Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
m →‎For 5-6 years, or five to six years: Fix broken anchor introduced by commit 1111696237.
Tag: Reverted
m →‎For 5-6 years, or five to six years: This approach works better in general than all other options.
Tag: Reverted
Line 894: Line 894:
::Concur. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — [[User:SMcCandlish|'''SMcCandlish''']] [[User talk:SMcCandlish|☏]] [[Special:Contributions/SMcCandlish|¢]] 😼 </span> 09:41, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
::Concur. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — [[User:SMcCandlish|'''SMcCandlish''']] [[User talk:SMcCandlish|☏]] [[Special:Contributions/SMcCandlish|¢]] 😼 </span> 09:41, 21 August 2022 (UTC)


<h2><div style="visibility: hidden; overflow: hidden; height: 0">
== {{Anchor
| For_5-6_years,_or_five_to_six_years
<hr id="For_5-6_years,_or_five_to_six_years" />
</div>

}} For 5–6 years, or five to six years ==
For 5–6 years, or five to six years</h2>


[[MOS:RANGE]] and [[MOS:NUMBER]] may have a conflict in certain cases. The former recommends en dash for ranges of numbers, but this doesn't look right for numbers below ten, for which I prefer [[MOS:NUMBER]]. I.e., I just [[Special:Diff/1104290128|changed]]:
[[MOS:RANGE]] and [[MOS:NUMBER]] may have a conflict in certain cases. The former recommends en dash for ranges of numbers, but this doesn't look right for numbers below ten, for which I prefer [[MOS:NUMBER]]. I.e., I just [[Special:Diff/1104290128|changed]]:

Revision as of 01:18, 25 September 2022

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

Welcome to the MOS pit


    Style discussions elsewhere

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

    Current

    (newest on top)

    Capitalization-specific:

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

    Move requests:

    Other discussions:

    Pretty stale but not "concluded":

    Concluded

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

    Non-breaking spaces with written-out units

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

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

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

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

    • something something ... a distance of 15
      km

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

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

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

    • something something ... a distance of 15
      kilometres

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

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

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

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

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

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

    NBSP for numeric followed by words

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

    The guideline gives patchy and somewhat conflicting advice on this entire subject. I'm going to give you what I think will be useful guidance, but we must brace ourselves for people to leap out at us from all corners of the project to denounce what I say as at best the product of unfathomable ignorance, and at worst detrimental to the moral fiber of the nation.
    There are two (maybe more, but two I can think of offhand) things we're trying to prevent:
    • (1) You don't want tiny fragments that look odd alone stranded on the start of a line. Thus World War{nbsp}2 and Henry{nbsp}VIII.
    • (2) You don't want two things separated by a linebreak if the reader, seeing just the first part, will be momentarily misled and have to back up and rethink when he sees the bit on the next line. Thus $2{nbsp}million, because if the million goes on the next line the reader first thinks "Two dollars", and then when he sees the million he has to back up and think "Oh, wait, Two million dollars". (This is a peculiarity of the fact that money symbols go at front of quantities rather than at the end as with other units. Can anyone think of a similar example not involving money?)
    (3) Notice that the logic of (2) doesn't arise with normal quantities like 15 seeds or 2 million dollars (i.e. no nbsp used in these cases) because as the reader scans "15<linebreak>seeds" there's nothing misleading about 15 alone at the end of the line, and the same for scanning "2<linebreak>million dollars" or "2 million<linebreak>dollars". When you think about it, if you required nbsp in constructions like that, then you're pretty much saying every number anywhere must be followed by an nbsp, and that can't be right. So I would not put {nbsp} in your examples.
    (4) Units of measure are a special case. By the logic of (3), there's no {nbsp} in 10 kilometers. However, I think the guideline does recommend an {nbsp} in the case of 10{nbsp}km, because at the start of a line km looks weird in a way kilometer doesn't. (km is what's called a unit symbol, whereas kilometer is what's called a unit name, and there are several other ways in which unit symbols and unit names are treated differently, so there's nothing odd about treating them differently here.)
    Perhaps the principles laid out above can be the start of a revival of this thread. EEng 03:04, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Or perhaps not. In the meantime, here are some other places I think (comment invited, of course) nbsp would be needed or not needed. Probably some or all of these are give by others in the posts above but I want to get them down while they're on my mind.
    Needed:
    • In DMY dates e.g. 28{nbsp}May or 28{nbsp}May 1935, because at least some readers will find separation of the day-in-month from the month odd. (Further explanation on request as to why this is different from the case of 10 kilometers.)
    • In MDY dates e.g. May{nbsp}28, 1935, because "28, 1935" looks ludicrous at the start of a line.
    • He responded, "Better you than{nbsp}I." or The smallest reading was{nbsp}5.
    • 9:30{nbsp}a.m. because I think it's somewhat analogous to a unit symbol (see above); and definitely 9:30{nbsp}am, because "am" alone and separated from the "9:30" could cause the reader to trip and fall.
    • several{nbsp}.22 shells, because starting a line with a . looks weird
    • <certain image caption situations, details to be supplied (centered captions, left-aligned captions)>
    • Ellipsis or other fragments at the start of a quotation: He listed them as "1.{nbsp}Good goals, 2. Good planning, 3. Good execution; or The torn fragment read, "...{nbsp}for the love of God!"
    • July{{nbsp}}28, 1942 ????
    Not needed:
    • 123 Main Street
    EEng 00:48, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I ask people here: how often have you struck a dangling numeral at the end of a line? Me: not that I can recall. Tony (talk) 07:08, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      By struck do you mean "run into/happened to find" or "struck out/had to get rid of"? EEng 16:14, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Perhaps that was meant to be "stuck", the synonym for "put". —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 23:58, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I could see having a summary section somewhere (hopefully not in the main page, maybe in MOS:TEXT) about "Appropriate uses of non-breaking spaces" or some heading title like that, in which we could suggest these sorts of cases, without implying that they're required. People already rankle at the currently fairly-strongly-recommended ones in MOS:NUM and a few other places. So, there's opportunity to cry "WP:CREEP!" here if this discussion produces more rules, rather than optional tweaks for polishing up text for maximum usability.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:30, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Definitely for FA-level polishing, mostly, but there's one situation where I've found it worth the trouble to apply nbsp/nobr fairly liberally: in image captions, because their short line length means bad breaks do occur now and then unless you prevent them. EEng 03:45, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm surprised to see the above quote from MOS:NUM (WP:UNITNAMES): "a normal space is used between a number and a unit name". Personally, I would find a line break within the example's "29
      kilograms" rather ugly. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 00:05, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      Me, too. The position "you're pretty much saying every number anywhere must be followed by an nbsp" that EEng spoke against earlier actually seems to me to be the best practice. Your example of a break between 29 and kilograms not only looks "ugly", but makes me think that there has been a misprint of some sort causing me to have trouble understanding what is written. --Khajidha (talk) 19:38, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Somewhat related, but since the discussion here is almost-exclusively referencing insertion of NBSPs, I wanted to re-raise this previous discussion where I advocated for using Template:nowrap instead of NBSPs. The simple reason being that (at least on my system / in my browser) {{nowrap}} has the same effect as the insertion of NBSPs, without affecting spacing of the text the way NBSP does (again, at least on my system). Here's the example I presented:
    Bare Wikilinked
    Using {{nowrap}} World War I World War I
    Using &nbsp; World War I World War I
    Looking at that on my screen, the &nbsp; version has a much larger — in fact, uncomfortably large — space between "War" and "I", whereas the {{nowrap}} version is spaced normally. If we can protect phrases against wrapping without making the formatting look weird, I figure that makes the decision on when/whether to do so a bit less fraught. -- FeRDNYC (talk) 02:52, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Something from somewhere else

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

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

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

    Improve Controlling line breaks section

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

    Does this still need to remain unarchived?

    EEng? valereee (talk) 17:20, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Along with patrollers reflexively responding to edit requests with "Get consensus first", it's one of those things I plan to get to sometime between now and when I die. EEng 17:31, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It's been here for two years. I say let it archive. If people want to raise it again, and maybe get a clearer consensus, then okay. But this isn't attracting new meaningful commentary.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  15:37, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    But it acts as a mute reminder that I need to get back to this someday! Isn't that reason enough for keeping it here? EEng 02:08, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikilawyering over passive voice

    The guideline was updated. Future problems with this IP range should be treated as a behavioral problem or a lack of good writing skills, neither of which are problems that can be solved by clarifying guidelines. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:41, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    MOS:PASSIVE says "Passive voice should still be avoided when it is not needed". The discussion at User talk:131.203.251.134#editing which is damaging to article quality. suggests that this is being interpreted as "Passive voice should be avoided if it is at all humanly possible", resulting in changes such as these:

    • The name was anglicised → The name became anglicised
    • The word tapu can be interpreted as "sacred" → One can interpret the word tapu as "sacred"
    • policy is the manner in which a given entity (often governmental) has decided to address issues → policy is the manner in which a given entity (often governmental) proposes to address issues
    • It was closed in 2011 → The Greater Wellington Regional Council closed the station in 2011
    • was an early supporter → became early supporters
    • Wolfe was killed → Wolfe died
    • War diaries are focused on → War diaries focus on

    The first, for example, pointlessly changes from one passive construction to another. The second unnecessarily introduces the Impersonal pronoun. The third changes the meaning from something that is already decided to something that has only been proposed so far. The fourth places the emphasis on an unimportant actor (which PASSIVE says not to do). The fifth changes a linking verb to the passive voice. The sixth removes information (he didn't just die; he was actively killed by gunfire). The last suggests that inanimate objects have attention spans and the ability to choose their focus, which is just silly.

    These are all bad, and at least most of them have been reverted. I think that the behavioral problem could be reduced by changing the wording at PASSIVE. So far, the IP insists that passive voice is acceptable only if absolutely needed. I think we could probably come up with a clearer way to explain this. We don't want to use passive voice when it omits relevant information –

    Mistakes were made.
    The passive voice was used.
    Responsibility was shirked.

    – but we also don't want people to make pointless changes from one form of passive to another, to remove linking verbs, to create stilted sentences with the unnecessary use of "one" in violation of MOS:YOU, or to replace clear sentences with clunky, awkward, or silly constructions.

    I don't have a proposal offhand for how to re-write this sentence, but I'd like to know whether you all think this should be adjusted to prevent future problems. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:24, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    I think the existing language would cover many of those examples. For instance, "The Greater Wellington ..." is "a news-style shift to dwelling on a non-notable party". Many examples, including "was an early supporter", aren't even passive voice, just the past tense of "to be". Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:32, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I agree that the existing language covers this. If we could count on people to read and follow the whole thing instead of just the 11 words that, taken in isolation, support their personal preferences, then we wouldn't be here. But, unfortunately, we can't. So I am wondering whether we could adjust the wording to make it more difficult to wikilawyer over. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:49, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    (ec) I'm totally on board with this project. The passive voice is a tool to be used for specific purposes, namely whenever the grammatical object of the main verb is more pertinent than its grammatical subject. Unfortunately there's a fair amount of unreasoned aversion to this perfectly normal aspect of our language. I've noted that people who complain about "passive voice" are sometimes not even talking about passive voice, but about grammatically active-voice sentences using an unaccusative verb, which is not the main point of this discussion but is not unrelated either.
    What is worth saying is that the passive voice should not be used just to use it, for example because you think it makes the text sound more refined or lawyerly or scientific or something. --Trovatore (talk) 17:37, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I like your phrase, "whenever the grammatical object of the main verb is more pertinent than its grammatical subject". That's a good way to explain why we would write "She was burned" instead of "The hot object burned her" – but that in other cases, we would write "The scalding hot coffee burned her". WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:55, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed, it sums up the situation nicely. I can still hear Mr Thomas (chemistry) whilst telling us how to write up chemistry practicals stating that "no-one cares which one of you heated the test tube, only that it was heated", and that was 50 years ago! Martin of Sheffield (talk) 20:37, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    This whole "don't use the passive voice" thing must be one of the worst rules introduced by prescriptive grammarians into English in the last few decades. I'm pretty sure that the first time I saw it was when Microsoft introduced so-called grammar-checking into its word processor and flagged all uses of the passive voice as errors. As with several other of my pet peeves in this area it seems that people are more prepared to go along with silly rules introduced by ignoramuses at tech companies rather than emulate people who use the language well. And, after I have said all that, some of the examples given don't even use the passive voice. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:52, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    "policy is the manner in which a given entity (often governmental) has decided to address issues" - there is no passive voice in this. Both verbs ("is" and "has decided") are in the active voice. Indefatigable (talk) 21:37, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    What we really want to say here is "write well". There's a limit to the level of detail we can go to to make that happen. And it looks like in this particular case we're making things worse by trying. We can't really teach people how to write. There are times when the passive voice is great, and times when it sucks, and there's no way to teach that by giving some out-of-context (and therefore ill-advised) examples. "write 'Germany invaded Poland in 1939', not 'Poland was invaded by Germany in 1939'" is just bad advice, because in many contexts the latter would work better, and with no context it's no more useful than "Don't get wet" or "Wear sunglasses". The other examples in that section are more clearly bad writing ("There were no witnesses, but O'Neil shot the guard..." ) and that's what you want if you want an example.
    Passive voice is sometimes used by illiterates -- "Upon the valve being opened by us, a deceased bat was seen" or whatever -- but then illiterates use all kinds of bad constructions. If that could be solved by providing an MOS we wouldn't need writing courses. And passive voice is sometimes used to bamboozle or shirk blame ("The computer proved to be unable to be programmed by the persons who had been hired to do so"), but that's not an issue here and if it is its an NPOV and weasel-word issue, which is something else altogether.
    "Passive voice should still be avoided when it is not needed; write Germany invaded Poland in 1939, not Poland was invaded by Germany in 1939" is just a bad, unhelpful passage that somebody put in there. It should just go. I suppose you could just say "Passive voice should still be avoided when it results in weak or confusing writing" or something, but what for? Anything that results in weak or confusing writing should be avoided.
    Hmmm, looking at our article Passive voice, we sure as shooten play our cards straight out there:

    Many commentators, notably George Orwell in his essay "Politics and the English Language" and Strunk & White in The Elements of Style, have urged minimizing use of the passive voice, but this is almost always based on these commentators' misunderstanding of what the passive voice is. Contrary to common critiques, the passive voice has important uses, with virtually all writers using the passive voice (including Orwell and Strunk & White). There is general agreement that the passive voice is useful for emphasis, or when the receiver of the action is more important than the actor. Merriam–Webster's Dictionary of English Usage refers to three statistical studies of passive versus active sentences in various periodicals, stating: "the highest incidence of passive constructions was 13 percent. Orwell runs to a little over 20 percent in "Politics and the English Language". Clearly he found the construction useful in spite of his advice to avoid it as much as possible".

