, or both, so linking seems appropriate. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 12:13, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Linking may be appropriate, though a link to Irish people is questionable. A more relevant link would be preferable, per WP:LINKRELEVANT. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 17:43, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Bastun and Neveselbert: In the case of the MacGowan article, maybe this would be a better link: [[Irish nationality law#Entitlement by birth, descent, or adoption|Irish]]. Khiikiat (talk) 22:29, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That seems to go against MOS:EGG. If the link text is "Irish", arguably Irish people or Irish language, or possibly something else from the disambiguation page, should be the most appropriate link target. Gawaon (talk) 23:04, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Might be fixable with something more specific, e.g. naturalised Irish citizen or whatever. Depends on exactly how it's used in which sentence, I suppose.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:04, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    OVERLINK does say that, but such links are still quite common. I'm not entirely sure if this means we need a bot to go around and clean them up, or whether there is a slowly changing consensus shift toward linking ethnic terms (and when it is done, yes, "Foo people" is the usually correct target unless the ethnicity has a more specific ethnonymic article title). I'm not sure how to establish this other than some kind of painstaking numerical survey of a large number of bios.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:46, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd say that a person's nationality or ethnicity is fairly important for the article about that person, so arguably OVERLINK shouldn't apply there at all (since it says: "Unless a term is particularly relevant to the context in the article"). Gawaon (talk) 21:33, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd say the nationality or ethnicity is important, but would question the need to link it. If it's relating to a commonly known country then Irish, German, English, Australian etc without links are sufficient. Canterbury Tail talk 21:39, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Even though it may not be important, it is what we call a defining characteristic. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:43, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Real example for NOTRIPLEDASH

    If a real, article-based example is needed for MOS:NOTRIPLEDASH, the lead paragraph of Rigging, consisting of one, long sentence with three dashes, is a textbook case:

    Rigging comprises the system of ropes, cables and chains, which support a sailing ship or sail boat's masts—standing rigging, including shrouds and stays—and which adjust the position of the vessel's sails and spars to which they are attached—the running rigging, including halyards, braces, sheets and vangs.[1]

    Having only passing familiarity with sailing—I do remember spar, and boom vang, but not enough to define them—I am unable to parse that long sentence in one go, and I'm still not sure what the standing rigging and the running rigging are, although I guess I could figure it out if I sat and annotated the sentence. I'll be pointing this out at its Talk page, so it may have changed by the time you read this, but it's a good illustration in the wild of the type of problem triple dashes can cause. Mathglot (talk) 20:23, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Agreed, it was horrible. I've rewritten the lead to use simple sentences and no dashes. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 21:35, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Links in section headers in month articles

    Currently a bunch of month articles, such as January 1960, have links in section headings, like this: 

    ==[[January 1]], 1960 (Friday)==

    My understanding of MOS:NOSECTIONLINKS is that links in section headings are prohibited, and exceptions are not allowed:

    For technical reasons, section headings should:

    • ...
    • Not contain links, especially where only part of a heading is linked.
    • ...

    These technical restrictions are necessary to avoid technical complications and are not subject to override by local consensus.

    Is my understanding correct here? Should these links be removed from the section headings? —Bkell (talk) 19:51, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    You are correct. Those links are especially non-useful because the calendar at the top already lists all the day-of-year pages, and, well, MOS:OVERLINK (A good question to ask yourself is whether reading the article you're about to link to would help someone understand the article you are linking from).
    The links are still there because such articles get such little attention and there are so many of these articles. I have a hard enough time looking through decade or century pages, let alone specific months! — HTGS (talk) 00:04, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    As a reader of February 1960 § February 29, 1960 (Monday), I find the link in the heading quite useful. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 00:39, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The section header link is wrong if the suggestion is to allow it here and not elsewhere, but the use of a hatnote is too clunky. Maybe there should be a new convention. Remsense留 00:48, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    If the suggestion is that Feb 29 in particular deserves a link, then I think a hat is fine. Better (imo) would be a line of prose, but that suggests at a lot more lines of prose for every section. — HTGS (talk) 00:55, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    HTGS, I agree this is a better solution. Remsense留 01:09, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    What I was trying to say is that MOS:NOSECTIONLINKS is generally a very good rule, but some articles have such a unique structure that links should be allowed. The series of lists under discussion here is not visited in large numbers and their specific design is not going to bleed into general articles. In short: beware of WP:CREEP and allow WP:COMMONSENSE. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 02:47, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    On some points, I may agree, but this specific style point that is as firm and total as it is for a reason—if a ubiquitous element of the site's layout (section headers) is presented obviously differently only in some articles, this will create endless end-user confusion and lead to endless litigation over where exactly the line is. Carving out exceptions is usually what actually creates WP:CREEP as characterized through the essay; there are simply more consistent options. Remsense留 02:51, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Please explain how it will create confusion? And where does "litigation" come into it? Deb (talk) 08:55, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Because section headers will have blue segments on 0.1% of the site's articles and not elsewhere, and there will be a very vague category of articles that allow them, and people will be confused and try to litigate which articles are in that category. Remsense留 09:03, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You'll find that this is already the case, and people aren't confused. By "litigate", do you mean argue, discuss, dispute or what? We don't do litigation on Wikipedia. Deb (talk) 09:16, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    ┌──────────────────────────────┘
    This thread exists because people were confused—now that I am aware of it, I am also confused. If such exceptions were actually adhering to the MoS—meaning they would be explicitly written in the MoS rather than just ignoring it—there would be plenty more confusion, because the issue would be more visible, and it would grow. As for my choice of verbiage, I'm going to abstain, because I'm not sure you were actually confused as to what I meant. Remsense留 09:27, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Michael, how do you justify "some articles have such a unique structure that links should be allowed" when the Manual of Style clearly says "These technical restrictions ... are not subject to override by local consensus"? I don't understand what else that MOS sentence can mean if it isn't saying that exceptions are prohibited. —Bkell (talk) 03:03, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The MoS is demonstrably wrong here; a link like February 1960#February 29, 1960 (Monday) obviously works without any complications. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 03:40, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The likely problem is the links in the headings themselves, not just links to those headings. I can certainly believe that the headings look fine for you on your computer. But are the headers rendered properly for everyone who uses screen readers, for example? SMcCandlish suggests below that the "technical reasons" here might be related to accessibility. Or do links in section headings cause problems for some automated tools? There are many ways that Wikipedia data is used, and the fact that the links don't cause any problems for you personally in the way you use Wikipedia doesn't mean that there are no potential technical issues for other people or for other tools. —Bkell (talk) 03:49, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I am intentionally not making a MOS:OVERLINK argument here—let's focus on MOS:NOSECTIONLINKS. See MOS:DATELINK, which makes an explicit exception for "intrinsically chronological articles", which seems to indicate that MOS:OVERLINK does not apply to these links in these articles. So it seems to be fine to link to January 1 from the January 1960 article. But my understanding of MOS:NOSECTIONLINKS implies that those links shouldn't be in section headings. —Bkell (talk) 01:28, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You aren't making an overlink argument because I already explained to you that articles relating to chronology are excluded. On investigation, it appears to me that the original Manual of Style was changed in 2006 to introduce this instruction: "Avoid links within headings." Note - not section headings. Later, somewhere around 2009, it became "Section names should not normally contain links, especially ones that link only part of the heading; they will cause accessibility problems." The nature of these "problems" is not specified. Month articles have existed for many years, certainly before the wording in the MOS changed to what it is now. Whether the specific dates should be linked has also been discussed. The links in the Month articles are very useful to me, because they allow navigation to and from Date articles. Deb (talk) 09:13, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Trying to make a "grandfather clause" argument for ignoring the Manual of Style is a bit baffling, so I don't know why that's an angle here. Remsense留 09:34, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I have no idea what you are talking about. Please explain what you mean. I can't have been ignoring it because that "rule" has never been raised previously in relation to the month articles. Deb (talk) 12:38, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    There very definitely is not a "grandfather clause", with regard to MoS or any other policy or guideline. WP:CONTENTAGE is utterly irrelevant to whether something should be edited to comply with P&G rules. WP's rules are updated all the time (for better or worse) and it is simply never ever the case that articles are magically excluded from compliance with them because of how long ago the article was estabished or how long ago something undesirable was first done in it. To put it in really obvious terms, when, say, WP:BLP1E was implemented it immediately applied to all articles and all content in them; there is no provision for violating it based on the violation pre-dating the implementation of the rule. In my 18 years here, I have one time, and one only, seen an attempt to impose a grandfather clause, by an RfC closer. What of course happened in reality was that his desire to see the consensus reached in the close not be applied to old articles was ignored as nonsense by the community, and the implementation in that case is now consistent throughout all our articles. Moving on, the fact that no one raised an issue about substandard formatting at an article that basically no one watchlists is also irrelevant. One cannot, for example, ignore BLP1E policy on an obscure bio simply because it's obscure. Nothing about Wikipedia works that way, ever. Deb has been here even longer than I have, and must understand all that already, so this "I don't get it" stuff is looking rather performative.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:22, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You said "litigate", a term that refers specifically to legal action. Maybe you mean "Wikilawyering|wikilawyering"? Deb (talk) 12:40, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    See any good dictionary, in which litigate includes non-law definitions like 'dispute'. Even if you don't have such a dictionary, you easily should be able to intuit the general meaning as a metaphor. In very common Wikipedia usage, it refers to time-consuming and adversarial debate. But it's not plausible for you to have been here for 21 years without already understanding that. "I just don't understand" games are not helpful and simply degrade the quality of the discussion and the speed of its resolution.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:22, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    So far in this discussion I haven't seen any rationale for why it is important for links like January 1 to be in section headings specifically. Support has been voiced for having such links in month articles in general, which is fine—I don't think anyone is arguing against that. But I don't understand why those links have to be in the section headings. The month articles already have a calendar at the top with links to every day in the month. If it is important to have these links in each section too, then perhaps we can add a line of prose with the link or a hatnote such as {{See also}}. Why is it so important for the links to be specifically in the section headings? —Bkell (talk) 23:15, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Header links: technical reasons

    A question for other editors: I assume that particular bullet is not actually for technical reasons, but just fits nicely into the list there? — HTGS (talk) 00:07, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, there's another bulleted list immediately below containing additional guidelines for section headings "as a matter of consistent style", including a guideline against markup in section headings. Since the rule against links is in the "for technical reasons" list and not the "matter of consistent style" list, I assume that it is for technical reasons. —Bkell (talk) 01:19, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Do piped links break section linking? I can’t imagine many other technical reasons for such a rule. My presumption has always been that we don’t like it because it looks awful. — HTGS (talk) 01:49, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know what the technical reasons are, but that certainly doesn't mean that they don't exist. For example, maybe it has something to do with the Wikipedia mobile app or automated tools or accessibility concerns (such as screen readers) or cross-language considerations or some internal data representation or something that I don't even know about. There are a lot of ways that Wikipedia data is used beyond just editing and viewing pages on wikipedia.org on a computer. We should be careful about concluding that there are no technical reasons just because we don't know what they are. —Bkell (talk) 01:57, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I wasn’t disputing that there are technical reasons, so much as looking for those reasons. If there are still good tech reasons to keep the advice, then I will take that as good reason to be more aggressive in removing links. — HTGS (talk) 04:23, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    There's an accessibility reason, too, though I do not recall the details, and I don't know how long it's been since it was re-examined. Better asked at WT:MOSACCESS where some screen-reader users are regulars and can usually answer such questions pretty quickly.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:32, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Older versions of the MOS stated:

    Avoid links within headings. Depending on settings, some users may not see them clearly. It is much better to put the appropriate link in the first sentence under the header.

    This sounds like it was for accessibility, or at least for CSS and browser settings. Of course this was a long time ago (2004). — HTGS (talk) 04:20, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I see that HTGS has posted at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Accessibility#Links within section headings. I also just posted at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Technical issues caused by links in section headings? —Bkell (talk) 14:39, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Links in section headers used to cause problems for screen readers, at least JAWS (which was then almost universally used in Windows), where the screen reader would stop reading the section title after encountering a link. That's no longer an issue. Graham87 (talk) 16:44, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    On the mobile site, you need to tap on a heading in order to expand a section and read it. If the heading has links, you have to carefully tap outside of them (in the worst case, you need to tap on the tiny icon on the side). This is uncomfortable and can be unintuitive. Matma Rex talk 17:19, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Is this true of section headers? I understand you to say that, when you look at an article like March 1965 and you look at the section headed "March 6, 1965 (Saturday)", you can't see the events for that date unless you click on the section header. Is that correct? Deb (talk) 12:31, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Using the mobile app (Android), the article appears much like on the desktop, with uncollapsed section headings. At the mobile site, each section is collapsed (not when the mobile site is viewed on a desktop), but the uncollapse button is easy to reach, or the string "(weekday)" can be used. So, no technical reason exists. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:59, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It is not totally broken, but the links do interfere with that functionality. —Bkell (talk) 13:19, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Deb That is correct, here's how that article looks on my phone: [13] Matma Rex talk 17:53, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, I can see why that's a difficulty for you. Deb (talk) 08:48, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    As I pointed out above, after I visited the page in the mobile view, I had no problem to expand a day's section by touching the downwards expand button or the year or the day of the week following the linked date. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:08, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    1) Links in headings are a pain from a user script perspective. One of my user scripts reads wikicode, then tries to use that wikicode to figure out what HTML element to target to add some links or a form or something. I had to write a mini parser with unit tests to make sure this conversion goes smoothly.

    2) It is also a pain from a perspective of trying to generate the correct #SectionLinks in the URL. Wikicode markup in section headings can make it hard to guess what the correct #SectionLink will be. Does == [[User:Novem Linguae|Novem Linguae]] == render as #Novem_Linguae or #User:Novem_Linguae? What about if we start doing template transclusions such as == {{u|Novem Linguae}} ==? These are not insurmountable problems, but they add complexity to what could otherwise be a nice, straightforward system. –Novem Linguae (talk) 23:11, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    @Novem Linguae There's no such complication in these cases. We only use the Date as the link, e.g. March 5. Deb (talk) 08:41, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Deb, Novem Linguae is giving examples, from personal experience, of some of the complications that arise from having to parse links in section headings. Frankly I find it rather insolent to deny their experience by telling them that such complications do not exist. You seem to be saying that the "simple case" is not hard, but even the simple case requires additional code to handle, and then you have to add code to check that it really is the simple case. For example, in order to ignore the brackets around a link, the code needs to check that the brackets really do form a proper link—it can't just ignore all brackets in a heading. The code probably needs to be able to properly parse piped links if only to make sure that a heading doesn't have them. And I'm sure there are lots of additional edge cases that I am not aware of because I haven't written such code. When someone who has actual experience in writing code to deal with links in section headings tells me that those links are a pain and cause additional complexity, I believe them. —Bkell (talk) 15:49, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Not at all. What I'm saying is that the examples s/he offered in that particular comment don't correspond to the situation we're discussing. In the second comment, s/he seems to be talking about piped links and I'm not. The first comment doesn't mean anything to me but, if it's only relevant to the relatively few contributors who write user scripts, then it is hardly mainstream. If you can write user scripts, you can fix user scripts. Deb (talk) 16:07, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That's not an accurate representation of the issue. If something breaks userscripts, that's an issue for script maintainers and users alike. Part of the reason it breaks userscripts is because it's semantically unexpected, the core issue underlying whether links in headers should be allowed or disallowed: this doesn't seem like it should be a thing, it's explicitly proscribed and not a thing anywhere (except in this secret area of the site), so tools are designed with that expectation in mind.
    Our options seem to be:
    1. Go with the MOS as written, and find other ways to supply these links, totally removing all links in headers.
    2. Create a specific cutout with some 'unique article content' justification in the MOS, which I think would create far more problems than it solves, as I've argued above, or
    3. Continue with the present "easter egg" approach.
    Remsense留 22:53, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Links in section headers can make section linking problematic and I recall a discussion a few months back when mention was made of these breaking an archive function (archivebot?). They also look awful. There you are, two technical reasons and one not quite so, though it should carry some weight. Neils51 (talk) 05:05, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps you could point us to this discussion, and give us an example of how they "make section linking problematic". "They look awful" is neither a technical reason nor an opinion that others share. They look fine to me; in fact, they look helpful because they tell people they can go straight to the article for that date. Deb (talk) 08:43, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Neils51, may I raise {{Citation needed}}? -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:08, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    For what it's worth, I agree that "they look awful" is not a technical reason, but it is not correct to say that others do not share that opinion. HTGS literally said "it looks awful" earlier in this discussion, and I also hold that view. —Bkell (talk) 23:46, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Subjectively, I agree. More objectively and substantively: A) linking in a heading also has WP:SEAOFBLUE issues; B) is contrary to the entire purpose of headings (to serve as a content identifier and navigation target, not as key content itself or a navigation launching pad; c) harms WP:REUSE of our content, by encouraging miportant links (and even crucial text that is used for the link) to be put only in a heading (which may get lopped off in various forms of repurposing of our material) and not in the content under it (editors would be apt to remove it from the body text as "redundant"); and d) for the same reason is dangerous in another way, namely the rather carefree attitude of many editors toward re-wording or even removing headings, which could easily eliminate a contextually necessary linked term from the article entirely.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  05:29, 16 December 2023 (UTC); revised with A–D argument labels for clarity. 17:07, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It's hard to think of anything less objective than the WP:SEAOFBLUE argument. There has only been one convincing argument in this whole discussion, and that was the potential issue raised by User:Matma Rex. Deb (talk) 16:25, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Um, no, picking at one argument you don't like when four were provided does not magically dismiss all four. No one is fooled by this sort of pseudo-argument.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  18:46, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I assume the four arguments you mention are 1) section linking; 2) accessability; 3) usability on mobile devices; 4) problems of a vote counting script. 1–3 have been shown as incorrect, no. 4 doesn't apply here (nor does SEAOFBLUE). As I wrote before, MOS:NOSECTIONLINKS is generally a very good principle, but its application to some months articles would lead to loss of convenient links or clumsy prose repetition. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 02:07, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Why would you assume those are my four arguments, when they are not in my post that Deb is responding to, which contains four arguments? [sigh] As for the arguments you want to talk about intead: No. 1 (section linking) is unclear as to what you mean by it; this entire thread is about "section linking". No. 2 (accessibility) has not been thoroughly explored; one editor's comment about one particular accessibilty issue from a while back and it's lack of applicability any longer to one software package, isn't the only concern that could arise; it all needs more testing by more reader-editors with different screen readers and probably more accessibility issues to work with (e.g. mobility ones that could tie in with the mobile issue that is up next). No. 3 (mobile usability) was not "shown as incorrect"; rather, one editor demonstrated through testing that manipulation of headings was not totally broken, but made confusing and much more difficult; it's not clear at all that such a trade-off is worth it. No. 4 (some script) does seems to have been resolved already.
    My points I have gone back and labelled A–D for earlier reference. Point C is the most important one probably, because it's clear that your actual intent, not just a possible side effect in some other case, isn't just to have an allegedly "convenient" link in the header mirror the linked text in the article prose, but actually replace the linked text from the article prose so that it is only in the heading (you miscall it "clumsy prose repetition").  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  17:07, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Flagicon next to the tournament title

    Hi all.. In Gao Ling#Performance timeline section NguyenDuyAnh1995 added flagicon next to the tournament title. As i know, added flagicon next to tournament name, will make the country or location seem to be of greater significance than the tournament. Per MOS:FLAG said that "flag icons may be relevant in some subject areas, where the subject actually represents that country or nationality – such as military units or national sports teams." The subject in Gao Ling#Performance timeline is the tournament not the country. So i think, per MOS:DECOR and MOS:FLAGCRUFT, the country flag in that section should be remove.. I hope someone can help me.. Thanks. Stvbastian (talk) 04:59, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Agreed that doing that decoration is a poor idea. Flags in sport are used to indicate the sporting nationality of a particular competitor. So, aside from the problem pointed out above of unduly dwelling on the location of events, it has the additional fault of confusingly switching in mid-article from an indicator of something about the player to an indicator of something else entirely, and at first seem to weirdly imly that the player was representing different countries at different events. It's just completely unhelpful.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  05:21, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for your explanation SMcCandlish. 3 times i reminded NguyenDuyAnh1995 to read and understand the MOS:FLAG, but he was unable to understand the rules. Hopefully with additional explanation from you he can understand. Once again, thank you.. Stvbastian (talk) 08:59, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi, when you “reminded me” of the matter, you did not show any specific violation except that my using of flag icons was “merely decorative” and I replied that they were “informative” which I believe is accurate. If you had quoted “flag icons may be...sport teams” I might have understood the problem, but instead you at the first time used “merely decorative” and other times just “read this” “read this”. Honestly if you believe someone violated something you have to tell what it is, which rule and which regulation, not just throw the whole article and tell people to read that. I will remove the flag icons from the tables, but next time please identify the mistakes first before telling others they are wrong. NguyenDuyAnh1995 (talk) 11:16, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Hei,, don't act like a fool. You said in your talk page that you have read the rule ([14]. I deliberately included the MOS:FLAG link, so you can click, read, understand, and your knowledge increases. But you continue to brag about your personal opinion which is not based on Wikipedia's rules. This is important to every Wikipedia editors to read more and more about Wikipedia rules especially the Manual of Style. Stvbastian (talk) 11:55, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    NguyenDuyAnh1995 does need to read and understand the relevent guidelines, but name-calling like "fool" is not civil, and is strongly contraindicated in a topic area covered by WP:CTOP (which MoS is: WP:CT/MOS). If someone is making faulty arguments, there are better ways to say that (see first two sections of WP:HOTHEADED for examles).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  18:43, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry for saying that. I just feel uncomfortable with NguyenDuyAnh1995 attitude of constantly making excuses, not wanting to increase his knowledge of Wikipedia rules, and only using his personal perspective to edit on Wikipedia. @SMcCandlish Thank you for the useful explanation. Stvbastian (talk) 01:29, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I read the rule, you read the rule. But in our discussions none of us came up with any mention of "flag icons...sports teams", but only whether the using of flag icons were "merely decorative". You told me that I violated the rule without pointing which it was, and as I might have missed the actual violations while skimming MOS:FLAG, you failed to notice it as well and only brought it up here. Yes, it's important for editors to read about the rule, but it's also important for you to identify the violated rule to inform the "violators" like me, instead of discussing about one rule with me on my talk page and bringing up another one here.NguyenDuyAnh1995 (talk) 03:48, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    They are merely decorative; there is nothing informative about them since they are simply decorating the country name which is already specified textually. We grudgingly permit this for sport competitors for the sole reason that in other media like TV coverage, sports scores in international competition often have countries reduced to flags as identifiers, so a reader who sees something like that and wants more information may actually be aided in our material on a sports event by the flag being present in reference to that competitor (player or team/squad). Names of sports events or venues are not reduced to flags in this manner, so there is no purpose served in our article by festooning a list of events with flags for their locations. It is definitely against MOS:FLAGS and MOS:DECOR, as well as MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE: "Images must be significant and relevant in the topic's context, not primarily decorative"; images are properly used as an "illustrative aid to understanding", a purpose not served by adding flag icons to a list of events.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  18:43, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for the explanation. Some rules are not easy to understand thoroughly and it doesn't help when the one who accused me of violations the rule said things like "adding flag icons doesn't mean anything because the named of host countries are already included in the names of the tournaments" which is not true in many cases. I admit that sometimes I fail to notice which rules I violated, but explanations like yours are more helpful than giving me the like to articles with "read this" "read this" only.
    NguyenDuyAnh1995 (talk) 04:00, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Too much reasons.. It is clearly stated in first section of MOS:FLAG that said Flag icons may be relevant in some subject areas, the subject actually represents that country or nationality – such as military units or national sports teams.. When i gave u the link then u said already read the link... But what do you do? You said you have read the rule and continously gave your personal preference which is not based on Wikipedia rules. And again just like SMcCandlish said: "You does need to read and understand the relevant guidelines". Reading and understand the rules is important to every Wikipedia editors. And sometimes, when someone asked you to read and understand the guidelines, please do that and stop take examples in articles that don't follow the rules, especially editing just based on your personal understanding... Stvbastian (talk) 07:31, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You read the rule as well and you had to ask the opinions here about that first section and now you tell me that I should have understood it immediately after reading it? You read that but didn’t bring it up in the discussion or give any thorough explanation like what SMcCandlish did here. For what I know there are advisors and customer services who will explain the rules and regulations for those you have questions about them, not bringing tons of papers or pdf files and tell them to read it. Or when police or authorities announce a resident that they have violated something, do they explain the specific rule that is violated, or did they just throw the whole laws book and ask the “violator” to read and see for themselves what they do wrong? And I’m pretty sure when you cited MOS:FLAG you didn’t notice that I might have violated that first section. That’s why you only brought up “merely decorative” thing.NguyenDuyAnh1995 (talk) 08:09, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Can we not have the argument? We deprecate the use of flags next to tournament names, and realistically most usage of flags are overkill. Some sports where national teams regularly use flags, or sometimes when people represent a country at an event (although not always), is suitable times to use a flag. Whether or not there has been an edit war to this period is irrelevant. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 10:09, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I just want to make NguyenDuyAnh1995 understand, because it seems like he fails to understand and looking for too many excuses for his mistakes. Decorative?? Yup thats right.. just like SMcCandlish said "merely decorative; there is nothing informative about them since they are simply decorating the country name which is already specified textually." Just as i explained previously in your talk page. Am i wrong? So, per your edits you violates the MOS:FLAGS and MOS:DECOR, as well as MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE. And don't forget to click, read, and understand the 3 links MOS:FLAGS, MOS:DECOR, and MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE. Thanks Stvbastian (talk) 10:20, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You still don’t get it, do you? I accept the mistakes as explained by SMcCandlish and removed the icons. The problem is that you didn’t know what I violated as well, and that’s why you discussed about one section of MOS:FLAG on my talk page and came here and talked about another. “Merely decorative”? It tells that Artic Open is in Finland, Syed Modi International is in India and Hylo Open is in Germany, unlike what you said of the place where they being held is already in the name of the tournaments. If you know what I violated, quote the section, not cite the whole article, then come here to ask for opinion about something you did not mention on our discussion and talk like I’m the one who were not unable to understand. NguyenDuyAnh1995 (talk) 11:19, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, im wrong, you are right. Thanks Stvbastian (talk) 11:36, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You're not wrong and NguyenDuyAnh1995 is not right. A flag does not "tell that Arctic Open is in Finland"; the word "Finland" does that, and the flag just decorates that name. We have three guidelines (at least) against doing this and NguyenDuyAnh1995 is playing WP:IDONTGETIT games endlessly in hopes that the opposition will just give up and go away instead of keep trying to get him to understand something that he must actually understand by now but is simply defying.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  12:13, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Twitter or X

    When presented with events before the Twitter rebrand, should I replace the word Twitter with X or leave it alone?

