Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style: Difference between revisions

See also
Wikipedia talk:Writing better articles
Wikipedia talk:Article titles
Wikipedia talk:Quotations
Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)
Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/quotation and punctuation

Capitalization of definite article in musical group names

Respected U.S. and British authorities agree that the definite article should not be capitalized before names of music group, such as the Beatles, the Rolling Stones, and the Who. Wikipedia articles are all over the place on this. A consistent policy in accord with the leading English-language stylists would be an improvement for Wikipedia.

The Chicago Manual of Style has an online Q&A forum in which this question has been asked and answered (the editors go for "the") (see http://www.chicagomanualofstyle.org/CMS_FAQ/CapitalizationTitles/CapitalizationTitles34.html).

The Times (of London), on its online style guide (see http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2941-561,00.html), asks and answers this question (specifically, it happens, in reference to the Beatles), and goes for "the". Here is an excerpt: "Beatles, the, no need to cap the unless at the start of a sentence; similarly the Rolling Stones and the Manic Street Preachers etc."

The Guardian newspaper's online style guide, also coming out in favor of lowercase for bands (and, again, using the Beatles specifically as an example). An excerpt: "lc for newspapers (the Guardian), magazines (the New Statesman), pubs (the Coach and Horses), rock bands (the Beatles, the Black Eyed Peas, the The), sports grounds (the Oval)...." See http://www.guardian.co.uk/styleguide/page/0,,184833,00.html and scroll down to "the." McTavidge 02:31, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I think it depends on the band. Yes, the Beatles, the Rolling Stones, but clearly The Who. The difference is whether the the is properly part of the name or not. --Trovatore 02:48, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Note by the way that The Times agrees -- here's the full entry on "Beatles" from your link above:

Beatles, the, no need to cap the unless at the start of a sentence; similarly the Rolling Stones and the Manic Street Preachers etc, but prefer to keep cap “T” with The Who and The The

--Trovatore 02:58, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Not sure how clear it is that "the" is any more part of the/The Who's name than it is part of the Beatles' name. Certainly the latter isn't referred to as "Beatles." Take "Wings," for instance, though never the Wings. Would it be The Band? This "rule" seems to have to do with whether the noun is plural -- the Rolling Stones, The Who. It's almost as if, for a plural-name band, you're adding up the individual members of the group and implicitly referring to each as a little Rolling Stone, an individual Beatle, a lone Manic Street Preacher, so that when you put them together, you have a collection of rocks, bugs, priests. Whereas if it's a singular name, the collective is indivisible, a monolith -- it's The Who, not a collection of little whos (from Hooville or anywhere else). (I'm just trying this out, thinking out loud.) Not striking me as a sound rationale. McTavidge 03:50, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, I think it's not so much whether the name is plural, per se, as whether the name makes sense as a noun phrase. "The Who" doesn't, so "The" seems more like part of the name. But there may not be a general rule, and there doesn't have to be a rationale -- it's case by case, depending on how the band's name is used or perceived. To answer your specific query, yes, I'm pretty sure it is The Band, which doesn't fit my rule of thumb, but does illustrate why it's case-by-case. So basically I'm opposed to treating the question in the MoS at all. Let the writers fight it out on the individual articles; they're the ones most likely to know which usage applies to a particular group. --Trovatore 03:57, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Right. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 05:27, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

McTavidge, I think you've inadvertently nailed it for the most part (Trovatore's caveat applying). Paul McCartney is in fact commonly referred to as "a Beatle", but Roger Daltrey is never referred to as "a Who". For whatever reason, if the band name is plural, it's usually just treated differently. I agree with Trovatore that The Who are The Who, The The is The The, The Band is The Band, but the Beatles are the Beatles. It's not WP's place to figure out why, it just is. I wouldn't say it's a 100% hard-and-fast rule, but certainly a general one. Exceptions would be made for extremly contrived names like The Presidents of the United States of America. I'd capitalize the "The" in that, and the band members are not actually Presidents of the United States of America, after all, nor referred to as such. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 05:27, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm warming up a little to the notion that the definite article preceding a plural band name would not be capitalized whereas it would be for a singular one. However, the case-by-case thing will probably not work, as a practical matter; that is, it often won't result in consensus. In many instances, no particular usage has been agreed out there, and proponents of capital "t" and lowercase "t" will each find plenty of usage out there to support their positions. The Beatles are case in point. McTavidge 02:51, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Okay, then say it is a hard and fast rule, except when the result would be something hopelessly ambiguous, as with the PotUSA example I gave? — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 01:56, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Okay, it's a hard and fast rule, except when the result would be something hopelessly ambiguous. (There, I said it.) :) So, where to go from here? McTavidge 18:14, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I think case-by-case is fine, in fact the only approach that's even remotely defensible here. Sure, there'll be some cases where people will argue about it, maybe even edit war. We can't solve all those problems in the MoS, and we shouldn't try. Making centralized rulings about minutiae is a bad way to go, just on general principle, and in the specific case at hand we have the very real problem that some bands capitalize the the and some don't, and there isn't any rule. --Trovatore 18:23, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Referring to ships as "she"

An archived discussion was mentioned but not linked to. Maybe Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style archive (ships_as_"she"). I point out Gender-specific pronoun#Ships and countries. I find it odd that article Ship does not mention this terminology. (SEWilco 04:09, 26 June 2007 (UTC))

I found where the previous discussion of this has been archived, and I'm going to dig it up again. Not because I'm trying to start trouble, but I'm sorry, the current usage that Wikipedia has chosen to adopt is simply grammatically unsound.

First, I should probably give my credentials on this topic - I served 20 years in the Navy and Naval Reserve, and today I'm a civilian working for the Department of the Navy. My professional background is journalism and communications (what the government refers to as public affairs); currently I'm a Navy base public affairs officer. So I think I'm qualified to discuss what ships should be referred to as.

It is true that according to naval style, "she" and "her" are acceptable (and even preferred) terms for describing a ship; however, naval style also dictates that ship names are to always be written in all caps, i.e., USS NIMITZ, which is a style you rarely see outside of official naval correspondence (which is the only documents naval style applies to). In the Navy public affairs arena, we instead use the Associated Press Stylebook, which is the main guide used by print media outlets throughout the United States; that guide dictates "it" over "she", and as such, we the official communicators for the Department of the Navy, use "it".

Frankly, I see Wikipedia espousing all sorts of guides and sources for what it dictates to be good grammar, and of course the extremely vague "standard English practice". Most outlets that wish to be taken professionally, such as newspapers and magazines, prefer to adhere to a single source for their style, whether they make it up locally or borrow one that already exists. The one most used by media outlets is the Associated Press Stylebook, and it happens to be my personal favorite as it was the one that was taught to me in journalism school and which we've used throughout my career, but there are others and all are good. My point being is that Wikipedia can't be trying to fritter around and use this style source for this and that style source for that and then just say "standard English practice" when they don't like any of the style out there. It's simply unprofessional. You've got to pick one and go with it. Nolefan32 04:48, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

FYI, I failed to mention that under the current Wikipedia policy, which is based on a tradition to when ships were named after women, we now have the potential for such head-scratching phrases as "Ronald Reagan and her air wing departed for the Mediterranean ...." Since when is "Ronald Reagan" a "her"? Nolefan32 04:56, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

The MOS doesn't usually -- and in my opinion, shouldn't -- get this detailed about word choice. It's a little bit similar to the British-v-American things; individual articles should be consistent within themselves, but we don't need to have a WP-wide policy. By the way, I would be really surprised to see the phrase you quoted -- it should probably be "the Ronald Reagan and her air wing...", which with the "the" and the italics, is not at all strange. --Trovatore 05:02, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

This gets even more complicated when one considers that in Russian ships are "he" if they are refered to by gender. Begs an interesting question on how we would refer to Russian ships on English Wikipedia, doesn't it?--LWF 05:26, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

What's wrong with using "it" to describe inanimate objects? It strikes me that referring to countries and vehicles as "she" is getting rather outdated. Exploding Boy 05:29, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Sure would make things simpler for us all.--LWF 05:34, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks for you comment, Nolefan; you might have announced at the start that you were referring to the US Navy, because this is an international site. For that reason, among others, WP needs its own MOS. Within a few weeks, I'll be proposing an addition to the Usage section of this MOS concerning gender-specific language, which will contain a strong recommendation not to use "she" for ships and "men" for chess pieces, and the like; it will also map out the options for minimising the use of the generic male pronoun in our articles (i.e., to refer to people in general). Aside from any ideological issues, it's just a matter of being inclusive of all our readers, as the plain English people point out. This addition will, of course, require consensus before implementation in the MOS. Tony 05:43, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I think that "she" should be used for ships, (as does the Royal Navy (Google on [Royal Navy victory she site:mod.uk]) and would object to being told to write "it". Prohibitions on this sort of thing will probably cause more edit wars than they solve. --Philip Baird Shearer 11:25, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't care what your royal navy uses, and I note your implied threat to engage in edit wars. Tony 11:59, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Tony, that is your Inference, it was not my intention to imply any sort of threat, and I think you should have assumed good faith. --Philip Baird Shearer 13:13, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Lloyd's List is as good a guide to British English in the field of maritime matters as the Senior Service: it uses "it". Physchim62 (talk) 12:55, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

It seems that you were misinformed see " BBC: Business: The Economy The tug of tradition" July 24, 1998 --Philip Baird Shearer 18:40, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

In good faith, WP is no longer a child, and should have its own authoritative MOS now. We don't need to lean on external references. There are very good reasons for not using gendered pronouns for ships or machines. Tony 13:22, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Tony, you and I appear to be on the same page on this. I do agree that it's best for WP is to develop its own exhaustive style. It doesn't work when every page has to be debated as to which particular existing style needs to be followed, and I'm seeing that happen on several of the pages I've visited. WP needs one source, one rulebook. I had suggested AP, that's the one I'm familar with, but you were right to remind me that WP is international (and I apologize for my myopia) and so they probably aren't the best for use here. For a starting point for the WP style, though, I would still recommend a journalistic style as they are the most universal (whereas, for example, a particular navy's style would only be suitable when discussing naval issues). Since we're international, Reuters might be a good one. Ultimately WP can develop its own style, sure, but you've got to start somewhere and that might be the place to begin. By the way, I would be careful about going with "by committee" style too much; one style guide I hate is the GPO styleguide, used by the U.S. Federal Government, it constantly contradicts itself because over the years, people have made additions here and subtractions there without considering there might be other entries that run parallel to the ones being changed. I would hate to see the WP style end up like the GPO.

And back to my original point, I'm glad to see that I'm not the only one who is bugged by the use of genderal pronouns for inanimate objects; I didn't consider the international implications, such as, for examples, some countries using male pronouns to describe ships while others use female. It just strikes me that there's a lot of good, verifyable reasons why to use gender-neutral pronouns for inanimate objects, and the people opposed have only their personal preference to submit as their argument. Nolefan32 14:06, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Journalistic is not particularly suitable for an online encyclopedia, which has its particular mode, methods, role and readership. Nor is Reuters, for the same reason, although our MOS might coincide in certain respects with external MOSs.

If we're going to get into the gendered pronoun thing now, the reason it's undesirable to many readers is that it's a vestige of a period when males felt it was natural to let their images of control over machines and vehicles seep into the language; this builds on constructions of male “superiority” that WP should not be touching in the 21st century. I realise that it's hard to kick the habit of calling ships "she" if you've done it professionally all your life, but ... it's unacceptable to too many people in this context. Best to be neutral, yes? Tony 14:40, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

The irony is that making a recommendation like that is non-neutral. By espousing the reasons why some people would like to remove these gender-specific pronouns, you are endorsing and espousing their ideology. The vast, vast majority of Americans are not bothered by calling a ship a "she". Johntex\^talk 16:13, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Whatever the WP MOS decides about pronouns, the MOS on quotations should require as close as possible to the original phrasing. I am aware that translations of quotations complicate the issue. (SEWilco 16:13, 25 June 2007 (UTC))

I don't think this needs to be decided at the MOS level. If Wikipedia:WikiProject Ships comes up blue, you might take it up there.

I'm afraid I disagree that what Tony is promoting is "neutrality". It sounds to me like a political agenda. I'm against using the MOS to promote a political viewpoint. --Trovatore 18:21, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh heck, everythings' political, if you want to see it that way. It's certainly political to alow sexist language on WP. I intended "neutrality" in terms of gender neutrality. Tell me, are you advocating a return to the days of specifying someone's race when it's irrelevant to the context? Tony 01:34, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Your approach to this has been rather explicitly political. I do not agree that referring to ships as "she" is in fact sexist; I think your claim that it has to do with male domination is unproved and should not be codified here. (Note that I'm not in favor of codifying the reverse, either.)

It's not political to leave something out of the MOS. On the larger score, I'm opposed to your whole project of expanding the scope of the MOS, which I see as disruptive and unnecessary. It's useful to have a consistent organization for articles, to indicate the desired tone (formal and high register), and a few other miscellaneous things when necessary. But we get by just fine without a style book of the sort that a commercial encyclopedia would have. We aren't that sort of encyclopedia; volunteers don't appreciate having word choices dictated to them by people who aren't paying them. If we can stand one article saying "color" and another saying "colour" (which we can), then we can also stand one article saying "it" and another saying "she". --Trovatore 03:53, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Nope, both omission and inclusion can be political. I note the assumption that "political" is bad, bad, bad, and that politicians themselves have a history of framing this word as an attack on the rights and freedoms of individuals. I presume that Trovatore's reference to "expansion" refers specifically to the she-for-ships issue (can you specify in this respect whether it's just that or the whole non-sexist thing or something wider still?). Tony 04:00, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

No, "expansion" does not refer only (or even mainly) to she-for-ships. It refers to what I see (based on my browsing of comments in this talk page; please correct me if I got it wrong) as your desire to make the MOS, in general, a larger and more prescriptive document, and to aim for a greater stylistic uniformity to WP as a whole. I see no need for such an expansion, and I think that in the absence of necessity, instruction creep is a bad thing.

I also think that, when detailed stylistic choices are to be made for a group of related articles, the best forum is the relevant WikiProject, not the WP-wide MOS. For much the same reasons that you don't put speed limits in your country's constitution. The math WikiProject has worked especially hard on this for the math articles; I don't see why other WikiProjects can't do likewise. --Trovatore 04:15, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm trying to make it more succinct, and indeed, in the parts that I've already collaboratively copy-edited, have done so, with the notable exception of hyphens and dashes, which was virtually a non-section before we got to it. What you say about the role of WikiProjects has already come up in relation to capitalisation (birds, etc); it requires case-by-case negotation to arrive at where the boundaries should be between a centralised, uniform guidelines for particular matters of style, and the role of the dispersed WikiProjects in this respect. I welcome your input, and wonder whether you'd like to specify any changes that have been made over the past few weeks where you have qualms about the MOS's scope. Tony 05:01, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, OK, this much is sensible. I may have had you mixed up with another discussant a little. I do still object to attempts to legislate PC through the MOS. There's a perhaps-reasonable argument to be had that she-for-ships just isn't used much anymore and should be dropped for that reason. But to ban it for the reasons you've expressed is to take a position in favor of a claim of fact made by a particular ideological tendency. --Trovatore 05:50, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm interested to see what people think when I present the proposed text for gender-neutral usage here; mostly it will deal with the generic male pronoun when it stands for people in general, and ways of avoiding this. (If you're going to object to that, we'll need to fight it out here: need to avoid the male generic is now widely accepted, both within WP and more generally by English-speakers.) I'd be inclined to make the ship, country, chess-piece issue a recommendation to avoid the use of a gendered pronoun, rather than a "ban" on that use; however, if enough people support it, I'm happy with a stronger guideline. Tony 09:11, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, we'll see how the discussion goes. It's not clear your "generic male pronoun" is "male" at all; it's the unmarked form. It's also not clear that's particularly to the advantage of males anyway (who wants to be undistinguished?).

I am fairly shocked to see the chess article refer to all chessmen as "pieces". Pawns are not pieces; they're pawns. That's why you need the term "chessmen" to cover them both. Again I don't see how this is sexist; the Queen is a man, but so is the Rook, and the Rook is not even a human figure at all, so it's obviously just jargon and I don't see why it can't be left alone. --Trovatore 09:53, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I prefer "chess pieces", as it sounds more 21st century. We have to evolve our language to avoid sexist or racist terms, not due to political correctness, but due to the rise of these groups as equals to white males (plus, the plain language gods say so). For instance, "fireman" should be "firefighter", "waiter/waitress" should be "sever", etc. I'd laugh if someone actually got offended by these terms, but you'll be surprised what a child will think after hearing sexist/racist terms as a kid. — Deckiller 15:22, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Do you seriously think "chessmen" is sexist? On what theory? And what exactly do you say to mean "a piece other than a pawn"? But I'm not a chess expert and I don't see even any discussion at the chess article, so I won't fight that one. I don't object to "firefighter" and so on, and I do find that I tend to reword to avoid unmarked "he", when reasonable.

But there's a limit to how far I'll torture language to do it. For example, when discussing the functions of the president of the US, what can you do? I refuse to call the president "they", to say "he or she" seventy times, or to reword everything in the plural ("presidents of the United States have the authority to..."). At some point one just has to say, look, this is the language: In this context the word "he" does not imply male sex, it's just the unmarked form. And that is not sexist. --Trovatore 19:13, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

(Indents getting too large) Yes, I do think "chessmen" is undesirably gender-centric, and I don't need a "theory" to come to this conclusion. The queen is a chessman? The king is a chesswoman? And in any case, "chess pieces", and after the context is established, just "pieces", sounds nicer to me. Why not use inclusive language where there's no reason not to?

The use of "he" as the unmarked pronoun for everyone is sexist in itself. How old are you? 105? Yes, I agree that it's sometimes awkward to avoid gender-biased language, but there are a number of ways to achieve this, and good writers seem to manage. WP should try too, IMV. It's the 21st century. Tony 02:47, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

For the chessmen, as I say I'm not a chess expert so I won't fight about it, but the reason is what I said: Pawns aren't "pieces". When you talk about "losing a piece", you don't mean a pawn.

As for the claim that unmarked he is "sexist in itself" -- prove it. I say it's not sexist unless you intend it to be. Otherwise it's just a feature of the language -- sometimes "he" implies male sex, other times it doesn't. There is no need to read any claims about male domination into this. --Trovatore 04:54, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I went through several assignments in Business Writing on writing non-sexist language; it's not difficult, and we weren't even allowed to use singular they or "he or she". Plus, most FACs roll in with little sexist language. There's also the matter of formality; calling a ship "she" sounds informal and may confuse the reader, especially since a ship is a thing; therefore, "it" is used. — Deckiller 05:12, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, a combination of "the ship", "it" and the name (e.g., "HMS Iraq"). Works just fine. Tony 05:09, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Deckiller, in calling the language "sexist", you're assuming facts not in evidence. Tony, yes, certainly, calling ships "it" is workable. I have never argued that it is not. --Trovatore 05:12, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Hmm? I always thought it was logical to assume that the term "sexist" includes using gender pronouns where they don't belong, because it can be implied that way. It's how I've been instructed in college as well as on Wikipedia (by people like Tony, who make a career out of this sort of thing); thus, any evidence has been sold at textbook buyback or is on Tony's guides/in Wikipedia articles. Since we all agree that ships should be "it" not "she", this tangent is probably unnecessary now. — Deckiller 05:16, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

"Because they can be implied that way?" Pretty much anything can be construed pretty much any way. That's not a sufficient standard. And who says they don't belong? Sometimes "he" or "she" implies biological sex, sometimes it doesn't. When it doesn't, some want to say, there's a sexist subtext. But I say, prove there's such a subtext. Otherwise it's just part of the language, inherently neutral; if the terms don't imply biological sex then they just don't, and it doesn't have to mean anything else. --Trovatore 05:22, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Choosing one of the two genders to be the unmarked form is a fundamental assymetry that privileges that gender. So why do it? The whole idea of avoiding the generic male pronoun is to avoid the assumption that male is natural, and female needs to be specially marked. Tony 05:27, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

One of the genders, in the strict grammatical sense -- not one of the sexes (nor one of the "gender identities", whatever those are exactly). Grammatically masculine pronouns often denote a male referent, but here they don't. So you haven't shown there's any "assumption that male is natural" involved, because the masculine pronoun does not refer to maleness in this situation. --Trovatore 08:34, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

You can assert that he is gender-neutral all you want, but that doesn't change the fact that it is jarring to a lot of readers and is becoming increasingly rare. People just don't use he that way anymore—they use singular they. It is the unconscious, natural choice, whereas "gender-neutral" he causes readers to dart back and look for a male antecedent. Strad 14:30, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Of course it's not gender-neutral -- it's grammatically masculine gender, which has nothing necessarily to do with sex. It can be used in a sex-neutral way. Let's at least keep our terms straight. As for singular "they", you're right about it being the natural choice in casual speech. It's not the natural choice for highly formal writing such as an encyclopedia; in that register, singular "they" is far more jarring than unmarked "he". --Trovatore 18:22, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Pity the poor Germans, whose language forces them to assign linguistic gender to nouns. Perhaps "das Baby" (the baby) will not be traumatized by assignment of a neutral gender, but what is the lasting psychological damage to "das Mädchen" (the girl)? And "das Auge" (the eye) of the bewildered lass is masculine, but "der Mund" (the mouth) is feminine! English is, of course, a Germanic language (with massive incursions from Latin and French, which also use gender), so perhaps we can be excused for our horrible hidebound (inadvertent) sexist speech. Wikipedia refuses to censor images to avoid offending delicate sensibilities, yet we are being asked to censor our pronouns, and for dubious reasons at that. A reader who cannot distinguish deliberate face slapping from accidental toe stepping will be endlessly offended; shall we stand still to avoid the risk? --KSmrq^T 19:15, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for raising that interesting point, KSmrq. (1) There's a clear difference in those languages between grammatical gender for all nouns and their use of the generic male pronoun to stand for people of both genders. (2) WRT "she for ships", the seemingly arbitrary classification of all nouns by gender in many foreign languages—even neuter in German for "the maiden" (das Mädchen)—is a very different phenomenon from the isolated examples in English of using "she" for mechanical objects and vehicles that are typically used and controlled by males, where the very rarity and specificity of this usage marks it out as having an underlying purpose. Tony 02:52, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

(Outdent) Tony, I see that now you're at least arguing that there's an "underlying purpose", rather than merely asserting that the usage is "inherently sexist". That's a step in the right direction.

Here's what I think: We're not going to be able to settle the question of whether there's such an underlying purpose. What I hope I've demonstrated is that that is the central question; the usage itself is not inherently sexist, as there's no inherent reason that "he" must refer to maleness. However I acknowledge that readers have rational grounds to suspect that it does.

So I would be on board for a guideline that encourages rewording to avoid unmarked "he", on a few conditions: (1) that it provide enough wiggle room in cases where the rewording is just too awkward, (2) that it not encourage singular "they", and (3) that it not present as fact, or otherwise assume as fact, ideological social theories regarding the role of language in group domination. --Trovatore 23:56, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

You may be interested in reading this WRT your second point. Tony 08:53, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

• In the specific case of Chess, "Man" and "Piece" are technical terms with well established and non-equivalent meanings. A piece refers to a King, Queen, Bishop, Knight, or Rook/Castle. A man is a piece or a Pawn. Anyone writing in a serious chess publication who used "piece" to refer to a pawn would be taken about as seriously as one who used "cleric" in place of "bishop" to avoid religious discrimination. The original reasons for this distinction may be due to the sexism that existed when chess terminology was codified. That doesn't matter. What matters is that this is the common usage among serious chess player and publications, and Wikipedia should therefore use it until and unless it changes. Wikipedia should describe the world, not attempt to change it. DES ^(talk) 23:32, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Well ... why not call them pawns? Pieces and pawns—simple. Tony 00:46, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

In many cases this can be done. But since the field of chess traditionally and commonly uses "men" as the collective for pawns and pieces, Wikipedia should report this fact. Not to do so may confuse someone who reads a work on chess that assumes this distinction, and so is a disservice to our readers. Moreover, it is a violation of WP:NPOV -- not to report the terms used, because our editors, or some of them, disapprove of them as not being gender neutral, is to try to impose our viewpoint on the world at large, which would be wrong. It would be the same sort of thing (although not as blatant) as to fail to mention that some religions routinely use language such as "God the Father" because that language is not gender neutral. Wikipeida must report the facts accurately, whether we approve of them or not, and it is simply a fact that in chess "men" is the collective term, and "pieces" is a more restricted term. It may be silly, it may be sexist on the part of chess-players, but it is the fact. DES ^(talk) 02:08, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Of course these things must be reported. That doesn't mean that they have to be infused into WP's language. Tony 02:26, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

You absolutely need a single term for all the -- let's call them "objects" -- that the players move on the chessboard. The traditional term is "men". I think that to call this "sexist" is frankly a major major reach; you have to stretch really hard to explain how this usage has anything to do with male superiority.

However the current article calls all chessmen "pieces", and there doesn't seem to be any recent controversy about it in the history or on the talk page. So not being a very serious player, and even less of a chess historian, I personally figure that one is not my fight. If a dispute did come up, I would definitely state my view that there is no perceptible sexism in the traditional usage. --Trovatore 05:39, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

National varieties of English and divergent vocabulary

I think we should consider a guideline for national varieties of English and divergent vocabulary. Specifically, sometimes different varieties of English use completely different terms, and this can be quite confusing in articles. Yes everyone knows that airplane/aeroplane are the same thing, but what about sedan/saloon? I think in such a situation we should have a strong preference for region-nonspecific vocabulary in articles. See Talk:2007_London_car_bombs#Mercedes-Benz saloon?. Thanks.--Pharos 22:27, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

... assuming such even exists. Would this the the death nell of football for "soccer"? Jɪmp 01:41, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Pharos, you'll just have to look it up. Tony 01:45, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, I myself have no problem looking it up and I even find such regional vocabulary differences personally interesting, but I think we should be careful not to use the wikilink as a crutch. Our articles should be understandable to as broad an international audience as possible even when printed on a page in black ink. So, I think sometimes it might be necessary to use slightly awkward region-nonspecific or disambiguating language (like association football for football or four-door car for sedan/saloon).--Pharos 02:27, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Of course, you can also look things up on pages in printed black ink ... whilst I do symphathise somewhat with your idea, I fear that, taken too far (& we should assume that any rule appearing here is liable to be taken too far), this could lead to awkward and unnatural prose. For example, whilst association football is not too odd (being the official name of the game ... in fact I find this preferrable to the football (soccer) we often see), I'm not too sure that people would find four-door car to be natural English. Also, where an article has strong ties to a particular dialect the vocubulary of that dialect should be preferred regardless. Jɪmp 04:56, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Should not be a reason to link. Tony 04:53, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

In some ways I just feel the current guideline, under "Opportunities for commonality", is utterly backwards on this subject. It recommends terms of commonality mainly for article titles, and gives the horrible example of fixed-wing aircraft. Now surely, any reasonable person can see that either "aeroplane" or "airplane" is a far superior title; "fixed-wing aircraft" has been chosen only as a silly "international compromise" of sorts between the two. I don't think it's healthy to focus on such disputes in article titles as the "official" arbiter of the correct term, especially when we have terms that are equally intelligible (if not equally natural) to all English speakers. What we should distinguish is between the "aeroairplane" words and the "lorrytruck" words. I see nothing wrong with having any sort of term (but especially "aeroairplane" words) in an article title because it makes no difference except for pride, but in articles I think potentionally confusing "lorrytruck" words should be replaced by commonality terms, or at least somehow qualified.--Pharos 05:33, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I did raise this a little while ago, with most of the opinion favouring continuing to use national words. I agree that a some common words are just made up to please everyone, and sound awkward. Fixed wing aircraft is actually not one of these, as this is in common usage amongst pilots! I think the original point here about sedan/saloon is quite a good example of what we should try and avoid. I think we should use the prevailing variant for items such as soccer/football (i.e. soccer in US articles and football everywhere else, association football as the main article title) where they are widely known, but actively try and avoid words which appear here, here and here. Owain.davies 06:16, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

A really minor point but "football everywhere else" ... how about Canadian articles, ... Australian articles, ... New Zealand articles, ... how about football in British/Irish articles and soccer everywhere else? Of course, I'm going off on a tangent and really should shut up about it ... I would agree with using association football as the main article title ... in fact this is probably the best term all round (except in region-specific articles). Jɪmp 07:13, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, it was a broad generalisation for brevity, of course it varies by country, but the principle remains the same. Owain.davies 07:55, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

This discussion is starting to make me think that the "Opportunities for commonality" subsection should be removed altogether. It's kind of wishy-washy and doesn't fit with the preceding sections, which are nice and logical and cogent. Tony 09:43, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it should be removed, but strengthened to be clearer. I think it's clear that we should avoid terms that aren't used in other language variants (as in the lists i posted above), but accept that some words will have to be country specific. Using words which are common between languages can work well, without looking forced. Try looking at Ambulance if you'd like an example - it contains very few words in there which would be contested between languages, and it's GA rated, and probably suitable for FA soon. You could easily strengthen to section to make it clear where you should look for commonality (titles, global articles like 'association football'), where commonality is acceptable (more or less anywhere unless it ruins the flow), and where there is no need for commonality (in writing your own prose on a country specific article). I might have a go at rewriting the section and post it here later. Owain.davies 09:59, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

OK, I propose the following text to replace the existing section - it's not properly spell or grammar checked at the moment because i'm at work and having to use IE : - ( so it will need tidying up, but i think it gives the appropriate weight that you should write normally, but just avoid words that might confuse people. Comments please....

In order to try and make Wikipedia as accessible as possible, the prose should be easy to read, regardless of the dialect used. In the vast majority of cases, so long as the article is consistently written, most dialectal variants can be used ('organization' rather than 'organisation' for instance). However, in order to increase readability, in some instances, it is preferable to use words which are not contested between languages.

Using words which are not common worldwide should be avoided wherever possible, except where it is used in an article about its use, or is in context for a regional article. For instance, references to 'grid iron' would be suitable in articles regarding American Football, but would not be appropriate in a biography or list of sports. Other examples include headings such as 'Etiology', which is only widely used in North America.

More examples of words to avoid can be found at:

• List of words having different meanings in British and American English
• List of American words not widely used in Great Britain
• List of British words not widely used in the United States

The use of international terms is especially important in naming articles, especially where contested words occur. For instance, 'Grid iron', should redirect to 'American football' or a similar title.

There are also contests over nouns where there are slight differences between countries, such as 'airplane' and 'aeroplane'. In cases such as this, a common substitute (such as fixed-wing aircraft - a term often used by professional pilots) is favored over national varieties (“fixed-wing aeroplanes” (BrE) and “fixed-wing airplanes” (AmE).

When using a common word, or where no common word exists, editors should redirect the alternate spellings to the one main article, such as Artefact and Artifact, where one points to the other, there being no suitable alternative available. This helps to stop article proliferation, with repetition, and confusion for readers.

It is acceptable for editors to change regional words to internationally recognized words as long as it does not affect the cadence, flow or quality of the prose. However, editors whould not generally replace international words with regional ones, unless it is necessary for the article.

Anyone got any comments on this? Owain.davies 10:23, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

You've worked hard to make this work (sorry about the repetition!), but I don't like a lot of it. Far too long, questionable goal, these differences are not "contested", they just exist. I'd get rid of the current commonality section or leave as is. Tony 14:12, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I've gotta say I'm with Tony on this. Instead of strengthen it, I'd rather ditch the section. How, for example, does one judge what is universally acceptable? An example you give, Owain, is organisation/organization dictionaries might prefer -ize but outside North America what people prefer is -ise. It seems to me that this would be best dealt with on a case-by-case basis on article Talk pages. Jɪmp 20:07, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Maybe i didn't write it well enough - the idea is to encourage the use of organisation or organization, depending on the overall language of the article. I'm only suggesting that people don't use words which appear on those three lists, and the gold standard is words which are common. On a minor point, BrE dictionaries all use 'organisation'.

How about a shortened version then for conciseness:

Whilst editors should attempt to write in the article style (for instance, American English or British English depending on the first major editor) and use the correct syntax and spelling related to this, the use of words which are specific to one dialect, or ambiguous between dialects should be avoided. Examples can be found on:

• List of words having different meanings in British and American English
• List of American words not widely used in Great Britain
• List of British words not widely used in the United States

It is acceptable for editors to change dialectal words or spellings to internationally understood ones, as long as it does not affect the style, syntax or quality of the article, but editors should avoid changing internationally known words in to regional variants, unless it is important to the article.

Is this any more acceptable? I can't believe that anyone would want to have words included on this encyclopaedia which aren't understood worldwide (going back to my previous example, Etiology and Grid Iron are just two) - the key is to keep natural english (of whatever variant) except where it suddenly makes your article less readable to some of your audience. I know someone referred in the previous discussion (although i can't find it in the archive right at the moment) that navigating this was an essential Wikipedian skill, which i think completely misses the point that Wikipedia is not just for Wikipedians but for any member of the public who wants information. This is especially true with huge english speaking contingents such as in India. English is the most widely spoken language in the world (not as a first language before anyone starts) and people mostly learn an international mixture. For this reason, we surely can't continue to use regional dialect words, or words with different meanings in different languages? Owain.davies 05:49, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

As a trivial point, I believe The English dictionary (which happens to be British) uses organization. — The Storm Surfer 00:31, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

As I've said before, the differences are superficial for readers, who can, by and large, easily recognise the odd word/spelling from another variety; they're a little harder for writers, but that's not what matters. Tony 06:55, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I rather like your second version—it puts the issue forward quite concisely. The important thing in my opinion is the distinguishing of superficial differences like spelling preferences (Tony seems to be misinterpreting this point here) and genuinely divergent words (as in the lists you link to), which are often totally unfamiliar to people of another region.--Pharos 08:11, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad someone seems to understand! I am all for people writing to make the article consistent, so use "pediatric organization" or "paedatric organisation", whichever suits the given article style, but we should just avoid the words that cause the most confusion, and it should always be acceptable to say 'society' rather than organization (or any other variant which might apply). Owain.davies 08:17, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

People here seem to assume that there are just two beasts. No, you'll have to account for Australian, South African, NZ and Irish varieties, not to mention Indian and Singaporean English and ... where does it stop? Finding commonalities becomes a minefield. Tony 12:52, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't that mean we shouldn't try? The point is still to avoid where possible, and accept them being changed. Nobody is expecting it to be perfect, but starting with AmE and BrE is a good place because virtually all the others are based on and draw from these two. Owain.davies 15:14, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

There are more problems in trying than leaving it as is. I can't quite see what the problem is. The language is, probably more than any other, big and baggy. It's expansive, a borrowing language, in a state of constant flux. This "avoid lexis that isn't common to all English speakers" is a rod down the writer's back. The differences are superficial, and the language is cohesive enough to admit regional differences into its soup. You seek to impose an entirely new set of regulations on WPians that is bound to fail. And I should point out that at least the first article proposed for inclusion as a link above appears to be in a state of chaos. There's a tag as long as an essay at the top warning of issues; and I found several errors during my flick down the table. This idea is impractical and undesirable. Tony 15:23, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

In that case we should probably stop trying to make each article read in one variation; lets mix BrE, AmE and all the others in together. For that matter, why bother with an MOS at all? OK, that's flippant, but nothing written here in MOS will gain 100% usage, and in the end, it's only a request that people try and consider it with words which cause others the most difficulty - it's no different to encouraging editors not to use archaic 20 letter words which fell out of usage in the 17th century. Make it as accessible as possible - why should a reader have to start looking up words when it could easily be avoided. You will note that my second proposed version says effectively to write in the article style (certainly to me actually MORE difficult than writing in internationally understood words!) and if you can, then use international words. It just seems that you'd like to keep WP elitist. Owain.davies 15:42, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, we should avoid national regionalisms specific to one country whenever possible for exactly the same reasons that we avoid local regionalisms specific to one city or county. An international English encyclopedia should just avoid those words (and there aren't many of them, really) that will not be understood internationally.--Pharos 23:22, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

(1) "avoid national regionalisms specific to one country"—Maybe couched as a recommendation? I can't see how this can be a hard-and-fast rule.

(2) You don't see WP as a key agent in familiarising English-speakers with the odd word from another variety they've not noticed before?

(3) "I believe The English dictionary (which happens to be British) uses organization" (Storm surfer). Yes, it's a source of amazement that the old farts at OED who sit around over cups of tea nattering about how to update the dictionary still haven't reversed the first and second orders of z and s to reflect widespread usage. Bizarre. Tony 04:45, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Maybe i'll add couched to my list of words not to use.... i've had to look that up in my OED, and it still seems like an odd phrase which doesn't make much sense - almost proving exactly my point. I still think we're not suggesting that everyone can or will follow the guidance, but then again, not everyone can or will follow any of this MOS.

As for point 2, no, I don't think a primary purpose of WP is to introduce people to other languages. Some individual pages might do that, and i'm all for adding multiple phrases in articles ("American football, also known as grid iron"). The primary function of WP is for people to find information in the easiest way possible. It is incredibly elitist to 'prescribe' vocabulary expansion to people who are trying to find information about a generalist subject. Personally, I love learning new words (so thanks for couching), but i'm considerate enough not to use them during everyday speech or when writing in WP because I think it's bad manners to deliberately confuse people, just to prove i'm the better wordsmith!

As for point 3, you're quite right (although it gives -isation as an appropriate alternative), but I thought we'd moved on from this - we are happy to accept spelling variations of commonly used words, so long as it is in article style. It's just words not frequently used in other languages which are a problem. Owain.davies 05:46, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

links rather than parenthesis can often be used to explain details that traditionally would have been placed in parenthesis, (please see this essay meta:Wiki is not paper#Style and functionality for examples). --Philip Baird Shearer 09:06, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm feeling controversial now – how about we use only OED spellings throughout Wikipedia? That would be great having one set of English used throughout, and as you point out, many of the spellings they use tend to the AmE versions. We could set a couple of bots on the task, and the whole of the mainspace could be converted to a single standard that everyone could use! Just a thought... Owain.davies

I'll pass on that last one. And as for "couch", well, here's what the US Encarta Dictionary (conveniently on my desktop) says:

"verb [ trans. ] 1 (usu. be couched in) express (something) in language of a specified style : many false claims are couched in scientific jargon."

It's a common item in all major varieties of English. Which planet? Tony 07:31, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Earth.

