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
→‎Nobility: Fallen women
Line 1,364: Line 1,364:
**:::::: They're still Battlestar Galactica, though. And enough articles about media franchises have separate media rolled into them that this is a significant issue. [[User talk:Jacob Gotts|{ <small><math>\mathbb{JPG}</math></small> }]] 06:00, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
**:::::: They're still Battlestar Galactica, though. And enough articles about media franchises have separate media rolled into them that this is a significant issue. [[User talk:Jacob Gotts|{ <small><math>\mathbb{JPG}</math></small> }]] 06:00, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
**::::::: If the article is about the franchise, I have no objection to ''is''. That's a separate question from articles on series. It's really not generally hard to tell which one a given article is about. --[[User:Trovatore|Trovatore]] ([[User talk:Trovatore|talk]]) 06:03, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
**::::::: If the article is about the franchise, I have no objection to ''is''. That's a separate question from articles on series. It's really not generally hard to tell which one a given article is about. --[[User:Trovatore|Trovatore]] ([[User talk:Trovatore|talk]]) 06:03, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
Point of order: I just counted how many times people have posted in these discussions since June 1st. Here's the tally:
* Trovatore: 21
* Jacob Gotts (JPG): 9
* Mike Christie: 9
* SMCandlish: 6
* Toughpigs: 5
* C.A. Russell, Netoholic: 3
* Dhtwiki, Herostratus, Masem, TAnthony: 2
* Calidum, EEng, Khajidha, King of Hearts, MapReader, Primegrey, Renata, Spy-cicle: 1
I counted these up, because I've been feeling like Trovatore has (intentionally or not) been wearing everyone else down in order to "[[WP:BLUDGEON|win]]" this discussion. They respond to basically everything that anyone says, with flat assertions like "it's just ''not good English usage'' to do so," which seem to be subjective arguments masquerading as eternal truths. I'm pointing this out because I think that if this continues, Trovatore will make it seem like there's consensus for their point of view, when actually they've just repeated themselves so many times that other people give up and go away. I think that any consensus coming out of this conversation would need a brand new start, in order to have real legitimacy. — [[User:Toughpigs|Toughpigs]] ([[User talk:Toughpigs|talk]]) 03:44, 10 June 2020 (UTC)


===Discussion===
===Discussion===

Revision as of 03:44, 10 June 2020

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

RfC: Use of Large Quotes in article space, and the Cquote template

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Proposal 1A has consensus. Not reaching consensus, a small number of !votes advocated for a second stage implementation of 1C. With insufficient support and significant opposition, there was no consensus for Proposal 2 of either variant A or B. (non-admin closure) -SusanLesch (talk) 17:39, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Cquote template is used in many articles to set off quotes with large quote marks. The MOS says not to use it in articles and the template also contains that instruction.

Thus, rule and practice are not in good alignment. How should we fix this (if we should)? Should the quote marks be removed from those articles that use it by modifying {{Cquote}}? Or should the MOS be changed?

-- DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 00:01, 29 December 2019 (UTC) and Herostratus (talk) 14:26, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Additional background material

This is {{Quote}}:

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Sit amet porttitor eget dolor morbi. Scelerisque mauris pellentesque pulvinar pellentesque habitant morbi tristique senectus.

And this is {{Cquote}}:

DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 00:01, 29 December 2019 (UTC) and Herostratus (talk) 14:39, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Specific proposals

DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 00:01, 29 December 2019 (UTC) and Herostratus (talk) 14:26, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Proposal 2: Change the MOS to match the usage.
    • Proposal 2A: Remove the proscriptive clauses from the MOS etc. and replace them with nothing -- neither encourage, nor discourage, use of {{Cquote}}; just don't mention it. (This entails removing "(and especially avoid decorative quotation marks in normal use, such as those provided by the {{cquote}} template)" from the third sentence of WP:BLOCKQUOTE, and "also" from the fourth sentence. And remove similar proscriptive language from the documentation of {{Cquote}} and any other appropriate language.)
    • Proposal 2B: Remove the proscriptive clauses from the MOS etc. and replace them with explicit allowance of {{Cquote}}. This entails editing the beginning of WP:BLOCKQUOTE to something like along these lines:

Format a long quote (more than about 40 words or a few hundred characters, or consisting of more than one paragraph, regardless of length) as a block quotation, indented on both sides. Block quotations can be enclosed in {{Quote}} (which just indents) or {{Cquote}} (which adds large quotation marks). Do not include text quotation marks at the beginning and end of blockquoted text. Block quotations using a colored background are discouraged.

And making appropriate edits to the {{Cquote}} documentation and elsewhere as appropriate.

Herostratus (talk) 10:25, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

  • As proposer, I support proposal 1 , converting all uses of {{cquote}} into MOS-compliant blockquotes without needing to edit thousands of articles. The MOS on this issue has had consensus for years, the need is to bring articles into compliance. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 00:04, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • The original proposal 1 was renumbered as 1A. I nevertheless object to anyone rewriting a signed individual statement of mine, as Herostratus did here and below. WP:TPO is relevant here. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 15:58, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support proposal 1C. I think it's going to cause confusion for the typical editor when one expects the template to render a decorative block quote but it doesn't, so I would rather the template trigger the visual cue that it is not to be used in the article namespace. The benefit of it doing that outweighs the cost of running the bot to replace it in the article namespace. I prefer proposal 3 over 2 because it continues to display the content to minimize the impact of accidental use on the readability of the article. But I would support using proposal 1 until that replacement process is complete, so the immediate compliance can be had right away without obtrusive error messages. --Bsherr (talk) 04:56, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Template documentation exists for a reason, and will explain the differential output.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  07:49, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support proposal 1C as per Bsherr. A one time run on ~16000 articles is not a massive replacement, and makes things clear for editors. Galobtter (pingó mió) 06:07, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose 2: if quotation marks are needed around a quotation, they do not need to be the massive, decorative (and IMO ugly) quotes of {{cquote}}. Consistency in presentation (i.e. using blockquote for all quotes) makes things clear for readers. Also per the overemphasis arguments below. Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:12, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Proposal 2. 2A and 2B are fine, for my part I support 2B. Here're my reasons:
    1. Change the documentation on merits of reader experience: Quotation marks are the universal signal to English speakers that the material contained between them is a direct quotation. {{Quote}} uses only indentation, familiar to readers of serious texts but not everyone.
    2. Change the documentation on grounds of staff gruntlement: like it or not, a lot of editors seem to continue to want to present quotations using {{Cquote}}. In spite of the MOS's flat-out prohibition, and occasional outbreaks of people "fixing" these "errors", we have about 17,000 articles that use {{Cquote}} to present quotations -- 10% of articles, as opposed to 85% for {{Quote}} (the other 5% is {{Quote box}}), in spite of the fact that it's explicitly prohibited, and also people keep deleting it because "the rule says so". Generally, rules here are supposed to codify common practice, within reason. Micromanaging editors by imposing an order to stop using a tool they find useful and superior as they write and present material -- that is, the actual work of the project -- for insufficient reason is not a good way to grow and nurture a group of volunteers.
    3. Change the documentation on ground of upholding Wikipedia process. The admonitions not to use {{Cquote}} in articles was put into the MOS in 2007 by an editor on his own initiative, after an extremely short discussion ([Quotation marks around block quotes (ie: cquote template) here]) which if anything told him not to. Nobody noticed, or cared enough to roll it back, or whatever; it happens. So that editor "got away" with making this new rule. As you all know, once a rule is put in place (however it's done), it's very hard to get the supermajority necessary to remove it -- it's a weakness of the Wikipedia that if you can sneak something it and get away with it for a while then you have the whip hand. So we're stuck with this editors personal rule, which he (and others) continue to enforce on grounds of "fixing format to follow the rule". It stinks, it stinks to high heaven. Exploiting our constitutional weaknesses is not usually looked on kindly and is not how rules in the Wikipedia are supposed to be made. I don't want to reward or valorize this sort of thing and I hope you don't either.
    4. Change the documentation on merits of the aesthetics: There's no need to present the reader with a wall of text. Section breaks help some, and images break up the layout, but sometimes you don't have these in your toolbox. {{Cquote}} (and it sidebar version {{Rquote}} can help with this.
Herostratus (talk) 15:39, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Quote marks are not "the universal signal" of quotation, or block quotation could not exist, yet it is the dominant style across all English-language publishing for large quotations. A "lot" of editors do not want to use the decorative template. The vast majority of our block quotations are done with {{Quote}}. Most uses of {{Cquote}} are old, pre-dating any cleanup attempts, while conversion of them to {{Quote}} goes unreverted in over 99.5% of cases (I've done this experimentally with hundreds of instances), and only a vanishingly small percentage of our editors personally go around inserting this decorative template instead of {{Quote}}. So, the rule does codify common practice even by Herostratus's own numbers (only 10% of usage is {{Cquote}}, shrinking all the time). And see WP:CONSENSUS: a guideline in place since 2007 and followed almost all of the time except by people who don't read the guideline (and who virtually never object when their inappropriate choice is gnomed to comply with MoS) and by a tiny handful of "resisters" (see WP:BATTLEGROUND) self-evidently has consensus. A few people being loud about their dislike of it here is insufficient to overturn it. WP:CCC doesn't mean "a rule is invalid if 10 people don't like it." There would have to be a massive showing of a change of consensus.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:27, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support 1A The current Cquote is used normally to ovr-emphasise a cherry-picked quotation. This proposal will have the effect of educing it to a more appropriate display. for an encyclopedia These of the current cquote is editorializing--appropriate to newspapers and magazines, where editorializing is expected.. It hanse real use in an encyclopedia , at least not in mainspace. DGG ( talk ) 07:38, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support 1A as the least obtrusive of the solutions. Oppose any variant of 2 as setting up another long nightmare of multiple styles that don't add any value to our articles but waste a lot of editor time converting them back and forth or setting up policies to prevent them getting converted back and forth. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:50, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support 1A—quick and unobtrusive way to bring articles into MOS compliance, to be replaced by 1C after all uses of the box in mainspace are gone, to help editors who are adding quoteboxes pick the right template per Bsherr. Oppose any variant of 2 because these quote marks do nothing to add to encyclopedic value and just clutter the page, while overemphasizing certain points of view. Quotes (even quoteboxes, IMO) have their place on Wikipedia but we have to be careful to keep them to their place lest we endanger NPOV. buidhe 10:05, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Proposal 2 per the good reasons listed by Herostratus. Quotation marks are not decoration; they are punctuation. Changing the punctuation of thousands of articles in a broad-brush way without inspecting the effect on their meaning would be outrageous. As the supposed rule never had consensus in the first place and it is widely ignored, it should be voided per WP:NOTLAW and WP:CREEP. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:36, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • They are not punctuation in that context (or, rather, are redundant punctuation mis-serving as decoration). Block quotations (with or without giant quotation marks) are block-indented; this is what sets them off as quotations. WP did not invent this style; it is what is used in around 99.9999% of professionally produced publications. (Even newspapers and magazines do not do this decorative stuff with block quotations, they do it with pull quotes, which is not what this template is being misused for on Wikipedia.) Just auto-converting this template's output to that of {{Quote}} will not have any negative effect at all, except possibly in bonehead cases, where someone has ignored even the documentation of the template and attempted to do something with the template that wasn't contemplated by its designers. That'll be a handful of cases to repair manually.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:27, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly Oppose any of proposal 2–A or B: MoS is just fine. GenQuest "Talk to Me" 14:46, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support proposal 1A: Kill the C-Quote in articles. It's distracting, ugly, and serves no purpose which is not already handled by the much more professional looking {{Blockquote}}. GenQuest "Talk to Me" 14:46, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support 1A, Oppose both 2A and 2B - Ealdgyth - Talk 17:51, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support proposal 1A, agree with what GenQuest and other have said. MB 18:19, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support prop 1 I would prefer 1B and deprecate its use entirely, but I would not oppose 1A either which seems to be most popular. — Wug·a·po·des​ 19:58, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support 1C per MOS.--Srleffler (talk) 22:40, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support 1A/1C. This is a fantastically small aberration in consistent usage we can easily remove with very little fuss, so let's do it. (I'd say that {{cquote}} should ultimately be dumped entirely so it can't inadvertently be used anymore anyhow, but that's neither here nor there.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 23:16, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support proposal 2 for the reasons described by Herostratus. The entire point of cquote is to draw attention to the quote and the large quotation marks help with that. Otherwise, we may as well just keep quotations in regular body text. --Coolcaesar (talk) 16:38, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    You're quite right that the purpose of cquote is to draw attention to the quote. The template is designed for pull quotes. The problem is that editors often ignorantly use the template for block quotations. That is not what the template is for, and block quotations generally should not be highlighted in that way. This incorrect usage dominates the use of cquote in articles; cases where cquote would actually be appropriate are rare.--Srleffler (talk) 19:52, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    It was not designed for, and was never used for, pull quotes. We don't use pull quotes here, basically never. At some point in the template's history, somebody just wrote into the documentation that it was for pull quotes. Probably just the whim of a single misguided editor, so basically near to vandalism (I haven't checked, but it's hard to imagine any kind of serious discussion ending in the idea that pull quotes should be supported, since we don't use them and shouldn't.) Herostratus (talk) 23:58, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Balderdash. Its style is borrowed completely from pull quotes as used in various magazines, and in my sporadic cleanup sprees, I have found it used both for actual pull quotes (which repeat material, in showy form, already found embedded in the regular prose) and fake pull quotes, in the sense of not being found already in the main text but serving the same encyclopedically inappropriate purpose of drawing undue attention to a particular party's statement.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  07:49, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Coolcaesar: The "reasons described by Herostratus" are demonstrably wrong.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  08:18, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1A, then 1C after all extant uses are corrected, per Buidhe's reasoning. The in-mainspace behavior change proposed for {{cquote}} should also be done with the other "decorative quote" templates (borders, boxes, centring, sidebars, etc.), though we should fork one to {{Document excerpt}} for a sidebar containing a document excerpt (i.e., something that is serving the same function as an image, but is presenting wiki-formatted text from a document rather than a facsimile of it). This is a well-accepted use of quotation sidebar templates. I would simply take the features from the extant quote sidebar templates and combine them into a single template (with output and parameter names consistent with the majority of the other quote templates – one of them is markedly divergent and should be deprecated), and document it as only for use with document excerpts.
    Strongly opposed to any variant of proposal 2, which is just 'shopping to try to get a different result than what MOS:BQ says, and is not responsive to an RfC about how MOS:BQ should be implemented. Its premise is false as are Herostratus's rationales in support of it, as I'll lay out in the discussion section below. MoS implements a single standard for a reason (since 2006 if not earlier). The fact that we didn't actually get around to implementing it because of a technological hindrance to doing so (and 1A will fix that) has simply led to "monkey see, monkey do" additional uses of {{cquote}} and other decorative quote templates, because editors mostly do not read the style guide or the template docs, they copy-paste what they find in one article into another and fill it in with different content. It does not indicate a consensus against what MoS says, just an implementation drag. So remove that drag.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:39, 2 January 2020 (UTC); revised 12:48, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    To be clear: oppose 2*, and 1B; 1B in particular is ridiculous and was just inserted as a FUD move. 2* amount to "IAR means 'a rule I don't like doesn't apply to my articles, just because WP:IDONTLIKEIT.'" But we all know that's not what IAR means. This is not an RfC to change what MoS says – that would require a very strong new WP:CCC consensus against its current wording, which is obviously not going to happen. The RfC is just about fixing the problem that a template deployed a long time ago has caused a mess too difficult to clean up manually, but which is very easily rectified by simply changing the template output with a namespace switch, instead of manually changing the template call in thousands of instances.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:50, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • 1A is my first choice, and 1C is my second choice. Also, I like User:Buidhe's idea of doing 1A now and 1C later (possibly much later). WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:11, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose all proposals here. This template resembles a pull quote, which as described in that article is a design element like an image rather than being part of the running text. We use images relevant to the article and section to break up the wall of text, and pull quotes should be acceptable in the same way when the section is about a specific quote rather than something that is represented in graphical manner. Uses of {{cquote}} may need review for cases where <blockquote> or {{rquote}} is more appropriate, but IMO neither a total ban (proposal 1) nor a blanket approval (proposal 2) is appropriate. Anomie⚔ 12:50, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Anomie: That's really off-topic. Pull quotes (an unencyclopedic style found mostly in magazines) are no longer sanctioned for use in Wikipedia articles (per two RfCs or other such discussions several years ago; one to deprecate them, and one to stop even suggesting they could sometimes be used). Whether something "resembles" a pull quote is neither here nor there (except this: the fact that the purpose of a pull quote is to psychologically manipulate the reader into continuing to read, and with a particular idea or emotion in their head, means that pull quotes or anything masquerading as them are a WP:NPOV problem, by definition). Whether you think MOS:BQ should or shouldn't call for only <blockquote> (or its {{Quote}} wrapper) is also basically irrelevant to this thread; it does, and it has since at least 2006. This RfC isn't about changing the guideline, it's about how best to technologically implement it. If you want to change it, that's a very different kind of RfC.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  16:09, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @SMcCandlish: Err, proposal 2 is explicitly about changing the guideline. I find the rest of your dismissal as similarly incorrect, but I'm not going to waste time arguing with you about it. Anomie⚔ 18:02, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    "Proposal 2" was tacked on after the RfC opened, as an "anti-RfC", and has virtually no support. What you just wrote is a dismissal (i.e., an empty, handwaving refusal to engage); what I wrote is a point by point rebuttal of your OP, which is in no way dispelled by ignoring it. The point of it wasn't even to argue with you but to get you to reconsider what you've posted (whether you want to talk about it or not).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  18:24, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support 1A. These big quote marks do not match other elements of our house style for articles. Sandstein 16:21, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1A now and actually not 1b or 1c. Just silently pass through the parameters. --Izno (talk) 16:42, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Just to clarify, just silently pass through the parameters until such time as a bot can replace the templates in mainspace, at which time I prefer the 1B approach (and not 1C still, as I would prefer not to render anything correctly whatsoever, so as to avoid tempting innocent or otherwise users into using the template anyway). --Izno (talk) 21:45, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support 1A There is no need for the large quotation marks as flourishes; they merely take up space and interfere with nearby images. Much simpler than forcing fixes in its uses. As punctuation quotation marks are needed to set off a quotation within running text, but when the quotation is already set off in an indented paragraph they are not mandatory. Reywas92Talk 21:21, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support 1A per existing consensus not to use {{cquote}} in article space. Strong oppose 1B and 1C which would cause a massive and immediate influx of confusion and complaints from editors, and also would be damaging to our readers' experience. If we did have an error message of some sorts—which I am opposed to—then I would strongly advise that it should mention that {{quote}} is the template to use in place, so that people who came across the error message would know how to fix it. Also, whilst we should be getting rid of pull quotes, lengthy quotes and other misuses of quotes where we see them, I oppose editors going through usages of {{cquote}} and changing them to {{quote}} en masse, as it would not be an improvement if 1A was adopted, it causes unnecessary disruption and it would do damage if consensus ever changed in favour of {{cquote}}'s current version. — Bilorv (talk) 18:56, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support 2A. I would amend the MOS to allow the use of {{cquote}} the way I prefer to use it, for quotations used epigraphically (see two sections in 2017 Los Angeles Measure S and this section of Disappearance of Tiffany Whitton for examples. But only that ... the quotes are a distraction when used with inline blockquotes. Also I totally second Herostratus. Daniel Case (talk) 23:32, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose 2A and 2B – Support 1A – best to continue to work toward phasing out the big decorative quote marks. Dicklyon (talk) 02:37, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support 1A and Oppose others There is already consensus to deprecate. 1B and 1C have a deficit for readers (as opposed to editors). I acknowledge the concern that 1A may cause confusion to some editors but believe that the deficit of the options (1B % 1C) outweighs this IMO but it does not mean that potential editor issues might be otherwise addressed. There probably needs to be something in big flashing letters at the documentation. A bot run (or two or three) to convert occurrences. An edit summary for the bot run that has big letters - preferable flashing. Later runs could even add hidden comments. Eventually the message will get through. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 07:19, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pleased to see this issue being addressed/revisited because, to my mind, the large quote marks add undue emphasis to the quoted content when in fact any sort of block quote treatment is based purely on word count. Support 1A, if it's the most committed measure, and Oppose others. Not wanting to distract from this point, but it's reminded me that there is still an option to include quote marks (that is, "Fat-quotes") at Template:Quote box, which would seem inconsistent with moves to phase out decorative quote marks, per Dicklyon above. JG66 (talk) 09:10, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support 2A or 2B as per User:Herostratus. The speech marks look better and make much more sense. Wikipedia should move with the times. (WP:5P5) TBH anything works as long as it's one or the other... >>BEANS X2t 17:01, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    "Look better" is just WP:ILIKEIT; it's meaningless as an argument in an RfC. The rest of what you said doesn't track, either. If putting giant quotation marks around block quotations "ma[d]e much more sense" than block indentation, then why would all major English-language (and most non-English) style guides direct writers to use block indentation? Your argument is basically a form of WP:OR, or rather just outright defiance of all reliable sources on writing. And "WP should move with the times" doesn't make any sense; there is zero evidence of any kind – presented here or anywhere else anyone has cited – suggesting that there is a trend in publishing away from the block-indentation of block quotes and toward using giant quotation marks around them. What we do know, contrariwise, is that the style is common in magazines for pull quotes (which are not the same thing as block quotes, but are an attention-getting, i.e. a PoV-pushing, stratagem), and that the style is also used as the default markup for thread quotations in a few web-board software packages (WP:NOT#FORUM, and we don't care what forum software is doing, except maybe inasmuch as it may inform what the devs decided to do with talk page threading, and look what a dismal failure those efforts have been, with en.Wikipedia and many other WMF projects explicitly rejecting WMF's pet talk-threading projects as unworkable and basically "un-wiki").  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  15:22, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support proposal 2, with a slight preference for 2A. The distinction between block quotes and pull quotes is a completely pointless one, which hundreds of editors clearly don't follow. Why shouldn't anyone put quote marks around a direct quote? The MOS prohibition seems misguided to me. Let people use cquote if they want. Modest Genius talk 15:12, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    For the same reason that virtually every style guide on earth says not to put quotation marks around block quotations. You're making a WP:IDONTKNOWIT pseudo-argument. Just because you're unfamiliar with English writing norms doesn't mean our guidelines should go against those norms.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  15:22, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I notice you didn't actually provide a reason, just accused me of being "unfamiliar with English writing norms". I'm not. Modest Genius talk 16:58, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The admonition not to put quotes around block quotations refers to quotes in the text -- that is, of the same size, font, and color as the text. That is, don't do this:

    "Quote marks don't belong here"

    — Pinckney Pruddle
Which is really quite different what we're talking about here with {{cquote}}. Herostratus (talk) 06:19, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support 1A. These quotes completely unbalance an article. Much better to just convert them into something not quite so jarring. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:16, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support 2 The symbols make it clear that these are quotes. Blocks of text are occasionally use for other purposes. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:07, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Except not. Block quotations are done as indented blocks without quotation marks in almost all other publications. And quotation marks are used for far more (quotation-unrelated) purposes than indented blocks are (most often titles of minor works; and "scare-quoting" of things like nicknames; and many words-as-words cases, especially where italics are already being used for something else like foreign phrases; and various other things.)  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:27, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support 2 per Herostratus. An illustrative pullquote is no less encyclopedic than an illustrative image. (Heck, I've seen articles pass FAC with pullquotes in them.) Guidelines should follow practice, not the other way around. It seems that the issue here is not so much that consensus changed as that it never existed; in any event, consensus is best judged by the actual practice of the editing community, not by talkpage discussions that only a tiny fraction of editors will even be aware of. And as Herostratus has ably demonstrated, the current text of the guideline is (and seemingly always has been) out of step with the actual working consensus of working Wikipedians. Allowing a 14-year-old non-consensus to dictate current practice would be simply bizarre. (Also, 14 years ago we had a much less hidebound concept of guidelines, so having an ill-considered "rule" buried in the MOS wouldn't have struck most of us as a big deal if we had noticed it at all.) -- Visviva (talk) 07:07, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    You don't seem to be following the discussion. This is not about "an illustrative pullquote", it's about using pull-quote stylization for things that are block quotes, not pull quotes. And "per Herostratus" at this late a date isn't a very meaningful comment if you do not address the refutations of Herostratus's arguments. And he did not demonstrate any such thing as "out of step with the actual working consensus"; his own numbers show an overwhelming majority implementation of {{Quote}} over {{Cquote}} (and he didn't even account for major decline in use of {{Cquote}}, i.e. increased compliance with using {{Quote}} over time).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:27, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    "Not agreeing with you" and "not following the discussion" are two separate things. Nobody's argument has been refuted; it's basically a question of personal preference, how important using just one format is to one, to what degree layout should be determined by individual editors and what degree by top-down fiat, and so forth (and the answer to that is "somewhere between 0% and 100%, with the exact number fluid depending on circumstances", so it's a question of arguing over where the line goes here). These aren't the kind of things that can be decisively proved one way or the other.
Sure, only 10% of block quotes use {{Cquote}} -- that's still some many thousands (don't have the exact figures right at hand), which isn't so bad considering that, after all, you (on your own dime) put in in admonitions in the MOS that it's flat-out not allowed to to be used....
"Decrease in use", if true, is surely partly because you and people of similar Procrustean mind go around deleting uses of {{Cquote}} to match your own aesthetic preference. Yes, doing that will cause usage to drop, but so? Herostratus (talk) 16:50, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, thank you for making it clear that this is just a "lash out at people who don't want to join me in waging war against our style guide" nonsense. If your message can't refrain from focusing on contributor instead of content, and trying to imply that people who actually bother to follow the style guidelines are somehow a problem, then there's no point in entertaining you further, per WP:DONTFEED. (Perhaps more the point, I would be real money that the vast majority of recent additions of cquote in mainspace are by you and by a few other editors with a long-term habit of trying to "lobby" against guideline material that doesn't suit your tastes. So, see also WP:KETTLE and WP:FAITACCOMPLI.) If you don't understand that use of your pet template dropping to 10%, and dropping further all the time, when it used to probably be around 35% or so, is a clear indication of a consensus against its use, then I'm not sure anyone's going to be able to get through to you.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:13, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support 2B per Herostratus (and others). Second choice 2A. Oppose 1 which is unduly autocratic and against longstanding (de facto) consensus. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 13:34, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Proposal 1 (any implementation). Pull quotations have been deprecated by RFC. Consequentially, all instances of {{Cquote}} are either pull quotes that we need to get rid off or block quotations using the wrong tempalte. I oppose Proposal 2 based on DESiegel's comment below: decorative quotation marks make a quotation leap off the page, giving it undue attention. Indentation helps readability, decorative quotation marks don't, and are just a distaction. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:30, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Proposal 1. Changing the MOS because some editors won't follow consensus guidelines seems like the tail wagging the dog. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:19, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support 1A as first choice. I like the idea of eventually moving to 1C once we've removed all mainspace instances, but I would support it as a second choice and 1B as a third choice. I oppose both 2A and 2B; while I agree that someone did a nice job making that template, it's clearly undue weight for anything inside it, and therefore inappropriate for any mainspace page. CThomas3 (talk) 00:14, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support 1A and strongly oppose all versions of 2. As per Tenebrae, to do otherwise is just to changing the MOS because some editors won't follow consensus guidelines, and sets a bad precedent. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:57, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deprecate all pull quotes WP is not a newspaper, in the sense that we are an information site and not a work that needs to unnecessarily dramatise our content. Yes, quotation markes are needed as punctuation, but they do not need to be super-sized. Pull quotes exactly super-sizes the punctuation and are decorative. They serve to give subjective emphasis often to the detriment of purposeful and other useful information. They are often deliberately used to give undue emphasis or otherwise sensationalise selected content in much the way as soapboxing, and I do not consider such to be encyclopaedic purpose. As such, their use ought not to be allowed, let alone condoned. Just because many editors like them, and because these editors have inserted them into 17,000 articles is neither here nor there. -- Ohc ¡digame! 10:51, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support 1A. Oversized quote marks are inappropriate for an encyclopedia as they have the odour of the yellow press and blogsites. Would accept 1B or 1C as alternatives. · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 11:42, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Depricate in main-space but do not change existing uses. This can be done by bot-replacing all uses of {{cquote|...}} with {{cquote|2020RfCexempt=yes<!-- Notice to editors: Consider replacing cquote with quote-->|...}} then changing the behavior of {{cquote}} to throw up a big ugly warning if it is used in mainspace (or draft: space for that matter) without |2020RfCexempt=yes. As for option 1B or 1C, I'm not picky. I would also be okay with replacing the prominent blue curley-quotes with more subtle ones when 2020RfCexempt is set to yes. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 16:10, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    There's no such thing as date-based "grandfathering" exceptions from Wikipedia guidelines or policies. All our articles are in state of perpetual flux, even WP:FAs; they are not works we published once upon a time and keep in a fixed state. See WP:CONTENTAGE, WP:OLDARTICLE; this is a classic "argument to avoid" on Wikipedia. The last time someone tried to impose something like this (via a WP:SUPERVOTE while closing an RfC they actively said they didn't like the outcome of), it had no effect whatsoever; the community consistently applied the rule change across all articles, regardless of age, through a serious of RMs over the course of the following year or so. Anyway, this wouldn't work. The main reason we still have any new cases of {{cquote}} in mainspace (aside from a few usual suspects adding it out of "guidelines I don't like don't apply to my articles" defiance) is editors (who mostly don't read MoS except to look up something specific) just copying what they see in one article and pasting it into another then swapping in their content. If instances of that template remain in mainspace they'll continue to "spawn" new instances over time, inevitably. Analogy: imagine what would happen if we allowed personal attacks against biography subjects to remain in ~10% of our articles instead of doing our best to eliminate all of them. The solution is to remove it from mainspace, or prevent it doing anything unusual in mainspace; cure it or become immune to it.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  16:45, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, date-based grandfathering happens in Wikipedia - even this year's new WP:Partial blocks mechanism specifially allows editing restirctions to be enforced into partial blocks, provided that those editing restrictions did not exist as of 09:37, 11 January 2020 (UTC). If memory serves, there were some "grandfather clauses" in place with when the Draft: namespace became live and when Draft:-namespace related speedy deletion criterias went live. However, I will admit my memory is not 100% reliable. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 17:50, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Nah. User restrictions have nothing to do with whether a particular sliver of mainspace content is subject to the same policies as the rest of the content (which it is). Nor do CSD time-windows; those are about restraining administrative over-enthusiasm for deletionism; they don't pertain in any way at all to whether our content can be magically excempt from the WP:P&G that apply to all the rest of it. Same goes for things like time-limited WP:AC/DS things (1RR at a page for a month); that's also about restraining people and their behavior, not about applicability of content rules to content.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:39, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @SMcCandlish: and others who may have missed the html comment above: I have no problem with human editors replacing {{cquote}} with {{quote}} on a page-by-page basis. In fact, I would recommend that cquotes be "looked at and considered for changing" on sight. However, I expect editors to ask themselves "is the change an improvement in this particular case?" I just don't want a mindless bot doing it because there will be occasional cases where it might be appropriate and a bot can't use judgement. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 18:01, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand the feeling, but the problem is we're all volunteers here. If it were practical to do all this manually – even with WP:AWB – it would have been done years ago already. I know from experience how tedious it is. Let's say, for the sake of argument, that in 1% of cases there's some mystically unique reason that {{cquote}} is being used reasonably at a particular article (and that's being very generous). The drain on editorial productivity to manually put those back after a bot run is 99 × less than than the human cost of manually getting rid of the rest of them. It's actually worse, because some kind of excuse to maybe use {{cquote}} at some article doesn't require that it be used; that is, the already-inflated 1% are all entirely optional. As I noted in my own !vote, we likely do need a variant template specifically for document excerpts (e.g. a sidebar of a passage from a historical document, serving the same purpose as an image but being marked-up text instead of a scan/photo). However, that wouldn't be based on {{cquote}} anyway, but on another variant, probably {{rquote}} (a large proportion of the surviving uses of that template in mainspace are in that vein already, so we should probably convert those that are not to {{quote}}, then rename rquote to something like {{document excerpt}} and rewrite its documentation).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:39, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly oppose 1B. I don't have a strong opinion about whether the cquotes should remain or not but there is no justification for replacing a very large number of fully functioning template instances in mainspace with an error message on what is (in at least a large part) a matter of style and aesthetics. 1C does not have the same issues because it does not remove information from articles. Thryduulf (talk) 16:26, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, 1B would never fly and I argued strongly against including it; it's a red herring and FUD.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  16:45, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Documentation for pull quotes mandates that these only be used to repeat content already in the article. That being the case, substituting the template with an error message ought not to result in any loss of information. -- Ohc ¡digame! 17:43, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, but then we deprecated pull quotes, period, via RfC quite some time ago, because it's an unencyclopedic style from magazine writing (the entire purpose of it is emotionally manipulating the reader). Someone already linked that RfC in this discussion somewhere.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:39, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support 2A this is one of those needless conformity problems that crop up from time to time. There is no reason, and certainly no rational justification, to intentionally break thousands of pages just because usage doesn't match the MOS. The MOS is a best practices document, it is not policy. The premise that this RfC is founded upon is therefore invalid and the entire RfC based on a misconception. If there are specific worries about NPOV on specific articles, then those can be addresses on the article talk pages, where any other NPOV issue is discussed. That is a very poor reason to ban or break a popular template. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:50, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    You don't seem to read the RfC options; only the silly 1B would break anything. That option was inserted despite the RfC drafting stage making it very clear it has no chance and would just serve as a scare tactic. It's disheartening to see that is actually having that effect.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:39, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    To be honest, I'm weary of having my character assasinated here, my motives misconstrued, and my competence deprecated. This's not how we are supposed to communicate here, so please stop. It actually doesn't put your arguments in a good light to go on like that anyway. Herostratus (talk) 02:35, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmm. But it was made clear this option had no chance; I was not the only one to say so clearly. I warned that it was basically a straw man/boogeyman that would confuse people and cloud the issue, and we now see that it is having that effect. That doesn't say anything about your character, motives, or competence, only about the presence of a pseudo-option that shouldn't be in there. Unfortunately one editor supported it, and several accepted it as an alternative to their main choice, so it's too late to strike it.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  05:58, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support 1A Use standard and simple quotation format. Flourishes or decorative styling do not fit with overall Wikipedia standards. It's just noise. The only reason to have these is the kind of ornamentation proscribed by WP:DECOR and WP:IMAGERELEVANCE. Doing it with text doesn't make it less superfluous. Agree with SMcCandlish that this quickly gets into POV pushing territory and pull quotes. Choosing which quote to put in blockquotes already invites some engineering of what the reader's eyes are drawn to on the page, no need to invite even more of it. Also, we should let the browser format <blockquote> rather than make up a format. Just a side note, SMcClandish you are into WP:BLUDGEON territory as far as I have seen others called out for it. Your point is made... —DIYeditor (talk) 17:02, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Half support 1A (!). Yes to killing cquote, whoever it was above who wrote The current Cquote is used normally to ovr-emphasise a cherry-picked quotation. got it in one. But I don't understand the implications of hacking template:rquote: how important to the page design to have a floating quote box? Would it be better to convert rquote to template:quote box? I don't know but there is a risk of collateral damage if is converted blindly to template:quote. --Red King (talk) 18:08, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support 1A as there is no need to make people unlearn a template they use. Gnomish editors can convert cquote to quote, and AWB can include it as a standard correct, but there should be no hurry to turn this to an error message. If the effect of cquote is needed for some reason (eg for this discussion, better subst it now). Graeme Bartlett (talk) 01:01, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support 1A or simply redirect. All the best: Rich Farmbrough (the apparently calm and reasonable) 12:44, 9 February 2020 (UTC).[reply]
  • Support 1A and go further and would wish to discourage in the first place the practice of pulling a sentence or two out of an article and highlighting it in superlarge text. Anyone who has worked on a newspaper knows how easy it is to change the meaning of a story with the headline, and the selection of the extract to be highlighted can easily be OR. Or often appears arbitrary and random, done just to put ANY OLD WORDS in larger font just to break up the page. I have also seen examples where highlighted quote is replicated in the article, and edited out one such just recently. Removing the superlarge quotation marks would be a small step toward my dream. MapReader (talk) 06:44, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support 1A or functionally similar redirect. Having - supporting and understanding - multiple options that are nearly identical in form and function with only trivial differences is not a good use of our limited volunteer time. ElKevbo (talk) 21:22, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unarchived after requesting closure at WP:ANRFC. Cunard (talk) 08:38, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Section pinned until it is closed. Cunard (talk) 22:53, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Threaded discussions

Threaded discussion re merits of the proposals

  • I should note the policy basis for these proposals. Any quote marked off as cquote or rquote does is inherently given significantly greater attention, and distracts from the article as a whole. In almost all cases, that will give such a quote Undue Weight, thereby violating WP:NPOV. In theory such a template could be used only in the few cases where a quote deserves very heavy weight. There are a few such cases. But that hasn't happened in the past, and I don't think it would happen in the future. So I think the tool of cquote must be removed from article space, not just to comply with the MOS, but to avoid NPOV violations. Editors who disagree with that view will no doubt not support any of the proposals I have made, and will prefer the current situation, or perhaps some different proposal. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 07:41, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I Will will mention, for the record, that I strongly oppose both 2A and 2B, and would rather that the current situation be retained than that those be implemented. I note that there is no mention of the NPOV issue or how these proposals would, as it seems to me, only make that worse. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 14:54, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So, something you hear is that {{Cquote}} ought be removed because it is used for POV purposes, to overemphasize some point. This is reasonable but not really a strong argument in my opinion, because:

  1. I haven't seen that. Probably happens, but I haven't seen evidence of {{Cquote}} used for toxic POV purposes with a greater frequency than plain block quoting.
  2. If it's a problem, it's mostly block quoting itself that's the problem. A {{Quote}}d quotation is (let's say) 3/4 as prominent as a {{Cquote}}d quotation. Most of the emphasis is is calling out the quote as a blockquote, the large quotation marks only add a bit of extra emphasis. And the 2016 RfC didn't show support for banning block quoting altogether.
  3. Anything can be used for POV purposes. The main source of POV is article text. Categorization is commonly used for spin... going around putting people in Category:Catholic American writers when they never went to church as an adult, to valorize Catholicism; you see this all the time, and rolled back all the time. For U.S. Grant, an editor has to choose between a picture of his birthplace (promotes Ohio) or where he lived (promotes Missouri). The solution is not to ban text or categories or images, but to fix specific problems when they arise.
  4. I mean, after all, emphasizing certain things is what we do. Right? I'm writing about Pinckney Pruddle, I choose to write a long section on his political career and a short section on his sporting career, emphasizing the latter and de-emphasizing the former because I think that's the best service to the reader. Is this wrong? If I blockquote Franklin Roosevelt's "We have nothing to fear..." quote rather than something else he said, is this wrong?