    Thank you, ItsCheck (talk) 19:40, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Use the name contemporaneous with the event being related. This goes for all entities that have changed their name: Königsberg; Berlin, Ontario; Constantinople; Edmonton Eskimos, Stalingrad, etc. Indefatigable (talk) 03:34, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yep. This is not RewritingHistoryPedia. :-)  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:53, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Please also consider carefully if you can avoid mentioning Twitter/X entirely.
    For example if something was announced on the front page of The New York Times that might worth noting in the article text, but if someone notable said something on Twitter in most cases it is only important that the article text explain who said what, and it is usually more than enough to leave it to the reference to explain specifically where (ie Twitter) the statement was published. -- 109.79.166.31 (talk) 03:30, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected edit request on 20 December 2023

    In the section "Punctuation inside or outside": "Quotation marks and internal links", the correct and incorrect examples are the same. Grammar-style (talk) 01:40, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Sorry, first edit request: The incorrect example currently states:
    but should be changed to
    Grammar-style (talk) 01:43, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
     Not done: It's subtler than that. The quotation marks are not part of the link in the correct example but are part of the link in the incorrect one. No change is needed for this. —C.Fred (talk) 01:49, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Grammar-style, not quite. The distinction being illustrated in that section regards the use of wikilinks, not punctuation. Remsense留 01:49, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, thanks for the clarification. Turns out the info re: punctuation and quotes is in the "Titles of Works" part of the manual. Grammar-style (talk) 02:06, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    See also MOS:LQ. It looks like you were trying to apply the commonly but neither unanimously nor exclusively American puctuation habit of putting terminal punctuation inside the quotation marks as a general approach. If you are doing around doing that on Wikipedia, please stop and undo it. WP only puts terminal punctuation inside quotation marks when that punctuation was part of the original material. If you are quoting "The shop closed at midnight." as part of a larger containing sentence, it's '"The shop closed at midnight", according to the manager.', because the original material contained no comma.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:10, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Don't worry; I was doing the exact opposite—moving punctuation from inside quotes to outside (specifically in song titles). Grammar-style (talk) 04:01, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Grand. While you're act it, be on the lookout for silliness like In ''The Tommyknockers,'' ... where people used to the "puctuation inside quotes" habit also mistake our italics or bold markup for quotes and do it there, too.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:24, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    "WP only puts terminal punctuation inside quotation marks when that punctuation was part of the original material"...and only if it's a full quoted sentence, rather than sentence fragment, per LQ. MapReader (talk) 10:23, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Lengthy digression about logical quotation, and MOS:LQ in WP:MOS

    Dispute about WP:LQ. One editor claims all points are covered in WT:MOS archives; this is contested by an anonymous commenter
    SMcCandlish, it's about time WP:LQ was reviewed and corrected. Does any other respected style manual or publisher really want " 'The shop closed at midnight', according to ..." (where the quoted material had a period at the end)? Show me! New Hart's Rules (NHR) and others would put a comma to represent that period: " 'The shop closed at midnight,' according to ...".

    NHR's own example makes this perfectly clear (but here I use WP-style double quotes):

    Yes, we will. It’s a good idea.
    "Yes, we will. It’s a good idea," he said.

    That's industry-standard logical quotation. It's a pity WP:MOS doesn't call for that, instead of its own awkward and anomalous variant. Find us any quide in the league of NHR that supports current WP:MOS practice for logical punctuation.

    49.190.56.203 (talk) 05:11, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    You seem to be unaware of "industry standards" outside the US? Actually the New Hart's Rules calls what we use the "traditional British style" and gives as example: Traditional British style would have given: ‘May I suggest’, she said, ‘that you have a bath before supper?’ (2014 ed., p. 163) Other examples, for which they don't even mention that there might be alternatives, are given on p. 161, including Chancellor was ‘convinced that the entire Balfour Declaration policy had been “a colossal blunder”, unjust to the Arabs and impossible of fulfillment in its own terms’. Gawaon (talk) 05:32, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia's rules are the same as the Australian Government Style Manual. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:44, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Gawaon: On the contrary. I am intimately familiar with standards in and outside of the US. The examples you give from NHR are completely irrelevant to the point I have carefully laid out above. Read again, with care.
    Hawkeye7: Wrong. That wretched cobbled-together excuse for an Australian style manual in fact falls into line with NHR. But unlike NHR, it does not first give in raw form the text that is being quoted – essential for complete certainty about the intent. Examples at the point you link to (again I use WP double quote marks):
    "It has arrived," said the manager.
    "Has it arrived?" asked the manager.
    Now, it's possible that the first quoted text here had a comma in the original. The dullards don't say. A period in the original is far more likely to have been intended. What we do know is that the Australian Government Style Manual does not give any example like this:
    * "It has arrived", said the manager.
    The only examples it gives at the section you link with the comma following the quote mark (setting aside occrurrences in bibliographic material that are not remotely relevant):
    Single quotation marks are also known as ‘quote marks’, ‘quotes’, ‘speech marks’ or ‘inverted commas’.
    Another use of quotation marks is for words introduced by expressions such as ‘titled’, ‘marked’, ‘the term’ and ‘defined as’.
    Many things have been called ‘the new black’, but they usually fade to grey.
    His stirring speech, ‘We shall never surrender’, galvanised the UK and its allies. [Quoting the name of a speech.]
    Not one of these supports the strange version of logical quotation embedded in WP:MOS all these years. Read again, with care.
    49.190.56.203 (talk) 07:01, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, the NRH also has examples such as He asserted that ‘Americans don’t understand history’, and that ‘intervention would be a disaster’. They don't give the original wording, but conceivably it might have been something like Americans don’t understand history, therefore intervention would be a disaster. Our style is at least consistent and easy to follow. Their style, and that of the Australian Government Style Manual, seems to be pure chaos. I'm glad we don't have to attempt to follow them. Gawaon (talk) 07:29, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Well Gawaon, you quote New Hart's Rules misleadingly and out of context. Here is that material from NHR (2ed, 2014) but with the essential preamble that you omitted (my bold, my underlining):
    When a quoted sentence is a short one with no introductory punctuation, the full point is generally placed outside the closing quotation mark:
    Cogito, ergo sum means ‘I think, therefore I am’.
    He believed in the proverb ‘Dead men tell no tales’.
    He asserted that ‘Americans don’t understand history’, and that ‘intervention would be a disaster’.
    So your take on the quoted material is manifestly wrong. The four strings in NHR examples that I mark here in bold are declared to be sentences (short ones) in their own right. Read again, but with care.
    49.190.56.203 (talk) 21:08, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    And what you're failing to take care to notice is that even in NHR style (which is just one of at least 10 distinguishable ones among different British publishers and institutions) is that "He asserted that 'Americans don't understand history', and that 'intervention would be a disaster'." is actually following the LQ rule to not put that comma inside the first quoted string, though many British and most American publishers would do so. NHR is just weird in having made up a strange exception to logical punctuation, a new "rule" to put the terminal punctuation outside the closing quotation mark if the quoted sentence is short and part of a larger editorial sentence. In over 20 years of style-guide reading I've never seen another promotion of this idea, and it clearly is not logical and not common either. But this is not evidence that NHR doesn't otherwise follow LQ, even if they don't use the term "logical quotation". Gawaon's other quotes from NHR conclusively demonstrate this.

    The Australian Government Style Manual is actually quite clear and entirely in synch with logical quotation, other than an example typo:

    If the punctuation mark is part of the quoted text, place the punctuation mark before the closing quotation mark. The same rule applies for directly quoted speech followed by the attribution. If the punctuation mark is part of the sentence outside the quoted text, it follows the closing quotation mark. Quoted material can appear as parenthetical information, enclosed in parentheses, dashes or commas. In these cases, place the quotation marks inside the sentence punctuation. If the quotation ends a sentence or is a sentence in its own right, place the final full stop before the final quotation mark.

    That it has an singular example that fails to follow its own rules doesn't magically erase the rules, it's simply a typographical error. Even Chicago Manual of Style has some (I reported one, a capitalization error that contradicts their own rule on capital letters and organism names, to their editors back in the 2000s, in the 15th edition, and it is still present in the 17th. This does not make CMoS an unreliable source on a stylistic scope within American publishing, nor mean that their rule in particular is inapplicable, it just means they have a typo in one of their examples.) The .au guide's only divergence (aside from that typo) from any of Wikipedia use on this kind of question is in "Sometimes, there are 2 punctuation marks – one for the quotation and one for the sentence. Decide which is stronger and use it. Don't use both punctuation marks." That generally applies on Wikipedia (and MOS:LQ provides an example of it), but taking a cue from computer science and textual analysis, there are various circumstances in which we would in fact write something like "The Speaker called 'Order!'.", because the emphasis is in the original and is not part of our own dispassionate sentence. Picking the "stronger" one would in fact be an error in encyclopedic writing. This comes up so infrequently we don't even have a rule about it in MOS:LQ. But notably, people do not editwar about it here, because we understand that the point is absolutely clarity to the reader, in an encyclopedic register) not prescriptivist imposition of personal or nationalistic style peccadilloes for their own sake, which appears to be your raison d être here.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:20, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    That latter looks horrendous; the comma is there to break up the material for the reader, and having it inside the quote makes no sense to me. MapReader (talk) 10:25, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No practicable system for ordinary everyday quotation could ever be perfect. If you're accustomed to what WP:MOS prescribes for example, your reaction is understandable. Let's be aware, however, that the WP:MOS system for LQ is a Wikipedia invention without support from the world's major style manuals. And it leaves ambiguities and uncertainties for the reader, just as all other codifications must.
    49.190.56.203 (talk) 21:08, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Arbitrary break 1

    This needs to just be listed in WP:PERENNIAL. "LQ is a Wikipedia invention" is patently false, and we've been over this many, many times. Pretty much every 6 months to a year, someone says MOS:LQ is "wrong" and wants to "correct" it, yet the consensus to stick with what we have never budges. If you dig back in the archives, you'll find many previous discussions of this, including one in which I analyized the relevant contents of a large number of style guides on the matter, back when I had a large collection of those taking up an entire 5-shelf bookcase. The short answer is to this is yes: 'Does any other respected style manual or publisher really want "'The shop closed at midnight', according to ..." (where the quoted material had a period at the end)?' As for "Show me!", no. Do your own research, especially since most if it's already been done for you and you can just dig it out of the archives.

    Contrary to popular belief, The Chicago Manual of Style also accounts for logical quotation in numerous places (it simply refuses to call it "logical quotation", probably because the term would undermine their favoring of typesetters' quotation, hereafter TQ). It covers the usage of it in computer science, in philosophy, and in textual analysis and criticism (the latter being what much of WP is: our "job" is painstaking analysis of, with a critical and sumarizing eye toward, large amounts of written source material).

    I'd forgotten about it entirely, but the essay WP:Logical quotation on Wikipedia covers a lot of this ground, with sources, though it's over a decade old and is missing some key material like Pullum's mentioned below. Also, Here's a bit of proof of one major publisher following LQ: The Times [15]

    Commas: keep commas where they should be logically in "broken" sentences. Thus, the comma goes outside in the following example: "The trouble is", he said, "that this is a contentious issue."

    Note that punctuation marks go inside the inverted commas [quotation marks] if they relate to the words quoted, outside if they relate to the main sentence, eg, She is going to classes in "health and beauty". If the whole sentence is a quotation, the final point [period] goes inside, eg, "Beauty is truth, truth beauty."

    So, the "Show me!" is answered after all. And there are more. See, e.g., University of Sussex [16]:

    Anything which is not part of th[e] exact words must be placed outside the quotes, even if ... this means using two sets of quotes because the quotation has been interrupted.

    This piece describes both approaches, actually, toward the end, and refers to ours as logical, and advises to prefer it when possible, while noting that various publishers will not permit it because their editors "have been taught the conventional view and adhere to it rigorously" and will engage in "grim opposition". The same grim opposition tediously brought by our anonymous prescriptivist here (who is also engaging in something of a mixture of WP:OR, idiolect, and fallacy of equivocation, changing the meaning of the term "logical quotation" on-the-fly to a new personal definition that includes "Yes, we will. It's a good idea," he said., which is not at all what logical quotation or logical puntuation refers to, in any source anywhere.) The author of the Sussex material, Larry Trask (a notable trans-Atlantic linguist) also cites Geoffrey K. Pullum (another notable trans-Atlantic linguist) on the matter, as correctly observing that use of TQ results in misquotation.

    Here's another, Journal of Irish and Scottish Studies [17]:

    Punctuation marks are placed inside the quotation marks only if the sense of the punctuation is part of the quotation; this system is referred to as logical quotation. ... When a sentence fragment is quoted, the period [full stop] is outside. ... Within a quotation use the spelling and punctuation of the original.

    It takes only a few minutes with Google to find such material, and I don't have all day for it. PS: "[LQ] leaves ambiguities and uncertainties for the reader": It most certainly does not, and elminates those caused by TQ. If you think otherwise, then try to lay out for us all a supposed "ambiguity and uncertainty" caused by LQ, and we'll be happy to disabuse you of the notion. Oh, and be sure to "read again, but with care" since you love telling everyone else to do that.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:46, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    A spirited response, SMcCandlish – but one that misses the point entirely. You appear unable to adduce an example of the sort I was asking for, and instead rail against those who don't like LQ. I'm not one of those! I strongly prefer LQ. But I find that the Wikipedia version of logical quotation stands quirkily apart. WP:LQ gives this example, where the source quoted is a full sentence ending with a full stop: "For space science, like nuclear science and all technology, has no conscience of its own", said Kennedy. Show us any published source, or any respected style manual other than WP:MOS, putting a comma after the quotation mark where a full sentence is quoted.
    I have looked at the sources you mention. I do not find any example of the sort I ask for, which WP:MOS prescribes. Have I missed something? If so, please correct me. If one or two published examples are found, they are surely isolates – or lapses by some editor.
    Let me illustrate the pervasiveness of this strange blindspot in Wikipedia style. I'll start by quoting from the highly polemical essay you mention above (you are reported to be responsible for 79.4% of it):
    Typesetters' quotation is not American – British, etc. journalism and fiction often use it, too
    Here's one example, out of literally millions, of British professional journalism using typesetters' quotation, from a BBC News article on the death of a Hiberno-British sports figure: "Len did a terrific amount for charity," he said.[4] Note ...charity," versus the supposedly expected version: ...charity", which is claimed to be the British style by the proponents of TQ as "American style". There are several other examples in that same piece.
    Now, the only quotations in the piece that is referenced there fit perfectly with LQ as it is presented in NHR. Unsurprising, from the BBC. Contrary to the essay's assertion there is no distinguishing evidence to show that TQ is adopted in the article. And if we look at other BBC material, we find that NHR LQ is the norm. This randomly selected BBC article for example includes quotations styled like this (my underlining):
    Within days, "Z" had become the symbol of what the Kremlin was calling its "special military operation".
    Mr Yefremov insists he is "anti-war".
    "I don't know what's going on in their heads," he says. "How could they allow themselves to be fooled? ..."
    "I realise now I should have ignored that and driven on," he says. "But I was afraid of being put in jail."
    " 'Yes,' the prisoner replied. 'Then someone bring me a mop,' said the colonel. 'We'll turn you into a girl and send your wife the video.'"
    BBC uses TQ? Nothing to show that it uses TQ here, or in the article linked in that polemical essay. BBC uses LQ à la Wikipedia? Nope. No one does, except on Wikipedia. BBC uses logical quotation in the NHR manner. That's the industry standard.
    I gave just one illustration – easily found – of the confusion, misunderstanding, and poor analysis that underlies WP:LQ. Many others could be shown. You would do well, SMcCandlish, to read with more care. And you would do well to meet a fair challenge fairly, rather than impugning without evidence my own competence in such matters. I too have shelves groaning with style guides, and I read them with unusual care.
    49.190.56.203 (talk) 06:36, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    For completeness I should answer this from SMcCandlish, since it involves a direct request to me:
    • PS: "[LQ] leaves ambiguities and uncertainties for the reader": It most certainly does not, and elminates those caused by TQ. If you think otherwise, then try to lay out for us all a supposed "ambiguity and uncertainty" caused by LQ, and we'll be happy to disabuse you of the notion.
    First, I am misquoted. What I actually wrote is focused squarely on logical quotation as it is interpreted (defectively, say I) on Wikipedia. With my underlining added:
    • Let's be aware, however, that the WP:MOS system for LQ is a Wikipedia invention without support from the world's major style manuals. And it leaves ambiguities and uncertainties for the reader, just as all other codifications must.
    Yes, I added that "all codifications must"; but my challenge concerned WP LQ.
    Here are some points concerning excerpts from current WP LQ. Some might apply, with weaker force, against other implementations of LQ (but that's not my concern here):
    [Excerpt 1] If the quoted sentence is followed by a clause that should be preceded by a comma, omit the full stop (period) – but other terminal punctuation, such as a question mark or exclamation mark, may be retained.
    • Livingston then said, "It is done", and turned to the people.
    The problem: It is unclear from this punctuation whether the words "It is done" are a sentence in the original that is quoted. In fact, readers accustomed to more standard LQ might think an effort has been made to show that it is not a sentence. Other versions of LQ would put the comma inside the quotes if it were a sentence in the original, but outside if it were not.
    [Excerpt 2] If the quoted sentence is followed by a clause identifying the speaker, use a comma outside the quotation mark instead of a full stop inside it, but retain any other terminal punctuation, such as question marks.
    • "For space science, like nuclear science and all technology, has no conscience of its own", said Kennedy.
    The problem: (I noted this one earlier.) Same as for Excerpt 1. In fact the quoted material is a full sentence in the original (as the WP wording suggests that it is: "If the quoted sentence ..."); but there's nothing here to even hint that it is.
    [Excerpt 3] [...] For the most part, this means treating periods and commas in the same way as question marks: keep them inside the quotation marks if they apply only to the quoted material and outside if they apply to the whole sentence.
    • [...]
    • Correct: Darla said, "Where am I?" (question mark applies to quoted material only)
    The problem: What are we to do if we want to quote only that portion of Darla's complete sentence, if it had been this: "Where am I, and who are you?" It's unclear, from the WP wording. Candidate solutions:
    • Darla said, "Where am I". [On one interpretation of the WP wording.]
    • Darla said, "Where am I"? [On another interpretation of the WP wording.]
    • Darla said, "Where am I[?]"
    • Darla said, "Where am I?".
    • Darla said, "Where am I?" [The question mark "[applies] only to the quoted material" and it does occur in the sentence that occurred in the original: just not at that exact point!]
    • Darla said, "Where am I [...]?". [To show, for fidelity with the original, that the question mark occurs in the original and marks the quoted material as a question, and that it occurs later.]
    More interpretations and solutions are possible, but this sampling of uncertainties will suffice.
    [Excerpt 4] Do not follow quoted words or fragments with commas inside the quotation marks, except where a longer quotation has been broken up and the comma is part of the full quotation.
    • Correct: "I'm happy I can do it one more time, so people can remember me at my best", said Turner.
    • Correct: "I'm happy I can do it one more time," said Turner, "so people can remember me at my best."
    • Correct: "I'm happy", said Turner, "I can do it one more time, so people can remember me at my best."
    • Incorrect: "I'm happy," said Turner, "I can do it one more time, so people can remember me at my best."
    The problem: What Tina Turner actually said: "I'm rock 'n' roll, but I'm happy I can do it one more time, so people can remember me at my best." So:
    For the first example, same as for Excerpts 1 and 2.
    For the second and third examples, in any version of LQ including WP's putting a period inside the quotes would seem to be right only if the whole sentence were being quoted. But is that correct? At least for WP LQ, the matter appears to be unresolved. Certainly the string quoted from Turner could be the material for a full orthographic sentence; but it doesn't make one in the text that is quoted. Nor does it make one in the example; the example in its entirety is the only orthographic sentence in play. Putting the full stop inside leaves it unresolved whether the quoted material is a full sentence in the original; putting it outside would signal (correctly) that it was not a full sentence. WP:LQ gives no example to settle such matters. If it be answered that it's sufficient that the quoted material could make up the material for a full orthographic sentence, this is not made clear. And indeed, it defeats the whole purpose of LQ: to report faithfully how things actually were in the original.

    Arbitary break 2

    "We'll be happy to disabuse you of the notion"? Go ahead!
    Complete fidelity to the original is a mirage. Zealots favouring WP's quirky implementation of logical quotation might need to be reminded of that. Will they act on such a reminder, and reverse the entrenched errors of the past? Somehow I doubt it.
    49.190.56.203 (talk) 00:07, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    When you get gently mocked for snidely telling everyone around you to "read with care", then "you would do well" to understand that the thing to not do is double and then triple down on it. And no one cares whether you find something "A spirited response"; WP:NOT#FORUM. The reason I'm bothering to go through all this stuff point-by-point is just to have another talk-archive record dispelling this confused and nationalism-infused stuff in detail yet again. Not for entertainment value; I could be watching a movie right now, instead.
    • "Show me!" Already did. Are you not reading? Let's quote it again (just two random examples, but they suffice): "Within a quotation use the spelling and punctuation of the original." "Anything which is not part of th[e] exact words must be placed outside the quotes".
    • "New Hart's Rules (NHR) and others would put a comma to represent that period": Yes, everyone knows that, and it's completely irrelevant, since that's not LQ and has nothign to with MOS:LQ. Rather, it's the most common British practice, though not universal in British publishing. It's also what's done in TQ, of course. The British styles are mostly a TQ/LQ mixture.
    • 'the source quoted is a full sentence ending with a full stop: "For space science, like nuclear science and all technology, has no conscience of its own", said Kennedy.' Yes, and this is required by LQ if you're going to continue the sentence after the quote (though some might omit the comma before "said Kennedy"). It is not possible in LQ, by definition (just re-read the above definitions) to put that comma inside the quotation, because it is not found in the original.If you are talking about a quotation style in which that substitution were permissible (without square-bracketing it), you would not be talking about LQ, and this has already been pointed out to you above. Let's please not have to go over this yet again in another round later. If that is where you're angling with this, then you are engaging in equivocation, redefining LQ on-the-fly to mean what you wish it meant instead of what it actually means. There are many quotation styles that would do what you want to with that comma (if I'm reading your intent here right), by putting it inside, including several British ones, but they are not LQ. If this is where you are going then (like previous pundits against MOS:LQ) you're not grasping that LQ and [most] British quotation styles are not the same thing.

