Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 195

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 190←Archive 193Archive 194Archive 195Archive 196Archive 197→Archive 200

unclear

This guideline is very unclear to me. Does it imply that groups identifying themselves as "white nationalist" should be identified like that by us? - Haukur Þorgeirsson 03:03, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

It does imply that. What would the alternative be? Hyacinth 08:54, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
Calling them racists, white supremacists and neo-nazis, I suppose, something few groups self-identify as. - Haukur Þorgeirsson 11:23, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Pen names and abbrevations

I think this policy should be extended to include guidelines on how to treat pen names / stage names vs. real names, and whether or not abbrevations should be used in the title of a persons article. –DamslethTalk|Contributions 11:02, 29 June 2006 (UTC)


Statement that makes no sense

The following makes no sense to me:

In some cases a general name or term may be more neutral or more accurate. For example: List of African-American composers is acceptable, but List of composers of African descent is more inclusive, and therefore more useful.

If one wants a list of African-American composers the first title is accurate and the second just isn't. I would also deprecate using anything so vague as "of Fooian descent". The text above is like saying, "List of French people" is accepatable, but "List of people" is more inclusive, and therefore more useful. In my opinion that just isn't true.
As the opening statement "In some cases a general name or term may be more neutral or more accurate" is so vague that I have little idea what the point of it is, given that the supporting example makes no sense, I'm going to take it out for now, but it anyone does know what it is supposed to mean and can give a better example, by all means put it back. Merchbow 20:59, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

To me, the statement makes sense because of people like Manu Dibango, who is a notable composer of African descent that was born in Cameroon and thus not African-American. One of his noteworthy albums, Soul Makossa, which drew on traditional Makossa, can be said to have spawned disco and is still being sampled for pop songs 36 years after its relaease. I think that perhaps you assumed "composers of African descent" only referred to those born in the US, making the more specialized term, "African-American composers", more accurate. This assumption could have been compounded by the lack of non-Americans of African descent in List of composers by nationality. Even if we were completely restricted to Western European - style Classical Music, and we could not find a non-American composer of African descent, a list of composers of African descent could foreseeably grow to include non-Americans at any time in the next decade, so I see it as a valid list. :)--Thecurran (talk) 01:52, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Refer to transgender people by their "new gender"

Referring to people by the gender they choose is absurd. This is not the case "for any other aspect of a person's identity", as the post below states. If a white person decides that he is truly "black" on the inside, you would not suddenly start referring to him as a African-American person (or any other ethnic group for that matter). A person's gender is a concrete, scientifically testable aspect of that person's body and is not open to debate, by him or her self (or anybody else for that matter). If I decide that I am the reincarnation of Jesus Christ (the descriptor I choose for myself, in the language of the below post), the entire educated world is not going to start calling me by that name, but this seems to be the logic that some people apply to gender identity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.7.5.142 (talk) 20:47, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Where is the consensus on this? --WikiSlasher 12:59, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

The consensus is that you use the descriptor we choose for ourselves. Just as it is for any other aspect of a persons identity. --Hfarmer 08:16, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
OK thankyou for answering; I was just wondering if there was any previous discussion on this. --WikiSlasher 23:14, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Would that be a "No, there is no previous discussion?" If not, where is it? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:23, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
I am a liberal Democrat and a supporter of gay rights, but even I find it absurd to use an inaccurate gender pronoun to describe someone simply because the person in question would like us to do so. Let's say a man who said he was a woman wanted to play tennis against women at Wimbledon for potentially hundreds of thousands of dollars. Would we describe the ensuing controversy by saying "Wimbledon officials would not let her play in the women's draw because they said she was a man"? This would make it sound like the Wimbledon officials were crazy! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.92.109.104 (talk) 11:03, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Barbarian

There is an RfC which is inextricably involved with WP:NCI going on here Talk:Barbarian/RfC_on_usage/. Any feedback is appreciated. - WeniWidiWiki 06:16, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete this Article

I'm trying my hardest to stay civil here, this page has got to be the biggest violation of NPOV on wikipedia. It needs to be removed immediately. I request admin input, I don't want to get done for page blanking. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hayden5650 (talk • contribs) 11:41, 10 May 2007

Which part of it do you consider to be a violation of WP:NPOV? If you want to make a major change please discuss it here and make sure to post on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) since hardly anyone pays attention to this page. --WikiSlasher 07:45, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Mongoloids

I see some people deleting epithet "Mongoloid" from articles, without bothering to provide a substitute. In my opinion, we should replace presumably offensive epithets with the neutral ones rather than deleting any attempt at description altogether. Furthermore, if "Mongoloid" is indeed considered offensive in modern archaeological discourse, WP:NCI should clearly say so. --Ghirla-трёп- 11:54, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Roma people

Readers of this page may be interested in a discussion going on at Talk:Roma people, where it has been suggested that the article move to Gypsies. Some opposing the move have cited this policy as an argument for the current title. I'm just leaving a link here, in case anyone wants to weigh in on that matter. -GTBacchus(talk) 21:52, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Proposed

I do not see any evidence that this has been proposed to any wide spectrum of editors to see whether it is consensus. It directly contradicts the widely cited WP:COMMONNAME; it may contradict WP:Use English.

I doubt it is consensus; it is not what we actually do, at least about individual identities, and I doubt it is what we should do about national or sexual identities; if it were narrowed to apply only to groups (as may be intended but is not clear), it might be more reasonable.

As for individual identities: we should use what is normally used, because it is clearest: we should use Cat Stevens, not Yusuf Islam, so that our readers will know who we mean; on the other hand, we should use Muhammad Ali, not Cassius Clay, for the same reason. Likewise, we should not use Steven Demetre Georgiou for Cat Stevens, as the "correct name" party would have us do.

For groups, it is now in error; it makes the assumption that large groups, especially those subject to historic discrimination, have a single stable self-identifying term. While coloured is considered inappropriate in the United States, is simply false, and not only because the American is colored; the long cycle of progressive euphemism made colored (or, often, people of color) the preferred term for many members of the group in question again in the 1990's, replacing (for them) black; some but not all of them have gone on to African-American; which may be now replaced by some speakers because of the question of whether a Kenyan-American is a member of the group in question. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:11, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't contradict WP:COMMONNAME at all. That is for choosing a name, such as Muhammed Ali or Cassius Clay. This is for labeling, such as whether to say Asian or Oriental. Nor does it make any assumption that groups have a single stable self-identifying term. No guideline or policy assumes there is never a gray area. It is just a guideline. Disagreeing with some particular examples given in the article is not a reason to declare it to be only a "proposed" guideline. Life.temp (talk) 20:44, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
It may not be intended to contradict WP:COMMONNAME, but it does. When naming or writing an article about specific people or specific groups always use the terminology which those individuals or organizations themselves use. means (if it means anything) using Yusuf Islam; that is what the specific person Cat Stevens himself uses.
  • I consider this an example of bad phrasing, not ill intent, and I have attempted a fix for the sentence above; if it holds, I will consider proposing this for wider consideration myself. But this should be thought through to see how it will be misunderstood before that happens. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:30, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Another example of bad phrasing is always use the terminology which those individuals or organizations themselves use. I'm sure whoever wrote that did not mean to apply to Kiev or Warsaw or Rome, the inhabitants of which do not use the English forms; but the use of always will lead to the relevant nationalists quoting this as a command to revise the English form to their liking. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:53, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

As I said, it doesn't contradict WP:COMMONNAME, because it is not concerned with the proper names of individuals. You keep using a case that is not actually used in the guideline at all. Possibly, the guideline needs to be clarified, but that doesn't mean there is no consensus for the idea. I'm not sure you understand the idea. Without this guideline, there is no preference for deciding whether to call Planned Parenthood a pro-choice group or a pro-abortion group. That sort of situation needs a policy, and this is a good one for it. Life.temp (talk) 22:20, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Then it should say so; if it did, I would not have objected. In a wiki, we can only have effective consensus on words, which we share; we cannot have consensus on ideas which our words do not convey. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:28, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I think "labelling" would be a clearer term than "naming" for this topic. Unfortunately, the name (label?) for the cateogry as a whole is "Naming conventions" so we're stuck with it. What do you think of something like this at the beginning of the artile: "This guideline deals with conventions for labeling or grouping people, as opposed to the proper names used for individuals. For the guideline on referring to individuals by name, see WP:COMMONNAME." Life.temp (talk) 23:44, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
It seems a reasonable approach, although the wording could use work; let me think about it. One problem is that WP uses naming and naming convention as a technical term for article titles, as you notice, and we should not conflict with that; much of this page actually deals with what we call style. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:53, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

A case of confusing pronouns

I originally asked this at WT:MOS as WP:ID redirects there, but they pointed me over here as the fuller expansion of that section.

I've got a rather complicated situation regarding the pronoun(s) to be used for a fictional character, for I would appreciate guidance on interpreting the first two bullets of WP:ID. The character in question is Akito Sohma from the manga Fruits Basket and its anime adaptation. (Please ignore the character article's current hideous quality, including a wretched inconsistency with pronouns: I'm preparing to clean it up -- thus my question.) In the manga, Akito is presented as male for the first half of the series, but turns out to be biologically female and raised to live as man; at the end of the series, as part of letting go other roles he/she has been living, Akito announces that she/he will henceforth live as a woman and is afterward always shown dressed in women's clothing. The anime adaptation covers the first third of the story and was generally faithful to the manga, but was made before the manga reveled Akito's biological sex and, in wrapping up the story early, shows Akito as unambiguously male.

If I understand WP:ID correctly, when discussing the character as portrayed in the manga, Akito should be referred to with female pronouns. What about when discussing the character as portrayed in the anime (such as when describing the differences in adaptation)? What about when discussing the character generically, independent of format? And, possibly most importantly, is there any way to make distinctions clearly enough as to not confuse either readers and editors? (Especially in other articles where Akito is mentioned in passing without reason to explain pronouns.)

For full disclosure, the rule of thumb I've been following in editing other Fruits Basket articles is to use "he" except when discussing Akito after she declares she will live as a woman. Which goes against the word of the guideline, but seemed at the time to invite less confusion. My thanks for any insight others can give. —Quasirandom (talk) 15:22, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

The rule of thumb seems far more sensible than this page; go with it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:13, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Send This Up for Comment?

If no one objects I would like to submit this page to Requests for comment on Style, reference, layout and projects. It's been in the works for four years now, let's see if we can't get it adopted as a guideline. --DieWeisseRose (talk) 01:15, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

There used to be a "Guideline" template at the top. Maybe it's already been adopted. How is that checked? Life.temp (talk) 23:56, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I checked the history and although it doesn't seem that it was ever listed as a "guideline" there was a different template that seemed to indicate that it was adopted by consensus but that got changed by the Gimmebot on 21 April 2008. --DieWeisseRose (talk) 01:25, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I propose that "(identity)" be changed to "(labeling)". Life.temp (talk) 03:49, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
I think your recent edits to the page have been good and helpful but I think the page name should stay as it is. "Naming conventions (labeling)" seems redundant to me. I think "Naming conventions (identity)" works fine and is clearer than the alternative. --DieWeisseRose (talk) 01:25, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
There's a difference between naming properties of a peson (labeling) and naming a person (proper name). I think this article is about the former. Whether we call someone "White," "causcasian" or "cracker" is a question of how to "name" the person's property--labeling. It seems to me that "labeling" makes that distinction better than talking about "naming" someone's identity. People do often identify according to race or some notable property, but I think the guideline applies to any label, independent of the very subjective idea of identity. Regardless of all that interesting philosophy, I have no objection to submitting it for offical guideline status as it is.Life.temp (talk) 02:34, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Indigenous Palestinians?

As in Inuit and Native American? The middle-eastern Jews are also indigenous to the area as are the Arabs, Christian and Muslim. "Palestinian" as in "indigenous Arabs" is a political edit. It should not be in the indigenous section. I wouldn't object to it as a naming convention if that is what they want to be called, but not under the indigenous label, no. Tundrabuggy (talk) 03:29, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I reverted it and explained why in my edit summary. It was completly POV to suggest that as a convenion when the very article on Israeli Arabs (tilted Arab citizens of Israel) is not even titled that. Epson291 (talk) 07:23, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Black

"Black" is not outdated in the U.S.. Some blacks use it to refer to themselves, an it is more broad than "African-American". "Black" refers to skin color and culture, not national origin. 75.118.170.35 (talk) 17:43, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, I also don't agree that "African American" is widely considered inclusive of (among others) blacks of Caribbean descent. changed, hopefully it's an improvement. -Ethan (talk) • 2009-02-03 07:45 (UTC)

Membership of religious groups

Suppose there is a religious group whose members identify as Christians but are not universally recognised as such. If an article is to reference them, what should determine if they can be described as Christians? Should this be considered an exception to "When naming or writing an article about specific groups or their members always use the terminology which those individuals or organizations themselves use"? In either case, it may be useful to make the preference explicit in the guideline, as I've seen a few disagreements over it. Ilkali (talk) 16:32, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

This is one of the reasons why "When naming or writing an article about specific groups or their members always use the terminology which those individuals or organizations themselves use" is oversimplified. It applies in some way to all the classifications here. But this page has sat unedited for six months, except for an anon, objecting to it. Does anyone still propose it, or should we accept that this has not obtained consensus? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:11, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Self Identification as euphemism and mainstream usage of non-euphemistic term

I am having a debate over at Media Matters for America. They self describe as "progressive", but almost universally, the,mainstream media refers to them as a liberal organization. The article is scrubbed of all mention of the liberal label and I cannot add the category "liberal organizations in the United States." There is no category for progressive organizations, but there is a category "progressivism which I have included. So, can we included additional descriptions in categorization and description if neutral third party sources continually describe them as such. I understood the category policy to include all categories that fit the subject. To me this includes both progressive and liberal labels. Bytebear (talk) 04:28, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

People with albinism versus albino people

A subsection of the general guidelines reads:

Almost always use terms as adjectives rather than nouns, thus, black people, not blacks, gay people, not gays, person with albinism, not albino, and so on. Note that there may be exceptions to this rule: for example, some prefer the term "transgenders" to the term "transgendered people", "Jews" is the standard plural.

