![]() | 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 225 | Archive 226 | Archive 227 | Archive 228 |
The redirect
MOS: HYPHEN has been listed at
redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the
redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 December 5 § MOS: HYPHEN until a consensus is reached.
Utopes (
talk /
cont)
04:02, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
The redirect
MOS: MARKUP has been listed at
redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the
redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 December 5 § MOS: MARKUP until a consensus is reached.
Utopes (
talk /
cont)
04:03, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
I was recently doing page clean-up with AWB where I (at AWB's suggestion) changed "Academy Award–winning" (with an en dash) to "Academy Award-winning" (with a hyphen) on the article " Society of the Snow" (see this edit [1]). Nardog noticed my edit and reverted it [2] citing MOS:SUFFIXDASH, which does appear to support the use of an en dash in this situation.
There does not seem to be agreement on this topic within article bodies or even within article titles. Articles like " List of Academy Award-winning films", a large number of article bodies, WP:RegExTypoFix, and all mentions of "award-winning" in the MOS documentation use the version with a hyphen (see one example in MOS:FILMLEAD). In contrast, articles like " List of Academy Award–winning families" and " List of Academy Award–winning foreign-language films" use en dash, as do other style guides like MLA [3]. This topic has been mentioned on this board before (such as on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 151#En dashes rather than hyphens for both prefixed and suffixed adjective phrases. (2), and Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 140#En dashes and suffixes), but I have not been able to find any clear, final consensus on the topic. Hopefully we can obtain consensus on the topic and unify the styling, or at least get some clear guidance on the topic. Thanks! Wikipedialuva ( talk) 09:09, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
Whenever I see "indeed" I reach for the edit button. This assertion of "truth" is inserted, I claim, because the writer wants to convince you of a fact, but they do not have sufficient evidence. Rather than provide the evidence they reach for the bold font: Indeed! It addresses the reader "see this is true"; it is in the category of "note that", "of course" and "naturally". (I suppose not every use is bad and not every word need to be in the section, but calling it out explicitly makes editors aware of the issue). Johnjbarton ( talk) 03:47, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
{{
Essay-like}}
. —
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼
04:01, 31 January 2024 (UTC)Might be of interest. Let me know if anything seems missing from (or crazy in) either of them. One is new, the other was a draft languishing in my userspace for a long time:
— SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 19:52, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
Another one, made today based on material I posted at WT:BOTANY:
I'd like to have a discussion about plant description style. Is this a good place or is there a better? The basic problem with plants is that they are not very uniform and can look very different in different countries, at times to the point where you can readily recognise the plant in your own country but encountering it in another, think you have quite a different species or be doubtful about what it is. That can even be the case if you see it low altitude and encounter it at high altitude.
Because of this variability of plants, Country/Regional Flora descriptions are usually regionally orientated, describing how a plant presents itself in some local region, and depending on the work maybe it might mention variability in a slightly wider context. So a British flora might (but most probably won't) mention differences the plant shows in France, but undoubtedly won't mention differences the plant takes on in Palestine or up a Turkish mountain.
As well as Flora saying contradictory things due to focus on regional variation, they can also mention useful complementary details, or clarify each other where they are ambiguous (as they can sometimes be). For example, the Aegean Flora says Cymbalaria microcalyx is generally pink, but Flora of Turkey says it is white or pink (I've only seen white here). On the other hand, Flora of Turkey says Cymbalaria longipes is completely hairless, whilst the Aegean Flora says it can be hairy, but is hairless by maturity, providing needed clarity. This situation of Floras saying different or complementary things applies to very much every characteristic of a plant, and is why several always need to be used under any circumstance.
Now when it comes to writing a plant description for Wikipedia, Wikipedia is global so the description needs to be from a global perspective, it's not sufficient just to take a single Flora work to use unless it happens to be a work dedicated to a detailed global perspective on the plant. For example, if you write the plant description just utilising the descriptions found in British flora, the accuracy will be a matter of luck, since you'll only be describing the plant's British form and variety. Instead, descriptions need to be written by utilising the accounts of the plant from as many flora from different parts of the world as possible that you have available or can get hold of. It would probably be excessive to reference them all (though that is done in a strict work), but after reading all that you can, you choose a small number that seem to capture everything you've read; so for example you might select a European description, a Middle-Eastern one and an African one, as your references. If it's a more regionally restricted plant such as the E. Mediterranean, you would do similarly, using for example a Greek, Turkish, Middle-Eastern and N. African account. That's only 3 or 4 references, which isn't much at all. Even if they were hypothetically to all say the same thing, which they never do, you'd still need to reference them as having been consulted, because just referencing a regional work doesn't indicate the resulting description has global scope.
The situation then is how to do the description and where to place the references.
The Description should I think avoid as much jargon as possible, because the average person isn't going to understand 'petiole' or 'pedicel' but will be quite happy with 'leaf stalk' or 'flower stalk' (or 'leaf stalk (petiole)' etc), and be, say (as a template but not being prescriptive), three paragraphs, with the 'easy' qualities for people first (plant is tall, dark and handsome), then paragraph 2 the qualities requiring a more experienced or patient eye (e.g. fruits have a wrinkled surface), probably best kept in terser language so that it takes up less space, then paragraph 3 you might have some details about subspecies etc. But in doing this the references very much embrace the entire description.
My recommendation is to provide the references for a botanic description either at the end or start, which is the standard practice in botany, with extra referential inserts at individual moments for any extra points. Repeating the references identically at the end of each paragraph looks clumsy and is not standard botanical practice. Trying to reference each point made would be excruciating as you'll be repeating the same block of references over and over again. I wonder therefore if there could be something written explicitly about plant descriptions that provides the right workable vision, because at the moment if you use several sources to create a description you're forced to put them at the end and then may get the page labelled as problematic because it's not following the expected style.
An article on a plant would have many other sections, so here we are talking about the globally-relevant botanical description. Meteorquake ( talk) 12:42, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
See Borlengo. Is the use of "now" in articles correct? The word "now" is never precise ("now" can also be 100 years from now). JackkBrown ( talk) 20:14, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Korea-related articles § About adding a link to each hangul syllable using Template:Linktext.
172.56.232.220 (
talk)
17:48, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
Discussion closed. 172.56.232.167 ( talk) 00:12, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
I wonder whether maybe there's a broader MOS issue here than just the specific one of whether we should wikilink each separate glyph of non-Latin scripts even in scripts like Hangul for which the glyphs are not words. (Obviously: No.) It seems to me that most uses of the template in question, {{ linktext}}, even when used to link actual words, even in English, are going to be violations of MOS:SEAOFBLUE. Why do we have a template that encourages that? — David Eppstein ( talk) 07:25, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
[[:wikt:Yourword|]]
interwikilink will suffice. I was concerned that it saw legitimate use in linguistics articles, but it's the same generic use in
vowel and
measure word. It does do the convenient thing of linking to the specific language section in Wiktionary, but otherwise it just wraps what should just be easy markup.{{lang|ja|{{linktext|緑|lang=ja}}}}
to {{lang|ja|[[wikt:緑#Japanese|緑]]}}
or vice versa for no compelling reason. However, use of that template to do things like {{lang|de|{{linktext |Das |Ewig-Weibliche |zieht |uns |hinan |lang=de}}}}
is much more dubious, except in certain linguistic contexts. What we normally want to do is {{lang|de|Das Ewig-Weibliche zieht uns hinan}} 'The eternal feminine draws us on high'
. There is usually no reason to link to a Wiktionary definition of a non-English word, and making a reader go off-site to figure out what something means (much less do it word-by-word) is "reader-hateful". —
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼
03:27, 31 January 2024 (UTC)By the way, if you want to discuss about the general use of Linktext throughout Wikipedia, I recommend that you start a new discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Linking. 172.56.232.125 ( talk) 23:55, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
MOS:COLON states, "When what follows the colon is also a complete sentence, start it with a capital letter...". This is American style, but not British. I don't think that this statement is controversial: see for instance Grammarly and our own article Colon (punctuation)#Use of capitals. Wikipedia of course allows both American and British spelling as long as each article is consistent. But it seems awkward to me to have British spelling combined with American punctuation, and I doubt that this was the intention. So I have boldly edited to, "When what follows the colon is also a complete sentence, American style is to start it with a capital letter, but otherwise do not capitalize after a colon except ...". Everybody happy with that? JMCHutchinson ( talk) 11:05, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
In short, no MOS:ENGVAR claim can be sustained on this point, nor is there a clear "single overriding encylclopedic purpose" argument to be made here. Garner's observation in GMEU that there are conflicting reasons to prefer one over the other is correct (though his picking a particular side almost certainly has much to do with the fact that he's the primary author of the related material in both Chicago Manual and Chicago Guide). American usage provably does not require the capitalization, and some British publishers (cf. news sources cited in earlier comments) provably do use the capital. Other sources both British and American are noncommittal on the question.
This should simply be left to editorial discretion at the article like most things, and MoS does not need to so prescriptively legislate on it ( WP:MOSBLOAT and WP:CREEP). It seems that our present wording of:
When what follows the colon is also a complete sentence, start it with a capital letter, but otherwise do not capitalize after a colon except where doing so is needed for another reason, such as for a proper name.
If what follows the colon is something normally capitalized (proper name, acronym, quoted sentence, etc.), use a capital letter. For a complete sentence after a colon, capitalization is optional. Use a lowercase letter after the colon otherwise.
If what follows the colon is something normally capitalized (proper name, acronym, quoted sentence, etc.), or multiple complete sentences, use a capital letter. For a single complete sentence after a colon, capitalization is optional. Use a lowercase letter after the colon otherwise.
In most cases, a colon works best with a complete grammatical sentence before it. If what follows the colon is something normally capitalized (proper name, acronym, quoted sentence, etc.), use a capital letter. When a colon is used before a complete sentence, or in an article title, section heading, or list item, editors may choose whether to capitalize the first letter of what follows, taking into consideration the existing practice and consistency with related articles. Do not capitalize after a colon otherwise.
In running text, a colon usually works best with a complete grammatical sentence before it, but this is not necessary when the intent is clear. The "in running text" part is actually important, since the original wording over-states the case and does not account for formatting of lists, etc. The ending part could also blend your concision with the previous RfC consensus about explicit editorial discretion:
... or list item, editors may choose but should consider the need for clarity and for consistency within the article and related articles.That would also change the guideline link from MOS:STYLERET to MOS:ARTCON which makes more sense anyway, and remove the link to WP:CONSISTENT which is about article titles and not actually pertinent here. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 20:31, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
Let me set out four responses to that:
(i) My text, in which I've tried to be more concise, doesn't "go back to" the status quo. By definition, nothing can go back to what is currently in place. That status quo was an important long-standing provision on the central page of MOS; so let's not lightly assume consensus for change.
(ii) It's simply not true that British English wants a colon never to capitalise what follows it. Consider Fowler, so quintessentially British: In The King's English there's no discussion of this issue, but the examples with a capital include: "Always remember the ancient maxim: Know thyself."
Fowler's own Modern English Usage says nothing against such a capital; nor does Gower in the second edition; nor does Burchfield in the third, and he repeats the example verbatim: "Always remember the ancient maxim: Know thyself."
In the fourth (current) edition, Butterfield is careless and inconsistent. He has picked up the supposed rule somewhere, and writes:
But straight after that he contradicts himself:
(iii) Wikipedia is beholden to no regional authority for punctuation. It selects on rational grounds from all sources: double quote marks from US practice, and essentially British ways (with US additions) for the en dash. Why should the colon be treated differently?
(iv) I think the text that my long-standing friend SMcCandlish proposed (now prematurely put into MOS) is a bit clunky and needs to give clearer guidance. May I be bold and compare the components of his suggestion and mine?
I don't like reverting, and I respect SMcCandlish's knowledge and research. But could we leave it as is, pending full treatment of these and any other relevant points? And let's try to gain genuine consensus on this important matter.
Tony (talk) 11:26, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
"A colon is usually preceded by a complete grammatical sentence, but need not be if the intent is clear."This would keep both the original's clear preference for a complete sentence, and Tony1's somewhat more precise idea of "intent" versus just a loose "in most cases". We don't seem to need to say "In running text", but it could be tacked back onto to the front if it's badly wanted.
For anything normally capitalized (proper name, quoted sentence, etc.), retain the capital after a colon.This would keep the important point that quoted full sentences should not be decapitalized just because they are after a colon; the entire reason we have MOS:LQ is to avoid falsifying the content of quotations, and it's a principle we've stuck with for over two decades. So, this particular point is non-negotiable from my position. (A semi-recent change in MOS:CONFORM permits such an aleration before an introduction like "said that", but this is dubious and controversial and probably needs an RfC to see whether this has consensus, since it calls into question our entire treament of quotations and the rationale behind it.)
A colon is usually preceded by a complete grammatical sentence, but need not be if the intent is clear. For anything normally capitalized (proper name, quoted sentence, etc.), retain the capital after a colon. In an article title, section heading, or list item, or before a complete sentence, capitalizing after a colon is left to editorial discretion, mindful of existing practice and consistency with related article titles. Use lowercase after a colon otherwise.
A colon is usually preceded by a complete grammatical sentence, but need not be if the intent is clear. For anything normally capitalized (proper name, quoted sentence, etc.), retain the capital after a colon. In an article title, section heading, or list item, capitalizing after a colon is left to editorial discretion, mindful of existing practice and consistency with related article titles. Prefer to capitalize the first letter of a complete sentence after a colon. Use lowercase after a colon otherwise.
A colon is usually preceded by a complete grammatical sentence, but need not be if the intent is clear. For anything normally capitalized (proper name, etc.), retain the capital after a colon. Prefer to capitalize the first letter of a complete sentence after a colon, always for multiple sentences or a quoted sentence. In an article title, section heading, or list item, capitalizing after a colon is left to editorial discretion, mindful of existing practice and consistency with related article titles. Use lowercase after a colon otherwise.
In running text a colon need not be preceded by a complete grammatical sentence, so long as the intent is clear. / A colon capitalizes the first letter in what follows it if that can naturally be read as a complete sentence: otherwise, it normally does not. But when a colon is being used as a separator in an article title, section heading, or list item, consider the need for clarity and for consistency within the article and related articles.
I don't know if I'm writing in the right place but I came across this edit [4] and I didn't know if this was a Wikipedia policy. In short, a bunch of titles of references on a page included French punctuation (speech marks that look like << >>), because they were in French. Of course provide a translation into English, but I just felt that it seemed a bit nitpicky to "correct" the punctuation of another language, as much as "correcting" its grammar or even vocabulary. I think User:Mazewaxie may have done this on other pages on my watchlist, but I had never checked the edit because it looked like a non-controversial automated edit.
Only other time I saw something like this that made me "huh" was here though I probably made the same mistake by not including the censorship in the swear words, as I pre-empted a WP:NOTCENSORED intervention. Unknown Temptation ( talk) 20:53, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
*When quoting text from non-English languages, the outer punctuation should follow the Manual of Style for English quote marks. If there are nested quotations, follow the rules for correct punctuation in that language. If there are multiple styles for a language, the one used by the Wikipedia for that language is preferred unless the punctuation itself is under discussion.
- The cynical response "L'auteur aurait dû demander : « à quoi sert-il d'écrire ceci ? » mais ne l'a pas fait" was all he wrote.
The redirect
Wikipedia:)( has been listed at
redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the
redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 February 8 § Wikipedia:)( until a consensus is reached.
