Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 170

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 165←Archive 168Archive 169Archive 170Archive 171Archive 172→Archive 175

Gender identity

Why, when, and how was the part about gender identity decided? Was there a discussion about it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.139.93.230 (talk • contribs)

What's your problem?? Do you disagree with it?? What do you think it should be?? Georgia guy (talk) 18:48, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Ascherf's problem is that he or she is a newb, GG (WP:DONTBITE). And yes, there was an initial discussion about it and it is often challenged and revisited. I think the last big discussion was at the village pump somewhere.
EDIT: Found it. [1] Darkfrog24 (talk) 18:52, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
And it's a valid set of questions. At the related thread above, I posted a link to the discussion overwhelmingly disapproving of the original version of this, and in many ways the text has only gotten worse since then, even as the intent has actually been clarified. Some careful rewriting can probably salvage it, but some of it arguably is not MOS material, but content policy material.

I think we need to carefully assess the entire VPPOL thread DF24 just linked to. While requests to properly close it have been open for months, it doesn't look like that's going to happen, so we're just going to have to do it informally, and try to rewrite this section to go with consensus. The discussion there is likely to be as in-depth as WP can muster on such a topic. It was open for a long time, and everyone interested appears to have had (lots of) their say. It's very clear that some degree of respect for gender identity is wanted, but that many object to anything that smacks of "rewriting history", with the clear solution being MOS's standard "rewrite to avoid conflict and confusion". That's the nutshell version. I have too much going on IRL right now to parse that whole thing, post-by-post, and try to draft something, though, unless a big windows opens in my schedule some time soon.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  04:56, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

As I said in one of these RfCs, don't remember when, I think that the present MOS:IDENTITY should be spun-off as a guideline of its own. It does not seem to make sense to keep it within the MoS, as its purpose is quite different. RGloucester — ☎ 17:06, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
In other words, while the main thrust of MOS:IDENTITY, the rule you're talking about, has remained roughly the same for some time, it is revisited often. If what you really want is to get your two cents in, just hang out and wait for someone to bring it up. You are allowed to bring it up yourself, but it would help if you had a specific proposal to make and if you really are new to Wikipedia, you might want to get your feet under you, watch a few other RfCs (requests for comment, which is the term for a formal discussion with a specific intended outcome) before attempting that. Darkfrog24 (talk) 05:24, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for that link. Well, I didn't read it all, but I don't agree with any of those options. My problem with the current rule is that it is very unlike an encyclopedia, to call a man a she, just because he said so.
My options would be:

  • Just as we source everything, gender should be the same. The personal pronouns should be used based on someone's legal gender. Obviously name too. I have never seen anywhere that Bruce Jenner has legally changed his name to Caitlynn, yet that's his article's name. Didn't find a source for that there.
  • Or, even if someone had their legal gender changed, use the one given at birth. As most countries don't allow gender change, that means gender should generally mean the one obtained at birth.
  • Or just call them an "it". 46.139.93.230 (talk) 20:40, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
That last comment is clearly trolling. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 21:15, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
Can that statement of "it" be stricken please as harassment by a moderator? Ogress smash! 21:17, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
In my opinion this entire conversation is trolling by the IP. Do we have to have the "transgender people are, in fact, people" conversation every time some jerk comes to MOS? What's the standard for dealing with racists here? Ogress smash! 21:24, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
Ogress, please stop insulting me. I raised this topic as I don't think the use of language adviced in the manual is appropriate for an encyclopedia, which should be more scientific. 46.139.93.230 (talk) 21:36, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
The anon is trolling. There's no rational basis for a discussion here. Pburka (talk) 21:43, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
Nonsense. The anon has an extreme POV, but there is no evidence that "he" (to choose a pronoun) is not honestly expressing his beliefs. In that case, the comments are not disrespectful. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:48, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
Absolutely wrong. Calling a trans person "it" is a slur. Doesn't matter if the speaker has a sincere extreme pov or not. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 21:53, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks Arthur. I don't really know what extreme POV is, but I think it also applies to the current manual. EvergreenFir, I would like to hear your arguments too, since you seem to be on the other side of this. Besides, why do you think "them" meant the transgender people? 46.139.93.230 (talk) 22:03, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
From context. The guideline you're citing is "anyone whose gender might be questioned," which primarily means trans men and trans women. Darkfrog24 (talk) 22:04, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
That very wording is part of the problem of the guideline. Isn't the entire point supposed to be that we're not questioning their own gender identity? <sigh> As I say, the entire thing needs rewriting.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  22:13, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Ascherf (talk · contribs), if that's you, please sign in ASAP so we know to whom we're speaking. Even if we give you every benefit of the doubt and assume you're new to writing about gender politics in neutral spaces, you should certainly know that calling a person an "it" is an insult. This is why GG thought you were a troll. The conclusion I'm drawing from your statements is that you don't think that transgenderism is real, that you think Jenner and Manning etc. are making it up. But their claims are backed up by decades of albeit incomplete scientific research and a far longer history of experiences from unrelated individuals from many walks of life. Do you have any proof that they're lying? Darkfrog24 (talk) 22:04, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Darkfrog24 I'm not 46.139.93.230. That's a Hungarian IP, and I'm in California. Please delete your comment and my reply here thanks Ascherf (talk) 22:19, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm not Ascherf (talk · contribs). I'm just saying that the use of personal pronouns based on legal gender would be more appropriate for an encyclopedia, and simpler. 46.139.93.230 (talk) 22:20, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Or how about everyone just stop deleting everyone else's comments. This kind of editor-vs-editor censure is going on at two different MOS talk page (at least) and needs to stop. (In this particular case there's no need for DF24 to refactor out their own comments and Ascherf's response, since the exchange demonstrates Ascherf's distinction from the IP editor, which several of us were wondering about; it's to Ascherf's benefit to have this around; if IP is deemed to be trolling and blocked for it, that won't affect Ascherf). Can we get back to focusing on the guideline now?  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  22:23, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
Read the Wikipedia:Gender identity essay and study the question "Shouldn't we wait until the name/gender change is legal??" Please highlight what part of the question's answer you disagree with. Georgia guy (talk) 22:22, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
Legal gender? What are you talking about? Caitlyn doesn't deserve to be treated as a woman until some bureaucrat stamps a paper, assuming such a thing is possible?Ogress smash! 22:26, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
I'm not the one who thinks we need to wait until a legal change; the 46.xxx.xxx.xxx IP is. They need to create an account. Georgia guy (talk) 22:28, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
For starters, this is a false statement: "Wikipedia's policy on article titles (see also the essay on "official names") gives no weight to legal names." WP:AT doesn't give primacy to official names, and usually prefers the WP:COMMONNAME, though they most often coincide. We do in fact move things to official names pretty often, even if they're not the most common name, where the change is thought to be helpful for some reason. One example off the top of my head is International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants (which really is capitalized that way); the common name is the International Code of Botanical Nomenclature (its name until 2011), and almost everyone still refers to it as the ICBN for short.

Moving on, the questions, and this text, "Furthermore, jurisdictions vary widely in how they regulate changes of name or gender: some jurisdictions do not recognize gender changes at all", are confusing non-identical and not particularly comparable, but separate legal processes (where they are legal processes at all). This should really be forked into two separate questions.

The essay has a large number of other problems, stemming from its focus on advancing an external WP:ADVOCACY position instead of a Wikipedian consensus. The "Her testicles" section actually skirts the entire issue raised by such shite use of language, and pooh-poohs legitimate concerns. It also mistakes how WP works and how WP is used; millions of editors per day do not read articles from top to bottom but are linked directly to particular sections, either by internal WP links, or by following external ones. I could go on, but this isn't the Wikipedia talk:Gender identity talk page.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  22:39, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Reminder that this area is subject to discretionary sanctions and drawing attention to this remedy: "All editors, especially those whose behavior was subject to a finding in this case, are reminded to maintain decorum and civility when engaged in discussions on Wikipedia, and to avoid commentary that demeans any other person, intentionally or not." Referring to a person as an "it" qualifies as demeaning. --NeilN talk to me 23:05, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

No person was referred to as "it"; an anon suggested the pronoun could be used generally, without addressing anyone in particular (much less Manning in particular); there's obviously no support for that notion, but the remedy in question has not been triggered. The hypersensitiveness and censoriousness surrounding this topic needs to take a long vacation. We can't even reaffirm why "it" is a bad idea without being able to discuss it in the abstract to begin with. If the anon is in fact trolling, you're simply WP:FEEDing, by overreating by pulling out the "call in the WP:AE enforcers" big guns. I have to suggest this is not helpful.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  23:43, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
It's completely warranted. This user was warned previously about their disruptive editing here by Acroterion. I will go a step further and give a discretionary sanctions notice as well. This kind of behavior should not be tolerated. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 00:03, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
Um, the entire point of my response to NeilN was that he already dropped a discretionary sanctions notice ("Reminder that this area is subject to discretionary sanctions"), and this is heavy handed. I've already explained why: It has a chilling effect on the ability to even carry on a conversation in which why "it" should not be used can be discussed. [Should not be used, generally speaking, anyway. I actually find it implausible that no intergender person anywhere prefers "it"; Genesis P-Orridge uses as a set of intergender, constructed pronouns like "s/he", but could just as easily have preferred "it", and we wouldn't, under WP:IDENTITY, be in a position to contradict P-Orridge on that, would we? Beware sweeping, over-generalizing statements that paint us into unintentional corners.]  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  03:53, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
I agree with SMC here. It is important to remember why there are discretionary sanctions when discussing gender identity issues... this is an issue that is very controversial, and engenders very strong emotions. We need to put the emotions to one side... We must allow calm, reasoned discussion of the issue, while at the same time we need to limit POV warring (and yes, there are POV warriors on ALL sides of the issue). We do, and should, allow differing opinions to be expressed on talk pages... as long as those opinions are expressed with civility and respect for those who hold opposing opinions. That goes for for everyone... no matter which side of the gender identity debate you come from. Blueboar (talk) 12:36, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
There are some gay men who refer to themselves as "fag", but that does not negate the fact that it's used as a slur. Same case with "it". It's unacceptable to refer to trans folks in as a whole as "it". EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 16:44, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
@SMcCandlish: No, it is not heavy handed. It is a note (especially to new editors) to carefully consider their words before posting. --NeilN talk to me 17:47, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

First, thanks SMC for trying to keep the discussion on track, while others seem to try to derail it.
I read the essay, and I disagree with most written there. In my opinion, the only valid arguement for was about avoiding harm, and, according to WP:HARM, that principle was rejected (but I also disagree that pronouns are harmful). The part about Legal name you referenced, Georgia guy, doesn't give any reason for a gender change on Wikipedia, only about names. My problem was mainly the ambiguity with the names, and the overall confusion about Jenner's gender. I don't see a reason why pronouns are preferred to be used based on someone's own imagined gender instead of the biological or legal one. Maybe we could also add a person's gender to their infobox? 46.139.93.230 (talk) 18:32, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Imagined?? Please do research and realize how transgender identities work. They don't work simply by arbitrarily making up a gender to call yourself. Georgia guy (talk) 18:39, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
I have an idea. Let's look at an infant's genitals and decide for life what their gender should be. We'll ignore the extremely frequent cases where their genitals are visibly unclear, we'll ignore all other information like cellular makeup, and most importantly we'll definitely ignore their personal preferences about how they want to live their own lives. The ones with outties will only wear blue and pants and must engage in sex with the ones with innies only, who will dress in pink and skirts and have long hair. Yes, this is a good idea. Let's now enforce this standard in Wikipedia infoboxes. Ogress smash! 19:04, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
Can you provide actual arguments to your side? 46.139.93.230 (talk) 19:15, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
This is not the place to argue the legitimacy of trans people's gender or the research on it. If you want to do that, there's plenty of articles on Wikipedia (transgender, gender, sex, gender and sex distinction, everything in Template:Transgender). This discussion is about the manual of style and how we discuss trans people. Your insistence that we restrict ourselves to legally recognized gender is (1) against common practice in other manuals of style (e.g., APA, AMA, Chicago, etc.), (2) against recommendations from trans advocacy groups (e.g., GLAAD, Lambda Legal), and (3) against past consensus. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:23, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
Unfortunately I couldn't find anything on this topic by the manuals you mention on the Internet. Nevertheless, if it is true, it can still be very confusing for the readers on Wikipedia. We should consider including a note at the top of such articles, explaining which pronoun is used, and why. Also, I don't see a reason why infoboxes shouldn't include gender(s). 46.139.93.230 (talk) 20:19, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
If you all are so convinced this anon is trolling, just read WP:DENY and move on. There's another obvious possibility, though. The actual majority of people do not accept (fully, sometimes not even partially) the language-activist stance on this issue. It doesn't matter how certain you, I, or other metropolitan folk feel about the matter. While those in the linguistically permissive camp are largely those in control of the media, we're actually outnumbered vastly by people who feel otherwise, and they, too, have Internet connections.

