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 190 | ← | Archive 193 | Archive 194 | Archive 195 | Archive 196 | Archive 197 | → | Archive 200 |
This guideline is very unclear to me. Does it imply that groups identifying themselves as "white nationalist" should be identified like that by us? - Haukur Þorgeirsson 03:03, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
I think this policy should be extended to include guidelines on how to treat pen names / stage names vs. real names, and whether or not abbrevations should be used in the title of a persons article. – Damsleth Talk| Contributions 11:02, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
The following makes no sense to me:
If one wants a list of African-American composers the first title is accurate and the second just isn't. I would also deprecate using anything so vague as "of Fooian descent". The text above is like saying, "List of French people" is accepatable, but "List of people" is more inclusive, and therefore more useful. In my opinion that just isn't true.
As the opening statement "In some cases a general name or term may be more neutral or more accurate" is so vague that I have little idea what the point of it is, given that the supporting example makes no sense, I'm going to take it out for now, but it anyone does know what it is supposed to mean and can give a better example, by all means put it back.
Merchbow 20:59, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
Referring to people by the gender they choose is absurd. This is not the case "for any other aspect of a person's identity", as the post below states. If a white person decides that he is truly "black" on the inside, you would not suddenly start referring to him as a African-American person (or any other ethnic group for that matter). A person's gender is a concrete, scientifically testable aspect of that person's body and is not open to debate, by him or her self (or anybody else for that matter). If I decide that I am the reincarnation of Jesus Christ (the descriptor I choose for myself, in the language of the below post), the entire educated world is not going to start calling me by that name, but this seems to be the logic that some people apply to gender identity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.7.5.142 ( talk) 20:47, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
Where is the consensus on this? -- WikiSlasher 12:59, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
There is an RfC which is inextricably involved with WP:NCI going on here Talk:Barbarian/RfC_on_usage/. Any feedback is appreciated. - WeniWidiWiki 06:16, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm trying my hardest to stay civil here, this page has got to be the biggest violation of NPOV on wikipedia. It needs to be removed immediately. I request admin input, I don't want to get done for page blanking. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hayden5650 ( talk • contribs) 11:41, 10 May 2007
I see some people deleting epithet "Mongoloid" from articles, without bothering to provide a substitute. In my opinion, we should replace presumably offensive epithets with the neutral ones rather than deleting any attempt at description altogether. Furthermore, if "Mongoloid" is indeed considered offensive in modern archaeological discourse, WP:NCI should clearly say so. -- Ghirla -трёп- 11:54, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Readers of this page may be interested in a discussion going on at Talk:Roma people, where it has been suggested that the article move to Gypsies. Some opposing the move have cited this policy as an argument for the current title. I'm just leaving a link here, in case anyone wants to weigh in on that matter. - GTBacchus( talk) 21:52, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
I do not see any evidence that this has been proposed to any wide spectrum of editors to see whether it is consensus. It directly contradicts the widely cited WP:COMMONNAME; it may contradict WP:Use English.
I doubt it is consensus; it is not what we actually do, at least about individual identities, and I doubt it is what we should do about national or sexual identities; if it were narrowed to apply only to groups (as may be intended but is not clear), it might be more reasonable.
As for individual identities: we should use what is normally used, because it is clearest: we should use Cat Stevens, not Yusuf Islam, so that our readers will know who we mean; on the other hand, we should use Muhammad Ali, not Cassius Clay, for the same reason. Likewise, we should not use Steven Demetre Georgiou for Cat Stevens, as the "correct name" party would have us do.
For groups, it is now in error; it makes the assumption that large groups, especially those subject to historic discrimination, have a single stable self-identifying term. While coloured is considered inappropriate in the United States, is simply false, and not only because the American is colored; the long cycle of progressive euphemism made colored (or, often, people of color) the preferred term for many members of the group in question again in the 1990's, replacing (for them) black; some but not all of them have gone on to African-American; which may be now replaced by some speakers because of the question of whether a Kenyan-American is a member of the group in question. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:11, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Another example of bad phrasing is always use the terminology which those individuals or organizations themselves use. I'm sure whoever wrote that did not mean to apply to Kiev or Warsaw or Rome, the inhabitants of which do not use the English forms; but the use of always will lead to the relevant nationalists quoting this as a command to revise the English form to their liking. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:53, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
I originally asked this at WT:MOS as WP:ID redirects there, but they pointed me over here as the fuller expansion of that section.
I've got a rather complicated situation regarding the pronoun(s) to be used for a fictional character, for I would appreciate guidance on interpreting the first two bullets of WP:ID. The character in question is Akito Sohma from the manga Fruits Basket and its anime adaptation. (Please ignore the character article's current hideous quality, including a wretched inconsistency with pronouns: I'm preparing to clean it up -- thus my question.) In the manga, Akito is presented as male for the first half of the series, but turns out to be biologically female and raised to live as man; at the end of the series, as part of letting go other roles he/she has been living, Akito announces that she/he will henceforth live as a woman and is afterward always shown dressed in women's clothing. The anime adaptation covers the first third of the story and was generally faithful to the manga, but was made before the manga reveled Akito's biological sex and, in wrapping up the story early, shows Akito as unambiguously male.
If I understand WP:ID correctly, when discussing the character as portrayed in the manga, Akito should be referred to with female pronouns. What about when discussing the character as portrayed in the anime (such as when describing the differences in adaptation)? What about when discussing the character generically, independent of format? And, possibly most importantly, is there any way to make distinctions clearly enough as to not confuse either readers and editors? (Especially in other articles where Akito is mentioned in passing without reason to explain pronouns.)
For full disclosure, the rule of thumb I've been following in editing other Fruits Basket articles is to use "he" except when discussing Akito after she declares she will live as a woman. Which goes against the word of the guideline, but seemed at the time to invite less confusion. My thanks for any insight others can give. — Quasirandom ( talk) 15:22, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
If no one objects I would like to submit this page to Requests for comment on Style, reference, layout and projects. It's been in the works for four years now, let's see if we can't get it adopted as a guideline. -- DieWeisseRose ( talk) 01:15, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
I checked the history and although it doesn't seem that it was ever listed as a "guideline" there was a different template that seemed to indicate that it was adopted by consensus but that got changed by the Gimmebot on 21 April 2008. -- DieWeisseRose ( talk) 01:25, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
As in Inuit and Native American? The middle-eastern Jews are also indigenous to the area as are the Arabs, Christian and Muslim. "Palestinian" as in "indigenous Arabs" is a political edit. It should not be in the indigenous section. I wouldn't object to it as a naming convention if that is what they want to be called, but not under the indigenous label, no. Tundrabuggy ( talk) 03:29, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
"Black" is not outdated in the U.S.. Some blacks use it to refer to themselves, an it is more broad than "African-American". "Black" refers to skin color and culture, not national origin. 75.118.170.35 ( talk) 17:43, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
Suppose there is a religious group whose members identify as Christians but are not universally recognised as such. If an article is to reference them, what should determine if they can be described as Christians? Should this be considered an exception to "When naming or writing an article about specific groups or their members always use the terminology which those individuals or organizations themselves use"? In either case, it may be useful to make the preference explicit in the guideline, as I've seen a few disagreements over it. Ilkali ( talk) 16:32, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
I am having a debate over at Media Matters for America. They self describe as "progressive", but almost universally, the,mainstream media refers to them as a liberal organization. The article is scrubbed of all mention of the liberal label and I cannot add the category "liberal organizations in the United States." There is no category for progressive organizations, but there is a category "progressivism which I have included. So, can we included additional descriptions in categorization and description if neutral third party sources continually describe them as such. I understood the category policy to include all categories that fit the subject. To me this includes both progressive and liberal labels. Bytebear ( talk) 04:28, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
A subsection of the general guidelines reads:
Almost always use terms as adjectives rather than nouns, thus, black people, not blacks, gay people, not gays, person with albinism, not albino, and so on. Note that there may be exceptions to this rule: for example, some prefer the term "transgenders" to the term " transgendered people", "Jews" is the standard plural.
The guideline recommends using adjectives instead of nouns, but the phrase person with albinism does not contain any adjectives. Moreover, Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch#Euphemisms recommends against the people with [noun X] style, and suggests using [adjective form of X] people instead. -- Joshua Issac ( talk) 21:29, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
A recent discussion of MOS:IDENTITY closed with the recommendation that Wikipedia's policy on transgender individuals be revisited.
Two threads have been opened at the Village Pump:Policy. The first addresses how the Manual of Style should instruct editors to refer to transgender people in articles about themselves (which name, which pronoun, etc.). The second addresses how to instruct editors to refer to transgender people when they are mentioned in passing in other articles. Your participation is welcome. Darkfrog24 ( talk) 01:59, 12 October 2015 (UTC) Fixed the links. Mathglot ( talk) 00:34, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
Please see " Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Merge draft WP:Naming conventions (identity) to MOS:IDENTITY?", a proposal to merge this to the WP:Manual of Style in one way or another, since this is a draft style guideline with almost nothing in it that pertains specifically to article titles (i.e., it is not a naming convention). — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 07:42, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
If " Two-spirit is preferred over berdache" is meant to imply that Native Americans/First Nations persons who are LGBT should be referred to as "two-spirit" in Wikipedia's own voice, that is never going to get consensus. It's a WP:NPOV problem and will frequently also be WP:OR. We have no idea whether a particular subject might prefer that in most cases. The underlying supposition – that all indigenous peoples of North America are the same culture with the same traditions, beliefs, perceptions, terms, and preferences – is ridiculous nonsense. It's also an NPOV problem for an entirely different reason: promotion of specific religio-spiritual ideas. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 09:12, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
This entry:
Some terms are considered pejorative, or have negative associations, even if they are quite commonly used. Even though people may use these terms themselves, they may not appreciate being referred to by such terms by others (for example, faggot, nigger, tranny). Note that neutral terminology is not necessarily the most common term — a term that the person or their cultural group does not accept for themselves is not neutral even if it remains the most widely used term among outsiders.
is problematic for at two reasons:
The entire provision isn't needed unless someone can identify multiple cases where the most common name in reliable sources is a term that RS generally identify as offensive. This scenario appears to be impossible, because a) most of the sources would have to be using it and b) most of the sources would have to simultaneously agree it was offensive, ergo c) most of the sources would have to be intentionally being offensive just to be assholes, which would d) make them suspect as reliable sources to begin with (namely, the "reputable publisher" criterion would be dubious). It's poor content in other ways, e.g. "Even though people may use these terms themselves" doesn't mean what its author thinks it means. "Note that" is almost never meaningful to include; literally 99+% of cases of its use can be deleted.