Tony you wrote "avoid national regionalisms specific to one country"—Maybe couched as a recommendation?. I do not think so. The whole point of "National varieties of English" is to allow people to read and write articles about their own nation in an English familiar to them. For example if I was to add a sentence to the article on Birmingham "Most of the housing stock between the inner and outer ring road consists of council blocks of flats" the links take care of any words which might not be immediately understandable to a non Brit while keeping the English simple and non convoluted for those who understand British English. Similary I might write about Birmingham, Alabama (althought it is not true, I am just making it up to make a point) "Most of the housing stock between the innner and outer beltways consists of public apartment blocks" --Philip Baird Shearer 08:50, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Naturally, because only people from England could possibly want to read about Birmingham! If you read up the discussion, my argument is that writing in BrE, AmE or any other variant is acceptable in a nationally focused article (especially as in your example above 'council housing' is the only really widespread use in the UK), but best practice on generalist articles or articles relevant across the world is avoid terms like this. For instance, on an article about 'Housing', it wouldn't be acceptable to say 'council flat'. But again, if someone wanted to replace 'council flat' with 'housing owned by the local authority' that would be acceptable, because it is more widely understood, and not detrimental to your 'target' reader. Wikipedia is not about writing just for people who live where you do, or write the same way. It is a project to offer knowledge to ANYONE, even those without english as a first language. Owain.davies 09:30, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

• Nor am I thrilled at the idea of linking every word that might not be familiar to every reader. There's enough blue spattered over WP already, and I'm keen not to dilute the high-value links. Tony 11:33, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Are you realy suggesting that terms link "beltway" and "ring road" should be replaced in every article with expressions like "a road that follows a circular route around [place entity here]". I think not. Imagen removing every mention of Gasoline or Petrol and replacing them with "a petroleum-derived liquid mixture consisting mostly of hydrocarbons and enhanced with benzene or iso-octane to increase octane ratings". As to the comment that the project offers knowledge to anyone well yes a German can read about an article in German etc. There is also the Simple English Wikipedia --Philip Baird Shearer 18:49, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

No. Evidently you missed the piece of this whole thread where this is used in sensible places. You are clearly exaggerating a limited example to make an argument out of it. What is suggested is clear - continue to write in BrE if that's the language of the article, but where it does not affect the cadence, flow or quality of the article, international terms are always acceptable and may be preferable. You can always going to have to use some words where you are going to have to make a decision (gasoline vs petroleum for instance) and the answer is clear - follow the article style. The argument is to avoid words specific to limited portions of the language where possible (use American Football rather than Grid iron for instance). It is just about trying not to confuse people deliberately (and also not covering your entire article in wikilinks). Owain.davies 21:13, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

PBS is right---except of course for the phrase public apartment blocks, which don't mean a thing in American English ;-P People, the vocabulary of the English language is complex---put up or shut up; this ain't simple.wikipedia.org. And btw, gasoline is not petroleum, gasoline is petrol.

But what about a notation like

...proposed a policy that would reduce gasoline/petrol consumption...

to use whenever it would "not affect the cadence, flow, or quality of the article," and especially in articles with no "strong regional ties"? ---The user formerly known as JackLumber 23:30, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Something I noticed. It is not always immediately clear which is the local language used for an article. Would it be an idea to consider putting up a series of templates that can be added at the discussion pages to make this clear. I am thinking of things like:

This article is written using British English. See the Wikipedia Manual of Style on spelling.

Netherlands Arnoutf 22:07, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

This has been proposed in the past, but I don't remember the name of the page it was on. I think the main objections were either to the wording of the templates or that there are too many templates on talk pages already (which I can certainly agree with the last... stupid WikiProjects.) — The Storm Surfer 02:11, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Ok fair enough , I thought this might save some discussion for certain pages. But I fully agree the tal pages are swamped in templates.... Arnoutf 09:22, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm about to be late for something offline, so I don't have time to go look, but something has been bugging me for months. Last I looked (wikitext being in flux all the time...) the current recommendations on this topic, here or perhaps at another project page, were pretty flatly and inflexibly that if an article started with UK English, it stayed that way, and same with US English. I strongly feel that this needs moderation for topicality, specifically that if it is a US-centered topic, it gets US English, and more broadly vice-versa – if it's a UK, Irish, British Commonwealth, or former British colony topic, it gets UK English, and if it's a Canadian topic it gets Canadian English (which is a real thing; in short, it's mostly US vs. UK vocabulary, but with UK vs. US spelling, though this is not a 100% universal, as for example with "tire" vs "tyre"). That is, if the Tony Blair article had been started by an American in US English, it absolutely must switch to UK English, just for simply sanity. Where there's not particular US/UK distinction, as at Tree or Cue sports, then the "whatever came first" rule should apply. I might be barking up a dead tree (if I may mix and mangle some metaphors), as the guideline details in question may've already been modified to address this. I sure hope so. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 01:07, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

This was and still is covered. Tony 01:49, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I could be wrong (happened once before, back in 1985!), but i think we could be close to near consensus here. I don't think anyone disagrees that the article should stay in the language in which it was first written (not always easy to tell). I still stand by the use of international terms (1) where they exist (2) where they don't affect the cadence or flow of sentence. These should be preferred over regional only words in all articles if the author is able to do so - this is easier to do than a Brit trying to write American English for instance.

Does anyone object to this being written up? It could look something like this (i'll give it another go)

Whilst editors should attempt to write in the article style (for instance, American English or British English depending on the first major editor) and use the correct syntax and spelling related to this, the use of words which are specific to one dialect, or ambiguous between dialects should be avoided if possible. Examples can be found on:

• List of words having different meanings in British and American English
• List of American words not widely used in Great Britain
• List of British words not widely used in the United States

It is acceptable for editors to change dialectal words or spellings to internationally understood ones, as long as it does not affect the style, syntax or quality of the article, but editors should avoid changing internationally known words in to regional variants, unless it is important to the article.

One last go, eh?

• They're hardly dialects; varieties, yes, and the differences are so superficial. These articles have been judged to be problematic. Aren't there huge tags at their tops? I noticed errors myself when I had a look a one. Are people still edit-warring over this issue? Aren't the guidelines practical and realistic as they are now? There is mention of the advantages of choosing common items. And finally, won't problematic words be ironed out by editors in the longer scheme of things? Can you provide examples that demonstrate a significant deficiency in the current subsection? Tony 11:25, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

You know, folks, this has always struck me as much ado about minutiae. We really can’t require the average editor to be familiar with all of the varieties of English – we’re doing well enough if they can recognize American from British usage and spelling, much less Canadian from Australian from Indian and so on. It seems to me that any resolution should follow three clear and simple rules (in descending order of priority):

1. As a matter of priority, use the variety of English “native” to the subject of the article, if there is one. E.g., British English for Birmingham, England and American English for Birmingham, Alabama.
2. If the subject has no “native tongue”, follow the usage of the creating editor; if that editor did not display a clear preference, then follow the precedent of the first editor to do so. (Said editor should note their introduction of a particular usage in their edit comment.)
3. Strive for consistency throughout.

IMHO, much more than that requires too much sophistication for the average editor. Askari Mark (Talk) 20:49, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Copyedit tag

Can WP really tolerate the embarrassment of having a copyedit maintenance tag (which, frankly, seems deserved) on its Manual of Style? It has been there May 24, 2007. Finell (Talk) 04:17, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

You seem ambivalent. I posted the tag, and I don't mind if it's removed, because the overhaul is clearly going to take longer than just a few days or weeks. Tony 04:25, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

To the contrary, as I said, the tag is deserved. The fact that it has remained this long indicates that the many Wikipedians who vet this project page agree, or at least do not disagree with sufficient conviction to remove it. Removing the tag would not bring the page up to Wikipedia's aspirational standard. I don't understand why the tag, if not its cause, has not prompted serous work to improve the page. Perhaps it is because the prospect is so daunting. For a start, the passive voice throughout the page makes the writing weak and vague: "Headings and subheadings are changed only after careful consideration ..." should be "Do not change headings without strong reasons and careful consideration ..."; "and subheadings" is surplusage, by the way, because all subheadings are headings. A manual is nothing if it is not prescriptive. There is no consistent style for examples. The writing is really embarrassingly poor—especially, and ironically, for a style guide. Finell (Talk) 05:07, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

On the contrary, there's been major work over the past month—mainly copy-editing, but notably entirely new sections on hyphens and dashes, laboriously negotiated here. I have driven these changes with major major contributions from people here. I removed the tag just a few hours ago after your first message, perhaps because I misunderstood your intention; but in any case, I was coincidentally feeling that it's not necessary to have it there for months, when people are generally on-side about the need to overhaul the manual. I don't mind, however, if it's reinstated.

On the passive voice: yes, I discourage incautious use, especially by scientists, who seem to love it. But here, it's one of the ways of constructing clauses that are not orders or instructions; pre-copy-editing, there's an inconsistent use of imperative and descriptive tones that is still evident in what we haven't yet touched. The change in tone did receive consensus (archived now), because a friendlier, more inclusive tone is reckoned to be more likely to garner cooperation among WPians than orders. Thus, I feel that some use of the passive is appropriate here and on similar policy pages (FAC, FU, etc). I don't feel that it's "weak" or "vague" as you suggest. If you disagree, I'm happy to engage in a discussion here; convince me that we should go back to the ordering tone.

"Writing is embarrassingly poor"—Well, I hope not the stuff we've done recently, but fresh eyes to scrutinise that are welcome (as is another collaborator in the larger task of overhauling this central manual and its daughter manuals). My practice has been to post links on this page to draft sections that involve substantial copy-editing and/or substantive change in policy. Smaller edits I've sometimes risked without doing so. I think you're right about "subheadings", so why not take the plunge? Tony 07:02, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

RIAA certifications

I didn't get any reply at MOS:CL, so I thought I'd bring this up here. Should RIAA certifications for albums such as the "P" in "Platinum" or "G" in "Gold" be capitalised (e.g. 2x platinum or 2x Platinum)? It's an adjective (which means it shouldn't be capitalised) but at the same time, the RIAA capitalise it, so it's also a trademark. If we treat it as a trademark, then it should be capitalised per WP:MOSTM. Spellcast 05:39, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I believe capitalization is the way to go here, via your reasoning. — The Storm Surfer 01:05, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Many organisations capitalise erroneously in their publicity material. Unless it actually IS a registered trademark, or there is precedent in professionally-edited publications for capping these terms, I think we should stick to lower-case. Barnabypage 12:34, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

http://www.riaa.com/aboutus.php says: "The RIAA® also certifies Gold®, Platinum®, Multi-Platinum™, and Diamond sales awards". So yes, it does qualify as a trademark and should thus be capitalised. Spellcast 19:49, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Barnabypage 19:52, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Additionally, this is a proper name for a specific award. They aren't certifying the record element 79. — The Storm Surfer 00:18, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Full stops (periods) after abbreviations with periods

I think the following should be added regarding abbreviations and puntuation: "When a period is used for an abbreviation at the end of a sentence, a second period is not needed to end the sentence. The one period serves both purposes." LaraLove^T/_C 05:26, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Precisely my thought when I noticed this very phenomenon after I pressed the button on a recent edit of that section. Do you think that Dr and St need to be mentioned? Tony 06:20, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

My problem was when editing an article which had "U.S." at the end of a sentence. I've seen text (not in WP) that used a period after the abbreviation, i.e. "John traveled to the U.S..", but I never thought it looked right. Searching through the MOS gave no insight. I then googled. I think using U.S. and St. as examples would be appropriate. Most countries don't use periods in their abbreviations, however, because US is also a word, U.S. should be used when referring to the United States--I believe this is mentioned in the MOS. I don't see "Dr." often being at the end of a sentence, however "St." often is. LaraLove^T/_C 06:31, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Simple solution WRT US is to ignore the old-fashioned incantations of some US guidelines (as do many Americans) and not use the dots at all. Looks much nicer. But if you insist on retaining u dot s dot, indeed, avoid double dots at the end of a sentence. On "Dr" and "St", I was raising the issue of whether there should ever be a dot after them. Tony 00:55, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I see what you are saying. I think they should include a period after. As far as US, the guide recommends using "U.S." considering "us" is a word. LaraLove^T/_C 04:35, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Now tell me, who is going to confuse "US" with the personal pronoun "us" (to start with, the upper- versus lower-case is in your face; second, the grammar would be palpably silly in every context I can think of). This is an international site, so while US styleguides are useful reference points for deciding on WP's policies, they have no special status. I could drag out the Australian Government Publishing Manual on the opposite side WRT to you dot es dot. Tony

No periods at all is a uniquely British thing, and one that just looks awful. The period is there for a purpose, and removing it make you look like you don't know that it's not a real word and only an abbreviation. If you want to use that style on articles that default to British English, fine, but it's absolutely inappropriate elsewhere. And stupid. DreamGuy 21:47, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Human readers do distinguish between US and us, but computer systems often don't (e.g. when searching)---that's why U.S. is written with periods. The British tendency to avoid all periods is fairly recent. ---The user formerly known as JackLumber 22:15, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Periods have clearly fallen out of almost all US abbreviations (PBS, NASA, and thousands more); indeed, they're now quite rare. In the unlikely even that you need to search for the abbreviation of the United States, tick the "match case" option in your finder. Tony 01:03, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Passive Voice and Vague Attribution

Wikipedia articles contain an enormous number of lines that begin with, "It is believed...", or "It is thought...", or "It has been said...". Who is this mysterious IT? I am no grammarian, but passive wording like that changes the nature of what is being communicated because such wording is intended to be accepted at face value.

I could decide that I think the sky is lime green. I could then write a sentence in the Sky article that accurately states, "It is believed that Earth's sky is lime green." However, this does not mean that the sky is green. Such a statement only means that somebody (could be 90% of the world's sighted people, could be just me) thinks that the sky is green.

I think the manual of style should call for logical, clear structure that informs the reader just who it is that thinks this, believes that, or said such and such.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.203.171.248 (talk • contribs) 07:59, July 7, 2007 (UTC)

This belongs in the usage section, which I believe is ripe for expansion. But we'll need to be very cautious in doing so, because it will be easy to be accused of imposing one usage over others. Suggestions for inserting subsections should probably be raised here first for a week or so, to gather feedback and consensus. Tony 00:51, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

And just as many articles contain phrases like "Critics contend..." or "Researchers claim...". The passive voice does not exist so people can make vague attributions; it exists to allow constructions where the subject is the semantic patient. Discouraging the passive voice is as ridiculous as discouraging the active voice.Strad 06:03, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

You might take a look at Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words and Wikipedia:Words to avoid. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 13:02, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I strongly agree with Strad. Andre (talk) 07:03, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Dashes

Per discussion above, I have merged the only content that was in MOSDASH but not here, and then redirected MOSDASH to here. The article on dash is much better than what used to be in MOSDASH, actually. — Carl (CBM · talk) 16:24, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

When you hit the MOSDASH link in the box at the top of MOS, it still takes you there. Tony 01:01, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, I must have missed that. If you didn't actually click the link, try doing that and see if you get redirected back to the right section here. If the link should be deleted, I'll do that instead. — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:13, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, if the page doesn't exist, functionally, it should be deleted. Are you quite sure that all unique info has been retained in dash article or here at MOS? If so, remove the link from the box here and put a speedy delete notice at the top of the MOSDASH article. I suppose that it would be proper to announce your intentions on the talk page of MOSDASH for a ?week? I can't imagine anyone will object—it's such a bombsite and there's the messy duplication of information as is. This is the first step towards a properly organised hyphen and dash article in addition to what we now have here on MOS. Tony 01:41, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I'll remove the link from {{style}} which is the box on this page. There has been an announcement on this page for a long time, so I think anyone who was following the pages would have noticed what was going on. The article on dash looks better than what was in MOSDASH, and the style guidelines have been rewritten here and MOSDASH was lagging behind them. Rather than deleting the MOSDASH article, I have made it redirect to the proper section of this article. That has the benefit of preserving the edit history there. — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:53, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I just happened to go to WP:MOSDASH a few minutes ago, and for reasons I can't begin to guess I am redirected to the top of MOS rather than the relevant section. Hopefully someone can figure this out? — The Storm Surfer 03:05, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

That's odd - contents of the redirect are right [1] and when I just tried it it worked. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:10, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

It certainly is odd. I tried it in Opera 9.20 Mac OS X and Firefox 2.0.0.4 Mac OS X, and it worked, so it must be some sort of Safari 2.0.4 Mac OS X bug or sensitivity. Even more strangely, if I go to [2] and click on the redirect link, that works like a charm. Oh well, curious, but not of great importance. — The Storm Surfer 18:00, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

The support of anchors in redirects is a relatively recent feature, and apparently still buggy. It's not a surprise that the link works correctly when click on directly, and not a surprise that the two-step method of getting to the page anchor via redirect fails on some browsers. Dicklyon 18:10, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Question about categorical lists

Are there any guidelines about categorized or hierarchical lists, specifically "Unsorted", "Miscellaneous" or "Other" headings? IMO this is far worse than a trivia section in an article, as the whole point of a categorized list is to organize by topic. For a specific example, I would like to point out List of vegetable oils (a featured list), with an "Other oils" section. This section will not be interesting for people to read. Just glancing at it, I see that further headings could be made for "Medicine", "Cosmetics" and "Insecticides".

These sections can make the article look unreliable (see:List_of_edible_seeds#Miscellaneous), and can also mean that the item does not meet the requirements of the list (see:List_of_fruits#Unsorted). I did put the Template:expert in those, which I know makes it look worse.

Could some guideline be made about this? I would love to have an unsorted template (like Template:Trivia) to put into such lists. My basic idea is this: if an item cannot be categorized it does not belong in a categorical list. JohnnyMrNinja 19:01, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

If there is, or is to be, guidance on this, it would be in one of three places:

• Wikipedia:Lists
• Wikipedia:List guideline
• Wikipedia:Lists (stand-alone lists) (Manual of Style)

I've not looked at any of these, but if none address your question (I suspect none do), I suggest reposting your comment at one or more of the talk pages for these three guidelines. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 13:00, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, will do. JohnnyMrNinja 19:31, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

New edits to en dash section

"The en dash was the traditional typographic symbol for this operator, but now that unicode defines a character for this specific use, the minus is preferred, except in fonts where it is too short. In contexts such as code, where the text is intended to be copied and executed or evaluated, the ordinary hyphen works better and is preferred."

Issues:

• • "operator" and subsequent singular number—it's two roles, isn't it? Operator and negative sign.
  • Why introduce the complication of fonts? Doesn't WP use just one font? Likewise, what exactly is "code", and do WPians normally use it in their contributions to WP?

Thanks for the edits, by the way. Tony 06:34, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome. I think both the unary operator and the binary operator are the same use, same glyph, same mathematical symbol and meaning, and both can be conveniently referred to as operators. But if you'd like to treat them as distinct, feel free. Fonts are not chosen by wikipedia, I think. I'm not sure what the problem is, but in my browser the minus comes out as short as the hyphen for any fonts that I've chosen; so my comment is probably moot, or wrong, or irrelevant. There is a tag for code that makes text look like this: 3 - 2 = 1; it uses monospaced fonts, which don't have such a narrow hyphen, and is used where computer code is displayed. Dicklyon 16:10, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

My guess would be that the fact that there can be drawn a distinction between the two roles is being overlooked here. Doesn't WP use just one font? ... Go to "my preferences", go to "skin", click on some of the previews. No, not only one, but I still wouldn't bother introducing this. Code here would be refering to the type of stuff you find at m:Help:Calculation (which I'd mentioned to you, Tony) and it is used (it's very useful in templates). However, it is possible to keep the hyphens within the code and convert to minuses for display (I might just write the template if it doesn't already exist). Jɪmp 16:00, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I do think it's a pity that the text has bloated in a way that isn't going to help your average WPian. Tony 13:43, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

So be bold, and prune back to just what is useful, if you like. Dicklyon 15:52, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm a technical dummy, so I need consensus among you people to do so. What's the disadvantage of removing the font/code stuff? Can't it be in the dash article? Tony 17:09, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I took out my font clause; the rest I think is OK, but I'll entertain edits by others. I think the code comment is more useful than the previous weasel words about "many scientists insist" or something like that, which was really about code. Dicklyon 18:04, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Tables and trivia

I noticed that some MoS pages like Wikipedia:When to use tables and Wikipedia:Avoid trivia sections are not even mentioned or linked to from this main MoS page. Shouldn't they at least have an entry? heqs ·:. 03:16, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

MOSNUM: structural issue

In starting the job of overhauling this important submanual, I've realised that the main MOS is absolutely silent on numbers and dates. This is inconsistent with other aspects of style in which the information in submanuals is summarised in the main article. Apart from this inconsistency, there are two disadvantages in this situation: (1) there's nowhere in the main text here that links to the submanual; (2) it looks to the casual observer as though WP doesn't care about numbers and dates; and (3) style WRT numbers and dates doesn't fall under centralised scrutiny as a fully integrated part of style policy.

I suggest that as part of the process of overhauling MOSNUM, we arrive at a summary and post it here for feedback. Is that a good idea? Tony 09:36, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Header

"This page is part of the Manual of Style, and is considered a guideline for Wikipedia." I thought that was funny, since this artice IS the MOS. Shouldn't it be "This is (not "is part of") the Manual of Style, and is considered a guideline for Wikipedia."? --PostScript (info/talk/contribs) 11:43, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Edit:'I am aware that, we use the same template throughout the various pages of the MOS, where it is justified to use that template. However, we ARE writing about the MOS, so shouldn't we use proper grammar? --PostScript (info/talk/contribs) 11:50, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I believe that this page, like those pages, are only part of the manual of style. And I don't see your improper grammar. — The Storm Surfer 00:54, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

punctuation—interesting link

User:Colin alerted me to this interesting entry by language guru David Crystal, on the faddish "zero tolerance" for variations in punctuation.

We do need a little more in the MOS about punctuation, don't we? Tony 00:22, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Speaking of punctuation . . . rather than sift through all the archives and such (I'm pressed for time currently), is there a reason why WP's style is to leave the period at the end of the quotation on the outside of the quotation marks? Thousands of sentences end with (".) instead of (."), leaving thousands of periods just dangling outside. I don't understand why the style says to do this, when surely in school we're taught that if a quotation comes at the end of a sentence, to place the period on the INSIDE of the marks.

On a humorous note, I'm surprised how much poor punctuation and its support by Wiki upsets me.Stanselmdoc 21:41, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Surely in school we are so taught ... if we're American. Would it be any worse having "thousands of periods just dangling outside" than having thousands of inverted commas just dangling outside? But, no; yes, there is a reason for WP's style; they do not just dangle: they belong there. If the full stop is part of that which in quoted, it goes within the inverted commas; otherwise it goes outside. Think about it—it's the simpler style—what logic would dictate in the absence of that arbitary rule to put all other punctuation marks within the inverted commas. This is how the rest of us are taught. Jɪmp 03:43, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I guess I'm going to have to live with being unhappy about it. But please, don't argue that it's the "simpler style" when the only reason you think that is because you were brought up with it. I happen to think it's an illogical style, because apparently, as an American, I was taught a different set of logic. Stanselmdoc 13:46, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

It's not at all because he was "brought up with it". It's called the "logical" style with good reason: the final punctuation is either part of the quote or, on a different structural level, it's part of the large sentence in which the quote sits. Some US usage is good (I like your single els in "traveling" etc—it's simpler), but some is silly, like the issue you raised. Tony 14:55, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Well, there is a separate logic behind it, which is why, even in regions where the ." style is taught, some groups have independently adopted the ". style instead; and why Wikipedia has adopted it despite having more US than British editors (and, despite the fact that ." is also the traditional British style and is still perfectly acceptable in Britain). Eric S. Raymond writes in the Jargon File:

Hackers tend to use quotes as balanced delimiters like parentheses, much to the dismay of American editors. Thus, if “Jim is going” is a phrase, and so are “Bill runs” and “Spock groks”, then hackers generally prefer to write: “Jim is going”, “Bill runs”, and “Spock groks”. This is incorrect according to standard American usage (which would put the continuation commas and the final period inside the string quotes); however, it is counter-intuitive to hackers to mutilate literal strings with characters that don't belong in them. Given the sorts of examples that can come up in discussions of programming, American-style quoting can even be grossly misleading. When communicating command lines or small pieces of code, extra characters can be a real pain in the neck. [3]

The reason why the 'British' style has been chosen by Wikipedia over the 'American' style is because it's in line with our general overriding principle about quoting, which is never to modify the contents of quotes. In the American style, if, say, you are quoting "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." (John 1:1, NIV) - and you were at the end of a sentence, you might quote "In the beginning was the Word." The problem with this is that a full stop has been inserted into the quote, even though it isn't part of it - the sentence doesn't end there, but the full stop inside the quotes gives the impression that it does. Wikipedia's quoting style ensures that nothing is ever included inside quote marks which isn't part of the quote. TSP 15:09, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

... which is inherently simpler. Stanselmdoc, what makes you think that the only reason I think this is the simpler style is because I was brought up with it? As for what I was brought up with: I read British, American, Australian, etc. authors as a kid. The fact of the matter is that I don't even recall ever having been taught one style or the other. I certainly was never taught that strange American rule. In the absence of that rule I found myself naturally using the logical style—'tis only logical. This side of the pond (the Pacific in my case) we have one rule fewer. The fewer the rules, the simpler: this is the basis of my argument. Jɪmp 09:05, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Look, I have no problem going with the non-American style. If that's what Wiki has chosen to do, I follow and accept that. The point I was trying to make is that SOME of us editors DON'T see placing a comma or period inside quotation marks as "modify[ing]the contents of quotes", since we're so used to doing it that way. And just to point out, Jimp, you're again using your own background (that of "not having been brought up with any particular style") to call the American way not as simple. Just like I, as an American, use my own background to say that it IS simpler. It's a moot point anyway, since I'm guessing there are far more editors on Wiki who are not American, and the opinion of the greater amount of editors should be observed. Stanselmdoc 15:14, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I disagree on two counts: most WPians are North American; and it's not the case that the largest number win, or indeed, the loudest voices. Policy evolves according to a number of patterns and structures, some of which transcend nationality. Good thing, too. Tony 15:27, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Well it was just a guess anyway. But it doesn't really matter how the policy was created, because the point is that the current policy doesn't use the American style. Which is fine. I just get defensive of the version I like because grammar and punctuation are pet peeves of mine, and I'm so used to having to correct my fellow Americans that it often carries over into subjects which "transcend nationality" ;). Stanselmdoc 15:38, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Stanselmdoc, I am using my own background ... as an example. However, the basis of my argument I believe is independant of this. We have one rule fewer: that's my point. But, you're right, it's something you'll probably have to put up with (I don't think it'd be an easy policy to overturn). I understand your getting defensive, though. Jɪmp 17:08, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Italics and foreign titles

A somewhat off-topic request, but a formatting and style question. What should be the standard for italicizing foreign terms, especially in songs? Foreign terms in common usage should not be italicized, and several style guides suggest that only "phrases" or "unfamiliar terms" should be italicized, but that would leave lots of room for inconsistency. The country infoboxes and the articles on the anthems themselves vary wildly on this topic, as do sources on the Internet. La Marseillaise, "La Marseillaise," and La Marseillaise have all been seen; and if italicizing for being a foreign word is correct, "La Marseillaise" may well actually be the correct form, despite appearing practically nowhere. I was thinking of editing in something approaching a standard at least for country infoboxes... but I've seen absolutely no response at all on talk pages for a while now, and I'd be nervous about such an undertaking without input. Since I am no expert on the subject, I'm coming to a more heavily trafficked talk page, since going to the more specific Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (text formatting)#Foreign Books didn't get any responses. Anyway, input at Template talk:Infobox Country#Anthems: Italicized, quoted, or nothing? would be appreciated. SnowFire 17:12, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

• Foreign? The definition of foreign usually signifies from another country. But English Wikipedia covers many countries. "Other languages" would be safer term. Canuckle 17:17, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Foreign was meant in the sense of "foreign language" which is the same thing. SnowFire 17:38, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Common names of animals

Somewhere, we need to address the fact that common names of animals are not capitalized proper names. The entire article gray wolf is a hideous case in point. After reading that Article I was tempted to go pet my Cat and eat Dinner while watching Television. We're supposed to be using English, not German. This Germanization of nouns really needs to be nipped in the bud, and the problem is especially, terribly rampant in articles on animals. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 23:59, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I strongly support this view. I suspect that the scientists can't even agree among themselves—am I correct? Tony 02:50, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Professional writers are pretty united on this style point: the common name for an animal is never capitalised except for components taken from "proper" nouns like places and people. E.g. "Bengal tiger", not "Bengal Tiger". This is pretty universal in publishing, scientific or otherwise. I don't know why Wikipedia has taken a wishy washy stance on this. Bendž|Ť 11:55, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Definitely the right thing to do to make sure capitals are not overused through the article. We should strengthen this in the MOS Owain.davies 12:02, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

But if you look at Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(fauna), it supports use of capitalization. I think it looks out of place from what's conventionally done, e.g. "bald eagle" is not capitalized in the New York Times. Andrew73 12:44, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

The handful of people behind that particular page jumped on one particular system they were familiar with, that chosen by professional biologists who certainly aren;t know for their grammar and style rules. It wsa a bad decision from the beginning, completely against the whole world and common sense. A bunch of us tried to change it a while back but a couple of very opinionated people with no justification other than "that's how we serious people do it" fought it tooth in nail. It's about time a group of people just came in and changed it and forced them to deal twith reality. DreamGuy 21:43, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Is a bald eagle a Bald Eagle, or a generic type of eagle, which has lost its feathers? Is a black redstart a Black Redstart, or a Redstart which is melanistic? Andy Mabbett 12:56, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

From the context, it's clear that "bald eagle" refers to Haliaeetus leucocephalus and not to an eagle that's gone bald. In the same way that it's clear that "red snapper" fish refers to Lutjanus campechanus and not snappers that are red. The readers and editors of the New York Times don't seem to take offense at the lack of capitalization for this bird (or should it be Bird) or for example the National Audubon Society [4]. I'm not an ornithologist, but I'm not sure why Wikipedia is adopting this unconventional capitalization scheme. Andrew73 13:28, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Let's not be silly; a redstart that is melanistic would be a melanistic redstart, not a black redstart, and a golden or whatever eagle that had lost its feathers would be a featherless eagle. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 01:00, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Your first error is assuming that it's "unconventional". Andy Mabbett 13:40, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

It may be conventional in certain narrowly-defined contexts (e.g. bird guides), but not conventional in more general venues. Andrew73 13:44, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Andy, it is wildly unconventional in general, modern, formal English, which is what this and every other English-language modern encyclopedia are written in. WP:NOT a biology textbook. And your unspoken assertion that zoologists conventionally do this is not supported. While I have, as others have, sometimes seen this done in the scientific literature, it is by no means a majority practice even with biology. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 01:00, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I was not aware of this idea that wikipedia allows common names to be capitalized. Can someone point out the basis for it, or a link to previous discussion. Nobody immediately above has pointed out any source or authority for this "unconventional" view; where is it conventional? Dicklyon 16:02, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree, there needs to be a written policy against things like "Gray Wolf" and "Bald Eagle". They are jarring, and it is quite easy to tell from context whether "gray wolf" refers to a wolf that happens to be gray, or to Canis lupus. Strad 20:19, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes but there is a written policy, and it says that both "Gray Wolf" and "gray wolf" ar acceptable, due to some unspecified unresolved hot debate. I just noticed there's a main article link there, so apparently there's a better place to have this discussion. I'll follow it. Dicklyon 20:40, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:WikiProject_Birds which endorses "Bald Eagle." I wonder if this also reflects an American v. British English split, as the people supporting "Bald Eagle" tend to be British. Andrew73 21:23, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

We have three options, as I see it:

• Common names of animals are spelt with an initial lower-case letter
• Common names of animals are normally spelt with an initial lower-case letter [this would leave a little space for the cap fanatics, and would allow for rare cases where disambiguation is necessary]
• Leave the wording as it is. Tony 02:07, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
• First option, obviously. Common names of animals are not proper names, period (except inasmuch as they contain one, e.g. Texas blind salamander, etc.) This is a no-brainer, and Wikipedia does not exist to further the ungrammatical nonsense of a minority of people in a narrow field. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 01:00, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

None of the above, because that's all dealt with elsewhere. I edited the section to try to more clearly deflect people to where the policy is, taking out the bit about a hot debate and compromise, since this is not the page where those are relevant. Dicklyon 05:26, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

What, links to projects and submanuals? Can you be explicit, or at least provide an example? On such a basic issue, don't you think the main MOS should provide explicit guidance? Very happy to remove the fluff about hot debate etc. Makes us look like fractious fools. Tony 08:11, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

The section on "animals, plants, and other organism" has a main link to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (fauna). I don't care if you'd like to push for a reorganization. Dicklyon 02:04, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Tony. Why do we need to debate this on a sub-guideline page? This is the main MoS, and this is a pretty big issue (or is that Big Issue?). — Brian (talk) 02:20, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, looks like we're pretty united, should we go ahead and implement de-capitalisation in this MoS and let it trickle down to the wikiprojects? Bendž|Ť 09:02, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

No. We're not united; and such a change would need to be discussed with the projects concerned - some of whom will, rightly, oppose it in the strongest permissible way. Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 10:30, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Strongly oppose. Lepidoptera like Birds are traditionally capitalised. See Monarch butterfly. Let the WikiProjects decide amongst themselves. I agree with Sabine's Sunbird - the aggressive tone set by the first post is not going to lead to any consensus because assumptions are being made about Wikipedians involved previously such as Germans (by implication), professional biologists are not known for their grammar, etc. Change has to be by consensus and civilised debate. The MOS page already exists and I see no pressing reason for changing status quo other than an overwhelming urge to get everyone to fall in line and salute. As regards what looks good and what doesnt - it changes in various cultures, as an Indian I dont find any awkwardness in reading about Gray Wolf when it is referred to as a specific taxonomic creature. My point, let the issue lie. If people still feel strongly, let them take it up after a decent time has passed on WikiProject Tree of Life with adequate notice to all WikiProjects especially those who are required to change tack. AshLin 08:05, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Concur with Brian, Tony, Dicklyon, et al. WP:MOS should definitely be clear on this, and the grammar-ignoring renegades at the sub-guideline need to get with the same program as the rest of the darned world. WP:MOS trumps WP:MOS*; if the entrenched capitalizers want to push for their pet Germanization Of Simple Words thing, they have to convince WP:MOS, not just go write their own "guideline". If that were a valid approach, all hell would break loose. We'd pretty soon have a WP:MOSBRIT declaring that all American spellings should be changed to British, and a WP:MOSUSA saying the opposite, etc., etc. Every vocal minority would soon be promulgating its own conflicting style manual on whatever it was collectively obsessed with. No way. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 01:00, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I think we need to make a decision here on the main WP:MOS, and then move that down to the specific fauna page. I have placed a note to this effect on the talk page of naming conventions (fauna), inviting any interested parties to come here and join the debate.

By my count, at this time there are 8 people in favour of moving to using only lower case letters, and only one against. Obviously, WP is not a democracy as such, but this shows clear preference for one style as it stands. I suggest we give it a week or two to allow any contributors from the sub page to come and join the debate here, and then make decision on this basis. Owain.davies 10:47, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I have also left notes inviting input at WikiProject mammals (who after a fair amount of debate on their talk page, seem to predominantly favour and use lower case). Owain.davies 11:02, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

The logic given at WP:BIRD is fairly clear and logical. At the very least, there is good reason to use capitalization for bird articles because that is how ornithologists write their books. Other groups of biologists have found the logic appealing and have also begun capitalizing the official common names of other species. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:10, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I have something to say....

• Well, looks like we're pretty united, should we go ahead and implement de-capitalisation in this MoS and let it trickle down to the wikiprojects? User talk:Bendzh United as in we haven't talked to anyone one of the editors involved in these wikiprojects, so lets make some changes and hopefully they might not notice and or make a fuss?

• By my count, at this time there are 8 people in favour of moving to using only lower case letters, and only one against. Obviously, WP is not a democracy as such, but this shows clear preference for one style as it stands. User:Owain.davies Had you elicited the thoughts of those that contribute to animal articles, and who might not keep MOS on their watchpages, yet might be interested in this subject? Or do we minority of people in a narrow field not really matter? After all, we only write articles, which aren't nearly as important as guidelines.

Thanks to UtherSRG to bringing this to the attention of WP:BIRD, otherwise the changes might have happened without being able to oppose them. Which I do, strongly. The rest of WP:BIRD would too, most likely. Sabine's Sunbird talk 12:25, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

As I understand it, the proposal above is that we move to lower case for names of species, on the basis that names of species are not proper nouns. The definition of a proper noun, as I understand it, is that it relates to something which exists in the singular, as opposed to non-proper nouns which are for classes of things. However, species are singular entities, are they not? So when we are talking about a species, we should use initial capitals, but when we are talking about a group of species, we should use lower case e.g. Ruby-throated Hummingbird, but hummingbirds. Try transposing to other fields of study if you're having difficulty with this e.g. the Ford Escort vs. cars, the King James Bible vs. bibles SP-KP 13:02, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Before the entire of WP:BIRD descends here, we know there is a clear reasoning to the naming of bird species with an upper case first letter. However, there is a general disagreement on the use of this across all animal species. It's not specifically about birds, or technical notation, but making a usable encyclopaedia for everyone. Owain.davies 14:08, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I concur most strongly with the anti-capitalisation folks. With all due respect to the bird folks, they just have this wrong, I think. Over on one of those pages, during a previous incarnation of this discussion, I quoted a search I did on Google that revealed literally dozens of bird articles that went against the WP:BIRD direction. (The response I received at that time was that those articles were not field guides and may not have been written by ornithologists but WP also is not a field guide nor is it destined to be read exclusively by ornithologists.) Additionally, no other encyclopedia (and I consulted six of them including Britannica online) uses the methods of WP:BIRD. None of the various external style manuals I consulted support the capitalisation of species names. Now, the liberal in me would want to say that the bird folks should have a right to do as they please but I also find the argument in favour of consistency across faunal divisions to be persuasive. Some of the contributors, above, have said that projects other than WP:BIRD have opted for capitalisation. Well, I'd like someone to compile a list of which ones do and which do not. I know there are a vocal group of people in WP:MAMMALS who are attempting to enforce capitalisation but there is no consensus to do that. WP:FISH has officially come out against caps. Now, someone is sure to trot out at least a dozen times how we need to be able to tell the difference between a Grey Jay and a jay that happens to be grey. What strikes me as interesting is that no other publication in the popular press seems to have this trouble. Readers of the London Times and of the Encyclopedia Britannica and the grade 9 science students using my son's textbook -- all of these appear to have some sort of superhuman ability to discern the difference between a Grey Jay and a grey jay without being hit over the head with initial capitals. I agree that this discussion needs to be settled once and for all. If we're voting, I vote strongly that WP:MOS come out in favour of sentence (lower) case. The simple fact that we're having this discussion over and over and over again proves, to me, that the caps thing makes no sense because the pro-caps people need to convince every new cohort of editors who come along that initial caps is correct. If initial caps makes so much sense, wouldn't new (or even not-so-new) editors simply use it without having to be "corrected" and convinced year after year after year? As a professional biologist (but not an ornithologist) and as a published writer, I've read thousands of papers and articles and I've also written for the primary, secondary and tertiary literature and I can say that nowhere, other than here, have I encountered this discussion. I'd really like to know if anyone here, other than a birder, came to the project with an initial caps preconception and did not need to be swayed into the initial caps camp? Finally, in a somewhat tangential vein, I think it's also important to note that reading comprehension studies have shown that capitals used in unusual places slow the reading process and damage reading comprehension. "The Dog is the natural antagonist of the Cat. Dogs and Cats seldom sleep together except when a Horse, a Grey Jay or a Blue Shark is nearby." Let me ask you, seriously, if you re-write those sentences without the initial caps, what meaning is lost? Why are we adopting what is clearly a stilted writing style that damages reading comprehension if there is no value contributed by our style. Style is meant to be unobtrusive. The simple fact that people come here again and again and again to argue this point suggests to me that the initial caps style is anything but unobtrusive to most readers... — Dave (Talk | contribs) 16:04, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Another birder and author of bird articles here. My impression of the conventional usage (I think I'm the person whose response Dave mentions above) is that journalistic writing and literary writing don't capitalize official common names; ornithology, field guides, and serious birding writing capitalize. (By serious birding I mean not "You might get Carolina chickadees at your feeder" but "Carolina Chickadees have gray edges on their secondaries".) The current policy at WP:BIRD follows this: capitalize in bird articles but don't expect articles on other topics to do so.

Dave, you have not encountered this discussion elsewhere, but I think that in ornithology there's nothing to discuss; just about everybody capitalizes. I once sent a letter to Birding magazine arguing that there's no grammatical reason to capitalize species names (sorry, SP-KP) and we do it only for clarity, but I don't recall much disagreement on capitalization itself. If my own searches are any guide, finding dozens of ornithology articles that don't capitalize would have required looking through hundreds or thousands that do. See for example the SORA archive, which is American. (I know of no difference between American and British usage here; both capitalize.)