    Ouch, burn. And that's the article. I think the sentence in dispute here was probably added as a sop to the Orwells and Strunks and Whites. But people mostly don't pay attention to Strunk & White anymore, and according to our article they're just flat wrong, and the sop is just causing trouble.
    It's pretty clear that from this discussion and the user-talk thread pointed to, there is only one person who seems to think that the sentence should stay. I was going to remove it myself but no super hurry. Herostratus (talk) 06:09, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I am very happy to find this oasis of good sense with regards to the use of the passive. I would strongly support the removal of the sentences regarding Poland. As a teacher of English as a Second Language, I frequently used the clauses "Germany invaded France" and "France was invaded by Germany" as examples of when the passive might be appropriate, the latter being more suitable in a text focusing on the history of France. Boynamedsue (talk) 08:53, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I think at this point the only question is whether to remove the sentence or change it to something else. I vote for the former because, as Strunk & White say, "omit needless words". An editor above wrote that the passive is best used "whenever the grammatical object of the main verb is more pertinent than its grammatical subject" and that is cogent and precise, altho possibly obscure to people who are a little shaky on the difference between "verb" and "object" (which is many of us, and we're here to help the writing be better, not judge people). If you wanted a clearer example... well, look at how the Pottinger-Cain Incident would be described in, respectively, the articles David Pottinger (criminal) and Lorenzo Cain (victim) if they existed (emphasis added):

    "David Pottinger (1883-1936), dubbed 'The Beast of Leeds', was a famous violent criminal. His career began in 1882 when he assaulted Lorenzo Cain...

    "Lorenzo Cain (1883-1936), dubbed 'The Unluckiest Man in Leeds', was famous as the victim of many brutal attacks. The first was in 1882 when he was assaulted by David Pottinger...

    Beating a dead horse here at this point tho I guess. Just remove the sentence, I say. Herostratus (talk) 15:57, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    In defence of George Orwell, who is always someone worth taking seriously even when you disagree with him, he said in that essay, "never use the passive where you can use the active" [my emphasis] and "break any of these rules sooner than say anything outright barbarous". We seem to have at least one editor who interprets such general guidance as "never use the passive voice", which is just bollocks. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:26, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Very well said. And as others have pointed out, most people have a very bad accuracy rate at actually identifying instances of the passive voice. Language Log has written many times about this tendency to equate "passive voice" with any "construction that is vague as to agency". Which makes advice about avoiding it doubly futile. Colin M (talk) 17:23, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    In defense of Strunk & White, the passive voice was never spoken about in such absolutes by those two as many seem to wish to think it was. Dhtwiki (talk) 03:06, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with the OP that most if not all of the changes shown were not improvements. Passive voice is more frequently used in encyclopedic writing than otherwise, and people just have to learn to live with it. The last time we had a "my preferred grammar ideas are the law" holy warrior around here, it resulted in a topic ban and very long block.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:51, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Having read the discussion above, I would argue that we should remove this text "Passive voice should still be avoided when it is not needed; write Germany invaded Poland in 1939, not Poland was invaded by Germany in 1939." And replace it with the following text:
    "The passive can be used to maintain focus on the party receiving an action, for example look at look at how the Pottinger-Cain Incident would be described in, respectively, the articles David Pottinger (criminal) and Lorenzo Cain (victim) (emphasis added):

    "David Pottinger (1883-1936), dubbed 'The Beast of Leeds', was a famous violent criminal. His career began in 1882 when he assaulted Lorenzo Cain...

    "Lorenzo Cain (1883-1936), dubbed 'The Unluckiest Man in Leeds', was famous as the victim of many brutal attacks. The first was in 1882 when he was assaulted by David Pottinger...

    ".
    If there is no consensus in favour of this, simply deleting the sentence would be enough. Boynamedsue (talk) 07:44, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I would favour removing the sentence altogether, because most of our policies and guidelines are far too long already. It's a good example, but we cannot legislate for every aspect of good writing. This is an encyclopedia, not a book on English style. Phil Bridger (talk) 07:51, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • The entire footnote [o] should be deleted per WP:CREEP. It's just a rambling tangent from MOS:WE and MOS:YOU and is too indecisive to be useful. An essential feature of good writing is that it is short and to the point. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:19, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Removing the entire footnote means removing all of this:
      The passive voice is often advised against in many forms of writing, but is used frequently in encyclopedic material, where its careful use avoids inappropriate first- and second-person constructions, as well as tone problems. Passive voice should still be avoided when it is not needed; write Germany invaded Poland in 1939, not Poland was invaded by Germany in 1939. The most common uses of encyclopedic passive are to keep the focus on the subject instead of performing a news-style shift to dwelling on a non-notable party; and to avoid leaping to certain-sounding conclusions from uncertain facts. Contrast The break-in was reported to police the next morning, versus Assistant manager Peggy Plimpton-Chan reported the break-in to police the next morning. Compare also There were no witnesses, but O'Neil was convicted of shooting the guard, and Sklarov of driving the getaway car, and There were no witnesses, but O'Neil shot the guard, and Sklarov drove the getaway car.
      (Also, I have just noticed that our advice about the passive voice is written partly in the passive voice.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:45, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      We should keep something on this, or we're just going to get more well-meaning but wrongheaded "death to passive voice" bullshit. It's in there for a reason. Just doesn't need to be that detailed. Boynamedsue's material above could work, though it's fine if it remains in a footnote.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:35, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      We could cut the existing text down to something like this:
      The passive voice is often advised against in many forms of writing, but is used frequently in encyclopedic material to avoid inappropriate first- and second-person constructions, tone problems, and leaping to certain-sounding conclusions from uncertain facts, as well as to keep the focus on the main subject, rather than a minor actor.
      I also like Trovatore's "whenever the grammatical object of the main verb is more pertinent than its grammatical subject", and Herostratus' Pottinger–Cain incident examples are good, too. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:51, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Gee, I wonder how long before someone recasts that in the active i.e. "Many forms of writing advise against the passive voice." ;P EEng 02:13, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      How about in the passive-aggressive voice?  Stepho  talk  05:42, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      That's only for ANI and Arbcom cases. EEng 06:01, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      I agree with WhatamIdoing's rewrite above.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:56, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      What about cutting it to "Passive voice is allowed in articles", and someone writing an essay that explains more detail? WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:28, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      MoS should provide rationale when reasonable to do so, and essays generally have no authority. An essay on this would be a good idea, like the great one about WP:Elegant variation, but MoS should still give reasons to use passive voice, or we'll just be right back here with people arguing that MoS is being pointlessly prescriptive and arbitrary and that "Passive voice is allowed in articles" should be removed. Maybe more to the real point, though, PV is advisable not just allowed in articles for various purposes.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:56, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Did anyone, ever, advocate turning all passive-voice constructions into active ones? Or that "the passive voice is acceptable only if absolutely needed"? If so, I missed it.

    The examples of horrible edits quoted hardly support the case for this whole apparent storm in a tea-cup and subsequent attempt to crush butterflies with sledgehammers. And those examples lack links to articles or even to sections edited, making it more difficult for anyone to assess them in context and to evaluate what proportion of each editing operation involved passive-to-active shift, let alone how many other passive-voice constructions remained untouched (rather than getting the improve-on-sight treatment). Leaving aside the examples which do not involve substituting actives for passives (three of the seven), we find:

    • "One can interpret the word tapu as 'sacred'" - Nothing wrong with the occasional impersonal pronoun as a feature of stylistic variety.
    • "The Greater Wellington Regional Council closed the station in 2011" - This answers the question: who closed the station? The railway company? The local government? Or the regional government? Or the central government? - The alleged "unimportant actor" may have great importance to some readers. The article becomes richer with this detail, but remains vaguer without it.
    • "Wolfe died" - In the context of a battle one might assume a fatal wound. In this case I would suggest that the finer details may seem irrelevant. That said, I wouldn't die in a ditch for this edit.
    • "War diaries focus on" - Depending on context, "war diarists focus on" might seem better. But the claim that inanimate objects have "attention spans" has little merit. Which sounds better: "The sun set at 6pm" or "At 6 pm the sun was obscured by the horizon due to the rotation of the Earth"? The passive-voice version ("was obscured") has the advantage of scientific pedantry but little else.

    Who defines "minor actor" or "non-notable party"? Or whether a verb object seems "more pertinent" than a grammatical subject? Such apparently sensible strictures on style might invite serious wiki-lawyering.

    I have no particular beef for or against Strunk and White. But one of the comments on these worthies seems to suggest that their views have dated. In that case, we can alternatively (or also) quote more contemporary authorities. A brief glance at English passive voice#Style advice suggests that both style guides and editors generally favor use of the active voice - with some defined exceptions. And that article, of course, as a part of Wikipedia, demonstrates and exhibits a neutral point of vies. Remember, too, that Wikipedia-editors produce not literary fiction, but simple straightforward explanatory prose - the MOS prescribes: "Editors should write using straightforward, easily understood language". In this context, active-voice constructions can exactly mirror the content of passive-voice ones - and often more succinctly. Baldly labelling specific active-voice constructions as "bad" or as "bad writing" scarcely helps the debate.

    Speculating on the motives of the esteemed developers of the Wikipedia Manual of Style seems pointless. We have archives to provide evidence on such matters.

    Active voice might merit a mention in the Manual of Style. Otherwise we give undue weight to passive-voice constructions at the expense of the most common English-language grammatical voice. Articles with excesssive use of the passive voice may become dreary (see facet, for example) and uninformative.

    User:Andrew Davidson suggests: "An essential feature of good writing is that it is short and to the point." Endorsed. And judicious use of the active voice can exemplify good writing.

    - 131.203.251.134 (talk) 04:39, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    The real guidance should be "avoid circumlocution". Passive voice is only a problem when it obfuscates the meaning of a passage, or interrupts the flow of a narrative, or similar. There are times when you want to use passive voice, because it is actually more concise, to the point, and where changing to active voice changes the emphasis or meaning of a passage. The sentence "The American Revolution War was fought between the British Empire and their former subjects on the North American continent", for example, is in passive voice. To convert that to active voice actually makes it worse, from a narrative perspective and in being able to parse its meaning. "The British Empire and their former subjects on the North American continent fought the American Revolutionary War" is in active voice, and is a trainwreck of a sentence. --Jayron32 13:36, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    "The British Empire fought the American Revolutionary War in North America against their former subjects". Really in most cases you can use either. As long as it's not truly grating or objectively confusing (less a function of a particular voice than of the general skill of the writer I think), let the volunteers write how they write. If and when we hire professional writers we can demand more conformity. Herostratus (talk) 22:43, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    True. But the passive makes more sense than either of those constructions if you are writing about the war itself. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 13:19, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd be interested to know how many IP addresses the IP user above is using to make these anti-passive edits. I reckon I've seen about 5 or 6 accounts with a very similar editing style. The alternative being that at there are at least 6 people doing this on wikipedia, which would strongly argue for a change in the MOS. And also it'd be cool if they could confirm they have taken on board the consensus on this page and stopped making this kind of edit. --Boynamedsue (talk) 07:09, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I personally see no reason to discourage passive voice in encyclopedic material unless it is being used to avoid providing information that the reader wants to know. "Mistakes were made" should not be used as a way of avoiding the identification of who made the mistakes. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 05:10, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Main page examples

    Having been pinged here, I then perused today's main page and noticed extensive use of the passive voice. For example,

    The main exception seems to be OTD. All today's OTD entries seemed to use the active voice so I checked the next two days, including the staging area where the choices are made. In every case, there seemed to be candidates which used the passive voice but only active voice entries were chosen. I gather that OTD is mostly the work of a particular editor so perhaps this reflects their personal style?

    Andrew🐉(talk) 07:31, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    I have always read OTD as being deliberately unencyclopaedic in style, serving a slightly different purpose to the main space. Its kind of frothy prose is intended to sound less formal and draw people in, so active voice makes more sense as it is used much more frequently in informal English. Boynamedsue (talk) 06:40, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I think there's something to this, but it's perhaps worth noting that "elected" and "located" are examples of verbs that are, respectively, either awkward or impossible to cast in active form. "The people of [country] elected [person]" is an OK sentence, but uses a lot of extra words (and would raise NPOV issues if it were used here). "Located" in this context has no agent, and arguably is not a "real" passive at all (CGEL would call it an "adjectival passive").
    "Went into foreclosure" is not passive (it seems like an active-voice recasting of "was foreclosed on", one that actually obscures the agent even further). But I suspect that DYK might have a particular tendency toward such patient-first constructions, including passive ones, because each entry is meant to highlight a specific article, and for any given factual statement in any given article, the article subject is more likely to be the patient than the agent. (Or so I imagine, having done no research on the subject.) Anyway, circling back to the main topic of discussion, I think these examples shown how context-dependent the choice between active and passive clauses is, and how unwise it would be to have any hard rules (or anything that could be misinterpreted as a hard rule). -- Visviva (talk) 01:52, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Completely agree. As a side point re "located": WP:LOCATIONLOCATIONLOCATION. EEng 05:51, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I concur entirely with Boynamedsue above; OTD is not written in the same style as the encyclopedia proper.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:50, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Alright then, it seems time to a change make as, if I'm seeing it right, the editor is continuing to point to the existing written rule. So what I did was excise altogether the sentence "Passive voice should still be avoided when it is not needed; write Germany invaded Poland in 1939, not Poland was invaded by Germany in 1939". That's the minimum. I then went on to change

    The passive voice is often advised against in many forms of writing, but is used frequently in encyclopedic material...

    to

    [[]]

    To explain the situation to those readers who, like me, vaguely remember being taught when in short pants to not the passive use. Many of us are dead and most are decrepit I guess, but some apparently still have freedom to wander the grounds and access the computers in the dayroom. We could just have

    The passive voice is used frequently in encyclopedic material...

