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.

By my reading of Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers § Fractions and ratios, it looks like / (ASCII slash) is used in inline fractions instead of ⁄ (fraction slash &frasl;). This conflicts with Wikipedia:Manual of Style § Slashes which recommends &frasl; over /. The "Slashes" section also recommends {{ frac}} but fails to mention all the other things that are recommended instead, like <math> and writing out in English. I think the simplest way to resolve this would be to change the "Slashes" section from:

• in a fraction (7/8), though the "fraction slash" (7⁄8, producing 7⁄8) or {{ frac}} template ({{frac|7|8}}, producing 7⁄8) are preferred

to:

• in a fraction (7/8), though other techniques are usually preferred; see Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers § Fractions and ratios

Does that make sense?

Oh, and the two other instances of "fraction slash" in that section would just need to be changed: "(and fraction slashes)" -> "(and slashes in fractions)" and "to slash or fraction slash" -> "to slash".

-- Beland ( talk) 07:11, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

• Please don't misunderstand me because I don't want to discourage you – I think it's great that you're trying to clear this kind of markup and coding and typesetting stuff up. But you already have one thread open which – trust me – will take a LOT of editor time and attention to bring to fruition, and one such discussion at a time is enough. Let me suggest you withdraw this question for now and pick it up later. And by withdraw I mean delete the thread (including this comment of mine). Otherwise someone will inevitably post something beginning, "Well, let me just say..." and before you know it it will be a discussion after all. E Eng 08:41, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Well, this is a question about a conflict between the existing guides that needs to be resolved regardless of the outcome of the above discussion. I think it's also a bit orthogonal to ask how the character should be expressed vs. whether or not it should be expressed at all; some people may have feelings on this much narrower question. I'm sure I can walk and chew gum at the same time. -- Beland ( talk) 21:24, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
• I doubt you will achieve consensus on this. The usual slash is far far more convenient than anything else and there is too little benefit for the other slash. And really the <math> template should be used for anything serious; everything else like {{ frac}} is a workaround for some rendering issues rather than a universal solution. — David Eppstein ( talk) 16:27, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Well, that sounds entirely compatible with the proposed change...does anyone actually disagree with that? -- Beland ( talk) 21:24, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

• You've had two good replies. Please take the hint and do not stir too many pots at one time. Johnuniq ( talk) 22:48, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

To be more explicit: It is definitely not the case that {{ frac}} is acceptable for use in mathematics articles. Maybe the standards are different for non-mathematical articles using fractional weights and measures. And your frasl example looks horrible also (the digits are too close to the slash); I think frasl is intended only for use with the raised/lowered fractions like those produced by {{ frac}} that are disallowed in mathematics articles here. I think neither of these should be encouraged. — David Eppstein ( talk) 23:32, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Yes. If it were used in running text, it would need some kind of template to do kerning with CSS, an thus we have {{ frac}} already.  —  SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  07:06, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Well, since I'm removing encouragement to use frasl and {{ frac}}, and people don't seem to like those, it seems like there is consensus for this change. Please correct me if I'm wrong. The only remaining encouragement for either of those things is on Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers § Fractions and ratios which says {{ frac}} is to be used in limited circumstances and discourages HTML character fractions that would use frasl. (So if you still have a problem with that guidance, the talk page for that policy page is probably the place to take it up.) -- Beland ( talk) 14:57, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

You seem very aggressive in interpreting disagreement with parts of your proposal as consensus for everything else. I think you should be more patient. I have certainly not yet agreed that this is, in general, a good direction to go. — David Eppstein ( talk) 01:52, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Yes. Try proposing something narrower and more specific now.  —  SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:02, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

@ David Eppstein: @ SMcCandlish: Are you objecting to something about fraction slashes or something about the HTML entities section which is being discussed above? What is it that you would want to see changed, or how would you want to see the scope narrowed? -- Beland ( talk) 15:30, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Re-reading what you originally posted, you claimed there's a conflict between two sections but this doesn't seem clear. You can write "2/3" or use {{ frac|2|3}} (which uses &frasl;). If there's anything to resolve, it's probably to change Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Slashes to stop saying to use &frasl; inline in general; it should be / in cases like "2/3". We're only using fraction-slash in templates that super/sub script the numerals. We don't want people to use < math> markup for basic inline fractions; it's for more complicated usage. But that section is about slashes, including certain ways of doing fractions, not about fractions in general, so we don't need to go into writing out "two-thirds" or using math markup or [not] using Unicode fraction glyphs; just this: use / not ⁄ for fractions with digits, or use the frac template if you want super/sub-scripted fractions. A cross-ref to the MOS:NUM section on fractions should be sufficient otherwise. Your "though other techniques are usually preferred" isn't correct; sometimes another technique is preferred.  —  SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  15:56, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

@ SMcCandlish: So, the proposed change has already been made to this page. Am I reading correctly that the only modification you are requesting to that is changing "usually" to sometimes? -- Beland ( talk) 01:35, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

That's the part that caught my eye; I already tweaked it on the live page.  —  SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:24, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that the html section is needed at all. It is more material for a guidebook on html than style guidance for Wikipedia editors. And you appear to have the purpose of using the new section as a bludgeon to begin a massive project of automatically reformatting characters in Wikipedia, which I think is a bad idea (watchlist clutter for no visible change to articles). — David Eppstein ( talk) 16:15, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

@ David Eppstein: OK, this is not the right section for this discussion. Would you like to append this to the previous discussion, start a new section, or something else? -- Beland ( talk) 01:35, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Well, I had a long reply I didn't want to sit on any longer, so I copied the above and posted my reply in a new subsection of the "HTML entities" discussion above, "Reversion of addition of third draft". -- Beland ( talk) 08:07, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

But what is "the html section"? I'm not seeing such a subsection at either of the MoS sections under discussion, nor in the wording stuff under discussion here. I strongly agree that "a massive project of automatically reformatting characters in Wikipedia ... is a bad idea"; much of the WT:MOS discussion over the last month has been about two (three, counting a revert spree) of mass "MoS enforcement" waves of robot-like edits, over which at least one person lost their WP:AWB permissions (should've been at least two, if you ask me).

The only thing I've seen in this discussion which should be implemented across a bunch of articles – and only as an add-on to more substantive changes – is conversion of things like "2⁄3" to "2/3". I would suggest asking at WP:GENFIXES if someone can think of a way to add that to AWB's "General Fixes" scripts in such a way that it a) does not clobber mentions of the ⁄ entity, &ampl#8260; entity, ⁄ entity, or ⁄ Unicode character outside of fractions; b) does not replace it in constructions like <sup>2</sup>⁄<sub>3</sub> or in templates that [correctly] use it; and 3) which (preferably) does replace the entities with the Unicode glyph in cases that are of the form <sup>2</sup>⁄<sub>3</sub>. If someone wants to convert those to {{ frac}} or to < math> markup, they need to do that on a case-by-case basis, since any given markup may have been used for a contextually legitimate reason.
 —  SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:09, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

@ SMcCandlish:: As of July 1, 2018, there were only 8 articles detected using &frasl;: Assouad dimension, City and South London Railway, Discrete valuation ring, Q-derivative, Winding number. I think I already manually fixed all of them except the first one. The moss project picked up only three instances of numerical references in April, and I already converted all of those. So, none of those will result in a "spree". As for the fraction slash character itself, it's more widely used, appearing in article titles and also English text, it looks like because some people have confused it with a slash. I can add a rule that will post any word containing that character to the moss complaint list and just point editors at Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Dates_and_numbers#Fractions_and_ratios to resolve such instances using their judgment. We do have literally about half a million possible typos to get through just involving the letters a-z, so I'm not sure how quickly that list would be cleared unless a particular editor or editors feel that the resulting typography is just an abomination that needs to be removed from the face of the Internet. For people using automated editing tools, maybe it needs to be a "detect the problem but don't try to automatically fix it" thing, since the preferred solution depends on context. -- Beland ( talk) 02:54, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Okay. But which "moss" thing are we talking about? WP:MOSS = MOS:SPELL ( Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Spelling). That's not a project and isn't a list of pages with stuff to fix.  —  SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:12, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

@ SMcCandlish: Wikipedia:Typo Team/moss. -- Beland ( talk) 14:22, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Ah, so! I added a disambiguation hatnote atop WP:Manual of Style/Spelling.  —  SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  14:29, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

MOS:CONFORM was out-of-step (for many years now) with two points of actual practice, and the section was also mix-and-matching grammatical structures in its list items. I also realized that we were not dealing with the special considerations that apply to doing CONFORM stuff with titles of works (including factors that can actually break citations), so I've cross-referenced a summary of that at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Titles#Typographic conformity ( MOS:TITLECONFORM)  —  SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  09:38, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

We really need to do something to clarify the wording in main guideline and (where applicable) at MOS:CAPS, MOS:TM, MOS:TITLES, WP:NCCAPS, WP:OFFICIALNAME, etc., to stem the tide of fandom-based over-capitalization: "WP has to use the weird capitalization in this company logo/movie poster/album cover just because it's official and because business/entertainment magazines do it".

On a nearly daily basis there are either a) new RMs to move articles to MoS-non-compliant names to mimic logos and and other marketing, or b) fandom-based opposition to an MoS-compliance RM, because it doesn't match the over-capitalization on the album cover or the director's blog. A common variant of this is denial that the MOS:5LETTER rule (capitalize a preposition in the title of a work only if it is five letters or longer) exists or can be applied, simply because it's not the style used in news journalism.

One egregious case was the repeated fight to try to move the song article " Do It like a Dude" to "Do It Like A Dude" complete with capital A (yes, really) as well as capitalized preposition, to match the font styling on the cover the single. An ongoing one is Talk:Spider-Man: Far From Home#Requested move 14 July 2018, swamped with WP:ILIKEIT votes that are ignoring all WP:P&G arguments.

This is sucking up way too much editorial time at RM, and the discussions are always circular rehash. It's a constant firehose of WP:LAME. Something in the guideline wording needs to be adjusted to curtail this stuff. I can take a stab at it at some point soon, but would rather have some additional eyes and brains on it. Where are the weak spots? Why is it not getting through? How can so many people, even when pointed directly at the guidelines, all saying the same thing in different wording, still somehow not understand?
 —  SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  14:43, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

• I know this is "locking the barn door after the horse has fled"... but this all stems from our decision to put article titles in sentence case instead of title case. That was a bad decision, looking back at it (90% of the arguments would have been avoided if we had decided to use title case)… unfortunately, fixing that decision is now unworkable. Blueboar ( talk) 14:51, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

  I felt that way when I first arrived; I really hated the sentence casing. But if we'd picked title case it would have made disambiguation a lot messier, and would make it harder to tell whether something was about a proper noun a lot without actually going to the article. I think that's why sentence case prevailed. A decision way before my time.  —  SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:58, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) I agree with the thrust of SMcCandlish's post. Indiscriminate capping is indeed a problem—and Blueboar, in my view rendering article titles in sentence case was the sanest formatting decision ever taken in the early days of en.WP. Sometimes we could be forgiven for feeling that fan-capping and vanity-capping is a violation of WP:POV, at least in spirit. Every self-respecting publishing house imposes its own rules (especially WRT capping, which has no influence on google searches). One reason is that inconsistency drags down the subtle sense of a publication's authority. Tony (talk) 14:59, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

  Of course you agree! You two are the main promoters of this absurd rule. WP has no business fiddling with the title of works where the actual title is clear, especially using its own home-cooked rules. I'd welcome discussing the question, and would hope that commonsense would prevail, and WP:COMMONNAME rule supreme, as it should. Johnbod ( talk) 15:05, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

  Been over this already [1] (many, many times). And COMMONNAME is not a style policy; WP:AT and the naming conventions defer to the Manual of Style on style questions.  —  SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:10, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

• A consistent factor in the debate is the issue of "common name" versus "common style". Those who support the current position of the MoS argue that name and style can be separated, so that we decide on the name based on sources, but then apply our own styling based on the MoS. I fully accept this general approach, but long ago (during the debates about the capitalization of organism names) I asked those who espoused name/style separation to provide clear definitions and explanations of when orthography could be changed, as it is 'merely' style, and when it could not, as it conveys important components of meaning. I think it's important for those who support the status quo to try to step back and see things from a less committed perspective. For example, the MoS regards some capitalization in sources as 'mere' style, and so of no semantic importance, even though the capitalization is clearly noticed by many editors, who faithfully copy the source. On the other hand, the MoS imposes style choices, such as length of dash, that evidence shows many (if not most) editors don't notice and so don't naturally copy. This difference seems inconsistent to many editors, which, I think, is one reason for the endless re-opening of old debates.

