This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 150 | ← | Archive 152 | Archive 153 | Archive 154 | Archive 155 | Archive 156 | → | Archive 160 |
Hello fellow Wikipedians. It has come to my attention that there is a lack of consensus among the community about how to summarise an entertainment product's critical reception. Such "products" would encompass books, films, albums, songs and video games, and as such the issue can be applied to articles within the scope of multiple WikiProjects. The "summary" in question refers to the statement usually found at the beginning of a "Critical reception" section and echoed in the lede that gives the reader a short, one-sentence summary of the product's reception.
The problem I identify is that while we do our best to summarise using language attributed to WP:RS, our word choices often violate our WP:PEACOCK policy and more often than not stray into WP:OR territory. One of the best examples I can find is the article Yeezus, having passed a GA Review with this language; "The album received rave reviews from music critics". Dictionary.com considers the word an informal term. The usage of the word on Yeezus ignited a widespread debate where no clear consensus was established, and the language has remained. It is adopted in other articles, such as Beyoncé (album) and Good Kid, M.A.A.D City.
Common among articles as well is the usage of "universal", a term defined as " relating to or done by all people or things in the world or in a particular group; applicable to all cases". Such language suggests that, quite literally, the product in question received an entirely positive reception among any person capable of being receptive to it. A similar problem is brought out by the use of "overwhelming", which could perhaps imply that reviewers were literally taken aback by the brilliance of the product to the point of being unable to perform other bodily functions until their fingers typed up a review to summarise their experience.
You could say I'm being hyperbolic. I feel that neutrality, one of the project's biggest problems (knives out, wolves of Conservapedia), is being exacerbated by the use of such language. It's in direct conflict with our MoS policy on peacock words, yet such handles have been so widely used now with no direct policy in the MoS to address them.
Proponents of the language may put forward the argument that it is supported by reliable sources, making it okay. We often use Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic as our bible, echoing the language used by these sources. Now here's my thesis: if the language is echoed by a reliable source, why is it not being directly attributed to it? When summarising reviews in an article, the language may be supported by sources. I propose that if such is the case, we have a duty to our readers to clearly attribute the peacock language to the source. In doing so we remove the bias from the language by clarifying that the language is not our own. In these instances, there should quotation marks around the term with a footnote directing the reader to the usage of the language by the source.
This, I feel, is an appropriate compromise for those who feel that the language is backed up by the sources, and those who feel that it introduces bias into the article. I propose the drafting of a new policy in the MoS, based on consensus among us, that clearly explains how, in the scenarios where the writer boldly wishes to use such language, it is to be written and verified.
tl;dr - If we're going to be using peacock language when summarising critical reception, we need to make it crystal clear that the language is not being used by us, but rather is attributed to a reliable source
CR4ZE ( t • c) 13:54, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
Perhaps an issue in this context is that, in general, critical responses are not summaries of critical response, while those sites that make it their business to summarize critical response are not attributed. Our purposes fall somewhere between. -- Ring Cinema ( talk) 19:13, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
@ Erik and Stfg - In some cases, editors may summarise reviews by adopting language used by a journalist; they don't just take from review aggregates. In regards to the use of the word "rave", in the Yeezus article I cited, the usage of the word has in fact been attributed to a journalist, not an aggregate like Rotten Tomatoes. Reading through the long talk page debate, Dan56's justification was that the word exists in the dictionary and can be attributed to reliable sources. I don't consider that an adequate justification, especially not with how it was written, which is why I feel this debate is important so that we can avoid contention in the future. My argument is that if editors wish to do so, I certainly would never agree with it, but they should at least put "quotations" around the statement and provide a footnote directing to its usage. It's good to see that MOS:FILM#Critical response attempts to address this, however I don't think it quite covers all the usages and wouldn't stand up if it was brought into video game or album articles. This is why I would propose a uniform policy that applies to all entertainment mediums; peacock terms are best avoided, but if you wish to use them they should be directly attributed to an RS to remove bias.
@ Twyfan714 and Flyer22 - I think terms like "generally" or "mostly" (or the synonymous "largely") remove a great deal of bias in comparison with the excessive "rave" and "universal" terms. However, I think on a by-case basis, editors should carefully consider how they would justify such language, because the attribution is certainly debatable. CR4ZE ( t • c) 06:50, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
Flyer22, my justification at the Yeezus article was more than what you said it was. "Awfully limited language does not demonstrate any neutrality. If the reviews were strong enough for these folks to use 'rave', then that's the tone of the material in question. We're not misleading readers with a perfunctory 'positive reviews' when that can range from lukewarm ('B-' anyone?) to what Metacritic likes to call 'universal acclaim', especially when there are several sources backing it up." In short, if reviewers chose "to talk or write about someone or something in an excited or enthusiastic way" ( Merriem-Webster), then they by definition raved about it. The tone of the word would only become a neutrality issue if it wasn't accurate. If reviewers raved about something, I don't see why readers shouldn't know it simply because the tone of the word rubs some the wrong way. In the case of Yeezus, several sources verified the nature of the positive reviews, and if it was only one journalist's choice words, then obviously we'd defer to what most sources said. Dan56 ( talk) 00:47, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
I didn't used to be such a hardliner on this issue, but I now regularly strip out all emotive language and unsourced analysis from reception sections. Although MOS:FILM, WP:SAID, and WP:PEACOCK cover these issues rather well, I think more explicit advice might be helpful – and perhaps help prevent other articles from reaching Good/Featured with such non-neutral language. I would strongly support a blanket ban on "rave", "universal", "overwhelming", "acclaim", "hail", etc. If you wouldn't use the word in a mixed review, don't use it in a positive or negative review. For example:
Seems almost common sense to me, but what do I know? I'm not a universally acclaimed Wikipedian. NinjaRobotPirate ( talk) 03:51, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
Metacritic's usage and goals are different from ours but it's hard to see how quoting them is going to turn out badly. Readers can judge for themselves. -- Ring Cinema ( talk) 16:17, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
Just came across this and as the largest contributor to Beyoncé, I'll offer my two cents. I can't speak for film articles as I haven't been involved in many on a significant level, especially not their Reception sections, but I notice from editing album articles and generally reading music criticism, most albums tend to receive "positive reviews". A significant, but less, amount of albums garner mixed reviews and quite a small number of albums are negatively received. I think it's quite customary for journalists to award a safe 3/5 to albums (perhaps in the interest of the publication), indicative of good music but nothing excellent; a score which would = 60/100, creeping into Metacritic's "positive/generally favorable" band. I think this is why Metacritic has avoided lumping all positively-reviewed albums together, awarding "universal acclaim" to anything 80>, because the album in question is not commonplace and has caused journalists to consider it differently from the standard rock/rap/pop/r'n'b album with some hits, but filler aplenty. @ Thibbs: I understand your point, but I think "universal acclaim" has to be read purposively. I don't think the reasonable person would think that the film/album in question has been enjoyed by every reviewer in history, but there is a consensus among journalists that this is an excellent work. — JennKR | ☎ 20:07, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
N-HH, I hope you're not assuming any critics were cited as sources for statements such as "the album received rave reviews" or whatever, or that it's a case of "According to Critic A, it was the best film ever". It's an objective journalist who, in the case of the Yeezus article, reported on the album's reception in an article for the International Business Times ( [1]). Why are we calling this source's objectivity into question? It's not a critic. Furthermore, in Channel Orange#Critical reception, the sentence "received rave reviews" is attributed to an article written by Metacritic founder Jason Dietz. These aren't critics being cited to support what you feel are hyperbolic phrases. Dan56 ( talk) 22:09, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
Having left the debate to roar on for a little while, it seems that the majority of the editors involved will agree with me that the usage of peacock terms such as "rave" and "universal" are inappropriate. Some contend with me that if particular editors want to use such language, its attribution to reliable sources should be made to be clearer when written. I need to make it clear to editors on both sides of the debate that, per my opening comments, I am not here to eliminate all instances of "rave" from Wikipedia. Rather, it was my intention to gauge how to frame a policy that explicitly restricts the usage of such language. It's clear that there are strong feelings either way; I knew that before opening the debate, and it's even clearer now. As such, I believe that the 'compromise' between opposing views I suggested in the original comment would be appropriate. I would like to hear feedback on the drafting of a new policy that discusses how to use language and attribute potentially peacock reviews when writing critical reception sections in articles. CR4ZE ( t • c) 12:23, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
I'm working on something here. CR4ZE ( t • c) 04:36, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
I've seen a lot of issues devolve into popularity contests. We should at least look at what the balance of sources is on this matter. Please feel free to add to both these lists. Please specify whether the source is general-English or specialist. Please limit entries to sources that comment on the capitalization of English names of species (even if that's not all they talk about). Latin names, breeds, subspecies and cultivars are not the issue at hand.
