Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 197

Archive 190

←

Archive 195

Archive 196

Archive 197

Archive 198

Archive 199

Archive 200

When more than one variant spelling for a word exists within a national variety of English

I often despair of Wikipedia and its growing list of does and don'ts. I am reverting the Revision as of 06:28, 2 October 2017 by user:Scribolt because it is not only unnecessary instruction creep it is also potentially harmful to the goals of the section in which it resides.

The problem is that if someone adds a bullet point to this page like this then it is only a matter of time before someone runs AWB or a bot script over articles that the user of the bot or AWB has never manually touched. If there is what you think is an archaic spelling on a page then be bold page and fix it. If it is reverted then follow BRD. That is standard practice and it does not need additional guidance here.

This looks to me like an addition that was not thought through. The bullet point that I am removing says is in a section called "[MOS:COMMONALITY |Opportunities for commonality!]: When more than one variant spelling for a word exists within a national variety of English, the most commonly used current variant should be preferred unless there is a consensus at the talk page of the article to use the less common alternative.

MOS:COMMONALITY a complicated issues because it is often used as a method to ride rough-shot over national varieties of English, particularly those of minority English dialects -- which in practice means everything but American English. Just look at how "fixed-winged aircraft" article was usurped by "Airplane". If that additional article had been created with "Aeroplane" as its title it would probably have been speedily deleted.

The point is the "there is a consensus at the talk page of the article to use the less common alternative" is an inversion of the usual Wikipedia way per BRD where changes are only made if there is consensus on the talk page to make them. I do not believe this is an issue where the usual proof of consensus ought to be changed, because if the spelling is really archaic then most editing in good faith will accept it, and if not then the usual dispute resolution will end up with change.

Or user:Scribolt was it your intention to create a bludgeon so that those running bots and AWB script could force through changes on multiple pages without the tedium of engaging in BRD to gain a consensus for such changes?

As phrased this rule would allow someone could go through any topic with close connection with Britain and "rationalise" [sic.] the spelling of words ending in "ize" to the usual British ending of "ise". That might be desirable for consistency across British English articles, but how does that improve MOS:COMMONALITY in general? -- PBS (talk) 08:31, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

I've restored a variant of it (since the line-item was added after extensive consensus discussion), but without the "unless ..." caveat that is the subject of this dispute, and modifying it to say "usually", which is consistent with our general approach to such matters (advise, permit exceptions, don't dump a huge list of examples on people). PS: The Oxford -ize worry above is not actually applicable, because Oxford spelling is itself explicitly recognized on WP as an legit ENGVAR, and we even have templates for it along with the "use American English", etc., templates.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  08:46, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Thank you SMcCandlish for your rewrite, that is an improvement. PBS, you might want to consider whether speculating on my motivations for an edit without evidence in such a manner is appropriate. Indeed, if you'd taken even a cursory amount of time to read both the RFC and discussion I referred to in my edit summary I think you would have been unlikely to conclude that an intent to facilitate bludgeoning of any kind was not very likely. For the record, I have never contributed to Wikipedias growing list of female deer, but even if I had I would see nothing to apologise for. Scribolt (talk) 10:30, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

At User:Scribolt I did not speculate on your motives, ask asked you if it was you intention to. There is such a thing as unforeseen consequences. -- PBS (talk) 10:48, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

User:SMcCandlish you write The PS: The Oxford -ize worry above is not actually applicable, because Oxford spelling is itself explicitly recognized on WP as an legit ENGVAR, I know about Oxford spelling and its acceptability to date (which is why I used it as an example), but according to the wording you restored it contradicts that for British English because "When more than one variant spelling for a word exists within a national variety of English, the most commonly used current variant should usually be preferred." as "ise" is more common in British English that negates the use of "ize". If on the other hand you are going to argue that "ize "should be used because it is the most common thanks to its use in American English then that negates ENGVAR. -- PBS (talk) 10:48, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Except, again, WP treats Oxford English as its own ENGVAR. If you can't replace New Zealand English with Canadian English (without a legit reason), you can't swap out Oxford and non-Oxford British English either. If you think it's necessary, we could add a footnote about it or something. On the side matter, I wouldn't personally mind at all if we just settled on -ize across the board for commonality reasons, since the British have no lack of familiarity with the spelling, but some just prefer -ise. (There are lots of similar conflicts in Canadian English, some arising as "big deal" matters only since the 1990s.) However, there appear to be more British (and other Commonwealth English) users who prefer -ise (as with -st, e.g. amongst – see other thread) despite Oxford and other British publishers advising to avoid that style in formal writing. So, I would not expect such a proposal to gain consensus, and it would piss people off to advance one seriously.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  11:16, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

This[1] should do it.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  11:41, 27 October 2017 (UTC)   And that's been sagely compressed by EEng and DrKay [2]; I was sleepy when I cobbled the original together. :-)  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  22:42, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Note that there has been a related discussion about exactly this bit of the guideline over at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Words to watch#Archaic 'st' words, which may have been the basis for starting this thread here. For my part, I don't see the problem that PBS describes unless there needs to be a clearer distinction between common and universal vocabulary. So we use regional spellings that are common to a region, but for cases where both universal and regional synonyms are used in the same region (such as among and amongst in the UK), we prefer the universal term. ~Anachronist (talk) 19:29, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

At first I thought you said savagely, and the funny thing is that I didn't bat an eye. EEng 23:00, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

FWIW, I share PBS's concern that the recently added "unless there is a consensus at the talk page of the article to use the less common alternative" is an inversion of normal editing and BRD; we've had this issue before with ENGVAR, DATEVAR, etc., being written as if a consensus discussion has to happen before anyone's allowed to edit. Which reminds me we had a consensus discussion on one of these (DATEVAR, I think) that agreed to clarify it, but the clarification hasn't been made yet (archiver bot hid it away a few weeks ago). As for -st, I'm skeptical we'd get consensus to always prefer "among" over "amongst" right now (though going that direction is inevitable in the long term because English itself is moving that way).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  21:27, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

That bit was actually your suggestion... But yeah, I agree that it's better now, and thanks to everyone involved. Scribolt (talk) 11:05, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Not sure what "bit" refers to.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  21:46, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

@User:SMcCandlish all you have done is put a sticking plaster (band aid) on to what is instruction creep. Are you suggesting that we add lots of exceptions? If not why this one?

How do one judge what is "the most commonly used current variant" what does "current" does it mean that in use today, or last week/month/year/decade/century?. Does it mean usage in reliable sources or all usage? Does it mean verbal or written? As there are unlikely to be third party surveys on many of the words under this how is one meant to come to a conclusion of what is the "most common" and in what context?

Does grammatical issues such as "an historian" and "a historian" count as a spelling difference?

--PBS (talk) 12:03, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

People don't seem to descend into fits of wikilawyering over details in any other MoS context very often, so we shouldn't expect it here. Many guideline and even policy provisions (starting with V and NOR) are far more general and vague, and we work out a consensus interpretation over time – sometimes an uneasy one that doesn't have complete buy-in – there are ongoing disputes right now about the primary/secondary nature of interviews. [Somehow! They're obviously primary.] Yet WP doesn't fall apart (even if much of WP is held together with duct tape). Everything is CREEP to someone. Objectively, a rule is not CREEP if it forestalls more dispute than it starts.

To answer in the guideline wording every question you can come up with would be creep, but to answer them here (with my take – others might differ on some of them): No, I'm not suggesting a list of exceptions; special pleading is why we need a general rule about this and various other things, because it is the root of about 90% of style-related disputes. We judge by the same means we use for COMMONNAME and for MoS's numerous rules that boil down to "do something stylistically unusual for a particular topic only if RS do it for that topic with near-uniformity". Oxford spelling isn't an "exception", there's just a consensus (pre-dating even my becoming a wikipedian) that it's covered by ENGVAR. "I like to use to-day and coöperate and learnéd and cooky" isn't an ENGVAR. Current is liable to vary a bit by context. We could probably come up with something like sources from 2000 forward, or from 1990 forward, or within the last 20 (or 15 or 10) years, or whatever. Seems simpler and less likely to be CREEP to just leave it to common sense, especially since usage of jargon can move faster (computer science, genetics) or slower (law, physics) than usage of every-day English terms. It's unlikely people would accept evidence from 1920 as "current", fairly likely that they would from 2001, iffy that they would from 1975. In several recent discussions, we've been able to identify through N-grams when a usage shifted; the "modern" part is that the N-gram shows how recent the shift was and that is has not reversed; it was not a matter of doing a bunch of OR to count exactly how many of 300 Google News hits from 2007 or later said what, and we shouldn't encourage that. This is almost entirely a statistical matter. Moving on, WP doesn't care about non-reliable sources, which means it doesn't care about non-written usage (even TV news and documentaries are actually written and read off teleprompters and cue cards; their language is that of written English not street slang).

This really affects very few terms. It's instructive to read a thread like this, where virtually no one can come up with a spelling change that's happened within their lifetime (most purported examples are confusion between UK and US English, or between different contexts, e.g. computer program and programme of activities in BrEng, or disc for optical media, disk for hard drives; or they're talking about slang). The most common real change is a shift in compounding (health care → health-care, → healthcare, with the hyphen phase often skipped). When in doubt, we can come to a conclusion based on which spelling the majority of modern dictionaries (enough major ones are online now we can just use those) and style guides list first or at all, if N-grams aren't good for some reason (e.g. for terms that contain a comma). That's also how to settle grammatical questions. At any rate, I even expect this to shut down some of the -st conflict, since there is no question that as of 2017 whilst is still more common than while in BrEng, despite some British style guides opting for the short version. Check again in 5 years.
 — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  21:46, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

That long answer seem to me to indicate that you are trying to justify instruction creep (and I think failing). Of course questions over interpretation ought to be asked of new rules because it is far easier to fix such issues before the rule is used and unforeseen consequences emerge, and cause conflict. So "How does one judge..."

I an well aware about the difference in programme and program because I worked on a project involving radio programmes and the computer programs that put them together. In written form it was obvious which was which, but initially there was great confusion in meetings between those from a broadcasting background and those from a programming (sic) background.

I suspect that the "The most common real change" is in Anglicization and accent marks, and we have editors on a mission over this issue. Do we really want to open up another rule that allows missionaries another weapon in their armoury? "Whatever happens, we have got/The Maxim gun, and they have not" — Hilaire Belloc. In many case dictionaries are behind the curve (particularly those like the OED that work from relatively old data sets), and many words will not be in a dictionary as they are proper nouns. There can be no end of fun deciding what the modern spelling of Blucher/Blücher; melee/mêlée; facade/façade are._{{(OED mêlée Forms: 16– mêlée, 18– melee, 19 melé, 19– melée); (OED façade, Frequency (in current use): [about 60 %])}}

What happens if the article title is at melee (after an RM), but then those who would prefer mêlée use this new MOS rule to try to change the content (a second bite of the cherry under a different rule). Will this new rule help or hinder in the building of a consensus in such cases?

-- PBS (talk) 10:12, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

In cases where there is no current WP:ENGVAR, but there is a split in frequency of usage between American English and British English over the spelling of a word. How does one choose, and does that mean that the article will have an WP:ENGVAR at the end of the discussion? -- PBS (talk) 10:17, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Why would attempting to actually address your concerns one by one be a sign of anything other than considering your concerns in detail? I actually care personally about this less than you think; I'm just trying to figure out how to salvage (with clarifications if need be) something that people seem to want in there. I wasn't suggesting the questions shouldn't've been asked, or I wouldn't've done that. Me giving rationales and hypotheses above doesn't mean "don't suggest improvements". Also wasn't trying to suggest you weren't aware of "program[me]", etc., differences, but rather that they were just the closest to examples that people could come up with in that forum, and it wasn't convincing that there's a lot of words that would actually be affected.

The diacritics thing is a bigger issue, and there are two separate ones, really, though they could be covered in a footnote, or much better yet by updating MOS:DIACRITICS. Foreign words assimilated into English generally lose the diacritics after a while (as role did pretty much completely and melee increasingly has – can you imagine someone writing "a rôleplaying game"?), but at differential rates, and some tend not to (e.g. façade, résumé – the more likely it'll be mispronounced or mistaken for another word without the mark[s], the more likely the retention is). I think this needs to be a dictionary matter, broadly speaking. A "lexical research" one, through whatever means. (Though Blücher [insert frightened horse sound effects here] should be Anglicized, if at all, as Bluecher; "Blucher" would appear to be an error.

For proper names, we already have an operating principle that we don't remove diacritics if they can be reliably sourced as belonging in that name, except under particular circumstances, like a WP:ABOUTSELF case where someone's name natively has a diacritic, and they use it in their language, but pointedly avoid using it in English. This is basically the exact same thing as name-order determination, e.g. for Utada Hikaru versus Hikaru Utada. People often want to say "follow the sources" meaning by bulk, but this is a FAIL, because (for example) with a tennis player, the majority of the sources will be tennis-related, most sports governing bodies drop diacritics, and most sports news gives the names as the governing body provides them, not as the subjects prefer them. Worse yet, most Western news publishers of all sorts drop them, too, or have weird house rules like "retain them for Spanish and French, but drop them for everyone else" that. It's a bias and a chaos problem. Unfortunately, both MOS:DIACRITICS and WP:DIACRITICS remain in the "we refuse to say anything specific" pseudo-guideline state they've been in since the 2000s, and do not reflect the fact that WP:RM has developed a solid consensus to retain diacritics sourceable as belonging, no matter how many lazy sources don't bother to get it right; to remove them, we need proof that their removal is "official" for that exact subject. We really need to fix this, because the only reason we keep having RM after RM about this stuff is that neither guideline has been updated to codify this, and RM itself is difficult to search in any meaningful way, since it's not centralized like XfDs are. It's a FORUMSHOP/GAMING farm for anti-diacritics jingoists. Aside: The fact that this "preserve diacritics even if not found in the majority of sources" general consensus emerged at RM is proof that WP:COMMONSTYLE is correct: WP:COMMONNAME is not a style policy.

