Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style

The WP:ANDOR guideline

I have supported WP:ANDOR a number of times, but I have found it to be problematic as well. Regardless of what MOS:QUOTE states about not changing quotes unless necessary, I've seen editors change quoted "and/or" text. And that includes an annoying WP:AND/OR sock who applies the rule to our guidelines as well, such as WP:TALK; see this discussion. He goes around calling "and/or" harmful. I have never seen it as harmful on Wikipedia. Instead, I've seen it as very helpful in that it gives precision to a matter that some people can find ambiguous because of how they view "or" and because it is not as cumbersome as stating "[this], [this], or both." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:38, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Any opinions on this? Do editors think that this guideline should stay exactly as it is, instead of being softened? Guidelines are meant to guide; they are not meant to be policies. Use of "do not," or "avoid" in this case, as if there are never any exceptions, is not necessarily helpful. This guideline should at least be amended to note that quotes should be left alone (or generally left alone) in this case. NewsAndEventsGuy, Noyster, Alanscottwalker, Rivertorch, North8000 and Tvx1, you participated in the aforementioned discussion. Any opinions? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:41, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Leave it alone. "Avoid" doesn't mean "absolutely never", and preserving quotes applies everywhere -- if someone's confused enough to not know that, then calling that out here may lead them to conclude changing quotes is OK elsewhere. One confused gnome isn't a reason to further bloat the guideline. EEng 22:49, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

We can easily point editors to MOS:QUOTE in the section about and/or. And while "avoid" doesn't mean "absolutely never", it's usually taken that way on Wikipedia when it comes to guidelines. Our guidelines are treated as policies often enough without restrictive language such as "avoid." And it's not just one editor applying the and/or guideline strictly and/or inaccurately. I see it often enough, especially since I use patrol programs like WP:STiki. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:26, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Also about changing quotes, there are exceptions; these exceptions are noted in the "Original wording" subsection of the MOS:QUOTE section. Fixing an uncontroversial typo or needing to use a bracket for a clarity matter are the only times I change quoted material in a Wikipedia article. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:40, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

I also omit at times, per the guideline, but I always indicate this with an ellipses unless an ellipses is not necessary (such as when not including the rest of a quote unless the rest is important to include). Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:46, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

• And/or is now in the dictionaries, it's a widely used word, it serves a useful purpose, and there is no word that is a substitute. I see no reason for the MOS to conflict with that. North8000 (talk) 00:29, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

• As written now, the guideline is ridiculous:

  "Where more than two possibilities are present, instead of x, y, and/or z write one or more of x, y, and z or some or all of x, y, and z."

  Try parsing that if you're in a hurry or preoccupied. More to the point, pity the reader left to parse what you've written when you've followed it. As for the sentence that comes before all that gibberish, I think it could say something to the effect of "Avoid writing and/or unless ambiguity would result or unless other constructions would be too lengthy or awkward". And then kill the gibberish. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 02:45, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

When I said to leave the guideline alone, what I really meant was that nothing should be added about leaving quotes alone. I wouldn't mind seeing and/or allowed, if that's the consensus of the wisest of our style experts. Ping Tony1. EEng 03:22, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

EEng: that's very kind of you, but undeserved—I've been guilty of heinous crimes against the language. I agree with your posts: "avoid" is fine, and doesn't mean "never allow". The supposed connection with quote provisions in MOS is null. Of course "and/or" should be retained in quoted text. Tony (talk) 02:31, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Well, Tony1, I figured it takes a thief to catch a thief. EEng 03:08, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Tony1, what is your opinion on what others have stated? For example, what Rivertorch stated? As for messing with quotes, you call it null, but my point is that this guideline is used strictly throughout Wikipedia. The guideline says "avoid," and that is exactly what editors do each and every time after becoming aware of the guideline...even when "and/or" is the better option and sometimes even when it is within a quote. I do not see that "and/or" should be advised against the way it is advised against now. Starting with Rivertorch's wording and improving upon that would be very helpful to the encyclopedia. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:21, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

I suppose it could be explicit: "avoid wherever possible", or "avoid unless there's a good reason not to". In addition, I think we could probably fine-tune the guideline a little, but that's probably a matter for another day. Tony (talk) 05:23, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Tony1, yeah, "avoid unless there's a good reason not to" is a good option. It's similar to Rivertorch's wording, which, as noted below, I support. I think one or two examples would suffice after that. As for "avoid wherever possible," I don't think that solves the issues. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:30, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

For the record, I support Rivertorch's proposal. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:44, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

That stated, Rivertorch, the current wording is giving examples of what to do in place of "and/or." Do you want all of the examples killed or re-worded? I don't think they should all be killed. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:47, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm not so sure we need examples, but I'm not intrinsically opposed to them. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 18:21, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for the ping Flyer. The challenged sentence at WT:Talk page guidelines reads You may quickly find your questions and/or objections have already been answered if you try searching all the archives... Substituting "and/or" for "or" in that sentence is relevant only in the case of someone who has both questions and objections. If you have a multiplicity of concerns, though, you are unlikely to resolve them all "quickly" by hunting through all the archives. "A or B" is what is meant in such a case, not "A or B or A-and-B". But I'm not going to go to the stake about it: Noyster (talk), 08:52, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

The current wording also takes a wrong case (3 items). And/or is used for 2 items. North8000 (talk) 12:16, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Noyster, do you support a change to the current wording of the WP:ANDOR guideline, like what Rivertorch stated above? Or do you should feel it should stay as is? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:47, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Sure, go with "avoid unless..." – no advice on style should ever be seen as a commandment. That's not to encourage indiscriminate use of "and/or" where "or" is adequate: readers are usually well capable of telling whether an exclusive or or an inclusive or is meant in a given passage. The "good reason" for insisting on "and/or" would be a necessity to make it quite clear that "both A and B" was one of the options to be included. Or, of course, that the "and/or" appeared in quoted material – and if you feel a need to convey "well of course I would know better than to write that" we have {{sic}}: Noyster (talk), 08:44, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Okay, Rivertorch, North8000, Noyster, Tony1 and EEng, there appears to be consensus to soften the guideline just a bit. So should one of us go ahead and try a different version or should we have an RfC for this because it is a guideline? I know that changes are made to this page all the time without RfCs, but I'm just asking in case some editors view this as a change that needs substantial discussion. If we are all on board with changing the guideline, what wording should we use? We have Rivertorch's proposed wording, Tony1's and Noyster's. I prefer something along the lines of "Avoid unless." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:16, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

I hope an RfC will be unnecessary. (Maybe if someone reverts the change.) I don't have strong feelings on the exact wording. "Avoid unless..." makes sense. Even if the change is unchallenged, it won't be set in stone. We can always tweak it, if that seems desirable. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 22:41, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry, did I miss where some actual new guideline text has been proposed? I think what we need is "avoid unless needed to clarify/emphasize that inclusive or is meant". EEng 22:47, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

I think that it's clear that and / or should be allowed, but I'm not overly concerned about the outcome. I've just been showing up when pinged. North8000 (talk) 23:57, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

EEng, Rivertorch made a wording proposal above; it is pretty much "avoid unless." Tony1 suggested "avoid wherever possible" or "avoid unless there's a good reason not to". Noyster stated "go with 'avoid unless...'" and elaborated on his line of thinking. I noted that I support "avoid unless" wording. And you've just stated that you think we need "avoid unless" wording. So I'm asking if one of us should go ahead and implement it, and what else do we state after that? Do we change anything else about the guideline, per what Rivertorch and Noyster stated?

North8000, I see. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:25, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Comment: What is the semantics of "and/or" supposed to be? It strikes me as legal faux precision: a sign says "These seats reserved for passsengers who have a broken leg or are carrying a baby", and someone tries to claim this means that a passenger with a broken leg who is carrying a baby may not sit on them. So all that "and/or" does is clarify that "or" means "or", not "exclusive or". It should never be necessary in carefully written prose; contrary to a comment above, it is plainly not a word, it is two words separated by a slash. Can anyone give an example where the best written form of some statement has to include it? Imaginatorium (talk) 02:00, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Take the Sexual orientation article, for example. It currently states, "Sexual orientation is an enduring pattern of romantic or sexual attraction (or a combination of these) to persons of the opposite sex or gender, the same sex or gender, or to both sexes or more than one gender." It does this cumbersome "or" thing partly because of the WP:AND/OR guideline. It would be much better with some instance of "and/or" used for it. The American Psychological Association uses "and/or" (as seen with this link) when speaking of sexual orientation, but we shouldn't? We don't use the American Psychological Association's initial definition due to past discussions about how to begin the introduction; this includes the fact that many people these days don't identify as men or women, and the fact that some of the sexual orientation sources are in line with the sex and gender distinction.

The Sexual identity article currently states "with identity referring to an individual's conception of themselves, behavior referring to actual sexual acts performed by the individual, and sexual orientation referring to romantic or sexual attractions toward persons of the opposite sex or gender, the same sex or gender, to both sexes or more than one gender, or to no one." Some instance of "and/or" would help in this case as well. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:50, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

"Sexual orientation is an enduring pattern of romantic or sexual attractions to others, according to their sex, gender, or both." Tony (talk) 08:26, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Bravo Tony! I think the choice of subject matter almost exemplifies what I am getting at, but I would genuinely be interested if anyone can show an example of good, clear expository writing including the "and/or" construction, and explain the distinction in semantics between "or" and "and/or" (or "and" and "and/or", depending on context). The length of this discussion itself is relevant: in the MOS, it is always going to be easier to agree on writing "and/or" than trying to sort out what is really being said; this does not make it good writing. Imaginatorium (talk) 09:57, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

There are other issues with the "and/or" restriction. And it is a restriction. See more below. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:08, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

• How about Avoid writing and/or unless ambiguity would result and/or other constructions would be too lengthy and/or awkward. All in favor, raise your hands. OK, seriously...

I've changed my mind. I'm not sure we need to change the guideline at all. I'd like some examples of text that can be best written using and/or and no other way. EEng 03:37, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

There are two questions here: (1) What do we think of "and/or"? Do we advocate avoiding it altogether, avoiding it unless clearly better in context than plain "or", or remove any guidance? (2) Should we soften language in the MOS to accommodate those who would otherwise over-interpret its guidance as "must" and "prohibited"? I think the answer to (2) is "no", and we should decide the matter according to (1) only. Opinions differ: "and/or" is never indispensable, and is often sloppily used to avoid thinking whether "or" would meet the case; but there are some who prefer it to "A or B or both", and I don't see it as harmful if properly used, i.e. to specify that the "both A and B" case is to be included where that would otherwise be in doubt: Noyster (talk), 09:32, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

I finally looked at the actual text. I suggest that the first sentence is fine; it says "avoid", not "banned", or anything like it. The top of the MOS page has a clear statement that this is a styleguide, not a set of military orders. The second sentence, however, is, as already remarked, ridiculous, and should be deleted: "...suffering from burns, smoke inhalation, or trauma" is utterly clear. Imaginatorium (talk) 10:05, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

____________

Current text:

Avoid writing and/or: Instead of Most suffered trauma and/or smoke inhalation, write simply trauma or smoke inhalation (which would normally be interpreted to imply or both); or, for emphasis or precision, write trauma or smoke inhalation or both. Where more than two possibilities are present, instead of x, y, and/or z write one or more of x, y, and z or some or all of x, y, and z.