I have ranked the sources I've found in order of what I believe to be their relevance. (The formally compiled Style Guide of the AFS comes before an editorial in The Birdist.) I think we should continue to do this as the list grows. One source said that CMOS, Hart and Butcher all comment on this issue, but I don't have direct access to any of them right now. The AMA style guide is silent on the matter. Darkfrog24 ( talk) 03:25, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
Sources that say to capitalize common names of birds and/or other species:
Sources that say to use lowercase for common names of birds and/or other species:
This is not productive to re-launch here. We already have an entire pair of sections for this above, here and here, much more filled out than this. And adding in "and/or other species" (i.e. of non-birds) both falsifies the "Sources and capitalization of bird names" titles chosen above, and would re-re-re-open a general "should we capitalize" debate that has been settled many times already (answer: "no"), including very extensive discussions in 2008 and 2012. As one example, re-introducing a US commercial fishery document that even most of the ichthyological world ignores and that WP:FISH ignores, and that the MOS debate was already aware of and chose to ignore in concluding to not capitalize here, does nothing but cloud the debate further. The vast majority of the pro-capitalization sources are going to be invalid examples (field guides, that capitalize for purely for emphasis - ease of visual scanning - not assertion of a general convention), yet will swamp all other examples (i.e. will be a popularity contest), wrecking the utility of such a list. The upcoming RfC, whatever its form, is going to surely have its own sourcing section here, too, reopening the same can of worms. We'd very likely end up with three duplicate sections on one page. PS: How could you possibly put two fish guides at the top of your list if it's supposed to be about birds and you ranked them in order or relevance? — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 20:16, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
First, let me appologize. Earlier today I removed some text from MOS:ID and my intent was to place a note here explaining why I'd removed it, however, my work firewall prevented me from posting - it insisted this was a programming language. I lead a band on Friday night and have just now come home from leading it, therefore I wasn't able to leave a note until now.
I removed a section out of MOS:ID:
An exception to this is made for terms relating to gender. In such cases we favor self-designation, even when source usage would indicate otherwise. Any person whose gender might be questioned should be referred to by the pronouns, possessive adjectives, and gendered nouns (for example "man/woman", "waiter/waitress", "chairman/chairwoman") that reflect that person's latest expressed gender self-identification. This applies in references to any phase of that person's life, unless the subject has indicated a preference otherwise. Direct quotations may need to be handled as exceptions (in some cases adjusting the portion used may reduce apparent contradictions, and " [sic]" may be used where necessary).
On the grounds that it directly contradicts WP:V which is a policy. MOS:ID states "In such cases we favor self-designation, even when source usage would indicate otherwise (emphasis mine). Where WP:V states:
In Wikipedia, verifiability means that people reading and editing the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source. Wikipedia does not publish original research. Its content is determined by previously published information rather than the beliefs or experiences of its editors. Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it. . Further it states: All content must be verifiable. at the very beginning (WP:PROVEIT).
This places the removed section (which is a guideline) firmly against policy. Since it's about living people, it also then fails WP:BLP and must be removed. Seems to me that either WP:V needs to be changed or that removed paragraph has to stay out, but what we can't have is both, as that creates a situation where we're saying "yes" and "no" to having a verifiable source to back up some part of a living person's identity. I have removed it for violating WP:V and WP:BLP and ask that it remain out pending a change in WP:V that supports this. KoshVorlon. We are all Kosh 04:19, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
Unless I am misreading the above, the original poster's Talk page has a voluntary restriction that states, among other things: "I am topic-banned from all articles and discussions related to either Private Manning or transgender issues, broadly construed, for six months." The edits on MOS:ID and on this Talk page appear to violate that voluntary restriction. I propose that this section be closed to further discussion, since it was apparently started in violation of that restriction. If a different editor wants to open a new discussion of the same issue, that is fine. – Jonesey95 ( talk) 15:04, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
I agree to discontinue a discussion when three users in good standing tell me I should drop it and no one has supported my position.Even though they are "voluntary", they were negotiated to avoid harsher blocking. __ E L A Q U E A T E 11:28, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
Again, this isn't just about Bradley Manning, this is about an exemption that is prohibited by WP:BLP and WP:V.
Irregardless of whether were speaking about someone that is transgender, or just simply states their name is "x", when all other reliable resources say it's "y".
I'm not seeing any policy arguments that would allow it to remain.
If we have reliable sources that say someone is Jewish, Russian, whatever, then that's what we include per WP:V, WP:R and WP:BLP, and the date is irrelevant on the sources, we rely on reliable sources, period, full stop.
"misleading"? No, what you have in front of you are reliable sources , not blogs, not scandal sheets, but reliable sources, so by default, they are not misleading.
Once again, since no one has offered any policy reason to keep the exemption in on MOS:ID, I propose removing it.
As I see it, there is no contradiction between this section of the MOS and
WP:BLP or
WP:V... What the MOS requires is the "person's latest expressed gender self-identification"... What BLP and WP:V require is that this self-identification be verifiable through citation to reliable sources. In other words, the "latest expressed self-identification" would obviously have to be expressed in a verifiable, reliable source. The reason we favor this self-identification is that any sources written before the most recent self-identification are obsolete and out of date... and thus less reliable.
Now... what the MOS does not address (and should) is the rare situation where a number of reliable sources written after the expressed self-identification refuse to acknowledge that self-identification and continue to refer to the person using his/her old name (and pronouns). In that case, we would have modern, up-to-date reliable sources that disagree with the self-identification. At that point it becomes a DUE WEIGHT issue. We have to assess whether the number and quality of (post announcement) disagreeing sources should out-weigh the self-identification (and any sources that do agree with it).
My feeling is that the number of disagreeing sources would have to be overwhelming and of very high quality to off set the reliability of a self ID... but we do have to admit that such an "exception to the exception" it is possible.
Blueboar (
talk)
13:55, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
According to this Manual of Style, a name of an organisation should be written out in the way the organisation writes it. I also interprete the Manual of Style to say, the same goes for the official abbreviation of the name. The abbreviation used by the organisation itself is comparable to the name of the organisation in this regard and should be spelled like the organisation spells it, even if this would seem to contradict general spelling rules. Am I right? Bandy boy ( talk) 12:27, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
In this case, someone seems to be pushing for a non-English style convention that is common in Swedish, but is definitely not common in English. In Swedish, the style convention for an article on NASA would have the first mention as "NASA" and further mention in the text as "Nasa". In English you would never switch to "Nasa". This is English Wikipedia. In the article Djurgårdens IF Fotboll, if the abbreviation for the club is commonly "DIF" we would never switch it to "Dif" just because that's how it might be styled in a Swedish language article for some secondary mentions. Making it "Dif" goes directly against what English language sources would use and what the organization itself would use primarily, and we prefer English language sources. (Another example,: in a Swedish-language article, the style convention for IKEA would be all caps on first mention, then "Ikea" for subsequent mentions. English Wikipedia style would never dictate switching to "Ikea".) __ E L A Q U E A T E 13:28, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Wouldn't the issue regarding how to abbreviate Djurgårdens IF best be discussed on the talk page of Djurgårdens IF Fotboll instead of here? Aikclaes ( talk) 13:53, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
The letters in an acronym are generally not separated by periods (full stops) or blank spaces... We also omit things like Ltd. or Inc. Otherwise we follow MOS:CUE. We consistently style it IKEA, even though some Swedish newspapers may on occasion style it "Ikea". I haven't see any indication that the organization styles it (in English translation or by preference in their own language) the way you've provided, and our readers are reading in English. __ E L A Q U E A T E 14:43, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
For those not familiar with the subject: The abbreviation of Djurgårdens IF is read out as a word, Dif, not letter-by-letter: D-I-F. According to Swedish language rules, this is important for knowing if a Swedish abbreviation should be written in lower or upper case. I would also like to point to MOS:TMRULES#General_rules regarding whether organizations themselves have the right to rule how their brand names are to be stylised in encyclopedias. Aikclaes ( talk) 14:16, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
@ Aikclaes: you keep on saying there are no sources. Here is the club's own web page. DIF there. -- Stfg ( talk) 19:33, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
The short version: In various places we advise against capitalizing things like "Director" and "River" and "Trust" when they are not used with or as part of a name, but this principle needs to be generalized into one rule in one place, instead of it being reiterated piecemeal with not-entirely-consistent rationales, and consequently not being applied in several places where it should be.