Herostratus (talk) 11:07, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you "haven't seen" PoV-pushing uses of it, then a) you are not looking, even a little bit, and b) you cannot be in a position to evaluate those uses. "I have never seen an elephant. But I bet it is just like a squid." No, it's not block-quoting itself that is the problem, it's using colorful, decorative gimcrackery to practically force the reader's eye to something an editor wants to unduly emphasize. The style was borrowed directly from magazine-style pull quotes, the sole purpose of which is to catch readers' attention and cajole them into reading more out of an emotional response to the unduly highlighted material.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  07:56, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

On Herostatus's "Proposal 2": This RfC is about how to implement the extant wording of MOS:BQ (the "use <blockquote>...</blockquote> or a template wrapper for it" core meaning of which has not changed since 2006) through templates. The counter-proposal is a forum-shopping attempt to relitigate, to try to say that MOS:BQ is "the wrong version" – 14 years late. So it is not actually responsive to the RfC question, but is just a bunch of FUD. And its premise is just false. It's not the case that lots of editors prefer {{cquote}}, it's just that after consensus arose to use <blockquote>...</blockquote> / {{quote}} consistently and to discourage (later to just disallow) pull quotes, we failed to actually implement the removal of {{cquote}} from mainspace, which in turn led to "monkey see, monkey do" spread of it to new articles as editors copy-pasted the first quote template they encountered to another article and just changed the content inside it, without reading template documentation or MoS.

Other, hyperbolic claims by Herostratus in support of the idea are also bogus. "Quotation marks are the universal signal to English speakers that the material contained between them is a direct quotation" is just false on its face, twice over: Quotation marks are not used around block quotations in any major style guide. Ever. And quotation marks are used for a variety of other purposes that have nothing to do with quotations, such as titles of minor works, and "scare-quoting" dubious phrases. There is no "lot of editors" who prefer to use cquote; there's a tiny handful of editors who've ever spoken up with a preference for using it, and a larger number of editors who just willy-nilly reuse whatever templates they run across in other articles. Combined, they're still a small minority. All told, the total number of mainspace uses of {{quote}} dwarf by those of {{cquote}} (by about a 5:1 ratio and climbing), even before you factor in raw <blockquote> usage. Finally, it is not possible to "sneak" something into the most-watchlisted guideline on the entire system. Even a minor tweak to MoS is examined by multiple people. MOS:BQ is the result of multiple discussions over many years, not just one, and has been refined further since then with even more discussion (e.g., to remove grudging acceptance of pull quotes).

There's also the WP:Fallacy of the revelation of policy at work here. "So-and-so editor wrote this and added it" isn't a rationale against anything, since everything on WP was written and added by someone. MOS:BQ has stood the test of years – over a decade – and this is intrinsic evidence of its consensus, which need not be unanimous (see WP:IMPLICITCONSENSUS). Consensus can change but on this is hasn't, and it won't. Use of cquote in mainspace has declined, not risen. More than once, I've randomly picked about 100 articles and converted all their uses of cquote to quote (or to an inline quotation, when the template was wrongly used for a very short quote), with less than a 1% revert rate. What do you think Herostratus's revert rate would be if he changed 100 articles to use cquote instead of quote? Besides, MoS has said to use <blockquote> for block quotations since at least 2006.

And none of this is news; I'll quote Mzajac from December 2006: "It is chronically misused: the MOS calls for HTML <blockquote> elements. Proponents say this template [Cquote] is only for special call-out quotes [i.e. pull quotes], but that is just BS: everyone knows it has been placed for thousands of in-line long quotations. Novelty typographical treatments like this make the encyclopedia look like a bad joke. Replace it with template:Bquote [i.e. what today is Template:Quote], which is 100% compatible, and provides semantic, accessible output." What changed a few years ago was we realized that MOS:BQ said to just use <blockquote>...</blockquote> while {{Quote}} was directly equivalent but not mentioned, so we added it as an obviously acceptable replacement. Waaay back in 2007, and based on WT:MOS discussions, accessibility discussions, TfDs, and numerous other threads, I added to MoS that {{Cquote}} should not be used (since it is not equivalent to <blockquote>, and many concerns had even then been raised about its misuse in mainspace). In the intervening years, various people tried to editwar it back into MoS as permissible and did not get consensus for this. Along the way, we explicitly deprecated pull quotes, and then when they all seemed to be gone, removed mention of them about a year later (though we may need to put it back in; I've run into at least two pull quotes in recent editing). We also built MOS:ICONS, and over time it has evolved to discourage not just little pointless decorative images, but misusing Unicode, dingbat fonts, CSS tricks, emoji, etc., to achieve the same decorative effects without strictly using images – and that obviously includes (and was specifically intended to include) things like giant-quote-mark decoration. (I would know what the intent was, since I wrote much of that guideline material, as well.) Efforts by Herostratus to portray any of this as some kind of conspiratorial coup are simply nonsense. The only "bullshit" that "stinks to high heaven", to turn Herostratus's words back onto him, is his failure to see that MOS:BQ is the product of at least 14 years of consensus formation.

TfD has been deleting MoS-noncompliant quote templates for over a decade. See, e.g., WP:Templates for discussion/Log/2009 October 8#Template:", the deletion – on MOS:BQ grounds – of a template that did the same thing as what is now {{Quote}} but put quotation marks around it. The only reason {{Cquote}} survived TfD a few months before that was respondents' confusion about its legit uses in project and user namespaces versus its misuse in mainspace (back then, the idea of having a template do different output on a per-namespace basis was novel and would not have occurred to most editors.) See also WP:Templates for discussion/Log/2014 October 11 for a whole raft of deletions and mergers of quotation templates; note especially deletion of {{Quotation1}} because it used table markup instead of <blockquote> (i.e. because it was contradictory to MOS:BQ). Then see WP:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 August 25#Template:Selective quotation, deleted on the basis that it "causes harm to the appearance of articles that is much greater than any benefit it might provide .... with a very large and intrusive inline marker." That's exactly what {{Cquote}} does, except with four intrusive markers (two at start, two at end). Next, see WP:Templates for discussion/Log/2014 October 20, another entire page of quotation template deletions and mergers. At WP:Templates for discussion/Log/2014 November 29, {{bq}} was merged to {{Quote}}. (Though {{Quotation}} was not at that time, it was later, after some parameters were made compatible.) This is just a sampling of the relevant TfD discussions. In short, the entire and quite long history of these things on WP is continually toward fewer templates, with more consistent output, more compliance with MoS, and fewer dubious formatting options (many unencyclopedic output formats were dropped in the course of these mergers). And TfD has explicitly deferred to MoS as where we decide how block quotations will be formatted in Wikipedia articles [2].

Finally, there is no aesthetic problem with block quotation, or with a work mostly consisting of text. Our block quotation style is the same as that used by all major publishers, for centuries. And most books that are not written for children consist primarily of text, including other encyclopedias. Under no excuses should we violate WP:UNDUE to draw especial attention to some party's wording just to tweak the layout. WP:NOT#WEBHOST; you can use your own website to engage in whatever webpage design ideas strike your fancy. The last time someone tried to do that with quotation templates in mainspace, it was promptly nuked at WP:TFD [3].
 — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  09:53, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • I find the comments by SMcCandlish above quite persuasive. Indeed they put the ideas i had in mind more clearly than i had fomulated them, no doubt based on that editor's long and extensive MOS work. I still do not find the arguments of Herostratus at all persuasive. The suggestion that most editors who have used {{cquote}} in mainspace have done so because they read the MOS and disagreed, or even looked throguh the available quotation templates and chose cquote as the best for that article is at best without supporting evidence. Many, perhaps most, editors work by seeing tools and techniques used in one or a few other articles, and imitating what seems to work. People assume that anythign sued in mainspace is approved and appropriate. This is often incorrect, which is why WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is usually not a persuasive argument in AfD and similar discussions. This is, I think, what SMcCandlish means by "Monkey see, monkey do" editing. And there is nothing wrong with it, as a first approximation. But when another editor points out things that do not comply with the MOS, or better yet edits to bring an article into MOS compliance, the response should not usually be to revert, unless ther is a good argument why a particular article is an exception. Nor should one try to change the MOS just out of personal preference. I still have not seen any response that I consider persuasive to the argument that large quote marks lend themselves to cherry0picking and unduse weight to a particular quotation. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 16:23, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    To clarify, virtually all of us learn WP by the same imitative process; I know I did. Finding and absorbing the P&G and /doc material is a very slow process, and also absorbing corrections and hints from other editors is a major part of the process. I was also virulently opposed to some of what MoS said when I first started editing (and I still disagree with about 50 things), but figured out after a while that its value is in its stability and its function of setting a/some/any rule where the absence of one leads to chaos and conflict; it's not what the specific rules are in most cases (except where there's a very strong reason to prefer one option over another, e.g. for MOS:ACCESS reasons). Anyway, we've seen the monkey-see-monkey-do effect in action, in sweeping and bad ways, before. The insistence of one wikiproject on capitalizing the common names of species of one type of organism led inevitably to a perception that capitalizing species vernacular names was "just the Wikipedia style", and imitative application of it to any/all other organism, until the attempt to capitalize "Mountain Lion" and a few other such things finally broke the camel's back and led to a lower-casing shift that took another 4+ years to resolve and clean up in the mainspace, after intense levels of constant conflict about it (pretty much the worst WP:DRAMA I've ever seen). Similarly, the ability in the 2000s to have dates auto-format (for logged-in users) to match their preferred date order, if the date was linked and it was a complete date, led to people wikilinking every single date they came across, complete or not, until the community couldn't stand it anymore and had this functionality repealed; that also took years of drama and drudgery to resolve (and was the proximal cause of MoS being put under WP:AC/DS). People just obsessively lose their shit over MOS/AT matters, too intensely and too often.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  17:22, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I want to call attention to the discussion at Talk:Factorial#quote vs cquote. In this edit on Factorial, I changed an instance of quote to cquote. Herostratus reverted that change, and a talk page discussion was stated. Another editor reinstated my change after some discussion, and Herostratus reverted again. After further discussion, during which there was pretty clear consensus for my change (as I read the discussion, but check it out), yet another editor reinstated the change, which has remained stable since then. At the same time that I made the edit to Factorial I made similar changes to 9 other articles, and to another group of ten a couple of days later. All were chosen from the first page of the what-links-here list of {{cquote}} (after limiting to mainspace trasclusions). I believe that Herostratus reverted two other articles, and that no one else objected or reverted any of the changes. A micro-sample of what working editors feel is worth reverting, as one data point in judging current consensus on the issue. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 16:37, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    That should have read "I changed an instance of cquote to quote", as the linked edit plainly shows. My editing error here. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 17:45, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, my I-got-reverted rate of under 1% when converting Cquote to Quote wouldn't've been possible if {{Cquote}} were an actual preference of many editors, nor if my edit-summary citations to MOS:BQ as my rationale were citations of a bogus guideline that consensus didn't really accept.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  17:22, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the survey, Daniel Case writes of using quoted "epigraphically" and that the current cquote behavior is appropriate for such use. But it is my view that this kind of use, where a quote stands at the head of a section and serves as a sort of theme for the section, is itself thoroughly unencyclopedic. Such an epigraph often stands at the head of a chapter or multi-chapter section in a novel, and sometimes in a work of non-fiction. Such a quote may also stand at the start of an essay. But there it is expressing the opinion that the quote usefully summarizes or sets the tone for the longer work that follows. In a Wikipedia article, such an epigraphic use of a quote nessicarily conveys to the reader a similar opinion in Wikipedia's voice, and so is inappropriate however it is formatted. It is a particularly egregious case of undue weight, and only shows how apt cquote is in tempting editors into such violations. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 14:23, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I was away for the weekend and missed getting notified re this. I think, DES, that you have a rather limited view of how epigraphs are, or can be, used. While I'll allow that some editors would doubtless use them to express opinions or steer the reader to a preferred conclusion, that problem is scarcely unique to the epigraphic use of this template, and when it occurs we have many, many, policies and tools to deal with that.

I see an epigraphic quote as simply putting a section's focus out front, be it the lack of centrality hitherto experienced in Los Angeles or the fateful way Ms. Whitton was living, to refer to my two examples. Daniel Case (talk) 01:02, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Threaded discussion re techical aspects of implementation, and meta-discussion of the RfC itself

  • There's currently a proposal 1A listed, but it looks identical to #1B, and the sandbox and such are red links. What's supposed to be here? –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 00:34, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Proposal 3 is a late suggestion. It is essentially a combination of 1A and 1B. I will have the sandbox template and test cases up and working shortly. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 00:37, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The examples for proposal 3 are now working. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 00:52, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The original proposal 3 has been renumbered to 1C, but I object to the editing of my existing commetns, and have reverted the changes to them. I will not further edit the comments of others, as per WP:TPO. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 17:25, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Deacon Vorbis: DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 00:53, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • See also recent discussion at Template talk:Cquote § Proposed changes re .7Bcquote.7D and subsections under that. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 00:55, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do I see correctly that there are only 9 transclusions in the article namespace right now? --Bsherr (talk) 03:51, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    You do not, Bsherr. What links here showing only transclusions for article space, shows it used on over 16,000 articles (32 pages of 500 plus a partial page) counted just now. X!tools shows a transclusion count over 39,000, but I think that includes all namespaces. I have myself edited to remove it on more than 20 articles, just as examples. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 04:31, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    The monthly report linked in the sub-section below shows Page count: 16069; Transclusion count: 24168 DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 04:35, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, I see my misstep. Thanks. --Bsherr (talk) 04:44, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I could wish, Herostratus that you had just added proposals, not renumbered existing ones, to which Bsherr and Galobtter had already refereed to by number, not to mention myself. Wouldn't they have done as well as just 4 and 5? In any case I ask any eventual closer to note that those comments, if not later revised by their authors, refer to what is now listed as 1B and 1C. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 14:54, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging User:Bsherr, User:Galobtter, User:DESiegel: In all instances (including your comments under your signatures, I edited the text to match the changed numbering system. This, "1" became "1A", "2" became "1B", and "3" became "1C". Begging your pardon, and done only in the interests of clarity.
Given permission to add proposals, I judged that 1,2,3,4,5 numbering system was inferior to a 1,2 system with 1A, 1B, and 1C and 2A and 2B as subsidiary values. It's hard enough getting a decision in a binary question, and impossible on a 5-proposal one. 5-proposal ones are fine for RfC in the manner of "What are people's thoughts on this, so we can move forward with further discussion". But we had one of those in 2016 and actually many such discussions over the last decade-plus. It's time to put paid to this ten-year running sore and a binary question's the way to do it.
A 1,2,3,4,5 system is only going to end up with roughly 10-30% of "votes" given to each proposal. People voting for 1, 2, and 3 are going to be counted differently. With this system, votes for 1A, 1B, and 1C can all be ascribed to "1", and Bob's your uncle; which specific technique (A, B, or C) to use can be then adjudicated on plurality, or strength of argument, or something.
I'm prepared to "lose". That's the Wikipedia way. We all win when the feeling of the community is engaged with a good quorum and the result is an actual decision backed by community consensus. I can't even care that much anymore on the merits; I'm worn down; but I'm still standing because I refuse to be bullied and see my colleagues bullied and harassed and worn down based on bullshit like this. But either way, let's just end this twelve-year nightmare. Herostratus (talk) 15:59, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Of course I am happy to oblige the edit to my comment. I am a bit disappointed that we are combining the policy and implementation questions, however. I am inclined to agree with "2B" on the policy question, but if the result is no change to policy, I prefer "1C". But I'm not confident an all-in-one RfC will account for such nuances. --Bsherr (talk) 19:50, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, the more I think about this, the more I want to ask that the RfC as written be aborted in favor of deciding the policy question ("1" or "2") first. Is there any objection to that? --Bsherr (talk) 19:54, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Me too. So far this is shaping up to be like what the she for ships discussion might have been if English had seven genders to choose from. EEng 21:57, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Right... well, the RfC was published, and there were some issues, so we fixed it quick while in flight. It's better now; 1A,B,C are all just "1" and same for 2A,B. It's not like seven genders, it's more like "Vote for She or It for ships, period. If you vote for She, you may optionally also specify whether amphibious vehicles should be She or Xe, whether ships that are called boats (e.g. submarines) should be She or Ze, and whether former ships that have transitioned to a sunken state should be She or Ve." Anyway, it's here now, it's better than it was, and it's live and it's WP:CENT, so... I dunno. Anyway, only User:DESiegel could do this. Herostratus (talk) 02:07, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
And I would object to Bsherr and EEng's idea, even if this were not already CENTed. It would be an illegitimate bait-and-switch to train-wreck a simple and straightforward RfC (about how to implement a guideline in some particular detail), by sticking in a "down with the guideline" noise proposal and screwing around with the proposal numbering multiple times, and yadda yadda, then try to claim that the guideline itself was somehow in question just because the RfC was derailed. Fourteen years of guideline stability isn't erased with a quick WP:GAMING stroke, sorry.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  18:44, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Meta-notice: Since discussion has turned increasingly to WP:UNDUE questions, I've notified both WT:NPOV, and WP:NPOVN of this discussion. And since it has been dragging on without a clear consensus for some time, and could affect a large number of articles, I've also notified WP:VPPOL.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:56, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Template mechanics

(edit conflict) Sorry in advance for all the dumb questions, but template code tends to be a bit unreadable for me if I didn't write it myself . Looking at the test cases for #1, they seem to use the most basic parameters of {{cquote}}. If there are so many uses out in the wild, do any of them use the weirder formatting parameters that aren't supported by {{quote}}? What's the intended behavior for these? (Just saw the pointer to discussion in the edit conflict, will go see if any of that discussion answers my questions). –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 01:00, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • My intent was to use and allow for all the parameter supported by {{cquote}} which have rough equivalents in {{quote }}. Thje parameter specifically intended for formatting the large quote marks, or positioning the quote in non-standard ways, such as bgcolor, float, width, quotealign, wide, and qcolor are intentionally ignored and will have no effect in mainspace. In userspace (indeed everywhere but mainspace) they will continue to function e3xactly as before DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 01:08, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deacon Vorbis There are far too many existing article-space invocations of cquote to determine what parameters have been used in them. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 01:11, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Re There are far too many existing article-space invocations of cquote..., please see the Template Data monthly report, which tells you exactly how many articles use each parameter, including unsupported parameters, as of the most recent monthly analysis. – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:30, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you, Jonesey95 I didn't know about that. Based on that there seem to be no more than about 100 uses of any of the parameters I am ignoring in the modified version, a volume which would would be easy enough to modify individually one way or another. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 01:46, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some above are suggesting that a bot be created to directly convert cquote calls into quote calls, aftt an initial change in the template. That could be done. But because of the difference in parameters, i think the logic would be a bit more complex than some might assume, making that more trouble and perhaps take longer. But it could surely be done. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 07:45, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Especially if some of us pre-normalize some oddities manually. Since I already have an occasional habit of clearing out 100+ cquotes at a time, I'll sign up for some of it. Doing it manually helps find other problems, too, like the quote templates used for non-quotations, mixed styles in the same article, genuine pull quotes, tiny quotations that belong inline being done as block quotes, copyright-violating piles of excessive quotation, off-topic quotes, encyclopedically inappropriate quotes, citations put into the quoted material instead of in the lead-in sentence to the quote or in the sourcing parameters, etc., etc. It's just really tedious to repair it all by hand.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  16:53, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really see the complexity. It's hardly unusual for an organization's current membership to differ from its original one. Anyway, take a look away Member states of the Commonwealth of Nations. Countries pop in and out of that one all the time. Largoplazo (talk) 22:11, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
  • Dummy post because a fellow editor wanted to delay archiving. EEng 16:23, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Being clear on spaced en dashes once and for all

This comes up periodically and the wording at MOS:DASH shifts a bit this way then a bit that. In a previous well-attended discussion (still on this page as of this writing, I think), we concluded that page numbers with hyphens in them should be given as ranges in the form "5-1 – 5-3". We've previously decided that (I think in similarly numeric context) that if one or both things on either side of the conjoining en dash contains its own space or hypen, we use a spaced en-dash between the two items. Another time we decided, more broadly, to do this if the material on either side contained spaces or dashes. These sections did not agree. I fixed that a few days ago ("space, hyphen, or dash" in both places now), and no one's head exploded. However, because this was not entirely clear and consistent, we have a lot of case of "foo-bar—baz quux" and "Ay Bee–CeeDee", when we should probably have spaced en dashes in there.

I just ran across Good cop/Bad cop, and this needs to move per MOS:DASH and MOS:SLASH to use an en dash. It appears to need to go to Good cop – bad cop (with redirs from Good cop–bad cop, Good cop-bad cop, etc.). I don't want to go propose this move if we're not actually certain this is what is want; maybe someone is certain it should really be Good cop–bad cop], despite the spaces. If so, then we need some really clear rationale for when to use a spaced en dash and when not to in these constructions. That is, if we're going to have WP:CREEP that calls for oh-so-special variances, in an already complicated section, they have to be justifiable concisely and memorably and with enough buy-in that people will accept and follow them. I'm skeptical that is possible, so I advocate just doing spaced en dash any time one or both sides of the "equation" are complex by way of spaces or internal punctuation. Last I remember a long discussion about this in such broad terms, several years ago, there was not unanimity on it, so let's try to figure it out this time.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  14:02, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm 90% sure in the big giant dash RFC all those years ago consensus was not to space endashed when there was spaces on either side, so New York–Los Angeles flight, not New York – Los Angeles flight. Indeed, I distinctly remember that being the main example debated because people claimed that not putting in the spaces would make it easy to misread as a new flight between York and LA, which was shot down as confusion being unlikely and clear from context, and there's no reason to punctuate New York–Los Angeles flight any differently than say Chicago–Dallas flight. So there already is established consensus not to use spaced endashes when the elements have spaces. It seems that in the years since there's been some erroneous drift away from that, but it needs to be re-instituted. oknazevad (talk) 14:19, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t believe these two edits are correct: [4] [5]. That is, pro-establishment–anti-intellectual alliance and Seeliger–Donker-Voet scheme should just contain an en dash, not a spaced en dash. The analogy with page numbers does not seem valid, since these are not page numbers. More generally, where does the instruction The en dash in a compound is always unspaced, except when either or both elements of the range include at least one space, hyphen, or en-dash; in such cases, {{snd}} between them will provide the proper formatting. come from? (Note that this contradicts the adjacent example Seifert–van Kampen as well as the instruction Do not use spaces around the en dash in any of the compounds above..) I can’t say I’ve ever seen professional English writing use spaced en dashes like this. Hftf (talk) 12:45, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Getting back to this belatedly (sorry I missed the comment), that's why I removed the paragraph calling for spaces, even alluding to the lack of spaces in the examples in my edit summary. It was in line with the RFC consensus, as I said in my previous comment. oknazevad (talk) 15:50, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you @Oknazevad:, however, the issue still persists, and I am unable to edit the page. Hftf (talk) 16:41, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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 [6]. 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 &nbsp;) 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]

English variety for the European Union

Hi! I happen to watch WP:MOS (although for a different reason) and I saw the last edit of yours. Why do you say that version you removed was incorrect? It doesn’t seem to be particularly correct to me to include British English, given that the UK is longer appartement of the EU, and it certainly does not feel right to exclude Maltese English given that Malta is. I’m curious what your reasoning was; could you clarify that for me?—R8R (talk) 14:03, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly R8R (also Alexander 8620, Ahecht, and Jdforrester), and I have taken the liberty of copying this across from my talk page to the Manual of Style talk page.
The Wikipedia Manual of Style for all English Wikipedia articles "always has precedence should any contradiction arise" and "new content added to this page should directly address a persistently recurring style issue."
This is not about which countries are and are not members of the European Union. It's about edits which changed the (English) Wikipedia Manual of Style instructions on what variety of English to use in one of several examples given; the examples are given to show that strong ties to a particular variety of English are best respected. The example in question is asserting that British English (or Irish English) are the correct choices for the English Wikipedia in articles about institutions of the EU. The edits I reverted were changing that advice, to assert that English Wikipedia articles about the EU should be written in Maltese English.
Maltese English is "heavily influenced by Italian, not only in vocabulary (... pronouncing Franco-Latin loan words in English in an Italian style) but extending to phonology, with the English being heavily accented".
Of the 24 official languages of the EU, three (English, French and German) are "procedural" languages. "Strong ties" is not narrowly defined as formal membership of a political body; commonalities of geography, history, culture, populations, politics, etc all form "strong ties". Although the "varieties of English" we are discussing are an internal construct of Wikipedia and not something used or recognised by the EU, commonalities forming strong ties has meant that the "procedural" (per EU) "variety of English" (per Wikipedia) used by the EU is de facto British English. It was used by the EU and its predecessors before the UK was a member, and will continue to be used now the UK no longer is. Along with English, the 24 official languages of the EU include the Irish language and the Maltese language (but not "Irish English" nor "Maltese English").
In summary;
The UK leaving the EU is entirely irrelevant here,
It would not be sensible to require Maltese English be used in articles about institutions of the EU,
Were the edits to stand the example would be a poor one to illustrate the advice being given,
There is no "persistently recurring" style issue over using British or Maltese English needing to be addressed by altering the Manual of style.
I hope that makes sense, cheers! Captainllama (talk) 02:54, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree and, further, the MoS states that where organisations use a particular variety of English, that variety should be used in WP articles relating to that organisation. Looking at the official EU website, AFAICS the English used is British throughout. I don't expect anyone is going to be editing all those webpages introducing whatever are the Maltese English variations, just because the UK has left the EU! Plus, of course, the UK retains "ties" with the EU despite its departure, by dint of its historical involvement. MapReader (talk) 08:39, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
​(Copied across from Captainllama's talk page to here where it will get fuller attention): Thank you for the explanation. It indeed makes sense that English will continue to be an important language in the European Union even now that the UK has left, and there is indeed no doubt that that variety used in continental Europe will predominantly be the one used in Britain. However, what I don't understand is the specific difference between Irish English and Maltese English; why is the former a proper variety to use for describing the EU alongside British English whereas the latter isn't?--R8R (talk) 10:22, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
We don't actually have an article on Maltese English (redirects to a single para), because it doesn't exist as a formal written language or variant. Irish English is not much different; the Irish Times effectively uses British English except when quoting or imagining speech, and perhaps the odd phrase. Scottish English is actually slightly more different, especially in preserving different legal terms. So as far as turgid formal stuff like EU policy documents etc go, we are really talking about BE, even after the UK leaves. Johnbod (talk) 15:27, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can we please, please recognise that we are writing for an international audience and stop pandering to those who think that some articles should be written in a special variety of Australian, Irish, NZ, Maltese, Indian, etc. English? The differences between US and Commonwealth English are unfortunately unavoidable (thanks, Noah Webster!), but let's not fragment things further. Crikey, do the needful, brahs! Pelagic (talk) 02:39, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

All articles about Tyneside and anything within it should be written in Geordie.

Sarcasm aside, there's no more reason why British English is now inappropriate for articles about the EU than there is why it isn't appropriate to use it for articles about Mercosur or the Commonwealth of Independent States. Largoplazo (talk) 13:06, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • I agree with User:Pelagic. When editing, we need always to bear in mind the mission is to create a universal encyclopaedia, so the language used must be accessible to all readers. We should work towards WP:COMMONALITY and not favour or permit the development or proliferation of Engvar ghettos. --Ohconfucius (on the move) (talk) 20:06, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Ohc on the move: I'm OK with modifying templates so that de facto British English is generally used with former British colonies in Asia and Africa, so that we have COMMONALITY but do keep in mind the idea of ENGVAR (that the article should be tied to the variety of English used in the country). And likewise articles about the Philippines should de facto stick to American English, with any Philippine words explained. Perhaps the templates of former British colonies can be modified. I do note that India (along with other South Asian countries) uses its own variety of English, but it may be necessary to express lakh/crore amounts in ways non-South Asians can understand. WhisperToMe (talk) 01:15, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redundancy Words

Hi, I remember seeing in the MOS a few years ago something about redundancy words (pleonasms) like "in order", words that aren't needed. Is there a guideline somewhere that says what to do regarding these, if not in the MOS? — Yours, Bᴇʀʀᴇʟʏ • Talk∕Contribs 17:49, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what you're referring to, but MOS isn't supposed to try to teach points of general good English writing, unless a particular point has been a special problem for our editors. I'll take this opportunity, however, to direct you to WP:ASTONISHME. EEng 19:17, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Are you referring to wordy and pretentious phrases like "would go on to" as a synonym for "did"? If so, I agree they should be chopped out entirely or replaced with a shorter alternative. Reyk YO! 19:13, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
God, I hate that would shit. There's a very, very narrow appropriate use case for it, but in the main it sounds stupid in the extreme [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12]. For that I could be convinced a rule might be needed. I feel an essay coming on. ("EEng would later go on to write an essay on the subject...") If someone wants to contribute especially awful examples, WT:Queen_Elizabeth_slipped_majestically_into_the_water would be a good place. EEng 19:25, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Surely it would be "... later go on to write down an essay ..."? --RexxS (talk) 19:37, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
RexxS, don't call me Shirley]. EEng 00:39, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No, that's just what they're expecting us to do. --RexxS (talk) 00:57, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Here is an astonishing example that still makes my eyelid twitch to think about. There are a few cases where "would" might be acceptable:
  • Describing past habitual behaviour. For instance, "The elders of this tribe would often tell children stories of demons and evil spirits."
  • Temporarily skipping to the relative future during a narrative. For instance, "Until the age of 12 Dave Gablorsky lived next door to Derpina McBean, who would later be the first person on Mars. At sixteen, Gablorsky enrolled in the military" or some such.
But where I see all the time is in awful sports articles, where editors seem to think they're writing for a sports broadsheet and are being paid by the word. It's cringe-inducing. Reyk YO! 19:58, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot say that the example you linked is parody; I can only hope it's parody. I'm still toying with the idea of an essay, maybe Into the Woulds? EEng 01:21, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Count me as another editor who finds themselves regularly removing "woulds"... it's just one of those things people do when they've absorbed too much bad journalism. Popcornfud (talk) 12:04, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Your idea of an essay has me wondering if someone else might make a more appropriate author. Were he not dead, Edwould Wouldwould would, wouldn't he? Captainllama (talk) 12:45, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Or maybe Wouldward and Bernstein? EEng 16:45, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've started WP:INTOTHEWOULDS -- soon to be split off as its own page. Contributions invited. EEng 20:43, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Use of commas in article titles with city and state geographical references

I guess I am looking for some clarification. I am referring to this section of the MOS (fourth bullet point down).

WP:MOS#Commas:
In geographical references that include multiple levels of subordinate divisions (e.g., city, state/province, country), a comma separates each element and follows the last element unless followed by other punctuation.
Correct: He set October 1, 2011, as the deadline for Chattanooga, Oklahoma, to meet his demands.
Incorrect: He set October 1, 2011, as the deadline for Chattanooga, Oklahoma to meet his demands.