We need a more measured, "what is most important for the encyclopedia and it's readers?" approach to this, or we're setting up MOS and WP in general for many years of unproductive strife, for no one's real benefit (it certainly doesn't help TG people to have another decade of argument about applying pronouns to them at Wikipedia). The main sticking point seems to be "This applies in references to any phase of that person's life" following "should be referred to by the pronouns ...". As the huge VPPOL thread indicates, many are taking this as license to write "he gave birth", "she won the Men's Gold Medal", etc. While we (finally!) have back in there the advice to "Avoid confusing constructions", it's at the very end where no one notices it.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  20:41, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

  • It would actually be useful to collect here [See #What other style guides say sub-thread below] what the various paper style guides are saying, since it may inform how we formulate and word our own approach to the issue. I have several of these sources on my bookshelf and can start digging out what they say on it. We need to avoid confusing what general-audience-writing style guides say with what "recommendations from trans advocacy groups" say; we already know what the latter, language-change activism, position is, and WP is not a soapbox for preaching that gospel (and it would invite, e.g., religious fundamentalist groups to add their own counter-arguments). It's much more useful to us to know what the consensus is (if there is one) across works regarded as authoritative on formal language use for publication.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  20:41, 27 August 2015 (UTC) Parentheticals added 23:01, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
@SMcCandlish: is the section below for how MOS deal with gender, or trans stuff specifically? EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 21:12, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
Well, as a sub-thread of the gender identity one, I've been trying to limit the material to identity-specific and gender-generally, but not gender-generally-to-the-exclusion-of-identity, as it were. I'd have to quote way more material from CMoS to cover everything it says about gender and gender-neutral writing that doesn't relate in any way to identity. Clarified the wording.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  22:53, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

What other style guides say

This section is for direct quotation of and citation to mainstream English-language style guides (not activist materials, whether pro or con), where they address identity, or address gender in a way that we can relate to identity.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  22:57, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Siegal, Allan M.; Connolly, William G., eds. (1999). The New York Times Manual of Style and Usage (Revised and Expanded [4th] ed.). New York: Three Rivers Press / New York Times Company. pp. 142–143. gender, sex. In general, gender is the grammatical classification of words as masculine, feminine or neuter[,] and sex is a characteristic of living things. Use sex in unambiguous phrases like sex discrimination and single-sex schools. But gender has taken on new meaning in social and political contexts. Use gender, for example, in idioms like gender gap and in references arising from its use in legislation or other legal documents. Use it, too, when necessary to avoid confusion with physical sex or to avert double meanings. In other words, gender is not to be, well, confused with sex.
    This was reprinted in 2002 (with no revisions of which I'm aware). Has entries relating to sexual orientation and other concepts, but none address this particular issue in any further detail. There's a brand new 5th edition coming out at the end of September [2], which I've pre-ordered, and I'd be almost surprised if it did not address this in more detail. Even this older version's "Use [gender], too, when necessary to avoid confusion with physical sex" can be taken as supporting the notion that we should distinguish between asserted gender and physical (genital- or chromosome-determined) sex. The 4th ed. has no mention of the issue in its section on pronouns.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  21:01, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Associated Press
  • Chicago Manual of Style (16th ed.). University of Chicago Press. 2010.
    • "Section 5.40: Agreement of pronoun with noun". CMoS 16th. p. 213. A personal pronoun agrees with the noun for which it stands in both gender and number {John writes, and he will soon write well} {Sheila was there, but she couldn't hear what was said}. This is a very general statement, and the examples indicate it's meant to be taken rather literally. But, logically speaking, if we accept that Caitlyn Jenner is now a woman, the rule applies. Whether it would apply retroactively to when Jenner was [publicly known as] a man named Bruce is questionable and uncertain in Chicago.
    • "Section 5.41: Pronoun and gender". CMoS 16th. p. 214. Only the third-person singular pronouns directly express gender. In the nominative and objective cases, the pronoun takes the antecedent noun's gender {the president is not in her office today; she's at a seminar}. [Rest of section not relevant.]
    • "Section 5.45: Special uses of personal pronouns". CMoS 16th. p. 215. It eliminates gender even if the noun's sex could be identified. Using it does not mean that the noun has no sex—only that the sex is unknown or unimportant {the baby is smiling at its mother} {the mockingbird is building its nest}. [Rest of section not relevant.]
    • "Section 5.46: The singular "they"". CMoS 16th. pp. 215–16. Because he is no longer accepted as a generic pronoun referring to a person of either sex, it has become common in speech and in informal writing to substitute the third-person plural.... While this usage is accepted in casual contexts, it is still considered ungrammatical in formal writing. Avoiding the plural form by alternating masculine and feminine pronouns is awkward and only emphasizes the inherent problem of not having a generic [singular] third-person pronoun. Employing an artificial form such as s/he is distracting at best, and most readers find it ridiculous. There are several better ways to avoid the problem. For example, use the traditional, formal he or she, him or her, [etc.] Stylistically this device is usually awkward or even stilted, but if used sparingly it can be functional. For other techniques, see 5.225.
      This does not directly address this issue, though is a sound approach to the problem it does identify, and sect. 5.225 does offer good advice that MoS needs to integrate. More on that immediately below. At any rate, it does suggest that using singular-they for TG people isn't a good solution.
    • "Section 5.225: Nine techniques for achieving gender neutrality". CMoS 16th. p. 302. Summary version: 1) omit the pronoun; 2) repeat the noun, but not to overuse; 3) use a plural antecedent; 4) use a or the; 5) use one; 6) use who; 7) use the imperative mood; 8) use the phrase he or she sparingly; 9) revise to avoid a construction that calls for a pronoun.
      All of these except #7 ("how-to" voice) are applicable to Wikipedia, and MOS should integrate such points, but few of them are applicable to TG subjects in particular. The ones that are, are 1, 2, 6, and 9. That's actually quite a lot to work with, and the solutions should be examined carefully to identify advice MOS could integrate into MOS:IDENTITY.
    • "Section 5.227: Gender-neutral singular pronouns". CMoS 16th. p. 303. The only gender-neutral third-person singular personal pronoun in English is it, which doesn't refer to humans (with very limited exceptions). Clumsy artifices such as s/he and (wo)man or artificial genderless pronouns have been tried—for many years—with no success. They won't succeed. And those who use them invite credibility problems. Indefinite pronouns such as anybody and someone don't always satisfy the need for a gender-neutral alternative because they are traditionally regarded as singular antecedents that call for a third-person singular pronoun.
      It then repeats the advice that singular-they is only acceptable in informal writing.
That's it for CMoS. It never mentions "transgender" anywhere (I have access to the online version and searched it).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  22:47, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
  • BBC says the following:
    • Gender/sex - Using appropriate language is an important part of how we portray people in our stories. Sexuality, race or disability should not be mentioned unless they are relevant to the subject matter. But when we do focus on one aspect of a person's character, we should ensure we do not define them by it. Use gay as an adjective, rather than a noun (eg: two gay men - but not 'two gays'). It can apply to members of both sexes, but current preferred practice is to refer to 'gay men and lesbians'. For wider references, talk about LGBT people or the LGBT community (gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender). Homosexual means people of either sex who are attracted to people of their own gender, but take care how you use it. While it can be fine in historical or judicial references, it can be considered offensive in other contexts because of past associations with illegal behaviour and mental illness.
    • Transgender, or trans, is a good umbrella term. A person born male would be described as a transgender woman and vice versa. Use the appropriate pronoun - "she" or "he". If reporting on someone who is making their transition public, it may be appropriate to refer to their previous identity. However, in other contexts, we would generally refer to a trans person by their current identity only. Transsexual refers to someone who has changed, or wishes to change, their body through medical intervention. Do not say 'transsexuals', in the same way we would not talk about 'gays' or 'blacks'. Take care with the term 'sex change', unless referring specifically to the surgical element of a transition. It should not be used as a general description for a transgender person. If in any doubt, ask the person involved how they would like to be described.
Source: "News style guide - searchable version". Retrieved 27 August 2015. (download Word document linked on source page for full style guide) EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 21:50, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Reuters, in its sections on gender and transgender, says:
"People generally have a clear sense of their own gender, sometimes called gender identity, which may conflict with their sex at birth. When in doubt, ask people what gender pronouns they prefer. Respect their wishes if they ask not to be identified as either male or female. If it’s not possible to ask their preference, use pronouns that are most consistent with the way they present themselves. Do not use quotation marks around names or pronouns used for transgender or gender-nonconforming people. See transgender."
"Always use a transgender person’s chosen name. We typically only mention that a person is transgender if it is relevant to the story. For example, no need to describe one of three victims of a random car crash as a transgender person. If you are not sure which gender pronoun to use, ask. If you can’t ask, then use the one that is consistent with the way a person presents himself or herself. In some situations confusion may be avoided by not using pronouns."
-sche (talk) 04:38, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Mentioning a long title repeatedly in the body of an article

Hi. Just wondering, is there a 'correct' way to repeatedly mention a title of a published work in the body of an article? E.g. at Lift Your Skinny Fists Like Antennas to Heaven, should we refer to the album title in full each time it is mentioned, or can we use a shortened version (e.g. Lift Your Skinny Fists, Skinny Fists or even Antennas to Heaven)? Thanks! — sparklism hey! 14:57, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Take a leaf from the lawyer's book & at the first mention go "Lift Your Skinny Fists Like Antennas to Heaven ("Lift") ..." and then just use Lift, or whatever shortened title you've specified. Johnbod (talk) 15:38, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
Agree... the first appearance of the name/title should give the full name/title - and establish the "short form" for the reader... once that is done, the "short form" can be used alone. It is similar to how we establish and use abbreviations. Blueboar (talk) 15:51, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
If you can, it's good to use an abbreviation which appears in external sources. --Izno (talk) 16:37, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks guys! — sparklism hey! 05:49, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

WP:Prose vs. table format for cast lists

Opinions are needed on the following matter: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Television#WP:Prose vs. table format for cast lists. A WP:Permalink for it is here. Flyer22 (talk) 06:00, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Merge proposed of how-to essays on hyphens, dashes and minus

FYI
 – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere

Proposal at Wikipedia talk:How to make dashes#Merge proposed, to merge Wikipedia:Hyphens and dashes essay (2012) to Wikipedia talk:How to make dashes how-to page (2011).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  00:10, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

"Wikisource" in MOS:SHY

The paragraph about soft hyphens uses the term "wikisource" to mean what would more commonly be called "wikitext." Am I understanding correctly that this is unrelated to the WMF project known as Wikisource? If so, how might this paragraph be reworded? I assume the wording has been present for a long time, which is why I am discussing it first. --SoledadKabocha (talk) 19:17, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

I just noticed that MOS:SHY actually redirects to the top of the "Hyphens" section; an {{anchor}} should probably be added to the paragraph that is specifically about soft hyphens. --SoledadKabocha (talk) 01:08, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
I've changed "Wikisource text" to "wikitext" in diff. -sche (talk) 20:39, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Unnecessary comma in WP:LQ example?