Daniel Quinlan (
talk)
00:30, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
I’ve copied the following discussion from WP:ERRORS. That’s not a suitable place to sort out guidance. Pinging JennyOz, Dank, Dying, and Peacemaker67. Schwede 66 02:25, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
[End of copy-pasted original discussion.] Schwede 66 02:25, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
Always use a pair of commas for this, unless another punctuation mark takes the place of the second comma), and a consensus change in the direction of topical exceptions is extremely unlikely to happen. Especially when in this case another guideline, MOS:GEOCOMMA, is also saying the same thing. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 03:51, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
Always use a pair of commas for this, unless another punctuation mark takes the place of the second comma. The clarity the commas provide to a large subset of readers is much more valuable than the tiny bit of "micro-concision" gained by omitting them. As with virtually any style matter that doesn't have serious disruption potential, if someone prefers to write without these commas, no one is likely to make much noise about it; it's something another editor will just clean up later. There's only a problem when someone tries to either go around removing these commas from where they belong, or stonewall other editors who are bringing the material into guideline compliance. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 10:04, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
Is adherence to the MOS mandatory or a preference? I see people going to war over the MOS, even with single edits that are invisible to the readers. The Banner talk 10:46, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
This guideline is a part of the English Wikipedia's Manual of Style.Compare e.g. WP:V which says
This page documents an English Wikipedia policy.Policies are stricter than guidelines. -- Redrose64 🌹 ( talk) 13:11, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
[[Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart|Mozart]]
[[Mozart]]
[[Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart|Mozart]]
? Do you see that the form of link that Surtsicna prefers, and that I prefer, and that the manual prefers, is like the green link below it, while the form that you keep reverting to is the red one with the big red cross next to it?"do not do something" means "fix it when you see it done"is correct, and if the wording were adjusted to something like "usually do not do something" then "usually fix it when you run into it" would be correct; WP:CONTENTAGE is an "argument to avoid" fallacy; no material is exempt from WP:P&G compliance simply because it's not newly added today (or last week, or last year). — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 09:59, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
[[2014 Scottish independence referendum|Scottish independence referendum]]
, for example, because, while
MOS:NOPIPE would seem to apply, it's quite possible that a second Scottish independence referendum might occur. If it did, the latter part of that link might no longer be a valid redirect to the former.I think the base question needs interpretation in the light of The Banner's other remarks. I think he's really asking: "Can I persistently revert other editors' work if I prefer to disregard the Manual of Style?"As in: Can I straight ignore objections of others and invent a new rule (it being mandatory)??? And about the cosmic changes: no reader will see your changes. The Banner talk 15:35, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
Do not "fix" links to redirects that are not broken. So, why do you fix links that are not broken? The Banner talk 00:45, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
[[Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart|Mozart]]
?[[Henry VIII]]
into piped links: [[Henry VIII of England|Henry VIII]]
. Then "
Henry VIII of England" was moved to "
Henry VIII", and instead of pointing directly to "
Henry VIII" as they would have done, all those links (there are thousands) now go via a redirect at
Henry VIII of England.
6,257 pages currently make use of that redirect. If you think direct links really are preferable, you might like to look through that list and turn those piped redirects back into [[Henry VIII]]
. I promise, I won't intervene.[[Henry VIII of England|Henry VIII]]
[[Henry VIII]]
The sentence do not "fix" links to redirects that are not broken contains specific information about the kinds of links ("links to redirects") that shouldn't be "fixed", and the guideline gives examples of the ways in which they shouldn't be "fixed". There isn't an equivalent guideline saying "don't fix piped links" because the manual of style says redirects are preferred. There isn't a guideline that says "malformed but functional links shouldn't be edited".Failure to understand this at first is one thing, but persistently misapplying the material, after one has been corrected on the matter, as if it meant "don't fix any fix piped links even if malformed or unhelpful", when the entire point of that MoS passage is fixing poor piped links and preferring redirects, would be disruptive. If this is really the basis for the insistent reversion behavior, then this is rather concerning. The Banner: "if [insert tone complaint here], I am done." If you are done, then the reverting should stop. The edits are compliant with the guidelines, even if some of us might find them not required or not very important, or maybe even annoying if not done as part of a more substantive edit. You've raised a lengthy and rather venty complaint here, and from what I can tell a grand total of zero editors agree with you, so it is time to WP:DROPTHESTICK and stop revert-warring. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 00:36, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
At some indefinable point above, this discussion seems to have shifted from one about interpretation of the MOS guideline about piped links, and how mandatory guidelines are, into being more about the conduct of one editor, as I alluded to in my "hill to die on" comment above. I believe the behavioral component of it belongs not here, but at the user talk page, and accordingly, I have raised this discussion to address it. Mathglot ( talk) 07:42, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
Curious to get some opinions on the MOS:TENSE verbiage as it applies to a subject. Generally, we follow the good advice to treat things in present tense save for the historical stuff, which we leave in the past. My question falls as to whether it's better to just stick with one when the alternative is tense-switching repeatedly. The MOS gives Dún Aonghasa is the ruin of a prehistoric Irish cliff fort. Its original shape was presumably oval or D-shaped, but parts of the cliff and fort have since collapsed into the sea. as an example, but as a single occasion it's not really that disruptive. The issue I see is more in cases of something like computer technology, where we're talking about a discontinued product that was sold or offered in specific configurations. Those machines and configurations still exist, but in the case of iMac G3#Release, the result is that you get three tense shifts in five sentences in a single paragraph, and even worse as you go. To me, sticking with historical makes it read much better, short of rearranging the entire section or turning it from prose to bullets or something to avoid the issue. Thoughts? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 19:54, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
The new iMacs have no fan...about something released a quarter-century ago is quite jarring.) It either needs to be a description of what design decisions were taken at the time, or a description of the components of the (still extant) machines, in present tense. Currently it is a muddle of the two. As written, I agree it would be easier to shift it into past tense (e.g., "These models were released without a fan..."-- Trystan ( talk) 02:13, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
As this guidance from the government of Canada says, since Inuit is already plural (Inuk is singular) and because it already means "the people", phrases such as "the Inuit" and "Inuit people" are grammatically incorrect and I think we could reflect it in a footnote somewhere in MOS as a case of irregular plurals and/or article usage. Unfortunately I can see a lot of that usage by typing "the Inuit" or "Inuit people" in the search tool, including in Inuit topics.
This is a drive-by comment. Szmenderowiecki ( talk) 23:52, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
Hi. Today I reverted an edit by an editor who had changed a title of several bands so the The in the title was changed to the in the article John Miles (musician). I reverted them based on MOS:5, which states: Always capitalized: When using title case, the following words should be capitalized: The first and last word of the title (e.g. A Home to Go Back To) It was reverted back by the editor quoting MOS:THEBAND which states: Mid-sentence, per the MoS main page, the word the should in general not be capitalized in continuous prose, e.g.: Wings featured Paul McCartney from the Beatles and Denny Laine from the Moody Blues. I had not seen this part if MOS before so fair play. However is this not a contradiction? Should we not link MOS:THEBAND as an exception? Davidstewartharvey ( talk) 17:15, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
It seems to me that it makes the most sense of that articles covering topics that are occurring in or based in America should generally be written in American English, and articles covering topics that are occurring in or based in the UK or other countries were British English is predominant should generally be written with British English, and that this sentiment should be reflected in the MOS. Comments or questions on this proposition would be most welcome here.
Thanks,
Lighthumormonger (
talk)
17:04, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
You are correct. Thank you Martin for pointing that out to me. I looked for it but could not find it. Lighthumormonger ( talk) 17:20, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
I'm proposing that we remove or replace the following from MOS:VAR:
The Arbitration Committee has expressed the principle that "When either of two styles is acceptable it is inappropriate for a Wikipedia editor to change from one style to another unless there is some substantial reason for the change." [a]
ArbCom does not have authority over content, and so their words should not have such a prominent place in a manual of style that governs Wikipedia content. In addition, while a minor point, the quote is nearing 20 years old(!) and feels a bit out of place in a 2024 manual of style.
I'd propose that we remove the quote, as the next sentence beginning "Edit-warring over style ..." seems to cover this topic well enough. However, we could instead replace the quote with a regular old sentence that says the same thing. Ed [talk] [OMT] 19:15, 23 January 2024 (UTC) Ed [talk] [OMT] 19:15, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors. And their ruling is authoritative, as opposed to most of the MOS. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:59, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
Notes
It's been claimed that BLPs that have "regarded/considered as one of the greatest/best X of all-time/his generation" are unencyclopedic and appear to be indiscriminately removed [11] [12] [13] with a request to re-write the words are in quotes with attribution as per MOS:PUFFERY.
None of these BLPs have stated the subject is "the best/greatest" but state they're regarded/considered as one of the greatest/best players of all-time/his generation" which is consistent with what's included in BLPs such as Lionel Messi, Diego Maradona, Muhammad Ali, Mike Tyson, Tiger Woods, Serena Williams, Usain Bolt and many others.
MOS:PUFFERY states: "Words such as these are often used without attribution to promote the subject of an article, while neither imparting nor plainly summarizing verifiable information". My understanding is that the use of stating that the subject is regarded/considered as the "best/greatest" citing RS is within the policy and guidance as opposed to claiming the subject IS the "best/greatest". Even in the Bob Dylan article, which is cited as an example, states he is "Generally regarded as one of the greatest songwriters ever". RevertBob ( talk) 10:10, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
When I reverted some of these edits, my edit summary was "Please re-write this puffery in quotes with attribution, per MOS:PUFFERY". The policy literally says, "without attribution", and the example given shows the puffery in quotation marks. All that RevertBob needed to do was follow the policy. Magnolia677 ( talk) 20:50, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
This sort of question might really be better asked over at WT:FAC: "Under what sourcing circumstances would the Featured Article reviewers accept a claim like 'considered one of the greatest [occupational speciality here]'?"? — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 22:59, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
I am curious whether some of those talking about “attribution” mean to say
WP:INTEXT attribution. Reasonable claims (eg, at
Tiger Woods: Woods is widely regarded as one of the greatest golfers of all time and is one of the most famous athletes in modern history
) don’t need more attribution than a one or two strong citations, especially in the lead (which is where I think we’re all really talking about). My main concerns for this type of writing are that a) we don’t say such things in Wikipedia’s voice, and b) we source them clearly. Including explicit quotes is arguably better, but full quotes and in-text attribution can really weigh down the writing, and I really wouldn’t want to push aside multiple strong sources just to provide in-text attribution from one of them, Magnolia677.
MOS:PUFFERY should not be an anchor holding us back from describing some of our most important biographical subjects clearly with strong, decisive prose. Of course these kinds of “puffy” statements should be given this leniency only where their claim is largely uncontroversial (NB, not where the statement has been subject to controversy based on hard-line anti-puffery patrollers).
Consider also the counterpoint at
Adolf Hitler, whose lead includes: The historian and biographer Ian Kershaw describes Hitler as "the embodiment of modern political evil".
, a statement sensibly attributed to a leading Hitler historian, whose inclusion in the lead is not likely to be an erroneous distraction for the reader. But in that context, I actually suggest going further, and noting Kershaw’s place in the field would better inform the reader. —
HTGS (
talk)
03:32, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
On his death in 2010, he was described as the greatest judge of his generation.
Known for his creativity, dribbling, passing and vision, he is regarded as one of the best players of his generation, but I don’t see “vision” in either source and creativity seems less important to the sources than attack (goal.com:
Hazard is widely regarded as one of the best attacking players of his generation) or dribbling (ibid:
… is, without any qualms, one of the best dribblers of this generation.), so I would cut those without sourcing. If pressed, the claim of “one of best players of his gen” seems less well-supported than “one of best dribblers of his gen”. It’s also not hard to find similar sources that support the claim (eg, [19]). — HTGS ( talk) 00:56, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
One other distinction. Those types of phrases like "Mike is considered to be one of the best dart players of all time" imply that they are widely considered to have such a quality. And if true, such is information about what the relevant public thinks rather than puffery. Not just that somebody found a few people/sources that said it. So if 3 truly reliable sources say "Mike is one of the best dart players of all time" that does not support it, it just says that three people think that way and anything more than that would be synthesis. If they all say "Mike is considered to be one of the best dart players of all time" IMO that does support it because they are reporting on what the relevant public thinks. North8000 ( talk) 21:36, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
( edit conflict) If somebody is generally considered X, it should be possible to find high-quality sources that explicitly say that they are generally considered X. TompaDompa ( talk) 21:47, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
MOS:PUFFERY states: "Words such as these are often used without attribution to promote the subject of an article, while neither imparting nor plainly summarizing verifiable information".
Request for comment on if "regarded/considered as one of the greatest/best X of all-time/his generation" can be used in Wikipedia's voice without attribution providing there's appropriate supporting reliable sources. RevertBob ( talk) 22:25, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
can be used in Wikipedia's voice without attributionrefer to WP:INTEXT attribution (e.g. "Mr. Smith stated...") or supplying a citation to a reliable source? For citations, the WP:V policy says:
As for use of "regarded/considered", the more relevant guideline is MOS:WEASEL:...any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supportsthe material. Any material that needs an inline citation but does not have one may be removed.
WP:INTEXT attribution is not always suitable:Words to watch: some people say, many scholars state, it is believed/regarded/considered...The examples above are not automatically weasel words. They may also be used in the lead section of an article or in a topic sentence of a paragraph, and the article body or the rest of the paragraph can supply attribution. Likewise, views that are properly attributed to a reliable source may use similar expressions, if those expressions accurately represent the opinions of the source.
— Bagumba ( talk) 08:46, 14 February 2024 (UTC)Neutrality issues apart, there are other ways in-text attribution can mislead. The sentence below suggests The New York Times has alone made this important discovery: According to The New York Times, the sun will set in the west this evening.
I think MOS:PLURALS should be updated to better reflect North American usage. I'm American, and I've been noticing things like "As it toured Europe for the first time..." at Nirvana and "Because of conflicts with its record label..." at Metallica, uses that sound completely wrong. We need to add something about how it's "Nirvana is" but "they are" here. Esszet ( talk) 16:15, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
As a North American, I'm telling you, saying "it told me" in reference to "the committee" is completely wrong, we apparently need to update the MOS to reflect that.I'm also North American I do not agree with this. It's an argument to (personal) authority as an arbiter of what is "correct" versus "wrong" in North American English, and it's a bogus argument along prescriptivist lines with regard to American and North American English (the latter often cannot be generalized about anyway, as Canadian usage is palpably shifting on many matters back toward British due to the influences of a variety of national style guides and dictionaries and other works over the last two generations or so). If you were at a committee meeting and the individual committee members (even unanimously) told you X, then they told you X; you were told something by persons. If the committee as a body sent you a letter that collectively informed you of X, then it told you X; you were told by a body. This is normal usage within the US and more broadly. Where this differs regionally is in average handling of less clear-cut cases. AmEng tends toward "it" in reference to bands and companies and boards and such, while BrEng leans toward "they", but usage of both depending on the context is easily findable regardless of country of publication. Some examples from the top of relevant search results:
To speakers of North American English: this may sound stupid, but for all of our British, Aussie, and Kiwi friends out there, which of the following sounds more natural?
Esszet ( talk) 00:00, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
An RFC has been created at the WikiProject Astronomy talk page titled " RFC: Imperial/U.S. customary units in astronomy object infobox". Jc3s5h ( talk) 16:35, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
Does MOS:COLLAPSE support the collapsed infoboxes as used at, for example, Montacute House and Little Moreton Hall? I don't believe it does, but at Talk:Montacute House, @ Nikkimaria has argued the reverse, so wider input would be helpful. A.D.Hope ( talk) 10:28, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
At some point (I don't have the patience to history-dig for it), we lost the line-item in MOS:DASH that said something along the lines of using an en dash between the name parts of merged jurisdictions and other compound/merged/commingled/spanning/encompassing entities and things (other than, mostly, corporations, the post-merger/acquisition names of which take rather random forms like "DaimerChrysler" and "KPMG Peat Marwick" and so on). This principle was consistently used numerous times for establishing various article names, such as
What brought this to my notice was an RM at Talk:Carson–Newman University to convert the en dash to a hyphen, in a case where this is a merged entity of institutions individually named Carson and Newman, not a case of a unitary insititution having been named after two people.
Ever since the MOS:DASH wording changed along the way somewhere, various cases that called for, or at least originally called for, en dash are now at hyphens. Some examples include:
Locus of the problem: The remaining MoS wording that seems applicable is only this: Generally, use a hyphen in compounded proper names of single entities. ... Wilkes-Barre, a single city named after two people, but Minneapolis–Saint Paul, an area encompassing two cities.
The latter point of this seems to still vaguely suggest using, e.g., Gilgit–Baltistan, Moravian–Silesian Region, Carson–Newman University, etc., but it is too unclear to reliably result in this at RM. People just see "Generally, use a hyphen in compounded proper names of single entities", without regard for the intent (or at least former intent) for the products of merging to be en-dash treated. The seizing upon this first part is so firm for some editors that the second just gets ignored, and we end up with titles like Mount Carmel-Mitchells Brook-St. Catherines and Long Harbour-Mount Arlington Heights and Grand Falls-Windsor which are akin to Minneapolis–Saint Paul (combined name for a fused area encompassing multiple individually named places) not to Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania (always one place, that happens to be named after two people).
Even the "Generally" in that wording now no longer makes sense, because the case in which it didn't apply is now so obscured as to be almost missing.
So, we have something of a WP:CONSISTENT policy crisis that has developed over the last few years, with various articles on subjects of this merged/commingled/spanning nature being at en-dash titles and various of them at hyphen titles, and people willy-nilly RMing them at cross purposes to each other, with different moves concluding for conflicting results (plus sometimes just some manual moves, and sometimes pages simply having been at one or the other format the entire time without being moved). A prominent recent example is AFL–CIO being stable at that title for years, on the basis of the merged-entities reasoning, then suddenly moved to AFL-CIO on the preferences of a total of three editors.
We really need to settle one way or the other on this, and record it clearly in MOS:DASH.