So to answer User:SMcCandlish's question, I think that more rigorous and reasoned definitions and explanations of the differences between "name" and "style", as relevant to the MoS, might help.

What doesn't help or contribute to reaching consensus is giving positions you don't agree with prejorative labels, like "fan-capping", when many editors see it as just following the sources they use, which in other contexts is laudable. Peter coxhead ( talk) 19:11, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

The whole problem with the idea (as has been explained to Johnbod, et al., many times, but they just refuse to hear or accept it), is that different kinds of publications have one rule or another about how to treat prepositions in titles of works. The same work will have its title rendered differently depending on who's writing about it, in the real world. News journalism usually uses a four-letter rule (sometimes even three, depending on publisher, with marketing style leaning toward one letter), at one extreme, while academic journals tend to go with never capitalizing any prepositions, even long ones like throughout and alongside. We and various others have a middle-ground approach, a compromise. But if all you read is newspapers and magazines, all you're exposed to, pretty much, is the four-letter rule, and you get the impression that it's The One True Way to write English. This is obviously an illusion. Pick any well-known book with "from" or "with" in the middle of its title. You'll find that journalism sources render it "From" or "With", academic ones virtually always lower-case them, and other kinds of publications vary widely.

There is no "official spelling" obeyed by everyone. It's a fantasy. And a weird one. I have never in my entire life encountered a book author, movie director, etc., throwing a public tantrum because a book review or a film journal used "from" but the artiste's marketing materials use "From". Seriously, no one cares, except a small number of Wikipedia editors. WP:RM routinely resolves to follow MOS:5LETTER, time after time. Yet people who focus on entertainment magazines and websites as their sources never, ever stop trying to forcibly capitalize "with" and "from" in works they like. They don't go around doing this to titles of obscure works of non-fiction, or songs people have probably not heard unless they're over 60; they do it with current pop-culture topics that they're big into. It appears to be another strain of the "I want to capitalize this because it makes it seem important" thing; the same emphasis-caps urge that we have to deal with a lot more broadly. But this fannish version of it is just really common, and really tendentious.  —  SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:55, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps it is time to accept that our MOS is out of sync with what our editors want. Continually telling people “but what you want is WRONG” is pointless if no one wants to listen. Blueboar ( talk) 20:16, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Except that if these voices of complaint are coming from fans (and reading between the lines, dedicated fans) there's a bit of COI - not actionable! - here to demand that MOS is wrong. The argument reminds me of the past situation with MMA and current with wrestling in general that "but for our area, we need our rules!" They're not seeing the bigger picture that a MOS is meant to provide, which is a general reading and editing consistency for WP. I would say the community is listening, but simply not accepting the argument that the one topic area needs special rules here, particularly one based on pop culture. -- Masem ( t) 20:52, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Right. The same 10 or so people – out of around 30,000 monthly editors – pursuing pop-culture over-capitalization again and again no matter how many times consensus turns against them is not an indication that our guidelines are broken.  —  SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:05, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

This problem can be summed up (kind of) with the Wikipedia Stephen King story collection Four past Midnight title, which seems wrong on many levels. It's not the name that King uses, nor his fans (and no, I am not a dedicated fan, read him long ago but he lost me in the decades he started writing 7,000 page books), nor the world at large. This one example stands out as defining "what's wrong" with the hard-and-fast rule on how many letters a word has to have to be capitalized in a title. The other major problem is MOS says that if something isn't capitalized "consistently" (which some editors define as always, no exceptions) then it must be lower-cased, even if the vast majority of sources and common sense itself deem that upper-case is the way to go. That MOS point often gives naming-rights to a few people, those who write the sources. They, probably out of ignorance or research-laziness, fail to upper-case something, and that error then flows into Wikipedia where it can be pointed to as non-consistency, and thus brings non-common use styling into this project. Solving it should not mean adding even stricter language to MOS, but loosening it up to allow common-sense and most familiar names in English to be considered as important and viable components in capitalization decisions. Randy Kryn ( talk) 00:17, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Here is the n-gram for Four past Midnight, published in 1990, which seems relevant to this discussion. Randy Kryn ( talk) 03:55, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

I've suggested before that we could consider a change, to capitalize short prepositions that are often are not prepositions (Past, Like, etc.). Just because various style guides treat all prepositions, by length, as a class doesn't mean we are forced to, especially given doubt among linguists that the "preposition" categorization is actually valid rather than an obsolete idea from early-20th-century approaches to language (for an easy-reading explanation of this, and a tremendous amount of good writing advice, see Steven Pinker's The Sense of Style, which covers it in detail without miring the reader in linguistics jargon; IIRC, it's covered in ch. 4, "The Web, the Tree, and the String", which should be required reading before anyone can edit this site. >;-) No one's bothered with an RfC suggesting such a change, and instead they just try to re-re-re-litigate their preferences at RM after RM. It's a productivity drain for everyone. And that is all it is. It's not editorial cluster A's preferences versus cluster B's, it's A's versus something like 5 consistent guidelines and thousands of previous RM closes. But such a change still would have no effect on "with" and "from". Over-capitalizers of these just need to let it go. It's a classic specialized-style fallacy, the silly notion that sources reliable about a topic (e.g. who has been cast in an upcoming Spider-Man movie) are reliable sources for how Wikipedia must write and style prose about the subject.  —  SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:19, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

PS: An N-gram on a pop-culture topic is utterly meaningless for capitalization analysis of titles of works, because around 90% of the material written about such topics is entertainment journalism, which all follows the four-letter (or even shorter) rule. I.e., it's circular reasoning, begging the question, cherry picking (in the off-WP sense, a.k.a. fallacy of incomplete evidence), all at once. I think people have difficulty with this because they mistake COMMONNAME for a style policy and don't understand the reason we have the policy and why it's not a style policy. It exists so people looking for David Johansen don't end up at Buster Poindexter; it has nothing to do with forcing particular nitpicks of typography, and we have at least 5 guidelines against doing that to mimic "official" stylization.  —  SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:38, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

@ SMcCandlish: returning to your initial question, neither Wikipedia:Article titles#Article title format nor Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Article titles explicitly cover the situation where the title of an article is the title of a work. Perhaps it would help to add something here, or at least to add links to other places in the MoS. When What Is To Be Done? is used as an example in the MoS, you can understand why editors might choose "Four Past Midnight" or capitalize "with" in the title of a work. Peter coxhead ( talk) 06:59, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Hmm. That appears to be an error. I'm surprised it wasn't noticed sooner. Interestingly, even WikiProject Russia's literature task force has it as What Is to Be Done?, so it's odd that the "To" version has arisen. Anyway, no such over-capitalization shows up in any example of titles at MOS:TITLES, MOS:CAPS, etc., as far as I can tell. Anyway, "the situation where the title of an article is the title of a work" might well be part of the issue. Maybe the assumption that covering it at MOS:TITLES is enough is a poor assumption. A cross-reference, at least, couldn't hurt.  —  SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  07:27, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

RM opened: Talk:What Is To Be Done?#Requested move 24 July 2018  —  SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  10:18, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

• Blueboar, when you write "what editors want", are you sure you don't mean "what Blueboar wants"? Tony (talk) 04:57, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

  Nope. I have not been involved in the discussions about any of these titles. Blueboar ( talk) 10:38, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

  But you have been in many similar ones. >;-)  —  SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  10:18, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

• I echo the objection to the use of pejorative phrases like "fan-capping" or implication of the motives of anyone involved has anything to do with their level of fan involvement. The highest principle in WP:Article titles, that topics are named based on reliable, secondary sources, stems from WP:Verifiability. These are core POLICIES compared to a MOS guideline which continues to expand beyond its initial purpose of addressing technical limitations of Wiki software and is now becoming an WP:OR bible of usage. The problems related above stem from MOS advocates pushing this set of guidelines too far to the front. A MOS is fine for describing how we should handle original, subjective prose in articles, but cannot be used to override hard facts (like titles of works and other proper names) which are directly presented in reliable sources. So no, we cannot continue to alter commonly-accepted titles of a works based on a set of guidelines we've created ourselves - except where the common presentation of such is incompatible with the wiki software or other practical concerns. -- Netoholic @ 08:27, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
  • WP:NOT#NEWS is also policy: "Wikipedia is not written in news style." Meanwhile the policies you want to cite you are badly misinterpreting; they dictate nothing whatsoever about style.  —  SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  10:23, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
• I agree with Netoholic. Not only in the pejorative way this topic is stated, but in the general "tail-wagging-the-dog" mentality here. I'm sorry, but who the hell do we think we are? We have zero moral right to tell an author their title is wrong just because it offends some rando on the internet's idea of proper grammar. Can unusual styling be promotional? Yes. Does that mean we should never use unusual stylings to maintain NPOV? Absolutely not. Maybe the author/director/producer chose such a style for promotional reasons, or maybe they had an artistic purpose. If you don't know the reason, then you have a moral obligation to the author's freedom of expression to respect their articstic choice and use their styling. Period. Anything else is bollocks. oknazevad ( talk) 10:00, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

  Since you're just agreeing with Neto, see reply to him just above. Your thing about their being some kind of One True Title has also already been covered in detail [2]. It's a fantasy. The exact same work's title will be rendered with "From" in a newspaper and "from" in a film journal. And no one cares, except a dozen or so people who won't stop going on and on about it on Wikipedia. The entire notion is pure WP:OR.  —  SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  11:25, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

