![]() | 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 160 | ← | Archive 162 | Archive 163 | Archive 164 | Archive 165 | Archive 166 | → | Archive 170 |
66.74.176.59 (
talk ·
contribs) has amended about 140 articles in 7 hours, changing "was" to "is" so that we now have, for example, "Seneca lived through the reigns of three significant emperors; Augustus (ruled 27 BC – 14 AD).... He is the father of the stoic philosopher Seneca the Younger...."
[1] (my emphasis). Edit summaries are usually "1 death has no effect if someone is your father or son. even when someone dies one "is" the father and the other "is" the son. the interaction may not be as before but one "is" the father and one "is" the son"
.
Rather than spread the discussion out across 140 talk pages plus an IP talk page, can anyone point to the appropriate part of the Manual of Style or an existing consensus, or (if the matter hasn't arisen before) can we discuss this here and reach a consensus?
NebY (
talk)
10:40, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
A blood relationship can never be changed from existing to not existing therefore it should always be an "is" and never a "was". Your parent is always your parent regardless if that person is dead. If "was" is used then the statement is made factually incorrect. Those from whom you descent will always be your descendant and those that that follow will always be those that descend from you. So in describing that relationship it can never factually be in the past tense. 66.74.176.59 ( talk) 15:59, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
The problem is that while some languages have a slew of tenses, we tend to use only three in normal English wording of the many tenses which exist. "George (dead) is the father of George Jr." is not incorrect -- the state of fatherhood does not consist of a single event in the past. "George (dead) was the father of George, Jr." is also not incorrect. Of course we could simply use "begat" I suppose - but neither position is "wrong" as we normally use the language. I found both used in newspapers, so maybe we should count this as a matter of trifling import at best? (Genealogical folks tend to use "is" by the way) ("Was" is far from universal by the way) Collect ( talk) 18:38, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
--Nicknack009, so your position is that language should never change, or at least that of grammar? Pull out your copy of the 1st ed. Encyclo Britanica to the pull out on writing structure and tell me just how useful were those rules that have since then undergone such a vast change--at least in the manner of explanation on paper? For having such a distinguished level in WP, the manner in which you evoke support for the position is rather shortsighted with very unpleasant connotations. So I am a troll? Or do you withdraw that statement as if it never happened? In fact, his statements are a "grand slam" when it concerns the sensitivity of some WP participants. I prefer to use the neutral value of an IP address by which to contribute to WP? According to WP policy there is absolutely nothing wrong with that practice although it will speedily be met with it is generally found that IP users are up to much mischief on WP. The there is the language of origin question but not stated as so but is English my primary language. Does this person ever give himself an opportunity not to become the spokes person for the less than optimistic aspects of WP? Like I said, the grand slam, managing to hit all the righ marks of a less than advantageous distinction. So we need to subject this test to a numbers strategy to be sufficiently legitimate for a "change" in an area that you do not want change? If so then why subject yourself to such potential ridicule. What is here, will never go away and the promote in WP from within WP practice only reinforces that what happens in WP with memory will always have an opportunity to be remembered, to return to the fore--maybe a matter of regurgitation? Does it matter what is one's primary language? Maybe a life that has been subjected to the internal critique of an anthropologist seeking out what is going on and what is its meaning instead of how is it going against the masses? I want to say without prejudicing my position that you seem to bot be ready for a change in this issue because it has long ago been settled within a group that has held the reigns. But those reigns will not always be held by the same people. You have the absolute monarch that what they say goes. Then you have the Magna Carta activities. Then you have the what land you hold issues. Then comes that you are a male. Then comes that you are a human being. and so on and so on. These things change because new issues develop.
The current usage seems to be heavily influenced by life or death. So much of it is in the past therefore it "sounds" logical to refer to it as "was" although a blood relationship can never be undone. There seems to be a great absence of mental agility to accept that which can never have change even with death and should be referred to as in the present. For those familiar, this probably represents an "Archie Bunker", a person stuck in usage. And this is not a criticism of being stuck because there are a great many people who are in as good place with a weltanschauung that gives them the ability to rethink that which posses potential road block in life.
It is not a position that emanates from the "official" rules or numbers game in usage. It is merely a matter of what good is there to maintain or deviate. WP looks at presenting supportable factual statements. On the face of it, a statement about a blood relationship where it is of life today, tomorrow or millennium ago, that relationship has not changed. Yet it seems validity is granted (at least presently) to the view that characterizing a relationship is best left to a confusing brought about by the imposition of time in the issue rather than solely whether a relationship exists or can be undone.
I remember for years whe younger the statement "The day after yesterday was a perfectly acceptable colloquialism but once that usage was outside that environment then the logic of the statement was called into question. The same logic is called into question with the "was" use versus characterizing the relationship as a current.
Well, I need to get to the grocers so will end this at what point it is with the understanding that much is being asked of people that have trained themselves to think a particular way and being faced with that not being potentially less credible may have an air of imposition.
Referring to that relationship should be by the value of that relationship, not when it happened. The latter is time not the relationship. Concentrate on the relationship and avoid the need to find confusion an acceptable means of presenting a view that is distorted. 66.74.176.59 ( talk) 21:33, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
Government welfare gay comes about for every society it seems. You have the previous year earned your money and then have to pay the government so that they can do what supposedly you want done. Nothing in the world can change what you made then and what you paid then in taxes--nothing will ever change that amount for time infinitum. From year to year the amounts may change but they remain on record. 66.74.176.59 ( talk) 23:13, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
This discussion reminds me of the scene in "Lincoln" when he says about slavery, after establishing that there will be problems they have as yet to identify but he thinks that the negroes just assume be free as any one else would think of for themselves. If examples that say relationships can change, and in this discussion disappear, the continued presentation of examples that state for the relationship that which applies to time (i.e., in the past) are just continuations and perpetuations that something unchangeable can be changed. Do the math and science experiment. It just cannot be done and be the truth. As for civility, Nicknack destroyed that long ago with the knee jerk reactionary unfortunate statements. 66.74.176.59 ( talk) 01:24, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
Recommend we go with "was", in these situations. GoodDay ( talk) 02:24, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
Congratulations to oknazevad in an attempt to put this issue to rest putting forth that those who recognize a problem with this issue are "illiterate". That type of comment is not necessary especially as the line of reasoning for the now established rule is not common to all cultures and societies. I am not responsible for your cultural illiteracy. I can only say that the former is what makes up your weltanschauung. Hopefully, your career is not within any diplomatic corp. 66.74.176.59 ( talk) 13:18, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
After doing a bit of research outside of WP on top of the replies here, I’ve determined that it is indeed not the norm to use present tense in these cases. It’s acceptable to some, and it arguably makes more sense, but it’s just not particularly common in English (and the English language does not necessarily make sense). Sorry, 66.74.176.59, but without widespread support outside Wikipedia, there’s little chance of convincing Wikipedians. — 174.141.182.82 ( talk) 15:43, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
It always has to be remembered that you may reflect the way those previous to you express so it becomes self supporting a prejudice that takes some time and effort to overcome. If a person's ability to extend the experience they can make outside their element is limited then all the more is there the opportunity to continue what when changed it then is a miss on the perception. If all you can read is your own language and to you all that is available is translations of other sources, how can you expect to learn about how this type of issue is handled especially when those translators are trained in the very same perception as yourself. And probably trained the same as those that have control over the publication of such information. Some may say, "Oh. But that is other people." Remember, it is all part of the brain and just how does yours function. Just as there remain people today that think the planet flat are those that know better through a different weltanschauung. Some call it sophistication, not broom stuck, an increased degree of differentiation. At least it has been brought to fore that yes there is a difference on the issue. 66.74.176.59 ( talk) 18:12, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
It is interesting mentioning English style guidance especially as when it concerns England they have so much to thank for other peoples invading. And remember that the western world is not getting "easternized" but is changing although with some people that seems to be expressed more as a threat than part of life. They should check out language development of adjoining peoples. Just saying, weltanschauung. The mind at use. 66.74.176.59 ( talk) 23:22, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for the template but when someone does something perceived as irritating it can be something that one can avoid to call attention and possibly, specially from an organization that functions on promotion from within, avoid situations being perceived as a threat to authority. Did I miss a conditional statement somewhere in the WP mission statement, "everyone is welcomed to contribute, except for those with which we disagree or find irritating, ......"? Some may say that they are not part of WP beyond merely being a contributor but you tell me when is it that the senior contributors of WP that are within the ranks of its authority promote those they find irritating. So, it is to be expected that as long as things are top down many actions can be perceived as dissension. Or are you the type that is more concerned with manners? I read an oral history that the person was one of the early "ethnic" minority entrant into that country's educational ministry who said that being amongst Ph.D's did not mean that they debated with more sophisticated words but that they were so smooth that you never noticed when complements were given the knife going in and out. 66.74.176.59 ( talk) 23:59, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
Oh, I forgot; not all wind wills are on the lowlands model. 66.74.176.59 ( talk) 00:01, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
British/American style. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.74.176.59 ( talk) 00:49, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
Miss the mark-- "subconscious effect on expression" ; "We write English the way English is written." It should have been "British/American style". And written expression is taught the way that authority dictates otherwise you are accused of being illiterate. 66.74.176.59 ( talk) 13:39, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
I think that this road kill has passed and now is a carousel ride going up and down and all around and getting no where. I think that in future when referring to examples that instead of saying that "you" or "us" or other similar forms that the use of what is being discussed be limited to "may" because not every one does as what others say. And as for a genealogical treatise I would assume that the only acceptable form would be a that which is "well-written". It has already been stated that WP is not an environment of innovation. As for finding examples, the hunt is within sources that are schooled and reinforced by outside forces that can limit variety.
As I believe today I will believe tomorrow that a parent is a parent and the offspring will always be offspring and the only thing that changes with death is that they are dead, not the role in the chain of generations. I do not expect for any one to accept that which they do not believe--that just points out what you have been taught, your cultural bias and part of your weltanschauung. I believe and the absence or limited examples is not to me sufficient to prove me wrong. And to say that you are not this and you are not that is plain flying in the face road dust. And within WP that view has no standing. I have already been threatened with coercion otherwise.