PS: There are also a handful of outright errors, like:
— SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 23:41, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
occasional exceptionespoused by WP:MOS. YorkshireExpat ( talk) 17:47, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
A rule I know that's way easier to follow and makes (for me) more sense is to use an en-dash if one of component parts consists of multiple words. I'm sorry but this makes no sense, why would this be a rule? WP:MOS makes absolutely no mention of this. YorkshireExpat ( talk) 21:06, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
Generally, use a hyphen in compounded proper names of single entities.I think discussion ends here. Carson–Newman University is a single entity, including compounded names, so it gets a hyphen. The fact that it wasn't a single entity in the past is neither here nor there; WP:MOS makes no reference to that. Why should the history of a university determine the current naming? The argument for University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign is entirely different. Urbana–Champaign is a metropolitan area comprising multiple single entities, and that's why it gets the endash. Why WP:CONSISTENT should apply here is anyone's guess. Certainly there should be no mass RM based on that policy.
Wikipedia is not written in news style.One upshot of this is that a style that dominates in news material but not in academic and other non-news material is not a style we'll adopt (unless we have a good reason to do so as determined by project-internal consensus for some other particular reason). — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 01:35, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
To anyone following this I've started a move request here, if anyone's interested and has a viewpoint. I think it's an interesting case. YorkshireExpat ( talk) 15:49, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
Moving reply here so as not to put a large block of links in the main thread above: G. Timothy Walton above asserts: the official Representation Order for Canadian federal electoral district uses emdashes, not endashes, between geographical entities. Moving them all to endashes would often be erroneous.
.
Nah, it is easily demonstrable that which horizontal line to use is just a completely arbitrary house-style choice, and we do not follow the Canadian government's house style, nor they ours. More to the point, they don't follow their own, anyway. The Canadian government is not consistent at all on an unspaced em dash, even within the same agency – the one responsible for administring electoral districts – and for the same electoral district; cf. their official usage here, which is unspaced double hyphens (an old typewriting convention standing in for an en dash, with an em dash represented by three), and their equally official usage here, which is an unspaced en dash not an em dash. This idea that these districts "officially" require an em dash seems to be an assumption about what what is done in a particular webpage or other document without any regard to what's done in others, in reference to the same districts. And it wouldn't matter anyway, since WP doesn't follow some other entity's house style even when it's "official".
Other agencies use whatever they want; e.g.: Library of Parliament uses spaced hyphens for this [67] [68]; Statistics Canada uses unspaced double-hyphens again [69], and same at main Canada.ca government site [70] [71]; Parliament of Canada prefers the unspaced em dash [72], and ditto for Elections Ontario [73] and Public Prosecution Service [74]; Federal Redistribution uses unspaced en dash [75] as does the government's Canada Gazette [76], but not always (here with unspaced em dash [77]); the City of Toronto uses an unspaced hyphen [78]; Legislative Assembly of Ontario uses unspaced en dash and unspaced hyphen in same document [79].
Independent source usage generally doesn't follow this alleged but disproven em dash convention, either: Ontario Community Health Profiles Partnership uses unspaced double-hyphen [80], GeoCoder uses unspaced hyphen [81], University of Calgary Canadian Elections Database confusingly uses unspaced double-hyphen for federal [82] and unspaced hyphen for provincial [83], StudentVote.ca uses unspaced em dash [84], Toronto.com (combined website of the newspapers The North York Mirror, Scarborough Mirror and Etobicoke Guardian) uses unspaced hyphen [85], Canada Gazette sometimes uses unspaced em dash [86], but otherwise unspaced en dash [87]; CBC News uses unspaced hyphen [88], and so do The Globe and Mail https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/article-toronto-election-results-map/], Toronto District School Board [89], Global News [90], CTV News [91], CityNews [92], and Canadian National Multilingual News Group [93]; Toronto Star uses the unspaced em dash [94] or unspaced hyphen [95] on different pages; Simon Fraser University uses spaced hyphen [96]; Ontario Public School Boards Association uses mostly spaced en dash, some unspaced em dash, and at least one case of hyphen spaced on one side, all in the same document [97].
This is all just from the first page of search results on the same electoral district. Clearly demonstrates this is entirely a house-style choice, with some (both within and without the government) not caring at all which one it is even from page-to-page on the same site, sometimes not even on the same page. WP has no reason at all to do anything but follow it's own MOS:DASH rule, which calls for Toronto–Danforth with an unspaced en dash, with parenthetical disambiguation as needed for multiple districts. The idea of ever trying to disambiguate these just by which tiny little horizontal line they have in them is not even vaguely practical. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 07:17, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
WP:COMMONALITY states Use universally accepted terms rather than those less widely distributed, especially in titles. For example,
glasses is preferred to the national varieties spectacles (
British English) and eyeglasses (
American English);
ten million is preferable to
one crore (
Indian English).
When does WP:TIES override this guidance? JoelleJay ( talk) 23:48, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
According to this discussion, a transparent background is applied to quote boxes in article space because of the guidelines established in MOS:BLOCKQUOTE and MOS:COLOR. I think this choice makes the pages using this template look cluttered and visually appalling. Furthermore, as pointed out by @ Belbury, these models have been employed in over 22,000 times across Wikipedia, which means the current orientation is interfering with readability in many places. I would like to suggest that article space quote boxes should have a guideline that encourages neutral tones, such as the default grey colour (#F9F9F9). As a last argument to support this change, I will also cite @ Light show: "Light background colors can make a document more visually appealing by adding a layer of design and sophistication, which can make the text more engaging to readers [...] large pages of black and white text can be monotonous to read, so having some light background colors for block quotes with borders can break this monotony, making the reading experience more pleasant and less tiresome". GustavoCza ( talk • contribs) 01:46, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
do not use colored text or background unless its status is also indicated using another method, such as an accessible symbol matched to a legend, or footnote labels( MOS:COLOR) and
Block quotations using a colored background are also discouraged( MOS:BLOCKQUOTE). – Jonesey95 ( talk) 13:27, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
is also indicated using another method.
I don't think any change to the MOS is needed for the sake of the issue at hand apart from maybe an explanatory note that quote boxes are not block quotes under the MOS, which is how everyone here apart from Jonesey95 seems to understand it (myself included).
However, the root cause of the problem is that we've been sticking our heads in the sand in regard to the use of quote boxes for nearly a decade now. I previously raised the issue back in 2017, and SMcCandlish explained that the lack of mention stemmed from wishful thinking that it'd make quote boxes go away, which it didn't. I'm not updated on the issue, and the last major discussion I'm aware of is the 2016 RfC, where there was consensus against pull quotes but not much agreement on what other uses of quote boxes are appropriate. It's such a lack of agreement that's preventing them from being documented in the MoS. Has there been any attempt in the intervening years to find some agreement on this? -- Paul_012 ( talk) 17:26, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
Quote boxes are not block quotes, but a form of sidebar, which typically (for images, infoboxes, navboxes, etc.) have at least a slightly different background color. However, the vast majority of uses of quote boxes in our articles are inappropriate per one or more policies and should be converted into normal block quotes. People do it because they like stylizing things, but it draws a gross amount of attention to a particular party's statement versus that of other parties (that fails WP:UNDUE), or in article on a particular author/speaker, document, etc., draws a gross amount of attention to some WP editor's personally selected "most important" or "favorite" part, which fails both WP:NPOV generally and WP:NOR, in the vast majorityof cases.
We probably should have an RfC about this, well "advertised" at the relevant policy pages and at WP:VPPOL. Most of the objections to pull quotes also apply to highlighted quotes of any other kind. What has happened is that pull quotes were community deprecated, so people insistent on injecting undue "decorated" quotes all over the place, have been evading it by using quoted content that technically isn't a pull quote because it does not repeat material already quoted inline in the main text. Literally the only way to tell the difference is to read every word of the article from top to bottom and see whether the decorated quote material is or is not unique on the page (and that might change at any time anyway). This is clearly a pattern of WP:LAWYER / WP:GAMING, and it needs to stop. Legitimate uses of templates like this in mainspace are extremely rare, and zero of them are actually necessary. There is not a single case that could not be replaced by an in-context block quote (and many are so short they should not be in block quotes at all, but inline quotations in quotation marks). I'm gratified to see that the quote-boxing has been replaced by normal blockquotation at various articles on famous speeches. This is a move in the right direction, presenting the material encyclopedically both as to contextual placement in the article and as to visual presentation, instead of doing it like a magazine or a click-bait website. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 22:42, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
The quote box template has more styling commands than I can count. Whereas a few behavior switches with accompanying standardized styles in classes should be all that is needed. (which is not to say that i think they should all be gray, I think that our gray is horrible as a text background and not suited for pieces of text like this [nor for captions of thumbs honestly]). — TheDJ ( talk • contribs) 12:42, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
Of course, we have learned—or are still trying our best—to internalize that the MOS is a set of guidelines, and there are exceptions of some quantity to nearly every prescription therein. Especially regarding the niche-er points with tables and markup, I like the idea of surveying pages that clearly, intentionally contravene points of the MOS, but
I know this is going to be more subjective than most collaborative ideas on here—it's coloring outside the lines, but I think it's possible to create something educational, right? Remsense 诉 03:57, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
I have some difficulty in working out the point of Spelling § International organizations. As written, it is non-prescriptive, at least explicitly, and therefore seems out of place in the MoS.
Given this, the natural reading to me is an implicit extension of an MOS:TIES-style principle to articles with a strong ties to international organizations. I may have missed an explicit statement of such a policy in this connexion, but, if I have not, and am nevertheless right, it would be good to be clearer. Docentation ( talk) 04:15, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
Articles with strong ties to an international organization listed under a variety of English at Spelling § International organizations should use that variety, and to amend Spelling § International organizations accordingly. If nobody objects for a week, I shall go ahead; otherwise, I shall raise a proper RfC. Docentation ( talk) 22:08, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
2604:3D08:9B7B:E800:AC7D:A86B:5EE4:14B7 ( talk · contribs) seems to be on a quest to unlink United States from every Simpsons article. What's the MOS on that?? Q T C 04:05, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
I really wish we didn't need inline spacing templates like {{ -?}} and {{ 's}}. It feels like they're just trying to compensate for bad kerning that browsers ought to be handling automatically. Sdkb talk 04:58, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
I am currently working on an article about a Malagasy zebu-wrestling sport. Its names are tolon'omby and savika— Malagasy words. Should they be italicized and/or use the lang template throughout the article? What about the bolded first uses in the lede? Zanahary ( talk) 22:42, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
{{
lang-mg}}
and {{
lang}}
as appropriate for any Malagasy text in an en.wiki article so that screen readers pronounce the text correctly. Use bold markup where approriate.
{{Lang|prs|Kangina}}
– not correct{{Lang|prs-latn|Kangina}}
– correctwhen the word itself is not the article's topicWhat? If the article title is not the article topic, one of them needs to change so that the article title is the article topic.
single wordsand
foreign phrasesshould be marked up.
In the section organization section, there's the text If an article has at least four section headings, a navigable table of contents appears automatically, just after the lead.
This appears to have been removed in newer versions of Wikipedia, as the table of contents was moved to the left of the article. I'm not sure how to address this text, so I welcome other editors to take a look. —
Panamitsu
(talk)
09:23, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
Does the manual of style take any stance on parenthetical citations within an explanatory note?
A post by an editor at
Help talk:Shortened footnotes
[98] objects to an example because it "seems to maintain that parenthetical references are still allowed inside explanatory notes. That might have been true at some stage, but WP:PAREN now says "deprecated on Wikipedia".
" If this is true, that example should be removed, but after looking through the RFC this appears not to be so. {{
harv}} still has several thousand uses, and pages like the
Holy Roman Empire article seem compliant with the Manual of Style. The documentation for {{
harv}} should also be updated.
Template:Harvard citation/doc should either make clear that the template is now meant for explanatory notes, or state that its usage is deprecated outright. Regards,
Rjjiii (
talk)
02:35, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
at the WP:Articletitles talkpage, to do with italic titles. Primergrey ( talk) 00:39, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
Some folks here might be interested in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Islam#RfC on using the crescent and star symbol or Allah calligraphy. It's not directly MOS-related, but it's a design-related question about whether we want to use a unified symbol/logo for various items (e.g., sidebars, navboxes), and if so, which one (of the two main candidates). WhatamIdoing ( talk) 00:10, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
Hi. I noticed that in the infobox when adding the lang it (e.g. on the page Bica (coffee)) "media" doesn't work; why? JacktheBrown ( talk) 20:33, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
{{
infobox food}}
expects the |name=
parameter to be plain text, without markup. You should use |name=Bica
|name_lang=pt
|name_italics=true
. --
Redrose64 🌹 (
talk)
22:02, 20 March 2024 (UTC)Apart from the colour, the "correct" and "incorrect" examples under Quotation marks and internal links both display identically and behave identically when I click them. So the only way to compare them is to open up the section for editing. Maybe include a code snippet for each? Not necessarily the whole fragment—I'm thinking perhaps just [[" "]]
and "[[ ]]"
so things don't get too cluttered.
NB I've not checked for other instances of this—I just happen to have encountered this one. Musiconeologist ( talk) 13:18, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
According to this rule, if a valid English translation exists it must be used, but in the case of "Parmigiano Reggiano" the situation becomes very complicated. In order, a user changed the name of the page (" Parmesan") to "Parmigiano Reggiano"; I deleted his changes, but after further investigation, and based mainly on the sentence (on the page) "Outside the EU, the name "Parmesan" can legally be used for similar cheeses, with only the full Italian name unambiguously referring to PDO Parmigiano Reggiano.", I was wondering whether, since "Parmesan" outside Europe is almost always a bad imitation, it's wrong to write Parmesan under the ingredients of Italian foods; this might make them less authentic. JacktheBrown ( talk) 05:10, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
In the MOS, it uses the example "The article about
The Wachowskis, for example, is better without any pre-coming-out photos since the way they looked is not well known as they shied away from public appearances.", yet their article does include pre-coming-out photos, should the images in the article be removed, or should a new example be found?
Thanks,
I can do stuff! (
talk)
03:45, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
Currently the MOS sidebar template "By topic area" includes " Regional", which links to vaguely language-related and language-region cross-topics. However, the MOS has significant subpages on specific languages which are very difficult to find on main page navigation -- basically I have to guess. Furthermore, there is no corresponding Category:Wikipedia Manual of Style (languages) (or similar, something like which can be made immediately).
For example, under the sidebar is linked WP:Naming conventions (geographic names); but going through the sidebar to MOS/Korea-related articles, we are linked to WP:Naming conventions (Korean), which is then part of a large category of language conventions with lots of near-orphans. Additionally, there is no way to access stalled proposed guidelines that may be served as essays for the time being, or do with eyes for improvement, such as MOS/Arabic (which by the way is not linked in a regional category, but under MOS/Islam-related articles).
There's a lot of potential disentangling and cleanup to do between region, language, and culture guidelines (or not); or some could be referred back to subpages of WP:WikiProject Languages instead of here as P&G. Regardless, all MOS pages need to be somehow findable, because usually it seems people don't even realize they exist. SamuelRiv ( talk) 22:18, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
Per MOS:TYPOFIX "insignificant spelling and typographic errors should simply be silently corrected". But, what if the error is in a title being cited? Correcting the error is going to make it hard to find that article if the link changes. E.g. "Neflix star returns to his West Sussex roots". Clearly Neflix means Netflix, at Timothy Innes, and I know some would correct that, but I'm not sure. Thanks for your thoughts. SchreiberBike | ⌨ 21:45, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
<!-- not a typo -->
or {{
not a typo}}. Other readers will figure out the meaning just as you did. --
Michael Bednarek (
talk)
23:35, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
"correct it and have a hidden comment next to the ref that clarifies what the actual title is."I like that. It hides the error. It doesn't require a disruptive {{ sic}}. If at some point in the future it needs to be searched for again, the original will be easy to find. I'd probably put it in hidden text right next to the word that was corrected. SchreiberBike | ⌨ 02:11, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
<!-- -->
) near the error to indicate the original text. I hate to add anything which makes the MoS longer and more complicated, but is this worth the distraction? What think you?
SchreiberBike |
⌨
11:41, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
{{sic|pronounciation|nolink=yes}}
) or hidden ({{sic|pronounciation|hide=yes}}
) would solve even that.
IceWelder [
✉]
05:55, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
I've boldly added the shortcut MOS:TITLETYPOCON to the top of this discussion to make it easy to link to this consensus without adding clutter to the Manual of Style. I've only seen that done once before, so I'm not sure if others will agree that this is helpful. SchreiberBike | ⌨ 12:10, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
-->
vs → (right arrow)What is the
WP:MOS policy on usage of -->
vs
→ ( aka right-arrow / U+2192
) ?