Proposed text:

Avoid and/or. Instead of trauma and/or smoke inhalation, write simply trauma or smoke inhalation (which would normally be interpreted to imply the possibility of both). For special emphasis or precision, write trauma, smoke inhalation, or both. Avoid especially cases like x, y, and/or z. The intention is not clear. In the rare cases where it is necessary, some more precise and complex form can be used: one or more of x, y, and z; or some or all of x, y, and z.

Tony (talk) 14:19, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

The "and/or" restriction sometimes gets in the way of straightforward writing. Another example is the current lead sentence of the Sexual intercourse article. It used to state "into the vagina for sexual pleasure or reproduction." But because editors occasionally interpreted the "or" as exclusive and because the WP:ANDOR guideline advises us against using "and/or," it was changed to "into the vagina for sexual pleasure, reproduction, or both." Why must we state "sexual pleasure, reproduction, or both"? It doesn't flow as well as "sexual pleasure and/or reproduction." In fact, it's a little awkward. When I see it, I'm like: "Or both? Well, duh." But when I see "and/or," it just seems like a seamless statement. Why not just "sexual pleasure and/or reproduction", which is something else editors would change the text to when they felt that the "or" was exclusive?

I can point to a number of examples where the WP:ANDOR guideline gets in the way. I know that I've pointed to sexual topic examples so far, but that is because I mainly edit medical and sexual topics. The guideline says that "or" would normally be interpreted to imply the possibility of "both." But people too often interpret the "or" as exclusive. And adding "or both" can have the awkward, unnecessary feel. Imaginatorium stated that the first sentence says "avoid", not "banned", but, like I noted above, "avoid" is interpreted as "don't ever." Anyone who has been editing this site for a significantly long time knows that our guidelines are often treated like policies. People enforce the guideline at every turn, as though there is never any leeway; this comes up enough at the WP:Words to watch guideline talk page, for example. That guideline is used so strictly so often that it led us to state "The advice in this guideline is not limited to the examples provided and should not be applied rigidly." at the top of that guideline and put the "should not be applied rigidly" aspect in bold. And yet editors still interpret the guideline rigidly. Most of the time, they don't even read the lead because they are only looking at a section of the guideline via a shortcut. Usual MOS editor SMcCandlish would support me on how strictly that guideline is used, but he hasn't edited since March 17. Either way, see what he stated here.

Tony1's latest suggestion doesn't allow for as much leeway as the "Avoid unless" proposals do. Editors were on board with "Avoid unless." We have two so far who seem to be against it. Are you against it as well, Tony1? If so, why? Why not soften the guideline a bit when it really is interpreted as "never use and/or"? Any time "and/or" is used, it is removed, even if it's better. During its removal, the editor points to this guideline for their justification of removing it. I have done the same. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:08, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm still waiting for a piece of well-written, sounds elegant when read out, expository text in which "and/or" adds something semantically. Why are the only examples given on subjects which are not being neutrally described, but are weighed down with political baggage. I mean, really, "The reason for the insertion of his and/or her penis and/or penises in her and/or his vagina is: ____" (complete in your own words). Imaginatorium (talk) 12:35, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Rivertorch, since everyone above in this section except seemingly two (Imaginatorium and EEng) supports "Avoid unless," the next step should be an RfC, right? Obviously, there are different opinions on this matter, and Noyster's "09:32, 13 April 2017 (UTC)" comment above highlights that. I'd rather start an RfC and see what the community decides on, rather than let this issue go stale. Like Noyster stated above, "Opinions differ: 'and/or' is never indispensable, and is often sloppily used to avoid thinking whether 'or' would meet the case; but there are some who prefer it to 'A or B or both', and I don't see it as harmful if properly used, i.e. to specify that the 'both A and B' case is to be included where that would otherwise be in doubt." I'm certainly one of those who prefers to it to "A or B or both." I've only unnecessarily gone with "A or B or both" because of this guideline. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:21, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

• I'd support Tony's proposed text above. EEng 21:13, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

@User:Flyer22 Reborn: If you think it's important enough for an RfC, go for it. To be frank, I'm dubious. You've pointed out—correctly, I think—that the current "Avoid" wording is suboptimal in practice because, for whatever reason(s), some users take it to be a blanket prohibition. In those instances, if the replacement wording is unclear or ungainly and cannot be elegantly fixed, I'd be inclined to restore "and/or" with explanation. One would be justified on at least two levels in doing so: first, because MOS is a guideline, not a policy, and second, if necessary, per WP:IAR, because clarity is way more important than style. I'm guessing such instances would be few and far between, and that in most cases local consensus would be easy enough to attain. If I'm wrong about that, then maybe an RfC would be best, but I predict that an RfC at this time would not result in clear consensus to amend the wording as you and I might prefer. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 04:08, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Rivertorch, thanks. I'll wait a day or two and see if anyone else has anything more to state on this matter. After that, if it still appears that the guideline will start off with the restrictive "Avoid" wording instead of an "Avoid unless" wording, I'll start a wide-scale RfC on this topic...in a similar vein to the wide-scale RfC about the four-paragraph standard for the lead of our articles (but not that setup, obviously); I will alert those WikiProjects and likely others. Not sure yet if I will start the RfC here or at the WP:Village pump (policy). As for the guideline not being changed as a result of the RfC, I think it will be. And for the better. I don't think that most editors will want to retain such restrictive wording. I could be wrong, but we'll see. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:12, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Indeed. My powers of prognostication in these areas are often flawed. Sometimes the community surprises me, and in a good way. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 12:14, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Comment: I don't particularly dislike saying "avoid unless..."; above I agree with Tony's sentiment in the draft, but I am sad to see that it makes the whole thing longer. I would really prefer to see something like "Generally avoid metalinguistic constructions such as 'x/y', or 'a (b)'...", where there are surely other very similar ones to "and/or", and there are (sorry, no good example springs to mind) cases of "something (some-other-name-for-it)". I call these "metalinguistic", because this is what they are: they tell the reader to choose either of the words to insert in the space. I do not think good writing does this. At the same time, of course it is better to write "and/or" if the political baggage makes it impractical to write anything else, but as I said at the beginning this is legal "faux precision". The semantics of "and" and "or" in real language are not the clearcut equivalences of the logical operators with the same names. Imaginatorium (talk) 12:43, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes, we often see such legalistic "faux precision" in contributions from tyro writers, such as "25 (twenty-five)", "if and when", or "including but not limited to...", all cases like "and/or" where such usages are sometimes justifiable but very often not: Noyster (talk), 08:55, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) To me, the increased length of the proposed text has little or no payoff since it adds context that is already implied, e.g. The intention is not clear. If anything, I think the rule could be softened, at least a tiny bit. In many cases inclusive-or is the natural interpretation of "or". Where it is not, adding "or both" or some such can be a natural way to disambiguate. However in some cases "and/or" can be quite reasonable when the workarounds turn out to be clunky, and it's in abundant use today -- just look at Google News. Manul ~ talk 13:00, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

To make this more concrete, sometimes the inclusiveness of "or" is not obvious and you don't want the emphasis that "and both" gives. Flyer's example of "sexual pleasure and/or reproduction" is pretty good. There is some inclusive-or vibe to "sexual pleasure or reproduction", but it still sounds a bit odd. However adding "or both" here seems like overemphasis: humans, generally, don't need it pointed out to them that making a baby can also be fun. Manul ~ talk 13:26, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

• I concur with 'Leave it alone. "Avoid" doesn't mean "absolutely never", and preserving quotes applies everywhere', other than I support Tony1's copyediting proposal for the section. "And/or" is vastly overused by the average amateur writer, and usually redundant. There are technical contexts in which its use is meaningful, and MoS does not preclude them absolutely, but already shows how to rewrite them to be clearer. Trolling and socking behavior is a disciplinary/behavior issue for admins to deal with, and has nothing to do with the question. Same goes for disruptively changing the text of quotations intentionally. Both of those behavior issues are red herrings.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  01:01, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

"Avoid" without "Avoid unless" is not good enough, per what I and others argued above. The problem is that "Avoid" is interpreted strictly and is not allowed any leeway. It just isn't. I've gone ahead and started the RfC below. As noted above, I will advertise it to the pages seen in the aforementioned WP:Lead dispute (in that order), and probably at other pages. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:32, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

RfC: Should the WP:ANDOR guideline be softened to begin with "Avoid unless" wording or similar?

One view is that the WP:ANDOR guideline is too restrictive because there are some instances where using "and/or" is the better and less cumbersome or less awkward option. Editors have noted that stating "and/or" can be more concise and less awkward than stating "[that], [that], or both," or some more elaborate construction. There is the argument that the guideline beginning with "avoid" is usually interpreted to mean "don't ever" when it comes to applying "and/or," and that this has resulted in an unofficial ban on "and/or" on Wikipedia. It has also been noted that the guideline is sometimes interpreted as applying to quotes as well, despite what MOS:QUOTES states about not usually tampering with quotes. The other view is that the guideline is fine as is, and that "avoid" doesn't mean "never." This view argues that "and/or" should usually be avoided or is rarely needed. This view argues that most and/or constructions can be easily rewritten. If someone is applying the guideline too strictly, then it's a matter that can be worked out on the article's talk page, or handled at an appropriate forum like WP:ANI. To resolve the dispute with the guideline, softening the guideline to begin with "Avoid unless," instead of "Avoid," has been proposed. One suggestion has been to change the initial wording to the following wording: "Avoid writing and/or unless ambiguity would result or unless other constructions would be too lengthy or awkward."

Do you support or oppose softening the WP:ANDOR guideline? And why? For those viewing this from the RfC page or from an alert on their talk page, see the initial main discussion above for further detail. As noted above, a number of Wikipedia pages will be alerted to this RfC since this RfC affects Wikipedia on a wide-scale level. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:32, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Survey

• Yes. Like I noted above, while "avoid" doesn't mean "not ever," it is usually interpreted that way in this case. If I were to add "and/or" to any Wikipedia article, you better believe that it would eventually be removed by an editor pointing to the WP:ANDOR guideline. It doesn't even matter if "and/or" is the better option. The editor would simply revert me without even considering whether or not "and/or" is the better option. I've done the same (with the exception that I do take time to consider if "and/or" is better). But I've only done the same because I know that someone else will come along and remove "and/or" if I don't. My issue is this: I don't see why "and/or" needs to be so restricted. We should at least acknowledge that "and/or" might be the better option in some cases. I don't see why I need to state "sexual pleasure, reproduction, or both" instead of simply "sexual pleasure and/or reproduction," for example. The former is a little awkward and can leave one with a "no duh" feeling, since it's obvious that both may be applied. If we just state "or," however, there is a tendency for some editors and readers to interpret "or" as exclusive, which is why "and/or" is sometimes added. In enough of these cases, I'd rather use "and/or" instead of "[this], [that], or both." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:27, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
• Support softening the guideline. There are instances where I think the use of and/or would greatly improve the readability of a sentence from the resulting conciseness and avoidance of awkwardly worded alternatives. In particular, I'm referring to when a series of 4+ comma-separated clauses are listed together and the intended meaning is that either all or combinatorial subset of those clauses, and not merely each clause alone, apply in that context.
  For example, compare:
  1. "X is characterized by the occurrence of A, B, C, and/or D."
  2. "X is characterized by the occurrence of some or all of A, B, C, or D."

