Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style

Should South Africa articles use "continental system" numbers?

I have started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject South Africa#Should South Africa articles use "continental system" numbers? which could benefit from MoS and WP policy regulars. It was prompted by edits changing South Africa to 12 345,6 format. Searching the MoS talk archives revealed lengthy discussion Grouping of digits and also Indian currency number conventions.

I am supposing that MOS:ENGVAR applies to number formats - dates are mentioned explicitly, though numbers are not. Batternut (talk) 01:35, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Definitely shouldn't be in "12 345,6" format on en.Wikipedia, per WP:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers#Decimals: "A period/full point (.), never a comma, is used as the decimal point (6.57, not 6,57)." The "12 345,6" style is almost entirely non-English, and to the minor extent it's used in English it's ambiguous and not understood by the majority of our readers. They all do understand "12,345.6" and "12345.6" (which cannot actually be said for "12 345.6", though "12 345.6" with a &thinsp; thin-space character is marginally less awful and geeky; we're using that in some technical articles, but not everyone is happy about that).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  18:18, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

MOS:DIGITS says   is problematic for screen-readers. Thus {{val}} and {{gaps}} seem the preferred if not the only way to do gap separation.

I understood SMcCandlish's "Definitely shouldn't" to apply to commas for the decimal mark, but that 12345.6 can perhaps grudgingly be used. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject South Africa#Should existing South Africa articles be changed to use gaps as thousands separators? discusses imposing gaps across all South Africa articles. Batternut (talk) 21:04, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

The really imposing gap is in Arizona, though.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  08:33, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

NHR says that spaces should be used in technical contexts, otherwise commas. It is probably safer to stick with commas only, but a change in policy doesn't seem to be required at this time. –Sb2001 00:34, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Proposal: Adopt WP:WikiProject Video games/Article guidelines into MoS

Should WP:WikiProject Video games/Article guidelines be moved to WP:Manual of Style/Video games, as part of the MoS?  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  01:33, 22 December 2017 (UTC); revised 18:06, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Background and rationale: I'm normally skeptical about wikiproject advice pages, since most of them are represent single narrow viewpoint, conflict with site-wide guidelnes, and haven't been worked on since the mid-2000s. However:

• This one is comprehensive (for the topic), as well as actively maintained and stable (as such things go).
• It really is all style material (in successive sections with subsections: relevance, tone, and sectioning; spelling, italics, punctuation, capitalization, jargon, and similar style details; then image usage).
  • Many such wikiproject pages are dumping grounds for all kinds of stuff about topical notability, original research and independent sourcing, etc., but this one is not; non-style material is only touched on, appropriately, in WP:SUMMARY style and cross-referenced to the main pages on such matters.
• It's been tagged with {{Guideline}} for over a decade, and I don't see any controversy about this since 2007. VG articles actually seem to be following it, which means it can be taken as a legitimate guideline.
  • However, it's aberrant for a guideline to be in the "Wikipedia:WikiProject" sub-namespace; this implies (and can frequently lead to) WP:OWNership over its content. An actual style guideline should be in "Wikipedia:Manual of Style/" (and a non-style one directly in "Wikipedia:").
  • This move was actually previously done unilaterally and without discussion, then reverted, on 3 December 2013. It wasn't a bad idea, but needs an actual WP:PROPOSAL like this one.
• It appears to be consistent with MOS (and other WP:P&Gs) throughout; the page history demonstrates a continual maintenance effort to keep it synched with site-wide best practices.
  • Many such pages are full of "here's how we want to defy the rules because our topic is magically different" nonsense; this isn't one of them.
• The move would be consistent with MOS:TV, MOS:FILM, MOS:FICTION, MOS:COMICS, MOS:ANIME, etc. The video game guideline has already had a MOS:VG shortcut for years, which is confusing if it's not part of MoS. This probably could have been done via WP:RM but I like to be formalistic about adding pages to MoS proper, to avoid later disputes.

The only cleanup work it seems to need is some copyediting to be more concise; better cross-referencing to other parts of MoS (which may also result in more concision – one can simply state a rule and link to where it is, rather than restate the rationale for it); and removal from the lead the statement that it's a wikiproject page; then the appropriate page-top template and categorization, updates to shortcuts, and addition to the {{Style}} navbox.

PS: The only other WP:PROJPAGE I know of that is MoS-ready is Wikipedia:WikiProject Computer science/Manual of style (for a similar pattern of good reasons). It should either be moved to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Computer science or Wikipedia:WikiProject Computer science/Style advice. See also previous thread about merging salvageable parts of the abortive WP:Manual of Style/Computing into it. I've recently found several abandoned wikiproject pages at "/Manual of Style" names and moved them to "/Style advice" names because they were clearly not guidelines, were not MoS-compatible, and were just low-input essays or even {{Failed}} proposals; I tagged some of them with {{Superseded}} when applicable, pointing to current MoS sections that cover the same stuff in currently maintained and accepted ways.

 — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  01:33, 22 December 2017 (UTC); revised 18:06, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Comments on MOS:VG

• Support per nom. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk • contribs) 01:40, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
• Support - assuming there is no downside to this, which it doesn't appear to be. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 01:49, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
• Support no glaring problems like, no or must have infobox. ..or can't link to so and sI etc... Would like to see User:SMcCandlish trim this a bit.--Moxy (talk) 03:12, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

  It's worth doing it slowly and in stages, though.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  04:22, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

• Support I read through it and it seems good. Galobtter (pingó mió) 04:18, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
• Support I am in agreement, it makes sense to move it._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 11:50, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
• I have quibbles with parts of the page here and there. Some of it gets more into "what a video game article is (not)" and strays away from the style aspects, or touches a bit more on categorization aspects than style, (or... x-not-quite-MOSy-thing) but our MOS is not exactly a traditional MOS either. Broadly, support, and we can talk through the parts that might be better off in other places (or centralized, as I've discussed elsewhere with SMC). --Izno (talk) 12:38, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

  Most of the topical MoS pages do that. This page is one of the least problematic in that regard, and it's easily cleaned up, to the extent is needs it. More on that in the extended discussion section.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  18:06, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

• This is probably the most obvious exception to the way we usually think about WP:Local consensus... it is a “project” guideline that has input from a very large group of editors and is strongly supported by the entire community. Because it IS project related, and covers more than just style, it is not really appropriate to call it an MOS page. Yet because it IS so strongly supported, there is a desire to “promote” it out of being just a “project” guideline. Yet because it IS so strongly supported, there is a desire to “promote” it out of being just a “project” guideline. I would say leave it where it is... but think of it as having the same WEIGHT as an MOS page. Blueboar (talk) 14:52, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

  Replied in the extended discussion section.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  18:06, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

• Broad support as natural evolution/maturing from project- and scope-specific guideline to a project-wide one. Since we don't really have topic-based guidelines (yet), the MoS seems as good target as any following existing precedent. Individual issues with guideline can be resolved as needed. It seems broad, neutral, based on existing guidelines/policies, despite originating in a single project (a large one though). —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 19:36, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose, only because it does not yet seem clear how the VG project retains its "control" on this. We at the project clearly are trying to stay in the bounds of established MOS, the last thing we want to do is fork the existing MOS as if we are s pecial. That said, the content that goes beyond MOS like article guideline suggestions are things we as interested BY editors move quickly on that potentially would be bogged down by having this as a project wide MOS. O appreciate that the page is recognized as a good basis, but I am very concerned that trying to elevate project level guidelines to wp-wide ones loses some of the project's capabilities. --Masem (t) 08:30, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

  Not sure what to tell you other than a) if the goal is for a small cadre of editors to control the page, then it's not a guideline (though I don't think that really is the intent); and b) it's not been a problem for TV, movies, anime, comics, fiction/novels, popular music, classical music, etc., nor numerous sports, or country/ethnicity/language projects, nor various fields like mathematics, law, medicine, and so on. If there's just some nebulous concern along "those Others from MoS are going to tell us what to do" lines, that's actually a less likely outcome if this becomes part of MoS, since it's then part of the MoS gestalt instead of some page most of us probably thought of as an essay (to not care much about), or weren't even aware of.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  08:41, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose. I don't see the upside. The content doesn't warrant any increase in standing than what it currently has as a project advice page. And I say that as a major contributor... If these sorts of pages need title standardization, I'd sooner see them grouped as "topical advice" than "style guidelines". (not watching, please {{ping}}) czar 16:37, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
  • The upside is that the community backs it, not just the cache of editors hiding out on WT:VG. No questions ever elsewhere of "it doesn't say 'guideline' on it", of which we have had a few before. --Izno (talk) 18:49, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