The "Generic words" provision at MOS:CAPS#Institutions (and a similar one a section later, about geographic names, and another similar one, I think under job titles; MOS proper repeats some of this stuff) is really a general fact about any such proper name or title. It would be nice if we codified the following examples (or some like them) into one overarching rule:
These things are capitalized when they're used as part of a name, but not when used generically (with rare conventional exceptions like President (of a nation, not an organization), and Prime Minister, and Secretary General (of the UN) still being capitalized when referring to the office generically. Not sure how to best write the rule, though. Ideas? — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ⚞(Ʌⱷ҅̆⚲͜ⱷ^)≼ 07:20, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
A bunch of source citations and quotations
|
---|
The current (16th ed.) Chicago Manual of Style says not to capitalize these, giving many examples such as the foloowing: sect. 8.18 Cardinal Newman; the cardinal; 8.20 the empress Elizabeth of Austria (but Empress Elizabeth of Austria); 8.21 the mayor; Richard M. Daley, mayor of Chicago; Mayor Daley; 8.27 the professor; Françoise Meltzer, professor of comparative literature; Professor Meltzer; 8.29 the historian William McNeill (not Historian McNeill) ; 8.46 the Great Plains, the northern plains, the plains (but Plains Indians) (most other examples there are adjectival); 8.50 the Ottoman Empire, the empire, the Republic of Indonesia, the republic, the Fifth Ward, the ward and many similar examples; 8.52 the Hawaiian Islands; Hawaii; but the island of Hawaii; 8.55 Jackson Park; the park, London Bridge; the bridge; 8.56 the Babri Mosque; the mosque; 8.57 the Empire Room (but room 421); and so on. The EU English Style Guide (7th Ed., 2011) notes that "the use of initial capitals has a highlighting effect, so if the body or person is not particularly important in the context of your text, an ordinary noun phrase may be more appropriate for subsequent mentions: The Ruritanian Programme for Innovation and Research focuses on ... The (research) programme is headed by ..." In a similar passage about capitalizing types of government body, legislative acts, etc., it adds "[I]f there is no risk of confusion or there is no need to draw attention to the name, lower case can be used instead." This, from a government body that loves to capitalize things. The EU Interinstitutional Style Guide [18]: "Use capitals sparingly. They are often employed to excess in commercial and administrative circles. When in doubt use lower case. ... Note, too, the difference in the use of Prince of Wales and … prince of Wales. The first has a particular sense, the second a general one. ... References to EU legislation: write Regulation, Decision, Directive, Annex and Article (followed by a number) with capitals if they refer to specific acts; use lower case for references to regulations, directives, etc. in a generalised sense and when referring to proposed legislation..." Otherwise doesn't touch on the issue. The Journal of Irish and Scottish Studies style guide (the same guide text is used by various other journals as far away from Scotland as Australia, I find, with just the examples changed) contradicts itself saying "Use of capitals: 1. When in doubt, don't.", but then giving an example of retaining capitalization on later mentions: "the Scottish School Board Association ... the Association". It's because they state generally, a bit later, "Where there is any likelihood of confusion, capitals should be used in words which have a different meaning [ sic] without them: an Act, the Opposition, the State." WP would never capitalize this way. It's a journal-style jargon use that doesn't belong here , and is totally unnecessary in a medium in which links make the meaning clear, while better, more explanatory writing than is usually permitted in academic journals can be used to clarify anyway. Remember that journals have a lot of odd conventions because they are highly compressed communications between professional in the same field; they are a form of code, and wikipedia is not. (See also the debate that has swallowed most of this talk page! All of these points apply equally well to capitalizing bird species common names just because some journals do it. It's also why we don't need to capitalize "Group" just because ICNCP does.) The Modern Humanities Research Association Style Guide (2nd Ed., rev. 2.3., 2009) is confusingly split on the issue, probably to avoid offense to subjects who may be written about. It says to capitalize a personal title used individually and specifically, but not generically: The Archbishop of Canterbury and several other bishops were present. But then it says "When, after a first full reference, or with such reference understood, a title is used incompletely but still with specific application to an individual, the capital is retained: The Archbishop spoke first." It never addresses other usage directly (e.g. geographic), but is clearly not wedded to capitalization being universally retained, advising before the Neolithic, neolithic sites and also advising: "Note, however, that ‘anglicize’, ‘anglophone’, ‘francophone’, ‘romanization’, etc., are not capitalized, nor are ‘arabic numerals’ and ‘roman type’ (but ‘the Arabic language’, ‘the Roman alphabet’)." So, well, whatever. I always hated the HRA style guide for its wishy-washy nonsense,and now I have an example I can save for future reference. The (American) legal guides I have on hand (Standler's, etc.) say not to capitalize "court" except in the full name of the court (Municipal Court for the City of Whatever), when addressing the court directly ("If it please the Court..."), or when referring to the US Supreme Court as "the Court" and otherwise do not address the issue. The general use of "court" in lower-case is consistent with the majority of sources. The London Times style guide, like some other journalistic ones, are not going to be useful on this question because of advice like "[S]ome terms, eg, Act, Bill, Cabinet, Civil Service, always cap.", which WP would never obey. The internal (staff) "Oxford University Style Guide" (Michaelmas term 2012): "The general rule is not to use a capital letter unless it is absolutely required." "college: capitalise only when used as part of the title of a college, not when referring to an institution without using its full name. Exeter College was founded in 1314. The college is one of the oldest in Oxford." Similarly for "division", "department", "faculty", "fellow", etc., etc. The only exception is "University" when it refers to Oxford specifically. "The largest University division is Medical Sciences." Because, you know, Oxford is magically special. "The Guardian and Observer Style Guide" [19] waxes editorial (and clipped and British): "A look through newspaper archives would show greater use of capitals the further back you went. The tendency towards lowercase, which in part reflects a less formal, less deferential society, has been accelerated by the explosion of the internet [ sic]....Our style reflects these developments. We aim for coherence and consistency, but not at the expense of clarity." Specifics: "jobs: all lc, eg prime minister, US secretary of state, chief rabbi, editor of the Guardian."; "titles: cap up titles, but not job description, eg President Barack Obama (but the US president, Barack Obama, and Obama on subsequent mention); the Duke of Westminster (the duke at second mention); Pope Francis but the pope."; "churches, hospitals and schools cap up the proper or placename, lc the rest, eg St Peter's church, Pembury, Great Ormond Street children's hospital, Ripon grammar school, Vernon county primary school."; and so on. Please pardon their freaky use of "eg" as if that were a word in English; they also seem to be the #1 source of "aka" as somehow equivalent to "a.k.a." or "AKA". Despite these sins, they get this one surprisingly consistent with so many other sources, and even contradict other lazy journalistic ones. The Handbook of Good English (1991 rev'd. ed.) has an entire section (3-12) titled "Learn to distinguish generic terms from proper nouns and adjectives formed from them", so you can probably guess where they go on this. Farther than most, actually: It even suggests the Buffalo chamber of commerce (in ref. to Buffalo, New York). Otherwise, the HGE agrees completely with Chicago on all relevant points here. National Geographic Style Guide [20], Zion National Park, Zion Park, the national park, the park, but gives a handful of special, conventional exceptions , e.g. the English Channel, the Channel. |
I could go on (and will if it's demanded), but I think we have hear a clear body of evidence that a) usage is not consistent, but strongly leans toward lower case; b) it is not strongly tied to regional English language variant; and c) the retention of the capitalization ("in the Park" as a substitute for "in Golden Gate Park") is jargonistic and decreasingly common in mainstream English. This strikes me as a green light to deprecate the practice generally, since we're already doing it in several specific contexts here. I.e., no case has been made for special exception for, say, geographic names, or organization names, or personal titles, or whatever. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 05:57, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
I linked Wikipedia:Gender identity, a project explaining many reasons that the gender paragraph in the Identity section in this project are the way they are. User:Trystan reverted me, saying that "Linking to an essay from a guideline should only be done after a clear consensus has been established to do so."