I was streamlining WP:LQ and took a closer look at the examples:

Dory said, "Yes, I can read!", which gave Marlin an idea.

I'm not 100% that the comma after "read" is necessary. I'd expect to see no further punctuation there at all because the exclamation point has already done the job. Most of the sources I have on hand concern American English. Is this an error, a Britishism, or a case in which English gives us multiple options? Darkfrog24 (talk) 20:23, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

I've run into the odd editor who insists it's the way to do it because it's "logical" (ditto sentences like He said, "I'm here.".), but as far as I'm aware no style guide recommends such a style. I think it would be a poor idea to appear to promote such a style. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 01:36, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
A comma before a relative clause distinguishes it as a non-restrictive clause.
—Wavelength (talk) 02:09, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
My concern is not that the comma is there at all, Wavelength, but rather that the comma and exclamation point are both there. To me, this looks a lot like Dory said, "Yes, I can read,", which gave Marlin an idea. It's redundant. Darkfrog24 (talk) 04:26, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
Per Wavelength. It's mandatory before that "which", and the exclamation mark doesn't perform the comma's function. Tony (talk) 10:12, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
Ditto, per Wavelength.
Btw, I'm a bit concerned that all mention of logical quotation has now been removed from this Punctuation inside or outside section. Also, we state: "For the most part, this means placing periods and commas inside the quotation marks if they were part of the quoted material and outside if they are not." I think that's confusing, and more importantly it misrepresents the approach regarding LQ. I regularly impose logical quotation in articles I edit, and usually include the MOS:LQ shortcut in an accompanying comment. The problem is, when occasionally I follow the shortcut myself, just to check, I realise the text is open to misinterpretation of LQ – eg, "For the most part, this means placing periods and commas inside the quotation marks if they were part of the quoted material …" The situation's not helped by a statement we link to (at Quotation marks in English#Order of punctuation), which says: "The prevailing style in the United Kingdom and other non-American locales—called British style and logical quotation—is to include within quotation marks only those punctuation marks that appeared in the original quoted material, but otherwise to place punctuation outside the closing quotation marks."
We hammered this point out in early 2014 (I thought), that the crux of LQ is about the placement of punctuation being governed by sense. That message comes across eventually at Quotation marks in English, with the reference there to Fowler's A Dictionary of Modern English Usage, as it does in the MoS – the Marlin needed, he said, "to find Nemo". is a good example. I can't help thinking, though, that the criterion regarding "sense", rather than any reference to punctuation in the original quote, should be first and foremost. Any thoughts? JG66 (talk) 12:58, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
The only thing that was removed was the name. If we're going to mention the name of the practice at all, it should be the common name, which is "British." Using the secondary name by itself is POV-pushing.
We've used the "and outside if they are not" phrasing before, and I thought it might simplify things for editors not familiar with the British practice. "Placement according to sense" is not an expression with which most American readers will be familiar. But if you don't like it I could take it out. @JG66: if you have a source with a better description or summary of British punctuation, it would be a help.
@Tony1: Do you have a source for the treatment of exclamation points in combination with commas under conditions like these? Darkfrog24 (talk) 14:33, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
I don't. On "British etc", quite a few British etc publications do use the generally inside practice. I don't think it's good to tag it with nationality. Tony (talk) 14:55, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
And I don't think it's a good idea to tag it with value judgments. Fortunately, we don't need to use either of the practice's names in order to tell people how to use it on Wikipedia. The only non-POV purpose of including the name would be so that people who have heard of the practice before go, "Oh yes, that," and can skip the rest of the explanation, but for that, using both names would be the most effective route. Darkfrog24 (talk) 17:14, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
Darkfrog24: thanks for making that change. I do think it's clearer without that sentence, right now at least. In reply to your question, I'll see if I've got a decent source that helps clarify things. I remember supplying some at the discussion last year – I'll take a look soon. (And I'll also stop being so cryptic and actually link to that 2014 discussion!) Cheers, JG66 (talk) 15:42, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
Thanks a ton. That would be great. Darkfrog24 (talk) 17:14, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
Darkfrog24 Here are those sources I mentioned. From the Journal of Irish and Scottish Studies Style Guide: "Punctuation marks are placed inside the quotation marks only if the sense of the punctuation is part of the quotation; this system is referred to as logical quotation." The wording in the second sentence at Quotation marks in English is pretty good, imo: "Fowler's A Dictionary of Modern English Usage provides an early example of the rule: 'All signs of punctuation used with words in quotation marks must be placed according to the sense.' When dealing with words-as-words, short-form works and sentence fragments, this style places periods and commas outside the quotation marks …" And this definition of LQ from Wiktionary (rehashing the Journal of Irish and Scottish Studies statement): "A system of quotation wherein punctuation marks are enclosed within a quotation only if the sense of the punctuation is part of the quotation."
These were all examples I offered at that discussion starting in late May 2014, of course. I think the current wording is good, though, so I'm not suggesting any changes need be made.
What I would like is a link to the discussion where consensus was reached to omit mention of "British style". I don't think it's important to include the term in the MoS, necessarily, but I am interested in seeing the rationale behind the decision to omit. Also, SMcCandlish could you please supply some examples of Wikipedia having been ridiculed for equating the two terms (LQ and British style)? JG66 (talk) 12:03, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
Thanks a ton, JG66. I'll look through these later for examples of the comma+exclamation point issue.
As for using names, I'm fine with saying "British" alone (but I understand why many others here aren't), fine with omitting both names (with a link to the article space, of course) and can tolerate using both "British" and "logical" together. "British" is the more common name, but there's no question that "logical" is also one of the names for this practice. Darkfrog24 (talk) 12:54, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
I checked, and while I love this source and have now saved it, it doesn't seem to cover our comma issue. I've created a new sub-thread for the development of an example sentence. Darkfrog24 (talk) 13:58, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
You'll need to dig in previous discussions in the archives to find the material on the differences between LQ and actual British style, including the citation to the British source mocking WP for getting it wrong by equating them. Re: DF's one-person campaign: Consensus is not magically overturned by people refusing to do their own homework, and the onus is not on those in favor of the current consensus to keep rehashing arguments in favor of it.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  06:40, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
@JG66: In the course of looking for something else (the fact that Darkfrog has previously conceded multiple times that LQ is not the same as British), I actually ran across the Guardian article I was thinking of. Here you go. :-)  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  10:59, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
I actually have seen this article before, SmC. Even if I had dug through all our old conversations looking for an article that criticized Wikipedia for calling British and LP the same, I'd come up dry, because this article doesn't do that. I refers to one of the examples in the Quotation marks in English article as "misleading" (but I'm pretty sure the example is not in fact misleading, which is another matter). It has nothing to do with whether British and logical styles are the same or not. The last time you said "Source X criticized Wikipedia for saying Y," it was the Ben Yagoda article, and it also did no such thing. Neither does this David Marsh article. (What he does say is "there's nothing logical about 'logical punctuation.'") This is what I mean when I say you exaggerate too much. (Also "one-person campaign"? You also have selective memory.) This guy is talking about British/logical style, and he does mention Wikipedia, but does not actually say "British and L style are not the same and Wikipedia is silly/bad/etc. for saying otherwise." Darkfrog24 (talk) 12:31, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
Actually you just didn't read the piece carefully; it directly quotes WP getting the facts wrong in equating British and LQ. I've already disproven your assertion that LQ and BQ are the same elsewhere, so I don't need to respond to that again.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  13:27, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
I read the article, SmC. I just can't read your mind. Darkfrog24 (talk) 13:56, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
My mind has nothing to do with the source. Again, it directly quotes WP getting the facts wrong in equate British and LQ. No amount of weird "mind reading" handwaves by you make that go away.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  07:03, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the link to the Guardian article, SMcCandlish. Seems to me the author took a fair degree of licence, the most obvious example being that Ben Yagoda/Slate would presumably expect us to render this as follows: "The minister called the allegations 'blatant lies. But in a position such as mine, it is only to be expected'."
"Presumably" indeed, imo. And it sets the scene for the example that follows, which (I think, conveniently) avoids the issue that "Carefree" appears to be used as a standalone term, with "free from care or anxiety" seemingly its definition. Yet the examples (from Wikipedia) are presented to us as if they were quoting from a source that said, say, "Carefree, generally speaking, can be defined as meaning: free from care or anxiety."
And thanks (on one hand …) for the subsequent addition you made in your reply to me – because I had originally taken umbrage at what you seemed to be insinuating about me. On the other hand, I'm finding your constant aggression towards and belittlement of Darkfrog24's input here – as manifested in that same addition (and throughout this talk page, and in your comments accompanying edits to the MoS) – as completely unnecessary. And, quite frankly, it's plain fucking annoying. Consensus or otherwise, the wording in the MOS regarding logical quotation has been the cause of confusion for editors on this encyclopaedia. Curly Turkey mentioned a good example – I think that's the same example (and editor) that brought me here in May 2014. If memory serves me right, GabeMc got the okay from one or two FAC reviewers (on individual talk pages) and also ran it by someone at Wikipedia's Guild of Copy Editors, to follow an approach that was basically the opposite of LQ principles. And they all came to that conclusion based on wording in the MoS (i.e., the importance given to the general point regarding whether a full stop/period appeared in the quoted matter originally). That's what brought me here last year, and I'm certainly not here now for any reason other than to attempt to avoid problems I've seen in the main space. This Manual of Style means nothing in its own right: it merely serves the encyclopaedia's article content. While I've been writing this, DF's written a load of replies to your most recent (sarky) posts here, and I can't begin to keep up … I just think it needs saying: cut out the years-old personal antipathy, get this thing right, and it might become less of a "perennial" issue. JG66 (talk) 15:41, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
@JG66: Fair enough. Annoying you (or anyone) isn't the intent. The proposal toward the bottom of the page, to restore a clarifying intro to the LQ section, will resolve the issue GabeMc and Curly Turkey raised. It's become confused because one editor has been confusing and weakening the LQ material for several years and thus far will not relent until they "win" (or until some dramaboard process puts a stop to it, a route I've avoided pursuing against this editor for several years). It's exceedingly frustrating. Even annoying that editor is not the intent; getting that editor to stop is the intent. MoS will not be serving the encyclopedia's interests if it's bent to serve one particular editor's personal whims, and made a confusing mess in the process.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  18:33, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
I am 100% behind removing whims from the MoS and preventing the insertion of more. We're in agreement there.
As to whether I've been weakening WP:LQ, it's no secret that I support lifting the ban on American punctuation, but I'm also the one who's been removing the material that causes fights and confusion, even though more challenges to this whim-based rule would make it more likely to be removed. Darkfrog24 (talk) 18:41, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
I decline to keep engaging with you on these LQ matters in thread after thread after you've already said you wanted to centralize the discussion in one thread, below, and other editors are finding this scattered, continuous argument annoying. 20:59, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
Darkfrog24, you really, really need to drop the stick on this. LQ is not "British style". We've been over this again and again, and your WP:IDHT tactic is not going to work. It's been repeatedly demonstrated that a) not all British publications use this style, b) the actual dominant British style is not exactly LQ, just similar to it, and c) WP has actually been criticized in public in British publications for equating the two. Enough already.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  22:24, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
The stick is in your hand, SMc. The sources call it British style, probably because it's the prevailing style used in British English. If you don't like that, start a letter-writing campaign to the MLA, AMA, Purdue, CMoS, etc.[3] Until then, please treat the fact that I refer to this practice by its standard name as the non-issue that it is. Darkfrog24 (talk) 22:46, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
Please do not push POV in the MoS. The common name for this practice is "British," and "logical" is used by a minority of sources. Using the common name alone is acceptable, and using both names is acceptable, but deliberately skipping over the primary name and only using the secondary one is inappropriate. If you must refer to it as "logical," refer to it as "British" too. Darkfrog24 (talk) 22:58, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
This is not an article and WP:COMMONNAME does not apply. We do not have to use the terms that your cherry-picked sources prefer when we have proof that they are inaccurate and we've been publicly mocked in the press for engaging in the very error you're trying to tendentiously force us to engage in again. We can call them "Wikipedia quotation" and "fiction quotation" if we want to; MoS is not bound by anything to use any particular terminology, much less blatantly misleading terminology. You've been at this campaign to push in "American style" and "British style" for over two years. Give if a rest for [g|G]od['s|s'] sake. Bringing is up again and again and again until you think you'll get your way is "parent shopping".  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  23:03, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
SmC, they're not cherry-picked; they're name-brand style guides. The fact that they say something that you don't like doesn't make them inappropriate. As for "bringing it up again and again," I started this thread to ask about a comma. [Post split by SMcCandlish]Darkfrog24 (talk) 23:13, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
And you conveniently ignore all contradicting material. That's the very definition of cherry-picking. Re: "I started this thread to ask about a comma" – and here you are campaigning yet again to insert factually incorrect terms like "British style". That's the very definition of tendentious editing and "asking the other parent".  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  00:16, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
1) Please don't refactor my posts. 2) What contradicting material? (And yes, I've read your essay.) 3) WP:PARENT is going to a different place to ask the same question, not going to the same place to ask a different question. 4) If you are concerned about disruption, your tendency to jump to conclusions about what other people are trying to do could use some work. No I am not trying to insert factually inaccurate information into the MoS; this started when I took some loaded terminology out. I am trying to fix what might be an error in one of the example sentences. Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:37, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
I don't recall refactoring your post. I'm not talking about an essay (which essay? I've written lots of them), I'm talking about everything everyone's provided in the 25 or whatever previous debates on this, and which you conveniently ignore in WP:IDHT fashion. Your tendentiousness on this issue will probably inspire me to gather it all in one place, just to insta-refute you on this stuff every time you bring it up. It would save me and many others (and even you for that matter) a lot of wasted time in the long run, but I'm busy right now and can't be bothered to take the whole day of archive digging it'll require. I see that WP:PARENT no longer goes where it used to (it's now WP:OTHERPARENT), and someone's monkeyed with the wording. Whatever. We all still know full well that trying to get the answer you want rather than the one that consensus keeps providing, by re-re-re-raising the same issue in the same or multiple venues over time, is just as much a form of WP:GAMING the consensus system as raising the same issue in multiple forums at the same time. You've been at this for six years (I dug deeper in the archives, and my two year estimate was far too low, due to the WP:AGF factor). You are not asking any "different question". Whether my mental processes could use some work has nothing to do with your behavior; nice try at an ad hominem handwave, though. Whether you are trying to insert errors or not, you are doing so. There's no basis on which to believe that you're just trying to fix what "might" be an error in an example (how can you fix something that's not necessarily broken?), when your recent spate of edits has has very little to do with such a change.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  09:20, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
You split my post into two pieces. See where I had to re-add a signature? That's what I mean by refactoring.
SmC, I've been here for several years and no one has ever provided a source showing that "British" was not the real name of the practice required by Wikipedia. We even had an RfC about whether or not it was a misnomer over on talk:Quotation Marks in English. On the flip side, we have seen many sources that do endorse the name (so the IDHT is better addressed to you). Whatever you're basing this belief on, it looks like you have exaggerated it so much that it's not recognizable to someone who doesn't share your opinions.
I didn't re-raise the same issue; I asked a question about a comma and I removed a POV-pushing word from the MoS. Darkfrog24 (talk) 11:02, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
Yes, you did re-raise the same issue, under cover of asking a question about a comma. Only a very short way into this thread, you launch back into your broken-record act with regard to "British". Re: "I've been here for several years and no one has ever..." – Thanks for proving my point about WP:IDHT. I rest my case and am moving on. PS: Splitting your post was unintentional; if I'd meant to refactor it, would have copied the sig, but such refactoring is rarely used.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  12:45, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
You need to review AGF, SMcCandlish. You've been seeing malice where there is none for weeks now, and not just in me. There is no cover. I started this thread about the comma because that was the only change that I considered substantive. As for IDHT, I've repeatedly shown you sources showing that "British" and "American" are indeed the standard names of the two major punctuation practices in question. Did you violate IDHT or is it the more benign reality that you and I just don't think about this matter the same way?
Let me give you an example: You frequently use the term "typesetters" to refer to American punctuation even though it's extremely rare. You've even tried to insert it into Wikipedia's public space, but I don't accuse you of wrongdoing for it. For talk pages, I accept that that's just your preferred term, and for the article space, I remove it and ask for a source. I really think that's what you need to start doing for other people. Darkfrog24 (talk) 13:40, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
MOS is not "article space". How many times does this point have to be made with you before you get it? I assume no malice whatsoever. It doesn't require ill will for someone to tendentiously pursue something for 6+ years, against a consensus dating back to 2002 and reaffirmed as consensus every time it comes up. All it takes is a refusal to drop the stick, and to accept that the projects' priorities will not always agree with one's personal preferences. We all agree to abide by MoS, despite disagreeing personally with some points in it, so we can get some WP work done. A criticism of unconstructive editorial behavior patterns is not an accusation of bad faith; action is not motive; the effect is not the cause; edits are not the editor. I'm not the one who needs to re-read WP:AGF (or WP:CIVIL or WP:NPA, which you also like to throw at people who dare criticize your editing behavior).

