Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 268: Line 268:


I just responded over at [[Talk:Native American name controversy]] and will repeat it here: Usage is generational and, to a lesser extent, regional. And the way folks talk in-group is rarely going to be the same as the voice that is appropriate for article space on the 'pedia. Urban Indians, descendants in academia, disconnected vs connected descendants, those on-reserve, on one coast or another, on the Plains, etc etc etc, all may have a bit of a different take on this. And all may answer with authority, or humility, and varying degrees of accuracy. Because on Wikipedia, you rarely know who you're really talking to, unless you have the background to already know the answer. When in doubt, you can come over to [[WP:NDN|the Indigenous wikiproject]] talk page and ask for input. But, in brief,
I just responded over at [[Talk:Native American name controversy]] and will repeat it here: Usage is generational and, to a lesser extent, regional. And the way folks talk in-group is rarely going to be the same as the voice that is appropriate for article space on the 'pedia. Urban Indians, descendants in academia, disconnected vs connected descendants, those on-reserve, on one coast or another, on the Plains, etc etc etc, all may have a bit of a different take on this. And all may answer with authority, or humility, and varying degrees of accuracy. Because on Wikipedia, you rarely know who you're really talking to, unless you have the background to already know the answer. When in doubt, you can come over to [[WP:NDN|the Indigenous wikiproject]] talk page and ask for input. But, in brief,
*'''"Indian"''' is not racist if, for instance, it is the name of an established organization run by Native Americans (and there is zero doubt they are actually Native Americans. For more on this, see the work in progress essay: [[User:Vizjim/The "Indian princess great-grandmother" principle]]), or if it's part of the self-identification of someone who is clearly Native American. Obviously, if someone is intending it as a perjorative, don't use it. But there is zero need to go around changing it in pages. '''However''', "Red Indian", like [[Redskin]], is a pejorative and should not be used. "Amerindian" or "Amerind", while primarily found in literature from the 1970s, is no longer used and seen to be... kind of annoying.
*'''"Indian"''' is not racist if, for instance, it is the name of an established organization run by Native Americans (and there is zero doubt they are actually Native Americans. For more on this, see the work in progress essay: [[User:Vizjim/The "Indian princess great-grandmother" principle]]), or if it's part of the self-identification of someone who is clearly Native American. Obviously, if someone is intending it as a perjorative, don't use it. But there is zero need to go around changing it in pages unless it was clearly intended as part of a slur or attack. '''However''', "Red Indian", like [[Redskin]], is a pejorative and should not be used. "Amerindian" or "Amerind", while primarily found in literature from the 1970s, is no longer used and seen to be... kind of annoying.
*'''Use people's actual Nation/Tribe''' - this is best. The usual formula used in the Native press is ''Name of person'' (Nation). For example: [[Kim TallBear]] ([[Sisseton Wahpeton Oyate]]), or [[Chuck Hoskin, Jr.]] ([[Cherokee Nation]]).
*'''Use people's actual Nation/Tribe''' - this is best. The usual formula used in the Native press is ''Name of person'' (Nation). For example: [[Kim TallBear]] ([[Sisseton Wahpeton Oyate]]), or [[Chuck Hoskin, Jr.]] ([[Cherokee Nation]]).
*'''Native American''' or '''Native''' is probably the most common nowadays, especially among younger people, running neck and neck with,
*'''Native American''' or '''Native''' is probably the most common nowadays, especially among younger people, running neck and neck with,

Revision as of 18:40, 3 September 2019

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 known to be 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)

Concluded

Extended content

№

Since 09:46, 14 September 2009 the Manual of Style has stated that № shouldn't be used in articles, why is this the case? The numero sign article itself and the Manual of Style template for punctuation marks use № as the primary definition. DynamoDegsy (talk) 16:04, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There may be other reasons as well, but we try to stay away from the more obscure precomposed characters because now and then some browser or screen reader doesn't support them. EEng 17:09, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I can't remember the last time (if ever) I have seen № in an English text. It is common in Russian texts. Doremo (talk) 19:14, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You know no №? --A D Monroe III(talk) 20:07, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Characters that can't be easily entered on most keyboards are hard for readers to search for using the search feature of their browsers, and hard for editors to enter. Symbols that don't provide a significant advantage over the corresponding characters that can be easily typed shouldn't be used. Jc3s5h (talk) 21:08, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
And yet articles regularly incorporate difficult to access characters, e.g. en space, em space, and the many variants of hyphens and dashes. DynamoDegsy (talk) 08:35, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
By the "keep markup simple" MOS rule, en space and em space should almost always be converted to regular ASCII spaces, or if absolutely necessary to   or   so they are distinguishable. Dashes are often written – or — but the raw Unicode characters are not difficult to access — there is a widget below every Wikipedia edit window and those are the first two characters on the Insert list there. -- Beland (talk) 20:33, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The numero sign is actually fairly common in English, it's just that it's usually written as No. (or similar), which is not how the character № looks in most fonts. (This is, of course, a good reason to avoid this character in the English Wikipedia in most situations.) --Zundark (talk) 16:15, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly concr with Jc3s5h, above. And MOS:NUM is all over this, too. We don't use precomposed fractions, nor various other Unicode doodads that aren't actually helpful in an open-encyclopedic context. — AReaderOutThataway t/c 15:26, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wholesale editing of the language used on Wikipedia

