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 Flyer22 Frozen (talk | contribs) at 20:22, 13 October 2020 (→‎MOS:GENDERID being used in place of WP:Article titles and for category arguments). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

WikiProject iconManual of Style
WikiProject iconThis page falls within the scope of the Wikipedia:Manual of Style, a collaborative effort focused on enhancing clarity, consistency, and cohesiveness across the Manual of Style (MoS) guidelines by addressing inconsistencies, refining language, and integrating guidance effectively.Manual of StyleWikipedia:WikiProject Manual of StyleTemplate:WikiProject Manual of StyleManual of Style articles
Note icon
This page falls under the contentious topics procedure and is given additional attention, as it closely associated to the English Wikipedia Manual of Style, and the article titles policy. Both areas are subjects of debate.
Contributors are urged to review the awareness criteria carefully and exercise caution when editing.
Note icon
For information on Wikipedia's approach to the establishment of new policies and guidelines, refer to WP:PROPOSAL. Additionally, guidance on how to contribute to the development and revision of Wikipedia policies of Wikipedia's policy and guideline documents is available, offering valuable insights and recommendations.

Style discussions elsewhere

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

Current

(newest on top)

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":

Non-breaking spaces with written-out units

As a follow-up to topic-specific discussions at Talk:Hassium and User talk:DePiep#MOS and NBSP, it seems that the current MOS guideline on the usage of non-breaking spaces when separating numbers from written-out units (e.g. 5 kilometers (instead of 5 km); 118 elements) is open to interpretation. It advises to use non-breaking spaces when line breaks are awkward, which they seem to be in this case; however, implementing this would apparently require making heavy changes to lots of articles, as it is not strongly established as are the examples given in the MOS section.

I thus ask, should the same guideline for quantities and abbreviated units be followed for fully spelled-out units? Should non-breaking spaces be used only with abbreviations, or always with units and quantities? I would like to establish a more definite MOS guideline, in which one or the other is widely agreed upon as common practice. ComplexRational (talk) 00:46, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • I really, really wish people would stop jumping straight into a project-wide RfC before working with other editors to frame the questions to be posed. I urge you to withdraw this. And MOSNUM is probably the right place for this. (Main MOS vs subsidiary pages is a longstanding problem.) EEng 01:26, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Where else would you suggest discussing this, seeing as its outcome is not specific to the articles for which this was discussed, and the question is pretty straightforward from these discussions? If it can be held elsewhere, I will withdraw; however, I don't think that place is MOSNUM because this issue pertains to MOS:NBSP, which is not its own MOS sub-page. I'm open to ideas. ComplexRational (talk) 02:02, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'd suggest discussing it right here (or at Talk:MOSNUM, but since ultimately it's an aesthetic, not technical, issue I guess here is fine.) There are plenty of people here who have thought a lot about formatting issues, and many have outside professional experience, and with their participation I suspect the issue can either be resolved or boiled down to a clearcut question. Open-ended RfCs like you've started, which pull random people from all over into an unstructured discussion, just end up a mess. EEng 03:28, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I withdrew it as an RfC. Let's play it out as a regular discussion now; I apologize for being unaware of this potential complication. ComplexRational (talk) 09:53, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ping to prevent archiving. EEng 12:49, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see the "jumping into an RfC" that EEng is referring to here. I do see a reasonable description by ComplexRational of a MOS detail to be clarified somehow. Do I miss some invisible redacted editing? Please clarify. As it stands now, the OP is correct and relevant to me. -DePiep (talk) 00:01, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, obviously, like the OP said: he had set this up as an RfC but later withdrew it at my urging. EEng 00:28, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Eh, that 'obvious' part is not visible then?, like in an talk edited afterwards (ouch)? Must I do homework research to see it? -DePiep (talk) 00:34, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Jesus Christ, the OP wrote, just above here: Okay, I withdrew it as an RfC. 01:46, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
I think the point that is puzzling both DePiep and me is there seems to be no trace of the !RfC for us to see what issues had been raised. Starting an RfC and then withdrawing it should surely leave something in a history somewhere. There are no links, nor anything in contributions that I can find. What am I missing? --RexxS (talk) 14:11, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The most recent diff before I withdrew upon EEng's suggestion was [1]. All that changed since then was removal of the RfC template; the content of my original post is the same now as it was then. ComplexRational (talk) 14:43, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In traditional typography, typesetters would ensure that sentences didn't break onto another line at a point where the result was a new line starting with something that didn't make sense alone, or where the break would produce a semantic dissonance. So they would avoid lines starting with an abbreviation:

  • something something ... a distance of 15
    km

as well as lines that changed meaning when the next line was read:

  • something something ... a cost of $5
    million

In electronic document processing, when line length can change with screen resolution or window size, the non-breaking space was used to prevent those sort of breaks from happening. I don't believe there has ever been any rationale for placing a non-breaking space between numbers and normal recognisable English words, because those don't produce problems, other than in cases like the second example. There is really nothing wrong with seeing:

  • something something ... a distance of 15
    kilometres

and it is especially ludicrous to extend the fetish for non-breaking spaces in quantities to normal counted items. There is nothing wrong with reading:

  • something something ... a squad of 24
    football players

The examples at MOS:UNITNAMES reflect these simple principles, and I can't see what other interpretation could be made of the present guidance:

  • Use a non-breaking space ({{nbsp}} or  ) between a number and a unit symbol, or use {{nowrap}} ...
  • ... and a normal space is used between a number and a unit name.

If somebody wants to change those guidelines, then they really should be proposing what changes they want made and the reasons for them. --RexxS (talk) 19:07, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just for the record, I wasn't proposing a change. I was merely asking for clarification, and if any disagreement were to arise, then firmly establish one way or another. What is written here makes sense, now I only propose that it is made crystal clear for other (copy)editors in the MOS:NBSP section (to use only with abbreviations). ComplexRational (talk) 00:10, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) @RexxS:, these examples are undisputed, and are clear by WP:NBSP and WP:MOSUNIT. Minor detail: your example of 15<regularspace>kilometres is not in the MOS explicitly, but well observed, also by {{Convert}} — end of detail.
Note: for simplicity, an "_" (underscore) says NBSP.
A question arose when reading in MOS:NBSP: It is desirable to prevent line breaks where breaking across lines might be confusing or awkward. -- note the criterium "awkward". The examples given are (1) unit symbols - no problem, see before, and (2) exampes of number-in-proper-name (Boeing_747).
Some editors state that the "awkward" situation may also occur in situations with a number inline, i.e. in running text. Examples (in here): element_114, the expected magic 114_protons, ....
My (opposing) point is that such number-word combinations are not awkward, can reasionably occur in any running sentence, are part of a reading habit, and so are not 'awkward' and do not allow an NBSP. Otherwise, this whole enwiki could require a MOS-change in ~every article, or have inconsistent styles between articles re this line-breaking.
So, first question: do we recognise this is a Good MOS Question to discuss? -DePiep (talk) 00:25, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There's long been a need for the nbsp/nobreak guidance to be improved. I've never done anything about it because I realized some cases would need a discussion. EEng 00:28, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@DePiep: It certainly seems that something ought to be done to educate editors about when to use (and not use) non-breaking spaces. I just looked at the Island of stability article you pointed out. Over 200 non-breaking spaces. Seriously? I've just removed four that you could see at a glance occur at places where the line could never break. No doubt somebody will revert me, citing MoS instead of thinking for themselves. I'm not sure repeating the already crystal clear guidance in MoS is the solution though. Either they never read MoS or they don't understand what a line break is. Either way, tinkering with the MoS won't have any effect on them. As for your actual examples, I've long ago given up trying to convince others that there's absolutely nothing wrong with reading
  • Flerovium, with the expected magic 114
    protons, was first synthesized in 1998
Although to get a line break there, you would have to be viewing on a screen with a maximum line length of less than 40 characters. Even my 1978 vintage TRS-80 could manage that. --RexxS (talk) 03:06, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • If 114 protons can't be broken, then you may as well say that every number has to be followed by an nbsp, always, and that would be silly.
  • I do think Z = 112 shouldn't break, though that would be better coded as {{nobr|Z = 112}} than the current Z&nbsp;=&nbsp;112
  • I'm not sure that all the examples at MOS:NBSP belong there, and I wonder if there shouldn't be some other cases listed.
EEng 04:20, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
User:RexxS: that is my understanding of MOS:NBSP too, including its background (typography). It's just, I stopped editing because of EW, started a talk, and involved editors correctly started a wider talk here. But I see no need to admonish other editors, instead we could use a clearer MOS text and explanation here, for fellow editors. -DePiep (talk) 08:28, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I now see that the section title here is a much narrower issue than the wide one ComplexRational and I were discussing/editing. As the Island of stability example show, it was and is about all of MOS:NBSP. This complicates/disturbs this talk flow, I must excuse. (how to proceed?). -DePiep (talk) 08:32, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@EEng and DePiep: Apologies, I was too focused on the quantities issues and not enough on the general nbsp guidance, which does seem to be missing. IMHO, we should have a guideline that says something like
  • Numbers followed by an ordinary English word (not an abbreviation, or similar) do not require a non-breaking space between them in normal circumstances.
There are also many circumstances where a non-breaking space is unnecessary because a line break can't happen there. There are three examples in Island of stability: in the caption of the infobox (the width is fixed, regardless of window size); in reference number 5 (too close to the start of a line for a line break to be possible); and in the table caption "Most stable isotopes of superheavy elements (Z ≥ 104)" (the table can't become narrow enough to wrap the caption onto another line). I've tried pushing the zoom up to 250% and narrowing the window to its minimum, but I can't find a setting that could cause a line break where one had been placed. Nevertheless, I don't suppose that is anything we can, or should, try to give guidance about in MoS for fear of causing more confusion. --RexxS (talk) 14:06, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In the first image, a line break appeared at 70% zoom on my computer screen, and indeed was awkward. What exactly are you suggesting would risk more confusion? The MoS is supposed to make things as clear as possible, and I wouldn't have started this thread had it been clear from the beginning (echoing EEng – There's long been a need for the nbsp/nobreak guidance to be improved.). ComplexRational (talk) 14:40, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for explaining how you got the line break in the image caption; I hadn't considered zooming out that far. But do you think anybody actually reads Wikipedia at 70% zoom? I can't even get any of my browsers to zoom at 70% to see the effect. Still, it's possible, so best to leave in the {{nowrap}} in that case. The general point about infobox images with captions shorter than the image width is worth understanding, though.
What I am suggesting is that there are many cases where we simply don't need a non-breaking space, i.e. whenever it's not possible for the line to break at that point, but that it's difficult to try to give foolproof guidance to cover those cases, so I don't think we can come up with a form of words that would be helpful. Can you?
Do you agree with my suggested clarification above: Numbers followed by an ordinary English word (not an abbreviation, or similar) do not require a non-breaking space between them in normal circumstances. and if not, why not? --RexxS (talk) 16:33, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Makes sense, I understand what you're saying about captions. Would it then also be better to use {{nobr|1=''Z'' = 114}} (for example) throughout the article, if this would be preferred to a pair of nbsp's? (On an unrelated note, maybe a new template should be created following whatever this discussion establishes, as this is pretty common in chemistry and physics articles.) ComplexRational (talk) 18:18, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with this wording, it addresses the elephant in the room and is easy enough to follow. I would specifically use it as an antithesis to the MOS points advising nbsp with units (70_km) or parts of the name (Airbus_A380), though I suppose saying "not an abbreviation" already addresses that. The only thing that may raise questions is "normal circumstances" – I'd rather leave that out and add an additional bullet point saying something along the lines of Non-breaking spaces are not required in fixed-with table cells or image captions, especially when the text is not long enough to wrap., or else work out through discussion what the most common exceptions would be (that would otherwise confuse editors unfamiliar or too familiar with MOS). ComplexRational (talk) 18:18, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Most editors, in my experience, prefer {{nowrap}} over multiple consecutive non-breaking spaces in a phrase. It makes the wikitext more readable for other editors (the same reason we prefer to avoid html entities where possible).
The "normal circumstances" would be to cover exceptions like
  • ... his fee for the service was $50
    thousand.
where a non-breaking space between the number and the next word would avoid giving the reader the impression the fee was $50 until they read on to the next line. But I'm happy to accommodate other views such as giving examples of specific exceptions instead of stating "normal circumstances".
While I think about it, there is a good case for what I called the "semantic dissonance" to be noted as a rule in other places as well:
  • ... the great-grandnephew of Queen Mary
    II
To anyone familiar with Tudor/Stuart history of England, it first reads as Mary I of England, then as Mary II of England when the next line is reached and obviously should be avoided. That represents one of the very few phrases where I would have no hesitation in recommending the use of a non-breaking space for cogent, rather than aesthetic reasons.--RexxS (talk) 19:26, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This is already covered at MOS:NUM, to the extent any of this needs any rule-mongering. It advises using non-breaking spaces in strings like 5 cm, but it does not advise doing this when using spelled-out words. It doesn't advise against it, either. Like most things, it is left to editorial discretion. Nothing is broken. No, we do not need another template, since {{nobr}} and {{nbsp}} work fine. So does just using &nbsp;. Yes, it is WP:Common sense to non-breakify certain strings like "$50 thousand", and "Mary II". No, we don't need a rule about it, or we would've already had one by now. No, we do not need anyone going around inserting non-breaking spaces robotically in proximity to every number they see, per WP:MEATBOT ("ain't broke, don't 'fix' it").  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  11:29, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

