![]() | 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 200 | Archive 201 | Archive 202 | Archive 203 | Archive 204 | Archive 205 | → | Archive 210 |
Please see Talk:Billy Graham rule#Logical quotation in this article. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 07:15, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
The fact that the first [fragment presented as a] sentence could be a complete sentence is exactly why it needs terminating punctuation outside the quotes, to distinguish it as a fragment.. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 16:08, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
References
I started this about the use of past tense when referring to historical events but no one has commented there, so I'm adding this to see if I can get more thoughts on the subject. It certainly is not subject specific anyway. MB 20:00, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
Would it be worth putting a list somewhere in Wikipedia space of words that editors may not realize have different meanings in different English varieties? It doesn't really seem to be the sort of thing WP:WTW is meant to address, and it's probably too specific to put in WP:ENGVAR, but it would be nice to have some sort of resource calling out words like cornflour (which means cornmeal in the States but cornstarch in the UK). -- Trovatore ( talk) 03:17, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
"Different meanings in different English varieties" appears to fall under "expressions that lack precision" which are indeed addressed in WP:WTW. So an addition to WP:WTW could well note this type of hazard and potentially point to a list of trouble-maker terms. Whether that list should reside in article or Wikipedia space is debatable. Wikipedia:List of commonly misused English words and Wikipedia:Lists of common misspellings are of a similar genre. The discussion that moved the WP:list of commonly misused English words to Wikipedia space is here. That debate revolved around issues of whether encyclopedic, POV around standards of English, usefulness to editors and original research versus freedom from sourcing requirements. Such issues would apply here. Batternut ( talk) 10:00, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
Hey there,
In Template:Sfn, parameters p and pp are used. Sometimes users mess up which one to use (like I did in John Glenn), and I am looking into ways to make it so users cannot mess it up. Some options:
Thoughts on this? Is there something major I am missing? Kees08 (Talk) 02:47, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
loc=
field, but editors aren't always aware of that field's existence and try to shoehorn things into the page field. (One that comes up fairly regularly is Middleton Press, who maintain the affectation of not numbering their pages and instead numbering the sections of their text using Roman numerals for sections of the introduction and modern numerals for sections of the body text; see
this reference for an example of a citation to a numbered section using {{
sfn}}.) We actually want the template to generate an error when it comes across something it isn't sure how to handle, rather than attempting to guess what the person entering its data meant, as otherwise we're not only potentially directing readers to the wrong part of the source, we're not making the person using the template aware that they're using it incorrectly. ‑
Iridescent
10:47, 9 February 2018 (UTC)p
and loc
, especially with legal codes, where loc can be very handy for, e.g., §17.3.4.1.1 where the page number alone isn't enough. As someone who uses p=
and pp=
in the right way, I would not be happy to see the template "dumbed down" by a regex that tries to reinterpret my use of p
to figure out if I "really" meant to use pp
. Maybe the page number really is "5–7" (and the next page is "5–8"). As long as there's a way to preserve old functionality, I don't care what new features they add. I'm even okay with having to use a new param I didn't have to use before ({{sfn|Smith|2009|p=5–7|yesIreallyMeanIt=1}}
to get it to do what it did before, but just please don't remove existing functionality; thanks.
Mathglot (
talk)
07:33, 12 February 2018 (UTC)Is there any particular reason why the post-nominal "MP" isn't used in the lead paragraphs for British MPs? I have just been reverted by Sam Blacketer, who left me this message on my talkpage, without citing any specific policy barring the inclusion of the "MP" post-nominal outside of infoboxes for British parliamentarians. It is worth pointing out that for Canadian parliamentarians, for example Justin Trudeau, the "MP" post-nominal is included both in the infobox and lead section. Per Debrett's: "In formal address, the letters ‘MP’ are always shown for a member of parliament. They are shown seventh in the order of precedence of letters after the name." I think this calls for an RfC.-- Neve: selbert 21:35, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
WP:DNFT -- Jayron 32 13:03, 8 March 2018 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
American English usage has long called for commas and periods to always be placed inside a closed quotation mark, regardless of whether the quotation mark is part of the quoted material. Other punctuation depends on whether it is or is not part of the quoted material. British usage treats all punctuation the same for this purpose. Apparently, Wikipedia adopts British usage for periods and commas, and this is simply wrong for U.S. English. I have tried to correct this incorrect usage on several occasions, and I have received a message that I am wrong. I am not the one who is wrong. It it is not up to an outlet like Wikipedia to change standard usage in American usage. This is not your role. I protest, and ask that you correct your mistaken manual of style. I will no longer allow students to cite Wikipedia for any purpose. The language is already corrupted enough without your assistance. And I'm not even an English teacher, just a teacher who cares about the language. Thanks. John Allison — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.182.104.248 ( talk) 03:29, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
|
Ya'll shoulda never collapsed this! (he says as he dodges bullets) Paine Ellsworth put'r there 18:09, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
Batternut, Sangdeboeuf, and myself ran into an interesting problem in a discussion at The lady doth protest too much, methinks.
In an article whose subject is a quotation, which takes precedence: WORDSASWORDS or NOITALQUOTE?
To briefly summarise, MOS:NOITALQUOTE says that quotations should be placed within quote marks and that one should not use italics for quotes, and MOS:WORDSASWORDS says that when one talks about a word as a word, rather than just using the word (i.e. the use–mention distinction), it should be placed in italics. However, both guidelines are written to deal with your typical quotation or use in the body of an article on some random topic (e.g. a biography, or a film, etc.) and so contain no guidance that directly addresses an article that is about the quotation itself.
It seems fairly obvious that for such articles you will in general have many instances where you refer to the quotation (mention), and probably also many cases where you give the quotation (use). However, in an article about the quotation itself, you get the added problem of how to deal with the bolded first sentence instance of the article's subject (where, due to the typical formulation, it will almost always be a mention).
The three of us went a couple of rounds on this—one editor taking one position, one the opposite, one waffling back and forth—and then hit a dead end. In this specific case, the two guidelines as written, appear to be in direct conflict, and neither address the relevant case directly. Thus we're here asking for both broader discussion, and, hopefully, input from editors familiar with the discussions that led up to the two relevant MOS sections. Or, obviously, other policy/guideline/MOS guidance that could help cut the knot. -- Xover ( talk) 07:36, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
Quotation marks alone are sufficient, implying that some editors are tempted to use both quotation marks and italics. Since the vast majority of quotations on Wikipedia are not in articles about those quotations, NOITALQUOTE seems to refer only to times when Wikipedia itself is quoting a source, not when a quotation itself is the subject. I don't think it necessarily applies to a case like this, where common sense suggests that this is not a typical case of "quoting".
MOS:ITALQUOTE goes into more detail: For quotations, use only quotation marks (for short quotations) or block quoting (for long ones), not italics [...] a quotation is not italicized inside quotation marks or a block quote just because it is a quotation
(emphasis mine). This isn't a case of both italics and quotation marks, but of using italics to mark a mentioned phrase per the
use-mention distinction. —
Sangdeboeuf (
talk)
09:20, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
barf quotes ad nauseam? That seems redundant.
[The unpopular politician] was therefore hoist on his own petard, so to speak., but we would never here write along the lines of
Methinks [the female pop star] protests too much in this regard.WORDSASWORDS (and common sense) doesn't mandate italics, only provide them as the way to do it when a use—mention distinction is necessary, and since our use of the phrase is always a mention, we never need to make that distinction.Thus a quote is a quote and should have quotation marks, and doesn't need italics to distinguish our mentions of it from our non-existent uses of it.I'm sure we'll run into some exception somewhere, but for the wast majority of cases, including specifically in the first sentence of the lead of our articles about quotes, this should cover it. Which, I believe, is what Curly Turkey had previously said with far more brevity. :) -- Xover ( talk) 19:25, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
Ok, based on all the above, the prevailing opinion seems to boil down to "Just use quote marks" with a side helping of "You're overthinking this". EEng doesn't express an opinion, but adds a few other interesting examples, and Sangdeboeuf argues for italics, but everyone else that has participated lands on quote marks. Several participants also mention cases where italics might be appropriate, and, as Batternut has pointed out, when discussing the use—mention distinction we're properly in philosophical territory, and most of the discussion above has been in the abstract. I will therefore try to make it concrete in order to test whether the apparent consensus above holds. First, for reference, a pruned excerpt from the article as it stands right now; and attempted applications of the discussion above. Instances in green are, I believe, uncontroversial; the ones in maroon are the ones (again, AIUI) we're trying to settle (my emendations are blue).
