Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 142

This is an archive of past discussions on Wikipedia:Manual of Style. 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 135

←

Archive 140

Brief informative headings

This is a reminder for the attention of all editors of WT:MOS or of any other talk page. Brief informative headings (and subheadings, and so forth) help all of us to use the table of contents (of a talk page, either active or archived) and to follow changes to watchlisted pages. A simple glance at a heading in a table of contents or in a watchlist can often be enough to help an editor to decide whether to investigate a discussion further.
A heading does not need to contain every detail describing a discussion, but should contain enough information to convey, as narrowly as it can within practical limits, the scope of the discussion. Attitudinal words (whether they are positive or neutral or negative) are generally wasted words when they are in a heading. Topical words help to identify the topic of a discussion.
Subheadings can often be more challenging than main headings, but concise informativeness can be achieved when a subheading repeats briefly some or all of the main heading and then adds information specific to the section. A subheading "Arbitrary break" appearing in a watchlist (or in a link on a talk page) contains very little useful information.
Concise informativeness is a skill to be developed by practice. (If any professional instructor is reading this, then that person can incorporate the teaching of this skill into the report-writing part of the teaching program. The benefits of that skill can be applied to e-mail subject lines and to advertising and marketing.)
Here are links to archived discussions.

Here is an external link to additional information.

Microcontent: How to Write Headlines, Page Titles, and Subject Lines

Brief informative headings in WT:MOS can help me (or anyone else) to maintain Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Register. Brief informative headings can help all of us to use that page and Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive Directory efficiently. I understand that, when there is an issue raised about a style guideline, editors can be very absorbed in trying to settle it and unaware of unintended consequences. However, I request help from all editors so that those pages can be maintained and used with minimal time being spent in studying future past discussions. Then, when a discussion will have been archived, it will be more accessible and more easily documented. Past discussions are in the past, but henceforth we can all spend time in forming brief informative headings.
—Wavelength (talk) 00:09, 24 June 2013 (UTC) and 22:47, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Brief informative headings are important for convenient maintenance of Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Register. That page was recently discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Register. At 16:19, 26 June 2013 (UTC) and at 18:30, 26 June 2013 (UTC), I added to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Register#Punctuation inside or outside many links to archived discussions about the position of quotation marks in relation to other punctuation. I found them (at least generally) by searching for logical punctuation in the archives.
—Wavelength (talk) 19:53, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Social dynamics of WP:MOS and WT:MOS

From the top of the page of the revision history of WP:MOS, there is a link to a list of contributors. Likewise, from the top of the page of the revision history of WT:MOS, there is a link to a list of contributors.
Some editors have been contributing to these two pages for many years, but some editors are relatively new to doing so. (I sometimes see contributions from editors whose usernames I do not recognize.) Consequently, some editors are very familiar with editing here, but others are unfamiliar with the social atmosphere and with past and present discussions. Sometimes, things need to be explained to new editors and maybe even re-explained to veteran editors. Also, every editor needs time to become acquainted with every other editor in regard to personality and in regard to knowledge and skills related to writing style. (Ideally, attention to personality and aptitude would not matter so much, and more focus can be given to sources and reasonings, but realistically that seems to be difficult at this time.) Harmonious interactions among editors are helped by stable relationships, which might be limited by Dunbar's number.
If every editor of Wikipedia (with the possible exception of beginners until a time limit is reached) is required to be a member of at least one WikiProject and at most an undetermined number of WikiProjects (possibly five or ten), and if membership in a WikiProject gives privileges not available to non-members, then Wikipedia:WikiProject Manual of Style might function better (than it does now) with a more limited and more carefully chosen set of participants. If every Wikipedian can have a voice (and possibly a vote in preliminary polls) but only members can have a vote in final decisions, then decisions might be made more efficiently and consensuses might be more stable. (In July 2012, I started a related discussion, now archived at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 129#Too many editors spoiling the Manual.)
—Wavelength (talk) 00:44, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

I feel that that would bias Wikipedia decisions against people with responsibilities outside of Wikipedia. People who prefer to gnome, for example, don't always feel the need to join a Wikiproject.

The whole point of Wikipedia is that it's egalitarian, but if we're going to value any one person over another, then it should be based on expertise and verifiable credentials relevant to the issue at hand, not on Wikiproject membership. Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:12, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

For WikiGnomes (Wikipedia:WikiGnome), there are specific WikiProjects.

If the value of an editor is going to be based on "expertise and verifiable credentials", then those can be harmonized with WikiProject membership.

—Wavelength (talk) 01:38, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

I fail to see how the frequency with which one contributes to a project page or its related Talk page, or one's voluntary self-identification as a member of a project, indicates anything with regards to their competence or credentials. I've known plenty of people who talked plenty but said little of substance. DonIago (talk) 03:12, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

I did not make those connections. I mentioned a conditional harmonization.

—Wavelength (talk) 04:59, 30 June 2013 (UTC) and 05:06, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Darkfrog24, Wikipedia is not egalitarian. Please see Wikipedia:User access levels.

—Wavelength (talk) 15:02, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

No. Something that affects the entire encyclopedia cannot be allowed to become the plaything of a privileged few. To do such is to utterly destroy the open naturte of Wikipedia. Its an atrocious idea. Hell, I think this may be the absolute worst half-baked idea I have ever seen anywhere on Wikipedia. oknazevad (talk) 06:52, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

You want to permit only those editors deemed worthy to participate in MOS talk page discussions? Wow. I'm not sure the words "elitist," "exclusionary" and "anti-participatory" even begin to cover your suggestion. I think the percentage likelihood of such an idea actually being implemented is pretty close to zero. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:54, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

'No.' vs '№' vs. '#' in Wikitables

I was originally going to raise this issue in Template:Episode list, but that had more to do with technical parameters than semantic things like this, so I'm going to raise it here instead.