Titles: We don't like the title and the prose to not match, so there'd probably not be much of an effect. Might need to mentally walk through some test cases and try to picture all the arguments, though.
 — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  13:28, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Bystander comment

I never cease to be amazed at the things people manage to find worth arguing about. EEng 11:27, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

I feel I need to take issue with such a parochial view. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:33, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

What?! That word is abused! No church parish is at issue!  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  22:45, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Gesundheit. --A D Monroe III^(talk) 22:58, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

• Might I suggest not reading MOSTALK if you don't want to be amazed at the things people manage to find worth arguing about? If, by some chance, you are strapped to a chair with your eyelids tied open in front of a monitor showing a Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style feed with The Wikipedia Song blasting in the background, then let me address this message to your captors: First of all, keep up the good work. Secondly, please take away his keyboard. :)   --Guy Macon (talk) 23:56, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

You misapprehend. I come here specifically for the thrill of being amazed. EEng 06:01, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

The goggles do nothing. --A D Monroe III^(talk) 00:39, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

I don't get it. EEng 00:52, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Explaining the "joke" (always a sign of utter humor failure <sigh>): Implies that reading this page will melt your eyes, by the clever technique of referencing a dead meme. --A D Monroe III^(talk) 16:32, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

You young people! EEng 23:35, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Use of pseudo-headings at Rape myth article

Opinions are needed on the following matter: Talk:Rape myth#Use of pseudo-headings in contrast to WP:BADHEAD. A permalink for it is here. The discussion obviously concerns WP:BADHEAD. Is the case in question a case where pseudo-headings should be used? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:47, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Followup: It was actually a question of whether to use sub-subheadings or description lists for a certain type of presentation.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  12:08, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

It was more so about interpretation of pseudo-headings. Like I noted there, when I see student editors using such a markup, it's meant as a subheading -- a pseudo-heading. They don't know about WP:BADHEAD or MOS:DLIST. The editor I was challenging on the matter ended up calling the semi-colon boldings pseudo-headings as well. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:04, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Wasn't talking about terminology, but about the WT:MOS commentary you solicited observing that using correct DLIST markup would work fine, and you even agreed that not using actual headings there would be better for ToC purposes.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  08:47, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Bring MOS:COMPUTING back into line with MoS and reality

WP:Manual of Style/Computing § Definite article has the following provision in it:

Titles of computer software, unless used in a noun group, are written without a definite article. Examples:

Correct standalone title	Correct in a noun group	Wrong
Windows	the Windows operating system	the Windows
Microsoft Office	the Microsoft Office productivity suite	the Microsoft Office
iTunes	the iTunes media player	the iTunes
TuneUp Disk Doctor	the TuneUp Disk Doctor utility	the TuneUp Disk Doctor
Active Directory	the Active Directory directory service	the Active Directory

This applies to the titles of video games as well, which, additionally, are italicized.

Service brand names are also written without a definite article:

• Correct: Hotmail, Gmail, GitHub, Amazon, Mac App Store
• Incorrect: the Hotmail, the Gmail, the GitHub, the Amazon, the Mac App Store

This is mostly and usually good advice, but has run off the rails in two ways, and is effectively a WP:CONLEVEL and WP:POVFORK problem:

1. Its across-the-board manner directly defies everyday usage in reliable sources.
2. Its emphatic tone, about a trivial matter, is not in the spirit of MoS or other WP guidelines, and it directly conflicts with MoS's standards about how to start sentences, when it involves cases that do not begin with capital letters (i.e., it thwarts many attempts to write around beginning a sentence with soemthing like ".NET" or "3DO Interactive Multiplayer"

In particular:

• It simply isn't true that "the Mac App Store" is "incorrect". This is normal, everyday English. Same goes for "the .NET framework" and many other cases.
• The intent of this guideline was to avoid awkward nonsense like "the eBay" and "the Microsoft Office" (as stand-alone noun phrases), virtually unknown in reliable sources.
• However, it is being bent to 3RR-level editwarring, e.g. at .NET Framework today ([3][4][5][6]), using the patently false claims that "the .NET Framework" is "ungrammatical", to pursue a WP:NOT#ADVOCACY-violating linguistic prescription against ever using "the" even in cases where this is overwhelmingly well attested [7][8][9].

Below, I suggest revising this – here at WT:MOS with the input of the whole broad MoS-watching crowd, since WT:MOSCOMP appears to be largely dominated as a "local consensus" by two or three editors.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  16:30, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Draft revision

The name of a piece of computer software (broadly defined) is usually written without the definite article, except when used as a modifier in a longer phrase, or when the proper name begins with "The". This includes utility, productivity, and entertainment software; video games (which are italicized); online services; and operating systems and their components. Examples:

Correct standalone title	Correct in a longer phrase	Incorrect as a standalone phrase
Microsoft Office	the Microsoft Office productivity suite	the Microsoft Office
Diablo III	the Diablo III console project	the Diablo III
The Sims 4	The Sims 4 release date	the Sims 4
Gmail	the Gmail interface	the Gmail
Windows	the Windows operating system	the Windows
Active Directory	the Active Directory service	the Active Directory

Those with titles that start with "The" often take a possessive form when used in longer phrases:

• The Legend of Zelda's 20th anniversary

There are many exceptions to the overall pattern; a leading "the" should be used when omitting it would be awkward and when its inclusion is typical in similar constructions found in reliable independent sources. For example:

• The .NET Framework is ... [10]
• ... available on the Mac App Store [11]

A "The" that is not part of the actual name of the subject is never added to Wikipedia's article title about it, and should not be added in the lead sentence unless confusion could result without it.

Rationales for the changes:

• Our material should agree with real-world English, absent a compelling WP-specific reason to do something peculiar or arbitrary in a certain context (rare).
• This should use "usually", "should", and "often" wording, or the like, because the original's absolute-law approach is both factually wrong and contrary to MoS's intent; plus, as noted above, it can directly conflict with other MoS rules' operation.
• "Noun group" (a.k.a. noun phrase) was being misused. It does not mean what the author thought it means. [12][13][14] (everything in all three columns of the table is a noun group/phrase).
• It did not account for proper names that actually start with "The" (and how they operate).
• The example of "the Mac App Store" as incorrect should be removed, because it's provably counterfactual.
• Most of the examples were redundant, and have been replaced with ones that illustrate different classes of "software" in the broad sense.
• An accurate segment of proper use of "the" is needed.
• Small tables being centered is readability/usability problem.
• WP article titles were not addressed specifically, despite that being the original intent of the section (while MoS is not a naming convention under WP:AT, it fairly often mentions naming matters where pertinent, especially in the topical MoS subpages, to centralize topical advice).

 — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  16:30, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Update: It has also been proposed by some to completely discontinue the MOS:COMP page, by merging parts of it into the longer-standing MOS:COMPSCI, and deleting the rest as unsalvageable.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  23:24, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Survey

• Support most of the draft; but
  Oppose the .NET Framework and Mac App Store part for several reasons:

1. It is a change from one arbitrary style form into another, that only adds more headaches and complexity. (A MOS is supposed to eliminate those.) It defeats the purpose of the guideline, which is to establish consistency and minimize friction between editors.
   • Right now, the editor's decision process is very simple: If it is a book title, film title, software title or play title, we skip "the". Editors can spend their energy where it matters more.
   • When this proposal comes into effect, editors must spend time and energy on such trivia as whether the reliable sources use "The" or not. (There are already disputes over whether something is a reliable source or no. God helps when it comes to indexing them first their use of "the".) Then, some sources use "the" inconsistently. Sometimes, they insert it and sometimes they forgo it. There will be unnecessary reversions and confused newcomers who ask in amazement: "Where is the logic in that?" I ask that too! Where is the logic in that?
2. I am not convinced that the proposal in regards to ".NET Framework" and "Mac App Store" comes from objective observation of the language. The nominator simply shows a portion of the language that supports his view. The evidence provided for "Mac App Store" and ".NET Framework" amounts to a simple "others mistakes exist", and arguing that we should make more mistakes. To that I say: We don't do mistakes. The grammatically wrong "the .NET Framework" and "the Mac App Store" stem from the fact that like Bee Movie and Dragon Book, the title is self-explaining. Let me point out other realities from which Wikipedia deviates:
   • Everyone in the world capitalizes each word in a heading or title. Wikipedia doesn't, because there is no grammar rule for it.
   • The most common grammatical mistake, more common that this, is interchanging "it's" for "its" and vice versa but Wikipedia has not endorsed it either.
3. I question the motivation of the nominator. He alludes to contradictions with other MoS and POVFORK but fails to point to the actual contradictory text. Is the nominator truly here for a tangible improvement and a change with benefit, or because he wants to get back at Codename Lisa with whom he had a nasty argument earlier today? Are you going to make life a living hell for the future generation of editors just because an editor hurt your pride by contesting your change with a reversion?

FleetCommand (Speak your mind!) 17:25, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

WP:OSE applies to other content on Wikipedia, not to real-world usage in reliable sources, otherwise we would couldn't have policies like WP:COMMONNAME. It is not a MOS:STABILITY matter because a) that applies to changing article text, not coming to a consensus on resolving guideline wording and conflicts, and b) it is not a choice between one arbitrary style and another, but a matter of following actual English-language usage norms. Your attempt to prohibit the use of "the" in front of the name of an online service, etc. (except when used adjectivally), even though RS in the real world usually uses "the" in many constructions for clarity, is what is arbitrary and against our practices. You're also confusing a reference to something as a title of a work of code as such, and a reference to it as a service or technology as used by people; they are semantically different, and this is reflected in the difference between .NET Framework 4.7.1 was released in October 2017 versus The .NET Framework is a technology that ... (Microsoft's own wording; when are you going to schedule a meeting with Bill Gates & co. to "correct" their grammar about their own product?). Contradictory text: See #contradict anchor point; you can look up all places in MoS pages where this is covered on your own time. Finally, see WP:DR: When a dispute turns intractable and personalized, the solution is to open a general community discussion for further input, instead of two people continuing to argue in circles. This discussion has been broadly advertised to WP:VPPOL and various other pages, e.g. software and technology wikiprojects. Thanks for making it clear (so I don't have to try to prove it) that your position is a prescriptive grammar one (which WP generally doesn't entertain, per WP:NOT#SOAPBOX). — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  18:00, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

I say simplicity, practicality, benefit and ArbCom's order; you say "when are you going to schedule a meeting with Bill Gates & co. to "correct" their grammar about their own product?" and then lie to me about what I didn't write. Fine. You win. Here is a cookie. FleetCommand (Speak your mind!) 18:29, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Nothing is simpler or more practical than using English the way native speakers of it use it in fairly formal writing. "Benefit" is subjective. The ArbCom decision you reference does not apply, and this has already been explained above. It pertains to making useless changes to articles to suit personal preference, and has nothing to do with coming to a WP consensus on what MoS should advise, especially when one MoS page is imposing a "rule" that the main MoS does not, and would not. See MoS's own lead: "If any contradiction arises, this page has precedence over all detail pages of the guideline." PS: What "lie"?  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  19:22, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Admittedly off-topic message

Please cut the peacock term festival and give me one good reason why should I accept your proposal. Paint me a future in which your proposal is in effect and I and other editors are having an easier life because of it. FleetCommand (Speak your mind!) 19:42, 1 November 2017 (UTC) I didn't use the term festival, though I agree it's peacock wording. I already addressed this: "Nothing is simpler or more practical than using English the way native speakers of it use it in fairly formal writing." I'm not apt to respond further, per WP:SATISFY.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  20:05, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Withdrawn

Support the first paragraph and the table, Oppose the rest. First, a MoS must not be overly detailed. It is a guideline, not a policy. Second, Wikipedia uses reliable sources strictly for Verifiability. In the following areas, we have defied the rest of the world: Letting everyone edit Citation style Capitalization Rules governing uploading non-free contents Use of the second person pronoun Article tone ... or to summarize, in the field of style, we have defied the world. Our reasons are: Accommodating for and simplifying a project that is already massive and complex, without sacrificing accuracy and congruity. Now, our esteemed colleague SMcCandlish has seen that the rest of the world uses the word "the" willy-nilly in their very small projects that don't even compare to one Wikipedia article. Therefore, he proposes that we go out of our way to study their willy-nilly usage, catalog it, make reason out of it and then apply that reason. The end result is that the word "the" loses its meaning and purpose, and we waste resources for the color of the bike shed. I say not. I say let adhere to KISS principle. Let's not try to glorify other people's madness. There is no benefit in it. Let's stick to principle-based grammar because it simplifies our already complex project. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 19:10, 1 November 2017 (UTC) The revised version is actually smaller than the original, so the "overly detailed" complaint doesn't apply. [I was thinking of an earlier draft, with a two-item example table.] "Guideline not a policy" is much of the reason for the revision, because you are trying to impose the extant version as if it were a policy, and willing to editwar over it; an admin just protected the page to stop you. I can't think of a reason to respond to the rest of that, since it doesn't correspond to anything I said or meant, or the fact that RS news sources routinely use "the" in constructions that make better sense with that word prefixed.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  19:22, 1 November 2017 (UTC) "The revised version is actually smaller". Funny. It seems double the size of the original to me. As for the rest, thanks for the ad hominem. (You've written a lot of it today.) It proves you have no actual argument and no respect for WP:CIVIL either. FleetCommand (Speak your mind!) 19:42, 1 November 2017 (UTC) It being slightly longer, but much clearer and better reflective of reality doesn't equate to "overly detailed", but "sufficiently". Observing that an admin action was taken is not an ad hominem; please actually read ad hominem. Nothing in my revision or arguments for it is dependent upon a personal characterization of anyone. The same cannot be said if your or CL's opposition to it, which is littered with bad-faith accusations, labeling style one doesn't personally favor as "madness", etc., etc. Nice try.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  20:13, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