So, my question. How are we supposed to handle article titles (not text within an article) where a geographic location is referenced? For example: 1993 Aurora, Colorado shooting ... and ... 2012 Aurora, Colorado shooting. (In one of those article titles, I placed the "extra" comma in; someone took it back out.) (And that has happened with other article titles, as well. Some keep the comma, some do not.) Some editors believe that the above section of MOS only applies to article text, and not to article titles. Some believe the contrary. As a result, we have inconsistency. What can/should be done? I always thought/assumed that this MOS policy extended to both text and titles. I cannot see why the policy would distinguish between the two (text versus title). Thoughts? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:16, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Those editors who believe it only applies to article text, do they have any argument why it shouldn't apply to article titles as well? El Millo (talk) 20:24, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Facu-el Millo: Well, to me, not a convincing one. You can check the Talk Page here, for some discussion on the topic: Talk:2012 Aurora, Colorado shooting ... the issue surfaces up repeatedly at that Talk Page. And, less so, here: Talk:1993 Aurora, Colorado shooting. This has happened, in my experience (over the years), with many other pages. But I cannot recall the specific article titles, off hand. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:03, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And here is a direct quote from another editor, when I asked about this at the Wikipedia Help Desk: I think WP:MOS#Commas is about sentences in article text and doesn't apply to page names. Talk:2012 Aurora, Colorado shooting#Requested move earlier 5 March 2019 gave no support for two commas in 1993 Aurora, Colorado, shooting or 2012 Aurora, Colorado, shooting. I would also have opposed it. That's the opinion of one opponent (of the second comma). Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:08, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's strange. Reading the first discussion on adding the "Colorado" to the title, I still don't see the need for it. The year and the "Aurora" are enough disambiguation. Later, the suggestion of moving it to "2012 shooting in Aurora, Colorado" seemed like a good compromise. If I were the closer, I would've either given it more time or decide for the move, given that most opposing votes were based on Netholic's flawed argument and false premises. The thing with "2012 Aurora, Colorado, shooting" with the extra comma is that apparently too many people dislike it, so it will be very difficult to obtain consensus. Maybe you could try opening another RM where people choose between these two options. If more people choose either option than oppose the move altogether, then at least there'll be consensus that the title needs to be changed. El Millo (talk) 22:47, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The issue (to me) is not really about that specific article title (the shooting in Colorado). It's about the rule/policy, in general ... as this rule applies to many different article titles. We should have a policy, one way or the other. For consistency across the encyclopedia. I think we already do ... namely, the MOS. Some people "think" that the MOS does not apply to titles. I don't know where they get that from? It seems like a "convenient way" to get what "looks right" or "feels right" to them or "to get what they want", despite being in direct contradiction to the MOS. The MOS, itself, I assume, is a consensus. The MOS gives perfectly clear examples. Also, why would the MOS set up a rationale for handling commas in article text ... and then -- without even saying so -- expect the exact opposite rationale for handling commas in article titles? Makes no sense at all. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:02, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Joseph A. Spadaro: I think the MoS is missing some nuances of English style here. When we use a place name to create a noun adjunct – that is, it modifies another noun – we are less likely to want to separate the final part of the compound with a comma.
As an example, if we had a Formula 1 car race in Birmingham, we might call it the "Birmingham Grand Prix". So if we had the US Grand Prix in Birmingham, Alabama, and the British Grand Prix in Birmingham, England, how would we distinguish them in running prose?
Lewis Hamilton won the Birmingham, Alabama, Grand Prix, but came second in the Birmingham, England, Grand Prix. ← correct according to MoS
Lewis Hamilton won the Birmingham, Alabama Grand Prix, but came second in the Birmingham, England Grand Prix. ← incorrect according to MoS
Of course, you don't need to see both in one sentence to illustrate the effect.
I don't know how it looks to others, but to me, the second version would be what I would naturally prefer because it feels wrong to break between the qualifier and its qualified noun. That is exactly the problem I see with "Aurora, Colorado, shooting" vs "Aurora, Colorado shooting", whether it's in an article title or in running prose.
You can actually put the article title aspect on one side for now, and ask whether you would naturally write
"The Aurora, Colorado, shooting took place in 1993." or
"The Aurora, Colorado shooting took place in 1993."
Once again, my !vote would be for the second one. YMMV. --RexxS (talk) 01:01, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
100% agree. EEng 01:11, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
To both User:RexxS and User:EEng ... OK, granted ... that's how you "feel about it" or how "it looks to you". But that directly contradicts the MOS (at least, for article text). No? Are you (both) saying that the MOS is incorrect (on the issue of article text)? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:57, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of how you personally feel about it, what is correct according to English grammar? El Millo (talk) 02:12, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I know, the comma after the state is correct, as bad or wrong as it might look for some. El Millo (talk) 02:49, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Despite what WP:MISSSNODGRASS may have led you to think in 7th grade, there's a surprisingly large set of usage questions which are not fixedly determined by grammar or correctness. The placement of commas, in particular, is often a matter of rhythm and pacing, in context, and not right versus wrong (think: Oxford comma). EEng 03:19, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid that I have no opinion on what is correct. --English Grammar (talk) 03:43, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The Chicago Manual of Style says: "Commas are used to set off the individual elements in addresses or place-names that are run in to the text ... to separate city and state or province, apartment numbers, and the like." It shows "Waukegan, Illinois, is not far from the Wisconsin border." and "The plane landed in Kampala, Uganda, that evening." as examples. It also advises rewording the phrase if it feels awkward because of this, but not removing the second comma. It compares "New Delhi, India, marketplace" with "a New Delhi marketplace" and "a marketplace in New Delhi, India." The Associated Press Stylebook says to "Place one comma between the city and the state name, and another comma after the state name, unless ending a sentence or indicating a dateline." Now, these are style guides external to Wikipedia and we do not need to abide by them, but we should have a rule of our own for this. We either put the second comma or we do not, we have to base that on something, and I doubt just the awkwardness of it will do as a valid argument. Can you find one or two widely known manuals of style that advise against using the second comma and in favor of just leaving the first one? Or maybe something of equal validity? El Millo (talk) 05:21, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that for article titles we probably need a rule, because uniformity's important there (though why I think that I can't quite say). I'm not convinced we need such a rule for article text, any more than we need a rule one way or the other for Oxford commas in article text (and do we have an Oxford comma rule for titles???). I'll say in advance that we've been through this before and as I recall all the style guides were against my idea of flexibility on this, so I may be too avant-garde on this one. EEng 05:33, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well ... how we "feel about it" and "how it looks" should not be important. Why not have a consistent policy across Wikipedia, so that all similar articles are handled in a similar manner? And, plus, who says that the MOS applies to article text, but not to article titles? We are allowed to "pick and choose"? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:46, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am no "grammarian" (or whatever they are called). But, it was my understanding that in an example like this (the Atlanta, Georgia, conference) the location/state name of "Georgia" is an appositive, thus set off by commas on both sides. (I believe?) And in an example like this (the February 21, 2019, conference) the year of "2019" is an appositive, thus set off by commas on both sides. I believe that is how it was explained to me ... and, indeed, it did make sense to me. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:52, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well that's WP:SISTERMARYCATHERINE -- the kind of explanation you get from nuns who think diagramming sentences is good for the soul. If 2019 was an appositive we'd write "Queen Victoria died 22 January, 1901" -- which we don't -- and "Queen Victoria died 22 January, 1901, at Osborne House" -- which we even more don't. The comma in "January 22 1901" is just a convention, probably because "January 22 1901" kind of runs together. Same with City, State -- it's just a convention. If someone wants to argue that accepted style for this convention is to write "In Smithville, Iowa, he had an accident" then fine, they can argue that that's the accepted convention. But this appositive stuff, like it's a question of grammar, is just pedantic nonsense. EEng 05:07, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"Nonsense" or not ... we need a rule. And, I'd argue, we already have a rule ... the MOS. It's hard to interpret the MOS as saying "this is how we handle commas in article text" ... and then the MOS (purportedly) remains silent on how to handle commas in article titles ... and then interpret/expect/presume that the MOS dictates handling commas in article titles in a manner directly opposite of how the MOS itself specifies (purportedly only for article text) ... Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:47, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
When I was in school and we learned the proper usage of commas, no teacher ever taught us a rule saying that "when the name of a state, not at the end of a sentence, qualifies the name of a city, it is set off by commas on both sides, except in the titles of articles on something called "wikis" that may exist 40 or 50 years from now". That people are simply declaring this matter of style to be different in article titles as though it were self-evident mystifies me. Anyone arguing against the following comma on the grounds that the general MOS guidelines magically doesn't apply to article titles just because it doesn't specifically mention them and that, therefore, the opposite approach must be taken for article titles is arguing irrationally. Largoplazo (talk) 11:58, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Largoplazo: Exactly. I agree 100%. The argument (against the double comma in titles only, but not in text) itself makes no sense (i.e., it is completely irrational). Plus, it is manufactured out of whole cloth, from nowhere. And to interpret that the MOS "silently implies" the direct opposite of what it explicitly states ... is beyond my comprehension. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:25, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There seems no reason that the approach should be different between article titles and text. However (and I've raised this before, here and on a Music talk page, I believe), MOS:ELLIPSIS says we should set ellipses with a preceding, non-breaking space, yet I don't believe that's ever done in article titles – say, for films, albums and songs. It should be, surely.
On the issue of commas, why is it that a comma is needed after the year: "He set October 1, 2011, as the deadline ..."? If we were using dmy dates, which is generally the approach in British English, that phrase wouldn't be written as: "He set 1 October 2011, as the deadline ..." Isn't the sole reason for a comma in mdy examples to avoid the clash of numerals?
In my opinion (and it's only that), the sentence does not require a comma in either case:
He set October 1, 2011 as the deadline for Chattanooga, Oklahoma to meet his demands.
It's noticeable that the whole MOS and its subpages reflect a strong preference for commas, with Oxford/serial commas used throughout. At MOS:COMMA, in the third bullet-list item, we say "Modern writing uses fewer commas", so it's as if we're endorsing antiquated (that is, non-modern) writing habits by using them to the maximum. JG66 (talk) 07:14, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
First, as far as I know, non-breaking spaces are used so that something won't be separated into two different lines. That can't happen in an article title. Second, why do you think that the sentence doesn't require a comma in the case of the state? What is the basis for your opinion? Lastly, if we want our writing to be more "modern", according to MOS:COMMA, we should try to avoid the structure altogether, not just erase the commas that should go with it and use such structure incorrectly. El Millo (talk) 07:39, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, so forget the non-breaking aspect. MOS still advises a space before (and after) an ellipsis.
The same basis, I imagine, as for others' comments here – real life engagement with the language. But, actually, also from a GA reviewer or two over the years. They told me, and FWIW they were Americans, that the city–state descriptors should not carry a second comma.
The statement at MOS:COMMA appears in the context of commas and sentence structure, yes, but it still says what it says: modern writing uses fewer commas. JG66 (talk) 08:12, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Taking things out of context changes what they actually mean, context is important. The statement doesn't call for using this structure incorrectly, it calls for avoiding it if possible. It doesn't say to just use it with fewer commas.
We have a Manual of Style for a reason. If there's consensus to change it so as to not use both commas –either everywhere or just in titles–, it's okay. Let's have an RfC, reach consensus to change the MoS and actually adhere to whichever ends up being the guideline. But arguments based on an unnamed editor's actions or on personal experience don't seem very sound to me. El Millo (talk) 08:31, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Chill out. It says, "Modern writing uses fewer commas", which means that modern writing uses fewer commas. JG66 (talk) 08:47, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well, yes. But actually no. You know what I meant. Using fewer commas isn't just erasing them, it's rearranging the way sentences are written in order to have less commas. El Millo (talk) 01:36, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's also erasing some where they are awkward and break the flow of the sentence. When I was a young dinosaur, all words and phrases in apposition had to be set off by commas, but I've had to adjust to seeing things like My brother Nathan is here.. In the same way, we may have to adjust to reading The Aurora, Colorado shooting took place in 1993. --RexxS (talk) 11:19, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
My brother Nathan is here has a different meaning than My brother, Nathan, is here. The first one means you have more than one brother, the second one means he's your only brother. My understanding is that when the appositive is essential it goes without commas. In that example, you need Nathan in the first case to know which brother it is, whereas in the second case you don't. Here's a definition I found at a grammar and punctuation website: When an appositive is essential to the meaning of the noun it belongs to, don’t use commas. When the noun preceding the appositive provides sufficient identification on its own, use commas around the appositive. Doesn't it make sense to you? Regarding the modern writing issue, the MoS already says it: Modern[f] writing uses fewer commas; there are usually ways to simplify a sentence so that fewer are needed (bolding mine). In order to have fewer commas, you have to rearrange the sentence. Just erasing them won't do. El Millo (talk) 19:21, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes of course it makes sense to me. That's exactly what it says at the Apposition article, which is where you'll see I stole the example from. But you'll find that that "rule" is pretty much an invention of a grammarian who was trying to make sense of seeing some appositive phrases set off with commas and others not. There's all too often no way of determining whether My brother Nathan is here actually is a restrictive apposite, or is simply a victim of the modern fashion for dropping commas where you can do without them. And 99.99% of the time, nobody cares. --RexxS (talk) 20:27, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I would oppose having the second comma in the titles and would support moving the ones with two commas to their one-comma counterparts. And support changing the MOS to explicitly state that. Useight (talk) 18:55, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Status

So, what's the status of this? I'd like to see article titles be consistent in this regard. And I don't want to have to "reinvent the wheel" for consensus at each and every article Talk Page. Thoughts? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:03, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's easy. Assuming nobody agrees with my analysis that nouns in apposition regularly drop the second comma when forming a noun adjunct, the MoS says the second comma has to be there. You can use that to short-circuit the search for consensus at every page. --RexxS (talk) 20:27, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Easier said than done. At those Talk Page discussions, opponents simply argue "Yes, the MOS does indeed say that ... but the MOS does not apply to article titles, just to article text". That's the problem. As I outlined above. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:17, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
RexxS, I'd say a couple of us do agree with you on that, no? – or at least we've stated approaches that align in practice. You're right that citing the MoS guidance should be sufficient to ensure consistency between an article title and the text. I don't agree with the guidance, personally, but that wouldn't change the situation. This was my point above about ellipses (where, it so happens, I am in agreement with the MoS). I'm not aware of any talk page discussions or disagreements that have produced article titles such as ...And Justice for All, ...That's the Way It Is and Let It Be... Naked. I've always imagined that in each case, the unspaced ellipsis is simply the result of an editor's personal preference or a lack of awareness of MoS, just as one might see unspaced ellipses in the text. JG66 (talk) 04:31, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
To quote Cullen, "I am an administrator and here is my informed opinion: You are wasting your time with trivial pedantry. Whether or not a comma appears after a state name is a stylistic matter of no significance, and your time would be better spent doing some useful task that actually improves the encyclopedia for our readers." And your forum-shopping will not improve things. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:07, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Orangemike: Forum shopping? What the "F" are you talking about? Really? I was directed from Page A to go to Page B to go to Page C. And I did as was suggested. You call that "forum shopping"? And what exactly am I shopping for? What a piece of work. Really. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:53, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Orangemike and, it would seem, Cullen328, I do think Joseph A. Spadaro's concerns are legitimate. As mentioned above, I don't like or support the idea of these commas, but the MoS does. It seems quite logical to think that if a style is applied within an article, per MoS, then it would apply also to the article's title. I know nothing about any dispute outside of this talk page (and I don't want to inflame any such dispute), but it is an issue that's perplexing: whether MoS applies to article titles, and whether it's okay to be stylistically inconsistent between title and text. JG66 (talk) 13:21, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Status 2

Can we get a decision, one way or the other? I don't give a shit feces, if there is a comma or not. I am asking that similar articles be treated with similar rules. Unbelievable that people think that is asking a lot. To have consistency for similar situations. (Nay, exact same situations.) That's asking a lot? Wow. Unreal. And, of all places, in the MOS and its Talk Page! Just unreal. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:57, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I think two commas is correct, but can see that people would consider titles peppered with commas a little unpleasing æsthetically. The whole "year place something-happened" pattern isn't great. Perhaps we could rearrange it: "Aurora, Colorado, shooting, 2012"?! Pelagic (talk) 02:01, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That, from you, is enough, quite, aleck smart. EEng 02:04, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Chuckled, EEng, thanks. –Pelagic (talk) 03:13, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's a valid concern. It also used to bother me that we have so many factual inconsistencies between articles, but I've become resigned to the idea that it's an unavoidable product of the way the encyclopaedia is built. JAS, even if the MoS explicitly said what you're asking for, would it help long-term or just cause arguments about the guideline? I don't think it's great that the reaction has been 'meh, not important', but the regulars here (I'm not one) have probably seen much argy-bargy about seemingly small issues, like capitalising job titles, that never go away. Pelagic (talk) 03:13, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kerckhoffs's's's's'ssss...

The formal...
...or the ladder.

Kerckhoffs's principle or Kerckhoffs' principle? --Guy Macon (talk) 16:16, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You can either go for popular ways or formal grammar. Usually the former wins. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 18:14, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The former, or the formal? EEng 19:14, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately "former". Martin of Sheffield (talk) 21:00, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Depends whose style guide you use. Does Wikipedia have a preference?
I like the Guardian's logic - if it's a name you pronounce with the s, then add the s. So write "James's hat", but not "Mephistopheles's book". Popcornfud (talk) 19:32, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Arguably, "James's hat" can be pronounced different ways: James hat ... or ... Jame-ziz hat. No? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:36, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
My mistress' eyes are nothing like the sun. But no one talks like anymore.--Jack Upland (talk) 20:46, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It is a perennial debate at the home of Newcastle United F.C.. See St James' Park#Stadium description. Feline Hymnic (talk) 20:53, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Joseph A. Spadaro, I've never heard "James hat" in my entire life... and someone very important to me is called James. Popcornfud (talk) 20:57, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. That may be true. But, I have definitely heard both pronunciations: James and Jame-ziz. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:09, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Is MOS:PLURALNOUN insufficient to answer the question? --Izno (talk) 23:13, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Izno, thanks. So basically the Guardian style I mentioned above, based on pronunciation. Popcornfud (talk) 23:16, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I actually misidentified the section--it should be MOS:POSS "Singular nouns". Same result. --Izno (talk) 23:55, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) For 'Kerckhoffs' principle', you should be looking at the section above that: MOS:POSS. The advice there has changed in a fairly arbitrary manner over the years, but the present guideline is pretty poor, because it depends on each individual's idea of what is difficult to pronounce:
  • If a name already ends in s or z and would be difficult to pronounce if 's were added to the end, consider rearranging the phrase to avoid the difficulty: Jesus's teachings or the teachings of Jesus.
I think that's much less useful than previous advice, which also gave clear examples of multisyllabic names of foreign origin taking just the apostrophe, like Archimedes' principle. The advice to rephrase is equally sub-par. Who is going to re-write "Mephistopheles' head" as "the head of Mephistopheles"? --RexxS (talk) 23:57, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am still unsure of what to do. It does seen that we should not have an Archimedes' principle article and a Kerckhoffs's principle article. Scholarly sources differ (which of course I knew because I checked before asking here):[13][14]

I also found the "If a name already ends in s or z and would be difficult to pronounce if 's were added to the end, consider rearranging the phrase to avoid the difficulty" part of MOS:POSS to be subjective and not helpful in this case; nobody is going to change the article title to "The Kerckhoffs principle".

So, what should I do? --Guy Macon (talk) 01:41, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

According to the sections of the Manual of Style that were linked here, the appropriate thing to do with proper but not official names is to use 's even if it ends with an s or a z. That means Archimedes' principle should be changed, and Kerckhoffs's principle should stay as it is. El Millo (talk) 01:56, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Which is exactly why the the sections of the MOS linked now contain deficient advice. Sources overwhelmingly use "Archimedes' principle" because the convention in English has been that multisyllabic names of Greek origin take just the apostrophe to form the possessive. On Google Scholar, you find 42,100 results for "Archimedes' principle" -wikipedia and just 572 for "Archimedes's principle" -wikipedia. That's 74:1.
Kerckhoffs' principle is a closer case: "Kerckhoffs' principle" -wikipedia = 1,350 results; "Kerckhoffs's principle" -wikipedia" = 107 results; 12.6:1. I know which one I'd use for the title. --RexxS (talk) 11:59, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Does WP:COMMONNAME still take precedence over the Manuel of Style when there's that little a difference between one title and the other –not difference in searches but in actual characters between the titles themselves–? We're comparing "Kerckhoffs'" with "Kerckhoffs's", these are hardy different names. There's no example even slightly similar to this one amongst the ones listed at COMMONNAME, we should discuss if we apply it here. El Millo (talk) 16:45, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No, WP:COMMONSENSE takes precedence over unhelpful rule-bound mindsets. Wikipedia naturally follows sources. Guidelines document practices, not prescribe them. --RexxS (talk) 19:53, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So, yes, COMMONNAME takes precedence. El Millo (talk) 20:53, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is a very long article at Apostrophe that suggests that it is WAY too complicated to have a brief MOS entry. I would just refer editors to that article. --Red King (talk) 18:53, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For learning more about the history and details of the apostrophe, wonderful resource. For answering the question "Kerckhoffs's principle or Kerckhoffs' principle?", not so much. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:21, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there something still awaiting resolution or clarification in this thread? EEng 21:56, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Humor in the Manual of Style

I believe that the purpose of the Manual of Style is to be useful to editors, given that it is a guideline for—let's see here—"all English Wikipedia articles". As a guideline, it exists "to document the good practices accepted in the Wikipedia community". I strongly believe that a guideline can best do this when it's easy to read and understand, hence my recent edits.

Guidelines don't normally have "entertaining the reader" as a secondary goal, or as a goal at all. I searched all over and found no traces of {{humor}} or any similar templates, no mentions of the Department of Fun, and no Wikipedia policy anywhere to suggest that guidelines should strive for humor. (Particularly when it's, you know, the freaking Manual of Style for all of English Wikipedia.)

@EEng: Judging by your edits, you seem to believe not only that humor for its own sake is okay here, but that it should be here—even when that hurts the manual's ability to function as a guideline by making it harder to understand. Your edit summaries have both been personal attacks on my sense of humor (and nothing else—not so much as an allusion to the page you were editing). I'm very confused as to the reason behind your edits. Please let me know which policies you were following, or how your edits . — Ardub23 (talk) 01:57, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Ardub23: it's an April Fools' thing, if April Fool's Day in Wikipedia goes by UTC, then it's no longer April 1st. I guess it should already be deleted. El Millo (talk) 02:23, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Facu-el Millo: I thought the same thing at first, but the disputed phrase was like that for months at least, and WP:FOOLS requires April Fools' jokes to be tagged with an appropriate template anyway. — Ardub23 (talk) 02:46, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
How odd... I thought your post here might have been your idea of an April Fools joke! Look, you said, "I like humor as much as the next guy" [15], but since I was the next guy that's obviously not true, so I said, "No, you do not 'like humor as much as the next guy'" [16]. That's not an attack.
To answer your first question: I'm helping the Manual of Style as a guideline by making its provisions more memorable (plus I'm improving the editing experience by making project space less of a deathly dull all-work-no-play purgatory). I'll turn your second question around: what policy are you following? EEng 03:03, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It was alright joke, and if mainspace and "Help:" are the only places where we can't put April Fools' jokes, then I guess the MoS is allowed. But April 1st is over, shouldn't we remove the joke already? El Millo (talk) 03:25, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And you can still joke everyday at talk pages, right?. El Millo (talk) 03:29, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) I find this OP by User:Ardub23 very worrysome. Not only is humor, let alone a failed attempt to, a bad form to convey a MOS guideline. Especially when not announced as such (by template e.g.), one must assume it is not understood. Not as humor, not as a guideline.
Then hiding behind an April 1 defence, mind us: not by the editor themselves but by an advocate User:Facu-el Millo here who does third-person interpretation, is inacceptible talk. This is about a MOS, ffs.
Extra troubling is that Ardub23 has to state that Your [EEng] edit summaries have both been personal attacks, which EEng does not seem to recognise. There is a pattern with this, including the advocacy. -DePiep (talk) 03:32, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style is not the place to post allegations of wrongdoing. Please stop. Take it to ANI, take it to Arbcom, or drop the stick.
Regarding your opinion that humor is not allowed in a MOS guideline, I suggest that you draft an RfC detailing exactly where you believe humor is forbidden and see what the consensus of the community is. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:43, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@DePiep: I was just trying to solve the problem and try to get EEng to cool down a bit and maybe delete his joke himself. I was writing something serious in response to him about treating others better and how it is best to keep "play" separate from "work" in here, but I thought he might not take it well and I didn't publish it. I'm sorry if it looked like I was genuinely condoning his behaviour. El Millo (talk) 03:47, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
When you bunch figure out which way is up (and I'm not talking to G.M. here) give us a buzz. EEng 04:11, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@EEng: I was following WP:GUIDELINE § Content:
"Be clear. ... Be plain, direct, unambiguous, and specific. ...
"Be as concise as possible ... Omit needless words. Direct, concise writing may be more clear than rambling examples."
I don't see where in this (or any) policy it says to make guidelines "memorable" or "less dull". Any other questions?
— Ardub23 (talk) 04:41, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't say not to either. Any other answers? EEng 04:56, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, actually, it does say not to. Right under § Content. "Be clear." "Omit needless words." — Ardub23 (talk) 05:10, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to have copy-pasted the wrong text. We're looking for the parts that say "Be forgettable" and "Be dull". EEng 05:22, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Is breaking the policy twice not enough? How many policies do you need to violate before it counts? Or do you not understand how a phrase which self-describes as both "awkward" and "lengthy" conflicts with the policy of being clear and concise? — Ardub23 (talk) 05:46, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ardub23, you believe that a policy is being broken. EEng, you do not. To both of you, repeating your assertion that of course your interpretation of the policy is the only correct one is clearly a waste of effort and has a 0% chance of convincing the other. There are two ways to resolve this, and neither involves more of what I am seeing above. One of you can post a clearly-worded RfC (I suggest discussing the wording first) so that the consensus of the community can decide which one of you understands the policy. Or the one who claims a violation can go to WP:ANI and report the violation and let the administrators decide which one of you understands the policy. Please note that nothing that I have written in any way takes sides or indicates what my opinion is on this. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:55, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) @Guy Macon: re your post a clearly-worded RfC: see this, which makes sense in this stage.
re nothing that I have written in any way takes sides or indicates what my opinion is: yes you did. Above, in this thread, you wrote your opinion that humor is not allowed in a MOS guideline [17], thereby putting words in my mouth as if I am claiming some "is forbidden" stuff, quod non. Then in there is another start-an-RfC diversion. All this, your approach here saying "go elsewhere" does not reflect the basic steps in WP:DISPUTE, that says: go-to-the-talkpage. In doing so, you are stifling the debate, not resolving it. That is not helpful. While instead, as a less involved party here, you could have put some grease in the flow.
Meanwhile there is an editwar going on, which I understand we can not stop & resolve on this page? -DePiep (talk) 08:26, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not attempt to stuff words into my mouth. You are heading for Yet Another Block if you continue this sort of behavior. Saying that an obviously intractable content dispute should be decided by RfC instead of going on and and on about it in a discussion that have no chance of reaching an agreements is NOT equal to taking sides in the content dispute. I advised you to take it to RfC only after you and others had a lengthy talk page discussion that failed to reach anything resembling agreement. That and I told you that your accusations against another editor (I expressed no opinion about the merits of the actual accusations) do not belong here. I advise either dropping the stick or posting an RfC. Yelling at each other some more is unlikely to have any beneficial effect. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:05, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Disregard the argument that humour makes Wikipedia "less of a deathly dull all-work-no-play purgatory". If someone doesn't enjoy editing Wikipedia they are free to stop at any point. This isn't Kiddies First Style Guide that needs to resort to desperate unfunny attempts at humour to grab attention. Ardub23 provided a policy based reason why they made the changes (WP:GUIDELINE § Content), the reverting editor didn't put forward any policy based argument and so can best be interpreted as 'I just don't like it'. Editing with Eric (talk) 08:24, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it would be more useful to focus on the specific disputed edit rather than on philosophy at this time. I support Ardub23's change. Fumblerules are fun in context but not in the actual manual. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 10:03, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a policy to that effect? Aren't you just expressing a philosophy? (For the record, BTW, the text at issue wasn't anything I wrote.) EEng 10:29, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the WP:BRD cycle, we clearly are in the D. This also implies that the disputed edit should be reverted into the status quo ante. (note afterwards: As was done, see RexxS below. DePiep) Currently this most recent edit by EEng during this discussion, constitutes WP:EW. -DePiep (talk) 11:26, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The edit warring has stopped, on pain of sanction. I think you'll find that the status quo ante is the same as the current version by EEng. It has been like that for at least the past year until Ardub23 changed it on 1 April 2020. My understanding of BRD is that Ardub23 boldly changed a stable version (B), EEng reverted it (R), and the next step should have been discussion (D) – presumably initiated by the person wanting to change the stable version. IMHO, it should be relatively easy to settle the matter. --RexxS (talk) 12:08, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I stand corrected. Thanks for the clarification. -DePiep (talk) 17:05, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Poll

  • A The stable version was: Avoid writing and/or unless other constructions would be lengthy and also, or alternatively, would be awkward.
  • B The changed version was : Avoid writing and/or unless other constructions would be lengthy or awkward.

So, who wants to keep A, and who wants to change to B? Reasoning would be helpful. --RexxS (talk) 12:08, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • I would go with B. I read through A several times, and it seems to be both lengthy and awkward, also less clear, which I consider more important.· · · Peter Southwood (talk): 13:37, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    To clarify: I prefer B. A appears awkward, is longer and to my mind is less clear. The better clarity is my main reason for preferring B and would remain so if the other considerations did not exist. I consider clarity of meaning to be of primary importance in rules and guidance. · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 19:23, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    So on balance you think B is clearer? MapReader (talk) 20:13, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • B as it is more straightforward. Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:42, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The problem with B is that we had an editor who insisted that "or means one or the other, but not both" [18] so after some back and forth, in desperation I submitted [19] — Preceding unsigned comment added by EEng (talk • contribs)
  • C Avoid writing and/or unless other constructions would be lengthy and/or awkward.

And that's when that smartaleck MapReader jumped in [20] with A. So we have three choices. But if we go with B, sooner or later we'll have the "or means one or the other, but not both" guy back. Of course, that could be solved by

  • D. Avoid writing and/or unless other constructions would be lengthy or awkward or both.

EEng 13:55, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • A MoS that uses 'and/or' in the very same sentence that exhorted editors not to use such a formulation would merely be having a giraffe. At least my giraffe was more elegant. Nevertheless B is entirely sufficient: if either condition is met, it is immaterial whether the other one is, and/or is not. MapReader (talk) 14:04, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • B is the clearest and most straight forward. Though A does do a good job of illustrating what not to do. I for one appreciate the background EEng gave here. If the "or is always exclusive" guy shows up again, just point him to the definition of inclusive or and tell him to learn some actual grammar before commenting. We don't need to make a hash of the guideline to accommodate the hopelessly incompetent. oknazevad (talk) 15:33, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Better watch it or DePiep will have you at ANI for personal attacks. Personally I don't care which version we use just so long as we're past the "no humor allowed" nonsense. EEng 15:51, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    If you want humour, you should stick with A. Really I am impressed it survived so long; clearly WP doesn’t do irony ;) MapReader (talk) 18:41, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @EEng: yeah, but waiting for permission by Guy Macon. Tabbed this though, and tagged 'nasty, unhelpful, possible trolling, mentioning-without-pinging'. Could be worse. -DePiep (talk) 19:15, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it goes without saying that I support B, which follows WP:GUIDELINE § Content while A goes against it. The sentence right after it kills the "or is always exclusive" argument: "[or] would normally be interpreted to imply or both". I don't see any reason why this sentence would be an exception, which means C and D are just needlessly wordy. — Ardub23 (talk) 16:43, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral on which version to use, but I would note that A is purposely lengthy/awkward to illustrate the point. This is very much like the habit so many have of writing things like "you can strike out text that no longer applies" without in any way implying that the words "strike out" themselves do not apply. Again, I am neutral on whether such self-illustrating wording should be used on the page, but it was clearly done on purpose, and thus stating that A should be removed because it is lengthy/awkward is an example of begging the question. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:16, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    See Fumblerules. I am still waiting for any evidence that Wikipedia has a general ban against Fumblerules (which is a separate issue from the question of whether we should or should not use a fumblerule in this particular case). Again, I encourage those who assert that Wikipedia has a general ban against Fumblerules (which is essentially what you are doing whenever you cite the rule as if were a settled policy-based argument forbidding the fumblerule) to post an RfC to see what the consensus of the community is). --Guy Macon (talk) 18:59, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    But in order to be effective, the principle illustrated needs to align with the advice. "Eschew obfuscation" works because the language is so obviously overwrought. "Avoiding ending sentences with prepositions is the sort of thing up with which I will not put," demonstrates the knots that supposed rule can lead to. With Option A, the principle being illustrated is that alternatives to and/or are lengthy and convoluted. If anything, that undercuts the advice to avoid and/or.--Trystan (talk) 23:48, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    But "Eschew obfuscation" does not, in fact, align with its own advice. To the general point: hypocrisy is at least as memorable as rectitude. EEng 23:57, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    "Eschew obfuscation" is so obviously bad that it serves as a useful reminder to write plainly. "...would be lengthy and also, or alternatively, would be awkward," is also intentionally and obviously bad, reminding the writer to avoid such constructions... by using and/or?--Trystan (talk) 01:01, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    If all else fails, yes -- that's what the guideline says. EEng 17:17, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    So I guess it comes down to what you want the reader to walk away with. "Don't use and/or; it's unnecessary" vs. "Remember to use and/or; the alternatives are convoluted." If were are injecting humour to increase reader comprehension and retention, I would prefer it to reinforce the first takeaway, and not the second.--Trystan (talk) 18:21, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • B. (1) wrt "but 'or' does exclude one": no, only in mathematical logics and computers (where it is called XOR). In regular speech 'or' includes option 'both'. No need for hairsplitting, it does not introduce confusion. (2) Some subtle self-reference of attempt to humor: does not help when clarifying a guideline. At all. Even worse: those extra layers can and will confuse the explanation it seeks. (3) If need be for a situation not covered by this crisp B-sentence, add a second sentence (expressly subordinal somehow, and equally clear), or explain by unambigous examples. -DePiep (talk) 19:28, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    No, or can be inclusive or exclusive. For example "or can be inclusive or exclusive" is exclusive. EEng 23:19, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    All right, except your opening "No" is incorrect. It can be both, as you say. In spoken & written popular language, it is both options. Only when transistor logic appeared, the XOR was introduced (crucially, in there). -DePiep (talk) 23:26, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    No, my no was not incorrect; it correctly asserted that your assertion no, only in mathematical logics and computers was incorrect. And XOR goes back to De Morgan and Boole at the very least, and probably Aristotle. EEng 23:52, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • B. "Avoid writing and/or unless other constructions would be lengthy or awkward." No-one would surmise a construction both lengthy and awkward is therefore fine, exposing the "or is always exclusive" argument as grammarian claptrap. Captainllama (talk) 23:37, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • D, especially as it closely resembles Fowler (2nd ed., s.v. and/or): The ugly device of writing x and/or y to save the trouble of writing x or y or both of them is common in some kinds of official, legal, and business documents, but should not be allowed outside them. Dhtwiki (talk) 23:44, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I think Wikipedia would look to its own Manual of Style first before consulting Fowler. Just below the disputed phrase, the MoS states that or is generally understood to imply or both, and it prescribes or both only when extra clarity is needed. As Captainllama pointed out, nobody reading sentence B would conclude that a lengthy and awkward construction is okay, so there's no clarity to be gained by spelling out or both; it's just extra words. — Ardub23 (talk) 02:47, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • B provides clear and direct advice. The added wording in Option A reinforces the notion that alternatives to and/or are convoluted, which is not the key message the section should convey. The wording in Option D suggests that "or both" is generally needed for non-exclusive "or"s, which is also not an example the MOS should set. Option B has the subtle, underrated humour of following its own advice. It invites the reader to wonder whether any clarification is needed, and then conclude that it isn't, as only the most ardent pedant would argue that "lengthy or awkward" does not clearly include "lengthy and awkward".--Trystan (talk) 18:21, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • B is better. Incidentally, "or" is the marked version in a positive proposition; "and" is unmarked. In a negative proposition, markedness is reversed. It causes great problems for non-native speakers, since as far as I can work out English is unique in this respect. In most languages, "or" is the default, and includes both additive and alternative meanings. It's not made easier by occasional inconsistency by native speakers. Style guides, including our own, recognise the ugly duckling that "and/or" is, and justifiably want to minimise its use (open the flood gates and we'd be writing it all over the place). Tony (talk) 10:32, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • B. Version A is hard to parse, C is a joke, and D is redundant. If we ever again have someone try to argue that the or in it is exclusive and that the rule thus can't apply to something that is both lengthy and awkward, just cite WP:WIKILAWYER and WP:COMMONSENSE, then otherwise ignore their inanity.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  12:35, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. This discussion has been open for a couple of months now. Any objections to going ahead and implementing B, based on the views expressed above?--Trystan (talk) 14:40, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment:The obvious problem with B as a direction to editors is that it explicitly permits contributions that are lengthy, so long as they are not awkward, and/or those that are awkward, so long as they are not lengthy. MapReader (talk)…
    • @MapReader: read SMcCandlish's comment above: "If we ever again have someone try to argue that the or in it is exclusive and that the rule thus can't apply to something that is both lengthy and awkward, just cite WP:WIKILAWYER and WP:COMMONSENSE, then otherwise ignore their inanity." So that wouldn't be a problem. El Millo (talk) 17:24, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      I should probably have also added that throughout MoS and in many other guideline and policy pages, we regularly use inclusive or, and it is virtually never misinterpreted, due to the common-sense principle. That's the natural and default interpretation of or (and its equivalent in other natural languages). If Mommy tells you that you cannot have any cookies or watch any TV until you do you homework, every child knows that ignoring their homework and eating a cookie while watching TV will not be an out but will result in twice the punishment. The application of exclusive or is a mathematical concept that is also used in other avenues of formal logic, like computer programming languages, in which it has an exclusive definition. In natural language, when an exclusive or is intended, it is generally punctuated differently, with a comma or semicolon before the or (and sometimes the or is emphasized), and you can hear a pause and stress in the spoken version. It is better to be more specific when this is the intent, e.g. by using "neither x nor y", "either x or y", "x; alternatively, y", "x or y but not both", "x, or x then y, or y alone, but not y then x", or some other construction that gets precisely at the intended exclusive conditions.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  17:49, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Entity encoding

Hi all, I just want to confirm something. I personally prefer entity encoded ndash and mdashes and I know others like Unicode. I've always been under the impression that if an article consistently uses Unicode dashes then we should maintain using unicode dashes. However, if the article is using entity encoded dashes then we should use entity encoded dashes.

