WIKIPEDIA TALK:MANUAL OF STYLE ARCHIVE 3

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

May 5, 2004 – September 27, 2004.

Moved from article

Sexuality

Avoid homosexuality and thus heterosexuality, use alternatives such as gay/ lesbian/ bisexual/ straight/ same-sex/ different-sex. Avoid the use of queer (or any term) as being most inclusive.

What is this about? homosexuality and heterosexuality are the proper medical/biological terms, the rest of the above are pop-culture/alt-culture jargon. I don't hear the word gay used any more often than fag, and both are POV. Homosexual and heterosexual are the precise, clinical terms, regardless of what is seen on "queer eye for the straight guy". Sam Spade 19:34, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

The problem is that they're medical/biological terms, and thus carry the implication of being a pathology instead of an identity. Snowspinner 19:36, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

Once again: By "medical/biological terms" did you mean the medicine and biology of the last or next to last centuries or of this one? Consult, for instance, the American Psychological Association: http://www.apastyle.org/sexuality.html. Hyacinth 19:46, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

I think the ruling of the APA is pretty much solid when talking about this issue - I've put the passage back in, with an added citation of the APA guide. Snowspinner 20:02, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

Did you bother to read that link? "Because no universal agreement exists on terminology, and because language and culture continually change, the ideas in this article should be considered helpful suggestions rather than rigid rules." And even if it were describing "rigid rules", who says the APA dictates wikipedia content? I find the APA to be generally wrong, and I'm a psyche major ;) Sam Spade 20:13, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

I've consulted MLA, Chicago, and APA guidance on this - APA guidance is cited by MLA in terms of unbiased language, whereas Chicago remains silent on the usage. Regardless, there is clear precedent for using external styleguides to determine the style guide for Wikipedia. Unless you can find a current style guide that argues for heterosexual and homosexual as the preferred words, I think APA pretty much stands, and a poll is unnecessary. Snowspinner 20:29, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

I refer you to the following quote from the article: "If you are faced with a fine point, please use other resources, such as The Chicago Manual of Style (from the University of Chicago Press) or Fowler's Modern English Usage (from the Oxford University Press)." The APA is one of the most-cited publication guides, with many disciplines requiring its usage. And the most recent APA Publication Manual does say not to use those terms. I think that's pretty much definitive. This is not an issue of disagreeing with the APA, but with accepted style for an academic discipline. If we don't use widely accepted style guides, what would we use? Snowspinner 20:34, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

FWIW, straight is a disambiguation page that points to heterosexual. The problem with the neologisms goes beyond gay. Smerdis of Tlön 20:59, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

It should probably be changed to straight (sexual orientation) or something along those lines. Snowspinner 21:00, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

If one has a problem with the APA one could also consult the The Guardian style guide the Newswatch Diversity Style Guide and I imagine other sources, and they would all suggest one should not use homosexual. Hyacinth 21:38, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

Actually, I could not find anything in the Guardian style guide, except "gay: use as an adjective, eg "gay bishops", "gay people", rather than a noun ("gays") where possible, though "gays and lesbians" is OK." Personally, I am surprised to hear that "homosexual" carries more negative connotations than "gay", but I'm happy to follow the APA recommendation unless somebody points out a guide controdicting them. -- Jitse Niesen 10:58, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

As a note, the quote referenced about guidelines, at least in the APA manual I have in front of me, applies to three guidelines earlier in the chapter than the section on sexual orientation. The sexual orientation section is part of the same larger section on biased language, but it is not one of the three guidelines marked - the APA is clear that the preferred usage is not homosexual or homosexuality. Based on Hyacinth's production of two further styleguides, I'm putting the section back in until some source indicating a reason for deletion is actually provided beyond one person's personal experience. Snowspinner 21:49, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

A physical act may certainly reasonably be described as "homosexual" (v. "gay") or "heterosexual" (v. "straight"). However, I'd really hesitate to use the word "homosexual" in terms of a person's identity. It's too strongly associated with a century or so of categorizing same-sex orientation as pathology. "Heterosexual" to describe a person seems less tinged, and "straight" too ambiguous -- drugs, honesty -- so I wouldn't hesitate to call a person "hetrosexual," so insofar as we need to use these words to refer to people, I'd actually opt for the (admittedly asymetric) "gay" and "heterosexual." -- Jmabel 01:26, 6 May 2004 (UTC)

Regarding historical figures before the word gay became common usage, although its appropriate to say " Elton John is gay", but Oscar Wilde was homosexual; its all about self-identification. 144.32.132.230 20:49, 15 May 2004 (UTC)

I actually agree that it is probably more historically correct to call Wilde "homosexual" than "gay", but (1) self-identification is not exactly the issue: I don't think he ever used the term, and he was a married man with children and (2) what, then, do we call people from a period any earlier, when the term "homosexual" had not been invented, and where same-sex practices were not usually seen to constitute an identity? -- Jmabel 02:43, 16 May 2004 (UTC)

I think you refer to them as having had gay male experiences, as having preferred men, etc. i.e. you simply describe their behavior instead of ascribing an identity to them. Snowspinner 03:27, 16 May 2004 (UTC)

After all of this discussion, our MoS still says (without qualification on the historical issues, etc.), "Avoid using the words homosexuality and heterosexuality...", etc. I'm not very active in the Manual, I honestly don't feel like I should be editing it (I imagine all of these issues are very fraught), but I'd sure appreciate if someone would edit it to reflect some of the nuances in the conversation above. -- Jmabel 16:09, Aug 13, 2004 (UTC)

Poll

I suggest a poll on this matter, one which specifically outlines style guidelines for the wikipedia sexuality project. Sam Spade 20:16, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

I find a poll unnecessary. I added the sexuality section April 6th (at the latest, I can't figure out revision histories) and there were no objections until you decided to cut. Thus you are the only one who disputes the guideline, and you have provided only one reason with no references, sources, or documentation. However, you are right to point out that &;quot;no universal agreement exists on terminology, and...language and culture continually change." I suggest the guideline indicates that pluralism is necessary and beneficial as being more neutral. Hyacinth 22:56, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

I do think a poll is necessary, but in the short term finding a better rewording will have to suffice. Something that makes it clear there is a diversity of opinion on the subject would do nicely. Sam Spade 23:34, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

There should be consensus on the manual of style. The section is question is far from having a consensus - it was controversial when itw as added, and it remains so today. In IRC, not one gay person there out of about a half dozen found "homosexual" offensive. I think the section should be removed, and I am going to do it unless someone gives me a good reason not to. →Raul654 16:56, Aug 13, 2004 (UTC)

No one responded so I've gone ahead and removed it. →Raul654 18:16, Aug 14, 2004 (UTC)

I think there may be some basic confusion over the -ity suffix form of the terms as was used in the article. It seems to me that homosexuality and heterosexuality are appropriate when discussing the concept in whole, while specifically referring to someone as a homosexual or heterosexual may be less preferred than using gay man, straight person, etc. Maybe it is just a question of rewording the section a little differently? func (talk) 20:31, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

FWIW, I'd say that deeming someone "gay" is generally taken to imply a lot more about them than saying that they are homosexual, as the terms are generally understood in the UK, at least. This might be a British/American thing, though...

James F. (talk) 21:23, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Spectacles/glasses

Under Usage and Spelling,

if possible and reasonable, a neutral word might be chosen as with Glasses.

Problem: there seems to have been (as far as an historian can tell, looking in on the discussion) a fairly major conflagration on just that point, a few months back. So unless the point of the section was to demonstrate how not to choose a neutral term...? I suspect that whichever article is highlighted, problems will arise; but at the moment, it's a bit disconcerting to arrive at Spectacles, redirected from Glasses. Anyone able to think of another example? Wooster 22:12, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I prefer "eyeglasses". [[User:Poccil| Peter O. ( Talk)]] 23:23, Aug 15, 2004 (UTC)

I'm not really trying to make a debate over the specific spectacles/eyeglasses/glasses thing, but it would probably be more use to the MoS if it linked to a good example of neutral phrasing, rather than one where there was a major punch-up followed by the exact opposite of the example given. Wooster 12:34, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Current policy on Spelling not good enough

Is the current policy of using American or International spelling depending on the context good enough, now that we have categories? It is rather jarring to have an article in which International spelling is used throughout in a category spelt in American. ··gracefool | ☺ 04:14, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

How can we trust you if you can't even spell spelled right? Ortolan88 02:49, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC) (Warning: "joke")

You shouldn't trust me anyway ;) Actually, spelt is correct spelling :P ··gracefool | ☺ 04:54, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I'll see your dictionary.reference.com and raise you the Oxford English Dictionary which says, preferred form first: spell, v.2 Pa. tense and pple. spelled, spelt. The real point is that Wikipedia has made a reasonable compromise between English and American spelling conventions, which is, use one consistently within an article, use one consistently as regards subject matter (English or American) and don't sweat the small stuff. (I would say that the historical trend in English is to shed complications, which would include spelling aeroplane as airplane, etc.) Ortolan88 05:50, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I agree. Down with prescriptionism. I guess I'm still used to paper, where mixing spelling that looks very unprofessional. I'll get used to it. ··gracefool | ☺ 06:18, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

What in the name of Noah Webster is "International spelling?" If you mean to imply that British English as used throughout the Commonwealth is the most "international" form of English, then you are sadly misinformed. English as spoken throughout Latin America, East Asia, and much of Africa and the Middle East—owing to missionaries, expatriate teachers, international business, and American-educated upper castes—exhibits a decidedly "American" flavor, and while British colonialism has resulted in the imposition your peculiar dialect on much of the world, this is by no means the universal status quo. Austin Hair 11:29, Aug 25, 2004 (UTC)

International English is the English that has not adopted Noah Webster's arbitrary changes to spelling. It is defined in the first paragraph of British English. It scarcely matters if it is 'international' amidst second-language speakers of English (although it really is; almost everyone from Europe spells in Commonwealth English, as do many others), it is the English language as written in the various countries whose first language is English. Of all English speaking countries, American spellings are favoured solely in the USA, so it cannot rightfully be called International English. What is termed as International English is not only the English of the Commonwealth of Nations, but also of other countries, such as Ireland.

Regardless of your attitude towards the name, 'International English' and derivatives such as 'International spelling of English' are quite commonly recognised (alternatives exist, such as World English or Global English). You do not help any to resolve the issue brought forth by Gracefool by quarrelling about the use of a specific term which you evidently understand. (Truth be told, neither am I.) — Sinuhe 12:26, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

You mean the spelling reforms which were being widely implemented on both sides of the pond, before popular opinion deemed them "American?" (Even then, British speakers didn't see fit to revert the changes to words like "musick" and "magick," or normalizing Ys as long Is. But that's hardly the point.)

Contrary to popular belief, Europe does not constitute "the rest of the world"—Latin America alone has half a billion people whom many would argue are indeed significant. Even in Europe, and throughout the Commonwealth, British conventions are not universally observed; this is especially the case in the Eastern half of the continent and in the Caribbean and Africa. Neither is it true that "of all English speaking countries, American spellings are favoured solely in the USA," as demonstrated by nations like Nigeria and Jamaica.