    But last I checked, the page functions as topical advice, not as a guideline with firm expectations, e.g., WP:WAF. It's more like a codification of common sense, but its text is not delivered as gospel and editors are freer to disagree than they are with MoS guidelines. czar 02:03, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose -It functions exactly as it should now. If we start having issues like "Hey, that not an official MOS, so I'm not following it" I'd reconsider, but I experience this very little, if ever. We've worked very hard to make this, and it works. I don't want to risk breaking it by shoe-horning it into a different standardized form. Sergecross73 msg me 15:08, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Meaning what? No one has mentioned any standard form or a shoehorn.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  16:58, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
    • Well, it sounds like there's more to it than just renaming it something with MOS on the name, or you would have just done it and not had this discussion. Sergecross73 msg me 04:45, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

      Nothing more to it at all. As I said in the opening statement: "This probably could have been done via WP:RM but I like to be formalistic about adding pages to MoS proper, to avoid later disputes." Various pages have previously been added to MoS without discussion, with such moves later being reverted as undiscussed, and sometimes outright objected to (e.g. because the projpage is question is a terrible pile of WP:CREEP and WP:OWN – which this page isn't, though I detect a disturbing level of OWNishness in the oppose comments so far, enough that should this MoS merger fail, it's likely to result in another RfC to demote this back to a WP:PROJPAGE essay. There is no such thing as a WP guideline that is completely controlled by a tiny handful of wikiproject people. I.e., WP:VG is badly sabotaging its own interests here.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  22:22, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

      • Its nothing more than "If its not broke, don't fix it", so please assume good faith. "Sabotage" is a stupid word choice for choosing to retain something that functions as a well oiled machine too. Sergecross73 msg me 00:47, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

  • We have had at least one editor suppose that WP:VG/GL is "just" a project page simply because it has not gone through the WP:PROPOSAL process, and I have gotten a similar feeling from a few others as well, though nothing explicit. If it works--and it does--then we should put it to the community, as has been done for this discussion, and let the community decide if it actually works. I don't want to risk breaking it by shoe-horning it into a different standardized form. I think this gets to the comment ferret made, but I'll reply to him separately. --Izno (talk) 18:49, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
    • Well, it's hard to respond without you explaining what exactly you're talking about, but I've been pretty active with WP:VG since 2010-2011, and I can't think of any times where an actual consensus was affected by this. Some random grumbling? Sure. But nothing that actually affected things. Sergecross73 msg me 04:45, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Oh, and lastly: It would encourage users to engage with the page who are not typically video game writers, as well as allow us to refer to the page authoritatively (especially with newbies!) as the guidelines. (I'm thinking of another writer who went against the Layout expectations set out in WP:VG/GL.) --Izno (talk) 18:56, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
• Support - Our MOS is a resource for editors. As such, it is the obvious place to go when one wants to know this or that about Wikipedia's house style. Project pages exist more for content collaboration and, as such, are not nearly as obvious a location for style guidance. If style advice on a certain topic has widespread (not only project-wide, but site-wide) support, then not putting it in our MOS does a disservice to editors and, ultimately, readers. Primergrey (talk) 16:19, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose Per Blueboar, Masem and Serge. I have concerns about statements that it needs a few things removed or trimmed before it's truly suitable and "100% style". What will ultimately be removed? What is WP:VG's say on that? If the result is that our current subpage, "Article guidelines", moves to MOS, but we have to create a brand new "Article guidelines" to cover the things removed, we have split our guidance on VG articles and made it more difficult to point users to said guidance. Like Serge, I don't ever really see any challenges such as "That's just project advice so not following it". -- ferret (talk) 16:30, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

  My argument is that nothing substantive in it should be removed at all, because it's standard operating procedure for topical MoS pages to have summarized bits of naming, notability, and matters stuff in them, then referring to main pages on such matters for the details. The page in question is already doing this well, though it probably wouldn't hurt to summarize a little more and merge more, since VG already has both WP:NCVG and WP:NVG. What it actually needs work on is concision. One of several examples: "That said, it is still possible to use gaming jargon in an article. This could be of necessity if the game's concept deals closely and often with the jargon. The jargon would, however, have to be clearly explained (simple and clear sentences) before its first use in the article." This could be compressed by about 50%, retaining all the real meaning, and actually get the point across better and more memorably.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  16:58, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

  My comments in that direction have not been "we should remove obviously good sense entirely from Wikipedia without replacement elsewhere" but instead a) we should remove !rules that do not (obviously) jive with broader guidelines and policies (if there are any such--I've noted a few) and b) if there are matters not covering style in the document, I'd like to see those documented elsewhere as not-style issues. We do a disservice to our editors currently by not distinguishing style from content guidelines--across the board for topical matters, even, not just with respect to video games. As I said, I'd prefer to see it in a different form from today, but that's not a discussion that is make or break. (And clearly, I am but one editor.) --Izno (talk) 18:49, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

• Support—there are compelling reasons that matters of style and formatting throughout en.WP, let alone within these related wikiprojects, should be harmonised. WP's high-level policies reject the notion of ownership, and that seems to be what is fuelling some editors' objections. They should be disregarded. Tony (talk) 00:29, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

  If it were only relegated to issues of style and formatting, I would have no problem, since that part of the VG MOS follows global MOS. But the VG guideline s are more than MOS issues, particularly related to organization, appropriate content, and notability, which are to be taken as advice, not exacting standards. One speaks of ownership issues but in my mind it is more an issue which those MOS enforcers that "own" the MOS that will try to make unilateral decisions on our content advice, which MOS should not be covering. --Masem (t) 12:27, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

• Support – The VG style recommendations seem like they fit best under the MOS, and as Tony says need to be kept in harmony. I don't see a downside to putting this as part of MOS. Dicklyon (talk) 05:54, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
• Support – Given the length and extent of the advice at WP:VGG that applies to both style and content, a portion (if not most or all of it) would seem more appropriately placed in the MOS. The film project has MOS:FILM for example, which combines both content and style guidelines. Though it is listed there, it is primarily maintained by members of the film project with occasional help from non-members. That's how it should be, and VG project members shouldn't fear the change. Others listed at CAT:MOS show how commonplace this has become. I agree with the motivation behind the proposal; the additional oversight would be a good thing. If VG members feel that some items in WP:VGG don't belong in the MOS, simply retain said items within the WikiProject when there is consensus to do so. --GoneIn60 (talk) 18:47, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
• Support per nominator. Jc86035 (talk) 09:17, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
• Support: we should also try to move the other projects' style advice into the main MoS—it is often the case that editors try to bring in what is believed to be MoS-compliant style only to be told of another set of guidelines. –Sb2001 00:37, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Extended discussion of MOS:VG

• Question I know this may strike on the "ownership" point above but... What impact will this have on the project's ability to make changes based on discussions and consensus that occur at the project's talk page? WP:VG/DATE, WP:JFN, WP:VGSCOPE #6, and WP:VG/MIXED for example are relatively new or recently adjusted (within last two years), that arose from such discussions. -- ferret (talk) 02:41, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

  Yes, is like to know this too, before I support. Sergecross73 msg me 03:54, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

  I don't think there'd be any real effect, judging from the other media-topical projects and associated MoS pages. WP:VG is unusually good about not WP:POLICYFORKing this page from broader guidelines, anyway – among the main reasons I think it's MoS-ready. I would suggest to just move discussions about the MOS:VG from WT:VG to WT:MOSVG. When that doesn't happen, a pointer on the latter to a discussion on the former should be good enough; I think people just want to see that it was discussed somewhere. It'll probably be mostly the same project people most of the time (low potential for dispute between the pages), but it's helpful if some unconnected WP:FRS respondents get involved – a stronger, broader consensus (WP:CONLEVEL). Can have good synergistic effects; e.g., the recent overhaul of MOS:FILM on "Production" sections can be generalized, with minimal retooling, to MOS:FICTION, and WP:SUMMARY-treated as essentially the same key points in MOS:TV, MOS:COMICS, MOS:VG, etc., and was intended to do that from the start. Wouldn't've happened if it was just some wikiproject page that none of the MoS regulars were watching.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  04:22, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