      Alternatively, you could instead believe that if LQ quotes a full sentence that it must include the terminal punctuation no matter what, and thus be advocating for something like '"For space science, like nuclear science and all technology, has no conscience of its own.", said Kennedy.' Or perhaps '""For space science, like nuclear science and all technology, has no conscience of its own." said Kennedy.' If so, there appear to be no other LQ works and writers who would advocate this, and it is not what WP says to use. I.e., it's a made up "LQ-prime" or something. It just doesn't happen. (Except in a specialized linguistic or other text-analytic situation under which the punctuation within the quoted sentence is itself a subject of the analysis; but that's not really LQ either, but strict presentation of literal strings, also common in computer science when giving command lines, etc. It's not about quoting normal prose or spoken material.)

      LQ, like any quotation style, can just partially-quote material at will, and that means even the elision of a single punctuation mark. The original example quoted above is no more wrong or invalid than '[S]pace science, like nuclear science and all technology, has no conscience of its own", said Kennedy.' Or '"[A]ll technology", according to Kennedy, lacks "conscience of its own".' Literally nothing about LQ (as codified here or anywhere else) precludes removal of quoted material, including terminal punctuation, and I have no idea where you could have even picked up such a notion, if that second of the above two notions is the one you're running with. All that LQ prohibits is injecting material like punctuation into a quotation (without square brackets) that was not part of the original material, or altering in-place the content, including punctuation, that was found there (again, without square brackets, or an ellipsis)

    • You are the one who is not reading clearly. You quote me saying "Typesetters' quotation is not American – British, etc. journalism and fiction often use it, too" and apparently just did not parse that at all, because you follow this with a "smoking gun" quote of a British publisher using TQ – which is exactly what I said they often do, despite American pundits' frequent false claims that LQ and "British style" are the same thing. (In reality, of course, there is no single British style.)
    • "Now, the only quotations in the [BBC] piece ... fit perfectly with LQ as it is presented in NHR .... BBC uses logical quotation in the NHR manner.": This is you engaging in weird equivocation again, changing what a term means to suit what you wish it meant. What NHR advises is not LQ, by definition, because it permits swapping punctuation inside the supposedly directly quoted material. Been over this already. We have absolutely no reason for another round of this if you persist in trying to make arguments about various British punctuation styles that have some elemlents of LQ and some of TQ; that is not what MOS:LQ is about, so it's simply irrelevant. The rest of that material can be skipped, since it's all dependent on your fundamental misunderstanding of what LQ means, your false belief that various things you are linking to like BBC articles are using LQ. (For the record, BBC has and follows its own internal stylesheet, which like those of many other British publishers is a hybrid of TQ and aspects of LQ. The well-cited essay you did not understand at all already covers this (I'm bummed that you didn't understand it because it was written entirely with people like you in mind, with confused ideas about quotation punctuation). Like most of them, BBC style permits replacement of a quotation's terminal period/full-stop with a comma, inside the purportedly quoted material, if the quoting sentence continues, and this is simply not doable in LQ. I'm not sure how many times we really need to go over this.
    • "No one does" - already disproved this above. It would not be possible to quote definitions of LQ (real LQ, as used at WP, not other styles you misunderstand to be LQ) from writers and publishers if there were no writers and publisher using and defining LQ; QED. "That's the industry standard" - Nope. There are at least 10 identifiable slightly different quotation punctuation styles in British publishing, ranging from full LQ to full TQ, and all the rest (which account for the vast majority of British output) being blends that differ from each other on various particulars and the rationales for them. (E.g. BBC News style on this is a little different in philosophy and exact execution from The Guardian style, and both in turn from The Economist style.) Somewhere in the talk archives here, I already did an analysis of them all, and I'm certainly not going to do it again, because it was very tedious.
    • "I gave just one illustration – easily found – of the confusion, misunderstanding, and poor analysis that underlies WP:LQ" - You did absolutely nothing of the sort, and the three faults you list are entirely your own on this matter. You misread something and proved for me what I actually said myself, then you confused NHR and BBC style (which actually subtly diverge from each other on a bit or two, if you study them closely) with each other and much worse with LQ, and "illustrated" nothing other than what has already been said: that British publishers typically use a mixture of TQ and LQ.
    • I don't have to "impugn... [your] competence in such matters"; you're giving a grandstanding performance that clearly demonstrates that you don't fully grasp the subject. Cf. Dunning–Kruger effect: You not only think you know more than you do, you don't know what you don't know, but nevertheless presume to lecture in a haughty manner as if talking to school children, when you badly misunderstand all of the material, both on- and off-site, but simply can't yet realize it. "I too have shelves groaning with style guides, and I read them with unusual care." I believe the former, but the latter is self-evidently not the case. If you read them, you do as the last anti-MOS:LQ flamer, the one who got banned, did: you cherry-pick and misinterpret and novelly synthesize and attempt incorrectly to analysize until you cobble together something you think supports the result you want, instead of understanding and applying what the material actually says and means. This is the very essence of original research.
    • Let's move on to your issues with the MOS:LQ examples: 'It is unclear from this punctuation whether the words "It is done" are a sentence in the original that is quoted.' Yes, and that is not a problem of any kind. It will always be the case in all quotation-punctuation styles. LQ has never purported to be "the system that proves whether something is or is not a fragmentary quotation". No such system exists. What LQ is: "the system that does not misquote a fragment as if it is not one" and also "the system that does not alter the content of the quoted material other than by truncation or by square-bracketed editorial changes or by an ellispsis" (the former simply being a happy result of the latter). TQ's reader-misleading habits of falsely adding terminal punctuation to quoted material that did not have it there, and of replacing terminal punctuation in the original with continuation punctuation inside the quotation marks that better suits the flow of the quoting sentence (instead of putting it outside where it belongs, being non-quote content), are ruled out by LQ.
    • "Other versions of LQ would put the comma inside the quotes if it were a sentence in the original, but outside if it were not." Nope. We're right back to the same idiolect redefinition-to-suit-your-preferences stuff again. There is no such thing as "other versions of LQ". The things you want to call LQ and include under its banner are not and cannot be LQ, by definition. LQ does not permit such alterations. That is the entire and only point of LQ. If you have found a quotation style (like 8 out of 10 British ones) that sometimes permits such alterations, then it is not and cannot be LQ, but is an LQ-influenced style with features of TQ. There is no way around this. There is zero wiggle room of any kind in "Within a quotation use the spelling and punctuation of the original." There is no loophole to explot in "Anything which is not part of th[e] exact words must be placed outside the quotes". You are provably making a mistake, and need to just stop. This is very wearisome to read much less respond to in detail, though it needs to be done so no else who doesn't grok the subject latches onto your faulty arguments and tries to recycle them.
    • "The problem: ... Same as for Excerpt 1. ... the quoted material is a full sentence in the original ... but there's nothing here to even hint that it is." Yes, this is exactly the same as the previous, and again not an actual problem. Now it's become quite clear that you believe that changing the original quotation's full-stop/period into a comma inside the quotation magically "hint[s] that it is ... a full sentence in the original", but of course that is not true. What it tells the reader is that the material contained a comma at that point and [presumably, unless the original was weirdly cut off in mid-sentence] continued with more material, which in that example's case would be a lie. Or for someone entirely and only steeped in TQ (or a British quotation style that is part-TQ) it confusingly means nothing for certain at all: the material might have contained a comma there, or might have contained a period/stop which the editor replaced with a comma, or might have contained neither and a comma was inserted there just for the overall flow of the quoting sentence (the third possibility is permissible in TQ and several but not all British styles that are part-TQ – and all your material so far indicates you are comletely unaware of the last point). So your "solution" solves abosolutely nothing. Under LQ (real LQ, as used by WP and other sources that define LQ – "use the spelling and punctuation of the original" and if "not part of th[e] exact words must be placed outside" – not the LQ/TQ blend style you pretend is LQ but is not), the presence of the comma there means exactly and only that the original had a comma there. If the original did not have a comma there (had other wording, or terminal punctuation), and you need a comma there for the syntax of the quoting sentence, that comma goes outside. This doesn't prove to the user whether the "...has no conscience of its own" quote was a complete sentence, as already noted, but that is okay. No quotation-punctuation system does that when it comes to continuing the quoting sentence past the quoted sentence; your approach certainly does not. If there is a contextual need to do so, the way to do it is an introduced complete quotation: 'According to Kennedy: "For space science, like nuclear science and all technology, has no conscience of its own."' (However, this is a poor example because of the "poetic" leading For ... construction. That whole example might be better replaced.)
    • "What are we to do if we want to quote only that portion of Darla's complete sentence" - None of what you suggested, but rather 'Darla said, "Where am I ...?"' (see MOS:ELLIPSIS for why). Per the MOS:BLOAT principle, we would never add a rule and example "clarifying" this, since there is no evidence at all of inclarity to anyone (other than you); we do not add material to MoS unless it is in response to a frequently recurrent style conflict. Technically, it would be common enough to run into "Where am I...?" as if "I..." were a truncated word (which is what the lack of space indicates); unspaced ellipses are a frequent divergence introduced by people who don't read MOS:ELLIPSIS, and we just fix it when we run across it. Same with "Where am I [...]?", done out of habit picked up in academic writing; MOS:ELLIPSIS has us avoid the redundant-in-this-case square brackets except when the original quotation contained an ellipsis of its own. Neither of these ellipsis-markup issues pertains to LQ in particular. So, rather than identify a "problem" with LQ or WP's codification of it, you've simply had a question to ask, and rather that just ask it, you went on a text-walling escapade.
    • On "Excerpt 4" (Tina Turner): To your credit, you appear to have found an error by a previous editor, in using a partial-sentence quotation as if it were a complete one. Either the full original should have been used, or we should have gone with different example text. "putting a period inside the quotes would seem to be right only if the whole sentence were being quoted. But is that correct?" - Yes, at least by a strict interpretation of LQ, and the one we mean here. While it is true that the original had a period/stop there even if we only quote part of it, our own rule intends clearly for this not to be done if the material is a fragment, since it misleads (or can, depending on the syntax structure) that the material is a complete sentence. "the quoted material could make up the material for a full orthographic sentence" is definitely not the intent here. "it defeats the whole purpose of LQ": Yes, it would. This example clearly needs to be repaired and I'll do that shortly after I'm done with this reply; thank you for pointing it out, even if we're not going to agree on much else. But finding that someone made a human error in being unfaithful to the source material (probably by way of getting it from some other source that didn't have the full quote) and the example thus needing to be replaced doesn't somehow make the intent or clarity of the MOS:LQ material faulty in any way.
    • "Complete fidelity to the original is a mirage." I'm glad you understand that; wait until you read MOS:CONFORM. And of course this bon mot of yours dispells all the hand-wringing above about removing a period/stop from the end of a quoted full sentence if the quoting sentence continues. "Zealots favouring WP's quirky implementation of logical quotation": The only zealotry in evidence here is yours (though I trust that it will evaporate after you get a better handle on the subject matter), and there is nothing quirky about MOS:LQ; it's entirely in-line with off-site definitions of LQ. What is quirky here is your misunderstanding that various vaguely LQ-influenced and mostly British quotation-punctuation styles are also LQ, when by very definition they cannot be. "the entrenched errors of the past" - You've demonstrated no WP errors of the past (other than a poor example I'm about to replace), but your entire set of arguments (aside from that one about the Turner text) is rife with errors in the present, most of them stemming from lack of understanding of what LQ is and that it is not BBC or other common British quotation style. All of this could have been avoided if you'd simply read previous discussions of LQ in the talk page archives, where this tired "LQ is British" stuff has been rehashed and discarded numerous times already.
    I really hope this will be the end of it because this was quite time-consuming.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  09:32, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Arbitary break 3

    Well! You said you would disabuse me of certain notions (which you identify inaccurately through misreading), but instead you abuse me. Pretty well as predicted. Obviously the "conversation" cannot continue, though all points you offer in response to mine could be met with good argument and evidence. You do not allow that I – a staunch supporter of LQ, as it is implemented in the world outside Wikipedia – could have any competence in the matter. Very well! Thank you at least for accepting some corrections to WP:LQ, following our exchange.
    My particular contention (for the last time here, I hope): WP:LQ's refusal ever to allow a comma to replace a period at the end of a quoted sentence makes Wikipedia a stark outlier. Wikipedia follows LQ, and I agree that The Times follows LQ. But they follow different versions of LQ – a fact you persist in not seeing. The Times does indeed want that period to be replaced by a comma, as can be easily verified using this Google search on "he said" at the newspaper's site. In the first hundred hits Google shows 20 hits that include ," he said (many with comma verifiably replacing period) and 0 hits that include ", he said (in the Wikipedia manner). This styling detail is absent from the newspaper's style guide (both the version you link to and the current 2022 edition). It is covered in WP:LQ, which flatly contradicts how The Times (along with just about everyone else) actually implements the LQ idea in the real world of publishing.
    Wikipedia is irremediably stuck with its own unrealistic house version of LQ. That's firmly entrenched no matter what evidence is produced – as you continue to demonstrate. I don't edit here any more (life's too short); so I'd prefer to accept your suggestion and leave it at that.
    49.190.56.203 (talk) 22:29, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No one is "abusing" you. Identifying where your claimed facts are wrong and your understanding incomplete and your arguments faulty and your approach to others here obnoxious has nothing to do with you as a person (and you're entirely anonymized anyway). I'm not besmirching your person for being in error. I was also in error (since corrected above) in trusting that The Times actually obeyed their own style guide, which they do not. What's different here is I'm immediately realizing and stating that I erred, and adjusting the argument I'm making to compensate (science!), but you do none of that; you just circle back to pushing the same broken premise. "could be met with good argument and evidence" - You present zero. Your previous attempts at this have been refuted. "I – a staunch supporter of LQ" - You are not a supporter of LQ, and do not understand at all what it is; you're a supporter of the LQ/TQ blend used by NHR and BBC News and The Times. "WP:LQ's refusal ever to allow a comma to replace a period at the end of a quoted sentence makes Wikipedia a stark outlier." No, it makes us entirely consistent with the actual definition of LQ, which I will demonstrate again to you below. It also makes us not using typical British quotation style (along with not using the main American one) which I've been saying to you since the start, but you just won't hear it.

    "I agree that The Times follows LQ" - Unfortunately, you're agreeing with no one but yourself now. Your quotes of their actual usage show that despite The Times style manual calling for LQ (though they don't label it with that name), in actual practice they do not use it, because they change terminal periods/stops into commas inside the alleged quotation if the quoting sentence continues. Latching onto this as some kind of "proof" that LQ means what you want it to mean isn't tenable. They never called it that, and use of that publication as an example of LQ was an error (though an understandable one, given what their not-abided-by style manual says).

    Let's just pore over the definition and application of LQ, with some additional source material:

    • "Punctuation marks are placed inside the quotation marks only if the sense of the punctuation is part of the quotation; this system is referred to as logical quotation. ... When a sentence fragment is quoted, the period [full stop] is outside. ... Within a quotation use the spelling and punctuation of the original." —Journal of Irish and Scottish Studies [18]
    • "Anything which is not part of th[e] exact words must be placed outside the quotes" —Larry Trask, University of Sussex [19]]
    • "Questions of order between inverted commas [quotation marks] and stops [commas, semicolons, and periods/full-stops] are much debated .... There are two schools of thought, which might be called the conventional and the logical. The conventional prefers to put stops within the inverted commas, if it can be done without ambiguity, on the ground that this has a more pleasing appearance. The logical punctuates according to sense, and puts them outside except when they actually form part of the quotation. The conventional system flouts common sense, and it is not easy for the plain man to see what merit it is supposed to have to outweigh that defect." —Fowler's Modern English Usage (2nd ed., H. W. Fowler, ed. Ernest Gowers). This was later butchered by Burchfield (who removed most of Fowler's original wording on everything, in the 3rd edition) to: "All signs of punctuation used with words in quotation marks must be placed according to the sense." That has been widely criticized as too vague to be meaningful, though Burchfield (in his defense) actually picked it up from earlier material.
    • Despite the ambiguity of "according to the sense", Gowers and others provably interpreted it as meaning to follow the LQ rule. "[S]tops should be put in their logical positions. If the stops are part of the sentence quoted, put them within the inverted commas. If they are part of a longer sentence within which the quotation stands, put them outside the inverted commas. If the quotation and the sentence embracing it end together, so that each needs a stop at the same time, do not carry logic to the lengths of putting one inside and one out, but be content with the one outside. ... Many publishers will not have this. They dislike the look of stops outside inverted commas if they can possibly be put inside. Here is an extract from a publisher ... '... placed before the final quotation marks, whether they form part of the original extract or not, provided that no ambiguity is likely to arise as to exactly what is quoted and what is not; this rule may not be as logical as that which insists on placing the punctuation marks strictly according to the sense, but the printed result looks more pleasing and justifies the convention.' But we need not concern ourselves here with questions of taste in printing. The drafter of official letters and memoranda is advised to stick to the principle of placing the punctuation marks according to the sense." —(This is a British author commenting on British publishers and demonstrates that the practices of "many publishers" in that country are not LQ, and specifically diverge from LQ on this point, as you've been told about a dozen times now.)
    • "[U]se quotes as balanced delimiters like parentheses ... 'Jim is going', 'Bill runs', and 'Spock groks'. This is incorrect according to standard American usage (which would put the continuation commas and the final period inside the string quotes); however, it is counter-intuitive ... to mutilate literal strings with characters that don't belong in them. Given the sorts of examples that can come up in discussions of programming, American-style quoting can even be grossly misleading. ... 'new' or 'logical' quoting. ... The Jargon File follows [this] usage throughout." —The Jargon File [20] (published in paperback as The New Hacker's Dictionary, to which The Chicago Manual of Style has deferred on this point with regard to "computer writing" since at least the 15th edition; CMoS illustrates with the example "name your file 'appendix A, v. 10'.", and also observes this same approach in textual analysis, linguistic glosses, and other technical writing, and in philosophy writing, though the CMoS editors like to discourage it in the last of those without any explanation why).
    • "A system of quotation in which terminal punctuation marks are enclosed within a quotation only if the sense of the punctuation is part of the original material being quoted. Logical quotation is similar to but stricter than the common British style of quotation which is based on the sense of the punctuation in the context of the writing in which the quotation is being used (which permits limited insertions of additional punctuation, or alteration of original punctuation, in the quoted content, which logical quotation does not). Some sources (chiefly American) conflate the two terms and styles (e.g., Yagoda 2011)." —Wiktionary [21][22] (Not a reliable source, per WP:UGC, but it's entirely consistent with everyone else on this.)
    • "The second member of a pair of quotation marks should precede any other adjacent mark of punctuation, unless the other mark is a necessary part of the quoted matter: The word means 'cart', not 'horse'. He asked, 'What can we hypothesize about this example?'." —"Style Sheet", Language, journal of the Linguistic Society of America [23]
    • "[A] common designation for th[e] style has been 'logical punctuation.' The best way to grasp this is to look at an example ...: '[I]ronically, given the anecdote about "Tales of the City", PBS is the ONLY widely available channel that has any serious LGBT content; e.g. documentaries such as "Ask Not" and "Out in the Silence".' 'Tales of the City' and 'Out in the Silence' are units—consisting of the words and the quotation marks. Insinuating a period or comma within the unit alters it in a rather underhanded manner." —Ben Yagoda (University of Delaware), "The Rise of 'Logical Punctuation'. The period outside the quotation marks is not a copy error." Slate (2011) [24] (NB: Yagoda is a died-in-the-wool opponent of LQ, but describes it accurately. His only error is mistaking it for "British" style, and his Not One-Off Britishisms blog is entirely devoted to castigating British influences on American usage, so it's no surprise he had this blind spot. He did not look closely at British style and catch that most of them permit within-quote punctuation changes. This misapprehension is common, probably in part due to Yagoda's imprecise article in the first place. Yagoda also claims that Conan O'Brien and the popular music website Pitchfork are devotees of LQ, though since 2011 the latter's editorial policy appears to have changed to permit whatever quotation-punctuation style the writer wants to use, since the material now there is inconsistent.)
    • "Where a quotation forms part of a longer sentence ... the closing quote precedes all punctuation except an exclamation mark, question mark, dash or parenthesis belonging only to the quotation. ... When a quotation is broken by words of the main sentence, and then resumed, the punctuation before the break should follow the closing quote unless it forms part of the quotation" —Butcher's Copy-editing: The Cambridge Handbook for Editors, Copy-editors and Proofreaders (4th ed.). This work tells us flat out exactly where the British style of The Times, BBC News, and several other publishers comes from and why, and demonstrates that it is a different style, not LQ: "The position of the full point depends in theory on whether the quoted sentence is a complete one; as it is impossible to be certain about that without checking the original source, many publishers follow a rule of thumb that the full point precedes the closing quote if the quotation contains a grammatically complete sentence starting with a capital letter .... Authors who are textual scholars may place the full point according to whether it is part of the quotation; so do not make their system consistent without consulting them. American authors place the closing quotes after commas and full points .... When a quotation is broken by words of the main sentence, and then resumed ... in fiction the usual convention is to place the first comma before the first closing quote". This is all precisely what I've told you and what I documented at the essay mentioned above.
    • "Any punctuation normally follows the closing quotation mark. ... Please check thoroughly against the source the accuracy of the text quoted in the manuscript (wording, punctuation, emphasis, capitalisation)" –"Preparing your materials § Formatting style", Journal of Linguistics, Cambridge University Press [25] (Less specific than usual; this seems to be boilerplate text for a lot of Cambridge journals, as the same is found in the others I checked, e.g. English Language and Linguistics. One was a little more specific: "Put commas and sentence-final punctuation marks outside the quotation marks." —"Preparing your materials § General Stylistics", Language in Society [26].)
    • "Use logical quotation. When you place a keyword or other string literal within quotation marks, put punctuation, like commas and periods, outside of the final quotation mark. Correct: 'If you see the message "Authentication Failed", try logging in again. The message shows "Authentication Successful".' Incorrect: 'If you see the message "Authentication Failed," try logging in again. The message shows "Authentication Successful."'" —"Splunk Style Guide § Quotation marks", Splunk (software company), intended to "establish best practices for writing technical documentation". [27]
    • "When a quotation is broken by such insertions as he said, any stop [comma, semicolon, or period/full-stop] or tone symbol [exclamation or question mark] may be an essential part of the first fragment of quotation. ... The true stops should never stand before the second quotation mark except a) when ... complete sentences entirely isolated and independent in grammar are printed as quotations. Even in these, it must be mentioned that the true stops are strictly unnecessary; but if ... used in deference to universal custom, it should be before the quotation mark. b) when a stop is necessary to divide the first fragment of an interrupted quotation from the second. ... The tone symbols should be placed before or after the second quotation mark according as they belong to the quotation or to the containing sentence. If both quotation and containing sentence need a tone symbol, both should be used, with the quotation mark between them." —Fowler & Fowler (1908) The King's English [28]. The "necessary to divide the first framgent ... from the second" part was unclearly worded, but the illustrating example indicates that it means to not remove punctuation that was present in the original serving a grammatical function between two parts that have now been split by the quoter: "'Certainly not;' he exclaimed 'I would have died rather'." F&F's material on this appears to be the "ancestral" implementation that eventually inspired modern LQ, and may have been the first to apply the word "logical" to such a system, though their exact recommendations differed from present-day LQ (and H. W. Fowler's own later material) in recommending no non-original commas in interrupted quotations (e.g. "I wonder" she said aloud "whether I should go to the theatre?"); calling for double question marks if both quotation and quoting sentence were independently questions ("Did you ask 'Where are you going?'?"); and moving quoted periods/full-stops (only) to outside a quotation at the end of the quoting sentence (He said 'I'm done here'.). These three quirks did not catch on.
    • "This book uses the logical quotation system, not the misleading typesetters' quotation system. This means that quoted information does not include any trailing punctuation if the punctuation is not part of the material being quoted. The typesetters' quotation system causes extraneous characters to be placed inside the quotes; this has no affect in poetry but is a serious problem when accuracy is important. The typesetters' quotation system often falsifies quotes (since it includes punctuation not in the quote) and can be disastrously erroneous in code or computer commands. The logical quotation system is widely used in a variety of publications, including The Jargon File, Wikipedia, and the Linguistic Society of America. This book uses standard American (not British) spelling." —Dr. David A. Wheeler (Linux Foundation, IEEE), Secure Programming HOWTO, Chapter 2. Background, §2.10. Document Conventions (2023) [29] (If anyone is tempted to "blame" Wikipedia, guess again. This work since its original 2001 publication has used LQ all along with just with a shorter statement [30] – that's long before WP adopted LQ in 2005.)
    • "No discussion of the illogic of punctuation would be complete without the infamous case of the ordering of a quotation mark with respect to a comma or period. The rule in American publications ... is that when quoted material appears at the end of a phrase or sentence, the closing quotation mark goes outside the comma or period, 'like this,' rather than inside, 'like this'. The practice is patently illogical: the quotation marks enclose a part of the phrase or sentence, and the comma or period signals the end of that entire phrase or sentence .... These acts of civil disobedience [using LQ against editors' preferences] were necessary to make it clear where the punctuation marks went in the examples I was citing. You should do the same if you ever need to discuss quotations or punctuation, if you write for Wikipedia or another tech-friendly platform, or if you have a temperament that is both logical and rebellious. The movement may someday change typographical practice .... But until that day comes, if you write for an edited American publication, be prepared to live with the illogic of putting a period or comma inside quotation marks. —Steven Pinker (Harvard U.), The Sense of Style (2014); he is a Canadian-American pycholinguist and style-guide author.
    • "I generally eschew the peculiarly American convention of moving punctuation within a closing quotation mark. ... Instead, I use the convention that only the stuff being quoted is put within the quotation marks. ... the 'American' convention is, in technical terms, stupid. ... clarity trumps beauty. Moving the punctuation means that when you see a quoted string with some final punctuation, you don’t know if that punctuation is or is not intended to be part of the thing being quoted; it is systematically ambiguous. ... Throughout the text, the American convention of moving punctuation within closing quotation marks (whether or not the punctuation is part of what is being referred to) is dropped in favor of the more logical and consistent convention of placing only the quoted material within the marks." —Stuart M. Shieber (Harvard U.), "When practice and logic conflict, change the practice", The Occasional Pamphlet on Scholarly Communication [31] (he's a computational linguist, and author of the LQ-formatted book The Turing Test, MIT Press, 2004, among other works. Note that this also pre-dates MOS:LQ.)
    • "I was taught to use the American style of quotation, where periods and commas go inside quotation marks even when they don't belong, like 'this.' This style contrasts with 'logical quotation', like what I did just there—keeping the commas and periods where they logically belong." —blogger Brian Tomasik [32] (not a reliable source on writing style, but his meaning of the term is consistent with ours and everyone else's).
    • "Quotation marks should use the logical quotation style for punctuation. Therefore, punctuation (e.g., periods, commas, colons) should be placed outside of the quotation marks, unless specified otherwise in the source material. In other words, This is an 'example'. is the preferred style, not This is an 'example.' " —"Style Guide" § Language, UESPWiki (also obviously not a reliable source on language usage; just noted here as one of many other online-publication examples following LQ and, the point here, defining it the same way we do and everyone else does).
    Ergo "LQ, as it is implemented in the world outside Wikipedia" is exactly the same as implemented inside Wikipedia, and your belief to the contrary is disprovable by all relevant sourcing while being supportable by nothing. At a guess, you've been misled by some unreliable sources that confuse LQ and the typical British style, which is mostly-LQ-with-TQ-elements. (An example of someone who did not actually compare LQ to what typical British publishers are really doing would be Yagoda and his blind hatred of British writing. Others are easy to find, e.g. the nonsense written by this blogger [33], who also didn't understand what "according to the sense" meant and thought it referred to a personal sense of propriety or style.) There is but one sourceable definition of LQ, in different wording from various sources, but all in agreement on the substance, and MOS:LQ complies with it entirely. NHR, BBC News and (it turns out) The Times and other publishers you mistakenly believe to be using "versions of LQ" as "implemented in the world" are not using LQ, which has a single, simple definition. Ultimately, none of this discussion about The Times has any relevance of any kind to LQ in general or MOS:LQ in particular. That so much space has been wasted on this is arguably my own fault, because I initially took the publication's style mantual at its word that LQ rules were used by The Times, instead of trusting my instinct to go check. I've corrected my own statement above suggesting that The Times uses LQ, since this is provably wrong when their material is examined; it seems likely that they used it at some point, then drifted away to agree with other UK news. From what I can tell after re-examining a bunch of style guides from UK organizations, the British news publisher that comes closest to LQ is The Economist, but they also do in fact permit substitution of one punctuation mark for another without moving it outside the quotation marks, so they aren't LQ either (though the rationale they offer for doing this differs from that of other publishers). Real LQ is mostly found in academic journals. And WP.

