Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 165

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 160 ← Archive 163 Archive 164 Archive 165 Archive 166 Archive 167 → Archive 170

WP:MOSQUOTE

Right now it says 'trivial spelling and typographic errors should simply be corrected without comment (for example, correct basicly to basically and harasssment to harassment), unless the slip is textually important'. I have always learned, and a quick Google search confirms (example), that direct quotations are never to be messed with, even if the author makes a trivial spelling mistake. Wikipedia is the only exception to this rule I have encountered so far. Are we sure we want this? Banedon (talk) 08:22, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't see it as a problem. WP:MOSQUOTE also currently notes that we can use brackets to make a direct quote clearer. Are you against that as well? Note that the bracket aspect is common practice outside of Wikipedia. Flyer22 (talk) 08:30, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
I don't see how that is relevant. Brackets indicate that the text in question is a direct quote, but doesn't actually change anything about the quote itself. I am against changing the text itself. Example. Interpreting WP:MOSQUOTE as it is right now would make it seem that one should simply correct "cars" to "car's" as a trivial typographic error, but that is something that goes against what I learned, hence I put the sic tag there. Banedon (talk) 08:55, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
I'm not sure about this issue. Although I think the integrity of the quote should be retained, a mere typographical error is usually appropriate to correct. Most style manuals state that silent typo corrections are permitted, including the Chicago Manual of Style. Sometimes, [sic] is used to indicate a typo, but there are some concerns that its usage can appear condescending or rude to the person being quoted, since it points out glaring errors in his or her writing/speech. According to Template:Sic, this should only be used when the misspelling is important and deliberate (and doesn't fall under WP:RETAIN, MOS:LIGATURE, or MOS:SPELLING#Archaic spelling). Curiously enough, WP:TYPO seems to disagree on this point. My personal opinion is that obvious typographical errors should be corrected out of respect of the person being quoted. The only exceptions to this are when the error is deliberate and intentional, or if the content being quoted is old enough that it would be inappropriate to correct any typos. This could also extend to any written publications. In general, [sic] should be avoided and the unintentional errors be corrected if the quote is from a speech transcript, or anything that is not published. That's my understanding of it, at least. Retaining the quote in all its inglorious error can detract from the message itself, especially if a whole bunch of [sic]'s are added.
Like MOS:QUOTE stated, quotes are not facsimiles, and thus minor editions (including those in order to conform with the context) are permitted so long as the message it retained. Otherwise, we'd have to mock up everything with brackets for changes in capitalization, [sic]s for errors in spelling, and even the original language in which it was written or spoken (if you want to get really technical), complete with all the antiquated symbols and diacritics or obsolete lettering that accompanies it. Editing a quote is always a very uncertain and uneasy thing to do, but it's necessary if we wish to ensure that the quote could still be readable while not conflicting with English rules and conventions. In my opinion, just so long as the quote is verbatim in message and syntax, the capitalization, erroneous spelling, punctuation, and even language can all be changed to fit the context. It's of course more complex than that, but I'll refrain from a lengthy analysis for the sake of brevity. –Nøkkenbuer (talk) 10:39, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
Whether to "correct" a minor error in a quote is always something of a judgment call. Remember that giving permission to correct such errors is not the same as mandating that we do so. We don't have to correct minor errors in quotes... it is always OK to leave a quote as it was in the original. All we are trying to say is that we are allowed to correct minor errors when we think it will improve the article, not that we must correct them.
My personal opinion is that when there is a dispute over whether to correct or not, we should default to "follow the original". But that default does have to be tempered with a healthy dose of WP:Don't be a dick about disputing minor corrections that don't really affect the quotation in any meaningful way. Blueboar (talk) 15:43, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
I wasn't aware the Chicago Manual of Style allowed this kind of change, and indeed, I'm shocked. Couple more examples of instructors teaching the exact opposite and championing the sanctity of quotes: [1] and [2]. I suppose in the end it's a judgment call, but to this end my judgment is never to alter the quote. Banedon (talk) 05:15, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
As to what standards there are out there, they get pretty low sometimes. The infamous Masson v. New Yorker lawsuit (I am astonished that we don't have a WP article on this) revolved on the NYer's apparently liberal use of quotation marks. If you are really interested in these issues, let me recommend Cappelen and Lepore Language Turned on Itself, perhaps the deepest philosophical analysis of quotation yet. Choor monster (talk) 11:47, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
@Choor monster: Interesting. See Janet Malcolm § Masson case. —sroc 💬 13:54, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
See also M. MASSON, PETITIONER v. NEW YORKER MAGAZINE, INC., ALFRED A. KNOPF, INC. and JANET MALCOLM:

Of course, quotations do not always convey that the speaker actually said or wrote the quoted material. "Punctuation marks, like words, have many uses. Writers often use quotation marks, yet no reasonable reader would assume that such punctuation automatically implies the truth of the quoted material." Baker v. Los Angeles Examiner, 42 Cal. 3d, at 263, 721 P. 2d, at 92. In Baker, a television reviewer printed a hypothetical conversation between a station vice president and writer/producer, and the court found that no reasonable reader would conclude the plaintiff in fact had made the statement attributed to him. Id., at 267, 721 P. 2d, at 95. Writers often use quotations as in Baker, and a reader will not reasonably understand the quotations to indicate reproduction of a conversation that took place. In other instances, an acknowledgement that the work is so-called docudrama or historical fiction, or that it recreates conversations from memory, not from recordings, might indicate that the quotations should not be interpreted as the actual statements of the speaker to whom they are attributed.

The work at issue here, however, as with much journalistic writing, provides the reader no clue that the quotations are being used as a rhetorical device or to paraphrase the speaker's actual statements. To the contrary, the work purports to be nonfiction, the result of numerous interviews. At least a trier of fact could so conclude. The work contains lengthy quotations attributed to petitioner, and neither Malcolm nor her publishers indicate to the reader that the quotations are anything but the reproduction of actual conversations. Further, the work was published in The New Yorker, a magazine which at the relevant time seemed to enjoy a reputation for scrupulous factual accuracy. These factors would, or at least could, lead a reader to take the quotations at face value. A defendant may be able to argue to the jury that quotations should be viewed by the reader as nonliteral or reconstructions, but we conclude that a trier of fact in this case could find that the reasonable reader would understand the quotations to be nearly verbatim reports of statements made by the subject.

.......

In some sense, any alteration of a verbatim quotation is false. But writers and reporters by necessity alter what people say, at the very least to eliminate grammatical and syntactical infelicities. If every alteration constituted the falsity required to prove actual malice, the practice of journalism, which the First Amendment standard is designed to protect, would require a radical change, one inconsistent with our precedents and First Amendment principles. Petitioner concedes this absolute definition of falsity in the quotation context is too stringent, and acknowledges that "minor changes to correct for grammar or syntax" do not amount to falsity for purposes of proving actual malice. Brief for Petitioner 18, 36-37. We agree, and must determine what, in addition to this technical falsity, proves falsity for purposes of the actual malice inquiry.

Petitioner argues that, excepting correction of grammar or syntax, publication of a quotation with knowledge that it does not contain the words the public figure used demonstrates actual malice. The author will have published the quotation with knowledge of falsity, and no more need be shown. Petitioner suggests that by invoking more forgiving standards the Court of Appeals would permit and encourage the publication of falsehoods. Petitioner believes that the intentional manufacture of quotations does not "represen[t] the sort of inaccuracy that is commonplace in the forum of robust debate to which the New York Times rule applies," Bose Corp., 466 U. S., at 513, and that protection of deliberate falsehoods would hinder the First Amendment values of robust and well-informed public debate by reducing the reliability of information available to the public.

We reject the idea that any alteration beyond correction of grammar or syntax by itself proves falsity in the sense relevant to determining actual malice under the First Amendment. An interviewer who writes from notes often will engage in the task of attempting a reconstruction of the speaker's statement. That author would, we may assume, act with knowledge that at times she has attributed to her subject words other than those actually used. Under petitioner's proposed standard, an author in this situation would lack First Amendment protection if she reported as quotations the substance of a subject's derogatory statements about himself.

Even if a journalist has tape recorded the spoken statement of a public figure, the full and exact statement will be reported in only rare circumstances. The existence of both a speaker and a reporter; the translation between two media, speech and the printed word; the addition of punctuation; and the practical necessity to edit and make intelligible a speaker's perhaps rambling comments, all make it misleading to suggest that a quotation will be reconstructed with complete accuracy. The use or absence of punctuation may distort a speaker's meaning, for example, where that meaning turns upon a speaker's emphasis of a particular word. In other cases, if a speaker makes an obvious misstatement, for example by unconscious substitution of one name for another, a journalist might alter the speaker's words but preserve his intended meaning. And conversely, an exact quotation out of context can distort meaning, although the speaker did use each reported word.

—sroc 💬 14:04, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
  • The tl;dr version: "reasonable readers" expecting the facts and nothing but the facts from a source with just such a reputation, do not expect more than "nearly verbatim" to be implied by the use of quotation marks. Choor monster (talk) 14:32, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
Well clearly speaking and writing are two different things, and it's harder to record what someone said verbatim (but see the ku.edu link above). Call me an unreasonable reader, but altering written text just reminds me of this incident. In the same way, if I ever have to quote you on what you wrote above, I'll say "Choor monster wrote, 'let me recommend Cappelen and Lepore [sic] Language Turned on Itself, perhaps the deepest philosophical analysis of quotation yet'" and not "Choor monster wrote, 'let me recommend Cappelen and Lepore's Language Turned on Itself, perhaps the deepest philosophical analysis of quotation yet'". You're not likely to object to the second statement and it's clearly not malicious, but still, I'm not going to alter what you wrote (of course though, ideally, I'd be able to write "Choor monster recommended Cappelen and Lepore's Language Turned on Itself", avoiding both having to use the [sic] tag or having to alter your writing). Banedon (talk) 05:21, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Apparently, single quotation marks ('...')—but not double quotation marks ("...")—are sometimes used in newspaper headlines to paraphrase rather than directly quote. —sroc 💬 15:13, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
You're citing an Australian source. I would assume they follow UK usage, so I'm not sure if the comment means what you think it means.
Yes, I'm aware of large differences between transcribing speech and copying text. The above SCOTUS opinion doesn't place emphasis on the original being verbal as some kind of magic loophole. But you aren't making much sense here. "Author Title" is simply a style, very common in the academic material I'm used to. There is no required possessive as you seem to imply. In fact, it seems deliberately rather rude to put a "sic" on something for not following your preferred style. (My offense is as hypothetical as your ever quoting me on this for real, but at some point some reader somewhere is going to get confused.)
Would you edit Julius Caesar to replace
  • Indeed, Suetonius says that in Caesar's Gallic triumph, his soldiers sang that, "Caesar may have conquered the Gauls, but Nicomedes conquered Caesar."
with
  • Indeed, Suetonius says that in Caesar's Gallic triumph, his soldiers sang that, "Caesar may have conquered the Gauls, but Nicomedes conquered Caesar. [sic]"
?? After all, Caesar's soldiers did not known any English.
Would you edit Jacobellis v. Ohio to replace
  • Stewart wrote, "I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description; and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it, and the motion picture involved in this case is not that." (emphasis added)
with
  • Stewart wrote, "I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description; and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it [sic], and the motion picture involved in this case is not that."
?? Perhaps you might on the grounds that it seems rather pointless emphasis in this particular article. But would you do so on the grounds that quotations are supposed to be sacrosanct, and modifying the quotation for your own ends, even when you're honest about it, is a violation of some reader expectation?
Cappelen and Lepore op cit go into this and numerous other issues quite thoroughly. In short, no reasonable readers actually expects direct quotations, whether of text or speech, to be some kind of verbal photocopy. Choor monster (talk) 17:18, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Well, you obviously wouldn't use [sic] (meaning: "thus was it written") for something that has been translated from another language, and thus wasn't written that way in the original at all; if anything, you might provide the original text with a translation preceded by "literally" to show some odd meaning. —sroc 💬 02:32, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
Cappelen and Lepore might suggest that no reasonable reader should expect a direct quotation of written text to be either exact or clear about its inexactidue, though such a suggestion would be especially surprising in the age of copy-and-paste. But have they really surveyed the reasonable readers of the world and discovered that none of us have such expectations of direct quotations of written text in any circumstances? In contrast, style guides such as Fowler's go into great detail about the punctuation at the end of a quotation, essentially a question of balancing the norms of sentence punctuation with a default expectation of literal quotation. NebY (talk) 10:28, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
C&L is the latest and most thorough in a long history going back to Quine and Davidson, of philosophers trying to figure out just what quotation really is. It is not easy. They are operating at a level well beyond our discussion. I don't see what copy-and-paste has to do with anything: if for example I see a misspelling in a quotation here on WP, I normally fix it, unless the point of the quotation is to draw attention to the mistake. As for Fowler's, do say which edition. The first was very prescriptive, the current third edition (the first is still in print, though!) is very descriptive. I know WP does not follow Fowler's first on everything, as the entry is Welsh rarebit, the redirect is Welsh rabbit. Choor monster (talk) 15:23, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
I'm sure it's not easy when examined thus; that's rather why I reacted negatively to the simplicity of "in short, no reasonable reader...." I mentioned copy-and-paste because it inverts the process of correcting quotations; where before one might correct a spelling while typing in a quotation, now a whole piece of text can be pasted in at once and reviewing the spelling is an extra step (which still doesn't deter people from correcting the full title of Robinson Crusoe, alas). You asked which edition of Fowler's; it's under "Stops" in the first and second editions and under "quotation marks" in the third, a section that Burchfield introduces as "a slightly adapted version of the OUP house style as set out in Hart's Rules." But I raised it not to suggest we follow Fowler's but to remark that much ink has been spilt on when and how to deviate from the default expectation. NebY (talk) 20:21, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

As an aside - typos within transcripts should not be ascribed to the speaker - nor should "um" and the like be used. People do not speak with typewriters, and an occasional "um" is done by the best of us, and is usually not placed in real transcripts. Thus using "sic" where any transcript is used is marginal at best. IMO. Nor should transcripts carp on UK/American spelling issues. Collect (talk) 15:52, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

I would go one further... quoting transcripts is a huge red flag that the article may suffer from WP:NOR issues. Transcripts are primary sources, and have very limited use. so, before you correct a typo in a transcript, ask yourself whether it is really appropriate to quote the transcript in the first place. Blueboar (talk) 16:03, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

My opinion on this is that it is totally not important for readers to know that whoever is being quoted made a typo. I mean, really, why would it be? Typos happen to even the best of us and really aren't a reflection of anything substantive at all, I don't think, so it's just pedantic and disruptive to throw in [sic]s all the time. I also think that [sic] is in poor taste in general (it's like saying "aha! I managed to discover a blatant flaw in your work!", and a lot of the time it even seems somewhat gleeful). So, assuming it is worth noting that a typo was made, which again I dont think it is, I think a much better practice is to fix the typo yourself and add brackets where necessary. AgnosticAphid talk 15:50, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

If correcting the typo is discouraged (such as if it could arguably change the meaning of the quoted material), the typo should be acknowledged precisely so that it doesn’t get corrected by well-meaning editors who might happen to notice it. So best practice is to either correct it or [sic] it. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 08:15, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Does ENGVAR apply to number formatting?

Resolved

Interesting question at Convert, decimal notation. In South Africa, the decimal symbol is a comma, not period. So 1.5 km in USA is written 1,5 km in SA (forget about miles for now). The question is, when the WP:ENGVAR for an article is South African, should the decimal symbol be comma?