Ireland, of course, was part of the United Kingdom until the 1920s, so to try to except it by pointing out that it's not a member of the Commonwealth (it left in 1949) is downright silly. More to the point, "International English" is not a term used by educated commentators, who favor the more accurate and entirely NPOV terms "American English" and "British English." These are the terms which have been used in Wikipedia since the project's inception.

Now, you are entirely correct in pointing out that I did not address gracefool's concerns; indeed, I don't have an answer, except to say that our "let's relax" policy has worked pretty well for us so far. Neither am I crusader on the part of AmE, however—I fully support the Let's Relax policy, and object merely to the use of such POV terminology. Austin Hair 14:32, Aug 25, 2004 (UTC)

An aside: Nigeria? Jamaica? I believe they use UK/Commonwealth spellings. Jamaica's currently run by the Labour Party. As for Nigeria, such 419 scam letters that I bother to read seem to be in -- well, a very strange variety of English, but with UK spellings. And, according to the Nigierian embassy in Washington, the country has ministries of "labour" and "defence". (If anyone knows, our Nigeria article certainly could use some facts and figures about how widespread the "official language" English is there: first-language speakers, lingua franca figs, etc.) –Hajor 17:54, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

As with any language, there are distinct differences between formal and informal language. The type of language one would use on a government Web site and in names and titles in the political system is clearly formal, and "old-fashioned" spellings persist, just as they did in the US until well into the last century. Austin Hair 23:39, Aug 25, 2004 (UTC)

Of course Europe is a part of the rest of the world. The European Union's spelling is British. So it extends the scope of the English-speaking countries, and is therefore international in the way you originally defined it. Why wouldn't it constitute 'the rest of the world'?

I am not arguing for the use of the term 'International English' at all, merely pointing out that it is a term with a recognised meaning regardless of one's opinion of its justification or appropriateness, but the question – on a talk page, mind you – addressed a different issue. Are you implying that, having used the term 'International spelling', Gracefool is not educated?

By the way, to claim that 'American English' and 'British English' are entirely neutral expressions is not exactly correct: many might take offence to 'American English' describing solely US English (what about Canadian English and the English as spoken (non-natively) in the rest of the Americas?), or that 'British English' should be describing, say, Australian, Indian or South African English.

I think an easy solution would be to allow alternative text next to categorisation somehow. So while "Category:International organization" might be put on the bottom of European Union, somehow we could have it display as "International organisation", much like with normal links. Sadly, the software would require changing to achieve that, wouldn't it? — Sinuhe 15:28, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Europe does not comprise the entire world. There are locales on this planet which do not geographically reside on the continent of Europe. I cannot see how you could possibly construe my comments as implying that Europe is somehow otherworldly.

My beef, to reiterate succinctly, is that British English is no more "international" than American English. On the part of neutrality, the terms merely describe the origins of the dialects described; one may further subclassify by country, and even further by region. I am no less "human" than you simply because you were born elsewhere on the planet, and vice versa.

As for the problem of categorization, this may be one place alternate text is warranted. Unlike with dates, however, such a user preference would be an explicit statement of preferred dialect, with far-reaching implications. Which should be the default? What other (future) features would make use of this? Should we extend it to include alternate article titles? These are just a few of the questions which will need answering before such a feature is implemented. Austin Hair 23:39, Aug 25, 2004 (UTC)

There is a world of difference between saying that 'Europe is ALL of the rest of the world' and 'Europe is part of the rest of the world'. This is to say, American English is no more international than British English, because – upon scrutiny of the second-language speakers – British English is favoured amongst Europeans. This is merely a counter to your original statement which I thought meant to imply that American English is more 'international' because British English is only used in the Commonwealth of Nations (which could, indeed, be perceived as a single entity).

You said 'Contrary to popular belief, Europe does not constitute "the rest of the world"'. And I believe that it does as much so as South America, Asia, Oceania or Africa. I don't understand what you wish to achieve by the rest of the comment: at no time did I state that Europe is somehow more important than the rest of the world. If it appeared as though that was my intention, I apologise.

To get back to the problem, I don't think a preference could work. It would be too difficult to maintain two or more 'translations' of everything for conversion on-the-fly. Simply for the sake of consistency, articles written in British English should be able to state the alternative text to a category otherwise spelt in American English so that it would appear as appropriate in the article, and vice versa. This way neither brand is favoured any more than the other, and articles, as before the introduction of categories, can maintain consistency. — Sinuhe 08:50, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I certainly never meant to imply that American English was somehow more "international" than British English, but merely that British English isn't as ubiquitous as many of its speakers believe, and the use of such charged and chauvinistic terms should be avoided. As for my comments with regard to Europe, I never meant to downplay Europe's importance, either—by "Europe does not constitute 'the rest of the world'" I meant to say that Europe does not comprise the rest of the world; Europeans are known to overestimate their continent's importance at least as much as Americans do their country, as demonstrated by the terminology in question.

Now, to get back to the point under discussion before I unintentionally hijacked the thread, it's been clear from the start that translating the article text itself according to preference is absolutely impracticable—we would have to either pre-parse article text and store it in the database, nearly doubling the required storage space, or translate on the fly—something we don't have the resources for, by any means. Category titles, however, could more reasonably be handled per dialect preference, though I'm still not convinced doing so would be a good idea. Neither am I convinced that handling it on a per-article basis is the right answer, as you propose. Austin Hair 13:38, Aug 26, 2004 (UTC)

Handling category titles per dialect preference doesn't help much, as the category title will still conflict with the articles in it. ··gracefool | ☺ 21:58, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

A tricky one, given the (understandably) strong feelings on either side. I don't think categories can support a consistent spelling approach though. This would be especially difficult where an entry has multiple categories. In my own field, categories such as that of archaeological sites are so international and so tied in with national identity that it would be quite insulting to force our American colleagues to adopt non-Webster spellings (is that neutral enough?!) for their historic places simply because the main article is archaeology rather than archeology. I'd rather see things left as they are with well-meaning spelling 'corrections' being reverted. It all adds to a nice feeling of diversity and ?tolerance. adamsan 13:17, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)::Actually archaeology is a bad example as I notice somebody has recently blitzed the article and Americanified everything but the title. Ah well... adamsan 07:56, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Fair enough. I guess that perceived spelling mistakes by most visitors is the price you pay for multilinguialism. ··gracefool | ☺ 03:58, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

And the only way to fix that, my pretties, is to have a user option for which version of English he/she prefers, and wikipedia automatically switches every word's spelling based on the preference, unless the word is flagged with a tag that says not to change it (e.g., when specifically discussing "archaeology" vs "archeology"). It sure would end these endless time-after-time arguments about what's the right way to spell things and when--in most cases-- Now wouldn't THAT be a great way for our software developers to spend their time! (Oh please don't take this idea seriously...) Elf | Talk 00:00, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Actually, since all English Wikipedians aren't about to settle on one version of English, I suspect that increased tolerance for alternative dialects will be the price (eventually). — Michael Z. 15:53, 2004 Sep 8 (UTC)

Notes for editors that are visible to non-editors

Some articles contain notes for editors that are visible to non-editors. Most of them are statements of the obvious. They often are merely invites to edits. For example:

"A mathematician is a person whose area of study and research is mathematics. [edit]"

"Putnam and Saul Kripke both made important contributions to what is known as the causal theory of reference. [Add more here.]"

"South African and New Zealand accents have a similar distribution of sounds to Australian. New Zealand accents are more like to use the broad version. Someone who knows them in detail could add more here.[edit]"

"The development of algorithms to handle graphs is therefore of major interest in computer science: see graph algorithms. To do: Add more pictures here."

Others are more subtle but still a matter for editors only. For example:

"Please use {{tolkienstub}} after {{stub}} for new Tolkien-related articles."

This sort of thing is so common that I think a mention in the manual is needed. Does anyone else dislike it? Bobblewik (talk) 15:22, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Yes, I dislike it too and try to remove any instances I find. Some mention of the hidden comments method might be good here. Rmhermen 22:19, Aug 27, 2004 (UTC)

I agree that it looks very unprofessional. However if an article is missing crucial aspects I'd rather the reader were made aware of that than think he/she had read a comprehensive assessment of the subject. Is there a curly bracket thing that can be added to the top of partial articles along the lines of {{inchoate}} or something? adamsan 22:41, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

AFAIK the only existing equivalent is {{listdev}}, which produces ··gracefool | ☺ 14:04, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

One thing i'm aware of is {{sectstub}} to mark sections as stubs. In general notes to editors should be hidden comments, imo. — siro χ o 02:44, Sep 7, 2004 (UTC)

Insertions in edits such as (please insert correct date here) are a last resort, but it's best to keep on editing anyway! These editorial asides are disfiguring but impermanent. It is best to cast doubt on a single dubious statement within the text than to label the entire entry as "disputed," a technique that has become too degraded for some of us to use. These interpolations (in italics please) are also effective, because other editors stop and fix them when we find them. That Wikipedia is a work is progress is the best excuse for Wikipedia's many remaining limping, inadequate entries. We're not ready to be cast in bronze quite yet. Wetman 07:41, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Capitalization of celestial bodies

There's no consistency in Wikipedia in the use of capitalization for sun, earth, and moon.

University of Minnesota says:

Do not capitalize the words sun and moon.

Do not capitalize the word earth unless it is used without the definite article in connection with the names of other planets.

The earth rotates on its axis.

Mercury is the planet closest to the sun, followed by Venus and Earth.

Webster says:

Do not, however, capitalize earth, moon, sun, except when those names appear in a context in which other (capitalized) celestial bodies are mentioned. "I like it here on earth," but "It is further from Earth to Mars than it is from Mercury to the Sun.

The United States Government Printing Office Style Manual 2000 says:

Capitalize the names of the celestial bodies Sun and Moon, as well as the planets Earth, Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune, and Pluto.

but the moons of Jupiter

My personal style has always been closer to the USGPO. I feel that when used as a proper noun in an astronomical context, a celestial body should be capitalized.

The Sun is a main sequence star, with a spectral class of G2. (astronomical context)

It was a lovely day and the sun was warm. (non-scientific context)

The Moon orbits the Earth. (proper nouns)

Phobos is one of the two moons of Mars. (moon as a conventional noun)

Finding no rule in the style guide, however, I thought I'd submit the matter for discussion. Satori 18:44, Aug 29, 2004 (UTC)

This style seems best (to me, that is ;-)) - though how on Earth we are to decide whether certain phrases are really referring to the celestial object (like that last phrase) beats me...