• Hi everyone. Personally I think Masem sums it up best: MOS is supposed to provide a feeling of consistency across all topics and articles. As for the specifics, I'm also in favour of applying standardised capitalisation in nearly all cases (as stated above, it makes it much easier for readers of an encyclopedia, rather than following the whims of branding and advertisers). There are a few cases where reliable sources all tend toward using the owner's stylisation (e.g. iPod, eBay, etc.), which is absolutely the right thing to do, but for titles of individual comic books, cartoons, etc. there are often not enough serious reliable sources that use consistent style guides and have professional editorial oversight that cover them for us to follow their conventions (e.g. it's not unusual for pop-culture artifacts like this to be reviewed by one or two borderline reliable websites by semi-professional writers, and only edited cursorily – this isn't really a strong precedent to follow, and I would say that, unlike iPod etc. above, there is in practice no fully established consensus among reliable sources on how these specific stories should be capitalised, as they are not covered widely enough). ‑‑ Yodin ^T 13:49, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Also, following the main thread of the discussion, I'd agree with pretty much everyone above that this whole process is a productivity sink. I can't see a way forward that would help with this in practice, but would just say that my impression is that it's essentially about what casual editors see as looking "right" rather than trying to make their topic more important (though no doubt they might also try to do this in other ways) – they look up Four past Midnight or whatnot, think to themselves "that just doesn't seem right", and then (and normally only if they really care about the topic...) they try to get it changed to be all initial capitals. We absolutely could change our style guidelines on the capitalisation of titles of works (following modern journalistic style guidelines for example), but then the exact same process as above would play out in reverse, but for fans of traditional grammar/capitalisation, who would invest the same amount of energy in trying to get it reverted back to what we have now. On the one hand, the grammar-fans might perhaps be more likely to understand that it's our convention, and just to accept our style guidelines even if they disagree... (maybe a bit optimistic...), but on the other my impression is that it might alienate them further from Wikipedia in a way that pop-culture fans wouldn't be put off. Just a few thoughts. ‑‑ Yodin ^T 14:30, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

    I've said for a long time that people are free to open a proposal to change to the four-letter rule. They never do it. They only want to squabble for additional capitalization for particular works that they care about (modern, popular stuff with shiny logos and entertainment-press buzz). I've given this a lot of thought, and there are really 5 possible courses; it's unclear which would be least painful for the community: 1) Don't actually resolve it, and instead keep at the same circular rehash at RM after RM until, I guess, people just die off or something. 2) Revise approx. 5 guidelines and 2 policies to be clearer about this and to put a stop to it. 3) Adopt the four letter rule, requiring tens of thousands of page moves and millions of inline edits, against surely stiff resistance (WP didn't end up with the 5-letter rule by accident, it was chosen and has remained consensus the entire time). 4) Make up a "five-letter plus" rule, that makes exceptions some people don't like lower-casing (e.g., "like" as a preposition – but this would still have no effect on "from" and "with" debates, and would still move probably 1000+ page and involve at least tens of thousands of in-article changes). 5) Fire up dramaboards to restrain people from any more of this WP:IDHT / WP:TE activity at RM. The "6th option" isn't one: It's just not going to happen that we'll randomly apply whatever stylization seems to be the majority usage for any given work, since it would produce utter chaos. Every proposition in this direction has died. We have explicit policies against this idea, like WP:CONSISTENCY and (given that most of the result will be from news, not better sources, and will be following news style guides) WP:NOT#NEWS. It's also not within WP:COMMONNAME ambit at all. The entire dozen years I've been here, the same few people have been pushing a " COMMONNAME is a style policy" hypothesis, and RM consensus tells them they're wrong again and again and again and they just won't accept it. WP:AT and the naming conventions guidelines to defer to MoS on style matters, on purpose. All WP:NCCAPS is is MOS:CAPS applied to titles. We should probably just merge them.  —  SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  12:16, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

• I generally look at it as: If we wouldn't change the capitalisation on someone's name, we shouldnt on the name of other works. Where the capitalisation as part of the title is clearly evident (most often in books, film titles etc) and not a function of the logo/trademark (often seen in companies with allcaps/lowercase etc) then really WP:COMMONNAME does apply. Capitalisation has never been accepted as solely a style issue rather than a naming issue, which is why the RFC is getting the results it is. And really the point of the MOS is that is it meant to be a guide of best practice for the majority of situations with some exceptions. On this issue there are too many exceptions that can be easily argued makes the MOS guidance not useful. If it causes more problems than it solves, its not useful guidance. What would eliminate most of the conflict on ENWP would be stating where the article title matches a creative work, capitalisation is deferred to local consensus. But that is never going to get consensus either. Only in death does duty end ( talk) 14:49, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

  Already been over this [3]. The RM is a joke. It is nothing but fans arguing that because a primary source and some entertainment newa – all using the four-letter rule – style it by their rule that this "proves" WP's MoS is wrong – about a movie that doesn't even exist yet. It's absurd. They only thing is proves is that, yes, those writers do follow their four-letter rule, which was never in question – not in this case and not in hundreds of previous RMs to fix overcapitalization based on marketing or news style (which are the same style – the capitalization schemes and other "rules" promulgated in marketing style guides like that of the American Marketing Association are direct directly from the AP Stylebook. If you try to get a job in marketing or PR (in the US, where Hollywood is) there's about a 99% chance that a requirement of the position will be detailed knowledge of AP style. "I'm following news, not marketing" is a non-argument; they're the same style. It is not WP style. Actual policy: "Wikipedia is not written in news style." And of course WP:NOT#PROMO also equates, in this context, to not written in marketing style either. It's why we have MOS:TM. PS: I takes no time at all – despite AP style's near hegemony on news typography – to find news source that don't do "From"; the further they are from the Hollywood press in at least one of subject matter, location, or dependence on print publishing, the faster you see "from". [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14]. Many of these are even entertainment-related publishers, but they're "webby" ones. A few veer back and forth between spellings [15]  —  SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  12:16, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

• I'd support general statement to use title case for titles of articles, where the title is the title of a work (book, play, poem, media, etc.), unless sources on the work specify otherwise. It has nothing to do with being a "fan". Alanscottwalker ( talk) 21:54, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

  @ Alanscottwalker: No one is arguing otherwise. The issue is that what "title case" means is a bit different depending on house style. We've had a particular one – a mainstream compromise between the extremes of news style and of academic style – for a long time. A few editors can't stand it and just won't drop the stick.  —  SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  11:12, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

  Except I would stress dependence on common sources for the subject, better bringing it in line with the spirit of titling - 5 letters is just arbitrary, instead of, say, four -- it will always be arbitrary and thus the subject of dispute. So, having recourse to sources is the usual way to form evidence-based decisions. Alanscottwalker ( talk) 11:25, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

  But "sources" predictably do something different depending on what house style they follow, and almost all coverage of movies is going to be from entertainment press following AP Stylebook which is not our stylebook. It's rather like suggesting that because the average American eats more cheeseburgers than pupusas, that cheeseburgers are proven to be better food, when you limit your dataset of food choices only to Americans. It's abuse of statistics. The end result of a course like with would be pretending WP:CONSISTENCY policy doesn't exist, because all movies and TV shows and pop albums with "from" or "with" in their titles will end up at "From" and "With" and other works (classical music, influential novels, paintings, etc.) with the same names will end up at "from" and "with". That would certainly cause endless and much more widespread dispute. Probably all it takes to end this dispute is clearer, synchronized guideline and policy wording. Basically, "yes, WP does have a 5-letter rule; no, we do not randomly use different capitalization on the whims of what the source pile this month is showing." Why? because works reliable for facts about a subject (who's in the movie, etc.) are not reliable sources for how English must be used to write about that subject in an encycloedia.  —  SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  12:27, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

No one cares that you do not like the way movie sources do it. If you are writing and reading about that subject, that will be the natural, expected, and understood way. -- Alanscottwalker ( talk) 12:48, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Until you read a film studies journal or other higher-quality source, not just newspapers and e-zine doing reviews and regurgitating studio press releases and star interview comments (all primary-source material). We don't write WP based on the style of the numerically most common source type, or, for example, all our video game and rock music articles would read like gamer-zine and Kerrang! material, and our articles on medical and science topics would be ponderous, jargon-encrusted, and impenetrable to the average reader (or even to specialists in other fields). PS: You are not a mind-reader. You have no idea whatsoever what I "like". In point of fact, I use the four-letter rule in my off-site writing and in my music playlist. I'm just able to separate my personal preferences from what Wikipedia's guidelines are, something an increasingly tedious handful of people seem to have great difficulty doing.  —  SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  15:00, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

• Per the debate at the Spiderman RM, I'd be in favor of honoring what reliable sources use first, and use style guidelines when sources are mixed. There are repeated invocations of "chaos" on standards like this, but really, this is how most article titles are decided already - what do the sources use? Sometimes there are problems when there's a split between "scholarly" and "popular" sources, and some titles are descriptive titles that really are invented by Wikipedia (History of XYZ from 1900-1963 or whatever), sure. But it's usually pretty workable and the vast majority of article titling works fine without any trips to RM at all. Additionally, titles that are not in sources at all and are not descriptive titles are almost universally a bad idea, and the few times they've been tried (e.g. due to an AmEnglish / BritEnglish naming dispute) often get moved again later. That said, that's just my two cents, and I'd be happy to be wrong if I was outvoted. The more interesting thing is SMcCandlish's contention that, basically, everyone else is constantly wrong and it's eating up too much time with this "endless problem." Doesn't that imply that the proposed standards SMcCandlish supports are not supported by the editor community at large? Style pages reflect consensus, they don't guide it. If the variance is as bad as claimed, then that seems a strong signals that something is wrong with the current guidelines, and they aren't receiving wide community support among the editors, and should be changed to reflect what does have support. SnowFire ( talk) 23:15, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

  Repeat: [16]. The amount of variance isn't bad, the amount of time wasted by the same handful of "give me marketing mimicry or give me death" people is what's bad. And actually read the RM thread. There is no "reliable sources versus style guidelines" issue; it's news style versus WP style. All the sources cited are following news style, and WP does not as a matter of actual policy (not guideline).  —  SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  10:18, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

The thing is, WP style can change if we need it to... So, the question is: should we change our style to better sync up with the style commonly used by news media? Blueboar ( talk) 10:42, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

If this had been a good idea 17 years go (evidently it wasn't or, why did consensus prefer the five-letter rule?), the cost to do so now would be staggering. Thousands and thousands of articles would have to move, and it would mean changing literally millions of in-text references, all because about a dozen people just can't seem to understand that every publisher has a house style and ours it not the AP Stylebook. It's really that simple.  —  SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  11:09, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Ah, the Founding Fathers! Fortunately it is easier to change MOS than the US constitution. I wonder how many people actually participated in that decision - do you have a link? I rather doubt that the effects would be on the scale you claim - many creators or publishers of works follow something similar. It sounds like it's time to rebrand this as "the endless MOS strange rule problem". Johnbod ( talk) 14:10, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Wait, "cost"? There's no significant cost, unless someone specifically takes it upon themselves to go forth and tweak every applicable page name and in-text reference personally and immediately. These things can spread out over time. -- tronvillain ( talk) 14:27, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Spreading it out over time does not eliminate the cost, just hide it. Every minute spent by an editor making a change that doesn't objectively improve the encyclopedia is a minute wasted. This is one of the reasons MoS regulars are so strongly resistant to willy-nilly changes. The majority of style matters are ultimately arbitrary (and this one absolutely is); the value in having a line item about it is consistency for readers and dispute reduction for editors. No particular style is "correct" in some absolute sense. So, changing from one capitalization scheme to another because a few editors won't stop venting about it, or even because at some point 50.001% of editors prefer it, is a bad idea. WP:NOT#DEMOCRACY exists for a reason. There are serious productivity costs involved in changing stuff based on either mob-rule whims or the "argumentum ad nauseam until I win by wearing down the opposition" technique.  —  SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  15:00, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

