Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style

Comma before Jr. and Sr. in biographies

At the less-travelled subpage talkpage, Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biographies, the decision has been made to move Jr. and Sr. names so that no comma remains. Due to the large number of articles impacted and the small number of discussants, I am wondering if this was a proper consensus. I noticed this with Philg88's move of Donald Trump Jr. and Tim Hardaway Jr., which are pages I created and continue to watch. Is there a way to reopen this up for broader discussion at a more widely-viewed venue?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:30, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

I won't wade into the technical question of whether an adequate consensus was reached, but I will say that a comma seems appropriate to separate the name from the suffix, which (in theory) is not really part of a person's name, but appended as a distinction in apposition to the name. Until the 20th century it seems to have been generally accepted that "junior" and "senior" were not names, but labels that could be used or discarded at the discretion of the speaker. While in recent decades they've been treated as names for some purposes (with an ambiguous status as neither personal names nor surnames), their basic purpose is unchanged; and so in formal writing I think they should retain their adjectival features. As appositional suffixes, they really need to be set off by commas both before and after. Clearly punctuation is not trendy right now; I understand that many people would rather do without it. But even if the Manual of Style were to deem it acceptable to omit commas in this instance, it shouldn't mandate doing so. P Aculeius (talk) 05:29, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

I have no dog in this hunt, I just move the articles when requested. However, Dicklyon and Colonies Chris may wish to comment.  Philg88 ^♦talk 06:01, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree that the MOS does not "mandate" changes. But it encourages and allows them, when they improve the encyclopedia. If you read the discussion referenced, you may note that most wikipedia pages with "Jr." in them violate almost all guides by having commas before, but not after, the suffix. Modern guides make it clear that if commas are used they should match, but that omitting commas is cleaner. WP editors have agreed. I have no objection if you want to reopen that discussion, here with a wider audience. But if you do, please at least pick an example where sources agree with your preference (if you can find one). Also note that the only change in the recent consensus was to eliminate the bit about maybe going with the subject's own preference; since such preferences are hard to know, and since the example Sammy Davis, Jr. was not supportable, it seemed silly. Dicklyon (talk) 06:15, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Actually, to be clear, the decision was never made to move pages. That's just something I've been doing to bring pages more into line with guidelines. I've moved and edited a few hundred articles, with no pushback so far (but a few queries about why). Dicklyon (talk) 06:19, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Tony, I see you used matching commas. Unfortunately, many editors don't get that. See this diff on Trump Jr. But there were already several instances of missing commas after, and several more of no commas before, in the article at that time. Don't you think it will be easier, nicer, more maintainable, and more modern looking to just go without offsetting the Jr.? Dicklyon (talk) 07:16, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

My practice has been to go with however the name is formatted in the article title, which mostly means using the preceding comma. However, it's clear that standard practice among editors is to omit the comma, and that feels better to me - it accords with the modern tendency to reduce punctuation usage, and the whole comma-both-before-and-after approach seems finicky and unenforceable because it's out of tune with actual practice. Also, omitting the comma fits better with the normal spoken pronunciation, which treats the suffix as part of the name, not as a tacked-on qualifier. I would support a project to remove the comma from article titles wholesale. The current situation - recommending one way whilst actually doing something different - is highly unsatisfactory. Colonies Chris (talk) 09:49, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

I pretty much agree with Dicklyon. Arguing with people about why they really need to include the commas after parenthetical phrases like years, states, and here personal suffixes, especially on wikipedia is an unholy combination of aggravating, tedious, and futile. In this particular instance it is widely deemed acceptable by style guides to omit the commas, so I think we should encourage doing so wholeheartedly in the interest of avoiding aggravation, tedium, and futility. AgnosticAphid talk 18:05, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

I raised a tangentially related question here [1], but that page doesn't seem too active and I would be interested to hear people's thoughts. AgnosticAphid talk 18:33, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