The lady doth protest too much, methinks is a line from the c. 1600 play Hamlet by William Shakespeare. […] The phrase is used in everyday speech to indicate doubt in someone's sincerity. A common misquotation places methinks first, as in methinks the lady doth protest too much. […]
Hamlet then turns to his mother and asks her, "Madam, how like you this play?", to which she replies ironically "The lady doth protest too much, methinks", meaning that the Player Queen's protestations of love and fidelity are too excessive to be believed. The quotation comes from the Second Quarto edition of the play. Later versions contain the simpler line, "The lady protests too much, methinks". […]
As in the play, it is commonly used to imply that someone who denies something very strongly is hiding the truth. It is is often shortened to (X) protest(s) too much, or misquoted with methinks at the beginning, as in methinks the lady doth protest too much.
The quotation's meaning has changed somewhat since it was first written: whereas in modern parlance protest in this context often means a denial, in Shakespeare's time to protest meant "to make protestation or solemn affirmation" [quoth OED].
"The lady doth protest too much, methinks" is a line from the c. 1600 play Hamlet by William Shakespeare. […] The phrase is used in everyday speech to indicate doubt in someone's sincerity. A common misquotation places methinks first, as in "methinks the lady doth protest too much". […]
Hamlet then turns to his mother and asks her, "Madam, how like you this play?", to which she replies ironically "The lady doth protest too much, methinks", meaning that the Player Queen's protestations of love and fidelity are too excessive to be believed. The quotation comes from the Second Quarto edition of the play. Later versions contain the simpler line, "The lady protests too much, methinks". […]
As in the play, it is commonly used to imply that someone who denies something very strongly is hiding the truth. It is is often shortened to "(X) protest(s) too much", or misquoted with methinks at the beginning, as in "methinks the lady doth protest too much". [this could go either way, depending on whether you intend it to (mis)quote Shakespeare or illustrate a phrasal template that happens to be derived from Shakespeare]
The quotation's meaning has changed somewhat since it was first written: whereas in modern parlance protest in this context often means a denial, in Shakespeare's time to protest meant "to make protestation or solemn affirmation" [quoth OED].
So… Could Batternut, Sangdeboeuf, Curly Turkey, David Eppstein, EEng, SMcCandlish, and Primergrey please indicate whether one or the other of these examples are in line with their position. Or if not, what changes should be made relative to it to be in line with their position. Absent indications to the contrary, I'll assert the latter version (the "Just use quote marks, you dummy!" version) as reflecting a consensus of the discussion above.
PS. Sangdeboeuf: I'm assuming you favor the former version (what is currently in the article in mainspace), so you do not need to explicitly indicate this again unless you wish to add or correct something.
PPS. If indications are that I've correctly assessed the above debate, I propose that we then move any further discussions on details, or on implementing the consensus, back to the article's talk page. No need to bug WT:MOS once we're back to discussing a single article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xover ( talk • contribs) 08:23, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
I just made this edit to correct an earlier edit with what I believe to be a style error, as described in the edit summary there. I looked for guidance re vowel-consonant harmony in the MOS before making the edit and did not find any. It seems to me that the MOS ought to include some guidance on this. This case was {{a ? an}} United States Army (probably following on an earlier edit inserting of United States for clarity). Another case I've seen where guidance would be useful is {{a ? an}} historic ( WP:ENGVAR dependent, I think). There may be more cases. I'm neither a grammarian nor a MOS guru, so I won't propose specifics and will leave it for possible discussion by regular editors here. Cheers. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:52, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
You may be interested in the proposal/discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Observe MOS:FONTSIZE in infobox templates. ― Mandruss ☎ 00:12, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
Regarding this edit to the guideline by Anythingyouwant in January of this year and this edit by Politrukki to WP:Plagiarism, are we allowing quotes without in-text attribution now? WP:Plagiarism still states, "In addition to an inline citation, in-text attribution is usually required when quoting or closely paraphrasing source material." And it is still recommended in its "Avoiding plagiarism" section. SlimVirgin, PBS, you've both edited WP:Plagiarism, as have I. Any thoughts? I know that Moonriddengirl, mainly known for her handling of copyright and plagiarism issues, usually isn't on Wikipedia these days. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 22:28, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
I'm of the opinion that all quotes should be attributed. I strongly object to any change away from this policy unless a RfC shows that the wider Wikipedia community supports looseing the guidelines. LK ( talk) 03:13, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
"Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale."(from WP:LOCALCONSENSUS). If it seems likely that the wider consensus of Wikipedia has a different opinion than the few editors discussing the phrasing on the talk page (as it is less of a style issue, and more of a verifibiality/NPOV issue) then we should have an RfC. E to the Pi times i ( talk | contribs) 22:27, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
The Manual of Style requires in-text attribution when quoting a full sentence or more.included in WP:Plagiarism because it was derived from MOS or was it because of a wider consensus (in the form of policy, guideline, or wider discussion)? If it is the latter, we may still be able to protect the idea behind the text while making improvements – like removing the reference to MOS or expanding the body – without an RFC. Politrukki ( talk) 10:28, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
Specifically A Prairie Home Companion. "Is a formerly weekly"? "Is a weekly"? Drop the "weekly" entirely? - Immigrant laborer ( talk) 19:42, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
Hi all, just noting that the RFC on ENGVAR-related templates, which had been archived without being closed and is at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Archive_201#Re-deprecate_and_merge_the_ENGVAR-related_templates_that_do_not_serve_an_encyclopedic_purpose has now been closed following a request at Wikipedia:Requests for closure. The consensus was in opposition to the proposal. Cheers, Fish+ Karate 13:41, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
Opinions are needed on the following: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Lead section#Italicize the term for an article about a term?. A permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 02:11, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
This is probably (nay, undoubtedly) answered somewhere else... but I can't find it. So, quick question: do we still commonly capitalize the initial letter of 'Internet' when referring to "the" internet (ie, this thing we're on now, not just various interconnected networks that we might otherwise use)? Have we discussed whether we should still be doing this recently? I ask for information only. ◦ Trey Maturin 19:19, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
Hi. I'd like to get from feedback from some "grammar experts" out there about this. 137.187.232.48 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS) has been on a rampage removing commas from years, mainly at the beginning of sentences, citing Comma#In dates. For example [2]. Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Commas shows an example of "He set October 1, 2011, as the deadline...", but this is a different case. I've seen websites say we don't need a comma after a month, year combo such as "They were married in January 2011 in Las Vegas." This sounds right in my head, but at the beginning of sentence it seems to have a different tone. "In January 2011, they were married in Las Vegas." or "In January 2011 they were married in Las Vegas." To me the former sounds better. Even more so "In 2011, they were married in Las Vegas." vs "In 2011 they were married in Las Vegas." But we can't go by sound, so does anyone have any sources of what to do in case like this, especially usage at the beginning of a sentence, and perhaps add it to the MoS? We may also consider adding an example for British date format, as I believe they never use a comma after a full date such as in, "Gerrard made his Liverpool first-team debut on 29 November 1998 in a Premier League match against Blackburn Rovers."? Thanks. Vaselineeeeeeee ★★★ 20:05, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
Although it is not strictly required, it is considered good style to follow introductory dependent clauses containing dates with a comma. Translation: The comma's not a grammatical requirement after all, but if you're not a very good writer and can't make an intelligent decision for yourself, you're safer including it. E Eng 20:44, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
using a comma for the introductory clause constitutes "not being a very good writer" or "not making an intelligent decision". I said that those who aren't good writers, and (thus) are unable to make an intelligent decision on their own, are safer including the comma. I'm sorry, but any blanket statement that "there's no denying the flow sounds much better with the comma", without seeing the rest of the sentence, is an immediate self-indictment. Next to the dash – which is essentially impossible to use ungrammatically – the comma is the most flexible of the punctuation marks. There are a handful of places where it's a blunder to include or omit them, but elsewhere their use is guided by pacing and rhythm, not rigid rules. English is not a programming language. E Eng 21:36, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
to elevate WP:RETAIN so that it applies to any condition where there are multiple acceptable ways of doing something. That says, flat out, that once someone writes something "acceptable", that can't be changed without our most cherished ritual, consensus. Thus if an article says "attained a higher altitude", I couldn't change that to "went higher", because they're both acceptable. E Eng 09:25, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
"We're not talking about what RETAIN currently says, but rather what Stepho-wrs proposes i.e. to elevate WP:RETAIN so that it applies to any condition where there are multiple acceptable ways of doing something. That says, flat out, that once someone writes something "acceptable", that can't be changed without our most cherished ritual, consensus. Thus if an article says "attained a higher altitude", I couldn't change that to "went higher", because they're both acceptable."This is productive discussion, even if in a tone that you don't prefer. The example isn't nonsense, it's a legitimate concern with changing the policy for WP:RETAIN. E to the Pi times i ( talk | contribs) 04:12, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
[3] Not correct to quote like this in English. "Hello," he said -- comma inside quotes. Only outside if a fragment: it was "quite nasty", he claimed. 31.50.6.57 ( talk) 20:26, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
Possibly the best solution would be a line at the beginning of each article containing a couple dozen commas, and also some semicolons, quotation marks, and so forth. The reader could then be instructed to mentally sprinkle them throughout the text in whatever manner she finds pleasing.