    You're entirely correct that WP is firm in its use of LQ; your conclusion that it's "unrealistic" is unsupportable; it's simply not popular among major American and British publishers, though most of the latter lean very close to it. The fact that we've been using LQ without any problem (other than very intermittent fist-shaking from isolated invididuals like you) for over 18 years demonstrates that it is realistic, since WP is real (and approximately the 7th-most-used website in the world, depending on whose stats you prefer), and our use of LQ is real.

    "I don't edit here any more"? Then you're just being a time-sucking heckler. See WP:NOT#FORUM and WP:NOTHERE. This used up many more hours of my time, and I hope you'll now give this a rest. Well, in one sense I should thank you, since I found a lot of additional material to use for repairing the damage done to the article Quotation marks in English by a now-topic-banned editor (falsely equating LQ and "British style" among other serious problems); I thought it had been resolved by now, but no one seems to have touched it, so I'll have to clean it up myself.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  18:07, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Arbitary break 4

    I come here because I'm concerned about a perceived long-standing deficiency in WP:LQ, despite my decision some years ago to retire from editing Wikipedia. For my trouble I am indeed abused: " 'I don't edit here any more'? Then you're just being a time-sucking heckler." Shame on you, SMcCandlish. We expect such defensive abuse from partisans when their cherished truths are challenged: not from a fair-minded editor who is actually offered new information.
    Yes, new information. As you acknowledge above, you were mistaken all these years about The Times using LQ of the sort Wikipedia does (which you call "logical quotation" tout court). Instead of taking the seriously incomplete specification in their style guide as mere inconclusive evidence, you accept it as proof: "a bit of proof of one major publisher following LQ". Now, if my contributions above don't succeed in transferring more new information to you, it's not my fault. You're demonstrably not reading with sufficient care. But let me help you right now with some further information, about the Australian Government Style Manual (AGSM) – which you appear to have merely skimmed. You write, above:
    The Australian Government Style Manual is actually quite clear and entirely in synch with logical quotation, other than an example typo: [...]
    Some facts, gained from an attentive reading of their section on quotation marks:
    • Fact 1: There is zero evidence in their examples that they ever want a comma to follow a closing quote mark when the quoted complete sentence ends with a period, which WP:LQ would often require.
    • Fact 2: There is good positive evidence that they want a comma (replacing a period that was present in the quoted complete sentence) preceding a closing quote mark. These examples (or do you think they are all typos?):
    ‘Yes, that’s all that happened,’ she replied.
    ‘It has arrived,’ said the manager. [As noted earlier: contrasted directly with / ‘Has it arrived?’ asked the manager.]
    ‘I have the final figures,’ the manager said. ‘This will ruin our bottom line.’
    ‘Wow,’ he said.
    • Fact 3: They explicitly signal a departure from what you want to call logical quotation, in release notes produced on transitioning to the online edition. Those notes in their entirety (near the bottom of the section linked to, just before About this page):
    Release notes
    The digital edition revises advice about punctuation used with quotation marks. It departs from advice in the sixth edition about the position of punctuation and quotation marks in sentences interrupted by expressions, such as ‘they said’.
    The sixth edition recommended the comma be placed outside the quotation mark, before the expression. The digital edition recommends the comma be placed inside the quotation mark: the quotation mark comes directly before the expression.
    The Content Guide had advice on the use of single and double quotation marks, with which the digital edition is consistent.
    My analysis:
    • AGSM is not "quite clear". [From Fact 2: the precise form of the quoted material is not shown; replacing a period with a comma is there for us to infer with some degree of confidence, but it is not stated as a principle where it ought to be; Fact 3: the release notes are incomplete, there being other departures from the provisions of the sixth edition (the last print edition), and the third paragraph of the notes is cryptic in not marking any departure from the sixth edition].
    • AGSM is not "entirely in synch with logical quotation": understood your way, by which the term denotes what is laid out in WP:LQ. It attempts to implement a kind of LQ more broadly understood, which may still usefully be contrasted with typesetter quotation (TQ), which dominates in the US. As I observed earlier, it "falls into line with NHR"; but it does so erratically and approximately, in a parallel but failed attempt at rigorous implementation of LQ broadly construed. [From Facts 1, 2, and 3.]
    • There is no evidence that anything in AGSM's section on quotation marks is a typo that affects interpretation of its policy for quotation marks with other punctuation. [From Fact 2, which shows consistency of treatment in relevant examples.]
    Turning to New Hart's Rules, you write above:
    But this is not evidence that NHR doesn't otherwise follow LQ, even if they don't use the term "logical quotation".
    So according to you, New Hart's Rules does follow LQ (by which you at that point appear to mean effectively the WP:LQ version) except in the NHR provision that you take exception to ("this", in what I quoted from you just now). But in fact it doesn't follow LQ à la WP:LQ, in other ways also. NHR wants to replace a final period at the end of the quoted complete sentence with a comma in cases like this:
    "Yes, we will. It’s a good idea," he said. [Where the original had a period after idea.]
    As quoted above, and as you are well aware (now, at least). From all this we can see that you equivocate on the term "LQ". For you, it sometimes (usually?) means the Wikipedia way, and sometimes it's broader than that so that NHR's different way counts as LQ but with exactly one limited exception. Your continuation after what I last quoted from you:
    But this is not evidence that NHR doesn't otherwise follow LQ, even if they don't use the term "logical quotation". Gawaon's other quotes from NHR conclusively demonstrate this.
    In sum: Because of your equivocation, and your sometimes loose treatment of the LQ-related literature that I tease out above, it's not clear how you'd want an interlocutor to use the term "LQ". I prefer to take it as aspirational, as AGSM and NHR and others do: subject to modifications and softening to meet the needs of real writers, editors, and readers. We see a lot of such softening in WP:MOS, but not in WP:LQ. Why not? WP:MOS allows a quoted capital-letter beginning to lose its capital letter (a definite failure to quote exactly), and in this it follows almost universal advice in other guides. WP:LQ, by way of contrast, is extremist and uncompromising. Its implacable resistance to any human-oriented softening at the edges is out of tune with the larger world, including with manuals and publishers who you wrongly thought agreed with the provisions in WP:LQ. Even that spurious bastion of logical quotation (if we interpret in the WP way) the Journal of Irish and Scottish Studies has softened its already inconclusive provisions by removing much detail that was in the PDF you linked to above, in its current guidelines for authors. And anyway, it's trivially easy to find punctuation like this in its articles:
    McLeod instead resorted to ‘writing letters to the government, calling on them to bring in provisions.’
    ... comments that there is not ‘any evidence that he led the emigration.’
    ... given as a trade good by the British to Indigenous peoples to broker ‘diplomatic relations with First Nations.’
    There remain as exemplars only those publishers whose main concern is with the precise detail in strings of characters, within linguistics for example. Of course! They need obsessive accuracy of the WP:LQ kind; but their understandable obsession is no model for a general encyclopedia like Wikipedia to emulate, except where it too is concerned with such detail (in articles on mathematical or textual topics, for example).
    Enough, yes? Your work for WP:MOS is mighty impressive, SMcCandlish. And extremely useful. But you have blindspots, and you have seen to it that WP:MOS – the world's best and most influential online style guide by far, in my opinion – has a few more lapses from the expected stratospheric quality than it would otherwise have.
    (Enough?)
    49.190.56.203 (talk) 07:17, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "I'm concerned about a perceived long-standing deficiency in WP:LQ": You have tried and tried to demonstrate one and have not been able to do it. You have shown nothing at all other than that MOS:LQ differs on a few points from typical British news punctuation, which everyone but you already understood. And that LQ is not common in the mainstream press, which everyone also already knew. You are not being abused; you are being reminded of WP:NOT#FORUM policy and the WP:NOTHERE principle. You are avowedly no longer an editor here because think being one is a waste of time. That is actually grounds from any admin wandering by to just block your IP address right now as a time-wasting, disgruntled, disruptive interloper. Your opinion about our guideline isn't of any interest here, any more than mine would be a Conservapedia when I am not [never was!] an editor. Most of what you are doing is simply engaging in argument for the "sport" of it, railing on about nit-picks that have no relevance to our guideline language or its interpretation and implementation. "you were mistaken all these years": No, I was mistaken for a little over one day about that publication, and only because they do not actually follow their own style guide. It has zero implication of any kind for this guideline or anything else under discussion. The only consequence it had was some wasted time and verbiage about one newspaper, and me having to concede I'd erred, which is not something I have any problem doing.

    You may well be right about Australian Government Style Manual's current edition, but again it does not matter in any way. MOS:LQ is not based on AGSM and our reasons for using LQ have nothing to do with the .au government's preferences. Even the LQ essay does not mention that work, not that the essay is dispositive of anything anyway. However, "The sixth edition recommended the comma be placed outside the quotation mark", indicates that they did formerly probably recommend LQ, so that edition would be interesting to look at. It's fairly likely that version also departed in a TQ-influenced direction by somewhere recommending to change an original period/full-stop into a comma inside the quotation marks when used within a quoting sentence that doesn't end there; but that's basically side-interest trivia about one entity's style guide, not ours.

    "So according to you, New Hart's Rules does follow LQ". Not what I said at all; I said that you hadn't demonstrated that they don't. I've since checked, and they don't. So there is nothing further to waste time on with regard to NHR. What you've done here is magically equate my then-uncertainty about what a couple of sources where doing in detail and my supposition that they could be using LQ (which has only one definition) with a) an assumption that everything that various British/Commonwealth publishers are doing with some features of LQ must be "a form of LQ", and b) that MOS:LQ's "form of LQ" is somehow faulty because it doesn't agree with British/Commonwealth usage. This is just an absurd waste of everyone's time, including your own (now I'll quote you back to yourself: "life's too short"). I've engaged in no equivocation of any kind; that's your modus operandi. I've been incorrect in assumptions about what one work is doing, and wondering about what two others might be doing (that they might or might not be using LQ in practice, though it is a term employed by neither of them). You, on the other hand, have attempted to redefine LQ on-the-fly to get at something that boils down to "What NHR and The Times are doing is LQ, which is different from MOS:LQ, therefore WP is wrong and a mis-definition of LQ." That just doesn't work. I've already shown conclusively that our definition of LQ agrees with everyone else's.

    "I prefer to take it as aspirational, as AGSM and NHR and others do" - That's just patent falsification. None of the publishers you keep referring to and aligning with ever use the term "logical quotation" or "logical punctuation" for what they do; you've just made it up. Meanwhile, all the publications that do use the term agree with what MOS:LQ says in every aspect (secondarily, various other cited works use the same system without naming it, and it is not the typical British system you favo[u]r).

    "subject to modifications and softening to meet the needs of real writers, editors, and readers." There is no demonstrated "need" to use any convention other than MOS:LQ here. All quotation-puncutation styles are simply a preference, with the sole exception of LQ, which serves a purposeful accuracy/precision need. Nothing else in any quotation style is a "need". LQ has served us well, and with no problem other than occasional blowhards who just don't like it showing up and making tedious noise about it, to no effect of any kind but being a time sink. "WP:MOS allows a quoted capital-letter beginning to lose its capital letter": Not without square-bracketing the change. If MoS anywhere says otherwise, this is a recent alteration without consensus and should be reverted (drive-by changes to MoS do happen). "WP:LQ ... is extremist and uncompromising. Its implacable": You can try as many negative-implication adjectives as you like, but this really boils down to "principled, consistent, and not subject to willy-nilly alteration", and this is by design. "resistance to any human-oriented softening at the edges": There is nothing not "human-oriented" about LQ; it is the simplest possible quotation-punctuation system, and it has the most human-oriented purpose such a system can have: making certain that the allegedly quoted material is in fact quoted material and not extraneous interpolations and other undisclosed alterations. "out of tune with the larger world": By design, a whole lot of what WP does is very different from what other publishers do; we have all kinds of policies and guidelines that are not mirrored at newspapers, blogs, book publishers, journals, or even other encyclopedias. "manuals and publishers who you wrongly thought agreed with the provisions in WP:LQ": I've cited others that do, and I've actually checked them. You can't dispel them. The fact that in three cases I supposed that they might also be exemplars and they turned out not to be is just immaterial.

    Your "never give up, never surrender" (I would say see WP:TE and WP:DROPTHESTICK, but as a "former editor" you wouldn't care) case that MOS:LQ is somehow wrong or broken cannot be demonstrated in any way. Not a single argument you have raised that is actually on-topic for that question has been borne out. The only thing you've "won" on is that some sources that could in theory have been in the LQ column actually do not belong in that column after all and are just more examples of typical British/Commonwealth usage, which is not LQ. "the Journal of Irish and Scottish Studies has softened ... in its current guidelines for authors" - Even if this were true, it would be irrelevant. MOS:LQ is not based on and does not care about JISS. The only reason it was ever mentioned here, along with other such works I've cited and quoted, was to refute your claim that MOS:LQ's implementation of LQ was invented by WP, and your claim that "LQ" means something other than what MOS:LQ says it does; both your claims are entirely disproved. It doesn't matter at all in any way whether JISS or anyone else stopped using LQ later; the fact remains that LQ as interpreted by WP pre-dates our use of it, and that its definition in other works is consistent with ours, both of which are known to be true. (However, your claim about JISS is wrong anyway. Their current requirements are unmistakeable LQ, they just stopped putting a name on it. "Within a quotation use the spelling and punctuation of the original.", followed by how to use "[sic]", square-bracketed alterations, and ellipses, entirely consistent with MoS's own usage even. No exception of any kind is made. The examples you quoted are one of two things: the "ultra-strict" approach of keeping a quoted fragment's terminal punctuation inside the quotation marks instead of moving it outside (permitted but not required by LQ); or someone following typical British practice of replacing what was orginally a comma with a period/full-stop, to serve the function of the quoting sentence, in which case this would be against JISS's style guide and an error they didn't catch. There's no way to be sure without examining the orginal source material, and I can't imagine anyone caring to do that, since it really has no pertinence to the matter before us.)

    "There remain as exemplars only those publishers whose main concern is with the precise detail in strings of characters": Yes, and WP is one of them, because when we claim that something is a direct quotation it is crucial to us and our readers that nothing in it is misrepresented, because readers are going to trust that it is correct and not mangled. I have no idea why this concept is so hard for you to absorb. It does not matter to Wikipedia that various publishers really don't care that they are subtly falsifying quoted material. We do. Even the ultra-nationalistic Chicago Manual of Style allows of LQ's use (though they refuse to use that label) for precision writing, including linguistic glosses, computer code, (grudgingly) philosophy material, and especially textual analysis and criticism. That last is what Wikipedia consists of. It is a work critically analyzing the content of source texts and producing a WP:DUE-balanced summary of (with frequent direct quotations of) that material, for a general audience, with great attention to accuracy (and neutrality). It's an "understandable obsession" in your words. "except where [WP] too is concerned with such detail": Because WP is a critical text-analytic work, it is always concerned with such detail, in every quotation, by definition. Your idea that WP does not "need ... accuracy of the WP:LQ kind" is manifestly incorrect. The fact that you personally like to think of that accuracy as something only for linguists and mathematicians is of no concern or import to anyone here, and creates no obligation on our part. Even CMoS disagrees with you, and they're pretty much the fiercest proponents of TQ on the planet.

    "Your work for WP:MOS" - I appreciate, I suppose, your partial approval, but the work that needs to be done with regard to MoS is keeping it stable and making it leaner, nothing further. It is not defective. That so much of my MoS-related time here is spent tring to fend of essesntially well-meaning but completely subjective and often factually faulty demands to change it to suit personal, topical, or populist/conformist/traditionalist/prescriptivist urges is a problem not a desirable outcome. People need to accept that WP, like all major publishers, has a style guide and that some things in it are not what they taughtin school, what they use at work, what they see in their newspaper or novel, and not what they personally prefer. You don't even have to comply with it to write here; you just can't interfere with others making the content comply, or go around changing compliant material to be non-compliant (same goes with all guidelines, not just the style ones). "you have blindspots ... [MoS] has a few more lapses": You've not demonstrated any. "WP:MOS – the world's best and most influential online style guide by far" – This is not in any way a general-purpose style guide for public consumption, and I think your misapprehension that it is has a lot to do with your persistence on this. WP:MOS exists only as an internal stylesheet; it is "house style". It is not an article, it does not purport to be "truth" or "accuracy" about how things should be written outside our mainspace. It is not reader-facing advice. It may have some influence regardless, primarily among other online writers who find features of it useful for their own purposes (primarily for its precision and simplicity), but this is not its intent and creates no obligation (nor is there anything to do about it, since we have no means of making it hidden from the view of people who are not account-registered editors). MoS explicitly declines to address a great number of things – actually the majority of things covered by a comprehensive style guide like NHR or CMoS – because it is not that kind of work. Its only purposes are to ensure consistent and high-quality output for readers (primarily) and to settle recurrent and tedious style disputes among editors (secondarily), leaving all other matters to editorial preference (MOS:STYLEVAR).