NBSP for numeric followed by words

Hi all, I recently put up Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/1985 World Snooker Championship/archive2 for FAC. SandyGeorgia commented that there should be some additional non-breaking spaces for items such as "15 seeds, 103 entrants, 32 participants". I don't really mind putting these in, but wanted to clarify our MOS, and how it effects these types of phrases. My understanding at WP:NBSP is that we should use these on names, such as World War 2, and measurements, such as 10 Miles. However, should we also use these on regular expressions, such as "20 people"? I don't mind either way, but wanted to clarify before I do wholesale changes. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:19, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The guideline gives patchy and somewhat conflicting advice on this entire subject. I'm going to give you what I think will be useful guidance, but we must brace ourselves for people to leap out at us from all corners of the project to denounce what I say as at best the product of unfathomable ignorance, and at worst detrimental to the moral fiber of the nation.
There are two (maybe more, but two I can think of offhand) things we're trying to prevent:
  • (1) You don't want tiny fragments that look odd alone stranded on the start of a line. Thus World War{nbsp}2 and Henry{nbsp}VIII.
  • (2) You don't want two things separated by a linebreak if the reader, seeing just the first part, will be momentarily misled and have to back up and rethink when he sees the bit on the next line. Thus $2{nbsp}million, because if the million goes on the next line the reader first thinks "Two dollars", and then when he sees the million he has to back up and think "Oh, wait, Two million dollars". (This is a peculiarity of the fact that money symbols go at front of quantities rather than at the end as with other units. Can anyone think of a similar example not involving money?)
(3) Notice that the logic of (2) doesn't arise with normal quantities like 15 seeds or 2 million dollars (i.e. no nbsp used in these cases) because as the reader scans "15<linebreak>seeds" there's nothing misleading about 15 alone at the end of the line, and the same for scanning "2<linebreak>million dollars" or "2 million<linebreak>dollars". When you think about it, if you required nbsp in constructions like that, then you're pretty much saying every number anywhere must be followed by an nbsp, and that can't be right. So I would not put {nbsp} in your examples.
(4) Units of measure are a special case. By the logic of (3), there's no {nbsp} in 10 kilometers. However, I think the guideline does recommend an {nbsp} in the case of 10{nbsp}km, because at the start of a line km looks weird in a way kilometer doesn't. (km is what's called a unit symbol, whereas kilometer is what's called a unit name, and there are several other ways in which unit symbols and unit names are treated differently, so there's nothing odd about treating them differently here.)
Perhaps the principles laid out above can be the start of a revival of this thread. EEng 03:04, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Or perhaps not. In the meantime, here are some other places I think (comment invited, of course) nbsp would be needed or not needed. Probably some or all of these are give by others in the posts above but I want to get them down while they're on my mind.
Needed:
  • In DMY dates e.g. 28{nbsp}May or 28{nbsp}May 1935, because at least some readers will find separation of the day-in-month from the month odd. (Further explanation on request as to why this is different from the case of 10 kilometers.)
  • In MDY dates e.g. May{nbsp}28, 1935, because "28, 1935" looks ludicrous at the start of a line.
  • He responded, "Better you than{nbsp}I." or The smallest reading was{nbsp}5.
  • 9:30{nbsp}a.m. because I think it's somewhat analogous to a unit symbol (see above); and definitely 9:30{nbsp}am, because "am" alone and separated from the "9:30" could cause the reader to trip and fall.
  • several{nbsp}.22 shells, because starting a line with a . looks weird
  • <certain image caption situations, details to be supplied (centered captions, left-aligned captions)>
  • Ellipsis or other fragments at the start of a quotation: He listed them as "1.{nbsp}Good goals, 2. Good planning, 3. Good execution; or The torn frament read, "...{nbsp}for the love of God!"
Not needed:
  • 123 Main Street
EEng 00:48, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I ask people here: how often have you struck a dangling numeral at the end of a line? Me: not that I can recall. Tony (talk) 07:08, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    By struck do you mean "run into/happened to find" or "struck out/had to get rid of"? EEng 16:14, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I could see having a summary section somewhere (hopefully not in the main page, maybe in MOS:TEXT) about "Appropriate uses of non-breaking spaces" or some heading title like that, in which we could suggest these sorts of cases, without implying that they're required. People already rankle as the currently fairly-strongly-recommended ones in MOS:NUM and a few other places. So, there's opportunity to cry "WP:CREEP!" here if this discussion produces more rules, rather than optional tweaks for polishing up text for maximum usability.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:30, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Definitely for FA-level polishing, mostly, but there's one situation where I've found it worth the trouble to apply nbsp/nobr fairly liberally: in image captions, because their short line length means bad breaks do occur now and then unless you prevent them. EEng 03:45, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Colons and footnotes

​ Today my reading of two article sections was obscured, made more difficult that is, by footnotes that followed a colon. The footnotes made me read the colon as a period, which it wasn't, and even while the colon was obviously (which I saw later) meant to open a quote, I was confused for some long seconds. I think the footnotes should follow the quotes, not the colons, so I edited [2] and [3]. I am convinced I did the right thing there, but the corrected way of placing footnotes might be quite common, so I thought it might be worthwhile to add a few words on this at Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Punctuation_and_footnotes. If someone has an idea how to, please do so. Or of course just discuss the subject here. Greeting, Eissink (talk) 22:06, 16 August 2020 (UTC).[reply]

References and colons

In the Punctuation and footnotes section, Eissink has added Ref tags do not follow a colon. I didn't see any discussion of that on the talk page, so I'm starting one.

When a list is introduced by an introduction ending with a colon, and the same reference supports all of the items in the list, it's common to put the single ref on the introduction rather than repeating it for each item. The new guidance doesn't account for that, and would result in a construction such as:

The X in the Y are4: instead of The X in the Y are:4

I don't think it looks better with the footnote preceding the colon. What do others think? edit to add Eissink and I were apparently typing at the same time, oops. Thanks, Izno, for making this a subsection! Schazjmd (talk) 22:10, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Schazjmd, you are totally right on the example of a list. I probably could have better started a discussion, but my edit was in good faith (yet I had not given it enough thought). I hope you agree with the examples I have given above. It is not a major problem, of course, but in those examples I think my edits have improved the articles, and I couldn't find a guideline on this, so I thought I'd just add it, but again: you make a good point. Since I'm not a native speaker of English, it's probably better not to be the frontrunner in editing the Manual of Style, but I hope you (and others) see my point. Thanks, Eissink (talk) 22:30, 16 August 2020 (UTC).[reply]
Eissink, I do agree with your point where the colon is introducing a quote, that the ref should follow the quote itself. (Do people use colons that way? I was taught to use a comma, as in James said, "Not now, I don't." Sorry, digression.) But when I saw the addition, the first thing that came to my mind is lists because that's when I most often use one.
Also, I apologize if anything in my wording made you feel like I didn't think you were editing in good faith. That wasn't the case at all. I just thought it was a change that hadn't been discussed and thought that it should be. Schazjmd (talk) 22:44, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
My example was pretty poor, I must admit, but I think people in many written languages do use colons to introduce quotes, at least it's common in Dutch (my mother tongue, besides Tweants). And no apologies needed – lately I tend to be perhaps over-apologetic, having earlier too often been interpreted as too bold (or even blunt), even when I didn't intend to be. Eissink (talk) 23:10, 16 August 2020 (UTC).[reply]
  • While one can never be sure what others are seeing with all their various browsers on all the many platforms using who-knows-what zoom level and fonts, I find that if a ref tag immediately follows a quote mark then the two are just a bit too close for comfort. Maybe that's what the OP's experiencing. In such cases I add a hairspace i.e. {{hsp}}. Take a look:
"Hello."[2] <== no hsp
"Hello." [2] <== using hsp
Consider the following:[2] <== no hsp
Consider the following: [2] <== using hsp
To be honest, I don't think the {hsp} is needed with the colon, but maybe the OP will find it helpful nonetheless. EEng 02:35, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hairspace is new to me, so thanks for that, but it's beside my point. Yes, a readability problem led to distinguishing the problem, but the problem is of course the position of the ref tag, that imo should follow the quote, not the introduction to the quote. Eissink (talk) 10:07, 17 August 2020 (UTC).[reply]
In general a ref tag should come just after the last thing it verifies, but there are times when that's a bit awkward, such as in precisely the situation above i.e. a list or table. The construction The X in Y are:[99] [bulleted list] is perfectly fine in such cases, because (when you think about it) the ref tag covers the verb are; in other words the ref tag can be seen to verify that the X in Y "are" whatever we then go on to say they are. We have to credit our readers with some intelligence. EEng 03:54, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Markworthen: What does the Chicago Manual of Style say about (references and) colons? Thanks, Eissink (talk) 18:48, 18 August 2020 (UTC).[reply]
Nothing specific about colons, but this statement covers them: "Relative to other punctuation, the number follows any punctuation mark except for the dash, which it precedes." :0)   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I'm a man—traditional male pronouns are fine.) 19:16, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No, ref tags do not go inside the block quotation markup. They are not part of the quote, so doing that is falsifying the quoted material and is an abuse of the <blockquote>...</blockquote> element. For short, inline quotes, the citation can come after the quote, as the markup problem does not arise. PS: If you are having readability problems, change your browser font settings or use WP:USERCSS to introduce some custom kerning. The <ref> tag uses class="reference", so you could do something like .reference { padding-left: 0.2em; } in Special:MyPage/common.css to create a little bit of space:[1]
Doing it this way will not junk up the wikicode with innumerable {{hsp}} instances which will probably get deleted by the next editor to come along away.
 — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:10, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
SMcCandlish, I'm confused by your comment. We're discussing whether Ref tags do not follow a colon. is appropriate. I'm not sure where blockquote comes into it. Could you clarify whether you agree with Ref tags do not follow a colon. or not? Schazjmd (talk) 21:41, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Just read the discussion. E.g., "where the colon is introducing a quote, that the ref should follow the quote itself". That's okay for an inline quote, but not for a block quote. In the latter case, the ref tag definitely does go after the colon, comma, or period at the end of the regular text introducing the quoted material. Ref tags can come before colons for other reasons; there's nothing magically different about them. This discussion was predicated on an individual's text display/legibility problem, for which I have provided a simple solution that doesn't disrupt the wikicode for others, and requires no WP:CREEP changes to the guidelines.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:53, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The opinions given above are afaict contradictory. Let's try and settle this using two examples:

Alternative 1: Text there where stuff is claimed:[1]

Here is a long block quote. Here is a long block quote. Here is a long block quote. Here is a long block quote. Here is a long block quote. Here is a long block quote. Here is a long block quote. Here is a long block quote. Here is a long block quote. Here is a long block quote. Here is a long block quote.

