Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style

LQ and nested quotations

What is the rationale behind the guideline "it is not conventional to change nested quotations inside quoted material to use logical quotation; preserve the original punctuation order"? It is being used as a rationale to maintain a comma inside a quoted song title; Here's the text in question:

In Rolling Stone, David Fricke wrote, "the alternate takes highlight Robert Plant's ripening vocal poise and, in a rough mix of 'Ramble On,' the decisive, melodic force of John Paul Jones' bass and John Bonham’s drumming."

This strikes me as totally irrational and pointless—it also looks "broken" when the entire rest of the article is in LQ, and when we don't preserve other elements of punctuation such as curly quotemarks, ALLCAPS, or single-vs-double quotemarks. Where did this guideline come from? Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 21:12, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Plenty of publishers alter it the other way to achieve "harmony". But we need expert opinion on this particular issue. Tony (talk) 01:49, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Altering the punctuation of the internal quotation would seem to defeat the point of LQ. --Izno (talk) 06:15, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Someone activate our team of rabbis. EEng 06:18, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Rabbis or rabbits? --Izno (talk) 06:31, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Or rabies? EEng 12:00, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Izno: You'll have to explain—your point is not self-evident. The point of "Logical Quotation" is the "logical" bit, and—why would we alter virtually every other aspect of formatting but that? Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 08:24, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

We're always being told that LQ respects the integrity of the quoted material. EEng 12:04, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Not with regard to formatting issues, which are not issues of "integrity". The MoS calls for the reformatting of ALLCAPS, spaced emdashes, etc—even "trivial spelling and typographic errors"—as I've already pointed out more than once. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 00:38, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

But whether punctuation is inside vs outside quotation marks is an issue of integrity? EEng 02:08, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

No. Per MOS:CONFORM:

"Formatting and other purely typographical elements of quoted text should be adapted to English Wikipedia's conventions without comment provided that doing so will not change or obscure meaning or intent of the text; this practice is universal among publishers. These are alterations which make no difference when the text is read aloud ..."

To drive the bolded issue home: if a public figure gave a speech that were quoted in both the British and American press, the British source would use British formatting of the quote, and the American, American. The exact same quote would be available in different formatting, even different spelling (yes, the National Post quotes Trump in Canadian spelling), while the words used would be the same. "Integrity" applies only to the words used, unless the formatting or spelling have some special semantic importance. In the case of a quoted speech—people don't normally speak punctuation. This normally applies to the written word as well, as the text is most often at the mercy of the style standards of the place of publication—which means the same piece published in different sources may (and often does) have different formatting (the National Post, for instance, republishes Washington Post stories reformatted with Canadian spelling). Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 02:26, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

But if whether punctuation is inside vs outside quotation marks is not an integrity issue, then what aspect of integrity is LQ protecting? EEng 03:03, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Same as it's ever been—things such as not inserting terminating punctuation into a quotation where the original quotation itself was not terminated (à la the common American Trout Mask Replica is the best album ever, but my mother still hates it. quoted as The Critic called Trout Mask Replica "the best album ever.") or logically terminable (The report'll be delivered by Friday. quoted as The manager said the report would be delivered "by Friday."). Etc. etc. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 03:36, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

things such as not inserting terminating punctuation into a quotation where the original quotation itself was not terminated – And what else? EEng 05:11, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

You know what else, as it's been explained to you ad nauseam before. Game's over. I won't be responding to this attempt to derail the discussion again. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 06:16, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Your inability to discuss in good faith is what has derailed the conversation. You may now fulminate if you choose. EEng 13:55, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

• It turns out it was SMcCandlish who made the change 2018-07-25. Could we get a rationale for this? None was given in the edit comment, nor in the Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 206#"Typographic conformity" section cleanup where he announced he was working on the section. Why on earth would we have (for example) quoted spaced emdashes conform to the MoS but not LQ? Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 10:06, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

  I agree. That "It is not conventional..." note that was added there seems out of character for SMcCandlish, and outside what we do in most other cases. Maybe he was compromising with someone? Dicklyon (talk) 02:38, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

  "It is not conventional..." Since when do British sources normally maintain US-style formatting in quotations & vice versa? Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 03:36, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

To me, it seems that there is a significant difference between quoting material within the text (where the material 'becomes' part of the WP article text, and thus cannot without inconsistency have a different punctuation style) and displaying material within the article which is surely what a nested quotation (and perhaps a blockquote) is doing. I've observed the practice described in the guideline occurring in the English WP for many years (my first edit was in 2007) and I'm greatly surprised that it was only formalised a few months ago. (Full disclosure: it would seem that I was involved in the particular dispute that prompted the OP.) Re: "when we don't preserve other elements of punctuation such as curly quotemarks, ALLCAPS, or single-vs-double quotemarks" - this is a genuine point, but then I have seen at least some of those features preserved also, although far less frequently. Harfarhs (talk) 06:42, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Harfarhs: The MoS calls for preserving them when the semantics requires it—otherwise they are normalized to MoS standards, per MOS:CONFORM. Are you aware of a real-world style guide that recommends doing otherwise? And please consider how problematic this would be—for instance, we could have the same text quoted in a British and an American source, both of which will be formatted to their own style standards. Which would we prefer at Wikipedia, and (importantly) why? MOS:CONFORM gives us a rationale for ignoring outside styling practices in most cases, which I've already quoted above. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 07:12, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

I've unarchived this to respond, since my judgement (or lack of it) was central the matter, but I was on a long wikibreak.

I only went that direction because I thought people would object if I did not, on the basis of the principle of minimal change (MOS:PMC). I agree that "... a rough mix of 'Ramble On,' the decisive, melodic force of John Paul Jones' bass ..." isn't actually helpful to readers and looks jarring when we're otherwise using LQ. I see everyone seems to agree, so I'm very happy to have a dispelling of my paranoia about LQ-haters and never-change-a-thing-about-quotations people rising up with pitchforks and torches. PMC's always been a loose judgement call anyway.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  10:41, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

SMcCandlish: nice to see you back, and good to see it was a wikibreak and not something more serious. Could you clarify what you're saying here?—are you saying the wording in the MoS should be changed? Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 11:47, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, and yes, IT LIVES. (The marmot-faced ninjas in clown suits who sneak in at night have yet to be successful in assassinating me.) Anyway, yes, I'm saying that exception I worked in (which I was skeptical about to begin with) was a bad idea. I didn't realize it was still in there, so I just self-reverted it.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  14:37, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

It looks like Ritchie333 reverted it long before this was even resolved. I suppose Harfarhs should be informed of the changes. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 03:04, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

"..when we're otherwise using LQ" - yes, we're using LQ, but we're displaying text written by people who didn't use LQ, so there's a fairly obvious issue with integrity. If you can get past that, good on you, but others will quite naturally have trouble with it. BTW thanks to Curly "JFC" Turkey for the ping. Harfarhs (talk) 18:45, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Harfarhs: "there's a fairly obvious issue with integrity"—no, and I've already addressed this point more than once in this discussion. Virtually every other style issue in a quotation is changed to conform with the MoS, so the "obvious" question is: why on earth would LQ be an exception? I've also given examples above as to why doing so would be problematic. Please address them. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 21:25, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

If you mean the bit where you mention "a British and an American source", I don't see the problem—just use whichever format the source uses. Harfarhs (talk) 21:51, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Harfarhs: because you demand it, without even providing a rationale? Emphatically no. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 22:13, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

In my opinion, the whole point of LQ is to ensure that the meaning and intent of the author/speaker is properly maintained; only once this is ensured should consistency of style be a consideration. I think perhaps we are being too prescriptive with some of these guidelines, which tends to interfere with our primary mission. CThomas³ (talk) 22:45, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

a) I "demand" nothing, and it's a pretty spectacular misunderstanding to suppose I am demanding something. I'm suggesting a pretty obvious, pretty easy approach that requires no Procrustean behaviour. b) See my previous comments in this thread if you require a "rationale". Harfarhs (talk) 00:44, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Harfarhs: You've been given an awfully detailed rationale to which you've given no rebuttal. As the consensus is against you, the onus is on you to do something about it. You could start by rebutting any of the points I've made with something more substantial than "I don't see the problem". Until you make a good-faith effort to do so, you'll be unable to change the years-long consensus.

Have you actually read MOS:CONFORM, by the way? It includes a rationale for these sorts of things. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 03:43, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Age range

I made an RFC while back here to change the format "(age X–Y)" to "(age X or Y)". Thoughts? Hddty. (talk) 00:16, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Wait, so it's just to change examples which are immediately adjacent? So "45–46" to "45 or 46", but leave every other possible age range as ""X–Y"?