Wikipedia's style prescriptions result in, for example, the title Style guide rather than Style Guide. OK, got it. (And as it happens, I am sure that this is for the better.)
This extends outside articles, too: Wikipedia:No original research, not Wikipedia:No Original Research.
So why not Wikipedia:Manual of style and instead Wikipedia:Manual of Style? -- Hoary ( talk) 00:31, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
I disagree that an implementation of our style guide on internal pages would have the effect you imagine. We use contractions, address the reader directly, and a whole host of other non-MOS-compliant things on these pages. An RM would be a great way to get all the opponents of a site-wide style guide into a lather as the conversation would turn, after about 5 minutes, into, "If we change this page, I guess we'll be changing all the P&G pages?" No, anyone who uses this page's title not following the MOS as justification for overcapitalization doesn't have a leg to stand on and shouldn't be taken seriously anyway. Primergrey ( talk) 21:41, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
Hi, could someone please have a look at the User_talk:Twofortnights#Disclaimer and weigh in whether an in-article disclaimer would be in accordance with Wiki style. Thanks.-- Twofortnights ( talk) 23:25, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
Q: Can a consensus of the TV wikiproject to use the format Season 1, 2 etc. in text and headings in articles about TV series co-exist with the WP-wide policy MOS:NUM for the format Season One, Two etc.? Further, I see MOS:NUM does refer to article text. Is there any general policy for headings or can either be used? MapReader ( talk) 08:10, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
I have seen differing usage on tv pages. -- Alex TW 06:47, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
I noticed Joeyconnick reverted my edit which moved the footnote about apostrophe encoding to the end. I feel this footnote should be encoded at the end because it is referenced in multiple places, and there's no reason to choose a specific place as the main placement. Alternatively, the spread out referencing may indicate that the footnote's information merits its own section. E to the Pi times i ( talk | contribs) 20:16, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
It appears that biographies on WP are routinely ignoring the guidance in MOS:HYPHEN and instead are using the hyphen-minus. Is there consensus to do so, or did it just slide under the radar? LeadSongDog come howl! 21:29, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
The hyphen-minus is the standard glyph for a hyphen (as it says at Hyphen-minus, "The hyphen-minus (-) is a character used in digital documents and computing to represent a hyphen"). Hyphen-minus is the name that Unicode made up for this code point and glyph, to recognize that in addition to being used for hyphen it's also commonly used (in code, not in typography) as minus sign. I'm pretty sure that MOS:HYPHEN never meant to suggest otherwise, but perhaps it needs an explicit clarification is someone is questioning that. Dicklyon ( talk) 00:14, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
'
is used instead of the fancier curved Unicode apostrophes. Generally, if we're going to adopt standards, we should maximize accessibility, not prescribe Unicode specifications to our encoding.
E to the Pi times i (
talk |
contribs)
14:49, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
MOS:HYPHEN is about hyphenation in general; only the first line is about surnames. Why pick out surnames only? Following the OP's logic, almost every hyphen in Wikipedia should be a Unicode hyphen, so every time some user types a "hyphen-minus", a bot should trot round and change it do a Unicode hyphen! Really?
As Dickylon said, it's obvious that that whoever wrote MOS:HYPHEN had in mind the character that's on everyone's keyboard, which almost all humans call a hyphen. As the article
Hyphen-minus says, "The hyphen-minus is a character used in digital documents and computing to represent a hyphen or a minus sign ... However, in proper typesetting and graphic design, there are distinct characters for hyphens ..." Wikipedia is a digital document, not a properly-typeset or graphic-designed document.
Do we really need a formal proposal to add a line to
MOS:HYPHEN to make this clear? —
Stanning (
talk)
17:55, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
Format a long quote (more than about 40 words or a few hundred characters, or consisting of more than one paragraph, regardless of length) as a block quotation
Is it just me, or is 40 words a little short? I was reverted for removing blockquote formatting from a quote over 63 words. At least on my monitor (which is not particularly large), the quote I edited looks rather sparse displayed as a blockquote, and yet it's more than 50% longer than the minimum wordcount. I'd probably suggest something closer to 80 words, maybe more. Popcornduff ( talk) 07:32, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
Have I misinterpreted MOS:JOBTITLES? Revert by @ SounderBruce: says I did, but I don't think so. Dicklyon ( talk) 00:35, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
What I wrote is my attempt to interpret the guideline, but the guideline is hard to interpret. So I agree with your original article edit that lead to this discussion. Jc3s5h ( talk) 23:56, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
I keep seeing this popping up in articles, for example Ronald Reagan being referred to as "the late former President of the United States". Encyclopedias know no time, they don't use informal colloquialisms such as "late" to refer to dead people and dead past office holders would not be referred to as "former" in formal English (i.e. "Gerald Ford, the 38th president of the United States", not "Gerald Ford, the former 38th president of the United States") Paul Benjamin Austin ( talk) 07:42, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
The articles in
List of LGBT-related films by year all have leads in the form "This is a list of lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender-related films released in <year or decade>. It contains theatrically released films that deal with important gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgender characters or issues and may have same-sex romance or relationships as a plot device."
The use of a self-referencing lead goes counter to some MOS recommendations (included below). My question is: is there a better lead which avoids self-reference in this set of lists?
Reading the through the guidelines, the general theme for the MOS entries is avoid self-reference and redundancy, while MOS:LEADOFALIST and WP:Stand-alone lists also mention inclusion criteria as something important to state in the lead. These two guidelines seem to be in conflict sometimes (possibly in this case, with the criteria in the second sentence), and we may want to revise the main MoS/Lead entry to mention that the lead should also include inclusion-criteria for lists.
Guideline quotes for reference
|
---|
Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section § lead sentence says:
Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lists § Lead section or paragraph says:
And Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists § Lead says:
|
Some context for these questions: I recently created a template that produces the style of leads, but the phrasing appears to conflict with MoS. (It is currently nominated for deletion for conflicting with WP:Templates, but that's not the issue I want to address here.) (This comment was refactored.) E to the Pi times i ( talk | contribs) 16:58, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
I am engaged in a discussion in an article which has a section on notable examples in the form of a list of notable people in a given field. I made an argument that such sections are bad, because who gets included in and who doesn't is subjective. For listing things, we have lists and categories. A section entitled 'notable Fooians' should in theory list every single Fooian, because how to we decide who is more notable than others? (In some cases, there may be sources for Top 10 Fooians, but in particular where such sources are not present, making a call who is a notable Fooian and who isn't can be controversial). To put it in more practical words: article on country should not list 'notable countries', on French people, 'notable Frenchmen', on Pokemon, 'notable Pokemon', on murderers, 'notable murderes', on phones, 'notable phones', on Holocaust denial, 'notable Holocaust deniers' (or 'notable examples of Holocaust denial'). Of course, various examples of what could be in such list could and often are incorporated into relevant sections of the prose. I was trying to find something in MoS to back up my argument (that a section on notable examples of a subject is a bad section for an article on the subject), but I am drawing blank. Any help would be appreciated. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:03, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
"Inclusion in lists contained within articles should be determined by WP:Source list, in that the entries must have the same importance to the subject as would be required for the entry to be included in the text of the article according to Wikipedia policies and guidelines (including WP:Trivia sections). Furthermore, every entry in any such list requires a reliable source attesting to the fact that the named person is a member of the listed group."E to the Pi times i ( talk | contribs) 13:47, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
An RfC has been opened that may be of interest to editors concerned about style issues. Please see /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#RfC:_Specifying_the_code_of_football_at_first_reference_in_team_articles -- Trovatore ( talk) 19:49, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
If the title of something uses a spaced hyphen where style guides would say to use a spaced en-dash, should it be "fixed" to conform with WP:ENDASH, or should the title be stated exactly as written? (This is in reference to an online source, where it is possible to say exactly which character was used.) My thought was to keep the title as close to a fascimile of how it appears in the source, but another editor has changed it to fit house style on dashes. Thanks for any guidance :) Umimmak ( talk) 13:53, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
|title=
in a citation. I think your answer ends up being the same though, but perhaps with a different justification. Thanks :)
Umimmak (
talk)
16:35, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
I didn't see a reference to how to handle hyphenation of national origin or ethnicity. I've found conflicting usage in a ton of articles. I did a search on Google and came back with several manuals of style t5hat also conflict on proper hyphenation. What is wikipedia's official policy for editors to follow? StarHOG ( talk) 14:42, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Images, section "Images are good". This contains a proposal to restore some text to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Images and add a matching bit to WP:IG. The key point is a statement that images are generally good (currently never said) and one along the lines of "Generally, available space beside the text should be used for images before a gallery is added".
