Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Necrothesp (talk | contribs) at 09:38, 11 July 2024 (→Tense of verbs referring to current, ongoing events). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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:
    2024
    2023
    2022
    2021

    Reconsider ellipsis ... vs … preference

    Support for … (unicode ellipsis, U+2026) is widespread now. The decision to prefer ... over …[1] was made 15-20 years ago when unicode support was nascent.[2]

    Benefits of … (unicode ellipsis)

    1. More accessible — screen readers can read "ellipsis" properly
    2. more compact & readable. Better line breaks
    3. renders with better fidelity using font glyph
    4. scales better when zooming & with high-DPI devices like mobile phones
    5. easier to parse (distinct unicode representation for character)

    Tonymetz 💬 18:01, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    If we discuss this, we need to discuss the use of typographical quotation marks too! Gawaon (talk) 18:23, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Eh, I'm not so sure about that. Curly quotes have drawbacks (e.g. being 'keyed', being more frequent to the degree where I would argue the extra byte substantially increases page sizes on average) that U+2026 … HORIZONTAL ELLIPSIS does not. Remsense诉 18:36, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair enough. We also use en dash (–) and friends, after all. Gawaon (talk) 20:05, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with Gawaon's 1st sentiment that curly quotation marks/apostrophes should be discussed in the same vein as ellipses. Both deal with the distinction of ASCII representation vs. extended character maps. I don't think that their multi-byte effect on increased page size is of any concern. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 04:49, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I know! Let's have an RfC on whether they should be discussed together! EEng 15:11, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The big BIG advantage of requiring straight quotes and period ... ellipses is that it doesn't allow yet another gratuitous style variation for gnomes to slow-war over. It looks fine, it works, it contributes to having a clean readable style instead of a fussy special-character-elaborated one. Why get rid of those advantages? —David Eppstein (talk) 06:57, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Though I said the opposite above, I think it might indeed make most sense to limit this to the ellipsis issue for now, since it would be a relatively small change – much smaller than changing the rules for quotes and apostrophes. So if this is changed now, the quote issue could possibly be reconsidered in a year or two, then taking into account the experience with the ellipsis change.
    For the ellipsis, there are two possibilities:
    1. Allowing both ... and … as equally valid options. Very easy change, but with the disadvantage that usage in any given page could then be mixed, annoying the typographically aware. Though the visible difference between ... and … is small (much smaller than "quotes" vs. “quotes”, I'd say – in fact, in our standard font I can hardly see it), so that shouldn't matter very much. Also, to prevent "slow-warring", we could make the rule that changing ... to … is allowed, but changing in the opposite direction is not. In that way, pages would slowly evolved in the typographically correct direction.
    2. Requiring, from now on, that … is used, and deprecating ..., just like MOS:DASH has deprecated the use of single or double hyphens instead of dashes. This would ensure that there is a single standard all pages are meant to adhere to, so totally eliminating the risk of edit warring. The disadvantage, of course, is that there are 100,000s of pages (at least) that currently don't adhere to that standard. I suppose a bot could help with that change, but it would still be a giant task to bring them in adherence.
    Personally I think option 1. would be fine, while 2. daunts me a bit because of the size of the required changes. Gawaon (talk) 07:39, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    While I'm not opposed on principle, I doubt implementing this change across thousands of articles would be feasible. InfiniteNexus (talk) 23:48, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, option 1 wouldn't have to be "implemented", it would just be an option for editors to choose from now on. Gawaon (talk) 06:06, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Bad idea. The point of an MoS is to be as consistent as possible. And changes would have to be implemented regardless; if you don't do anything, AWB, bots, and other automated tools will just continue changing them. InfiniteNexus (talk) 06:10, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose any "use whichever style you want" option. Gonnym (talk) 11:24, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I have no real preference for one or the other, but I oppose the change. It wouldn't be too much work for a bot to change all of one to another. Still I see no reason to mess with what's been working. Actually, I do prefer the three dots. Anyone can type ... and the … requires a bit more effort, and … displays differently depending on the font used, so sometimes looks odd. Mixed use looks sloppy and I really want to avoid that. SchreiberBike | ⌨  11:48, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm wary of creating yet another challenge for new editors who want to do the right thing – we want to keep them. NebY (talk) 14:26, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    My preference would be to create templates for such things as ellipses and in-line quote[a] and relegate the style arguments to the talk pages of those templates. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 12:55, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I would support mandating the unicode ellipsis. Adding this to the MOS wouldn't create any burden to new users – gnomes would simply bring articles into conformity over time. Graham11 (talk) 03:36, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    More likely some bot operator is going to get it into their head that this must be done immediately!!1! and make our watchlists unusable for several days while they crank through all the Wikipedia articles at a rate of several per second. How about let's don't. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:16, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There's a 200% chance this will happen, because at least two bot operators will try it. Remsense诉 07:17, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Isn't that a matter that should be addressed at WP:BRFA? Graham11 (talk) 17:10, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If the Unicode ellipsis is better for screenreaders, we should go for it. Just add an ellipsis option to the usual dash scripts. —Kusma (talk) 19:28, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Is there any more reason to believe that it is better for screenreaders than to believe that it is worse for screenreaders? One could equally well write, if it is worse for screenreaders, then we should continue to eschew it. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:03, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    On a quick Google, I have found some accessibility blogs that advocate use of the ellipsis character over three dots. I have no idea how important it is in practice. —Kusma (talk) 20:19, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Have you considered asking at WT:WPACCESS? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:50, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I just brought it up at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Accessibility#Is there a preference from an accessibility standpoint for ellipses (...) style? SchreiberBike | ⌨  — Preceding undated comment added 23:02, 21 May 2024‎ (UTC)[reply]
    I think we should be ok with either. There doesn't need to be consistency for this. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 07:21, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Require semantically/typographically correct ellipsis per accessibility issues. Allow someone to type in three periods for convenience, but keep it deprecated and have semi-automated tools and bots change this as long as they are making other changes as well. Change all page and category titles as well with redirects from three dots. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:07, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    As a screen reader user, I've never heard of these accessibility issues ... screen readers can read three dots fine. It really doesn't need a mass change here. Graham87 (talk) 07:54, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    How mean of you. You've just taken away some gnome's purpose in life. (For those playing along at home, we've now got two Graham's Grahams in the conversation.) EEng 13:59, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Bold of you to write "Graham's" on this talk page! JoelleJay (talk) 00:35, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Something like that always happens when I'm being a smartass. EEng 08:55, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Graham's law says that the rate of hot air escaping from a talk page discussion is inversely proportional to the square root of the weight of the arguments contained within. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:54, 12 June 2024 (UTC)}[reply]