  In these examples, X is a noun and A, B, C, and D are dependent clauses.

IMO, the 1st case is more straightforward than the 2nd in the sense that it flows better and more concise. The meaning of and/or in this context is clear. In contrast, the use of "some or all of" could be ambiguous in circumstances when statements like "X is characterized by the occurrence of some or all of A", ..., and "X is characterized by the occurrence of some or all of D" have straightforward meanings. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 00:14, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Comment: This seems a stunningly bad example; "and/or" is a metalinguistic construction, which is to say, it is true whether replaced by "and" or replaced by "or", and the argument for using it seems to depend on a feeling that "or" might not be inclusive. So on the face of it, this means "either exactly one, or all four of [the following]". Whereas I guess that what you are trying to say is "any of A, B, C, and D". But depending on the actual example, simply "A, B, C, or D" might be clearer. Incidentally, I think by "clause" you mean "(noun) phrase", but anyway the example is too abstract. Imaginatorium (talk) 16:41, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

• Support: As long as we don't find 'and/or' appearing too often (if this starts to happen, a review must take place), I have no objection to people writing it in order to improve syntax, make writing more concise, and avoid ambiguity. --Sb2001 (talk) 00:13, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
• Support softening the guideline. There are (rare) occasions when it simply is the easiest way to say something. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:17, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
• Support. Although they are not common, there are occasions when "and/or" is the best choice and the MoS should we worded in such a way that recognises this. I think the proposed new wording is better (although not perhaps perfect) in this regard than the present formulation. Thryduulf (talk) 02:25, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
• Support As editors should have some leeway to use it if it is the best way of presenting the material. My inner logician wants to protest that 'or' is sufficient. Unfortunately, whether 'or' means OR or XOR depends on context. Sizeofint (talk) 02:33, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
• Support per my comments above. While they are few and far between, instances where the "and/or" construction is appropriate do exist. Restriction of the usage is appropriate; proscription is not. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 05:11, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
• Support. I personally wouldn't have read the original text as 'never', but the softer wording is basically what we want people to do so why not make the guidance clearer. Might I suggest an adaption of the suggested wording: "Avoid writing and/or unless other constructions would be too lengthy or awkward." It should really be taken as read that prose should not introduce ambiguity. It's always possible to replace and/or with an equivalent but clunky construction, but imo the only times in which we would want to see and/0r it is when that the alternative construction is too lengthy and awkward. Scribolt (talk) 05:58, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
• Support. As others. Bondegezou (talk) 10:15, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
• Support flexibility with this - "avoid" guidelines are too often interpreted as a "never" policy. Simon Burchell (talk) 10:44, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose Despite the arguments above, I remain unconvinced that the artificial legalistic construction "and/or" is ever necessary in ordinary prose. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 11:56, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

  I agree that this crude construction has no place in well crafted writing. However, when it comes to ugly and awkward prose this is the least of our problems. At least it is parsable. ~ Ningauble (talk) 14:37, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose. The proposed modification leaves too much to editor discretion, and I have yet to see an example that could not be better phrased by simply using "or." To continue Seppi333's example: "X is characterized by A, B, C, or D" is perfect. Rebbing 18:03, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

  "X is characterized by A, B, C, or D" could well and sometimes would be be taken to mean "X is characterized by A, or B, or C, or D, but not two or more of these" whereas ""X is characterized by A, B, C, and/or D" is commonly understood to be more inclusive. Herostratus (talk) 19:35, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

  Which should be rewritten as "is characterized by all of the four factors", or "A and B, and sometimes C and D". "And/or" can be trivially reworded while also being more precise in its intent. --Izno (talk) 21:22, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

• Support. There are subtle downsides to And/Or: it is one, two or all three of "ugly, awkward-looking, somewhat informal". And I worry about ESL readers understanding it. On the other hand, it's usually crystal clear and sometimes quite handy, and apparently (as usual) editors are taking the prescription as an iron rule and we should not have an iron rule. My only question is should the prescription against And/Orbe removed altogether, and let the writer decide. But at any rate loosen the proscription. Not a fan of micro-managing. It's fine to leave it up to the writer. Herostratus (talk) 19:35, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
• Support I would like us to retain some discouragement of "and/or", which as argued above often conveys no more than "faux precision" and can be clearly inferior to "or". On the other hand there's no need for the MOS to seem to rule out the expression where its use is justifiable (even though the MOS should not be seen as a set of rigid rules in any case): Noyster (talk), 22:50, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose – My opinion is that the "and/or" construction should be strongly avoided and the existing guideline should not be softened. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 20:42, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose - I haven't seen a convincing construction where an actual exception to the guidelines couldn't also be applied, or where the construction couldn't be written around. --Izno (talk) 21:22, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
• Support: A perfect example of what the Wiki has come to; endless debates about minor issues of style while our potential editors run away due to the endless debates about minor issues of style. Maury Markowitz (talk) 15:34, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
• I support Flyer22 Reborn's proposal because this wording still advises against use of "and/or" but isn't unnecessarily restrictive. -Darouet (talk) 20:41, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
• Support Eliminate would be better but softening is a step in that direction. North8000 (talk) 12:51, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
• Support And/or is sufficiently useful in some situations to soften the wording, but I still like the guideline because it's often overused. Utsill (talk) 13:46, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Discussion

• I am happy with either formating. Like spelling being British or USA. Just do not want to see people battling over it. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:02, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
• Neither I would like to eliminate the entire para. Editor don't need this kind of micro-management. Carlotm (talk) 08:07, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
• Whatever: I am not opposed to softening the wording, because of what User:Ningauble said above, but I do not like this "artificial legalistic construction" (User:MShabazz). However, I very much agree with User:Carlotm that this is micromanagement, and should not be necessary at all. (I am still waiting for a convincing example of ordinary, expository prose, in which this construction is actually more readable.) Imaginatorium (talk) 16:54, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

You don't consider my "sexual pleasure, reproduction, or both" vs. "sexual pleasure and/or reproduction" example a convincing instance of where "and/or" flows better? How is it at all better to state the former? Above, Manul recognized the awkwardness and unnecessary route of stating "sexual pleasure, reproduction, or both." And like I noted above, when only "or" is included in that case, some editors act like the "or" is exclusive. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:30, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

• The purpose of avoiding and/or is to make the wording more simple. QuackGuru (talk) 19:36, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Since this talk page archives relatively fast, what should be done to keep this thread from archiving too fast (meaning before everyone has had a chance to weigh in and before a closer has assessed the RfC and closed it)? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:25, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

@Flyer22 Reborn: If a talk page is archived by a bot, then it'll be archived if the this thread's most recent timestamp is older than the most recent timestamps in the other threads on the page. The simplest ways to prevent it from being archived are to add a new response to the thread with a current timestamp (i.e., anyone replies) on a regular (e.g., daily) basis, or just simply use the {{Do not archive until}} template. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 03:37, 25 April 2017 (UTC) ← ← ← ← ← (for the record, this is a timestamp)

Another alternative is to delete all the timestamps in a thread, but that's really not practical in this case since it'd violate WP:TPG to edit others' signatures. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 03:42, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Seppi. Yeah, I knew that I could keep bumping the thread, but I was wondering about an alternative. Bumping Wikipedia threads isn't as typical as bumping a thread on some other forum. And there is the whole WP:Not a forum aspect. I'd rather not bump the thread by adding my signature with no comment or by trying to think of some response to make to an editor. And trivial responses are not ideal. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 10:53, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

It shouldn't be archived during the normal 30-day period of a current RfC. Bumping thread for 23 days. : Noyster (talk), 14:11, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, Noyster. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:58, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

'e.g.', 'i.e.' and 'etc.' vs 'eg', 'ie' and 'etc'

Following a discussion at the Language helpdesk, I propose 'eg', 'ie' and 'etc' should be written for British English articles, whilst 'e.g.', 'i.e.' and 'etc.' are used for US English articles. This means US articles can follow the guidance of US style guides and UK articles can follow the guidance of UK style guides.

See the following; Guardian style guide - 'eg no full points' UK government style guide - 'eg, etc and ie' Economist style guide - 'ie and eg' University of Oxford style guide - 'etc', 'eg' and 'ie'

Also (as contributed by Alansplodge) University of Cambridge educational style guide: "Do not use full stops in these common abbreviations: eg, am, pm, op, no, cf, ie, ed, etc or after Mr, Mrs, Prof or Dr".

And again, BBC NEWS STYLE GUIDE: "Eg ie no full stop".

And finally Editorial Style and Writing Guidelines - NHS Connecting for Health: "Common abbreviations such as, ie, eg and etc should be written without full stops".

As 'The Rambling Man' comments, 'there seems to be good evidence to support an ENGVAR split in punctuation'.

'Jnestorius' summarised that 'style guides for web publications are more likely than those for hardcopy printing to favour eg over e.g'. Since Wikipedia is a website, it would make sense to apply this split here. I would - however - note that the Guardian and the Economist are printed publications. --Sb2001 (talk) 15:15, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Interesting that HMG warns that screen readers get confused (e.g. -> egg) and that Oxford justifies the change on the basis of saving ink! Martin of Sheffield (talk) 15:48, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

I don't know about whether to support an ENGVAR split on this, but I just have to say that to my American eyes, all these abbreviations without periods (full stops) look amazingly odd. I can understand, perhaps, leaving out the periods after "Mr", "Dr", etc., but with eg, am, pm, op, no, cf, ie, ed, and etc, some of them look like words, which can cause some confusion to a native speaker of English but even more to a non-native speaker of English. The abbreviations without periods/full stops provide fewer clues that the letters represent separate words and assumes that the reader knows the Latin words of which they are abbreviations. I wonder whether the practice of leaving out the periods/full stops on titles and abbreviations arose when people were using manual typewriters to type, and it meant one less key to punch on the typewriter, saving not only time but actual physical effort. Now that we have ergonomic computer keyboards that only require a light touch on the keys, perhaps we have no excuse to leave the periods/full stops out. I know that it all comes down to what you're used to, but also, I know that Wikipedia has developed its own style in some things, including punctuation. We are not necessarily bound to follow prevailing style guides.  – Corinne (talk) 16:16, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

@Corinne: well, to my aging British eyes, many of these also look very odd without stops. There is a well established and principled British style that only uses a stop at the end if that's where letters are omitted. So "Mr", "Mrs", "Dr" because the omitted letters are internal, but "Prof.", "e.g.", "ed.", etc. because the omission is at the end. There's a case for "am" and "pm" in forms like "2 am" by analogy with "2 cm". Personally I wouldn't go beyond these in British English articles. There's no good reason to decrease consistency. Peter coxhead (talk) 16:35, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