  That the VG/GL page has had discussions about content in it not on its page has actually concerned me for a bit. When it is obvious the matter that comes up at WT:VG is about the guidelines page, it should be moved to the talk page of the guide page. --Izno (talk) 12:38, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

  Sure; I just doubt anyone will flip out if there's an occasional exception, just as they don't when it happens with the other media-topical MoS pages and the associated wikiprojects.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  18:06, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

  I find it makes it harder to track when, where, and why changes are made to the PAG page. This one in particular has seen me needing to go Back And Forth between two separate sets of archived pages. --Izno (talk) 18:25, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

• A note: Should this have an RFC tag? --Izno (talk) 12:38, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

  We could always open an RfC to find out. EEng 13:47, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

  RFC yourself out the door. --Izno (talk) 15:03, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

  There izno need to get defensive. EEng 16:55, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

  Seemed superfluous for a question that could have been resolved at WP:RM, and has already been advertised to the relevant projects and to VPPOL and VPPRO. But I put an RfC tag on it just now.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  18:06, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

  I don't mind whether it's an RFC tag or an RM tag--those both have a different set of people even than those who watch VPP or VPPR. However, WP:PROPOSAL has a specific idea in mind when proposing an addition to the PAGs. --Izno (talk) 18:25, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

• Re Izno's initial comment, on not-strictly-style material: It's better for a topical MoS page to have a tight WP:SUMMARY-style segment on topical notability or naming conventions than to fork off an entire new "WP:NTOPIC" or "WP:NCTOPIC" for that if it'll say essentially the same thing in five paragraphs, instead of two sentences with cross-references to more general WP:P&G pages. It's also perfectly legit to put a notability or naming convention or whatever guideline tag on a section; we do this in various topical guidelines, and at WP:SAL, to avoid pointless profusion of short, topical pages.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  18:06, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

  I broadly agree with this comment (though, I note both WP:NCVG and WP:NVG :). My concern is more toward the "what is a video game-related article" side, as well as some stuff about sourcing that has elsewhere it could go (and some stuff on the current WP:VG/S that could go elsewhere also). --Izno (talk) 18:30, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

  A bit further: WP:NOT does a NOT-great job at defining what Wikipedia is, for which we are probably seeing one of effects here. There is a lot of guidance on how to write a good article and not simply how to make your article have a conformant style. --Izno (talk) 18:32, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

  Yeah, there is cleanup to do. WP:COMICS is perhaps a better example (or, rather, a clearer example of what's not better). The MOS:COMICS page has extensive material on naming conventions yet there's also a separate WP:NCCOMICS page, and last I looked at them they weren't even in agreement. It would be much better to merge and reconcile that NC material to the NC page for it, and at the MOS page leave behind either no NC material at all, or just a few-main-points synopsis with a {{Main}} pointing to the NC page. WP:VG already has this under much better control. That said, "how to write a good article on X" is a common feature of many of the better topical MoS pages; it may be the most natural way to do that, since a great article on medieval monarchs isn't going to look much like a great article on viruses or on the concept Chicano. MoS, though, does have it's MOS:WBA general, non-topical supplement page (why that's at WP:Writing better articles without "Manual of Style/" in it is some historico-organizational mystery, and another thing to add to the no-deadline cleanup list, especially since it's explicitly self-described as an MoS supplement page. Yesterday I found a page like that described as a MOS:ACCESS supplement and moved it to be under WP:Manual of Style/Accessibility/ along with the rest of them).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  07:38, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

• Re Blueboar's initial comment, on WP:CONLEVEL: The level of support is what we're actually testing here, and there's no such thing as a {{Guideline}}-claimant that has the same weight as a wikiproject page as it would have it it were not one. This is not the only topical page to have had {{Guideline}} on it for years without a proposal, and they should not all retain it; it was removed in favor of an essay tag on several of them of them recently after discussions of their level of site-wide acceptance ([1] among others). Things like WP:MEDRS are not under WP:WikiProject Medicine (despite mostly being developed by the same people) for a reason: it's like keeping the article you've written as a draft in your userspace indefinitely; at some point it's ready to face the world, or it's old trash we don't need. I think MOS:VG is ready.

  Would you have us just move all topical MoS pages back to wikiprojects (and consequently cost them a lot of acceptance)? WP:PROJPAGEs is how they originated, same as in this case. So, no, this is not an exception to how we normally do things, it's just not been done in a while, because most topical style pages under wikiprojects have either been moved into the real MoS years ago, or tagged {{Historical}}, {{Essay}}, or {{Rejected}}. Most such page ideas get strongly rejected (see, e.g. [2] and [3] recently) or just ignored (even for massive projects like WP:MILHIST, e.g. here), even when the output of multiple RfCs [4], even when non-topical but of narrow editorial concern here (see also about 95% of what happens at WP:VPPRO). There's also the repeated failure [5][6] to get consensus for the idea that topical subject-specific notability guidelines (SNGs) can trump the WP:GNG. The continual gist of all this: the community takes a dim view of attempts by a topical group of editors to control guidelines; it even inspires efforts to demote them to essays, and these sometimes succeed [7],[8]. We have a bot that reports "[pagename] has been added to the MoS" in posts to WT:MOS, and most such additions are immediately reverted back to WP:PROJPAGE essays or individuals' d[r]aft proposal essays.
   — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  18:06, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

my only point (if there is one) is that not all project guidelines are equal... many are indeed low on the consensus scale... but some enjoy broad consensus. This is one of them. What I reject is the idea that we need to in some way “promote” it to MOS status to make it more “official”. Just accept that it enjoys broad consensus. Blueboar (talk) 00:02, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Sure. Whether the material and the editorial pool that put that page together have earned it the right to be taken seriously isn't in question here; the fact that it should be is why this is proposed for adoption into the site-wide style guidelines. Under a wikiproject name, the "just accept its consensus" ideal is less likely to happen for any particular editor who encounters it. It's also organizationally problematic; if people don't actually encounter it in the MoS pages, they're less likely to encounter it at all, plus more likely to assume there's no coverage of the topic; time is limited, and they're not going to go trawling around in wikiproject pages in hopes of finding it. The consistency and consolidation are useful both for finding the material and keeping it in synch.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  07:18, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

If you think it could be improved, improve it. No need to change it to MOS. Blueboar (talk) 17:08, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

if people don't actually encounter it in the MoS pages, they're less likely to encounter it at all, plus more likely to assume there's no coverage of the topic; time is limited, and they're not going to go trawling around in wikiproject pages in hopes of finding it. Yup yup yup. If it isn't in the style box, I'd assume there isn't a broadly accepted guideline. Also being there affirms that it has broad consensus to someone who doesn't know much about it. Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:02, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

• Two major concerns I have. First we have to acknowledge that WP has so called MOS warriors, that fight a lot about exact adherance towards MOS standards. Second, the standards that affect the overall WP like about punctuation, those are fine to make sure are consistent. But much of the current vg guidelines is advice, not meant to be read as standards, or what other MOS feed into our guidelines but not creating new MOS. This would be like the issue of infoboxes on BIO articles, which resulted in case that says this can't be forced. Making the vg guidelines a MOS level would trigger those that are stickers to MOS adherence override local consensus on, say, article content order, where that local consensus had previously determined the non MOS order wickedness for that article. It is why we give these as project level advice, not absolutes that MOS are often read as. I know there are other MOS from other projects that are in the MOS but I have also the MOS stickers thy to enforce those as if they were policy. --Masem (t) 19:16, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

• As SMC has posted to several other MOS project pages looking for the idea of unified media MOS, this is a bad idea. The different forms of media have different ways of how they are treated in the relevant media. The structure used to cover a film differs greatly from that of a musical album, from a TV series, or a video game. Trying to unify these is really a bad idea, coupled with those that want to enforce MOS with a degree of strictness, is a recipe for orobkems. Segregate the true MOS elements out from these, but leave elements like struxture, cintent, etc up to each project. --Masem (t) 23:59, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

My mother has a recipe for orobkems that's just to die for. The secret is to add just a hint of mishegas along with the kabuki. Struxture and cintent give me heartburn. EEng 00:18, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