Am I correct in my understanding? The general principle being that we use what is established. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 05:49, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And then some editors use the actual characters – and —, and some use templates like {{endash}} and {{emdash}} (though possibly "subst"ing them to yield the actual characters). I think it matters not one ι (or &iota; or &#x03b9;) whether a consistent means of producing non-Latin-keyboard characters is used throughout the source code of a page. When MOS issues guidelines for consistency, it's for the benefit of the reader's experience, and concerns what's displayed, not how it's displayed.
For the sake of comprehensibility by editors, I could understand having a guideline that says to use either an actual character or a means of producing it (whether via a character entity reference or a template) that makes it transparent to the editor what character will be displayed, in preference to a numeric entity code (Unicode). But I don't see any point in asking editors to devote any time to enforcing consistency among the transparent approaches. Largoplazo (talk) 11:45, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any advantage of using an html entity over its unicode equivalent, beyond ease of initial entry, other than for &nbsp;. On the other hand, wikitext that is strewn with a large number of html entities is usually harder to read, as suggested in our article Character encodings in HTML #HTML character references, which also implies that they may open open up a security vulnerability if incorrectly escaped in code. But that article is not authoritative. I think I have seen a bot that changes entities to unicode equivalents, so I wouldn't waste time trying to change unicode characters to entities if they have been changed. --RexxS (talk) 17:21, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If discussing the code point itself, then using the numerical encoding makes sense. Otherwise, named entities are more readable, where they exist.
I'll also insert "special" characters directly, either from a touch keyboard or via the Insert panel (can't remember its proper name, and do note it's only available when using "classic"? wikitext editor). Yes, entering them directly means some changes aren't obvious on diffs (e.g. en and em dashes are particularly hard to distinguish in our default fonts), but that on its own isn't enough to motivate me to do the extra typing.
In any case, I see no need to follow the prior usage in an article: unlike ENGVAR or CITEVAR, the style used isn't visible to the reader.
— Pelagic (talk) 03:34, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
My concern is that edit-mode text is already littered with strange stuff for novices (especially embedded reference text), which probably doesn't help our early drop-out rate. Em dashes are closed on en.WP, so the unicode string is very hard to parse in edit-mode when squashed into continuous running text. I see nothing wrong in moving unicode strings for en and em dashes to their characters, if an editor is willing to do it on occasion. Tony (talk) 06:49, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I prefer html entity encoding because on a number of occasions I have not been able to tell if someone has used a hyphen, mdash or ndash. It is much easier and shows the intent of the author which style is to be used. It's hard to know if someone is using spaced emdash or an unspaced endashes throughout the article, or if they are using it wrongly. I also don't think that it's terribly hard to understand - it literally uses the words "ndash" and "mdash" in the text. So as per Pelagic, a named entity encoding is quite easy to understand. I also don't think it will stop anyone from editing - if they add in a Unicode mdash and ndash it's quite easy for a script to change this if the convention of the article is to use named entity encoding.
Do you have any hard data to backup the claim that use of named entity encodings are causing editor dropoffs? - Chris.sherlock (talk) 11:15, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
html entity encoding may be easier to input or understand, but it contributes to the clutter in edit mode, making it more difficult for the other elements to be parsed as a whole. The author's intention doesn't really come into it (because authors often get it wrong), whereas the adherence to the MOS does. I can never be bothered to work out for myself which is which, but that's where automated tools can come in handy: a carefully written algorithm can really help by taking the dirty work out of trying to parse the differences between for example the - (hyphen), − (minus sign), – (ndash) and — (ndash), and correct them where appropriate to ensure compliance with the MOS, don't you agree? -- Ohc ¡digame! 21:58, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Only if you can see they were added correctly in the history, which is impossible as some of the scripts don’t note they have changed the entity encoding in the edit summary. It’s actually not easier for a number of us to tell which is the dashes being used. It’s editor unfriendly to add dashes that look incredibly similar, to the point where I find it hard to distinguish between ndashes and a regular hyphen. I’m also unclear how it’s hard to parse entity encodings. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 19:03, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:AutoEd changes entities to Unicode. --Bsherr (talk) 12:43, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Remember that our edit interface includes a special characters menu that inserts characters, not entities. While some of us may know our entities or alt codes, our priority should be "anyone can edit". --Bsherr (talk) 12:43, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, but have you noticed how difficult it is to distinguish between ndashes and regular hyphens? If the edit box showed the differences more clearly, I wouldn’t have an issue. As it stands now, I find it hard to know which is being used, and which is being used incorrectly. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 19:05, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely. And BTW, if you find &ndash; awkward-looking and fiddly to type, {{ndash}} is much less so. EEng 19:12, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oh! That is actually nicer. I’ll use that :-) thanks! - Chris.sherlock (talk) 19:58, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's clear enough from your user page that it's the huge bee buzzing in your bonnet, but you shouldn't let it stress you out: the rules are clear enough. you should just sit back and trust the bots and scripts to do the work. --Ohconfucius (on the move) (talk) 19:45, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, whilst it is something I feel strongly about, it was the sheer arrogance and rudeness of Tony1 that made me quote him on my user page (what is written there was not my words, but his). And the rules on what to use are clear enough, it says it’s fine to use entity encoding. And I don’t trust your script, it has had so many reports of problems that how can I trust it? Not to mention the edit summaries are misleading. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 19:56, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"WhilST" is something better left behind with Enid Blyton. "are clear enough, it says it’s" – that's comma splice, which will make the reader trip; so is "And I don’t trust your script, it has had so many". Finally, "Not to mention that the" would be easier here. Your anger-management problem may be rooted in a deep lack of confidence in your ability to write at the level required for WP articles. But I may be wrong. As Ohconfucius says, calm down. Focus on the good-faith changes I made to your prose, which is too often imprecise. I don't mind assisting again, but you've decided to point your rifle at me from a trench. And give some leeway to those who find it perfectly easy to distinguish between open en dashes – and closed em dashes—the only arrangements allowed on WP. I'm glad you're no longer spacing em dashes with your favoured unicode. Tony (talk) 01:43, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Personally I prefer whilst to bridge. EEng 03:09, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It just doesn't matter. It's like using &nbsp; or {{nbsp}}.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  12:38, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vectors

Regarding vectors. The ISO standard is there to facilitate consistency. Ignore it if there are good reasons. I would strongly suggest that we stick to it regarding vector notation. It is not difficult. Use <math>\boldsymbol{k}</math> for the vector symbol , and <math>\mathbf{k}</math> for the vector constant . The same notation should be used inline and for formulas to avoid confusion. (Skvery [□] (talk) 11:47, 16 April 2020 (UTC))[reply]

I stopped reading when I saw "ISO". ISO standards are too expensive for volunteer Wikipedia editors. I oppose the use of any ISO standard on Wikipedia, although I don't oppose freely available standards that just happen to be mostly the same as some ISO standard. I also refuse to discuss any standard unless the exact standard to be discussed is cited. Jc3s5h (talk) 11:53, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Am I reading this correctly? What you say here: I don't oppose freely available standards that just happen to be mostly the same as some ISO standard seems to rather contradict what you wrote in your 2020-03-04T13:40 post at phab:T132308.
—Trappist the monk (talk) 12:41, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Mathematicians in the wild tend to ignore ISO dictates. In some contexts, you're more likely to see arrows over letters. In others, you're likely to see no decoration on vectors at all. After all, a vector is simply an element of a vector space. The field of real numbers forms a vector space over itself (as does any field). Should variables for real numbers be decorated as vectors? Etc. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 20:11, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Putting this gently, the OP's suggestion is naive. Different areas of math, statistics, science, and engineering use different conventions for all kinds of things including vectors, sometimes for good reason, sometimes for bad reasons, sometimes for no reason. We're not going to force everything onto a Procrustean bed. EEng 20:24, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    More strongly, I would suggest we completely ignore the ISO standards. Their choices of abbreviations for logarithms, for instance, are wrongheaded and counter to most practice in the mathematical and related literatures. Maybe they are useful for engineers but not for mathematicians. Also, in this specific case, I have no idea what distinction you or the ISO are trying to draw between "vector symbol" and "vector constant" — whether a named vector varies or is constant depends on context, is subject to change as the context changes, and is not intrinsic to its value. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:17, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    When you say "ISO standards" do you mean stuff like, "Must love dogs and enjoy long walks on the beach"? EEng 21:24, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Basically, it shouldn't matter what format is followed as long as it 1) appropriate for the topic at hand , 2) self-consistent within the article itself and 3) introduced appropriately within the article itself. --Masem (t) 22:18, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Apparently you intend to simply ignore my strained joke. EEng 22:41, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Commas

Just wondering where condition/comma guidelines are. For instance: Although Donald Trump is the President of the United States many people disagree with his ideas versus Although Donald Trump is the President of the United States, many people disagree with his ideas. If this isn't addressed, should we append this into the MoS? Augend (drop a line) 01:12, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Augend: MOS:COMMA is the section of MoS that deals with commas. The question of using a comma after an introductory phrase is complicated by a lack of uniform guidance between different style guides. I'm not at all sure you would get a consensus to add the guidance you suggest to the MoS, but you can certainly give it a try. --RexxS (talk) 19:41, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@RexxS: I see that, but in most forms of English I've met we always add a comma after an introductory phrase. It's more formal, imo. Augend (drop a line) 19:55, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Augend: you don't have to convince me. --RexxS (talk) 20:09, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I ignore the thing on principle. ——SN54129 21:01, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, I think that's a introductory clause, not an introductory phrase. --Bsherr (talk) 22:19, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Claus introductory. EEng 23:20, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but the legal technicality, not the man. --Bsherr (talk) 11:12, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The job of MOS is spell out English Wikipedia's house style -- the sorts of things that vary from publication to publication but which should be uniform within any particular publication. It's not its job to give guidance on good writing in general. Good writers might go either way on this, so it's not a MOS issue. Do what you see as fit, and if there's disagreement work it out on the talk page of the article. EEng 21:58, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree this doesn't belong in the MOS. In fact, I'd argue that at least the first point of MOS:COMMA (dealing with parenthetical commas) doesn't belong in the MOS, either. pburka (talk) 00:50, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that it doesn't belong in the MOS. Excessive content in the MOS is to the detriment of the MOS. It belongs instead in the essay WP:Writing style, who should be a how to on how to write for Wikipedia, an internal exception to WP:NOTHOWTO. User:Anita5192's Writing style is a good starting point, editor guidance ideally with be in harmony with mainspace articles. The first sentence cannot be logically misread, but with the comma, it is considerably more readable. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:04, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
When I edit Wikipedia I try to follow as closely as possible the guidelines in my hardcopy manuals-of-style/grammar-books, unless I know of a conflicting principle in the Wikipedia MOS articles. There are a few such Wikipedia MOS articles that I don't agree with, but I follow them anyway—perhaps this is because Wikipedia originated in Great Britain and British English is somewhat different from American English. In any case the comma has perhaps more guidelines in my books than any other punctuation and those guidelines are usually the most lenient. I will quote here what one of my sources recommends regarding the subject at hand:

Modifying clauses and phrases are usually set off by commas if they precede the main clause. But you can omit the comma if the clause or phrase is brief and its grammatical distinctness from what follows is clear. Never omit a comma if the sentence would become even momentarily ambiguous without it.[1]

—Anita5192 (talk) 03:02, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry Anita, but Wikipedia was founded in the US by two US citizens (Jimmy Wales and Larry Sanger) and its servers are based in the US so is subject to US law. Most of the time it tries to be neutral between US and English variants, but sometimes has to make a judgement call. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 09:09, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm glad you cleared that up because I was beginning to think I'd lost my marbles. EEng 02:14, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Use the comma. Even the style guides that make commas for some introductory phrases optional only do so with very short ones, and that example obviously does not qualify. We can probably tolerate "In 2006 they moved to France.", though I also fix this when I run into it and I'm not too busy to bother. (I fix it because it's awkward and potentially confusing news-style writing, and WP is not written in news style, as a matter of policy.) But an example like the one this opened with should be fixed as an outright error; even a low-end journalist wouldn't write like that.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  12:42, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Crews, Frederick (1977), The Random House Handbook (2nd ed.), New York: Random House, p. 335, ISBN 0-394-31211-2

Shortcuts for ndash and mdash

It is possible to set things up so that n-dash and m-dash can be typed in as -- and --- as in Latex, rather than requiring special characters to be searched for and inserted?

The manual of style says:

"To enter them, click on them in the CharInsert toolbar to the right of the "Insert" dropdown beneath the edit window (in the Monobook Skin), or enter them manually as – or —, respectively. Do not use a double hyphen (--) to stand in for a dash."

To be sure, this would also require that coding be done to not convert things like "-->" to "–>". Would that make it too awkward? Or could we at least have &-- and &--- be Wikipedia shortcuts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Editeur24 (talk • contribs) 16:05, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We already have ---- translated to <hr>, so it's within the ability of the devs to do the job. I doubt that anybody would object to making it easier to insert endash and emdash, but in all honesty, I doubt anybody would see it as much of a priority. If you want to pursue the possibility, it needs a phabricator ticket to be raised. --RexxS (talk) 16:39, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
We've been over this 1000 times. Yes, it would have been nice had this been thought of way back when, but it's 20 years too late now. Forget it. EEng 18:23, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The only outcome I can see is an abundance of en dashes where em dashes were intended. -- is commonly used, both spaced and unspaced, to represent an em dash in plain text; --- is never used as such.
That said, I can’t imagine any side effects; I don’t think I’ve ever encountered consecutive dashes in peer-reviewed wikimarkup outside of HTML comments. —96.8.24.95 (talk) 05:36, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's a great pity this wasn't done early on. Tony (talk) 06:39, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Using -- and --- would fit the original spirit of wikitext being lightweight, "readable" markup. Perhaps they could slip it into Wikitext 2.0! Pelagic (talk) – (18:04 Sun 03, AEST) 08:04, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
rather than requiring special characters to be searched for and inserted? That's hardly the only alternative. We have available to us &ndash;, &mdash;, {{ndash}}, and {{mdash}} (as well as various have-it-your-way redirects), all of which offer the advantage of clarity. Depending on one's font and eyesight, ndash can be mistaken for mdash or vice versa. It's a few more characters to type, but how often do you need them? Not a Big Deal. ―Mandruss ☎ 08:31, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You need at least the en dash to write professional-standard English. Tony (talk) 09:17, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure what you're saying. I haven't suggested we not use ndash – or mdash. When I spoke of ambiguity, I was referring to the coding, not the rendered article. Clarity is important there, too. ―Mandruss ☎ 09:23, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
FYI, there's a bot that changes the dash templates to dash characters, so using the templates doesn't avoid the difficulty in visual discernment in the source. But I ordinarily use them anyway, or the HTML entity codes—I haven't settled on one or the other for some reason! Largoplazo (talk) 10:41, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That bot should be decommissioned, and I doubt it has been vetted by the community (I may be giving the community too much credit). ―Mandruss ☎ 10:46, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

More clarity required on "Strong national ties to a topic" in relation to the EU

At the moment, the "Strong national ties to a topic" section here says: An article on a topic that has strong ties to a particular English-speaking nation should use the (formal, not colloquial) English of that nation. For example: followed by nine examples of articles which have a strong tie to a particular English-speaking nation. But there is another example too, "Institutions of the European Union", which does not have any ties to a particular English-speaking nation, but to the European Union - which is a trading bloc with 27 member states. Could we change the wording to clarify why that EU article should be written in British or Irish English. Is it:

  1. Any article with strong ties to the European Union or to any nation which is a member state of the European Union?
  2. Any article which is about the European Union itself, or one of its institutions?
  3. Just articles about institutions of the European Union?
  4. Something else?

The reason I raise this subject is because there is a discussion ongoing between myself and Getsnoopy at this talkpage thread to try to decide whether the "1755 Lisbon earthquake" article, which was originally written in American English, should be converted to use British English (Portugal has been a member state of the EU since 1986). -- DeFacto (talk). 10:13, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Consider that in 1755 British North America had "strong ties" with the UK! Way to far back to be considered an EU institution - MOS:RETAIN and common sense applies surely. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 10:34, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The answer is that as per the MoS, the variety of English used should reflect the variety used by the institution itself. Take a look around the EU website and you will see that it uses British English. MapReader (talk) 13:18, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@MapReader: so just in articles covering EU institution business then? -- DeFacto (talk). 13:20, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly, I agree that EU membership has nothing to do with the Engvar that should be used in an article about, say, Portuguese history. MapReader (talk) 14:28, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Is there actually a difference between standard British English and standard Irish English in formal prose? Everything I see at Hiberno-English is either colloquial or about the dialect(s). Maybe we can do something like {{Commonwealth English}} to indicate that an article should use British-ish English, without referencing any ties to the UK? Regarding the actual question of "should we mandate Commonwealth English at all", I think we should do the following in order of precedence: 1) if the institution has a preference, use it; 2) if it deals primarily with one country, use the country's default English style (to be determined in some objective way), even if not an English-speaking country; 3) if it deals with Europe in general, use Commonwealth English. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 13:33, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Re 1) the English at many foreign institutions' websites is best described as "broken" (or often mixed) rather than a particular style that dictates what WP should use; re 2) non-English-speaking places do not have a default English style; one cannot define a default English style for, say, Denmark, let alone Antarctica or the Moon; re 3) there is no basis for applying "Commonwealth English" wholesale to the European continent, as though it were some kind of British territory. Doremo (talk) 14:35, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You can still make generalizations though. It's pretty obvious that Mexico predominantly uses American English and France uses British English. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 14:42, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If only that were the case (for France). They are supposed to use BrEn, but many don't - Germany is worse. Johnbod (talk) 15:03, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Such generalizations remain irrelevant per MOS:TIES (neither country is an English-speaking nation) and they would not override MOS:RETAIN. Doremo (talk) 15:00, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well, except that's not entirely true. If we're using the definitions of what constitutes an English-speaking nation as one where either it is official or where a majority speaks it, then countries like Germany, Norway, etc. get included in that list. And my argument is that EU member states have English as an official language by way of being a member of the EU, as they conduct all official activities in it and teach it to their population. Getsnoopy (talk) 20:47, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Except it's entirely true. Germany and Norway are German- and Norwegian-speaking nations. They are not English-speaking nations. Doremo (talk) 09:55, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's an official language for EU institutions, not necessarily for member states. See the official language in their respective articles (Germany, Norway) - Germany has one (German) and Noway has two (Norwegian and Sámi) English isn't mentioned as an official language of either. -- DeFacto (talk). 12:02, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the situation, as discussed many times before, is pretty clear. Articles about institutions of the EU and other official EU things should use British/Irish/Maltese English, as the last two remain members. In practice these varieties will normally be identical for this sort of topic. Articles about non-English speaking member states are fair game, as are articles about eg South America. Perhaps we should add to the policy, as the question is asked fairly often. Johnbod (talk) 15:03, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Johnbod except for one point: English is an official language of the EU, therefore the English variant they use (which is Southern English) is the correct one regardless of UK membership. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 15:58, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine, as long as it's clear that this is the rule for articles about aspects of the EU as such. It doesn't apply, say, to articles about France. --Trovatore (talk) 17:22, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Can you point to a reference that officially specifies which variant of English in EU activities? If it is official then we use that variant for EU articles (but not necessarily for member states when not talking in the context of the EU). If the specific variant is not officially specified (eg, just vaguely specified as "English") then there are no strong ties, the articles can use whatever the first editor chose and MOS:RETAIN rules.  Stepho  talk  21:32, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The EU uses Oxford English officially, but with the exception of the -ise verb suffixes instead of the -ize verb suffixes. So from a WP perspective, that's essentially either British English or Oxford English. Getsnoopy (talk) 07:06, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Getsnoopy: so that spelling exception means it is explicitly not Oxford English, it is standard British English. The only difference between those two variants is that Oxford uses the 'iz' spellings, whereas standard uses the 'is' spellings, and as you mention, paragraph (b) in that reference says they use 'is' and not 'iz'. -- DeFacto (talk). 09:36, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@DeFacto: It's not that simple because there are many other differences between British and Oxford English. British uses enquiry where appropriate, while Oxford always uses inquiry; British uses nett whereas Oxford uses net, etc. In all of these cases, the style guide says to prefer Oxford spelling. The only exception they make is the '-ise' suffixes over the '-ize'. So this would make it Oxford English in basically all forms, but since the defining feature of Oxford spelling is the '-ize' suffixes, I said it's either British or Oxford from a WP perspective. Getsnoopy (talk) 18:59, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well then, is the consensus then that all articles pertaining to Germany, Norway, and other countries where English is a majority (though non-official) language be written in British/Oxford English? The point is to determine what constitutes an "English-speaking nation". Getsnoopy (talk) 20:47, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely not. Languages you learn in school don't really count, or at least not as much. If you could show that a majority in those countries spoke at a "near-native level", that might be different. --Trovatore (talk) 21:00, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that's exactly the point. There's not really anything to show that the level at which the number of English speakers in a country are at, not even for Anglophone countries. The WP article on the matter just cites the numbers and sometimes cites speakers' fluency in some countries (e.g., The Netherlands). WP policy is to determine whether a country is English-speaking based on whether it's an official language or if a majority of its population speak English. This is how we're able to justify things like US English for US-affiliated articles, and even Indian English for India-affiliated articles. Getsnoopy (talk) 07:06, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree that it's "WP policy" to consider a country English-speaking just because a majority speak English at some level! That would be an absurd standard. English is so widespread that that would include most countries. A majority of native speakers should certainly be enough. "Official" status, purely for official purposes, should in my opinion not be enough. India is maybe a bit of a special case; my impression is that most University-educated Indians speak English quite well. --Trovatore (talk) 17:26, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Trovatore: Agreed; except that if an India-related article uses US English (and/or mdy date format), my practice is to retain it. Tony (talk) 06:14, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
None of those are English-speaking nations - and it's the nation, not the people, tht matters here - by either of the normal definitions. English isn't an official language in either and English isn't the majority first-language in either. -- DeFacto (talk). 09:45, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well obviously, if it's a majority first-language, that means that the count is based on people, but I take your point about being a majority first language. Getsnoopy (talk) 18:59, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The most important thing is to ensure that spelling is consistent. The nature of WP as an international project means that there's often a mishmash of "colour" and "traveled", or "centre" and "fill out a form" in the same article. This however in my experience doesn't seem problematic for the European-centred articles. If spellings of more than one code exist within an article, the next is to ensure how to harmonise. I would not accept such mishmash as a legitimate variant, and would align the article to either commonwealth or American. --Ohconfucius (on the move) (talk) 08:16, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would add that, on the European continent, date formats are universally dd-mm-yy in their native languages, so it would seem more logical to adopt the dd-mm-yyyy format for European articles. By the same token, Asian cultures tend to big-endian, so month would come naturally before date. Would the community accept that WP:TIES covers this? --Ohconfucius (on the move) (talk) 08:25, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
According to Date_format_by_country, many parts of Europe use yyyy-mm-dd in their native format (eg Sweden). So forcing dd-mm-yyyy on them seems a poor fit
Most of Asia is indeed big endian. But they use yyyy-mm-dd, so forcing mm-dd-yyyy (better described as mixed-up endian) on them also seems a poor fit.  Stepho  talk  08:45, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Almost every country in the world uses dmy. Even the US military uses dmy. ymd has some adherents, mdy almost none outside the US non-military. MapReader (talk) 15:07, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Jeez, this is still going on? Don't bother changing it - there will be no difference between British and Irish English on these topics, and there are also the Maltese to consider, also using British English. Note this official EU style guide, already linked above. Johnbod (talk) 20:54, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Johnbod: I agree that the actual English under the hood doesn't need to change. The template can be modified to clarify that X topic has a tie to Y country/international organization, but that Y country/organization uses British English or something to that effect. WhisperToMe (talk) 01:22, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

MOS:COMMENT in this guideline vs Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Hidden text

This page says that Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Hidden text is the main page. The text on this page is "Invisible comments are useful for alerting other editors to issues such as common mistakes that regularly occur in the article, a section title being the target of an incoming link, or pointing to a discussion that established a consensus relating to the article. They should not be used to instruct other editors not to perform certain edits, although where existing consensus is against making such an edit, they may usefully draw the editor's attention to that."

At the "main page" it says under inappropriate uses: "Telling others not to perform certain edits to a page, unless there is an existing guideline or policy against that edit. When it is a mere local consensus that a certain edit should not be performed, the hidden text should be worded more softly to suggest to the editor to consult the talk page (or archive page if appropriate) for the current consensus prior to making the edit. Since consensus can change, it is inappropriate to use hidden text to try to prohibit making a certain edit merely because it would conflict with an existing consensus."

That wording was discussed at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Hidden text#Protecting consensus in active, controversial articles in December 2018 but with only two editors taking part, User:Objective3000 and User:RexxS. Doug Weller talk 09:54, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Doug Weller: I don't see any significant different between the guidance on the two pages. Perhaps if you could give a hypothetical example of where you perceive a conflict, it would help? Since the RfC at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Hidden text #RfC on status of this page discussed the relationship fully, I would expect MOS:COMMENT to reflect the main page at WP:HIDDEN.
There's a slight ambiguity with the use of "consensus", which ought to say "local consensus" in each case. That insertion would avoid anyone thinking that it was meant to apply to policies and guidelines (which, of course, have project-wide consensus).
The guidance should produce consistent results from either page. For example, I often objected to hidden text that said "Don't add an infobox without getting consensus first". If there were no explicit prior consensus, the hidden comment should not be there; if there were explicit prior consensus, the hidden comment should say "Before adding an infobox, please review the consensus established at <link to discussion>". A different example would be "Don't add their academic title; see MOS:CREDENTIAL" where forbidding the addition is a consequence of a policy or guideline.
The only missing case that I can think of is where discretionary sanctions have been imposed on a controversial page, and a particular edit had been rejected by a local consensus leading to a DS being created to forbid it. I think that has grown in regularity since we last discussed it in 2018. In those sort of cases, I think it would be appropriate to have a hidden comment stating "Don't add <a particular statement>; That is subject to a discretionary sanction -see <the FAQ or whatever discussion>."
Would it help if the text were revised to pick up those two points? --RexxS (talk) 14:04, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@RexxS: I think it would. I'm not sure about the word "mere" as local consensus is important so long as it doesn't clearly disagree with policies and guidelines, and I'm not really happy with the last sentence at MOS:COMMENT, it's too authoritative, perhaps easy to game. Doug Weller talk 14:59, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The situation I saw a couple years back is where local consensus is very strong for existing text, the text is a source of constant edit warring, and is not based on guidelines or discretionary sanctions. The Pirate Bay site bounces up and down regularly, the article was heavily read, and the status constantly changed suggesting they were gone forever (which would be fine with me if true). The hidden text was added by consensus. Some while later, a sysop removed it citing MOS. I reverted the sysop explaining the problem and claiming a valid IAR use. The sysop agreed. But, it would be nice to find a way to avoid using IAR as that doesn’t always go over so well. The current RfC[21] is another example. It’s difficult to argue IAR in an RfC. O3000 (talk) 15:25, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've just suggested a compromise wording at that RfC. Looking at the prior discussions, I can see a general agreement about wording in the article, but it's not uncontested. Especially in those circumstances, I don't think it's right to use hidden text to prohibit the edit. I know that it helps prevent edit-warring if the text just says "Don't do it", but that really should be reserved for policies and guidelines, not for a local consensus which can change far more easily. The other problem is that habitually using hidden text to prohibit edits can be abused – I've seen examples of "Don't add an infobox. See previous consensus" where infoboxes have never been mentioned anywhere in previous discussions. --RexxS (talk) 16:56, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

When aren’t US/U.S. abbreviations too informal?

The wording may in MOS:NOTUSA’s

When the United States is mentioned with one or more other countries in the same sentence, U.S. or US may be too informal, especially at the first mention or as a noun instead of an adjective (France and the United States, not France and the U.S.).

suggests that some situations of mixing the abbreviations with other full country names is acceptable. When is this so?

My impression is that the general consensus is to avoid the abbreviation in such a situation, but the may wording leaves it somewhat ambiguous. This question comes up because I am finding disagreement on interpreting this at Talk:Battle of Huế#MOS:NOTUSA violations, regarding phrases like US and South Vietnamese victory. — MarkH21talk 07:39, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's out of Chicago Manual of Style from many years ago. (Could be post-colonial defensiveness by Americans: shout me down.) I never had much respect for the notion that US and UK are informal (or, for example, UAE or PRC, when the reader knows it from the context). Tony (talk) 11:22, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I consider it significantly more acceptable in formal writing as an adjunct rather than a noun, as it avoids both the adjective "American" (to be avoided when it may cause ambiguity, or in a parallel construction with attributive forms of other countries) as well as the adjunct "United States" (which is long and unwieldy). In your specific example, though, I'd prefer "American" to match "South Vietnamese". -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:34, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@King of Hearts and Tony1: Do you know if there any past consensus, via RfC or otherwise, on this part of MOS:NOTUSA?
King of Hearts: I agree that the abbreviations are less cumbersome as adjuncts, but should it still be used where other full country names are used as adjuncts? I’m guessing that you preferred to match the adjectival form of South Vietnamese with American. Is that your stance in general for sentences with one abbreviated country name adjunct + one full country adjective? Isn’t that the only real case with abbreviated country name adjuncts though? I don’t think full country name adjuncts are very common. — MarkH21talk 05:26, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
IMO the worst option is to mix an adjective with a noun form (whether full or abbreviated). Full adjuncts are used when the country has no adjectival form, e.g. New Zealand. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:31, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: An RfC has been opened here for this issue as applied to Battle of Huế. Participation is welcome. — MarkH21talk 08:10, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see that any of the RfC options use the abbreviation and am struggling to see how it is relevant to this? MapReader (talk) 15:13, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @MapReader: The RfC asks whether instances of U.S. and US be replaced with United States or American where another country's full name (e.g. South Vietnam or South Vietnamese) is mentioned in the same sentence. There are two open RfCs on the talk page, the link here is to the first one. — MarkH21talk 00:09, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Foreign words – Chinese, Hebrew, Greek alphabets

I am pretty new to Wikipedia, so I don't know how to search Talk archives very well, but I tried. I didn't find a discussion of whether or not to include foreign alphabets when transliterated terms are used, e.g., in the "Eve" article (this is Mother's Day, after all),

"Eve" in Hebrew is "Ḥawwāh" and is most commonly believed to mean "living one" or "source of life"...

I think the foreign symbols should be included (though of course the draft entry might do it with just transliteration or just symbols, for ease of entry-- I am speaking of the ideal style). Thus, the ideal would be

"Eve" in Hebrew is חַוָּה (Ḥawwāh) and is most commonly believed to mean "living one" or "source of life"...

The reason is that different readers will find both original and transliteration useful. I am personally an example of someone who likes both, because I don't know Hebrew but I do know the Hebrew alphabet. Even when it comes to Chinese, where I only know a few characters, I like to see the character--- more than the transliteration, in fact--- because I want to be able to check or search for the "real" word, and sometimes to see what the character components are (e.g., is the very simple character for mountain part of a compound character). The original symbols are easy to ignore for people who just want transliteration--- as easy as the transliteration is for people who just want the original.

So I propose a Manual of Style entry making inclusion of the original symbols best practice for Chinese, Hebrew, Greek, Cyrillic, Arabic, Devanagari, APL, and so forth. There is still the question of the particular style of symbol (Chinese: Complex, Simplified, or Japanese kanji), but probably that is addressed in some other Talk thread--- though not, I think, in the Manual of Style.

As I said, I'm a Wikipedia novice, so I didn't want to be so bold as to change the Manual of Style without putting the idea up on Talk first. If nobody responds, though, I'll work up an edit of the Manual of Style. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Editeur24 (talk • contribs) 17:25, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Basically, it's subject to editor consensus too whether and how names in original script are given in the lead sentence. --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:53, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The proper formatting for that is:

''Eve'' in Hebrew is {{lang|he|חַוָּה}} ({{lang|he-Latn|Ḥawwāh}}) and is most commonly believed to mean 'living one' or 'source of life'...

See (respectively) MOS:WAW, MOS:FOREIGN, and MOS:SINGLE.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  12:46, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:WAS and defunct magazines

See Talk:Famous Fantastic Mysteries; I was surprised to see that WP:WAS was being used to say that a magazine that has ceased publication takes "is" not "was". C. A. Russell (who made the change) pinged Thumperward when I asked about it, which led me to this MoS discussion. I reverted the edit, and was re-reverted, so I'm coming here to raise a discussion -- the archive link above doesn't discuss magazines, or anything sufficiently close to them to seem like a precedent.