Any thoughts from different Wikipedians on whether it's a good link from this guideline?? Please reveal whatever your thoughts are in whatever way you can. Georgia guy ( talk) 15:54, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
The RM at Talk:John Gielgud, roles and awards#Requested move may be of interest. -- Rob Sinden ( talk) 11:16, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia talk:Consensus#Suggested change proposes to remove the wording unless they can convince the broader community that such action is right, participants in a WikiProject cannot decide that some generally accepted policy or guideline does not apply to articles within its scope
from
WP:LOCALCONSENSUS (a.k.a.
WP:CONLEVEL). This would likely have a significant effect upon the Manual of Style's centralization of Wikipedia article-writing style advice in one place, and the extent to which that advice if followed. —
SMcCandlish ☺
☏
¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼
07:58, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
Off-topic CONLOCAL discussion moved to WT:CONSENSUS
|
---|
|
Notice the statement:
An exception to this is made for terms relating to gender. In such cases we favor self-designation, even when source usage would indicate otherwise. Any person whose gender might be questioned should be referred to by the pronouns, possessive adjectives, and gendered nouns (for example "man/woman", "waiter/waitress", "chairman/chairwoman") that reflect that person's latest expressed gender self-identification. This applies in references to any phase of that person's life, unless the subject has indicated a preference otherwise. Direct quotations may need to be handled as exceptions (in some cases adjusting the portion used may reduce apparent contradictions, and " [sic]" may be used where necessary).
Are there some people with Wikipedia articles who the bolded phrase applies to?? Georgia guy ( talk) 18:55, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
I have a question: Could we define a policy when to insert commas after text on thumbnails, tables and boxes? Examples:
Countries by percent of
Avaaz members. The list can be scrolled manually or interactively | |
---|---|
#;Country Popul. Avaaz color coded % |
Countries by percent of
Avaaz members The list can be scrolled manually or interactively | |
---|---|
#;Country Popul. Avaaz color coded % |
-- Rezonansowy ( talk | contribs) 21:38, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
Template:Bsastyle. Only used in 15 articles. I see this as pretty problematic. The way to integrate special scouting jargon, where it's really needed on Wikipedia, is to define it in context or to create a glossary of scouting article, with sourced terms in it, and then link to them from usage of these terms in context in articles. The idea that we're going to impose some external style guide on articles here is pretty off-base. I'm tempted to WP:TFD this immediately, but I'm curious if there are any other "this article uses our special jargon at this external style manual" templates created by wikiprojects. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 02:24, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
The
newly added advice is
"Do not change hyphens to dashes in filenames,
URLs or templates like {{
Bibleverse}} which formats verse ranges into URLs." but it's perhaps not quite clear. Regarding the templates, are we talking about the input or the output? For example,
{{Bibleverse|Genesis|1:15-16}}
gives [http://tools.wmflabs.org/bibleversefinder/?book=Genesis&verse=1:15-16&src=! Genesis 1:15-16]
and we wouldn't want to change the hyphen in the template call nor the one in the url but the hyphen displayed should be changed i.e. it should be [http://tools.wmflabs.org/bibleversefinder/?book=Genesis&verse=1:15-16&src=! Genesis 1:15&endash;16]
(this is a job for the template writer). Of course, then we have to ask what these "templates like {{Bibleverse}}" are. Perhaps it would be better simple to warn users that some template inputs must be hyphens not dashes (and give this as an example); perhaps it's better still not to mention this here since template doc pages are the place for template use instructions.
Jimp
11:30, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
Editors are invited to see
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Plants#Italicization for taxa above genus (version of
00:44, 25 April 2014).
—
Wavelength (
talk)
00:59, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
I have noticed a trend ... many of our most heated debates have centered on the issue of how to present NAMES (whether in an article title or in running text) that don't conform to our MOS. The core debate being, should we "force" them conform or not? Whether we are talking about birds (the current debate), or pop-stars (the Deadmou5 debate) or some other topic, our most heated debates seem to relate to that question.
Rather than try to propose any specific change to the MOS, or advocate any position on the question... I would like to explore the issue of names at a more conceptual level. Let's start with the basic question: When should we conform a name to our preferred style, and (perhaps more important) when should we not do so? Blueboar ( talk) 16:02, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
It's nonsensical and just weirdly, unreasonably anti-MOS (in effect if not intent) to come at disputes here from such an angle. WP:RM and other discussions that frequently touch on MOS matters are based on consensus, and consensus leans toward what MOS says because it is the our style guideline, built by us. It was not imposed on us by some alien space god. There is no reason to have a discussion about whether the fomenting of anti-MOS rebellion is cool or not. It's not, as a matter of policy.
If there's a case where MOS seems to expect a style that doesn't make sense in that instance, that's why MOS has a talk page. Most of what MOS says, from top to bottom, is in there because of discussions about MOS's inadequacy about something (either proposals to add/change something, or defenses of WP:BOLD edits that add/change something). That's how Wikipedia works. It's how we arrived at all of our various naming conventions, notability expectations, criteria for what constitutes reliable sources, and everything else covered by our guidelines. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 18:16, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
There isn't anything you can do on WP that doesn't have consequences if you do it disruptively. But really, no one cares if you do something habitually that doesn't agree with MOS, you just can't force your quirk on existing prose, or revert other people normalizing what you've written to MOS's version. You're not forced to do anything covered by MOS, but you can be administratively prevented from disruptively doing anti-consensus things that affect other editors. Not the same thing.
I'll tell you from experience that if you just stop fighting a style quirk you disagree with here, you just get used to it and stop grinding your teeth and your axe and move on. There are at least 20 things I disagree with in MOS, and I just do them anyway, or avoid circumstances where I"d be called upon to do them, or even WP:IAR sometimes and write them my way in new material, as long as I"m not messing up someone else's MOS-compliant material. Seriously, you do just get over it. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 05:48, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
SMC - I was not really discussing CONLEVEL conflicts - what I wanted to discuss was the far more basic issue of how to present NAMES. Again, the question is: what should editors to do when a NAME does not conform to the guidance set out at the MOS. Should we "conform" the name to our MOS or not?
I suspect the answer to that fundamental question is not black and white... it is likely to be more along the lines of "Sometimes we should, and sometimes we should not.". But answer that leads to another basic question: when should we "conform" names to the MOS, and when should we not conform them?
Blueboar (
talk)
12:45, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
See poll at
WT:MOSCAPS#Capitalisation of Indigenous when referring to Australian Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. It started as a discussion at
Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Indigenous_peoples_of_Australia#Capitalisation#Capitalisation, and the pro/con arguments are summarized there, but the proponents of the idea launched the poll at MOSCAPS
concurrently. I hatted the wikiproject discussion and directed it to the MOSCAPS discussion, to centralize. —
SMcCandlish ☺
☏
¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 00:12, 27 April 2014 (UTC) And it was unhatted. I guess you're all expected to participate in both discussions at the same time for no reason. Or an admin can just go {{
hat}}
one of them. —
SMcCandlish ☺
☏
¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼
14:16, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
See: Help talk:Citation Style 1/Archive 4#Time for a real CS1 style guide?. Short version: Matters of style keep coming up there, some rather perennially. The outcome of this could ultimately affect the majority of articles in various ways, since they all have to cite sources, and most use citation style 1. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 15:07, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 150 | ← | Archive 152 | Archive 153 | Archive 154 | Archive 155 | Archive 156 | → | Archive 160 |
Hello fellow Wikipedians. It has come to my attention that there is a lack of consensus among the community about how to summarise an entertainment product's critical reception. Such "products" would encompass books, films, albums, songs and video games, and as such the issue can be applied to articles within the scope of multiple WikiProjects. The "summary" in question refers to the statement usually found at the beginning of a "Critical reception" section and echoed in the lede that gives the reader a short, one-sentence summary of the product's reception.