Alternative 2: Text there where stuff is claimed:

Here is a long block quote. Here is a long block quote. Here is a long block quote. Here is a long block quote. Here is a long block quote. Here is a long block quote. Here is a long block quote. Here is a long block quote. Here is a long block quote. Here is a long block quote. Here is a long block quote.[1]

Which is it? 1 or 2? @SMcCandlish, Schazjmd, Eissink, and EEng: ImTheIP (talk) 15:04, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ref tags before closing paren

Since we're on the subject of punctuation vs. ref tags (that is, the little superscript [99] thingamajigs), I want to bring up the current provision that ...

Where a footnote applies only to material within parentheses, the ref tags belong just before the closing parenthesis.

While this has a superficial logic to it, it actually makes no sense and serves no purpose. Consider this passage:

The earth revolves around the sun. (It also rotates on its own axis.)[1]

Fine. But under the guideline, if each statement is supported by its own source, we're supposed to move the last ref tag inside the parens, like this:

The earth revolves around the sun.[2] (It also rotates on its own axis.[3])

Why? A ref tag logically covers all material back to the next-prior ref tag, whether that material's in parens, not in parens, or a combination. Period. Without this special provision we'd be doing this:

The earth revolves around the sun.[2] (It also rotates on its own axis.)[3]

... which is perfectly sensible and unambiguous. Moving the ref tag inside the parens achieves nothing and looks awful. By the logic of this "parenthesis" exception, if a ref tag applies only to material within a single sentence, then we should move the ref tag before the period/stop closing the sentence[2]. That would be dumb of course, and so is the current special provision for parentheses. I propose we remove it. EEng 02:35, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ a b Where the quoted text was found
  2. ^ They actually do this on frwp, and it looks ghastly. Here's passage from fr:Donald_Trump:
    Trump n'est pas envoyé sous les drapeaux pendant la guerre du Viêt Nam 19. Durant ses études, de 1964 à 1968, il obtient quatre reports d'incorporation 20. Puis, après avoir été jugé bon pour le service en 1966, il est réformé en octobre 1968 21. Dans une interview accordée en 2015, il affirme avoir été réformé en raison d'une épine calcanéenne au talon 22. En 1969, il obtient un chiffre élevé à la loterie organisée pour la conscription, ce qui lui aurait de toutes manières permis d'échapper au service 21,23,24.
    Lovely, huh? But they eat frogs and snails and endangered birds, so go figure.
By the way, what you may consider some sort of joke about French people, probably intended to somehow strengthen your point, I find pretty tasteless and quite offending, actually. Is it considered normal here to make such condescending remarks to other language wiki's? I don't think so, but it might be that I'm missing some clue. Eissink (talk) 10:20, 17 August 2020 (UTC).[reply]
I don't know what joke you're talking about. From our article on the Ortolan bunting:
Excuse me while I go drown the ortolans, mon ami.
The ortolan is served in French cuisine, typically cooked and eaten whole ... The birds are caught with nets set during their autumn migratory flight to Africa. They are then kept in covered cages or boxes. The birds react to the dark by gorging themselves on grain, usually millet seed, until they double their bulk ... The birds are then thrown into a container of Armagnac, which both drowns and marinates the birds.
The bird is roasted for eight minutes and then plucked. The consumer then places the bird feet first into their mouth while holding onto the bird's head. The ortolan is then eaten whole, with or without the head, and the consumer spits out the larger bones. The traditional way French gourmands eat ortolans is to cover their heads and face with a large napkin or towel while consuming the bird. The purpose of the towel is debated. Some claim it is to retain the maximum aroma with the flavour as they consume the entire bird at once, others have stated "Tradition dictates that this is to shield – from God’s eyes – the shame of such a decadent and disgraceful act", and others have suggested the towel hides the consumers spitting out bones. This use of the towel was begun by a priest, a friend of Jean Anthelme Brillat-Savarin ...
Ortolan hunting was banned in France in 1999, but the law was poorly enforced and it is thought that up to 50,000 ortolans were illegally killed each year during the autumn migration ... France's ortolan population fell 30% between 1997 and 2007.
Quintessentially French from start to finish, n'est-ce pas? If you like, I can insert similarly mild national stereotypes about Brits, Jerries, Russkies, or Yanks, for balance.
Returning to the actual point at hand, I honestly cannot understand what you're saying.
  • You say
The earth revolves around the sun.[2] (It also rotates on its own axis.)[3]
is ambiguous (presumably in something about its citations). In what way? You say I'm trying to fix something that is not broken, but unless you can explain what's wrong with the above (which is what we would do as a matter of course if the guideline didn't go out of its way to tell us to do something else) then it's the guideline that's trying to fix something that isn't broken. WP:MOSBLOAT is a serious problem, and every unnecessary provision we can remove is a victory.
  • What does
That way you suggest that whatever is in the footnote, it is also responsible for placing the sentence between parentheses, which is however an editing choice.
– mean?
EEng 16:37, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Suppose we have two footnotes in a parenthetical remark. (Like, one footnote for one claim,[1] and then a second footnote for a second claim.[2]) If we put the second footnote outside the parens, the grouping of the parentheses would make it appear that the second footnote covered the whole parenthetical remark, when actually it is only intended for the later part of the remark. So to accurately describe what the footnote covers, we would necessarily need it to be inside the parens. Now imagine the same scenario, but where a sloppy editor has omitted footnote 1 and left the first claim uncited, keeping only footnote [2]. Still, the footnote must be inside the parens, to avoid the false implication that it covers the whole remark. So requiring footnotes to be outside enclosing parens can lead to logical trouble. In some circumstances, footnotes must go inside. If they cover the entire parenthetical remark (or more), and only if they cover the entire parenthetical remark or more, they can go outside. If you want a real example of this, consider the lead of a biography that has separate citations for birth and death dates, or maybe only a citation for the death date but not the birth date. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:09, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If the parenthetical isn't very long, we could also have both references outside the parens. El Millo (talk) 17:18, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @EEng: I have a major problem with you altering your initial contribution significantly áfter two other editors have responded to it (also see WP:REDACTED). For new readers, it is now totally unclear what I was reacting upon. This is not how one should react, you are obscuring the dialogue tremendously. I would have undone it, if not others had already responded to it all, but please don't ever do that again.
I think it is totally clear what I meant with both my contributions. Concerning my opposition to your proposal, I could not have been more clear, so I regret that you seem not to be able to grasp what I said. Concerning your comparison of one French (editorial) habit with another cultural habit (eating certain animals), thereby implying that the former is somehow a poor choice which one must 'go figure' bad taste as is, presumably, the national diet: to me that's not only childish, but condescending. I may be wrong in assuming you like to use Wikipedia Talk pages as some sort of personal blog where you try to be the most funniest Wikipedian on the planet, but I find such attention grabbing, if that is what it is, rather presumptuous and pathetic. Anyhow, I remain strongly opposed to your proposal – that you don't seem to be able to understand what I mean by a totally clear sentence on the range of a footnote as compared to an editorial choice to place a sentence between parentheses, might not be your biggest problem, but maybe you could give it another try. Eissink (talk) 17:49, 18 August 2020 (UTC).[reply]
All I did was change my link to the frwp article to an actual quote from it, thus saving people a click. So sue me.
Beyond that I'll just note (a) that you didn't answer my two straightforward questions, and (b) I'm not the only one – see below – who can't understand what you're trying to say. To be honest (and it pains me to say that but you drive me to it) much of what you write is unintelligible. EEng 23:20, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Eissink: I, for one, did not understand your stance on the subject. Ignoring the attempts at comedy displayed above, what is your position on refs inside or outside the parentheses? Do you think it is ambiguous to have (something like this)[1] instead of (something like this[2])? Because I think it would be equivalent to, as EEng said, doing something like this[3]. instead of doing it like this.[4] El Millo (talk) 18:16, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@El Millo: I think your examples consist of a dependent clauses, where EEng's example focussed on an independent clause, on a self-contained proposition:
The earth revolves around the sun.[2] (It also rotates on its own axis.)[3]
Do you see the difference? If an editor chooses to add an indepedent clause and for one reason or the other chooses to place it between parentheses, with the period preceding the closing bracket, the latter is an editorial choice that should, imo, not be attributed to an external source. Eissink (talk) 18:42, 18 August 2020 (UTC).[reply]
Well, that example there is plain bad grammar. That should be The earth revolves around the sun (it also rotates on its own axis). in which case I would personally put both refs after the period. We should base ourselves on sentences that are clearly grammatically correct and that represent a common use of parentheticals, instead of focusing on uncommon or outlandish examples. El Millo (talk) 18:50, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Um, no, it's The earth revolves around the sun (it also rotates on its own axis) that exhibits bad grammar. It's run-on sentence – basically a parenthetical version of The earth revolves around the sun, it also rotates on its own axis. EEng 23:23, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well, El Millo, please don't blame me for reacting on exactly that example, that is pretty much the core of the proposal. While the example might be bad grammar or outlandish, as you say, the principle exhibited was quite clear, and that was precisely what I reacted upon. How should I react on something that is not proposed? (And the choice of the editor to completely alter and fancy the contribution later doesn't make all of this more clear.) Eissink (talk) 19:00, 18 August 2020 (UTC).[reply]
I don't blame you, I'm asking you to move past that in order to have a meaningful discussion from now. El Millo (talk) 20:02, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
We weren't on that point when you asked me to elaborate on what, according to yourself, "would be equivalent to" what EEng proposed, which it wasn't. But sure, why not just pretend and agree my contribution was not meaningful anyway, right? Guess I'm responsible for the mess of others. I'm done here. Bye, Eissink (talk) 20:19, 18 August 2020 (UTC).[reply]
Okay, if you want to purposefully misinterpret my comment in order to feel accused, blamed or aggravated in some other way, go ahead. I'm trying for you to ignore something you might consider childish or inappropriate in order to actually discuss the subject, instead of just arguing against that particular user for said inappropriate childishness. El Millo (talk) 20:31, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the French consider Jerry Lewis a comic genius, so I'm inclined to discount their idea of what constitutes childishness. EEng 23:27, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree - I suggest we adopt the Chicago Manual of Style policy: "Though a note number normally follows a closing parenthesis, it may on rare occasion be more appropriate to place the number inside the closing parenthesis—if, for example, the note applies to a specific term within the parentheses."[1] (I don't want to copy-and-paste the whole section [14.26] since it's copyrighted material.) There's also a public web page that addresses the topic in more general—but still applicable—terms at FAQ item: Punctuation:

Question: When using a superscript footnote number at the end of a sentence, should the period precede or follow the footnote number? What about footnote numbers in midsentence that fall next to some other form of punctuation (comma, semicolon, etc.)? Answer: Please see CMOS 14.26: “A note number should generally be placed at the end of a sentence or at the end of a clause. The number normally follows a quotation (whether it is run into the text or set as an extract). Relative to other punctuation, the number follows any punctuation mark except for the dash, which it precedes.”

  - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I'm a man—traditional male pronouns are fine.) 18:16, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Chicago Manual of Style, 17th ed., (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2017), §14.26
Exceptions: Ref tags are placed before dashes, not after. Where a footnote applies only to material within parentheses, the ref tags belongs just before the closing parenthesis.
with
Exceptions: Ref tags are placed before dashes, not after, and may be placed inside a closing parenthesis to parallel other ref tags within the parenthetical:
The earth is round.[1] (And it rotates and revolves.)[2]
but
The earth is round.[1] (And it rotates[2] and revolves.[3])
Does that capture it? If so let's give plenty of time for others to opine, because I know from experience that this is the sort of unimportant thing people can attach great importance to. EEng 23:03, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe if you find it unimportant, you shouldn't annoy people who do take it seriously with your remarks. Eissink (talk) 00:23, 19 August 2020 (UTC).[reply]
Clearly I find the issue important enough to have opened the thread and made the bulk of the contributions to it, so perhaps there's some subtlety here you're not discerning. For your benefit here it is: while in the great scheme of things the specific choice is comparatively unimportant (not to say that there isn't a best choice, nor that it's not worth going to reasonable trouble to identify it), people get very exercised about challenges to their personally favored conventions. Now if you could focus for a moment on the issue at hand instead of your offended sensibilities, do you have any comment on my proposed guideline text? EEng 00:55, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't know if we should be strictly advising the reference come after the parentheses, but certainly from the examples given I Agree with removing the advice and/or adopting some variation of the Chicago advice. CMD (talk) 01:10, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I tend slightly differently I think. Assertion: we should prefer placing the reference after some punctuation, but not parentheses. In the case of a full sentence in parentheses, that places the ref inside; in the case of some partial sentence, then the ref goes outside after the following punctuation mark. That leaves parenthetical statements with multiple clauses internal but no terminating punctuation before the parenthetical and some mix of the set; my preference is that such cases be rewritten. (In fact I think parentheses have very little place in encyclopedic writing at all and articles with should be rewritten without or removed as beneath notice, but I don't want to bring that into the conversation [he said parenthetically].) --Izno (talk) 20:51, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Izno: For more clarity, could you illustrate your preference with an example? Thanks. El Millo (talk) 20:57, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The earth revolves around the sun.[1] (It also rotates on its own axis.[2])
    The earth revolves around the sun (and also on its own axis).[3]
    But rewrite usually The earth revolves around the sun (and also on its own axis, though sometimes a figgity bob).
    mostly to avoid messes of citing much internally to the parentheses, but also to avoid excessive awkward/lengthy parenthetical constructions. --Izno (talk) 21:06, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose change. We've been over this many times before, and the answer is always the same: Putting it outside the parenthetical leads to mis-citation (especially after later editors add, remove, and otherwise change bits of it), and even when it does not it confuses the reader about what the citation is being used to verify, since the ref outside the parenthetical implies that the source is being cited for everything – including the material before the parenthetical – all the way back to the previous citation (or the beginning of the article). There is nothing "superficial" about the logic. What is in fact superficial is the desire to move the citation outside the parenthetical because you subjectively feel that it looks better.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:04, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    But the the ref outside the parenthetical should imply that the source is being cited for everything – including the material before the parenthetical – all the way back to the previous citation. If it doesn't then there should be another ref tag before the opening paren. If I'm wrong please give an example. EEng 04:19, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    We usually do not use citations in leads (other than of stubs, which pretty much just consist of leads) at all, except for potentially controversial or surprising statements that some readers are apt to disbelieve before reading the meat of the article. More importantly, the WP:V policy is that claims must be reliably sourceable, not already sourced before being added to an article (otherwise over half of Wikipedia's content would have to be deleted). I'm surprised you're making this argument, EEng, since we have been over this before at least twice, though I suppose the last time was a few years ago.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:59, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disagree as written. The example given is flawed. A parenthetical statement will rarely be a new sentence. Further, the more common example is a paragraph that has an overall source at its end and a parenthetical within it that is separately referenced. The logic that the reference applies to all material back to the previous reference is clearly not true in this case for either reference. In most cases a ref outside the parenthesis will work just fine, but there is a difficult case when the parenthetical occurs at the end of the para. For clarity, the parenthetical reference needs to either be inside the paretheses, or else it goes between the closing parenthesis and the period. Moving the general ref in front of the parethetical clause (which at first sight seems to be a solution) will actually cause more confusion since it is now in the middle of the last sentence. So does it apply to just half a sentence or what?
We really shouldn't be micromanaging formatting at this level. Better to leave it to article editors to find the best solution in specific cases. SpinningSpark 15:49, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disagree as written. Spinningspark has put the case very clearly; especially the last paragraph. Leave it to article editors to achieve the necessary clarity. Peter coxhead (talk) 17:04, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could one of SMcCandlish, Spinningspark, or Peter coxhead please give concrete examples of what they're talking about, and in particular how the presence of parentheses somehow creates a new, different situation? EEng 03:22, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    "Louise McKenzie Doodah (1 January 1901 – 31 December 2001) was a transwoman (born intersex[1]) activist and writer, best known for her novel The Unlightable Being of Bareness." If this is not a stub, then it is unlikely any other citation in the lead is needed, because it's unlikely anything in this lead is potentially controversial about this hypothetically well-known figure, other than the claim to have been born intersex rather than clearly male or female, which (again hypothetically) hadn't been well-publicized. Maybe someone on the talk page has already challenged the assertion, and required that a citation for this appear in the lead. If the cited source is only a source for that particular fact and not for, say, the birth date and middle name, then the citation must go inside the parenthetical, or it will falsely be posing as a citation for everything from the first word up to "intersex".

    Problems like this get even worse in long main-body paragraphs, which are frequently peppered with verifiable but not yet verified additions by drive-by editors, sometimes in mid-sentence. It's not uncommon for single sentences in controversial- or complicated-topic articles to have several citations for specific clauses making severable claims in the sentence. If one of these is parenthetical, then the only way a citation specifically for that is not going to be misleading is if there is another citation immediately before the opening parenthesis (round bracket), which we cannot guarantee. Even if it's incidentally a true condition at this moment, this situation only holds as long as no one ever inserts anything new between those two elements without a citation, which on this wiki is a very unsafe bet. In short: citation accuracy is far more important than subjective typographic quibbles.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  05:25, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • The worst thing about the examples right up at the top is that hideous full stop inside the brackets. Stick the full stop outside the brackets, and drop the full stop after sun, and they all look a lot better. MapReader (talk) 06:34, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    No, the stop/period belongs inside that "(It also rotates on its own axis.)" example; it is a full parenthetical sentence, not a parenthetical clause with in a larger sentence. Doing "(It also rotates on its own axis)." is an error, about which every style guide ever published would concur. Of course, rewriting without a parenthetical to begin with is often a good choice. WP uses brackets too often as it is.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  05:25, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    And too many parentheses as well. EEng 05:35, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't over, McCandlish! EEng 03:32, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Surname and MOS:GENDERID with regard to drag queen articles

At Wikipedia talk:WikiProject RuPaul's Drag Race#Moving forward (100 list), I mentioned the fact that drag queens are not simply their personas. So when someone states that they only identify as a female/a woman when in drag, then it can be WP:Undue and confusing to refer to them with feminine pronouns throughout their Wikipedia article, especially when it comes to their early life as separate from their career. It can leave readers thinking that the person identifies as transgender when they don't. I noted that I state this regardless of the fact that transgender is an umbrella term. In Sasha Velour's case, it's stated that "Steinberg is genderqueer and does not have any preferred pronouns when not in drag. Her drag persona, Sasha Velour, is referred to as 'she'." So when the article title is the drag queen name per WP:Common name, and the drag queen has stated what Velour has stated on pronouns, which surname or pronouns are best to use? At the moment, the Sasha Velour article has one section (the one concerning RuPaul's Drag Race) that refers to Velour by their stage name while the rest of the article refers to Velour by their birth name/legal name (Steinberg). I don't think we should mismatch pronouns or names.