You don't see the advantage in clarity, but I've been brought up short by the ambiguity of such phrases as "American goldfinches" and "desert larks". Of course I figure out quickly which possibility was meant without using my, ahem, superhuman powers, but I see no reason to "throw" the reader even for that moment. I imagine you agree that giving readers pause is undesirable even if you disagree that uncapitalized common names will do it often.

You suggest that the number of people who question this convention shows that new editors are constantly encountering it for the first time and disliking it. It shows up maybe once every two or three months at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Birds, I'd say. If we didn't capitalize, I can't tell you how many people would say, "Why don't you capitalize Helmeted Hornbill? That's how it is in all my books." But I'll bet it would be at least comparable to the number who question the present convention. In light of this and the previous paragraph, I'd say capitals not used in expected places also damage comprehension, so either way will be obtrusive and annoying to some readers.

I see no particular reason for a fauna-wide standard. I recognize the problem with "Stoat", "Donkey", "Lion", and a few others, but the mammal people can decide how to deal with that (keeping in mind the problem with "black bears of various colors"). I'd like to add some facts, though, that Neale Monks brought up in a recent discussion: "I took a look through some journals. Some, like Journal of Zoology, explicitly forbid capitals of common names completely. Others, like Copeia, insist on them where *recognised* common names exist. The split seems (at my first pass) to be between the US and everyone else, with the US journals favouring capitalised common names. Interestingly, and for no reason I can explain, the leading tropical fish magazine in the US forbids capital letters for common names while the leading magazine in the UK prefers them! So maybe it isn't so simple." (That's here.)

Your best point, in my opinion, is that other encyclopedias don't capitalize. But I think Wikipedia articles on birds have a lot in common with what you find in field guides and monographs (indeed, some may be too technical), so I think the style should be the same for the same reason. —JerryFriedman 00:29, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

• First off I wish to apologise since I guess my earlier post was rude. I was really sick last night when I typed it, but that is no excuse. I was also really angry - there seemed to be a lot of barbs intented for tree of life participants, allusions to renegade grammar-ignoring renegades, entrenched capitalizers, a couple of very opinionated people with no justification (!) other than "that's how we serious people do it". But I shouldn't have bitten. Anyway.

To address some points - the use of caps for common names of species is not yet universal. No one is claiming it is. But it is strongly moving that way. Most of the world's ornithological scoieties do this (The AOU, BOU, etc) and a good chunk of the avian biology journals and handbooks (like Hanzab of Birds of North America) as well as BirdLife International. When WP:BIRD started we used Handbook of the Birds of the World as the taxonomy and source of standardised common names. HBW is recognised as one of the largest ornithological literature projects of the last 50 years. Since then we have moved a bit from those roots but only with good reason, and mostly in the region of taxonomic advances and to pander to some regional variation (some New Zealand bird articles use the New Zealand names, derived from Maori, rathar than the standard name (Kereru instead of New Zealand Pigeon for example.) There has been some suggestion that we move towards BIRDS OF THE WORLD Recommended English Names" By Frank Gill And Minturn Wright, published in 2006 [5]; which is the result of 16 years of work undertaken for the International Ornithological Congress to create standardised common names. This makes it pretty much the offical bird name standard (it is being adoped as such. On the subject of capitalisation they say... An important rule adopted at the outset was that the words of an official birds name begin with capital letters. While this is contrary to the general rules of spelling for mammals, birds, insects, fish, and other life forms (i.e., use lowercase letters), the committee believed the initial capital to be preferable for the name of a bird species in an ornithological context, for two reasons.

• • It has been the customary spelling in bird books for some years;
  • Because it distinguishes a taxonomic species from a general description of a bird. Several species of sparrows could be described as "white-throated sparrows," but a "White-throated Sparrow" is a particular taxonomic species.

From my perspective, the strongest argument for capitalizing the English names of birds is that we now have a single, unique name (see below) for each of the biological entities that we call bird species. These names must be regarded as proper nouns (thus receive capitals in all English publications), rather than as common nouns (vernacular names). **World bird name rules

The article goes on to offer further justification for the move. A parallel that might be worth considering is the capitalisation of family names; (Rallidae, Hydrobatidae etc), orders (Procellariformes) etc. Sabine's Sunbird talk 02:50, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a democracy - how true. I find it bizarre that a handful of people wish to overturn the agreed convention for capitalising bird species. The list of more than 70 contributors to the bird project, who presumably all accept the agreed convention, greatly outnumbers those who want to lower-case everything in sight. So does that make the "vote" 70 against 8 for capitalising? As a long term contributor, I've lost count of how many times this topic arises, usually by people who don't actually write animal articles. Jimfbleak 06:39, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps the way forward here is to stick to a (relatively) rigid lower case rule for all animals with the exception of birds in specialist ornithological articles. This would fulfil the criteria of both arguments. For instance, to rehash a much used example, in a general article, it would be "the national park contains many bald eagles", however in the article for the creature in question "The Bald Eagle lives in many national parks".

Mammalia, Reptilia etc. would all be run as lower case - "the lion primarily eats zebra and wildebeest". The use of proper names in the species name would have a capital so "the Bengal tiger is primarily found in the jungle"

In the limited number of cases where there may be doubt in the readers mind, the use of italics may prove a more fruitful and less contentious stylistic method (and some books do use this). For instance "the black bear eats mostly berries" could be used to distinguish that you are talking about the species rather than the much cited 'bear who is black'

Any comments on this? It seems to follow the general feeling i have from this thread. Owain.davies 08:13, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

OK, it's pretty clear to me that the WP:BIRDers aren't going to move from caps and, as I've said elsewhere, even though, personally, I think it's wrong, especially given that no other encyclopedia I could find does it, I really don't have a fundamental objection to the members of a project deciding how they want to do things. What truly disturbs me is when people use the consensus that appears to have been achieved at WP:BIRD in a viral way, i.e. to try to enforce caps in other articles and in other projects. I can't begin to tell you the number of times I've seen someone change an article about bears, say, to all caps and then, when questioned as to why they've done this, the editor quotes WP:BIRD. Comments such as these are typical: "WP:BIRD has set the precedent." or "The logic at WP:BIRD is persuasive." or "I edit primarily bird articles and that's the way we do it." I agree that if the MOS could be worded to indicate that caps are deemed appropriate in the bird species entries and all others use the normal, sentence case, I'd have no difficulty with that, especially if it's worded so as to obviate the viral application of the WP:BIRD decision. I think it's important to note, however, that consensus is an organic thing. I'd caution people against using the apparent consensus that was reached at some point in the past to stifle legitimate discussion. "We agreed to do it that way (at some point in the past.)" is, in my estimation, not an appropriate response to a person's query as to "why" we do it this way. — Dave (Talk | contribs) 13:44, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

• To add my twopence worth: I'm strongly on the lower-case side here. Let's leave typwriter-based highlighting behind and make our text smooth to read. It's irritating to see the caps again and again through an article on animals. The grey hawke—well, just reword if it's ambiguous with a species of that name. Tony 00:51, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Owain, I agree with you.

Dave, on July 20 I changed WP:BIRD to say that the capitalization convention doesn't necessarily apply to other fauna articles. (This was in response to a request from Neale Monks, the discussion of which included the information I quoted above.) Nobody has changed it back. I hope this helps with the problem you mentioned. By the way, your three "typical comments" strike me as quite different: "set the precedent" is irrelevant, "the logic is persuasive" is an attempt to argue the question on its own merits, and "I edit primarily bird articles" means the person needs to be aware of the different standards for the different project.

Speaking of that, in addition to the unprovoked personal insults in this thread mentioned by Sabine's Sunbird, I noticed two Red Herrings. Typewriters have nothing to do with it—to judge by A Exhiliration of Wings: The Literature of Birdwatching, edited by Jen Hill, some writers (a minority) were capitalizing bird names before typewriters were commercially available. And German has nothing to do with it—Bird Writers show no Tendency to capitalize other Nouns. —JerryFriedman 15:07, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Is that what was meant by Germafication? I thought it was a reference to the tendency of some birding lists to eliminate spaces between words, to have Bluebreasted Larks and Greenwinged Buntings. I remember when they introduced it in South African offical lists; talk about howls of derisive protest. But I wasn't sure why it would be mentioned here, it isn't like we use such a system here (thank God). As for Owain.davies compromise, well, it's pretty much what happens anyway, we don't inisist of caps on articles about poetry cause it would look daft out of context. Perhaps some flexibility in scientific articles not specifically birdy though.... And we really need to get more people from WP:MAMMAL here since this is going to affect them the most - the fishes are already uncaped but the mammals universally are and this would reverese thousands of articles. Sabine's Sunbird talk 20:06, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Ummm, no. The mammals are not universally capped. Far from it. It's true that there are a few editors who have begun systematically going through the mammal articles in an effort to cap them all but that's not the same thing as saying that they are universally capped. When I asked one of them why he was doing it, he made appeal to WP:BIRD. After some discussion, it turned out that it was solely his personal preference and he could cite not one single, solitary document that supported those changes. I have asked more than one editor on more than one occasion to point me to something, anything, that supports capping those mammal articles and, other than reference to WP:BIRD, not a single guideline or policy or directive has been provided. In addition, some of those editors say that there is "emerging consensus" or something similar, to do it. I've been up and down most of the (recent) discussions about capping mammal articles, however, and the best I could say is that there is no consensus one way or the other (which, BTW, is precisely what the MOS currently says.) See, this is what I was referring to in my previous post. Those who are busily capping articles are using WP:BIRD as a justification. The wording in WP:BIRD that the capping provision "does not necessarily apply to" other faunal articles, although a welcome change is, in my view, not worded strongly enough and I also think that the MOS should tackle this more aggressively than it does. Essentially, the MOS says that there is no consensus and that projects can decide. Which is fair enough. But, surely, projects where consensus has not been reached or where the proposal for all caps has failed to be supported again and again, as in WP:MAMMAL, should default to something. Right now, the trouble is there's no default so we end up with reversions ad infinitum and endless discussions with the same people posting the same arguments over and over and over again. Of course, my biases are apparent. I maintain that WP is not meant to be a set of specialist articles to be read by zoologists. WP, along with being the encyclopedia that anyone can edit, should be the encyclopedia that anyone can read. Have you ever thought that there may be a reason why the New York Times and the Toronto Star and the Encyclopedia Britannica do not use initial-caps? I think it's because they're written in standard English (whatever that might be) as opposed to "specialist" English. I also don't think it's because they're not doing "serious" writing about birds or other creatures. I postulate that they write for their target audience and that that audience is the average citizen who reads, at best, at a grade 10 level. I also postulate that WP's target audience is the very same: the average reader who wants to know what a moose is and where does it live and how big does one get. Now, that's not to say that we should dumb down our articles. Just that they should be easily accessible to more than just specialists and keen amateurs. In my opinion, other encyclopedias and articles in the popular press should be the standards against which we measure our style, not zoological journals and not specialised technical guides and documents. If someone wants to change from that, it should be their responsibility to build consensus to do that as, it is suggested, has been done on WP:BIRD. Anyway, that's enough long-winded crap from me. I'm sure you're all tired of me by now... Cheers! — Dave (Talk | contribs) 21:21, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Apart from the observation that WP is not Brittanica, I can assure you that we in TOL do not write specialist zooological literature, but we do try and write better quality general science writing. Do you know how often I see binomials written incorrectly even in such noted sources as the Times of London or the BBC? That they don't do something, or do something, is not of itself justification for us to do it or not do it alone. As for mammals, a quick random trawl through our mammals shows that most of our articles have caps - my point was that since we mostly do it we need further discussion with them (not that mammal articles elsewhere universally do). Believe me a lot of the hostility generated earlier was heavy handed the "we're going to change the rules and bring these rebels into line whether they like it or not" tone of the statements. People don't like what they see as unreasonable conformity being pushed upon their work. If the desiscion is made every single effort should be made to involve the mammal writing authors (and reptile and butterfly authors) lest you find yourself facing a great deal of hostility. Sabine's Sunbird talk 22:14, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

(As posted on the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mammals last April--links may no longer reflect the issues addressed in the commentary. While I realize this discussion concern the capitalization of common names, I personally believe articles should be moved from common names to scientific names. Some articles, such as bear or horse seem better left alone, but when there are dozens of species of "spiny rat" and the spiny rat article doesn't include mention of the ones outside the genera to which it refers, pages based on phylogenic groupings seem superior. Use common names for disambiguation articles where the use of the common names have caused the ambiguity. I'm willing to run around and change article locations, providing (and adding) redirects as I go. Notes have been added to where naming schemes have changed.)
Standardization of Species Listings

There are a multitude of ways in which genus trees are listed. Some place the scientific names first (makes searching and reading much easier), some place the vernacular names first (helps elementary kids with school projects read lists), some even flip a few here-and-there. Some seperate names with a dash, some simply place them side-by-side. There are lists with subsets of data, then others that list all species in a row without regard. This is something that should be discussed and decided upon, keeping in mind that this is an encylopedic site instead of a book, that Wikipedia is used by experts as well as laiety, and that there isn't an index in the back.

Here are some examples of different lists:

Vernacular names first, subsets.
Hare (Lepus)
Sorex
Mustela <-- has since been changed, and looks much better, though a bit cluttered. >

Vernacular names first, no subsets.
Microtus
Necromys <-- has since been changed places scientific names first, but in a really poor way >
Tamias
Monodelphis(double linkage)

Scientific names first, subsets, no vernacular names.
Peromyscus <-- what I'd like to see, with added common names >

Scientific names first, no subsets (two versions).
Spermophilus <-- goofy, some common links, some scientific links >
Perognathus <--another example of what I'd like to see >
Myotis (vernacular names linked) <--what I hate seeing >

Etc., etc. With lesser-known mammals such as some of the obscure rodents, vernacular names don't make much sense--there are three names for a type of shrew in my state (SD) yet only one scientific name (obviously). As you can see, some of these are a little confusing.
Thanks. TeamZissou 20:09, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

TeamZissou 23:05, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

• I completely agree with SMcCandlish and his argument. We should not be capitalizing common names. The only exception, in my opinion, should be when they contain geographical references: e.g. "European sparrow" would be correct. But, IMO, that should be obvious. --Jwinius 00:08, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

• Completely agree as well with SMcCandlish, for non-bird articles. As for the bird articles, I'd leave it to the WP:BIRD people. I am most familiar with cetaceans. I go along with the current convention to capitalize because I haven't wanted to spend energy arguing over it, but I have to say it makes me feel ridiculous because I can think of no source outside of Wikipedia which capitalizes the English names of cetacean species. I understand that people may wonder if "red-winged blackbird" means the red-winged blackbird or just a blackbird which happens to have red wings, but the confusion simply does not arise for blue whales. On the few occasions when I've discussed Wikipedia with a cetacean expert I feel inclined to say, "sorry about the weird caps" and mumble something about birds. One place where capitalization is completely broken is our Orca article, where we capitalize the species name but I haven't been able to get consensus (granted, I haven't tried very hard) to capitalize the names of the resident and transient subtypes within the species. If we don't capitalize subtype names, we certainly shouldn't be capitalizing species names. Kla’quot (talk | contribs) 04:42, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

• Summary, and request to wrap this up: As Owain.davies notes, there seems to a barely short-of-unanimous consensus to go with lower-casing. There is no contest (as Jwinius leads us to consider) that actual proper names embedded in common names for plants or animals are capitalized ("European swallow", not "european swallow"); that's a non-issue. TeamZissou points out that articles would be better truly "living" at the scientific name (a view that others have agreed and disagreed with in the past; this appears to be a completely different issue, deserving of its own debate). Clayoquot notes that the handling even among "capitalization boosters" is inconsistent (while I can observe that the usage among anti-capitalizers is not inconsistent in any way; I leave it to others to verify this for themselves). Clayoquot also suggests that for birds we "leave it to the WP:BIRD people", but I assert that this clearly isn't workable - WP:MOS must be consistent and not make random exceptions for WikiProjects that happen to be more vocal than others. Sabine's Sunbird took umbrage at the tone of the "quash the rebels" joke (and someone made a similar comment over at WP:MOSNUM), apparently without realizing the tone was meant in a very tongue-in-cheek manner and was over-the-top to emphasize that it was joking (I'm the culprit; it really was meant as a joke. Anyone with the gumption to edit in WP:MOS or related pages is surely already familiar with WP:AGF and related concepts, and would not really be coming here to label people as sinister monsters!) Anyway... Fluri reports that a major, even activistic, proponent of the capitalization can't produce anything authoritative in support of this practice. Jimfbleak appears to suggest (I'm certainly willing to stand corrected if I'm misinterpreting) that because a well-populated bird project prefers the capitalization that a WP-wide MOS discussion is out-voted (I call this suspect reasoning because a project may come to internal consensus early on with, say, 3 members, and that mini-consensus simply be accepted by later joiners; meanwhile this discussion right now is far more representative of WP-wide views, precisely because it is not so homogenous.) If I recall correctly, Owain, Tony1 and others note that the problem of "x-something y" ("red-crested fieldhopper", etc.) being ambiguous (is it a common name for a species, or description of traits of an individual specimen?) can be solved by more careful article wording. JerryFriedman theorizes that pro-capitalization complaints will ensue in at least as large numbers as anti-capitalization complaints now ensue. I think that captures all of the high points.

On reading all of this, and remaining quite uncharacteristically silent (If you know me as a meta-Wikipedian at all) on a matter I actually feel very strongly about, I really have to affirmatively propose that WP:MOS and any relevant subpage thereof, and any relevant project or topical page, like WP:BIRD quasi-guidelines, be updated to call for lower-casing. There simply isn't any authoritative source for capitalizing such terms as Grey Wolf and Blue Jay [sic], and an overwhelming flood of anti-capitalization sources. Virtually every paper dictionary, encyclopedia, magazine article, etc., etc., goes with lower case. The only hold-outs appear to be certain (and not all) mass-market field guide books. The strongest pro-upper-case argument appears to be a weak one for disambiguation, while the arguments against this are piling up. The theory that pro-upper-casing complaints will arise and will not be assuageable has yet to be tested. Let's test it. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 08:01, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

No, not agreed to. This is attempting to railroad the issue. Take this up on WikiProject Tree of Life where the affected people can be found and inform all stakeholders so that the debate is balanced and without rancour. And on a personal note, please be polite and not label others as biologists or Germans or renegades. AshLin 08:28, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

WP:MOS trumps WP:TREE and all other WikiProjects, by definition. If WikiProject Tree of Life people want to shape MOS, then come on down, but what the MOS says will not be determined at a WPP talk page. My feeling is, of this moment, that the ToL people who actually care about this at all have already given us their input. Despite your railroading accusation, I'm quite happy to keep this open another week if that's what it takes to get further input from someone there who may have missed it. I'm not trying to push my views (see my contribs today; I just WP:SFD'd myself, having changed my mind on something I once felt strongly about). Rather, this debate has stalled, as in {{Stale}} stalled, and a review of the comments here actually shows a clear course of action to my mind. If you contend that crucial voices have not been heard, then by all means invite them to speak up. A consensus formed that is missing the most relevant voices would not be a valid consensus. Again, I'm skeptical that these voices have not already spoken, but I am sometimes surprised and usually enjoy the experience. PS: I didn't realize that "biologist" was an epithet. Since when? If you are implying that anyone but the biology sector, in fact the narrow "birder" quadrant of the biology sector, favors common name capitalization, I don't see any reliable evidence of this, and much to refute it. Also, I did not call anyone a German (nor do I have any problem with Germans); I referred to the Germanization of English nouns – capitalization of nouns simply because they are nouns, a practice common in German and some other Germanic languages, including Middle English, but abandoned by Modern English in the early 19th century (thus "We hold these Truths..." vs. "Four-score and seven years" not "Years"). With regard to "renegades", I thought it was a perfectly appropriate term. "Rebel" implies a losing cause, and "revolutionary" implies a winning one, while "renegade" at least to me implies neither viewpoint. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 09:06, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Indeed you didn't call anyone a German, but "Germanization" is still a red herring. No one here is recommending "capitalization of nouns just because they are nouns".

The primary meaning of "renegade" is "turncoat, deserter". In America (AHD) but not Britain (NSOED), it can also mean "outlaw, rebel". You shouldn't be surprised if people perceive it as insulting because they don't know the American meaning or because they know the connotations from the original meaning and frequent usage (the latter, in my case as an American). To return to the point of the discussion, the term is inappropriate because the people arguing with you aren't defying any "law" or rebelling. We've been following guidelines arrived at by the established process, after debate (or so I gather—I wasn't involved), and we're asking for the guidelines to remain unchanged. —JerryFriedman 15:35, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks to KP Botany for letting WP:PLANTS know about this discussion. It looks like you're ready to wrap it up but I hadn't heard about it until yesterday (5 August). Having been involved in these discussions before from a botanical point of view, I thought I'd drop my thoughts here as well. Unlike KP Botany, this botanist is not also a birder, so I am unable to have my opinion informed by that experience. My perception of capitalization of common names in botany has led me to conclude there is no conclusion. One third of my field guides use capitalized names, another third use lowercase names, and the remainder use SMALL CAPS. (But Wikipedia is not a field guide). The majority of the taxonomic literature I read doesn't use capitalized names, but the literature I read is a very small subset of botanical literature. My personal style preference is to follow The Chicago Manual of Style and thus I would prefer to see coast Douglas-fir, red alder, and Sitka spruce. To respond briefly to the point that perhaps "red alder" could refer to any alder that appears to be red, I feel that using lowercase common names in Wikipedia will have an advantage over print media in this respect. At the first mention of the specific species red alder, the link to its correct article will bind the name together and reduce confusion over whether the editors of the article meant any alder that's red or the red alder. Print media doesn't have the luxury of the altered font color and sometimes underlined text for links. At the risk of exposing myself to the ire of WP:BIRDers, I would have to support lowercase capitalization, though I recognize the special case of some areas of study. We do have to remember, however, that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a field guide. I'll leave us with a note from WP:CAPS (which I realize is part of a naming convention and not the MOS):

Because credibility is a primary objective in the creation of any reference work, and because Wikipedia strives to become a leading (if not the leading) reference work in its genre, formality and an adherence to conventions widely used in the genre are critically important to credibility. See these recommended reference works for capitalization conventions: The Chicago Manual of Style, Fowler's Modern English Usage (Third edition).

Cheers, --Rkitko ^(talk) 13:15, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Since there seems to be a desire for a default MOS position, rather than letting projects chose (or accept both) can I suggest that the default standard spelling for fauna and flora articles should be British English for those species not endemic to the USA/Canada? After all, the majority of English-speaking countries use British English or very similar versions, and it seems illogical to dictate capitalisation (against the wishes of many users) and not dictate a spelling convention too. Jimfbleak 14:53, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Common Names section break part II

1. First of all, people who are not biologists or taxonomists need to understand the difference between birds and other faunal species. Ornithologists have standardizes common names of birds so that they are, within their regions, the equivalent of using scientific names: one name describes one and only one bird. This is not the situation with other faunal species, so lumping them altogether would not make Wikipedia easier to use, but rather make it an outsider and difficult for birders to use to acquire information, even with redirects. In addtion, because of this standardization, even in technical articles, a bird's scientific name might not be used.
2. Second of all, the press does not everywhere italicize binomials, so pointing to what newspapers do is not the way to resolve this.
3. Third, the animal articles where grey wolf, and, even the bird articles where Bald Eagle are capitalized look dreadful. But I can handle Bald Eagle, because that is what it is called in all my birding books.
4. Fourth, the Brittish do prefer the capitalization of common names. Common names differ from region to region, and in some countries common names are, themselves, standardizes. This is difficult to do with English common names for cosmopolitan species, in particular.
5. Fifth, wholesale dictating to projects what they should do without some understanding of the underlying issues, such as the difference between administrative bodies to standardize names of birds and simply using the local vernacular for many other regionally and locally distributed animals, is hardly conducive to maintaining the very limited number of editors Wikipedia has doing hard work on species articles and taxonomy right now. Maybe toning it down a bit, and bringing the problem up with the projects in respect of the work done on articles by these members, might be more conducive to having an encyclopedia still being written with any names. It's a lot of work researching and writing articles on flora and fauna with the immense changes taking place due to the increased power of molecular genetics (PCR and powerful computers means data beyond assimilation) in the biological sciences today, please don't try to ram anything down the throats of the editors doing this hard work.

KP Botany 00:51, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

No one cares what ornithologists do in their own field-specific publications. This is not Ornithopedia. Ornithology does not get a special pass from style guidelines that apply to everything else just because its journals have developed their own special, internal styles that no one else in the world uses. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 08:04, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

PS: By the way, this time I'm not joking. This "we bird specialists birders get to write Wikipedia in our own precious, special little way, and to hell with real-world, laypeople readers' expectations of consistency" attitude is really getting my goat. Oh, sorry, I mean my Goat. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 08:07, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

PPS: Furthermore, your point 2 was never at issue. Point 3 is the whole issue; if you are arguing for some kind of exception, you are not making your case in a parseable manner. Point 4 has no cited support (it's very easy to claim "this is just a US imperialism vs. beat up UK English PoV pushing example" but there's no proof of that on the table.) Point 5, this WikiProject superiority thing, just doens't cut it. WPPs don't get special dispensation to depart for left field just because they assert that they are right or special. If my tone seems like it needs to go down a notch, it is because this apparent WikiProject arrogance is so darned frustrating (and I say that as the founder of two active WikiProjects; I know how to approach that line and back well away from it). — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 08:16, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, Wikipedia is not a place where every person has to conform just because xx or yy said so. The Manual of Style gives room for variance.

In June 2005, the Arbitration Committee ruled that, when either of two styles is acceptable, it is inappropriate for an editor to change an article from one style to another unless there is a substantial reason to do so (for example, it is acceptable to change from American to British spelling if the article concerns a British topic, and vice versa). Edit warring over optional styles is unacceptable. If an article has been stable in a given style, it should not be converted without a style-independent reason. Where in doubt, defer to the style used by the first major contributor.

If animal names are consistently capitalised or not capitalised in a Wikipedia project, there still is a level of consistency applied. Capitalising or not capitalising is a choice of style. It is hence acceptable to choose one or the other, especially when the matter is already decided and MOS has permitted it vide the naming convention guideline. The MOS itself says its a guideline, and so it should be. It is not a fatwa of the kind you would like imposed on all of us. For you to run roughshod over established usage is just that. The MOS gave the leeway, you want to take it away basically on the ground that others do things differently. Big-endian vs small-endian. As far as your opinion about WikiProject arrogance goes, thats your personal view. Wikipedia allowed WikiProjects to exist and lay down their own guidelines and in case of Lepidoptera and Birds, the MOS has given the leeway to them in capitalisation explicitly. As far as I am concerned I have got a freedom to capitalise in Wikipedia and you are attempting to take away my ability to do that by unilaterally changing it without my consent. Just by raking up an issue in MOS talk page doesnt mean that a whole bunch of reasoned, well-meaning people's work, labour and practices are not worth a rupee. If you want consensus, I would advise you to approach the issue with neutral tone rather than writing aggressively. And as long as MOS remains a guideline, IMHO we are free to exercise our legitimate right to edit as we desire as long as we are not vandalising, sock-puppetting, etc. AshLin 09:54, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Something tells me that even SMcCandlish is not under the illusion that the MoS can ever be used to force editors to do anything. After all, getting this group to agree on anything is like trying to herd cats. If you think that capitalizing common names in your articles is the right thing to do, then no one is going to stop you. Hey, I'm pretty sure that I ignore the MoS more often than you do! However, you have to admit that in the English language, these kind of nouns are usually not capitalized, so it's a bit strange for the MoS to advise editors to do the opposite. --Jwinius 12:19, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

That's not completely true, Jaap. I have a number of butterfly books and they all tend to capitalise. The trouble is almost all the names of butterflies and moths are taken from something else. Uncapitalised they stand for anything else. monarch means one thing, Monarch another. Painted Lady means one thing, painted lady another. It is not the case with animals - they mostly have unique names so do snakes - butterflies are filled with names which unless capitalised are other things. They borrow from everywhere - heraldry, professions, animals, colours etc. Except for some Hawaiin (Kamewehaha or something like that) or ancestral Australian names such as Bogong moth, almost all lepidoptera names belong to the common language. If you say zebra, do you mean the mammal or the butterfly? Same with Common Crow - Corvus spp or Euploea core? Here ;-) even capitalisation doesnt help - both Birds & butterflies are capitalised. AshLin 12:37, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, and I have some popular snake books that also do that: Mehrtens (1987), for example, which I often cite as a reference. I think it's a mechanism that authors like to use to get names to stand out a little more in the text. However, I don't think it's correct to take these examples and then extrapolate so far as to say that they represent a trend or a rule in the English language in general. In German it's a rule, in English it's a literary freedom. --Jwinius 13:17, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

To respond to SMcCandlish above: I do care what ornithologists do.

By now you've seen plenty of evidence that it's not just ornithology and birding where common names are capitalized, though it's not the majority of biology by any stretch.

There are a few real bird specialists here capitalizing bird names (not just birders—though I'm just a birder).

No one is asking to write Wikipedia in our own "precious, special little way"—just those parts where that way is appropriate.

No one is saying WikiProjects overrule the MoS. We're saying the MoS should continue to give some flexibility in matters of style where different conventions are used. To me, this is precisely analogous to saying that articles about the Indian subcontinent can or should be written in subcontinental English.

As for arrogance, check this out, from Common name:

Botanists sometimes maintain official common names for plants, although this will vary greatly. Informally, botanists generally do not capitalize any common names; this can be seen as a sign of "professionalism" since the uninitiated may have difficulty in interpreting names such as "the hairy brome" for localities where the Hairy Brome (Bromus ramosus) is not the only member of the genus.

If this is true, it looks to me like not capitalizing is preferring professional pride to clarity for amateurs' benefit. —JerryFriedman 16:08, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

In some ways, I think this discussion is getting off "in the weeds" and I'd like to change the focus from "I have a right to do this." and "You have no right to do that." to a more fundamental analysis. As a writer, the very first thing that one does when composing any text is ask himself "What is the target audience for this work?" A writer tries his hardest to answer that question with the utmost clarity and then tries to keep the answer, whatever it turns out to be, emblazoned in big letters above his desk as he writes. When a question of style presents itself, a writer pulls out that answer and tries to arrive at a solution that is informed by that answer. In my opinion, the very first thing we need to do to resolve this style question is to decide upon what our target audience is. If our target audience is the people who read bird field guides we will, in all likelihood, reach a different conclusion than if our target audience is a group of young children. That doesn't make one or the other of those solutions inherently right or wrong in and of itself; it simply means that one choice is better than another for a given situation (for a given audience.) In much the same way as my language would, perforce, be different when delivering a paper to a group of ichthyologists than it would be when speaking to a class of grade six students. My suggestion would be that we reach consensus on what Wikipedia's target audience is because I posit that style disputes will yield more readily to resolution once we've answered that fundamental question. — Dave (Talk | contribs) 14:41, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I haven't seen any Wikipedia articles that appear to be written for children (though I've seen some that appear to have been written by children). Beyond that, I think it would be quite hard to characterize a target audience for all the articles. However, I'd say most of our articles about taxa are going to be of interest to people who read… you know this is coming… field guides and other specialized works. Notable exceptions are taxa that make the news—snail darter, Ivory-billed Woodpecker—those frequently mentioned in literature, and things like national symbols. —JerryFriedman 15:45, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Dave, although I understand where you're coming from, somehow I don't think that the issue at hand is going to be resolved by asking everyone to first agree on how to answer such a "deep philosophical question." This discussion is simply about whether the MOS should advise editors to capitalize common names or not. --Jwinius 15:58, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough but, at the risk of belabouring this, my point is that the reason we can't agree on "whether the MOS should advise editors to capitalize common names or not" is precisely because we can't agree on what you call the philosophical question of what our target audience is. What we're doing is like arguing with a car salesman about the price of a pick-up truck when we're really trying to buy a Vespa scooter. As I said earlier, I maintain that our target audience is the average netizen who reads at about a grade 10 level or less. At least that's the impression I get from the talk pages and from the casual, drive-by, anon IP contributions to the articles on my watchlist. Very seldom does someone come by the Atlantic salmon article, for example, to ask about the species' place in the detailed phylogeny of the Salmoniformes or about the relative 'r-K' selectedness of the fish. Now, I'm not suggesting for a moment that those things need be excluded from the article but that, if we include them, they should be written in a style that a grade 10 student would understand. This is the sort of analysis I'm encouraging. Finally, let me also state what is, perhaps, obvious. If we write articles in a style appropriate for specialists and keen amateurs, well, specialists and keen amateurs are the only ones likely to wade through them and read them. So, in a very real sense, a writer selects his audience. That's why I maintain that our inability to agree on our audience is the root cause of our disagreement on style and that we're, in my view, unlikely to solve the one, once and for all, without first agreeing on the other. — Dave (Talk | contribs) 20:48, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I removed the text from Common names on botanists, at least until a citation is forthcoming--one that states which botanists have standardized what common names. This may be the case in some places, but in general professional botanists use a huge number of scientific names for plants and try to include common names when interacting with the lay public, when common names are available. However, there is a larger number of familiar plants without standardized common names, and more familiar plants with multiple common names, than familiar animals, so the situation is a bit different with botany and plant names. In US federal government documents for environmental impacts, where common names are often required, the commen names wind up being the specific epithet plus the genus, for example, Gerbera burmanni becomes Bruman's gerber daisy.

I can't really think of any responses for the rant against birders writing bird aritcles and people interested in a specific area writing articles about what they know. KP Botany 17:13, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm still having difficulty understanding why this debate is taking place, as surely bird species names (any species names for that matter) are proper nouns. While there are many geese, there is only one Pink-footed Goose, hence it is a proper noun, surely? Can someone explain where my thought processes are going wrong? SP-KP 18:02, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

That may be true for some bird names officially sanctioned by the AOU, but otherwise common names everywhere are rarely unambiguous. Anyway, here's a completely different point of view. I happen to be in contact with a professional herpetologist who once wrote a book on venomous snakes. In that book, he also capitalized the common names. When I asked him why, he replied "Guess it makes it easier working from the index." --Jwinius 18:26, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Jwinius, was that intended as a reply to my question or to something else? It doesn't seem to address the point I'm raising, which is that (a) under the rules of grammar, proper nouns are capitalised (b) proper nouns are (generally) things which exist singularly (c) except in those cases where a species name has been applied to more than one species (e.g. Fan-tailed Warbler) all bird species names are singular ("there is only one Pink-footed Goose"). Hence, bird species names should be capitalised. SP-KP 18:36, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you could argue that, as opposed to "fan-tailed warbler", which refers to two different entities -- species -- "Pink-footed Goose" refers to a single species and therefore deserves to be capitalized. My point is that, overwhelmingly, common names are not regulated and are too often ambiguous. So, according to your own reasoning, always capitalizing common names will too often yield incorrect results. --Jwinius 21:32, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

But human personal names aren't regulated either, and we still write "John Smith" rather than john smith, even though that name is far more ambiguous than any bird name. Hence my use of the term 'generally' above. I'm not sure I understand the relevance of your point about returning ambiguous results, though - this will be the case for an ambiguous name whether it is capitalised or not, won't it? SP-KP 21:37, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

The rule doesn't really apply to names for people: those are capitalized by convention regardless. No such thing exists for the names at issue. What I meant to say was that, if you take a random series of common names, it is highly likely that a number of them will refer to multiple species. Therefore, according to your rule, it will usually not be correct to capitalize them all. Additionally, since there is no regulating body to vouch for the uniqueness for common names in general, you can never know for sure whether any of them are truly unique or not, by which measure you would not be allowed to capitalize any of them. --Jwinius 22:22, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

But Human Beings and Pink-footed Geese don't exist in the singular. The Pink-footed Goose my brother cooked for his Thanksgiving dinner probably existed in the singular, and his name was Barnaby. The Human Being, my brother is named Alexander, these are their proper nouns in English. I don't know that the rules of English apply to things like common names for species, because, again, we're not talking about one properly named singularity with a sommon name. KP Botany 18:58, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

KPBotany, your suggestion that the rules of English may not apply to species' common names is an interesting one; can you expand on your reasoning? Are there any other categories of thing to which these rules do not apply? I must admit, I had thought that these rules were pretty much universal - am I wrong?

On the point of whether species common names are singular, I'm not sure I understand your reasoning. I agree that if your brother cooked a goose which was a member of the species known as Pink-footed Goose, that when we refer to that goose, or bird, or meal, we don't treat those words as proper nouns, as they are classes of thing rather than singular things. However, there is only one species called Pink-footed Goose, so why is this not a proper noun? SP-KP 19:36, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, if he named the bird, and we refer to the bird by name, we capitalize the name. We capitalize proper nouns in English because this is a grammatical rule of written Standard English. The bird is a member of the species Pink-footed Goose, but that's NOT the bird's name. It's name was Barnaby, and this, under the rules of English grammar is always capitalized, just like my brother is a member of the species Homo sapiens, or human beings, but his name is Alexander, and that, just like Barnaby's name, is always capitalized under the rules of grammar for English.

If you think that I am incorrect, please come up with a grammar that shows that the names of species are capitalized in English. There isn't one.

There are no rules in Standard English about capitalizing the common names of organisms. If there were, we wouldn't be having this discussion. KP Botany 21:48, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure you've misunderstood what I'm saying. I agree with you that the individual bird's name, Barnaby, should be capitalised. But I'm not talking about the individual bird - I'm talking about the name of the species to which it belongs. Just as the individual bird has been named (Barnaby), the individual species has been named (Pink-footed Goose). I completely agree that, to quote you, "there are no rules in Standard English about capitalizing the common names of organisms". That's because, surely, there is no need for specific rules for this particular category of proper noun - the general rules for capitalising proper nouns apply. Or are you suggesting that the name given to a species is not a proper noun? If so, why is this the case, when names given to other categories of thing are considered to be proper nouns? As an example, we say Pancake Day, rather than pancake day, even though there are (going to be) an infinite number of such days. I'm sure you are correct in saying that I must be wrong - as you say, if it was this obvious, we wouldn't be discussing the subject - but I can't see the flaw in my reasoning. Can you have another try at pointing it out? SP-KP 22:07, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, we only say Pancake Day if we are writing about a specific Pancake Day, otherwise it's simply pancake days. And, if we're talking about a specific Pancake Day, we usually deliminate it with a spoken or unspoken qualifier, Moose Pancake Breakfast, Boy Scouts Pancake Breakfast. These, however, are titles, which take rules of capitalization for titles, depending upon the dialect of Standard English being used.

I can't give you these rules in English for capitalizing common names of species because they don't exist, because common names of species are not standardized by rules of English grammar. There are comments in style guides about it, though, and these are not strictly the same throughout English, my MLA, versus Harvard, versus other styles all differ a bit. The MLA doesn't comment on it at all.