James F. (talk) 01:27, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I agree with Satori. In James F.'s example -- a good choice of a borderline case -- I'd consider either form acceptable. JamesMLane 11:43, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I would say that in James F.'s example, it should definitely be earth. Gadykozma 13:05, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Looks good, makes sense. ··gracefool | ☺ 19:48, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I think that the USGPO is how most people would describe their usage. The Minnesota usage is just plain wrong: there are times when Sun *must* be capitalised. The USGPO usage seems most sensible. I wonder if any British authorities say differently... Wooster 19:59, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

It seems there is a consensus, so I wrote up some language to add to the Capitalization section of the MoS at User:Satori/Celestial Capitalization. Without objection, I'll add that language to the manual in a day or two. Satori 23:24, Sep 15, 2004 (UTC)

Protest to universal addition of metric measurements to US topic articles

I would like to protest the mechanical, universal addition of metric measurements to all US topic articles that is now occurring. I would like to see what the consensus is, and if there is support for my position. Please see my more complete entry at Wikipedia Talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Protest to universal addition of metric measurements to US topic articles. Thank you. --

Gary D 00:09, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I'm OK with additions, as long as the English system is also used. But the tables in entries on U.S. states are all metric, which I think is inappropriate to the topic.

Maurreen 11 Sep 2004

Forget us. Just think of the reader. Most readers have as hard a time visualizing how high 126 feet is, as we have trouble imagining how much six stone weighs. The metrics should always follow any mention of feet... when you get around to it. Wetman 07:45, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Exactly. Unfortunately we all too often forget that there might be readers and that some of them might find the Imperial system incomprehensible. Filiocht 08:37, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Capitalization of computer terms

The computer industry includes lots of seemingly-gratuitous capitalization. See Fibre Channel and Operating System, for example. Clearly Fibre Channel, being a proper noun (it's a specific protocol), can be capitalized just like Brooklyn Bridge, and it is ALWAYS capitalized in industry publications. But Operating System (and Host Bus Adapter and Storage Area Network) are not proper nouns. In fact, it seems that the only reason they are ever capitalized is because there are commonly-used abbreviations for them (OS, HBA, and SAN respectively) which are always (annoyingly) spelled out. But hey, if that's the standard then that's the standard. So I believe that we at Wiki should capitalize them. Otherwise, we're just swimming upstream. Opinions?-- SFoskett 19:26, Sep 1, 2004 (UTC)

I observe standard English grammar. Though I sometimes feel like a ~~salmon~~ Salmon swimming upstream. Mackerm 19:49, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Use standard English. All industries overcapitalize in publications whose audience is members of that industry. Outside that industry and in publications who have a general audience (such as an encyclopedia) those same terms are not capitalized. That is what we should continue to do. -- mav 20:41, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

That being said, words like Internet and Web (for World Wide Web) are proper nouns, and should be capitalized accordingly. Wikipedia style also prescribes capitalization of compound words derived from proper nouns, but words like webmaster generally go uncapitalized per the predominant professional style guides. Something to bear in mind. Austin Hair 22:27, Sep 1, 2004 (UTC)

Just to split the hair even finer - according to my boss - "internet" (with a lowercase i) can refer to pretty much any TCP/IP network, whereas "Internet" (with a capital I) refers to the Internet-at-large. →Raul654 01:39, Sep 2, 2004 (UTC)

Well, AIUI, the term "internet" is a contraction of "international [computer] network", so any WAN for sufficiently large values of "W" would be so, yes. But most people, when refering to an internet, will in fact be refering to a part of the Internet (there being relatively few black internets, I'd imagine).

James F. (talk) 01:56, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I believe the term was based on interconnected network rather than international. I've heard a distinction similar to the one Raul points out, but that the small "i" internet is for a network based on other than the TCP/IP. See [1] for a variety of definitions. older ≠ wiser 02:15, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Actually, web is now a noun, not a proper noun - at least, according to increasing numbers of magazines etc (eg. Wired). I'm confident that within ten years or so, almost everyone will use a small "w". ··gracefool | ☺ 12:58, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

There's no "actually" about it, in fact; both views are perfectly legitimate, though my support is behind the convention used by most style guides and the inventor of the Web himself. (And just to fuel this week's other major style war, I'll point out that he calls WWW an "acronym.") Austin Hair 19:55, Sep 5, 2004 (UTC)

So what's the decision? I guess we're still discussing, but eventually we will have to reach concensus on this and add it to the manual of style. Another area with Seemingly Gratuitous Capitalization is the automotive industry, where terms like Variable Valve Timing and Dual Overhead Cam are often capitalized, even when they are used in a general sense instead of proper nouns. Actually, these are good examples, too, since both ARE proper nouns sometimes - Toyota has a specific technology calles "VVT" and Ford made an engine named the "DOHC".

So how about this:

Capitalization of Industry Jargon - Industry-specific terms that have commonly-used initialisms but are not proper nouns are often over-capitalized within their industries. Examples include Wide Area Network (WAN) and Variable Valve Timing (VVT). Wikipedia will use standard English grammar rules and will not capitalize words that are not proper nouns. Keep in mind, though, that some jargon, like Fibre Channel and Variable Intake Control System are proper nouns and should remain capitalized wherever they are used.

Looks good. ··gracefool | ☺ 04:59, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Capitalisation of 'I' in Internet and 'W' on World Wide Web

Not sure if we might need a bot if we choose to go the way of Wired Magazine and The Guardian. Have a look at this BBC story then our article Internet. Personally I'm all for de-capitalisation. --[[User:Bodnotbod| bodnotbod » .....TALKQuietly)]] 02:33, Sep 2, 2004 (UTC)

The fact that "Wired" made a style choice (and in its justification doesn't even recognize that the reason Internet is capitalized is because it's a proper noun) needn't dictate our style choice. Newspapers, magazines, and websites often make peculiar style choices: as Wikipedia aspires to be an encyclopedia, not a news purveyor, our style choices should reflect prevailing styles used in publishing books, not newspapers. As yet, such style guides uniformly recommend Internet. Not until they change should we. - Nunh-huh 02:42, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Comment posted by anonymous user 195.158.6.178:

"It's ugly. Internet and WWW are not proper nouns. The internet, and the world wide web should not be capitalized. It's distracting and unnecessary."

[NB: This user also scattered vandalism throughout this page, which I rolled back. It was only later I realised he or she had also made a valid comment, and restored the edit. Sorry for any inconvenience - Mark 05:40, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)]

Coincidentally(?), this topic had just come up on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Capitalization of computer terms. World Wide Web is certainly a proper noun phrase, unless you can demonstrate that another one exists and goes generically by that name; the same goes for Internet in all cases where you're referring to the Internet. You needn't take my word for it, of course, though you should that of Tim Berners-Lee and the Chicago Manual of Style. Austin Hair 05:29, Sep 2, 2004 (UTC)

Don't you mean "This Topic"? You are talking about a particular topic, right? anthony (see warning) 12:56, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

No. The word "topic" was not coined to describe this discussion thread, and is not a proper noun. You yourself even quoted my use of the adjective this—an unequivocal indication, in the absence of an article, that the noun in question is a generic one. Austin Hair 00:10, Sep 3, 2004 (UTC)

The word "internet" was not coined to describe any particular internet, either. It's a descriptive term, just like telephone network (or even telephone itself). anthony (see warning) 16:49, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

So is the "Atmosphere" a proper noun that should be capitalized as well? I'm neutral on this issue, for now, but if given enough evidence that using lowercase is widely accepted as the standard I'd be willing to accept that standard. anthony (see warning) 12:51, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

There's a distinction between the Internet and an internet (see note on Internet). Using a capital for the Internet is very unambiguous - and is consistent with general usage. So I believe actually, that the Internet is a proper noun, while "internet" is not. The World Wide Web is a more academic question, as usually WWW is used (which being an acronym, should use capitals). Interestingly, WWW an unusual acronym in that it is longer to say out loud than World Wide Web. zoney ▓█▒ talk 12:55, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

But if you read the article, it mentions that the same distinction can be made in other cases, such as the Atmosphere vs. an atmosphere, but this is nearly universally ignored. With World Wide Web it's much more clear, as this is more obviously a name, not a description. But then, with Web, it's less clear again. The Internet is more of a description, similar to the Telephone Network, which I would assume is usually not capitalized even when referring to the specific one encompassing most of the globe. Another factor is that the knowledge of which internet is being talked about is really based on context. It is in many ways similar to saying "Let's go to the ocean" (not "the Ocean"), even though you know you're really about a specific ocean. anthony (see warning) 13:05, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Atmosphere in the specific sense, is not being used as a proper noun. It's not much more than the difference between "the" and "an". It's not really a relevant example to the discussion (not remotely similar to the difference between earth and the Earth, an internet and the Internet) and probably shouldn't have been included. The example sentence is simply leaving out the "taken for granted" word of "Earth's" (the Earth's atmosphere exerts a pressure). In this case, the Internet is a specific network. Someone could come up with an alternate internet and call it Globelink. To talk about "the internet" is just incorrect - our article on the Internet is quite right to point out the difference immediately with a dab. zoney ▓█▒ talk 13:15, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I don't see the distinction. Saying "the Internet" just leaves out the taken for granted phrase "that most of the world is connected to." Or should I be saying "that most of the World is connected to?" Internet is a description more than a name, it just happens to be a description of something which most of the world currently uses only one of. Going back to my other example which is probably more applicable, should we be calling it the Telephone Network? anthony (see warning) 13:21, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're saying about the different between earth and the Earth. According to this source, you should only capitalise earth and sun and moon when used in a list of celestial objects or part of another name. [2] But it's not clear to me whether you're arguing for or against this distinction. Earth, Sun, and Moon, are proper nouns, right? anthony (see warning) 13:29, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

If one is to believe standard histories of the web, internet, as a contraction of interconnected networks, refers generically to any network of interconnected networks. By this version, the big "I" Internet is a specific instance of such interconnected networks (which has grown to such an extent as to have virtually eliminated alternatives). However, I'm not aware that small "i" internet was ever commonly used to refer to any actual alternative networking system. It seems that it is used primarily to make a pedantic, mostly theoretical, distinction, and it may well be that the distinction is purely pedantic and not based in actual (or at least in common) usage. Despite this possibility, I have no problem with treating the Internet like a proper noun since that is currently the most common usage, even though the purported rationale may not have much bearing on reality. older ≠ wiser 13:47, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Planets other than Earth (capitalized, in this context—the enumeration of other planets is implicit) have atmospheres. I'm surprised at you, Anthony—this distinction is one usually learned no later than the fifth grade, and I know for a fact that you're a native speaker. Austin Hair 00:10, Sep 3, 2004 (UTC)

This is a strawman. I know that other planets have atmospheres. That was my point. anthony (see warning) 13:35, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Both the Microsoft Manual of Style for Technical Publications and the Chicago Manual of Style give Internet and World Wide Web. Why is this debate even happening? 145.36.24.29 14:51, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I should point out, the distinction may not be apparent to any non-techies (and even to some techies), but as a qualified Computer Engineer I can tell you that to talk about "the internet" is just wrong! The parent poster is right - this debate should not be happening. The only reason that it is, is due to the idiotic "style" decisions of two media companies. Permit me to say "GRRRRRrrr" (I'm fed up being nice - it's a stupid pointless debate). zoney ▓█▒ talk 15:53, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Fair enough - I'm happy to go with the prevailing style manuals. I strongly suspect that decapitalisation will creep in regardless of the rights or wrongs, just through overwhelming common usage of lower case. But I withdraw my I'm all for decapitalisation in light of the arguments above. --[[User:Bodnotbod| bodnotbod » .....TALKQuietly)]] 17:33, Sep 2, 2004 (UTC)