Please centralize discussion there for now. Thanks, Johnbod ( talk) 15:02, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
We have the following guideline: "Avoid sandwiching text... between an image and an infobox or similar." But can anyone explain to me why we need it? I can understand why it looks bad to have text between two images, but the infobox is often so long that it is a waste of space not being able to place images next to it. Also, this "rule" is often ignored, with good results. FunkMonk ( talk) 06:43, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
prevent something that most people won't even seeWhat evidence do you have for this claim? While I support efforts to develop the mobile view, it is in reality still in its infancy. To say that this immature platform should override the very real and very practical concerns for the widely used desktop view seems to be a case of the tail wagging the dog. older ≠ wiser 16:38, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
FunkMonk and others: you're not taking into account what I said above: mobile view does not show all of an article. How can you edit an article if you can't see what some of it looks like when the wikitext is rendered? Unless and until mobile view shows the same article as desktop view, then serious editors (and readers) have to use desktop view. Peter coxhead ( talk) 16:14, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
Reply to Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs: That isn't what I'm saying. I'm saying, "if you only have a radio, you shouldn't expect to be able to watch television." -- Khajidha ( talk) 16:59, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
The MOS:GENDERID guidelines contradict existing Wikipedia policy Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not with respect to WP:NOTPROPAGANDA. The Wikipedia article for Propaganda describes propaganda thusly:
Propaganda is information that is not objective and is used primarily to influence an audience and further an agenda, often by presenting facts selectively to encourage a particular synthesis or perception, or using loaded language to produce an emotional rather than a rational response to the information that is presented.
I recommend that this guideline be revised to encourage using pronouns objectively based on someone's actual gender as opposed to their perceived, projected, or desired gender. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not an outlet for propagating the subjective delusions or preferences of biographical subjects. Snoopydaniels ( talk) 17:13, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
Gender dysphoria (GD), or gender identity disorder (GID), is the distress a person experiences as a result of the sex and gender they were assigned at birth. In this case, the assigned sex and gender do not match the person's gender identity, and the person is transgender.
Why is it often the same people who grant humans the right to have different gender and sex become so upset about grammatical gender deviating from sex? For example ships have neuter sex but feminine gender and this can be very useful in speech: "He'll drive her on the rocks if he keeps her on that course" clearly blames the skipper (masculine gender, sex unknown) for the risk to the ship. Temperate comments only please! Martin of Sheffield ( talk) 22:10, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
More seriously I was wondering more about the mindset, ships are an example. On the other hand: @ Blueboar: nice! I agree :-); @ Masem: if you think ships are inanimate you've clearly never felt a yacht complaining as it crosses the channel in a force 8/9 or skips along happily close hauled with a brisk 5. They have more life and soul than quite a few people I can think of! :-) Martin of Sheffield ( talk) 12:54, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
See final sentence of Istanbul (Not Constantinople)'s lede, but I'm pretty sure I've seen it elsewhere. Is it slang? Wiktionary appears not to recognize it. Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 09:20, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
I wouldn't have thought this was a problem, but I just noticed that a certain article uses "Jane Doe", and it's linked as though to explain to the reader what it means in case they don't know. But if readers are unlikely to be familiar with the term (I only learned it by accident in middle school when I was a junkie for forensics/crime documentaries, and don't know if I would recognize it otherwise), wouldn't "an anonymous woman" be better? And if they do know it then aren't links like that redundant? I'm also a little concerned that if the point of linking is to tell readers what a Jane Doe is, then depending on how it is used in context it could just mislead them into thinking it's the actual name of someone with a Wikipedia article (the allegations made by [a] former [producer], [...] Jane Doe
). What do others think?
Hijiri 88 (
聖
やや)
12:40, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
Hi there. If you have a list which does not necessarily need a section heading, do you still need to add one after the lead. For instance, at List of best-selling video games, I used a basic heading of "Video games" above the table, as that's how I've written hundreds of other lists. Is there a guideline somewhere to back this up, or does it not really matter? Thanks. Andre666 ( talk) 21:34, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
I am wondering whether placing a reference in the section heading is an acceptable style? I was wanting to use a reference for an entire section, but the section is in a bullet list format, so just placing the reference at the end would make it look like the reference was only for the last item in the bullet list.
I was not sure whether putting the reference in the section heading was standard, as I have not seen it done on any other articles that I have come across and (from some my testing) it would add the reference text to the WP:TOC, which would clutter the section names in the TOC for the reader.
What is the general consensus on using references in section headings?
Thanks Wpgbrown ( talk) 13:40, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
Does that look wrong to anyone else? Some chemists are saying the H needs to be capitalized when the word starts a sentence. (There's a separate question of β vs. beta ... not taking a position on that.) - Dank ( push to talk) 20:46, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
There is a relevant discussion at Talk:Ford Model A (1927–31). Primergrey ( talk) 13:02, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Wikipedia:Manual of Style has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In the Celestial bodies section, there is no space before the period in the beginning of the following sentence: Words such as comet and galaxy should be capitalized where they form part of an object's proper name, but not when they are used as a generic description (Halley's Comet is the most famous of the periodic comets; The Andromeda Galaxy is a spiral galaxy). Can you please fix that? 2601:183:101:58D0:654A:EADE:6EDC:B6FA ( talk) 21:18, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
Would it be extremely controversial to propose that the relevant passage WP:IMGLOC reads something like:
I have been trained (as a professional journalist/book editor) according to a stylistic convention that positions images so that all living/animate/moveable things appear to be facing/pointing into text.
For an example of what I mean, see the images of similar trains on the left and right. That is the usage of Image 1 and Image 2a are in accordance with the layout convention to which I am referring (while the use/positioning of Image 1a and Image 2 is not). Assuming that there are no technical/content issues with Image 1 (vis-a-vis Image 2), it will always be preferred, in terms of this particular convention.
Grant | Talk 05:27, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion regarding various interpretations of the Film MOS going on over at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Film specificly regarding interpritations of how production sections should be set up/worded. You can view or join the discussion here. -- Deathawk ( talk) 04:42, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
MOS:FOREIGNITALIC has advice on the use of italics for isolated foreign words. What if the foreign word is a unit used by {{ convert}}? Please join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers#Unit names that are foreign words. Johnuniq ( talk) 00:32, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
The US gov has some gnarly styling that shows up in a few article titles such as San Jose–San Francisco–Oakland, CA Combined Statistical Area; the jamming together of city names with hyphens, as they usually do, was moved to en dashes in this one recently, but it still exhibits the use of the postal code, with mismatched comma, and the unnecessarily capped Combined Statistical Area (which they sometimes abbreviate to CSA). Most of our articles that once had titles of that sort have been moved to more rational titles, especially since they're not really about the statistical areas per se. Here is an Obama WH doc that lists all these things, showing off further stylings like hyphen-connected pairs or triples of state postal codes as in New York-Newark-Jersey City, NY-NJ-PA Metropolitan Statistical Area, double hyphens in things like Nashville-Davidson--Murfreesboro--Franklin, TN Metropolitan Statistical Area, etc. It's pretty hideous, but thankfully these don't show up in too many articles. Here's another title: Evansville, IN–KY Metropolitan Statistical Area. And Joplin–Miami, MO–OK metropolitan area is one where the hyphens changed to dashes OK, and the caps are reduced, but the unbalanced commas around the "MO–OK" postal code pair still looks weird and cryptic.
