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 1,264: Line 1,264:
*::::::::Oh geez. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 06:41, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
*::::::::Oh geez. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 06:41, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
{{reflist-talk}}
{{reflist-talk}}
*:::::::::The budget of the production, morals or the character, and whether you think it's any good or not, have no bearing on whether we use inclusive language or not. We wouldn't use the N word to describe a character just because they're an evil villain in a straight-to-DVD trash film, and that should not play a part in our determination of encyclopedic and modern-style language.  — [[User:Amakuru|Amakuru]] ([[User talk:Amakuru|talk]]) 08:21, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Revision as of 08:21, 1 November 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  ) 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]
      Perhaps that was meant to be "stuck", the synonym for "put". —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 23:58, 13 August 2021 (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 at 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]
    • I'm surprised to see the above quote from MOS:NUM (WP:UNITNAMES): "a normal space is used between a number and a unit name". Personally, I would find a line break within the example's "29
      kilograms" rather ugly. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 00:05, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Me, too. The position "you're pretty much saying every number anywhere must be followed by an nbsp" that EEng spoke against earlier actually seems to me to be the best practice. Your example of a break between 29 and kilograms not only looks "ugly", but makes me think that there has been a misprint of some sort causing me to have trouble understanding what is written. --Khajidha (talk) 19:38, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Somewhat related, but since the discussion here is almost-exclusively referencing insertion of NBSPs, I wanted to re-raise this previous discussion where I advocated for using Template:nowrap instead of NBSPs. The simple reason being that (at least on my system / in my browser) {{nowrap}} has the same effect as the insertion of NBSPs, without affecting spacing of the text the way NBSP does (again, at least on my system). Here's the example I presented:
    Bare Wikilinked
    Using {{nowrap}} World War I World War I
    Using &nbsp; World War I World War I
    Looking at that on my screen, the &nbsp; version has a much larger — in fact, uncomfortably large — space between "War" and "I", whereas the {{nowrap}} version is spaced normally. If we can protect phrases against wrapping without making the formatting look weird, I figure that makes the decision on when/whether to do so a bit less fraught. -- FeRDNYC (talk) 02:52, 15 August 2021 (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.

    Improve Controlling line breaks section

    It seems that it would be good if the example markup of 5° 24′ N included a non-breaking space between the 5degrees and the 24minutes and the N. DGerman (talk) 21:18, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Is using 'Latter' and 'Former' a bad idea?

    Is using 'the latter' of 'the former' (as the subject of a sentence, not a point in time) a bad idea? Or indicative of a sentence that needs re-wording anyway?

    For example in:

    Rio 2016 Olympians Shōhei Iwamoto and Natsumi Tomonaga confirmed places each in the men's and women's event, respectively, with the former finishing fourth and the latter second among those eligible for Olympic qualification at the 2019 Asia & Oceania Championships in Kunming, China.

    — https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Japan_at_the_2020_Summer_Olympics#Modern_pentathlon

    I would prefer something like:

    Rio 2016 Olympians Shōhei Iwamoto and Natsumi Tomonaga confirmed places each in the men's and women's event, respectively, with Iwamoto finishing fourth and Tomonaga second among those eligible for Olympic qualification at the 2019 Asia & Oceania Championships in Kunming, China.

    My objections:

    1. It's poor for readability, you have to scan back and forth when reading, especially bad for screen readers and audio recordings, and even then the subject is often still unclear.
    2. It's brittle, if someone adds another example to a list or re-orders the list, then the whole construct has to be re-written.
    3. It's potentially harder to understand text out of context for e.g. 'did you know'

    I'm tempted to edit these out whenever I see them, is there any existing discussion/guidance on this that I should take into account?

    JeffUK (talk) 17:15, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    There isn't anything fundamentally wrong with latter and former when referering to things that are sequential. But when one is referring to a sequence of words in the sentence, then it can be a sign of verbosity and complexity that could be eliminated with a rewrite. The proposed sentence is way too long and confuses the reader by combining "came fourth" and "came second" about separate events. The facts:
    • Both Shōhei Iwamoto and Natsumi Tomonaga were Rio 2016 Olympians.
    • Both compete in the modern pentathlon and sought qualification at the 2019 Asia & Oceania Championships in Kunming, China
    • Iwamoto came fourth in the mens event
    • Tomonaga came second in the womens event
    • Both successfully qualified to compete at the 2020 Summer olympics.
    There are lots of way to write this to minimise redundancy while keeping separate things separate. In particular, I think it is important to keep the mens/womens events/results separate. For a data-heavy article like this, it is probably best to err on the side of short simple sentences, than attempting beautiful flowing prose. The reader is skimming for facts, not reading to be entertained. -- Colin°Talk 15:10, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think it should be avoided wherever possible. I'm not talking about zero tolerance, but to only resort to it when repetition of the names/terms becomes truly clunky and repetitious. This was an example I found unnecessary – imo, the use of former/latter there came across as affected, and so caused more problems than it solved. WP:ELEVAR makes some good points, I think, because there's nothing worse, as a reader, than coming across a page that reads as if it's been authored a little too fussily. JG66 (talk) 15:54, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Concur with EEng and Popcornfud. We have essays like ELEVAR to explain the reasons behind various good/bad writing choices, so we don't have to WP:CREEP-bloat MoS with rules that virtually no one actually needs. "ELEVAR is just an essay not a rule" is completely missing the point. See WP:MOSBLOAT: we don't want a rule about anything that doesn't need to be one. If something can be resolved on a case-by-case basis just by applying common sense, then we don't need a rule about it, and need to not have a rule about it.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:49, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • To respond to the initial question, yes, the way you have written it is a bad idea. The sentence as you wrote it is not proper encyclopedia style. The goal in encyclopedia writing is to express ideas in the simplest, most direct manner so as to aid in the reader's understanding.
    Your sentence "Rio 2016 Olympians Shōhei Iwamoto and Natsumi Tomonaga confirmed places each in the men's and women's event, respectively, with the former finishing fourth and the latter second among those eligible for Olympic qualification at the 2019 Asia & Oceania Championships in Kunming, China" is very badly written.
    It should be written "Rio 2016 Olympians Shōhei Iwamoto and Natsumi Tomonaga confirmed places in the men's and women's events. Iwamoto finished fourth and Tomonaga finished second among those eligible for Olympic qualification at the 2019 Asia & Oceania Championships in Kunming, China." God bless and happy editing. MarydaleEd (talk) 03:04, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Olympics etc: "400 metres" or "400-metres"

    Some recent edits have been putting in "400-metres" for Olympic events, e.g. Ariarne Titmus. While it agrees with WP:HYPHEN, in my opinion it should be trumped by the fact that the Olympics and other sporting events rarely if ever include the hyphen. Thoughts? Adpete (talk) 09:17, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    We don't strictly follow sources' style guides. It also helps clear ambiguity: are we talking about a freestyle that is 400 metres long, or 400 freestyles that are a metre long? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 20:44, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Surely WP:COMMONNAME applies, though? And while WP:COMMONNAME generally only applies to titles, we are left with the situation that the text doesn't match the title, e.g. Swimming at the 2019 World Aquatics Championships – Women's 400 metre freestyle, which in my opinion is poor style. Adpete (talk) 23:39, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think COMMONNAME applies really - not only is it just about article titles, but it's also about choosing the name that we're going to call something by, not about how to punctuate it (so it requires that we call our article 'Triple jump' rather than Hop, skip and jump). From my reading of MOS:HYPHEN, these changes are correct, and titles without the hyphen probably ought to be changed. (Or, if people don't like hyphens, per MOS:HANGING it's OK not to hyphenate if the units are abbreviated, so 400 m freestyle would be.) Girth Summit (blether) 14:10, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    COMMONNAME does not apply. That only applies to article titles (which is why it's in the article titles policy and not the MoS), and it does not apply to style questions anyway. COMMONNAME is the policy that tells us to use a particular article title (in one spelling or another, which might be determined by MOS:ENGVAR or some other MoS criterion), e.g. David Johansen, rather that some totally different name, e.g. Buster Poindexter.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  05:38, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The linked page uses the hyphen correctly, but "400-metres" in some other location is simply incorrect and is likely a result of hypercorrectness. The plural can't be correctly attributive. That is, "400-meters event" is clearly wrong. Case 3 of Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Hyphens is the related case of correct use of a hyphen, and it specifically details in its third bullet why "400-meter event" is good and "event of 400-metres" would not be. Don't feel bad about this. Few professional journalists can get hyphens right in the analogous cases when they're reporting someone's age. NoNonsenseHumJock (talk) 22:24, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Re. MOS:RANGES

    There's an ongoing discussion at Talk:Body mass index#Boundaries between categories that may benefit from some attention from experienced MOS editors. Essentially, BMI categories like Normal and Overweight are variously described by reliable sources, with some using ”18.5 – 25” and ”25 – 30”, respectively, while others use ”18.5 – 24.99” and ”25 – 29.99”. MOS:RANGES doesn't actually recommend how adjacent ranges of values in a continuum should be displayed. The article had previously used the former style, but it's now been changed to the latter, which arguably leaves gaps. Also, using a decimal precision of 0.1 (or 0.01) when it comes to BMI values is like weighing a fart. The discussion, such as it is, is like watching ping pong. As I see it, there's no real consensus either way at the moment, so the more opinions the merrier. Cheers. nagualdesign 22:54, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    This is a self-contradictory argument. If x.99 is so precise it's like weighing a fart then it cannot be said that x.99 (versus something much more precise like x.9999999) leaves gaps in any meaningful sense. This is much preferable to having overlapping and directly contradictory values as in ”18.5 – 25” and ”25 – 30”, which results in the reader having no idea how 25 is classified.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:10, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Is 25 classified? Does it need to be? If it is the actual border between two ranges, then it obviously represents the transition from one to the other and you should alter your behavior to move your own BMI in the direction you want to go. -Khajidha (talk) 11:24, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Is man-made undesirable gendered wording?

    I moved "List of man-made disasters in South_Korea" to "List of human-caused disasters in South_Korea". I note the Gender-neutral language section overleaf.

    Now there's friction at the talkpage. Anyone care to give an opinion (here or at that talkpage)? Tony (talk) 09:22, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Nothing wrong with man-made. It is still the most common usage in English, and believe it or not, it IS gender neutral. Masterhatch (talk) 13:44, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I would generally agree "man-made" still is one of those terms that is recognizes as not pushing a gender, and the switch to "human-made" is awkward. In this specific case, it may be possible to suggest "List of anthropogenic disasters..." if there really is issue with that. --Masem (t) 13:49, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I also would prefer "anthropogenic". Putting aside the gendered aspect, it seems awkward to describe ferry accidents as "man-made" or "human-made" disasters. Humans were involved, but the only thing they made was a serious error. pburka (talk) 13:55, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Per [2] man made: "manufactured, created, or constructed by human beings", not sure how that excludes women. "Man-made" is short for mankind, i.e. humans as a whole for just "men".  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 13:59, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    In some cases artificial works as a synonym (as at swimming pool). I don't think that particularly works in that title there. --Izno (talk) 14:52, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    True, but sometimes that carries the wrong implications. I think "man-made" is still ok, per others above. It's much clearer than the alternatives in most cases - how many people understand "anthropogenic"? I think "human-caused disasters" is the best for that page though, though User:Tony1 was completely (and typically, I'm afraid) wrong to move it without discussion. He can't have thought that would be uncontroversial. Johnbod (talk) 14:56, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    And Johnbod is being (typically, I'm afraid) insulting. Tony (talk) 00:04, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Don't dodge the issue - if you stop doing this stuff, I won't need to keep pointing it out. It wasn't relevant to mention how rude you often are yourself (see ANI archives) - perhaps now it is. Johnbod (talk) 03:47, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    yeah, he's been around long enough to know about the MOS retaining existing styles. Masterhatch (talk) 15:06, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Right, as regard "anthropogenic". Nobody knows what that means. Step outside your shoes here, people. (On the proximate matter, "human caused" is preferable IMO, but only because "man-made" seems a bit off in this particular context). Herostratus (talk) 15:08, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Erm, we have a strong predilection to the gender-neutral. MOS:RET doesn't apply in such cases. Izno (talk) 15:42, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    It's WP:RM that applies, and that makes no concessions to supposed PC. Johnbod (talk) 16:09, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    RM is neither policy nor guideline; WP:BOLD is. (Mind you, I don't care about this particular article - simply commenting that the RM process is not mandatory.) Wikipedia:Article_titles#Considering_changes is policy I suppose, so take that fwiw. Izno (talk) 16:13, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    As an interesting point on "anthropogenic", I was looking at what other articles started with "list of man-made..." and found that the redirect List of man-made disasters points to Anthropogenic hazard. So we sorta already support that. (The other two cases, List of man-made objects on the Moon goes to List of artificial objects on the Moon (which makes sense from above) and List of man-made mass poisoning incidents which is just there). --Masem (t) 16:20, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Anthropogenic hazard is a man-made disaster of a title! Johnbod (talk) 03:47, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Can we use “man-made” if all the items listed were made by human males? Blueboar (talk) 15:58, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    "man-made" has not just been applied to disasters. Once upon a time, it was applied to ice. Man-made ice was different from the one transported from the arctic and stored in ice houses. Now because pretty much all ice consumed by humans is human-made we just call it ice; "artificial ice," is now reserved for the one underfoot in rinks. In the early days of rayon or nylon, it was called man-made fiber; now it is just artificial or synthetic fiber; man-made grass or turf is artificial turf; man-made lakes are artificial lakes; man-made flavors are imitation flavors; man-made leather or fur is faux; man-made flowers are fake or artificial; man-made gems are imitation gems. So man-made has been continued to be replaced by gender-neutral terms for nearly 100 years now. And it doesn't just apply to Homo sapiens. The national bird of India used to be the peacock. But on WP it is now peafowl based on the principle that a national bird can't be born of a mother who is not. The European Parliament says in its pamphlet on gender-neutral language, "the use in many languages of the word 'man' in a wide range of idiomatic expressions which refer to both men and women, such as manpower, layman, man-made, statesmen, committee of wise men, should be discouraged. With increased awareness, such expressions can usually be made gender-neutral." I think the page move was needed because gender-neutral terms are inevitable. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:56, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    "Anthropogenic" sounds good to me. Tony (talk) 00:06, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    "Anthropogenic" is too sesquipedalian to be used in an article title. WP:COMMONNAME y'know. ~Anachronist (talk) 04:27, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, we should avoid 'man-made' per existing language in MOS:GNL. I can't immediately generate an example of a usage of 'man-made' that wouldn't clearly or precisely be covered by 'human-made', 'human-caused', or a similar construction. If there continue to be 'man-made'-specific style disputes, I would support an explicit mention in GNL. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 02:30, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Fiber, grass, and lakes listed in my post above have been purposefully made by humans. Disasters have typically not. So, "anthropogenic" (OED: originating in or caused by human activity) is certainly more accurate independent of the gender bias issue. "Anthropogenic" is applied to climate change (OED example: 2008 S. Vanderheiden Atmospheric Justice i. 38 By the time George W. Bush took office in early 2001, the existence of anthropogenic climate change was acknowledged by broad scientific consensus.), or to deforestation (OED example: 1963 E. Pyddoke Scientist & Archaeol. iii. 67 West has suggested that at Hoxne a phase of deforestation might be anthropogenic.) But in terms of human purposefulness, a disaster is somewhere in between fiber and climate change. That is why this morning, I'm leaning more toward "human provoked disasters," (which has some currency in the literature). They were provoked by human activity or agency. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:22, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    PS So in terms of preference, I'd say: 1. "human provoked disasters" 2. "anthropogenic disasters" 3 "human-caused disasters." All are better than man-made. I don't buy that "anthropogenic" is unfamiliar. It might be a little, but probably not much more than "pandemic" was in 2019 (as opposed to epidemic). Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:32, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    All three of these (as well as "man-made disasters") seem to be used in reliable academic sources, so they satisfy WP:COMMONNAME. All three also satisfy MOS:GNL so I'd be fine with any of them. pburka (talk) 16:32, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I probably should have clarified: my position above is focused on interpretation of our MOS, and the possibility that new language needs to be added to it for clarity. If I start to have an informed opinion on the list that's generated this discussion, I'll share it at the talk page. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 18:44, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    There is generally no problem with "man-made" in terms of gender neutrality, unless discussing specific objects made by an individual person. However, as noted above, there are in many cases different terms that are better for other reasons. Thryduulf (talk) 00:50, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Under my interpretation of MOS:GNL, I would support using 'human-made' instead of 'man-made,' although I must admit it does sound a bit awkward, likely because it is not used in mainstream lexicon. However, using 'human' avoids either he/she, as set forth by MOS:GNL. Perhaps for each individual circumstance, we can consider alternative wording altogether, such as "artificial," which a user above has suggested. I also agree that 'anthropogenic' is an appropriate term in this case, which removes the need to use 'man-made' or 'human-made' at all, if causing contention. Alternatively, maybe in some cases, labelling something more specifically, like 'industrial disaster' avoids the issue, too. All in all, though, while there are alternatives, I see no reason to stick to the term 'man,' especially when MOS:GNL advises as such. Broadly, I see no harm done in using more gender-inclusive terminology in the English language more generally. Kind regards, PinkElixir (talk) 01:50, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support either man-made (pithy, very common, and an alliteration that humans tend to like) , or human-made (more gender neutral, and still straightforward). Anthropogenic has its semantic merits, but as mentioned above is sesquipedalian and not commonly used in this context ("anthropogenic climate change" yes, "anthropogenic disasters" no).
      • A key question is whether wikipedia wants to follow the literature per our basic pillars, or be at the forefront of leading the change in the use of language according to new mores. Al83tito (talk) 03:24, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd support either man-made or anthropogenic. I feel I have to dip in here - I may be a trans guy, but trans I still am, and though the sentiment is admirable, this feels like a strange move to make.
    'Man', in this instance, seems to refer pretty obviously to humans in general, in the same sense of the phrase "when man first landed on the moon"; though gender neutral language is something I pick up on, I don't think I'd be alone in saying this isn't relevant to gender neutrality, because the usage of the word is not in a gendered context. I feel it's far less gendered than a phrase like "you guys", to the point where I wouldn't classify 'man-made' as gendered at all. People refer to humankind as 'man' on the whole. Though it is in somewhat of an edging-on older, more grandiose sense, it's not an egregious turn of phrase.
    However, I *would* imagine that 'anthropogenic' is a more *specific* turn of phrase than 'man-made'. I don't think it's too sesquipedalian for usage here at all. 'Anthropogenic' is close enough to 'anthropology' and 'anthropological' to be pretty clear at the very least what it probably means; something to do with humans, and human-caused disasters.
    At any rate, 'human-made', though it doesn't have the word 'man' in it, doesn't feel like an improvement towards gender neutrality, it just feels like a sideways change. I'd much rather see people focus on replacing 'he or she' with 'they'...-- Ineffablebookkeeper (talk) 16:18, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, shit. 'Human' does have the word 'man' in it. There's a reason I didn't go to University for English Language Studies... -- Ineffablebookkeeper (talk) 16:19, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    No, it does not have the word man in it. Consult any dictionary that has etymological information. Human entirely coincidentally has the character string m-a-n in it, but the word man and the word human have unrelated origins.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:58, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • While I agree with observations that man has multiple uses in English, it probably cannot be escaped that some people will object to use of man to mean humans, including in man-[something] constructions, whether their objection is well-grounded or not. Ergo, it is better to use substitute terms like artificial, anthropogenic, human-[something], industrial, etc., and which to use will vary by context. There will be times that this may run into WP:COMMONNAME problems, but keep in mind WP:NTITLE and that COMMONNAME is just a restatement of WP:RECOGNIZABLE, which is only one of the five naming WP:CRITERIA. We can generally write around problems like this with some thought and judgment.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:06, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      Agreed. I don't think there's a one-sizes-fits-all substitute but each use-case will have something more in keeping with MOS:GNL that would fit. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ X 12:32, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Avoiding "man-[something]" or "man" when human or something else will do, in such a context when there are several alternatives is in keeping with GNL and it avoids the flowery over the specific, except in quotes, (in fact, individual men walked on the moon), or the ambiguous or archaic ('which man?' or 'which men?', or 'do you mean human?'). -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:20, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep using "man-made". Let's not adopt Justin Trudeau views, claiming we Canadians use "people-kind", rather then "man-kind". GoodDay (talk) 12:17, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • no Disagree Man-made is perfectly fine to express something wouldn’t’ve occurred without human intervention. Actually, if you wanted to say something was caused exclusively by male humans, you would need to write men‑made. (PS: Shouldn’t it have read “huwoman-caused”? )‑‑ K (🗪 | ✍) 07:29, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Difficult to pronounce