The guideline recommends using adjectives instead of nouns, but the phrase person with albinism does not contain any adjectives. Moreover, Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch#Euphemisms recommends against the people with [noun X] style, and suggests using [adjective form of X] people instead. --Joshua Issac (talk) 21:29, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Albinistic person and person with albinism are interchangeable, and have been consistently used in our articles on human albinism.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  01:45, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

MOS:IDENTITY is being revisited: How should Wikipedia refer to transgender individuals before and after their transition?

A recent discussion of MOS:IDENTITY closed with the recommendation that Wikipedia's policy on transgender individuals be revisited.

Two threads have been opened at the Village Pump:Policy. The first addresses how the Manual of Style should instruct editors to refer to transgender people in articles about themselves (which name, which pronoun, etc.). The second addresses how to instruct editors to refer to transgender people when they are mentioned in passing in other articles. Your participation is welcome. Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:59, 12 October 2015 (UTC)     Fixed the links. Mathglot (talk) 00:34, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Merged discussion opened

FYI
 – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

Please see "Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Merge draft WP:Naming conventions (identity) to MOS:IDENTITY?", a proposal to merge this to the WP:Manual of Style in one way or another, since this is a draft style guideline with almost nothing in it that pertains specifically to article titles (i.e., it is not a naming convention).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  07:42, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Two-spirit

If "Two-spirit is preferred over berdache" is meant to imply that Native Americans/First Nations persons who are LGBT should be referred to as "two-spirit" in Wikipedia's own voice, that is never going to get consensus. It's a WP:NPOV problem and will frequently also be WP:OR. We have no idea whether a particular subject might prefer that in most cases. The underlying supposition – that all indigenous peoples of North America are the same culture with the same traditions, beliefs, perceptions, terms, and preferences – is ridiculous nonsense. It's also an NPOV problem for an entirely different reason: promotion of specific religio-spiritual ideas.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  09:12, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Pointlessly offensive and anti-policy entry

This entry:

  • Some terms are considered pejorative, or have negative associations, even if they are quite commonly used. Even though people may use these terms themselves, they may not appreciate being referred to by such terms by others (for example, faggot, nigger, tranny). Note that neutral terminology is not necessarily the most common term — a term that the person or their cultural group does not accept for themselves is not neutral even if it remains the most widely used term among outsiders.

is problematic for at two reasons:

  1. There is no point including a list of offensive epithets; we would not use these words in WP articles anyway (other than in quotations, e.g. in an article about a hate-speech case or whatever), and their presence here is just going to be a useless irritant to most people who see them.
  2. It isn't permissible for a guideline to just contradict a policy like WP:COMMONNAME, so this draft can never become a guideline with this wording in it. Some other approach is going to have to be taken here.

The entire provision isn't needed unless someone can identify multiple cases where the most common name in reliable sources is a term that RS generally identify as offensive. This scenario appears to be impossible, because a) most of the sources would have to be using it and b) most of the sources would have to simultaneously agree it was offensive, ergo c) most of the sources would have to be intentionally being offensive just to be assholes, which would d) make them suspect as reliable sources to begin with (namely, the "reputable publisher" criterion would be dubious). It's poor content in other ways, e.g. "Even though people may use these terms themselves" doesn't mean what its author thinks it means. "Note that" is almost never meaningful to include; literally 99+% of cases of its use can be deleted.

We could maybe retain a "stub" of this line item, as something like:

  • A term may be considered pejorative, or have negative associations, even if it is commonly used, or used as a self-label among persons to whom it applies. Such terms should not be used on Wikipedia except inside quoted material and in material about the terminology itself.

and just leave it at that. The rest of that stuff is just WP:CREEP and/or WP:SOAPBOX. The original's last clause, in particular, is the opposite of WP consensus; we routinely apply exonyms in article titles and in running prose (e.g. Navajo not Diné), and identify the endonym(s) in the lead section (unless the endonym is overtaking the endonym; thus "Eskimo" is finally out). It is not WP's job to dictate names and usage, but to follow them, as determined by reliable sources on the topic and on general English-language usage.
 — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  09:54, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Question about ENGVAR, date formats, and metric vs. imperial

I'm currently working on Children of Llullaillaco, and I just realized that I had been inconsistently using date formats so I decided to standardize on one or the other. According to ENGVAR, when there are no "close national ties" (paraphrased) to a subject, the first major contributor to the article can choose which variety of English to use. Since Latin America has no strong national ties to any variety of English (since English is not a primary language there) I've chosen American English, since I'm American so that's what I'm most comfortable working with. However, Latin America uses dmy date format, and American English uses mdy. Since English is not a primary language in Latin America, there are no strong ties to any English variety - however, am I still required to use dmy date format in this case? And if so, does that mean I cannot use American English due to the resulting internal inconsistency? (I have the same question about metric vs. imperial units - American English uses imperial but Latin America universally uses metric) Thanks, CJK09 (talk) 21:35, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

You do not need both the ENGVAR tag and the MDY tag, as they are the same, making the date tag redundant. As long as you have a {{Use dmy dates|date=August 2017}} tag at the top of the page, you are fine to go with DMY, which you should be doing due to the fact that it is the norm in that particular country. Only include the date tag if there is no ENGVAR which already covers it, ie American English = MDY, British English = DMY, etc. So, keep the ENGVAR tag, but change the date format tag to DMY.
What makes me think that it might be worth removing the Am Eng ENGVAR tag is the metric v imperial business. Articles do not need an attached ENGVAR tag; they are simply there to help editors. The Am Eng tag means that measures come in the format 'imperial (metric)', rather than 'metric (imperial)'. If you want metric on the outside, you should drop the tag. That said, I doubt that anyone will come along and change all of the metric to imperial, but there is a chance. Only worry about this part of the query if you are really bothered. It makes little difference. British articles are pretty random as to whether it is met (imp) or imp (met), as we have different norms for different things, eg miles for roads, etc, but g for weights. –Sb2001 talk page 00:21, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
I disagree with Sb2001 about date format. The concept of choosing date format according to strong national ties only applies when the ties are to an English-speaking country. If the ties are to a non-English speaking country, and you are the first major contributor, use whichever of the two formats you wish. Jc3s5h (talk) 00:26, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
I think it is a question of what English speakers in a particular country use. Most non-English speaking countries use DMY, and most transfer this into English when they use it. There are some exceptions, however. I do not have the knowledge on this topic to say what the norm is here. That should be what is applied. I was a little unclear here. –Sb2001 talk page 00:30, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
MOS:TIES states "An article on a topic that has strong ties to a particular English-speaking nation should use the (formal, not colloquial) English of that nation." Your thoughts are in conflict with the guideline. Jc3s5h (talk) 00:34, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
I do not think that that applies here, because it is not an English-speaking country. There is nothing to suggest that DMY is not formal in this particular country. I shall leave this now, as I do not wish to engage in a policy debate. I was only trying to offer the editor some help with deciding on where to go next. –Sb2001 talk page 00:43, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
I think the preceding comments miss a key point: formatting of dates is a style issue and doesn't come within the ENGVAR guideline because it is not really a component of language. While people generally use MDY in the US, this is not universal and in scientific and military articles, it would be more appropriate to use DMY (as well as 24-hour time). Here's a couple of relevant policies to consider from MOS:DATETIES:
  • Articles on topics with strong ties to a particular English-speaking country should generally use the date format most commonly used in that nation. For the United States this is (for example) July 4, 1976; for most other English-speaking countries it is 4 July 1976
  • In some topic areas the customary format differs from the usual national one: for example, articles on the modern U.S. military, including U.S. military biographical articles, use day-before-month, in accordance with U.S. military usage.
And from MOS:DATEVAR:
  • If an article has evolved using predominantly one format, the whole article should conform to it, unless there are reasons for changing it based on strong national ties to the topic or consensus on the article's talk page.
  • The date format chosen by the first major contributor in the early stages of an article should continue to be used, unless there is reason to change it based on strong national ties to the topic or consensus on the article's talk page.
I think that the quoted guidelines (especially the last one) should answer the question: since the topic has no strong tie to the US, then the existing format should be kept absent a compelling reason to change it. Simply using American English in the article doesn't mandate the use of MDY dates. AHeneen (talk) 02:42, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
Children of Llullaillaco is primarily a science article; while we don't have a formal rule about that, the above reasoning (that science generally uses DMY format) is good logic, about how English is written for a particular context. However, if it's not a primarily scientific or military article, then there is no good reason to have a mismatch between the ENGVAR and the DATEVAR; having one is virtually guaranteed to generate recurrent editwars and other disputes. Much of the purpose of these guidelines is to prevent or at least curtail territorial pissing matches between editors; some of the above reasoning is being used as an excuse to multiply and perpetuate the discord. I doubt many people will agree with the unsupported and linguistically absurd assertion "formatting of dates is a style issue and ... it is not really a component of language"; it's rather like saying that the dachshund is a kind of hound not a dog. I'm getting a strong sense of déjà vu, and believe that we've been over this before.

I'm an American who prefers DMY date format myself, but it's not my or your job or privilege to impose that preference on everyone, especially not by "I got here first" chest-beating. Consistency is preferred over claims of staked-out territory, and it is always sufficient that consensus at a particular article opts for consistency (in one direction or the other) regardless of the preference of first major contributor. None of the *VAR provisions are "thou shalt not change it" rules, just discouragements of making changes without good reason. An ENGVAR mismatch in the same article, commingling one dialect's date format with another's orthography, without some defensible rationale to do so (e.g. it's a science/military topic) is often a good reason. If it were not, then there are many thousands of "enforcements" of DMY date format in BrEng articles that you can go try to revert; good luck with that.

The "no strong ties" argument is weaker for Latin America that it would be for, say, Greece or North Korea; the most common second language learned in most of Latin America is English, and mostly the US variant; US foreign policy has a huge impact throughout the entire region; the majority of English-language reliable sources about the region are published in the US in US English. But there are historical exceptions; e.g., English is an official language in Belize, and it's more strongly British- than American-influenced. The situation is similar to the strength of "there is some connection" TIES arguments between British English and places once under British imperial control (and between American English and American-occupied [or formerly occupied] places like the Philippines and Okinawa). It's a factor, even if it's not an overwhelming one.

Finally, what date format is preferred in a Latin American country that doesn't have English as an official language, or even a large-minority first language, is irrelevant here. WP is written for English-speaking users, not monoglot Spanish speakers in Nicaragua or Cuba. We have these *VAR rules to a) present consistent material to our readers and b) to forestall style fights.
 — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  15:46, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

I agree with SMcCandlish. I also think it silly to mix the DMY date format with Am. English, and vice versa.  – Corinne (talk) 17:33, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
So are you both (SMcCandlish and Corinne) wanting to change MOS:DATEVAR, in particular If an article has evolved using predominantly one format, the whole article should conform to it, unless there are reasons for changing it based on strong national ties to the topic or consensus on the article's talk page? It seems like it. If so, this opens a whole can of worms again. If commingling one dialect's date format with another's orthography is wrong, then so is commingling one dialect's quotation style with another's orthography, or one dialect's dash style with another's orthography, or so it will quickly be argued. (And, yes, I understand that it can be claimed that a date format is different from a style, but it's too fine a distinction for me.) MOS:DATEVAR is fine as it is; there's no need to insist on consistency of date format with orthography. Peter coxhead (talk) 21:04, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
I agree with Peter. Date format and English variety are not so tightly linked as to demand any sort of change. As SMc notes, the Philippines typically uses American English, but also uses DMY dates. Ditto Japan. Frankly, which date format to use has absolutely no dependence on which dialect of English is used and the two are entirely separate decisions in deciding an article's style. oknazevad (talk) 21:25, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
Generally agreed, if the over-the-top statements are removed. We could clarify the wording, but how to do so is a big discussion in and of itself, since doing it concisely and clearly would require considerable wordsmithing. Oknazevad's "absolutely" and "entirely" hyberbole is factually incorrect, but so is the common misconception (even among Wikipedians) that "M D, Y" dates and only those date are "standard", "required", "correct", etc. in American English, and that it's not used by anyone else in the world. It's nationalistic nonsense. But pretense that nationality has no role to play at all is also indefensible. I think generally DATEVAR's reference to "strong national ties" is intended and (probably more importantly) interpreted as a direct reference to ENGVAR, but modulo the fact some places may use one ENGVAR but a different DATEVAR than someone might expect (and a few, like Canada, are just inconsistent). Or more accurately, their ENGVAR (e.g. Philippine English), as whole and including their DATEVAR, is hard to distinguish from another ENGVAR (e.g. American) aside from a DATEVAR difference. But I don't think this gets to the question raised here, which is about a non-English-speaking place. In this exact case, it's an archaeology topic, so science-style DMY has a reason to apply. In the broader class of non-English-speaking-place topics, there's usually no reason (in typical WP thinking) to use DMY dates if the article's already written in American English, and if there's not a good reason to change away from AmEng. (Personally, I wish we'd just throw out "M D, Y" dates entirely, and all other variants except the rare cases we really need ISO Y-M-D dates for a specific reason. DMY is understood just fine by everyone, it's just not everyone's personal preference or what they're most used to, which is true of every single rule in MoS or any other style guide for some subset of people. One standard would make maintenance much easier, and WP has no real reason not to standardize on one specific date format like virtually every other publisher in the world does. The lame-ass reason we haven't is people whine and cry too much any time they don't get to write exactly like they want to. The fact that we have MoS at all borders on miraculous.)  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  08:24, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
Of course this is entirely off-topic, but I am moved to object to User:CJK09's claim that Americans use "Imperial" units. We were the first major party to leave the Empire. We do sometimes call them "English" units, but a more precise name is US customary units. Note that Imperial units and same-named US units are not always the same; the most important example is liquid measure. --Trovatore (talk) 08:31, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
Trovatore, here is a solution for you: in "The Model Engineer" some years ago contributors referred to the two systems as "Christian" and "Napoleonic" units. That'll probably upset a different group though! :-) Martin of Sheffield (talk) 11:30, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
A solution for me? But I don't have a problem to be solved. I am just pointing out the incorrect use of the term "Imperial". As long as people stop using it incorrectly, there is no problem. --Trovatore (talk) 22:41, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
Regardless of the politics of the word "imperial", as Trovatore points out it's important to distinguish between Imperial units and US customary units in some cases, particularly measures of liquid volume. For example, "gallon" applied to gasoline/petrol caused confusion in Canada until they adopted metric litres. "Fluid oz.", particularly in recipes, is another well-known source of problems. Older Britons think of their weights in stones and pounds, whereas stones are not used in this context in the US. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:24, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Since there seems to be agreement that ENGVAR doesn't apply to date formats, something should be added to the MOS:ENGVAR section to make this clear. There is currently a hatnote in the MOS:RETAIN subsection that links to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers § Retaining the existing format. I suggest adding a "Dates and measures" section with a short paragraph and hatnote pointing to MOS:DATETIES. AHeneen (talk) 17:48, 2 September 2017 (UTC) (edit conflict)