    "Enough, yes?" I certainly hope so. I don't think I can take any more of this. The whole discussion boils down to: "WP uses something it calls LQ, and other publishers use something I call LQ, so WP is wrong." The other publishers do not call what they use "LQ"; no one does but you, and your "what I prefer" redefinition of it is demonstrably incorrect usage of the term, which has badly confused you from the beginning of the discussion onward and (along with your stubborn insistence on it) wasted everyone's time, energy, and goodwill. "You or someone else said Publication X uses or might use LQ as defined by WP, but it doesn't, ergo WP's LQ is just made up by WP." That's just not rational. I could say 10,000 publications use LQ and be just stupid and wrong about all but one of them, and as long as that one does use LQ with the same meaning WP does and pre-dates WP's use of it, it disproves your claim. "LQ doesn't serve a legitimate purpose on WP and 'needs' to change." It serves the text-analytic accuracy and string-precision purposes even LQ-hater CMoS says it serves, and these are the actual needs of a quotation style at WP; suiting various editors' conflicting punctuation preferences is not a "need" (it's something we do, per MOS:ENGVAR and MOS:CITESTYLE and MOS:DATEVAR and WP:CITESTYLE and etc., only when there is not an encyclopedic reason to prefer one option over another, and for quotation style we definitely have a encyclopedic reason to prefer LQ).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  12:54, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    The pertinent thing in the collapsed text-wall above has been fixed: the Turner quote which we said was a complete sentence but (proven with the original source) was not has been replaced by another Turner quote that is in fact a complete sentence. Also replaced the potentially confusing Kennedy quote (its leading "For ..." made it look like a fragment) with another non-confusing one from the same speech.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  09:55, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    And I have just given a reply (a final one, I hope) inside that collapsed text-wall. Thanks for at least fixing those lapses that I pointed out. A tiny improvement. 49.190.56.203 (talk) 22:29, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    More has been added in the collapsed text wall, but it's all rather futile. Enough, now? 49.190.56.203 (talk) 07:17, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hopefully.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  12:54, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Right, incomplete and ragged it must remain. I've made this into its own subsection, with a neutral heading: Lengthy digression about logical quotation, and MOS:LQ in WP:MOS. This will help in linking, when the topic of Wikipedia's articulation of logical quotation next comes up – or in collating links to discussions on the topic in future. 49.190.56.203 (talk) 01:01, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    "The" and periodicals

    In open prose, not at the start of a sentence, is it (for example) "the New York Times" or "The New York Times"? If linked, is it "the New York Times", "the New York Times", or "The New York Times"? Seems worthy of site-wide consistency, but I can't find the applicable guideline, if any exists. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:18, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Ought to be The New York Times, if that's the name of the paper/site. GoodDay (talk) 01:23, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    MOS:THETITLE  — Archer (t·c) 01:23, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, so we are to refer to the title of the article about the periodical, which, I presume, derives from the periodical's self-reference at the top of its cover or front page. But that doesn't address the linking question. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:28, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    We link it with the title of our article on the periodical, capitalized and italicized following the style in that article. So, "The New York Times", but "the San Francisco Chronicle". —David Eppstein (talk) 02:21, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That's not quite true — we always use italics for newspaper titles even when the newspapers themselves don't, such as the Guardian. We also seem to want to write The Guardian (uppercase The) and not the Guardian even though the Guardian doesn't do that either. Popcornfud (talk) 02:23, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Practice varies widely but most often I see "I saw it in the New York Times", but "I saw it in The New York Times" is closer to our guidance at MOS:THETITLE. Even if we were to standardize on "I saw it in The New York Times", sometimes it would be lower case, like in "I read the New York Times article" where the is referring to the article not the newspaper. When linked, it should be to the name which would be italicized. SchreiberBike | ⌨  03:10, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You're absolutely right on the second point and that's something I'm often fixing on Wikipedia — but it's also true for titles of works of art, eg "the Lord of the Rings author". Popcornfud (talk) 04:46, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Attributive use typically drops the leading The: "McKellen's favorite Lord of the Rings scene". Because our style guide is not making an explicit except for this, the thing to do would be to rewrite: "McKellen's favorite scene in The Lord of the Rings. Same with "In a 2022 New York Times op-ed" → "In a 2022 op-ed in The New York Times." It is possible that MoS should make an attributive-use exception, but that's another discussion to have separately (I lean in the direction of making one, because the attributive use without The is already common in our content and not generally seen as an error.)  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:53, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    (I don't know why our treatment should be determined by the periodical's graphic designers. Presence or absence of "The" at the top of the cover or front page is a style/layout decision, and it's far more likely the San Francisco Chronicle's founders and higher-ups referred/refer to the paper as "the Chronicle", not "Chronicle". Show me official legal documents where the paper refers to itself as no-The "San Francisco Chronicle".) ―Mandruss ☎ 04:14, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    If I had my way, I'd lowercase the lot of 'em.
    I see this as consistent with the general principle of MOS:CAPS, which is that "only words and phrases that are consistently capitalized in a substantial majority of independent, reliable sources are capitalized in Wikipedia". The "the" in the New York Times is not capitalized in a substantial majority of sources — the Guardian, for example, doesn't capitalize it, nor any other leading "the"s in periodical names.
    I don't think the names of periodicals should be treated in the same was as the titles of works of art, either — so MOS:THETITLE wouldn't apply. For a start, the "substantial majority of independent, reliable sources" doesn't treat periodical titles as akin to the titles of works of art — the Guardian will capitalize The Lord of the Rings, but not the New York Times. Periodicals would instead be covered under MOS:INSTITUTIONS. Popcornfud (talk) 04:44, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    The is clearly an optional part of the name, not consistently capped in sources. See stats for * San Francisco Chronicle and stats for * New York Times, as examples. And just as one would not say "a The Beatles album", one would not say "a The New York Times article" (nor with lowercase the). Even the NYT themselves will use lowercase now and then, as in "Follow the New York Times Opinion section..." and often "a New York Times...". And here are plenty of places where the Chronicle omits The; and they often refer to themselves as "the Chronicle". Dicklyon (talk) 06:02, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Let's start by ignoring what webmasters somewhat casually choose to use for HTML page titles. There is very little chance those are vetted by the respective papers, whose higher-ups have more important things to think about. And we shouldn't allow our treatment to be dictated by webmasters any more than graphic designers. If you want to take a COMMONNAME approach, that isn't it (nor is the current guideline) and it would be more complicated than is warranted imo (maybe impossible). Again, show me legal documents or support one-size-fits-all. (Once again, I've started with an inquiry and gotten myself deeper than I intended.) ―Mandruss ☎ 06:41, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    FWIW, I doubt that ngrams can meaningfully decide any question of this sort, since by definition they pluck phrases out of their contexts, and for this point the grammatical context of the phrase matters. (Maybe ngrams can be helpful in resolving the question of what to call an article by estimating which synonym is more common, but there, context typically matters less, and we can always redirect from the less common name to the more popular one, so there isn't a risk to getting it wrong, really. The issue of what text to put in an article is qualitatively different.) XOR'easter (talk) 16:49, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    As a matter of tradition, the word "the" is far more common in newspapers than magazines. Nobody says or writes "the Forbes" or "the Rolling Stone" (except for "Honey, where's the Forbes?"). This being the case, if there is any room at all for a guideline change, I'd favor carving out a separate guideline for newspapers, to include both article titles and treatment in prose. I'd also support some form – any form – of one-size-fits-all-newspapers. This business of drawing distinctions between papers is, in my opinion, a prime example of Wikipedia's strong tendency to overcomplicate style issues, costs exceeding benefits. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:43, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed. Simplest solution? Lowercase "the" like MOS:INSTITUTIONS. Popcornfud (talk) 01:32, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Despite all the complaining above out this being over-complicated, by people actively trying to over-complicate it by making convoluted arguments about over-complication (and confusing publications with their publishing companies in the process), there is nothing complicated about this at all.

    1. If the publication's actual name contains "The", then do "in The New York Times".
    2. If its actual name does not contain "The", then leave it lowercase and outside the italics, even if a "the" seems to help in the sentence structure: "in the Los Angeles Times".
    3. That is all, the end.

    Same with titles of books, albums, films, TV shows, journals, plays, magazines, songs, poems, etc. If you're not sure which it is for a particular case, then use what our article title is, since other editors have already figured it out for that publication. If the publication is not notable and has no article here, then use it as-found (if the newspaper page says "The Podunk Mercury-Picayune" or says just "Podunk Mercury-Picayune" then you have your answer already, one way or the other). Those looking to forcibly assert a made-up consistency for all-must-have-The or none-may-have-The don't have a sensible argument to make. We don't go around either removing a leading The from, say, book and film titles (Lord of the Rings, Shining) nor do we go around sticking one onto things that aren't actually named that way (our article is not at "The American Civil Liberties Union" or "The PlayStation 5", despite both names being regularly attestable in source material with a leading definite article for syntactic reasons). These are not institutions (corporations, schools, government bodies, nonprofits, etc.), they are publications. Virtually all publications we would ever cite are also the product of institutions. Treating newspapers and their e-equivalents as institutions instead of publications would be an order of magnitude more confusing.

    As for San Francisco Chronicle in particular: Show me official legal documents – No. Trying to dig up legal filings from government databases or paper government primary-source materials is WP:OR, and the goofy arguments above about whether we can trust webmasters to get things right when it comes to names also applies to lawyers and other hirelings. If there's any kind of actual doubt about this case at all, there should not be. See their own "Our Company" page[34], which uses the same styling we do, down to the italics placement: Acquired by Hearst in 2000, the San Francisco Chronicle was founded in 1865 by Charles and Michael de Young and has been awarded six Pulitzer Prizes for journalistic excellence. The Chronicle, available in print, e-edition .... See also: [35].  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:05, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Per my previous comments, the name at the top of the front page does not constitute the paper's "actual name". It's a style/layout decision, nothing more. And a more careful reading would show you that I abandoned the "legal documents" argument in favor of one-size-fits-all-newspapers; sorry for changing my mind mid-stream. The futility of trying to determine an "actual name" is a large part of the basis for one-size-fits-all-newspapers. Given your derisive tone, that's where I stopped reading. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:26, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    If you think for some reason that the publication is not using its own actual name at top of the page, check the colophon (usually a small-print inset box on front page, second page, or last page) in a print edition; or check various of the about-us/policy/contact pages in an online version, to find out what they consider the publication name to be when given in plain text. I already did the latter for you in the SF Chronicle case (but you didn't bother to read it). If you can't find it anywhere, then do (as other style guides do) trust the name given at the top of the site or paper, since odds are that it is correct and your assumption that it's not correct is just unnecessary and unfounded OR unless you already have the evidence to back up your contrary suspicion in the first place.
    Someone taking the time to examine your argument and present a counter is much less dismissive than your "I stopped reading" just because you're unhappy that your idea wasn't cheered (and which also signals "I don't really care what the eventual outcome is"). No one is victimizing you.
    Some arguments really are poor and deserve defiance, such as making a never-The or always-The blanket rule for one very narrow class of publications but confusingly not for others; or making such a rule for all publications across the board, despite it not agreeing with how work titles are handled in the real world or the style guides ours is based on; or extra-confusingly trying to misapply a rule about organizations to a particular class of publications (and no others), out of confusing the publisher with the publication; or ignoring what a publication most pointedly says its name is, absent a compelling reason in that partcular case to think it's just a logo stylization and not the publication name. Any of these would sow far more confusion than they would prevent.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:44, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Overthink exists. Everything else aside, costs exceed benefits, and that calculation is as much your OR as mine. KISS. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:06, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I quite agree with all that wording, but find that it applies much better to what I'm saying, and what MOS:THETITLE clearly means and intends: use The if it's part of the actual name of the publication. If you can't tell for sure what the name of the publication is, use what appears at the top of the page. There is nothing further to it.
    All these propositions above at cross purposes to each other are the opposite (singly, not just together) of keeping things simple, because they would 1) carve out a "magically special" class of publication (which people would incessantly fight to the death over when it came to online news sites - are they newspapers or not? only if they have a paper edition too? What if they have different editorial boards? What if the corporate ownership has forked? What if the newspaper also publishes a magazine version as The New York Times at least used to? What if ...) to which a rule for all publications somehow doesn't apply; or 2) re-classify one class of publication as a non-publication and as if a publishing institution; or 3) make a one-size-fits-all rule (pro or con with regard to The) for all publications, in a way that conflicts with normal English usage. The result is chaotic crap no matter which of these were imposed. I don't predict consenus for any of them, because they're all confused and excessively prescriptive ideas and they have no "real problem to fix" basis to begin with.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:31, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Consider the following hypothetical guideline applicable to news publications, whether web, paper, or both.
    • Article title omits any "The". The New York Times moves to New York Times.
    • If common usage includes "the" to a significant degree, include "the" in open prose, uncapitalized. "the Los Angeles Times", but "FiveThirtyEight".
    • If linked, link only the article title. "the Washington Post".
    Benefits:
    • Guideline is simple, unambiguous, easily understood.
    • No need to fret about "actual names" (which isn't always as clear-cut as you make it out to be).
    • All article titles are consistent.
    • Readers who notice such details (yes, they exist, including me), aren't left wondering why the differences in treatment. Unless they dig into the guidelines (how many readers know how to do that, and care to?), it just looks like careless and unprofessional inconsistency.
    • No need for editors to check out the article title to know how to write the prose. Admittedly minor, but not insignificant.
    Costs:
    • A new guideline. A significant cost? Perhaps, but does it exceed the above benefits? Not in my view.
    • Otherwise, you tell me. There might be skirmishes over "significant degree" in bullet 2, but likely not many. How about a few real-life examples where the above guideline would increase costs significantly?
    As for "If it ain't broke, don't fix it", I quite agree with all that wording, but kindly define "broke". If something is unnecessarily complex, it's broke in my book. The difference in treatment between Los Angeles Times and The Washington Post is undeniably an example of complexity, and it's unnecessary. When the editor learning curve is at stake, every bit of added complexity needs to earn its keep through rigorous analysis, and any error should be in the direction of simplicity. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:40, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I suppose next you're going to tell me "El País" should really be "the Pais"? "Le Monde" should really be "the Monde"? Or are you treating other-language definite articles as somehow different?
    What about names of periodicals that use "the" in the middle, such as The Scriblerian and the Kit-Cats? Are we supposed to remove the "the" from one of the two things in the title (making the title look like Scriblerian and the Kit-Cats, maybe a great name for a rock band but not actually accurate)? Are we supposed to un-italicize or un-link the second "the"? In The Times-Picayune/The New Orleans Advocate do we omit both "The"'s from the linked name, or only the first one? What about other names of periodicals in which the "the" at the start applies only to part of the title, not the whole title, like The Analyst, or, Mathematical Museum?
    Your supposed "benefit" that the guideline is simple and easily understood, is not an actual advantage over the current "just use the same form as the Wikipedia article title" which is simple and easily understood even in such cases.
    The current style, in which we can just link the title without piping or redirecting, is easier to link and helps discourage gnomes from "fixing" the links. Your proposal has the disadvantage of not doing that. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:42, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    As to other-language definite articles: No, I'm not going to tell you that. You're reading things into the proposed guideline that aren't there. Bullet 1 says, "Article title omits any 'The'." El País and Le Monde have no "The", so nothing would be removed from their titles. Bullet 2 says "If common usage includes "the" to a significant degree, include "the" in open prose, uncapitalized." Do common usages for El País and Le Monde include "the" to a significant degree? I don't know, but I strongly doubt it. So open prose would not include "the" for those cases. And bullet 3 says "If linked, link only the article title."; as we've established, the article titles for El País and Le Monde would be El País and Le Monde, respectively, so our linktext would never be País or Monde.
    I hear you saying that it makes little sense to limit the guideline to English-language publication titles. But why object to a literal interpretation of the guideline that addresses all of your practical concerns? I favor doing what works. We wouldn't even need to say, "This applies only to English-language publication titles"; we would simply need to apply the guideline as written.
    "The Scriblerian and the Kit-Cats is a biannual review journal addressing English literature." How is that a news publication?
    Sure, there would be exceptions that need special treatment, as with any guideline. Guidelines are never expected to cover every case in the wiki-universe. That's why we have human editors with advanced brains.
    Have I failed to respond to any significant points in your post? If so, feel free to point them out and I'll do my best to do so. ―Mandruss ☎ 09:33, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, you have failed. You have failed to respond to the substantive issue of how to address periodicals (news or otherwise) whose name starts with "The" (as many do) but for which the initial "The" does not grammatically cover the entire title. I gave three examples, one a newspaper, so you cannot weasel out of this with special pleading that you only intend to describe the style for newspapers and that other kinds of periodicals need an entirely different style guideline. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:34, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    you cannot weasel out of this Ok, I see you're a member of the old school who don't give two shits about civility or common respect. I didn't know that about you; now I do. I'm out. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:28, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, that wasn't a civil response either. Your go-to tactic appears to be "I am frustrating people and meeting resistance which is not deferential to me, therefore I should turn even more dismissive than they were", instead of taking the fact that you are frustrating people as a sign to change your approach.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:47, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    No. Just no. Bullying and aspersions have no place in Wikipedia discussions, period. If you don't believe me, have a look at Wikipedia policy. You won't find an exception for frustrated editors. The difference between his incivility and mine is that mine was based on what he said, not what I believed to be in his mind (see AGF). I don't "weasel", and any editor who has been around me much will tell you that.
    One's long tenure does not elevate them to some god class exempting them from behavior standards. If anything, it puts them in a position to set good examples for newer editors. We should "win" debates by the strength of our reasoning, not by driving off opponents who don't care to be around mean-spiritedness. Feel free to collapse as off topic. ―Mandruss ☎ 12:22, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Substitute "wiggle" or "wriggle", as suits your dialect, for "weasel", and David Eppstein's point is entirely, well, on point.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  05:48, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The above proposition by Mandruss is not the things it purports to be ("simple, unambiguous, easily understood, ... consistent") It's is an oversimplification, a Procrustean bed. It ambiguously fails to handle non-English definite articles as mentioned above and likely has other issues. Editors will not understand it and will rebel against it, because it defies near-universal real-world treatment of publication names, conflicts with other guideline principles (namely to include a leading The in cases where independent RS nearly always do so). And it absolutely is not consistent, because it treats one ill-definable class of publications radically differently from all other publication types, for no clearly definable rationale. (And this is particularly silly since the alleged concern about newspaper applies equally to other serial publications including magazines, academic journals, podcasts, etc.).
    The only "reason" advanced for this stuff is an alleged difficulty in figuring out what the actual names of a few publications are, but we've already been over this several times now. It is not difficult at all: First, believe what the publication at the top of it is telling you to your face. That is usually the end of it right there. (If it's notable and we have an article on it, just accept that our article title has already been vetted by other editors, and use it.) If for some unusual reason you disbelieve it anyway, see the publication's colophon and other fine print for how it refers to itself in running prose. If that still doesn't help you, see what the majority treatment is of the name in other publications. If in the ultra-rare case all these fail for you, drop the leading "The" since the MOS:THETITLE exception to The-dropping in our article titles only applies to titles of works that clearly have a leading The, and in this odd scenario the fact of one cannot be established. There is nothing "careless and unprofessional" about giving the title of a work with a leading "The" if it properly has one. Show me reliable sources referring to J.R.R. Tolkien's novel Hobbit or the TV show Munsters; These have a leading The, while Charlotte's Web and Battlestar Galactica do not. No one's head ever explodes about this.
    Ultimately, none of this really matters for newspaper mentions and citations. The encyclopedia is not broken if it says "in the Podunk News Journal" and {{cite news|...|work=Podunk News Journal|...}} versus "in The Podunk News Journal" and {{cite news|...|work=The Podunk News Journal|...}}; the referent is clear enough regardless. There is no reader- or editor-facing compelling reason to make up and impose a false consistency. PS: "Sure, there would be exceptions that need special treatment" – Mandruss's entire premise seems to be that a handful of cases of the present guideline needing (at least so he thinks) special treament means the guideline is broken and must be replaced. By something he concedes has the same limitation.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:21, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Guideline is simple, unambiguous, easily understood is not a reader-oriented consideration. SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:37, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    If the publication's actual name contains "The" ... If its actual name does not contain "The" ...
    Half of the debate here is that whether a periodical's title contains "The" or merely uses "the" is not always obvious or consistent. Nor is it agreed upon by sources writing about themselves and each other — unlike the titles of works of art. All sources write The Lord of the Rings, but not all sources write The New York Times. Popcornfud (talk) 03:30, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Already addressed this above. You don't need other sources to tell you that the title of The New York Times is The New York Times instead of New York Times when the publication itself already tells you what its title is both at the top and in all the about-itself material on its website [36][37][38], etc. There is nothing difficult or unsual about any of this. If you want to know what the proper name of, say, some non-newspaper website is, you look at what it says at the top, and if it seems like it might be a logo stylization, look in its plain text materials; we know it's "eBay" not the "ebay" of their present logo because they tell us so [39][40]. If you can't figure it out due to a lack of such plain-text materials, accept the logo version as the name unless there's compelling evidence otherwise. For use in a citation, all that matters really is that it be identifable, since the purpose of citation is finding the source to use it to check our content's verifiability. If the publication is the article subject, then if other editors are convinced by some evidence they have found that the full title of the publication is something else and the page should be moved and its text adjusted, they can present their evidence on the talk page. It's not your problem. When it comes to a newspaper being mentioned attributively in article prose, either form should be identiable enough both forms should work as a link if there's an article on that publication (if one redlinks, redirect it), and if someone else is utterly certain that it should have a The added or removed, they can do that on their own time later. We have lots and lots of articles with mistaken New York Times links in them, people fix them as they run across them, and the sky is not falling. "Ain't broke, don't 'fix' it."  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:44, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    How do you determine the name of the/The Guardian? From the Guardian's perspective, "the" is not part of the name, just as it is not part of the name of the Statue of Liberty. Popcornfud (talk) 04:06, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It should be The Guardian, with both words capitalized and in italics, since they use the article as part of their name, as visible on top of the website and (I suppose) every print edition. That they use neither italics nor a capitalized article in running text doesn't change that. They have their style guide, we have ours. Gawaon (talk) 04:24, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    And yet, as SmC says above, we do not write The San Francisco Chronicle. Popcornfud (talk) 04:30, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, and for the same reason: they don't include the article in their name as shown on their website and print editions. It's just the same as with book titles: We write The Lord of the Rings, but the Odyssey. Gawaon (talk) 04:46, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Right. There's no "and yet" to be had here. San Francisco Guardian does not have a The in its name. How is there any possible confusion about this, and what is its nature?  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  05:31, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The title of the site in huge letters is The Guardian. The print edition is very, very clearly titled The Guardian [41]. Their domain name is TheGuardian.com. When they write about themselves, they write things like "Support the Guardian", lowercase, as some weird quirk of their own in-house style, along with not putting publication titles in italics. (Though they're not consistent about "the" - see page bottom of their current e-edition, where the exhortation instead reads "Support The Guardian"; the HTML <title> of their homepage has both "the Guardian and "The Guardian" in it). But Wikipedia has its own MoS and does not follow their stylesheet.
    They often do the lower-case "the" and no-italics stuff to other publication names, e.g. that of competitor The Economist: "Italy’s ambassador to the UK has criticised the Economist for rehashing old stereotypes after ...". (But lower-casing The is actually against their own published style guide! I checked.)
    Their lack (sometimes) of capital T and lack of italics, pursuing their own inconsistent quirks, has nothing to do with the actual name of the publication, much less with how WP should treat it. Here's from their own "About us" page (you may have to manually switch to UK edition to see this): "The Guardian is owned by Guardian Media Group ... the financial and editorial independence of the Guardian ... In short, the Guardian isn’t owned or controlled by advertisers or billionaires. It’s owned by a Trust, ...." (Note the mis-capitalization of "trust" which is not a proper name; they simply are not reliable at all for capitalization style). It's quite clear that the title of the publication includes "the" even if they like down-casing it for some reason. Meanwhile, the title of the US edition does not include that word, and is simply Guardian US; you can see this by switching to US edition and going to "About us" again. Their "the" stylization weirdness in running prose has confused writers about how to refer to them [42][43] – neck-and-neck results.
    However, Wikipedians in general are not confused, and pretty consistently use The Guardian, as does our article at The Guardian. So, there is no breakage on Wikipedia to fix by changing MOS:THETITLE. Cf. WP:MOSBLOAT specifically and WP:CREEP generally: we should not add any rule (to MoS especially) unless it is demonstably necessary to resolve long-running editorial conflict over something. Yet there is no interiminable dispute about this (with regard to that newspaper or any other publications).
    PS: It is possible that because of the The-less name of Guardian Media Group that they are transitioning to just naming the newspaper Guardian and dropping [T|h]e entirely. But WP:NOT#CRYSTAL, and we will follow WP:COMMONNAME even after that hypothetical change takes place, until we're certain that the name change has been picked up by the majority of independent post-change sources.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  05:31, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Entirely possible, but not actually the case. British newspaper titles have a strong preference for beginning with "the"; British company names are exactly the opposite, for various reasons. "The Guardian" has been owned by a "Guardian foo" company since I think 1908. Any transition is a very slow one. Johnbod (talk) 19:52, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, the transition being dubious, and slow if real, is why I brought up CRYSTAL.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:45, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The thing is, just because a name uses the definite article doesn't mean it's part of the name, even when it's written in headings and logos and stuff. If that were true, based on its official website, we should insist on writing The White House. You could also say the same thing of, for example, band names. Popcornfud (talk) 09:37, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The White House (covered by MOS:THEINST) and a band name (covered by MOS:THEMUSIC) are not titles of works, so the WP:THE exception made by MOS:THETITLE for titles of works that start with The doesn't apply to them. You have to read and understand all this P&G material in concert, not pick one line-item you like and try to apply it to things that are not within its scope. Start at MOS:THE. As for "just because a name uses the definite article doesn't mean it's part of the name": when all indications, including the publication's own consistent branding and self-reference, indicate that the "the" (capitalized or not) is essentially a required part of the name (except when used attributively, e.g. "in a New York Times article"), then it's blatant WP:OR to decide on your own that it the "the" is "really" not part of the name. It's worse than OR, since it's actually defying the evidence right in front of our faces, and is also contrary to WP:ABOUTSELF. Maybe more to the overall point here, the vast majority of sources independent of The Guardian refer to it as The Guardian not just Guardian and not the Guardian or the Guardian, so we already have our answer. The only time there's an "I dunno" to solve is when the work in question doesn't clearly specify its own name (or you can't find a facsimile copy to prove it one way or the other) and it is not covered by many if any sources or is treated so inconsistently in them that you can't decide; in that unlikely event, default to WP:THE and omit the word, since the the MOS:THETITLE exception only applies when a leading "The" is demonstrably part of the name. For The Guardian it is, even if they defy their own internal style guide quite often and like to lower-case that "the" for inexplicable reasons.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:45, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Is it OK to use a quote in lieu of a topic sentence?