-->
which is confused with
comment tagsee also discussion Wikipedia talk:Typo Team#Help needed finding legacy punctuation like "--" "-->"
Tonymetz 💬 22:55, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
-->
to represent an arrow is ugly and ridiculous, → is also obviously preferable in my mind to simply >
in situations like denoting the historical evolution of words in linguistics articles.
Remsense
诉
23:56, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
-->
to also prune
Tonymetz
💬
00:05, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
<!--...-->
. If there are true right-arrows within that portion, all is fine; but if there are two hyphena and a greater-than, these will cause normal display to resume earlier than intended. --
Redrose64 🌹 (
talk)
07:22, 5 April 2024 (UTC)-->
is generally to be avoided, but simply replacing it with right-arrow is not always correct - it's a case-by-case decision. --
Redrose64 🌹 (
talk)
07:36, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
the page reached by that URL does not contain the word "PROOPIOMELANOCORTIN" at all - either the URL is wrong or the title is wrong. I'm not familiar with the field, so cannot decide.It's at the top of the page, directly under the title, stylized "pro-opiomelanocortin". JoelleJay ( talk) 02:40, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
We should be allowed to use hyphens for titles because it causes fewer problems. This is what Geiger-Marsden article URL is
/info/en/?search=Geiger%E2%80%93Marsden_experiments
It's ugly and weird. A hyphen will look so much better. Kurzon ( talk) 20:54, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
Jesus F. Christ, my proposal isn't so ridiculous! Kurzon ( talk) 12:30, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
The redirect
Mos:english idioms has been listed at
redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the
redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 April 10 § Mos:english idioms until a consensus is reached.
Utopes (
talk /
cont)
00:14, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
Lifespan tags are dates in parenthesis which contain the birth and death dates of a person. For example: (1 January 1900 – 1 January 2000).
Roasted ( talk) 20:09, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
As long as the formatting criteria are met, biographies of non-living people, articles on specific publications, and dated historical events generally benefit from dating, but since the description should be kept short, other information may need to take precedence. ... For historical biographies, specific dates such as "1750–1810" are preferred over "18th-century" for clarity.Graham ( talk) 05:47, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
Dates or date ranges are encouraged when they enhance the short description as an annotation or improve disambiguationand is contrary to the observations you quoted (
generally benefit from dating, but since the description should be kept short, other information may need to take precedence). NebY ( talk) 13:12, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
While I realize it's not part of the MOS, I'm curious about other editors' thoughts on Wikipedia:The problem with false titles, an essay that was created a couple months back. The essay basically states we should be using articles ("the" mainly) before nouns. The essay and the author purport that the construction "The documentary follows American songwriter Bob Dylan" is incorrect while "The documentary follows the American songwriter Bob Dylan" is correct. I (and others, based on activity I've seen on my watch list) feel the latter is incorrect, but I wanted to see what editors more versed in style guidance have to say about it. ~~ Jessintime ( talk) 16:19, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
It seems like this discussion already de-escalated, but I'm curious if there's any precedent for style controversies to be handled on a WikiProject by WikiProject basis. (For my own part, I'm starting to suspect that the trends in usage are in fact region-based.) Clarinetguy097 ( talk) 17:42, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
Background: Based on MOS:ELLIPSES, I had edited one of my own sentences, placing a fourth period inside the closing quotation mark because that is what I thought MOS:ELLIPSIS instructed. But it just did not look right to me.
I consulted Garner's Modern English Usage (4th ed.) and searched the Wikipedia Manual of Style. I found MOS:LQ, which naturally agrees with Garner.
Then to the Teahouse, where I posted: MOS:ELLIPSES and MOS:LQ seem contradictory, and I received an affirming reply from Mike Turnbull.
I therefore added one period and an explanatory sentence to the MOS:ELLIPSES section, as follows.
Before edit: Jones wrote: "These stories amaze me. The facts suffer so frightfully ..."
After edit: Jones wrote: "These stories amaze me. The facts suffer so frightfully ...".
(Note that the period ending the sentence should be placed outside the quotation mark; see
MOS:LQ.)
All the best – Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) [he/him] 17:20, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
Gawaon ( talk) 22:04, 16 April 2024 (UTC)The use of experienced, second-level reviewers to conduct fully independent exams to evaluate the criterion validity of actual veterans' evaluations....
the fourth [dot] marking the end of the sentence, which supposedly happens in the quoted text too, and can therefore be enclosed in the quotation marks.If the original read, e.g., "... The facts suffer so frightfully at the hands of Johnson and his writing.", the "." is part of the original material, so can properly be included inside the quotation.
If the quoted text ended in a period, why would we include an ellipsis?Because material has been editorially removed from the original quoted material (in my example case, it's the "at the hands of Johnson and his writing" string).
Which of the following is correct?Depends on the original material. In most cases, this will be valid: "... and the use of experienced, second-level reviewers to conduct fully independent exams to evaluate the criterion validity of actual veterans' evaluations ...." unless the original material actually ended with "evaluations." There would not be a true need for
... veterans' evaluations ...".unless for some reason the original material did not end with "." after the elided material, perhaps because it had "!" or "?", or because it was itself terminated originally with "...", or was a title/headline/caption/table header/etc. with no terminal punctuation at all. However, using
... veterans' evaluations ...".doesn't actually break anything, and there might be a preference for this the more fragementary the quoted material is. If it's 20% of a sentence, I would probably go with that, but if the quote is 90% of a sentence and just lopped off an extraneous parenthetical comment (especially an inline parenethetical citation in an academic paper), I would be more inclined to use
... veterans' evaluations ...."which suggests a "complete thought", as it were.
I'll repeat what I always say: LQ is not difficult in any way, and people need to stop trying to manufacture ways to make it difficult. Include inside the quotation marks only the content (including puncutation) of the original quoted material and do not change it (except as noted later here); do not include inside the quotation marks content (including punctuation) that is not in the original quoted material, and that includes changing one puncutation mark to another (this is principally how LQ differs from typical British styles, which do permit such "silent" alterations, as in {{"'Not today,' he said", with "." altered to ","). If it is editorially desirable to change content inside the punctuation, this is done with [square-bracketed] insertions, or in the case of ellision with "...". The ultra-academic, usually redundant style "[...]" is not necessary, except when the quoted material contains its own original "...". That's really all there is to it.
avoid “sentence one…””sentence two”
: Yes, there is no reason to ever do that. If you were quotating the same material, you'd just fuse the quotations: "Sentence one .... Sentence two.", if the first is a fragment; but it would be "Sentence one. ... Sentence two.", if two complete sentences were quoted with intevening material elided.) If you were quoting two different parties and thus couldn't merge them into one quote, they would be separated, and probably have introductory clauses making it clear which speaker/writer is which.
PS: If anyone's still not clear why it's "evaluations ..." not " evaluations...", it's because the latter indicates a truncated word not a truncated passage. The ambiguity doesn't really come up with a word like "evaluations" but does with words like "which" and "there" and "as", for which longer words exist like "whichever" and "therefore" and "aside", which could have been truncated. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 23:28, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
PPS, regarding If one writes "These stories amaze me. The facts suffer so frightfully". (with the period after the quote mark), this already indicates that the final period is not part of the quote. Hence no ellipsis is needed, even if the original sentence continues.
Doing it that way would not an error, but it depends on editors and readers alike being 100% involved with LQ, which is obvioiusly not the reality. Various of our editors just DGaF and write however they like, leaving it to other editors to clean up after them later, so our readers (who even notice such puncuation matters at all) cannot depend entirely on the terminal "." having been placed correctly (and various of them would not pick up any implication from the placement anyway). When just quoting an isolated fragment like "Johson called it a 'disaster' in a press conference two days later", this really doesn't matter, but when quoting one or more full sentences followed by a fragment it is sensible (and zero cost/harm of any kind) to make it clear to the reader than the entire quoted material is ending with a fragment: "These stories amaze me. The facts suffer so frightfully ...." It is better to let the reader know that something is a fragment when they cannot already be entirely certain of this from other clues. Always remember that our goal is to communicate as clearly as we can, not to reduce our typography to the shortest imaginable output; this is not a "coding elegance" contest among hackers. —
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼
23:39, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
This isn't an attempt to relitigate--I promise!--but just curious why all the examples under this policy take the form of rendered dialogue, without also using example quotes and context from newspapers, academic journals, magazines, encyclopedias, etc. This may be part of the confusion for some editors, especially those from North America (an MOS essay mentions that the aesthetic style is used mostly in North America...). Thank you. Caro7200 ( talk) 19:14, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
I note the section on Section organization says:
*The following final items never take section headings:
**Internal links organized into
navigational boxes
**
Stub templates, if needed
**
Authority control metadata, if needed, using {{
Authority control}}
(distinguishes uses of the same name for two subjects, or multiple names for one subject)
**
Categories, which should be the very last material in the article's source code
Standard practice is to put stub templates after categories, so that stub categories are listed after navigation cats. This is reinforced by information at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Layout#Order of article elements. This section seems to suggest the opposite. Needs rewording, perhaps? Grutness... wha? 15:02, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
I just removed a problematic sentence from an article ("Let's delve deeper into the various characteristics and cultural symbols of deep clothing together"). Which part of MoS or another page or essay can I mention to tell the editor who add it that this is bad style? Piotrus at Hanyang| reply here 03:01, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
The redirect
Mos:DASH has been listed at
redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the
redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 April 25 § Mos:DASH until a consensus is reached.
Utopes (
talk /
cont)
21:51, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
Is there written guidance somewhere on the use of upper or lower case on prime minister, president, etc? Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 12:20, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
Hi, I am confused by the guidance on foreign-language quotations and I think some examples are needed. For example, I am trying to quote the phrase "Verwaltungsgemeinschaft Freie Stadt Danzig" with an English translation of "Administrative Association of the Free City of Danzig" in the article Free City of Danzig Government in Exile. Should the English or the German version come first? Should the English version include quote marks? If not, how do I separate the English phrase from the rest of the text? Should the German text by italicised in the quote marks? For example, which if any of these are acceptable after "von Prince was convicted in Switzerland for forging a passport and a number plate that he claimed were validly issued by the ..."
Thanks. Safes007 ( talk) 04:55, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
{{lang-de}}
temple (see
Template:lang-de):
MOS:PQ is pretty clear in its explanation of why pull quotes are considered undesirable in an encyclopedia, as they are a form of editorializing, produces out-of-context and undue emphasis, and may lead the reader to conclusions not supported in the material. However, a gray area seems to lie in quotations that haven't been pulled from the article text, but are still placed at the head of a section without being contextualized in prose first. The inciting example for this particular thread is currently at Higgs boson § Gauge invariant theories and symmetries:
Gauge invariant theories are theories which have a useful feature; some kinds of changes to the value of certain items do not make any difference to the outcomes or the measurements we make. An example: changing voltages in an electromagnet by +100 volts does not cause any change to the magnetic field it produces. Similarly, measuring the speed of light in vacuum seems to give the identical result, whatever the location in time and space, and whatever the local gravitational field.
The issue is I actually rather like this section! It's well-written if a bit quirky, and the quote concerns an important theme of the article in a way that doesn't seem overly egregious. But is it adequately encyclopedic? I'm not sure. What is an encyclopedia, again?
In any case, I feel it's odd for the MoS to explicitly address pull quotes but not these quotes generally. Remsense 诉 05:19, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
References
Please join the work on the content of Wikipedia:Stress marks in East Slavic words. - Altenmann >talk 12:59, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
What's the meaning of "left" and "right" in images if removing them leaves the images completely unchanged? JacktheBrown ( talk) 19:02, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
|left
and |right
as in [[File:Example.jpg|thumb|left|An example on the left]]
. If you had said that at the start of this thread, we wouldn't have been wasting time (I had thought that you meant in image captions like "From left to right: Smith, Jones, Brown and Foobar"). Anyway, as shown at
WP:EIS#Location, these options control which margin the image is placed against; and when |thumb
is specified (see
WP:EIS#Type), |right
is the default. So altering |thumb|right
to |thumb
makes absolutely no difference; but altering |thumb|left
to |thumb
will move the image from being against the left margin to being against the right margin. --
Redrose64 🌹 (
talk)
14:59, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
Hi, I've seen MOS:TIES as interpreted to mean article titles should only use the name in that (local) variety of English. So Bangalore is argued to be possibly Bengaluru because that's what it is in Indian English but not all English. I think this is incorrect, with TIES meaning spelling/grammar/specific generic vocabulary? If I am correct, can therefore "orthography"/ "spelling" etc be added to
An article on a topic that has strong ties to a particular English-speaking nation should use the (formal, not colloquial) English orthography of that nation
or some other clarification, that it doesn't mean article titles, such as places, should use the local name.
Unless they are supposed to use the local name? Dank Jae 13:17, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
normallytrump TIES, at least not in cases where national varieties of English offer specific and clearly-defined terms that generally used in WP:HQRS to talk about the relevant concepts or phenomena. I also haven't seen any evidence that the community endorses the nearest equivalent term in US or UK English in such cases, which is what COMMONALITY advocates are usually asking for.
Just a heads up for now: at some point most likely in the next month to few months a Wikipedia in the
Mossi language, with the ISO code mos
, and thus a "mos:" interwiki which would overwrite the "MOS:" pseudo-namespace, is likely to get created. I've been jotting down various ideas to avoid this problem at
m:Requests for new languages/Wikipedia Mooré#Comments.
* Pppery *
it has begun...
00:39, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
/(\[\[)MOS(:.*?[\]\])/i
with $1Style$2
throughout the content?
Largoplazo (
talk)
18:36, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
whoever came up with the idea of separate WP: and MOS: namespaces should be shot[99]. At the time I was kidding. But I'm not kidding anymore. E Eng 09:48, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
A user argued that use of quote box within the article does not constitute a "pull quote" within the context of MOS:PQ, because it is not repeating something in the article. Although, the editorial intent is obviously Wikipedia editor's desire to accentuate and bring more attention to that part than rest of the article, so I believe it is considered pull quote for the intent of the guideline. Please help with the interpretation of the meaning of "pull quote" as used on Wikipedia as used in Boy_Scouts_of_America#Program Graywalls ( talk) 16:47, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
{{
Quote box}}
.
Largoplazo (
talk)
15:25, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
The redirect
MOS:TITLETYPOCON has been listed at
redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the
redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 June 26 § MOS:TITLETYPOCON until a consensus is reached.
Liz
Read!
Talk!
18:31, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
I would like to propose, should the entirely of the Manual of Style be policy? It is apparent that it and its subpages are cited everyday and is followed by everyone, like other policies. Toadette Edit! 23:45, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
Hi. I have been seeing editors removing former from short descriptions on corporate articles, using the essay WP:SDAVOID as the reasoning. I wonder if other editors believe the same as me as this madness, as leaving defunct companies with short descriptions without it is inaccurate. For example Cavenham Foods or Tudor Crisps who have been defunct for quite some time. Davidstewartharvey ( talk) 05:31, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
I previously opened a thread about this topic here: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Archaeology#"was"_vs_"is"_for_individual_ancient_human_skeletons, but I think here is more appropriate. Looking at the articles listed at Category:Homo sapiens fossils (which is misleadingly titled, including remains from the last few thousand years which definitely aren't fossils), it seems to be the standard for Wikipedia articles about individual human skeletons, mummies and the like to describe them as human remains in the present tense, rather than as deceased humans in the past tense. Examples of this include for example, Cheddar Man, Ötzi, and The Younger Lady. Is this correct according to the MOS? As noted in the WT:ARCHAEOLOGY discussion the idea of describing Native American remains in the present tense like this has received pushback. I don't have a strong opinion about which way should be preferred, but I think there should be consistency regarding the way the remains of all deceased humans should be described. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 22:37, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
The alternate version that's been proposed (via edits) is:Arlington Springs Man was a Paleo-Indian whose remains were found in 1959 on Santa Rosa Island...
I found @ GreenC:'s edit summary thought-provoking and convincing:Arlington Springs Man is the skeleton of a Paleo-Indian which was found in 1959 on Santa Rosa Island
"They are the remains of an individual human being and needs to be treated as such. This is not an article about a dinosaur, rock, or woolly mammoth. This is why NAGPRA exists to deal with the dehumanizing of Indian ancestors as merely relics or old bones stored in a warehouse."Schazjmd (talk) 22:45, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
Arlington Springs Man was a Paleo-Indian [...]are factually incorrect: there was nobody called "Arlington Springs Man" in the past and nobody who considered themselves "Paleo-Indian". In my experience this overwhelmingly how archaeologists and other scientists that study human remains talk about them, for what that's worth.
Arlington Springs Man is the name given to a Native American man [...]. I do disagree with GreenC above: these articles are first and foremost about the remains of a person, not the person. We can infer some things about the latter from the former but it is not accurate, and potentially offensive, to write as if we can narrate a person's life from their bones. – Joe ( talk) 09:14, 4 June 2024 (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 225 | Archive 226 | Archive 227 | Archive 228 |
The redirect
MOS: HYPHEN has been listed at
redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the
redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 December 5 § MOS: HYPHEN until a consensus is reached.