The problem I identify is that while we do our best to summarise using language attributed to WP:RS, our word choices often violate our WP:PEACOCK policy and more often than not stray into WP:OR territory. One of the best examples I can find is the article Yeezus, having passed a GA Review with this language; "The album received rave reviews from music critics". Dictionary.com considers the word an informal term. The usage of the word on Yeezus ignited a widespread debate where no clear consensus was established, and the language has remained. It is adopted in other articles, such as Beyoncé (album) and Good Kid, M.A.A.D City.
Common among articles as well is the usage of "universal", a term defined as " relating to or done by all people or things in the world or in a particular group; applicable to all cases". Such language suggests that, quite literally, the product in question received an entirely positive reception among any person capable of being receptive to it. A similar problem is brought out by the use of "overwhelming", which could perhaps imply that reviewers were literally taken aback by the brilliance of the product to the point of being unable to perform other bodily functions until their fingers typed up a review to summarise their experience.
You could say I'm being hyperbolic. I feel that neutrality, one of the project's biggest problems (knives out, wolves of Conservapedia), is being exacerbated by the use of such language. It's in direct conflict with our MoS policy on peacock words, yet such handles have been so widely used now with no direct policy in the MoS to address them.
Proponents of the language may put forward the argument that it is supported by reliable sources, making it okay. We often use Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic as our bible, echoing the language used by these sources. Now here's my thesis: if the language is echoed by a reliable source, why is it not being directly attributed to it? When summarising reviews in an article, the language may be supported by sources. I propose that if such is the case, we have a duty to our readers to clearly attribute the peacock language to the source. In doing so we remove the bias from the language by clarifying that the language is not our own. In these instances, there should quotation marks around the term with a footnote directing the reader to the usage of the language by the source.
This, I feel, is an appropriate compromise for those who feel that the language is backed up by the sources, and those who feel that it introduces bias into the article. I propose the drafting of a new policy in the MoS, based on consensus among us, that clearly explains how, in the scenarios where the writer boldly wishes to use such language, it is to be written and verified.
tl;dr - If we're going to be using peacock language when summarising critical reception, we need to make it crystal clear that the language is not being used by us, but rather is attributed to a reliable source
CR4ZE ( t • c) 13:54, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
Perhaps an issue in this context is that, in general, critical responses are not summaries of critical response, while those sites that make it their business to summarize critical response are not attributed. Our purposes fall somewhere between. -- Ring Cinema ( talk) 19:13, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
@ Erik and Stfg - In some cases, editors may summarise reviews by adopting language used by a journalist; they don't just take from review aggregates. In regards to the use of the word "rave", in the Yeezus article I cited, the usage of the word has in fact been attributed to a journalist, not an aggregate like Rotten Tomatoes. Reading through the long talk page debate, Dan56's justification was that the word exists in the dictionary and can be attributed to reliable sources. I don't consider that an adequate justification, especially not with how it was written, which is why I feel this debate is important so that we can avoid contention in the future. My argument is that if editors wish to do so, I certainly would never agree with it, but they should at least put "quotations" around the statement and provide a footnote directing to its usage. It's good to see that MOS:FILM#Critical response attempts to address this, however I don't think it quite covers all the usages and wouldn't stand up if it was brought into video game or album articles. This is why I would propose a uniform policy that applies to all entertainment mediums; peacock terms are best avoided, but if you wish to use them they should be directly attributed to an RS to remove bias.
@ Twyfan714 and Flyer22 - I think terms like "generally" or "mostly" (or the synonymous "largely") remove a great deal of bias in comparison with the excessive "rave" and "universal" terms. However, I think on a by-case basis, editors should carefully consider how they would justify such language, because the attribution is certainly debatable. CR4ZE ( t • c) 06:50, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
Flyer22, my justification at the Yeezus article was more than what you said it was. "Awfully limited language does not demonstrate any neutrality. If the reviews were strong enough for these folks to use 'rave', then that's the tone of the material in question. We're not misleading readers with a perfunctory 'positive reviews' when that can range from lukewarm ('B-' anyone?) to what Metacritic likes to call 'universal acclaim', especially when there are several sources backing it up." In short, if reviewers chose "to talk or write about someone or something in an excited or enthusiastic way" ( Merriem-Webster), then they by definition raved about it. The tone of the word would only become a neutrality issue if it wasn't accurate. If reviewers raved about something, I don't see why readers shouldn't know it simply because the tone of the word rubs some the wrong way. In the case of Yeezus, several sources verified the nature of the positive reviews, and if it was only one journalist's choice words, then obviously we'd defer to what most sources said. Dan56 ( talk) 00:47, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
I didn't used to be such a hardliner on this issue, but I now regularly strip out all emotive language and unsourced analysis from reception sections. Although MOS:FILM, WP:SAID, and WP:PEACOCK cover these issues rather well, I think more explicit advice might be helpful – and perhaps help prevent other articles from reaching Good/Featured with such non-neutral language. I would strongly support a blanket ban on "rave", "universal", "overwhelming", "acclaim", "hail", etc. If you wouldn't use the word in a mixed review, don't use it in a positive or negative review. For example:
Seems almost common sense to me, but what do I know? I'm not a universally acclaimed Wikipedian. NinjaRobotPirate ( talk) 03:51, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
Metacritic's usage and goals are different from ours but it's hard to see how quoting them is going to turn out badly. Readers can judge for themselves. -- Ring Cinema ( talk) 16:17, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
Just came across this and as the largest contributor to Beyoncé, I'll offer my two cents. I can't speak for film articles as I haven't been involved in many on a significant level, especially not their Reception sections, but I notice from editing album articles and generally reading music criticism, most albums tend to receive "positive reviews". A significant, but less, amount of albums garner mixed reviews and quite a small number of albums are negatively received. I think it's quite customary for journalists to award a safe 3/5 to albums (perhaps in the interest of the publication), indicative of good music but nothing excellent; a score which would = 60/100, creeping into Metacritic's "positive/generally favorable" band. I think this is why Metacritic has avoided lumping all positively-reviewed albums together, awarding "universal acclaim" to anything 80>, because the album in question is not commonplace and has caused journalists to consider it differently from the standard rock/rap/pop/r'n'b album with some hits, but filler aplenty. @ Thibbs: I understand your point, but I think "universal acclaim" has to be read purposively. I don't think the reasonable person would think that the film/album in question has been enjoyed by every reviewer in history, but there is a consensus among journalists that this is an excellent work. — JennKR | ☎ 20:07, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
N-HH, I hope you're not assuming any critics were cited as sources for statements such as "the album received rave reviews" or whatever, or that it's a case of "According to Critic A, it was the best film ever". It's an objective journalist who, in the case of the Yeezus article, reported on the album's reception in an article for the International Business Times ( [1]). Why are we calling this source's objectivity into question? It's not a critic. Furthermore, in Channel Orange#Critical reception, the sentence "received rave reviews" is attributed to an article written by Metacritic founder Jason Dietz. These aren't critics being cited to support what you feel are hyperbolic phrases. Dan56 ( talk) 22:09, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
Having left the debate to roar on for a little while, it seems that the majority of the editors involved will agree with me that the usage of peacock terms such as "rave" and "universal" are inappropriate. Some contend with me that if particular editors want to use such language, its attribution to reliable sources should be made to be clearer when written. I need to make it clear to editors on both sides of the debate that, per my opening comments, I am not here to eliminate all instances of "rave" from Wikipedia. Rather, it was my intention to gauge how to frame a policy that explicitly restricts the usage of such language. It's clear that there are strong feelings either way; I knew that before opening the debate, and it's even clearer now. As such, I believe that the 'compromise' between opposing views I suggested in the original comment would be appropriate. I would like to hear feedback on the drafting of a new policy that discusses how to use language and attribute potentially peacock reviews when writing critical reception sections in articles. CR4ZE ( t • c) 12:23, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
I'm working on something here. CR4ZE ( t • c) 04:36, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
I've seen a lot of issues devolve into popularity contests. We should at least look at what the balance of sources is on this matter. Please feel free to add to both these lists. Please specify whether the source is general-English or specialist. Please limit entries to sources that comment on the capitalization of English names of species (even if that's not all they talk about). Latin names, breeds, subspecies and cultivars are not the issue at hand.