    Oppose any change - three dots is fine and easier to write. Then again, if it's not onerous to make a bot that turns every instance of ... into … after every single edit that includes ..., I'm not going to lose any sleep over it. BoldGnome (talk) 02:57, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Notes

    1. ^ In some cases the obvious name is already taken, e.g.,
      {{ellipsis}}
      This template should not be used in Main namespace; it will instead display an error message.
      {{quote}}
      A wrapper for <blockquote>...</blockquote>.

    Allow either ... or …. I agree with the (minor) advantages of using the unicode character, but changing it everywhere seems like a huge waste of time and effort. We should just be agnostic about it, IMO. Nosferattus (talk) 18:14, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    The problem with "allow either" is that in some fonts they look very different from each other. Having "..." and "…" near each other looks pretty bad to me. SchreiberBike | ⌨  20:46, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Change "foreign-language" to "non-English language"?

    Of course "foreign-language" is a common adjective to mean "in a language other than English" and that's fine, but it also looks a bit odd in the guidelines of an international internet encyclopedia? "non-English language" is clunkier I'll admit, but it's also more precise in a way that seemingly doesn't cost much. Should we consider changing it on policy and guideline pages?

    (I'm fairly sure it shouldn't be non–English language or non-English-language even as an adjective, right? Those both look ridiculous.)Remsense诉 05:28, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Agree. “Foreign” presupposes where the reader is, which isn’t appropriate for an international encyclopaedia. MapReader (talk) 07:08, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    My concern is that "non-English" might exclude the English-based creoles like Nigerian Pidgin; we should treat these creoles as we would treat any other non-English language, as English speakers tend to be unable to understand them. BilledMammal (talk) 08:28, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it is fairly safe to say that no one would have this as their public definition of "English language", right? Remsense诉 08:37, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It’s not exactly an English language - but it’s also not exactly a non-English language. BilledMammal (talk) 08:52, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Right, so how does "foreign language" do better with that ambiguity? I would think it does worse. There's no definite boundaries between any two lects you can define. Remsense诉 08:54, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Don't fix what ain't broke. Foreign is fine as we all know it means a language other than English. Masterhatch (talk) 08:48, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I would agree if it were a big deal to fix. Plus, it is a little bit broken—we all know what a lot of words *should* mean, but that doesn't mean we can't seek to further improve our word choices. Remsense诉 08:50, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree. 'Foreign' is not necessarily the same as non-English even when you assume the reader/editor is in a country where English is the most commonly spoken language. Many countries where English is the norm were colonised and had/have indigenous languages of their own, which would be odd to call 'foreign'. FropFrop (talk) 09:04, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You aren't wrong. We can simplify most of this, avoiding "non-English language". In this main MoS page, nearly all uses of "foreign" are either to qualify a noun other than "language" ("foreign words", "foreign text") or in the adjectival "foreign-language" to qualify a noun. In the former cases, just replace "foreign" with "non-English". In the latter, replace "foreign-language" with "non-English", omitting "language". A couple of cases are tricky because they link to sections currently titled "Foreign languages" on other MoS pages. Those can be dealt with in turn but is there anything objectionable about my proposal to make the first round of substitutions forthwith? Even to the extent that I could argue that, pragmatically, readers will know what we mean, "non-English" is better.
    Finally, for the noun phrase "foreign language(s)", "language(s) other than English" seems more natural than "non-English language(s)". Largoplazo (talk) 11:43, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed for all the reasons you've provided. "Non-English languages" is fine enough to me. – Primium (talk) 23:14, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Parenthetical plural(s)?

    It seems that the particular constructions referred to as "parenthetical plurals" by style guides—e.g. when posting thread(s),—have never been discussed here before, which is a bit shocking. Here's a quick pitch for why we should consider explicitly deprecating their use in article(s):

    • They are almost entirely useless, and usually do not clarify any ambiguity. This is the case for WP:AND/OR but stronger. Use of a plural form to indicate "any number of" is usually completely fine, and when it's not there's usually a broader problem with the structure of your sentence.
    • Something something, brackets can create problems for wikitext, somehow.
    • While neither AMA nor Chicago explicitly disallow parenthetical plurals, they both firmly suggest that you should never have to use them.
    • They are ugly.

    Remsense诉 09:46, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    At least in the example given, the construction is worse than ugly: when posting thread is plain ungrammatical. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 20:52, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That's my bad. Remsense诉 20:15, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I personally nuke these on sight and I can't recall even once getting any pushback for it. Primergrey (talk) 20:12, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Citations within quotes?

    This is a bit confusing, so let me try to give an example.

    Suppose we have a book, A Great Book by Joe Sixpack, that says something like this:

    The sky is blue.[15]

    Then at the end of the book is a list of sources, including one for footnote 15. Let's call this "The Original Source". So we have a book by Sixpack that cites "The Original Source".

    Now we want to quote from A Great Book in a Wikipedia article. And we do so like this, preserving not just the quote, but Sixpack's source citation too:

    In his book A Great Book, Sixpack says that "The sky is blue.[1]"[2]

    I find this awkward and unnecessary. I would leave out the citation to "The Original Source". Verifiability is still preserved, because a curious reader can look up Sixpack and from there find The Original Source. Does this seem right?