(see also Category:All Wikipedia articles written in South African English, WP:ENGVAR, WP:MOSNUM). -DePiep (talk) 19:31, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

A similar question could be asked of India: should commas occur every two places after the thousands, rather than every three? — kwami (talk) 22:26, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
India has an ENGVAR? Anyway, the question is theoretical or moot only, by now. {{Convert}} won't do it. -DePiep (talk) 22:51, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
Indian English. Why would it not? RGloucester — ☎ 22:58, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
It was an open question. -DePiep (talk) 00:33, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
See MOS:DECIMAL and MOS:DIGITS.—Wavelength (talk) 22:58, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

There are as many different conventions for this as there are days in the year. I'd suggest the most important thing is to pick one and stick with it consistently, which is what the current standard does. It doesn't particularly matter whether the decimal separator is a period or a comma, so long as readers are in no doubt as to which is which. Personally I'd suggest the SI standard of using thin spaces between groups of digits would be clearer in this regard, since it has the advantage that a thousands separator could never be confused for a decimal separator. Archon 2488 (talk) 00:30, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Is a comma used as the decimal separator in S.Africa in English, Afrikaans or both? My suspicion is that it is predominantly in Afrikaans and only loosely used in English (possibly by people who speak Afrikaans most of the time). But I'm not from S.Africa, so I have to ask. All other varieties of English that I am aware of use a period as the decimal separator. WP:ENGVAR is mostly for situations where there are multiple ways of doing things (eg colour vs color) but no ambiguity. To allow S.African articles to use commas as decimal separator would introduce ambiguity and for this point alone I would disallow it.  Stepho  talk  02:34, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
I agree with Stepho: what does 1,234 mean? Is it a bit over one, or a bit over one thousand? It would be far too confusing for readers (not to mention editors) to sometimes use dot and sometimes comma, even on different pages. Thin spaces for separators can look good, but wikitext should be as simple as possible while getting the job done—requiring editors to fiddle with templates when editing numbers would be too much effort for too little reward. Johnuniq (talk) 03:43, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

I believe that MOS:DECIMAL and MOS:DIGITS (as indicated by Wavelength above) are both definitive and explicit on the subject. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:52, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Thin spaces are common in Australia so by ENGVAR they should not be disallowed but thin spaces don't cause the ambiguity that switching dots and commas would. I agree with Stepho, this would be too confusing. Jimp 04:02, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

I see, MOS:DECIMAL is absolutely clear, had not see that one. Thanks all, these responses help me improve my knowledge & thinking about style. -DePiep (talk) 09:49, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

  • We shouldn't be mixing up commas and decimals. Does South African English officially invert their meaning from other varieties of English, or has the usage from Afrikaans bled into some places from those who speak both languages? Regardless, since this is the English Wikipedia, we should go with what the majority of English speakers would expect them to mean to avoid confusion (ie, 1.234 = a quantity slightly larger than one, 1,234 = a quantity of over twelve-hundred). Canuck89 (chat with me) 05:19, March 28, 2015 (UTC)
South African usage of the comma as the decimal separator simply follows the usage common in continental Europe and much of the rest of the world - see Decimal mark#Countries using Arabic numerals with decimal comma. It does cause problems on Wikipedia. I've more than once seen 101325 Pa (the traditional value of the standard atmosphere) written as 101,325 Pa and then corrected to 101,325 kPa. NebY (talk) 09:04, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
That is an argument to always use a decimal point for fractions and spaces for thousands: that way there is no confusion. DrKiernan (talk) 09:19, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
Just so. I've even gone as far as switching one troubled instance to 101325 Pa (101.325 kPa) using {{convert|101325|Pa|kPa|abbr=on|comma=gaps}} for clarity when reading and to deter tampering (I hope). NebY (talk) 11:15, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Possible WP:ENGVAR issue?

Hello.

Is the word medalist (single L), or medallist (double L), a WP:ENGVAR issue? I.e. are there two correct spellings? I came across Category:Asian Games medalists, and the spelling wasn't consistent in the subcategories, so I wonder which categories, if any, should be renamed.

HandsomeFella (talk) 12:45, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Believe doublesingle-L is US according to Macquarie Dictionary. Cinderella157 (talk) 13:06, 30 March 2015 (UTC) I misread my dictionary - apologies. Cinderella157 (talk) 21:44, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Double L is British and world, single L is U.S. according to Oxford. Both spellings are found in Canadian writing. Can't tell in speech. Modal Jig (talk) 14:27, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
Collins concurs. NebY (talk) 14:43, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
Wiktionary says wikt:medalist is US, wikt:medallist is UK. HandsomeFella (talk) 15:04, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
Although the OED doesn't identify which medalist/medallist is which, their double-L citations are all British, single-L are all American, and their etymology implies double-L was the original form, hence single-L would indeed be Webster's influence after all.
Since the majority is spelled/spelt with a single L, and since even Category:Olympic gold medalists for Great Britain uses single L, I think I will stick to that in my WP:CFD post. If UK-related category trees need to be adapted to WP:ENGVAR, that's next discussion. Thanks for the input. HandsomeFella (talk) 15:36, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
  • For the record, the split in US/UK spelling involves only words in which the syllable containing the el is unstressed in speech. So "appealing" is pan-English. The most common differences involve traveling, trialing, modeling, etc. Tony (talk) 03:53, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Treatment of the name of a foreign government agency

See the second para at [1]. Is that the correct treatment for the BEA? Should the French name be included? If so, should it be italicized? I apologize for being unable to extract the answer from the maze of apparently relevant guidelines. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:42, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Mandruss, I removed the precise English translation, leaving just "BEA" in parentheses after the title in French, which itself followed an English-language glossing. Seemed like a reasonable compromise on the clutter-factor. Hard to create global rules for this. Tony (talk) 03:51, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
Maybe (BEA) ? NebY (talk) 08:14, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Should we create a WP:MOS/Noticeboard?

Many of our polices and guidelines have affiliated Noticeboard pages - a place where editors can raise and discuss specific situations, and get opinions on how to interpret the policy or guideline in the context of those specific situations. I have realized that there is no equivalent WP:MOS/Noticeboard. Do you think creating one would be beneficial to the project? Blueboar (talk) 12:56, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

  • Strongly support creation of an MOS noticeboard. There currently is no place where MOS related discrepancies can be promptly addressed, and competently resolved other than this talk page. For the most part, this talk page generates a consensus driven answer but the results are too often far less than timely; inadequate to quell the kind of "good faith escalation" that can occur when opposing sides genuinely believe they each are correct in their interpretation. In my opinion, if this specialized noticeboard is created, it will quickly become a welcomed asset, without the apprehensiveness associated with reports that ostensibly require the intervention of an administrator.--John Cline (talk) 16:09, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose – This is giving the MoS more authority than it has, and will result in determination of style issues by a select few editors. If there is to be a neutral "style noticeboard" outside the MoS space, I could support that. I cannot support a "MoS noticeboard". Regardless, such an establishment would require community consensus, likely through an RfC at the Village Pump. RGloucester — ☎ 16:13, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support I think this is a great suggestion. I agree with the proposer and first support; one of the problems with this page is that it produces abstract answers that aren't always easily translated into advice for particular circumstances. If there was an MOS noticeboard it would also help editors find guidance from past examples, and maybe it could be a good place to discuss less controversial and minor issues. With respect to the oppose vote, I have difficulty understanding why a "style noticeboard" is acceptable but a "manual of style noticeboard" isn't. Our style guidance is located in the manual of style. Also, in the end this is really just creating a new talk page, isn't it? Why does that require a site-wide discussion? AgnosticAphid talk 17:53, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
A small group of editors cannot make decisions for the wider community, and that's what a "manual of style noticeboard" implies. One must be reminded of Esperanza. These small cabal-type groups have a precedent on Wikipedia. One must be careful to avoid forming such cabals, and one must be sure that the wider community accepts the formation of such a noticeboard on part with WP:RS/N. Styling is not merely a matter for the MoS, but also for other policies like WP:AT. A "style noticeboard" could be of great use, but a "manual of style noticeboard" is both narrow in scope and a recipe for disaster. Either way, community consensus is required for creating such a noticeboard on this scale. RGloucester — ☎ 18:02, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
With respect, your use of such an inapt example makes me wonder if your opposition to this proposal is to some extent reflexive. The Esperanza essay says, "This essay serves as a notice to all editors that existing projects must be open and transparent to all editors at all times, not to be overly hierarchical lest they are to meet a fate similar to Esperanza's." There is no MOS cabal; or at least if there are elections to the official MOS directory committee I haven't even heard rumors of them. To be frank, I find Blueboar's comments always thoughtful and respectful, but I rarely agree with him about the purpose of the MOS, and he would not be part of an MOS cabal if there was one, which again there isn't. Moreover, AT and the MOS are intended to be complementary, not conflicting. AgnosticAphid talk 18:12, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
  • @Blueboar, John Cline, and Agnosticaphid: I have created a neutrally-worded RfC at the village pump, so that we can go forward with this proposal. I think the creation of such a noticeboard would be of great benefit to the encylopaedia. Please comment there. RGloucester — ☎ 18:16, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
  • I've also created the noticeboard proposal itself, for your perusal. It is located at Wikipedia:Style noticeboard (WP:SNB). Feel free to make any changes that you deem appropriate. RGloucester — ☎ 18:43, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Um ... this talkpage is the noticeboard. Please no bureau-creep. Tony (talk) 08:00, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
  • I didn't like this idea at first but it's grown on me. We do a perfectly fine job of answering the questions that people ask here, but Wikipedia doesn't do a fine job of telling people with questions that this is where they should ask their questions. A noticeboard would be easier for people to find. If this motion doesn't carry (and it's pretty evenly split right now), then we should direct people with questions to this talk page. Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:46, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
Oppose – This page is not a noticeboard, and cannot be advertised as such. Such a move would require community consensus, which I doubt it would receive. RGloucester — ☎ 03:20, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
You already opposed above, and then started your own proposal that sounds a lot like this but specifically distanced from the MOS. Why? Dicklyon (talk) 03:44, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
The MoS is not a noticeboard. It is a Manual of Style. RGloucester — ☎ 05:51, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
Actually it is. Look at the two people on this page who asked questions. This place has been a de facto help board for years now. Helping people with style and English usage issues doesn't interfere with the talk page's official job. The only problem with the status quo is that not enough people know about it. Creating a dedicated noticeboard is one way to solve that problem, the way most consistent with Wikipedia's existing patterns, but just flat-out telling people would work too. Also, please note that Dicklyon seems to think you were opposing the idea of creating a noticeboard. That's what a big bold "oppose" means. Darkfrog24 (talk) 13:25, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
No, this is a talk page. It is not a noticeboard. This has not been established as a noticeboard in line with WP:PNB. Creating this page as a noticeboard would require transferring all policy change discussion elsewhere. RGloucester — ☎ 13:29, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
Right now, the instructions at the top of this page say this page should only be used "for discussing improvements to the Manual of Style page" (so technically this whole thread is out of order), but occasionally people ask questions here and it's only slightly disruptive. If the RfC at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Proposal: creation of "style noticeboard" fails, clarifying that people can ask questions here would help. Also, if more questions are raised here and it becomes disruptive, that would provide good evidence of the need for a noticeboard in a future RfC.  SchreiberBike | ⌨  14:52, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

BLP/lead

No idea where to put this. Does the lead of a bio article have to state the person's birthplace? I remember reading somewhere that only the birthdate is stated in lead, with birthplace in the infobox. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 20:29, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Does it have to? No, but it's usually good to state the country of citizenship/identity, as in "Edgar Allen Poe was an American writer." If you mean something more specific than the country, like the city, then it might be best to save it for the paragraph on the subject's early life. WP:CONTEXTLINK seems to be the most relevant part of WP:LEAD, but MOS:BLPLEAD also hits this pretty head-on. Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:38, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
It should go in MOS:BIO or WP:OPENPARA. They both state that a person's birth place should not be stated. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:47, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
There is no firm and fast rule... it would certainly be appropriate to mention the subject's place of birth in the lead if that place of birth contributes to what makes the subject Notable. For example, see our articles on Martín de Argüelles, Virginia Dare, Peregrine White and Sarah Rapelje - all of whom were the "first child born in X colony". In each of these cases, the lead appropriately mentions the colony, because that is part of what makes them notable. Blueboar (talk) 14:40, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
Excellent, got my answer. My specific reason for asking was that a user has recently blanket-added the lead birthplace for sportspeople, which (in ski jumping) is never the reason they are notable. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 15:14, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Definite articles and countable product names

Was wondering if I could get another opinion on the use of a definite article vs a zero article in use when talking about Microsoft's Surface line of tablets. See talk:Surface 2#Definite articles and countable proper names. I want to make sure I'm not missing something with regards to if the article should be used or not in prose. I know this page is more about the MOS itself, but as we don't have a separate style yet noticeboard, seemed like the best place to get knowledge third opinions. I tried checking the guidelines but we don't have anything handling the general case, though some topic specific guidelines exist. PaleAqua (talk) 07:45, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

@PaleAqua: Trade marks should not be modified for plurality. See MOS:TMRULES:
  • avoid: Police in Miami confiscated 25 stolen Rolexes.
  • instead, use: Police in Miami confiscated 25 stolen Rolex watches.
—sroc 💬 09:34, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia in the news

Right now a lot of us are taking some flak at WP:VPPR for being sticklers for rules and standards. If anyone needs a boost, Science-based Medicine seems to show some appreciation. Darkfrog24 (talk) 13:24, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

The article encourages sticking to factual standards... but the flak we are getting at VPPR is really a perception that we go overboard on enforcing stylistic rules and standards. Different issue entirely. Blueboar (talk) 14:07, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
There's a distinction, but it's the same idea and attitude. Darkfrog24 (talk) 18:50, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Italics on Bond. James Bond.

This will be hitting the Main Page in about 11 hours. Thoughts welcome here or at User talk:Dank#Bond TFA blurb (see discussion). - Dank (push to talk) 12:58, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Your post is somewhat vague, but I presume that you're arguing that List of James Bond novels and short stories should italicize James Bond? My initial interpretation is that these are books about the character, James Bond, and therefore it should not be italicized. Similar examples include list of Nancy Drew books and canon of Sherlock Holmes. I might argue that list of Star Trek novels should be italicized, because it's a list of novels based on the television program, Star Trek, but I don't think a similar argument can be made for Bond. Pburka (talk) 15:35, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
User talk:Dank#Bond TFA blurb doesn't seem vague to me. - Dank (push to talk) 15:44, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
No, it's not italicising the character name per se, it's italicising the novel series name, and the franchise name. This is common and usual. - SchroCat (talk) 15:53, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
But there is no title, James Bond, to base the italics convention on, so "James Bond" should not be italicised, as Pburka rightly said. —sroc 💬 16:28, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

This also applies to List of James Bond novels and short stories (which should not be italicised) and the discussion at Talk:List of James Bond novels and short stories § Small reversion. —sroc 💬 16:34, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

It's the Wp:common name from numerous reliable and independent sources for the name of the novel series. A novel series name does not have to be based on one of the titles. Both the series and franchise name James Bond should carry the italics. – SchroCat (talk) 16:40, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
That's not supported by WP:ITALICS or WP:TITLES. If the canon of James Bond books is indeed a major work, then it should be italicized, but in that case the individual works would be minor works and would be in quotes (e.g. "Casino Royal" is the first book of the James Bond Adventures.) Pburka (talk) 16:47, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
COMMONNAME goes to the appropriate title, not to font formatting. There is no "official" title—it might just as easily be called the "007" series, for example—so there is no title to italicise. The common name for the series, "James Bond", is chosen for convenience, but this does not make it "official" and does not warrant italics. —sroc 💬 17:08, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Can we keep the discussion centralised, please? I suggest leaving the discussion at Talk:List of James Bond novels and short stories § Small reversion where it belongs. —sroc 💬 17:10, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

That works for me, I can ask future TFA questions on some relevant article's talk page and give a link here. - Dank (push to talk) 19:05, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

That's what I do. —sroc 💬 08:02, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
That didn't go well, sorry about that. I'll have to pick my questions more carefully next time. - Dank (push to talk) 14:28, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
The discussion continues at WT:Manual_of_Style/Titles#Italics_for_series_titles. - Dank (push to talk) 03:12, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Italicized page titles?

I recently fielded a semi-protected edit request where an IP editor requested that {{Italic title}} be added to the article. They also requested the italics be used consistently throughout the article. I rarely see actual page names using that template, yet a visit to WP:ITALICTITLE made no mention of it being preferred or disallowed or ... yet I vaguely remember seeing another page (perhaps related to WP:WIZARD or WP:YFA) that said that it shouldn't be done. So, I'm kind of confused and unsure what proper English for it would be and what the Wikipedian community's stand on it is. Please advise. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 14:56, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

@Technical 13: See Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Titles and the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Titles § Italics for series titles. —sroc 💬 15:04, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Request for Comments

There is an RfC on the question of using "Religion: None" vs. "Religion: None (atheist)" in the infobox of individuals that have no religion.