Utopes (
talk /
cont)
04:02, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
The redirect
MOS: MARKUP has been listed at
redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the
redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 December 5 § MOS: MARKUP until a consensus is reached.
Utopes (
talk /
cont)
04:03, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
I was recently doing page clean-up with AWB where I (at AWB's suggestion) changed "Academy Award–winning" (with an en dash) to "Academy Award-winning" (with a hyphen) on the article " Society of the Snow" (see this edit [1]). Nardog noticed my edit and reverted it [2] citing MOS:SUFFIXDASH, which does appear to support the use of an en dash in this situation.
There does not seem to be agreement on this topic within article bodies or even within article titles. Articles like " List of Academy Award-winning films", a large number of article bodies, WP:RegExTypoFix, and all mentions of "award-winning" in the MOS documentation use the version with a hyphen (see one example in MOS:FILMLEAD). In contrast, articles like " List of Academy Award–winning families" and " List of Academy Award–winning foreign-language films" use en dash, as do other style guides like MLA [3]. This topic has been mentioned on this board before (such as on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 151#En dashes rather than hyphens for both prefixed and suffixed adjective phrases. (2), and Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 140#En dashes and suffixes), but I have not been able to find any clear, final consensus on the topic. Hopefully we can obtain consensus on the topic and unify the styling, or at least get some clear guidance on the topic. Thanks! Wikipedialuva ( talk) 09:09, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
Whenever I see "indeed" I reach for the edit button. This assertion of "truth" is inserted, I claim, because the writer wants to convince you of a fact, but they do not have sufficient evidence. Rather than provide the evidence they reach for the bold font: Indeed! It addresses the reader "see this is true"; it is in the category of "note that", "of course" and "naturally". (I suppose not every use is bad and not every word need to be in the section, but calling it out explicitly makes editors aware of the issue). Johnjbarton ( talk) 03:47, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
{{
Essay-like}}
. —
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼
04:01, 31 January 2024 (UTC)Might be of interest. Let me know if anything seems missing from (or crazy in) either of them. One is new, the other was a draft languishing in my userspace for a long time:
— SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 19:52, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
Another one, made today based on material I posted at WT:BOTANY:
I'd like to have a discussion about plant description style. Is this a good place or is there a better? The basic problem with plants is that they are not very uniform and can look very different in different countries, at times to the point where you can readily recognise the plant in your own country but encountering it in another, think you have quite a different species or be doubtful about what it is. That can even be the case if you see it low altitude and encounter it at high altitude.
Because of this variability of plants, Country/Regional Flora descriptions are usually regionally orientated, describing how a plant presents itself in some local region, and depending on the work maybe it might mention variability in a slightly wider context. So a British flora might (but most probably won't) mention differences the plant shows in France, but undoubtedly won't mention differences the plant takes on in Palestine or up a Turkish mountain.
As well as Flora saying contradictory things due to focus on regional variation, they can also mention useful complementary details, or clarify each other where they are ambiguous (as they can sometimes be). For example, the Aegean Flora says Cymbalaria microcalyx is generally pink, but Flora of Turkey says it is white or pink (I've only seen white here). On the other hand, Flora of Turkey says Cymbalaria longipes is completely hairless, whilst the Aegean Flora says it can be hairy, but is hairless by maturity, providing needed clarity. This situation of Floras saying different or complementary things applies to very much every characteristic of a plant, and is why several always need to be used under any circumstance.
Now when it comes to writing a plant description for Wikipedia, Wikipedia is global so the description needs to be from a global perspective, it's not sufficient just to take a single Flora work to use unless it happens to be a work dedicated to a detailed global perspective on the plant. For example, if you write the plant description just utilising the descriptions found in British flora, the accuracy will be a matter of luck, since you'll only be describing the plant's British form and variety. Instead, descriptions need to be written by utilising the accounts of the plant from as many flora from different parts of the world as possible that you have available or can get hold of. It would probably be excessive to reference them all (though that is done in a strict work), but after reading all that you can, you choose a small number that seem to capture everything you've read; so for example you might select a European description, a Middle-Eastern one and an African one, as your references. If it's a more regionally restricted plant such as the E. Mediterranean, you would do similarly, using for example a Greek, Turkish, Middle-Eastern and N. African account. That's only 3 or 4 references, which isn't much at all. Even if they were hypothetically to all say the same thing, which they never do, you'd still need to reference them as having been consulted, because just referencing a regional work doesn't indicate the resulting description has global scope.
The situation then is how to do the description and where to place the references.
The Description should I think avoid as much jargon as possible, because the average person isn't going to understand 'petiole' or 'pedicel' but will be quite happy with 'leaf stalk' or 'flower stalk' (or 'leaf stalk (petiole)' etc), and be, say (as a template but not being prescriptive), three paragraphs, with the 'easy' qualities for people first (plant is tall, dark and handsome), then paragraph 2 the qualities requiring a more experienced or patient eye (e.g. fruits have a wrinkled surface), probably best kept in terser language so that it takes up less space, then paragraph 3 you might have some details about subspecies etc. But in doing this the references very much embrace the entire description.
My recommendation is to provide the references for a botanic description either at the end or start, which is the standard practice in botany, with extra referential inserts at individual moments for any extra points. Repeating the references identically at the end of each paragraph looks clumsy and is not standard botanical practice. Trying to reference each point made would be excruciating as you'll be repeating the same block of references over and over again. I wonder therefore if there could be something written explicitly about plant descriptions that provides the right workable vision, because at the moment if you use several sources to create a description you're forced to put them at the end and then may get the page labelled as problematic because it's not following the expected style.
An article on a plant would have many other sections, so here we are talking about the globally-relevant botanical description. Meteorquake ( talk) 12:42, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
See Borlengo. Is the use of "now" in articles correct? The word "now" is never precise ("now" can also be 100 years from now). JackkBrown ( talk) 20:14, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Korea-related articles § About adding a link to each hangul syllable using Template:Linktext.
172.56.232.220 (
talk)
17:48, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
Discussion closed. 172.56.232.167 ( talk) 00:12, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
I wonder whether maybe there's a broader MOS issue here than just the specific one of whether we should wikilink each separate glyph of non-Latin scripts even in scripts like Hangul for which the glyphs are not words. (Obviously: No.) It seems to me that most uses of the template in question, {{ linktext}}, even when used to link actual words, even in English, are going to be violations of MOS:SEAOFBLUE. Why do we have a template that encourages that? — David Eppstein ( talk) 07:25, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
[[:wikt:Yourword|]]
interwikilink will suffice. I was concerned that it saw legitimate use in linguistics articles, but it's the same generic use in
vowel and
measure word. It does do the convenient thing of linking to the specific language section in Wiktionary, but otherwise it just wraps what should just be easy markup.{{lang|ja|{{linktext|緑|lang=ja}}}}
to {{lang|ja|[[wikt:緑#Japanese|緑]]}}
or vice versa for no compelling reason. However, use of that template to do things like {{lang|de|{{linktext |Das |Ewig-Weibliche |zieht |uns |hinan |lang=de}}}}
is much more dubious, except in certain linguistic contexts. What we normally want to do is {{lang|de|Das Ewig-Weibliche zieht uns hinan}} 'The eternal feminine draws us on high'
. There is usually no reason to link to a Wiktionary definition of a non-English word, and making a reader go off-site to figure out what something means (much less do it word-by-word) is "reader-hateful". —
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼
03:27, 31 January 2024 (UTC)By the way, if you want to discuss about the general use of Linktext throughout Wikipedia, I recommend that you start a new discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Linking. 172.56.232.125 ( talk) 23:55, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
MOS:COLON states, "When what follows the colon is also a complete sentence, start it with a capital letter...". This is American style, but not British. I don't think that this statement is controversial: see for instance Grammarly and our own article Colon (punctuation)#Use of capitals. Wikipedia of course allows both American and British spelling as long as each article is consistent. But it seems awkward to me to have British spelling combined with American punctuation, and I doubt that this was the intention. So I have boldly edited to, "When what follows the colon is also a complete sentence, American style is to start it with a capital letter, but otherwise do not capitalize after a colon except ...". Everybody happy with that? JMCHutchinson ( talk) 11:05, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
In short, no MOS:ENGVAR claim can be sustained on this point, nor is there a clear "single overriding encylclopedic purpose" argument to be made here. Garner's observation in GMEU that there are conflicting reasons to prefer one over the other is correct (though his picking a particular side almost certainly has much to do with the fact that he's the primary author of the related material in both Chicago Manual and Chicago Guide). American usage provably does not require the capitalization, and some British publishers (cf. news sources cited in earlier comments) provably do use the capital. Other sources both British and American are noncommittal on the question.
This should simply be left to editorial discretion at the article like most things, and MoS does not need to so prescriptively legislate on it ( WP:MOSBLOAT and WP:CREEP). It seems that our present wording of:
When what follows the colon is also a complete sentence, start it with a capital letter, but otherwise do not capitalize after a colon except where doing so is needed for another reason, such as for a proper name.
If what follows the colon is something normally capitalized (proper name, acronym, quoted sentence, etc.), use a capital letter. For a complete sentence after a colon, capitalization is optional. Use a lowercase letter after the colon otherwise.
If what follows the colon is something normally capitalized (proper name, acronym, quoted sentence, etc.), or multiple complete sentences, use a capital letter. For a single complete sentence after a colon, capitalization is optional. Use a lowercase letter after the colon otherwise.
In most cases, a colon works best with a complete grammatical sentence before it. If what follows the colon is something normally capitalized (proper name, acronym, quoted sentence, etc.), use a capital letter. When a colon is used before a complete sentence, or in an article title, section heading, or list item, editors may choose whether to capitalize the first letter of what follows, taking into consideration the existing practice and consistency with related articles. Do not capitalize after a colon otherwise.
In running text, a colon usually works best with a complete grammatical sentence before it, but this is not necessary when the intent is clear. The "in running text" part is actually important, since the original wording over-states the case and does not account for formatting of lists, etc. The ending part could also blend your concision with the previous RfC consensus about explicit editorial discretion:
... or list item, editors may choose but should consider the need for clarity and for consistency within the article and related articles.That would also change the guideline link from MOS:STYLERET to MOS:ARTCON which makes more sense anyway, and remove the link to WP:CONSISTENT which is about article titles and not actually pertinent here. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 20:31, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
Let me set out four responses to that:
(i) My text, in which I've tried to be more concise, doesn't "go back to" the status quo. By definition, nothing can go back to what is currently in place. That status quo was an important long-standing provision on the central page of MOS; so let's not lightly assume consensus for change.
(ii) It's simply not true that British English wants a colon never to capitalise what follows it. Consider Fowler, so quintessentially British: In The King's English there's no discussion of this issue, but the examples with a capital include: "Always remember the ancient maxim: Know thyself."
Fowler's own Modern English Usage says nothing against such a capital; nor does Gower in the second edition; nor does Burchfield in the third, and he repeats the example verbatim: "Always remember the ancient maxim: Know thyself."
In the fourth (current) edition, Butterfield is careless and inconsistent. He has picked up the supposed rule somewhere, and writes:
But straight after that he contradicts himself:
(iii) Wikipedia is beholden to no regional authority for punctuation. It selects on rational grounds from all sources: double quote marks from US practice, and essentially British ways (with US additions) for the en dash. Why should the colon be treated differently?
(iv) I think the text that my long-standing friend SMcCandlish proposed (now prematurely put into MOS) is a bit clunky and needs to give clearer guidance. May I be bold and compare the components of his suggestion and mine?
I don't like reverting, and I respect SMcCandlish's knowledge and research. But could we leave it as is, pending full treatment of these and any other relevant points? And let's try to gain genuine consensus on this important matter.
Tony (talk) 11:26, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
"A colon is usually preceded by a complete grammatical sentence, but need not be if the intent is clear."This would keep both the original's clear preference for a complete sentence, and Tony1's somewhat more precise idea of "intent" versus just a loose "in most cases". We don't seem to need to say "In running text", but it could be tacked back onto to the front if it's badly wanted.
For anything normally capitalized (proper name, quoted sentence, etc.), retain the capital after a colon.This would keep the important point that quoted full sentences should not be decapitalized just because they are after a colon; the entire reason we have MOS:LQ is to avoid falsifying the content of quotations, and it's a principle we've stuck with for over two decades. So, this particular point is non-negotiable from my position. (A semi-recent change in MOS:CONFORM permits such an aleration before an introduction like "said that", but this is dubious and controversial and probably needs an RfC to see whether this has consensus, since it calls into question our entire treament of quotations and the rationale behind it.)
A colon is usually preceded by a complete grammatical sentence, but need not be if the intent is clear. For anything normally capitalized (proper name, quoted sentence, etc.), retain the capital after a colon. In an article title, section heading, or list item, or before a complete sentence, capitalizing after a colon is left to editorial discretion, mindful of existing practice and consistency with related article titles. Use lowercase after a colon otherwise.
A colon is usually preceded by a complete grammatical sentence, but need not be if the intent is clear. For anything normally capitalized (proper name, quoted sentence, etc.), retain the capital after a colon. In an article title, section heading, or list item, capitalizing after a colon is left to editorial discretion, mindful of existing practice and consistency with related article titles. Prefer to capitalize the first letter of a complete sentence after a colon. Use lowercase after a colon otherwise.
A colon is usually preceded by a complete grammatical sentence, but need not be if the intent is clear. For anything normally capitalized (proper name, etc.), retain the capital after a colon. Prefer to capitalize the first letter of a complete sentence after a colon, always for multiple sentences or a quoted sentence. In an article title, section heading, or list item, capitalizing after a colon is left to editorial discretion, mindful of existing practice and consistency with related article titles. Use lowercase after a colon otherwise.
In running text a colon need not be preceded by a complete grammatical sentence, so long as the intent is clear. / A colon capitalizes the first letter in what follows it if that can naturally be read as a complete sentence: otherwise, it normally does not. But when a colon is being used as a separator in an article title, section heading, or list item, consider the need for clarity and for consistency within the article and related articles.
I don't know if I'm writing in the right place but I came across this edit [4] and I didn't know if this was a Wikipedia policy. In short, a bunch of titles of references on a page included French punctuation (speech marks that look like << >>), because they were in French. Of course provide a translation into English, but I just felt that it seemed a bit nitpicky to "correct" the punctuation of another language, as much as "correcting" its grammar or even vocabulary. I think User:Mazewaxie may have done this on other pages on my watchlist, but I had never checked the edit because it looked like a non-controversial automated edit.
Only other time I saw something like this that made me "huh" was here though I probably made the same mistake by not including the censorship in the swear words, as I pre-empted a WP:NOTCENSORED intervention. Unknown Temptation ( talk) 20:53, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
*When quoting text from non-English languages, the outer punctuation should follow the Manual of Style for English quote marks. If there are nested quotations, follow the rules for correct punctuation in that language. If there are multiple styles for a language, the one used by the Wikipedia for that language is preferred unless the punctuation itself is under discussion.
- The cynical response "L'auteur aurait dû demander : « à quoi sert-il d'écrire ceci ? » mais ne l'a pas fait" was all he wrote.
The redirect
Wikipedia:)( has been listed at
redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the
redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 February 8 § Wikipedia:)( until a consensus is reached.