Next, how frequent a term is used in other contexts and how useful it is in a particular context are not causally related. The fact that various publications (many of which do not appear to understand the differences between all these styles, but are only laying out their style, and which do not analyze actual usage, but simply prescribe one) like to use "American style" and "British style" as their own shorthand terms for their readers does not make them proper names. There is no "standard" (your word, remember) for you to cite. It's been demonstrated repeatedly, in the very archive of this talk page, that various American publications use logical quotation, that logical quotation is only similar to not identical to the more common style in British publishing, and that various British (and other) publications use what you keep wanting to call American style, especially in fiction and in newspaper journalism. Calling LQ "British style" is a proven factual error. Just look it up yourself. Consensus is not going to change because you refuse to do so. I have better things to do than play source-it-for-me games at a page that is a matter of WP editorial consensus, not an article subject to sourcing requirements, and I deny recognition to / refuse to feed that game-playing. If I have to spend a bunch of time digging up diffs from previous discussions of this matter, it won't be give you "satisfaction", but for a completely different reason.

PS: MoS doesn't need external sources to decide internally what we want to do, but if you wanted to go that route, the sources would not back you anyway. The one you rely on most doesn't actually recommend TQ or "traditional American quotation punctuation" or whatever you want to call it, but a hybrid system that uses aspects of both TQ and LQ. And it explicitly recommends punctuation-outside (whether you want to call that LQ or British or Squeedlyborp or Style J2 or what) for at least two kinds of writing. Betcha didn't know that. I decline to do that homework for you either, and getting into it here would be off-topic, because this is not a page about sourcing the descriptive linguistics of quotation styles, it's the page for discussion of WP's own manual of style.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  06:40, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

SmC, let's say for the sake of argument that MoS shouldn't be considered article space. What would the purpose of that distinction be? Lack of clutter? More freedom to personalize the rules? So it's not anything that makes it okay to push a PoV in the MoS. So for the purpose of pushing or removing PoV, the distinction is moot. You should focus less on which terminology I prefer and more on the effect that things have on the readers. I've done that for you.
As for consensus, I have been abiding by it, which I have to do. I've also been trying to change it, which I'm within my rights to do. As for how useful the terms "British" and "logical" are, the only non-POV purpose of including either in the MoS is name recognition, so the reader can skip the long explanation and say, "Oh, British/L style. I know that!" For that, the terms "British" and "American" are better than "logical" because they are more common and likely to be recognized. So by your reasoning, the MoS should refer to this rule as "British." I think maybe because of your linguistics or programming experience, you have seen the term "logical" a lot, and you're overestimating how often it actually appears in English style guides and other writing.
Which of my sources are you talking about? Most of the ones I usually show you just describe the differences between American and British punctuation without recommending either one over the other.
I don't agree with you and you don't like that. You don't have to. But if you accept it the way I've accepted that you don't agree with me then we can get past the minutia and actually work on substance. Darkfrog24 (talk) 12:43, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Your responses are getting less and less rationale. "let's say for the sake of argument that MoS shouldn't be considered article space" makes as much sense as "let's say for the sake of argument that a ham sandwich is not a rocket. I've already disproven your "LQ = British" nonsense, with a source. All the rest of this looks like rehash, and I decline to play your WP:ROUNDINCIRCLES, argument by verbosity game any longer.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  13:31, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

SmC, "Let's say for the sake of argument [that X part of my opponent's argument is right]" is a way that people examine other people's arguments and try to get them to understand their own positions In this case, whether or not the MoS is or is like the article space is starting to look like it's not immediately relevant. The point is whether it's okay to push POV in the MoS, so "for the sake of argument" is a way of redirecting the conversation past the thing that we don't need to talk about right now and toward the thing that we do. Darkfrog24 (talk)
That's not how that expression is used. It means "this isn't true, but let's pretend it is for the sake of argument." Of course MOS is not like articlespace, and the idea that it is isn't relevant, or sensible. When you stop incessantly pushing your PoV on this, let's come back to your question.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  14:45, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Example sentence for editors unfamiliar with British/logical style

FWIW, I support Darkfrog24's idea to include something like "For the most part, this means placing periods and commas inside the quotation marks if they were part of the quoted material and outside if they are not", to clarify.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  09:20, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
Curly SmC, since J objected to the "inside/outside" sentence, how about something like, "On Wikipedia, treat periods and commas as you would question marks"? That's more likely to get a lightbulb from someone not familiar with the expression "place according to sense." Darkfrog24 (talk) 23:13, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
I'm not sure that makes it clear—as in, I don't think someone would read that and conclude the comma were redundant. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:19, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
"For this most part, this means treating them in the same way as question marks: Keep them inside the quotation marks if they apply only to the quoted material and outside if they apply to the whole sentence." Do you think that would do for an unfamiliar reader? Darkfrog24 (talk) 23:26, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
Seems reasonable, as long as the question mark usage is immediately above this and we can expect the editor to make the connection. It may be better to just spell it out a few more words that depend on assumptions, but I don't advocate adding more verbiage than we need.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  00:16, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
You don't think a link to the question mark section would do it? Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:37, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, I guess. I wasn't looking at it in context.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  09:20, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
JG66 was kind enough to provide a source describing British/logical style concisely. My concern, however, is that the meaning of the expression "placement according to sense" may not be obvious to readers not familiar with British/logical style, and they're the target audience of this line. How do we all feel about this? For this most part, this means treating them in the same way as question marks: Keep them inside the quotation marks if they apply only to the quoted material and outside if they apply to the whole sentence. Then "examples below," etc. etc. Darkfrog24 (talk) 13:58, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
I agree "placement according to sense" isn't helpful. "For this most part" has a typo in it. Other than that, agree with the instructional text.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  03:51, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
Okay, I'll put it up for now. Darkfrog24 (talk) 12:59, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
But you've put it up in place of the section intro text, when what we were discussing appeared to be an example lead-in. Maybe the two approaches can be combined, but using "do it like question marks" isn't what LQ is about, and does not work by itself as a section intro.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  07:03, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Conversion of colons to commas

The change of all the examples like these:

Marlin said: "I need to find Nemo."
Dory said: "Yes, I can read", which gave Marlin an idea.
Did Darla really ask: "Why are you sleeping"?

to examples like these:

Marlin said, "I need to find Nemo."
Dory said, "Yes, I can read", which gave Marlin an idea.
Did Darla really ask, "Why are you sleeping"?

strikes me as controversial and should be discussed. For years MoS has advised using colons to introduce quotations that are full sentences, and is not the only style guide to do so. I think we should continue to advise colons here, for at least the first and third cases. An argument can be made that the construction of the second one requires a comma. If the quotation were notably longer, it would need to be broken up:

Dory said: "Leucism is a condition in which there is partial loss of pigmentation in an animal resulting in white, pale, or patchy coloration of the skin, hair, feathers, scales or cuticle, but not the eyes." This gave Marlin an idea.