I didn't know that the Philippines and Japan use Am. Eng. but the DMY date format. I've learned something new. I also don't think absolute consistency throughout all of Wikipedia's articles is necessary, nor that absolute consistency within an article is required, just as consistent as possible, within the present guidelines, and taking into account those combinations such as those in the Philippines, strong national ties, and, in those articles whose topic does not have any particular tie to the US or Great Britain, the style selected by the first major contributor. I do not understand, though, why articles that have any connection to science necessarily ought to be written using the DMY date format. I can understand articles on military topics ought to use the DMY format, and I can understand why articles on science, particular physics, astronomy, chemistry, and biology, should probably use the metric system, but what is the particular connection between date format and science that would require using the DMY date format?
Regarding your question, Peter coxhead, regarding MOS:DATEVAR, I guess I'm a little puzzled as to what change you think I might be advocating. I think the first bulleted item in MOS:DATEVAR is somewhat unclear. It reads:
If an article has evolved using predominantly one format, the whole article should conform to it, unless there are reasons for changing it based on strong national ties to the topic or consensus on the article's talk page.
By "one format", I'm assuming this means "one date format", since this appears in the section on date format. I think the second part of the sentence – "the whole article should conform to it" – is ambiguous and should be cleared up. I assume the intended meaning is: "this date format should be used throughout the article", but it might be interpreted by some as: "the variety of English that generally uses that date format should be used throughout the article". If it means the former, then I think no one would have a problem with it (but it should be clarified). Until now, I thought the date format should match the variety of English used (and I was not basing it on a misunderstanding of MOS:DATEVAR – I don't think I ever read this part of the MoS before). Though I still think there is a general correspondence between the date format and varieties of English (and I'll keep the exceptions in mind), I am persuaded that there is no need to require that the date format in an article match the variant of English used in the article. SMcCandlish, do American writers and scholars really use the DMY format? If so, that's new to me. However, regarding articles on topics that have no strong national ties to the US or Great Britain, such as an article on archaeology in South America, I think both the variety of English used and the date format should be the choice of the first major contributor to the article. There ought to be some things left to the choice of those who write or expand articles. I think the date format used in the language spoken in a country where English is not the predominant language is irrelevant.  – Corinne (talk) 17:52, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
@Corinne: ok, so we agree; I thought you were arguing for consistency between date format and ENGVAR, at least in the case of US English. Peter coxhead (talk) 17:55, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Catching up here, and there's a lot to cover:

  • "there seems to be agreement that ENGVAR doesn't apply to date formats" – I don't think we have such a consensus at all. Rather, it is not applied blindly or simplistically.
  • "the Philippines and Japan use Am. Eng" – They don't. The Philippines and Okinawa have their own English dialects that, in written and non-colloquial form, are difficult to distinguish (and are derived) from American, but with DYM dates and some other quirks.
  • "I also don't think absolute consistency throughout all of Wikipedia's articles is necessary" – No one made such a hyperbolic argument, though. Increased consistency has proven to be beneficial, even if we make allowances for certain inconsistencies for good reasons. Random desire to do something different, or a less random one to write a date one particular way just because you think it's expected by those who use the ENGVAR you surmise the article is written in, aren't good reasons. The latter one can sometimes be okay as a default (if the assessment is correct), but only in absence of other, countervailing reasons that matter more. I.e., an article's ENGVAR and DATEVAR should match if there's not a Wikipedia-good reason for them not to. If there is one, then we're free to be consistent in a different direction (e.g. consistent with other archaeology articles or whatever). There is more than one kind of consistency, and their interplay can result in cross-inconsistencies. It's just the nature of the beast.
  • "nor that absolute consistency within an article is required" – Consensus is against you on that, and has been the entire time. Even MoS's detractors concede that a legit purpose of MoS is intra-article consistency, even when they think inter-article consistency should be completely abandoned (a point on which they also do not and will never have consensus). Any exceptions here will have to have very good reasons, i.e. WP:IAR-level ones, or be drawn from another guideline (e.g. some compressed constructions are permitted in tables but not running prose, etc.).
  • "those articles whose topic does not have any particular tie to the US or Great Britain" – ENGVAR is not limited to those two countries. As a practical matter, there's little discernible difference between US and Philippine and Okinawan written English in a formal register, just as there is little between formal, written British, Irish, and Australian. Where differences do exist we don't ignore them. This entire idea of divorcing DATEVAR from ENGVAR is predicated on the false assumption that there are only two ENGVARs.
  • "I do not understand, though, why articles that have any connection to science necessarily ought to be written using the DMY date format." – That wasn't proposed either, only that the science nature of the topic provides a rationale for arguing for DMY format (a rationale which might otherwise be absent in an AmEng article). The problem here is that people seem to be looking for a table of invariable rules to apply, when the *VAR guidelines all make it clear that the result at a particular article is a matter of a consensus discussion, not a robotic rule application.
  • Yes, "this date format should be used throughout the article" is an improvement over "the whole article should conform to it", and is what is intended. However this doesn't somehow mean that the ENGVAR and DATEVAR should conflict without good reason, because the "strong national ties" standard applies to both. Where some mistakes are made are in assuming that everything that looks like AmEng at first glance is, and is being used because of a strong national tie. Both assumptions can be wrong, one can be right, or both can be right.
  • "do American writers and scholars really use the DMY format?" – Who cares? And it's not a useful conceptual approach anyway. American writers (like British ones and Botswanan ones) follow the style guide of the publisher or intended publisher of what they're writing; it doesn't have anything to with their own individual, personal nationality unless they're self-publishing. And WP has no reason to care anyway. The DMY format is understandable by everyone. Our duty is reader understanding not "reader happy-making by using every stylistic quirk a big knot of them is most likely to prefer at a particular topic". If you're asking whether some American writers prefer DYM format all day every day, the answer is "yes" (I'm among them, so my very existence proves it). We're common in technical professions (where we also use ISO Y-M-D dates frequently, too, usually when machine parsing is expected).
  • "There ought to be some things left to the choice of those who write or expand articles" – They just shouldn't be style things. We've learned through long and consistent experience that permitting (or failing to curtail) random stylistic variation leads to recurrent, productivity-draining WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior over trivia.
  • "the date format used in the language spoken in a country where English is not the predominant language is irrelevant." – Agreed on that much!
  • "both the variety of English used and the date format should be the choice of the first major contributor to the article" – But that isn't the case now and never has been. We look to first major contributor's version if and only if consensus cannot be reached (and it's only about what they did then; they have no "supervote" about what to do now). It isn't some magically WP:VESTED position held in an "I got here first, and am staking a claim" sense, and we would never permit that. The entire concept is fundamentally un-wiki. We have FMC edit history as a last-resort fallback for one reason and one only: to put the dispute on hold unless and until a consensus can emerge that one ENGVAR or DATEVAR or other *VAR is preferable for demonstrable reasons (which may take years, or be never).

    We could and probably should throw out the "first major contributor" rule, because it has caused more problems than it solved. It would make more sense to go with the WP default for everything: when consensus for a change does not emerge, revert to the status quo ante. The "FMC" rule is actually a WP:EDITING policy violation and should never have been put into the guidelines at all, even as a last resort. The fact that it's very frequently misinterpreted as a mysterious WP:OWN exemption is a very good reason to remove it.

 — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  01:06, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

For many articles, perhaps most particularly science-related ones, there's no reason to prefer one variety of ENGVAR to another, so there is no rational way of reaching a consensus, there are no demonstrable reasons. "The first major contributor principle" is the "status quo ante principle"; otherwise how in an article with no ENGVAR ties which has developed a mixed style over time do you decide what the status quo ante is? It's not a question of WP:OWN, but of trying to decide at what point ENGVAR and style are sufficiently established to be maintained. "The consistent ENGVAR at the first major expansion" would probably work equally well, and would avoid the implication of ownership.
With the benefit of hindsight, given that the English Wikipedia didn't decide to use US English throughout, it would have been better to have set US English as the default (given its numerical prominence) and require all articles in other ENGVARs to be marked as such at the point of creation (changeable by consensus of course). This would have saved a lot of hassle, but it's too late now, I think. Peter coxhead (talk) 06:33, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
Whatever the article is already written in is the ENGVAR to use if there's no strong national tie. The default DATEVAR to use is the one that matches the ENGVAR, but a case can be argued to use DYM dates in a science article if there is no national tie compelling MDY. That's not a guaranteed-win argument, especially if literature in the field in question isn't actually very consistent on date formatting; but it could be a component of the "what date format should this page use?" discussion at any given science article (proof: it has been in this case). First major contributor and status quo ante are not the same at all. The SQA is what the page had before the dispute erupted (e.g. yesterday). The FMC is what it had with the very first non-stub edit, which might have been in 2004. If the article has really had a mixed style for a long time, then the FMC might be necessary to look at, though this is rare. Most cases of stylistic mixture can be traced to recent edits, and normalized to the style in use before them (which might be from last week, not from the date of the FMC). I agree that "at the first major expansion" is an improved version of FMC, and would support that as a minimum change to the presently very problematic wording. But it still strikes me as an unnecessary divergence from standard WP practice, which is the immediate SQA.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  12:19, 4 September 2017 (UTC) PS: I tend to agree on the last point (both "should have" and "not going to happen" aspects). I'll probably surprise a lot of people in saying (as an American) that I would have voted for British/Commonwealth English for several reasons, including it having numerical superiority by world-wide regions if not by readers head-count; because of its richer history; and because it maintains distinctions lost in AmEng, e.g. practice vs. practise and defense vs. defence. But we'd've had to keep single-then-double quotation marks order, and dots for abbreviations, for clarity/parseability/disambiguation reasons.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  12:26, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Question about ENGVAR ...  – Arbitrary section break

SMcCandlish I really don't want to get into an argument with you, but I'd like to point out that several times during this discussion you have said what you personally would prefer:

I'm an American who prefers DMY date format myself, but it's not my or your job or privilege to impose that preference on everyone, especially not by "I got here first" chest-beating.

I would have voted for British/Commonwealth English for several reasons, including it having numerical superiority by world-wide regions if not by readers head-count; because of its richer history; and because it maintains distinctions lost in AmEng, e.g. practice vs. practise and defense vs. defence.

are at least two. While of course you are free to do this, I don't think these kinds of comments are helpful to sorting out a multi-faceted discussion, except perhaps in a discussion regarding a specific proposal for a change to the current style guide. This present discussion is actually covering several different things, and has gotten a bit confusing, but I don't think it is on a specific proposal. Also, I don't think saying "especially not by 'I got here first' chest-beating" is helpful, either. I don't see any previous comments that suggested that attitude, and if anyone mentioned "first major contributor", it was because it is in the MoS already, and quoted above.

Several times you have said that it is more logical to use the DMY date format for science articles:

Children of Llullaillaco is primarily a science article; while we don't have a formal rule about that, the above reasoning (that science generally uses DMY format) is good logic, about how English is written for a particular context.

When I asked, "What is the particular connection between date format and science that would require using the DMY date format?", I don't think I got a good answer. "Science generally uses DMY format" isn't enough. If the vast preponderance of sources in science use the DMY format, that may be a sufficient basis to include in the MoS: "The DMY format should be used in all science articles." That is why I asked, "Do do American writers and scholars really use the DMY format?" Your response was, "Who cares?" implying that I was asking about these writers' and scholars' personal writing preferences. I wasn't. I was asking about what they use in published books and articles. If there is a mix in the sources, then I have to agree with Peter coxhead, who wrote, above, "For many articles, perhaps most particularly science-related ones, there's no reason to prefer one variety of ENGVAR to another, so there is no rational way of reaching a consensus." I also think that Wikipedia is mainly used by the general public, including young people, and that they ought to be able to find and read at least some articles written in the variety of English they themselves speak, read, and write. That is why I think it is right that some articles are written in British/Indian/Australian/Canadian English and some are written in American (U.S.) English, and that some articles use the day-month-year date format and some use the month-day-year format. For the same reasons, I also don't think that, even if most scientific publications use the day-month-year format, our science-related articles should all be written using that format.