This British English editor makes a point of including those dots in her own writing. Of the sources that give a MoS, it should be noted that saving ink is irrelevant to wikipedia (Oxford), and gov.uk has a policy of writing to the lowest education level practical in order to avoid being accused of making essential government reports and services inaccessible. The NHS MoS would simply repeat the gov.uk MoS, as it is still (for the time being at least) a government-controlled body. Listing their MoS separately is just padding the claim. It seems reasonable to assume that wikipedia isn't writing to the lowest education level that doesn't fit the legal definition of mentally disabled. The simple fact is, there is not actually a consensus regarding dots in these abbreviations. Rhialto (talk) 16:48, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Peter, excpet for the fact that I still tend to use the older style of full stops after Mr., Mrs. or Dr. It's the way I was taught way back in the year England won the World Cup (which is a bit of a hint which side of the Atlantic I come from). Martin of Sheffield (talk) 17:50, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

The assumption this is about saving ink is just wrong. It is also wrong that it is about typewriters. As someone in education rather more recently than the rest of you seem to have been, I can tell you that in the UK it is no longer recommended to abbreviate with full stops. Part of the educational process involves referring to style guides, grammar books, etc and I can tell you everything I have read which has been recently published says not to include full stops. The point of this discussion is to come to a conclusion as to whether Wikipedia should follow the more up-to-date way of writing these common abbreviations in British English. In response to @Rhialto 's claim that 'eg', etc is about making things accessible to all, for one - why should Wikipedia not be accessible to all, and my education certainly was not of poor quality - I was told to write with no full stops. These rules have only been adopted recently, so may seem unfamiliar to some. I can say that examination boards in the UK all (or at least that I have come across) include examples using 'eg' for their associated paperwork. Part of the reason I started this discussion is as some instances of 'eg', etc in UK articles were removed in favour of 'e.g.'. A potential solution to this could be to allow both, maybe with the aim of moving towards the new standards. --Sb2001 (talk) 18:12, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

User:Rhialto: The inclusion of the NHS' style guide was to demonstrate support from other users, not to pad the claim. I was not aware the NHS had a style guide until this discussion. It is actually quite different to that of the government, including what it says about 'eg', etc. --Sb2001 (talk) 20:05, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

I wasn't attempting to make any comment on the education levels of other editors here - simply on the official intent of the gov.uk manual of style. As a former government employee, I had access to the documents that explained the official reasoning behind their MoS decision-making process. I'd love to point you to them, but those documents were on an intranet and not to my knowledge public. Rhialto (talk) 21:02, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

The comment about saving ink is from Oxford: "If there are multiple (correct) ways of doing something, choose the one which uses the least space and the least ink" (page 1), so if you are quoting them as an authority you shouldn't dismiss it as "just wrong". I think you have also misunderstood the HMG advice: "eg can sometimes be read aloud as ‘egg’ by screen reading software. Instead use ‘for example’ or ‘such as’ or ‘like’ or ‘including’ - whichever works best in the specific context." To make it plain, they are saying that not using punctuation renders the text so unclear that it is best avoided. If you look at the "E" page the title "eg, etc and ie" is about as unclear as it can get, it reads as "eg, etcandie". I wonder if a screen reader would say "egg ate candy"? I discussed this with an secondary school English teacher and although she wouldn't employ full stops after "Mr" would certainly use them in "i.e." or "e.g.".

Your assumption that a modern trend is necessarily either permanent or better than the traditional way is a common fallacy of journalism and other ephemera. Interestingly at a concert at the weekend the lyrics of 60s and 70s pop sounded far more dated that that of Thomas Weelkes (1576 – 1623), and personally I always find the KJV sounds less stilted than horrors like the NEB. Since the Americans seem to have retained a form which you understand, yet your form looks jarring and ill educated to older British readers perhaps we should employ a style which is accessible (vide HMG), easy on the eye (also HMG) and common to the greatest number of readers. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 22:01, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

• I'm amazed no one here seems to realize that "saving ink" here is figurative. "Ink" is just the opposite of "whitespace". No one's actually talking about saving actual, literal, physical ink. While I'm here, I completely agree with Martin -- dropping the dots/periods/stops may be hip, but to a lot of readers it looks completely daft. EEng 22:43, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
• I also agree with Martin's well-expressed opinion.  – Corinne (talk) 02:54, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Regarding the "whitespace" point, I suspect that's a red herring. The nature of wikipedia is that the text flows to fill the available space. Making the overall text shorter (by removing the dots) won't increase the total amount of whitespace; it merely makes the overall article length shorter. In fact, contrary to expectations, including the dots, by spreading out the spacing of those letters, would actually increase the total amount of whitespace (since a dot will force in a bit of whitespace around itself in the middle of the paragraph). Rhialto (talk) 05:14, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

As an aside, current gov.uk MoS for eg/e.g., ie/i.e., and etc/etc. is "do not use". See here: https://insidegovuk.blog.gov.uk/2016/07/20/changes-to-the-style-guide-no-more-eg-and-ie-etc/ Rhialto (talk) 05:19, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

I think that should be more than an aside. HMG point out that there's an accessibility issue with these aperiodic abbreviations: software for the blind reads them wrong. This should also be a concern for us. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:58, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

In any case, as the author of that blog notes in the comments section of the blog, "It's a government website. Users shouldn't need to use a dictionary to understand it." This is an example of what I mean when I say there is a conscious decision to write to the lowest education level practical on government websites. As an encyclopaedia, this site does not have the same mission briefing. Rhialto (talk) 08:50, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

General comment: (I'm British, though I have not lived in the UK for 25+ years, and sometimes have difficulty reading what is supposed to be "English"). Many abbreviations in UK style use fewer dots than American ones (Mr Smith, am/pm (though isn't US generally small caps?), etc). But "ie" to mean "i.e." is just a (confusing) error. Citing millions of government documents is of no relevance: they cannot spell, they cannot punctuate, they cannot (actually) think; I know, because I have been struggling with incoherent questions from the DWP amongst others. WP uses "formal writing", which should mean no unecessary showoff jargon etc, but "written English", so "I am", not "I'm". Written English has completely disappeared from the language of government and commerce, but that doesn't (me, ok) mean we shouldn't use it. I just looked at the "Style guide" above, and it finally dawned on me that the people writing the style guide think that "eg" is an abbreviation (even while they recomment not using it). Grrrrmph. Imaginatorium (talk) 09:11, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the current official policy is on such abbreviations, but the past general Wikipedia tendency has been to allow national variants in spelling, but not usually in punctuation. So Wikipedia follows British practice in that commas etc. are not automatically reordered before quote marks, but follows American practice in that outer quote marks should be double (not single) -- and so on. We probably shouldn't change this without a good reason... AnonMoos (talk) 09:35, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Maybe it is a good idea to stop people writing these abbreviations, and instead write 'for example', etc as everyone can understand them. I have become used to seeing 'e.g.', but was very confused at first as it is not what I saw first. Some people are taught the other way around. A simple solution would be to not use them at all.--Sb2001 (talk) 13:07, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

I agree that it is a good idea to use the full words such as "for example" when possible, but I don't think it's necessary to write out "that is" instead of "i.e." or "post meridiem" for "p.m." (and no, I don't see small caps used for that in the U.S.). I'm just curious: what do British academic journals and university presses use? Regarding the changing usage in journalism, I am increasingly seeing contractions in newspaper articles. I agree with Imaginatorium that government documents and any government style guides are not the best guides to good writing, and that in Wikipedia we should be using formal written English, but not so overly academic or obscure that articles will be incomprehensible to the average reader. Regarding the use of periods/full stops in abbreviations, does it make sense to make a distinction between the need for periods/full stops in titles (Mr, Mrs, Dr, etc.) in articles using British English and the need or periods/full stops in the other abbreviations? Can we say that, if the article is written in British English, it's all right for no period/full stop to be used in titles (with the understanding that periods/full stops will be used in articles written in American English) but that there will be a general policy of requiring/recommending periods/full stops for all the other abbreviations such as e.g. and i.e.? (I've kind of gotten used to seeing, and using, no periods/full stops for "am" and "pm", but wouldn't be opposed to requiring/recommending them for consistency.)  – Corinne (talk) 14:26, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Unspaced text messing up mobile browsers

perhapswikipediashouldlookaheadandtrytosetatrendforachangeforhundredsofyearswevebeentyrannisedbypeopleinsistingonallsortsofridiculousextraneousstuffwhenallweneedis26lettersoopsand10numeralsisupposedidyouknowthataboutthetimeoftherussianrevolutiontheydecidednottobotherwiththeletterъwhichappearedattheendoflotsandlotsofwordsrepresentingasortofnullvowelwhichwasntpronouncedanymoreasaresultrussiannewspapersshrankby7%orsomethinglikethatwellthisisourbigopportunityareductioninpaperelectronskeypressesandeductinalstandardswillriseovernightImaginatoriumtalk201704111520utc

The MoS used to explicitly discourage use of i.e., e.g., and other Latin abbreviations per WP:NOTPAPER. I'm not sure why that was removed as it seems like good advice. Kaldari (talk) 18:04, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Looks like it was removed in 2005. Guess I'm getting old. Kaldari (talk) 18:10, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

FWIW I would support a suggestion to avoid "i.e." and "e.g." (and their less-punctuated versions) where possible. --JBL (talk) 22:57, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Me too. I like that it was in there for over a year, and came in with edit summary prevent measles (in reference to the dots). Dicklyon (talk) 23:50, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

I would oppose any change. This is not universal. As an English person who always writes most abbreviations without full stops, I wouldn't dream of writing eg or ie! It looks very weird to me. Claiming this is standard British usage is just not true. This is not an ENGVAR issue. It's a personal style issue only. I also agree, though, that generally these abbreviations shouldn't be used on Wikipedia at all. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:51, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Would I be right in saying that people here do not - generally - oppose 'etc' being used as a BE equivalent to 'etc.'? This could be advised for UK articles, and then people can be asked to avoid using 'eg' or 'e.g.' and 'ie' or 'i.e.'. Many people seem to support this. Can I assume that this change is to go ahead unless there are a significant number of objections by, say, Sunday at 1.00pm UK time? --Sb2001 (talk) 20:44, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Oppose not universal in BE and increasing ENGVAR differences is undesirable. Peter coxhead (talk) 20:54, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

What is 'etc'? I write '&c'....RGloucester — ☎ 21:10, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

@Peter coxhead: I do disagree that 'etc' is not universal as I see it far more frequently than 'etc.' (which I actually only see on Wikipedia) and it is what is taught in educational establishments. Yes, you are right in saying regional splits in language are to be avoided, but surely UK articles should be written in a style which most people in the UK would understand, and apply themselves. I am willing to accept 'eg' and 'ie' are possibly as common as 'i.e.' in certain places, but do not accept the argument that 'etc' is not the generally accepted way of writing this abbreviation. I would just like to clarify the change I proposed at 9.44pm (UK) doesn't ask people to write 'eg' and 'ie', only 'etc'.--Sb2001 (talk) 21:11, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