The RfC is at Template talk:Infobox person#RfC: Religion infobox entries for individuals that have no religion.

Please help us determine consensus on this issue. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:58, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Hyphen for SS units and organizations

In German, the prefix SS- is a part of the formal name of most units and organizations of the Nazi SS (Schutzstaffel). Our usage is inconsistent in article titles, and within articles themselves, and I have not been able to find any discussion about hyphenating these names. My feeling is that names in German ought to follow German usage, forex Waffen-SS, and names translated into English, forex 1st SS Police Regiment, probably should as well, as do many, perhaps even most, English-language sources. Thoughts, comments?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:10, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

In German, certainly. Never seen it in English usage. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:46, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
It's more common in the specialist literature, but a lot of that maybe usage of untranslated titles with the hyphen in my memory. Looking through Mark Yerger's book on the Allgemeine-SS, he doesn't use a hyphen for translated titles, but does keep them for the original titles.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:52, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
Never encountered this issue before, but I'd assume that the original German spelling and hyphenation applies. Since it is a term in another language, it should be italicized. If the "SS-" prefix is a part of the official name, then it should be hyphenated alongside it and included in all instances of the name. I'd assume this would also apply to article titles as well. That's my opinion, at least. ―Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 23:26, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
To my mind, the English Wikipedia should represent these German names as they generally would be in English—which it sounds like is without the hyphen. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 02:10, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
What evidence is there that English usage actually omits the hyphen? Is this an actual convention, or just a prevailing mistake? ―Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 04:04, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
You would not normally use a hyphen in such a context in English, so SS-Polizei Regiment 1, which is the German, and "1st SS Police Regiment", which is the English translation, are the normal forms. The problem arises when we start mixing the two, such as in 1st SS Panzer Division Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:25, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
By MOS we can't use the ordinal full stop used in German so 1st is something were stuck with unless we put the digit at the end of the title as I've sometimes seen in German-language works, forex Artillerie Regiment 1 vs 1. Artillerie Regiment. Panzer is like Luftwaffe, I think, as is widely enough known not to require special treatment and I'd be inclined to use the hyphen since we're not translating the term.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:59, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
A quick look in Amazon and Google Books seems to indicate the both forms are used, with the hyphenless form common with U.S. publishers. Modal Jig (talk) 11:25, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
I concur with Hawkeye7. Furthermore, "Panzer" is a proper name in this case (for a specific line of tanks), not simply the German word for "panther", so "1st SS Panzer Division" is the correct English-language title (both for reasons already given, and as to the "1st ..." vs. "... 1" question, because in English we use initial ordinal numbers, not terminal cardinal ones, for military units). If for some reason we needed to use an actual German name for a military unit in some contexts, e.g. "Artillerie Regiment 1", this would still be a proper name, not just a foreign phrase, so it would not be italicized. I'm hard pressed to think of a reason we'd need to do that, though. If there were something to which "SS-" applied which was not a proper name, and there was no term for it in English, it would be italicized; e.g. if the esprit de corps of the SS was known as the SS-Weltanschauung ('SS world-view'), we'd italicize that. PS: "Forex" means "foreign exchange market"; using it as some kind of personal telegraphic writing abbreviation of "for example" isn't helpful to discussion clarity.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  11:36, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
I suppose that's understandable. I think that since we're translating it into English usage, we don't need to follow the same punctuation as the original German name. My question now, however, is whether to punctuate it anyway because the hyphen is meaningful. From my understanding (which is very little, so I wouldn't be surprised if I were wrong), the Schutzstaffel had numerous child agencies and subordinate branches, all of which had names with the "SS-" prefix to indicate its parent agency.
Since the SS is being used to indicate the parent branch more than just the name of the agency or command itself, wouldn't it follow that we should retain the original hyphenation? For example, SS-Cavalry District (SS-Reiterabschnitt) indicates that the Calvary District was a subordinate of the SS. If we write it as "SS Cavalry District", it conveys that the name of the command was simply "SS Cavalry District". This little hyphenation could convey a lot of meaning, so wouldn't it be best to include it?
As a side note, it appears that using the hyphenation is common in the Units and commands of the Schutzstaffel article, but many of the specific articles do not use hyphenation, such as XV SS Cossack Cavalry Corps. Whatever we decide, it may be best to start establishing some consistency throughout the articles, since the lack thereof may lead readers to correctly assume that the hyphenation is meaningful, but falsely consider only those which have it as branches of the SS. Not that this is a big deal, since most articles clarify that anyway. But might as well consider it, since we're on the topic. ―Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 12:47, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
English doesn't use hyphenation in this way to indicate subordinate relationships. The usual solution is the use the best-attested English name in reliable sources as the title, "1st Artillery Regiment", and begin the article: "The 1st Artillery Regiment (German: Artillerie Regiment 1) ...". If the German name has this "subordinating hyphenation" in it, which is meaningful in German but not in English, it'll be preserved in the German-language version of the name we provide after the English name.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  08:49, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Comma following "i.e." and "e.g."?

Should we include a recommendation on whether to use a comma immediately following these two abbreviations (i.e. before the parenthetical addition)? Should we, at least, be consistent at WP:MOS? Oxford style is to omit the comma "to avoid double punctuation", but New Hart's Rules does state that "commas are often used in US practice". I believe this has been discussed several times before, but I don't recall the conclusion. --Boson (talk) 17:09, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

In last month's discussion (Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 164#Appropriate Usage of "i.e." and "e.g." on Wikipedia which included links to earlier discussions) we preferred not to make a recommendation. NebY (talk) 17:36, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
This has been discussed several times, and despite several attempts to ban the comma, those efforts have ended in no consensus. Bottom line: the use of the comma remains far more common in contemporary American usage than it is in contemporary British and Commonwealth English. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:18, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
Sorry! I managed to miss last month's discussion. I had a vague recollection that there might have been an RfC, but I was probably thinking of the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Abbreviations/Archive 2#Comma after i.e..2C e.g.. I suppose it's best left as it is, then. Presumably, we can't even say that there should be consistency within a page without saying how to deal with inconsistent usage (as at WP:MOS). Obviously a comma is always possible when the abbreviation is immediately followed by a parenthetical remark (nested in the one that begins with the abbreviation). --Boson (talk) 21:29, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
I personally recommend using a comma after both "i.e." and "e.g." since their English equivalents ("in essence" and "for example", respectively) always have a comma follow. The comma is especially important in "e.g." since it usually lists a series of items. There is technically no formal consensus or ruling on this, however, and (like NebY noted above) my attempts last month frustratingly accomplished nothing. Regardless of which you use, however, be sure that it's consistent throughout the article. Otherwise, the random inclusion of a comma (or lack thereof) in one particular instance can confuse the reader and give them the impression that the comma was included (or left out) for a purpose. ―Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 18:47, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Usage varies, and rationales for the usage differ. For example, I always [try to remember to] use a comma after "e.g." when it introduces a list, but omit it when it does not, and use a comma after "i.e." when it introduces a clause that itself contains a comma, but omit it when it does not:
  • ...well-known shipwrecks, e.g., the Titantic, the Lusitania, and the Edmund Fitzgerald.
  • ...a well-known shpwreck, e.g. the Titanic.
  • ...aloxite, i.e., aluminum oxide, also known as corundum.
  • ...aloxite, i.e. aluminum oxide.
I do the same with "cf." and similar abbreviated latinisms.
The following cases look archaic and stilted, even to an American (I am one):
  • ...a well-known shpwreck, e.g., the Titanic.
  • ...aloxite, i.e., aluminum oxide.
These next cases are basically run-ons, and are sloppy writing, as I think even most British readers would recognize, despite being less accustomed to this comma in, say, British journalism:
  • ...well-known shipwrecks, e.g. the Titantic, the Lusitania, and the Edmund Fitzgerald.
  • ...aloxite, i.e. aluminum oxide also known as corundum.
If we were to have a rule, I submit that it should be the one I just outlined. This is closely related to use and avoidance of the serial comma: Use it before the last item in a list of three or more, but not just two:
  • ... the Titantic, the Lusitania, and the Edmund Fitzgerald.
  • ... the Titantic and the Edmund Fitzgerald.
We should codify both of these rules here, now, and just be done with it for once and for all. It doesn't have to match what "other style guides" say, since other style guides do not agree with each other, and never will. The MOS is not a descriptive work anyway, but an intentionally prescriptive house style governing how we write here, for our readers' understanding, and the least editorial conflict. We should do what makes the most logical sense for writing a cross-cultural encyclopedia, and (within MOS's style and grammar purview) that almost always comes down to clarity, readability and consistency. We already allow too much leeway with WP:ENGVAR's vagueness and over-breadth. The last thing we need is for people to try to shoe-horn punctuation matters into it. That would just needlessly rip back open a dozen long-settled debates, like single vs. double quotation marks, use of period/stop after abbreviations, spacing of acronyms and initials, logical quotation, etc., etc. Let's not go there.

PS: The rationale that we always use commas after full English phrases in place of these abbreviations, such as "in essence" or "that is" for "i.e.", or "for example" or "such as" for "e.g.", isn't compelling. The very fact that they'e intentionally abbreviated means they're an attempt to shorten, not expand, the text, so this contraindicates automatic addition of a comma. Rather, a comma should be added where it is helpful in parsing the sentence, but not added where it does not help (or even hinders, as does addition of the serial comma after the second item in a "list" of two).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  09:47, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

A coda on why this matters, and what it's symptomatic of

We have to divorce our approach to this question from what we are used to on a day-to-day basis. I spend a lot of time in live online communication where speed is of more essence than precision, and I had to revise this post to contain more commas than it did when I originally blurted it out. For example, I originally wrote "These next cases are basically run-ons and are sloppy writing as I think even most British readers would recognize despite being less accustomed to this comma in, say, British journalism". Many people, especially those young enough to have grown up with computer-mediated communications as part of day-to-day life, wouldn't even see anything wrong with that version, and much journalistic writing is heading this direction, especially in less formal publications like British lad mags and American tabloids. This anti-comma bias in textual communication in the days since the rise of the Internet and text messaging, and the fact that such telegraphic writing style increasingly colors our talk page discussions (note my shameless use of a terminal preposition in this subsection heading, and the upcoming smiley :-), is no reason to not think and write in a more critical, deliberative, precise register in the actual encyclopedic text. I think our increasing familiarity with comma-free, hyper-expedient writing in our daily lives is having a notable if gradual negative effect on WP article quality, and we need to be more vigilant against this corrosion of encyclopedic tone and style, but without descending into a stuffy stiltedness. (And in this regard, it is certainly possible to add too many commas. I have a substantial collection of publications from ca. the 1880s to 1930s, and it's quite an eye-opener to see how different both comma and hyphen usage were in that period compared to today – or "to-day" as they wrote then.)

By way of cross-media analogy, we should aim for something textually akin to the narrative style of high-end documentaries produced by PBS and BBC, vs. that of low-end infotainment like most of what comes out of the History Channel and the Discovery Channel, which often slides into "gee whiz" colloquialism, and breathless bombastics borrowed from tabloid journalism and sportscasting.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  09:47, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Names and “The”

Does the MOS include any guidance on how to handle using the word “the” (as a definite article) before a title that begins with the same word? I.e., do we say, “In the The Hunger Games books”; or do we drop it from the title as in, “In the Hunger Games books”; or do we treat the one in the title as if it’s part of the sentence, as in, “In The Hunger Games books”? Or is the MOS silent on this? —174.141.182.82 (talk) 15:10, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

My understanding is that this would depend on whether the word "the" was part of an actual title. So, "In the Foundation books by Asimov," but "In The Hunger Games books by Collins." Rhialto (talk) 15:17, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
@Rhialto: But then we’d be using part of the title also as a separate word. Is that acceptable English? —174.141.182.82 (talk) 16:28, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
"In his Lord of the Rings trilogy", even though "in his trilogy, The Lord of the Rings". The second edition of Fowler's Modern English Usage discusses a similar problem when using names "attributively instead of as nouns .... We say 'a Times correspondent', and 'the last Hague Conference', stripping Hague and Times of their The without scruple". NebY (talk) 15:48, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
"The series is set in the Hunger Games universe" is correct, as are "a Hunger Games anthology" or "that Beatles song". NebY (talk) 16:27, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
Agreed with NebY (and Fowler long before us). This issue is essentially the same as that of truncating a quotations to fit the grammatical structure of the sentence in which it's being quoted. "The last Hague Conference" is the key example, where even a capitalized "The", considered (by many if not most) to be inextricably part of the proper name, is still dropped where it isn't needed in the grammatical structure of the sentence in English.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  11:19, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Links and "the"

By the way, do we recommend (or discourage or neither) inclusion of "the" in ordinary (no proper noun) linknames. For instance, in the lead section of the same article: "By the time the film adaptation of The Hunger Games [novel] was released in 2012" rather than, say, "By the time the film adaptation of the first book". Or, suitably modified for this context, one of "the film of the same name" and "the 2012 film of the same name". --P64 (talk) 18:19, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

@P64: I think such links tend to exclude articles, but as far as I know, there is no rule either way. I believe the W3C or some other internet guidelines group does have rules about link text, like you should link noun phrases, but we’re not necessarily bound by them. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 02:05, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
Links shouldn't contain the leading "the" (or "a"/"an") unless an intrinsic part of the name, as in The Hague, and not when used adjectivally (see "the last Hague Conference" example above; no one would write "the last The Hague Conference"). The correct text above is: By the time the [[The Hunger Games (film)|film adaptation of the first book]] ...; not By the time [[The Hunger Games (film)|the film adaptation of the first book]] .... I thought we actually covered this in some other page, but I don't see it at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Linking, which is where it should be if we add it.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  11:19, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Is the song "7½ Cents" or "Seven-and-a-Half Cents"?

There was a novel published in 1953 7½ Cents, which was turned into a hit Broadway show, which became a Doris Day movie, never shown on TV because the wrong rights were negotiated blah blah blah. One of the song numbers in the show and the film was (according to the WP articles) "7½ Cents" but on the album's article it's listed as "Seven and a Half Cents". On Talk:The Pajama Game (album) I raised the question of which is the "correct" title, and provided a link to an eBay listing showing nice pictures of both the insert and the LP. Annoyingly, the insert gives the numeric title, the LP gives the verbal title (with hyphens and all-caps). I do not know if this is a "style" question or not. If it is, I presume consistency is the goal. It may well be "factual", i.e., certain versions are definitive. Choor monster (talk) 13:17, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Your source, eBay, is not a reliable source. What do RSes say about the song?
http://www.allmusic.com/album/the-pajama-game-2006-broadway-cast-recording-mw0001447417 words
http://www.allmusic.com/album/the-pajama-game-original-soundtrack-mw0000589962 numerals
http://www.allmusic.com/album/the-pajama-game-original-broadway-cast-recording-mw0000195213 words
http://www.allmusic.com/album/the-pajama-game-original-soundtrack-mw0000846498 words
If you have any others, it would help determine which should be used. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:38, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
As the article is specifically about the film soundtrack, the sources you're listing on the broadway soundtracks are not so relevant. Additionally, since you're dealing with online text sources, you're dealing with not just accuracy but formatting problems - due to the limitations of some text databases, they may simply be avoiding the ½ character because it's not one supported by everything (there is no such character in ASCII). So what we might be facing her is not a question of accuracy but of someone else's style guide. The album itself would be considered an RS for this sort of material. Assuming that the original album has the differences the eBay photos show (and I'd be surprised if someone were dummying that up), it would seem wisest to list both of the titles... although which one gets listed first and which one gets the parenthetical (listed as...) after it would still be up for debate. But this would seem a question that they might have struggled with already in one of the music projects. --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:19, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
(ec, response to WG) Let me be more explicit. I am not asking anyone to rely on an eBay seller to accurately transcribe anything or to share his memories of why the item is a must-own. But he took four photographs of the original album and made them zoomable. I assume we can trust that they are not perfect-looking forgeries invented by some clown. When I googled around "doris day" pajama cents I found both numeric and verbal forms listed at various music sites (and I have no idea which sites can be considered RS). When I google-booked on the same keywords, I found two books on Doris Day listed the song in verbal-title form, while more general reference books on musicals and films listed the song in numeric-title form. In general, with funny characters we have to worry that some editors took style matters into their own hands. So I thought perhaps an original would resolve the matter, went to eBay to see if some seller had some nice informational photographs, found the conflict right at the root, and came here. Choor monster (talk) 15:39, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
How is the song listed at the Library of Congress for its copyright? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 16:21, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
Regardless of the above discussion, I would expect a redirect from one title to the other (or similar, depending on need for disambiguation of the redirect). --Izno (talk) 16:47, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
Both names appear to be equally suitable per WP:COMMONNAME. My inclination would be to prefer the one which can be easily typed on a standard keyboard, and, per Izno, recommend a redirect from one to the other. Pburka (talk) 18:41, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
There's some confusion here. We're discussing an entry in a list, not an article or even potential article. The song, so far as I can tell, isn't actually notable. (I really can't judge.) Four of the songs from the musical have their own articles, see here, and The Pajama Game article itself has been around for over ten years now, but this song still doesn't have an article. To summarize: in The Pajama Game (the Broadway musical based on the novel 7½ Cents) and The Pajama Game (film) (the film version of the musical), the numeric title is given for the penultimate song. In The Pajama Game (album) (the album of the film's soundtrack, generally considered a Doris Day album) the song is listed with the verbal version of the title. When I saw the odd one out, I was tempted to just be bold and "fix" it, but being aware that oddball spellings and variations do occur, I did a little on-line research, and hit a surprise dead end at the linked-to eBay photos above.
Looking up Playbill's, the 1973 revival says the title is numeric but in the 2006 revival the title is verbal. (The original 1953 Playbill is cover only.) Choor monster (talk) 21:48, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Per the comment about "easy typing", I should point out that someone who knows way better than me changed the default sort on 7½ Cents from "7½ Cents" to "7 1/2 Cents". But of course! I added 7 1/2 Cents as a redirect, I had until then usually relied on my Watchlist to get to the article. Choor monster (talk) 12:48, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Some of the analysis above is logically faulty. No one is using eBay as a source. Rather, the phonograph release, a published work, is properly being used as a reliable source for the fact that it's "officially" spelled both ways. The fact that photographs of this source were procured from an eBay user is totally irrelevant. Numerous photos we use in articles are also procured from such sources, e.g. Flickr accounts. At any rate, WP's clear preference is to spell out titles of this sort, for several reasons: It's what most style guides advise, it doesn't use unicode fraction symbols that pose accessibility and search problems, you can't grammatically begin a sentence with a numeral character, etc.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  11:32, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Using and not using quotation marks