I'm surprised that you would write,

Personally, I wish we'd just throw out "M D, Y" dates entirely, and all other variants except the rare cases we really need ISO Y-M-D dates for a specific reason. DMY is understood just fine by everyone, it's just not everyone's personal preference or what they're most used to, which is true of every single rule in MoS or any other style guide for some subset of people. One standard would make maintenance much easier, and WP has no real reason not to standardize on one specific date format like virtually every other publisher in the world does. The lame-ass reason we haven't is people whine and cry too much any time they don't get to write exactly like they want to.

I don't know about those who "whine and cry too much any time they don't get to write exactly like the want to", but saying that "DMY is understood just fine by everyone, it's just not everyone's personal preference or what they're most used to" is disingenuous. Except for a few writers such as yourself, the month-day-year date format is very much the preferred format for over 250 million American (U.S.) readers. I don't think they should be dismissed so easily.

When I wrote, above,

However, regarding articles on topics that have no strong national ties to the US or Great Britain, such as an article on archaeology in South America, I think both the variety of English used and the date format should be the choice of the first major contributor to the article. There ought to be some things left to the choice of those who write or expand articles.

You made a big point of saying that it is not only the US or Great Britain. Of course I know there are other varieties of English, including Indian, Australian, and Canadian, and the English of the Philippines and Okinawa; I just didn't feel I needed to list them all. When I wrote, "There ought to be some things left to the choice of those who write or expand articles", you responded, "They just shouldn't be style things." I disagree with you. On certain types of topics, and at certain stages in the formation of an article, the choice of ENGVAR is a style choice, and I said this: if there are no strong national ties to a particular place that would recommend one variety of English over another, and if the article is not on a military topic, then the person who starts a new article, or expands a stub, ought to be able to select the variety of English he or she wants to use. I don't think the person should have to gain consensus on this. If, however, an article on such a topic has, over time, developed a mixed style regarding ENGVAR, then discussion may need to take place and a consensus reached. I don't think this is anything new. When I used the phrase "first major contributor", I was merely using the phrase that is in the MoS; if you feel it needs to be changed, then I think it should be a separate discussion following a clearly written proposal. This discussion has been too much all over the place.

I am a copy-editor, and consistency is important to me, and I work to ensure it in articles. I have always believed that the date format should match the variety of English used in an article. To me, it was always pretty clear: use DMY with British, Indian, and Australian-related topics and MDY with American- (U.S.-) related articles. I now understand that there are some other combinations such as articles that use Philipines English. When I wrote, above, "I am persuaded that there is no need to require that the date format in an article match the variant of English used in the article", it was only because I saw several comments that seemed to say there isn't, and shouldn't be, such a requirement to match the date format with the variety of English (even apart from the exceptions to the usual matching). Maybe I'm too easily persuaded. I see now – and I don't know why this wasn't clear to me from the beginning – that you agree with me that there is a correspondence, and that the date format should match the variety of English used. I think it's already in the MoS:

Articles on topics with strong ties to a particular English-speaking country should generally use the date format most commonly used in that nation.

So, regarding allowing editors to select the style they want to use, I want to make it clear that I do not mean that they should be allowed to mix-and-match date format and variety of English as they please.

So, to summarize:

1) We all seem to agree that, in an article about a country where English is not the primary language and there are no strong national ties to a particular English-speaking country, the date format used in the language spoken in that country is irrelevant.

2) MOS:DATEVAR and MOS:ENGVAR are fine as they stand, except perhaps we ought to change "the whole article should conform to it" to "this date format should be used throughout the article" (in the fourth bulleted item in MOS:DATEVAR). I have gone ahead and made this change.

I would like to propose that the fourth bulleted item in MOS:DATEVAR be changed from:

Where an article has shown no clear sign of which format is used, the first person to insert a date is equivalent to "the first major contributor".

to:

Where an article has shown no clear sign of which format is used (i.e., uses both date formats, with neither predominating), and does not meet the requirements specified in MOS:DATETIES, the date format used by the first major contributor, or, if several years have passed, the editor making the most recent major expansion, is to be used.

 – Corinne (talk) 19:37, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

A lot of fair points, though I think you mistake my intent in a few places (or I just made my intent unclear). I really don't want to get into an argument with you, either, and suspect another detailed response would largely restate the same previous points in other wording. Some of them might be interesting discussions, in separate, focused threads about specific issues to solve.

I like the general nature of the change you're proposing, other than we should do as Peter_coxhead suggested, and remove references to first major contributor and instead couch it in terms of edits. The WP:OWNish behavior you say you're not really aware of is very familiar to some of us, and a problem that's been running for a decade or so, and even worsening (and applies to all the *VARs). The insertion of another "magically special party", namely "the editor making the most recent major expansion", compounds the problem. It's adding a new bug while trying to fix an old one. But the approaches will combine well. Moving that to new subthread so people see it.
 — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  00:03, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Combined DATEVAR revisions

If we combine Peter_coxhead's and Corinne's clarification proposals, something like following seems to emerge (with an additional tweak to tie the last conditional to actual development happening, not just time passing with no development):

  • [no change to first bullet]
  • The date format chosen in the first major contribution in the early stages of an article should continue to be used, unless there is reason to change it based on strong national ties of the topic, or consensus on the article's talk page.
  • Where an article has shown no clear sign of which format is used (i.e., uses both date formats, with neither predominating), and does not meet the requirements specified in MOS:DATETIES, retain the date format used in the first major contribution, or, if more significant content development has happened, in the most recent major expansion.

I would support that at MOS:DATEVAR, and conforming wording tweaks at the other *VAR / *RETAIN provisions. It clarifies best practice, doesn't substantively change the real intent and meaning of FMC (and preserves the acronym), yet eliminates the OWN/VESTED problem that is an EDITING policy conflict. [This isn't 100% consistent with the general, site-wide status quo ante principle, which usually means "the last stable version", but it's much closer and probably workable.] This might even make happy those who feel that whoever does the most work at an article should have more say, without actually giving them any special power (since it's based on content not editor name – a "major expansion" might be the work of seven editors all building up the article over a month, or whatever). Basically, the more you do the work (and it's real, encyclopedic work), the more likely it is that your version will stick, which is how WP works in general anyway.

@Corinne and Peter coxhead: If this works for you, we can treat this as a proposal and advertise it at WT:MOSNUM, etc. Or just treat it as a draft to work on further, and do a final version as a proposal at WP:VPPOL. Or whatever you like.
 — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  00:03, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

I will read the whole discussion tomorrow, to double-check that I support it; I only have five minutes now. What you have written is fine, but write "national ties with", rather than "national ties to" for point two (first modified). –Sb2001 talk page 00:15, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Revised it to use of, which is what's actually meant here, on a careful re-read. The national ties in question are a quality of the topic, not a relationship between the topic and the date format.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  01:35, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose in part: I see likely problems with or, if more significant content development has happened, in the most recent major expansion. This allows an editor making a major expansion to change the date format. Suppose the first major expansion used date format A. An editor adds an expansion using date format B. Now the article appears to be inconsistent, so the proposed wording allows it to be changed to date format B. This is a recipe for instability, since another editor could now expand using date format C and the date format could be changed again. We need to favour stability. If this part is removed, then I think the proposed wording is an improvement. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:40, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Comments:

(a) Regarding which preposition to use after "strong national ties", to me, neither "of" nor "with" sound right. To avoid having to choose, perhaps we could revise this to:

  • unless there is reason to change it based on a strong tie between the topic and a particular country and thus variety of English...

(b) Regarding this phrase, "retain the date format used in the first major contribution", if, through editing by various editors, the date format has become mixed, "retain" doesn't make much sense to me. I would write:

  • implement consistency by using the date format used in the first major contribution.

(c) Regarding whether to leave off the last part, I understand Peter coxhead's concern. SMcCandlish, I went back and re-read what you wrote earlier, which I'll copy here:

First major contributor and status quo ante are not the same at all. The SQA is what the page had before the dispute erupted (e.g. yesterday). The FMC is what it had with the very first non-stub edit, which might have been in 2004. If the article has really had a mixed style for a long time, then the FMC might be necessary to look at, though this is rare. Most cases of stylistic mixture can be traced to recent edits, and normalized to the style in use before them (which might be from last week, not from the date of the FMC). I agree that "at the first major expansion" is an improved version of FMC, and would support that as a minimum change to the presently very problematic wording. But it still strikes me as an unnecessary divergence from standard WP practice, which is the immediate SQA.

I'm not clear on what your primary concern was here. Do you still think an alternative to "last major contribution" needs to be included? For all: what, if anything, is the concern that makes "the date format used in the first major contribution" insufficient by itself? (I'm not saying it is insufficient; I'm just trying to help the discussion.)  – Corinne (talk) 16:19, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm happy with both of Corinne's suggestions. Peter coxhead (talk) 16:26, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
The (a) revision works for me, too, though I'd prefer "nation", for continuity between the related provisions. As learned the hard way with, e.g., inconsistent wording intended to mean the same thing at WP:PERFNAV and WP:PERFCAT, people will wikilawyer endlessly about the to-the-letter wording and will become resistant to it being normalized once they think they've found something they can leverage.

Agreed entirely with the (b) change.

On (c), I can let that go for now. Would rather get one major improvement than hold out for two, when the second may not be as good as I think/hope.  :-)   However, I'm curious of the exact intent of the earlier "or, if several years have passed, the editor making the most recent major expansion" version, and if Peter has the same concern about it. My own recent-major-expansion material was an attempt to keep something of that, without it just being a time thing, but maybe time makes sense and matters here.

An explanatory bit about (c) – don't let it hold anything up: I agree with Peter's assessment of the version I proposed, but see it as a good thing (i.e., I don't agree with the slippery slope predicted). It's closer to editing policy. If I create a tiny stub, and Corinne works it up to a B-class article (first major contribution), but Peter radically expands the article and works it up to a GA or FA, and is convinced a different date format is more appropriate in the now very different article, why should we go back to the FMC version of the date? One of Peter's primary concerns of late (which I share) is that with our editorial pool shrinking, it's becoming increasingly difficult to actually have and firmly conclude consensus discussions on article talk pages about such things. From my perspective, this means that the "FMC is a last resort, not the first or only choice" intent of these *VAR provisions is eroding, that they're actually on the edge of turning into a VESTED entitlement and an OWN free pass. We may ultimately have to revisit the stringency of the *VARs, to not be so "forbidding" of trying to change things. The WP standard for everything is that anyone is free to try to make almost any change they want to (within policy limits); they're just not free to editwar to get their way – if someone objects, then stop, revert to status quo ante if others want to, and hold a discussion. The *VARs short-circuit this, and tend to be misinterpreted and misapplied as requiring that one get "prior permission" before even attempting the change. But, that's probably too big an issue to deal with at this time. Or maybe I'm just flat wrong; the risk may be much less than I think and less than that of being any more lax about changes to dates or other *VAR things. I'm keeping that possibility in mind, especially given that I resist most MoS change proposals but now am making one or at least suggesting one could become necessary.

New question (d): What about the extant wording's point regarding first insertion of a date (i.e., what about a case in which the FMC doesn't include a date)? I guess for the DATEVAR version of this, that needs to be worked in somehow, probably as "by using the date format used in the first major contribution that included a date".
 — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  19:36, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Revised point (a) part.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  00:52, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Just a quick note that US military uses dmy and in milhist for US, this is preferred. It is a bit of a twist on "strong national ties"? FYI Cinderella157 (talk) 01:47, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes, it certainly is, Cinderella157. Though this was briefly touched upon above, I appreciate your mentioning it.
Regarding the third bulleted MOS:DATEVAR item, copied from above, with SMcCandlish's phrase added:
  • Where an article has shown no clear sign of which format is used (i.e., uses both date formats, with neither predominating), and does not meet the requirements specified in MOS:DATETIES, retain the date format used in the first major contribution that included a date, or, if more significant content development has happened, in the most recent major expansion.
If you think about it, the part after "or" will not help much to determine the best date format to use since those recent edits probably played a part in creating the situation of two date formats being present in the article. Other than "the first major contribution that included a date", can you think of any other benchmark to use that would not end up being confusing? How about the toss of a coin?  – Corinne (talk) 05:21, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
The *VAR idea has seemed almost that arbitrary to me the whole time (and a coin toss would actually be less problematic). But given that we're stuck with some version of *VAR/*RETAIN (in at least four places) for now, I concede that the "or, if more significant development ..." part isn't going to fly. Just "the first major contribution" – and, for DATEVAR in particular, "that included a date" – should be sufficient. I'm also glad the US military thing got re-mentioned, since I'd forgotten about it, too, but it's in keeping with what's been said about not over-presuming when it comes to an ENGVAR and DATEVAR connection, even if there being one as default might be reasonable. I wouldn't worry about any generality written here somehow creating a problem for MILHIST; their own topical guideline, which does seem to actually be accepted as one unlike some topical WP:PROJPAGE essays on which people have questionably slapped guideline tags, is sufficient good reason in *VAR terms. Military topics were probably better examples than science ones the entire time.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 
I hope we're still talking about the same part of the MoS as at the beginning. I thought I had suggested above that, when both date formats are used with neither predominating, not to use "retain". I had suggested this wording: "implement consistency by using the date format used by the first major contributor". But now, upon re-reading that phrase, I thought it would be good to avoid using "using" and "used". How about this wording? –
  • ...implement consistency by making the dates in the article conform to the date format used by the first major contributor.
If this, or something similar, is accepted, it would read:
  • Where an article has shown no clear sign of which format is used (i.e., uses both date formats, with neither predominating), and does not meet the requirements specified in MOS:DATETIES, implement consistency by making the dates in the article conform to the date format used by the first major contributor.
I left off the last part since there seemed to be little support for it, but how about adding a sentence saying that, if it is felt later on that the date format should be changed, it can be if consensus is reached.  – Corinne (talk) 15:56, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
All fine by me, other than changing "contributor" to "contribution", as Peter suggested. My no. 1 concern in this (with regard to all *VAR and *RETAIN provisions) is moving away from the increasingly disruptive misinterpretation that particular individual editors have a supervote in current or future discussions because they got there first or made a larger edit.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  02:40, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
@Corinne and Peter coxhead: Anyone want to make the edit? I get the sense enough time has passed for any objections to be raised.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  16:48, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
@SMcCandlish: I'm happy to leave MoS editing to the veteran. :-) Peter coxhead (talk) 16:29, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Further revision

I'm going to make a few points, and then try to summarize our discussion, trying to make it clear for those who come across this discussion only now, and then propose wording for the second and third bulleted items in MOS:DATEVAR. Please indicate your preference (or propose alternate wording), clearly indicating which bulleted item you are referring to.