I have ranked the sources I've found in order of what I believe to be their relevance. (The formally compiled Style Guide of the AFS comes before an editorial in The Birdist.) I think we should continue to do this as the list grows. One source said that CMOS, Hart and Butcher all comment on this issue, but I don't have direct access to any of them right now. The AMA style guide is silent on the matter. Darkfrog24 ( talk) 03:25, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
Sources that say to capitalize common names of birds and/or other species:
Sources that say to use lowercase for common names of birds and/or other species:
This is not productive to re-launch here. We already have an entire pair of sections for this above, here and here, much more filled out than this. And adding in "and/or other species" (i.e. of non-birds) both falsifies the "Sources and capitalization of bird names" titles chosen above, and would re-re-re-open a general "should we capitalize" debate that has been settled many times already (answer: "no"), including very extensive discussions in 2008 and 2012. As one example, re-introducing a US commercial fishery document that even most of the ichthyological world ignores and that WP:FISH ignores, and that the MOS debate was already aware of and chose to ignore in concluding to not capitalize here, does nothing but cloud the debate further. The vast majority of the pro-capitalization sources are going to be invalid examples (field guides, that capitalize for purely for emphasis - ease of visual scanning - not assertion of a general convention), yet will swamp all other examples (i.e. will be a popularity contest), wrecking the utility of such a list. The upcoming RfC, whatever its form, is going to surely have its own sourcing section here, too, reopening the same can of worms. We'd very likely end up with three duplicate sections on one page. PS: How could you possibly put two fish guides at the top of your list if it's supposed to be about birds and you ranked them in order or relevance? — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 20:16, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
First, let me appologize. Earlier today I removed some text from MOS:ID and my intent was to place a note here explaining why I'd removed it, however, my work firewall prevented me from posting - it insisted this was a programming language. I lead a band on Friday night and have just now come home from leading it, therefore I wasn't able to leave a note until now.
I removed a section out of MOS:ID:
An exception to this is made for terms relating to gender. In such cases we favor self-designation, even when source usage would indicate otherwise. Any person whose gender might be questioned should be referred to by the pronouns, possessive adjectives, and gendered nouns (for example "man/woman", "waiter/waitress", "chairman/chairwoman") that reflect that person's latest expressed gender self-identification. This applies in references to any phase of that person's life, unless the subject has indicated a preference otherwise. Direct quotations may need to be handled as exceptions (in some cases adjusting the portion used may reduce apparent contradictions, and " [sic]" may be used where necessary).
On the grounds that it directly contradicts WP:V which is a policy. MOS:ID states "In such cases we favor self-designation, even when source usage would indicate otherwise (emphasis mine). Where WP:V states:
In Wikipedia, verifiability means that people reading and editing the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source. Wikipedia does not publish original research. Its content is determined by previously published information rather than the beliefs or experiences of its editors. Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it. . Further it states: All content must be verifiable. at the very beginning (WP:PROVEIT).
This places the removed section (which is a guideline) firmly against policy. Since it's about living people, it also then fails WP:BLP and must be removed. Seems to me that either WP:V needs to be changed or that removed paragraph has to stay out, but what we can't have is both, as that creates a situation where we're saying "yes" and "no" to having a verifiable source to back up some part of a living person's identity. I have removed it for violating WP:V and WP:BLP and ask that it remain out pending a change in WP:V that supports this. KoshVorlon. We are all Kosh 04:19, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
Unless I am misreading the above, the original poster's Talk page has a voluntary restriction that states, among other things: "I am topic-banned from all articles and discussions related to either Private Manning or transgender issues, broadly construed, for six months." The edits on MOS:ID and on this Talk page appear to violate that voluntary restriction. I propose that this section be closed to further discussion, since it was apparently started in violation of that restriction. If a different editor wants to open a new discussion of the same issue, that is fine. – Jonesey95 ( talk) 15:04, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
I agree to discontinue a discussion when three users in good standing tell me I should drop it and no one has supported my position.Even though they are "voluntary", they were negotiated to avoid harsher blocking. __ E L A Q U E A T E 11:28, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
Again, this isn't just about Bradley Manning, this is about an exemption that is prohibited by WP:BLP and WP:V.
Irregardless of whether were speaking about someone that is transgender, or just simply states their name is "x", when all other reliable resources say it's "y".
I'm not seeing any policy arguments that would allow it to remain.
If we have reliable sources that say someone is Jewish, Russian, whatever, then that's what we include per WP:V, WP:R and WP:BLP, and the date is irrelevant on the sources, we rely on reliable sources, period, full stop.
"misleading"? No, what you have in front of you are reliable sources , not blogs, not scandal sheets, but reliable sources, so by default, they are not misleading.
Once again, since no one has offered any policy reason to keep the exemption in on MOS:ID, I propose removing it.
As I see it, there is no contradiction between this section of the MOS and
WP:BLP or
WP:V... What the MOS requires is the "person's latest expressed gender self-identification"... What BLP and WP:V require is that this self-identification be verifiable through citation to reliable sources. In other words, the "latest expressed self-identification" would obviously have to be expressed in a verifiable, reliable source. The reason we favor this self-identification is that any sources written before the most recent self-identification are obsolete and out of date... and thus less reliable.
Now... what the MOS does not address (and should) is the rare situation where a number of reliable sources written after the expressed self-identification refuse to acknowledge that self-identification and continue to refer to the person using his/her old name (and pronouns). In that case, we would have modern, up-to-date reliable sources that disagree with the self-identification. At that point it becomes a DUE WEIGHT issue. We have to assess whether the number and quality of (post announcement) disagreeing sources should out-weigh the self-identification (and any sources that do agree with it).
My feeling is that the number of disagreeing sources would have to be overwhelming and of very high quality to off set the reliability of a self ID... but we do have to admit that such an "exception to the exception" it is possible.
Blueboar (
talk)
13:55, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
According to this Manual of Style, a name of an organisation should be written out in the way the organisation writes it. I also interprete the Manual of Style to say, the same goes for the official abbreviation of the name. The abbreviation used by the organisation itself is comparable to the name of the organisation in this regard and should be spelled like the organisation spells it, even if this would seem to contradict general spelling rules. Am I right? Bandy boy ( talk) 12:27, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
In this case, someone seems to be pushing for a non-English style convention that is common in Swedish, but is definitely not common in English. In Swedish, the style convention for an article on NASA would have the first mention as "NASA" and further mention in the text as "Nasa". In English you would never switch to "Nasa". This is English Wikipedia. In the article Djurgårdens IF Fotboll, if the abbreviation for the club is commonly "DIF" we would never switch it to "Dif" just because that's how it might be styled in a Swedish language article for some secondary mentions. Making it "Dif" goes directly against what English language sources would use and what the organization itself would use primarily, and we prefer English language sources. (Another example,: in a Swedish-language article, the style convention for IKEA would be all caps on first mention, then "Ikea" for subsequent mentions. English Wikipedia style would never dictate switching to "Ikea".) __ E L A Q U E A T E 13:28, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Wouldn't the issue regarding how to abbreviate Djurgårdens IF best be discussed on the talk page of Djurgårdens IF Fotboll instead of here? Aikclaes ( talk) 13:53, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
The letters in an acronym are generally not separated by periods (full stops) or blank spaces... We also omit things like Ltd. or Inc. Otherwise we follow MOS:CUE. We consistently style it IKEA, even though some Swedish newspapers may on occasion style it "Ikea". I haven't see any indication that the organization styles it (in English translation or by preference in their own language) the way you've provided, and our readers are reading in English. __ E L A Q U E A T E 14:43, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
For those not familiar with the subject: The abbreviation of Djurgårdens IF is read out as a word, Dif, not letter-by-letter: D-I-F. According to Swedish language rules, this is important for knowing if a Swedish abbreviation should be written in lower or upper case. I would also like to point to MOS:TMRULES#General_rules regarding whether organizations themselves have the right to rule how their brand names are to be stylised in encyclopedias. Aikclaes ( talk) 14:16, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
@ Aikclaes: you keep on saying there are no sources. Here is the club's own web page. DIF there. -- Stfg ( talk) 19:33, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
The short version: In various places we advise against capitalizing things like "Director" and "River" and "Trust" when they are not used with or as part of a name, but this principle needs to be generalized into one rule in one place, instead of it being reiterated piecemeal with not-entirely-consistent rationales, and consequently not being applied in several places where it should be.