It's demonstrably not universal. See here and here, as just two examples. It's clear that there's a strong trend in British English is to reduce or remove the use of stops with abbreviations and contractions, but it's far from universal. Peter coxhead (talk) 22:16, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose it's not universal in British English: it's sloppiness. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 12:23, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

It's certainly not sloppiness, @Redrose64: most British style guides recommend it, and it is what you are taught to write currently in English. Would you and other editors be happy with both 'etc' and 'etc.' being options? --Sb2001 (talk) 13:17, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose: I think this discussion has made it clear that there is currently no strong consensus. Both dotted and non-dotted versions appear to be standards in use, and if there is a pattern at all, I suspect it is a generational issue. I certainly recall that it used to be taught that the dotted version was the correct one. For now, as long as every article is internally consistent on which is used, we should allow either version to remain in an article. Rhialto (talk) 18:25, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Updated change: 'etc' and 'etc.' are acceptable in UK articles. 'eg' or 'e.g.' and 'ie' or 'i.e.' should not be used in any articles. This means existing instances of this can be gradually removed from Wikipedia. People should avoid changing 'etc' to 'etc.' and vice versa in UK articles. --Sb2001 (talk) 00:08, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose. Definitely keep the periods/dots/stops, whatever you like to call them. Even British/Commonwealth usage is not consistent in dropping them, and these constructions are difficult to interpret as abbreviations rather than words, unit symbols, and other stuff, especially by non-native English speakers. Many British/Commonwealth publishers that drop them are violating their own style guides by doing so, since Fowler's, New Hart's Rules, etc., typically advise dropping them only for abbreviations than start and end with the original letters of the full word ("Dr" from "Doctor"), and retaining them for truncations ("etc." from et cetera, which obviously does not end in "c"). The habitual dropping of all of them is a British/Commonwealth journalism practice, adopted for expediency (like dropping of capitalization in acronyms after the first letter, as in "Aids" for AIDS, an even more confusing and awful practice). Dot-dropping has been spreading, somewhat and inconsistently, to other forms of publishing in many non-North American parts of the "Anglosphere". But it's lazy and sloppy, and WP is not written in news style as a matter of policy, anyway.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  01:16, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

  It is most certainly not restricted to journalism. This view completely ignores what the University of Oxford and the University of Cambridge require. People who wish to write 'etc.' in UK articles will still be able to, however they may also write 'etc'. I do not understand why editors have an objection to this. There is some evidence to support both inclusion and omission of full stops. I will note that I have never commented on how US English teaching is wrong, and have never said spelling 'colour' as 'color' is 'lazy and sloppy'... --Sb2001 (talk) 02:09, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

  Didn't say it was "restricted" to journalism, I said it originated there and has since spread inconsistently, which is correct. See comments in series by Peter coxhead, Rhialto, and Martin of Sheffield, above; even some British readers/writers (apparently the majority of them participating in this discussion) prefer the stops (including for constructions like "Dr.", the only type for which the main British style guides actually advocate dropping the dots in the first place). Colour versus colour is completely unrelated, being a nationalistic spelling divergence introduced by Daniel Webster's dictionary and enthusiastically adopted in the early United States for anti-British political reasons, along with "theater" and other alterations. That has nothing to do with whether punctuation – a matter of sentence structure and parseability – is being dropped for reasons of expediency at the cost of the material's intelligibility to a broad audience.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  03:28, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

• Dropping the dots was advice I first noticed in a book by the (British) author who first developed "plain English", in the 70s. I do not think there's a neat trans-Atlantic divide, just like internal/external quote-final punctuation. If copy-editing a WP I'd probably correct to "i.e." and "e.g." simply because they're more easily recognisable; but I'd not object if editors wanted to keep their dotless variety consistently throughout an article. I don't like the dot after "etc" because it's more easily recognisable than "ie" and "eg". But I don't think MOS should be insisting on anything but within-article consistency in these matters. Tony (talk) 04:31, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
• I second User:Tony1's opinion of consistency within an article, but not across articles. One thing that will quickly annoy some editors is if a rule on this is put into the MOS that is then adopted by AWB and bots causing semi-automated/automated change to many articles. -- PBS (talk) 05:14, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose the proposal as stated. As SMcCandlish notes, even in BrE this dot dropping is not so prevalent or consistent. If there are articles that do this, with some consistency, I would not object, but I would not say push in that direction. So that's more like Tony1's position. Either way, I don't see a need for the MOS to take a position. I'd rather see us work together on what we've already got in the MOS than to add more stuff that's less likely to be respected. Dicklyon (talk) 05:55, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

I do sometimes wonder if all the time and effort spent trying to make MOS agreeable to every editor ought to be spent in article creation. In general readers (and remember WP:RF) want information, not rigorously standards-conforming typographical masterpieces. We should primarily be generating the world's best encyclopaedia, not an international style guide. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 10:53, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

It appears some users have not noticed the most recent motion I presented: 'Updated change: 'etc' and 'etc.' are acceptable in UK articles. 'eg' or 'e.g.' and 'ie' or 'i.e.' should not be used in any articles. This means existing instances of this can be gradually removed from Wikipedia. People should avoid changing 'etc' to 'etc.' and vice versa in UK articles. --Sb2001 (talk) 00:08, 15 April 2017 (UTC)'. A consensus seems to have been reached that the MoS should be changed to something like this. --Sb2001 (talk) 18:39, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Who says there's a consensus for this? I don't see it. When similar issues have been raised before, e.g allowing different quotation styles in articles using different ENGVARs, the consensus has always been not to vary punctuation by ENGVAR. What makes this different? Or shall we start discussing punctuation in quotations yet again? Peter coxhead (talk) 20:31, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

User:Peter coxhead: If you read the thread you will see people agree it is reasonable for both 'etc.' and 'etc' to be options for UK articles. This involves compromises from both sides of the argument. And I do think Wikipedia should allow different quotation punctuation. I am not raising it, however. I do not appreciate being told my points are not relevant/inappropriate for a discussion if other editors are going to raise issues such as quotation punctuation. We are discussing abbreviations. The last several comments support the idea of both versions of 'et cetera' being options. --Sb2001 (talk) 20:39, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

@Sb2001: I have read the thread. The point of the reference to quotation styles, if you read what I wrote, is that this offers a key test of attitudes to allowing punctuation to vary by ENGVAR, and the consensus was firmly that we don't, as Justlettersandnumbers says below. It's not a "compromise" to allow some variation by ENGVAR; it's a concession on a key principle. If accepted it would certainly be reasonable for American editors to say that always placing periods before quotation marks regardless of logical quotation should be allowed in articles written in American English. Why would one be allowed and not the other? Peter coxhead (talk) 17:21, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose per MHRA Style Guide, third edition; London: Modern Humanities Research Association, 2013, page 43. Also because we don't need any more rules, and we don't make punctuation rules based on ENGVAR. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:59, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

User:Justlettersandnumbers: There are plenty of style guides which advise otherwise (the Guardian, the Economist, the NHS, the University of Oxford, the University of Cambridge are just some examples). I think it is wise to allow people to write both in order to avoid this sort of 'my style guide is better than yours' debate this seems to be turning into. --Sb2001 (talk) 22:04, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Sb2001 Do I understand you correctly? It sounds like you want explicit permission to use "etc" (without the period/full stop) in articles written in British English. I think you realize by now that you haven't persuaded others to institute a new rule requiring no period/full stop in these abbreviations. I think the general feeling here is that consistency within an article is very much desirable, but there is a reluctance to put into place a new set of rules. I'm not sure whether other editors here would prefer to see these abbreviations written with periods/full stops, or whether (at least in British English articles) they would find either style (with or without periods/full stops) acceptable. Regarding your other proposal, to establish a rule or guideline saying that "i.e.", or "ie", and "e.g.", or "eg", cannot be used in Wikipedia articles, I don't think that's a good idea. I think articles that substitute "that is" every time "i.e." might be used would make for some wordy articles. For "e.g.", I think that in many cases another phrase can be used ("for example", "such as", "including"), but that an occasional "e.g." ought to be allowed.  – Corinne (talk) 03:16, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Rewording to avoid Latin abbreviations is always my preference; but I don't think we need new guidelines at this time. Dicklyon (talk) 03:59, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

• Comment: I found out about this discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Accessibility#Abbreviations for exempli gratia, id est, etcetera, where the screen reader angle was mentioned. As discussed above, English speech synthesisers (which speak the text sent to them by screen readers) do indeed read "eg" and "ie" as "egg" and "e", with some variations; notably the British version of eSpeakNG reads "eg" as "for example" while reading "e.g." as "e dot g". However screen reader users will just get used to whatever's thrown at them, and I don't think the use of "eg"/"ie" versus "e.g."/"i.e." is a big deal for us in the grand scheme of things. Graham87 16:44, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose - the fact that it's not universal among British English and that there are plausible accessibility concerns. The possible benefits of the proposal (reader comfortability) do not outweigh the possible-to-likely drawbacks. EvergreenFir (talk) 17:47, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

User:EvergreenFir: I am interested to know why you think a less common way of writing 'et cetera' ('etc.') should be adopted over the widely used 'etc'. I would like to again point out that we would - under this change - be making Wikipedia more accessible by advising people to write 'for example' and 'that is' (or words to that effect) instead of 'eg' or 'e.g.' and 'ie' or 'i.e.'. As User:Graham87 seems to be saying, screen readers have trouble with 'eg' and 'e.g.', so it would make sense to avoid using them in my opinion. I think we should allow both 'etc' and 'etc.' to end this dispute, which seems to be going round in circles. Do any editors have a reasonable objection to the barring of 'eg' or 'e.g.' and 'ie' or 'i.e.' and permission to use 'etc' and 'etc.'? --Sb2001 (talk) 19:32, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes, they do; see above. You are trying to be both the proposer and the closer. This is not acceptable. A change of this kind needs to be treated as a proper RfC and closed by a non-involved person. Peter coxhead (talk) 19:48, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

User:Peter coxhead: You are effectively dismissing this side of the argument. The number of editors in favour of both being allowed seems about equal to those against. If both are recommended, why disallow one? Please, also, speak to me as an equal: your tone (and use of bold text) comes across as somewhat rude. I did not bring this to the talk page to cause an argument. Other editors and I find the MoS restrictive in the way it demands 'etc.' rather than 'etc'. You may not have this issue. As someone who was taught to write 'etc', I find it quite strange to have to write something I was taught is no longer common in UK English. I have backed down, and been persuaded by some editors to not use 'eg'/'e.g.' and 'ie'/'i.e.', so is it really that unreasonable for you to accept the opinions of some? I am not asking you to write 'etc' with no full stop. I am just asking for those who prefer this style to be give the option of doing so. In regards to the proposer/closer point, if this is a rule, I was not aware of this. I have never used this talk page before. I would appreciate it if you could show some understanding of this. I do think we have had an array of comments from people of many opinions (including one who writes '&c'), so am not quite sure what you mean when you ask for a 'proper RfC' - can you please explain? --Sb2001 (talk) 20:34, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