    Currently we have If a name ending in s or z would be difficult to pronounce with 's added (Jesus's teachings), consider rewording (the teachings of Jesus). Maybe it's me, but "Jesus's" is not particularly difficult to pronounce. The possessive seems to become more difficult to pronounce on multi-syllable words with stresses on the final syllable, say manganese's properties, which might make a better example. (Or Sisyphus's struggles, perhaps.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 22:05, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Lazarus's lethal legalisms. Methuselah's memorable mercury montages. Peter Piper picked a peck of pickled peppers. Sad Sue certified Sisyphus's struggles similarly silly. EEng 00:11, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Doing the OP the favour of taking the point seriously, personally I agree and would delete that provision entirely. Whether something is difficult to pronounce is subjective, and in any event, since when was ease of pronunciation the criterion for deciding how written text should be punctuated? Rewording is always an option that editors have, and shouldn’t need providing for by specific reference within the MoS. Failing deletion, an alternative example would at least move us away from the recently aired misapprehension that there is some sort of exception (to the general rule of adding ‘s) for biblical references. MapReader (talk) 05:19, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    None of those seem hard to pronounce to me. Just put the 's on and leave it to the reader to pronounce or not. I mean, it's not like English doesn't already have boatloads of words with silent letters.--Khajidha (talk) 10:31, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Why is “difficult to pronounce” even a consideration for something that’s written? Are we expecting people to gather round to have articles read out to them? (Or is the concern those that need to move their lips to read to themselves??) DeCausa (talk) 15:49, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know what the original rationale was, but we do have a commitment to WP:ACCESSIBILITY. Some of our users do, indeed, have articles read out to them. pburka (talk) 16:57, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    'Difficult to pronounce' is a subjective value judgement that should not be present in the MoS. Different people speak English in different ways, and what might be difficult for some is easy for others. RGloucester — ☎ 16:59, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, we often gather round the piano in the front parlour and sing the Today's Featured Article to the tune of Land of Hope and Glory. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:48, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    True, although I still maintain that having a rule about written punctuation that rests upon how something might be pronounced if spoken is, as you would say, dumb… MapReader (talk) 05:35, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd only say so if it was, indeed, dumb. Writing is fundamentally a visual embodiment of speech, so considering how something is spoken isn't dumb. In English we're used to orthography being all over the map, but in other alphabetic languages it would seem bizarre not to consider pronunciation. EEng 18:47, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    For what it's worth the Chicago Manual of Style mentions pronunciation a reference point for whether or not to include an "s" in a possessive, and advises against punctuation such as "Etta James' singing", because this "disregards pronunciation in the majority of cases". --Lord Belbury (talk) 07:17, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    A lot of style choices are subjective, but that's not really the issue here. The point is that this phrase does not make sense because its assertion about what is 'hard to pronounce' is unverifiable (because what each person can pronounce is different, depending on dialect, ability, &c.), and will likely ring false to many people consulting it for guidance. While this is not the place for a linguistic discussion, I strongly contest Mr EEng's point that 'writing is fundamentally a visual embodiment of speech'. This is entirely incorrect, and rooted in a phoneticist viewpoint that should not be embedded into the MoS. There are many examples the world over of cultures that use seperate written and spoken forms that completely deviate from each other. Please refrain from making such strange and offensive assertions here! RGloucester — ☎ 19:52, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Well I'm afraid you've made it a linguistic discussion, one in which you don't know what you're talking about. That writing (in natural languages, anyway) represents that which can be spoken is a bedrock axiom, even if such representation is often rough and confusing, or (as in Chinese) there are multiple, widely divergent recognized ways to speak out a given piece of writing. These things can make discussing how something is pronounced complex, sometimes even futile, but they don't mean the general goal isn't worth pursuing where possible. EEng 20:33, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe I do know what I am talking about, thank you. Perhaps you are not familiar, but there are languages that are capable of being read, written, and understood without any knowledge of an appropriate verbal way to express that language. Written language is capable of conveying ideas, without sound. Given that I read and write in one such language, I find your continued attempt to impose phoneticism appalling. But, I will not sully this talk page any longer. RGloucester — ☎ 20:40, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    And I'm quite sure you don't, you're welcome. You've taken on with characteristic rapidity your familiar role of overwrought scold ("offensive", "appalling", "impose phoneticism", "sully") staking out some eccentric position. Go ahead: show us a natural-language writing system that isn't meant to be read out orally. That one might conceivably learn a language's writing with no idea of how it's spoken is obvious – here's an artificial example that's actually intended to be learned that way – but to move from the conceivable to the practical: did you learn Japanese that way? Like I said, go on and tell us; we really want to hear it (or read it). EEng 21:34, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    No answer. Huh.
    On reflection it's occurred to me that maybe you're confusing the proposition that all writing represents speech (which is what I'm saying) for the proposition that all writing represents speech phonetically, or alphabetically, or something like that (which is obviously not true, and not what I'm saying because... well, because... y'know... I'm not a moron). EEng 00:08, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Of course we should consider pronounceability. For example, tongue twisters or rhymes in formal prose are generally inappropriate because they distract the reader. And, as I mentioned above, some of our readers are, in fact, listeners and we should consider their needs. But I'm not sure we need this specific rule. The guidance to "[use] plain English" and "avoid ... unnecessarily complex wording" in the introduction is probably sufficient. pburka (talk) 20:29, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Difficulty of pronunciation isn't mentioned, but the exceptions to adding an 's' to a singular possessive ending in 's' (or sibilant, especially if followed by same, e.g. could "for goodness(') sake" ever be "for goodness's sake"?) are given in both Strunk & White (under rule number 1, actually) and Fowler. I think some rule making allowances for such exceptions should be kept. Dhtwiki (talk) 05:41, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, if you don't want to pronounce it, don't But that is not a reason not to write it. Or do you say "kuh-nig-hit" for "knight"? --Khajidha (talk) 13:37, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Just because English has very difficult spelling doesn't mean we should make it worse. EEng 14:42, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Seems to me it would make it better, because 1) it would be more predictable and 2) it would more closely match the pronunciations I use and most often encounter. --Khajidha (talk) 16:31, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    It's more like kuh-neekt if you're trying for a Middle English pronunciation of, say, Chaucer. Acknowledging standard spelling variants here should be helpful when such variants are encountered in sources. Dhtwiki (talk) 21:38, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Does this impact Spoken Wikipedia at all? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:59, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Even if we accept that "reword phrases that are difficult to pronounce" is a reasonable command or suggestion for the MoS (on which I'm not committed; I suspect we could do without it), I think there's a real question of whether it is a concern that is that 's-centric that the suggestion should be in this section, or whether this is a more general concern that deserve's a section on its own. --Nat Gertler (talk) 01:03, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Agree Remove the “difficult to pronounce” guideline from this MoS. Frankly, though, when I begun speaking English (as a second language) it was difficult to pronounce for me, so I would suggest to move this phrase to simple: WP: MoS. ‑‑ K (🗪 | ✍) 07:23, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I have gone ahead and removed the sentence, as that appeared to be the consensus (despite the heat of people arguing over things that were not that question.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 00:19, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    And @EEng: has decided to single-handedly overrule this consensus, despite (as near as I can tell) not having put forth any statement that this particular sentence should be kept (at least that I can find in his large amount of text here). On August 20, his objection was that we should "Give it a couple of days" -- we gave it another week, and not only were there not new folks saying "no" to the deletion, there was at least one additional call supporting the deletion. Consensus looks clear. Does anyone besides EEng feel that consensus has not been reached? (And the edit summary that he used of course misstated the situation; it's not just a mere case of "A couple of people saying they don't get the point" -- it looks like we have actual calls to delete from @MapReader:, @Jochem van Hees and Jochem van Hees:, @Kai Burghardt:, @RGloucester:, and myself.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 03:16, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Does anyone besides EEng feel that consensus has not been reached – Apparently the answer is yes. See below. EEng 04:45, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's standard advice that native speakers should rely on pronunciation to guide this kind of spelling, example (see it's mention of Chicago MoS). Perhaps their example (Euripides's plays) might be used, but asserting that pronunciation has no application in written English is a mistake. Johnuniq (talk) 03:55, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      That another style guide does so might be evidence to support an argument, but I’m not seeing an argument. Things would be much simpler and clearer without such provisions, which I struggle to see the sense of, particularly as neither Jesus’s nor Euripides’s with the ‘s voiced appears particularly difficult to pronounce to me. It’s a shame there was a revert based on scant opposition, but as it’s the MoS how about a proper survey of views? MapReader (talk) 05:41, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Johnuniq: The question of whether the possessive of Jesus includes the added s, which is what the article you point to discusses, is not the matter of the deletion being discussed in this thread (though you may wish to look to the Bruno Mars thread.) Even though the discussion started with questioning the choice of example, the topic quickly moved on to whether we should even have the suggestion that we should consider avoiding having a possessive at all for cases where it is hard to pronounce. (Myself, while I am somewhat open on the question of whether we should recommend rephrasing things to avoid hard-to-pronounce sentences, I see zero logic on having that concern applied specifically and solely to singular possessives, rather than making it its own general MOS entry.) Do you have a position on the deletion being discussed? (Forgive me if you think it clear that you were making no comment on that matter but another editor just used your entry into the discussion to make claims about the deletion discussion.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 13:46, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Can we do the bold edit now then? Very few objections have been raised and they have all been countered. As far as I can tell EEng is the only one who wanted to continue the discussion but has not provided any arguments himself. ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 10:20, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      At this point it's not really a bold edit, since there's been plenty of time for people to comment. As someone guessed, I don't actually care about this particular provision, but I'm very surprised no one else seems to either. EEng 11:13, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    It wasn't a bold edit when it was done after a week of discussion, either. Given how you responded to that by undoing the edit, misdescribing the discussion, and obnoxiously calling me "pilgrim", it's reasonably to wonder if you're going to appropriately respond this time. --Nat Gertler (talk) 22:29, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Don't take it so personal, pilgrim. I've participated in, and often guided, a whole lot of discussions here, and have a pretty darn good idea of how the community will react to certain kinds of things. In this case, I judged that there would be significant controversy over the change, even if for some reason it hadn't manifested yet; but in this case my crystal ball failed my badly. So sue me. EEng 00:47, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    So you entered this thread to do a little joking around -- and little joking I have no problem with. But you stayed on insulting other editors, overriding consensus, sliding the goalpost, misdescribing the discussion repeatedly and now, having seen that I would prefer not to be called "pilgrim", chose to attack me with that again. Is that all to be blamed on your malfunctioning crystal ball? You may want to consider whether you are interacting here in ways that encourage participation, or whether you are letting Wikipedia:Civility fall by the wayside. --Nat Gertler (talk) 02:11, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    No, no, no, no, no, no and, um ... no. I entered the thread, and reverted the edit, for exactly the reason I stated above. If it upsets you to see Gloucester make a fool of himself, talk to him about it. The stuff about goalposts and "misdescribing" is just shit you made up. EEng 04:43, 31 August 2021 (UTC) You're a persistent cuss, pilgrim![reply]
    Count this as a gentle reminder to all involved that conversations about user conduct are best held at user talk pages. Will new entrants to this discussion, looking to make up their minds about this point of style, benefit from reading this exchange? Firefangledfeathers (talk) 02:29, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Do-gooder. EEng 04:43, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Pilgrim. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 04:46, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Your mother wears army boots. EEng 05:20, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Amakuru: You have no standing to single-handedly stonewall a change supported by most participants here by imposing an artificial bureaucratic process that is not required by any Wikipedia policy, guideline, or practice, in what is essentially a WP:SUPERVOTE. See WP:NOTBURO. As for what is 'self-evident' to you, that is irrelevant. I have no trouble pronouncing 'Leeds's defence' or 'Jesus's disciples', and I never have done. If anything, 'Jesus' disciples' may well be more difficult to pronounce, as it deviates from the norm! These phrases may be hard to pronounce for you specifically, but that does not mean they are hard to pronounce for anyone else, and this is exactly why this piece of guidance makes no sense whatsoever, as was said numerous times above. RGloucester — ☎ 13:13, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    It was far from single-handed. EEng had already reverted the change once. And several commenters above agree that the mentioned constructs are difficult to pronounce, and that the guideline is therefore part of what we should be advising readers. It is really not up to a handful of editors to overrride longstanding guidelines on good writing - which match other style guides by the way - without a formal request for comment. And this is nothing to do with me and whether I can pronounce things, this is a pre-existing guideline which obviously makes sense because it's been in use for years.  — Amakuru (talk) 13:26, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The fact that numerous editors above have raised this issue at all is proof that this guideline does not 'obviously make sense'. Perhaps the problem is the specific examples given in our guidance. 'Jesus's' seems quite normal to me, but 'Waters's', as found in The Guardian style guide, is undoubtedly awkward. The Guardian specifies 's as the norm, even for words ending in s, but gives latitude to the writer to use ' where it 'helps', leaving it up to the writer's discretion. This is much more sensible than our present guidance, but still creates the problem of inconsistency based on the specific pronunciation capabilities of a given editor, which vary by region, dialect, and personal ability. In a global encyclopaedia how can we possibly justify guidance that discriminates based on the perceived correctness or awkwardness of a person's pronunciation? In any case, I am not in agreement that our present guidance is in alignment with style guides generally. The Chicago 16th edition that I have access to states: 'In a departure from earlier practice, Chicago no longer recommends the traditional exception for proper classical names of two or more syllables that end in an eez sound. Such names form the possessive in the usual way (though when these forms are spoken the additional s is generally not pronounced)'. This seems a much more sensible approach in a global encyclopaedia. RGloucester — ☎ 14:57, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I am utterly flabbergasted that anyone would find either of those at all difficult to pronounce. --Khajidha (talk) 15:28, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Where's SMcCandlish when we need him? EEng 11:44, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      Need a break from this place sometimes.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  16:35, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • For the record, I've tracked it, and what is there now (more or less, I've not done a note-by-note check) is not something that has been in there forever; prior to this edit in January 2018, there was no comment about Jesus's being hard to pronounce; that Jesus' didn't get a closing s was due to tradition, not pronunciation. And the advice was focused "particularly" on inanimate objects, which does not describe "Jesus" in the name's most common use. The new wording was raised by this RFC at the Village Pump, but was made by proposer @Dicklyon: before the RFC had a formal closure. (As for the screen reader concern: Do screen readers have trouble pronouncing Jesus's? The one on my old Mac OS doesn't. It seems to me it would be easy for a device that isn't reliant on tongue movement.... not that I find it difficult myself, as someone who does rely on tongue movement. But perhaps Dicklyon, who has written about machine hearing, has some input on machine speech.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 13:30, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      Dicklyon effected the change because the consensus was quite clear in the RFC, and nobody then objected. (Plus it was later closed as successful anyway). But the fact that the clause was established through RFC means it's all the more imperative that an RFC be held to remove it.  — Amakuru (talk) 13:39, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      A focused discussion is difficult with people insisting that constructions no more difficult to pronounce than “molasses” or “promises” are apparently unpronounceable. Except that the fact we have such differing individual views on pronounceability does bring home what a pointless criterion it is for determining punctuation within the MoS! MapReader (talk) 16:15, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      You're off by one s. The parallel to Jesus's is not muhl-ass-uss but muhl-ass-uss-izz (as in "mollasses's viscosity"). On the other hand, the possessive of promises is promises' i.e. prom-iss-izz. EEng 16:52, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      I’ve often wondered what the possessive of the Court of St James's is. Court of St James’s’s guards or Court of St James’s’ guards? DeCausa (talk) 17:51, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      The relevant point is that if some people, like me, think that these constructions are easily pronounceable, and others appear to think they are impossible to pronounce, then pronounceability can never be a sensible determinant of anything. MapReader (talk) 18:55, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      Well if this sentence came to be through an RfC then I kinda do understand why you'd want another one to remove it, even though I predict that nothing of value would come from such a discussion, and even though I still dislike the bureaucracy. ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 21:19, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      The January 2018 change that I made was a great simplification (basically, always use 's for a singular possessive) in accord with most modern style guides and the clear consensus at the RFC. I didn't particularly like the bit about hard to pronounce (because it never is), but that was for people who think it is, to have an alternative to just using the apostrophe without the s. That is, if you don't like the possessive with 's, rewrite. And what is molasses's viscosity, if I may ask? One thing I learned in that RFC discussion, if I recall correctly, is that there are people who pronounce a final apostrophe as if it's 's, and then they want to add another 's pronunciation for the s. I.e. Jesus's they would read as Jesus uz uz. That is, some people don't know how to read written English, and want to see it written differently as a result. I had not imagined that such existed. And this was not 2020, so they don't have that excuse! Dicklyon (talk) 04:50, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    1. Thanks to everyone participating in the discussion in a constructive manner so far.
    2. Let’s take a step back and wonder what an MoS is about. Is it supposed to be a comprehensive guide to all style issues that might occur? No. The introduction currently says “New content added to this page should directly address a persistently recurring style issue.” I hardly doubt there are/were conflicts on grounds of pronunciation. Worse: The current situation fuels/provokes conflicts as Bruno Mars recently showed. Frankly, I myself would not revert an edit changing the wording to one form or another. I deem it unnecessary, not an improvement regarding encyclopedic content, but otherwise it’s tomayto, tomahto. “The waitress’s attire” and “the attire of a waitress” both convey the same meaning just as well. Space is not a concern here, ¬paper.
    3. The “no new content unless really necessary” policy already existed at Special: Diff/819210420. It read “Any new content added to the body of this page should directly address a style issue that has occurred in a significant number of instances.” Why is this rule in place? I suppose because the MoS is already quite a mammoth. For a project that’s based on volunteers too many rules are rather stifling, you know what I mean? Let’s KISS, shall we? Remove this clause from the text. I can infer from previous comments that Map Reader, Jochem van Hees and Nat Gertler second this point.
    4. I suggest to take a look at grammar references. For instance Michael Swan’s Practical English Usage § 432. There is no documented preference for either style simply based on subjective difficulties in pronunciation, hence one’s ideolect.
    5. Lastly, and I can’t stress this enough, but written English ≠ spoken English. RGloucester already wrote that. It is OK and there will always be differences between how people speak and how they write a language. This attempt in uniting them is doomed to fail.
      ‑‑ K (🗪 | ✍) 22:59, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Dicklyon is right above, that we were very close to a consensus of going for the straight ‘s in all cases (which reflects best practice in many guides) except for a minority hangup over pronounceability, which left us with a rather unhelpful sentence in the MoS. The ability to reword a sentence is always open to editors - it doesn’t need ‘permission’ from the MoS - and resting the facility to do so on the impossible-to-judge question of pronounceability is where the compromise within the last discussion went wrong. Editors should be able to write about the teachings of Jesus even if they can pronounce it the other way around. MapReader (talk) 05:16, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hopefully not late the party on this but I'm not in favour of removing the passage in question; yes you can get hung up on what is or isn't difficult to pronounce but that's not really the meat of it to me; having it spelt out concisely that it's okay to restructure a sentence to avoid a direct possessive is worth noting. Maybe someone would care to change the wording of it, but an explicit instruction that it's worth considering "the teachings of Jesus" over "Jesus's teachings" is a good point to retain here. Gʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ˣ 21:44, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      Allowing people to restructure things is not something "worth noting". It is a fundamental part of what a wiki is. People really don't need the MOS's permission to make sentences easier to read in their opinion. ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 22:20, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      And yet, is there harm in spelling it out? I don't see the gain in not stating it, whereas I do see the gain in stating it. Gʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ˣ 22:33, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      WP:CREEP. ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 22:34, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      The removed passage is 170 characters in total including wikimarkup, is this really instruction creep or simply a brief gloss? I'm not in favour throwing out baby to save a thimbleful of bathwater. Gʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ˣ 22:40, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      Instruction creep is pretty much never a big block of text that is entirely meaningless. This is exactly what creep means: small changes, over time, each amounting to the problem. There is no baby here, only bathwater. ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 23:17, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      That's not what this was. Not "small changes, over time, each amounting to the problem", but rather a big change that was a great simplification relative to all the weird considerations that were there before. That was how we accommodated the RFC inputs. That said, I have no objection to further simplification if that's what people prefer here. Dicklyon (talk) 04:49, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'll generally concur with removal. The important part of the sentence under discussion is the instruction to write around conflict, and that's the first "rule" of MoS, in its lead. So, it's not really necessary to repeat it here, much less to use a flimsy rationale to do so, like alleged pronuncation difficulty. PS: No, the plural of "St. James's" isn't "St. James's's"; I don't think any reputable work would ever use such a construction. "St. James's" is already a contraction of something longer ("St. James's Gate", etc.), so use the longer name, or write "of St. James's", or otherwise write around the problem. This is not difficult, and we have better things to do than entertain argument-for-sport (cf. WP:NOT#FORUM) that attempts to make it seem difficult.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  16:35, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Contradictory wording of "Punctuation inside or outside" subsection

    Currently we have the following wording at Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Punctuation inside or outside: 

    Include terminal punctuation within the quotation marks only if it was present in the original material, and otherwise place it after the closing quotation mark. For the most part, this means treating periods and commas in the same way as question marks: keep them inside the quotation marks if they apply only to the quoted material and outside if they apply to the whole sentence.

    The second sentence above contradicts the following: 

    When quoting a full sentence, the end of which coincides with the end of the sentence containing it, place terminal punctuation inside the closing quotation mark.

    See the corresponding examples. This is clearly different from the treatment of question marks.

    I recommend simply deleting "For the most part, this means treating periods and commas in the same way as question marks: keep them inside the quotation marks if they apply only to the quoted material and outside if they apply to the whole sentence."

    Winston (talk) 04:35, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Could you give an example that could expose the contradiction? Firefangledfeathers (talk) 04:40, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Here is an example from the subsection itself. In Did Darla say, "Here I am"? the quotation mark applies to both the quoted material and to the whole sentence, and is placed outside. In Marlin said: "I need to find Nemo." the period applies to both the quoted material and to the whole sentence, and is placed inside. Winston (talk) 04:51, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think Darla said "Here I am?", meaning the question mark doesn't apply to the quoted material. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 04:54, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah wait I'm incorrect. The question mark in Did Darla say, "Here I am"? applies to the whole sentence only. Still, the manual says "outside if they apply to the whole sentence", but the period applies to the whole sentence and is placed inside. Winston (talk) 04:55, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    My first thought is that the first quoted paragraph lays out the general rule ("For the most part") and the second lays out a specific rule that serves as an exception. I have more thinking to do on whether the removal you're proposing would hurt or help. Hopefully others will chime in soon. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 05:14, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I suspect that was the intention of its author, but the OP is right that it does fail, because what is presented as a general rule is both qualified in a way that makes it meaningless (“for the most part”…) and isn’t really the general rule at all. It is the examples below in that section of the MoS that make clear what we are supposed to be doing. Taking first the part that Winston highlights, it is misleading because it gives two scenarios that are not mutually exclusive: it is possibly for a full stop (period) to apply BOTH to the whole sentence and be present in the original material. The phrasing suggests that in such circumstances the full stop goes outside, but the MoS examples make clear that in many cases it’s the opposite that we should be doing. However the first part of the section that Winston quotes above, but doesn’t propose for deletion, is also badly worded, since it suggests that we should be including the full stop within the quotation if it was present in the original material - yet, here again, the examples make clear that this isn’t what we should be doing, since any end of sentence fragment that is quoted will clearly have the full stop at the end yet this then goes OUTSIDE the quotation marks. “Otherwise” is used totally inappropriately in that sentence! What it (the first sentence) is trying to say is “never include punctuation within quotation marks unless it was present in the quoted material” - which IS a general rule! - The second part is trying to say “the general approach is to include punctuation within quotation marks if it applies solely to the quotation and outside if it forms part of the overall sentence” but I would add for clarity at the end, covering off terminal full stops which is the most common scenario: “, terminal periods (full stops) should be included within quotation marks if an entire sentence from the quoted material is being quoted in full, but otherwise put outside”. These would be my own proposals, but it would be just as good to use the wording we already have elsewhere in WP that sets out the general rule: “include within quotation marks only those punctuation marks that appeared in the original quoted material and in which the punctuation mark fits with the sense of the quotation, but otherwise to place punctuation outside the closing quotation marks”. The AND inside that is doing the heavy lifting, but it is at least correct and clear. MapReader (talk) 05:57, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I've thought about this some more (typed this up before seeing MapReader's comment, they make good points too). I believe the issue is mainly with the wording of the explanation, which could do with some logical refinement. Here's my thoughts.
    A question mark goes inside if and only if the question mark applies to the quotation:
    • Did Darla ask, "Where am I?" (question mark applies to both the whole sentence and the quotation)
    • Did Darla say, "I like dogs"? (question mark applies to whole sentence only)
    • Darla asked, "Where am I?" (question mark applies to the quotation only)
    Thus when it comes to question marks, "keep them inside the quotation marks if they apply only to the quoted material and outside if they apply to the whole sentence" should instead be "keep them inside the quotation marks if and only if they apply to the quoted material".
    I think the explanation could also be reorganized. We should first explain fully the rules for question marks, then introduce the heuristic of mostly treating periods and commas in the same way as question marks, followed by further explanation for commas, periods, etc. In this case, there may be enough exceptions to the heuristic that it may not even be helpful to some people.
    An example of such an exception is that if a period is placed inside, then it applies to the quoted material, but if a period applies to the quoted material, it is not necessarily placed inside. (So we have here a one-directional material conditional rather than the biconditional "if and only if").
    Basically, we need to be extremely clear and explicit with logical terms such as "if", "only if", "otherwise", and with the exceptions (if we can even call them that at this point). We should also try to organize the explanation in the most effective way (although what's effective is subjective). I suggest diving into the precise details with examples first, perhaps organized by type of punctuation, and then summarizing at the end. Currently we have an inaccurate summary followed by (correct) examples. Winston (talk) 06:14, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I strongly urge that examples be found that might conceivably arise in actual article editing. The current guideline spends most of its time on encyclopedically impossible cases. No article is (or should, anyway) ever say something like "I need", said Marlin, "to find Nemo." EEng 14:21, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      We could say “The film”, commented Hollywood Reporter, “is very good”. But I’d think we can credit editors with some ability to extrapolate from the examples we already have. Winston risks complicating things by trying to revise the examples as well, which are currently not broken being pretty clear. We’d do better simply to come up with something better to replace the opening paragraph. MapReader (talk) 17:16, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      No, it's inconceivable that an article would read “The film”, commented Hollywood Reporter, “is very good”; that's for novels, historical fiction, and Sunday-supplement pieces. ("'Ask not what your country can do for you", the young president challenged his listeners, "ask what you can do for your country.'" – I'd love to be a fly on the wall while you guys hammer out how to punctuate that one.) If you can't find an actual article-editing situation to which the principle exemplified by an example arises, then the example not just can be junked, but needs to be junked. See WP:MOSBLOAT. EEng 00:25, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      The purpose of an example is to help the reader understand the general principle, and whether or not the words used are true to real life isn’t a critical criterion. In your example the final period clearly goes outside the quotation marks, because the wording within your second set of quotation marks is a sentence fragment and not an entire sentence. MapReader (talk) 05:46, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      I'll say it for the third time: if you can't supply an example that would actually arise in an article, then "the general principle" doesn't need to be understood, and shouldn't be bloating MOS. EEng 06:03, 27 August 2021 (UTC) P.S. There's a lot more going on with the Kennedy passage.[reply]
      You have taken the discussion off on a tangent; the original point was about the introductory wording, which most posts above agree is currently inadequate. If you don’t like the examples, that’s a separate issue, and the onus should be on you to offer up some better ones. MapReader (talk) 05:09, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      Off on a tangent might be preferable to going around in circles. And no, it's the person wanting to retain, in MOS, a particular provision who carries the onus, if challenged, of giving at least one example of a realistic editing situation to which that provision would apply. If there are no such situations, which as I've said I suspect is the case above, then it's obviously impossible for me to offer one as an example as you illogically demand. This the fourth time I've explained this self-evident truth -- here's hoping it sinks in this time. EEng 05:20, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Query about extra spaces

    I'm a little hesitant to venture into MOS territory with your 200+ archived talk pages but here goes. I'm coming across some old pages that have titles like "Wikipedia talk / Manual of Style" with two extra spaces, one on either side of the slash/diagonal. I checked the article and these spaces aren't repeated in the article when the subject is mentioned. I fixed the first incident I came across because I thought it was a mistake but now I'm running into other examples and so I thought I'd check here and ask if this is standard practice (or was) and I should not correct the unnecessary spaces in the article titles when I come across them. Thanks. Liz Read! Talk! 05:36, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Just in case you wanted to see an example, one would be Aoraki / Mount Cook. Liz Read! Talk! 05:39, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Just a guess here: maybe its a New Zealand thing? I go to the New Zealand MoS and there's an example. Wikipedia:Naming conventions (New Zealand)#Dual and alternative place names under dual names. Not sure if it's policy or what, though. Masterhatch (talk) 09:47, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    A forward slash in an article title indicates a subpage; there are no spaces around the slash because the slash is there to separate the subpage name from the main page name. However, subpages are not a thing in the mainspace, where article titles are supposed to have natural English titles. So it is perfectly fine to put spaces around a slash there, following English punctuation rules. ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 10:30, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, then, that's what I needed to know. I won't go around around and "correct" elements that aren't obvious mistakes. I thought I received a good education but I clearly didn't learn all the English punctuation rules so I'm glad there is a talk page here to ask. Thank you. Liz Read! Talk! 23:21, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Part of the issue is that they vary over time, by region, by topic, and by claimed "authority". It's probably not possible to know them all, and many of them will conflict when any of those variables are changed. However, it's very dubious that the NZ naming conventions page (alleged to be a guideline though I doubt it was subject to a WP:PROPOSAL process) should be recommending page titles like "Aoraki / Mount Cook". Our article titles policy says to use one name, and the prefer the most common in English-language sources (which may change over time, resulting in an article rename). WP guidelines cannot contradict WP policies (see WP:P&G). Odds are that for this specific case the common name is "Mount Cook" and will eventually become "Aoraki" as preference for the original native name increases. This is not limited to NZ; similar geographic-feature renamings are happening in the US and Canada, and possibly in other places (and Canada has already long had the issue of places with differing names in English and French, too; we use the English one in most cases, and do not have dual-named articles with slashes in them). All that said, article titling isn't entirely an MoS issue, but should probably be raised at WT:AT, and moves/renames discussed via WP:RM.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:37, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Adjacent places

    On some articles about places I see text diagrams describing which places are nearby. Examples:

    Is this stuff honestly helpful for a reader? Maybe in ~2005, but these days (given Google Maps exists and so does Wikipedia:Mapframe maps in infoboxes) I feel like it's a really hard-to-parse format with zero benefit to readers. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 18:52, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I only know "Localities around …" from {{Infobox Australian place}} where there are widely used. I'm not aware of any discussions to remove them from the template. Given the increasing number of Wikipedia readers on mobile devices, presenting this information in an infobox is preferable to a navigation box which is not visible on mobile devices. Mapframes don't seem to work for most locations using {{Infobox Australian place}}. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 04:26, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    These things really are outdated claptrap. It's been suggested before to delete or deprecate {{Adjacent communities}} and some similar templates, but they were rather narrowly kept. I think a new push to remove them would succeed if they were no longer embedded in other templates. The fact that infoboxes can support a roughly similar feature, and the fact that various articles are doing completely different things in an attempt to provide information like this, is a strong indication that the navbox templates for this should go away, and that table-based simulations of them should go away, leaving only the infobox implementation, if even that meets with consensus to retain it.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:42, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    RfC: LGBT

    How should the use of the acronym that refers to the LGBT community be standardized (not including names of organizations)? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 04:10, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I've seen the usage lean mostly towards LGBT, but LGBTQ+ pops up in some article language, and LGBTQ appears in both article titles and text. Even the article LGBT isn't consistent in prose.

