Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 500: Line 500:
::::::::::::''First prize goes to {{tq|... cheered '''Calliope''' as '''the corvette''' slipped past. '''The British ship's''' drive for the open sea ...}}, in which ''Calliope'', ''the corvette'', and ''the British ship'' are all the same thing, but referred to by three different names to keep you on your toes, or possibly for comedic effect. It's like one of those bedroom farces in which the characters go out one door then reenter via another in different guises ("Let's see... so Count Evander and the undergamekeeper and the barmaid are all the same person ... I think ...") Truly wretched.''
::::::::::::''First prize goes to {{tq|... cheered '''Calliope''' as '''the corvette''' slipped past. '''The British ship's''' drive for the open sea ...}}, in which ''Calliope'', ''the corvette'', and ''the British ship'' are all the same thing, but referred to by three different names to keep you on your toes, or possibly for comedic effect. It's like one of those bedroom farces in which the characters go out one door then reenter via another in different guises ("Let's see... so Count Evander and the undergamekeeper and the barmaid are all the same person ... I think ...") Truly wretched.''
:::::::::::[[User:EEng#s|<b style="color: red;">E</b>]][[User talk:EEng#s|<b style="color: blue;">Eng</b>]] 04:58, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
:::::::::::[[User:EEng#s|<b style="color: red;">E</b>]][[User talk:EEng#s|<b style="color: blue;">Eng</b>]] 04:58, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
::::::::::::{{ping|EEng}} You've summarized your statement as "{{tq|or, I actually said, in the solar system}}" when what was actually said was "{{tq|on earth or any other planet}}". This is ''obviously'' an attempt to retroactively construe the statement as excluding [[exoplanets]], in light of recent revelations that even more wretchedly twisted-out-of-shape writing exists on [[Gamma Cephei Ab]]. For all intensive purposes I could care less, but it's high time to set the wrecker's strait and rain in the peddling of blatant Ms. Information. '''[[User:JPxG|jp]]'''×'''[[User talk:JPxG|g]]''' 21:45, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
:::::::::The challenge is honouring that preference while avoiding clunky sentences. E.g. this current sentence uses 'their': "{{tq|At the age of approximately nine or ten years old, Sophie confessed to their parents a desire to drop out of school to be an electronic music producer (although they did not let Sophie do so, and Sophie continued their schooling).}}" What is the alternative way of writing that without resorting to the ridiculous "Sophie confessed to Sophie's parents"? And there's this sentence, "{{tq|Sophie was asked by a half-sister to DJ her wedding, later Sophie admitted that the half-sister "didn't know what I was doing in my room on my own" and had assumed Sophie was a DJ.}}" You can't even specify that it's Sophie's half-sister, unless you want to use "Sophie" five times in one sentence. [[User:Abbyjjjj96|Abbyjjjj96]] ([[User talk:Abbyjjjj96|talk]]) 02:58, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
:::::::::The challenge is honouring that preference while avoiding clunky sentences. E.g. this current sentence uses 'their': "{{tq|At the age of approximately nine or ten years old, Sophie confessed to their parents a desire to drop out of school to be an electronic music producer (although they did not let Sophie do so, and Sophie continued their schooling).}}" What is the alternative way of writing that without resorting to the ridiculous "Sophie confessed to Sophie's parents"? And there's this sentence, "{{tq|Sophie was asked by a half-sister to DJ her wedding, later Sophie admitted that the half-sister "didn't know what I was doing in my room on my own" and had assumed Sophie was a DJ.}}" You can't even specify that it's Sophie's half-sister, unless you want to use "Sophie" five times in one sentence. [[User:Abbyjjjj96|Abbyjjjj96]] ([[User talk:Abbyjjjj96|talk]]) 02:58, 31 January 2021 (UTC)


Revision as of 21:45, 3 February 2021

WikiProject iconManual of Style
WikiProject iconThis page falls within the scope of the Wikipedia:Manual of Style, a collaborative effort focused on enhancing clarity, consistency, and cohesiveness across the Manual of Style (MoS) guidelines by addressing inconsistencies, refining language, and integrating guidance effectively.Manual of StyleWikipedia:WikiProject Manual of StyleTemplate:WikiProject Manual of StyleManual of Style articles
Note icon
This page falls under the contentious topics procedure and is given additional attention, as it closely associated to the English Wikipedia Manual of Style, and the article titles policy. Both areas are subjects of debate.
Contributors are urged to review the awareness criteria carefully and exercise caution when editing.
Note icon
For information on Wikipedia's approach to the establishment of new policies and guidelines, refer to WP:PROPOSAL. Additionally, guidance on how to contribute to the development and revision of Wikipedia policies of Wikipedia's policy and guideline documents is available, offering valuable insights and recommendations.

Welcome to the MOS pit

Style discussions elsewhere

Add a link to new discussions at top of list and indicate what kind of discussion it is (move request, RfC, open discussion, deletion discussion, etc.). Follow the links to participate, if interested. Move to Concluded when decided and summarize conclusion. Please keep this section at the top of the page.

Current

(newest on top)

Capitalization-specific:

This section is an excerpt from Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters § Current.[edit]

Move requests:

Other discussions:

Pretty stale but not "concluded":

Concluded

Extended content
This section is an excerpt from Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters § Concluded.[edit]
Capitalization-specific:
2023
2022
2021

Non-breaking spaces with written-out units

As a follow-up to topic-specific discussions at Talk:Hassium and User talk:DePiep#MOS and NBSP, it seems that the current MOS guideline on the usage of non-breaking spaces when separating numbers from written-out units (e.g. 5 kilometers (instead of 5 km); 118 elements) is open to interpretation. It advises to use non-breaking spaces when line breaks are awkward, which they seem to be in this case; however, implementing this would apparently require making heavy changes to lots of articles, as it is not strongly established as are the examples given in the MOS section.

I thus ask, should the same guideline for quantities and abbreviated units be followed for fully spelled-out units? Should non-breaking spaces be used only with abbreviations, or always with units and quantities? I would like to establish a more definite MOS guideline, in which one or the other is widely agreed upon as common practice. ComplexRational (talk) 00:46, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • I really, really wish people would stop jumping straight into a project-wide RfC before working with other editors to frame the questions to be posed. I urge you to withdraw this. And MOSNUM is probably the right place for this. (Main MOS vs subsidiary pages is a longstanding problem.) EEng 01:26, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Where else would you suggest discussing this, seeing as its outcome is not specific to the articles for which this was discussed, and the question is pretty straightforward from these discussions? If it can be held elsewhere, I will withdraw; however, I don't think that place is MOSNUM because this issue pertains to MOS:NBSP, which is not its own MOS sub-page. I'm open to ideas. ComplexRational (talk) 02:02, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'd suggest discussing it right here (or at Talk:MOSNUM, but since ultimately it's an aesthetic, not technical, issue I guess here is fine.) There are plenty of people here who have thought a lot about formatting issues, and many have outside professional experience, and with their participation I suspect the issue can either be resolved or boiled down to a clearcut question. Open-ended RfCs like you've started, which pull random people from all over into an unstructured discussion, just end up a mess. EEng 03:28, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I withdrew it as an RfC. Let's play it out as a regular discussion now; I apologize for being unaware of this potential complication. ComplexRational (talk) 09:53, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ping to prevent archiving. EEng 12:49, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see the "jumping into an RfC" that EEng is referring to here. I do see a reasonable description by ComplexRational of a MOS detail to be clarified somehow. Do I miss some invisible redacted editing? Please clarify. As it stands now, the OP is correct and relevant to me. -DePiep (talk) 00:01, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, obviously, like the OP said: he had set this up as an RfC but later withdrew it at my urging. EEng 00:28, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Eh, that 'obvious' part is not visible then?, like in an talk edited afterwards (ouch)? Must I do homework research to see it? -DePiep (talk) 00:34, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Jesus Christ, the OP wrote, just above here: Okay, I withdrew it as an RfC. 01:46, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
I think the point that is puzzling both DePiep and me is there seems to be no trace of the !RfC for us to see what issues had been raised. Starting an RfC and then withdrawing it should surely leave something in a history somewhere. There are no links, nor anything in contributions that I can find. What am I missing? --RexxS (talk) 14:11, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The most recent diff before I withdrew upon EEng's suggestion was [1]. All that changed since then was removal of the RfC template; the content of my original post is the same now as it was then. ComplexRational (talk) 14:43, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In traditional typography, typesetters would ensure that sentences didn't break onto another line at a point where the result was a new line starting with something that didn't make sense alone, or where the break would produce a semantic dissonance. So they would avoid lines starting with an abbreviation:

  • something something ... a distance of 15
    km

as well as lines that changed meaning when the next line was read:

  • something something ... a cost of $5
    million

In electronic document processing, when line length can change with screen resolution or window size, the non-breaking space was used to prevent those sort of breaks from happening. I don't believe there has ever been any rationale for placing a non-breaking space between numbers and normal recognisable English words, because those don't produce problems, other than in cases like the second example. There is really nothing wrong with seeing:

  • something something ... a distance of 15
    kilometres

and it is especially ludicrous to extend the fetish for non-breaking spaces in quantities to normal counted items. There is nothing wrong with reading:

  • something something ... a squad of 24
    football players

The examples at MOS:UNITNAMES reflect these simple principles, and I can't see what other interpretation could be made of the present guidance:

  • Use a non-breaking space ({{nbsp}} or &nbsp;) between a number and a unit symbol, or use {{nowrap}} ...
  • ... and a normal space is used between a number and a unit name.