    Which is shorter but doesn't explain why we're bothering to address the issue. Other editors have advised just deleting the whole section and so on, anyway, make any further changes you like, the main point is that that horrid passage has now been knocked for six.

    In return for this service, I ask editors to stop rewriting me when I say "Smith was graduated from Smith in 1907", which is the correct construction. Herostratus (talk) 07:11, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    The "formerly sometimes advised against" in "The passive voice was formerly sometimes advised against in many forms of writing, but is used frequently in encyclopedic material..." is awkward.
    I know this is a little on the humorous side, but would anyone object to a link to Wikipedia:Lies Miss Snodgrass told you in there? Perhaps "For non-encyclopedia writing, most schoolteachers and some style guides recommended against the passive voice, but it is used frequently and appropriately in encyclopedic material..." WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:38, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    passive voice formerly sometimes advised against

    A revision of MOS:PASSIVE from May 2022 states: "The passive voice was formerly sometimes advised against in many forms of writing [...]."

    Looking at some relatively recent (post-Orwell) purveyors of advice on the matter of passive-voice usage, we find:

    • 1962: Flesch, Rudolf (1962). How to Be Brief: An Index to Simple Writing. p. 5; 15. Retrieved 31 May 2022. The active voice is always better than the passive. [...] All forms of the verb to be [...] are signs that you probably used a weak passive voice or be-with-noun construction. Hunt for a strong active verb and re-write.
    • 1973: Evans, Harold (1973) [1972]. Newsman's English. Volume 1 of Editing and Design: A Five-volume Manual of English, Typography and Layout, Harold Evans. Heinemann [for the National Council for the Training of Journalists]. p. 23. ISBN 9780434905508. Retrieved 31 May 2022. Vigorous, economical writing requires a preference for sentences in the active voice.
    • 1996: Ratcliffe, Krista (17 January 1996). "De/Mystifying HerSelf and HerWor(l)ds: Mary Daly". Anglo-American Feminist Challenges to the Rhetorical Traditions: Virginia Woolf, Mary Daly, Adrienne Rich. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press (published 1996). p. 94. ISBN 9780809319343. Retrieved 2 June 2022. [...] foreground grammar deletes agency: passive voice mystifies accountability by erasing who or what performs an action [...].
    • 1996: Fowler, Henry Watson. "passive territory". In Burchfield, R. W. (ed.). The New Fowler's Modern English Usage (3 ed.). Oxford: Clarendon Press. p. 576-578. In scientific writing the passive voice is much more frequent than it is in ordinary expository or imaginative prose [...]. [...] In ordinary prose true passives are relatively uncommon [...]. [...] Gowers (1965) advised against the use of it is felt, it is thought, it is believed, etc [...]. He was probably right. The use or avoidance of the passive in such circumstances often depends on the level of formality being aimed at and often on the wisdom of accepting personal or group responsibility for the statement that follows. In general, however, it is better to begin by identifying the person or group who feel, think, believe, have decided, etc. [...].
    • 2002: Lasch, Christopher (3 May 2002). "Christopher Lasch and Politics of the Plain Style - by Stewart Weaver". In Weaver, Stewart Angas (ed.). Plain Style: A Guide to Written English. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press (published 2002). p. 34. ISBN 9780812218145. Retrieved 31 May 2022. [...] inert and lifeless, the passive voice, for Lasch at least, also suggests a kind of moral cowardice insofar as it 'disguises the subject and makes it hard to assign responsibility for an action.' thus its appeal to bureaucrats, 'who wish to avoid resposibility for their decisions,' and timid academics, who, unwilling to risk a straightforward judgment, aspire above all else to 'an appearance of detatchment and objectivity' [...].
    • 2010: "Content Style Sheet" (PDF). Blackwell. 10 March 2010. p. 2. Archived from the original (PDF) on 8 June 2011. Retrieved 2 June 2022. Use passive voice throughout: [...] (science/medical requirement – fading practice)" [...] Use active voice throughout [...]
    • 2011: Hitchings, Henry (2011). A History of Proper English. London: John Murray. p. 323. The use of the passive voice is another technique of denial [...].
    • 2022: "Nature portfolio". Nature portfolio. Nature. Springer Nature Limited. 2022. Retrieved 2 June 2022. Nature journals prefer authors to write in the active voice ("we performed the experiment...") as experience has shown that readers find concepts and results to be conveyed more clearly if written directly.
    • 2022: "Write clearly and concisely". IEEE ProComm - Professional Communication Society. IEEE. Retrieved 2 June 2022. Use active voice by default; research shows readers comprehend it more quickly than passive voice [...].

    So a few gullibles have drunk the kool-aid. But when (if ever) did the "formerly sometimes advised against" monster become "formerly sometimes advised against" (rather than generally accepted by grammarians, style-gurus and publishers) ?

    In the light of the examples presented, the characterization of passive-voice-use as "formerly sometimes advised against" seems vague and questionable.

    We could drop the formulation "was formerly sometimes". Or we could find and reference some overwhelmingly convincing alternative pronouncements in reliable sources to justify the new implied prescription ("passive constructions are no longer generally advised against"). So far in support of the new wisdom we have had some spirited statements of the type "[...] But people mostly don't pay attention to Strunk & White anymore [...]."

    - 131.203.251.134 (talk) 04:07, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    It was formerly advised against in the MOS. This whole debate is to change MOS to no longer generally advise against it. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 08:06, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Confusingly vague, no? - to state: "The passive voice was formerly sometimes advised against in many forms of writing [...]." Still what can one expect but vague sloppiness from an agentless passive-voice sentence, with or without irony?
    However, to address the interpretation that the advice for "many forms of writing" relates to advice promulgated in the Wikipedia Manual of Style. User:SMcCandlish added into the Manual of Style the text "Passive voice is used much more frequently in encyclopedic writing than in most other forms, in which it may be frequently advised against. [...] Passive voice should still be avoided when it is not needed [...]" on 26 September 2017, adding the edit summary: "Been meaning to add this for years, and keep forgetting." Sampling of the archives suggests that similar wording about the use of passive-voice constructions remained in the Manual of Style continually until May 2022. Does that gel clearly with the "sometimes" in the statement: "The passive voice was formerly sometimes advised against in many forms of writing [...]" ?
    It intrigues me to read that "[t]his whole debate is to change MOS to no longer generally advise against it". I thought that any debate aimed to determine something rather than to presuppose a predetermined outcome. Right now we apparently have a debate on possibly improving the formulation "The passive voice was formerly sometimes advised against in many forms of writing [...]" - in a sentence which User:WhatamIdoing has identified as "awkward".
    - 131.203.251.134 (talk) 04:39, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It is clear that you feel you are right, and that these quotes support what you are arguing, unfortunately they don't. The reason the MoS has been changed is that the former wording could be misinterpreted to suggest that all passives were bad and should be changed where possible. That is not what the above quotes say, nor was it the intention of the previous wording, but it is what you are doing. I would suggest that, with the change of the text of the MoS, you should just move on and cease to rephrase passives until you are clearer about the incidences in which that might be appropriate. We are possibly arriving at a WP:CIR situation here. --Boynamedsue (talk) 06:26, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I fail to see how the repeated (but unfounded and unproven) suggestion - that I change all possible passive usages - has anything to do with the current discussion on the MOS's history and analysis of style. - 131.203.251.134 (talk) 04:50, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Just let me clarify as the above was a bit short. It may be that you are right about the passive and the other people who have commented here are wrong. But the consensus here is different to that, and therefore, for the purposes of wikipedia, you need to edit in a slightly different way. Not every consensus is backed up by a rewrite of the MoS, so this one seems pretty clear. Boynamedsue (talk) 06:57, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree. We do not require that people agree that this is the correct rule; we only require them to acknowledge that it is our rule and that our rule is the one that must be followed, however grudgingly, here.
    I have just re-written the first half to say: "The passive voice is inappropriate for some forms of writing, such as creative writing and instructions, but it is widely used in encyclopedia articles, because the passive voice avoids inappropriate first- and second-person constructions as well as tone problems." I think this is clearer (identifies what we mean by 'forms of writing') and less awkward. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:51, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    checkY I like that. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 16:38, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    "The passive voice is inappropriate for some forms of writing, such as creative writing and instructions, but it is widely used in encyclopedia articles, because the passive voice avoids inappropriate first- and second-person constructions as well as tone problems." This gives the message we want to communicate perfectly, but the first bit isn't true! Could we change "is inappropriate" for "is frequently advised against"? Boynamedsue (talk) 05:05, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Boynamedsue, what makes you think that the first bit isn't true? Consider these options:
    1. Remove the pizza from the box and plastic wrap. Discard all packaging materials.
    vs
    1. The pizza is removed from the box and the plastic wrap. All the packaging materials are discarded.
    Which of these is the appropriate style for telling someone how to prepare a frozen pizza for a hot oven? WhatamIdoing (talk) 14:48, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    You are certainly right in that example, but the phrase "The passive voice is inappropriate for some forms of writing, such as creative writing and ..." sounds like passive voice should never be used in creative writing. I can imagine it being just what's needed occasionally. Changing "is inappropriate" to "is rarely appropriate" or something like that sounds good to me. SchreiberBike | ⌨  15:25, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, in that example the passive is absolutely wrong. But, for example, "The alarm must be fitted by a trained electrician" would be fine. The passive is frequently used in creative writing, it is just less common than in encyclopaedic language. A nice example is the legendary poem "This be the verse" by Phillip Larkin, where the artistic choice of the passive is doing an important job.
    Like I said, the relevant part of the text as it is now does the job we need, but the irrelevant part isn't technically correct. Boynamedsue (talk) 15:47, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    That's fair. Would you like to make the change that SchreiberBike suggests? WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:37, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I would put something like "less frequently used". Boynamedsue (talk) 16:32, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Why are we advising people on creative writing? I don't see how this is within the scope of the MOS. --Trovatore (talk) 00:37, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not "creative writing", which is how to write a novel, etc. I haven't read this voluminous thread but for the examples at the top of ridiculous passive-to-active changes. Please revert them wherever they occurred. Tony (talk) 02:26, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Boynamedsue, WhatamIdoing, and SchreiberBike seem to be discussing MOS text that references creative writing, contrasting it with Wikipedia writing and suggesting that passive voice is more appropriate here than it is in writing a novel etc. I don't have any problem with passive voice used appropriately in Wikipedia, but I think it's out of place for us to compare it with creative writing. No one is interested in our tips on creative writing. Or maybe they even are, but this isn't the place for us to offer them. --Trovatore (talk) 04:40, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed. Furthermore, suggested text along the lines of "the passive voice is frequently advised against" would (re-)introduce vagueness and confusion. It would leave unhelpfully unclear, for example, whether the statement applies as much in Bolivia as it may in Burundi. Excellent example of the perils of an agentless passive. - At least the current MOS text discussing the usage of passives: "The passive voice is inappropriate for some forms of writing [...]" has greatly improved clarity - thank you, User:WhatamIdoing. - 131.203.251.134 (talk) 04:50, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The point is that people have had it pounded into their head by Miss Snodgrass and MS Word to never use the passive voice. They need a bit of context to understand why it has a place in an encyclopedia. We're not saying everything they've learned is wrong, only that in an encyclopedia, sometimes, passive voice is just right. SchreiberBike | ⌨  04:58, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    We don't need to say everything they've learned is wrong, but we don't need to say it isn't wrong, either. Maybe everything they've learned really is wrong. Or maybe not. Not up to us to say, at least not in the MOS. --Trovatore (talk) 16:31, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Just regarding this, anon user, you have been repeatedly asked not to change passive structures for active ones on this page, and given the reasons why you shouldn't do this. I believe the following edits to include further examples of what Tony asked to be reverted on sight. [[2]], 2, 3. Could you maybe stop doing this, given the well-established consensus against it? Boynamedsue (talk) 05:49, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Or not - given the wealth of support from various quarters for appropriate active-voice constructions in and beyond Wikipedia articles and Wikipedia talk-pages, and given the lack of any purportedly established consensus banning occasional improvements in editing for clarity and succinctness. - One might indeed convince oneself into a belief aligned with a third party's views on reversion - Tony states that he read only the examples of "passive-to-active changes" (the four or five cherry-picked ones, plucked out of context and unreferenced). But talk-pages do not always operate on the basis of repeated shrill denunciations, without reasoned discussion, and Tony may even have had the opportunity to read through our little thread here and to consider some of the more nuanced approaches to the use of active voice. - I detect no stylistic crimes in context in the referenced edits - WP:MOS does not require passive-voice structures. I suggest finding a real justification for any proposed reversions. - 131.203.251.134 (talk) 04:47, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Given that this thread is purportedly dedicated to encouraging clear exposition, I'm having a hard time interpreting the immediately foregoing as anything other than parody. EEng 05:11, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • If this could be conveyed to the anon user: scientific/engineering English nowadays uses a mix of active and passive when explaining in a funding application, for example, how a project will be conducted. The point is to avoid successive close occurrences of "We will ...", et al. Last century is was the norm to use wall-to-wall passive voice, in some weird attempt to suggest objectivity through the absence of actors. Passive voice has its place, though it's possible to find passive that would be better as active: just not the way the anon is doing it. Tony (talk) 13:05, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Now at ANI