Wikipedia editors can program Wikipedia’s engines to control the language with little thought or consideration — robotically. And some do, with hundreds of edits: They use search engines to go around correcting grammar all across Wikipedia in a wholesale manner. For example, if an editor doesn't like sentences to end with prepositions, or they don't like the Oxford comma. To mention two examples that experts are divided about, that are not "settled law", and which the language in it's usual way, may eventually deal with. The English language has evolved naturally over time. That should be allowed. Instead, some editors, armed (cyborg-like) with engines and other tools, attempt to subvert and inhibit in a thoughtless way both English usage, and the language’s ability to evolve naturally. (We should all be either “pro-evolution” or else speak in Old English. Grammar-Nazis are on the wrong side of history.) How the language is affected by our devices, as a principle, should be considered. Wikipedia is a thing built out of language (and also engines). I’d like to know if anyone else has considered this, or can think of what to do. I think one possible solution is for Wikipedia to publish some kind of guidance against thoughtless, wholesale editing of this type. Thanks. - Quarterpinion (talk) 14:16, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So you want a guideline saying "Editing thoughtlessly is not recommended"? EEng 14:25, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pretty sure SMcCandlish had commented on an addition like this at some point recently. I'm not sure where it is though. --Izno (talk) 14:31, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry to point out that SMcCandlish hasn't edited since May. I'm guessing this is a result of the Signpost kerfuffle, but whatever's going on, I hope he comes back when he's ready. Though he could be a bit of a motormouth at times, his knowledge and insight were more than valuable. EEng 04:35, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, wait, good. He's not dead [2]. EEng 04:41, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Aside from seeking obvious errors (Hapsburg, millenium, the the, etc.), I think nearly everyone already agrees that drive-by edits solely based on personal preferences are largely inappropriate. Doremo (talk) 14:37, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As background for anyone who's not aware, this relates to Quarterpinion falling foul of one particular editor's personal crusade to remove every occurrence of the phrase "comprised of" from Wikipedia. People have literally been complaining for years, but nobody can ever agree as to whether this is legitimate copyediting or an abusive attempt to force personal preferences onto everyone else. ‑ Iridescent 14:57, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
In terms of disruptive crusades, Griraffe's seems one of the least concerning to me. It's not a hard-and-fast rule (is there anything in English that is?) but it's also not hard to work around, and it's nowhere near as big an effect on article structure as most other MoS issues. It'd be like me going around to change "hold down the fort" and "chomping at the bit" to the correct versions. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 15:31, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
To respond to a couple of comments:
EEng, I think a possible guideline could say something like: “Wikipedia editors have the ability to program Wikipedia’s engines to control the language wholesale or robotically — with little thought or consideration, with hundreds of edits that correct what they consider usage errors, but they should not. If an editor doesn't like sentences to end with prepositions (as one example), that is something that experts are divided about, it is not "settled law”. The language in a natural and evolutionary way, may eventually deal with this kind of issue. The English language should be allowed to evolve. Editors should not use engines and other tools to attempt to subvert and inhibit in a thoughtless way both English usage, and the language’s ability to evolve naturally. Editors may edit as they see fit, but not wholesale — with many consecutive edits — but with thought and consideration given for each edit that’s made.”
Iridescent gives one example, but there are others. And I’m more interested in whether Wikipedia can handle the larger or umbrella-principle sense of this — in a way that would be helpful to past and future examples. Griraffe is not the only one doing this. As Iridescent indicates, commenting on a talk page of someone who is making wholesale edits appears to get you nowhere. - Quarterpinion (talk) 15:38, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If someone is bulk-editing disruptively, that's a policy violation. If they're just editing to replace something which isn't correct in all variants of English with a synonym that is—as is the case with "comprised of"—then that falls under WP:COMMONALITY, they're upholding Wikipedia policy by so doing, and nobody is going to sanction them for it. ‑ Iridescent 15:45, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Iridescent, I don’t consider the issue to be disruptive editing, or a violation of current policy. I think its a question of how Wikipedia uses the English language — thoughtfully or not — and do we allow the English language to evolve freely as it has for centuries. Can we edit thoughtlessly like robots on an assembly-line? Click, click, click? Yes, we can. Hundreds of edits can be made in a few minutes without much thought — by using devices on Wikipedia that were certainly not intended to contribute thoughtlessness, or to limit the language’s evolution. We can keep the language on a short leash, we can control it with the use of engines. We can do all that, and we do. But should we? I don’t think so. I don’t see this covered in WP:COMMONALITY. It may call for a new policy, if not perhaps a guideline. Quarterpinion (talk) 16:09, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Iridescent: except that WP:COMMONALITY isn't policy, and blanketly enforcing it, in opposition to local article consensus, could well be considered to be disruptive. -- DeFacto (talk). 16:24, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia's purpose isn't to be an expression of the full diversity of the English language; its purpose is to be informative. If there are some constructions which some readers (including me) but not all readers consider to be errors, leaving them in when there are universally accepted alternatives just distracts from the information being conveyed. Most professional publications with a large amount of text (newspapers, serious magazines, encyclopedias) don't allow free variation in language, either. They have style manuals, like this one, which make arbitrary choices about what language forms to use. If done well, this sort of consistency looks better on the page and is also easier to read. Professional publications, like Wikipedia, which do not have bylines, do not seek to sound as if they were written by a dozen or thousand different voices; they seek to sound like a single voice with a consistent and appropriate style. (Though Wikipedia is so big it does have noticeably different voices due to different national varieties of English.) One of the reasons to have editors at all is to harmonize the work of different authors. It's possible to enforce too much consistency and create monotony by eliminating too many grammatical variations, but this manual of style and this particular grammatical change being made aren't anywhere near that line. Elimination of perceived error lends credibility (if we can't get the grammar right, why expect us to get the facts right?) and in this case appears to have been done quite thoughtfully. Should we worry that people who make systematic adjustments to language forms in Wikipedia are influencing what people think of as correct English? I think Wikipedia does have an influence, but I actually think this sort of process is creating a new, better version of English — one that is more easily understood everywhere in the world. This isn't pushing language change by inventing new forms or using neologisms, it's picking the best parts of the already commonly accepted language, which is exactly what editors should be doing. -- Beland (talk) 05:45, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Elimination of "comprised of" and "comprising of" will certainly be a step in a good direction. It's hard to imagine why anyone would argue to keep such meaningless errorful constructs in an encyclopedia. Dicklyon (talk) 06:13, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • This topic could be its own issue. Right now it is only part of other conversations. If anyone wants to make this its own issue, then make a Wikipedia: page, try to collect links to various similar discussions which happened in the past, propose a guideline, then RfC to set the precedent. We will be at day 0 of the conversation until and unless someone does this. Blue Rasberry (talk) 06:14, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If I may respond to a couple of the above comments. Dicklyon, I am not at all interested keeping or eliminating the particular constructs you mentioned. If an editor wants to edit those things, they should do so. My question is not really a “style question”, so I may be on the wrong page, sorry if I am, but people here are thoughtful about more than just style, and I appreciate it. Beland, I don’t think we disagree that a Manual of Style is a good thing. Though I may not go along when you suggest that Wikipedia seeks to sound like a single voice. If that were so, Wikipedia would not be what it is, and such a goal would probably have to be spelled out somewhere. Bluerasberry, I think your suggestion is a good one, it sounds like potentially the best WP method to deal with the kind of question I’m asking. Thanks, to all. - Quarterpinion (talk) 02:54, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is already covered by the interplay of MOS:RETAIN and WP:MEATBOT. Each instance is different. A year or so ago, we had two much bigger "cases", with all kinds of drama, pretty much back-to-back, and there was insufficient consensus to enact anything about it here or at any other page. So, someone cleaning up prepositions at the ends of sentences isn't going to result in new rules, either. — AReaderOutThataway t/c 15:23, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@AReaderOutThataway: Thank you very much, this answers a lot, and it makes sense. I am intrigued by your mention that "A year or so ago, we had two much bigger cases” — can you give some idea where to find those discussions? Thanks again. - Quarterpinion (talk) 14:00, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really recall the details. Archive 205 has a proposal to add MEATBOT-related wording to MoS, as a result of those incidents, so presumably they were not too long before that. The thread at the top of that page mentions MEATBOT, but doesn't seem to be one of the two cases that followed one shortly after the other. At least one of them ended up at ANI. I can't remember what the topics were, but there was drama because in both cases it was semi-automated change that wasn't really necessary to begin with, and which continued after objection to the changes. — AReaderOutThataway t/c 22:08, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Contradictory MOS guidance for using crore, etc