If somebody wants to change those guidelines, then they really should be proposing what changes they want made and the reasons for them. --RexxS (talk) 19:07, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just for the record, I wasn't proposing a change. I was merely asking for clarification, and if any disagreement were to arise, then firmly establish one way or another. What is written here makes sense, now I only propose that it is made crystal clear for other (copy)editors in the MOS:NBSP section (to use only with abbreviations). ComplexRational (talk) 00:10, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) @RexxS:, these examples are undisputed, and are clear by WP:NBSP and WP:MOSUNIT. Minor detail: your example of 15<regularspace>kilometres is not in the MOS explicitly, but well observed, also by {{Convert}} — end of detail.
Note: for simplicity, an "_" (underscore) says NBSP.
A question arose when reading in MOS:NBSP: It is desirable to prevent line breaks where breaking across lines might be confusing or awkward. -- note the criterium "awkward". The examples given are (1) unit symbols - no problem, see before, and (2) exampes of number-in-proper-name (Boeing_747).
Some editors state that the "awkward" situation may also occur in situations with a number inline, i.e. in running text. Examples (in here): element_114, the expected magic 114_protons, ....
My (opposing) point is that such number-word combinations are not awkward, can reasionably occur in any running sentence, are part of a reading habit, and so are not 'awkward' and do not allow an NBSP. Otherwise, this whole enwiki could require a MOS-change in ~every article, or have inconsistent styles between articles re this line-breaking.
So, first question: do we recognise this is a Good MOS Question to discuss? -DePiep (talk) 00:25, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There's long been a need for the nbsp/nobreak guidance to be improved. I've never done anything about it because I realized some cases would need a discussion. EEng 00:28, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@DePiep: It certainly seems that something ought to be done to educate editors about when to use (and not use) non-breaking spaces. I just looked at the Island of stability article you pointed out. Over 200 non-breaking spaces. Seriously? I've just removed four that you could see at a glance occur at places where the line could never break. No doubt somebody will revert me, citing MoS instead of thinking for themselves. I'm not sure repeating the already crystal clear guidance in MoS is the solution though. Either they never read MoS or they don't understand what a line break is. Either way, tinkering with the MoS won't have any effect on them. As for your actual examples, I've long ago given up trying to convince others that there's absolutely nothing wrong with reading
  • Flerovium, with the expected magic 114
    protons, was first synthesized in 1998
Although to get a line break there, you would have to be viewing on a screen with a maximum line length of less than 40 characters. Even my 1978 vintage TRS-80 could manage that. --RexxS (talk) 03:06, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • If 114 protons can't be broken, then you may as well say that every number has to be followed by an nbsp, always, and that would be silly.
  • I do think Z = 112 shouldn't break, though that would be better coded as {{nobr|Z = 112}} than the current Z&nbsp;=&nbsp;112
  • I'm not sure that all the examples at MOS:NBSP belong there, and I wonder if there shouldn't be some other cases listed.
EEng 04:20, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
User:RexxS: that is my understanding of MOS:NBSP too, including its background (typography). It's just, I stopped editing because of EW, started a talk, and involved editors correctly started a wider talk here. But I see no need to admonish other editors, instead we could use a clearer MOS text and explanation here, for fellow editors. -DePiep (talk) 08:28, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I now see that the section title here is a much narrower issue than the wide one ComplexRational and I were discussing/editing. As the Island of stability example show, it was and is about all of MOS:NBSP. This complicates/disturbs this talk flow, I must excuse. (how to proceed?). -DePiep (talk) 08:32, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@EEng and DePiep: Apologies, I was too focused on the quantities issues and not enough on the general nbsp guidance, which does seem to be missing. IMHO, we should have a guideline that says something like
  • Numbers followed by an ordinary English word (not an abbreviation, or similar) do not require a non-breaking space between them in normal circumstances.
There are also many circumstances where a non-breaking space is unnecessary because a line break can't happen there. There are three examples in Island of stability: in the caption of the infobox (the width is fixed, regardless of window size); in reference number 5 (too close to the start of a line for a line break to be possible); and in the table caption "Most stable isotopes of superheavy elements (Z ≥ 104)" (the table can't become narrow enough to wrap the caption onto another line). I've tried pushing the zoom up to 250% and narrowing the window to its minimum, but I can't find a setting that could cause a line break where one had been placed. Nevertheless, I don't suppose that is anything we can, or should, try to give guidance about in MoS for fear of causing more confusion. --RexxS (talk) 14:06, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In the first image, a line break appeared at 70% zoom on my computer screen, and indeed was awkward. What exactly are you suggesting would risk more confusion? The MoS is supposed to make things as clear as possible, and I wouldn't have started this thread had it been clear from the beginning (echoing EEng – There's long been a need for the nbsp/nobreak guidance to be improved.). ComplexRational (talk) 14:40, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for explaining how you got the line break in the image caption; I hadn't considered zooming out that far. But do you think anybody actually reads Wikipedia at 70% zoom? I can't even get any of my browsers to zoom at 70% to see the effect. Still, it's possible, so best to leave in the {{nowrap}} in that case. The general point about infobox images with captions shorter than the image width is worth understanding, though.
What I am suggesting is that there are many cases where we simply don't need a non-breaking space, i.e. whenever it's not possible for the line to break at that point, but that it's difficult to try to give foolproof guidance to cover those cases, so I don't think we can come up with a form of words that would be helpful. Can you?
Do you agree with my suggested clarification above: Numbers followed by an ordinary English word (not an abbreviation, or similar) do not require a non-breaking space between them in normal circumstances. and if not, why not? --RexxS (talk) 16:33, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Makes sense, I understand what you're saying about captions. Would it then also be better to use {{nobr|1=''Z'' = 114}} (for example) throughout the article, if this would be preferred to a pair of nbsp's? (On an unrelated note, maybe a new template should be created following whatever this discussion establishes, as this is pretty common in chemistry and physics articles.) ComplexRational (talk) 18:18, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with this wording, it addresses the elephant in the room and is easy enough to follow. I would specifically use it as an antithesis to the MOS points advising nbsp with units (70_km) or parts of the name (Airbus_A380), though I suppose saying "not an abbreviation" already addresses that. The only thing that may raise questions is "normal circumstances" – I'd rather leave that out and add an additional bullet point saying something along the lines of Non-breaking spaces are not required in fixed-with table cells or image captions, especially when the text is not long enough to wrap., or else work out through discussion what the most common exceptions would be (that would otherwise confuse editors unfamiliar or too familiar with MOS). ComplexRational (talk) 18:18, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Most editors, in my experience, prefer {{nowrap}} over multiple consecutive non-breaking spaces in a phrase. It makes the wikitext more readable for other editors (the same reason we prefer to avoid html entities where possible).
The "normal circumstances" would be to cover exceptions like
  • ... his fee for the service was $50
    thousand.
where a non-breaking space between the number and the next word would avoid giving the reader the impression the fee was $50 until they read on to the next line. But I'm happy to accommodate other views such as giving examples of specific exceptions instead of stating "normal circumstances".
While I think about it, there is a good case for what I called the "semantic dissonance" to be noted as a rule in other places as well:
  • ... the great-grandnephew of Queen Mary
    II
To anyone familiar with Tudor/Stuart history of England, it first reads as Mary I of England, then as Mary II of England when the next line is reached and obviously should be avoided. That represents one of the very few phrases where I would have no hesitation in recommending the use of a non-breaking space for cogent, rather than aesthetic reasons.--RexxS (talk) 19:26, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This is already covered at MOS:NUM, to the extent any of this needs any rule-mongering. It advises using non-breaking spaces in strings like 5 cm, but it does not advise doing this when using spelled-out words. It doesn't advise against it, either. Like most things, it is left to editorial discretion. Nothing is broken. No, we do not need another template, since {{nobr}} and {{nbsp}} work fine. So does just using &nbsp;. Yes, it is WP:Common sense to non-breakify certain strings like "$50 thousand", and "Mary II". No, we don't need a rule about it, or we would've already had one by now. No, we do not need anyone going around inserting non-breaking spaces robotically in proximity to every number they see, per WP:MEATBOT ("ain't broke, don't 'fix' it").  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  11:29, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

NBSP for numeric followed by words

Hi all, I recently put up Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/1985 World Snooker Championship/archive2 for FAC. SandyGeorgia commented that there should be some additional non-breaking spaces for items such as "15 seeds, 103 entrants, 32 participants". I don't really mind putting these in, but wanted to clarify our MOS, and how it effects these types of phrases. My understanding at WP:NBSP is that we should use these on names, such as World War 2, and measurements, such as 10 Miles. However, should we also use these on regular expressions, such as "20 people"? I don't mind either way, but wanted to clarify before I do wholesale changes. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:19, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The guideline gives patchy and somewhat conflicting advice on this entire subject. I'm going to give you what I think will be useful guidance, but we must brace ourselves for people to leap out at us from all corners of the project to denounce what I say as at best the product of unfathomable ignorance, and at worst detrimental to the moral fiber of the nation.
There are two (maybe more, but two I can think of offhand) things we're trying to prevent:
  • (1) You don't want tiny fragments that look odd alone stranded on the start of a line. Thus World War{nbsp}2 and Henry{nbsp}VIII.
  • (2) You don't want two things separated by a linebreak if the reader, seeing just the first part, will be momentarily misled and have to back up and rethink when he sees the bit on the next line. Thus $2{nbsp}million, because if the million goes on the next line the reader first thinks "Two dollars", and then when he sees the million he has to back up and think "Oh, wait, Two million dollars". (This is a peculiarity of the fact that money symbols go at front of quantities rather than at the end as with other units. Can anyone think of a similar example not involving money?)
(3) Notice that the logic of (2) doesn't arise with normal quantities like 15 seeds or 2 million dollars (i.e. no nbsp used in these cases) because as the reader scans "15<linebreak>seeds" there's nothing misleading about 15 alone at the end of the line, and the same for scanning "2<linebreak>million dollars" or "2 million<linebreak>dollars". When you think about it, if you required nbsp in constructions like that, then you're pretty much saying every number anywhere must be followed by an nbsp, and that can't be right. So I would not put {nbsp} in your examples.
(4) Units of measure are a special case. By the logic of (3), there's no {nbsp} in 10 kilometers. However, I think the guideline does recommend an {nbsp} in the case of 10{nbsp}km, because at the start of a line km looks weird in a way kilometer doesn't. (km is what's called a unit symbol, whereas kilometer is what's called a unit name, and there are several other ways in which unit symbols and unit names are treated differently, so there's nothing odd about treating them differently here.)
Perhaps the principles laid out above can be the start of a revival of this thread. EEng 03:04, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Or perhaps not. In the meantime, here are some other places I think (comment invited, of course) nbsp would be needed or not needed. Probably some or all of these are give by others in the posts above but I want to get them down while they're on my mind.
Needed:
  • In DMY dates e.g. 28{nbsp}May or 28{nbsp}May 1935, because at least some readers will find separation of the day-in-month from the month odd. (Further explanation on request as to why this is different from the case of 10 kilometers.)
  • In MDY dates e.g. May{nbsp}28, 1935, because "28, 1935" looks ludicrous at the start of a line.
  • He responded, "Better you than{nbsp}I." or The smallest reading was{nbsp}5.
  • 9:30{nbsp}a.m. because I think it's somewhat analogous to a unit symbol (see above); and definitely 9:30{nbsp}am, because "am" alone and separated from the "9:30" could cause the reader to trip and fall.
  • several{nbsp}.22 shells, because starting a line with a . looks weird
  • <certain image caption situations, details to be supplied (centered captions, left-aligned captions)>
  • Ellipsis or other fragments at the start of a quotation: He listed them as "1.{nbsp}Good goals, 2. Good planning, 3. Good execution; or The torn fragment read, "...{nbsp}for the love of God!"
  • July{{nbsp}}28, 1942 ????
Not needed:
  • 123 Main Street
EEng 00:48, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I ask people here: how often have you struck a dangling numeral at the end of a line? Me: not that I can recall. Tony (talk) 07:08, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    By struck do you mean "run into/happened to find" or "struck out/had to get rid of"? EEng 16:14, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I could see having a summary section somewhere (hopefully not in the main page, maybe in MOS:TEXT) about "Appropriate uses of non-breaking spaces" or some heading title like that, in which we could suggest these sorts of cases, without implying that they're required. People already rankle as the currently fairly-strongly-recommended ones in MOS:NUM and a few other places. So, there's opportunity to cry "WP:CREEP!" here if this discussion produces more rules, rather than optional tweaks for polishing up text for maximum usability.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:30, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Definitely for FA-level polishing, mostly, but there's one situation where I've found it worth the trouble to apply nbsp/nobr fairly liberally: in image captions, because their short line length means bad breaks do occur now and then unless you prevent them. EEng 03:45, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Something from somewhere else

From User:Tony1/Monthly_updates_of_styleguide_and_policy_changes / WP:Wikipedia_Signpost/2008-07-07/Dispatches --EEng 15:34, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Non-breaking spaces. The narrower scope for using non-breaking (i.e., "hard") spaces was significantly clarified. They should be used:

  • in compound expressions in which figures and abbreviations or symbols are separated by a space (17 kg, AD 565, 2:50 pm);
  • between month and day in dates that are not autoformatted (August 3, 1979);
  • on the left side of spaced en dashes; and
  • in other places where displacement might be disruptive to the reader, such as £11 billion, 5° 24′ 21.12″ N, Boeing 747, and the first two items in 7 World Trade Center.

MOS:GAMECAPS not being implemented expeditiously

Back in early 2018, we had a near-unanimous RfC concluding that WP does not capitalize the names of traditional (non-trademarked) games and sports, except where they contain a proper name (Canadian football but gridiron football; Texas hold 'em but royal hold 'em). This was implemented as MOS:GAMECAPS (a.k.a. MOS:SPORTCAPS).

While this has been pretty consistently deployed throughout sports articles, very little has been done address over-capitalization in table/board game articles and children's game articles. We're now seeing WP:CONLEVEL-problematic pushback, including patently false claims that names for non-commercial, folk games like snakes and ladders "are proper names", despite obviously failing to qualify. See, e.g., this multi-page RM at Talk:Snakes and ladders#Requested move 14 December 2020. Given that WP:RM discussions on obscure topics are easily subject to wikiproject canvassing to produce WP:FALSECONSENSUS, I'm not really sure what to do about this. It's similar to a short-lived pattern by WP:DANCE participants to resist de-capitalization of dance move terminology (also covered by MOS:GAMECAPS).

Should we open another RfC on it, to reconfirm the results, and maybe host it in WP:VPPOL? I don't like rehashing style-quibble stuff in such RfCs because the community has better things to spend its time on. But it really isn't permissible for wikiprojects (on games or anything else) to "revolt" against guidelines they don't like after RfCs did not go their way, and take a posture that "failure" by the community to force compliance at "their" pages at warp speed is somehow an excuse to ignore the RfC consensus and defy the guidelines.