    (This is tangential to MOS, but I can't think of a better place to put this) I'm working on a draft about someone well known for performing tributes, and rather than write a lead paragraph explaining that, I have instead used a quote for this purpose and jumped right into examples. I did this because I like the quote, and because I can't think of a suitable lead paragraph more than one sentence long, but I'm uncomfortable using quotes to supplant original summation, rather than complementing it. Thoughts? Mach61 (talk) 07:16, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Did i not post my reply to this? Apologies if this is a double post.
    i'll let more "official" editors give a real answer to your question, but while i find that quote informative, i expect a majority of Wikipedians will deem its tone, you know, too informal, insufficiently encyclopedic and that sort of stuff. It may be more forgivable because it's not actually the lead of the article, or even the first section--it supplements the article without the emphasis of being the introduction. Still, might be better to paraphrase the quote, or extract some of the more direct lines from it. Maybe something like:
    According to Patrick Jarenwattananon, Chris Byars pays tribute to "intricately arranged '40s, '50s, '60s" material to "both honor his predecessors and refine some of the ideas".
    (The phrase "distinct musicians, who time may have forgotten" reminds me of Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch, although i'd have to reread that to see if it's actually relevant to this situation. Plus, you're not the one describing the musicians that way; a quote is a quote, and a cited source is a cited source.)
    i fixed 2 typos in your draft.
    --173.67.42.107 (talk) 20:09, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it would be better to actually write in your own words what the topic is. A quote can support it, but Wikipedia articles should be unified prose not a string of quotes. Why is this quote the main idea for the whole section, suggesting there would be nother more to say (since the whole topic is merely what this one person says)? Seems WP:UNDUE for that person, especially if the person being quoted is themselves not notable or coming from a uniquely qualified source. DMacks (talk) 20:27, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think UNDUE is applicable for this style issue, as the quote accurately represents what other RS say (and NPR is reliable). Mach61 (talk) 20:53, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It is undue, because it is deferring to the exact wording of some non-notable writer instead of summarizing what all the sources say, in our own blended wording. If you're not going to listen to the advice you get when you ask a question like this and are instead going to argue with people who know a lot more about Wikipedia policy and writing style than you do, then why ask the question?  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:33, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm having trouble imagining someone being notable enough to be the subject of an article without there being much one can write about the person in a proper lead paragraph. If the person is well known for performing tributes, there must be material that's been written that conveys what it is about the person or the tributes the person has become well known for them, or why the person is writing so many tributes in the first place, and who some of the more noteworthy subjects of them have been. That doesn't mean a quote can't convey some of that: see Richard Avedon, where the lead is short, but it's a conventional one, and it uses a quote to convey Avedon's notedness for his work. Largoplazo (talk) 01:50, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, exactly, all of that.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:33, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    apostrophe s after plural singulars

    i understand Jess’ and Jess's (of Jess, singular) and Jets’ (of Jets, plural). What is the appropriate possessive form of a singular thing whose title is a plural noun, such as the film Robots, the song "Wildest Dreams", or Star Wars (the film or the franchise)? What if the title ends with a plural noun, like The Lord of the Rings (singular lord, plural rings)? What about cases like the Superhuman Tactical Activities Response Squad, aka S.T.A.R.S., a single unit whose acronym is a plural noun?

    Sometimes rephrasing things is an option, but sometimes rephrasing things is awkward or inconvenient or even inaccurate, especially if quoting someone (especially someone speaking rather than writing). Does Wikipedia's or any other manual of style address this type of situation?

    --173.67.42.107 (talk) 19:03, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    The Lord of the Rings is a singular object, a single book (etc.). You would never say The Lord of the Rings are a novel full of wonderful ideas, and likewise, you would never write The Lord of the Rings' ideas are wonderful for the reason of the last word in the name being a plural noun. For all these cases, you would treat them like you would treat any singular noun that ends in s: The Lord of the Rings's ideas are wonderful.Remsense留 19:10, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the quick reply. Rephrasing it is! ;-)
    Your logic seems sound and unsurprising to me, but The Lord of the Rings’s, "Wildest Dreams"'s, and Star Wars’s just look wrong to me. Singular verbs sound right though. But i have no reliable source to justify either. --173.67.42.107 (talk) 19:29, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    They definitely look a bit unwieldy out of context, but I imagine I could read them in the context of a greater passage and not get caught up or notice them. Definitely you wouldn't want to prefer them as a primary form, but I think they are viable at points. Cheers! Remsense留 19:31, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Because it's a bit awkward to say, generally editors should seek to reword the sentence: The ideas in The Lord of the Rings have been reused in many other fantasy works. isaacl (talk) 19:52, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Definitely use "The Lord of the Rings’s", it sounds just so Gollum. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 20:39, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • A better solution is to avoid the possessive entirely… and instead try to find a different way to form a sentence that says the same thing. Example: instead of writing “The Lord of the Rings’s plot involves…” write “The plot of The Lord of the Rings involves…” etc. Blueboar (talk) 19:57, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      For context (and why didn't i mention this before?), i came here wondering if i should edit Star Wars: Visions#Season two, which has Rotten Tomatoes ... reads, "...Star Wars: Visions' second volume is..." and Brett White ... describing the series as "...proof of Star Wars’ legacy..."
      In other words, to rephrase the sentences not to use apostrophes would be to misquote Rotten Tomatoes and Brett White, although Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Original wording says "insignificant spelling and typographic errors should simply be silently corrected". i figured apostrophe-s fell under that category. --173.67.42.107 (talk) 20:37, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Wikipedia:Ignore all rules and ignore all rules, but that doesn't mean "don't ask what the rules are."
      i don't intend to change Star Wars’/Star Wars: Visions’ to Star Wars’s/Star Wars: Visions’s, but i probably won't challenge the edits if someone else wants to make them.
      --173.67.42.107 (talk) 20:49, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      I would leave the quotes wholly alone in this case. You have the right mindset. Remsense留 21:00, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      This is more of a manual of style issue (that is, a difference between the rule followed by Rotten Tomatoes versus the one agreed upon by the English Wikipedia community) than a typographical error. Unifying quoted text to have a common style for, say, British spelling is traditionally done for consistency. In your examples, since altering the form of the possessive would alter the sound, and as the English Wikipedia community tends to support being very literal about what is placed in quotes, personally I wouldn't change the quoted text. isaacl (talk) 22:59, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you're directly quoting, just leave the punctuation inside the quotation alone. While it is permissible to monkey with it in very minor ways, per MOS:CONFORM, there is often no reason to do so. If you're not directly quoting, just rewrite to avoid the problematic construction (which is what the quoted author in the former case should have done in the first place).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:28, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    "Capitalisation(z)of ancient"

    Hi, some time ago there was a discussion about the "Capitalisation(z)of ancient". my question would be: is it correct to write "ancient Rome", with lowercase initial (see page Ancient Rome), but is it correct to write "ancient Carthage"? The Punic people page uses the uppercase initial. JackkBrown (talk) 17:09, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Surely it's just whether or not it is a name or a discriptor. Do most sources use upper case to describe items like this? Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 17:22, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    If it's part of the name, as is typically the case with the names we apply to older forms of modern languages, such as Ancient Greek, it should be capitalized, comparable to "Old English" and "Middle English". But as an adjective to refer to a people or a country, such as ancient Greece or the ancient Greeks, it's not part of the name, it's just an adjective, and it shouldn't be capitalized. One doesn't write "in Contemporary Greece" or "in Medieval Greece". Largoplazo (talk) 17:55, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    We treat Carthage as the name of the former city and Ancient Carthage as the proper name of a civilisation. Rome still exists and lowercase "ancient Rome" is interpreted as the word "ancient" attached to Rome. Karthage was destroyed when the civilization ended in 146 BC. I think "ancient Carthage" would give a misleading impression that there is a non-ancient Carthage. PrimeHunter (talk) 18:09, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Your last sentence leads to me recommend not using "ancient" at all. It was just Carthage. Calling it "Ancient Carthage" or "ancient Carthage" is as though they'd spoken of "acoustic guitars" before there were electric ones. And in speech there's no case anyway, so, if that's the implication, then it's always being implied in speech. Anyway, somehow we get by with just plain "Sumeria" and "Canaan" and "Timbuktoo". Largoplazo (talk) 18:15, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    There is in fact a modern Carthage (municipality), developed as a suburb since the C19, and there was also a Roman city rebuilt on the ruins, which is unlikely to be what people referring to "Ancient Carthage" or "ancient Carthage" are talking about. I'd go with the caps in most, but not all, contexts. Johnbod (talk) 19:16, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Not to mention all the New Carthages and New New Carthages out there. (Carthage itself meaning "new city"...) —David Eppstein (talk) 20:21, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I think given all the discussion so far, "Ancient Carthage" should usually be reserved for the civilization, and when referring to the city all attempts to rephrase as needed should be taken first, e.g. the ancient city of Carthage, the site of Carthage in modern Tunisia, etc. etc. – but if 'ancient' and 'Carthage' end up next to each other, the former should remain uncapitalized. Remsense留 21:03, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    "go with the caps in most, but not all, contexts": if that's meant to be a general rule of thumb about such cases, it is contrary to MOS:CAPS: "Wikipedia relies on sources to determine what is conventionally capitalized; only words and phrases that are consistently capitalized in a substantial majority of independent, reliable sources are capitalized in Wikipedia." In most cases, this capitalization is superfluous because "ancient" (or "medieval" or "modern", etc.) is descriptive not part of a proper name, and we should write ancient Rome, ancient Egypt, medieval London, modern Tokyo, etc., since reliable sources do not consistently capitalize these words in such usage. I.e., only capitalize one of them when the overwhelming majority of RS do so for a particular case, same with any other capitalization question. PS: This is conceptually different from age/era indicators in names of languages; e.g. Old French and Middle Irish, not "old French" and "middle Irish". Same goes for such indicators (as words or prefixes) in formal names of geological, biological, or anthropological ages, like New Stone Age and Neolithic.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:25, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Some stats might help. Dicklyon (talk) 22:52, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes, and they appear to strongly indicate "ancient Carthage".  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:25, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    MOS:PUFFERY

    It's been claimed that BLPs that have "regarded/considered as one of the greatest/best X of all-time/his generation" are unencyclopedic and appear to be indiscriminately removed[44][45][46] with a request to re-write the words are in quotes with attribution as per MOS:PUFFERY.

    None of these BLPs have stated the subject is "the best/greatest" but state they're regarded/considered as one of the greatest/best players of all-time/his generation" which is consistent with what's included in BLPs such as Lionel Messi, Diego Maradona, Muhammad Ali, Mike Tyson, Tiger Woods, Serena Williams, Usain Bolt and many others.

    MOS:PUFFERY states: "Words such as these are often used without attribution to promote the subject of an article, while neither imparting nor plainly summarizing verifiable information". My understanding is that the use of stating that the subject is regarded/considered as the "best/greatest" citing RS is within the policy and guidance as opposed to claiming the subject IS the "best/greatest". Even in the Bob Dylan article, which is cited as an example, states he is "Generally regarded as one of the greatest songwriters ever". RevertBob (talk) 10:10, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Sorry to be pedantic but perhaps it is a trait of encyclopedia editors. Muhammad Ali is not a BLP. He died in 2016. Cullen328 (talk) 09:11, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, it also has to comply with WP:DUE policy. Some random music journalist saying that Neil Peart was one of the greatest rock drummers of all time is not sufficient; what is sufficient is a large number of high-quality sources on music (not random bloggers) saying something like this, and his presence in top-lists at such publications, so that the clear reliable-source consensus is that he was one of the best. You will run into opposition to such labelling if the DUE test is not well-met, and may still run into it anyway even if it is, because it is categorically better to demonstrate to the reader that someone was a great, by listing their awards and other accomplishments (including top-lists from notable publications), rather than tell the reader that various sources say they were one of the greats, which always raises the question of whether sources have been WP:CHERRYPICKed and thus are not a DUE selection.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:13, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The issue with including top-lists from notable publications is then those also get removed with the claim of being trivial. So to use Neil Peart as a hypothetical example: if DUE was met with independent, reliable sources on the topic of music [i.e. not a blog and high-quality source(s)]. Is it unreasonable for the article to then say:
    "Considered one of the greatest rock drummers of all-time,[insert source(s)] Peart earned numerous awards for his musical performances, including an induction into the Modern Drummer Readers Poll Hall of Fame in 1983 at the age of thirty, making him the youngest person ever so honoured."[insert source(s)] RevertBob (talk) 13:49, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes. Various of our biographical articles are written this way, but the sourcing has to be particularly strong (WP:EXCEPTIONAL). Some editors are apt to disagree with it anyway, for the "show don't tell" reason I gave above. [Yes, that was a Rush lyrics reference; couldn't resist.] This sort of question might really be better asked over at WT:FAC: "Under what sourcing circumstances would the Featured Article reviewers accept a claim like 'considered one of the greatest [occupational speciality here]'?" PS: "top-lists from notable publications ... also get removed with the claim of being trivial" – Well, that's not defensible, since they're obviously not trivial when the awarders are notable and pertinent.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  05:41, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Just to clarify, did you mean yes it's reasonable/no it's not unreasonable?
    Your contributions have certainly been helpful in providing more clarify! FYI, my knowledge of drummers doesn't extend beyond Keith Moon and Ringo Starr. I don't think editors should just be able to subjective disagree and remove content within the policy and guidelines as per WP:IDONTLIKEIT. It would be good for consistency to be applied and for the goalposts to not be keep being moved (that was a footballing pun).
    It's certainly not a fringe theory or extraordinary claim for Alan Shearer to be widely regarded as one of the greatest strikers of all-time or for Mohammed Salah to be regarded as one of the best players of his generation or for Raymond Kopa for be considered one of the best footballers of all-time. High-quality sourcing would support that. RevertBob (talk) 09:09, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I mean "yes, it's reasonable". Though, as noted, others are still likely to object to it, because it is hard to sufficiently source, is not necessary, and another approach of showing instead of telling, if often (usually?) better. "Consistency" will never be applied on something like this, because every bio is different and ultimately the writing at each is determined by consensus on an article by article basis. The exact claim will vary by subject, the sourcing level and quality will, and so will the meaningfulness of the claim (there's a big difference between the claim that Babe Ruth was the greatest 20th-century baseball player (perhaps of all time), and Joe Schmoe being hailed by disc golf magazines and websites as the top player of a sport with few players and little public interest.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:59, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    When I reverted some of these edits, my edit summary was "Please re-write this puffery in quotes with attribution, per MOS:PUFFERY". The policy literally says, "without attribution", and the example given shows the puffery in quotation marks. All that RevertBob needed to do was follow the policy. Magnolia677 (talk) 20:50, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    The policy is referencing using the phrase as being referred as "is" (a claim of act) rather than "considered" or "regarded" (an opinion) i.e. "I am the greatest bird ever!" Even the Bob Dylan article which is referred in the policy has the following in the lead without attribution: "Generally regarded as one of the greatest songwriters ever". RevertBob (talk) 21:50, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you know what "attribution" means? Magnolia677 (talk) 21:56, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "Generally/widely regarded" is one of those WP:EXCEPTIONAL claims that requires exceptional sourcing. I don't really know if taht standard is met at the Dylan article. Being able to find potentially dubious usage in one article does not make it magically permissible everywhere (WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS). Ultimately, it really comes down to a consensus on a per-article basis. E.g., at an article like Kopa's, how many sources are making such a claim and what is their quality? If we have two sources of reasonable quality, it's probably better to attribute them directly ("according to"); if we have two of low quality, omit it; if we have 50 and many are high-quality, then maybe it's a "generally regarded". (Obviously don't WP:OVERCITE 50 sources; rather, cite the best ones and list the others in a talk page discussion to convince other editors that "generally regarded" is permissible). And did you do what I suggested? Namely: This sort of question might really be better asked over at WT:FAC: "Under what sourcing circumstances would the Featured Article reviewers accept a claim like 'considered one of the greatest [occupational speciality here]'?"?  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:59, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I have no beef with "the greatest", or "best kicker in the history of soccer", or "most epic player ever". My request is that it be attributed and in quotation marks; it cannot be in Wikipedia's voice. That is the essence of this policy. Magnolia677 (talk) 23:11, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The thing is, we summarise what sources say. If we have a lot of citations that specifically say that this person is "the best" or "one of the best", then the prose should use these sources, maybe specifically quote them, or just comment on them, but our lede should summarise that information, which quite often ends with that phrasing. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 23:16, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    SMcCandlish I didn't do what you suggested as the point of contention isn't over whether these can be included or not but a consistent approach of how the content should be added. The issue is, what is the the problem with something being "regarded" or "considered" as something in Wikipedia's voice according to the policy, Magnolia677? It's an objective statement of sources rather than the subjective term of referring to something as "the best/greatest" without the words "regarded" or "considered" preceding it. I'm not trying to make an OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument here but it doesn't seem to have been raised as an issue by other editors on dozens or hundreds of other articles within sport, film, music or other topics (e.g. Messi, Brando, Dylan and many others) where this format is currently used which would appear to suggest a community consensus that it's acceptable. As Lee Vilenski has said it's a summary/paraphrasing of the information in the source. If it's a list then the subject is regarded/considered "one of the greatest..." Adding a quote would suggest that's what's quoted in the source which it isn't.
    If you look at Raymond Kopa as an example [47]. I amended "Often considered one of the best players of his generation" (which didn't appear to be sourced) to "Considered one of the best players of all-time" and added the following citations:[48][49][50][51] from Bleacher Report, Sports Illustrated, FourFourTwo and Give Me Sport. RevertBob (talk)
    An alternate approach would be to find one very reliable source, and say, -> Sports Illustrated has called him "the greatest player of 1990". Magnolia677 (talk) 20:16, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That's also a valid approach. There are multiple ways to come at this sort of thing (and I'm not the one who needs convincinging, RevertBob). My personal take is that there is a general and loose consensus that something like "considered one of the greatest" is permissible, but only with a number of high-quality sources, but that despite this general it's-okay feeling, there is no rule requiring it, and various editors aren't comfortable with it, so it's going to come down to a per-article editorial consensus. That is apt to be a butt-pain sometimes, but I'm not sure there's really a way around it. PS: RevertBob, please don't insert blank lines between your reply and what you're replying to (MOS:LISTGAPS).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:32, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    He was 25th in Bleachers Report, 22nd in SI, 34th in FourFourTwo and 22nd in Give Me Sport - you could make the argument that it'd be cherrypicking to select one. However, even if one was selected then it'd get removed as trivial which to be fair using the policy can be argued as being used to "promote the subject of an article" whereas simply stating he's "regarded as one of the greatest players of all-time" is "imparting nor plainly summarizing verifiable information". RevertBob (talk) 20:49, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I am curious whether some of those talking about “attribution” mean to say WP:INTEXT attribution. Reasonable claims (eg, at Tiger Woods: Woods is widely regarded as one of the greatest golfers of all time and is one of the most famous athletes in modern history) don’t need more attribution than a one or two strong citations, especially in the lead (which is where I think we’re all really talking about). My main concerns for this type of writing are that a) we don’t say such things in Wikipedia’s voice, and b) we source them clearly. Including explicit quotes is arguably better, but full quotes and in-text attribution can really weigh down the writing, and I really wouldn’t want to push aside multiple strong sources just to provide in-text attribution from one of them, Magnolia677. MOS:PUFFERY should not be an anchor holding us back from describing some of our most important biographical subjects clearly with strong, decisive prose. Of course these kinds of “puffy” statements should be given this leniency only where their claim is largely uncontroversial (NB, not where the statement has been subject to controversy based on hard-line anti-puffery patrollers).

    Consider also the counterpoint at Adolf Hitler, whose lead includes: The historian and biographer Ian Kershaw describes Hitler as "the embodiment of modern political evil"., a statement sensibly attributed to a leading Hitler historian, whose inclusion in the lead is not likely to be an erroneous distraction for the reader. But in that context, I actually suggest going further, and noting Kershaw’s place in the field would better inform the reader. — HTGS (talk) 03:32, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Both myself and User:FMSky reverted this editor after "the greatest" was added to dozens of articles. Magnolia677 (talk) 12:58, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    On a lot of those articles it already had that information and I simply added a supporting source - whether this was correct or not, my intention was to improve those articles and I wasn't intending to be disruptive. After reading into it a bit more, I've tried to be more selective about which articles to add it but it seems Magnolia677 is removing this content from every article that has it stating that it needs to be attributed which doesn't seem to be the case on any other articles. Anyway, to use a football term, I'd like to play the ball, not the player so if we could stay on the topic of discussing the policy and possibly reach a consensus rather than passing judgement of editing history. I've also had the courtesy of not canvassing other editors who may agree with my position. RevertBob (talk) 20:49, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with @HTGS. Sometimes a fact feels exceedingly positive, but is still basically just a fact. When it's true that any particular superlative is commonly used to describe a given subject, then we should just say that and get on with the rest of the article. It does not make sense, and it is not encyclopedic, to write "Elvis Presley was called 'the greatest performer' by Alice, Bob, Chris, Dave, Eve, Frank, and many others.[1][2][3][4][5][6]" Just say he has been called the greatest and move on. If it's DUE, it should be in the article, and you should no more try to downplay that as "only the opinion" of a list of individually named experts than you should write that climate change is believed to be real by a list of individually named experts. INTEXT attribution is for content that can be accurately presented as being the view of only a handful of people. A statement like Sports Illustrated called him "the greatest player of 1990" is appropriate when that is an unusual comment. It is not appropriate if we could name a dozen periodicals and a hundred individuals that said the same thing, or when it's not just 1990, but also a statement that was true over the course of multiple years.
    These disputes generally involve content that some editor consider to be subjective or opinion-based, by which they really mean "not actually true". Thus, we see editors who are squeamish about saying "has been called the best runner" but who are perfectly comfortable saying "is the fastest sprinter" (even though "best" and "fastest" are basically the same thing for sprinters). I think this is partly because of some editors' personal biases/ways of looking at the world, but also because we have done a poor job of communicating the need for articles to assert facts about opinions. It is a fact that certain individuals/artworks/whatever are considered the best/greatest/most important by a number of relevant experts that is too large for INTEXT attribution to be appropriate. In such cases (which should not happen in millions of articles, but which should probably happen in thousands of them), we really should use Wikipedia:A simple formulation and simply say that it's true that reliable sources say that a lot about this subject. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:59, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This is my point WhatamIdoing, just writing someone is "considered/regarded as one of the greatest" is a lot simpler "imparting nor plainly summarizing verifiable information" than complicating it with an incomplete list of Tom, Dick, Harry or others have ranked him in such a position of all-time which could be argued as to "promote the subject of an article". RevertBob (talk) 20:49, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Regarding this discussion, are we seriously going to compare Roy Kean and Eden Hazard—who I have never heard of until my encounter with this editor—with (look above) Lionel Messi, Diego Maradona, Muhammad Ali, Mike Tyson, Tiger Woods, Serena Williams, Usain Bolt, Bob Dylan, and Adolf Hitler? Seriously? Magnolia677 (talk) 21:05, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No we're not: Roy Keane and Eden Hazard (if you've watched top-flight English or Spanish football then you'd know who he is) are "regarded as one of the greatest players of his generation" where Messi and Maradona are "widely regarded as one of the greatest players of all-time". There's a big difference. RevertBob (talk) 22:38, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @RevertBob: Please tell me the exact years of Roy Keane's "generation". How about Eden Hazard's "generation"? Magnolia677 (talk) 23:05, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Generations don't come in "exact years". Neither do ages, eons, epochs, eras, or periods. Don't mistake fuzziness for wrongness. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:40, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed. Imprecision, in things that are by their nature imprecise, is not an error.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:59, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I certainly appreciate where you’re coming from Magnolia, but I feel that those questions are easily addressable in a way that still informs the reader of a subject’s standing in their field. It’s not really a standard usable in practical ways, but I use the rule of thumb that we don’t paraphrase to anything that would be disagreeable to the average informed reader. If challenged, it should not be hard to convert phrasing to be more specific. Many average readers may be unaware of Tom Bingham, but readers who do know of him would rarely disagree with the statement: On his death in 2010, he was described as the greatest judge of his generation.
    Maybe a similar attitude to phrasing would be helpful in those articles? I do think each article will always present its own challenge, and it is better to be specific where it gives the reader more context.
    Eg: I like that Hazard’s lead reads: Known for his creativity, dribbling, passing and vision, he is regarded as one of the best players of his generation, but I don’t see “vision” in either source and creativity seems less important to the sources than attack (goal.com: Hazard is widely regarded as one of the best attacking players of his generation) or dribbling (ibid: … is, without any qualms, one of the best dribblers of this generation.), so I would cut those without sourcing. If pressed, the claim of “one of best players of his gen” seems less well-supported than “one of best dribblers of his gen”. It’s also not hard to find similar sources that support the claim (eg, [52]). — HTGS (talk) 00:56, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The fact that you are not the biggest football fan is not the article's problem. Not every person's who's widely considered great is going to be immediately recognizable to you. AryKun (talk) 15:55, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    And here I was sure it was about a basketballer because I saw "dribbler". :-)  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  11:00, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    One other distinction. Those types of phrases like "Mike is considered to be one of the best dart players of all time" imply that they are widely considered to have such a quality. And if true, such is information about what the relevant public thinks rather than puffery. Not just that somebody found a few people/sources that said it. So if 3 truly reliable sources say "Mike is one of the best dart players of all time" that does not support it, it just says that three people think that way and anything more than that would be synthesis. If they all say "Mike is considered to be one of the best dart players of all time" IMO that does support it because they are reporting on what the relevant public thinks. North8000 (talk) 21:36, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I could find a reliable source to say just about anything...that is why we have that gatekeeper WP:VNOT. Why don't we just stick to the facts and let readers decide who is the greatest? Magnolia677 (talk) 22:34, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Because sometimes the relevant fact is that the subject is generally considered the greatest at something. I couldn't tell you who was considered the greatest (e.g.,) Mexican politician, and even if you listed all of his accomplishments, I would still not be in a position to decide for myself whether he was generally considered the greatest. I could only decide whether his accomplishments seem impressive to me. Both public reception and expert reactions are facts. They happen to be facts about opinions, but they are still facts, and they should be reported like any other fact. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:45, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    (edit conflict) If somebody is generally considered X, it should be possible to find high-quality sources that explicitly say that they are generally considered X. TompaDompa (talk) 21:47, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes, and that's generally done. The problem is that even if you provide a stack of impressive scholarly works, all of which contain the exact sentence "He is widely considered the greatest ____ of all time", you have editors who personally hate this fact and want it removed from the article. It just subjectively feels wrong to them, no matter how well-supported or obviously justified anyone else thinks it is. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:47, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed. Good evidence of this is that Neil Peart makes no mention of the fact that he's widely considered one of the greatest rock drummers of all time, despite that consideration in sources that matter for such an assessment being an easily established fact. I'm pretty certain that the article used to have such a statement, so someone's gone on the warpath to remove it, and make our article poorer, in suggesting that Peart is just one of a zillion random notable rock drummers instead of the overwhelmingly influential and respected figure he remains, even posthumously, in his field. That omission has made me care more about this question when I did not much care ("let it just be decided on a case-by-case basis") when the matter was opened. The closest the Peart articles gets to any of this is body-buried statement that "USA Today's writers compared him favorably with other top-shelf rock drummers. He was 'considered one of the best rock drummers of all time, alongside' [various other names dropped here]." But this is silly, since USA Today is not a reliable source on such matters, and much better sources consistently evaluate Peart as one of the greatest in his genre. (The USA Today bit might be retainable as part of a much longer string of such accolades, but it doesn't make much sense on its own.) I'm at a loss for how this article ended up in the state it's in.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:23, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There's a wrinkle, too, which someone at WT:V brought up (someone who says in effect that they're not interested in getting involved in a WT:MOS discussion directly) that there's a difference between WP on the one hand summarizing often emphatic sources then saying in WP's own voice that "X was one of the greatest foo of period", versus on the other hand saying "X is widely considered one of the greatest foo of period" based on the same source material. Most editors seem to prefer the hedging of the second formulation, but that editor suggested that this is WP:OR if sources do not use wording that literally is or paraphasally amounts to "widely considered". This was a new one on me. That is, some editors might actually prefer the first and more emphatic but also more challengable and "surprising" statement as technically better-verifiable with sources that just declare the subject "one of the greatest foo" instead of themselves using hedging language. I don't think I agree with this take, but it is worth mentioning. For my part, I think it's entirely reasonable as part of a WP:DUE analysis for WP editors to come to a conclusion to use something like "widely considered" based on the preponderance of the available high-quality RS (i.e. based on wide consideration), and to avoid declaring "was one of the greatest" as an unquestionable fact rather than as a widely considered opinion found in the source material.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:11, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    On that point, I think that the "widely considered" style should also be accepted in connection with smaller versions of such a claim: someone or something could easily "considered the greatest" by a particular group of people, even if that view is not generally held outside the group. A person could be the greatest influence in a particular art movement, or among a small ethnic group, without being known at all outside the group. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:53, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    PUFFERY is relative rather than absolute, no term will always or never be puffery. Anything that focused on the words outside of their specific and unique context is misguided. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 06:19, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This is not just a biographical matter, and much of what we're discussing here also pertains to claims such as "critically acclaimed" for films, TV shows, albums, etc. (most especially super-superlative claims like "universally critically acclaimed"). There's been a lot of scattered discussion about this, some of these threads being listed at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject Film#Number of citations used at Oppenheimer for critically acclaimed, plus some further talk at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Film#Superlatives.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  10:16, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Curiosity