    Options:

    • A: Standardize the usage of the word/initialism
      • A1: LGBT
      • A2: LGBTQ
      • A3: LGBTQ+
      • A4: Queer

    Survey

    • B. I think an individual article should be internally consistent but sources used article to article may give a preference to one variation over another. Personally would prefer us to have one set standard but ultimately I think we're beholden to how our sources use it. Gʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ˣ 10:45, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      We may not even be able to be consistent within the same article in some cases, since, for example, the scope of various events, laws, etc. have changed over time.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:37, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • LGBT The reason why we need standardization is because various sources in many languages have many names for this concept, and for clarity we as Wikipedia editors can take an editorial position to use one term uniformly even if cited sources use another term.
    At meta:Wikimedia LGBT+ we had this discussion many times and the consensus came to "LGBT+". "LGBT" is the most common name and also historically accepted by the organized stakeholder communities. In acknowledgement that other demographics want separate recognition we added the plus.
    Problems with "Q" for queer include that 1) this was a slur term until recently 2) its definition varies broadly 3) it is a Western culture concept and increasing Western representation seems counterproductive to shifting the conversation globally. There is almost no non-Western development of the LGBT discourse but to the extent that it happens, I have not seen evidence that queer is anyone's preferred term for talking about how LGBT culture developed outside the Western world. As long as the term is LGBT or LGBT+ we retain more non-Western inclusivity. Blue Rasberry (talk) 11:56, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • There are options not listed. The most inclusive variant (found in many sources) is: LBGTQIA+. This should at least be an option. Blueboar (talk) 12:46, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • B. Seems a bit too tricky to standardize, and I don't think there is likely to be a widely accepted standard anywhere anytime soon. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 16:17, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • B: The existence of these synonyms isn't a problem and doesn't require fixing; we can just follow the sources. As between LGBT and LGBTQ, the former is still the most popular, but the latter is rapidly gaining on it, so the use of both on Wikipedia is inevitable for some time to come. Queer is often used with slightly different shades of meaning from the initialisms, and where sources use it, our summaries of them should reflect that.--Trystan (talk) 18:05, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: I’ll admit, I have changed LGBT[etc] to LGBT at least twice that I can remember, and I have backed this up with the following: LGBT was the term used in the source(s); LGBT is the common name used at LGBT; and the word LGBT is not an exclusive one (usually noted in regard to the LGBT community). If either of the first two reasons were not there, I probably would not have made the change. In saying that, my non-vote goes to B, but I’ve always liked Q as the letter-equivalent of a plus, as in, “we are LGBT in a literal sense, but if you’re otherwise a bit ‘queer’ you’re also welcome.” But that’s just, like, my opinion. — HTGS (talk) 20:41, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • B. Which to use varies by context. Using something like "LGBTQIA+" or even "LGBTQ" will be an anachronism is some contexts, even as recently as events from the 1990s to 2000s.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:53, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • no Disagree (option B): The first thing I ever saw in this discourse was LBT. Later they added another letter LGBT. Some time later I stumbled upon LGBTQ, and now I think we’re at LGBTQIA+? Seriously, an encyclopedia is meant to document established knowledge. Evidently, there is no one generally accepted term. It is politics and I suppose there’ll always be a squabble as regards how to name things. We (as an encyclopedia) should stay away from any politicking (that doesn’t affect our own operations), thus do not standardize. ‑‑ K (🗪 | ✍) 08:14, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      As recently as the early 2000s, "GLT" and "LGT" were common; I had friends that printed up "This is offensive to bisexuals" stickers to slap on GLT/LGT and "Gay and Lesbian" signage at events like Folsom Street Fair (and to this day there's still a lot of sotto voce discrimination against the B among L and G people). GLB and GLBT have also been common; putting the L first came about later and is mostly a 2010s thing.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:37, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      Not to mention the sotto voce discrimination against the T among the other three (not all, but definitely present) and the whole "Drop the T" movement. --Khajidha (talk) 13:19, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • B (no cross-wiki standardization), though within an article a term should be standardized. I expect this would depend on the topic and other factors - eg if talking about gay rights in the pre-2000s, I would not expect "LGBTQ+" to be used. --Masem (t) 13:07, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • A2 - is the most common usage, that I've seen. GoodDay (talk) 14:16, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • A1 – from search results, it looks to me that "LGBT" is more popular than "LGBTQ", "LGBT+", etc – considering both general searches, and also those focusing on reliable sources (e.g Google News, Google Scholar, JSTOR). I think we ought to try to be consistent across articles, and we ought to prefer the term which is most popular (especially with reliable sources) over those with less popularity. Mr248 (talk) 00:20, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I have no particular opinion on this, but the problem with search results (especially from Scholar and Books) is that you're looking at the average of past usage. With nGrams, you can see that LGBTQ is now roughly equally as common as LGBT. Is this significant? Hard to say.... --Macrakis (talk) 01:35, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    RfC on alphabetization of extended-latin characters (eg "ä" etc)

    Should the MoS give guidance on how to alphabetize foreign-language terms that include letters not in the basic Latin alphabet, such as "Ë" and "Å" and so forth?

    1) No.
    2) Yes, and:

    2A) Yes, and we should use each language's system (for instance, some languages treat "Ö" as a distinct letter that comes after "Z"). This is described at the article Alphabetical order.
    2B Yes, and we should use the French system always (that is, "Ô" and "Ö" etc are treated exactly like "O" and so on).
    2C) Yes, and we should use Unicode order, as described at Wikipedia:Alphabetical order.

    3) Other [describe]. Herostratus (talk) 18:57, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Survey

    • 1 - IMHO, we should do away with diacritics on English Wikipedia. GoodDay (talk) 19:03, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      You are well aware by now that there is overwhelming consensus against your position. Continued tendentiousness and activism against diacritics on Wikipedia is good grounds for a topic-ban from the subject.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:49, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      I have not & continue to not remove them from articles, where they're considered to belong. I also add them to articles where they're considered to belong. I haven't for years gotten into edit-wars over the topic. Now please, let's not have this conversation. GoodDay (talk) 01:40, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      Then stop WP:FORUM-abusing WP as an anti-diacritics activism platform.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:30, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      Sorry, if I've upset you. GoodDay (talk) 04:39, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • 2B makes the most intuitive sense to me but if someone more familiar with the Unicode order makes a case for it, it may sway me. Gʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ˣ 19:08, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • 1 It is not the function of our MoS to avoid every conceivable disagreement that ever may arise with preemptive measures that themselves amount to nothing more than instruction creep. Regarding new instructions in the MoS, it says: "New content added to [the MoS] should directly address a persistently recurring style issue." I am not aware that this is such a recurring style issue and the RfC does not indicate that it is. For now, it seems, to me, like a solution in search of a problem--John Cline (talk) 22:34, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • 2B, since there is already a clear consensus for it for 15+ years; it is how we alphabetize with sorting in WP:Categories.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:49, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • 1, with 2B as a fallback. Although 2B is commonly used here, it is not the only choice, and in some contexts other systems make sense; in particular, we frequently sort some surnames with lowercase parts (such as Dutch ones beginning with "van") by the first capitalized part. When we sort categories by the titles of articles within them, we omit articles from the start of the title, etc. For that matter, even for unaccented Anglo-American names we generally sort by surname first, even though 2B if interpreted literally would cause us to sort by given name first. I think the conventions we have adopted by consensus are working, and that trying to encode them by MoS text is likely to break things, so I prefer 1 over 2B. All that said, 2A and 2C are nonstarters. 2A is not a sorting system, it's a recipe for conflict, because what do you do when you are sorting items from multiple languages with incompatible conventions? And 2C's idea of sorting Unicodes numerically is never the right thing to do, in work aimed at human consumption. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:01, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • By the way, since this is not explicit in this proposal: I am going to assume that this ONLY covers the collation ordering of accented Roman letters, but would not guide how to choose which words to collate (e.g. the cases of lowercase particles and articles mentioned above, as well as e.g. the apostrophe in O'brien) or how to order other letters. This assumption would allay most of the concerns with 2B in my comment above. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:33, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, right, that's my understanding. Herostratus (talk) 12:46, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, here: Wikipedia:Help desk#Alphabetisation of Länsiviitta, an editor was seeking guidance on how to alphabetize List of shopping malls in Finland, would the "ä" in Länsiviitta be treated as an "a" or as coming after z (as would be done in Finnish). FWIW List of Finnish municipalities for instance uses Finnish alphabet order. Herostratus (talk) 05:59, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • 1 with 2B as fall back. I totally agree with David Eppstein (I also agree with GoodDay in that diacritics should only be used in English where they're actually used in English, eg Métis. But that's not up for debate today, 'nuff said). Masterhatch (talk) 14:02, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • 2B, with 1 as the fallback. 2C is right out, and 2A isn't best IMO.
    I don't see why can't provide a guideline so that editors aren't lost at sea and scratching their heads if confronted with this question. Agreed that we don't want to micromanage, and it doesn't matter if ifs different in different articles, but really we're only talking about a sentence two or that comes down to "Well, since you have to use some rubric, use French system we suppose".
    It could just be stuck in some MoS page, but I can't figure out a good one, so I'm thinking that (if some variant of option 2 gains consensus), maybe a short new page in Category:Wikipedia Manual of Style (formatting) titled "Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Alphabetizing". That'd also provide room for pointing out how "O'Brian" etc are handled, and maybe discuss special cases (I mean if you did have a list in Greek -- can't think why, but if you did -- how would you alphabetize that? Etc.) Herostratus (talk) 21:08, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • 2B Yes, this is the English Wikipedia but English includes many words stolen borrowed from other tongues where they do things different. Élite, for example. Not to mention surviving names from Old Ænglish. English as she is written doesn't fit neatly into any system of spelling, grammar, pronunciation or alphabetisication. If we have a solution that works and editors are comfortable with, then why change? Having a different order for specific uses - List of Finnish beers perhaps - where a different order might be expected by those deep in the subject, should be catered for. --Pete (talk) 22:08, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Doesn't that last sentence indicate a kind of 2A approach? I don't know about beer, but List of Finnish municipalities does exist and it does use the Finnish method. Should it? Maybe. Herostratus (talk) 00:36, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Our aim should be to present information in a useful fashion. For a specialised topic it makes more sense to my mind to allow for a local consensus if that's how those who know the subject best desire. Otherwise have the best possible default for most topics. We can't get away from words or names in regular English that have accents or obsolete letters so we need to have a rule for them, and when we extend this into lists of words in other languages there must be some boundary between what works for English and what works for potentially hundreds of other languages. I think it is more useful to have one default rule and use that until we hit the point where it begins to break down and be counterproductive and that point is going to be different for each situation and best determined by those at the coalface. --Pete (talk) 17:59, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • 1 unless there is evidence that the question needs to be resolved centrally. As a side note, I think 2B probably is the practice I would adopt, but I'm curious what someone would do if two items differed only by the "diacritic" (for lack of a better word; I think umlauts aren't actually diacritcs). It's just a curiosity; I certainly don't propose that it be decided in the MOS. --Trovatore (talk) 16:49, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • 3. I feel we could adopt the same approach as MOS:RETAIN, and leave a hatnote or a sentence at the top stating that this list follows "x" order, where letters with diacritics are treated as if they didn't have any or distinctly for English readers who aren't aware of the different kinds of alphabetisation. I'm still not convinced this needs to be codified in the MOS, though. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 17:05, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • 1, because it depends. While I do think that the French system is probably most often the right choice, other systems can make sense, and whether they do is better decided on a per-article basis when it comes up. – Rummskartoffel 17:17, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • 2B -- principle of least surprise for the English-speaking reader, who is our primary user. Even in an article on Finnish municipalities, most of our readers will not realize that there are letters that come after Z. (By the way, the French order doesn't actually ignore diacritics -- IBM French collation order, it just treats them as less significant than the base letters --but there are very very few cases where this matters.) --Macrakis (talk) 20:14, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • 1 unless there is some reason to give guidance. If we give advice it should be 2B in most cases, because this is simpler for editors and aligns with what native English-speaking readers are likely to expect. I have no objection in principle to using the foreign language's convention where it is appropriate. But if we are using a foreign language alphabetical order we should use the foreign language alphabetical order in full. Which means that if we're using Lithuanian alphabetical order, Y comes between Į and J. If we're using Czech or Slovak alphabetical order, CH comes between H and I. And this can get hard. Is this instance of -nny- in Hungarian an underlying N-NY or NY-NY? Is this -rh- in Welsh an underlying R-H or RH? Better to avoid the whole issue in general. Kahastok talk 20:27, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: sorting by each language's system (2A), while superficially appealing and workable for language-specific lists, would cause issues in lists that contain items from different languages. For example, for a list of prominent members (people, cities, whatever) of an international organization to sort a Finnish person whose name starts with ä after z, but sort a German whose name starts with the same letter alongside a, is likely to confuse readers, frustrate searchers and not be maintained by other, uninitiated editors. (I see one other user has already pointed this out.) -sche (talk) 22:06, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • 2B. Collating order is a endless rabbit hole of complexity, but this is the English language encyclopedia, so we should do what is most natural and useful for English. I would expect that other language projects would make decisions which make sense for that language. The key point is not, "What makes the most sense in the original source language?", but "What makes the most sense to the English-reading user?" As example of just how perverse this can get, how would you sort Ke$ha? Or NIИ? This isn't a made-up example; at a music web site I used to work for, we really did grapple with this. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:33, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • 2A, or failing that 1.
    First, I reject arguments based on how the software operates - 2B might be what defaultsort does, and 2C would be relatively simple to implement, but readers do not care and hence we should not base policy off of it.
    "What makes most sense to an English reader" is a reasonable argument, but it is very subjective near the edge cases. I will post more in the extended discussion. TigraanClick here for my talk page ("private" contact) 09:35, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Bad RfC.
    There's no mention of old prior discussions (e.g. this, there's no mention of what attention was paid to WP:RFCBEFORE, and the "choices" are defined very poorly:
    saying there's a "French system" that treats Ô "exactly" like O ignores the cote < côte < coté < côté controversy and just arm-waves at other letters by saying "and so on"; saying "Unicode order" means nothing until you say what kind of Unicode order (the cited page's example seems to be Unicode code point order); and the word "alphabetization" means all the points about non-alphabetic characters aren't covered. This "guidance" will only cause confusion.
    Speaking of that, I'm a confused guy myself but this is how I think Wikipedia does things now.
    IN ARTICLES: Judging by the definition that I think applies, page lookup is via a binary collation (which is like Unicode code point because the storage is UTF-8) after some simple transformations. However, if on my desktop's "Search Wikipedia" box I enter Fuhrer, I get Führer due to a redirect, I assume it is due to the category Redirects from titles without diacritics -- but that doesn't explain why, when I enter Lansiviitta, I get Länsiviitta.
    IN CATEGORY LISTS: the switch to UCA default took place in 2016 according to talk page. Some fiddling is possible with DEFAULTSORT. But I think it only works with categories inside article pages.
    IN LISTS: As noted earlier, it is possible to specify that a list is sortable and users can change the order to Finnish by clicking, if JavaScript is enabled and if their locale is Finnish.
    IN WT:MOS ALREADY: This Collation in alphabetical order subsection for Arabic seems to be the only place in the current MoS where something specific appears.
    IN THE TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY: The idea of what to do has been studied and national-language committees have argued and a standard was made decades ago: Unicode Collation Algorithm DUCET, aka UCA default. I would have said "3. UCA" but it's too late because too many !votes have already been made, my only hope is that the closer will reject and say: start over. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 18:22, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    All three of the options presented have simple one-line explanations. "Collate as in the native language", "collate as in English and ignore diacritics" and "collate in Unicode code point order". Are we able to give a similarly brief explanation as to what UCA or DUCET actually means in practice?
    If not, I'd say it's unworkable from a practical perspective, because that we cannot reasonably assume that our editors are programmers or technical experts. Kahastok talk 20:40, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Phrases you're putting inside quotes aren't the three options presented. And we can discuss UCA more if there's a new RfC. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 13:57, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    They may not be the words used in the proposal, but they are what the proposal means. --Khajidha (talk) 14:33, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • 2B Some guidance seems suseful. In a list with names form various language groups 2A cannot work. Unicode 3C gives a rather random and unintuitive order. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Woodstone (talk • contribs) 09:50, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • 2B - per the argument given by the unknown poster just before my comment. --Khajidha (talk) 11:16, 7 September 2021 (UTC) PS: I assume that in cases where two terms differ only in presence or absence of a diacritic, that the "bare" form would come first. Not sure what to do about the hypothetical case of two words differing only by which diacritics they have, though. But that is probably too hypothetical to worry about. --Khajidha (talk) 11:19, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      It was Woodstone, FYI. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 14:39, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • 1 as existing guidance is sufficient. Per MOS:LISTORG: {{fontcolor|darkgreen|When using a more complex form of organization, (by origin, by use, by type, etc.), the criteria for categorization must be clear and consistent. Just as a reader or editor could easily assume that the headings A, B, C would be followed by D (rather than 1903), more complex systems should be just as explicit." Local consensus can be trusted to pick a sensible sorting system, and if it is more complex than alphabetical, current guidance suggests making that explicitly clear. Diacritics are complicated enough to justify an explicit note. If others feel this is unclear, I'd not oppose a small note at LISTORG including complex diacritical sorting as an example. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 15:30, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • 1: WP:CREEP; I fail to see why a central solution to this problem is required, and as such to generate additional rules will only further our WP:CREEP issue. BilledMammal (talk) 12:11, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Extended discussion

    We're basically talking about things like lists within articles. I believe that the Wiki software handles alphabetizing list of article names (as for instance on Category pages) etc., and I think that the software uses the French system ("O" and "Ô" considered identical, etc).

    Note that Wikipedia:Alphabetical order is not marked as any kind of rule. I guess it's sort of like an essay. Sticking with the Unicode system described there (option 2C) give a clear rigid rule where you don't have to figure anything out, but it would mean French (and maybe other languagues, don't know) would use a system foreign to it (alphabetical order would be be "role - rule - rôle" which you would not see in normal French writing).

    Thinking that "no" could be a valid answer on grounds that it's maybe WP:MOSBLOAT, we've gone this far without it, it's rare and even then usually makes little difference, so just let the editor doing the writing deciding is OK, we don't need to micromanage everything.

    "Yes, but (or 'No, but...') with these particular exceptions:..." would be a reasonable response also I think.

    Keep in mind that this is the English Wikipedia and we're not bound to follow the rules of any other language. We can if we think it best. As always, the key question is how to best serve the reader, and as always we have to make an educated guess. If the reader comes across a long list where "Arhus" is the first entry, and way down below "Årnheim" is the last, would this be the optimal alphabetization for a typical reader? Might be. Skeptical, personally. Also note that most of our readers have not been to college, as many of you editors have. Most readers will read "wäßrig" as "wabrig" and so forth for instance, I think, and similarly most readers will read "ö" and "ó" and "õ" etc as just "o". I think. Herostratus (talk) 18:57, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    We wouldn't have these headaches or potential headaches, if we would use only the english language. This isn't suppose to be the mult-language Wikipedia. GoodDay (talk) 19:01, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    We still have English-language entries for characters not commonly used in modern English, though; an entry for Æthelred the Unready or Újpest FC or Óglaigh na hÉireann is still going to be written in English. Gʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ˣ 19:05, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Unfortunately so. GoodDay (talk) 19:17, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see how this is "unfortunate"? It's a testament to the breadth of our coverage and and increasingly global scope that we handle these subjects and more. Gʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ˣ 19:21, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Best we not get into a debate about this & respect each others' position. GoodDay (talk) 19:22, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Respectfully, if you hadn't proposed "English only" we wouldn't be debating it. I agree that the language of en.wp is English, but English has a rich history of loan words, and transcriptions of foreign names, and use of Latin-based letters with variations as needed for French, German, Icelandic, etc. names. Ruling those out would be harsh and pointless. In terms of ordering, Im pretty sure English readers have no knowledge of Unicode order; the "French" system of ignoring diacritics and using the nearest ordinary Latin letter equivalent is pretty familiar though. I'm not sure what that means for things like thorn (letter), but I'm pretty sure Unicode is not the answer. Dicklyon (talk) 05:20, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Shouldn't Wikipedia:Alphabetical order (the Unicode page) just be deleted? It's not marked as a guideline. It says it applies to article titles... many lists of things in articles use the article titles when there is one (sometimes redirects are used). Are people following Unicode order for these? Not that I've heard of (it would only rarely be an issue). The page also indicates the listings of article on category pages uses Unicode, which would only be true if the Wiki software does. Does it? If not, that page is probably just confusing the issue and should go, I guess. Herostratus (talk) 06:09, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    See WP:CATSORT. Supposedly, according to that page, the software sorts categories roughly like 2B, with accented letters grouped together with their unaccented versions. In practice, the keys used in DEFAULTSORT generally strip the accents from the letters to enforce this. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:45, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    So then Wikipedia:Alphabetical order is just confusing and should be marked historical or something right? Herostratus (talk) 12:27, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The description in WP:CATSORT aka WP:SORTKEY is poor and misleading; however, the footnote is clear: categories should be UCA default. Some kinds of lists, though, depend on client-side JavaScript according to Help:Sorting. It says about strings: "order: uses locale specific (so in this case English) ordering if your browser supports it." which makes me wonder: maybe such tables would automatically have a different order if my locale was Finnish? In which case, it's not a MoS matter. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 19:19, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    As someone mentioned earlier, 2B appears to be the current standard operating procedure (which I dislike). IF this is so? Why was this RFC opened? GoodDay (talk) 16:03, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    There was a discussion here: Wikipedia:Help desk#Alphabetisation of Länsiviitta, an editor was seeking guidance on how to alphabetize List of shopping malls in Finland, wondering if the "ä" in Länsiviitta should be treated as an "a" or as coming after z (as would be done in Finnish). 2A is found sometimes, List of Finnish municipalities for instance uses Finnish alphabet order. It doesn't bother me if different editors use different rubrics, but the question is if we should write something down. My opinion on these things is that we should, even if just to say "when alphabetizing lists with extended-Latin letters, do as you think best, but follow the scheme used in the article if there already is one".
    FWIW, your post is unsigned. GoodDay (talk) 20:33, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Some test cases

    If Finnish and French were the only languages, I would have no issue with option 2B: "ä" does look a lot like "a" for English readers so it makes sense to alphabetize both close together even for Finland-related articles. Unfortunately, that is not the case, and the continuum between English (=ASCII letters) and Japanese leaves place to a lot of edge cases.

    I urge supporters of option 2B to think about what they would do for the following cases (where 2A and 2C make the decision trivial):

    1. French "e" vs. "é"
    2. Finnish "a" vs. "ä" or Danish "ø" vs. "o"
    3. Greek: "φ/Φ" vs. "Ρ/ρ"
    4. Hangul: "ㄱ" vs. "ㄴ"
    5. Anything out of the Japanese writing system

    I do not think anyone disputes that in case (1) the letters should be alphabetized closely ("é" is considered a modification of "e" in French and sorted just after it in dictionaries) and that in case (5) we should follow the local conventions (since they have nothing to do with what the average English reader knows, it is not even an alphabet). My question is where you draw the line in the other cases.

    In case (2), the letters do look a lot like English, but they are alphabetized differently in the source language. In case (3), the letters look a bit like English; many readers that cannot speak Greek will nevertheless have some familiarity with the alphabet. "φ" will be romanized either as "f" or "ph" and "ρ" will be romanized as "r" or "rh", for instance Φaρoσ → Faros and Ροδοs → Rhodos, but the letter "φ" comes later than "ρ" in Greek even if f/p comes before "r" in English. Case (4) is basically case (3) but less familiar (I would guess that almost every native English speaker who knows the Korean alphabet has some knowledge of the language, and conversely I am not sure a majority of native English speakers knows that Korean uses an alphabet). "ㄱ" comes before "ㄴ" in Hangul but the romanizations are g/k and n.