The "Generic words" provision at MOS:CAPS#Institutions (and a similar one a section later, about geographic names, and another similar one, I think under job titles; MOS proper repeats some of this stuff) is really a general fact about any such proper name or title. It would be nice if we codified the following examples (or some like them) into one overarching rule:
These things are capitalized when they're used as part of a name, but not when used generically (with rare conventional exceptions like President (of a nation, not an organization), and Prime Minister, and Secretary General (of the UN) still being capitalized when referring to the office generically. Not sure how to best write the rule, though. Ideas? — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ⚞(Ʌⱷ҅̆⚲͜ⱷ^)≼ 07:20, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
A bunch of source citations and quotations
|
---|
The current (16th ed.) Chicago Manual of Style says not to capitalize these, giving many examples such as the foloowing: sect. 8.18 Cardinal Newman; the cardinal; 8.20 the empress Elizabeth of Austria (but Empress Elizabeth of Austria); 8.21 the mayor; Richard M. Daley, mayor of Chicago; Mayor Daley; 8.27 the professor; Françoise Meltzer, professor of comparative literature; Professor Meltzer; 8.29 the historian William McNeill (not Historian McNeill) ; 8.46 the Great Plains, the northern plains, the plains (but Plains Indians) (most other examples there are adjectival); 8.50 the Ottoman Empire, the empire, the Republic of Indonesia, the republic, the Fifth Ward, the ward and many similar examples; 8.52 the Hawaiian Islands; Hawaii; but the island of Hawaii; 8.55 Jackson Park; the park, London Bridge; the bridge; 8.56 the Babri Mosque; the mosque; 8.57 the Empire Room (but room 421); and so on. The EU English Style Guide (7th Ed., 2011) notes that "the use of initial capitals has a highlighting effect, so if the body or person is not particularly important in the context of your text, an ordinary noun phrase may be more appropriate for subsequent mentions: The Ruritanian Programme for Innovation and Research focuses on ... The (research) programme is headed by ..." In a similar passage about capitalizing types of government body, legislative acts, etc., it adds "[I]f there is no risk of confusion or there is no need to draw attention to the name, lower case can be used instead." This, from a government body that loves to capitalize things. The EU Interinstitutional Style Guide [18]: "Use capitals sparingly. They are often employed to excess in commercial and administrative circles. When in doubt use lower case. ... Note, too, the difference in the use of Prince of Wales and … prince of Wales. The first has a particular sense, the second a general one. ... References to EU legislation: write Regulation, Decision, Directive, Annex and Article (followed by a number) with capitals if they refer to specific acts; use lower case for references to regulations, directives, etc. in a generalised sense and when referring to proposed legislation..." Otherwise doesn't touch on the issue. The Journal of Irish and Scottish Studies style guide (the same guide text is used by various other journals as far away from Scotland as Australia, I find, with just the examples changed) contradicts itself saying "Use of capitals: 1. When in doubt, don't.", but then giving an example of retaining capitalization on later mentions: "the Scottish School Board Association ... the Association". It's because they state generally, a bit later, "Where there is any likelihood of confusion, capitals should be used in words which have a different meaning [ sic] without them: an Act, the Opposition, the State." WP would never capitalize this way. It's a journal-style jargon use that doesn't belong here , and is totally unnecessary in a medium in which links make the meaning clear, while better, more explanatory writing than is usually permitted in academic journals can be used to clarify anyway. Remember that journals have a lot of odd conventions because they are highly compressed communications between professional in the same field; they are a form of code, and wikipedia is not. (See also the debate that has swallowed most of this talk page! All of these points apply equally well to capitalizing bird species common names just because some journals do it. It's also why we don't need to capitalize "Group" just because ICNCP does.) The Modern Humanities Research Association Style Guide (2nd Ed., rev. 2.3., 2009) is confusingly split on the issue, probably to avoid offense to subjects who may be written about. It says to capitalize a personal title used individually and specifically, but not generically: The Archbishop of Canterbury and several other bishops were present. But then it says "When, after a first full reference, or with such reference understood, a title is used incompletely but still with specific application to an individual, the capital is retained: The Archbishop spoke first." It never addresses other usage directly (e.g. geographic), but is clearly not wedded to capitalization being universally retained, advising before the Neolithic, neolithic sites and also advising: "Note, however, that ‘anglicize’, ‘anglophone’, ‘francophone’, ‘romanization’, etc., are not capitalized, nor are ‘arabic numerals’ and ‘roman type’ (but ‘the Arabic language’, ‘the Roman alphabet’)." So, well, whatever. I always hated the HRA style guide for its wishy-washy nonsense,and now I have an example I can save for future reference. The (American) legal guides I have on hand (Standler's, etc.) say not to capitalize "court" except in the full name of the court (Municipal Court for the City of Whatever), when addressing the court directly ("If it please the Court..."), or when referring to the US Supreme Court as "the Court" and otherwise do not address the issue. The general use of "court" in lower-case is consistent with the majority of sources. The London Times style guide, like some other journalistic ones, are not going to be useful on this question because of advice like "[S]ome terms, eg, Act, Bill, Cabinet, Civil Service, always cap.", which WP would never obey. The internal (staff) "Oxford University Style Guide" (Michaelmas term 2012): "The general rule is not to use a capital letter unless it is absolutely required." "college: capitalise only when used as part of the title of a college, not when referring to an institution without using its full name. Exeter College was founded in 1314. The college is one of the oldest in Oxford." Similarly for "division", "department", "faculty", "fellow", etc., etc. The only exception is "University" when it refers to Oxford specifically. "The largest University division is Medical Sciences." Because, you know, Oxford is magically special. "The Guardian and Observer Style Guide" [19] waxes editorial (and clipped and British): "A look through newspaper archives would show greater use of capitals the further back you went. The tendency towards lowercase, which in part reflects a less formal, less deferential society, has been accelerated by the explosion of the internet [ sic]....Our style reflects these developments. We aim for coherence and consistency, but not at the expense of clarity." Specifics: "jobs: all lc, eg prime minister, US secretary of state, chief rabbi, editor of the Guardian."; "titles: cap up titles, but not job description, eg President Barack Obama (but the US president, Barack Obama, and Obama on subsequent mention); the Duke of Westminster (the duke at second mention); Pope Francis but the pope."; "churches, hospitals and schools cap up the proper or placename, lc the rest, eg St Peter's church, Pembury, Great Ormond Street children's hospital, Ripon grammar school, Vernon county primary school."; and so on. Please pardon their freaky use of "eg" as if that were a word in English; they also seem to be the #1 source of "aka" as somehow equivalent to "a.k.a." or "AKA". Despite these sins, they get this one surprisingly consistent with so many other sources, and even contradict other lazy journalistic ones. The Handbook of Good English (1991 rev'd. ed.) has an entire section (3-12) titled "Learn to distinguish generic terms from proper nouns and adjectives formed from them", so you can probably guess where they go on this. Farther than most, actually: It even suggests the Buffalo chamber of commerce (in ref. to Buffalo, New York). Otherwise, the HGE agrees completely with Chicago on all relevant points here. National Geographic Style Guide [20], Zion National Park, Zion Park, the national park, the park, but gives a handful of special, conventional exceptions , e.g. the English Channel, the Channel. |
I could go on (and will if it's demanded), but I think we have hear a clear body of evidence that a) usage is not consistent, but strongly leans toward lower case; b) it is not strongly tied to regional English language variant; and c) the retention of the capitalization ("in the Park" as a substitute for "in Golden Gate Park") is jargonistic and decreasingly common in mainstream English. This strikes me as a green light to deprecate the practice generally, since we're already doing it in several specific contexts here. I.e., no case has been made for special exception for, say, geographic names, or organization names, or personal titles, or whatever. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 05:57, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
I linked Wikipedia:Gender identity, a project explaining many reasons that the gender paragraph in the Identity section in this project are the way they are. User:Trystan reverted me, saying that "Linking to an essay from a guideline should only be done after a clear consensus has been established to do so."