    I'm curious to know why Futurism is written with an uppercase initial while Minimalism with a lowercase initial. Is there a particular reason? JackkBrown (talk) 07:45, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Because it's called "minimalism"—minimal, small, don't use capital letters? OK, that's a joke. It should be lower-case when describing, say, a choice to own less stuff or to have spare furnishings in one's home. As the name of an art movement, it should be treated like the names of other art movements. I'm not exactly sure what our practice is, if we have a standard one. Expressionism, for example, can't make up its mind. Futurism has a number of instances of "futurism" and "futurist", some of them in quoted material and some of them not. Largoplazo (talk) 09:23, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Largoplazo: Since there is a doubt, on the Giorgio Morandi page I decided to write "Minimalism" with a capital letter. JackkBrown (talk) 17:03, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    As a major art movement, WP would capitalize it. This is a consensus that was oddly arrived at back in the 2000s, and of course it directly conflicts with MOS:GENRECAPS, MOS:DOCTCAPS, etc., but we seem stuck with it at least for the time being, inexplicable as it may be. It's particularly absurd when done to non-English terms like French art nouveau which is not capitalized in French (or consistently in English).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  05:47, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That's because we follow sources, and because "Impressionist" and "impressionist" and "Renaissance" and "renaissance" have different meanings. Johnbod (talk) 19:01, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The sources do not do this capitalization consistently, with regard to either arts "movements" or "genres" (and there is not a clear dividing line between those things, though at their extremes some movements are clearly not genres and some genres clearly not movements). Capitalizing the movements conflicts with our MOS:SIGCAPS principle and (either already or eventually) with the MOS:CAPS lead. Nearly as many sources capitalize fiction, film, and other genres as capitalize artistic movements or "schools" within the same spheres (though more for some genres than others, especially more for those with larger fandoms), yet WP does not capitalize genres. The distinction is largely artificial and maybe not very tenable. Next, "impressionist" and "Impressionist" do not at all have different meanings in this context. The fact that "impressionist" can also mean 'entertainer who does impressions' is no more meaningful than the fact that "bear" can mean 'ursine creature' or 'carry; withstand, endure; bring to fruition'. This is an utterly routine disambiguation excercise. We do not write, say, "cervical" in reference to the cervical vertebrae but "Cervical" in reference to the cervix, despite "cervical" having two very different meanings in the human anatomy and medicine context (and we would not do it even if it were common-but-not-universal to do it in the source material; cf. the decision not to capitalize common names of species despite this being common in certain fields like ornithology and to a lesser extent herpetology). Disambiguation is not what capitalization is used for here, despite frequent misuse of it for such signification in non-encyclopedic writing. Next, "Renaissance" is a Western cultural/historical era, neither an art movement nor a genre; "renaissance" in a figurative sense, like "the 1990s renaissance of swing dancing", is an entiredly derived usage from this historical-period one (nor is the derived use always lower-case; cf. Disney Renaissance, though an argument to lower-case that at WP:RM and in its text is probably justified). And "renaissance" without a capital R has no different meaning in the context of Western historical eras, which is why it is fairly often not capitalized. We're already seeing a lot of sources de-capitalizing both "medieval" (or "mediaeval" if you insist on it, which even most of the British no longer do) and "middle ages", over the last maybe two generations of writers. This is part of a general trend in English away from unnecessary capitalization. Unlike with geological/paleontological and anthropological eras (Ordovician, Paleolithic/Palaeolithic), there is much less of an established professional convention to uniformly capitalize historical eras. Wikipedia already treats a lot of them as common-noun phrases. (But not consistently; see e.g. History of China and watch the period names jump back and forth between lower-case and capitalized – why "Tan dynasty" but "Five Dynasties and Ten Kingdoms", and especially why "Northern and Southern dynasties"?)

    Anyway, I'm not calling for an actual referendum on either of these things, and above I'm advising following "Futurism" and "Minimalism" style because that's the current consensus (as long as these are largely classified as movements not genres). I do think this consensus is of dubious longevity, at least over the long haul, because capitalization of both historical eras and arts movements is decreasing over time in the source material.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:06, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    List of dames commander of the Order of the British Empire

    List of dames commander of the Order of the British Empire should be changed back to List of Dames Commander of the Order of the British Empire -- should never have been changed. Amazing that it went unchallenged thus far. A Dame Commander is never a dame commander. Just as Knight Bachelor is not knight bachelor. Not Marianne Moore style poetry. 96.246.238.31 (talk) 23:14, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    But not when pluralised. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:18, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Right, "kings" and "popes" and "emperors" at the high end, and "knights" and "bishops" and "barons" at a somewhat lower end, are all lower-case in plural, so "knights commander" would be, too. Same with other compound titles; e.g., the US has had many postmasters general, and the Royal Navy has various commodores second class. MOS:PEOPLETITLES already covers this: we don't capitalize them if they are not directly attached to a person's individual name.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:08, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Geocomma: Royal Military College, Duntroon

    I’ve copied the following discussion from WP:ERRORS. That’s not a suitable place to sort out guidance. Pinging JennyOz, Dank, Dying, and Peacemaker67. Schwede66 02:25, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    • Robert Nimmo blurb - at "from the Royal Military College, Duntroon to participate", pls add geocomma after "Duntroon" per Nimmo article and RMC Duntroon (mostly) article. JennyOz (talk) 03:18, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I agree; the geocomma appears to belong there. However, I don't like mucking around with FA blurbs; could one of the coordinators please chip in? Schwede66 04:15, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Don't quote me on this because I'm out of my depth here, but some Milhist editors and some British and Australian editors sometimes get offended by the second comma if they think of the expression as a proper noun (as here). They won't necessarily fight you over it, but they won't like it. - Dank (push to talk) 04:19, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      JennyOz, i had spent more time than i'd care to admit looking into this, but i don't think this is a case where mos:geocomma applies. mos:geocomma covers "geographical references that include multiple levels of subordinate divisions", and i don't think either "Royal Military College" or "Royal Military College, Duntroon" is necessarily a geographical reference, even though the school has a physical presence. (i also think it would be unusual to consider "Royal Military College" to be a subordinate division of duntroon.) in addition, there is a category named "Royal Military College, Duntroon graduates" that doesn't use a comma after "Duntroon". furthermore, a wikipedia search for "Royal Military College, Duntroon" shows many instances in the prose of articles where a comma is not used after "Duntroon".
      as a result, i am guessing that "Royal Military College, Duntroon" is simply the name of the organization, which happens to use a comma, so there isn't a need to follow it with a comma if one normally wouldn't have done so had the name of the organization not included one. (Dank's comment suggests that this seems to be the case.) perhaps "University of California, Berkeley" is another such example, where there are a few articles, a few categories, and a number of instances in article prose that do not use a comma after "Berkeley".
      that all being said, it's possible that i'm wrong, and all the instances referenced above actually need commas added, since i'd normally bet on you being correct. in any case, in this specific instance in the blurb, i think adding a comma wouldn't make the blurb grammatically incorrect, so i have no personal preference either way. i didn't add a comma myself because i had thought the sentence was already correct as is. dying (talk) 04:59, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      And it doesn't help that our article Royal Military College, Duntroon is inconsistent in the comma throughout. Stephen 05:23, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Very interesting reflections. Maybe we should work on the guidance to cover the Duntroons and Berkeleys. Schwede66 05:41, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      In the US and Canada, I usually see a second comma, including for proper nouns. FWIW. - Dank (push to talk) 05:52, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Hmm, interesting indeed! Thank you all.
      Royal Military Academy Sandhurst - doesn't have a comma after Academy whereas RMC Duntroon has a comma after College so one could argue a comma is needed as a parenthetical.
      (And Dying, I absolutely know that in your much appreciated meticulousness you would have spent time considering this!)
      We could ask article FA nominator Peacemaker67 to make the call? (I asked PM (a graduate) re comma during the FAC only because at that stage a comma existed in the Early life and education section but not in the lede.
      I just looked at a few Aust Milhist FAs - drat! some articles do use the comma, some don't. The umbrella FA Australian Defence Force includes one.
      I merely see consistency with article helpful to ward off errors reports on the day.
      As my hero would say "As you were gentlemen!" JennyOz (talk) 08:46, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, it is all very confusing. AFAIK, the reason it isn't just "Royal Military College" is because of the other colleges of the same name. Duntroon was the name of the sheep station it was established on, and the suburb in which it is located now. I can live with the extra comma, frankly, and will add it now. We should probably have some MOS guidance written on this one. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:34, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    [End of copy-pasted original discussion.] Schwede66 02:25, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Use the second comma. It is necessary for all (not just a comma-averse subset of) readers to be able to parse the material with complete certainty. The fact that we have a mis-named category is not evidence of anything other than that we have a category to rename. This is hardly the first time such a matter has come up. The long-standing, unchanged situation is that various people like, as a matter of their personal writing style, to drop commas (the ones marked with square brackets for clarity here) in constructions such as "in London, Ontario[,] the climate ...", "at the Royal Military College, Duntroon[,] he was ...", "died on May 13, 2023[,] at ...", "according to John X. Smith, Jr.[,] this ...", "Sir Xerxes Youill of Zounds, KBE, RBA, RE[,] was ...". Yet there is a consensus to not drop them because their presence makes the material clearer. MOS:COMMAS does not make any "magical exceptions" for any such cases (Always use a pair of commas for this, unless another punctuation mark takes the place of the second comma), and a consensus change in the direction of topical exceptions is extremely unlikely to happen. Especially when in this case another guideline, MOS:GEOCOMMA, is also saying the same thing.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:51, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    PS: "We could ask article FA nominator Peacemaker67 to make the call? (I asked PM (a graduate) ...)." No editor WP:OWNs any article (see also WP:VESTED). There have already been far too many instances of WP:FAC regulars trying to allow nominators and/or principal authors of articles to get their way on not complying with guidelines (not policies yet, that I know of) simply on a WP:IDONTLIKEIT basis, and this has to stop. I've even seen one of FAC's most active reviewers resign their FAC work (and greatly reduce all their WP work) because of this nonsense and the drama it generated. Those with close connections to a subject do not get to decide how we have to write about them (think of the WP:COI implication of that!). Not that we'd make a special pleading exception for a particular institution anyway; see also MOS:TM, MOS:INSTITUTIONS, WP:OFFICIALNAME, etc. – over and over again WP is making the same point that particular establishments with their own style peccadilloes do not in any way dictate the style of WP's writing about them. See also failure to gain consensus of previous attempts to make "style carve-outs" for particular entitles like the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the Ohio State University, etc. There is nothing new under the MoS sun after 20+ years of this stuff.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  11:28, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I can understand how, sometimes, the comma may not be necessary. This may be one of those cases. If commas were precious handcrafted symbols made of expensive materials, perhaps we would use them more sparingly, but they are not. It is so much easier to use them and use them consistently to aid the reader and to decrease the need for discussion among editors. I can't get worked up about it being a big deal either way, but Wikipedia's style is to use them consistently and I think we should stick with that.  SchreiberBike | ⌨  14:53, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes. Lots of such commas are often considered unnecessary and dropped in off-site writing of various styles, but this is on-WP writing and no one's ever made a compelling argument for an exception to Always use a pair of commas for this, unless another punctuation mark takes the place of the second comma. The clarity the commas provide to a large subset of readers is much more valuable than the tiny bit of "micro-concision" gained by omitting them. As with virtually any style matter that doesn't have serious disruption potential, if someone prefers to write without these commas, no one is likely to make much noise about it; it's something another editor will just clean up later. There's only a problem when someone tries to either go around removing these commas from where they belong, or stonewall other editors who are bringing the material into guideline compliance.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  10:04, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I've had a go at documenting the above in the guidance. I'm sure it can be improved upon, but it's a start. Feel free to tweak it. Schwede66 20:51, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Looks good to me. (Well, other than that it may not be "nice" to use the recently disputed case when adding material like this; it can come off as rubbing someone's nose in it. I try to find some other example in such cases. An exception would be when an RfC has come to the resolution, in which case it's a better example to use, and in some cases we cite the RfC in a footnote, especially if it was a "big deal" discussion.) That said, whenever I see the code in sections like that, I wonder whether we should abandon the table-based layout of these yes/no example and just use simpler list formatting. It's a lot of code bloat.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:45, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Aged etc

    Which format is preferred:

    1. at the age of 88?
    2. at age 88?
    3. aged 88?

    Or is there really no preference? And are any of these aligned more with American or British English? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:23, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    No established, specific preference. Even MOS:NUM doesn't address this, even though it addresses how to template-caculate ages from birth dates, and so forth. That said, I think the most editors would agree to use one of the shorter constructions (each of them works better in different sentence structures), since concision is generally a virtue in writing. Why use the longest version when a short one that is just as clear will do? Often even "at 88" will work, though it depends on the wording ("died at 88" is much more of a clear "stock" construction than something like "was incarcerated at 88", which seems to imply an institution designated "88"). There might be a reason to use the long version for clarity in some circumstance, e.g. in a sentence that has a bunch of other numbers in it; maybe some other scenario might come up.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:47, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I see. And no alignment to Engvar? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:17, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I haven't run into anyone making ENGVAR arguments about this (which isn't dispositive of anything of course). PS: My own anecdotal sense is that the longer form (like a lot of other longer forms of things) tends to be preferred by older people, and is tied to a sense of formality or ponderance or intellectuality (shades of "elegant variation", which was still being drilled into us as kids as a good way to write when I was growing up).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:49, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah thanks. You evidently don't believe then, that "aged" on its own can convey an unwanted suggestion of elderliness. I've always seen "at age 88" as an Americanism, but that may just be a wholly illogical personal misconception on my part. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:10, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see "aged" that way, unless used on it's own (with the "age-ed" pronunciation, "He look aged and weary"). I learned to read and write in England, but have been in the US so long my own judg[e]ment on the matter wouldn't be meaningful.

    Here's an ngram across English usage generally of all four forms (including the "at 65" shortest form and your three above; I picked "65" since it's often used as a cut-off age for various social programs, etc., so it's common): [53]; confined to just 1980 onward, which is probably more relevant to us: [54]. Switching to the US corpus, we get this version: [55]. And the UK one gives: [56]. Side-by-side comparison shows a strong preference for the two shorest forms, with the longest form being least popular. "At age 65" seems a little bit more popular in American than British usage, but not sigificantly so, and actually popular in neither. "Aged 65" is very common in both. The real difference was an American favo[u]ring of just "at 65" over "aged 65", while it was the other way around in British publications. All that said, this data will have lots of false positives in it favoring "at 65" higher than it deserves in all cases, because of strings like "lived at 65 Waterston Street" and "driving at 65 miles/kilometres per hour". The other three strings are unlikely to have many false positives.

    Adding "died" to it is ... interesting. The longer phrase is excluded for having too many words, for starters. In the all-of-English corpus, "died at 65" is in the lead, followed by "died at age 65", and "died age 65" lagging [57]. In the US data, "died at age 65" was the favorite, followed by "died at 65", and then "died aged 65" last [58]. Suprisingly, the "died at age 65" usage doesn't seem to rate in the UK, with "died aged 65" and "died at 65" having rather comparable usage, though with a lot of flux [59].

    So, this kinda-sorta suggests a US bias in favo[u]r of the "died at age 65" form, and a UK feeling against it, at least in this specific construction; but this doesn't agree well with the more bare data above showing "at age 65" by itself common in British as well as American usage. Not really sure what to make of that. (Maybe it's more often used by the young in reference to themselves, as in "married at age 25"? Just a guess.) Regardless, I think your feeling that there's something at least American-leaning about "at age 65" is probably correct, even if the usage is blending due to global media. "Aged 65" is arguably a slight Briticism, with just "at 65" being neither. But this is all rather tentative. And I would think they all fall within MOS:COMMONALITY; I doubt any of them would not be understood by anyone fluent in the language.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:33, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    That seems credible to me, but I think there’s an additional layer based on the context. If you’re ascribing someone’s age, then they ‘are’ it, not ‘at’ it. No-one says “I am at age 18”. I would see ‘died aged…’ as the most common usage in the UK, with the ‘aged’ substituting for the verb ‘am/are/was/were’, an adaption from “He dies when he was 65”. When ‘at’ is used tends to be in phrases without the preposition, such as “Votes at 16!” or “You are allowed to drink at 18”, the missing “aged” being implicit. You might find ‘at’ constructions but more commonly where the proposition leads off, hence “at 18, you can vote”, shorthand for “at age 18…” MapReader (talk) 22:20, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Many thanks for that. I wholly agree that none of the variants are likely to be misunderstood. Yes, the "at 65" form may be equally common on both sides of the Atlantic. But I'd like to invite User:Julietdeltalima to this discussion, if at all possible. They seem to be quite keen on making edits like this one with the edit summary "deleted surplusage" (100 since last November?). If there is no actual policy on this, and it's purely a matter of personal preference, I fear these kinds of edits may be a recipe for disagreement? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:00, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I always cut back "at the age of ##" to "at age ##" in any circumstance (death, age of school-leaving, etc.), because there's no reason for the "the" and "of". I think people hear newsreaders say it that way and write it unthinkingly. Does anyone miss those words when they're gone? Is the meaning impaired? - Julietdeltalima (talk) 18:55, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello Juliet. Thanks for responding. Yes, I miss them, because I think the longer form is more formal and more correct. I'm really not sure that newsreaders have anything to do with my preference. More to do with my education as a child in the UK. It is just a preference, of course, and I don't see that meaning is lost. But I must admit I was surprised there's no policy or Engvar on this. You do seem a bit over-zealous in your "corrections" though? I assume you know about WP:MEATBOT. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:43, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I would agree. British English would not generally use 2 (which I think we would see as an Americanism omitting vital words on a par with "wrote him", "a couple pages" and "one hundred twelve"), but it would certainly use 1 or 3 pretty much interchangeably. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:18, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Spaces in section headings

    Which is correct: "== Words ==" or "==Words=="? Or both? I have seen editors changing one to the other. The MOS pages are inconsistent - see the bottom of Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Layout where footnotes g and h differ. Today's FA, Shostakovich v. Twentieth Century-Fox Film Corp. has spaces, but the first of the "recently featured", Daisy Bacon, has no spaces. The examples in MOS:ACCESS have no spaces.

    Could we have, somewhere within the MOS, one of the following:

    • a statement that spaces should be used in section headings;
    • a statement that spaces should not be used in section heading;
    • a statement that either form is acceptable and it is not appropriate to change one to the other?