I didn't know they let "qualified Computer Engineers" determine what is right and wrong capitalization. Captialization rules in English are quite arbitrary, and in this situation there isn't a clear right or wrong. All we can go on is common usage, imposing strict rules on the matter is not any more appropriate than imposing a rule that colour is the wrong way to spell color. anthony (see warning) 13:39, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I'm pointing out that the ensuing ambiguity, is from that point of view, appalling - something perhaps not obvious to those judging merely on terms of "style". I will however, refrain from further Grrs, it was a momentary lapse. zoney ▓█▒ talk 16:52, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

It still looks pants. The Worst Style Decision in the World will haunt Us in The Future, I just know it. Still, The Population of this website seem to want it, so I guess we have to go with The Majority Opinion. Oh Well. 213.206.33.82 12:04, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

They should be capitalized, because I like seeing them that way. This may well be a transition that's in the process of happening, or it may not be, but I would like to wait until authoritative print sources such as the American Heritage Dictionary decide it has actually happened. Wired is trying to be cool and ahead of the trend. They hope to be tastemakers. The print version of Wired (does it still exist?) had very weird typography and layout, too, which some saw as cool, but was not widely followed by mainstream periodicals. (The alternating use of what I can only call "inverse video" in their page numbers, for example). There's no logical reason for capitalizing anything. This is all a matter of prevailing taste, style, and custom. Print encyclopedias tend to be present a dignified, conservative typographic personality and so should Wikipedia. Which should be capitalized, even though it can easily be understood without it. I will now lose all claim to credibility by noting that I still spell Hallowe'en with an apostrophe, and used to put a dieresis over the second "o" in coöperate, and hyphenating it (co-operate) if I was using a device that lacked a dieresis. [[User:Dpbsmith| Dpbsmith (talk)]] 13:48, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I mostly agree with these comments (except for liking seeing it that way). Right now there is no real standard in this area, so mass decapitalization would be inappropriate. anthony (see warning) 16:47, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Then we should do what we do with US and UK English, consitent within each article, but tollerate diversity within The Encyclopedia. 195.158.9.78 10:35, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

This makes sense – how can people debate this when some articles use "colour" and others say "color"? For me, the capitalization is the correct way of doing it (and should be in a -pedia) but the common person writes them without the capitals and, tbh, few know the associated grammatical rules. "Internet" has left the jargon compsci world and has been adopted into popular culture – try referring to anything as an internet without people thinking of the Internet. This is the explanation that should be given in the main Internet article. violet/riga (t) 10:53, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Just a note— The Economist decapitalized the “internet” long before Wired. Personally I'm inclined to follow The Economist blindly down any dark path it charts. T-bomb 02:15, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

There are many internets in the world which are not connected to the Internet - and only one Internet. Sentences such as "the internet of intelligence agency <foo> is not connected to the internet", while eventually parseable (albeit allowing of confusion), looks downright ugly if "the Internet" is not a proper noun.

When the people who created internets and the Internet created the terminology (see Internet and Talk:Internet), we very carefully thought all this through, and it's the way it is for a good reason. The BBC guy had it exactly right. The economist, wired et al can take a hike. Noel 00:02, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

So do you really want to say 'my private telephone network is not connected to The Telephone Network that covers most of the rest of The World'? Moooo! 01:44, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

To quote my boss, David Mills - "internet (with a lowercase i) can refer to pretty much any network, whereas Internet (with a capital I) refers to the one and only vast, public Internet" →Raul654 01:49, Sep 8, 2004 (UTC)

But is there any actual evidence that small "i" internet was ever commonly used to refer to "pretty much any network" (or even to any real network) other than in making a pedantic or theoretical point? older ≠ wiser 01:59, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Easily proven -- google for the term "corporate internet" (which generally refers to internal company networks, not the Internet-at-large). It brings 119,000 hits. →Raul654 02:16, Sep 8, 2004 (UTC)

Hmmm, I really don't mean to make such a big deal out of this, but I'm not convinced. If you look at the Google results for the search you suggest, as far as I can tell all of the references are about corporate marketing and presence on the internet rather than the internal use of internet (which I had always heard as intranet as opposed to internet). older ≠ wiser 02:39, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Raul's fond of repeating arguments he doesn't fully comprehend (and dropping names, for that matter). In this sense, an "internet" is the layer of interconnected services bound into a single virtual entity, rather than the transport layer itself (cf. WAN). Corporate intranets (networks with no scope outside the company in question) can also be internets under this definition—which isn't commonly understood in the context of today's technical jargon—but the terms aren't mutually interchangable. Austin Hair 07:34, Sep 8, 2004 (UTC)

Consistent spelling

Do we really have a rule to be consistent within an article on color vs. colour? Personally I just always write "color" but always leave "colour" when it's there. There have been a few times that I "fix" what I thought were misspellings but got reverted and then realized it was just an alternate spelling. I think the key here is tolerance. This isn't an issue worth mass-changing anything over, and it's not an issue to get into a revert war over. It probably does make sense to be consistent within an article for this one, though, as it could get quite confusing otherwise. anthony (see warning) 12:53, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I don't know if it is a policy or not, but inconsistent spelling withing an article looks really amateurish. I go by the following rules, which I may have read something similar to in a style guide:

Context - if it's about a U.S. subject, I use U.S. spelling; UK subjects get UK spelling.
Precedence - I try to find out which was the first spelling used, and adjust all spelling to that dialect. So, if 'color' was used and then 'flavour' was added later, I will change it to 'flavor'.
British - being British, I use British spelling if there is no precedent.

PhilHibbs 09:55, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

As an American, I adhere to American English conventions for spelling (except where the dominant form of the article is British), capitalization (everywhere, per our in-house styleguide), and punctuation (except where prescribed otherwise by the MoS). The Let's Relax policy is a good one, and it seems to have worked well enough for us so far, with the notable exception of some crusading Brits. Austin Hair 00:19, Sep 8, 2004 (UTC)

Of course one oughtn't to forget the crusading Americans, upon which one stumbles more often than the other way round I should think. Several of the articles which I began in British English have been knowingly Americanised (and then, of course, reverted). — Sinuhe 19:39, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

While I've yet to see proven occurences of knowing Americanization, it is true that the dominant spelling convention of an article sometimes shifts during the editing process, eventually leading to a (justified) blanket normalization in the American form; it is also true that certain well-meaning but ignorant editors have been known to make some poorly informed "corrections" from time to time. These changes, however, are almost always made in good faith; only the Brits are blatant in their espousal of "proper" or "international" English. Austin Hair 20:53, Sep 8, 2004 (UTC)

Pardon me, but I've seen plenty of instances of my fellow Americans urgently insisting that en:Wikipedia spelling should follow American practices, for a variety of reasons, including the dominance of U.S. webpages, the location of Wikipedia servers, and even the idea that America has somehow become the de facto ruler of the world. I wish I could believe that these people are always being sardonic, but I think many really believe these are reasons to impose American spellings on the English-speaking world. I think the current en:Wikipedia policies encouraging cooperation and tolerance are much more rational than either extreme view and their eagerly editing adherents. — Jeff Q 03:48, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Compare closely and you'll see that this doesn't contradict my statement in any way. Austin Hair 04:31, Sep 9, 2004 (UTC)

Ah, yes. You did say "'proper' or 'international'". I objected to singling out the Brits' blatant statements, when I've seen even more incendiary ones from Yanks. But I see your point. My apologies. — Jeff Q 22:58, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

As a fair compromise, Wikipedia should mandate Canadian-English spellings everywhere! — Michael Z. 19:19, 2004 Sep 8 (UTC) (joking)

Agreed, so long as it is understood that not every sentence must start with eh. Also, I will revert all edits that try to slip in parkade. func (talk) 04:01, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Usage_and_spelling for the "rule". Rmhermen 19:40, Sep 8, 2004 (UTC)

Percent

Is there any convention about whether to use "%" or "percent"? Maurreen 11 Sep 2004

Hi, Maurreen. :) I have seen both usages occur with about equal frequency. func (talk) 07:17, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

... and it's "per cent" or even "per cent" in British English. Life's so fun.

James F. (talk) 08:46, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I seemed to remember this being codified in the MoS, but apparently I was mistaken. Conventional usage, in both AmE and BrE, is to use "%" when enumerating using Arabic numerals ("25%") and to spell out the word or phrase ("percent" or "per cent," according to dialect) along with (usu. shorter) spelled-out numbers ("five percent"). As for when to use which form, you're on your own, but as a general rule it's best to use Arabic numerals for percentages equal to or greater than ten. Austin Hair 00:38, Sep 13, 2004 (UTC)

Also spell it out if it begins the sentence. Rmhermen 01:03, Sep 13, 2004 (UTC)

Yes, good point, and also if it stands alone. Austin Hair 05:41, Sep 13, 2004 (UTC)

Here are some suggestions from a brief search of online style guides:

use digits with the symbol (' 5 % ' rather than ' five % ')
use decimal forms rather than fractions. e.g. ' 5.25 % ' rather than ' 5¼ % '
The Economist style guide says "Use the sign % instead of per cent. But write percentage, not %age (though in most contexts proportion or share is preferable)." The symbol form is international and is therefore particularly appropriate for an online encyclopedia. The symbol is easier than the word form for people who do not have english as their first language, and requires less effort for those who are kind enough to translate articles into other languages.
Treat the '%' symbol just as if it were any other unit symbol e.g. precede it with a space. For example:

Length	43 m	25 m	59 m
Height	61 m	96 m	53 m
Load	22 %	85 %	49 %
Current	12 W	56 W	43 W
Yield	62 %	77 %	52 %

Bobblewik (talk) 09:13, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Associated Press style is to use figures even if the percentage is less than 10 and to spell out "percent." I think that's easier to read in body copy (in contrast to tabular matter).

The main reason I brought this up was because of the city listings. In the sections on demographics, I was distracted from the actual words by all the percentage signs. Maybe we could go with using the symbol, but encouragement for text that needs more than perhaps a few symbols to be put into a list or table.