As for 'Miss the mark-- "subconscious effect on expression" ; "We write English the way English is written." It should have been "British/American style". And written expression is taught the way that authority dictates otherwise you are accused of being illiterate." It was never about use but YOUR subconscious. People seem to be on auto-pilot and do not feel it is necessary to evaluate if what they write or say is substantiating a subconscious that may be faulty. Now do not get into a harp about "faulty" because all that will in likelihood happen is a restating of what can commonly be found and stated here each and every time previously. Regurgitation is wonderful for birds and the feeding of other animals but why the time we start to learn about writing we are well past puree as a staple. 66.74.176.59 ( talk) 22:04, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
I’m not sure whether it would be considered canvassing if I posted a link here to an unambiguously style-related RFC where the only other participants so far are on the opposite side from me. So I’m not asking (yet?) for anyone to find it and join in; just looking to know whether others think it would be acceptable or not to ask that. Thanks. — 174.141.182.82 ( talk) 19:20, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
There is an RFC concerning article title formatting at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (films)#RFC: Series subject as a name. Input from all would be appreciated. — 174.141.182.82 ( talk) 00:18, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
The US and U.S. ( WP:NOTUSA) section says:
Do not use U.S.A. or USA, except in a quotation or as part of a proper name (Team USA), because these abbreviations are also used for United States Army and other names.
The guideline may or may not be appropriate (it may be that those who formulated it were expressing an opinion, rather than reflecting real-world usage), but the reason given above is spurious and wrong. USA is very widely used orally and in writing (also U.S.A.) to mean the country, without ambiguity. There may be rare cases where use is truly ambiguous, but nobody thinks, for example, that crowds at sporting events are chanting to support the US military. So the guideline should be reconsidered; it may be maintained if there are non-spurious reasons to do so. The bare possibility of ambiguity is not good reason. There are innumerable examples; UK (U.K.; .uk in URLs) is used without ambiguity for the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, with only very rare problems with the Ukraine and the University of Kansas.
I'm not at this moment arguing that the anti-USA guideline should be dropped, but it should be properly supported if maintained. Pol098 ( talk) 12:02, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
Why would we ever use "USA" when "US" is available? To my ears, that would be like referring to the "UKGB" rather than the "UK". bd2412 T 14:23, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
Opinions are needed on the following matter: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Linking#Relax duplicate linking rule. A WP:Permalink for the discussion is here. You might also want to check out the Comments please on avoidable links and Nested links sections lower on that talk page. Flyer22 ( talk) 21:28, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Quite apart from quoting text or identifying speech, quote marks (single or double) have a variety of other uses or functions. As I read the MOS, there is a preference for double quotes for identifying speech or quotes of text. The context pretty much ignores other uses of quote marks. It is also silent on what I understand to be conventions that use single quotes for uses other than quoting text or identifying speech. I would pose a question of the validity of this convention and a clarification of the MOS's intent. Cinderella157 ( talk) 22:18, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
See Usage. Essentially, the six examples of usage other than quotations and speech. Cinderella157 ( talk) 05:04, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
I seek to clarify these matters. Cinderella157 ( talk) 15:55, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
“There are some conventional codified exceptions, such as single quotation marks for plant cultivars (Malus domestica 'Golden Delicious'); see WP:FLORA.”If you did see that and still claim the MOS is silent on other uses, you’re probably going to have to describe the specific uses you have in mind before getting an answer that will be useful to you. — 174.141.182.82 ( talk) 17:24, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
@ P Aculeius, My perception is that there is nothing definitive, which is fine, until others try to assert that there is. I will try to phrase my questions another way still.
Myself, I would leave double quotes alone in these other uses when I come across them, even though it might be against the convention 'as I have been taught' since I acknowledge that this is not necessarily universal and there is no specific guidance (that I see) on this matter in the MOS. I believe this is the standard that should be applied. Others construe the MOS to say otherwise. Cinderella157 ( talk) 06:30, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
@ P Aculeius, I deduce from your response that the MOS is silent on whether to use double or single for other uses of quote marks (ie other than quotes, speech or titles). From your earlier comments, I understand that you would agree that there are conventions that prefer the use of single quotes for at least some of these other uses. It is unfortunate that some editors would construe the MOS to have a greater scope than what it actually addresses. Cinderella157 ( talk) 14:32, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
Firstly, I thought it a relatively simple question to ask: "Is the MOS in any way definitive in which quote marks are used in 'other uses' (ie other than quotes, speech or titles)", having referred to these other uses as indicated in Quotation marks in English#Usage. I cannot, it appears, get an answer (or opinion) as to whether the MOS ( MOS:QUOTEMARKS particularly) does or does not address these other uses. From this, the only 'common sense' conclusion is that the MOS does not address these uses. It causes me to question whether the MOS fulfills its goal, "to make using Wikipedia easier and more intuitive by promoting clarity and cohesion while helping editors write articles with consistent and precise language, layout, and formatting." I do note that @ P Aculeius stated: "Single quotation marks are often used to enclose individual words, letters, or numbers, when being spoken of as such, rather than being quoted" - one of these other uses, but this is not from the MOS. As for specific instances, I would refer to [3], where 'free dropped' (a special terminology and signaling unusual usage) was changed to double quotes and similar edits have been made in other revisions for similar uses of single quotes. My question was to determine if this was a case where this statement from the MOS was applicable: "Where more than one style is acceptable, editors should not change an article from one of those styles to another without a good reason." The 'vagueness' of responses herein suggests a need to clarify the scope of the MOS on this particular issue. Cinderella157 ( talk) 00:52, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
I am not challenging the MOS at all. I am asking for clarification on a matter where the MOS appears to be unclear - actually, I do not believe that the MOS addresses the matters. That is ok but I am not certain if this is the case. Is it? I thought such a simple question might get a simple and direct answer. I have already provided a very specific example - [4], where 'free dropped' (a special terminology and signaling unusual usage) was changed to double quotes and similar edits have been made in other revisions for similar uses of single quotes. A clear answer might be, "no it doesn't cover these other cases" or "yes it does" or "it does cover these other cases (see ...) but not these ...". I am listening but all I can hear is that nobody has an answer. Cinderella157 ( talk) 02:41, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
174.141.182.82, Thank you! An answer I can understand. That is not intended as facetiousness but genuine gratitude. Do you see any specific guidance for other uses such as: Irony, Use–mention distinction, Nicknames and false titles or Nonstandard usage? I think not either? No, the editor in question did not specifically reference the MOS in this instance but has suggested so previously (on another issue). Yes, this editor is in the habit of making such changes - even after pointing out that the MOS might specifically acknowledge a particular style (another issue). And yes, they did continue to do so even after it had been pointed out. I did note the rationale for preferring double quote marks over single, particularly: "Most browsers distinguish single and double quotation marks. (Searches for "must see" attractions may fail to find 'must see' attractions.)" It is not so much whether this statement is accurate (as written) but the relevance or significance of this eludes me. I perceive it like an unreferenced statement that begs explanation or context. How (or where) is this relevant? My observation, for what it is worth. Cinderella157 ( talk) 04:36, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
This is only a consequence of using {{ '}} and not of a typed 'single' quote mark and then only if the single quote is included in the search. It sounds like a story to scare small children? But thank you nonetheless. Cinderella157 ( talk) 07:02, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
Draft:Battle of Buna–Gona is a major rewrite about to go into the main-space. I am the first major contributor. The specific matter of edits from single to double quotes was addressed to this other editor at Draft talk:Battle of Buna–Gona#Single quote marks. Rather than reverting the edits in question, I believe that the editor continued to make changes. I may have misspoken if I said the editor claimed MOS support for these particular edits but has made claims in other respects in a way that implied MOS support. This has been in respect to the use of abbreviations which I used IAW the MOS. They have since acknowledge (perhaps) that my writing was consistent with the MOS but continued (I believe) to edit them out (if they had not already all been edited out). Abbreviations were edited despite representations before and during the revisions made by this editor. The conversion template has been applied where previously, manual conversions had been made. The template has been applied in a way that implies an unreasonable degree of accuracy (significant figures) and contrary to the MOS in this respect. Many changes have been made on whole of document edits and will be difficult to disentangle from 'genuine' edits. So yes, I am peeved. Cinderella157 ( talk) 00:16, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
Thoughts on that capitalization? It will be hitting the Main Page soon; see Wikipedia:Today's featured article/March 20, 2015. - Dank ( push to talk) 21:57, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
The conversation about the generic he and gender-neutral language that started on this talk page has progressed to two RfCs at the village pump. Further opinions are welcome. Darkfrog24 ( talk) 00:35, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
This RFC was mentioned and linked to in the discussions above... but I think it deserves to be highlighted a bit more clearly. Please see: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biographies#Request for comment: Child named for parent or predecessor. Blueboar ( talk) 13:30, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
At the less-travelled subpage talkpage, Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biographies, the decision has been made to move Jr. and Sr. names so that no comma remains. Due to the large number of articles impacted and the small number of discussants, I am wondering if this was a proper consensus. I noticed this with Philg88's move of Donald Trump Jr. and Tim Hardaway Jr., which are pages I created and continue to watch. Is there a way to reopen this up for broader discussion at a more widely-viewed venue?-- TonyTheTiger ( T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:30, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
Style guides
|
---|
|
Reasons for the change to omit commas before (and after) Jr. and Sr.