The colon version of the original doesn't look right to begin with, since "Yes, I can read" (whether it was originally a full sentence or not) is not being used as one in that example, but as a quoted fragment in a sentence the point of which is Marlin getting an idea.

However, the colon version of the first and third examples is actually correct.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  23:03, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

If I were saying that, I would have said that. "Correct" isn't a usage that makes sense here.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  00:16, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
I asked because in common usage "actually correct" in such a context can be parsed as an assertion that implies the other usage is not "actually correct"—this reading is reinfoced by your objection to the change. I'm stymied by your assertion "Correct" isn't a usage that makes sense here following your assertion that the first and third examples is actually correct. Whatever you're trying to communicate is failing to get across. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 01:01, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, I'm using the word in different ways, and should have been clearer. In "'correct' isn't a usage that makes sense here, I meant that in a construction where the dot could be place in either position under the rule, there is no correct vs. incorrect (and that the external-to-the rule idea advanced by DF that the style that editor prefers is "correct" because they're preferred paper style guides say so, it's a meaningless assertion because it has nothing to do with our house style, and there is no official arbiter of The One True Proper English). In "the colon version of the first and third examples is actually correct", I mean "compliant with the LQ rule, and doing it the other way would be noncompliant or 'incorrect' in the rule context", without implying anything about Universal Correctness.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  20:59, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
I understand that you think this is meaningless, but the rest of us don't. For this, is your answer based on your own guesses and conclusions or on something else? Darkfrog24 (talk) 21:08, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
I've already answered this twice. I decline to take the circular argument WP:BAIT.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  21:57, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
Curly, Marlin said, "I need to find Nemo." is correct, as is Marlin said: "I need to find Nemo." The second option is probably preferable since the quoted portion constitutes a full sentence. JG66 (talk) 01:07, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
I know they're both correct; SMcCandlish's objection seemed to me to imply he believed the first wasn't. Which is to be used in any given article should be left entirely to editors. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 01:13, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
SmC doesn't believe in "correct" and "incorrect" where the English language is concerned. It's just his shtick. SmC, I am going to attempt to recast @Curly Turkey:'s question in a way that I hope you'll find more palatable: "Do you think the MoS should advise against using commas in the manner used in his example?" "Do you think using commas in that way is undesirable/'not done'/not reflective of the kind of English guidance that we want to provide on Wikipedia"? Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:42, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
Linguistics doesn't support "correct" and "incorrect". The only shtick here is your reliance on Victorian notions of prescriptive grammar. English has no equivalent of the Académie française.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  08:48, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
But English does have things that are right and wrong. Spelling "cat" with a C is correct and with a G is incorrect. But you don't think of it that way. It is a quirk of yours and I used the word "schtik" in an attempt to frame it as a harmless one and legitimate personal preference. That doesn't merit lashing out. Darkfrog24 (talk) 11:02, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
MoS is not a spelling guide; your "gat" example has nothing to do with this discussion. Your attempt to characterize me making simple observations as "lashing out" is another transparent ad homimem attempt at a handwave. Not an argument. Neither is simply restating your premise after it's already been refuted instead of trying to actually rebut the refutation. Anyway, whether "gat" is an attested spelling of "cat" is not a "right and wrong" or "correct and incorrect" matter, it's matter of whether it's observed usage. Linguisitics. Science. Amazing stuff. Not a "quirk". 6+ years of civil-PoV slow-editwar tendentiousness on your part to get what you want no matter what the sources say, not matter what the consensus is, that's a quirk. Whether something is an observed usage (and in what dialects and registers it is found) has little to do with whether MoS recommends it or not. You are not a mind reader and have no idea what I think, and needs to stop trying to put thoughts in my head. What I think and what you think are immaterial; again, what MoS recommends is not about you (or about me).
The example is meant to show you personally how English does have things that a reasonable person could consider "correct" or "incorrect." Perhaps if I were to say that "word," is correct and "wo,rd" is incorrect. The fact that you don't think of English as being correct and incorrect isn't a problem by itself. The fact that you don't understand why other people do think of it that way is getting in the way of otherwise substantive discussions. Darkfrog24 (talk) 12:59, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
EDIT CONFLICT: Commas struck me as more standard than colons, so I didn't consider the change substantive, but sure let's talk about it. What's your source for this, SmC? Darkfrog24 (talk) 23:13, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
MoS is not an article and is not sourced. We've also been over this many, many times before. See above about WP:Tendentious editing and WP:IDHT. The "source" for this is that MoS has had a consensus on it for a long, long time. You are proposing a change, but have no justified it.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  00:16, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
You know what else we've been over? Sources are what I personally find convincing. Yes, I the MoS is better off sourced, but in addition to that, sources are what I personally find convincing, so if you want me to agree with you about something, sources are the way to go. I have two reasons for asking you for sources, and you're perfectly free to ignore the one of them that you don't happen to like. You said there's an outside style guide that details the use of colons in this way. Which one was it? Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:37, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
MOS and WP are not about you, and no one is obligated to satisfy your out-of-band, irrational, inapplicable demands to externally source WP's internal consensus decisions. You're trying to change a long-term consensus here, so the onus is on you to demonstrate why we should do so. I may do some sourcing research on this for my own curiosity, or I may not. It certainly isn't necessary in order for the extant consensus to remain, and I won't do it for your personal benefit. You're the one who persists in the delusion that MoS cannot be changed without sourcing, so you source the change you want to make, and stop making changes in the interim (you've already introduced two obvious outright errors, as well as editwarred against 13 years of consensus in favor of logical quotation, to delete references to it, and this needs to stop).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  08:48, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
You are really overreacting to this. It's not like I asked you for a doctoral dissertation, and I never said that the MoS couldn't be changed without sourcing. You want consensus for something? That means getting people to agree with you. Who's a person? I am. What do I find convincing? Sources. So yes, I'm going to keep asking for them. Because if you have a source, that means you, SMcCandlish, didn't make it up, aren't guessing, etc. etc. That is not irrational or inappropriate in any way. You are making a claim about commas vs colons and I want to know where you got this information. Darkfrog24 (talk) 11:02, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
There is no edit war going on and I did not introduce any errors. You happen to like colons more than commas, but commas are not erroneous in this case either. Darkfrog24 (talk) 11:02, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
Actually, an admin agreed you were editwarring, and even suggested I take it (and your "slow editwarring" pattern at WT:MOSFAQ) to WP:AE for discretionary sanctions enforcement because he believed even temporarily full-protecting WP:MOS would not deal with the matter. I declined in part because I don't like to involve ArbCom / AE in MoS-related or other WP:POLICY-editing) matters (it's a separation of powers issue to me, with our "judiciary" interfering with our "legislative branch"), but also in part because I'm going to try to take it on good faith that you'll stop trying to force your view against 13+ years of consensus here. My hope is that this latest putsch by you was one last-gasp attempt at getting your way on this point and that you'll finally just drop it. Please don't make this a foolish hope on my part.

You did introduce two errors (in the actual guidance, I don't mean typos or grammar errors, though you introduced at least three of those as well), and I clearly identified them in edit summaries. I didn't say they were errors relating specifically to this commas question. I haven't gone into a bunch of detail about the errors and blaming you for them point-by-point because they're already fixed and, again, this isn't about you. I'm only addressing you here at all because you're doing disruptive things at this page presently/recently, so it's an MoS-editing-related matter to some extent. For issues that are already moot, like corrected errors, dwelling on user behavior matters is off-topic. Finally, you're again making weird "mind-reading" assumptions, about what I "like". I never said I "liked" colons, I said there's a long-standing consensus to advise them for long quotations. Just because I refuse to do extraneous, time-consumptive, and pointless external homework for you to find style guides also using colons for long quotations doesn't mean anything other than I have better things to do than play your "you all have to source things but I don't" games. It certainly doesn't indicate anything about my personal preferences with regard to punctuation, nor anything about what the sources say. Again: You are the one who wants to change consensus on this point, so you do the sourcing. If I think your sourcing is inadequate, maybe then I'll do additional sourcing. For all I know or care a majority of style guides might oppose colons in such a case, but you have not demonstrated this, and I think it's extremely unlikely (because we have such a long-standing consensus for it here, and because I've read enough style guide material over the last couple of decades). Even if some numerical majority of style guides advised commas only, that still wouldn't magically overturn consensus, just possibly inspire a re-examination of it.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  06:40, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

When was this? You mean back in 2008?
Again, what errors? The only substantive change that I considered making was this comma, and I brought the issue here before making it. As for what you like, yes, I'm inferring that you like the colons more because you changed the commas to colons for no other visible reason. I'd also like it if you stopped complaining to me about homework. This isn't a classroom and we're not schoolchildren.
When the heck do you imagine that I said that you guys had to source things but I didn't? I'm the one who usually starts bringing in sources. And you constantly complain that you shouldn't have to source things. Darkfrog24 (talk) 14:18, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
I've already pointed you to the errors. I decline to take the IDHT bait. I don't know what "When...2008?" is asking about, and don't care at this point, and people are tired of us arguing. The fact that you demand everyone soruce things, and then expect to get your way and change consensus without doing likewise has been covered in more than enough detail already, so I will not rehash that either.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  21:57, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
SmC, the thoughts that are in your head are not making it out into your posts, and I am not a magical mindreading Betazoid from Star Trek. If you want a source for something, the proper procedure is to ask for it. You will have to say what you're talking about. Darkfrog24 (talk) 22:48, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
More circular argument bait. Repeat: I've already pointed you to the errors. Repeat: You want to change the consensus about colon usage, you demand sources, so you source it. No "mind reading" is involved, just a cessation of WP:IDHT-style WP:GAMING. 07:03, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

More comma issues

Do not follow quoted words or fragments with commas inside the quotation marks, except where a longer quotation has been broken up and the comma is part of the full quotation.
Do styleguides actually recommend anything like this? Does writers do this? It can lead to appear to legitimize prose like this:
Joe Bleaux described the work as "an epoch-making development", while John Deaugh saw it as "rather below expectations," given the artist's previous rapid development.
... where there just happens to be a comma after "expectations" in the original quote but not after "development". The comma placement thus looks haphazard despite conforming both to the MoS and to the sources—it looks like it was done in error. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 07:44, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
That would be silly. It is not required to include the comma, only forbidden to insert one that doesn't belong there. The proper version of this is, of course:
Joe Bleaux described the work as "an epoch-making development", while John Deaugh saw it as "rather below expectations", given the artist's previous rapid development.
This is not a legitimate "bug report".  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  08:53, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
Well, that went right over your head, didn't it? I'm not with my laptop, so I'll have to track it down tomorrow, but this issue has actually come up. I believe it was ColonelHenry (actually, I think it was GabeMc---I'll find it) who was arguing to maintain exactly the style quoted above, because the MoS allegedly supported it. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 10:04, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
This doesn't bother me that much. So long as it is correct, it's alright if it occasionally doesn't look correct. Darkfrog24 (talk) 11:09, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
It isn't correct, though.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  06:40, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Nothing "went over [my] head". Rather, someone else (GabeMc's you think, now) misunderstood. MOS does not support that reading. You're misinterpreting that editor's failure to understand the instructions as a conflict in the instructions, but there is no such conflict. Thanks for being snide about it, though.