Here are some web sites that I could find that list what are common nouns, note that the names of animals, such as Barnaby's in my example, are given as proper nouns that require capitilization, but names of species are not given as such:

• http://www.learnenglish.de/grammar/capitaltext.htm

Here's a web site from the Canadian government that synopsizes the rules I generally use, and note, that the proper names of birds are capitalized:

• http://www.for.gov.bc.ca/hfd/pubs/docs/mr/Mr041/SG-f0089.htm

Merriem Websters google books:

• http://books.google.com/books?id=7C6V9zRxSPkC&pg=PA132&lpg=PA132&dq=%22proper+nouns%22+capitalization+%22common+names+of+animals%22&source=web&ots=3jw8RB1wIa&sig=g5DWiRi3g5-lVX6Bwn3fJF1TTz0

Notice in this that the Canadian government very carefully distinguishes between a "proper" name for a bird, one given authoritative by a nomenclatural body, and the vernacular name for the bird. Here's one from another website:[6]

• 1. Do not capitalize common names of animals and plants unless the name contains a

proper noun. In this case, the proper noun is capitalized, but any element of the name following or preceding the proper noun is lowercase:

• EXAMPLE: The oldest seed ever found is the Arctic lupine, thought to be over

10,000 years old.

• EXAMPLE: The oldest inhabitants on Earth are the deep-sea snails, which have

not changed over the last 500 million years. Maybe the Canadian site helps in that a common name isn't necessarily a proper name, except that, in the casse of birds, it is a proper name. I hadn't thought of it like that, just that the birding names are given authority because they are standardized. KP Botany 22:25, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

There may be no "rules" that I'm aware of, but the style guide that I prefer to use has something to say: The Chicago Manual of Style, 15th Edition, addresses common names of plants and animals in 8.136. For the correct capitalization and spelling of common names of plants and animals, consult a dictionary or the authoritative guides to nomenclature, the ICBN and the ICZN, mentioned in 8.127. In any one work, a single source should be followed. In general, Chicago recommends capitalizing only proper nouns and adjectives, as in the following examples, which conform to Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary.Dutchman's-breeches, mayapple, jack-in-the-pulpit, rhesus monkey, Rocky Mountain sheep, Cooper's hawk. Perhaps this can inform the discussion? --Rkitko ^(talk) 22:23, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

It is worth noting that a single name can be both a Proper and improper noun, depending on its use in a sentence. The Dog is the common name describing a member of a single entity: the species Canis lupus. Unless I am talking about the species as a whole in the most formal of introductions, however, it would feel most absurd to capitalize the word "dog" at its every use. Likewise, I'd rather not talk about the Rhesus Monkey eating a Coconut while sitting in a Banyan Tree. Forcing capitalization on a set of nouns that serve both as names and as descriptions is absurd. --NoahElhardt 22:35, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

KP Botany, on the Pancake Day point, do you have the same notion of Pancake Day in your part of the world that we have here in Britain? We have a single day every calender year called Pancake Day, usually in February, I think. It's official title is Shrove Tuesday. Whichever title we use, if I am describing either a specific Pancake Day/Shrove Tuesday, or the Pancake Day/Shrove Tuesday concept, the accepted practice in Britain is to capitalise. I can't think when I would ever use lower case. The reason for this is that the day exists singularly, and its name is therefore a proper noun. This isn't because of any specific rule of grammar relating to names of days, it's because of a general rule of grammar relating to proper nouns. I'm still not sure at which step in our thinking we diverge - for example, unless I've missed it, you haven't said whether you think a name given to a species is a proper noun or not. Above, I made three statements (which I repeat here in slightly amended form):

(a) under the rules of grammar, proper nouns are always capitalised

(b) proper nouns are (generally) things which exist singularly

(c) except in those cases where a species name has been applied to more than one species (e.g. Fan-tailed Warbler) all bird species names are singular ("there is only one Pink-footed Goose").

To help me, can you tell me which of the three you agree with? Thanks SP-KP 22:47, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

(a) is true. (b) is true. (c) is true only for common names for bird species according to the AOU's taxonomy (assuming they are all unique). Otherwise, because they are often ambiguous and unregulated, common names should not be considered singular. (BTW, shouldn't it be "except in those cases where a common name has been applied to more than one species"?) --Jwinius 23:11, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh, you were talking about Mardis Gras, Paczki Day, Shrove Tuesday! I thought you were talking about pancake breakfasts. No, holidays in the US are generally capitalized in English as proper nouns, just like in the UK. It's one day, one single day, and, yes, it's because of a general rule of grammar relating to proper nouns, this name has it's own day, just like Alexander's goose had it's own name.

The problem is those birders, you know. I agree that (a) is true, and (b) is true, and (c) is true only for bird species which have been given proper names according to rules of taxonomical nomenclature for common names of birds, but in general, this isn't the case for most animals, and it's not the case for plants. For example, Rkitko above quotes the Chicago Manual of Style of capitalizing common names of plants according to ICBN, but the ICBN doesn't deal with common names of plants, it deals only with scientific names. So the problem is I'm discussing it generally, but you offered up a goose as an example, and it's the exception because of the way bird names are dealt with. Gray whale, however, and brown bear, are not the same thing, because these are neither proper nor standardized common names, no matter if you think everyone living in brown bear country knows to properly fear that species more than the black bears or not. KP Botany 23:58, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

With the Chicago Manual of Style in the discussion, I searched Amazon for books published by the U. of C. Press. Of the first two I found, one did not capitalize; the other ( did. (The first is The Bird Almanac, by David Bird, which consists mostly of tables, where I see no possibility of ambiguity; the second is How Birds Migrate, by Paul Kerlinger, which seems to be at a fairly popular level.) I surmise that the U. of C. Press sees a good reason to let bird books vary from its own "in general" guideline. —JerryFriedman 04:19, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

It may well do, but as was pointed out above, this is not Ornithopedia, and therefore it is a general text, rather than specific just for bird enthusiasts, making that a somewhat irrelevant point. Owain.davies 06:50, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

JerryFriedman also pointed out that How Birds Migrate is a popular text - aimed at everyone. Other examples of a popular science book aimed at everyone that uses caps is Carl Safina's Eye of the Albatross and Phillip Hoose's The Race to Save the Lord God Bird (which managed to win the The Boston Globe-Horn Book Award in spite of its grammatical renegade status). Sabine's Sunbird talk 07:50, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Trying to put it all together—Official names (for birds, butterflies, almost everything in Britain) are proper nouns, because they refer unambiguously (within the constraints of biological understanding) to species. Other vernacular names are not proper nouns, because they are not used with that level of precision (e.g., dog, poppy, hemlock, puma). Among biologists, some have elevated common names, made attempts to standardize their use, and in effect made them proper nouns. This is reflected in orthography; most such names are capitalized. Other biologists have deprecated common names ("if scientific names were good enough for Linnaeus, they're good enough for me"). In that context, the bulk of common names are not proper nouns, because they have no clear assignment to an entity.

Nevertheless, common names can end up having a clear association with a species through usage. For example, in many contexts "puma" is Felis concolor, "dog" is Canis familiaris, and "boojum tree" is Fouquieria columnaris. I don't think anyone here would suggest that we capitalize Dog, but in a group of increasingly specific common names, where do we draw the line? Certainly it's "tree", and "oak", but what about "live oak", or "coast live oak", the last in North America being unambiguously Quercus agrifolia.

It seems to me that the historical component is strong. Biologists who elevate common names capitalize them, and biologists who deprecate common names don't, for reasons that may have to do with proper nouns, but that have moved on from that rule. One can imagine a list of common names for a single species, some official and some vernacular, with the official ones capitalized and the vernacular ones not.

Because Wikipedia is descriptive, not prescriptive, it makes sense to me to capture this historically-based usage, rather than shoe-horn everything into one-style-fits-all.--Curtis Clark 13:44, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

What I and several others keep trying to point out, is that precious few common (vernacular) names have earned the right to be called proper nouns. This is only the case for bird names that are regulated by the AOU; other than that, all common names are unregulated, so one can only assume that certain ones are truly singular, but never know for certain. By this reasoning, MOS policy should not be to capitalize common names by default. Note: If these names tend to be capitalized in Britain anyway, that's called convention. --Jwinius 17:29, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

If it makes any difference to anyone, the Oxford, Cambridge and Websters dictionaries all favour lower case, including for common bird species. Owain.davies 18:23, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

It does. Modern dictionaries record usage instead of favoring it, and "dog" is simply not capitalized in ordinary usage.

There's no sharp dividing line between proper and common nouns, which is why "summer" could go from usual capital to usually lower-case. Nevertheless, species names really don't look like common names to me. Baseball and chess are codified by recognized authorities, but we usually don't capitalize them (though I have a "Hoyle" that capitalizes names of games). Foreclosure is defined by law in various jurisdictions, and an action is either a foreclosure or it's not (just as a bird is either a Pink-Footed Goose or not). There's only one sulfuric acid and one U.S. dollar bill. We don't capitalize any of these.

So I'm sorry to disagree with you, SP-KP, but we don't capitalize species for reasons of grammar. We (you and I and many others) do it for clarity and because of the convention that developed for reasons of clarity in certain areas of biology.

On another subject, Owain, I think my example of a book from the U. of C. Press that capitalizes bird names, despite what's in the CMOS, is relevant. The readership of How Birds Migrate is probably very similar to that of bird migration and the exception to the overall style rule probably applies for the same reason. Only I think, as you do, that we should continue to make the exception explicit. —JerryFriedman 23:22, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Which brings us back to what i said before which is to use lower case for all instances of animals and birds, with the limited exception of birds, where they appear in specific ornithological article. Not seen anyone disagree with that yet. Owain.davies 06:55, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, AshLin pointed out that capitalization is even more necessary for Lepidoptera—otherwise you get "The miller is related to the sycamore and less closely to the shark." I'd suggest that instead of specifically naming taxa, the MoS allow capitalization for articles that are part of a project where capitalization is the majority practice in the field and among the participants in the project. —JerryFriedman 14:00, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

My two cents: I really don't care one way or the other whether somebody capitalizes common names or uses lower case in articles. That should be the least of our worries in an encyclopedia in which there are so many incomplete and outright erroneous articles. The problem is there is no consensus in the real world as to whether common names of animals or plants should be capitalized. It's very similar to the problem of American vs. British spellings ("color" vs. "colour"): how can an English-language encyclopedia that is truly international reasonably choose between the two? The Wikipedia solution is to allow both. But the bottom line is this: the fastest way to piss off and chase away the editors who are actually contributing content to articles is to come in and edit those articles to "standardize" language and typography in a way that language and typography in their own fields are not standardized. For example, if the Wikipedia MOS decided that species names are not to be written in italics, and tried to enforce it, I--a botanist by profession who contributes almost exclusively to botanical articles--would be out of here immediately. So... is the capitalization-of-common-names-for-the-sake-of-consistency issue important enough to risk losing valuable editors over? MrDarwin 21:33, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Common names proposal

Proposal: Except for the case of naming articles (where the article naming conventions would apply), I think we could all live with it if the MOS were to say something like: "Except at the start of a sentence, common names of animals and plants in the body of an article are always written in lower case unless part of the name is itself a proper noun (e.g. brook trout and dusky salamander but Jefferson salamander and Atlantic salmon). Individual Tree of Life daughter projects who wish to deviate from this general provision for reasons of convention within their project area will ensure that consensus to do so is generated and maintained. Currently, the following projects have arrived at such a consensus:" followed by a list of projects and a pointer to the discussion where it was established that the project would deviate. Unless I've radically misread all of the foregoing, I think this should be acceptable to most people in this discussion. — Dave (Talk | contribs) 15:20, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

In other words you propose we do what we have been doing? It works well for plants, already, and we've already debated the issue for quite some time, so I don't know that anyone would disagree, but, in spite of the hatred of Wiki Projects by one user displayed here, this would have to be discussed with the other members of the project--meaning, we would have to spend time discussing whether we agree to go forward doing what we're doing now. It doesn't seem to have much purpose. KP Botany 15:25, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Not precisely. The difference between what I am proposing and what we're doing now is that my proposal would make lower case the default unless a project could demonstrate that consensus has been reached on doing it differently. This has the advantage of eliminating, as I see it, the edit warring in projects without consensus (e.g. WP:MAMMALS) and it would also eliminate the case of those who are pushing to do something "over here" because that's the way it's done "over there". It makes it clear that there has to be convention within the field and consensus within the project. I maintain that a lot of the irritants out there are because people are doing things where no convention is demonstrable and where no consensus has been reached. The onus will now be on those people to demonstrate and discuss before changing articles to their personal preference. And I don't see where the proposal would require any project to re-open discussions that have already taken place — only that they be able to point to where that discussion occurred and that consensus was reached on the point. — Dave (Talk | contribs) 15:43, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I see your point with animals/mammals. I know that in their case, particularly with familiar large terrestrial mammals it sometimes just looks awful to see the capitalization of Elk and Cougar, and I've worked on one article where I convinced the authors to change it to, well, Standard English.

But, again, we have one person whose point is he hates projects, which seems to be what the whole point of this discussion is, getting back at projects and emphasizing that they don't have any say in this matter, and should stop writing articles, and leave it to people who really care about Wikipedia to write articles, and now you're going to gain the consensus that the projects have to do anything, even point to where they've discussed the issue? Why? We've already discussed it and know what we're doing--we're evil people who belong to projects and write articles on topics we enjoy, rather than obedient volunteers who obsequiously know who exactly has appointed themselves in charge of the articles we write. The problem is the underlying reason for doing this, namely somebody is all irritated because a project done him wrong, so now we're going to force our authority over the projects and make them comply with ..... With what? Why not just ask the mammals folks to reach consensus and post their consensus, if that's the issue that needs resolved? KP Botany 17:26, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Alrighty, then. To be honest, I think a good deal of your resistance comes from some umbrage you've felt over someone's previous comments. I'd ask you to set that aside for a minute, even if it is justified, just long enough to evaluate my proposal on its merits and not through the filter of what some evil project-hater's machinations might be. I find it curious that what you're essentially objecting to is to asking the participants in a project to discuss changes to articles and having to reach consensus on what articles will look like. I thought that the entire premise of Wikipedia was discussion and consensus-building. As far as I can tell, I haven't suggested anything that removes the authority of a project's participants from doing anything they want just so long as they can demonstrate that they're reached a consensus on it. I'm only asking that they not be allowed to claim consensus where none exists. Hence, I've suggested that we ask them to point to where their project discussed the issue and reached consensus on it. You say it's already been discussed. Well, if that's the case, what's the harm in pointing to where? The reason I suggested that is so that it will become clear to anyone searching the MOS for guidance as to where the issue was discussed, what points were weighed and how was consensus achieved. If the issue hasn't been discussed, why wouldn't we want to require a project to discuss it and, I might stress, if and only if they want to deviate from the default Wikipedia style? What part of that discussion causes fear or suspicion? I'd sooner discuss it once in a full, blown-out drag-down and then reach a resolution instead of having people endlessly bickering about it in personal snipes across talk pages, mindless reversions and edit wars. But, to each his own, I suppose. Just for clarity, the elements of my view are these: 1) There should be a default style for critter articles that no one needs to justify further if they apply it. 2) Projects should be able to deviate from the default style for reasons of convention within their discipline if they first discuss it at the project level and reach consensus on it. 3) A project who has discussed it and reached consensus on it should be required to place a link in the MOS detailing where the discussion took place so interested and new contributors to the project can get a sense of what issues were weighed and how and why a decision was taken. Perhaps you can clarify for me which of these elements you disagree with and what sort of changes to my proposal you think are needed to address those concerns. At the same time, I'd like to get back to writing articles instead of proposals so, if resolution to this is impossible, I don't think we should waste any more of our time. — Dave (Talk | contribs) 18:03, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Lost in my whine was my final sentence, "Why not just ask the mammals folks to reach consensus and post their consensus, if that's the issue that needs resolved?"

We (plants) already have our naming conventions and the eons of discussions about plant article titles and common name usage in plant articles linked on our naming conventions. Are you sure the other projects don't already have this, links to the discussion of their naming conventions?

KP Botany 18:22, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough if that's the sole problem there is. See, I don't really know all the various projects and what they do. I spend most of my time on WP:FISH, where it's already been discussed and consensus reached, and on WP:MAMMALS, where I am constantly being told there is a consensus but where I can't find it and no one seems able to point me to it. So, from my limited perspective, your idea would work, I suppose. Except for two things. 1) Are we sure that it's only WP:MAMMALS and that there's not something lurking in another project that just hasn't reared its head, yet? and 2) Asking WP:MAMMALS to deal with it does nothing whatsoever to encourage the adoption of a default style that brings consistency across projects that don't have divergent conventions within their sphere (the purpose, I might add, of an MOS.) So, if telling WP:MAMMALS to deal with it (though I'm not really clear on how we do that in a precise logistical way) is the best we can settle on, OK. I'd simply thought we should, perhaps, come up with a more robust and fault-tolerant solution that also would have the effect of causing WP:MAMMALS to deal with it, if you see what I mean. Anyway, thanks again for your interesting thoughts. — Dave (Talk | contribs) 18:47, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

No, I'm not certain that mammals is the only problem in this area, and I think I asked the same question. I like the idea of coming up with something robust, but I think the attempt is already spoiled by the denigration of projects editors and by my dislike of being told I'm a worthless editor (I might not technically belong to the Plants project, but I participate and work with them and abide by their consensuses on matters and am happy to do so).

Logistically I think just asking the mammals folks to reach consensus for all editors would be the most straight-forward way to go about. I know you're frustrated dealing with them on occassion, but I think they realize (now, in spite of the initial disaster) that you're doing good work trying to help write excellent articles, and I think you could start a discussion and reach useful consensus there about naming styles for all to follow, and link the discussion and its results to the ToL naming conventions pages.

Yes, I think your idea behind this and intentions are correct, but I think it would be difficult right now to deal with. KP Botany 18:58, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Whilst this does by and large follow the consensus i was trying to reach, i think we should be more specific, as i believe it is only birds who have the major issue with cpaitals. This has teh advantage of making discussions happen here, rather than arguing about sub-pages later. I suggest something along the lines of:

"For the commons names of flora and fauna, editors should write the name in lower case - for example "oak" or "lion". There are a limited number of exceptions to this:

• Where the name is the first word of the sentence, it should be capitalised as any other word would be. For example "Black bears eat mostly leaves and berries"
• Where the name relates to a proper noun, such as the name of a place. For example "the Bengal tiger has a range of over 500km"
• For bird species, when discussed in articles specifically about birds or ornithology. For example, "the White-throated thrush builds large nests", as this is in line with general usage amongst bird experts. However, in general articles, editors can choose between capitalising the first letter of bird species, or following the overall lower case pattern, depending on personal preference, and article flow. For instance, "in the national park, you can see many bald eagles" or "in the national park, you can see many Bald eagles" would both be acceptable."

Would this be acceptable to the majority? Owain.davies 18:38, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

This doesn't address a number of issues, and again I guess I should have continued on about the denigration of wiki project editors. Plants already has hashed out their policy--based upon a number of issues not raised here. Now, there's a discussion at WP:MOS that basically is about how worthless projects editors are, and they should have some policy rammed down their throats? Who's going to change all the plant articles, folks who've denigrated their editors already? You going to hardblock all the plants folks first to make sure they don't come in and edit?

We've discussed this, come to a consensus, been told we're crap because we work within a project, and now we're going to be subject to the dictates of people who say we're crap, and who aren't biologists and aren't writing plants' articles? Once you make part of the discussion about one person's personal dislike for a certain type of editor on Wikipedia (those worthless projects folks), then trying to dictate to those you've expressed disdain for becomes, imo, a pointless task. I still suggest politely asking the mammals folks if they could reach consensus about style for their articles. KP Botany 18:52, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Although I more often agree with KP Botany than not, I think it's important for MOS to say something, so that editors who are unaware of the projects have some direction. I think Dave's original proposal at the top of this section is a good framework for reworking Owain.davies' suggestion:

"For the commons names of flora and fauna, editors should write the name in lower case - for example "oak" or "lion". There are a limited number of exceptions to this:

• Where the name is the first word of the sentence, it should be capitalised as any other word would be. For example "Black bears eat mostly leaves and berries"
• Where the name relates to a proper noun, such as the name of a person or place. For example "the Bengal tiger has a range of over 500km"
• For specific groups of organisms, there are specific rules of capitalization based on current and historic usage among those who study the organisms. These should ordinarily be followed:
  • Wikipedia:Naming conventions (flora)
  • WP:BIRD#Bird_names_and_article_titles
  • Etc.
• It is customary in some countries for officially established common names of all flora and fauna to be capitalised. This custom may be followed for those names, but it is understood that not all editors will have access to the references needed to support these names; in such cases, using the general recommendation is acceptable."

--Curtis Clark 19:17, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, this accomodates other exceptions already present. And, yes, Dave is being completely reasonable in his proposals and for all the correct reasons. I'll support it. KP Botany 19:23, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

WP Lepidoptera is part of the 'Etc.' The rest of the text seems OK. Regards, AshLin 19:32, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Looks okay to me as well, although it should start out "For the common names of flora and fauna, ..." :-) --Jwinius 20:35, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

The WP:Plants naming convention doesn't mention capitalization, and so could be left out. Otherwise, it looks good to me. --NoahElhardt 20:47, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Happy enough with that except two things:

1. The flora page pointed to uses all lower case, so doesn't need its own example
2. I'm not happy about the country specific part. I still strongly believe (and you can look at previous debates of British and American english) that we should aim for a single style on WP, and shouldn't start making country specific exceptions, especially on something like capitalisation.

regards Owain.davies 20:52, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

• The compromise seems reasonable enough to me. My only concern is that we have to demonstrate concensus over and over again every time someone comes along complaining. It is tedious having this argument every couple of months. Sabine's Sunbird talk 23:25, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

No, I think Owain.davies is right about the country specific part; I should have said something about it immediately. I must have missed where this point was first raised, but it seems to me that including such an exception will likely sow the seeds for some really pointless discussions later on. Besides, aren't these WikiProjects all supposed to be international efforts? It seems silly to allow a few articles to be different due to national preferences. Also, what would happen if more English common names were added from other countries where they don't necessarily capitalize everything: would they both be capitalized, or just the one? --Jwinius 01:22, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

But it's not about "national preferences," some countries codify common names for organisms, these are then the official names used in documents such as EIRs. Common names of birds are codified by birding organizations in various countries, not by the ICZN. So, don't call it "national preferences" unless that's what it is. The common names that have official status may be capitalized, those that don't, aren't. KP Botany 01:34, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

This is an important distinction and I'm not sure it's adequately described in Curtis Clark's latest version. I do think, however, that it's very close to garnering broad support and I, too, support the thrust of it. If I may be so bold as to suggest a small, subtle wording change just for the last point? Maybe change from:

“ It is customary in some countries for officially established common names of all flora and fauna to be capitalised. This custom may be followed for those names, but it is understood that not all editors will have access to the references needed to support these names; in such cases, using the general recommendation is acceptable. ”

to

“ In a very few cases, a set of officially-established common names are recognised only within a country or a geographic region. Those common names may be capitalised according to local custom but it should be understood that not all editors will have access to the references needed to support these names; in such cases, using the general recommendation is also acceptable. ”

— Dave (Talk | contribs) 04:19, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm fine with this.--Curtis Clark 13:54, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Very well. If we've already allowed the exception for the AOU and this is much the same thing, then I suppose it would be inconsistent of us not to allow this also. We'll just have to hope that editors will remain reasonable in cases of potential conflict. --Jwinius 11:21, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

You're correct, of course, and that concerns me, too. Nonetheless, I do think this is the truest consensus available to us at this point. Of course, if editors fail to "remain reasonable in cases of potential conflict", we can always discuss that more specific problem at that point without having to re-invent all the rest. — Dave (Talk | contribs) 12:16, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Okay, let's analyze what we have so far:

if

(organism is covered by one of the listed naming conventions) follow that convention

else if

(organism is named in an official national standard that has its own rules of capitalization) use those rules, but with the expectation that others who are ignorant of the rules may change the capitalization, at which point AGF

else if

(the name begins a sentence or contains a name of a place or person) capitalize according to English standard usage

else

lowercase all parts of the name.

Does this sum it up?

I think that naming conventions such as the one for flora that don't differ from this general standard should still be listed, since they and this can change independently and not always be identical.--Curtis Clark 14:31, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

fundamentally disagree with that last part - there is only one project asking for or requiring an exception, therefore that should be the only one who gets one. This goes back to some discussions on other sub-MOS etc. where people push through controversial changes in a sub-group without anyone here noticing.

And i still disagree on the national usage thing - can anyone provide an example of when this should be used? Owain.davies 16:45, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, you have WP Mammals because of which this discussion came about. WP Plants & Birds are well-established WikiProjects with guidelines long-established. WP Lepidoptera, a more recent project is also one affected and I have been pitching in on behalf of the WikiProject. Participants in all these WikiProjects have been posting in this discussion. Besides that the Dragonflies are capitalised too but they unfortunately dont have a separate WikiProject to talk on this aspect and come under the generic WikiProject Arthropods. So, your statement is not correct. In good faith, AshLin 03:19, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Just a quick correction on WP:PLANTS; in all the discussions we've had about common name capitalization, I don't believe we've ever come to consensus. We have consensus on article naming guidelines - WP:NC (flora) - but not on the use of capitalization for common names in the text of articles. --Rkitko ^(talk) 12:44, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Come on this a bit late, but just to point out that in Britain, there are official standard English names for plants, and they are capitalised: BSBI database (xls file), Government example, British Museum of Natural History example. - MPF 21:55, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I support this general idea, and I imagine most people who write bird articles would too. I'm sorry I can't help ironing out the details with regard to plants, mammals, or butterflies and dragonflies, since I'm not familiar with those fields (except for having frequently seen capitalized Lepidoptera names).

One minor correction: Unfortunately, there isn't a single standard for bird names. The AOU has an official list of common names for North American birds (that is, south through Panama) and a draft for South American birds, but then there's the British Ornithologists' Union, the Handbook of the Birds of the World, the list that Sabine's Sunbird mentioned (way) above, Sibley and Monroe, Clements, the IUCN, and many others. These disagree on taxonomy, on the names of some species, and on style points related to hyphens (Fulvous Whistling-duck, Fulvous Whistling-Duck, Fulvous Whistling Duck), not to mention regional spelling (Gray/Grey-headed Gull). However, for a great many birds we have one common name or are close enough. —JerryFriedman 01:37, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Motion to close

We've left this for several days, now, and I think it unlikely that someone may come out of the woodwork to object to the consensus we've reached. I'll leave it until tomorrow just in case there is someone who wishes to object. After that, in the absence of strenuous objections, I shall enshrine what we've agreed upon in the WP:MOS itself. — Dave (Talk | contribs) 03:03, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Could we see the new text here first? I ask because this has been a matter of controversy, so the devil may be in the wording. Tony 03:14, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry. You are correct, of course. Here's the suggested wording:

"For the common names of flora and fauna, editors should write the name in lower case - for example "oak" or "lion". There are a limited number of exceptions to this:

1. Where the name is the first word of the sentence, it should be capitalised as any other word would be. For example "Black bears eat mostly leaves and berries"

2. Where the common name contains a proper noun, such as the name of a person or place. For example "the Bengal tiger has a range of over 500 km." or "the Roosevelt elk is a subspecies of Cervus canadensis."

3. For specific groups of organisms, there are specific rules of capitalization based on current and historic usage among those who study the organisms. These should ordinarily be followed:

WP:BIRD#Bird_names_and_article_titles

4. In a very few cases, a set of officially-established common names are recognised only within a country or a geographic region. Those common names may be capitalised according to local custom but it should be understood that not all editors will have access to the references needed to support these names; in such cases, using the general recommendation is also acceptable."

Of course, other taxa, such as Lepidoptera, should feel free to add a link to their naming convention provided that it has been reached under demonstrable consensus. I believe this is a true reflection of the consensus reached in this discussion. — Dave (Talk | contribs) 03:41, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

From unseconded motion to consensus?[7] Is that the Wikipedia standard, and would someone link me to it, as I'm rather surprised. KP Botany 02:18, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I give up. Really. I left the huge, four-week long discussion (which I didn't start) to sit for almost two weeks. No one posted. Then I posted a motion to close in the same thread as you and all the others posted various and numerous comments. I left it for a couple of days. Whatever. Revert it or do whatever you think is appropriate. I'm done with this. I give up... — Dave (Talk | contribs) 02:32, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

That's okay with me if you give up, as I'm fine with how things are going now. However, I'm willing to change if there is consensus to do so, and simply making a motion, getting no reponse, then changing, is not, imo, consensus. And, as I said before, extraneous comments from people who hate Wiki projects, and can't resist an opportunity to put them down, when these articles impacted by this change are largely written by people who work in Wiki projects, started this out badly, imo. So I'm not inclined to be particularly gracious about a change forced upon me by an editor who tells me he hates my editing Wikipedia. Why should I be? Consensus for change, imo, requires a positive act, not simply lack of response. KP Botany 06:29, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Copy-edited and tweaked Tony

Looks good to me, but I've copy-edited it; first exception not necessary to state (just as the don't-alter-direct-quotations principle doesn't need stating here); I've added the consensus bit to the "specific rules" point; zeds required, coz MOS is in US English. Not quite sure that the meaning of the last exception is clear.

This should remain posted for a few days at least. I don't want to participate in the substantive debate (not interested and not qualified). I just want the language to be right and the solution to be workable and supported by a reasonable level of consensus.

• Lower-case initials are used for the common names of flora and fauna (oak, lion.) There are three exceptions.
  • Where the common name contains a proper noun, such as the name of a person or place ("the Bengal tiger has a range of over 500 km²", "the Roosevelt elk is a subspecies of Cervus canadensis").
  • For some groups of organisms, there are specific rules of capitalization based on current and historic usage among those who study the organisms (e.g., WP:BIRD#Bird_names_and_article_titles). These should be followed unless there is conensus among contributors not to.
  • In some cases, a set of officially established common names are recognized only within a country or region. Those common names may be capitalized according to local custom, but not all editors will have access to the references needed to support these names; in such cases, using the general recommendation is also acceptable.

Feel free to argue, complain, suggest, improve. Tony 06:16, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

The last should be "In some cases," not "In a very few cases," because it's more common than most on Wikipedia seem to realize in some areas--and without a count, I would hesitate to go with "very few cases." For example, New Zealand establishes both Maori and English official common names for plants. KP Botany 06:29, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

The second point needs elaboration. First, I don't think plants should be left out just because they currently agree with this rule; both WP:MOS and WP:NC (flora) will evolve over time, and won't always agree. Second, although one couled cogently argue against a bulleted list of short phrases, I like the contribution of another editor who made the entries more explicit. I realize that this somewhat contradicts my first point. Thus:

• • For some groups of organisms, there are specific rules of capitalization based on current and historic usage among those who study the organisms. These should be followed unless there is consensus among contributors not to.
    • Names of plants are ordinarily not capitalized, except in the case of proper names (WP:NC (flora)).
    • Names of birds are ordinarily capitalized in all parts (WP:BIRD#Bird_names_and_article_titles).
    • Names of butterflies are ordinarily capitalized in all parts (butterfly link here).

--Curtis Clark 13:27, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Common names of plants (at species level) in Australia (and many other countries) ordinarily *are* capitalised. Examples in Australia:

• example from the Australian Plant Names Index: [8]
• example from Flora of Australia: [9]
• example from FloraBase [10]
• example from PlantNET [11] - Melburnian 15:00, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

All of this discussion of what Australia does in its own official and local scientific organisation documents is of zero relevance here. The MoS is about what is done on Wikipedia, generally for consistency reasons, emphasis on consistency. We can't go around making exceptions like this. It's fine to make allowances for regional spelling (color/colour, aluminum/aluminium), but we don't make general grammar exceptions. Same goes for narrow fields making up their own internal grammar rules. If for some daft reason it became popular in scientific circles to start capitalizing "Science" and "Scientist" and "Scientific" like science was a religion, I'm 100% certain that the MoS would never permit this. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 18:08, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

PS: Apologies for suddenly disappearing from this debate after being so active in it (I think I even started the overarching thread in the first place...) Got very busy offline, then was ill for over a week. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 18:10, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

In order to conduct an informed debate, we need to be aware of the various conventions used across all fields and in all English-speaking countries. Every convention has relevance to the debate; the weighting that individuals give each of these conventions within this debate is up to them. --Melburnian 04:36, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

And, it's relevant because we don't conduct original research for Wikipedia. If there are official common names, we use them as they are, capitalized when they are, and not capitalized when they're not. We can't choose or invent a different rule just because someone doesn't like projects on Wikipedia. And it's not a general grammar exception--English grammar is not exactly the same in all English-speaking countries, and common names are within the realm of the country where the organism resides. The body for making rules for scientific names of plants is the ICBN for the case of species, a different body for horticultural varieties, and various countries do have rules for common names, for the names given by the people, of plants within their region.

New Zealand has official common names for plants, and I believe they are generally capitalized. If that is the case, they would be used as they are, precisely how they "officially" are, not changed on Wikipedia. The USA has no national standard for common names of plants, and, in fact, sometimes the same plant will be given different common names by the Forestry Service, than by the USDA, and by Fish and Wildlife--generally not capitalized, so American botanical editors prefer regional floras for common names of plants, and these are generally not capitalized.

That is what common names are, names given to plants by people within the region they share with the organisms. The rules for these plants, their capitalization or not, among other things, are also made by the people who share the region with plants. Some countries give official common names to plants, nation wide, like Germany. Others don't. When they give official common names, part of the rules may be for capitalizing the names. If this is the case and we can follow it, we do. If it's not the case, we don't.

We don't make up the rules. The whole point of Linnaeus adopting a standardized binomial nomenclature for organisms, and the reason there are organizations like the IAPT and its ICBN is that common names are not consistent from country to country, or even state to state, and that they're difficult for everyone to work with. There's no way we're going to be able to dictate away a problem that exists because of the fact that these are common names by simply desiring to standardize them where they're not standardized. If they were standardized they'd have an international governing body and be scientific names. But that's not what we're discussing here.

Wikipedia isn't the place to uniquely resolve problems that have existed unsolved for hundreds of years--that type of original research has to be resolved off of Wikipedia first.

KP Botany 04:53, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

This is hardly WP:OR; it's a simple style guide decision, and WP regularly makes such decisions about "centuries old" disputes, in the name of consistency and editor sanity, such as using "logical quotation", instead of "interior punctuation," like that. Let's not be silly. WP would not be declaring that the official (in what jurisdiction!?!) common name of the gray wolf is "gray wolf" instead of "Gray Wolf", it would simply be making a very basic and sensible decision to follow standard English grammar rules, just like any other publication. I guarantee you that the Times of London and the New York Times use "gray wolf" for precisely this reason; they are not in a position to adopt a wacky capitalization system just because some narrow field of zoology nerds has their own internal reasons for using it. And what on earth relevance can anyone possibly think that a government agency could have here? They mis-capitalize EVERYTHING. Here are two gems from today's mail alone: "City of Albuquerque Recycle^[sic] Coupon...See back of coupon for Redemption Locations....Number of Recycle^[sic] Bags: 001 roll(s)...Void if duplicated. No cash value. All Rights Reserved." And: "City of Albuquerque Animal Licensing...Return Service Requested....Service Dogs^{[a really salient example that one!]}...Note: A $15 Late Fee is due if...outside the City Limits..." (emphasis added). Its completely bonkers to accept governmental...anything as indicative of grammatical standards, period. Honestly folks, I've never seen anything like "Gray Wolf" or "Creeping Wisteria" outside of biological publications and really infuriating Wikipedia articles. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 08:26, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I think I agree. Tony 08:32, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Another way of looking at it: If the international chemistry organization (whatever that might be) made a decision today to start capitalizing "Iron", "Gold" and "Neon", I'm sure their journals would adopt the custom, but even 200 years later no one else would have. Including Wikipedia. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 08:40, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

So, you're offering headlines and advertisemens and notices as proof of what? How exactly are they related to common names of organisms? Are football headlines related also? I think not, so let's drop that line altogether.

Again, newspapers do things for ink and font reasons. That's why they generally no longer italicize species. Are you suggesting we take their guidance and also not italicize species? Again, newspapers are not the standard by which English sets style guidelines, so please don't offer them up, or fliers--which have an entirely different reason for their unsusual boldings and capitalizations which have nothing to do with this discussion.

As to what jurisdiction, that's easy, the jurisdiction for which the common name applies. That's what common names are, localized names for plants. If a jurisdiction wants to make them official, they do, and they can, because that's what they are, the names assigned to the plants by the people who deal with them.

While the rampant speculation about what other groups decisions might or might not be followed by whom is fun for those offering it, it has nothing to do with this discussion, either. KP Botany 03:45, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Default image size question - 180px

I've been removing forced pixel counts from a number of articles per the MOS recommendation. It points out that the default size is 180px unless otherwise specified. This seems a little small. Is there are reason for this? Can it be changed? It seems many editors (let alone readers) don't realise they can change viewing preferences and this is the reason, i presume, they specify pixel counts. Perhaps if the default was bigger they would not feel the need to specify pixels. Any thoughts? Am I asking in the correct place? Merbabu 12:07, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

180px is ridiculously small, especially for horizontal images, which should be approaching twice that width. DreamGuy 21:41, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree it's too small for horizontal pictures. Ideally, the software should be modified to give editors some control over big an image should be without specifying pixels. E.g. instead of saying "image:xxx|thumb|250px" you should be able to get an equivalent result by saying, "image:xxx|thumb|larger". The place to discuss it is probably Wikipedia:Village pump (technical). Kla’quot (talk | contribs) 15:57, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

You might want to check out this archived discussion which debated the issue at some length. A claim of consensus for a revised size guideline was disputed; a number of pro-change arguments attracted dissenting views. I'm still of the opinion that the proliferation of larger, higher-resolution monitors means a thumb size increase is desirable, despite the possibility that this might mean some system-level changes. The last time it was taken to the pump, it fizzled out and disappeared.. mikaul^talk 00:09, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Revised opening

I've copy-edited the template at the top, without substantive change in meaning. However, there was still tension between "should be followed in Wikipedia articles" and the second paragraph of the lead, which went wobbly at the knees by seeming to say "Don't take it too seriously, ignore it if you please." The second para appears to undermine the whole reason for having the MOS.

Furthermore, the guidelines proper didn't start until the third section, “Article titles”. The first two sections—“Which style to use” and “Disputes over style issues”—seemed to concern more general things that sit better in the lead.

So I've been bold in subsuming the first two sections into the lead and dumping the problematic second para. If there are reasonable objections, I'll revert it. Tony 13:27, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

• Relationship between this manual and the submanuals. It's unsupervised and has led to discrepancies. The animal names look to be a current instance of tension between this page and the submanual. Therefore, I propose that we add (to the lead, I guess):

• Where a discrepancy arises between the text of this manual and that of a submanual, the former will prevail.

At the very least, this will encourage better coordination.

Comments? Tony 02:54, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Agree, the main WP:MOS should have primacy, because more people will come here looking for answers. It may be worth adding notes to this effect (or an infobox?) on the sub articles to encourage authors to approve here, before changing sub-pages. Owain.davies 11:04, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

The use–mention distinction: apparent formatting inconsistency in MOS

Can someone clear up my confusion on this issue. The MOS appears to use variously quotes and italics to mention words, yet explicitly states in the section on Italics:

Words as words

Italics are used when citing a word or letter (see use–mention distinction). For example, “The term panning is derived from panorama, a word coined in 1787.” “The most commonly used letter in English is e.”

The linked-to use–mention ariticle (which appears to use quotes wrongly in the first occurrence of cheese), starts as follows:

The use–mention distinction is the distinction between using a word (or phrase, etc.) and mentioning it. In written language, mentioned words or phrases often appear between quotation marks or in italics; some authorities insist that mentioned words or phrases always be made visually distinct in this manner. Used words or phrases (more common than mentioned ones) do not bear any typographic distinction.

For example, the following two sentences illustrate use and mention of the word "cheese":

• Cheese is derived from milk.
• Cheese is derived from a word in Old English.

The first sentence is a statement about the substance cheese. It uses the word cheese to describe its referent. The second is a statement about the word cheese. It mentions the word without using it.