I'm not proposing anything in particular at this time, just seeking help if anyone wants to help figure out how to rationalize some of the place where these do show up. Dicklyon ( talk) 00:33, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
I just noticed I participated in a discussion about this five years ago, at Talk:Lafayette-Opelousas-Morgan_City_CSA#Proposed_move. It didn't go anywhere useful. We should discuss again. Dicklyon ( talk) 05:02, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
In the case of Joplin–Miami, MO–OK metropolitan area, I've moved it back to be about the metropolitan area as opposed to one or the other statistical area. As far as I can tell, there's no such thing as the claimed Joplin–Miama MSA, but there is a CSA. There are essentially zero sources for anything in this article. Dicklyon ( talk) 16:32, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
Input is requested for the RfC on the use of née and né on the talk page of Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biographies. wumbolo ^^^ 11:32, 23 May 2018 (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 200 | Archive 201 | Archive 202 | Archive 203 | Archive 204 | Archive 205 | → | Archive 210 |
Please see Talk:Billy Graham rule#Logical quotation in this article. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 07:15, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
The fact that the first [fragment presented as a] sentence could be a complete sentence is exactly why it needs terminating punctuation outside the quotes, to distinguish it as a fragment.. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 16:08, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
References
I started this about the use of past tense when referring to historical events but no one has commented there, so I'm adding this to see if I can get more thoughts on the subject. It certainly is not subject specific anyway. MB 20:00, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
Would it be worth putting a list somewhere in Wikipedia space of words that editors may not realize have different meanings in different English varieties? It doesn't really seem to be the sort of thing WP:WTW is meant to address, and it's probably too specific to put in WP:ENGVAR, but it would be nice to have some sort of resource calling out words like cornflour (which means cornmeal in the States but cornstarch in the UK). -- Trovatore ( talk) 03:17, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
"Different meanings in different English varieties" appears to fall under "expressions that lack precision" which are indeed addressed in WP:WTW. So an addition to WP:WTW could well note this type of hazard and potentially point to a list of trouble-maker terms. Whether that list should reside in article or Wikipedia space is debatable. Wikipedia:List of commonly misused English words and Wikipedia:Lists of common misspellings are of a similar genre. The discussion that moved the WP:list of commonly misused English words to Wikipedia space is here. That debate revolved around issues of whether encyclopedic, POV around standards of English, usefulness to editors and original research versus freedom from sourcing requirements. Such issues would apply here. Batternut ( talk) 10:00, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
Hey there,
In Template:Sfn, parameters p and pp are used. Sometimes users mess up which one to use (like I did in John Glenn), and I am looking into ways to make it so users cannot mess it up. Some options:
Thoughts on this? Is there something major I am missing? Kees08 (Talk) 02:47, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
loc=
field, but editors aren't always aware of that field's existence and try to shoehorn things into the page field. (One that comes up fairly regularly is Middleton Press, who maintain the affectation of not numbering their pages and instead numbering the sections of their text using Roman numerals for sections of the introduction and modern numerals for sections of the body text; see
this reference for an example of a citation to a numbered section using {{
sfn}}.) We actually want the template to generate an error when it comes across something it isn't sure how to handle, rather than attempting to guess what the person entering its data meant, as otherwise we're not only potentially directing readers to the wrong part of the source, we're not making the person using the template aware that they're using it incorrectly. ‑
Iridescent
10:47, 9 February 2018 (UTC)p
and loc
, especially with legal codes, where loc can be very handy for, e.g., §17.3.4.1.1 where the page number alone isn't enough. As someone who uses p=
and pp=
in the right way, I would not be happy to see the template "dumbed down" by a regex that tries to reinterpret my use of p
to figure out if I "really" meant to use pp
. Maybe the page number really is "5–7" (and the next page is "5–8"). As long as there's a way to preserve old functionality, I don't care what new features they add. I'm even okay with having to use a new param I didn't have to use before ({{sfn|Smith|2009|p=5–7|yesIreallyMeanIt=1}}
to get it to do what it did before, but just please don't remove existing functionality; thanks.
Mathglot (
talk)
07:33, 12 February 2018 (UTC)Is there any particular reason why the post-nominal "MP" isn't used in the lead paragraphs for British MPs? I have just been reverted by Sam Blacketer, who left me this message on my talkpage, without citing any specific policy barring the inclusion of the "MP" post-nominal outside of infoboxes for British parliamentarians. It is worth pointing out that for Canadian parliamentarians, for example Justin Trudeau, the "MP" post-nominal is included both in the infobox and lead section. Per Debrett's: "In formal address, the letters ‘MP’ are always shown for a member of parliament. They are shown seventh in the order of precedence of letters after the name." I think this calls for an RfC.-- Neve: selbert 21:35, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
WP:DNFT -- Jayron 32 13:03, 8 March 2018 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
American English usage has long called for commas and periods to always be placed inside a closed quotation mark, regardless of whether the quotation mark is part of the quoted material. Other punctuation depends on whether it is or is not part of the quoted material. British usage treats all punctuation the same for this purpose. Apparently, Wikipedia adopts British usage for periods and commas, and this is simply wrong for U.S. English. I have tried to correct this incorrect usage on several occasions, and I have received a message that I am wrong. I am not the one who is wrong. It it is not up to an outlet like Wikipedia to change standard usage in American usage. This is not your role. I protest, and ask that you correct your mistaken manual of style. I will no longer allow students to cite Wikipedia for any purpose. The language is already corrupted enough without your assistance. And I'm not even an English teacher, just a teacher who cares about the language. Thanks. John Allison — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.182.104.248 ( talk) 03:29, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
|
Ya'll shoulda never collapsed this! (he says as he dodges bullets) Paine Ellsworth put'r there 18:09, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
Batternut, Sangdeboeuf, and myself ran into an interesting problem in a discussion at The lady doth protest too much, methinks.
In an article whose subject is a quotation, which takes precedence: WORDSASWORDS or NOITALQUOTE?
To briefly summarise, MOS:NOITALQUOTE says that quotations should be placed within quote marks and that one should not use italics for quotes, and MOS:WORDSASWORDS says that when one talks about a word as a word, rather than just using the word (i.e. the use–mention distinction), it should be placed in italics. However, both guidelines are written to deal with your typical quotation or use in the body of an article on some random topic (e.g. a biography, or a film, etc.) and so contain no guidance that directly addresses an article that is about the quotation itself.
It seems fairly obvious that for such articles you will in general have many instances where you refer to the quotation (mention), and probably also many cases where you give the quotation (use). However, in an article about the quotation itself, you get the added problem of how to deal with the bolded first sentence instance of the article's subject (where, due to the typical formulation, it will almost always be a mention).
The three of us went a couple of rounds on this—one editor taking one position, one the opposite, one waffling back and forth—and then hit a dead end. In this specific case, the two guidelines as written, appear to be in direct conflict, and neither address the relevant case directly. Thus we're here asking for both broader discussion, and, hopefully, input from editors familiar with the discussions that led up to the two relevant MOS sections. Or, obviously, other policy/guideline/MOS guidance that could help cut the knot. -- Xover ( talk) 07:36, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
Quotation marks alone are sufficient, implying that some editors are tempted to use both quotation marks and italics. Since the vast majority of quotations on Wikipedia are not in articles about those quotations, NOITALQUOTE seems to refer only to times when Wikipedia itself is quoting a source, not when a quotation itself is the subject. I don't think it necessarily applies to a case like this, where common sense suggests that this is not a typical case of "quoting".
MOS:ITALQUOTE goes into more detail: For quotations, use only quotation marks (for short quotations) or block quoting (for long ones), not italics [...] a quotation is not italicized inside quotation marks or a block quote just because it is a quotation
(emphasis mine). This isn't a case of both italics and quotation marks, but of using italics to mark a mentioned phrase per the
use-mention distinction. —
Sangdeboeuf (
talk)
09:20, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
barf quotes ad nauseam? That seems redundant.
[The unpopular politician] was therefore hoist on his own petard, so to speak., but we would never here write along the lines of
Methinks [the female pop star] protests too much in this regard.WORDSASWORDS (and common sense) doesn't mandate italics, only provide them as the way to do it when a use—mention distinction is necessary, and since our use of the phrase is always a mention, we never need to make that distinction.Thus a quote is a quote and should have quotation marks, and doesn't need italics to distinguish our mentions of it from our non-existent uses of it.I'm sure we'll run into some exception somewhere, but for the wast majority of cases, including specifically in the first sentence of the lead of our articles about quotes, this should cover it. Which, I believe, is what Curly Turkey had previously said with far more brevity. :) -- Xover ( talk) 19:25, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
Ok, based on all the above, the prevailing opinion seems to boil down to "Just use quote marks" with a side helping of "You're overthinking this". EEng doesn't express an opinion, but adds a few other interesting examples, and Sangdeboeuf argues for italics, but everyone else that has participated lands on quote marks. Several participants also mention cases where italics might be appropriate, and, as Batternut has pointed out, when discussing the use—mention distinction we're properly in philosophical territory, and most of the discussion above has been in the abstract. I will therefore try to make it concrete in order to test whether the apparent consensus above holds. First, for reference, a pruned excerpt from the article as it stands right now; and attempted applications of the discussion above. Instances in green are, I believe, uncontroversial; the ones in maroon are the ones (again, AIUI) we're trying to settle (my emendations are blue).