Maurreen 13:03, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Links to non-existent articles

The following text has been brought over from the Village pump because I think it is a debate worth having here:

££££££££££££££££££££££££££ Start of copied text ££££££££££££££££££££££££££

Why does clicking on red links bring you to the edit page? -- Sgeo | Talk 01:05, Sep 11, 2004 (UTC)

Because red links go to pages that don't exist (except when the database is confused). -- Cyrius| ✎ 01:07, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Woudn't it be better though to send the user to something like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adslkjfuwr? - Sgeo | Talk 01:13, Sep 11, 2004 (UTC)

Or even better, make it a user preference -- Sgeo | Talk 01:14, Sep 11, 2004 (UTC)

I think that you [or anyone] wil get used to the red pretty quickly. Don't worry about it and it won't bother you. Carptrash 01:37, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Which leads me to another question: what is the current consensus on red links, anyway? It seems like when I first got here red links for potential article subjects were encouraged as placeholders and a way to draw people into editing and creating articles. More recently I've seen lots of articles "cleaned up" of red links, even when this creates some inconsistency in what is linked and what isn't (such as when some albums but not others by a given group have articles). Of course if an article is created later the implication is that all these articles are now lacking links and have to be located and updated. Jgm 01:46, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I think red links make articles harder to read. I also think it has a negative effect on the reader impression of Wikipedia, just as the text "more detail to be added here" makes the encyclopedia look worse. Well-intentioned editors may believe that other people should write particular articles, but it does not mean that they will. Even if they do, the title may differ. Some people assert that they encourage article writing. It is difficult to find out whether there is any significant net benefit. Having the number of persistent red links that we do seems a high price to pay. Bobblewik (talk) 23:29, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Some guidelines: Links to non-existent articles should only be added when the articles in question are supposed to be written. For example, you should not link a person's name unless that person is notable enough to deserve an encyclopedia article. Avoid links on things like individual works (books, albums, etc.) unless you are absolutely certain that the work deserves a separate article of its own, and the main article is already well-developed. Also avoid links on minor fictional characters and in general try to synthesize fiction articles as much as reasonably possible.-- Eloquence *

See Wikipedia:Wikiproject Albums. There is not really much consensus on the specific issue of albums, but common practice indicates that major bands get an article per album (rule of thumb: if people who don't like the genre, much less the band, have often heard of them, each album can have an article; particularly major bands who non-afficionados are probably unfamiliar with can also have an article per album). Ultimately, each issue is separate -- no single guideline can work in all subjects at all times. I recommend abundant linking if you are not sure -- after all, if you do not know whether or not a term needs an article or not, it probably needs, if nothing else, a redirect, and a red link makes that more likely. I suppose the only real answer is to do whatever floats your boat until you have become well-enough versed in Wikipedia to decide based on whatever criteria seems most useful; as long as you don't start any edit wars or anything, disagreements can usually be amicably resolved.

I am probably at the other end of the scale to you then. I recommend that a link should not be created unless an article exists. Links to non-existent articles are not helpful to readers, and may make the experience worse. Could we at least have a guideline that within a single article, the number of links to non-existant articles should not usually exceed 5% of the links on the page? Bobblewik (talk) 20:41, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Sorry for the lack of a concise rule on the subject... Tuf-Kat 07:35, Sep 12, 2004 (UTC)

Surely a red link means that an article is nonexistent as yet and is intended to encourage an editor to create it? A perfectly praiseworthy aim, I would have thought. Dieter Simon 23:22, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

It is a praiseworthy aim. Having an aim is one thing, it is quite another to assume it has been achieved.

What is the effect on readability of having too many links (non-existent and live)?
What is the effect on the impression of the encyclopedia of having 'under construction' artefacts.?
Are there limits to our willingness to expose all our readers to the unfulfilled ambitions of past editors?
Are there any guide lines that a current editor can use to remove a link created by a previous editor?
How many non-existent links are on Wikipedia?
What is the proportion of non-existent links to live links?
How long does it take for a non-existent link to become live?
What is the proportion of non-existent links that do not become live within 6 months (or any other time period) of creation?
How many articles are created because somebody saw a non-existent link?
What is the opportunity cost i.e. if an article is created as a result, is it merely diverting editor effort from other useful work?
Is 95 % of links in a prose article should be live a reasonable guideline to put in the Manual of style.
Am I the only one that questions the issue?

Perhaps we should take this debate to the Manual of style talk page Bobblewik (talk) 10:59, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

££££££££££££££££££££££££££ End of copied text ££££££££££££££££££££££££££

I think the suggestion to make it a user preference is good, but I don't know whether that's feasible.

Maurreen 13:03, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Sorry, but isn't the existence of red links part of the whole wiki-philosophy? I don't want to come across as some kind of crusty old sod, but questions like this tend to incline me to outbursts like "if you don't like red links, go somewhere else where they don't have them". Maybe you'd prefer one of the Wikipedia mirrors where you can't edit the text? -- Phil | Talk 14:31, Sep 13, 2004 (UTC)

A red link bothers me only when I'm sure no one will ever create the article and it probably shouldn't exist anyway. Some people seem to reflexively link just about any proper noun. On the other hand, I don't agree with a numerical guideline. It would be too restrictive in fields where we're weak, but would allow some garbage links for articles in fields that are well covered. JamesMLane 14:54, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with Phil here. Wikipedia IS a substantially unfinished work in progress. I've been noticing quite a few things being suggested around here lately which are coming from a desire to be more than we are. We're big, but there are large fields in which our coverage is incredibly threadbare.

IMO, red links are hugely encouraging to write articles. I suspect a good many editors write their first article because of a red link -- "What, Wikipedia doesn't have an article on THAT yet?" -- and it's great inspiration for when one is at a loss for what to write about. I note some of those complaining about red links are those who rarely start an article from scratch, preferring to work on existing articles; this may be influencing the opinion. —Morven 04:56, Sep 14, 2004 (UTC)

Morven, a specific example from the John Kerry article -- in Kerry's first campaign for Congress, in 1972, one of his opponents in the primary was a state legislator. Kerry beat him in the primary but lost the general election. So this opponent was a Massachusetts state legislator 30-some years ago and never advanced to the U.S. Congress. He's a red link now, but I don't see much chance he'll ever have an article. That's the kind of red link I'm not inclined to favor. On the other hand, if a subject showing up as a red link would make people gasp at the absence of an article, then I agree completely -- red-link it to inspire/prod someone. JamesMLane 05:20, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Gender-neutral language

Moved from the Village pump.

User:Vapier is going around changing instances of "he or she" to "he" with edit summaries of the gender neutral form in English is "he". This is something that is somewhat controversial, so I was surprised to find nothing in the Manual of Style discussing this. Is there anywhere where what we do in this case has been discussed? —Morven 04:39, Sep 14, 2004 (UTC)

I'm going to make a prediction that not enough people would agree with Vapier's changes for consensus within the WP community, so she or he shouldn't be doing it. func (talk) 04:46, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Personally, I am OK with either "he" or "he or she" -- but I reserve the right to chop off the fingers of anyone using singular-they or (shudder) sie/hir ;) →Raul654 05:00, Sep 14, 2004 (UTC)

I agree about the sie/hir pronouns. They're still neologisms. But I don't think the singular they is so bad, myself (see comment below). Yet another option: what do you think of s/he? I think it's a little on the informal side, but wouldn't really care too much if I saw it in articles. • Benc • 05:59, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

It's "he" or, if you want to be PC about it, "they". Simple enough. :-)

James F. (talk) 05:16, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

That sounds fine to me, though there will be some dissenting voices. According to prescriptivists, they is not a singular pronoun. (However, I'm a descriptivist at heart.) The average English speaker uses they as their singular gender-neutral pronoun of choice. (Sorry, bad joke. But you see my point — that sentence parsed just fine despite the their, didn't it?) • Benc • 05:59, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I think singular they is just fine and probably the best option because "he" offends so many people, although I'm fine with "he" myself. I don't like "he or she" or sie; the former is sloppy and sounds repetative when used, and the latter isn't common enough — siro χ o

There is nothing whatsoever wrong with singular they. I don't consider it PC as it has been used for centuries (since the 14th century in fact, I refer you to [3]). People often say that English has no gender neutral pronouns but singular they does the job just fine. — Trilobite (Talk) 06:16, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The best alternative is often to avoid the problem by recasting the sentence, usually by making the subject plural, so then it is gramatically correct to use "they." I think "he" is OK, but I don't know if it's worthy of going on a hunt to change.

"He or she" usuallly sounds clunky; most people wouldn't talk like that in conversation. "They" is inconsistent with the formality called for by the discouragement of contractions.

Maurreen 06:38, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

As has already been pointed out by Trilobite,'they' is the long-standing option of choice and has nothing to do with PC. 18th century prescriptivists attempted to ban it but failed, fortunately. What no earth has 'they' got to do with contractions? Filiocht 07:53, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Gee, if "they" is acceptable, can I go back to have my elementary school grades corrected? Sorry folks, I suffered to learn the difference between singular and plural, and now it's your turn. Mackerm 08:48, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Have a look here: [4] seems your teachers cheated you. Filiocht 09:02, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I strongly favour 'they', because it is gender neutral. : ChrisG 08:57, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Whether or not your teachers were wrong is irrelevent. (Some of us learnt proper grammar, as part of Latin. :-P)

James F. (talk) 09:18, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

This is a religious issue over which there'll never be complete agreement. File it alongside split infinitives, dangling participles and other arcana. The important thing is that whatever is written is easy to read and comprehend. On that basis I have absolutely no problem with the singular they. But anyway, since no amount of argument on either side will resolve this, perhaps we should just proceed to the vote... -- Avaragado 10:43, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Good idea. I see four voting options:

they
he or she
she or he
s/he

Anyone got more they want to add? Filiocht 10:50, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Article creator uses their own preference, subsequent editors maintain consistency on per-page basis.

(As with British/American usage. Because as of 2004 there is no authoritative consensus. See long comment below. [[User:Dpbsmith| Dpbsmith (talk)]] 12:40, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I strongly prefer singular they, but I doubt we can reach a consensus on this that would justify specifying this in the Manual of Style. I could be wrong here, and will be interested to see how it turns out. An alternative would be to explicitly allow more than one style, as we already do with British or American spellings. This could (shock horror) even include variants that don't appear in the four above. Andrewa 12:04, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

As the problem derives from a user who is not allowing more than one style (see above), it may well be that the outcome will to specify in the Manual of Style that variants are acceptable and should not be edited out. If you can think of more variants, please add to the list. As indicated, it is not intended to be complete, just the four I could think of (equal shock, equal horror). Filiocht 12:16, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I think the best practice is the same as what we do now for British/American usage. The creator of an article uses whatever they please, and subsequent editors should keep individual articles clear and consistent without trying to favor one usage over other.

It was true in 1960 that "the gender neutral form is he". It is not true in 2004. What is true in 2004 is that there is no consensus on this point among authorities, as witness the Usage Note from AHD4 below. This note strongly questions whether he is linguistically gender-neutral, and gives a particular case in in which a clear majority chose something other than his but could not agree on what should be used!

AHD4 concludes that "The writer who chooses to use generic he and its inflected forms in the face of the strong trend away from that usage may be viewed as deliberately calling attention to traditional gender roles or may simply appear to be insensitive."

Making systematic wholesale changes in articles that are clear and understandable as written is pushing a POV, in particular a cultural point of view about English usage and is uncalled for.