@Sb2001:Your assertion that "something ... is no longer common in UK English" is only correct if you assume that all UK English is reflected by journalistic style guides. Style guides may be prescriptive for their particular publications, just as MOS is prescriptive for our publication. To extrapolate from this limited base to all UK English is unsupportable and contradicted by many UK editors here. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 22:35, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

User:Martin of Sheffield: Sorry if what I meant was unclear - I was saying that I was taught it is no longer common. I was not trying to say I was right. I understand it is used, but I was taught (and I imagine this is fairly standard in schools, etc today) not to write it due to its dwindling frequency of use. --Sb2001 (talk) 22:58, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose Support. New Hart's Rules (2014), published by Oxford University Press, recommends points with those abbreviations (e.g., i.e., and so on), so I'm confused about the claim that OUP leaves them out. SarahSV ^(talk) 19:28, 19 April 2017 (UTC)\

• It's just the Oxford staff style guide that recommends leaving them out. That's for staff communication, so they've opted for the easy option. They say: "Although this style guide is freely available online it has not been written with public or external use in mind. The University of Oxford Style Guide does not purport to compete with OUP’s professional writing guides and dictionaries." SarahSV ^(talk) 19:35, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
• Changed to support, but not as an ENGVAR difference. Editors should be able to choose which to use so long as they're consistent. Having said that, I think a lot of people will instinctively add points while copy-editing, so you'll be constantly having to argue your case. SarahSV ^(talk) 19:42, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

• Preferentially avoid altogether. Et cetera may be occasionally useful but should be written out and italicized; i(.)e(.) and e(.)g(.) should be replaced by "that is" and "for example", respectively (no one is going to use id est or exemplia gratis, I hope). That said, I'm not proposing this as a hard rule; if local editorial judgment is to use the abbreviations for some good reason, that's fine. But the guideline should discourage their general use. --Trovatore (talk) 19:59, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
  One practical consideration here: Not everyone who uses i.e. actually knows what it means. A lot of people use it when e.g. would be more appropriate. I don't actually recall specifically seeing this in Wikipedia, but then I don't see i.e. much in Wikipedia so the sample size is small. If people are encouraged to write it out in English, they'll be less likely to make this mistake. --Trovatore (talk) 20:10, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

User:Trovatore: This is a good point. It seems to me like enough of a reason to stop people writing e.g. and eg, end i.e. and ie. It can be rather confusing if you see 'ie' instead of 'eg' as it can lead you to question whether the list given is exhaustive. I have seen it on Wikipedia a number of times, actually.--Sb2001 (talk) 17:20, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

By this reasoning we should tell people to avoid comprise and compose, infer and imply, and so on. EEng 17:42, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Well, it's just a little side benefit. In my judgment we should preferentially avoid Latin abbreviations, and for that matter all sorts of abbreviations, almost everywhere in Wikipedia. As I say, if local editorial judgment is different on a particular article, I think that's fine; I'm not going to go hunting for them. But if the MoS is going to make a recommendation, I think it should be "avoid them altogether". --Trovatore (talk) 19:30, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Does there seem to be a consensus here? I think people don't seem to have a preference (or if they do, are open-minded to the alternative) for 'etc' and 'etc.'. There also seems to be general opposition against e.g. or eg and i.e. and ie being used at all. Should we therefore avoid them (unless is absolutely necessary, in which case full stops are optional)? --Sb2001 (talk) 23:11, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Are you kidding? EEng 02:04, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

With respect to periods, it seems anyone in the world will understand abbreviations when written with or without dots. But I think there is a national preference for periods in the US as opposed to the UK--I know I always pause a little when seeing an abbreviation without them, but it's not impt. enough to make a ENGVAR issue of it. The easiest rule to handle this is just consistency within an article. That does matter, in terms of presenting a unified piece of writing, but I cannot see why consistency between articles is at all important; our articles are so diverse in much more important matters that we do need to deal with, such as extent of referencing. Similarly, etc and etc are both universally understood. They are not good style in formal writing, and perhaps we should advise against them , except in tables and the like. I'd advise against automatically converting them to words--at the end of a series they are usually best omitted, especially if the sentence begins with for example or among other. But as for ie and eg, it seems that it is a barrier to those from other language areas to use them at all, and they should be gradually depreciated, and perhaps we should include a statement to that effect in the MOS, but not make a special effort to remove them. I suggest there is at least consensus for that part. DGG ( talk ) 00:51, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

There certainly is a preference to avoid periods in British English. We call them "full stops" here, or sometimes just "dots" when we are referring to their use outside of the context of ending a sentence. Absolutely never a "period". Rhialto (talk) 04:49, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Even Leviticus recommends avoiding periods. EEng 05:55, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

User:DGG: this seems perfectly reasonable. Reading my last comment, it seems I didn't make clear that I wanted consistency within articles. Certainly avoiding eg/e.g. and ie/i.e. seems like a good idea. --Sb2001 (talk) 15:57, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

• In my eyes (yes, maybe somewhat biased) it seems people want to see an end to eg/e.g. and ie/i.e. unless absolutely necessary (tables, etc), and don't mind whether etc or etc. is used, as long as there is consistency within the article. Another user suggested a consensus here. Is anyone going to object to this, or can we just make the change? It can always be reviewed at a later date. --Sb2001 (talk) 18:32, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I see not a consensus, but some people suggesting this in passing while discussing something else (i.e. the dots question). I certainly oppose any such suggestion. These are a normal part of good writing. EEng 18:46, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

They are a normal part of some sorts of good writing. In an encyclopedia they seem just slightly lecture-y or textbook-y. I can't think of a case (maybe outside infoboxes and other specialized uses) where a usage in Wikipedia couldn't be improved by replacing them by "that is" or "for example", respectively. If that starts to get repetitive, then maybe that's a good indication that the text is too discursive to start with. --Trovatore (talk) 19:49, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

As an aside, in the example you used above("i.e. the dots question"), instead of replacing by "that is", I would leave it out altogether; it's already clear what you mean from the parentheses. Alternatively, you could replace it by "namely" followed by a comma. --Trovatore (talk) 20:00, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

That might even all be so. It's still not something MOS should be trying to legislate, because (as I like to say) unless MOS needs to have a rule, it needs not to have that rule. EEng 23:21, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

There is currently a rule stating full stops are to be used. Surely this is not necessary, given there is seemingly no 'correct' way of writing abbreviations which can be agreed. --Sb2001 (talk) 23:34, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Always the clever one. Lack of stops/points/periods looks nuts to a substantial proportion of readers, therefore a rule specifying including them is appropriate. EEng 03:08, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

I agree with you in general that the MoS should avoid having rules on things it doesn't need to have rules on. I'm afraid that giving instructions on how to use these abbreviations risks suggesting that it's a good idea to use them, which I think it rarely is.

I wish it were possible to express the view in the MoS that it's rarely a good idea to use them, without it becoming a "rule". Something like "we can't predict all the cases in advance and it's OK if local editorial judgment is that they're the right thing in this instance, but as a general rule, they're not preferred Wikipedia style". Of course, that's the way the MoS as a whole is supposed to be, but isn't. --Trovatore (talk) 03:42, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

• This long, long thread began, "Following a discussion at the Language helpdesk..." i.e. where's the evidence that this is an actual problem in article editing e.g. have editors been arguing about this? If not, I propose this thread come to an end. EEng 03:52, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

This was only brought to the MoS talk page after editors had changed 'eg' and 'ie' to 'e.g.' and 'i.e.'. It does cause problems for those who write according to the guidance of style guides such as the Guardian and Oxford and Cambridge universities. Just because you don't agree with it does not mean it is a non-issue. Dismissing it by suggesting it is not an 'actual problem' is inappropriate. You can see people have varying opinions on the matter. Why not allow everyone to enforce their own rather than forcing the use of full stops and seemingly actively encouraging the use of 'e.g.' and 'i.e.'? --Sb2001 (talk) 16:22, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

In general, and all other things being equal, I support letting editors work out arbitrary choices like this on individual articles. But all things aren't equal here. Though there seem to be some sources (and high-quality ones at that) who have adopted the no-dot style, the fact remains it looks absolutely daft to a large proportion of readers and editors -- perhaps even the majority of them. (I am -- ahem -- very well educated and very well read, and travel to Britain for research frequently, and it still has not penetrated my aging brain that ie and eg are intentionally used in any reputable sources. I'm not saying it isn't true, but it's not enough true that I've realized it, for whatever that's worth -- but the comments above suggest I'm not alone.)

The guideline has been this way for a long time. It's on you to explain why it should be removed, and "varying opinions" isn't enough for that. Everything in a manual of style is subject to varying opinions – otherwise there'd be no need for there to be a guideline about it. EEng 18:32, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

It just seems as if there is no benefit to specifying whether to use full stops. I will accept e.g. is what some people want to write, even if I choose not to myself. I asked a variety of people whether they include full stops, recently. Those who write in 'International English' (what the EU like to adopt) tend to include full stops, whilst it is completely random otherwise. There seemed to be a slight preference to the version without full stops, but nothing too overshadowing. What did seem a recurring theme is people only like using them in bulleted lists and tables, due to the fact these should be as concise as possible. I must say, I use them in formal prose all the time, although I have been asked by several people I have been writing for to 'use the words'. I seem to remember making the point earlier in the discussion (I'm not reading it all to check, though) that examination boards use 'eg' all the time in paperwork associated with coursework and exams. I would hope they know what they are talking about. Anyway, the majority of people I know understand both dotted and un-dotted versions of ie and eg. Rather than the MoS effectively instructing editors to change eg to e.g., it should place focus on actual issues for which there is an undisputed 'right' option. Do you think it's worth starting an RfC again? It only needs to be for a short period, but could provide a conclusion to this. --Sb2001 (talk) 00:33, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Changing course

I've just read back a bit in the thread. One editor's comments prompted me to research how screen readers deal with this. It seems 'eg' if often read as 'for example' and others as 'egg'. However, 'e.g.' is generally read as 'e dot g dot' with the odd exception where 'for example' is said. Writing the extended version would remove this as an issue. I think this deserves more consideration. We didn't seem to comment on it very much at the time. Besides, some people don't understand 'e(.)g(.)' and 'i(.)e(.)'. The actual English words remove this as an issue completely. I am now completely in favour of discouraging their words unless it is necessary to save space. 'etc(.)' is fine. Everyone seems to understand it, and screen readers have no issues interpreting it. Forget my original proposal. I think this is far more important. --Sb2001 (talk) 18:27, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

I'd completely agree, if this were the Simple English Wikipedia. EEng 18:40, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Understandable or not, they're just the wrong tone for an encyclopedia. In my opinion anyway. I don't like etc(.) either, though I could live with et cetera, italicized. --Trovatore (talk) 20:06, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

It would be very useful for editors to comment their opinions on this new proposal which;

• allows both etc. and etc
• discourages the use of e.g./eg and i.e./ie unless in tight areas, such as tables.