There are many quote marks used around examples in the Manual. Does this mean that they should all be in italics? Critically, does the rule apply to single items only, or to whole sentences as well? Tony 11:16, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

No one seems interested. So should I go ahead and change all of the quote marks around single items throughout the manual? Should I leave whole-sentence examples in quotes? Tony 05:28, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Action: bit by bit, I'm changing the quoted single items to italics as per the "Words as words" guidelines; I'm not touching the quotes around whole phrases, clauses and sentences. It's nominal groups only, as I understand it (= nouns and noun phrases), that should be italicised rather than in quotes. Tony 03:33, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

One could differentiate between mention (italics) and quote (marks), but in reality most people don’t, won’t or can’t follow that convention. Some style guides recommend single quote marks for mentions instead of italic formatting, which they reserve for emphasis or something else, and double quote marks, which they reserve for quotations. In linguistics, however, italics are the standard for indicating words and phrases spoken about. Christoph Päper

See also #Proposed "Words as words" change; the change proposed, barely discussed, and then implemented here is disputed.

Alphabetization

Question about alphabetization. Is there any guideline about alphabetizing titles that begin with numbers? To my knowledge, in any encyclopedia, or in a library, numbers go in their alphabetical location (64th Street: A Detective Story would be under S for Sixty-fourth). I don't think I've seen a volume 0-9 of an encyclopedia. Putting numbers first is only common because that's what a computer automatically does, but it seems pretty common on Wikipedia. ~ JohnnyMrNinja _{talk} 22:22, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Or if you can mention a better place to ask, I'll go there. ~ JohnnyMrNinja _{talk} 07:39, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Capitalisation of titles

The 'Titles' section under 'Capitals' is currently self-contradictory:

When used generically, such items are in lower case: “De Gaulle was the French president” and “Louis XVI was the French king”. Similarly, “Three prime ministers attended the conference”, but “The British Prime Minister is Gordon Brown”. (A rule of thumb is this: when the modifier is the specific article the, we use Prime Minister; when the non-specific a applies, we use prime minister).

The 'rule of thumb' in brackets sets a different standard to the rule it comes after - if the deciding matter was 'the' or 'a' it would be “De Gaulle was the French President” and “Louis XVI was the French King”.

Which is correct?

Looking at previous versions of the page (e.g. [12]) it looks like the 'rule of thumb' was originally intended to only apply to the title 'prime minister'; but this seems somewhat bizarre as well - I don't see why this title wouldn't obey the rules that others do. TSP 12:53, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Can you fix it? Tony 13:26, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Only if I know what we want to fix it to :-) I'd be inclined to just remove the 'rule of thumb' and leave the rest as it is, but I wanted to know what other people thought.

Actually, I'll do that - there's no sense leaving it as it is - and if people think the rule should be more like the rule of thumb and less like the rest of it, it can go back. TSP

I like the rule of thumb better than the rest of it; I'd use the capitals only when the title modifies a proper name. "As of this month, Prime Minister Brown is the British prime minister; in the G8, he joins President George Bush, the American president, and six other presidents and prime ministers." --Trovatore 16:42, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, that isn't the rule of thumb, now that I re-read it. In fact the whole thing is confusing. Why does it say "the British Prime Minister" but "the French president"? If this difference is specific to the title or the country, it should say so.

I'd amend my formulation slightly: capitals only when the title modifies a proper name or is used as a form of address ("Mr. President, would you come with me?" "Yes, Prime Minister") --Trovatore 16:46, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Mmm. But that seems to end you with such things as "Elizabeth II is queen of the United Kingdom and the other Commonwealth Realms", which definitely looks wrong, to me at least. I think the distinction it's trying to make is between official titles - "President of France" and descriptions - "French president" - but I agree it doesn't do it very well, and doesn't seem to provide a way of establishing what is the formal title, particularly for foreign-language titles.

On a slight tangent, 'Prime Minister Brown' is a construction I don't often hear in the UK; I think it's mostly a usage that's come from the US by analogy with 'President Bush'. We'd usually refer to him just as 'the prime minister' (or 'the Prime Minister'?) or just 'Gordon Brown'. TSP 00:12, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Well I would definitely prefer to say that President Sarkozy is the president of France, not the President of France. If you wanted to carve out a special exception for HM the Q, I wouldn't object; we Yanks understand that y'all aren't completely rational about her :-).

This wound up being an issue at prime minister of Italy -- there was a move debate that settled on the lowercase "m", then someone got around to moving it to "President of the Council of Ministers of Italy", which (without the "of Italy" part) is the actual official title, but one almost never used in English, and only in rather restricted contexts even in Italian. Personally I think it was better at "prime minister", with the minuscule "m". --Trovatore 00:22, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Talk here, don't edit war

There's an edit-war brewing, I see, concerning the removal of advice on how to make external links visually neater.

Storm surfer, please explain here why you're so adamant that this advice be removed. External links are a lighter blue than internal links, so are already identifiable. Who cares all that much, anyway? What I do like is not having to put up with that lumpy arrow thing that, by default, accompanies external links.

You're the one who wants to change the status quo, so you should justify the change before edit warring over it. Tony 05:26, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

DreamGuy has been edit-warring on multiple guideline pages. For example, WP:LAYOUT. I suspect it will soon be time for a User WP:RfC. He hasn't been discussing on the talk page there either. Just so everyone is aware. IPSOS (talk) 07:00, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

That's nothing but a personal attack. I'm not surprised you'd stoop to such tactics based upon the harassing and deceptive comments you've left on my talk page. No edit warring is going on here, it's just you objecting to the edits of multiple editors and trying to create a guideline to meet your own person whims. I think you need to just lay off and try to stick to the actual issue... oh, wait, but if you do that everyone can see that you are completely wrong. Gotchya. DreamGuy 07:17, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, no. Multiple editors are objecting to your edits. I'm aware for the Arbitration case that was filed against you, which was not accepted because the step of filing a user RfC had never been taken. The issue is, that you are attempting to change the order of the appendices which have been fixed and accepted for some time, and that if I'm not mistaken, this is not the first time you've tried to do so unilaterally w/o discussion on the talk page. IPSOS (talk) 07:21, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

It's not the status quo, the status quo is not to screw with the code for external links. Sometimes people sneak nonsense into guideline pages that simply have no reason to be there, and that's certainly one of them. If there is an edit war it's only if you insist on putting that nonsense back after multiple editors have removed it. I don't particularly care if *you* like not having to "put up" with the standard code for external links, it's how everyone always does it here, and it's absolutely insane to claim that people can just up and decide to do it completely differently if they get it into their head that they want to.

And your recent edit to try to claim that this page overrules the submanuals is nonsense. In fact if a statement clarifying what to do over conflicts is necessary, common sense says the submanual, where people more into the specific topic discuss it in greater detail, should overrule this page. But instead of specifying one or the other we need to let Wikipedia editors handle these things through the normal process.

You have real WP:OWNership issues, and I think you should tone done your attitude here and start editing in good faith. DreamGuy 06:58, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

If you objected, why didn't you respond when I raised the matter on this page? That was a courtesy that you haven't extended everyone here over the current issue. I don't like your aggressive attitude, talking of the need to "tone down".

Now, to take your substantive issue, by example, at the start of this MOS, you'd rather stop peopple from turning this (as it was a while ago):

Chicago provides an online guide, The Chicago Manual of Style Online. The The Guardian Styleguide, the Mayfield Electronic Handbook of Technical & Scientific Writing and the CMS Crib Sheet are among online style guides that are accessible gratis.

into this:

Chicago provides an online guide, The Chicago Manual of Style Online. The The Guardian Styleguide, the Mayfield Electronic Handbook of Technical & Scientific Writing' and the CMS Crib Sheet are among online style guides that are accessible gratis.

I don't see why people should be stopped from removing the arrow thing when the text looks more attractive and reads more smoothly without, and the fact that the links are external is obvious. Tony 07:23, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Now that I don't agree with. All external links should be made obvious. IPSOS (talk) 07:25, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't mind if you remove the extra code that removes the arrow, as long as no one objects. Tony 07:29, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

You are quite gracious. That's how I thought these discussions were supposed to work. I'll wait for more input. No hurry. IPSOS (talk) 07:38, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Can I say that the difference between light blue and a lighter blue isn't that great to a lot of people with vision impairment?

Also, most people probably won't even think to look for a difference, and won't notice it unless an internal link and an external link are right next to each other. And it requires people to have their own prior knowledge of what the difference is between two slightly different colors of links. They have to click on this kind of link to find out that it is an external link, which is just as bad as easter eggs.

I personally cannot stand external links within articles, except in the External links section, as I have to disable CSS for my Treo to be able to use Wikipedia, and that makes all links look the same to me. ~ JohnnyMrNinja _{talk} 05:34, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with most of what DreamGuy said about the status quo. External links should look like external links. If you want to change the way external links look (which seems to be your goal), you should do so at the source, not by suggesting that people include HTML code that is confusing to readers and editors. — The Storm Surfer 21:10, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

This discussion has changed my view somewhat. I wonder whether the raft of external links in the lead should be removed or relocated to a less prominent position in MOS. I'm sensing that people want to reinstate the arrow icons wherever these links end up. Tony 03:03, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Isn't the standard practice in situations like this to link to the Wikipedia article about the publication, with the idea that readers can go to the external link from there? Not that I'm sure that's what we should do, but I thought it was what is typically done. — The Storm Surfer 01:46, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

MOS central prevails over daughter articles

Now, as for this storm over the "MOS central prevails over daughter articles" clause, which no one bothered to respond to when I discussed it here earlier, can the parties who object to it say here why they feel that it should be impossible to tell what WP's real policy is on an issue when two MOS pages declare different policies? Is that not an unsatisfactory situation? The plea for a structural environment for discussion that I see in the edit comments means nothing to me. Why should that discussion not happen here if there's a discrepancy?

My reason for initiating this change, apparently without objection at the time, was that there is insufficient coordination between MOS central and the submanuals. The additional clause functions to ensure that a policy prevails at all times, and to encourage discussion and coordination between the pages. Not enough of that happening, IMO. Tony 15:15, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I've acutally been wondering the same thing myself. People go in and unilaterally change a lesser watched page. It gets missed and stays there for a few days, weeks or even longer, then the editor pretends it was like that all along. There needs to be better monitoring of these changes, and IMO anyone who edits policy or guideline pages w/o even posting on the talk page should simply be reverted. IPSOS (talk) 15:43, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

The MOS is not a policy document it is a guideline. This guideline does not take precedence over other guidelines. You should seek a broad consensus with the editors of the other MOS guidelines before implementing such a radical shift from consensus to prescription. Today at least two editors have reverted the suggested change so until the change has been widely advertised and a broad Wikipedia:consensus emerges this should not be implemented.

IPSOS you wrote above "then the editor pretends it was like that all along". Yet when I reverted an edit that changed a section called "Submanuals" you reverted to the new text with the comment "revert revision 145914551 by Philip Baird Shearer (talk) - no post or discussion on talk page prior to change)". So now that I have posted this here I hope you will wait until a consensus emerges before reverting my change to the status quo again. --Philip Baird Shearer 17:18, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Or you could be more gracious and allow the change to stay while it is discussed. So far there is no consensus either way, but at least the topic was brought up on the talk page in advance. IPSOS (talk) 17:40, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

The problem with this page, and it's been like this ever since I started editing, is that it's edited by too many people, many of whom add their own ideas without having any background in the subject. The result is that the page has veered from the sublime to the ridiculous and back again (I'm thinking of issues like Maltese English). I see that Tony and others seem to be getting a grip on it, so perhaps in future it'll be stable and more sensible. Until we see that stability, we can't give the MoS, itself just a guideline, authority over any other guideline. You could argue that it only wants authority over its own subpages, but we'd first have to give the subpages a chance to declare their independence, as it were, and I'm guessing many of the editors on those pages would rather hoist their own flags than be subject to a huge MoS that's difficult to follow, unstable, and sometimes nonsensical. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 17:58, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, Tony is one of the ones CAUSING the ridiculous nonsense, by adding new bits of info that completely go against common sense and suggesting people just adopt Britishisms as the default. We can't give one guideline any authority over any other guideline, and we certainly cannot give a couple of editors who are not working at all within how the encyclopedia as a whole has been operating for years as a sane consensus way of handling things a blank check to change whatever they want. DreamGuy 04:03, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I've not looked at Tony's edits, but he's an extremely good editor, and one of a small number of users I'd trust to get this page in order. This guideline has been one of the most problematic on Wikipedia, because everyone thinks they understand style issues, plus people have their favorite ways of doing things, and they firmly believe this page can only benefit from hearing about them. As a result, we've had the Thirty Years' War over whether the serial comma should be called the Oxford comma, and otherwise sensible editors manning the barricades in defence of Maltese English, which no one was ever able to give an example of. That's not to mention the lives lost over whether to write U.S. or US. I take my hat off to Tony for trying to put an end to it. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 05:00, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I see your point, but in my experience the daughter articles are just as unstable and prone to the same issues you bring up, probably more so. Are we going to simply be stuck with shifting sand? Case in point, one editor keeps trying to change the order of the standard appendices in WP:LAYOUT. The great majority of article comform to the current order. People don't seem to consider the huge amount of work they would create by making such a major change. And their reasons seem to boil down to "I think it would be so obviously better that no one could possibly disagree with me." I'm not sure how to counter such an attitude. Any suggestions? IPSOS (talk) 18:25, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you in principle, and if this page ever becomes stable (and gets rid of some of its sillier advice), I'd strongly support having it as a main page with its subpages deriving their authority from it, rather than standing as independent guidelines.

I can help you out at WP:LAYOUT (though I've not looked at it yet), but in general the only advice I can give is to work hard to get this page fixed up and stabilized. Easier said than done, I know. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 18:31, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I've protected LAYOUT and left a note on talk. One thing we should do is reinforce the idea that policy and guideline pages must not be changed without discussion, unless they're nonsensical or inconsistent with other key policies and guidelines, but neither seems to be the case with LAYOUT. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 18:39, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I very strongly agree with your last statements. When something is long established and changes would require that many article be changed, the reason had better be good enough to convince a consensus of editors that it is such an improvement as to outweigh the makework it produces. That's not the case with the undiscussed changes which were being made at WP:LAYOUT. IPSOS (talk) 19:17, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

SV, thanks for your input. You appear to agree in principle with the idea that MOS central should prevail, but only after it becomes stable. My argument for explicitly giving MOS central priority over the daughter articles, as I expressed it originally, is a way of dealing with instability. That is, the daughter articles exist primarily to set out the guidelines in greater detail, not to be an alternative little empires. Thus, whenever a significant change is proposed at a daughter article, it needs to be checked with this page, and if it would lead to inconsistency with it, should be argued out here. This process should occur now, but often doesn't, which is a recipe for chaos. The recent abolition to the ban on using en dashes in article titles is a point in case. There, the proponents had a good grip on what this article said (nothing), and the issue was thrashed out and voted on in isolation at the now-defunct MOSDASH. The result would normally not have been communicated to this page. Under the codified relationship between this page and its daughters, the arguments and voting should probably have occurred here. Tony 02:28, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I do agree in principle, and I appreciate the predicament. It's a question of trying to work out which is the cart and which the horse. I think the daughter articles become their own little empires for the same reason that the MoS in general is such a mess (or was when I last checked), and that's too many editors writing about issues they're not really familiar with, or adding their own idiosyncracies, or whatever they were taught in school, on the grounds that if it was good enough for Mrs. Palmer in Grade 3, the rest of the world ought to fall in line and stop whining.

The ideal thing would be if a small group of knowledgeable people (preferably professional editors) took hold of the page, got it in shape, then focused on keeping it stable. I don't know how likely that is to happen. You're doing a magnificent job, but you'd need more people behind you to fend off unwelcome changes.

Which are the daughter articles exactly? Are they the ones listed under "supplementary manuals," and is that a complete list? SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 20:22, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

User:IPSOS's edit comment when he reverted: " no post or discussion on talk page prior to change" is just nonsense, as there is discussion here, and the version he put in there was the new one that goes completely against the longstanding consensus on the page. If you're going to make that argument that it absolutely does not belong there and the revert did the exact opposite of what it should... but then that particular editor doesn;t really have an opinion, he's just playing his typical "I don't know what's going on, but DreamGuy wants it the other way so it must be wrong." thing. DreamGuy 04:03, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh, yeah, that's right, I forgot. DreamGuy is so important and always right that no one could possibly disagree with him except out of spite. Go read WP:NPA, or as you prefer to shove down other editor's throats, WP:DICK (see DG's edit history). IPSOS (talk) 00:39, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

When I initially saw the precedence comment, I thought it was a good idea. If two places say to do two different things, one of them should have priority over the other. But then I realized this is Wikipedia. If two places say to do two different things, we should decide what the correct option is (usually the third option in my experience) and change them both to say that. — The Storm Surfer 21:14, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

And just when does that happen? And where? And how long does it take? There have been (and no doubt still are) discrepancies for which there's insufficient motivation to reconcile. The "prevails" clause forces that issue, where it arises. It's not intended to be a mass takeover by this page of the whole concept of style guideline; rather, it's intended to encourage contributors of both MOS central and its daughter manuals to reach consensus about what's on their pages, probably here. I envisage that, as often as not, MOS central will change to reconcile its text with that of a submanual; after all, submanuals attract specialists. Tony 02:58, 22 July 2007 (UTC) PS Slim Virgin, yes, the submanuals are listed under the section of that name here. I presume that it's an accurate list. Tony 03:00, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Hyphens

The Manual of Style uses U+002D (-) for hyphens. This is Unicode's hyphen-minus character, which is there for compatibility with ASCII. Unicode also has a character for a hyphen, U+2010 (‐), which is preferred when legacy compatibility is unnecessary, and which i believe looks better. Would it be reasonable to change the MoS to encourage the Unicode hyphen, or is there good reason to continue using the ASCII hyphen? Foobaz·o< 01:25, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Is there a good reason to use the Unicode hyphen, aside from your assertion that it looks better? Investigating further, I found that only 69 of the fonts on my computer include this character, compared to over 300 for hyphen-minus. — The Storm Surfer 01:34, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

It unambiguously means hyphen, and never means a minus sign, en dash, or em dash. It's available in about 44 of 151 of the fonts on my computer. If the user's font doesn't have it, i believe most web browsers will fall back to a font that does have it. We should use it for typographical correctness, the same reason we use en dashes and em dashes. Foobaz·o< 12:45, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I believe browsers do not fall back to another font in that case. (How would that work? Would it fall back for just that character? Or for all characters?) That said, I doubt all of those 151 or 300 fonts are relevant. It would be more interesting to know what support for this character exists in the few fonts that are likely to be used (Wikipedia's default fonts and other common fonts). --PEJL 13:22, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

You certainly have a point that a lot of my fonts may not be relevant. That said, Arial didn't seem to have it, which someone said was Wikipedia's default font once. Of course, it's possible I just have a lousy version of Arial (assuming there is some other kind). — The Storm Surfer 02:43, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Browsers actually do that sort of fallback all the time, except for Internet Explorer (at least until version 6), which is the reason for the existence of {{unicode}} etc.

Anyhow, I believe recommending the correct minus character (U+2212) and the dashes is enough, hyphen-minus will then mean hyphen. Also I’m not aware of a font that features different glyphs for U+002D and U+2010, but many feature a special glyph for U+2212 (which looks like + without the vertical stroke). Christoph Päper

Presumably we should encourage whichever is produced by the the hyphen character on the keyboard, since any improvement in looks is unlikely to be worth the extra effort. Christopher Parham (talk) 16:29, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Proposal to add to MOS a summary of MOSNUM

The draft of six new sections comprising guidelines on chronological items and numbers is now available and under discussion at MOSNUM talk.

The proposal is that these new sections will be inserted into MOS central and will, at the same, form the basis for improving the text in the related sections at MOSNUM itself.

Contributors to this page are welcome to scrutinise the proposal and to provide advice and feedback at MOSNUM talk during the next two weeks. Several improvements to the draft have already been made on the basis of feedback. Tony 07:43, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Proposed guideline: Plagiarism

I would like to propose a formal policy or guideline on plagiarism, and this seems like the best place to put it. I'm also posting a link to WP:VPP pointing to this discussion.

Background

In an article I'm involved with (fully protected article Battle of Washita River, it was discovered that there were a lengthy quote from a copyrighted source that was not in quotation marks (which has since been removed by an admin as a copyvio); but also that there was also an lengthy quotation from a public domain source with no quotation marks that had originally been sourced, but its source removed through sloppy editing during an edit war. Subsequently, I've been in discussion with the editor who originally placed the public domain text who researching maintains that it is unnecessary to put a quote from a public domain source in quotation marks so long as the text is cited. He particularly maintains this to be the case for published public domain information from the U.S. government. I maintain that "Quotation marks are always necessary when it's not your own writing. Otherwise it's plagiarism. This is the case whether it's in the public domain or not." The discussion continues at Talk:Battle of Washita River#Copyvio & misquoted footnote text removed; plagiarism discussion.

I agree: word-for-word quotes are theft unless within quote marks. The situation is less clear when some of the wording is changed (easy, since it's usually possible to improve the text from a source, or trim it for encyclopedic use). Tony 02:57, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I also agree with this proposal. There are a few editors who add material directly from old encyclopedias without rewriting, which is plagiarism regardless of the copyright issue. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 03:17, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Indeed: this has been the elephant in the living room for some time. I'm keen that users' awareness be raised on this habit of copying other texts in verbatim. Tony 07:08, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I support this proposal as well. Dreadstar † 19:11, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Present policy on plagiarism

Presently, references to plagiarism in Wikipedia policies/guidelines are scattershot and incomplete. As of this writing, what I've been able to find:

• WP:CITE#When you quote someone: "You should always add a citation when quoting published material, and the citation should be placed directly after the quotation, which should be enclosed within double quotation marks — "like this" — or single quotation marks if it's a quote-within-a-quote — "and here is such a 'quotation' as an example." For long quotes, you may wish to use Quotation templates."

• Problem. Does not make it clear that all published material, regardless of whether it is copyrighted or in the public domain, must be set off as a quotation.

• Yes it does; it says '"published material"; that means ALL published material, whether copyrighted or not. Tony 03:21, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

• I would advice to take this further. Every verbatim quote should be between "quote signs" and be referenced. I.e. I would include verbatim sentences taken from interviews, radio broadcasts, songs, etc. Arnoutf 08:03, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

• WP:PD: "For all practical purposes on Wikipedia, the public domain comprises copyright-free works: anyone can use them in any way and for whatever purpose. Proper attribution to the author or source of a work, even if it is in the public domain, is still required to avoid plagiarism."

• Problem. While it makes it clear that proper attribution is needed for public domain material, it does not make it clear that quoted public domain material must be marked as a quotation.

• Doesn't need to. Tony 03:21, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

• Again I would say that if you use a verbatim copy of PD works, although no violation of copyright is still plagiarism. Thus to avoid plagiarism use the quotes. Arnoutf 08:03, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

• WP:COPYRIGHT#Using copyrighted work from others: "Note that copyright law governs the creative expression of ideas, not the ideas or information themselves. Therefore, it is legal to read an encyclopedia article or other work, reformulate the concepts in your own words, and submit it to Wikipedia. However, it would still be unethical (but not illegal) to do so without citing the original as a reference. See plagiarism and fair use for discussions of how much reformulation is necessary in a general context."

• Problem. Addresses only copyrighted works, & that incompletely.

• Copyright (according to some European laws I know of) comes into existence at the moment of creative expression of the ideas. The creative expression is related to the verbatim copying of texts. Citing the original authors of the work may not be essential for plagiarism, but is essential in the light of the WikiPolicy avoiding original research WP:OR; in other words, we are not allowed to put our own ideas into articles (original research), the only way to show we don't is by very strictly adhering to referencing guidelines.Arnoutf 08:03, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

• Currently, the very few mentions of plagiarism in policies/guidelines point to the mainspace article on plagiarism -- which is not a policy or guideline, so editors may not feel bound by what that mainspace article says.

Prior discussion

I posted about this issue at WP:VPP#Quoting public domain sources on 19 July 2007; to avoid losing that discussion through present VPP archiving policy, I copied that discussion over to Wikipedia talk:Citing sources#Quoting public domain sources & plagiarism where the original VPP can be read as well as more discussion from more editors. Consensus of editors who have so far weighed in on both pages is that any quoted text, whether it's copyrighted or in the public domain, needs to be both sourced and set off as a quotation (through use of quotation marks, are as a block quote). (So far there hasn't been any response at Wikipedia talk:Public domain#Plagiarism in quoted public domain sources, but I just posted it today, so we'll see.)

The problem of plagiarism in Wikipedia articles has been mentioned in previous discussions, such as at WP:NGR#Miscellaneous. It appears to be a common topic in discussions of proposed feature articles, where some editors seem to be confused about what plagiarism is, e.g.,

• Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations/October 2004#Chesapeake and Delaware Canal (where an editor apparently equates plagiarism with copyright violation, hence, "Look at the definition of public domain. It literally can't be plagarism").
• Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Sydney Riot of 1879/archive1
• Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Zambezi
• Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Basics of quantum mechanics, where an editor claims that not referencing sources, even if all if it was original writing (by an editor claiming to be an expert on the topic), is plagiarism -- i.e., equating inability to verify sources because no sources were given with plagiarism.

While I've made proposals at both Wikipedia talk:Citing sources#Quoting public domain sources & plagiarism and Wikipedia talk:Public domain#Plagiarism in quoted public domain sources about language to clarify guidelines about plagiarism, it seems to me that a more unified, clear, and coherent statement about plagiarism is desirable, which wording changes at WP:CITE#When you quote someone, WP:PD, WP:COPYRIGHT#Using copyrighted work from others, and probably as well WP:MOS#Quotations.

Formulating a policy/guideline

I've never proposed a new policy or guideline here, so I don't know fully the process. Perhaps someone can enlighten me. But I do know it involves discussion. I believe that at the very least, a policy/guideline on plagiarism should incorporate the following points:

• A clear definition & description of what plagiarism is, basically: "the practice of claiming, or implying, original authorship or incorporating material from someone else's written or creative work, in whole or in part, into one's own without adequate acknowledgment." (from the plagiarism mainspace article).
• Examples to illustrate what plagiarism is.
• Why Wikipedia doesn't want plagiarism.
• Quoted text must always (1) be cited to its source; and (2) be identified as a quote, regardless of whether the source is under copyright or is in the public domain. Particularly if element 2 is missing, it's plagiarism.
• A claim of original authorship is implied by the lack of quotation marks, even if the source is attributed. Without quotation marks, it is assumed that the facts or arguments presented in a passage are based on the source, but that the authorship of the passage belongs to the editor who placed the text.
• I.e., if a fact or argument from a source is rephrased into the editor's own original words, sourcing the reference alone suffices; but if the fact or argument is a verbatim quotation, it must be also marked as a quotation through the use of quotation marks or by setting it off as a blockquote using the <blockquote>...</blockquote> tags. --Yksin 00:50, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

Okay, any thoughts? --Yksin 00:50, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

1. . instead of the words "original authorship" say, a claim that it is one's own original wording. (to avoid confusion with WP:OR)
2. following the GFDL is one of the reasons--it requires us to track where everything came from.
3. dont get hung up about single or double quotes. Thats a UK/US variation, and whatever was in the article is OK.
4. something about specifically indicating the exact part taken from the PD source when all or almost all the article is used is necessary also. But this is an instance where quotes or block quotations does not seem to be always necessary, and perhaps a footnote indicating the extent is more appropriate.

DGG (talk) 01:56, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Practical question: Yksin are you planning to take leadership on the actual drafting of this document? Are there others who have agreed to do the "legwork" so to speak? You mentioned: "I've never proposed a new policy or guideline here, so I don't know fully the process."

Have you considered drafting an essay? (See Category:Wikipedia essays). An essay would be a good foundation upon which to build your case that there is a need for a new guideline or policy. dr.ef.tymac 02:28, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Leftymac, I'm willing to take leadership on it, since after all it was my idea. But of course need lots of input, including how to really do the process; and also of course input on issues such use of the 1911 encyclopedia, & GDFL, & all that stuff. Unfortunately I came down sick & I can barely sit up & look at a screen right now, much less parse all the thoughts & opinions in any kind of cogent manner right now, so I'll have to come back after I am feeling somewhat better, in a day or two. --Yksin 22:48, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Credit the sources but quote only when someone's exact phrasing is relevant. Copyright expires for the benefit of the public so it can be reused. Once public domain prose is added to Wikipedia it is just text and can be altered as needed. For example, this edit is mostly verbatim and sourced. It is quite usable but style preferences are for descriptive prose so someone may rewrite it. There is no need to mark a block of editable text as being special. (SEWilco 03:31, 24 July 2007 (UTC))

You seem to be advocating plagiarism. Do you understand that plagiarism and copyright violations are two separate issues? SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 03:49, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm only against a blanket "must be quoted" rule. I understand there are several separate issues. For public domain text, identification of the source is not legally required. I stated the sources should be identified so as to give credit to the author, which is the ethical issue behind plagiarism. Identification of the source of information, per WP:CITE is only a Wikipedia matter, but is also satisfied by naming the source even if the text is later altered beyond recognition. (SEWilco 04:20, 24 July 2007 (UTC))

But why would you be against quoting if the text has been copied from elsewhere word for word? SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 04:22, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Because it may be editable text rather than a supporting quotation which should not be altered. We don't put quotation marks around 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica text and forbid its alteration. We credit the source, perhaps with {{1911}}, and sometimes with {{1911POV}} actively encourage its alteration. We can reuse text but it is at most unethical to not credit the source and at the very least polite to credit the author's work. But quotation marking should be used for text which should not be changed, such as an individual's statement which supports a topic of the article. H.G. Wells wrote a history book but is it proper to take anything in the book and wrap quotation marks around it as if he said it and it should never be changed? If you want easy access to the origin of every word, you'll have to wait for m:WikiRose. (SEWilco 16:18, 24 July 2007 (UTC))

Athough I'm pretty sick right now & can hardly sit up to read, I do understand this, that some kind of allowance or whatever needs to be made for uses such as that out of the 1911 Britannica. The particular case that got me going on this was an article that was sourced to multiple sources, with presumably new writing all the way through it except for that which was in quotation marks -- until it turned out that one person had been making long verbatim quotes of a PD source without marking it as a quote. As at that point the article (Battle of Washita River was being heavily edit-warred over, sloppy editing led to the source being altogether removed. Additionally, in a long paragraph where the source was given only once (at the end of the paragraph), new text could have been inserted in the middle; thus, the P.D.-source material above it would become severed from its source unless the editor inserting new text thought added a new footnote for it ahead of his/her new insertion. S/he is much more likely to do so if s/he sees through quotation marks that all that long para was a quote.... And now that I am aware that GFDL is also an issue with this, it makes it even more important for some kind of attention to be given to this problem.... Hope any of this makes sense, as I mentioned, I came down sick & it's not really easy to express myself well at the moment. --Yksin 22:48, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

In articles derived from the 1911 Britannica, the PD-sourced material may be present at random locations throughout the article. In some such articles, there isn't much identifiable content left from the original Britannica. I think there's nothing wrong with this, provided the article as a whole is clearly marked as containing material from the PD source. If you want to know which parts of the article, use the history feature.

I do think it would be reasonable to make a guideline that says "if you copy sections from a PD source, you should start by copying them verbatim and noting it in the edit summary (in addition to making a notation in the References section). Then you can modify the text in subsequent edits." That would make it more feasible for a reader to find out which text came from the PD source, and which didn't. But let's be clear -- this is not a plagiarism issue. Plagiarism happens when you don't give credit. --Trovatore 23:04, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

There is no requirement for PD material to be credited, much less being marked as special with quotation marks. It is ethically preferred to give credit to the original author, and WP:V can be satisfied with a proper citation. Incidentally, giving the source of text can also avoid an erroneous copyvio claim; when I web search for phrases in some of my PD books I find published texts which are reusing the original material, so someone might later think text from a PD source was taken from a more recent publication. Later edits can make it awkward to figure out the sources of components (that's what m:WikiRose is addressing), but as text gets increasingly altered from the original it also becomes less important what the original was. Also, WP:V can also be satisfied if one uses verbatim PD text and adds references to other supporting material. Don't worry too much about the PD text, worry about what it says. (SEWilco 14:24, 26 July 2007 (UTC))

why GFDL matters WP itself is not PD! WP is copyright, available under GFDL license, and the licensing is enforced--we insist on attribution when our material is used, and take appropriate action when it isn't. People downstream from us need to know what they can use freely and what they can't. We therefore need to indicate the source of our material. Unless we went to PD status entirely--which we cannot now do because our contributors made their contributions relying on our license--we have no real choice but to indicate the material. DGG (talk) 04:12, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I see a problem with actually insisting on quotation marks in all cases. As I understand it, it is of the esssence of GFDL (and public domain; possibly with some restrictions) that a work can be taken and edited to form a derivative work. The problem arises when a GFDL or public-domain work is copied, with proper attribution and with a statement that the whole text has been copied (and possibly with quotes). If someone then edits the text, this is perfectly legal and I see no reason why it should be regarded as unethical (even if it might be better to completely rewrite the text). It would, however, be unethical to leave the quotation marks, because the text has been altered. In this case, it should be permissible to remove the quotation marks and add a note indicating that the text was originally copied.--Boson 06:18, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

In cases like that, the text should remain as it is or be completely rewritten. Complete rewrites are probably almost always the way to go, anyway. — The Storm Surfer 06:26, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

The presence of quote marks is a signal to all not to tamper with it. Deserves an instant revert. That principle is now expounded in the lead to the MOS. Tony 07:11, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Public domain material should be freely sliceable and diceable any way we like. That's what the public domain is for. You can do it with Hamlet, and you can do it with the 1911 Britannica. Intellectual honesty demands that we say when something is not entirely our work, but that's it -- there is no requirement to keep the material in quotes, or not to modify it. --Trovatore 07:46, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

However I do certainly agree that if it is in quotes, and attributed to a particular source, then it should say verbatim what that source said (possibly with ellipses, etc). But if it's public domain, or GFDL, then as Boson says, we can strip off the quotes and modify it, taking care to note the text's mixed provenance.

I'm not totally sure what should be the rule about translated material that appears inside quote marks -- "verbatim" is a concept that doesn't directly apply. --Trovatore 07:57, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Trovatore, you've brought up an important point that I failed to cover when inserting the "don't mess with quotes" clause right up the top, last week. When a quote is translated, there may be scope for tampering with it in ways that are highly unlikely to alter the substantive meaning (e.g., re-formatting 2.45pm to 2:45 pm). Let me think about how to word something extra, which I'll post under a new section soon. Tony 06:09, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Could you point me to this clause? I'm not quite sure what you're talking about here. --Trovatore 07:26, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it's the third sentence of the MOS: "An overriding principle is that style and formatting should be applied consistently throughout an article, unless there is a good reason to do otherwise, except in direct quotations, where the original text is generally preserved." If WPian A translates a foreign-language quote into English and inserts it into an article, can WPian B tweak it to conform with the MOS in ways that are unlikely to affect the substantive meaning? Tony 10:22, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, off the top of my head, I think if B is competent to translate from the original and is willing to look back at the original while making mods, then there's no problem. Otherwise I'd be careful because B might miss some subtlety while translating English-to-English. But I wouldn't want to put a flat ban even then -- maybe A is not particularly competent in English, and B just wants to fix some blatant error of spelling or grammar. --Trovatore 17:23, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I think it is important to distinguish 3 issues here

1) Copyright violation; using unauthorised bits of copyright protected works. This is simply illegal (theft of intellectual property) and should be avoided at all times (if only for Wiki's liability)

2) Plagiarism; although strictly not always illegal, in the academic society this is regarded highly unethical (and may lead to the ending of your tenure). Plagiarism is the verbatim inclusion of parts of other works without making clear that it is a verbatim copy. Whether this is copyrighted, public domain, Hamlet, a songtext, bits of an interview by a public person, or whatever does not matter. Verbatim use of existing text without proper treatment (quotes and reference) is plagiarism.

3) Use of sources. When sources are used to inform a text but the actual text is a rewording of the used source, this is not plagiarism but considered normal use of source. Even so it is considered unethical to use ideas without proper referencing, and in the light of Wiki leaving out sources would almost always inevitably clash with original research policies

I would support fairly strong guidelines against plagiarism for Wiki. Arnoutf 08:11, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Plagiarism has nothing whatsoever to do with whether you are using someone's words verbatim. You could paraphrase text so that it has not a single word in common with the original, and it's still plagiarism if you don't give credit. On the other hand, if you do give proper credit, then it's not plagiarism, even if it's a verbatim copy. --Trovatore 08:22, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Plagiarism vs copyvio

SlimVirgin suggested that someone, up above, might have been "advocating plagiarism" and asked if he knew that plagiarism and copyright are separate issues. I'd like to say a few words about the differences here.

Copyright is a legal matter, an artificial property right intended, in the long run, to enrich the public domain by encouraging writers and other creators to produce material that will eventually be added to it. We are very careful about copyright because we don't want the WikiMedia foundation to get sued (whether or not we individually agree with the theory behind it). The essence of copyright is whether you are using the words that others put together in a certain way, not their ideas.

Plagiarism, on the other hand, is not a legal matter at all, but a question of academic ethics. Its essence has nothing to do with whether you use someone else's words, but only with whether you give credit.

Now, in cases where text is taken directly from a public domain or GFDL source and modified, there is no copyright issue for the PD text, and there is no copyright issue with GFDL provided we comply with its terms (which require attribution).

Is there a plagiarism issue? No, as long as we give credit. As long as you properly acknowledge the creators of the material, you are not plagiarizing (though you may be committing a copyright violation, but not in the cases discussed).

Some contributors seem to be talking about a different issue, what in Europe is called "moral rights of authorship" or some such, the right to control modifications of a work. But that's a copyright issue, and we're talking about cases where the copyright has expired or is licensed to us. Making such derivative works is not plagiarism, nor, in the cases we're discussing, is it a copyright violation. --Trovatore 08:18, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Copyright is not a Style issue. Giving credit is a Citation and Verifiability issue (in the Wikipedia environment; these also help with the ethical environment). Cut-and-paste may include unusual styles to be ruthlessly edited. (SEWilco 16:32, 24 July 2007 (UTC))

What is a Quotation

I see the MoS suggests styles for Quotations but does not define what is a Quotation. (SEWilco 16:32, 24 July 2007 (UTC))

Why quotation marks are not the real issue

Let me use a specific example to illustrate why I have major reservations about the way this proposal is headed. In the article XanGo, I added the following: Mangosteens are harvested from all over south-east Asia and are pureed before they’re shipped to the United States; there the drink is produced using proprietary techniques. The juice is then sold in the U.S. and (as of mid-2007) exported to Australia, Canada, Germany, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, Singapore and Sweden. That was a minor rewrite of several sentences from the source, which I cited, a [Malaysian newspaper article. First, note that the sentences are absolutely factual, and facts cannot be copyrighted. Second, suppose I'd used exact wording from the article (instead of what I wrote), and had put that in quotation marks. Now suppose (as happens on more than one occasion at Wikipedia) that a subsequent editor decides to revise the sentences slightly, for better readability, succinctness, whatever. Should the quotation marks be removed? (I hope the answer is NOT "No, because the sentences should be left as is.) And, assuming that the answer is "Yes, it's no longer a direct quote", then why are we obsessed with quotation marks when they're going to disappear anyway.