• Support I think .NET Framework does beg for a definite article because ".NET" sounds like a noun adjunct. Same for "Mac" in "Mac App Store". Them constituting single proper names doesn't change the fact that they are constructed in that way, and the official Microsoft and Apple usages reflect that. From a quick web search I found that "the" was almost always affixed to these in practice. So, I think the de facto grammar here is that if it sounds like a noun adjunct it is used that way. If there is a clear "rule" otherwise I'd like to see the source for that, and would still be suspicious of it. Wikipedia should reflect how these are used in reliable sources. —DIYeditor (talk) 07:32, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
  • "and the official Microsoft and Apple usages reflect that"—right, the Mac App Store itself calls itself "the Mac App Store", as any native speaker of the language would expect. We get a lot of people haunting Wikipedia inventing prescriptive rules that reflect neither sense nor common usage. This discussion isn't the first time I've come across people insisting dropping "the" due to inaudible capitalization. This is a butchering of the language. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 08:41, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
    • You people are just labeling he who disagrees with you as non-native speaker. In fact, you have no evidence that native speakers do that. How do you know they are not written by underpaid Chinese employees, which are pervasively hired? I myself am a native speaker. Then again, native British English speaker are entirely different from native American speakers and native Canadia speakers.
      • Nobody criticized "non-native speaker"—I only said that the construction is one every native speaker is familiar with. Meaning: it is correct English; dropping it is incorrect English. This is not prescriptivism vs descriptivism—the prescriptivists and descriptivists agree on this point. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 22:06, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

As for what Microsoft does, it does a lot of wrong stuff: It refers to the partition with bootloader "system partition" and the partition with system root "boot partition". (See system partition and boot partition.) It uses "x86" when it must use "IA-32". FleetCommand (Speak your mind!) 15:14, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

More fringe prescriptivist OR. I don't think we need to entertain this any further. And the idea that the English usage we see Web-wide is due to pervasive hiring of Chinese workers is a minor variation on a global conspiracy theory. PS:The word "non-native" appears nowhere in this thread other than your own post.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  15:38, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

That's right. Prescriptive grammar eliminates frictions, speeds things up and promotes orderly and logic-based conduct. But it doesn't matter! Microsoft has responded positively. (See below.) It seems one way or another, you are not going to be able to put "the" before ".NET Framework", regardless of whether or not your proposal for Wikipedia to be Microsoft's bitch passes consensus. FleetCommand (Speak your mind!) 15:59, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Forgot a bit: Of course we have proof that the "the" you don't like is used regularly in English, and you've already been provided with it; here it is again: [15][16] Please see WP:ICANTHEARYOU and WP:FILIBUSTER. As for your Microsoft campaigning, we really don't care what a particular functionary at Microsoft says about a single document they allow the public to edit; real-world usage is in favor of "the" when it's a more natural construction, and this isn't about .NET in particular but about an entire class of similar constructions. I'm starting to get a sense that there's a WP:TRUTH / WP:GREATWRONGS problem here. I'm not sure why you think that when a world of sources don't agree with you that maybe getting one source to be revised some day to agree with you will change anything here. PS: The fact that it's user-editable (with review or not) makes it WP:UGC, so it's no longer a source we care about.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  16:50, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Oh, I hear you quite well. I just think we must do the opposite. FleetCommand (Speak your mind!) 17:13, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

• Discontinue the entire page per WP:CREEP. The advice about use of the definite article is over-prescriptive. This usage issue is not specific to computing and the advice is not clear or agreed, as we see above. The page seems full of such debatable advice, software-specific minutiae and outright junk such as "Avoid using strange forms of language". We don't need any of it and it's redundant to a parallel style guide for computer science. Andrew D. (talk) 18:25, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Not a bad idea; I wasn't aware that MOS:COMP was a PoV fork. MOS:COMPSCI greatly pre-dates MOS:COMP, and has had the input of way more editors. What is salvageable from the latter can be merged into the former, and that should probably be moved to a "Manual of Style/" name and promoted to guideline after a review. We've had it for about a decade now. Unlike many WP:PROJPAGEs, MOS:COMPSCI doesn't appear to be laden with topical and nonsensical conflicts with existing guidelines.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  19:01, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

    I'm not sure which is the POV fork, but I'm giggling because this was suggested at WT:WikiProject Computer science/Manual of style#Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Computing and rejected out of hand 6 years ago. --Izno (talk) 19:05, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

    Much has changed since then; MOS:COMP has gone from tiny essay on a few points to an alleged guideline with a lot of overlap with MOS:COMPSCI. A merger would make much more sense now. After some problems like the one this RfC is trying to address are resolved.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  19:37, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

• Mostly discontinue. The MOS:LINUX paragraph is important to discourage a small but very vocal minority from attempting to get their way. The rest is either redundant (repetition of general advice that has little to do with computing) or overly detailed (about specific pieces of software rather than general points of style). Maybe we could shoehorn the Linux paragraph into MOS:COMPSCI? —David Eppstein (talk) 22:52, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

  That's the part I was most concerned about retaining, too, though I think a few other bits of it are also salvageable. My initial plan was to break the TAGTEAM inertia at the page through a series of RfCs, but that much effort may not really be necessary. It can probably be handled by merging the good stuff, then using WP:MFD.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  23:24, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

  • @David Eppstein: Hi. With all due respect, MOS:COMPSCI does not exist anymore. I am also concerned that your analysis (and that of Andrew Davidson) are very subjective. Please note that there have been extensive discussion for some parts of this MoS, e.g. for HTTP linking. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 05:43, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
    • It's unclear what you mean. I'm reading MOS:COMPSCI (i.e., Wikipedia:WikiProject Computer science/Manual of style) right now. The fact that some parts of MOS:COMP are probably worth merging is why merging them was proposed. However, various parts of that page (including the http[s] and exposed URLs material) are already covered at other pages.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  07:33, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
      • So you were talking about the current target of MOS:COMPSCI? Not the pre-2012 contents? Very well.
        It is my understanding that a merger with it has been opposed. But I guess moving Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Computing to a WikiProject wouldn't be the worst outcome. —Codename Lisa (talk) 15:43, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
        • Huh? Why would I be talking about a 2011 page? Why would rejection of a merge idea many years ago, when MOS:COMP was a tiny one-editor page, have any bearing the current proposals on this page right now to merge useful parts of the current version MOS:COMP into MOS:COMPSCI?  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  22:53, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
• I also suggest removing all of this content as instruction creep. This is hardly of everyday relevance.  Sandstein  22:38, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
• Relevant comment added to the section at another page announcing this discussion: 'Do we even really need a "definite article" section, the examples in it right now regarding right and wrong seem mostly common sense and unnecessary to point out (IE: No one actually refers to it as "The Hotmail") and it seems to be causing unnecessary drama. I also believe that some of the more controversial elements shouldn't be dictated by a single guideline. For instance in some cases putting "The" in front of "Windows store" makes sense ("IE: It's available for the Windows Store") where in other cases it shouldn't (IE: Windows pulled it from their Windows Store)'; by Deathawk at 06:00, 4 November 2017 (UTC) [17]. [Reposted by:  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  11:58, 5 November 2017 (UTC)]
• De-list and merge whats necessary - Not being too up to date on *nix I have no comment on that section and will defer to the above comments, the rest however is overly proscriptive and conflicts with general usage and sourcing per the above comments. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:08, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
• Discontinuation might not be a bad idea.

Hello, guys. Following the reboot of my relationship with SMcCandlish, I am coming around with the idea that discontinuation might not be bad at all. (A compromise with SMcCandlish too.) After discontinuation, I can copy its contents into an essay called "How to write better computing articles"; maybe not even in "Wikipedia:" namespace. By doing so, I have to rely on the strength of the arguments, instead of any authoritative weight that might be perceived in it. But again, that period in which I had to convince people by my strength of arguments was the best time of my Wikipedia career.

There are, however, three parts that cannot be discontinued with a couple of votes. Very strong consensus is already supporting "Linux vs. GNU/Linux" (See Talk:Linux/Archive 41 § Page move: GNU/Linux and "Choosing between HTTP and HTTPS" (see Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 111 § As WP uses HTTPS, should (some) external links, too?).

For the purpose of being open and honest, I invite my fellows Sandstein, David Eppstein and Andrew Davidson to review what I said above. I don't want them to think I am a cheater when they see the so-called "discontinued" MoS revived elsewhere. Despite all the respect I hold for you three (due to your length of service, and the general trust of the community in two of you as administrators) I see that none of you have ever written a GA or FA computing article. (I have one GA and one FA.) Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy: Before impacting our work, you should know our work. Is that not a reasonable request?

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 13:03, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

@Codename Lisa: Already mentioned those two (and will add the prior discussion URLs) at the merge thread; what's the third one? PS: I think it would be most productive to see what emerges from the merge discussion, before considering retention of stuff in essay form. E.g., several parts of this might get integrated into a consolidated guideline, and some other parts might get "massaged". There wouldn't be any point retaining an essay that directly contradicted the merged version, especially since the idea is to have a final RfC WP:PROPOSAL on accepting the merged draft as a guideline "for real", so that version if accepted would be considered consensus without the current cloud of "does any of this have consensus or is it just one person's opinion" over it.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  13:59, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello. :)

Oh, I see I have forgotten to change "three" to "two" before posting. Sorry, my bad. Initially, I wanted to include the "Optional styles" section too, but then I realized it is partly redundant to MOS:STABILITY and the other part (everything afer "Hence, avoid disputes over:") is not actually discussed directly.

As for the merger, don't worry. I won't be doing anything stupid when it comes to userification or downgrading to essay. I am determined not to.

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 14:11, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

• Support changing the guideline – This isn't the way that most people speak or write. There doesn't need to be a rule on specific uses of the article "The" relating to computer articles. This was brought up on iPhone X. There are 10 million google results for "the iPhone X", showing that this is a very common phrasing. I looked at the first page of results and Apple was the only website omitting "the", except for one results saying "the brand new iPhone X", which still includes "the", just separated by an adjective. Natureium (talk) 18:48, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
• Update: The entire section in question has been deleted by FleetCommand (its principal author): "Deleted the whole section per WP:CREEP. It is explained elsewhere and there is clearly no consensus in favor of the definite article portion." [18]. While that will (unless reverted, and the revert sticks) moot the original issue in this thread, it doesn't address a) what other portions of it many respondents above believe are also CREEP or "not fit for purpose" or do not have consensus, or should be deleted for other reasons (several said the whole page should be), and which (at least two) likely have consensus per previous discussions and should be merged to MOS:COMPSCI. The subthread below points to a merge discussion that's been opened.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  02:01, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

I would suggest avoiding the Diablo III adventure game as a positive example, since I do not know of any such construction elsewhere. --Izno (talk) 16:40, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean, but I replaced it with an example from the Diablo III article itself.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  16:54, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

I suppose the previous example would be seen as somewhat "out of order": "the adventure game, Diablo III". Alternatively, there's a concise concern (given other context): "the adventure game", or simply "Diablo III". The new use seems fine but I'd probably see if I could remove that from the article in question if I were particularly motivated. --Izno (talk) 17:28, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Ah, I see what you mean.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  18:00, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Try "the Diablo III game". What people don't seem to be understanding is that the belongs to "game" in such an instance, not to Diablo III, which is being used as a noun adjunct. This is such basic, grade eight dropout-level English (even if one does not know the terms) that I'm surprised there's even anything to be discussed. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 00:22, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

If you meant to reply to my comment, I took specific issue with "The X adventure game" for a specific reason (and I doubt I would have had such issue with the formulation you suggest). The implied PA is a bit unnecessary regardless. --Izno (talk) 02:55, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

"implied PA"? Give us all a fucking break. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 08:33, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

This is such basic, grade eight dropout-level English (even if one does not know the terms) that I'm surprised there's even anything to be discussed. (emphasis mine) is frankly unnecessary to the discussion or at-best worded suboptimally, clearly seeking to inflame. (Whether me or another, I don't know.) --Izno (talk) 13:45, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

It was a statement of fact. I can't control what you read between the lines, but it sure as fuck wasn't "clearly seeking to inflame". Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 21:50, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

But could you at least explicate what issue you have with the construction? Google doesn't seem to have any trouble turning up the pattern. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 08:37, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

"Diablo III adventure game"? Have you seen that anywhere? Google finds literally nothing. Continuing, "Diablo III game" has quite a few false positives in your link such that I'm not sure you reviewed the results e.g. "Diablo III game guide/logo/director/designer/system/-breaking" just in the first couple page of results. So that construction is also rare among all uses of the phrase (184k, many or even most of which are false positives, relative to 8.6m total). --Izno (talk) 13:45, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Sorry I ended up starting this side-dispute inadvertently. I agree that "the Diablo III adventure game" wasn't a great example, given that better wording would be "the adventure game Diablo III. I think the replacement of this with "the Diablo III console project" from the article's own text is sufficient resolution (at least for WT:MOS).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  14:31, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

I agree, which is why I said as much earlier. :D --Izno (talk) 14:42, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

"the * adventure game" construction is not in the least bit hard to find. "the adventure game, Diablo III" doesn't appear, but that's not what you were talking about—you explicitly said you were talking about "the construction", and offered "the adventure game, Diablo III" as a more acceptable wording, which also does not appear in a Google search. There was never anything wrong with "the construction" that needed fixing, anyways—it's plain English. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 21:56, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

• Outside voice: '.NET Framework ...' or 'The .NET framework'. Note the caps. –Sb2001 20:08, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

  Could convey a different, broader, meaning, though. And someone would almost certainly come along and capitalize the F in short order.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  20:14, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

• Microsoft responded! I can't believe this, but Microsoft actually responded!

Just above, SMcCandlish dared me to call Bill Gates and ask him to stop using "the" before ".NET Framework". Well, I didn't exactly do that. But I wrote emails to Joan Meredith and Brian Lich, with whom I had previously corresponded on the course of editing docs.microsoft.com. (They accept contributions from editors like me, although they peer-review it first.) I am still to hear from Brian Lich but Joan Meredith says my request to remove "the" from ".NET Framework" is reasonable. She said I am going to hear from her soon. From the letter, I infer that they will not attach any priority to it but I will be free to do the edit for them.

But I am sad. On the whole, it seems the world has turned upside down: Wikipedia, whose fundamental policy is WP:CIVIL, now ostracizes its editors by labeling them "non-native speaker", as if being non-native means having subpar intelligence, or less right to participate in grammar discussions. But Microsoft, who has reserved all rights to thinks to no one's but its own good, is now willing to accept reasonable input.