    Fallout from ANI

    The discussion now safely archived at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1102 reached an administrative decision summarizable in the viewpoint of User:Boynamedsue of 24 June 2022 - "[...] nobody here is arguing that the active voice is bad, or that replacing the passive is always incorrect. We argue that the way the anon user is doing this is not appropriate and that they should stop it." But this negative authoritative wisdom - institutionalizing what one user should not do - offers little help to anyone busily crafting and re-crafting Wikipedia articles - how should we use the active voice (the default standard in English)? In what specific way(s) do the edits of the "anon user" (User 131.203.251.134) seem "not appropriate"? So perhaps we can discuss a way forward here on WT:MOS. We could start with the sage advice of User:Visviva on 24 June 2022 - "I do not see any consensus at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style#Wikilawyering_over_passive_voice that the active voice is bad or that the passive voice should never be replaced [...]." - 131.203.251.134 (talk) 04:39, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    The way forward is for you not to resume flitting from article to article twisting sentences into pretzels. A lot of your changes are improvements but plenty aren't, and you've pissed people off enough that no one wants to spend time filtering one from the other. Because your judgment on active versus passive is clearly off, if you're not sure -- don't. EEng 15:30, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I've consistently followed the Wikipedia Manual of Style in making edits, pausing occasionally to defend against some of the wild accusations, dodgy interpretations and gross inaccuracies in claims to the contrary. So exactly who or what has pissed anyone off here? - 131.203.251.134 (talk) 04:41, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    You have. Huge amounts of time have been wasted on your pointless arguing. See below. EEng 17:20, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Just dropping by to say that the user seems to have heeded E's advice as their recent edits have avoided changes to the passive. I'm happy this seems to have been resolved. Boynamedsue (talk) 12:45, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    While I'm always happy to hog credit, this particular IP has made exactly one edit in the past few days, so not sure what you're saying. EEng 19:15, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    They've made more edits with their other accounts, linked on their talkpage. I came across them by chance and thought "here we go again", but I was pleasantly surprised.--Boynamedsue (talk) 08:49, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Not everyone agrees on other folks' judgment re preferring active or passive constructions. Discussions have reflected this, and doctrinaire opinions abound. Picking on individual editors who consistently attempt to follow the Wikipedia Manual of Style guidelines does not resolve the issue. Threatening individual editors with sanctions does not solve the issue for the numerous other Wikipedians who edit many many articles each day. Inventing unwritten rules against changes which User:Visviva has described as "mostly ... value-neutral" does not help. Postulating an uncodified consensus where none exists does not help future Wikipedians. Misinterpretting the MOS's tentative toleration of occasional passives (in certain circumstances) as requiring a certain "encyclopedic" style may lead to unencyclopedic vagueness. - User:WhatamIdoing started this discussion with a query about possibly adjusting MOS:PASSIVE. We now have "some waffle buried in one of its many footnotes" - "still not crisp and clear". Time to get back on topic? - 131.203.251.134 (talk) 04:41, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Christ, even as someone (above) is saying that your recent edits no longer seem problematic, you STILL want to argue. Could you please spare us and quit while you're ahead? EEng 17:20, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that we now have adequate written advice, and that if there are future problems, we should handle it as an individual/behavioral problem, instead of blaming an alleged lack of clarity in the Manual of Style. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:35, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The Wikipedia Manual of Style does not lack clarity. The question becomes: how to interpret and respond to its discussion of passive-voice usage? - A misunderstanding has arisen over whether the Wikipedia Manual of Style gives advice on the use of passive-voice constructions. Generally speaking, it doesn't. It notes that the use of passives may (not must) avoid certain perceived stylistic infelicities (in MOS:WE: "rephrasing to use passive voice may be preferable"; in MOS:YOU: "[t]he passive voice may sometimes be used instead"), and explains (without prescribing) the "most common uses of encyclopedic passive" (MOS:PASSIVE: "it is widely used in encyclopedia articles, because [...]"; "[t]he most common uses of encyclopedic passive are [...]"). Re-editing the Manual of Style to remove specific discouragement of the passive voice has not changed the MOS's silence on non-passive-voice (normal) usage. Nor do statistics reveal undue passive-voice usage in Wikipedia articles: in a recent featured article I count 385 main-space verbs - only 106 of them (less than 28%) in the passive voice, despite much of the text paraphrasing scholarly articles. Recall that editors use featured articles, "reviewed as featured article candidates for accuracy, neutrality, completeness, and style" "as examples for writing other articles". So why all the fuss over some switches to use the active voice? - 131.203.251.134 (talk) 04:42, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps the problem is not "switches to use the active voice" per se but the absence of WP:Brilliant prose in the results. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:12, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I grant you that I have a greater interest in accuracy than in glitter. - 131.203.251.134 (talk) 04:44, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    What part of Christ, even as someone (above) is saying that your recent edits no longer seem problematic, you STILL want to argue. Could you please spare us and quit while you're ahead? did you not understand? EEng 18:45, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    "ahead". - Need you ask? - 131.203.251.134 (talk) 04:44, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Well let me spell it out for you: you've managed to get this far without being blocked, but if you post to this thread again, that may change. EEng 20:24, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Alternatively, rather than laying down some law or issuing threats, we could engage in debate (question and answer; thesis and antithesis) on appropriate encyclopedic style, thus furthering the purpose of the talk-page. Who knows - we may reach a consensus on outstanding issues which could eliminate the need for cancel-culture behavior. - 131.203.251.134 (talk) 04:32, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    There's nothing to debate. Liz (picking you at random), can you please give this guy a warning to drop the stick? EEng 05:22, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Further discussion here is not useful. Your past posts have shown that you personally have consistent problems with the correct use of the passive, which you defended using the wording of the manual of style. The MoS has been changed so no language appears which you could use to justify the type of edit you were making. The post above in which you discuss the number of passive verb forms in Red panda is irrelevant, nobody is arguing for a specific percentage of active or passive verbs, it was simply noted by many users that your constant rephrasing of passive verb forms as active ones led to bad prose. I am fairly certain that everybody who has commented on this page has rephrased a passive as an active at some point, I did one a couple of days ago. The point is that you, personally, don't seem to know how to do this correctly, and so have been advised to stop. I would say we really should leave it at that. --Boynamedsue (talk) 05:32, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I will willingly debate - in some appropriate venue - your much-repeated, grossly exaggerated and inaccurate misrepresentations of my occasional alleged editing offenses. Right here and now, however, we have a talk-page devoted to something else: to discussing appropriate Wikipedia style. I have raised some issues re active- and passive-voice usage which apparently interested parties have not yet addressed. You could help specifically by explaining what you consider "the correct use", "bad prose" and permissible editing - for my benefit and for the benefit of others attempting to improve the encyclopedic accuracy and clarity of Wikipedia. - 131.203.251.134 (talk) 04:48, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    MOS:'S misguided?

    FYI, in the RM discussion at Talk:Eyles's harrier#Requested move 21 May 2022, most of the initial comments are saying that MOS:'S / MOS:POSS is misguided (re: "the boss's office, Illinois's largest employer, Descartes's philosophy" – especially "Descartes's philosophy"). Should the guidance be changed? —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 04:55, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    If anyone is serious about re-opening this, please first review these prior discussions (and others you may find) and let us know what's changed that should unsettle this settled matter. Dicklyon (talk) 18:51, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Dicklyon, would you toss those links up in the FAQ at the top of the page? That sometimes helps, and it would at least save us the trouble of finding the whole list next time. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:37, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Feel free. Or I might get to it later. Dicklyon (talk) 17:40, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, done. Dicklyon (talk) 03:41, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't recall ever reading a word in the "s's" style. GoodDay (talk) 17:52, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    See if any of these books will refresh your memory. Dicklyon (talk) 03:29, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Or maybe some of these? Or these? Dicklyon (talk) 03:42, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Do as you all please. This old bear is just a tad weary & bruised up. Just not in a debating mood, these days. GoodDay (talk) 03:59, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Percent again

    Percent clarification

    I would like to propose a small update to the percent description. The description is spot on with regards to how to use it. 3% Three percent Three per cent (however much I personally hate this option; but that is one of the reasons there is a style guide)

    On what not to use, the style guide is a lot less clear Do not use: 3 % I think we should add: 3 percent 3 per cent. As invalid options. That is implied in the text, but it is not stated in the examples. Additionally, to be completely clear, I think we should add: Whether it is the first time in the article you use percent or not. if you do not write out the number, do not write out the percent. That also means that 70% can be written in only one way. I consider this a clarification of the rules, not an update (Together with how to write numerals in Wiki)

    Percent update

    The is one very small inconsistency with the percentage standards as opposed to most percentage standards. Where 3–5 m is correct for 3 to 5 meters (and 3 m – 5 m is not), the percentage standard is to include the percent in both instances, thus: 3%–5%. I guess that has to do with number formatting, as well as the fact that a lot of text could be added between the 3% and the 5%. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.207.179.62 (talk • contribs) 08:05, June 15, 2022 (UTC)

    Examples use prose rarely encountered in WP

    I've checked the archives and don't believe this is a WP:PERENNIAL, but the examples under MOS:INOROUT show styles of prose rarely encountered in WP (e,g, Dory said, "Yes, I can read", which gave Marlin an idea.) which limits the example's effectiveness. Examples reflecting the style advocated for use in articles might facilitate better comprehension, especially in the scenario of differentiating clauses from editorial insertions, since these rules differ for both.  Spintendo  11:42, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    This is a criticism I've long made of some parts of MOS -- particularly (as chance would have it) the fishy examples. Take these two:
    • "Why are you sleeping?", asked Darla.
    • "Fish are friends, not food", said Bruce.
    It's almost impossible to imagine an article reciting what someone said in this style, which is better suited to works of fiction. Same goes for:
    • Did Darla say, "Here I am"?
    No article could possibly contain such an interrogatory construction, so why are we instructing editors on how to punctuate it properly? (The exception would be a quotation, in which case we'd use the source's punctuation anyway.) If we can't illustrate a MOS principle using an example that might conceivably arise in an actual article, then there's no need for MOS to address that principle at all, and WP:If MOS doesn't need a rule on something, then it needs to not have a rule on that thing. EEng 20:02, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Just chiming in to agree that this is a problem and has been a problem; I remember talking about it with EEng after I fixed one example in 2018(!), and some time later someone also changed the poetic "Old Man Winter's bleak greys relent as Spring begins to show her colors" example elsewhere on that page to something that could more plausibly occur in encyclopedic prose. Wherever possible, we should use examples that do, or at least plausibly could, occur in articles. Whenever you spot one that you can improve, please improve it or bring it up for discussion like this; it's just hard to find them all. -sche (talk) 06:28, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Right, but to reiterate what I think is, perhaps, an even more important point: if no one can think of a plausible example -- one that could arise in an actual article -- to illustrate a given point of usage, then that point should simply be deleted. EEng 18:25, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Could we please say ”omitted” or “removed”, rather than “deleted”… just a quibble. Blueboar (talk) 20:17, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Could we compromise on "annihilated", "shot on sight", or "terminated with extreme prejudice" [3]? EEng 22:08, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Here's two made-up examples:

    • When asked about the website's debut, Wales and Sanger stated that Wikipedia was launched sometime during the "beginning of the third week of 2001", and that at the time, "only the English language version was available".
    • According to Wales, Nupedia and Wikipedia coexisted "until Nupedia's servers were taken down permanently, sometime around 2003."

    The punctuation shown above is according to my interpretation of how MOS:INOROUT reads. My main question though is about the second example, where the period is enclosed within the QM's because it ends the quoted statement, but that statement is still a fragment (i.e., less than a whole sentence)---so wouldn't the period go on the outside? Or does the comma after the word 'permanently' mean the period is enclosed by the QM's?  Spintendo  06:15, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    The way you wrote it is correct. - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) [he/him] 07:56, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I should have said "it is correct if we are following American punctuation."
    I think a writer in the United Kingdom would write the sentence like this:
    According to Wales, Nupedia and Wikipedia coexisted 'until Nupedia's servers were taken down permanently, sometime around 2003'.
    If that is wrong, please correct this lowly Yank. ;^) – Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) [he/him] 08:07, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I think Dr. Worthen is absolutely correct, the US and UK versions do traditionally differ along the lines they described, and that MOS:INOROUT technically follows the UK version (by coincidence--not b/c of any geographic preference). I've been trying to imagine a quick n' easy rule to remember MOS:INOROUT and I believe it's the following:
    Whenever quote fragments are used, periods and commas always exist outside of QM's, no matter how many fragments from different quotes are placed into one sentence. The only cases where commas and periods exist inside QM's are when the full quote is used from beginning to end (either broken by an editorial insertion or unbroken).
    Which means my second example above was incorrect (as Dr. Worthen noted) and would only have the period on the inside of the QM's if the sentence went like this:
    In the original pair of "Wales and Sanger" examples, the second could end with 2003". (dot outside the quote) because the quoted material is a fragment. I don't think anyone really cares either way. In the example immediately above, it wouldn't be coexisted," (comma inside) unless the comma was there in the original (which might have been the case: "Nupedia and Wikipedia coexisted, until Nupedia's servers ..."). If it wasn't in the original, then use coexisted", (comma outside). Logical quotation is not hard. Stop over-thinking it. It's simply "Do not put inside the quotation marks any punctuation that was not in the original material." The end. If it was in the original, it is usual to include it, but it can be omitted (there is no rule against omitting it) if the structure of the overall material doing the quoting is better with it omitted (e.g., moved outside the quotation marks). All of these sample quotations above are juggling fragments around, they are not presenting an entire quoted sentence as a unit. Finally, LQ is not "British style". We've been over this about a thousand times before. There is no single British style, but about a dozen identifiable British styles from different publishers with subtly different rules and rationales. LQ is usually closer to the British styles than it is to typesetters' quotation often called American style (though it is not confined to American publications nor found in all of them).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  10:00, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    To get back to the main point, it would be good to replace these silly dialogue examples with examples of WP quoting someone in turn quoting someone/something else. Count me in firm support of doing that.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  15:18, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Keep in mind that dialogue examples can be more illustrative than prose examples in certain mixed cases. The point is to create a minimal example that informs the reader as clearly as possible, and in some cases that might mean a realistic encyclopedic example is necessary, but in others that might just make the point more subtle and be unnecessary if the prior example is already in that form. The canonical inside-outside mix would then go something like, "This is why you should always ask 'why?'." (The gist is that mixing two different punctuation marks is a clearer illustration of why it's a necessary form than if you double up a period, for example, and that mix may be hard to find in encyclopedic prose -- but I'm sure we'll think of something.) Also note my previous sentence (in that I put the period inside the parentheses, since it's a full sentence parenthetical, as opposed to this one). SamuelRiv (talk) 15:30, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    MOS:HYPHEN