Any thoughts from different Wikipedians on whether it's a good link from this guideline?? Please reveal whatever your thoughts are in whatever way you can. Georgia guy ( talk) 15:54, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
The RM at Talk:John Gielgud, roles and awards#Requested move may be of interest. -- Rob Sinden ( talk) 11:16, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia talk:Consensus#Suggested change proposes to remove the wording unless they can convince the broader community that such action is right, participants in a WikiProject cannot decide that some generally accepted policy or guideline does not apply to articles within its scope
from
WP:LOCALCONSENSUS (a.k.a.
WP:CONLEVEL). This would likely have a significant effect upon the Manual of Style's centralization of Wikipedia article-writing style advice in one place, and the extent to which that advice if followed. —
SMcCandlish ☺
☏
¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼
07:58, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
Off-topic CONLOCAL discussion moved to WT:CONSENSUS
|
---|
|
Notice the statement:
An exception to this is made for terms relating to gender. In such cases we favor self-designation, even when source usage would indicate otherwise. Any person whose gender might be questioned should be referred to by the pronouns, possessive adjectives, and gendered nouns (for example "man/woman", "waiter/waitress", "chairman/chairwoman") that reflect that person's latest expressed gender self-identification. This applies in references to any phase of that person's life, unless the subject has indicated a preference otherwise. Direct quotations may need to be handled as exceptions (in some cases adjusting the portion used may reduce apparent contradictions, and " [sic]" may be used where necessary).
Are there some people with Wikipedia articles who the bolded phrase applies to?? Georgia guy ( talk) 18:55, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
I have a question: Could we define a policy when to insert commas after text on thumbnails, tables and boxes? Examples:
Countries by percent of
Avaaz members. The list can be scrolled manually or interactively | |
---|---|
#;Country Popul. Avaaz color coded % |
Countries by percent of
Avaaz members The list can be scrolled manually or interactively | |
---|---|
#;Country Popul. Avaaz color coded % |
-- Rezonansowy ( talk | contribs) 21:38, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
Template:Bsastyle. Only used in 15 articles. I see this as pretty problematic. The way to integrate special scouting jargon, where it's really needed on Wikipedia, is to define it in context or to create a glossary of scouting article, with sourced terms in it, and then link to them from usage of these terms in context in articles. The idea that we're going to impose some external style guide on articles here is pretty off-base. I'm tempted to WP:TFD this immediately, but I'm curious if there are any other "this article uses our special jargon at this external style manual" templates created by wikiprojects. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 02:24, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
The
newly added advice is
"Do not change hyphens to dashes in filenames,
URLs or templates like {{
Bibleverse}} which formats verse ranges into URLs." but it's perhaps not quite clear. Regarding the templates, are we talking about the input or the output? For example,
{{Bibleverse|Genesis|1:15-16}}
gives [http://tools.wmflabs.org/bibleversefinder/?book=Genesis&verse=1:15-16&src=! Genesis 1:15-16]
and we wouldn't want to change the hyphen in the template call nor the one in the url but the hyphen displayed should be changed i.e. it should be [http://tools.wmflabs.org/bibleversefinder/?book=Genesis&verse=1:15-16&src=! Genesis 1:15&endash;16]
(this is a job for the template writer). Of course, then we have to ask what these "templates like {{Bibleverse}}" are. Perhaps it would be better simple to warn users that some template inputs must be hyphens not dashes (and give this as an example); perhaps it's better still not to mention this here since template doc pages are the place for template use instructions.
Jimp
11:30, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
Editors are invited to see
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Plants#Italicization for taxa above genus (version of
00:44, 25 April 2014).
—
Wavelength (
talk)
00:59, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
I have noticed a trend ... many of our most heated debates have centered on the issue of how to present NAMES (whether in an article title or in running text) that don't conform to our MOS. The core debate being, should we "force" them conform or not? Whether we are talking about birds (the current debate), or pop-stars (the Deadmou5 debate) or some other topic, our most heated debates seem to relate to that question.
Rather than try to propose any specific change to the MOS, or advocate any position on the question... I would like to explore the issue of names at a more conceptual level. Let's start with the basic question: When should we conform a name to our preferred style, and (perhaps more important) when should we not do so? Blueboar ( talk) 16:02, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
It's nonsensical and just weirdly, unreasonably anti-MOS (in effect if not intent) to come at disputes here from such an angle. WP:RM and other discussions that frequently touch on MOS matters are based on consensus, and consensus leans toward what MOS says because it is the our style guideline, built by us. It was not imposed on us by some alien space god. There is no reason to have a discussion about whether the fomenting of anti-MOS rebellion is cool or not. It's not, as a matter of policy.
If there's a case where MOS seems to expect a style that doesn't make sense in that instance, that's why MOS has a talk page. Most of what MOS says, from top to bottom, is in there because of discussions about MOS's inadequacy about something (either proposals to add/change something, or defenses of WP:BOLD edits that add/change something). That's how Wikipedia works. It's how we arrived at all of our various naming conventions, notability expectations, criteria for what constitutes reliable sources, and everything else covered by our guidelines. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 18:16, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
There isn't anything you can do on WP that doesn't have consequences if you do it disruptively. But really, no one cares if you do something habitually that doesn't agree with MOS, you just can't force your quirk on existing prose, or revert other people normalizing what you've written to MOS's version. You're not forced to do anything covered by MOS, but you can be administratively prevented from disruptively doing anti-consensus things that affect other editors. Not the same thing.
I'll tell you from experience that if you just stop fighting a style quirk you disagree with here, you just get used to it and stop grinding your teeth and your axe and move on. There are at least 20 things I disagree with in MOS, and I just do them anyway, or avoid circumstances where I"d be called upon to do them, or even WP:IAR sometimes and write them my way in new material, as long as I"m not messing up someone else's MOS-compliant material. Seriously, you do just get over it. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 05:48, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
SMC - I was not really discussing CONLEVEL conflicts - what I wanted to discuss was the far more basic issue of how to present NAMES. Again, the question is: what should editors to do when a NAME does not conform to the guidance set out at the MOS. Should we "conform" the name to our MOS or not?
I suspect the answer to that fundamental question is not black and white... it is likely to be more along the lines of "Sometimes we should, and sometimes we should not.". But answer that leads to another basic question: when should we "conform" names to the MOS, and when should we not conform them?
Blueboar (
talk)
12:45, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
See poll at
WT:MOSCAPS#Capitalisation of Indigenous when referring to Australian Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. It started as a discussion at
Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Indigenous_peoples_of_Australia#Capitalisation#Capitalisation, and the pro/con arguments are summarized there, but the proponents of the idea launched the poll at MOSCAPS
concurrently. I hatted the wikiproject discussion and directed it to the MOSCAPS discussion, to centralize. —
SMcCandlish ☺
☏
¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 00:12, 27 April 2014 (UTC) And it was unhatted. I guess you're all expected to participate in both discussions at the same time for no reason. Or an admin can just go {{
hat}}
one of them. —
SMcCandlish ☺
☏
¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼
14:16, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
See: Help talk:Citation Style 1/Archive 4#Time for a real CS1 style guide?. Short version: Matters of style keep coming up there, some rather perennially. The outcome of this could ultimately affect the majority of articles in various ways, since they all have to cite sources, and most use citation style 1. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 15:07, 27 April 2014 (UTC)