Daniel Quinlan (
talk)
00:30, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
I’ve copied the following discussion from WP:ERRORS. That’s not a suitable place to sort out guidance. Pinging JennyOz, Dank, Dying, and Peacemaker67. Schwede 66 02:25, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
[End of copy-pasted original discussion.] Schwede 66 02:25, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
Always use a pair of commas for this, unless another punctuation mark takes the place of the second comma), and a consensus change in the direction of topical exceptions is extremely unlikely to happen. Especially when in this case another guideline, MOS:GEOCOMMA, is also saying the same thing. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 03:51, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
Always use a pair of commas for this, unless another punctuation mark takes the place of the second comma. The clarity the commas provide to a large subset of readers is much more valuable than the tiny bit of "micro-concision" gained by omitting them. As with virtually any style matter that doesn't have serious disruption potential, if someone prefers to write without these commas, no one is likely to make much noise about it; it's something another editor will just clean up later. There's only a problem when someone tries to either go around removing these commas from where they belong, or stonewall other editors who are bringing the material into guideline compliance. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 10:04, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
Is adherence to the MOS mandatory or a preference? I see people going to war over the MOS, even with single edits that are invisible to the readers. The Banner talk 10:46, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
This guideline is a part of the English Wikipedia's Manual of Style.Compare e.g. WP:V which says
This page documents an English Wikipedia policy.Policies are stricter than guidelines. -- Redrose64 🌹 ( talk) 13:11, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
[[Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart|Mozart]]
[[Mozart]]
[[Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart|Mozart]]
? Do you see that the form of link that Surtsicna prefers, and that I prefer, and that the manual prefers, is like the green link below it, while the form that you keep reverting to is the red one with the big red cross next to it?"do not do something" means "fix it when you see it done"is correct, and if the wording were adjusted to something like "usually do not do something" then "usually fix it when you run into it" would be correct; WP:CONTENTAGE is an "argument to avoid" fallacy; no material is exempt from WP:P&G compliance simply because it's not newly added today (or last week, or last year). — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 09:59, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
[[2014 Scottish independence referendum|Scottish independence referendum]]
, for example, because, while
MOS:NOPIPE would seem to apply, it's quite possible that a second Scottish independence referendum might occur. If it did, the latter part of that link might no longer be a valid redirect to the former.I think the base question needs interpretation in the light of The Banner's other remarks. I think he's really asking: "Can I persistently revert other editors' work if I prefer to disregard the Manual of Style?"As in: Can I straight ignore objections of others and invent a new rule (it being mandatory)??? And about the cosmic changes: no reader will see your changes. The Banner talk 15:35, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
Do not "fix" links to redirects that are not broken. So, why do you fix links that are not broken? The Banner talk 00:45, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
[[Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart|Mozart]]
?[[Henry VIII]]
into piped links: [[Henry VIII of England|Henry VIII]]
. Then "
Henry VIII of England" was moved to "
Henry VIII", and instead of pointing directly to "
Henry VIII" as they would have done, all those links (there are thousands) now go via a redirect at
Henry VIII of England.
6,257 pages currently make use of that redirect. If you think direct links really are preferable, you might like to look through that list and turn those piped redirects back into [[Henry VIII]]
. I promise, I won't intervene.[[Henry VIII of England|Henry VIII]]
[[Henry VIII]]
The sentence do not "fix" links to redirects that are not broken contains specific information about the kinds of links ("links to redirects") that shouldn't be "fixed", and the guideline gives examples of the ways in which they shouldn't be "fixed". There isn't an equivalent guideline saying "don't fix piped links" because the manual of style says redirects are preferred. There isn't a guideline that says "malformed but functional links shouldn't be edited".Failure to understand this at first is one thing, but persistently misapplying the material, after one has been corrected on the matter, as if it meant "don't fix any fix piped links even if malformed or unhelpful", when the entire point of that MoS passage is fixing poor piped links and preferring redirects, would be disruptive. If this is really the basis for the insistent reversion behavior, then this is rather concerning. The Banner: "if [insert tone complaint here], I am done." If you are done, then the reverting should stop. The edits are compliant with the guidelines, even if some of us might find them not required or not very important, or maybe even annoying if not done as part of a more substantive edit. You've raised a lengthy and rather venty complaint here, and from what I can tell a grand total of zero editors agree with you, so it is time to WP:DROPTHESTICK and stop revert-warring. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 00:36, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
At some indefinable point above, this discussion seems to have shifted from one about interpretation of the MOS guideline about piped links, and how mandatory guidelines are, into being more about the conduct of one editor, as I alluded to in my "hill to die on" comment above. I believe the behavioral component of it belongs not here, but at the user talk page, and accordingly, I have raised this discussion to address it. Mathglot ( talk) 07:42, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
Curious to get some opinions on the MOS:TENSE verbiage as it applies to a subject. Generally, we follow the good advice to treat things in present tense save for the historical stuff, which we leave in the past. My question falls as to whether it's better to just stick with one when the alternative is tense-switching repeatedly. The MOS gives Dún Aonghasa is the ruin of a prehistoric Irish cliff fort. Its original shape was presumably oval or D-shaped, but parts of the cliff and fort have since collapsed into the sea. as an example, but as a single occasion it's not really that disruptive. The issue I see is more in cases of something like computer technology, where we're talking about a discontinued product that was sold or offered in specific configurations. Those machines and configurations still exist, but in the case of iMac G3#Release, the result is that you get three tense shifts in five sentences in a single paragraph, and even worse as you go. To me, sticking with historical makes it read much better, short of rearranging the entire section or turning it from prose to bullets or something to avoid the issue. Thoughts? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 19:54, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
The new iMacs have no fan...about something released a quarter-century ago is quite jarring.) It either needs to be a description of what design decisions were taken at the time, or a description of the components of the (still extant) machines, in present tense. Currently it is a muddle of the two. As written, I agree it would be easier to shift it into past tense (e.g., "These models were released without a fan..."-- Trystan ( talk) 02:13, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
As this guidance from the government of Canada says, since Inuit is already plural (Inuk is singular) and because it already means "the people", phrases such as "the Inuit" and "Inuit people" are grammatically incorrect and I think we could reflect it in a footnote somewhere in MOS as a case of irregular plurals and/or article usage. Unfortunately I can see a lot of that usage by typing "the Inuit" or "Inuit people" in the search tool, including in Inuit topics.
This is a drive-by comment. Szmenderowiecki ( talk) 23:52, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
Hi. Today I reverted an edit by an editor who had changed a title of several bands so the The in the title was changed to the in the article John Miles (musician). I reverted them based on MOS:5, which states: Always capitalized: When using title case, the following words should be capitalized: The first and last word of the title (e.g. A Home to Go Back To) It was reverted back by the editor quoting MOS:THEBAND which states: Mid-sentence, per the MoS main page, the word the should in general not be capitalized in continuous prose, e.g.: Wings featured Paul McCartney from the Beatles and Denny Laine from the Moody Blues. I had not seen this part if MOS before so fair play. However is this not a contradiction? Should we not link MOS:THEBAND as an exception? Davidstewartharvey ( talk) 17:15, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
It seems to me that it makes the most sense of that articles covering topics that are occurring in or based in America should generally be written in American English, and articles covering topics that are occurring in or based in the UK or other countries were British English is predominant should generally be written with British English, and that this sentiment should be reflected in the MOS. Comments or questions on this proposition would be most welcome here.
Thanks,
Lighthumormonger (
talk)
17:04, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
You are correct. Thank you Martin for pointing that out to me. I looked for it but could not find it. Lighthumormonger ( talk) 17:20, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
I'm proposing that we remove or replace the following from MOS:VAR:
The Arbitration Committee has expressed the principle that "When either of two styles is acceptable it is inappropriate for a Wikipedia editor to change from one style to another unless there is some substantial reason for the change." [a]
ArbCom does not have authority over content, and so their words should not have such a prominent place in a manual of style that governs Wikipedia content. In addition, while a minor point, the quote is nearing 20 years old(!) and feels a bit out of place in a 2024 manual of style.
I'd propose that we remove the quote, as the next sentence beginning "Edit-warring over style ..." seems to cover this topic well enough. However, we could instead replace the quote with a regular old sentence that says the same thing. Ed [talk] [OMT] 19:15, 23 January 2024 (UTC) Ed [talk] [OMT] 19:15, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors. And their ruling is authoritative, as opposed to most of the MOS. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:59, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
Notes
It's been claimed that BLPs that have "regarded/considered as one of the greatest/best X of all-time/his generation" are unencyclopedic and appear to be indiscriminately removed [11] [12] [13] with a request to re-write the words are in quotes with attribution as per MOS:PUFFERY.
None of these BLPs have stated the subject is "the best/greatest" but state they're regarded/considered as one of the greatest/best players of all-time/his generation" which is consistent with what's included in BLPs such as Lionel Messi, Diego Maradona, Muhammad Ali, Mike Tyson, Tiger Woods, Serena Williams, Usain Bolt and many others.
MOS:PUFFERY states: "Words such as these are often used without attribution to promote the subject of an article, while neither imparting nor plainly summarizing verifiable information". My understanding is that the use of stating that the subject is regarded/considered as the "best/greatest" citing RS is within the policy and guidance as opposed to claiming the subject IS the "best/greatest". Even in the Bob Dylan article, which is cited as an example, states he is "Generally regarded as one of the greatest songwriters ever". RevertBob ( talk) 10:10, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
When I reverted some of these edits, my edit summary was "Please re-write this puffery in quotes with attribution, per MOS:PUFFERY". The policy literally says, "without attribution", and the example given shows the puffery in quotation marks. All that RevertBob needed to do was follow the policy. Magnolia677 ( talk) 20:50, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
This sort of question might really be better asked over at WT:FAC: "Under what sourcing circumstances would the Featured Article reviewers accept a claim like 'considered one of the greatest [occupational speciality here]'?"? — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 22:59, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
I am curious whether some of those talking about “attribution” mean to say
WP:INTEXT attribution. Reasonable claims (eg, at
Tiger Woods: Woods is widely regarded as one of the greatest golfers of all time and is one of the most famous athletes in modern history
) don’t need more attribution than a one or two strong citations, especially in the lead (which is where I think we’re all really talking about). My main concerns for this type of writing are that a) we don’t say such things in Wikipedia’s voice, and b) we source them clearly. Including explicit quotes is arguably better, but full quotes and in-text attribution can really weigh down the writing, and I really wouldn’t want to push aside multiple strong sources just to provide in-text attribution from one of them, Magnolia677.
MOS:PUFFERY should not be an anchor holding us back from describing some of our most important biographical subjects clearly with strong, decisive prose. Of course these kinds of “puffy” statements should be given this leniency only where their claim is largely uncontroversial (NB, not where the statement has been subject to controversy based on hard-line anti-puffery patrollers).
Consider also the counterpoint at
Adolf Hitler, whose lead includes: The historian and biographer Ian Kershaw describes Hitler as "the embodiment of modern political evil".
, a statement sensibly attributed to a leading Hitler historian, whose inclusion in the lead is not likely to be an erroneous distraction for the reader. But in that context, I actually suggest going further, and noting Kershaw’s place in the field would better inform the reader. —
HTGS (
talk)
03:32, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
On his death in 2010, he was described as the greatest judge of his generation.
Known for his creativity, dribbling, passing and vision, he is regarded as one of the best players of his generation, but I don’t see “vision” in either source and creativity seems less important to the sources than attack (goal.com:
Hazard is widely regarded as one of the best attacking players of his generation) or dribbling (ibid:
… is, without any qualms, one of the best dribblers of this generation.), so I would cut those without sourcing. If pressed, the claim of “one of best players of his gen” seems less well-supported than “one of best dribblers of his gen”. It’s also not hard to find similar sources that support the claim (eg, [19]). — HTGS ( talk) 00:56, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
One other distinction. Those types of phrases like "Mike is considered to be one of the best dart players of all time" imply that they are widely considered to have such a quality. And if true, such is information about what the relevant public thinks rather than puffery. Not just that somebody found a few people/sources that said it. So if 3 truly reliable sources say "Mike is one of the best dart players of all time" that does not support it, it just says that three people think that way and anything more than that would be synthesis. If they all say "Mike is considered to be one of the best dart players of all time" IMO that does support it because they are reporting on what the relevant public thinks. North8000 ( talk) 21:36, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
( edit conflict) If somebody is generally considered X, it should be possible to find high-quality sources that explicitly say that they are generally considered X. TompaDompa ( talk) 21:47, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
MOS:PUFFERY states: "Words such as these are often used without attribution to promote the subject of an article, while neither imparting nor plainly summarizing verifiable information".
Request for comment on if "regarded/considered as one of the greatest/best X of all-time/his generation" can be used in Wikipedia's voice without attribution providing there's appropriate supporting reliable sources. RevertBob ( talk) 22:25, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
can be used in Wikipedia's voice without attributionrefer to WP:INTEXT attribution (e.g. "Mr. Smith stated...") or supplying a citation to a reliable source? For citations, the WP:V policy says:
As for use of "regarded/considered", the more relevant guideline is MOS:WEASEL:...any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supportsthe material. Any material that needs an inline citation but does not have one may be removed.
WP:INTEXT attribution is not always suitable:Words to watch: some people say, many scholars state, it is believed/regarded/considered...The examples above are not automatically weasel words. They may also be used in the lead section of an article or in a topic sentence of a paragraph, and the article body or the rest of the paragraph can supply attribution. Likewise, views that are properly attributed to a reliable source may use similar expressions, if those expressions accurately represent the opinions of the source.
— Bagumba ( talk) 08:46, 14 February 2024 (UTC)Neutrality issues apart, there are other ways in-text attribution can mislead. The sentence below suggests The New York Times has alone made this important discovery: According to The New York Times, the sun will set in the west this evening.
I think MOS:PLURALS should be updated to better reflect North American usage. I'm American, and I've been noticing things like "As it toured Europe for the first time..." at Nirvana and "Because of conflicts with its record label..." at Metallica, uses that sound completely wrong. We need to add something about how it's "Nirvana is" but "they are" here. Esszet ( talk) 16:15, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
As a North American, I'm telling you, saying "it told me" in reference to "the committee" is completely wrong, we apparently need to update the MOS to reflect that.I'm also North American I do not agree with this. It's an argument to (personal) authority as an arbiter of what is "correct" versus "wrong" in North American English, and it's a bogus argument along prescriptivist lines with regard to American and North American English (the latter often cannot be generalized about anyway, as Canadian usage is palpably shifting on many matters back toward British due to the influences of a variety of national style guides and dictionaries and other works over the last two generations or so). If you were at a committee meeting and the individual committee members (even unanimously) told you X, then they told you X; you were told something by persons. If the committee as a body sent you a letter that collectively informed you of X, then it told you X; you were told by a body. This is normal usage within the US and more broadly. Where this differs regionally is in average handling of less clear-cut cases. AmEng tends toward "it" in reference to bands and companies and boards and such, while BrEng leans toward "they", but usage of both depending on the context is easily findable regardless of country of publication. Some examples from the top of relevant search results:
To speakers of North American English: this may sound stupid, but for all of our British, Aussie, and Kiwi friends out there, which of the following sounds more natural?
Esszet ( talk) 00:00, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
An RFC has been created at the WikiProject Astronomy talk page titled " RFC: Imperial/U.S. customary units in astronomy object infobox". Jc3s5h ( talk) 16:35, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
Does MOS:COLLAPSE support the collapsed infoboxes as used at, for example, Montacute House and Little Moreton Hall? I don't believe it does, but at Talk:Montacute House, @ Nikkimaria has argued the reverse, so wider input would be helpful. A.D.Hope ( talk) 10:28, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
At some point (I don't have the patience to history-dig for it), we lost the line-item in MOS:DASH that said something along the lines of using an en dash between the name parts of merged jurisdictions and other compound/merged/commingled/spanning/encompassing entities and things (other than, mostly, corporations, the post-merger/acquisition names of which take rather random forms like "DaimerChrysler" and "KPMG Peat Marwick" and so on). This principle was consistently used numerous times for establishing various article names, such as
What brought this to my notice was an RM at Talk:Carson–Newman University to convert the en dash to a hyphen, in a case where this is a merged entity of institutions individually named Carson and Newman, not a case of a unitary insititution having been named after two people.
Ever since the MOS:DASH wording changed along the way somewhere, various cases that called for, or at least originally called for, en dash are now at hyphens. Some examples include:
Locus of the problem: The remaining MoS wording that seems applicable is only this: Generally, use a hyphen in compounded proper names of single entities. ... Wilkes-Barre, a single city named after two people, but Minneapolis–Saint Paul, an area encompassing two cities.
The latter point of this seems to still vaguely suggest using, e.g., Gilgit–Baltistan, Moravian–Silesian Region, Carson–Newman University, etc., but it is too unclear to reliably result in this at RM. People just see "Generally, use a hyphen in compounded proper names of single entities", without regard for the intent (or at least former intent) for the products of merging to be en-dash treated. The seizing upon this first part is so firm for some editors that the second just gets ignored, and we end up with titles like Mount Carmel-Mitchells Brook-St. Catherines and Long Harbour-Mount Arlington Heights and Grand Falls-Windsor which are akin to Minneapolis–Saint Paul (combined name for a fused area encompassing multiple individually named places) not to Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania (always one place, that happens to be named after two people).
Even the "Generally" in that wording now no longer makes sense, because the case in which it didn't apply is now so obscured as to be almost missing.
So, we have something of a WP:CONSISTENT policy crisis that has developed over the last few years, with various articles on subjects of this merged/commingled/spanning nature being at en-dash titles and various of them at hyphen titles, and people willy-nilly RMing them at cross purposes to each other, with different moves concluding for conflicting results (plus sometimes just some manual moves, and sometimes pages simply having been at one or the other format the entire time without being moved). A prominent recent example is AFL–CIO being stable at that title for years, on the basis of the merged-entities reasoning, then suddenly moved to AFL-CIO on the preferences of a total of three editors.
We really need to settle one way or the other on this, and record it clearly in MOS:DASH.