    MOS:HYPHEN has an image of college students stating "four-year old children", meaning these college students are in their fourth year (seniors) at a university. However, college students are not kids, but young adults and have obtained the age of majority, so the description is somewhat misleading. That is why I added a note explaining that sources sometimes refer to college students as college kids because of their youthfulness. cookie monster 755 02:38, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    They're all somebody's children. I've removed your overanxious pedantry. EEng 04:36, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd missed that pics had been introduced in that section. They're cool. Tony (talk) 08:27, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. Honoraria may be sent to the usual numbered account. EEng 13:50, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    And they're old children. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:59, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Questions: is that expression, or even just "old children", actually in use in the USA in the context of university graduates - Ive never heard of that usage in the UK? At what age do students graduate from Texas Tech University?
    That is different form of pedantry, EEng#s. You are using children in the "vertical" family relationship sense, with no age implications whatsoever; the photo concerns contempories, using the word to mean young people who have not yet reached puberty or become adults. Davidships (talk) 09:58, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    You're joking, right? EEng 13:50, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    College students are some ones children, but they aren't children in the legal sense. It's misleading EEng#s. cookie monster 755 17:12, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Then I guess if we end up in court over this we're screwed. EEng 18:28, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    lol. cookie monster 755 18:44, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    This seems to be a litany of people not getting the point, which is, in the context of hyphenation, that these children are four-year (in that they are studying four-year courses) and old (as children go). Mildly humorous things like this lose most of their effect if they have to be explained, but it seems that it is necessary to do so. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:33, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    They are not children though, they are young adults. I know they are four-year uni students. cookie monster 755 00:36, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    You're absolutely right. The individuals depicted are not, in fact, children. There's no one within the sound of my voice who was ever unclear on that. Your point therefore is ... what? EEng 01:29, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just want to chime in saying that I think we should keep the humorous example. I think that it emphasizes the importance of hyphens while keeping it entertaining. Heck, the fact that folks are missing the point just adds to the charm. Mason (talk) 02:02, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not sure why you need to be sassy, EEng#s. I already explained myself above. cookie monster 755 21:18, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    For crying out loud, it doesn't matter whether the caption is literally true or not, and there's nothing "sassy" about saying that. It and the accompanying picture are only there to light-heartedly illustrate the importance of correct hyphenation. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:53, 2 July 2022 (UTC) P. S. And yes, EEng, I did mean "litany".[reply]
    Phil Bridger as my grandmother said, for cryin' on a crutch. Be nice always cookie monster 755 23:15, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, as my grandmother used to say, if you don't drop this lunatic preoccupation of yours I'm gonna reach right through the interweb and smack you upside your head [4]. How's that for civility? EEng 00:05, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it's touching that you all still think students spend four years at university. At that school, they're almost as likely to have taken five years to graduate.[5] WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:01, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Being from a country where most students graduate in three years I'm rather jealous of all these students who spend four years at university, let alone five, as many of my Polish relatives seem to. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:11, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    In Guatemala there is the public university, a storied institution of social resistance and activism, but also where reportedly decades ago crooked Army officials dropped drug cargos from helicopters, the government kidnapped and murdered students and faculty, and crooked radicalized students used to haze new admissions throwing them naked in pools of feces and urine, extort businesses and rob fellow students as a tax. Currently it's 5.5 years to finish all courses and then there is the thesis and the private exam to defend it. So I guess it takes about 6 years to graduate from a Business Administration degree. I was an old child, now I guess I am practically an old orphan. Thinker78 (talk) 18:13, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that we should keep the examples of four(-)year-old children, but I feel like the example actually works better without the third image with four-year old children. Nobody actually says it this way, it's grammatically and factually questionable, and it's confusing. Everytime I see this thing shared online (like today in this Reddit post), the first comment is "I don't understand the third one". ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 11:53, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes. The third panel uses language that you're unlikely to encounter anywhere else, and it could sow confusion with people who might take it seriously as proper English usage. There are students in their fourth-year at four-year colleges, but they won't be referred to as "four-year old children". The first two panels are witty enough, along with the fish examples, and go far to making clear that people who care about the MoS aren't just a bunch of dreary old scolds. Dhtwiki (talk) 23:13, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Is there any point in reviving this discussion? I still think there are good, unchallenged arguments for removing the third image. ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 11:43, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Ambiguous words and terms

    Many words and terms can have different, sometimes contradictory meanings. For example, "to table" means to "postpone consideration of" in the U.S., while in the UK it means to "present formally for discussion or consideration at a meeting." (Lexico)

    When reliable sources use this term, it is usually clear from the context which definition is meant.

    Is there any policy in Wikipedia about how and when to use these terms?

    One concern is that tendentious editors may try to use phrasing that while supported in reliable sources implies a different state of affairs to readers than was meant in the sources.

    TFD (talk) 14:33, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    The above example is a good one, where one meaning is to "take from the table" and the other is to "place on the table". I've recently noticed fought with which sometimes means "fought against" and sometimes means "fought on the same side as". Such phrases shouldn't be used without explanation. We do have the Words to watch page, but these don't fit there. Is there another place where they should be? SchreiberBike | ⌨  15:02, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    There are a few relevant bullets under MOS:COMMONALITY.--Trystan (talk) 15:05, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. That's about national differences, but there are also cases where usage differs among people in the same country. For example, dinner can mean either the midday or evening meal. When speaking to other people, I don't use the word unless its meaning is clear in context. So I would ask to see the dinner menu in a restaurant. Where I have found this issue a problem is in topics involving politics and other social sciences. TFD (talk) 16:43, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that commonality would still apply to regional differences. Maybe we could think about a way to make it clearer that the general rule of thumb is to pick the word that's less ambiguous is a general one. Mason (talk) 18:54, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Another one, found often on talk pages, is "moot". In the UK this means that the topic is worthy of further discussion, but in the US it apparently means that there is no point in discussing it. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:22, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for that RedRose. I've been looking things up in the OED, and it starts with one meaning of the noun moot: "The discussion of a hypothetical case by law students for practice". From which a moot-point was one which was reserved for discussion at such a moot, but not essential to the present discussion. This usage was still the American interpretation as late as 1808 and probably 1831. However by 1899 a court dismissed a point as "moot" and ignored it. Not necessarily that there was no point in discussing it, merely that it was not relevant. Indeed in law moot merely meant that it was not relevant to the current case: "A lawsuit which is, or has become, moot is neither a case nor a controversy in the constitutional sense and no federal court has the power to decide it" (1946). The change in meaning to having no point seems to be a late 20C Americanism, possibly due to non-lawyers (could this be journalists?) misunderstanding a technical legal term. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 08:36, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    That was interesting. I make a point of never using the word moot because it is so easily misunderstood, except in the phrase moot court. Same with biweekly and bimonthly; I've thought of going through Wikipedia to take out those words (2,320 and 4,124 hits respectively). I can see benefit of a page, probably just an essay, of words to avoid. SchreiberBike | ⌨  13:35, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I see no reason to avoid words because some people are ignorant. That defeats the whole purpose of having an encyclopaedia in the first place. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 08:59, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    But if you use a phrase like "the question is moot", how would I know which of two possible meanings was intended? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 09:33, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not ignorance, except on the part of the writer. Clearly ambiguous terms can and should be avoided where possible, per MOS:COMMONALITY, and in the relatively rare cases where they can't an explanation may need adding. Johnbod (talk) 12:18, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    On "moot", does it not depend on whether you are using it as an adjective or a verb? Compare [6] and [7]. A 'moot point' is debatable or questionable, but it is also deprived of practical significance (you can debate it forever). Whereas 'to moot' something is to discuss it (maybe forever) but that says nothing about reaching a conclusion. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:53, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    The discussion above was about the phrase "moot point" where moot is being used as an adjective. Of course its meaning changes according to the part of speech. The OED lists:

    • Three main heads for moot as a noun: (1) the sense of meeting, discussion (4 defs), (2) a tree stump and (3) a couple of woodworking tools.
    • One main head for moot as an adjective, as discussed above.
    • Three main heads as a verb: (1) to speak, ague or plead (3 defs + US only: to render something of no practical significance), (2) to uproot or grub out and (3) to shape a trenail.

    Studying the form from which the adjective came may be illuminating, and with that selection of meanings fascinating to a linguist, but does it add anything to the discussion about ambiguous words?

    BTW, "deprived of practical significance" is the modern American interpretation, the English and original American meaning was that it was "not essential to the present discussion", somewhat different in meaning. See my earlier post above. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 16:01, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Somewhat different? 'Not essential to the present discussion' sounds much the same in effect as 'deprived of [practical] significance [in this discussion]' or '[in this decision]'. If it's not essential, it is without significance. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:42, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Adding those bracketed terms changes the meaning. "deprived of practical significance" is not the same as "deprived of practical significance in this discussion". In a discussion of the best way to drive from A to B, whether your car is petrol or diesel is "moot" in English usage (ie significant, but not relevant) but not moot in American usage (ie of no practical significance at all). Martin of Sheffield (talk) 09:25, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    No, "moot point" is always raised in the context of a particular discussion or decision. And it is always a matter of framing the terms of the debate. If something is not relevant to the debate than it is not significant to the debate. The only way you can rule out diesel or petrol for relevance is to determine it is not a matter of significance. If all you have to drive is on petrol, than the fact diesel exists is irrelevant and lacking in practical significance. If you have a real choice between diesel or petrol than, solely depending on the terms of the debate, it is both relevant and significant (for example, does the concept of 'best way to drive' include best comparative cost, best effect on the environment, best performance, etc.)-- Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:28, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I hate to guess what our American friends make of Tolkein's Ent moot, let alone its origin in Moot hill and Moot hall. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 10:30, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you seriously believe that the US has a monopoly on uneducated Anglophones? I guaranty that I am not the only American to know the primary (I didn't know about tree stump) meaning of moot or to understand at a glance the terms that you mention. The only question I have is whether the ents honestly argue about their differences instead of lying about the positions of their opponent, but there, too, the US has no monopoly on dishonest politicians. --Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 13:22, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    This American read Tolkien in the early 60s and had no problem with “moot”. Doug Weller talk 13:41, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    As already stated before your "wonder", no one has a issue "moot" alone (nor as a name or compound noun) -- at basic, the argument seems to be that "moot point" (moot as adjective describing point) means "irrelevant" to the English but "no significance" to the Americans, and whether that is really all that dreadfully far apart. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:09, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I consider myself thoroughly admonished and banished to the Mines of Moria for seven years hard labour.--John Maynard Friedman (talk) 15:05, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I think MOS:CONFUSE should be expanded to mention that certain words convey different connotations to different English speakers.
    I witnessed several discussions on using the word 'attack' in the context of military action lately, and it appears that the sole source of the argument was that the primary meaning to some speakers is 'to harm' (as defined in Merriam-Webster), whereas to others it means 'to try to harm', suggesting intent and targeting (Cambridge Dictionary).
    There's a similar discussion on the MOS:WTW talk page about the word 'issue': Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Words to watch#"Issue".
    I propose to extend MOS:CONFUSE, mentioning that different usage by different speakers (in addition to words with dual meaning the section focuses on currently) can introduce undesirable ambiguity and include a yellow 'words to watch' block that would specifically mention 'attack', 'issue' and 'table (v)'. PaulT2022 (talk) 05:45, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    This is better material for a style essay. MoS is already over-long, and there is perhaps no end to the examples one could come up with of phrases that can be confusing for dialectal or other reasons.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  09:47, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Nom de Plume