The Manual of Style forbids (or advises against, to put it better?) the use of the numero sign (№) or the number sign (#) to substitute the abbreviation "No." The template documentation also follows this guideline with their example tables, but I see those symbols being used in place of "No." in a few popular episode lists, such as List of The Simpsons episodes or List of Heroes episodes, and in some cases, the recommended style ("No.") being used previously has been overridden by other users with either of the two symbols, such as this revision here and here.

Is there a preference to using that format in some cases, such as accessibility? In that case, isn't it a bit redundant to have to specify a key for each symbol, demonstrated here or here, instead of just integrating it into the Wikitable itself, like most other articles do without problems?

Is '№' representing season number and '#' for series number something practiced in the production of TV guides that I'm not aware of?

It's not an issue that's particularly pressing or anything, but nonetheless some clarification would be nice on what should be adopted in the future. Whisternefet (talk) 05:55, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

The Brits do not use "#" to denote "number". The reason is quite simple - on earlier computer systems, there was no "#" key on British keyboards - we had a "£" key instead. Martinvl (talk) 06:34, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

That's interesting to note, but I'm not sure if what you're saying expands upon my issue. My question didn't infer anything about international keyboard layouts, I was just addressing why particular episode list pages used the symbols '№' and '#' to represent series number and season number, instead of using the abbreviation "No.", and if the latter method is more preferable than its abbreviated counterpart, and if that should be noted in the Manual of Style (i.e. The word number should be written verbatim or abbreviated as "No." instead of substituting with '№' or '#', with the exception for tables). Whisternefet (talk) 07:09, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. People violate the MOS constantly. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 12:13, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Image sizing

Some advice on image sizing is needed at Talk:Charles-Valentin Alkan#Lede image. Unfortunately, I'm not going to be able to edit Wikipedia for a week or two, for medical reasons. Can someone else step in, please? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:34, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

You've had plenty of advice, Andy. You just don't like it! Johnbod (talk) 17:08, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Tense and indirect projection

When projecting indirectly—paraphrasing what someone has said—I favour present tense for verbs expressing ongoing or permanent facts, unless there's a good reason to use past (and I can name some good reasons one occasionally encounters). I notice that some sources—particularly, to my irritation, my local daily newspaper—unerringly use past tense for indirect projections: "The minister said that modern hospital protocols in this area were a significant improvement, and would lead to improved performance" (rather than my default practice of: "The minister said that modern hospital protocols in this area are a significant improvement, and will lead to improved performance").

There's an advantage in being able to continue to paraphrase without inserting explicit tags such as "she said", again, just by forcing past tense; but it doesn't always work clearly, and IMO presents potential problems of logic. Aside from that, on the gut level, to me, present tense is much crisper. Can anyone point to authoritative advice on this point? MOS is silent on the matter, as it probably should be. Tony (talk) 03:09, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

(ec) I suspect that there can't be a fixed answer to this. First, note the difference between "The minister said that ..." and "The minister says that ...". In the former we're reporting that he has made a specific statement at some time; in the latter, we're saying that his opinion is known (however we may have come to know it). Concentrating on the "... said that ..." case: putting what the person said in the present tense seems to imply that we think his statement is as valid today as when he made it; past tense would remove that implication. "Shakespeare said that the actors are rubbish" would be absurd, since the actors are presumably dead by now. Your local reporter may just be reflecting the notion that politicians change their minds very frequently ;) --Stfg (talk) 11:17, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

And "Shakespeare said that actors are rubbish"? (Without the "the"). Tony (talk) 14:25, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Hmmm... He also said "All the world's a stage, and all the men and women merely players" which would put any comment about actors (in general) being rubbish in a new light. (c: Blueboar (talk) 15:00, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Still in the past, I think, unless we want to claim that Shakespeare would have applied that view even to actors 400 years after his death. If we were talking about a living playwright who spoke last week, then maybe, but ... Anyhow, even though I think your way is fine in the original example and the conventional sequence of tenses isn't rigid in English, I feel it needs strong justification to claim that a writer is wrong to apply the convention. Count yourself lucky to have a local paper where such issues are even noticeable. Where I live, it would be well below the radar.

Tony, I'm wondering why you raised this issue. Is this a general chat, or does ir affect something specific in Wikipedia? --Stfg (talk) 20:01, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Hyphens and "ly" adverbs

Thread retitled from "A little hasty?".

A significant edit has been made—in good faith—to MOSHYPHEN. I see problems with it. Could we examine this, please? Tony (talk) 12:12, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

The examples provided seem pretty good. The only question I see is whether they're necessary and merit their length. Darkfrog24 (talk) 14:34, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

I am revising the heading of this section from A little hasty? (attitudinal information) to Hyphens and "ly" adverbs (topical information), in harmony with WP:TPOC, point 13 (Section headings). Please see Microcontent: How to Write Headlines, Page Titles, and Subject Lines.

—Wavelength (talk) 15:12, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Geez, that child actors example goes on, doesn't it? That bullet point is getting a little long and maybe could be formatted differently if all those examples are needed. —sroc (talk) 00:33, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

I think there was some merit in it, and I don't understand the wholesale reversion while this discussion was open. The custard details (of Bugsy Malone?) could have been removed, leaving "The film uses only child actors." I'm sorry to see the restoration of the grotesque "northerly-situated islands" -- why not just "northerly islands"? --Stfg (talk) 07:07, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

I do so agree about "northerly-situated islands"; it's unnecessarily verbose and hence bad English. Please let's agree to at least remove this example! Peter coxhead (talk) 14:47, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

RFC:Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Indic)#RFC: On promotion

New rfc on a longstanding proposal. Also listed at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). LeadSongDog come howl! 17:52, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Gender identity: reason(s)

Thread retitled from "16.6 second bullet".

