Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 176

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 170 ← Archive 174 Archive 175 Archive 176 Archive 177 Archive 178 → Archive 180

Capitalization for Board of Aldermen, etc.

User:Chris the speller and I have been disagreeing about whether the terms "Board of Supervisors", "Board of Aldermen", "Board of Assistant Aldermen", "City Council", "Common Council", and so on should be capitalized when used in reference to a specific (US) institution, such as the San Francisco Board of Supervisors, but without the city name prepended.

My argument is that these terms should be capitalized, following the guidance at MOS:INSTITUTIONS and the practice of major US English style guides such as AP and Chicago. Chris's argument, if I understand it correctly, is that "specific" usage requires a uniquely named body, so that it's correct to capitalize "Department of State" because there are no others, but not correct to capitalize "Board of Aldermen" because many cities and other settlements have these.

I see that this was discussed here a few months ago, but Chris and I still disagree. I would appreciate some input from other editors to help clarify the correct WP style. I'm particularly concerned because I realize that Chris is a very productive editor and is making similar changes to quite a few articles. It would be good to minimize any work needed to revert these.

Also, I would suggest that MOS:INSTITUTIONS is revised to use an example other than "Department of State", so that there's no confusion about whether capitalization is dependent on the organization having a unique name. Rupert Clayton (talk) 18:52, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

I dislike the style, but I think it's clear from MOS:INSTITUTIONS that the intention is to decapitalize as per Generic words for institutions, organizations, companies, etc., and rough descriptions of them .. do not take capitals. There's no logical difference between these two cases:
The University of Westminster is located in London. ... The university offers courses in ..."
where the decapitalization of "university" is specifically mandated at MOS:INSTITUTIONS, and
The San Francisco Board of Supervisors is the legislative body ... The board of supervisors has 11 members."
Peter coxhead (talk) 20:06, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
I'm not sure there's an "intention to decapitalize" institution names used in a specific sense. If there were, we would have "the department of state" and "the treasury", which is not WP style. I think the difference between your two cases is that "university" is a common noun being used as such, and "Board of Supervisors" is a short, but still specific, name of an institution.Rupert Clayton (talk) 20:57, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
What if it were just "board"? Isn't a board of supervisors just a kind of board, like a board of directors? How do you distinguish between common nouns and specific names? My inclination is generally towards minimal capitalization, as excessive capitalization looks arbitrary and self-important. Capitalize what must be capitalized, and no more. Pburka (talk) 00:54, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
I think there's solid agreement that references to the board, the council, or the university don't merit capitalization. But major style guides (and in my opinion the current MOS) distinguish between that kind of usage and a recognized short name used in reference to a specific body, as in the Board of Supervisors or the Common Council. I didn't see much ambiguity when I read the MOS:INSTITUTIONS advice to also treat as a proper name a shorter but still specific form, consistently capitalized in reliable generalist sources (e.g., US State Department or the State Department, depending on context). Apparently others found this ambiguous, which is why I brought the issue here. I also felt that the recent MOS discussion was pretty clear in advising how to handle these cases.
If there's a clear MOS policy and no consensus to change it, then that's our style. If policy is unclear, or there's consensus for change, then common usage in reliable sources and in established style guides would be good places for us to look. (And as I mentioned, AP Stylebook and Chicago Manual of Style both capitalize these terms used as the short name for a specific institution.) Personal preference is nice (I too prefer capitalization to be sparing) but it's a weak justification to base the MOS on. Rupert Clayton (talk) 01:33, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
Actually, I misrepresented the Chicago Manual of Style position, based on search results that led me to a PDF of the first edition. The 15th edition supports capitalization only for some short names of organizations and institutions, and specifically cites city council as a lower-case example. I don't have a copy of the current (16th) edition. AP's approach (based on a ten-year-old copy) is different and closer to what seems to be current MOS policy. It capitalizes short names of governmental institutions when they are specific in the context (such as City Council or Board of Supervisors in an article with the dateline of that city), and only use lower case for generic usages. Rupert Clayton (talk) 02:55, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
There seems to be enough support for capitalizing "Board of Supervisors" (within and without WP) when it is understood to refer to a particular named "Board of Supervisors of Xxxxx" that I can go along with it. The MoS could use slight expansion to clarify that. An interesting example is "The University of Chicago is governed by a board of trustees. The Board of Trustees oversees the long-term development ...", and I can imagine that some editor seeing that might be tempted to make the capitalization consistent. Chris the speller yack 15:29, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
This is a good discussion of this issue, but it's interesting that the disagreement Rupert describes to open this section is not in fact the disagreement Rupert and Chris had on Chris' talk page. That disagreement was whether to capitalize "board of aldermen" in the sentence, "Boards of aldermen are used in many rural areas of the United States ...", which is a much simpler issue. This sentence does not refer to a specific board of aldermen (the plural should be enough to demonstrate that), so the phrase should not be capitalized. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 16:46, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
I realize that I wasn't clear in my comments on Chris's talk page about the usage I was questioning. My objection was to this specific edit to the Members of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors article. In our discussion, Chris cited some text from the Aldermen article: Boards of aldermen are used in many rural areas of the United States .... The term is certainly being used generically there and there's no need for capitals other than the "B" at the start of the sentence. With that clarification, I would regard Bryan Henderson's comment as agreeing with the reading of MOS:INSTITUTIONS that I put forward. Rupert Clayton (talk) 00:07, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
There seems to be enough support for capitalizing "Board of Supervisors" .. when it is understood to refer to a particular named "Board of Supervisors of Xxxxx" – but why then not capitalize "University" when it is understood to refer to a particular named "University of X"? What precisely is the difference between the two examples I gave above? There seem to be two consistent rules:
  1. Capitalize when a short form clearly refers to a particular entity whose full name is capitalized.
  2. Decapitalize when a short form can be used generally (e.g. can be used with "a" or in the plural) regardless of what it refers to.
I prefer (1) but it seems that the modern trend is towards (2), which is what I believe is the intended MoS style. Capitalizing "Board of Aldermen" but not "University" would require a third rule which distinguishes them. Please tell me what it is! Peter coxhead (talk) 17:22, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
Though I agreed above that I could go with the flow, my sense of proper capitalization is completely in line with Peter coxhead's, and I, too, wonder what precisely is the difference between the two examples he gave. Various "boards" are highly overcapitalized in WP. If an editor writes "Smith became senior vice president of Blemmica in 2002 and then joined the board of directors in 2007", is there any confusion for readers, or is there any disrespect of Smith or the Blemmica company by not capitalizing "Senior Vice President" or "Board of Directors"? An encyclopedia should provide information to its readers, and capitalize properly, but not set out to aggrandize a person or institution. Chris the speller yack 18:40, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

I do understand Peter coxhead and Chris's trouble in distinguishing between the function in a sentence of university and Board of Supervisors. Both are short terms for bodies with longer full names. I believe the distinction is that the university, the board, the council, etc. standing alone are essentially indistinguishable from common nouns, whereas the Board of Supervisors clearly is not. Maybe I can illustrate this via a ranking:

Rank Category Examples Capitalization
A (most "proper") indisputable proper nouns Pluto, Rasputin, San Francisco capped by everyone except e e cummings
B official names of institutions University of San Francisco, San Francisco Board of Supervisors, Chicago City Council capped by everyone except The Guardian
C specific short names of institutions The Board of Supervisors voted to increase members' salaries. The City Council rubber-stamped the mayor's decision. capped by many styles, apparently including MOS:INSTITUTIONS
D common nouns used in a definite sense in reference to a specific institution named earlier The university withdrew the honorary degree. The board voted to increase its members' salaries. The council rubber-stamped every decision the mayor made. capped only by excessively deferential people
E (least "proper") common nouns used in non-specific, indefinite senses Tuition costs at state universities have doubled since 2011. He felt the glee club should be governed by a formal board. The West Wing had been tough, but dealing with a council of petty politicians was like herding flatworms. capped only by German speakers

Many styles, apparently including our own, capitalize use C and not use D. What's the difference? AP has this rationale for capping City Council in use C: Retain capitalization if the reference is to a specific council but the context does not require the city name. It doesn't capitalize use D, but doesn't say why. My own take is that any reference indistinguishable from a common noun is not capitalized, even when used in reference to a specific body, hence the university hired.... Conversely, a short name that is not a common noun gets a capital when used in a specific sense (the Board of Supervisors voted...) and does not when used generically (every county's board of supervisors).

There are still uncertainties with this style. Which multi-word terms do we say are indistinguishable from a common noun, and which are not? For example, I capitalized City Council but not glee club in the examples above. Perhaps we could agree that terms that appear consistently uncapitalized in major dictionaries should not get capitals when used as a short form for a specific institution. Using Chambers Dictionary that rule would give us the glee club and the board of directors but the City Council and the Board of Supervisors. Thoughts?

Finally, I think our style for senior vice president, etc. is pretty clearly expressed in MOS:JOBTITLES. Rupert Clayton (talk) 01:36, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

@Rupert Clayton: sorry, but agreeing to decapitalize board of directors but not Board of Supervisors seems to me (a) nonsensical (b) impossible to implement as a policy in a free-to-edit encyclopedia. Peter coxhead (talk) 12:48, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
A few months ago I did a bunch more looking into this question and there was discussion about it involving Peter coxhead, Blueboar and others, at WT:MOSCAPS (now archived at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters/Archive 19#Clarifying MOS:INSTITUTIONS). Consensus may actually have been reached to clarify some points, but I'm not sure any clarifications were made prior the archive bot swooping in. What recent discussion should be taken into account in detail as part of the current one.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  11:33, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
@SMcCandlish: I don't think we did reach a consensus there – we arrived at pretty much the point we have above, namely that no-one has (yet) put forward a clear general rule that does not refer to sources, which are divided on this issue, and which can be cherry-picked. (As an example, a rule like terms that appear consistently uncapitalized in major dictionaries should not get capitals when used as a short form for a specific institution would need a clear definition of what is meant by major dictionaries and what to do if they disagree.) The simplest and therefore best solution here is to go for maximum decapitalization – a policy I recommend but dislike. Peter coxhead (talk) 12:58, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
@SMcCandlish: @Peter coxhead: I'm not a big fan of over-capitalization, but I think it would be wise to have a style that reflects the consensus of other major style guides (so far as that exists). That will benefit encyclopedia readers through the principle of least astonishment, and editors by minimizing the frequency with which we need to get into this kind of discussion. But we may also want to emphasize simplicity. Our style already capitalizes proper nouns and lower-cases common nouns. Can we say something like:
On first reference to a specific organization or institution, generally use its full name with initial capitals, such as "San Francisco Board of Supervisors" or "the University of California". In subsequent references, if you use a shortened form in a specific sense, capitalize that also, such as "the Board of Supervisors met in closed session". Do not capitalize common nouns even when used to refer to specific organizations: "the board met in closed session", "the university has 10 campuses". Also, do not capitalize indefinite, generic and plural usage of organization names: "every county in California has a board of supervisors", "delegates from London and Cardiff universities".
That's very rough, and I'm happy for people to propose better phrasing and examples. In fact, with some time, it would probably be best to take the existing MOS:INSTITUTIONS text and tweak it appropriately. Rupert Clayton (talk) 16:41, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
@Rupert Clayton: if I understand correctly, the distinction you propose is between shortening a full name to a noun and shortening it to a noun phrase (in "a board of supervisors", "board" is just as much a common noun as is "university" in your example above). This is certainly a principle that is easy to follow, which I commend. Whether it commands consensus I'm less clear. Peter coxhead (talk) 19:52, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
The noun–noun phrase distinction would be easy to follow, but the noun phrase "city council" is shown predominantly, and maybe exclusively, in lower case in dictionaries. I would favor lower case for any possessive use of a group, as in "the city's board of supervisors voted to table the issue until 2027". As an aside, I would like to express my admiration for all the editors who have taken part in this discussion for the civility they have shown, though we have diverse and deeply held opinions of what is best for WP. I especially commend Rupert for the wicked humor used in the above table, particularly the fourth column; I honestly laughed out loud. Chris the speller yack 01:52, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Responding to four in a row: I concur with Rupert and Peter on the shortening / noun phrase matter. The entire problem is that there is no consensus among other style guides for cases like "in yesterday's [c|C]ity [c|C]ouncil vote", where the organization type is given, not its full name ("Board of Supervisors of the City and County of San Francisco") or a fairly formal geographically specific abbreviation of it ("San Francisco Board of Supervisors", "SF Board"). Mostly only journalism style guides capitalize it "City Council" by itself when standing in for such a longer more specific phrase (and never in a case like "many cities have a cronyism problem on its city council"), and it's usually only capitalized even these cases by city papers referring to the council of their own city. WP is not written in news style. When we choose between academic and journalistic style, academic wins pretty much every single time. Even aside from that, no city is WP's city; WP is the world's encyclopedia, so the the sometime rationale for journalists to capitalize "the City Council" simply cannot ever logically apply here except in a direct quotation (no, not even a close paraphrase). Like Chicago Manual of Style and Oxford/Hart's, MoS lower-cases by default, and does not capitalize unless necessary or consistently conventional to do so (see WP:BIRDCON; this was debated for eight years straight in a similar but not directly related matter, and lower-case was the consensus in a really massive and source-laden RM, closed as lower case by an admin who actually favored caps). MOS probably needs a clarification edit regarding defaulting to lower case to make it clearer that, yes, we do in fact always do so, and that a case for capitalization has to be very strong.