In short, I think that it's very important (a) that information added to articles cite a source (in fact, I'd support a proposal that any addition of more than a sentence or so of text MUST be supported by a citation; failing that, it should be reverted on sight), and (b) that Wikipedia articles should only contain a limited amount of information from any one source not in the public domain (so, for example, no more than a paragraph or so from a newspaper article). It's these two points that I think are at the heart of the problem of plagarism, NOT the failure to put quotation marks around one or two (paraphrased?) sentences from a cited source. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 20:12, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Let's try an example which is closer to what is being discussed. The Mangosteens sentence above is not from a public domain publication, and we've been referring to public domain material. Here is an example involving public domain text, from a copyright-expired book published in 1900 by Keeler, where a significant amount of the Wikipedia article text is from that book. In this edit to Aralia spinosa I added material from Keeler, marking sections of text with a reference to the source. Most of this is statement of fact which can be easily confirmed through various means, so it does not seem required to quote this as being Keeler's opinion (unlike her opinion of her dogs). Rewriting was encouraged and was discussed so alteration is expected. The densely phrased description of characteristics of specific parts of the plants is still useful and relevant to the article, and should be accurate except where biology terminology changed since 1900. Some other Keeler material had to be changed, such as referring to Oklahoma by that name instead of its 1900s territorial name. (SEWilco 20:24, 26 July 2007 (UTC))

• Because we're discussing style here, is there anything wrong with the style of the Aralia spinosa article? It hasn't had many alterations since this edit despite some discussion about it. Prose is preferred to the bulleted list style, but rewriting the detailed items requires an editor who is familiar with the topic, as mentioned in the "was discussed" item above. Would putting quotation marks around sections of the article would improve it? (SEWilco 20:24, 26 July 2007 (UTC))

I'm not sure this is the best example. I read the Keeler when this issue first came up in discussion, and the material you used is clearly marked to its source, and has been extensively rewritten. In addition, because what you added from Keeler were botanical descriptions of the plant, I checked another source to somewhat verify that a similar description was still attached to this plant, and since it's not a Scroph, I wasn't too worried. If I felt that you had taken a substantial amount of material solely owed to Keeler, even though Keeler is in the public domain, I would have asked you to include a note in the article, the equivalent of the "this article incorporates text from the 1911 Britannica which is in the public domain." I apologize for any confusion, however, as I thought this was a specific article we were discussing, that it neede 21st century anglified, and the text included, from Keeler, is actually from a botanical description of the tree, which is generally the botanical description used today. I can't verify the accuracy of my own words here as I'm rather busy, but I don't think this article is the example. I think that when an article incorporates text from the Public Domain it should always be clearly marked as such, because plagiarism isn't the same thing as copyright violation, and we must guard for both, not only the latter. The article SEWilco cites does not, as far as I remember from my original look, incorporate any original text clearly attributable to the creation of Keeler, without seriously rewriting it. Should any of this be incorrect, I take the blame for not being clear.

Copyright violations and plagiarism are both concerns. KP Botany 21:06, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry if I'm behind on this debate, but I'm still not sure that I see why plagiarism is a concern. Copyvio is a concern. Lack of sourcing is a concern, because of verifiability. But plagiarism? To me, plagiarism is an academic concept - claiming something is your original work, when it is not. In Wikipedia, we make no claim to originality - indeed, it is discouraged. We are not being marked on our work, or paid for it. Where a public domain source text is available to us - 1911 EB for some articles, Catholic Encyclopedia for others - we should take from it what is useful, without feeling the need to put entire paragraphs in quotes. Except where it is in violation of copyright, or where no source is given at all (violating sourcing requirements), I don't see why plagiarism per se is something we need to worry about. TSP 22:38, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

As someone who fought plagiarism for three decades (as a college teacher), I find that this idea has a certain seduction. For an editor to claim authorship as her own in Wikipedia, no matter whether that is true or false, perverts the sense of an encyclopedia that anyone can edit. And it seems clear that Wikipedians who are academics are much more often students and tenured faculty, rather than those whose career rests on having publications clearly attributable to them, for that very reason.

To me, the issue of quotes is much more serious. In any venue, misquotation is at least as serious as plagiarism, and in Wikipedia more so: Wikipedia makes no claim for originality, but it aspires to accuracy. A number of times I have reverted well-meaning "copy edits" to quoted passages. I think it behooves us all to protect and cherish quotations, and when that is no longer possible, to remove the quotation marks, and worry only about copyvio, not about plagiarism.--Curtis Clark 14:38, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

There are many reasons, first and foremost of which is you don't claim you created something that you didn't. I can't actually get around seeing why anyone thinks it is okay to claim that you created something that you didn't, so I can't go much further with that one. However, there are tertiary issues with claiming something you didn't write. First, if there are problems with it and it gets copied from Wikipedia, and Wikipedia becomes known as the source of the problems, what then? Then you own up that you're not to blame, because you didn't write it, you just claimed to? Second, not falsefying your ownership limits issues with copyright, and established your credibility. The more you lie, whatever it is about, the more likely to lie you are perceived to be. So, the suggestion that Wikipedia should create an atmosphere of being the creator of multiple falsehoods has serious disadvantages and no advantages. There just really are not many advantages to lying about your creations, whether you are getting paid and lying, or whether you are lying for free. It simply doesn't do anything for the project. At all. KP Botany 04:18, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with KP as far as he (she?) goes. We should always acknowledge the source, even if it's in the public domain. Where I differ with what some here have seemed to imply is that we have to make the acknowledgment so detailed that you can tell, just from the text, which sentences in the article came from which specific source. This is desirable when reasonably feasible, but is not a necessary condition for avoiding plagiarism -- a mere once-per-article notice suffices for that. --Trovatore 04:30, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you on this, I like the notices on the bottom of the page that simply say this article incorporates material from a public domain source. I wish I could find one, they stand out from the regular references, and they seem to cover just what is need, acknowledgement that some portion of the article comes from a public domain resource.

Ah, here it is this nice little tag, {{1911}}KP Botany 04:39, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

No the tags at the bottom are not enough, for they do not specify what part of the article comes from where. In dealing with articles on a historical subject, I very much want to know what is guaranteed to be out of date. To not specify is my my opinion both unhelpful and dishonest. "Dishonsest" is a strong word , and I use it deliberately. DGG (talk) 08:22, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

No energy for this

For anyone who might have wondered -- most of my Wiki-related energy these days has been taken up in working a particular article I'm involved with out of a very bad, fully-protected version (an effort that's finally bearing fruit, I'm glad to say); my attention to the issue with plagiarism arose out of that effort. But I'm wiped out. And frankly I'm shocked & demoralized to discover that a significant proportion of Wikipedians think that plagiarism is perfectly okay, just so long as it's only the public domain that's being plagiarized. So, on this issue, okay, fine, plagiarize away, I don't have the energy to fight it. If someone else does, I'll be glad to act in support, but meantime I'll put what energy I do have in completing the job on the article that we're finally getting some movement on. Thanks to all those who spoke out against plagiarism, & my apologies for not being able to follow through here. --Yksin 17:11, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

First contributor example

The gasoline/petrol war was eventually decided based on the first contributor rule, after all other arguments were exhausted without any consensus. Should we mention it as an example? — Omegatron 04:34, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Do we need an example? — The Storm Surfer 04:39, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Dashes

Which dash should be used here: "the 2006-07 football season"? Epbr123 11:12, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

En dash. See WP:MOS#En dashes. --PEJL 11:48, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

See the proposal for overhauling the "years" section at MOSNUM. Tony 00:35, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Archives are a mess

I can't find anything in there. What happened to the old system of just using chronoclogical order? Marcus Taylor 01:50, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

You beat me to it: I tried to look for something I remembered from around December 2006, but it was hopeless trying to find it. Tony 03:17, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

The person who used to keep the archives insisted on doing it according to subject, which meant no one could ever find anything. I've been thinking for some time of going back to the beginning and re-creating chronological archives. Let me know if you think that would be helpful enough to justify the work. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 05:36, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Slim, I think that' s a good idea (without knowing how much work it would be for you). In addition, filing by subject means that someone has to tend to it continually into the future. Not a good prospect. But let's see what other people think. Tony 06:04, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I think I'll make a start. It's probably not a huge amount of work (famous last words). It's really only a question of copying the page every 100-200 kilobytes or so. Onwards and upwards ... SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 07:24, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

That would be excellent. I concur that the current topical archives are non-helpful. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 00:44, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

"We" in mathematical examples should be discouraged

I think it's a bad idea to use the term "We need to find.." in mathematical articles because it usually allows the "textbook syndrome" to kick in once someone uses it. For instance, in the example "To normalize the wavefunction, we need to find the value of the arbitrary constant A." would be much better as "To normalize the wave function, the value of an arbitrary constant, A, must be determined.". From the mathematics articles I've edited here, the term tends to encourage the use of "imagine a.." or "suppose we have" which make articles sound more like textbooks than encyclopaedia articles. ♥♥ ΜÏΠЄSΓRΘΠ€ ♥♥ ^{slurp me!} 23:34, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Concur, per WP:NOT which specifically says we should not be emulating textbooks or other "guides". — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 00:45, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Textbooks may well use active voice in places, but that doesn't mean that that ascribing agency and bringing in a personal/human element is a device that is owned by or characteristic of textbooks alone. It might well be that a WP articles share with textbooks an audience of non- and semi-experts, which is a good reason to temper what otherwise can be a tiresome use of the passive voice throughout (which I hate).

So rather than relying on the tarring of this practice with snobbery about textbooks, can we think in more linguistic terms? Tony 01:00, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I mostly agree with Minestrone here. "We" just doesn't sound like something you'd ordinarily read in an encyclopedia. That's an aesthetic judgment on my part, but Tony's dislike of the passive voice seems to be primarily an aesthetic judgment as well. To me the passive voice connotes dispassion (ah, there's an Italian word, distacco, which would be perfect here; I don't quite know how to translate it -- detachment, maybe?), which is pretty much what one wants in an encyclopedia. --Trovatore 03:34, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Interesting: I'd have called it "neutrality" rather than "detachment". WP doesn't need to be detached/disengaged from the reader, does it? I'd like to think that some of our articles can inspire and delight readers as well as informing them. In any case, is "we" all that personal when it's used to avoid the passive? My preference is not to use one option throughout an article, but to be more flexible: not passive unerringly. There are linguistic/psychological disadvantages to it. Want me to explicate? Tony 03:44, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not calling for a hard ban on the word "we", but I haven't really seen an example where I thought it was an improvement. By the way, in math articles, it's not usually a choice between "we" and the passive. The other choice is to make the mathematical objects themselves the subjects of the sentences -- the objects act rather than are acted on. That's the solution I usually prefer -- I think it comes out more descriptive, less didactic. --Trovatore 03:47, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

As a side note, I find myself concurring with Trovatore again, on all counts, and further I think that WP should be detached, in several senses. That's just kind of how encyclopedias are. I have a dreadful time with the people who work on bio articles within the scope of WP:CUE but who are not members or even regular wikipedians. The general urge is to write in a "directly engaging" style, with the result that many, many of these article end up with a {{Magazine}} slapped on them. There's a huge difference between "John Doe, then a resident of Florida, won the 1999 WPA World Nine-ball Championship, defeating John Q. Public, 11-2" and "In 1999 we saw the Floridian youth take the pool world by storm, trouncing hardcore favorite "Pistol John" Public in an 11-2 spanking". I don't even really exaggerate at all here. The "we" issue to my mind has quite a lot to do with this "journalistic" style that many, many newbie and even not-so-newbie editors bring to Wikipedia, requiring more experienced and encyclopedianism-grokking editors to revise and revise. It's a major pain the [insert body part of choice here]. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 05:27, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

OK, so is it worth inserting a "recommendation", carefully worded? Time is ripe to do this, by changing the subtitle in the MOSNUM draft of text that will end up soon here at MOS-central, from "Common mathematical symbols" to "Mathematics", and adding to the subsection a summary of the most important linguistic guidelines. If that's something you favour, we'd need to move quickly. What do you think of Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(mathematics)#Writing_style_in_mathematics? Tony 05:15, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

The "we" issue is beyond math articles, though. Hmm... — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 05:27, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Good point, although I can see that it's a particular problem in maths articles. Should we, then, put this off until the "Usage" subsection here is overhauled and significantly expanded (can't be long now)? I'm itching to make people think twice before writing quite a few things, such as "Note that". Tony 05:42, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Please be careful with wording this; I had an objection to the perfectly idiomatic, and non-textbook "has come down to us" of surviving classical texts, based on this part of MOS. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:55, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree that we need to tread carefully (the wording needs to be posted here first, and the Mathematics submanual people need to be alerted to it). I've been criticised for writing "has deepened our knowledge of ...". Who's "we/our"? was the question. It's a reasonable point to make. Tony 05:50, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

New subsections on times and numbers being finalised!

As advised twice in the past week on this talk page, the folks at MOSNUM have been working hard on a summary of the most important information in their submanual, to insert here. This information will probably also be the basis of an overhaul of the text at MOSNUM itself, which will continue by providing greater detail and covering a wider range of topics.

I'm hoping that the text will be finalised and the insertion made into MOS-central early next week. Please speak up now if you have suggestions or improvements, here. Tony 05:26, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Which dash?

Which dash should be used at Toronto Raptors' Accomplishments and Records? Thanks. —MC 00:26, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

You've currently used dashes in two ways: a spaced hyphen and a spaced emdash. Neither is correct. Also, mixing styles is incorrect:

• (spaced hyphen) Morris Peterson (rookie - 2001; sophomore - 2002)
• (spaced emdash) NBA playoff record for most three-point field goals in one half with 8 — Vince Carter, Toronto vs. Philadelphia Sixers, May 11, 2001.

You can use either spaced endashes or unspaced emdashes. Some sports editors prefer spaced endashes:

• (spaced endash) Morris Peterson (rookie – 2001; sophomore – 2002)
• (unspaced emdash) Morris Peterson (rookie—2001; sophomore—2002)

whichever you choose, you should use it consistently throughout. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:40, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. —MC 01:04, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Commas inside quotes

wow I'm kinda shocked about WP:PUNC's commas & quotes stuff. I distinctly remember reading a Barron's grammar guide that said precisely the opposite. What authority was referred to when coming to this conclusion? Thanks Ling.Nut 11:06, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

You're referring the so-called logical style of placing punctuation outside quotes if it's structurally part of the external sentence in which the quote exists. Have a read of it again. We don't need outside authorities for justification, although they play a role in the policy we make here. WP's MOS serves its unique mode, readership and function. Tony 11:35, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I understood that the "non-logical" style was based on the typographical aesthetics of the printed page, which are of less relevance to Wikipedia. The logical style is normal in British English and is also preferred in IT circles, where punctuation can be critical. Even though the Chicago University Press continue to use the "American style", they also say (in the Chicago Manual of Style) that the logical style is used in linguistic and philosophical works; textual criticism is another field named as presenting problems for "American" style. The Oxford University Press use the logical style and they point out (in the Oxford Guide to Style) that the ambiguity of the "US practice" can lead to problems when material from US and British sources are mixed. This could be an issue for Wikipedia. --Boson 19:17, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Indeed it could, and is precisely why WP settled on logical style; quotations using US-style that are themselves inside quotations can be handled with ^[sic] in the rare case that they actually introduce an ambiguity. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 20:47, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I understood that the “non-logical” style was based on the typographical aesthetics of the printed page, which are of less relevance to Wikipedia.

Like hell they are! Wikipedia should look as aesthetically nice as a printed page. Felicity4711 03:38, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

but the same graphical considerations do not apply. For html, both ways look equally clunkyDGG (talk) 03:52, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Consistency with regard to BC/AD vs. BCE/CE

Resolved

 – Wrong venue: This discussion should be, and otherwise has been, taking place at WT:MOSNUM.

I understand the principle that the same style of spelling, terms, etc should be used in the same article. However, what about if there is a main page that uses say BC, whereas a sub-page uses BCE. Specifically the pages I'm looking at are History of Japan and Japanese Paleolithic. The former uses BC, as indeed do the other historical sub-pages, but the latter has used BCE since the start.

So can one see the consistency rule as applying to such similar, related pages such as in this case, or does it only apply to individual articles even if they're part of a series? John Smith's 14:16, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

• This is a worthy consideration, but one that is cirumscribed by the fact that articles that start out as "daughters" of one article often attain a life of their own and may be closely related to more than one article. Where there's no resistance, consistency should be a goal, I think; but let's not raise blood pressure about it. Tony 14:54, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

• In principle, using the same datation method for "related pages" sounds nice, but the application would call for endless arbitrations:

-If two pages are related, which one should have primacy over the other?

-What is the definition of "related" (endless discussions about pages which are related in a fundamental way and those which are not... keeping in mind that basically all pages are related on Wikipedia).

-In the very case of Japanese Paleolithic, since the History of Japan thus starts with a BCE/CE article, an argument could be made that the rest of the Japanese history should follow suit, especially as Japan is fundamentally not related to the Christian cultural area.

So I am afraid that going into considerations of relatedness would only complicate the matter. The fundamental issue is that Wikipedia uses two datation systems, a traditional religious one (BC "Before Christ"/AD "Annus Domini") and a more modern, more neutral, one (BCE "Before current era", CE "Current era") used by most scholars, and that one day opinions will have evolved enough to make the latter the obvious choice for an International and culturally-neutral Encyclopedia. PHG 01:43, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

You don't have to a be overly religious to use the more common BC/AD and people should not be overly offended by their use (or lack of use) either. After all, both eras use the birth of "someone" as its ending/starting point.

And PHG, it is ANNO Domini— not ANNUS Domini (I wonder what you were thinking about... :) ) and it's Common Era— not CURRENT era. And most "scholars" are... —MJCdetroit 03:13, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the correction, but "Annus Domini" is also used, being the nominative, as a Google search will show (see also Annus horribilis for a parallel). What you seem to be alluding to has one "n" less. And "The Common Era, is also known as the Current Era" as explained in that very Wikipedia article. PHG 14:16, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I see no problems in switching from CE to AD as the subjects change emphasis. Keeping what is immediately in front of the reader consistent is enough of a goal, and quite difficult enough. DGG (talk) 04:23, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

• PHG, I'm only raising this issue because the page in question is a sub-page of one created much earlier (History of Japan), as well as it being part of a series. It was also created after the other pages in the series. So it is obvious what should take precedence. Your argument that Japanese history starts with a BC/CE article is rather ridiculous. If matters were more unclear, a discussion could be held but once again the first version used would stay until a decision was made. There's nothing wrong with a case-by-case basis.

Also I dispute most scholars use BCE/CE. I would say that most use BC/AD and that there is no longer anything non-neutral about the latter term. If one wants to say the latter imposes a "religious" slant, then someone else can retort the former imposes a "secular" attitude. John Smith's 10:52, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I believe BC/AD is not adequate for articles not specifically related to Christian matters, especially as a neutral alternative is available with BCE/CE. In this case (Japan), or in the case of Buddhism for example, BCE/CE is the obvious culturally-sensitive choice. Saying that BC/AD is neutral is not credible, as it is equivalent in nature to the Hijra (even the Wikipedia:Manual of Style describes "the overtly Christian associations of AD and BC"). This is another debate though, but I maintain my objection to using the coherence between separate articles as a pretext to push the BC/AD point of view, especially as it comes from a notable "BC/AD date-warrior". PHG 14:16, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Yet it is widely used for non-Christian matters, and I see no real complaints from most users. Even the article Shinto uses BC/AD without any problems. It is not insensitive to use BC/AD in Japan-related articles at all - you're imagining things.

I would advise you to not make comments such as "a notable BC/AD date-warrior". Maybe I should suggest you are the reactionary who is out of tune with the majority and seeks to maintain his own sense of "neutrality" despite the obvious common-sense in ensuring commonality between pages in a series and parent pages. John Smith's 15:11, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

C’mon, BCE/CE is just old wine in new skins; it’s nothing more or less Christian-based than BC/AD, just a bit more disguised than that bit of Latin does. That being said, a lot of people feel more comfortable with disguise than with actually adapting their point of view. Christoph Päper 01:04, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

A few comments:

• 70% of the world is not Christian. This is indeed the large majority, and to them there is a difference between mentionning "Christ" and "Dominus" every time we talk about history, and just saying "Current era".
• The last time there was a wide-ranging debate on the BC/AD-BCE/CE issue, the vote came out 50-50. The claim that "BC-AD" would be the "majority view" is therefore totally untrue. The reality is that Wikipedia users are deeply split on the subject.
• Going back to the subject of Japan, if Japan-related articles are to be coordinated with the same date system, it would definitely make more sense to adjust all articles along the BCE/CE system. Japan itself never mentions "Christ" or "Dominus" when it uses the Western Calendar. It just says 西暦 ("Seireki", Western Calendar), and for BC says 紀元前 ("Before the start of the current era") and for AD 紀元後 ("After the start of the current era"), hence chooses secularity.
• Actually, the History of Japan article was started in April 2002 with the BCE/CE date format: here, which fundamentally renders nil the proposal being made here. An early date warrior changed the date format to BC/AD, and now it is claimed that all related articles should be changed to BC/AD as well for consistency??? This is reason enough to return the History of Japan to its original BCE/CE format, and the only kind of harmonization between articles that could be warranted would be along the BCE/CE line, as is only natural for non-Christian related articles. PHG 01:40, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Nice try PHG. It's reverting to the first NON-STUB. The version you've listed is clearly a stub. So we don't revert to that.

70% of the world couldn't give a fig about BC/AD. I'm sure some people do care, but I don't think it's that much. John Smith's 10:42, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Appart from your light-handed dismissal of 70% of the world, where does it say that the date format is only taken into account from the time an article reaches non-stub status? Could you give me a link? Thanks. PHG

Or maybe your rather malicious portrail of 70% of the world being so intolerant as to be unhappy with the use of two letters. I think they're much more flexible than that.

Under "National varieties of English" there is a recommendation to use the first non-stub. Under the more specific "Dates and Numbers" there is no recommendation to using the first verion, either non-stub or stub. However, the main MOS page says "Where in doubt, defer to the style used by the first major contributor." First major contributor would indicate the first non-stub. John Smith's 12:23, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

• Thank you, but you cannot have it both ways: I am the creator and the first major contributor of the Indo-Greek article, and I chose early in its history (as I was de-stubbing it) that it should be BCE/CE. Your edit warring to BC/AD is therefore inadequate.
• In the case of the History of Japan article, the facts are that this article was started as BCE/CE, and, to your point, de-stubbed using BC/AD.
• However I still strongly dispute the validity of BC/AD datation for a non-Christian subject such as Japan, and it seems the MOS covers this sort of case:

"it is inappropriate for an editor to change an article from one style to another unless there is a substantial reason to do so (for example, it is acceptable to change from American to British spelling if the article concerns a British topic, and vice versa)."

MOS here makes a point that cultural affinity or the lack thereof can be a substantial reason to change a style (including a datation style). This clearly applies to our case (which is even more crucial and sensitive than the British English/American English example given): Japan or Buddhism etc... are totally non-Christian topics, whereas MOS recognizes "the overtly Christian associations of AD and BC". This translates into quite a few people actually being offended by the usage of BC/AD on these pages. In full confomity with the spirit of the MOS there is therefore substantial reason to adopt a non-Christian datation system such as BCE/CE for non-Christianity related topics.

In particular, I am afraid there is no legitimate ground for your edit warring trying to establish BC/AD on such pages as History of Nepal, History of Japan or History of the Americas. Regards. PHG 01:24, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Again, nice try. But it doesn't say anything about "cultural affinity" - it merely acknowledges there is a Christian link. As MOS also says, BC/BCE or BC/AD is acceptable to use. It does not say either is inappropriate. Also I did not change from one style to another in the case of the HoJ page. It was not consistent across the article - I made it so. John Smith's 09:25, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

You seem to overlook the part that voids your argument: MOS does say a change in style can be made when there is a substancial reason to do so, and gives as an example of a substancial reason the coherence between article content (British topic) and article style (British English). This very sensible rule covers all elements of style in MOS, including date formats. It is obvious in that case that for non-Christianity-related articles a non-Christian dating system (BCE-CE) is the most coherent with article content, allowing to avoid "the overtly Christian associations of AD and BC" (per MOS). And the MOS allows to pro-actively change to the style that best fits article content. This is only common sense, and we have the responsibility to implement it for non-Christianity related articles. Regards. PHG 01:26, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

And I would once again contend the article being "non-Christian" is irrelevant. Check MOS where is says that BOTH styles are acceptable. There are no caveats to that. John Smith's 05:58, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Claiming "irrelevant" the fact that an article has no link whatsoever with Christianity is really only your personal opinion: a lot of people would disagree with such a statement, and I have not seen it anywhere as fact or policy. What is indisputable is that the MOS acknowledges "the overtly Christian associations of AD and BC", and that it has a policy of consistency between topic and style: forcing an "overtly Christian BC/AD" dating format in articles which have nothing to do with Christianity, or would rather even take their distance from it, is just contrary to this consistency rule. I agree both styles are acceptable, but when challenged in such articles, the only sensitive thing to do is to adopt the more neutral BCE/CE. PHG 07:15, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

It isn't my personal opinion. MOS clearly says that either term is acceptable. It is for you to prove that there are caveats attached to that. You have repeatedly failed to do so - stating the bleedingly obvious (Christian links to BC/AD) doesn't help your argument at all. If that's all you have to say, I'm not impressed at all. John Smith's 07:18, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Please kindly respect Civility rules. The caveat is that the MOS promotes consistency between topic and style (introduction). And rest assured, I believe not forcing the usage of BC/AD on others actually agrandizes Christianity. PHG 07:15, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I am being perfectly civil - you appear to have overreacted. Why does consistency between topic and style mean BC/AD cannot be used? You're not making any sense. I also couldn't care less about whether Christianity is agrandized or not - that wasn't why I started this topic. Anyway this discussion isn't going anywhere. I had hoped that this talk page could clear things up, but there hasn't been enough 3-party discussion. John Smith's 18:58, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi John. I don't know how it could be clearer: a fundamental point of the MOS is to promote consistency (Introduction), including the consistency between topic and style (as demonstrated by the recommendation to use British-English for a British Topic). In that case, it is only natural for a non-Christian topic to use a non-Christian datation method. Imposing a "overtly Christian BC/AD" (MOS) on non-Christian topics fundamentally goes against the MOS consistency approach. It is a very simple, commonsense and sensible policy: whatever the rethorics, your argument against it doesn't stand. Regards. PHG 01:39, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

My argument stands fine - it's yours that is baseless. John Smith's 11:37, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Consistency between topic and style (i.e. BCE/CE for non-Christian topics) is really the only way to go. You are merely holding onto a technicality ("What was the first style used on this page?") to defend your point of view, in total disregard of what an article is about (History of Nepal???). I do not expect to convince you, as it is quite obvious you are on a crusade here. PHG 07:21, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Of course on a different note, the use of BCE/CE is technically more accurate, because it is unlikely that Jesus was born in 1AD, and was picked arbitrarily in the year 532 based on some historical guesswork, which is most likely slightly inaccurate (by a few years in either direction). This means that AD as 'year of our lord' is probably inaccurate, making CE not only more acceptable from a secular point of view, but also a better descriptor. I support the use of CE/BCE in all pages discussed here, and would go so far as to say it should go in to the MOS as the standard except for specifically christian focused articles. Owain.davies 10:31, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

We're not talking about Jesus - you have the wrong page, I think. John Smith's 18:58, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

???? I can't say i really understand your comment. You are talking about measuring units of time in relation to his alleged birth, and i'm just pointing out that it's probably an incorrect measure - making common era more relevant. Owain.davies 20:58, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

• Sigh*, it isn't used anymore as a reference to his birth. It's just an old way of expressing time - the fact it was alleged to be to do with his birth is not relevant to the actual measuring of time itself. John Smith's 21:20, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Exactly right, it isn't used a reference to his birth by most people, making it redundant, and CE/BCE more appropriate as a terminology. Owain.davies 21:37, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I support User:Owain.davies's opinion that the MOS should establish the standard as BCE/CE, except for specifically Christian focused articles.PHG 07:22, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I have no interest in this dispute, but editors interested might want to note that I have nominated Template:History of China - BC for deletion.[13] Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 17:22, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

MOSNUM

The summary of WP:MOSNUM that was recently added by User:Tony1 is much too detailed. All rare cases and exceptions – often clearly marked as such by signal words – should be left to the subpage, as should explanations. (Of course, with stricter, logical rules that section could be shortened that much it perhaps wouldn’t need its own page any more. Ain’t gonna happen, I know.) Christoph Päper 00:43, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

• All rare cases and exceptions ?? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:48, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Why don't you provide examples of details that you think are inappropriate here? I thought, perhaps, of "Centuries and milliennia", but it's only one point in the whole section; hardly seemed worth excluding. Pleased to hear specific recommendations here. Tony 00:53, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I thought the hint about keywords was obvious. Stuff like “Rarely, a night may be expressed in terms …” or “… exceptions are performance averages in sports …” needs to be cut.

In other places the text is overly verbose, e.g. nobody – or at least too few people to be worth being considered in a generalised rule – would put any suffix after a 24h time (except maybe ‘h’), which actually is an example where there could be even firmer shortenings: just describe the format of the 24-hour clock, leave the exceptional 12-hour clock to MOSNUM.

Sorry for not being more constructive, but I have already put more time in this again than I promised myself. Christoph Päper 01:20, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Christoph, look elsewhere in MOS and you'll find fine details. Here are examples: "The Latter Day Saint movement has particular capitalization and naming conventions." and "In periodic table groups, use the IUPAC names (these use Arabic numerals, not Roman numerals or letters)." If there's consensus for the removal of fine details, sure. It should be done systematically, and raised at MOSNUM talk, too. Tony 09:48, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

When other sections that consist of an outline of a subpage have details too fine, those should obviously go too. The talk about what to keep should rather be done on this page in my opinion, because it is here where the trimmed content is featured. Christoph Päper 16:48, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Either MOSNUM talk or MOS talk are fine by me in the first instance, with the assumption that the other talk will receive a notification/link where it's more than a trivial issue. I'd be happy to see a subsection on the issue of removing a few points from MOS for which there's consensus that their level of detail is inappropriate for MOS. Feel like pursuing this? Tony 04:06, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

City Names

Maybe an edit war can be resolved here. Over at Talk:Stargate SG-1, there's a discussion centering around the formatting of the show's city of origin - should it read "Vancouver, Canada," "Vancouver, British Columbia," or "Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada"? (Or any of the other possible combinations...) Thank you! =David^(talk)_(contribs) 14:54, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Vancouver, British Columbia seems the most natural to me, but then, I am American, so tacking on Canada might not be a horrible idea. — The Storm Surfer 15:57, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

That seems to be consensus among Americans, but most agree that it wouldn't work as well internationally, and we are trying to preserve NPOV.=David^(talk)_(contribs) 15:59, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

"Vancouver, Canada" would be my first preference, if "Vancouver" alone is too obscure. But please not all three items. Tony

Interesting. I never thought about it before, but Vancouver, Canada, sounds awfully odd to my American ear. It's like Dallas, United States of America vs. Dallas, Texas. But that's the only thing wrong with it, and nobody cares about my ear. In an international setting, I think Vancouver, Canada, is the only right choice in an ordinary context. To put all three would be proper if there was a need for so much specficity, but City, Province, would mystify many in the Old World. --Milkbreath 04:06, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Why not Vancouver, British Columbia? British Columbia is not exactly obscure and foreign to the English-speaking world, and we do generally use things like city, state when dealing with American cities, city, county for British ones, etc. Unless you're specifically trying to distinguish it from Vancouver, Washington, the American city just down I-5 also called Vancouver, it really seems odd saying, "Vancouver, Canada." Here's a more familiar one to English-speaking ears: when Tornoto is mentioned on the news, BBC, American, and Pakistan English channels, it is called, "Toronto, Ontario," not "Toronto, Canada," if additional words are used. KP Botany 04:49, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I do much prefer the assumption that English-speaking visitors to the site know where Vancouver and Toronto are—and if they don't, will type them into the search box to lessen their ignorance. The context will often frame a city as located in a country, too. But if not, Vancouver, BC, or Vancouver, British Columbia are vastly preferable to the triple-bunger gobbledygook. Tony 04:02, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Summary of recent change

MJCDetroit, can you briefly summarize the changes in this? It's hard to tell what was done. Thanks, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:29, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

It's easier if I just direct you to the MOSNUM post (here), which should explain it. —MJCdetroit 18:26, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:28, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Proposed "Words as words" change

See also #The use–mention distinction: apparent formatting inconsistency in MOS for genesis of this debate.

I propose changing:

• Italics are used when citing a word or letter (see use–mention distinction). For example, “The term panning is derived from panorama, a word coined in 1787.” “The most commonly used letter in English is e.”

to

• Quotation marks (" or ', consistent with the US or UK English of the article) are used when citing a word or letter (see use–mention distinction). For example, "The term 'panning' is derived from 'panorama', a word coined in 1787." "The most commonly used letter in English is 'e'."

Rationale: Using italics is grossly problematic. It confuses mention-demarking with emphasis, and effectively makes it impossible to adequately emphasize anything in an article or projectpage (such as WP:MOSNUM and other MOS pages) that uses a lot of examples, because the intended-to-be-emphasized item is too easily mistaken for yet another example (and boldfacing is too over-the-top). It also conflicts with italicization of foreign words, again leading to no choice but to inappropriately bold face them when they are also being used as mention-cases. It is routinely ignored as a MOS recommendation; the vast majority of examples I see in WP articles use quotation marks, not italics, for use-mention distinction. The can't-emphasize problem is compounded a bit by inappropriately making it look like any random example is in fact intended to emphasized, which it generally is not. The cited Use-mention distinction article actually gives italicization as the second, not first, option, and does not recommend one either way. I could go on, but this ought to be enough justification for the change. If necessary, it could be be changed to allow either but recommend quotes over italics; I'd prefer not being that wishy-washy about it. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 01:45, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

PS: User:Tony1 from over at WP:MOSNUM pretty much pleaded for guidance on usage with regard to this sort of thing, more than once, and received silence, which suggests to me that a) hardly anyone cares one way or the other, and b) there is no actual demonstrable consensus to keep the more problematic italic usage. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 01:49, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

The proposed changes were worked on over a long period with multiple editors; I see no reason to be changing things quickly. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:33, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

In a phrase like “A man came” the first word a is composed of the uppercase variant <A> of the roman letter ‘a’, which is usually not pronounced /a/ in English – the sound [a] may be encountered in other words, though.

Granted, most people won’t note the subtle differences and therefore will not mark them up when authoring, which is often okay provided the distinction doesn’t matter. Furthermore this convention is not universal. The question again is whether to recommend the best style or to document the most common style. I prefer the former, but am frequently in the minority here. Christoph Päper

Is there some authoritative source on this? I'm no professional writer, and when this was raised as an issue about "sub-professional writing" on one of the FACs I was pushing, I thought italicising "words as words" is something that is done in professional writing. Now it seems like it's kind of arbitrarily decided amongst a few WP editors. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 15:13, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I believe quotation marks are more problematic. It would be useful to use double quotes for quotations and single quotes for words as words, but we can't really do that, so it gets confused as to whether the word is quoted or not. The emphasis and foreign word examples you suggest are difficult, but if bold is over the top, there must not be much reason to emphasize at all, or perhaps the emphasis should be added in a more subtle manner than italics. — The Storm Surfer 19:35, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I would like to see an example of an encyclopedia article where the ambiguity of italicizing "words as words" is detrimental to the article. It seems to me that this would almost always be clear in context. Using quotation marks (either single or double) makes for considerably more clunky sentences -- in the naming section of an article this would make the proper style:

A group is called a "pod," "herd," "school," or "bloat." A male is known as a "bull," a female as a "cow," and a baby as a "calf."

That's not elegant at all. --JayHenry 00:07, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I am in favor of keeping the italics, mainly because switching will cause a whole bunch of people to come out of the woodwork and start circular arguments about whether punctuation goes inside or outside the quotation marks. Strad 00:33, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, what on earth are a "pod," "herd," "school," and a "bloat."?? - MPF 22:05, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

This problem is a survivor from the pre-computer era, where italics were not available except in formal publishing. The Chicago manual recommends using italics when it is unambiguously words being talked about as words, but in cases of definitions and the like it is less prescriptive, recommending italics the first time, followed by quotes thereafter, except when talking about the words in a purely linguistic sense. I wouldn't change what exists here, unless it is inconsistent within an article--but that's my approach to most MOS questions.DGG (talk) 03:46, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I like the status quo; italics should preferably be used for words as words. That said, if an editor prefers quotes, I have no fundamental disagreement, provided it is used consistently in a single article. — Brian (talk) 03:55, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

In that case, MOS is widely breached by WP articles generally, and FAs in particular; the latter must comply with MOS. So I've been right to prod and poke at nominators recently on this matter, to force a change to italics? Tony 09:08, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Probably not; this is like the possessive below: there are several reasonable ways to do something. One of them may well be most common, and recommending it here is (in itself) harmless. This one happens to be what I do myself. But chivvying FAC nominees to comply with this one scheme, as long as they are consistently following some reasonable and comprehensible method, is not helpful to Wikipedia.Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:05, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

No, FACs are specifically required to follow MOS. Either MOS needs to be changed to accept both methods or FACs have to follow the italics. Loosening the reigns just for one MOS requirement is not only messy, it's a slippery slope to chaos and a diminished authority of MOS. 03:59, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

That was a mistake. Here, as often, all MOS can do is "point out the alternatives". FA should not be enforcing one valid method against others, even if MoS prefers one to others. MOS is a {{guideline}}, to be interpreted with common sense and an awareness of exceptions; not an "authority".

Treating it as an authority has led to the present state of FAC, where articles can be supported and opposed at great length without a single mention of content; what we are (after all) here for. This leads to FA for poorly sourced, poorly written, pieces of trash, like Daniel Webster; I was in on that review, and gave up on improving it. It has pretty pictures and lots of footnotes; but the sources are Profiles in Courage and a nineteenth century monograph by a professor of Eloquence. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 05:46, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

• (outdent) Sorry to say that I find much of your comment unclear. What was a mistake? Including the following of MOS as a criterion for FAs? I agree with the retention of that criterion; please state what is wrong with it. In fact, to extend your point logically, the notice at the top of MOS ("editors should follow") should be removed. The opening statement frames MOS as virtually mandatory for all WP articles; again, what is the point of having a MOS if no one follows it? Its purpose is to provide a framework for reasonable cohesion, with practical options and exceptions. It does this by variously prescribing, recommending, and proscribing; in many cases, options are outlined, with good reason. I can't make out the meaning of your second paragraph, in which you appear to assume that FAC is in some kind of undesirable state related to the balance between content and other attributes. I spend a lot of time at FAC, and am unsure of your point. Tony 06:20, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
  • But MOS is not a series of mandates, or should not be: it's largely a collection of advice and preferences, mingled with genuine instructions about not edit-warring for a particular style. This is what a manual of style ought to be; the purpose of one is largely to decide issues about which the author doesn't care, but has to do one way or the other.

• Bullying other editors into "following the MOS" is a sign of unfitness to be a Wikipedian. Anyone who does misunderstands what our processes are; they did not descend from Mount Olympus, they are the current rough approximation to what we want, made of scotch tape and piano wire, as WP:PRO says.

• More importantly, they misunderstand what English is and how it is written. For example, it is usually good advice to avoid "doesn't" in language of the level of formality suitable to an encyclopedia; but there are exceptions. Most obviously, quotations should left alone; but if there is a sentence where "doesn't" works well, and "does not" would be clumsy or ambiguous, it should be retained.