|
---|
Why should a subject's consideration be taken into account on a question of style? Do you think other encyclopedias, newspapers and publications consult the subject's preferences? Making allowance for the subject's preference (if they have one) or a preponderance of sources (which likely use their own style rules regardless of the subject's views):
|
Article titles is not something if the remit the MOS but comes under WP:AT and disambiguation. Using a comma makes it easier to disambiguate the page, because of the same trick as using round brackets and the pipe symbol. The same thing applies to "the younger" and in English public schools "minor". In principle I agree with Blueboar this is just more instruction creep. As to "the 'junior' with a comma" who but an American would use "junior" and so care about it? -- PBS ( talk) 19:50, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Maybe this would help as these come from the style guides that Wikipedia has used to form its own style guide:
There is a new RfC at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biographies#Request for comment: Child named for parent or predecessor. DrKiernan ( talk) 07:34, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
As a Britton, this is my standard usage, and I like it. It makes sense to have acronyms written as lowercase, and initialisms as uppercase. It grants more information to the reader, and looks better typographically. As an example, one uses Isil, Isis, Ukip, Nato, but UN, NSA, USSR, &c. I would propose that this common and standard usage should not be proscribed. In fact, I'd recommend that it be recommended, but I know that won't gain consensus. Is there any reason why we should not be able to write "Isis" or "Syriza", rather than "ISIS" or "SYRIZA"? See the style manual of The Guardian. RGloucester — ☎ 22:03, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
I would make the following observations. Acronyms, as opposed to initialisms may be capitalised in varying ways, either all capitals, initial capitals and in some cases, when the word has passed into common usage, no capitals (eg scuba). There is no hard and fast rule, certainly not globally. The convention cited by
RGloucester , while it is a recognised convention, I would be surprised if it was followed with sufficient consistency to be considered a 'national' variation. There is also no clear distinction between acronyms and initialisms since some unlikely initialisms become acronymised. I would suggest the following guidance. If there exists an article about the acronym (ie
NATO), then ideally, referring to NATO should use the same style that has been used within the main article. If no article exists for the subject acronym, then capitalisation should be resolved by considering constant consistent usage in source material (unfortunately, this may well become a matter of contention). There is no issue with the use of initial capitals only as a style, since the acronym or initialism should be made explicit at first usage and this style is acknowledged by
Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Capital letters#Acronyms.
Incidentally, The MOS, at Periods (full stops) and spaces does not distinguish an initialism from an acronym but refers to both as acronyms - perhaps a matter deserving attention or perhaps not.
Too much is said to be implied of the MOS when the MOS is actually silent on a subject. Too much is asserted or assumed about the universality of English conventions when conventions might vary regionally, nationally or even, within a nation. I see that too much contention exists because of perceptions (and misperceptions) as they relate to varying conventions of usage. Different 'parties' will argue that the MOS carries more or less weight on a particular subject than it actually does. Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Abbreviations#Acronyms identifies that there are varying forms of capitalisation for acronyms but gives no advice on determining correct capitalisation. Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Abbreviations#Miscellanea lists some acronyms and this may be taken as a statement of style for these. Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Capital letters#Acronyms states: "Many acronyms are written in all capitals, such as NATO, BBC, JPEG. However, some acronyms have gained common usage as ordinary, lowercase words; for example, we write scuba and laser." It ignores the case of acronyms with initial capitals and may be misconstrued as a statement of style. This inconsistency should be remedied.
I see some value in providing some guidance on how to capitalise acronyms mainly because the subject is left hanging and a matter of conjecture. Perhaps such guidance might be something similar to the observations I have made. I would suggest it be added at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Abbreviations#Acronyms. Such guidance need not clutter the main text. Such advice or clarification may well best be added as an annotation. Would this be instructional creep? I think not. If anything, it more clearly defines the scope of the MOS on this matter and thereby limits 'creep'. I think such disambiguating statements are potentially of great value, since they clarify perceptions and misperceptions about the universallity or otherwise of conventions of English. Cinderella157 ( talk) 23:28, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
I omitted the footnotes here, but they provide telling reading in the article. — sroc 💬 04:52, 1 March 2015 (UTC)Although the word acronym is widely used to refer to any abbreviation formed from initial letters, in contradistinction to an initialism (or alphabetism)—a word or abbreviation formed from a string of initials—whereas some others include additional senses equating acronym with initialism. The distinction, when made, hinges on whether the abbreviation is pronounced as a word or as a string of individual letters. Examples in reference works that make the distinction include NATO /ˈneɪtoʊ/, scuba /ˈskuːbə/, and radar /ˈreɪdɑːr/ for acronyms, and FBI /ˌɛfˌbiːˈaɪ/, CRT /ˌˈsiːˌɑːrˌtiː/, and HTML /ˌeɪtʃˌtiːˌɛmˈɛl/ for initialisms.
acronyms A number of commentators (as Copperud 1970, Janis 1984, Howard 1984) believe that acronyms can be differentiated from other abbreviations in being pronounceable as words. Dictionaries, however, do not make this distinction because writers in general do not
acronym: a word, usu[ally] pronounced as such, formed from the initial letters of other words (e.g. Ernie, laser, Nato)
acronym: a word created from the first letters of each word in a series of words.
acronym: a word (as NATO, radar, or laser) formed from the initial letter or letters of each of the successive parts or major parts of a compound term; also: an abbreviation (as FBI) formed from initial letters: see initialism
However, some linguists do not recognize a sharp distinction between acronyms and initialisms, but use the former term for both.
acronym. 1. a word created from the first letter or letters of each word in a series of words or a phrase. 2. a set of initials representing a name, organization, or the like, with each letter pronounced separately, as FBI for Federal Bureau of Investigation.
Usage Note: ... Acronyms are often distinguished from initialisms like FBI and NIH, whose individual letters are pronounced as separate syllables. While observing this distinction has some virtue in precision, it may be lost on many people, for whom the term acronym refers to both kinds of abbreviations.
The Macquarie Dictionary (1st ed) list 'acronym' as being only the pronounced definition (ie is exclusive of initialisms). As the word is not universally understood and can have varying meanings, I would suggest that it should be defined in the text as including initialisms, if that is what is intended. The definition should also acknowledge the more general meaning, so as not to falsely imply that 'acronym' universally includes initialisms. I note the the lead of MOS:Caps was edited to replace "acronyms and initialisms" with just "acronyms"? It is frequently a false premise to assume universality in a global context. I don't think that it should necessarily be acknowledged as specifically British, but certainly, it should be acknowledged and guidance given in determining the appropriate style. Cinderella157 ( talk) 06:31, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
An ngram shows that uses of "NATO" far outweigh "Nato" (by a ratio of 71:1 in 2008), even when restricted to British English (55:1). — sroc 💬 14:08, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
@ AgnosticAphid and others. I have not suggested that RGloucester 's proposal be adopted but it has identified a number of inconsistencies. Firstly, it cannot be claimed that 'acronym' is universally understood to include initialisms. This is already confusing and needs to be remedied at the point of use. WP documentation already acknowledges the use of inital capitalisation for acronyms. However, there are inconsistencies which suggest that acronyms are only ever capitalised fully. These should be reconciled. I had also suggested it might be appropriate to provide guidance on how to capitalise an acronym (as per previous suggestion or similar). Cinderella157 ( talk) 21:42, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
{{
R from abbreviation}}
, {{
R from initialism}}
, {{
R from acronym}}
.
LeadSongDog
come howl!
17:52, 5 March 2015 (UTC)I can’t find anything about this in the MOS, but is there any consensus around the use of future tense in articles? For instance, So-and-so will do such-and-such[1] as opposed to So-and-so announced that he would do such-and-such[1]. — 174.141.182.82 ( talk) 04:16, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
Is there any formal guidance that essentially says "You should not create a section for every sentence" ? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:35, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
This talk discussion related to the use of the term "intestine" here to mean "inner" or "internal" will clearly be unfamiliar to almost every reader, since it dates back to the 18th century (and "more recently" in one instance). A comment on the talk page says: "The reason for the use here is rhetorical, to bring the reader to pause and reflect on the essential inaccessibility to direct observation of the mechanisms of atomic and subatomic processes." Since the first cited use predates the entire field (quantum mechanics) by more than a century, and the second use is by a writer about science rather than a scientist, this seems to me like an editor taking extreme oratory liberties. The editor concerned may feel that a literary allusion that will escape (and quite frankly, confuse) essentially 100% of the readership, without even the courtesy if an explanatory footnote, is reasonable and is clearly unaware of "some reason why Wikipedia should avoid such scientific literary allusion or such oddity". Perhaps we need something in the MoS to limit "colourful or slightly eccentric or obsolete" language in our articles? Perhaps there is already something of this ilk in the MoS? — Quondum 03:12, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
The Manual of Style documents Wikipedia's house style. Its goal is to make using Wikipedia easier and more intuitive by promoting clarity and cohesion while helping editors write articles with consistent and precise language, layout, and formatting. Plain English works best; avoid ambiguity, jargon, and vague or unnecessarily complex wording.
This isn't really an MOS issue. It's a simple dispute over what word to use in one specific sentence of one specific article. If agreement (consensus) can not be reached between the few brothers arguing over this, call in some neutral third parties (per Wikipedia:Third opinion) by filing an RFC. Sometimes using an archaic word is best... but most of the time using an archaic word is not best. No comment (here) on whether using one is best in this specific instance. That's what talk pages are for. I will comment there. Blueboar ( talk) 16:10, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
I've asked a question about the conversion of measurements of cue tip sizes at talk:Cue stick#cue tip size "Don't convert". I'm soliciting wider input as that was the first edit to the page since 2012 and it doesn't appear widely watched. Please comment there to avoid duplication. Thanks, Thryduulf ( talk) 19:34, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
Does MOS cover things like encyclopaedia/encyclopedia or mediaeval/medieval (where not a formal title or quote) anywhere? I thought it did. -- Dweller ( talk) 11:48, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
UK news source The BBC, says "medieval", [8] UK newspaper The Guardian's style guide says "medieval". [9] -- Dweller ( talk) 12:23, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks chaps. I'm looking for guidance mostly on the word "mediaeval", which as I've demonstrated in the links I've brought, is no longer a mainstream spelling in BrEng. -- Dweller ( talk) 21:54, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
CurrentText:
Where a quoted sentence is followed by a clause identifying the speaker, a comma outside the quotation should be used in place of a full stop inside, but other terminal punctuation may be retained. Again, a question should end with a question mark.
Dory said: "Yes, I can read", which gave Marlin an idea.