I agree that the increase in civility is a nice turn. So many people come to this talk page to rant, accuse, decry, and generally vent it is often among the highest-stress areas of the project for its regulars. I also concur that we don't need to define major dictionaries, since probably zero dictionaries capitalize anything like "city council". Also, we already have a very clear guideline at WP:RS that tells us what a major dictionary is just like it tells us what a major newspaper, journal, book publisher, etc. are.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  02:52, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

There seems to be an excellent case for stating as clearly as possible that the MOS default is lower case for anything other than full proper names and that the case for capitalizing any exceptions has to be very strong. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:19, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Yes, I agree. Default is a good way of putting it; so that special justification is required for such wording to be capped. Both Chicago MOS and the Oxford New Hart's Rules say to minimise capitalisation, generally. It's an increasing tendency in the language, not decreasing, so there's no point in going pointing WP backwards, either. Tony (talk) 11:14, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the thoughtful and kind comments above. I thought it might be helpful to propose revised text for MOS:INSTITUTIONS (see below). I tried to handle the areas where we all seem to agree more clarity is needed, and to reflect what seems to be majority opinion on the thornier issues. I may have some of this wrong, so please feel free to suggest changes. I think the wording could be more concise. To me the trickiest bit is short names (noun phrases used to refer to specific organizations). How do we write a style that capitalizes "the Treasury Department" but not "the glee club", and where do "the General Assembly", "the Board of Supervisors" and "the city council" fit into that?

Here's the proposal for a revision to MOS:INSTITUTIONS (changes are in purple). I am very open to discussing the exact rules we'd like to set, how to phrase them, and the choice of examples:

  • Full names of institutions, organizations, companies, etc. are proper nouns and require capitals.
Correct (proper noun): Northern Ireland's Department of Justice was established in 2010.
Correct (proper noun): The San Francisco Board of Supervisors has 11 members.
Incorrect (no caps for descriptive terms): The Parliament of Iceland is called the Althing.
Correct (descriptive): The parliament of Iceland is called the Althing.
  • Short names used to refer to a specific organization and consistently capitalized in reliable generalist sources should also be treated as a proper noun and capitalized. Use the full name instead if using a short name would lead to ambiguity, such as on first reference, or where there is another similarly named organization. Where a short term is merely descriptive, do not capitalize it.
Correct (proper nouns): The headquarters building of the U.S. Justice Department was designed by Milton Bennett Medary.
The Justice Department's budget for Fiscal Year 2015 is approximately $21 billion.
Correct (proper noun): The Board of Supervisors has 11 members.
Incorrect (ambiguous): City leaders in Milwaukee and Chicago supported the initiative. The Common Council voted 10 to 5 in favor.
Correct (use full name for clarity): City leaders in Milwaukee and Chicago supported the initiative. The Milwaukee Common Council voted 10 to 5 in favor.
Incorrect (don't capitalize descriptive terms): In Tennessee the State Legislature has the power to decide a contested gubernatorial election.
Correct (use lower case): In Tennessee the state legislature has the power to decide a contested gubernatorial election.
Correct (or the correct name): In Tennessee the General Assembly has the power to decide a contested gubernatorial election.
  • Common nouns used as short names for institutions, organizations, companies, etc. do not take capitals (university, college, hospital, high school) :
Incorrect (don't capitalize common nouns): The University offers programs in arts and sciences.
Correct (use lower case): The university offers programs in arts and sciences.
Correct (or a proper noun): The University of Delhi offers programs in arts and sciences.
Correct (common noun): The department's budget is approximately $21 billion..
Correct (common noun): The board has 11 members.
Correct (common noun): The council voted to declare February 29 a public holiday.
  • Avoid ambiguous common nouns such as "city" or "state" to indicate a governing body. Write clearly to indicate the city council, the state legislature or the state government.
  • The word the at the start of a title is uncapitalized, regardless of the institution's own usage (researchers at the Ohio State University not researchers at The Ohio State University).
  • If you are not sure whether the English translation of a foreign name is exact or not, assume it is rough and use lower case (e.g., the French parliament).
  • Political or geographical units such as cities, towns, and countries follow the same rules: As proper nouns they require capitals; but as generic words and rough descriptions (sometimes best omitted for simplicity) they do not.
Incorrect (generic): The City has a population of 55,000.
Correct (generic): The city has a population of 55,000.
Correct (title): The City of Smithville has a population of 55,000.
Correct ("city" omitted): Smithville has a population of 55,000.
Exception ("City" used as proper name for the City of London): In the medieval period, the City was the full extent of London.

Rupert Clayton (talk) 02:26, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

I was the editor being referred to previously; I want to point out that I don't want to capitalize Army when referring to any specific army, I want to capitalize it when used as a second reference or short name for the United States Army. UPI Style Book & Guide to Newswriting, page 168: "navy Capitalize when referring to U.S. forces: the U.S. Navy, the Navy, Navy policy. Do not use USN. Many nations do not use navy as a proper name. For consistency, use lowercase for all others: The Canadian navy. Exception: Capitalize Royal Navy when referring to the British navy." I think that explains it well enough. In the United States, Navy is actually used as the short proper name, similar to the example above, where "the Justice Department" is a recognized short name for the United States Department of Justice, and the live example on MOS:INSTITUTIONS, where "the State Department" is a recognized short name for the United States Department of State. In England, Royal Navy is used as a short proper name, so that should be used. For other countries, where there isn't a common usage of a short name, it should still be the navy. (If you require evidence that it is "commonly used" within the United States, I promise to produce links to literally dozens of articles and stories from general, not specialized, publications in the United States that use the Navy and the Army. The New York Times, the Washington Post, and the Associated Press all adhere to this usage.) This can be articulated as following customary practice within the United States of capitalizing short names of federal government institutions (the Navy, the Army, the Justice Department, and the State Department). Using "the navy" while allowing "the Justice Department" is migraine-inducing, when both are really derive from the same common practice. Shelbystripes (talk) 07:05, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
In addition, because Wikipedia is internationally read, I do think it would be appropriate as a policy to have these short names be used as a second reference only; e.g., the United States Army in its first appearance on a page, followed by the Army in later instances. This conforms to United States local usage while also preserving readability. Shelbystripes (talk) 07:23, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

In Rupert's proposal, I disagree with Correct (proper noun): The Board of Supervisors has 11 members. Neither "board" nor "supervisor" is a proper noun, and "board of supervisors" is not a proper name, any more than "bed of nails". Chris the speller yack 16:24, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

@Chris the speller: It seems that we're back where we started with the supervisors and their board, which is probably a good thing. I agree that "board" and "supervisor" are common nouns. San Francisco Board of Supervisors and United States Department of Justice are proper names or proper nouns, depending on your preferred term for multi-word names. And that brings us to short forms of proper names. I believe all the editors commenting here support the Justice Department and not the justice department on the grounds that this is a generally recognized short version of the proper name being used for a specific organization, and that it is not so shortened as to become a common noun (which is why we use the department and not the Department). We can either have a consistent rule, and capitalize the Board of Supervisors when used in a specific sense, or we can distinguish between organizations whose short names merit capitalization and those who don't. Those who favor the latter approach are welcome to propose a workable rule. Rupert Clayton (talk) 17:46, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
I think it's clear that the established consensus is to use the second of Rupert Clayton's rules. The suggested procedure is then to see whether major dictionaries capitalize the shortened form. So we look to see whether "board of supervisors" or "justice department" is normally capitalized as a dictionary entry, regardless of its referent. Peter coxhead (talk) 18:52, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
  • The smartest and easiest thing to do would be to take the approach of the style guide of the The Economist. Such a style does not allow for much of this debate, which serves little purpose for the encylopaedia. As is known, this style favours as little capitalisation as is necessary. Its section on the capitalisation of the names of organisations reads:

Organisations, ministries, departments, treaties, acts, etc, generally take upper case when their full name (or something pretty close to it, eg, State Department) is used. Thus, European Commission, Forestry Commission, Arab League, Amnesty International, the Scottish Parliament (the parliament), the Welsh Assembly (the assembly), the Household Cavalry, Ministry of Defence, Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs (DEFRA), Treasury, Metropolitan Police, High Court, Supreme Court, Court of Appeal, Senate, Central Committee, Politburo, Oxford University, the New York Stock Exchange, Treaty of Rome, the Health and Safety at Work Act, etc.

So too the House of Commons, House of Lords, House of Representatives, St Paul's Cathedral (the cathedral), Bank of England (the bank), Department of State (the department), World Bank (the bank). But organisations, committees, commissions, special groups, etc, that are either impermanent, ad hoc, local or relatively insignificant should be lower case. Thus: the subcommittee on journalists' rights of the National Executive Committee of the Labour Party, the international economic subcommittee of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, the Oxford University bowls club, Market Blandings rural district council.

Use lower case for rough descriptions (the safety act, the American health department, the French parliament, as distinct from its National Assembly). If you are not sure whether the English translation of a foreign name is exact or not, assume it is rough and use lower case.

I believe that this is pretty clear. This style allows for "State Department", thereafter referred to as "the department" rather than "the Department", but also notes that "local" and "relatively insignificant" bodies should be in lowercase, rendering the above mentioned example as "board of supervisors", thereafter "the board". Using a dictionary makes little sense, as dictionaries do not deal with matters of style. Functionally, this is a judgement we must make on an editorial basis, not something that can properly be done by consulting the likes of dictionaries. I would suggest that the approach of The Economist is both logical, reasonable, and consistent. RGloucester — ☎ 18:57, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

The approach taken by The Economist is generally acceptable. However, their recommendation for "the French parliament" has us hitting a snag even before we get underway: French parliament redirects to French Parliament. Is that just a bad example that we should drop or replace, or will the Wikipedia article require a move? Chris the speller yack 19:22, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
I think you have just demonstrated why the approach taken by The Economist is not acceptable. As another example, it seems that "City of Ely council" is correct, but "New York city council" is not, but how do editors of an international encyclopedia decide whether an organization is "local or relatively insignificant"? The Economist presumably has subeditors who are able to make consistent decisions; we do not, so we need much clearer rules. Peter coxhead (talk) 19:33, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
You're right; I was thinking that "relatively insignificant" was going to be the next snag. Chris the speller yack!
It is fairly obvious. The full name of the body is "New York City Council", and hence would be written as such. Indeed, this can be verified by looking at past articles, such as this one. The same would apply to "City of Ely Council". However, the full name of the French parliament is merely "Parliament" (see the French constitution), "French" being an additional descriptor, hence why it is written as "French parliament" in The Economist's style. Under these guidelines, the body should be referred to as "San Francisco Board of Supervisors", thereafter the "board of supervisors" or the "the board". Indeed, one can easily find an article that uses "San Francisco's board of supervisors". This style, with the possessive, is used to minimalise capitalisation by rendering the proper name as a descriptive. I believe this to be a good convention to follow. In the event, using an outside style guide as a basis makes life easier, in that one can search through back articles to ascertain the correct usage in the context of that style guide. RGloucester — ☎ 19:52, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
@RGloucester: but that isn't what the style guide says. It says organisations, committees, commissions, special groups, etc, that are either impermanent, ad hoc, local or relatively insignificant should be lower case, giving "Market Blandings rural district council" as an example. It doesn't say that they are capitalized when their full names are used and not otherwise – "Market Blandings rural district council" will be the full name. Peter coxhead (talk) 20:28, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
I think you've missed a bit humour on the part of the writers of the guide. There is no "Market Blandings rural district council" (and indeed no more "rural district councils")...that's a fictional entity, hence its insignificance. I was referencing: "Organisations, ministries, departments, treaties, acts, etc, generally take upper case when their full name (or something pretty close to it, eg, State Department) is used". RGloucester — ☎ 20:33, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
@RGloucester: As it happens I'm well aware of both points you make about "Market Blandings rural district council". Nor is there an "Oxford University bowls club"; these are just made-up examples (although I suppose there could have been rural district councils when the guide was first written). They don't change the clear meaning of the text. There is a "Swaffham Bulbeck parish council", and this is certainly a member of the class of organisations ... that are ... relatively insignificant and so should be styled in lower case according to The Economist. Peter coxhead (talk) 22:16, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
I'm quite aware of that. The point is that the guide does not support "New York city council" or "City of Ely council". The examples for what is "ad hoc" or "temporary" are clear, as are those for "local" or "relatively insignificant". It is quite clear that neither "New York City Council" nor "City of Ely Council" is what is meant, as is demonstrated by The Economist's usage in print. Regardless, this is not the wording that matters to me, nor the part I particularly care about in terms of our MoS. What I believe we can take from The Economist is simple:
  1. Organisations, ministries, departments, treaties, acts, etc, generally take upper case when their full name (or something pretty close to it, eg, State Department) is used. Thus, European Commission, Forestry Commission, Arab League, Amnesty International, the Scottish Parliament (the parliament), the Welsh Assembly (the assembly), the Household Cavalry, Ministry of Defence, Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs (DEFRA), Treasury, Metropolitan Police, High Court, Supreme Court, Court of Appeal, Senate, Central Committee, Politburo, Oxford University, the New York Stock Exchange, Treaty of Rome, the Health and Safety at Work Act, etc. So too the House of Commons, House of Lords, House of Representatives, St Paul's Cathedral (the cathedral), Bank of England (the bank), Department of State (the department), World Bank (the bank).
  2. Use lower case for rough descriptions (the safety act, the American health department, the French parliament, as distinct from its National Assembly). If you are not sure whether the English translation of a foreign name is exact or not, assume it is rough and use lower case.
  3. Excessive capitalisation in prose can be avoided by rendering "full names" in alternative forms, such as "San Francisco's board of supervisors" for the body properly titled "San Francisco Board of Supervisors". In addition, care should be taken avoid repeating full names. It is much better to introduce an organisation with its full name (or an alternative descriptive form), followed by a shortened form. As an example, follow "San Francisco Board of Supervisors" with "the board of supervisors" or "the board".