• This sort of nonsense has always been more common at FA (and much more common at GA) than is good for Wikipedia; this is why many editors regard passing GA, especially GA/R, as a clear warning of a bad article. Have you really never met this before? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 07:04, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

If you want to change the current imperative (FAs) and requirement (all other articles) to follow MOS, why don't you propose changes in the two directives (one is at the top of MOS, the other within the FA Criteria)? Tony 09:55, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Because it is enough, for now, to avoid imperatives here, which is desirable in any case. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:13, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Comprises vs comprised of

This is a small detail, but when a word has a couple of uses, but one is recognized as being more informal, which is given preference in Wikipedia? Saying The US comprises fifty states is more formal than saying The US is comprised of fifty states. The first is the traditionally correct grammar, but both are "acceptable" today in that both are described in dictionaries and usually both are understood correctly. Which should be followed? My first impression is that the more formal should be used since some readers will be older and not accustomed to the newer, relaxed usage. Sancho 16:26, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Disagree. Use "is comprised of" because it is not ambiguous. "Comprises" is ambiguous because the word is one of the few that is its own opposite: It can mean both "makes up" and "is made up of", e.g. "The US comprises fifty states" and "fifty states comprise the US", both of which are "correct"; the latter usage while not the original is the more common in 21st century English from my informal review of the matter (others may disagree, but I find it pretty rare to see the "X comprises Y and Z" form", vs. "Y and Z comprise X" form). Avoiding the construction altogether for the "X is comprised of Y and Z" form eliminates the abiguity entirely. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 20:43, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

agree with SMcCandlish. But in general, neither word is necessarily the best choice--including this example--the much simpler "The U.S. is composed of 50 states"-- is preferable. DGG (talk) 01:23, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Or just "the US is made up of 50 states". -- Hongooi 07:23, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

The United States are 50 states... — The Storm Surfer 13:46, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

In fact, is comprised of is considered a neologism and many speakers of a more traditional version of English would find it unusual (although it is becoming more common). Standard usage is the active voice: "The US comprises 50 states." See here. I agree, though, that's it's likely preferable to avoid it entirely and I would favour Hongooi's "the US is made up of 50 states". — Dave (Talk | contribs) 15:27, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Speaking as an "old fart", I look at "comprised of" as a hypercorrection of "composed of" by people for whom "comprise" seems more intellectual, and who are unaware of its classic meaning. I'm aware that many aspects of standard use start out as hypercorrections, but I don't see a convincing reason for Wikipedia to encourage this case.--Curtis Clark 22:49, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

"Comprise" and "include" are a pair. You say "The US comprises 50 states" because you can't say "The US includes 50 states". New England includes Massachusetts and Vermont, but it comprises Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island...don't make me type them all—you know what I mean. And there are plenty of ways to express the inverse without misusing a good word: is made up of, is composed of, is a union of, has. "Comprised of" is an illiterate mistake for "composed of" no matter how much currency it gains. There, I said it. Descriptivism is for wimps. Let's try to take some power back from the broadcast journalists and hold the line on this one. --Milkbreath 03:31, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

The alternative, which is often clearer, and not yet subject to this obfuscation, is "The US consists of 50 states." Includes is not part of this; "the US includes New England and California" is a true, if incomplete, statement. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 07:55, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

• "A consists of X, Y and Z" (emphasises the components), "A comprises X, Y and Z" (emphasises the whole), and "X, Y and Z compose A" are all correct. "Is comprised of" is incorrect. Tony 09:02, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

All of the below say that "comprised of" is attacked as wrong, or something to that effect, although it is getting more and more common. I propose the comprise should only be used in the active voice, and something else (e.g. composed of, made up of) be used for passive voice. Dictionary.com Encarta Ask Oxford Merriam Webster Online American Heritage Dictionary V2 Vocabulary Building Dictionary i ^said 00:01, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Images below headings

I would like to ask what's the rationale for the following guideline:

Do not place left-aligned images directly below second-level (===) headings, as this disconnects the heading from the text it precedes. For example, …

I don't understand why this is a problem (and only if done with 2nd level headings). Anyway, this is against the Wikipedia:Accessibility#Article structure policy, so this guideline should be removed unless there are very good reasons to violate this policy. Best regards —surueña 18:42, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure I see the contradiction. — The Storm Surfer 20:44, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

As explained in Wikipedia:Accessibility#Headings, every "image should be inside the section it belongs to (after the header and after any link to other article), and not just before the header for similar reasons," regardless of its position. In contrast, this MoS guideline clearly states that left-aligned images should be just before the (2nd level) header, and therefore outside the section. Is the policy somewhat obscure? (I'm involved in the accessibility project, it's very interesting to know if the policy should be rewritten :-) Thanks! —surueña 01:36, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

As a general design principle, I have to agree with "do not place left-aligned images directly below second-level headings." I think it looks truly awful to have the image directly below a headine, and mostly for the stated reason: it "disconnects the heading from the text." With second-level headings, then the image is still accessible by editing the whole section. --JayHenry 02:43, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I reverted this as it doesn't say it should be outside, it says it shouldn't be left aligned, which makes it much easier for the vast majority of people to read. The two alternatives are making it right aligned or putting it somewhere else in the section. Owain.davies 06:45, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't think left-aligned images at the start of a section look ugly, but I understand it can be more difficult to read to some people. Anyway the problematic part of the guideline is the second one, which states that an alternative is to put the image at the end of the previous section (i.e. just before the section header), so it should be removed (but editors can still use the other solutions). What do you think? —surueña 10:12, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

This archived discussion has the rationale behind the consensus for the current wording (and my opinion on it!) and a analysis of the whys and wherefores of second-level heading image placement. Hope it helps. mikaul^talk 14:04, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Image size

While I am sure it is annoying for users that have low resolution screens (600x800) to see images that are too large for their current resolution we are far into a state were the average user has HD screens or at the very least screens with a resolution of 1024x768. I think that having someone run around shrinking images is annoying. Users shouldn't have to click on an image to see the picture. I think it is truly time to reconsider the recommendations of the MOS. I stress to readers that these are RECOMMENDATIONS not a hard rule or policy and I think that wikipedia may need to catch up to current standards. Plus when I view under low resolution it is not that bad, However when I view thumbnails at the default size in my full resolution I can barely see the image at all.--Amadscientist 01:55, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Nothing more annoying than tiny, detailed images. At some stage, the rules will need to be reviewed to reflect technological/market advances. Tony 08:58, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Wow, this discussion goes round like a virus... see another further up the page with a link to a very long debate on the issue in archive #75. It seems to me that the time for that stage is now, as a growing number of users bring this same complaint up almost every month. It went to the Village Pump once, and never came back. As it might be a coding or markup issue, what's the best way of getting some action on it? mikaul^talk 14:16, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

The best way is to propose a draft change to the relevant text in MOS, word for word, state that you are seeking consensus, and ask for feedback. Then try to mediate the ensuing discussion and bring it around to a workable solution (if possible; or give up if it appears unachievable). Best to create a fresh subsection here for the purpose. Tony 03:56, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I can do that, but the last discussion kind of stalled over the best way to implement a consensus for a larger thumb size default, if indeed it came to that. As it would involve a change to markup, is MOS the best place to be debating it, or (put another way) aren't there some more relevant techie editors somewhere we should be getting involved? mikaul^talk 07:39, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Sounds as though it needs input from both techies and style-freaks. Can you identify/coax one or two techies who'd be interested? I don't know where to look, but there must be several places. Tony 09:51, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Too soon. — The Storm Surfer 18:15, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Hawaii

There is a silly edit-war going on at Hawaii over whether to spell it Hawaii or Hawaiʻi throughout the article (even as the article is titled "Hawaii"). Can an administrator who is a WP:MOS expert intervene and resolve the dispute? THF 16:09, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

IMV, it's ridiculous to use the apostrophe (which should point the other way, anyway, if curly). Tony 08:56, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree that it would be silly to use an apostrophe, but in this case it's not an apostrophe. — The Storm Surfer 17:49, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Possessives of proper names ending in "s"

If there is a rule in the Wikipedia guidelines for forming possessives of names ending in "s", I haven't been able to find it. I've been following the rule that if you would sound the extra "s" in speech, you use it, otherwise no. For example, it's Mr. Jones's wife, but Mr. Rogers' loafers. What say ye? --Milkbreath 03:38, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Most (singular) nouns in s form the possessive with "'s"; there is substantial, largely British, usage for omitting the possessive s after fully voiced syllables, like Jesus and Socrates. I have never seen Rogers trested like Jesus, and AmEn tends to have stricter rules than BrEn.

But the important thing is that MoS should not be attempting to manufacture a synthetic "standard English" at all. As long as each article is consistent, we should learn to leave things alone. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 08:02, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

The only thing MOS can do is to point out the options. Personally, I much prefer the easy-to-remember blanket rule of adding 's to any pluralised word. But others will disagree vehemently, and there seems little purpose in prescribing only one practice. Tony 08:55, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Precisely. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:55, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Just as a point of interest, the Chicago, 15th edition, permits the abovementioned sound test "to avoid an awkward appearance". --Milkbreath 21:41, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Every style guide I've ever looked at says to use "Jones's", though one (Fowler's) makes an exception for "names from antiquity" ("Moses'", "Jesus'"), but it was written at a time when most Americans were devout Protestant Christians, reading a King James Bible that uses that convention. I would have to say that the "antiquity" exception is obsolete, religiously PoV, and confusing to boot. So: Use "'s" always, even for "Jesus's", and the MoS should certainly say so. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 17:46, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

PS: The problem with the "sound test" is that it introduces sometimes irresolvable ambiguity, because it is impossible in some context to determine whether the possessive referent is singular or plural. This "always use 's" point isn't "grammar fascism", but precise, encyclopedic writing that avoids confusing the readership. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 17:51, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

It's not about religion. No one says "I like (or dislike) Starbucks's coffee", prounounced "starbucksiz". While writing can certainly differ from speech, in this case I think even writing "Starbucks's" comes across as stilted. (Of course the company ought to call itself "Starbuck's" in the first place, since it's the coffee pertaining to Starbuck rather than more than one Starbuck, but we can't do anything about that). --Trovatore 17:56, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

There is also the issue of Greek names such as Euripides. Is there any style guide that actually recommends Euripdes's? — Carl (CBM · talk) 18:08, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Any authority? Don't know, but WP's could forge the way if there aren't. I'm in total agreement with SMcCandlish on this. The "always add 's" rule is just so easy. I don't see the point in distinguishing the phonological thing (a nicety Fowler thought he'd push, a long time ago), and the antiquity thing is just too silly and, I agree, is potentially POV. And some authorities worry themselves about words that end in s or ss. I'd strongly support a recommendation in MOS to apply "’s irrespective of the word. But to insist would involve onerous back-compatibility tasks. Tony 01:13, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't know where you get this "antiquity" thing. No one I know says "Starbucks's". (And I'm American -- someone claimed Americans are more likely to use the more regular rule, but I see no evidence for that either.) --Trovatore 01:30, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunate example: wouldn't you just say "Starbucks coffee sucks"? "Starbucks employees"? I guess it might come up with "Starbucks's service is better than that of its competitors". I have no visual or phonological problem where there's no extra syllable. But as I said, MOS might recommend without insisting. Don't you think it's the easiest way? Tony 02:15, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, no. I think the easiest way is for the MOS simply not to mention it at all. --Trovatore 03:31, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and in answer to your first question: I would say "Starbucks' coffee". It would just sound like "Starbucks coffee" :-) --Trovatore 03:34, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Look at Socrates Euripides Aristophanes Xerxes Ramses etc. to see what I mean. Making possessives of these names is a perfectly standard part of English style. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:33, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Comma in Template:Age in years and days

Is there a style argument regarding the comma separator between years and days in this context? As in "Myra Nicholson, at age 129 years, 342 days is the oldest Australian currently alive."; or as used in List of living supercentenarians (for example).

The issue is being discussed at the talk page and any help would be appreciated. —Moondyne 07:53, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

English, as opposed to headline dialect, would use "at the age of 112 years and 239 days". Septentrionalis PMAnderson 08:06, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

What is wrong with the comma? Tony 08:52, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Excessively colloquial. Headlines use it to save one and a half characters; we're not paper. Omitting it is worse; that's ungrammatical. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:57, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

As I stated on the Talk Page ... I say keep the comma. Or consider using the word "and" in lieu of the comma. Thus, in rank order, my preferences are:

(1) John Smith's age is 28 years, 315 days old.

(2) John Smith's age is 28 years and 315 days old.

(3) John Smith's age is 28 years 315 days old. (Joseph A. Spadaro 16:43, 10 August 2007 (UTC))

The first is the most easily recognisable. The second, in some contexts, makes the reader's task a little harder where two chronological measures may conceivably apply (28 years and 315 days). The third is jarring. Tony 03:51, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Why would we ever include the number of days in the age of anyone older than, say, eight years and seventy-two days? — The Storm Surfer 18:12, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Because the notability claim of some articles is an age record, and sometimes the oldest person in X differs from the next oldest by days. I am not sure these are particularly useful articles; but they amuse some people. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:16, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. I think that these articles are very useful, educational, and enjoyable. As much as -- or more than -- any other statistic (e.g., baseball batting averages) or record (e.g., first person to climb Mount Everest). And, to Storm Surfer, records for age (the youngest persons to do x,y,z ... or the oldest persons to do x,y,z ... usually need to be delineated by year and days, to distinguish one ranked individual from another. No different than, say, Olympic times for racing in which time is broken down by minute, second, and then even fractions of a second. (Joseph A. Spadaro 19:41, 11 August 2007 (UTC))

Then we should keep them; and if we keep them, we should specify to the day. It would be more idiomatic to use years, months, and days; but we should avoid the anomaly that 1 month and two days is less than one month and one day if the first month is February. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:11, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

What of the anomaly that seven years and two days is less than seven years and one day if the first seven years are 1897–1903 and the second are 1904–1910? Of the three choices above I prefer the one with the "and" but "John Smith is 28 years and 315 days old." not "John Smith's age is 28 years and 315 days old."—It's Smith not his age who is almost 29. Jɪmp 14:11, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

This could probably be moved to Template talk:Age in years and days. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:04, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Or WP:MOSNUM, since this question is likely to arise again. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 17:39, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I disagree that omitting the comma is ungrammatical; it's simply terse and rather scientific style, and in concert with much else that WP:MOSNUM recommends. We do not write "4 ft and 2 in", but "4 ft 2 in". — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 17:39, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Need feedback on interpretation of MoS guidelines

This is a dispute on the History of Japan page that involves wikipedia guidelines. Specifically:

If an article has been stable in a given style, it should not be converted without a style-independent reason. Where in doubt, defer to the style used by the first major contributor.

User:PHG insists that that the first "major contributor" was an anon-IP who simply listed dates with BCE/CE. I would contend that the first m.c. would be here by User:-- April. BC/AD was also used subsequently for many years, until someone inserted text that used BCE/CE. That made the article inconsistent, as BC/AD was still in use in other parts.

Thus at the end of July I made the terms consistent with BC/AD again here. However PHG does not accept this and keeps reverting back my changes.

I would appreciate the views of the MoS community as to what the guidelines say about this. John Smith's 13:17, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

• I am reinstating BCE/CE a the prefered date format for this article, as the first significant user (who started this article with a list of Japanese history periods) clearly marked his preferences for BCE/CE (he uses it something like 30 times). It might be arguable whether his contribution was really significant or not, but I tend to think it is, as he created this article in 2002 at a time when most Wikipedia articles were still in their infancy. His very clear choice for BCE/CE was disregarded by the immediately following user, but I tend to think this is ground enough to reinstate BCE/CE for this article, especially since it is also the best, neutral format for non-Christianity-related articles. User:John Smith's has been unduly replacing BCE/CE by BC/AD as in the Template:History of Japan. Comments welcome. PHG 13:11, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

  As I said, MoS does not say "significant", it says "major". Also trying to argue that the list of dates was a major contribution because of when he/she wrote it is not a credible argument - we should base our opinions on the current situation, not the low standards of what used to be.

  MoS also states that BC/AD is fine to use. A previous attempt by User:Slrubenstein to get BC/AD labelled as POV and to be replaced by BCE/CE in most cases was rejected by the wikipedia community.

  As to the template, I was merely trying to make the template consistent with the vast majority of articles it is used on. That is following MoS in my opinion. John Smith's 13:29, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

You know very well that the MOS has not approved of your attempt to modify templates according to article content. The Template in question first used BCE/CE, and therefore, per MOS, should stay so. PHG 13:38, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I didn't ask for them to approve anything - I was asking for an interpretation, which was inconclusive given few views were expressed. John Smith's 13:45, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

So just respect MOS rules as they are today: BCE/CE was first introduced in this Template, and therefore per MOS should remain so. PHG 13:48, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

You're not respecting MOS rules - you're deliberately misinterpreting them to get your way on the main History of Japan article by trying to argue a list of dates and period is a "major" contribution. Practice what you preach, PHG. John Smith's 13:51, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I support PHG's judgement here; it seems more appropriate for a Japanese topic (is that non-stylistic reason enough?). But does it really matter that much? Tony 14:05, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Tony, why is it more appropriate? MoS and the rejected community proposal I outlined indicates that BC/AD is not POV and/or unacceptable to use outside of a Christian context (whatever that would be).

Also, what is your view on the meaning of MoS in regards to a major contributor in this area? John Smith's 14:08, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

• (outdent)I guess it's more appropriate because Japan is not a christian country, and BC/AD is perceived to be overtly christian. But as I intimated, I don't care much; where MOS allows options, why get upset? I'm usually more anxious about options that MOS doesn't allow that I think it should, or vice versa. As for "first major contributor" ... um ... it's hard to arrive at a universally applicable principle; perhaps it just has to be fought out case by case among the contributors. It's a yawn, isn't it? Why does it mean so much to you, this BC/BCE thing? Tony 14:18, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

  Japan isn't Christian, but as I said the community has rejected the proposal that BC/AD is POV/not suitable for use in "non-Christian" articles.

  It's not easy to get a universally applicable principle? Maybe not but surely a list of dates can't apply - otherwise why bother having the reference to major contribution in the first place?

  Why does it mean anything to me? I guess you could ask the same question of PHG. I care because I don't like his POV-pushing, and I actually made the article consistent in the first place (in recent history). He then jumped in because he doesn't like BC/AD and then did his best to misinterpret MoS guidelines to suit himself. John Smith's 14:26, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Sounds as though it has become overly personal. Who cares? Tony 14:37, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

It isn't personal, I merely don't feel that PHG has a right to push his POV against a style that was established before he came along. If you don't care then why are you a part of the MoS community? Surely you care because you comment here (and on this topic). John Smith's 14:40, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

All I care is that one of the MOS options is chosen. Tony 14:48, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I'll assume that the guidance listed above is quoted correctly: If an article has been stable in a given style, it should not be converted without a style-independent reason. Where in doubt, defer to the style used by the first major contributor.

Assuming all parties agree to abide by the guidance, to settle the point the first questions to be answered are:

• When was the article last stable in a given style? (let's take "stable" as being at least three months - and before anyone asks, I don't know what the answer to this is)
• What are the arguments for changing from that style?

(Another question to answer would be, is it really worth PHG and John Smith's getting so het up about all this?) Foula 18:00, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

We should be clearer than we are that "first major contributor" is a fall-back position, used when an article has never been stable in a given style, which (as Foula observes) is the real question here. It is possible for a consensus to decide to change from one style to the other, as with more important matters. Perhaps when it has not been stable, or not clear it has been stable instead of When in doubt?Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:16, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

It was stable for a number of years, until someone threw in text that used BCE/CE, with the previously existing BC/AD. John Smith's 19:50, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Quotes from an article's subject that precedes the lead paragraph

Yay or nay? This might have already been discussed before. See Ulrich Mühe and Michael Haneke. I noticed it was a bit of a dispute on the Ulrich Mühe article, so I figured I'd ask here. Rockstar (^T/_C) 20:29, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

• Why not? It's good vivid writing, and (in Ulrich Mühe's case) sums up the case for notability better than the lede. There are risks: the choice of quotation may be an original synthesis, which we avoid; consider what could be done with a quotation at the head of George W. Bush. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:49, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
  • I don't care either way, I just figured I'd get some kind of third opinion before anything escalated. Thanks! :) Rockstar (^T/_C) 21:50, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

• I don't really think it's vivid writing—I think it's gimmicky and amateurish. This sort of cutesiness is something you'd see on some ridiculous fan site. It takes one sentence of the millions that the person uttered and imbues it as the most prominent part of their biography? Plus, imagine if this spread. It'd be awful. "God Does Not Play Dice--Albert Einstein was a theoretical physicist who..." I think this would be fine at WikiQuote, a site founded on the premise that quotations possess some magical significance. I think it's painfully unencyclopedic and childish, not to mention potentially distorting, here. --JayHenry 22:30, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, that "level of amateurishness" is chracteristic of many serious collections of biographies. Eric Temple Bell comes to mind. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:15, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with Jay. It's a diversion from the standardised role of the lead (standardised loosely, with strong justification IMV). Perhaps on rare occasions it might work; convince me—provide an example. Tony 01:34, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Although I'm not familiar with the biographies in question, I ask this: what objective criteria can we -- as a collaborative project -- possibly have for which quote is most appropriate to include? Or how do we determine which articles are allowed to lead with a quote? Surely you agree it wouldn't be desirable for every biography to begin with one. Perhaps a quote works well when one expert author is trying to drive a biography with a particular theme; I really think it falls apart in a collaborative encyclopedia where our theme is Just the Facts. --JayHenry 03:43, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

In Ulrich Mühe, the quote is centrally related to his only claim to notability. If it were reedited to make another equal claim, the quote would be more doubtful; but we can cross that bridge when it is built. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:06, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a magazine. This is journalistic, not encyclopedic style. I don't like pull quotes in WP articles at all, but I tolerate them (i.e. I don't edit them out on sight), but before the lead? You must be kidding. If there is consensus on the article's talk page that it is vital, put it after the lead, but really, let's get serious. A quote like that simply belongs in the article prose at an appropriate point. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 17:31, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Christian associations of BC/AD

Somebody removed about ten days ago from the Date segment the mention about:"the overtly Christian associations of BC/AD" versus BCE/CE ("(Some writers use CE and BCE to avoid the overtly Christian associations of AD and BC.)" [14]) I believe it is a very commonsense statement, and that it is important to state that BC/AD is not neutral and does have a Christian association (just as the Hijra has a Muslim association). This mention should help us better qualify BC/AD versus the more neutral BCE/CE, and thus help us in the discussions of what is more appropriate and where. I hereby propose to reinstate the phrase regading "the Christian assocations" of BC/AD. PHG 18:30, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

A discussion took place at WP:MOSNUM that pertains to that edit.

• Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#BC/AD and BCE/CE, again
• The diff that changed the MoS - [15]

As a note to all editors out there - it would be infinitely more helpful if a discussion to change central MoS actually took place at the Talk page of central MoS instead of a subset of central MoS. We don't all put every single MoS pages in our watchlists. And it looks like the concensus to make this particular edit only involved about three or four editors - a far less number than the number of editors who have voiced opinions on this date issue at various pages. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 18:46, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

• I oppose reinstating the phrase. It is POV and undermines the usage of BC/AD. MOS is quite clear that BC/AD can be used - bringing it is unnecessary. PHG only wants it back because in the past he has used it to challenge the use of BC/AD in any article he sees fit. John Smith's 19:05, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

• I would not accept restoring the phrase without the reason on the other side, such as other writers prefer to use AD/BC as more common and more widely intelligible; but it is better to omit both, and not fuel the Date Wars. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:02, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

• I'm quite happy not to see the phrase reinstated. Leave the issue alone in the wording of the manual. Tony 00:11, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

• I'm the one who removed the passage. My reasoning was clearly explained at MOSNUM's talk page before I did it. I did it to try to make the MOS and MOSNUM as neutral as possible in respect to this issue. Leaving that statement in the MOS & MOSNUM left the reader with the impression that BC/AD should be avoided. Taking the statement out leaves the choice of what is better to use in the hands of the editors; where it should be. I also reintroduced the statement that it is inappropriate to change from one style to the other because you are trying to be as politically correct as possible or because you are on a mission from God—just kidding it didn't say exactly that, but you get my point. As for having the discussion at the MOS instead of the MOSNUM, I disagree with that. I pointed out that the change was discussed at the MOSNUM when I made the change in both places. Remember, we don't want to favor one over the other. That is all. —MJCdetroit 01:46, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Fine with this, but two weeks ago the MOS consensus was apparently for describing the "overtly Christian associations of BC/AD": it is strange to see such changes of stance in what is supposed to be our "Bible" for Wikipedia editing. Some users are now using the suppression of this phrase to claim that BC/AD is just as neutral as BCE/CE (obviously nonsense), to try to impose BC/AD in such places as Template:History of Japan, History of Nepal, Template:History of China etc... I think it will be necessary at one point to proactively state that BCE/CE can be preferable to BC/AD for non-Christianity-related articles (just as we wouldn't usually think of pushing BCE/CE in Christianity-related ones) through user consensus. Discussions so far on Asia-related pages especially have proved very largely in favour of BCE/CE for these topics (for example: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_China, Talk:History of Japan). PHG 02:55, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

The consensus was settled long ago, there has been no reason to change it, we do favor one over the other in some particular contexts, and the meaning of the terms does matter. The whole point of a MOS is that it is stable. DGG (talk) 03:47, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflicted by DGG)...just as we wouldn't usually think of pushing BCE/CE in Christianity-related ones...Have you seen the ridiculous method that is used for the article on Jesus? Shouldn't that be the one article that doesn't use BCE/CE? But I regress...

Thank you. I do agree we should probably not push BCE/CE in a Jesus article, just as we shouldn't push BC/AD in a History of the Americas, History of Nepal, Template:History of Japan articles. Could you specify in which particular contexts "we do favor one over the other"? (any link?). PHG 04:03, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

What about your pushing of BC/AD on History of Japan? Oh, right - you don't think it should be used outside of a "Christian context" or whatever, so that doesn't matter. That rather shows what you really want by getting this term reinserted - an excuse for a style purge wherever you want it. John Smith's 09:00, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I do believe we should make it explicit that BC/AD is Christianity-associated and that it might not be the best choice for articles that have nothing to do with Christianity. Otherwise people like you will impose forever that BC/AD should be used on History of Japan inspite of the super majority uproar of users in favor of BCE/CE (see Talk Page). By the way, the first major contributor of that article actually used BCE/CE, so technically the return to BCE/CE is also legitimate. PHG 14:14, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Just because the statement was there for 5 whole days, doesn't make it right. It shouldn't be there at all. Let the editors decide. —MJCdetroit 03:58, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I second what MJC says. Tony 12:17, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

How are such entries monitored on the MOS? Does it mean that the mention in question was introduced in the MOS without any consensus whatsoever? PHG 14:14, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

The recent overhaul of MOSNUM introduced many changes, which were by consensus. However, the sentence at issue was disputed when the new version was posted, and was subsequently withdrawn. Tony 01:33, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

This is more of a debate for MOSNUM, but I have always sided with the pro-BCE/CE camp. As a non-Christian, I actually find the BC/AD usage to be directly offensive (though only mildly so). I can see making exceptions for New Testament-related topics (but not New Testament-era topics that don't have anything to do with the Bible; e.g. articles on excavations at Nazareth should use BCE, because they are science, not religion articles.) Just my oft-repeated 2¢. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 17:25, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Alignment and display size of wide images discussed in article

In certain cases images in Wikipedia should be center aligned and displayed at maximum width. This needs to be allowed for and described somewhere in the manual of style. The examples which are pertinent for me are musical images. These cases include articles whose text discusses critically or in depth the content depicted in an image of musical notation which is wider than it is tall. Hyacinth 18:58, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Do you have some examples of this? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 11:53, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Borderline cases for UK or US English

Recently, 86.136.175.11 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) changed the spelling in Christopher Newport, John Smith of Jamestown and John Rolfe from US to UK English. These men were all English, but all are most notable for their roles in the settlement of Jamestown, Virginia; clearly arguments can be made on both sides of this case.

I've started a discussion on what national variety of English these articles should use at Talk:Christopher Newport#US or UK spelling?. Anyone who has an opinion is invited to join and help us work towards a consensus. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:36, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

No probs - I've left some comments. John Smith's 19:56, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

The rule is very simple--the predominant spelling should not be changed. If there was a consistent spelling in any of the individual articles, whoever tampered with it is wrong. DGG (talk) 03:45, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

That's not quite true. Spelling can be changed if there's good reason, even if spelling was consistent. What is a more credible argument is that because this it's not easy to decide whether US/UK English is more appropriate, the consistent spelling should stay. John Smith's 11:02, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with John; there was no need to change it in the

American topic, American English; the fact that they were technically British in their lifetimes seems irrelevant to me; their role in British history is totally negligible. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 17:21, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Y not?

Is there consensus on whether to use a historical spelling that is technically incorrect? On this page, we've got a debate (which I started...) over using "Grizzlys" (which is technically correct) over "Grizzlies" (which is historical). Comment? Trekphiler 16:08, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

How is it that "Grizzlys" is said to be technically correct? We don't write "pantys". If they "ys" (including the "s") is part of a proper name, different story (e.g. "Willys" in the military context). — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 17:18, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

More trouble at MOSNUM about autoformatting

The folks at MOSNUM talk have uncovered yet another inadequacy in the autoformatting system—this time concerning the rendering of US-formatted dates with the final comma. The original discussion is here; I recommend that interested users go to the end of that rather long discourse to get the gist of it. Here, I've set out a list of problems with the software, which in my experience are unlikely to be fixed soon, even if another concerted push is made at Bugzilla (usually a brick wall).

Some users would be pleased to see the phrase at MOSNUM "Full dates, and days and months, are normally autoformatted, ..." softened to give people a clear option not to autoformat. This would merely put date formatting on the same footing as the way we tolerate British and American (and other) varieties of spelling in WP, as long as they're consistent within an article. Other users feel that autoformatting should be mandatory, despite the disadvantages.

I now actively discourage the use of autoformatting, for all of the reasons outlined at MOSNUM talk. Your comments and feedback there are welcome. Tony 03:14, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Will MOSNUM itself actively discourage autoformatting? — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 17:13, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd love it to, but people seem strangely attached to this dysfunctional system, and it's hard to gain consensus for what appears to me to be a practical solution: don't make it mandatory, or don't encourage its use, until the multitude of technical issues are resolved. I see one or two FACs going through with unautoformatted dates. Well and good. Tony 02:04, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Quotations: Preservation of spelling

A curious issue arises when I examine the Chicago Manual of Style and the American Psychological Association's Publication Manual. These two sources disagree over the preservation of typographical errors in quotations. The Chicago manual allows for the correction of "obvious typographic errors" without informing the reader, although writers must note modernizations. The APA manual allows no typograhical corrections, but permits the presence of sic in brackets after the preserved error. Wikipedia's manual of style gets close to addressing this:

Minimal change

Wherever it is reasonable to do so, the style that was used in the original text is preserved. Where there is a good reason not to preserve the original style, the changes are supported by the insertion of an editorial explanation, usually within square brackets (e.g., [for example]).

I am thinking of including spelling alongside the style reference, so that the MOS fragment appears as this:

Minimal change

Wherever it is reasonable to do so, the style and spelling that was used in the original text is preserved. Where there is a good reason not to preserve the original style or spelling, the changes are supported by the insertion of an editorial explanation, usually within square brackets (e.g., [for example]).

Thoughts? —Kanodin 08:38, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Why on earth would we even consider allowing spelling changes? The MoS should instead clearly advise adding {{sic}} (looks like [sic]) after the typo or archaism. I'd like the MoS text in question to also recommend superscripting of the "[for example]" that it mentions now; we should really have a {{sic}}-like template for this, perhaps {{editorial|for example}}.

Allowing editors to change spellings and just append an editorial note is very, very dangerous, as it would permit US/UK spelling "warriors" to change quotations at whim, and even permit the modernization of quotations from Shakespeare, etc. Gahhh! Furthermore, we have "don't mess with quotations" advice already embedded elsewhere in the MoS, such as forbidding of wikilinking inside quotations. Allowing editors to change-but-annotate spelling in quotations will lead to a direct MoS conflict of advice and rationale.

— SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 17:10, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree that spelling shouldn't be changed in quotations. Wikilinking inside quotations is only forbidden "unless there is a good reason to do so," which isn't a prohibition at all. Unless the link is done to add a particular POV to the quotation, it seems hard to argue it changes the meaning of the quote. — Carl (CBM · talk) 17:18, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Directions

The directions and regions section states that composite directions such as south-west may or may not be hyphenated. I am unsure whether an en dash could be used or not – my quandary being whether south-west may infer 'south and west' (together), hence an en dash could be used as per WP:MOSDASH "as a substitute for some uses of and, to or versus for marking a relationship involving independent elements". Could someone please clarify this? Rossenglish 16:35, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Definitely not an en dash, which stands for "to" or is used for ranges and relationships. Hyphenate, or merge into one word, whichever you like, as long as it's consistent within the article (I've heard of US/British preferences here, but I think there's considerable overlap). Tony 01:30, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! Rossenglish 11:46, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

If you are worried, consider "southwest". Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:56, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

It is compounded when it refers to a region ("the American Southwest"; you will NEVER see that hyphenated, I assure you!), and hyphenated when it refers to a compass direction, as in "we are headed north-west" (this is probably because more specific directions would be near unreadable otherwise: "eastsoutheast", "northnorthwest".) It is also compounded when referring to some noun that has something to do with a direction, such as a wind or storm ("Boy, that's a really strong northwester!", though such things are often contracted, e.g. "nor'easter", "sou'wester", especially in nautical usage.) References to areas in general are compounded as well ("southeast Bhutan", though -ern is often applied: "southeastern Bhutan"). I don't have the CMoS on hand right this minute, I'm just going by the writing I've absorbed over the last 30 years. My gut feeling is that if it is used adjectivally or to refer to anything other than a compass direction as a noun, it is compounded, unless it is a more specific direction, in which case the hyphenation is necessary for readability ("east-south-east Bhutan", in which case an -ern suffix should be avoided, as it would, I think, grammatically force compounding). I honestly don't think it's a US/UK distinction. But yes, definitely not an en-dash. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 16:51, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Capitalization of seasons

I have a dissenting opinion on lowercasing the names of seasons when used to refer to time periods. We capitalize months, eras, and other proper nouns for time frames, such as "This happened in July" or "During the Renaissance"; why not season names? While months could be argued as always being capitalized, the latter are usually lowercased when used as adjectives such as "The renaissance concept". I think it would be consistent to capitalize the names of seasons when they are used by themselves to explicitly denote a time period such as "Their situation improved little in Autumn" while using it as an adjective such as in "The winter months" or to refer to the seasonal atmosphere, like "During the summer, oranges are easier to grow" should be kept lowercase. Again, it could just be an opinion, but for the sake of logic, any one want to contribute any thoughts or criticisms? If not on Wiki, it may my influence my own writing, and perhaps others'. All are appreciated, thanks. ~ Atul 20:56, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

It's standard English to lowercase seasons, I believe. It is not a convention of this MOS. And by the way, would you mind adding new topics to the bottom of pages? It helps us when discussing, we know what are the newest topics. Thanks! i ^said 21:03, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

MOS clearly says to use lower case. Tony 01:28, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

He knows that; he wants other people's opinion on this convention. 01:50, 20 August 2007 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by I (talk • contribs).

Atul/Ephiphanic's proposal makes no sense. The only time seasons are regularly capitalized in written English is when they are personified (usually in the context of poetry or certain styles of fiction). Sounds like he may be an inexperienced or non-native writer of English. --Coolcaesar 21:58, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me that his posting is very clear and uses great grammar, punctuation, and spelling. I see no reason to suppose that he is a non-native speaker.

I also think he raises a good point to compare "This happened in Autumn." to "This happened during the Renaissance". Is the latter appropriate capitalization? If so, then the rule does seem to be inconsistent.

However, if this is the prevailing custom outside of Wikipedia then it is really not a question for this Talk page, it is really a question for the Wikipedia:Reference desk. Johntex\^talk 06:39, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm uncomfortable in using non-native speakers as a reference point in the first place. The use of lower-case initials for seasons is by convention; there's no particular logic to it, which is fine. Tony 10:43, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Lower-casing of seasons (except as noted in certain poetic usages), so we go with that in the MoS. Sure, it's not particularly logical, but usage is usage; you'd need to change a lot of minds at the Oxford English Dictionary, Chicago Manual of Style, etc. :-) Also, "Renaissance" is not generally lower-cased when adjectivized ("The Renaissance concept of human rights"); it is lower-cased when used metaphorically ("That's a really renaissance concept, Jane", "Silcon Valley could see a new economic renaissance by 2012"). — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 16:34, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Latin alphabets

The paragraph here on use of diacritics is being quoted as though it were a naming convention. It is not; so clarification is in order. It also seemed useful to clarify, with examples, that this is neither a prohibition of diacritics nor a mandate for them. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:39, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Will you, then, propose a different wording here? Tony 02:50, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I find the present wording largely acceptable; although it may be stronger than consensus will bear. There is a strong movement for native spellings, and we may have to make allowance for it.

Details: The either in "For terms in common usage, use either anglicized spellings;" seems redundant; the reference to standard English usage is redundant: English has no Academy, and usage is its only standard. Formal English usage may be useful, but is off-topic here; encyclopedic formality without stuffiness needs a guideline of its own. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:58, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Numbers question

In a sports article, I wrote this sentence: "The Longhorns finished the season as the only unbeaten team in NCAA Division I-A football, with 13 wins and zero losses overall." I chose to write out the one-digit number and use numerals for the two-digit number. Was this the right decision, or should I choose one way for both numbers?

Also, if I switch them, would one style be preferred over the other? In my experience, writings about sporting events tend to use numerals more than spelled-out words. Thanks in advance for comments. Johntex\^talk 03:49, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I recon it would be better to sidestep the issue by writing "... and no losses ..." in this case. If the single digit number was non-zero this form of numbers would be in accordance with a respected US style manual. GilesW 06:38, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Giles on avoiding the issue with that wording. 0 stuck in the middle of a clause is a problem. MOS says to spell out all or use digits for all of a group of numbers, normally (I think it's the cats and dogs example). But I have no problem personally with "11 losses and seven wins"; but for scores, both should definitely be numbers, with an en dash (7–3). Tony 11:15, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

The numbers 10 to 20 all have one-word names in english, doesn't this make the rule ambigious for them? Roger 19:31, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Demurrer. General English rules notwithstanding, it is accepted practice and has been since at least the mid 19th c. to use numerals for all sports stats (probably earlier, but the earliest sports stats I've looked at were from around 1860 or 1870). So, I'd probably say "13...and 0...", though I agree that "...and no..." works just fine here. In this particular case I don't find "zero" too off-base, since it really isn't quite reportage of sports stats but more a commentary on sports stats. So, if I'd encountered the "zero" version I would not have edited it to "0". By contrast if I saw "...won 13 to zero" I would definitely correct it to "...won 13 to 0" or more likely "won 13–0". — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 16:27, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

"Ellipses" section, "Square brackets" para

The para headed "Square brackets..." does not appear to belong in the Ellipses section. There is a previous section on brackets. Not sure what to suggest.GilesW 06:14, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I think it's there because square brackets are closely related to the use of ellipses. Tony 14:31, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

How so? At least on first thought, I am agreeing with GilesW here... — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 16:17, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Indicate variety of English?