I feel that we need to expand 16.6's second bullet (the "Any person whose gender may be questioned" paragraph) to include the information related to why it is this way. I do agree that it's a good rule, but some Wikipedians keep trying to change it. Any thoughts?? Georgia guy (talk) 21:35, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

I am revising the heading of this subsection from 16.6 second bullet to Gender identity: reason(s), in harmony with WP:TPOC, point 13 (Section headings). The new heading is more informative in talk page tables of contents and in watchlists and in searches and in links to this discussion. Please see Microcontent: How to Write Headlines, Page Titles, and Subject Lines.

—Wavelength (talk) 21:50, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Presumably the cryptic reference is to section 16.6, Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Identity. Dicklyon (talk) 03:33, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia Glossary?

Is there a glossary of terms used on Wikipedia? I've tried searching but the Search feature just looks over regular Wiki content and not Help section.

Specifically, I see "battlegrounding" and "blanking" being used and I don't see definitions of what these terms mean anywhere. 69.125.134.86 (talk) 18:05, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Try Wikipedia:Glossary. Mind matrix 18:19, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Also Wikipedia:Edit_summary_legend and Wikipedia:Abbreviations.LeadSongDog come howl! 18:39, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks so much for your polite response. This hasn't always been my experience on Wikipedia and I appreciate you pointing me in the right direction. Sometimes, it is hard to find content on the Wiki-related pages.69.125.134.86 (talk) 18:33, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Dubious serial commas

I disagree that the serial comma ever creates ambiguity. In the example "To list two people: The author thanked President Obama and her mother, Sinéad O'Connor.", the problem is the comma placed after "mother". The sentence should read, "The author thanked President Barak Obama and her mother Sinéad O'Connor." There is hardly more reason to put a comma after "mother" than there is to put a comma after "President". Using the serial comma never creates ambiguity itself. It often creates clarity. It is not just some minority style. It serves a very valuable purpose, especially when used consistently. Whenever there is a comma embedded within a list element, then semicolons should be used to separate the elements. 75.210.115.56 (talk) 06:57, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

But that isn't the example used. The example used to demonstrate potential ambiguity – which does indeed demonstrate exactly that – is ordered and phrased differently: "The author thanked her mother, Sinéad O'Connor, and President Obama". What you've quoted is actually the suggested recasting to clarify and avoid the ambiguity, which of course does not show ambiguity: "The author thanked President Obama and her mother, Sinéad O'Connor". As to whether that recasting requires a comma after mother or not is a moot point. Either way, that comma is not a serial comma; it's there because she presumably only has the one mother.

I'm going to revert your changes as they seem to proceed from confusion on your part and were not discussed. At line 647 it also lost the logic of the thread by replacing Obama with McAleese and ended up with repetition – the point of the examples that follow "Clearer" is to show the best order regardless of the gender of the President being named. Hence, one says "Obama" and one says "McAleese". It makes no sense to have both identical and both saying "McAleese". N-HH talk/edits 07:55, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Image caption details

We have the sentence "Captions for technical images should fully describe all the elements of the image, and the image's significance." This seems out of place and unnecessary. I am thinking of airport diagrams, which certainly do not need to completely describe any of the elements, or the image's significance. A mathematical image, such as the gif used to describe pi in the info box may need no explanation. Apteva (talk) 18:22, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Where else would you explain all the facets of an image then? Consider how most scientific papers and textbooks present images, with complete descriptions within captions and further discussion in the body. --MASEM (t) 18:29, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

As someone who frequently writes scientific papers with illustrations in them, I don't think this is an accurate description of actual practice. The caption identifies what the image is, but there is no requirement in scientific writing that it be in any sense complete, and I don't think such a requirement is a good idea here. Asking for "all the elements" is a recipe for large amounts of irrelevant minutiae. For instance, this image of the descriptive notation for chess board squares, currently has the caption (in the descriptive notation article) "Names of the board squares in descriptive notation"; I think that is exactly the right level of detail. Listing all of the elements would mean that we say that there are 64 squares, alternately colored dark and light brown, that the top left square is labeled QR8 from white's perspective and QR1 from black's perspective, that the square to its right is labeled QN8 from white's perspective and QN1 from black's perspective, etc...I think you can see that this would quickly grow tedious. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:03, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Apteva and David, in that skyscraper-tall captions become a visual and structural problem. Images should be referred to in the main text, probably fairly close to the image. Masem, how can a caption contain a "complete" description yet there be "further" discussion in the body? Tony (talk) 01:24, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

I too agree with Apteva and David. If the image isn't either self-explanatory or explained in the text, it shouldn't be there. The place for "complete" descriptions of the image itself is in the "alt" text; sadly lacking in most cases. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:43, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

The problem is that Wikipedia doesn't employ a style that makes it easy to tie text to figures unless the figure is immediately abutting that text - basically we don't have things like figure numbers. Granted , most encyclopedic writing we're not going to be referring to figures to the same manner or degree as one would in a scientific paper, so the need to have figure numbers is far less than in other mediums. But given that, captions for images need to be a bit more self-sufficient than elsewhere, and thus may need to have more detail, if for some reason they can't be presented near the text they are connected to. I do agree that skyscraper-like captions (straight from a visual aspect) are a probably and reflect either a poor choice of figure or poor use of text, but there are cases where you need more than a brief sentence fragment to make the image reasonably self sufficient in case it is separated from the text. For example, say I have some line graph as my figure with a few series on it. I would expect the caption, following scientific papers,to explain the axis or if a standard type of plot, the name of that plot, and the identity of the series if the legend box is absent/not clear. Normally this is where most scientific papers would end the caption (outside of works like Nature) where the importance of the graphs are subsequently explained in text. For WP, I would not have that explanation in the caption, but I would add one line to explain why these graphs are important to show the reader so they can identify the context and thus find where the graphs may be discussed in more detail in the text. (Note that alt text should not be used to explain things in the image if one is able to see the image; that breaks what alt text is meant for, as a replacement for the image, not clarification about the image.) --MASEM (t) 13:34, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