MOS:NUMERAL seems to essentially say, We're not telling you not to use lakh and crore, but don't use lakh and crore.. On the other hand, MOS:INDIA#Basic India conventions says to go ahead and use lakh and crore, but give the equivalent standard number alongside (which isn't generally done). These two sections seem to contradict each other, so I thought I'd bring this up and see if anyone had suggestions for how to reconcile this. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 23:22, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I think that lakh and crore are not understood by most of the English-speaking world, or at least not by most of the English-speaking world outside of India. For other ENGVAR things like spelling and word choice, there's not usually much intelligibility issue, so that's all fine. In this case, a stronger suggestion to not use lakh and crore, or at least to be sure to also show numbers that the rest of the world would understand, makes the most sense. But I haven't looked at the wording; that's just my opinion of a thought to approach it with. Dicklyon (talk) 23:58, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Even the most discouraging MOS pages I found allow the terms when "contextually important" as they often are (sources and other editors use the terms constantly). All MOS pages I looked at recommend linking first instances the terms for those who don't understand them. As I noted in a Talk:India thread some time ago, my print Encylopædia Britannica uses those terms without any explanation. IOW, if you're interested in India, you should understand those terms. What you're definitely not supposed to do is adopt the digit separators peculiar to the Indian system (99,99,99,999), which indicate lakhs and crores. Dhtwiki (talk) 03:36, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
To me, "contextually important" for crore means that the article is actually talking about the crore as an entity in its own right, probably in the context of number systems in general. This is a pretty standard exception for most kinds of proscriptions in the MOS; conversion from crores to millions is trivial and shouldn't depend on what was used in a source. What EB did is kind of irrelevant. People who happen upon an India-related article shouldn't be expected to know what crores and lakhs are. But the main point is that we have contradictory guidance in two places in the MOS. I don't know the whole history or what should have precedence, or all the various discussions that have happened up to this point. I started this thread to try to get this sorted out, and because some other people probably have a better handle on that. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 17:20, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The recent RFC is here. --Izno (talk) 18:10, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Mnmh, yeah. Well, MOS, like all rules, is usually more supposed to codify common practice than didactically prescribe stuff. I guess common practice by Indian editors using Indian sources in articles pertaining to India is to use the Indian numbering system a lot (not always, I guess). So OK. If you're looking at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/India-related articles, you're specifically looking for guidance on articles related to India. For those, it says you "may" (not "must" or even "should") use the Indian numbering system. That seems sensible.
But then, the main MOS says that this is discouraged in Wikipedia articles by WP:Manual of Style#Opportunities for commonality. And it is! But there are lot of contradictory things that are discouraged here. If an editor, reading the main MOS (and perhaps not even being aware of what WP:INDIA says, or anyway preferring the main MOS), wants to not use the Indian numbering system, that is entirely fine, and no problem. If another editor, reading WP:INDIA (and perhaps not even being aware of what the main MOS says, or anyway preferring WP:INDIA) wants to use the Indian numbering system, that also is entirely fine.
And WP:ENGVAR does lead off with "The English Wikipedia prefers no national variety of the language over any other". It then goes on to talk about spelling and date formats and not specifically about milliards and crore and so forth. But then neither does it specify that the Indian numbering system is not included. And lists of examples are not considered to be intended to be exhaustive unless so stated, I think.
And that's the situation that we have now. I'm not seeing a huge problem. Unless there starts to be a conflict or something. I wouldn't worry about it too much.
This could be expressed better. It probably should say "this is discouraged in Wikipedia articles by WP:Manual of Style#Opportunities for commonality, but encouraged by common practice, and not mentioned at all by WP:ENGVAR, so do what you think best, and give others that same courtesy". Or something. But it's not worth the heavy lifting to enact this language, at least for me. Herostratus (talk) 00:42, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, looking at the above-mentioned RfC, I see that my comment re the Encyclopædia Britannica was made there, not at Talk:India, in case someone actually went searching for it at the latter spot and couldn't find it. Dhtwiki (talk) 20:14, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I just ran across Mahanagar Gas which needs some cleanup relative to use of lakh. Is there an appropriate tag? MB 23:47, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Sometimes Wikipedia has ambiguity and mixed practices as its chosen norm, and this is one of those cases. I think the mixed use is fine and that articles on Indian topics are better for using the standard terms in the source literature and culture. If anyone proposed another guideline discussion on the topic then I would participate. Blue Rasberry (talk) 06:19, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per WP:CONLEVEL, MOS:NUM (which contains MOS:NUMERAL) supersedes MOS:INDIA. However, since MOS:NUM isn't "banning" krore and lakh, the smart thing to do is to merge these quasi-conflicting sections so they agree: Generally avoid using those numeric system unless it's important in the context; but if you do use them, then provide standard Western numbers intelligible to most of the readers of en.WP. — AReaderOutThataway t/c 15:18, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • ENGVAR is one thing (and believe it or not, I once published (1999) a hefty AE-BE dictinary), but the language of Wikipedia as I understand it, is supposed to be fairly easily understood by most readers whether native English users or not. We are not supposed to be confronting them with guessing games that force them to leave the page unnecessarily to look up what is meant. This is the English Wikipedia and AFAIK, it's not the 'Indian Wikipedia in English' - yet. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:12, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree with Kudpung. The use of crore, lakh and the "peculiar" comma-separations impedes access for the majority of our readers and adds nothing except in articles specifically concerning those units and formats. - Sitush (talk) 02:43, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:COMMENT question