Yes, only for adjacent age range. Hddty. (talk) 15:28, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

I agree. The case posited is that wherein we know that X was born in 2000; on any given date in 2018, therefore, X is 17 or 18 years old -- or I suppose you could say they're 17–18. (Technical note: Actually, on December 31, 2018, they can only be 18.) But turn it around. Suppose we know that on some particular date in 2018 the person is 18 years old; we infer therefore that they were born in 1999 or 2000. How awkward, however, to phrase that as "born 1999–2000", which makes it sound like this person's mother had a very, very prolonged labor! EEng 19:49, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Not that anyone's suggesting using that phrase. This is just about a template used in infoboxes, right? EDIT: NO, I guess the template doesn't actually specify infoboxes. Is it really used that much outside of them? --tronvillain (talk) 19:55, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

• At first glance I thought that "or" might be clearer for the cases I mention above, but looking at the RfC there was little support for that, plus there's this pesky "Asian age reckoning" which can lead to a 3-year range, apparently. So I don't see where this is all going. The idea of using "or" seems dead. EEng 04:47, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps "Born circa 2000" ?  Stepho  talk  22:54, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

That's more imprecise than it needs to be. EEng 00:20, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

And it won't work with age-calculation templates. The RfC concluded against the proposed change, anyway. — AReaderOutThataway ^t/_c 07:52, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Meh... nothing says we have to use the template. Blueboar (talk) 12:29, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

But people will, and it won't work right.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:21, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Changes regarding apostrophes on singular possessives

Back in December 2017, there was an RFC at WP:VPPOL on simplifying the rules for using apostrophes with possessives. That was closed as support, and then used to make this edit. I found this out in the process of discussing some recent edits, and it has given me a little heartburn.

First of all, the RFC attracted relatively few comments – even fewer than the talk page discussion that preceded it – and almost all of those who did had already commented there. This does not seem to comport with the higher standard for consensus that ARBCOM indicated should be used for policy changes. Considering this is a debate that has re-occurred at least 50 times, a change as somewhat radical as that deserved to have a solid consensus behind it.

While I am normally loathe to risk tearing open old wounds, I fear that leaving this as an uncontested fait accompli may set a bad precedent, and could lead to collateral issues down the road. I do not take a strong stance on what the guideline itself should say, but only that it should have the support of the community behind it. --Ipatrol (talk) 04:44, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

I am normally loathe to risk tearing open old wounds – See WP:Diffusing conflict#Casting_dispersions,_inciteful_comments,_and_so_on. EEng 04:58, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

I was told that WP:VPPOL would be the place to get the most participation on policy and guideline issues. So did at RFC there. If you want to re-open this, where would you stir up more interest next time? Dicklyon (talk) 04:52, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

(unindent) I too would like to see some resolution/consensus on this. At present the WP:MOS#Possessives section only has:

For the apostrophe character, see § Apostrophes.

For thorough treatment of the English possessive, see Apostrophe.

Clicking the first link takes us to WP:MOS#Apostrophes which includes "*For usage of the possessive apostrophe, see WP:MOS#Possessives." meaning it loops back to where we started. Clicking on the second link takes us to Apostrophe. The lead of that article includes:

• The marking of possessive case of nouns (as in the eagle's feathers, or in one month's time).

and the body has a section on Apostrophe#Possessive apostrophe which starts out with:

See also: English possessive

Could we at least have this article use:

For thorough treatment of the possessive, see English possessive.

For the apostrophe character, see Apostrophe § Possessive apostrophe.

What I'm proposing is to:

1. Flip the two {{For}} lines around so that the line about possessives, the topic of the section, is first and the line about the apostrophe is second.
2. Change the link for the line about possessives from Apostrophe to English possessive which seems more directly applicable to the topic.
3. Change the link for the line about apostrophes from WP:MOS#Apostrophes to Apostrophe#Possessive apostrophe which is also seems more directly applicable to the topic and gets rid of the loop that provided no useful information for readers.

Ideally, the WP:MOS#Possessives section included some WP:MOS specific guidelines, particularly about words that end with an "s," but I know that area is a battleground. --Marc Kupper|talk 21:05, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Huh? That section says "For the possessive of singular nouns, including proper names and words ending with an s, add 's". There's nothing wrong with that guidance. It's simple, succinct, and consistent. DrKay (talk) 21:16, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

I agree. Marc seems to have not noticed that the section on Possessives contains subsections that have the content. Dicklyon (talk) 21:22, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

I also agree. The RFC was well argued on the basis of extensive research of authoritative contemporary style guidelines. The simplification resolves a lot of edit warring. And I don't have much sympathy for an editor that unhelpfully re-opens an issue without any argumentation on the substance of the matter and whilst simultaneously claiming not to care very much! MapReader (talk) 18:17, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Yep. The wording is fine, as was the process that led to it. There does simply seem to be a "not noticed that the section on Possessives contains subsections that have the content" PEBKAC error. :-) It happens (yesterday I was writing a #Templates section for a wikiproject page without noticing that it had an entire Templates tab and subpage that has already been there for years).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  14:32, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Clarification regarding selected works

Hi, what actually constitutes a selected work/publication/film/etc? Many articles have them but very few are prefaced with why each entry is there, and even fewer are sourced. My questions are:

1. What works are put onto these "selected" lists, and is it up to personal preference by the lead contributor (which is how it sometimes looks)?
2. Do these sections need to be referenced to an external list with all of them on it, does each entry have to be referenced in some way or another, or can these sections be left unreferenced if the work is wikilinked?
3. In relation to question two, can these sections be tagged or removed if they lack references (assuming they preferably have references)?
4. Also assuming they preferably have references, should these sections prevent an article from going through DYK, OTD, or any other main page-based venue if they lack references?

I wasn't able to find any guidelines that cover these questions, so if I'm asking them at the wrong place, let me know. Cheers, Anarchyte (talk | work) 14:42, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

There is a guideline related to this at WP:LISTCRITERIA, which covers embedded lists as well as standalone list pages. I'd say that "Selected X" sections should only be included if some third party source has done the selecting,and preferably the criteria is spelled out. Even in prose we might lost one or two particularly important works associated with someone but again that should be because secondary sources have identified those things as important not on the whim of an editor.  — Amakuru (talk) 14:53, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, this more of a content than style matter. I would think it's just up to editorial consensus at the article's talk page, and would probably be based on something somewhat objective, like frequency of mention in RS.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:23, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Use of "published" as the book equivalent of films' "distributed", as in "X has been published in more than 30 countries"?

Our article Marie Kondo uses the word this way, and it kinda bothers me. The book was only published ("made public") once, and has been translated presumably into several languages, with those translations each being sold by one or more international publishers. The phrase It was a bestseller in Japan and in Europe, and was published in the United States in 2014 seems especially weird. Not sure if it applies to the article in question, but back in Ireland, most of the commercially available books were actually printed by UK-based publishers, so if a book is sold by one publisher in both the UK and Ireland, does that mean it was "published in two countries"? Presumably this is also the case with ... well, probably most countries worldwide.

"Printed" would address the former issue but not the latter, and is awkward; would "sold" be a reasonable solution? I'm not sure, so I brought it here.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:44, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Both are perfectly normal English usages:

• "published in more than 30 countries" — the book has entered the national book trade in more than 30 countries.
• "bestseller in Japan and in Europe, and was published in the United States in 2014" — the book was available through the trade in Japan and Europe in 2011, but in the US it would have been a private import until 2014 when the trade carried it.

Terminology may need to change with the growth of international online booksellers, but publishing is the act of offering the book for sale in a particular country. The case of Ireland is a little different, I suspect that the Irish book trade behaves as a part of the UK distribution system due simply to a numbers game. Also, bear in mind that subsequent editions are also described as being published when they reach market. I have picked up the nearest paperback and on the back of the title page are the legends: "This edition published by Harper Perennial 2005" and just below it "First published by HarperCollinsPublishers 2004". Martin of Sheffield (talk) 10:27, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Wait a minute—so you're saying a book published by an American publisher and distributed in both the US and Canada is said to be "published" in two countries? I'd like to see a source backing that up, as I doubt most Canadians or Americans would buy that. When Seattle-based Fantagraphics publishes a new book by Jim Woodring, and I pick it up from The Beguiling in Toronto (who probably get it from a Canadian distributor), I can't imagine anyone saying it was "published" in Canada. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 10:34, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