    I recently noticed an editor making hundreds of edits a day to expunge the phrase "Nom De plume" from the encyclopedia. Is there a style guide that specifies that phrase is not to be used? ApLundell (talk) 19:45, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    I hope not. This is a phrase that has become part of the English language, whatever its origin may be. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:22, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Not that we need a guideline or anything, but I think pen name should do fine in the vast majority of cases. The other comes across just a bit poetic (or poetical -- I can never remember the difference). EEng 21:29, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Poetic justice? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:34, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not familiar with "pen name", but very familiar with "nom de plume". Probably a difference in different parts of the English speaking world. HiLo48 (talk) 23:22, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I see from your user page that you're from Australia, so with all due respect I'll be more interested in hearing the experience of native English speakers. EEng 23:41, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm very much a native English speaker, being from England, and "nom de plume" seems more natural to me than "pen name". Phil Bridger (talk) 06:48, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    We speak English in Australia, you f%$@ing idiot. — Guarapiranga ☎ 07:03, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    That's what you think. EEng 04:08, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Wonderful! HiLo48 (talk) 22:53, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm a Englishman born and raised. I've just worked out that (ignoring day trips) I've spent 16 weeks out of my 66 years outside the British Isles, so I think I qualify in EEng's terms. I'm thoroughly familiar with both "nom de plume" and "pen name", but would tend to associate the former with a professional writer whereas the latter seems more informal, possibly the signature at the end of a ranting letter to the papers. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 08:25, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Entirely agree. (Although am a Welshman born and raised... "We speak English in Wales, you f%$@ing idiot" etc.) Martinevans123 (talk) 13:05, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    There are two issues here: what usage is appropriate and whether it is appropriate to make bulk changes without consensus. Does anybody raise an eyebrow at du jour? au jus? If not, then I don't see an issue with nom de plume, especially since it is common and is an exact tanslation. --Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 12:55, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    There are a number of foreign terms that are standard in English. Would you want to replace all de jure with "by law". What about Queens regnant? Come to think of it before this list grows any longer I'd better sign off with with "...and the rest" since I doubt you'd allow "...etc". Martin of Sheffield (talk) 15:07, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh look, we have an article. And a few similar? Those are words in English, not just used by English speakers "to be a bit poetic (or poetical)". Martinevans123 (talk) 15:06, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    That was my point; there is a wiki page devoted to such terms. I'm an American, and I don't find the term nom de plume to be at all archaic or quaint; I'm not familiar with usage in other Anglophone countries. I don't believe that the term is illegitimate just because it was coined in England. It is true that [[nom de plume]] is a redirect, but that doesn't negate its legitimacy. --Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 09:30, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Nom de plume is an English expression derived from nom de guerre, which had been copied from French. French speakers never used the term nom de plume. Pen name is a later term created by Americans translating the French words of nom de plume into English.[8] So its possible that one form is preferred in the U.S. and the other in the rest of the English-speaking world. In that case, which term was used would depend upon the version of English the article adopted. To me, it sounds strange to refer to Lewis Carroll and George Orwell as pen names. TFD (talk) 16:07, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Your idea about word choice in the US vs other English speaking countries is probably correct. This American finds "nom de plume" rather old fashioned and perhaps slightly pretentious, but it isn't unfamiliar or confusing and isn't something I would bother changing. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 17:53, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Now we're getting somewhere! Thank you. HiLo48 (talk) 22:53, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    H. W. Fowler wrote in his influential (at least in the British Empire) 1926 style guide, "Nom-de-plume is open to the criticism that it is ridiculous for English writers to use a French phrase that does not come from France....Nobody perhaps uses pen-name without feeling either 'What a good boy am I to abstain from showing off my French & translate nom-de-plume into honest English!', or else 'I am not as those publicans who suppose there is such a phrase as nom-de-plume'. For everyone is instinctively aware that pen-name, however native or naturalized its elements, is no English-bred word, but a translation of nom-de plume."[9]
    He seems to prefer nom de plume over pen name, which leads me to think that usage is preferred among non-U.S. English speakers to this day. While some editors consider nom de plume to be pretentious, others might consider pen name to be rough, which is the way some British and Americans regard one another's language usage.
    TFD (talk) 21:21, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Fascinating — a calque of a ... hyperforeignism, I guess? Anyway, I disagree with HW here; I do not reflexively think of nom de plume when I hear pen name, though I suppose I might from now on, and to be fair that was a long time ago in another country. --Trovatore (talk) 16:29, 28 July 2022 (UTC) [reply]

    Use of "they" for corporations

    Coming here for a second opinion and gut check. I have always thought that the appropriate pronoun for a corporation or organization is singular, for instance:

    ABC Corp is a public company. It sells its stock on the New York Stock Exchange.

    and not

    ABC Corp is a public company. They sell their stock on the New York Stock Exchange.

    MOS:PLURALS discusses the similar, but not identical, case of collective nouns and notes the WP:ENGVAR issues with those. As a writer of American and occasionally Canadian English, I would write

    The Blackacre Tigers is a soccer team. It acquired Smith from the Greenacre Rapscallions last week.

    and not

    The Blackacre Tigers are a football team. They acquired Smith from the Greenacre Rapscallions last week.

    But a corporation or organization should not be referred to by collective pronouns (or so I think). Am I right to be changing plural pronouns to singular for corporations and organizations, as I just did on Tax Foundation? And if I am (or if I am not), should this be clarified somewhere in the MoS? Or, if it is clarified somewhere, could someone point me to that provision? AleatoryPonderings (talk) 15:41, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    "They" for corporations, political parties, etc. is brutal writing and should be hunted down and eliminated. Primergrey (talk) 16:13, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    No, it is fairly standard usage in British English for any entity with multiple people involved (sports teams, governments, corporations etc) to be referred to in the plural.  — Amakuru (talk) 16:22, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Sourced examples: "Microsoft have released...", "Amazon realised that they would need to pay", "Apple have released two more versions" etc.  — Amakuru (talk) 16:26, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree, Primergrey, but I'm afraid the cancer has metastised too far throughout media outlets over the last few years to be stopped now. And it's not fortuituous either. It's most likely a concerted effort to make corporations seem more human than they actually are (a sequel to the institutionalisation of corporate personhood). — Guarapiranga ☎ 00:59, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    That's a serious stretch. It doesn't have anything to do with corporations per se. In American English, groups called by their name take singular verb agreement if the name is singular (Kansas is a rock band, not Kansas are a rock band), but the pronoun is "they", which is not "singular they", but rather refers to the natural persons making it up: They sing "Carry On Wayward Son", certainly not It sings. -Trovatore (talk) 01:50, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Is it?

    “Use of the corporate we is one of the tactics stressed in popular books on corporate management during the 1980s,” Faigley writes, mentioning specifically the influential book Corporate Cultures (1982), by Terrence E. Deal and Allan A. Kennedy. That book refers to the use of “we” as “a clever ploy for communicating corporate principles.”[1]

    — Guarapiranga ☎ 04:00, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Your example of what you, as an American, would write about a sports team seems absolutely wrong to this American. "Tigers" is intrinsically plural and would require "are". There's some wiggle room for teams with names like the Utah Jazz, but your example isn't like that. As for companies, usage seems much more fluid. I would write "Microsoft has released", "Amazon realized that they would need", and "Apple has released" in the examples that Amakuru gave. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 16:44, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Yep. The use of singular verbs for collective nouns in American English has a massive exception in the form of sports teams when their plural nickname is included. Indeed, such an exception is already in MOS:PLURALS. (As an aside, the correct term for the non-geographic portion of a North American team's full name is "nickname", because although they are formally adopted now, when the practice originated with baseball teams in the late 1800s, they were indeed nicknames generated by sports writers, and many clubs had multiple. The use of one of them as formal branding didn't really fully take hold until the late 1920s. As a relic of that, the short form remains known as a nickname, despite its formal adoption.) oknazevad (talk) 17:22, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    There is nothing wrong with they as a singular, it has existed as a singular pronoun in circumstances where gender isn't relevant or appropriate in English for many centuries and is commonplace. Complaining about the singular use of they is a very recent thing despite it's long term common usage. See also Merriam Webster. Canterbury Tail talk 17:14, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The problem is that it's not being used as a singular for corporations, since it is combined with plural forms of verbs—as noted above. The confusion seems to be that sometimes we like to use singular verbs (e.g., "Apple Inc is a corporation") and sometimes, at least in some engvars, plural verbs (as Amakuru's examples suggest). This isn't a case like using they as a gender-neutral personal pronoun. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 17:25, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah this has nothing to do with the debate on individual's preferred gender pronouns. They can be both a singular and a plural and none of the usages above are grammatically wrong for the usage of they, and when used to refer to a corporation it's a singular they. They doesn't have to be an animate object or creature. There may be some trippy exceptions that just 100% don't sound right, like using an in front of some h words, but in normal grammatical usage in US, Canadian and British English using they to refer to a company, corporation or organization is perfectly acceptable. Canterbury Tail talk 17:29, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't agree at all that it's singular they for companies. "They" used for companies is implicitly referring to the natural persons making up the company, not personifying the company. Singular they is not used for inanimate objects. --Trovatore (talk) 17:50, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    And that's my concern. It seems like sometimes we are OK with using third-person singular verbs for companies and sometimes third-person plural. (e.g., "Apple is a company" versus "Apple are preparing for their upcoming shareholders' meeting", or whatever). You would never say, when referring to a natural person, "Jordan are about to leave the house," even if you might use "they" as a personal pronoun for Jordan. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 18:29, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    "Apple are preparing" works in British English; not in American English. That doesn't make the "they" singular. --Trovatore (talk) 18:31, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, to be clear, I agree with you, Trovatore. In general, it seems there is consensus that MOS:VAR applies to my original question and so articles written in American English should use singular pronouns and verbs for corporations whereas articles written in British English need not. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 18:40, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I honestly don’t see how this isn’t covered by MOS:PLURALS, but perhaps it would be sensible to clarify it. It sounds like most commenters here are demonstrating support for singular or plural along national lines for companies just as with any other collective. I also agree that English speakers are not using a singular they in those cases. — HTGS (talk) 19:51, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps something like the following as an addition to the existing language?

    Some collective nouns – such as, among others, team (and proper names of them), army, company (and proper names of them), crowd, fleet, government, majority, mess, number, pack, and party – may refer either to a single entity or to the members that compose it. As explained further in this section, national varieties of English differ in their treatment of collective nouns and verbs used with them. Treat collective nouns as they are treated in the national variety used in the article in question. ...

    AleatoryPonderings (talk) 20:38, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Ahem. "such as"="among others". Davidships (talk) 20:50, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Company literally means a group of people. Until the 20th century, most companies were unincorporated, meaning they were groups of people. Incorporation turned companies into legal persons, although law and accounting firms remained unincorporated. So I would say that both are correct, depending on context. TFD (talk) 03:03, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    FWIW...

    1. When referring to a company or organization in writing, the organization in question should always be referred to as an “it,” not a “they.” Unless, of course, you’re referring to the actual people who work there. Simply put, people are “they,” and a thing is an “it.”[2]

    2. A common error in modern writing looks a little like this:
      “Microsoft announced they are releasing a new Xbox console next week…”
      Since Microsoft is a company made up of many people, it’s easy to make this mistake. But companies are always its, not theys.[3]

    3. As we said in our recent post about the corporate “we,” a company generally refers to itself in the first person plural, with the pronouns “we,” “us,” “our,” and “ourselves.”
      But when somebody else writes or speaks about a company, the third person is used. And from a grammatical point of view, the singular “it” is more appropriate than the plural “they.”[4]

    — Guarapiranga ☎ 03:52, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    On reflection, I think for companies I use "it" in descriptive or stative assertions, but "they" when describing an action or decision. Google is a multinational corporation. It has a market cap of about 1.5 T. They are releasing a new phone. I would argue this makes sense — the descriptive assertions refer to the legal entity, but the legal entity is not volitional and is not an agent except as a legal fiction, so in active assertions, it's actually some set of natural persons who are doing the thing, and they are referred to as "they". --Trovatore (talk) 16:30, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I think you have articulated my pattern of usage as well. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 18:30, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Brittiany Cahoon says that is a common error, and that the following mainstream press examples are correct:[3]

    Last week, at the Gnomedex technology conference in Seattle, Microsoft announced it is building the ability to detect, display and subscribe to RSS (The Guardian)

    Second, Microsoft has devised a new strategy, called .NET, under which it will try to recast itself as a provider of Internet-based software services rather (The Economist)

    Michele Brosius, a 49-year-old blogger from Pillow, Pa., says she’s not deleting her Facebook account, either. She knew from the moment she put her data on the Internet that it was up for grabs. Facebook isn’t the only one tracking her. Anytime she uses a store rewards card, a credit card, takes surveys or picks up an electronic device, she knows someone’s watching her.

    — Guarapiranga ☎ 02:36, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    In British English, companies, public bodies, teams, etc., are correctly treated as singular. American usage seems more lazy, and I would defer to those familiar with US style guides to advise on which usage is correct? MapReader (talk) 14:28, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    MapReader, I wish you were correct in that summary but you are not. Sports clubs, especially in football (aka soccer), are invariably called they. Other grammatical monstrosities include "defeat to" (rather than "defeat by"). "I blame the parents/the schools/TV/video games/the internet/[insert favourite black beast here]. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 16:48, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    References

    1. ^ "The Grammarphobia Blog: The corporate 'we'". www.grammarphobia.com. 2017-12-20. Retrieved 2022-07-29.
    2. ^ "10 Common Grammar Mistakes In Business Writing". Pyxl. 2022-02-14. Retrieved 2022-07-29.
    3. ^ a b "Companies Are It, not They". www.dailywritingtips.com. 2007. Retrieved 2022-07-29.
    4. ^ "The Grammarphobia Blog: Is GM an "it" or a "they"?". www.grammarphobia.com. 2018-01-26. Retrieved 2022-07-29.

    Commas

    Hello - are the following versions correct? "born 10 August 2022, in country" & "born August 10, 2022 in country"? GoodDay (talk) 07:15, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Neither is correct. It would be "They were born 10 August 2022 in Lithuania" or "She was born August 10, 2022, in Zambia" depending on the article's established date style. See MOS:DATE. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 12:52, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I mean in bracket form, at the beginning of the bio "(born 10 August 2022, in country)" & "(born August 10, 2022 in country)". GoodDay (talk) 12:57, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Birth places shouldn't be in the opening brackets per MOS:BIRTHPLACE: "Birth and death places, if known, should be mentioned in the body of the article, and can appear in the lead if relevant to notability, but not in the opening brackets alongside the birth and death dates." If there's some reason for an exception, it would be (born 10 August 2022 in country) or (born August 10, 2022, in country) as the normal date comma rules apply. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:02, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Most BIOS begin with the bracket form & have the versions I've displayed. GoodDay (talk) 13:08, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Likely best to use only the years, in the brackets - "(born 1985)" & "(1773–1873)". -- GoodDay (talk) 13:11, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It's either "born 10 August 2022 in [country]" or "born August 10, 2022, in [country]", irrespective of whether the sentence is within brackets or not. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 16:15, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Concur.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  09:41, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    For 5–6 years, or five to six years

    MOS:RANGE and MOS:NUMBER may have a conflict in certain cases. The former recommends en dash for ranges of numbers, but this doesn't look right for numbers below ten, for which I prefer MOS:NUMBER. I.e., I just changed:

    It usually lives for 5-6 years, to:
    It usually lives for five to six years

    citing MOS:NUMBER. But, MOS:RANGE says: "For ranges between numbers, dates, or times, use an en dash." which would contradict my change. The top example just looks wrong to me, given our normal recommendation for small numbers. Do we want to add a slight change to MOS:NUMBER to clarify this case? Mathglot (talk) 01:14, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    • I'm not entirely sure what your concern is, but I think you're worried that MOS:NUMBER implies you can't write five to six but must instead write five–six or something like that. But MOS:NUMBER says that "generally ... Integers from zero to nine are spelled out in words". Note the generally, which gets you the flexibility to use the "to" form, consistent with common sense. EEng 01:52, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      I find the numerical form much more pleasing and a better example of "common sense" usage.--User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 14:09, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      You misunderstand. I'm simply saying that the "generally" in this particular guideline, plus the fact that every MOS page reminds all that guidelines are to be applied with "common sense", imply that five to six is an acceptable formulation (in addition to 5–6, which is incontrovertibly an acceptable formulation). I'm not saying which of those two is preferable -- that's an editorial decision to be worked out by the editors of any given article. EEng 00:43, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Five to six years
      is definitely too wordy, and just descreases readability.
    • 5–6 years
      should be fine on a list, table or in parentheses.
    • 5 to 6 years
      is an alternative for prose, that is yet to be considered here, which I personally find much more readable, while not interrupting text flow. — Guarapiranga ☎ 02:23, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, that was my concern. Mathglot (talk) 02:47, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Since MOS:RANGE is part of MOS:DASH, I read it as guidance on which dash to use, not when a dash is needed. I would rely on MOS:NUMBER, and I think it's clear on "for five to six" being right and "for 5–6" being wrong. If anything needs to be tweaked, it's probably MOS:RANGE, which could be something like "If a range between numbers, dates, or times, needs a dash, use an en dash. See MOS:NUMBER for guidance on when to use a dash. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:33, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Five to six years is best. Five – six years is second best. The point about WP:NUM is that encountering digits within a plain text sentence reduces readability and increases reading time considerably. MapReader (talk) 13:44, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Five – six years is absolutely out of the question. The three versions giving by Guarapiranga are all acceptable in at least some situations. EEng 18:37, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Agreed. — Guarapiranga ☎ 23:43, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Agreed also.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  09:40, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      encountering digits within a plain text sentence reduces readability and increases reading time considerably.
      Wut??
      1. WP:NUM is a WikiProject is believed to be semi-active.
      2. These sources disagree:
        • Australian government[1]

          Use numerals for 2 and above in text
          In text, the general rule is:
          Use numerals for ‘2’ and above.
          Write the numbers ‘zero’ and ‘one’ in words.

