This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Manual of Style page.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Shortcut WT:MOS

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190, 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199, 200, 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 210, 211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216, 217, 218, 219, 220, 221, 222, 223, 224, 225, 226, 227, 228Auto-archiving period: 30 days

faq page Frequently asked questions Wikipedia's Manual of Style contains some conventions that differ from those in some other, well-known style guides and from what is often taught in schools. Wikipedia's editors have discussed these conventions in great detail and have reached consensus that these conventions serve our purposes best. New contributors are advised to check the FAQ and the archives to see if their concern has already been discussed. Why does the Manual of Style recommend straight (keyboard-style) instead of curly (typographic) quotation marks and apostrophes (i.e., the characters " and ', instead of “, ”, ‘, and ’)‍? Users may only know how to type in straight quotes (such as " and ') when searching for text within a page or when editing. Not all Web browsers find curly quotes when users type straight quotes in search strings. Why does the Manual of Style recommend logical quotation? This system is preferred because Wikipedia, as an international and electronic encyclopedia, has specific needs better addressed by logical quotation than by the other styles, despite the tendency of externally published style guides to recommend the latter. These include the distinct typesetters' style (often called American, though not limited to the US), and the various British/Commonwealth styles, which are superficially similar to logical quotation but have some characteristics of typesetters' style. Logical quotation is more in keeping with the principle of minimal change to quotations, and is less prone to misquotation, ambiguity, and the introduction of errors in subsequent editing, than the alternatives. Logical quotation was adopted in 2005, and has been the subject of perennial debate that has not changed this consensus. Why does the Manual of Style differentiate the hyphen (-), en dash (–), em dash (—), and minus sign (−)? Appropriate use of hyphens and dashes is as much a part of literate, easy-to-read writing as are correct spelling and capitalization. The "Insert" editing tools directly below the Wikipedia editing window provide immediate access to all these characters. Why does the Manual of Style recommend apostrophe+s for singular possessive of names ending in s? Most modern style guides treat names ending with s just like other singular nouns when forming the possessive. The few that do not propose mutually contradictory alternatives. Numerous discussions have led to the current MoS guidance (see discussions of 2004, 2005, 2005, 2006, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2008, 2008, 2009, 2009, 2009, 2012, 2013, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2017, 2017, 2018, 2018, 2019, 2021, 2022). Why doesn't the Manual of Style always follow specialized practice? Although Wikipedia contains some highly technical content, it is written for a general audience. While specialized publications in a field, such as academic journals, are excellent sources for facts, they are not always the best sources for or examples of how to present those facts to non-experts. When adopting style recommendations from external sources, the Manual of Style incorporates a substantial number of practices from technical standards and field-specific academic style guides; however, Wikipedia defaults to preferring general-audience sources on style, especially when a specialized preference may conflict with most readers' expectations, and when different disciplines use conflicting styles.

Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated. Please read recent comments, look in the archives, and review the FAQ before commenting.