I don't know enough about how the book trade in Canada and the US operates, but I'd guess that like Ireland/UK it operates as a single entity. The book is published in both countries, but I suspect that it would be a single act. There are a number of reasons publishers might not want the same edition published in different countries. For instance Schindler's Ark was first published in the UK and later retitled as Schindler's List for its US publication. Copyright may also play a role; many older works of fiction in the UK bear the legend "For copyright reasons this edition is not for sale in the U.S.A". My copy of The Crucible has: "First published in the U.S.A. 1953. Published in Great Britain in 1956. Published by Martin Secker & Warburg 1966. Published in Penguin Books 1968". That's four publication dates for a single play! More modern works can also have an extended publishing history; Cussler's Sahara (2017 paperback edition) claims: "Previously published in paperback by Grafton 1993. First published in Great Britain by HarperCollinsPublishers 1992". [OT: I love going back over old books. The Crucible had a cinema ticket from the 1996 release used as a bookmark and the lighting script from when I lit a performance in the 1980s!] Martin of Sheffield (talk) 11:15, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

The numbers game remark is weird, since probably the majority of countries throughout the world have either a larger or smaller neighbour (the problem applies to both) with the same official or majority language that "shares" its books. The US and Canada is another example (which I didn't want to make without a Canadian doing it for me, since I wasn't sure); France and Belgium, Switzerland and several of its neighbours; all of Latin America outside Brazil (and maybe Mexico?); I would imagine most African countries have most of their books published in one or more of the "official" languages which few natives have as their first language but which is shared with a lot of other African countries. If I publish a book it means ... well, I'm publishing it, I don't know how to put it in simpler words beyond "making it public", which I already said above. Unless a book is banned and all copies of it taken out of circulation, I'm pretty sure books aren't "published" more than once. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:41, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

A book is published in two or more different countries if: 1. the publisher publishes it in different countries (often for example US & UK) - in this case it says so on the publication information page. Sometimes the same publisher may publish the same book in different editions in different countries - with different artwork, or even a different title. 2. if a publisher sells or trades the right to a foreign publisher who then publishes it in that country - either in the original language or in translation. And yes a book can be published any number of times. In different editions or printings for example. Distribution has nothing to do with it. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 12:47, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

I would have thought that "publish" referred to the physical act of publishing the book, and so can be used for any new printings but would not apply to simple re-distribution. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:43, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Martin of Sheffield: Yes, I'm totally aware of books being put out in different editions in different countries (many or most books available in Canada are from elsewhere). That does happen in Canada & the US as wel—many large publishers will publish similtaneously in Canada and the US. These books state so explicitly in the indicia. That's not the same as the Canada/US or UK/Ireland examples being given, though. Distribution makes books available in different countries, but distribution is not publication. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 21:53, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Generally concur with Martin of Sheffield, modulo Curly Turkey's concern. A US-published book that is also distributed in Canada wasn't published in Canada, it was imported to it, exactly as in Martin's first post: "but in [country name] it would have been a private import until 2014 when the trade carried it", i.e. in a new edition actually published in that country. That said, there are publisher with multiple national offices who do in fact simul-publish in two or more countries at once; Oxford University Press is on, publishing from both Oxford and New York. I don't think they do this with every release though, since I have several OUP books I had to import at considerable trans-Atlantic shipping cost. The book itself will say, with something like "Oxford University Press" followed by "Oxford • New York" on the frontispiece. Some publishers have a long string of these (I think Springer and Elsevier publications tend to, but I may be mis-remembering). Anyway, I think that the combined Martin and Turkey take is the correct answer to Hijiri's question: "published" is in fact used of a novel the same was as "released" is used of a film.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:31, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Proposal to lowercase mid-sentence use of "act", "bill", etc. except for proper names

FYI

 – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

Please see: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters#Expand MOS:INSTITUTIONS to cover 'act', 'bill', 'resolution' and other items of legislation?
 — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:36, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Yes, that would be consistent with the way we deal with caps more generally. It is not the way favoured by lawyers, but thankfully we don't write WP in legalese (wheretofore, hitherto ... and no commas). Tony (talk) 00:44, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

The Party of the First Part (hereafter the OP) agrees to concede to a Stipulation that the conditions expressed in the Memorandum of the Party of the Second Part (hereafter the Respondent) are true and correct to the best of the OP's knowledge but notwithstanding this Stipulation prays that the Court will grant a Motion for Change of Venue to back to the Court in which the Complaint was initially filed despite the Respondent having petitioned the current Court with this Memorandum.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:36, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Proposed example addition

FYI

 – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

Please see: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Trademarks#Example addition
This is a small but potentially important strife-reduction proposal (would not change any advice in any way, just clarify).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:39, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Clarifying that COMMONNAME is not a style policy

FYI

 – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

Please see Wikipedia talk:Article titles#Clarifying that UCRN is not a style policy. WP:AT and the naming conventions guidelines that cover style (e.g. WP:NCCAPS) have many cross-references to MoS. This is a simple (non-rules-changing) proposal to add one to WP:UCRN to reduce confusion and verbal conflict (especially at WP:RM).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:45, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Gender-neutral pronouns: guidance

A couple of IP users have recently edited at Ezra Miller, changing male pronouns to they/them/their. Apparently the subject of the article does not identify as any particular gender, and prefers to use pronouns interchangeably. I can't find any specific guidance about this in MOS, what is the current consensus on how to approach this? Thanks GirthSummit _(blether) 19:25, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

If the subject does not care which pronouns are used, then neither should Wikipedia. Perhaps we can follow what Miller does, and use them ALL ... interchangeably (if we explain that this is what the subject does early in the article, the reader will understand). Blueboar (talk) 19:43, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

You're looking for MOS:IDENTITY. RGloucester — ☎ 20:09, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

We discussed use of singular they last year; see Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 198#Singular they. If we are to use it in our biography articles, I prefer to use it sparingly and instead use the surname as much as possible because singular they has confused our readers. But it's used in a few of our articles on genderqueer (non-binary) people. Like the aforementioned discussion notes, what we won't use are genderqueer pronouns such as "zie" and "s/him." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:39, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Flyer22 Reborn, that's really helpful. I'll point them that way. GirthSummit _(blether) 09:14, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

"because singular they has confused our readers"—this is an extraordinary claim that is not backed up by anything in that discussion, and is contradicted by the singular they's universal usage by native speakers of all backgrounds in everyday speech. Where it becomes problematic is in the recent usage of it to refer to known subjects (such as Miller), which is a case that has not come into universal usage. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 21:52, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

I watch and work on some LGBT articles. Yes, singular they usage has confused readers and has been subject to debate on Wikipedia. I'm not going to sit here and point to all of the cases, or all the talk pages, where I know its usage has been debated, such as at Talk:Emma Sulkowicz. As for the discussion I pointed to, we can see that not everyone agrees with using singular they, and that I'm not the only one who noted that its use can be confusing. And considering that singular they is still subject to debate among academics, as made clear in the Singular they Wikipedia article, it's not surprising that singular they is still not as widely supported as you would like. That its use is cautioned against by a number of reliable sources is made very clear in the Singular they Wikipedia article, which, yes, I know you've edited. That article is on my watchlist. I know that you support singular they, but the usage can clearly be a problem. An entire Wikipedia biography article using singular they, especially without specifying that the person prefers to use singular they for their gender identity? Yeah, that can be confusing for readers. Even today, with more transgender representation in the world than just a few years ago, MOS:GENDERID transgender cases such as Brandon Teena still confuse a number of our readers. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:22, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

"singular they is still subject to debate among academics, as made clear in the Singular they Wikipedia article"—the Singular they article "makes clear" no such thing. You also seem to have read only half my comment. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 03:40, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Clearly, we are reading a different Wikipedia article. The one that I'm reading, with all of the "avoid when possible" and "use cautiously" or similar talk, must be in an alternative universe. I did not read only half of your comment. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:47, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

No, we're reading the same article you're misquoting: "Garner's Modern American Usage (2003) recommends cautious use of singular they, and avoidance where possible because its use is stigmatized."—this recognizes that there are people ignorant and obnoxious to kick up a fuss (as there are with regards to the so-called "split" infinitive), and that one can avoid engaging with this nonsense by avoiding its use. This is not even remotely as it were "subject to debate among academics", which the article does not support (and in fact contradicts with studies—the source cited calls it ["https://books.google.co.jp/books?id=Lijcg3vt9yAC&pg=PA93&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false "almost universal in speech",] and backs it up with data and history, as does the article). Problematic use of singular they is restricted to its 21st-century use with known antecedents; in all other cases it goes unnoticed by almost the entire native population. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 06:18, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