I'd like to point out that the heading in MOS:DATETIES is "Strong national ties to a topic". The first sentence in that section reverses this, saying "Articles on topics with strong ties to a particular English-speaking country...", so the heading is a kind of abbreviation for the real situation. Note also the use of the word "country".

We're talking about the wording of MOS:DATEVAR. For easy reference, here is the section as it is now, minus the "See also", the shortcut, and the link at the beginning:

  • If an article has evolved using predominantly one date format, this format should be used throughout the article, unless there are reasons for changing it based on strong national ties to the topic or consensus on the article's talk page.
  • The date format chosen by the first major contributor in the early stages of an article should continue to be used, unless there is reason to change it based on strong national ties to the topic or consensus on the article's talk page.
  • Where an article has shown no clear sign of which format is used, the first person to insert a date is equivalent to "the first major contributor".

Just under a new heading, above, "Combined DATEVAR revisions", SMcCandlish proposed the following:

If we combine Peter_coxhead's and Corinne's clarification proposals, something like following seems to emerge (with an additional tweak to tie the last conditional to actual development happening, not just time passing with no development):

  • [no change to first bullet]
  • The date format chosen in the first major contribution in the early stages of an article should continue to be used, unless there is reason to change it based on strong national ties of the topic, or consensus on the article's talk page.
  • Where an article has shown no clear sign of which format is used (i.e., uses both date formats, with neither predominating), and does not meet the requirements specified in MOS:DATETIES, retain the date format used in the first major contribution, or, if more significant content development has happened, in the most recent major expansion. [Note: I actually retracted some of this.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  11:57, 21 September 2017 (UTC)]

Re the second bulleted item, I think it's pretty well written as it is, but perhaps could use some minor tweaks. Sb2001 thought it should read "strong national ties with the topic". SMcCandlish thought it should remain of the topic. I prefer to the topic to match the phrase used in MOS:DATETIES, but thought the sentence could be reworded to avoid having to use a preposition here at all, and I suggested:

  • ...unless there is reason to change it based on a strong tie between the topic and a particular country and thus variety of English...,

and I am further suggesting a change to the end of this to:

  • ...unless there is reason to change it based on a strong tie between the topic and a particular country and the related variety of English...,

So, if this is adopted, the second bulleted item would read:

(A) The date format chosen in the first major contribution in the early stages of an article should continue to be used, unless there is reason to change it based on a strong tie between the topic and a particular country and the related variety of English, or consensus on the article's talk page.

(I don't think a comma is needed before "unless".)

Or we could just leave it as it is now written. Please indicate your preference for version (A) or the way it is now written,

(B-1) The date format chosen by the first major contributor in the early stages of an article should continue to be used, unless there is reason to change it based on strong national ties to the topic or consensus on the article's talk page.

(B-2) The date format chosen by the first major contributor in the early stages of an article should continue to be used, unless there is reason to change it based on strong national ties of the topic or consensus on the article's talk page.

(B-3) The date format chosen by the first major contributor in the early stages of an article should continue to be used, unless there is reason to change it based on strong national ties with the topic or consensus on the article's talk page.

Regarding the third bulleted item, we seem to agree that the first part,

  • Where an article has shown no clear sign of which format is used (i.e., uses both date formats, with neither predominating), and does not meet the requirements specified in MOS:DATETIES,

is all right. I had written, above,

Regarding this phrase, "retain the date format used in the first major contribution", if, through editing by various editors, the date format has become mixed, "retain" doesn't make much sense to me. I would write:

  • implement consistency by using the date format used in the first major contribution.

If you think "implement consistency" is too stuffy, perhaps "ensure consistency", or:

  • make the date format consistent throughout the article by using the date format selected in the first major contribution. (trying to avoid by using....used)

SMcCandlish suggested we add "that included a date" after "the first major contribution", so the third bulleted item would then read (that is, incorporating my suggested rewording to avoid using "retain"):

(a) Where an article has shown no clear sign of which format is used (i.e., uses both date formats, with neither predominating), and does not meet the requirements specified in MOS:DATETIES, implement consistency by using the date format used/selected in the first major contribution that included a date.

(b) Where an article has shown no clear sign of which format is used (i.e., uses both date formats, with neither predominating), and does not meet the requirements specified in MOS:DATETIES, ensure consistency by using the date format used/selected in the first major contribution that included a date.

(c) Where an article has shown no clear sign of which format is used (i.e., uses both date formats, with neither predominating), and does not meet the requirements specified in MOS:DATETIES, make the date format consistent throughout the article by using the date format used/selected in the first major contribution that included a date.

Please indicate your preference (or alternate wording).

The next question is whether to keep the phrase that follows this:

...or, if more significant content development has happened, in the most recent major expansion.

Peter coxhead thought this last part would be a recipe for trouble and instability. Perhaps, instead of this last phrase, we could just say that a change to the date format could take place if consensus is reached:

  • ...in the first major contribution that included a date. The date format style can be changed if consensus is reached on the article's talk page to change it.

If this is adopted, the third bulleted item would read one of the choices above, (a), (b), or (c) (or some other wording), ending "The date format style can be changed if consensus is reached on the article's talk page to change it."  – Corinne (talk) 01:18, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

  • I've just noticed this thread. Very difficult to make sense of it unless the current guideline is displayed prominently here. Unless it's really cumbersome, strike-throughs for removals and italics for additions/replacements would be so convenient for editors. Then we could all probably work out the implications of the proposed changes more easily. Meh, I've lost it trying to review this entire thread. Summary and track-change-type display? Tony (talk) 01:56, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
    I'm also finding this hard to follow, despite the attempt to summarize it. If I'm reading this correctly, I favor the option labeled "(B-2)" for the second bullet point, because the strong national ties are a property of (not "with" or "to") the topic; basic grammar, really. The "to" used in MOS:DATETIES is a different construction ("topics with strong ties to a particular English-speaking country"), describing a relationship not a property. However, any change to this wording in DATEVAR needs to be made in the first bullet item of the section; the wording in the second is just a copy-paste of that in the first, and it's largely redundant and can be compressed. Similarly, the "first major contribution that included a date clarification has to be in the second line item, not just the first. I also favor the version labeled "(c)" of the third bullet point, as plainer English than "(b)" or "(a)" – not to be confused with "(A)" which is about bullet point 1. But this doesn't really get at all of it. For one thing, the second bullet is completely missing the point that FMC is a fall-back position for when consensus cannot be achieved through discussion, as it is in all the *VARs. I'll attempt a re-summarization below.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  11:57, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Compressed summary of proposed changes and variants

I think I included all of them, plus a few others that have come to mind in the course of doing this list.

The current version (with bullets changed to numbers for easier reference during discussion)
  1. If an article has evolved using predominantly one date format, this format should be used throughout the article, unless there are reasons for changing it based on strong national ties to the topic or consensus on the article's talk page.
  2. The date format chosen by the first major contributor in the early stages of an article should continue to be used, unless there is reason to change it based on strong national ties to the topic or consensus on the article's talk page.
  3. Where an article has shown no clear sign of which format is used, the first person to insert a date is equivalent to "the first major contributor".

Items 1 and 2 have a lot of redundant wording; if it's substantively changed, it would need to change in item 1.

Proposed changes to line item 1:
1A. No change (does not necessarily imply 2A; excludes 1B et seq.)
1B. Change strong national ties to the topic to ...
1B1. strong national ties of the topic
1B2. strong national ties with the topic
1B3. the topic's strong national ties
1B4. some other rewording not specified yet, e.g. "strong national ties possessed by the topic", etc., etc.
1C. Remove the comma in ", unless" as not being useful.
1D. Combination of 1B3 and 1C, resulting in: If an article has evolved using predominantly one date format, this format should be used throughout the article unless there are reasons for changing it based on the topic's strong national ties or consensus on the article's talk page. [If anyone wants an additional comma in there, that's copyediting trivia and we can get to it later.]
1E, etc.: additional combinations can be listed if anyone actually wants them (listing them all possibilities will unnecessarily complicate this).
Proposed changes to line item 2:
2A. No change (implies 1A; excludes 2B et seq.).
2B. Change contributor to contribution to undo increasing misperception that being the first major contributor (FMC) grants a supervoting privilege in current discussion of an article's date formatting.
2C. Rewrite to make it clear that FMC is a fall-back position (as it is in the other *VARs), and that line item 1 is the default rule: change If consensus on a preferred date format does not arise, retain the format chosen in the first major contribution to include a date. This resolves a lot of problems in one stroke. Also includes 2B and 2F, and also achieves the goal of 2E.
2D. Same change as in 1B1, 1B2, 1B3, or 1B4, above.
2E. Reword to reduce redundancy with bullet 1: based on strong national ties or talk-page consensus.
2F. Remove the pointless "in the early stages of an article" verbiage; it isn't possible for the first major contribution to come late in an article's development.
2G. Combination of 2B, 2E, and 2F resulting in: The date format chosen by the first major contribution to include a date should continue to be used, unless there is reason to change it based on strong national ties or talk-page consensus.
2H. Variant on 2C: If consensus on a preferred date format does not arise, retain the format chosen used in the first major contribution to include a date.
2I, etc.: not necessary to list unless someone wants to propose one of them.
Proposed changes to line item 3:
3A. No change (does not necessarily imply 1B or 2B; excludes 3B et seq.)
3B. Add a parenthetical clarification: Where an article has shown no clear sign of which format is used (i.e., uses both date formats, with neither predominating)
3C. Compress to use the clarification as the main wording: Where an article uses both date formats, with neither predominating (concise, and avoids the logic problem inherent in "which format is used" when in fact two formats are being used).
3D. Add a DATETIES reference after the first clause about lack of a consistent format in the article: and does not meet the requirements specified in MOS:DATETIES
3E. Replace the WP:OWN-problematic the first person to insert a date is equivalent to "the first major contributor" with impose consistency throughout the article by using the date format chosen in the first major contribution that included a date. This wording is consistent with WP:CITEVAR, etc.
3F. Same except with implement consistency instead of impose consistency
3G. Same except with ensure consistency instead of impose consistency
3G. Same except with make the date format consistent instead of impose consistency
3H. Reiterate the talk page bit from point 1 in point 3 by adding The date format style can be changed if consensus is reached on the article's talk page to change it.
3I. Any of the above variants but with "selected" or "used" instead of "chosen". "Chosen" is what is used in line item 2.
3J. Combination of 3C, 3D, 3E, resulting in: Where an article uses both date formats with neither predominating, and does not meet the requirements specified in MOS:DATETIES, impose consistency throughout the article by using the date format chosen in the first major contribution that included a date.
3K. Variant on 3J: Where an article uses both date formats with neither predominating, and does not meet the requirements specified in MOS:DATETIES, impose [select word here] consistency throughout the article by using the date format chosen used in the first major contribution that included a date.
3L, etc.: not going to list every possible combo; if you want one you can add it.

 — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  11:57, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

  • Note to Tony: I did copy the current WP:DATEVAR section early in my comment above headed "Further revision". It begins: "We're talking about the wording of MOS:DATEVAR. For easy reference, here is the section as it is now, minus the "See also", the shortcut, and the link at the beginning:" and is highlighted in green.  – Corinne (talk) 14:06, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
  • I support 1D. Regarding 2, I feel that only people (or animals) choose, or select, things, so if you change "contributor" to "contribution", I prefer "used in" to "selected in" or "chosen by", so I propose:
  • 2H: If consensus on a preferred date format does not arise, retain the format selected by used in the first major contribution to include a date.
I also support 3J, but again, I prefer "used in" to "chosen in". Also, I prefer "implement consistency", "institute consistency", or "ensure consistency" to "impose consistency". Remember that experienced editors and college educated editors do not generally need to refer to MoS for things like this. It is inexperienced editors, editors without a college education, and non-native speakers who need these guidelines, so the language should be accessible and down-to-earth. So it would read like this:
  • 3K: Where an article uses both date formats with neither predominating, and does not meet the requirements specified in MOS:DATETIES, impose [select word here] consistency throughout the article by using the date format chosen used in the first major contribution that included a date.
Thank you for revising and clarifying the issues, SMcCandlish.  – Corinne (talk) 14:06, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
No prob. I don't have any quibbles with those copy-edits; if "chosen" or "selected" were used, it should be "in" not "by", for the anthropomorphism reason you identified. I made a conforming edit to the line items above to fix that. Also added your 2H and 3K to the list. I only suggested "imposed" because it's the wording used elsewhere, e.g. at CITEVAR. I.e., it's an instruction that order should actively be imposed where chaos is encountered. But I don't feel strongly about it at all; it was just a consistency tweak. A long-term goal should surely be to reduce the quiet and subtle PoV-forking of the various *VAR/*RETAIN provisions which causes interpretational confusions and conflicts; maybe "imposed" should be replaced elsewhere.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  14:56, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
You're quite right, SMcCandlish. "Chosen in" would be fine. I realized later (things come to me hours after I have posted a comment, things I should have written or looked for), and now I cannot remember if your versions had "chosen in" or "chosen by". So, "chosen in", "selected in", or "used in" would all work.  – Corinne (talk) 19:01, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Attention needed to clear up serious confusion about secondary sourcing and MOS:FILM

Moved to Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Film#"secondary sources" for the film's reception are NOT the same thing as what many editors are likely to read "secondary sources" as
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Centralize discussion, please.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  11:04, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Please see this sprawling discussion, in which an alarmingly large number of people are convinced that primary-source opinion pieces in the form of film (and book, etc.) reviews are secondary sources within WP's meaning because they're reviews of other works (i.e. that the work that is the subject of WP's article is the primary source, and that individual opinion magically transubstantiates into secondary sourcing because it's about a work instead of about, say, a mineral or a person). I'm not even sure why this discussion is happening at an MoS subpage.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  17:51, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

FWIW, I think the confusion arises from people thinking that we are talking about secondary sources for the films themselves, which is how the phrase is used in literally every other instance on that MOS subpage. Yes, it is alarming that so many people can't tell from context, and the reaction I got to my initial edit is enough to make me have serious doubts about this assumption. But I still can't believe that that many editors could seriously be questioning the PRIMARY status of individual film reviews as sources for a film's critical reputation. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:18, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
I've avoided getting involved in that discussion, but my current walkaway is that a review is a primary source when it's interpreting elements of the film or generating new content in the form of the review itself, but could be considered a secondary source when discussing (but not interpreting) elements of the film itself (cast and crew, plot, runtime, etc.) that anyone watching the film could walk away with. Is that a reasonable interpretation (though I'm not sure how relevant it would be to the kinds of editing I tend to do)? DonIago (talk) 13:12, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
Much of that's actually tertiary. When all it's doing is regurgitating – practically copy-pasting – from credits lists, that's tertiary. Plot synopsis is secondary, as long as the material is descriptive rather than subjective interpretation. The whole problem with reviews as sources is that they can veer between secondary and primary right in the same sentence, multiple times: "The Fisher King-like character of Jake is subjected to unreasonable demands and expectations from friends, family, and neighbors upon returning to his hometown, an idyllic fantasy village reminiscent of those in Big Fish and Edward Scissorhands; he struggles with depression as he lets everyone down, until he reaches out to his Percival – the 'manic pixie dreamgirl' love interest Jennifer." Quite a lot of that is primary and right from the reviewer's own head, unless he/she is explicitly drawing on prior analysis of this film. We can't say in WP's own voice that this movie is based on the Fisher King of Arthurian legend, though we can attribute this assessment to the reviewer; same goes for the potentially controversial assessment of the nature of Jennifer's character, or the subjective comparison of the town to those in other films. We don't need to attribute the bare summary parts, e.g. that Jake went home, had trouble coping with the demands placed on him, and reached out to Jennifer who became a love interest; that's secondary sourcing. A WP plot summary is on shaky grounds when it weaves in one-reviewer assumptions and opinions, even with citations.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  16:47, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
See also pointer to discussion below; the whole "secondary source for the film itself" thing is wrongheaded; what it really means is "secondary source for objective facts taken from the film itself" like what its plot points are, which character said what to whom, etc. But people are mistaking it for meaning that a review saying something subjective about the film content itself (rather than about the work's reception or something tangential like the quality of a performance) is secondary. That's what I'm trying to address in the revision proposal, though exactly how to source, e.g., a change in critical perception after several decades is a more specific matter.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  16:47, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
Primary sources might be the film script, contracts and communications. I might include the film credits here too. Reviews are secondary sources as are works analysing reviews. Compendiums would be tertiary. IMHO. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:38, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
I will clarify my reasoning by analogy with MILHIST. Letters, diaries (personal and unit), messages and ships logs, - all of which are contemporaneous records of or pertaining to the event are primary sources. Secondary sources are works which analyse and report on the event, drawing upon the primary sources and other secondary sources. A tertiary source is encyclopedic in nature, is often a summary and refrains from synthesis or original research - it is generally distanced from the primary sources though it may cite these in respect to fact but not opinion such as a date or time and who was where or when. You will see that this closely reflects how primary sources may, to a limited extent, be used in WP. On the subject of films, marginal notes on film scripts would also be primary. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:54, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
An interview of recollections is also a primary source of relevance to both film and MILHIST but extracts may be reported in a literary work that is a secondary source even though the author of the work conducted the interview. The "literary work", may, itself, be a film or recording that is edited from the original and includes commentary and analysis (so not technically literary in this case). The interview forms part of the research that is part of the work. This has analogies journal articles in the social sciences (secondary sources) where interview is part of the research methodology. In the physical sciences, a scientist's lab book recording and reporting individual experiments and results would be a primary source which is used to report the work in an academic journal - a secondary source.Cinderella157 (talk) 02:04, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

I just want to repeat what Masem stated: "I do want to stress that I think that I don't see anyone here stating that 'film reviews are secondary sources, period.' Those involved in discussion seem pretty clear that they are certainly a secondary source for the film itself, and perhaps the people involved, but that's about as far as a film review's secondary nature extends, and becomes a primary source when speaking to the aggregate reception of the film. I do take issue with calling film reviews as primary sources for the film, because that directly contradicts the definition of secondary sources at WP:PSTS."

So I'm not sure how SMcCandlish came to the conclusion that many editors at MOS:FILM are stating that film reviews are secondary sources, period. Also, my reverts of Hijiri88's edits, seen here and here, had nothing to do with stating that film reviews are secondary sources, period. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:39, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

This should be discussed at the page this thread pointed to; duplicating the arguments here isn't useful.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  22:26, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
Clearing up a misrepresentation is useful. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:16, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
I'm not misrepresenting anyone or anything. See, e.g., this and the discussion that follows on it, and numerous other statements like that in the discussions on that page. If you all go to that page and read it and comment there instead of forking a discussion here, this will all be clear.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  11:01, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
Per what Masem stated, I disagree. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:05, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
And this discussion was forked before I commented in this section. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:06, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
So, as I understand it, (1) everyone agrees that an overall assessment of the critical reception of a film cannot rely on the reviews (which are primary for this information, but secondary for some other information). But (2) Hijiri thinks that the MOS wording saying to use secondary sources is unnecessarily confusing, because the reviews are secondary for other purposes and many editors won't understand that they are not secondary for this, while Flier thinks that it is more clear to say only that secondary sources are needed and that "not the original reviews" is unnecessarily confusing? That is, we all agree on what we're trying to guide editors to do, just not on the wording that will most clearly say it? —David Eppstein (talk) 20:07, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
A third-party film review is a secondary source that relies upon (at least) the film as its primary source. It synthesises an opinion on the film. The extent to which a particular review is a RS is totally another issue. To report on the "overall assessment of the critical reception", you need to cite a source that makes this assessment, otherwise, all you have is a collection of individual reviews. A source that makes an assessment is analysing the opinions expressed in other secondary sources. It is not the the "initial" reviews used to make the assessment somehow flit between being primary and secondary sources like Schrödinger's cat. So "no", your first premise does not hold. On your second premise, I do not know what Hijiri and Flier think, but if you want to express an "overall assessment of the critical reception", you need to be citing a source that makes this assessment, otherwise, you are in danger of WP:SYNTHESIS. Regards Cinderella157 (talk) 02:49, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
How is that different from what I said? —David Eppstein (talk) 03:10, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
A review might cite other reviews and thereby make such an assessment. The whole notion of a review being both primary and secondary is problematic. The real issue is whether or not the the source quoted does actually make such an assessment or if it is, in actual fact a WP editor conducting original research. The destination we each arrived at may be the same or similar but I think that the route is different. Hence, my observation that reviews do not "somehow flit between being primary and secondary sources ...". WP:PSTS does give one example where a source might be both primary and secondary: "might be a secondary source about the war, but where it includes details of the author's own war experiences". This is not the same as a critical review, which are more like the journal article analogy I gave earlier. Hope this clarifies. Regards Cinderella157 (talk) 04:20, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
  • To be honest... I am wondering why an MOS page is discussing primary vs secondary sourcing in the first place... In a Notability guideline? Sure. In NOR? Absolutely. But what does it have to do with style? I just don't see the relevance. Blueboar (talk) 20:36, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
    • It's more a NOR problem, about the transformation of reviews into a summary of reviews and where that crosses the line of interpretation and synthesis. It's not really a MOS, though for film, their MOS is their guidelines for article writing too. --MASEM (t) 21:32, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
Ah... so it's instruction creep... got it. Blueboar (talk) 21:54, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
More like people doing bad sourcing and us discussing how to resolve this because we care, while not all of us care where that discussion is held. I said myself I didn't understand why this was being talked about on an MoS talk page to begin with, but there's clearly a problem and it clearly needs to get resolved. This is actually more important than a style matter. I don't think forking the discussion further on more MoS talk pages, is going to be helpful. I agree it would be better to centralize the discussion somewhere else than any MoS page, but while the discussion is raging there it might as well have input from more people who understand RS and NOR better.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  22:26, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

RFC on accurate dates in citation metadata

I have begun an RFC about accurate dates in citation metadata: Wikipedia talk:Citing sources#RFC: Accurate dates in citation metadata. Jc3s5h (talk) 14:59, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

MOS:PN merge to MOS:CAPS

FYI
 – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

Please see Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters#Merge in MOS:PN.

Summary: Proposal to merge WP:Manual of Style/Proper names (as redundant, poorly maintained, and rarely cited) to WP:Manual of Style/Capital letters#Proper names, to centralized advice and maintenance, and resolve "proper name"-related confusion about the interpretation of MOS:CAPS.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  14:50, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Catholic Church naming conventions RfC

There is currently an RfC at Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(Catholic_Church)#RfC:_should_this_page_be_made_a_naming_convention asking if the proposed naming convention for the Catholic Church should be made an official naming convention. All are welcomed to comment. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:33, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history#Hyphens in ranks and positions eg lieutenant-colonel

I have raised a question at the link per use of hyphenation in ranks and positions or not - eg lieutenant-colonel, air vice-marshall or attorney-general (or a more military version), deputy director-general, quartermaster-general. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 11:21, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Is there a guideline about adding "U.S." after Brooklyn, New York?

As here. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 07:54, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Or replacing "United States" after a city,state with "U.S.[1] Doug Weller talk 07:57, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
I think current opinion is "US" rather than "U.S.". One or the other is a good idea in general, but in this case I suspect it will not be confused with this New York 55°01′38″N 1°29′18″W / 55.0271°N 1.4884°W / 55.0271; -1.4884! Martin of Sheffield (talk) 12:06, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
I believe that it is 'US' in infoboxes, but 'United States' on first mention within the article. In this instance, there seems to be no need for either US or United States to be present. As Martin says, there will be no confusion as to which Brooklyn you are referring.
–Sb2001 talk page 19:16, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
...and somewhere (please don't make me dig up where) it's specified that references in article text follow the conventions for titles i.e. we don't tell readers that states of the US are in the US; same applies, I believe, to British counties, Canadian provinces, and I can't recall what else. EEng 22:10, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
I think you meant the constituent countries of the UK (England, Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland) and not British counties (Suffolk, Cumbria, Shropshire, etc.).--Khajidha (talk) 15:45, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
Checking Wikipedia: Naming conventions (geographic names), it's more complicated than either but you were closer to the guideline than I was. --Khajidha (talk) 15:51, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
Do you mean that you'd write "this species is found in Nebraska" instead of "this species is found in the US state of Nebraska"? I looked through Wikipedia: Naming conventions (geographic names) and didn't find that, but I could have missed it.  SchreiberBike | ⌨  16:53, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
  • In the case of New York, I think it's a famous enough city that no disambiguation w.r.t. country is needed. In the case of more obscure cities, there are two cases. In the case of U.S. readers, mentioning the U.S. state would be enough of a clue that it is in the USA, and country-level disambiguation would be unnecessary. In the case of non-US readers, these people would more usually expect the name of the country tro be written as "USA" and not "US". Having the country-level disambiguation text as "US" (or "U.S.) is either superfluous or confusing; either way, it's not helpful. Rhialto (talk) 19:00, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
You're talking about a moot point. For better or for worse, MOS calls for articles to refer to Omaha, Nebraska, not Omaha, Nebraska, US (or USA – doesn't matter, we don't use either). EEng 19:33, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
  • We don't need to add this for well-known places with no or low ambiguity (e.g. we can generally just write "London" unless there's a contextual likelihood that some readers will think we mean London, Ontario). Adding the country name when not needed just makes the text awkward and annoying. Agreed we should be avoiding "U.S." unless that's already been established in an article's long-extant text, and to use "United States" in running text but "US" in infoboxes, tables, etc. Most style guides say to use "US", "UK", etc. only as adjectives, in parentheticals, and in tabular data, not in regular sentences as nouns. This is one of the few "the world seems to agree" rules we can import as a commonality matter that we haven't gotten around to, and the lack of it is actually producing some pretty bad style in our articles, as well as a lot of inconsistency (experienced writers familiar with the adjective rule will apply it, while those who do not will tend to abbreviate just because they can). I did an RS analysis of usage of "U.S." (with the dots) a couple of years ago, and it's clearly declining even in US publications. It's probably time to do another one to prove how much it has declined and see if it's time to RfC the matter again and get rid of "U.S.", which causes consistency problems in articles ("a negotiation between the U.S., UK, and USSR"). PS: No one in the US under about the age of 70 uses "USA"; "people outside the US use 'USA' a lot" doesn't matter. Lots of people outside the UK casually refer to the entire UK as "England", but that doesn't make it a good idea in encyclopedic writing. An exception is in sport contexts where USA is the official sporting nationality abbreviation, as it is in the Intl. Olympic Committee codes, but that's a usage for tabular data (and it has other oddities, e.g. Chinese Taipei is the IOC name of Taiwan, with a code of TPE). Finally, there is no "confusion" problem with using "US"; that only arises in ALL-CAPS headlines (and this is reason the "U.S." style has survived at all). WP never uses that style, so the issue doesn't apply here.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  20:46, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