Moved from User talk:SMcCandlish#Your changes to WP:MOS 6 days ago

I'm not sure if I'm on board with these edits from 6 days ago. (In their favor, they haven't been reverted. Looking quickly, I don't see a discussion.) If we're going to say that it's better not to use quote marks when we're quoting people, could we be more specific about when and why, since that's going to come as news to a lot of Wikipedians? Also, compare:

  • Listed by the International Union for Conservation of Nature as of "least concern"
  • Listed by the International Union for Conservation of Nature as of least concern

Isn't the second one a bit harder to read, and easier to misunderstand? Do you reword in some fashion when the listing is "least concern"? - Dank (push to talk) 03:28, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

MOS is not saying "it's better not to use quote marks when we're quoting people", it's illustrating a particular type of case of summarizing/paraphrasing, and avoiding quoting directly when we don't have to (a general rule we already have). In what ways do you think we should be more specific? MOS is written with illustrative examples, and judgment left up to editors at articles for the most part. We don't usually try to be exhaustive and excessively detailed in our recommendations to editors (MOS would be too long, and it would raise KISS principle and WP:CREEP issues).

Quotation marks are interruptive, distracting, and serve multiple purposes, some of them inimical to an encyclopedic tone. This example, "listed by the International Union for Conservation of Nature as of 'least concern'", looks like "scare quotes", and many readers will infer there's something implausible about IUCN's listing. Given the amount of leftist/progressive/environmentalist vs. rightist/conservative/capitalist PoV pushing and counter-pushing running throughout Wikipedia, such an interpretation is probable among many readers, not just possible. We need not use quotation marks when summarizing, and it's poor writing style to do so, even when the summary happens to use some of the same common words and phrases. If you say "The pilot's hair is red", I can report this as "Dank said the pilot has red hair", not "Dank said the pilot has 'red' hair". We only need to put quotation marks about reported descriptions when they are emotive, figurative, contrarian, detailed, or otherwise unusual, e.g. "Dank said the pilot has 'screaming red' hair". I'm pretty sure all writing guides cover this. We need no quotation marks around "endangered" or whatever on the IUCN list. If a spokesperson for IUCN says "it's is the most endangered species on the planet, and we expect it be extinct next week if they don't stop cutting down this section of rain forest", yes, quote that.

The solution to any subjective awkwardness of your second example is simply to reword, as we always do when things are awkward, e.g. "Listed as of least concern by the International Union for Conservation of Nature". I don't find your second example "a bit harder to read" than the first one; the opposite actually, because it doesn't trigger any "hmm, why does this have quotation marks around it?" questions. But both of your examples don't flow well, and adding quotation marks to something that doesn't need them doesn't help that problem. In this case, the endangered-or-not status is the important point, so that point should come first, not what organization said so with what label. (The IUCN labels, however, are widely accepted worldwide, another reason to not quotation-mark them.)  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  11:02, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for that ... and brother, I'm with you, I probably (wild guess) remove quote marks about ten times as often as I add them during copyediting. What I meant was: when adding advice to MOS that says that we shouldn't use quote marks for specific kinds of quoted text, it would be a good idea to be really specific. There are a lot of editors out there who would love to drop quote marks from various statements, because they want the world to hear that something is TRUE, spoken in Wikipedia's voice; they'd rather not clue the reader in that the words actually came from Dr. Quack. I'm wondering if the MOS text you added last week is specific enough and emphatic enough to avoid giving people a pretext to remove quote marks in these cases because "MOS said I should". On the second point, I'm agreed with you concerning "endangered", because the common-sense and technical meanings of the word match up nicely. It's "least concern" where, depending on the phrasing, there's a possibility of ambiguity for at least some readers ... they may think we're saying that the IUCN is indifferent to this species. FWIW, I've got a fix for my own writing: I say "a species of least concern" (with the link, and without the quote marks!). I don't see how that can be misread as indifference. If I could just convince people to add a policy page saying that people should write like I do, the problem would be solved. - Dank (push to talk) 14:30, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
I agree that "least concern" is better without quotation marks in that case, but I wouldn't go so far as to say that using the quotation marks is wrong. I think that specific case is something we don't need a rule about.
However, the other examples given, the "holy" example in particular, that I think is good. It would be all right for the MoS to tell readers not to use quotation marks incorrectly, which in this case means cases in which they would likely be mistaken for scare quotes. Darkfrog24 (talk) 18:59, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
That "species of least concern" solution (a good one, that gets around any inference-of-indifference problem), points out a clear way to address some of these cases. Proposed wording: Do not put quotation marks around a term of art or other jargon. If we have an article (or section) to which the term can be explanatorily linked, then do so upon its first use in an article. This fits nicely with existing practice, in literally millions of cases in WP where we aren't scare-quoting technical or other specialized terminology, but linking it. Indeed, the entire raison d'etre of our glossary articles, even if they're not fully developed yet, is to provide link targets for such terms instead of having to re-re-re-explain them in situ every time they're used in articles. Did you have any suggested wording for how to avoid the problem that "There are a lot of editors out there who would love to drop quote marks from various statements, because they want the world to hear that something is TRUE, spoken in Wikipedia's voice; they'd rather not clue the reader in that the words actually came from Dr. Quack"? The extant wording here, and WP:V and WP:RS, and WP:NPOV, still require attribution when we paraphrase/summarize. I have limited brain capacity to memorize the exact location of every rule, but I'm fairly certain we have guidance or policy on when statements are to be directly attributed in the text, and when a simple citation will suffice, but it wouldn't be in MOS, since it's a verifiability and reliable sourcing matter at one level, and a neutrality one at another. MOS is about how to write here, and shouldn't introduce new rules about how to source, so if we address that here it should be illustratively, and/or by reference to existing policy, not by introduction of a new rule about it.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  07:58, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
I'm on board with all that; back later today. - Dank (push to talk) 13:58, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
I probably do want to suggest language at some point, but I need to do research on several points, and this is also a busy time for me, so it might be a few days or more. I'm happy with the language as is for now. - Dank (push to talk) 16:43, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Linking in quotes

The rule is: As much as possible, avoid linking from within quotes, which may clutter the quotation, violate the principle of leaving quotations unchanged, and mislead or confuse the reader.

In the Restoring Honor rally-article I linked this quote from Alveda King: "My daddy, Rev. A. D. King, my granddaddy, Martin Luther King, Sr. – we are a family of faith, hope and love. And that's why I'm here today. Glenn says... (etc.)" See [2]I thought it would be beneficient for the reader to be able to see who A.D. King and MLK sr. were. But by doing that, did I do wrong by violating the principle? The purpose was to clarfy things to the readers, not to "mislead or confuse" them. In short, I wonder if, in such cases, the principle is leading, or the risk of confusing the reader. Best regards,Jeff5102 (talk) 08:54, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Looks fine to me, if the subjects being linked have not already been mentioned. This particular MOS advice is fairly frequently debated, and its wording has changed more than once. I'm personally not convinced by "the principle of leaving quotations unchanged" rationale any longer, since we also have a section of advice on how to change them, e.g. for trivial style formatting, for elision of irrelevant points, etc. In the example case, if someone really, really wants to de-link this, then both A.D. King and M.L. King Sr. need to be mentioned and linked before the quote, e.g. in discussion of Alveda King's early life. It's more confusing to the reader, in a hyperlinked system like Wikipedia, to have no links to some topics that should have them, than to link them inside quotations.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  11:12, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
Coincidentally enough, I recently encountered a disagreement over this very rule. In my opinion, this rule needs to be expanded and clarified, or removed altogether. I agree that there should be rules against wikilinking in quotes to mislead or confuse, though that should really apply to wikilinking in general. The current wording, however, is vague and fails to actually provide any specific guidelines. It just leads to disputes, like the one I'm having (linked above), which is doubly concerning for a precisionist like me. It doesn't help that this rule is effectively ignored or reinterpreted in numerous articles (see the discussion I had), including Featured Articles. Perhaps the guideline could be changed to something like:

It is permissible to wikilink relevant information within quotes in order to clarify or specify what's being discussed and who's being mentioned. Linking within quotes should be avoided if it clutters the quotation, violates any of the principles or guidelines regarding quotations, or misleads or confuses the reader. Any and all wikilinks which fail to constructively clarify the quote should be removed.

That's what I'd say. I'd edit this in, but I'm pretty sure being bold isn't very wise on the official Wikipedia Manual of Style. ―Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 15:23, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
It's a good start. I think we want to clarify that we prefer that things that an editor wants to wikilink inside a quotation are often best mentioned and linked earlier in the main article prose. I.e., it's more helpful to say "do this" than just "don't do that".  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  22:23, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

ENGVAR in international articles with national sections?

Any thoughts on [3]? Semi-trailer truck is an international article, language version previously not labelled, but probably US English. However it's an international article, with national sections within it. There is a strong local variation in terminology between such sections - to the point where using US English in the UK context sounds bizarre.

Should such an article have one language version flattened across it "for consistency", or should the existing international variation be recognised within the relevant sections? Andy Dingley (talk) 08:17, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't believe other countries' terminology should be used in sections about a specific country. We don't call them semi-trailers in the UK and it is anachronistic to do so. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:31, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
Well, that was the argument I made long ago at cheque, which (at the time; haven't checked recently) had a section on "cheques in the United States" that had a peculiar feel. But I eventually came around to agreeing that it was too complicated to try to have local per-section ENGVARs. What if there's a reference to an American check somewhere outside that section? Do we write "check" in the US section, but "American cheque" somewhere else? --Trovatore (talk) 16:38, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
EDIT CONFLICT: I disagree with Necrothesp. The unit of consistency on Wikipedia is the article, not the section. So yes, the whole article should be written in the same variety of English, even if it has subsections that cover specific countries. However, either those sections or the lead should tell the reader about regional terminology. Darkfrog24 (talk) 16:39, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
And why would we want to do such a crazy thing? Just to punish our readers for not being American? If a section is labelled by country, it is not hard to handle variation local to it (don't underestimate our editors' ability). If such a section is distinct enough to have a national title, then we can also expect readers of that language version to wish to read it. WP recognises the principle that local articles should be written in the local version: why go against that in some article?
Is there any credible argument that we are incapable of authoring articles (or in this case, simply preserving work already done) where there are local variations in labelled sections within them? Andy Dingley (talk) 19:11, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
Every style manual I've ever seen calls for consistency within a substantial size unit, such as a book, chapter in an edited book, or journal article. Switching styles between sections would imply we expect readers to only read the section that pertains to the reader's country.
Also, since changing the section from one section to another is unheard of, it would be so surprising for an editor who had any decent writing experience outside of Wikipedia that it would never occur to the editor to look for such a rule. Jc3s5h (talk) 19:18, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
I'm not suggesting that we should switch "colour" et al. per section in an article on trucks: we expect our readers to deal with per article variation for such words. However in this case we're dealing with renaming specific subject-relevant terms like "Articulated lorries" (UK) to "Semi-trailer trucks", two terms that aren't in generally recognisable use in the UK - especially for "semi-trailer". This seriously damages readability in such an article. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:05, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
A few lines in the lead (which the article already has) or a line or two at the beginning of each section should be sufficient to deal with the recognizability issue.
Andy, they're not being punished for not being American. The rule is to continue whichever variety of English was selected by the first major contributor; that does not favor American English over British or Australian or Canadian English. Darkfrog24 (talk) 22:04, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
If the issue is a national vocabulary difference (as opposed to differences in spelling) ... then I would use the "national" sections as a teaching moment for uninformed readers. Informing the reader that (to continue with the example) a "semi-tractor trailer" are known as an "Articulated lorry" in England is a good thing to do. It's encyclopedic information. So... I would open the UK section of the article with a short sentence noting that fact: In the UK, Semi-tractor trailers are known as "Articulated lorries". Having established that fact, then it is appropriate to use the UK vocabulary for the rest of the UK section (ie to continue to refer to Semis as "Articulated lorries" for the rest of the UK section). Blueboar (talk) 00:00, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
Except that we'd never capitali[z|s]e in such a manner.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  22:35, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
Application of the MoS article spelling consistency guidance should not be heavy-handed in cases where intra-article consistency becomes exceedingly awkward. Also, of course, striving for MOS:COMMONALITY should be encouraged. —BarrelProof (talk) 01:33, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Note: A similar discussion to this was raised in the past for median strip, but achieved no consensus. The points made generally apply just as much to this discusion.[4] - Floydian τ ¢ 02:45, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
  • This isn't really an ENGVAR question. We'd use one consistent English-language variety in general across the article ("color" vs. "colour", etc.), but the terms for these vehicles are essentially a form of context-specific jargon, and so, yes, we would not use US terms to label the UK vehicles. If necessary we can explain or illustrate the terminological differences. The simplest way to do this is with a parenthetical. In the US section give the US term and the UK one in parentheses (brackets), and vice versa. Like I just did with "parentheses (brackets)". I've done this for almost a decade in our cue sports articles without any problems or objections, e.g. "the game is won by pocketing (potting) the 9 ball". Remember that ENGVAR exists principally to put a stop to internecine spelling warfare between editors, and to prevent readers getting "centre" in one sentence and "center" in the next. It's not intended to enable any kind of vocabulary superiority contest, especially not at the expense of reader understanding.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  22:29, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Tense

I don't know if this is the place to ask (if not, please tell me where).