I suppose I'm just repeating myself, but since my argument is continually misconstrued and strawman'd by SMcCandlish: I am not suggesting that "marketing mimicry" be used. I am suggesting reliable sources be used, which is not the same thing for when there's a crazy style official title and another more standard title used in the media. You can disagree with that too, but can you at least argue against my actual stance? SnowFire ( talk) 17:15, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

There are multiple kinds of reliable sources, and they use different styles. A "with" or "from" in the title of the exact same work will be capitalized based on the type and house style of the publication writing about it, not the work about which they are writing. This is what you won't seem to absorb, yet it takes only seconds to prove it. "Gone with the Wind" dominates in scholarly writing [17] as does "Far from the Madding Crowd" [18], while "Gone With the Wind" is more common (barely) in news writing [19] as is "Far From the Madding Crowd" [20] (when using it as a title rather than a clichéd phrase). Book sources lean lower-case but less strongly than journals [21] [22], plus N-gram [23]; there are some book publishers who go four-letter. The style you are arguing for as if it were the only one, or the only permissible one, or the "correct" one, is AP Stylebook style, which is preferred by the entertainment press and most newspapers. It's also what marketing style is based on. On this particular matter they are the same style. The distinction are are trying to draw between entertainment-press sources and the logos, posters, covers and other marketing simply doesn't exist. Meanwhile, you're ignoring the distinction between the the newsy sources, academic sources, and mainstream books sources, all of which approach title case differently (and often differently from publisher to publisher, even within one of those categories – some news publishers have a three-letter rule, for example). For any given work, what type of sources the majority of sources about that work are is going to be will vary, and will even change over time (e.g., lots of film and other journals write about movies, but usually several years after their release, after their social impact, critical reception, etc., have built up and can be analyzed).  —  SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  15:34, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Also, to respond to your actual argument: WP:NOT#NEWS has nothing to do with this topic. That's a guideline about not having WP articles about the Tacoma Truck Fair or the like. But it doesn't really matter; even if we granted that NOT-NEWS also means "ignore newspapers for anything related to capitalization", I'm not saying that news media is by any means an exclusive source. There's tons of other published media that discusses art/novel/movie/song titles as well. If books written on the topic all use refer to something using a particular styling, those too are valid sources for what the title (capitalization and all) actually is, and not forbidden by NOTNEWS, and are perfectly valid applications of verifiability for article content & style. SnowFire ( talk) 17:30, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Except not. It's a policy, not a guideline. It covers many things, not just what you say it does. Among these various points: "Wikipedia is also not written in news style." Amusingly, books written about a subject like this generally do not use the styling you want (demonstrated above [24]), nor do news publishers all use it (demonstrated in same post, and for that Spider-Man movie in particular, here), so your "If books written on the topic all ... refer to something using a particular styling" idea is inapplicable twice over.  —  SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  15:41, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

I just noticed that MOS:TENSE suggests that discontinued products are given present tense. Here's an example [ [25]]. While this seems counter-intuitive, I'm wondering if the same logic applies to companies. Almost every defunct or acquired company uses past tense in their articles, and that seems to be correct usage. I'd like to hear from anyone who can explain why we use present tense for discontinued products, and if the same doesn't apply to companies, perhaps we should add a specific carve out to the MOS:TENSE section making this clear. I'm happy to take a shot at it - just want to makes sure there's consensus. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:12, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Discontinued products have the potential to exist still, whereas dissolved companies no longer exist. Acquired companies should probably use present tense for continuing operations (though something like "began making product in X" is probably preferable) and past tense for historical events. -- Izno ( talk) 19:29, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Good point. Looks like clarification should then be added. I'll wait a bit and see if there's any dissent. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:40, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

MOS:TENSE already says that though. :) -- Izno ( talk) 19:54, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

I was referring to the corporate carve out. Something like:

Acquired or otherwise defunct companies are referred to using the past tense.

TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:32, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

They're already included in "subjects that no longer meaningfully exist as such". Is this a frequent enough problem that we need to say something specific about it? If we did, that wording would need another qualifier, something like:

Acquired or otherwise defunct companies are referred to using the past tense, unless they still operate under the same name as a merged business division.

Seems more trouble than it's worth. Another approach might be a footnote immediately after "as such":

{{ efn|Examples of cases for past tense: defunct organizations, countries that don't exist any longer, offices or other roles or titles that were eliminated, bands that have broken up, lost works of literature or art, services that were ended, business divisions merged out of existence, torn down buildings, etc.}}

Following the logic in this essay, we really should be a) more resistant to adding clarifications and examples when there's not a clear need for it, and b) using footnotes more often when a case marginally needs mention, so that we keep the main text leaner.  —  SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  11:27, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

 Off-topic?

 – Seems to be a content dispute.

Maybe some editor here would like to put an opinion about naming of the 1st and the 2nd President of Indonesia, Sukarno and Suharto ( discussion). It would be appreciated especially for editors that don't know much about Indonesia but experienced at MOS to comment on there. Thank you. Hddty. ( talk) 04:26, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

This is something that should be resolved at the Indonesian project, and, it has gone around in circles for the last ten years, it really is something that people enjoy having arguments about. I fail to see how coming to a generic page like this will help at all. JarrahTree 08:56, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

@ JarrahTree: This is an invitation, I hope many editors discuss this topic. Hddty. ( talk) 09:03, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Good luck then - this is a problem where languages and spelling variations simply bring more trouble than they are worth, in the end. JarrahTree 09:39, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

The only thing like a names-related dispute I see at either article's talk page is at Talk:Sukarno about "Ahmad" or "Ahhmad" as an alleged forename, which was apparently made up by a journalist, and was not actually used by him nor used for him in many reliable sources. It is and should be mentioned somewhere in the article (not as his real name) because some readers are fairly likely to encounter it and search for it here. But this isn't an MoS matter, it's a content issue.

The discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Indonesia#Perfected spelling/#Perfected spelling/Ejaan yang disempurnakan (EYD) is also a content dispute, not an MoS matter. Just open a WP:RM discussion at each article's talk page. I predict that attempts to move these articles to Soekarno and Soeharto will fail for WP:COMMONNAME and WP:RECOGNIZABLE and WP:USEENGLISH reasons. While both articles should include such spellings in the lead, they're not what is most commonly used in English-language reliable sources for these subjects.  —  SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  14:27, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

I beg to differ, from my length of time working inside the Indonesia it is a MOS issue.(I can remember 2006 and 2007 discussions over this issue) The focusing on Sukarno/Suharto issue as the only example does not give adequate context. Despite the fervour for one size fits all ideas - some WikiProjects actually have had the determination to designate usage within the domain of their project scope - as to specific guidelines over translation and transliteration issues (which actually developed into accepted practice and MOS for the articles found within the projects) - for years the Indonesian project has had a circular argument, trying to establish a guideline within the project about the issue... but as I said above to Hddty good luck... JarrahTree 14:53, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Which still doesn't sound like an MoS issue. For example, I was at both articles, noticed that Suharto mentioned the Soeharto spelling in the body, so I tried copying it into the lead as a MOS:BOLDSYN. I got reverted, on the basis that not only did Suharto not use it, he corrected people who did use it. Elsewhere we have sources saying that when the spelling reforms were introduced, people were allowed to choose which they preferred for their own names. And that spelling is not often used for Suharto in RS in the English language. Ergo, the reversion was fine and is definitely a content not style matter. The objection is that while Soeharto can be mentioned somewhere, because someone might actually search on that spelling and it is a redirect, it's too trivial for the lead. That's a content relevance argument, not a "style rules" one. A potential compromise might be something like "(also sometimes referred to as Soeharto in Indonesian)", linking directly to the section on the orthographic reform, but the same indiscriminate/trivia objection would likely be raised.

If WP:WikiProject Indonesia wants – after all this time – to develop a WP:Manual of Style/Indonesia-related topics and see if it gains support as a WP:PROPOSAL (such things often fail, being full of wikiproject attempts to defy site-wide rules rather than apply them), they can give it a try (though we really need to merge these things into one page, divided by country/culture, and with redundancy eliminated). Until then, WP:LOCALCONSENSUS rightly applies at a per-article level, since there's no site-wide rule anyone's contradicting by deciding which u versus oe or whatever spelling(s) should appear in the lead for particular cases, or be used as the title.

Relevant open threads: WT:WikiProject Indonesia#Enhanced Indonesian Spelling System: a content dispute. WT:WikiProject Indonesia#RFC: MOS for Indonesia articles and scripts: an unrelated (but style) matter on limiting use of Indonesian script (based on limitation of Indic script in articles about India; that was undertaken because there are too many writing systems in India, which may or may not be true of Indonesia). WT:WikiProject Indonesia#Perfected spelling/Ejaan yang disempurnakan (EYD): an article titles dispute, and covered by WP:COMMONNAME and WP:USEENGLISH.
 —  SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  11:48, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Radio Stations#Call sign meanings. The discussion is about using bold caps in expanding radio call sign letters, e.g. KIEM (Keep Informed Every Minute), and whether radio stations should have an exception to the MOS:ACRO guideline: Do not apply italics, boldfacing, underlining, or other highlighting to the letters in the expansion of an acronym that correspond to the letters in the acronym. Thanks. Reidgreg ( talk) 14:19, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

A recent edit changed "Capitalize names of particular institutions ..." to "Capitalize names of institutions ..." on the grounds that "particular" is superfluous here. I undid the edit, but it has been restored by another editor.

I entirely agree that logically "particular" is redundant, but ultra-clarity is useful in the MoS. Leaving just the plural "names of institutions" might imply that e.g. the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge is correct.

One compromise might be "Capitalize the name of an institution ...", although I still think the original is fine. Peter coxhead ( talk) 05:58, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

This isn't the biggest issue in the world, but my point is that the word "particular" isn't doing any lifting whatsoever in that sentence. Certainly it isn't resolving your exemplified issue - since the 'universities of Oxford and Cambridge' are (two) particular institutions; resolution depends upon the word "names", since that formulation isn't a "name" (as an aside I note that the UK Parliament used the capitalisation in this very phrase, back in the 1920s: "An Act to make further provision with respect to the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge and the Colleges therein, although of course usage has evolved since then). Looking at a few style guides I can't find any guidance in any of them for dealing with the situation where several organisations are listed together preceded by the plural of a word that is common to all of their titles, anyway, but I agree with you that lower case feels appropriate. In any event, your alternative wording in the singular also works. MapReader ( talk) 07:09, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

I can't find explicit guidance in the MoS re the plural case ( SMcCandlish: can you help?), but there have been various relevant discussions, e.g. Talk:List of mayors of Birmingham#Requested move 5 September 2017 which have all upheld the view that where "X of Y" is a title, and so X and Y are capitalized, in "xs of Y", x is not capitalized. (As it happens, I don't agree that lower case feels appropriate – I would capitalize – but I'm pretty sure the consensus here is otherwise.) Peter coxhead ( talk) 09:46, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

I put it back in. It was added because people were misreading it as meaning to do, e.g., "all of the State Legislatures in the United States", "she attended both Harvard and Princeton Universities", etc. The "Universities of Oxford and Cambridge and the Colleges" style was preferred by certain style guides in the early to mid-20th century but is excoriated in most of them today. It's the same style that results in "XYZ Corporation is a Canadian shoe manufacturer. J. Q. Foobar founded the Corporation in 1978." This style is virtually never used today except in legal writing (within actual legal documents, not legal journal prose, etc.), and in a small sliver of especially stilted business English, usually in internal self-referential material (i.e., your CEO's memo is apt to call your own company "the Company" but will not refer to a meeting with a rep from XYZ Corporation as a negotiate between "the Company and the Corporation"). WP doesn't write this way.