The lady doth protest too much, methinks is a line from the c. 1600 play Hamlet by William Shakespeare. […] The phrase is used in everyday speech to indicate doubt in someone's sincerity. A common misquotation places methinks first, as in methinks the lady doth protest too much. […]
Hamlet then turns to his mother and asks her, "Madam, how like you this play?", to which she replies ironically "The lady doth protest too much, methinks", meaning that the Player Queen's protestations of love and fidelity are too excessive to be believed. The quotation comes from the Second Quarto edition of the play. Later versions contain the simpler line, "The lady protests too much, methinks". […]
As in the play, it is commonly used to imply that someone who denies something very strongly is hiding the truth. It is is often shortened to (X) protest(s) too much, or misquoted with methinks at the beginning, as in methinks the lady doth protest too much.
The quotation's meaning has changed somewhat since it was first written: whereas in modern parlance protest in this context often means a denial, in Shakespeare's time to protest meant "to make protestation or solemn affirmation" [quoth OED].
"The lady doth protest too much, methinks" is a line from the c. 1600 play Hamlet by William Shakespeare. […] The phrase is used in everyday speech to indicate doubt in someone's sincerity. A common misquotation places methinks first, as in "methinks the lady doth protest too much". […]
Hamlet then turns to his mother and asks her, "Madam, how like you this play?", to which she replies ironically "The lady doth protest too much, methinks", meaning that the Player Queen's protestations of love and fidelity are too excessive to be believed. The quotation comes from the Second Quarto edition of the play. Later versions contain the simpler line, "The lady protests too much, methinks". […]
As in the play, it is commonly used to imply that someone who denies something very strongly is hiding the truth. It is is often shortened to "(X) protest(s) too much", or misquoted with methinks at the beginning, as in "methinks the lady doth protest too much". [this could go either way, depending on whether you intend it to (mis)quote Shakespeare or illustrate a phrasal template that happens to be derived from Shakespeare]
The quotation's meaning has changed somewhat since it was first written: whereas in modern parlance protest in this context often means a denial, in Shakespeare's time to protest meant "to make protestation or solemn affirmation" [quoth OED].
So… Could Batternut, Sangdeboeuf, Curly Turkey, David Eppstein, EEng, SMcCandlish, and Primergrey please indicate whether one or the other of these examples are in line with their position. Or if not, what changes should be made relative to it to be in line with their position. Absent indications to the contrary, I'll assert the latter version (the "Just use quote marks, you dummy!" version) as reflecting a consensus of the discussion above.
PS. Sangdeboeuf: I'm assuming you favor the former version (what is currently in the article in mainspace), so you do not need to explicitly indicate this again unless you wish to add or correct something.
PPS. If indications are that I've correctly assessed the above debate, I propose that we then move any further discussions on details, or on implementing the consensus, back to the article's talk page. No need to bug WT:MOS once we're back to discussing a single article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xover ( talk • contribs) 08:23, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
I just made this edit to correct an earlier edit with what I believe to be a style error, as described in the edit summary there. I looked for guidance re vowel-consonant harmony in the MOS before making the edit and did not find any. It seems to me that the MOS ought to include some guidance on this. This case was {{a ? an}} United States Army (probably following on an earlier edit inserting of United States for clarity). Another case I've seen where guidance would be useful is {{a ? an}} historic ( WP:ENGVAR dependent, I think). There may be more cases. I'm neither a grammarian nor a MOS guru, so I won't propose specifics and will leave it for possible discussion by regular editors here. Cheers. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:52, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
You may be interested in the proposal/discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Observe MOS:FONTSIZE in infobox templates. ― Mandruss ☎ 00:12, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
Regarding this edit to the guideline by Anythingyouwant in January of this year and this edit by Politrukki to WP:Plagiarism, are we allowing quotes without in-text attribution now? WP:Plagiarism still states, "In addition to an inline citation, in-text attribution is usually required when quoting or closely paraphrasing source material." And it is still recommended in its "Avoiding plagiarism" section. SlimVirgin, PBS, you've both edited WP:Plagiarism, as have I. Any thoughts? I know that Moonriddengirl, mainly known for her handling of copyright and plagiarism issues, usually isn't on Wikipedia these days. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 22:28, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
I'm of the opinion that all quotes should be attributed. I strongly object to any change away from this policy unless a RfC shows that the wider Wikipedia community supports looseing the guidelines. LK ( talk) 03:13, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
"Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale."(from WP:LOCALCONSENSUS). If it seems likely that the wider consensus of Wikipedia has a different opinion than the few editors discussing the phrasing on the talk page (as it is less of a style issue, and more of a verifibiality/NPOV issue) then we should have an RfC. E to the Pi times i ( talk | contribs) 22:27, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
The Manual of Style requires in-text attribution when quoting a full sentence or more.included in WP:Plagiarism because it was derived from MOS or was it because of a wider consensus (in the form of policy, guideline, or wider discussion)? If it is the latter, we may still be able to protect the idea behind the text while making improvements – like removing the reference to MOS or expanding the body – without an RFC. Politrukki ( talk) 10:28, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
Specifically A Prairie Home Companion. "Is a formerly weekly"? "Is a weekly"? Drop the "weekly" entirely? - Immigrant laborer ( talk) 19:42, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
Hi all, just noting that the RFC on ENGVAR-related templates, which had been archived without being closed and is at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Archive_201#Re-deprecate_and_merge_the_ENGVAR-related_templates_that_do_not_serve_an_encyclopedic_purpose has now been closed following a request at Wikipedia:Requests for closure. The consensus was in opposition to the proposal. Cheers, Fish+ Karate 13:41, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
Opinions are needed on the following: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Lead section#Italicize the term for an article about a term?. A permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 02:11, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
This is probably (nay, undoubtedly) answered somewhere else... but I can't find it. So, quick question: do we still commonly capitalize the initial letter of 'Internet' when referring to "the" internet (ie, this thing we're on now, not just various interconnected networks that we might otherwise use)? Have we discussed whether we should still be doing this recently? I ask for information only. ◦ Trey Maturin 19:19, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
Hi. I'd like to get from feedback from some "grammar experts" out there about this. 137.187.232.48 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS) has been on a rampage removing commas from years, mainly at the beginning of sentences, citing Comma#In dates. For example [2]. Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Commas shows an example of "He set October 1, 2011, as the deadline...", but this is a different case. I've seen websites say we don't need a comma after a month, year combo such as "They were married in January 2011 in Las Vegas." This sounds right in my head, but at the beginning of sentence it seems to have a different tone. "In January 2011, they were married in Las Vegas." or "In January 2011 they were married in Las Vegas." To me the former sounds better. Even more so "In 2011, they were married in Las Vegas." vs "In 2011 they were married in Las Vegas." But we can't go by sound, so does anyone have any sources of what to do in case like this, especially usage at the beginning of a sentence, and perhaps add it to the MoS? We may also consider adding an example for British date format, as I believe they never use a comma after a full date such as in, "Gerrard made his Liverpool first-team debut on 29 November 1998 in a Premier League match against Blackburn Rovers."? Thanks. Vaselineeeeeeee ★★★ 20:05, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
Although it is not strictly required, it is considered good style to follow introductory dependent clauses containing dates with a comma. Translation: The comma's not a grammatical requirement after all, but if you're not a very good writer and can't make an intelligent decision for yourself, you're safer including it. E Eng 20:44, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
using a comma for the introductory clause constitutes "not being a very good writer" or "not making an intelligent decision". I said that those who aren't good writers, and (thus) are unable to make an intelligent decision on their own, are safer including the comma. I'm sorry, but any blanket statement that "there's no denying the flow sounds much better with the comma", without seeing the rest of the sentence, is an immediate self-indictment. Next to the dash – which is essentially impossible to use ungrammatically – the comma is the most flexible of the punctuation marks. There are a handful of places where it's a blunder to include or omit them, but elsewhere their use is guided by pacing and rhythm, not rigid rules. English is not a programming language. E Eng 21:36, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
to elevate WP:RETAIN so that it applies to any condition where there are multiple acceptable ways of doing something. That says, flat out, that once someone writes something "acceptable", that can't be changed without our most cherished ritual, consensus. Thus if an article says "attained a higher altitude", I couldn't change that to "went higher", because they're both acceptable. E Eng 09:25, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
"We're not talking about what RETAIN currently says, but rather what Stepho-wrs proposes i.e. to elevate WP:RETAIN so that it applies to any condition where there are multiple acceptable ways of doing something. That says, flat out, that once someone writes something "acceptable", that can't be changed without our most cherished ritual, consensus. Thus if an article says "attained a higher altitude", I couldn't change that to "went higher", because they're both acceptable."This is productive discussion, even if in a tone that you don't prefer. The example isn't nonsense, it's a legitimate concern with changing the policy for WP:RETAIN. E to the Pi times i ( talk | contribs) 04:12, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
[3] Not correct to quote like this in English. "Hello," he said -- comma inside quotes. Only outside if a fragment: it was "quite nasty", he claimed. 31.50.6.57 ( talk) 20:26, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
Possibly the best solution would be a line at the beginning of each article containing a couple dozen commas, and also some semicolons, quotation marks, and so forth. The reader could then be instructed to mentally sprinkle them throughout the text in whatever manner she finds pleasing.