Dory said: "Yes, I can read!", which gave Marlin an idea.
...
There is no following clause identifying the speaker in either example. My guess is that "identifying the speaker" should be removed, but I haven't been following this. Modal Jig ( talk) 20:26, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
I have a few questions regarding the usage of "i.e" and "e.g." on Wikipedia. The MoS only briefly mentions it MoS § 5.3, but there isn't a clear elaboration on whether a comma should follow after either, and under which circumstances should a comma rightly follow. Manuals of style differ significantly on this issue, with some claiming that it should be used after "e.g." but not after "i.e.", since the latter typically addresses a singular entity whereas the former often lists a number of examples. Others simply state to place a comma after both, just as one would do so with the English translations of each abbreviation ("for example" and "that is", respectively). What is Wikipedia's stance on this? Should a comma always follow, or should it only follow if more than one entity is listed, or should it never follow, or only follow for one and not another (and only under certain circumstances)? What about when using these abbreviations to start a sentence? I've seen inconsistent usage throughout numerous Wikipedia articles, including ones which have been featured or marked as a "good article". Need I even mention the inconsistent usage among Wikipedians themselves?
Another issue I've noticed is whether it's appropriate to use these Latin abbreviations when an English phrase may suffice. There is quite some controversy surrounding this issue with valid points having been made on both sides. I'm largely ambivalent about this issue and although I have an affinity for Latin phrases, I understand the need for Wikipedia to be clear and understandable for everyone (despite the existence of Simple English Wikipedia articles). The lack of clarity and consensus on these two issues, however, only leads to an overall inconsistency among articles.
One final issue of notable mention is whether these abbreviations should be italicized. I'll provide information about that below as well, and it can be another topic of discussion if needed.
I have already searched through the archives and have primarily found debates surrounding whether such abbreviations should even be allowed. If this debate needs to be revitalized, then I suppose we might as well use this post to do so, though I believe both issues should be receive some serious consideration. Since both issues seem to be somewhat related, I've tried to compile all major instances wherein discussion was had regarding the usage of "i.e." and "e.g.". If I've missed any, feel free to let me know. Considering the wide range of opinions therein, I've decided to not summarize each section. Feel free to peruse them at your own leisure.
The following are all major instances wherein the usage of "i.e." and "e.g." as abbreviations was disputed: Archive (abbreviations and acronyms) § 4, Archive 3 § 23, Archive 4 § 8, Accessibility Archive 5 § 12, Archive 14 § 9, Archive 22 § 1, Archive 41 § 2, Archive 63 § 5, Archive 94 § 7, Archive 162 § 33
The following are all major instances wherein the usage of a comma after "i.e." and "e.g" was disputed: Abbreviations Archive 2 § 51, Text Formatting Archive 4 § 15, Archive 150 § 21
The following are all major instances wherein the italicization of "i.e." and "e.g." (and "etc.") have been disputed: Abbreviations Archive 2 § 26, Archive 108 § 18, Archive 108 § 40
Regarding all these issues, I believe there needs to be a clear consensus on when to use these Latin abbreviations, whether to follow them with a comma (and in which instances, if any), and whether they should be italicized when used. I apologize if I'm beating a dead horse or if I'm reviving an old topic which may be better left dead, but I feel this hole in the MoS needs to be mended. I'm not trying to stir up controversy, only summarize the issue and revive a discussion I believe should be had, especially since there is so much inconsistency in this respect within Wikipedia and among Wikipedians. If this post is inappropriate, feel free to state as much or do whatever is necessary to rectify the situation. I'm still new to Wikipedia, and although I'm trying to be bold, I understand that some faux pas are bound to occur. Hopefully, this is not one of them.
The usage of commas following " i.e." and " e.g." may be a matter of MOS:COMMA and MOS:ENGVAR, since the rules are different depending on whether American English or British English is used. Clarification on this may or may not be needed in the MoS.
Regards,
Nøkkenbuer ( talk) 13:41, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
The text should clarify that the "punctuation" that usually proceeds footnotes is rendered punctuation, and has absolutely nothing to do with wiki markup. I would think this goes without saying, but I've run into problems at At Freddie's#Character summary over this. That section consists of a table given in
format. One of the labels has a footnote, because one RS got the character's name wrong repeatedly. In the course of editing I originally had the wrong name because of this, and I discovered the mistake before posting. So I added an explanatory footnote for the sake of any future reader/editor who reads the article with this particular RS at hand, resulting in
Yobot came along and put the reference after the colon, and after some discussion with Yobot's maintainer, settled on fooling the bot with a comment
Then along came a human who relies on a bot to find problems, who then edited this, citing MOS:REFPUNC as his justification, putting the Warning! way at the far end
which is just plain silly, since the Warning! is supposed to be attached to the problem text, not something that might be overlooked, especially if that explanatory string gets expanded. When I left a message on the human's Talk page that I had put it back, I was astonished that he defended his edit. I gave a longer explanation of why his choice was silly, he has not responded since.
Anyway, I think this is a complete no-brainer. Style always refers to what readers see, not editors. I mean, heck, if I had created and maintained the table with some kind of visual editor, I might not even be able to comprehend what someone saying "ref after punc!" was babbling about.
I am not going to be bold, though. I recommend some brief clarification in the lede and a longer comment in REFPUNC, at least advice on ways to fool a bot. In addition to the above example, one might explicitly advise we do not change
into
or other markup read as punctuation games you can think up. Choor monster ( talk) 12:30, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
@ Choor monster and Sroc: I agree that MOS already support Choor monster's side and of course the bot was incorrect in that case. Since we have very few false positives with the current code (Yobot et al. correct approx. 1000 pages per day on this particular error), I only say that you could help us by adding newlines. You don't have to. It's only to help since it does not change anything in the visual result. Moreover, it's true that I, and I can presume Bgwhite too, really got confused with the double dot in there. I am frank when I say that I might have tried to "fix" the punctuation in that particular article because I was not aware that ";" and ":" work like that. Conclusion: Choor monster is right. No MOS addition is needed. The comment is a good solution to help bots too. I think we could use newlines to make code easier to read and avoid similar mistakes like I did. Thanks, Magioladitis ( talk) 19:06, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
At least the way it currently is, ARTCON is not helping to calm arguments in some cases. My first concern here is with regard to international events, where there is a significant domination of certain dialect varieties over other dialects in articles that were previously mixed in dialect but changed over to one dialect (when British English, often done using scripts). Perhaps there should be some sort of alternative means of having consistency without clearly favoring certain dialects over others. Currently, editors just choose what favors their preferences (without admitting it) when the ARTCON arguments conflict with each other, whether it be arguments to retain the existing variety (MOS:RETAIN), to follow national ties (MOS:TIES), or to use the dialect used in the "first non-stub revision". If none of those arguments are applicable, editors who don't like the way an article currently is will just ignore the Manual of Style and do whatever it takes to keep their preferred variety even if they clearly are wrong. Example: An article is consistent, but the variety it is using is unsupported by the Manual of Style, which supports another variety. 50% of editors in a discussion want the article to remain with Variety 1, and 50% think it should be changed to Variety 2 based on the Manual of Style. Even though the editors arguing for Variety 1 are incorrect, they make up 50% so the people actually justifying a change to Variety 2 with the Manual of Style cannot do anything because they will just be reverted and told to discuss if they make the change. This shows that it is easier to keep an article in its current variety (even if it is wrong) than it is to change it. Not all dialect arguments are this obvious. Sometimes, Group 1 might think the current variety is proper under MOS:RETAIN, and Group 2 might think that it should be changed per MOS:TIES. Then Group 1 argues that MOS:RETAIN is stronger and that MOS:TIES does not apply, and Group 2 will say MOS:TIES does apply, and so on. This is another issue: What should be done where MOS:TIES conflicts with MOS:RETAIN? What should be done where interpretations of the Manual of Style significantly vary? How can conflict of interest (Americans almost always favoring American English, British almost always favoring British English, etc.) be countered? These issues are troubling and can be frustrating. In my opinion, ARTCON should be clarified and maybe there should be certain situations outlined where it might not necessarily apply (exceptions). I am still open to other solutions, though. Regardless of how such issues may be addressed, they should be addressed in some way. Dustin (talk) 20:28, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
An article on a topic that has strong ties to a particular English-speaking nation should use the English of that nation. For example:
- Great Fire of London (British English)
- American Civil War (American English)
- Institutions of the European Union (British or Irish English)
- Australian Defence Force ( Australian English)
- Vancouver ( Canadian English)
- Mumbai ( Indian English)
- Usain Bolt ( Jamaican English)
- Christchurch ( New Zealand English)
In an article about a modern writer, it is often a good choice to use the variety of English in which the subject wrote, especially if the writings are quoted. For example, J. R. R. Tolkien used British English with Oxford spelling.
This guideline should not be used to claim national ownership of any article; see Wikipedia:Ownership of articles.
The examples are all unambiguous. Note that it says a "particular" nation, as opposed to all others. If an article has ties to more than one, by default, it does not have strong ties to a particular English-speaking nation. If an article is inconsistent, there is nothing disruptive about standardising the article style per MOS:RETAIN and ARTCON. The methods for standardising are specified by our guidelines. They say "When no English variety has been established and discussion cannot resolve the issue, the variety used in the first non-stub revision is considered the default. If no English variety was used consistently, the tie is broken by the first post-stub contributor to introduce text written in a particular English variety". If someone changes an inconsistent article to a variety other than that used in the first non-stub revision, then they've not followed the guidelines. It is perfectly acceptable to establish one variety as standard, and in fact our guidelines demand it. It is merely a matter of doing so in the manner prescribed. RGloucester — ☎ 18:05, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
About {{ Subject bar}}. Reading WP:LAYOUTEL, this bar should be right above any navboxes. Certainly not in the See also section. Can someone confirm that? - DePiep ( talk) 10:01, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
An RfC has been commenced at MOSCAPS Request for comment - Capitalise universe.