Both List of Pi Kappa Phi chapters and Sigma Delta Alpha both have a *block* of comments more than 25 lines long on the proper way to change or add rows to the chapter table. While as far as I can tell, these are correct, is this a proper use of the Comment block? I'm not sure that an edit notice can be restricted to display only if that section (or the entire article) is edited. I don't like the block, but I'm not sure what would be better.Naraht (talk) 17:23, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If it's hidden in an HTML comment, it's harmless. In these cases, they're useful, because article like this will attract the edits of noobs (e.g. fraternity members) who have no idea how to edit wikitables and who aren't likely to go read a separate documentation page. The material could probably be compressed a bit, but it's not directly affecting the output for the readers, and indirectly affecting it positively (by heading off well-meaning but incompetent changes that mangle the tables). So, it's not really a style matter. — AReaderOutThataway t/c 15:14, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
AReaderOutThataway Given that WP:COMMENT appears to be the policy that most directly pertains, I think that this would be the place to discuss. I agree that it doesn't hurt it, but I think there needs to be something indicating what is an isn't appropriate in a comment...Naraht (talk)
No, this isn't the place. Work it out on the talk page of one of the articles. EEng 22:12, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, we really have no interest in micro-managing HTML comments. Whether any are needed at a page and what one should say generally depend entirely on the editing history, formatting, and other aspects of the article. E.g., at a list of rabbit breeds or pool and billiards games, one might need an HTML comment mentioning WP:NFT and an admonition against adding non-notable cruft you and your buddies are cooking up. At an page that's mostly a table of football scores, you might need one on what table-row templates to use. At an article on some sort of aquarium fish, you might need a comment in the "External links" section informing noobs about WP:EL and WP:SPAM. And so on. HTML comments are very contextual. — AReaderOutThataway t/c 06:05, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Capitalization question