I know that perhaps it should be obvious to most people, but perhaps an explicit indication of the variety of English used on a page (and the reason) would help to insure that folks follow the correct rules. The guidelines make perfect sense (to me) but that doesn't necessarily mean that I would necessarily know the correct way to apply them - it may not be obvious, for example, that a given author is British and so articles about that person and their works should use British spellings. Dfmclean 20:55, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

One time I cobbled together a note for Talk:Fermat's last theorem. — Carl (CBM · talk) 21:02, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

It's open to anyone to post an invisible editors' comment at the top, stating the variety. I've done that a few times. Tony 23:36, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

That's an ok solution, but if someone is editing a specific section of an article (say, "Indicate Variety of English?") then they won't see the top. It's too bad there isn't a property that could be set for each page giving the variety. The reason could be given in an editors comment if necessary. In any case, I think that the practice of somehow marking the pages should be encouraged by making it part of the guideline. Dfmclean 13:27, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

A talk-page template would be a good solution. If you make some, please note them at WP:TEMPLATES. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:54, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

That's not a bad idea: can I suggest that it be used only where there's a danger of unreasonable changes, or evidence of them? Some talk pages do become cluttered with templates. The JS Bach article could do with a template: phantom zedders would come along every second day. Tony 05:54, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

The only way I'd be in support of any notion like this is a) it goes on the talk page, and b) it is very, very tiny, like the lock icons that appear top-right on some protected templates, such as {{Resolved}}. It could have a US or UK flag (or some other, for that matter - there's nothing wrong with writing an article in .ca or .au English, after all), using {{Flagicon}}. It should emphatically not be on the article page, as it could mislead readers (not editors) into thinking it is a UK/US version of an article, or written only by or for UK/US people. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 16:15, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

As a somewhat related question, I've seen a couple instances where a British or Commonwealth usage was decried because it's not the most common word in English. Should we add something about this to National Varieties of English? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:37, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Punctuation and quotation marks

Resolved

 – Frequently Asked Question long resolved by consensus and re-resolved with the same consensus every time it arises; see archives.

The Quotation marks section is inconsistent with the Chicago manual of style's recommendation of American English grammar. The Chicago MOS says to put all commas and periods inside the quotation marks and colons and semicolons outside (example: correct: “sentence.” incorrect: “sentence”.). While I realize British English usage requires all commas, periods, and semicolons go on the outside of quotes, this is not true for American English usage. The WP:MOS recommendation fails to mention American English grammar and recommends against proper grammar usage; this results in users changing the punctuation on American related articles to the style recommended on WP:MOS, even though it is inconsistent with proper grammar usage of American English. Does anyone object to re-wording part of this section to explain American English usage, or have any input, comments, or suggestions to how to address this. My main concern is that proper grammar is not being followed, which makes the article seem less encyclopedic. Thanks. —Christopher Mann McKay^talk 01:08, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

The section seems correct to me. The way to quote described there is how I always learned it. See Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive (quotes and quote marks),[16],[17], [18], and Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_archive_(quotes_and_quote_marks_2). i ^said 01:16, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

This has been a long-standing reequirement. Many people think that Chicago should get real and use the so-called logical system. It's not a grammatical issue, BTW. Tony 14:30, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

But we should allow both; not to do so would be Anglo-American warring, which is contrary to policy. When we differ on something, we should say so. The alternative is to mark the entire section disputed. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:38, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I concur with Septentrionalis.--Coolcaesar 03:23, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

As others have pointed out previously on this page (archived, too), it's not about throwing cream buns across the Atlantic; this cuts across the varieties: all English-speakers, for example, use the "non-logical" format at the end of direct quotes, particularly in works of fiction. Many North Americans retain the distinction between punctuation that logically belongs in the underlying sentence, and punctuation that is in the quoted source. It's WP's strong desire not to touch original quotes that won the day here. Tony 05:44, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Some Americans punctuate logically, but most do not, and are taught not to. To present arguments for both is reasonable; to forbid one is not. The CMS does in fact allow both, but warns against logical punctuation, on the grounds that it requires extraordinary care and some judgment on the part of the proofreader; this may be more care and judgment than Wikipedia may be exprected to supply. As Tony said, this is not a grammatical issue; and insofar as it is an accuracy issue, it is trivial. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:42, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps a recommendation to use blockquotes in those rare cases where the terminal punctuation on quoted matter could affect the meaning? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:47, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I see no reason to change the current rule. Tony 16:00, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

The one on blockquotes? If so, fine - the suggestion was made to meet your objection. The insistence on logical quotation? Others do. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:56, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

And others don't, too. Tony 02:13, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I find it not only illogical but unaesthetic e.g. to treat commas as part of book titles, thus: "The Wind in the Willows," "Alice in Wonderland," "Tarzan of the Apes," and "The Secret Garden." Lima 08:05, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

• (Outdent) This has been the subject of substantial debate on a number of occasions, the last one only a month or two ago. Please research those debates and give enough time for people here to notice this section and respond before you plunge in unilaterally to change the policy text. Manderson, you never learn, do you. It's not that your expertise is not respected or that we believe you have nothing to offer: it's a matter of complying with the consensus-generating culture on WP. In many cases, you change policy unilaterally and prematurely in a controversial way; in some cases, you introduce sloppy language to the policy text. Please cooperate and collaborate, as you've been asked to do on more than one occasion. I note that this behaviour was at issue in your RfA last ... January, was it? Tony 08:12, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

And this is emphatically not a UK vs. US English issue. Interior punctuation is already on its way out in the US, and all technical publications in the US use logical quoting. It is called logical quoting for a reason: Interior punctuation adds factual errors, including misquotation, the inclusion of characters that do not belong in the literal string being quoted (very, very serious issue for things like computer code), implying that a statement may be partially quoted when it was not, etc., etc. The punctuation goes on the inside only if it was part of the original. Wikipedia is not a magazine or newspaper, it is a precise publication that cannot afford to use irrational journalistic style preferences that are based on 1700s typesetting needs, just because they happen to still be traditionally preferred by imprecise publications in one country. Undisclaimer: I am an American, so I have no UK bias in this matter whatsoever. This as a trawl through the archives shows that this issue has been hashed over more times that anyone would bother counting, I'm taking the liberty of marking this topic "Resolved". — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 16:11, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

There's no need to be so emphatic. The risk of misquotation is, as far as I can tell, almost completely hypothetical, unless "misquotation" is stretched to the farthest limits of interpretation. As far as I can tell there is no strong argument either way, which is why both continue to exist. — Carl (CBM · talk) 16:24, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

It's a slippery slope, misquotation. Treat a final comma as part of the quotation and it's easier to start tampering, unnoticed, with other aspects within the quote marks. Same for linking within a quote. Tony 01:04, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I can't see how anyone can misquote someone because of the use of punctuation. Also, SMcCandlish states "Wikipedia is not a magazine or newspaper, it is a precise publication that cannot afford to use irrational journalistic style preferences that are based on 1700s typesetting needs"; however, popular encyclopedias such as Encarta and Britannica also use this punctuation, so it is not only "journalistic style." Why are American oriented Wikipedia articles not following the same punctuation as American encyclopedias? Wikipedia says to use American English for American oriented articles and I believe we should do that. This guideline fails to address this issue and makes articles seem less encyclopedic by using style guidelines in contrary to the Chicago MOS and other encyclopedias. Some users seem determined not to address this issue, even stating this issues has been "resolved by consensus," when not all parties agree. Just to remind editors, "consensus" is "a neutral point of view which everybody can agree upon." (WP:CON) —Christopher Mann McKay^talk 05:54, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

While I can't deny that the majority of American publications do use the "illogical" style (and while I think the point about "misquotation" is a bit hyperbolic), I think I'm one of quite a large fraction of Americans who prefer the "logical" style. Almost anyone who is or has been a programmer will prefer this style, I think, and that's a big chunk of American Wikipedians right there. I don't know if we need rigid prescription in the MOS, but I think the rough de facto consensus is for the "logical" style, and I hope it continues to be so. (It's a double-edged sword, though -- the rough de facto consensus also seems to be for the spelling aluminium, which makes my skin crawl.) --Trovatore 07:11, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Christopher—no, WP doesn't say to use American English; it's American spelling that must be used for US-related articles, and for non-country-related articles that were started in AmEng. Other aspects of AmEng are fine, unless proscribed by MOS. In any case, internal punctuation cuts across the varieties: everyone uses it for direct quotations in fictional prose; and, as pointed out above, many Americans don't favour it elsewhere. WP's decision is largely swayed by its principle of not touching quotations, rather than internecine rivalry. Tony 10:03, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Converting metrics in scientific articles

I'm seeking consensus at MOSNUM talk for a change in the wording to allow contributors, by consensus only, to use unconverted metrics in scientific articles. Tony 02:16, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Gender usage

Is "Congresspeople" a preferred term for gender neutrality, or should Congressmen be used except when referring to all-female groups of office holders, when Congresswomen/Congresswoman would be more appropriate?Mbisanz 03:35, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

"Congresspeople" is a hedgehog word, isn't it. As a proponent of gender-neutral language, I'd go for "Congressional representative". We are referring to members of the House, not the Senate, aren't we? Tony 03:40, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

IIRC, Tony is British, so he may be unaware that it's totally standard practice in modern American journalism to use "Congresspeople" (actually it is sometimes rendered "Congresspersons", though less frequently) and "Congressperson" when speaking in the generic, "Congressman/men" when the subject is known male, and "Congresswoman/women" when known female. Oh, and "Congresspersons"/"Congresspeople" can refer to only members of the House or sometimes both House and Senate, depending upon the context. It is usually the former. But a statement like "I think all Congresspeople are corrupt jerks" would almost certainly include Senators. Anyway, I can't speak for similar usage of -people/-persons/-person elsewhere than the US, and I disagree strongly with spreading the practice randomly ("policepeople"; use "police" generically, "policeman/woman" specifically). There are other cases where the -person suffix has gained currency ("the invite-only conference was attended by dozens of Fortune 500 chairpersons" [conversely to the above, "chairpeople" is rare]), but they are rather limited in number. PS to Mbisanz: In today's world it would definitely be inappropriate to refer to all of Congress as "Congressmen". — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 16:02, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I can see your point about the need for a gender neutral term. I think that Congressional Representatives or Congresspersons is a better usage than Congresspeople, only because people is such a general term. And of course, when the gender of the group or persons in question is known, then a gender specific title can be used.Mbisanz 17:53, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

It should be (and usually is) "congresspersons" (with the minuscule c, BTW). The plural of "person" is "persons". "People" is a separate word with a similar meaning but extra baggage that we don't want (it has overtones of community, even nationhood).

(But I say "should be" only in the sense that it's better than "congresspeople". Really I prefer "members of congress", which I think is the more usual usage anyway.) --Trovatore 18:25, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

The problem with 'congresspersons' is that it seems to be the least common of the three options in real life - at least from the Google Test, which gives about 110k hits for that, 140k for 'congresspeople', and 3.5m for 'congressmen'. If we wish to avoid the gender-specific terms, I agree that 'members of congress' seems best (not least because it gets 2.5m Google hits, far more than the other gender-neutral terms). Searching just within .gov, 'members of congress' wins, though 'congressmen' is an easy second, including in contexts where women are clearly included. TSP 18:49, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with TSP. I don't recall ever having heard or read "Congresspersons", though I have definitely heard "representatives of Congress", "Congressional representatives", and "Congressmen and women". Stanselmdoc 20:24, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not British. Tony 01:05, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

In a bio article about an individual one, we should use whatever term that person uses as a self-referent.DGG (talk) 08:36, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Italics

When displaying the actual award citation for military awards, specifically the Medal of Honor or equivalent I believe it is appropriate to italicize the entire citation. Since this isn't specifically identified in the Manual of Style I am requesting Clarification. I have been italicizing the citatons and I was informed that this was inappropriate based on the MOS.--Kumioko 19:16, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Can you give an example? I've never that I can recall ever seen something like "Sir John Smith, recipient of the Victoria's Cross in 1987...", but maybe that isn't what you mean. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 15:50, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

For an example of one in italics see Jason Dunham. For an example of one not in italics see Gary Gordon. I think it looks better in italics and I think for the purpose of this the text within the citation should not be wikilinked as it is in Gary's article.--Kumioko 01:48, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Knave!

Are we really going to recommend the spelling naive? — The Storm Surfer 04:16, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

As opposed to what? If you mean "naïve", let's just not. We (English speakers in general I mean) drop diacritics from words that become fully absorbed into English (thus "role" not "rôle" since some time around I would guess the 1950s). — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 15:48, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I think The Storm Surfer mistakenly thought that naive was an accepted spelling for the word "knave", per the heading on the talk page. However, if an article exists where the word "knave" is misspelled "naive", then it should be changed, because they are two different words. Stanselmdoc 20:29, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

The last time I saw this, it was explicitly opposed to naïf, which we certainly should not use outside a quotation. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:21, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I think they were more likely implying that, without the diaeresis, the two words would be homophones. Except that, well, English spelling and pronunciation isn't exactly regular anyway (ghoti, anyone?), so I hardly think one more exception, saying that "naive" is pronounced [nah-eev] rather than [neyv] even without diacritics, will bring the whole thing crumbling down. After all, nobody writes about "coördinates" these days, do they? —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 01:12, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Identities

Regarding this section: "Also note: The term Arab refers to people and things of ethnic Arab origin. The term Arabic refers to the Arabic language or writing system (and related concepts). For example, 'Not all Arab people write or converse in Arabic, but nearly all are familiar with Arabic numerals.'"

There is no ambiguity at all when you pluralize the word "Arab" or another such word such as "European." I think we're adding a needless level of complexity to Wikipedia style by insisting that we must specificy we're talking about people instead of, say, artwork. There is no example of a standard use of "Europeans" or "Arabs" where people are not meant. So I would greatly like to see this guideline dropped. It does make articles read in a more pompous, scholarly fashion, but it doesn't add clarity and encourages people to multiply words for the sake of mood rather than meaning. -- Preston McConkie 18:16, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

WP:PRECON

I'm considering to compose a draft for what could become a new supplementary guideline to MOS. Initially, I thought about something like "writing as a fan", but it's probably even more interesting to have a guideline on all sorts of "writing with a preconception", be it as a fan, or as a [what's the word for "opposite of a fan"?], hence the WP:PRECON moniker. I imagine the guideline to relate to WP:COI, but with strong emphasis on stylistic aspects. But before wasting hours of my life on this, I wanted to make the round and ask for general opinions (ideally in the form of encouragement). —AldeBaer 13:56, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

We don't need another guideline in this area. If you find WP:COI and much more to the point WP:NPOV deficient in some way, work for consensus to improve them instead of writing a new overlapping projectpage, I would say. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 15:45, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Please read my reply to a similar comment at WP:VPP. —AldeBaer 17:21, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok, nevermind. Judging from the input I collected here, community consensus appears to be against such a guideline page. A shame, in my opinion, but so what. —AldeBaer 14:13, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

'Hanged' and 'hung'

Is there a consensus on the correct use of these (and if so, where?)? My mother tongue is British English, and I was taught that meat is hung and people are hanged. I learned, in recent discussion, that 'hung' for people is not wrong in American English. Fine, but if the article is not about a specifically American subject (it wasn't), and 'hung' is wrong in British English, isn't 'hanged' to be preferred? Or is the rule the default one of "don't change it without good reason"? Philip Trueman 12:58, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm also a British English speaker from birth, and just want to confirm that your distinction in use between "hanged" and "hung" corresponds to that which I was taught. As for the other matters you raise, I don't have anything to say at the moment.  DDStretch  (talk) 13:10, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

The distinction between hanged and hung is also maintained by many American style guides and the American media. See for example [19]. I think it's more an issue that the usage is becoming uncommon enough that the grammar is regularizing itself. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:28, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

The only way a person can be "hung" is as a picture. Bodies are hanged. American English user. Mahalo. --Ali'i 18:45, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I've a mix of AmEng and BrEng, but I was taught in the US the same usage that Philip Trueman (and everyone else, it seems) was. CRGreathouse (t | c) 19:58, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

The OED (hang, v. 3) says that in the context you are referring to, hung is used by some speakers, esp. in the south of England. (Personally (not a native speaker), I think it should be hanged, but if the editor who wrote this originally prefers hung we should probably not change it.) Stefán 20:11, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Interesting. One of the unexpected things about English is how the relationship between weak and strong past tenses have been, and still is, in a state of flux. Dived --> dove is a late 20th-century innovation in North America, and there are others I can't think of at the moment, moving in either direction. Tony 22:57, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I remember the word used on Alex Trebek's U.S. quiz show Jeopardy many years ago. Alex said "hanged". "Hanged" is a glaring exception, and I suspect "hung" is on the rise because of the increasing scarcity of hangings and the subsequent unfamiliarity with the verb. —Kanodin 00:50, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I speak AmE, and I use both hanged and hung, in their respective correct positions. However, despite my vehemently correxting anyone who makes a mistake, I suspect that usage of "hanged" is declining, due probably to its seeming incorrect, as Kanodin pointed out. ¿SFGiДnts! ^{¿Complain! ¿Analyze! ¿Review!} 23:41, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Standard for the and a preceding acronyms

I don't know if there's a standard on Wiki for the pronouns "a" and "an" that precede acronyms. I've looked and haven't been able to find one. I have always been taught that when the acronym begins with a "vowel-sounded consonant" (such as n, s, r, l, f, m) that when spoken aloud creates a vowel sound first, that the pronoun before it should be "an", so it would be grammatically correct. For example, "NAACP representative" would be written as "an NAACP representative", but "NASA representative" would be written as "a NASA representative", because they are pronounced differently. One sounds like "EN" and the other like "NA".

Is there a WP standard for this? Do other countries do it differently? Like I said, all I know is what I've been taught, and I can't find anything on it on the pages I've looked. Thanks, Stanselmdoc 16:00, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

What about acronyms of inconsistent pronunciation - SQL or FAQ, for example? --Random832 01:54, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

• Interesting issue (pleased to hear what others think). NAACP is an initialism (can't be pronounced as a word), whereas NASA is a true acronym (think nym/name). The latter, AFAIK, doesn't take a preceding the; a NASA representative is different, because NASA is now an epithet, qualifying the head, representative (What kind of representative?). NAACP probably does take "the"; but organisations have their own preferences, and usually, but not always, their website shows the way. (Some deictics must even be capitalised, such as The Beatles, apparently, because that was the branding.) Tony 03:37, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Pronunciation should be the guide for both acronyms and initialisms, I think. A SQL server; an SEC spokesman; an FAQ; a FEMA representative. Barnabypage 09:35, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Although, as noted, several of those have multiple pronunciations. The official pronunciation of SQL is in fact 'ess queue ell', according to ANSI; whereas FAQ is frequently 'fak'. I expect you could find devotees of 'sek' and 'eff ee em a' if you looked hard enough. TSP 09:53, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Many of these can go either way, and it's an unsatisfactory little nook of the language, second-guessing whether your reader's little silent voice will spell out the letters, pronounce them as a word, or go for the whole name (something in me makes me say "frequently asked questions" when I see FAQ). Tony 10:36, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Perhaps this is a case, then, where trying to establish a standard is futile, and editors should simply go with their preference. After all, while an inappropriate indefinite article might be jarring, it doesn't impede understanding. Barnabypage 10:43, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't impede understanding, but it sure does put a crick in the neck of a grammar policeman like me hahahaha. I agree with the arguments, but I still don't see why a more common pronunciation shouldn't be given precedence (like "an L.A. Times contributor" as opposed to "a L.A. Times contributor"). I guess I'll just refrain from altering too many articles I deem incorrect. Stanselmdoc 14:03, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

contractions such as (wo)men as a substitute for "both women and men"

Should this be addressed in the style guidelines, if so where? I've always been inclined to disfavor this kind of writing, but I cannot remember seeing it addressed. Thanks in advance for any comment and feedback. dr.ef.tymac 11:42, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Um ... you mean, like this? Tony 12:11, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Not really. I mean something even more general than that. I mean the use of parenthesis to indicate a "compound word" [e.g., (foo)bar ] where the compound word is a substitute for two separate words that would otherwise be indicated using "both X and Y" [e.g., both foobar and bar]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dreftymac (talk • contribs) 16:01, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

That sort of creative parenthesis use falls under general poor practice. I'm not opposed to including something in the MOS about it, but I don't think it's really necessary. Strad 00:07, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Proposal for guidelines on gender-neutral language

I seek consensus for the addition of a new subsection on "Gender-neutral language" to the "Usage" section of MOS. This has now become a typical part of in-house manuals of style, from those of newspapers to book publishers to scholarly journals. It's high time that WP had its own guidelines in this area to suit its particular circumstances.

Please peruse the draft and add your comments here. Tony 16:17, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry. I cannot support this draft; some of the examples are already clumsy and imprecise. I would support adding the key sentence: Consider using gender-neutral language where this can be achieved in reasonably tidy wording and without loss of precision.

But some of the language of the draft is inaccurate: The meaning of The Ascent of Man is not males, but human beings; to claim otherwise is a confusion, now all too common. There is no harm in the substitution when it can be done, as often, without harming cadence; but we should not misstate the grounds for it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:15, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

You just don't get it, do you. Tony 01:02, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Please reconsider that personal attack, which demonstrates suggests that the proposed page is POV and unacceptable on those grounds. For my part, I prefer to deal with issues than pretend that politically correct language will solve real problems. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:45, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Look further home PMAnderson, especially when it comes to personal attacks. You've tried pulling similar stunts at changing guidelines at WIAFA, and at GAC. Furthermore, you tried disrupting one of my FAC's because you didn't like being told the truth. In other words, shut up lecturing others on personal attacks. LuciferMorgan 19:52, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Excuse my intrusion, but since the proposed policy suggests that "man" meaning human beings is unacceptable usage, then it ought to be substituted except where it is in a quote or title. (probably by humanity or (marginally) mankind. So I do see a failure to comprehend on the part of Pmanderson, although Tony did state that rather crudely. And yes, I support the proposed policy provided that we can avoid constructions that are too clumsy. dramatic 23:12, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

• Please add; long overdue for a Project the size of Wikipedia, it's logical that we should have this, it's helpful to have tips on how to use gender-neutral language, and this is a well-written (as usual for Tony1) summary. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:52, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

• I support it and agree it's long overdue. ←Ben^B4 22:01, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

• Support, I think the use, especially when it is excessive of catering to both genders with constructs such as -persons disrupts the natural flow of language. This practice adds unneccesary political correctness, which can be thought of as a very light form of censorship or newspeak. However I would like to see the policy consider what to do if an article contains a mixture of the two usages, or whether an article should be edited purely for gender-neutrality. User A1 23:26, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

The "person"-construction is often unnecessary when accurate names are used. A "mailman" is a letter carrier and a "manhole" is a street access hole (certainly not a "person hole"). "Spokesperson" seems to be in wide use, and no longer seems stilted.--Curtis Clark 23:38, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

This is up to individual editors and the generation of consensus around gender-neutral usage in each article in which it's at issue. I'm adding comments from two people below that were posted on the discussion page of the draft. Tony 01:06, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

"Manhole" is actually a red herring, the "man" part comes from french "main" (or possible a latin root, I forget), and it just means that the cover is hand-operated. Same root as "manual", which is, I would assume, obviously not sexist. And now I'll get back on topic, or something... SamBC(talk) 01:11, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

It looks good to me. Sexist language is a huge problem on Wikipedia, and modern English needs to rely heavily on neutral wording. The sexes are equal in the modern world, so sexist language is as archaic as "ye" and "whilst". — Deckiller 21:08, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Seems reasonably, as long as no-one starts objecting to words because of folk etymologies, like the oft-heard (off wikipedia, anyway) objection to "manhole". SamBC(talk) 22:05, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

• I've accepted most, but not all of Hoary's edits to the draft. In particular, I felt that the example of how cumbersome "his or her" can be was unnecessary; and I do wonder about "the impersonal you and one" as a way of avoiding gender-specific pronouns. Can we discuss examples here? Tony 10:44, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Well, instead of "The player may move his pawn one space forward, or two if it is the first move", say, "You may move your pawn one space &hellp;". First thought that came into my head. I use impersonal you, or more correctly "one", in conversation quite often. "One" is technically in the same gramatical "person" as he/she/it, although the semantic distinction means that it can't be directly substituted in phrases. SamBC(talk) 12:15, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
    • There will be a clash with this and this in the same section (Usage); what are your thoughts on that? Tony 12:40, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
      • It would seem that that puts "you" right out, which TBH I was uncomfortable about anyway, but "one" is explicitly allowed in the sense we're talking about (that is, meaning anyone, the purer grammatical meaning of the term). SamBC(talk) 13:19, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm still concerned about one. Can you give an example of how it might be used to avoid the generic male pronoun? "A computer user should consider not turning off his machine." --> "One should consider not turning off one's computer."? Hmmm. Sounds old-fashioned, and in some contexts the slight loss of meaning might be a disadvantage. Tony 13:49, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Personally, in that example, I'd tend to use the (technically incorrect) signular their, and comparing the two seems to be a case of modern-but-technically-wrong vs. "archaic"-but-technically-right. If people are going to argue about not using one thing because it's wrong, and not using another because it sounds archaic, then it just gets silly. Singular their is generally tolerated, AIUI, and I'm sure that one could be as well. As a completely off-the-top-of-my-head made-up example, consider "on entering the building, one should remove one's hat". I'll probably think of a better one later. The point is that the proposed MOS guideline isn't telling people they must (or even should) use each example, merely that they are acceptable alternatives. SamBC(talk) 14:16, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

This is why we should not mandate the stylistic choice. If we do, we will get a rash of singular theys "because MOS says so". Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:34, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

• I support this, although I'm not keen on the singular "they" (people can always avoid this if they think about it). To User A1's question above about editing purely for gender-neutrality - including this in the MOS makes it an FA criteria. BTW - does anyone else find it amusing that the MOS doesn't comply with itself? -- Rick Block (talk) 16:24, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Perhaps we should reconsider having every sentence of MOS automatically an FA criterion. Much of it is good advice, in general, but with exceptions, sometimes recondite exceptions. (For example, there is a discussion on unit conversion in the Mos on units. We should make a recommendation in general; but the same practice is not suitable for high astrophysics and naval history.) If it weren't, this page would be far less controversial; and far more sensible. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:37, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

On the substance, I much prefer the approach at the Village Pump; editing solely to remove or insert gender-neutral language is disruptive, like other stylistic preferences. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:45, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Why is this disruptive? It seems no less disruptive to me than cleaning up punctuation, grammar, or formatting. ←Ben^B4 05:36, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I think Tony’s formulation, with the “Please consider …” approach to be essentially a fine one; however, I agree with Septentrionalis’ that such a substantive addition to MOS needs to go to the community at large for consensus. We need to keep in mind that some people consider “gender-neutral” to be “political correctness” and thus POV, regardless of what popular writing style guides propose. For instance, stilted phrases like “his or her” may have found their way into style guides, but have not widely penetrated the common vernacular. In particular, the assertion that “man” must always be deemed to refer to males and not males and females collectively is indeed POV; the context is the point (and WP:AGF guides us to assume the best). I find “one” to be preferable to the impersonal “you” has generally been deprecated in this MOS as too informal. However, a better solution to SamBC’s example would be “The player may move a pawn one space forward, ….” I find the “impersonal” their to be a better natural-language fit. Askari Mark (Talk) 17:53, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

My comment was addressed to the former phrasing: "Wikipedia recommends", which would a disaster at FAC. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:01, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Why? Tony 04:13, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

• I can dig it. I support the general notion. If an editor has a sensible objection to a detail, they can bring this up on the talk page. -- Hoary 07:37, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Responses thus far from Tony.

• I didn't write the "Please consider ...". It was "Wikipedia recommends ...", which I've now reinstated.
• Askari's feeling that this should be put to the whole community, I think, is redundant: that is exactly what is happening here. The recommendations fit squarely within MOS, and this is where MOS changes are discussed. It's open to anyone to post links to this discussion (as Manderson has done at the Village Pump). I encourage this.
• The proposal is far too mild for some editors: I've purposely framed it as a set of recommendations, not as rules, partly because the methods of avoiding generic expressions all have their own disadvantages and, like many options writers are faced with in producing prose, must be weighed up against each other. Thus, I felt that the recommendation should assist in this respect, perhaps more than in most parts of MOS. The potential pitfalls of each option are explicated in the same bullet point, except for the "otherwise reword" option.
• Accordingly, it is pointed out that the singular they has its detractors. No one is forcing it as an alternative, and Manderson, your point that MOS is endorsing its use by mentioning it as an option has a reverse side: MOS is also providing a reason to object to its use. All things in balance. While in many contexts, the singular they grates with me, and it would be the last option I'd choose; but it was good enough for Shakespeare, Austen and many other greats, and is endorsed by The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language. I've seen it in government documents, where I'd have passed over it smoothly had it not become an issue here. See this and this for technical discussions: some in linguistic authority feel that it's not technically wrong.
• Manderson's broader agenda, that MOS should be meek and let people do their own thing, doesn't ride with me. MOS, to me, must balance freedom and cohesion, and does so quite well at the moment. If he takes my comment as a personal attack, I'm sorry, it wasn't intended that way: man used to be understood as including both genders; this is largely not the case now. That's what I meant by "you don't get it": it's about our readers' perceptions, not our own ideological views. It doesn't matter whether the man in chairman has nothing to do with the word man: it is perceived as such by many readers.
• My personal preference is not to mention one as an alternative—well, not until someone presents a good example. It does still seem to be at odds with MOS's Usage section, and my impression is that its use would change the tone of a passage significantly more than the use of the other options.
• Overall, the edits to my proposal have improved it—thank you all. Where I've reverted these edits, I've tried to justify my actions here, and will continue to do so in cases where I don't retain changes made by others.

Tony 04:00, 4 September 2007 (UTC) I thank DGG and Radiant for their comments, but I believe that for the most part they are either unclear or not legitimate objections to the proposal. My responses are interpolated below in green:

• objections to particular examples: man-made and artificial are not synonyms. I dont think there is an exact synonym or alternative for man-made in all contexts; smilarly 'manned' is not necessarily replaceable by 'operated' or "staffed."-- and so one for the otherssimilar uses. "Actress" can be gender neutral--it means someone who portrays female roles.
  • The text does say can sometimes be avoided; are you taking this critical wording into account? It's exactly because these substitutions do not always work that the wording is such. I agree about artificial—it's usually a problem; I'm willing to remove that example. Manned can be perfectly well replaced by operated or staffed in some contexts, so I think it's a good example; some readers object strongly to manned. Your point about actress—this is surely not intended to be a proper objection (do we really have to debate it in terms of drag?).
• other creative alternatives "People must" or "People should" or some similar construction ; Humans or human in special contexts
  • Are you suggesting an additional point here?
• singular they not only should this not be suggested, it should be depreciated. As for as i'm concerned, I'd go further and say its forbidden, but not all will agree.
  • I don't like the singular they, but as I've pointed out above, there are authorities who not only accept it, but argue for it. See the ABC link above (Hoary's and mine). It appears last, and those who object to particular usage on WP are armed with an explicit rider. If it's a deal-breaker, I'll remove it; but I'd like to retain it in the draft for longer to guage further opinion.
• policy as a whole Tony, some of our readers will perceive avoiding gender specific forms as sexist--others may perceive it when it sounds artificial as deferring to the ignorant.This especially applies to compound forms. Congressperson or chairperson to me indicates PC in the worst implications of the term, just a much as herstory. I think it particular it needs to be absolutely stated that disrupting an extensive established article to change forms is wrong at least if it is objected to, and that it is wrong to use terminology not in harmony with the surrounding sections if it looks obtrusive. Further, what sounds right in news stories is not the same as in describing historical events. In writing about WW II, for example, the terminology of the era should be used. DGG (talk) 08:51, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
  • The policy is, frankly, the very mildest you could imagine. It explicitly says that gender-neutral alternatives should be used only "where this can be achieved in reasonably tidy wording and without loss of precision"; what stronger caveat could you want? Anyone who uses gender-neutral language can, by this policy, be asked to justify each usage on this basis. Editors can debate the evils or otherwise of congressperson et al. on talk pages, as well they might now.
  • The section brings WP finally into the 21st century on this count, behind many, many publishing houses, broadcasters and governments—in some cases, including the most rightwing/conservative. I can't determine what your attitude is to the policy as a whole: are you declaring that your attitude is neutral?
• This is as unenforceable as the perennial proposals to "always use British (or American) English" and the AD vs CE debate. I think it's a bad idea to make a prescription for it. >Radiant< 09:31, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
  • No, it has absolutely nothing to do with "always use British or American English", wherever that bumkum has been put about. The guidelines for which variety should be used have evolved to be, as far as I can see, precise. There may occasionally be borderline cases, and they are dealt with at the talk page by consensus, like everything else. The same is true for AD/CE, which are both allowed; there may be arguments, but so what? I contend that this objection has no validity unless Radiant can provide a logical, cohesive framework for it. These supposed analogies make no sense. Tony 12:03, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
    • It makes perfect sense: this is unenforceable. Some people think we should use AD rather than CE (or the other way around) but we don't do that. Some people think we should use PC terms for gender, but we don't do that for the same reason. >Radiant< 12:22, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
      • Why are you talking in terms of forcing (unenforceable)? It is cast in terms of a recommendation. Please address the issues in those terms. Tony 12:38, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

How sad that guidelines for good writing are so easily disparaged with the "PC" label, and by the same people who wholeheartedly support correcting poor grammar. Poor grammar never discouraged a young lady or girl. This kind of nonchalant disposal of editorial standards accepted as basic the world over is shameful. Can't our standards even aspire to those of a small-town newspaper? ←Ben^B4 12:54, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

In my experience, giving something the "PC label" is done to stifle debate, often but not always with intent. It's almost the Godwin's Law of writing style. I have yet to see a clear counterexample.--Curtis Clark 13:49, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Whatever you want to propose, it should certainly not encourage writing "he or she", which always sounds clumsy. I would prefer an even weaker preference. Using "he" and "his" in a sex neutral way has been standard English usage for centuries. There is hardly any reasion to start replacing this throughout. −Woodstone 13:44, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Methinks that clumsiness is sometimes in the eye of the beholder. Think that if you want, but using he to stand for all people is now quite unacceptable in all but the fusty halls of gentlemen's clubs and the like. Look around you. The evidence in publishing is overwhelming that gender-neutral language is the norm. It's embarrassing that WP has not even a recommendation, and that a few people here are doing all they can to subvert what is a non-mandatory recommendation, not a confining rule. No one has to use he or she, certainly not where it might sound clumsy or need to be repeated. There are four or five options for avoiding sexist language, and using them skilfully is now expected of modern writers. Tony 13:54, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

• Got any sources for that allegation? You sound precisely like the people who want to push CE or British English as the sole standard. >Radiant< 14:02, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

• I did actually read something mentioning that very recently, can't recall where, but it was linked from a discussion of singular "they"... I'll find it and repost the link in a bit, if no-one else does. I've certainly seen it in guidance from my uni for academic writing. Avoiding gender-neutral "he", that is. SamBC(talk) 14:15, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Woodstone, clumsiness issue aside, I would point out that "it's been this way for centuries" isn't a good argument for anything - for centuries it was held that dark-skinned people were obviously and inherently inferior, for centuries it was held that women couldn't be academics, and for centuries it was held as common knowledge that jews couldn't be trusted. Centuries end. That said, I'm in two minds as to whether I mind gender-neutral masculine or not — it doesn't bother me personally, but I understand why it's considered objectionable. I personally will react to it badly in some circumstances, and not others. SamBC(talk) 14:11, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

The issue has nothing to do with whether women are considered inferior or not. It just happens to be that the English language uses the word "he" in two different senses. It may mean "a human being" or "a male being". There are many words with several meanings. It is usually not a problem and it is up to the reader to determine which is meant in a specific case. −Woodstone 15:11, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm surprised to have to debate this in 2007. Not any more is he understood in the first sense, at least not by a significant proportion of English-speakers. Sorry, you'll just have to face up to that change. We're no longer living in the 1950s. That is why most style guides now recommend (some insist) on respecting modern perceptions. Your perceptions don't appear to be modern, that's all. Tony 15:26, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I see that Tony has replaced "Wikipedia recommends". I strongly oppose this; I will dispute any effort to add it to the policy. The MOS is not a means for some editors to browbeat others into their stylistic preferences. For the record, if there is indeed a modern consensus on these usages, reminding editors to consider the matter will be more effective, as well as more civil, in promoting the use of such language. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:23, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

The course of this discussion is actually a good example of why this issue should be placed before the community as a whole with a link from here, rather than vice versa. Those who frequent this page are a tiny and non-representative fraction of the broader Wikipedia community, and a debate on this issue deserves a greater diversity of thought. I’m surprised that some here espouse “gender-neutral” wording as broadly accepted by all but the “fusty” few. Anyone believing that needs to get out more – and travel in broader circles. As someone who is widely read and comfortable in many social circles, I can honestly say that it is the dominant mode only in a small, albeit influential, circle of society – which just happens to include those who write style guides. In actuality, most of society eschews it except in certain formal, public situations. While age-old usage of masculine forms as gender-plural may no longer be held as commendable by some, they do have the advantage of common understanding, depending on the context of their usage. Moreover, recent fashion does not necessarily confer lasting value or even long endurance. “Modern” fads come and go, and I’ve noticed in recent years that even among those I know who espouse gender-neutral formulations, it has been slipping from conversational usage, so it’s possibly a fading form.

Accordingly, I can support Tony’s proposed wording with the “Please consider …” approach, but not the one reading “Wikipedia recommends …”. We few here are not “Wikipedia”, and before we make such a statement, the more diverse population of Wikipedians should have their say. The latter formulation just begs edit wars, with the intimation that Wikipedia advocates one POV over another. We should encourage editors to be aware of how their wordings may offend a small part of the population, and encourage them to take some pains to consider alternatives that are more gender-neutral. Askari Mark (Talk) 17:49, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

While I don't actually agree with most of this reasoning, I'm not going to debate it, because I think your conclusion actually hits the nail on the head. SamBC(talk) 18:34, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I think that Tony's proposal is a rather shrewd one, and should meet appraisal. Personally, when I read an article which uses an assumption such as "he", then I find it rather offensive. So yeah, Tony gets my support and I think of all whom support gender equality should lend him our backing. LuciferMorgan 20:10, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I like this proposal. I don't particularly like the reasoning above that we should not aim for consistency in style because we won't achieve it, or because it would be inflexible. It needn't be inflexible, and whether we achieve it isn't the point; the point is that we agree, because we are reasonable people, that wordings that would seem to create an unnecessary gender discrepancy should be avoided. "Actress" is a very good example of a word that is prevalent in this encyclopedia and shouldn't be. I don't much like the singular "they" either, but I don't think that's really what we're talking about. Chick Bowen 23:28, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

References and notes relative to sentence punctuation

The MOS needs to specify the placement of references and notes relative to punctuation. Specifically, if a reference follows a sentence, should it be placed before or after the period? I thought I read that it should be after the period, but when checking to MOS to verify I see it is not specified. I see both forms throughout Wikipedia, and worse, both forms within the same article. The same formatting should apply to references relative to commas as well. --Dan East 23:50, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

See WP:FN. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:53, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I knew I had read that somewhere. --Dan East 23:57, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

A widely contested recommendation. Do what seems best to you. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:52, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Manual of Style or Manual of style?

Shouldn't this be named Manual of style with a lowercased "s"?--Silver Edge 02:22, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, to be consistent with the "Capitalization" guidelines. Happy to see it changed. Tony 04:11, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Disagree--its a quasi-book and should be capitalized accordingly--it's meant to seem parallel to the actual published manuals of style. If we wanted to call in styyle guidelines, that would be something else--but I certainly dont want to go about changing the references throughout WP. DGG (talk) 08:25, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

While ironic, changing it would have all of the disadvantages of going against longstanding tradition with no real benefits. ←Ben^B4 08:33, 4 September 2007 (UTC)