We could maybe retain a "stub" of this line item, as something like:
A term may be considered pejorative, or have negative associations, even if it is commonly used, or used as a self-label among persons to whom it applies. Such terms should not be used on Wikipedia except inside quoted material and in material about the terminology itself.
and just leave it at that. The rest of that stuff is just
WP:CREEP and/or
WP:SOAPBOX. The original's last clause, in particular, is the opposite of WP consensus; we routinely apply
exonyms in article titles and in running prose (e.g.
Navajo not
Diné), and identify the endonym(s) in the lead section (unless the endonym is overtaking the endonym; thus "Eskimo" is finally out). It is not WP's job to dictate names and usage, but to follow them, as determined by reliable sources on the topic and on general English-language usage.
—
SMcCandlish ☺
☏
¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 09:54, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
I'm currently working on Children of Llullaillaco, and I just realized that I had been inconsistently using date formats so I decided to standardize on one or the other. According to ENGVAR, when there are no "close national ties" (paraphrased) to a subject, the first major contributor to the article can choose which variety of English to use. Since Latin America has no strong national ties to any variety of English (since English is not a primary language there) I've chosen American English, since I'm American so that's what I'm most comfortable working with. However, Latin America uses dmy date format, and American English uses mdy. Since English is not a primary language in Latin America, there are no strong ties to any English variety - however, am I still required to use dmy date format in this case? And if so, does that mean I cannot use American English due to the resulting internal inconsistency? (I have the same question about metric vs. imperial units - American English uses imperial but Latin America universally uses metric) Thanks, CJK09 ( talk) 21:35, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
Articles on topics with strong ties to a particular English-speaking country should generally use the date format most commonly used in that nation. For the United States this is (for example) July 4, 1976; for most other English-speaking countries it is 4 July 1976
In some topic areas the customary format differs from the usual national one: for example, articles on the modern U.S. military, including U.S. military biographical articles, use day-before-month, in accordance with U.S. military usage.
If an article has evolved using predominantly one format, the whole article should conform to it, unless there are reasons for changing it based on strong national ties to the topic or consensus on the article's talk page.
The date format chosen by the first major contributor in the early stages of an article should continue to be used, unless there is reason to change it based on strong national ties to the topic or consensus on the article's talk page.
I'm an American who prefers DMY date format myself, but it's not my or your job or privilege to impose that preference on everyone, especially not by " I got here first" chest-beating. Consistency is preferred over claims of staked-out territory, and it is always sufficient that consensus at a particular article opts for consistency (in one direction or the other) regardless of the preference of first major contributor. None of the *VAR provisions are "thou shalt not change it" rules, just discouragements of making changes without good reason. An ENGVAR mismatch in the same article, commingling one dialect's date format with another's orthography, without some defensible rationale to do so (e.g. it's a science/military topic) is often a good reason. If it were not, then there are many thousands of "enforcements" of DMY date format in BrEng articles that you can go try to revert; good luck with that.
The "no strong ties" argument is weaker for Latin America that it would be for, say, Greece or North Korea; the most common second language learned in most of Latin America is English, and mostly the US variant; US foreign policy has a huge impact throughout the entire region; the majority of English-language reliable sources about the region are published in the US in US English. But there are historical exceptions; e.g., English is an official language in Belize, and it's more strongly British- than American-influenced. The situation is similar to the strength of "there is some connection" TIES arguments between British English and places once under British imperial control (and between American English and American-occupied [or formerly occupied] places like the Philippines and Okinawa). It's a factor, even if it's not an overwhelming one.
Finally, what date format is preferred in a Latin American country that doesn't have English as an official language, or even a large-minority first language, is irrelevant here. WP is written for English-speaking users, not monoglot Spanish speakers in Nicaragua or Cuba. We have these *VAR rules to a) present consistent material to our readers and b) to forestall style fights.
—
SMcCandlish ☺
☏
¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 15:46, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
If an article has evolved using predominantly one format, the whole article should conform to it, unless there are reasons for changing it based on strong national ties to the topic or consensus on the article's talk page? It seems like it. If so, this opens a whole can of worms again. If
commingling one dialect's date format with another's orthographyis wrong, then so is commingling one dialect's quotation style with another's orthography, or one dialect's dash style with another's orthography, or so it will quickly be argued. (And, yes, I understand that it can be claimed that a date format is different from a style, but it's too fine a distinction for me.) MOS:DATEVAR is fine as it is; there's no need to insist on consistency of date format with orthography. Peter coxhead ( talk) 21:04, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
Since there seems to be agreement that ENGVAR doesn't apply to date formats, something should be added to the MOS:ENGVAR section to make this clear. There is currently a hatnote in the MOS:RETAIN subsection that links to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers § Retaining the existing format. I suggest adding a "Dates and measures" section with a short paragraph and hatnote pointing to MOS:DATETIES. AHeneen ( talk) 17:48, 2 September 2017 (UTC) ( edit conflict)
If an article has evolved using predominantly one format, the whole article should conform to it, unless there are reasons for changing it based on strong national ties to the topic or consensus on the article's talk page.
Catching up here, and there's a lot to cover:
We could and probably should throw out the "first major contributor" rule, because it has caused more problems than it solved. It would make more sense to go with the WP default for everything: when consensus for a change does not emerge, revert to the status quo ante. The "FMC" rule is actually a WP:EDITING policy violation and should never have been put into the guidelines at all, even as a last resort. The fact that it's very frequently misinterpreted as a mysterious WP:OWN exemption is a very good reason to remove it.
— SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 01:06, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
demonstrable reasons. "The first major contributor principle" is the "status quo ante principle"; otherwise how in an article with no ENGVAR ties which has developed a mixed style over time do you decide what the status quo ante is? It's not a question of WP:OWN, but of trying to decide at what point ENGVAR and style are sufficiently established to be maintained. "The consistent ENGVAR at the first major expansion" would probably work equally well, and would avoid the implication of ownership.
SMcCandlish I really don't want to get into an argument with you, but I'd like to point out that several times during this discussion you have said what you personally would prefer:
I'm an American who prefers DMY date format myself, but it's not my or your job or privilege to impose that preference on everyone, especially not by "I got here first" chest-beating.
I would have voted for British/Commonwealth English for several reasons, including it having numerical superiority by world-wide regions if not by readers head-count; because of its richer history; and because it maintains distinctions lost in AmEng, e.g. practice vs. practise and defense vs. defence.
are at least two. While of course you are free to do this, I don't think these kinds of comments are helpful to sorting out a multi-faceted discussion, except perhaps in a discussion regarding a specific proposal for a change to the current style guide. This present discussion is actually covering several different things, and has gotten a bit confusing, but I don't think it is on a specific proposal. Also, I don't think saying "especially not by 'I got here first' chest-beating" is helpful, either. I don't see any previous comments that suggested that attitude, and if anyone mentioned "first major contributor", it was because it is in the MoS already, and quoted above.
Several times you have said that it is more logical to use the DMY date format for science articles:
Children of Llullaillaco is primarily a science article; while we don't have a formal rule about that, the above reasoning (that science generally uses DMY format) is good logic, about how English is written for a particular context.
When I asked, "What is the particular connection between date format and science that would require using the DMY date format?", I don't think I got a good answer. "Science generally uses DMY format" isn't enough. If the vast preponderance of sources in science use the DMY format, that may be a sufficient basis to include in the MoS: "The DMY format should be used in all science articles." That is why I asked, "Do do American writers and scholars really use the DMY format?" Your response was, "Who cares?" implying that I was asking about these writers' and scholars' personal writing preferences. I wasn't. I was asking about what they use in published books and articles. If there is a mix in the sources, then I have to agree with Peter coxhead, who wrote, above, "For many articles, perhaps most particularly science-related ones, there's no reason to prefer one variety of ENGVAR to another, so there is no rational way of reaching a consensus." I also think that Wikipedia is mainly used by the general public, including young people, and that they ought to be able to find and read at least some articles written in the variety of English they themselves speak, read, and write. That is why I think it is right that some articles are written in British/Indian/Australian/Canadian English and some are written in American (U.S.) English, and that some articles use the day-month-year date format and some use the month-day-year format. For the same reasons, I also don't think that, even if most scientific publications use the day-month-year format, our science-related articles should all be written using that format.
I'm surprised that you would write,
Personally, I wish we'd just throw out "M D, Y" dates entirely, and all other variants except the rare cases we really need ISO Y-M-D dates for a specific reason. DMY is understood just fine by everyone, it's just not everyone's personal preference or what they're most used to, which is true of every single rule in MoS or any other style guide for some subset of people. One standard would make maintenance much easier, and WP has no real reason not to standardize on one specific date format like virtually every other publisher in the world does. The lame-ass reason we haven't is people whine and cry too much any time they don't get to write exactly like they want to.
I don't know about those who "whine and cry too much any time they don't get to write exactly like the want to", but saying that "DMY is understood just fine by everyone, it's just not everyone's personal preference or what they're most used to" is disingenuous. Except for a few writers such as yourself, the month-day-year date format is very much the preferred format for over 250 million American (U.S.) readers. I don't think they should be dismissed so easily.
When I wrote, above,
However, regarding articles on topics that have no strong national ties to the US or Great Britain, such as an article on archaeology in South America, I think both the variety of English used and the date format should be the choice of the first major contributor to the article. There ought to be some things left to the choice of those who write or expand articles.
You made a big point of saying that it is not only the US or Great Britain. Of course I know there are other varieties of English, including Indian, Australian, and Canadian, and the English of the Philippines and Okinawa; I just didn't feel I needed to list them all. When I wrote, "There ought to be some things left to the choice of those who write or expand articles", you responded, "They just shouldn't be style things." I disagree with you. On certain types of topics, and at certain stages in the formation of an article, the choice of ENGVAR is a style choice, and I said this: if there are no strong national ties to a particular place that would recommend one variety of English over another, and if the article is not on a military topic, then the person who starts a new article, or expands a stub, ought to be able to select the variety of English he or she wants to use. I don't think the person should have to gain consensus on this. If, however, an article on such a topic has, over time, developed a mixed style regarding ENGVAR, then discussion may need to take place and a consensus reached. I don't think this is anything new. When I used the phrase "first major contributor", I was merely using the phrase that is in the MoS; if you feel it needs to be changed, then I think it should be a separate discussion following a clearly written proposal. This discussion has been too much all over the place.