These seem like good guidelines for our MoS. RGloucester — ☎ 23:05, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

I think The Economist style is an interesting source of input, but a poor choice for us to base WP style on. It's quite UK-specific in its approach. Unless we take the approach of using different capitalization standards for different varieties of English (which apparently has been considered in other areas of style and rejected) adopting The Economist will generate a vast amount of resistance from non-UK editors. And even as guidance for British English style, it's too subjective. Rupert Clayton (talk) 01:55, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
(The following comment sat unposted for a while, and it appears I'm saying much the same as @Peter coxhead:) I think we'll be making a rod for our own backs if we adopt the language from The Economist without tighter wording. Specifically, the advice that organisations, committees, commissions, special groups, etc, that are either impermanent, ad hoc, local or relatively insignificant should be lower case seems much too subjective for Wikipedia. If you're paid to edit copy for a publication like The Economist it's appropriate to use your judgement as to whether an organization is "local or relatively insignificant". That's not going to work with WP editors. The current language about reliable generalist sources would be less controversial. There's also a British vs. American usage issue here. American usage is generally more enthusiastic about capitalizing organizations' short names than British usage. Articles concerning these organizations are generally quite specific to a particular geography and culture. We could follow the MOS:ENGVAR model and allow different style dependent on strong national ties and subject to consistency. If so, I think that would apply mostly in the edge cases of short names. Rupert Clayton (talk) 21:16, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
@Rupert Clayton: we are in agreement as to the subjectivity of The Economist language. As to your alternative, allowing style to vary with ENGVAR has been consistently rejected in RfCs (I have been on the losing side, so I think rejection was unfortunate). Perhaps one of the clearest examples was the defeat of the proposal to allow "TQ" (typesetters' quotation) in articles written in US English, instead requiring use of the English Wikipedia's "LQ" style for all articles, regardless of ENGVAR. So I'm doubtful that your proposal would be found acceptable. Peter coxhead (talk) 22:16, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
@Peter coxhead: It seems like we agree on all these points. While I personally prefer allowing different capitalization rules based on ENGVAR guidelines in order to sidestep difficult issues such as handling short names, it seems likely it would raise a stink among those who prefer most of WP style not to vary with ENGVAR. Instead, it's probably best to identify some rules that will deliver maximum consensus in most cases. Options for capitalization of short names used in a specific sense would seem to be:
  • Never capitalize short names, which gives us The justice department filed an appeal. US editors revolt.
  • Always capitalize short names, which gives us The Glee Club overspent on the holiday show. UK editors revolt.
  • Complete flexibility in how short names are capitalized, so long as an article treats a particular name consistently. Edit wars ensue.
  • Capitalize short names for major organizations and not for minor ones. This is position of The Economist's style guide. That advice is too subjective, but perhaps we can find more prescriptive wording.
  • Capitalize short names used in a specific sense except when the name is generally uncapitalized in reliable sources, dictionaries, etc. Some dislike the appeal to external authority, but WP:RS suggests this shouldn't be a major hurdle.
  • Lower-case short names used in a specific sense except when the name is generally capitalized in reliable sources, dictionaries, etc. This is basically the same as above but with a different burden of proof. This seems to have quite a lot of support within this discussion (such as from @SMcCandlish). It also seems to allow a limited measure of ENGVAR-awareness in that we can capitalize the Justice Department and not the unitary authority, based on usage in reliable sources.
Can we fashion something around the last option that would garner consensus? Rupert Clayton (talk) 01:55, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

I would like to propose a rule, which I put together by stealing from Rupert's impressive attempt above. This is based on my recent observation that people seem generally willing to recognize that names of territorial units or subunits are proper nouns that should be capitalized, and I think that this construct helps to distinguish between Board of Aldermen (which is a subunit of a local government) and university (which is a descriptive term for a non-governmental institution). Rather than get into whether or not University can be a proper noun, I'll just say that the policy should be to use descriptive terms outside the realm of government units or subunits. So here goes:

Unless an exception applies, only capitalize short names that uniquely identify political or geographical units such as cities, towns, and countries, or that uniquely identify the subunits of a particular political or geographical unit. Otherwise, use uncapitalized common nouns.

Short names for political or geographical units require capitals when keeping the unique name for the city, town, or country. If shortened to a generic word or rough description, the resulting short term is merely descriptive and should not be capitalized. If an article includes two or more political or geographic units with the same name, only use capitalized short names with sufficient detail to distinguish them.

Incorrect (generic): The City has a population of 55,000.
Correct (generic): The city has a population of 55,000.
Correct (title): The City of Smithville has a population of 55,000.
Correct ("city" omitted): Smithville has a population of 55,000.
Exception ("City" used as proper name for the City of London): In the medieval period, the City was the full extent of London.

Short names for subunits of political or geographic units should be capitalized if used as a uniquely identifying proper noun (the United States Department of State, the Department of State, the State Department). Use the full name instead if using a short name would lead to ambiguity, such as on first reference. Only capitalize if the short name is created by omitting the primary unit; further shortening creates a merely descriptive term which not be capitalized (the Board of Aldermen but the board). If an article discusses similar subunits of two or more political geographic units, only use short names that distinguish between each subunit (the U.S. Navy and the Royal Navy), or use uncapitalized common nouns (the Texas and Georgia legislatures). Do not capitalize short terms for organizations or institutions if they are not a subunit of a political or geographic unit; instead, use merely descriptive common nouns (University of Pennsylvania and Penn State University, but each university).

Correct (shorten by omitting a city, state, or country name): The San Francisco Board of Supervisors is the governing body of San Francisco. The Board of Supervisors has 11 members.
Incorrect (don't shorten an already short name): The San Francisco Board of Supervisors is the governing body of San Francisco. The Board has 11 members.
Correct (instead, use as a common noun): The San Francisco Board of Supervisors is the governing body of San Francisco. The board has 11 members.
Correct (full and short proper names): The United States Air Force ordered ten additional aircraft. The Air Force expects the aircraft to enter service in 2018.
Incorrect (ambiguous): City leaders in Milwaukee and Chicago supported the initiative. The Common Council voted 10 to 5 in favor.
Correct (use full name for clarity): City leaders in Milwaukee and Chicago supported the initiative. The Milwaukee Common Council voted 10 to 5 in favor.
Incorrect (don't capitalize descriptive terms): In Tennessee the State Legislature has the power to decide a contested gubernatorial election.
Correct (use lower case): In Tennessee the state legislature has the power to decide a contested gubernatorial election.
Correct (or the correct name): In Tennessee the General Assembly has the power to decide a contested gubernatorial election.

I hope this is helpful in at least nailing down the issue. Reading the various thoughts, I really do think it comes down to "nations and government entities vs. everything else". Shelbystripes (talk) 23:13, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

This is something I have to oppose, though I do thank Shelbystripes for the work put in. It is simply too confusing a guideline for such a trivial matter, and I doubt it would be able to be enforced. This is not a question about government entities or any such thing like that, but a question of whether something is a full proper name or a short proper name or a descriptive name. In the case of the Department of State, for example, there are selections of each variety available. Firstly, one can write "Department of State" (full proper). Secondly, one can write "State Department" (short proper). Thirdly, one can write "American state department", "American foreign ministry", "the department", &c (descriptive). All that needs to be done is to parse a those names that are titles from those that are descriptors. If we were to follow your proposal, we would end up with much surplus capitalisation. RGloucester — ☎ 23:21, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
It's a rule of English orthography that (most) proper names are capitalized, whether full or short, and that descriptive names are not; on that we can all agree. The key problem is to decide what counts as a proper name and what counts as a descriptive name, so to say that all that needs to be done is to parse those names that are titles [proper names] from those that are descriptors simply begs the question. It is clearly not such a trivial matter, since capitalization regularly causes disputes among editors. Shelbystripes's draft should be given serious consideration. Peter coxhead (talk) 01:54, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
As for what's a proper name and what's not, I was using The Economist's definition, which is a "full name" in the sense of an "official" name. That's narrower than most people's definition, but an easy one to distinguish. If we simply made the prescription "official long and short names of organisations are capitalised", whilst everything else isn't, that'd make sense to me.
The reason that Shelbystripes's proposal is no good is that it forces the capitalisation of the likes of "City of so and so" even when "City of so and so" is not a proper name. This is not something I can support, and doesn't make much sense. Tying when to capitalise a phrase like "city council" to whether a place name is included before that phrase seems very strange to me. That's exactly the type of thing that will confuse editors into capitalising "the University" and the like. RGloucester — ☎ 02:05, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
I'm good with Shelbystripes's version. It does not 'force ... the capitalisation of the likes of "City of so and so"'; the second and seventh examples would prevent this, except when the actual governmental entity is being referred to, and "the City of [Whatever]" is actually its official name. If one referred to the city of San Francisco, it would be written "the city of San Francisco". If one is referring to the governmental entity, it's "the City and County of San Francisco" (they're a merged, unitary government). Where there's not such a circumstance, one would write "the city of Fooville has had a growing traffic problem since 2014" (a generic reference to the location), but "The City of Fooville lost $57 million in taxes due to a loophole in 2014", when referring to the governmental unit (the geographical area does not have a bank account, so it could not have lost money). If you're referring to aggregate citizenry of the area, it's a common noun: "the storms cost the city of Fooville an estimated $20 million in property damages, business closures, and lost productivity for area workers". This is completely normal in English.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  02:15, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
"Short names for political or geographical units require capitals when keeping the unique name for the city, town, or country" seems to imply that "city of York" must be capitalised. However, when it is capitalised, it refers to a larger area than the city proper, i.e. the "City of York" unitary authority area, that is, the area governed by "City of York Council". To me, this is confusing. This could be solved by removing the "geographical", and leaving this prescription for political units only. RGloucester — ☎ 02:24, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
I am becoming more averse to capitalizing "board of xxxx", where xxxx is any common noun, such as regents, directors, trustees, supervisors, or aldermen. The sentence "The university's president sent a letter to the board of trustees explaining that ..." already has enough capitalization with the word that begins the sentence. Same for "The mayor sent a letter to the board of supervisors explaining that ...". Of course, the gold letters on the door of the meeting room will say "Board of Trustees" or "Board of Supervisors", but just seeing it in upper case on letterhead or many other situations doesn't mean that an encyclopedia needs to capitalize it in all cases. Chris the speller yack 02:30, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
In this instance, neither "university" or "board of trustees" would be capitalized because they are not related to a political or geographical unit or subunit. Universities are not branches of the government. I agree with you, Chris the speller, except when "board of" is a governing body, which is the case with "San Francisco Board of Supervisors". I think that's the important distinction. Based on this and the feedback of RGloucester above, I've tried to refine this to "political territories" (see below), and the subunits rule would then apply to subunits of political territories. If you have a better idea for how to draw the defining line, I'd appreciate your help. Shelbystripes (talk) 17:44, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
I agree with RGloucester on this. I suppose it would be much clearer to say something like, "Short names for political territories (such as a city, state, or countries) require capitals when keeping the unique name for the political territory." The intent is not to capitalize "city of" if you're just using "city of" as descriptive. It would only be capitalized if "City of York" is the full proper name, in which case this short-names rule wouldn't apply because it's not a short name, it's the full proper name. The distinguishing factor is meant to be between shortening to "city" or shortening to "York"; if you shorten to "city" it's descriptive, if you shorten to "York" it's a short proper name. I really think there is a rule here that can be clearly articulated, and I'd appreciate anyone else's help in refining it to make it more universally acceptable. Shelbystripes (talk) 17:44, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

I made a table to try to illustrate the concept more clearly. Note that while the table has four rows, there are really only three rules presented here (the top two columns have the same short name rules).

Body Examples (full names) Short name rule Examples of capitalized short names Examples of uncapitalized descriptive terms Commentary
Political territory United States of America
Commonwealth of Kentucky
 Capitalize short terms that retain the unique quality of the name United States, U.S.
Kentucky
 nation, country
commonwealth, state
 Note that while United States is uniquely used for the United States of America, commonwealth is descriptive of political territories and is not unique to Kentucky
Other top-level organizations University of Texas at Austin
University of Pennsylvania
 Same rule as above
 UT Austin, UT
Penn
 university
 Same rule as above; university is descriptive and is not unique to either university
Subunits of political territories United States Department of Justice, a/k/a United States Justice Department
Kentucky General Assembly
 A short name which only omits or abbreviates the political territory name is capitalized U.S. Department of Justice
Justice Department
General Assembly
 department
assembly, legislature, state legislature 		The word assembly is merely descriptive because it omits more than Kentucky from the full name
The phrase state legislature is merely descriptive because is not part of the full name
Subunits of other organizations Board of Regents of the University of Texas Do not use capitalized short names None board of regents, board, regents
 Because this is not a subunit of a political territory, the policy will be to only use descriptive common nouns

Shelbystripes (talk) 19:11, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

In this formulation, would Security Council be capitalized? My feeling is that it should be capitalized, but I don't have a strong argument for why. If we consider the United Nations to be equivalent to a political territory, then it would be capitalized as a subunit of a political territory. Pburka (talk) 20:21, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
As I understand it, one would write "U.N. Security Council", but "the security council". I agree with said styling. RGloucester — ☎ 20:25, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
It looks like we're starting to get somewhere, but I don't see why subunits of political territories have a higher claim to capitalization than subunits of other organizations. A board of directors for sewage in Eulalia Township, Potter County, Pennsylvania (population 941) gets capitals, but not the board of overseers of Harvard University (academic staff 4,671 plus 21,000 students)? I think lowercase is fine for both. But if we go with the proposal above, then "Short names for political territories (such as a city, state, or countries) require capitals when keeping the unique name for the political territory." would be better as "Short names for political territories (such as municipalities, counties, states, and countries) require ..." Chris the speller yack 23:09, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
The problem is, I don't think lowercase is fine for government institutions because of how commonly a short proper name is created and used by omitting the territory name. "Department of Justice" is used regularly as a short proper name for the United States Department of Justice, and I want to avoid an absurd result where Wikipedia says "department of justice" when literally no one writes it that way in generalist news articles or magazines. Shelbystripes (talk) 17:16, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Generally the tendency in English is to downcase. Both the Chicago Manual of Style and Oxford's New Hart's Rules say to minimise capping. I'm not sure now is the time to start fine-graining legislation to the enth degree. Where would it end? Tony (talk) 01:28, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
Yes, the general trend is against capitalization, and this doesn't change that, it says to use common nouns in most cases. It's making an exception for short proper names of government agencies, which are almost universally recognized as shortened but proper names and capitalized in real world generalist usage (for example, in the New York Times, Washington Post, AP Stylebook, and the UPI Style Book). This isn't just limited territorially to the U.S.; even the BBC uses "Justice Department" as a proper name for the U.S. Department of Justice. Not only that, this reflects consistent current usage on Wikipedia itself. If you view any government agency page (for example, United States Department of Justice), you will see short proper names such as "Department of Justice", "Department of the Treasury" and "Department of Homeland Security" used consistently throughout. You would need to rewrite every page describing a government agency just to downcase to "department of justice" and "department of homeland security", which would then be inconsistent with ordinary usage by the general public. I'm trying to propose a rule that doesn't do substantial violence to Wikipedia as it exists today. Pages like The University of Texas at Austin already use the common noun university, while government agency or branch pages use short proper names, and this is consistent with usage by the general public. If we can have a rule that reflects ordinary usage, shouldn't we do that? Shelbystripes (talk) 17:16, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
Also, the Chicago Manual of Style isn't even consistent in this regard. It permits "the Coast Guard" for "United States Coast Guard", but not "the Army" for "United States Army". Not only that, it says that the Coast Guard is distinguished as being a unique subbranch of the US armed forces, but so is the Army when used in context. I'm proposing a rule that offers more consistency across government branches; if 1) it's clear from context that it's referring to a government branch, and 2) you arrived at the short proper name by omitting the government/territory name (e.g., "United States"), then you can capitalize it. Otherwise, don't. Shelbystripes (talk) 17:24, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
@Shelbystripes: That last paragraph says to capitalize "the Army" when you arrived at the short proper name by omitting the government/territory name (e.g., "United States"), even though Chicago Manual of Style says not to. So, you are advocating "Barnes was born in Boston, Massachusetts. He entered the Army in 1965 ..."? If so, perhaps you could provide an example of where "the army" should be in lower case. Above you said "I don't want to capitalize Army when referring to any specific army", so I assume you recommend "Webber was born in Winnipeg, Manitoba. He entered the army in 1965 ..."? This seems to be a very US-centered view. Chris the speller yack 15:11, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Gender identity: subsidiary articles

Thread retitled from "Clarify what this means??".