So, while I will retain my opposition to that particular change, in the end, I think it does not matter: You will end up not attaching "the" to ".NET Framework" anyway. Maybe I should contact Apple next. Well, I honestly don't know how to go about it yet. FleetCommand (Speak your mind!) 15:52, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Repeat: No one said "non-native speaker" other than you. See straw man.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  16:57, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Repeat: You're gonna be Microsoft bitch! Ha ha! Unless Wikipedia shoots down your proposal. FleetCommand (Speak your mind!) 17:09, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

• Clarification about prescriptive and descriptive grammar: In the previous comments, twice SMcCandlish has attacked the editors opposing him, by calling them prescriptive grammar supporters. It is important to know what he means. In prescriptive grammar, people look to an authoritative figure for what is right and what is wrong. In descriptive grammar, people look to linguists, who inventory the language usage and change the grammar rules accordingly.

Since the middle of 20th century, prescriptive grammarians faced with the accusation of being pedantic. They opposed what today call "Captain Kirk's infinitive". They said "do not put an adverb between 'to' and the 'infinitive'" and didn't care for the argument pointing out that this rule has no positive consequences. For them, it was wrong for Captain Kirk to say "to boldly go where no man has gone before"; they didn't care that this sentence is as meaningful as "to go boldly where no man has gone before" and its use doesn't hurt anyone. It didn't ended there. The prescriptive grammarians were conservatives too, effectively preventing the language from evolving and becoming better.

But now, it is the total reverse: I argued that having a consistent rule about using "The" before proper names:

• reduces the confusion for new editor
• streamlines editorial process

... while using "the" willy-nilly based on what others do just for the sake of native speakers:

• confuses editors
• makes the editing process subjective
• is a racist act, given the fact that the English language is now a lingua franca
• makes Wikipedia the bitch of publishers such as Apple and Microsoft

But SMcCandlish, being prescriptive is inherently evil; he doesn't care for the reason that they went under the fire of criticism in the first place, i.e. being pedantic. FleetCommand (Speak your mind!) 17:10, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

I completely understand what you are saying, FleetCommand. SMcCandlish does have a tendancy to respond badly when people do not agree with him. He is passionate about what he is saying, and considers it very carefully. He told me, also, that I must be a non-native speaker of English, and that I push for prescriptive grammar. That said, you have been exacerbating the situation a little. I hope you do not need me to explain how (if you in a period of not 'getting' why people are having a go at you, I went through that a few months ago; feel free to drop me a line). Seriously, both of you, give it up. Here is not the place. Neither of you are wrong, as such; you just think differently about this issue. I said what my opinion is earlier in the thread. –Sb2001 19:56, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

No one I'm aware of said FleetCommand is a non-native speaker. No one in this discussion did so; he just made that up. See also [19].  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  22:36, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Codename Lisa (on one page or another) made it clearer where this came from. Phrases like "in native English usage" have appeared here, and are about whether a particular construction is attested broadly in English, and how such constructions work in English; it has nothing to do with any particular editor.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  10:47, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

• Could we please talk TO each other, and stop talking ABOUT each other. Blueboar (talk) 21:00, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

  Sure would be nice. I don't know where all this finger-pointing came from. The proposal is quite straightforward, and the rationales for it clearly stated and pretty self-evident, anyway. I have no idea why that turned into a bunch of weird accusations (agenda, lying, racism, attacking, "non-native" namecalling, madness, and some I've probably forgotten – all with zero evidence).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  21:56, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

*::The racism stuff did make me stop taking FC quite as seriously as I did before that ... a bit ridiculous. I think you probably did say 'non-native' at some point, without really thinking. If you said it to me, there is a more than fair chance that you have said it to other editors. I would just accept it and move on. There are enough untrue allegations here anyway, so admitting to one (or accepting the possibility of having said it) isn't going to do much harm. I do not hold anything against FC; I know how I get in these situations. They haven't helped themselves at all, though. –Sb2001 00:36, 3 November 2017 (UTC) Correction: It was EEng [20], talking about another editor. –Sb2001 00:49, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

@FleetCommand: Are you honestly suggesting we use Engrish (or shall we say broken English) on the English wikipedia because English is a lingua franca? I find it surprising that you think we should ignore what seems correct to native speakers or what the usage is by the developers themselves. Being a native speaker of English (or not) is not membership in a race, but even if it were, what native speakers do is what matters. Also do you really think it's appropriate to refer to following the usage by the developers as being "the bitch of"? That's not exactly the level of English I would expect to find in use among people writing an encyclopedia, not to mention being sexist. The main reason to refer to the use of the developers is to show what is obviously the right way to refer to these things to people who say/write them every day. We could as easily point to how other publications do the exact same thing (which they do).

There's nothing overly ambiguous about what's being applied here, there is a consistent rule: if the proper name of something starts with a noun adjunct as in "Mac App Store", ".NET Framework", "Windows SDK", etc., bare references to it (e.g. not including the version number) should start with "the" because that is what sounds right in English. This only applies to names that include what is recognized separately and would have an article (the or a) on their own. "App Store", "Framework", and "SDK" all have a recognized meaning on their own, would take "a(n)" on their own, and the noun before them only qualifies exactly which App Store, Framework or SDK is in question. This does not apply to, for example, "Microsoft Windows" because "Windows" is not something with a recognized meaning on its own, it's purely a trademark name, and because you wouldn't say "the Windows" or "a Windows". Similarly "Colgate Toothpaste" takes no "the" because you wouldn't say "a toothpaste" to refer to the concept of toothpaste in general (it's an uncountable noun). "Toothpaste is something you use to brush your teeth," vs. "An SDK is something you develop software with." Once you qualify a countable noun with another noun like "Windows SDK" you are talking about "the Windows SDK" (a specific instance) and no longer "an SDK" (one of many). I'm no expert in teaching grammar so I may not know the best way to explain this in detail but I assure you it is consistent. Maybe figuring out the use of definite and indefinite articles takes some memorization and an advanced level of English, but advanced English is called for in writing the English wikipedia.

Or to put this as simply as possible for inclusion in the MOS, If a noun is countable, i.e. if one would say "A [noun] is...", and a qualifying noun adjunct (e.g. a brand or trademark) is added to make it a proper name, it becomes "The [noun adjunct] [noun] is..." For example "An SDK is..." becomes "The Windows SDK is..." —DIYeditor (talk) 01:01, 3 November 2017 (UTC) Broke into paragraphs. 05:09, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Good analysis. I'd thought of taking something like this approach, but just figured citing usage like this should do the trick. (And it might not have.)  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  04:50, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

I agree that it should be enough to point out what reliable sources say. Seeing as "available on Mac App Store" gets 733 results and "available on the Mac App Store" gets 2640 I think the choice is pretty clear. —DIYeditor (talk) 05:24, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

I am not sure about 'the bitch of ...' being sexist. Possibly if it was directed at a female editor. Even then, it is not being used in a sexist way, rather suggesting that someone is a slave to a particular organisation. –Sb2001 01:22, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Let's not dwell on the civility questions here; that's being addressed elsewhere.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  03:29, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

@DIYeditor: I have marked your claim of a rule as needing citation, because you are not the first person to try to invent a rule in favor of inserting "the" in front of "Mac App Store".

Also, I have counter-examples for you: "Microsoft Office Web App". Like "Mac App Store", it starts with a company name and continues with generic normally-improper terms. I have many more counter-examples: "Adobe Photoshop Lightroom", "Windows Defender Security Center", "Norton Internet Security".

Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 05:17, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

P.S. This does not apply to, for example, "Microsoft Windows" because "Windows" is not something with a recognized meaning on its own. Really? You must have not read the article about it then. Here is a link. —Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 05:32, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

I didn't claim to point to some source of authority on that rule existing, I meant that I would try to describe the rule I was using. Indeed "Windows" doesn't have a meaning because it is not a collection of GUI windows (even if we can see the connection to the name) but if it did have a meaning it would not get "the" because you wouldn't say "a Windows" so there is no need for a definite article when referring to a specific one. It is (or was) "Microsoft Office Web Apps" which is, like "Windows", plural in construction but treated as a singular idea. It's essentially an uncountable noun as I described as not being covered by my rule, where you would say "Web Apps is" (if it were the name of a product anyway) and "[so-and-so] Web Apps is". Your other counter-examples are good. The best way I can describe why it would sound unusual to give them a definite article is because they are being used more as trademark names than as something with clear meaning. "A lightroom" is the chamber of a lighthouse that contains the lamp. The software is not "a lightroom" but something called Lightroom. Similarly there is no "a security center", "Security Center" is nothing other than a product name. There is no "an internet security" so there can't be a "the [so-and-so] Internet Security". Feel free to toss out more examples, this is an interesting discussion. —DIYeditor (talk) 06:10, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Re: Codename Lisa's redundant request for sourcing, I'll just copy-paste my response to FleetCommand, above: 'Of course we have proof that the "the" you don't like is used regularly in English, and you've already been provided with it; here it is again: [21][22] Please see WP:ICANTHEARYOU and WP:FILIBUSTER.'  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  07:28, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

@Codename Lisa: "you are not the first person to try to invent a rule in favor of inserting "the" in front of "Mac App Store""—we've already linked the Mac App Store itself referring to itself as "the Mac App Store" on its own website. This is plain English, and to refer to it without the "the" is plain bizarre. Those "inventing rules" are those who would remove the "the" that native English speakers know is required there. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 10:03, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

@Curly Turkey: Indeed you have demonstrated that with excrutiating emphasis. I never denied that you did. But I am arguing that your argument, backed by your demonstration, is a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. My argument is that the whole world in general does not insert "the" before software titles, book titles, play titles and film titles. Why you insist on restricting yourself to the mistake that Apple commits does instead of the whole world, is beyond me. —Codename Lisa (talk) 10:25, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

The onus is on you to demonstrate the validity of the "mistake" you assert. A lifetime of experience with the language is only making me roll my eyes at your proposed rule. I sure haven't met any native speaker who would drop the "the", which would make it sound like broken English. Please don't break my native tongue. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 10:40, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

———"the whole world"? Did you just fucking write that?! Just what part of "the whole world" are you from where people would drop the "the" from "the Mac App Store"?! Not an English-speaking part, from what I can tell. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 10:42, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

@Curly Turkey: You are right. The onus of proof is one me. Please allow me to demonstrate how the world uses software title the describe themselves:

• "Norton Internet Security" vs. "the Norton Internet Security"
• "Windows Defender Security Center" vs. "the Windows Defender Security Center" (Well, it appears the latter form is quite popular with Microsoft – which, allegedly, is about to change – but not with the rest of the world.)
• "Microsoft Paint" vs. "the Microsoft Paint" (Hmm... it seems "the Microsoft Paint software" is unnaturally popular but no "the Microsoft Paint" alone.)
• "Google Docs" vs. "the Google Docs"
• "Adobe Photoshop Lightroom" vs. "the Adobe Photoshop Lightroom"
• "Apple Writer" vs. "the Apple Writer" (Well! I didn't expect Apple to not use "the"!)

Should I provide more examples?

You can still say "we must still use 'the' with 'Store' software." Well...

• "Microsoft Store Online" vs. "the Microsoft Store Online"

Nope. No consistency in the usage of "the" there.

What I am going write in this paragraph is my own experience. Please feel free not to believe it. I am here appealing to your power of reason. I have seen students coming and going who use wrong words, (not just "the") because instead of thinking why they should or should not, they rely on their "feelings". (That's the word they use.) This "feeling" is nothing but a memory fault resulting from seeing too many grammatical false friends. They see a lot of "the Shaun and Harry's store" and by mistake think "Microsoft Store" must be correct.

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 12:15, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Codename Lisa: And what is this supposed to be proof of? Nobody's proposed using "the" in front of any of those. Saying "Mac App Store" in a sentence without the "the" is broken English, which is why natvie speakers around the world don't drop the "the" (and netiehr does Apple). In fact, when I search for -"the mac app store" "mac app store", I get mostly foreign-language hits. You appear to be misunderstanding something fundamental about the language and want to invent a rule to "fix" your knowledge gap. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 21:47, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Lisa, nothing here is post hoc ergo propter hoc. And The Mac App Store isn't a software title; it's the name of a store, like Ye Olde Computer Shoppe. --Deacon Vorbis (talk) 12:00, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

@Deacon Vorbis: With all due respect sir, the Mac App Store article says otherwise. There is such a software title as "Mac App Store". Also, I'd be glad if you explain your "nothing here is post hoc ergo propter hoc". Because I genuinely think someone has mistaken the cause with the effect here. (Of course, I acknowledge that such a mistake is not the sole form of post hoc ergo propter hoc. Thanks in advance.

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 12:18, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

post hoc ergo propter hoc is when two events happen in succession, and the first is attributed as the cause of the second; that hasn't happened here. In any case, it depends on how "Mac App Store" is being used. If it's being referred to as the name of an app on a device that one uses to access the Mac App Store, then it might make sense to drop the "the". But otherwise, "the" should be kept, as even Apple itself does. The usage at the article here is very problematic and should be changed. --Deacon Vorbis (talk) 12:28, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

@Deacon Vorbis: I agree with you 100%. Your description of post hoc ergo propter hoc and the way you explained the problem and our subject of dispute indeed avoids post hoc ergo propter hoc. Except, this was not the way "Curly Turkey" put it. (If you are interest in playing detective to this linguistic mystery, the history of what we wrote is available. But I'd rather focus on the matter at hand.)

I pretty much understand the point of view "Apple does it". (I am repeatedly accused of not acknowledging it but I do.) I just find faults with it. Namely:

1. Reason for the mandate: Since when are we mandated to do what Apple does? We can always do better, if necessary.
2. Scope of the mandate: What about what the rest of the world do?
3. Threshold of detection for the mandate:What about cases that Apple does it differently, demonstrating that in fact, they are not sticking to any strict rule?
4. Benefit of the mandate: What is the benefit in mimicking what others (Apple or otherwise) do? We already are doing differently than others. (See my original verdict for examples of it.)
5. Drawbacks of the mandate: KISS principle: A system works the best when it is the least complex. So, isn't a rule that treats all instances equally more natural, energy-saving, time-saving, and labor-saving than one that requires us to immitate?