    Either it matters or it doesn't, and if it doesn't, it's irritating to see timewasting edits changing it. PamD 20:19, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Lol. We have editors who go round replacing double spacing between sentences with single spacing, when the editing guidelines for WP are clear that it makes absolutely no difference to how the text is displayed. It’s not irritating, just a silly waste of time. MapReader (talk) 20:22, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I wouldn't mind "just a silly waste of time" if it was only the editors concerned, but it impacts anyone who has such a page on their watchlist. Changing spaces is particularly annoying since no red shows up. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 20:34, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with Martin of Sheffield; it's the watchlist issue without the comparison revealing what's changed that is the real time waster. Schwede66 20:42, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that it should be mentioned somewhere in the MOS. I think either should be acceptable (though I like it with the spaces better) Masterhatch (talk) 20:23, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This has been discussed before, and the general take was that MoS shouldn't be a "coding style manual". But this does keep coming up over and over again. Which ever of "the editing guidelines for WP" or some "Help:" namespace page that addresses this could maybe just be cross-referenced here in a footnote. We've found footnotes to be a good way to get tedious nitpicks into MoS that we need for dispute-resolution reasons but which we don't want bloating the main text of MoS with stuff the average editor never need be concerned with. Anyway, if anyone is going around doing this robotically at article after article, they need to stop, as it is against WP:MEATBOT and the human-editor instruction in WP:COSMETICBOT (unless they are also making an actually substantive change in the same edit, in which case just let it slide).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:51, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No need. Makes absolutely no difference. Personally, I hate the version with the spaces, but that's just personal preference. I'll change it back if someone changes it on an article I've written (since that's just their personal preference), but not otherwise. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:31, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    As I understand it, VisualEditor enforces that spacing automatically, so it's a lost cause. Though this will need some testing. I've started writing up a user essay on helpful/unhelpful code changes, so I'll get around to gritting my teeth and using the unbearable VE for a while to see what pointless and editor-annoying things it is doing.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  05:10, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Would it be technically feasible for this type of edit could be "hidden" from the change log, or at least always be given a default status of "minor edit"? I'm assuming that it's 'not technically feasible (and probably also not acceptable) to in some way make one version fixed and unchangeable? Martinevans123 (talk) 17:33, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Not that I know of, only if the editor clicked "This is a minor edit". The ones that drive me nuts are removal or addition of a single space; they're very hard to see the diff, so I'm looking and looking for WTF was changed, and can't find it. Heh.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  05:10, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Blank line after {{Authority control}}

    The text at {{Authority control}} says it should be placed "on a new line, after the external links section and navigation templates, immediately before the categories.", but it is often placed with a blank line between it and the categories. A recent edit inserted that blank line as a "correction" (I quite agree with the other change made in the same edit). MOS:LAYOUT seems to say nothing about blank lines in amongst the various footer items in Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Layout#Standard appendices and footers. It would be helpful if the MOS could specify whether "immediately before the categories" means "before the categories, separated by a blank line" or not. Or is there somewhere else I should be looking for this? Thanks. PamD 20:27, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    And, applying my usual "What do FAs do?" test: today's FA has no authority control, but Daisy Bacon and Supernova both have a blank line after {{Authority control}}. So it seems standard (OK, 2/2 is a small sample!), but where is it specified? PamD 20:32, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    And to muddy the waters further, the 3rd "Recent FA" has no blank line between {{Authority control}} and the DEFAULTSORT, but then a blank line before the categories, while Daisy Bacon has AC, blank line, DEFAULTSORT, Categories. PamD 20:37, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Just tested it, and there is no difference in the output. As a "code sensibility" matter, the blank line makes sense, since this has nothing to do with categories, and the only thing normally butted up against the top of the categories is {{DEFAULTSORT:...}}, which is directly pertinent to the categories. However, since this makes no reader-facing difference, going around mass-changing this, without doing something actually substantive in the same edit, would be against WP:MEATBOT and the human-editor provision in WP:COSMETICBOT (which needs to move into MEATBOT, something I meant to deal with a while back).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:35, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Regional-specific naming discussion

    Hello, a Requested Move discussion is taking place at Talk:Connecticut Panhandle. The gist of the move is moving geographic areas, such as Texas Panhandle to Texas panhandle. While that is not an issue, Eastern Panhandle of West Virginia and Northern Panhandle of West Virginia are an issue. There is some disagreement between a previous discussion over the move of Florida panhandle, Wikipedia's capitalization rules and how they affect this current discussion, and sourced information showing a regional exception to the rule (ie: the Northern and Eastern Panhandles of West Virginia).

    Since you all deal with this on a daily basis, it would be helpful to have some eyeballs from MOS to guide the conversation. Thanks...Neutralhomer • Talk • 17:59, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    A couple of MoS-related essays

    Might be of interest. Let me know if anything seems missing from (or crazy in) either of them. One is new, the other was a draft languishing in my userspace for a long time:

     — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:52, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Propylaea

    How do I know when to write "propylaea", "propylaia", "propylaeum", "propylaeon" and "propylaion" with a capital letter and when not to? Both forms are used in the article. JackkBrown (talk) 16:48, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Try asking on the article's talk page. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 16:57, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    C'mon now. It should be, and is, lower case except when the Propylaea (Munich) is mentioned, which is a proper name. Johnbod (talk) 17:01, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, the general usage at Propylaea is clearly a common noun.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  05:11, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Korea-related articles § About adding a link to each hangul syllable using Template:Linktext

     You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Korea-related articles § About adding a link to each hangul syllable using Template:Linktext. 172.56.232.220 (talk) 17:48, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    It has been a week. Any more comments? It is a bit long, but please give it a read and leave a comment there. 172.56.232.26 (talk) 20:33, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Make Wikipedia:WikiProject Computer science/Manual of style into Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Computer science

     – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

    Please see proposal at: Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Make Wikipedia:WikiProject Computer science/Manual of style into Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Computer science.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  13:54, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    "Acronyms in page titles" is mis-placed in an MoS page

    The section Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Abbreviations#Acronyms in page titles (also known as MOS:ACROTITLE, WP:NCA, WP:NCACRO) needs to move, and its MOS:ACROTITLE shortcut to no longer be "advertised". This section of narrow interpretation/application of WP:RECOGNIZABLE is entirely and only about article titles and not about article content in any way, so it is not properly part of MoS and has no business being in here. We may apply MoS frequently to WP:RM discussions, because principles that apply to the in-body text generally apply also to titles, but MoS is not the place for title-only rulemaking. We have separate naming-conventions guidelines for a reason. If you showed up today and proposed adding a new section of titles-only rules ("hyphenation in article titles" or whatever) to MoS, you'd be shouted out of the room. I'm not sure why this particular section has survived for so long in the wrong place.

    PS: I initially opened this as a thread at WT:MOSACRO, but no one commented at all and it archived without resolution; that page has too few watchlisters. This time I'm posting here, and "advertising" it at WT:AT and WT:NCCAPS and WT:MOSACRO and WT:MOSCAPS.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  15:19, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Surely not American-style capitalisation after a colon in British-English articles?

    MOS:COLON states, "When what follows the colon is also a complete sentence, start it with a capital letter...". This is American style, but not British. I don't think that this statement is controversial: see for instance Grammarly and our own article Colon (punctuation)#Use of capitals. Wikipedia of course allows both American and British spelling as long as each article is consistent. But it seems awkward to me to have British spelling combined with American punctuation, and I doubt that this was the intention. So I have boldly edited to, "When what follows the colon is also a complete sentence, American style is to start it with a capital letter, but otherwise do not capitalize after a colon except ...". Everybody happy with that? JMCHutchinson (talk) 11:05, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    The Chicago Manual of Style is American. According to your source, it recommends against capitalizing after a colon, unless the colon is followed by two or more complete sentences. DrKay (talk) 11:37, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    But can you explain this revert. It's surely incorrect for British English whether or not the Chicago Manual of Style supports it for American English. DeCausa (talk) 12:06, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    [Edit conflict: replying to Dr Kay here] That's a valid objection to how I rephrased the article, but your reversion to the original does not address my issue. Judging from the current text, I suppose that the consensus is not to allow Chicago style in American-English articles. So the text then needs to be just a little more awkward: "When what follows the colon is also a complete sentence, start it with a capital letter if the article is in American English; otherwise do not ...". If there are no further objections I will make this change. JMCHutchinson (talk) 12:20, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That's clearly not consensus. Current consensus is to capitalize if a complete sentence follows, regardless of the variant of English used. Questioning and possibly changing this consensus would require a wider discussion which hasn't yet taken place. Gawaon (talk) 13:16, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, Wikipedia:Consensus#In talk pages says, "Consensus can be assumed if no editors object to a change." So that is why I have been asking here if anyone objects! Or does anyone agree with my proposal? JMCHutchinson (talk) 13:40, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I for one would object. I don't think capitalization should depend on the variant of English used in an article. Compare the style of quotation marks used: though British English prefers 'half/simple' ones, we use "double ones" throughout. That's not an ENGVAR issue, and neither should capitalization be. Plus our capitalization rules are already complicated enough, without throwing ENGVAR considerings into the mix. Let's avoid that, by all means. Gawaon (talk) 14:07, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That’s not analogous. Capitalisation after a colon (excet for proper nouns etc) is considered incorrect in British English. It’s not a style option DeCausa (talk) 14:18, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Who says? AFAIK, such stuff is only/chiefly covered in style guides, so it sure is a style issue. Gawaon (talk) 14:32, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Be sure to let The Guardian know that it's incorrect. Also the Evening Standard Doremo (talk) 14:37, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Isolated instances where the copy editor slipped up shouldn't distract us here. I don't think there is any serious doubt that the style specified by the preponderance of British style guides differs from American practice. The question is how to deal with that on Wikipedia. JMCHutchinson (talk) 15:20, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Ha! The Grauniad! DeCausa (talk) 20:00, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    We don't have to follow the preponderance, we have our own style guide (this one here). Gawaon (talk) 03:43, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Doesn’t the fact that someone has saved these as examples undermine your case, showing how relatively rare they are? That first one, from over twenty years ago is a reprint of a government intelligence document, written by who knows? Not the strongest piece of evidence IMHO. MapReader (talk) 07:31, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • I dislike capping the letter after a colon. Could we compromise and say that either way must be consistent throughout an article? Or ban the capping. Tony (talk) 07:53, 14 January 2024 (UTC) On reflection I prefer the existing provision—though the wording could be improved. Tony (talk) 23:20, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      You propose changing to In most cases, a colon works best with a complete grammatical sentence before it. When what follows a colon is a complete sentence, or when it is used in an article title, section heading, or list item, editors may choose whether to capitalize what follows, taking into consideration the existing practice and consistency with related articles. Do not capitalize after a colon in other cases except where doing so is needed for another reason, such as for a proper name. That seems to increase inconsistency across articles, and we should be looking for commonalities.
      How would you handle:
      The report stated: "There was a 45% reduction in transmission rate."
      In a letter to his son, Albert Einstein wrote: "Life is like riding a bicycle. To keep your balance you must keep moving."
      Maggie wears a brimmed cap at all times: Strong light often gives her a headache. She also likes the way it looks. DrKay (talk) 09:27, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Your first two examples count as "segmental colons", which is when a colon introduces speech or a quotation, which may or may not be in inverted commas. As our colon article explains, "British English also capitalizes a new sentence introduced by colon's segmental use." I suppose it is covered in the MOS by "another reason", but it might be helpful to mention explicitly there too if a new guideline is agreed. JMCHutchinson (talk) 09:51, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      The last one should be Maggie wears a brimmed cap at all times: strong light often gives her a headache. She also likes the way it looks. because it's two sentences, one of which happens to have a colon in the middle. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 12:04, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Could be interpreted either way, and is hair-splitting we should surely avoid when making rules here. The British segemental-use claim quoted above from our article is not supported with an RS citation, doesn't agree with the #Segemental section it links to (which is entirely and only about formatting of dialogue for plays), and does not agree with anything in the sourcing run I did below, except with regard to such dialogue formatting, so it doesn't have anything to do with the examples above.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:54, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Time for another of my usual stylebook trawls:
    • New Hart's Rules: The Oxford Style Guide (2014) The word following a colon is not capitalized in British English (unless it is a proper name, of course), but in US English it is often capitalized if it introduces a grammatically complete sentence." But it is just one of various British style guides. It's also making a very broad nationalistic claim of the sort that both NHR and Chicago like to engage in, but which is not actually supportable by much evidence and which few linguists would agree with.
    • The Chicago Manual of Style simply says: "When a colon introduces two or more sentences ... the first word folowing it is capitalized." So, contrary to popular belief, Chicago doesn't support capitalizing if what follows the colon is just a single sentence.
    • The Blue Book of Grammar and Punctuation (US) waffles a bit: "If a complete sentence follows a colon ... it is up to the writer to decide whether to capitalize the first word. Although generally advisable, capitalizing a sentence after a colon is often a judgment call. Note: A capital letter generally does not introduce a simple phrase following a colon."
    • The American Heritage Guide to Contemporary Usage and Style also waffles: "When a colon introduces a complete sentence, the sentence may begin with a capital letter, depending on the publication's style." So much for the claim that capitalizing after the colon is required/standard in American writing.
    • Butcher's Copy-editing (UK) does not address the question.
    • The Cambridge Guide to English Usage (UK) weirdly claims that "Style manuals agree (Chicago Manual, 2003; Oxford Guide to Style, 2002) that the word following the colon stays in lower case, unless it's a formal quotation, slogan or motto." [I.e., specific forms of complete sentence in most cases, though a quotation can be fragmentary, and the rest of the guide does not suggest to convert partial quotations to look like full ones, so this seems to be a blatant oversight.] This is not at all what either of the other cited style guides says.
    • Oxford Guide to Style (UK) actually says: "Use a colon to introduce direct or paraphrased speech or quoted material more formally or emphatically than a comma would. A capital letter follows. ... A colon may be used optionally in parallel constructions where a semicolon might be equally acceptable", i.e. between two closely related sentences joined into one; the examples OGS show have a capital after the colon when what follows is a complete (short in that case) sentence, but lower-case when it is not. Not only does this contradict the claims made above about British English, this has further implications for WP, because all our material is paraphrase of what the sources say.
    • Dreyer's English (US): "If what follow a colon is a full sentence, begin that full sentence with a capital letter".
    • The Handbook of Good English (US) is probably unnecessarily nit-picking: "Do not capitalize a normally lowercase word after a colon unless what follow the conol in a grammatically complete sentence and the colon is bineg ued primarily to introduce trather than to link." ["Link" here meaning link the opening sentence to the one appended with the colon, mirroring wording used later in the book about such clause-splicing with a semicolon.] Why such a "rule" is a bad idea is even stated explicitly by the author without seeming to realized it: "This rule is often difficult to apply whena grammaticallyh complete sentnec efollows a colon, because it is not always easy to decide whether the colon is primialry introducing or linking. Some older punctuation guides ... advise always capitalizing after a colon when what follows is a grammatically complete sentent—a very easy rule to following, but changing American punctuation practices have made it a poor one." This has two weird assertions in it, that it's an old practice that is dwindling, and that unnamed "changing ... practices" make it a poor choice, but neither is in evidence; the book dates to 1991, and style (American or otherwise) has not demonstrably changed on this point, despire the clear desire of the author that it do so. I cannot find an idea about post-colon capitalization that is this specific in any other style guide.
    • The Oxford English Grammar (UK): "In American usage it is usual for the sentence after the colon to begin with a capital, though occasionally it begins with a lower case letter. British usage prefers lower case."
    • The Elements of Style (US, 4th ed., 2000): states no rule but illustrates usage in a full sentence after a colon without a capital.
    • Oxford Guide to Plain English (UK): "After the colon the sentence will usually continue with a lower-case letter." Hardly a rule, but an observation about frequency, and for all know, the intended meaning was "will usually continue with a lower-case letter, except when it is a full sentence or proper name", rather than "will usually continue with a lower-case letter even if it is a full sentence."
    • The Gregg Reference Manual (US): States no rule, and illustrates both styles throughout.
    • Concise Oxford Companion to the English Language (UK): States no rule, but illustrates the lower-case style throughout.
    • Chicago Guide to Grammar, Usage, and Punctuation : "Use a lowercase letter after a colon (unless the first word is a proper noun) when the colon is used within a sentence, even if it introduces your own independent clause. Capitalize the first word after a colon when the colon introduces more than one sentence, a direct question, or speech in dialogue." This is a significant divergence from CMoS's "
    • Garner's Modern English Usage (US/UK): "when a complete clause [i.e. something that would be a sentence by itself] follows the colon, authorities are divided on whether the first word should be capitalized. ... [T]he prevalent journalistic practice: the first word is capitalized. But the other view—urging for a lowercase word following the colon—is probably sounder: the lowercase (as in this very sentence) more closely ties the two clauses together. That's the style that's used throughout this book. It's also the house style of The New Yorker .... Although the uppercase convention is a signpost to the reader that a complete sentence is ahead, that signpost generally isn't needed."
    • I've not bothered looking in a pile of journalism style guides because they generally are intentionally in conflict with each other as a form of "branding", and they diverge radically from encyclopedic style in so many ways that our MoS is based on virtually nothing form them at all (news style, which WP avoids, is driven by expediency and simplicity, not clarity).
    • I could do a bunch more of this, but it is probably sufficient.
    What I gather from this is that there is a lean in British writing toward dropping the capitalization, and a lean (but a decreasing one over time) in American writing to retain it, and a stronger lean in journalism (not tied to a particular country) to prefer the capital. Some writers have tried to draw a distinction relating to different kinds of relationships between the material before and after the colon, and even different lengths of the material after it. Some have claimed "over-exuberantly" that there's what we'd call an ENGVAR difference, but evidence for this idea is both weak and getting increasingly weaker. And some have suggested that the capitalization is on the way out entirely, but evidence doesn't really seem to support this, either.

    In short, no MOS:ENGVAR claim can be sustained on this point, nor is there a clear "single overriding encylclopedic purpose" argument to be made here. Garner's observation in GMEU that there are conflicting reasons to prefer one over the other is correct (though his picking a particular side almost certainly has much to do with the fact that he's the primary author of the related material in both Chicago Manual and Chicago Guide). American usage provably does not require the capitalization, and some British publishers (cf. news sources cited in earlier comments) provably do use the capital. Other sources both British and American are noncommittal on the question.

    This should simply be left to editorial discretion at the article like most things, and MoS does not need to so prescriptively legislate on it (WP:MOSBLOAT and WP:CREEP). It seems that our present wording of:

    When what follows the colon is also a complete sentence, start it with a capital letter, but otherwise do not capitalize after a colon except where doing so is needed for another reason, such as for a proper name.
    should change to something like:
    If what follows the colon is something normally capitalized (proper name, acronym, quoted sentence, etc.), use a capital letter. For a complete sentence after a colon, capitalization is optional. Use a lowercase letter after the colon otherwise.
    If this is too much of a change for consensus to stomach, then a compromise version might be:
    If what follows the colon is something normally capitalized (proper name, acronym, quoted sentence, etc.), or multiple complete sentences, use a capital letter. For a single complete sentence after a colon, capitalization is optional. Use a lowercase letter after the colon otherwise.
     — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:42, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    One thing that seems clear from your very thorough analysis is that the current wording of the MoS isn’t really supported by the sources. MapReader (talk) 22:56, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Various bits have made their way in over the years because they seemed reasonable at the time (there is a defensible rationale for that choice, it just happens to have another defensible rationale against it, and it's not unsupported in off-site style guides, simply doesn't dominate in them). Sometimes stuff seemed to make sense to add as an abitrary "dispute stopper", and in the early days these were often added prophylactically without evidence of a need for them to stop recurrent disputes about something.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:30, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Jmchutchinson's redraft further above, taking into account the entire paragraph this sentenence is found in, could be combined with some of my clarity tweaks above, to produce a total paragraph of:

    In most cases, a colon works best with a complete grammatical sentence before it. If what follows the colon is something normally capitalized (proper name, acronym, quoted sentence, etc.), use a capital letter. When a colon is used before a complete sentence, or in an article title, section heading, or list item, editors may choose whether to capitalize the first letter of what follows, taking into consideration the existing practice and consistency with related articles. Do not capitalize after a colon otherwise.

    Most of that is existing wording (the stuff about before a colon, the "taking into account", the title/heading/list details, etc.).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:54, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks! Speaking for myself, I'm happy with any of your suggested tweaks/changes. DrKay (talk) 17:17, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    As the original proposer, I would be happy with SMcCandlish's text. I feel the ENGVAR correlation (at least the absence of capitals in British English) is more marked in the actual texts I encounter than implied from the survey of style guides, but I can't prove that, and it doesn't much matter. At least not if we give our editors this flexibility. JMCHutchinson (talk) 21:18, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not happy with SMcCandlish's text. Here's better, which differs slightly in substance, as well as being a balanced and clear guide:
    "In running text a colon need not be preceded by a complete grammatical sentence, so long as the intent is clear.
    A colon capitalizes the first letter in what follows it if that can naturally be read as a complete sentence: otherwise, it normally does not. But when a colon is being used as a separator in an article title, section heading, or list item, consider the need for clarity and for consistency within the article and related articles."
    Tony (talk) 23:20, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Tony1's proposal differs not slightly but considerably in substance. It essentially goes back to the status quo of insisting on a capital if a full sentence follows. Others of us find this inappropriate given that lower case is usual in British English and, it turns out, also not uncommon in the US. JMCHutchinson (talk) 07:21, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It does seem to go in that direction. @Tony1: is that the intent? I seem to remember you being Australian, so I'm not sure if this reflects a national-leaning norm not accounted for here (too often these discussions pretend the entire Anglosphere consists of the UK and the US). At any rate, if this were just left to editorial discretion, do you anticipate a recurrent problem? As for the first part (which is original guideline wording, not mine), a blended version might assuage those who lean toward change-resistance: In running text, a colon usually works best with a complete grammatical sentence before it, but this is not necessary when the intent is clear. The "in running text" part is actually important, since the original wording over-states the case and does not account for formatting of lists, etc. The ending part could also blend your concision with the previous RfC consensus about explicit editorial discretion: ... or list item, editors may choose but should consider the need for clarity and for consistency within the article and related articles. That would also change the guideline link from MOS:STYLERET to MOS:ARTCON which makes more sense anyway, and remove the link to WP:CONSISTENT which is about article titles and not actually pertinent here.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:31, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Mandatory

    Is adherence to the MOS mandatory or a preference? I see people going to war over the MOS, even with single edits that are invisible to the readers. The Banner talk 10:46, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    @The Banner: The box at the top says This guideline is a part of the English Wikipedia's Manual of Style. Compare e.g. WP:V which says This page documents an English Wikipedia policy. Policies are stricter than guidelines. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 13:11, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    But people are acting as if WP:NOPIPE and MOS:NOPIPE is mandatory and have to be enforced at all times. The Banner talk 13:27, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The Banner, I suppose that's their bad for getting bent out of shape. There are good semantic (imo) reasons for it in many cases that I could imagine getting a smidge cranky over, but I'm already too much of a stickler myself. — Remsense诉 13:31, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @The Banner: Could you be more explicit about the issue that's troubling you? Is it your difference of opinion with Surtsicna here? Jean-de-Nivelle (talk) 13:29, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    ow, as examples your edit warring here, this discussion, where you decided that my inconvenient edit was not part of that discussion (twice) and about a script you are now using to hammer more edits out to correct links that are already correct. The Banner talk 13:54, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • In the first instance, you followed my edit history to a page I'd previously edited, made a series of unconstructive edits without understanding the context, accused me of edit-warring when I reverted you, and then said I was "becoming historical" when I outed your bad behaviour.
    • In the second instance, you blundered into a delicate situation looking for trouble when I was trying to make peace between two well-meaning editors. I didn't want to let your bad behaviour distract from the more important issue, so I put you to one side while I dealt with it. If you come to my Talk page looking for trouble, I'll deal with you as I see fit.
    • In the third instance, I've been testing a script-based solution to the activities of a troublesome and prolific block-evader. The context is explained in the thread you linked above. Discussions are ongoing.
    Jean-de-Nivelle (talk) 14:23, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    And still no explanation as why you see the invisible (IMHO useless) edits as mandatory. The Banner talk 14:34, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see them as mandatory. Jean-de-Nivelle (talk) 14:42, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    But you act as if they are. The Banner talk 14:58, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps we differ in our understanding of the word "mandatory". Could you explain what you mean? Jean-de-Nivelle (talk) 15:07, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    See: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/mandatory But WP:NOPIPE and MOS:NOPIPE never state that is mandatory or obligatory to forcefully enforce it. The Banner talk 15:17, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Of course they don't, but it's very clear that there's a consistent preference for one form over the other.
    ☒N [[Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart|Mozart]]
    checkY [[Mozart]]
    That's why I'd suggest that Surtsicna's edit here was fine, while your reversion of it wasn't. If we all pull in the same direction, we might actually get somewhere. Jean-de-Nivelle (talk) 15:28, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There is no need to change links that are already correct. And that is exactly what you two are doing, with as excuse NOPIPE. The Banner talk 15:45, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    What does that red cross mean, up there next to [[Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart|Mozart]]? Do you see that the form of link that Surtsicna prefers, and that I prefer, and that the manual prefers, is like the green link below it, while the form that you keep reverting to is the red one with the big red cross next to it?
    MOS:NOPIPE and WP:NOPIPE and WP:NOTBROKEN aren't excuses: they're guidelines. If we all follow the same guidelines, we all move towards the same goal. If you don't like the guidelines, there are processes to follow to get them changed. Jean-de-Nivelle (talk) 16:08, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think you are confused with policies. Guidelines are (strong) advice. Not mandatory as policies. And there is no reason the correct links that are already correct. The Banner talk 17:46, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style&oldid=1196896964"