• Question... is there anything in the VG guideline’s style section that is not ALREADY in the main MOS? Blueboar (talk) 13:18, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
  • As best as I am aware (eg one of the VG MOS's authors), no. That style/formatting stuff can be taken as "Here is what are applicable aspects of the site-wide MOS that affect VG project articles", and does not attempt to introduce anything new. The structure/content/notability stuff is based on what the core content policies look for (NOT, V, etc.) but where those policies are not rigid, we going into more depth on advice there. --Masem (t) 15:21, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
    • Then moving it is pointless... the style section of the VG guideline is simply a reiteration of already established MOS guidance. Blueboar (talk) 15:51, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
      • That I agree with. I also express concern that we have wikiproject guidelines like film, music, etc. pushed into MOS when, to the best of my understanding, those were similarly written to reiterate/summate how the appropriate style and formatting MOS apply to articles in those fields. They are not creating a new style/formatting MOS. (Contrast this to something like WP:MEDMOS, MOS that applies to medical topics that cross many topic fields and possible wikiprojects. I do think that having links to this project-level content guidelines in one easy-to-find place helpful but they should not be considered a part of MOS but subservient to MOS, and thus, where there is advice that is outside the standard format and style MOS, should not be enforced as some editors typically seek to bring articles into compliance with the MOS. --Masem (t) 17:06, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Having a subcategory in the MOS that concentrates on a specific topic area such as film or video games allows for tailored examples (especially those that have been a heated subject of debate at one time) to add additional clarification that may not have been as clear otherwise when reading the general MOS. Complementing the MOS in this fashion is helpful and not unnecessarily redundant. I imagine it's the same reason why a style section exists at WP:VGG. If there was no point in moving it on the basis that it reiterates MOS guidance, then there's no point in having the section to begin with. Just provide a link to the MOS. The logic in the argument goes both ways. --GoneIn60 (talk) 19:58, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

The problem is that these MOS sections in the wikiproject guidelines are not new MOS (that I'm aware of, and definitely the case for VG), they are a summary of the most common standard MOS points that can come up while writing articles in topic space to be most aware of, a type of FAQ. Given how complex our MOS are, this is completely reasonable for any wikiproject to offer. It seems much better to have a completely different category of "content guidelines" that sit outside of the site-wide MOS. Only a few would apply across a large number of articles, the rest are content guidelines with many reasonable exceptions that apply to narrow topic areas, including those set by Wikiprojects. I will note these cannot be managed in isolation of site-wide consensus (eg a wikiproject cannot override core notability principles) but it is still important that they are developed by editors with the most interest and involvement in those articles. --Masem (t) 14:28, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

I can understand and appreciate that viewpoint. Keeping content advice housed under the WikiProject makes sense. Regarding style guidance being just a summary, it's worth mentioning that the same holds true for MOS:FILM and other similar subcategories in the MOS. These pages are not new MOS either. The debate is whether or not that "FAQ" should be housed in a more general Wikipedia namespace as opposed to the project's. The trend appears to favor the latter, and giving it more visibility may help keep it in check; VG editors maintaining it could unknowingly contradict the MOS. I'm not implying that has happened or will happen, but it seems reasonable to want to move it on that basis. Doing so may help avoid creating a recipe for future conflict with the MOS, whether intentional or not. The more oversight you have, the less likely that will happen. There's also precedence to support this. MOS:FILM is well-maintained by those closely affiliated with the project, with the added bonus that non-film members are more likely to weigh in on talk page discussions. Moving it wouldn't damage the project's ability to maintain it. I don't feel too strongly about it either way, but it's worth having the discussion for sure. --GoneIn60 (talk) 20:26, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

RfC on {{R from/to ...}} redirect categorization of "MOS:" shortcuts

Please see: Wikipedia talk:Categorizing redirects#Request for comments on MoS shortcut redirect categorization.
 — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  08:30, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Please direct some attention to this, in particular the idea of tagging all the MoS guidelines, except WP:Manual of Style itself, with {{R to subpage}}, which has potentially non-trivial consequences [9].  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  11:11, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

• Honestly I don't understand the issue, but I'll be happy to support whatever you come up with, because you're usually right on stuff like that. EEng 18:43, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

People we quote and paraphrase

In many articles, for example The Bible and violence, we name some/a lot of scholars in the text. This is sometimes done "Anderson says" [10], sometimes "Philosopher, professor and author Eleonore Stump says" and anything in between. Is there any WP-guidance on what is "best", or is it all local consensus?

My personal preference is towards the latter. As a reader, I want some in-text info on who this is and why I´m listening to them, even if there´s a wikilink (though I´m less annoyed if there´s a wikilink). It may make the text more clunky and less scholarly, but still. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:46, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

What's all this I hear about violins in the Bible? EEng 13:37, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

I don´t know about violins, but there´s a lot of cattle in the Bible so they might need more cowbell. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:04, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

A lot of cattle. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:54, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

...that is a lot, yes. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:13, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Just "philosopher Eleonore Stump" (or "philosophy professor Eleonore Stump" if there's some need to distinguish Stump from one of "the" philosophers like Nietzsche or Wittgenstein) is sufficient. Total lack of context is wrong for this medium/audience; it mostly happens in science articles, when people used to galloping attribution of the form "Jackson 2013 demonstrated that the blasting of vent doors by flux capacitor cycling is 7% less efficient" in their professional writing, with no reference at anywhere to who this is except in a citation. (It's better that they include that much than nothing, since it's still citing a source, but it's a crappy way to do it in an encyclopedia unless we've already recently cited Jackson, by full name, and Jackson(s) has/have more than one work being cited in our article).

But "philosopher, professor and author Eleonore Stump" is pointlessly redundant. There are virtually no professional philosophers who are not academics (those that are are better known as authors than philosophers), being a professor isn't special or contextually important anyway (even being the Alfred B. Ceesdale Professor of Philosophical Inquiry, or some other fancy-named endowment position, isn't important for our purposes, except in a bio on that person), all academics "publish or perish", so we would not be quoting this person if not an author of at least a bunch of peer-reviewed papers (there'd be no way for us to ascertain their in-field reliability as a source if they had no publication history).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  16:17, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

There are virtually no professional philosophers who are not academics – what about the many professional philosophers working in private industry? EEng 22:51, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

They're professional something-elses. I don't know of a company with "philosopher" or "VP of philosophy" in its org chart anywhere. That is, if they're notable, they'll be notable for something way more specific – as CEOs, as human–computer interface design experts, as university management consultants, or whatever the case may be. (Or maybe you're being funny. I can't tell when I've just woken up.)  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  16:49, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

I do know of a former company that hired professional philosophers. (More specifically ontologists. My wife worked there, as a programmer not as a philosopher.) It lasted surprisingly long before folding. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:50, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

A month? EEng 01:58, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Good guess, but I think it was around 16 years. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:09, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

So it would seem. EEng 01:37, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Me too. Full name on first use seems respectful to the reader and the person being mentioned. The, especially older, scientific standard of "Jackson 1913 said ..." feels like there's a club that's all on a last name only basis with each other, and if you aren't well known enough to be known only by last name, then you don't count. It's especially a mess with the last name is "Li" or "Smith".  SchreiberBike | ⌨  17:49, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Even aside from that psychology, the context-free "Jackson 1913"-on-first-use style – and similar ones like "Jackson (1913)", or a "(Jackson 1913)" at the end of the statement – have been favored in journals to save space, but WP isn't paper; we favor clarity over compression. The academic journal reader may already know which Jackson is intended, and may well have already read what's being cited, while they don't care much until they decide to dig into the citations in earnest; they're more apt to care most about the overall theoretical and methodological framework of the piece they're reading, which is by a specific author or team. Our readers (when they care about citations) tend to care on a point-by-point basis (our articles are palimpsests stirred together by a global assortment of geniuses, crackpots, and everyone in between, sometimes citing great stuff, sometimes poor stuff, and sometimes nothing), and they aren't likely to know any author from another.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  16:49, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

You might be interested in reading the article False title.  – Corinne (talk) 00:31, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

"False title" is pure BS predicated on the false logic that anything that precedes a name is a "title". I was waiting for someone to link to this—I'm surprised it took more than three or four comments. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 01:15, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Ever notice how the "false title" snobs are always the same people freaking out about infoboxes? But don't tar Corinne with the same brush – no doubt she was merely edifying her fellow editors. EEng 01:34, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Well, our article on it seems well sourced enough. This is a "teach the controversy" matter. It's clear that some people "out there" are writing about (and objecting to) that style of writing, and have been for around a century. It's good that we have an article on it. The prescriptivism latent in it, however, isn't something MoS should adopt or editors here should try to enforce against. It's normal English these days when writing in tight prose. E.g., I would happily use it in a lead section when describing a peripheral figure, but use the "the" form in the longer article, unless it resulted in some kind of awkwardness. I recall a discussion about two years ago (in article talk) about describing someone as married "to the painter John Doe" (whatever his name was) rather than "to painter John Doe", with the conclusion being that the former was awkward implying, "to the painter John Doe" like he was extra-special or something. So, depends on context. A good solution is to provide more of it (e.g. "to John Doe, a painter from Saskatoon").  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  05:32, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