Do you know that Wikipedia has done things that the world has started imitating? Before Wikipedia, a non-transitive verb usually meant something that happens spontaneously, without a subject doing it. After 16 years of Wikipedia, people are now using non-transitive verbs to describe an event without remarking on the cause, or without claiming that there was or was not one. We are the largest body of the language in the world. Why must we deny ourselves the right to have a hand in its evolution, when others either don't care if we do or are more than glad that we do it?

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 13:09, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

To me this is where your argument falls apart. You seem to admit you are going against common English grammar in an attempt to provoke changes in it. I don't know what you are trying to say about intransitive verbs but it doesn't even sound accurate. "He died." "He died from cancer." "He ran." Totally conflicts with both your before and after. Even if Wikipedia did provoke a change, trying to enact one through the MOS is along the lines of WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS from which I quote Wikipedia doesn't lead, we follow. —DIYeditor (talk) 23:05, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

"Common English"? This is Apple's English. And it is Apple's English that applies to "Mac App Store" but not "Apple Writer". I have provided half a dozen examples that proves others do otherwise. You just reject them on an ex post facto basis. —Codename Lisa (talk) 05:31, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Just what is this gibberish about non-transitive verbs? And no, Codename Lisa, it's not that I don't understand grammatical transitivity. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:26, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

• Comment As was shown in the great move debate of 2012 over the article now titled "Men's rights movement", the word "should" has different meanings in different dialects of English. In this proposed rewrite does "should" mean "ought to", if so then I suggest using "ought to", if not what does "should" mean? -- PBS (talk) 12:46, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi.

Well, Wikipedia, by nature permits its rules to be bent and broken if there is a good reason. And a guideline, such a MoS, is something that one has to apply most of the times, bearing in mind that common sense and situational requirements permit deviating from it.

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 13:44, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

@Codename Lisa: As I said before your examples are of things that are not labels for what the product is, they are just trademark names:

• "Norton Internet Security" - not an example of "a security" or "an internet security" so it can't be "the [so-and-so] Security"
• "Windows Defender Security Center" - arguably this is not "a security center" because that is not a usual term for what it is, it's "a dashboard" or "a control panel" so "the" doesn't apply
• "Microsoft Paint" - it is not "a paint" so it can't be "the [so-and-so] Paint"
• "Google Docs" - this is not "a docs" or "some docs", "Docs" is like "Windows" a trade name, uncountable, so it can't be "the [so-and-so] Docs"
• "Adobe Photoshop Lightroom" - "a lightroom" is the room on a lighthouse where the lamp is, this is not "a lightroom" but instead an uncountable product name so it wouldn't be "the [so-and-so] Lightroom"
• "Apple Writer" - this is not "a writer" it is a product called Writer, it's "a word processor"

Conversely:

• "Windows SDK" - this is "an SDK" so we say "the [so-and-so] SDK"
• "Mac App Store" - this is "an app store" so we say "the [so-and-so] App Store"
• ".NET Framework" - this is "a framework" so it is "the [so-and-so] Framework"

When people affix a definite article they are following a certain "rule" that may be somewhat difficult to explicate but is consistent. If something is just a product name, putting the brand before it doesn't make it a specific example of a general idea. On the other hand, if it is a general idea and countable, in other woulds if you would say "a [idea] is [...]" rather than "[idea] is [...]", then when you affix a qualifier to that you are talking about a specific one many so you would use "the [qualifier] [idea] is". This is in keeping with the "rule" as I originally laid it out. It really all has to do with what sounds right and I wouldn't be surprised if there were exceptions based on precedent/application but I don't think you have listed any yet. Possible exceptions that I can think of are still about things that are uncountable like "wine": even though you could say "a wine", you would say "wine is [...]" not "a wine is [...]" when describing what it is generally, so still no definite article when talking about a specific one - it's "[maker] wine is [...]". Some nouns like "wine" are both countable and uncountable depending on context - what matters is how the general idea of it is addressed. Whether a particular noun is treated as "countable" is largely down to memorization but that's part of speaking English. Trade names are not treated as countable. It's not "a [trademark] is [...]" rather "[trademark] is [...]". Sorry if this is complicated or unwieldy, unfortunately explication of this "rule" is not that simple and I'm no expert. —DIYeditor (talk) 22:50, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

You conveniently ignored "Microsoft Store Online" which passes all your criteria. I can argue that what you did was nitpicking. Nevertheless, I have seen examples in the form of [Company name]+"Firewall" which are not written with "the". I need a few hours while I extract them. Also, some of your nitpicking seems to be intended purely for rejection and are not objective:

• "Apple Writer" writes, hence a writer
• "Adobe Photoshop" itself is never used with "the", even though we have the word "photoshoping" now. And "lightroom" is a place where photos are developed. Or, was. Nowadays, lightrooms are digital software.
• "Windows Defender Security Center" is Microsoft's idea of a security center. You reject Microsoft's idea of security center without rejecting its bad idea of using "the" which an email can reverse?

I fear you are not being objective here.

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 05:31, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Nope. Humans write, with tools. "Apple Writer" is an evocative title, named for its audience, just like Guitarist (magazine), which is not itself a guitarist; let's not be silly. "Photoshop" does not exist as a word outside the Adobe Photoshop context, so it doesn't fit the pattern. WDSC is a metaphoric name; it is not actually a center – you can't go there and walk in the door. Things get fuzzy with "Store", because we've assimilated the idea that an online shopping site can be "a store" by way of analogy to the brick-and-mortar version. This hasn't happened with many words, and definitely not with "center". That said, DIYeditor is overstating the case slightly, presumably for brevity; 'this is "an app store" so we say "the [so-and-so] App Store"', etc., should have a can between we and say. Obviously, it's not going to be the case that every construction that could take a the will take one, if people choose in the aggregate not to use it, and it's also true that not every such construction will use the in every case, e.g. "This was a Mac App store purchase"; it would be ungrammatical to insert a the there. It's emphatically not ungrammatical to say "I got it at the Mac App Store", as has been amply proven already. Continuing to argue about this is a circular waste of time. So is trying to come up with examples that don't use "the". Even if you find 1,000 examples that don't, and they really all do fit a pattern that could, there will still be way more than 1,001 examples that do.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  06:58, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

@Codename Lisa: I didn't intentionally ignore Microsoft Store Online, it wasn't part of the main list which I just copy and pasted. Microsoft Store Online is, again, a trade name not an instance of something. It is not "a store online" - that doesn't even make any sense (the adjective goes before the noun in English), so how could it be a "the store online"? It is "an online store" but that's now how the name is constructed. You wouldn't say "the Adobe Photoshop" because for one thing Adobe Photoshop is the photoshop and photoshop doesn't have a generic meaning. A similar piece of software is not "a photoshop" but "an image editor". Apple Writer is not "a writer" just because you use it to write with. It's a word processor. Writer is just a product name without any other than referential meaning. The is unlike the Mac App Store which is just an example of an app store, the generic term for what it is. —DIYeditor (talk) 09:52, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

There is another rule used in a different field. Hardware like cars, firearms, computers, aircraft, etc. get the definite article even though they are product names. "the Ford Mustang", "the Lockheed-Martin F-35", "the Apple Macintosh", "the recurve bow". There are probably other domains that have specific treatments by convention; we are worried about software and online services right now. At any rate, Wikipedia should describe grammar that exists. I repeat: "Wikipedia doesn't lead, we follow." —DIYeditor (talk) 23:44, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Now, this is an interesting thing to say: You refrain from looking at the software title use in general but are willing look at hardware titles to find a pretext for a discriminatory rule. It seems to me that you are determined to sanction the use of "the" before "Mac App Store" and any reason you think about are mere justifications you came up after the fact.

FYI, in my country, we don't insert "the" before hardware titles when it is talking about the brand in general. e.g. "iPod is incompatible with Windows Phone". But we do, we mean an instance: "I bought an iPod last night. [,,,] The iPod didn't survive until morning." As such, when I came to Wikipedia, I was in the state of utter surprise to see you guys using "the".

—Codename Lisa (talk) 05:31, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

"iPod is incompatible with Windows Phone" sounds like broken English—I've never heard a native English speaker utter such a sentence. Both "iPods are incompatible with Windows Phones" and "the iPod is incompatible with the Windows Phone" (compare: "the lion is a magestic animal") are preferable. Just what country are you talking about? Google turns up no such wording, except in point-form contexts. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 08:22, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

@Codename Lisa: So I gather you are from a country in which English is not the native language (or perhaps Singapore). That usage doesn't impact how things should be worded on the English Wikipedia. In standard English you say 'the iPod is incompatible with Windows Phone" or "iPods are". Hardware gets a "the". No native English speaker I've heard would say "Apple Macintosh is a computer," instead of "The Apple Macintosh is a computer." I think this speaks to the authority of the information you've offered on this subject overall. I challenge you to go to every article about a car, airplane, firearm, computer, etc. and remove the "the" the articles start with. You could start with the iPod's article. No, I am not actually encouraging POINTy editing just pointing out how absurd this is. At any rate, I didn't offer the usage for hardware as having direct bearing on our discussion; I only wanted to hedge my bets against accusations of there being a different rule for a different realm of knowledge, which there is, but this discussion has taken an interesting turn. —DIYeditor (talk) 10:10, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

@Curly Turkey and DIYeditor: you both say that a native English speaker wouldn't use a particular construction without a determiner. I wouldn't in the examples you give. But then I wouldn't write "MacBook Pro is built on groundbreaking ideas"; for this to feel right, I need an initial "the". However, Apple often doesn't use one in such contexts – see e.g. [23]. This isn't an argument for the English Wikipedia to follow Apple's (to me) idiosyncratic style; rather it's to make the point that you are both a little too dogmatic about how native English speakers use their language. English is very inconsistent at times in the way it handles determiners and proper names (compare "The River Thames is in London" and "Lake Ontario is one of the great lakes" – river names take a determiner, lake names don't). Peter coxhead (talk) 17:40, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

And I assume you would agree that an article about a river needs to start with "the" and one about a lake (usually) with "lake", unless it's a sea then it'd be "the"... There is no question that how to apply the definite article takes the memorization of many rules of thumb and specific cases, and there will always be outliers and exceptions; nobody said English was easy. The core issue here is that we need to follow what grammar is in use by the vast majority of English speakers rather than try to concoct a new usage for the sake of simplicity or satisfying an alien sense of consistency. Codename Lisa baldly admitted to wanting to use Wikipedia to create new grammar rules which is a breach of what I understand to be our mission as editors - to describe, not to dictate. FleetCommand's activity seems to be along those lines as well, although I think MOS:COMP is largely accurate and useful. —DIYeditor (talk) 19:03, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Peter coxhead: I haven't been "dogmatic" about it—I've been insisting on using English the way native English speakers use it. Did I call sonewhere to use "the" in front of everything? Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 21:28, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

@Curly Turkey: I've been insisting on using English the way native English speakers use it: since some native English speakers demonstrably do use the determiner-less style, including Apple publicity material and manuals, how is your statement not dogmatic? All I'm suggesting is a little more caution in making judgements about usage in a language as variable and as fuzzy in its grammar as English. Anyway, no more from me; this thread is already too long! Peter coxhead (talk) 21:44, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Peter coxhead: I assume you're talking about the "MacBook Pro" case, on which I've made no comment. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 22:55, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Keep in mind also that marketing language is the bastard child of journalism style and signage, primarily intended for product packaging and "get it in 3 seconds or less" advertisements, and it consequently uses a great deal of compression, much like headlines. It's also geared to be psychologically manipulative. "MacBook Pro is built on groundbreaking ideas" is both compressed and intended to give the reader the sense that "MacBook Pro" is an abstract special something to which they can belong, a club or lifestyle they can be a part of. Apple's entire marketing strategy for over three decades has made heavy use of this kind of conceptualization. It doesn't tell us jack about everyday, much less encyclopedic, usage. It's not even normal Apple-internal usage [24], but something they used in advertising copy [25]. And we probably don't care what internal Apple usage is anyway (i.e. no, we not going to be "Apple and Microsoft's bitch", as FleetCommand keeps saying), but rather public usage in independent print sources "the+MacBook+Pro"+-wikipedia+-apple.com+-wiki[26] (aside from compressed titles and headlines).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  10:45, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

No doubt, but Codename Lisa is telling us (a) Apple is mistaken when it uses (rather than drops) the definite article; and (b) CL has also been removing the definite article from articles such as Apache HTTP Server, a FOSS project that is not in the business of manipulating consumers' psychology in the same way as Apple (and which uses the definite article to refer to its own software). Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 10:59, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

@Stephen Hui and DokReggar: I notice that this section of MOS:COMP has been discussed before, at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Computing#Definite article ("The") when referring to Windows Store, and two participants in it have not commented here and may be unaware the matter has been re-opened.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  03:41, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

• Codename Lisa's still enforcing the removal of "the" from articles—she snuck this in recently at the Apache HTTP Server article; I reverted it, and she just reverted me. This despite the fact that both the Apache Project and the English-speaking world pretty much universally refer to this software using the definite article. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 21:22, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
  • I took it to user talk.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  22:29, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Hello. I am afraid Curly Turkey's statement is not accurate. The change he claims I have done recently has in fact occurred five monthes ago, on 16 May 2017. His reversion, however, occurred on 4 November 2017, and calls me sneaky. Perhaps our esteemed colleague should check dates and talk pages before jumping to conclusions or assuming bad faith?

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 07:16, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

• And you reverted it today. Stop being disruptive. You have no legs to stand on. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 07:19, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
• UPDATE: she's reverted it twice today—she's now reverted User:Deacon Vorbis's revert. She should be blocked for editwarring. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 07:21, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

• Oh, hello again. :)

I have added even more examples in the article talk page. You can always start discussing the contribution instead of the contributor, like what DIYEditor and Warren are doing. Even Deacon Vorbis addressed the material here. You are the only one who is ignoring my reasons, firmly asserting that you are correct and providing no reasons. The future generation will judge your WP:IDHT behavior.

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 11:48, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Merging MOS:COMPSCI#Style and salvageable parts of MOS:COMP into a real guideline

FYI

 – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

Please see proposal at at WT:MOSCOMPSCI, pursuant to the direction the discussion above has turned.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  11:42, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

RM discussion: "Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Sanitation)"

FYI

 – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

Please see Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (Sanitation)#Requested move 11 November 2017.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  01:03, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Use of "died by suicide" at the David Reimer article

Another discussion of "died by suicide"? Pass the cup!