Thoughts? Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 22:45, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's confusing that we switch surnames unpredictably throughout the article. We should either use Velour consistently, or use Steinberg except when speaking about the persona/character. Regarding pronouns, according to Nylon (2019), Velour "uses "she/her" pronouns almost always," but Culturebot (2019) says "Sasha Velour prefer “she/her” pronouns during performance and uses “they/them” pronouns in their personal life." GQ (2019) confirms the preference for they/them. Given these sources, I think it's inappropriate of us to ever use "he/him" in the page, and probably simplest to stick to "they/them" unless we're specifically speaking about Velour's persona or character. pburka (talk) 23:37, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This seems reasonable to me. If they have expressed an informal preference for they/them, but no formal preference, then we should go with their informal preference and use they/them when referring to Steinberg and she/her when referring to the character/performance of Velour. This also helps to make the distinction between the two and seems to be the least confusing option all round. --DanielRigal (talk) 01:37, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I would say that unless the person has expressed a gender preference for themselves outside of their drag queen persona, that we should be very clear to people that may not be familiar with drag queen culture and make sure that we use their original name and standard (expected) gender up until or after the point where bring up the drag queen person comes into play, and when discussing the person as the drag queen, be very explicit this is a persona. For example, on Velour's article, the first main section seems right, then when talking about first showin on RuPaul's DR, I'd start it as Steinberg tried out for RuPaul's Drag Race's eighth season in his Sasha Velour identity but was not selected to participate. There are several other passages in that that should be attributed to Steinberg like At the end of 2017, Steinberg's artwork of German singer-actress Marlene Dietrich was used as a Google Doodle... This is not like a complete stage name (such as Cher or Kesha), but a distinct persona separate from other aspects of their life.
Obviously if they have expressed a gender pronoun for their non-stage personality, that should clearly be respected, but we should still be using that non-stage personality.
Most of these cases seem very distinct from cases like Cher or Kesha; in Cher or Kesha, it is hard to find a distinction on the stage presence and their real person, they are Cher or Kesha whether on stage or on the street. But most of these drag queens have drastically different personalities when performing compared to when you meet them in passing, so that's why I think it's important to stress the persona as separate from the real person. --Masem (t) 23:44, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I generally agree with what others have said above. Private life name and pronouns when discussing the subject's private life, drag name and pronouns when discussing the subject's work in drag (and pronouns for both the persona and the individual should be sourced explicitly). This is the practice we follow at WikiProject RuPaul's Drag Race. The Sasha Velour article isn't a good example, unfortunately, as it's a low-quality article that falls short of many standards; IMO it needs a complete rewrite. Higher-quality biographies like India Ferrah and Chi Chi DeVayne are structured such that each section (excluding the lead) discusses only the drag persona or the private individual, so switching between the two does not occur under the same heading. As I mentioned to Flyer in the linked discussion, the other drag sections in Sasha Velour should be rewritten to use Velour/she. And the stuff about the Google Doodle, for example, should be moved to a different section that uses Steinberg, since it doesn't belong under the Drag Race heading anyway. Armadillopteryx 06:22, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I think as long as it is clear you are giving the reader a big hand-waving flag "Okay, we are about to start talking now about the persona, not the actual person" and then keep it about the person for a whole section, you're okay there. (Sectioning itself is good, but transitioning at the start of that section is helpful). Frequently switching back and forth is not good, and if you have to do that for some reason, then you need to frame it likely on the person, not the persona. --Masem (t) 06:36, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think we underestimate the reader. There is no need to keep such clear lines between sections and when switching from one set of pronouns to the other. See for example the obituary in The New York Times for Chi Chi DeVayne. The article states the fact that Devayne is "Known offstage as Zavion Davenport, he was 34." For a single instance, it acknowledges this, and for the remainder of the article freely switches back and forth, as necessary. We should use "Davenport" when referring to the subject in his life out of drag, and "DeVayne" when referring to the persona and her performance. Did you notice I just switched pronouns in the middle of a sentence? When you know why, it makes perfect sense, and it is not so jarring. The lead section requires such switches if it is ever going to be a true summary of the contents of the article. We do not have to assume the reader is stupid or waste extra breath trying to explain the use of pronouns. A single acknowledgement of pronouns and names is enough. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 10:20, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
A reader being confused by Wikipedia switching back and forth, especially without warning (by noting the name and pronoun preferences in the lead), does not mean that the reader is stupid or that we are assuming that they are stupid. Such back and forth is unnecessary and is jarring for many or most. The vast majority of people are not as knowledgeable on pronoun discourse (transgender or otherwise) regarding gender identity as some would like them to be. Similar goes for drag queen culture. I see this often when patrolling, and not all (and maybe not most) of these people can simply be described as bigots who don't refer to people by their preferred pronouns or names.
Above, Pburka stated, "I think it's confusing that we switch surnames unpredictably throughout the article." This is what I addressed at the aforementioned WikiProject. If we are going to mismatch, which I don't prefer/don't think is best for readers, we should somehow make this clear to readers in the lead. This Mention of pronoun preference in the lead was done in the past for the Emma Sulkowicz article. Per sources that came after the singular they mentions and agreement among editors, that article now uses feminine pronouns for Sulkowicz. But, regardless, what was done for that article is an example of stating in the lead that so and so prefers to use so and so pronouns. We can state in the lead that so and so prefers so and so name or pronouns when in drag/not in drag. Because it can and does confuse readers, I'm not keen on using singular they throughout a biography article with regard to a person's gender identity. When we do that, we should always be clear in the lead (as was done in the Emma Sulkowicz case) that the person uses singular they pronouns. Also, consistently using the surname and no pronouns, as is currently done at the Ezra Miller article, can be just as problematic. There really is not a strong consensus at Talk:Ezra Miller against using masculine pronouns for Miller, but the article currently avoids using them (in part to help combat any back and forth). I've mentioned there and here that the Associated Press states, "They/them/their is acceptable in limited cases as a singular and-or gender-neutral pronoun, when alternative wording is overly awkward or clumsy. However, rewording usually is possible and always is preferable. [...] In stories about people who identify as neither male nor female or ask not to be referred to as he/she/him/her: Use the person's name in place of a pronoun, or otherwise reword the sentence, whenever possible. If they/them/their use is essential, explain in the text that the person prefers a gender-neutral pronoun. Be sure that the phrasing does not imply more than one person."
Armadillopteryx stated "Private life name and pronouns when discussing the subject's private life, drag name and pronouns when discussing the subject's work in drag (and pronouns for both the persona and the individual should be sourced explicitly)." But like I mentioned to Armadillopteryx, we don't do this for RuPaul, for example. I stated, "RuPaul says that people can refer to him by masculine or feminine pronouns. But sources generally refer to RuPaul as male/by masculine pronouns. So that is why Wikipedia should as well. And it currently does. Not to mention his tempestuous relationship with the LGBT community and people stating that he's not trans." Yes, "RuPaul" is his birth/legal name and he is simply known as RuPaul rather than by his full name, but there is no need to refer to RuPaul by feminine pronouns when speaking of his life in drag and then by masculine pronouns when speaking of his life out of drag. And I especially don't think we should be mismatching when the person hasn't stated a preference for mismatching. Also, I don't see that WP:Surname at all supports a mismatch approach to surnames. Why should drag queen articles be an exception, listing a name a person is barely known by throughout their article? And if it's truly private, including it is questionable. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 17:58, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The difference between RuPaul and most other drag queens is that RuPaul does not have preferred pronouns in or out of drag and has stated this publicly, as you noted. This is why it is okay to use "he" throughout the RuPaul article. Most drag queens, however, have one set of preferred pronouns in drag and a different set out of drag—both of which should be sourced explicitly when possible. Drag pronouns are usually easier to source, as most RS refer to these subjects in the capacity of their drag personas (and with the corresponding pronouns). We certainly shouldn't contradict sources and use "he" or "they" to refer to a female drag persona. And as you stated earlier, using only drag pronouns throughout the article could confuse readers and lead them to think a subject is trans, so we should not do this, either. That would contravene MOS:GENDERID, which says we should take care to respect subjects' self-designation–i.e., we shouldn't use "she" when discussing the personal life of a subject who is male or non-binary out of drag. I also don't think drag subjects' legal names should be treated as privacy concerns the way that birth names are for trans subjects. Drag queens still use their other name out of drag.
I think that stating the subject's preferred pronouns—both in and out of drag—at the very start of the article is a good idea. We should then use the correct pronouns for the persona when discussing the persona and the correct pronouns for the person when discussing the person, as virtually everyone else has said. Note that this is different from using pronouns "unpredictably", as in the comment you quoted, since the usage is actually very simple and systematic. You may have noticed that that same comment ended with, "I think it's ... probably simplest to stick to 'they/them' unless we're specifically speaking about Velour's persona or character." There is also nothing "mismatched" about this approach, since each person/persona has exactly one set of pronouns that matches it. Mismatching is what would occur if we used out-of-drag pronouns for a drag persona (or vice versa). Armadillopteryx 20:54, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I know the difference with RuPual. I do not agree with having it so that Wikipedia articles mismatch pronouns and/or surnames. It's not standard/doesn't adhere to any of our policies or guidelines, and drag queen articles should not be the exception. I do not think that a WikiProject's local consensus should conflict with any of our policies or guidelines. I don't think that MOS:GENDERID was meant to apply to how one identifies while in drag, and it certainly doesn't state so. Anyway, I stand by all of what I have stated on this topic. If mismatching is going to happen, then whatever can be done to address and alleviate the valid concerns on this matter is a good thing. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 01:06, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The Janae Kroc article is a mismatch case involving a person who is not a drag queen. And I also don't feel that mismatching is the best approach in that case. But at least the mismatch factor is made clear in the lead. I've commented on this case on the article's talk page. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 01:16, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, the MOS does not explicitly say anything at all about people who simultaneously live as one gender but work as another. The WikiProject's convention is built in compliance with the policies saying we should respect self-identification and should not contradict sources when describing subjects. I am not aware of any policy this practice contravenes, nor has anyone shown an MOS passage that would suggest as much. As I mentioned to you on the project page, we will soon open an RfC on this matter. Hopefully, that will clear up any conflicting interpretations of existing policy and may even result in explicit treatment of this case in the MOS.
As I also said earlier, I agree with you that it would be helpful for articles using two sets of pronouns to clarify them conspicuously. Armadillopteryx 05:10, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Are you stating that mismatching with regard to drag queens aligns with MOS:GENDERID? If so, I did note that "I don't think that MOS:GENDERID was meant to apply to how one identifies while in drag, and it certainly doesn't state so." MOS:GENDERID is about one's gender identity. Gender identity is not about how one identifies in drag. And for cases like Janae Kroc, I don't think MOS:GENDERID means we should mismatch in an article. Of course, some will interpret MOS:GENDERID to mean that we should. After, all it does state, "This applies in references to any phase of that person's life, unless the subject has indicated a preference otherwise." I wonder how many would support interpreting MOS:GENDERID to mean that mismatching should be practiced in a case like Kroc's. Also, "can" and "should" are obviously two different things. Anyway, since MOS:GENDERID also doesn't advise against mismatching, we have cases like the Kroc one. I hope that your RfC will be well-advertised. Ideally, it should take place at WP:Village pump (policy). If it doesn't, that page should at least be alerted to the RfC. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 18:21, 13 September 2020 (UTC) Tweaked post. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 18:29, 13 September 2020 (UTC) [reply]
I do happen to think MOS:GENDERID applies also to the drag identity, but my argument does not rest on that part. Let's start with what we seem to agree on: MOS:GENDERID applies to the subject's gender identity out of drag.
  • Since MOS:GENDERID applies to the subject's self-identification in their personal life, this policy prevents us from referring to the out-of-drag subject by drag pronouns (when they differ, obviously; we're not talking about cases like RuPaul where the self-identified name and pronouns don't change). WP:V also prevents the use of drag pronouns for the out-of-drag subject, since when sources discuss individuals' private lives and use their legal names, they also use the out-of-drag pronouns (as in the NY Times and Entertainment Weekly articles I linked on the project page).
  • Most RS coverage of notable drag queens focuses on their careers and so refers to them by their drag names and drag pronouns. Thus, it contravenes WP:V to use out-of-drag pronouns to describe a drag persona. (In my view, though not yours, it also contravenes MOS:GENDERID.)
  • Using the drag name throughout the article, including in the Early life and Personal life sections, also violates MOS:GENDERID and WP:V, because most of these subjects do not identify as their drag name/drag gender in private life, and this is reflected in sourcing. Exceptions like RuPaul get treated just like any other subject with only one name.
  • Using the out-of-drag name throughout the article is a glaring violation of WP:V, since the drag name is the one under which most RS coverage exists and is the one that is notable.
The only way that mismatching can occur is if we mismatch drag pronouns to the out-of-drag subject (or vice versa). The way to avoid this (and to obey present policy) is to correctly match pronouns with both the persona and the person. The suggestion to use only one of the other pronoun throughout the article would always cause violations of either WP:V or MOS:GENDERID (and in most articles, it would end up violating both).
The RfC will be well advertised. We haven't decided exactly where it will be held yet, but the following pages will, at a minimum, be notified: WP:Village pump (policy), Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography, Wikipedia talk:Gender-neutral language, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject RuPaul's Drag Race. Armadillopteryx 20:51, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
MOS:GENDERID is a guideline, not a policy. I do not fully agree with your interpretation of it, and I don't agree with your interpretation of WP:Verifiability on this matter. We'll see how the RfC goes. Hopefully, it generates enough traction. And the best way to ensure that is to have it at WP:Village pump (policy). Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 01:17, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. Would you like me to notify you somehow when the RfC opens? I know you don't usually like to be pinged. Armadillopteryx 02:10, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's more so that I don't like to be pinged to articles or other pages I'm clearly watching. As for this topic? I barely care anymore. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 01:46, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The audience of the NYTimes is far difference from the audience of en.wiki, the former being a subset of the latter (generally, more educated, more assured to be native English speakers, and more aware of alternate culture). We have to consider, say, that child in Africa that is an ESL student that may have no idea about drag queen culture. We don't have to explain down to the level of what drag queens are (that's what the blue link is for) but we should not expect them to follow random switching-back-and-forth. This is a comparable aspect of why we write scientific articles one level down, this is writing "culture" level articles one level down. --Masem (t) 18:12, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I do not disagree with many of your points. I am only concerned with how we treat the lead. Without switching at least once in the lead, I do not know how the article Chi Chi DeVayne could ever achieve an FA-level or even a GA-level summary in the lead. It would make no sense for example to say "DeVayne was born in ..." or "DeVayne was diagnosed with scleroderma". AFAIK, Davenport is a cisgender male and DeVanye is a stage persona. Say for example that Davenport died of prostate cancer. If I read the sentence, "She died of prostate cancer", I would logically come to the conclusion that DeVayne was either transgender or non-binary and Davenport is a dead name.
It would also not make sense to use male pronouns through out the section titled Drag. When speaking about her drag career, sources consistently use female pronouns. Some switching is unavoidable when summarizing the career and non-career sections in the lead. Sure, we can minimize it and introduce it but, in the lead, it is nearly impossible to avoid a switch. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 01:46, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Drag is a performance. Just because a male gigs as a drag queen does not in and of itself make the person genderqueer or a trans woman. In Steinberg's case, he's stated that he has no preferred pronoun for himself when out of drag. Since he hasn't specifically said "I want to be referred to as she and her" -- then it's fine to refer to Steinberg and his persona as "he and him" until he changes his masculine name to a feminine name. (P.S. for the PC: an opinion is not a battlecry.) Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 08:36, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
While I agree with the gist of your argument, Steinberg's most recent preference (as of 2019) is to use "they/them" when not in drag and "she" in drag.[4] Steinberg's statement about using either "he" or "she" is from 2017.[5] Using "they" has the added benefit of not being confusing when intermixed with "she", since "they" is gender neutral. Kaldari (talk) 18:57, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Great example of how to write about subjects with complicated gender-identity history

This is one of the best examples I've come across "in the wild" in an everyday news source:

  • Edgers, Geoff (August 28, 2020). "This is pioneering rocker Cidny Bullens's ninth album. But his first as a man". Washington Post.