I am a copy-editor, and consistency is important to me, and I work to ensure it in articles. I have always believed that the date format should match the variety of English used in an article. To me, it was always pretty clear: use DMY with British, Indian, and Australian-related topics and MDY with American- (U.S.-) related articles. I now understand that there are some other combinations such as articles that use Philipines English. When I wrote, above, "I am persuaded that there is no need to require that the date format in an article match the variant of English used in the article", it was only because I saw several comments that seemed to say there isn't, and shouldn't be, such a requirement to match the date format with the variety of English (even apart from the exceptions to the usual matching). Maybe I'm too easily persuaded. I see now – and I don't know why this wasn't clear to me from the beginning – that you agree with me that there is a correspondence, and that the date format should match the variety of English used. I think it's already in the MoS:
Articles on topics with strong ties to a particular English-speaking country should generally use the date format most commonly used in that nation.
So, regarding allowing editors to select the style they want to use, I want to make it clear that I do not mean that they should be allowed to mix-and-match date format and variety of English as they please.
So, to summarize:
1) We all seem to agree that, in an article about a country where English is not the primary language and there are no strong national ties to a particular English-speaking country, the date format used in the language spoken in that country is irrelevant.
2) MOS:DATEVAR and MOS:ENGVAR are fine as they stand, except perhaps we ought to change "the whole article should conform to it" to "this date format should be used throughout the article" (in the fourth bulleted item in MOS:DATEVAR). I have gone ahead and made this change.
I would like to propose that the fourth bulleted item in MOS:DATEVAR be changed from:
Where an article has shown no clear sign of which format is used, the first person to insert a date is equivalent to "the first major contributor".
to:
Where an article has shown no clear sign of which format is used (i.e., uses both date formats, with neither predominating), and does not meet the requirements specified in
MOS:DATETIES, the date format used by the first major contributor, or, if several years have passed, the editor making the most recent major expansion, is to be used.
– Corinne ( talk) 19:37, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
I like the general nature of the change you're proposing, other than we should do as Peter_coxhead suggested, and remove references to first major contributor and instead couch it in terms of edits. The WP:OWNish behavior you say you're not really aware of is very familiar to some of us, and a problem that's been running for a decade or so, and even worsening (and applies to all the *VARs). The insertion of another "magically special party", namely "the editor making the most recent major expansion", compounds the problem. It's
adding a new bug while trying to fix an old one. But the approaches will combine well. Moving that to new subthread so people see it.
—
SMcCandlish ☺
☏
¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 00:03, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
If we combine Peter_coxhead's and Corinne's clarification proposals, something like following seems to emerge (with an additional tweak to tie the last conditional to actual development happening, not just time passing with no development):
[no change to first bullet]
The date format chosen in the first major contribution in the early stages of an article should continue to be used, unless there is reason to change it based on strong national ties of the topic, or consensus on the article's talk page.
Where an article has shown no clear sign of which format is used (i.e., uses both date formats, with neither predominating), and does not meet the requirements specified in MOS:DATETIES, retain the date format used in the first major contribution, or, if more significant content development has happened, in the most recent major expansion.
I would support that at MOS:DATEVAR, and conforming wording tweaks at the other *VAR / *RETAIN provisions. It clarifies best practice, doesn't substantively change the real intent and meaning of FMC (and preserves the acronym), yet eliminates the OWN/VESTED problem that is an EDITING policy conflict. [This isn't 100% consistent with the general, site-wide status quo ante principle, which usually means "the last stable version", but it's much closer and probably workable.] This might even make happy those who feel that whoever does the most work at an article should have more say, without actually giving them any special power (since it's based on content not editor name – a "major expansion" might be the work of seven editors all building up the article over a month, or whatever). Basically, the more you do the work (and it's real, encyclopedic work), the more likely it is that your version will stick, which is how WP works in general anyway.
@
Corinne and
Peter coxhead: If this works for you, we can treat this as a proposal and advertise it at
WT:MOSNUM, etc. Or just treat it as a draft to work on further, and do a final version as a proposal at
WP:VPPOL. Or whatever you like.
—
SMcCandlish ☺
☏
¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 00:03, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
or, if more significant content development has happened, in the most recent major expansion. This allows an editor making a major expansion to change the date format. Suppose the first major expansion used date format A. An editor adds an expansion using date format B. Now the article appears to be inconsistent, so the proposed wording allows it to be changed to date format B. This is a recipe for instability, since another editor could now expand using date format C and the date format could be changed again. We need to favour stability. If this part is removed, then I think the proposed wording is an improvement. Peter coxhead ( talk) 10:40, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
(a) Regarding which preposition to use after "strong national ties", to me, neither "of" nor "with" sound right. To avoid having to choose, perhaps we could revise this to:
(b) Regarding this phrase, "retain the date format used in the first major contribution", if, through editing by various editors, the date format has become mixed, "retain" doesn't make much sense to me. I would write:
(c) Regarding whether to leave off the last part, I understand Peter coxhead's concern. SMcCandlish, I went back and re-read what you wrote earlier, which I'll copy here:
First major contributor and status quo ante are not the same at all. The SQA is what the page had before the dispute erupted (e.g. yesterday). The FMC is what it had with the very first non-stub edit, which might have been in 2004. If the article has really had a mixed style for a long time, then the FMC might be necessary to look at, though this is rare. Most cases of stylistic mixture can be traced to recent edits, and normalized to the style in use before them (which might be from last week, not from the date of the FMC). I agree that "at the first major expansion" is an improved version of FMC, and would support that as a minimum change to the presently very problematic wording. But it still strikes me as an unnecessary divergence from standard WP practice, which is the immediate SQA.
I'm not clear on what your primary concern was here. Do you still think an alternative to "last major contribution" needs to be included? For all: what, if anything, is the concern that makes "the date format used in the first major contribution" insufficient by itself? (I'm not saying it is insufficient; I'm just trying to help the discussion.) – Corinne ( talk) 16:19, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Agreed entirely with the (b) change.
On (c), I can let that go for now. Would rather get one major improvement than hold out for two, when the second may not be as good as I think/hope. :-) However, I'm curious of the exact intent of the earlier "or, if several years have passed, the editor making the most recent major expansion" version, and if Peter has the same concern about it. My own recent-major-expansion material was an attempt to keep something of that, without it just being a time thing, but maybe time makes sense and matters here.
An explanatory bit about (c) – don't let it hold anything up: I agree with Peter's assessment of the version I proposed, but see it as a good thing (i.e., I don't agree with the slippery slope predicted). It's closer to editing policy. If I create a tiny stub, and Corinne works it up to a B-class article (first major contribution), but Peter radically expands the article and works it up to a GA or FA, and is convinced a different date format is more appropriate in the now very different article, why should we go back to the FMC version of the date? One of Peter's primary concerns of late (which I share) is that with our editorial pool shrinking, it's becoming increasingly difficult to actually have and firmly conclude consensus discussions on article talk pages about such things. From my perspective, this means that the "FMC is a last resort, not the first or only choice" intent of these *VAR provisions is eroding, that they're actually on the edge of turning into a VESTED entitlement and an OWN free pass. We may ultimately have to revisit the stringency of the *VARs, to not be so "forbidding" of trying to change things. The WP standard for everything is that anyone is free to try to make almost any change they want to (within policy limits); they're just not free to editwar to get their way – if someone objects, then stop, revert to status quo ante if others want to, and hold a discussion. The *VARs short-circuit this, and tend to be misinterpreted and misapplied as requiring that one get "prior permission" before even attempting the change. But, that's probably too big an issue to deal with at this time. Or maybe I'm just flat wrong; the risk may be much less than I think and less than that of being any more lax about changes to dates or other *VAR things. I'm keeping that possibility in mind, especially given that I resist most MoS change proposals but now am making one or at least suggesting one could become necessary.
New question (d): What about the extant wording's point regarding first insertion of a date (i.e., what about a case in which the FMC doesn't include a date)? I guess for the DATEVAR version of this, that needs to be worked in somehow, probably as "by using the date format used in the first major contribution that included a date".Just a quick note that US military uses dmy and in milhist for US, this is preferred. It is a bit of a twist on "strong national ties"? FYI Cinderella157 ( talk) 01:47, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
I'm going to make a few points, and then try to summarize our discussion, trying to make it clear for those who come across this discussion only now, and then propose wording for the second and third bulleted items in MOS:DATEVAR. Please indicate your preference (or propose alternate wording), clearly indicating which bulleted item you are referring to.
I'd like to point out that the heading in MOS:DATETIES is "Strong national ties to a topic". The first sentence in that section reverses this, saying "Articles on topics with strong ties to a particular English-speaking country...", so the heading is a kind of abbreviation for the real situation. Note also the use of the word "country".
We're talking about the wording of MOS:DATEVAR. For easy reference, here is the section as it is now, minus the "See also", the shortcut, and the link at the beginning:
If an article has evolved using predominantly one date format, this format should be used throughout the article, unless there are reasons for changing it based on strong national ties to the topic or consensus on the article's talk page.
The date format chosen by the first major contributor in the early stages of an article should continue to be used, unless there is reason to change it based on strong national ties to the topic or consensus on the article's talk page.
Where an article has shown no clear sign of which format is used, the first person to insert a date is equivalent to "the first major contributor".
Just under a new heading, above, "Combined DATEVAR revisions", SMcCandlish proposed the following:
If we combine Peter_coxhead's and Corinne's clarification proposals, something like following seems to emerge (with an additional tweak to tie the last conditional to actual development happening, not just time passing with no development):
[no change to first bullet]
The date format chosen in the first major contribution in the early stages of an article should continue to be used, unless there is reason to change it based on strong national ties of the topic, or consensus on the article's talk page.
Where an article has shown no clear sign of which format is used (i.e., uses both date formats, with neither predominating), and does not meet the requirements specified in MOS:DATETIES, retain the date format used in the first major contribution, or, if more significant content development has happened, in the most recent major expansion.[Note: I actually retracted some of this. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 11:57, 21 September 2017 (UTC)]
Re the second bulleted item, I think it's pretty well written as it is, but perhaps could use some minor tweaks. Sb2001 thought it should read "strong national ties with the topic". SMcCandlish thought it should remain of the topic. I prefer to the topic to match the phrase used in MOS:DATETIES, but thought the sentence could be reworded to avoid having to use a preposition here at all, and I suggested:
and I am further suggesting a change to the end of this to:
So, if this is adopted, the second bulleted item would read:
(A) The date format chosen in the first major contribution in the early stages of an article should continue to be used, unless there is reason to change it based on a strong tie between the topic and a particular country and the related variety of English, or consensus on the article's talk page.