There is never any reason to write:

Joe Bleaux described the work as "an epoch-making development", while John Deaugh saw it as "rather below expectations," given the artist's previous rapid development.

in the first place. It's permissible to write ... as "rather below expectations," given ... if the comma was there to begin with, and it's part of a contiguous quoted passage broken (at the comma) with an editorial insertion as in:

"It is rather below expectations," wrote reviewer John Deaugh, "and over-produced." (assuming the full quote is "It is rather below expectations, and over-produced.")

[Note that this is a journalistic and fiction style we rarely use anyway, so we needn't devote much verbiage to it.] It would be wrong (per these rules) and silly (per basic common sense) to do comma-inside if it introduced a confusing style conflict with the previous comma-outside case in the same sentence, when the comma-inside use in the "rather below expectations" quote is only optionally inside the quotation marks, and wouldn't be inside them anyway except when it's a sentence split with an editorial comment, which is not the case in Curly Turkey's example.

The error is in misreading "Do not follow quoted words or fragments with commas inside the quotation marks, except where a longer quotation has been broken up and the comma is part of the full quotation" as if it said "Do not follow quoted words or fragments with commas inside the quotation marks, except where the comma is part of the full quotation, in which case do it no matter what"; it's two errors in one. In short, we're only including the comma inside in the first place because we're quoting the entire piece, comma and all, and breaking it for editorial comment. If we're only quoting a snippet of it, that snippet is arbitrary, and there is no reason to "forcibly" include the comma in that selection (except in a weird case, like illustration of the use of commas by quoting examples of their use).

Let's assume the original Deaugh quote is this: "It's rather below expectations, and over-produced. It's weird, because she developed so fast on the last couple of albums."; and we only want to quote part of that.

John Deaugh saw it as "rather below expectations," given the artist's previous rapid development, "and over-produced."

There is still never a reason to write:

Joe Bleaux described the work as "an epoch-making development", while John Deaugh saw it as "rather below expectations," given the artist's previous rapid development, "and over-produced".

[aside from the fact that it's poorly constructed writing generally] since our decision to include the comma in the process of excerpting is entirely optional; we can either excerpt the entire Deaugh passage we want and interrupt it with an insertion, preserving the comma in place; or we excerpt, then editorialize with commas outside, then excerpt again. The only difference is the placement of one character. We'd obviously do the latter in this case, so as not to use ", and ," markup in the same passage, back-to-back for no reason. We'd use this (if we were to use prose this poor in other ways):

Joe Bleaux described the work as "an epoch-making development", while John Deaugh saw it as "rather below expectations", given the artist's previous rapid development, "and over-produced".

There's an obvious way to prevent such confusion (which did not formerly arise). See new thread.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  06:40, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

  • I used the single sentence to keep the example as short as possible, but what actually happens in articles (and which some editors have actually defended) is where the punctuation occurs either in or out of the quotemarks in different sentences: Brown called it "horrifying". ... (many bytes later) ... Smith thought it "perhaps worthwhile." I've had little success appealing to editors' sense of logic in such cases—they usually let me "have my way", but the wording as-is does not discourage this kind of thing. Please stop calling it "obvious" as it's anything but to large numbers of editors—these things get all the way to FAC (and sometimes pass) without people even noticing. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 07:17, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
Same situation really. There's no necessity to include the . inside the quotation in the case of Smith thought it "perhaps worthwhile." Even Darkfrog24 has made this point before [4]. As noted above, nothing mandates that you must also excerpt punctuation from the end of a quotation when excerpting the quotation. There is one case we do not want, because it falsifies the quotation: inserting punctuation that was into in the original (or changing what punctuation was there; same thing). There's an additional case that's undesirable because it's pointless: forcing the punctuation outside the quotation when it forms a complete sentence, as in Smith said, "I'm going to the store"., since that implies that it's an incomplete fragment, when it was actually complete. In the case of Smith thought it "perhaps worthwhile"., we already know it's a fragment, so there's no need to force the punctuation inside. Just editorially decide that what you are excerpting is "perhaps worthwhile", not ""perhaps worthwhile.", with the dot, if it'll work better in the context without the dot. It doesn't technically serve much purpose to copy-paste the dot along with the two words, because it's at the end of two words that do not by themselves form a sentence, and is so fragmentary. A lot of Americans would prefer to do so, out of habit, and I'm not sure anyone cares enough to squabble over it much.

If it helps, my personal approach to optionally "finessing" LQ contextually:

Details
I first ask (mostly unconsciously): Does the quoted part form a complete sentence? (Gantz said, "I'm really hungry.", or Gantz said: "I'm really hungry.", however you prefer). If no, I then ask: Does the quoted part flow naturally from the preceding material (The inquest found the evidence to be "circumstantial, but enough to open a grand jury investigation."), or does it require an interruption (The claims were, according to Garcia, "a total fabrication by my enemies".), or an introduction (The report found evidence of: "multiple sightings of lights in the sky", "claims of abduction", and "scars that looked surgical in nature"., assuming the original ended with "... nature.")? If it flows naturally I ask: Is the quote longer than one or two words (Smith thought it "perhaps worthwhile but potentially costly."), or at least forming a coherent clause that could have been a stand-alone sentence (Smith instructed her to "turn left.", where the original was "At the light, turn left.")? So, by default, I'd go with Smith thought it "perhaps worthwhile"., because of the brevity and fragmentary nature. It it were longer but not self-complete I'd move it outside (Smith thought it "perhaps worthwhile but potentially costly".), if there were nearby uses of things like Brown called it "horrifying". If the Smith quotation were a words-as-words use, I'd always go outside: Brown's assessment of the program broadly termed it "certainly necessary" but Smith used the more cautious phrase "perhaps worthwhile but potentially costly". I would always put it inside if the construction were one that implied that a complete statement were not complete when the dot was outside (e.g. where an abstract or other clipped style of writing dropped "and" from a list: The memo suggested there were many potential causes of the incident: component failure, human error, gnawing rodents, divine intervention, ninjas.")

But, this is just my own take on it. We generally leave stuff to editorial judgement if it isn't crucial, and I wouldn't want to see us imposing rules about this sort of minutiae. It's reasonable to assume "put terminal punctuation outside, unless it both was present in the original and is desirable to retain" as the default. LQ really is that simple unless you want to "finesse" it, as I've been doing sometimes. PS: It's only become non-obvious to some, because that simple sort of explanation was deleted from MOS for no legitimate reason. Stuff gets all the way to FAC without people fighting over quotation mark placement because it's not a big deal. Some individuals want to make a it a big deal for idio- and ideo-poltical reasons, instead of just treating it as any other recommendation here, like writing 6 cm not 6CM.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  13:22, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

  • Here—actually, it looks like GabeMc was agreeing with me and PBS was insisting on something like ...upon leaving the stage, Hendrix "graduated from rumor to legend." It's not the only time I've seen this kind of thing, though—but usually they don't decide to duke it out. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 07:34, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Ah, okay. Assuming the original ended with "... legend.", LQ would permit but not require the period on the inside, and default to putting it there (it's more informative there), unless there was a countervailing reason not to do so, like the previous sentence being The performance was said by reviewers to be "electrifying",[1] "unforgettable",[2] and "totally far out".[3], with the dot outside. LQ would forbid putting the dot on the inside if it wasn't there in the original. Most non-technical American publications, and some British (etc.) news or fiction publications, would put the period/dot/stop/point/whatchamacallit inside the quotes, regardless of the original text. I just checked with Oxford Guide to Style (abridged as New Hart's Rules) again, and their recommendation is putting it outside because the quote is not a full sentence, even if the original ended with the stop, and even though our text flows together with the quote as an uninterrupted sentence. But, if the original did include the dot, they allow for optional, contextual, judgement exceptions (p. 150, in the Oxford Style Manual [2003] version of OGS, with a detailed explanation, missing from the compressed form on p. 156 of the pocket-size NHR version [2005]), in a rule that would definitely encompass such a case as the Hendrix example, and permit the quote inside. But, curiously, the examples given do not pertain the textual rule, and instead illustrate conversion of a stop into a comma when quoting two short sentences in one quoting sentence (which the rule says nothing about): 'It cannot be done,' he concluded. The rule/example mismatch seems to be a printing error, and I don't have the standalone, pre-OSM copy of OGS, I don't think, to compare. Anyway, this conversion of the point into a comma inside the quotation would never be permissible in LQ, because it falsifies the original material.