    TigraanClick here for my talk page ("private" contact) 10:11, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm not convinced that cases 3 through 5 are in any way affected by going with 2B; alphabetising the Latin alphabet is its own beast compared to the order of non-Latin scripts; Hangul or kana or Greek letters, etc, will have their own order, and in fact since they are generally unique to a language (perhaps Cyrillic script has different orders in different languages? I don't know), there should be no cases where, for example, Hangul is ordered differently across pages, surely? 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ X 10:47, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed. This has nothign to do with characters in writing systems other than Latin-based.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:29, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    When would this even happen? We mention non-Roman script spellings, but don't really use them. Under what circumstances would we be mixing scripts like this? We would be alphabetizing the romanizations, not the native script forms.--Khajidha (talk) 13:57, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Are the names of book publishers in citation templates no longer being linked to their Wikipedia pages? Was there an RfC about it? Why do I ask? Because of this edit performed with an AutoWikiBrowser. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 13:51, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    It's certainly not a change I'm familiar with, nor one I've seen enacted across other articles either. Perhaps it was an error or an overzealous use of the AutoWikiBrowser tool out of context? Worth pinging @Colonies Chris: for feedback on it. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ X 14:08, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Quoting from Template:Cite book/doc#Publisher:
    "publisher: Name of publisher; may be wikilinked if relevant."
    There's no benefit to the reader in wikilinking the publisher of a cited book, unless there are special circumstances to make the publisher particularly relevant. In this case, the links are to large generalist publishers, which have no special significance. Colonies Chris (talk) 14:18, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with that – it's not necessary to link publishers, and from what I see, the majority of editors don't link them. It can make for a sea of blue links in the citations also: authors, article or chapter title perhaps, book or website, then publisher (supposedly), on top of a book's ISBN. (And why not location too, if the approach is to link every linkable field?) JG66 (talk) 14:26, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    "There's no benefit to the reader in wikilinking the publisher of a cited book, unless there are special circumstances to make the publisher particularly relevant." Your personal opinion, of course. But your POV is not a policy and/or guideline. And as you pointed out with Template:Cite book/doc > Publisher: "Name of publisher; may be wikilinked if relevant. The publisher is the company, organization or other legal entity that publishes the work being cited." Obviously, you don't think it's relevant ... but I do — and probably the other editors who added book citations to the biography and wiki-linked book publishers. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 14:48, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    It feels like the sort of link I wouldn't press someone to include, but also wouldn't actively remove either—this feels like a MOS:VAR issue at heart. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ X 14:53, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The whole point of the clause "may be wiklinked if relevant" is that merely being the publisher isn't sufficient relevance in itself. The key question is whether such a link would be of value to a reader. And these - to large generalist publishers - are not. Colonies Chris (talk) 15:18, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    What are examples where it might be relevant? Non-independent publishers? pburka (talk) 17:45, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I have an answer for pburka but won't give it until this thread is moved to WP:Citing sources, where it belongs. Jc3s5h (talk) 19:58, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    The claim that "there is no benefit" to such links is not consensus, merely individual opinion. As such, these edits violate WP:CITEVAR and should not be performed en masse, nor at all without local consensus at the affected article. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:17, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    It's appropriate to discuss this here. MOS:LINKING applies. pburka (talk) 20:43, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Links to publishers seem neutral at worst. One more clickable thing in a part of articles already full of much more obscure and intimidating-looking clickable things (like the bizarre strings we call DOI's) won't make an article harder to read. And they can help the reader sort out issues like publishers' names changing, corporate acquisitions, etc. It can also be helpful sometimes when looking up a publisher to know which Wikipedia articles rely upon them. Is it necessary to include these links? No, I wouldn't insist upon it. Would I remove them when I find them? No. The editor who inserted them took the time to bother and implicitly finds them worthwhile. Don't like? Don't click. And yes, WP:CITEVAR applies. XOR'easter (talk) 22:03, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    The phrasing that's used in the MOS - Name of publisher; may be wikilinked if relevant - is an implicit statement that the default should be to not link. It's up to anyone who wants a publisher linked in a citation to justify how it's particularly relevant in any specific case. One can always make a case for any potential link that it might be useful to someone in some circumstances, but that's not enough in itself. The whole issue about overlinking arises because linking is often done on a 'because I can' basis rather than through careful thought about whether it would actually be useful. Colonies Chris (talk) 09:35, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    "The phrasing that's used in the MOS - Name of publisher; may be wikilinked if relevant - is an implicit statement that the default should be to not link." – Again, your interpretation; ergo, your POV. I see it differently. For me, the "may" in the guideline leaves the "yes or no" open to the interpretation of individuals. Is it relevant for me? Yes. Is it relevant for you? No. Your take and mine boil down to: "You say either and I say eyether, You say neither and I say nyther; Either, eyether, neither, nyther" .... Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 11:18, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    No, this is not just a POV matter. The phrasing in the MOS gives you freedom to link if relevant, but thereby places the onus on the linker to make a case for that link being specially relevant, beyond its obvious relevance as the publisher. If you want to argue the case that any specific publisher link in that article deserves to be retained because it has special relevance, go ahead, we can all discuss it. Colonies Chris (talk) 19:39, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    But as "relevant" is not a clear-cut term, it is a POV matter as one editor's view of relevance will not always be the same as another's; linking "if relevant" does not mean "only in exceptional circumstances". As such it still seems that this is a MOS:VAR/WP:CITEVAR issue, which would mean not to add them to articles which have deliberately omitted them, but also don't remove them for the sake of removal. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ X 19:43, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    "If you want to argue the case that any specific publisher link in that article deserves to be retained because it has special relevance, go ahead, we can all discuss it." – I don't need to cherry-pick publishers and then debate which one gets the linking thumbs up. All that I am required to do when I edit Wikipedia is to follow its policies and guidelines. "If relevant" is open to the interpretation of individual editors. The use of "If" can be a conjunction or a noun -- either assumption or supposition. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 13:43, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree with Pyxis Solitary here. The phrase ...if relevant makes this a matter of editorial judgement. Both addition of links and removal of preexisiting links should be done with such judgement, and not semi-automatically based on the assumption of a default state (here: unlinked) which doesn't exist. –Austronesier (talk) 17:15, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, if relevant is a matter of editorial judgment. But clearly different editors make different judgments. That's why we need to have a discussion in each case where opinions differ, but we don't need one where no-one objects to a change. Of course the default state is unlinked - that applies to all potential links in general - links shoukld only be made for good reason - and specifically here, otherwise there would be no need for a clause suggesting when it may be linked. And the question of whether unlinking is done manually or semi-automated is a complete red herring. Any changes made by an editor using AWB or similar are always a matter of personal judgment and responsibility. These tools are productivity aids, not bots. Colonies Chris (talk) 10:47, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    "AWB or similar are always a matter of personal judgment and responsibility" Yeah too many people have been on the recieving end of AWB automated editing for that to be accurate. AWB is routinely used to make mass-edits to large amounts of articles where the principle for the edit task is considered (eg, publishers should by default not be linked), but no individual article-context judgement (is this link someone previously added relevant to this article) is exercised when the edit is actually made. I would wager with AWB that the complete opposite of the intent of your statement is more often the case. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:56, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    This discussion has now descended into baseless accusations and a failure to WP:AGF. I'm out. Colonies Chris (talk) 07:51, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    If you take the descripion above of how AWB is routinely used as an 'accusation' specifically against you, that rather explains the problem other editors above seem to have in getting you to understand. When edits are made at 5 second intervals to groups of articles by AWB, the idea that the editor pushing the button is looking at the context of the change they are making each and every time is laughable. When this editing is about something clearcut such as changing a typesetters apostraphe to a typewriter's, the lack of individual consideration is not going to affect the outcome, as one is wrong and one is right. Where the editing involves something that has a nebulous judgement-value like 'relevance' for inclusion, claiming that the contextual relevance has been assessed in that 5 second interval before moving on to the next article is just not credible. Its not a matter of AGF any more than when someone says they did adequate WP:BEFORE checks when nominating a large amount of articles for deletion in a very short period of time. The principle is declared first, then the run of editing to bring articles in line with the principle is enacted. This is not a controversial description of routine usage of AWB. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:18, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    MOS:TENSE for non-fiction television

    The MOS doesn't give a clear statement on what tense to use for an old gameshow or documentary series. Would it be closer to "products or works that have been discontinued" (which should be written in the present tense) or "periodicals that are no longer being produced" (which should be past tense)? Checking for examples of usage across Wikipedia articles on prominent shows, I'm finding both tenses used. --Lord Belbury (talk) 10:33, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I believe that even for non-fiction work, it still is a programme, but its broadcast information would be past tense ("X is a 19xx documentary series that aired on Channel Q", that sort of thing). 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ X 10:37, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    TV shows were discussed when we made the change for periodicals (Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 220 § WP:WAS and defunct magazines) at WP:WAS, but I don't know that the RFC discussed at that time ever went ahead. I think the underlying question is the same as for print materials. Are we describing a work that still exists and is consumed in a semi-regular way (i.e., not just archival access), or describing an enterprise that has ceased? News shows would clearly be analogous to periodicals, so "The Huntley–Brinkley Report was an American evening news program". Documentary series tend to be much less ephemeral than news, so "Civilisation is a 1969 television documentary series". Game shows are also commonly aired in reruns, including years after the fact, so I would tend to use "is" for them as well (if the episodes haven't been lost).--Trystan (talk) 13:34, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I would tend to agree that non-fiction shows intended to be treated as periodicals, their content reflecting on current information of the last day/week since the last airing, should be treated in past tense if they are no longer in production. This would include news programs (including programs like "Meet the Press" and "60 Minutes") and daytime and late night talk shows (eg "The Oprah Winfrey Show" and "The Tonight Show"). Non-reality game shows (thinking of daily-produced shows like "Price is Right" and "Jeopardy") are a bit of a different beast as while it is true they can be found in reruns, they tend to also be treated as changing with the times and were generally produced without consideration of reruns, and to that end, I'd consider those past tense where appropriate. --Masem (t) 13:57, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    PSA: Layout RfC

    Hello everyone! There is an ongoing RfC (currently with little participation) regarding MOS:ORDER, found here. I hope interested parties can partake in the discussion. Regards, IceWelder [✉] 12:05, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Timelines for artists/bands?

    Over the past half-decade or so, member timelines for bands/artists have been more common. I remember initially seeing them around 2009, but they've been appearing more frequently lately. Examples can be seen on Mushroomhead's timeline, Onyx's timeline, Korn's timeline, Jawbox's timeline, GWAR's timeline, N.W.A.'s timeline, etc etc etc.

    I'm very supportive of including these into articles. It gives an accessible glimpse at the history. But, has there been any agreements on the manual of style? Specifically, the colors? The reason I ask is because most timelines use different colors, and lately, I see editors changing the colors based on some sort of preference. Currently, the most common I'm seeing is (for bands): red for vocals, green for guitar, blue for bass, and orange for drums. Any other instruments are colored with purple, lime, brown, gray, etc.

    My question is, when was there an agreement to use red, green, blue, and orange as the colors of the four main instruments? Specifically, orange is an odd choice, and it's not a huge contrast to the other three colors. In my opinion, it should be replaced with yellow.

    Red, blue, green, and yellow are usually seen as the most common four-way combination. It's the combination used in basic painting/arts, its use is widespread publically for signs and logos, it's the model for the Natural Color System (and its many related subjects), all types of color blindness falls under Red-Green and Blue-Yellow spectrums, etc. So why is orange being used instead of yellow?

    I know that this seems like a trivial thing, but my personal reasoning is because I'm partially color blind. The light orange used in the timelines looks extremely similar, if not the same, as the green. I know that I can't be the only one that struggles with this; however, if there was a valid discussion and a consensus reached, then I'd be fine with it. My personal problems are my own afterall. But I searched the archives and didn't find anything. Xanarki (talk) 01:35, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    After searching through WT:WikiProject Music, WT:Timeline standards and WT:WikiProject Musicians I finally found Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Musicians/Archive 8#Create Member Section/Timeline Standards. I haven't read it all, but I see it does mention drums=orange, so maybe that's what you're looking for. — JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits) 02:52, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed it is, thanks for digging thru it. I see that they didn't take into account that green and orange can look similar (1 person brought it up though), but, everything else was tackled. Since it was 6 years ago, I may move this there. Thanks again.Xanarki (talk) 03:45, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    The word "template" after {{TemplateName}}

    "[The] best practice is to have the word 'template' just after {{TemplateName}}; not all readers know {{...}} refers to a template (and even less newcomers".

    Am I the only one who thinks Antoine Legrand is making unnecessary edits? (See diffs A, B, C, and more in the History page.) Do we really have to state a million times that {{...}} indicates a template. To me, this is like writing, "Mandela was born in the year 1918" instead of simply stating that "Mandela was born in 1918".—Fezzy1347Let's chat 21:43, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I agree, I found the changes overly prolix. I think the vast majority of readers will recognize the curly brace syntax as denoting a template, and the few who don't recognize it can click the links and be taken to the template page. Looks like the changes have already been reverted. Colin M (talk) 23:26, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    There's nothing inherently wrong with writing "Mandela was born in the year 1918." except that "Mandela was born in 1918." is as understandable, and more concise. I do think, however, that it is odd to write "Mandy was born in 1918 year.", and perhaps, more comparable.--John Cline (talk) 00:21, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    With the ever increasing use of visual editor, I wouldn't assume that {{...}} means "template" to most readers. --Ahecht (TALK
    PAGE    ) 21:53, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Keep in mind that the share of mobile devices is higher than that of desktop computers. There is no Page Previews, no mouseover on mobile devices and people are less likely to click on links when using a mobile device! — Antoine Legrand (talk) 20:31, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    As Firefangledfeathers advised me, I come to expose my arguments. As soon as I started my modifications, I had a brief exchange with him on my user talk page, and he found my initiative interesting.
    I started to put the word template systematically after the curly braces because I had noticed that it was generally the case on other pages on Wikipedia. I thought that it would benefit newcomers who don't always know the meaning of curly braces. In retrospect, given the length of the MoS page (which is very long), it would take 70x template (tlx=70 times, in wiki markup) and I can understand that it would be too repetitive.
    The problem with the MoS page is that it is extremely long and has many shortcuts. A visitor can arrive in the middle or at the end of the page.
    My new proposal for the use of the word template is: make sure that at least the first two occurrences of {{tlx|TemplateName}} have the word template next to them, and this for each section of the MoS. Beginners who don't know the meaning of curly braces yet will be well informed. — Antoine Legrand (talk) 14:50, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I would agree that the article is painfully long – but it does cover a lot of topics. Perhaps there should be another discussion about splitting it into manageable parts?
    Regarding "template" – I suspect that most people who read the MOS page are already or intend to soon be an editor rather than being "just" a reader. As such, they probably will explore the links and so there is less need to explain all of the details in the article itself. Perhaps add "template" to only the first example ... — GhostInTheMachine talk to me 15:39, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Telling people that a template is a template isn't going to help them unless they click on it anyway in order to find out what the parameters are and so on, in which case they'll find out it's a template if they didn't already know that. And come to think of it, some newbie who doesn't know that braces indicate a template -- so we tell them it's a "template" -- what good does learning a name do them? We don't go around marking every HTML tag as an "HTML tag", we just tell people how to use them.
      This is a solution-which-isn't-a-solution in search of a nonexistent problem which it wouldn't solve even if the problem existed. There are lots of things in MOS which might puzzle the newcomer at first, but they rapidly pick them up, or there are Help: pages on the basics of editing they can consult; MOS cannot be self-explanatory, nor should it try. It's somewhat of a tutorial, but only where necessary -- mostly it's a reference work, and should stay that way. EEng 17:00, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Talking about "templates" doesn't help newcomers. Wikipedia's use of the term is very far from the non-IT meaning and from most IT uses. Read our article Template or ask a search engine to "define: template" and it'll take some time before you find a definition that suits the uses in the MOS. So instead we can show the reader some useful templates without calling them that, and the newcomer quickly understands that there are some very useful magic things that are easily recognised by their curly brackets. Long after seeing them while editing, long after using them, the not-so-new editor might dig deeper and discover our weird generic term for them, but that can wait. As it is, of the 51 times the body of WP:MOS uses "template", at least 19 are in the form "the {{whatever}} template" or "the template {{whatever}}" and for the newcomer and the experienced editor alike, that's already too many. NebY (talk) 18:31, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Wrong use of capitals

    My downcasing yesterday of Manned Maneuvering Unit was reverted because it is "capitalised as a proper noun". It is not a proper noun/name. cf "The award-winning manned maneuvering unit was designed for a specific type of mission: satellite rescue missions." – from a history of NASA. Tony (talk) 23:21, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    While manned maneuvering unit can certainly refer to the technology in general, in this particular usage, it's clearly referring to the proper noun: the Manned Maneuvering Unit previously used by NASA. It's especially clear the example is referring to the proper noun because the full sentence says: "Direct quotations and proper nouns that use gendered words should not be changed, like Manned Maneuvering Unit." Firefangledfeathers (talk) 02:06, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed, and if it's not proper noun then the MOS instructs us to write crewed maneuvering unit. pburka (talk) 03:23, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Heck, it's a common noun even though there may be only one of them 'cause there are others, or there may be others. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 05:39, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Then we need a different example. pburka (talk) 14:16, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The Manned Orbiting Laboratory seems to not have the same problem and stays within the same specific field too. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ X 09:59, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Should MOS:US mention national varieties of English?

    In my experience, U.S. is discouraged in favour of US in a number of contemporary varieties of English, such as Australian English and British English. The current section on this implies that either could be used in any article, but I think articles in English varieties that prefer US to U.S. should use the former only; however, I don't see that principle reflected in this section of the manual. Should the issue be mentioned here? Mr248 (talk) 00:34, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Problem is, US can be easily confused with We. Where's U.S. is recognised as United States. -- GoodDay (talk) 00:58, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    In practice that’s not a problem at all, though, is it? The word ‘us’ fully capitalised would only be done for emphasis, and that happens extremely rarely, mostly in verbatim speech, which for a non-fiction document like an encyclopaedia means basically never. And the difference is usually obvious from context in any case - ‘US’ is commonly preceded by ‘The’ or followed by words such as ‘military aircraft’ or ‘Secretary of state’ or ‘forces’ that make it clear what is meant. Hence CNN uses ‘US’ throughout its news website. MapReader (talk) 07:30, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Mr248, if you can find some evidence of those varieties of English preferring US, I think it would be wise to include a small mention. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 02:07, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I don’t think that can be in contention; it’s pretty standard. For example the general rule in the Oxford University style guide is Don’t use full stops after any abbreviations, contractions or acronyms and close up space between letters. MapReader (talk) 07:50, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Acronymns without punctuation are pretty standard for English beyond North America, and even within the US such styling is becoming more common - for example CNN uses the unpunctuated form. In time I would expect WP to follow suit and adopt ‘US’ as standard; the MoS already requires it in articles using any other unpunctuated geographical term (such as EU, UK, USSR) - which is actually a lot of articles already. Whether or not WP is ready now to make the move to a consistent approach is another question; personally I don’t see the mix of styles as being particularly helpful. MapReader (talk) 07:20, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Confused with "we"? Give us a break. Chicago Manual of Style changed its tune on the U dot S dot in 2014 (16th edition). Tony (talk) 07:27, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree (and would we feel the need to shepherd readers who might take IT to mean shouty-cap "it"?) I've worked as an editor for publishing companies based in the UK, Australia and the United States, and without fail the approach is to use "US", apart from in the US. I appreciate that's only anecdotal, though. JG66 (talk) 09:43, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Alright, I'll give you all a 'break'. I'm content with either version. GoodDay (talk) 14:21, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    How about a new second sentence:

    US is preferred in some varieties of English, such as Australian English and British English.

    Firefangledfeathers (talk) 14:45, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Sounds good. Johnbod (talk) 15:13, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I just noticed this discussion. I suspect that the United States will continue to use U.S. in formal written American English for quite a long time. Most U.S. law schools teach the Bluebook, which is notorious for its conservative approach to abbreviations and punctuation. Federal courts continue to be very conservative in how they punctuate abbreviations. Only three states have followed the silly British trend towards dropping periods in abbreviations, at least in opinions from state appellate courts: New York, Michigan, and Oregon. The other states look upon such work product with a mix of curiosity and horror.
    Although there are only about 1.3 million active lawyers out of a national population of about 327 million, lawyers continue to play a prominent role in the public sphere in the United States: government, corporations, nonprofit organizations, journalism, etc. (For example, look at the cabinets of any president or state governor from the last 50 years; even if the executive on top was not a lawyer, several of their direct reports invariably had Juris Doctor degrees.) Nearly all those lawyers had it pounded into their heads during the first year of law school that the correct abbreviation is U.S. (as stated in the Bluebook in Rule 6.1(b) and also in Table T10), and they strongly expect people who work for or with them to write that way. --Coolcaesar (talk) 16:11, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmm…so American lawyers do it one way. Very good reason for the rest of the English-speaking world to do the exact opposite. DeCausa (talk) 16:27, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    If three US States have joined CNN and the rest of the world in dropping this unnecessary punctuation, then it is simply a matter of time before WP adopts this as our default approach. MapReader (talk) 17:28, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    FWIW (F.W.I.W.?), I don't think I've ever seen a single American source refer to (e.g.) "the P.A.T.R.I.O.T. Act", which in any case looks sorta comical. Archon 2488 (talk) 09:00, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Guidelines relating to people with disabilities

    I don't know if I've followed the process properly, but I've made a proposal here for MOS guidelines on how to refer to people with disabilities. It was previously a style advice page for Wikipedia:WikiProject Disability but I feel that Wikipedia needs a policy on this based on community consensus.