        • Content Design London[2]

          Use numerals instead of words for numbers.
          They are easier to scan read. It's more consistent to always use numerals rather than have a variety of rules for different sentence structures.

    The actually relevant MoS section here is MOS:RANGES (which Mathglot spelled out right at the start):

    For ranges between numbers, dates, or times, use an en dash:
     • pp. 7–19;   64–75%;   Henry VIII reigned 1509–1547

    I'd like to make two proposals:
    1. Change MOS:RANGE to:
      • For ranges between times or dates, use an en dash. For ranges between numbers, use to between numerals for numbers from 1 to 9 (e.g. 9 to 5), and an en dash otherwise (e.g. pp. 7–19;   64–75%;   Henry VIII reigned 1509–1547).
    2. Move this discussion to WT:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers.
    — Guarapiranga ☎ 00:53, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    References

    1. ^ https://www.stylemanual.gov.au/grammar-punctuation-and-conventions/numbers-and-measurements/choosing-numerals-or-words#use_numerals_for_2_and_above_in_text
    2. ^ "Numbers". readabilityguidelines.co.uk. Retrieved 2022-08-16.
    It would be better if your proposal were consistent with MoS:NUM. In almost all cases, numbers below ten will be expressed in words, hence your ‘9 to 5’ example will never really be seen. MapReader (talk) 19:19, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    "In almost all cases, not" <> "never". But I have to say, I remember than when I reorganized MOSNUM 10 (ten) years ago I tried really, really hard to get my head around the complicated interacting provisions of MOS:RANGE, MOS:NUMBER, and I'm pretty sure some other bits and pieces scattered here and there. And I gave up. EEng 04:02, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    In this case it is, because the limited exceptions to small numbers being in words - such as in formulae, scientific notation, sports scores, adjacent different-topic numbers - don’t apply to a phrase like nine to five, hence it will always be written out in words. Unless it is the result of a sports match in which case it wouldn’t have the ‘to’. MapReader (talk) 18:34, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    9 to 5 (disambiguation). --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 10:46, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you! — Guarapiranga ☎ 05:50, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The acceptable range of control settings was determined to be 5 to 9. EEng 13:03, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the written out form is really only more common with simple counts of physical objects. Times, years, setting levels, etc seem to be most often encountered in numerical form.
    Yeah, in the example in this thread I'd personally have a preference towards "5 to 6 years" as a natural flowing sentence on the screen. Canterbury Tail talk 13:35, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    But ‘five to six years’ is considerably easier to read, which is the whole purpose of MoS:Num in the first place MapReader (talk) 14:25, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    May have to agree to disagree on that one perhaps, I think contextually for what is being used in the example that 5 to 6 is actually easier than five to six. Canterbury Tail talk 15:13, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Except that assertion is disputed. Numbers-as-numerals are not harder to read than numbers-as-words. If anything, the opposite is true, as shown by the sources listed above. People parse compact single character numerals faster than multi-character words.
    The stigma against them among some style guides is a holdover from stilted and outdated assumptions of formality, treating numerals as some sort of abbreviation and not the primary, universal-across-languages form for writing quantities. The whole "write out numbers less than 10" thing should be dropped outright. It's bad, outdated style. oknazevad (talk) 14:57, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not going to get into a debate over assertions about what's easier to read but -- sorry -- what you say is silly. We're not going to write They had 1 son and 3 daughters any more than we're going to start using slang in articles. EEng 15:57, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    While I think such a sentence would be more likely to be written with words, I would not be surprised to encounter it with numerals and do not find it at all silly. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 17:06, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The idea that using numerals is akin to slang is preposterous and exactly the sort of faux formality I referred to. There is nothing less formal about numerals. oknazevad (talk) 19:19, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed it is, oknazevad, as evidenced by the adorementioned Australian government's style guide. In fact, if EEng were to write that example in an official Australian document, he'd write it as: They had one son and 3 daughters. — Guarapiranga ☎ 05:55, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Languages in navboxes

    Per how obscenely long it takes to find an MOS on a language is, and how absurd the current categorization is, I'll be adding them to the MOS navboxes. The only question is where to link dormant proposals like WP:PMOS, or WikiProject Languages if that's where additional language MOS should be cross-proposed. SamuelRiv (talk) 04:54, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Dormant proposals, failed proposals, and WP:PROJPAGE essays do not belong in the MoS navbox. If you've found something in wikiproject space the claims to be a guideline not an essay then it should either be demoted to {{WikiProject style essay}} or moved to a WP:Manual of Style/[Something] name, depending on whether we think it really has consensus or not. In my experience trying to promote to MoS status various "wikiproject findings" that claimed to be style guideline pages, there's only about a 30% success rate, so do not make assumptions.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  09:37, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    MOS:SINGLE clarified

    I'm new here. I wonder:

    is there's an archived discussion around MOS:SINGLE — especially when it comes to Glosses that translate or define unfamiliar terms take single quotes?

    Personally, I much prefer double quotes here. This is also consistently used on Wiktionary (see atom etymology), LSJ, and other dictionaries. I find it makes texts easier to read.

    Compare this to how it looks like on Wikipedia right now, say, the first sentence of Mathematics.

    'wɪnd (talk) 18:08, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Hmm. Double quotes are severely overloaded (direct quotation, approximate direct quotation explicitly called out as such, use–mention, words-as-words, titles of short works, scare quotes) and of course it gets worse when these things get nested, as is sometimes hard to avoid. Calling out single quotes for glosses seems a little arbitrary, but if it reduces the overloading, it might be a good idea. --Trovatore (talk) 19:23, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, maybe you're right. Do you have data on if such overloading involving glosses are common? I'm really curious to understand why this decision was originally made and if there are any discussion on it. To me, the choice here might need to be reconsidered. 'wɪnd (talk) 20:28, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Update. I found the original MOS edit here per discussions here and here.
    If I read this correctly, then this was not a widely held belief, but rather is a non-standard historical convention used in a specialized field. Since Wiktionary made another decision (they chose double typographic quotes), I think we may want to reconsider this decision from 2015 for consistency reasons. How do you others see this?
    'wɪnd (talk) 13:19, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    There is no principle of WP:CONSISTENCY between en.Wikipedia and en.Wiktionary, or even between en.Wikipedia and any other Wikipedia. They all have their own policies, guidelines, and style, for reasons that are not cross-compatible. Trovatore is correct that double quotes are already subject to a great deal of operator overloading, which can be confusing for readers, but is not correct that "single quotes for glosses seems a little arbitrary"; it's standard in linguistic writing, and when we are producing glosses we are engaging in linguistic writing.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  09:31, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @SMcCandlish Thank you for chiming in. I'm glad we can have a discussion. I want to comment on three things you said.
    1. Learning. You say there is no policy of consistency between en.Wikipedia and en.Wiktionary. Yes, thank you for pointing out this fact. As much as I enjoy consistency, keeping decentrality and independence I think is more desirable. You changed my mind. I also think this means, and I think you'd agree, that we can learn from the different approaches taken. I think Wiktionary's decision has improved readability, and we may consider learning from it.
    2. Data-based decision. Operator overloading: I think you'd agree that decisions here would preferably be made based on data. I'd be interested in some data for "double quotes are a subject of great deal of operator overloading", in particular when it comes to glosses. How common is this for glosses? Apostrophes have a very clear meaning otherwise in regular English writing, like in "isn't it so?".
    3. Evolving norms. You say it's a standard in linguistic writing, and I think you are very correct. Both the Oxford English Dictionary and other historical linguistic societies almost unanimously use ‘single typographic quotes’ as a norm, to distinguish it from apostrophes, and prevent operator overloading. I've never seen 'neutral single quotes' used. I also think, as you know as a software engineer, it's important for norms to evolve as we learn more, and not get stuck in dogma. Other communities have moved over to double typographic quotes in the digital world. I think we can learn from Wiktionary and other such projects here. 'wɪnd (talk) 10:26, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    One your point 1: this tells me you just are WP:NOTGETTINGIT with regard to what Trovatore and I are saying. 2: Trovatore already addressed this. No one is going to take the time to produce a table of tabular data about it for you. 3: You're confusing single versus double quotes, with typopgraphic (curly) quotes versus straight quotes; they are unrelated subjects. If WP were to drop the MOS:CURLY requirement to use straight quotes, then the single quotes we use around glosses would be curly, just as the double quotes we use around quotations (and for many operator-overloaded other purposes) would also be curly. "I'm new here. I wonder ...." Yes, it shows. This is all perennial rehash. You are free to wonder, but can satisfy that curiosity by reading the archived previous discussion material about quotation marks, and refraining from making off-the-cuff guideline change propositions without even yet understanding why things are they way they are. If I've said this once I've said it a hundred times by now: It is the nature of all style guides that no rule will have 100% buy-in from all writers, and no writer will be in favor of 100% of the rules. You just have to live with the fact that MoS doesn't happen to be the "'wɪnd personal idiolect style guide".  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  10:51, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @SMcCandlish It seems to me, you're annoyed that newcomers inquire on this Talk page, don't have competence about similar patterns of discussions, and you'd prefer the history to remain clear of such things. Is that so? It is not my intention to annoy you. If you know a better place I can ask, I'd enjoy such information. I searched the archives, I linked to all such discussions I found. This is a more recent change (2015) and seems to have been done without much discussion.
    1. I'm glad you pointed out the difference between MOS:CQ and MOS:SINGLE. This is helpful for my understanding. Here, the topics seem interdependent, they're not separate. Sticking to straight quotes and single quotes for glosses, overloads the meaning of the apostrophe, and to me seems confusing. (There is no precedence for this on the internet as far as I can tell.) Sticking to straight quotes and curly quotes for glosses, seems less confusing. (This is what linguistic communities use online as far as I can tell, the ones who don't use double quotes.)
    2. WP:NOTGETTINGIT : I don't understand. You and Trovatore commented so far. I asked a question about data. You were the only one who responded about that so far, saying you don't want to compile such data. So it seems you're saying, there is no such data?
    3. I appreciate receiving your responses, User:SMcCandlish, since they increase my understanding. I'd also like to ask to keep this discussion solution-focussed (WP:RUDE). I want no status competition. My main aim here is readability and clarity through community consensus. The issue I saw, is that many different styles seem to be used across Wikipedia for glosses, going against the MOS. I wanted consistency and was interested in past discussions. The current style guide for glosses seems to have been implemented in 2015 without much discussion. I think following what other linguistic communities do online for glosses will improve readability (either using "double straight quotes" OR ‘single curly quotes’ OR “double straight quotes”). For me, the MOS guide of 'single straight quotes' for glosses are confusing since it overloads apostrophes and has no precedence online or offline as far as I can tell. I wonder if others see things similarly. 'wɪnd (talk) 12:00, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    No one's "annoyed that newcomers inquire". Many of us are annoyed when newcomers rehash the same stuff over and over again because they fail to review previous discussions in the archives. And it's extra annoying when someone launches a proposal for change without understanding yet why the guideline is the way it is. (Pretending to be just "inquiring" when you are in fact proposing changes and not paying much attention to the feedback you are getting, well that's double-extra annoying).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  14:08, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    You've said twice already that I did not review previous discussions. This is not correct. I both asked if there were such discussions and I linked to them once I found them. Please let me know how I'm not paying attention. 'wɪnd (talk) 14:58, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Update. A linguist on Wikipedia pointed me to another place that I can discuss this. I'll move over there. Thank you @Trovatore and @SMcCandlish for growing my understanding. 'wɪnd (talk) 12:25, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    In other words, you're going to attempt to WP:FORUMSHOP by engaging in WP:TALKFORKing. Bad idea. This is already the correct venue.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  14:08, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    And you've opened yet another thread about the same matter, at Template talk:Lang#Why is transliterated text put into single quotes?, as well as your new one at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Linguistics#Single straight quotes in glosses: Readability concern?. This is really not accemptable. See also WP:MULTI.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  14:21, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @SMcCandlish I would again like to ask you to consider that my actions are ignorance (not-knowing), not malice. Your writing is making me feel uncomfortable. (WP:FAITH, WP:RUDE) 'wɪnd (talk) 14:53, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @SMcCandlish Thankyou for the pointer to WP:MULTI. I was not aware of this rule. I will adhere to it going forward, that is, to link from one discussion to the other, when I find myself in the wrong Talk page. 'wɪnd (talk) 14:56, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Conn. or CT?