Wikipedia's style prescriptions result in, for example, the title Style guide rather than Style Guide. OK, got it. (And as it happens, I am sure that this is for the better.)
This extends outside articles, too: Wikipedia:No original research, not Wikipedia:No Original Research.
So why not Wikipedia:Manual of style and instead Wikipedia:Manual of Style? -- Hoary ( talk) 00:31, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
I disagree that an implementation of our style guide on internal pages would have the effect you imagine. We use contractions, address the reader directly, and a whole host of other non-MOS-compliant things on these pages. An RM would be a great way to get all the opponents of a site-wide style guide into a lather as the conversation would turn, after about 5 minutes, into, "If we change this page, I guess we'll be changing all the P&G pages?" No, anyone who uses this page's title not following the MOS as justification for overcapitalization doesn't have a leg to stand on and shouldn't be taken seriously anyway. Primergrey ( talk) 21:41, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
Hi, could someone please have a look at the User_talk:Twofortnights#Disclaimer and weigh in whether an in-article disclaimer would be in accordance with Wiki style. Thanks.-- Twofortnights ( talk) 23:25, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
Q: Can a consensus of the TV wikiproject to use the format Season 1, 2 etc. in text and headings in articles about TV series co-exist with the WP-wide policy MOS:NUM for the format Season One, Two etc.? Further, I see MOS:NUM does refer to article text. Is there any general policy for headings or can either be used? MapReader ( talk) 08:10, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
I have seen differing usage on tv pages. -- Alex TW 06:47, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
I noticed Joeyconnick reverted my edit which moved the footnote about apostrophe encoding to the end. I feel this footnote should be encoded at the end because it is referenced in multiple places, and there's no reason to choose a specific place as the main placement. Alternatively, the spread out referencing may indicate that the footnote's information merits its own section. E to the Pi times i ( talk | contribs) 20:16, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
It appears that biographies on WP are routinely ignoring the guidance in MOS:HYPHEN and instead are using the hyphen-minus. Is there consensus to do so, or did it just slide under the radar? LeadSongDog come howl! 21:29, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
The hyphen-minus is the standard glyph for a hyphen (as it says at Hyphen-minus, "The hyphen-minus (-) is a character used in digital documents and computing to represent a hyphen"). Hyphen-minus is the name that Unicode made up for this code point and glyph, to recognize that in addition to being used for hyphen it's also commonly used (in code, not in typography) as minus sign. I'm pretty sure that MOS:HYPHEN never meant to suggest otherwise, but perhaps it needs an explicit clarification is someone is questioning that. Dicklyon ( talk) 00:14, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
'
is used instead of the fancier curved Unicode apostrophes. Generally, if we're going to adopt standards, we should maximize accessibility, not prescribe Unicode specifications to our encoding.
E to the Pi times i (
talk |
contribs)
14:49, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
MOS:HYPHEN is about hyphenation in general; only the first line is about surnames. Why pick out surnames only? Following the OP's logic, almost every hyphen in Wikipedia should be a Unicode hyphen, so every time some user types a "hyphen-minus", a bot should trot round and change it do a Unicode hyphen! Really?
As Dickylon said, it's obvious that that whoever wrote MOS:HYPHEN had in mind the character that's on everyone's keyboard, which almost all humans call a hyphen. As the article
Hyphen-minus says, "The hyphen-minus is a character used in digital documents and computing to represent a hyphen or a minus sign ... However, in proper typesetting and graphic design, there are distinct characters for hyphens ..." Wikipedia is a digital document, not a properly-typeset or graphic-designed document.
Do we really need a formal proposal to add a line to
MOS:HYPHEN to make this clear? —
Stanning (
talk)
17:55, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
Format a long quote (more than about 40 words or a few hundred characters, or consisting of more than one paragraph, regardless of length) as a block quotation
Is it just me, or is 40 words a little short? I was reverted for removing blockquote formatting from a quote over 63 words. At least on my monitor (which is not particularly large), the quote I edited looks rather sparse displayed as a blockquote, and yet it's more than 50% longer than the minimum wordcount. I'd probably suggest something closer to 80 words, maybe more. Popcornduff ( talk) 07:32, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
Have I misinterpreted MOS:JOBTITLES? Revert by @ SounderBruce: says I did, but I don't think so. Dicklyon ( talk) 00:35, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
What I wrote is my attempt to interpret the guideline, but the guideline is hard to interpret. So I agree with your original article edit that lead to this discussion. Jc3s5h ( talk) 23:56, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
I keep seeing this popping up in articles, for example Ronald Reagan being referred to as "the late former President of the United States". Encyclopedias know no time, they don't use informal colloquialisms such as "late" to refer to dead people and dead past office holders would not be referred to as "former" in formal English (i.e. "Gerald Ford, the 38th president of the United States", not "Gerald Ford, the former 38th president of the United States") Paul Benjamin Austin ( talk) 07:42, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
The articles in
List of LGBT-related films by year all have leads in the form "This is a list of lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender-related films released in <year or decade>. It contains theatrically released films that deal with important gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgender characters or issues and may have same-sex romance or relationships as a plot device."
The use of a self-referencing lead goes counter to some MOS recommendations (included below). My question is: is there a better lead which avoids self-reference in this set of lists?
Reading the through the guidelines, the general theme for the MOS entries is avoid self-reference and redundancy, while MOS:LEADOFALIST and WP:Stand-alone lists also mention inclusion criteria as something important to state in the lead. These two guidelines seem to be in conflict sometimes (possibly in this case, with the criteria in the second sentence), and we may want to revise the main MoS/Lead entry to mention that the lead should also include inclusion-criteria for lists.
Guideline quotes for reference
|
---|
Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section § lead sentence says:
Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lists § Lead section or paragraph says:
And Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists § Lead says:
|
Some context for these questions: I recently created a template that produces the style of leads, but the phrasing appears to conflict with MoS. (It is currently nominated for deletion for conflicting with WP:Templates, but that's not the issue I want to address here.) (This comment was refactored.) E to the Pi times i ( talk | contribs) 16:58, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
I am engaged in a discussion in an article which has a section on notable examples in the form of a list of notable people in a given field. I made an argument that such sections are bad, because who gets included in and who doesn't is subjective. For listing things, we have lists and categories. A section entitled 'notable Fooians' should in theory list every single Fooian, because how to we decide who is more notable than others? (In some cases, there may be sources for Top 10 Fooians, but in particular where such sources are not present, making a call who is a notable Fooian and who isn't can be controversial). To put it in more practical words: article on country should not list 'notable countries', on French people, 'notable Frenchmen', on Pokemon, 'notable Pokemon', on murderers, 'notable murderes', on phones, 'notable phones', on Holocaust denial, 'notable Holocaust deniers' (or 'notable examples of Holocaust denial'). Of course, various examples of what could be in such list could and often are incorporated into relevant sections of the prose. I was trying to find something in MoS to back up my argument (that a section on notable examples of a subject is a bad section for an article on the subject), but I am drawing blank. Any help would be appreciated. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:03, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
"Inclusion in lists contained within articles should be determined by WP:Source list, in that the entries must have the same importance to the subject as would be required for the entry to be included in the text of the article according to Wikipedia policies and guidelines (including WP:Trivia sections). Furthermore, every entry in any such list requires a reliable source attesting to the fact that the named person is a member of the listed group."E to the Pi times i ( talk | contribs) 13:47, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
An RfC has been opened that may be of interest to editors concerned about style issues. Please see /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#RfC:_Specifying_the_code_of_football_at_first_reference_in_team_articles -- Trovatore ( talk) 19:49, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
If the title of something uses a spaced hyphen where style guides would say to use a spaced en-dash, should it be "fixed" to conform with WP:ENDASH, or should the title be stated exactly as written? (This is in reference to an online source, where it is possible to say exactly which character was used.) My thought was to keep the title as close to a fascimile of how it appears in the source, but another editor has changed it to fit house style on dashes. Thanks for any guidance :) Umimmak ( talk) 13:53, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
|title=
in a citation. I think your answer ends up being the same though, but perhaps with a different justification. Thanks :)
Umimmak (
talk)
16:35, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
I didn't see a reference to how to handle hyphenation of national origin or ethnicity. I've found conflicting usage in a ton of articles. I did a search on Google and came back with several manuals of style t5hat also conflict on proper hyphenation. What is wikipedia's official policy for editors to follow? StarHOG ( talk) 14:42, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Images, section "Images are good". This contains a proposal to restore some text to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Images and add a matching bit to WP:IG. The key point is a statement that images are generally good (currently never said) and one along the lines of "Generally, available space beside the text should be used for images before a gallery is added".
