Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Manual of Style page.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

WT:MOS

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190, 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199, 200, 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 210, 211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216, 217, 218, 219, 220, 221, 222, 223, 224, 225, 226, 227, 228: 7 days

Manual of Style

	This 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
	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.
	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.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Manual of Style page.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190, 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199, 200, 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 210, 211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216, 217, 218, 219, 220, 221, 222, 223, 224, 225, 226, 227, 228: 7 days

For a list of suggested abbreviations for referring to style guides, see this page.

MOSBIO proposal needs more participation

Seeking more participation for my proposal at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biographies#A slight expansion of MOS:JR.

The proposal has been quiet for 10 days, stalemated around a relatively minor detail. To wit: After considering the recent changes to MOS:JR, which established a default of no comma in John Doe Jr., which of the following surname-first forms should be preferred: Doe, John Jr. or Doe, John, Jr.?

Your participation is needed. If you !vote, please first read all of the discussion, including that in the "Extended discussion" subsection. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:40, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Restored this from archive since the proposal is still quiet after 39 days. Using Template:Do not archive until to prevent re-archive for 90 days, but that can removed if and when the proposal archives without resolution. It would be a shame to fail to make the main improvement, which has consensus, because of the stalemate on this minor issue. ―Mandruss ☎ 07:46, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Novel pronouns

What is the position on people who want to be referred to by a specific pronoun that is novel, i.e. not in major dictionaries? Something like "zie says this; xie thinks that". Should be clarified in MOS, along with the info about how to refer to transgender people. Equinox ◑ 04:22, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's not encyclopedic English, confusing to readers, and violates WP:NPOV by allowing third parties to dictate to WP how WP may write about them. It shouldn't be used here except in quotations. Rewrite to avoid, usually by inserting the surname ("Johnson then moved to Dallas ...") or a descriptive noun ("In 2015, the singer released a third album ..."). Agreed this should be covered in MOS:IDENTITY. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 13:26, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

However, the existing policy ("Gender identity: Give precedence to self-designation") also apparently "violates WP:NPOV by allowing third parties to dictate to WP how WP may write about them". Equinox ◑ 07:14, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with SMcCandlish here that neologistic pronouns should be avoided through rewrites when possible. Use singular they if unavoidable. Wikipedia tries to balance respect for individuals (see WP:HARM and BLP) with NPOV. When if comes to BLPs, the individuals have some say about self-identifying information (e.g. ethnicity, gender, religion, and sexual orientation) where the individual is the most authoritative source on the matter. EvergreenFir (talk) 07:19, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Concur that singular they is also useful in such a case. The distinction MOS has to draw as a style guide is that "self-identifying information" is a factual matter, not how-may-we-write matter (it's ultimately a WP:NPOV- and WP:NOR-grounded separation of content and presentation matter). It might be a verifiable fact (in an interview in a secondary-source publication, or in WP:ABOUTSELF material like a celebrity's own website, that a bio subject, in their personal and professional life, wants to be referred to by the made-up pronoun "zirmit" (I claim dibs on that one!), but that doesn't obligate Wikipedia editors in any way. Someone else probably wants to be referred to as a god or prophet, but we would not do so in Wikipedia's voice, either, even if we report the sourced fact of the assertion of alleged divinity. We can walk the line of not contradicting a personal pronoun choice without explicitly jumping on the bandwagon to support it, by simply writing around it, just as we can craft an article on a new religious movement's leader without flat-out denying that they are the prophet they claim to be, or appearing to support the claim. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 07:58, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I deeply dislike singular they in the encyclopedic register, when referring to a specific person, but I agree with the rest. I suppose there might be a situation where singular they with a specific person as referent is the least of evils, but I don't know what it would be. --Trovatore (talk) 08:10, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

David Crystal once gave the example of "anyone can have a drink if ___ want(s)". Equinox ◑ 16:51, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I said when the referent is a specific person, not "anyone". Honestly I'm not that fond of singular they referred to "anyone" either, but it's much less jarring than singular they referred to a specific identified person. --Trovatore (talk) 18:16, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

RFC on unifying "OS X" and "macOS"

Please consider joining the feedback request service.

An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following list:

Wikipedia style and naming

When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the list. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

Since Apple Inc. announced the rename of OS X to macOS, Wikipedia articles use both OS X and macOS to indicate the operating system used by Apple computers.

Shall we unify it, and if unified, which name shall we use?

NasssaNser 05:40, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've alerted the WT:VG project to this as this question had come up relatively recently. I am sure there are more projects that should be notifed too (like the software project). --MASEM (t) 05:53, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the term used at the release of the game. It will make verifiability easier, and will require no change to older articles. Diego (talk) 08:08, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
For a second I misread the RfC and was wondering why Wikipedia had two articles for the same OS, and why that mattered for WP:VG. But I think Diego's opinion makes the most sense. Those older games weren't released on MacOS, they were released on OS X, a slight technical difference but one we should make, and which is the path of least resistance and change to boot. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 13:05, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Use of "aviatrix"

A discussion on the use of the word "aviatrix" has been started at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation#"Aviatrix", which may interest users who watch this page. —Granger (talk · contribs) 02:12, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

NOTICE: RfC which alters a sentence of this page

There is an RfC regarding quote templates, which proposes a substituting part of WP:BLOCKQUOTE (which is part of this pasge) with different text. The RfC is here:

Template talk:Pull quote#Request for comments on use and documentation

and users are requested to chime in as able. The RfC is there because most of the changes are to Template:Pull quote, but for this to work a sentence also has to be changed here at WP:MOS, so heads up.

The proposed WP:MOS change is to allow {{cquote}} and {{rquote}} for normal use (which they are used that way anyway), specifically to delete this sentence:

Do not enclose block quotations in quotation marks (and especially avoid decorative quotation marks in normal use, such as those provided by the {{pull quote}} a.k.a. {{cquote}} template, which are reserved for pull quotes).

and replace it with

{{Cquote}} and {{rquote}} are alternatives to {{quote}} which enclose the quote in large quotation marks..

Editors should see Template talk:Pull quote#Request for comments on use and documentation to see the change in context and the arguments for an against and to make their voices heard. Herostratus (talk) 15:20, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of discussions regarding updates to MOS:TV

This is just a notification to a series of discussions that are taking place regarding updates to MOS:TV, of which editors may have an interest. You can find more information about the initiative and the discussions, here. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:31, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]