    Any input or help people could give would be appreciated! –Bangalamania (talk) 15:27, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm in favour of this being an official MOS page (although I don't know what the actual procedure is for achieving this). Most of it is essentially the kind of common-sense approach that should be uncontroversial but may not always be obvious to many editors so having a policy page to point to, rather than an unofficial essay, would be a good step. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ X 15:31, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not happy with the changes made today. For example, it now claims that so-called people-first language is the most common form used by scholars, citing someone's editorial opinion. If that's the new level of the page, no way. EEng 18:58, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    This has been moved back to Wikipedia:WikiProject Disability/Style advice, as an essay, reverting its move to become part of the MOS, as a guideline. A major change like that probably needs a full village-pump-advertised RFC, not just a bold move on the initiative of a single editor. And even setting up such an RFC would be premature without discussions to test whether such a move is warranted and ready. My own opinion is that the page in question is far too discursive and opinionated to be part of the MOS; guidance in the MOS needs to be clear, direct, and non-controversial. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:21, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    David Eppstein, I put it back. Any attempt to propose adding it (or some version of it) to the MOS would firstly need consensus of the WikiProject to even begin an RFC. BOLD moves have a place in Wikipedia, but this was not one of them. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 21:38, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Shouldn't Project:Disability be renamed something like Project: PersonWithDifferentAbility? EEng 22:58, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Absolutely not; a person with enhanced vision, extreme intelligence, perfect pitch or unusual strength is a person with different ability. However, I would prefer, e.g., person with disability, to disabled person, since many such people are able to function despite their disabilities. --Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 14:40, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Take it from me, those things can make your life absolute hell. Back to the point at hand, how is a disabled person different from a person with disability? Does that mean an unemployed person should be called a person with unemployment? Are those different? EEng 14:55, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    This feels needlessly trite. We don't discuss a person's unemployment in biographies generally and when we do it certainly isn't seen to be anywhere near as life-defining as language can make disabilities. We also don't as a society use euphemistic language which equates unemployment with being lesser-than, which is done with disability-related language. What gain is there in taking a path that might hurt people when there's no loss in taking the path that won't. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ X 14:59, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Grapple X and EEng if the guide page does not adequately address this issue please feel free to start a discussion about it on the talk page. Perhaps the guide could copy some relevant content from the People-first language article? Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 15:08, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Of course biographies discuss a person's unemployment. But sorry, I'm confused. Can you give an example of the euphemistic language to which you object? EEng 15:25, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    You mean to say you've never seen terms like "handicapped" or "disabled" used euphemistically to denote a hindrance? Whereas we would never refer to unemployment in that same sense. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ X 16:26, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Now I'm really confused. In the old days blunt terms like crippled were used. Then disabled came in as euphemism. But euphemisms gradually take on the stigma they were designed to avoid, and so new euphemisms were needed like handicapped. Then for a while it was differently abled. Now, apparently, there's a new regime being pushed. But look, you said We also don't as a society use euphemistic language which equates unemployment with being lesser-than, which is done with disability-related language. You seem to be saying that there's euphemistic language that equates (something) with "being lesser-than"; but euphemisms are designed to avoid offense. So I can't tell what you're saying is/are these euphemisms, and in what way that equate lesser-than–ness. EEng 21:39, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I mean we very literally use words like "handicap" to denote being at a disadvantage or being at less than full capacity. Golfers can play with a handicap, a security system can be disabled, etc. No such use,s and so no such connotations, exist for words like "unemployed". So it is absolutely a false equivalence. I don't know how I can be any clearer in explaining this. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ X 21:48, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Grapple X, if you were saying that terms like "handicapped" and "disabled" were being used derogatorily, that would be easy to understand. Likewise if you were saying we don't use derogatory language that equates unemployed with being less-than. I wonder if your use of "euphemistic" is being understood in ways you don't intend. I know that for me, a euphemism is something like calling the Greek Furies "the kindly ones". NebY (talk) 22:48, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    No actually, that's irony. Euphemism is the replacement of an unpleasant or blunt expression with something more palatable. For example, your favorite aunt isn't dead, she's "passed on" or "gone to her reward". EEng 02:10, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I can see why you'd say that. For a modern who doesn't believe in the Furies, it might be irony. Classically, it was euphemism and is still described as that.[3] Respectfully or fearfully giving a pleasant name to something very unpleasant is euphemism. NebY (talk) 12:09, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, now I'm going to pull the OED on you:
    1. Rhetoric. That figure of speech which consists in the substitution of a word or expression of comparatively favourable implication or less unpleasant associations, instead of the harsher or more offensive one that would more precisely designate what is intended. 2. An instance of this figure; a less distasteful word or phrase used as a substitute for something harsher or more offensive.
    Notice: comparatively favourable .. less unpleasant ... less distasteful. What's odd about your link is the use of an opposite term, not just a softer one. But classicists are all perverse. EEng 19:59, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    It is sad to see a little parochial failing of the OED put to perverse use. The eu in euphemism is simply "well/good", not "comparatively", and Fowler correctly refers back to "use of an auspicious word for an inauspicious one". English euphemisms do tend to be merely softer, true, though I vaguely remember seeing more dramatically euphemistic uses of wagtail, fudge, golden, chocolate, daisy-chain, pacification and liberation, and in Victorian times a man should not take an interest in a woman's interesting condition. NebY (talk) 22:05, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh for shame, NebY! What Fowler (2015) actually says is Euphemism, a mild or vague or periphrastic expression substituted for one judged to be too harsh or direct, e.g. to pass away for to die. Mild or vague or periphrastic is consistent with OED in excluding the use of euphemism to mean a word or phrase of opposite meaning, and supports what I said 100%. (In case you're wondering whether that quote is canonical, Fowler (1927) has Euphemism ... a mild or vague or periphrastic expression as a substitute for blunt precision or disagreeable truth.)
    F2015 does indeed then "refer back" (as you coyly put it) to "use of an auspicious word for an inauspicious one", but you've hidden the context, which is The word euphemism, which is derived from the Greek word εύφημισμός 'use of an auspicious word for an inauspicious one' and εὔφημος "fair of speech" was first recorded in [etc etc] (underlining mine). In other words, the English word is derived from a Greek word with a different (if related) meaning, just as I highlighted earlier. You cannot actually have expected to pull the wool over my eyes by quoting out of context, can you? ;P EEng 01:54, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Frankly, you seem to labor under an explanatory handicap, because I'm a reasonably intelligent person and I still can't tell what in the world you're trying to say. Blind people, paralyzed people, people with significant heart disease are at a disadvantage -- at less than full capacity and less able (in some areas of endeavor -- in others these things may make no difference at all). You said that something (apparently undesirable) is done with disability-related language but for the life of me I can't tell what it is. Can you given an actual example, please? EEng 23:39, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Can a disability massively impact a person's quality of life? Absolutely,and it is appropriately to attempt to mitigate that with, e.g., accessibility requirements.Is he thereby less of a person? Absolutely not. --Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 01:46, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • One big problem is that there is a lot of disagreement within the various disability groups themselves as to which terms are considered offensive and which are preferred. Some take the attitude that they can remove stigma by “owning” a pejorative and using it themselves. They actually prefer terms that others with the same condition consider offensive. Blueboar (talk) 22:16, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Regardless of when and how we establish guidelines, it would be useful for anyone who understands the possibilities to report the state of things. Some government projects require reporting of accessibility features. Previously I requested a report on the WMF messageboard at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(WMF)/Archive_2#Request_for_accessibility_specifications. User:RoySmith around the same time made an image alt text proposal. Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know/Archive_172#Adding_an_accessibility_requirement?. Whatever requirements we have I would like them centrally listed, along with proposed features that we declined to implement or other features on the wishlist. This is a situation where reporting our status and centralizing conversation would help a lot. Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:21, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • By reporting of accessibility features, do you mean that there should exist a page describing the current standard of best practices for making Wikipedia articles accessible? Quick, someone, get in your time machine and create MOS:ACCESS! But I'm not sure how that relates to the current discussion, which is more about how to refer to people who might for some reason require the use of those accessibility features (which is, to be honest, most of us as we get older and our eyes get worse). —David Eppstein (talk) 23:26, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @David Eppstein: I want the Wikimedia Foundation to pay professional evaluators US$30,000 (or whatever is the typical market rate) to get Wikipedia graded against whatever professional or government standards exist. The Wikimedia platform is a multi-billion dollar investment and periodically we need a status report and external perspectives to assess what we have. It is challenging to talk about how to provide access to features without a report describing what we already have and what expert consensus has claimed to be important.
    Here are some possible checklists -
    This is a situation where the Wikipedia community can make a call to the Wikimedia Foundation to spend money to take action. As the Wikimedia Foundation plans the consumption of budgets near US$200 million a year, issues like accessibility do not have to remain projects which the community crowdsources without a schedule for completion. If the community requested new staff hired to accomplish accessibility features, the Wikimedia Foundation would respond with public conversation.
    One possible request is for the WMF to advance the Wikimedia community's own checklist; another possible request could be that the community point to established accessibility standards and tell the WMF that we prioritize investment to meet those standards. In many ways we do not have minimal accessibility, and the Wikimedia community can keep the WMF accountable to meet those standards. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:55, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    If anyone wants an example of what such reports look like. See here for how a large tech company reports on their own software products. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:06, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • As with most other such cases, WP should not be progressive in this area, but instead should follow when multiple mainstream style guide have such advice. While it does appear a major medical-related organization is providing such advice its not clear if this is yet followed by newspaper style guidelines, and so before we can consider that as part of the MOS, that has to be shown to be true. --Masem (t) 23:35, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Masem, there are guidelines at National Center on Disability and Journalism. This topic seems perennial at MOS and it suffers from trolling (e.g. the "Project:PersonWithDifferentAbility" comment and subsequent arguing). The disruption diverges from what should be a "What do respectful professional publishers and writers practice?" question into a heated argument about editors personal opinions, intellectual willy waving about language, and implications by some that only their opinions are valid because they are prepared to declare their disabilities on wiki. I suspect this issue will not find a solution at MOS because editors who are at home discussing how to capitalise and punctuate are not naturally the ones best placed to think about how we write about (and think about) others, either as individuals or as people-groups. The culture here is too much flame-throwing original research, too much arguing to crushing one's opponent vs discussion towards consensus, and not enough "following best practice elsewhere".
    The disability style guideline is not mature enough and is largely the product of two editors. For it to progress beyond essay status would need a fresh approach, be much shorter, and be very well referenced. -- Colin°Talk 11:29, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    "The culture here is too much flame-throwing original research, too much arguing to crushing one's opponent vs discussion towards consensus" - so discussions about referring to "people with disabilities" are just the same as any other part of MOS - the "dont give an inch" and "win at all costs attitude" is all too common here.Nigel Ish (talk) 11:41, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Colin, I'm quite sure WikiProject Disability (me BOLDly speaking for the project) would really appreciate some input from editors well acquainted with the ways and norms of MOS writing, to improve the project's style guide. As you quite rightly point out, it is somewhat immature and thus far has had too few contributors. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 12:13, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Like, a recent point of reference is the discussion about the avoidance of "manned" in favor of gender-neutral language where it was pointed out that multiple style guidelines (both press as well as NASA and DOD) all show a recommendation to move away from "manned" to other terms, validating WP to follow suite. In a counter example, a recent discussion about moving away from "commit suicide" language, a practice recommended by professional mental health organizations, was rejected here because its not yet a standard in media MOS. While I am sure that the NCDJ guideline is authoritative, we should also be looking to see if that's followed suit by press as well. That's what I'm saying about avoid being progressive - if its clear we're following the general actions of mainstream sources, then that's good, but we shouldn't move just because one body has issued a statement about preferred language that no other sources has picked up on. --Masem (t) 13:14, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Masem I think you mischaracterise the "commit suicide" argument to be merely that mental health organisations recommend it. At Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 216#"Committed suicide" or "died by suicide"? someone dumped a large list of recommendations or style guides with around half being media and news and half being medical. They were told "Style guides are not actual usage" and some did OR by using Google to look at usage since 1800. Admittedly that discussion has hampered by an unpopular alternative choice right from the start. You say "manned" won recently because "multiple style guides" but that suicide discussion included multiple styles guides and nobody cared. I wonder what some here, who become a shade of purple at the sight of a dash of incorrect length, would think if someone algorithmically claimed that usage of anything other than a plain - was so insignificant as to be negligible. Perhaps we should not let stuffy grammar writers "progress" language beyond its actual usage? It seems really people will claim one rule when it suits their opinion and another rule when that suits.
    I think these sorts of difficult issues demonstrate a weakness in Wikipedia, where the crowd is typically ignorant but either has an opinion or can be quickly given one by a statement by someone they respect. They are a timesink for the community, which must I guess drive regulars to despair, but who keep repeating the same mistakes. Maybe for some topics we should simply offer a list of external style guides and professionally-written advice, and leave editors to educate themselves from wiser heads than whoever turns up to an RFC one evening. -- Colin°Talk 18:07, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Well the other way to consider both the "manned" and "commit suicide" aspects is to also consider how style guides actually get reflected in media. "Manned" is very easy to shown that many sources have avoided using that term, in agreement with several style guides, while with "commit suicide" while there are a handful of those, numerous mainstream sources still frequently use that term suggesting that the recommendation hasn't caught on in widespread guidelines. That same sort of approach would need to be evaluated with any language detailing with handling how people with disabilities should be described. --Masem (t) 18:55, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Masem, if you are referring to Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 215#RfC on gendered nouns in spaceflight then that debate did not win because anyone demonstrated that "many sources have avoided using that term", or because of many style guides (only one mattered (NASA) and many more were cited wrt suicide). It won overwhelmingly because it was an obvious extension and consequence of the existing policy on gender neutral language, and because multiple editors respected NASA's style guide wrt talking about space programmes. There are certain causes for which it is a no brainer that Wikipedia should be at the leading-edge of current practice, because they are established in the liberal democracies most of us edit from (feminism, LGBTQ, etc). Nobody is going to win an RFC with "No, let's carry on using sexist language because it is well know that sexism is endemic and we should reflect society rather than lead." or "This is the international English Wikipedia, and most of the world is homophobic. So let's wait till it catches up before we reform our writing style". But mental health issues and disability issues.... nah. There isn't even a mental health wikiproject. So I don't think change happens for the reasons you claim. Wikipedia guidelines around these matters can change because enough Wikipedians want to change and because resisting that change is socially unacceptable even with a anonymous username. Or they can not change because Wikipedians aren't that interested and have better things to do than argue with opinionated shouty editors who resist the change for whatever personal and political reasons float their boat. Let's not pretend it is more calculated and rational than that. -- Colin°Talk 09:42, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Colin, please note that the most recent RfC regarding the "commit suicide" language was actually in January 2021 at the Village Pump, here. And for the record, guidelines agree to avoid "committed suicide",[4] and you will find that mainstream sources have mostly stopped using the term since around 2018 or 2019 following the high profile suicides of Kate Spade and Anthony Bourdain. Kolya Butternut (talk) 18:02, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the link, though it doesn't change my point that the earlier discussion did reference a large bunch of style guides, including a lot of ones aimed at the general reader. It is ironic that above Masem cites "press" style guides as being influential when the discussion you cite has one editor posting a huge rant containing the claim "WP has no reason to care what news style guides say" (while apparently confusing "major national broadcaster" with "news"). Of course, if one wants simply to bully the discussion, then external sources that disagree with one's position must be trashed, and opponents given a derogatory label like "language-change activists". That way, all can see who is the sole authority who must be obeyed at all times :-). -- Colin°Talk 18:34, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    trolling – Now now, Colin, by now you should know to look deeper at things I say. That wasn't trolling. As for the willy-waving (you Brits are so cute with your baby-talk!), let people have a little fun to relieve the humdrum. EEng 16:05, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Which was notable for original research by the quite obviously ignorant yet opinionated, and by insults thrown towards anyone even suggesting that we might, you know, attempt to be respectful in our language. The whole thing could do with editors being explicitly banned from original research, from stating any personal opinions and from being negative about other's opinions. -- Colin°Talk 17:29, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Personally I think that's a dumb idea. EEng 21:17, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it's a good essay. It would be interesting to have a bit of a deeper look at a wider range of style guides regarding person-first language and see if it's really true that "By "following the sources" Wikipedia mostly favors people-first language with some specific exceptions." as that seems to be the main point of contention. I do agree that for the MOS itself we'd need something much shorter and snappier. The Land (talk) 10:51, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Should academic degrees be capitalized?

     You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters § Capitalization of degrees. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 01:15, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    "Natives"? No, Bwana! Tabu!

    I'm not suggesting a rule (we have plenty already, and there's no need to micromanage everything), but do people really have to write like "[Random European explorer] was attacked by natives"? They're inhabitants. Local fighters. "Xians" where X is the name of the place or group. Or whatever. We don't say "When Lindbergh's ship entered New York harbor, many native vessels came out to greet it." "The British troops at Concord were attacked by natives." And like that. Herostratus (talk) 15:58, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I beg to differ. Very common to use 'native' for people who are from somewhere. I am a native of Saskatchewan. And from here, this sentence, "The six-foot-four, 208-pound Montreal native has also..." So, yes "white people" are called natives when describing where there from. Native is not an offensive word and definately don't need a rule here, imho. Masterhatch (talk) 17:09, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Mnmh. I just changed

    Portuguese explorer Ferdinand Magellan arrived in the area, claimed the islands for Spain, and was then killed by natives at the Battle of Mactan.

    to

    Portuguese explorer Ferdinand Magellan arrived in the area, claimed the islands for Spain, and was then killed by Lapulapu's fighters at the Battle of Mactan.

    I consider the former to be bwana-speak. I don't like it. Herostratus (talk) 19:16, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    So how do you feel about Eleanor_Elkins_Widener#Second_marriage_and_South_American_adventures? EEng 19:20, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The Widener article is directly quoting a 1920 newspaper. Language changes over time. pburka (talk) 20:13, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I know -- I wrote it. <bows, acknowledges applause> What you just said was the point I wanted to make (plus it's fun). EEng 23:02, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with your approach. I don't think a rule is necessary, unless we're seeing a lot of pushback against these common-sense fixes. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 20:23, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    What do we feel about Alaska Natives or Native Americans or Native Hawaiians. I’m aware that North Americans quite often say “a native of x” (Masterhatch refers to it above) which is not a formulation we tend to use in British English. But if you’re not North American it can be confusing about when it’s used acceptably and when it’s ‘bwana-speak’. DeCausa (talk) 21:14, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that this word is used offensively in the example given at the top. The advice at MOS:IDENTITY is to "use specific terminology", and your examples seem to me to be redeemed in proportion to the specificity they offer. William Avery (talk) 21:35, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Cripes! The MoS natives are revolting! We British have to be firm! Martinevans123 (talk) 21:38, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The Native Americans article is a disambiguation page and has been for a long time; see this and this. The Alaska Natives and Native Hawaiians articles both use the term indigenous early on to clarify the usage of the term native in the article title. The lead sentence of the Indigenous peoples article reads: "Indigenous peoples, also referred to as first people, aboriginal people, native people, or autochthonous people, are culturally distinct ethnic groups who are native to a place which has been colonised and settled by another ethnic group." I think we're wasting time here and maybe feeding a troll. Consider that comment rhetorical and call me insensitive -- I don't fancy being drawn into a discussion abut this. Call some others oversensitive. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 22:39, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    A native troll, one hopes. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:50, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Good grief, Wtmitchell. that's not how we talk here. Nobody's drawing you into any discussion, go do something else if you'd rather. Herostratus (talk) 02:26, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know how to easily locate or quantify such uses of "native" but maybe "the natives" is a richer seam ("the natives charged the Europeans", "Fearing a massacre by the Natives"). It seems over 7,000 of our articles include "the natives" in the text. There's a great mixture but at first glance, most uses are of non-Europeans that Europeans are encountering, killing or being killed by, trading with, governing and so on. NebY (talk) 01:23, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Well yeah, I'm only talking about certain circumstances. I know that "native of Manchester" and "Native Americans" and many other used of the term "native" is OK. I'm talking about some specific uses where it's not excellent. As you say, there are some circumstances, particular when describing European invaders interfacing with people who were pretty much minding their own business somewhere, where there is the danger that using the "native" conjures up the image of an unorganized mass of ignorant savages. Probably because it's the same construction as used in the time of Queen Victoria I guess. So I mean compare

    Portuguese explorer Ferdinand Magellan arrived in the area, claimed the islands for Spain, and was then killed by natives at the Battle of Mactan.

    to

    In June 1940, the German First Army thrust into northern France, where it was counterattacked by natives.

    I mean both of the above are correct, but you're not going to see the second one are you. Now why is that.
    I get that people have been writing like this forever and its a habit, and fine, but it's occurred to me that not a good one maybe. It's not huge deal, and I'm not advocating a rule. Every gosh-darn thing doesn't have to be a rule. I'm just pointing out that here's a thing. I just noticed this myself just recently, and I'm sharing my thought and making a suggestion. You all are free to ignore it. Herostratus (talk) 02:23, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    We should look to the RS on this. This is what the Cambridge English Dictionary says for native as a noun
    a person born in a particular place ‘He was a native of Indianapolis and a graduate of Indiana University’.
    dated: A native is also a person who was born and lived in a country before Europeans began to visit and live there
    Note: This use is considered offensive.
    DeCausa (talk) 07:09, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, even without this confirmation from a dictionary, the package of associations that comes with "European explorer X was welcomed/killed/etc. by (the) natives" is quite different from the usage of "native" in other contexts. It is the kind of language you'd exepct from this guy, but not from a 21th century encyclopedia. –Austronesier (talk) 08:12, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Chopping would

    With the summary "verb form", Doremo has removed an amount of "would" from my article Teikō Shiotani. Each is of the word "used to indicate futurity in the past, futurity relative to the time referred to by the preterite" (CaGEL, p.198). It now seems to me that I did somewhat overuse what I'll call "futurity would", so I agree with some of the changes; but as an example of a use I still consider (mildly) beneficial:

    In 1922, Shiotani married Sadako Inoue (井上貞子, 1905–1988). They would have / had three sons, Sōnosuke (宗之助, b. June 1923), Reiji (玲二, November 1926 – March 1927) and Makoto (誠, August 1940 – September 1945); and two daughters, Yūko (優子, b. February 1930) and Yōko (陽子, b. July 1934).

    The intention here was a subtle indication to the reader that the narrative is not here jumping ahead to the 30s, 40s or wherever; rather, that we're merely making a little excursion from the early 20s.

    Clearly the "core meaning" of the sentence with "had" (Doremo) is the same as that of the sentence with "would have" (me) (i.e. there's no imaginable series of events such that one version of the sentence is true and the other false); and clearly the nuance here is subtle and its desirability hardly worth a discussion thread. But the clearing of instances of futurity would puzzles me. Is my idiolect unusual (perhaps outdated)? Is futurity would a part of your Standard English too, but somehow ill-suited to encyclopedic prose? (Is it what Tony1 might call mere fluff?) -- Hoary (talk) 22:11, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Don't know about anyone else, but the simple "had" there reads to me as if all those children existed at the time of the marriage and not that they were the later results of the marriage. The version with "would have" seems much better to me.--Khajidha (talk) 23:34, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Khajidha – Don't you need "had had" (past in past) to convey that? Tony (talk) 23:49, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes indeed, or "already had", or "had by then" or .... EEng 00:01, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Consider In 1973 he relocated to Waynesville, North Carolina, where he would die died of cancer. Surely you're not suggesting that the died form implies he was dead when he moved. EEng 00:01, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    [edit conflict] "X married Y. They had Z children." is the idiomatic form. Written in this order it always means that the children were born after the marriage, because the two sentences are in the same tense ("They had Z children" is simple past, not past perfect.) "They would have" is pretentious and generally unnecessary. "They had had" wouldhah! indicate by its change of tense that the children were pre-marriage. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:05, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    "Already had" or "had by then" would be preferable if the children existed at the time of the marriage, but the simple "had" still reads that way to me. As for the "relocated to Waynesville, NC, where he died" reads to me that he died pretty much immediately after the move. --Khajidha (talk) 00:31, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    To be blunt, the examples in your diff are in the main wretched. (I'm not saying one or two might not be appropriate, but I doubt it.) In any writing (encyclopedic or otherwise), would has a very (very) occasional role in signaling a temporary glimpse of the future where the reader might otherwise be puzzled or misled. Even one instance of inappropriate use is tiresome. See WP:INTOTHEWOULDS. EEng 00:11, 25 September 2021 (UTC) P.S. CaGEL isn't meant to be a style guide (and from what I've heard isn't very good at being what it is meant to be either).[reply]
    Relatedly, I see the phrase "would later" in the diff, and searching Wikipedia finds some 55k instances of that phrase. Isn't this always a pleonasm? If one is using "would" to indicate a temporary futurity, how is it possible for it to be anything but later? —David Eppstein (talk) 00:33, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I mean, it was fine before, it was fine after. On that basis it's roiling the text, so on that basis you are (of course) entitled to roll it back per WP:BRD and ask the editor to make his case on the article talk page. Or, since it's not worse, you could just roll your eyes and forget it. Your call.
    If anybody wants to get consensus to make a rule about this, I suppose she can try. I'd be against it because both are fine and so why. Herostratus (talk) 01:51, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Absolutely not. Heavens to Betsy! EEng 01:59, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    It's salutary to hear that examples within what I wrote "are in the main wretched", and I take the point about pleonastic "later". Of course CaGEL isn't a style guide (and doesn't pretend to be one), but I am surprised to read that persons unspecified are saying that this hefty book "isn't very good at being what it is meant to be". I cited it not in the hope of demonstrating that my version was optimal, stylish or whatever; merely to demonstrate (perhaps primarily to myself) that futurity would was an established pattern. I'm confident that it's acceptable (perhaps even desirable) in appropriate contexts. I asked here not about its grammaticality (or "correctness") but about its use in Wikipedia. The immediate trigger was my noticing the diff I pointed to; but if I remember correctly, I'd previously seen other instances of (to me, surprisingly) impatient would-chopping. Above, I see "pretentious" and "[e]ven one instance of inappropriate use is tiresome": the animus directed at what I'd considered an innocuous (and sometimes useful) use of would astonishes me. But the animus is there, so I'll try to reduce my use of futurity would. -- Hoary (talk) 02:59, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Part of the animus stems from the fact that the construction is a favorite of hacks who think it makes their writing sound fancy. EEng 06:17, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    It had to happen eventually. EEng, you have outed me as, yes, just another hack who fondly hopes that his writing will sound fancy. Guilty as charged. Further evidence: (i) I persistently write that a building is somewhere, rather than writing, as a good Wikipedian should, that it is located somewhere. Thanks to this obscurantism, the poor reader is left wondering if it's strewn there, demolished there, buried there, vaporized there, or what. (ii) Rather than use the versatile, rugged word feature, I resort to what, IIRC, H W Fowler decries as "elegant variation", littering my prose with such gewgaws as have, include, and (for preposition featuring) with. -- Hoary (talk) 07:18, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't mean to include you in that. You've simply come under bad influences. BTW, see WP:LOCATIONLOCATIONLOCATION, WP:ELEVAR, WP:ASTONISHME, and WP:DIFFUSINGCONFLICT. EEng 16:04, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    So far I've only received thanks from various editors for removing excessive would. Would can be used to mark reported speech, hypothetical situations, habitual activity, and volition—and adding unnecessary usage for futurity in the past often risks confusing this with those functions of the verb. If a futurity-in-the-past would seems necessary, it can certainly be used, although there are also workarounds (e.g., "he would become" → "he later became"). I see no merit in using would with a time adverbial (e.g., "He would die in 1831") or for a mundane sequence of past events (e.g., "He married Jane Smith in 1831 and they would have three children"). And the would strings ("He would marry Jane Smith in 1831 and they would have three children, two of whom would become lawyers. He would be elected to the Assembly in 1860, where he would serve for eight years before he would die in 1868.") are egregious. Some of the text really is that bad. Doremo (talk) 03:14, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    My view is that "future would" might be permitted where the meaning is clear; but that it shouldn't be sprinkled through a text. That is, it's repetition-sensitive, so needs to be rationed. Tony (talk) 03:30, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd turn it around to say the would might be permitted where the meaning would otherwise not be clear. EEng 15:57, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Doremo, I can hardly believe that my article is so dreadful in just that one way. I nervously await the next unsheathing of your editorial machete. -- Hoary (talk) 07:18, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Please! There are ladies present! EEng 15:57, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Facepalm Hoary (talk) 12:30, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not singling out anyone or any particular article. If other editors agree that your article is stylistically improved or that ambiguities are resolved by replacing simple past forms with would, then that is the right thing to do. Doremo (talk) 11:59, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think much of the resistance to the "futurity 'would'" comes from seeing it used in our coverage of sports. You can't just write that a sportsperson did something. They might have "went on to", or "would go on to", but never simply "did". See this diff for a truly eyelid-twitching example. If your read garbage like that once too often, every use of the word "would" starts to looks dubious. Reyk YO! 16:18, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    My eyes! But good to know how much "would" a wouldchuck would chuck if a wouldchuck could chuck "would" at last. NebY (talk) 16:34, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:WOULDCHUCK EEng 19:21, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I wonder what had given that editor would. -- Hoary (talk) 12:30, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    So I mean neither of the examples is bad. They're both good. It's just a question of context -- how much our writing should be like the writing you find in business memos and technical documentation, and how much it should be like the writing that you find in magazine articles and books. So let's see, for say a biography of the Earl of Sandwich, compare

    It was in Paris that he met the Countess. She would teach him all he would ever know about cold cuts.

    to

    He met the Countess in Paris. She taught him all he ever knew about cold cuts.