I am a firm believer that all images should illustrate something directly stated in the text of the article. This is especially important when it comes technical articles, where images (charts, graphs, etc.) can inadvertently incorporate WP:NOR violations. So, I would suggest captioning technical illustrations along these lines:

"Figure 1, illustrating blah blah (short summary description) blah blah. (see [[link to section header of section that discusses what the image is illustrating and points to image'']])"

Meanwhile, in the article text, you would include a parenthetical "(see figure 1)" at the appropriate place. This would directly link the image to the appropriate text (whether you start with the text or start from the image), while at the same time, the brief summary explanation of what the image is will be informative for those who are simply doing a quick glance at the article, looking at the pretty pictures, and don't want to read the text in depth. Blueboar (talk) 00:48, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Most of our images are linked to the text simply by placement. The discussion that prompted this is someone wanting to use MOS to justify adding details such as "and seats remaining fixed in place" to the rear cabin photo caption at Asiana Airlines Flight 214#Survivor and eyewitness accounts. We ended up with a short caption and a lengthy alt description: "The rear cabin, after the crash|alt=Interior of the aircraft, after the crash, showing oxygen masks hanging from the ceiling, ready for use. The seat backs have video displays installed, and most seats are in position, some reclined, some upright. The overhead compartments are open." Apteva (talk) 04:57, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Place names and specificity

A discussion is in progress at Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)#Place names and specificity (version of 15:12, 17 July 2013).
—Wavelength (talk) 15:45, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Punctuation after references and quotes

I'm sorry for not looking through the archives, but there are 142 of them!

This is an English thing that I've never been able to understand. Why is random punctuation included in a quote, or in the case of Wikipedia, placed before a reference? What does the comma have to do with the quote or reference? I hope this is something more like the serial comma where there's some for and against, but it doesn't look like it... Despatche (talk) 12:23, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Long story short, is it really necessary for there to be a Wikipedia guideline about it? It just seems to be an error, that's all. Despatche (talk) 13:15, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

It is not a "quote". God damn. You're just trolling, aren't you?

In case if you're serious: it's Wikipedia source text bold and italics marks. I mean, Jesus. Seriosuly? --Niemti (talk) 12:30, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

What are you even talking about? I've said "references and quotes" a hundred times, and I don't see what a term before the reference being in bold or italics has to do with anything. And please don't turn this into some stupid little dispute. Despatche (talk) 12:33, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Is WP:CITEFOOT what you're looking for? But why is this a RFC? --Rob Sinden (talk) 12:47, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

CITEFOOT doesn't really touch on this so much, and directs to MOS:PUNCTFOOT--that directs to CITE itself--which serves as an addendum.

Surely, this is an RFC for the same reason as the RFC at the top of this talk page? I'm being a bit general, sure, but I have to here since the topic is a part of English in general (and so it's reasonable that Wikipedia defaults to what's common). Despatche (talk) 13:02, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Firstly, your question is unclear. What exactly are you asking? Is it about "quote" or "references", and what exactly is the issue?

Secondly, an RFC is a request ~~to comments to form consensus for some sort of change~~ for comments to resolve a dispute. ~~You are not proposing any particular change, rather,~~ In this case, it seems you are asking for an explanation of something you don't understand. This is not appropriate for an RFC. —sroc (talk) 13:05, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)You seem to be asking a simple question, not seeking a wide input from the Wikipedia community (which is what WP:RFC is for). Unfortunately it's a little unclear what your question really is. --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:06, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Err... both? They're being treated as part of a set.

I'm not sure there's a difference between "simple question" and "seeking a wide input from the Wikipedia community" when I'm talking about policy. You're right, I wasn't asking for a change, because I wanted to know why it was and whether anyone else thought it was in error before I vouched for anything.

Either way, I've added a bit about changing the guildline, so can I please have my RFC back now? :( Despatche (talk) 13:15, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Again, what exactly are you asking? --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:21, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Why is this an English thing, and where did it come from? I don't think it's logical, as commas don't have anything to do with the quote unless they were actually a part of it, nor do they have anything to do with the statements a particular reference is trying to explain. Like any RFC, I'm wondering if anyone else feels this way, and whether a change to something is in order. Despatche (talk) 13:27, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

What is the "this" you are referring to? I still have no idea what you are asking, or even whether you are seeking clarification or some particular change. You need to be clear in exactly what you're asking.

Are you perhaps looking for these?

MOS:LQ about when to put punctuation within quotation marks.
WP:REF about how to cite sources.
H:FOOT for help with using footnotes. —sroc (talk) 13:30, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

The short answer is that WP has a house style (which right now is under a different RFC discussion, but let's assume the current style sticks), which is the logical quote system - that punctuation that is not specifically part of the quote is put outside of the quote marks, and that we place references after punctuation. --MASEM (t) 13:40, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Wow, LQ seems to completely agree with me. I didn't even realize what it was at first. Kinda strange seeing it in the MOS, as I see the opposite so much.