• I found it at "John D. Rockefeller, Jr." to John D. Rockefeller Jr. The majority of the incoming links are to ", Jr." as are the ancillary articles such as John D. Rockefeller, Jr. Memorial Parkway and John D. Rockefeller, Jr. Library. See John D. Rockefeller, Jr. at the Encyclopedia Britannica and John D. Rockefeller, Jr. at the Rockefeller family archive for his canonical biography by his archive It appears that at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biographies#Comma after "Jr.", "Sr.", etc.? seven people !voted on a major style change with a 5 to 2 split. 3 people decided this outcome. Now the comma is being removed en masse. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 21:03, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
  • If your only argument is that we should include the comma because a majority of sources use commas, I don't think that's a reason to keep the commas for all of the reasons explained in the earlier discussion ("the subject's style (or sources' styles) should not determine Wikipedia's style; besides which sources' styles are only reflecting their own style books, which who cares"). Nor is the fact that existing articles use commas a reason to keep them (just because they already exist doesn't mean there's a consensus for their inclusion or that they're stylistically appropriate). And you haven't attempted to refute any of the practical concerns about keeping the commas including but not limited to whether a comma should always be used after the "jr", what to do about people who disagree on that last question, and also why it is a good use of everyone's time to constantly verify that the comma use of sources lines up with our comma use for each individual article subject. AgnosticAphid talk 21:24, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
    • My argument is to have more than 7 people, in a 5 to 2 split, decide on a style issue before massive changes are made. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 21:30, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
      • Well, it's WP:NOTAVOTE and nobody can seem to come up with a compelling argument in favor of the use of commas, so I don't see what difference the number of participants makes, especially since there are many people participating here who didn't there. AgnosticAphid talk 21:32, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
• What were the compelling reasons for no-comma? I don't see any at Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Biographies#Child_named_for_parent_or_predecessor, no rationale is given, no footnotes. We are arguing over aesthetics and style, I am not sure what arguments you can make. Wikipedia has its own style set by consensus. WP:NOTAVOTE has always been an Wikioxymoron. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 21:38, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
  • I think if you read the discussion above, the comment I just made, and the discussion whose result you dismissed as illegitimate you will find many compelling reasons to omit the comma. Your comment suggests you might not have noticed those. AgnosticAphid talk 21:44, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Whilst I too am not fond of mass change like this, the reasons given are sound. Technically, when one uses a comma in this manner, one is required to use a following comma. That is to say, one would write "Richard Arthur Norton, Jr., appears to have been born in 1958". This is quite clunky, just as it is clunky to write "An agreement was made at Zagreb, Croatia, on January 25, 2015". When it is possible, it is wise to avoid having these kinds of commas, as they break-up the text for no good reason. Dropping the comma altogether eliminates the following comma, eliminating the problem of the broken-up text. RGloucester — ☎ 21:49, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

What on Earth does a second comma that to do with titles of articles? And who says we must add the second comma, Wikipedia has its own style guide, all we have to do is write what we want in the style guide. The comma guide also conflicts with the rule that we use the most common name of the person. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 22:56, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

This is a matter of presentation (style), not of naming. Adding or removing the comma does not change the meaning, and hence has nothing to do with common naming. The name remains the same, regardless of whether there is a comma or not. The second comma is required by all style guides when using the "junior" with a comma, even those that recommend no commas at all. It is basic English usage, which is not something we can overwrite. RGloucester — ☎ 23:16, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

• This is much more than just a simple "style" issue. It involves how we present the names of actual people, and that means anything we choose can become very personal... we need to be sensitive to the fact that some people want a comma in their name, and others don't. It is one of those emotional issues that can make people very upset if we get it "wrong". I know my father would have insisted that his name be presented as Blueboar, Sr. ... ie with a comma. (Actually, in real life he was a "Jr."... but you get my point). He cared very strongly about the fact that his name should be presented with a comma. I am sure that there are people on the other side, who insist that their names don't have a comma before the Jr. or Sr.

In other words, this isn't something we should make any rule about... because no matter which style we choose, it will get personal... we are going to upset a lot of editors (Many of whom either do, or do not, use a comma in their real life names). Blueboar (talk) 23:58, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

It is too bad if a person is upset over whether one puts a comma in his name. Sadly, if other style guides are making this determination, there is no reason that we cannot do so. In the event that such an "exception" was restored, however, the following comma must be explicitly mandated. RGloucester — ☎ 00:05, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Do I have the argument correct: The article titles were changed from "John Foo, Jr." to "John Foo Jr." because there is a style rule that if we use one comma we HAVE to use a second one, such as "John Foo, Jr.," IN THE TITLE of articles? Where does this rule come from? I don't see it in Encyclopedia Britannica in any article. Or do you mean it should be used in the lede such "John Foo, Jr., (1800-1900)" which IS in Encyclopedia Britannica: "John D. Rockefeller, Jr., in full John Davison Rockefeller, Jr. (born January 29, 1874, Cleveland, Ohio, U.S.—died May 11, 1960, Tucson, Arizona)" and Every Jr. search here at EB. This rule concerns the lede and has nothing to do with the article title. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 00:55, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