Section sizes Section size for Wikipedia:Manual of Style (156 sections) Section name Byte count Section total (Top) 2,602 2,602 Retaining existing styles 2,896 2,896 Article titles, sections, and headings 137 12,653 Article titles 3,394 3,394 Section organization 4,739 4,739 Section headings 3,573 4,383 Heading-like material 810 810 National varieties of English 842 6,520 Consistency within articles 1,146 1,146 Opportunities for commonality 1,891 1,891 Strong national ties to a topic 1,414 1,414 Retaining the existing variety 1,227 1,227 Capital letters 648 18,741 Capitalization of The 982 982 Titles of works 1,228 1,228 Titles of people 780 780 Religions, deities, philosophies, doctrines 4,974 4,974 Calendar items 701 701 Animals, plants, and other organisms 5,621 5,621 Celestial bodies 1,248 1,248 Compass points 1,206 1,206 Proper names versus generic terms 1,353 1,353 Ligatures 495 495 Abbreviations 774 8,044 Write first occurrences in full 609 609 Plural forms 247 247 Punctuation and spacing 1,170 1,170 US and U.S. 1,919 1,919 Circa 279 279 Avoid unwarranted use 662 662 Do not invent 874 874 HTML tags and templates 383 383 Ampersand 1,127 1,127 Italics 105 5,748 Emphasis 1,133 1,133 Titles 572 572 Words as words 1,310 1,310 Foreign words 688 688 Scientific names 499 499 Quotations in italics 262 262 Italics within quotations 541 541 Effect on nearby punctuation 638 638 Quotations 1,059 15,652 Original wording 2,412 2,412 Point of view 1,234 1,234 Typographic conformity 5,801 5,801 Attribution 439 439 Quotations within quotations 94 94 Linking 483 483 Block quotations 3,045 3,045 Foreign-language quotations 1,085 1,085 Punctuation 203 75,946 Apostrophes 2,190 2,190 Quotation marks 394 13,472 Quotation characters 1,017 1,017 Double or single 1,234 1,234 For a quotation within a quotation 869 869 Article openings 620 620 Punctuation before quotations 2,023 2,023 Names and titles 1,331 1,331 Punctuation inside or outside 3,719 3,719 Quotation marks and external links 940 940 Quotation marks and internal links 1,325 1,325 Brackets and parentheses 3,361 4,566 Brackets and linking 1,205 1,205 Ellipses 2,934 2,934 Commas 4,641 7,832 Serial commas 3,191 3,191 Colons 1,863 1,863 Semicolons 3,199 5,477 Semicolon before "however" 2,278 2,278 Hyphens 9,425 9,425 Dashes 800 16,076 In article titles 759 759 Punctuating a sentence (em or en dashes) 2,342 12,435 In ranges that might otherwise be expressed with to or through 3,063 3,063 In compounds when the connection might otherwise be expressed with to, versus, and, or between 5,202 5,202 Instead of a hyphen, use an en dash when applying a prefix or suffix to a compound that itself includes a space, dash or hyphen 1,243 1,243 To separate parts of an item in a list 585 585 Other uses (en dash only) 512 512 Other uses (em dash only) 965 965 Other dashes 605 605 Slashes (strokes) 3,340 3,923 And/or 583 583 Symbols 595 595 Number (pound, hash) sign and numero 2,282 2,282 Terminal punctuation 683 683 Spacing 507 507 Consecutive punctuation marks 1,123 1,123 Punctuation and footnotes 2,413 2,413 Punctuation after formulae 382 382 Dates and time 359 5,027 Time of day 794 794 Dates 1,033 1,033 Months 323 323 Seasons 769 769 Years and longer periods 1,080 1,080 Current 669 669 Numbers 1,881 1,881 Currencies 1,637 1,637 Units of measurement 2,739 2,739 Common mathematical symbols 2,521 2,521 Grammar and usage 62 10,617 Possessives 158 1,918 Singular nouns 975 975 Plural nouns 523 523 Official names 262 262 Pronouns 104 3,843 First-person pronouns 1,494 1,494 Second-person pronouns 2,245 2,245 Plurals 1,996 1,996 Verb tense 2,798 2,798 Vocabulary 98 23,043 Contractions 476 476 Gender-neutral language 1,600 1,600 Contested vocabulary 256 256 Instructional and presumptuous language 2,578 2,578 Subset terms 618 618 Identity 1,959 3,615 Gender identity 1,656 1,656 Non-English terms 290 8,206 Terms without common usage in English 1,581 1,581 Terms with common usage in English 387 387 Spelling and romanization 5,039 5,039 Other non-English concerns 909 909 Technical language 2,226 2,226 Geographical items 3,370 3,370 Media files 74 2,689 Images 318 318 Other media files 213 213 Avoid using images to convey text 740 740 Captions 526 1,344 Formatting of captions 818 818 Bulleted and numbered lists 1,547 1,547 Links 10 1,756 Wikilinks 1,417 1,417 External links 329 329 Miscellaneous 18 14,379 Keep markup simple 1,219 1,219 Formatting issues 1,006 2,966 Color coding 1,245 1,245 Indentation 715 715 Controlling line breaks 2,356 2,356 Scrolling lists and collapsible content 5,247 5,247 Invisible comments 1,915 1,915 Pronunciation 658 658 See also 1,199 4,870 Guidance 1,242 1,242 Tools 300 300 Other community standards 523 523 Guidelines within the Manual of Style 310 1,606 Names 1,296 1,296 Notes 24 24 References 28 28 Further reading 20 1,327 External style guides 1,307 1,307 Total 223,382 223,382

This project page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Manual of Style This page falls within the scope of the Wikipedia:Manual of Style, a collaborative effort focused on enhancing clarity, consistency, and cohesiveness across the Manual of Style (MoS) guidelines by addressing inconsistencies, refining language, and integrating guidance effectively.Manual of StyleWikipedia:WikiProject Manual of StyleTemplate:WikiProject Manual of StyleManual of Style articles This page falls under the contentious topics procedure and is given additional attention, as it closely associated to the English Wikipedia Manual of Style, and the article titles policy. Both areas are subjects of debate. Contributors are urged to review the awareness criteria carefully and exercise caution when editing. For information on Wikipedia's approach to the establishment of new policies and guidelines, refer to WP:PROPOSAL. Additionally, guidance on how to contribute to the development and revision of Wikipedia policies of Wikipedia's policy and guideline documents is available, offering valuable insights and recommendations. Wikipedia Help Top‑importance This page is within the scope of the Wikipedia Help Project, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's help documentation for readers and contributors. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. To browse help related resources see the Help Menu or Help Directory. Or ask for help on your talk page and a volunteer will visit you there.Wikipedia HelpWikipedia:Help ProjectTemplate:Wikipedia Help ProjectHelp articles Top This page has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

This section is pinned and will not be automatically archived.