References to the person in other articles: context decides on what action to take, defaulting to the identity as defined for the main biography if the context gives no clear indication which should be preferable. Generally it is unnecessary to go in detail over name and/or gender identity changes, unless these are relevant to the article where the name of the person is inserted.

For clarification, I believe this means a trans woman should be referred to as if she were a cisgender man in an article where events specific to believing she was a man at that time are mentioned. For example, the Caitlyn Jenner article should treat Jenner like a woman (she should be referred to as she/her throughout the article,) but the 1976 Summer Olympics article (and articles that refer to her as an Olympic participant) should treat Jenner as if she were a cisgender man named Bruce because she played in men's sports. Any corrections on what this new paragraph means?? Georgia guy (talk) 19:01, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

I am revising the heading of this section from Clarify what this means?? to Gender identity: subsidiary articles, in harmony with WP:TPOC, point 11 (Section headings). Please see Microcontent: How to Write Headlines, Page Titles, and Subject Lines. The new heading facilitates recognition of the topic in links and watchlists and tables of contents, and it facilitates maintenance of Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Register.
—Wavelength (talk) 20:38, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
The VPP thread addressing that issue was just closed today. Gimme a minute to read it and we'll work something out. Darkfrog24 (talk) 23:19, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
I recommend that we place the following in the MoS and relevant sub-pages:
Generally it is unnecessary to go in detail over changes in name or gender presentation unless these are relevant to the passage in which the person is mentioned. Consider the context created by the article in question and the principle of least astonishment, and refer to a transgender individual either solely by the current name or by both names if appropriate or necessary to avoid confusion. EXAMPLE: If the article is about men's sports, say "Bruce Jenner (later Caitlyn Jenner) competed in the Olympics in 1976." If the article is about films in general, say "Lana Wachowski helped create The Matrix." If the article is about gender in film, say, "Lana Wachowski, credited as Larry Wachowski, helped create The Matrix.
I feel this text reflects the findings of the RfC reasonably well. For example, the RfC pretty clearly rejected using the previous name alone, and these examples (which can be formatted as needed) provide two different ways of referring to a previous or subsequent name. Darkfrog24 (talk) 23:25, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
For the WT:MOS archives, here is a permanent link to that WP:VPP discussion.
—Wavelength (talk) 02:55, 8 December 2015 (UTC) and 03:24, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
Francis S objected to the text above, so I've tried this: Generally it is unnecessary to go in detail over changes in name or gender presentation unless these are relevant to the passage in which the person is mentioned. If the article refers to a period after the person's gender transition, use the current name and identity. If the article refers to a period before transition, consider the context created by the article in question—both content and text layout—and the principle of least astonishment. In most cases use either solely the current name or both names if appropriate or necessary to avoid confusion. For example, if the article is about men's sports, say something like "Bruce Jenner (later Caitlyn Jenner) competed in the Olympics in 1976." If the article is about films in general, say "Lana Wachowski helped create The Matrix." If Wachowski's previous name is relevant, say, "Lana Wachowski, credited as Larry Wachowski, helped create The Matrix. Darkfrog24 (talk) 17:14, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Jenner is a contentious example (editors don't agree on this example by far – leave alone that some consensus would have developed: didn't happen), so Jenner can not in any way or format be used as an example in guidance. --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:18, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

That's easy enough to fix. Generally it is unnecessary to go in detail over changes in name or gender presentation unless these are relevant to the passage in which the person is mentioned. Consider the context created by the article in question—both content and text layout—and the principle of least astonishment. Usually, it will be best to use solely the current name or both names if appropriate or necessary to avoid confusion. For example, if the article is about films in general, consider "Lana Wachowski wrote the script for her film in 1994." If Wachowski's previous name is relevant, consider, "Lana Wachowski, credited as Larry Wachowski, wrote the script for her film in 1994" or "Larry Wachowski (later Lana Wachowski) wrote the script for the film in 1994." I feel it's important to give more than one format. Otherwise, people might think that one way or the other is required in all cases. Darkfrog24 (talk) 17:27, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose, not representing the outcome of the recent RfC, but just a rehash of the proposer's solution before we went to the RfC (for clarity: the outcome of the RfC did not show any consensus for that proposal). --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:42, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
Actually, if by "my proposal" you mean "both if relevant," that was the option that got the plurality of favorable comments, but no the text proposed here is not a rehash of that or anything. It's a mashup of the two options that included context, per the closer's instructions. Specifically, it's a combination of your "Other1" proposal with the "both if relevant." It also includes instructions not to use the previous name alone, also per the closer: The overall consensus here seems to be in favour of using context to decide on what action to take, once second choice votes are taken into account. Throughout, there seems confusion over what to do when, and this seems like the most inclusive close taking accounts of all the opinions raised and No consensus to implement [ALWAYS PREVIOUS ONLY], leaning towards oppose. The oppose votes linking practical issues to this option are higher weighting to me.
We're going to have to translate that into actual useful MoS instructions, and the text you added doesn't do this. But does seeing the rest of the closer's text give you any good ideas? Darkfrog24 (talk) 18:45, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Here's my next attempt to translate the closure text into MoS text: Generally do not go into detail over changes in name or gender presentation unless they are relevant to the passage in which the person is mentioned. Use context and the principle of least astonishment to determine whether to use the current name alone or both names. Only very rarely will it be appropriate to use the previous name alone. For example, if the article is about films in general, consider "Lana Wachowski wrote the script in 1994." If Wachowski's previous name is relevant, consider, "Lana Wachowski, credited as Larry Wachowski, wrote the script in 1994" or "Larry Wachowski (later Lana Wachowski) wrote the script in 1994." Context gets top billing? Check. Always previous only rejected? Check. Vague enough to encompass the confusion noted by the closer? Check. Still provides useful examples? Check. The imperative mood ("do this" vs "this is true") is my doing. Darkfrog24 (talk) 20:39, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

  • Oppose, just someone continuing to push their own preferences against the RfC outcome. IMHO the only part useable (as direct guideline expression) from the closer's comment is "...using context to decide on what action to take..." So here's what'll have to do (as there is no agreement on any other stuff):
Referring to the person in other articles
The context is used to decide on what action to take.
Sorry if that's unclear as to what it means, but that's what the community decided, nothing else, so please stop trying to fill this in with additional comments from your perspective. --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:22, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
No, Francis, that is not what the community decided, not what the closer said, and not useful as MoS text. As for which parts of the RfC close are usable, the "Generally..." statement was a part of every option offered except Other 2 and there was no objection to it to speak of. Safe to say it's in. The closer did a separate close specifically to address the ALWAYS PREVIOUS subsection, so that decision is usable as well. Let's try this again:

Generally do not go into detail over changes in name or gender presentation unless they are relevant to the passage in which the person is mentioned. Use context and the principle of least astonishment to determine which name or names to provide. Only very rarely will it be appropriate to use the previous name alone. The MoS does not have specific rules stipulating which name to use first or how that name should be given. For example, in an article in which Lana Wachowski's previous name is relevant, both "Lana Wachowski, credited as Larry Wachowski, wrote the script in 1994" and "Larry Wachowski (later Lana Wachowski) wrote the script in 1994" and other formats are allowed.

The point of these examples is to give the reader ideas, not to imply that these are the only acceptable ways to get the job done, so we can of course just say so straight out. Darkfrog24 (talk) 18:54, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
It's been two days, so I'm putting up the text and updating MoS:REGISTER. Comments on the wording there are also appropriate. Darkfrog24 (talk) 03:30, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
Sorry about that, you're still pushing to get your preferred "ideas" in the guidance. These ideas have however no consensus. That should've been clear by now. --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:47, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
Francis, if you apply the same standards, your version doesn't have consensus either. You are currently the only person who is supporting your interpretation of the close. The thing to do is to engage on the talk page and encourage more people besides the two of us to participate. For now, I will put the placeholder back. Darkfrog24 (talk) 12:48, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
You had your chances, the RfC outcome is as it is, that's the consensus for now. Never said you couldn't try to find a new consensus per WP:CCC. What you can't do is take the guideline hostage until a new consensus develops. Until then (if ever): the current consensus goes in the guideline, period. Your antics have taken quite long enough. --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:08, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
Francis, what you need to recognize here is that you are interpreting the RfC; you are pushing your own ideas. The text that I offered does reflect the findings of the RfC—or at least that's how I see it. You are allowed to have an opinion of your own, but you're not allowed to act like that opinion is any better than anyone else's. We need to bring in more people. There are plenty of regulars on this talk page who like a minimalist approach, so don't feel that this means your version is necessarily out. Darkfrog24 (talk) 23:03, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

What I believe I meant in the close was that there should be no hard rules made for this situation - instead, the consensus seems to point towards leaving it vague and letting it be decided and sorted on a per-article basis. Mdann52 (talk) 19:15, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Mdann52. I'd say both versions that have been offered are sufficiently vague and both establish that users have a lot of freedom. I guess it's a question of taste and functionality.
...so I'm pinging everyone who's been active in this thread and on WT:MOS in the past few days so we can get more than two voices. @Chris the speller:@Rupert Clayton: @Peter coxhead:@Georgia guy: @Kashmiri: @Francis Schonken: @SMcCandlish: @Tony1: @Wavelength: @Hullaballoo Wolfowitz: Guys, we've got two versions of MoS content on offer. Both are interpretations of the closure of this RfC about transgender individuals. The closer actually provided two explanatory texts, one on the overall proposal [1] and one on a specific rule requiring that the previous name be used in all cases [2]:
Interpretation #1: The context is used to decide on what action to take (see [link to] RfC outcome).
Interpretation #2: Generally do not go into detail over changes in name or gender presentation unless they are relevant to the passage in which the person is mentioned. Use context and the principle of least astonishment to determine which name or names to provide. Only very rarely will it be appropriate to use the previous name alone. The MoS does not have specific rules stipulating which name to use first or how that name should be given. For example, in an article in which Lana Wachowski's previous name is relevant, both "Lana Wachowski, credited as Larry Wachowski, wrote the script in 1994" and "Larry Wachowski (later Lana Wachowski) wrote the script in 1994" and other formats are allowed.
Does the longer version earn the space it would take up? Is the shorter version clear enough? Which, if either of these texts should we include in the MoS and how could either of them be improved upon? Darkfrog24 (talk) 23:03, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
Regardless of interpretation, there needs to be a good example of when this means a transgender person should be referred to by their gender of rearing. Georgia guy (talk) 23:06, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
My take on that is that the RfC did not answer that question for us, so the MoS should not take a position on that issue for now. Right now, we need to decide how to take what the RfC did give us, 1) use context, 2) "always previous" is out, 3) no objection to the "Generally..." line (which matches good third-party sources), and turn it into WT:MoS-style instructions. Darkfrog24 (talk) 23:08, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
@Darkfrog24: I agree that the RfC does not allow us to give a "good example". While I have great sympathy for the aim of putting something clearer in the MoS, given that the consensus seems to point towards leaving it vague and letting it be decided and sorted on a per-article basis, I don't think it can be done at present. Peter coxhead (talk) 01:42, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
@Peter coxhead: I wouldn't ask, but it seems necessary: Are you saying that the examples in the second phrasing should be removed, that you specifically prefer the first phrasing, or that we just shouldn't add an example meant to show when to use the gender of rearing? (The examples in the second phrasing are meant as suggestions for presentation, not content which is why they describe the exact same situation, but if they look like they're meant to indicate when to say "Larry" instead of "Lana," then they must go.) Darkfrog24 (talk) 02:45, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
@Darkfrog24: Yes, I think the examples do look as though they are meant to indicate when to use one name rather than another, and this is precisely what we seem to agree the RfC failed to clarify. Beyond that I agree with SMcCandlish's comments below. Peter coxhead (talk) 03:07, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
Concur. As badly as I want to see this settled and clarified once and for all, it simply won't happen if we try to impose something not supported by the latest RfC round. It'll simply cause another mile-long dispute. Better to work in what consensus did call for, and revisit the matter in a year or so, after it's had time to have an effect. It may be enough to resolve all the issues; if not, at least it'll be a narrower issue or subset of issues to resolve.   SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  02:41, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
Both parties agree that the wording should reflect the consensus established in the RfC. The disagreement is over how to word that consensus. Darkfrog24 (talk) 02:47, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
I know. I'm adding concurrence that 'the RfC does not allow us to give a "good example"', and encouraging a focus on implementing something that should have enough of a positive effect that it reduces and narrows the problems (i.e., fix something really well instead of try poorly to fix too many things at once). Sorry I wasn't clearer the first time around (just had a really good date, so maybe I'm having a temporary WP:COMPETENCE problem with my mind not entirely on what I'm saying here. >;-)  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  02:54, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
Heh heh. Best reason I've heard around here. Darkfrog24 (talk) 03:02, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Now that I think of it, the bit about "principle of least astonishment" could probably come out. I put that in when I thought the closer was indicating OTHER(1), and that was part of its text. Darkfrog24 (talk) 03:08, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Something like the longer version is needed. Even if we went with the short version, there is no need whatsoever for some "(see [link to] RfC outcome)" insertion. It's completely abnormal to try to "source the guideline" in this way. All it does is lead to increases in disputes. If we have consensus, record the consensus and move on. If someone wants to challenge the consensus, they can do the archives research to mount a challenge and mount it. By linking to a single specific discussion (which was only one among many) we're directly inviting conflict by implying that only one discussion ever happened, and that anyone who doesn't think it was enough of one should rise up in arms immediately to renew the fight. A second and just as bad an effect is it encourages wikiproject "claim-staking" (see, for example, similar extraneous annotations injected by participants in the WP:CLASSICAL project into the wording of WP:AT policy, directly implying that this wikiproject not only gets to make up its own WP:LOCALCONSENSUS rules, its gets to dictate them at a policy level. Well, no. Enough, enough, enough. We have to stop setting up MOS, AT and other WP:POLICY pages for continual WP:BATTLEGROUNDing, of either variety.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  03:17, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
@SMcCandlish: you've been perfectly unclear with your last series of edits to this page. See WP:REDACT if you want to modify your own comments, and please avoid deleting replies by others.
A "we agree to disagree" guideline is never the preferred solution, but neither is it "abnormal" – in fact with your disagreeing with yourself (first posting comments, then modifying them into something different) you seem to be steering for that solution. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:32, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
If I clobbered a reply by someone that was purely accidental. I never remove comments by anyone unless it's vandalism. I never suggested a "we agree to disagree" guideline, whatever that means. There is no suggestion anywhere in WP:POLICY (that page or the policies and guidelines to which it refers) suggesting that what we advise in policies and guidelines should be "cited", line-item by line-item, to specific recent-ish discussions. It's an unbelievably terrible idea. If I appear to have changed my mind on something regarding this, you're probably misreading me, but I reserve the right to do that anyway, per Emerson. (His "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds ..." quotation is often misquoted, especially in MoS debates, as if it refers to being consistent in how one writes; it's not, and is about refusal to adapt one's stance in light of new facts or changing circumstances, and is worth reading in it's longer form. [3]) — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  21:41, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