First, the link you provided me with shows nothing, on my end of the Internet anyway. And, yep, clearly reading a different Wikipedia article. No misquoting at all, since I was not quoting anything from the article. I was paraphrasing, and the paraphrase isn't inaccurate in the least. Regardless of how you interpret things about the use of singular they, we clearly have sources like the Associated Press's Stylebook, stating, "They/them/their is acceptable in limited cases as a singular and-or gender-neutral pronoun, when alternative wording is overly awkward or clumsy. However, rewording usually is possible and always is preferable." Use of singular they is criticized and cautioned against, especially in the United States. We note in the lead of the Singular they article that its use "has been the target of criticism since the late 19th century." So given that, and what the sources in the article state, I fail to see how stating that the use has been "subject to debate among academics" is inaccurate. A simple Google search shows that there is a singular they debate. So let's not act like it doesn't exist. You can call the criticism "ignorant and obnoxious" as much as you want to, but reliable sources disagree with you. That everyone uses singular they at some point is not in dispute. I use it at times. No one here stated that singular they is always problematic; what people have noted is that singular they can be problematic and confusing, which is a fact. Writing an entire Wikipedia biography article using singular they is an issue; it certainly requires care. So it's good that you at least noted "problematic use of singular they." I'm not going to keep debating you on this; I am well aware that you always get worked up any time someone notes that singular they can be problematic and/or confusing, is cautioned against, etc., and I know that you can keep a debate going. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:46, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Sources like this 2013 The Atlantic source is just one of the sources speaking on the debate, stating, in part, "Every time I see a singular they, my inner grammatical spirit aches. I have no issue with their used in its proper place, as a plural pronoun. That's completely fine, even necessary, and the usage is quite valuable. But why must we accept their as a singular? I say no. I say, use anything instead. Use he or she. Use one. Use a person's name. Or rewrite! Pluralize throughout, if you must, for consistency. [...] Note: I'm not ranting against use of they as a preferred gender pronoun, but instead, in (the more frequent) cases in which it's simply the easy way out, and, I think, indicative of sloppy writing. But as R.L.G. noted in the headline of his post, we all have our opinions on this issue." This author stating "use a person's name, or rewrite" is similar to what the Associated Press states. In addition to what the Associated Press stated above, it relays, "In stories about people who identify as neither male nor female or ask not to be referred to as he/she/him/her: Use the person's name in place of a pronoun, or otherwise reword the sentence, whenever possible. If they/them/their use is essential, explain in the text that the person prefers a gender-neutral pronoun. Be sure that the phrasing does not imply more than one person." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:07, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

"since I was not quoting anything from the article"—uh-huh, but you put these things in quotes, anyways.

"So it's good that you at least noted"—as I had from my first comment, which you insist you've read all the way through.

"the link you provided me with shows nothing"—you could put in some sort of effort. It's to Gerner, Jürgen (2000). "Singular and Plural Anaphors of Indefinite Plural Pronouns in Spoken British English", which is cited in the article and uses actual data and a survey of past studies and comes to the conclusion summed up in the article of its usage as "almost universal".

"but reliable sources disagree with you"—you mean the reliable sources such as Gerner's that are already in the article and that you're not interested in reading? Reliable sources such as Webster's that has been calling the singular they "common standard use" for a couple of generations now?

"it certainly requires care"—every article requires care—there is nothing special about normal usage of the singular they there, and you have yet to demonstrate an example of it causing actual confusion outside of gender-identity articles (where confusion remain even if singular they were to be abolished—so the root problem is not singular they).

You're big on opinions and trying to turn the debate on me as a person, but you're not much interested in investigating the facts (nor even reading what I've written). Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 01:09, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

So paraphrasing/summarizing never includes quotation marks? Got a reference for that? As for the rest of what you stated, like I noted, "Regardless of how you interpret things about the use of singular they, [we clearly have sources like the Associated Press disagreeing with you]." As for reading, it's clear you are only interested in reading sources that support use of singular they, etc. The debate exists. The sources are clear. Accept it. As for being big on opinions and "not much interested in investigating the facts..." LOL, yeah, there are a lot of Wikipedians who would disagree with you on that. On talk pages, I often argue with sources, just like I did above. The author in the The Atlantic material clearly feels differently than you do and is not just focused on preferred gender pronouns. It's you making these broad claims and focusing only on one aspect of the topic as though that takes away from the fact that singular they is criticized and can be problematic. As for Merriam-Webster, even it notes that people have an issue with singular they, stating,"One common bugbear of the grammatical nitpicker is the singular they. For those who haven’t kept up, the complaint is this: the use of they as a gender-neutral pronoun (as in, 'Ask each of the students what they want for lunch.') is ungrammatical because they is a plural pronoun." Yes, it also mentions "the traditional singular they" and states that "regardless of what detractors say, nearly everyone uses the singular they in casual conversation and often in formal writing.", but, again, I haven't disputed that. So I don't see why you keep arguing that angle. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:16, 21 November 2018 (UTC) Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:32, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Because:

1. you keep pointing to sources as if they "disagree" with the points I'e made, when they don't;
2. the AP is a prescriptive guide, not an example of "debate among academics", and even it reluctantly allows singular they. And you have the gall to accuse people of cherrypicking!
3. as I keep saying and you keep ignoring—you keep asserting it causes confusion, but have yet to provide evidence of that. So, where is it?

Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 02:47, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

They disagree with you in terms of you acting like singular they is no problem at all and/or that a singular they debate doesn't exist. That AP "prescriptive guide" exists because there is a debate, which, again, anyone can see from a simple Google search. Merriam-Webster states "one common bugbear of the grammatical nitpicker is the singular they," "the complaint is [...] the use of they as a gender-neutral pronoun [...] is ungrammatical because they is a plural pronoun," and "regardless of what detractors say" because there is a debate. That the AP "reluctantly allows singular they" is one of my points. If singular they were just A-okay, with no issues, the AP would not be stating "they/them/their is acceptable in limited cases as a singular and-or gender-neutral pronoun" and "rewording usually is possible and always is preferable." The debate is among grammarians. Not all. Some. They are academics. It's not like I'm speaking of the general public (although a number of them do not like, or have certain issues with, singular they also, which is why one can find all of these media articles online about accepting or being open to use of singular they). That "nearly everyone uses the singular they in casual conversation and often in formal writing" does not negate that a debate exists, no matter how much you claim otherwise. And now you state that I haven't provided evidence for "causes confusion," after I pointed to a Wikipedia article as an example and you conceded that it causes confusion at gender-identity articles. You are the one who stated "outside of gender-identity articles" above. Well, since this discussion started out as a discussion about gender identity (Ezra Miller), I still fail to see why you felt the need to chime in with your "its usage as almost universal" talk, other than you disliking any criticism of singular they.

Furthermore, the aforementioned The Atlantic source speaks of singular they in terms of confusion. If confusion were not an aspect of singular they, that source wouldn't be mentioning confusion at all. Neither would others that discuss singular they. This 2017 The Daily Beast source states, "The first time I heard someone use the word 'they as a singular pronoun, I was confused—for about five seconds." Well, five seconds of confusion is still confusion. The source goes on to note that "New York Times public editor Liz Spayd published a column about the 'confusion in the newsroom' that led to non-binary actor Asia Kate Dillon (from Showtime's Billions) being called 'she' in an op-ed, despite the fact that Dillon has been vocal about using the gender-neutral pronoun 'they.' Opinion editors, who generally follow the style and usage guidelines of the newsroom, were under the impression that 'they' could not be used as a singular pronoun,' Spayd explained. 'That's how they ended up calling Dillon 'she.' " Also reporting on that story, The New York Times stated, "Understandably, this isn't a simple issue for news organizations: Either confuse many of your readers with sentences like 'They is going to the theater' or risk falling behind shifting cultural norms." This 2015 American Psychological Association blog states, "The singular they is also commonly used to refer to a person whose gender is irrelevant or unknown [...]. However, most formal writing and style guides, including the APA Publication Manual, the Chicago Manual of Style, and the AP Stylebook, do not currently support this usage, deeming it too informal and/or ungrammatical. Instead, APA recommends several alternatives to the general singular they." To reiterate, this discussion (on this Wikipedia talk page) started because of a gender identity topic. I rightfully noted that singular they has confused our readers, and you jumped in challenging that obvious fact. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:10, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Not only does the Atlantic source not speak of singular they in "terms of confusion", it refutes the idea more than once: "unlikely to produce confusion about what is meant", "nearly literally impossible for singular they to be confusing in an actual conversation or in a longer piece of writing". Then it's followed with the eyerolling ramblings of a prescriptivist (we hear the same arguments from those who prescribe against "stranded" prepositions and "split" infinitives). We don't truck with that nonsense on Wikipedia. I don't know what you think this is supposed to be "evidence" of.