Cinderella157 ( talk) 03:23, 22 March 2015 (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 160 | ← | Archive 162 | Archive 163 | Archive 164 | Archive 165 | Archive 166 | → | Archive 170 |
66.74.176.59 (
talk ·
contribs) has amended about 140 articles in 7 hours, changing "was" to "is" so that we now have, for example, "Seneca lived through the reigns of three significant emperors; Augustus (ruled 27 BC – 14 AD).... He is the father of the stoic philosopher Seneca the Younger...."
[1] (my emphasis). Edit summaries are usually "1 death has no effect if someone is your father or son. even when someone dies one "is" the father and the other "is" the son. the interaction may not be as before but one "is" the father and one "is" the son"
.
Rather than spread the discussion out across 140 talk pages plus an IP talk page, can anyone point to the appropriate part of the Manual of Style or an existing consensus, or (if the matter hasn't arisen before) can we discuss this here and reach a consensus?
NebY (
talk)
10:40, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
A blood relationship can never be changed from existing to not existing therefore it should always be an "is" and never a "was". Your parent is always your parent regardless if that person is dead. If "was" is used then the statement is made factually incorrect. Those from whom you descent will always be your descendant and those that that follow will always be those that descend from you. So in describing that relationship it can never factually be in the past tense. 66.74.176.59 ( talk) 15:59, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
The problem is that while some languages have a slew of tenses, we tend to use only three in normal English wording of the many tenses which exist. "George (dead) is the father of George Jr." is not incorrect -- the state of fatherhood does not consist of a single event in the past. "George (dead) was the father of George, Jr." is also not incorrect. Of course we could simply use "begat" I suppose - but neither position is "wrong" as we normally use the language. I found both used in newspapers, so maybe we should count this as a matter of trifling import at best? (Genealogical folks tend to use "is" by the way) ("Was" is far from universal by the way) Collect ( talk) 18:38, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
--Nicknack009, so your position is that language should never change, or at least that of grammar? Pull out your copy of the 1st ed. Encyclo Britanica to the pull out on writing structure and tell me just how useful were those rules that have since then undergone such a vast change--at least in the manner of explanation on paper? For having such a distinguished level in WP, the manner in which you evoke support for the position is rather shortsighted with very unpleasant connotations. So I am a troll? Or do you withdraw that statement as if it never happened? In fact, his statements are a "grand slam" when it concerns the sensitivity of some WP participants. I prefer to use the neutral value of an IP address by which to contribute to WP? According to WP policy there is absolutely nothing wrong with that practice although it will speedily be met with it is generally found that IP users are up to much mischief on WP. The there is the language of origin question but not stated as so but is English my primary language. Does this person ever give himself an opportunity not to become the spokes person for the less than optimistic aspects of WP? Like I said, the grand slam, managing to hit all the righ marks of a less than advantageous distinction. So we need to subject this test to a numbers strategy to be sufficiently legitimate for a "change" in an area that you do not want change? If so then why subject yourself to such potential ridicule. What is here, will never go away and the promote in WP from within WP practice only reinforces that what happens in WP with memory will always have an opportunity to be remembered, to return to the fore--maybe a matter of regurgitation? Does it matter what is one's primary language? Maybe a life that has been subjected to the internal critique of an anthropologist seeking out what is going on and what is its meaning instead of how is it going against the masses? I want to say without prejudicing my position that you seem to bot be ready for a change in this issue because it has long ago been settled within a group that has held the reigns. But those reigns will not always be held by the same people. You have the absolute monarch that what they say goes. Then you have the Magna Carta activities. Then you have the what land you hold issues. Then comes that you are a male. Then comes that you are a human being. and so on and so on. These things change because new issues develop.
The current usage seems to be heavily influenced by life or death. So much of it is in the past therefore it "sounds" logical to refer to it as "was" although a blood relationship can never be undone. There seems to be a great absence of mental agility to accept that which can never have change even with death and should be referred to as in the present. For those familiar, this probably represents an "Archie Bunker", a person stuck in usage. And this is not a criticism of being stuck because there are a great many people who are in as good place with a weltanschauung that gives them the ability to rethink that which posses potential road block in life.
It is not a position that emanates from the "official" rules or numbers game in usage. It is merely a matter of what good is there to maintain or deviate. WP looks at presenting supportable factual statements. On the face of it, a statement about a blood relationship where it is of life today, tomorrow or millennium ago, that relationship has not changed. Yet it seems validity is granted (at least presently) to the view that characterizing a relationship is best left to a confusing brought about by the imposition of time in the issue rather than solely whether a relationship exists or can be undone.
I remember for years whe younger the statement "The day after yesterday was a perfectly acceptable colloquialism but once that usage was outside that environment then the logic of the statement was called into question. The same logic is called into question with the "was" use versus characterizing the relationship as a current.
Well, I need to get to the grocers so will end this at what point it is with the understanding that much is being asked of people that have trained themselves to think a particular way and being faced with that not being potentially less credible may have an air of imposition.
Referring to that relationship should be by the value of that relationship, not when it happened. The latter is time not the relationship. Concentrate on the relationship and avoid the need to find confusion an acceptable means of presenting a view that is distorted. 66.74.176.59 ( talk) 21:33, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
Government welfare gay comes about for every society it seems. You have the previous year earned your money and then have to pay the government so that they can do what supposedly you want done. Nothing in the world can change what you made then and what you paid then in taxes--nothing will ever change that amount for time infinitum. From year to year the amounts may change but they remain on record. 66.74.176.59 ( talk) 23:13, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
This discussion reminds me of the scene in "Lincoln" when he says about slavery, after establishing that there will be problems they have as yet to identify but he thinks that the negroes just assume be free as any one else would think of for themselves. If examples that say relationships can change, and in this discussion disappear, the continued presentation of examples that state for the relationship that which applies to time (i.e., in the past) are just continuations and perpetuations that something unchangeable can be changed. Do the math and science experiment. It just cannot be done and be the truth. As for civility, Nicknack destroyed that long ago with the knee jerk reactionary unfortunate statements. 66.74.176.59 ( talk) 01:24, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
Recommend we go with "was", in these situations. GoodDay ( talk) 02:24, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
Congratulations to oknazevad in an attempt to put this issue to rest putting forth that those who recognize a problem with this issue are "illiterate". That type of comment is not necessary especially as the line of reasoning for the now established rule is not common to all cultures and societies. I am not responsible for your cultural illiteracy. I can only say that the former is what makes up your weltanschauung. Hopefully, your career is not within any diplomatic corp. 66.74.176.59 ( talk) 13:18, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
After doing a bit of research outside of WP on top of the replies here, I’ve determined that it is indeed not the norm to use present tense in these cases. It’s acceptable to some, and it arguably makes more sense, but it’s just not particularly common in English (and the English language does not necessarily make sense). Sorry, 66.74.176.59, but without widespread support outside Wikipedia, there’s little chance of convincing Wikipedians. — 174.141.182.82 ( talk) 15:43, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
It always has to be remembered that you may reflect the way those previous to you express so it becomes self supporting a prejudice that takes some time and effort to overcome. If a person's ability to extend the experience they can make outside their element is limited then all the more is there the opportunity to continue what when changed it then is a miss on the perception. If all you can read is your own language and to you all that is available is translations of other sources, how can you expect to learn about how this type of issue is handled especially when those translators are trained in the very same perception as yourself. And probably trained the same as those that have control over the publication of such information. Some may say, "Oh. But that is other people." Remember, it is all part of the brain and just how does yours function. Just as there remain people today that think the planet flat are those that know better through a different weltanschauung. Some call it sophistication, not broom stuck, an increased degree of differentiation. At least it has been brought to fore that yes there is a difference on the issue. 66.74.176.59 ( talk) 18:12, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
It is interesting mentioning English style guidance especially as when it concerns England they have so much to thank for other peoples invading. And remember that the western world is not getting "easternized" but is changing although with some people that seems to be expressed more as a threat than part of life. They should check out language development of adjoining peoples. Just saying, weltanschauung. The mind at use. 66.74.176.59 ( talk) 23:22, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for the template but when someone does something perceived as irritating it can be something that one can avoid to call attention and possibly, specially from an organization that functions on promotion from within, avoid situations being perceived as a threat to authority. Did I miss a conditional statement somewhere in the WP mission statement, "everyone is welcomed to contribute, except for those with which we disagree or find irritating, ......"? Some may say that they are not part of WP beyond merely being a contributor but you tell me when is it that the senior contributors of WP that are within the ranks of its authority promote those they find irritating. So, it is to be expected that as long as things are top down many actions can be perceived as dissension. Or are you the type that is more concerned with manners? I read an oral history that the person was one of the early "ethnic" minority entrant into that country's educational ministry who said that being amongst Ph.D's did not mean that they debated with more sophisticated words but that they were so smooth that you never noticed when complements were given the knife going in and out. 66.74.176.59 ( talk) 23:59, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
Oh, I forgot; not all wind wills are on the lowlands model. 66.74.176.59 ( talk) 00:01, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
British/American style. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.74.176.59 ( talk) 00:49, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
Miss the mark-- "subconscious effect on expression" ; "We write English the way English is written." It should have been "British/American style". And written expression is taught the way that authority dictates otherwise you are accused of being illiterate. 66.74.176.59 ( talk) 13:39, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
I think that this road kill has passed and now is a carousel ride going up and down and all around and getting no where. I think that in future when referring to examples that instead of saying that "you" or "us" or other similar forms that the use of what is being discussed be limited to "may" because not every one does as what others say. And as for a genealogical treatise I would assume that the only acceptable form would be a that which is "well-written". It has already been stated that WP is not an environment of innovation. As for finding examples, the hunt is within sources that are schooled and reinforced by outside forces that can limit variety.
As I believe today I will believe tomorrow that a parent is a parent and the offspring will always be offspring and the only thing that changes with death is that they are dead, not the role in the chain of generations. I do not expect for any one to accept that which they do not believe--that just points out what you have been taught, your cultural bias and part of your weltanschauung. I believe and the absence or limited examples is not to me sufficient to prove me wrong. And to say that you are not this and you are not that is plain flying in the face road dust. And within WP that view has no standing. I have already been threatened with coercion otherwise.