Contrary to some whiny predictions, there is nothing actually confusing about changing from one set of pronouns to another to address different periods in the subject's history – as long as you can write better than, say, the average seventh-grader. Craft clear sentences, use names a bit more frequently, and put the material in a sensible order that obviates confusion potential.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:34, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

English English

Hi,

I generally stay away from MOS subjects but this seems like the place to bring up a recent discovery of an attempt to tag articles that use "English English". I looked among the wide varieties of English categories and didn't see a type of the English language called "English English". Right now there are two templates & also two empty categories I've tagged as CSD C1.

If this is a recognized variety of English, sorry for initiating this thread. My concern with this template is that editors would start tagging a lot of articles for a form of English which is already covered by British or Commonwealth English. Because I'm limited to editing on my phone, I can't copy over links but my contributions contain the 2 English English categories I tagged which include links to the templates. Thanks. Liz Read! Talk! 02:29, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The correct template should be English english English english english english English english. pburka (talk) 02:47, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Liz. An interesting, but involved point. The linguistic composition of the UK is a bit more complex than people realise, and lumping all varieties of the English into one category can cause offence. The biggest problem is that in Scotland there are two Anglic languages: Scots and Scottish. The former is a distinct language with its own dialects, but the latter is a dialect of English. However Scottish English probably differs far more from Standard English than American English does. The problem therefore is if American English is spoken in America, Scottish English in Scotland, Australian English in Australia and Canadian English in Canada, what is spoken in England! Having said that, and speaking as someone with mixed Scottish and Yorkshire (and we have our own variety of English) ancestry, I don't think that WP categories need to descend to this level of detail. Preferred terms would be "Standard English" (ie standardised, as in scholastic) or SBE (Southern British English), but we are where we are. In summary; "English English" would seem to be an accurate term but one better rendered as SBE, however in the interests of harmony it should be eliminated as a category and the inaccurate but established "British English" retained. Just my 2d worth! Martin of Sheffield (talk) 06:34, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
British English will do for now. When the Scots and Northern Irish leave the union, only England and Wales will be left. Then we'll need to rethink the term. Possibly "England English", to avoid the repetition. Tony (talk) 12:18, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have reference for "Scottish English probably differs far more from Standard English than American English does"? It seems highly unlikely to me, and of course the spellings are all-UK. British English is the correct term, & is likely to remain so. With media today, there are considerable pressures for convergence rather than divergence. I started visiting Tyneside in the last few years, never having been before, & was disappointed to find that hardly anyone young speaks proper Geordie any more, more a sort of generic Northern. Johnbod (talk) 12:35, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No references, just observation. As someone who grew up in the North of England (Sheffield, Middlesbrough, Whitley Bay with a brief period "down south" in the Black Country), I'm well used to Borders. However Glaswegian may need subtitles! Consider phrases like "the bairns are greetin" and it makes the propensity of Americans to drive down the pavement quite simple. :-) Martin of Sheffield (talk) 13:57, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You're talking about informal spoken dialect, of no relevance to a written encyclopaedia. If "Scottish English" has any presence as a written language, it is in minor differences in vocabulary, stuff like "outwith", "policies" and so on. Johnbod (talk) 14:27, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(1) I was just trying to help Liz understand why someone might want to use "English English". (2) Did you notice "in the interests of harmony it should be eliminated as a category"? (3) Have you read Scottish English which talks about the wriiten language as well? (4) SWMBO is waiting for me to take her out so I'm offline for a while! Martin of Sheffield (talk) 14:43, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Definite article at WP:SHIPS

Good morning,

I was hoping some of you people over here at the MOS could help us end one of the ongoing issues at WP:SHIPS about grammar and the use of definite articles before ship names over at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ships#perpetual issue: ncships and the definite article. I'm not trying to forum shop, but this place is where all the very knowledgeable grammar people end up, so if any of you guys have anything that might help us, that would be great. Llammakey (talk) 13:08, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm on strike until you guys get over that "she" nonsense. EEng 01:45, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Proper use of SEE ALSO

Another editor mentioned "see also" is intended for listing out "tangentially related topics" in Talk:ABC_No_Rio#linkdexing relating to the content at this change. Is there a consensus on the way it should be used? Going by what they said, it would be appropriate to have see also links to every single beer that has a wikipedia article in beverage. Graywalls (talk) 08:08, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Common sense would say no. However it would be sensible to have a link to list of beers. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 08:20, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's always been my impression that listing similar businesses is not appropriate. Were the see also wikilinks I removed proper to remain or was it reasonable to remove them? Graywalls (talk) 08:25, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I raised something similar at WT:SONGS#Inclusion of charts-related lists in "See also" sections not long ago. I was (still am) concerned about the potential for trivial links being listed in these sections in song and album articles. Hey Jude#See also was an example I cited then, but I'm sure it's far from the worst (seeing as so many more countries have official national charts than was the case when that 1968 song was released).
By contrast, I'd say Sesame Street#See also is a good example of including lists that are relevant to the subject of the article and therefore conform to correct use of See Also sections.
Since the issue has come up here now, does anyone have any thoughts on the inclusion of these lists of national number-ones, best-selling singles/albums, etc? If so, I'll post a note at the other discussion; perhaps I should've started it here anyway. Thanks, JG66 (talk) 08:44, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since nobody has yet mentioned it, I'll point out we have MOS:ALSO. Reading it, it seemed rather more permissive than most editors are. For example it is hard to get an article to pass WP:FAC with any SA links at all. The position reviewers usually take is that it should either be mentioned in the main body, or it isn't worth mentioning at all. Johnbod (talk) 15:07, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've always thought that related lists are often the only things that belong in a "see also" section, simply because they are difficult/inappropriate to include in the prose itself. Primergrey (talk) 15:12, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nah, I disagree. I remove links from "See also" that have occurred in the main text. Tony (talk) 00:54, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm also more inclined to remove links than have them at all, especially when the link appears in the main text. But if one or two are repeated (perhaps because their significance to the subject might not be established earlier), as long as they do genuinely offer tangential information about the subject. What I've been concerned about with song and album article "See Also"s, similar to Graywalls' example, it seems, is whether the intention behind SAs is being abused – the way any old trivial list can be parked there with minimal relevance to the subject, let alone offering anything substantial in its own right. JG66 (talk) 02:01, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Is the way it is used at ABC_No_Rio a good example of improper use of it? Graywalls (talk) 18:48, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Side discussion born of a misapprehension
  • If an article uses Bluebook legal citation style, then the article should follow Bluebook's instructions for see also.[1] The Bluebook rule in this regard does not conflict with basic Wikipedia policy on reliable sources. Here is part of the rule:

Rule 1.2 Introductory Signals ... See also - Cited authority constitutes additional source material that supports the proposition. ... The use of a parenthetical explanation of the source’s relevance (rule 1.5) following a citation introduced by “see also” is encouraged.

All the best - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) [he/his/him] 21:06, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but this is completely silly. What the Bluebook is talking about is something you might find within a specific ref cite, and has absolutely nothing to do with the see-alsos at the end of articles. EEng 21:30, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ooops! I misunderstood. Sorry about that. Sincerely, Sir Silly. ;^] Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) [he/his/him] 22:18, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Mark D Worthen? Come with us, please.
Whew! For a minute I thought we were going to have to send for the men in the white coats. EEng 23:34, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Rule 1.2 Introductory Signals". The Bluebook Online (legalbluebook.com). Retrieved 17 September 2020.
@EEng:, WP:TALK#USE I think that talk page is the place to do it. The main space is never a place to dump sources to get around proper citation. Graywalls (talk) 07:42, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You completely misunderstand what I said. EEng 08:47, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@EEng:, I just realized I was meaning to respond to @David Eppstein:'s message but incorrectly pinged you. Graywalls (talk) 02:41, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'll recall the killer drone. EEng 03:16, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with that and I'd say it's one of the more ignored rules on Wikipedia. Maybe if someone's got the energy that rule should be changed. SchreiberBike | ⌨  00:20, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's highly unlikely such a proposal would succeed. Aren't you always clearing out lists of 20+ SA links already mentioned above, like I am? Johnbod (talk) 03:54, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Try the 24-strong bunch of SAs at Acculturation#See_also for example. Johnbod (talk) 02:47, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi the consensus allegedly generated here (which to be honest I am not seeing) is being used to justify the complete removal of the See also section from ABC No Rio, would anyone care to offer an opinion on that? I my view, expressed already over at the talk page, it would be fine to link to articles about a few other NYC-based radical projects, since the gentle reader might be interested to go on to them next. Mujinga (talk) 12:42, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It was way excessive. Categories do that function. It's not a matter of a "consensus allegedly generated here" if you mean this section, but the very long-standing policy found at MOS:ALSO. Johnbod (talk) 12:49, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yes I agree it was excessive, no doubt about that. I proposed adding three links, then was reverted and told by Graywalls The consensus looks fairly clearly not in favor of using SEE ALSO for linking back and forth like this based on this discussion. I don't agree with that analysis, hence my question. Mujinga (talk) 13:08, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the 3 you restored, it wasn't clear why they were chosen, or what their relation was. Were they just especially close by? I don't know that is enough. If you think they are important it would be better to work them into the text, explaining why. Johnbod (talk)
Thanks for the reply, I put my rationale for those three on the talkpage. C-Squat at least should be pretty obvious since it is a fellow LES legalized squat from the same time period. In any case MOS:SEEALSO says "One purpose of "See also" links is to enable readers to explore tangentially related topics" and "the "See also" section is ultimately a matter of editorial judgment and common sense", and as you mentioned above, that's quite permissive. Does that then mean the guideline needs to be changed? I don't really see a massive issue here to be honest, it's just a seealso section. Mujinga (talk) 13:07, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As I said above, I doubt making the guideline more permissive will get support; it might well be tightened. If left in SA, especially without explanations, these links are always likely to be vulnerable to roaming editors, whereas if added to the text they are far more likely to survive. Johnbod (talk) 13:24, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am saying SEEALSO is not for listing RC, Pepsi in Coke, then Coke, RC in Pepsi. I think you get the idea. That is the trend I am seeing with some articles where the redirects are simply serving as referral for one another and things shouldn't be written into the Coke article just for the sake of finding ways to introduce Pepsi and RC into it. Graywalls (talk) 13:50, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for giving examples to illustrate what you think Graywalls, but there's a notice at the top of this edit box saying ATTENTION: If you are coming to express an opinion on a topic of discussion, please include a rationale that addresses Wikipedia policy, or your opinion may be ignored. If you want to change MOS:SEEALSO maybe we should start a new discussion. Mujinga (talk) 13:02, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Center vs. left justification for table text

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Tables § Lacking guidance on left vs. center justification.  {{u|Sdkb}} talk 20:29, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That

I have a question about something that's bothering me, and I know I can count on people here to care about little details. Consider these two slight variations:

  • "Additionally, remember that the shortcut is not the policy."
  • "Additionally, remember the shortcut is not the policy."