The Daily Beast article is specifically about the recent usage of singular they to refer to a known antecedent—the specific quote is "Avery was here last weekend and they wanted to go to the beach". You keep saying that you've read what I've written to you, but if this is your "evidence", then you're demonstrating that you have not. I'm speaking out against calls to ban or restrict use of singular they due to ignorance and spillover from barely-relevant GENDERID debates (where the real issues aren't even singular they). Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 11:20, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

So the Atlantic source speaking of confusion with regard to singular they by stating "unlikely to produce confusion about what is meant" is the Atlantic source not speaking of singular they in terms of confusion? What? Why would the Atlantic source even need to speak of confusion by quoting people who argue against the idea that singular they causes confusion...if no confusion exists with regard to the usage? That was my point on that, as should have been clear by me stating "If confusion were not an aspect of singular they, that source wouldn't be mentioning confusion at all." And either way, we can see that the author of that Atlantic source very clearly sees an issue with singular they. You state that "we don't truck with that nonsense on Wikipedia." And yet we do because a number of our editors or readers have debated use of singular they at different Wikipedia articles and/or have chosen not to use singular they because of what style guides like the AP states or confusion it may cause. My argument has been that singular they is criticized and has caused confusion; my evidence above indeed supports that. Not only has the usage been criticized on a grammatical basis (as even noted by Merriam-Webster), but also in terms of people who identify as neither male nor female or ask not to be referred to as he/she/him/her, which is why the AP states, "Use the person's name in place of a pronoun, or otherwise reword the sentence, whenever possible." For the last time, this discussion specifically began as a discussion about the gender identity aspect. So your "its usage as almost universal" and "I've not read what you've written to me" talk is what broadened the discussion. No one was calling to ban or restrict use of singular they. I did note that "I prefer to use it sparingly and instead use the surname as much as possible because singular they has confused our readers.", but that is because of what I argued above. I was referring to biography articles, and using singular they in our biography article is my main "I'm cautious of it" concern when it comes to singular they. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 16:59, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

"So the Atlantic source speaking of confusion with regard to singular they by stating "unlikely to produce confusion about what is meant" is the Atlantic source not speaking of singular they in terms of confusion?"—I have no idea what game you're playing here, but this statement is one big ball of gibberish. It doesn't feel like an argument made in good faith.

There is no concern when using singular they in "biography articles" unless you are using it to refer to known antecedents. It very rarely is. A person should always be cautious when using grammatical forms in unfamiliar ways. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 21:57, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

There is no game here on my part. I asked that question, and in the way that I did, because of your "Not only does the Atlantic source not speak of singular they in 'terms of confusion'" statement makes not a bit of sense to me since the article very clearly speaks of it in terms of confusion. That it has quotes challenging that singular they is confusing does not at all negate the fact that the source addresses singular they in terms of confusion. Obviously. Good grief. I've been clear and so are the sources I've cited. Your "there is no concern when using singular they in 'biography articles'" argument is blatantly false when it comes to articles like Ezra Miller and Emma Sulkowicz. Yeah, I know that you stated "unless you are using it to refer to known antecedents." Except for when making clarifications like that, the only one who hasn't been clear and arguing with "a big ball of gibberish" in this discussion is you, with your heated "ignorance" opinions and off-topic commentary. You made this discussion about something it is not. Simple. This discussion started with a focus on using singular they for Ezra Miller. You broadened the discussion because you took offense to me stating that singular they can be confusing at biography articles like Ezra Miller. Nowhere in that statement did I state that singular they is always confusing. That statement is focused on gender identity aspects. The AP states, "Clarity is a top priority; gender-neutral use of a singular they is unfamiliar to many readers." And that was all that I was stating in my initial paragraph in this section, with a focus on the gender identity aspect. And regarding the gender identity aspect, just like I prefer that we use the person's name as much as possible in our biography articles when it comes to singular they usage, the AP states, "Use the person's name in place of a pronoun, or otherwise reword the sentence, whenever possible." I expect more of the same from you any time singular they is brought up on this talk page. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:11, 22 November 2018 (UTC) Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:23, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Jesus Christ—you're now clearly either not reading a word I've read, or you're doing this deliberately to get under my skin—neither the Miller nor Sulkowicz articles have nothing to do with standard use of singular they. We've gone in circles enough now that you can't claim I haven't addressed this—I'll no longer be assuming good faith with your responses. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 22:17, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

You stated, "Jesus Christ—you're now clearly either not reading a word I've read, or you're doing this deliberately to get under my skin." That is how I feel about you. Do you not see how this discussion started and that it was about Miller's gender identity and using singular they because of Miller's gender identity? I couldn't care less that you'll "no longer be assuming good faith with [my] responses." You've completely missed the mark either way. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:23, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

You've achieved nothing aside from displaying your bad faith on the record. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 22:56, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

That is exactly what can be stated about you in this case. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:09, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

If I may attempt to break the circle: The key bit here is the quote: "The first time I heard someone use the word 'they' as a singular pronoun, I was confused—for about five seconds." Even if we assume that's literally true (it reads like a joke), this must have been decades ago. There's no reader of en.wp who is not familiar with the usage, since it's everyday spoken English now in every major dialect. In written English, singular they dates to the 14th c., and commonly (though often excoriated) in writing by the 18th, when prescriptive grammarians began venting about it, to little actual effect but getting it labeled informal. (See tidy OED article on this.) The informality perception is the main reason we and various off-WP style guides suggest avoiding it in most cases, but it clearly does have very limited circumstantial utility (when writing around it would be tedious and annoy the shit out the reader). So people just need to deal with it and stop letting their heads asplode about it.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:21, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

[[User:SMcCandlish|SMcCandlish]: the "I was confused for five seconds" quote is no joke—it refers explicitly to the use of the singular they to refer to known antecedents. I've already called out Flyer22 Reborn for quoting it out of context (the context is the sentence "Avery was here last weekend and they wanted to go to the beach", they referring to Avery. Yes, that would confuse almost all of us, as that usage has yet to become a standard part of the language—it is a prescription).

Flyer22 Reborn is familiar with the singular they' history and normal usage—this is all a game, though to what end I cannot fathom. The fact remains that Flyer22 Reborn has provided no example of anyone being "confused" by standard use of the singular they, and none will be forthcoming. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 04:11, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

You haven't called anything out. As for facts remaining, the fact remains that you continue to go on about "standard use of the singular they" when this discussion specifically began with regard to use of singular they for Miller and similar cases, which are obviously cases that are confusing to readers per what I stated and cited above. But keep trying to get the last word, I guess. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:18, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

"You haven't called anything out."—except where I cited the quote from the Daily Beast article you cited out of context? Not that that's the only example—you've made a habit of misrepresenting sources. I made what I was talking about clear in my first comment, which you've repeatedly stated you've read to the end. You have no excuses left—assuming good faith with you is not even an option. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 04:29, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Nope. Your commentary in this discussion has been ridiculous. And everyone knows why: The discussion began as a discussion about a person's gender identity. My initial comment is obviously specifically about that, considering that I stated, "If we are to use [singular they] in our biography articles, I prefer to use it sparingly and instead use the surname as much as possible because singular they has confused our readers.", and "what we won't use are genderqueer pronouns such as 'zie' and 's/him.' ", and the fact that I cited the AP stating "Use the person's name in place of a pronoun, or otherwise reword the sentence, whenever possible." You came to the discussion trying to challenge the confusion aspect, as if my initial post was at all focused on "standard use of the singular they." You then dragged me into a debate about whether or not the standard use is subject to debate among academics, when, as SMcCandlish noted above, the "it's informal" argument exists. The OED source states, in part, "Not everyone is down with singular they. The well-respected Chicago Manual of Style still rejects singular they for formal writing."  SMcCandlish stated that "various off-WP style guides suggest avoiding it in most cases." I mentioned style guides as well, but you kept going on. You were looking for a useless debate, as you often do. Well, you got it. And let me be very clear that I do not care what you think about me in the least. So your "no excuses left—assuming good faith with [me]" commentary matters not one bit. No one is going to agree with you that I've been playing some game or that I am anywhere close to being some disruptive editor. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:43, 23 November 2018 (UTC) Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:09, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Jesus Christ—you can't even quote yourself accurately. Your claim is that the singular they—in and of itself—"has confused our readers", and go on to talk about genderqueer issues until after that. Then you misquote, misrepresent, and otherwise play mind games ad nauseam—such us bringing up Miller and Sulkoqwicz when asked for examples of how standard use of singular they have "confused" people (and I don't believe for a second you've done this mistakenly). You still have no examples, and will never present one.