But what about references? Why is punctuation placed between the statement and the reference supporting it? Shouldn't it be placed after, for the same reasons as logical quotation? And why are dashes specifically an exception, when they're used in similar ways as commas at the least? I don't know how I could make this any clearer, so sorry. Despatche (talk) 14:10, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

I believe it's just the way that we've decided. Note that there are many different styles possible through publications in the world for how quotes, punctuation and references work, we've decided on these approaches in terms of the balance of making it easier to read and edit. --MASEM (t) 14:13, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

From the Chicago Manual of Style (which is one of a few accepted style guides that we could be following): "The superior numerals used for note reference numbers in the text should follow any punctuation marks except the dash, which they precede. The numbers should also be placed outside closing parentheses." --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:15, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Figures. I really do think it's in error though. Below sroc mentioned that the aim of the guideline is to make the connection between statement and source as clear as possible. But punctuation slapped in the middle kinda gets in the way of that, as far as style goes. And why does it feel the need to clash with itself, treating dashes and parentheses (this one's kinda big) as special from everything else? Despatche (talk) 14:35, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Possibly no good reason -- it just growed like Topsy. The big question is how much energy you want to spend on this, given that 4,000,000 articles conform to the current standard (except the ones that don't :) and nobody's going to agree to make a tweak that forces us to go change all those or make WP inconsistent. --Stfg (talk) 15:19, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

I would personally edit everything I'd catch, at least. I don't see why we'd need to change every single article at once. Just like any typo in the articles, people would just change it as they see it. This is already done with conforming to the MOS as is, so I don't see a problem on that end. I would hope people could understand that much, at least. Despatche (talk) 16:21, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

There is actually probably a good reason we use it and that's on the editor's side, in that the trailing punctuation will be right before the long strings of wikicode that make up reference text, and thus easier to proof, compared to when the punctuation is after the references. While in general, the reader will rarely see this, when you have two or more references in a row, that will also push the trailing punctuation farther away and break up the flow of the sentence. Yes, some manuals of style do recommend the punctuation after references, we have simply opted to do the other way. --MASEM (t) 17:00, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

I think you've extrapolated too much from the principle of WP:INTEGRITY there. See my latest comment below. —sroc (talk) 17:18, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

For the record:

Chicago Manual of Style: "A note number should generally be placed at the end of a sentence or at the end of a clause. The number normally follows a quotation (whether it is run into the text or set as an extract). Relative to other punctuation, the number follows any punctuation mark except for the dash, which it precedes."
APA Formatting and Style Guide: "When using either type of footnote, insert a number formatted in superscript following almost any punctuation mark. Footnote numbers should not follow dashes ( — ), and if they appear in a sentence in parentheses, the footnote number should be inserted within the parentheses."
United Nations Editorial Manual Online: "When there are punctuation marks (e.g. a comma, colon or period) at the point where the footnote indicator should be inserted, the indicator is placed after the punctuation in English but before the punctuation in French and Spanish."
Dictionary.com Style Guide: "If there is a punctuation mark following the word, put the superscript immediately after the punctuation mark, unless the mark is a dash - in which case the superscript should precede it."
University of NSW "Oxford" Referencing System: "Note identifiers should be placed at the end of a sentence, and follow any punctuation marks (but precede a dash)."

This is a well recognised and widely used style. I haven't come across any that endorse placing the footnote before a full stop, comma or semi-colon in any circumstances. —sroc (talk) 17:36, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

The problem here is that I'm advocating that we move away from this detail of the style guides, because it's nonsensical for various reasons, which I have provided. I'm not sure the purely stylistic argument down below holds up either; you're making strange exceptions, even though the reasons you produce for one side are equally valid for another. Despatche (talk) 17:58, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Masem's comments in defense of WP:LQ are slightly misleading. There are absolutely no recorded cases of American-style punctuation (in which periods and commas are placed within the quotation marks) causing even one problem, ever, on Wikipedia or off. A lot of people prefer British/logical punctuation, but it has no measurable differences from American punctuation, and it just isn't right to make incorrect punctuation into a rule and force others to follow it just because some people like it more. Darkfrog24 (talk) 21:14, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

I never said there were problems - both styles have advantages and disadvantages. We've just historically chosen LQ. --MASEM (t) 23:42, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

If by "we" you mean the contributors to this talk page, then yes, British style has been winning that popularity contest for at least the past six years. Out in the article space, however, WP:LQ has been regularly ignored. It has not brought us consistency, prevented errors, or made subsequent editing either easier or more accurate. The only thing that WP:LQ does is allow users of correct punctuation to be punished. Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:59, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

I'd love to know how this "American punctuation" is magically superior and correct over what seems to be logical. The country spamming sounds like simple patriotism to me.

I would like to point out again that I am not concerned with any borders. I only see what seems logical to me and want to talk about it on its own merits. LQ has merit because it is actually logical, fitting the very basic rules of punctuation and sentence order; not because we've used it forever or because it's commonly used in one country. Despatche (talk) 06:44, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

@Despatche: The problem here is that you're advocating that we dispense with a style that is endorsed by various style guides and substitute your own style that is not supported by any style guides (if it is, show us). Just because you don't like it or understand the reasoning behind it does not justify changing it.

Moreover, the argument that we need to change this for consistency with WP:LQ is fallacious. Both LQ and TQ are widely accepted styles, although there is plenty of debate over which one Wikipedia should use. This is not comparable with the present situation, where positing the footnote after the full stop, comma, etc., is widely accepted by style guides and before is not. Some sense of "consistency" does not justify making up our own style that is not endorsed by any other style guides. If anything, this is a reason to adopt TQ for consistency with the footnoting style. —sroc (talk) 23:32, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Those various style guides are not holy, just like our own policies and guidelines aren't. Consistency is great and all, but I'm arguing that we need to make an exception because following an illogical standard because it's a standard is illogical itself. There is absolutely no reason we should do so, except to keep the peace with certain individuals who absolutely could not live without having things exactly as they've always been.