The argument primarily concerns the style of the prose, but the prose and article title must remain consistent. Including the comma in the title necessitates inclusion in the prose, therefore causing the choppy prose problem. RGloucester — ☎ 00:59, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. The second comma concern is mostly about prose (although I can imagine descriptive titles that would need the second comma), but the prose has to match the article and editors don't often agree with the need for a second comma in prose regardless of what grammarians say. That makes WP look unprofessional and dumb. But there are other reasons to omit the comma that I already explained and you ignored, like for instance you say we should use the comma for your articles because of the use of a comma in sources, but it is very tedious and time consuming to determine comma use in reliable sources for each different article subject. And we typically strive for consistency with our styling and don't defer to the wishes of individual article subjects. The argument that we use the "wrong" name if we omit the comma or that we should defer to biographic experts is the same unpersuasive reasoning trotted out about other stylistic things plainly covered by the MOS regardless of the subject's wishes like capitalization and dash use.AgnosticAphid talk 01:40, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

@Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ): If a comma precedes Jr. or Sr. then one must also follow if the sentence continues. This wouldn't be necessary at the end of an article title (e.g., John D. Rockefeller, Jr.) but would be needed in prose (John D. Rockefeller, Jr., was an American financer and philanthropist) and in titles that do not end with the name (e.g., John D. Rockefeller, Jr., Memorial Parkway). Style guides consistency say that the following comma is required if there is one before, although the trend is to omit the commas altogether in this case.

Style guides

Chicago Manual of Style—Jr., Sr., III: Q. John Smith Jr. or John Smith, Jr.? John Smith III or John Smith, III? A. Traditionally, it would be John Smith, Jr., and John Smith III. But beginning with the fourteenth edition of The Chicago Manual of Style (1993), the recommendation is to use no commas in either case (see paragraph 6.47 of the sixteenth edition): John Smith Jr. But please note that within text, if you decide to use the more traditional comma before Jr. or Sr., the function of the comma is to set off these abbreviations, so an additional comma is needed after the abbreviation if the sentence continues (as in my first sentence above). National Geographic Style Manual—Jr., Sr., III: Jr. and Sr. are preceded and followed by comma in full name: John M. Fahey, Jr. (left), went to... but John Jr. hurried... Grammar Book—Commas: Rule 8. Traditionally, if a person's name is followed by Sr. or Jr., a comma follows the last name: Martin Luther King, Jr. This comma is no longer considered mandatory. However, if a comma does precede Sr. or Jr., another comma must follow the entire name when it appears midsentence. Correct: Al Mooney Sr. is here. Correct: Al Mooney, Sr., is here. Incorrect: Al Mooney, Sr. is here. Daily Grammar—Lesson 341: Use a comma or commas to set off the abbreviations Jr., Sr., and Esq. Example: Carl Harris, Jr., is here now. Answers—Is there a comma after Jr or Sr?: A comma would be used both before and after then designations of "Jr." or "Sr.," as long as the sentence continues. If the designation is at the end of the sentence, then a comma is used only before it. For example: John James, Sr., was well regarded in the community. However, the community had no use for John James, Jr. Knox News—Grammar gremlins: Style for "Jr." and "Sr." varies: Sometimes the simplest point can cause us a problem when writing. For example, should "Jr." or "Sr." in a name be preceded by a comma? Some stylebooks say no, others say yes, but the "nos" outnumber the "yeses." However, those that specify no comma say you should follow the person's preference if you know it. A point to remember is, if you use a comma before either of these designations, you must use one after it.

As I have set out previously:

Reasons for the change to omit commas before (and after) Jr. and Sr.

Why should a subject's consideration be taken into account on a question of style? Do you think other encyclopedias, newspapers and publications consult the subject's preferences? Making allowance for the subject's preference (if they have one) or a preponderance of sources (which likely use their own style rules regardless of the subject's views): is irrelevant, as the subject's style (or sources' styles) should not determine Wikipedia's style; needlessly takes up editors' time checking sources and debating preferences; can only lead to arguments over which style should apply in individual cases; makes the guideline more involved than it needs to be; lends to inconsistency if different subjects are formatted differently and discussed together, say, in a list of famous Americans that mentions "Sammy Davis, Jr." and "John F. Kennedy Jr."; leads to arguments amongst editors over whether a comma should also appear after the "Jr." (it most definitely should, although some editors find this hard to believe).