The titles of some news/magazine articles use sentence case (e.g. "Here's what we know about the fires in the Amazon rainforest") while others use title case (e.g. "The Amazon Cannot Be Recovered Once It's Gone"). Should these titles be standardized to one style of capitalization within an article, or should the original capitalizations be retained? The preferred approach isn't clear to me after reading through Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Titles. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 03:58, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Using a headline in an article would be a form of quotation, I reckon, so I'd recommend putting it in quotes and styling it however it was in the original. But I don't think there's specific guidance on it. Primergrey (talk) 04:09, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm guessing he means in citations. I'd be OK just copying the original (not all-caps though), or making them consistent; whatever reference style is picked for an article (consistent or mixed case) should then be left alone. Unless we someday have a preferred reference style about such things. Dicklyon (talk) 04:23, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I was referring to the capitalization style in citations. In response to Primergrey, MOS:CONFORM says that it's fine to alter quotations in order to align them with Wikipedia's house formatting guidelines. I was just wondering if Wikipedia actually has a house style when it comes to the capitalization of headlines in citations. From what Dicklyon is saying, it doesn't seem like there's a specific guideline about this. I personally think that standardizing to title case looks best if some of the headlines in the references section already use title case—but I agree that copying the original titles and leaving them mixed-case would also be fine as long as it's done consistently. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 05:25, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Every publisher alters capitalisation in titles of works cited to harmonise with their own house style. Otherwise reference lists would be a mess. WP prefers not to capitalise unless necessary. Tony (talk) 06:30, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
My take is that a headline is the title of a work within the paper, much as a journal article within a journal. I would suggest consistently using title case for same. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 07:34, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yep. Our default (per MOS:TITLES) is normalizing to title case. (Even if we interpreted titles of works as quotations, which we certainly do not, their normalization would still be permissible per MOS:CONFORM.) More people will do the work to normalize a title when it's a book or periodical than when it's a chapter or article within a larger work (the titles of the sub-works tend to be longer). Regardless, WP:CITE permits various citation styles, and wants a consistent one on a per-article basis. There are some citation styles that dictate sentence case for titles. Per WP:CITEVAR, an article on WP using such a style consistently should be left using it, absent a discussion on the talk page to change it. In my experience, few people object to citation style changes that are in the direction of increased consistency with MOS's (thus WP's) defaults, except at pages that are technical (e.g. medical), well-developed, and following a specific citation style common in that specialty (e.g. AMA style). — AReaderOutThataway t/c 15:10, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This is what I was thinking initially; I just wasn't sure if MOS:TITLECAPS's guidelines about the capitalization of "works" applied to "sub-works", as you call them. However, it makes sense to consider newspaper articles, book chapters, etc. as works in their own right, and to convert them to title case accordingly. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 17:01, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Tony1, just so I'm clear: When you say that Wikipedia prefers to avoid unnecessary capitalization, are you suggesting that the titles of newspaper articles and the like not be normalized to title case? – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 17:01, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I certainly would downcase newspaper article titles—Especiallly New York Times Practice of Capping The Start Of Even Small Words Like "To". I can't believe they still persist, and it's a disservice to our readers to plant it in our articles. MOS insists on consistent approach within an article, So If Reproducing That Style, It Should Be Done Throughout For Article Titles From Not Only Newspaper, But Academic Journals. :-) Tony (talk) 22:53, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify, if using title case, we would adopt our style rules for title case and not just cap every word. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 23:05, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, after seeing this reply I'm less sure about the answer to my question than I was to begin with. Downcase all headlines? Copy the original headlines and leave mixed-case? Convert all headlines to title case per MOS:TITLECAPS? People in this discussion have suggested all three options. I guess there isn't a firm consensus on this issue. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 16:37, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The default would be to convert, as needed, per MOS:TITLECAPS. Deviate from it, per WP:CITEVAR, when the article is already consistently using a citation style that demands a different treatment (most often sentence case), unless it's all-caps, a style that is effectively banned by MOS:CAPS. There's really just one answer, if you know the applicable guidelines and how they interrelate. However, simply copy-pasting the original formatting from the source into a citation is entirely permissible; no one has to comply with MoS to add material, and adding viable citations in particular is more important that tweaking their orthography (just don't fight against WP:GNOMEs who come along later and clean up style stuff to conform to the guidelines). — AReaderOutThataway t/c 06:11, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Concerns about using italics