It seems to me that many articles, or parts of articles, are in the past tense when they should not be. If something existed in the past, and still exists, to me it should be explained in present tense. I tried to find any description of this in the style section, but didn't find it. Gah4 (talk) 23:42, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

@Gah4: Can you give an example of this? —174.141.182.82 (talk) 00:19, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
Since I am sitting in a room with some running PDP-10s, I will suggest that page. I believe it is true for a large fraction of the computer related pages. Gah4 (talk) 01:35, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
MOS:COMPNOW seems to agree with you; that article really should say “The PDP-10 is a discontinued mainframe computer family” rather than “The PDP-10 was a mainframe computer family.” The only other style guidance I could find on verb tense had to do with discussing fiction. Maybe we need a dedicated page about it? —174.141.182.82 (talk) 04:24, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks much. I have wondered this for a long time, as it seems common in discussions of computers. I wrote that sitting in a room with four running PDP-10 machines. But as your link notes, it should be present even if no such machines still run. The PDP-10 architecture still exists, even if no implementations exist. Gah4 (talk) 06:05, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
Yes, it should be present tense. But why would we need a dedicated page about something we can summarize in a sentence or two?  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  11:42, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
Done, with examples: [5].  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  12:26, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
Does this mean that as long as a single example exists in a library, museum or private collection then we must use the present tense? I hesitate to give specific examples - the WP:ANI archives are already full enough of MOS-driven mass changes - but that rule is breached for a variety of veteran cars, defunct newspapers, old calculators, clothes, weapons and more. NebY (talk) 17:33, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, I’ve been wondering if there was/should be a general rule about this, whether in our MOS or in the language itself. Whatever such a rule might be, the project is doubtless full of violations made in good faith. That said, I personally 100% agree with the examples given in the recently added § Verb tense (permalink), and it’s much more maintainable than being expected to change the tense throughout an article the day after a subject ends production. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 22:00, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
Most of those cases would be (well-meaning) violations of the principle. Guns don't simply disappear into thin air when production ceases. I just made some cleanup of this sort at Sharps rifle a minute ago. There's no reason to treat periodicals any differently from books, films and TV series. We don't say that The Hobbit "was" a book by J.R.R. Tolkien. The way to write the lead on a defunct periodical is to state when it began and ended: "The Journal of Underwater Basket-weaving is an academic journal launched in 1951 by the University of Bikini Atoll. It ceased publication in 2002." Use non-serial works as a guide: Even the mostly-lost Gospel of Eve is given in present tense since we have some parts of it left. Meanwhile, Joplin's A Guest of Honor is given in past tense because it does appear to be totally lost to history. Many of us would casually prefer to write "was" about the [fictional] Journal of Underwater Basket-weaving, because its publication operation had ceased. But an article we had about the journal would be about the publication itself, not its publishing operation as an extended event. Arbitrarily applying past tense to discontinued periodicals, but no other published works, including other serial ones, would be inconsistent, and lead (demonstrably, since it has actually been happening) to misapplication of past tense to many things still existing but no longer in active production, like various firearms, vehicles, and other devices and products. Past-tensing them is a mistake if, yes, even one survives. Cf. Linothorax, for a ancient weapons and armor example: "The linothorax is ...". The style take a little getting used to, but that's true of a large portion of encyclopedic vs. casual or journalistic writing. As another example involving periodicals: If the New York Times and its publisher collapse, our article on the paper would continue to use present tense (and give date ranges of publication), but our article on the New York Times Company, the publishing operation that had been behind it, would use past tense.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  08:41, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

WP:TENSE

WP:TENSE currently points to an essay section concerning fiction. I propose it point instead to § Verb tense of the main MOS page, and we include here a sentence or two and a link to the current target. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 18:00, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Simplest solution was to use different shortcuts, MOS:TENSE / WP:MOSTENSE, and WP:FICTENSE, and convert WP:TENSE to an internal disambiguation page.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  22:59, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Distinction between acceptable and unacceptable forks

 – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere

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

It's a discussion involving WP:SUMMARY style.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  21:19, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

ARTCON and URLs

I've added a (hopefully noncontroversial) note to WP:ARTCON reminding editors not to break URLs when editing an article for ENGVAR consistency. I've seen this breakage happen more than once, and while this "exception" is slightly the odd man out among the others, which are more linguistic, it's definitely a point that needs to be kept in mind when doing consistency edits and I think it's useful to list it there. --Trovatore (talk) 18:32, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Sounds practical. Darkfrog24 (talk) 18:56, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Italics when writing foreign-language names of companies/organizations? (proper names)

For much of my Wikipedia editing career I have italicized names of companies, organizations, etc. whenever they were written in a Latin-based language that was not English. For example I italicize Lycée Français d'Accra in that particular article (but if the name was "French School of Accra" while using English that would not be italicized). However an editor informed me that Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Foreign_words says: "Proper names (such as place names) in other languages, however, are not usually italicized, nor are terms in non-Latin scripts." WhisperToMe (talk) 17:16, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, that's right. The rule this other editor is talking about is WP:ITAL. And it's not exactly never, just "not usually." To give an example that would apply to this specific case, I'd point out that we don't italicize "Karolinska Institutet." I gather that this is because translation is not an issue. MOS:TEXT also has a passage on when to italicize foreign words, but it doesn't seem to add anything in this case. Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:41, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Proposed clarification

We should specify when such a proper name is italicized. I can think of only two cases. Proposed wording:

Proper names (such as place names) in other languages, however, are not usually italicized, nor are terms in non-Latin scripts. A non-English proper name is italicized if it would be italicized in English, e.g. because it is the title of a major creative work (the operetta Die Fledermaus). Also use italics when giving one or more non-English names in Latin script, after the English version, e.g. the French Riviera, or Azure Coast (French: Côte d'Azur; Occitan: Còsta d'Azur). The lang-xx templates will handle this italicization for you, and properly do not italicize non-Latin scripts. If using {{lang}}, the italicization must be added manually, around the template.

Maybe someone can think of another case to illustrate, but these are the only two that come to mind for me.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  21:10, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Does this have to specific to place names? Wouldn't it be best to just say "Italicize long-form works" and "Italicize original versions of translated names"? Darkfrog24 (talk) 23:04, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
It says "proper names" not "place names". It just gives a place name (a subset of proper naming) as an example. Template:Lang-x/doc gives more, and we could borrow some or all of them for use here:
  • Weimar is located in the federal state of Thuringia (German: Thüringen).
  • The Seafarers of Catan (German: Die Seefahrer von Catan) is an expansion of the board game The Settlers of Catan.
  • Albert the Bear (German: Albrecht der Bär)
  • All Quiet on the Western Front (German: Im Westen nichts Neues, lit. 'In the West Nothing New') is a novel by Erich Maria Remarque.
I wouldn't use the Catan one, because the title "The Seafarers of Catan" likely should be italicized anyway, and if so is styled wrong here, and would be redundant with the All Quiet on the Western Front example.
"Original versions" doesn't work, because it presumes an "originalness" fact that may be incorrect in many cases; just because it's English doesn't mean it came later. And "long-form" isn't really the deciding factor with works. Many very short books (italicized) have fewer pages than longer short stories (quotation marks). "Major" might be too vague though. We have explicit rules about this, so it may be better to say instead "e.g. because it is the title of a creative work of a type that takes italicization, per WP:Manual of Style/Titles § Italics".
 — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  09:29, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

"Was the first" or "Is the first"

So per MOS a exception to using the present tense is past events. so I guess what I'm unsure of is if being the first of something was an "event" for example should I say "the Game Boy is an 8 bit hand held game... that was the first hand held" or would I say "Is the first hand held" an advance search shows 170,000 instances of "Was the first" and 65,000 "Is the first" Just not sure which way to go if MOS could give a bit more detail on what constitutes an event or have an example shed some light on this it would be eternally appreciated. Bryce Carmony (talk) 21:50, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

To me "was the first" sounds much more natural. But I really don't think the MOS should get into this level of detail on what's basically just how to use the English language. You can't make people good writers by piling on rules. --Trovatore (talk) 00:06, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
I just wanted to know enough that if I change something, it won't get reverted. I am not seeking out articles to change, but if I happen to find one, I might change it. Gah4 (talk) 07:10, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
I think either could be correct, depending on circumstances and phrasing. For example,if we tweak the phrasing -- "the Game Boy is the first 8-bit hand-held game in electronics history" -- then the present tense works equally well. I also agree with Trovatore: MOS has no business attempting to mandate minor style points at this level of detail, especially when they are a matter of subjective taste and circumstances. It's another example of WP:INSTRUCTIONCREEP. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 00:42, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
Whether or not the MoS should cover this, right now it does: The rule you want is WP:MOSTENSE. By default, write all articles in the present tense, including for those covering products or works that have been discontinued. As per your specific issue regarding events, BC, I'd say it depends on the way the sentence is constructed "The Game Boy is the first handheld" (the Game Boy is an object; it exists over time) but "the invention of the Game Boy was a watershed moment in gaming" (the act of its invention is an event; it took place at a specific time). Darkfrog24 (talk) 02:01, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
In the case of computers, they are defined by the documentation. IBM System/360, for one, has a defined architecture independent of any actual implementation. The architecture exists (present tense) even if no machine do, though as noted we should still use present tense anyway, and some machines do exist, and some are even still running. Gah4 (talk) 07:10, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
MOSTENSE needs work... the idea of a "default tense" is silly... I hope everyone would agree that it would be ridiculous to have the first line of our article on Henry III of England read: "Henry III (1 October 1207 – 16 November 1272), also known as Henry of Winchester, is King of England, Lord of Ireland and Duke of Aquitaine from 1216 until his death." Blueboar (talk) 17:41, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
I suspect most of us would agree that Henry III is now a "deceased subject" and thus under MOSTENSE qualifies for past tense. --Nat Gertler (talk) 18:08, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
For extant people and things, I go with "is". Nothing comes around later to bump them from that spot. If they're dead or gone, "was", simply for not being. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:10, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
That's not really the issue in the question that was asked. The proposed sentence would say that the Game Boy "is" such and such but "was the first" this that or the other. Being the first is an event in the past; you can't really continue to be the first. I think this is just a normal intuition of proficient speakers; trying to codify it in a style manual is probably not a useful undertaking. If it appears to conflict with an existing rule, maybe that rule is overreaching and should be weakened. --Trovatore (talk) 18:21, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
Seems to me that if you are the first to do something, you are the first forever. But then again, there are more and more categories to be first in. Amundsen was the first to reach the south pole, and will forever be the first, but the event of reaching the pole is now in the past. (I almost wrote was in the past, but it still is in the past.) But someone else can be the first to reach the south pole under a different condition, alone, or carrying his own food, or by moonlight, or anything else. But yes, it is an event in any of those cases. He was the first to reach the south pole, but didn't stay there after reaching it. Gah4 (talk) 18:49, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
Well, it's beside the point to argue it in terms of logic. We're not talking about logic; we're talking about English. We may each have our own ideas about metaphysical questions such as presentism but they don't really matter one way or another — there are certain intuitions that we mostly share as proficient speakers, and based on those intuitions we're all going to write "was the first" if we're doing it naturally rather than trying to comply with some rulebook. --Trovatore (talk) 18:53, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, that's cool with me. I wasn't proposing we make my way a rule, just saying it in a "my two cents" way. I agree with the second part of the first answer, but unless you're still the guy who answered first, we'll have to disagree on whether I'm currently agreeing with you. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:15, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
I'm still the guy who answered it first, but I was the first to answer it. To say instead "I am the first to answer it" is — not exactly wrong, but definitely sounds forced. --Trovatore (talk) 19:44, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
You answered first. You're definitely not answering now. But if, right now or a bit later, we chronologically list all the people who answered, you're still first. If you were first, something must've changed since then, and that doesn't seem possible.
Of course, whatever either of us aren't used to hearing sounds unnatural. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:57, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
If you claim that (you're a native speaker and) "I am the first to answer" sounds more natural to you, then I'm afraid I just flat don't believe you. --Trovatore (talk) 20:02, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
That's fine. Googling "I am the first to" finds it common enough, though. Same with "S/he is the first to". If you put a wildcard asterisk between "first" and "to", many more. Maybe you just had a different teacher or read different books. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:12, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
I get 2.3 billion hits for "I am the first * to", and all of the initial hits I looked at seem to fit IHulk's pattern. - Dank (push to talk) 14:09, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
"I am the first to" only really works if nobody's done it since. Barack Obama is the first black President of the United States. But nobody will be saying "Obama is the first black President" when he's no longer President.
A similar issue came up a while ago when a user insisted on logical grounds that we should say "x is the father of y" even when x and y are both dead, because that relationship is unchanged. All I can say is, English doesn't follow that logic. --Nicknack009 (talk) 21:31, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
I just wanted to chime in and thank everyone for their feedback. I'm going to meditate on this more and until I have a conscious reasoning thought out I'll just fall back on my intuition for guidance. Bryce Carmony (talk) 04:09, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Agreed with Dirtlawyer1 and Darkfrog24's early comments toward top of thread. Either way can be correct depending on what exactly is being written, and MOS doesn't need to WP:CREEP everyone to death with nitpicks. Also agreed with Nicknack009: "The GameBoy is the first handheld..." only works until a second one has hit the market; it was the first.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  09:50, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Qur’an or Qur'an?

There appears to be inconsistent spelling on two MOS pages:

Wikipedia:Manual of Style § Punctuation §§ Apostrophes (MOS:PUNCT) says:

  • Consistent use of the straight (or typewriter) apostrophe ( ' ) is recommended, as opposed to the curly (or typographic) apostrophe ( ’ ). For details and reasons, see § Quotation marks, below. ...
  • Foreign characters that resemble apostrophes, such as transliterated Arabic ayin ( ʿ ) and alif ( ʾ ), are represented by their correct Unicode characters (that is, U+02BF MODIFIER LETTER LEFT HALF RING and U+02BE MODIFIER LETTER RIGHT HALF RING respectively), despite possible display problems. If this is not feasible, use a straight apostrophe instead.

As the glyph in "Qur’an" is a foreign character, not an apostrophe, presumably MOS:CAPS should be updated to reflect the same glyph? I don't see why these MOS pages should treat it differently.

Note also that the alternative spelling at the article Quran is "Qurʾan". So which is the correct symbol? —sroc 💬 13:38, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

It's not a foreign character; it's a conventional Romanization of a glottal stop which is written in Arabic as a diacritic, the maddah. Glottal stop#Phonology and symbolization of the glottal stop in selected languages sums it up well enough: "In the traditional Romanization of many languages, such as Arabic, the glottal stop is transcribed with an apostrophe, ⟨’⟩" (that apostrophe has been generated with {{unicode|’}}). The choice of apostrophe merely follows the chosen typography for apostrophes. See, for example, the OED's entry. NebY (talk) 16:58, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Hmm — but we correctly (in my view) use the ʻokina in articles reporting the Hawaiian spelling of names. --Trovatore (talk) 17:28, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

I've changed it to "the Quran", as that seems to be the common spelling in Quran. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 18:01, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