    I found this at Lynn Conway, the quote that starts with "By taking this job". GA-RT-22 (talk) 16:23, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    @GA-RT-22: WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT - just cite A Great Book by Joe Sixpack, with page number. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:58, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Exactly what I need. Thanks! GA-RT-22 (talk) 20:20, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Redrose64 is right, of course, but it's also true that (a) you might as well look at Original Source to see if it meets our own standards (it usually will, if A Great Book is published by a good publisher), and (b) if it's easy to access Original Source it's worth taking a look at that too. At least once that I recall I've found that Joe Sixpack misinterpreted Original Source. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:57, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    References

    1. ^ The Original Source
    2. ^ Joe Sixpack. A Great Book.

    Discussion on other talk page and project

    See Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)‎#MOS on date format by country and Talk:Lisa del Giocondo‎#Edit warring about whether the date format customary in a non-English speaking country has any bearing on what date format should be used in an English Wikipedia article. Jc3s5h (talk) 21:04, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Should orthographical variations be mentioned in place names

    Title, should orthographical variants be included when place names are given? Traumnovelle (talk) 07:11, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I think it has to depend on the history of the orthographies in question. For one particular case, MOS:ZH says that alternate/historical romanizations of Chinese place names generally shouldn't be used, even if they appear as a part of other proper names: e.g. Tsingtao Brewery Co., Ltd. is located in Qingdao, Shandong. Remsense诉 07:22, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not historical but it isn't commonly used outside of a minority group essentially. It's Pokeno, which instead of using a macron is sometimes spelt as Pookeno but I can't find any reliable source that actually uses this spelling. Mayhap it is more akin to dialectal variations. Traumnovelle (talk) 07:30, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If ultimately attested in RS, I think this is worth mentioning, maybe in a footnote. Remsense诉 07:35, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you give an example of what you're asking about? Largoplazo (talk) 10:23, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The example is in my other comment. Traumnovelle (talk) 19:52, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Indentation

    This week I took a long time to learn how to enable a first-line indentation and I would like to float the possibility of improving the sentence under 'Indentation' which cites two templates to enable other editors to learn how to use them more quickly. Would anyone be willing to mentor me if I tried to improve it to achieve this objective? For the record, I should disclose that I am new to templates.John Desmond (talk) 15:09, 20 June 2024 (UTC) .[reply]

    What do you mean by "first-line indentation"? EEng 17:21, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Some of my friends, yesterday
    I suspect that John Desmond refers to a common practice in printed books where the first line of a paragraph is indented by one or two em. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:40, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Not really relevant for Wikipedia, though, it seems. Gawaon (talk) 20:58, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That's a correct suspicion - see John Desmond's edit here, for example. Davidships (talk) 00:01, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected edit request on 20 June 2024

    A$ is similar to 'As'. So, change A$ to AU$. 70.22.248.187 (talk) 17:30, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

     Not done: A change of this magnitude would require consensus and affect a significant number of articles. GSK (talk • edits) 17:58, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Improvement to advice about embedded section anchors

    I just made this edit to MOS section § Section headings to add this explanatory note (name="many links") to the portion targeted by MOS:SECTIONANCHOR:

    To find out how many inlinks there are to the old section title and what articles have them, you can execute this advanced search this advanced search, changing article to the name of the article, and oldsection to the old section title. If there are only a small number of links to the old section title, it's better to just update them..

    I recently noticed that a bunch of users have added unneeded embedded section anchors after renaming a section header, presumably because they don't know how to find out if there are any articles that link to the old section title or not, and if so, how many of them there are. Imho, embedded section anchors should only be added when necessary, as they create squirrely wikicode which may mystify other editors, or discourage them from making further changes to the section header which may be warranted. To reduce the scope of this issue, increase transparency about section inlinks, and limit the number of unneeded embedded anchors being created especially when there are no incoming links at all (a good proportion of them), I added the note. (A secondary problem, much less serious imho, is users using the problematic, unsubsted version identified at MOS:SECTIONANCHOR as resulting in undesirable behavior.)

    I would appreciate additional eyeballs on this note, both the wording as well as any comments on the generic advanced search terms. I am aware that the search doesn't include everything (notably, will not find links from articles using {{slink}} to target it) or exclude (nowiki's, html comments) but I am trying to keep the input search term field simple-looking enough that a user unfamiliar with advanced search won't be afraid to try it, so it's kind of a balancing act how complex to make it. That said, if there's anything egregiously missing or wrong with it, or if it can be significantly improved without degrading usability, please do comment, or just adjust it. Adding @PrimeHunter, Sdkb, Trialpears, Qwerfjkl, Colin M, Quiddity, and Rjjiii:. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 23:13, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks for adding this tip! Marginally related, is there some way to find all broken section anchors pointing to some article? I would find that extremely helpful in order to improve the integration of a page that has underdone a lot of reorganization over time so that this method of looking for broken section links by name is not practical. Gawaon (talk) 06:08, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This would be better handled in its own section. Please see WP:VPT#Finding broken section anchors. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 02:42, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Look great, thanks! Better than my usual method, clicking through every page of the "What links here?" results and Ctrl-F-ing the old section title. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 11:55, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Good info! Thanks for researching, documenting, and pinging. Quiddity (talk) 03:52, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: updated the advanced search link (new link) to also handle templated links like {{slink}}, {{Further}}, {{Main}}, etc., without making it longer or scarier-looking. Mathglot (talk) 01:44, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    @Mathglot: If you go to the link and then change the terms to what you want before clicking search it finds all links to that section in articles, but if you edit the link and go to it directly, it searches in all pages. Is that fine? – 2804:F1...A9:64C1 (talk) 03:51, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Not entirely sure I understand; are you trying to draw a distinction between searching only articles (i.e., main space) and searching all namespaces (articles, Talk pages, User pages, Wikipedia project pages and so on)? If so, we can do that by adding search term :all and perhaps we should. I've updated the search link in the explanatory note to search all namespaces, pending any objections or other comments on this aspect of it. Mathglot (talk) 04:07, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I meant that the link included profile=all, so editing the link itself would result in searching all pages (any namespace), but going to the link and then editing the terms and clicking search would result in searching only in articles.
    Anyways, now the :all is not* doing anything, try for example, searching for :all linksto:"Banana" insource:/[[|]Banana\#/ vs without the :all (but with all namespaces selected).
    Edit: *It is doing something, if you select all namespaces it ignores them and searches only in article space. Hm. – 2804:F1...A9:64C1 (talk) 04:36, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) The problem is not in the link, but in your example. If you choose an article name which has no links outside mainspace, like Banana, then the correct behavior is that there is no difference with or without the :all search term. Try an example like "Vichy France" which has some inlinks from mainspace, as well as other namespaces.
    Secondly, although that will actually work correctly, even without a section name, this whole issue is part of the clarification of section § Section headings in the MOS, so really applies more to that case. For that, you can try examples like "Vichy France#Collaborationnistes". (ec) Mathglot (talk) 04:42, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It has links outside of mainspace, that's why I said to remove the :all and select all namespaces. – 2804:F1...A9:64C1 (talk) 04:45, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for that; I must've been assuming the wrong functionality for :all; I need to look at that again. Your workaround works, but should be doable without it, assuming there is a search prefix or pseudo-term that activates that; let me check. If you know what it is, please post it. Mathglot (talk) 04:51, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, I found it, it is all:. – 2804:F1...A9:64C1 (talk) 04:56, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Oops, of course it is; the colon goes at the end in every search term, don't know how that happened. Will go fix that. Mathglot (talk) 04:58, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, colon is in the right place now; try "Banana" again. Mathglot (talk) 05:04, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It works, behaviour is consistent now, thank you, and for the info :). – 2804:F1...A9:64C1 (talk) 05:12, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for your efforts, which have helped improve it. Mathglot (talk) 06:04, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I made this edit based on recent observation. Correct me if I'm wrong. Biogeographist (talk) 20:57, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Adding that sentence about searching redirects as well looks like an improvement to me. Even if there's a way to do that via advanced search (instead of What links here), Cirrus doesn't support alternation, so you can't have the union of two searches in one query, afaik; plus, that might get into "too complex" territory even if we could, so I think your approach is the right one, here. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 21:17, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There is also Wikipedia:Database reports/Broken section anchors that could be checked, though only afterwards (and with up to one month's delay). Gawaon (talk) 21:16, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Use of em dashes to join place names in naming electoral districts