Add a link to new discussions at top of list and indicate what kind of discussion it is (move request, RfC, open discussion, deletion discussion, etc.). Follow the links to participate, if interested. Move to Concluded when decided, and summarize conclusion. Please keep this section at the top of the page.

Current

(newest on top)

• Talk:Shays' Rebellion#Requested move 27 April 2024 – Apply MOS:POSS and add an s?
• Template_talk:Infobox_university#Type – Should multiple entries be formatted as a list or a single phrase?
• Talk:Sino-Soviet border conflict#Flags and wikilinks in the Infobox "Belligerents" section - Do flags in this infobox serve a "useful purpose" per MOS:INFOBOXFLAGS or are they primarily decorative and should be removed?
• Wikipedia talk:Image use policy#Collages in infoboxes
• Wikipedia_talk:Featured_list_candidates#RfC_on_the_leads_of_DOY_articles_and_their_FL_eligibility – Lead length of Days Of the Year (DOY) articles (Feb. 2024)
• Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Medicine-related articles#Possessives in condition names – On Asperger syndrome vs. Asperger's syndrome, etc. (Jan. 2024)
• Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Names of deceased trans people (moved from WP:VPPOL) – Yet another round of this long-term, multi-RfC process. Consensus seems possible this time. (Dec. 2023 – Jan. 2024)
• Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Make Wikipedia:WikiProject Computer science/Manual of style into Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Computer science – Proposal to merge a "guideline in all but name" into MoS. (Jan. 2024)
• Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Increase default thumbnail size from 220px to 250px – Peripherally related to MOS:IMAGES and MOS:ACCESS. (Jan. 2024)
• Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (companies)#Use of comma and abbreviation of Incorporated – Involves MOS:TM (plus WP:COMMONNAME, WP:OFFICIALNAME. Covers more than thread name implies, including that guideline not having substantive revision since 2009. (Dec. 2023 – Jan. 2024)
• Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography#JOBTITLES simplification proposal – MOS:JOBTITLES has long been considered too complicated and hard to follow. This is not an RfC but drafting toward one; input has stalled out over the holidays, and needs to resume. (Dec. 2023 – Jan. 2024)
• Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/China- and Chinese-related articles#Kangxi radical template/gloss – Involves MOS:FOREIGN, MOS:SINGLE, MOS:ALLCAPS, MOS:BOLD. Still unresolved. (Oct.2023 – Jan. 2024)
• Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Writing about fiction#Fictional characters known by initials - what qualifies as the "preferred style for their own name" ? – Involves MOS:WAF, MOS:INITIALS, MOS:TM, MOS:ACRO, WP:OFFICIALNAME, etc. Still unresolved, but there seems to be no appetite for diverging from MOS:INITIALS. (Oct. 2023 – Jan. 2024)
• Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Islam-related articles#NPOV usage of "the prophet Muhammad" or "the prophet" – Involves MOS:HONORIFIC, MOS:DOCTCAPS, WP:NPOV, WP:CHERRYPICKING, etc. Still unresolved, though consensus seems to be forming in one direction. (Sep. 2023 – Jan. 2024)
• Help talk:Table#Indenting tables – Help page is conflicting with MOS:DLIST and MOS:ACCESS on a technical point. No objection to fixing it, and a suggestion to just do it WP:BOLDly, but the work actually has to be done. (Aug. 2023 –Jan. 2024)
• Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Tables#Proposal to discourage vertically oriented ("sideways") column headers – Specifically in tables, possibly elsewhere. MOS:UNITNAMES (at the table "General guidelines on use of units") has an example of existing use that is being challenged, and material at Help:Table is also at issue. Still unresolved. (Dec. 2023)
• Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Accessibility#Making redundant table captions screen-reader-only – About use of {{ sronly}} around table captions (which are primarily for screen readers) to hide them from the usual non-screen-reader view when their content repeats what is in the table headers. Still unresolved, too little input; probably needs to be RfCed. (Nov.–Dec. 2023)
• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Linguistics#ALL-CAPS for "keywords for lexical sets"? – Involves MOS:ALLCAPS. Result: Thinly attended, but there does seem to be a linguistics standard to render lexical sets in smallcaps, so this should probably be accounted for at MOS:ALLCAPS in the exception lists (since our articles are consistently doing it). But this revision has not been done yet. (Oct. 2023)