However, I'm not even certain this is a wikiproject problem this time. Several commenters at that RM are long-term gadflies who who habitually make clearly incorrect claims that things are "proper names", without any interest in or understanding of the topics in question, but seemingly just out of a "disrupt MoS application as much as possible" pattern, and most especially to keep capitalizing things the guidelines and the bulk of the sources do not capitalize. Five+ years of these antics from the same editors is far too long.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:34, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:SMcCandlish, that last paragraph, is that a barely concealed personal attack on specific individuals readily identified by following your links? And is this not poisoning the well for MOS watchers who you seek to rally into backing you up? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:48, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Being critical of editors engaging in unconstructive behavior patterns is not a "personal attack". Please actually read WP:NPA. See also poisoning the well and what it actually means. It certainly does not refer to drawing additional editorial attention, at the most appropriate venue, to issues of WP:P&G implementation and interpretation problems. Reporting and trying to resolve unconstructive behavior and failure to follow the P&G is what every noticeboard on the system exists for, and WT:MOS has served as the WP:MOS / WP:RM noticeboard – more so than as a talk page about guideline text editing – for 15+ years (a proposal about half that time ago to set up a separate noticeboard for this was rejected, actually, because it would be redundant). So: right back atcha. If you want to accuse me personal attacks and bad-faith canvassing, you know where WP:ANI is. I doubt I'll need to post anything further there than what I have already posted in the rest of this reply.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  05:35, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
To be specific: Do you accuse me of being a gadfly making "incorrect claims that things are "proper names", without any interest in or understanding of the topics in question", when I am arguing that Wikipedia should be led by its sources, the bulk of which do capitalize in some cases, counting sources starting with the existing reference list? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:54, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you think I was referring to you? I didn't even notice your username in there, until you pinged me at 04:42, 16 December 2020 (UTC) [2]. I would have to dig back through RM history to know whether or not you have a history of making false "proper name" claims. However, if you find that this description of behavior does uncomfortably fit your habitual approach to style matters and you just don't like the tone, I don't think the problem is on my end. (I don't read minds, so I'm not sure what you're on about, frankly.) Much more substantively, your statement "sources, the bulk of which do capitalize in some [of these] cases" is already shown to be counterfactual (with one possible exception which is probably due to false-positives for a TV show and other works, but this doesn't matter anyway, since per all of MOS:CAPS, not just MOS:GAMECAPS, our standard is to not capitalize unless sources do so with remarkable consistency, not just some of the time or even a bare majority of the time). I've addressed at the article talk page your attempt to (again) argue incorrectly that only the sources already present in the article can be used for such an assessment, which is not how RM approaches these matters, ever. I'm hard-pressed to think of a single other editor still engaging in that fallacy.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  07:21, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I suspected your vitriol was directed at someone else, but don’t care to follow that line. I think we disagree on what is meant by “source”. I never said “only” sources in the article matter, but I do say they should get first consideration, and if they are not the best sources, the sources should be examined and improved. That, at least, would cause these time wasting titling battles to lead to article improvement. Do you consider google ngram results to be “sources”? I consider that absurd, google ngram includes data scrapped from inappropriate sources. If you drop the word “only”, do you still consider it a fallacy? —SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:27, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, even that is wrong. When we are assessing the real-world consensus about something, we use all the available source material, in the aggregate, that we can bring to bear, not just what someone today happens to prefer to have cited in the article (which may well be outright WP:CHERRYPICKING). This has serious policy implications, and goes far beyond style quibbles. Just for you, I've written this up in clear essay form at WP:Fallacy of selective sources. The obvious hole in your variant of the fallacy here is that we have no policy to use only the best sources, just sources at all that qualify as reliable, and we have no formal process by which to assess an individual source against others, nor the overall sourcing quality of an article. It's just more loosey-goosey consensus discussion, and it usually does not even begin until the WP:GAN phase, often not until WP:FAC (GA just requires that the sources be valid and actually be cited for the proper claims in our articles). Many of our game articles have no reliable sources at all (yet even this is permissible under WP:V, which requires that claims be sourceable not already sourceed except when they are apt to be controversial, are categorically controversial (e.g. per WP:BLP), or have already been controverted).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  07:26, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've withdrawn my !vote at Snakes and Ladders, but this drive for decapitalizations does not feel right. The "near-unanimous" RfC does not speak to the sort of cases it is being applied to. It feels like MOS aficionados are winning the long war through border skirmishes on the lowest importance articles, like Fuzzy duck, and not by making an understandable case. It feels wrong that a trademarked name gets capitals, but an iconic ancient game does not. The real question for me is "what is a proper name", and where are the boundaries. Again, it feels like MOS aficionados are winning on cases that no one cares about, and steers away from cases where editors do care. Why is "Boyle's law" not a proper name, but "Queen's Gambit" is? Is there a logic to it, or is it just how things are changing, and the gas physicists care less about the capitals than chess players, and is it just a matter of time, decades, until the popular opening is the queen's gambit? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:06, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    "It feels wrong that a trademarked name gets capitals, but an iconic ancient game does not." Really? The logic is not that complicated. In the first place, nobody would lowercase a trademarked game name like "Hungry Hungry Hippos", but the majority of sources do use lowercase "snakes and ladders" and "law" in most such laws; and caps are pretty overwhelming on "Queen's Gambit", too. So if you don't understand the logic, at least know that we are in general not doing very different from what other sources and authorities do. Dicklyon (talk) 04:31, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, the most "iconic ancient game" (for which we have a known rule set) of all time is surely chess, and we do not capitalize it, nor does much of anyone else out there. I think much of what is going on here is actually MOS:SIGCAPS problems: capitalization as a form of "signification" emphasis, either as a stab at unnecessary disambiguation ("it's game called snakes and ladders, it's not actually a bunch of ladders and bunch of snakes" – as if our readers had dain bramage), or more often as an attempt to signal subjective importance (e.g. "iconic ancient" status), which in turn is a WP:NPOV problem.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  07:19, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I think Nine Men’s Morris is a bit older. Go (game) older again. I suspect is it more to do with recognizability than emphasis. It’s awkward to refer to snakes and ladders and go. I’ve accepted that these are not proper names. You seem very sure of anything, can you say where the boundary lies for proper names. Why don’t theorems have proper names? —SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:25, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @SmokeyJoe: I've tried to address this in the WP:PNPN essay. The short version is that they do, in the philosophical sense of "proper name" (which WP doesn't use, and which doesn't have any implications for capitalization); but theorems, eponymous laws, etc., are not conventionalized in English as things to capitalize. Some sources do it, but most don't. It's another of those "WP follows, it does not lead" matters. Or "WP is not the place to reform the language", etc. As for "It's awkward to write ...", yeah, this the same argument that was tried with capitalizing vernacular names of species, and many other things. It's just a fact of WP life that some things have to be spelled out more clearly for a global, general audience (and readers who often lack context, e.g. due to following a link directly to a subsection), than would be necessary in insider-to-insider communication. Also, the "signification" effect of capitalizing something as "special and important in this subject area" varies radically by topical audience; to the average editor who is not an expert in that particular field, it just looks like crappy writing and doesn't actually signify what was intended. Signification has to work in the receiving brain, not just the authoring one. And, since pretty much everything is the subject of one specialization or another, and many of them want to use SIGCAPS (often in conflicting ways), we would just end up with a confusing morass of every other thing being capitalized to make someone somewhere happier. (I'm summarizing from WP:SSF here.)

    When it comes to terminology-heavy subjects, I've long pointed out that it's very helpful to both readers and editors to create and make extensive use of glossary articles, and the term-link templates that reference them (derived from the Template:Glossary link meta-template). Example: {{cuegloss}} is used thousands, probably tens of thousands, of times in cue-sports articles for pinpoint links to entries at Glossary of cue sports terms, to obviate the need to re-re-re-explain terms in situ in every article in the category. I'm not sure every folk game needs a glossary, of course, while some major games like chess already have one, but we might could use "Glossary of traditional board games", "Glossary of bowling games", etc. And various geeky topics have needed glossaries for a long time (e.g. Unix and Linux terms). It's kind of a bummer that Category:Wikipedia glossaries isn't far larger than it is (and with better-developed existing articles).
     — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  18:19, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    (Go is older than chess but less iconic, at least in the west.) Popcornfud (talk) 17:48, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    (Go should be decapitalized in its use in that article too, but I would never do such a thing while this discussion was open. ;) --Izno (talk) 18:16, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, very uncomfortable that this is a rallying ground to prepare for the battle. Talk:Go (game) won't know what hit them. Personally, I prefer weiqi, and don't understand the lack of mention of this name. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:18, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I would think that all names of it that are likely to be encountered in Eng-lang sources should be mentioned there, and Chinese ones are probably important since the game goes back to ancient China (which any good sources will get into). However, go being Japanese (transliterated), from earlier igo, means it should be italicized per MOS:FOREIGN (ideally, it would be done as {{lang|ja-Latn|go}}; one could also use the {{Nihongo}} template, but it has a lot of parser overhead, and is better for cases where we need to generate "Japanese: " and Kanji or other non-Latin characters, and indicate the transliteration scheme, and ...). The italics would make it clear that it's a foreignism not the English word "go" (present tense of "went"), and thus obviate the alleged recognizability/disambiguation rationale for capitalizing it. That said, I have generally been personally disinclined to get involved in lower-casing {{lang|ja-Latn|go}}; as with chess people and their capitalization of gambits, the drama level involved would be too high for my blood pressure.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  18:19, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

SMcCandlish – re "not being implemented expeditiously". As you should know, these things never happen expeditiously. It takes work from those of us who notice and care. Many thousands of my edits went to implement MOS:JR. Thousands more for the revised river naming conventions. Hundreds at least on WP:USSTATION, which got me into deep yoghurt. Thousands over the years on MOS:CAPS. Hundreds at least on MOS:POSS. Though only about 1% run into opposition, dealing with those cases is what takes much of the time. Remember the MOS:LQ! Dicklyon (talk) 04:38, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

True. It's just odd that cleanup in this regard has swept through sports articles (even edge cases like cue sports, more often thought of as games than sports) but has not swept through non-sport games articles. My guess is this is just due to a smaller "fan base" of interested editors, which is why I think it needs some focused editorial attention, since it's clearly not getting enough just incidentally from what people are watchlisting or randomly working on.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  07:29, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Section head that starts with digits?

How would you capitalize "2021 mayoral campaign" as a section head? Does "mayoral" get an upper-case M? -- RoySmith (talk) 19:58, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, the first word is 2021. It's the same as if you spelled it out, "Two thousand twenty one mayoral campaign". —David Eppstein (talk) 20:17, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Use a capital 2, obviously, like this: @021 mayoral campaign. EEng 21:03, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ha ha!  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  17:30, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification for tense (periodicals vs podcasts and the like)

The section states:

However, articles about periodicals that are no longer being produced should normally, and with commonsense exceptions, use the past tense. Generally, do not use past tense except for past events, subjects that are dead or no longer meaningfully exist, or periodicals and similar written material that are no longer being produced.

I find it a bit strange that we have this artificial split for periodicals but would exempt radio and TV shows, podcasts, and so on. So a discontinued magazine was but a discontinued radio/TV show or a podcast still is? What's the logic here? This leaves a lot of blurry boundaries not addressed. What about a website? What about a website that was both a podcast and a magazine? I think we should try to standardize this better. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:14, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You can read the related RFC. I think introducing the inconsistency was rather dumb, and would prefer to return to the way it was (not least because several editors advocating for the inconsistency seemed not to want to distinguish between publisher and publication, and formal versus informal English and where each may be used), but there you go. --Izno (talk) 06:58, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this is worth revisiting, but I'm of the mind that such matters should be left alone for at least a year, maybe two, or people get their undies in a bunch. Frankly, it helps to have a good list of problem examples, complaints, etc., arising over time to see if consensus will change.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  17:28, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tense seems inconsistent

Tense

I'm looking at these three examples:

  • Earth: Final Conflict is a Canadian science fiction television series that ran for five seasons between October 6, 1997, and May 20, 2002.
  • A Prairie Home Companion is a radio show that aired live from 1974 to 2016 (not A Prairie Home Companion was a radio show).
  • Jumbo Comics was an adventure anthology comic book published by Fiction House from 1938 to 1953

Why are discontinued TV shows and radio shows in present tense, and discontinued comic books in past tense? —Naddruf (talk ~ contribs) 20:43, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Naddruf:, MOS:VERB says,

By default, write articles in the present tense, including those covering works of fiction (see Wikipedia:Writing better articles § Tense in fiction) and products or works that have been discontinued. However, articles about periodicals that are no longer being produced should normally, and with commonsense exceptions, use the past tense. Generally, do not use past tense except for past events, subjects that are dead or no longer meaningfully exist, or periodicals and similar written material that are no longer being produced.