I've never understood the logic of the spelling "Quran".
  • "Koran" is a straightforward transcription enabling English speakers to produce a pronunciation in English phonemes which bears as much resemblance to the Arabic as possible, given the differences between the languages.
  • "Qurˀan", "Qurʾan" or "Qur’an" are transliterations, where the characters are intended to be representations of the Arabic letters, and so do not necessarily correspond to their sound values in English. In such a transliteration, a pair like ʿ ʾ or ‘ ’ is needed since they represent different Arabic letters; reducing either or both to a straight ' is pointless. It's purely a matter of typographic convention as to which pair of characters is chosen. It seems from MOS:PUNCT that the English Wikipedia prefers ʿ and ʾ.
  • "Quran" is neither a transcription (since it suggests a pronunciation like kwəran) nor a transliteration (because it omits one of the Arabic letters). It's a pointless hybrid.
Peter coxhead (talk) 18:58, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
I think I see the confusion. The Arabic character alif can look a bit like an apostrophe or quotation mark (it has the Unicode character ʾ) but it's not - as MOS:PUNCT points out - a punctuation mark at all. Alif is - like aleph and alpha and a - the first letter of the alphabet, and it is the "a" in "Qur'an". The apostrophe in "Qur'an" stands for the Arabic diacritic maddah, placed over the alif to indicate a glottal stop followed by the alif's long "a". Many English-speakers find that stop difficult to pronounce at will and so we often have "Quran" or "Koran" instead, without any stop pronounced or written. NebY (talk) 19:42, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
The MOS should reflect the most commonly used spelling on Wikipedia, which is "Quran". If you want to use a different spelling, start an RfC to change every instance on Wikipedia. Until then, the only proper spelling on this page is the spelling used on the actual article. Do not use this page to push a preference that differs from actual use. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 20:26, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
What would sources do? (click the Search lot of books button if it doesn't show with this link). 2620:0:1000:157D:CD1B:9379:5F7A:A5B4 (talk) 23:52, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Which makes a convincing case against "Quran". Peter coxhead (talk) 18:53, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
For the record, the Ngram shows that, since the mid-1980s, "Qur'an" has surpassed "Koran" and "Quran" as the most common spelling in English-language books. It's a pity Ngrams can't distinguish between apostrophe ('), glottal stop (’) and alif (ʾ). —sroc 💬 02:15, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
Restricting the Ngram to first American,[6] then British English[7]suggests the recent dominance of Qur'an is much greater in British English. In contrast, the fourth (2015) edition of Fowler's, which draws heavily on the Oxford English Corpus, merely describes Qur'an as "Now a frequent spelling in English of Koran", so we may be seeing some discrepancies between corpuses. As for distinguishing the punctuation marks, they're not alifs; that isn't an Arabic letter stranded in amongst some Roman characters. The alif is the "a" of Koran, Quran and Qu'ran. NebY (talk) 12:11, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
My apologies if I have mischaracterised the glyphs. —sroc 💬 13:36, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
No worries. The section at MOS:PUNCT is puzzling; it might lead one to think that ayin and alif are punctuation marks, else why mention them there, and I'm struggling to think when we'd want to write an Arabic word using glyphs that look a bit like the Arabic characters, as it suggests. Why wouldn't we simply use Unicode? NebY (talk) 19:13, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
  • MOS should use the same spelling as the article title and lead. "What do the sources do?" is a question for the article's talk page and coming to consensus at the article on which of many representation to choose. It's not a MOS question. MOS should just follow the article's usage. The MOS section in which this appears is not illustrating anything about apostrophes and similar characters anyway, but about italics. If somewhere we need to illustrate this version with the glottal apostrophe, then it should be "Qu'ran" with a straight apostrophe. Using the similar-looking alif glyph is simply a factual error. There's no difference between the use of an apostrophe as a glottal stop in "Qu'ran", and in "li'l". It's just an apostrophe, and MOS calls for straight ones.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  09:38, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
There's no difference between the use of an apostrophe as a glottal stop in "Qu'ran", and in "li'l". It's a standard convention in English to use an apostrophe to indicate non-standard pronunciations which appear to have omitted letters, such as runnin' for running or 'is 'at for his hat. The apostrophe only indicates a substituted glottal stop in English words like li'l or bo'le (for "bottle"). By contrast, the issue in transliterating Arabic is how to represent alif maddah. There are a variety of systems for the Romanization of Arabic, most of which require the use of two distinct 'left' and 'right' marks. ISO uses ʿ ʾ; other systems use ‘ ’. Peter coxhead (talk) 11:16, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

"Grew up poor", "raised Roman Catholic" and similar constructions

A user, Unibond (talk · contribs), has edited the article on Reg Smythe, changing "he grew up poor" to "he grew up in poverty", on the grounds that "poor is not an adverb". I looked at his recent editing history and saw he'd done the same thing to the article on Liam Neeson, changing "He was raised Roman Catholic" to "He was raised as a Roman Catholic" for the same reason. This seems to me to be a hypercorrection, "correcting" perfectly normal and acceptable usage for the sake of a prescriptive grammar rule that doesn't really apply. Are there any issues in the MOS with constructions like "grew up poor" or "raised Roman Catholic"? --Nicknack009 (talk) 21:22, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

It is incorrect English to use a an adjective as an adverb. I recognise that in colloquial speech, it is not uncommon but we should strive to be correct not for the sake of pedantry but because it offers more precise language. For example 'grew up poor' could be interpreted as he grew up in poverty or he grew up to be poor. Substitute he grew up tall, he was tall whilst growing up or he grew up to be tall. Unibond (talk) 22:09, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
In neither case is an adjective being used as an adverb. I don't think either case is incorrect or ambiguous, and I think in both cases your "correction" is less natural English. It's a particular construction that is used in standard English, and if the grammatical categories you're applying don't cover it, then they're incomplete. I've done a bit of digging, and there is a grammatical term that covers it. These are examples of the predicative adjective - other examples might be "the food tasted delicious", "you look beautiful" or "that sounds ideal" - with "grew up" and "was raised" acting as copular or linking verbs. --Nicknack009 (talk) 07:08, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
Unibond, you are parsing these constructions incorrectly. They are not adverbs modifying the verb, but rather predicative nominals or predicative adjectives defining a property of the subject. The "Roman Catholic" in "He was raised Roman Catholic" is no more an adverb than "prime minister" is in "He was appointed prime minister". There is no need to change them as you have done—they were perfectly correct as they were, and your rephrasings make them a bit stilted. —Psychonaut (talk) 09:00, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
I agree with the corrections. The encyclopedic register is precise and semi-formal. It is thus, well, naturally a bit less "natural" than colloquial speech patterns. "Raised Roman Catholic" and "grew up poor" look like something a bumpkin would write (I would know; I grew up in a town full of bumpkins, in a state full of bumpkins, though I wasn't quite "raised bumpkin").  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  09:53, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
I also agree with the changes, for the same reason as SMcCandlish: it's a matter of register. However, as Psychonaut says, they aren't "corrections", since neither modifies the verb but rather is predicative of the subject of the sentence. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:13, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
I also agree with the changes on the basis of style, though I disagree with the reasons given in the edit summaries, since adjectival phrases can be used predicative complements or adjuncts. --Boson (talk) 11:23, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
They're both OK. Generally, nowadays, grammar rules are mostly descriptive rather than prescriptive/proscriptive, until you start getting off into the weeds of genuinely new or peculiar formations, which this sort of thing is a long way from being off in the weeds. They're both OK. That said, my general belief is "don't roil the text to no gain". Don't change correct wording to another, different, equally correct formation because it sounds better to you -- it just leads to fruitless discussions like this, plus, thou shalt not muzzle the ox while it treadeth out the corn (that is, give the person who is doing the actual work of creating the material the small benefit of getting to decide how it's worded).
It's certainly not something we're going to write up into a rule, and since we're not going to write it up into a rule, it's the sort of the thing that's decided on a case-by-case basis, with whoever cares the most deciding individual cases, I guess. That being said, on the merits, I can see how "in poverty" is maybe just a tiny bit better than "poor"; the meaning is utterly clear in both cases, but "in poverty" is slightly more formal-sounding, so the OP should consider letting it go. Herostratus (talk) 11:41, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment: I've noticed then when someone makes a small stylistic correction of what I wrote, I often agree with the change. My first drafts tend to suck. But if the someone makes the change and says I made a grammatical error, and in fact I didn't, I tend to not agree with the change, and feel the someone needs to be told what's what.
  • To add to the grammatical analyses of the original, note that "Roman Catholic" is what's called a predicate apposite. It's not an adjective, but a noun being used to modify another noun, and it's located in the predicate. (Although perhaps modern linguists do call "Roman Catholic" an adjective in this context, since it can be made stronger or weaker.) Choor monster (talk) 13:54, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

question about tense for historic aircraft

I completely agree that you should use the present tense to refer to historic aircraft (i.e: "The North American Aviation P-51 Mustang is an American long-range, single-seat fighter and fighter-bomber used during World War II, the Korean War and other conflicts."). I think this should definitely apply to historic aircraft where examples still exist, but what about aircraft where no survivors exist (like Hispano HA-100), or other articles about aircraft that do not mention survivors one way or other (like Mitsubishi Ki-21)? --rogerd (talk) 17:23, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

According to WP:MOSTENSE, "works that have been discontinued" should be referred to in the present tense. I could get behind past tense for individual ships that no longer exist ("The Mayflower was a ship.") but that's not the issue here. Darkfrog24 (talk) 19:57, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
If simply discontinued, I'd say "is". If no planes are left, it's hard to figure anything but "was" works. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:03, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
In computers, the term architecture is used for the documentation on how to build one, separate from the actual building of one. I believe this should also work for aircraft. Even if no samples exist, if the documentation to build one exists, I believe present tense still makes sense. Otherwise, as noted earlier, events are past tense. The Mayflower landed at Plymouth, but may not be there anymore. But the Mayflower is a specific ship, not the name for a type of ship. Gah4 (talk) 20:14, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
I guess that makes some sense. The difference between them usually boils down more to design specifications than anything, so the design makes them more what they are/were than the products themselves do/did.
As for how things currently work (at least judging from Mikoyan#List of MiG aircraft), it seems they become "was" once out of service, even if three "are known to" survive. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:46, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
I have been going over articles about aircraft (mainly ones used in WWII) where examples still exist and changing the tense to present, but there are a lot of articles about historic aircraft. I appreciate the input. --rogerd (talk) 21:21, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
I am slowly changing ones for computers. I have decided not to seek them out (would take too long), but just change them as I find them. Mostly, I am doing it for computers that I know still exist and run. Gah4 (talk) 21:30, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Details for making WT:MoS the official page for style questions

RG's proposal that we establish a style noticeboard has not passed. There was a small majority against, and the closer also seems to be concerned with hypothetical problems. We should establish the MoS as the official place for style questions. By that I mean that we should do the following:

1) Add text to the effect of "and for questions about how to use capitalization, spelling, punctuation and other matters of style on Wikipedia" to "This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Manual of Style page."
2) Insert text to the effect of "ask style questions at WT:MoS" any place that would otherwise have pointed to a noticeboard.
3) Insert text to the effect of "ask style questions at WT:MoS" in the talk pages of other style guides so that style issues are centralized.

In effect, this would make WT:MoS the official Wikipedia style help desk/noticeboard instead of the unofficial one.

Likely result: This works. We keep doing what we're doing with respect to answering people's questions but there's no more overlap and a few newbs who wouldn't otherwise know where to go for help get directed here. Also possible: We get so many style questions that we can revisit the idea of a noticeboard with something more concrete to show participants, which might outweigh any hypothetical concerns that are currently affecting the issue.

We should probably work out the exact text that we want before taking it to WP:VPPR. Does anyone want to add or subtract from this list? Would anyone like to suggest an exact wording? EDIT: I'd also like to personally request that no one person go to WP:VPPR on their own until we've all had a chance to talk about it for a bit. Let's work out exactly what we want to say together, notify the regulars at other style talk pages, identify problems, etc. Darkfrog24 (talk) 16:00, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Why not create a subpage here, like Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/questions and direct people there. That way you can keep this page for discussing changes to the MOS, while that page could be used for helping people with already established guidelines. --Jayron32 16:11, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose – We cannot establish the MoS as an "official page for style questions". This is not a noticeboard. This is a page for discussing changes to the guidelines. These two functions may not be mixed. What's more, community consensus as found in that closure was clearly against granting the MoS the power to serve as such forum, which is why most users opposed the noticeboard itself. The status quo must be maintained, as any attempt to change the status quo is likely to result in more disdain towards the MoS. RGloucester — ☎ 16:29, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
We're not in the support/oppose stage yet, RG. We're just talking. One of the things we should do before making the proposal is of course to establish whether we should make it. It's all very preliminary. But to get the facts in line, consensus regarding your proposed noticeboard was not against giving the MoS the power to field questions. The finding was "no consensus," which means no consensus either for or against starting a separate noticeboard. It had nothing to do with the MoS at all. Some of the opponents of making a noticeboard even gave their reasons as "Talk pages already do this anyway." Those individuals might support making WT:MoS the official place for answers. Darkfrog24 (talk) 17:45, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
No proposal can be made, and any made at this juncture would be perceived as disruptive. "No consensus" for a proposal means that consensus did not support it. Community consensus is opposed to any change at this time, and this discussion is therefore nothing but an attempt to circumvent consensus. The status quo must remain. RGloucester — ☎ 19:01, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
@RGloucester: The closing at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Proposal: creation of "style noticeboard" and regular practice on Wikipedia do not support your statements above. I'm hoping we can come up with a good way to meet the needs of writers and make Wikipedia better.  SchreiberBike | ⌨  19:12, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Speaking only for myself, I give people a lot of leeway if they're engaging with people who disagree with them and trying to figure out a way forward. Simply doing the same thing over and over isn't likely to work, but that's not telling you anything you don't already know. - Dank (push to talk) 19:16, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Dank, I'm afraid your words are so vague that I don't know what you mean. When you say "doing the same thing over and over," what's "the same thing"? To which action do you refer? If you want to weigh in on making WT:MoS official while you're here, that'd be great. Darkfrog24 (talk) 22:04, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
I'm not trying to be coy, I'm trying to stay out of the process and let you guys decide what to do and who to pull into the process. I already said a lot in the closing statement ... that's about as specific as I dare to get, and I didn't even cover the opposing rationales, which are recommended reading if you want to do another RfC. (I like to keep closing statements short-ish.) Voters tend to respond to repeated RfCs in two ways: if it looks like some attempt is being made to take criticisms into account, and use some flexibility to get a wider range of people on board, that's fine ... WP:CONSENSUS backs you up on that. OTOH, an RfC that doesn't seem very different from the last one tends to ruffle people's feathers, because some people have filed multiple RfCs in an attempt to keep firing until they accidentally hit something, wasting a lot of voter time in the process. I can get a little bit involved if an RfC I'm closing is "almost there" ... but only a little. - Dank (push to talk) 22:24, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Are you're saying that you think that creating a noticeboard is the same thing as endorsing WT:MoS for Q&A? This is what I mean by vague. Unless you say, "I think X and Y are the same thing," it's not going to make sense when you say "people shouldn't do the same thing over and over." Please do not put me in a position in which I must guess at what you mean. It is very frustrating. As for the closing, I couldn't tell what you were talking about there either. Like I said, it sounds like you were concerned about hypothetical problems, but I can't narrow it down much more than that.
Let me be clear myself: The problem: People ask questions about Wikipedia's style rules here at WT:MoS, at other talk pages, or not at all (they give up because they don't know where to ask them). RG's proposed solution at VPP: Create a new, highly visible page, in this case a noticeboard, to which we would move all the Q&A activity (abandon the unofficial system). Current issue: Instead of moving all the Q&A somewhere else, keep it right here, where it's been for years, but tell people that it's here (keep the unofficial system but make it official). Would you like me to explain further? Darkfrog24 (talk) 03:08, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
There is no "unofficial system". Anyone asking such questions here is defying the purpose of this page. This page is only for discussing changes to the guidelines, and for nothing else. Doing what you propose would be contrary to the talk page guidelines, WP:PNB, and would be exactly what many of the editors in the SNB RfC opposed. RGloucester — ☎ 03:31, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
By "unofficial system" I mean what's been happening for the past several years: They ask, we answer, the end. Scroll up to the user who just now asked about how to present the Quran. This is not what the participants at VPP opposed. (Except for the one or two guys who said we shouldn't have a MoS at all.) They said "Don't give people one more page to talk about this." We wouldn't be. This page is already here and already active; we'd just be making it easier to find. Darkfrog24 (talk) 12:35, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
That is most patently not what they said. Do not skew the discussion. This is not a page for style questions. The above section about the koran is asking for a change or clarification to an inconsistency in the guidelines, and hence is appropriate here. RGloucester — ☎ 12:52, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
Picky picky. I have more than once "officially misused" this Talk page, most recently Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 165#Is the song "7½ Cents" or "Seven-and-a-Half Cents"? I did not even know if it was truly a "style" question, as I said up-front, but of the available venues, this seemed best. For example, Talk:The Pajama Game (album)#Correct song title was utterly useless. Choor monster (talk) 13:58, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
@RGloucester: Continuing to use strong adjectives that are negative to consensus-building discussion is WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality. Knock it off. We have heard repeatedly that you disagree with using this talk page as a page to field questions. Continuing to repeat it, push your point that it just is not possible will not make your point any clearer and is plainly disruptive. --Izno (talk) 14:02, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

If there's a desire to have somewhere specific for style questions, but also a desire not the mix that with the purpose of this noticeboard, why not just create a sub-page. That wouldn't need a special consensus, just enough support to prevent it getting deleted. Formerip (talk) 13:39, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