(I don't think a comma is needed before "unless".)
Or we could just leave it as it is now written. Please indicate your preference for version (A) or the way it is now written,
(B-1) The date format chosen by the first major contributor in the early stages of an article should continue to be used, unless there is reason to change it based on strong national ties to the topic or consensus on the article's talk page.
(B-2) The date format chosen by the first major contributor in the early stages of an article should continue to be used, unless there is reason to change it based on strong national ties of the topic or consensus on the article's talk page.
(B-3) The date format chosen by the first major contributor in the early stages of an article should continue to be used, unless there is reason to change it based on strong national ties with the topic or consensus on the article's talk page.
Regarding the third bulleted item, we seem to agree that the first part,
is all right. I had written, above,
Regarding this phrase, "retain the date format used in the first major contribution", if, through editing by various editors, the date format has become mixed, "retain" doesn't make much sense to me. I would write:
implement consistency by using the date format used in the first major contribution.
If you think "implement consistency" is too stuffy, perhaps "ensure consistency", or:
SMcCandlish suggested we add "that included a date" after "the first major contribution", so the third bulleted item would then read (that is, incorporating my suggested rewording to avoid using "retain"):
(a) Where an article has shown no clear sign of which format is used (i.e., uses both date formats, with neither predominating), and does not meet the requirements specified in MOS:DATETIES, implement consistency by using the date format used/selected in the first major contribution that included a date.
(b) Where an article has shown no clear sign of which format is used (i.e., uses both date formats, with neither predominating), and does not meet the requirements specified in MOS:DATETIES, ensure consistency by using the date format used/selected in the first major contribution that included a date.
(c) Where an article has shown no clear sign of which format is used (i.e., uses both date formats, with neither predominating), and does not meet the requirements specified in MOS:DATETIES, make the date format consistent throughout the article by using the date format used/selected in the first major contribution that included a date.
Please indicate your preference (or alternate wording).
The next question is whether to keep the phrase that follows this:
...or, if more significant content development has happened, in the most recent major expansion.
Peter coxhead thought this last part would be a recipe for trouble and instability. Perhaps, instead of this last phrase, we could just say that a change to the date format could take place if consensus is reached:
If this is adopted, the third bulleted item would read one of the choices above, (a), (b), or (c) (or some other wording), ending "The date format style can be changed if consensus is reached on the article's talk page to change it." – Corinne ( talk) 01:18, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
I think I included all of them, plus a few others that have come to mind in the course of doing this list.
If an article has evolved using predominantly one date format, this format should be used throughout the article, unless there are reasons for changing it based on strong national ties to the topic or consensus on the article's talk page.
The date format chosen by the first major contributor in the early stages of an article should continue to be used, unless there is reason to change it based on strong national ties to the topic or consensus on the article's talk page.
Where an article has shown no clear sign of which format is used, the first person to insert a date is equivalent to "the first major contributor".
Items 1 and 2 have a lot of redundant wording; if it's substantively changed, it would need to change in item 1.
— SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 11:57, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
Please see this sprawling discussion, in which an alarmingly large number of people are convinced that primary-source opinion pieces in the form of film (and book, etc.) reviews are secondary sources within WP's meaning because they're reviews of other works (i.e. that the work that is the subject of WP's article is the primary source, and that individual opinion magically transubstantiates into secondary sourcing because it's about a work instead of about, say, a mineral or a person). I'm not even sure why this discussion is happening at an MoS subpage. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 17:51, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
I just want to repeat what Masem stated: "I do want to stress that I think that I don't see anyone here stating that 'film reviews are secondary sources, period.' Those involved in discussion seem pretty clear that they are certainly a secondary source for the film itself, and perhaps the people involved, but that's about as far as a film review's secondary nature extends, and becomes a primary source when speaking to the aggregate reception of the film. I do take issue with calling film reviews as primary sources for the film, because that directly contradicts the definition of secondary sources at WP:PSTS."
So I'm not sure how SMcCandlish came to the conclusion that many editors at MOS:FILM are stating that film reviews are secondary sources, period. Also, my reverts of Hijiri88's edits, seen here and here, had nothing to do with stating that film reviews are secondary sources, period. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 19:39, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
I have begun an RFC about accurate dates in citation metadata: Wikipedia talk:Citing sources#RFC: Accurate dates in citation metadata. Jc3s5h ( talk) 14:59, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters#Merge in MOS:PN.
Summary: Proposal to merge WP:Manual of Style/Proper names (as redundant, poorly maintained, and rarely cited) to WP:Manual of Style/Capital letters#Proper names, to centralized advice and maintenance, and resolve "proper name"-related confusion about the interpretation of MOS:CAPS. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 14:50, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
There is currently an RfC at Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(Catholic_Church)#RfC:_should_this_page_be_made_a_naming_convention asking if the proposed naming convention for the Catholic Church should be made an official naming convention. All are welcomed to comment. TonyBallioni ( talk) 21:33, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
I have raised a question at the link per use of hyphenation in ranks and positions or not - eg lieutenant-colonel, air vice-marshall or attorney-general (or a more military version), deputy director-general, quartermaster-general. Regards, Cinderella157 ( talk) 11:21, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
As here. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 07:54, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
See #Bold revision of "US and U.S." section, below. I've taken a stab at addressing some of these issues, by revising that section which was years out of date. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ< 21:36, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
MOS:TENSE says, By default, write articles in the present tense, including for those covering products or works that have been discontinued. […] Generally, do not use past tense except for deceased subjects, past events, and subjects that no longer meaningfully exist as such.
I understand this, no problem;
Peter Ostrum is a veterinarian, while
William Petty, 2nd Earl of Shelburne, was a British statesman. However, do the deceased still (for lack of a better phrase) possess their names? For example, the first US emperor's appellation is
Emperor Norton, or Richard Kollmar's first wife's name was
Dorothy Kilgallen? Is the name still "theirs" after they've died? Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky had a patronymic and a family name, or
Logan Edwin Bleckley has a unisex name? —
fourthords |
=Λ= | 20:47, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
InedibleHulk and Primergrey I saw the back-and-forth regarding "dead" and "deceased" and thought I'd suggest an alternative wording. To me, either word works in the wording that is there. How about changing from the way it is now:
to:
(a) Generally, do not use past tense except to describe past events or subjects that are deceased or otherwise no longer meaningfully exist.
or:
(b) Generally, do not use past tense except to describe past events or subjects that are either dead or no longer meaningfully exist. – Corinne ( talk) 15:22, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
perhaps we should consider " pining for the fjords"? power~enwiki ( π, ν) 23:14, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
Hello, There is a discussion over on Talk:Epyc#EPYC or Epyc? over the application of the MOS to a particular product page that might be of interest to editors here. It is over a recent edit which removed the "stylized as" from the lead. (I will leave it at that to keep this post neutral.) If additional editors who have particular expertise/interest in the MOS would contribute, that might help with the discussion. Thanks! Dbsseven ( talk) 13:50, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
Will one or more of you please recommend one or more pronunciation experts here on the Wiki to me, please? I'm not only asking those of you who are keen on pronunciation guides to speak up, but also asking that those of you who believe you know someone who is one to point me out to her or him, or her/him to me.
Anyone?
103.208.85.43 ( talk) 20:52, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
I propose to include the following footnote in MoS, which has various explanatory footnotes (keeps the main text more concise):
A general term for the
.
character is full point or just point, while the full stop is the role the character plays in terminating a sentence; not all style guides and dictionaries maintain it today . In North American usage, it is usually referred to as a period regardless of role; in mathematics as a decimal point or point; and in computer jargon often as a dot. Use the same character for all of these roles. In particular, English Wikipedia does not use alternative decimal marks.
Ealier draft, revised above to account for some comments below:
|
---|
|
The rationales for this are
.
glyph in different contexts. We take such care with various other punctuation matters, such as: quotation mark glyphs; the differences between different bracket types; distinctions between dashes of two kinds, the hyphen, and the minus; and so on.My theory is it is better to have a clarifying footnote and precise terminology used contextually, than to have a slow editwar to force the same term (full stop) to be used in every context when this term is not universally used that way.
An editor has reverted the addition of this footnote, as well, so I'm opening this discussion about it.
—
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ< 20:55, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
DMacks ( talk) 03:57, 12 October 2017 (UTC)There are different names for the
.
character in different contexts or national English variations (see ). On Wikipedia, use the.
character ( ASCII .) in all contexts.
I propose the following footnote...starting with
Technically..., a weasel word, followed by an opinion in WP's voice that runs counter to ENGVAR. If adding a link to Full stop ends this "pointless" discussion, I'm all for it. (But that wouldn't even need a discussion -- just do it.) -- A D Monroe III( talk) 14:51, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
If the discussion is going to now switch to re-drafting the footnote, then it should be re-drafted to make statements that everyone is agreed on:
A general term for the
.
character is full point or just point. Full stop is used in some style guides and dictionaries to describe only the role the character plays in terminating a sentence. In North American usage, it is usually referred to as a period regardless of role; in mathematics as a decimal point or point; and in computer jargon often as a dot.
DrKay ( talk) 08:08, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
Is there any particular reason why the MoS accepts both the en rule and em rule for sentence breaking? Leaving it open seems to do far more harm than good, and leads to people introducing inconsistency within articles. When we already have to contend with the spaced hyphen problem, this seems like an unnecessary hassle.
Proposal
Since the majority of academic style guides—NHR, CMoS, etc—recommend using the em rule, I suggest that Wikipedia strongly considers the possibility of offering similar advice here, since we are
WP:NOTNEWS. Journalistic style guides seem to be the only ones to offer advice to the contrary.