My sense is that the professional encyclopedic tone is "the American philosopher Eleonore Stump..." in the first instance, followed by "Stump" if she needs to be referenced again. If appropriate, something like "and Biblical scholar" could be inserted before her name, as well, in the first instance. I personally dislike the "Stump (2016)" thing in the flow of prose and feel that such should be consigned to footnotes, but I realize it's still common in certain fields.  White Whirlwind  咨  10:00, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Agree with "followed by" of course, but why bother with nationality in general? There may be places where it matters, but in general/here? IMO it´d be more relevant to note, in a religous context, if they are a professor from say Pensacola Christian College. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:47, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Agreed with both of you in this case– i.e., yes to WW's general approach to introducing Stump, but also yes to GGS's quibble about nationality, unless there's a particular contextual need for it; there might be in, e.g., an article on Canadian politics and an American commentator on it.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  05:32, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Inline quotations accompanied by inline attribution

I often see at Wikipedia that quotes are provided inline without any inline attribution, which is really bad IMHO unless the speaker is clear from the context. Am I correct that this MOS merely requires attribution, rather than inline attribution? If so, I support editing the MOS to require not just attribution but inline attribution, unless the context makes it obvious. Often the attribution isn’t even explicit in the footnote, and so you have to click on a link in the footnote to figure out who made the quoted statement. I don’t think readers should have to go look at a footnote at all, because the body of the Wikipedia article should only include quotes with inline attribution unless the attribution is otherwise obvious. Here’s an example, which I now promise to never edit since I’m seeking a policy change that would affect it. Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:51, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

MOS:QUOTE says you should use in-line attribution to name the speaker of a quote, unless you're talking about a statement made by the person/entity whom is the topic of the article. WP:WHYCITE says any quote or close-paraphrase should have an immediate citation to that source at the point the quote is used. In the diff example, that does need to be attributed as I cannot tell from context who said it. --Masem (t) 19:06, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks User:Masem, can you please quote the part of MOS:QUOTE? Thanks. Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:46, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

It's the Attribution section "The author of a quote of a full sentence or more should be named; this is done in the main text and not in a footnote. However, attribution is unnecessary with quotations that are clearly from the person discussed in the article or section" --Masem (t) 20:04, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Hmm, that wouldn’t seem to apply to the example I gave because it’s not a full sentence. Do you know why we require it to be a full sentence or more? Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:40, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Would anyone object if I change this MOS to say: "The author of a quote of a full sentence or more should be named unless their identity is already obvious in context; this is done in the main text and not in a footnote. However, attribution is unnecessary with quotations that are clearly from the person discussed in the article or section"? Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:47, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

I suspect the present text might have been intended as a bright line to take account of things like

• "She is widely described as 'the Leader of the Free World'." [with a footnote referring to several articles]
• "She met the Dalai Lama for 'private and informal talks'." [with a footnote referring to a press release]
• "She is sometimes referred to as 'the decider'." [with no attribution for the inner quotation]

--Boson (talk) 23:47, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Boson, good examples. I think we can take account of stuff like that by saying, "The author of a quote of a full sentence or more should be named unless their identity is already obvious in context, or the quote is not attributable to any particular named author; this is done in the main text and not in a footnote. However, attribution is unnecessary with quotations that are clearly from the person discussed in the article or section"? Does that take care of your examples? Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:41, 30 December 2017 (UTC)Edited01:46, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Wait... the author should be named unless scare quotes are being used? And when do we use scare quotes, except when they occur inside a larger quote? I'm... confused. EEng 00:53, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, I have just removed the bit about scare quotes, it’s unnecessary. Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:46, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

OK, so here's the proposal:

The author of a quote of a full sentence or more should be named unless their identity is already obvious in context, or the quote is not attributable to any particular named author; this is done in the main text and not in a footnote. However, attribution is unnecessary with quotations that are clearly from the person discussed in the article or section

Any comments, objections, snide remarks, glowing praise? Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:50, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

The "not attributable to a named author" bit isn't going to work. Everything we quote is attributable (unless it's quoted in a source we attribute that doesn't attribute who it's quoting, in which case it would be dubious to include it without some special context for it). It's just that sometimes it's not important to attribute a quote inline, usually when it's a string of descriptive material from multiple, similar sources. E.g. 'The film was praised by critics as "edgy and creative"^[1], "darkly humorous while seriously thought-provoking"[2], and "the best thing Jackson has done since My Life with the Weasels",^[3] though also reviewed less favorably for "its self-consciously shaky camera work"^[4] and "overuse of pop music, making some scenes feel more like music videos".^[5]' No one cares which non-notable but reputably published reviewer said what, unless they're digging into the citations.

There needs to be a better way to get at "attribute the quote when it needs to be attributed", basically. What we don't want to see is "She is 'gunning for the governorship in 2020, on a platform that amounts to center-left backlash against ignorant populism'.^[1]" without this opinionated encapsulation being attributed, right there in the sentence, to someone whose opinion our readers might GaF about.
 — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  05:17, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Well, if the source is one particular author, then that author always needs to be named inline, right? So:

The author of a quote of a full sentence or more should be named, and for a shorter quote that is sourced to only one author or source we also should provide that name; this is done in the main text and not in a footnote. However, attribution is unnecessary with quotations that are clearly from the person discussed in the article or section

Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:35, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

I don't think that quite works for quoted short phrases that should be attributed, but where the decision whether this should be in a footnote or in the main text is left to editorial judgement (e.g. theatre critics, press officers, reporters). --Boson (talk) 13:48, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

One issue in one of Boson's examples: "She met the Dalai Lama for 'private and informal talks'." might need attribution if the context is related to criticism of this hypothetical person. Say this person is a member of Free Tibet or a similar organization but known to support militaristic action against China or the like, so that any time she travels to Tibet, her critics suggest she's plotting some type of violent action (again, hypothetical case here). If that is the context where that phrase is used, that needs inline attribution , like "She met the Dalai Lama for 'private and informal talks', according to her press agency." or something like that to avoid . On the other hand, if we're talking a non-controversial person, like a country's ambassador, the lack of attribution is probably okay, though even there, the need to quote that may be unnecessary.

A lot of this comes down to context. Editors should step back, consider the context, and make sure that the phrase being quoted makes it clear who the speaker(s) may be or immediate sources where they can be found if there are far too many to list, and avoid having the text within the quote appear as controversial statements spoken in Wikipedia's own voice (hence the need for attribution to id the speaker). But it still is all about context; I don't think it is very easy to make exacting rules here, but instead remind editors what the reason for inline attribution is, and methods of how to include it when needed. --Masem (t) 14:06, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Okay well, User:Boson and User:Masem, here is my last attempt:

The author of a quote of a full sentence or more should be named, and for a shorter quote that is sourced to only one author or source we also should seriously consider providing that name; this is normally done in the main text and not in a footnote. However, attribution is unnecessary with quotations that are clearly from the person discussed in the article or section

That’s more flexible. Personally, I don’t see why it’s not better to name theatre critics inline; likewise for press officers and reporters, the name of their organization (i.e. the name of the source if not the person) ought to be provided inline, IMHO. But if you disagree with this newest proposal, please suggest an alternative. Thanks and Happy New Year. Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:46, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

• I appreciate you're trying to improve the guideline, but we're certainly not going to say anything like we also should seriously consider; that can be fixed of course. My major worry, though, is that we need to address the points SM made: there are times when it really is appropriate to quote material which is either uncontroversial (but expresses a point better than any our paraphrase would) or, even if potentially "opinion", is just one of many similar such opinions whose authors need not be specifically called out. In these cases there's no need for in-text attribution, and the guideline as it is doesn't allow for these cases. That's what needs to be fixed. EEng 01:37, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