Concluded

Summary ( as of 16:22, 22 April 2024 (UTC)) motion to decide on ellipsis & curly quotes together -- ⛔declined by consensus . decision on favoring … over {... — 🟨pending. suggestion: a bot to replace ... with … should be simple even over 100k + articles motion to keep ...(status quo): keep ... because it is easier to type keep because it renders more nicely suggestion to avoid mixing styles a motion to use a template instead (see below) and move style debate over to the template implementation Tonymetz 💬

Support for … _{(unicode ellipsis, U+2026)} is widespread now. The decision to prefer ... over … [1] was made 15-20 years ago when unicode support was nascent. [2]

Benefits of … _{(unicode ellipsis)}

1. More accessible — screen readers can read "ellipsis" properly
2. more compact & readable. Better line breaks
3. renders with better fidelity using font glyph
4. scales better when zooming & with high-DPI devices like mobile phones
5. easier to parse (distinct unicode representation for character)

Tonymetz 💬 18:01, 16 April 2024 (UTC) reply

If we discuss this, we need to discuss the use of typographical quotation marks too! Gawaon ( talk) 18:23, 16 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Eh, I'm not so sure about that. Curly quotes have drawbacks (e.g. being 'keyed', being more frequent to the degree where I would argue the extra byte substantially increases page sizes on average) that U+2026 … HORIZONTAL ELLIPSIS does not. Remsense 诉 18:36, 16 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Fair enough. We also use en dash (–) and friends, after all. Gawaon ( talk) 20:05, 16 April 2024 (UTC) reply

I agree with Gawaon's 1st sentiment that curly quotation marks/apostrophes should be discussed in the same vein as ellipses. Both deal with the distinction of ASCII representation vs. extended character maps. I don't think that their multi-byte effect on increased page size is of any concern. -- Michael Bednarek ( talk) 04:49, 17 April 2024 (UTC) reply

I know! Let's have an RfC on whether they should be discussed together! E Eng 15:11, 21 April 2024 (UTC) reply

The big BIG advantage of requiring straight quotes and period ... ellipses is that it doesn't allow yet another gratuitous style variation for gnomes to slow-war over. It looks fine, it works, it contributes to having a clean readable style instead of a fussy special-character-elaborated one. Why get rid of those advantages? — David Eppstein ( talk) 06:57, 17 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Though I said the opposite above, I think it might indeed make most sense to limit this to the ellipsis issue for now, since it would be a relatively small change – much smaller than changing the rules for quotes and apostrophes. So if this is changed now, the quote issue could possibly be reconsidered in a year or two, then taking into account the experience with the ellipsis change.

For the ellipsis, there are two possibilities:

1. Allowing both ... and … as equally valid options. Very easy change, but with the disadvantage that usage in any given page could then be mixed, annoying the typographically aware. Though the visible difference between ... and … is small (much smaller than "quotes" vs. “quotes”, I'd say – in fact, in our standard font I can hardly see it), so that shouldn't matter very much. Also, to prevent "slow-warring", we could make the rule that changing ... to … is allowed, but changing in the opposite direction is not. In that way, pages would slowly evolved in the typographically correct direction.
2. Requiring, from now on, that … is used, and deprecating ..., just like MOS:DASH has deprecated the use of single or double hyphens instead of dashes. This would ensure that there is a single standard all pages are meant to adhere to, so totally eliminating the risk of edit warring. The disadvantage, of course, is that there are 100,000s of pages (at least) that currently don't adhere to that standard. I suppose a bot could help with that change, but it would still be a giant task to bring them in adherence.

Personally I think option 1. would be fine, while 2. daunts me a bit because of the size of the required changes. Gawaon ( talk) 07:39, 17 April 2024 (UTC) reply

While I'm not opposed on principle, I doubt implementing this change across thousands of articles would be feasible. InfiniteNexus ( talk) 23:48, 20 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Well, option 1 wouldn't have to be "implemented", it would just be an option for editors to choose from now on. Gawaon ( talk) 06:06, 21 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Bad idea. The point of an MoS is to be as consistent as possible. And changes would have to be implemented regardless; if you don't do anything, AWB, bots, and other automated tools will just continue changing them. InfiniteNexus ( talk) 06:10, 21 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Oppose any "use whichever style you want" option. Gonnym ( talk) 11:24, 21 April 2024 (UTC) reply

I have no real preference for one or the other, but I oppose the change. It wouldn't be too much work for a bot to change all of one to another. Still I see no reason to mess with what's been working. Actually, I do prefer the three dots. Anyone can type ... and the … requires a bit more effort, and … displays differently depending on the font used, so sometimes looks odd. Mixed use looks sloppy and I really want to avoid that.  SchreiberBike |  ⌨  11:48, 21 April 2024 (UTC) reply