Does that help? Your question was the subject of an Rfc (here). You could try raising the issue again, if you disagree with it, but the consensus is only six months old, so you could consider waiting a bit. Mathglot (talk) 22:17, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think your quote from the MOS doesn't really explain what the consensus is, because it doesn't state a difference between printed works and electronic media. However this is stated in the RfC in a slightly obfuscated way. So thanks for providing the RfC, this page is very confusing. —Naddruf (talk ~ contribs) 22:22, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Literally the same discussion as the comment at #Clarification for tense (periodicals vs podcasts and the like); since you don't know why it is, you're looking for Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 219#RfC: Should "is" or "was" be used to describe periodical publications that are no longer being published?. As above, I am annoyed that we have now had to field 2 questions about it. --Izno (talk) 21:28, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've merged this to be a subsection of the original, to centralize discussion.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:32, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Non-breaking spaces

Pardon me for a moment while I rant about non breaking spaces. Somebody came by an appropriations act article today and put nbsp in between all the $10 million, $5 billion, $7 million type numbers. This particular article uses bulleted lists, and probably has 100 of this kind of number. It makes it a little hard to read in the source code editor, but especially hard to read in the visual editor. I'd say it's almost unreadable in the visual editor. Big giant "nbsp" boxes everywhere. Honestly, I wonder if these non breaking spaces are worth the trouble. It takes a wikipedian extra time and effort to add them, and it clogs the visual editor with visual noise. For what is, in my opinion, not much of a benefit. Am I out in left field here, or do others also feel this way? –Novem Linguae (talk) 09:34, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't get it. What does it look like? --editeur24 (talk) 17:34, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Editeur24, good question. Here's a screenshot. –Novem Linguae (talk) 19:33, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • As it happens, your post itself beautifully illustrates why nbsp is needed. By the happenstance of my window size, it read
                                                                and put nbsp in between all the $10
    million, $5 billion, $7 million type numbers. This particular
Someone reading this will think, "all the ten dollar ... oh wait, ten million dollar ...". That (among other things) is what nbsp exists to prevent. Having said that, in most of the bullets in your screenshot nbsp isn't needed since there's zero chance of a linebreak one word after the *. For the items like $82 billion for schools and universities, including $54 billion to public K-12 schools, nbsp is needed for the second and subsequent dollar amounts.
Our priority is what the reader sees, not our own convenience. My advice is to stop using VE. EEng 19:55, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, his post does not demonstrate the issue at all. The issue is for nbsp used near the beginning of bullet points. Unless the reader has an unrealistic screen width of 100 pixels or so, then the browser will never do an automatic line break on those numbers. Hence there is the downside of visual clutter in VE (and when editing directly) but there is no upside at all. In the interest of simplicity, I would convert them back to normal spaces. However, nbsp that are not near the beginning of a line should remain as nbsp.  Stepho  talk  23:04, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Huh??? What part of in most of the bullets in your screenshot nbsp isn't needed since there's zero chance of a linebreak one word after the * did you not understand? EEng 18:29, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Is the graphical "[puzzle piece icon] Nbsp" display in that editor not an option that can be turned on and off? I would think it would be, and if it's not this is worth a ticket in the MediaWiki bug/feature request system (Phabricator). Start here: https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Phabricator

Agreed with EEng and Stepho that most of the cases in that example are unnecessary, because they are at the very beginnings of lines. Also agree to avoid Visual Editor, or at least switch into source mode any time it is bothering you, and before saving. VE tends to booger up a lot of markup, and it is safest to re-examine what it thinks it is doing before saving changes.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  17:23, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Punctuation inside or outside

I found this useful MOS page via a google search: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Punctuation inside or outside. Strangely, it is in the namespace "Wikipedia talk". Any interest in moving it into the "Wikipedia:Manual of Style" namespace? And giving it a shortcut code like MOS:PIOO? I'm happy to make the move if we get consensus. Thanks. –Novem Linguae (talk) 19:44, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This appears to be an old essay. The topic is covered already; see MOS:INOROUT. Mathglot (talk) 19:54, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Good thing I checked. I'll tag it as {{Historical}} {{main|MOS:INOROUT}}. Thanks. –Novem Linguae (talk) 20:04, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Do not invent abbreviations or acronyms"

Perhaps it should be pointed out that articles about organizations with long names are exempted from this rule? For example, abbreviating Human Rights Defenders and Promoters as HRDP may not be a standard abbreviation (and thus invented), but writing Human Rights Defenders and Promoters everywhere in the article is cumbersome and needlessly repetitive. Another example is Moscow Research Center for Human Rights which in the article is abbreviated MRCHR. ImTheIP (talk) 14:23, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think the idea is to encourage people to either use the abbreviated names that the organization uses for itself or that independent, reliable sources use for it, or to use a descriptive term like "the company" or "the organization" etc. as you would do in spoken English, where hard-to-pronounce acronyms are avoided when possible. That said, I can see the rare case where there is no existing acronym and using an "invented acronym" is less awkward than using a descriptive term, but that's going to be the exception, not the rule. WP:Ignore all rules exists for one-off exceptional cases where it's obvious the best thing to do is to "do it wrong."
On the other hand, if it's becoming standard practice, maybe the "consensus against using invented acronyms" is changing or has changed, so it might be worth discussing.
(humor) Of course, if you are doing an article on a future remake of the Schoolhouse Rock episode "Rufus Xavier Sarsaparilla" that used organizations, well, you might want to spell out the very long organizations in the first half of the article, "because pronouns." davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 16:59, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
After writing all of the above, I would say our style guide should mean something like this: "Avoid inventing acronyms. Suggested alternatives include using the full name (e.g. Moscow Research Center for Human Rights), using a shortened form of the full name (e.g. Moscow Research Center), using other phrases (e.g. "the center") for second and subsequent uses when doing so would not detract from readability."
I don't care what the actual verbiage is, but it should include a short list of recommended alternatives, leaving it open to the editors to be creative to come up with a way to communicate clearly and effectively. WP:Ignore all rules shouldn't be explicitly spelled out, it's implicit in all Wikipedia policies and guidelines save perhaps those with legal implications. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 16:59, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
So I shouldn't have invented "TDOTSCIFOGLHology"?[3] --Guy Macon (talk) 22:03, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
After the first use, "the cover" or "the sewer cover" would've been adequate. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 22:12, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for sharing your views. It's very enlightening! For me, it is not easy to know what works best in English so I'm grateful for the style guidelines that spells it out in details (as well as for all the copyeditors that fixes my prose). In the articles I've written about some organizations I have indeed invented abbreviations but I'll try to avoid that in the future. I guess that means that if one is writing about the English Defence League one would perhaps prefer "the League" over "the EDL," in International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights one should prefer "the Covenant" over "the ICCPR," and in International Observatory of Human Rights, "the Observatory" over "the IOHR"? I believe (but I'm not sure about it) that the pronoun should be capitalized. E.g "the Observatory" with a capital O. ImTheIP (talk) 22:55, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@ImTheIP: Wouldn't "the organisation" (or "the document", etc.) cover most of those cases? Mathglot (talk) 23:07, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've seen the capitalization go both ways. In this case it would probably be capitalized, but if it were "The Naval Observatory" I think it depends on if you mean "the observatory" as in "the observatory we've been talking about" or "the Observatory" as in "The Naval Observatory" - since they both mean exactly the same thing if the topic of discussion is The Naval Observatory both ways would be correct, with slightly different shades of meaning/emphasis. By the way, I appreciate the humor value of TDOTSCIFOGLHology - in your own user space, use whatever style suits you. Likewise off-Wiki, it's perfectly okay to "invent acronyms" if you define them on the first use and the usage isn't cumbersome or awkward or confusing. "New American Science Acadamy (NASA)" is a bad "invented algorithm" for obvious reasons (the name's taken) but if the term "NASA" weren't already a "well-known acronym" it would be fine to use off-Wiki. Wikipedia has adopted a convention of NOT doing so. That convention fits very well with and may be because of our policy of WP:No original research. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 23:15, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Some clarification: If I used the term "pronoun" to refer to using a shorter version of a long name, I was in error. Wikt:pronoun has the definition of pronoun. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 23:19, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You didnt. You were - I THINK - drawing an analogy between use of pronouns in contexts when it is unclear who the pronoun refers to, and using generic references to subjects like 'the organisation' in contexts which it is unclear what organisation is being referred to. ;) Firejuggler86 (talk) 09:26, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Summary response: I'm skeptical that something named Human Rights Defenders and Promoters, or Moscow Research Center for Human Rights cannot be found as HRDP or MRCHR (respectively) in some source somewhere. That kind of stretches credulity (perhaps of the subject's notability, if there are so few sources available, and so short/trivial, that they never said enough to want to abbreviate the name upon a later occurrence, e.g. because there wasn't one). If you're writing about something named the Naval Observatory (or Harvard University), do not refer to is as "the Observatory" or "the University". It doesn't matter that this is the preferred style in some other publications; it is not in this one (first rule of MOS:CAPS: if it's not capitalized with near-uniformity in independent reliable sources, don't capitalize it on WP). If you're writing about something named International Observatory of Human Rights, do not refer to it as "the Observatory" or "the observatory", since it is not in fact an observatory; it's just got a rather silly metaphoric name. If you literally cannot find any source anywhere calling it IOHR, then refer to it later as "the organization", or something like that. None of this is new discussion, and answers to all these questions were already available by just applying the relevant guidelines without trying to second-guess them (and WP:Common sense in the IOHR case), by reading MoS archive discussions, or just by looking at high-quality WP articles. :-)  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:14, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"[[MOS:]]" redirecting to "Wikipedia:Manual of Style"

"MOS:" redirects to "Wikipedia:Manual of Style". There is a disambiguation page named "MOS". Therefore, I added a hatnote of MOS: redirecting to manual of style to the MOS disambiguation page since anyone might be looking of what MOS could also refer to. Seventyfiveyears (talk) 14:18, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a conscious reason a reader would enter a colon with MOS? I can't see it happening accidentally.—Bagumba (talk) 15:14, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"MOS:" stands for "Manual of Style:" (which also redirects to "Wikipedia:Manual of Style:", as both of them have colons. There's also a redirect for "Manual of Style", which redirects to "Study guide". IF a reader intentionally types "MOS:", they're likely looking for "Wikipedia:Manual of Style". Seventyfiveyears (talk) 18:18, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
IF a reader intentionally types "MOS:", they're likely looking for "Wikipedia:Manual of Style": Which is why I think a hatnote is unneccessary: a reader is unlikely to have mistakenly gotten here.—Bagumba (talk) 01:38, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Reader entering a colon. EEng 02:23, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It is at about the most prominent spot on an already cluttered page. It feels unnecessary and I'd favor removing it. SchreiberBike | ⌨  02:27, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed it, given the lack of consensus to include it.—Bagumba (talk) 18:11, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Stress marks in Russian words

Stress marks discussion

There is a dispute on whether the Russian terms and names should include the accents that mark the stressed vowel, as in "Никола́й Андре́евич Ри́мский-Ко́рсаков", or should the correct spelling be preferred ("Николай Андреевич Римский-Корсаков"). In fact, these accents are not part of the regular Russian orthography, it's rather a kludge that exists to compensate for the lack of a full IPA transcriptions. The problem is that most readers unfamiliar with Russian don't realize what it is, they just think that the words are spelled correctly. "Because I've copied it from Wikipedia!".

For a couple of years I've been cleaning the articles from that, and by request of one of the curious users I wrote an essay that describes the matter: WP:Stress marks in Russian words. However, recently I've met a significant population of users (by the number of two) who oppose to my edits so strongly that I have to draw your attention now. Please see the current discussion and express your opinions.

See also:

Ideally, we should form a statement to be included in MoS, so that the controversies no longer arise. Even if we don't, any input will still be helpful. — Mike Novikoff 13:00, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Important Note: Unlike claimed above, both spellings (stressed and unstressed) are correct. Taurus Littrow (talk) 07:47, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not exactly. The whole point is that the stress-marked variants are used very seldom and only on certain occasions, and thus do not represent the common spelling. You may call them "correct" only in a narrow sense.
And I strongly oppose that you edit the essay before gaining any consensus to do so. It now looks like I wrote something that I actually didn't. :\ — Mike Novikoff 12:34, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The use of stresses is a different question. And what is "common spelling"? In encyclopedias, we have one common and accepted spelling (with stresses), and in books, another common spelling (no stresses). But you can't say that one spelling is correct and the other is wrong. That would be utterly misleading. Stresses are not mandatory, but they are not forbidden either. "Not mandatory" and "forbidden" are two different things. P.S. The essay doesn't belong to you; it's in common space, and some other users actually asked me to edit it. One other user edited it before me, anyway, and another after me (I also included a sentence suggested by a third user). You can give a link to the old version here, and we can discuss the whole thing on the talk page. Anyway, I tried to include both points of view, and I didn't remove most of your arguments (save for the irrelevant or misleading stuff). Let's not complicate things. Taurus Littrow (talk) 12:48, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You didn't word this invitation neutrally. So I'll try to help clear up the situation a bit.
You have tried to get rid of stress marks in the Russian Wikipedia and failed. Here: ru:Википедия:Форум/Архив/Общий/2018/09#Ударения в русских словах. So it is not only two users. The whole Russian Wikipedia opposes you. --Moscow Connection (talk) 18:11, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to echo this. This statement is certainly not neutrally worded, especially w.r.t. the mischaracterisation of accents marks. The description above could be interpreted as meaning that are an invention of Wikipedians, which is false. It is true that they are not a part of standard common everyday written Russian as is found in newspapers, books, signage etc. that is intended for normal L1 Russian speakers; however, they are common in texts for younger L1-speaking children or beginning L2 learners and, more relevantly here, have precedent in certain Russian-language encyclopaediae and dictionaries aimed at adult L1 speakers. Stephen MUFC (talk) 21:21, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Mike Novikoff's statement is clearly very biased, one-sided and derisive. Frankly, I've got quite tired of this discussion, and I already listed my arguments for using accents (see the above links), so I will be brief this time and just say that using stress marks in Russian encyclopedias and dictionaries (in entries) is at least 200-year-old common practice which is still in use (see the Great Russian Encyclopedia in 36 volumes, published only recently, between 2004 and 2017, by the prestigious Russian Academy of Sciences). Stress marks are also used in all polysyllabic words in books for young Russian children and in reading books for foreigners. I guess that solves the issue. Taurus Littrow (talk) 13:51, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
> The whole Russian Wikipedia opposes you.
That's not even remotely true. The discussions on this matter appeared there since at least 2011 ([1], [2], [3]) when I hadn't even been there. @Jack who built the house: ping. — Mike Novikoff 08:09, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Both discussions concern dictionary words. While what you do is removing stress marks from people's names. No one in the Russian Wikipedia would ever agree to that. --Moscow Connection (talk) 11:10, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Just like in that old joke on the Russain army, where an officer says: "Hey, the three of you! I tell you both! Yes, you, man!"
In fact, there were much more than three discussions, some of them even successful, but I'm not going to reveal everything so that you don't go and edit war there now. I guess you are having enough fun there already, aren't you?
Back to the topic, there's no use to look at a non-consensus (there has never been one!) of a barbarian wiki that in 2021 still practices SOB-formed datelinks and infobox flags. They are copulating with geese, you see. — Mike Novikoff 13:50, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'd dare to suggest that your joke is completely irrelevant here. Also, please avoid personal attacks like this one: "I guess you are having enough fun there already, aren't you?" — No personal attacks or harassment. Let's be polite. Thanks. — Taurus Littrow (talk) 16:01, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I agree, this can be a real problem for those unfamiliar with the Russian orthography, who confuse the stress mark with other diacritics. Mike made a pretty strong argument in his favor. On the part of opponents, I see the argument that stress marks are used in Russian-language encyclopaediae and dictionaries (especially for children). However, here is an encyclopedia for adults in English.
P.S. At the same time, I have no opinion about the stress marks in the Russian Wikipedia, perhaps Mike really had no arguments to remove them in ru-wiki, but here is another case.--Nicoljaus (talk) 14:56, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nicoljaus "stress marks are used in Russian-language encyclopaediae and dictionaries (especially for children)" – There has been a misinterpretation on your part. Stress marks are used in: 1) encyclopaediae and dictionaries (which are intended both for adults and children); 2) books for small Russian children; and 3) reading books for foreigners (both adults and children).
"However, here is an encyclopedia for adults in English." See 3) above. Taurus Littrow (talk) 15:09, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t understand what you’ll argue with. Here, in any case, not a book for L2 learners. Give an example where a common English-language encyclopedia uses the Russian spelling with stress marks.--Nicoljaus (talk) 15:20, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What exactly don't you understand? I explained that your statement re. children is wrong. And why don't you give an example of a common English-language encyclopedia that doesn't use stress marks? Note that stresses are used in Russian-English and English-Russian dictionaries (in Russian words), including those published in English-speaking countries. Can it be considered a strong argument for using stresses? One way or another, there is nothing wrong in using stresses in Russian words; they are just not used in "normal" books, newspapers, magazines, etc., where they are considered excessive. But even in those texts accents are still used in some words (e.g., to help distinguish words which are written the same). I repeat: it is not a mistake to use accents in Russian words. And stresses are used on a large scale for guidance purposes, including in texts intended for non-Russian speakers. I'd dare to say that English Wikipedia can be considered such a text. Taurus Littrow (talk) 15:34, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And why don't you give an example of a common English-language encyclopedia that doesn't use stress marks? -- Well, for example see: Russian-English Geographical-encyclopedia there is nothing wrong in using stresses in Russian words -- I am not saying that using the stress mark is something wrong. I say that when a person, who does not know that this is a stress mark, sees such a spelling in the English Wikipedia, they will think that this is a common variant of Russian orthography. While this is a variant that is rarely used, only for special purposes. This can lead to confusion and you need to think about how to avoid it. At the same time, the information on where to put in stress is already given by the entry in the IPA.--Nicoljaus (talk) 16:03, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thanks. However, stresses are used in the English-Russian Russian-English Medical Dictionary and Phrasebook, published only recently, in September 2020. It only supports my statement that there is nothing wrong in using stresses.
Whether the IPA can be used to replace (rather than complement) the stresses has already been discussed elsewhere (see the links above), so I won't repeat the arguments pro and contra (I've got quite tired of this stuff).
"This can lead to confusion and you need to think about how to avoid it." – OK, we can discuss that, but just removing stresses (which are of great help) is obviously not a very good solution. We could probably write a notice to this effect and put it in some visible place, probably in the Russian language article. Taurus Littrow (talk) 16:27, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Would a hover-over notice briefly explaining the situation with stress-marking accents be appropriate perhaps? Stephen MUFC (talk) 16:35, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It sounds like a good idea. Whatever way we choose, I believe we could write a bot that would do the necessary changes automatically in all the articles. Taurus Littrow (talk) 16:38, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Could it not just be added as a feature of the template used to demarcate Russian Cyrillic in the wiki code? Stephen MUFC (talk) 16:40, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That would be perfect, sure. Taurus Littrow (talk) 16:54, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If we were to follow the same kind of logic ("it's confusing, so remove it"), we could delete the patronymics as well. They are not used in "normal" texts either. Taurus Littrow (talk) 16:54, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Taurus Littrow:However, stresses are used in the English-Russian Russian-English Medical Dictionary and Phrasebook -- Yes, in dictionaries sometimes spelling with a stress mark is done instead of IPA, but I have never seen that both are used at the same time, this is really confusing. In encyclopedias in English I have never seen Cyrillic with stress marks.
We could probably write a notice to this effect and put it in some visible place, probably in the Russian language article. -- If you mean the Russian interwiki article, then I don't think this is a good idea, since it is unlikely that an English reader will go there. The notice ("a feature of the template") seems like a better idea.--Nicoljaus (talk) 13:10, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nicoljaus If you mean the Russian interwiki article – No, I meant the Russian language article on enwiki (where the use of stresses is actually explained). But I agree that "a feature of the template" is a much better idea. Taurus Littrow (talk) 13:29, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, I'm sorry for my misunderstanding.--Nicoljaus (talk) 14:37, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If even the Russian Wikipedia disagrees with stripping these marks, that's suggestive that we should keep them as well. But the real question for en.WP is what do most modern, high-quality, English-language sources do, when they also present these names and terms in Cyrillic? And not dictionaries, since they may be including them for pronunciation-guide reasons. If it's usual to include them, then WP should include them. If it's not, then it's not.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:04, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think usually English-language encyclopaediae actually either don't include the Russian-language name at all or only use a transliteration rather than Cyrillic. Stephen MUFC (talk) 21:16, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Which is one of the reasons I said modern, high-quality, English-language sources, not English-language encyclopedias.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:00, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The two aren't mutually exclusive but apologies for too hastily reading your post. It is also true, however, that even history or politics books in English about Russia(ns) don't tend to provide Cyrillic but may give a transliteration. I can't say for certain that there are sources which do use Cyrillic - I'm sure there must be some out there - but I can't remember ever having encountered any and, although I'm not an expert, I (have) read a fair amount of relevant material. Stephen MUFC (talk) 22:55, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, I didn't mean they're mutually exclusive, but that one is a large class and the other a subset (which we already know is doing it for pronunciation reasons).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:43, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
SMcCandlish I believe that English-language sources (other than dictionaries and reading books) don't include Russian spellings (with or without stress marks) at all. You can only see Russian spellings in bilingual dictionaries and reading or learning books, and they are almost universally accompanied by stress marks, whose main reason is indeed to help with the pronunciation. So if you do add Russian spellings here or in an another encyclopedia, I don't see why you should exclude the stress marks. There's no harm in adding them other than a possible misunderstanding as to their use in normal texts, which can be easily solved by adding an explanatory note. Taurus Littrow (talk) 21:22, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm skeptical that serious works of biography, etc., never provide the Cyrillic of anyone's name. I don't read a lot of Russia-related stuff, but it's certainly common in academic sources to include the Greek-alphabet name along with the Latin-alphabet transliteration when writing about Greek subjects. I'm not even suggesting this need be done on a case-by-case basis. If, for example, very few English-language sources on a new Russian movie star gave their Cyrillic name, that's irrelevant if lots of English book sources do give Cyrillic names of Russian politicians, generals, composers, authors, etc., and a dominant style (with the marks, or not) can be discerned from modern works of this sort. If a source analysis of this source proves fruitless, then I'm not sure I know what to !vote here. I like being consistent with ru.WP, but if they're only doing it as a pronunciation aid, because their equivalents of WP:NOTDICT and WP:AT are very different, then that wouldn't be a good rationale to apply at en.WP. But if these marks are common in everyday works like newspapers and adult books in Russian, that would refute the claim these are only used as pronunciation aids for children's/learners' materials and dictionaries.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:00, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
SMcCandlish Well, I've read a lot of Russian-related stuff in English, and I don't remember seeing Russian spellings. They just transliterate and translate anything written in Russian, including titles of books in bibliographies. Just checked some books on space exploration, and that's indeed the case; I could find nothing in Cyrillic in them. One book is actually a translation from Russian, and even its original title was transliterated. So the situation is completely different from that for Greek-related subjects. Weird, but true.
But if these marks are common in everyday works like newspapers and adult books in Russian – They're NOT common there, that's the point. Nobody uses them in Russian newspapers and books for persons older than 7 years or so.
that would refute the claim these are only used as pronunciation aids for children's/learners' materials and dictionaries – Well, this exactly what they say in the above-mentioned Russian-English Medical Dictionary and Phrasebook: "Russian words are provided with stress marks for proper pronunciation." Taurus Littrow (talk) 22:30, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, then. This "Weird, but true" situation is unfortunate, but I guess it is what it is. Unless there's some big trove of sources and facts we've missed, I'm more swayed by your argument. It sounds more and more like ru.WP is lacing its article titles with pronunciation information, which might be entirely normal under their own policies but is not under ours. One of the reasons I've held out a bit on this is that in the case of Spanish diacritics, they were originally introduced for a similar reason, and slowly became a norm of the language. But if there's no evidence this is the ongoing case in Russian, and considerable evidence to the contrary, I can't see a reason to treat these on en.WP as actual diacritics that are part of the natural language, even if we're normally skeptical of attempts to suppress diacritics (and "para-diacritics" like Vietnamese tone marks, which are part of the standardized language, not something limited to kids books and dictionaries).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:43, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that patronymics are not part of the natural written language either; they are only used in personal documents, such as passports, and you can barely see them in common English-language sources. In Russian, they are used sometimes in oral language, usually as a polite address (first name + patronymic; no surname). So one can take the arguments against using stress marks on English Wiki and apply them to patronymics. Same thing with the "Old Style" for birth and death dates, the pre-reformed Russian spelling for names, etc. Taurus Littrow (talk) 06:31, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Greetings, SMcCandlish. No, the situation in Russian is completely different from Spanish. At first, stress marks were required in every word (and there were three types of them), but gradually they died away. In Russian encyclopedias (on which the ru-wiki is oriented), a variant with stress marks is traditionally given in the title of the article to clarify the pronunciation. It also can be used for some other cases. There is some information about this in the book: A Reference Grammar of Russian by Alan Timberlake. Also, this book says: "If stress is marked generally - it usually is not, but it can be, for example, in dictionaries or pedagogical texts for foreigners..." Taurus Littrow is right, and the use of Cyrillic in English books is quite rare, but I have found several variants and they are usually unstressed. The Russian-English Geographical-encyclopedia was mentioned above. Here's another one: The Osprey Encyclopedia of Russian Aircraft. By the way, I see that the Cyrillic alphabet is also used in educational books without stress: [4], [5].--Nicoljaus (talk) 14:33, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Stress marks will never die out in Russian-language encyclopedias, because without stress marks there will often be no way to determine the correct pronunciation.