To make it clear, I am not pushing a personal preference. I used to use en rules, but switched to ems around six months ago, as a result of Wikipedia. I would be perfectly happy to see only en rules being allowed, as long as we do not have the confusing guidance we have now. – Sb 2001 22:37, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure the possessive of "US" is "US's" (right?) but what is the possessive of "U.S."? I don't think it's "U.S.'" but maybe it is? This came up at Freedom of navigation. Kendall-K1 ( talk) 03:47, 23 October 2017 (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 190 | ← | Archive 193 | Archive 194 | Archive 195 | Archive 196 | Archive 197 | → | Archive 200 |
This guideline is very unclear to me. Does it imply that groups identifying themselves as "white nationalist" should be identified like that by us? - Haukur Þorgeirsson 03:03, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
I think this policy should be extended to include guidelines on how to treat pen names / stage names vs. real names, and whether or not abbrevations should be used in the title of a persons article. – Damsleth Talk| Contributions 11:02, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
The following makes no sense to me:
If one wants a list of African-American composers the first title is accurate and the second just isn't. I would also deprecate using anything so vague as "of Fooian descent". The text above is like saying, "List of French people" is accepatable, but "List of people" is more inclusive, and therefore more useful. In my opinion that just isn't true.
As the opening statement "In some cases a general name or term may be more neutral or more accurate" is so vague that I have little idea what the point of it is, given that the supporting example makes no sense, I'm going to take it out for now, but it anyone does know what it is supposed to mean and can give a better example, by all means put it back.
Merchbow 20:59, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
Referring to people by the gender they choose is absurd. This is not the case "for any other aspect of a person's identity", as the post below states. If a white person decides that he is truly "black" on the inside, you would not suddenly start referring to him as a African-American person (or any other ethnic group for that matter). A person's gender is a concrete, scientifically testable aspect of that person's body and is not open to debate, by him or her self (or anybody else for that matter). If I decide that I am the reincarnation of Jesus Christ (the descriptor I choose for myself, in the language of the below post), the entire educated world is not going to start calling me by that name, but this seems to be the logic that some people apply to gender identity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.7.5.142 ( talk) 20:47, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
Where is the consensus on this? -- WikiSlasher 12:59, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
There is an RfC which is inextricably involved with WP:NCI going on here Talk:Barbarian/RfC_on_usage/. Any feedback is appreciated. - WeniWidiWiki 06:16, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm trying my hardest to stay civil here, this page has got to be the biggest violation of NPOV on wikipedia. It needs to be removed immediately. I request admin input, I don't want to get done for page blanking. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hayden5650 ( talk • contribs) 11:41, 10 May 2007
I see some people deleting epithet "Mongoloid" from articles, without bothering to provide a substitute. In my opinion, we should replace presumably offensive epithets with the neutral ones rather than deleting any attempt at description altogether. Furthermore, if "Mongoloid" is indeed considered offensive in modern archaeological discourse, WP:NCI should clearly say so. -- Ghirla -трёп- 11:54, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Readers of this page may be interested in a discussion going on at Talk:Roma people, where it has been suggested that the article move to Gypsies. Some opposing the move have cited this policy as an argument for the current title. I'm just leaving a link here, in case anyone wants to weigh in on that matter. - GTBacchus( talk) 21:52, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
I do not see any evidence that this has been proposed to any wide spectrum of editors to see whether it is consensus. It directly contradicts the widely cited WP:COMMONNAME; it may contradict WP:Use English.
I doubt it is consensus; it is not what we actually do, at least about individual identities, and I doubt it is what we should do about national or sexual identities; if it were narrowed to apply only to groups (as may be intended but is not clear), it might be more reasonable.
As for individual identities: we should use what is normally used, because it is clearest: we should use Cat Stevens, not Yusuf Islam, so that our readers will know who we mean; on the other hand, we should use Muhammad Ali, not Cassius Clay, for the same reason. Likewise, we should not use Steven Demetre Georgiou for Cat Stevens, as the "correct name" party would have us do.
For groups, it is now in error; it makes the assumption that large groups, especially those subject to historic discrimination, have a single stable self-identifying term. While coloured is considered inappropriate in the United States, is simply false, and not only because the American is colored; the long cycle of progressive euphemism made colored (or, often, people of color) the preferred term for many members of the group in question again in the 1990's, replacing (for them) black; some but not all of them have gone on to African-American; which may be now replaced by some speakers because of the question of whether a Kenyan-American is a member of the group in question. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:11, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Another example of bad phrasing is always use the terminology which those individuals or organizations themselves use. I'm sure whoever wrote that did not mean to apply to Kiev or Warsaw or Rome, the inhabitants of which do not use the English forms; but the use of always will lead to the relevant nationalists quoting this as a command to revise the English form to their liking. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:53, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
I originally asked this at WT:MOS as WP:ID redirects there, but they pointed me over here as the fuller expansion of that section.
I've got a rather complicated situation regarding the pronoun(s) to be used for a fictional character, for I would appreciate guidance on interpreting the first two bullets of WP:ID. The character in question is Akito Sohma from the manga Fruits Basket and its anime adaptation. (Please ignore the character article's current hideous quality, including a wretched inconsistency with pronouns: I'm preparing to clean it up -- thus my question.) In the manga, Akito is presented as male for the first half of the series, but turns out to be biologically female and raised to live as man; at the end of the series, as part of letting go other roles he/she has been living, Akito announces that she/he will henceforth live as a woman and is afterward always shown dressed in women's clothing. The anime adaptation covers the first third of the story and was generally faithful to the manga, but was made before the manga reveled Akito's biological sex and, in wrapping up the story early, shows Akito as unambiguously male.
If I understand WP:ID correctly, when discussing the character as portrayed in the manga, Akito should be referred to with female pronouns. What about when discussing the character as portrayed in the anime (such as when describing the differences in adaptation)? What about when discussing the character generically, independent of format? And, possibly most importantly, is there any way to make distinctions clearly enough as to not confuse either readers and editors? (Especially in other articles where Akito is mentioned in passing without reason to explain pronouns.)
For full disclosure, the rule of thumb I've been following in editing other Fruits Basket articles is to use "he" except when discussing Akito after she declares she will live as a woman. Which goes against the word of the guideline, but seemed at the time to invite less confusion. My thanks for any insight others can give. — Quasirandom ( talk) 15:22, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
If no one objects I would like to submit this page to Requests for comment on Style, reference, layout and projects. It's been in the works for four years now, let's see if we can't get it adopted as a guideline. -- DieWeisseRose ( talk) 01:15, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
I checked the history and although it doesn't seem that it was ever listed as a "guideline" there was a different template that seemed to indicate that it was adopted by consensus but that got changed by the Gimmebot on 21 April 2008. -- DieWeisseRose ( talk) 01:25, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
As in Inuit and Native American? The middle-eastern Jews are also indigenous to the area as are the Arabs, Christian and Muslim. "Palestinian" as in "indigenous Arabs" is a political edit. It should not be in the indigenous section. I wouldn't object to it as a naming convention if that is what they want to be called, but not under the indigenous label, no. Tundrabuggy ( talk) 03:29, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
"Black" is not outdated in the U.S.. Some blacks use it to refer to themselves, an it is more broad than "African-American". "Black" refers to skin color and culture, not national origin. 75.118.170.35 ( talk) 17:43, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
Suppose there is a religious group whose members identify as Christians but are not universally recognised as such. If an article is to reference them, what should determine if they can be described as Christians? Should this be considered an exception to "When naming or writing an article about specific groups or their members always use the terminology which those individuals or organizations themselves use"? In either case, it may be useful to make the preference explicit in the guideline, as I've seen a few disagreements over it. Ilkali ( talk) 16:32, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
I am having a debate over at Media Matters for America. They self describe as "progressive", but almost universally, the,mainstream media refers to them as a liberal organization. The article is scrubbed of all mention of the liberal label and I cannot add the category "liberal organizations in the United States." There is no category for progressive organizations, but there is a category "progressivism which I have included. So, can we included additional descriptions in categorization and description if neutral third party sources continually describe them as such. I understood the category policy to include all categories that fit the subject. To me this includes both progressive and liberal labels. Bytebear ( talk) 04:28, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
A subsection of the general guidelines reads:
Almost always use terms as adjectives rather than nouns, thus, black people, not blacks, gay people, not gays, person with albinism, not albino, and so on. Note that there may be exceptions to this rule: for example, some prefer the term "transgenders" to the term " transgendered people", "Jews" is the standard plural.
The guideline recommends using adjectives instead of nouns, but the phrase person with albinism does not contain any adjectives. Moreover, Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch#Euphemisms recommends against the people with [noun X] style, and suggests using [adjective form of X] people instead. -- Joshua Issac ( talk) 21:29, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
A recent discussion of MOS:IDENTITY closed with the recommendation that Wikipedia's policy on transgender individuals be revisited.
Two threads have been opened at the Village Pump:Policy. The first addresses how the Manual of Style should instruct editors to refer to transgender people in articles about themselves (which name, which pronoun, etc.). The second addresses how to instruct editors to refer to transgender people when they are mentioned in passing in other articles. Your participation is welcome. Darkfrog24 ( talk) 01:59, 12 October 2015 (UTC) Fixed the links. Mathglot ( talk) 00:34, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
Please see " Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Merge draft WP:Naming conventions (identity) to MOS:IDENTITY?", a proposal to merge this to the WP:Manual of Style in one way or another, since this is a draft style guideline with almost nothing in it that pertains specifically to article titles (i.e., it is not a naming convention). — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 07:42, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
If " Two-spirit is preferred over berdache" is meant to imply that Native Americans/First Nations persons who are LGBT should be referred to as "two-spirit" in Wikipedia's own voice, that is never going to get consensus. It's a WP:NPOV problem and will frequently also be WP:OR. We have no idea whether a particular subject might prefer that in most cases. The underlying supposition – that all indigenous peoples of North America are the same culture with the same traditions, beliefs, perceptions, terms, and preferences – is ridiculous nonsense. It's also an NPOV problem for an entirely different reason: promotion of specific religio-spiritual ideas. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 09:12, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
This entry:
Some terms are considered pejorative, or have negative associations, even if they are quite commonly used. Even though people may use these terms themselves, they may not appreciate being referred to by such terms by others (for example, faggot, nigger, tranny). Note that neutral terminology is not necessarily the most common term — a term that the person or their cultural group does not accept for themselves is not neutral even if it remains the most widely used term among outsiders.
is problematic for at two reasons:
The entire provision isn't needed unless someone can identify multiple cases where the most common name in reliable sources is a term that RS generally identify as offensive. This scenario appears to be impossible, because a) most of the sources would have to be using it and b) most of the sources would have to simultaneously agree it was offensive, ergo c) most of the sources would have to be intentionally being offensive just to be assholes, which would d) make them suspect as reliable sources to begin with (namely, the "reputable publisher" criterion would be dubious). It's poor content in other ways, e.g. "Even though people may use these terms themselves" doesn't mean what its author thinks it means. "Note that" is almost never meaningful to include; literally 99+% of cases of its use can be deleted.