There may be another way to get at this than by inserting "particular", but it does seem to be having the desired effect, even if MapReader and Popcornduff might be skeptical that it should. There's been a marked decline in the over-capping style over the last several years.

PS: "xs of Y" is always going to look off to a subset of readers, those for whom such a title seems to usually capitalized (or at least where they don't notice much when it's not. LC is the norm in the British press now – in-page search these articles for "lords mayor", and there were zero hits at either The Guardian or The Economist for this phrase capitalized: [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32]. It's not like Wikipedia made it up. :-) There'll always be a hint of perceptual dissonance because a title like "Lord Mayor" is almost always encountered attached to someone's name. Similarly, many Americans always want to capitalize "president" in reference to the US head of state; some of them even want to do it with adjectival constructions like "presidential race".
 —  SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  11:11, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

The reduction in capping is because the Internet and SMS are driving society towards ignoring capitals altogether. It is certainly most unlikely to have anything to do with the word "particular" in this sentence of the MoS, where it appears utterly redundant. MapReader ( talk) 11:58, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

• I was going to make the same point MapReader made even before I saw they'd written it. In the words of the Guardian style guide: "The tendency towards lowercase, which in part reflects a less formal, less deferential society, has been accelerated by the explosion of the internet: some web companies, and many email users, have dispensed with capitals altogether."

I have to say I don't understand what "particular" is adding here, even after reading the arguments about plurals. To me, as someone who uses style guides a lot professionally, it's not clear that "particular" is meant to clarify that you don't capitalise in lists or whatever. I wouldn't have inferred that at all. Popcornduff ( talk) 12:45, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Except the lower-casing trend started way before the Internet existed as a general public medium. There is no doubt that computer-mediated communication is accelerating the trend, but it doesn't matter. It's not WP's job to defend tradition against the abuses of callow youth, but (with regard to style matters) to reflect actual practice in contemporary formal written English (and to work around key WP-specific issues here and there, where there's a technical problem – thus, e.g., our avoidance of curly quotes).

On the original topic, I'll just repeat: There may be another way to get at this than by inserting "particular", but it does seem to be having the desired effect. Rather than argue about one word, maybe suggest better wording that makes the point more clearly.
 —  SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  13:14, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

While I feel SMcC is stretching credibility beyond a sensible point by arguing that this word is doing any good whatsoever, it's just one word, and isn't doing any harm apart from padding. So as the OP I say let's drop the matter. MapReader ( talk) 14:36, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Well, I'm also fishing for "Better wording would be ...". I tend to just directly edit this stuff, but others here seem to feel more strongly that the current wording isn't good, rather than that it's not ideal. I'm not sure how to more tightly get at something like "Capitalize the names of institutions, including their official names and conventional short forms that are treated as proper names, but do not capitalize a word from such a name (university, corporation, etc.) when used apart from the name, nor in plural form when two or more institutions sharing the term are mentioned back-to-back." I guess we could use that exact wording in a footnote, but I don't think anyone wants to see something like that inline in the main guideline text.  —  SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  14:10, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Discussion thwarting that prompted me to dig all this up: When I clicked on (Discuss) in the hatnote on Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Titles § Italics, the wikilink did not take me to the discussion section that was named after that # of the (Discuss)—even though the resulting URL in my location bar was correct—revealing once again an entrenched behavior that left me staring at a large box of archive page links. This on-going issue that pops up especially in the more active talk pages such as the Manual of Style (MOS) talk page must be improved.

It takes far too long to excavate the exact archive page where the original discussion section is located then bring the discussion back to light and to remember to repoint the (Discuss) wikilinks in the sets of hatnote templates, which does not encourage people to BEBOLD and discourages editor community involvement, especially amongst newbies or the exhaustingly disabled such as myself. I have seen that archive box so many times and have sighed and moved on ~99% of the time. Sorry that I can only dump this topic here, but my real-life limitations currently won't let me do anything else and something should really be done about this, perhaps in the template code in hatnotes that create the (Discuss) wikilinks. Thanks in advance to anyone who can follow-up on this.

Italics advice is too scattered: The 2016 hatnote Template:Merge portions to was added to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Titles § Italics with the corresponding template added to the other page.

The |reason= parameter states:

We badly need to consolidate the scattered titles-related advice, and have a whole page for it. Only cross-reference and a summary of title-related material need be left here.

I just now appended to that parameter the following:

NOTE from July 2018 by Geekdiva: This proposal by User:SMcCandlish has had its discussion (without responses) archived at:

• Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 182#Composition titles advice consolidation

& a corresponding mention archived at:

• Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters/Archive 23#Consolidating advice on titles of works.

Request for assistance: I have to ask someone reading this to repoint the (Discuss) wikilinks to the final discussion section. Due to what I mentioned in the first section, putting this here is the best my real-life limitations mean I can do at the moment. I can't even discuss it now and probably won't find my way back here! Heh. Thank you in advance for your time. — Geekdiva ( talk) 11:40, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

@ Geekdiva: That's a lot of text without a clearly discernible rationale. It looks like you just want merge tags on the MoS pages to point to current threads, but that you're not raising anything about any actual merge proposals. Is this correct? That's easy enough to do, though I'm not sure of the value of pointing to an old archive thread instead of to the current talk page where people can start a new one. To address that particular merge: most of the MOS:TITLES material has been consolidated. It's been an ongoing project. After doing a bunch of that and a bunch of MOS:BIO consolidation, I left it alone for a while in case people want to raise issues or objections. Since there haven't been any (other than some temporary confusion about the BIO merge from people who didn't notice its original merge discussion), I don't see a reason not to continue, starting with that particular bit at MOS:ITALICS.  —  SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  14:20, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

This text was added to WP:MEDMOS, based on this discussion.

Consensus was not gained that this change is in concurrence with project-wide MOS. It has not been determined that statements in the leads of medical articles are more likely than any other type of article to be challenged, and the main reason for this push for citations in the lead has been for the (external) translation project, which translates only the leads of medical articles (a separate problem in and of itself). Many examples have been given over the years of how this demand for citations in the lead compromised the summary aspect of article leads. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 14:57, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Beta-Hydroxy beta-methylbutyric acid provides an example of this new trend, with up to six citations per sentence. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 15:11, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, whats the issue? MOS is not incompatible with WP:V which can require inline citations in the lead, and neither is MEDMOS, it just lays out two advantages to doing so. Apart from biographies and fringe science, Medical articles are certainly one of a group of 'likely to be challenged for claims of fact' (especially when it intersects with fringe/alternative medicine) that would require citations per WP:V, so having them there in advance isnt an issue, nor is there anything in the site-wide MOS that says you cant. 'Its not necessary' encyclopedia wide is not incompatible in any way with MEDMOS 'its not necessary but here are a couple of reasons why you might want to for these articles'. Only in death does duty end ( talk) 15:11, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

What is at issue is broader discussion to keep MEDMOS in sync with site-wide policy and guideline. If the claims put forward about the reasons for requiring extreme lead citations in medical articles are true (I disagree that they are), then the reasoning should be included in a site-wide guideline, not just MEDMOS. If false, the wording is extraneous. Citations can always be provided in leads for any articles if consensus is developed on an individual article. The push here is to demand them for the purposes of an external project (translation), which in and of itself has resulted in compromised quality of articles, as the focus is on the lead rather than the body of the articles. Forcing citations into leads in many cases has rendered it difficult to write a summarizing lead. The extreme to which this has gone is seen at Beta-Hydroxy beta-methylbutyric acid, where there are up to six citations per sentence. If that is the direction we want lead citations to go, then it should be a general guideline, not just a medical guideline. Broader input, beyond the increasingly walled garden at the Medicine project, should go into this decision. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 15:18, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

But it is in line with with the wider MOS. Neither states you are or are not required to have citations in the lead. MEDMOS gives two reasons why its preferable for medical articles to do so. Those two reasons do not exist for every article and so would be inappropriate to add to a site-wide MOS. And the wording as written is hardly a 'demand'. If you want to write a medical article without citations in the lead, you are still free to do so. But someone may come along and add them later - functionally you cannot prevent that - because if you did attempt to remove them over a style issue, they would just cite WP:V and add them anyway. There are plenty of examples of local topic-specific guidelines that do not apply to other topics. Its only a problem when they are in conflict, and there is no conflict here. (The problem with BHBMA looks more to be citation overkill where multiple citations are used for single relatively short sentences, where one citation for the lead would do with the others in the body) Only in death does duty end ( talk) 15:24, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

I believe Sandy is referring to MOS:LEADCITE. -- Izno ( talk) 15:32, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

It is untrue that "If you want to write a medical article without citations in the lead, you are still free to do so." I intended to bring Dementia with Lewy bodies to FA standard, and was told in the rudest possible terms that it would be strenuously opposed unless I (over)cited the lead. I was forced to cite the lead, which makes it harder to write a compelling summary. And it has not been determined site-wide that leads of medical articles should be an exception. MEDMOS and MEDRS have been widely accepted partly because of efforts in the past to make sure they stayed in sync with broader policy and guideline. Citation overkill, and substandard citations in leads to meet the needs of the translation project, are an issue across medical articles. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 15:34, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Its not untrue at all. If you want to write a 'featured article' you might have to jump through extra hoops but thats the price you pay for writing a featured article. You can write a standard medical article perfectly fine without citations in the lead (unless WP:V comes into play). No one can stop you. And once again, MEDMOS is not stating it is an exception to wider site guidelines, its merely stating there are a couple of reasons why you might want to do it differently for medical articles. (Izno, its also not in conflict with LEADCITE - which itself accepts certain types of articles are more likely to require citations in the lead). Only in death does duty end ( talk) 15:43, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Overcitation of leads is not a requirement for FAC. If it is to be the case for medical articles, then it should have consensus beyond the walled garden of the medicine project. Hence, the broader discussion that should have been initiated before the change was made to MEDMOS. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 15:44, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Why would there be a broader discussion on changing a guideline that only applies to medical articles? You have yet to point out where there is an actual conflict between what MEDMOS says currently and wider site guides. They all currently state (with the exception of where WP:V comes in) that lead citations are not required. Only in death does duty end ( talk) 15:50, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

When individuals (unsupported by broader consensus even in discussions at WP:MED) are forcing non-site-wide practices into FAs and local guideline pages, a broader discussion is optimal. And, as already pointed out (and mentioned over the years), great care was taken in earlier years to make sure that MEDRS and MEDMOS stayed in sync with site-wide policy and guideline. Taking local pages beyond what has site-wide acceptance jeopardizes years of careful work. (Not to mention the damage to article leads that results from this practice.) SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 18:56, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