–EEng

Can we get some opinions at Talk:David Reimer#"Committed suicide" vs. "died by suicide"? A permalink for it is here. I mentioned there that we have discussed "died by suicide" at this guideline's talk page before. There doesn't appear to be any consensus on Wikipedia about whether we should avoid "committed suicide" or use "died by suicide." And since it keeps coming up, maybe we should address it in the guideline? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:38, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Agree that this should be addressed below, so we can hopefully generate some consensus to guide us in the general case. Two articles already talk about the public debate concerning this point of terminology, namely the Suicide article, and the Suicide terminology article, the latter having an entire section devoted to it. Mathglot (talk) 01:58, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Request for opinions posted at WT:LAW, WT:MED, WT:LGBT, WT:SOCIOLOGY, WT:PSYCH. Mathglot (talk) 02:19, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Happy with which ever. We have had RfC on this in the past[27]Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:28, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

• I see no reason whatsoever to avoid saying "committed suicide". It is a common expression. bd2412 T 02:42, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
  • And "died of suicide", besides appearing to have the intent of violating WP:EUPHEMISM in this case, is the wrong preposition. It should be "died from suicide". (I realize the Google statistics show that a lot of people disagree with me, but they're all wrong.) —David Eppstein (talk) 02:55, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

    At Rome they say "died by suicide". EEng 03:05, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

    Shouldn't that be "died at suicide"?  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  04:43, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

    What about just "killed himself/herself"? Sizeofint (talk) 03:09, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

    "Ended it all"? "Offed himself"? "Took the easy way out"? "Cheated the hangman"? "Did away with himself"? "Died by his own hand"? EEng 03:21, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

• "Committed suicide" is standard English. So is the even blunter "killed himself". Anything else is so rare in usage or so obviously a euphemism as to raise questions as to the purpose for using such phrasing. Or questions about the writer's competence in English. Either way, there's no reason to change it. oknazevad (talk) 03:25, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

  I disagree; they are all invariably "standard English" by textbook definitions. "Died by suicide" is also not a euphemism — and to me it's far more neutral in that it describes what happened without putting intentionality into focus.

  We don't express that someone "committed a motorcycle accident" or "committed alcoholism", despite both being choices to engage in motorcycling or alcohol drinking (at least initially). What is standard isn't de facto correct or neutral, and we should strive for neutrality over an infatuation with "standard language".

  Within the professional community suicide is seen as a complication of depression, and this wording is a both uncomplicated and straightforward way to get this point across. Carl Fredrik ^talk 17:05, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

  By sticking to the common usage we are being neutral, as we aren't choosing phrasings to ale a point. WP:NOTSOAPBOX/WP:GREATWRONG and all that, which your response below skates quite close to. oknazevad (talk) 22:36, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

  No, common usage is often far from neutral. Backpain in Spanish is often referred to as "kidney pain", however that is patently false. The same is true for "hysteria", which implies origin in the womb. Just because people in general say something does not imply neutrality. Neutrality is not what is most common... Carl Fredrik ^talk 15:25, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

  Yeah, I did an N-gram at the main thread showing about a 100:40:1 ratio of "committed suicide" : "killed himself"/"killed herself" (combined) : "died by suicide".  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  04:43, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

  I don't see a problem with any of "committed suicide" : "killed himself"/"killed herself" (combined) : "died by suicide". they all describe unambiguously what happened and are sufficiently neutral and in my opinion grammatically correct. Leave it to the editors to establish consensus, and if that fails, stay with the earliest version of one of these three. The choice for a particular use may be guided by flow of the prose for FA. · · · Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 05:55, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

would agree w/ Pbsouthwood--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 18:19, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

• Committed suicide is the common term. Died by suicide is an attempt at political correctness and is unnecessary in wikipedia. Natureium (talk) 15:02, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

  I think you've thoroughly misunderstood what political correctness is, and further misunderstood it by stating that something being politically correct is an argument against its use... Carl Fredrik ^talk 16:55, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

  Thank you for letting me know you think that. Natureium (talk) 19:15, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

  "Politically correct" has two meanings: the original positive sense propounded by left-progressives in the 1970s (the "politically correct = respectful" idea), and the pejorative sense that now dominates, used by anyone (even on the left) who tires of having everyday English "policed" in the interests of hypersensitivity. I don't think think anyone here is unaware of that, or unaware which meaning Natureium intended. It seems disingenuous on CFCF's part to suggest that Natureium has "misunderstood" when it's clearly a matter of disagreement, not ignorance.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  02:02, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

  The point is that saying that something is "politically correct" is not an argument against it. It is textbook WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Had the argument been that it oversimplifies, or it adds ambiguity or is not generally recognized — then you have an argument. Saying that something is politically correct, and therefore we should not use it — is to imply that Wikipedia should strive to be politically incorrect. Carl Fredrik ^talk 15:25, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

  That's not it at all. I'm saying that rejecting the most common term, which has been used in both formal and informal contexts for many years, for the sake of protecting someone's feelings is censorship. Natureium (talk) 17:20, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

  That is exactly what I meant. Thank you for clarifying for people who apparently don't understand. Natureium (talk) 17:20, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

• Strongly prefer died by suicide. There are various professional guidelines about how to discuss suicide, which generally conclude that this is the preferable way to express such deaths. This is not specifically an issue of article names, so we are free to follow less standard language in the pursuit of neutrally covering a topic. It doesn't matter one iota what ngram tells us, because even if "killed themselves" was the most common — it's entirely inappropriate for use in an encyclopedia. I think we shouldn't try to reinvent the wheel, but instead follow the professional guidelines that exist about this. Carl Fredrik ^talk 16:53, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Here are several sources which explicitly recommend "died by suicide" over "committed"

• American Foundation for Suicide Prevention — Recommendations for Reporting on Suicide
• Samaritans — Media Guidelines for Reporting Suicide

Carl Fredrik ^talk 16:59, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

The ngram approach is tricky when examining a term with changing usage. I doubt it can be done well enough to trust. If even the AFSP, working on prevention, seeks to avoid "committed", then why would we seek to perpetuate its use? Certainly advocates for and practioners of "assisted dying" would not want "committed" to continue. It's an obsolescent term rooted in particular mores and changing legalities. Further, it implies a mental volition and determination which may not be applicable in all cases. Sometimes attempts are more successful than intended when all that was desired was attention. In such cases "committed" is simply wrong. In David Reimer's case the intent is obvious but not the commitment. It would be sufficient to say that he turned a shotgun on himself. LeadSongDog come howl! 17:19, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

The N-gram approach is actually quite solid when the numbers are big and the search is proper; it's only iffy when there's barely a statistical difference between usages, or the user does not account for how Google Ngrams is indexed and what the limits of its searching are. I'll repeat here what I posted at the article talk page, and people can judge for themselves:

"Committed suicide" is normal English and does not imply criminality ("commit" has multiple meanings in English - one should commit to committing them to memory). It is by far the most common construction, which is easily provable [28]. "Died by suicide" is actually quite rare (surely owning to its archaic awkwardness, shades of "died by [his/her] own hand", "died by misadventure", etc.). "Killed [him|her]self" (combined) have a bit less than 50% the usage rate in modern works as "committed suicide". There are other ways to write this sort of thing, like "death was ruled a suicide" (if we have official reports that say so), and rearranging the sentence: "His/her suicide ...". There are others (see Suicide terminology), but most of them are awkward. We've spent too many cycles on too many pages arguing about this. People who think that "commit suicide" auto-implies a crime are just flat-out wrong as a matter of English language usage, but in the end do we really care? It's easier and faster to re-word than to keep arguing about this on page after page for the next decade. But "died by suicide" is pretty much the last option; virtually no reliable sources use it other than a few newspapers who've jumped onto the oversensitivity pandering bandwagon. This "died by suicide" stuff is the advocacy position of a particular organization [29]; pushing it here is a WP:NPOV policy problem. While we should not revert rewordings of "committed suicide" that are actual improvements (and "died by suicide" is not, or way more than around 1% of sources would use it), programmatic editwarring against "committed suicide" has to stop. This is rapidly approaching disruptive editing levels, and is a major drain on editorial productivity. It's consumed probably several hundred editorial person-hours just in the last couple of months. [End copied post.]
 — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  02:02, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

• A few thoughts:
  • "Killed himself" does not indicate intentionality, which is a significant limitation. Thus it is usually going to be more appropriate to specify suicide in such cases, to immediately differentiate "accidentally killed himself while behaving recklessly" from "intentionally killed himself because he didn't want to be alive any more". Bluntness that leaves room for thinking that an intentional death was actually accidental is the wrong kind of bluntness.
  • "Died by suicide" has become more common recently, and it has its advantages and disadvantages. On the upside, it's less moralistic than "committed", so it has a slightly more neutral tone in that sense. On the downside, it also feels like it's treating suicide as a very particular, quasi-medicalized method of dying: It's death as a result of a state of deranged thinking that non-suicidal adults associate teenage angst and long-term depression and similar mental health conditions, but that has almost nothing to do with ritual "honor" suicides and terminally ill patients. Blog posts such as this one indicate the concept here: suicide is the last step in a long chain of medicalized events for people with mental illnesses, and suicide is just the sadly predictable result in some people with this class of medical conditions, just like fatal heart attacks are the sadly predictable result in some people with other classes of medical conditions.
  • About the prepositions: "died of" is more common for statements about causes of death, including murder, strangulation and even depression. One relevant exception: "Died from homicide" is more common than "died of homicide", and much more common than "died by homicide".
  • I think that one of the reasons some influential groups have been pushing "died by" is because they are specifically trying to discourage the publication of methods. Suicide and especially specific suicide methods are subject to fads. They may be trying to replace "He died by shooting himself" with "He died by suicide", and hoping that changing the fewest number of words in the sentence would make it easier for the journalists to accept.
  • My personal preference, at the moment, for the generic case, is "died of" or "died from". But my firm opinion is that editors should consider all of the facts and circumstances, and make a choice that fits the needs of the individual article. I do not want a rule that says 'this phrase is required', or 'that phrase is banned'. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:23, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Lets not split this discussion into multiple venues. The discussion is already part of a well-established thread at here at the Policy Village Pump and as such, lets not split the same discussion into two places, mkay? I will note that as of yet, that discussion has reached an almost unanimous consensus that the appropriate phrasing is "committed suicide". But if you have additional perspectives, please comment THERE and not HERE. Lets bring this into one discussion in one place. --Jayron32 19:06, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

I have to agree with Jayron on this... starting another thread here at MOS smacks of forum shopping (although perhaps unintentional). As for the idea of adding something about the word choice to MOS... No. Something as specific as choosing between one phrasing and another is beyond the scope of a style guide. Blueboar (talk) 19:43, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Oh, lawdy, has this forked again?  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  02:02, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

The supposed WP:Forum shopping was not forum shopping. I didn't start both threads; I started one (the one above). And I did not know that there was a general thread on the matter at WP:Village pump (policy). Furthermore, my initial post is more about one article. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:38, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Well, I did say it was perhaps unintentional... never-the-less, when the same issue is raised in two policy venues in a short period of time, I hope you can see how it creates the ‘‘appearance’‘ of forum shopping... even if that was not the intent. Blueboar (talk) 23:18, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

I understand, Blueboar. I just wanted to clarify that it wasn't technically WP:Forum shopping. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:12, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

TLDNR He committed suicide. He died by shooting [himself]. It is a distinction between "who" did it and "what" was the cause of death. Another case might be, "he was murdered by strangulation" Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 05:31, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

I would imagine that murder by strangulation is quite a rare form of suicide. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:43, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Comment: I stated the following at the article's talk page: Discussions at this guideline talk page haven't helped to establish a consensus on the "committed" matter so far. I don't see that the current one will either unless an RfC is started here. And, yeah, I know that I often rely on RfCs. But per what SMcCandlish has stated, it seems to me that we do need an RfC on this here -- one to point editors to -- since "committed" is being removed from articles so often. People are going to keep referring to certain sources/style guides on the matter as justification for removing "committed." If Wikipedia does not support that route, then Wikipedia needs to be very clear about that. I wouldn't mind "committed" being removed and being replaced with "died by suicide" if "died by suicide" was actual standard language. Above, Doc James pointed to a 2017 discussion at the Suicide talk page about this; he stated "RfC." I'm not sure if he meant that the 2017 discussion was an RfC (doesn't look like it was one) or if he was referring to the 2013 discussion that Doniago pointed to as a past RfC, but that 2013 RfC discussion shows that consensus was for retaining "committed suicide." The Suicide article, however, currently uses "died by suicide." As for "killed himself/herself," which I don't find unencyclopedic, it is not possible in the case of many non-binary people. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:09, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) In the very few cases where people demand to be referred to by genderless pronouns, a different form can be used instead. Such as "killed themself", since "they" and "them" are being pushed as a gender-neutral singular pronoun. Natureium (talk) 17:20, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

But it's not a style that WP uses. Same goes for made-up "pronouns" like zir and hisr.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  08:30, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

The guideline discourages use of singular they? As for pronouns like "zir" and "hisr," aren't they protected under the MOS:GENDERID subsection of MOS:IDENTITY? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:12, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

The guideline does not discourage the use of singular they, but armies of ignorant pedants will scrub WP's pages of it. Unfortunately, there are those such as Natureium who believe singular they is a recent, politically-motivated phenomenon, despite its near-universal usage since Middle English and a pedigree predating the "gender-neutral he" by centuries. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 07:49, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