User:EEng#s, I find 15 (fifteen) occurrences of the word “consider” already in this guideline, so it wouldn’t be the first such instance. Anyway, if the quote marks in SM’s example were removed it would still not be in wikivoice, so maybe that’s the distinction we need to make. If a sentence uses a quotation and would be in wikivoice without the quote marks, then a source needs to be named. I don't think it's wise for this guideline to suggest that no inline attribution is needed for quotations that are less than a sentence. Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:19, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Consider, yes – we should seriously consider, no; but like I said that can be probably be fixed. I don't know what you mean by "would [would not] still be in wikivoice". EEng 02:32, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

User:EEng#s, if we remove the inner quote marks from SM’s example, it becomes this: “The film was praised by critics as edgy and creative[1], darkly humorous while seriously thought-provoking[2], and the best thing Jackson has done since My Life with the Weasels,[3] though also reviewed less favorably for its self-consciously shaky camera work.” That is not in wikivoice so I agree no inline attribution is needed (with or without quote marks). But consider this example: “The film was ‘edgy and creative’[1], and ‘darkly humorous’[2], and also ‘the best thing Jackson has done’.[3]” That’s in wikivoice, if the quote marks are removed, so it needs inline attribution of some sort (with or without the inner quote marks). Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:44, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

That's a distinction without a difference. The inner quotes make it clear that it's not wikipedia saying this, but someone else; rewritten slightly as

The film was reviewed as ‘edgy and creative’[1], ‘darkly humorous’[2], and ‘the best thing Jackson has done’.[3]

-- there's nothing wrong with it. Or maybe I'm misunderstanding what you're saying. Please give exact examples of article text, enclosed in the {{tq}} template and set off on their own lines with :, so there's no confusion about the function of the various quote marks. In the meantime, you'll find numerous examples of appropriate use of unattributed quotations in Sacred Cod and Widener Library. EEng 03:10, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

SM said, “There needs to be a better way to get at ‘attribute the quote when it needs to be attributed’”? So there’s no way to do that more comprehensively than this guideline’s present statement about quotes longer than a sentence? Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:18, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

I now have no idea what you're talking about? EEng 03:20, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

User:EEng#s, do you have an idea what SM was saying when he wrote, “There needs to be a better way to get at ‘attribute the quote when it needs to be attributed’”? I think there needs to be a better way than how this guideline does it now. The present guideline only refers to inline attribution of quotes over a sentence in length, whereas shorter quotes often need it too. Are you saying there’s no way we can edit this guideline to address quotes shorter than a sentence? Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:25, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure exactly what he meant there; I'm talking about his prior paragraph. The sentence-length cutoff is obviously arbitrary and shouldn't be there, but as I've tried to show (and, again, I point you to the two articles I linked) it already overprescribes where in-text attribution is needed. EEng 03:30, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Please take a crack at scaling back the overprescription. If you do so, then maybe you will have come up with a way to address attribution of quotes of any length. Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:34, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Against my better judgment, I'll try

Here's the old:

The author of a quote of a full sentence or more should be named; this is done in the main text and not in a footnote. However, attribution is unnecessary with quotations that are clearly from the person discussed in the article or section.

I've scrapped the inexplicable "full sentence" criterion. And the "clearly from the person" criterion. In fact, I scrapped the whole thing and just made it refer to NPOV's attribution requirement, which was a pretty clever thing to do, even if I do say so myself. Here we go:

As with all article content, the reader must be able to determine the source of any quotation, at the very least via a footnote. But the source should be additionally attributed in article text if, were it recast as paraphrase, it would need to be attributed per WP:Neutral_point_of_view#Attributing_and_specifying_biased_statements.

I'll point out right now that this is in conflict with weaker than WP:Citing_sources#In-text_attribution, which (in my opinion) greatly overprescribes what should be in-text attributed – it says all direct speech, indirect speech, or close paraphrasing "should" be in-text attributed, and that's clearly wrong. (At least it doesn't say "must" be in-text attributed.) EEng 06:12, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

• Support. Looks like a big improvement to my eye. And I don’t think it contradicts any other guideline or policy, because it doesn’t say that “the source should be additionally attributed in article text ONLY if, were it recast as paraphrase, it would need to be attributed....” Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:33, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Good point. I've modified my post just above. EEng 18:47, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Doesn’t anyone want to disagree with me? Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:18, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Negative. EEng 00:30, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

No disagreement with what you are trying to do here, but I have a few quick copy-edit ideas for you:

1) "As with all content" is not necessary (it's implied).

2) "if, were it recast as paraphrase, it would need to be" isn't quite grammatically correct. The second "it" can be removed, or moved before the word "were".

3) Could we say "were it to be paraphrased" instead of "were it recast as paraphrase"?

4) How about "it requires attribution" instead of "would need to be attributed"?

Warren -talk- 00:32, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

I support Warren's proposed amendment (especially No 2—it was a little clunky to my eyes). –Sb2001 00:44, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose. The length of the material is not the issue, it's whether it's clear who's speaking/writing in the context and whether it's something that actually needs individual attribution. I've covered this in detail above. PS: I agree with Warren's copyedits, but it's putting a suit on a scarecrow and expecting it to go to a business meeting.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  05:10, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

  Thanks... I think?? 😁 Warren -talk- 05:28, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

• Here's a new version taking Warren's points into account:

The reader must be able to determine the source of any quotation, at the very least via a footnote. But the source should be additionally attributed in article text if a paraphrase of it would require attribution under WP:Neutral_point_of_view#Attributing_and_specifying_biased_statements.

SM, I can't understand you. If you agree the length doesn't matter, then surely you agree something needs to change in the guideline. Can you suggest new text of your own? EEng 05:35, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

SM's example was this: “The film was praised by critics as ‘edgy and creative’[1], ‘darkly humorous while seriously thought-provoking,[2] and ‘the best thing Jackson has done since My Life with the Weasels’,[3] though also reviewed less favorably for ‘its self-consciously shaky camera work’[4] and ‘overuse of pop music, making some scenes feel more like music videos’.[5]” Recast as paraphrase it would be something like, “The film was praised by critics for its creativity and edginess,[1] as well as thought-provoking dark humor,[2] surpassing anything Jackson has done since My Life with the Weasels,[3] though the film was also panned by reviewers who complained about jittery and self-conscious camera work,[4] along with excessive pop music.[5]” So now we go to WP:Neutral_point_of_view#Attributing_and_specifying_biased_statements to examine whether the paraphrase includes any biased statement. I don’t think it does, because it’s completely factual. So, no in-text attribution would be required in the original version before we paraphrased it. Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:37, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

No, there's no difference in "bias" between "The film was praised as 'edgy and creative'" and "The film was praised for its edginess and creativity". That a film was as "praised as 'edgy and creative'" is as precisely as much a "statement of fact" as its being "praised for its edginess and creativity"—both wordings require attribution, for the exact same reasons. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 05:48, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

They both require attribution via footnotes, but neither requires additional attribution by name in article text. Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:52, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) If there's no in-text attribution, there's no attribution, and the quote lacks sufficient context for the reader to evaluate it. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 06:07, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Per policy, attribution can be other than in-text: ”Attribute all quotations and any material whose verifiability is challenged or likely to be challenged to a reliable, published source using an inline citation.” Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:27, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

You've (a) ignored the point, and (b) disregarded WP:INTEXT. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 07:03, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I did not correctly understand you. Regarding WP:INTEXT, I don't know whether you agree or disagree with the comment above that it "greatly overprescribes what should be in-text attributed". You say I've disregarded WP:INTEXT but I don't know what part of WP:INTEXT you're referring to. Anythingyouwant (talk) 07:14, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

It might help understanding your position if you gave us some clue as to why you think attribution should not be given in-text. As a reader, I put less trust in text that does not give proper in-text attribution. It feels almost manipulative, rather than strictly informative. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 09:26, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

No one's saying there should never be in-text attribution, just that there are times it's required and times it's best omitted. There are many examples at Sacred Cod and Widener Library. EEng 09:32, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

I can't imagine why anyone would think the attributions in those articles are "best omitted". Why are "indignant" and "scores" even quoted in the first place? What is the point of an unattributed "painted to the life"? If it's only meant to mean it's realistic—why not just say so? Please explain? I honestly don't get this at all. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 09:58, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

"Scores" and "indignant" are quoted to put some distance between WP's voice and the New York Times' slightly facetious tone; to pass on as straight fact the idea that police personnel were individually indignant, or that literally scores of leads were followed, would be to misrepresent the source. "Painted to the life" is, as you say, a way of saying "realistically painted", but a way that engages the reader instead of simply reciting a cold fact; in particular it prepares the reader for the style in which most commentary on the subject, quoted later in the article, is written. But whether or not this particular quotation should be used directly, or paraphrased as "realistically painted", isn't important here. What's important is that if it's quoted, it doesn't need in-text attribution because if it was paraphrased as "realistically painted" that wouldn't need in-text attribution either. EEng 10:28, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Reading this response made me go crosseyed. A facetious tone is the last thing we need in a Wikipedia article, and your last sentence is a non sequitur. Those quotes draw attention to themselves by the act of quoting—that alone requires in-text attribution to make sense of why they are being quoted. This is an extraordiarily poor example of how quotation would be "appropriate", let alone non-attribution. These are encyclopaedia articles, not articles in the Lifestyle section of the local newspaper. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 22:30, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

The article doesn't take a facetious tone; as I said it merely passes on the sources' words so readers can make of them what they will. As for the rest, a friend was kind enough once to pass on Teresa Nielsen Hayden's evaluation of the article; she called it Wikipedia as art, deft, beautiful, possibly even perfect (after following the link, hover over the words Sacred Cod at lower left). Perhaps you take refuge in the idea that articles are supposed to be grey and lifeless, but some of us aim higher.