You are repeating yourself but you are not actually answering the question. They are currently in sync with site-wide practice. FAC is largely irrelevant as it can (and regularly does) mandate higher standards than are required for articles (to be published). If you are having a problem with a getting a featured article label on an article because the editors involved in featured articles want it done in a certain way, that is not a MOS issue (I would be surprised if any FA reviewers asked for citations in the lead except for controversial content as FA requires its compatible with the MOS. And since both with/without citations is compatible with the MOS and MEDMOS....). What is the conflict between MEDMOS and the wider site best-practices please? Only in death does duty end ( talk) 18:59, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

I strongly support the addition of the new language. I also note that, as written, it does not say that anything is mandatory. But what it says accurately reflects present-day editing norms, not limited to medical content. Maybe long ago in wiki-years it was otherwise – I don't know. But it is perfectly acceptable for editors in a specific topic area such as this one to form a consensus that content about that topic should generally follow more stringent sourcing guidelines than what applies site-wide. After all, MEDRS sets requirements for secondary sourcing that do not apply in other subject areas, and that's a good thing. And there is no valid reason for FAC to dictate otherwise. Good scholarly writing requires this style of attribution, and although Wikipedia is written for a general audience rather than a scholarly one, the special burden of our health-related content (that it can potentially influence health decisions made by our readers, with very significant real-world consequences) makes it reasonable to treat material in the lead as subject to "citation needed". -- Tryptofish ( talk) 20:11, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure FAC doesnt actually do this at all, will ping @ Ealdgyth: (who does a fair amount of FA reviews as I recall). But currently the wording at MEDMOS isnt more stringent, it just says there are some good reasons to do it. But you dont have to. Only in death does duty end ( talk) 20:31, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

I should clarify that I did not mean literally that FAC dictates to MEDMOS. I was trying to communicate that the fact that there was a difficult FA review is not a valid reason to say that the new wording should be removed from MEDMOS. Also, it's been my experience that the objections to cites in the leads of health articles mostly come from editors who have been active at FAC. In any case, sorry if that was unclear. And I don't mean to start a FAC versus MED grudge match. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 20:41, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

No I meant my experience of reading FA-articles is that FA promotes articles regardless of cites in the lead or not - even a quick look at the medical (and non-medical) FA's shows examples of both - so I think FA is a non-issue when it comes to cites in the lead debate. Only in death does duty end ( talk) 20:53, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm finding it curious to be told what is and isn't practice at FAC :) :) I suggest there is probably no medical editor on Wikipedia who knows same to the extent that I do. Perhaps Graham or Cas though. Only, I would be interested in knowing which articles you have written and how you have composed and cited the leads for them ? SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 21:57, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Or you could link to the discussion where you were told you had to have multiple cites in the lead to write a FA. Diffs please. Only in death does duty end ( talk) 22:06, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

I suspect you may be the only person in this discussion who doesn't know where to find them, and there are pages of discussion, including a draft RFC. OID, I am still wondering if you have every built an entire article and then summarized its content to a lead, and if so, just how you personally do so? An example of an article and lead as you build them might help me see things from your perspective. For my perspective, you can look through scores of medical FAs and others to see that leads do not always need to be cited. If someone demanded citations in leads under my FAC tenure, that demand would be ignored because it is an invalid, unactionable demand. As Ealdgyth can also explain. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 01:37, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

You stated above that you were told unless you used multiple cites in the lead your FA would be opposed. Please provide a diff. Given you have been complaining about it, this shouldn't be hard. Only in death does duty end ( talk) 02:07, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, it's really just a matter of whether something in the lead is likely to be viewed as controversial (or has already been contested). Well, at a stub it may also be a matter of whether the claim in question exists outside the lead; many stubs are nothing but a lead. :-) Anyway, I tend to agree with Only in death; it's just a fact that medical claims are more likely to be controverted. It's also a fact that WP:MOS has no control over whether WP:FAC can demand something above and beyond what MoS does; I would surmise this will also be true of WP:V and WP:CITE and their pools of regulars; the FAC crowd aren't going to listen to them saying "X is not actually required", either. From FAC's viewpoint, it is required if you want the WP:FA icon.

I don't agree with this insularity at all, mind you, but I observe that it's happening. FAC is a wikiproject, and the FA label is something that wikiproject hands out based on their own criteria. At least as of late 2016, there was quite a bit of hostility over there toward complying with anything in MoS that the people in that echo chamber don't like, which actually a real WP:CONLEVEL problem. I long ago stopped thinking of FA as an "official" WP process, but as just some drama I don't want to be involved in. It's like a Boy Scout merit badge that will cost you a limb if you're not part of the in-crowd. I've been here over 12 years, and have GAs under my belt but no attempts at FA – it's just that off-putting. So, I definitely feel SandyGeorgia's pain on this aspect of the matter.

To get back to WP:MEDMOS, I don't see that there's a conflict between it and the main MoS (at least not on this point, and it does have a conflict with WP:PSTS that I've been trying to get resolved for about 3 years, so I'm not saying the page is perfect). It may go above and beyond MoS's basic requirements (and, as Tryptofish points out, even above basic WP:V / WP:RS / WP:NOR requirements). Lots of MoS subpages do similarly for particular things, just as various notability and naming conventions guidelines are more persnickety than WP:N and WP:AT respectively. The central policies and guidelines are minimums, not limits – within reason. Is citing medical claims in the lead really unreasonable?
 —  SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  10:05, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

SM, FA delegates/coordinators are fully empowered to ignore even what you refer to as FA regulars, when their commentary is not within WP:WIAFA, so I am not sure of any relevance of any of your statements above; No, X cannot be required at FAC by whim because someone wants it-- no matter how vociferously the oppose. I have promoted FACs with multiple opposes, and archived FACs with 28 Supports. There are almost no areas where FAC goes beyond MOS; where the standards do is spelled out at WP:WIAFA, which has not changed since the 3,000+ FACs I promoted. The effect of one editor demanding citations based on personal preference has no relevance to FAC-- it does, though, sere to discourage editors from wanting to waste time bringing articles to standard. Is demanding citations in the lead unreasonable?

So, back to the issue; should MEDMOS stay in sync with MOS? Citations in the lead are not required. I contest that medical leads have content any more likely to be challenged than many other areas-- this is a made-up meme. And yes, overcitation in leads makes it difficult to write compelling prose. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 21:57, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Well the example of BHBMA appears to be a problem of WP:CITEOVERKILL rather than just having citations. 6 cites instead of 1 is excessive if the citations are used elsewhere in the article and they are just confirming each other. If a sentence is being constructed such that it requires 5/6 cites to source specific claims in the sentence, then really thats something that should be re-written for the lead. There doesnt appear to be any conflict between sources (the main reason for warring citation spam) so unless someone somewhere is demanding 4,5,6 cites for non-controversial info I dont see what the holdup is in slimming them down unless they are actually required for WP:V purposes - but some of the sentences are quite short and I am pretty sure you dont need 5 citations for what is a single statement. Here as part of the FAC process @ Doc James: actually questioned the amount of references used. So that indicates to me neither the Med project or FA are requiring that sort of excessive citation in the lead. The GA review here also brings up excessive citations, but also shows that there are issues with material being challenged. Only in death does duty end ( talk) 10:49, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

We've discussed this within WPMED on multiple occasions. There is nothing contradictory between the MOS and MEDMOS. Natureium ( talk) 14:39, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

At this point in this discussion, I think that the bottom line for me is that there is sufficient consensus for the added wording at MEDMOS. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 17:32, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

The LEADS are better if referenced. But nothing in the LEAD should really require more than one or two refs (simply pick the best). The LEADS however do not require references, but if referenced with MEDRS compliant sources it would be fairly controversial to try to remove them.

It appears to be claimed that the ONLY reason to reference the leads is to support creation of medical content in other languages (and this is positioned as a bad thing). This, however, is not the case. While it is one reason to reference the lead, it also makes them easier to discuss and improve as one can verify that the content in the lead is well supported or not more easily. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 08:34, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

would agree w/ Doc James in terms of the lede-- Ozzie10aaaa ( talk) 12:20, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Concur also with Only in death and Doc James that 1 ref per claim is sufficient. We seem to have this dispute, to the extent it really is one, because of "cite stacking" in the lead, not because the lead has any citations in it at all.  —  SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  14:44, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

At this point, there is still not a single editor from outside of the usual bunch weighing in on this discussion. Ah, but such is Wikipedia these days. I have raised a concern about the direction the MED pages are going, after years of carefully keeping them in sync with site-wide pages; nothing has been or will be done because there are no new eyes on the topic. Carry on. No medical editors are writing top quality content, so resolution one way or another won't have much effect. Regards, SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 21:57, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

I said earlier that "I don't mean to start a FAC versus MED grudge match", and that ^ is what I was concerned about. Peace. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 22:28, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Understood. It was Only in Death (an editor I never enountered in the Featured processes) who stated that "If you want to write a 'featured article' you might have to jump through extra hoops but thats the price you pay for writing a featured article;" and seems to have less than thorough knowledge of the FA process, because there is no requirement to cite leads in FAs. I agree that the FA portion of this discussion should not be relevant, but we do have the example of the way the new wording in the guideline is being interpreted by a few medical editors is extreme, as happened in that case. As you know, rather than rock the boat, I ceded and cited the lead fully at dementia with Lewy bodies even though that should not be needed, and was not needed. But that is how this wording is being extended in application. A very good example of that can be seen with:

• Medications for one symptom may worsen another.[11]

There is no reason to have to cite a general statement like that in the lead; that is overcitation of the lead, and this sort of thing leads to clunky writing. Regards, SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 01:52, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

I sure do remember that. For whatever it may be worth, one fish's opinion is that "Medications for one symptom may worsen another.^[11]" and "Medications for one symptom may worsen another." do not differ from each other in terms of clunkiness of writing. I realize that this is subjective, but I think I'm no slouch when it comes to clarity or engaging-ness of writing (aside from that hyphen I just put there). -- Tryptofish ( talk) 18:29, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

The word you're looking for is engagiosity. E Eng 18:33, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Snort, laugh. Says the editor who has made the cites in Phineas Gage so convoluted that they are clunky. ^FBDB -- Tryptofish ( talk) 18:49, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

You stated explicitly you were told taking Dementia to FA would be opposed with citing multiple times in the lead would be opposed. It's also an indisputable fact that you have to have to do more to get an article to FA standard than is normal. I have found no evidence from trawling through FA pages, or the med project, or your contribution history, that as a project either FA or med have said or implied that you are/were required to cite in the lead. If they have, it's well hidden. In fact, as I already said above, the only evidence I have found (using your own example) is that they asked for the complete opposite (less cites in the lead). So at this point you really need to provide some actual evidence in the form of diffs because so far you have made a number of misleading statements, as well as being extremely insulting towards both the FA and med wikiprojects. Only in death does duty end ( talk) 05:32, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

• The translation issue seems to be a red herring. If only the lead of a foreign language article is translated then, in the English translation version, it is no longer the lead; it has become the body of the article. And, as for the general point, MOS:CITELEAD makes it clear that "there is not ... an exception to citation requirements specific to leads." This means that the lead of any article may require citations, if challenged, and so medical articles are just a likely case, rather than being special in this regard. Andrew D. ( talk) 22:36, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

• Concur. There is no reason for medical articles to be treated any differently than any other class of article, with respect to citations in the lead. The site-wide guideline covers it. MEDRS and MEDMOS tried (in the past anyway), not to extend beyond site-wide policy and guideline, but to explain how those policies and guidelines applied to biomedical content. Going beyond what is required for any other type of article is likely to result in a backlash, and accomplishes nothing. If people want to translate, that is fine, but they can seek out the citations as needed (which they should be reading anyway, although they don't always.) Regards, SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 01:32, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

• Fortunately since MEDMOS doesn't go beyond what LEADCITE and WP:V require that's not a problem. Only in death does duty end ( talk) 02:18, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

• Leaning toward concurrence with Only in death. Where is the evidence of either a) FAC requiring lead citations in med articles, or b) MEDRS actually diverging from MoS or from WP:CITE? Like, please actually quote the material where this alleged WP:POLICYFORK is happening.  —  SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  11:56, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

After suffering through this long discussion I'm leaning towards simply choosing death, period. E Eng 18:48, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

^{citation needed} -- Tryptofish ( talk) 18:52, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

• I would not want MEDMOS to say that there has to be an inline cite for every sentence in the lead. And maybe there has been a problem with editors disagreeing about whether a cite is really necessary for a particular sentence in a particular lead. But that's not a reason to say that permitting lead cites automatically creates a problem.