    I mean, I wouldn't change the first to the second, no. I might change the second to the first. Which is "better" is a matter of opinion, but I like the first. The second is limp and boring, in comparison. In my opinion.

    Yes I know about Bill Strunk, and he makes great points, but "Why use lot word when few word do" is not a iron law, nor is the a rule that we must bore the reader.

    Yes I get that our articles are not like magazine articles, and "not boring the reader" isn't exactly part of our remit. On the other hand, if the reader is so bored that she passes out, hits her head on the table, and perishes, that's on us. There's nothing wrong with, I don't know, good prose, as long as the info is communicated clearly. I mean we do (I hope!) take care not use the same adjective in consecutive sentences and so an, and after all an encyclopedia is part of the general body of public literature, it's not, I don't know, a memo to a Group Captain (or whatever they have) at ExxonMobile about how to smartsize the training department. Herostratus (talk) 01:08, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Capital letters

    I made an edit [5] that was reverted [6] with the edit summary "I'm not certain that this, being the converse, is true". It isn't a matter of a converse being true but whether this would be a reasonable addition to this guideline.

    I'm interested in what other editors think about adding the sentence, "If something is consistently capitalized in a substantial majority of independent, reliable sources for a given article, then it should be capitalized in the article." Bob K31416 (talk) 19:36, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I have some guesses, but it would be helpful to hear from you why you support this addition to the guideline. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 19:50, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Because it uses reliable sources to make the determination. Bob K31416 (talk) 20:59, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I can't support a proposed change on that reason alone. We could remove the almost the entirety of the MoS and replace it with "do what most of the RS do", but that sounds frustrating and chaotic. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 21:12, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the MOS was built on what is the accepted style based on style manuals and reliable sources, yet anyone who uses that as a reason for an addition to MOS is not told that we could remove almost the entirety of the MoS and replace it with "do what most of the style manuals and RS do". Bob K31416 (talk) 22:33, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    There's a difference between reviewing sources and guides to write a guideline and writing the guideline to just say "review sources". Firefangledfeathers (talk) 15:17, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I reckon the folks pushing WP:JOBTITLES, may object to the addition. GoodDay (talk) 19:53, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    They shouldn't have any problem with it if that section doesn't contradict the condition that something is consistently capitalized in a substantial majority of independent, reliable sources for a given article. Bob K31416 (talk) 21:09, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    That could lead to basing capitalisation on the age of the sources, and in general source-based style could be as perilous as source-based units ("we'll show all these footballers' heights in metres because that's what the source does"). Counting sources looks like one good way to reach consensus but need it be the only one? Are we seeing disputes on Wikipedia that have to be determined by such a rule and no other considerations, or existing articles that need fixing according to this rule? NebY (talk) 20:00, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Re "we'll show all these footballers' heights in metres because that's what the source does" — It would have to be what is consistently capitalized in a substantial majority of independent, reliable sources for a given article. Bob K31416 (talk) 20:59, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you have any responses to NebY's other point, on dispute/article examples? Firefangledfeathers (talk) 21:12, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    For me it arose while working in the section Talk:Killing_of_Ma'Khia_Bryant#Black_or_African-American when I found in my work there that capitalized "Black" was always used in reliable sources when describing Ma'Khia Bryant. I then changed to capitalized "Black" in the article. (BTW, I was the one who originally introduced uncapitalized "black" into the article a few months before.) I thought I could easily change it to capitalized because that followed the sources, but instead it ran into opposition. The other editors participating in the "black" vs "Black" discussion were Buffs, The Blade of the Northern Lights, and Volteer1. Bob K31416 (talk) 22:15, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    You seem to be attempting to unilaterally change the rules in order to get your way despite the fact you've been shown a VERY recent RfC where is no consensus to do so. It should stay as is. This could be argued to be forum shopping. Buffs (talk) 23:14, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The "black" vs "Black" issue is a very minor issue for me compared to making a good addition to this guideline. In fact, if this addition is accepted, I won't change "black" to "Black" but leave that for anyone else to do. Bob K31416 (talk) 23:29, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    As a reminder, here's the proposed addition again, "If something is consistently capitalized in a substantial majority of independent, reliable sources for a given article, then it should be capitalized in the article." Bob K31416 (talk) 01:10, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    This would just open up old (and very fraught) discussions, e.g. on the capitalization of the English names of species (particularly since styles in sources differ by country). Consistency across the English Wikipedia means having our own style manual and following it. Peter coxhead (talk) 06:33, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Could you give an example of a specific Wikipedia article where the proposed addition would be a problem? Bob K31416 (talk) 17:02, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    spotted owl (vs. Spotted Owl) and nearly every other species of bird. Many field guides capitalize these, whereas scientific texts have generally standardized on lowercase (if I recall correctly). In the past we had a weird mixed style where all species were lowercase, except birds. pburka (talk) 17:22, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The proposed addition wouldn't apply because spotted owl is not consistently capitalized in a substantial majority of independent, reliable sources for the given article. So there's no problem. Bob K31416 (talk) 21:47, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    How would one go about demonstrating that? We don't have an authoritative list of independent, reliable sources. And "substantial majority" is vague: is 60% substantial? what about 3 of 5? Some species are so obscure that there may only be two or three sources: should we follow the style of those sources, or be consistent across the encyclopedia? Does Nature count as one source, or is each published paper a separate source? This proposed rule would encourage WP:WIKILAWYERING and inconsistency. pburka (talk) 22:16, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Exactly. Which is why in repeated discussions we decided on the existing policy. This proposal is a non-starter. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:39, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    It would be up to the editor using the proposed addition to gain consensus that something is consistently capitalized in a substantial majority of independent, reliable sources for a given article. This is the normal process when an editor's use of something in the MOS is challenged. If one was working on an article where something was consistently capitalized in the references for the article, and their change to capitalization was challenged, then they would need consensus that it was consistently capitalized in a substantial majority of references for the article. This is a more objective condition to discuss than whether to capitalize or not without any guidance from the MOS.
    For whatever reason, it doesn't look like this proposal will gain consensus, so I'll end my participation in the discussion here. Bob K31416 (talk) 15:12, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Black or black?

    Hi, is there a Wikipedia style guideline on whether we write "black" or "Black" for race? Thanks. Marquardtika (talk) 15:24, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I couldn't see anything with a quick searching, but looking at some higher-quality articles to check for usage (Martin Luther King Jr. at GA and Malcolm X at FA) it seems the preference would be lower-case. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 15:42, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes. See the last paragraph of MOS:PEOPLELANG. The short version is that either is fine in most cases, they should be used consistently, and editors shouldn't switch to a different style without discussing it. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 15:50, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Got it, thank you! Marquardtika (talk) 16:00, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    See also Proposed update to MOSCAPS regarding racial terms. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 17:32, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    @Marquardtika: @Peter Gulutzan: @Grapple X: I've been having this conversation (Black vs. black) regarding the NHL page. I'm a little surprised it doesn't seem to have more conversation here on WP. In American writing of all sorts, this is kind of a big deal. Please see this article from the AP on why we now capitalize Black. It's an incredibly important issue for inclusion as well as recognition of the awareness around systemic racism. I'm finding that as I change pages to have Black capitalized, I'm met with overwhelming disdain and reverting of my edits. I'm not trying to pick a fight with those who spend such a great deal of time making WP what it is, I just want to push this issue to be discussed more if possible. Thank you all! Mrohlewis (talk) 16:16, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    There already was quite a lengthy discussion that ended as no consensus, other than not changing what's already used in any given article without discussion first. —El Millo (talk) 16:58, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    As El Millo says, and as you say, this is essentially "In American writing" - only some uses of "black" would be capitalized in current British English - maybe "the Black community" (but certainly not by all) but only rarely "a black footballer". What the Canadian position is I don't know. Johnbod (talk) 17:48, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't see any indication at the MOS section that a change must be discussed beforehand; nor do I see anything that says the use must be consistent. As to the latter, quite the opposite: " there is no consensus against what is sometimes perceived as inconsistency in the same article (Black but white)".--Bbb23 (talk) 17:51, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, exactly - "the inconsistency of "Black but white" is ok, but once a capitalization style is used, it should be stuck to within the article (not Black and black together). Well I think that's what it says, but that actually raises issues re for example British English. Whatever the MOS section says, it is always best to raise proposed controversial edits on talk, and if you don't, don't be amazed when you are reverted. Johnbod (talk) 18:00, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I personally think articles should be consistent, not only with the capitalization of black vs Black but also White vs. white and White vs. black or vice-versa, but it doesn't say you have to be. As far as "controversial edits", I'm talking only about what the MOS section says, nothing generally about good practice.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:28, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    We don't disagree on "consistent". I meant it in the sense of don't mix black/Black or white/White in the same article, not to suggest that Black/white is prohibited. It seems we might disagree about changes needing discussion, which I see as a straightforward application of MOS:VAR. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 18:39, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Honestly, I think we do disagree, but I also think it's no big deal. Fortunately, I rarely get involved in MOS disputes. I'm only commenting here because it was wrapped up in a more significant dispute. I'm now bowing out.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:47, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair enough. My curiosity means I'm happy to talk more if you feel like re-engaging. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 18:53, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Firefangledfeathers: @Johnbod: @Peter Gulutzan:: Thank you all for the responses. This discussion is very much needed as the only writing that has black instead of Black in America is right-wing media. I very much understand that it's not the case elsewhere in the world yet but that doesn't change the fact that we're talking about systemic racism in America and elsewhere when we capitalize Black. It seems to me that this is a basic issue of respect for the current cultural awareness around race. I have read the MOS conversation and see that while the vote was lopsided against capitalization, there was a note that after misleading or incorrect information was removed, the poll would have been significantly different. As that conversation happened over a year ago, it would seem to me that it's time to revisit this issue. Also, there is no capitalization of white in any American writing other than, again, right-wing or white-supremist media. That in itself is disturbing to me as that case has been made above in this talk. Thoughts? Mrohlewis (talk) 19:03, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not sure you're entirely correct about American media usage. I know there's a subpage somewhere with some analysis of style guides. Maybe someone else has the link handy?
    I am hesitantly optimistic about a new RfC. I think a key ingredient is framing it as a US-specific style decision. I would encourage patience, and soliciting opinion on carefully crafting the RfC's neutral statement and presentation of options. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 19:16, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    There was quite a lot of this analysis in the big discussion here. If, per the link above, AP only made the change in July 2020 (or shortly before), it seems unlikely that "the only writing that has black instead of Black in America is right-wing media", even with the BLM movement. The American-promoted change from BC to BCE etc has been pushed for some decades now, but even in America is very far from complete. Likewise transgender-y language issues. These things take a long time, & WP usually rightly aims to follow not lead. I agree "framing it as a US-specific style decision" is best (plus Canada?). Johnbod (talk) 19:27, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, thank you all for your thoughtful consideration of this issue. While it might seem unlikely that "the only writing that has black instead of Black in America is right-wing media", I respectfully push back and ask you to quickly search around American news outlets and see for yourself. Our papers of record, The NY Times, The Washington Post, The Wall Street Journal have all moved to capitalize Black. It is standard American English today except for those pushing the idea that white-privilege is a made-up conspiracy. If WP is going to follow, not lead, it should do that and get on-board. It's been well over a year now, WP would not be in the lead to make this stylistic change. Again, I thank you all for the conversation about this issue as it's truly collaborative and the way WP should work. Mrohlewis (talk) 19:44, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Consistency within color is desirable (i.e. if you start with Black, then don't change to black halfway through); consistency across colors is not (If you start with Black, there is no reason to also prefer "White" instead of "white.").
    This is because we use "Black," (Websters: Black or less commonly black a: of or relating to any of various population groups of especially African ancestry often considered as having dark pigmentation of the skin but in fact having a wide range of skin colors. Black Americans NOTE: Capitalization of Black in this use is now widely established. b: of or relating to Black people and often especially to African American people or their culture e.g. Black literature, a Black college, Black pride, Black studies, NOTE: Capitalization of Black in this use is now widely established.) because the battle for this capitalization was won on the playing fields of America (I'm paraphrasing the Duke of Wellington here). It was not in Europe or Canada. They didn't have any Black people to speak of until recently, no Frederick Douglass, no Zora Neale Hurston, no Martin Luther King, and no Toni Morrison.
    The evidence for "White" being preferred to "white," or vice-versa needs to be amassed independently. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:05, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, well in the UK we have had many black people for some time, but I don't see much of a movement to capitalize when they are called that - one of a range of possible terms, with Afro-Caribbean having been preferred for many years, perhaps less so now. Johnbod (talk) 03:22, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    True, but that is mostly the result of post-war emigration. British society, moreover, was more liberal than the American South. For the Caribbean migrants, there was no crucible like there was in America wherein new ways of looking at the world (Black is Beautiful) or of naming (Black, African-American) emerged (though emigration and exile are potent drivers too). Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:58, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    "Afro-Caribbean" now only covers a minority of Black people in the UK. In the 2011 census, many more people identified as Black African than as Black Caribbean, according to Black British people#Population. NebY (talk) 14:28, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    True as far as it goes, but Afro-Caribbean as such has not been a census option for the last two times, and the census option of "Black African" is not that common in general discourse, I'd say. I wonder how many who identified as Black Caribbean last time have now changed to Black African - this rather reinforces my point above. Then there's "Other Black", still chosen by many. Johnbod (talk) 15:04, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    There's been markedly higher immigration to the UK from Nigeria, Ghana, Kenya, Uganda and other countries in sub-Saharan Africa than from the Caribbean for decades, sufficient to explain the magnitude of the census changes without wondering how many have changed their description. NebY (talk) 16:36, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, you think? From that section: "In the 2001 Census, 575,876 people in the United Kingdom had reported their ethnicity as "Black Caribbean"" but in 2011, for England and Wales only, "594,825 [identified] as "Black Caribbean"" (and the 2001 Scotland & NI figures are pretty tiny). Seems an improbably low rate of growth. Johnbod (talk) 17:50, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Remember there was a significant increase in the Mixed White and Black Caribbean responses, maybe consider your assumptions about probable growth rates, maybe ask whether you'd know how much the black population of the UK has changed and why that's changed our terminology - but this is all drifting very far away from the original question. Enough. NebY (talk) 18:36, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    From June 2020, "a growing list of media enterprises that have already updated their policies to capitalize Black [includes] NBC News and MSNBC, TIME, BuzzFeed News, the USA Today Network, Business Insider, HuffPost, McClatchy, Los Angeles Times, Seattle Times, Boston Globe, Chicago Sun-Times, Philadelphia Tribune, Detroit Metro Times, San Diego Union-Tribune, Sacramento Bee, Columbia Journalism Review, as well as The Canadian Press, Toronto Star, Globe and Mail, and CBC News. Black media outlets, such as Essence magazine and theGrio, led the way in capitalizing Black." Also "statement after statement from executives of companies and organizations using the capital B in their responses to the nation’s protests: Nike, Netflix, Amazon, Google, Starbucks, Target, Macy’s, Nordstrom, Spotify, Apple, Disney, Hulu, HBO, Lyft, Uber, McDonalds, Team USA, Major League Baseball, and Major League Soccer, among many others."[7] NebY (talk) 14:19, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    How many actually show "Black" juxtaposed with "white", which would probably look just sloppy to anyone not acquainted with the rather subtle rationale behind such usage. There's a good chance that writers for such publications would go to some lengths, through judicious rewriting, to keep that from happening. Rules of usage usually are simpler, such as "color designations used to classify races should be capitalized (or not capitalized)". I recently noted that "white" appears with "black" in an essay by Thomas Chatterton Williams in the October 2021 Harper's Magazine. The essay was largely about James Baldwin's sojourn in Switzerland, and Harper's generally isn't regarded as white-supremacist literature. Dhtwiki (talk) 04:28, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Here are some stats showing the capped Black is not so common, but does sometimes go along with lowercase white. Try searching other contexts. Dicklyon (talk) 05:05, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Why is this still being discussed here rather than WT:MOSCAPS? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:38, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    MOS:PEOPLANG states that it could be either way. That leads me to wonder why so many editors have jumped down my throat about this issue. It seems that WP protocol allows it and those reverting it are doing so arbitrarily....Mrohlewis (talk) 19:16, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment - it is somewhat misleading, and perhaps WP:WEASELy wording for the MOS to state "There is no consensus against using Black but white." Aside from the bizarre, roundabout double-negative construction, there were significant numbers of editors who stated that capitalisations should be either for all colours or no colours, i.e. White and Black or white and black but not white and Black (nor White and black, if that doesn't go without saying). In fact, there was a consensus fairly recently, then shortly afterward there was a "no consensus" discussion that had only a small fragment of participants, likely editors were worn out from the one they'd only just had. So, whomever activist editor placed that in the MOS, twas not done in absolute honesty.

    I pose a question to everyone here: Do you think all of these style guides and (for-profit) news outlets are doing this because they truly think doing so will help elimnate racism? Or are they doing it merely to make themselves look better? And further on that point - how exactly does writing Black but white erase systemic racism? Does anyone really think that racist whites who see Black with a capital B but white with a lowercase w are going to stop and think "Oh, Black is capitalised but white isn't, that must mean that Blacks are better than whites and we should all stop giving them the shaft!" Please.

    And from the other side, I can see how a black person could take offence as well. It's somewhat akin to being called "Special".

    Lastly, I will comment that, dispite what all ye in your Wiki bubble and mass corporate media bubbles may believe, natural language doesn't change over night. One year is over night as far as language goes. Activists and elitists may think they wield that kind of power, but they are all in an echo chamber.

    Therefore, since the main motivation behind all this seems to be to improve social justice, ask all of yourselves how realistically actions like this are likely to help things. Also consider the possible unintended consequences of them having the opposite effect: rather than mending hatred, deepening it. Act wisely, friends. 2600:1702:4960:1DE0:DC01:DE1:31A5:708A (talk) 23:49, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    TLDR version: the vast majority of the motivation behind this in the public sphere is NOT "I honestly think this will help improve social conditions and opportunities for disadvantaged groups", but rather it is "I want others to see me as someone who cares about social justice for disadvantaged peoples! " So it's really not about helping others, it's all in the interests of making it look like you're fighting for social justice. It's truly a smokescreen, a distraction, if anything. 2600:1702:4960:1DE0:DC01:DE1:31A5:708A (talk) 00:04, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    What's Wikipedia's current practice on this matter. PS: please when responding indent properly & don't use bullet points. GoodDay (talk) 22:35, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Current practice varies. As said above, there was no consensus to specify one way or the other. In general, the MOS says not to change things where there are multiple acceptable ways and no consensus on a preference. Dicklyon (talk) 04:50, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Just an aside. Most of the discussion here seems to be correctly based on objective considerations. However, some is based on the consideration of social issues. I think the latter is a disease in Wikipedia that causes conflicts between editors and bias in articles. The purpose of Wikipedia is to inform, not influence. Otherwise, Wikipedia's credibility is tarnished and the editing environment becomes toxic. Bob K31416 (talk) 14:43, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    As others noted, this seems to be a matter of US style that has not reached the UK to any degree. For example Guardian style guide does not request any case, but to respect the writer's choice (likely their US journalists).

    I have two points about langauge change generally. Firstly the meme that Wikipedia "aims to follow not lead" and the idea that it does so "rightly". Hmm. Saying something doesn't make it so. I don't think Wikipedia has an "aim" in this regard, as it is an encyclopaedia. We, as editors, can chose whatever path we like, as long as it is consistent with some core principles. We can choose to be among those changing early or we can choose to be among those who are late. The problem with follow/lead is that it is polarising language that assumes the only positions are at the front or the back. It is ambiguous as to where among the leaders or followers we might be. Are we in the vanguard or among the stragglers? Are we among the leaders but not quite at the front? Or are we among the followers but not quite at the back? Our guidance on gender neutral language and gender identity suggests we are closer to the front, and these are matters a lot of Wikipedians care about and have wikiprojects for. On other issues like disability and mental health, I think we are quite far towards the back, compared to our peers in the information business. This area seems to be one where a few highly opinionated editors can dominate and proclaim that certain practices are The Way. I think it is important to realise that just because someones says we have always done it this way doesn't (a) mean what they say is true or (b) mean we have to repeat that for a particular case or even at all in future.

    Secondly the above comment about Wikipedia informing, not influencing. We all know the language we use has an influence on how subjects are perceived. If that wasn't the case, then nobody would be upset or wish to change as long as the words were correct. As a major internet website and resource of information that gets read and reproduced, we do have a responsiblity for the influence we do have. If we, for example, write assuming doctors are male and nurses are female, that does perpetuate stereotypes and influences future generations about what they may grow up to be. So we have influence whether we want it or not. It may well cause conflict between editors, but some of that could be moderated by checking those who dominate their opinions and dubiously claim to speak on behalf of "Wikipedia" or MOS or some group.

    Just as our own policy and guidelines follow best practice on Wikipedia, our style guidelines should follow best practice in the industry. There are lots of publications in the information business who we can examine (either the published material or their style guides). Some damaging ideas have crept in that news publications and science or expert publications are so weird and different to us that their style should be completely rejected. Well they are different but we are intelligent enough to recognise when their style is geared towards their audience or approach, and when their style is valuing things that are universal and that we could adopt. I think we can do better than have have done at times, and if one's only argument against change is a mix of "I don't like it" and "We should be last to change" then that's a poor position to take. -- Colin°Talk 13:25, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Note that there is a sentence in the lead of Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Capital_letters that has a criterion for style.
    "The central point is that Wikipedia does not capitalize something unless it is consistently capitalized in a substantial majority of independent, reliable sources."
    Also in the lead of Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Capital letters there is,
    "Wikipedia relies on sources to determine what is conventionally capitalized; only words and phrases that are consistently capitalized in a substantial majority of independent, reliable sources are capitalized in Wikipedia."
    How do those two excerpts fit in with your thinking? Bob K31416 (talk) 22:03, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    RfC started on track listing sections

    RfC started at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Music#RfC on Track Listing sections in song articles. All comments are welcome. --TheSandDoctor Talk 03:05, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Adding a citation to an empty parameter

    Can infobox parameters be empty, but also have a citation listed? Or, is "none" appropriate for infoboxes? Requesting additional comments concerning this topic.
    The article Tver Oblast infobox lists the parameter anthem as "none." The infobox had a parameter with no content, just a citation. I removed the "citation" (which is more of a comment or footnote at best), and it was reverted by User:Ymblanter because they believe it's useful. Essentially, another user added these "citations" long ago to some Russian oblast infoboxes to explain that an oblast anthem doesn't exist, but is permitted by law. Some oblast infoboxes listed "none" and then the citation, or just the citation. Some pages had these, some didn't. Some pages had actual oblast anthems, like Ulyanovsk Oblast, which entirely makes sense in this case. But for the infoboxes like Volgograd Oblast, Vologda Oblast, and others, while there is no content for the parameter, there is a "citation" which explains why there isn't an anthem. I have never seen this in any infoboxes on WP, and to illustrate the fact that there could be an anthem, but there isn't, all in the infobox makes no sense. I'm sure this is a violation of MOS:INFOBOX, but as I explained to Ymblanter on their talk page, it's as if one needs to find a policy on adding periods at the end of a sentence. They stand by their ground that this is useful, and that we have differing opinions. To me, if the indication were that notable, then it would probably be worth noting somewhere in the article, but if the word "anthem" isn't even mentioned in the article at all, why would it be useful to understand that an anthem doesn't exist, but could, in the infobox. Seems very trivial to add any parameter to the infobox that isn't notable at all, or for something that doesn't exist. I understand how in some cases, "none" may be appropriate for some infobox parameters, but this doesn't seem like one of these cases. --PerpetuityGrat (talk) 16:45, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    FYI, there's been more traction at the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Infoboxes. Seemed more appropriate to add the discussion there. --PerpetuityGrat (talk) 12:08, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Simple vs double quotes

    This MOS says "Simple glosses that translate or define unfamiliar terms take single quotes, with no comma before the definition (Cossack comes from Turkic qazaq 'freebooter')." However, this is very difficult to apply in texts about historical linguistics. Scholars describe and define meanings from a distant time with a different cultural understanding from today. Usually, scholars translate historical and reconstructed words somewhat differently, and inevitably based on the scholars' own theoretical and subjective understànding. I don't think it is reasonably possible to apply this MOS, in the articles I write, and here is an example. How can I comply with MOS, when the glosses are more or less subjective, and rarely "simple"?--Berig (talk) 06:52, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Also, if I would use simple quotes for "simple glosses that translate or define unfamiliar terms", I would make the definition POV, because another scholar would use a sentence to define a meaning that would be dependent on their theoretical interpretation, and for that I would need to double quotes. So, in order to write in a way that comes close to NPOV, I simply cannot use simple quotes for the definition provided by one scholar and double quotes for those from another.--Berig (talk) 09:19, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Glancing at your link, I do not see any special situations that would need anything other than the standard linguistic formatting; for example, "Old English hellerune 'seeress, witch' ... in OHG as hellirûna 'necromancy' ... *χaljō 'Hel, the abode of the dead' ... into Finnish, where runo means 'poem' ..." etc. If a meaning is disputed or hypothetical, this is usually expressed verbally, without any need for scare quotes; for example, "Smith hypothesizes that *q'ólhi- means 'canoe' but Jones claims that it means 'land' ..." etc. Doremo (talk) 10:14, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Should those occurrences of "simple" be "single" (except for "Simple glosses)? Otherwise, I find it hard to comprehend. Tony (talk) 10:15, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I think "simple gloss" means "just a gloss, not a functional part of a sentence"; in the MOS example, freebooter is just a gloss, not the object of the preposition or anything else with a syntactic function in the example. Doremo (talk) 10:23, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Alright, thanks. I find it convenient, though, not to separate definitions from quotes when I reference the text, as semantics often involve subjective views, and in these situations semantic reconstructions.--Berig (talk) 11:16, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Discussion at Talk:List of screw drives § Images in Section Headings