The comparison with LQ was a simple comparison, not to be taken so seriously. But it wasn't invalid; there's nothing fallacious about it. This isn't about the current situation behind the two (which, again, I'm arguing needs to be taken with a grain of salt), but the actual function. Logical quotation was created because it made sense; a "logical punctuation" would be created because it would make sense, because the actual rules for that punctuation match up perfectly with the various rules of logical quotation; it's an easy comparison, not just a good one.

This seems to be more about adhering to a standard than about the actual merits of that standard. That mindset goes against the grand Wikipedia policy of "a reasonable community coming to an agreement on what works best for them"; it's no wonder that such consensus is never possible, when all attempts to be reasonable are put down within one's self solely to follow some status quo.

Someone "disliking" a standard, for whatever reason they may, is why any of these discussions happen. It's a check; the goal is to see who all else would agree with you, if the question was directly asked of them (and if you have a good reason for the disapproval, all the better). The above kinda ruins this. Despatche (talk) 06:44, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

@Despatche: You keep calling it "an illogical standard" and saying there's "absolutely no reason" to maintain the current style, despite the fact that it is endorsed by the style guides (by people who should know a lot more about the issue than your average Wikipedia editor). I have already explained why the current style is logical, why it should be followed, and why your proposal will not overcome the issues of text–source integrity of footnotes; I can't help if you don't get it. No style guide (that I know of, and you've cited none) endorses the style you are proposing so it has no support in the wider context of the real world, and the benefits that you are claiming it has a spurious. —sroc (talk) 09:09, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, but the problem is on your end. I've already explained why you are simply wrong; statements with extremely weak support that I've even managed to refute the implications of. Worst of all, you're seriously trying to tell me that looks trumps logic here simply because of refusal to change and nothing more; you yourself have already made it very clear that this is the only "logic" behind such a decision.

I may as well "give up", because people really want this to be a fight, as they do all discussion. So much for reason, good faith, etc. You're welcome! Despatche (talk) 15:20, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

I disagree that you have "already explained why [I am] simply wrong", but to summarise:

The style guide endorse the current style. You do not dispute this. However, your view is that style is trumped by "logic". In saying this, you imply that the current style is itself not "logical".
You claim that there is no logic to treating the placement of footnotes differently for parentheses or dashes as opposed to other punctuation (despite the fact that this is dictated by the style guides). As I explained, the placement for parenthetical remarks enclosed within brackets or dashes is sensible (to keep the footnote within the parenthetical remark where appropriate); the same issue does not arise where the footnote appears naturally at the end of a sentence or after a comma for example because the placement does not resolve any ambiguity over what the footnote relates to (i.e., at least the last thing written before the footnote). Additionally, inserting footnotes before a full stop or comma introduces a break in the baseline (the imaginary line that all the letters sit on) (e.g., The president has fleas^[1].) whereas the same is not true for dashes as they do not sit on the baseline (e.g., The claim the press made—that the president had fleas^[1]—was proven to be untrue.^[2]).
You suggested that moving footnotes to before punctuation is necessary to be consistent with LQ. This assumes that LQ will remain the prevailing standard endorsed on Wikipedia even though this is under an RfC (although it is looking like the status quo may prevail). This also ignores the fact that LQ is not applied consistently and is in fact frequently disregarded. This also overlooks the argument that, if consistency is desired, it would be preferable to retain the current footnote formatting (which is endorsed by the style guides) and adopt TQ (which is also widely endorsed, although neither TQ nor LQ is universally followed) so that both styles can follow at least a fair share of widely-accepted style guides.
Placement of a footnote symbol before or after a comma or full stop does not particularly help to indicate what facts the cited source supports. You have not provided any examples or evidence to show that it does. [I have given an example below to illustrate how it doesn't.]
Over-reliance on the precise placement of a footnote relative to punctuation as an indicator of text–source integrity is dangerous as it is highly unlikely to be followed universally and would not resolve all forms of ambiguity anyway, and thus would be unreliable. Every time, we would have to wonder: did the editor place that footnote there intentionally and correctly to indicate that the source says this or that? and every time there would remain doubt. There are far more effective ways of achieving text–source integrity without such ambiguity. You have not given a particularly clear response to this.

—sroc 💬 16:10, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

In the interests of world peace, I have devised Template:Tardquote, permitting people to be "a little bit diplomatic," if desired. :) Wnt (talk) 10:08, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

I've improved this template, so it also handles full stops/periods, for those who want to be even more "diplomatic". :-) Peter coxhead (talk) 10:45, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

All it needs now is to accommodate an interrobang‽ —sroc 💬 10:51, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

It sort of works, but it's a bit font dependent: {{tardquote|!?}} → !? Peter coxhead (talk) 11:02, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

@Despatche: Consensus can change, so I support your right to raise the question, but in your paragraph "This seems to be more about ... solely to follow some status quo." I think you've forgotten to assume good faith. Reasonable members of "a reasonable community [seeking] an agreement on what works best for them" may well feel that what works best for them is to continue to apply the current standard, noting that it's what all/most of the style guides out there recommend. That happens to be my view, in fact. I find the current system at least as "logical", and visually much preferable to the alternative. I'm not going to rationalise that, and it may be just what I've got used to, but that is my view and I hold it in good faith. May I respectfully ask you, having seen the responses you're getting, what outcome you hope a continuation of this to achieve? --Stfg (talk) 11:26, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Good faith went out the window when I realized only a few unreasonable people (not all of them here) would ever dare to get involved with this discussion. There's no point in bickering (certainly not arguing) with these people who ignore key points while continuing to press their baseless own. People who blindly follow others and never bother to question them are unreasonable people; you're on Wikipedia, not the battlefield.

This may as well have never started. Despatche (talk) 15:20, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Example

Let's take a hypothetical example:

The prime minister's breakfast includes apples, bananas and pears.^[1]
The prime minister's breakfast includes apples, bananas and pears^[1].