What a good idea! Wonder where I heard it from... --Jayron32 13:48, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
>OK, credit where it's due. I'll make sure no-one forgets that you were the first to congratulate me on my brilliant idea. Formerip (talk) 14:48, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
It is a good idea, but my concern about that is that the Village Pump proposal was about creating a new page, and FormerIP's idea that Jayron was the first to recognize is about creating a new page, and I'm worried people will think we want to do the same thing disguised as something new. If the regulars here and on the other style talk pages want to go for it, I'll be on board, but I think making this page official is our best bet. Darkfrog24 (talk) 15:53, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
Just for the record, I was opposed in the discussion, but I made quite clear that I was opposed to the creation of an entity called "Style noticeboard". Just as the word "notability" means something different at Wikipedia than it does elsewhere, the word "noticeboard" means only one thing at Wikipedia: Kangaroo court, or "The place where I go to get people to gang up on someone I am in a dispute with." That's a trainwreck waiting to happen. Having a centralized location for asking style questions is a fine idea. It would be no different than the reference desk or help desk, and that would be fine. Noticeboard is a bad idea. Help desk is a good idea. There's no inherent problem with creating a page for asking questions of style as it relates to the MOS. I don't even think anyone needs any permission from the community at large to just create a subpage here. --Jayron32 16:21, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
Except, that's not what a noticeboard is. That's your own invented definition of a "noticeboard". The definition of a noticeboard on Wikipedia is defined by the WP:PNB convention, which is exactly what was proposed. Creating a subpage here would be no different from the noticeboard proposal. Semantics do not change substance. There was no consensus for a noticeboard, and there is no consensus for a noticeboard with a different veneer either. If such a page were to be created, it would require a new RfC, especially considering that such a noticeboard was just rejected. RGloucester — ☎ 16:57, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
No it wouldn't. I can click that red link up there I created, and make a page. It's really not complicated. --Jayron32 16:58, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
It would be going directly against the closure of that RfC, and defies all Wikipedia processes. Do you have no respect for consensus? There is no consensus for a noticeboard in any form. None has been attained, and as the closer said, such a noticeboard requires a higher level of community consensus. What you're proposing would not address any of the concerns raised in the closing statement. RGloucester — ☎ 17:00, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
It would be attacked as gaming, and probably rightly so. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:06, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
I'm not so sure it necessarily would (at least not with overwhelming force of numbers). The upshot of the RfC is that there should not be a style noticeboard à la RSN etc. If it is clear that this is not what has been set up, then I don't see why people would see it as gaming. And, from a practical point-of-view, it can be nominated for deletion, so if I'm wrong then it will be short-lived but nothing is lost in the long-run. Formerip (talk) 18:20, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
What exactly is the difference between a "noticeboard à la RSN" and this proposal? They sound exactly the same. The only difference is the location of the page. In fact, I'd imagine that given the hostility to the MoS shown in the RfC, such a relocation of the page into the MoS space would provoke even more fury than would a style board outside that space. RGloucester — ☎ 18:25, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
There hasn't actually been a detailed proposal, and I'm not about to make one single-handed. But, by being a regular sub-page, it would automatically not have the status of the main noticeboards and it wouldn't need pre-existing consensus (which, I think, will make a difference to many fair-minded editors in terms of whether and how much they object). Also, the MoS is not policy, which ought to mean we are talking about a different proposition. In order that thing don't develop as if it were (on the assumption that editors do not want it to), some form of Terms of Reference would probably be a good idea (e.g. it is about seeking opinions, not about enforcement, conformance, establishing new rules etc). Wikipedia already has talkspaces that have similarities on paper but are different in character because of the different ways they were set up (Treehouse vs Help Desk), so it can be done. Formerip (talk) 19:08, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
Again, that's exactly was already proposed and rejected, only repackaged. RGloucester — ☎ 19:55, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
No it isn't. The rejected proposal actually said "similar to the likes of the reliable sources noticeboard". What I've suggested is something that is clearly differentiated from the likes of the reliable sources noticeboard. Formerip (talk) 20:08, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
How so? One goes to a noticeboard, one asks a question about style or RS. Others provide answers. No discussion of changing policies is had. That's exactly what was proposed, and is exactly what you're proposing. RGloucester — ☎ 20:12, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
In one case, the answers have the force of policy and in the other they don't. I looks to me like the previous proposal might have passed if it had been clear about this and about how misuse of the noticeboard could have been avoided. But I also think that, once you've downgraded the proposal so that it is not about something like RSN, then you don't actually need an RfC. Formerip (talk) 22:57, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
Neither have the "force of policy", and the proposal was very clear that there was no "force of policy" involved. Look at RS/N, for instance, which says, "While we attempt to offer a second opinion, and the consensus of several editors can generally be relied upon, answers are not official policy". Please read WP:PNB, the convention governing noticeboards, "Noticeboards on Wikipedia are pages where editors can ask questions and request assistance from people who are familiar with the policies and guidelines covered by each individual board. They are to be used for specific problems that editors encounter in writing and maintaining Wikipedia articles". I really don't know what you're talking about. It seems that lies and misconceptions have clouded the field of view. RGloucester — ☎ 23:31, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
  • To be clear, I do support some resolution to this problem. However, I believe that the correct thing to do is wait a couple of months, draft a new a proposal, and launch a new RfC. That's the only correct route. RGloucester — ☎ 20:02, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
RG, it's established that you think that making the MoS official would violate the results of your proposal. You are wrong; it wouldn't; you're misreading policy. There is some gray area in these matters, but we're not in it. Directing users with style questions to WT:MoS is not covered one way or the other by the proposal that Dank just closed at WP:VPPR. I know you take the rules very seriously, but we would not be breaking or even bending them. Just because one solution to a problem is rejected doesn't mean we're not allowed to try a different one. If you don't want to take my word on it, you should start asking others. Try the general admin noticeboard and they'll clear it up for you—or they'll say that the rest of us are wrong and this whole matter will be settled. Creating a new page, WT:MOS/questions, however is in the gray area. It's covered or not covered depending on how one looks at it.
I have two questions: 1) @RGloucester: Re-raising the exact same proposal a few months from now doesn't seem like it would help; we're only supposed to do that if it looks like consensus has changed or would change (which is why I don't challenge WP:LQ every six months). How would this new proposal be different from the previous one? My own take is that we shouldn't re-propose a noticeboard unless we have some new information to offer that might change consensus, like proof that Wikieditors have too hard of a time finding style help. 2) @Jayron32: and @FormerIP: Mandruss and I both have concerns that starting a new sub-page here after the Village Pump said not to start a new noticeboard would look like gaming the system. How do you see this sub-page as different from a noticeboard and how would we make that clear to the people who opposed the creation of the style noticeboard? Darkfrog24 (talk) 23:58, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
Any proposal, whether a style noticeboard or anything else (your proposal, &c.), should take place in a few months from now. For the moment, the matter was settled by the closure at that RfC. Accept the consensus and move on, draft a new and better proposal, take into account constructive criticism, and come back at a later date. There is no benefit in trying to game the system, or at least giving the appearance of gaming the system. Drawing negative attention is exactly what the MoS does not need right now. RGloucester — ☎ 00:07, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
The difference would be in a noticeboard, where one goes for official rulings and discipline, and a help desk, where one goes to get answers for questions. This is a totally different concept. We don't want an MOS-version of WP:ANI, which is what I, and many others objected to. An MOS-version of WP:THQ would be most awesome. The community didn't reject any centralized location for answering questions related to the MOS. They objected to kangaroo courts for winning battles against people you disagree with. --Jayron32 01:38, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
As I said above, that's not what a noticeboard is. There are no "rulings". Please read WP:PNB, which you'll note says nothing about "rulings", "discipline" or otherwise. How many times must I repeat myself? We have a convention that explains what a noticeboard is, and it has nothing to do with "rulings", "kangaroo courts", or "discipline". I'll copy my answer above to be extra clear about this matter.

Neither have the "force of policy", and the proposal was very clear that there was no "force of policy" involved. Look at RS/N, for instance, which says, "While we attempt to offer a second opinion, and the consensus of several editors can generally be relied upon, answers are not official policy". Please read WP:PNB, the convention governing noticeboards, "Noticeboards on Wikipedia are pages where editors can ask questions and request assistance from people who are familiar with the policies and guidelines covered by each individual board. They are to be used for specific problems that editors encounter in writing and maintaining Wikipedia articles". I really don't know what you're talking about. It seems that lies and misconceptions have clouded the field of view.

RGloucester — ☎ 01:55, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
I can read as well as you can. Let's just say that sometimes the words written on the pages don't match actual performance. --Jayron32 02:02, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
RG, you seem to think that time is what is required to revisit an old issue; it isn't. It's the idea that consensus might have changed or could be changed. To use an article-space example, if I find one source for material I want to include, but it's rejected as unreliable, that doesn't mean I have to wait six months before finding a new, more reliable source. In fact, it's better if I do it right away. The same applies here. VP rejected one solution to this problem; there is nothing forbidding us from using a different solution. That's not gaming the system; it is the system. But your idea of incorporating opposers concerns is a good one. The one that stood out most for me is complaints about drama, analogous to Jayron's "kangaroo court" image, but I'm not sure how we'd fix that. I offered them proof that these questions are handled in a drama-free manner, but they either did not look at it or did not find it convincing.
Jayron, it sounds like my experiences at RSN have been different from yours. But let's say you're right. Then the trick would have to be to make it clear and visible that this isn't the same thing as a noticeboard, even to people like me who don't see the difference between a noticeboard and a help desk. Darkfrog24 (talk) 03:49, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
This is not a bold minor edit to an article. This is the establishment of a new Wikipedia process that was rejected in a widely-advertised community RfC with broad participation. Just as RM proposals should not be repeated over and over again in short succession, neither should proposals for new Wikipedia processes. RGloucester — ☎ 04:10, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
I don't see this as "establishment of a new Wikipedia process that was rejected", but as a discussion to develop a new proposal which will reflect what was learned from the RfC. Right or wrong, people see noticeboards in a negative light. If we can create something that serves the needs of writers, which doesn't have those negative associations, we are moving forward.  SchreiberBike | ⌨  04:23, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
It would be a new Wikipedia process for the answering of style questions. Presently, there is no process. Everything takes place ad hoc. As soon as the infrastructure to implement either the "questions" subpage proposal or the "MoS now becomes a noticeboard" proposal is put into place, new regulations will come into effect governing how and where one should ask such questions. That's a process. RGloucester — ☎ 04:34, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
Right! It's a new process, not the one which was rejected.  SchreiberBike | ⌨  05:51, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
In substance, it is no different. However, if you want to launch a Village Pump RfC, feel free. I just don't think that'd be very tactically sound at the moment. RGloucester — ☎ 14:35, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
I think you are right, if we decide here that we want to propose a new page rather than encourage asking questions here, it would tactically be a good choice to wait a while. I don't think we've made that decision yet. I think a new page would be better than encouraging questions here, but that Darkfrog24's suggestion at the top of this section might be a useful experiment before proposing the new page.  SchreiberBike | ⌨  21:23, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
  • I think it is important to be precise in the terminology used. While having a page where people come and ask MOS questions, and where editors who happen to questions answer them, is a process if you want to argue semantics, a lot of us hear process and immediately assume the discussion is about a process for a binding resolution of something, like how AFD is a process, AN/I reports are a process, AN Ban discussions are a process, and Arbitration is a process. Most of us would not think of Help Desk as a process, because if things are resolved their, its almost always on the basis of unanimous agreement. Likewise, when someone says Noticeboard, most of us think of AN/I, or BLP/N or RSN. While WP:PNB lists Helpdesk, Helpdesk is not in Category:Wikipedia noticeboards, and most of us don't think of it as a noticeboard. (Its actually categorized as a Category:Wikipedia help forums So again, when there is discussion of something akin to the MOS Helpdesk, and someone starts talking about it being a noticeboard, people, myself included, start worrying that it wont primarily be to answer questions, but to resolve MOS disputes, and to enforce the MOS, and that is the CREEP that people object to. If what people here want is actually an MOS Helpdesk that would go in Category:Wikipedia help forums, and not an MOS Noticeboard that would go in Category:Wikipedia noticeboards, I think its quite likely you could find consensus for it. But its critical editors understand which of those is actually under discussion. Monty845 00:04, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
RSN does not issue "binding resolutions", nor does ORN, &c. It was made incredibly clear in the proposal that there would be no binding anything, no "enforcement". That's not what a noticeboard is, it isn't what RS/N is, and it isn't what the proposal was meant to be. Creating a "MoS help desk" would be unprecedented, outside the norm for such a page, and would be in defiance of the WP:PNB convention. We must follow standard practice. None of the pages in the category "Wikipedia help forums" have anything to do with Wikipedia policies or guidelines. They deal with external matters, and are a fundamentally different style of forum. The proposal was for a noticeboard where style questions could be asked, just as how questions about RS can be asked at WP:RS/N. There is no justification for creating a parallel structure because some editors can't comprehend what a "noticeboard" is. RGloucester — ☎ 00:11, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
The results at RS/N are regularly cited in disputes over sourcing. If RS/N has decided your sources are unreliable, it very much will be held against you at say AfD, or in dispute over BLP content. Help Desk regularly answers questions related to Wikipedia guidelines and processes that are definitely not external matters. Ultimately I'm just trying to explain why so many people object to calling it a noticeboard; if the consensus here is that the status-quo is preferable to calling it anything other than a noticeboard, that is fine. I just don't think an RFC is going to succeed as long as its called a noticeboard. Monty845 00:21, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
Of course they are cited in disputes over sourcing, but that doesn't mean they have any force of policy or are "rulings". Likewise, I'm sure that many answers given at the hypothetical "noticeboard/message board/miscellaneous place where one posts bills" would be cited in disputes. Just as with RS/N, these answers still wouldn't have any kind of "force" behind. Whether they are cited or not has nothing to do with whether they are "rulings", or have the "force of policy". If answers at the proposed "thing" were not cited anywhere, said thing would be useless. RGloucester — ☎ 00:25, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
Discussions on the noticeboards concern policy. If there's a consensus about policy anywhere, then it's effectively binding. MoS isn't policy, which makes it different, and I think it is why there is opposition to any noticeboard that would ape the existing ones (i.e. treat MoS as if it were policy). People don't like the idea of giving a group of editors the authority to club to death anyone that uses a hyphen when they should be using an en dash. That's probably an ill-founded fear (hope I typed that correctly), but also a real one, I think. Wikipedia already has models we can borrow from, such as 3O and Treehouse, that are not, in either a real, metaphorical or imagined sense, about clubbing people to death. Formerip (talk) 00:35, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
According to whom do they only "concern policy"? Are you aware that WP:RS is a guideline, FormerIP? Why does it get WP:RS/N if noticeboards are only for "policy"? The MoS, likewise, is a guideline. RS/N is not about "clubbing anyone to death", nor would this be. Anyone can abuse any process. This is really hopeless. RGloucester — ☎ 00:39, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
WP:RS is a guideline, but it is really a spinoff of WP:V, which is a policy and stipulates the requirement for reliable sourcing. WP:RSN is therefore backed by policy, and heeding its conclusions is not optional.
Incidentally, I don't think either RSN or this is about clubbing people to death. But I think that impression is the source of some editors' misgivings. Formerip (talk) 00:43, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
Heeding the "conclusions" is less than optional. It isn't even remotely required. As the page itself says, "While we attempt to offer a second opinion, and the consensus of several editors can generally be relied upon, answers are not official policy". RS/N discussions are just that, mere discussions. They have no power or force, anymore than any other discussion has power or force. They may be useful for determine what is and isn't reliable, and for attracting outside opinions, but they are not in any way dictates that one is required to follow. This is the height of madness. RGloucester — ☎ 00:54, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
I think part of the problem is that words are imprecise things. Words like process or noticeboard mean "kangaroo court" or "arbitration" to some people. The information page for noticeboards, Wikipedia:Noticeboards, describes very well what I think we want to do for style. That's why "Style noticeboard" seems like the right name, but I'm open to calling it something else if it would the job done as well.  SchreiberBike | ⌨  01:19, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
I prefer something along the lines of the "Style Assistance Bureau". Let's try that. Ha! RGloucester — ☎
RG, I noticed something. You said, "It was made incredibly clear in the proposal that there would be no binding anything," but that's just it; that wasn't clear. We can look at the reasons people gave for opposing the noticeboard and see that many of them did not understand what it was for. It's similar on the rest of Wikipedia. There's what the lettering at the top of a page says the page is for ("this noticeboard's decisions are not binding"/"this talk page is for discussing changes to the MoS") and then there's what actually happens, the de facto reality. The noticeboards set precedents that are almost always binding. This talk page also provides Q&A services. What both the noticeboard proposal and this idea are meant to do is make de facto and de juris match again. Monty, thanks for the heads-up on "process." I wouldn't've noticed that. Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:55, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
I have never seen a "precedent that is almost always binding" formed at RS/N or NOR/N, the two I'm most familiar with. That's not how it works. The proposal was incredibly clear. I have no trouble saying that I believe that much of the opposition was based in bad faith gut reactions to the MoS as a whole, rather than anything having to do with the specific proposal. That's often the problem with proposals on Wikipedia. In recent days, almost no proposals for new processes, policy changes, &c., have passed for similar reasons. There is a strong resistance to change amongst the Wikipedia community, and also a strong liberalism that holds disdain for process and uniformity. Any new proposal will have the same problem. This is a simple reality that must be accepted. Avoiding the likes of the word "process" and using euphemisms is not going to solve any problems. That's pure underhandedness, and should never be endorsed. RGloucester — ☎ 02:07, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