We could maybe retain a "stub" of this line item, as something like:
A term may be considered pejorative, or have negative associations, even if it is commonly used, or used as a self-label among persons to whom it applies. Such terms should not be used on Wikipedia except inside quoted material and in material about the terminology itself.
and just leave it at that. The rest of that stuff is just
WP:CREEP and/or
WP:SOAPBOX. The original's last clause, in particular, is the opposite of WP consensus; we routinely apply
exonyms in article titles and in running prose (e.g.
Navajo not
Diné), and identify the endonym(s) in the lead section (unless the endonym is overtaking the endonym; thus "Eskimo" is finally out). It is not WP's job to dictate names and usage, but to follow them, as determined by reliable sources on the topic and on general English-language usage.
—
SMcCandlish ☺
☏
¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 09:54, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
I'm currently working on Children of Llullaillaco, and I just realized that I had been inconsistently using date formats so I decided to standardize on one or the other. According to ENGVAR, when there are no "close national ties" (paraphrased) to a subject, the first major contributor to the article can choose which variety of English to use. Since Latin America has no strong national ties to any variety of English (since English is not a primary language there) I've chosen American English, since I'm American so that's what I'm most comfortable working with. However, Latin America uses dmy date format, and American English uses mdy. Since English is not a primary language in Latin America, there are no strong ties to any English variety - however, am I still required to use dmy date format in this case? And if so, does that mean I cannot use American English due to the resulting internal inconsistency? (I have the same question about metric vs. imperial units - American English uses imperial but Latin America universally uses metric) Thanks, CJK09 ( talk) 21:35, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
Articles on topics with strong ties to a particular English-speaking country should generally use the date format most commonly used in that nation. For the United States this is (for example) July 4, 1976; for most other English-speaking countries it is 4 July 1976
In some topic areas the customary format differs from the usual national one: for example, articles on the modern U.S. military, including U.S. military biographical articles, use day-before-month, in accordance with U.S. military usage.
If an article has evolved using predominantly one format, the whole article should conform to it, unless there are reasons for changing it based on strong national ties to the topic or consensus on the article's talk page.
The date format chosen by the first major contributor in the early stages of an article should continue to be used, unless there is reason to change it based on strong national ties to the topic or consensus on the article's talk page.
I'm an American who prefers DMY date format myself, but it's not my or your job or privilege to impose that preference on everyone, especially not by " I got here first" chest-beating. Consistency is preferred over claims of staked-out territory, and it is always sufficient that consensus at a particular article opts for consistency (in one direction or the other) regardless of the preference of first major contributor. None of the *VAR provisions are "thou shalt not change it" rules, just discouragements of making changes without good reason. An ENGVAR mismatch in the same article, commingling one dialect's date format with another's orthography, without some defensible rationale to do so (e.g. it's a science/military topic) is often a good reason. If it were not, then there are many thousands of "enforcements" of DMY date format in BrEng articles that you can go try to revert; good luck with that.
The "no strong ties" argument is weaker for Latin America that it would be for, say, Greece or North Korea; the most common second language learned in most of Latin America is English, and mostly the US variant; US foreign policy has a huge impact throughout the entire region; the majority of English-language reliable sources about the region are published in the US in US English. But there are historical exceptions; e.g., English is an official language in Belize, and it's more strongly British- than American-influenced. The situation is similar to the strength of "there is some connection" TIES arguments between British English and places once under British imperial control (and between American English and American-occupied [or formerly occupied] places like the Philippines and Okinawa). It's a factor, even if it's not an overwhelming one.
Finally, what date format is preferred in a Latin American country that doesn't have English as an official language, or even a large-minority first language, is irrelevant here. WP is written for English-speaking users, not monoglot Spanish speakers in Nicaragua or Cuba. We have these *VAR rules to a) present consistent material to our readers and b) to forestall style fights.
—
SMcCandlish ☺
☏
¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 15:46, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
If an article has evolved using predominantly one format, the whole article should conform to it, unless there are reasons for changing it based on strong national ties to the topic or consensus on the article's talk page? It seems like it. If so, this opens a whole can of worms again. If
commingling one dialect's date format with another's orthographyis wrong, then so is commingling one dialect's quotation style with another's orthography, or one dialect's dash style with another's orthography, or so it will quickly be argued. (And, yes, I understand that it can be claimed that a date format is different from a style, but it's too fine a distinction for me.) MOS:DATEVAR is fine as it is; there's no need to insist on consistency of date format with orthography. Peter coxhead ( talk) 21:04, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
Since there seems to be agreement that ENGVAR doesn't apply to date formats, something should be added to the MOS:ENGVAR section to make this clear. There is currently a hatnote in the MOS:RETAIN subsection that links to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers § Retaining the existing format. I suggest adding a "Dates and measures" section with a short paragraph and hatnote pointing to MOS:DATETIES. AHeneen ( talk) 17:48, 2 September 2017 (UTC) ( edit conflict)
If an article has evolved using predominantly one format, the whole article should conform to it, unless there are reasons for changing it based on strong national ties to the topic or consensus on the article's talk page.
Catching up here, and there's a lot to cover:
We could and probably should throw out the "first major contributor" rule, because it has caused more problems than it solved. It would make more sense to go with the WP default for everything: when consensus for a change does not emerge, revert to the status quo ante. The "FMC" rule is actually a WP:EDITING policy violation and should never have been put into the guidelines at all, even as a last resort. The fact that it's very frequently misinterpreted as a mysterious WP:OWN exemption is a very good reason to remove it.
— SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 01:06, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
demonstrable reasons. "The first major contributor principle" is the "status quo ante principle"; otherwise how in an article with no ENGVAR ties which has developed a mixed style over time do you decide what the status quo ante is? It's not a question of WP:OWN, but of trying to decide at what point ENGVAR and style are sufficiently established to be maintained. "The consistent ENGVAR at the first major expansion" would probably work equally well, and would avoid the implication of ownership.
SMcCandlish I really don't want to get into an argument with you, but I'd like to point out that several times during this discussion you have said what you personally would prefer:
I'm an American who prefers DMY date format myself, but it's not my or your job or privilege to impose that preference on everyone, especially not by "I got here first" chest-beating.
I would have voted for British/Commonwealth English for several reasons, including it having numerical superiority by world-wide regions if not by readers head-count; because of its richer history; and because it maintains distinctions lost in AmEng, e.g. practice vs. practise and defense vs. defence.
are at least two. While of course you are free to do this, I don't think these kinds of comments are helpful to sorting out a multi-faceted discussion, except perhaps in a discussion regarding a specific proposal for a change to the current style guide. This present discussion is actually covering several different things, and has gotten a bit confusing, but I don't think it is on a specific proposal. Also, I don't think saying "especially not by 'I got here first' chest-beating" is helpful, either. I don't see any previous comments that suggested that attitude, and if anyone mentioned "first major contributor", it was because it is in the MoS already, and quoted above.
Several times you have said that it is more logical to use the DMY date format for science articles:
Children of Llullaillaco is primarily a science article; while we don't have a formal rule about that, the above reasoning (that science generally uses DMY format) is good logic, about how English is written for a particular context.
When I asked, "What is the particular connection between date format and science that would require using the DMY date format?", I don't think I got a good answer. "Science generally uses DMY format" isn't enough. If the vast preponderance of sources in science use the DMY format, that may be a sufficient basis to include in the MoS: "The DMY format should be used in all science articles." That is why I asked, "Do do American writers and scholars really use the DMY format?" Your response was, "Who cares?" implying that I was asking about these writers' and scholars' personal writing preferences. I wasn't. I was asking about what they use in published books and articles. If there is a mix in the sources, then I have to agree with Peter coxhead, who wrote, above, "For many articles, perhaps most particularly science-related ones, there's no reason to prefer one variety of ENGVAR to another, so there is no rational way of reaching a consensus." I also think that Wikipedia is mainly used by the general public, including young people, and that they ought to be able to find and read at least some articles written in the variety of English they themselves speak, read, and write. That is why I think it is right that some articles are written in British/Indian/Australian/Canadian English and some are written in American (U.S.) English, and that some articles use the day-month-year date format and some use the month-day-year format. For the same reasons, I also don't think that, even if most scientific publications use the day-month-year format, our science-related articles should all be written using that format.
I'm surprised that you would write,
Personally, I wish we'd just throw out "M D, Y" dates entirely, and all other variants except the rare cases we really need ISO Y-M-D dates for a specific reason. DMY is understood just fine by everyone, it's just not everyone's personal preference or what they're most used to, which is true of every single rule in MoS or any other style guide for some subset of people. One standard would make maintenance much easier, and WP has no real reason not to standardize on one specific date format like virtually every other publisher in the world does. The lame-ass reason we haven't is people whine and cry too much any time they don't get to write exactly like they want to.
I don't know about those who "whine and cry too much any time they don't get to write exactly like the want to", but saying that "DMY is understood just fine by everyone, it's just not everyone's personal preference or what they're most used to" is disingenuous. Except for a few writers such as yourself, the month-day-year date format is very much the preferred format for over 250 million American (U.S.) readers. I don't think they should be dismissed so easily.
When I wrote, above,
However, regarding articles on topics that have no strong national ties to the US or Great Britain, such as an article on archaeology in South America, I think both the variety of English used and the date format should be the choice of the first major contributor to the article. There ought to be some things left to the choice of those who write or expand articles.
You made a big point of saying that it is not only the US or Great Britain. Of course I know there are other varieties of English, including Indian, Australian, and Canadian, and the English of the Philippines and Okinawa; I just didn't feel I needed to list them all. When I wrote, "There ought to be some things left to the choice of those who write or expand articles", you responded, "They just shouldn't be style things." I disagree with you. On certain types of topics, and at certain stages in the formation of an article, the choice of ENGVAR is a style choice, and I said this: if there are no strong national ties to a particular place that would recommend one variety of English over another, and if the article is not on a military topic, then the person who starts a new article, or expands a stub, ought to be able to select the variety of English he or she wants to use. I don't think the person should have to gain consensus on this. If, however, an article on such a topic has, over time, developed a mixed style regarding ENGVAR, then discussion may need to take place and a consensus reached. I don't think this is anything new. When I used the phrase "first major contributor", I was merely using the phrase that is in the MoS; if you feel it needs to be changed, then I think it should be a separate discussion following a clearly written proposal. This discussion has been too much all over the place.