The guidance could be very simple:

  • Standard solution: current identity;
  • When the context of the article where the person is mentioned outside the main biography makes using the current identity seem odd, the identity as at the time of the described events may be in order;
  • Sometimes the context mandates that both the current identity and the identity at the time of the described event are mentioned, in order to avoid confusion, but generally it is unnecessary to go in detail over name and/or gender identity changes in subsidiary articles, and also, like the previous one, this is not a standard solution.
  • What the context mandates or doesn't mandate, including, if the third scenario is chosen, in what order both names are mentioned, is decided in a case-by-case scenario, applying a WP:CONSENSUS approach.

--Francis Schonken (talk) 07:32, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Works for me. I'm skeptical this will satisfy everyone, but it should "funnel" the objections in a manner that makes any future RfC better able to address them. The main problem with this four point summary is that it still makes no mention of pronouns, and most of the disputes arise over pronouns.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  21:41, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
Regardless of whether Francis S's system is good or bad, it's not what was found in the RfC. I see it this way: 1) The closer found that context/relevance should be listed as the most important factor. 2) That rule should be vague enough to give people freedom. 3) "Always previous only" was specifically rejected. 4) Because the "generally..." line was in all the major options and no one objected to it, it is okay for inclusion. "Use the current identity as a default" is good but it isn't one of the findings of the RfC. Also, the wording could be a lot smoother and more concise, but that's an easy fix for after we've worked out the particulars. Darkfrog24 (talk) 04:34, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
Indeed, "The context is used to decide on what action to take" is all we could agree upon.
Translating "not always previous only" into "never previous only" is a logical fault, not found in the RfC, nor in the closer's comments – that's an important flaw of all of your proposals: it was your preference all along, however nowhere confirmed by consensus.
So it is about time to put all we could agree upon in the guideline, which can be expanded and/or modified with whatever examples or explanations that can find consensus. The "The context is used to decide on what action to take" is as such uncontested as RfC outcome, so no reason to delete any of it. I'd keep the link to the RfC too for the time being, editors seeking guidance can draw their own conclusion based on that, as it seems thus far impossible to find any other consensus summary than "The context is used to decide on what action to take", which is without discussion a summary of the closer's comments (at least the full extent of practical guidance contained in it). --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:07, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
Strictly speaking, we don't agree on that, Francis. "The context is used" is not a summary of the closer's comments; it's an assertion of fact, and in this case it isn't true. We are not describing what happens; we are not giving the results of our observations; we are providing instructions, and we should do so clearly: "Do this. Use context. Don't use the previous name alone. Don't go into detail unless it's relevant." We also disagree about the specific of the finding of the RfC, but to be perfectly frank, your phrasing is awkward as heck.
The big blockage here, Francis, is that you seem to think "all we can agree on" is "whatever Francis wants unless there's a reason not to; Francis's version is the default and tiebreaker," and that's not so. You've complained that I don't get to arbitrarily put my own interpretation into the MoS. That's entirely correct. The part you seem to be missing is that neither do you. You've got to work with people. Of course you think that your wording is best. If you didn't, you'd have a different one. But you have to understand that that's how I see my version as well. That's why we need to ask more people and see what they think. Darkfrog24 (talk) 12:31, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
Re "providing instructions" – actually no, Wikipedia guidance doesn't always provide instructions in this sense. Now I could long and broad explain my guideline-writing experience that makes that obvious. I don't think that is necessary here. We're simply end of the road. Currently there is no "instruction" on how to refer to transgender individuals outside their main biography to be found in Wikipedia guidance. That doesn't seem to be a particularily problematic situation: hundreds of pages that may be affected by such guidance have been written without it. I had a look at United States v. Manning this morning: at least for that article nothing showing that such guidance is missed by whatever editor. A single exceptionally problematic case has been settled by RfC months ago. So that'll probably be the status quo for the forseeable future. Let that not stop you from trying to find consensus on whatever guideline formulation you think worth the effort! When the debate is interesting I might even participate. --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:02, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Based on the input that we've had from comments offered here: A) The examples, though not meant as instructions, look too much like instructions, so they should be omitted. B) It would be great if we could tell people when to use which name, but that's not what the RfC accomplished for us. C) We do need something more informative than "the context is used." Here's my next take on this: Generally do not go into detail over changes in name or gender presentation unless they are relevant to the passage in which the person is mentioned. Use context to determine which name or names to provide. The MoS does not have specific rules stipulating when to give both names, which name to use first, or how that name should be written, but only very rarely will it be appropriate to use the individual's previous name without also listing the current name. Darkfrog24 (talk) 15:41, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

  • Better, but still oppose. It could be OK when replacing the last comma by a period, and omitting what comes after that. --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:49, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
Just in case this is what's causing the conflict over not using the previous name alone, you have seen this, right? [4] Darkfrog24 (talk) 16:45, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
The "result" of the RfC was no support for any "rule" other than "use context". So where does only very rarely come from? Francis is surely right to say that the last clause should be omitted. The MoS does not, at present, have specific rules, period. Peter coxhead (talk) 20:49, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
"Only very rarely" comes from this [5]. Mdann wrote two closure texts, one for the overall RfC and one for the idea of using the previous name alone. "Only very rarely" is how I'd sum this up, but how would you do it? Darkfrog24 (talk) 21:39, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Would anyone mind if I requested dispute resolution or called in 3O? All we really need is for a neutral third party to come in and look at the suggestions and either pick one out or create a mashup. Francis and I are both elbow-deep in this. Maybe some perspective would help. Darkfrog24 (talk) 21:14, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Well, my attempts to recruit an outside party formally at 3O and mediation have fallen through. Would anyone here other than Francis S or myself like to suggest a version of the text for the MoS? Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:58, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
So far, Francis and myself have supplied all the suggested texts. Maybe a third person should give it a whirl. If no one does (or objects here) in 24 hours, I'll put this up tomorrow:
Generally do not go into detail over changes in name or gender presentation unless they are relevant to the passage in which the person is mentioned. Use context to determine which name or names to provide. The MoS does not have specific rules stipulating when to give both names, which name to use first, or how that name should be written. Although there is a slight consensus against using the individual's previous name without also listing the current name, there may still be some cases in which it is appropriate to do so. Darkfrog24 (talk) 18:24, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
Have you considered the option of having "no text at all"... intentionally not discussing the issue in the MOS - at all.
An MOS may not be the best venue for dealing with the many issues related to gender identity. So much is often subject specific... and does not lend itself to a "one-size-fits-all" style guide. A "rule" that works to resolve disputes in one article, may end up causing disputes in another article. The issue may be best dealt with by allowing editors to use common sense... on a case-by-case / article-by-article basis. Intentionally allow inconsistency. That would be my choice. Blueboar (talk) 19:02, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
You're right about that, Blueboar, but we did have a whole RfC, and that RfC did produce a result, so we probably shouldn't keep that result out of the MoS just because we're having a tough time agreeing. If it makes you feel any better, the results were "Use context to determine what to do," which means the same thing as "evaluate it on a case-by-case basis."
Now that you bring it up... Generally do not go into detail over changes in name or gender presentation unless they are relevant to the passage in which the person is mentioned. Use context to determine which name or names to provide on a case-by-case basis. The MoS does not have specific rules stipulating when to give both names, which name to use first, or how that name should be written. Although there is a slight consensus against using the individual's previous name without also listing the current name, there may still be some cases in which it is appropriate to do so. Darkfrog24 (talk) 22:41, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
  • OK, except for the last sentence which has not consensus. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:34, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Agreed. (Saying there's a slight consensus in favour of a particular rule looks like trying to smuggle in a rule by the back door when it's just been said that there are no specific rules.) Peter coxhead (talk) 13:34, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
Then suggest a wording that indicates the closer's findings regarding ALWAYS PREVIOUS ONLY. The text shouldn't be misleading but it shouldn't be left out either. Darkfrog24 (talk) 14:13, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

What gained consensus was to use whatever name is (or whatever names are) deemed appropriate... based on context. That means a) sometimes we should use the previous name alone, b) at other times we should use both, and c) at still other times we should use the new name alone. What did not gain consensus was any sort of "ALWAYS" rule. Nor did we reach a clear consensus defining which contexts are associated with which option. Blueboar (talk) 16:24, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

To the best of my understanding, BB, the wording I've offered reflects all of that. That's why I worded it that way. I think we'd make progress if someone other than Francis and myself suggested a wording. Darkfrog24 (talk) 17:41, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
I'll go with Peter and Francis on this, and agree with Darkfrog24's first two sentences, but drop the third. While maybe we can detect a "slight consensus" (is there really such a thing?) in the direction of the third sentence, this doesn't mean we can write it in a satisfactory way or that we're obligated to try. It's perfectly reasonable to punt this for further discussion, and this seems to be an issue area that the whole WP community wants to hash out at VP, so let them do with with "RfC #5 on this topic in the same year" if that's what it takes. Analogy: If you don't know what you want a law to do, don't ask Congress/Parliament to pass one, or you'll get something that makes no one happy and which serves no actual goal. In this case, there's no point in a pseudo-rule that "there may still be some cases in which it is appropriate to ... us[e] the individual's previous name without also listing the current name". By never mentioning this, the possibility still exists, but we do not encourage it, and thus do not encourage additional disputes, in which both sides would cite the guideline as if it backed their position, while it really was neutral.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  10:27, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Mdann52's 2nd close, at "Always previous only" [6] simply says there's no consensus for it, that it was leaning "oppose" and that the opposers have better rationales. It doesn't say anything at all like "there's a slight consensus for ...", or "only very rarely do ..." anything. I don't think we should extrapolate very much from that beyond "there is no consensus for 'always previous only'". It doesn't actually say anything about the commonness or rarity of use of the previous name. The one clearest result of all is that "always current only" totally failed, with only a single supporter, despite that being quite a rallying cry about a year ago. I.e., consensus very, very clearly has formed against that idea. This means that the notion that there's a slight consensus in favor of defaulting to the current name and that ever using the former name alone would be "rare" are both very dubious assumptions. "Both if relevant" and "depends on context" (which are really the same thing) was the landslide victor among the proposals (and more or less tied if you want to consider them separate proposals), with "always both" a distant second; "always previous only" had oppose/support for it cancel each other out, and the other two variants garnered only a single support each (and one an oppose), so they can be ignored.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  10:57, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