If the goal is to minimize accidental misreadings ("Remember the shortcuts – okay, I can do that..."), would it be best to include the word that? WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:36, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It sort of depends. This is I believe a content clause (see there for an unsourced crapshoot). In this case, I don't think (that) it's automatically wrong to omit "that", but it certainly feels much more natural to include it. To omit it would make me want to add another pause: Additionally, remember: the shortcut is not the policy. Just my two cents; others might feel differently. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 01:54, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
My take would be that the first is formally correct, and would be the expected format in written English. The second is itself a shortcut that most people would understand, and is likely to be the most common format used in verbal English. Since WP is both written and, as an encyclopaedia read across the world and hence demands a degree of formality, I would always opt for the first as best practice in articles. MapReader (talk) 02:05, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ref placement and punctuation when sources conflict

Per MOS:REFPUNCT, inline citations should nearly always be placed after adjacent punctuation, not before. However, consider the following examples, where RS contradict one another on a piece of factual information. In cases like these, the ref at the end applies to the preceding word but contradicts the earlier part of the sentence:

  • From Miss'd America: Sources conflict on the exact year the pageant began, with many placing the inaugural event in 1993[1] or 1994[2].
  • From Barracuda Lounge: Its current owner, Bob Pontarelli, founded the bar with his friend and former partner Stephen Heighton, who died in 2010[3] or 2011[4].

When the second ref applies only to the word before it and specifically does not apply to the rest of the sentence, should it nevertheless be placed outside the period? As currently written, MOS:REFPUNCT suggests it should. However, doing so would make it appear that the ref supports the statement X occurred in year1 or year2 rather than what it actually states, which is that the event occurred in year2. Should MOS:REFPUNCT include an exception for this type of situation?

References

  1. ^ Source for 1993
  2. ^ Source for 1994
  3. ^ Source for 2010
  4. ^ Source for 2011

Armadillopteryx 18:53, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is very little harm, if any, placing both ref statements after the punctuation or by providing a note instead of a ref using e.g. {{efn}}. --Izno (talk) 19:23, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There's no harm at all. The second ref certainly applies only back to the one preceding it, so there's no question of its having too much scope, whether it comes before or after the punct. And having it before the punct looks wretched. This reopens the festering wound at #Ref tags before closing paren. EEng 04:22, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Academic "publishing" versus other meanings of the English word

In academic publishing, to say that a work (other than an entire book or a chapter of a book) has been "published" usually means that a manuscript has been submitted to an academic journal, has passed through the journal's scholarly peer review process which can differ in nature and quality depending on the journal, has gone through the journal's editorial process which can again vary in rigor and prestige, and has been printed in a paper issue of the journal or otherwise been officially recorded as part of an online issue.

The word "published" has a much broader meaning in English generally. In the legal copyright sense, for example, to simply make a work available online is to publish it.

But the sense in which the word is used can have a major impact at some points in a Wikipedia article because it is one major metric of the reliability of an academic or scholarly source, and thus misapplying it can falsely convey credibility a source does not in actuality possess.

So I'm thinking of at least adding it as a bullet in the list at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Medicine-related articles § Careful language when doing an WP:INTEXT attribution to a source or other authority, with a corrollary warning linking to WP:SPS too I suppose, but as it's an issue in scientific and scholarly sourcing generally I'm wondering if there's a good place to add something about the source-related meaning of the term here in the general guideline?

For context, what has drawn my attention to this is that I've been editing the article of Li-Meng Yan, a Chinese researcher who, although she has verifiably done virology research, appears to have a PhD in ophthalmology, and who has been saying through a Youtube channel and interviews with outlets like Fox News and the (WP:DEPRECATED) Daily Mail that SARS-CoV-2 is likely a biological weapon developed by the Chinese government. This month she uploaded a .pdf file to an online preprint archive.

The work in the .pdf file self-referentially says that due to universal worldwide censorship it cannot be peer-reviewed or published in any scientific journal, but Dr. Yan's advocates (and some other Wikipedia editors, accidentally it seems) have been writing here that she "published a paper" showing that SARS-CoV-2 was created in a lab. (The contents of the uploaded .pdf and Dr. Yan's other public scientific claims about SARS-CoV-2 have been harshly criticized by other scientists in reliable sources as well, as one might expect; see the article about her and its talk page for details.)

P.S. Or actually, am I thinking about this wrong and it's not a styling issue but something which should go in the "citing sources" guideline, maybe under WP:INTEXT? --▸₷truthious Ⓑandersnatch◂ 19:15, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This might better be discussed at WT:MEDMOS or WT:MEDRS, both of which have a fairly robust set of core editors. That said, WP:SOURCE already indicates the word publish as having the broader meaning. --Izno (talk) 19:27, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SOURCE uses the word publish, in a fairly broad sense, while discussing which sources are, or are not, reliable for various purposes. It is not about using the word "published" in an article. As User:Struthious_Bandersnatch indicates, in some contexts using the word "published" in an article while describing a source that does not meet the academic standards of quality journals or quality book publishers would be misleading. Jc3s5h (talk) 19:45, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm now also noticing WP:PUBLISH, which points to the information page Wikipedia:Published and describes the meaning of "published" and "accessible" as used in the Wikipedia namespace in the context of sources, and WP:PUBLISHED, which points to a section of WP:RS named "Definition of published" which defines it for that guideline. --▸₷truthious Ⓑandersnatch◂ 20:48, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to me that the paper has been published (i.e. made available to the public), but not in a reliable source (pre-print archives aren't subject to editorial oversight). This is little different than a paper that's been published in a predatory or vanity journal (although without the element of deceit): published, but unreliable. pburka (talk) 22:13, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Pburka: Sorry, I missed your reply earlier. Yes, something uploaded to a pre-print server has been made available to the public, but do you see what I'm saying that in academics and scholarship, to say that a person or work has been published has a more specific meaning than to simply make things available to the public? Take this journal article, for example:
Guraya SY, Norman RI, Khoshhal KI, Guraya SS, Forgione A. Publish or Perish mantra in the medical field: A systematic review of the reasons, consequences and remedies. Pak J Med Sci. 2016; 32(6): 1562-1567.
When it says "to publish" it's not talking about uploading .pdfs to pre-print servers. Amazingly, the Wikipedia Library's big bundle of access to different Oxford University Press properties does not include a subscription to the OED but I'll bet its entry on the verb "publish" makes the distinction. --▸₷truthious Ⓑandersnatch◂ 06:48, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
...
2.
a. transitive. To make public or generally known; to declare or report openly or publicly; to announce; (also) to propagate or disseminate (a creed or system). In later use sometimes passing into sense 3b. Also figurative.
...
3.
a. transitive. To prepare and issue copies of (a book, newspaper, piece of music, etc.) for distribution or sale to the public. Also: to prepare and issue the work of (an author). Occasionally intransitive in the progressive with passive meaning.[1]
b. transitive. To make generally accessible or available for acceptance or use (a work of art, information, etc.); to present to or before the public; spec. to make public (news, research findings, etc.) through the medium of print or the internet.
c. intransitive. Of an author: to cause to have a book, paper, etc., published; to appear in print.
d. intransitive. Of a work, serial, or periodical (occasionally an author): to undergo the process of publication, to be published.
e. intransitive. to publish or perish: to publish scholarly work in order to avoid a loss of academic status, respect, or position. Also in imperative, used attributively.
...

References

  1. ^ Whatever that means.

EEng 07:09, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"MOS:QUESTION" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect MOS:QUESTION. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 September 28#MOS:QUESTION until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 13:03, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sfn citation

Why is this difficult to use editor unfriendly citation format still being used? When users are expected to maintain existing style, but user friendly GUI can not make it go along, things like this become a roadblock to participation. Graywalls (talk) 18:09, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pandora's box has just been opened. EEng 18:23, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Graywalls What alternative format are you proposing that will do the job as well or better and is more editor friendly? · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 19:43, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Pbsouthwood:, ummm the normal citation that is easily populated using cite-auto fill. Graywalls (talk) 19:46, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So you want to force everybody to use your preferred reference format. How about no. We have WP:CITEVAR for a reason.Nigel Ish (talk) 20:23, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) @Graywalls: I assume by "normal citation" you mean the horrible technique of conflating references and citations, and then embedding them in the text so as to make the source nearly unreadable. How you could ever think that {{sfn|Graywalls|2020}} is more disruptive to editors than some horrendous interruption such as <ref>{{Cite web |url= http://rooseveltinstitute.org/special-relationship-between-great-britain-and-united-states-began-fdr/ |title=The "Special Relationship" between Great Britain and the United States Began with FDR |date=22 July 2010 |publisher= Roosevelt Institute |accessdate=24 January 2018 |quote=and the joint efforts of both powers to create a new post-war strategic and economic order through the drafting of the Atlantic Charter; the establishment of the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank; and the creation of the United Nations.}}</ref>? Data needs to be normalised not replicated for efficient maintenance. Try investing, maybe 5 minutes, and learn the easy way to do it. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 20:27, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea what Graywall's preferred ref system is, but I will point out that several systems, other than sfn, avoid the problem to which you refer (big chunks of citation text stuck in the middle of article text) by simply using list-defined references. EEng 03:11, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Graywalls, Does your preferred format provide a method to indicate different pages or locations in the text without repeating the full details of the source each time you cite it? · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 20:43, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
My preferred style is the kind you click at the end of where you want to foot note; push "cite" on the top bar, paste into "automatic" and let it do its thing.[1] When I want to use it again, I click cite and if I want to re-use it, I push re-use.[1] Again and again.[1] The SFN thing would be fine... if it could be transcluded without complicated .js installation, keying in computer codes and all those difficult things. Graywalls (talk) 20:51, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You're not answering the question. What do you do when you're using a book source and want different footnotes to refer to different pages within the book? —David Eppstein (talk) 20:57, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't so far had to use more than a few pages in sequence out of a single book doing Wiki stuff. If I was repeatedly using multiple pages throughout a single book, I'm not really sure how I'd do it. Is there a way to do it with the visual editor? I'm not aware of it myself. Graywalls (talk) 12:50, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Graywalls: I, on the other hand, have done so more times than I can count. {{sfn}} and its variants are immensely useful, I can't fathom why you're so worked up over it.  White Whirlwind  04:30, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This is what I often face when I run into Sfn formatted pages and greatly complicates it by preventing me from being able to pull up the referenes while editing and I have to go into less intuitive source mode or read mode. "References list List of general references This reference list is generated by a template, and for now can only be edited in source mode." and "Reference This reference is defined in a template or other generated block, and for now can only be edited in source mode." Graywalls (talk) 04:39, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not only avoiding the question, but also not making much sense. What is this about "complicated .js installation", or "keying in computer codes"? It's just text, there's no need to go anywhere near Javascript, the templates do all the hard work for you. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 21:12, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I was talking about having to install widget thing. I remember having to copy and paste something into My User Page to get Twinkle features. I was asking if I had to do something like that again. Graywalls (talk) 12:50, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It really is simple:

  1. In the citations section put in a standard {{cite}} or {{citation}} entry, for instance * {{Citation | last = Becker | first = M. Janet | year = 1930 | title = Rochester Bridge: 1387—1856 A History of its Early Years compiled from The Warden's Accounts}}
  2. Whenever you need to reference a page or pages, then use {{sfn}}: {{sfn|Becker|1930|p=12}}[2] and later {{sfn|Becker|1930|p=27}}[3]. You can refer again to page 12[2] or handle ranges[4] with ease.
  3. There is no point 3, the job is done. Let the server do the hard work!