@Despatche: Are you proposing that:

We should always put the footnote before punctuation in all cases? If so, how does this change anything from the current style, other than as a cosmetic preference?
We should put the footnote either before or after the punctuation depending on what claims the source supports? I assume this is what you meant? If so, what would the second example above mean? That the source only refers to pears? Or bananas and pears? Or maybe it refers to all three but somehow doesn't mention the prime minister? Or perhaps some confused editor just put it in the wrong place because they thought everyone's putting footnotes before punctuation now?

And then what of all the existing cases that follow the current style of putting the footnote after the punctuation? Would we now have to check the source of every single reference on Wikipedia to work out whether the footnote needs to move? Would we then have to mark every instance as having been checked so that other editors don't have to repeatedly check the same footnote? And in the meantime, we can't really rely on the placement of the footnote, can we?

See, the precise placement of footnotes doesn't really help to avoid ambiguity. In the above example, if the source only referred to pears, you could:

Delete the apples and bananas, as they are unreferenced;
Add a {{cn}} tag after apples and after bananas;
Make a note in the footnote that the source only refers to pears;
Insert a quote from the source into the footnote showing exactly what the source says;
Add a hidden comment in the source code for other editors.

All of these options would very clearly achieve text–source integrity. What you're proposing would not do this at all well. —sroc 💬 16:43, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Let me add a non-hypothetical example from the lead of It's Raining Men:

"It's Raining Men" is a song written by Paul Jabara and Paul Shaffer in 1979,^[1] originally recorded by The Weather Girls in 1982.

What do you suppose the reference in that footnote supports? That it was written by Jabara? That it was written by Shaffer? That it was written in 1979?

What if the footnote marked appeared before the comma? What would it mean then? Would it lead to different conclusions?

Now here's what the footnote says:

Wayne, George (November 2009). "Celebs, Jokes, and Rock 'n' Roll!". Vanity Fair. Retrieved 20 July 2013. "Paul Shaffer: Paul Jabara called me up and said, “I’ve got a great song for Donna Summer. I want you to write the song with me. What do you think about ‘It’s Raining Men’?” We wrote it in one afternoon. Lyrically she hated it, because she had become a born-again Christian. She thought it was blasphemous. She called Paul and said, “I hate the song. Oh, we’ve lost you.” And then she sent him a Bible the next day."

The footnote clearly quotes the source referring to Jabara and Shaffer co-writing the song, but makes no reference to when. Quoting the source in the footnote (or consulting the source itself—in this case, you could just follow the link) is an easy way to clarify exactly what the reference does—or doesn't—support. Much better, and clearer, than arguing over the precise placement relative to punctuation. —sroc 💬 06:56, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Changing "Religion = none" to "Religion = Atheist" on BLP infoboxes

I often see attempts to mass-change BLP infoboxes from "Religion: none" to "Religion: Atheist".

More often than not, the person doing the changing appears to be religious and is making an "Atheism is just another religion" argument.

Atheism is not a religion for the same reasons that baldness is not a type of hair color, off is not another television channel, and vacuum is not a kind of gas.

Does anything in the MOS cover this? --Guy Macon (talk) 09:12, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Guy that making this change is fundamentally incorrect. Martinvl (talk) 09:17, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

One clarification I would make is that I believe atheism can be called a religion (if it's necessary to label such things), but none is not atheism. None indicates a lack of belief in religion, not a lack of belief in a god. Labeling oneself as atheist indicates a need to have a religion while stressing a lack of belief in a god. These are very different. This type of change should not be made, but I don't believe it is covered anywhere yet. -- Mufka ^(u) ^(t) ^(c) 09:25, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

~~Agreed.~~ Further, this would disregard agnosticism. None ≠ agnostic. —sroc (talk) 09:36, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

We can agree on that, Mufka. Well said. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:43, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Thats not quite correct Mufka, atheism (itself) is not a religion. The the only two things it can be guaranteed that any two atheists share is a disbelief in god(s). The religion is correctly none. Atheist is just a term to refer to someone with no religion. Being an atheist is not necessarily having "a religion while stressing a lack of belief in a god". I think you might be getting confused that irreligious and atheist are exclusionary terms, when they are just two different ways of describing something. It should also be noted that you can be a religious atheist, as some religions (eg. Buddhism, Hinduism, Wicca, and others) do not advocate a belief in gods, and/or it is a valid path to follow (though theistic views are also accepted). -- Nbound (talk) 09:49, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

It's kind of becoming a religion. Maybe cult or community or following would be the better word, but the essence is the same. People preach unsolicited atheism all over the Internet, defend their beliefs with a similar zeal and congregate around Richard Dawkins. They have an unshakeable faith that there is no God. Just the flip side of the coin. At least in the sense of the word these types use. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:42, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

The above comments are a prime example of the "atheism is just another religion" argument, and a good reason why we should not change "Religion = none" to "Religion = Atheist" on BLP infoboxes. Under no reasonable definition of the word "religion"[1] does atheism qualify. A religion -- even a non-theist religion -- has a clearly defined sets of beliefs and practices and usually has some sort of rules or organization trying to instill uniformity of belief or practice. It really is like calling baldness a hair color. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:10, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Are the laws of science not clearly defined beliefs? Isn't the scientific method standard practice in the scientific community? Of course, not all atheists believe in scientists either, but it's very common, as far as I see. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:03, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

May not be what Mufka meant, but it's what I agreed with. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:40, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