Anyway, none of this has anything to do with the question at hand. Do you have any comment on the proposed text? As you say, a given statement either requires in-text attribution, or doesn't, whether it's a paraphrase or a quote – and that's exactly what my proposed text says. EEng 03:50, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Remember I said I was doing this against my better judgment. At least as between Anythingyouwant and C.T., the disagreement seems to be on what the outcome of applying WP:Neutral_point_of_view#Attributing_and_specifying_biased_statements would be, not whether WP:Neutral_point_of_view#Attributing_and_specifying_biased_statements is the right standard. I'd still like to hear any alternative text from S.M., if he can. EEng 05:57, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

I don't have strong feelings about this one way or the other, but I flipped through several featured articles that have reviews or critical analysis (The Concert in Central Park, The Autobiography of Malcolm X, Z. Marcas, Ultima Underworld: The Stygian Abyss) and they all consistently identify the source of a quote, in the article text itself: The Swedish Datormagazin considered the game to be "in a class by itself".[29] In Germany, Power Play praised its "technical perfection" and "excellent" story,[31] while Play Time lauded its graphical and aural presentation, and awarded it Game of the Month.[15] .... This is pretty high-quality construction and seems to neatly take care of bias issues, but I also appreciate that getting there is quite a lot of work. Warren -talk- 06:17, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

We're getting bogged down debating individual examples instead of focusing on what the right standard is. Is, or is not, WP:Neutral_point_of_view#Attributing_and_specifying_biased_statements the right standard for in-text attribution of quotations (whether there's disagreement on how to apply it in the particular examples above)? S.M., help!!!! EEng 06:35, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Placement of ref tags for parentheticals

Long-standing text

Exceptions: Ref tags are placed before dashes, not after. Where a footnote applies only to material within parentheses, the ref tags belong just before the closing parenthesis.

Someone removed the second sentence; I restored it, and it was removed again.

My rationale

This is long-standing practice. There's a huge difference between:

1. Claim (caveat<ref 1 />).
2. Claim (caveat).<ref 1 />
3. Claim (caveat<ref 1 />).<ref 2 />

In the first, the claim isn't even sourced, only the caveat is. In the second, the claim and caveat share the same source.

I think this should be restored. It maybe looking better, to some people, to change #1 into #2 is no excuse for sacrificing certainty about what is being attributed to which source (if any). If the claim in this case is not in fact attributable to the same source as the caveat, then doing this is outright falsification of the sourcing. We can't have MoS advising to do this on purpose.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  10:52, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

• I'm the someone.
• This was added by a single editor [11] with no apparent discussion [12].
• Chicago (14.26) opposes this except "on rare occassions":

Though a note number normally follows a closing parenthesis, it may on rare occasion be more appropriate to place the number inside the closing parenthesis—if, for example, the note applies to a specific term within the parentheses.

(In an earlier book he had said quite the opposite.)[2]

Men and their unions, as they entered industrial work, negotiated two things: young women would be laid off once they married (the commonly acknowledged “marriage bar”[1]), and men would be paid a “family wage.”

-- but we don't do the kind of writing seen in that second example because in our work, everything needs to be sourced e.g.

Men and their unions, as they entered industrial work, negotiated two things: young women would be laid off once they married[2] (the commonly acknowledged “marriage bar”),[1] and men would be paid a “family wage.”[2]

-- or something like that. It's simple: each cite covers everything back to the prior cite.

• Similarly, I don't understand SM's example (1.) because he's leaving Claim unsourced, apparently. I'd write:

Claim[2] (caveat).[1]

His example (2.) is obvious -- everything's covered by a single ref:

Claim (caveat).[1]

His example (3.) I'm not sure I understand. If [1] applies only to Caveat, and [2] applies to both Claim and Caveat, then write

Claim[2] (caveat).[1][2]

English isn't a programming language with push-down stacks of subsidiary clauses. Like I said, it's simple: each cite covers everything back to the prior cite, parens or punctuation or whatever notwithstanding. Cites come after parens for the same reason they come after periods and commas: because otherwise they look stupid, and awkward, and (awful).

EEng 15:04, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

"This was added by a single editor" is not a rationale for anything. Everything is added by a single editor or an edit conflict will result. The question is whether it describes consensus practice, and the answer is yes. If you'd like to change that practice, please open an RfC. Given that it could affect untold numbers of articles, it should probably be advertised at WP:VPPOL. Yes, you are not understanding the examples. I'm not leaving the claim in the first examle unsourced, it simply is unsourced, as are millions of claims in our articles (and this is fine, per WP:V policy – claims must be sourceable not sourced unless/until they're controverted, though with special exceptions like WP:BLP and WP:MEDRS material, in which anything potentially counterfactual but unsourced should be deleted not tagged). The editor who added the caveat and source for it in example one is unlikely to be the same editor who added the original claim nor have access to source material needed for the original claim (or not time or inclination to deal with it, being a volunteer. Adding the sourced caveat may be very important, e.g. if the claim is generally true but is not under particular circumstances, or whatever.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  12:53, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

To me EEng's "stupid, and awkward, and (awful)." looks perfectly normal. The other option (stupid, and awkward, and (awful).) would seem to mean that we are citing the punctuation as well as the text. --Khajidha (talk) 15:03, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

I wouldn't advocate any of those examples. EEng 18:54, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

The rest of the section regarding the location of refs and other punctuation (full stops, commas, and the like), is not in question. We're specifically speaking on parentheses. --Izno (talk) 15:24, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

And my point applies either way. --Khajidha (talk) 16:39, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

You could make all these same arguments for periods or commas: Where a footnote applies only to material within a single sentence, the ref tags belong just before the closing period. Where a footnote applies only to material within text set off by commas, the ref tags belong just before the "closing" comma. There's nothing special about parens in this regard, or with regard to any of the arguments that have been made.

Really, none of SM's examples are even on point to my quibble with the current guideline. I just want to be able to write

Claim.[1] (Additional.)[2] More.[3]

instead of being forced to write

Claim.[1] (Additional.[2]) More.[3]

How about if we follow Chicago's "rare occasions" recommendation and say something like this:

Where it is desired to emphasize that a footnote applies only to material within parentheses, the ref tags may be placed before the closing parenthesis.

EEng 18:54, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Works for me.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  05:07, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Should we add in and display the year that a marriage ends when the subject has died

Should we add in and display the year that a marriage ends when the subject of the biography has died. Or should we not display, or remove the end date for the marriage. This was originally presented at the template page and the RFC was closed and the instruction were to reopen it here. The issue arose because some editors are mass removing the end date for marriages, when the end date is when the subject of the biography has died.