As for 'Miss the mark-- "subconscious effect on expression" ; "We write English the way English is written." It should have been "British/American style". And written expression is taught the way that authority dictates otherwise you are accused of being illiterate." It was never about use but YOUR subconscious. People seem to be on auto-pilot and do not feel it is necessary to evaluate if what they write or say is substantiating a subconscious that may be faulty. Now do not get into a harp about "faulty" because all that will in likelihood happen is a restating of what can commonly be found and stated here each and every time previously. Regurgitation is wonderful for birds and the feeding of other animals but why the time we start to learn about writing we are well past puree as a staple. 66.74.176.59 ( talk) 22:04, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
I’m not sure whether it would be considered canvassing if I posted a link here to an unambiguously style-related RFC where the only other participants so far are on the opposite side from me. So I’m not asking (yet?) for anyone to find it and join in; just looking to know whether others think it would be acceptable or not to ask that. Thanks. — 174.141.182.82 ( talk) 19:20, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
There is an RFC concerning article title formatting at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (films)#RFC: Series subject as a name. Input from all would be appreciated. — 174.141.182.82 ( talk) 00:18, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
The US and U.S. ( WP:NOTUSA) section says:
Do not use U.S.A. or USA, except in a quotation or as part of a proper name (Team USA), because these abbreviations are also used for United States Army and other names.
The guideline may or may not be appropriate (it may be that those who formulated it were expressing an opinion, rather than reflecting real-world usage), but the reason given above is spurious and wrong. USA is very widely used orally and in writing (also U.S.A.) to mean the country, without ambiguity. There may be rare cases where use is truly ambiguous, but nobody thinks, for example, that crowds at sporting events are chanting to support the US military. So the guideline should be reconsidered; it may be maintained if there are non-spurious reasons to do so. The bare possibility of ambiguity is not good reason. There are innumerable examples; UK (U.K.; .uk in URLs) is used without ambiguity for the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, with only very rare problems with the Ukraine and the University of Kansas.
I'm not at this moment arguing that the anti-USA guideline should be dropped, but it should be properly supported if maintained. Pol098 ( talk) 12:02, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
Why would we ever use "USA" when "US" is available? To my ears, that would be like referring to the "UKGB" rather than the "UK". bd2412 T 14:23, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
Opinions are needed on the following matter: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Linking#Relax duplicate linking rule. A WP:Permalink for the discussion is here. You might also want to check out the Comments please on avoidable links and Nested links sections lower on that talk page. Flyer22 ( talk) 21:28, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Quite apart from quoting text or identifying speech, quote marks (single or double) have a variety of other uses or functions. As I read the MOS, there is a preference for double quotes for identifying speech or quotes of text. The context pretty much ignores other uses of quote marks. It is also silent on what I understand to be conventions that use single quotes for uses other than quoting text or identifying speech. I would pose a question of the validity of this convention and a clarification of the MOS's intent. Cinderella157 ( talk) 22:18, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
See Usage. Essentially, the six examples of usage other than quotations and speech. Cinderella157 ( talk) 05:04, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
I seek to clarify these matters. Cinderella157 ( talk) 15:55, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
“There are some conventional codified exceptions, such as single quotation marks for plant cultivars (Malus domestica 'Golden Delicious'); see WP:FLORA.”If you did see that and still claim the MOS is silent on other uses, you’re probably going to have to describe the specific uses you have in mind before getting an answer that will be useful to you. — 174.141.182.82 ( talk) 17:24, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
@ P Aculeius, My perception is that there is nothing definitive, which is fine, until others try to assert that there is. I will try to phrase my questions another way still.
Myself, I would leave double quotes alone in these other uses when I come across them, even though it might be against the convention 'as I have been taught' since I acknowledge that this is not necessarily universal and there is no specific guidance (that I see) on this matter in the MOS. I believe this is the standard that should be applied. Others construe the MOS to say otherwise. Cinderella157 ( talk) 06:30, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
@ P Aculeius, I deduce from your response that the MOS is silent on whether to use double or single for other uses of quote marks (ie other than quotes, speech or titles). From your earlier comments, I understand that you would agree that there are conventions that prefer the use of single quotes for at least some of these other uses. It is unfortunate that some editors would construe the MOS to have a greater scope than what it actually addresses. Cinderella157 ( talk) 14:32, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
Firstly, I thought it a relatively simple question to ask: "Is the MOS in any way definitive in which quote marks are used in 'other uses' (ie other than quotes, speech or titles)", having referred to these other uses as indicated in Quotation marks in English#Usage. I cannot, it appears, get an answer (or opinion) as to whether the MOS ( MOS:QUOTEMARKS particularly) does or does not address these other uses. From this, the only 'common sense' conclusion is that the MOS does not address these uses. It causes me to question whether the MOS fulfills its goal, "to make using Wikipedia easier and more intuitive by promoting clarity and cohesion while helping editors write articles with consistent and precise language, layout, and formatting." I do note that @ P Aculeius stated: "Single quotation marks are often used to enclose individual words, letters, or numbers, when being spoken of as such, rather than being quoted" - one of these other uses, but this is not from the MOS. As for specific instances, I would refer to [3], where 'free dropped' (a special terminology and signaling unusual usage) was changed to double quotes and similar edits have been made in other revisions for similar uses of single quotes. My question was to determine if this was a case where this statement from the MOS was applicable: "Where more than one style is acceptable, editors should not change an article from one of those styles to another without a good reason." The 'vagueness' of responses herein suggests a need to clarify the scope of the MOS on this particular issue. Cinderella157 ( talk) 00:52, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
I am not challenging the MOS at all. I am asking for clarification on a matter where the MOS appears to be unclear - actually, I do not believe that the MOS addresses the matters. That is ok but I am not certain if this is the case. Is it? I thought such a simple question might get a simple and direct answer. I have already provided a very specific example - [4], where 'free dropped' (a special terminology and signaling unusual usage) was changed to double quotes and similar edits have been made in other revisions for similar uses of single quotes. A clear answer might be, "no it doesn't cover these other cases" or "yes it does" or "it does cover these other cases (see ...) but not these ...". I am listening but all I can hear is that nobody has an answer. Cinderella157 ( talk) 02:41, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
174.141.182.82, Thank you! An answer I can understand. That is not intended as facetiousness but genuine gratitude. Do you see any specific guidance for other uses such as: Irony, Use–mention distinction, Nicknames and false titles or Nonstandard usage? I think not either? No, the editor in question did not specifically reference the MOS in this instance but has suggested so previously (on another issue). Yes, this editor is in the habit of making such changes - even after pointing out that the MOS might specifically acknowledge a particular style (another issue). And yes, they did continue to do so even after it had been pointed out. I did note the rationale for preferring double quote marks over single, particularly: "Most browsers distinguish single and double quotation marks. (Searches for "must see" attractions may fail to find 'must see' attractions.)" It is not so much whether this statement is accurate (as written) but the relevance or significance of this eludes me. I perceive it like an unreferenced statement that begs explanation or context. How (or where) is this relevant? My observation, for what it is worth. Cinderella157 ( talk) 04:36, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
This is only a consequence of using {{ '}} and not of a typed 'single' quote mark and then only if the single quote is included in the search. It sounds like a story to scare small children? But thank you nonetheless. Cinderella157 ( talk) 07:02, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
Draft:Battle of Buna–Gona is a major rewrite about to go into the main-space. I am the first major contributor. The specific matter of edits from single to double quotes was addressed to this other editor at Draft talk:Battle of Buna–Gona#Single quote marks. Rather than reverting the edits in question, I believe that the editor continued to make changes. I may have misspoken if I said the editor claimed MOS support for these particular edits but has made claims in other respects in a way that implied MOS support. This has been in respect to the use of abbreviations which I used IAW the MOS. They have since acknowledge (perhaps) that my writing was consistent with the MOS but continued (I believe) to edit them out (if they had not already all been edited out). Abbreviations were edited despite representations before and during the revisions made by this editor. The conversion template has been applied where previously, manual conversions had been made. The template has been applied in a way that implies an unreasonable degree of accuracy (significant figures) and contrary to the MOS in this respect. Many changes have been made on whole of document edits and will be difficult to disentangle from 'genuine' edits. So yes, I am peeved. Cinderella157 ( talk) 00:16, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
Thoughts on that capitalization? It will be hitting the Main Page soon; see Wikipedia:Today's featured article/March 20, 2015. - Dank ( push to talk) 21:57, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
The conversation about the generic he and gender-neutral language that started on this talk page has progressed to two RfCs at the village pump. Further opinions are welcome. Darkfrog24 ( talk) 00:35, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
This RFC was mentioned and linked to in the discussions above... but I think it deserves to be highlighted a bit more clearly. Please see: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biographies#Request for comment: Child named for parent or predecessor. Blueboar ( talk) 13:30, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
At the less-travelled subpage talkpage, Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biographies, the decision has been made to move Jr. and Sr. names so that no comma remains. Due to the large number of articles impacted and the small number of discussants, I am wondering if this was a proper consensus. I noticed this with Philg88's move of Donald Trump Jr. and Tim Hardaway Jr., which are pages I created and continue to watch. Is there a way to reopen this up for broader discussion at a more widely-viewed venue?-- TonyTheTiger ( T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:30, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
Style guides
|
---|
|
Reasons for the change to omit commas before (and after) Jr. and Sr.