     You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:List of screw drives § Images in Section Headings. — Marchjuly (talk) 04:37, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Begins I noticed that user Marchjuly removed all screw profile images ... but don't get your hopes up -- it's all downhill from there. See also erection engineer Mark Barr, who had a business making rubbers, said bicycles stimulated ball development, and was elected to the screw committee. EEng 05:46, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    One of these is not like the others

    Bit of a drive-by comment here (sorry)…

    I was looking for a reference for formatting a MoS on a sister project, so I looked at the top of WP:MOS for the first time in… well, probably ever. One sentence there stood out as a non sequitur: Since using plain English makes the encyclopedia easier and more intuitive to read, editors should avoid ambiguity, jargon, and vague or unnecessarily complex wording. A fine sentiment certainly, but the rest of the lead describes the MoS itself, what it is for, how it is structured, its inclusion criteria… That sentence then suddenly dives into one specific content guide. Not that it's bad guidance, but it seems very malapropos in the context, and gives it an emphasis that appears out of proportion to its relative importance. Does it need to be there? Or, rhetorically, what other specific style rules should be promoted to a mention in the lead? Xover (talk) 06:51, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    "Chair" v "chairwoman"

    Charperson
    (joke shamelessly recycled by EEng)

    Jaguar has recently been automating changes of "chair" or "chairperson", used as a generic expression for the head of some board or panel, to "chairwoman" (see eg Special:Diff/1050107578, Special:Diff/1050107675). When I raised this on their talk, they pointed to a portion of Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Gender identity discussing gendered references on Caitlyn Jenner that, to my mind, is relevant only where there is a potential difference between a person's gender identity at present and their identity in the past. In my view, MOS:GNL is clear: we ought to use gender-neutral language ("chair" or "chairperson") where it is possible and clear – as it would be, in my view, in virtually every instance where we are discussing someone "chairing" an organization, board, panel, etc. I am bringing this here because it likely has broader applicability beyond my concern regarding Juanita Maxwell Phillips (the article where I first noticed Jaguar's alterations), and to get a wider sampling of opinion. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 23:16, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I would agree that GNL points towards simply using "chair" (or "chairperson") in these cases. It's a readily understood term that loses no meaning versus "chairman" or "chairwoman" and so we shouldn't be introducing needlessly gendered language. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 23:29, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Those diffs are in the context of one gender contexts hence it is fine. Those two subjects were women. Though if you are talking about the position in general (in which one gender contexts no longer apply, i.e. The Chair/Chairperson's (probably used as opposed to chairman/chairwoman) responsibilties include [...]) that is were it would likely no longer be appropriate.  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 23:49, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Even if they're fine in a vacuum in these instances, changing a valid (and preferable) usage like that also contravenes WP:STYLEVAR. I could see the justification for doing it the other way around, to fall more in line with GNL, but moving from adherence to MOS to a permissible exception just for stylistic preference is a bad idea. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 23:56, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I do not why chairperson/chair would be preferable to chairman/chairwoman in these instances. If anything chairman/chairwoman is preferable to chairperson/chair in these instances because it is specific to the context (unlike the other way which is overly broad for no reason). "to fall more in line with GNL" but GNL does not apply here it is a single gender context. By that logic we would have to 'to fall more in line with GNL' by replacing actress en masse to actor.  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 00:48, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    How could the gender-neutral term be overly broad? All versions of the term—chair, chairperson, chairman, and chairwoman—refer to precisely the same role. If gender is clear in context, as it is in the vast majority of cases, there's no reason to depart from gender-neutral language because there's no extra meaning to be gained from using the gendered term. (As, IMO, is the case with "actor" as well.) AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 00:52, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    we would have to 'to fall more in line with GNL' by replacing actress en masse to actor--Which I've been in favour of doing every time it comes up, and which I tend to do when writing articles myself. This isn't a bad thing. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 00:54, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes it is a bad thing because that is not what GNL says at all.  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 22:14, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Use any of them, but be consistent within each individual bio. GoodDay (talk) 23:58, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Jaguar's actions should stop. Tony (talk) 00:18, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Why? ♦ jaguar 00:26, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:STYLEVAR, for one; this isn't a constructive change so much as switching one preference for another. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 00:45, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Jaguar, why do you want to change uses of chair to chairwoman? In OP's first diff, you changed away from gender-neutral language in a sentence that started "On Council, she served on the committees for Maternity and Child Welfare (of which she was chair as of 1941)". What benefit does "chairwoman" provide in that context? Firefangledfeathers (talk) 05:49, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Topic related: FWIW, this gender neutral pushing on the 'pedia, gets annoying at times. Actor/actress, Chairman/chairwoman, are acceptable. GoodDay (talk) 00:56, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    It's the manual of style. Enforcing it is "pushing" as much as enforcing something MOS:DECADE or MOS:BADDATE is. It's not helpful or constructive to frame it otherwise. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 01:00, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Grapple X, as you can plainly see, there is not even close to being widespread agreement on whether or not the MOS actually says what some of you say it does. If it were that cut and dried, this debate wouldn't be happening. You may certainly hold the opinion that all the editors who interpret the guideline differently than yourself are wrong, but that doesn't mean it's okay to claim agreement exists when it actually doesn't. Furthermore, the difference is that this guideline is not rooted in pragmatics, but in some kind of pseudo-activism (pseudo because nobody actually knows what the actual goal is supposed to be. We are all aware of English WP's enormous gender gap. Purging enWP of all traces of gender would be an effective way to preserve systemic prejudice by making it invisible. 2600:1702:4960:1DE0:A069:2944:4900:B67E (talk) 02:07, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, what part of Edit-warring over style, or enforcing optional style in a bot-like fashion without prior consensus, is never acceptable, When either of two styles are acceptable it is inappropriate for a Wikipedia editor to change from one style to another unless there is some substantial reason for the change or As with all optional styles, articles should not be changed from one style to another unless there is a substantial reason to do so are unclear or being misinterpreted here? 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 02:10, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I'd be more enthusiastic to support this if the editor were changing all instances of chairman to chairwoman. (Surely chairwoman is understood to include people of any gender.) But if they're only applying the term to women chairpeople it ought to stop. pburka (talk) 04:19, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I think only STYLEVAR applies here. I would oppose mass removals of "chairwoman", "chairman", "actress", and so on regarding specific people with a known gender. Crossroads -talk- 06:00, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I was going to give a more detailed response last night but it was half one in the morning and fatigue got the better of me. My one word response to Tony wasn't meant to be brazen, but rather I wanted to know why my changes were cause for a dramatic alarm. Firstly I don't understand why my changes last night invited this discussion. As you all know, chairman/chairwoman is the proper vernacular, as is actor/actress, postman/postwoman. While I do share GoodDay's slight grievance of referring to a person as a metonymic chair (I have been a victim of this in real life), Wikipedia ultimately needs to conform to using encyclopaedic language and not concede to the twin dynamics of oversaturated gender-neutralism and laziness. I don't see how MOS:VAR applies since they are the proper terms to describe people's roles. Lucilita Bhreatnach is a woman, so her role bestows her the title of chairwoman. It's simple. The only instance of where the use of 'chairpersons' would apply is if it was describing a mixed group of men and women, which didn't come up during my edits last night. Is there a place where we can propose to set this in stone in the MOS (assuming it isn't already)? ♦ jaguar 19:14, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    As a global statement that isn’t correct - perhaps you are arguing from a single country perspective? In the UK, the House of Commons Select Committees have ‘chairs’ most local councils have ‘chairs’, as do many companies. For sure, chairman or chairwoman (more commonly the former) are still terms in use, but they are now minority usage, and certainly not the “proper vernacular” as you claim. Similarly “postmen” has long ago been replaced by “postie” or “delivery officer” in official Royal Mail usage, and actor is commonly used for both males and females - this latter is also common in US media coverage. MapReader (talk) 19:26, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    They are certainly not minority usage. Threre are far more instances of 'chairman' to 'chair', with the latter being a recent and inaccurate deviation among some articles. 'Postie' is slang and wholly unencyclopaedic - in fact I very rarely hear it. By your admission shall we change all instances of postmen on Wikipedia to posties? Quell anything conventionally descriptive in favour of these? I am arguing from the perspective of the English language and what it is. ♦ jaguar 19:33, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Jaguar, this is 2021, not 1921. There is no justification whatsover for your edits, which flatly contradict our manual of style. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:38, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Gaveling person? Blueboar (talk) 19:42, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    So gendered nouns aren't advocated in the manual of style? LMAO. I'd hardly say chairman is archaic. ♦ jaguar 19:45, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Jaguar, you got to know it’s outdated, especially chairwoman. See for examaple Collins Dictionary. At best it’s just ‘controversial’ (see the citations in our Chairperson article where, incidentally, Chairman is a redirect to it). DeCausa (talk) 19:47, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see how MOS:VAR applies—It applies because you have taken articles where one valid, MOS-compliant usage is already in place, and with no unequivocal gain, changed it to another stylistic preference. The edit isn't fixing something broken, it isn't correcting a mistake or anything of the sort, it's moving from one established usage to your personal preference, which is the absolute textbook basis of MOS:VAR. It doesn't matter if you, or anyone else, believes your preference is valid, MOS:VAR doesn't care about validity—just like switching citation styles or date formatting could easily be done to a "valid" style but is still discouraged. As the saying goes, if it ain't broke don't fix it. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 19:45, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    As I said my changes weren't one bourne out of personal preference. I see that Orangemike has now reverted all my edits, despite chairman remaining the abundant identifier on Wikipedia. Shall we begin the mass purge of chairmen to just chairs then? I had no idea referring to a woman as a chairwoman was so controversial among Wikipedians. ♦ jaguar 20:03, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Jason Bourne? EEng 20:21, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    "Bourne/bourn"; a destination, goal, or aspiration. And yes I regret saying it now. ♦ jaguar 20:24, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I fail to see how it's anything but personal preference, when the prior versions were all perfectly valid and clear. Do you mean to tell me your edits were somehow counter to your preferences, that you liked it better before you edited it? 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 20:14, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I would suggest that we take this to a wider discussion, but from what I've seen in this disintegrating discussion I'm afraid that these editors would end up advocating the removal of all 'sexist' gendered nouns. ♦ jaguar 20:37, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    If it comes down to chair vs chairperson, because folks want to go the gender-neutral route? Can we please use the latter? People are humans, not chairs. GoodDay (talk) 20:06, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Changing well established mainstream gender neutral terminology to gendered terms (which are deprecated by a variety of style guides) is, to put it plainly, sexist. This is 2021 not 1921. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 20:07, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Sexist? Not seeing it. GoodDay (talk) 20:10, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    These people are utterly delusional, GoodDay. I wish I never engaged with this. ♦ jaguar 20:12, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    It's just a topic, that is formed by the # of editors involved. If enough editors push that 'red' is 'blue'? then 'red' is 'blue'. GoodDay (talk) 20:14, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    No need for personal attacks, just because this 'ye olde' English language argument that has been put forward is seen as risible by others, and by others as sexist, and your edits prohibited by the MOS. English changes, and it always has. Style guides change and always have. And GoodDay's response makes little sense, editors here, certainly did not make the multiple dictionary uses of 'chair' appear out of the blue. [8] -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:39, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    It is not 'ye olde' English when it remains common usage. This was not the original point of the discussion anyway. By the way the definition of chair that you linked is indeed the correct one, but when referring to the roles of people the gendered 'chairman' is prevalent and indeed desirable. I can't believe I have to say this. Thinking that nouns describing someone's gender is sexist is delusional. It is clear that people here are arguing for the sake of arguing, and nothing I stated initially has had any effect. ♦ jaguar 20:45, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    You have been shown multiple sections of the manual of style which disagree with your edits. Please explain how abiding by existing policy is "arguing for the sake of arguing". 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 20:48, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    "Desirable", you say. So, not actually about anyone else's "delusion", at all, it's just about what you desire. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:11, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I was mainly referring to Dodger67's above comment of gendered terms being sexist as delusional, which it is. ♦ jaguar 21:14, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree, gendered terms are not sexist. Masterhatch (talk) 21:24, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    It appears you have misstated his or her argument, Dodger was noting that the English world has chosen to create and accept in formal writing gender neutral terms, so insisting that we not use such gender neutral terms, in fact going around in censorious dudgeon replacing them is by logic, sexist (social roles based on sex). Dodger may be right, or may be wrong, but there is no delusion in it. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:30, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    It can also be considered censorship, preventing usage of gender terminology. What the world does is irrelevant. What's relevant is what Wikipedians decide among themselves. GoodDay (talk) 21:37, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Asking editors to retain existing uses of gender neutral language is censorship? That's a stretch. pburka (talk) 21:45, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia editors have already decided on MOS:GNL. If you feel censored by it, there are many other places in the world for you to write. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:53, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Though I disagree with MOS:GNL's current status. I've no plans to attempt to change it. PS: I'm not planning on writing anywhere else. GoodDay (talk) 21:56, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Asking editors to not use gender terminology (actor/actress, policeman/policewoman; etc) can be considered censorship. Again, Wikipedia isn't the real world, but rather a cyber world. Therefore, the community decides what usage to go with, amongst itself. GoodDay (talk) 21:49, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    That's not what's happening here. This editor has been replacing existing uses of chair and chairperson with chairwoman. It's a simple matter of MOS:RETAIN. Nobody's trampling on your right to continue to use outdated gendered language. pburka (talk) 21:54, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Missing the point again... ♦ jaguar 21:56, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) Is it censorship to ask users not to use apostrophes in plurals, or not to use contractions in running prose, or to avoid the passive voice, or not to use curly quotation marks? These are all MOS concerns just as much as GNL but I don't see anyone clinging to the idea that they're censorious, and I wonder why... 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 21:58, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedians don't have rights, only privileges. GoodDay (talk) 22:00, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    If required? Change the MoS to prefer the usage of chairman/chairwoman, over chairperson/chair. GoodDay (talk) 20:52, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Chair / Chairman / Chairwoman / Chairperson are all acceptable in Wikipedia and I totally disagree changing any one to any other one without just cause. MOS:VAR applies here. If chairman was used first, it stays. Don't change it to Chairperson. If chairwoman was used first, leave it. No need to change. Look at the original usage in the article per VAR and use that (with certain exceptions, of course). There are a lot of parts of the MOS I totally disagree with but one of the best that I support whole-heartedly is retaining existing styles as it can really help solve edit wars over style. Masterhatch (talk) 21:22, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    The opposite of this has been happening here; "chair" was the existing version which was later changed, I agree that VAR is the principle we should be sticking to here but you seem to have the direction of the conversation in reverse. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 21:26, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I wasn't arguing in support of any one side. I was arguing in support of VAR. I don't care which word is used, but to end a squabble, I love VAR. I know Jaguar was changing chair to chairwoman and he was wrong to do that since chair was used first. Masterhatch (talk) 21:30, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Non-arbitrary break

    This somewhat vituperative discussion seems to have established or confirmed two things:

    1. MOS:VAR definitely favours leaving ungendered language as-is. (And so, I would suggest, a fortiori, favours not automating changes from ungendered to gendered language.)
    2. MOS:GNL probably favours using "chair"/"chairperson" over "chairman"/"chairwoman".

    Can we agree on this? AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 22:47, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    • Agree. pburka (talk) 23:28, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I basically agree with the conclusion of 1, but would go further in opposing indiscriminate mass changes in either direction (gender-neutral to gendered, or gendered to gender-neutral). Not so sure about 2. Per Spy-cicle, I think it's unclear to what degree GNL is intended to apply to scenarios where we're referring to a definite subject of known gender. Furthermore, GNL says to prefer gender-neutral language "where this can be done with clarity and precision". But there are some cases where substituting a gender-neutral equivalent for one of a pair of gendered terms makes the text less natural or readable. e.g. I think we'd all agree that globally replacing fiancé/fiancée with "person engaged to be married" would be execrable - there's just no succinct gender-neutral hypernym. Heck, even though mother/father have a gender-neutral equivalent that's a common word (parent), doing a mass replacement would still result in a lot of unnatural sentences. Leave it as an editorial/stylistic choice to be made on a case-by-case basis. Colin M (talk) 14:11, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      Surely there ought to be some regard to the actual usage by the organisation or position being described? For example Select committee (United Kingdom) - and all the subsidiary or related articles dealing with specific committees or particular individuals - refer to “chairs” because that is the term used in Parliament. If we came across one that didn’t, it would be correct to amend it, so that WP follows the RS, and I wouldn’t expect such an edit to be opposed on grounds of Var or Retain? Similarly Chairman of the Conservative Party uses chairman pending that party’s arrival in the 21st century. MapReader (talk) 21:37, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      Yes, I think that matters. Sometimes either option is fine and it's just a stylistic choice, but sometimes the context will clearly favour one over the other. Colin M (talk) 23:45, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Disagree with point 2 as I have already explained above. Context matters.  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 08:49, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • How about this way. If the topic of the bio article identifies as male? we use chairman. If topic identifies as female? we use chairwoman. If the topic identifies as neither? we use chairperson. GoodDay (talk) 14:03, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • For a given article, if editors disagree as to whether a gendered or non-gendered term should be used, I think that it should be determined by what is used by the reliable sources of the article, if one way is consistently used in a substantial majority of independent, reliable sources for the article. Bob K31416 (talk) 15:15, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • This proposed policy would, in many cases, require us to use archaic language for older topics. Should we use "poetess", "lady doctor" or "Jewess" if we're relying on 19th-century sources for a biography? pburka (talk) 15:31, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • A real example: Annie Rothwell was the "supreme artist" of "Canadian martial poetesses". "Poetess", sans quotation marks, is simply not encyclopedic language in contemporary English. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 15:46, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • pburka, AleatoryPonderings, Please note the condition, "if one way is consistently used in a substantial majority of independent, reliable sources for the article."

            Pburka, You didn't give an example of an actual Wikipedia article. All it takes is one valid example from you that satisfies the above condition, and you will have proven your point.

            AleatoryPonderings, You showed one source in the article Annie Rothwell with "poetess". Do any other sources in that article use "poetess"? I started looking through the sources and the second one [9] used "poet". So far, not a substantial majority. Bob K31416 (talk) 22:54, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
            • My example was purely for illustrative purposes. The fact that it is conceivable that many sources could refer to a person by language we no longer consider acceptable is enough to cast doubt on your policy proposal. In any event, I take it you have the burden to explain why MOS:GNL should be amended to prefer gendered language when sources appear to prefer gendered language; we don't have the burden to explain why the default rule (GNL) should be retained. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 23:05, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
              • What I suggested is at the basic foundation of Wikipedia, follow the sources. Bob K31416 (talk) 05:28, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
                Reliable sources tell us what to say, but not how to say it. The analogous version for matters of style would be commonly-used style guides, many (most?) of which recommend the use of gender-neutral language. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 05:43, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
                I would agree with basing MOS on the major style guides: Chicago, AP, MLA, APA. Unfortunately, they're behind paywalls. If you say that most prefer "chair"/"chairperson" over "chairman"/"chairwoman", I'd accept that if I don't check for myself. However, if they don't indicate a preference in some way, then the sources should be followed. Bob K31416 (talk) 06:31, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
                Chicago and AP for sure, with Chicago recommending 'chair' and AP either 'chair' or 'chairperson'. For AP, it's their very first example of easily-usable gender-neutral terms. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 06:45, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
                "chair; chairman; chairwoman; chairperson. Chair is widely regarded as the best gender-neutral choice. Since the mid-seventeenth century, chair has referred to an office of authority." (Chicago, section 5.250) AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 13:55, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
                Thanks both of you. But just to clarify what you found, did the manuals say that those gnl's were preferred over non-gnl's, or were they preferred if one wanted to use gnl? Bob K31416 (talk) 17:27, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
                Not super clear from section 5.250. Section 5.257 is less equivocal: "The trend in American English is toward eliminating sex-specific suffixes. Words with feminine suffixes such as -ess and -ette are easily replaced with the suffix-free forms, which are increasingly accepted as applying to both men and women. For example, author and testator are preferable to authoress and testatrix. Compounds with -man are more problematic. The word person rarely functions well in such a compound; chairperson and anchorperson sound more pompous and wooden than the simpler (and correct) chair or anchor. Unless a word is established (such as salesperson, which dates from 1901), don’t automatically substitute -person for -man. English has many alternatives that are not necessarily newly coined, including police officer (first recorded in 1797), firefighter (1903), and mail carrier (1788)" [bold added]. I don't have access to the AP Stylebook. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 17:43, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree, with a caveat on point 2. Point 1 is, in my view, unambiguously supported by current guidance. It's worth bringing up again that Jaguar should self-revert their changes, many of which are only still current because of edit warring. For point 2, I think it's clear GNL support chair/chairperson unless "clarity and precision" demand otherwise; I could see this happening in a number of places. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 02:20, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      I haven't seen any response from Jaguar to my or others' requests to self-revert their changes. I went ahead and reverted the ones that were still current. I did not see any that were apparently required by clarity or precision, but I am happy to see local discussion commence if any of them have good reason to be 'chairman' or 'chairwoman'. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 14:48, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree The first is certainly correct. And the second is certainly correct as a general statement. MOS:GNL says "use gender neutral", and while there are exceptions, exceptions can't be construed to swallow the rule. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:13, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Adding, discussion about other words is off-topic, and may even be a diversion. It's simple, here, to apply to, well established, well recognized words "chair", "chairperson", which are the topic of this discussion. And no, there is no broad category of assumed articles, where chair or chairperson won't do, as Jayron demonstrates (below), and the idea that we should use gendered terms for "chair" when a person's sex (meaning almost all articles of people) is known, is preposterous swallowing the rule, because chair and chairperson, are English words that are designed to be, and are to be used when the person's sex is known. Finally, in main, we don't copy sources, nor do we plagiarize them: we describe their content in our own words (as, among other things, that's the only way to freely license our articles) So, for example, given a source that says "chairwoman", in our article that says "chair", is nothing but a faithful following of the source in our own words. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:17, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Disagree. GNL isn't "genderlessness good". MOS:GNL is quite clear in stating, This does not apply to...wording about one-gender contexts. So, for specific people of a known, single gender, there is no basis in guidelines to prefer "chairperson" or any other equivalent. Indeed, clarity and precision would seem to favor using the appropriate gendered term rather than a linguistically unnatural neutral one - for example, we would say that Jane Doe is the mother of her child rather than the "parent". Perhaps in some contexts, a word like "chair" is much more common than "chairwoman", so it would be fine to use then. But overzealousness to de-gender terminology in contexts where, regarding specific individuals, it is usually gendered, is against GNL. Crossroads -talk- 05:32, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • One of the conclusions of this discussion, IMO, is that "chair" is generally preferred (by style guides and WP editors) to its gendered equivalents. We are not talking about changing "mother" to "parent"; we're talking about changing "chairwoman" or "chairman" to "chair". So if we read MOS:GNL to say that we should use gendered language when it's generally used or preferred, and ungendered language when it's generally used or preferred, we'd conclude that "chair" is better. Moreover, it strikes me as implausible to read a guideline directing editors to use ungendered language as a general rule, when it can be done (as you note) with clarity and precision, as instead a guideline that tells editors to use whatever kind of language they would ordinarily use according to prevailing usage and opinion. Under that reading, MOS:GNL makes no change to the status quo: it just says you should use whatever language, gendered or not, you would ordinarily use. But why would we have a guideline that directs editors to … do what they would do anyway? As Alanscottwalker notes, "exceptions can't be construed to swallow the rule". If MOS:GNL says anything, it must say that the presumption is in favour of gender-neutral language, and exceptions are genuinely exceptions. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 14:30, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree 1 and 2. MOS:GNL says Use gender-neutral language...where this can be done with clarity and precision. Vanishingly close to 100% of the time, context from the rest of the article determines gender in such a way that there's no need to use gender-specific versions of things like job titles. "He was the chair of the organization" or "She was a flight attendant on the aircraft" are perfectly precise and clear as to job title and gender, and avoids using gendered titles such as "chairman" or "stewardess". I can't think of a single time when using a gendered term is needed (except for things like direct quotes, or perhaps a few sui generis IAR type situations I would allow for). There simply isn't any need to use unnecessarily gendered language, it imparts no extra meaning to the article. --Jayron32 16:06, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - Use chairman, chairwoman or chairperson. But don't use chair. GoodDay (talk) 16:38, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      As noted several times above, widely used and reliable style guides recommend for "chair" and against "chairperson". --Jayron32 16:45, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • While I HATE the practice of referring to someone as a piece of furniture, it is what most modern style guides call for. Blueboar (talk) 17:00, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      Well said. Clearly WP must follow the published style guidelines from reliable sources, rather than the views of any individual editors who aren’t fully up with the times. MapReader (talk) 17:23, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    As the current edition of Fowler's says, "chair was already in use to mean 'the authority invested in a chairman'", so it's not a great shift from the authority to the role or position and the person in that role/position (cf crown for the authority or office of the monarch, see for that of a bishop). Fowler's also notes that chair came into use to replace chairman and chairwoman c.1976, and concludes "It is now de rigueur in all varieties of English to use this in preference to any term marked for gender." NebY (talk) 17:28, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Reference is to p 133 of Fowler's Dictionary of Modern English Usage, ISBN 9780191064944. For some reason, the "concise" edition is more circumspect ([10]). AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 17:47, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Publication of the Concise Edition is clearly lagging! That's in its third edition and that section at least is adapted from the 1996 third edition or the 1998 revised third edition of the full Modern English Usage. The 4th full edition, the current one I quoted, was published in 2015. NebY (talk) 18:13, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree.
      1. Automatically changing gender neutral language to appropriate gendered language might be a good idea if it was 100% accurate, but since that is unachievable it is a bad idea.
      2. I consider chairperson an abomination, but the usage chair is reasonable and is a long established usage. I see no problem using chair even when the gender is known from context. --Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 18:24, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong agree with both those points. And if people have been going around changing perfectly acceptable standard gender-neutral terminology, as prescribed by this and other reputable manuals of style, purely because they don't like it (and will invent pedantic distinctions that have no basis in reality, like niggling over exactly what a "single-sex context" means, to justify it) then that is a disruptive nonsense which needs to stop immediately. Tendentious editing against the global consensus on WP style, as expressed in our MOS, is tedious and timewasting for the whole community. Look at the number of people who've been drawn into this wall of text, ultimately because some people struggle to accept that WP tends to be skeptical of efforts to fix what's not broken. Suggest the instigators of this acknowledge that the equine has expired. Archon 2488 (talk) 12:47, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Clarification on capitalization in headings of BLPs beginning with numbers