It doesn't matter what you think, we currently do not have a clear consensus either way. -Sb2001 (talk) 17:17, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

RfC: remove 'eg' or 'e.g.' and 'ie' or 'i.e.', and allow both 'etc.' and 'etc'

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

A discussion has been taking place, and a consensus cannot be reached on whether the MoS should advise against using 'eg' or 'e.g.' and 'ie' or 'i.e.' (and instead to write such things as 'for example' and 'that is'), and allow editors to write both 'etc' and 'etc.' in UK articles, as long as only one is used in an article. Different style guides advise different things, and both are common in UK English. Editors have suggested it is possibly a generational issue, with 'etc' being preferred by younger people. People may find it useful to read the thread on the MoS talk page, as links to some style guides are given, and advantages and disadvantages of applying this change are discussed. --Sb2001 (talk) 00:31, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Survey

• The dots stay. Despite some once-respectable sources (e.g. the BBC) apparently having gone berserk, omitting the points/dots/stops/periods looks absolutely illiterate. EEng 00:35, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
• Don't use latin abbreviations, but if you absolutely must, include the dots so that it's less confusing. Kaldari (talk) 06:15, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Discussion

• I can't believe this waste of time is now an RFC. EEng 00:35, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Does WP prefer to hyphenate "anti-Semitism", prefer not to hyphenate it, or not have have a preference?

I know both are theoretically acceptable, and external reliable sources are split. A lot of prominent ones (like the ADL) appear to actively prefer "anti-Semitism", but sources could easily be located that say there is no "Semitism" to be "anti-", and so the proper spelling should be "antisemitism". (I've definitely seen something on Henry Abramson's YouTube channel, and it was expressed as his opinion so he's probably said it in a bunch of places.)

So yeah, I guess both are fine, but is changing from one to another a violation like changing one ENGVAR to another without a valid reason? (I'm assuming Antisemitism#Usage is meant to be descriptive of the real world rather than normative for Wikipedians.)

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:50, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

I would definitely write 'antisemitism'. I've noticed the BBC write 'anti-Semitism' and always think it looks remarkably odd. The fact there is no 'Semitism' means antisemitism is the same as racism and sexism. --Sb2001 (talk) 16:33, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

I've just checked the Guardian style guide. It says to write 'antisemitism' and 'antisemitic' (p32). --Sb2001 (talk) 16:34, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

I think the MOS per se doesn't have much to say about this other than that we should be consistent within each article. But WP:COMMONNAME (and common sense) says to use the most common spelling. Google ngrams appears to show that they were both fairly equivalent until around 1980 (except for a big spike in popularity for the unhyphenated version around 1945-1950) but that, since 1980, "antisemitism" has become much more frequently used than "anti-semitism". So that's the one I would go with. If there's a UK-vs-US component to this, I don't know about it and can't guess which side would be which. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:33, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Hijiri 88: At least in terms of article titles, Wikipedia has considered this issue. The consensus is in support of antisemitism. On 27 August 2014‎, the article Antisemitism was moved to Anti-Semitism. On 16 September 2014‎, it was moved back to Antisemitism. Arguments in favor of "Anti-Semitism" included that other Wikipedia Anti-...ism articles are hyphenated, that more dictionaries use "Anti-Semitism", and that various Internet searches show hyphenated use more common than unhyphenated use. Arguments in favor of "Antisemitism" included that some Wikipedia Anti...ism articles are not hyphenated, that Internet majority use is not the deciding factor for Wikipedia article naming, that academic journals are showing an increasing preference for the unhyphenated word, that the word is the translation of a German word and cannot be parsed as "anti-" + "Semitism". If the number of arguments I am listing on each side leads you to suspect I took sides, you would be right; I favored the unhyphenated word. The discussion preceding the move to hyphenation is at Talk:Antisemitism/Archive 33#Requested move. The protest of this move appears just below at Talk:Antisemitism/Archive 33#Requested move mishandled, a discussion I started, which resulted in overturning the move to hyphenation. At the same time, there was a discussion at Talk:3D Test of Antisemitism#Requested moves, a request to move about 40 articles with forms of the word "Antisemitism" to use "Anti-semitism", which resulted in those articles not being moved. As can be seen at Category:Antisemitism and its subcategories, all such articles use the unhyphenated word. —Anomalocaris (talk) 03:02, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

I have to say that to me "antisemitism" looks very odd. The Guardian notwithstanding, I think British English usually prefers the hyphen. So per ENGVAR I think we should maintain the status quo and retain whatever the particular article uses already. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:32, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

I find it harder to parse when sludged together. What is wrong with the hyphen? Tony (talk) 12:53, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

external links versus further reading

Hello. I'm a relative newbie editing biology articles. I'm confused and/or unsure about the use of external links and further reading. If I want to give readers the option to read the text of a complete, open, published research paper that I have not cited in the article, I think I should put that link in the "Further reading" section. Is that correct?

If I want to give readers a "head's up" about a relevant video, I believe that link should go in an "External links" section. Is that correct? IF that is correct, shouldn't the section be titled "External videos" or "Further viewing"?

If I want to give readers the option to view a single, open, image licensed by cc4.0, I put it on the commons and insert it into the article as a thumb on the right side of the page, as I did extensively in Vesicular transport adaptor protein, because my experience in the classroom has taught me that images are crucial for understanding. If there is an open, but copyrighted image that cannot be put on the commons, I make an external link to the image at the appropriate place in the body of the article, which can be seen at this archived version of the article. Those external links passed review by many, perhaps dozens, of editors that I invited to look at the article, including Boghog initially. More recently, Boghog has removed them, which is why you need to look at the archived version. Those removals, in this newbie's opinion, are absolutely contrary to the educational mission of wikipedia and to the consensus of all of the other editors who let them stay in the article. So, what is to be done about this conflict? Thank you. JeanOhm (talk) 03:44, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

The guideline of interest is WP:ELCITE for external links and possibly WP:ELNEVER (since I have not reviewed the links in question). Regardless of ELNEVER, Boghog is correct to remove the external links from the body of the article per ELCITE. (I have no opinion on the value of the links themselves.) --Izno (talk) 04:24, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

You might consider the {{external media}} template, which allows you to put a link to the external video (or whathaveyou) in a box floated near the article text to which it's relevant. EEng 05:16, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

@Boghog, Izno, and EEng:Thank you for your replies. I have an idea. Suppose I wrote a hypothetical statement "X-ray crystalography has shown that protein Q interacts with protein Y."^1a

"1" would be the citation to the research publication.

"a" would be an efn that states "the crystal structure can be seen in the External link entitled 'crystal structure of QY'"

Would that construction be OK?

It would be even better, IMHO, if the efn "a" could include the EL, but I can't get that to work at all.

Also, nobody has replied about the difference between "Further reading" and "External links". Can there be a section entitled "External videos" or "Further viewing" or maybe "External media" rather than "External links" to differentiate primarily external text (in Further reading) from primarily external visuals? Thank you, JeanOhm (talk) 01:44, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

@Boghog, Izno, and EEng: I realize that I'm beating a dead horse, but.... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:External_links#Restrictions_on_linking states "While it may seem counter-intuitive, please note: These external-link guidelines do not apply to citations to reliable sources within the body of the article." and the bold emphasis is not my own. So, why don't my EL links to published sources in reliable journals fall under that "counter-intuitive" guideline? Thanks, JeanOhm (talk) 02:00, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

I think you're trying too hard to make complete sense of the interaction between ELs and Further reading. Myself, if I think it's something the reader would benefit from reading/viewing (and no, it's not a good idea to use text vs. images as the criterion for where something goes), and it's anything that's pretty much unchanging and can be reasonably absorbed linearly -- a video, essay, or webpage with a finite number of pages organized around a table of contents -- then it's Further Reading. If it's a blog or official site, where I don't really know what the reader will get if he visits, then it's External Links.

You don't seem to have picked up on the External media template. I really think that may be part of your solution. For example, see the boxes on the right at Phineas_Gage#Accident and US_Airways_Flight_1549#Incident, and on the left at Sacred_Cod#Harvard_Lampoon. EEng 02:17, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

A couple of comments. First, silence does not necessarily mean agreement. Second, at least one other editor, Doc James, by changing an external link to a internal link and deleting another (see this discussion), was pretty clear that he did not think external links in the prose was a good idea. Third, it is very clear that the Wikipedia manual of style advises against external link in prose. Finally, if you want to refer to a graphic of a crystal structure, I will create one for you that you can include directly in the Wikipedia article. Boghog (talk) 16:15, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Well, now I'm beating a dead horse, but why is everyone ignoring the External media template, instances of which I linked above? Ping JeanOhm. EEng 23:25, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

That could work for a limited number of external links, but the article in question had by my count, 9 external links (and counting) in the prose. Boghog (talk) 07:42, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

@Boghog, Izno, and EEng:Thanks to all for the comments. The external media template may come in handy sometime, but, as i wrote above "my experience in the classroom has taught me that images are crucial for understanding" and I am fortunate in the field of cell biology to have lots of open images that are available through NC licenses. Having lots of the EM template boxes distributed around the article is inferior to having the link right at the appropriate place. This is very frustrating to me (almost to the point of being worse than my IBS-d). The EM template puts a box in the article with an external link. If I were to put the same link in the text, it would be viewed by some but not all editors as unacceptable, even though what I wrote above indicated that the English Wikipedia content guideline (in the fourth paragraph, not buried deep in the article, and in bold) states "These external-link guidelines do not apply to citations to reliable sources within the body of the article." WTF am I missing??? Multiple editors let my ELs in the body stand. The guideline indicates in bold that they are OK. 2 editors objected. Boghog removed them all. Why am I not to think that Boghog is wrong in this case? Just because (s)he has more experience than me? I read guidelines. I read that what I'm doing is OK. I read that there are no rules on wikipedia. What a damn joke that is. Boghog, thanks for the offer to make images, but I'm not going to take up anybody's time making images that are available for linking.

Regarding Boghog's comment "Third, it is very clear that the Wikipedia manual of style advises against external link in prose." The MOS has a very brief discussion of El"s, then links to the guideline that states near the top, above the contents box, in bold that "These external-link guidelines do not apply to citations to reliable sources within the body of the article."

I wonder if this is a discussion more or less unique to cell biology fostered by modern microscopy and the trend toward open publishing, developed more since the MOS and guidelines were agreed upon, and if I should look for a consensus at the molecular cell biology project talk page? I'm thinking that since most editors let me EL's in the body stand, that there would be a consensus in favor of inclusion.