– Oops, forgot the signature (thanks Chatul) Martin of Sheffield (talk) 11:54, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The question contains an assertion contrary to fact. {{sfn}} is no harder to use than other citation templates. There are use cases that are awkward for any citation style.
I don't know how others justify {{sfn}}, but it's the only template that I know of that allows citing different named locations in a single source without duplicating the details of the citation, functionality that I consider important. My only complaint about {{sfn}} applies equally to {{cite}} and {{citation}}: it is awkward to deal with hierarchical location names, e.g., Chapter foo Section baz versus Chapter bar Section baz, especially when the names contain punctuation. Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 11:46, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's not true. {{R}} does this very handily. EEng 00:25, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ a b c Example reference..
  2. ^ a b Becker 1930, p. 12.
  3. ^ Becker 1930, p. 27.
  4. ^ Becker 1930, pp. 12–14.

Citations

  • Becker, M. Janet (1930), Rochester Bridge: 1387—1856 A History of its Early Years compiled from The Warden's Accounts

Section headings for standard appendicies

I've always understood MOS:APPENDIX to mean that sections such as 'Further Reading' and 'External links' should have separate level 2 headers. 58.182.176.169 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) believes that these sections should be level 3 headers, subsections grouped under a 'References' level 2 header. A good example of their style is this historical revision. Is one of these two interpretations correct? Does the MOS support both styles? Fresh opinions would be appreciated, as discussion between myself and the IP on their talk page has gotten a bit heated. - MrOllie (talk) 16:35, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

They're separate level 2 sections. DrKay (talk) 16:40, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
When appendix sections are used, they should appear at the bottom of an article, with ==level 2 headings==,[9] followed by the various footers.
Now, I have sometimes seen level 3 headers when you have inline and general references (e.g. References H2, Citations H3, and Works cited H3), but the others don't really have good reason to be level 3 headers. --Izno (talk) 16:42, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So there izno reason for the others to use level 3? EEng 16:50, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not that I can see. --Izno (talk) 16:51, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 3 October 2020

A notice about mobile phone browsers should be added in this section: 

=== HTML tags and templates for abbreviations ===

Either the {{tag|abbr|o}} element or the {{tlx|abbr}} template can be used for abbreviations and acronyms: {{tag|abbr|params=title="World Health Organization"|content=WHO|wrap=yes}} or {{tlx|abbr|WHO|World Health Organization}} will generate {{abbr|WHO|World Health Organization}}; [[mouseover|hovering]] over the rendered text causes a [[tooltip]] of the long form to pop up.

Please note that viewing HTML tooltips has not yet been implemented yet in [[mobile phone]] browsers.

84.147.35.28 (talk) 11:54, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's too general a statement; it will depend on the mobile OS, the mobile device type, and the browser. 2601:643:8680:4C30:C44C:6223:4571:CB09 (talk) 20:24, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Show me one mobile phone which is able to display HTML tooltips (directly, not just through view-source:.) There is none. I wish there were. (Tooltips generated using CSS or JavaScript do not count; only pure HTML.) --84.147.37.94 (talk) 08:18, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notification about an RfC on Infobox Chinese at Democratic Progressive Party

There is an RfC here about whether Democratic Progressive Party should be one of the MOS:CHINA exceptions to including both Simplified Chinese and Traditional Chinese in the {{Infobox Chinese}}. The participation of interested editors is appreciated. — MarkH21talk 19:10, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

MOS:TENSE confusion

To be clear, I am (thus far) only an occasional editor, but this part of the Manual of Style doesn't make a ton of sense to me: "Generally, do not use past tense except for past events, subjects that are dead or no longer meaningfully exist, or periodicals and similar written material that are no longer being produced." Examples include: "The Beatles were an English rock band..." and "Jumbo Comics was an adventure anthology comic book..."

I changed the opening of an article about a defunct radio show to past tense: "The Campbell Playhouse (1938–1940) was a live CBS radio drama series..." This was swiftly reverted to "is", presumably because a radio show is not a "periodical and similar written material". So why is periodic written material treated differently than episodic audio or video material? For example, X "was" a comic book series that ended in 1940, but Y "is" a radio show that ended in 1940? One may conceivably still access copies or recordings of the comics or radio show, but neither are current productions. The only difference is that one was in the print medium while the other was in the broadcast audio medium.

I'm merely an occasional editor with a can of worms and a can opener, but this makes no sense to me. Can anyone help it make sense? Vernal Bogneris (talk) 22:53, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I guess you missed the signs: Caution! Minefield! DO NOT ENTER! EEng 00:23, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Vernalbogneris, the use of past tense for periodicals is recent, and the result of a lengthy RFC. I don't really grok our guidance on tense; to me it seems like there is some existential philosophy underlying the insistence on "is" for things that no longer "are" that I just don't grasp. Anyway, reading through that RfC might give you an idea of how different editors view the question. Schazjmd (talk) 23:09, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks folks! Think I better just put the can opener down and walk away. *tips hat* Vernal Bogneris (talk) 01:16, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Captions § Video timestamps

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Captions § Video timestamps. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 21:45, 4 October 2020 (UTC)Template:Z48[reply]

Use of "education" and "alma_mater" parameters in infoboxes

Am I correct in interpreting the explanations for "education" and 'alma_mater" in Template:Infobox person#Parameters to mean that only one of the two should be used in any given infobox? (The "alma_mater" comment says, "This parameter is a more concise alternative to (not addition to) |education= ...") I ask because I have recently seen several biographies (such as Morena Baccarin) in which the infoboxes used "alma_mater" to list colleges and universities and "education" to list high schools (or lower). Eddie Blick (talk) 01:39, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your interpretation is correct. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:11, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you,Nikkimaria. Eddie Blick (talk) 18:18, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I believe I have seen some that use |alma_mater= to list institutions and |education= to list degrees and/or field of study. MB 02:35, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
MB, That usage seems to go against the guidelines. The comments for "Education" say "... e.g., degree, institution and graduation year, ..." Eddie Blick (talk) 18:26, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yakubu Bako is an example. I'm not sure it would be better to reformat this all into alma_mater. Perhaps the doc should be changed "allow" editor discretion/other usage for better readability. MB 17:10, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
MB, It seems more logical to me to pair a degree with the institution from which it was earned. Did Backo earn both degrees from La Follette School of Public Affairs, University of Wisconsin-Madison? Maybe I should assume that from the infobox. I don't see either degree mentioned in the text. Eddie Blick (talk) 02:00, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes that is logical. On the other hand, the degrees may tell more about a person than the institution from which they were granted - and separating them may be more in line with the purpose of an infobox - to provide "key" information "at a glance". I personally wouldn't change any existing infobox to make it match the documentation for these parameters. MB 02:55, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The guidance to not use both |education= and |alma_mater= was emphasized in by SMcCandlish in Dec2017. I think it is overly prescription and we should allow more flexibility here. I propose removing "(not addition to)" and just saying alma_mater is an alternative. MB 20:14, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The documentation is clear on this. Various articles are doing it wrong if they're using both parameter names as a means of packing the infobox with trivia in the form of listed institutions the person attended. And the parameter have nothing to do with a university/collegiate versus lower-education split. PS: Making these parameter mutually exclusive instead of used together redundantly is not an idea I came up with, but the clear trajectory of numerous repeated discussions, and an RfC that nearly resulted in removing alma_mater entirely.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:47, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If the doc does indeed require one or the other, it should probably be enforced in the template, so both cannot show. Would seem logical to collapse them into one field like I do for manager in {{Infobox station}}. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 07:45, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Should the Joey Soloway article include Soloway's birth name in the lead?

Opinions are needed on the following: Talk:Joey Soloway#MOS:GENDERID with regard to article titles. A permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 20:17, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

MOS:GENDERID being used in place of WP:Article titles and for category arguments

For some time now, a few editors have been invoking MOS:GENDERID as though it is a piece on article titles. This recently came up again with the Jill Soloway (now Joey Soloway) article mentioned immediately above. At Talk:Joey Soloway#MOS:GENDERID with regard to article titles, I argued that "Regarding this move by Rab V, I just want to inform editors that MOS:GENDERID does not apply to article tiles. It is not about that. The policy to look at is WP:Article titles, specifically WP:Common name and WP:NAMECHANGES in this case. That is why the beginning of MOS:IDENTITY, which MOS:GENDERID is a subsection of, states 'and article titles when the term appears in the title of an article.' Now if one wants to cite WP:Ignore all rules, then cite that. But 'Jill Soloway' is Soloway's common name." Rab V, who moved the article to "Joey Soloway", argued against that, clearly feeling that MOS:GENDERID applies to article titles. I stated that "as made clear at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style before, MOS:GENDERID has never applied to article titles, despite you and a few others using it for an article title argument. We have an article title policy and MOS:GENDERID is not it. The MOS:GENDERID guideline does not trump the WP:Article titles policy."

Other cases of applying MOS:GENDERID beyond pronouns and names in article text? There are a number of them. But another case where an article was moved in the name of MOS:GENDERID is the Paul Denyer article. It was moved to "Paula Denyer" despite the fact that sources barely refer to Denyer as "Paula." And despite the fact that, as the article used to state, "as of 2013, Denyer had not yet taken the step of legally changing names." This line was removed without any valid reason given for the removal. Also, like the article currently states, "Medical specialists evaluated whether Denyer could receive sex reassignment surgery and rejected the idea." This article was also moved by Rab V. It's not like the literature refers to Denyer as a female serial killer; Denyer is considered a male serial killer in the literature. And the way Denyer behaved doesn't align with how female serial killers behave anyway (not unless perhaps killing with a male partner who dictates the killings). When Snifferdogx moved the article back to "Paul Denyer," C.Fred overturned this, citing MOS:GENDERID. So, right now, instead of being based on a policy or guideline, that article title goes by a serial killer's preferred name. And given what Denyer did to women, I understand the outrage at Talk:Paula Denyer. Beyond this, it has also been argued that MOS:GENDERID applies to categories, a notion that SMcCandlish and I disagree with.

So does MOS:GENDERID apply to WP:Article titles? To categories? Should it be used to trump WP:Article titles? Should MOS:GENDERID be updated to speak on article titles and/or categories? Should editors simply be allowed to change these article titles to the significantly less common name with no regard to WP:Article titles but rather on what they personally believe is a WP:Ignore all rules basis? I'll alert Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons, Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography, Wikipedia talk:Article titles, Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia talk:Categorization, and Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) to this section for discussion. If someone wants to alert Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies, then do that. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 20:17, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style&oldid=983362074"