The issue of Famous Fantastic Mysteries dated August 1942 is a magazine issue, but I think the magazine, considered as a publishing enterprise, has concluded, so the rule of thumb in WP:WAS seems to apply: "A good rule of thumb is that unless a subject has a specific expiration date (such as a person's death, a company's closure, or an event's end) then the present tense is appropriate." Defunct magazines have a specific expiration date -- often the company's closure. I should add that the sources invariably use the past tense. A quick look in Frank Luther Mott's five volume History of American Magazines shows that he uses the past tense for defunct magazines and the present tense for ones still active at the time he was writing. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:12, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your analysis. A magazine is a periodical publication, meaning it produces a new issue on a regular basis. Once that publication has ended, then the publication was a magazine. I think it comes down to how you conceptualize the thing described. For something like "x is a television series", I tend to understand that as referring to all of the episodes collectively, and so would use present tense. On the other hand, I don't interpret magazine or newspaper as referring collectively to all of the issues, but as describing an ongoing publication enterprise, which has an end date.--Trystan (talk) 13:43, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I also agree. Moby Dick is a novel from 1851, but Famous Fantastic Mysteries was a magazine published from 1939 to 1953. The current phrasing ("is a discontinued .... magazine") is just a less direct way of saying "was a magazine". Doremo (talk) 14:14, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. Popcornfud (talk) 15:20, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. Johnbod (talk) 15:38, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This fits pretty well with both the spirit of the original text and the examples I provided. Given that there seems to be support for that position, it might be worth expanding the examples in the relevant MoS entry. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 22:28, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't see how magazines are different than TV series. MOS:TENSE says, in part, By default, write articles in the present tense, including those covering works of fiction and products or works that have been discontinued. Generally, do not use past tense except for past events and subjects that are dead or no longer meaningfully exist. Production of a magazine or TV series may have concluded, but installments (issues/episodes) still exist. Gimbels no longer exists in any form, just as Abraham Lincoln and the Hanging Gardens of Babylon no longer exist. MOS:TENSE is clear that present tense is the default and there are limited exceptions. Trystan's above interpretation of the conceptual difference between a magazine and a TV series is a stretch, and obviously subjective.

That said, I just looked at 10 random articles about defunct magazines and I'm shocked to discover that all of them use "was". I'm not sure what the overall percentage is, natch. I didn't see an MOS guideline at the semi-active WikiProject Magazines, but it seems like there must be a specific discussion or guideline somewhere for so many articles to violate what I would argue is the basic intent of MOS:TENSE. Or is it that the very active and very stringent WikiProject Television has embraced MOS:TENSE in its own WP:TVNOW guideline and just enforces it more vigorously (which they do)?— TAnthonyTalk 23:39, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Many TV shows get syndicated which effectively means they're still available, or could become available at any time, unlike magazine issues. So I can see why WP:TV might chose to use "is" rather than "was".--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:11, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that present tense is the default, but you can only stretch the English language so far. Whatever the reason, "... is a magazine published from 1939 to 1953" and "... is a daily newspaper published from 1872 to 1930" are just clangers in English, in a way that "... is a television series that aired from 1957 to 1963" is not. Without going too far down the existential rabbit hole, the reason is likely, as Sturmvogel says, that TV shows tend to continue to be consumed in a regular way, while newspapers and magazines tend to be relegated to archival status. In determining whether something meaningfully continues to exist, there are naturally going to be some subjective edge cases. Drawing a line between periodicals and TV shows is one of those cases.--Trystan (talk) 00:43, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree that your examples are awkward constructions. More importantly, I think, they describe the subjects excellently. Surely your example magazine, in 1942, wasn't "a magazine published from 1939 to 1953". Primergrey (talk) 03:33, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Your argument is based on availability, or how TV shows are viewed more than magazines in perpetuity? Even if those were valid criteria (and I don't think they are), it's personal opinion to say that an old TV series would be easier or harder to find than paper magazines. The shows exist somewhere, but may or may not be re-released; magazines might never be reprinted, but hard copies exist in various places, including libraries and eBay. As with reliable sources, these media should be reasonably available, they need not be easily available. Past tense is for things that are literally existent. And I don't hear the clang at all regarding "... is a magazine published from 1939 to 1953" sounding somehow worse than "... is a television series that aired from 1957 to 1963. I haven't seen a valid reason given for treating TV series and magazines differently.— TAnthonyTalk 04:25, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think the usage in sources should be given some weight. Mott, mentioned above, is an authoritative source. I also was quickly able to find uses of “X was a magazine” by searching the archives of the NY Times and the London Times, as well as Google and Google Books. Those searches also bring up a lot of false positives such as “I was a magazine editor” but looking through the results I couldn’t find any uses of “is a magazine” for defunct titles. Or try searching for “was a magazine published”; there are many examples from multiple sources. Looking through the few magazine articles listed at WP:FA that I didn’t write there’s a mixture of “is” and “was” so the “was” usage is not just my preference and has repeatedly made it through prose reviews unchanged. I have plenty of references about magazines (I wouldn’t mind betting I’m the most prolific editor on Wikipedia of magazine articles) and can go through them to check their usage if that would be useful. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 06:43, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think I have to agree with Mike Christie's analysis above, and the logic in keeping it as "was" for defunct magazines. (Mind you, I don't like "is" for defunct TV series either, fwiw). - SchroCat (talk) 07:35, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Agreeing with the above regarding TV series; I would also prefer "Happy Days was an American sitcom ..." as more natural. The rest of that article uses the past tense: "the series was one of the most successful ... and starred"; "Happy Days became one of ...", etc. Doremo (talk) 10:17, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The subject of the article is a magazine—a creative work. The "publication enterprise", or any other detail that led to the work's creation, is highly relevant to the article, but it is not the subject of the article.
    • "Lingua Franca is under copyright"
  • Mott is an authority—specifically, he is an authority on the subject matter. But not an authority wrt this discussion.
    • He's also 50 years dead. And yet Mike Christie twice wrote that "[he] is an authoritative source" and that "[Mott] uses the past tense for defunct magazines and the present tense for ones still active" (emphasis mine). The reason for present tense there is the same reason why present tense is correct here—even when the creative work in question is a defunct magazine.
    • Additionally I have attempted to substantiate the claim that Mott uses past tense, but have been unable to do so. This is made difficult by said five volume series not being widely available.
  • "I don't interpret magazine [...] as referring collectively to all of the issues" is simply perplexing. The notion of magazines being collections is baked in to etymology and the very definition of the word.

-- C. A. Russell (talk) 00:52, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If a magazine is a collection of issues and not a publication enterprise, how can it be defunct ("no longer existing or operating")?--Trystan (talk) 01:26, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Some quotes from Mott (you'll have to take my word for it that I did not omit uses of "is"):
  • "The Publications of the Southern Historical Association (1897–1907), of Atlanta, was at first a quarterly and later a bimonthly..." vol. 4, p. 139.
  • "Several magazines were published for traveling salesmen, most important of which was the Commercial Travelers' Home Magazine (1893–1902)..." vol. 4. p. 186.
  • "The Blue Grass Blade was a freethinking weekly consisting of four pages in newspaper form..." vol. 4. p. 277.
  • "Cassier's Magazine: An Engineering Monthly was published in London..." vol. 4. p. 320.
  • "The Universalist Magazine of 1819 was a four-page paper." vol. 1. p. 7.
  • "The Royal American Magazine, or Universal Repository of Instruction and Amusement was an illustrated miscellany of forty octavo pages..." vol. 1 p. 82.
I see some uses of "is" in volume 5, which is naturally about magazines that were still extant when Mott was writing. Yes, I used the present tense for talking about Mott -- he was an author, but he is an authority; he wrote books, but he says authoritative things about magazines. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:39, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Trystan is right: "defunct" is incorrect. If these comments were a wiki article, we'd be obligated to correct it to not use that term. But "defunct" only originated within this discussion; it is not actually the descriptor I chose.

Several of the quotes provided by Mike Christie just now do not support the argument that out-of-print publications are categorically properly referred to using "was", nor are they contradictions of the argument in favor of "is". "X is a magazine that was published from [...]" in fact fits squarely with explanation offered by all who have pointed out that "is" is correct. The occurrences of "was" in examples provided don't differ from the "was" in "X [...] was published"—because *that* use of "was" is actually correct!

And I repeat myself—it wouldn't matter if Mott outright used "was" on every page of his five volume set, for the reason I mentioned before: he's a subject matter expert in magazines. That doesn't mean his perspective is authoritative on the subject of this discussion. -- C. A. Russell (talk) 03:50, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To further demonstrate the principle in play here: just as Mike Christie writes, "[Mott] was an author, but he is an authority", "Mag-X (say) was being published in the 1960s, it is still a magazine and as such is a work of creative expression (whether it's still in publication or not)". And if not, then we say "it is no longer in publication". (Bonus points for extra credit: how do you even say that last sentence unless you use "is"?) -- C. A. Russell (talk) 03:59, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You're right that the list of quotes from Mott includes some that don't apply to the question at hand; that was careless of me (I'm going to blame the wine I was drinking last night). But some of them do apply, and I found no counter-examples. To that you say that Mott is not an authority on the issue we're discussing; again you're right, but unless one is willing to argue that all reliable sources on magazines always get this wrong, one would expect to be able to find reliable sources that do use "is" for the simple statement of existence. Here are a couple more sources and quotes.
From Mike Ashley's The Time Machines (2000):
  • "There were two major publications in 1946...The second such anthology was Adventures in Time and Space..." (p. 197) This is about a book, not a magazine, but what's interesting is that Ashley even uses past tense here, and I think it's because the prior sentence makes it clearly we're narrating past events. That's implicitly the case for lead sentences about defunct magazines too. There are more straightforward uses of "was" too:
  • "Stirring was in fact two magazines in one." (p. 163)
  • "Avon Science Fiction and Fantasy Reader was a good magazine with some sharp stories..." (p. 224)
  • "Mexico's leading pulp magazine of the period was Los Cuentos Fantasticos." (p. 234)
From Eric Leif Davin, Partners in Wonder (2006)
  • "In March, 1937, the Gaines and Mayer team began publishing yet a third comic book for Dell, also with a simple title: The Comics. It was a mixed bag of newspaper reprints and original comics..." (p. 170)
From the online SF Encyclopedia:
  • "The new magazine was more garish and more juvenile than its predecessor." ([22]) (Mike Ashley is listed as one of the authors of this article, but this text is due to Malcolm Edwards; it appears in the 1978 print edition.)
If someone finds multiple examples of "is" being used in simple declarative sentences to describe a historical magazine, I'd still argue that "was" is correct, for some of the other reasons given above, but I'd be forced to concede that it's an acceptable usage in edited prose. As it stands I've looked through half a dozen references and can't find a single example that uses "is". Re your extra credit question: as with the Mott quotes I shouldn't have included, I think it's a red herring. It's not the specific usage we're discussing, and of course "is" is correct. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:46, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Can you clarify your last comment? Can't parse.
Someone at the University of Rochester is doing good work to correct mistaken use of colloquial "was" that would be common from students into the correct form for formal writing. See the current intro for Vanity Fair (U.S. magazine 1913–1936), for example. -- C. A. Russell (talk) 14:12, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I meant that "it is no longer in publication" is clearly right, but isn't an example of the usage we're debating. I'd say "Captain Future never won a Hugo Award because when the awards were first given out the magazine was no longer in publication" since that refers to the state of the magazine at a time in the past, but I'd say "as of today, Captain Future is no longer in publication" because that's a statement about the state of affairs today. I don't think it's that useful to think about how a given usage implies the speaker must be conceptualizing the magazine, but if pressed I'd say that "Captain Future was a magazine published in the 1940s" implies that I'm thinking about it as a past event, and Captain Future is a magazine that was published in the 1940s" implies I'm thinking about it as a collection of physical objects; a set of works that still exist. The reason I don't think that's helpful is because even if everyone in a MoS discussion agrees on what's logical, we don't regard ourselves as able to overrule the frequent illogicalities of standard English usage. To put it another way, I feel I have a conception of magazines that makes "was" logical, and I have usage citations to support that; counterexamples to the second point seem much more useful to me in this debate, because our internal justifications for English usage are very difficult to assign weights to.
Re Vanity Fair: I see that, but I assume we'd agree that the editor in question is no more a reliable source for usage than you and I are.
It's been a couple of days since this discussion started, and most editors commenting have agreed that "was" is OK for the usage under discussion. Would you be OK with me reverting to "was" at Famous Fantastic Mysteries? And I'd like to add an example to the MoS, perhaps of that exact article, as Thumperward suggested above, to forestall future iterations of this debate. We can leave it a few more days if you feel others may have more to say. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:35, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Captain Future is a magazine that was published in the 1940s" implies I'm thinking about it as a collection of physical objects; a set of works that still exist

I think this is the disconnect. A "collection of physical objects" is very much not the conceptualization that makes "is" correct. (If that were the rule, and every issue were destroyed, then that would mean we would start using "was". But we wouldn't, because that's not the basis for "is".) In fact, it's the opposite conceptualization that leads to "is"—once again, it's because is a creator's work (whether that be a single person, or in the case of most magazines, multiple persons). It comes into being, and then it simply exists. And it is that work that is the subject of the article, and not auxiliary details about its drafting and editing process, business structures, or the manufacture of ink-on-paper and its distribution. Corporeal embodiment in a physical artifact has nothing to do with why it is "is".

Re Vanity Fair: [...] the editor in question is no more a reliable source[...]

Only relevant if my comment is an appeal to authority. But it's not.

most editors commenting have agreed that "was" is OK for the usage under discussion. Would you be OK with me reverting to "was"

No I wouldn't, and I'd especially be against the more extreme action of promoting "was" to a de jure change.
Majority is not consensus. From Wikipedia:Consensus: The quality of an argument is more important than whether it represents a minority or a majority view. And furthermore: The arguments "I just don't like it" and "I just like it" usually carry no weight whatsoever. Most of the "most editors commenting" are in the latter camp. And two of those editors "agreeing" with "was" aren't even agreeing with the argument—they're agreeing with the outcome. They're saying "was" should be used for TV shows, too.
I've just pointed to an editor who's clearly got a perspective on this, but you're calling for an end, because if we call the game now and use your preferred scoring method, too, then we can say that it puts things in your favor? I'm referring to the IP from University of Rochester—who I stumbled upon through almost no effort at all after a cursory search trying to substantiate the claim that most sources are not using "is". You've since admitted that argument to appeal is one that you yourself don't find convincing, because a dispositive finding against that claim would have you discount it—i.e., as soon as it became inconvenient to your effort to carve out a special case to MOS:TENSE for out-of-print magazines.
Meanwhile, we haven't even established a rubric. Framing this as "most editors" being in agreement is premature and maybe even disingenuous. -- C. A. Russell (talk) 16:13, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
OK, we can wait and see if we get more substantive comments — two days isn’t a long time for a discussion. I don’t think it’s worth me responding in detail to your points except to say that I’m not convinced. I agree that if you can find others interested in commenting that would be useful; I posted a note at WT:FAC asking for commenters and if you know of other relevant talk pages please post notes there too. I suspect from your tone that you’re not going to believe me, but I don’t think I’m trying to carve out a special case; I just think you’re wrong. I asked you if you felt we were done here and you said no; that’s fine. Let’s see where this conversation is in another week. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:31, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have followed your train of thought up until this point, where you say "I don’t think I’m trying to carve out a special case". I have thought this entire discussion, from your first message here, to be about asserting that magazines should be recognized as a special type of publication so that they can be considered to end when e.g. the company itself closes, or chooses to stop creating new issues, etc. If that's not the point of this discussion, then what is? (FWIW, I still think that's the point of this discussion, but that you misunderstood the comment or took exception with the general thrust of it or...)
This is why I mentioned the lack of a rubric so far. What are we actually discussing? For a successful, fact-based discussion, we need to (a) distill things down to a set of questions for which we are tasked with deciding the answers, and (b) in doing so, rely as much as possible on claims that can be falsified or not, in service of the arguments they are meant to support. So far, that's not been the case, and it's one big, unstructured exchange. -- C. A. Russell (talk) 17:22, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think I misunderstood you; I thought you meant I was using some form of special pleading. Yes, we're talking about a specific ruling for declarative statements about the existence of magazines no longer in print. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:26, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think the easiest way to see this is to understand the difference between the "container" and the "work" when it comes to describing things likes magazines and other media. For an example like Moby Dick, we're focused on the "work" which continued to exist well beyond its first printing so it gets an "is". A magazine for most people on first pass is seen as a "container" that is either currently in publication or not. When it ceases publication, it ceases to be a container and thus "was" is appropriate to describe elements related to the "container" part. But as mentioned, when it comes to the content or work within it, that content still exists (or at least should) so there are other facets that still can be presented in present tense if it specifically related to its work and content. The same would apply to TV shows - considering the difference between content-laden shows verses simple news-format type shows, for example. --Masem (t) 17:02, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This. Very much this. --Khajidha (talk) 21:11, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I still have a problem with "I Love Lucy is...". Whatever you want to argue about it logically, it just doesn't sound natural in the English language. I don't think it's how people talk. On the other hand, "Vertigo is..." is just fine. That's my intuition, and I think a lot of people will agree.
Now, if I wanted to justify my intuition, I would argue that I Love Lucy was an open-ended series rather than a complete work of art, and when it finished it finished, therefore past tense is appropriate. That is, I Love Lucy was a "container" in Masem's terminology. But the justification is sort of beside the point. The point is that we're using a tense that I think is just not going to sound natural to our readers, and I think that's a problem. --Trovatore (talk) 23:13, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The TV show may make sense to use "was" under the "content vs container" logic I'm suggesting, especially if we consider the episode of a TV show to be the content, and the show to be the container. "The Man Trap" will always taken an "is", the episode exists, it is content, it is not a container; while Star Trek is that container for a bunch of episodes so we could argue that Star Trek was a show (as the container for those episodes) that ran from 1966 to 1969, since nearly every article on a TV show starts on the broadcasting factors touching only briefly on the content. The more and more I think about it as that approach, this feels really comfortable that way, though it requires a lot of reworking articles but it remains consistent with the magazine/journal idea we're talking about here (and probably would also apply to comic books and anything else of a periodical approach). Ongoing shows of course still retain "is". I'm trying to think of anything that might be odd against that, but I'm not coming up with any immediate examples that do not fit into this content vs container metaphor idea easily.
Or to restate that, we need to this how the work of media type X is broadly written about in WP and outside. If it is content focused first, then we should presume these works are persistent forever and they should be spoke to in the present tense. If the work is spoken about in how it was published or presented first, then we should consider the container as the leading part and use when the container exists or existed as guidance. I can't find a case this doesn't feel wrong, once you can designate the content from the container. --Masem (t) 21:07, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I spent about half an hour doing an inexhaustive poke around looking for folks whose edits indicated they probably have some perspective on this and indicate they would be impacted by this decision. Here are some, whether still active on Wikipedia or not:

-- C. A. Russell (talk) 19:14, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It sort of looks like you looked for "perspective" in just one direction; would you agree that's accurate? I don't see edits above that change present tense to past tense, and I think it's hardly credible that there aren't any. Ultimately I hope you agree that, while "impact" on editors is a consideration, impact on readers is much more so. --Trovatore (talk) 19:22, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I wondered about that, but if these editors are implementing the common interpretation of WP:WAS then that would be more common in the edit history. C. A. Russell, how did you find these? Is there a way to filter edit histories or recent changes to spot this sort of thing? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:33, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not going to respond to Trovatore's comment—*any* facet of it—given that it comes out of the gate strawmanning the shit out of me.
These is some cursory checking I did in response to folks above complaining that "X is a magazine that was published from [...]" is an awkward/incorrect/abuse of English. I did some quick Googling that could uncover some instances of similar phrasing in existing Wikipedia articles and of the results I looked at that weren't false hits, asking, "How did the article get that way?" then I checked articles' histories. The handful of editors listed above come from the subset of those I looked at where editors were correcting existing articles to move from "was" to "is"—some of them providing edit summaries, some of them not, some of them explicitly referencing the manual of style, others (e.g. edits I saw by User:Keeper76) elaborating on the reasoning for "is" in their own words. As I said, this was just the result of basic checking and was not exhaustive. It is not all editors, it's not meant to be, and the example edits are not even all relevant edits found by that editor (cf the Rochester IP I brought up before, vs the single example provided above). It's just enough where, after we have a evidence of a handful or so, we can say, "look, these people and these types of opinions exist". -- C. A. Russell (talk) 23:29, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I strongly support the use of "was" in the lede for defunct magazines. If a magazine has ceased publication, it's no different than a factory which has ceased its fabrication. It's a company which has ceased trading, which is clearly covered by WP:WAS (this would also be true if someone tries to argue a technicality if a magazine was never incorporated.) If we have articles on issues of the magazine that are still extant, that's probably but not necessarily an "is": for instance, if a particular magazine article had a major historical impact but has been superseded, that may support a "was" (event's end.) I'd also support "was" for television shows which have been cancelled, or have no longer aired, though it's a little trickier in the age of streaming. SportingFlyer T·C 20:45, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • With streaming it depends, but I would still say that if we are talking original shows intended to follow a television season type format, simply just not broadcasted on a typical weekly schedule, the same ideas of the "content-vs-container" apply, and in general once "cancelled" or concluded, are "was". For example, "A Series of Unfortunate Events was an American black comedy-drama[3] web television series from Netflix. The show consisted of 25 episodes over three seasons which were first broadcast from 2017 to 2019." This is not what it says now, obviously but its an example in this field. --Masem (t) 21:13, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • A not entirely silly position to take would be that it depends on how much the series was a single connected narrative. At the extremes, if Saturday Night Live ever stopped filming new shows, it would surely be was, but Roots, which was presumably completely filmed before a single frame was ever broadcast to the public, must be is. Somewhere in between would be the series that are plotted out in advance with a fixed ending; Babylon 5 was the pioneer of this form, but it has since become extremely popular.
        That said, I don't think slicing and dicing the logic of language is really our proper role as Wikipedia editors. The question is what is going to be useful to our readers. My take is that using the present tense for discontinued series (with the possible exception of genuine single-story ones like Roots) is such an unusual choice that it is jarring for our readers, for no sufficient countervailing benefit. --Trovatore (talk) 23:36, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • SportingFlyer, You're conflating the magazine with the group behind it. The subject of the New York Times article is the New York Times, not the The New York Times Company. The latter dying or otherwise choosing to end future publication of the former means that future issues are off the table, certainly. It doesn't mean that the subject of the New York Times article—a work—has expired. -- C. A. Russell (talk) 23:41, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hmm, interesting comparison. Wikipedia has a list of defunct newspapers of the United States. I spot-checked a good number of them and all the ones I checked used was in the first sentence. Presumably if the NYT were to fold (ha ha) we'd do the same for it. --Trovatore (talk) 23:52, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        I checked some more, and I have found an exception, which let me report here for completeness: The list includes the Evansville Press, which is a redirect to Evansville Courier & Press, which uses is, but that's because the paper is still being published. Whether that means that Evansville Press should be removed from the list is a question I don't care enough about to express an opinion, but clearly the use of the present tense in this case is for the currently published paper, not for the defunct one, if it is in fact defunct. --Trovatore (talk) 00:07, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm not actually conflating the two. You've introduced a third, irrelevant, layer: the owner of the newspaper (sometimes people, sometimes another corporation.) If a newspaper or magazine stops publishing, they're clearly former entities. It does not mean individual issues of the papers or magazines should be referred to in the past tense, especially if they're notable, but those are rarely the actual subject of the article. SportingFlyer T·C 06:20, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • Evansville Press is not the primary subject of that article. If it is spun out - which should not happen IMO - the lede should read "the Evansville Press was a newspaper in..." By saying "The Evansville Press is a former newspaper only serves to confuse readers, because the tense implies the newspaper is still publishing and is immediately contradicted by the next word. SportingFlyer T·C 06:22, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
          • Please lay out the three things you're seeing. One of them needs to jibe with this edit, which says If a magazine has ceased publication, it's no different than a factory which has ceased its fabrication. It's a company which has ceased trading, which is clearly covered by WP:WAS (this would also be true if someone tries to argue a technicality if a magazine was never incorporated.), and the other two need to not be that thing. -- C. A. Russell (talk) 12:42, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
            • Sure. For this example, there are three layers. Layer 1 are the owners/publishers of magazine. Layer 2 is the magazine itself. Layer 3 are the issues of the magazine. For this example, assume you, C. A. Russell, a person, publish the Wiki Magazine. My corporation, SportingFlyer Ltd., makes an offer to buy Wiki Magazine from you, and you accept. At some point in time, SportingFlyer Ltd. continues to trade, but Wiki Magazine becomes unprofitable and cannot be sold, so SportingFlyer Ltd. ceases publishing Wiki Magazine. There are three separate potential fictional articles here: C. A. Russell, SportingFlyer Ltd., and Wiki Magazine. C. A. Russell is a living person, SportingFlyer Ltd. is an active company, but Wiki Magazine has become defunct and would become eligible for defunct magazine categories, disestablished entity categories, et cetera, which lends itself to "was." Now, for level 3, which I haven't discussed yet: if Wiki Magazine produces an issue or content which is notable above and beyond that of the magazine, that would likely to be classified as "is." If Wiki Magazine published, say, Radioactive Man #1, the article for Radioactive Man #1 would likely not be referred to in the past tense. SportingFlyer T·C 02:28, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
              • I'm pretty sure I agree with this, except that I think that any specific issue of whatever magazine or comic book etc. ought to be referred to in the present tense regardless of the article it was mentioned in. Primergrey (talk) 03:00, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
              • Before, you said of a magazine that "It's a company which has ceased trading", but now you draw a distinction between the company and the magazine... but then go on to ignore that distinction... Stick to one or the other.
              • Let's stipulate that there exists a magazine, let's say Foo Magazine. That's 1. The magazine if it's in publication surely has a staff of writers and editors and an entire business apparatus behind it (a "publishing enterprise" from before). That's 2. If there is a third thing, it's not clear from your messages what that is, and I'm not sure there is a third, or whether it's even important. What is important is that if we have an article Foo Magazine, the subject of the article is (1) and not (2). There's a reason why the article would say "Foo Magazine is a magazine that was published from 1923 to 1974", and not "Foo Magazine was a company that published a magazine of the same name from 1923 to 1974." (If (2) is especially notable, then it may have an article of its own, but probably not.) If (2) shuts down, then that's fine—now (2) is dead—but the subject of the Foo Magazine article remains the collective work (1), and present tense is still correct when referring it. -- C. A. Russell (talk) 22:02, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
                • One and two of which you described are exactly the same in my mind. The magazine is not a "permanent" creation. (The issues of the magazine might be "permanent".) Using "is" to describe a magazine strongly implies that the magazine is currently publishing. SportingFlyer T·C 04:18, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Responding to C. A. Russell's list of users who have edited "was" to "is", here's a list of users who have made the reverse edit, which turned out to be easy to find. I searched Wikipedia for "was a magazine published" and looked for the editor that introduced that language in each case. These editors have all been active in the last few days. I am not pinging them but if we decide more editors should be involved they could be pinged.

I tried using the same method to find articles which have "is" for a magazine that is no longer published, and was unable to, since the search results mostly consist of active magazines, so it's much harder to find relevant edits. If we want to involve more editors who have edited "was" to "is" then C. A. Russell's method may have to be used. I don't think it's necessary to ping more editors; I think most editors interested in the MoS already watch this page, and notices to related pages are a better way to go, but here are a few names if others disagree. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:32, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In response to I think most editors interested in the MoS already watch this page, that seems like a bad inference. -- C. A. Russell (talk) 21:26, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listen, can you guys remember to turn out lights and lock the doors when you're done? EEng 04:53, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the above discussion, I've reverted the original edition to Famous Fantastic Mysteries, and have added an example to WP:WAS, per the suggestion to do so earlier in this thread. If we can spend this much time debating this it makes sense to have an example given to avoid having to go through this again. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:43, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to respond to your revert to Famous Fantastic Mysteries, but I am going revert the newest change to the MOS that backdoors the MOS:PRESENT guideline with a new de jure mandate to use past tense instead. I don't know why you thought that would be okay.
I'm also going to back out User:Thumperward's January "rule of thumb" edit for the reasons already given, which I'll resummarize here: (a) it originally went in against opposition [not mine]; (b) the original stated intent was to prevent people from using "was" instead of "is"; (c) when I noticed [two months later], I foresaw that folks would instead point to it as an excuse to do the exact opposite thing—to use "was" where "is" should be [and that is now happening]; (d) on that basis I approached Chris about backing it out and optionally reworking the wording, but I dropped that conversation when Chris more or less told me he'd take care of any issues that it causes (saying to come "[c]hew me out"), except he's had very little involvement here, and that little bit has only undermined/contradicted (b) and (d). -- C. A. Russell (talk) 15:11, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think the consensus from the above discussion is fairly clear, but we can always move to a formal RFC if necessary. It is worth providing some guidance in the MOS regarding defunct newspapers and magazines to quell future disputes.--Trystan (talk) 16:40, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly I think we should expand the scope to TV series as well. It's really jarring to refer to I Love Lucy in the present tense. It wouldn't even contradict the current text to put it in the past tense; as I Love Lucy is/was not a single work of art. It was rather a "container" in Masem's terminology, which contained episodes, the actual works in question. --Trovatore (talk) 17:20, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I would ping the WP:TV project before doing that, just to make sure. I mean, I edit in the TV space but I don't know if my thoughts necessarily represent their consensus. But the "content vs. container" approach across multiple media would resolve a lot of the verb tense problems we have, but TV shows would be one area that would be directly affected. (Best to my knowledge we don't have a project like "Wikiproject Magazines" that would have a similar interest to worry about here). I will go ahead and make that ping there to this discussion to keep it centralized to here. --Masem (t) 17:26, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If you've read through the mess above and are saying things like I think the consensus from the above discussion is fairly clear, then, yeah, I guess we're going to need to make a formal RFC. I mentioned multiple times establishing a rubric against which we can evaluate the claims/arguments people are throwing out (and then abandoning), and... nothing. Just folks heaping more (often not even self-consistent) comments into the pile. -- C. A. Russell (talk) 17:28, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think the consensus is clear on magazines, but not for anything beyond that, though enough opinions were expressed that an RfC might be useful on the TV shows issue. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:32, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but I'm going to insist on an RFC, for the reasons I just said. -- C. A. Russell (talk) 17:49, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And if we are going to do an RFC, let's try to do it for any type of "periodical" work - magazines, TV shows, journals... not sure what else immediately, but to distinguish from one-off "publication" works. --Masem (t) 17:56, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. The only consensus that this discussion made obvious is that of those who have weighed in, whether those in favor of "was" or those in favor of "is", overwhelmingly there is a agreement that magazines are not a special case to be considered any different from TV series, etc. -- C. A. Russell (talk) 18:31, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see the need for an RfC on magazines, but if you do, go ahead. If it includes other forms of periodicals it should allow for the possibility that the answer will be different for magazines and TV shows -- just because we might like to have a principle that governs the usage doesn't mean that good English usage is actually consistent. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:45, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That is very true in general, but in the particular case Wikipedia has chosen a style for TV shows that is radically at variance with normal usage. That will not be difficult to show. The obvious inference is that the editors who established this style are trying to follow some sort of "principle" rather than standard "good English usage". --Trovatore (talk) 18:51, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

C. A. Russell, are you putting together an RfC or are you expecting me or someone else to do it? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:33, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose it will happen whenever the first person to do so does it. -- C. A. Russell (talk) 16:25, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
OK, just didn't want to duplicate effort. My suggested wording is below.

IMO: When referring to a newspaper or magazine as an overall entity (vs. talking about a single copy of it) in common speech it refers to an ongoing enterprise and past tense is overwhelming used when it is defunct. You would clearly be fighting common speech to argue otherwise. The term also refers to single copy of it, a completely different meaning of the term which should not confuse the discussion. "TV series" is different; common speech often treats the set of episodes produced as an entity and calls that entity "TV series". Common speech probably follow this probably because (unlike magazines and newspapers) a series can be highly succescsful, widely watched a big moneymaker and an ongoing business enterprise after production has ceased. A talk page of a Wikipedia guideline can't override common speech.North8000 (talk) 20:17, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@North8000: Does it really strike you as natural "common speech" to start an article with I Love Lucy is...? To me it very much does not. I think if you look through the corpus you'll find that the past tense is overwhelming in this case as well. --Trovatore (talk) 20:31, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If I said that TV series is always current tense then your example would be an argument against what I said. But I didn't say "always", I said "often". Either way, "TV show" is a different case. I only mentioned it to say that arguing that magazine/newspaper should be treated the same as "TV show" is not valid. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 21:30, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The franchise around a TV series can go on indefinitely, though the TV series may be long dead, this is a way to account for this stance as well. "Charlie's Angels (franchise) is a franchise..." while "Charlie's Angels was a television show..." (as a first example I could come up with). --Masem (t) 20:50, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think the type of show is also relevant. I could go either way on how to refer to I Love Lucy or Charlie's Angels, but referring to something like The Huntley–Brinkley Report in the present tense would be truly astonishing.--Trystan (talk) 21:16, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the don't show reruns of news reports so in that case it's more like magazine/newspaper. North8000 (talk) 21:34, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Suggested wording for the RfC

I'd make the section heading "RfC: Should "is" or "was" be used to describe magazines no longer being published and TV series no longer in production?"

WP:WAS says By default, write articles in the present tense, including those covering works of fiction...and products or works that have been discontinued. Generally, do not use past tense except for past events and subjects that are dead or no longer meaningfully exist. Should we describe magazines that are no longer being published, and TV series that are no longer in production, with "is" or "was"?

For example:

  • "Gourmet is a magazine that was published from 1941 to 2009" vs. "Gourmet was a magazine published from 1941 to 2009"
  • "I Love Lucy is a TV show that ran from 1951 to 1957" vs. "I Love Lucy was a TV show that ran from 1951 to 1957".

If you believe one should be "was" and the other should be "is", please make that clear in your response.

[Then a responses section heading and a discussion section heading.]

If there are no objections to the wording, I'll post this in a new section in a day or so. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:45, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notwithstanding the clarification at the end, I would prefer to avoid the presumption that the answer, or even the relevant considerations, are the same for both. How about running two parallel RFCs, one for magazines and newspapers, and one for TV shows?--Trystan (talk) 19:03, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think much of the discussion would overlap, so two RfCs might be overkill. How about two response sections, one for each? That would make it pretty clear that the choice could vary. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:31, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you want the result to have credibility, the RFC needs to be neutral. There will be guidelines and essays that support either side. Locating a quoting one that appears to support one side of the RFC and including it in the RFC is biased. North8000 (talk) 19:48, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to me that sometimes you need to separate the (usual) corporation from the collective lore of printed paper. That would have to be based on context, in a way that isn't easy to explain. A magazine (corporation) will (usually) have a building, printing presses, and editors. I can imagine statements that might begin with The New York Times believes ... or, more satirically, The Onion says ..., which would stay present tense, even if the corporation behind them shuts down. I believe that Shakespeare plays are described in the present tense, collectively as well as individually. They have a life of their own, separate from the author. I suspect that magazines and newspapers, in some sense, also have a life of their own, separate from the corporation producing them. You have to figure out from usage, which one is meant. Gah4 (talk) 20:47, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) Gah4, I'm just trying to get the wording neutral at this point so we can ask the question; if you do want to contribute to the discussion I'd suggest either waiting for the RfC or posting in the section above.
@North8000, I included the quote because (a) it's in the MoS now, and (b) there was no debate above about changing it -- it was all about interpreting it. Some argued that defunct magazines fall under "dead or no longer meaningfully exist"; others argued that they do not, because they are completed works that still exist. As a result I can't even tell which side you think it supports, so I don't think it's biased. I think it's going to be necessary to refer to it in the RfC, so I'd prefer to keep it, but if others agree with you we can cut it. It'll show right up again at the top of the discussion section, though. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:54, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of whether one comes down on one side, the other, or in the middle, I think WP:WAS is clearly the central guideline that applies, so should be quoted in the RFC. One RFC with two response sections sounds like a good approach.--Trystan (talk) 21:04, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
A "past tense" finding would require at least an improvement in clarity in WP:WAS so IMO you should not state the status quo as a foregone conclusion. I was advising leaving it out only as advice so that your RFC resolves this rather than ending in a cloud; I won't be unhappy if you still choose to include it. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 21:47, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I know we've only spoken of magazines and TV shows, but I would be as broad as possible for anything that fits the format: any periodical or routinely published work that is no longer published, including newspapers, magazines, journals, comic books, radio programs, televisions shows, podcasts, and web series. (throwing out the net to avoid an RFC in the future). I know that might end up with with "I agree with all but for X and Y" responses but at least a closer can line out the ones that don't have if the others have overwhelming. But I would hope editors see the logic why to handle these all together.
  • The other factor here is related to the neutrality question and that's basically you're not explaning why this RFC is happening, and I can understand how that's hard to present without staying neutral. So I'm wondering if you present the question is "How do we present the tenses for works no longer in publishing in the scope of WAS?" and that may lead to several "options" that appear in the response section, rather than what may have started as a simple "yes/no/discussion" breakdown, but this, for example, would give me to be able to explain the "content/container" rationale that I think justifies these out nicely and cleanly, but without that entering into the RFC rationale. --Masem (t) 21:17, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Huh? -- C. A. Russell (talk) 01:17, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If the RfC asks about "newspapers, magazines, journals, comic books, radio programs, televisions shows, podcasts, and web series" in order to settle the question for as broad a range of items as possible, it wouldn't make sense to have separate response sections. The original question I asked was about magazines, and the majority of the discussion in the section above was about magazines, with only a little broader discussion. I thought about having one response section for magazines, and another for "other periodical works that are no longer published, such as...", but it would seem odd to separate magazines that way just because that's where the question started. I think if we want the RfC to be about no more than TV shows and magazines then two response sections is fine; if it's about more than that we'd have to use a single response section. I'm also inclined to leave in the quote from WP:WAS, but change the order: state the question first, then say 'the MoS guideline that applies is "...". Should this be interpreted to support the use of "is" or "was"?'. One more point: I don't want to mention adding an example to WAS as part of the RfC, but I think anything that generates this much debate should be memorialized in the MoS so we don't have to go through this again, whether this goes the way I hope it does or not.