Here's the full AHD4 usage note: [[User:Dpbsmith| Dpbsmith (talk)]] 12:30, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Traditionally the pronouns he, him, and his have been used as generic or gender-neutral singular pronouns, as in A novelist should write about what he knows best and No one seems to take any pride in his work anymore. Since the early 20th century, however, this usage has come under increasing criticism for reflecting and perpetuating gender stereotyping. •Defenders of the traditional usage have argued that the masculine pronouns he, his, and him can be used generically to refer to men and women. This analysis of the generic use of he is linguistically doubtful. If he were truly a gender-neutral form, we would expect that it could be used to refer to the members of any group containing both men and women. But in fact the English masculine form is an odd choice when it refers to a female member of such a group. There is something plainly disconcerting about sentences such as Each of the stars of As Good As It Gets [i.e., Jack Nicholson and Helen Hunt] won an Academy Award for his performance. In this case, the use of his forces the reader to envision a single male who stands as the representative member of the group, a picture that is at odds with the image that comes to mind when we picture the stars of As Good As It Gets. Thus he is not really a gender-neutral pronoun; rather, it refers to a male who is to be taken as the representative member of the group referred to by its antecedent. The traditional usage, then, is not simply a grammatical convention; it also suggests a particular pattern of thought. •It is clear that many people now routinely construct their remarks to avoid generic he, usually using one of two strategies: changing to the plural, so they is used (which is often the easiest solution) or using compound and coordinate forms such as he/she or he or she (which can be cumbersome in sustained use). In some cases, the generic pronoun can simply be dropped or changed to an article with no change in meaning. The sentence A writer who draws on personal experience for material should not be surprised if reviewers seize on that fact is complete as it stands and requires no pronoun before the word material. The sentence Every student handed in his assignment is just as clear when written Every student handed in the assignment. •Not surprisingly, the opinion of the Usage Panel in such matters is mixed. While 37 percent actually prefer the generic his in the sentence A taxpayer who fails to disclose the source of &rule3m; income can be prosecuted under the new law, 46 percent prefer a coordinate form like his or her; 7 percent felt that no pronoun was needed in the sentence; 2 percent preferred an article, usually the; and another 2 percent overturned tradition by advocating the use of generic her, a strategy that brings the politics of language to the reader's notice. Thus a clear majority of the Panel prefers something other than his. The writer who chooses to use generic he and its inflected forms in the face of the strong trend away from that usage may be viewed as deliberately calling attention to traditional gender roles or may simply appear to be insensitive. See Usage Notes at each, every, neither, one, she, they.

— American Heritage Dictionary, 4th edition

I strongly agree with the general idea of following the same practice as used concerning British or American spelling. That is, generally following following the practice of the first contributor.

But I would refine it somewhat. Any choice may be controversial, but at least the following are all widely used:

"he"

"he or she"

"she or he"

"they"

I would also allow mixing up "he" and "she," as long as the context is clear.

And I think it's OK to change sentences to fullfill both purposes. For example, "Each student must bring his own pencil," could be rewriten as "All students must bring their own pencil."

But I would discourage artificial forms such as "s/he." That is not widely used and can be jarring to the reader. Also, can it be pronounced any way other than "she," which goes against the purpose?

Maurreen 15:36, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

looks like i started this whole mess ... and i've only been a user for ~24 hours now ;)

User:Smrits was kind enough to point out this thread while User:Snowspinner was 'kind enough' to threaten me with banning, but whatever

i'll just toss in what i was thinking when i started doing this ... my elementary school, like some others, taught me that 'he' is the gender neutral form as well as the masculine ... some others here remember that as well

however, no matter how you cut it, using 'he' just doesnt *seem* right, as this thread (and many others on the internet can attest) ... ignoring the PC issue (which is complete BS imho) and the 'religious issue' (i dont think it's ever been religious), and again working with what others have pointed out, this discussion has existed for many years before any of us here were born :)

googling (english gender neutral pronouns) for more background yields these general consensus's:

he (and related pronouns like 'man') historically were gender neutral; over time the masculine form was dropped and the gender neutral forms took on duel rolls
no one can agree on the 'official proper form'
'he or she', 'she or he', 's/he', 'she/he', etc... are (as someone else put it) jarring to the reader

also, if you review any professional printed encyclopedia material out there, i *highly* doubt you will find any instances of 'he or she', 'he/she', 's/he', etc...

On page 485 of volume 8, DEM-EDW of The Encyclopaedia Britannica, 11th edition, DRAMA, section 3, Chinese drama, you will read:

The chief character of a play represents the author as well as the personage; he or she is hero or heroine and chorus in one.

Googling on site:www.gutenberg.net "he or she" turns up examples from such well-regarded writers of English as Frances Hodgson Burnett, Oliver Wendell Holmes, Bret Harte, Edward Bellamy, James Fenimore Cooper, L. Frank Baum, Andrew Lang, George Bernard Shaw, Anthony Trollope, Henry James, George Meredith, and, indeed:

And Gareth answered her with kindling eyes,

'Gold?' said I gold?--ay then, why he, or she,

Or whosoe'er it was, or half the world

Had ventured--had the thing I spake of been

Mere gold--but this was all of that true steel,

Whereof they forged the brand Excalibur...

— Tennyson, Idylls of the King

"He or she" is not a recent coinage. [[User:Dpbsmith| Dpbsmith (talk)]] 22:56, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

so, if my vote matters at all, i would say the policy should be:

try to rewrite your work such that the gender pronoun isnt used (but doesnt affect the quality of the work)
if you're forced to use a gender neutral pronoun, 'they' is the suggested form, but you may use 'he'

SpanKY 22:05, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

It may be a coincidence, but this issue came up recently in the article on the famous Milgram psychology experiment. The British Psychological Society style guide discourages the use of 'he' when sex is not necessarily male.

<begin quote>£££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££

10.1 Sex-specific language

b. Pronouns

Singular personal pronouns (he, she and their cognates) often cause problems. There are various possible strategies for coping with this:

rephrasing into the plural: When a child is disruptive he often -> When children are disruptive they often
rephrasing to avoid using a pronoun: After the client has been greeted by the counsellor he is asked to take a seat. -> After being greeted by the counsellor the client is asked to take a seat.
using plural pronouns: You should sit at the same level as the young person so that you are not towering above him. -> You should sit at the same level as the young person so that you are not towering above them.
replacing the pronoun with an article: The participant completes his task. -> The participant completes the task.
simply omitting the pronoun: The trainee must hand in his project work by the end of the course. -> The trainee must hand in project work by the end of the course.

There are other ways of avoiding the problem, but these often look clumsy or read oddly and should not be used:

using both male and female pronouns (e. g. he or she ; her or him ), though this solution is acceptable in isolated instances;
alternating between he and she, etc.; and
using the formula s/ he.

Making an introductory statement that he, etc. embraces she, etc. is not acceptable.

<end quote>£££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££

Other examples found online:

Change to plural

Man, like other mammals, breastfeeds his young. -> Humans, like other mammals, breastfeed their young.

Humanity is also an acceptable singular alternative to Man. func (talk) 18:31, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Not in this case. The possessive that corresponds to humanity is its, which we prefer not to use to refer to people, generally. --[[User:Aranel| Aranel (" Sarah")]] 23:12, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Rephrase

Man's search for knowledge has led him into ways of learning that require examination. -> The search for knowledge has led us into ways of learning that require examination.

Avoid personal pronoun

The client is usually the best judge of the value of his counseling. -> The client is usually the best judge of the value of counseling. or Clients are usually the best judges of the value of the counseling they receive. or The best judge of the value of counseling is usually the client.

I sometimes make edits similar to the above. This is just another thing that some editors consider. Others think it is not important. It is not worth getting into a holy war about it. If user:Vapier (or anyone else) is motivated enough to make an edit, then contributions are welcome as long as they do not merely change 'she' to 'he'.

Bobblewik (talk) 16:39, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The Chicago Manual of Style says "Using he, his, and him as common-sex pronouns is now widely considered sexist, if not misleading," but it also frowns on he/she, s/he, or the singular they. "His or her" and "he or she" is the default, then, with the real directive being to recast sentences to avoid these problems ever coming up.

Since I am a firm believer in following legitimate style guides, I'm going to say "Let's go with he or she." Snowspinner 18:21, Sep 14, 2004 (UTC)

I strongly agree. In some cases there are also plenty of ways to slightly alter your sentence to avoid the use of either she or he. Exploding Boy 18:41, Sep 14, 2004 (UTC)

Can someone explain this jarring to the reader thing to me? I have seen, heard, spoken, and written he or she in various places throughout the whole of my life without giving it any thought until I came here to Wikipedia and discovered there is apparently an issue with it. And by the way, "PC"' and "political correctness" are not the dirty words some of you are making them out to be. Language usage that seeks to be inclusive is an appropriate goal for any literary effort. Generally, I agree with efforts to re-word sentences, but the occasional he or she isn't going to jar anyone who isn't simply too jarrible to begin with. func (talk) 22:57, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

In any case, everyone was taught something difference in this regard. We're going to have a hard time mandating one option and then getting people to even remember to follow it. I would think that a good compromise might be, "try to avoid using gender-specific pronouns if you can; if it's necessary to use them, try to avoid accidentally giving an impression of exclusivity". --[[User:Aranel| Aranel (" Sarah")]] 23:12, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Excellent wording. Jallan 23:31, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Agreed. This can go into the Manual as is, methinks. We might need to append a sentence about what not to use, though. Judging from the above comments, the consensus appears to be "Please avoid terms that are not widely used (e.g., sie and hir, s/he, and Spivak pronouns)." • Benc • 01:45, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

OK, how about we vote on these choices for "personal pronouns":

Article creators use their own preference and subsequent editors maintain consistency on a per-page basis. (As with British and American usage)
Try to avoid using gender-specific pronouns if you can. When they are necessary, try to avoid an impression of exclusivity.
Leave out of the style guide until there is either more consensus or more of a problem than a single user making widespread but controversial changes.

I'll take No. 1 or 3, in that order. Maurreen 06:19, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

1 and 2. I don't think simply remaining silent about it is a good option: if one new user did it, more will in the future as Wikipedia continues to grow. It's also in Wikipedia's best interests to have the Manual of Style be as comprehensive as possible (without being excessively wordy, which is what I'm being — sorry. :-)). • Benc • 07:15, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
3, except give some guidance. I don't like following the British English/American English model because sometimes one solution is OK in one context but not OK for something that comes up later. By "some guidance" I mean that the style guide should address points on which there appears to be consensus: Don't use sie/hir; don't do wholesale changes of other users' preferences; strive for clarity; consider the full range of alternatives when editing a problem sentence. JamesMLane 07:37, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
2 and 1 in that order. I.e., avoid if possible and if it can't be avoided, be be consistent on an article by article basis (while also being tolerant of different preferences). older ≠ wiser 11:54, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
2 and 1 in that order. Plus: state positively that as of 2004 there is no consensus among authorities. Plus: note that "s/he" is disliked; and that sie and hir are not in general use, not in dictionaries, and should not be used. [[User:Dpbsmith| Dpbsmith (talk)]] 12:14, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
2 is the only acceptable choice here. It is untrue that there is no consensus among authorities - he has been soundly rejected by all styleguides, which contain sections on gender-neutral language. The solution is generally "Since none of us agree on what the alternative should be, recast the sentence." Snowspinner 14:14, Sep 15, 2004 (UTC)
2. 1 seems like it would involve more internal consistency than is always stylistically appropriate. (If the one writer uses "he or she", that's fine, but it does get awkward if used repeatedly.) --[[User:Aranel| Aranel (" Sarah")]] 14:33, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
3 because I do not think there is consensus and I believe that the problem has been blown up more than a little. My only desire has been to ensure that the use of 'they' should be allowed. Filiocht 14:43, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
2, in that order. Exploding Boy 15:24, Sep 15, 2004 (UTC)
2. Number 1 doesn't work, as there is no need for consistancy within an article on this point. An article talking about sailors might quite sensibly use he and him when referring to the nineteenth century and earlier but try to be gender neutral in referring to the present. An author should be allowed to use he or she in one sentence and use they in another, whichever best fits the flow of the language. 3 would be the second choice, as there has been no problem till now. When all style guides agree, we don't need to list their agreement here except for recurring problems (otherwise we will end up with a longer version of the Chicago Manual of Style). The Wikipedia style guide should be a quick reference to points where Wikipedia has some specific preference not covered in some style guides or which disagrees with some style guides. It should also be a quick reference to points where people again and again tend to go wrong. For the rest, use any good style guide. Jallan 17:06, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I'll go with "they," for sure. L33tminion 15:53, Sep 15, 2004 (UTC)

"he or she" shows preference to the male (by putting it first), but "she or he" is non-idiomatic, and "s/he" is, in my opinion, a clunky artificial construction that I don't think should be used in an intellectual work.
"They" is acquiring the single person animate gender neutral connotation in English speech, just as the plural "you" eclipsed the role of the singular "thee."
In specific situations where "they" is confusing, I would go with "he or she" (because I pick the more idiomatic phrase)
Also "one" is commanly used when talking about an individual in general (especially because using the second or first person in a reference book or essay is frowned upon; i.e. using "one can see" instead of "you can see," etc.)