PS: There are also a handful of outright errors, like:
— SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 23:41, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
occasional exceptionespoused by WP:MOS. YorkshireExpat ( talk) 17:47, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
A rule I know that's way easier to follow and makes (for me) more sense is to use an en-dash if one of component parts consists of multiple words. I'm sorry but this makes no sense, why would this be a rule? WP:MOS makes absolutely no mention of this. YorkshireExpat ( talk) 21:06, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
Generally, use a hyphen in compounded proper names of single entities.I think discussion ends here. Carson–Newman University is a single entity, including compounded names, so it gets a hyphen. The fact that it wasn't a single entity in the past is neither here nor there; WP:MOS makes no reference to that. Why should the history of a university determine the current naming? The argument for University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign is entirely different. Urbana–Champaign is a metropolitan area comprising multiple single entities, and that's why it gets the endash. Why WP:CONSISTENT should apply here is anyone's guess. Certainly there should be no mass RM based on that policy.
Wikipedia is not written in news style.One upshot of this is that a style that dominates in news material but not in academic and other non-news material is not a style we'll adopt (unless we have a good reason to do so as determined by project-internal consensus for some other particular reason). — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 01:35, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
To anyone following this I've started a move request here, if anyone's interested and has a viewpoint. I think it's an interesting case. YorkshireExpat ( talk) 15:49, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
Moving reply here so as not to put a large block of links in the main thread above: G. Timothy Walton above asserts: the official Representation Order for Canadian federal electoral district uses emdashes, not endashes, between geographical entities. Moving them all to endashes would often be erroneous.
.
Nah, it is easily demonstrable that which horizontal line to use is just a completely arbitrary house-style choice, and we do not follow the Canadian government's house style, nor they ours. More to the point, they don't follow their own, anyway. The Canadian government is not consistent at all on an unspaced em dash, even within the same agency – the one responsible for administring electoral districts – and for the same electoral district; cf. their official usage here, which is unspaced double hyphens (an old typewriting convention standing in for an en dash, with an em dash represented by three), and their equally official usage here, which is an unspaced en dash not an em dash. This idea that these districts "officially" require an em dash seems to be an assumption about what what is done in a particular webpage or other document without any regard to what's done in others, in reference to the same districts. And it wouldn't matter anyway, since WP doesn't follow some other entity's house style even when it's "official".
Other agencies use whatever they want; e.g.: Library of Parliament uses spaced hyphens for this [67] [68]; Statistics Canada uses unspaced double-hyphens again [69], and same at main Canada.ca government site [70] [71]; Parliament of Canada prefers the unspaced em dash [72], and ditto for Elections Ontario [73] and Public Prosecution Service [74]; Federal Redistribution uses unspaced en dash [75] as does the government's Canada Gazette [76], but not always (here with unspaced em dash [77]); the City of Toronto uses an unspaced hyphen [78]; Legislative Assembly of Ontario uses unspaced en dash and unspaced hyphen in same document [79].
Independent source usage generally doesn't follow this alleged but disproven em dash convention, either: Ontario Community Health Profiles Partnership uses unspaced double-hyphen [80], GeoCoder uses unspaced hyphen [81], University of Calgary Canadian Elections Database confusingly uses unspaced double-hyphen for federal [82] and unspaced hyphen for provincial [83], StudentVote.ca uses unspaced em dash [84], Toronto.com (combined website of the newspapers The North York Mirror, Scarborough Mirror and Etobicoke Guardian) uses unspaced hyphen [85], Canada Gazette sometimes uses unspaced em dash [86], but otherwise unspaced en dash [87]; CBC News uses unspaced hyphen [88], and so do The Globe and Mail https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/article-toronto-election-results-map/], Toronto District School Board [89], Global News [90], CTV News [91], CityNews [92], and Canadian National Multilingual News Group [93]; Toronto Star uses the unspaced em dash [94] or unspaced hyphen [95] on different pages; Simon Fraser University uses spaced hyphen [96]; Ontario Public School Boards Association uses mostly spaced en dash, some unspaced em dash, and at least one case of hyphen spaced on one side, all in the same document [97].
This is all just from the first page of search results on the same electoral district. Clearly demonstrates this is entirely a house-style choice, with some (both within and without the government) not caring at all which one it is even from page-to-page on the same site, sometimes not even on the same page. WP has no reason at all to do anything but follow it's own MOS:DASH rule, which calls for Toronto–Danforth with an unspaced en dash, with parenthetical disambiguation as needed for multiple districts. The idea of ever trying to disambiguate these just by which tiny little horizontal line they have in them is not even vaguely practical. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 07:17, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
WP:COMMONALITY states Use universally accepted terms rather than those less widely distributed, especially in titles. For example,
glasses is preferred to the national varieties spectacles (
British English) and eyeglasses (
American English);
ten million is preferable to
one crore (
Indian English).
When does WP:TIES override this guidance? JoelleJay ( talk) 23:48, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
According to this discussion, a transparent background is applied to quote boxes in article space because of the guidelines established in MOS:BLOCKQUOTE and MOS:COLOR. I think this choice makes the pages using this template look cluttered and visually appalling. Furthermore, as pointed out by @ Belbury, these models have been employed in over 22,000 times across Wikipedia, which means the current orientation is interfering with readability in many places. I would like to suggest that article space quote boxes should have a guideline that encourages neutral tones, such as the default grey colour (#F9F9F9). As a last argument to support this change, I will also cite @ Light show: "Light background colors can make a document more visually appealing by adding a layer of design and sophistication, which can make the text more engaging to readers [...] large pages of black and white text can be monotonous to read, so having some light background colors for block quotes with borders can break this monotony, making the reading experience more pleasant and less tiresome". GustavoCza ( talk • contribs) 01:46, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
do not use colored text or background unless its status is also indicated using another method, such as an accessible symbol matched to a legend, or footnote labels( MOS:COLOR) and
Block quotations using a colored background are also discouraged( MOS:BLOCKQUOTE). – Jonesey95 ( talk) 13:27, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
is also indicated using another method.
I don't think any change to the MOS is needed for the sake of the issue at hand apart from maybe an explanatory note that quote boxes are not block quotes under the MOS, which is how everyone here apart from Jonesey95 seems to understand it (myself included).
However, the root cause of the problem is that we've been sticking our heads in the sand in regard to the use of quote boxes for nearly a decade now. I previously raised the issue back in 2017, and SMcCandlish explained that the lack of mention stemmed from wishful thinking that it'd make quote boxes go away, which it didn't. I'm not updated on the issue, and the last major discussion I'm aware of is the 2016 RfC, where there was consensus against pull quotes but not much agreement on what other uses of quote boxes are appropriate. It's such a lack of agreement that's preventing them from being documented in the MoS. Has there been any attempt in the intervening years to find some agreement on this? -- Paul_012 ( talk) 17:26, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
Quote boxes are not block quotes, but a form of sidebar, which typically (for images, infoboxes, navboxes, etc.) have at least a slightly different background color. However, the vast majority of uses of quote boxes in our articles are inappropriate per one or more policies and should be converted into normal block quotes. People do it because they like stylizing things, but it draws a gross amount of attention to a particular party's statement versus that of other parties (that fails WP:UNDUE), or in article on a particular author/speaker, document, etc., draws a gross amount of attention to some WP editor's personally selected "most important" or "favorite" part, which fails both WP:NPOV generally and WP:NOR, in the vast majorityof cases.
We probably should have an RfC about this, well "advertised" at the relevant policy pages and at WP:VPPOL. Most of the objections to pull quotes also apply to highlighted quotes of any other kind. What has happened is that pull quotes were community deprecated, so people insistent on injecting undue "decorated" quotes all over the place, have been evading it by using quoted content that technically isn't a pull quote because it does not repeat material already quoted inline in the main text. Literally the only way to tell the difference is to read every word of the article from top to bottom and see whether the decorated quote material is or is not unique on the page (and that might change at any time anyway). This is clearly a pattern of WP:LAWYER / WP:GAMING, and it needs to stop. Legitimate uses of templates like this in mainspace are extremely rare, and zero of them are actually necessary. There is not a single case that could not be replaced by an in-context block quote (and many are so short they should not be in block quotes at all, but inline quotations in quotation marks). I'm gratified to see that the quote-boxing has been replaced by normal blockquotation at various articles on famous speeches. This is a move in the right direction, presenting the material encyclopedically both as to contextual placement in the article and as to visual presentation, instead of doing it like a magazine or a click-bait website. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 22:42, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
The quote box template has more styling commands than I can count. Whereas a few behavior switches with accompanying standardized styles in classes should be all that is needed. (which is not to say that i think they should all be gray, I think that our gray is horrible as a text background and not suited for pieces of text like this [nor for captions of thumbs honestly]). — TheDJ ( talk • contribs) 12:42, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
Of course, we have learned—or are still trying our best—to internalize that the MOS is a set of guidelines, and there are exceptions of some quantity to nearly every prescription therein. Especially regarding the niche-er points with tables and markup, I like the idea of surveying pages that clearly, intentionally contravene points of the MOS, but
I know this is going to be more subjective than most collaborative ideas on here—it's coloring outside the lines, but I think it's possible to create something educational, right? Remsense 诉 03:57, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
I have some difficulty in working out the point of Spelling § International organizations. As written, it is non-prescriptive, at least explicitly, and therefore seems out of place in the MoS.
Given this, the natural reading to me is an implicit extension of an MOS:TIES-style principle to articles with a strong ties to international organizations. I may have missed an explicit statement of such a policy in this connexion, but, if I have not, and am nevertheless right, it would be good to be clearer. Docentation ( talk) 04:15, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
Articles with strong ties to an international organization listed under a variety of English at Spelling § International organizations should use that variety, and to amend Spelling § International organizations accordingly. If nobody objects for a week, I shall go ahead; otherwise, I shall raise a proper RfC. Docentation ( talk) 22:08, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
2604:3D08:9B7B:E800:AC7D:A86B:5EE4:14B7 ( talk · contribs) seems to be on a quest to unlink United States from every Simpsons article. What's the MOS on that?? Q T C 04:05, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
I really wish we didn't need inline spacing templates like {{ -?}} and {{ 's}}. It feels like they're just trying to compensate for bad kerning that browsers ought to be handling automatically. Sdkb talk 04:58, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
I am currently working on an article about a Malagasy zebu-wrestling sport. Its names are tolon'omby and savika— Malagasy words. Should they be italicized and/or use the lang template throughout the article? What about the bolded first uses in the lede? Zanahary ( talk) 22:42, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
{{
lang-mg}}
and {{
lang}}
as appropriate for any Malagasy text in an en.wiki article so that screen readers pronounce the text correctly. Use bold markup where approriate.
{{Lang|prs|Kangina}}
– not correct{{Lang|prs-latn|Kangina}}
– correctwhen the word itself is not the article's topicWhat? If the article title is not the article topic, one of them needs to change so that the article title is the article topic.
single wordsand
foreign phrasesshould be marked up.
In the section organization section, there's the text If an article has at least four section headings, a navigable table of contents appears automatically, just after the lead.
This appears to have been removed in newer versions of Wikipedia, as the table of contents was moved to the left of the article. I'm not sure how to address this text, so I welcome other editors to take a look. —
Panamitsu
(talk)
09:23, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
Does the manual of style take any stance on parenthetical citations within an explanatory note?
A post by an editor at
Help talk:Shortened footnotes
[98] objects to an example because it "seems to maintain that parenthetical references are still allowed inside explanatory notes. That might have been true at some stage, but WP:PAREN now says "deprecated on Wikipedia".
" If this is true, that example should be removed, but after looking through the RFC this appears not to be so. {{
harv}} still has several thousand uses, and pages like the
Holy Roman Empire article seem compliant with the Manual of Style. The documentation for {{
harv}} should also be updated.
Template:Harvard citation/doc should either make clear that the template is now meant for explanatory notes, or state that its usage is deprecated outright. Regards,
Rjjiii (
talk)
02:35, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
at the WP:Articletitles talkpage, to do with italic titles. Primergrey ( talk) 00:39, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
Some folks here might be interested in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Islam#RfC on using the crescent and star symbol or Allah calligraphy. It's not directly MOS-related, but it's a design-related question about whether we want to use a unified symbol/logo for various items (e.g., sidebars, navboxes), and if so, which one (of the two main candidates). WhatamIdoing ( talk) 00:10, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
Hi. I noticed that in the infobox when adding the lang it (e.g. on the page Bica (coffee)) "media" doesn't work; why? JacktheBrown ( talk) 20:33, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
{{
infobox food}}
expects the |name=
parameter to be plain text, without markup. You should use |name=Bica
|name_lang=pt
|name_italics=true
. --
Redrose64 🌹 (
talk)
22:02, 20 March 2024 (UTC)Apart from the colour, the "correct" and "incorrect" examples under Quotation marks and internal links both display identically and behave identically when I click them. So the only way to compare them is to open up the section for editing. Maybe include a code snippet for each? Not necessarily the whole fragment—I'm thinking perhaps just [[" "]]
and "[[ ]]"
so things don't get too cluttered.
NB I've not checked for other instances of this—I just happen to have encountered this one. Musiconeologist ( talk) 13:18, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
According to this rule, if a valid English translation exists it must be used, but in the case of "Parmigiano Reggiano" the situation becomes very complicated. In order, a user changed the name of the page (" Parmesan") to "Parmigiano Reggiano"; I deleted his changes, but after further investigation, and based mainly on the sentence (on the page) "Outside the EU, the name "Parmesan" can legally be used for similar cheeses, with only the full Italian name unambiguously referring to PDO Parmigiano Reggiano.", I was wondering whether, since "Parmesan" outside Europe is almost always a bad imitation, it's wrong to write Parmesan under the ingredients of Italian foods; this might make them less authentic. JacktheBrown ( talk) 05:10, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
In the MOS, it uses the example "The article about
The Wachowskis, for example, is better without any pre-coming-out photos since the way they looked is not well known as they shied away from public appearances.", yet their article does include pre-coming-out photos, should the images in the article be removed, or should a new example be found?
Thanks,
I can do stuff! (
talk)
03:45, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
Currently the MOS sidebar template "By topic area" includes " Regional", which links to vaguely language-related and language-region cross-topics. However, the MOS has significant subpages on specific languages which are very difficult to find on main page navigation -- basically I have to guess. Furthermore, there is no corresponding Category:Wikipedia Manual of Style (languages) (or similar, something like which can be made immediately).
For example, under the sidebar is linked WP:Naming conventions (geographic names); but going through the sidebar to MOS/Korea-related articles, we are linked to WP:Naming conventions (Korean), which is then part of a large category of language conventions with lots of near-orphans. Additionally, there is no way to access stalled proposed guidelines that may be served as essays for the time being, or do with eyes for improvement, such as MOS/Arabic (which by the way is not linked in a regional category, but under MOS/Islam-related articles).
There's a lot of potential disentangling and cleanup to do between region, language, and culture guidelines (or not); or some could be referred back to subpages of WP:WikiProject Languages instead of here as P&G. Regardless, all MOS pages need to be somehow findable, because usually it seems people don't even realize they exist. SamuelRiv ( talk) 22:18, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
Per MOS:TYPOFIX "insignificant spelling and typographic errors should simply be silently corrected". But, what if the error is in a title being cited? Correcting the error is going to make it hard to find that article if the link changes. E.g. "Neflix star returns to his West Sussex roots". Clearly Neflix means Netflix, at Timothy Innes, and I know some would correct that, but I'm not sure. Thanks for your thoughts. SchreiberBike | ⌨ 21:45, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
<!-- not a typo -->
or {{
not a typo}}. Other readers will figure out the meaning just as you did. --
Michael Bednarek (
talk)
23:35, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
"correct it and have a hidden comment next to the ref that clarifies what the actual title is."I like that. It hides the error. It doesn't require a disruptive {{ sic}}. If at some point in the future it needs to be searched for again, the original will be easy to find. I'd probably put it in hidden text right next to the word that was corrected. SchreiberBike | ⌨ 02:11, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
<!-- -->
) near the error to indicate the original text. I hate to add anything which makes the MoS longer and more complicated, but is this worth the distraction? What think you?
SchreiberBike |
⌨
11:41, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
{{sic|pronounciation|nolink=yes}}
) or hidden ({{sic|pronounciation|hide=yes}}
) would solve even that.
IceWelder [
✉]
05:55, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
I've boldly added the shortcut MOS:TITLETYPOCON to the top of this discussion to make it easy to link to this consensus without adding clutter to the Manual of Style. I've only seen that done once before, so I'm not sure if others will agree that this is helpful. SchreiberBike | ⌨ 12:10, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
-->
vs → (right arrow)What is the
WP:MOS policy on usage of -->
vs
→ ( aka right-arrow / U+2192
) ?