I think that it would be a problem if MOS set a requirement, and MEDMOS tried to say that the site-wide requirement would not apply to med pages. But that is not the case here. I see nothing wrong with MEDMOS suggesting (and it is a suggestion rather than a requirement) something that MOS says is OK but not required. MOS says that some pages can have cites in the lead and other pages don't have to. MEDMOS just says that putting cites in the lead is recommended. On the other hand, MEDRS has long said, with good consensus, that there are situations where primary sources are impermissible, whereas RS does not make that kind of prohibition. Because this is a situation where a specific topic has editors who want to go beyond the minimum required by MOS, rather than to ignore requirements set by MOS, this is not a violation of MOS. And there really are valid reasons to encourage lead cites in health-related pages. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 18:46, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

• In my view, medical articles are among the crown jewels of en.WP. But I just HATE the lazy, disruptive practice of tagging every single sentence. Tony (talk) 04:22, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

The vast majority of articles about U.S. colleges and universities begin with sentence like this: "<Institution> is a <list of adjectives> college/university in <city>, <state>." In many cases, both the city and state are linked to their respective articles. In some cases, they both link only to the city. Is there a firm consensus that the MOS favors or discourages one of these two approaches? ( Jweiss11‎ and I had a brief discussion about this on Jweiss11‎'s Talk page if anyone would like a little bit more background.) ElKevbo ( talk) 14:06, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

WP:MOSLINK discourages overlinking, and discourages bunched linking where possible. It might be useful to link the city, provided it's not a well-known city such as LA, NYC, Chicago, or a host of others that English-speakers are likely to be familiar with. But I'm struggling to see why the US state is worthy of a link as well. Is there something I'm missing? This is better raised at WT:MOSLINK. Tony (talk) 14:18, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Am I correct in inferring that the concern here is that state names are familiar to most readers and thus don't need a link? I ask not only because of the current discussion about linking but because that also ties into another question I have (which isn't related to the MOS) which concerns the inconsistent inclusion of ", United States" in the lead sentence of these articles.

It's also worth noting that part of this discussion is related to the fact that many colleges and universities are public and therefore governed by their respective states so we're not just concerned with geography. ElKevbo ( talk) 14:29, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

MOS:SEAOFBLUE discourages back-to-back links. If it is being mentioned, the city is the location of interest, even if its name is being qualified by the state. The state link is inevitably linked in the city article.— Bagumba ( talk) 14:46, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

The issue here is the back-to-back bunching of a more specific wikilink with a less specific wikilink when just the more more specific wikilink will do. We should also note here that Template:Infobox university has separate fields for city and state, which render back-to-back wikilinks. Perhaps this should be remedied? Jweiss11 ( talk) 15:51, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

WP:USPLACE is also a factor here. Except for a few very notable exceptions, the articles for towns and cities located in the United States already include the name of the State in their titles (using the format "<City, State>"). For example, the city of Ann Arbor, Michigan (linked to in the article for the University of Michigan)... is formatted as: "[[Ann Arbor, Michigan]]", NOT "[[Ann Arbor]], [[Michigan]]".

However, there are those few exceptions... for example, our article on the city of Chicago doesn't include the name of the State ( Illinois) in the title (Personally, I think it should, but consensus has deemed otherwise). Now... this will impact our article on DePaul University (which is in Chicago). The question is: do we want to include a link to Illinois, or is the link to Chicago enough? Blueboar ( talk) 01:04, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

• Its all this stuff combined. SEAOFBLUE and USPLACE, and also relevance combined with user-interface smarts: "... university in Cleveland, Ohio" is redundant because any reader that wants geographical (or, more narrowly, human geography) info about the institution will get it from Cleveland, Ohio. They're not likely to click on Cleveland (which already has a link to Ohio), then come back to the university article and click on Ohio, a link which is of low (over-generalized) relevance to the university topic. Otherwise we might as well do "... university in Cleveland, Ohio, United States, Western and Northern Hemispheres". Heh.  —  SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:26, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Something else we should consider, some of this is simply due to lazy writing... Let me give an example: While it is helpful for the University of Notre Dame article to specify what state Notre Dame is located in... there is absolutely no need to specify what state the University of Michigan or Ohio State University are in (the name of the institution kind of gives that fact away). So... we could avoid the entire "see of blue" issue and use piped links (writing: "The University of Michigan has it's main campus in the city of Ann Arbor" or "Ohio State University is located primarily in the city of Columbus"). Trying to make everything follow a consistent pattern can limit your options. 02:07, 21 July 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blueboar ( talk • contribs)

Yep.  —  SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:15, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Assuming of course that there are no American equivalents to the University of Warwick, which isn't based in Warwick but in nearby Coventry . Nigel Ish ( talk) 10:51, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

When the First Unitarian Church of Berkeley moved to Kensington, they decided not to rename themselves the First Unitarian Church of Kensington. E Eng 11:12, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Sure, when something that was named for a location isn't actually in that location, the lead does need to more clearly specify where it actually is. However, that scenario is highly unlikely for universities named after US states. Blueboar ( talk) 11:53, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Highly unlikely?? I suppose you've never heard of Washington University. — David Eppstein ( talk) 18:55, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Named after the man, not the State... but since not everyone knows that, it could be confusing... so, sure, that would be one where we would include the state location as well as the city. Blueboar ( talk) 22:42, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

( edit conflict) I've never even visited the United States, so I don't know, but I have to imagine the probability of a school with such a name existing, even apart from EEng's example above, is overwhelmingly high. That said, writing the lead sentence to say Fu University is a university located in Notfu, Wisconsin. should be discouraged anyway; if the fact that it is located somewhere in spite of its name is important enough to be noted in the lead, then it should be noted separately (Despite its name, Fu University is actually located in Notfu [for reason X].), not in the lead sentence where all it will do is confuse readers and potentially cause them to believe the page has been vandalized. As for linking, I'm inclined to say case-by-case: most Japanese university articles seem to include such links, and not doing so with American institutions because everyone knows what an Ohio is reeks of WP:SYSTEMIC. Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 12:00, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

That's the approach I take to such cases (not just universities but "names that don't make sense" in general). It also drives me nuts when I see a "Fu University is a university ..." construction or the like, anyway. It's terrible writing that treats our readers like they've had lobotomies.  —  SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  17:52, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Like Hijiri88, I'm wary of the assumption that most readers automatically recognize the names of most U.S. states. ElKevbo ( talk) 13:32, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

I don't think the question is whether the state name should be included, but whether it should be linked. For example, should Yale University link to [[New Haven, Connecticut]] or [[New Haven, Connecticut|New Haven)]], [[Connecticut]]. Natureium ( talk) 13:52, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

I would say the first... no need to link to the state article separately. Send the reader to the article on the city ... as that will probably give more relevant information when coming from a university article (such as what neighborhood the university is in, or if there has been any “town vs gown” history, or if there are other universities in the same town, etc)... the reader can get to the article on the state from there. Blueboar ( talk) 23:02, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

I know what the question is - I'm the one who originally asked it. :) But one editor has proposed omitting the location entirely in cases where the institution's name includes the location. ElKevbo ( talk) 14:12, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

The answer is that there is no single “correct” way to do it... there are lots of “correct” ways; and wording that works at one article, may not work at another. That said... in general... a well written article phrases things to avoid unnecessary repetition and avoids over linking. Blueboar ( talk) 23:02, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

@ ElKevbo: would you agree that we have consensus that we should not link city and state back to back? Jweiss11 ( talk) 17:30, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Yes, especially in instances where the title of the city's article also includes the state i.e., nearly all cases. ElKevbo ( talk) 18:23, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Yes. I'd go further and not even insert the city-name if it's blazing out from the name of the institution. Tedious for readers. Tony (talk) 04:16, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

I disagree but this isn't the place to discuss it. ElKevbo ( talk) 13:08, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Some while back, we decided to try removing all mention of pull quotes from MOS:QUOTES, and along with it went the advice to not abuse pull quote templates like {{ Cquote}}, {{ Rquote}}, {{ Quote frame}} (the "giant quotation marks" and "quote-framing" stuff). Since then I've seen a rise in misuse of these decorative templates in articles (even aside from the fact that the then-extant cases were mostly not cleaned up – I replaced hundreds of them with {{ quote}} but there are thousands more.

I think we should re-institute the advice, at least about the templates, and also cover non-templated attempts to decorative quotation formatting. E.g., I recently encountered <blockquote style="background:none; margin-right:5em; margin-left:0; border-left:solid 4px #ccc; padding:1.5em;"> being used to stylize all the block quotations in a GA:

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum.

I'm hard-pressed to understand why anyone would think "grey vertical bar = block quotation", and this style is likely to conflict with other page elements, like images, in ugly ways (we have no way to control window width and content flow, so it is inevitable that this CSS gimmick is going to end up juxtaposed directly against a left-floated image for many readers). This decorative style is also wasting a significant amount of vertical space.

Either we need MoS to just discourage quotation décor flat-out, or we need to have an RfC to set a standard blockquote stylization, if the community somehow feels that normal block quotation style is faulty:

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum.

It's detrimental to site-wide "look and feel" consistency for people (who probably have no background in usability and accessibility) to go around making up idiosyncratic formatting and installing it in our articles. We might even address this as a more general matter (e.g. do not install rounded-corner tables because you think they look cool, etc. – except on your user page).

A side matter: We also need to advise to put reference citations before the block quote, or in {{ Quote}}'s parameters for this; they should not be inside the quote, or they're incorrectly marked up as part of the original material rather than WP's meta-material.
 —  SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:02, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Re this edit, should it be wonderous or wondrous? See [35] and [36]. Also see [37] [38], [39] [40]. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 15:20, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Wondrous is the normal spelling, as your links show. I wouldn't be surprised if wonderous is attested somewhere, but it's at the very least unusual.