—sroc 💬 06:12, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

I feel the need to reply to this example, suggesting that, "An agreement was made at Zagreb, Croatia, on January 25, 2015," is too clunky with commas, and should be amended to, "An agreement was made at Zagreb Croatia on January 25 2015" which I strongly feel would need to be amended by adding punctuation in at least some of the appropriate locations which would in my opinion necessitate putting them in all of the aforesaid locations simply because cutting the amount of punctuation in half fails to make the offending clause more readable or more understandable but instead draws the readers attention to the punctuation lack thereof or need for as the case may be which is far more clunky than simply using appropriate punctuation in the first place would have been or in the alternative perhaps rephrasing the text in order to avoid too many awkward pauses although I am willing to consider an exception with respect to the comma following Croatia which does not seem to be a particularly important pause in this sentence where we would naturally have paused following Zagreb and January 25 at least if we use proper and predictable punctuation we dont risk confusing the reader or drawing unwanted attention to the punctuation itself which I fear we do if we begin arbitrarily omitting it in places where most properly trained English writers and I daresay the majority of readers expect although I can see no objection whatever if a clause is simply reworded in order to make it less awkward than one in which the writer has picked and chosen which commas and other punctuation marks to include and which to omit with no particular guide except his or her own sensibility as much as we rely upon it in writing that judgment is no substitute for regular and predictable rules and some sort of specific policy would seem to be required if we begin axing punctuation in particular instances and not in others P Aculeius (talk) 13:44, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

You misinterpreted me. I never said we should write "Zagreb Croatia" anywhere, which is not something that anyone accepts, merely that avoidable commas should be avoided if possible. As an example, I would tend to write: "An agreement was made at Zagreb on 25 January 2015". DMY dates allow us to scotch one comma, and omitting "Croatia" is acceptable if a wikilink is provided, scotching another. Likewise, in the case of the "junior/senior" business, omitting the comma is considered acceptable, and even recommended by many style guides. If we can solve the choppy prose problem, there is no reason not to. RGloucester — ☎ 14:52, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Article titles is not something if the remit the MOS but comes under WP:AT and disambiguation. Using a comma makes it easier to disambiguate the page, because of the same trick as using round brackets and the pipe symbol. The same thing applies to "the younger" and in English public schools "minor". In principle I agree with Blueboar this is just more instruction creep. As to "the 'junior' with a comma" who but an American would use "junior" and so care about it? -- PBS (talk) 19:50, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

My sources say that American men with a "junior" or a numeral after their name make up about 3% of the population. This has been static for a long time.[2][3] But they seem to be a greater proportion of some biographies. For example, four of the Mercury Seven astronauts were "Junior" Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:23, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

PBS, you are wrong. "The guidance contained elsewhere in the MoS, particularly § Punctuation (below) applies to all parts of an article, including the title." Let's not rehash old debates that have already been settled. AgnosticAphid talk 21:44, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

AgnosticAphid, that is a unilateral comment in the MOS. There have been several debates on the AT talk page about this there is no consensus over the issue. -- PBS (talk) 08:18, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

• The National Park Service manages the John D. Rockefeller, Jr. Memorial Parkway, and they use the comma before Jr. in their literature as shown here. That article has been moved to no comma to comply with MOS, but again, they are the overseers and managers and they use a comma. Would we also change our articles about books such as this one to have no comma to comply with MOS or keep the title of our article in such a case as the book is titled?--MONGO 06:48, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

It is indeed a bit odd that the NPS uses the mismatched comma style that all English grammar guides say is wrong, but that almost all other sources choose between the no-comma and two-comma versions. Actually, some of those with the two commas are also NPS docs. But if the guide books written for the public can go with no-comma style, I think WP can, too. Dicklyon (talk) 06:57, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Something to consider, whether we go with "include a comma" or "don't include a comma"... I think we will need a living persons exception clause to deal with situations when the subject himself either does or does not use a comma. Are we really going to tell a living person that he is styling his own name incorrectly? Blueboar (talk) 21:06, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

@Blueboar: Are we going to write to people individually to tell them they have their name wrong? No. Do we have the right to decide whether or not to include commas as a matter of style, as do other reputable style guides? Of course we do. No exception is needed for living people and it is entirely unnecessary to consult each subject's preferences for the reasons already discussed. —sroc 💬 15:01, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't think we need to get permission... but if the subject has expressed a preference, we should have the sensitivity and common decency to honor that preference. we are talking about actual people's names here... that is a very personal thing. Blueboar (talk) 18:53, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

• Comment. Both comma and comma-less constructions are acceptable, both among style guides and in the real world of published sources. There's no reason we need to proscribe this one. As long as we're consistent within an article, we shouldn't be forced to choose one or the other. Dohn joe (talk) 17:28, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Maybe this would help as these come from the style guides that Wikipedia has used to form its own style guide:

• Strunk and White The Elements of Style (2000) states that you do not place a comma before Jr. because the abbreviation is restrictive in itself (p. 3).
• The AP Stylebook (2013) states that you do not place a comma before the abbreviation Jr. (p. 146).
• Turabian (8th edition) states that you do not use a comma before Jr. because it is only used after a full name (24.2.1 Names and Titles--Personal Names, p. 333).
• The MLA Handbook for Writers of Research Papers (7th edition) states that you place a comma before Jr. in citations as the abbreviation is essential (5.5 Citing Nonperiodical Print Publications--5.5.2 A Book by a Single Author, p. 151). In text, whether you use a comma depends on whether sources use it (3.4 Names of Persons--3.4.1 First and Subsequent Uses of Names, pp. 79-80).
• The Publication Manual of the APA (6th edition) states that you use a space instead of a comma (2.02 Author's Name (Byline) and Institutional Affiliation, p. 24) SciGal (talk) 21:40, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