"No one is going to ... blah blah blah ..."—I sure don't see anyone flying off to your rescue! How about you stop pretending to speak for everyone else? Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 05:21, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

So now you are to tell me what I meant by "has confused our readers"? I know what I meant. And what I meant is clear to anyone with actual reading comprehension. Considering that I quoted the entire sentence, I quoted myself accurately. You state that I've failed to provide examples about how singular they has confused readers, when the Miller and Sulkowicz cases are prime examples, and when you yourself stated that "they" referring to "Avery" would "confuse almost all of us, as that usage has yet to become a standard part of the language—it is a prescription)." Do you hear yourself? What in the world are you going on about? This discussion was never about "standard use of singular they" until you made it about that! If anyone here is playing mind games, it's you. As for rescue, I'm no damsel in distress, but SMcCandlish has affirmed things I've stated -- your precious singular they is advised against, and not just for gender identity cases. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:37, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

"anyone with actual reading comprehension"—resorting to WP:PAs? You've demonstrating your lack of comprehension of what I've written far too many times in this discussion to whip this one out. Every time I've asked for an example of the standard use of singluar they causing confusion you've either ignored it or responded with a GENDERID example, which I made clear in my first comment was the singular exception. You know, that comment you've claimed numerous times to have read through to the end and—*ahem*—comprehended. So ... did you actually miscomprehend, or are you lying? There is no third option. ... Well, there's digging in your heels, which is obviously what you'll do once you've started resorting to ironic PAs. ::::::::::::::::::::::::::: Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 09:10, 23 November 2018 (

You simply can't admit that this discussion was never about "standard use of singular they" until you made it about that. It was always about cases like "they" referring to "Avery." I pointed to such cases causing confusion. You conceded that such cases cause confusion. And when you made it about "singular they hasn't been subject to debate," you were wrong. And now you are complaining about personal attacks when you've engaged in personal attacks plenty above. The personal attacks domain is your area of expertise, as many know. You went looking for a fight, like you often do, and ended up losing. Admit and move on. You won't, of course, since you love getting the last word. Because you love the last word so much, I'm not inclined to let you have it. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:28, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

"You simply can't admit ... blah blah blah"—you simply can't admit that I addressed this explicitly in my first comment, which you've repeatedly repeated you've read through to the end. If it was "always about cases like "they" referring to "Avery."", then there'd never have been any disagreement, as, again, I addressed that in my first comment. As we've agree about such usage from the first word, that's obviously not what you're continuing to fight about—and is why it's obvious your next comment will also be another slew of PAs. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:18, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

I'll show you consensus!

See? Can't let it go, despite what the evidence above shows. It made no sense at all for you to challenge my statement that "singular they has confused our readers" when the discussion was about singular they confusing readers in cases such as Miller's case and when you conceded that such uses cause confusion. My commentary was clearly focused on such cases, before you even stated "Where it becomes problematic is in the recent usage of it to refer to 'known' subjects (such as Miller), which is a case that has 'not' come into universal usage." Even my second comment is focused on such cases, which is why it points to the Emma Sulkowicz case and includes me stating, "An entire Wikipedia biography article using singular they, especially without specifying that the person prefers to use singular they for their gender identity? Yeah, that can be confusing for readers." This debate started because, for whatever silly reason (seemingly, per below, your fear that editors would add something to the guideline discouraging "singular they's traditional usage"), you acted like I was talking about "standard use of singular they". You then wrongly challenged the fact that the standard use of singular they has been subject to debate. You then started with personal attacks about how I'm playing games and other such nonsense you've claimed. Now you are complaining about me repeating myself when you've repeated yourself just as much. Move on. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:50, 25 November 2018 (UTC) Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:55, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

What a fucking joke—all because you can't bring yourself to admit you misread my first comment. Keep digging that hole, and don't forget to leave another slew of PAs. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 03:37, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

All of what you just stated is exactly how I feel about you. Move on. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:40, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Get over yourself—nobody gives two shits what you "feel" about me (or singular they). All that matters in this forum is the substance of the discussion. My first comment stands, and if you don't have an actual rebuttal to that other than PAs, then "move on" and all that. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 04:28, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

First you talk about me speaking for everyone, and now you do it. Why am I not surprised. As you so often say in a childish way, "blah blah blah." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:55, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Do we have to turn the hose on you two? EEng 05:21, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

LOL! 'Fraid so, EEng. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:22, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Meanwhile, back on earth ...

Seems like a rare, reasonable case for a singular they, perhaps with a footnote at first occurrence. Another of these is Genesis P-Orridge. Someone keeps slow-editwarring that subject's made-up construction back into the article. I fix it about once a year, but wish more people would watchlist it.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:21, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

• Singular they was good enough for Shakespeare and Jane Austen. If anyone takes issue with that, could they say so now? Tony (talk) 10:26, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

  Tony1: They do—they want to revive the battle against singular they to get at genderqueer folk, who have begun using it to refer to known antecedents (which indeed has not yet become a common, natural part of the language—I'm talking about sentences in the vein of "Kelly said they'd call back tomorrow", where they refers to Kelley; this usage is both not universally familiar and potentially confusing, as even those familiar with it can assume they, whether singular or plural, refers to a third person or persons). Voices against the traditional singular they have become particularly shrill and numerous in the past several years in reaction to the rise of this new usage. Whatever Wikipedia decides about the new usage, such arguments should be kept clearly separate from discussion about singular they's traditional usage. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 10:43, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

  Thanks; that's a good clarification (and was actually something I had not caught onto, this new linguo-political squabble and its known-antecedent source).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:22, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

MOS:GENDERID

Could we look at adding some words to the MOS:GENDERID to "Give precedence to self-designation as reported in the most up-to-date reliable sources" to overlook self-designations made as a joke or for mischief. We have just seen an edit war on changing the gender from male to female and back again on Barry O'Sullivan following some political banter where he declared himself to be a woman saying nobody would question his right to have an opinion on abortion if he became a woman. He had previously made similar remarks saying he would become a woman so he could use women's toilets. A number of people (whether well-intended or mischievous) justified changing the pronouns in the article using MOS:GENDERID on the basis of this "self-designation". Could we add some words to say if the self-designation is suspected to be not genuine (e.g. a joke or mischief), consensus should be established on the relevant Talk page before embarking on gender changes in the article or edit warring over them. In this particular case, the Senator's own web page was at no time updated in relation to the senator's self-identification and continued to use male pronoun. Kerry (talk) 00:45, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

careful... we do not want to open the door to Wikipedians passing judgment on the “validity” of someone’s identity. The fact that O’Sullivan’s webpage has not been updated (yet) is telling... however, what do we do if it is eventually updated? Even if an expression of gender is politically motivated, I think we would have to respect the subject’s wishes, and use “her” desired pronoun. Blueboar (talk) 01:26, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

All the more argument for waiting and seeing how the matter unfolds before rushing in and misleading readers (as per WP:BREAKING). Kerry (talk) 02:14, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

• Dangerous joking for a politician from Queensland. EEng 02:55, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Agree with Kerry. Clearly not a genuine transgender case. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:04, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

This issue has arisen previously with similar political stunt by Lauren Southern (see discussion). Contra Blueboar, Wikipedians absolutely should question the validity of this kind of transphobic provocation. Maybe an explicit clarification is warranted, but I don't think that any reliable sources actually took O'Sullivan or Southern seriously, so editors who were citing MOS:GENDERID were probably misinterpreting those policies. Nblund ^talk 04:09, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

I really, really don't think this is an MoS matter. It's a WP:V and WP:UNDUE stuff (i.e., it's about WP's credulity at what a subject is saying, and whether we've checked what the RS reactions to it are), and also a WP:NOT#NEWS matter (we have no reason to respond to "breaking stories" about which little substantive analysis has been done in independent and genuinely secondary RS – and "was in a newspaper" doesn't make it automatically secondary).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:48, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

RFC: Hyphenation should not be prescriptive

I recently ran across an editor who was moving pages to add hyphens to their titles, citing their belief that the compound modifier concept described in MOS:HYPHEN is an "objective" part of the English language. However, the moves contradicted the real hyphenation practiced by people who use the names of these groups and concepts products. For example, they desired to move "free software movement" to "free-software movement" and Tesla's "Standard Dual Motor AWD" to "Standard Dual-Motor AWD." I believe this prescriptive approach is inappropriate because it is not Wikipedia's role to tell outside groups that they have "various grammatical errors in their English pages."

For a more complete description of both sides to this debate, you can look at the DRN discussion. It fizzled on my end because of my personal issues last week, but the moderator pointed out that an RFC leading to a clarification of WP:HYPHEN is a better forum for this discussion anyway.

In short, I think Wikipedia's MOS should reflect its descriptive nature in order to prevent further controversy. One way to formalize this would be to add a section to MOS:HYPHEN that says something to the effect of Some names (in these examples, concepts and products) are treated by their constituents as essentially proper nouns although they remain not capitalized, and that usage should be respected by Wikipedia. If the common usage is to not hyphenate, Wikipedia should not hyphenate. For example, the "free software movement" should not be the "free-software movement," a "public domain novel" should not be a "public-domain novel," and the "Standard Dual Motor AWD" should not be the "Standard Dual-Motor AWD" That said, synthetic constructions from these names such as "public-domain-equivalent license" should be hyphenated.