Just to throw in my opinion: Wikipedia's tone is in many cases somewhat more conversational than your average encyclopedia. While I don't expect to see singular they in Brittanica, I think it's quite reasonable on a Wikipedia page, since it's already familiar to all English speakers from conversation and it's not stilted or awkward. That said, I agree with the grammar guides that say first recast the sentence if you can do so without making it more awkward. The use of he is sexist, but traditional — I think it's okay for editors who prefer it to use it, and others who care more can clean it up later. The use of she is a ridiculous attempt at political correctness that is at both sexist and non-traditional, and so should not be used. Some books claim suggest using he and she alternatedly, but this is no less sexist and additionally confusing.

Another handy workaround is to use an example scenario, like this: "Suppose Debby were a librarian working in Denmark, who wanted to blah blah blah. Then she would have to pay her taxes to her hamster."

Derrick Coetzee 17:53, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

We seem to have consensus that number 2 is worthy of the manual. The policy is conceptually simple, and in most cases is easy to implement. I propose that something to that effect goes in the manual.

I think that rewording an article is easier than describing how to do it. As an experiment, I took some of the articles that prompted this topic and reworded them (I did some other edits at the same time). See:

Feel free to criticise/amend my rewording. If you look at Vapier's contributions and User:Smrits contributions, you should be able to try one for yourself. Perhaps people here might want to try doing one for real and seeing how sufficient that proposal number 2 is.

There is a majority, but not a strong one. I’d like to suggest the following compromise, under "personal pronouns", based on suggestions by JamesMLane and the British Psychological Society:

Many people see gender-neutral pronouns as important, but possible solutions are controversial. We do have consensus on striving for clarity, avoiding wholesale changes of other users' preferences, and considering a broad range of alternatives.

The problem can often be avoided, as shown by this advice quoted from the

The British Psychological Society style guide:

rephrasing into the plural: When a child is disruptive he often -> When children are disruptive they often
rephrasing to avoid using a pronoun: After the client has been greeted by the counsellor he is asked to take a seat. -> After being greeted by the counsellor the client is asked to take a seat.
using plural pronouns: You should sit at the same level as the young person so that you are not towering above him. -> You should sit at the same level as the young person so that you are not towering above them.
replacing the pronoun with an article: The participant completes his task. -> The participant completes the task.
simply omitting the pronoun: The trainee must hand in his project work by the end of the course. -> The trainee must hand in project work by the end of the course.

Does anyone object to that policy? Maurreen 03:52, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm a late-comer to the discussion: This sounds good although I'd still argue that "Rather than towering over the young person, sit at the same level." avoids the plural pronoun and is better writing. IMHO, it's hard to come up with examples where there's no good alternative to the plural pronoun (although I'm sure some exist because I occasionally encounter them). Elf | Talk 18:52, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The policy that was preferred by the majority above (I fail to understand how seven out of nine votes constitutes "a majority, but not a strong one") is basically what you describe. I'm not sure it's necessary to spell it out in such detail. Perhaps there could be a separate page listing possible techniques? --[[User:Aranel| Aranel (" Sarah")]] 19:06, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

New choices? -- Second vote

Possibly I miscounted. My tally is six people voted for No. 2, and the other choices got four votes (myself, Benc, JamesMLane, and Filiocht).

I'm not pushing for detail, just trying to find what's least objectionable to the most people.

How about these choices, in order by length:

Generally avoid making wholesale changes to others users' preferences.
Try to avoid using gender-specific pronouns if you can. When they are necessary, try to avoid an impression of exclusivity.
Many people see gender-neutral pronouns as important, but possible solutions are controversial. We do have consensus on striving for clarity, avoiding wholesale changes of other users' preferences, and considering a broad range of alternatives.

I'll take either No. 1 or No. 3.

Both addresse the original problem, both are based on broad areas of agreement, and I think "he" is often OK, or at least no worse than the most commonly used alternatives. - Maurreen 04:33, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

1, 2, and 3 are all equally acceptable to me, in any combination. I also propose linking to m:Quest for gender-neutral pronouns. • Benc • 07:29, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Deleted from style guide

I deleted the following because it doesn't give much guidance and I think any entry should wait until we conclude the discussion. Maurreen 17:51, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Currently, the style conventions for gender-neutral singular personal pronouns are unclear. ("It" generally only refers to inanimate objects (or sometimes just non-humans) and is therefore an impersonal pronoun.) Five alternatives have been proposed:

"he or she" (disputed as favoring males)
"she or he" (disputed as being non-idomatic and favoring females)
"s/he" (disputed as being an "artificial and clunky construction", favoring females, and being gramatically incorrect)
"they" (disputed as being gramatically incorrect as a singular pronoun)
"one" (disputed as being not applicable to many situations and impersonal)

I was the one that added this. It seems likely that consesus will not be reached on this issue for some time, and I think that listing the proposed alternatives (and the reasons why they are disputed) would be more informative than merely posting a link to the talk page, where a reader must dig through this long debate to find that information. I think that in situations where consensus is unlikely in the near future, the article should attempt to summarize the debate on an issue, thus providing information (even though not giving a definate answer). In my opinion, this is a better alternative than merely leaving part of the article blank. I recomend that this information be restored to the section (while still retaining the link to the talk page citing the ongoing discussion. -- L33tminion 06:27, Sep 16, 2004 (UTC)

True or false??

True or false: there has been enough discussion about gender-neutral language so that we should have a poll on what pronouns to use. 66.245.118.119 01:11, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Should we cite serial comma opposition?

Tired of the incessant omission of serial commas in many Wikipedia articles, bolstered no doubt by the odious standards set by nearly all print and online news sources that I've recently read, I finally went to my local library and reviewed every major work on writing style that they had in the Reference section. The only one that disagreed with the consensus described in this article under Commas was The New York Times Manual of Style and Usage, 1st edition, 1999. Yet everyone seems to be following it! Are we so lazy that we can't be troubled to add a single comma, just because some upstart authority (compared to the Oxford, Harvard, and even Chicago University Presses) decided it needed the fractional character space taken by a punctuation mark that sometimes isn't necessary for clarity? (Excuse me while I take a few deep breaths. ☺) Anyway, since omitting the serial comma is so prevalent in popular writing, I wonder if we should cite in the main article the solitary exception to this consensus, pointing out that its motives are likely not based on clarity but rather ink and paper conservation. Comments? — Jeff Q 23:20, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

From Comma before "and":

Although grammar gurus abandoned that comma rule for a while in the twentieth century, we have since realized that using the serial comma (as it is called) is a good idea ...

For years omission of the serial comma was the recommendation of many prestigeous style sheets and was taught in many schools. It is not unsensible. If we write "Tom and Jerry", should we not write "Bob, Tom and Jerry" rather than "Bob, Tom, and Jerry"? If you don't need a blob of punctuation then why not get rid of it except when it is really necessary for sense. That being said, though style guides have moved back to supporting serial commas for other reasons, it does take time for people to catch up, to learn that what they were taught in school as correct (that is what the supposed experts recommended) and which was common enough in many books is suddenly wrong (that what supposed experts recommend against). And even if they realize that rules have changed, there are old habits to unlearn. I'm not sure of when the swing one way started and when the swing back occurred, a swing obviously still not complete or people would not so often omit the serial comma here. What one would like to read is the whole story: where the omission started, and how it spread, and when the pendulum began swinging the other way. I don't know the story. And in another twenty years many style sheets may be again recommending that one not use serial comma except when needed for sense. Who knows?

Jallan 00:26, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Well, my problem with "Bob, Tom and Jerry" is that it makes Tom and Jerry seem more closely associated with one another than either is with Bob... john k 01:40, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Just an observation. The serial comma is not normally used in Ireland, or, I believe in Britain or Australia. Filiocht 12:19, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The "serial" comma is not, no; here (UK) it's called the "Oxford" comma, and is both very widely used and supported.

James F. (talk) 12:38, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

It's also known as the "Harvard" comma, in case anyone is wondering. I suspect "serial" comma is used to avoid implications of primarily British or American usage. — Jeff Q 07:26, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

This has no weight really, but I just think the serial comma looks messy; why add unnecessary punctuation? If its an ambiguous case, then use I use it, if not, I don't. I was tought in grade school to use it, but I always hated that (: — siro χ o

I don't buy the "unnecessary punctuation" argument. One doesn't lose any sense by omitting commas before quotations, as in:

She said "I don't believe it."

but that doesn't give one license to omit such punctuation willy-nilly. Sense itself is usually clear when citing the list in isolation, out of context, although I agree with john that omission can imply greater association between the last two items. But context makes all the difference. There are cases where a serial comma introduces ambiguity, just as there are cases where omitting it does. There is no simple way to avoid this, because the comma has many distinct uses which may overlap in a single sentence or even phrase.

HOWEVER, this is beside my original point. I'm not looking to challenge the existing policy. I'm just asking for opinions on whether we should cite the New York Times exception, and, if so, whether any explanation can or should be given, since many people may wonder why we (and every modern authority except NYT) don't follow a common practice. — Jeff Q 07:45, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I would rather see a listing of style guides that do support it. I suspect a number of newspapers besides the New York Times have similar style rules about not using serial comma. Not using serial comma is a common practice and has been a common practice as my first post here indicated. The problem is not the New York Times guidelines especially, which most people don't know, but that stylistic conventions and practice of a number of publication style sheets have changed during the past thirty years (and people don't know that either). They do know, often, that some print sources use serial comma and some don't, and therefore, in a general way, either is an acceptable practice and so choose to follow whichever practice they want in their own writing, if not under compulsion to follow a particular style. They may not realize that Wikipedia does request editors to use serial comma style or they may forget to do so out of habit. Anyone who does know the the standards laid down here and who is purposely going against them, making more work for otthers, should be told, politely to stop. If the editor doesn't, then, I suppose there is nothing for it but harsher measures. It sounds stupid to make a fuss over something so trivial. But why should others have to clean up after someone who is purposely making a mess. Jallan 17:33, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Oooh, yes, let's punish them horribly! Make them change all "--" to "—" and vice versa in all articles! I don't think we need to justify the use of serial commas or even necessarily point out that some people use it only sometimes. Most style guides don't justify it; they just say do it. So do we. It's nice to feel authoritative. Karen Elizabeth Gordon, in The New Well-Tempered Sentence, says, "When the last two elements in a series are joined by a conjunction, a comma comes before the conjunction—unless you're a journalist." So maybe we should just punish all journalists ahead of time on general principle?