With the above in mind, here's a revised wording.

When describing periodical works such as newspapers, magazines, journals, comic books, radio programs, televisions shows, podcasts, and web series that are no longer published, should we use "is" or "was"?
For example:
  • "Gourmet is a magazine that was published from 1941 to 2009" vs. "Gourmet was a magazine published from 1941 to 2009"
  • "I Love Lucy is a TV show that ran from 1951 to 1957" vs. "I Love Lucy was a TV show that ran from 1951 to 1957".
Note that the MoS guideline that covers this question is WP:WAS, which says By default, write articles in the present tense, including those covering works of fiction...and products or works that have been discontinued. Generally, do not use past tense except for past events and subjects that are dead or no longer meaningfully exist. However, attempts to resolve the question this RfC is asking by referring to this have not agreed on whether defunct periodicals should be considered to be "dead...and no longer meaningfully exist". [With a link to this talk page discussion].
If you believe some types of periodical should use "was" and the others should use "is", please make that clear in your response.
[Then a single responses section heading and a discussion section heading.]

How does that look? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:56, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No objections, so done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:44, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging everyone who contributed to the above discussion to let them know of the RfC: Trystan, Doremo, Popcornfud, Johnbod, Thumperward, TAnthony, Sturmvogel 66, Primergrey, SchroCat, C. A. Russell, Masem, Khajidha, Trovatore, SportingFlyer, North8000, Gah4. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:07, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • We're seriously taking this to an RfC? I thought the consensus was clear to use "was" for defunct periodicals, though I get the "big net" rationale. SportingFlyer T·C 16:18, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If you look at the RfC, the responses show this is not so clear cut and bigger than a talk page discussion, if only because TV series have been looped in. A wider net is definitely required.— TAnthonyTalk 16:23, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) I thought it was clear for magazines, though there was not enough discussion of TV shows to make that a clear cut decision, but C. A. Russell said he wanted an RfC. I went ahead and edited the MoS page to include a magazine-related example of "was", but he reverted, and since nobody reverted him I figured the best way to settle it was to go ahead with an RfC. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:26, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Revisiting curly quotes, again

A Curley quote: "I'm a victim of soicumstance!"

I'm revisiting this age-old question because the explanation given in MOS:CURLY as well as in the FAQ above are utterly unconvincing. In fact, the short FAQ answer directly contradicts the answer right below it, for why we distinguish between hyphens and dashes. The former says "Users may only know how to type in straight quotes (such as " and ') [...] when editing," yet the latter correctly explains "The "Insert" editing tools directly below the Wikipedia editing window provide immediate access to all these characters," referring to en dashes and em dashes, but the same obviously applies to curly quotation marks.

Which leaves the second reason, stated both in MOS:CURLY as well as the FAQ: "Not all Web browsers find curly quotes when users type straight quotes in search strings." Ignoring that this argument only applies to Microsoft IE and Edge (which have a combined market share of about 5%), it is equally true for hyphen versus dashes. Internet Explorer's finder does not find Sofie’s Choice when the user types Sofie's Choice, but it also doesn't find Gauss–Markov theorem when the user types Gauss-Markov theorem. The latter even tricks Google's Chrome and Mozilla Firefox, so taking the search-within-page argument to its logical conclusion, we would have to revoke MOS:DASHES first and foremost. We obviously won't do that (I hope so!), but it begs the question why we keep MOS:CURLY when a much stronger MOS:DASHES is in place? Further, the search-within-page argument would also preclude us from properly using umlauts or any kind of accents, since Poincare won't find Poincaré (as with curly quotes, this is an IE-and-Edge-only problem).

To my knowledge, MOS:CURLY is the only MOS guideline that recommends against the use of the correct typography in favor of a more simplistic one while citing (antiquated) technical reasons. In my opinion, it's time to get rid of it. [EDIT] The same argument actually applies to MOS:PUNCT, which prohibits the use of curly apostrophe in favor of straight ones (citing the same antiquated technical reasons), while immediately contradicting itself when recommending the use of "their correct Unicode characters" for ayin, okina, etc.[/EDIT] --bender235 (talk) 20:31, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I personally strongly dislike curly quotes for aesthetic reasons, but I fully agree with your argument. I see no objective reason to retain that requirement. —⁠烏⁠Γ (kaw) │ 20:45, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If the majority of Wikipedians decided that straight quotation marks are prettier than curly ones, that's a decision I could actually live with. But we shouldn't give phony technical explanations that are immediately contradicted by all our other MOS guidelines. If the (IE and Edge only) search-within-page argument is a valid concern for us, we should get rid off MOS:DASHES and plenty of other guidelines, too. But if not, we should eliminate MOS:CURLY. --bender235 (talk) 21:32, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
ITYM raises the question[a], and I agree. However, I'd like to see templates for wrapping text in paired punctuation and options for those templates in the Wiki markup bar, rather than having editors enter the actual characters or their character entities.
As for searches, I'm not sure that Poincaré will find Poincaré if one explicitly uses the glyph and the other uses combining. Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 21:50, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think there's a difference between MOS:CURLY and MOS:DASHES. Don't the “curly” quotation marks and the "straight" quotation marks both serve the same function appropriately? While an emdash (—) or an endash (–) are the appropriate symbols for different uses, of which a double hyphen (--) is merely a stand-in. If there's no choice "more correct" than the other, then it makes sense for us to choose the easier one, which would be the "straight" quotation marks. El Millo (talk) 23:29, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Most style guides actually recommend the use of curly (or "smart") quotation marks. Word processors convert straight ones into curly ones, and so on. --bender235 (talk) 23:50, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If there's a way to type straight ones and have them automatically turn into curly ones, then I'm completely in favor. El Millo (talk) 00:04, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Why? Your typed hyphen doesn't turn into an en dash automatically either (in Word it does, but not on Wikipedia). That's what we have WP:COPYEDITORS for (I'm one of them). --bender235 (talk) 00:24, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I can find style guides that recommend using curly quotation marks. I can't find any that recommend capriciously changing what the author wrote; "smart" quotes are dumb; consider what they do to code. Make it easy for the author to enter paired quotation mark when that is his intent, but don't introduce errors behind his back. Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 00:27, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I understand. Do you oppose Wikipedians editing someone else's contribution to an article, changing "text" to “text”? --bender235 (talk) 03:46, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Personally I think curlies look much better, and the technical arguments against them sound painfully quaint. And I'm pretty sure something like smart quotes is available, or can be easily added, in most interfaces. The real problem is we're going to end up with one more of those eternal style-preference scabs that will get picked over and over. We'll probably need one of those first-major-contributor rules. EEng 23:37, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
How so? We don't have these issues with en dashes or diacritics, do we? --bender235 (talk) 23:52, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"Smart quotes" considered harmful. I'm pretty sure that something to automatically substitute characters is available. I'm also pretty sure that it creates more problems than it solves - don't got there. Make it easier to enter paired quotes when that is the intent, and let that be all. Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 00:27, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you that there's no need for automatic changes. But this is not even what this discussion is about. It's about the guideline that prohibits curly quotes, while all other guidelines encourage the use of "correct Unicode characters" for all kinds of symbols and letters. --bender235 (talk) 03:46, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Is your proposal to encourage the use of curly quotes and "prohibit" straight quotes, or to allow anyone to use whichever they prefer? El Millo (talk) 03:50, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The MOS does not prohibit or require. It says what is preferred, so that editors will generally move in that direction. People use curly quotes all over, and wikignomes convert them to straight. It could go the other way if we decide. Dicklyon (talk) 03:52, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't say "prohibit" straight quotes. After all, as Dicklyon rightfully points out, MOS are guidelines, not policies. I'd just replace MOS:CURLY with a recommendation along the lines of MOS:DASHES, or maybe MOS:LIGATURE.
What definitely needs to go is the phony technical explanations given at the moment, since it is obviously contradicting all our other style recommendations. --bender235 (talk) 15:22, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If the idea is to say "Here's something that we've always required to be done this ONE way, and I'm suggesting that we open it up and give editors the freedom to chose from TWO ways based on their personal preference"... man, have you met your fellow editors? Hella Wikipedia's don't roll that way. (For my part, it'd be fine.)
If the idea is to say "Here's something that we've always required to be done this ONE way, and I'm suggesting that we instead require to be done this OTHER way"... what problem would you be solving? Herostratus (talk) 04:07, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I know this has been a long-standing MOS guideline, and the usual stare decisis mentality in Wikipedia makes it hard to change these things. My point is that (probably from the very beginning), this recommendation for straight against curly quotes is in clear contradiction to all our other MOS guidelines that recommend the correct (albeit non-keyboard) character over the easy shortcut, whether it be Gauss–Markov theorem over Gauss-Markov theorem, or 5× champion over 5x champion, or Ngô Bảo Châu over Ngo Bao Chau. The MOS:CURLY is the only guideline recommending the exact opposite, and giving an explanation that (although actually nonsense) if taken at face value would require us to eliminate all other existing MOS guidelines favoring correct characters and symbols. --bender235 (talk) 16:35, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Bender235: Just to make it clear: your proposal is to change the recommendation from straight quotes to curly quotes, and not to put them as equal options. Correct?
Count me as another who would be supportive of keeping the recommendation strict but changing it to curly quotes. I would not be supportive of opening up yet another gratuitous style inconsistency across our articles. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:10, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
To answer clearly: yes, I would prefer a MOS:CURLY in line with all our related MOS guidelines, stating something along the lines of "the use of “” over "" is recommended." --bender235 (talk) 18:34, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I would certainly support that change. —⁠烏⁠Γ (kaw) │ 07:14, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Any English Manual of Style is arbitrary. That we prefer in one case easily-produced straight quotes versus curly isn't any great loss, and we're better off with fewer of our already ridiculously broad allowances than more. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 18:38, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There having been no significant changes in computer keyboards or Wikipedia editing facilities since the last time this was discussed, I favor retaining straight quotes. Jc3s5h (talk) 18:42, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, since the last discussion of this, "All of the reasons Wikipedia uses straight instead of curly quotes are no longer relevant in 2019", was an RFC and this discussion is not an RFC, I will not recognize any result of this discussion as changing the consensus. Jc3s5h (talk) 18:54, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Your personal preferences for straight quotes be as they may, but do you at least acknowledge that the explanations given in the 'curly' footnote on MOS as well as the FAQ above are in direct contradiction with all our other MOS guidelines, for instance MOS:DASHES? --bender235 (talk) 23:07, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
OK, but so what if it's in direct contradiction with all our other MOS guidelines? It's not written anywhere that any one punctuation guideline has to be compatible in approach to other guidelines about other, entirely different, punctuations. It's just a historical accident. It's not a problem. The reader doesn't care. Herostratus (talk) 05:17, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am a fan of using correct typographical characters and I like how the curly quotes look. I think it would significantly improve the visual quality of Wikipedia if we used proper quotes. This change would present a huge logistical issue though. If we said any given article could have either style as long as the article is consistent throughout (like English variants) then some articles will be one way and some another and this will be visually confusing for readers. If we did not make a binary change to the guidance I think we'd just have a mess. I'm not sure if big changes like this have been made on Wikipedia in the past and whether they were done incrementally or all at once. Clearly this would need to be a widely-advertised RfC and not just a quick discussion. —DIYeditor (talk) 03:23, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If it was me, I wouldn't bother taking it any further.
  • If you're trying to *introduce* choice where there isn't (that is, permit both kinds of quotes), I'd say forget it. The entire history of the MOS had been people trying to clear up ambiguous situations by creating clear, strict rules mandating one particular way of doing things. This'd be going the other way... I can't see it.
  • If you're trying to switch from straight to curly, you're likely to get a 50-50 (55-45, whatever) vote on straight-versus-curly. It's pretty much a matter of aesthetic preference, so no argument is likely to be objectively clearly the stronger. So, no change.
  • If you do get an unexpected supermajority in favor of curly quotes, what has really been accomplished. It's fine now, it'd be fine if you changed it, and fine if you didn't. Herostratus (talk) 05:17, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Herostratus: I agree with you that we should avoid a WP:ENGVAR or WP:CITEVAR type of outcome. MOS guidelines, although just guidelines and not policies, should give unambiguous and clear-cut advice. As for whether it's just an "aesthetic preference," I agree too. But then call it just that in the explanation for MOS:CURLY! The current 'curly' footnote on MOS as well as the FAQ above pretend that straight quotes are inevitable for some technical reason, when in fact it should say something like: "back in 2003, someone made the decision that we prefer straights over curlies, and 17 years of path dependency later here we are." At least that would be honest. Because I actually wonder how many Wikipedians use straight curlies simply because this technical mumbo-jumbo in the 'curly' footnote deters them from doing otherwise. --bender235 (talk) 13:55, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Bender235: Oh, yes, with that I agree. I'd be all for taking out out the mumbo-jumbo in the rule. Herostratus (talk) 16:10, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Herostratus: Fair enough. Could you point me to the relevant RfC in which the community concluded that we prefer straight quotes over curly ones, so I can adjust the FAQ and footnote reasoning accordingly? --bender235 (talk) 22:27, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have to agree with Herostratus on this. I'm personally a fan of curly quotes, but there's a WP:BROKEN issue here; this just isn't worth the editor effort (which would be a headache both for reaching consensus and for implementation) it would be sure to be. Perhaps if we wait another decade, the AI will be smart enough that we'll have the tools to make a clean and easy switch. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 07:29, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I, too, like typographically correct glyphs. But a big problem with curly quotes is the so-called "smart quotes" feature of editors that often make mistakes, ever since the ‘80s. Dicklyon (talk) 05:29, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think we're getting ahead of ourselves. This really isn't about a potential auto-correct feature in the Wikipedia editor, which may or may not be buggy. It's purely about the current MOS guidelines, or actually not even that: it's about the validity of the reason given for the current MOS on straight vs. curly quotes. --bender235 (talk) 13:59, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just to copy over some points from the previous discussion that I started last year, responding to the MOS’s explanation of our current guidelines:

  1. Consistency keeps searches predictable. Though most browsers do not distinguish between curly and straight marks, Internet Explorer still does (as of 2016). Internet Explorer’s current market share is 2.56% and shrinking fast as Microsoft actively discourages its use in favor of its new Chrome clone (Chrome and Firefox both find curly quotes correctly).[1]
  2. Straight quotation marks are easier to type reliably on most platforms. On Mac, Windows, and Ubuntu, they are no more difficult to type than dashes. On Android and old versions of iOS, they can easily be accessed by holding down the apostrophe or quotation mark key as appropriate. On new versions of iOS, they’re even easier to type, because “Smart Punctuation” is automatically enabled in Settings, automatically replacing ' with its curly equivalent. Desktop version users can also insert them via the character insertion menu (currently under Symbols but this can be changed).
  3. MediaWiki's use of series of single quotes to create italics and boldface makes using these features complicated and error-prone for content that begins or ends with apostrophes. When editing pages using default settings (i.e. monospaced font), the two types of quotation marks are easier to tell apart than you might expect when reading. Click the edit button and see for yourself: '’ It’s actually less complicated than say, distinguishing en and em dashes in the source editor. What’s more, curly apostrophes actually fix a problem with MediaWiki surrounding formatting. Currently, if someone tries to write something like ''The Signpost'''s, the result is an improperly italicized apostrophe (The Signpost's), or worse if the italicized texts anywhere near bold text. As such, we need to currently use ''The Signpost''{{'}}s (The Signpost's). With curly quotes, this problem is removed, just type ''The Signpost''’s (The Signpost’s).

I think there definitely is a sense of “this is the way we’ve always done it” that makes it hard to bring about change in this area, but IMO it’s a change we definitely should make. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 14:12, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Saying that once-upon-a-time the use of curly quotes was problematic for <reasons> is fine and I think should be done. Do not make a rule that straight quotes are out and curly quotes are in. Do not make that rule.

For me, with this browser and this monitor, curly quotes are more distinct than straight quotes when viewed within the wikitext editor (though they appear slanted as if italicized) but when the page is rendered, it is the reverse, straight quotes are more distinct:

‘'’“"” → ‘'’“"” – this using the glyphs directly
‘'’“"” → ‘'’“"” – this using the html entities

Were curly and straight quotes equally distinct, and were curly quotes as easy to type as straight quotes, and were there a built-in mechanism to ensure that left-curly-quotes all have matching right-curly-quotes (smartquotes works nearly 100% of the time) then, perhaps I could be convinced that curly is better than straight. If I have to work at it, sod that for a game of soldiers.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 15:14, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is more stuff to distinguish than mentioned by Trappist the monk:
‘'’′“"”″ → ‘'’′“"”″ – this using the glyphs directly
Prime and double-prime are important to those who edit astronomy articles. Jc3s5h (talk) 17:21, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notes

  1. ^ "begs the question" is something quite different.

References

  1. ^ http://gs.statcounter.com/browser-market-share

360-degree panoramas

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Images#360-degree_panoramas. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 00:30, 20 May 2020 (UTC)Template:Z48[reply]

Revisit deletion of Template:Malaysian English?

It has come to my attention that back in 2014 the template Template:Malaysian English was deleted, with the discussion here: Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2013_December_30#Template:Malaysian_English.

We have Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#National_varieties_of_English (ENGVAR) which states under the header "Strong national ties to a topic" that "An article on a topic that has strong ties to a particular English-speaking nation should use the (formal, not colloquial) English of that nation."

This means that if an article has significant ties to only one country that has a recognized variety of English, it is obligated to use the standards from that country. This is why I disagree with the rationale (expressed in several posts in the TFD) that there aren't any articles that use (formal, standardized) "Malaysian English"; these articles should as per ENGVAR.

Malaysia does/did have a recognized variety of formal, standardized English (read page 70 which refers to this, and how it was original jointly of both Singapore and Malaysia), and we have ENGVAR templates for various English-as-a-second language places in Africa and Asia (Ghana, Nigeria, Hong Kong, Philippines, etc.).

If it's OK I'd like to ping the participants of that discussion so it can be deliberated with this information. WhisperToMe (talk) 19:37, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If I may attempt to be helpful, that deletion discussion seemed to hinge on the fact that the template was only in use on one article. Could I suggest to you that creating a list of articles where you believe the template should be used would be an essential prerequisite to reopening the debate? --RexxS (talk) 21:24, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@RexxS: I have ideas for ten which should, under ENGVAR, use "Malaysian English" (meaning the or a formal, standardized version of English predominate in Malaysia): Kuala Lumpur, Ipoh, AirAsia, Malaysia Airlines, Perak, Sarawak, Sabah, Malaysia, and Petronas Towers. Under ENGVAR if the article does not use the country-specific version, it should be switched/modified so that it does so. If in practice, it would be almost identical to British English, the template could say "This topic has ties to Malaysia, which generally uses British English" or something to that effect. WhisperToMe (talk) 00:40, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As I look into my crystal ball for 2025, I see templates for Malaysia, Australia, Liverpool, Liverpool over 50's, Bronx, South Bronx, West Bronx, West Bronx bus riders, and hundreds more. As an Australian, I'm happy to just have British and American templates.  Stepho  talk  23:12, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It would be amazing to read an article written in West Bronx riders English. Maybe we’ll need to split off a separate West Bronx bus riders Wikipedia too, so that Simple English Wikipedia doesn’t get lonely! — MarkH21talk 02:59, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Stepho-wrs: @MarkH21: Cockney would be fun too! Or Texas English! Anyway, in seriousness, the MOS already says that only formal varieties of English are covered under ENGVAR. WhisperToMe (talk) 00:40, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any difference between formal Malaysian English and formal British English? Aside from a few words for things Brits might not encounter. And not colloquialisms or slang. Is it possible to distinguish a Malaysian doctoral dissertation (for example) from a British one. If not, I don't see the point in having it. --Khajidha (talk) 19:51, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Khajidha: There's a 2007 academic conference article on researchgate which says that "Malaysian English" (the varieties of English used in English language media in Malaysia) and "Manglish" are two different things. There is a section called "Words or phrases only used in Malaysian English".
The 1994 article I mentioned above stated that there are different varieties of English in Malaysia, with one being of Malaysians educated in English medium schools before say the 1970s/1980s and a newer generation educated in Malay medium schools which has Malay influence in its English. (there's also a colloquial Malaysian English which isn't relevant). The article concludes that it would be difficult for a single standard variety of English in Malaysia to appear due to Malay replacing English as the interethnic/prestige language (though the 2007 article notes the increased importance of English that occurred since then)
On a more general note: If a country has a particular affinity to use a particular variety of English, but it in fact has little difference from say British English, there could be a modification to the template where it says "This topic has a tie to X country, which uses British English". That way the readers know that it's not like a British guy happened to be the first one to make the article.
WhisperToMe (talk) 00:40, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see the point of blessing various dialects as good for use at enwiki. This is the English Wikipedia written for and by those where English is the primary language. Historical accidents mean that English is the primary language in a small number of places, each of which has their own style variation. That means color and colour are ok. It does not mean that, for example, "in the year 2020" is needed instead of "in 2020" where the latter would not cause confusion to people where English is the primary language. I don't know what variations Malaysian English might have, but why should an article at enwiki be written using their variations? Johnuniq (talk) 01:08, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Johnuniq:. ENGVAR only says to use formal varieties of English, not colloquial dialects. There are words and numbering types (lakh and crore are used in Indian English) that are unique in formal versions of English used in some countries.
I do feel in reality British English (if the Malaysian English media/education systems use this type) should be used for Malaysian English (with any special Malaysian vocabulary explained for non-Malaysians) but I believe that means a modified template explaining that the article should use formal varieties predominate in a country, and that say the former British colony mainly uses British English in the media or something to that effect.
WhisperToMe (talk) 01:19, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In regards to the varities of English used in Malaysia, an example would be this article in The Star: "Online boost for kerepek business" - "PONTIAN: It’s all about kerepek (crackers) for Noor Hidayah Mat Isrin." While say a UK or US article may use "crackers" a Malaysian article might use a Malay word, define the term for non-Malaysians, and habitually use the Malay word in the article. WhisperToMe (talk) 01:26, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's quite fine for a Malaysian newspaper meant for readers in Malaysia to use words like kerepek - the readers are likely to know what it means. But an article about a Malaysian topic is also going to be read by readers not familiar with Malay languages or culture. We have to assume that our readers have a grasp of basic English - we should not impose a need to understand multiple dialects. For example, I am a car fanatic. If I want to read up on PROTON Holdings then I should not be expected to know about peculiarities of Malay English.  Stepho  talk  05:10, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Stepho-wrs: I agree that the article needs to be comprehensible to non-Malay readers. ENGVAR does say that "Use universally accepted terms rather than those less widely distributed, especially in titles." Speaking of which there was a discussion about some content at Talk:Uttar_Pradesh/Archive_1#Terms_need_to_be_comprehensible_to_non-Indian_readers_without_having_to_check_the_wikilinks where I argued that certain items needed to be defined within the article to cater to non-Indian readers WhisperToMe (talk) 08:20, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
We need to delete way more of these nationalistic templates. For writing in an encyclopedic register, there are basically three Englishes: Commonwealth/British, American, and Canadian (which is essentially a mixture of the other two, using mostly North American vocabulary with mostly Commonwealth spelling). In formal writing, the rest of them are generally indistinguishable from Commonwealth/British, except the rare American-based exceptions like the English used (to the extent that it is at all) in the Philippines and Okinawa. We do not need templates for Jamaican, Scottish, Indian, etc. Englishes. Just three. Nor do we need obnoxious giant talk-page and edit-notice banners. The "silent" templates that go at the top of the article page are entirely sufficient.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  12:51, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Order of categories

Do we have any advice about how to order the categories on a page? Should it ideally be alphabetical, or by importance, or something else? {{u|Sdkb}} talk 07:33, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

MOS:CATORDER. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:35, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: Oops, thanks, I hadn't found that. I added a few redirects so hopefully it's easier for the next person. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 03:48, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Guillemets and low-high quotation marks in non-English text

Regarding this revert...

We're not intending to change «» and „“ to "" in non-English languages that use those as standard, are we? I mean in inner text, like:

English English "Russian «Russian»" English.
English English "Croatian „Croatian“ Croatian" English.

-- Beland (talk) 18:35, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I also assume we're not supposed to change these in pure non-English text, like in the parameter that's the Russian title of a web page we're citing (where I see a lot of guillemets). -- Beland (talk) 18:37, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oh right, we've had this discussion before. This is what MOS:CONFORM says. -- Beland (talk) 18:51, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like you've reached consensus! EEng 20:29, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I added a pointer to MOS:CONFORM from that bullet point on this page. -- Beland (talk) 17:50, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Obama example

Unsure what purpose it serves, especially as recently edited. Tony (talk) 08:43, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The point of the example is to illustrate the use of present tense in an "X is a former Y" construction, not to report any particular article's text. I've reverted the change. --RexxS (talk) 12:17, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The construction "X is a former Y" isn't used nearly as often as "X is a Y who held position Z". Why tell editors "do it this way" when we don't do it that way, not even in the article in question? Perhaps there is a better example to use?--Trystan (talk) 13:24, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's best to keep examples simple and to only vary the key point (tense in this case) between two contrasting examples. To do otherwise is potentially confusing. Certainly both examples would have to be changed to have otherwise equivalent wording, and there is no reason to include all the extra verbiage when the example is about tense, not what number president he was. —DIYeditor (talk) 13:30, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
How about changing it to "Buzz Aldrin is a former astronaut"? That's from a recent Featured Article, and the example would actually be a simplified version of the lead ("Buzz Aldrin is an American engineer, former astronaut and fighter pilot." The problem with the Obama example is that there is a better way to say "was President of the United States" than "is a former President of the United States", and that better way is what is actually used in the article.--Trystan (talk) 13:52, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, that example would have to read Buzz Aldrin is an American engineer and former astronaut and fighter pilot to make sense (unless you're saying he's no longer an astronaut but still a fighter pilot) and even then it's not so good. Second, he's probably a former engineer too, and if you're going to argue once an engineer, always an engineer then I'll need to know why that doesn't apply to astronauts and fighter pilots too. EEng 14:02, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I changed the wording of Buzz Aldrin to "is an American engineer, and former astronaut and fighter pilot" before I saw your reply here. I think if you have earned a degree in something you could be considered still that but it is potentially inconsistent and confusing when contrasted with a career or job. —DIYeditor (talk) 14:17, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(did not notice EEng's reply before typing this) Not sure, frankly I'm confused why Obama is a politician but Aldrin a former astronaut? Or why George W. Bush is a businessman even though he is presumably retired. Clearly Aldrin's "engineer" is something he is qualified to be whether he is actively practicing it or not so that is not confusing. —DIYeditor (talk) 14:14, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify, I am suggesting the example could be: "Buzz Aldrin is a former astronaut (not Buzz Aldrin was an astronaut)". That way, it matches (in a simplified way) the full lead of the article.
As for why some roles become past tense before others, I think there are interrelated issues of identity and sourcing. It is relatively easy to determine that someone no longer holds a specific office, or no longer goes on space missions. It is much harder to pinpoint when someone stops being involved in business or politics (that tends to be a gradual transition, and one that is consequently difficult to verify). Other than death, we don't know when a writer has written their last sentence or a comedian has told their last joke, so we default to "is".--Trystan (talk) 14:58, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This is a bad example because Obama is definitely no longer President but it's not clear Buzz is no longer an astronaut if George W. Bush is still a businessman and Obama is still a politician. Buzz might fly a jet fighter again for all we know, by your reasoning. Let's keep it simple and stick to unambiguous examples. —DIYeditor (talk) 15:03, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

MOS:GEO - Czechia / Czech Republic in articles

I noticed a user changing "Czech Republic" to "Czechia" in numerous articles. I reverted some of the changes, quoting MOS:GEO: Places should generally be referred to consistently by the same name as in the title of their article. But it occurred to me that it's not entirely clear - does it mean only within the place's main article, or all articles? See a similar question here: [23]. Since it looks like this user's activity consists almost entirely of doing that, going back for some time, I'd like to get some clarification before reverting any more of their changes.

My first instinct is that a user should not set themselves on a mission to change every instance of something to their preferred style, all across Wikipedia, without prior consensus (i.e., MOS:STYLEVAR and its relatives). Particularly when there have been several discussions about moving the main article to "Czechia" which have all failed, and there is now a moratorium on further move discussions.

In the same vein though, I might be skeptical about someone changing every existing instance of "Czechia" to "Czech Republic", unless there's fairly clear agreement that that's what MOS:GEO means. On the other hand, I do think consistency is usually a good idea.

If MOS:GEO doesn't support consistently using "Czech Republic" in articles, should there be (or is there already) a rule or principle similar to MOS:ENGVAR, MOS:US etc., i.e., keep an article internally consistent, and based on the first non-stub revision if no other reasoning applies? --IamNotU (talk) 18:43, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Common sense would suggest that links should generally match article titles. Yes, some descriptive titles wouldn't work and there might be some "adjectivized noun" uses and suchthat would require piping , but with most articles you are simply using them in the sentence.--Khajidha (talk) 13:07, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

RfC: Should "is" or "was" be used to describe periodical publications that are no longer being published?

When describing periodical works such as newspapers, magazines, journals, comic books, radio programs, televisions shows, podcasts, and web series that are no longer published, should we use "is" or "was"?

For example:

  • "Gourmet is a magazine that was published from 1941 to 2009" vs. "Gourmet was a magazine published from 1941 to 2009"
  • "I Love Lucy is a TV show that ran from 1951 to 1957" vs. "I Love Lucy was a TV show that ran from 1951 to 1957".

Note that the MoS guideline that covers this question is WP:WAS, which says By default, write articles in the present tense, including those covering works of fiction...and products or works that have been discontinued. Generally, do not use past tense except for past events and subjects that are dead or no longer meaningfully exist. However, attempts to resolve the question this RfC is asking by referring to this have not agreed on whether defunct periodicals should be considered to be "dead...and no longer meaningfully exist" -- see Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#WP:WAS and defunct magazines.