Thoughts? lethargilistic (talk) 19:41, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

I think Wikipedia's style should be consistent across all words and phrases. If we hyphenate compound modifiers that are not proper nouns - I mean actual proper nouns - we should do it for all of them. Preventing controversy comes from establishing consistent rules - if we say the hyphenation rule is different for each phrase, we're setting up for endless controversy, with a separate debate over each phrase.

I also don't think there is a distinction in compound modifier hyphenation between modifiers. I think people who hyphenate free-software movement hyphenate all non-proper-noun compound modifiers and people who don't don't.

I can't think of another case where our punctuation varies according to the common usage for the particular words being punctuated. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 01:30, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

I think these are valid points, though I don't think it's as black-and-white an issue as a choice between those who do hyphenate compound modifiers and those who don't. It probably has more to do with domain knowledge, which I would liken to articles like Doctor Who using British English as a variation from the typical MOS even if a distinct national dialect has an obviously higher priority over a subculture's spelling. Similarly, there's the nuance to WP:DATE that allows different date formats on different articles as long as it's consistent within the article. Most any dispute over hyphenation could be solved with a quick survey of the literature of that subject, as it is likely handled currently in the absence of one rule.

I also want to get ahead of one thing for other people reading this: my specific terming of them as "essentially proper nouns" is just how I thought the idea made the best sense as a first draft. I'm not married to that description. Simply "hyphenation varies according to the common usage" is probably a better way of putting it that doesn't potentially confuse terms. lethargilistic (talk) 20:18, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

And do you think the uniform rule, if adopted, should also apply to specifically named products? lethargilistic (talk) 20:20, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

I don't really follow the domain knowledge/Doctor Who/WP:DATE point, unless you're suggesting that hyphenation should follow the custom in the community that's involved with the modifier in question. I'd like to point out that Wikipedia makes a special case out of national variations of English, and I think it's just out of patriotism. Where an article has strong ties to a particular nation, we use that nation's variation of English, even where the nation doesn't even have a well recognized variation. But for all the other ways English varies (such as subnational region, profession, or education level), we don't care if an article has strong ties; we apply a universal style. So if it were the custom or even a formal rule in the plumbing industry to capitalize "plumber", we still wouldn't in a plumbing-related article.

MOS in a few cases, such as WP:DATE without strong national ties, explicitly specifies multiple styles, and it's editor's choice. (I don't personally think a manual of style should ever do that, but it is what it is). There's a within-article consistency rule and a prefer-the-status-quo rule with respect to those ambivalent styles, but other than that the choice is arbitrary. I don't see how that applies to some compound modifiers being hyphenated while others aren't.

As for the question about specifically named products, I don't know what that means. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 22:15, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

• The point of hyphenating compound modifiers is to reduce ambiguity, right? Does it even really apply to "free software movement"? I suppose one could read it as "the software movement that is free" rather than "the movement about free software", but that seems unlikely. --tronvillain (talk) 22:40, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

... or "the free movement of software". EEng 22:52, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

There is also "free-software license" that was part of the dispute that hadn't yet been included here. Here is the relevant snippet of my argument from the DRN: Regarding a license for free software (free-software license), "free software" is being used to modify the improper noun "license", hence the compound modifier should contain a hyphen. Note that the usage of "free" in this context refers to freedom, not pricing—this means there exists "free free-software licenses", and "non-free free-software licenses" (not "free free software licenses" and "non free free software licenses"). LordOfPens (talk) 23:43, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Yep. Using "free-software movement" is perfectly fine and well-attested in reliable sources. I wouldn't insist on it in that exact case, though, because "X Y movement" constructions are typically unhyphenated in RS (whether they capitalize them or not); e.g. "civil rights movement" [1], "women's liberation movement" [2]. The construction itself makes confusing ambiguity unlikely. (Contrast "free-software license", where the hyphen is important – it means licensing that fits the free-software model, not an expensive software license you get as a "free gift", nor an as-yet-unused license among your purchased pack of licenses.) Since so many cases of "free-software foo" do need to be hyphenated, we're left with a consitency conflict: either hyphenate "free-software movement" and be inconsistent with "civil rights movement", or don't hyphenate it and be inconsistent with other free-software something pages. These kinds of conflict just happen, and we have to pick one. I'd be included to be consistent with other movements because of the lack of genuine ambiguity at the movement level. Anyway, the fact that geeks tend to drop hyphens when writing for other geeks is immaterial; it's not blanket license to drop hyphens in tech-related topics on this site. Same goes for car journalists in Car & Driver writing for people who subscribe to car journalism publications; they have their own special lingo, though it turns out the Tesla Model 3 Long-range doesn't even qualify, since they don't render it consistently between publications even in the same market.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:43, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

• The purpose of any house style manual is to be prescriptive (do this, not that) and consistent. Why would hyphenation be mystically different, alone of all style matters? It has jack to do with notions about "objective" truth about what is "right" in English. MoS is not an article, does not exist for describing English usage patterns, and is not even a style guide for anyone else or any purpose else in the world but Wikipedians consistently writing Wikipedia articles. It's an internal checklist, not a public textbook. It literally is not possible for it to serve a "role to tell outside groups that they have 'various grammatical errors in their English pages'", since it isn't telling outside groups anything, ever, under any circumstances. WP doesn't care how Tesla writes their own materials. If you write a letter to The New York Times to criticize their spelling or punctuation and cite WP:MOS as your basis, then you're making a silly mistake and people are going to laugh at you. (Same goes if you try to cite The New York Times Manual of Style and Usage as a rationale for defying our MoS when you write here.) It's akin to trying to rely on Nigerian law while in court in New Zealand.

  This specific case: "Standard Dual-Motor AWD" wouldn't be right, anyway. Either "Standard Dual Motor AWD" or "Standard Dual-motor AWD", if that's even a proper name and should be capitalized at all, and we would only use the former if RS were overwhelmingly in favor of it, which they are not. Google proves that in seconds. This long string as a whole is not any kind of proper name. It is not a model name or title of any kind, usually does not have any capital letters except in headings/headlines, and the exact phrase itself is rarely used. It's just a descriptive phrase, a list of key features. It does appear that some shorter phrases are model names (or sub-model names), including (in Tesla's rendering) "Standard", "Long Range", and "Mid Range" (which is actually an outright error: "mid-" in English is a prefix not a stand-alone word). However, the RS that are independent of Tesla are utterly inconsistent on how to render these: you find "Mid-range", "Mid-Range", "Mid Range", "Midrange", "mid-range", "mid range", and "midrange", all in the first two pages of Google News results.[3] We thus have absolutely no reason not to do what MoS says, which is "Mid-range" – capitalized because it is actually a brand name in this particular case; do use the hyphen since it's a compound adjective; but don't capitalize after a hyphen unless what follows the hyphen is itself a proper name (as in "post-Soviet Russia"). MOS:TM already has this covered: Use a style in a trademark that is divergent (like "Mid Range") from MoS's prescribed defaults only when independent sources do so consistently, which they provably do not for these cases.

  From the perspective of "how to write WP", yes, the Tesla company's website does have "grammatical errors" as LordOfPens imprecisely put it in the edit summary diffed above; that is, patterns of usage that do not comply with how we write WP. This doesn't magically dictate that WP has to change to write [terribly] like Tesla's website. Have you not noticed that our articles on skateboarding are not written like Thrasher magazine pieces? That our articles on surgery are not buried in impenetrable medical jargon and ponderous academicians' circumlocutions like a paper in the Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine? WP has its own style manual for a reason (actually a whole bunch of reasons, but being a general-audience encyclopedia is the central one). The "free-software movement" case is adequately covered above already.
   — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:43, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

I'm having trouble reconciling your statement that Wikipedia has its own house style with statements above that the hyphenation of compound modifiers that we find in article sources should inform how we hyphenate them in Wikipedia.

My own position is that Wikipedia gets its facts from Reliable Sources, not its style (or spelling or grammar). When we choose a style for Wikipedia, we do look at what is prevalent in the whole body of English writing, but that's got nothing to do with Reliable Sources.