Option 1 with displayed end date

Robert Smith
Born	(1911-10-20)October 20, 1911
Died	December 23, 1940(1940-12-23) (aged 29)
Spouse(s)	Alice Jones ​ ​ (m. 1930;  1940)​

Albert Brock
Born	(1910-01-30)January 30, 1910
Died	December 23, 1960(1960-12-23) (aged 49)
Spouse(s)	Jane Jones ​ ​ (m. 1930;  1935)​ Salma Rogers ​ ​ (m. 1936;  1960)​

• Y This should be the way to do it. It removes the ambiguity that the marriage is still a legal entity beyond death, or that the template has not been updated with the information that one partner has died. See below: With no end date it leaves the impression that they may have been divorced before death, or that the other partner died first, but that no one has done the research. Option 2 is inherently ambiguous. --RAN (talk) 18:20, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
• N Option 1 can be misread that Salma Rogers is a man who died in 1960, or that "his death" is a typo for "her death", or that Salma may have died first but we don't know her death date, or that Salma and Albert were divorced in 1956 but that no-one has added the date or done the research, etc., etc. The arguments for favoring option 1 are logically flawed: the format does not address the problem and provides no more clarity than the other option. DrKay (talk) 19:24, 25 October 2017 (UTC) Amended 21:28, 27 October 2017

The wording in the template can always be changed later if that is your problem. If you can think of better wording that provides more clarity, let us all know what that is. The current wording was from a previous RFC, no one declared it the ultimate super best, just the most appropriate offered at the time. It can just as easily appear as "end=Brock's death" with an additional RFC, this RFC is about adding the end of marriage date. --RAN (talk) 22:45, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

• Y This option has the greatest clarity. - PKM (talk) 17:54, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
• After thinking about it, I'll throw my support here. I really don't know if it should be hardcoded, though. Nohomersryan (talk) 19:32, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
• Support As argued above, the benefits of clarity to all readers, regardless of their experience with such conventions, provides the greatest benefit here. Alansohn (talk) 19:34, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
• Y ChristianKl (talk) 16:49, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

• Support This has the most clarity and explains remarriages more easily. --Trödel 03:37, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
• Support This option is the clearest for readers. Jklamo (talk) 10:24, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

• Support When we have an infobox, we must have an infobox. Meaning that the typical, tired argument about "duplicating info already in the article" is null and void. This option goes for the necessary infobox-information in a short and easy manner. Clearly preferable. -The Gnome (talk) 09:10, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

• It's not just about duplicating info already in the article, but already in the infobox. Per MOS:INFOBOX, we should avoid such duplication. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:46, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

• Please quote the sentence you are referring to in MOS:INFOBOX. Asking me to read the bible to find the answer is not useful in a discussion. The word "duplication" does not appear in the text. You have a habit of doing this during discussions. --RAN (talk) 19:37, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

• Referencing relevant policies/guidelines that support a position is appropriate in consensus-building discussions. Per the particular page I cited: "The less information [the infobox] contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance... wherever possible, present information in short form, and exclude any unnecessary content." Nikkimaria (talk) 19:45, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

So when the infobox is empty, it has reached perfection. --RAN (talk) 05:31, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

"the less information" is a misfortunate wording. "The more concise the information" better aligns with the spirit. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 05:40, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

• Support gives most clarity this way. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:39, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
• Comment. The 'his'/'her' text, especially if wired into the template, assumes that partners in a marriage can be distinguished by gender. How will this work when George Takei dies, assuming his husband outlives him? Pburka (talk) 22:15, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

I told you this gay marriage thing would lead to trouble. EEng 22:21, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

"end=Takei's death" or "end=Altman's death", the template accepts any text. It is just a matter of adding some text to the template guide for same sex marriages to explain what to do, would you like to volunteer? The end= parameter and the wording was added after a previous debate, this debate is about adding the date that a marriage ends, we can always go back and relitigate the text portion. If George Takei dies in 2018, won't you feel a little bit responsible for using him as an example? -RAN (talk) 22:39, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

What happened to widowed? (e.g. Jane Jones (m. 1930; wid. 1935)) Is it not gender neutral enough? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 23:09, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Another good wording, I do not remember why it did not become the default. --RAN (talk) 00:22, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Option 2 with no end date

Robert Smith
Born	(1911-10-20)October 20, 1911
Died	December 23, 1940(1940-12-23) (aged 29)
Spouse(s)	Alice Jones ​ ​ (m. 1930, )​

• Y Since the death date of the article subject will be given already in the infobox and marriages obviously end on the death of the subject, there is no need to repeat the death date of the subject. Infoboxes should be simple and should not unnecessarily duplicate information. DrKay (talk) 19:21, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
• This seems a nice, simple approach. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:31, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
• Support. The version above this one is needlessly long-winded.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  11:14, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
• Agree This seems simpler than option 1, and any missed detail will be contained in the article anyway. Sam Wilson 00:46, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
• Support; simpler version, clearly preferable. Happy days, Lindsay^Hello 18:13, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
• Support marriages in almost all cultures are understood to be until death. Adding d. 1940 would imply the spouse died the same year, perhaps before the person's death. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 23:12, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Well, not Mormons. EEng 23:15, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

• Support; In the case that the surviving (if any) spouse remarries, there needs to be an end date. But otherwise, some (not necessarily me) might consider the marriage continuing into (religiously preferred afterlife). With a date, it looks like someone divorced on the day of death. If a surviving spouse does remarry, I suppose the day of death makes sense. Gah4 (talk) 23:17, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
• Support: there does not seem to be any need to specify why a marriage ended in an infobox. The 'death' line would imply the termination of such partnership. Their spouse's death should be covered elsewhere in the article (usually a 'personal life' section). –Sb2001 00:26, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
• Support: Un-necessary repetition otherwise. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:39, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Option 3 - allow flexibility

Neither mandate nor disallow end dates... neither encourage nor discourage not having end dates. Let editors decide what is best on a case by case, article by article basis. Blueboar (talk) 23:32, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Robert Smith
Born	(1911-10-20)October 20, 1911
Died	December 23, 1940(1940-12-23) (aged 29)
Spouse	Alice Jones

Albert Brock
Born	(1910-01-30)January 30, 1910
Died	December 23, 1960(1960-12-23) (aged 49)
Spouse(s)	Jane Jones Salma Rogers

• Support - as well as whether or not to use the {{marriage}} template at all, and which parameters to use if so. These choices do not belong in our MoS, they belong in the template documentation; this should not be changed. Notwithstanding the OP's decision to omit the majority of the template's functionality, in choices given, remaining flexible allows many more possibilities, like, for example, the ones shown at right.--John Cline (talk) 04:25, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
• Support—let's keep the MoS out of this ridiculous micromanagement—this is almost always best left to editorial judgement, and when not, it should be left to talk page consensus. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 05:34, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Discussion

• Question: who actually started this thread? I think a signature to close the opening statement would be beneficial. –Sb2001 00:29, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
• In most biographies, the marriage is completely irrelevant to the notability of the subject and should not be included in the infobox at all. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:05, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

  In nearly all biographies, the date of birth is also "completely irrelevant to the notability of the subject" but it is certainly useful information, and therefor, rightly included. There is no reason to assume a notable subject's marriage can not be informative as well, and, IMO, no excuse for teaching that it can not. Respectfully--John Cline (talk) 05:20, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

  For dead people it is not an issue. For living people, non-notable third parties should not be named in the article (let alone the infobox) unless it can be shown they had a significant impact on the subject. (Granted all of the examples above are about marriages ending due to death, so unlikely to be relevant) Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:37, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

  And in others (e.g. Art Spiegelman and Françoise Mouly) it is central to their biography. But the discussion is not about forcing or disallowing marriage data in infoboxes, so the comment is irrelevant. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 05:31, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

MOS:TENSE - Museum exhibits

I hope that you folks can help (have searched the archive). I regularly create aircraft engine articles, the subjects are often museum exhibits only or no longer exist at all. In the lead first sentence I always use the past tense as this seems natural to me. This is 'corrected' to present tense as if I have made a mistake. If the subject is still in service or even limited use in retirement I will use present tense.

Reading the guideline wording of do not use past tense except for dead subjects, past events, and subjects that no longer meaningfully exist as such I would regard an aircraft engine in a museum as not meaningfully existing as it is no longer running, turning a propeller or producing thrust and powering an aircraft.

Does this wording need adjusting for clarity? I've looked at some other random museum items (retired/defunct etc) and they all seem to use the past tense in the first sentence, e.g. Stephenson's Rocket, North American XB-70 Valkyrie, Space Shuttle Enterprise, RRS Discovery and the Wright Flyer, all subjects that no longer operate as they were originally designed to do ('retired' in less words!). Cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 07:27, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

• It seems a little odd, but what if there were an article about the Foo Exhibit? An article that would focus, at least secondarily, on a thing that obviously exists, no matter how tenuously, would have to refer to it in the past tense. I do a lot of tense-related copyediting and I see the fairly strong language in the current wording as a bright line. If there's one around, anywhere, it gets present tense. Primergrey (talk) 02:04, 4 January 2018 (UTC)