If you believe some types of periodical should use "was" and the others should use "is", please make that clear in your response. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:43, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notifications:

Responses

  • Support was for magazines, newspapers, comics, journals, and any printed periodical that is no longer published. Neutral on the other periodicals listed, so far at least. I will post some more detailed notes in the discussion section, but briefly: every single reliable source I have checked so far uses "was" for printed periodicals. We need a very strong argument to go against accepted usage. If a substantial number of RS cites can be found for "is" in those cases, it comes down to preference; then I'd still argue for "was", but I would have to agree that "is" is not incorrect in edited prose. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:34, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Update: still supporting was for printed periodicals; now also weakly supporting was for TV. See notes on usage in the discussion section for reasoning. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:47, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support was for magazines, newspapers, comics, journals - everything Mike says above goes for me too. Popcornfud (talk) 12:03, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support was per all of the above. Doremo (talk) 12:13, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support was per all of the above. In addition to the weight of reliable sources that prefer "was", it feels natural to to use "was" for the ended publication/broadcast, etc and "is" for the still ongoing. - SchroCat (talk) 12:33, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • was makes the most sense to me --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 13:07, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support was as and per Mike Christie. --Khajidha (talk) 13:13, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose enforcing "was", except where we are sure that no copies of the publication are still in existence. If copies exist, then "Gourmet is a magazine that was published from 1941 to 2009" seems perfectly correct to me. The same applies to radio and TV programmes. We have a similar situation with car articles, e.g. "The Jaguar E-Type... is a British sports car that was manufactured by Jaguar Cars Ltd between 1961 and 1975..." (my link and bold). -- DeFacto (talk). 14:33, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Generally support was for defunct magazines, newspapers, and TV news shows, where the topic is more naturally understood as the whole publication operation rather than solely the end product, and is for extant works of fiction, including comic books and TV comedies and dramas. There is no bright-line rule, so flexibility is needed.--Trystan (talk) 14:35, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • It would be was for a description of the magazine: "X was a magazine published in the 1890s...," but is once it is contextualized, especially for a description of its contents: "In its editorials, X is very clear about what was considered acceptable in the 1890s." Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:45, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Partially support "was" for magazines, etc; oppose "was" for television, basically as per DeFacto's argument (and others) – IOW, the current guidance for TV, WP:TVNOW, is still correct, and should not be changed. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 14:52, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support was for magazines, newspapers, or anything that is periodic containing some current/news events. For those items being a current publishing enterprise weighs more heavily in the meaning of the term and choice of words that describes it. This is how it is different than other examples such as TV series. North8000 (talk) 14:54, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support is. Issues of Gourmet exist and I can hold one in my hand. It didn't stop being a magazine just because I can't buy a new issue. It's existence is current, and any reasonable reader will understand that "was published between [year] and [year]" means it's not being published anymore. In the unlikely event we have an article about a periodical that has been discontinued and no copies of it exist anywhere, was would be appropriate. It's hard to imagine such a subject would be notable, though. Argento Surfer (talk) 15:13, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support was for all defunct serials, whether print, audio or video, and "is" for the individual stories, issues and volumes. Only exception should be for publications with a pre-planned limited number of issues, e.g. a book published in serial form (The Old Curiosity Shop) or a miniseries (Roots), since these are whole works which stand on their own. pburka (talk) 15:22, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support "was" for magazines, newspapers, comics, journals, and any printed periodical that is no longer published only for sure no longer have any copies that exist; oppose "was" for television. Per MOS:TVNOW, even if a television series is canceled, the television series still exists in terms of streaming services, DVDs, and Blu-rays, and etc. — YoungForever(talk) 15:27, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support is, usually, for TV series as described in MOS:TENSE and MOS:TVNOW. Especially for any work that has an overview, plot description, etc., which should be in the present tense on Wikipedia. Changing to "was" would not only require changing the lead sentence, but most of the lead section and possibly large swaths of the article to past tense, and/or lead to awkward mixed tenses. For example, if "Star Trek was an American science-fiction television series, then it "followed the adventures of the starship USS Enterprise (NCC-1701)", "The show was set in the Milky Way galaxy", "The ship and crew were led by Captain James T. Kirk" and so on throughout the article. Past tense for all that might be ok for Britannica's article, but that's not how we do it here. The example given of I Love Lucy is odd because after the opening sentence it describes the premise in the past tense, but later changes to present tense in the "Premise" section. It should all be present tense. I would bring up the idea of ephemerality in general - it might make sense to talk about defunct newspapers as well as cancelled TV news shows in the past tense, because the content was never intended to have a long life - yesterday's newspaper is today's fish wrapper - though that's debatable, since people often consult them for historical research. I think that a scientific journal for example would not be so ephemeral. But in any case, if people are still buying and watching old TV series on Amazon, they are certainly not things that "no longer meaningfully exist". --IamNotU (talk) 16:05, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    PS, Britannica isn't consistent - in contrast to Star Trek, they use "is" and the present tense for Lost: [24], which I find more natural. --IamNotU (talk) 20:11, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support is for consistency with books and artwork. Adventures of Huckleberry Finn is a novel by Mark Twain, the Mona Lisa is a painting by Leonardo da Vinci. People die; works of art, film and literature do not. I find the votes above that say "is for TV series, was for magazines" to be confusing and contradictory. Yes, a TV series still exists after cancellation, and a comic book series still exists too. What is the justification for making that distinction based on the medium the work is published in? — Toughpigs (talk) 16:15, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support was for all. The fact that a TV series still "exists" in some Platonic sense is irrelevant. It just isn't how people talk. TVNOW is wrong and should be overturned.
    Side note: There are certainly locutions where it makes sense to talk about a discontinued TV series in the present tense — say, I Love Lucy is my favorite sitcom. That's fine, because it's comparing them with other sitcoms, past and present. But in a definition, I think you'll find if you do a well-controlled search, which would admittedly be challenging, that almost no one would introduce the show in the present tense.
    As for artworks, I think the point is that a TV series is not a single work, but a collection of works. It doesn't have a narrative unity. While it's being produced, it's undetermined what it will do in the future. When it's over, that's no longer true, and the series is now properly in the past, even though the individual episodes make sense to talk about, as works, in the present tense.
    But none of that justification really matters. The point is that the past tense is how people actually talk and write. Using the present tense here is jarring to readers, for no sufficient countervailing benefit. --Trovatore (talk) 17:10, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • It just isn't how people talk. Which people? If someone said "tell me about Star Trek", I'd say "it's a TV show from the 60s, where people fly around in a spaceship". I really honestly would not say "it was a TV show". It still is. I still watch it sometimes. --IamNotU (talk) 19:52, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      PS, Encyclopedia Britannica says "Lost is a fast-paced, suspenseful, and surreal series about a group of people who survive..." So it is how some people, including some encyclopedia writers, talk. --IamNotU (talk) 20:11, 28 May 2020 (UTC) [Sorry, it looks like this is a leftover from when the show was still running, see below --IamNotU (talk) 17:33, 30 May 2020 (UTC)][reply]
      Well, Lost is a single story, so that would kind of make sense. The online EB uses a sentence fragment for the first sentence of its article on I Love Lucy, neither is nor was. --Trovatore (talk) 20:21, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Isn't being a 'single story' subjective, though? Lucy, Seinfeld, or the Simpsons are all a 'single story' compared to the Twilight Zone or Beyond Belief. Argento Surfer (talk) 20:26, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      No, in my view, none of Lucy, Seinfeld, or The Simpsons count as a single story. --Trovatore (talk) 21:09, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Where, exactly, is being a "single story" established as criteria for anything in our guidelines? And um, your saying "in my view" proves Argento Surfer's point that classifying works this way is subjective. And who decides for a particular work? Not any one of us.— TAnthonyTalk 22:21, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      It's not established in our guidelines. We're discussing precisely a proposed change to the guidelines, so that's irrelevant. In any case, I haven't proposed that a "single story" criterion be adopted; I would be perfectly content for us to describe Lost in the past tense. I'm just pointing out a reason that Brittanica might have made a different choice. --Trovatore (talk) 22:44, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      I might be persuaded that it's reasonable to use the present tense for all narrative works, and that some TV series are narrative works. But it seems incredibly awkward to say that "Donahue is an American talk show which ended 24 years ago", or "Face of the War is an American news program about recent events in World War II." pburka (talk) 20:41, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Well put. I'm not ready to revise my opinion to be for fictional periodicals only, but I'll have to think about adding nuance. Argento Surfer (talk) 20:50, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      I think it's perfectly fine to say: "Donahue is a 1967-1996 American talk show which aired in syndication" and "Movietone News is a newsreel series that that ran from 1928 to 1963". The work exists in the present tense, the events of its creation and distribution are in the past tense. I think that any attempt to split hairs by whether a work is a single story or not takes us down an unprofitable rabbit hole. — Toughpigs (talk) 23:31, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      We can also avoid the rabbit hole by using was for all. --Trovatore (talk) 00:33, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      It's ridiculous to say "The Johnny Carson Show is a half-hour prime time television variety show starring Johnny Carson [who died in 2005]", but that's essentially the opening sentence of that article right now. If we can say that the show was (is?) "short-lived" and that it was (is?) canceled, I don't see why we would speak of it in the present tense. Even though recordings of the show still exist, it's no longer an ongoing enterprise. pburka (talk) 19:56, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support is, per my comments in the discussion above. I really don't see how magazines are different than TV series, or how "was" makes sense on the merits. As quoted in the intro of this RfC, MOS:TENSE (WP:WAS) is explicit that we do not use past tense except for past events and subjects that are dead or no longer meaningfully exist. This has been the case for a very long time. Production of a magazine or TV series may have concluded, but installments (issues/episodes) still exist. Gimbels no longer exists in any form, just as Abraham Lincoln and the Hanging Gardens of Babylon no longer exist. I should also dispel any argument that availability makes a difference. The shows exist somewhere, but may or may not be re-released; magazines might never be reprinted, but hard copies exist in various places, including libraries and eBay. Magazines are like books in this regard, and we definitely don't use "was" for out-of-publication books (nor should we). As with reliable sources, these media should be reasonably available, but they need not be easily available. WikiProject Television's WP:TVNOW confirms the use of "is', has done so for a long time, and has been stringently enforced. That said, I was shocked to discover that somehow every article about defunct magazines I looked at uses "was". It seems like there must be a specific discussion or guideline somewhere for so many articles to violate what I would argue is the basic intent of MOS:TENSE? I don't have a horse in the magazine race so, as much as I think the practice is wrong, I won't fight an effort to keep magazines status quo (using "was"). I'm vehement though that the guidelines for television series, and WP:WAS itself, should not be changed.— TAnthonyTalk 17:20, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • TVNOW has been wrong for a very long time. --Trovatore (talk) 17:26, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      So you're basically saying that Game of Thrones does not exist? Your grandiose arguments about "no narrative unity" and "a collection of works" is, no offense intended, subjective nonsense. And if present tense was so "jarring" to readers we would have had backlash long ago. Finally "this isn't how people talk" isn't necessarily a valid argument; we commonly use contractions like "can't" in speech, but we explicitly do not use those in prose at Wikipedia.— TAnthonyTalk 19:05, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      I'm not saying Game of Thrones does not exist. I'm saying that its Platonic existence is irrelevant. The "narrative unity" and "collection of works" stuff is, as I say, also mostly irrelevant; it just goes to explain why normal usage can reasonably make a distinction between I Love Lucy and Vertigo. As to whether you've had backlash, I haven't really been following the question, but I bet you have. The current Wikipedia tense is a real clanger and I think anyone who doesn't see that has just internalized the Wikipedia usage. --Trovatore (talk) 19:30, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support was for any periodicals. Magazines, newspapers, journals, and comics (I'm thinking Peanuts here, maybe it's different with serials) which have stopped publishing are no longer in existence. Two caveats: whether a television show is a periodical is up for debate and should probably be a spinoff discussion, and specific issues of a periodical, if notable, can still use is. SportingFlyer T·C 19:17, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • "comics which have stopped publishing are no longer in existence." What if, like Peanuts, reprints are still being run daily and hardcover collections are still being printed? What if they're technically out of print, but a local bookstore still has new copies on the shelf? Argento Surfer (talk) 19:42, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • I guess Peanuts isn't a great example since it's functionally a brand now, but the "was" is appropriate because the publishing of temporal content has ceased. I'm not changing my opinion as I feel strongly about this and don't really want to comment further on this, but if you must respond, please ping me in the discussion thread. SportingFlyer T·C 23:40, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Either as long as usage is consistent within an article. I have a weak preference for was because it makes obvious to the reader that the periodical is discontinued, but those in favor of is make good points that in certain situations would be preferable. TV shows still in syndication seems a very likely example. — Wug·a·po·des​ 20:39, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support is - Magazines, newspapers, books, etc. don't die, even when there is a discontinuation of publication. And the very next clause of the sentence will make it clear that it is no longer being published: "Life is a magazine that was published from NNNN to NNNN." Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:47, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment on the "present tense if the show is in syndication" argument that's popped up in a few places: tracking the distribution of television shows is very complicated. If a show is released on DVD, does that mean it still "is"? Does it become "was" when the last copy is sold? Is there a difference between a show stripped daily in syndication (e.g. Friends, for the last thirty years) and a show that was in syndication but is now exclusively streaming on HBO Max? (e.g. Friends now). If a US show is no longer syndicated or streaming in the US, but it's still in syndication in Latin America, does that count? If it does, then who volunteers to keep track of noticing when the last network drops the show? Etc, etc. — Toughpigs (talk) 23:41, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support was as being more natural. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 00:26, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support "is" for all. I agree with every comment by TAnthony in this discussion, and MOS:TVNOW is reasonable, logical practice that should extend to all serial works. Individual works, such as novels, and individual episodes or magazine issues should of course also use "is". —⁠烏⁠Γ (kaw) │ 01:44, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Prefer was for magazines and periodicals, for naturalness, because that makes clear that they've been discontinued, and because that's the main usage in RS. However, internal consistency in article is more important, and there may be certain articles where "is" works better. buidhe 02:00, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • For a good example why not to use present tense, consider "Arijský boj is a pro-Nazi Czech-language newspaper published between 1940 and 1945..." Thankfully Arijský boj and the ideology it represents are no longer meaningfully in existence. buidhe 02:06, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't see a problem with that sentence. —⁠烏⁠Γ (kaw) │ 04:47, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support is (...which was published/broadcast) for artworks and was for non-fiction such as news, journalism and current events coverage, regardless of medium or format. I think I'd group documentaries with artworks. Fiction comics, like other forms of fiction, should get is. Artworks live on as part of a culture, and have a presence so long as the culture exists whether or not a copy of the artwork exists. Note that lost films generally get is. Some flexibility should be understood and consistency within an article should be maintained. – Reidgreg (talk) 17:01, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I would support this as a secondary choice if "is" is not adopted universally. —⁠烏⁠Γ (kaw) │ 21:24, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support is, as in this modification of an article's first sentence: The Gentleman's Magazine is a monthly magazine that was founded in London, England, by Edward Cave in January 1731 and which ceased publication in 1922. That is no less logical than talking about anything else produced in the past but still extant in the present, although TGM might be known to fewer people than some popular TV show produced long ago but still seen frequently in reruns. Dhtwiki (talk) 23:49, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Is" is also wrong for TV shows no longer in production. Whether it's "logical" or not is not the point. It's simply not good English usage. --Trovatore (talk) 06:32, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • I can accept either "was" or "is" for periodicals and TV shows, but why doesn't "was" for even older but timeless works, such as paintings, seem unacceptable? Is it that the ongoing nature of TV series and periodicals is felt more strongly? It would be more logical if we could specify such impressions better, and good English rests on the ability to make such specifications. Dhtwiki (talk) 05:35, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • So if I'm speculating, I would say that I think you've hit the nail on the head about the ongoing nature being felt more strongly. But that's a side comment. We aren't going to be able to parse apart all the underlying logic, if any, of English verb tense here, and it's not our job. It is our job to pick a style that isn't jarring, and I Love Lucy is... is jarring. --Trovatore (talk) 19:34, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
          I've hesitated to get involved in this, but I do think "ongoing nature" is the crux. People look forward to the next issue/installment of magazines, TV shows, or newspapers, and so long as they can continue to look forward like that, the magazine (or whatever) is; when that can no longer happen -- when the machinery that produced those installments becomes defunct -- it becomes was. OTOH paintings, novels, and films spring out fully formed, and just are forever (though in the case of a lost film I suppose was might make sense). A difficult edge case might be a trilogy or miniseries, where there's the expectation of more, for a while, but you know from the start that there's a definite end. I think Ken Burns' The Civil War (documentary) is but I'm not entirely sure; same for The Lord of the Rings (whether the books or the movies). As for Star Wars (the franchise) I don't know if anybody ever knew, or now does know, where that's going so I dare not even speculate. EEng 20:09, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
          Yes, this is nicely put. --Trovatore (talk) 22:05, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
          Trovatore has asserted many times in this discussion that using is to describe old TV shows "is not good English usage," "is jarring", etc, and the more times that they use that kind of phrasing, the more it feels like a personal opinion that Trovatore is insisting is a fundamental truth about human nature. I do not think that it is appropriate to state unequivocally that one of these options is obviously "good English usage" and therefore fundamental to the nature of human language, when the fact is that people in this discussion seem more-or-less evenly split on this. I disagree with Trovatore's assessment, and I believe that I am not personally a neanderthal mouth-breather who doesn't know what "good English" sounds like. This is clearly a matter of personal opinion and taste; if it was a basic component of human speech, then we wouldn't be having this discussion. I think that what sounds correct depends on the context. For example, if someone who had never heard of I Love Lucy were to ask you, "What is I Love Lucy?" then you would reply, "I Love Lucy is a television show," or "I Love Lucy is a sitcom." In that case, I think that it would sound jarring to say, "I Love Lucy was a television show." It's possible that some of the disagreement here is based on a different framing of the question that readers are asking when they come to a page. — Toughpigs (talk) 00:08, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        I agree that there are different contexts where a different tense is appropriate. If I ask you what your favorite sitcom is, and it happens to be I Love Lucy, then sure, it makes perfect sense to say I Love Lucy is my favorite sitcom. But in a definition, no no no, this strikes me as completely unacceptable.
        As for it being a personal opinion, yes, there is obviously a subjective component to what is jarring and what is not, but that doesn't mean it's OK to be jarring. I think the editors who don't find it jarring have likely internalized the WP usage.
        In any case, there are somewhat-less-subjective approaches available for settling the question. We can look at the stylistic choices made by other high-register sources. I'm reasonably confident how this will come out. WP is going to be an outlier. --Trovatore (talk) 01:17, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        That argument pathologizes people who disagree with you. The people that feel the same way that you do understand what "jarring" sounds like; the people who disagree have some kind of psychological block. I do not think that is a productive or persuasive argument, and the more that you repeat it, it gets progressively weaker. Toughpigs (talk) 01:51, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        It is not a "pathology", per se. I hypothesize that they have internalized a usage created here; that's all. But yes, it does make their intuitions at variance with ordinary good English usage, and this will be possible to show by examining the corpus, as Mike Christie has made a good start at doing below. --Trovatore (talk) 02:01, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • We use present tense for extinct species and languages, two things that are much closer to "dead for good" than a magazine, and we use present tense for non-magazine works, because that's the correct way to write about them. I'm against changing the Wikipedia Manual of Style to conflict with the basic rules of composition taught in writing courses—that is, I'm against the adoption of a new mandate for "was". The comments from advocates for "was" are in general contradictory and hinge on either fundamental biases or a misunderstanding of the actual article subjects; the subject of an article for any given magazine is the creative work—not the business entity that led to the work's creation, nor is that entity's lifetime the deciding factor in considering the appropriateness of using present tense when referring to the the works themselves. Support for magazines as a special case among the commenters here is also superficial at best and in general non-substantial; the overwhelming consensus is that magazines are not different from TV series. (This is true even among many campaigning for "was"—they just wrongly advocate for using past tense for TV series, too.) Indeed, even among those asserting that magazines are a special case, there is no coherent argument put forth for why that is—for all the words written here, there's a dearth of any real justification for magazines differing in this regard from other creative works, such as films, film series, documentary series, TV series (whether fictional or non-), books, book series, audio records, etc. Furthermore, the primary proponent of the change starts by reasoning that use of "was" here should be dictated by the patterns purported to be observed in some sources, but the actual belief in that line of reasoning was revealed to be hollow—upon explaining that even if attempts to substantiate those claims showed that the claims were untrue, then it wouldn't affect the belief and that we should be using "was" anyway. The policy at WP:CONSENSUS establishes that it is the "quality of an argument" that that is to be taken into consideration, not superficial agreement or disagreement. In fact, this was repudiated prior to raising the RFC, so it's not clear why it's back in focus now. In summary: we must use present tense to describe magazines, and going out of publication doesn't change that. -- C. A. Russell (talk) 21:17, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I assume I'm the "primary proponent" referred to here, and C. A. Russell says my belief in my own argument was revealed to be hollow, so here's the line of argument so that others can judge. We can argue from either existing usage or reasoning about the language or both. I have been unable to find any usage of "is" in edited prose for magazines (or TV shows, come to that, and will post some examples in the discussion section at some point). If all examples of usage I'd found were "is" I'd find it hard to argue that "was" is correct. As it stands the most that can happen is that some examples of "is" will be found in edited prose, which would imply at least it's acceptable to some editors out there. If that happens (and I'd like to see more than one or two examples) then the argument from usage is weakened and we'd all (not just me) have to fall back on reasoning. My reasoning would parallel some of the arguments made by others. Finally, since you're asking for coherent argument, I think it's not coherent to appeal to reason against established English usage, which has no obligation to stick to logic. If you're going to argue for a usage demonstrably different from every edited source consulted, the onus should be on you to show that English usage is to be ignored. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:30, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    What was the point of creating a separate "Discussion" section if everyone is going to dump their free-form discussions here instead of there? -- C. A. Russell (talk) 21:52, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Was for newspapers, magazines, journals, and comic books per above. Is for televisions shows per MOS:TVNOW. Neutral on podcasts, and web series radio programs. Regards  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 09:58, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support was for defunct periodicals (including newspapers) and televisions shows that are no longer on air. I fail to see why we should treat them differently from one another. There is also no reason to split hairs and use "is" if a magazine is defunct but still available somewhere as has been suggested above and quite frankly doing so would be unworkable. "Is" can continue to be used for works for art (provided they haven't been destroyed), movies and novels, among others. Calidum 17:56, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Was. The point is to aid the reader in quickly understanding the entity. A very important of an entity is whether it's current or not. "The Greens are a faction in Constantinople..." doesn't answer well the question "What are the Greens?". One has to read deeper into the sentence to find out the important fact that they're defunct (they have been for 1500 years, and that matters when trying to suss the entity). That's mental work. Not a huge amount, but it adds up in terms of reader-hours.
So then its matter of opinion, here, whether (let's say) I Love Lucy is current or not. I'd say it better serves the reader to use "was" for entities that have ceased to publish, or be manufactured, or be alive. It's true that Modern Racoon (ceased publication in 1987) exists in sense that physical copies may be held and even brandished. But I think that's pedantic. It's more important to the majority of readers (I would think) to immediately know if the entity has died, or has ceased publication or production or manufacturing. I think that Margaret Wise Brown would say "The important thing about Modern Racoon is that it is defunct. It was written for raccoons, and it had ads for trash can openers, and it cost four acorns, and the pages crinkled when your crumpled them, and it was sold by chipmunks. But the important thing about Modern Racoon is that it is defunct." We can't know for sure, but that's my best guess. Herostratus (talk) 00:14, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Use is, for consistency with books, films, and everything else. People here seem to be confusing the publication (the work – that is, the magazines or newspapers you can hold in your hand or read in more mediated fashion via Archive.org or whatever) with the [usually defunct] legal entity that was the publisher. Those are separate topics, even if we cover them in the same article, and the central topic of the article is almost always the work (which remains extant, unless someone has tracked down every copy of every issue and destroyed it), not the entity. Where the entity is actually more notable, the article should be re-scoped and moved to be titled for the entity (or when both are independently notable, split into two articles). So: "The Promise' Land Times is a zine that was published by Kerry Wendell Thornley from [date1–date2]." I know it's an "is" because I still own several issue of that; they have not ceased to exist, even though he quit producing new ones and eventually died.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  13:01, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Stanton, any evidence that anyone is confusing the publication with the legal entity? That certainly is not the basis of my argument. I would argue instead that you are conflating the publication with issues of the publication. You can hold the physical issues in your hand, but not the abstract object that is the publication, which was an ongoing repetitive event when it was in print, and now is not. That abstract object is the subject of the article, and it is only weakly related to the legal entity. --Trovatore (talk) 17:22, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      An example would be Stirring Science Stories, which published three issues under one publisher; the publisher went out of business but the magazine's run did not end. It was continued by another publisher for one issue, after which the magazine ceased to be published but that second publisher continued to be in business. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:48, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • But I mean...I can hold Richard Nixon in my arms, dress him up and take him to to parties (provided I can dig him up and get away with it). He has a physical body that exists in the world (albeit somewhat thinner than in former days). Should we thus write "Richard Nixon is an American politician..."? Isn't, I don't know, the absence of life from his body kind of an important point that the reader should not have drill down into the third paragraph to find out? Or even down to the end of the first sentence or so?
Similarly, I can hold copies of the Saturday Evening Post and take them to parties, but so? What does that have to do with quickly and efficiently describing the entity Saturday Evening Post to the reader?
(Also, if you want to go down the pedantic path, individual copies of The Promise' Land Times are not, in and of themselves, The Promise' Land Times. Even if you collected all of them together, that still would not be The Promise' Land Times. Similarly, individual episodes of I Love Lucy that might appear on your television screen (or even all of them collected on videotape) are not I love Lucy, which was (that's right, was) a production effort consisting of various writers, directors, and actors, physical sets, financial arrangements, a history involving broadcast times and nielsen ratings and public commentary, and much else (in addition to also being a set of finished performances preserved on videotape). We do not write "The Saturday Evening Post is a collection of 12,243 magazines, with a total weight of 947 kilos and a total count of 403,976, 241 characters." There are more important things than physical existence of a finished product that the reader wants to know.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Herostratus (talk • contribs) 16:30, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that physically existing copies of media do not hold much relevance to whether the media exists. But I think that the degree to which an article about a TV show is about the preserved performances available on videotape is much greater than the degree to which an article about a scholarly periodical is about its publications (versus the surrounding process that is / was responsible for publishing them). { } 04:33, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fine, then there are three levels of abstraction to keep track of, not just two. I still don't see a solid rationale for switching verb tenses for a select handful of particular media. It's just inconsistent for the sake of being inconsistent, in effect if not in intent. Every argument presented here for was can also be made to apply that tense to almost every other kind of work we are using is for, when the work is question is no longer in production.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:38, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As I say, I don't see Lucy as a "work". Individual episodes are works; Lucy as a whole was more like a recurring event, and events in the past take the past tense.
That would be the "rationale", but the rationale is really kind of beside the point. As Mike Christie has shown, essentially no one else does what Wikipedia does in using present tense for series of which new episodes are no longer being shown. That's because it's just not good English usage to do so. It doesn't have to be logical; it's just English. --Trovatore (talk) 21:51, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Was. Because they aren’t, but they were. MapReader (talk) 13:14, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Was for periodicals. Make it clear it was discontinued. If I see "is", I automatically assume its still being published. No opinion on TV. Renata (talk) 15:31, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neither, work to avoid "to be" verbs in favor of more dynamic writing style - Use of the various forms of "to be" often leads to a dry writing style because "is" and "was" offer little informative value and may result in improper level of precision, indicated by this debate. Fundamentally, this RfC presents the false choice between considering works of art either "dead" or "living", when other options exist (see E-Prime). Taking the two examples given in the proposal, one might reword them as: Gourmet, the first U.S. magazine devoted to food and wine, operated from 1941 to 2009 and The television show I Love Lucy, starring Lucille Ball as the title character "Lucy", ran from 1951 to 1957 - or any number of similar ways. I believe this writing style strikes the balance far better than the limited two options presented. -- Netoholic @ 17:11, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Your "more dynamic writing style" is someone else's "non-encyclopedic language". --Khajidha (talk) 18:06, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure about that. I think the examples that have been posted from specialized encyclopedias have shown that a flat declarative "X is/was a television show" is not the common opening for entries in those encyclopedias. — Toughpigs (talk) 19:15, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Many business and formal writing guides teach avoidance of to be as a way to make communication more direct. Deciding between operated/published or aired/ran or a universe of other verb options, and variety of sentence word orders, feels to me much more interesting than debating between only past/preset of the single verb to be and limiting ourselves to a strict "X is/was Y" style. I confidently believe that, given this style as an option, individual topic areas will develop standard openings that convey even more "encyclopedic" style than we use today, so don't judge based only on my crude examples. -- Netoholic @ 20:51, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    While I'm less than convinced by the E-Primers in general, I could possibly be persuaded that it's a way out of this impasse. This has actually been used as a solution to a very similar problem at Wikipedia in the past.
    Look up the history of the Whitechapel murders article. There was an editor who was insisting on beginning the article with The Whitechapel murders are.... I hope everyone agrees that at least that was bizarre. This editor would use edit summaries like If they were, then what are they?, which raises interesting metaphysical questions about the continued existence of past events but is not particularly relevant to English usage.
    Anyway, I think we eventually settled on The Whitechapel murders occurred..., which poses no such conundra. Apparently now it reads The Whitechapel murders were committed..., which is no longer E-Prime (because it's passive voice) but still gets us out of this jam.
    So instead of I Love Lucy is an American multinational television sitcom that originally ran on CBS from October 15, 1951 to..., how about I Love Lucy, an American multinational television sitcom, originally ran on CBS from October 15, 1951 to...? Seems to express the same information, and I think all sides here would agree that its verbs are in the appropriate tense. --Trovatore (talk) 17:38, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I am (←see) definitely not an E-Prime purist and I don't think that standard would be reasonable to expect across the project. I raised it as an extreme example of a solution to that philosophical problem being raised here about identity. I like your Whitechapel murders example very much - great solution. -- Netoholic @ 19:41, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I think this would be a good solution if there were any certainty that it could be universally applied, but it seems like it would very quickly become awkward (or impossible) when trying to construct a sentence with any complexity. It's a cute way to resolve an editing dispute, but making it a part of MoS would result in contorted language across the whole encyclopedia. { } 08:38, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure it matters how other specialized encyclopedias format their opening lines, because "Cheese is a dairy product" is the standard Wikipedia style. A policy change of that is a much bigger discussion than this one about defunct magazines. You're reaching.— TAnthonyTalk 19:14, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I definitely don't think we should try to impose such a solution on cheese. But it could be a way out for these sorts of articles, where we disagree on the ontological status (some see them about being about an artwork that persists, others as something more like a recurring event that has ceased to recur, even as the individual works (episodes) remain available). --Trovatore (talk) 20:51, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, I could go along with that. I like I Love Lucy, an American multinational television sitcom, originally ran on CBS from October 15, 1951 to... a lot more than the originally proposed I Love Lucy, an American multinational television sitcom, originally ran on CBS from October 15, 1951 to... Gourmet, the first U.S. magazine devoted to food and wine, operated from 1941 to 2009., which sounds more like magazine style. But I am having a difficult time formulating exactly why one reads more encyclopedic than the other, which points to this being difficult to address in a style guide.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:38, 9 June 2020 (UTC); revised: 22:57, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @SMcCandlish: my eyes can't pick out the difference between your two versions above; can you help me out? --Trovatore (talk) 21:53, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Derp. Copy-paste error; I meant to quote this one: Gourmet, the first U.S. magazine devoted to food and wine, operated from 1941 to 2009. I think for one thing it's the dwelling on "a first"; it sounds like gee-whiz marketing language. Yet it's a salient fact that should probably be in the lead. It's just the exact phrasing style that seems off to me.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:57, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support was for newspapers, journals, and other articles where the subject of the article pertains to an organization or institution surrounding the publication. If a newspaper or an academic journal currently exists, it's possible for old articles to be edited, updated, or retracted, as they have an ongoing responsibility for their content. The tense, in this case, conveys a substantial difference in how the reader ought to understand, and interact with, the publication. An article about a newspaper or an academic journal is as much about the publication itself as it is about the institution which *is* (or *was*) responsible for its content — e.g. while the New York Times article is about a physical publication, it also covers the editorial stances of the organization, its corporate history, staff, et cetera. A defunct newspaper *was* attached to an organization whose offices no longer exist, which is relevant to understanding it (i.e. you cannot call them to report a story or confirm figures that were published in an article). Meanwhile, a TV broadcast does not possess an ongoing relationship with the organization that created it. An anime that aired in 1986 *is* a piece of media that, when you watch it, you interact with in basically the same way as someone watching its original broadcast in 1986. I think that there is often a blurry boundary between a "magazine" and a "journal", so I don't really have a strong opinion on that, and could go either way. { } 09:01, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just a note here: As far as I know, no one has proposed using "was" for individual TV episodes. The proposal is to use was for series; the episodes of the series would retain is. Your "anime that aired in 1986" sounds more like an individual work or episode than a series; please let me know if I've misunderstood. --Trovatore (talk) 18:46, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Magazine names tend to be more bound up with those of their "production companies" than are those of television series, and that makes it confusing. Dhtwiki (talk) 23:10, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      I think the "company" angle is a red herring. Periodicals and TV series are both experienced as ongoing, recurring events, and when they cease to recur, the past tense is appropriate. --Trovatore (talk) 23:27, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Magazines are frequently published by multiple different companies over the course of their existence. It's less common with TV series, but it does happen; The Expanse is an example, though the production company did not change -- I would imagine that's much rarer. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:40, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Sure. I just don't think that really has much to do with the verb tense. No one is really thinking about the company. --Trovatore (talk) 23:52, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      I think some are -- SMcCandlish's response, for example, talks about the legal entity behind the periodicals. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:04, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Yes, but he did so in the context of supposing that other people were thinking about the legal entity. He wasn't proposing it as a distinguishing criterion himself. (To be fair, it's a possible reading of Herostratus's !vote immediately preceding. I'm not sure it's the intended reading, but it's a possible one.) --Trovatore (talk) 00:11, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      See also the "I think it might clarify my point ..." post by JPG immediately below, as well, making an argument that specifically commingles the publication and the publishing entity.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:14, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      I think it might clarify my point to imagine scenarios in which a defunct thing were to become "refunct". If a TV show receives a sequel or a reboot many years later, the new episodes are part of the same show — the original Space Battleship Yamato aired in 1975, and Yamato 2199 aired in 2012, which is still meaningfully Space Battleship Yamato (i.e. it is still a show featuring the spaceship Yamato, whose captain is Okita Juzo, et cetera). Contrariwise, if the New York Times became defunct (shut down its offices, liquidated its assets, fired its employees, dissolved the corporate entity, et cetera) and a new company started publishing a newspaper called "the New York Times", I claim it would not meaningfully be the same thing (i.e. a publication possessing ownership of, and editorial responsibility for, New York Times articles 1851—2020). A news publication or an academic journal isn't just a collection of articles — it's an institution that can exist without having any publications (whereas a TV show does not have any existence outside of its episodes). So it matters a lot whether that institution still exists. Whereas, is there any relevant fact to a TV show (beyond "is there an episode next week") that changes based on whether the production company is still around? { } 04:23, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      No, reboots are a different show. Battlestar Galactica (1978 TV series) and Battlestar Galactica (2004 TV series) were different shows, and they quite properly have different articles. There can be an overarching article on the franchise, certainly, but that's a different subject from the shows. As to whether the production company is still around, no, as you say, that's unimportant, but the argument in favor of was has nothing to do with the production company. --Trovatore (talk) 05:32, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      They're still Battlestar Galactica, though. And enough articles about media franchises have separate media rolled into them that this is a significant issue. { } 06:00, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      If the article is about the franchise, I have no objection to is. That's a separate question from articles on series. It's really not generally hard to tell which one a given article is about. --Trovatore (talk) 06:03, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Point of order: I just counted how many times people have posted in these discussions since June 1st. Here's the tally:

  • Trovatore: 21
  • Jacob Gotts (JPG): 9
  • Mike Christie: 9
  • SMCandlish: 6
  • Toughpigs: 5
  • C.A. Russell, Netoholic: 3
  • Dhtwiki, Herostratus, Masem, TAnthony: 2
  • Calidum, EEng, Khajidha, King of Hearts, MapReader, Primegrey, Renata, Spy-cicle: 1

I counted these up, because I've been feeling like Trovatore has (intentionally or not) been wearing everyone else down in order to "win" this discussion. They respond to basically everything that anyone says, with flat assertions like "it's just not good English usage to do so," which seem to be subjective arguments masquerading as eternal truths. I'm pointing this out because I think that if this continues, Trovatore will make it seem like there's consensus for their point of view, when actually they've just repeated themselves so many times that other people give up and go away. I think that any consensus coming out of this conversation would need a brand new start, in order to have real legitimacy. — Toughpigs (talk) 03:44, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Posting a note here to point to the usage comments in the earlier discussion, here. I found multiple examples in reliable sources of "was" and no examples of "is" to describe defunct magazines. Frank Luther Mott is the author of the five-volume History of American Magazines (1930), probably the most authoritative survey of US magazines and surely someone whose text is likely to follow standard usage. If you want something more recent, in British English, there's Mike Ashley's The Time Machines (2000). I also cited Malcolm Edwards, a British editor and critic, and Eric Leif Davin, an American academic. I was unable to find a single case in which a defunct magazine was referred to using "is" (and these are not the only sources I looked at). Note in all cases these were magazines, not newspapers or comics, so I suppose it's possible that there is different standard usage there. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:44, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think we are dealing with a spectrum of things. I would find it confusing to refer to a defunct newspaper with "is", and don't want to end up referring to novels with "was". But in between, you have magazines, anthology magazines, comic books, anthology series, and serialized novels. Similarly, in visual media, you have a "was-to-is" spectrum from news broadcasts, talk shows, TV comedies and dramas, TV miniseries, TV movies, and film movies. Any hard line is going to be somewhat arbitrary.--Trystan (talk) 14:43, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Toughpigs: you ask for a justification for saying that the medium a work is published in makes a difference to whether it should use "was" or "is". I (and several others commenting) aren't making that case; I'm arguing that the existing usage in reliable sources is justification for "was" for magazines, with no reference to other media. I would be interested in seeing RS usage for TV shows, in fact; if it shows "is" regularly then it would imply English usage really is divided by medium. But even in that case we don't need a justification by medium; the usage would be our guide, though we could speculate as to the reasons for the apparently inconsistent usage. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:30, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A very quick look in Google Books landed me just one example usage so far: Talking Heads was a series of six critically acclaimed dramatic monologues penned for television by.... That's from Horace Newcomb's Encyclopedia of Television, 2014 edition. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:35, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some exceptions and some supporting examples of my statement above (sorry I don't have time to examine the previous discussion, nor to give the URLs, etc.:
    • Exception for was (in Encyclopedia or other timelines:
      • The Cornhill Magazine is founded in London, with William Makepeace Thackeray as its first editor. The first British Open golf championship (in an encyclopedia timeline, recent one)
    • Support for is after contextualizing, or in talking about the particulars.
      • Dickens's magazine is effectively a mouthpiece for the Owenite line on questions of the production of species. (about Household Words, long defunct, in a journal 2001)
      • The Cornhill Magazine is also notable for the five-year period from 1903 to 1908 during which time the schoolteacher W. A. Shenstone was responsible for the ... (2010)
      • When the Cornhill Magazine is founded a year later, Thackeray gives new life to the bowdlerisation in the name of women which took root in the (2000 journal article, jstor) in a narrative
      • An 1888 ad in Scribner's magazine is for exercise equipment. An 1894 article in New England magazine mentions that this company had a complete display of (recent)
      • This illustration for a 1907 Henry van Dyke story in Scribner's Magazine is called “She Took the Oars and Rowed Me Slowly Around the Shore.” Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:44, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that there may be a way to split the difference. Look at the opening of Scandal (TV series): "Scandal is an American political thriller television series starring Kerry Washington. Created by Shonda Rhimes, it aired on ABC from April 5, 2012, until April 19, 2018, for 124 episodes over seven seasons." The show is a television series, it was created by Shonda Rhimes, and it aired (past tense) from 2012 to 2018. The work itself exists, in the present tense. But the painting was created, the book was published, and the series was cancelled. — Toughpigs (talk) 16:57, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    My !vote above only addresses magazines; for TV shows I think this usage is probably right, though I'd like to see more usage examples. But for magazines it's definitely not the case that "is" is used. Fowler&fowler's list of quotes above gives some possible uses of "is", but you can make the case that these are exceptions -- none of them are simple declarative sentences: "Scribner's is a magazine". I have not seen a single RS usage of the straightforward declarative that uses "is", and I've found multiple examples that use "was". Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:06, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I wasn't aware we based our MOS on reliable sources. Argento Surfer (talk) 17:14, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not trying to lay down a general principle, but wouldn't it be strange if we established a usage that no reliable source follows? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:34, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I suppose, but I rarely come across a source that says something as dry as "Foo is/was a [periodical form]". They usually go for something more flowery, like "When the magazine Foo was being published...". That avoids the question we're addressing entirely by appropriately using a different past tense verb. The way I see it, the magazine doesn't stop being a magazine just because there hasn't been a new issue in a while. It still exists, and I can hold it. I appreciate User:YoungForever's clarification above, but what's the difference between a TV show on DVD and a newspaper on microfiche? Argento Surfer (talk) 17:44, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    As Argento Surfer says, I think it depends on whether the reliable sources are encyclopedias that have an opening sentence with the same construction. A newspaper article doesn't start with the sentence "Superman is a fictional superhero created in 1938"; that would sound utterly wrong. But that is the style of encyclopedias. — Toughpigs (talk) 17:47, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I also did not address TV shows in my comment before. I look at it as the show was, but the individual episodes are. "I Love Lucy" was not a work. It was a collection of works. --Khajidha (talk) 19:45, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    And it isn't anymore? I think it still is. What about The Beatles Box Set or The Chronicles of Narnia? --IamNotU (talk) 20:34, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    As the Beatles Box Set is a physical product (not a creative work on its own), and did make it to sale, it retains is, not subject to what's being discussed here. The Chronicles of Narnia as a whole is a series of books and thus as a whole is content that retains is. --Masem (t) 02:12, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    This definition seems pretty arbitrary to me. You're subjectively choosing what's a "series" (Narnia was a single novel with sequels, not a seven book cycle like The Dark Tower) and what's just "a container". Argento Surfer (talk) 12:43, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The usage quotes I mentioned are worth listing here, since they're examples of the same usage that we want as the first sentence of magazine articles: simple declaratives. Citation info is in the earlier discussion, above.