Why must we use italics in article titles even when other publications, such as the Argentine newspapers Clarín and La Nación, or even the US newspaper The New York Times, just use boldface for news article titles rather than italics? --Fandelasketchup (talk) 15:38, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fandelasketchup, I do not understand the question. Are you talking about Wikipedia articles or articles from newspapers? Newspaper articles are not supposed to be italicized. See MOS:TITLE. They would be considered a minor work and they would be put inside a pair of straight quotes. Wikipedia article titles follow the same guidelines. See WP:ITALICTITLE. Most publications, including Wikipedia, have their own house style. Ours "contains some conventions that differ from those in some other, well-known style guides and from what is often taught in schools. Wikipedia's editors have discussed these conventions in great detail and have reached consensus that these conventions serve our purposes best." PopularOutcasttalk2me! 21:11, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
PopularOutcast, my question was why must we use italics in our articles' titles if other publications may not do that, opting to reserve italics for foreign words not adopted in a certain publication's native language (in our example, Latin words used in English.) The newspaper example was just that, an example. Sorry for any misunderstanding. --Fandelasketchup (talk) 23:48, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
To answer the question, I believe, see footnote 8 of WP:Article titles. --Izno (talk) 23:57, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Alphabetization of Surnames Containing Prepositions & Articles

About two months ago I started this same conversation here and while there were “Opposes” & “Supports” (even if the “Supports” weren’t bolded and written as such, they were there), no conclusion was ever really made so I thought maybe I could revive it here since another user insists upon consistent reverts to my submitted content.

So again, I propose that when alphabetizing French surnames containing the prefix "de" or "d'"(meaning of), alphabetize under the actual surname, not under the preposition/particle. With the article "La" or "Le", the capitalization almost always occurs under the prefix.

Also, capitalization of the element is also considered a factor. La and Le are almost always capitalized while de and d' are usually lowercased, meaning, in alphabetized lists, names are alphabetized under their first capitalized element.

Examples:

Lesseps, Ferdinand de
Musset, Alfred de

and

La Bruyere, Rene
La Tour, Georges de

Issue:

The above has often been disputed and has led to occasional edit wars regarding proper alphabetizing in paragraphs and lists within articles. This issue isn't addressed anywhere in Wikipedia and maybe it's time? AnAudLife (talk) 17:34, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References/Citations:

  • "In the names of Frenchmen and -women, de and d’ are almost always lowercased; treatment of du varies. La and Le are almost always capitalized. In alphabetized lists, names are alphabetized under their first capitalized element." GrammerPhobia
  • "If the prefix consists of an article or of a contraction of an article and a preposition, enter under the prefix: La Bruyere, Rene and Des Granges, Charles-Marc. Otherwise, enter under the part of the name following the preposition: Musset, Alfred de and La Fontaine, Jean de." Book Crossing

Comments:

  • To whom is the BookCrossing quote attributed? What are their credentials on the matter? Grammarphobia mentions "the names of Frenchmen and -women," and therefore, French nationals. The reference does not state how to alphabetize nationals of other countries with names of French origin (e.g. Americans with French names still fall under the American naming system). It also references Charles de Gaulle, a French national, being known as de Gaulle, providing an exception to the rule. Who decides these exceptions? The Merriam-Webster reference seems accurate, however, it also seems to observe a pattern rather than a definitive rule. It also requires deducing where one's last name originates, and a guideline of such seems excessive. KyleJoantalk 20:33, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
We have tons on this somewhere (or in several places). It gets very complicated, and is not consistent. I don't entirely see why the nationality of the person matters - and how is one always supposed to know that? Johnbod (talk) 20:44, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@KyleJoan: What is your basis for alphabetizing Lesseps, Ferdinand de (alphabetized by the "L") and Lesseps, Luann de (you're proposing by the "de")? What is the difference as you interpret it, they are the same particle and surname? Because she's an American that married a French man? I don't see why nationality plays a part at all. A French name is still a French name. Georges de La Tour is also alphabetized by the "L" as opposed to the "de", there are many names just like this that I've shared over and over and over. I've provided numerous references, discussions, even norms, where are yours? To address the validity of my sources...if you read them fully I'm sure you will have a greater understanding of their content. AnAudLife (talk) 21:10, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think KyleJoan's point is that an American of French ancestry with the same name would almost certainly be alphabetized under "D" for "de la Tour". Even if they were descended from the same person as a Frenchman. So, in this English language work (Wikipedia), you seem to be advocating the idea that the American would be filed under D and the Frenchman under L. That seems weird to me. --Khajidha (talk) 20:49, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As Johnbod pointed out, alphabetizing is already complicated and inconsistent, and in my view, assigning more guidelines based on the origin of one's name without regard to their nationality brings more confusion. For example, if two people of two different nationalities with no relation hold the same last name, per WP:MCSTJR, the alphabetization may place them differently based on each country's naming system. Moreover, regarding Americans specifically, if one's last name contains a de, they would be filed under D regardless of capitalization. KyleJoantalk 22:12, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
But standard English usage would be to not file under "D". Consider the English equivalent of the Duke of Edinburgh; he would be files under "Edinburgh, Duke of" not "of Edinburgh, Duke". Where the "de" has been permanently joined to the main part of the name the situation is different; "John DeLorean" files under "DeLorean, John". If this were an issue of transsexual names MOS:GENDERID would be insisting that we use the name by which a person wishes to be known. Should not the same apply here and we should stop trying to force non-English names into an assumed enGB or enUS pattern? Martin of Sheffield (talk) 22:33, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
But "Duke of Edinburgh" is an actual English phrase with an actual English meaning. By contrast, "de la Tour" has no meaning in English aside from being a name. --Khajidha (talk) 22:58, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I completely agree that one's preference regarding the alphabetization of their name should take precedence. I'm addressing situations where said preference isn't known. On the subject of de separated from the main part of one's name, Olivia de Havilland, an American-British-French national, is alphabetized as de Havilland, Olivia. Such might be her preference, but aside from that, her French nationality directs that she should be alphabetized as Havilland, Olivia de. To further complicate it, both of her parents were British; therefore, her nationality and the origin of her name aren't identical. We may not even know the origins of some names at all, so I believe assumed en-GB and en-US patterns are fair when the subjects are nationals of those countries. KyleJoantalk 00:06, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How to write a good article

Hi everyone, I'm sort of a newcomer here. I believe the MoS may be a goldmine in terms of capturing great wiki culture (wikipatterns?). As it happens, I'm pondering (corporate) article guidelines to mitigate articles going outdated, poorly structured or otherwise unappealing and unmanageable. I'll definitely peruse Wikipedia:Essays in a nutshell/Article writing but also miss any reference to it from here. I feel that somewhere, beside all the details already here, there is an abstract concept of what makes a great, timeless article - can we add it to the manual of style somehow? Also all guidance and inspiration is much appreciated, do share it! CarlJohanSveningsson (talk) 12:42, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm puzzled by what it is that you're after. It seems to me that any article that's outdated, poorly structured or unmanageably verbose needs updating, restructuring or trimming, and that this will be obvious to most people, who, if they have the time, energy and inclination, will update, restructure or trim without being told that/how this is necessary. As for the abstract concept, how about Wikipedia:Principles? If you're after the abstract concept of good encyclopedic writing, I'd warn you off it: good writing comes from practice (plus intelligence, etc) rather than from reading and citing abstract concepts. And as you've written very little in en:WP since 2012, I'd urge you to get in a lot of writing practice before considering how to tell others how they should write. Apologies if I misunderstand your question. -- Hoary (talk) 03:52, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, slight misunderstanding, but I still very much appreciate your comment and thoughts! Will digest them a while...
Indeed I'm after something like the "concept of good encyclopedic writing", though perhaps even more general. Admittedly I'm asking from the standpoint of the corporate wikis I work with. Since Wikipedia has established certain wikipatterns (and I will read "Chapter 2. Your Wiki Isn’t (Necessarily) Wikipedia") but the concept I'm certain may be formulated isn't in this manual, beside posing my question I figured it may eventually be incorporated here.
Let's see, humoring me yet another moment, what I'm after... In Wikipedia, which article to create may be a smaller issue than in a corporate wiki where anything from meeting minutes to FAQs will mix. However, relating to another mode of knowledge capture, commit messages should "Use the imperative mood in the subject line" as well as "Use the body to explain what and why vs. how". More than may be expected, these subtle decisions influence the long-term usefulness of the message. An antipattern (in corporate wikis) would be authoring walkthroughs, which usually get outdated and confusing as soon as circumstances of any step within them change.
So, realizing trying to apply this "wikipattern" back to Wikipedia is strenuous, I am asking for principles of article authoring that will minimize maintenance and maximize their timelessness. Anyway, the references I've already received and found will give some insight, but there you have an elaboration of my general train of thought. Thanks again for your attention. CarlJohanSveningsson (talk) 13:33, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
We have lots of this material already, and WP:MOS is a style guideline, not a content-development one. I would say to start with WP:Writing better articles and WP:Article development, and follow the various "See also" links at the ends of them (and at the ends of the pages they link to, in turn).  — AReaderOutThataway t/c 18:49, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Native American Name Controversy