Please centralize discussion there for now. Thanks, Johnbod ( talk) 15:02, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
We have the following guideline: "Avoid sandwiching text... between an image and an infobox or similar." But can anyone explain to me why we need it? I can understand why it looks bad to have text between two images, but the infobox is often so long that it is a waste of space not being able to place images next to it. Also, this "rule" is often ignored, with good results. FunkMonk ( talk) 06:43, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
prevent something that most people won't even seeWhat evidence do you have for this claim? While I support efforts to develop the mobile view, it is in reality still in its infancy. To say that this immature platform should override the very real and very practical concerns for the widely used desktop view seems to be a case of the tail wagging the dog. older ≠ wiser 16:38, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
FunkMonk and others: you're not taking into account what I said above: mobile view does not show all of an article. How can you edit an article if you can't see what some of it looks like when the wikitext is rendered? Unless and until mobile view shows the same article as desktop view, then serious editors (and readers) have to use desktop view. Peter coxhead ( talk) 16:14, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
Reply to Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs: That isn't what I'm saying. I'm saying, "if you only have a radio, you shouldn't expect to be able to watch television." -- Khajidha ( talk) 16:59, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
The MOS:GENDERID guidelines contradict existing Wikipedia policy Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not with respect to WP:NOTPROPAGANDA. The Wikipedia article for Propaganda describes propaganda thusly:
Propaganda is information that is not objective and is used primarily to influence an audience and further an agenda, often by presenting facts selectively to encourage a particular synthesis or perception, or using loaded language to produce an emotional rather than a rational response to the information that is presented.
I recommend that this guideline be revised to encourage using pronouns objectively based on someone's actual gender as opposed to their perceived, projected, or desired gender. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not an outlet for propagating the subjective delusions or preferences of biographical subjects. Snoopydaniels ( talk) 17:13, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
Gender dysphoria (GD), or gender identity disorder (GID), is the distress a person experiences as a result of the sex and gender they were assigned at birth. In this case, the assigned sex and gender do not match the person's gender identity, and the person is transgender.
Why is it often the same people who grant humans the right to have different gender and sex become so upset about grammatical gender deviating from sex? For example ships have neuter sex but feminine gender and this can be very useful in speech: "He'll drive her on the rocks if he keeps her on that course" clearly blames the skipper (masculine gender, sex unknown) for the risk to the ship. Temperate comments only please! Martin of Sheffield ( talk) 22:10, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
More seriously I was wondering more about the mindset, ships are an example. On the other hand: @ Blueboar: nice! I agree :-); @ Masem: if you think ships are inanimate you've clearly never felt a yacht complaining as it crosses the channel in a force 8/9 or skips along happily close hauled with a brisk 5. They have more life and soul than quite a few people I can think of! :-) Martin of Sheffield ( talk) 12:54, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
See final sentence of Istanbul (Not Constantinople)'s lede, but I'm pretty sure I've seen it elsewhere. Is it slang? Wiktionary appears not to recognize it. Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 09:20, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
I wouldn't have thought this was a problem, but I just noticed that a certain article uses "Jane Doe", and it's linked as though to explain to the reader what it means in case they don't know. But if readers are unlikely to be familiar with the term (I only learned it by accident in middle school when I was a junkie for forensics/crime documentaries, and don't know if I would recognize it otherwise), wouldn't "an anonymous woman" be better? And if they do know it then aren't links like that redundant? I'm also a little concerned that if the point of linking is to tell readers what a Jane Doe is, then depending on how it is used in context it could just mislead them into thinking it's the actual name of someone with a Wikipedia article (the allegations made by [a] former [producer], [...] Jane Doe
). What do others think?
Hijiri 88 (
聖
やや)
12:40, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
Hi there. If you have a list which does not necessarily need a section heading, do you still need to add one after the lead. For instance, at List of best-selling video games, I used a basic heading of "Video games" above the table, as that's how I've written hundreds of other lists. Is there a guideline somewhere to back this up, or does it not really matter? Thanks. Andre666 ( talk) 21:34, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
I am wondering whether placing a reference in the section heading is an acceptable style? I was wanting to use a reference for an entire section, but the section is in a bullet list format, so just placing the reference at the end would make it look like the reference was only for the last item in the bullet list.
I was not sure whether putting the reference in the section heading was standard, as I have not seen it done on any other articles that I have come across and (from some my testing) it would add the reference text to the WP:TOC, which would clutter the section names in the TOC for the reader.
What is the general consensus on using references in section headings?
Thanks Wpgbrown ( talk) 13:40, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
Does that look wrong to anyone else? Some chemists are saying the H needs to be capitalized when the word starts a sentence. (There's a separate question of β vs. beta ... not taking a position on that.) - Dank ( push to talk) 20:46, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
There is a relevant discussion at Talk:Ford Model A (1927–31). Primergrey ( talk) 13:02, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Wikipedia:Manual of Style has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In the Celestial bodies section, there is no space before the period in the beginning of the following sentence: Words such as comet and galaxy should be capitalized where they form part of an object's proper name, but not when they are used as a generic description (Halley's Comet is the most famous of the periodic comets; The Andromeda Galaxy is a spiral galaxy). Can you please fix that? 2601:183:101:58D0:654A:EADE:6EDC:B6FA ( talk) 21:18, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
Would it be extremely controversial to propose that the relevant passage WP:IMGLOC reads something like:
I have been trained (as a professional journalist/book editor) according to a stylistic convention that positions images so that all living/animate/moveable things appear to be facing/pointing into text.
For an example of what I mean, see the images of similar trains on the left and right. That is the usage of Image 1 and Image 2a are in accordance with the layout convention to which I am referring (while the use/positioning of Image 1a and Image 2 is not). Assuming that there are no technical/content issues with Image 1 (vis-a-vis Image 2), it will always be preferred, in terms of this particular convention.
Grant | Talk 05:27, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion regarding various interpretations of the Film MOS going on over at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Film specificly regarding interpritations of how production sections should be set up/worded. You can view or join the discussion here. -- Deathawk ( talk) 04:42, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
MOS:FOREIGNITALIC has advice on the use of italics for isolated foreign words. What if the foreign word is a unit used by {{ convert}}? Please join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers#Unit names that are foreign words. Johnuniq ( talk) 00:32, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
The US gov has some gnarly styling that shows up in a few article titles such as San Jose–San Francisco–Oakland, CA Combined Statistical Area; the jamming together of city names with hyphens, as they usually do, was moved to en dashes in this one recently, but it still exhibits the use of the postal code, with mismatched comma, and the unnecessarily capped Combined Statistical Area (which they sometimes abbreviate to CSA). Most of our articles that once had titles of that sort have been moved to more rational titles, especially since they're not really about the statistical areas per se. Here is an Obama WH doc that lists all these things, showing off further stylings like hyphen-connected pairs or triples of state postal codes as in New York-Newark-Jersey City, NY-NJ-PA Metropolitan Statistical Area, double hyphens in things like Nashville-Davidson--Murfreesboro--Franklin, TN Metropolitan Statistical Area, etc. It's pretty hideous, but thankfully these don't show up in too many articles. Here's another title: Evansville, IN–KY Metropolitan Statistical Area. And Joplin–Miami, MO–OK metropolitan area is one where the hyphens changed to dashes OK, and the caps are reduced, but the unbalanced commas around the "MO–OK" postal code pair still looks weird and cryptic.
I'm not proposing anything in particular at this time, just seeking help if anyone wants to help figure out how to rationalize some of the place where these do show up. Dicklyon ( talk) 00:33, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
I just noticed I participated in a discussion about this five years ago, at Talk:Lafayette-Opelousas-Morgan_City_CSA#Proposed_move. It didn't go anywhere useful. We should discuss again. Dicklyon ( talk) 05:02, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
In the case of Joplin–Miami, MO–OK metropolitan area, I've moved it back to be about the metropolitan area as opposed to one or the other statistical area. As far as I can tell, there's no such thing as the claimed Joplin–Miama MSA, but there is a CSA. There are essentially zero sources for anything in this article. Dicklyon ( talk) 16:32, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
Input is requested for the RfC on the use of née and né on the talk page of Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biographies. wumbolo ^^^ 11:32, 23 May 2018 (UTC)