  • "Several magazines were published for traveling salesmen, most important of which was the Commercial Travelers' Home Magazine (1893–1902)..."
  • "The Universalist Magazine of 1819 was a four-page paper."
  • "The Royal American Magazine, or Universal Repository of Instruction and Amusement was an illustrated miscellany of forty octavo pages..."
  • "Stirring was in fact two magazines in one."
  • "Avon Science Fiction and Fantasy Reader was a good magazine with some sharp stories..."
  • "Mexico's leading pulp magazine of the period was Los Cuentos Fantasticos."
  • "In March, 1937, the Gaines and Mayer team began publishing yet a third comic book for Dell, also with a simple title: The Comics. It was a mixed bag of newspaper reprints and original comics..."
  • "The new magazine was more garish and more juvenile than its predecessor."

Yes, this simple declarative usage is rare, but it does get used, and it's exactly what we do as the first sentence of our magazine articles, so I feel it counts as examples of ordinary English usage. Do you think this usage doesn't bind us, or that there are sources out there that I haven't yet found that use "is"? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:56, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think these examples should bind us, but I've never been of the opinion that our MOS should be influenced by how other organizations style things. Argento Surfer (talk) 20:20, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And MOS:CONFORM states explicitly that material here should conform to our MOS, regardless how it may be presented in a source. The whole point of the MOS is to standardize our style, since as you know even respected style guides can conflict with each other. For example, we italicize the titles of creative works; some external sources do, some don't, some capitalize the titles, but we stick to italics. And I'm sorry, the days of attention being paid to spelling, grammar and style in articles are over when it comes to online sources. We regularly see typos, inconsistencies, etc. there, so these days I wouldn't take anything I read as a style example we should be necessarily following.— TAnthonyTalk 22:32, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The sources are all published books, and my point is partly that there is no inconsistency. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:40, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Lost is a fast-paced, suspenseful, and surreal series about a group of people who survive when their commercial passenger jet, Oceanic Airlines Flight 815, crashes on a remote island in the tropical Pacific." Encyclopedia Britannica, though their actual first sentences use neither "is" nor "was". --IamNotU (talk) 20:41, 28 May 2020 (UTC) [Withdrawn, per Masem's comment below.] --IamNotU (talk) 17:38, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you look at the Info for that page, the "is" langauge was from the original authoring of the Lost article (while the show was on) and the changes made in the intro after the show was completed, but not to the body. So it's sorta a bad example. --Masem (t) 01:52, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The logic I presented in discussions prior to this is to distinguish the "content" from the "container". Physical works are easy to see this with, the printed magazine the container for articles that are the content. The content is persistent and always is presumed to exist so is discussed in the present tense, while the physical magazine, the container, only exists as long as the work continues publication. When we move to broadcast and digital content the same analogy applies and can be seen consistent with how works are discussed in the media. With television series, the series is a container, while the episodes are the content in the same scheme. There's afew gotches where I've thought that this analogy may require a few extra bit of advice but every case I can think of I can logically sounding answers of application of tenses. --Masem (t) 02:04, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with Mike Christie. For simple declarative forms found in the first sentence of Wikipedia articles, involving tensed verb phrases of the form i.e. Foo (subject) + be (verb) + noun phrase, only the past simple, i.e. "was," is correct. All others, such as for example, involving the syntactic expletive and the verb "found," "It is the Strand Magazine that is founded in Arthur Conan Doyle's lifetime ..." and any I have listed above, are not in this form. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 10:30, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with IamNotU's example from Britannica. The first sentence there: ""Lost, American television drama that aired on the American Broadcasting Company (ABC) network." is written in typical Britannica fashion in a bulleted, verbless, form. The second sentence is: "The show, which ran from 2004 to 2010, was one of ABC’s most successful series, ..." Only after the subject is contextualized, does Britannica employ the present tense: "Lost is a fast-paced, suspenseful, and surreal series ..." in talking about the contents. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 10:51, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Something else participants in this discussion may want to consider is the rule of thumb that was in WP:WAS for a few months. It was added here, by Thumperward, in January. C. A. Russell removed it on 24 May, here, with an edit summary of "Undid revision 936057856 by Thumperward (talk) originally inserted against opposition from others, is now being used to undermine original stated intent". My interest in WP:WAS mostly relates to magazines, so the results of this RfC are all I'll need for guidance, but others may think it's worth re-adding as a useful statement of the principle behind WAS. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:21, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Given that the Thumperward (unilaterally) inserted it, in his words, as a simple way to stop people using "was" (having been inspired by a truly idiotic edit war), we should consider:

  • it's not only not accomplishing that, but
  • is being used as evidence from folks eager to argue that it means we're supposed to favor of using "was"

... and how "useful" of a statement is it? About as useful as a security system that only allows burglars to enter the building. -- C. A. Russell (talk) 21:40, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Out of curiosity I looked through some encyclopedias of TV to see if there was consistent usage there. As with magazines, it's not that easy to find simple declarative statements, but I found some. Note that the examples cited from Newcomb are all by different authors, so these either represent multiple authors' usage or a single house style edited for consistency.

  • "Primary (1960) was a breakthrough documentary." Tom Mascaro in Horace Newcomb (2014) Encyclopedia of TV p. 742.
  • "Dr. Kildare, the award-winning series that aired on the National Broadcasting Company (NBC) from September 28, 1961, through August 30, 1966, was one of television's most popular and influential medical dramas." Joseph Turow and Rachel Gans, p.757 of Newcomb.
  • "An Early Frost, broadcast on November 11, 1985, on the National Broadcasting Company (NBC), was the first American made-for-television movie and the second prime-time dramatic program to acknowledge the presence and spread of AIDS in the 1980s." Rodney Buxton, p. 777 of Newcomb.
  • "The Ed Sullivan Show was the definitive and longest-running variety series in television history (1948-1971)". Ron Simon, p. 785 of Newcomb.
  • The Encyclopedia of TV Pets by Ken Beck & Jim Clark (2002) generally uses "is set in" or "is about"; I could not find direct declarative sentences.
  • "Described by its parent network A&E as 'the gold standard of criminal justice programming,' American Justice was a weekly, 60-minute documentary series, tackling important issues from the perspective of the legal system". Hal Erickson (2009) Encyclopedia of Television Law Shows p.36
  • "Confession was one of the many locally produced half-hour "fillers" used by ABC to plug the gaps in its sparsely populated Prime Time schedule of the late 1950s" ibid., p. 61.
  • R.M. and M. K. Reed (2012) The Encyclopedia of Television, Cable, and Video. Couldn't find any direct declaratives; the closest was "This 64-episode, black-and-white series was one of two supernatural sitcoms to appear on the networks in 1964, joining "The Munsters" in treating horror comedically."
  • "This was an anthology series of longer-than-average television animation productions, chiefly serving as the airing of "pilots" for potential series, though a number of one-shot films were also produced." David Perlmutter (2018) The Encyclopedia of American Animated Television Shows
  • Vincent Terrace (2014) Encyclopedia of Television Shows. Can't find any direct declaratives; the closest was "New Prospect, Oklahoma, in 1901 is the setting". p.448.

Based on these I'm changing my !vote above to weakly support "was" for TV shows as well as magazines; weak, because I'm not as familiar with historical writing about TV as I am with magazine histories, so I'm willing to believe there are uses of "is" out there. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:45, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Although the point being made by the was supporters is clear to me, I just can't imagine being convinced by it while, say, watching an episode of I Love Lucy or reading an issue of Solarman. Primergrey (talk) 01:59, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    If I were watching The Girls Want to Go to a Nightclub, and someone walked in and said "What's this you're watching?", I'd say "It's an episode of I Love Lucy". If they then said "What's that?" I'd say "It was a comedy show made in the 1950s". I agree that in the context of an individual episode we'd use "is". Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:23, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In the above examples, the tenses are relatively context-dependent and different tenses make sense depending on the meaning of the sentence. For example, "The Ed Sullivan Show was the definitive and longest-running variety series in television history (1948-1971)" is a statement that would be materially changed by changing the tense — what it actually says is that, at one point, it was the longest-running variety series in television history. To change this to "is" would be making an additional claim that it has, to the present day, remained the longest-running series, which is not supported by the source material and would require verification. In other examples, changing to "is" would make no sense; "This 64-episode, black-and-white series was one of two supernatural sitcoms to appear on the networks in 1964" is a statement concerning an event which happened in 1964 (the series appearing on the networks) and is not ongoing. In general, these statements almost all seem to be clearly referring to events like the broadcast of the show ("was a weekly", "was a breakthrough") or to things that were true at one point and may no longer be true ("was the first", "was one of television's most popular"). Are there any examples of "was" being used to refer to the work itself (as opposed to a broadcast of the work, or its production)? { } 09:18, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I’d have to go back through those books and look for more examples, so let’s say for the sake of argument that I can’t find any examples as simple as “I Love Lucy was a TV show”. What is a plausible first sentence of a Wikipedia article about a TV series that does not contain some of the additional material you mention above that implies “was” should be used? I would prefer to argue from observed usage: if we agree that the usage should be “was” in every case listed because there is material that implies we are talking about the past, it seems counterintuitive to argue that there is a highly restricted form of the sentence that would allow “is”, which we have seen no examples of. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:25, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If there is no other encyclopedia or reference work that uses the structure "X is/was a television show" as the opening sentence for each entry, and Wikipedia is (as far as we can tell) unique in this regard, then there are a couple possible conclusions. We could say that Wikipedia ought to use the opening-sentence structure used in another book or set of books, change the existing style on the 6 million+ existing articles, and retrain all the contributors. That would be interesting but I don't think it's super practical. We could also say, well, for better or worse, Wikipedia's style is unique, and then choose the is/was based on other factors besides what we find "in the corpus", which is generally what's happening in the section above anyway. It's worthwhile to look at these examples, but I don't think that the result gives us a clear direction either way. — Toughpigs (talk) 14:15, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
6 million plus? There are 6 million plus articles on defunct magazines and TV series? I don't think so. The change being proposed is significant, but not that big. Most Wikipedia articles have a perfectly reasonable choice of verb tense. It's only these few classes that are problematic. (Extinct taxa would be the next strange case, but that brings up another pain point because if you say Tyrannosaurus was an extinct genus it sounds like it's no longer extinct, so somehow those would all need to be reworded.) --Trovatore (talk) 19:01, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've tried to avoid talking about mental models in these discussions, but the extinct taxa example is very interesting. To me that has to be "is", and I think it's because I imagine the tree of branching classes/orders/families etc. as a actual object in some sort of platonic taxonomic space. "Extinct" is a valid adjective for some of the subtrees, but the platonic existence of those subtrees isn't affected by that any more than it would be by an adjective such as "interesting" or "important". However, I'd say that a taxon that is no longer considered to be part of that platonic tree "was" a taxon. Something in our brains is deciding what it is that we're seeing as a statement of existence or a statement of an ongoing process, and that's what controls the preference for "was". I don't know that this really helps with the discussion here, but for me it illuminates why people feel compelled to talk about models. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:14, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well, maybe best to defer that to another day. My intuition is "was" for extinct animals but "is" for extinct languages (there's still a right and a wrong way to say something in Etruscan, even if no living human can tell you what it is, but those dinosaurs are gone). But the RFC is about "periodicals" including TV series, not about these other classes of article, and we don't have to worry about them right now. --Trovatore (talk) 19:21, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So you think that Etruscan is "alive" and Downton Abbey is "dead"? That's a very specific, subjective intuition. — Toughpigs (talk) 19:36, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No I don't think Etruscan is alive. But I'm more inclined to treat it as a Platonic entity than I am for Lucy. Anyway the point is not so much my intuitions; it's the fact that we are a radical outlier on these tenses, and in my opinion we're an outlier for good reasons. The other publications are "right" (in terms of what sounds good in English) and we are "wrong". --Trovatore (talk) 20:10, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"It depends upon what the meaning of the word 'is' is."
The more I think about this, the less reasonable it seems to specify a single tense for referring to these works in MoS for anything besides the first sentence. While I still think that "is" makes sense to use for references to a creative work qua creative work, as Mike said above, it's unlikely for an article (or even sections within an article) to refer to a series in ways that consistently evoke the same tense. In fact, I'd say that the question of which tense is correct is only ambiguous in the very first sentence — as an example, here are the sentences from above adapted to be article introductions.
  • "Dr. Kildare is a series that was aired on the National Broadcasting Company (NBC) from September 28, 1961 [...]",
  • "The Ed Sullivan Show is a variety show that was the definitive and longest-running in television history (1948-1971)"
  • "American Justice is a documentary series that was a weekly 60-minute broadcast [...]"
  • "Primary is a documentary that was first broadcast in 1960 and described as a ""breakthrough"."
As you can see, there's not a lot of ambiguity here — things that happened in the past are referred to in the past tense, the existence of the work itself is referred to in the present tense. But, per Toughpigs, I think that a policy change should be evaluated based on how it affects existing articles (and this is why I think that the MoS should only dictate tense for the first mention):
  • I Love Lucy is an American multinational television sitcom that originally ran on CBS from October 15, 1951 to May 6, 1957, with a total of 180 half-hour episodes spanning six seasons (including the 'lost' original pilot and Christmas episode). The show starred Lucille Ball [...].
  • Maria†Holic is a Japanese manga series written and illustrated by Minari Endō, the author of Dazzle. The manga was first serialized in the Japanese seinen manga magazine Monthly Comic Alive on June 27, 2006 [...] The manga was initially licensed by Tokyopop in North America [...] The first anime adaptation animated by Shaft aired in Japan between January and March 2009.
Now, these both seem pretty comprehensible to me. With the second example, specifically, I'd like to point out another issue with "was" here — Maria†Holic is a media property consisting of print media, broadcast media, et cetera. And with something like Haruhi Suzumiya, there is a series of light novels, a manga series, two seasons of broadcast anime, two original net animations, several audio dramas, several video games, et cetera. If you wanted to perform a "wasing", you'd need to arbitrarily determine which of several media the article was "about". For example, was Happy Days a TV show that ended in 1967, or is it a musical that began touring in 2008 (and will it forever be because theatrical productions never get wased)? Is I think that a reasonable policy would only be capable of applying to the tense used in the first sentence — as Trovatore mentions, other publications do not seem to grapple with this issue at all, and I think it's mostly because most publications do not have a policy of always starting their entries on media with "Such-and-such is/was a blah blah blah". Since ours does, we have to figure out a way to make that one first sentence be consistent — but apart from that, I don't think enforcing a tense throughout the lead of an article would be very helpful. { } 01:32, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
We don't have a "policy" of starting articles with an is/was sentence. It's the most common form for the lead sentence, but there are lots of exceptions. I think Netoholic's suggestion to use a more substantive verb in the first sentence might make a lot of sense for this problematic class of article. One nice thing about it is that the first sentence can be transformed with very little thought (that's not to say it's bad to think about it, just that you don't have to, which is nice if we're going to be changing a lot of them). See my example for Lucy in this diff. --Trovatore (talk) 02:23, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(As to the "not a lot of ambiguity" because the "existence of the work itself is referred to in the present" — the problem is that series and periodicals are not "works". Their individual episodes/issues are "works", but not the series/periodicals as a whole.) --Trovatore (talk) 02:27, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You are correct. I'd meant to describe it as a general practice, rather than a concrete item of policy. { } 04:41, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dead fictional characters

Starting a side conversation about a related issue: Should we use "is" or "was" for dead fictional characters in a TV series of indefinite length? I see it both ways:

King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:05, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    • "Is". The content of the events in the work of fiction are considered to be perpetually ongoing at any time, so a character alive at the start of the series "is" a character that may end up dead by the end of it. We have no idea where the reader's context is going to start from so we have to presume they will take the present. Eg: even if in show Chef is dead he is still a character on South Park, who just happened to be no longer a living character at the current point of the show's continuity by the latest episode. The only time a past tense should be applied would be for a character that had been planned out but never actually made it into the published work. I know of no good example of this, but this would be considered consistent with cancelled books and episodes. --Masem (t) 22:15, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also another hypothetical case would be a character that is completely stripped out of a work by some means (censorship or the like) such that all distributed forms of the work have erased existence of that character but we know they they had existed at one point. But again, I know of no example for this case. --Masem (t) 22:16, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No no no. We use present tense for fiction, per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Writing about fiction#Contextual presentation and WP:FICTENSE, which notes Works of fiction are generally considered to "come alive" for their audience. They therefore exist in a kind of perpetual present, regardless of when the fictional action is supposed to take place relative to the reader's "now". Wikipedia:WikiProject Soap Operas#Tense also covers it well. We write all articles from a real world perspective; fictional characters are not real people, so they are not born and they don't die in any kind of real world context. They exist as fictional constructs.— TAnthonyTalk 15:58, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Is". An work of fiction doesn't "occur" in any real-life interval of time, and even if it did, there's no reason why the last page/minute of it should be considered more real than any other arbitrary point. Even if my story is "It was a dark and stormy night. John Smith, who had died 500 years prior, remained dead." it's still the case that John Smith *is* a character in it. { } 04:39, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes. "Mayor Adam West was a character ... on ... Family Guy" doesn't make any sense, unless he was in early drafts only.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:09, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Re-stating the scope

User:Izno reverted this small change. I agree that it should normally be considered an unnecessary bit of redundancy. But outside the theoretical realm, I've seen a couple of demands recently that various pages in the Wikipedia: namespace comply with WP:ANDOR.

Although I don't use this form much myself, I don't necessarily think that it is a bad choice outside the article space. Wikilawyers sometimes claim confusion over whether the word or should be interpreted as exclusive or or inclusive or.

I believe that Wikipedia:Nobody reads the directions, and it is especially true that nobody reads the whole page. Being told that the MoS generally doesn't apply to policies and guidelines doesn't seem to be working. Maybe being told that the specific convention that the user wants to push explicitly says "in articles" would encourage him to give up. To put it another way, adding a redundant two words here might stop pointless edits elsewhere and prevent avoidable disputes. Please add those words. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:53, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support. The slippery slope argument is that it would open the door for "in articles" to be added to every section. I don't think that will happen, because the guidelines in MoS are variously either common sense suggestions that should be followed in Wikipedia space anyways, or so obviously article-specific that no one would think to apply them outside mainspace. This is one where there is genuine confusion for people who don't read the whole page. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:05, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, I'm against this. Why exactly ANDOR is especially troublesome, or especially troublesome recently, I don't know, but I'm going to make a different slippery-slope argument: mentioning, in one particular bullet, that that bullet doesn't apply outside of articles risks implying to some people that the rest of MOS does apply outside of articles. EEng 20:14, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I mean, if I write "don't do A and/or B" on a non-article page, and someone comes along and changes it to "don't do A, or B, or both", I don't much care? I mean in most cases you can just use "or". Anyway I think most people understand "don't to A or B" to intend an exception if you do A and B, unless that's specified... so, the text was fine before, it was fine after, but a change is just roiling the text, so OK to revert. Herostratus (talk) 23:24, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • It usually gets re-written as "Don't A or B", and then someone says "But it said not to do A exclusive-or B, and I did both, so it's not prohibited!" "Don't do A, or B, or both" is a more long-winded way of saying "Don't do A and/or B", with no discernible benefit. (In articles, the benefit is in maintaining a proper encyclopedic tone, which doesn't apply elsewhere.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:03, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't support this proposal. Mentioning it in one place implies there is a specific reason for highlighting this guidance does not apply outside of mainspace. The Wikipedia namespace includes policies and guidelines but also project pages, which have different purposes and thus different guidance would apply to each category, should it ever be codified. And on this specific item, avoiding "and/or" remains pretty good advice for many sentences outside of mainspace. isaacl (talk) 00:53, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for the same reason as EEng above: if we highlight some small piece of the MOS as applying only to articles, people reading it are going to inappropriately assume that it means that everything else does apply to non-article content. We don't want to have to put this qualifier on all bullet points in all pages of the MOS, so better not to put it on any of them. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:10, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. In point of fact, the community generally does apply MoS site-wide to almost everything, outside of userspace and talk pages (sometimes formally – categories, for example, can be speedily moved to fix MoS-defined writing errors, and MoS generally also pertains to all reader-facing content, including in portals and in templates with visible output in mainspace). MoS's broad de facto applicability is not a rule, and we don't need to state that is one, or that it is not one. It's simply what usually happens. And sometimes it doesn't happen, usually for a good reason (and that's sometimes even true in mainspace, per the WP:IAR principle and the "some exceptions may apply" principle in WP:POLICY). It is not MoS's job to declare that its scope explicitly covers policypages. Nor is it's MoS's job, contrariwise, to dictate to the community that the generally good sense in MoS cannot be applied outside of articles. Nor is it MoS's job to try change what the community does (guidelines reflect best practices, they do not try to impose new ones by fiat). None of those things are intrinsically MoS concerns or within MoS's own scope, so MoS has no business adding a codicil to some line-item in it that it doesn't apply to a particular namespace or namespaces, or outside a particular namespace or namespaces. Also, I agree with EEng and David Eppstein and Isaacl, above; I'm just adding my own additional opposition rationale.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  13:11, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:POLICY itself says that all policies and guidelines are exempt from the MoS, and the MoS agrees. Editors who are trying to apply the MoS to policies (actually trying for conformity, not just writing in standard written English and formatting pages correctly) are screwing up. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:08, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Except none of those claims are accurate. 1) WP:POLICY says nothing about MoS other than "For example, proposed style guidelines should be announced at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style, which is the main guideline for style issues." And that's not a qualified statement. Obviously various policies and guidelines cannot logically apply to policies and guidelines (e.g. WP:RS – there is no external reliable source for our own policies, which come from internal consensus). 2) MoS says nothing about its applicability beyond article content; it states its central intent/purpose thus: "The Manual of Style (MoS or MOS) is the style manual for all English Wikipedia articles." This does not, however, preclude the community applying it more broadly, and we know for a fact that this is done (e.g. at WP:CFD for category names, in portal content, in templates that are reader-facing, at WP:RM for article titles, etc.). 3) The community is not "screwing up" in making a collective decision to generally write consistently; it's simply doing what it does, and an individual isn't in a position to tell consensus that it is in error on a subjective matter like which parts of MoS to follow in writing WP:POLICY materials (which isn't everything; e.g., MOS:CONTRACTION is generally not applied very strongly to policy and guideline materials, because instructions to editors sometimes actually read better with a contraction). It comes down to a WP:NOT#BUREAUCRACY / WP:IAR matter, really: WP is not so regimented and hidebound that writing practices laid out in MoS cannot be applied to a policypage simply because MoS was mainly intended for articles.

        To also address Jacob Gotts's comment below at the same time: Clearly, there should not be a rule that MoS has to be followed for talk, project, and other non-reader-facing namespaces. We just tend to do it to a varied extent anyway, and that's not "wrong", it's just what we do. Honestly, its too much work to write in one style (e.g. "3 cm") and then intentionally switch to another (e.g. "3cm") in talk comments just for the hell of it. Most of us have better things to do that carefully craft sotto voce objections to MoS line-items we wish were different by writing contrary to them at every opportunity. That's certainly not why I'm here, anyway.
         — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:27, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose. I think that reading MoS and thinking it applies to talk pages is kind of an outrageous conclusion to reach, and if someone is jumping to it for this section, they are probably going to jump to it for every section. I actually can't find any policy documents that concern applicability of MoS to project pages (not that I looked very hard); I'm sure that consensus has been reached on this, so would it not be better to have that consensus noted somewhere in MoS rather than piecemeal in individual sections? { } 04:53, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nobility

There's a tendency on articles about noble families to describe children as "issue" and to say that the father has children by [name of wife]. I know the aristocracy does view heritage like breeding horses, but is this appropriate for Wikipedia? Guy (help!) 15:34, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Those seem perfectly normal usages to me, for anyone. And I am far from "nobility" and disagree with the very concept of "nobility" (as a class). --Khajidha (talk) 15:43, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Peon. EEng 15:45, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • In my view, "issue" for children is legalese (as well as antiquated and pretentious). I don't have a policy objection to "by", I just find it personally repugnant. Schazjmd (talk) 15:53, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I was going to say exactly that but was struck by a sudden attack of lazy. EEng 15:55, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Might actually be a congenital condition from all your noble inbreeding.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:21, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • What a weird question and set of responses (excpet for Khajidha)! "Issue" is common, standard English (American usage may differ) whether for nobility or commoners. Likewise, if a man has had more than one wife you might talk about his son by his first marriage, daughter by Caroline his second wife and no issue from Anne whom he married late in life. It is neither legalese, antiquated or pretentious, just normal educated English. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 16:25, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Whenever I see an old friend after some period of absence I inquire about the well-being of their issue, as one does. pburka (talk) 16:41, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    And my mom keeps bugging me about when I'm going to give her grandissue. EEng 16:44, 4 June 2020 (UTC) I used to give her the gay excuse, but recently she's smartened up and says I can't hide behind that anymore.[reply]
    That would be colloquial usage, "issue" is formal. Oh, and Martin, I am VERY American. North Carolinian, to be exact. --Khajidha (talk) 16:45, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Well certainly "issue" and "by" are common in conversation when researching family history, but in general I agree with Khajidha about formality (nice part of the world BTW, I was there in back '74 for a visit). Martin of Sheffield (talk) 17:06, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I was born in '74. --Khajidha (talk) 17:15, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it's common in genealogy and certain kinds of legal writing. Outside of those fields I feel like it's very uncommon, even in formal writing. pburka (talk) 17:20, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Issue, maybe. But I hear things like "he has three kids by his first wife" all the time. Also "from". See the song "Merry Christmas from the Family" ("Brother Ken brought his kids with him/The three from his first wife Lynn/And the two identical twins/From his second wife, Mary Nell"). --Khajidha (talk) 17:26, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with Schazjmd that 'by' is still commonly used in formal and informal English, although I personally dislike it. pburka (talk) 18:51, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm struggling to see what seems to be upsetting y'all so much. --Khajidha (talk) 19:16, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    You mean you don't see the issue? EEng 22:26, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Or "By which, you mean you don't see the issue?" Heh.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:21, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Martin of Sheffield, mate, I went to a thousand-year-old school and have numbered peers of the realm among my friends. This is how Brian Sewell used to speak, not real people. Guy (help!) 11:27, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Why are these peers of the realm numbered? Is it for inventory purposes? Are they difficult to distinguish because of the inbreeding? And where do they put the numbers? Have you considered adding barcodes to speed up processing and reduce errors? EEng 21:20, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    As far as I know I've never met you, so "mate" is inappropriate. Your schooling has no bearing on the case. I'm curious to know why you consider that Brian Sewell is not a "real person"? Indeed, if you are criticising me as not a real person you are bordering on an ad hominum attack. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 12:40, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't see the issue here. "Married and had issue" is a phrase I'm familiar with but I don't see its being used much in articles here. Nor its opposite: "died sine prole" (the latter words probably abbreviated s.p.). These are succinct phrases used by sources, no doubt (and that validates their use here); but I don't see their overuse, probably due to their being so non-specific. I also don't see any real tie-in to horse breeding ("Wonderboy and Chestnut mated and had issue" instead of "Dancer, foaled by Chestnut, sired by Wonderboy"). Dhtwiki (talk) 23:06, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Dhtwiki, "issue=" is a parameter in the nobility template, and the term is often used especially in articles on fake nobility ("Her Imperial and Royal Highness" the social worker) presumably prompted by that. I think we should rename the parameter from "issue" to "children". Guy (help!) 11:20, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"Issue" has the virtue of being shorter. Would "children" be better understood? Does "issue" have any implication of "lawfully begotten" (i.e. not out of wedlock), a condition that I believe is still important in inheriting noble titles. Dhtwiki (talk) 07:19, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree that "issue" is inappropriate; I have extremely rarely seen/heard it outside this set of Wikipedia pages. I also agree that "by" is unfortunate but not incorrect. —⁠烏⁠Γ (kaw) │ 23:28, 04 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Issue" was discussed in 2018. My opinion that it is WP:JARGON remains the same. --Izno (talk) 01:19, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "By" is somewhat offensive because it implies that the other parent was just a passive participant in the whole thing, a thing something is done to rather than a person with a stake in the matter. "With" would be much better. And "issue" is jargon and should be avoided for that reason; it's accurate and inoffensive but also pretentious and more likely to confuse casual readers. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:21, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    My understanding of the whole process is that at first one participant indeed remains relatively passive while there's a brief spurt of excited effort from the other participant, who then rapidly loses interest, after which the previously passive partner does the rest. EEng 23:09, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, that made me laugh. On a more serious note, I hear the "children by _________" formation used for both individuals in roughly equal numbers, so this perception does not occur to me. That is, phrasings like "he has children by 3 different women" and "she has children by 3 different men" are both well attested.--Khajidha (talk) 23:44, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Speaking of attestation, I've heard that testify comes from, um... EEng 23:50, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    On the other hand, it always confuses and amuses me when I hear a British person say that someone "fell pregnant". --Khajidha (talk) 02:01, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    You are most unlikely to hear any British person actually say that - read it in Victorian novels maybe. Johnbod (talk) 02:18, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    That's how they become fallen women: they fall and don't get up quick enough. EEng 02:27, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Just heard it a few days ago. But I can't remember what I was watching at the time.--Khajidha (talk) 02:41, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    [25] EEng 02:56, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Khajidha, that's archaic. So is "by" - except in horse breeding. Guy (help!) 11:23, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    All I can say is I'm finding lots of videos using "fell pregnant", some as recently as 3 weeks ago. As for "by", it's common usage where I'm from. --Khajidha (talk) 12:16, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Khajidha – Not only does language change with area, but also with time. What seems "archaic" to a youngster in one area may be the normal speech pattern for someone elsewhere or a decade or two older. I suspect that both you and I learnt a more formal form of English the teaching of which which fell out of favour during the '60s and '70s. Just ignore the insults, if someone calls you archaic realise that they, in their turn, will get the same back from today's toddlers. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 13:26, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I tend to agree that "issue" is weirdly formal/legalistic, though it is common in genealogy-speak. Using "children" would make the material more easily understood by more readers. Also agree that "by" is still commonly used this way, even in the other gender order ("her daughter by her first husband").  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:21, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Use of e.g. versus e.g.,

I have noticed entirely inconsistent use of e.g. and e.g., (i.e. whether a comma follows or not) to introduce examples (both in running text and in parenthesis), and find no reference to the issue in the MoS or on the current Talk page. You might like to address it, at a minimum to point out it should be done consistently one way or the other within a page. There are probably similar issues with i.e. and i.e., and maybe other common abbreviations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.93.106.61 (talk) 05:29, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's currently covered under Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Punctuation and spacing and further under Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Abbreviations#Miscellanea. I can't think of a clearer way to include this in the main MoS that wouldn't also apply to the whole Miscellanea section (AD, BC, a.k.a., n/a, &c). { } 06:20, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Neither of those links address the question at all. The answer is that it is a difference in usage between American English, which includes a comma, and all other varieties of English which follow the British usage of not including a comma. Hence you are not going to be able to establish a common WP-wide approach and, strictly, it should follow the same rules as WP:ENGVAR. MapReader (talk) 06:32, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
People have different views on this. One is that it should always have a comma (or a colon, when introducing a long list) because the plain-English equivalent, "for example," would normally use one. However, commas are declining in English, and some writers prefer to drop them when they can, especially for short phrases that aren't unclear without one; those editors' mixed use is intentional and considered by some to be valid (i.e., we are not going to get consensus on this, and trying to "legislate" a hard rule on it will be called WP:CREEP). Compare: "House cats are similar to great cats (e.g. lions) in that ...", versus "Her political platform includes many proposals considered progressive-left, e.g., universal health care, increased taxation of the wealthy, and a guaranteed minimum income." So, some will argue this variability in style is a feature, not a bug. And many uses of "e.g." are actually better reworded ("including", "such as", "for example", etc. – depends on context, can actually make the precise meaning clearer, and some of these do not usually take a comma while others do). I personally prefer to be consistent with the punctuation after "e.g." and "i.e." within the same article, but can understand the rationale for doing it differently in different cases. Indeed, the argument can be that any instances of "e.g." in the senses of "including" or "such as" should not have a comma after them because "including" and "such as" themselves would not. Anyway, what I won't sit still for is dropping the comma from sentence-introductory phrases just because they are short ("In 2019 they moved to Boswana."). That's pure news style, which WP does not use.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:35, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I used to be of the e.g., class, but have switched. It's easier, and does nothing to reduce the ease of readers' recognition. My view is that MOS should allow either, but insist on within-article consistency (but for quotes, etc, of course). Tony (talk) 02:27, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style&oldid=961735284"