    Please see this discussion about the use of em dashes to join place names in naming Canadian electoral districts. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:27, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    What tense should be used in articles about obsolete computers?

    Moved from Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)

    MOS:TENSE says:

    "By default, write articles in the present tense..." and "Generally, use past tense only for past events, and for subjects that are dead or no longer meaningfully exist."

    The page gives an example: "The PDP-10 is a mainframe computer family manufactured by Digital Equipment Corporation from 1966 into the 1980s."

    There is a big discrepancy concerning tense in articles about old computers (Vintage computer). One issue is if they "meaningfully exist". Consider some one-of-a-kind computers:

    • The IAS machine is intact and exists in the collection of the Smithsonian (I saw it on display in 1967), but it is no longer on display and doesn't work.
    • ENIAC - all (or almost all) of the parts of ENIAC exist, but they are spread out among several museums and displays (I've seem most of the parts.)
    • Whirlwind I - a few parts still exist.
    • BINAC - I don't think any of this computer still exists.

    Then there are computers of which many were made. There are several non-working examples (e.g. UNIVAC I) in museums (Computer History Museum and others). There are even a few working examples. The Living Computers: Museum + Labs had quite a few computers that were made decades ago and are still working.

    Anyhow, I'm looking for guidelines about what tense should be used. Most of the articles use past tense for these old computers. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 01:21, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    FWIW, the car articles are equally inconsistent. Ford Model T and Ford Model A (1903–04) use present tense. DeSoto (automobile), Imperial (automobile), and Plymouth (automobile) all use past tense. RoySmith (talk) 01:42, 28 June 2024 (UTC) :The above is not a technical question, AFAICT. Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style is probably the right venue for this inquiry. – Jonesey95 (talk) 06:15, 28 June 2024 (UTC) [reply]

    OK, I'll move it when I have time. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 15:41, 28 June 2024 (UTC) [reply]
    If there's even one existing working example the guidance is pretty clear. Use present tense. There's even a strong case for non-working examples if their historic value is "meaningful" enough, but that's not so cut and dry. Primergrey (talk) 18:17, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    And regarding the automobile articles, the Ford ones are about models that do exist. The others are about companies that do not. Primergrey (talk) 18:21, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    For computers, I'd say that "no longer meaningfully exist" should be interpreted as "no working exemplars exist". If a running computer exists somewhere, its article should be in present tense, otherwise past tense. Indefatigable (talk) 18:18, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It isn't always easy to tell if there is a running example somewhere. And when there is, they are usually in a collection to demonstrate it - it is not doing productive work anymore. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 21:33, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Does it have to be doing productive work? Various sorts of steam engines are lovingly restored, maintained and displayed in all their gleaming, puffing glory; each one definitely exists though few are doing anything productive. NebY (talk) 00:59, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Good point. If it is working, then it "meaningfully exists". Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 01:28, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The oldest computers had little concept of the time of day. But more recent models came to depend more and more on time of day. Many of these middle-aged computers still "work" but won't work correctly because Y2K messed them up and rather than fix them, they were retired. Perhaps the most widespread examples are (were?) the earlier members of the IBM PC line. So they only work if you lie about the date. Jc3s5h (talk) 13:39, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Sometimes people only work if you lie about the date they'll be paid (or how much, their prospects and working conditions, what you'll do to their families, that sort of thing). NebY (talk) 16:35, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It depends on what the meaning of is is. Mathglot (talk) 22:02, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Or it depends of what the meaning of meaningful is. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 01:29, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    And, as an example, the page uses present tense for the family of PDP-10 computers manufactured from 1966 to the 1980s. It is very unlikely that any particular one of them is still running and doing productive work, but the recently closed Living Computer Museum had five working ones. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 00:51, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Size and power costs make it unlikely that historical computers are doing productive work. But if I can go to a museum and see a complete one, even in a non-working state then I would definitely say that computer "is". Same for mostly complete (say 80-90%) machines. Less than that gets murky. Parts spread over different locations is probably "was" but may be gathered back into a (near) whole machine again. But there isn't any real consequence of getting this wrong. So, I'd just say that any machine physically near complete (say 80% or better) in a single location, working or not is a computer still in existence and anything else is no longer in existence. For the borderline cases, flip a coin and move on with life.  Stepho  talk  02:07, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Something like the GE-200 series, I have no idea if one still exists. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 02:32, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Most often the name of a computer refers to the definition of its architecture. There are no "PDP-10" computers, but there are the KA-10, KI-10, etc. But there are books that describe the architecture of the PDP-10, and those books exist. Some architectures never existed. The general rule is that events (in the past) are past tense. Computers were designed, introduced, sold, rented, and such, in the past. Note, for example, that Shakespeare's plays are present tense, even though he is dead, and even though one might not be being performed. Since the written form exists, they should be present tense. And if the documentation for a computer architecture exists, it should be present tense. If no processors exist, and no documentation exists, it could be less obvious. But best then to just write in terms of an event. The Burroughs B5500 was designed and sold by the Burroughs corporation. That works even if none exist. Gah4 (talk) 02:39, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Ref quotes with inline citations