I'm wary of creating yet another challenge for new editors who want to do the right thing – we want to keep them. NebY ( talk) 14:26, 21 April 2024 (UTC) reply

My preference would be to create templates for such things as ellipses and in-line quote ^[a] and relegate the style arguments to the talk pages of those templates. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul ( talk) 12:55, 22 April 2024 (UTC) reply

I would support mandating the unicode ellipsis. Adding this to the MOS wouldn't create any burden to new users – gnomes would simply bring articles into conformity over time. Graham11 ( talk) 03:36, 21 May 2024 (UTC) reply

More likely some bot operator is going to get it into their head that this must be done immediately!!1! and make our watchlists unusable for several days while they crank through all the Wikipedia articles at a rate of several per second. How about let's don't. — David Eppstein ( talk) 07:16, 21 May 2024 (UTC) reply

There's a 200% chance this will happen, because at least two bot operators will try it. Remsense 诉 07:17, 21 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Isn't that a matter that should be addressed at WP:BRFA? Graham11 ( talk) 17:10, 21 May 2024 (UTC) reply

If the Unicode ellipsis is better for screenreaders, we should go for it. Just add an ellipsis option to the usual dash scripts. — Kusma ( talk) 19:28, 21 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Is there any more reason to believe that it is better for screenreaders than to believe that it is worse for screenreaders? One could equally well write, if it is worse for screenreaders, then we should continue to eschew it. — David Eppstein ( talk) 20:03, 21 May 2024 (UTC) reply

On a quick Google, I have found some accessibility blogs that advocate use of the ellipsis character over three dots. I have no idea how important it is in practice. — Kusma ( talk) 20:19, 21 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Have you considered asking at WT:WPACCESS? -- Redrose64 🌹 ( talk) 21:50, 21 May 2024 (UTC) reply

I just brought it up at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Accessibility#Is there a preference from an accessibility standpoint for ellipses (...) style?  SchreiberBike |  ⌨  — Preceding undated comment added 23:02, 21 May 2024‎ (UTC) reply

I think we should be ok with either. There doesn't need to be consistency for this. — TheDJ ( talk • contribs) 07:21, 20 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Require semantically/typographically correct ellipsis per accessibility issues. Allow someone to type in three periods for convenience, but keep it deprecated and have semi-automated tools and bots change this as long as they are making other changes as well. Change all page and category titles as well with redirects from three dots. ― Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 23:07, 21 May 2024 (UTC) reply

As a screen reader user, I've never heard of these accessibility issues ... screen readers can read three dots fine. It really doesn't need a mass change here. Graham87 ( talk) 07:54, 22 May 2024 (UTC) reply

How mean of you. You've just taken away some gnome's purpose in life. (For those playing along at home, we've now got two Graham's Grahams in the conversation.) E Eng 13:59, 22 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Bold of you to write "Graham's" on this talk page! JoelleJay ( talk) 00:35, 12 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Something like that always happens when I'm being a smartass. E Eng 08:55, 12 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Graham's law says that the rate of hot air escaping from a talk page discussion is inversely proportional to the square root of the weight of the arguments contained within. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:54, 12 June 2024 (UTC)} reply

Oppose any change - three dots is fine and easier to write. Then again, if it's not onerous to make a bot that turns every instance of ... into … after every single edit that includes ..., I'm not going to lose any sleep over it. BoldGnome ( talk) 02:57, 12 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Allow either ... or …. I agree with the (minor) advantages of using the unicode character, but changing it everywhere seems like a huge waste of time and effort. We should just be agnostic about it, IMO. Nosferattus ( talk) 18:14, 20 June 2024 (UTC) reply

The problem with "allow either" is that in some fonts they look very different from each other. Having "..." and "…" near each other looks pretty bad to me.  SchreiberBike |  ⌨  20:46, 20 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Of course "foreign-language" is a common adjective to mean "in a language other than English" and that's fine, but it also looks a bit odd in the guidelines of an international internet encyclopedia? "non-English language" is clunkier I'll admit, but it's also more precise in a way that seemingly doesn't cost much. Should we consider changing it on policy and guideline pages?