There is a new RfC at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biographies#Request for comment: Child named for parent or predecessor. DrKiernan (talk) 07:34, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Forum Shopping? Suggest that this new RFC become the centralized discussion on the issue. Unfortunately, starting a new RFC may mean that some of what has been said here in this discussion will have to be repeated at the RFC. Blueboar (talk) 13:34, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Distinction between acceptable and unacceptable forks

Opinions are needed on the following matter: Wikipedia talk:Content forking#Distinction between acceptable and unacceptable forks. A WP:Permalink for that discussion is here. Flyer22 (talk)

Lowercase acronyms / uppercase initialisms

As a Britton, this is my standard usage, and I like it. It makes sense to have acronyms written as lowercase, and initialisms as uppercase. It grants more information to the reader, and looks better typographically. As an example, one uses Isil, Isis, Ukip, Nato, but UN, NSA, USSR, &c. I would propose that this common and standard usage should not be proscribed. In fact, I'd recommend that it be recommended, but I know that won't gain consensus. Is there any reason why we should not be able to write "Isis" or "Syriza", rather than "ISIS" or "SYRIZA"? See the style manual of The Guardian. RGloucester — ☎ 22:03, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Is this exclusively a British convention? I am not aware of this being adopted elsewhere. I would advise against it because readers in the rest of the world would not expect this convention to be used and thus may not recognise such terms as being acronyms. It would also create unnecessary complications for piping links to Isis vs Isis, for example. —sroc 💬 00:56, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

BTW, I didn't know what SYRIZA was, but I would have assumed Syriza was a typo. —sroc 💬 00:58, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Syriza is an acronym. For some unknown reason, however, even American sources that usually capitalise acronyms do not usually capitalise Syriza. I know that this scheme is also used in Ireland. I don't know what goes on in the Commonwealth, but I'm fairly certain that they maintain universal capitalisation for acronyms. Users in the rest of the world don't expect lorries or treacle either, but we're still allowed to use them in line with ENGVAR. Likewise with DMY dates, and other various conventions. In cases where no such disambiguation problem exists, however, I'd ask that we should be allowed to write Nato or Isil, just as most British sources do. This is standard practice in a significant English-speaking country. It should not be proscribed, anymore than we should proscribe the short form of the title mister sans full stop. RGloucester — ☎ 01:08, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

I have a question. What about AARP? They changed their name from an initialism to an acronym a few years ago, but I've never ever ever seen the name written "Aarp." In fact, my iPad thinks I spelled it wrong. It would be so strange to recommend that the name be written that way, and I would imagine there are similar acronyms that readers would not expect to encounter uncapitalized. Maybe it would make more sense to allow but not recommend this practice? AgnosticAphid talk 17:16, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

That's all I was asking. I was not asking for it to be recommended, merely for it to be allowed per WP:ENGVAR. As far as AARP is concerned, that would never be written Aaarp in British usage, as it is always pronounced "A. A.R.P.", never as "aarp", which is essentially unpronounceable. The determination is based on pronunciation. If one pronounces the individual letters, i.e. "U. S. A.", then one writes it in capital letters (USA). If one pronounces it as if it were a word, i.e. "Isis", then one users lowercase. RGloucester — ☎ 17:54, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

actually, it is pronounced as a word now, they run commercials all the time ("if you think being old is about being lame and boring, then you don't know AARP!"), it's just always spelled with capital letters and your proposal said you wanted to recommended that using lowercase was recommended. I do share sroc's concern about people not recognizing that it's an abbreviation, as well. AgnosticAphid talk 18:20, 28 February 2015 (UTC) I misunderstood your proposal, I'm sorry. But it's true that if we always use capital letters people will always know it's an abbreviation. AgnosticAphid talk 18:24, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Please provide a source video or something where "AARP" is pronounced as "aarp". I've never heard of something so absurd. It is read as "A A R P". It is not read "aarp". This is confirmed by Wiktionary. RGloucester — ☎ 18:58, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Your tone leaves something to be desired and you could easily look into this yourself. You also never addressed the substance of the concerns raised. But here's an op-Ed from the wapo: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A17170-2003Sep2.html AgnosticAphid talk 19:44, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