  • FYI: See Talk:Elagabalus#RfC: Should the subject's gender be changed, or is this presentism? and the thread immediately below it for further confusion/fallout. Despite the presently fairly clear wording at MOS:IDENTITY, people still are not getting it, and are mis-citing the guideline to support claims like "pronouns used by historians or in historical documents may NOT be given any weight", despite the guideline saying exactly the opposite. I think some of this could be ameliorated by changing "Any person whose gender might be questioned" to "Any person of the late 20th century or later whose gender might be questioned" (i.e. bio subjects who post-date the invention of the "gender identity" and "transgender" concepts). Nothing in that segment can possibly apply to historical figures, absent the unlikely event of discovery of heretofore-unknown documents written in the subject's own hand proclaiming a gender identity at odds with their biological sex (and those being the last known writings by the subject to address their own self-perception). Something is short-circuiting some editors' parsing of this section to imply something like "as soon as some gender-studies journal publishes an article suggesting a figure like Elagabalus was transgendered in some sense, WP must call them that, and stop using gendered pronouns, or switch to use those preferred in such papers simply because they're newer." It doesn't make sense, but it's clearly happening.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  10:30, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
But gender identity wasn't invented in the 20th century. It was always there; people merely came up with a new name for it. It sounds as though you think gender identity is something like recovered memories, where it turned out there were no cases of adults recovering long-lost memories of traumatic events until the 1800s when novelists started using it as a plot device, and later studies showed that recovered memories weren't real. I certainly wouldn't say that's clearly happening. I wouldn't say we should make that claim about gender identity until after the idea is confirmed in reliable sources. Has it even been proposed in any reliable source? Darkfrog24 (talk) 11:37, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
If we're actually going to discuss this issue, we should probably acknowledge that women have a long pre-20th history of dressing and comporting themselves as men, but it's hard to separate the actual trans men from women who wanted to vote, own property, serve in the military, open bank accounts or enter the trades and professions. There are probably also trans women who did not publicly transition because they would have lost all these rights. Of women who disguised themselves as men during the American Civil War, there were a few who lived as men and who successfully remained undiscovered until old age. Darkfrog24 (talk) 13:48, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
I never said anything about "recovered memories", and made no such comparison. The issue is that the entire notion of conceptualizing something we call "gender identity" is a new, Western, and politicized one, which cannot be back-projected (in Wikipedia's voice) onto historical figures, even if we think, in our current, culturally-determined worldview, that they had something we'd like to define as a gender identity at odds with their biological sex or their culturally-assigned gender roles, however people (including the subject) might have felt about it at the time, which is something we can never know, short of a time machine. No matter how "true" such a notion seems to people in the liberal, urban West in 2015, such notions are extremely subjective. Even as recently as a single generation ago, the majority of the lesbian and gay activism community (i.e. that apt to be most sympathetic to the idea) were convinced that bisexuality did not really exist, despite various social sciences, including psychology, multiple branches of anthropology, zoology (ethology in particular), and sociology clearly demonstrating otherwise (concretely, objectively, and empirically). It is not rational for an encyclopedia to trust, much less impose, the rapidly changing psycho-sexual classification labels that the surprisingly isolationist "gender studies" ivory tower comes up with. It's simply one approach to the question, and one which is frequently at odds with various sciences that take a more rigorous one. The most neutral way to approach this is that it's akin to the distinction between synchrony and diachrony in linguistics (see Epenthesis#As a synchronic rule for several examples of this sort of conflict between approaches and how each can be "valid" from a certain viewpoint, with one of them being historically accurate, and the other based only on subjective perception; it's odd that our best examples of the distinction are buried in such an article, but so it is). The lesson is that saying something like "Elagabalus was TG" is a totally subjective, synchronic analysis that isn't valid anywhere but from deep inside the frame of reference of gender studies language-change activism, even if it's completely valid from that lone viewpoint. WP:FRINGE and WP:NOR militate against the idea that we can take this subjective, conditionally valid viewpoint and push it more generally. A diachronic analysis automatically wins in an encyclopedia, because it's verifiable with sources independent of those who would impose the label.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  05:14, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

"Health Care" or "Healthcare"

I would have thought that when the primary article title uses a particular styling, and when that title is stable/uncontroversial, the same styling should be used for the titles of related pages. Health care appears to have been stable for quite a while; Healthcare is a redirect to it. While articles related to UK specific subjects may use a different styling to reflect local usage, general titles should use the primary styling. However, Uaer:Kashmiri has begun emptying general categories using the primary styling without discussion, like Category:Films about healthcare, and seeking fait accompli speedy deletion in favor of his preferred spelling. (The primary category is also Category:Health care). This strikes me as both unproductive and an inappropriate evasion of process. "Health care" is the more common usage on en-wiki and the more common result in Google searches, although the margin is only about 10% (although the size of the majority is probably artificially depressed by references to the healthcare.gov website). The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 21:48, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

That's a good question, baring HW's constant complaints about my editing. Wikipedia has to-date not standardised on any of the two spelling variants, and there are quite a few articles using both "healthcare" and "health care", in the body and in titles (see a long list at Health care). Health care system was first drafted as Healthcare system, then uncontroversially moved to its current spelling. The category Health care, similarly, was Healthcare for many years, until an editor proposed renaming in 2012 [7] and another editor carried this out.[8]. Then last November Rathfelder proposed renaming it back to Healthcare for sake of consistency [9] and now I carried this out. I see it as non-controversial, too, and am happy to follow any guideline once created. Of course, HW will now accuse me of disregard of "due process"! However, I see it as a positive development because to-date HW has frequently fought against consensus. Positive change, keep it up! kashmiri TALK 22:30, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
Usage seems to vary both in Wikipedia and in the wider world, sometimes on the same page. I think outside the USA healthcare seems to be commoner in recent years. I don't think that is a big problem except when it comes to categorisation, where HotCat is much easier to use with a consistent hierarchy. When I've tried to change subcategories in order to fit into a bigger scheme I get complaints that the category should be determined by the main article - a sensible principle, but difficult when different main articles conflict for no obvious reason. Rathfelder (talk) 23:06, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
Given that either spelling is familiar to pretty much everyone (Google:
  1. https://www.google.com/search?q=U.S.+OR+"United+States"+OR+American+"healthcare"+-"health+care"+-wikipedia
  2. https://www.google.com/search?q=UK+OR+"United+Kingdom"+OR+British+"health+care"+-"healthcare"+-wikipedia
given here as bare URLs because MediaWiki is misparsing them), even if some regions have a trend toward one variant vs. the other, consistency would be desirable, and there is clearly no "strong national tie". This should probably be settled with a WP:RFC at Talk:Health care, serving as a combined WP:RM and WP:CFR. A Google N-gram of usage in books clearly favors "health care"; the "healthcare" spelling is a neologism that basically did not exist until the mid-1980s, had no currency to speak of until the mid-1990s, and remains the minority usage in publishing. It's unclear, however, whether Google has a US bias, beyond the US producing far more books than the UK.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  06:53, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Hyphenating "x is a scaled-down version of y"

Resolved

I was changing a number of articles to hyphenate the adjective "scaled-down" when Jeh reversed an edit to HP DC100, claiming that, though oxforddictionaries.com and collinsdictionary.com hyphenate it, his opinion (that there is no ambiguity and no loss of clarity from omitting the hyphen) should prevail over the dictionaries. (But no major dictionary shows it unhyphenated.) He says "nobody thinks we might be talking about a 'scaled down-version'". No, and nobody thinks that I have "a broken down-tractor in my yard", but "broken-down" is hyphenated in every dictionary that I could find. This MoS says "Consult a good dictionary", which I did, and I don't feel that I did anything wrong by hyphenating it. There is a difference between the case of a missing hyphen that causes a reader to sit for 5 minutes of head-scratching and the case of a missing hyphen that causes a reader to slow down and back up a couple of words in order to read it again in a different light. In both cases a hyphen has value, to most readers. I hyphenated it again, citing the dictionaries, which he viewed as violating BRD, though I thought having the dictionaries on the side of the edit would convince him that the edit was valid. Nope. That just got him to air another opinion, that, by editing articles, in general I am just making a nuisance of myself. I think the MoS is clear and correct. I don't think the MoS needs to be changed or needs to be ignored in this case. Chris the speller yack 18:28, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

The hyphen may be unnecessary in this case but it's certainly not forbidden by MOS:HYPHEN. I don't see why Jeh thinks this is an issue worthy of reverting twice. clpo13(talk) 18:43, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
The hyphenated form is used on these web pages.
—Wavelength (talk) 21:00, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
Most of the (mostly American) sources I've seen on this issue say to hyphenate the compound adjective if used before the noun but not if used after: "She is a well-known candidate." "The candidate is not well known." Per the examples you've given, Chris, you are in the right. If the sources that Wavelength has provided don't convince Jeh, then let us know you need someone to come to the talk page to support you. Darkfrog24 (talk) 22:44, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
I concur. I'm unaware of any style guide that would not recommend hyphenating in "x is a scaled-down version of y", and it appears that the reverter has no sources to back them up. One would not hyphenate "y was scaled down from x", or "x is not always scaled down", or "y was derived from x by scaling down". Chris the speller is correct that the construction "x is a scaled down version of y" (without the hyphen) is confusing, even if only momentarily. On a first skim, it appears to refer to possession of scales, as in "lizards are scaled animals, as are fish". It's not important that no reader would spend several minutes trying to figure it out. Most hyphenation is performed to prevent fractional-second delays in comprehension to begin with.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  05:23, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
And books overwhelmingly use the hyphen in this context. Helping the reader parse complex expressions is a good and valid use for hyphens, which is why our MOS supports it. Dicklyon (talk) 05:33, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
There is a pretty clear consensus that the hyphenation is warranted per MoS, dictionaries, and several style guides. Thanks to all who contributed their thoughts. Chris the speller yack 22:22, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Seeking opinion on boldfacing name redirect term in lede

If there is another forum preferable to—or in addition to—this in which to discuss this please let me know (preferably with a link) in a comment below.

I'm wondering about this edit I made. Boldfacing the existing instance of "Neudeck" contained in the foreign language term template at the time seemed an expedient way to have a boldface instance present for those arriving via the disambiguation page. I later reworked another instance of "Neudeck" into the lede text and boldfaced it instead (largely to avoid contentious entanglement with another editor).

  • In boldfacing "Neudeck" at all I'm presuming that the convention that holds for a standard name redirect, boldfacing "to follow the "principle of least astonishment" after following a redirect" (MOS:BOLD), also logically applies to terms arrived at in similar fashion but directed through an intermediary disambiguation page instead of directly to an article via a name redirect page.
Rationale: If for example "Neudeck" did not have alternate usages requiring disambiguation then wikilinking [[Neudeck]] in another article would presumably take one directly to Ogrodzieniec, Warmian-Masurian Voivodeship (via a standard name redirect page's functionality). At present wikilinking [[Neudeck]] in an article takes one to a disambiguation page which then offers a link to the Ogrodzieniec, Warmian-Masurian Voivodeship article, amongst others. In such cases it seems fair to say the disambiguation page acts as a specialized form of redirect. One which requires reader discretion and input rather than automatically displaying the target. Via this rationale, it seems fair to extend MOS:BOLD's guidelines on redirect terms and synonyms to terms arrived at via a disambiguation page in lieu of a distinct name redirect.
  • Agree/concur/object/suggest/other relevant guidelines?
  • My next premise is the presumption that it doesn't really matter whether boldfaced text in the lede is displayed via boldface markup within template markup, {{foo|'''word'''}}, or just via boldface markup in the body of text, '''word'''. As the result in the eye of the reader is text emphasized via boldface regardless of underlying markup. They see what they see. i.e. I'm presuming the mechanics are irrelevant to the style guideline. Presumably the style guidelines focus on the end result, what is displayed to the reader, leaving the mechanics as a means-to-an-end.
  • Agree/concur/object/suggest/other relevant guidelines?

Getting back to specifics, my edit was fine, right? And doing so in similar circumstances in the future would typically be within style guidelines as well, correct?

--Kevjonesin (talk) 11:50, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm not at present seeking a !vote or any such formality. But rather am requesting feedback, discussion, opinions, relevant guidelines and precedent, etc. i.e. I added an RfC template as a means to make a request for comments (not to !vote; strange, I know). Please "Comment:" below ...

--Kevjonesin (talk) 08:46, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

  • Generally agreed with both propositions, though it's better if the boldfacing can be done externally to the template. I prefer not to see {{lang|fu|'''Bar'''}} but '''{{lang|fu|Bar}}''', because the boldfacing is not part of the language markup. The template {{lang-fu|'''Bar'''}} (note the hyphen), however, requires that the boldfacing be used inside the template, otherwise it will boldface the entire [[Fu language|Fu]]: {{lang|fu|Bar}} output. I.e., separate content and presentation when possible, but we needn't tear our hair out when it is not feasible.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  05:35, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
  • So you concur my edit was fine and doing so in similar circumstances in the future would typically be within style guidelines as well?
  • Also, I'm thinking that for the sake of clarity it's probably worth explicitly mentioning disambiguation page cases along with redirects in the MoS text regarding boldfacing link targeted alternate terms. Thoughts?
--Kevjonesin (talk) 08:47, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
@Kevjonesin: Agreed with the second point. What MoS wants is boldfacing of synonyms of the topic (that appear in more than a trivial number of English-language sources – not uncommon-in-English foreign-language terms which are notable enough to include, for which italicization is enough), so that readers can quickly come to understand why they arrived at page Foo when looking for term Bar. It's not important that it happened precisely because of a redirect. Nor do we need to include every redirect (the number of {{R from modification}} redirects for some topics is quite large, and many of them are barely distinguishable).
As for the first point, "kinda-sorta". I think the exact instance is awkward and unhelpful in multiple ways, most of which have nothing to do with boldfacing. As of your linked-to version above, it reads:
Ogrodzieniec [ɔɡrɔˈd͡ʑɛɲɛt͡s] (German: Neudeck) is a village in the administrative district of Gmina Kisielice, within Iława County, Warmian-Masurian Voivodeship, in northern Poland.[1] Previously called Neudeck, it was renowned as the country residence of German President Paul von Hindenburg, who died there in 1934.
This is problematic because:
  1. Mentioning Neudeck twice in the lead is redundant.
  2. We don't italicize the alternate-language version unless the first one given is English ("Munich (German: München) is..."), in which case the italicization is sufficient emphasis.
  3. The city is not presently also named Neudeck; that's a historical name.
I think what I'd do with it is this (and it's pretty typical of how we handle such things):
Ogrodzieniec [ɔɡrɔˈd͡ʑɛɲɛt͡s] is a village in the administrative district of Gmina Kisielice, within Iława County, Warmian-Masurian Voivodeship, in northern Poland.[1] Previously known by its German name Neudeck [give pronunciation here - most English speakers will expect "nyoo-dek", but it's actually "noy-dek"], it was renowned as the country residence of German President Paul von Hindenburg, who died there in 1934.
But that's probably better resolved on the article's talk page.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  07:01, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Punctuation of multi-sponsor team names

Thread retitled from "Discussion in cycling project on punctuation of team names with more than one sponsor".