(I'm fairly sure it shouldn't be non–English language or non-English-language even as an adjective, right? Those both look ridiculous.) Remsense 诉 05:28, 3 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Agree. “Foreign” presupposes where the reader is, which isn’t appropriate for an international encyclopaedia. MapReader ( talk) 07:08, 3 May 2024 (UTC) reply

My concern is that "non-English" might exclude the English-based creoles like Nigerian Pidgin; we should treat these creoles as we would treat any other non-English language, as English speakers tend to be unable to understand them. BilledMammal ( talk) 08:28, 3 May 2024 (UTC) reply

I think it is fairly safe to say that no one would have this as their public definition of "English language", right? Remsense 诉 08:37, 3 May 2024 (UTC) reply

It’s not exactly an English language - but it’s also not exactly a non-English language. BilledMammal ( talk) 08:52, 3 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Right, so how does "foreign language" do better with that ambiguity? I would think it does worse. There's no definite boundaries between any two lects you can define. Remsense 诉 08:54, 3 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Don't fix what ain't broke. Foreign is fine as we all know it means a language other than English. Masterhatch ( talk) 08:48, 3 May 2024 (UTC) reply

I would agree if it were a big deal to fix. Plus, it is a little bit broken—we all know what a lot of words *should* mean, but that doesn't mean we can't seek to further improve our word choices. Remsense 诉 08:50, 3 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Agree. 'Foreign' is not necessarily the same as non-English even when you assume the reader/editor is in a country where English is the most commonly spoken language. Many countries where English is the norm were colonised and had/have indigenous languages of their own, which would be odd to call 'foreign'. FropFrop ( talk) 09:04, 18 May 2024 (UTC) reply

You aren't wrong. We can simplify most of this, avoiding "non-English language". In this main MoS page, nearly all uses of "foreign" are either to qualify a noun other than "language" ("foreign words", "foreign text") or in the adjectival "foreign-language" to qualify a noun. In the former cases, just replace "foreign" with "non-English". In the latter, replace "foreign-language" with "non-English", omitting "language". A couple of cases are tricky because they link to sections currently titled "Foreign languages" on other MoS pages. Those can be dealt with in turn but is there anything objectionable about my proposal to make the first round of substitutions forthwith? Even to the extent that I could argue that, pragmatically, readers will know what we mean, "non-English" is better.

Finally, for the noun phrase "foreign language(s)", "language(s) other than English" seems more natural than "non-English language(s)". Largoplazo ( talk) 11:43, 18 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Agreed for all the reasons you've provided. "Non-English languages" is fine enough to me. – Primium ( talk) 23:14, 13 June 2024 (UTC) reply

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) reply

Arlington Springs Man is on my watchlist, and there's been some recent back-and-forth in the edit history around that question. Currently, it reads:

Arlington Springs Man was a Paleo-Indian whose remains were found in 1959 on Santa Rosa Island...

The alternate version that's been proposed (via edits) is:

Arlington Springs Man is the skeleton of a Paleo-Indian which was found in 1959 on Santa Rosa Island

I found @ GreenC:'s edit summary thought-provoking and convincing: "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) reply

My point is that the remains of Native Americans shouldn't be treated any different than those of other humans. If we are going to have a standard of describing Native American humans remains as "was a person" rather than "is skeleton/mummy" then this should be broadly applied to all articles about human remains. As far as I can tell, this "was a person" has so far only been inconsistently applied to Native American articles, for example the Incan mummy articles Aconcagua mummy, Mummy Juanita and Plomo Mummy are all in the present tense. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 22:54, 27 May 2024 (UTC) reply

I agree with all human remains being treated consistently in article leads. I just found the edit summary persuasive that it's more respectful to recognize that they were a person. Schazjmd  (talk) 23:09, 27 May 2024 (UTC) reply

• The difference is some old remains nobody claims/cares anymore as an ancestor or relative, and some do. Personally I think all these articles should be framed foremost as about a person because it makes for a better and more accurate article, given that perspective. Many of these articles are poorly written they get confused on this moving back and forth about bones or person sort of willy nilly with no compass. Sometimes a sentence might concern the remains, sometimes not, you need to know when to use which. The lead sentence framing concerns a person is the main compass direction, because that is why remains are studied, to learn about the person and their culture. The remains are only one aspect of the person. This is borne out when you read these articles, they concern much more than the remains. The articles concern the life of the individual, as learned through the remains. -- Green C 23:12, 27 May 2024 (UTC) reply

I don't think consistency is very important here. If Native Americans prefer that their ancestors be talked about a certain way (I have no idea), then why wouldn't we respect that? On the other hand, that doesn't mean we should talk about remains like Cheddar Man or Ötzi—that don't come from an Indigenous/settler-colonial context—in the same way.

I usually use the present tense for purely pedantic reasons, i.e. to avoid anachronisms. Sentences like 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.