    Dysgenics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    Over at the article Dysgenics, Biohistorian15 recently removed a quote from within a reference, leaving the edit summary AFAIK not allowable as there are incomplete citations in the quote. Here is the complete quote:

    Since the nineteenth century, a 'race deterioration' has been repeatedly predicted as a result of the excessive multiplication of less gifted people (Galton 1869; see also Fig. 9.1). Nevertheless, the educational and qualification level of people in the industrialized countries has risen strongly. The fact that the 'test intelligence' has also significantly increased (Flynn 2013), is difficult to explain for supporters of the dysgenic thesis: they suspect that the 'phenotypic intelligence' has increased for environmental reasons, while the 'genotypic quality' secretly decreases (Lynn 1996, p. 111). There is neither evidence nor proof for this theory.

    I reverted with the edit summary What policy is that? This quote is clearly helpful to the reader. And Biohistorian15 reverted my revert with the summary https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Quotations does not seem to suggest it. If it is relevant, you should rewrite it in your own words.

    I tried to engage on the talk page, suggesting for instance that we might replace the incomplete inline citations with ellipses, but was met with insistence that this quote be paraphrased, despite the fact that we do not (as far as I'm aware) paraphrase within refs.

    So my question to the community is whether the best practice in a case like this would be to

    1) include the quote as written,

    2) include the quote but replace inline citations with ellipses,

    3) exclude the quote altogether,

    or 4) something else entirely.

    Thanks! Generalrelative (talk) 18:45, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I can't judge whether the quote is useful in general, but assuming it is, I would suggest option 2 (replace the inline citations with ellipses). Gawaon (talk) 19:45, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Another option is to write "(citations omitted)" outside of the quote. Compared to using ellipses, this has the advantage of making it clear that the quoted sentences were sequential in the original, with no important statements omitted and no deceptive juxtapositions created. It also lets readers know that citations are available to be chased down if needed. Jruderman (talk) 01:06, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I like that idea. Thank you! Generalrelative (talk) 12:57, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I went to make this change but ran into two snags. First, the template {{cite book}} automatically puts quote marks around the entire quote parameter. This is suboptimal, but I guess we can write "[citations omitted]" (with square brackets) if it has to be inside the quote marks. The second problem is that WP:FOOTQUOTE calls for exact quotations, so I'm now less certain that leaving out the citations is within policy. Nevertheless, I still think this is the clearest way to present the quote, so I'll probably make this change in a few days unless this discussion moves in another direction. Jruderman (talk) 07:04, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You could put it in square brackets after the page number. However, it's also my understanding that any omission needs to be marked using an ellipsis (both following our own conventions and common style guides), so you'll need these ellipses regardless of whether or not you add that comment. Frankly, since we're writing for a general audience and few to none readers will care for the reason of the omission anyway, I'd tend to just use the ellipses without further explanation. Gawaon (talk) 07:47, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You guys are worrying too much. No ellipses needed. See this [3] CMOS FAQ. (which also disposes of the "It also lets readers know that citations are available to be chased down if needed" argument as well, appealing as that one is.) EEng 08:14, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    A point in support of the "No ellipses needed" position: we're only having this discussion because we're quoting a book written with in-text citation style. If it had been written using footnote style, omitting the footnote numbers would be uncontroversial. Jruderman (talk) 08:42, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The FAQ entry refers only to footnotes, though. Footnotes are generally omitted, since in fact, there is no good way to NOT omit them. In-text citations are a different thing though. Yes, it's kinda ironical that these need to be treated differently even though the difference is ultimately just one of layout, but there you go. Footnotes can be omitted without comment, parenthetical notes (whether or not they contain literature references or anything else) need an ellipsis to mark the omission. I have yet to see a style guide, CMOS included, that would say anything else. Gawaon (talk) 10:19, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    parenthetical notes (whether or not they contain literature references or anything else) need an ellipsis – Disagree. If we're quoting source S1, which has parentheticals which do nothing beyond citing sources Sx, Sy, and Sz, and Sx,y,z themselves are not part of what S1 is discussing (S1 weighing their relative reliability, for example), then the parentheticals can be silently dopped. Adding (citations omitted) after the quotation (or putting that in our own footnote citation to S1) might or might not be a good idea depending on subtle considerations.
    Let me point something out. If S1 simply read:
    The sun is very big, but the moon is not as big (Smith, 1999).
    We'd quote that without the parenthetical with no twinge of conscious. But we're apparently having this conversation because S1 reads ...
    The sun is very big (Jones 1995) but the moon is not as big (Smith, 1999).
    Why is it a sin to remove Jones silently but OK to remove Smith silently? EEng 13:28, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree it's a good practice to silently omit inline citations in quotations, but I think there is enough doubt and diverse practice in the editor community that it would be good to include something in the "Manual of Style". Jc3s5h (talk) 13:36, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The "sin" thing is a rhetorical question, right? Ellipses at the start or end of a quote generally aren't needed, because nobody will assume that the original starts/ends there. But omissions in the middle are marked, that's what's ... is for. Of course, depending on how you quote, you won't need any ellipsis, for example, writing Current consensus is that "the sun is very big", while "the moon is not as big".[1] would be perfectly fine. Gawaon (talk) 15:42, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    An ellipsis shows where something of the author's text has been omitted. A parenthetical citation isn't that, any more than a superscript note number is. EEng 17:37, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Just like we aren't bound to preserve typographical styles in sources (MOS:CONFORM), I don't think we should be bound by citation styles. Jruderman (talk) 11:01, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think we're even talking about the possibility of including the full citation in a quote, especially if using the quote parameter of one of the citation templates. I think we're talking about whether we can silently omit a footnote number or parenthetical citation, while omitting the full bibliographic entry.
    A topic for another day would be what if the author quotes one of the same sources that's cited by the Wikipedia article? Jc3s5h (talk) 16:08, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Footnote numbers can be silently omitted, we have already established that and I don't think there's disagreement on that front. Omitting citations in parenthesis will require either an ellipsis or maybe an "citation(s) omitted" after the quotation or page number. Either option seems acceptable, but personally I'd point out that even several ellipses will be shorter than a "citation(s) omitted" comment. Gawaon (talk) 16:44, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd prefer ["citation(s) omitted]" because ellipsis leave the reader wondering if what was omitted might have changed the meaning. Of course, if you don't read the source yourself, you're still trusting the editor to copy correctly. Jc3s5h (talk) 17:10, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Exactly. Also, the "citations omitted" can be relegated to our citation, thus.[1] That should make everyone happy. EEng 17:37, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair enough, though omitting something in such a way that it significantly changes the meaning is not allowed by any citation style. Gawaon (talk) 18:04, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Well DUH, of course. But I think what Jc3s5h more means is, ellipses signal that something of substance was omitted -- some detail not germane to the purposes of our article, for example -- so the interested reader can go chase that down in the original if he wants. How disappointing to find that it's just a parenthetical citation -- something which, if the publisher had a different house style for calling out citations (superscript numbers, for example), would have been omitted in complete silence. When you quote someone it's assumed you're not necessarily reproducing all the citational apparatus your source relied on -- your reader will have to go to your source in order to find out exactly what that is. It's not part of the source's words in the same way that, well, their words are. EEng 20:11, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I really like your solution, EEng. I'm going to implement this. We'll see if the editor who originally removed the quote feels the need to drag this out further. Generalrelative (talk) 20:46, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You'll get my bill. EEng
    I'm just glad I could spur some good debate. Generalrelative (talk)