    For US places of publication, does WP have a preference between (A) the pattern exemplified by "Hamden, CT" and "Broomall, PA" and (B) that exemplified by "Hamden, Conn." and "Broomall, Penn."? (I looked around MoS, jumping from one page to another but getting nowhere, and thought I'd instead infer preference/acceptability from a featured article. But Emily Dickinson#Secondary_sources wobbles between the one pattern and the other.) -- Hoary (talk) 01:15, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Non-American readers might not be familiar with either abbreviation. I'd recommend Connecticut. pburka (talk) 01:21, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Seconded. Even American readers might not get all the two-letter codes. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:29, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    My recollection is that we avoid postal codes in general; not sure where it's stated. Spell it out. Dicklyon (talk) 01:22, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that Connecticut is preferred. The abbreviations go back to the days when publishers had to constantly be buying boxcars full of paper and barrels of ink. Cullen328 (talk) 01:34, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    When using citation templates (and official styles) the U.S. state is often omitted. CS1 could conceivably in the future auto-abbreviate journal titles and location names should there be a MOS decision, in which case it's worth keeping stuff spelled out in full, but that's not usually necessary either way. If a researcher is using the citation information in a template, something like the publication or journal information will probably be subject to further (online) searching if necessary, so the only important thing is that it's rendered in an unambiguous manner. The major style guides have official journal term abbreviations that don't usually collide, and they have abbreviations for U.S. states when necessary ("Conn." and not a postal abbreviation would be typical), but the only purpose to keep in mind is that the reader/research should be able to locate the source. If very little publication information is available: no (fixed) ISBN, no original date, or just rarity in libraries, having full publisher information can be essential. If you are the one providing the citation information, you know if the source is hard to find, so you determine whether the location should be specified in detail. 01:54, 21 August 2022 (UTC) SamuelRiv (talk) 01:54, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    This is for the most part no more than meaningless convention. I have just now changed multiple instances of "(Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1968)" to "(Ithaca, New York: Cornell University Press, 1968)", even though anyone who has a clue about Cornell UP knows that there's only one Cornell UP and thus that "Ithaca" (wherever it may be) is superfluous, and even though anyone who knows anything about "Ithaca" knows that only one Ithaca would be in the running. Not following the meaningless convention -- having plain "(Cornell University Press, 1968)" -- would be sure to have somebody or other moan about inconsistency. Still, I'll have "(Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1963)" and not "(Bloomington, Indiana: Indiana University Press, 1963)" because the latter would insult the reader's intelligence and because the edition I happen to possess of "Chicago" very sensibly rules against it. Anyway, given that I am to follow what's largely a meaningless convention, I might as well follow it in the least objectionable way. -- Hoary (talk) 02:12, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Counterpoint: If I listed a publication as being from Perth, WA, would you think that I am talking about someplace in Washington State in the US or some place in Western Australia? Most non-Americans do not know many states in the US or their abbreviations.  Stepho  talk  02:24, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd be pretty certain that it came from Western Australia. I've never even heard of the former. I have heard of London, Ont., and what little I know about it suggests that it could easily support a publisher or two; however, it would be perverse to take this possibility as a reason to insist on, for example, "(London, UK: John Murray, 1998)" and the like. Indeed, my "Chicago" says that the British Cambridge can be plain "Cambridge" whereas the one in Massachusetts should be so specified (even though it famously does host at least a couple of eminent publishers). -- Hoary (talk) 03:52, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Ah, OK. Shall do. -- Hoary (talk) 01:50, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikipedia's MoS has guidance for this: MOS:POSTABBR; nutshell: (almost) always spell it out. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 03:04, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you, Michael Bednarek. -- Hoary (talk) 03:52, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, thanks for finding that for us. In summary, it says, "Postal codes and abbreviations of place names—e.g., Calif. (California), TX (Texas), Yorks. (Yorkshire)—should not be used to stand in for the full names in normal text." Dicklyon (talk) 04:50, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I avoid places of publication where possible - vast numbers of books are now published at the same time in at least the UK and US, though I suppose with different ISBNs in most cases. If you have the ISBN the place is redundant really. Johnbod (talk) 03:59, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Use "Connecticut" since non-US readers are not necessarily going to understand any abbreviation style. If there's some context like a tight table where it is really seen as necessary to abbreviate, then use the "CT" style (with a link or {{Abbr}} on first occurrence per MOS:ABBR) since it is a standardized system, and the other is not ("Con.", "Conn.", "Conct.", "Connect.", "C'cut.", etc., etc.). Anyone who's done much genealogy will be familiar with the numerous inconsistent ways people have abbreviated longer US state names.

    We should probably update MOS:STATEABBR to say something to this effect explicitly.
     — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  09:26, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    "Conn." is standard for the biggest U.S. legal citation styles (and all international styles by extension, because they copy common local styles as much as possible) and also consistent with many major general citation style guides. Two-letter state postal codes are not in either case, and are utterly incomprehensible for non-Americans (or non-Australians or Canadians per above) and open for international confusion. Omitting |location= from a citation entirely is not a solution to the problem, such as when it's necessary to specify a publishing house with multiple locations (and publishing location is important information for older and obscure books, starting say pre-war). I agree that having redundant redundancy over redundant information is redundant, and so does every citation style guide, but in the cases where you have a lot of citations needing a lot of information fields in full, it becomes a question of what's reasonable, conventional, and importantly convenient for the reader. SamuelRiv (talk) 19:59, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    WP isn't written in Bluebook or other legal style, so I'm not sure what your point is. In the rare instances we need to abbreviate (e.g. in an already wide table), it should be by consistent, codified, concise systems (US postal codes, Canadian postal codes, etc.), not by idosyncratic abbreviations that vary widely by writer (Calif., Cali., Cal., Ca.). WP doesn't have a reason to care that some other publisher either didn't opt for this consistency or came up with their own less concise set of abbreviations.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  15:08, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Columbia Lectures in International Studies — capitalization of "channel" in running text, primarily U.S.

    I did some copyediting on this new television article, and Wasted Time R and I disagreed (Redirects, broadcast stations) about style, and I suggested to bring it here (so I finally am).

    In a lot of U.S. newspapers, say a radio or TV column, references to a TV station's channel number were traditionally capitalized, something like "There's a movie on Channel 10 tonight at..." I personally don't like this style (note that we're not dealing with proper nouns like a UK Channel 4). I tend to not use "channel" references next to call signs unless needed for disambiguation, whereas they use them more often (see the repeated use of WNEW-TV Channel 5). See Special:Diff/1107139815.

    Which is closer to the proper style? Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 03:13, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    My belief is that in the U.S., television channel numbers are effectively proper nouns representing the name of a station, not just short-hand for a broadcast frequency. For instance, the New York Times stories that are used as sources in the article in question consistently capitalize it, both when used after the call sign, as in "... over WNEW-TV (Channel 5) beginning ...", and when used stand-alone, as in "... stimulating start last night over Channel 5" or "... the advent next fall of Channel 13 will have ...". It is also my belief that television stations are often best identified to readers by the combination of call sign and channel. If you look at television station logos, for example, many times you'll see that the call sign isn't even present, but the channel number always is. That's a pretty good indication of which readers will be more familiar with. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:14, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    	It's much like "channel" in general sense, or "Channel" in special sense.

	E.g.
	|*| "Try the watermelon." [ The watermelon in general sense, probably a typical watermelon. ]
	|*| "Try the Watermelon." [ Probably not any sort of watermelon at all. ]
    - MasterQuestionable (talk) 11:19, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Some examples from the Los Angeles Times in the 2000s here and here and here where the call sign and the channel number are used together to identify a station and 'Channel' is capitalized. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:45, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I think a case can be made for capitalizing channel when it's used with a number to refer to a specific television station. It wouldn't be capitalized when referring to the setting on the television. One could say "Turn the TV to channel 7 to watch Channel 7", where "Channel 7" is used as the name of the station in place of its call letters or whatever branding they are using. SchreiberBike | ⌨  13:16, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    WTR's writing is representative of standard usage in the US. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 17:09, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Clarifying periodical titles?

    I recently wrote Reason. I had gone back and forth in my head a few times about whether it would be better to write it as Reason Magazine for clarity, and eventually ended up with the shorter version. In Special:Diff/1108245559, Victuallers went with the longer version, which is fine. I tend to write "Time Magazine" (even though the correct title of the periodical is just "Time"), but I'd never write "The New York Times Newspaper". Is there some general style rule which covers this? -- RoySmith (talk) 14:31, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    No strong view myself but I don't think that the name is all that is required. "Charles Dickens" works, if you hane heard of him. but then I would suggest "The Victorian novelist Charles Dickens" is a better title. If you are still with me, then "The magazine Reason" is more quickly digested, than just "Reason" - irrespective of what the magazine decides is its title (they may think everyone will see "Reason".. and they don't). Victuallers (talk) 14:46, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    In properly styled running text, italics would also offer a hint to the reader. William Avery (talk) 15:29, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think Magazine should be capitalized or italicized unless it's actually part of the proper name: New York Times newspaper or New Yorker magazine, but Brooklyn Magazine. It's fine to include as a descriptive term if it makes the text clearer. pburka (talk) 15:51, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with the the above; only capitalize and italicize the proper name. If necessary to clarify that you are talking about a magazine, newspaper or whatever, label it in the text e.g. "Time magazine said ...". I do note that New York, like Chicago and many others do not include the word magazine in their name, but when used outside of references they should be labeled to avoid confusion. Establishing the correct name of a magazine is not always straight forward. For instance Time magazine, in it's own writing calls itself Time Magazine, but does not have the word magazine on its cover. When in doubt, I go with the name used in the Wikipedia article if there is one, or if not, what I can see on the periodical's printed cover. SchreiberBike | ⌨  18:49, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Concur with Pburka, and this is already covered at MOS:TITLES.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  17:16, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    There's a mislink on this page

    {{crossref|(see also {{section link|Hatnote#Hatnote templates}})}}

    (see also Hatnote § Hatnote templates)

    should instead say

    {{crossref|(see also {{section link|WP:Hatnote#Hatnote templates}})}}

    (see also WP:Hatnote § Hatnote templates)

    Instead of linking to articlespace, it should link to Projectspace

    -- 65.92.247.226 (talk) 08:00, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

     Done Many thanks for pointing this out. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 08:14, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Złoty or zloty?

    I know this is not the best place to put this, but I think this page has pretty high traffic with lots of MOS experts--and frankly I wouldn't rightly if I have a position here, and what validity it might have. So, I'd appreciate it if some of you could have a look at Talk:Polish_złoty#Requested_move_10_September_2022 and maybe weigh in. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 20:17, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Chimpanzees

    A chimpanzee with a typewriter, given an infinite amount of time could create the Wikipedia Manual of Style, except it would probably be infinitely better.

    Passive voice is one example of how MOS ignores aspects of reality. The penchant for the active voice came, fairly recently, from humanities academics and popular writers. It is fine for what these people write, but the passive voice was adopted by the Royal Society, founded in the late 17th century, for its scientific publications. The use of the passive voice in science thus has a long and distinguished history. It was and is still used - try writing a scientific paper in the active voice and it will look and sound like the product of an imbecile - because it gives a very necessary distance between the writer and the phenomena being described. It is impersonal, which science strives to be. Contrast the following: "An agarose gel was eletrophoresed, and the DNA fragments proved to be of the following sizes ..." and, "I ran an agarose gel in the electrophoresis tank, then I sized the DNA fragments, which were ..."

    MOS also weighs against constructions that are perfectly standard in English usage. I was staggered that an editor asserted that MOS effectively vetoes the construction "He suffered from a chronic illness..." WTF!!!!

    So much of Wikipedia's working is ridiculous, but MOS is probably the worst. I am not in a good mood, editing Wikipedia often has that effect on me. Urselius (talk) 10:12, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    The Manual of Style does not prohibit passive voice, and it has recently been updated to make that more clear - see the discussion earlier on the page.Nigel Ish (talk) 10:28, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Anyone or anything with an infinite amount of time will succumb to the heat-death of the universe, manuscripts probably unfinished. Primergrey (talk) 01:58, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Whether to use passive or active voice is sometimes a subtle and complex decision. Generally don't use passive where active would be perfectly good; but don't adopt a slavish rule against the passive. To begin with it allows you to start a clause with a different word—what comes first is called the grammatical theme. The succession of themes in a text should make sense as a logical sequence. It can add to cohesiveness and help the reader. Tony (talk) 08:42, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    In the name of Jesus, Tony, please let's let passive sleeping dogs lie! Last thing we need is a new round of wheel-spinning on this. EEng 09:18, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    <Puts sock in mouth> Tony (talk) 11:42, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Personally I don't believe passive sleeping dogs should be allowed to lie, we should actively hold them to the truth. Levivich (talk) 14:57, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Personally I think you're my punishment for something I did in another life. EEng 19:31, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Nah, it was something you did in this one. Levivich (talk) 14:25, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    "heat-death of the universe" contradicts "infinite amount of time". - MasterQuestionable (talk) 05:25, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    And that's my point. Primergrey (talk) 07:43, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    So?.. - MasterQuestionable (talk) 10:19, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Valid conclusion, though not with very substantial cause. - MasterQuestionable (talk) 05:08, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Drive-by critics who don't actually read the guidelines they criticize

    Such critics with typewriters, given an infinite amount of time, could create a Wikipedia Manual of Style, but it probably wouldn't be better. EEng 01:27, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Let the chimpanzees have another go. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:36, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Levivich, you're wanted! EEng 04:58, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd begin by adding a 'disallow' edit filter to this page for the string "passive voice". Levivich (talk) 06:06, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    That's actually not a bad idea at all. EEng 06:17, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Garbage-In Garbage-Out. - MasterQuestionable (talk) 05:08, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style&oldid=1112172407"