|
---|
Why should a subject's consideration be taken into account on a question of style? Do you think other encyclopedias, newspapers and publications consult the subject's preferences? Making allowance for the subject's preference (if they have one) or a preponderance of sources (which likely use their own style rules regardless of the subject's views):
|
Article titles is not something if the remit the MOS but comes under WP:AT and disambiguation. Using a comma makes it easier to disambiguate the page, because of the same trick as using round brackets and the pipe symbol. The same thing applies to "the younger" and in English public schools "minor". In principle I agree with Blueboar this is just more instruction creep. As to "the 'junior' with a comma" who but an American would use "junior" and so care about it? -- PBS ( talk) 19:50, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Maybe this would help as these come from the style guides that Wikipedia has used to form its own style guide:
There is a new RfC at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biographies#Request for comment: Child named for parent or predecessor. DrKiernan ( talk) 07:34, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
As a Britton, this is my standard usage, and I like it. It makes sense to have acronyms written as lowercase, and initialisms as uppercase. It grants more information to the reader, and looks better typographically. As an example, one uses Isil, Isis, Ukip, Nato, but UN, NSA, USSR, &c. I would propose that this common and standard usage should not be proscribed. In fact, I'd recommend that it be recommended, but I know that won't gain consensus. Is there any reason why we should not be able to write "Isis" or "Syriza", rather than "ISIS" or "SYRIZA"? See the style manual of The Guardian. RGloucester — ☎ 22:03, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
I would make the following observations. Acronyms, as opposed to initialisms may be capitalised in varying ways, either all capitals, initial capitals and in some cases, when the word has passed into common usage, no capitals (eg scuba). There is no hard and fast rule, certainly not globally. The convention cited by
RGloucester , while it is a recognised convention, I would be surprised if it was followed with sufficient consistency to be considered a 'national' variation. There is also no clear distinction between acronyms and initialisms since some unlikely initialisms become acronymised. I would suggest the following guidance. If there exists an article about the acronym (ie
NATO), then ideally, referring to NATO should use the same style that has been used within the main article. If no article exists for the subject acronym, then capitalisation should be resolved by considering constant consistent usage in source material (unfortunately, this may well become a matter of contention). There is no issue with the use of initial capitals only as a style, since the acronym or initialism should be made explicit at first usage and this style is acknowledged by
Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Capital letters#Acronyms.
Incidentally, The MOS, at Periods (full stops) and spaces does not distinguish an initialism from an acronym but refers to both as acronyms - perhaps a matter deserving attention or perhaps not.
Too much is said to be implied of the MOS when the MOS is actually silent on a subject. Too much is asserted or assumed about the universality of English conventions when conventions might vary regionally, nationally or even, within a nation. I see that too much contention exists because of perceptions (and misperceptions) as they relate to varying conventions of usage. Different 'parties' will argue that the MOS carries more or less weight on a particular subject than it actually does. Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Abbreviations#Acronyms identifies that there are varying forms of capitalisation for acronyms but gives no advice on determining correct capitalisation. Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Abbreviations#Miscellanea lists some acronyms and this may be taken as a statement of style for these. Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Capital letters#Acronyms states: "Many acronyms are written in all capitals, such as NATO, BBC, JPEG. However, some acronyms have gained common usage as ordinary, lowercase words; for example, we write scuba and laser." It ignores the case of acronyms with initial capitals and may be misconstrued as a statement of style. This inconsistency should be remedied.
I see some value in providing some guidance on how to capitalise acronyms mainly because the subject is left hanging and a matter of conjecture. Perhaps such guidance might be something similar to the observations I have made. I would suggest it be added at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Abbreviations#Acronyms. Such guidance need not clutter the main text. Such advice or clarification may well best be added as an annotation. Would this be instructional creep? I think not. If anything, it more clearly defines the scope of the MOS on this matter and thereby limits 'creep'. I think such disambiguating statements are potentially of great value, since they clarify perceptions and misperceptions about the universallity or otherwise of conventions of English. Cinderella157 ( talk) 23:28, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
I omitted the footnotes here, but they provide telling reading in the article. — sroc 💬 04:52, 1 March 2015 (UTC)Although the word acronym is widely used to refer to any abbreviation formed from initial letters, in contradistinction to an initialism (or alphabetism)—a word or abbreviation formed from a string of initials—whereas some others include additional senses equating acronym with initialism. The distinction, when made, hinges on whether the abbreviation is pronounced as a word or as a string of individual letters. Examples in reference works that make the distinction include NATO /ˈneɪtoʊ/, scuba /ˈskuːbə/, and radar /ˈreɪdɑːr/ for acronyms, and FBI /ˌɛfˌbiːˈaɪ/, CRT /ˌˈsiːˌɑːrˌtiː/, and HTML /ˌeɪtʃˌtiːˌɛmˈɛl/ for initialisms.
acronyms A number of commentators (as Copperud 1970, Janis 1984, Howard 1984) believe that acronyms can be differentiated from other abbreviations in being pronounceable as words. Dictionaries, however, do not make this distinction because writers in general do not
acronym: a word, usu[ally] pronounced as such, formed from the initial letters of other words (e.g. Ernie, laser, Nato)
acronym: a word created from the first letters of each word in a series of words.
acronym: a word (as NATO, radar, or laser) formed from the initial letter or letters of each of the successive parts or major parts of a compound term; also: an abbreviation (as FBI) formed from initial letters: see initialism
However, some linguists do not recognize a sharp distinction between acronyms and initialisms, but use the former term for both.
acronym. 1. a word created from the first letter or letters of each word in a series of words or a phrase. 2. a set of initials representing a name, organization, or the like, with each letter pronounced separately, as FBI for Federal Bureau of Investigation.
Usage Note: ... Acronyms are often distinguished from initialisms like FBI and NIH, whose individual letters are pronounced as separate syllables. While observing this distinction has some virtue in precision, it may be lost on many people, for whom the term acronym refers to both kinds of abbreviations.
The Macquarie Dictionary (1st ed) list 'acronym' as being only the pronounced definition (ie is exclusive of initialisms). As the word is not universally understood and can have varying meanings, I would suggest that it should be defined in the text as including initialisms, if that is what is intended. The definition should also acknowledge the more general meaning, so as not to falsely imply that 'acronym' universally includes initialisms. I note the the lead of MOS:Caps was edited to replace "acronyms and initialisms" with just "acronyms"? It is frequently a false premise to assume universality in a global context. I don't think that it should necessarily be acknowledged as specifically British, but certainly, it should be acknowledged and guidance given in determining the appropriate style. Cinderella157 ( talk) 06:31, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
An ngram shows that uses of "NATO" far outweigh "Nato" (by a ratio of 71:1 in 2008), even when restricted to British English (55:1). — sroc 💬 14:08, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
@ AgnosticAphid and others. I have not suggested that RGloucester 's proposal be adopted but it has identified a number of inconsistencies. Firstly, it cannot be claimed that 'acronym' is universally understood to include initialisms. This is already confusing and needs to be remedied at the point of use. WP documentation already acknowledges the use of inital capitalisation for acronyms. However, there are inconsistencies which suggest that acronyms are only ever capitalised fully. These should be reconciled. I had also suggested it might be appropriate to provide guidance on how to capitalise an acronym (as per previous suggestion or similar). Cinderella157 ( talk) 21:42, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
{{
R from abbreviation}}
, {{
R from initialism}}
, {{
R from acronym}}
.
LeadSongDog
come howl!
17:52, 5 March 2015 (UTC)I can’t find anything about this in the MOS, but is there any consensus around the use of future tense in articles? For instance, So-and-so will do such-and-such[1] as opposed to So-and-so announced that he would do such-and-such[1]. — 174.141.182.82 ( talk) 04:16, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
Is there any formal guidance that essentially says "You should not create a section for every sentence" ? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:35, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
This talk discussion related to the use of the term "intestine" here to mean "inner" or "internal" will clearly be unfamiliar to almost every reader, since it dates back to the 18th century (and "more recently" in one instance). A comment on the talk page says: "The reason for the use here is rhetorical, to bring the reader to pause and reflect on the essential inaccessibility to direct observation of the mechanisms of atomic and subatomic processes." Since the first cited use predates the entire field (quantum mechanics) by more than a century, and the second use is by a writer about science rather than a scientist, this seems to me like an editor taking extreme oratory liberties. The editor concerned may feel that a literary allusion that will escape (and quite frankly, confuse) essentially 100% of the readership, without even the courtesy if an explanatory footnote, is reasonable and is clearly unaware of "some reason why Wikipedia should avoid such scientific literary allusion or such oddity". Perhaps we need something in the MoS to limit "colourful or slightly eccentric or obsolete" language in our articles? Perhaps there is already something of this ilk in the MoS? — Quondum 03:12, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
The Manual of Style documents Wikipedia's house style. Its goal is to make using Wikipedia easier and more intuitive by promoting clarity and cohesion while helping editors write articles with consistent and precise language, layout, and formatting. Plain English works best; avoid ambiguity, jargon, and vague or unnecessarily complex wording.
This isn't really an MOS issue. It's a simple dispute over what word to use in one specific sentence of one specific article. If agreement (consensus) can not be reached between the few brothers arguing over this, call in some neutral third parties (per Wikipedia:Third opinion) by filing an RFC. Sometimes using an archaic word is best... but most of the time using an archaic word is not best. No comment (here) on whether using one is best in this specific instance. That's what talk pages are for. I will comment there. Blueboar ( talk) 16:10, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
I've asked a question about the conversion of measurements of cue tip sizes at talk:Cue stick#cue tip size "Don't convert". I'm soliciting wider input as that was the first edit to the page since 2012 and it doesn't appear widely watched. Please comment there to avoid duplication. Thanks, Thryduulf ( talk) 19:34, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
Does MOS cover things like encyclopaedia/encyclopedia or mediaeval/medieval (where not a formal title or quote) anywhere? I thought it did. -- Dweller ( talk) 11:48, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
UK news source The BBC, says "medieval", [8] UK newspaper The Guardian's style guide says "medieval". [9] -- Dweller ( talk) 12:23, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks chaps. I'm looking for guidance mostly on the word "mediaeval", which as I've demonstrated in the links I've brought, is no longer a mainstream spelling in BrEng. -- Dweller ( talk) 21:54, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
CurrentText:
Where a quoted sentence is followed by a clause identifying the speaker, a comma outside the quotation should be used in place of a full stop inside, but other terminal punctuation may be retained. Again, a question should end with a question mark.
Dory said: "Yes, I can read", which gave Marlin an idea.