I am a copy-editor, and consistency is important to me, and I work to ensure it in articles. I have always believed that the date format should match the variety of English used in an article. To me, it was always pretty clear: use DMY with British, Indian, and Australian-related topics and MDY with American- (U.S.-) related articles. I now understand that there are some other combinations such as articles that use Philipines English. When I wrote, above, "I am persuaded that there is no need to require that the date format in an article match the variant of English used in the article", it was only because I saw several comments that seemed to say there isn't, and shouldn't be, such a requirement to match the date format with the variety of English (even apart from the exceptions to the usual matching). Maybe I'm too easily persuaded. I see now – and I don't know why this wasn't clear to me from the beginning – that you agree with me that there is a correspondence, and that the date format should match the variety of English used. I think it's already in the MoS:
Articles on topics with strong ties to a particular English-speaking country should generally use the date format most commonly used in that nation.
So, regarding allowing editors to select the style they want to use, I want to make it clear that I do not mean that they should be allowed to mix-and-match date format and variety of English as they please.
So, to summarize:
1) We all seem to agree that, in an article about a country where English is not the primary language and there are no strong national ties to a particular English-speaking country, the date format used in the language spoken in that country is irrelevant.
2) MOS:DATEVAR and MOS:ENGVAR are fine as they stand, except perhaps we ought to change "the whole article should conform to it" to "this date format should be used throughout the article" (in the fourth bulleted item in MOS:DATEVAR). I have gone ahead and made this change.
I would like to propose that the fourth bulleted item in MOS:DATEVAR be changed from:
Where an article has shown no clear sign of which format is used, the first person to insert a date is equivalent to "the first major contributor".
to:
Where an article has shown no clear sign of which format is used (i.e., uses both date formats, with neither predominating), and does not meet the requirements specified in
MOS:DATETIES, the date format used by the first major contributor, or, if several years have passed, the editor making the most recent major expansion, is to be used.
– Corinne ( talk) 19:37, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
I like the general nature of the change you're proposing, other than we should do as Peter_coxhead suggested, and remove references to first major contributor and instead couch it in terms of edits. The WP:OWNish behavior you say you're not really aware of is very familiar to some of us, and a problem that's been running for a decade or so, and even worsening (and applies to all the *VARs). The insertion of another "magically special party", namely "the editor making the most recent major expansion", compounds the problem. It's
adding a new bug while trying to fix an old one. But the approaches will combine well. Moving that to new subthread so people see it.
—
SMcCandlish ☺
☏
¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 00:03, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
If we combine Peter_coxhead's and Corinne's clarification proposals, something like following seems to emerge (with an additional tweak to tie the last conditional to actual development happening, not just time passing with no development):
[no change to first bullet]
The date format chosen in the first major contribution in the early stages of an article should continue to be used, unless there is reason to change it based on strong national ties of the topic, or consensus on the article's talk page.
Where an article has shown no clear sign of which format is used (i.e., uses both date formats, with neither predominating), and does not meet the requirements specified in MOS:DATETIES, retain the date format used in the first major contribution, or, if more significant content development has happened, in the most recent major expansion.
I would support that at MOS:DATEVAR, and conforming wording tweaks at the other *VAR / *RETAIN provisions. It clarifies best practice, doesn't substantively change the real intent and meaning of FMC (and preserves the acronym), yet eliminates the OWN/VESTED problem that is an EDITING policy conflict. [This isn't 100% consistent with the general, site-wide status quo ante principle, which usually means "the last stable version", but it's much closer and probably workable.] This might even make happy those who feel that whoever does the most work at an article should have more say, without actually giving them any special power (since it's based on content not editor name – a "major expansion" might be the work of seven editors all building up the article over a month, or whatever). Basically, the more you do the work (and it's real, encyclopedic work), the more likely it is that your version will stick, which is how WP works in general anyway.
@
Corinne and
Peter coxhead: If this works for you, we can treat this as a proposal and advertise it at
WT:MOSNUM, etc. Or just treat it as a draft to work on further, and do a final version as a proposal at
WP:VPPOL. Or whatever you like.
—
SMcCandlish ☺
☏
¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 00:03, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
or, if more significant content development has happened, in the most recent major expansion. This allows an editor making a major expansion to change the date format. Suppose the first major expansion used date format A. An editor adds an expansion using date format B. Now the article appears to be inconsistent, so the proposed wording allows it to be changed to date format B. This is a recipe for instability, since another editor could now expand using date format C and the date format could be changed again. We need to favour stability. If this part is removed, then I think the proposed wording is an improvement. Peter coxhead ( talk) 10:40, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
(a) Regarding which preposition to use after "strong national ties", to me, neither "of" nor "with" sound right. To avoid having to choose, perhaps we could revise this to:
(b) Regarding this phrase, "retain the date format used in the first major contribution", if, through editing by various editors, the date format has become mixed, "retain" doesn't make much sense to me. I would write:
(c) Regarding whether to leave off the last part, I understand Peter coxhead's concern. SMcCandlish, I went back and re-read what you wrote earlier, which I'll copy here:
First major contributor and status quo ante are not the same at all. The SQA is what the page had before the dispute erupted (e.g. yesterday). The FMC is what it had with the very first non-stub edit, which might have been in 2004. If the article has really had a mixed style for a long time, then the FMC might be necessary to look at, though this is rare. Most cases of stylistic mixture can be traced to recent edits, and normalized to the style in use before them (which might be from last week, not from the date of the FMC). I agree that "at the first major expansion" is an improved version of FMC, and would support that as a minimum change to the presently very problematic wording. But it still strikes me as an unnecessary divergence from standard WP practice, which is the immediate SQA.
I'm not clear on what your primary concern was here. Do you still think an alternative to "last major contribution" needs to be included? For all: what, if anything, is the concern that makes "the date format used in the first major contribution" insufficient by itself? (I'm not saying it is insufficient; I'm just trying to help the discussion.) – Corinne ( talk) 16:19, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Agreed entirely with the (b) change.
On (c), I can let that go for now. Would rather get one major improvement than hold out for two, when the second may not be as good as I think/hope. :-) However, I'm curious of the exact intent of the earlier "or, if several years have passed, the editor making the most recent major expansion" version, and if Peter has the same concern about it. My own recent-major-expansion material was an attempt to keep something of that, without it just being a time thing, but maybe time makes sense and matters here.
An explanatory bit about (c) – don't let it hold anything up: I agree with Peter's assessment of the version I proposed, but see it as a good thing (i.e., I don't agree with the slippery slope predicted). It's closer to editing policy. If I create a tiny stub, and Corinne works it up to a B-class article (first major contribution), but Peter radically expands the article and works it up to a GA or FA, and is convinced a different date format is more appropriate in the now very different article, why should we go back to the FMC version of the date? One of Peter's primary concerns of late (which I share) is that with our editorial pool shrinking, it's becoming increasingly difficult to actually have and firmly conclude consensus discussions on article talk pages about such things. From my perspective, this means that the "FMC is a last resort, not the first or only choice" intent of these *VAR provisions is eroding, that they're actually on the edge of turning into a VESTED entitlement and an OWN free pass. We may ultimately have to revisit the stringency of the *VARs, to not be so "forbidding" of trying to change things. The WP standard for everything is that anyone is free to try to make almost any change they want to (within policy limits); they're just not free to editwar to get their way – if someone objects, then stop, revert to status quo ante if others want to, and hold a discussion. The *VARs short-circuit this, and tend to be misinterpreted and misapplied as requiring that one get "prior permission" before even attempting the change. But, that's probably too big an issue to deal with at this time. Or maybe I'm just flat wrong; the risk may be much less than I think and less than that of being any more lax about changes to dates or other *VAR things. I'm keeping that possibility in mind, especially given that I resist most MoS change proposals but now am making one or at least suggesting one could become necessary.
New question (d): What about the extant wording's point regarding first insertion of a date (i.e., what about a case in which the FMC doesn't include a date)? I guess for the DATEVAR version of this, that needs to be worked in somehow, probably as "by using the date format used in the first major contribution that included a date".Just a quick note that US military uses dmy and in milhist for US, this is preferred. It is a bit of a twist on "strong national ties"? FYI Cinderella157 ( talk) 01:47, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
I'm going to make a few points, and then try to summarize our discussion, trying to make it clear for those who come across this discussion only now, and then propose wording for the second and third bulleted items in MOS:DATEVAR. Please indicate your preference (or propose alternate wording), clearly indicating which bulleted item you are referring to.
I'd like to point out that the heading in MOS:DATETIES is "Strong national ties to a topic". The first sentence in that section reverses this, saying "Articles on topics with strong ties to a particular English-speaking country...", so the heading is a kind of abbreviation for the real situation. Note also the use of the word "country".
We're talking about the wording of MOS:DATEVAR. For easy reference, here is the section as it is now, minus the "See also", the shortcut, and the link at the beginning:
If an article has evolved using predominantly one date format, this format should be used throughout the article, unless there are reasons for changing it based on strong national ties to the topic or consensus on the article's talk page.
The date format chosen by the first major contributor in the early stages of an article should continue to be used, unless there is reason to change it based on strong national ties to the topic or consensus on the article's talk page.
Where an article has shown no clear sign of which format is used, the first person to insert a date is equivalent to "the first major contributor".
Just under a new heading, above, "Combined DATEVAR revisions", SMcCandlish proposed the following:
If we combine Peter_coxhead's and Corinne's clarification proposals, something like following seems to emerge (with an additional tweak to tie the last conditional to actual development happening, not just time passing with no development):
[no change to first bullet]
The date format chosen in the first major contribution in the early stages of an article should continue to be used, unless there is reason to change it based on strong national ties of the topic, or consensus on the article's talk page.
Where an article has shown no clear sign of which format is used (i.e., uses both date formats, with neither predominating), and does not meet the requirements specified in MOS:DATETIES, retain the date format used in the first major contribution, or, if more significant content development has happened, in the most recent major expansion.[Note: I actually retracted some of this. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 11:57, 21 September 2017 (UTC)]
Re the second bulleted item, I think it's pretty well written as it is, but perhaps could use some minor tweaks. Sb2001 thought it should read "strong national ties with the topic". SMcCandlish thought it should remain of the topic. I prefer to the topic to match the phrase used in MOS:DATETIES, but thought the sentence could be reworded to avoid having to use a preposition here at all, and I suggested:
and I am further suggesting a change to the end of this to:
So, if this is adopted, the second bulleted item would read:
(A) The date format chosen in the first major contribution in the early stages of an article should continue to be used, unless there is reason to change it based on a strong tie between the topic and a particular country and the related variety of English, or consensus on the article's talk page.