The existing documented style, by the way, does simply prescribe that we hyphenate, which is why this post suggests changing MOS to prescribe something more complex where we hyphenate or not depending upon what is customary in English for the particular modifier. I believe you advocate something of that sort where you say you prefer that compound modifiers of movements not be hyphenated. Do you think MOS should be changed to accommodate that, and if so, how? Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 06:37, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

You're having trouble reconciling because you are not actually reading what the style guide says.  :-) Start at MOS:TM and let me know when you get to the sentence that starts "When deciding how to format a trademark". Hint: fourth sentence, in the very lead. The fact that the style guide lays out default "style this thing this way" rules doesn't mean it's the only kind of rule it contains, including rules about when to override those defaults. Your general feeling of how MoS operates isn't too wide of the mark; it actually takes a nearly uniform showing in the sources to override our defaults. But, in the end, WP isn't going to impose a style that damned near no one in the world actually uses (e.g. "Ipod" for iPod or "Three-M" for 3M Corporation), because it's a recognizability problem. The "here we go again" issue, of tediously recycled "gimme an exception because I say so" demands, is that people misunderstand MoS in both directions; various editors appear to assume that any style appearing in 50.0001% of sources is necessarily to be imposed on Wikipedia (it is not) or that a style favored in all of a company's own marketing is forced on us (it is not). We would simply not bother with a style guide if these ideas were true. PS: If you want talk about "free[-]software" rather than these Tesla things, the same "vary from MoS's default if and only if nearly all sources do so consistently" thing is found throughout MoS in various places, in various not-quite-identical wording. It's a general principle.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:56, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

• I generally agree with what SMcCandlish has written here. Tony (talk) 10:28, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
• Update: A concurrent WP:TALKFORK over at 'Talk:Tesla Model 3#"grammatical errors" in Tesla products and branding' indicates that Tesla itself isn't even consistent on this stuff. Someone wants to use, e.g. "All Wheel Drive" in mimicry of some Tesla materials because it's supposedly "official" and allegedly a trademark, yet Tesla themselves have been caught out inconsistently hyphenating the compound adjective. So, there is no "official" anything here. Not that WP even cares what's supposedly official anyway. We care what independent sources are doing; when they are not consistent, we do what MoS says to do by default (since the real world is clearly imposing no hard rule about the case at hand), and the sources on this stuff in particular simply are not consistent. The end. Let's move on and bicker no further about Tesla's iffy writing habits and whether through some mystical, unseen force it compells us to write as poorly as they do.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:37, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Merge discussion: MOS:ELIST into MOS:LIST

FYI

 – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

Please see: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Lists#Propose merging WP:Manual of Style/Embedded lists into WP:Manual of Style/Lists
 — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:04, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

RfC: Proposed revision of MOS:HEAD

A recent discussion on section headings showed that some of the restrictions on section headings at MOS:HEAD are "hard" (typically having technical basis, not subject to override by consensus), and some are "soft" (might admit to an occasional exception). To clarify which are which I propose reorganizing and revising the "heading should" list at MOS:HEAD as follows.

Section headings should:

• Be unique within a page (otherwise section links may lead to the wrong place, and edit summaries may be ambiguous).
• Not contain links, especially where only part of a heading is linked.
• Not contain images or icons.
• Not contain <math> markup.
• Not contain citations or footnotes.
• Not use ";" (description list) markup to create pseudo-headings.

These restrictions are necessary to avoid technical complications, and are not subject to override by local consensus or WP:IAR.

In addition, as a matter of consistent style section headings should:

• Not redundantly refer back to the subject of the article (Early life, not Smith's early life or His early life), or to a higher-level heading, unless doing so is shorter or clearer.
• Not start with a number (other than a year).
• Not be phrased as a question.
• Avoid use of color or unusual fonts that might cause accessibility problems.

These are broadly accepted community preferences. Occasional exceptions may apply; these should be discussed on the article's Talk page.

♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:49, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

• Why? No-one in that discussion was receptive to you, as you were clearly also not being receptive to the people who answered your question. --Izno (talk) 02:32, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Quite an amazing characterization, which I dispute. In the prior discussion I had a specific question, which got bandied about. In the course of that discussion it was evident that some of the the MOS:HEAD restrictions are possibly mutable (might allow an occasional exception), and some are pretty solidly immutable. What I am proposing is to make this clearer. No change of policy, nor even expressions of broadly accepted standards, is intended. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 05:06, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Everything in guidelines is possibly mutable; it's explicit in the definition of "guideline" at WP:P&G. We don't need to spell this out for each and every guideline line-item, or even on every guideline page (especially since the guideline banner at the top of the page reiterates already).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:28, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

• I like it. There's a difference between a rule with technical implications and one that's purely style, and it is by no means obvious which is which.

I would drop "these should be discussed on the article's talk page." It's redundant - the path to consensus needn't be any different for this than for anything else in Wikipedia. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 22:52, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Possible exceptions certainly should be discussed. I take the underlying issue to be whether such discussions be done at the article Talk page, or here. I am slightly inclined towards doing so at the more particular level, but don't see any great problem doing it here. As a matter of clear guidance, do we prefer one way or the other? Or does it matter? ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 18:36, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

• This fails to do what it sets out to do. E.g., not using color is a technical accessibility matter just like not using links in headings. "Not start with a number (other than a year)" is an over-statement. What it really means is "don't number the headings". There are other reasons a heading might start with a number, the most obvious being a proper name that begins with one such as 3M Corporation. There is no reason for a WP article's heading to be phrased as question, ever. Implying that's just some optional "style" concern for people to fight about is wrong. Not abusing description-list markup for headings is a technical matter and a style matter but is not a "hard" technical restriction, it's just ignorant (or willfully stupid and lazy) abuse of the wrong markup. And so on. I share J. Johnson's Izno's concern that this is basically time- rather than venue-shifted WP:FORUMSHOPPING; the previous discussion of this doesn't show support for the idea.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:28, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

  @SMcCandlish: I think you mean my concern, as JJ is the one putting forth this proposal. --Izno (talk) 00:04, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

  Ah, yes. My eyeballs are in revolt again.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:26, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

I was wondering why there was an objection to "starting with a number". Because editors have tried to explicitly number sections? Okay, and perhaps that needs a better, more explicit formulation, and even a bit of explanation.

Please note that I am not quibbling about any of these restrictions (except for being unclear or under explained), or their possible mutability. What I am proposing is that we clarify some of this, so that (e.g.) "3M" doesn't get the same knee-jerk, adamantine rejection as including gif files.

And please note (as I already said): the previous discussion was on a specific restriction, while this proposal is about reorganizing the list of restrictions. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:58, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Well, I've already outlined why the reorganization doesn't seem on point. As for the numbers thing, it probably would be easier to just say "do not number the headings". I would think that is the rationale for the rule being in there (it pre-dates even my time here, but I'm hard pressed for why else it would be there).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:16, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Well, it seems like a reasonable explanation. And an example of why some of these reasons should be explained. Though instead of "do not number" (pretty broad) I would say something like "section headings should not be numbered or lettered as done with outlines", as it gives a more specific focus, and even suggests a reason ("because these are not outlines"). ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:14, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Honorific Dewan Bahadur

I am copyediting Krishnalal Jhaveri and the lead starts

Diwan Bahadur Krishnalal Mohanlal Jhaveri (30 December 1868 – 15 June 1957)

I've poked around the MOS in several areas looking for guidance but am still at a loss. It looks weird as a link before the name but the link made it easy for me to understand what it means. Should this stay as is or should the sentence go something like

Krishnalal Mohanlal Jhaveri (30 December 1868 – 15 June 1957), known honorifically as Diwan Bahadur Krishnalal Mohanlal Jhaveri

If I am at the wrong place to ask, please point me to the right place. Thanks so much. PopularOutcast^talk2me! 01:25, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Even that's unnecessarily repetitive. Just stating toward the end of the lead section that his name is sometimes prefixed with Diwan Bahadur is sufficient. We're handling such things in this kind of way in other articles, e.g. at Nithyananda.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:19, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

MOS:SLASH question?

In the case of referring to, say, the ext2, ext3, and ext4 filesystems, which are often shortened to something like "ext2/3/4", should those slashes be spaced? The example seems logically to fall under the "NY 31 east / NY 370 exit" example, but somehow "ext2 / 3 / 4" doesn't look right to me. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:28, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

This is something like the reason the ndash is unspaced in 1900–1987, but spaced in February 1, 1900 – March 3, 1987 -- it depends on whether the endpoints of the range themselves have spaces. February 1, 1900–March 3, 1987 looks wrong because 1900 binds too close visually to March. So I would say ext2/3/4. EEng 04:50, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Bolding of titles, and titles of redirects

Do we have a clear policy here? I can't see it.

Many articles, e.g. Apollo Command/Service Module cover two large and very notable topics, because it's clearer for the reader to describe both in one place (the implicit assumption is that everyone will want to read about both). In that case, should the two sub-article names within the overall article be bolded? Apollo Service Module redirects to Apollo Command/Service Module#Service Module, wherein Service Module is bolded.

AFAIR, this is our policy. But I can't find the canonical version of this. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:53, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

See also WP:ANEW Andy Dingley (talk) 01:03, 25 November 2018 (UTC)