So it appears that the diff you gave is a routine correction of a spelling mistake. I don't understand why you've brought it to this page. -- Trovatore ( talk) 19:28, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

• OED lists wondrous as current, wonderous as 15th to 18th C. E Eng 19:41, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

  Forsooth? Stonied, I am!  —  SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:10, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

"Miriam (Miri) Ochshorn (nėe Farbstein) was born..."

Ochshorn is from her first marriage, according to the article. Is this way of writing according to MOS, or at least not wrong? It seems weird to me, I would expect "Miriam (Miri) Farbstein was born" or "Miriam (Miri) Adelson (nėe Farbstein) was born". Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 13:53, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Corrected to our usual style. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 14:08, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Thank you very much, you will be paid the usual fee. Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 14:12, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

You're too kind... -- Necrothesp ( talk) 14:27, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

We have a problem. All of these pages overlap, and none of them are actually guidelines:

• Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Cyrillic)
• Wikipedia:Romanization of Russian
• Wikipedia:Romanization of Ukrainian
• plus language-specific details from articles like Romanization of Kyrgyz

The non-mainspace pages are redundant and hard to find, likely to conflict and diverge, and not authoritative. They're moribund and all but forgotten, yet listed at Wikipedia:Romanization as if they're guidelines (it also lists articles like Romanization of Kyrgyz as if they are). Mostly what they say is not really naming-convention material in particular, but general MoS material that also happens to apply to article titles. They have inconsistent names and organizational approaches.

I think these should just be merged into a single WP:Manual of Style/Cyrillic, with a general table, footnoted as needed for specific languages where there are variances (or perhaps use different table rows for this?). Have language-specific sections with detailed notes. If anything in it is truly a naming convention (i.e., applies only to titles), this can be put in a separate paragraph, with a shortcut, like WP:NCUKRAINIAN or whatever, as needed; the page will cross-categorize as both an MoS and an NC guideline. We're already doing this with various topical MoS/NC pages, and with WP:SAL, and it works fine (better, actually, that splitting this information across multiple pages). We should actually be doing more of this; see, e.g., the note above about erasing the pointless WP:POLICYFORK that we have between WP:NCCOMICS and MOS:COMICS (which has its own naming conventions section).  —  SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  08:55, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

• I can agree on this — as long as we remember how many languages (most of them are not even Slavic ones) are using Cyrillic alphabet with so different phonetics. A unified page can become quite bloated. However, because it's not supposed to be a very particular «Englification of Russian», it's better be «Latinization (Romanization) of Cyrillic». Tacit Murky ( talk) 15:36, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

  Sure. We have little actual material to cover that isn't Russian or Ukrainian. Most subjects on en.WP that might have a name in any of the Siberian languages also have a name in English or in Russian that will be more familiar to our readers. I would think we should consolidate and arrange the existing Cyrillic latinisation material at Wikipedia:Romanization and no add to it unless/until we see a need to do so.  —  SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:17, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

• @ Beland: You seem to have a good eye for the table tweaking. Care to give this one a go?  —  SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:17, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

My only interest in Slavic language words is that they be tagged with <lang> to indicate to spell/grammar checkers that they are not English, and to hint to TTS systems what pronunciation system they should use. -- Beland ( talk) 01:41, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Sure. Now that {{ lang}} has been reworked, a bunch of people are working on doing this consistently, though it's very gradual.  —  SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:13, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

I've notified various relevant wikiprojects, including Russia, Ukraine, Caucasia, Europe, Languages, and Film's Soviet and post-Soviet cinema task force.  —  SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  07:04, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

• Since there are over a hundred languages that use the Cyrillic alphabet, it may be fine to merge the top-level pages about Cyrillic naming and romanization into a single guideline, including a bare summary for each language like naming the romanization system(s) used, but keep the details and any romanization tables in language-specific pages. That said, romanization tables in the Wikipedia: namespace should be replaced by links to the encyclopedic articles. — Michael  Z. 2018-07-31 19:22 z

The difficulty with that latter proposal is that in our case our systems are not always equivalent to any specific external system. And that's not a bad thing - how many monoglot English-speakers will see BGN/PCGN Orël for Russian "Орёл", and correctly guess Oryol? Kahastok talk 09:10, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

I support the general aims of this proposal, but I think the bit that calls for "a general table, footnoted as needed for specific languages where there are variances" is fairly massively underestimating the scale of such a task. Cyrillic alphabets tend to be a bit more varied than Latin alphabets in terms of letter choice, and even where they use the same letters, they can use them to mean completely different things. This table will be a mass of redundant rows, language-specific exceptions and usage notes that will be much harder to use than it would be if it were split into a table for each language.

(That is not to say that there cannot be some common ground. Macedonian and Serbian can probably be handled in one table, for example.)

I note also that this whole proposal seems to have ignored Mongolian. Kahastok talk 09:10, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

The phrase "X finished in 'a respectable' Yth position", seems to me to be un-encyclopedic. "Respectability" is subjective term. Thoughts? Bogger ( talk) 14:36, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

It's subjective and it doesn't really add information to the sentence, so unless it's from paraphrasing a source I'd say it was MOS:IDIOM that was better avoided. Do you think it might be covered under different rules or that it should be added somewhere in particular? -- 109.79.181.42 ( talk) 16:52, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

No idea, I'm new to this. Open to suggestions. Bogger ( talk) 12:52, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Not a word that should see much use in articles, but I wouldn't rule it out categorically. Use your judgment. E Eng 11:48, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Does MOS:DONTHIDE apply to tables of bonus tracks and related content, such as at Cut 4 Me § Track listing ( permanent link)? The documentation ( permanent link) for {{ Track listing}} states that the |collapsed= parameter is deprecated for accessibility reasons and specifies MOS:DONTHIDE as the rationale. However, after discussing the matter ( permanent link) with SpaceSong, it appears that although this may be the case, the prevailing convention seems to be to collapse the tables of bonus tracks in the "Track listing" sections of music-related articles. If so, this may be a case of (probably implicit) local consensus that contradicts larger community consensus. To illustrate this apparent convention, consider the following examples (found from the " WhatLinksHere" page for the template):

• Master of Puppets § Track listing ( permanent link) – Featured article since August 2015 (collapsed table in promoted version)
• OK Computer § Track listing ( permanent link) – Featured article since October 2012 (collapsed table not in promoted version)
• ...Baby One More Time (album) § Track listing ( permanent link) – Good article since November 2011 (collapsed tables in promoted version)
• The Doors (album) § Track listing ( permanent link)
• The Eminem Show § Track listing ( permanent link)

This is of course not universal; some articles handle it differently, such as Led Zeppelin (album) § Track listing ( permanent link). This convention also appears to sometimes occur in the "Soundtrack" or "Music" sections of movie articles, such as The Big Lebowski § Soundtrack ( permanent link), which has been a Good article since June 2008 (collapsed tables not in promoted version); and in comparable sections of video game articles, such as Final Fantasy Mystic Quest § Audio ( permanent link), which has been a Good article since August 2006 whose successful April 2008 reassessment revision included collapsed tables. Nonetheless, it seems common enough to be treated as conventional and understood as such, even by users who specialize in editing music-related articles.

If MOS:DONTHIDE does apply in these cases, as well, perhaps we should specify as much somewhere in the Manual of Style to explicitly affirm the larger consensus in music-related articles (and any other article with track listings). My initial suggestion was to add it at MOS:MUSIC, but given how this seems to also occur in the track listing sections of movie and video game articles, as well, I'm not sure if that is the most appropriate place anymore. For the record, the most relevant archived discussion I found is Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 200 § MOS:DONTHIDE law or not? (in February 2018), which is not very relevant. As far as I'm aware, this particular issue has not been discussed before.

Thoughts? — Nøkkenbuer ( talk • contribs) 18:42, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

• People not following a rule will not be changed by amending the rule to say "You should follow this rule, we really mean it!" Start editing, and if someone reverts you it's a possibility to educate them about the rule and tell them how neither ignorance nor local consensus can excuse them. (By the way, this section of MOS isn't part of Wikipedia:Good article criteria, so don't take GA status as an indication that some conscious decision has been taken in terms of accessibility). –  Finnusertop ( talk ⋅ contribs) 10:09, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Ah, but if we say, "we really mean it, pretty please with sugar on top", do you think that might work? E Eng 00:40, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

I wish to draw your attention to a problem of plural(s). Many editors and even the manual of style have difficulty with the plural(s) being used to describe group(s) that possibly contain one or more item(s). (Reference(s) is another common case.)

The two examples currently in the MOS are fragment(s) and article(s). In both cases I would suggest it would be clearer and simpler to use the plural and not include parentheses at all.

I'm overdoing it here for emphasis, but it reduces readability as gives readers something extra to process (and then almost always ignore). (Editors should in general ask themselves if phrases in parantheses are worth including at all.) Try to read a sentence out loud and as a reader if there is too much or too little punctuation, it takes just that little more thought about what to say or not say. Then comes the issue of accessibility, anything that reduces readability is inevitably even worse when read by a screen reader. A screen reader will generally ignore the extra punctuation, or sometimes will pause, and if set to a verbose reading mode will read all the punctuation in pedantically painful detail.

On the basis that this extra over punctuation is of no benefit, and actively reduces readability I suggest updating the MOS to discourage the practice, or at least force editors to justify any special cases where it may be necessary. There are different ways to look at it as a question of plurals, punctuation, or use of parentheses, so I defer to your judgement as to the best place to warn against this well intentioned but misguided overuse of punctuation. -- 109.77.248.175 ( talk) 20:08, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Should i take that resounding response as agreement?

If so please start by correcting the MOS to avoid using those unnecessary extra parentheses. Delete those four extra characters like as if they were trivia or markup indentation!!!

The encyclopedia that anyone can edit doesn't allow me to edit.

Responses would also be welcome. -- 109.79.181.42 ( talk) 02:15, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

No, it's not agreement. MOS doesn't opine on everything, and often a concern someone raises just doesn't gain traction. E Eng 13:45, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Could you at express an opinion? Do you not think it would be better to avoid this unnecessary punctuation that over-complicates the base case and to only draw attention to the exceptional cases when absolutely necessary? Do you defend this practice. (If you do defend it then how do you read it out loud?)

Just as the style guide already advises editors on minor changes that improves readability and discourages other awkward to read over-punctuation such as and/or I think the point I'm raising here is well within the scope of the existing guide (overuse of parentheses is already discourage). As already stated it a style choice that this very style guide implicitly chooses accept, so I'm surprised by the complete indifference, and since it is ubiquitous I thought at least someone would try to defend this awful pedantry. -- 109.76.163.45 ( talk) 23:03, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

As this style guide is clearly influenced by other style guides I will endeavor to look deeper and consult other texts. (Taking a quick look at the CMS crib sheet there are zero occurances of '(s)' in that document, but it is only an overview and I will try to consult other texts and see if I can find examples of it being actively discouraged by a style guide, or openly described as appropriate and acceptable. MOS:BOLD seemed like overkill when it was first suggested but it has become accepted and Wikipedia is better for it, and again I think it is past time for another ugly practice to end. -- 109.76.163.45 ( talk) 23:14, 16 August 2018 (UTC)