Just for entertainment: Lyn Dupre in Bugs in Writing says, "In Great Britain, writers use open punctation, in which ...for example, the series comma is omitted. In the United states, it is correct to use closed punctuation, in which such commas are included. Certain magazines and various informal arenas choose to use open punctuation; in formal writing in the U.S., however, it is correct to use closed punctuation." Maybe we should just punish all Brits in advance just in case they're thinking about leaving off the series/serial/Oxford/Harvard comma? And then add insult to injury by making rude comments about their spelling? Elf | Talk 18:10, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I don't feel strongly either way, but the Associated Press stylebook, which most U.S. newspapers go by, is generally against serial commas. Maurreen 17:51, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

OK, from my assortment of style guides:

Always use series comma: Chicago, Microsoft Manual of Style for Technical Publications (I'm not a microsoft fan, but this is a nice book), The New Well-Tempered Sentence (see above), Bugs in Writing (see above), Strunk and White, The Elements of Grammar (although notes "some writers prefer to omit this comma")
Usually use except sometimes maybe you don't have to: REA's Handbook of English Grammar, Style, and Writing; The Merriam-Webster Concise Guide for Writers (which also observes, "Most reference books, and most other book-length works of nonfiction use the serial comma. In all other categories of publishing, according to our evidence, usage is evenly or nearly evenly divided on the use or omission of this comma."); Woe is I (notes that it's optional but recommends using it)
Optional except when required to make meaning clear: The Holt Guide to English

Elf | Talk 18:26, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Oh, and near as I can tell, Encyclopaedia Britannica uses the serial comma. Elf | Talk 18:33, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

On the order of names

I'd like to propose that all names, in all languages, are given as [Family name] [comma] [Given name] in article titles (as, for example: Parker, Sarah Jessica). This would solve a lot of problems related to name orders which contradict the common English order of [Given name] [Family name]. Exploding Boy 21:43, Sep 15, 2004 (UTC)

How about just keep it in the order it should be in for all name orders, as there is nothing stopping us from doing that. That would make more sense, as thats what the peoples names really are. The [Family name] [comma] [Given name] seems like a real waste of the flexibility of wikis and computers in general. Also, I really like how articles about people are titled with their real name, and yet can be listed in categories under thier family name. — siro χ o

Nonsense, perfect, if you ask me. This is the Wikipedia, English.

Wetman 07:52, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Other than being entertained by Wetman, User, I think we have to consider how most people will access the information. I'm guessing that almost everyone would type "Sarah Jessica Parker" and almost no one would start with "Parker, Sarah Jessica". Which means we'd also have to add redirects for every name in its natural order--and I'm not sure that it makes sense to always have the redirect be the text that's most commonly accessed. Although I certainly appreciate the challenges in our culture's tendency to sort by last name even though the last name comes--um--last. Wreaks havoc in my personal address book, I'll tell ya. Elf | Talk 18:39, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Exploding Boy might try looking up Family name and see what a mess his system would create. To begin with, not everyone has a family name. There are numerous incompatible systems of nomenclature, present and past. What benefit if the article on Hamlet were renamed to , Hamlet and the article on Henry VIII was renamed to Tudor, Henry, VIII or something similar and the article on Björk was renamed to , Björk, Guðmundsdóttir or something similar? Jallan 21:33, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The reason I brought it up is largely because there has been an ongoing dispute regarding the order of Japanese names (and, to a lesser extent, Chinese and Korean names), which are normally given, in their respective languages, as FN-GN. Right now on Wikipedia, some names are given in GN-FN order, some are given as FN-GN, and probably a variety of other ways as well.

The argument about redirect pages is answered easily: Wikipedia is not paper.

The argument about single names (eg: Cher, Hamlet, etc) or people without family names is specious. Clearly single names don't require a comma. There's nothing wrong with Tudor, Henry, VIII, and since Björk is her first name, the article would be titled Guðmundsdóttir, Björk, not the other way around (though it's debatable whether an article on Bjork really needs to include her last name in the title at all).

It's quite simple really:

articles on people with single names or who are best known by only one name would be titled with that name (thus, Madonna, not Ciccone, (Esther) Madonna Louise Veronica)
articles on people well known by both names would be FN, GN (as Clinton, Bill)
Articles on people whose name includes some embedded title would be in the normal order (thus Atilla the Hun, not Hun, Atilla the)

This is both encyclopaedic and bibliographical style, and it would quickly solve a lot of problems with name order. Exploding Boy 15:35, Sep 17, 2004 (UTC)

No this doesn't solve problems. It creates many new ones. Forcing use to move 10,000's of articles, requiring redirects from GN FN to the new format, etc. This is a very old established convention and there is no need to change it. Foreign name formats have been handled at Wikipedia:Naming Conventions. Rmhermen 16:20, Sep 17, 2004 (UTC)

This is a terrible idea. Among other things, this makes the situation for other languages where given name comes second even worse. Will we have Mao, Zedong? john k 16:58, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The only possible reason for quoting personal names in this fashion is to allow them tp be sorted into, or looked up in, alphabetical order. Wikipedia is not paper and there is therefore no enforced order: you could produce an article List of People sorted by the third letter of their middle name if they have one or else not if you really wanted and this would produce, if not a helpful article, an interesting insight into the processes of your mind (just as this particular edit is an insight into mine at this tag-end of an…interesting Friday). You would then be subject to merciless editing, or more likely instant targeting by the list-phobics, and your list would be gone. That's got to be enough, it's Friday, just go home for goodness' sake! -- Phil | Talk 17:10, Sep 17, 2004 (UTC)

Yes, Mao, Zedong is desirable if for no other reason than that people will then be aware that he was not Mr. Zedong, just as Koizumi Junichiro isn't Mr. Junichiro and Kim Il-sung isn't Mr. Il-Sung. Exploding Boy 22:15, Sep 17, 2004 (UTC)

Not only is this idea blatantly bad, but it contradicts our policy about locating the article at the most common english name. →Raul654 22:17, Sep 17, 2004 (UTC)

Ah, another constructive post from Raul. Exactly why is it "blatantly bad," Raul? And how does it contradict the policy? People would still be under their most commonly used name, they'd just be listed in a more encyclopaedic and all-round more user-friendly style, because EVERYONE would be listed family name-first, rather than just a few people. Exploding Boy 22:41, Sep 17, 2004 (UTC)

This idea is blatantly bad because

You're talking about moving tens of thousands of articles, which realistically is never going to happen (and if you tried, you'd never get them all). And then of course there's the little matter of getting people to write new articles at [[family name, given name]] which is also never going to happen. Oh, and good luck trying to get everyone else to agree to it. (because if you think I'm being stubborn, you haven't seen anything yet)
Our policy is that: "Generally, article naming (IE, where the article is located) should give priority to what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity" - Harry Truman is quite a bit more obvious than Truman, Harry - it's almost more recognizable. This proposal violates our naming policy.
If you want to link to someone now, you have to use [[Truman, Harry|Harry Truman]] instead of simply [[Harry Truman]]. All instances of [[Harry Truman]] now point to a redirect.
On the other hand, what exactly do we gain by creating this mess for ourserlves? The vast majority of our biographical articles use the western custom of given name, family name. So for the vast majority of our biographic articles, this policy only creates problems. →Raul654 22:52, Sep 17, 2004 (UTC)

Just one comment: people with a patronymic but without a family name are normally sorted on their first name, thus Björk Guðmundsdóttir, not Guðmundsdóttir, Björk, even in cases where other names are sorted with family name first. (As a matter of fact, the entire Icelandic phonebook is sorted according to first name.) However, I wouldn't trust most contemporary, Anglophone contributors on Wikipedia to recognize the difference between a patronymic and a family name, and if the unnecessarily complicated way of writing "last name" first would be implemented, names with a patronymic will no doubt often be written in the wrong order. // Tupsharru 06:07, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Capitalization of compass directions with proper nouns

I've done some searching and come to the conclusions that (a) we don't currently have a policy on this and (b) this is the right place to raise the issue. Apologies if I'm mistaken.

Capitalization in Wikipedia articles is not consistent as regards the following usages. Can we adopt official policies and include them in our MoS? Have I missed the fact that we already have them? Or is this not the sort of thing we need to adopt specific policies for?

I know I'm supposed to be bold, but I didn't think unilateral changes to the Manual of Style were quite what was intended. Comments on these proposals are solicited.

{S,s}outheastern Pennsylvania

Clearly one heads north when one is going to North Dakota, but does one go to Southeastern Pennsylvania or southeastern Pennsylvania? If something comes from the Pacific Northwest, is it Northwestern or northwestern? I'm inclined to say the latter, i.e. to use lowercase, and the Chicago Manual of Style seems to back me up at the bottom of [5].

The {W,w}estern world

However, I think that Western and Eastern, when they refer to the cultures of the two hemispheres, are special cases. Western music, for example, is inconsistent, and I don't know which way to correct it. I guess I'd prefer capitals in this case, e.g. "I've spent six semesters studying Western philosophy and I'm sick of hearing about Western beliefs and customs", but I don't feel strongly about it.

It is customary to refer to the North as opposed to the American South (the latter article demonstrates appropriate capitalizations of related terms), and it would be inaccurate and potentially confusing to do otherwise, since "South" is a proper noun referring to a geographical and cultural reason and "south" is a direction on the compass. It's important to consider the context—I suppose it depends most basically on whether the word is being used as a proper noun or an adjective. --[[User:Aranel| Aranel (" Sarah")]] 18:47, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

American South isn't entirely consistent either, but here's what I'm getting out of it:

The East and West parts of the world, the North and South parts of the U.S., and other similarly named regions such as the Pacific Northwest, the Midwest, etc., are all capitalized.
Their adjectival forms are likewise capitalized, so that people or things from the South are Southern, from the Midwest are Midwestern, etc.
However, directional words that refer to a general region of a defined area are not capitalized, so that one speaks of southeastern Pennsylvania or north Idaho, and people and things from those places are southeastern or northern, at least relative to people and things from other parts of the states. This convention will certainly help distinguish west Virginia from West Virginia.
Unfortunately, following these rules requires knowledge of the correct proper noun. Apparently, South Central Los Angeles is a proper name, so it's not south central Los Angeles, but you have to know that or be able to look it up.

I'll allow a few days for objections/additions, then I'd like to try to clean this up and post it on the project page. — Triskaideka 19:21, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)