And 'As for pronouns like "zir"' and "hisr," aren't they protected under the MOS:GENDERID subsection of MOS:IDENTITY?' – Hell no. A thousands times no. WP does not write in made-up neologisms. If someone's expressed gender ID is female, use she/her/hers; if it's male, use he/his. If it's something else, avoid pronouns, or use singular "they" if you think it's appropriate, though people are apt to revert it. Probably the most notable example was Genesis P-Orridge whose made-up pronoun is "s/he", which we do not use in WP's own voice. But someone has gone back in and re-inserted it. That needs to come out; looks like about 5 sentences will need recasting.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  15:24, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I am not endorsing use of "singular they" or pronouns like "zir"' and "hisr." I do, however, know that some editors would point to MOS:GENDERID in support of pronouns like "zir" and "hisr." And as for singular they, I'd rather avoid it since it causes confusion and is disfavored by some style guides, as noted in the Singular they article, but I know that it has its valid uses and I do use it at times when responding to or referencing people on Wikipedia. Anyway, I see that my query has sparked a singular they discussion below. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:54, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

The Sngluar they article doesn't say anything about it causing confusion, and mentions increased cognitive load only with its recent usage to refer to known individuals, which conflicts with its centuries-long, univerally employed standard usage. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 01:57, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

The Wikipedia article shows American style guides discouraging its use. When I've read sources discouraging its use, part of the reason given has been that it can cause confusion. I've seen confusion result from some uses of singular they on Wikipedia. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:19, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

None of which are given in the article (and style guides also sometimes discourage bogeymen such as the so-called split infinitive et al, which we will not allow the MoS to regulate). Can you give us a concrete example? Something to suggest singular they ever causes non-make believe issues? Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 06:19, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Above, I see that Jayron32 mentioned a WP:Village pump (policy) discussion on the matter, but I also see that CFCF (Carl Fredrik) closed the discussion. Given CFCF's involvement with the discussion above, I find that close inappropriate. The WP:Village pump (policy) discussion would actually lead to consensus on the matter versus this non-RfC discussion, which is yet another discussion here that will die out. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:20, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

I was referring to the 2013 RfC. That was a long time ago. Would be happy to see another one. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:17, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

I have undone the closure of the VPP discussion. That one is older than THIS one by almost a month. Expecting everyone to pick up and move over here is not how we do things. The older discussion has primacy. --Jayron32 18:25, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Actually Flyer22 Reborn, the VP discussion is moot, because the only thing it's finding consensus for is that we shouldn't change every mention on Wikipedia. It says nothing about recommending one or the other. The reason I closed that is because it turned into a vote just recently, and isn't very balanced. It is essentially a strawman with people emphatically voting no without as much as an argument. Carl Fredrik ^talk 20:43, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

CFCF, the relevancy of the other discussion is obviously debatable. And regardless of its specific focus, it does provide consensus with regard to use of "committed suicide" often being fine. As for closing it, if it needed closing, I think the closer should have been uninvolved. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:38, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Even though it is WP:FORUMSHOPPING to start a vote there yesterday — after this discussion was started and had elements of voting in it? Carl Fredrik ^talk 08:21, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Carl Fredrik, I'm having a little trouble following you here. The VPP discussion is quite clear that there isn't going to be a recommendation in favor of "died by suicide". So when you say it doesn't discuss recommending one or the other, the only other possibility is that there could be a recommendation in favor of "committed suicide", which first of all I think is exactly what you don't want, and perhaps more importantly, I don't think anyone is proposing. My position, to be explicit, is that MoS should say nothing about it one way or the other (and for what it's worth, I'm perfectly happy to have it remain in your preferred form at David Reimer). --Trovatore (talk) 21:50, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

If anyone were to interpret consensus from what is on the VP it would be based off 10 WP:FORUMSHOPPED and uninformed voices set in front of a WP:STRAWMAN. Of course they are going to vote against the proposal. This is why premature voting, or having an RfC on things without properly presenting both sides (or even allowing both sides to partake) is disruptive. In fact it is the reason for our rules on WP:FORUMSHOPPING & WP:CANVASING. And, if we do get a recommendation for committed, it will be based on the shoddy arguments presented at the VP — and that holds no sway and will not result in any final consensus on the matter. It will just be challenged again. So, if we truly want consensus we should strive for informed debate, which was not happening at the VP. I appreciate that the result is likely not to favor my position, however if it does not even consider the many aspects brought up here, then the VP result is likely to be interpreted as WP:LOCALCONSENSUS.

That vote was a split from this discussion; is textbook WP:FORUMSHOPPING; and even borders on WP:CANVASING. Of course it matters. Carl Fredrik ^talk 08:21, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

There is no WP:STRAWMAN page, though perhaps there should be. Anyway, I'm skeptical that it's constructive to split hairs between FORUMSHOP, CANVASS, and the principle that we should centralize rather than fork discussion (I forget the shortcut for that WP:CFORK/I); the first two imply motive, and we don't seem to have evidence for it.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  08:42, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, @SMcCandlish: — I missread the timestamp, which you changed/updated. Since people generally don't do this I interpreted the entire vote section to have started on the 1st. However I would appreciate if you looked into the arguments made by the organizations I linked above, as to why died by suicide is better — and that Wikipedia need not strive for language purity. That commited sounds better is not an argument towards using it in my book, at least not when compared to other stronger arguments against it. Carl Fredrik ^talk 15:34, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

I was already familiar with the arguments advanced by that camp. It's still a language reform PoV (i.e., a "we wish English worked this way instead" advocacy campaign) that has made little headway. It's not WP's job to promote their agenda for them and take up the flag of post-modern English for new heights of sensitivity. Consider how long it took MOS:IDENTITY to come about at all, much less get into its current form. It required years of debate, and it didn't happen until general English language usage (as evidenced in the majority of style guides of any repute) were in agreement on it.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  22:03, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

• "killed himself/herself" is a common and direct English expression. "committed suicide" is also common, but is also a problematic turn of phrase that very obviously originates in suicide being a punishable crime and its being considered a sin by most Christian churches and so not NPOV, and most of the users arguing in favour of it here seem to be either completely ignorant of this background or deliberately pretending to be so. "died by suicide" is silly, awkward, and should be avoided. I don't see any reason why we can't just use "killed himself/herself". Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:34, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

"very obviously", no. Try "some suppose" instead. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 13:39, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

By the way, I'm not talking about SMcC's analysis (which I disagree with, but at least is an analysis that recognizes the problem). I'm talking about the ones who just say "I don't see why anyone would have a problem with commit suicide" without even recognizing that "commit" implies criminality. SMcC is right that it doesn't necessarily imply criminality, but for those of us who grow up in environments where it actually was criminalized, it definitely does. And this was the case with most of the English-speaking world during most of the history of the phrase "commit suicide" (if not in the UK and US as recently as Ireland or in the lives of most American and British Wikipedians), so is almost certainly where the phrase originates. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:41, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Problem with "kill oneself": Vaughn Bodē killed himself, but it wasn't suicide. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 13:07, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

We could avoid the whole mess by writing "The cause of death was suicide". WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:16, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

If the specifics are available, there's sometimes also a self- or auto- construction that can be used.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  06:23, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Should MOS cover "data is" vs. "data are"?

Likely coverred by MOS:STYLERET and no further MOS talk required.

It's been suggested at Talk:Disk storage#RfC on "data are" or "data is" that this issue should be decided by MOS. Is this a MOS issue? Specifically (assuming both "data are" and "data is" are proper English, and the difference is use as either a count noun plural of "datum" or a mass noun) is use choice a national variety, like "colour/color"? Is "data is/are" already covered by WP:ENGVAR? If so, should ENGVAR be amended to make that coverage obvious? If not, should ENGVAR be expanded to cover similar variations that don't follow national boundaries? Should other English "boundaries" be identified by common usage within a field, industry, subject, time, etc., or some combination? How? --A D Monroe III(talk) 15:44, 29 October 2017 (UTC) I commented there. I see no reason to think this is ENGVAR related, and I don't think the MOS needs to cover such narrow cases. Dicklyon (talk) 21:48, 29 October 2017 (UTC) Nothing to do with ENGVAR, no need for special treatment at MOS. The answer to the underlying question depends on the context (whether the data is counable) , not on a rigid rule. "All of that data is now stored on the backup server". "These three specific pieces or data are now stored on the backup server". --Guy Macon (talk) 22:05, 29 October 2017 (UTC) Concur with Guy Macon and Dicklyon.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  01:43, 30 October 2017 (UTC) Concur. EEng 02:15, 30 October 2017 (UTC) Actually this is a style question since most everyone seems to agree that both "data is" and "data are" are correct. Absent a guideline in MOS this question of style becomes an editor's choice which is coverred by MOS:STYLEVAR, specifically, ' that editors should not change an article from one styling to another without "substantial reason." ' FWIW there are 9,814 instances of "data is" and 14,645 instances of "data are" in WP articles including 809 instances were both are used and 100 instances where "data is" is used in the same article with "dataum," e.g. Data structure alignment. There is a concensus that both the latter constructions (usage of both and usage of datum and "data is") are incorrect. I therefore suggest that some attention is appropriate for WP:MOS Note that this style issue is addressed in other "Manuals of Style" so that it is appropriate herein. I suggest the teachings of MOS:ENGVAR can be applied to intra-language variations such as "data is" and "data are" or "disc" vs "disk." Such intra-language migh contain the following sections: Opportunities for commonality - like MOS:COMMONALITY except restated to prefer a varient which is dominant within an article's subject matter. Consistency with articles - same as MOS:ARTCON; however needs to be expanded to address datum with data is as an inconsistency. Retain existing varients - same as MOS:RETAIN There is no need for an equivalent to MOS:TIES since it is covered in 1. above. My recollection is that this issue comes up from time to time as it currently is in Talk:Disk storage#RfC on "data are" or "data is" so that some guideance in MOS would prevent or reduce such discussions. Accordingly I would like further discussion herein. Tom94022 (talk) 19:25, 1 November 2017 (UTC) Why? Wouldn't it just be rehash? We already know that the actual meaning of "data is" and "data are" (and of "disc" and "disk") are different and context-dependent; using the one that matches the intended contextual meaning is a "substantial reason" for a change on a case-by-case basis. Going around changing all cases of "disk" to "disc" or "data are" to "data is" (or vice versa in either case) is not, and we already know that.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  19:42, 1 November 2017 (UTC) Rehash of what? It's not explicit that intra-language choices are covered by MOS:STYLEVAR nor is there any requirement for consistency of style. No one is thinking about changing all cases but the two "improper" cases cited above (datum/data is and data are/data is) should be fixed and without WP:MOS guideance fixing might not occur or might be disputed. Tom94022 (talk) 22:09, 1 November 2017 (UTC) Rehash of STYLEVAR is general, which says nothing that limits it to inter-dialect (I don't think you really meant -language) disputes – those are covered at ENGVAR, so of course STYLEVAR includes intra-dialect ones. The nature of the "data is/are" dispute is actually something fairly unusual: group A understands that these have different meanings in different contexts, while group B consists of Latin-nerd prescriptivists with a WP:GREATWRONGS / WP:TRUTH (or "how English should really work, dammit", i.e. WP:SOAPBOX) perspective that "data is" necessarily must be wrong, no matter what. This is a usage-defying prescriptive grammar PoV, and WP is the wrong venue to push it. It may be the case that this dispute is recurrent and flamey enough that MoS should say something specific about it, but it would be specific about data is/are, not a general change to STYLEVAR.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  23:00, 1 November 2017 (UTC) Actually there is a third agnostic group - let the editor's decide. It would suggest a policy that "The English Wikipedia prefers no specific variation in language within a national variety of an English language over any other." I think a general policy is prefered with "datum/data is/data are" as an example but it could be limited to just "datum/data is/data are". Other Style Guides cover this subject why not WP? Tom94022 (talk) 23:26, 1 November 2017 (UTC) "Let the editor decide" = "it depends on the context", which is what many of us have been saying. For a case where there's not a context dependency, and it's just a choice between two completely synonymous variants, "let the editor decide" = "continue to have pointless chest beating fights about it for the next decade". We have a good rationale to stop such fights, but they don't apply to differences that are contextual, only preferential.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  07:11, 4 November 2017 (UTC) And there is a fourth group - only "data is" is acceptable since it has become predominantly a mass noun. All four groups are represented at Talk:Disk storage#RfC on "data are" or "data is" and it looks like no consensus will be reached there. A search of article talk pages turns up 1,022 instances of both varients. An analysis of the first 500 hits (about half) shows 288 articles discussing this issue in 2017 with hits going back to 2005 - here is the detailed analysis. So "this dispute is recurrent and flamey enough that MoS should say something specific about it" It really doesn't matter if MOS addresses the more general issue of varients within a language (see three numbered rules above or just this issue - my recommendations specifically for "data" are: Either "data is" or "data are" may be consistently used in an English WP article (i.e., editorial style decision). If an English WP article contains "datum" then "data is" should not be used unless justfied by the article's content. I think this is enough of an historical problem that it should be addressed in MOS. Tom94022 (talk) 18:16, 3 November 2017 (UTC) But it can't be the case that 'only "data is" is acceptable' if data is only predominantly a mass noun and is sometimes still a count noun. 'Either "data is" or "data are" may be consistently used in an English WP article' doesn't work, since it would robotically impose the wrong variant on the wrong context; we're better than that. Your second point, about datum, acknowledges this issue ("unless justfied by the article's content", which is vague but we knew what you meant), so why would you have kept the first "rule", which pretends the issue isn't real?  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  07:11, 4 November 2017 (UTC) Goddam it, it might be the moon or it might be gamma rays, but recently everyone wants every editorial decision made into a MOS rule. I want to see actual evidence that this is a chronic problem which is wasting editor time on multiple articles. Because if MOS does not need a rule on something, it needs to not have a rule on that thing. EEng 19:40, 3 November 2017 (UTC) Clever formulation. I would add the corollary that if MoS does not already have a rule on something, then it almost certainly doesn't need one. So, I'm with you on wanting to be sure this is a long-running, intractable dispute before adding an MoS rule about it.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  07:22, 4 November 2017 (UTC) SMcCandlish, I'm surprised you of all people have never seen my mossy thoughts. EEng 09:20, 4 November 2017 (UTC) If we need one, the entire rule can be expressed as "Data and datum: When it is a mass noun (the usual case), use data is; when a count noun, use singular datum is and plural data are." No nonsense about intra-article consistency applies. We probably don't even need examples, because no one educationally competent to consider and argue about the matter is likely to be unable to understand this.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  07:22, 4 November 2017 (UTC) @SMcandlish and EEng:What about the actual evidence from searching the article talk pages is insufficient? It seems like the discussion is occuring daily in at least one WP article. I haven't looked at the resolution of these discussions but I suspect because of the limited following of many of those articles the outcomes are all over the map. BTW, if you do agree that some guideance is appropriate to MOS, then I do suggest some examples since the debate will then become over the useage. Tom94022 (talk) 18:12, 5 November 2017 (UTC) See User:EEng#mossy for what I think should be shown before we even countenance this as something MOS should opine on. EEng 19:17, 5 November 2017 (UTC) I have read User:EEng#mossy and can demonstrate it meets the requiurements of §A.2.(b) with modifications and §B. I estimate there are 30,000 articles in WP using data in one varient or another (based upon sample of 500 of each varient from WP article only search, after dedup, scaled based on total hits) of which about 800 use both "data is" and "data are" in the same article. More than 50% (17000 est) use "data are" exclusively and fewer use "data is" (12000 est). I have already provided statitics on the almost daily discussion of this subject in article's talk sections. FWIW, I first personally became involved in such a discussion in 2009, almost a flame war, where the consensus ultimately was to go to "data are." References My reason for suggesting a modification to §A.2.(b) is that in this case the editors of WP have collectively shown no real preference to either varient and therefore any style guide should allow either unless there is a substantial reason for changing, as for example in mixing "datum" and "data is" other than in an article specifically addressing the relationships. My problem with the rule proposed by SMcCandlish above is that it would more or less enshrines "data is" even though collectively we editors seem to have expressed a preference for "data are." Tom94022 (talk) 23:10, 6 November 2017 (UTC) If digging around in our text shows usage this radically mixed, then my "if we really need" a rule about this obviously has an answer of "no". This is just another MOS:STYLEVAR matter, like choosing between "usually" and "most often".  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  12:05, 7 November 2017 (UTC) @Guy Macon: please stop collapsing ongoing discussions. If you do collapse please use more accuarate descriptions. In this case it could have been something like "Issue coverred by MOS:STYLEVAR." OK - I can live with MOS:STYLEVAR. However, I would point out that editors can most often use both versions of your example in the same article, as with most synonyms. Usually editors seem to prefer consistent usage of "data is/data are" within an article, so does consistancy becomes a substantial reason for changing in the case of "data are/data in"? There are about 800 inconsistent articles out of 30,000 relevent ones in WP. Tom94022 (talk) 20:04, 8 November 2017 (UTC) Now that we can write here again... [30] has some discussion of countable vs. uncountable (mass) nouns. One example is luggage, which is likely countable, but one might just not want to count. There is a NIST project to count the number of atoms in a Si sphere.[31] In any case, it seems to me that it could be appropriate to use the countable and mass forms of data in the same article. Gah4 (talk) 20:29, 9 November 2017 (UTC) Well, keep in mind that count vs. mass noun classes are an abstract feature of language, and shouldn't be taken too literally; it can varies between languages for the same (translated) noun. It's best thought of as like grammatical gender in languages that have that; it doesn't always directly correspond to reality (e.g., the word for 'dog' might be feminine in a particular language even when applied to male dogs).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  03:10, 10 November 2017 (UTC) Luggage is countable? How insane does this discussion need to get before someone puts it out of its misery? This is all general English stuff, nothing specific to WP, and so is not a MOS matter. EEng 05:59, 10 November 2017 (UTC) I always count my luggage after a flight. Probably until we are counting the number of angels that can dance on the head of a pin. · · · Peter (Southwood) (talk): 08:16, 10 November 2017 (UTC) With counting of "data is" vs "data are" being presented as evidence for some WP preference, I should point out that's not evidence for any preference of data as a plural of datum vs. data as a mass noun. In phrases like "different types of data are used", the subject is "types", not "data", so "are" is used regardless of data being a mass noun. There are many other indicators of count vs. mass, such as "fewer data" vs. "less data". English being what it is, the varieties pertinent variations on this are virtually endless. A better indicator (though still not perfect) would be counting the occurrence of "data" vs. "datum" in articles; in general, any article that uses "data" as a plural is at least somewhat likely to use its singular form as well, while articles using it as a mass noun are very unlikely to use "datum". --A D Monroe III(talk) 15:03, 10 November 2017 (UTC) A D Monroe III, you asked in your OP, "Is this a MOS issue?" The answer is that it's not. What is the point of your comment? How is this leading to any potential change to MOS, which is what this talk page is for? Can everyone just fall silent now and let this go the way of any number of other non-issue MOS issues? EEng 16:56, 10 November 2017 (UTC) A fair question; for myself, I don't really think it has direct baring, but others seemed to think counting "datas" was significant to this, so I thought I'd correct the counting that was being done. As long as the counting doesn't matter, ignore this as well. We now return to your regularly scheduled program. --A D Monroe III(talk) 21:41, 10 November 2017 (UTC) Actually this issue is coverred by MOS:RETAIN and apparently no further clarification is needed at MOS. Tom94022 (talk) 21:20, 10 November 2017 (UTC) This is ridiculous. Only 'one editor thinks that MOS should cover this, yet it keeps being re-opened for "further discussion". Time to drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:07, 11 November 2017 (UTC) Era-appropriate English There is, above, discussion on the word data, being either plural or a mass noun, with the latter using singular verbs. It seems to me that the use as a mass noun is somewhat recent. In the case where the subject of an article, such as vintage computing, is from an earlier year, is it appropriate to use English of that year? Specifically, should we use data are in vintage computing articles? Gah4 (talk) 21:18, 8 November 2017 (UTC) Extend that question about 200 years backward. I think that's a clear "no". --Izno (talk) 21:51, 8 November 2017 (UTC) [edit conflict] Thou shouldst use modern English only, not the antic speech of bygone years. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:52, 8 November 2017 (UTC) See also [32] (first edit added in the diff, toward the top). Just because it's still funny on a second read.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  23:40, 8 November 2017 (UTC) Well, yes, but thoest are not now part of current English. But both forms of data are (not is) currently allowed. Also, much IBM literature uses adaptor instead of adapter, though I don't know where that change came from, or when. Should descriptions of the channel to channel adaptor be spelled that way? Gah4 (talk) 04:29, 9 November 2017 (UTC) The point is just that as usage changes we don't revert to older usage for older topics. This actually came up before, in the MOS:JR debate among others. It ultimately would resolve to WP:OR. People would being doing their own assessment of what they thought usage was in 1975 or 1923 or whatever and trying to mimic it on a case-by-case basis, when the entire point of a style guide is to be consistent to avoid confusing readers (and for a project like this, to avoid fruitless editorial disputes). No one wants to read an article about pre-1930s subjects that uses the now alien-looking comma conventions of early-20th-century English, or spells "today" as "to-day".  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  08:44, 9 November 2017 (UTC) Hah! I actually know why IBM used to call them adaptors but if I told you I'd have to kill you; anyway, they got over it [33]. EEng 06:10, 10 November 2017 (UTC) Is there a single editor other than A D Monroe III who thinks that MOS should cover this? Anyone? Anyone? --Guy Macon (talk) 06:34, 11 November 2017 (UTC) This is ridiculous. Only 'one editor thinks that MOS should cover this, yet it keeps being re-opened for "further discussion". Time to drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:07, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