(I don't think a comma is needed before "unless".)
Or we could just leave it as it is now written. Please indicate your preference for version (A) or the way it is now written,
(B-1) The date format chosen by the first major contributor in the early stages of an article should continue to be used, unless there is reason to change it based on strong national ties to the topic or consensus on the article's talk page.
(B-2) The date format chosen by the first major contributor in the early stages of an article should continue to be used, unless there is reason to change it based on strong national ties of the topic or consensus on the article's talk page.
(B-3) The date format chosen by the first major contributor in the early stages of an article should continue to be used, unless there is reason to change it based on strong national ties with the topic or consensus on the article's talk page.
Regarding the third bulleted item, we seem to agree that the first part,
is all right. I had written, above,
Regarding this phrase, "retain the date format used in the first major contribution", if, through editing by various editors, the date format has become mixed, "retain" doesn't make much sense to me. I would write:
implement consistency by using the date format used in the first major contribution.
If you think "implement consistency" is too stuffy, perhaps "ensure consistency", or:
SMcCandlish suggested we add "that included a date" after "the first major contribution", so the third bulleted item would then read (that is, incorporating my suggested rewording to avoid using "retain"):
(a) Where an article has shown no clear sign of which format is used (i.e., uses both date formats, with neither predominating), and does not meet the requirements specified in MOS:DATETIES, implement consistency by using the date format used/selected in the first major contribution that included a date.
(b) Where an article has shown no clear sign of which format is used (i.e., uses both date formats, with neither predominating), and does not meet the requirements specified in MOS:DATETIES, ensure consistency by using the date format used/selected in the first major contribution that included a date.
(c) Where an article has shown no clear sign of which format is used (i.e., uses both date formats, with neither predominating), and does not meet the requirements specified in MOS:DATETIES, make the date format consistent throughout the article by using the date format used/selected in the first major contribution that included a date.
Please indicate your preference (or alternate wording).
The next question is whether to keep the phrase that follows this:
...or, if more significant content development has happened, in the most recent major expansion.
Peter coxhead thought this last part would be a recipe for trouble and instability. Perhaps, instead of this last phrase, we could just say that a change to the date format could take place if consensus is reached:
If this is adopted, the third bulleted item would read one of the choices above, (a), (b), or (c) (or some other wording), ending "The date format style can be changed if consensus is reached on the article's talk page to change it." – Corinne ( talk) 01:18, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
I think I included all of them, plus a few others that have come to mind in the course of doing this list.
If an article has evolved using predominantly one date format, this format should be used throughout the article, unless there are reasons for changing it based on strong national ties to the topic or consensus on the article's talk page.
The date format chosen by the first major contributor in the early stages of an article should continue to be used, unless there is reason to change it based on strong national ties to the topic or consensus on the article's talk page.
Where an article has shown no clear sign of which format is used, the first person to insert a date is equivalent to "the first major contributor".
Items 1 and 2 have a lot of redundant wording; if it's substantively changed, it would need to change in item 1.
— SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 11:57, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
Please see this sprawling discussion, in which an alarmingly large number of people are convinced that primary-source opinion pieces in the form of film (and book, etc.) reviews are secondary sources within WP's meaning because they're reviews of other works (i.e. that the work that is the subject of WP's article is the primary source, and that individual opinion magically transubstantiates into secondary sourcing because it's about a work instead of about, say, a mineral or a person). I'm not even sure why this discussion is happening at an MoS subpage. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 17:51, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
I just want to repeat what Masem stated: "I do want to stress that I think that I don't see anyone here stating that 'film reviews are secondary sources, period.' Those involved in discussion seem pretty clear that they are certainly a secondary source for the film itself, and perhaps the people involved, but that's about as far as a film review's secondary nature extends, and becomes a primary source when speaking to the aggregate reception of the film. I do take issue with calling film reviews as primary sources for the film, because that directly contradicts the definition of secondary sources at WP:PSTS."
So I'm not sure how SMcCandlish came to the conclusion that many editors at MOS:FILM are stating that film reviews are secondary sources, period. Also, my reverts of Hijiri88's edits, seen here and here, had nothing to do with stating that film reviews are secondary sources, period. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 19:39, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
I have begun an RFC about accurate dates in citation metadata: Wikipedia talk:Citing sources#RFC: Accurate dates in citation metadata. Jc3s5h ( talk) 14:59, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters#Merge in MOS:PN.
Summary: Proposal to merge WP:Manual of Style/Proper names (as redundant, poorly maintained, and rarely cited) to WP:Manual of Style/Capital letters#Proper names, to centralized advice and maintenance, and resolve "proper name"-related confusion about the interpretation of MOS:CAPS. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 14:50, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
There is currently an RfC at Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(Catholic_Church)#RfC:_should_this_page_be_made_a_naming_convention asking if the proposed naming convention for the Catholic Church should be made an official naming convention. All are welcomed to comment. TonyBallioni ( talk) 21:33, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
I have raised a question at the link per use of hyphenation in ranks and positions or not - eg lieutenant-colonel, air vice-marshall or attorney-general (or a more military version), deputy director-general, quartermaster-general. Regards, Cinderella157 ( talk) 11:21, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
As here. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 07:54, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
See #Bold revision of "US and U.S." section, below. I've taken a stab at addressing some of these issues, by revising that section which was years out of date. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ< 21:36, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
MOS:TENSE says, By default, write articles in the present tense, including for those covering products or works that have been discontinued. […] Generally, do not use past tense except for deceased subjects, past events, and subjects that no longer meaningfully exist as such.
I understand this, no problem;
Peter Ostrum is a veterinarian, while
William Petty, 2nd Earl of Shelburne, was a British statesman. However, do the deceased still (for lack of a better phrase) possess their names? For example, the first US emperor's appellation is
Emperor Norton, or Richard Kollmar's first wife's name was
Dorothy Kilgallen? Is the name still "theirs" after they've died? Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky had a patronymic and a family name, or
Logan Edwin Bleckley has a unisex name? —
fourthords |
=Λ= | 20:47, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
InedibleHulk and Primergrey I saw the back-and-forth regarding "dead" and "deceased" and thought I'd suggest an alternative wording. To me, either word works in the wording that is there. How about changing from the way it is now:
to:
(a) Generally, do not use past tense except to describe past events or subjects that are deceased or otherwise no longer meaningfully exist.
or:
(b) Generally, do not use past tense except to describe past events or subjects that are either dead or no longer meaningfully exist. – Corinne ( talk) 15:22, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
perhaps we should consider " pining for the fjords"? power~enwiki ( π, ν) 23:14, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
Hello, There is a discussion over on Talk:Epyc#EPYC or Epyc? over the application of the MOS to a particular product page that might be of interest to editors here. It is over a recent edit which removed the "stylized as" from the lead. (I will leave it at that to keep this post neutral.) If additional editors who have particular expertise/interest in the MOS would contribute, that might help with the discussion. Thanks! Dbsseven ( talk) 13:50, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
Will one or more of you please recommend one or more pronunciation experts here on the Wiki to me, please? I'm not only asking those of you who are keen on pronunciation guides to speak up, but also asking that those of you who believe you know someone who is one to point me out to her or him, or her/him to me.
Anyone?
103.208.85.43 ( talk) 20:52, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
I propose to include the following footnote in MoS, which has various explanatory footnotes (keeps the main text more concise):
A general term for the
.
character is full point or just point, while the full stop is the role the character plays in terminating a sentence; not all style guides and dictionaries maintain it today . In North American usage, it is usually referred to as a period regardless of role; in mathematics as a decimal point or point; and in computer jargon often as a dot. Use the same character for all of these roles. In particular, English Wikipedia does not use alternative decimal marks.
Ealier draft, revised above to account for some comments below:
|
---|
|
The rationales for this are
.
glyph in different contexts. We take such care with various other punctuation matters, such as: quotation mark glyphs; the differences between different bracket types; distinctions between dashes of two kinds, the hyphen, and the minus; and so on.My theory is it is better to have a clarifying footnote and precise terminology used contextually, than to have a slow editwar to force the same term (full stop) to be used in every context when this term is not universally used that way.
An editor has reverted the addition of this footnote, as well, so I'm opening this discussion about it.
—
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ< 20:55, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
DMacks ( talk) 03:57, 12 October 2017 (UTC)There are different names for the
.
character in different contexts or national English variations (see ). On Wikipedia, use the.
character ( ASCII .) in all contexts.
I propose the following footnote...starting with
Technically..., a weasel word, followed by an opinion in WP's voice that runs counter to ENGVAR. If adding a link to Full stop ends this "pointless" discussion, I'm all for it. (But that wouldn't even need a discussion -- just do it.) -- A D Monroe III( talk) 14:51, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
If the discussion is going to now switch to re-drafting the footnote, then it should be re-drafted to make statements that everyone is agreed on:
A general term for the
.
character is full point or just point. Full stop is used in some style guides and dictionaries to describe only the role the character plays in terminating a sentence. In North American usage, it is usually referred to as a period regardless of role; in mathematics as a decimal point or point; and in computer jargon often as a dot.
DrKay ( talk) 08:08, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
Is there any particular reason why the MoS accepts both the en rule and em rule for sentence breaking? Leaving it open seems to do far more harm than good, and leads to people introducing inconsistency within articles. When we already have to contend with the spaced hyphen problem, this seems like an unnecessary hassle.
Proposal
Since the majority of academic style guides—NHR, CMoS, etc—recommend using the em rule, I suggest that Wikipedia strongly considers the possibility of offering similar advice here, since we are
WP:NOTNEWS. Journalistic style guides seem to be the only ones to offer advice to the contrary.
To make it clear, I am not pushing a personal preference. I used to use en rules, but switched to ems around six months ago, as a result of Wikipedia. I would be perfectly happy to see only en rules being allowed, as long as we do not have the confusing guidance we have now. – Sb 2001 22:37, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure the possessive of "US" is "US's" (right?) but what is the possessive of "U.S."? I don't think it's "U.S.'" but maybe it is? This came up at Freedom of navigation. Kendall-K1 ( talk) 03:47, 23 October 2017 (UTC)