For info: there is a discussion at the WikiProject Cycling (Wikipedia Talk:WikiProject Cycling#Team_names: hyphen vs. dash) to see which punctuation to use for team names with multiple sponsors (concrete example: should the team sponsored by Orica and GreenEDGE have the article Orica-GreenEDGE or Orica–GreenEDGE (a hyphen or a dash). All people agree that MOS should be followed, but we are not sure what MOS exactly prescribes here.--EdgeNavidad (Talk · Contribs) 10:14, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

I am revising the heading of this section from Discussion in cycling project on punctuation of team names with more than one sponsor to Punctuation of multi-sponsor team names, in harmony with WP:TPOC, point 11 (Section headings). Please see Microcontent: How to Write Headlines, Page Titles, and Subject Lines. The new heading facilitates recognition of the topic in links and watchlists and tables of contents, and it facilitates maintenance of Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Register.
—Wavelength (talk) 16:29, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Update: It's been suggested at that linked-to discussion above that the MoS wording on the matter is a bit too unclear and needs work (generally, not about teams especially), and that the matter should be referred back here for resolution. I concur. As a first (really obvious) step, I changed An en dash is used for the names of two or more people in an attributive compound. to An en dash is used for the names of two or more entities in an attributive compound. (I'll call that "action item 0".) I thought about using "persons", but not that many people without a legal background would be aware of that term of art's meaning of "legal persons, whether individuals or organizations". Anyway, the point is that the "comet Hale–Bopp" and "Hale–Bopp" cases do not apply only when individual human beings names are used, but any entity's. We'd do the same, for the same reason, with a new operating system called "Apple–Microsoft MacWinDOS", or a dual-sponsored sporting event called the "McDonald's–Wendy's Underwater Badminton Championship". We'd even do it for something fictional and far-fetched, e.g. the "West Tatooine Jawa–Tusken Dance Troupe", or something more plausible, like a music release called Krokken: The Dokken–Krokus Collaboration Album. This would have seemed to be clear from higher-up-the-list cases like "the U.S.–Japan Agreement" or whatever treaty examples we're using, but it very evidently has not been getting through at all, perhaps because those examples appear to be entirely political/geographical in nature. So, we should add an example to that subsection that shows organizational, not individual human, collaboration (action item 1).

What's happening in the cycling case is that various commercial entities (e.g. Orica and GreenEdge, which we should not be writing "GreenEDGE" per MOS:TM; cf. [10], [11], [12], [13], [14]) are collaborating to sponsor cycling teams. This is an attributive usage; in long form, it's "the Orica–GreenEdge team" (compare "comet Hale–Bopp"). Because the non-WP:INDY cycling press tend to just refer to the team by the name of the sponsors ("Orica–GreenEdge won the race", a usage borrowed from other sports, e.g. "England won the World Cup", which doesn't mean the nation or citizenry of England, but the England World Cup football squad), this has been mistaken for a unitary entity that has borrowed names in a non-attributive way like "Wilkes-Barre", thus failing to recognize it as a case exactly the same as the shortened "Hale–Bopp".

This confusion has been compounded by the fact that the cycling press has no consistent pattern of naming the teams at all (space, hyphen, slash, run-together, whatever), but they tend not to use en dashes. The reason for this is obvious if you know your style guides: Sports journalism is journalism, and no major journalism stylebooks even recognize the existence of both the en and em dash, so for such a case they either use spaced hyphens, or em dashes (spaced or unspaced, depending on the style guide), or spaces. All the notable academic style guides, of course, recognize the distinction between the different dashes and their usage, but news style dispenses with it because journalistic writing sacrifices precision for expediency and simplicity. The upshot is we now have a WP:FAITACCOMPLI and WP:LOCALCONSENSUS problem, wherein the WP:CYCLING wikiproject has declared its own "consensus" to use hyphens (though if you examine the consensus discussion for this, you find that there wasn't actually such a consensus, even locally).

Aside from the "entities" fix, we probably need to do something to clarify the meaning of A hyphen is used by default in compounded proper names of single entities., so that the hyphen-using cases of "Wilkes-Barre" and "Guinea-Bissau" are better distinguished from "nouned" attributives like "Hale–Bopp" (and Orica–GreenEdge) – call this action item 2, and doing it well probably involves the next one. This subsection is the exact locus of the cycling teams naming confusion.

I have to note that List of double placenames includes cases we don't account for, like multilingual official names (Vitoria-Gasteiz) and associative ones (Trenton–Mercer Airport, an airport in Mercer Co. and near but not in Trenton, should use an en dash), not all of which are hyphenated, and most of which do not use en dashes. We include "Guinea-Bissau" but don't explain it (it really does not relate in any way to this question of attributive usage; it's hyphenated because of French-language hyphenation rules for reverse-hierarchical placenames, also done in German, e.g. "Bergen-Belsen"). Dallas–Fort Worth is illustrative of two principles at once, both use of en dash when one element has a space, and use of en dash when it's an entity that exists for some purposes, formed of entities that retain their separate existence for other purposes. There's probably a better example that is just two one-word names. Regardless, we need a cities example that is en-dashed not hyphenated to dispel the idea that "Wilkes-Barre" means "always hyphenate cities like this" when the reality is "usually". Anyway, List of double placenames never mentions en dashes at all. Maybe Gulfport–Biloxi qualifies, but I'm looking for something that doesn't commonly have a longer name (like Gulfport–Biloxi metropolitan area, the actual article title). Ihe international conurbation Detroit–Windsor might work. So, broad action item 3: Normalize this MoS section and that article with each other. [Update: I've done a little of this, and added en dashes and their usage to the article.]  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  17:42, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

What is an attributive compound? You lose me with that term. If I don't know what that is, then I won't recognize one when I see it. Wbm1058 (talk) 21:33, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
See Adjective#Types of use and "English compound".—Wavelength (talk) 21:57, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
  1. Your first link describes an Attributive adjective. What's the difference between an attributive adjective and an attributive compound?
  2. I'm not sure of the point of English compound. So, I suppose "Orica–GreenEdge" is an "English compound". So what? Wbm1058 (talk) 22:18, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
So when you say "attributive compound", do you really always mean "attributive compound adjective"? Wbm1058 (talk) 22:32, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
Not strictly. When an attributive adjectival construction modifying a noun (as in "comet Hale–Bopp" or "Team Orica–GreenEdge" or "the Orica–GreenEdge team") becomes "nouned" as a short form ("Hale–Bopp", "Orica–GreenEdge" it's no longer an adjective by definition, but is still attributive.)  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  22:59, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
"Orica–GreenEdge" ia an "attributive compound adjective" modifying the noun "team" or "cycling team"? Wbm1058 (talk) 22:34, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
Right. The "team" is "understood" or elided, like "comet" being implied but missing in "Hale–Bopp". "Orica-Greenedge" is attributive, because these are the names of collaborating organizations, used collectively to refer to what they're collaborating on; it is not a corporate merger of Orica and GreenEdge into a single business entity (which might by styled any number of ways, these days; cf. DaimlerCrysler, etc.)  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  22:55, 29 December 2015 (UTC
So what you're saying is that because the sponsors of the team do not own the share capital of the company which holds the license the team must use a dash? My only question is why wiki would not use the name given by the UCI given that this is the sports governing body not a journalism article? This to me seems easier to follow and is indisputable. For an end user the punctuation used in the name of the article shouldn't make any difference to the level of understanding received from the article. XyZAn (talk) 23:32, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
Please do not begin posts with something like "So what you're saying is that ..." followed by something cockamamie that has nothing to do with what the other party said. It hyperbole and a straw man argument, neither conductive to discussion. It has nothing to do with share or licenses, it has to do with which entity is which, and how their names are used. The short version is "we have a rule, and the applicable one is 'use an en dash in cases like "Hale–Bopp", which is the same kind of case as the team names."  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  02:54, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
"So what you're saying..." is just a rhetorical device that people use to try to figure out what other people mean. It's like saying "I think you mean X; is that correct?" It's perfectly reasonable. XyZan is allowed to ask why Wikipedia's rules are the way they are and has not done so rudely. Darkfrog24 (talk) 22:23, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
Because while the UCI is the superior source for governing sports, style guides are the superior sources for writing for general audiences. Use the source that is most reliable for the thing that you are trying to do. As Dicklyon points out below, this might not always be simple, but it's a good place to start. Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:31, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
Exactly. The use of a hyphen where it is typographically inappropriate is very common on typographically naive sites. This is not evidence that they have an opinion about typographical style, or an official position on it at all. Even if they did, we generally prefer to follow our own MOS for style consistency in WP. Dicklyon (talk) 00:36, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

"The settlement was named Wilkes-Barre after John Wilkes and Isaac Barré, two British members of Parliament." So, "Wilkes-Barre" is attributive, where the "city" is understood or elided. I suppose that Mr. Wilkes and Mr. Barré could have collaborated on other joint ventures back in Britain, so the implied "city" is necessary to distinguish this particular collaboration between the gentlemen. Wbm1058 (talk) 23:40, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

It's not attributive; Wilkes and Barré didn't attribute their names to the city, the city adopted them, much like my new garage bad Azimov-Einstein, which would not use an en dash.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  02:54, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, but I don't understand the distinction between attribute and adopt. Are you using "attribute" here in the context of grammar, or some other meaning of the word? Orica and GreenEdge didn't "attribute" their names to the cycling team, the team adopted them for a season, in return for financial compensation. @Dicklyon: another reason to come at this from the angle of relationships, rather than from "adoption" or whatever. Wbm1058 (talk) 03:50, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
I was trying to simplify. I'll revert to using linguistic meanings, and distinguishing from non-linguistic but related philosophical concepts. "Hale" and "Bopp" are independent attributes (linguistically speaking, obviously not literal astronomical ones) of their comet, as "Orica" and "GreenEdge" are of the team they sponsor, and as "blind" is in "that blind dog". Because there are two independent attributives, it uses an en dash: "Hale–Bopp", "Orica–GreenEdge". There's a three-way and actual relationship between the three entities. The relationship between the attributive entities is different from that between either of them and comet or team. (In the dog example the attribute isn't an entity, but characteristic, but the blindness and the dog are intrinsically connected.) This relationship does not change simply because a short form like "Hale–Bopp" or "Orica–GreenEdge" is used, so no change in punctuation all of a sudden to hyphen. If Hale-Bopp was the same person (Janet Hale-Bopp, let's say), or the Orica-GreenEdge Ltd. was one company, the original-name referents (parents, pre-merger companies) are not in an attributive linguistic relationship to the unitary entity, and are not in the same practical or philosophical non-linguistic relationship compared to the former cases. Unitary entities like this use hyphens not en dashes (or may use other "official name" forms, like CamelCase, because there's a legal "strong mark" incentive to come up with something unique, or whatever, but en dashes are not customary here). In the case of Wilkes-Barre and the Azimov-Einstein band, they're not attributive, just arbitrary, like describing your cat as "rooty-tooty-fanuty". It's adjectival in structure, but it's not an attribute; there's no relationship there linguistically beyond syntactic, or extra-linguistically beyond subjective preference. Wilkes-Barre is not attributive, as you suggest, because Wilkes and Barré aren't "attributes" of the city in any sense; it's not their city and they are not of the city; the city is not a collaboration between them or a subset of them, nor they of it, etc. They might as well be Tooty and Fanuty, chosen just because they sound amusing and mean nothing (It might be a different story if the city was co-founded by them and named Wilkes–Barré when their two townships merged back in powdered wigs and muskets era :). If you and I form a company, WBM–McC Industries, that's attributive, because of the direct (and in this case, three-way) relationship between the three entities. So, we are coming at this from the angle of relationships. Whether it's a good idea to ever bother with "attributive" in MoS is a good question though, if it's this difficult to get across the distinction as it relates to names that are superficially similar in form but represent completely different sorts of things.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  11:04, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
Have you tried looking at style guides about this? Maybe the way we put it is not ideal. For some unions that are so close that they no longer refer to the individual entities, like Wilkes-Barre and Hewlett-Packard and married couple names, the hyphen is good. For the "and" relationship of sponsors and such things, the en dash is clearly preferred as sending that signal of "not so close" connection. Dicklyon (talk) 23:50, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
New Hart's Rules says "Something named after two or more people is known by the bare surnames, joined by an en rule", and doesn't even try to generalize beyond people or to specify when or why there might be exceptions. Chicago and Fowler 2nd don't go so much for en dashes, but do specify them for things you would normally join by hyphen when one or both of them is a two-word open compound (as An Post, or Chain Reaction). We surveyed many more guides when tuning up MOS:DASH in a huge cooperative effort back in 2011, and the results of what is preferred in WP style is not in doubt in this case (though there may yet be cases where it is harder to decide). Dicklyon (talk) 00:43, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
No, I don't have any style guides and haven't looked at them. I'll leave that to others.
  • For some unions that are so close that they no longer refer to the individual entities, like Wilkes-Barre and Hewlett-Packard and married couple names, the hyphen is good. For the "and" relationship of sponsors and such things, the en dash is clearly preferred as sending that signal of "not so close" connection.
I like that. The concept of closeness of the union or relationship is easy to follow. Write that into our MOS somehow.
The concepts of "two or more entities in an attributive compound" and "compounded proper names of single entities" – not so much. Only grammar specialists will understand that, and they're too confusing to interpret and apply. I'd like to take that out, if just stating it in terms of closeness of relationship is sufficient to cover all cases.
I have an example, which if added to the MOS, I think will help illustrate the point, and drive home a particular case where an en dash is more obviously better.
Right now we name a team Etixx-Quick Step.
  • Etixx sells sports nutrition products.
  • Quick-Step sells flooring products. Their name is hyphenated, though they stylize the hyphen as a bullet in their logo.
Hence the proper combination for the team is Etixx–Quick-Step, which clearly shows the hyphen being used for the closer relationship and the en-dash for the more distant relationship. The about page on their website shows that. Wbm1058 (talk) 01:51, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
And to reinforce the idea that the relationship between Etixx and Quick-Step is not close, they don't actually have a direct relationship with each other, AFAIK. They are joined together by a third party, i.e. the cycling team's manager. Their relationship is quite transitory; sometimes these relationships last for only a single season – formerly QuickStep was partnered with Omega Pharma: Omega Pharma-QuickStep. Wbm1058 (talk) 03:50, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
Their pages usually style the dash as a spaced hyphen, which is not unusual for the typographically challenged: Etixx - Quick-Step. I've gone ahead and boldly fixed that one as an example. Hopefully people will see how this works and help, as opposed to reverting; we'll see. Another crazy one is Domo-Farm Frites; looks like frites from a place called Domo-Farm, but if you look at their sites, you see that that put a spaced hyphen, meaning dash, to avoid that problem: "Domo - Farm Frites", which we would style with a real dash as "Domo–Farm Frites". Of course, people with poor fonts won't see the difference, but that's their problem. Dicklyon (talk) 04:36, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
That all sounds good (and much clearer without the jargon - Wbm1058). How would this work for teams with multiple hyphens in place? EPM-UNE-Área Metropolitana would it be: EPM–UNE–Área Metropolitana or EPM-UNE–Área Metropolitana? Cheers XyZAn (talk) 09:41, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
Works for me too, as for resolving this particular case. I also note that many of the WP:CYCLING arguments have been of the form "do it this particular way so it's consistent with the others" (which is entirely reasonable under WP:CONSISTENCY). Since a large percentage of these team sponsors have spaced-words or hyphenated-words names, and in both cases these should (by already existing rules) by conjoined with an en dash to avoid the confusing constructions you pointed out just above, the consistent thing to do would be to also use the en dash even when both sponsors are single-name entities. This would also be consistent with the extant "Hale–Bopp" rule.