    References

    1. ^ Eng, E. "Talk:Manual of Style". July 3, 2024. Citations in original omitted.

    "Modern-day Israel" vs. "Palestine" when only for reader geographical reference

    While doing recent changes patrol, I recently saw a drive-by IP edit changing a page that referred to a historical place as being in "modern-day Israel" to say "occupied Palestine" that I wasn't sure how to respond to. Someone else reverted it, and while that was probably the most straightforward and reasonable response, it did get me thinking, and I've poked around in the MOS itself and the archives here without much luck: has there ever been any sort of discussion on the appropriate terminology to use between modern-day Israel/present-day Israel/etc. and Palestine, as in the geographical region, when the description is a purely geographic one to describe to the reader where something was or is? Kinsio (talk ★ contribs) 14:34, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I'd say that when it comes to describing the geographic location, modern-day Israel / modern-day West Bank / modern-day Gaza Strip (or similar) are the straightforward terms to use, depending on which one it is. Palestine as a unified territory existed only from 1920 to 1948 (Mandatory Palestine), so using the term to refer to anything earlier than that would be an anachronism. Gawaon (talk) 15:05, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    A further complication is that both the Mandate of Palestine and Syria Palaestina encompass territory East of the Jordan. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 15:17, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    We do have guidelines for some of that region, Wikipedia:Naming conventions (West Bank), the formation of which was monitored by WP:ARBCOM. NebY (talk) 15:28, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Gawaon (and cc @Chipmunkdavis and Chatul): I guess I'm not quite articulating clearly what I'm asking here. I get that the modern-day forms are the most straightforward. I guess what I'm really wondering is, would describing something (with no particular reason to be associated with a particular present-day state as such) as located in Palestine, clarifying perhaps with a link to Palestine (region), be considered something to avoid? That's how I refer to things colloquially and I'm not sure if that'd be considered a potential issue in an article. Kinsio (talk ★ contribs) 15:32, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I would say that you should avoid ambiguity. Use wording that makes it clear whether you are including land East of the Jordan and whether you are including land in present-day Israel. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 15:45, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with this. It is unlikely it provides much clarity to readers, as even if they do know about the geographical usage of Palestine that doesn't mean they expect it to be the default meaning. 'Geographic areas' which stem from historical polities tend to cause these issues with ambiguity when modern polities take the older name. Macedonia (region) is another example that still causes political disputes today. CMD (talk) 15:54, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "Modern-day X"/"Present-day X" are not uncommon phrases. I don't think there is anything particularly unique about application (or not) to Israel/Palestine (although considerations regarding borders may add complications as they do in some other parts of the world). Troy for example, states it is "an ancient city located in present-day Hisarlık, Turkey." CMD (talk) 15:10, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Notified: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Palestine, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Geography, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Asia, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Jewish history, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Israel, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ottoman Empire, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject British Empire, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Limited recognition. Reason: Participants may have specific experience editing relevant articles. Kinsio (talk ★ contribs) 15:59, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Not to be draconian, but I think it's worthwhile to make sure @Kinsio is aware that since the Arab–Israeli conflict has been designated as a contentious topic subject to active sanctions, generally non–extended confirmed users are restricted to suggesting specific changes to articles in their discussions relating to the subject on-site. I'm not saying that should be imposed here, I just feel it's worth making aware. Remsense诉 18:30, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm so close to making my signature something like Kinsio is XC, I promise, you guys. This keeps happening, I guess people are willing to click on contribs to see my account is new but not on talk to see the notice about this I put there. I'm even the one who put that ECR warning at the beginning of this section 😭 Kinsio (talk ★ contribs) 18:59, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Apologies! Remsense诉 19:08, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's fine, I know it's not intentional haha. I think I did come up with a way that makes sense to draw attention to this in my signature though, do you think this will help? Kinsio (talk ★ contribs ★ rights) 19:24, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Re Kinsio's would describing something (with no particular reason to be associated with a particular present-day state as such) as located in Palestine, clarifying perhaps with a link to Palestine (region), be considered something to avoid?: If you want to refer to the time and place of Mandatory Palestine, use that name and link. I think Palestine without adornment is too ambiguous. I think for before then, the name to use is Ottoman Syria. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:35, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Ottoman Syria is not a good designation for the later Ottoman period. From the 1880s onwards the Vilayet of Syria was all east of the Jordan River. For at least a century before that, "Palestine" was the most common designation in European sources. It's true that "Syria" was also used, but the extent of "Syria" was much broader, approximately what would be called the Levant today, and "Palestine" was the southern part, as in this 1794 map. Also see Jacotin's 1799 map, published 1818. A correct designation is "Ottoman Palestine", but the "Ottoman" part is redundant as there was no Palestine apart from the Ottoman one. Zerotalk 07:44, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Mandatory Palestine. Gonnym (talk) 08:16, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd add a "citation needed" to the claim that "For at least a century before that, "Palestine" was the most common designation in European sources." And even if true, how relevant would it be? I'd say that the locally used name is more relevant than what people in other countries used. Hence, in addition to the "modern-day" equivalents, it's probably most reasonable to use the official Ottoman designations for the Ottoman area. Gawaon (talk) 08:53, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually we are supposed to use common English names where available. That's why articles have "Rome" and not "Roma". Go to Google Books and search for "Palestine" in the 19th century. 18th century too. Also try "Palästina" for German sources (which is what the Zionist movement called it). Also try "Syria and Palestine" and "Palestine and Syria" to check if they were considered equivalent. (Most times Palestine was considered a part of Syria, but often they were considered separate.) Zerotalk 13:10, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe just go by what (scholarly) sources say? If they say located in what is today Israel, then go with that and if it says in Palestine then that and wikilink appropriately, Palestine or Palestine or Palestine. Ottoman Palestine is quite common in sources. Also fairly common is Roman Palestine (Syria Palaestina) One phrase that can cause trouble is "historic(al) Palestine", might be as well to avoid that. Selfstudier (talk) 10:16, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, Roman Palestine should be fine for the 2nd to 4th centuries, and Judaea for the time before that. Though both of these are quite long back. Gawaon (talk) 10:27, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Recent harmful changes