That's not a good source, and is contested by not just Wiktionary, but also the Oxford Dictionary and the MacMillan Dictionary. Please provide a source where "AARP" is pronounced as "aarp" by an actual person. RS state it is pronounced "A A R P". What "substance"? As I said above, people may not recognise lories, treacle, electric torches, carriages, or wagons, but we're still allowed to use them in line with WP:ENGVAR. RGloucester — ☎ 20:48, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Aside: AARP's very recent TV ad pronounces it both ways. Personally, I feel this is new for them, but I can't prove it. Jeh (talk) 23:08, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

I'd say this is a bit tiresome. Exactly what is so bad about about the Washington Post? And besides, there are tons of examples of other acronyms in that article that are always capitalized. It would be unprofessional or sloppy to allow editors to write articles about Flpma and Ferc and I don't think it's advisable to base our style on pronunciation as this debate about AARP illustrates. AgnosticAphid talk 21:34, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Er, it is an op-ed, and apparently some kind of satire. What it says is directly contradicted by reputable dictionaries. In American usage, acronyms are always capitalised. I'm not talking about American usage. I'm talking about British usage, whereby we don't usually capitalise acronyms. It is neither unprofessional nor sloppy. It is the standard style of the BBC, The Guardian, the Financial Times, &c. RGloucester — ☎ 21:38, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a worldwide encyclopedia, so if we allow people to write acronyms in lowercase then we will end up with articles about non-british things like Flpma and Ferc that are just not ordinarily encountered uncapitalized. If we are going to read an ENGVAR rule into your proposal, so that non-british things always have to be capitalized but british things are optionally lowercase if they're acronyms and not initialisms, then we have to fight about whether or not Nato is encompassed within the rule or not and if so why. Besides which, arguing on Wikipedia is frustrating for everyone, and with the current rule we don't have to have conflicts about whose reliable sources outweigh whose about pronunciation and we also don't have to constantly reevaluate capitalization depending on how reliable sources pronounce things. AgnosticAphid talk 21:50, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

I would make the following observations. Acronyms, as opposed to initialisms may be capitalised in varying ways, either all capitals, initial capitals and in some cases, when the word has passed into common usage, no capitals (eg scuba). There is no hard and fast rule, certainly not globally. The convention cited by RGloucester , while it is a recognised convention, I would be surprised if it was followed with sufficient consistency to be considered a 'national' variation. There is also no clear distinction between acronyms and initialisms since some unlikely initialisms become acronymised. I would suggest the following guidance. If there exists an article about the acronym (ie NATO), then ideally, referring to NATO should use the same style that has been used within the main article. If no article exists for the subject acronym, then capitalisation should be resolved by considering constant consistent usage in source material (unfortunately, this may well become a matter of contention). There is no issue with the use of initial capitals only as a style, since the acronym or initialism should be made explicit at first usage and this style is acknowledged by Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Capital letters#Acronyms.

Incidentally, The MOS, at Periods (full stops) and spaces does not distinguish an initialism from an acronym but refers to both as acronyms - perhaps a matter deserving attention or perhaps not.

Too much is said to be implied of the MOS when the MOS is actually silent on a subject. Too much is asserted or assumed about the universality of English conventions when conventions might vary regionally, nationally or even, within a nation. I see that too much contention exists because of perceptions (and misperceptions) as they relate to varying conventions of usage. Different 'parties' will argue that the MOS carries more or less weight on a particular subject than it actually does. Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Abbreviations#Acronyms identifies that there are varying forms of capitalisation for acronyms but gives no advice on determining correct capitalisation. Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Abbreviations#Miscellanea lists some acronyms and this may be taken as a statement of style for these. Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Capital letters#Acronyms states: "Many acronyms are written in all capitals, such as NATO, BBC, JPEG. However, some acronyms have gained common usage as ordinary, lowercase words; for example, we write scuba and laser." It ignores the case of acronyms with initial capitals and may be misconstrued as a statement of style. This inconsistency should be remedied.

I see some value in providing some guidance on how to capitalise acronyms mainly because the subject is left hanging and a matter of conjecture. Perhaps such guidance might be something similar to the observations I have made. I would suggest it be added at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Abbreviations#Acronyms. Such guidance need not clutter the main text. Such advice or clarification may well best be added as an annotation. Would this be instructional creep? I think not. If anything, it more clearly defines the scope of the MOS on this matter and thereby limits 'creep'. I think such disambiguating statements are potentially of great value, since they clarify perceptions and misperceptions about the universallity or otherwise of conventions of English. Cinderella157 (talk) 23:28, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

I support your drive for clarity. I specifically take issue with the statement "Many acronyms are written in all capitals, such as NATO, BBC..." This is very problematic. "BBC" is not an acronym, but an initialism. "NATO" is usually written "Nato" in British usage. I do not think that the present text intends to be a statement of style, but as it stands, it is both incorrect and misleading. We must remedy this. At the very least, the distinction between initialisms and acronyms should be made clear, regardless of whether we prescribe a certain style. RGloucester — ☎ 23:41, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