The stress in Russian words is most important. A misplaced stress may alter the meaning of a word (зáмок – castle; замóк – lock), or render it incomprehensible.
— http://russianlearn.com/grammar/category/stress

I can give more examples. Take Alexandra Trusova, for example. "Trúsova" means "Cowardova". But "Trusóva" would mean something like "Pantiesova". It wouldn't be nice to call her like that. --Moscow Connection (talk) 17:49, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
without stress marks there will often be no way to determine the correct pronunciation -- It's true for Russian-language encyclopedias, but here we have IPA--Nicoljaus (talk) 08:24, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I already pointed out that, in my opinion, IPA can be used as an additional tool, but not as a replacement of such an easy and elegant solution as stress marks. Is there a rule that prohibits using both stresses and IPA? I don't think so. P.S. Note that the article you mentioned, IPA, actually uses stress marks. Taurus Littrow (talk) 08:55, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Stress marks are the best choice if you know they are stress marks. The only thing that worries me is that in the overwhelming majority of languages there is no problem with stress at all (it is always in the same place) and the acute sign does not mean stress, but something else.--Nicoljaus (talk) 09:01, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I already mentioned that the possible misunderstanding can be solved by adding an explanatory note or (as proposed by SMcCandlish below) by indicating both spellings, with and without stresses. But I definitely don't like the "confusing so delete" approach. Note that Russia-related articles are generally very confusing, especially if they are about people who lived before 1918: two birth dates, two death dates, two Cyrillic spellings, etc. etc. The patronymics are very confusing, too. I keep seeing serious sources using and misusing the patronymics. Some foreigners believe they are mandatory, while others treat them as if they were a second American name and abbreviate them (e.g., "Sergey P. Korolev" - we never do it in Russian). Taurus Littrow (talk) 09:15, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
tl;dr completely irrelevant to the topic. — Mike Novikoff 17:50, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I apologize for that. Anyway, some of the stuff in your essay on stresses is also completely irrelevant ("Russian Wikipedia (that has a series of similar technical cargo cults, such as reverse name notation [Surname, Name] in article names, as if there's no DEFAULTSORT [Wikidata shows that ruwiki is the only Wikipedia that has it], and so on"). --Taurus Littrow (talk) 15:09, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
something like "Pantiesova" – I see you are mostly concerned of the biographical articles. Once again, as Nicoljaus already said, "here is an encyclopedia for adults in English", not Simple English Wikipedia for children or people with disorders. There are many names (in various languages) that may seem funny to someone, or that someone may try to make fun of, but doing so is completely childish, and a reasonable adult won't even think of it. Remember what Wikipedia is not: "not a complete exposition of all possible details" (WP:NOTEVERYTHING), and in particular not a dictionary. Articles on persons are about persons, not about their names. It's necessary to give the correct spelling of a name (readers do search for names, and do copy names from Wikipedia), it's optional to give the pronunciation (that's what IPA is for), and to deal with the name's etymology is out of scope. Even a dictionary won't do that, unless it's a specialized dictionary of proper names. — Mike Novikoff 09:19, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it is usually impossible to determine the correct stress placement in a Russian family name. I know this by experience. In October I renamed a number of Russia-related articles in the Spanish Wikipedia, and it was more than often that I had to go to YouTube to search for news announcements, interviews, etc. (Cause the Russian Wikipedia didn't have all the stresses marked. And it doesn't have many articles that the English and Spanish Wikipedias have. This is because the Russian Wikipedia is not as developed as the Spanish and English ones. And because it has stricter notablility rules.) --Moscow Connection (talk) 18:34, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Potential solution: This appears to be analogous enough to different ways of transliterating Chinese, etc., that we already have a functional, well-accepted way to approach this: The article title should be in the Latin orthography that is most common for that particular subject in English-language reliable sources. The lead sentence of the article should give that spelling first, then parenthetically provide the bare Cyrillic and the stress-marked Cyrillic. It need not provide a stress-marked variant of the Latin-alphabet transliteration unless this is also showing up in sources (or, I suppose if that one does show up, but stress-marked Cyrillic hasn't been found in a source yet, then omit that one). Basically, just account for the variants found in sources, and make sure that for the Latin-script ones that they redirect to the same article. Maybe we can even create a template (or add features to {{lang-ru}}) to indicate with little links what these different orthographies are, as we do in {{lang-zh}} for different Chinese transliteration orthographies.

I think this would be an encyclopedic approach, since these marked-up spellings are attested in RS (for specific purposes today), and at one time, if I'm understanding Nicoljaus correctly, were much more common, such that older people or people reading older materials may be specifically expecting or searching for those spellings. So, we should just provide them all without trying to decide is one is "right" and the other(s) "wrong". WP:CONSISTENT is just one criterion and we have to treat it with WP:Common sense: It's perfectly fine if, for whatever reasons, some particular subject has become better known with those marks in the name than without them (in either orthography or both, though only the Latin orthography will matter for article title determination purposes at en.WP). But by default, we would not be adding the marks just to indicate punctuation the way ru.WP does; it's clear that their title policy is very different from ours.
 — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:51, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree with this solution, in general lines (minor details can be discussed). We definitely must use an encyclopedic approach since this is an encyclopedia. Just to clarify one thing: I don't know what kind of period Nicoljaus is referring to (when stress marks were mandatory), but these must be very old times, like 300 or so years ago. I've read many 19th-century books, and they don't have stress marks. So you have to be really old to expect to see stress marks in books, lol. Taurus Littrow (talk) 07:34, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I was referring to the times before Peter the Great. The stress mark in handwritten texts (which were less affected by Peter's reforms) fell out of use in the second half of the 18th century (see paper in Russian).--Nicoljaus (talk) 08:21, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, that's what I thought. Peter's reform of the Russian alphabet (1708–1710) is actually described here. Taurus Littrow (talk) 08:32, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you both for clarifying the origins of the subj, I didn't know that. Very interesting indeed. So for us contemporary Russians they originate in the first grade of elementary school, and historically they are from the epoch before Peter the Great, being abolished by him. Let's remember that for making any further decisions. — Mike Novikoff 10:30, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Peter the Great didn't abolish the stress marks, their use just ceased to be mandatory. Taurus Littrow (talk) 14:32, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There are no two Cyrillic Russian orthographies today, there's only one. And, unlike Chinese, it's not a transliteration of something else. I can't even imagine a subject that is "better known with those marks in the name than without them". For instance, they are never used in official documents that identify people (birth certificates, passports, etc). — Mike Novikoff 09:12, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note that birth certificates and passports always use patronymics. Does it mean we should use them on enwiki, too (in the name of an article, not just in the lead)? Taurus Littrow (talk) 09:19, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I guess neither patronymics nor article titles are subject of this discussion. — Mike Novikoff 09:41, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
then parenthetically provide the bare Cyrillic and the stress-marked Cyrillic. – Just no. We have too much WP:LEADCLUTTER already. Have in mind that {{lang-ru}} names are commonly provided for subjects associated with neighboring languages ({{lang-uk}}, {{lang-be}}, {{lang-kk}}), and having two near-identical Russian renderings next to each other would be a solution of a non-issue that would contribute to a much greater problem. No such user (talk) 10:03, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
SMcCandlish, greetings, and thank you for your approach. I've always thought you are against redundancy, just like me (and isn't it one of the main goals of MoS overall?), and now I have to agree with the user above: double rendering of Cyrillic Russian would be awfully redundant. I'm always fond of consistency too, so I'm for the consistent implementation of the IPA throughout the Wikipedia, regardless of the language.
And one more thing: there is no legitimate "stress-marked variant of the Latin-alphabet transliteration", it's a madness done by those who just don't know what they're doing. That's why I often refer to WP:RUROM that describes the correct current practice of transliteration from Russian. — Mike Novikoff 12:22, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
it's a madness [sic!] done by those who just don't know what they're doing. Please read Civility: "Avoid condescension. No matter how frustrated you are, do not tell people to "grow up" or include any language along the lines of "if this were kindergarten" in your messages." // That applies to everyone. Let's keep this discussion civil. Thanks. – Taurus Littrow (talk) 15:21, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I do not have an opinion but want to set out the argument as I understand it. An example of the issue is diff which changed three {{lang}} instances including from the first of the following to the second.

Russian speakers refer to the schism itself as raskol (раско́л), etymologically indicating a "cleaving-apart".
Russian speakers refer to the schism itself as raskol (раскол), etymologically indicating a "cleaving-apart".

Should the article show how to spell a word (раскол) or how to pronounce it (раско́л)? According to comments above, Russian dictionaries etc. (and ruwiki) show the pronunciation for a word. The ruwiki equivalent of Old Believers in the example above is ru:Старообрядчество and it seems to use the example word without stress marks. @Kwamikagami: I've seen you working on things like this; do you have an opinion? Johnuniq (talk) 02:38, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Johnuniq: The ruwiki equivalent of Old Believers in the example above is ru:Старообрядчество and it seems to use the example word without stress marks. -- Have a better look: the Russian word does have stress marks, and so does the second Russian term: "Старообря́дчество" and "Древлеправосла́вие". Anyway, even if some Russian pages don't have stress marks in the entry word, that's because nobody bothered to put them, not because they are not necessary on ruwiki. P.S. Note that both Russian terms are a mile long, so it would be virtually impossible for a foreigner to tell where the (main) stress falls. – Taurus Littrow (talk) 15:27, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I edited Mike Novikoff's essay on stresses to make it more neutral. I removed the irrelevant info and added both points of view. Everyone is welcome to leave their constructive comments and suggestions on the essay's talk page. — Taurus Littrow (talk) 15:45, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
When I search the wikitext of ru:Старообрядчество for the word "раскол" I get 10 hits (there are 39 hits for the text including not as a whole word). However, there are no occurrences of "раско́л". If you see something different, perhaps you could quote a few words so others can see it. That seems to support my above summary, namely that "раскол" is used to spell the word while "раско́л" is used to pronounce it. Do you disagree? Johnuniq (talk) 22:38, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Johnuniq: I was talking about the word "Старообрядчество". It is stressed in the lead, the first time it appears, in bold: "Старообря́дчество, или Древлеправосла́вие, — совокупность религиозных течений". No other words (including "раскол") in the article are obviously stressed, since the stress is only placed upon the entry word(s) and only once. No disagreement as to the spelling vs. pronunciation; the intention of the stress mark is to help with the pronunciation, that's correct. P.S. Just to clarify: Both spellings (stressed and non-stressed) are technically correct, so I wouldn't oppose the spelling to the pronunciation (if that is your intention). Stresses can be (and are) used, but only in certain texts. Please read the new version of the essay: Wikipedia:Stress_marks_in_Russian_words for more explanations. — Taurus Littrow (talk) 06:58, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"раскол" is used to spell the word while "раско́л" is used to pronounce it – the short and simple answer is yes. — Mike Novikoff 22:55, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not true. Didn't I ask you on your talk page not to mislead non-Russian users? To show pronunciation in Russian, one obviously uses phonetic transcription, while the placement of a stress mark helps with the pronunciation (to pronounce a word in Russian, you basically only need to know where the stress falls). And one can't claim that a stressed word is not a valid spelling or something. Any spelling is used to spell, that's kind of obvious. I already explained all this stuff slightly above, anyway. — Taurus Littrow (talk) 07:19, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to be just playing with words. Your "helpful" variant exists solely for the pronunciation, and it's a special one, not the regular. — Mike Novikoff 09:30, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'm not "playing with words". A stress mark helps with the pronunciation but doesn't constitute a pronunciation as such. That would be the IPA or the Cyrillic phonetic transcription or something similar. A sign on an office door stating one's name, e.g., "John Smith", doesn't mean that this sign is actually John Smith. It only means that the office belongs to John Smith. Same thing with the stress. Anyway, both spellings are valid and correct; whether they are special or regular, that's a different question. P.S. In a nutshell: A stress mark shows the phonetic stress, nothing more. — Taurus Littrow (talk) 10:03, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Phonetic. — Mike Novikoff 10:39, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's what I said. And I doubt that a foreigner with very little knowledge of the Russian spelling who sees, for instance, металлообраба́тывающая ("only" 11 syllables) would be able to pronounce it, even if the word comes with a stress mark. So you cannot quite tell that the above spelling shows one how to pronounce the word in question. You'll need a proper transcription for that. — Taurus Littrow (talk) 11:03, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what you're arguing. Of course stress marks are phonetic (so they are about pronunciation), and of course IPA is much better. — Mike Novikoff 11:55, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ruwiki is a very poor example since it never had a guideline nor even a consensus on these stress marks. The only thing that can be told for sure is that they never include them in article titles. The rest is chaotic: someone "bothers to put them" in leads just because they feel they should, and then gets very surprised to learn that there is no such requirement. — Mike Novikoff 14:30, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Those who remove stresses on ruwiki also get quite astonished when they are told that removing the stresses that were already placed "is not welcomed", to put it mildly. Adding stresses on ruwiki is OK, while removing them, not so much.
  • They never include them in article titles. — That would have been preposterous indeed. — Taurus Littrow (talk) 15:29, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe a single repetition of the word in accented Cyrillic, with a footnote to explain that the stress marks have been added for the benefit of the reader, and aren't normally found in print?