    See #Bold revision of "US and U.S." section, below. I've taken a stab at addressing some of these issues, by revising that section which was years out of date.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  21:36, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Tense for deceased people's names

MOS:TENSE says, By default, write articles in the present tense, including for those covering products or works that have been discontinued. […] Generally, do not use past tense except for deceased subjects, past events, and subjects that no longer meaningfully exist as such. I understand this, no problem; Peter Ostrum is a veterinarian, while William Petty, 2nd Earl of Shelburne, was a British statesman. However, do the deceased still (for lack of a better phrase) possess their names? For example, the first US emperor's appellation is Emperor Norton, or Richard Kollmar's first wife's name was Dorothy Kilgallen? Is the name still "theirs" after they've died? Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky had a patronymic and a family name, or Logan Edwin Bleckley has a unisex name? — fourthords | =Λ= | 20:47, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

His name is Robert Paulson --Deacon Vorbis (talk) 20:59, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
Logan's not a unisex name, despite the confusion of a few Americans. A famous female model being named James doesn't make that a unisex name either.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  19:35, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
In our article at unisex name#English, "Logan" is listed as a "masculine name […] widely given to females and thus have become unisex". It's cited to "England Given Name Considerations". That's why I used it as an example. Furthermore, our "unisex name" article opens with "A unisex name […] is a given name that can be used by a person regardless of the person's sex." — fourthords | =Λ= | 19:50, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
You stop using your name when you die and people stop calling you by it. If it was a trademark, you'd lose it. It's not (quite), but I still say they "were" who they were, and that's how I normally read it, too. InedibleHulk (talk) 13:04, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
Yup. Agreed. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:23, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
Like wise agreeed. If needed, I'd rephrase to use "was named", as that's always past tense as it describes the single event of recieving their name. oknazevad (talk) 13:33, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
One should use common sense. Presumably Norton is still referred to as the first emperor. TFD (talk) 04:30, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
Your implications and my possible misuse of the word "appellation" aside, my question was whether a person still possesses their name after death. Emperor Norton had a Hebrew-derived given name, or has an Old English surname? — fourthords | =Λ= | 19:50, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Dead vs. deceased

InedibleHulk and Primergrey I saw the back-and-forth regarding "dead" and "deceased" and thought I'd suggest an alternative wording. To me, either word works in the wording that is there. How about changing from the way it is now:

  • Generally, do not use past tense except for deceased/dead subjects, past events, and subjects that no longer meaningfully exist as such.

to:

(a) Generally, do not use past tense except to describe past events or subjects that are deceased or otherwise no longer meaningfully exist.

or:

(b) Generally, do not use past tense except to describe past events or subjects that are either dead or no longer meaningfully exist.  – Corinne (talk) 15:22, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

"deceased" is more appropriate for professional writing. Using "who" instead of "that" to refer to humans would also be more appropriate. This may require some additional rewriting, because the sentence is trying too hard to use "subjects" to refer both to people and to other subjects of discussion. — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:34, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
I'll suggest "Generally, only use past tense to describe past events and dead or non-extant subjects." It's short. But whatever's fine by everyone is fine by me. I don't want to get in too deep here. InedibleHulk (talk) 15:40, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
You're right, Carl, that "who" is better than "that" for humans, but I left it as "that" since "subjects" could include non-human things, including animals, but you are also right that the word "subjects" could be ambiguous, referring either to "human subjects", or to [article] topics. But if we say "dead human beings", that leaves out other dead creatures. Also, although "non-extant" expresses the right concept, I think, if you avoid using the word "deceased" because it is too academic or sophisticated, then we ought not to use "non-extant" for the same reason. The reason I like "no longer meaningfully exist" is that it does not imply that it was once living. It just implies that it once existed. Maybe that's why it was written separately in the original wording.
How about:
(c) Generally, do not use past tense except to describe humans and other living creatures that are now dead, past events, and other subjects that no longer meaningfully exist.
or:
(d) Generally, do not use past tense except to describe past events, humans and other living creatures that are now dead, and other subjects that no longer meaningfully exist.
If you don't like "other subjects", perhaps "other entities".
(e) Generally, do not use past tense except to describe past events, humans and other living creatures that are now dead, and other entities that no longer meaningfully exist.
But I could go along with InedibleHulk's short version, too.  – Corinne (talk) 16:34, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
It's not the sophistication I mind with "deceased", I just find it euphemistic. Carries a notion of departure, passing on or going down. Meant to invoke comforting feelings of an afterlife rather than the grimmer reminders of earthly death. Some say the synonyms are completely compatible in modern English and their Latin roots no longer meaningfully exist. They might be right, generally. But I was raised to hear the difference, and this "bon voyage" stuff still comes across as disingenuously polite to me, even when that's not the intent.
Plus, I like how "dead" is shorter. But really, it's not horribly important if we keep this one. As long as most of Wikipedia uses indisputably plain talk, I'm a happy camper. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:26, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
Version E is good. "Deceased" has been debated many times at WT:MOSWTW, and is consistently rejected as unnecessarily euphemistic and long-winded. "That" is fine in this case, because it includes non-humans like notable racehorses, etc.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  19:30, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
If I remember correctly, deceased is one of those words which is/was expected to apply to people, not animals, so dead is a good all-round word that everyone understands and has no grammatical or semantic complications. · · · Peter (Southwood) (talk): 19:41, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
Deceased can't be euphemistic if its only meaning is dead and is being used to mean dead. I noticed a guideline page had been edited to replace a word with an exact synonym. Unnecessary. The only effect was to shorten the section by four letters and one syllable. Primergrey (talk) 23:00, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
That's a made-up distinction that isn't borne out in reality. E.g. "poop" has no referent but one thing, yet remains a euphemism. I think you're trying to draw a distinction between "words that are euphemisms in some innate sense versus those which are not", when the subject here is "use that is euphemistic to avoid being blunt", a completely different matter. We have no reason to say "deceased" instead of "dead" except in certain stock-phrase constructions that require it, e.g. "the property of the deceased", in which "the dead" wouldn't be an idiomatic replacement because "the dead" is a collective noun phrase in English that implies multiple parties.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  04:09, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
Dead racehorses are people too, you know. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:36, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
I've known that since I was little.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  21:40, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

perhaps we should consider "pining for the fjords"? power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:14, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes, where we will find the majestik møøse.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  20:50, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
"Mynd you, møøse bites Kan be pretty nasti..." Martinevans123 (talk) 20:55, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
Passed away is much like deceased in that they are both used as synonyms for dead. They differ, though, in that passed away is a euphemism, while deceased is not. "Euphemism" was erroneously used in the summation of an edit that actually just changed one perfectly good word for another. On a guideline page, why wouldn't I revert that? Primergrey (talk) 03:09, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
Addressed this above already [2].  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  20:48, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
I think that's interesting, InedibleHulk, that you find "deceased" an unnecessarily polite euphemism. I think whether one finds "dead" and "deceased" to be acceptable synonyms or sees them the way you do may come from one's personal experiences, one's reading, and the way the words were used by one's family, friends, and teachers. I think I find "departed" and "the departed" more of a euphemism than "deceased" or "the deceased". I agree that we probably would not use "deceased" for an animal, so if we're describing both people and animals, "dead" would be better, but if we mention them separately, then we could use "deceased" for people and "dead" for animals. I just like the look and sound of "deceased" better than "dead". "Dead" sounds so blunt, so.....final. But since I've lost sight of what we were talking about, I'm not advocating for anything in particular. ;)  – Corinne (talk) 21:07, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
Ah, but the fact that you like the word "deceased" better because "dead" is "so blunt" is exactly why it is euphemistic. It is used to "soften" the wording, to make it more palatable than having to face the actual stark nature of the topic. That is something we have no need to do, and is exactly what we are advised against. Dead is dead. Let's actually use the word and not be afraid of it. oknazevad (talk) 21:29, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
In my experience as a funeral home kid, my dad and grandpa would use "deceased" and its ilk for patrons exclusively. Burned it into my head that it was a platitude. Humans are animals, and as such, simply decompose and recompose where they lay. It's "the end" of the personality (which anything with a brain has), but a routine continuance of life on Earth. Something like a journey between stages, but nothing like a trip in space. Other people believe other things, of course, and that's fine. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:30, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
InedibleHulk, I think your feelings toward "deceased" are more personal as well. Your "21:30, October 9, 2017 (UTC)" post confirms this? Like I noted above, we had a big discussion about "deceased" in 2013 and you were the one opposing "deceased" against a number of others who stated that it's fine and is not a euphemism. Others stated that while it is more polite or formal than "dead," it is not a euphemism. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:03, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
Aye, so this time around, I'm saying it's fine if people don't agree with me. I'm an older, wiser, lazier Hulk. I still feel very strongly about using "stated that" in place of "said", but I can't even argue that tonight, because I'm overstuffed with manicotti and pumpkin pie. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:33, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Also, there is no requirement for MOS pages to be MOS compliant. This was a change to a guideline page, with no real upside, and the reversion of the original revert was out of line. Primergrey (talk) 21:25, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
    There effectively is such a requirement, because people complain about it when MoS doesn't follow its own advice when applicable, multiple editors will edit it to comply, and our handful of MoS's detractors latch onto uncorrected examplesas ammunition to use against the guideline.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  21:37, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
    Lest we plant an unwanted idea... The examples in MOS should follow MOS (the {{xt}} ones, anyway), but the surrounding text need not, and this is true in all non-article spaces: we address the reader in the second person (and refer to ourselves as editors, and to the project), don't avoid contractions and other informal forms, etc. EEng 00:44, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
That's what I thought. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:05, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
That's why I said "when applicable". Obviously the we/you stuff doesn't apply to internal guideline material directly addressing editors as such. But the rule against Capitalizing Words 'Cuz I Like To Do It As Grocers'-Style Emphasis should be respected, so should using dashes and hyphens properly, and so on.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  03:46, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Application of MOS to Trademarks

Hello, There is a discussion over on Talk:Epyc#EPYC or Epyc? over the application of the MOS to a particular product page that might be of interest to editors here. It is over a recent edit which removed the "stylized as" from the lead. (I will leave it at that to keep this post neutral.) If additional editors who have particular expertise/interest in the MOS would contribute, that might help with the discussion. Thanks! Dbsseven (talk) 13:50, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Who are some pronunciation experts here?

Will one or more of you please recommend one or more pronunciation experts here on the Wiki to me, please? I'm not only asking those of you who are keen on pronunciation guides to speak up, but also asking that those of you who believe you know someone who is one to point me out to her or him, or her/him to me.

Anyone?

103.208.85.43 (talk) 20:52, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

@103.208.85.43: Help talk:IPA/English is probably the page you want.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  20:55, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
Well, yeah, and thanks, but that's just a thing. I'm asking to talk to a person who's good at that, because a person can actually do something. Whom do you know who might be one like that? 103.208.85.43 (talk) 21:02, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
What aspect of pronunciation, in what language, though? I won't name anyone because I don't want to throw them under the bus, but as SMcCandlish points out, Help talk:IPA or Help talk:IPA/English is where to go as I've found most of the people seen there knowledgeable and sensible even when I disagree with them. Nardog (talk) 07:44, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
Suggest you raise a specific question on a talk page where the issue is and put a link here. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 08:36, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
I'm recommending Help talk:IPA/English because the pronunciation markup people hang out there more than here. :-)  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  21:22, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
OH! Haha, oops, DUH! Sorry guys, my bad! Yeah, I was thinking someone suggested that I look at that help page just so I could learn how to do a respell or something like that myself, but it hadn't occurred to me that that page might have a talker too, and people at that talker to talk with! Haha, I'm sorry!
So yeah, thanks for the suggestion on where to go, folks, and had I thought to go there and talk with some people, I probably would have run into Nardog, who won the day on what I was getting ready to ask! Thanks, Nardog, I guess you looked at my contribs and saw where I was gonna go with you, huh? And you did exactly the edit that I was getting ready to do in the hopes that I'd be backed up once I did it. So hey, nice job; props to you for fixing Imgur like that! Not only does what you wrote in your summary apply, but also that a statement that the attempted additional aid that was there before would need to have been accompanied by some sort of thing stating what type of aid it was, because as an attempted respell by itself (without a proper qualification phrase), it was erroneous with its silent letter (as all letters are pronounced in strict, true pronunciation guides).
Also, I had never seen any other article use a "like ____" type of phrase like that one had used, so as much as it didn't seem like much of a problem, but only with additional qualification wording added, it seemed a bit out of place and somewhat too elementary as part of an encyclopedia entry; inconsistent at best (not that all articles need either or both proper pronunciation keys though, of course). So yes, you went and did what I was learning how to do and getting ready to do, and it looks nice and encyclopedically expert! Thanks! 103.208.85.43 (talk) 08:07, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

RfC: Clarifying footnote on "." terminology

I propose to include the following footnote in MoS, which has various explanatory footnotes (keeps the main text more concise):

A general term for the . character is full point or just point, while the full stop is the role the character plays in terminating a sentence; not all style guides and dictionaries maintain it today (see Full stop § History for more information). In North American usage, it is usually referred to as a period regardless of role; in mathematics as a decimal point or point; and in computer jargon often as a dot. Use the same character for all of these roles. In particular, English Wikipedia does not use alternative decimal marks.