If the concern is dehumanisation, an (admittedly quite awkward) compromise could be something like 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) reply

Arlington Springs Man has the Note after his name in the lead sentence: "His historical name is unknown. A moniker was invented as a means of identification." You could say "Arlington Springs Man is a moniker for a Native American man .. " but this is overly fussy and already obvious to 99% of readers, a Note serves that purpose fine. There is some guideline somewhere that advises against this sort of thing, say what it is sufficiently for understanding, don't qualify too much in the lead sentence, we are writing for a general audience. See WP:LEAD for the purpose of the lead and how to write a good lead section. -- Green C 15:46, 4 June 2024 (UTC) reply

The formulation "X is the remains of"—the status quo you're objecting to—also conforms to WP:LEAD. –  Joe ( talk) 07:42, 5 June 2024 (UTC) reply

• If we're talking about a person who has died, it's past tense. If we're talking about remains that still exist its present tense. Am I missing some nuance here? I don't see why it's different to anything or anyone else. For most people we don't talk about their still existing remains once they die, but in these cases we are. Canterbury Tail talk 11:43, 4 June 2024 (UTC) reply

  It concerns the framing and topic creation of the lead sentence:

  1. " Ötzi is the natural mummy of a man" (lead sentence)

  This is incorrect. The article frames the name "Ötzi" as the remains, and not a moniker for the once-living man. Nevertheless, throughout the rest of the article, it refers to "him" and "he". The article is thus confused as to what the name Ötzi refers to, indeed what the topic of the article is: a person, or human remains. The lead sentence could more accurately say " Ötzi was a Bronze-age man whose mummified remains.."

  1. " Kennewick Man was an ancient Indigenous American man whose skeletal remains were found .." (lead sentence)

  This is correct. The primary topic of the article concerns a man, his life, environment, culture .. of which the remains are an aspect of that man's life and death.

  We have many articles that frame individual people as physical objects in the lead sentence. -- Green C 15:22, 4 June 2024 (UTC) reply

  What do you mean by "correct" and "incorrect" here? Looking through the first couple of pages of Google Scholar results for "Ötzi", almost all of them primarily discuss a "mummy", "corpse", or "iceman", rather than a person. Are they incorrect? –  Joe ( talk) 08:07, 5 June 2024 (UTC) reply

  Well, of course both are "correct", but we need to choose the best option for a general purpose general reader encyclopedia. We are not writing a journal article. Wikipedia articles cover all aspects of the person including their remains but not limited to their remains. -- Green C 15:11, 5 June 2024 (UTC) reply

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) reply

Thing is, policies, generally speaking, have consequences for not following them. Nobody needs to follow or even know about the MOS to contribute. Only when there's reversions of attempts by others to get articles in line with the MOS are there potential consequence (for disruption). I think that's the kind of answer you're looking for, sorry if you already knew all this. Primergrey ( talk) 00:38, 29 May 2024 (UTC) reply

The distinction between policies and guidelines is not really super-clear; most things you can say about one, you can say about the other. See WP:P&G and note how most of it refers to both policies and guidelines without really making a distinction.

But basically the MOS doesn't deal with the same sort of thing that policies deal with. Policies are about procedures, behaviors, stuff like that. They're not really about formatting and word choices.

See Wikipedia:List of policies and look at the six categories at the top. The only one that's even close is "Content", and that's about the sort of material that ought to appear in Wikipedia at all, not about how it's styled. -- Trovatore ( talk) 00:40, 29 May 2024 (UTC) reply

It seems that the particular constructions referred to as "parenthetical plurals" by style guides—e.g. when posting thread(s),—have never been discussed here before, which is a bit shocking. Here's a quick pitch for why we should consider explicitly deprecating their use in article(s):

• They are almost entirely useless, and usually do not clarify any ambiguity. This is the case for WP:AND/OR but stronger. Use of a plural form to indicate "any number of" is usually completely fine, and when it's not there's usually a broader problem with the structure of your sentence.
• Something something, brackets can create problems for wikitext, somehow.
• While neither AMA nor Chicago explicitly disallow parenthetical plurals, they both firmly suggest that you should never have to use them.
• They are ugly.

Remsense 诉 09:46, 31 May 2024 (UTC) reply

• WP:MOSBLOAT. Have you found yourself wasting time debating this point with other editors -- time that would be saved by a new MOS provision? E Eng 16:07, 31 May 2024 (UTC) reply

  I see it considerably often, but you're totally right in that no one's ever actually insisted as to require a guideline enshrining consensus. Remsense 诉 16:17, 31 May 2024 (UTC) reply

At least in the example given, the construction is worse than ugly: when posting thread is plain ungrammatical. -- Florian Blaschke ( talk) 20:52, 20 June 2024 (UTC) reply

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) reply

I agree with you. -- Cyfal ( talk) 05:56, 3 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Short descriptions are supposed to give extremely brief descriptions for the purpose of disambiguation. I don't see time-specific descriptors as critical for that, so I'm in favor of keeping them out. It's not misleading to omit the information. Popcornfud ( talk) 06:16, 3 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Yeah, leaving it out seems fine (and indeed preferable) to me too. That there is an article about a company doesn't imply it still exists, so there is no need for such qualifiers. Gawaon ( talk) 06:42, 3 June 2024 (UTC) reply

The short description for Canaan reads "Region in the ancient Near East". It isn't implying that Canaan exists now, it's just identifying it as what it was when it was. The same goes for products and corporations. Just understand the SD to be explaining not what the topic is but what it is-or-was. Largoplazo ( talk) 09:39, 3 June 2024 (UTC) reply

This is a bit confusing, so let me try to give an example.