    Amusingly, the page I just cited disproves, in a single example (though there's other material on the nearby pages that also does so), Darkfrog24's assertion that LQ is the same as British style. Heh. I ended up doing DF's homework inadvertently despite trying not to.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  13:22, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Actually, if you're the one who wants to prove that British and logical styles are different, it's on you to dig up sources for it. From what you've cited here, it just looks like British style might have more than one way of doing things. Given your track record for exaggeration and selective reading, I'd like to see the text myself before I conclude that any division that might exist does so along British/logical lines. Can you provide a link? If not, then let's start with which of these sources refers to the style as "British" and which refer to it as "logical." Darkfrog24 (talk) 14:09, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
I have no need or "want" to prove these styles are different. We established they're different about a decade ago, and you repeately refuse to accept this, year after year. You're the one who wants to prove LQ and BQ are identical, and your attempts to do this have failed. All you've demonstrated is that some sources don't bother to distinguish. No amount of repeating your belief and preference will change that fact. No one cares if you refuse to accept reliable sources you can't download for free, for assume bad faith about my ability to cite them. MOS is not an article and does not have to be sourced like one; even if it did, paper sources would be adequate, as a matter of clear policy; and your disbelief in cited sources does not somehow equate to you having consensus to keep deleting "logical quotation", or falsely equating LQ and BQ in guidelines and articles. You can start with whatever sources you want to look at. No one else is obligated to ignore sources you refuse to look at, but thanks for making it clear that that's what you're doing. "Which of these sources refers to the style as 'British' and which refer to it as 'logical'" is circular reasoning and begging the question, by assuming LQ and BQ are the same "it", but this has been demonstrated to not be true. I decline to speculate why you're pretending "some sources use the terms interchangeably while other distinguish" equates to "there is no distinction", but the distinction is not erased because some sources you prefer choose to gloss over it.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  07:03, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
You don't need to mansplain LQ to me, SMcCandlish—I know how LQ works and how to apply it. The point is that the "logic" in "logical quotation" escapes large numbers of editors: it takes fewer brain cycles to process "if the punctuation was in the original, keep it in; if it's not, keep it out"—which doesn't violate the letter of LQ but does violate the spirit. The MoS does a poor job of conveying the spirit. Speaking as someone who has spend a lot of time explaining LQ to people because they can't work it out from what the MoS says. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:11, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
I'm not sure why it was necessary for you to insult me to indicate agreement with me that MoS's present wording has been doing a poor job. We clearly agree on that. If it comes down to it, saying "if it was in the original keep it in, otherwise keep it out" instead of the more nuanced "if it was in the original, keep it in if it's useful, otherwise keep it out", which is the most compressed way to put the proposal below, but the more nuanced version doesn't seem confusing to me at all. Why would it be? The important part is "otherwise keep it out".  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  07:03, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
It shouldn't be, but it is. There are editors who follow "if it was in the original keep it in, otherwise keep it out", and then it appears to be an error to driveby editors, who may "fix" it, perhaps by putting the punctutation consistently inside because that style happens to come first in the article. When you both DD MM YYYY and MM DD YYYY dates appear in an article it's natural to fix it by making them all conform to the first style that appears in the article, no? Driveby editors don't have the source in fron of them and are likely unfamiliar with (or don't understand) LQ, so "fixing" the article in such a way is only natural. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 07:28, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
@Curly Turkey: I understand what you mean by (and have encountered myself) new editors who see one case of punctuation inside and then try to "normalize" all cases in the article to that, or vice versa. I don't quite see how we resolve that other than by ensuring that "otherwise keep it out" (in whatever exact wording) is clearly in the intro to the section (and I've restored it after Darkfrog24 removed it and put their "do it like question marks" material in its place; I kept both, and the text is surely more useful for the compromise, providing both the rule/rationale, and an "ah ha!" mnemonic that people can easily remember; pinging also Darkfrog24, in hopes this merged version is agreeable). Anyway, It wouldn't seem to matter, for that drive-by problem, whether it also included an "if it's useful" clause; no harm comes from deciding that it's not useful to retain the original's punctuation inside in a particular case (e.g. because the quoted segment is just a word or two) and moving it outside, only the other way around, which would not be permitted no matter which wording variant was used, because it inserts false material. And "if it's useful" clause would help avoid the impression that if the word was at the end of the quoted sentence that the dot must be included inside the quotation no matter what. (I'm not trying to be argumentative, I'm just trying to help figure out how to resolve the issue you're reporting. If I'm being blind to something obvious, I apologize for missing your point, but I'm reading you closely, not skimming.)  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  11:18, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
I guess it's okay for now, but we should keep working on it. My concerns closely overlap what Curly calls the drive-by problem. However, there should be no POV in the text. I don't object to including the alternate name, "logical" so long as the common name, "British" is there as well. If you want to leave out "British," we must leave out "logical" as well. I redid the link to the article space to address DrKiernan's concerns about clarity. The passage now instructs without attempting to persuade the reader that British style is either better or worse than American style. Darkfrog24 (talk) 13:13, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
The RfC much lower down the page proposes factually correct integration of "British". In the interim there is no consensus for you to delete "logical quotation". You've been reverted on this by multiple editors for three days straight. The passage never "attempted to persuade" anyone of any value judgement, and you've known this for at least 6 years [5], but you simply state the opposite without any evidence, ignoring what's been presented [6]. This has recurred in virtually every version of this debate in the intervening years. I'm sorry you don't seem to like the name and the rationale behind it, but it is what it is. "Logical quotation" is a sourced name for the style, a term of art, not a value description made up by Wikipedia. Objecting to it is like objecting to the name of the zodiac sign Cancer because it sounds like a disease. It is its name, whether anyone likes it or not, and the name doesn't refer to whether it's "logical" to use it, but the quotation-related logic served by the punctuation. It would have been nice if they'd called it "literal quotation" or something else, but we don't get to make up our own facts. There is no PoV in the text other than the false original research you keep inserting that LQ = BQ, because it fits the goals of your "American" style and "British" style WP:ENGVAR advocacy. I don't think you're doing that out of bad faith, just intense desire to get your way on this. But everyone has to live with some things in MOS they wouldn't use in their own off-WP writing.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  16:56, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Back to the redundant commas

So we've got a few people saying "that looks wrong" and a few people saying "no it looks right." While we're dealing with other things, let's also get back to what to do about that comma + exclamation point situation. I see that style guides don't address this matter directly, do we have an examples of RS using the !"," or ?", construction? I only recall seeing it in amateur internet writing, but I might have missed it. Darkfrog24 (talk) 13:21, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Turabian's A Manual for Writers of Research Papers, Theses and Dissertations 8th ed says on page 304: "If a situation calls for both a comma and a stronger punctuation mark, omit the comma," excepting titles of works that contain a quotation mark or exclamation point.
MLA 7th ed. says of this issue on page 103: "...the original is retained and no comma is required."
That would settle it for me except both these sources are American, working with systems in which the quotation mark would come between the exclamation point and following comma. Turabian mentions the British system when describing what to do for linguistics and theology papers but does not address this issue in that section. Does anyone have a British source for this? Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:38, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Extent of section index

A user has commented in a discussion that there are "too many sections" in an article - do we have any style guide giving input on how to judge the (very elastic) question of too many or too few sections, or to what extent user expectation to find specific areas mentioned, should guides the existence of section headings? Are there any examples of FA's with lengthy or very short section lists? FT2 (Talk | email) 14:02, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