So let's say we do want to establish either this talk page or a subpage (Wt:MoS/questions, etc.) as the official style Q&A site. Is everyone all right with the idea of posting notices at other style talk pages that questions are to be asked here instead? Ideally, I'd love to get a few words into the notice that is sent to new users. How about the wording? "If you have a question about Wikipedia's rules and guidelines concerning punctuation, spelling, capitalization, formatting and other style issues, please ask at WT:MoS(/questions)"? Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:55, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

If any page of this sort were established, that would be the thing to do. A page with no participants is useless. However, there is no page now, and it doesn't look like there will be one in the near future, so this seems all a bit off. RGloucester — ☎ 02:07, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Breakdown of opposition to noticeboard and how to address it

The 34 "oppose" votes given in the noticeboard proposal listed the following reasons:

  1. WP:CREEP: 1, 4, 8, 18, 22, 30, 31, 32
  2. Actively preferred talk page(s)/current system: 2, 4, 6, 7(?), 22, 33
  3. Preferred Teahouse/VillagePump/Help Desk/Administrators' noticeboards: 9, 10, 24
  4. Too many pages/places for drama already: 3, 5, 11, 13, 14, 15, 19, 20, 23, 25, 26, 27, 31
  5. Disdain for the idea of an MoS/thinks style is unimportant: 4, 13, 15, 16, 17, 20, 23, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29(?), 32(?), 34
  6. Confusion about what the board would be for: 5 (thought "style" was "artistic differences"), 10 (thought it would be for discussing changes to MoS and subpages), 12 (thought it would be for establishing consensus)
  7. Unspecified: 21

All opposers have my permission to correct the position of their own number on this list. Ask for any other changes.

We can expect that most of the people who objected for reason #2 would be on board with making the MoS official. At least some of the people who objected for #1 and #4 will be okay with merely endorsing an existing page rather than creating a new one. We can fix #6 with better communication (working out exactly what to say with care before submitting a formal proposal). Overall, it looks like endorsing WT:MoS would go over better than creating WT:MoS/Questions. Thoughts? Darkfrog24 (talk) 03:49, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

What about the notorious demographic 5? I imagine that demographic 1 would also oppose this proposal, given that that demographic wanted less control from editors that frequent the MoS page. RGloucester — ☎ 04:12, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
People who objected for reason #5 are just wrong but probably quite set in their opinions. Most of them won't like anything that we do so there is no point in trying to please them, but some of them probably won't care enough to object either. It's possible that we might change a few minds: During the proposal, I offered proof that there is demand for the services of a style help board of some kind (the fact that people keep coming here with style questions). It is likely that many of them just didn't read those posts, and a few of them might find the point convincing if it were made to them.
WP:CREEP refers to instruction creep, the idea that Wikipedia either already has too many rules or shouldn't make any more. It doesn't have much to do with the MoS specifically. It's more closely related to "too many pages" than to "the MoS is stupid." Darkfrog24 (talk) 04:26, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
The "CREEP" objections, as I understand them, are based on the premise that such a page (or direction to this page) would be a form of overregulation, whereby editors uninvolved with an article would be directed to interfere with local page processes during content development. RGloucester — ☎ 04:31, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
Not mine; mine probably better fits into the "too many pages bucket" than anything else but I don't see a reason to change the above results. I don't recall seeing that interpretation of WP:CREEP intended, but I'd have to go re-read the enumerated responses in question. --Izno (talk) 04:36, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
That summarizes my spot in the opposition (#22), but there was an element to mine in my second comment in re to yourself and to SB of WP:BROKE. So yes, I would tend to agree that making this talk page The Place To Go would certainly satisfy me. (A /Questions page is even more obscure than a noticeboard of its own, separate from the MOS-space, so I would like to head off that idea right-quick.) --Izno (talk) 04:36, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Breakdown of support for noticeboard and relevance to current proposal

If we're going to address the concerns of the people who objected to the noticeboard, we should also address those of the 28 people who supported it:

  1. Specifically preferred a noticeboard to handling questions at WT:MoS or subpage talk pages: 1, 4, 12, 18, 22, 28
  2. Cited centralization of Q&A or said current system is "too spread out": 1, 2, 5, 9, 10(?), 11, 21, 26,

All editors have my permission to move, add or remove their own number. Ask for any other changes.

Most of the people in group #1 did not specifically express opposition to answering questions at WT:MoS but one or two did. It was mostly along the lines of "Well a noticeboard would be better." We already know that RG (first responder) does not like this idea, but that doesn't mean they all wouldn't. The people who cited reason #2 will probably be pleased with establishing WT:MoS as the official site for questions. For the most part, it looks like people who supported the noticeboard would support this. It also looks like most of these people would support establishing WT:MoS/questions. Darkfrog24 (talk) 19:01, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Making this the "official" place for asking such questions will worsen exactly one of the main problems that spurred on the noticeboard proposal (as cited by Blueboar), that is to say, that it will result in long winded discussions about changing the guidelines rather than simple answers to such questions. Those kinds of messes, as often occur, need to be prevented. If there is no segregation of help questions from policy change discussions, the result is a lack of productivity and repeatedly discussing the same things in a disruptive manner. The likelihood of support for such a disaster is limited. You cannot speculate on what people will or will not support. If you have a proposal, draft an RfC and put it to community consensus. RGloucester — ☎ 19:06, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
Discussing the possible content and wording of an RfC here seems like a good idea to me, in order to formulate a proposal with a chance of achieving consensus. That seems to me to be much more constructive than rushing to put forward a proposal by a single editor (or a series of slightly different proposals). I can well imagine supporting a suitably worded proposal. --Boson (talk) 19:39, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

TL;DR

Unless someone can summarise the hectares of text above, I'll never know what happened. Except that Darkfrog's original suggestion seems like a good one. Here are the reasons for centralising Q and A here, as I see them:

  • Editors who frequent this talkpage to discuss the MOS, and who have played a role in its evolution and/or maintenance, are well-placed to answer stylistic questions related to it.
  • Those editors need to be be exposed to the kind of questions that editors ask in relation to style/MOS; it's highly relevant feedback.
  • Sprawling the locations for Q and A all over the place among MOS subpages is a disservice to editors, and fragments the process.
  • Creating a new page as a noticeboard will be likely to suffer the same fate as WikiProject MOS: ghost town.

Tony (talk) 12:02, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

In case anybody's curious, "WikiProject MOS", which Tony1 refers to above, is at Wikipedia:WikiProject Manual of Style. I was completely unaware of it.  SchreiberBike | ⌨  14:46, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
As was I. It should be deleted, I imagine. It might cause some confusion. I don't think that's comparable to the proposed page, however. RGloucester — ☎ 16:19, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
Right on all but your fourth point, Tony. "Creating a new page as a noticeboard is likely to be seen as gaming the system because a recent proposal to do just that failed to gain consensus." The main thing we've been going on about is whether it would be against the rules/consensus/good strategy to make this proposal right after a similar one was rejected. Right now, we have two decisions: 1) Should it be this page, WT:MoS, or a dedicated subpage, WT:MoS/questions? 2) What exact wording would we use to tell users to ask their questions here and in which places should we put it? (Do we just promote the MoS or also actively guide questions away from other talk pages?) Darkfrog24 (talk) 18:55, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
  • I'm in favor of adding a note here saying that questions about the use of style in writing Wikipedia are appropriate on the WT:MOS talk page. It's already been used that way for years. I'm also in favor of notices atop MOS subpages' talk pages, directing such queries to the main MOS talk page. I would even be in favor of redirecting all MOS subpages' talk pages to the main one. Far too often, their separate existences have led to fragmented and contradictory discussions, and even blatant WP:FORUMSHOPping. I'm opposed to creating a separate noticeboard or other page for this, as it will simply also be used for forum shopping and to fragment discussion (intentionally or incidentally). Keep such discussion centralized. I'm also in favor of WP:MFD'ing WP:WikiProject Manual of Style; it served a temporary purpose several years ago, and is now completely moribund.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  09:45, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Wording and venue of MoS Q&A proposal

I believe that because the last proposal was made at Village Pump: Proposals, this one should be made there too. It's arguable that we don't need permission to make this kind of change, but doing so would avoid even the appearance of impropriety, especially because one of the big objections to creating a dedicated noticeboard was forum shopping. Here is my draft. Because this is a proposal and not an RfC, I'm not trying to be neutral.

Because the proposal to establish a dedicated style noticeboard has fallen through, it is now proposed that WT:MoS be established as Wikipedia's official page for style Q&A. This would involve the following actions:

1) Adding text to the effect of "and for questions about the use of capitalization, punctuation, organization and other matters of style on Wikipedia" to "This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Manual of Style page."
2) Inserting text to the effect of "ask style questions at WT:MoS" any place that would otherwise have pointed to a style noticeboard, including notes sent automatically to newcomers.
3) Inserting text to the effect of "ask style questions at WT:MoS (and not here)" in the talk pages of other style guides so that style Q&A is more centralized.

The goal of this proposal is make help with Wikipedia style issues easier to find and to reduce opportunities for forum shopping. WT: MoS has already served as an unofficial Q&A board for many years. Examples: (link1), (link2), (link3). The discussion leading up to this proposal is available here [link to this conversation].

Thoughts? Do any of you see things that should go in or come out? Anyone want to recommend a specific question and answer that would make a good example? If there are no comments, I'll put it up in a day or so. Darkfrog24 (talk) 17:38, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

And we're up. Darkfrog24 (talk) 05:07, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Invitation to comment on VP proposal: Establish Wikipedia talk:MoS as the official site for style Q&A on Wikipedia

There is now a proposal at the Village Pump that Wikipedia talk:MoS be established as Wikipedia's official page for style Q&A. This would involve actively guiding editors with style questions to WT:MoS and away from other pages. Participation is welcome. Darkfrog24 (talk) 12:41, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Moving Wikipedia:WikiProject Anthroponymy/Standards into the MOS

Wikipedia:WikiProject Anthroponymy/Standards is the de facto MOS guideline for anthroponymy pages, yet it's currently located as a subpage of a Wikiproject. This page clearly belongs in the MOS, and I have proposed moving it there. If you want to comment, please do so in that thread. Thanks! —Swpbtalk 13:08, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Phonetic empathy

I've hardly ever seen anyone else but me interested in creating our English texts for the easiest possible reading aloud, to children and the blind and others, by the avoidance of an unnecessary amount of foreign words. Foreign words, often hard or impossible for English readers to pronounce, are being added to our articles in what I consider an alarming extent noiwadays nowadays, and some of the users doing so seem to have their own agendas in pushing as many words as they can from their (non-Engliush) languages into all kinds of texts here, where I can't see it's necessary to do that to improve them. What, if anything, can be dome done to stem the tide? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 23:47, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

I notice you slipped a bit of Spanish into that last sentence. But seriously, although we should always use the clearest and simplest language we can, I think trying to protect children, the blind and others from foreign words would be misguided and not in their interests. Formerip (talk) 00:02, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
And the second sentence contains a Latin double-plural – even sighted adults may find that perplexing. Maproom (talk) 09:06, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
We also have the Simple English Wikipedia, located at simple.wikipedia.org. It's designed mostly for ESL readers, but how does it factor into the phonetic empathy project? Darkfrog24 (talk) 23:53, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Make technical articles understandable and Category:Wikipedia articles that are too technical.
—Wavelength (talk) 00:21, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

I am surprised, and frankly sort of disappointed, to see that two colleagues would be so cavalier as to try to ridicule or even bully me by remarking on my typos (now corrected) and Latin grammar, rather than dealing with what I consider an increasingly serious problem on English Wikipedia. How sad!

Even as an old person with poor eyesight, with English as my first language, and having taught English for many decades, I can't see how what I wrote can be interpreted as a wish, in general, to "protect children, the blind and others from foreign words". ?

The fact I'm addressing here is that more and more foreign language words are being added where it is not necessary to do so, and that (just like ridiculing other editors), I believe is not constructive to this project.

I am aware of, and appreciate, Simple English Wikipedia, whereas I think our regular readers should be able to use regular English Wikipedia without the unnecessary (note: unnecessary!) obstacles that the addition of an unnecessary (note; unnecessary!) amount of hard-or-impossible-to-pronouce foreign words obviously creates.

Thank you Wavelength for those valuabe links! Could/should something be added there more specifically about not adding foreign words unnecessarily?

There is at least one editor I know of (among 5-6 I've seen doing this a lot) who does not consider foreign words to be "technical terms", and thus sees no limit to what h/s can go about doing, more and more. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 16:42, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Okay, so it's not that you need simple English for a project; it's that you a see a problem in the general English Wikipedia and you think we should put a rule/guidance/etc. against it in the MoS. Is that correct?
What do you mean by "foreign words"? Is it like in nineteenth century novels, where the characters just start speaking French with no translation? Darkfrog24 (talk) 17:07, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
For example, in choosing between On Södermalm there are gröna linjens tunnelbana stations Slussen, Medborgarplatsen and Skanstull before you cross Skanstullsbron and get to Hammarbyhöjden and Blåsut. - or - Taking the green line due south from the Old Town there are three subway stations before you leave the central city for the suburbs. - I'd prefer the latter or a similar solution, without unnecessary foreign words, in this case as relevant to an English text about transportation in Stockholm.
The best place for discussing changes to Wikipedia:Make technical articles understandable is Wikipedia talk:Make technical articles understandable.
—Wavelength (talk) 02:25, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
There is some question though, as I inferred above, as to handling foreign words as "technical terms". --SergeWoodzing (talk) 18:37, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
Is the above ("gröna linjens tunnelbana stations Slussen") an actual example from a Wikipedia article, and did editors defend its use? Pburka (talk) 22:47, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
That is as clear a hypothetical example as I can give in answer to the specific quetion I was asked by Darkfrog24. If at all possible, I would like this discussion to be one of pronciple, without involving other specific editors. Is that possible? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 22:56, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
The problem with discussing principles is that anything we put into the MoS will be treated as absolute gospel by at least a few editors. We have to be very careful that we're putting in rules that are going to solve real problems and not just satisfy whims. The clearest way to establish that the problem is real is with diffs, links to specific changes to specific articles that demonstrate that the problem is non-sporadic enough to merit adding another rule to the MoS. Right now, "write in English" falls under WP:COMMONSENSE, but if you've been changing non-English words to English and someone else has changed them back, that would show that the problem needs a bigger solution. Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:01, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) discussion

Started a discussion regarding part of the MoS at the Village pump. Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#RfC: Should the holder of a political office be linked within an infobox more than once (i.e. as the successor), when they have already been linked (e.g. as the vice president, predecessor, lieutenant, etc.)?. —Godsy(TALKCONT) 06:38, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

How long...

What will the archive box at the top of this talk page look like when the talk page reaches 1000 archives?? The box will get wordier and wordier, that somewhere along the line it will take up too much space. Any thoughts?? Georgia guy (talk) 17:54, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

That time is a looong way off for this page. Compare WP:ANI which is now at 886; some time ago it was adjusted to show the most recent 11 to 20 archive pages. The same is done for some of the other related pages, which all have fewer: WP:AN shows 11 to 20 out of a present count of 271. The Village Pumps like WP:VPT mostly show up to 25. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:35, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Archive_165&oldid=1137418857"