MOS:HYPHEN may need minor clarification

The wording there can be interpreted as contradicting MOS:DASH. It says, simply, "To link related terms in compound modifiers", then illustrates various cases. It does not rule out the cases covered by MOS:DASH (i.e., "Here, the relationship is thought of as parallel, symmetric, equal, oppositional, or at least involving separate or independent elements. The components may be nouns, adjectives, verbs, or any other independent part of speech. Often if the components are reversed there would be little change of meaning", in rather long form), when those are also in compound modifier form, as many of the examples at MOS:DASH are. I think this is the explanation for the frequency with which we're seeing misuse of the hyphen in such constructions. Confusion about this, came up today at Talk:Jackal–dog hybrid#Requested move 9 November 2017 for example.

I'm not quite certain of a concise way to compress MOS:DASH into an "except" in that part of MOS:HYPHEN. I'm not sure "related terms" is the right wording in what we already have, either.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  02:31, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

@Dicklyon, Tony1, and EEng: I think youse as have tried wrangling dash and hyphen wording into better shape before. Any suggestions for a minor revision here?  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  13:34, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Some gap in my education left me innocent of ndash–hyphen distinctions (other than the typographical one) so I'll have to leave that to wiser heads. EEng 14:31, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

I comment below on the hyphen issue, but just noticed that the question was really more about the dash. I think it would be adequate to just say "(but see MOS:DASH for compounds where an en dash is more appropriate)" or something like that. Dicklyon (talk) 17:48, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

The link there to compound modifier helps, but the section is weak in not starting with the most common use case: a compound noun that would be set "open" when used as a noun, gets a hyphen when used as a modifier before a noun. Many guides treat this as optional, which is why the guideline waffles with "can help with ease of reading". Some guides and styles are a bit more insistent, and that's what I usually do in my own writing. The Cambridge University Press style sheet that I used for my own book says "Compound adjectives will generally be hyphenated if they precede the noun: short-term effects, nineteenth-century art, decision-making process, ten-year plan". I'd prefer we say something like that, as the first point under the general "To link related terms in compound modifiers". Many RM discussions have closed in favor of titles with that hyphen rather than without (e.g. all the narrow-gauge railway articles, high-speed this-and-thats, etc.), so representing that consensus more strongly in the MOS makes sense. There's a table at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 133#RfC: Hyphen in titles of articles on railways of a narrow gauge that shows that pretty much all WP titles already do use the hyphen this way (though there are also some specialist exceptions like in the medical field, where the AMA style guide changed from recommending the hyphen to not). Dicklyon (talk) 17:46, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

There are inevitably borderline cases, which is why a little flexibility is apparent in the guideline. I think the current text is satisfactory, given that splitting hairs would cause a lot of fuss in the wording and structure of the MOS guidelines. Tony (talk) 02:46, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Infobox icons

I originally posted this in WT:Manual of Style/Icons but now I'm thinking that the infobox MoS may be more relevant, so I moved it here, as it encompasses more than one subsection.

A new editor has been adding Nobel Prize icons next to the awardees name in the infoboxes. The editor pointed out that this is common on other language wikipedias. (for example, see User talk:GustafSeb) I haven't seen icons used in this way before, and I can't find anything in the MoS to support this. Is there any guideline for or against the usage of icons in this way? Natureium (talk) 15:23, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

No, this could easily tend towards icon kudzu. Should we add Oscar award icons? Sports awards? Any random award? A Nobel laureate should be clearly identified in the lede of the bio, the icons do little here. --MASEM (t) 15:28, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Examples:

* https://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Einstein

* https://an.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unión_Europea

* https://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Europeiska_unionen

* https://af.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dag_Hammarskjöld

It can also be noted that on the Swedish Wikipedia, the Icon is also put in front of the name of the Nobel Prize in the Infobox (se the Albert Einstein article linked above). I personally would recommend the Nobel Prize Icon to be added in the infobox. The Noble Prize is the arguably the highest reward given to people who move science and humanity forward. It's given to peace, medicin and other scientists who change the faith of humanity through their action. There aren't to my knowledge any other prize with the reputation of the Nobel Prize. Noore do I know or can think about any similar prizes. Of course people will want there specific prize to be shown of on wikipedia, but to be honest there are few internationally reputable prizes that could be said to have such an encyclopedic importance. The Oscars is there for not a good comparison because it mainly affects American actors, thus is not noteworthy enough internationally. A better comparison would be the Olympic Gold medal. GustafSeb (talk) 16:35, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, this has already been discussed before multiple times at WT:MOSICONS; people were in fact adding Oscar icons, and little military medal icons, and lots of other crap, to infoboxes. It doesn't matter what xx.wikipedia are doing; en.wikipedia doesn't follow their style guides.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  16:52, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

The reason for this discussion is because we didn't find anything about this in the style guide. Where does it say that there shouldn't be any nobel prizes there? GustafSeb (talk) 17:00, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Where is says not to use icons for decoration. We're not going to individually list all of the 38,920,921 imaginable icons the world might come up with. Prior consensus discussions about award icons are already sufficient, too.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  19:08, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

• Support removing them all, for the same way I support removing the flag icons but even more so. The argument that the Nobel Prizes are some kind of unique case that deserves special treatment is utterly spurious; one could make the same claim about awards in almost any field considerably more strongly than for the Nobels. (If you were a professional weightlifter, would you be more pleased winning Olympic gold or a Nobel? Is Bob Dylan prouder of his Oscar, his Grammys, his Presidential Medal of Freedom or the Nobel he didn't even bother to accept for six months?) Even in the small subset of fields the Nobels cover, in most cases they aren't the leading award in their field. Setting this precedent would cause icons to spread like weeds, and how sv-wiki does things is irrelevant. This is English Wikipedia, which has a footprint orders of magnitude larger than any other Wikipedia (to put that in perspective, we get 5,200,000 views per hour; sv-wiki gets 58,000); this may sound harsh but we only care what the other projects do when it in some way impacts how we function. ‑ Iridescent 17:07, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
• The way he has been doing them, attached to the person's name, also violates WP:HONORIFIC. We don't normally write Nobel prize winner names with a little gold disk emoji next to their names, so we shouldn't do it in our infoboxes. I agree, they should all be removed. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:11, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
  • And it's against inline use of icons in the same guideline, a rule inspired years ago when people were inserting flags and highway sign icons in mid-sentence, but applicable to names as well.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  19:11, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
• I also think they should be removed. It already says in the infobox and the lead that they are notable for winning a Nobel, and adding icons could spiral out of control with people adding icons for all sorts of accomplishments based on their definitions of notability. Natureium (talk) 17:23, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
• I support removal of all flag icons from infoboxes, personally. And coats of arms icons. And award icons. And any other tiny little blob of color that doesn't tell us anything that text couldn't. But this usage is definitely not acceptable and goes against the MOS. What another language wikipedia does has no bearing on this particular language wikipedia. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:33, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
• Get rid: what next? Include a two-year-old's hand-drawn portrait? Seriously, we are past primary school Microsoft Word introductions now! –Sb2001 00:37, 14 November 2017 (UTC)