Has there been a resolution on WP of the Native American name controversy? There are some editors who use, or insist on using, the word Indian. This word is considered pejorative or racist by some. It is also inexact in an internationally available site or publication, as it refers to persons of the sub continent. The article Indian Massacre of 1622 is misleading as the title infers that Indians were massacred, the event is popularly known as the Jamestown Massacre or Jamestown Massacre of 1622,not the Indian massacre. I've seen it referred to as the Powhatan massacre.

I have changed the word Indian to Native American and "Indian" only to have the change reverted by an editor, different pages. I have tried to bring the issue to discussion on talk pages, but either no response, or an angry response. Is a consensus possible? It would eliminate edit warring and cool things down. The US Government has opted for the term Native American. Should not WP follow the lead of the government?Oldperson (talk) 01:24, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Oldperson: This is several issues at once. The central matter might be ripe for an RfC by now. I would suggest that WP:VPPOL is the best venue for that. Read WP:RFC carefully. Advocating for one side or the other when drafting an RfC will get it labeled non-neutral and possibly administratively closed as an invalid RfC. Opinions will be divided on it; even some Native Americans prefer the term "Indian[s]", so it's not a cut-and-dry matter (though the potential for confusion is higher on WP that it would be in some other contexts).

Whether a particular page should move is a WP:RM matter. In this case, you're making a WP:COMMONNAME argument as well as a WP:PRECISE one, so it might turn out to be a pretty routine move).

Finally, WP doesn't care what some government's "official" position on usage is (see WP:OFFICIALNAME, and notice that we have our own WP:Manual of Style rather than follow third-party ones like the US Government Publishing Office Style Manual). We care about the dominant usage in independent, English-language, contemporary reliable sources.
 — AReaderOutThataway t/c

@AReaderOutThataway:Thanks so very much for your clear and succinct response.It took some research but I think that I have done the job. See the template Talk:Native American name controversy I hope that does it. There shouldn't be a controversy on WP, as it is a source for the public at large and especially. School children, what they see here they carry with them, be it myth, fact, propagana or AGF disinformation.Oldperson (talk) 21:01, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I just responded over at Talk:Native American name controversy and will repeat it here: Usage is generational and, to a lesser extent, regional. And the way folks talk in-group is rarely going to be the same as the voice that is appropriate for article space on the 'pedia. Urban Indians, descendants in academia, disconnected vs connected descendants, those on-reserve, on one coast or another, on the Plains, etc etc etc, all may have a bit of a different take on this. And all may answer with authority, or humility, and varying degrees of accuracy. Because on Wikipedia, you rarely know who you're really talking to, unless you have the background to already know the answer. When in doubt, you can come over to the Indigenous wikiproject talk page and ask for input. But, in brief,

  • "Indian" is not racist if, for instance, it is the name of an established organization run by Native Americans (and there is zero doubt they are actually Native Americans. For more on this, see the work in progress essay: User:Vizjim/The "Indian princess great-grandmother" principle), or if it's part of the self-identification of someone who is clearly Native American. Obviously, if someone is intending it as a perjorative, don't use it. But there is zero need to go around changing it in pages unless it was clearly intended as part of a slur or attack. However, "Red Indian", like Redskin, is a pejorative and should not be used. "Amerindian" or "Amerind", while primarily found in literature from the 1970s, is no longer used and seen to be... kind of annoying.
  • Use people's actual Nation/Tribe - this is best. The usual formula used in the Native press is Name of person (Nation). For example: Kim TallBear (Sisseton Wahpeton Oyate), or Chuck Hoskin, Jr. (Cherokee Nation).
  • Native American or Native is probably the most common nowadays, especially among younger people, running neck and neck with,
  • Indigenous, though Indigenous is not specific to the Americas. It can be coupled with a more specific term such as "Indigenous Australian" or "Indigenous Canadian". But on it's own it's too broad if you're only referring to Native Americans in the United States and/or
  • FNIM people. FNIM is an accepted umbrella, but more specific naming is good when possible. See those articles for more specifics. And, again, feel free to ping the wikiproject. - CorbieV ☊ ☼ 21:57, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style&oldid=913868481"