    I noticed that some long-standing wording was recently changed by User:Remsense, without any clear motivation to do so and without any consensus established to make the changes. The most relevant diff is this. I find the revised text to be much less clear and much less useful. I suggest that the change be reverted. Other edits by the same editor may also be questionable.

    Another harmful change was made by User:Altenmann, not a native speaker of English but nevertheless one who feels confident enough to declare that there is "no such thing" as using "she" generically. They removed the text again, which seems purely disruptive. This relevant information should be restored to the article.

    Thanks. 217.198.133.44 (talk) 08:29, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    If any of my edits are not evident improvements, I apologize and agree they should be reverted. I've taken care not to make trifling changes, only those that present the guidelines cleanly and concisely without changing their meaning. Some word choices may require explanation on my part, but intrinsically is saying a lot about the content of topics, while necessarily only concerns the process of describing them, which seems more appropriate. Remsense诉 13:44, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Honestly, they are more wordy and not really an improvement. Good edits to the MoS, except for those that are specifically intending to introduce a new guideline, almost invariably reduce the number of characters. MapReader (talk) 15:08, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed. Most of my other edits to MoS pages are in line with this, but I couldn't quite figure out how to rephrase this one in fewer characters in the moment. Remsense诉 15:09, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Concerning removal of generic she, which is coded as [[generic she|generic ''she'']], I think the explanation at the target wikilink is inadequate and we should do better if we are to retain this language. generic she is a redirect to Gender neutrality in languages with gendered third-person pronouns#Generic she which dumps the reader at the "Generic he" section because "Generic she" is an anchor for that subsection. Upon reading the article, it is a struggle to find anything about generic she. Jc3s5h (talk) 17:29, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    My apologies about generic she: the wikilink was misleading; I merely requested reliable source about generic she. Of course I am nonnative speaker, so I wanted to read about "generic she" and found that the wikilink "generic she" does not lead to the information about it. Now I fixed the wikilink "generic she". - Altenmann >talk 17:36, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Hyphenation

    We're discussing the wording of a sentence in Wikipedia:Wikipedians#Number of editors on its talk page. (Y'all come, if you want, but that's not my question for you.)

    It started off as "higher-volume experienced editors", which is correct. It is presently "more-experienced editors". I wouldn't (in American English) put a hyphen there, but is it actually wrong, or just unnecessary? WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:11, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Well it depends on whether you want editors with more experience to join or if you just want some additional old lags. [As in "ten more-experienced editors" v "ten more ... experienced editors"]. That do? --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 23:43, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Articles referring to themselves