Back to the central MoS matter though: Resolving this cycling issue doesn't tell us yet how to resolve the "that entire MoS section is confusing" problem. Surely there's a way to simplify it more, perhaps as Wbm1058 suggested, by abandoning mentions of things like attributive status (which is hard to detect when something like "comet Hale–Bopp" is "nouned" down to "Hale–Bopp"), and focusing on relationships.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  11:04, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

For simplicity could you do something like:
For pages titled with the following scheme [Name1]–[Name2]. Please note, an en dash is used because the two or more entities have come together to name or sponsor another entity. Easy to understand examples of this can be found in the naming structure of both Formula 1 teams (such as Haas–Ferrari and Force India–Mercedes) and professional cycling teams (such as Orica–Greenedge and Etixx–Quick-Step).
The above probably needs to be refined and tarted up but I would literally remove all the un-necessary jargon which is probably where your normal editor gets lost and gives up.Simply spell it out (with examples too). If a new editor came to me next week and asked why we used en dashes not hyphens I wouldn't be able to use the MOS page to help, I would try and spell it out like in the above. XyZAn (talk) 11:43, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
Well, this is rarely about sponsorship. We'd need to write specifically of a lot more things than that, or write more generally about collaborative relationships, or something to this effect.
EPM-UNE-Área Metropolitana should be EPM–UNE–Área Metropolitana. I would not mix hyphens and en-dashes in this one, as these are three independent sponsors (not unusual for teams to have three primary sponsors, I think, especially at the lower levels of the sport). It was just UNE in 2008 (either that sponsor increased its support or the team ran on a shoestring budget), then UNE–EPM (UNE-EPM) in 2009, then EPM–UNE (EPM-UNE) in 2010 (which sponsor contributed the most money probably flipped), then EPM–UNE–Área Metropolitana in 2014. There would only be a hyphen if the organizations EPM and UNE actually merged – and thus formed a closer relationship with each other than they had with the third sponsor, with whom they were only united via the cycling team manager. I think we should view a merger of corporations much the same as a marriage between people. Wbm1058 (talk) 15:55, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
Generally agreed, though corporations tend to make up odd combinations after mergers (cf., at any given time, Glaxo Wellcome, SmithKline Beecham, GlaxoSmithKline, etc.) EPM-UNE–Área Metropolitana would definitely not be parsed correctly by most readers.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  20:15, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
So from all the above can we have a consensus on what should be done going further. Therefore, can we draw a Cycling specific consensus?
  • Cycling team names following the general rule and use an en dash rather than hyphen: [Sponsor A]–[Sponsor B] (see Orica–Greenedge). More complex naming where sponsors have a hyphenated name should be treated as follows: [Sponsor A]–[Sponsor B name 1]-[Sponsor B name 2] (see Etixx–Quick-Step. XyZAn (talk) 21:08, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
I suppose, but the second part isn't necessary. Just use an en dash between all sponsors, whether the sponsor name contains a hyphen, a space, or nothing but letters and numbers.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  21:22, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
I think you should propose on the cycling project page a statement of this understanding of how best to follow the guidance of the MOS, and let's see if anyone wants to tune it up, or to object, and then let's get on with it. Dicklyon (talk) 21:32, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
I've placed this outcome of this saucisson on the WP talk page XyZAn (talk) 22:27, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Cycling#Building_towards_a_consensus_on_team_name_styling. Dicklyon (talk) 00:37, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
Meta-remark

During this discussion, I got the impression that some MOS-editors think that we at the Cycling project tried to ignore the MOS, and tried to make our own style. This is not the case. What happened, from memory:

  • In a GA review somewhere in 2009, the reviewer remarked that the MOS said team names should have dashes.
  • The cycling project tried to follow MOS, and changed many articles to have dashes in stead of hyphens.
  • Somebody said: "What are you doing? MOS clearly says they should have hyphens."
  • The cycling project stopped changing article names, and asked at this talk page what to do. (See the previously linked discussion.)
  • In that discussion, some MOS-ers argued for hyphens, others for dashes. At the end of that discussion, I had the impression that the conclusion was: use hyphens. I explicitly asked if that was correct, and the only answer was agreeing. This might not be clear overwhelming consensus, but we had to make a choice, and chose to follow that advise.
  • As far as I remember, there was no Cycling-project editor at any point in the discussion who advocated dashes or hyphens. We understand this is not our speciality, that this is what the MOS is for, and we all had the desire to follow MOS; we just could not figure out what the MOS said.

I really appreciate the work of WP:MOS in improving Wikipedia, and I totally agree that subprojects should not make their own style. That is why it 'hurts' to see people accuse the cycling project of making their own style, while we did our best to follow MOS, and asked MOS for help on this. I am happy that there now seems to be a clear outcome of this discussion, but I wanted to get this off my chest.--EdgeNavidad (Talk · Contribs) 09:25, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

The dash rules have been contested a few times over the years (MOS:REGISTER#Hyphens), and there have been some pretty hefty debates about them. It's possible that the rules changed in that time. Darkfrog24 (talk) 13:29, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) EdgeNavidad, XyZAn, @Wbm1058: I think that's directed at me. When I cited WP:LOCALCONSENSUS, I did not mean to imply "this wikiproject refuses to abide by MOS", but rather "what this wikiproject says is its local consensus is in conflict with MOS, and since that's a site-wide guideline, LOCALCONSENSUS policy says to follow the guideline." Sorry I wasn't clearer, and I apologize for any ruffled feathers.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  16:49, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Need to summarize MOS:TABLE in MOS proper

The main MoS page has no summary of MOS:TABLE, but surely should have a condensed version of the most important points, the way we do for other major MoS subpages. I've added one table-related point (about how table headers are mostly treated similarly to section headings), but there's a lot more that should be included, or it looks, to people who consult the main MoS but don't make an in-depth study of all of its branches (i.e., most editors), like MoS has nothing really to say about tables. This may explain where there are so many poor tables on WP.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  13:56, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

"Disc" or "disk"?

It may seem unimportant, but the spelling varies from articles like scattered disc, protoplanetary disk, circumstellar disc and accretion disk. --Are you freaking kidding me (talk) 00:46, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

My major was in the biosciences, and what I learned in class (ok, roll eyes and groan now...) was that a disc is an anatomical feature (like a herniated disc in your back), and a disk is a geometric shape or an inanimate object. Kinda like like a sac vs. sack. Trade names can obviously be whatever they want, like Compact Disc, Blu-Ray Disc, whatever. Honestly I think any meaningful distinction has gone the way of grey vs. gray. (Not long ago gray was the American spelling for the color gray.) I think we gotta go with the sources until our language settles down into something meaningful. Dcs002 (talk) 10:00, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
It's an WP:ENGVAR issue. In UK English it's "disc" for nearly everything - anatomical features, geometric shapes, inanimate objects - and is only "disk" for computer disks, although we are aware that Americans tend to prefer the "k" spelling. --Nicknack009 (talk) 11:04, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
In technology articles, it's not an ENGVAR issue. Magnetic media are disks, optical (and usually magneto-optical) are discs, and post-disk media like thumb drives and SSDs are drives. A fixed disk is also a drive. A removal disc is never a drive, but the device that reads it is. Agreed that there at least historically was a distinction in biology, similar to sac vs. sack, but I'm not an MD, anatomist, or zoologist so I'm not certain it hasn't been changing. I have various medical, life sciences, and general science dictionaries and encyclopedias, and can look this up if there's serious interest. Also agreed that it can sometimes be an ENGVAR matter, when it's used generically: "Frisbee is a brand of flying dis[c|k]s, both in the toy and sporting-goods markets." "UFOs of the 'flying saucer' style were commonly reported as flying or hovering dis[c|k]s in the mid-20th century, but flying lozenges similar to zeppelins and blimps were formerly more common, and later replaced by alleged sightings of triangular or winged objects." Quick N-grams suggest the following: In astronomy, "disk" appears to be vastly preferred [15]. In human anatomy (at least spinal), disc has long been somewhat preferred, but disk is close enough to suggest an ENGVAR split [16]. Same in botany [17] and in zoology, with even less difference in current usage in the latter than in human medicine [18]. So, my inclination would be to treat this in as an ENGVAR matter, except in fields where there's a strong preference for one or other spelling.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  13:02, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
PS: We have an article about this already at Spelling of disc (a title that appears to beg the question). It's also been written about externally many times, e.g. here (though I don't consider the "Grammar Girl" blog a particularly reliable source, though popular enough when it comes to American English in particular. One online medical dictionary suggests that disc is more common in anatomy, and its publisher is American [19].  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  13:11, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
PPS: In a quick skim of 10 online astronomy dictionaries and glossaries, every single one of them used disk, or did not use either (some of them were very short and were missing terms like accretion disk); zero used disc. The source-reflective way to approach this is to always use disk for astronomy/cosmology terms, and leave it at that; always default to disc for medical/biology material (and use it in titles) but mention disk as a common alternative spelling; always use disc or disk, and/or drive correctly with regard to computer topics, and otherwise following ENGVAR (i.e., disk in American English and disc in Commonwealth English), absent any topical preference in the majority of reliable sources on the subject in question.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  13:17, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
Makes sense when a field has a strong preference to use one form rather than the other, for Wikipedia to use that form. It seems all the examples in the OP are astronomical, so perhaps it should be brought up at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomy? --Nicknack009 (talk) 13:45, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Gallery images used as the lead image to represent an ethnic group of people or an otherwise large population of people

Opinions are needed on the following matter: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Images#"Articles about ethnic groups or similarly large human populations should not be illustrated by a gallery of images of group members". A WP:Permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:02, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Numbering figures?

I am creating an article with multiple free images, and I think they are necessary to the article, but as I refer to these images in the text, I find myself saying "see figure" quite often. (I can't say "see figure to left" or "right" if I follow the MOS because mobile devices and aids to the blind or visually impaired don't necessarily keep the right-left formatting.) There will sometimes be 2-4 figures per section in this article. (It involves analysis of a plane crash and wreckage that changed passenger shoulder harness requirements across the EU in smaller commuter planes as of this past April. The official investigation report and all figures are covered under the OK OGL 3.0, being the product of the UK's AAIB.) I have never seen any article here that used numbered figures, but it would make sense to do so, at least in the article I am creating. In the sections on figures and captions in the MOS, I found no reference to numbering figures. Is there a consensus that I just haven't found? I think it would really help this article, and I would like to do it, but not if it violates some consensus or other. Does anyone know anything about this? Thanks! Dcs002 (talk) 23:04, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

IMO, since there's nothing about it pro or con, just be bold, with common sense. I've numbered some images and tables before, and no problems arose from it. The main reason we don't is that images usually have explanatory captions and tables usually have clear headers, so it's easy to say "see the '2015 US statistics' table" or "see the 'Adult male Manx cat skeleton' image", or whatever. If there are a bunch of similar but importantly distinct tables or images, numbering them might be more handy.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  13:21, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
Thanks SMcCandlish ☺. I see the distinction. I will number the figures in this case because several show different aspects of the same subject, and I think it would clarify things. Dcs002 (talk) 23:30, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Fewer than or less than?

Are seconds countable? The article Fewer vs. less includes the statement "less" is recommended in front of counting nouns that denote distance, amount, or time. For example, "we go on holiday in fewer than four weeks" and "he can run the 100 m in fewer than ten seconds" are not advised. Is this also MOS advice? Dondervogel 2 (talk) 08:38, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

The idea is that the word "time" is silent but implied in those sentences, as in "He can run the 100 m in less [time] than ten seconds." Darkfrog24 (talk) 13:27, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
Agreed.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  16:45, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
Understood. I've made a proposal. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 16:19, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
Where?  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  16:45, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
here Dondervogel 2 (talk) 17:09, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
Good first draft, but it had to be established that it was an exception and not a "use less every time" thing. Darkfrog24 (talk) 17:24, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
Looks good to me. I cleaned up the formatting to match MOS's handling of examples.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  19:35, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Sorry to jump in late, but I learned that "fewer than" refers to integer quantities, while less than refers to continuous quantities. E.g., fewer than 100 people, and less than one gram. Fewer than 3 one-litre bottles, less than 3 litres. Dcs002 (talk) 23:08, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, that makes sense to me too. Do you agree with the MOS text? Dondervogel 2 (talk) 23:27, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
Another classroom explanation: "If you'd count it, say 'fewer.' If you'd measure it, say 'less.'" Darkfrog24 (talk) 23:31, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
Yes, I agree with the MOS text as quoted above. Seconds can be cut up into miliseconds and so on. Time is continuous (unless you go down to the Planck time scale, but that's not... nm). You can ask "how much time" but you can't ask "how many time." The important consideration is usually not the measuring unit but the stuff being measured. How many units or how much stuff? I like Darkfrog24's rule though. Much more succinct than my explanations :P Dcs002 (talk) 12:15, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
I too like Darkfrog24's wording, and have updated the MOS accordingly. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 14:12, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Archive_176&oldid=1111018140"