Suppose we have a book, A Great Book by Joe Sixpack, that says something like this:

The sky is blue.[15]

Then at the end of the book is a list of sources, including one for footnote 15. Let's call this "The Original Source". So we have a book by Sixpack that cites "The Original Source".

Now we want to quote from A Great Book in a Wikipedia article. And we do so like this, preserving not just the quote, but Sixpack's source citation too:

In his book A Great Book, Sixpack says that "The sky is blue. ^[1]" ^[2]

I find this awkward and unnecessary. I would leave out the citation to "The Original Source". Verifiability is still preserved, because a curious reader can look up Sixpack and from there find The Original Source. Does this seem right?

I found this at Lynn Conway, the quote that starts with "By taking this job". GA-RT-22 ( talk) 16:23, 12 June 2024 (UTC) reply

@ GA-RT-22: WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT - just cite A Great Book by Joe Sixpack, with page number. -- Redrose64 🌹 ( talk) 18:58, 12 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Exactly what I need. Thanks! GA-RT-22 ( talk) 20:20, 12 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Redrose64 is right, of course, but it's also true that (a) you might as well look at Original Source to see if it meets our own standards (it usually will, if A Great Book is published by a good publisher), and (b) if it's easy to access Original Source it's worth taking a look at that too. At least once that I recall I've found that Joe Sixpack misinterpreted Original Source. Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 20:57, 12 June 2024 (UTC) reply

See Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)‎#MOS on date format by country and Talk:Lisa del Giocondo‎#Edit warring about whether the date format customary in a non-English speaking country has any bearing on what date format should be used in an English Wikipedia article. Jc3s5h ( talk) 21:04, 17 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Title, should orthographical variants be included when place names are given? Traumnovelle ( talk) 07:11, 19 June 2024 (UTC) reply

I think it has to depend on the history of the orthographies in question. For one particular case, MOS:ZH says that alternate/historical romanizations of Chinese place names generally shouldn't be used, even if they appear as a part of other proper names: e.g. Tsingtao Brewery Co., Ltd. is located in Qingdao, Shandong. Remsense 诉 07:22, 19 June 2024 (UTC) reply

It's not historical but it isn't commonly used outside of a minority group essentially. It's Pokeno, which instead of using a macron is sometimes spelt as Pookeno but I can't find any reliable source that actually uses this spelling. Mayhap it is more akin to dialectal variations. Traumnovelle ( talk) 07:30, 19 June 2024 (UTC) reply

If ultimately attested in RS, I think this is worth mentioning, maybe in a footnote. Remsense 诉 07:35, 19 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Can you give an example of what you're asking about? Largoplazo ( talk) 10:23, 19 June 2024 (UTC) reply

The example is in my other comment. Traumnovelle ( talk) 19:52, 19 June 2024 (UTC) reply

This week I took a long time to learn how to enable a first-line indentation and I would like to float the possibility of improving the sentence under 'Indentation' which cites two templates to enable other editors to learn how to use them more quickly. Would anyone be willing to mentor me if I tried to improve it to achieve this objective? For the record, I should disclose that I am new to templates. John Desmond ( talk) 15:09, 20 June 2024 (UTC) . reply

What do you mean by "first-line indentation"? E Eng 17:21, 20 June 2024 (UTC) reply

I suspect that John Desmond refers to a common practice in printed books where the first line of a paragraph is indented by one or two em. -- Redrose64 🌹 ( talk) 20:40, 21 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Not really relevant for Wikipedia, though, it seems. Gawaon ( talk) 20:58, 21 June 2024 (UTC) reply

That's a correct suspicion - see John Desmond's edit here, for example. Davidships ( talk) 00:01, 22 June 2024 (UTC) reply

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

A$ is similar to 'As'. So, change A$ to AU$. 70.22.248.187 ( talk) 17:30, 20 June 2024 (UTC) reply

 Not done: A change of this magnitude would require consensus and affect a significant number of articles. GSK ( talk • edits) 17:58, 20 June 2024 (UTC) reply