    Is there any policy relating to articles referring to themselves in prose? Such as "This article is about…"? ꧁Zanahary꧂ 00:13, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I don’t think we have a policy about it… but I would say it is poor writing. Try to reword. Blueboar (talk) 00:35, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you have any convenient way to avoid self-reference in situations where an article describes multiple notational conventions and then goes on to say that our article uses one particular choice of these notations? For that matter, would you care to describe how our standard wording on hatnotes and disambiguation page footers ("This disambiguation page lists...") might be rewritten to avoid self-reference, and why such a rewrite would be an improvement? —David Eppstein (talk) 00:43, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe I’m misreading your tone David Eppstein, but I am only asking a question, because I don’t know its answer.
    Disambiguation pages are already self-referential, since their titles refer to their natures as pages. Articles are typically not. Antisemitism's early footnote about "anti-Semitism" may be an example for your question, if I understand it correctly. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 01:00, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "The International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance has stated that the spelling without hyphenation is preferred, because the spelling with hyphenation implies that "Semitism" is a valid concept"?
    How is that a reference to the Wikipedia article? WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:33, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I’m saying that it is not. It explains the choice of notation among some options without referring to the article. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 02:51, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    As an example for the question Do you have any convenient way to avoid self-reference in situations where an article describes multiple notational conventions and then goes on to say that our article uses one particular choice of these notations?. The reason for the article’s choice is implied without saying “This article uses…” ꧁Zanahary꧂ 02:52, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The article's choice may be entirely arbitrary, but still a choice must be made for consistency. It is often better to inform readers what choice has been made than to let them guess. An example: in dihedral group (a technical concept in mathematics), there are two different common and standard notations, where the notation D6 would mean one group to geometers and a different group to algebraists. (It's not a good situation but we can't change it.) Unlike your hyphenation example, if you just see the notation D6 without an explanation, there is no way of telling which convention it uses. We have to use one, so we tell the readers which one we are using. The sentence saying so begins "This article uses the geometric convention".
    As for tone: this thread had the tone of encouraging rules-warriors to chime in and strictly forbid all uses of self-reference, even in such cases. I wanted to provide a counterpoint. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:06, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    MOS:LEAD discourages certain forms of self-reference, though not all. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:04, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you have a quotation? I looked and can’t find the relevant guideline. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 04:12, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "If the article title is merely descriptive—such as Electrical characteristics of dynamic loudspeakers—the title does not need to appear verbatim in the main text. Similarly, if the page is a list, do not introduce the list as "This is a list of X" or "This list of Xs.....Avoid constructions like "[Subject] refers to..." or "...is a word for..." ". Nikkimaria (talk) 04:24, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    A bit of caution: if an article is about a word, then "...is a word for..." or "...is a word for...", etc. is almost always inavoidable. Schlemiel, Oy vey, Mazel tov... (unless forced to jump artificial hoops) - Altenmann >talk 06:40, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Anyone see a way to avoid this [4] self-ref? EEng 10:55, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I don't feel there's any problem with an explanatory footnote explaining something about the article, just as hatnotes do. It's just the text—the actual article—that shouldn't. Largoplazo (talk) 21:21, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      In that particular case, the best place was a footnote because the issue is worth noting but uncontroversial, but I'm not sure that's always the case. I can imagine a situation in which it's necessary to surface the issue to the reader more openly, and then mention as an aside that the remainder of the article adopts the such-and-such convention. And that might be best done in the text. I don't see why it's such a big deal. EEng 23:04, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:SELFREF Largoplazo (talk) 11:04, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Another place I find problems with that is when articles say something like "As described in the previous paragraph..." or "As in the illustration at right...". Well, of course, articles can be edited, so if someone changes the previous paragraph or the image, stuff like that will become nonsensical, and whoever does that edit might not know to update or remove those references to whatever they're editing. Seraphimblade Talk to me 02:41, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      MOS:SEEIMAGE applies; it was originally written because of accessibility concerns, but mobiles and other narrow-screen devices have shown us that images might not be displayed where they were expected to be. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 07:40, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think this is a case where it's more heuristic than anything: there's absolutely nothing wrong in itself with having "see §XYZ" in running text; however, if one really feels the need to include that, there might be a deeper problem with the piece's structure. Remsense诉 02:55, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Tense of verbs referring to current, ongoing events

    Greetings, all. The Manual of Style contains this direction: "By default, write articles in the present tense, including those covering works of fiction and products or works that have been discontinued. Generally, use past tense only for past events, and for subjects that are dead or no longer meaningfully exist."

    Yet, a number of biographical articles about living peopleuse the present perfect tense when referring to persons currently serving in various capacities of public life. E.g. "George has served since July 10, 2024," which, at the very least creates confusion between an ongoing situation and a past one.

    I propose we move to the use of the present perfect continuous tense (also known as the present perfect progressive tense), which would result in a clear and unambiguous presentation:

    "George has been serving since July, 10 2024."

    Opinions? -The Gnome (talk) The Gnome (talk) 09:48, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    • Personally, I think the first option reads much better than the second. Not confusing or ambiguous in any way. Perfectly normal English. No idea if this is a WP:ENGVAR issue, but that's certainly what I'd write (I write in British English). -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:33, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I write in American English and I agree that for the example provided, "has served" is preferable to "has been serving". Either would be acceptable, but I don't see a reason to encourage the latter, nor do I see how the former is ambiguous. If it was a past situation, would it not be, "George served from July 10, 2024 until..."? DonIago (talk) 14:01, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    What do you mean "it reads much better"? This is not about aesthetics, but about clarity. We're talking about current, ongoing events, exactly what the relevant MoS section is about. "Have [verb in past tense]" is unnecessarily ambiguous. Simple present would suffice. But since it has through some back handed way become the norm to use "has served" for people in public life, a turn that smells of puffery, as well, I'm suggesting something simple and sensible. It's a compromise between the simple present tense and the peacock. -The Gnome (talk) 16:57, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "Has served" is not in the past tense and creates no ambiguity. Someone who has served in a position since February is unambiguously still in that position. There is no need to change "has served" to "has been serving", and parsimony weighs against it. AlsoWukai (talk) 18:28, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I really have no idea why you think there is a lack of clarity or any puffery in "has served", which is completely normal English. Mystifying. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:38, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • While we're talking specifically about "persons currently serving in various capacities of public life", how about dropping the whole "serving" idea entirely? It's meaningless excess:
      • "George has been serving as chairman of Globcorp since 2014" --> "George has been chairman of Globcorp since 2014"
      • "George has served as chairman" --> "George has been chairman"
      • "He served as" --> "He was"
      • "He serves as" --> "He is"
    See the brilliant and justly celebrated essay WP:AREYOUBEINGSERVED. EEng 15:07, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style&oldid=1233868227"