    Regarding the guideline found at MOS:HEAD, would it be proper for a heading beginning with a numerical value, say a year, to have it's first alphabetical word be capitalized, even if it's not the first character in the heading? Does it also make any difference if the first alphabetical word is located right after a colon? I ask because there is no specification regarding the use of this guideline with numbers, which makes it complicated to apply this with articles of many BLPs. There's another discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters#Capitalizations in headings that begin with numbers derived from Talk:Nicole Kidman (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs), where it originated, involving this as well, specifically, if section headings such as "2004-2009: Established actress", which can be found in it's main article, should have the letter "E" in the word "Established" capitalized, or lowercased. — Film Enthusiast✉ 04:46, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    No. Capitalization of headings is the same as capitalization for running text, as it all uses sentence case. You wouldn't do that in a regular sentence, would you? The first character of the sentence or heading is the one to be capitalized. Being a number, it makes no difference when it is "capitalized", but the capitalization isn't transferrable to a character other than the first one just because the first one doesn't have an "uppercase version". —El Millo (talk) 05:37, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I have wondered about this. If this isn't stated in the MOS, I propose that it is. Off hand, I know I have seen many times (usually when a heading starts with year: when the following text is capped), so this would be a case of New content added to this page should directly address a persistently recurring style issue. MB 14:42, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure, if it's a recurring problem it's best for us to add it. —El Millo (talk) 17:13, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The thing is, the heading serves a different purpose than a regular sentence, as you say. It's purpose is different for a BLP than for any other article, therefore it should be applied differently IMO. The years are only there as a dating reference, but not to elaborate on what the section is about. I also agree that MOS should specify how to apply such guideline for these situations, but until then, since there's others who see this the same way, as GoodDay has shown, then I think this should be left for consensus for now, since there is no official rule saying we shouldn't capitalize a word after a number in headings. — Film Enthusiast✉ 18:20, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Heading/subheading examples: "2021–present: Educator", would seem correct. Where's "2021–present: educator", would not. GoodDay (talk) 17:20, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      Somehow the first of your two looks right, but we need more examples (here repeating your example):
      (A1) 2021–present: Educator vs. (A2) 2021–present: educator
      (B1) 2021: Educator vs. (B2) 2021: educator
      (C1) Postwar period: Educator vs. (C2) Postwar period: educator
      (D1) 2018 Elections vs. (D2) 2018 elections
      (E1) 2018 and 2019 Elections vs. (E2) 2018 and 2019 elections (I hoipe we can rule out 2018 And 2019 Elections and 2018 And 2019 elections.)
      EEng 19:57, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • MOS:HEAD is pretty clear that headings should be in WP:SENTENCECASE. There are no special exceptions for biographies or years. If you wouldn't capitalize a word in running text you shouldn't capitalize it in a section heading. Furthermore, headings are supposed to follow the same rules as WP:TITLES, which advises against using colons except in a few limited cases. pburka (talk) 20:43, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Right, of course they're in sentence case, but there are little situations -- such as the ones I just listed -- that come up in section headings but not in sentences (or article titles, for that matter), WP:TITLES notwithstanding. Certainly bios and years (per se) have nothing to do with it, and most of the times that I've seen colons used in section headings they've been awkward and in need of changing. But the examples above certainly are possible. So I'd be interested to hear what choices people think are best. EEng 22:49, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    A1, B1, D2 & E2 would be acceptable. C1 should be made into a heading, sub-heading form. GoodDay (talk) 22:53, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Exactly. No one is disputing WP:SENTENCECASE. The issue here is when should it be applicable, on the first letter of the first alphabetical word, or should none of it be capitalized if beginning with a numerical value? Also, I agree with GoodDay regarding the acceptable usages for these specific headings, I feel the above options would be suitable as well. — Film Enthusiast✉ 23:45, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I think you're asking if 1984 is a word. It is. Never capitalize the second word unless it would be capitalized in running text. Write "1984 in film" not "1984 In film". pburka (talk) 23:55, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I feel that 1984 in film and 1984: In film (or 1984: in film if following your guidance) present two different meanings. The colon serves as the distinction between the two. Because I agree 1984 In film should not be utilized. — Film Enthusiast✉ 00:17, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:TITLES says "Colons can be used in the limited cases of subtitles of some creative works and lists split over several pages." Since "1984: In film" is neither of those, it's not an acceptable title or section heading and the question is moot. pburka (talk) 00:21, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Does the policy apply to section headings as well? It concerns article titles, but unless I missed something, I don't see anything referring to headings. Do correct me if I'm mistaken though. — Film Enthusiast✉ 02:30, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes. MOS:HEAD says "Section headings should follow all the guidance for article titles." pburka (talk) 03:17, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    EEng: I think A, B and C are all examples of titles plus subtitles. The MOS would seem to forbid subtitles in section headings, although I'm not sure if that's intentional or accidental. pburka (talk) 00:01, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Not necessarily, because in the case of BLPs at least, examples like A, B, and C are there to describe what occurred during that specific year or time period, which is discussed in the respective section. — Film Enthusiast✉ 00:17, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    By BLPs I'm sure you mean bios of any kind, but really that's all a red herring; the discussion is applicable to the history of anything (corporation, political movement, person). Sometimes in an actor's bio you see 1940s: Early screen career ... 1952-1956: Stage work ... 1964: Forced retirement and I'm torn about such things. On the one hand it helps orient a reader skimming the TOC, on the other hand there's just something "Let-me-tell-you-the-fascinating-and-tragic-story-of-Mary-Megastar" about it, especially when they're like 1950s: Descent into alcoholism and 1970s: Return to popularlity. It's sits a little better, methinks, if you turn them around with parentheses: Stage work (1952-1956).
    But let's assume such things might occur somewhere. I agree with GoodDay on A1, B1, D2, E2. For C, let's suppose B and C are consecutive sections in the same article; surely it would look weird to use B1 and C2, so I guess it's got to be C1. EEng 01:10, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    For C1, make Postwar period a heading & Educator a sub-heading, particularly if there's more then one sub-heading. GoodDay (talk) 01:25, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, Stage work (1952-1956) wouldn't be such a bad idea. If the consensus results in a definite decision to not use capitalization of the first letter in headings beginning with numbers, then that'd be a good alternative. — Film Enthusiast✉ 02:30, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The parenthetical years are better than colon-separated subtitles, but I'm not convinced either is necessary in most cases. None of this has anything to do with capitalization and numbers, of course. pburka (talk) 03:17, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Isn't there another way to reword the headings so that they comply with the MOS? The use of parentheticals that was suggested above seems to be workable. To try and carve out an exception to the MOS (whether that be MOS:TITLE, MOS:HEAD, or MOS:SECTIONCAPS) seems like the last option when all other alternative approaches have been tried and deemed unacceptable. Having said that, it does seem that the date range <<colon>> description heading is used quite a lot in many different types of articles. For example, you have Lebron James, Clayton Kershaw, Nicole Kidman, The Beatles and Apple Inc., but you also have Michael Jordan, Nolan Ryan, Halle Berry, U2 and Atari. Then, there are articles which seem to try and do a bit of both like Meryl Streep (or maybe that's just incomplete) and articles that use a comma like George Clooney and Megan Rapinoe. If the consensus is that it's bad for this one particular case, then it should be bad for all such cases, shouldn't it?. Simiarly, if it's OK for this one case, then in should be OK for all other cases as well, right? The formatting in an individual article could come down to who created the article and what "template" they were following when they did so. It also could depend on what kind of guidance is being given at the WikiProject level since articles about politicians seem to favor seem to use a parathetical approach in most cases, whereas there's more of a mix in articles about athletes, performers, etc. Many articles don't use date ranges at all in headings and they seem to be OK; so, I'm not sure they're actually needed at all. Anyway, if the consensus is that truly that the date range <<colon>> description is always inappropriate, then it seems like there's going to be lots of cleaning up to do because it makes zero sense to cleanup the Kidman article and leave the others as they are. Such a decision, however, would be best made by a formal WP:RFC with relevant WikiProjects being notified given how many articles it is likely going to affect. Otherwise, it might be a case or trying to make things work as best as possible for the Kidman article and in my opinion that would be in this order if the date ranges are considered necessary: 1. paranthetical and 2. A1. I think C1 works best if there are multiple subsections within a date range section as clarified by GoodDay (e.g. Joe Biden). Options B1 and B2 make little sense to me since why bother listing a single year at all, but I do think D2 and E2 would be always preferable over D1 and E1 (except when there are proper nouns involved). In general, I don't think C2 should ever be preferrable over C1 if the consensus is that C1 is acceptable. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:18, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    RfC on linking non-major countries

     You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Linking § RfC: Linking non-major countries. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 18:57, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Thread that could use broader input

     You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers § Bot task for adding MDY tags to U.S.-related articles. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 07:38, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Collapsing footnotes

    Is there a policy for (or against) collapsing footnotes like this? thank you. Frietjes (talk) 18:22, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I would imagine MOS:PRECOLLAPSE in this case. – The Grid (talk) 18:27, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Why would one want to hide the footnotes? They're already footnotes and, anyway, there are only three of them there, plus they're small.
    It almost doesn't matter on that page though; that one table alone is something of an accessibility disaster. The whole page is really for people with good eyes, wide displays and a lot of patience. — JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits) 21:08, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The party breakdowns look like those pictures the doctor shows you to test for colorblindness. EEng 02:25, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Ishihara tests? – The Grid (talk) 13:43, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    totally agree about hiding footnotes, but the page owner feels otherwise. Frietjes (talk) 21:53, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe we should have a policy about ownership of content. But how would we draft such a thing? Hmmm. — JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits) 22:41, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    It's cool that a discussion has been opened on the issue. Would have been even cooler if I had been pinged on this to have a say, rather than coming into this by chance to find some ugly accusations being thrown against me on my back (including WP:OWN, despite I myself having widely accepted one of Frietjes's proposed versions of the collapsible table and no attempt of formal discussion having been made by the bold editor (note WP:BRD is there to be considered as well)). As far as I see, these edits went far beyond what was initially the subject of this discussion (the collapsing footnotes), including a massive overhaul of the table without any consideration for consistency with other articles and with many edits that did not even revolve on any policy-based reason. In particular, we see this edit removing the columns' width to make them "take care of themselves" while simulataneously letting the footnotes' width on the loose, effectively turning the table into an oversized feature with a lot of wasted space (guess this is what comes from ill-thought edits that, seemingly, seek to preserve the essence of "coding" disregarding the actual presentation of it afterwards). I don't find what's the policy-based reason for this change, either. It's basically as if this has been used as an excuse to implement a particular, preferred version of the table.
    On this, I would say that what this editor may not know is that the current table's design is, mostly, a result of years and years of contributions by many editors (not specifically in this article, but for previous ones, with the resulting design being implemented in all of them), and is thus a very stable and consensuated affair, even if, at the very least, through WP:IMPLICITCONSENSUS. Many improvements have been added throughout the years, there having been countless versions of the table until arriving to the current one. Obviously, Wikipedia is a work in progress and new improvements are welcome, but I think improvement does not come through in-the-back discussions (with possible aspersions being cast to ridicule a particular editor) and rush editing.
    Now, entering on the actual policy-based issues brought forward: On the issue of MOS:PRECOLLAPSE, it only advices for avoiding auto-collapsed tables, not for avoiding using collapsible tables at all (one would have to ask, then, why templates such as Hidden exist; which, btw, have the auto-collapsed function enabled by default). MOS:COLLAPSE is also mentioned: while it is true that it advices against collapsing in general, it then provides for how to proceed when such function is used (again, templates for collapsing do exist, the collapsible function does exist in wikitables, and those have not been deprecated). It is not a general prohibition for collapsing, and in this case collapsing is used to avoid moving the focus from the table away from its main purpose, which is to present election results; footnotes are an annex to it that should only be made available when additional input is sought. It is not a whim, but a result of a well-thought process that has been evolving through the years.
    Now, I'm more than willing to discuss any possible issues that may exist with the table's design so that we may collaboratively improve it. I think one such improvement has been already made by fixing the footnotes section with Frietjes's proposal. I will be glad to participate in such effort. Cheers! :) Impru20talk 10:23, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Drag performer pronouns

    Is there a community consensus on which pronouns we use for drag performers? For example, it is quite common for reliable sources to use she/her when referring to a cis man in drag, even when that person prefers he/him pronouns out of it. Likewise, there are non-binary people who use they/them pronouns out of drag, but again use she/her pronouns while in drag. How does WP:GENDERID apply in this regard?

    Should this distinction be made in the article namespace, or is this too confusing to read? I've noticed a general tendency to go for gender-neutral pronouns when this is unclear, even when this goes against reliable sources (and sometimes even against the subject's preference), but I don't think this is the right way to go for the majority of drag performers. (I'm mainly focusing on drag queens here, but I assume the same applies to drag kings too.)

    I'm aware that we're talking about broad generalisations here so I don't expect a consensus to emerge, but I'm wondering if this has been brought up before. —AFreshStart (talk) 12:39, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm far from a subject matter expert here but it was always my assumption that a drag act is a character just as much as any other acted role, the role and the portrayer need not be treated the same. For example, Paul de Leeuw is a male actor, Annie de Rooij is a female character, to say "he" plays "her" would be accurate there. I'd follow the sources when it comes to gendering either, probably using "they" when there is any doubt or lack of clarity. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 16:29, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    There was a discussion about this a year ago: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 220#WP:Surname and MOS:GENDERID with regard to drag queen articles. pburka (talk) 16:34, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    How is it handled at Tootsie? -- GoodDay (talk) 17:37, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a nightmare. [11] EEng 12:46, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Discussion about capitalization of Go

    I'm looking to increase participation in a discussion about documenting the convention of capitalizing the name of the board game Go at MOS:GAMECAPS. Coastside (talk) 17:49, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    "Wheelchair-bound"

    There is an ongoing discussion regarding the use of the phrase "wheelchair-bound" taking place at Talk:Nick Fury: Agent of S.H.I.E.L.D. (film); any additional input would be welcome. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 15:53, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    There seem to have been a number of similar edits taking place lately. @Persicifolia: Has there already been a central discussion about this somewhere? If no, I suggest we have one here rather than at individual articles. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:19, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi Nikkimaria, no this isn't part of an organised action - I think there's already a consensus on this, MOS:DISAB is clear 'wheelchair-bound' and 'confined to a wheelchair' should be avoided so I thought I was just clearing up. Most of WP already uses 'wheelchair user' and other preferred terms. The AP style guide is clear here [12] as is the UK gov [13] and the Guardian style guide [14]. There's actually only been one reversion and discussion so far, as above, and at the moment that's actually been reverted to my edit (not by me, obviously!). All other articles, including protected ones like Morrissey, have accepted the change so far. I am pretty new here though, 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ has been helpful in pointing out that eg the AP style guide is a particularly good source to refer to. Persicifolia (talk) 10:13, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I just became aware of this thread. MOS:DISAB seems to be an essay on style. Why is this not WP policy, a part of MOS proper? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:56, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    It's never been properly proposed as as a project-wide MOS (it came out of the Disability Wikiproject but never vetted by the community) and the fact that it was implied to be an official MOS or style guide had problems in the past , based on its talk page. It would take an RFC to make that part of MOS proper. --Masem (t) 15:05, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I see. Thanks. And that project-wide RFC would need to take place here, right? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:20, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I wouldn't mind a broader RFC on this; it seems like a good idea for us to implement it both for reader-friendliness and for following common style guides (the AP Stylebook, for example, recommends it, as do a breadth of guides listed on the other talk page). I know the broader recommendations at the MOS:DISAB page were rejected as an official guide not too long ago but that focussed solely on the recommendation for people-first language ("person with autism" over "autistic person"); a discussion solely on this application would at least allow it to be judged on its merits alone. ᵹʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 16:56, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Grapple X, Fowler&fowler, Masem, et al. I have on several occasions (the most recent just a few sections above) appealed for assistance from "MOS specialist" editors to help improve the Disability WikiProject's style advice page (with the aim of eventual inclusion in the MOS) but have yet to receive a positive response. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:05, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Carried from that conversation, the following all expressly prefer "use/user" language over "bound" or "confined": UK government style guide, the NDA (Ireland's statutory body on disability), Greater Manchester Coalition and New Mobility, the Guardian, American Psychological Association, Americans with Disabilities Act National Network, National Health Service, Stanford University, and the Associated Press Stylebook. This is by no means exhaustive but should show that we're not discussing a fringe preference here. ᵹʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 17:23, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Let's keep in mind what George Carlin said about softening language. Changing the name of the condition, doesn't change the condition. GoodDay (talk) 17:03, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Notifying WT:MEDMOS of this discussion. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:44, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    GoodDay, I think that's one of the main points behind opposition to this language: "wheelchair-bound" is often an inaccurate description of the facts. Many people "use" wheelchairs; only a few are "bound" to them. It is not unusual for a wheelchair user to be able to stand up for brief time periods or to be able to take a step. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:36, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Saying that someone who can stand and take one step isn't wheelchair-bound is like saying a diabetic who can go all day without insulin isn't insulin-dependent. EEng 01:42, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Certainly that phrase should only be used when the sources indicate that someone is, indeed, "bound" to their chair. I don't think that amounts to a need to deprecate, though. Primergrey (talk) 23:07, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    None of us are literally "bound" to our wheelchairs though, one reason why this is bad terminology that is recommended against in every style guide I've seen. We sit in chairs, sleep in beds etc etc, even if we cannot walk at all. I started these edits, only one out of more than 100 was reverted. Again, here's the AP Stylebook [15]. These discussions have all been hashed out elsewhere, amongst disabled people, decades ago. Persicifolia (talk) 01:28, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Ahem. Differently abled people. EEng 01:42, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I know you have a tendency for levity but I don't believe this is the time or place to be sarcastic about the civility we show our editors and readers. ᵹʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 01:45, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Well I identify as a disabled person E as that's what I am - as do most disabled people I know. (See also the style guides linked above, which don't agree with you on 'differently' etc.) Persicifolia (talk) 01:53, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not being sarcastic in the least. Rather, as always[1] I'm using humor to point out something serious, to wit that there's huge disagreement among the disabled (or differently abled, or handicapped, or physcially disadvantaged, or crippled) about appropriate forms of reference, and that even someone such as Grapple – striving to use appropriate terms – might run afoul of one faction or another in that debate. In fact it's almost unavoidable to run afoul of some faction.
    For example, while no one (that I know of, anyway) actually advocates differently abled anymore (though there was a time ...), there are certainly people who bristle at your phrasing "He is a handicapped person" instead of "He is a person with a handicap". EEng 01:59, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I had an aunt and uncle who used wheelchairs. Both rose above the situation and did everything possible to not limit themselves. I've seen my uncle carry 2 ft x 2 ft concrete pavers in his wheelchair across sand - that takes determination. Both drove cars (special hand controls). Both were intelligent and had good office jobs. And never say the word "disabled" around my aunt if you don't want a tongue lashing. "Wheelchair-bound" makes you defined by the chair. As my aunt and uncle showed, they were not defined by their chairs. Properly speaking they were paraplegics (their legs don't work). More severe cases can be quadriplegics (all 4 limbs don't work). There can be other reasons. The wheelchair is just a visible tool, not a definition.  Stepho  talk  02:03, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok so, if us disabled people are so impossible to please (which seems to be your contention E), yet a consensus has nonetheless been reached in every mainstream style guide out there that a particular term - eg 'wheelchair-bound' - is objectionable, what would be the reason for disregarding that? Persicifolia (talk) 02:14, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I said nothing like impossible to please; I said there were differences of opinion. I'm particularly tickled by this admonition by AP [16]: Cripple: Often considered offensive when used to describe a person who is lame or disabled. I'm pretty sure Stepho-wrs's unc and auntie wouldn't have liked being called lame.
    To be clear, BTW, I actually think that phrasing such as "used a wheelchair after an accident in 1993" is probably best for the run-of-the-mill situation, but there may be times that dependence on the device may be appropriate to emphasize e.g. "Wheelchair-bound passengers presented a special problem in planning the evacuation", because there are users of wheelchair who really are immobile without them, and those who, with great effort, can get off the burning train or whatever without the machine. EEng 02:39, 31 October 2021 (UTC) And it's "We disabled are impossible to please". Being lame doesn't excuse bad grammar.[reply]
    @Persicifolia, some people actually are "bound" into wheelchairs (or any other chair they might use). Positioning belts, "seat belts", and other devices are sometimes used to reduce the risk of someone falling. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:13, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    So, it's up to the Wiki-community to decide what terminology to use & if it'll be used across the board 'or' on a bio-by-bio basis. GoodDay (talk) 02:45, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    One particular thing keeps coming up and I want to be clear - 'wheelchair-bound' is considered offensive (and yes ableist) whether the person referred to can walk and stand or not. Of course sometimes there's a need to clarify whether we're talking about somebody who cannot walk at all or someone who uses a wheelchair part-time. Either 'a full-time wheelchair user' or to be more specific 'cannot walk at all' works for the former, and 'ambulatory wheelchair user', 'occasional wheelchair user' or 'sometimes uses a wheelchair' for the latter. (And incidentally in many articles on WP the sources are not clear, and 'wheelchair-bound' is actually being used to mean 'seen in a wheelchair'.) Persicifolia (talk) 11:14, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    But "full-time wheelchair user" can't really be right -- don't they sleep in beds? If "wheelchair-bound" is offensive because it's not literally true, then why isn't "full-time wheelchair user" offensive for its incomplete truth as well? I'm not joking about this (though if I brought in the concept of "college-bound high school student", then I'd be joking -- though not entirely, actually). EEng 11:22, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Because it's the word 'bound' that is offensive. We are not bound to our wheelchairs. We do however use them full-time. A bit like people who work full-time. Who also sleep. Generally not in their place of work. Persicifolia (talk) 13:29, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    "I have been wheelchair-bound for almost four decades and the chance to float free in zero-G will be wonderful." – Stephen Hawking[2]
    Thinking about the Hawking quote, I was curious about first-person usage. Based on hits at newspapers.com, ""I am wheelchair-bound" is twice as frequent as "I am a wheelchair user" in recent years. For example, "My home of many years has several problems for me to deal with because I am wheelchair-bound." (The Pantagraph, 2018); "It allows me to see something that I can easily produce, especially on days I am wheelchair bound," he said. (News-Press, 2018); "Although I am now wheelchair bound, I used a cane as my walking deteriorated." (The Boston Globe, 2019); "My Mother's Day was different this year as I am still wheelchair bound ..." (The Winona Times, 2021); "I am a wheelchair-bound Marblehead voter, and I strongly urge Massachusetts to establish voting by mail." (The Boston Globe, 2020). Doremo (talk) 15:56, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    That is because you are sampling a demographic which was born and raised when "wheelchair-bound" was common parlance. Sample the under-40s, the Paralympians, the soldiers whose legs were blown off in the 21st-century. Long after Black or African-American had become de rigueur for newspapers, many older Blacks were still referring to themselves as colored. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:12, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    And you were there to tell them they shouldn't do that, that they're complicit in their own oppression by not adopting the hip new with-it term? And as for Hawking, well, he wasn't what you'd call a thoughtful person so he was just using wheelchair bound unthinkingly and without considering the subtle social effects of his words. Not really that bright, he. EEng 17:35, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    References

    1. ^ OK, maybe not always. But at least sometimes.
    2. ^ "For a While, Stephen Hawking Leaves Gravity Behind", interview with Melissa Block, NPR, April 26, 2007
    • The budget of the production, morals or the character, and whether you think it's any good or not, have no bearing on whether we use inclusive language or not. We wouldn't use the N word to describe a character just because they're an evil villain in a straight-to-DVD trash film, and that should not play a part in our determination of encyclopedic and modern-style language.  — Amakuru (talk) 08:21, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style&oldid=1052994577"