I also support the drive for clarity. Note, however, that the distinction between acronym and initialism is not so clear—see Acronym § Nomenclature:

Although the word acronym is widely used to refer to any abbreviation formed from initial letters, in contradistinction to an initialism (or alphabetism)—a word or abbreviation formed from a string of initials—whereas some others include additional senses equating acronym with initialism. The distinction, when made, hinges on whether the abbreviation is pronounced as a word or as a string of individual letters. Examples in reference works that make the distinction include NATO /ˈneɪtoʊ/, scuba /ˈskuːbə/, and radar /ˈreɪdɑːr/ for acronyms, and FBI /ˌɛfˌbiːˈaɪ/, CRT /ˌˈsiːˌɑːrˌtiː/, and HTML /ˌeɪtʃˌtiːˌɛmˈɛl/ for initialisms.

I omitted the footnotes here, but they provide telling reading in the article. —sroc 💬 04:52, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

The distinction is held to in reputable sources, such as The Guardian style guide above, and is near universal in British usage. It is very clear. Here is the Columbia Journalism Review. Interestingly, this shines a bit of light on our AARP problem. It says that AARP is a hybrid, as the organisation "sometimes calls itself “aay-aay-are-pee,” and it sometimes calls itself "arp". Either way, the errors in the MoS must be corrected. RGloucester — ☎ 05:16, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

it's not really an "error" if the acronyms article specifically chose to use "acronym" to refer to both initialisms and acronyms because dictionaries and style guides disagree about whether there's a distinction to be made. AgnosticAphid talk 06:05, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Quite so. To quote from the footnotes:

• Merriam-Webster, Inc. Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of English Usage, 1994. ISBN 0-87779-132-5. pp. 21–22:

  acronyms  A number of commentators (as Copperud 1970, Janis 1984, Howard 1984) believe that acronyms can be differentiated from other abbreviations in being pronounceable as words. Dictionaries, however, do not make this distinction because writers in general do not

• The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Current English (1991), Oxford University Press. p. 12:

  acronym: a word, usu[ally] pronounced as such, formed from the initial letters of other words (e.g. Ernie, laser, Nato)

• "Cambridge Dictionary of American English":

  acronym: a word created from the first letters of each word in a series of words.

• Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary:

  acronym: a word (as NATO, radar, or laser) formed from the initial letter or letters of each of the successive parts or major parts of a compound term; also: an abbreviation (as FBI) formed from initial letters: see initialism

• Crystal, David (1995). "Abbreviation". The Cambridge Encyclopedia of the English Language, Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0-521-55985-5. p. 120: Under the heading "Types of Abbreviation", this article separately lists initialisms and acronyms, describing the latter as "Initialisms pronounced as single words", but adds,

  However, some linguists do not recognize a sharp distinction between acronyms and initialisms, but use the former term for both.

• Webster's New Universal Unabridged Dictionary (2003), Barnes & Noble. ISBN 0-7607-4975-2:

  acronym. 1. a word created from the first letter or letters of each word in a series of words or a phrase. 2. a set of initials representing a name, organization, or the like, with each letter pronounced separately, as FBI for Federal Bureau of Investigation.

• American Heritage Dictionary (2014), 5th edition:

  Usage Note: ... Acronyms are often distinguished from initialisms like FBI and NIH, whose individual letters are pronounced as separate syllables. While observing this distinction has some virtue in precision, it may be lost on many people, for whom the term acronym refers to both kinds of abbreviations.

The distinction between acronym and initialism, if there is one, is so subtle that it must be made explicitly clear in MOS if they are to be treated differently. —sroc 💬 06:08, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

No one disagrees that the distinction exists. The distinction does exist, merely that it is sometimes ignored in common usage. There are multiple errors. First of all, American usage is taken as the be-all-end-all, i.e. "Many acronyms are written in all capitals, such as NATO". This is not correct. NATO is often not written in all capitals, as is standard in British usage. BBC is not considered an acronym. Note that the British dictionaries provided by Sroc all note the distinction, as in the Concise Oxford. Regardless, I would suggest the following: first of all, we need to have one place for our acronyms guidance. As it stands, it is scattered across three different guides, making it very hard to follow the guidance provided. It should all be centralised in the abbreviations page. Secondly, we need to at least acknowledge the standard British usage in the MoS. RGloucester — ☎ 06:13, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