My opinion is that we should make WP as useful as possible. That's the general criterion I try to follow when deciding on things like this. And the accent marks are undeniably useful. Russian stress is unpredictable. Even disyllabic grammatical words include minimal pairs that differ by the position of the stress. (Not long ago I had to ask a native speaker about such a word, because it fit two dictionary entries and without stress marking I couldn't tell which.) But Russian orthography is otherwise close to phonemic. So if you are even slightly familiar with Russian, you can read it, as long as someone tells you where the stress lies. Without the stress assignment, you won't know how to pronounce the vowels, because they change drastically depending on stress. (E.g. unstressed a and o are pronounced the same, as are e and i.)

As for the contrary argument, that accent marks will confuse readers who don't know Cyrillic, I wonder why they'd be using Cyrillic in the first place. The situation is very much like English technical dictionaries, that mark stressed syllables and expect you to be able to pronounce Latinate words once that is given. Like Russian, English Latinate orthography is close to phonemic apart from stress. And I suppose that because of that convention, some people might conclude that English orthography includes an acute accent mark, but I would expect readers to educate themselves when they come across something new. There's only so far we can dumb things down.

Another parallel is vowel marking in Arabic and Hebrew, which is similarly useful in making written words pronounceable to L2 speakers but is otherwise only used for children and dictionaries.

I support stress marking in the Cyrillic, but would reluctantly accept removing it if the remover added the IPA to compensate, just as I would for English technical vocabulary. (I would prefer to keep the stress marking, in both Russian and English, and add the IPA as an additional key.) Or, as proposed above, have parallel Cyrillic with and without stress marking, parallel Arabic and Hebrew with and without vowel marking, etc.

The problem is Cruft. (Click if you dare.)

The problem with these other solutions is cruft — they can lead to a ridiculous delay before you get to the topic the article is supposed to be about. And they tend to bloat over time. In a dictionary, you can skip the pronunciation, orthography and etymology sections if you're not interested and go directly to the definition. On WP they're all glommed together. I find it annoying to start the lead, and encounter a paragraph of detail about the keyword that has nothing to do with the subject. Repeating the keyword once in Cyrillic/Arabic/Hebrew/Devanagari/IPA is easy enough to skip, while being highly informative — that is, if we keep it short, there's a high ratio of utility to inconvenience. Repeat it two or three times, for Cyrillic with and without stress, or Arabic with and without vowels, or English with both IPA and respelling (or stress marks and IPA), and the utility ratio starts shifting the other way. I'd prefer a single repetition that covers orthography + pronunciation, and supply further detail if needed in a footnote.

— kwami (talk) 22:34, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Maybe a single repetition of the word in accented Cyrillic, with a footnote to explain that the stress marks have been added for the benefit of the reader, and aren't normally found in print? — Adding an explanatory note is an excellent solution in my opinion. I actually proposed it in this discussion already, and some users agreed with it. Just to clarify: we better only include the stressed word(s); the version without stresses would be redundant and confusing. Thanks.
  • Both the IPA and the stress(es) can be kept, sure enough. If you have a car (IPA), it doesn't mean you are forbidden to walk (stress).
  • Thanks for the information on stresses in English words; very useful and revealing. It looks like it's not "madness [sic] done by those who just don't know what they're doing", after all.
  • Your other arguments and suggestions look very good to me. (I won't list them and won't comment on them so as to keep this discussion short.) Thanks much. — Taurus Littrow (talk) 07:31, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
English technical dictionaries, that mark stressed syllables – Can you please name a few? I think I've seen some in my life, namely FOLDOC and The Jargon File, and they don't mangle the words with accents. The latter does this at most. — Mike Novikoff 23:57, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Another possible solution: Stressed vowels can be emphasized in some different way, e.g., by using bold: "Александр Сергеевич Пушкин" ("Alexander Sergeyevich Pushkin"). Aamof, some Russian dictionaries underline stressed vowels, but, as far as I know, it is not recommended to use underlining on wiki. P.S. @SMcCandlish, Moscow Connection, Nicoljaus, Johnuniq, and Kwamikagami: What do you think? — Taurus Littrow (talk) 12:21, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Acute accents are the standard convention for marking stress in Russian, and I see no reason not to follow it.
I don't care for emphasis by formatting. It's not stable, for one thing -- someone might want to copy these names into their own work, and the stress would be lost. It's easy enough to remove the stress marks if they want to, since they're combining diacritics and all they have to do is hit backspace.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't we have one person who wants to change consensus, and everyone else keeping to the existing consensus? He's brought it up, didn't get any support, so he needs to follow consensus. He can continue to campaign for a change, of course, but meanwhile the current consensus is valid. It's not really up to us to convince him, but up to him to convince us. — kwami (talk) 06:43, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You couldn't be more correct as far as that user's behavior is concerned. I also agree with your arguments regarding the use of accents vs. the formatting. Stresses are much more stable and common, indeed. I just tried to find a solution which would please every user, including the person you have just mentioned, but it appears that nothing would ever please him other than his own solution. Thanks. — Taurus Littrow (talk) 07:03, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Are we discussing my behavior? And can you please stop flooding? — Mike Novikoff 07:28, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Novikoff, please choose your words. I'm not "flooding", just explaining things. Taurus Littrow (talk) 07:40, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Kwamikagami: What "consensus" you are talking about? There hadn't been one so far, not even in ruwiki. I do have some support already, and the discussion is far from being over. BTW, you didn't answer my question above. — Mike Novikoff 07:28, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The consensus is that we've been doing this for 20 years without a problem.
As for English tech dictionaries marking stress, sorry, I never bothered to keep track. Too trivial to think twice about. You could probably find something as easily as I could.
I do remember seeing this in guides to Roman and Greek names, both historical and mythological, where the only guide to English pronunciation was an acute accent. I believe there are two reasons for doing that: (a) there are different traditions for how to pronounce Classical names in English, and it would create a mess to try to give them all, while upsetting people if the editor took sides, and (b) those pronunciations are generally predictable as long as the placement of the stress is known, so there's no need to give the pronunciation beyond that. The latter is exactly our situation with Russian. — kwami (talk) 07:33, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Novikoff, please stop misleading people. Other users and I have already commented on the alleged lack of a consensus on ruwiki. This is what I wrote: Those who remove stresses on ruwiki get quite astonished when they are told that removing the stresses that were already placed "is not welcomed", to put it mildly. Adding stresses on ruwiki is OK, while removing them, not so much. — Taurus Littrow (talk) 07:38, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
OMG, what a chaos. :(( You may repeat everything you've said some more times, in all possible threads, then it certainly becomes more convincing. :\ — Mike Novikoff 08:05, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Please see WP:CIVIL: Avoid condescension. No matter how frustrated you are, do not tell people to "grow up" or include any language along the lines of "if this were kindergarten" in your messages. — One way or another, even if I repeated a couple of my arguments, I only did so because this thread is very long and people might fail to notice them. Another reason for doing so is to rule out any possible misunderstanding; the fact is that some users tend to make clearly misleading arguments, which is not OK. P.S. I already asked you in this thread you to be civil, several times, but you keep ignoring my warnings. Should I ask an admin to intervene? — Taurus Littrow (talk) 08:24, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In Hebrew Niqqud, e.g., vowel marking, is normal in, e.g., dictionaries, grammar texts, but is rare in, e.g., news, nonlinguistic texts. Would it be appropriate to make a similar distinction for stress marks? Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 15:09, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Chatul: I'm all for it. — Taurus Littrow (talk) 15:36, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a dictionary — Mike Novikoff 16:25, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Should a translation show its pronunciation?

Would someone not involved in the dispute please offer an opinion on my question at 02:38, 31 January 2021 above. Rephrased, that question concerns Old Believers which concerns a schism between groups with different religious beliefs. After defining "Old Believers" and giving its Russian equivalents, the lead says:

Russian speakers refer to the schism itself as raskol (раскол), etymologically indicating a "cleaving-apart".

My question: should the translation of schism show how to spell the word (раскол) or how to pronounce it (раско́л)? It is conventional for pronunciation to follow the lead words that mirror the article title, as done at Raskol. However, that does not apply to schism. The MOS at this subpage includes "Normally, pronunciation is given only for the subject of the article in its lead section." That suggests the Russian word for raskol (раскол) would not indicate pronunciation. The counter view is that stress marks for pronunciation are useful for the reader. Does MOS have guidance on this? What should happen—an RfC? Johnuniq (talk) 09:05, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm very sorry to intervene, but as far as I understand, pronunciation is this: 1) pronounced [rɐˈskoɫ] or 2) /ˈvɛnɪs/ VEH-niss. As to the stress mark in Russian words, it only shows where the phonetic stress is to be placed, nothing more. A stress mark helps with the pronunciation (basically, it's the only thing you need to know to pronounce a Russian word), but a stressed word doesn't constitute a pronunciation as such. That would be the IPA. The Russians have their own phonetic transcription which uses Cyrillic symbols: 1) [рʌско́л] or 2) /трʌнскр'и́пцыэjъ/ (IPA: /trɐnskrʲˈipt͡sᵻjə/). See Russian Phonetic Transcription Translator and Pronunciation Dictionary or Orphoepic dictionary (in Russian). On the second site, just type the Russian word in and click the first button on the left (ПОИСК = search).
For "raskol", the second site says: Транскрипция слова «раско́л»: [рʌско́л]. Translation: Transcription of the word «раско́л»: [рʌско́л]. — Taurus Littrow (talk) 09:55, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Kwamikagami: Any comment on this? There seems to be a misunderstanding as to what pronunciation is. (I'll take all the blame for calling an involved user, lol.) — Taurus Littrow (talk) 10:15, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The pronunciation is already there in the article linked to. But personally I think it would be nice to show where the stress is here too, so readers won't need to follow a link to know what sound should be in their heads when they read this article. Many readers won't and might end up hearing it as "rascal", so I'd add an acute accent. But since we're giving a transliteration, it might be better to put the accent mark there instead: raskól (раскол). But that's just a suggestion. — kwami (talk) 10:24, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I noticed that the Venice article includes both the IPA and the "pronunciation respelling key" (H:RESPELL), so it looks like it's not really forbidden to use both the IPA and other pronunciation keys (that would be a stress mark in Russian words). Therefore, the argument "No stresses, only IPA!" is void. — Taurus Littrow (talk) 12:23, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I wonder what would happen if someone started removing respelling from all the articles, arguing that this stuff "is not part of the regular English orthography", "doesn't represent the common spelling", "there's no consensus to use it", "it's madness done by those who just don't know what they're doing", etc. etc. — Taurus Littrow (talk) 12:33, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Capitalisation for direct quotes?

I can't seem to find what I'm looking for in the Manual of Style, but does Wikipedia follow the MLA's style and capitalise the first letter of direct quotations? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 21:11, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect the guidance you seek is at the end of MOS:CONFORM. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EEng (talk • contribs) 01:24, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
MOS:PMC is more pertinent to this, and CONFORM is "subservient" to it (i.e. outlines minor exceptions to the PMC general rule).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:57, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure. All I can say is I do as long as a capital letter appears in the original text. If it doesn't, I believe we should retain the lower-case treatment. Some editors go overboard with this, imo – retain the lower case and insert an opening ellipsis. To my way of thinking, the ellipsis is unnecessary. JG66 (talk) 01:53, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, I personally wouldn't add the opening ellipsis either. I guess until this is revisited I'll just leave these cases be when I come across them. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 22:44, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, only do that if there is missing earlier material that is contextually important, but in that case it's better to use a longer quote rather than make readers to try to find it in the original material.
@Tenryuu and JG66:The two typical approaches are these (and they can of course be adapted to blockquotes):
  1. According to Elbonian Prime Minister Jane Q. Public, it was "the worst disaster in the port's history".
  2. "[T]he worst disaster in the port's history" was Elbonian Prime Minister Jane Q Public's description of the event.
In neither case should this be changed to "The  ..." if the original material didn't have that capital T. If it did (e.g. because the original quote was "The worst disaster in the port's history was today."), then what you're looking for is 'According to Elbonian Prime Minister Jane Q. Public, it was "[t]he worst disaster in the port's history".' Honestly, I'm also skeptical that MLA would actually advise 'According to Elbonian Prime Minister Jane Q. Public, it was "The worst disaster in the port's history".', which is what the OP's characterization of their style guide suggests, but I have not read theirs on quotation matters in a long time (and if I still have a copy, it's in a box somewhere.) If they do, that's downright aberrant; I don't think any other style guide would agree with that.