Dory said: "Yes, I can read!", which gave Marlin an idea.
...
There is no following clause identifying the speaker in either example. My guess is that "identifying the speaker" should be removed, but I haven't been following this. Modal Jig ( talk) 20:26, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
I have a few questions regarding the usage of "i.e" and "e.g." on Wikipedia. The MoS only briefly mentions it MoS § 5.3, but there isn't a clear elaboration on whether a comma should follow after either, and under which circumstances should a comma rightly follow. Manuals of style differ significantly on this issue, with some claiming that it should be used after "e.g." but not after "i.e.", since the latter typically addresses a singular entity whereas the former often lists a number of examples. Others simply state to place a comma after both, just as one would do so with the English translations of each abbreviation ("for example" and "that is", respectively). What is Wikipedia's stance on this? Should a comma always follow, or should it only follow if more than one entity is listed, or should it never follow, or only follow for one and not another (and only under certain circumstances)? What about when using these abbreviations to start a sentence? I've seen inconsistent usage throughout numerous Wikipedia articles, including ones which have been featured or marked as a "good article". Need I even mention the inconsistent usage among Wikipedians themselves?
Another issue I've noticed is whether it's appropriate to use these Latin abbreviations when an English phrase may suffice. There is quite some controversy surrounding this issue with valid points having been made on both sides. I'm largely ambivalent about this issue and although I have an affinity for Latin phrases, I understand the need for Wikipedia to be clear and understandable for everyone (despite the existence of Simple English Wikipedia articles). The lack of clarity and consensus on these two issues, however, only leads to an overall inconsistency among articles.
One final issue of notable mention is whether these abbreviations should be italicized. I'll provide information about that below as well, and it can be another topic of discussion if needed.
I have already searched through the archives and have primarily found debates surrounding whether such abbreviations should even be allowed. If this debate needs to be revitalized, then I suppose we might as well use this post to do so, though I believe both issues should be receive some serious consideration. Since both issues seem to be somewhat related, I've tried to compile all major instances wherein discussion was had regarding the usage of "i.e." and "e.g.". If I've missed any, feel free to let me know. Considering the wide range of opinions therein, I've decided to not summarize each section. Feel free to peruse them at your own leisure.
The following are all major instances wherein the usage of "i.e." and "e.g." as abbreviations was disputed: Archive (abbreviations and acronyms) § 4, Archive 3 § 23, Archive 4 § 8, Accessibility Archive 5 § 12, Archive 14 § 9, Archive 22 § 1, Archive 41 § 2, Archive 63 § 5, Archive 94 § 7, Archive 162 § 33
The following are all major instances wherein the usage of a comma after "i.e." and "e.g" was disputed: Abbreviations Archive 2 § 51, Text Formatting Archive 4 § 15, Archive 150 § 21
The following are all major instances wherein the italicization of "i.e." and "e.g." (and "etc.") have been disputed: Abbreviations Archive 2 § 26, Archive 108 § 18, Archive 108 § 40
Regarding all these issues, I believe there needs to be a clear consensus on when to use these Latin abbreviations, whether to follow them with a comma (and in which instances, if any), and whether they should be italicized when used. I apologize if I'm beating a dead horse or if I'm reviving an old topic which may be better left dead, but I feel this hole in the MoS needs to be mended. I'm not trying to stir up controversy, only summarize the issue and revive a discussion I believe should be had, especially since there is so much inconsistency in this respect within Wikipedia and among Wikipedians. If this post is inappropriate, feel free to state as much or do whatever is necessary to rectify the situation. I'm still new to Wikipedia, and although I'm trying to be bold, I understand that some faux pas are bound to occur. Hopefully, this is not one of them.
The usage of commas following " i.e." and " e.g." may be a matter of MOS:COMMA and MOS:ENGVAR, since the rules are different depending on whether American English or British English is used. Clarification on this may or may not be needed in the MoS.
Regards,
Nøkkenbuer ( talk) 13:41, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
The text should clarify that the "punctuation" that usually proceeds footnotes is rendered punctuation, and has absolutely nothing to do with wiki markup. I would think this goes without saying, but I've run into problems at At Freddie's#Character summary over this. That section consists of a table given in
format. One of the labels has a footnote, because one RS got the character's name wrong repeatedly. In the course of editing I originally had the wrong name because of this, and I discovered the mistake before posting. So I added an explanatory footnote for the sake of any future reader/editor who reads the article with this particular RS at hand, resulting in
Yobot came along and put the reference after the colon, and after some discussion with Yobot's maintainer, settled on fooling the bot with a comment
Then along came a human who relies on a bot to find problems, who then edited this, citing MOS:REFPUNC as his justification, putting the Warning! way at the far end
which is just plain silly, since the Warning! is supposed to be attached to the problem text, not something that might be overlooked, especially if that explanatory string gets expanded. When I left a message on the human's Talk page that I had put it back, I was astonished that he defended his edit. I gave a longer explanation of why his choice was silly, he has not responded since.
Anyway, I think this is a complete no-brainer. Style always refers to what readers see, not editors. I mean, heck, if I had created and maintained the table with some kind of visual editor, I might not even be able to comprehend what someone saying "ref after punc!" was babbling about.
I am not going to be bold, though. I recommend some brief clarification in the lede and a longer comment in REFPUNC, at least advice on ways to fool a bot. In addition to the above example, one might explicitly advise we do not change
into
or other markup read as punctuation games you can think up. Choor monster ( talk) 12:30, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
@ Choor monster and Sroc: I agree that MOS already support Choor monster's side and of course the bot was incorrect in that case. Since we have very few false positives with the current code (Yobot et al. correct approx. 1000 pages per day on this particular error), I only say that you could help us by adding newlines. You don't have to. It's only to help since it does not change anything in the visual result. Moreover, it's true that I, and I can presume Bgwhite too, really got confused with the double dot in there. I am frank when I say that I might have tried to "fix" the punctuation in that particular article because I was not aware that ";" and ":" work like that. Conclusion: Choor monster is right. No MOS addition is needed. The comment is a good solution to help bots too. I think we could use newlines to make code easier to read and avoid similar mistakes like I did. Thanks, Magioladitis ( talk) 19:06, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
At least the way it currently is, ARTCON is not helping to calm arguments in some cases. My first concern here is with regard to international events, where there is a significant domination of certain dialect varieties over other dialects in articles that were previously mixed in dialect but changed over to one dialect (when British English, often done using scripts). Perhaps there should be some sort of alternative means of having consistency without clearly favoring certain dialects over others. Currently, editors just choose what favors their preferences (without admitting it) when the ARTCON arguments conflict with each other, whether it be arguments to retain the existing variety (MOS:RETAIN), to follow national ties (MOS:TIES), or to use the dialect used in the "first non-stub revision". If none of those arguments are applicable, editors who don't like the way an article currently is will just ignore the Manual of Style and do whatever it takes to keep their preferred variety even if they clearly are wrong. Example: An article is consistent, but the variety it is using is unsupported by the Manual of Style, which supports another variety. 50% of editors in a discussion want the article to remain with Variety 1, and 50% think it should be changed to Variety 2 based on the Manual of Style. Even though the editors arguing for Variety 1 are incorrect, they make up 50% so the people actually justifying a change to Variety 2 with the Manual of Style cannot do anything because they will just be reverted and told to discuss if they make the change. This shows that it is easier to keep an article in its current variety (even if it is wrong) than it is to change it. Not all dialect arguments are this obvious. Sometimes, Group 1 might think the current variety is proper under MOS:RETAIN, and Group 2 might think that it should be changed per MOS:TIES. Then Group 1 argues that MOS:RETAIN is stronger and that MOS:TIES does not apply, and Group 2 will say MOS:TIES does apply, and so on. This is another issue: What should be done where MOS:TIES conflicts with MOS:RETAIN? What should be done where interpretations of the Manual of Style significantly vary? How can conflict of interest (Americans almost always favoring American English, British almost always favoring British English, etc.) be countered? These issues are troubling and can be frustrating. In my opinion, ARTCON should be clarified and maybe there should be certain situations outlined where it might not necessarily apply (exceptions). I am still open to other solutions, though. Regardless of how such issues may be addressed, they should be addressed in some way. Dustin (talk) 20:28, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
An article on a topic that has strong ties to a particular English-speaking nation should use the English of that nation. For example:
- Great Fire of London (British English)
- American Civil War (American English)
- Institutions of the European Union (British or Irish English)
- Australian Defence Force ( Australian English)
- Vancouver ( Canadian English)
- Mumbai ( Indian English)
- Usain Bolt ( Jamaican English)
- Christchurch ( New Zealand English)
In an article about a modern writer, it is often a good choice to use the variety of English in which the subject wrote, especially if the writings are quoted. For example, J. R. R. Tolkien used British English with Oxford spelling.
This guideline should not be used to claim national ownership of any article; see Wikipedia:Ownership of articles.
The examples are all unambiguous. Note that it says a "particular" nation, as opposed to all others. If an article has ties to more than one, by default, it does not have strong ties to a particular English-speaking nation. If an article is inconsistent, there is nothing disruptive about standardising the article style per MOS:RETAIN and ARTCON. The methods for standardising are specified by our guidelines. They say "When no English variety has been established and discussion cannot resolve the issue, the variety used in the first non-stub revision is considered the default. If no English variety was used consistently, the tie is broken by the first post-stub contributor to introduce text written in a particular English variety". If someone changes an inconsistent article to a variety other than that used in the first non-stub revision, then they've not followed the guidelines. It is perfectly acceptable to establish one variety as standard, and in fact our guidelines demand it. It is merely a matter of doing so in the manner prescribed. RGloucester — ☎ 18:05, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
About {{ Subject bar}}. Reading WP:LAYOUTEL, this bar should be right above any navboxes. Certainly not in the See also section. Can someone confirm that? - DePiep ( talk) 10:01, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
An RfC has been commenced at MOSCAPS Request for comment - Capitalise universe.
Cinderella157 ( talk) 03:23, 22 March 2015 (UTC)