The Macquarie Dictionary (1st ed) list 'acronym' as being only the pronounced definition (ie is exclusive of initialisms). As the word is not universally understood and can have varying meanings, I would suggest that it should be defined in the text as including initialisms, if that is what is intended. The definition should also acknowledge the more general meaning, so as not to falsely imply that 'acronym' universally includes initialisms. I note the the lead of MOS:Caps was edited to replace "acronyms and initialisms" with just "acronyms"? It is frequently a false premise to assume universality in a global context. I don't think that it should necessarily be acknowledged as specifically British, but certainly, it should be acknowledged and guidance given in determining the appropriate style. Cinderella157 (talk) 06:31, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

It isn't exclusively British, that's just the context I come from. I know it is also the standard Irish usage. As I said above, I'm not familiar with Commonwealth usage, though if Macquarie says what it says, I imagine Australian English holds to the distinction as well. RGloucester — ☎ 06:34, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

I can tell you, from an Australian context, acronyms are universally in all caps (e.g., always "NATO", never "Nato"). Guardian Australia has adopted the British convention (e.g., "Nato"), but as a native Australian English speaker, it is quite jarring to read and adjust to. —sroc 💬 13:54, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

I will qualify that by saying that Anzac and Anzac Day are sometimes accepted with only an initial capital. —sroc 💬 13:58, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

An ngram shows that uses of "NATO" far outweigh "Nato" (by a ratio of 71:1 in 2008), even when restricted to British English (55:1). —sroc 💬 14:08, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Ngrams is limited to 2008 (ages ago, in style terms), and simply isn't an appropriate way to judge this matter, as it looks only at books and not at common usage in general. The fact remains that this usage is common. I have no need to show you a list of all the sources that follow the convention, as a quick Google search will reveal it. It is followed by the BBC, The Guardian, the Financial Times, The Independent...&c. These are high-quality sources, are they not? Once again, one must make clear that we write Nato and Isis. RGloucester — ☎ 14:22, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

I fail to see any benefit whatsoever in suggesting that it might be appropriate for editors to use lowercase for acronyms but not initialisms. We will have to explain what the difference is when that's not really necessary and not widely understood, I don't see how it would be anything other than trying to determine our capitalization by reference to pronunciation (both because pronunciation changes and also because people disagree about pronunciation), and if we have to make up an additional rule that says "go ahead and use lowercase if it's an acronym about something frequently discussed in the UK but please don't do that for American acronyms because people will think it's awfully strange!" then it seems especially unwieldy and argument-prone. I think these points have been made repeatedly but you never really responded to them. AgnosticAphid talk 17:50, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Again, I'm not suggesting that we should endorse lowercase acronyms. What I am suggesting is that the present guide reads from an American perspective, and feels both confusing and incorrect from the perspective of a Briton. The division between initialism and acronym is widely understood in Britain, where it is standard, as are lowercase acronyms. You are seeming to say that this style of usage will be confusing for Americans. The present version is confusing for Britons. This must be remedied. The distinctions must be made clear, even if we mandate capitalised acronyms. I agree with Cinderella157 below. RGloucester — ☎ 22:54, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

@AgnosticAphid and others. I have not suggested that RGloucester 's proposal be adopted but it has identified a number of inconsistencies. Firstly, it cannot be claimed that 'acronym' is universally understood to include initialisms. This is already confusing and needs to be remedied at the point of use. WP documentation already acknowledges the use of inital capitalisation for acronyms. However, there are inconsistencies which suggest that acronyms are only ever capitalised fully. These should be reconciled. I had also suggested it might be appropriate to provide guidance on how to capitalise an acronym (as per previous suggestion or similar). Cinderella157 (talk) 21:42, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

At the risk of reigniting a fire, compare {{R from abbreviation}}, {{R from initialism}}, {{R from acronym}}. LeadSongDog come howl! 17:52, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

• Now that the issue has been adequately demonstrated, how shall we go about resolving it? I'd recommend that we transfer all acronym/initialism-related guidance to one spot, preferably the abbreviations sub-page of the MoS. This will make it clearer, and easier to access and understand. I also recommend that we describe the difference between acronyms and initialisms, even if we do not acknowledge it in terms of capitalisation. RGloucester — ☎ 18:07, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

2001–02 South-West Indian Ocean cyclone season

Thoughts on that capitalization? It will be hitting the Main Page soon; see Wikipedia:Today's featured article/March 20, 2015. - Dank (push to talk) 21:57, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

RfC: The MoS and the generic he

The conversation about the generic he and gender-neutral language that started on this talk page has progressed to two RfCs at the village pump. Further opinions are welcome. Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:35, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

RFC on commas before Jr. and Sr.

This RFC was mentioned and linked to in the discussions above... but I think it deserves to be highlighted a bit more clearly. Please see: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biographies#Request for comment: Child named for parent or predecessor. Blueboar (talk) 13:30, 6 March 2015 (UTC)