PS: The answer to every single question that begins with something like "does Wikipedia follow the [some other publisher] style" is no, because WP has its own style guide. If MLA or APA or MHRA or AMA or whoever say something eminently sensible in their style guide and WP has a consensus it should be in ours, then it will be. MoS is largely built from averaging all the academic style guides, plus various WP-specific adjustment. If MoS doesn't address something at all, it means it's left to editorial discretion on a case-by-case basis, as something not likely to affect encyclopedic tone, accuracy, or reader comprehension (or to spark recurrent editorial strife). But for this particular matter, we already have MOS:PMC, and it's central concern is in fact accuracy.
 — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:57, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

SMcCandlish, yep, I agree with that ("In neither case should this be changed to ..."). I imagine Tenryuu's referring to instances where the quoted text constitutes a full sentence in its own right – even with a phrase or word omitted up front – rather than just a fragment. That is, surely that's all the MLA style guide would be advising ... Otherwise, they seem to be suggesting the (gratuitous) use of an initial cap as some sort of secondary inverted comma. JG66 (talk) 05:29, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see. Well, that would be directly misleading, arguably outright falsification of source material. One of the purposes of logical quotation is to avoid manufacturing fake sentences and fake complete clauses out of partial source material. Lots and lots of fragments can by themselves incidentally form grammatically viable sentences, but we should not mislead readers into thinking that they were. Silly example: "Prosecuting animal abuse is my life's work" → "animal abuse is my life's work".  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:20, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Louis Riel#How should Journal of Canadian Studies be cited?

This is something MOS regulars may have an opinion about, so please comment. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:38, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Explicit translation as opposed to simple glosses

The MOS says use single quotation marks for simple glosses, e.g. "Cossack comes from Turkic qazaq 'freebooter'." But what about explicitly mentioning a translation, i.e. "The Turkic word qazaq means freebooter"? Is freebooter here being mentioned as a word, in which case it should be formatted in italics? But using quotation marks seems more common, and I sometimes see single quotation marks used, though this usage isn't really a simple gloss. The lang series of templates does this, e.g. {{lang-tr|qazaq|lit=freebooter}} gives "Template:Lang-tr." Is it still a simple gloss if preceded by lit.? Or should double quotation marks be used? This would be correct if the sentence said: "The Turkic word qazaq is defined by the dictionary as "freebooter"." Is there a general rule that covers this though? --Paul_012 (talk) 11:31, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What should Sharif Sheikh Ahmed be called throughout the article?

If you have an opinion, please share at Talk:Sharif Sheikh Ahmed. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:49, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Appropriate wording for when someone doesn't use gendered or non-binary pronouns

There is a discussion HERE on the talk page for musician Sophie's article over pronouns. Sophie preferred not to use gendered or non-binary pronouns (Pitchfork and Slate sources) so we're not sure the best way to phrase things without the sentences becoming very awkwardly written. Could we get some input? Thanks. Abbyjjjj96 (talk) 23:19, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest using Sophie or nouns like "the musician" & "the musician's" as much as possible. It looks this has already been suggested at Talk:Sophie_(musician)#Pronouns, so probably best to continue the conversation there. Peaceray (talk) 23:27, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is a good suggestion and I second it. Jilliangrace (talk) 23:34, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Someone with a better memory than me can hopefully point to some featured or good articles that deal with people whose pronouns are not clear (usually historical articles) and what the precedent is there. As for MOS:GENDERID, the relevant parts are: Give precedence to self-designation as reported in the most up-to-date reliable sources [...] Any person whose gender might be questioned should be referred to by the pronouns, possessive adjectives, and gendered nouns (for example "man/woman", "waiter/waitress", "chairman/chairwoman") that reflect that person's latest expressed gender self-identification. To me I don't see a reason that shouldn't apply to a preference for averting pronouns entirely. — Bilorv (talk) 23:41, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Here is a ship FA with no “she” or “her”: HMS Calliope (1884). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:53, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That is, stylistically, a fine example of using a name and title, (such as "the musician") in lieu of pronouns. And I second Bilorv's last point, we should defer to Sophie's self-identification. I think we now have some guidance on how that can be accomplished. Jilliangrace (talk) 23:57, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but I must dissent: that article contains some of the most wretchedly twisted-out-of-shape writing ever seen on earth or any other planet. For example:
The crew of the helpless and doomed American ship cheered Calliope as the corvette slipped past. The British ship's drive for the open sea was called by the American commander on the scene "one of the grandest sights a seaman or anyone else ever saw; the lives of 250 souls depended on the hazardous adventure." Making for the harbour mouth, the British ship's bow and stern alternately rose and plunged ...
Believe it or not, all the bolded stuff refers to the same ship, for crying out loud, and that's in Wikipedia's voice. I mean, seriously??? This is what's it's come to? (And while we're on the subject, see WP:Queen Elizabeth slipped majestically into the water. EEng 01:46, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. And, no, we shouldn't defer to someone's preference for averting pronouns entirely. Ridiculous. Singular they is fine. EEng 02:00, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
P.P.S. I'd completely forgotten that my esteemed fellow editor SandyGeorgia and I have discussed Calliope before -- see WT:Manual_of_Style/Archive_217#Commentary_on_"follow_the_sources". EEng 02:23, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
When a person has expressed a clear preference for pronouns not to be used about that person, I don't see any particular challenge in respecting that preference, myself. Newimpartial (talk) 02:05, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And if they want us to refer to them as "The Emperor Eternal", then what? EEng 02:19, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
EEng, if this article is the most wretched writing you have ever seen, you need to get more active in the Wide World of Wikipedia. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:54, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
SandyGeorgia, you know I know better than to imagine there can ever be a final answer to the question, What is the most wretched writing on Wikipedia? Read what I wrote again, which was that it's the most wretchedly twisted-out-of-shape writing on Wikipedia (or, I actually said, in the solar system). That's different. For the amusement of the editors assembled here's a post of mine from the discussion just linked:
I'm compelled to say that the Calliope article shows only how to jump from the she frying pan into ... well, another frying pan. In an apparent attempt to avoid the she/it controversy, the Calliope article eschews all pronouns by indulging in an orgy of headache-inducing elegant variation:
  • After retirement from active service, Calliope served as a training ship until 1951, when the old corvette was sold for breaking
  • ... which gave the corvette one more knot of speed, a difference that would be crucial in the disaster that made Calliope famous
  • The vessel nevertheless was a fully rigged sailing ship
  • The ship was not activated until 25 January 1887, when the vessel was placed in commission for the China Station
  • The vessel was reassigned to the Australia Station later in 1887. The cruiser was in New Zealand at the end of that year
  • The crew of the helpless and doomed American ship cheered Calliope as the corvette slipped past. The British ship's drive for the open sea was called by the American commander on the scene "one of the grandest sights a seaman or anyone else ever saw; the lives of 250 souls depended on the hazardous adventure." Making for the harbour mouth, the British ship's bow and stern alternately rose and plunged ...
  • Captain Kane then took his ship to Sydney
  • Calliope returned to service on the Australian station after repairs were complete. At the end of 1889 the cruiser was recalled to the United Kingdom.
  • Calliope was returned to reserve and promptly stricken from the effective list. The cruiser laid up at Portsmouth, and in 1906 was listed for sale for a time. The next year Calliope was moved to North East England
First prize goes to ... cheered Calliope as the corvette slipped past. The British ship's drive for the open sea ..., in which Calliope, the corvette, and the British ship are all the same thing, but referred to by three different names to keep you on your toes, or possibly for comedic effect. It's like one of those bedroom farces in which the characters go out one door then reenter via another in different guises ("Let's see... so Count Evander and the undergamekeeper and the barmaid are all the same person ... I think ...") Truly wretched.
EEng 04:58, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@EEng: You've summarized your statement as "or, I actually said, in the solar system" when what was actually said was "on earth or any other planet". This is obviously an attempt to retroactively construe the statement as excluding exoplanets, in light of recent revelations that even more wretchedly twisted-out-of-shape writing exists on Gamma Cephei Ab. For all intensive purposes I could care less, but it's high time to set the wrecker's strait and rain in the peddling of blatant Ms. Information. jp×g 21:45, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The challenge is honouring that preference while avoiding clunky sentences. E.g. this current sentence uses 'their': "At the age of approximately nine or ten years old, Sophie confessed to their parents a desire to drop out of school to be an electronic music producer (although they did not let Sophie do so, and Sophie continued their schooling)." What is the alternative way of writing that without resorting to the ridiculous "Sophie confessed to Sophie's parents"? And there's this sentence, "Sophie was asked by a half-sister to DJ her wedding, later Sophie admitted that the half-sister "didn't know what I was doing in my room on my own" and had assumed Sophie was a DJ." You can't even specify that it's Sophie's half-sister, unless you want to use "Sophie" five times in one sentence. Abbyjjjj96 (talk) 02:58, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think the rewrite is, At the age of approximately nine or ten years old, Sophie expressed a desire to drop out of school to be an electronic music producer (although Sophie's parents would not allow this, and Sophie had to continue in school). Not going to win a Pulitzer, true, but not unencyclopaedic or terribly contorted IMO. Newimpartial (talk) 03:43, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just going to say this again, and then I promise I'll leave the rest of you to it: It's one thing to worry about pronoun genders and so on, but the idea that we're supposed to go out of our way to accommodate someone's absurd pretension that they don't want to be referenced by any pronoun at all is just idiocy. I'm sorry but there's no other word for it.
Oh, but guess what? The source [6] doesn't say Sophie eschewed all pronouns; rather, it says that they preferred not to use gendered or nonbinary pronouns. They is neither gendered nor nonbinary. This entire discussion has been based on a failure to read the source carefully, or (though I'm not pointing any fingers) an apparent desire to find an issue where there is none. EEng 04:58, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am trying to think of prounouns that are neither gendered nor non-binary and am having trouble. I admit to having a couple of cocktails. Can anyone help me? Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:11, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
They. It's neutral, a nullity. It's the NPOV of pronouns. EEng 05:19, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"They" has at least three usages in English: as a plural pronoun, as a person-of-unknown-gender pronoun, and as a person-of-known-nonbinary-gender pronoun. Unfortunately, all (or at least most) of the potential uses of "they" in the article would have represented the last of these three, and for this purpose there is no difference between "they" and the nonbinary pronoun neologisms - this is what we are told Sophie preferred not to use.
On the bright side, first and second-person pronouns, and demonstrative pronouns, are apparently fine. :). Newimpartial (talk) 01:31, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't there still discussion on the article's talk page over whether that request is considered to supercede what reliable sources have referred to the artist as? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 02:24, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There certainly is still discussion, although the most recent RS follow the expressed preference and don't use pronouns. Newimpartial (talk) 03:57, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The reported choice of wording is indeed questionable; why say "don't use gendered or non-binary pronouns" if the intended meaning is "don't use pronouns at all"? It would have seemed "nonbinary" was meant to refer to xe/ze etc. However, the Guardian does plainly say, "Sophie’s team said that pronouns should not be used when describing the artist."[7] I'm in agreement with EEng here though, in that it's not our duty to acquiesce to every absurd personal preference when it's going to be detrimental to our task of writing a readable encyclopedia (e.g., we're not referring to the subject as SOPHIE as some sources do, as the MOS is clearly against that). Pronouns are an integral part of the English language; would we be willing to follow a request to avoid adverbs or conjunctions in an article? The subject was also fine with being referred to as she/her a few years ago, according to the Vulture: "She offered no concrete details about herself, gave few interviews, and, until recently, didn’t use third-person pronouns in her press materials, leaving just enough space for most of the music media to assume she was a man."[8] It's not very clear whether the obituaries repeating the no-pronouns request are necessarily more up-to-date regarding the issue. --Paul_012 (talk) 12:32, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Alright time's up and none of you have got the correct answer: it's John/Eleanor Rykener. This is what I was thinking of as the precedent for averting pronouns entirely on the biography of a person where it is unclear from the historical record which pronouns fit best. With the case of Sophie the sources seem similarly unclear and contradictory, and so I think the same outcome is logical. — Bilorv (talk) 23:33, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The kow-towing to the old men who poke eyes out to get their way with sexist she-as-ship is shameful. These codgers scratch and shriek like cats when crossed. So no one's willing to take them on any more. Meanwhile en.WP lags in the wholesale movement of the English language toward non-sexist wording. Calliope certainly is a clumsy example of addressing sexism in a maritime article; I'd volunteer to fix it if I weren't scared of the nasties who would bite my head off. Tony (talk) 07:28, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • The question in this thread does not appear to be about whether we should use non-sexist language (singular they; of course we should do that when a subject requests it and in many circumstances even when they don't), but rather whether we should acquiesce to SOPHIE's wishes to always refer to SOPHIE as SOPHIE and not to use pronouns in order to ensure that we always write SOPHIE's name as SOPHIE in place of the more common ways we might fail to write SOPHIE's name when referring to SOPHIE. I don't consider that to be a reasonable request. Pronouns are a basic part of English grammar and, if this request was not made with promotional intent this time, it surely will in future. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:15, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style&oldid=1004688613"