Ealier draft, revised above to account for some comments below:

Technically, the term for the . character in general is full point or just point, while the full stop is the role the character plays in terminating a sentence; while the distinction has been drawn since at least 1897, not all style guides and dictionaries maintain it today (see Full stop § History for more information). In North American usage it is usually referred to as a period regardless of role; in mathematics as a decimal point or point; and in computer jargon often as a dot.

The rationales for this are

  • It's actually important that everyone be clear that full point, full stop, period, decimal point, and dot all refer to the same . glyph in different contexts. We take such care with various other punctuation matters, such as: quotation mark glyphs; the differences between different bracket types; distinctions between dashes of two kinds, the hyphen, and the minus; and so on.
  • Two editors in two days have reverted previous attempts at clarification, with the counterfactual assertions that full point isn't correct or is somehow confusing, despite being what New Hart's Rules (the British counterpart to Chicago Manual of Style) among other sources call the character in an overall sense.

My theory is it is better to have a clarifying footnote and precise terminology used contextually, than to have a slow editwar to force the same term (full stop) to be used in every context when this term is not universally used that way.

An editor has reverted the addition of this footnote, as well, so I'm opening this discussion about it.
 — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  20:55, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

  • Too UK-centric and off-topic. In the U.S. this is called a period. And what on earth would this sort of nomenclatural pedantry be doing in a manual style? It has nothing to do with stylistic advice to editors. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:06, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
    I thought that was clear: these are all the same character, with different names in different contexts and places; not any of the other numerous dot characters in Unicode. Nor any of the other characters used, mostly outside English, for decimals (there are least two, commonly a comma and less commonly another dot, one of the "levitating" ones; info on this at Decimal mark). — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  21:27, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Appropriate for a footnote: We've got to call it something, and we should make sure that everyone understands what we are talking about, and we should call it the right thing (even if it's a bit pedantic).  SchreiberBike | ⌨  21:13, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Pointless off-topic expansion. As explained in an edit summary, the Oxford English Dictionary makes no distinction between "full stop" and "full point", defining them as each other, nor do we need to explain to readers what a period is. A manual of style should not contain lengthy irrelevant footnotes or digress into general explanations of terminology that are more appropriate, if sourced and neutral, for article space. DrKay (talk) 21:15, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
    But other equally British and equally reliable sources do make the distinction. It's important to remember that a dictionary addresses any observable usage above a vague threshold, whether it's precise or not, and is a tertiary source with an extremely compressed, simplified information at each entry, glossing over many nuances.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  21:31, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
    Just call it a period, which everyone understands. The manual of style is more likely to be followed and understood when it is concise and simple. DrKay (talk) 21:35, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
    Oh, right. So, re-write the MoS into US English, because 'everyone' will understand it? In fact, why not scrap MOS:ENGVAR, and require all editors to use US English for everything? –Sb2001 talk page 22:11, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
    It used to say period until last month, when SMcCandlish changed it. I don't buy this constantly rehashed argument that British people always say bonnet and never hood or don't know what a diaper is. It's simply not true. Any literate English speaker in the United Kingdom will know what is meant by the word period when given in a grammatical context. DrKay (talk) 06:33, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
    'Long as it's them-there Texan Anglish, I could done be gittin' behind that idear, shee-it. Learn ta talk 'Merican, dammit.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  03:41, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
    I think that might be overstating the case. I still remember having a 'eureka' moment when I suddenly understood that the "this is my view, period" idiom was based on the US word for the full stop. I think that was near the end of secondary school. You'd probably be right about any educated, middle-class (in the British sense) speaker; I'm not sure about any literate speaker. But surely MoS, of all places, should be careful to respect ENGVAR? Matt's talk 15:07, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Support the footnote, although I'd like to see some sources in it. In general I support adding footnotes to expand on our reasoning and give a bit of history. People might find it interesting. SarahSV (talk) 21:37, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Mind-bogglingly tedious and pedantic. Just link to an article, if you must. Surely that's where detail like that belongs? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:40, 11 October 2017 (UTC) .. but don't just call it a period, of course.
  • Ever read one? The current edition of Chicago Manual of Style 1144 pages! Some publishers have short style sheets, but they also have a small writing staff; we don't. :-)  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  03:38, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Support ... obviously. We do not need sources to prove the point. That is its name. Full stop. –Sb2001 talk page 22:11, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Nope.[modified in my next post] "Technically", it's a period, period. Obviously. I don't need sources to say that, right?... Okay, maybe we do need something more than an editor's opinion to make this kind of claim -- some kind of authoritative source that speaks for all speakers of English... Except there's no such thing. Maybe we should just follow some kind of "treat English variations equal" manual of style guideline.
Oh, and it's "zee" not "zed" -- better make that clear while we're at it. Also, just fix "pound sign" already. And... --A D Monroe III(talk) 01:50, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
This gist is that if you're going to use "full foo", the full point is the generic, full stop is specific to a context, and Americans just use period; and no, a decimal point isn't something different. It doesn't imply that period is wrong, by any means.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  03:38, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
If the problem is that editors might use other types of dot characters, just say directly what yo do. That is, give the style-relevant instruction rather than expounding on the terminology.

There are different names for the . character in different contexts or national English variations (see Full stop). On Wikipedia, use the . character (ASCII &#46;) in all contexts.

DMacks (talk) 03:57, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
My !vote was against the actual OP, specifically stating: I propose the following footnote... starting with Technically..., a weasel word, followed by an opinion in WP's voice that runs counter to ENGVAR. If adding a link to Full stop ends this "pointless" discussion, I'm all for it. (But that wouldn't even need a discussion -- just do it.) --A D Monroe III(talk) 14:51, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
"Technically" removed, then.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  21:45, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
The final and penultimate sentences of the re-draft are unnecessary. Since this is the English wikipedia, we are going to write in English and not other languages. DrKay (talk) 08:08, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
Except that people who are non-native English speakers who only rudimentary English skills edit here all the time.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  17:43, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
Difficulty with English seems to be epidemic just now. EEng 17:50, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Footnote on terminology

If the discussion is going to now switch to re-drafting the footnote, then it should be re-drafted to make statements that everyone is agreed on:

A general term for the . character is full point or just point. Full stop is used in some style guides and dictionaries to describe only the role the character plays in terminating a sentence. In North American usage, it is usually referred to as a period regardless of role; in mathematics as a decimal point or point; and in computer jargon often as a dot.

DrKay (talk) 08:08, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

MOS:DASH

Is there any particular reason why the MoS accepts both the en rule and em rule for sentence breaking? Leaving it open seems to do far more harm than good, and leads to people introducing inconsistency within articles. When we already have to contend with the spaced hyphen problem, this seems like an unnecessary hassle.

Proposal
Since the majority of academic style guides—NHR, CMoS, etc—recommend using the em rule, I suggest that Wikipedia strongly considers the possibility of offering similar advice here, since we are WP:NOTNEWS. Journalistic style guides seem to be the only ones to offer advice to the contrary.

To make it clear, I am not pushing a personal preference. I used to use en rules, but switched to ems around six months ago, as a result of Wikipedia. I would be perfectly happy to see only en rules being allowed, as long as we do not have the confusing guidance we have now. –Sb2001 22:37, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

  • I think we can agree that Wikipedia editors, including writers of articles, are inconsistent in many things, not just in the use of en- and em-dashes. Those things are caught and corrected during reviews and copy-edits. Even if one of the two dashes is selected and mentioned as the preferred dash in the MoS, there will still be inconsistency. I prefer spaced en-dashes to unspaced em-dashes; I find it easier to read the text on either side of the dash. Thus, while I would not propose recommending the use of the spaced en-dash over the unspaced em-dash in the MoS, I would like to leave things as they are, where either style is acceptable as long as it is consistent within the article.  – Corinne (talk) 23:24, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Have editors been arguing over this choice? Is this really something that affects our "professional" appearance? For the love of God, can we let sleeping dogs lie, PLEASE? EEng 23:52, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Given the huge past battles over whether to use anything but hyphens, and the other much greater inconsistencies we face in other areas of editing, I think trying to impose consistency here is premature. (I happen to prefer spaced em-dashes — but I realize they are disallowed from article space and use them only in talk.) —David Eppstein (talk) 00:04, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
Spaced em dashes... There's one in every crowd. EEng 01:36, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose I would like to support the opposite idea, that we should always use "Foo bar baz quux – lorem ipsum – snorkeweasel Batman" for the parenthetic use of dashes, rather than "Foo bar baz quux—lorem ipsum—snorkeweasel Batman". Rationales: for general readability (much easier to visually scan), for typographic consistency, and because the —, –, -, and − glyphs are not distinct in all fonts (i.e., the spacing is required for some people to tell that the unspaced em dash example doesn't read "Foo bar baz quux-lorem ipsum-snorkeweasel Batman"). However, I think there'd be stiff resistance to this both from fans of the unspaced em dash and from general MoS haters who resist all moves toward consistency. I don't think this would fly without a) research showing a majority of style guides favo[u]ring spaced en dashes over unspaced em dashes (or permitting both, as does CMoS), and b) a more solid proposal, probably at WP:VPPOL, where more people will see it. PS: There is actually one (and as far as I can tell, only one) style guide that actually recommends spaced em dashes, though I think it wanted to use thin-spacing.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  01:49, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
  • I thought that editors may be interested in this (the bit at the top), from 2004. It seems that an auto-correct function was active to change -- to – and --- to —. I wonder why it went. –Sb2001 03:42, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Semi-support – I would be happy if WP had a style of always using unspaced em dashes, or always spaced en dashes, for sentence breaks, instead of the present scheme of allowing both, with consistency in an article. When I find inconsistent articles, I usually move toward the spaced en dash, as that seems more common to me (it's more commonly recommended in British styles than American, if I'm not mistaken). But I don't feel strongly enough to push for this, and I expect that trying to pick one way or the other will cause a bit of a dramatic fight. We'll see. Dicklyon (talk) 04:50, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose WP:NOTNEWS is about what counts as encyclopedic content. It doesn't say that academic style is better than journalistic style. Since selecting a dash is a question of typography, we should also consider the opinions of typographers. Here is what the most commonly recommended book about typographic style says: "The em dash is the nineteenth-century standard, still prescribed in many editorial style books, but the em dash is too long for use with the best typefaces. Like the oversized space between sentences, it belongs to the padded and corseted aesthetic of Victorian typography." (Bringhurst, section 5.2.1, "Use spaced en dashes – rather than em dashes or hyphens – to set off phrases") I agree with this – spaced en dashes look better. They are what I use, unless an author insists, so I would be unhappy if they were deprecated. We do have rules on various other uses of dashes, but on this I think opinions are divided, so I think the normal WP approach would be what we have now – allow article authors to use their preferred style, but encourage consistency within articles. – Margin1522 (talk) 06:19, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
    • Speaking of dashes and style, the Other uses (en dash only) section of the MOS is a level 4 header followed by a series of level 5 headers, but I can't tell where the series starts and ends because in the Vector skin level 4 and level 5 seem to be typographically identical: bold + body size. Recently when I was editing the section on dashes I considered adding some characters (bullets?) or styling, but I didn't do it because this is something that should be handled by the skin, so it would be the same for everyone. (Is level 5 even supported?)– Margin1522 (talk) 06:42, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
    • Margin1522 is wrong about WP:NOT#NEWS; it specifically states "Wikipedia is also not written in news style", and that very specifically means journalism style guide rules that do not comport with encyclopedic (i.e., academic) writing. I challenge anyone to come up with a single case in which WP has sided with a rule from journalism style guides over one from academic or general-audience ones. The closest I can think of is that MOS:CT has a compromise position (capitalize prepositions in titles of works when they are five letters or longer), which is a split between journalism's four-letter rule and academia's avoidance of capitalize any prepositions at all, even long ones like "throughout"), and MOS:IDENTITY is derived from journalism style guides when it comes to transgendered people, because academic ones had not covered the matter yet (some do now, and they're happily in agreement with the journo stylebooks). At any rate, the idea that journalism consistently uses one dash while academic writing uses another is false; rather, journalism only uses one dash but is not consistent on which it uses (some publishers prefer spaced en-dash, and others unspaced em dash; they simply don't want to bother with two dash character, just one dash and the hyphen) while academic writing permits both (plus hyphens, and the minus glyph), just not both dashes in the same document (as parenthetical sentence punctuation; en dashes are still used as juxtaposing punctuation as in Mexican–American War even in material with parenthetical em dashes).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  07:05, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Possessive form of "U.S."?

I'm pretty sure the possessive of "US" is "US's" (right?) but what is the possessive of "U.S."? I don't think it's "U.S.'" but maybe it is? This came up at Freedom of navigation. Kendall-K1 (talk) 03:47, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

"American", or in some rare cases "America's" —David Eppstein (talk) 03:56, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
If you must "possessivize" the U.S. itself, it's the U.S.'s. Awkwardness like this is one of the reasons so many style guides say to reserve the abbreviation for adjectival use.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  06:44, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
I didn't possessivize it myself, just trying to de-awkwardize it. I think I'll try "American" as suggested by Eppstein, but I'm fearful of the "Canadians/Mexicans/Brazilians are American too" crowd. Kendall-K1 (talk) 12:26, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
I would suggest simply re-writing the sentence to avoid the possessive entirely... for example Instead of writing "At that time, the US's foreign policy was..." write "At that time, the foreign policy of the US was..." Blueboar (talk) 14:09, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
Or "At that time, US foreign policy was..."--Khajidha (talk) 14:32, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Archive_195&oldid=1113674984"