-->
which is confused with
comment tagsee also discussion Wikipedia talk:Typo Team#Help needed finding legacy punctuation like "--" "-->"
Tonymetz 💬 22:55, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
-->
to represent an arrow is ugly and ridiculous, → is also obviously preferable in my mind to simply >
in situations like denoting the historical evolution of words in linguistics articles.
Remsense
诉
23:56, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
-->
to also prune
Tonymetz
💬
00:05, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
<!--...-->
. If there are true right-arrows within that portion, all is fine; but if there are two hyphena and a greater-than, these will cause normal display to resume earlier than intended. --
Redrose64 🌹 (
talk)
07:22, 5 April 2024 (UTC)-->
is generally to be avoided, but simply replacing it with right-arrow is not always correct - it's a case-by-case decision. --
Redrose64 🌹 (
talk)
07:36, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
the page reached by that URL does not contain the word "PROOPIOMELANOCORTIN" at all - either the URL is wrong or the title is wrong. I'm not familiar with the field, so cannot decide.It's at the top of the page, directly under the title, stylized "pro-opiomelanocortin". JoelleJay ( talk) 02:40, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
We should be allowed to use hyphens for titles because it causes fewer problems. This is what Geiger-Marsden article URL is
/info/en/?search=Geiger%E2%80%93Marsden_experiments
It's ugly and weird. A hyphen will look so much better. Kurzon ( talk) 20:54, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
Jesus F. Christ, my proposal isn't so ridiculous! Kurzon ( talk) 12:30, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
The redirect
Mos:english idioms has been listed at
redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the
redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 April 10 § Mos:english idioms until a consensus is reached.
Utopes (
talk /
cont)
00:14, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
Lifespan tags are dates in parenthesis which contain the birth and death dates of a person. For example: (1 January 1900 – 1 January 2000).
Roasted ( talk) 20:09, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
As long as the formatting criteria are met, biographies of non-living people, articles on specific publications, and dated historical events generally benefit from dating, but since the description should be kept short, other information may need to take precedence. ... For historical biographies, specific dates such as "1750–1810" are preferred over "18th-century" for clarity.Graham ( talk) 05:47, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
Dates or date ranges are encouraged when they enhance the short description as an annotation or improve disambiguationand is contrary to the observations you quoted (
generally benefit from dating, but since the description should be kept short, other information may need to take precedence). NebY ( talk) 13:12, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
While I realize it's not part of the MOS, I'm curious about other editors' thoughts on Wikipedia:The problem with false titles, an essay that was created a couple months back. The essay basically states we should be using articles ("the" mainly) before nouns. The essay and the author purport that the construction "The documentary follows American songwriter Bob Dylan" is incorrect while "The documentary follows the American songwriter Bob Dylan" is correct. I (and others, based on activity I've seen on my watch list) feel the latter is incorrect, but I wanted to see what editors more versed in style guidance have to say about it. ~~ Jessintime ( talk) 16:19, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
It seems like this discussion already de-escalated, but I'm curious if there's any precedent for style controversies to be handled on a WikiProject by WikiProject basis. (For my own part, I'm starting to suspect that the trends in usage are in fact region-based.) Clarinetguy097 ( talk) 17:42, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
Background: Based on MOS:ELLIPSES, I had edited one of my own sentences, placing a fourth period inside the closing quotation mark because that is what I thought MOS:ELLIPSIS instructed. But it just did not look right to me.
I consulted Garner's Modern English Usage (4th ed.) and searched the Wikipedia Manual of Style. I found MOS:LQ, which naturally agrees with Garner.
Then to the Teahouse, where I posted: MOS:ELLIPSES and MOS:LQ seem contradictory, and I received an affirming reply from Mike Turnbull.
I therefore added one period and an explanatory sentence to the MOS:ELLIPSES section, as follows.
Before edit: Jones wrote: "These stories amaze me. The facts suffer so frightfully ..."
After edit: Jones wrote: "These stories amaze me. The facts suffer so frightfully ...".
(Note that the period ending the sentence should be placed outside the quotation mark; see
MOS:LQ.)
All the best – Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) [he/him] 17:20, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
Gawaon ( talk) 22:04, 16 April 2024 (UTC)The use of experienced, second-level reviewers to conduct fully independent exams to evaluate the criterion validity of actual veterans' evaluations....
the fourth [dot] marking the end of the sentence, which supposedly happens in the quoted text too, and can therefore be enclosed in the quotation marks.If the original read, e.g., "... The facts suffer so frightfully at the hands of Johnson and his writing.", the "." is part of the original material, so can properly be included inside the quotation.
If the quoted text ended in a period, why would we include an ellipsis?Because material has been editorially removed from the original quoted material (in my example case, it's the "at the hands of Johnson and his writing" string).
Which of the following is correct?Depends on the original material. In most cases, this will be valid: "... and the use of experienced, second-level reviewers to conduct fully independent exams to evaluate the criterion validity of actual veterans' evaluations ...." unless the original material actually ended with "evaluations." There would not be a true need for
... veterans' evaluations ...".unless for some reason the original material did not end with "." after the elided material, perhaps because it had "!" or "?", or because it was itself terminated originally with "...", or was a title/headline/caption/table header/etc. with no terminal punctuation at all. However, using
... veterans' evaluations ...".doesn't actually break anything, and there might be a preference for this the more fragementary the quoted material is. If it's 20% of a sentence, I would probably go with that, but if the quote is 90% of a sentence and just lopped off an extraneous parenthetical comment (especially an inline parenethetical citation in an academic paper), I would be more inclined to use
... veterans' evaluations ...."which suggests a "complete thought", as it were.
I'll repeat what I always say: LQ is not difficult in any way, and people need to stop trying to manufacture ways to make it difficult. Include inside the quotation marks only the content (including puncutation) of the original quoted material and do not change it (except as noted later here); do not include inside the quotation marks content (including punctuation) that is not in the original quoted material, and that includes changing one puncutation mark to another (this is principally how LQ differs from typical British styles, which do permit such "silent" alterations, as in {{"'Not today,' he said", with "." altered to ","). If it is editorially desirable to change content inside the punctuation, this is done with [square-bracketed] insertions, or in the case of ellision with "...". The ultra-academic, usually redundant style "[...]" is not necessary, except when the quoted material contains its own original "...". That's really all there is to it.
avoid “sentence one…””sentence two”
: Yes, there is no reason to ever do that. If you were quotating the same material, you'd just fuse the quotations: "Sentence one .... Sentence two.", if the first is a fragment; but it would be "Sentence one. ... Sentence two.", if two complete sentences were quoted with intevening material elided.) If you were quoting two different parties and thus couldn't merge them into one quote, they would be separated, and probably have introductory clauses making it clear which speaker/writer is which.
PS: If anyone's still not clear why it's "evaluations ..." not " evaluations...", it's because the latter indicates a truncated word not a truncated passage. The ambiguity doesn't really come up with a word like "evaluations" but does with words like "which" and "there" and "as", for which longer words exist like "whichever" and "therefore" and "aside", which could have been truncated. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 23:28, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
PPS, regarding If one writes "These stories amaze me. The facts suffer so frightfully". (with the period after the quote mark), this already indicates that the final period is not part of the quote. Hence no ellipsis is needed, even if the original sentence continues.
Doing it that way would not an error, but it depends on editors and readers alike being 100% involved with LQ, which is obvioiusly not the reality. Various of our editors just DGaF and write however they like, leaving it to other editors to clean up after them later, so our readers (who even notice such puncuation matters at all) cannot depend entirely on the terminal "." having been placed correctly (and various of them would not pick up any implication from the placement anyway). When just quoting an isolated fragment like "Johson called it a 'disaster' in a press conference two days later", this really doesn't matter, but when quoting one or more full sentences followed by a fragment it is sensible (and zero cost/harm of any kind) to make it clear to the reader than the entire quoted material is ending with a fragment: "These stories amaze me. The facts suffer so frightfully ...." It is better to let the reader know that something is a fragment when they cannot already be entirely certain of this from other clues. Always remember that our goal is to communicate as clearly as we can, not to reduce our typography to the shortest imaginable output; this is not a "coding elegance" contest among hackers. —
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼
23:39, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
This isn't an attempt to relitigate--I promise!--but just curious why all the examples under this policy take the form of rendered dialogue, without also using example quotes and context from newspapers, academic journals, magazines, encyclopedias, etc. This may be part of the confusion for some editors, especially those from North America (an MOS essay mentions that the aesthetic style is used mostly in North America...). Thank you. Caro7200 ( talk) 19:14, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
I note the section on Section organization says:
*The following final items never take section headings:
**Internal links organized into
navigational boxes
**
Stub templates, if needed
**
Authority control metadata, if needed, using {{
Authority control}}
(distinguishes uses of the same name for two subjects, or multiple names for one subject)
**
Categories, which should be the very last material in the article's source code
Standard practice is to put stub templates after categories, so that stub categories are listed after navigation cats. This is reinforced by information at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Layout#Order of article elements. This section seems to suggest the opposite. Needs rewording, perhaps? Grutness... wha? 15:02, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
I just removed a problematic sentence from an article ("Let's delve deeper into the various characteristics and cultural symbols of deep clothing together"). Which part of MoS or another page or essay can I mention to tell the editor who add it that this is bad style? Piotrus at Hanyang| reply here 03:01, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
The redirect
Mos:DASH has been listed at
redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the
redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 April 25 § Mos:DASH until a consensus is reached.
Utopes (
talk /
cont)
21:51, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
Is there written guidance somewhere on the use of upper or lower case on prime minister, president, etc? Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 12:20, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
Hi, I am confused by the guidance on foreign-language quotations and I think some examples are needed. For example, I am trying to quote the phrase "Verwaltungsgemeinschaft Freie Stadt Danzig" with an English translation of "Administrative Association of the Free City of Danzig" in the article Free City of Danzig Government in Exile. Should the English or the German version come first? Should the English version include quote marks? If not, how do I separate the English phrase from the rest of the text? Should the German text by italicised in the quote marks? For example, which if any of these are acceptable after "von Prince was convicted in Switzerland for forging a passport and a number plate that he claimed were validly issued by the ..."
Thanks. Safes007 ( talk) 04:55, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
{{lang-de}}
temple (see
Template:lang-de):
MOS:PQ is pretty clear in its explanation of why pull quotes are considered undesirable in an encyclopedia, as they are a form of editorializing, produces out-of-context and undue emphasis, and may lead the reader to conclusions not supported in the material. However, a gray area seems to lie in quotations that haven't been pulled from the article text, but are still placed at the head of a section without being contextualized in prose first. The inciting example for this particular thread is currently at Higgs boson § Gauge invariant theories and symmetries:
Gauge invariant theories are theories which have a useful feature; some kinds of changes to the value of certain items do not make any difference to the outcomes or the measurements we make. An example: changing voltages in an electromagnet by +100 volts does not cause any change to the magnetic field it produces. Similarly, measuring the speed of light in vacuum seems to give the identical result, whatever the location in time and space, and whatever the local gravitational field.
The issue is I actually rather like this section! It's well-written if a bit quirky, and the quote concerns an important theme of the article in a way that doesn't seem overly egregious. But is it adequately encyclopedic? I'm not sure. What is an encyclopedia, again?
In any case, I feel it's odd for the MoS to explicitly address pull quotes but not these quotes generally. Remsense 诉 05:19, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
References
Please join the work on the content of Wikipedia:Stress marks in East Slavic words. - Altenmann >talk 12:59, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
What's the meaning of "left" and "right" in images if removing them leaves the images completely unchanged? JacktheBrown ( talk) 19:02, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
|left
and |right
as in [[File:Example.jpg|thumb|left|An example on the left]]
. If you had said that at the start of this thread, we wouldn't have been wasting time (I had thought that you meant in image captions like "From left to right: Smith, Jones, Brown and Foobar"). Anyway, as shown at
WP:EIS#Location, these options control which margin the image is placed against; and when |thumb
is specified (see
WP:EIS#Type), |right
is the default. So altering |thumb|right
to |thumb
makes absolutely no difference; but altering |thumb|left
to |thumb
will move the image from being against the left margin to being against the right margin. --
Redrose64 🌹 (
talk)
14:59, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
Hi, I've seen MOS:TIES as interpreted to mean article titles should only use the name in that (local) variety of English. So Bangalore is argued to be possibly Bengaluru because that's what it is in Indian English but not all English. I think this is incorrect, with TIES meaning spelling/grammar/specific generic vocabulary? If I am correct, can therefore "orthography"/ "spelling" etc be added to
An article on a topic that has strong ties to a particular English-speaking nation should use the (formal, not colloquial) English orthography of that nation
or some other clarification, that it doesn't mean article titles, such as places, should use the local name.
Unless they are supposed to use the local name? Dank Jae 13:17, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
normallytrump TIES, at least not in cases where national varieties of English offer specific and clearly-defined terms that generally used in WP:HQRS to talk about the relevant concepts or phenomena. I also haven't seen any evidence that the community endorses the nearest equivalent term in US or UK English in such cases, which is what COMMONALITY advocates are usually asking for.
Just a heads up for now: at some point most likely in the next month to few months a Wikipedia in the
Mossi language, with the ISO code mos
, and thus a "mos:" interwiki which would overwrite the "MOS:" pseudo-namespace, is likely to get created. I've been jotting down various ideas to avoid this problem at
m:Requests for new languages/Wikipedia Mooré#Comments.
* Pppery *
it has begun...
00:39, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
/(\[\[)MOS(:.*?[\]\])/i
with $1Style$2
throughout the content?
Largoplazo (
talk)
18:36, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
whoever came up with the idea of separate WP: and MOS: namespaces should be shot[99]. At the time I was kidding. But I'm not kidding anymore. E Eng 09:48, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
A user argued that use of quote box within the article does not constitute a "pull quote" within the context of MOS:PQ, because it is not repeating something in the article. Although, the editorial intent is obviously Wikipedia editor's desire to accentuate and bring more attention to that part than rest of the article, so I believe it is considered pull quote for the intent of the guideline. Please help with the interpretation of the meaning of "pull quote" as used on Wikipedia as used in Boy_Scouts_of_America#Program Graywalls ( talk) 16:47, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
{{
Quote box}}
.
Largoplazo (
talk)
15:25, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
The redirect
MOS:TITLETYPOCON has been listed at
redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the
redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 June 26 § MOS:TITLETYPOCON until a consensus is reached.
Liz
Read!
Talk!
18:31, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
I would like to propose, should the entirely of the Manual of Style be policy? It is apparent that it and its subpages are cited everyday and is followed by everyone, like other policies. Toadette Edit! 23:45, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
Hi. I have been seeing editors removing former from short descriptions on corporate articles, using the essay WP:SDAVOID as the reasoning. I wonder if other editors believe the same as me as this madness, as leaving defunct companies with short descriptions without it is inaccurate. For example Cavenham Foods or Tudor Crisps who have been defunct for quite some time. Davidstewartharvey ( talk) 05:31, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
I previously opened a thread about this topic here: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Archaeology#"was"_vs_"is"_for_individual_ancient_human_skeletons, but I think here is more appropriate. Looking at the articles listed at Category:Homo sapiens fossils (which is misleadingly titled, including remains from the last few thousand years which definitely aren't fossils), it seems to be the standard for Wikipedia articles about individual human skeletons, mummies and the like to describe them as human remains in the present tense, rather than as deceased humans in the past tense. Examples of this include for example, Cheddar Man, Ötzi, and The Younger Lady. Is this correct according to the MOS? As noted in the WT:ARCHAEOLOGY discussion the idea of describing Native American remains in the present tense like this has received pushback. I don't have a strong opinion about which way should be preferred, but I think there should be consistency regarding the way the remains of all deceased humans should be described. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 22:37, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
The alternate version that's been proposed (via edits) is:Arlington Springs Man was a Paleo-Indian whose remains were found in 1959 on Santa Rosa Island...
I found @ GreenC:'s edit summary thought-provoking and convincing:Arlington Springs Man is the skeleton of a Paleo-Indian which was found in 1959 on Santa Rosa Island
"They are the remains of an individual human being and needs to be treated as such. This is not an article about a dinosaur, rock, or woolly mammoth. This is why NAGPRA exists to deal with the dehumanizing of Indian ancestors as merely relics or old bones stored in a warehouse."Schazjmd (talk) 22:45, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
Arlington Springs Man was a Paleo-Indian [...]are factually incorrect: there was nobody called "Arlington Springs Man" in the past and nobody who considered themselves "Paleo-Indian". In my experience this overwhelmingly how archaeologists and other scientists that study human remains talk about them, for what that's worth.
Arlington Springs Man is the name given to a Native American man [...]. I do disagree with GreenC above: these articles are first and foremost about the remains of a person, not the person. We can infer some things about the latter from the former but it is not accurate, and potentially offensive, to write as if we can narrate a person's life from their bones. – Joe ( talk) 09:14, 4 June 2024 (UTC)