For what FT2 means, see this discussion (that's a WP:Permalink). In that discussion, I told FT2 "Per MOS:Paragraphs, subheadings usually are not needed for such small sections." and "Having subheadings for a little bit of material makes articles look longer than they are from the table of contents, and therefore makes the article more difficult to navigate through." I explained similarly at WP:Film, where there was agreement about how subheadings for a little bit of material or too many subheadings can be problematic (though a few editors defined "little bit of material" differently); see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Archive 56#Unnecessary subheadings, which violate MOS:Paragraphs, in the Box office sections. I also addressed this aspect at Template talk:Very long. Flyer22 (talk) 17:36, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
Flyer - I don't think that's the first time you've done that. It doesn't need you to post old links all over again, when the posted query is clearly neutral and fairly worded, and not biased. If I had wanted to link to a specific discussion or drag specific cases into it, I would have.
Those MOS sections aren't much help. MOS:Paragraphs isn't discussing the temporary case of subsections that are short because they are soon to be fleshed out, and it's clear that it does not say that subsections clearly relevant to the topic, newly created, must be deleted by revert while they are likely to be imminently filled in. It doesn't even say that long-standing empty sections "must" be deleted. We have templates sectstub and empty section and those haven't had consensus for removal either, so quite a few editors (although not all) must see benefits at times in having, or templating for reader information, sections that are stubs or empty, or important but currently lack content. For example, they may encourage someone else to add needed content. I favor that encouragement, because it tends to foster article improvement if it's clear where content is missing.
I don't myself know any MOS standards that mandate removing sections on significant aspects of a topic, on the grounds that "too many headings" - and a discussion by two editors in another article is not the same as a community consensus on what is within reasonable range of views (because for all we know, other discussions by other editors elsewhere may have concluded the exact opposite in other cases). The linked thread at WikiProject Film shows other editors agreeing on a commonsense "middle of the road" view based on "is there anything meaningful that makes sense to say as a subsection" - if splitting a section has value in the context and won't leave the section too long, it's fine; if it's just because of a standard layout or something with no other benefit and leaves fragmentary sections of little benefit, then not. "Summary style" also doesn't mean "don't create subsections on significant aspects of the topic" and isn't a reason to remove subsections, when the aspects are widely seen as high prominence in the topic. So I'm a bit at a loss when these are linked to as reasons.
So as to focus on the MOS issue, I asked, without referring to prior discussion or bias, simply the open question - do we have any style guides on the TOC point or examples in FAs, to find out if they are best left to reasonable editor discretion or if a consensus exists about it. FT2 (Talk | email) 18:26, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
You were referring to me by stating "A user." This page is on my WP:Watchlist, and I contribute to discussions here (and at the talk pages of other WP:Policies and guidelines), which means that I didn't have to follow you here. Seeing that you were referring to me and that your post was unnecessarily vague, I clarified exactly what is being disputed in this case and why. Having done that is not biasing the section; it's giving editors a better understanding of what is going on. Just like you think I shouldn't have done that, I think you should have waited for others to weigh in instead of making such a long reply. That stated, I can see how the fact that my reply was me giving my side without giving your side on the matter can be considered biased. But I didn't know your side until your "18:26, 7 September 2015 (UTC)" post. What I knew is that you don't mind the subsection style you've been employing.
MOS:Paragraphs states, "Short paragraphs and single sentences generally do not warrant their own subheading." That is absolutely true. And the aforementioned film discussion shows editors agreeing that third-level headings are not necessary for a little bit of content. Editors there are not in agreement that a subheading should be created if "there [is] anything meaningful that makes sense to say as a subsection." I could WP:Ping them all for a second take on this issue, if you think that would help. Using subheadings to state something "meaningful" is problematic. There could be a lot of meaningful things that make sense to say as a subheading. But subheadings should ideally only be used when needed. In the aforementioned Template talk:Very long discussion, I stated, "I've seen useless subheadings mess up articles, as they make the articles look significantly longer than they are and make navigating through the articles more difficult for our readers if Template:TOC limit is not used. I've seen articles tagged with Template:Very long because of such subheadings when the article is not a WP:SIZE issue at all." I pointed to this version of the Theoretical definition article showing a ridiculous use of subheadings. That article is pretty much a WP:Stub, but a person would think otherwise from looking at its unnecessarily long table of contents. This version of the Bisexuality article shows your subheadings. All of that material really needs subheadings? I don't see it. One-sentence material needs subheadings? I don't see it. Material that can be validly merged into other sections without bloating the table of contents needs subheadings? I don't see it. And that is why I toned the subheadings down to this version. Just imagine how the article would have looked if you had added more subheadings as you continued to work on the article. It seems that you were going to eventually add more subheadings. I can't agree to such a subheading style, or the creation of empty subsections. But I'll see what others watching this page have to state on the matter.
When it comes to WP:Summary style, I was talking about the fact that the articles you transferred the material from are relatively small and that you transferred too much material from them into the Bisexuality article. Flyer22 (talk) 19:34, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
While the original post does appear neutral to me, Flyer's follow-up shows that you guys appear to be talking about two different things. Original post: "Is there a rule about how many sections an article may have?" Second post: "This is actually about how much or how little material merits its own section." To answer the first question, I haven't checked but I'm pretty sure there's no rule; Wikipedia contains many articles that have a wide range of lengths and a straight number would be one-size-doesn't-fit-all. Darkfrog24 (talk) 19:55, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
Okay, read your posts. Flyer, your position is that the headers (but not the content of the sections that they indicate) should be deleted because the sections are too small, per MOS:PARAGRAPHS (though you probably mean MOS:BODY). F2, your position is that the headers should stay because you're going to add more content shortly and MOS:PARAGRAPHS/BODY doesn't expressly forbid leaving them in. MOS:BODY is pretty elastic on this point. ...is there a reason why you couldn't just take the headers out for now and put them back when you add the new content? Darkfrog24 (talk) 20:08, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
Yes, Darkfrog24, that's what I mean. Also, I mean MOS:Paragraphs; as noted above, it states, "Short paragraphs and single sentences generally do not warrant their own subheading." This is true in my experience, per what I stated in my "19:34, 7 September 2015 (UTC)" post above. That post details more so why I feel the way I do about creating subheadings for a little bit of material. There are times where I am fine with a subheading for a single sentence, for a small paragraph, or subheadings for a relatively small section, but that's a rare feeling for me. This is because it's so often that I see that sections can be combined and make for easier reading. Some articles employ Template:TOC limit because there are so many subheadings in the article; a better approach to me is to simply reduce the subheadings where they can be reasonably reduced. Flyer22 (talk) 20:27, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
For me, there's two issues. First, I feel personally that empty but clearly valid sections have value of their own for the encyclopedia. An FA should never really have them, but I want to see the vast majority of articles reach a better baseline first. Many articles don't get all the attention and focus they should, and a good way to encourage visiting readers and editors to add something, is to make clear something could be added - make the missing aspect clear. It's why we put so much work into inviting and encouraging people to try. I see the value in it, and feel that empty "sectstub" sections where it's clear the topic clearly should have some content, would be worthwhile even if the content doesn't yet exist, and even if all we have is a bare link or sentence, and even if I didn't have time to add it myself. (To be clear I'm not referring to useless "sections for sections sake" or dozens of sections, here). That might not be everyone's view, but I don't think that relying on "MOS says no" can be a good reason to revert/delete, for a valid perspective an editor may hold, where MOS actually doesn't. At the same time I don't want to say so, without checking not just what MOS does say, but what experienced editors' views working within MOS, are.
Second, a number of edits with material I think is both very salient and appropriate length, have been removed (or largely removed) on grounds of "it's in another subarticle" (summary style) or "TOC is too long". I haven't seen summary style preclude a reasonable length subsection ever. Overall, "MOS says keep text covered in a subarticle very short" and "I had a discussion with an editor, look!" just don't seem to be convincing arguments that justify removing content that seems to me, to be very salient and very appropriate, and should have a reasonable subsection covering them even if there is a subarticle in more depth.
It seems both of these center around the same kind of thing, namely some kind of perceptional issue about "how it should be", and I'm being given reasons based on MOS cites that don't look like they are saying what is being drawn from them. So I'd like to check what MOS - and more importantly, community range of views - has to say about what's within acceptability and what isn't, to see if we can remove the "MOS says" element and if this is purely a matter of two reasonable perspectives, or if MOS does indeed say something..... so here I am. FT2 (Talk | email) 20:34, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
When it comes WP:Summary style, your summaries were not of reasonable lengths in my opinion, considering how small the articles you copied from are, and considering that your text was full of redundancy -- addressing things that were already in different parts of the article, and adding more content that repeated existing points. There was a disjointed fashion to that material. I told you at the Bisexuality article talk page, "More redundancy came when you merged content from the Biphobia and Bisexual erasure articles into this article. You added a lot of content from those articles, and didn't exercise proper WP:Summary style. Those articles are not huge; all we need is a little content summarizing the idea of those articles. And biphobia and bisexual erasure, which are intricately linked and are aspects of bisexual discrimination and ignorance toward bisexual people, don't need their own subsections. All they need are two to four paragraphs in the section about perceptions and discrimination, and that's what I did. Furthermore, perceptions and discrimination are aspects of the bisexual community, so that is why I placed that content under the Community heading as a subsection. You added too many subheadings again, including empty ones; I know that some editors are okay with empty [subsections], but I'm not. And going back to the topic of transferring content from other articles, I feel that we need to be careful; by that, I mean careful that we are not adding too much from them (this goes back to what I stated about WP:Summary style), that we are not adding redundancy, and that we are not adding poor sources from those articles."
As for your statement that "[you're] being given reasons based on MOS cites that don't look like they are saying what is being drawn from them.", what is unclear about MOS:Paragraphs stating "Short paragraphs and single sentences generally do not warrant their own subheading."? What is unclear about WP:Summary style stating "A fuller treatment of any major subtopic should go in a separate article of its own."? What is unclear about Template:TOC limit existing partly due to the fact that people add too many subheadings and unnecessarily clutter the table of contents? I don't see any good reason to unnecessarily clutter the table of contents in the ways you have been doing. Empty sections, unless they're in the process of being expanded, usually remain empty, by the way. That is, until they are removed. I can point to cases where the sections were empty for years. I also don't think we should be trying to get others to do that work for us. From what I've seen, you don't appear to be paying enough attention to what you add to the article, which is why you added links to non-existent articles that you somehow thought existed, before I removed the links. It's also why this section of your version of the article begins with "This article is about bisexuality in human sexuality. For communities in current culture, see Bisexual community." Flyer22 (talk) 21:15, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
As for what's not clear about MOS:PARAGRAPH 1) not all the sections had only one sentence and 2) "how small is too small" is subjective, and it's reasonable for well-meaning editors to come to different conclusions.
F2, Flyer is describing the way things usually work on Wikipedia. It's not exactly a rule; it's more of a process. I'd put the if-you-head-it-they-will-come idea in "do it if no one minds," but someone minds. If you think Flyer's opinion is not indicative of general consensus, then you could have a request for comment to see for yourself. Or, if Flyer or you or anyone else knows of a previous conversation or RfC about this, it would be good to point to that for precedent. You seem to feel, "If only one or two other guys want Y, but I want X, what makes my X worse than their Y?" In the absence of sources or other concrete proof that X is better than Y, this is the case; you are right that you shouldn't have to take someone else's word for it. RfC and precedent are two ways to determine whether it's just their word or not. Darkfrog24 (talk) 03:00, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
Sane advice, Darkfrog. I'm fairly sure that empty sections for cases of clearly appropriate but not yet present content are generally seen as fine, but wasn't sure if MOS had anything to say about it since I last looked (ages ago!). >>> Pause <<< So I just did a search in WP: and WT: for the phrase "empty sections" on the basis that's likely to pull up wider community discussions about them. I found as I thought, generally "not seen as a problem"; the times they are removed all tended to be when they are clearly overdone or inappropriate. A few examples + links:
  • WikiProject:Russia uses them widely as markers for content to be added
  • A discussion on ANI (2008 so not sure what weight but as widely seen as any RFC) where the primary complaint was "I have asked this user to remove the empty sections repeatedly" got 3 replies, none of which replied with agreement that this was a problem and first 2 seemed positive about them (1st tagged them "since they appear useful for requesting content", 2nd said "ok empty sections dealt with, what about links", and 3rd treated sections as not an issue at that point and purely replied about links);
  • More telling of opinion on their actual usefulness, a DRV discussion in 2011 for Template:Empty section, where the closer analyzed the !votes in a way that shows community views on empty sections themselves:
19 participants !voted in a way that suggested they saw empty sections as inappropriate (18 "delete", 1 "strong delete", objecting to empty sections themselves)
28 participants !voted in a way that suggested they saw empty sections as appropriate (4 appear to merely object to the template due to redundancy and felt a different template should be used instead, 17 "keep as useful", 2 "keep without explanation" or "keep but reword", and 5 "strong keep")
1 other (unclear)
So while I couldn't find a specific RFC, I did find a well-attended DRV keeping an "empty section" template, with about 60% !votes for "keep as useful" or "strong keep" of empty sections themselves based on closer summary, an ANI post specifically requesting removal where not one person posted to agree (and 2 specifically seem to disagree), and a WikiProject actively using and encouraging them. To me, this is fair evidence that I'm not hallucinating my prior understanding of community views, although it was right to check with MOS editors and not assume (especially given Flyer's MOS assertions). I'm open to other pages showing differently, since I only checked the first couple of dozen search results. FT2 (Talk | email) 11:40, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
1) It looks like you have shown that there have been at least a few cases in which editors decided to keep small sections with headers.
2) In the DRV that you're discussion, I do see a clear "18 delete for we should not have empty sections," but where are you getting the 28 "empty sections are appropriate"? The discussion that they're summarizing is here. Of the people who voted "keep the template," a few said "keep the template because it probably doesn't encourage people to make empty sections," which indicates to me that they think empty sections are undesirable, but a others used your reasoning that it would cause other editors to add more content. Darkfrog24 (talk) 19:43, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
Didn't check the detailed discussion. I was looking purely for indications on high profile communal discussion pages, whether the community feels empty sections by and large should be deleted and are a problem, or if they are accepted/tolerated (for whatever reasons). 17 were stated to be "keep because useful"; an additional 5 were "strong keep" with no specific reason but this didn't encourage the impression that they see no use in such sections and feel they should be deleted. Basically, a person who is willing to keep a template that tags an empty section as being empty, probably feels that empty sections have some value of some kind. Otherwise they'd surely just say "delete the section, don't tag it" - and surely not "strong keep" it. And not just "a few cases". I didn't look further because the first couple of dozen mentions were 1) all on high profile community pages/substantial Wikiproject, 2) fairly clear there is an overall view on each of these, from responses, that these sections are seen as broadly useful within fairly reasonable limits. FT2 (Talk | email) 21:38, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
They were voting to keep the template, not whether to keep the empty sections. Many of them also said that they though the sections were useful, but many did not. Darkfrog24 (talk) 03:21, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
FT2, I never stated or implied that you are hallucinating that some editors are okay with subheadings for a little bit of material or with empty subsections; I clearly acknowledged that some editors are okay with subheadings for a little bit of material, but I pointed out problems with such sections. And you still don't seem to grasp those problems, namely unneeded cluttering of the table of contents and making an article look huge when it's not. I was also clear that empty sections are routinely deleted. You stated above with your "11:40, 8 September 2015 (UTC)" post that you're "fairly sure that empty sections for cases of clearly appropriate but not yet present content are generally seen as fine." But you have not shown that to be the case. And it certainly is not the case in my experience, except for the instances where the sections are in the process of being expanded (such as a new Game of Thrones episode). Even the current state of Template talk:Empty section shows editors who dislike the template, find it less desirable or are confused about its use. For example, BDD, in the "Unprofessional" section, is clear that he finds such sections unprofessional and that Wikipedia is mocked for such sections, while DoctorKubla is clear that Wikipedia is mocked for many things and that Wikipedia being mocked for the template is not a solid reason to delete the template. In the "Guidelines for use?" section, DPdH states, "I've noticed inconsistent use of this template across WP; in some articles the tags remain for years while in others they are removed (along with the section header) in less than a day." This echoes what I stated above about such sections staying in articles for years, and that they are often removed (my "21:15, 7 September 2015 (UTC)" post above, the bolded part, shows my statement about their removal). Magioladitis replied to DPdH that, while such sections are allowed, they should not be in the article for long.
Whatever discussions we point to about these matters, it doesn't mean that the Bisexuality article should adhere to the consensus found in them. These matters are a case-by-case thing. And WP:Consensus about what to do with the Bisexuality article's format should be formed at that article's talk page. Darkfrog24 suggested a WP:RfC, as you know; the WP:RfC should take place there. That stated, it seems that you are looking for a WP:RfC that will dictate the use of such sections across Wikipedia. But that would need good advertising, such as posting a notice at the WP:Village pump after starting a WP:RfC here at the WP:Manual of Style talk page, and it should address not only the topic of empty sections but also the topic of sections with very little content, since that is what we are mainly disputing. But in the same way that the discussions we pointed to can't dictate what to do at the Bisexuality article, such a discussion wouldn't either. Editors shouldn't simply point to that discussion to force their style on articles. Not unless that discussion resulted in a WP:Manual of Style addition supporting the format. And even then, guidelines are not the same thing as policies. There is more leeway with guidelines, especially in valid WP:Ignore all rules cases. Flyer22 (talk) 22:17, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Archive_170&oldid=1077444936"