Also, nobody replied to my suggestion of a superscripted link to an EL. Between trips to the procelian throne, I am going to make one and ping you all to judge it. Thanks, JeanOhm (talk) 23:57, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

WP:EL which states These external-link guidelines do not apply to citations to reliable sources within the body of the article in turn refers to WP:CITE which states that inline citations should appear as footnotes using <ref>...</ref> markup so that the citations appear in a "References" section at the end of the article. As a consequence, any external link contained in a citation is displayed in the "References" section and not in the prose of the article. WP:CITE further states Embedded links should never be used to place external links in the content of an article. Also per WP:LINKDD: Don't put external links in article prose. If a graphic is critical to understanding a subject, then a graphic with a compatible license should be displayed directly in the article. Forcing the reader to switch back and forth between a Wikipedia article and external sources is not good style. Boghog (talk) 04:51, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Keep markup simple

The first bullet at WP:MOS#Keep markup simple reads: The simplest markup is often the easiest to edit, the most comprehensible, and the most predictable. Markup may appear differently in different browsers. Use HTML and CSS markup sparingly; in particular, do not use the CSS float or line-height properties because they break rendering on some browsers when large fonts are used.

I agree broadly with the sentiment of keeping markup simple, not least because it makes editing faster (editors would rather not process lots of CSS). My concern comes with the "in particular" and following: Do we know which browsers exhibit these problems? I did a quick Google check and didn't see anything. Float is regularly used on-wiki (tables floated one side or the other, most often), and while I've never seen line-height in-use, I don't think it needs to be called out specifically with the "use markup sparingly" statement.

Would anyone have any heartburn with removing in particular, do not use the CSS float or line-height properties because they break rendering on some browsers when large fonts are used? --Izno (talk) 16:25, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Honestly that whole paragraph is so vague as to be useless. If a few actual examples could be supplied... Notice that the second paragraph is a good example of simpler not being better. EEng 17:01, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

line-height is often used to reduce the internal spacing of cladograms produced with {{Clade}} or {{Cladex}}. As just one very small example, see Synspermiata#Phylogeny. I think the advice re float and line-height is out of date now, and I agree the reference to them should be removed. Peter coxhead (talk) 17:18, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Just for reference, the line height prohibition was added in July 2005 and the prohibition against float added two weeks earlier in June 2005. Guidance against HTML was added in January 2003. So, I would indeed guess that the guidance against float and line-height is for now-obsolete browsers, given the massive increase in conformant functionality for all browsers in the past decade. --Izno (talk) 19:30, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Removal

"A few infoboxes also use pre-collapsed sections for infrequently accessed (usually navigational) details."

I'm wondering if we should remove this sentence [from the MoS] as it causes an accessibility problem. For example, some screen readers would not read out loud hidden content while others will need to be programed to do so. Even though some screen readers can be programmed to do so, we should remember that Wikipedia is free content that anyone can use. Hiding article content also prevents print outs of the text. Lastly, if an editor wants to copy and paste information, the hidden information may not be immediately apparent.Gonejackal (talk) 06:27, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

• I'll be blunt, as I have before: I'm tired of hearing that we have to do this or that for more than a decade because of someone's broken screen reader. Use a working screen reader that understands collapsing.
• The kind of content that gets precollapsed is the kind that paper shouldn't be wasted on -- navboxes and so on. It should be made clear in e.g. documentation of the precollapse machinery that in choosing to precollapse, editors are choosing to make that content non-printing by default; it's an editorial choice.
• Anyone who blindly hits ctrl-A ctrl-C ctrl-V without thinking about what he actually wants will get what he deserves.

Having said all that, I'm not sure whether precollapsed content in infoboxes is a good idea. But e.g. the big boxes at Elizabeth_II#External_links, yes, precollapse them. EEng 11:46, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Some taxoboxes contain long lists of synonyms that are of little interest to many readers, although explaining why redirects from them lead to that article. Hiding is useful to prevent articles being cluttered. Similarly there are very large navigation templates (Template:Araneae is middle-sized example). These can be useful to some readers, but simply overwhelm many articles unless hidden. Peter coxhead (talk) 17:15, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

But are there taxoboxes with sections(s) that are hidden? Are there any examples?Gonejackal (talk) 01:31, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

It is certainly not a good idea for all infoboxes to be fully expanded. Some pages for TV programmes, theatre productions, etc contain cast lists which would dominate the page before the actual article has started. On that point, why do people put cast lists in infoboxes - is that not what the rest of the article is for? But no: don't expect all information to be immediately visible in its full form. What the MoS does lack is clarity on what sort of information to collapse. The current guideline is far too vague. I'm not sure it needs reviewing though, as it does get the general message across. -Sb2001 (talk) 18:58, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Are there any examples of hidden cast lists in TV programmes, theatre productions, et cetera?Gonejackal (talk) 01:31, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Using "[sic]" to misattribute an error to someone inline?

See Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2#Sequel, which includes the text Gunn stated [...] ["]But we know unless something goes horribly—which is always possibly [sic], you never know["], but if one looks at the cited source, which is an article/video, part of the former transcribing part of the latter, it is clear that Gunn actually said "possible", and the transcription included a misprint.

In cases like this, where we can clearly hear the spoken dialogue, should we (a) just spell the word the word the way he actually said it and "correct" that portion of the published transcription, (b) give the misspelling with "[sic]" and attribute the quotation to the publisher of the transcription rather than just Gunn himself, (c) do what the article currently does and imply that Gunn slurred his words, or (d) some other option?

I am of course assuming that we are allowed include our own original transcriptions when quoting spoken sources, even "correcting" published but misprinted transcriptions by third parties. This is something I've never done in an article myself, but if Wikipedian-original translations of foreign-language texts are acceptable then it seems like a safe assumption that simple transcriptions are as well.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:26, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Obvious typos and transcription errors should be silently corrected, unless they're somehow significant in themselves. See MOS:PMC. (You might leave a <! -- Hidden comment --> for the benefit of your fellow editors.) Good to see you somewhere other than ANI. EEng 03:33, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

To be fair, I never stopped editing in areas other than ANI. There was only one calendar date (May 18) when my edits were concentrated entirely on ANI, discussions spinning out of ANI, and talk pages that I came across as a result of ANI. I am still busy enough in real life that the kind of research necessary to finish the Li He article and others like it is ... difficult, in the Japanese sense. Which is why contributing to ANI discussions (where, again, most people not afraid to log in seemed to appreciate my contributions) was working. But yeah, I don't need the grief caused by random IP trolls and editors who want to game the system at ANI in order to win content disputes (and don't like it when I point out that that is what they are doing), so I'm done with that for the next month or so. And working on "good-looking-but-actually-kinda-messy-when-one-examines-closer" articles on recent films that because of Japanese release dates and a messy social life I didn't get to see until yesterday is not much harder than contributing to ANI discussions anyway. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:10, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Not everything needs a essay response -- which, while you were indeed getting some trolling, is what well-intentioned people have been trying to tell you about ANI. I hope my advice about the typo is helpful. EEng 09:28, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Naming transgender people in other articles than their main biographical article

Hi, I see incoherence in some areas when naming transgender people in other articles than their main biographical article. My understanding is that a transgender person is changing his/her name and this name is then also his/her name starting from birth (certificate). Many on/offline sources used for article often have the old wrong names or can't chenge that because they are printed etc. - So I understand that in references the old names should be kept. But in the rest of the articles I think that it is appropiate to use the name chosen by the transgender person.

In the Wikipedia:Manual of Style it says in the section "gender identity" when "referring to the person in other articles" […] "use context to determine which name or names to provide on a case-by-case basis." To which 'context' should I refer? In the context that the person change hers/his name even back to birh (certificate) I should use the right name, right? Example: Lilly Wachowski. Her former name "Andy Wachowski" is used 49 times in enWP. Most of that uses aren't in the main biographical article or in refernces. Shouldn't they be change into "Lilly Wachowski"? --Jensbest (talk) 13:32, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

This is primarily discussing historical context. For example, we refer to Caitlin Jenner as "Bruce" when discussing her performance in the Olympics... because "Bruce" was her name at that time - the name under which she competed and won gold medals. We don't retroactively go back and change the historic record just because her name subsequently changed. I don't know if this applies in the Wachowski case or not... I am merely explaining the policy. Blueboar (talk) 14:20, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Per Blueboar, the context is usually "the name they were known by when the events occurred." But there will be exceptions; and we really should defer to styles and names used in other reliable sources. --Jayron32 14:51, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

MOS:NOTUSA

I will need some information in order to understand this policy.LakeKayak (talk) 16:44, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Yeah... it is confusing. My suggestion ... don't worry about it... someone else (someone who does understand it) will follow along and conform anything you write to the MOS. Blueboar (talk) 18:21, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

That's not what this is about, unfortunatedly. At Template:English -or- table, LakeKayak put "USA". This was changed to "US" by Rich Farmbrough as per the MOS. LakeKayak reverted. So I restored Rich's edits, and tried to explain to LakeKayak, who then opened a dispute at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Template:English -or- table. LakeKayak's argument seems to be that the MOS doesn't need to be followed as anyone can edit it. Peter coxhead (talk) 21:54, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

@Peter coxhead:Yes and no. I actually posted the comment in attempt to understand the policy.LakeKayak (talk) 21:59, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

The subtleties of the policy might be confusing, but this part of it is not subtle: don't use "USA" or "U.S.A." (except as part of an official name of an organization). —David Eppstein (talk) 22:09, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

I still made a mistake, I meant to say "I created the section to understand why the policy was in effect".LakeKayak (talk) 22:21, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Proposed demotion MOS:NOTUSA 23 May 2017

The exact reason for this policy remains unclear.LakeKayak (talk) 22:16, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

It's a matter of style. I think most style guides (at least the ones I see) advise 'US' or occasionally 'U.S.'. -Sb2001 (talk) 22:27, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

The reason for having a manual style is to create greater consistency and coherence in our work than would happen if we allowed editors to write in whatever style they chose. What is difficult to understand about this? —David Eppstein (talk) 22:32, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

@David Eppstein: Over which abbreviation to use is like which spelling to use. And WP:ENGVAR says that no spelling is preferred over another. That's what's hard to understand. You are going to be open-minded when it comes to spelling but not an abbreviation?LakeKayak (talk) 22:35, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

That's a grotesque oversimplification of ENGVAR, which actually says that we *should* use a specific national variety of English spelling on articles associated with that nation, and should stick to a consistent (but unspecified) spelling preference otherwise. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:26, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

• LakeKayak, we're not going to excise something just because you, personally, don't see its justification within 6 hours of posting your query. In fact, MOSUSA is one of the more self-explanatory bits of the guideline. From your edit history it appears you just don't understand what a manual of style is. Please, don't make a Federal case out of this. Every publication has manual of style, and this is Wikipedia's. While exceptions are possible, I've reviewed the conflict you're having and that's not one of them. EEng 23:29, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

@EEng: No ad hominem attacks are allowed.LakeKayak (talk) 23:33, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Correction: You don't know what a manual of style is, and you don't know what an ad hominem attack is. It looks like you have valuable expertise in a special topic area, and Wikipedia could really use your contributions. Please, be guided by the advice of the several experienced editors who have commented (here or on your talk page) and are unanimous: you're tilting at windmills. Don't waste your time (and -- if that doesn't convince you -- others' time) on something so, so trivial like this. EEng 23:45, 23 May 2017 (UTC)