As with all such English language terms, surely use is not always consistent and the meaning is not always exactly the same in every context. That said, I agree that to say explicitly that someone's religion is "atheism" is a nonsense and there certainly should not be mass changes to such a formulation. However, equally, atheism means, literally, "without god", whereas religion refers as much to a belief system, which may or not reflect belief in the existence or otherwise of a particular deity or deities, and/or the identity based around that system. Hence, technically surely, one can have a "religion" but be atheistic – either because your religion is not based on theistic belief or because you identify culturally with the religious group but are not a believer per se (both of which are of course very different from saying one's religion is atheism) – and one can technically not be a member of any formal religion, and yet have a belief in a god of some sort. Regardless of all that, the best solution seems to me to be to drop this kind of nonsense from inboxes altogether. N-HH talk/edits 10:01, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Atheist is not "just a term to refer to someone with no religion". As has already been pointed out, there is also agnosticism. There is also the, probably more common, position that a person simply does not practice a religion - it's not something that's part of their lives or about which they have an opinion. I don't think atheism is "a religion", but it is a clear opinion about religion, so it's perfecty reasonable to put it in the relevant box. One can just take "religion" to mean "religious opinions" or "beliefs in the field of religion". Surely the test should be whether the information is useful or informative to the reader. Of course there would have to be proof tht the person is an atheist and not an agnostic or a don't-careist. Paul B (talk) 10:05, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

One can be an atheist and religious, so I don't think it's quite accurate to say that atheism is a clear opinion about religion. It's perhaps more accurate to say that it is an opinion about belief in a deity, but even then it's not always a clear opinion. - Sudo Ghost 10:18, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

This needs to be reported rather literal-mindedly: if someone says they are an atheist or agnostic, then that's what should be recorded; if they say they aren't religious, then we can say "none". If we don't have any specific information, it should be left blank. People disagree on whether atheism and irreligion are the same thing, but enough people (particularly scholars of religion) feel that they should be treated differently to require keeping them distinct. Mangoe (talk) 10:08, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Neither atheism nor agnosticism nor humanism are religions per se (or at least it is the subject of debate) and they should not be labelled as such. If anything, they might be labelled as "beliefs" for example, but not "religions". —sroc (talk) 10:18, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

ec. If the classification is none, why not just exclude the line entirely? -- Mufka ^(u) ^(t) ^(c) 10:19, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

(ec) Excluding the line gives no information. Stating "none" gives information. --Stfg (talk) 10:30, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm with Mangoe and others above. If someone is recorded as saying "I'm an atheist" or "I'm an agnostic", then it belongs in the box. If someone says "I don't subscribe to any religion", then we put "none". If we don't have a record, then we leave it blank. --Rob Sinden (talk) 10:27, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

(ec)I agree with Guy and Mangoe. Atheism is disbelief in theism, and not all religions are theistic. Thus, "none" is stronger than "atheist". --Stfg (talk) 10:30, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree with that way of dealing with this on a practical level, up to a point, but it does leave all sorts of problems. First, there's the problem of saying "Religion: atheism". Even if it is not intended to, that can read as asserting/assuming that atheism is a type of religion (rather than "when it comes to religion, I am an atheist"). It also elides the distinction between practising and non-practising and those identities which are sometimes taken, especially in the west, as ethnic/cultural identifiers as much as they are religions proper. If we say someone, in one word in the infobox, is "Jewish" or a "Muslim" what are we actually saying? In Europe at least, when we say "Christian" we are more likely to mean a practising religious Christian; but that same might not apply, say, when referring to a Christian from Lebanon. N-HH talk/edits 10:48, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Whether or not atheism is a religion is not a discussion we should be having here. If someone claims that it is the religion they identify with, then it's their religion. If someone was on record claiming that they were a beleiver of Jediism, then "Jedi" should also go in the box. (In the interests of full disclosure - I am an atheist, and I always fill official forms with "Religion: Atheist"). --Rob Sinden (talk) 10:55, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

(ec) @N-HH: Would it be correct to say that we should state only what the person has identified as their religion, and that where there has been no self-identifiaction, we should make no statement? If so, these problems disappear, don't they? --Stfg (talk) 10:57, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

This is the sensible approach. --Rob Sinden (talk) 11:05, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

@Rob: to be pedantic, I'm not arguing here substantively about whether atheism is or is not a religion (although I would say it is rather clearly not) but about whether we should be – arguably – suggesting that it is via the phrasing we use in an infobox.

@Stfg: as noted, I broadly agree, but I still think there are some grey areas here. This is the kind of thing I had in mind as an example of the problems generated. What if someone says "I'm not religious but X is my religion"? The problem is really the perennial one of the infobox straitjacket (plus of course whether we want to put this kind of emphasis/focus at all on religious affiliation or the lack of it). N-HH talk/edits 11:07, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

@Rob: To add to N-HH's comments, it also raises questions if someone says "I'm an atheist": Does this mean they are identifying this as their religion? Or might this mean "I'm atheist but I don't have a religion"? Does this reflect how/if we should reflect this in the infobox? How so? Does the subject's opinion of whether atheism is a religion matter in how we report it in the infobox? Labelling it as "religion" in the infobox would be fraught with danger. —sroc (talk) 11:30, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

There should be a note on the template instructing editors to leave out the "religion" field unless there's a relevant reason to display something. Tony (talk) 11:24, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Agreed - this is yet another case whether infoboxes are liable to mislead by over-simplification. Johnbod (talk) 11:30, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

I sympathize with the position that a professed atheist (or agnostic, or irreligious) has made a decision about religion, and that our infobox ought to display this fact. The problem is that the infobox appearance is wrong for any entries except a standard religion or "none". If it says "Religion atheist" then it is telling the reader that atheism is a religion, which is incorrect. Binksternet (talk) 11:37, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I think it should go further than that. I think there needs to be a not on the template instructions that says religion needs to be verifiable. I don't want to get into a debate about religion here, but the way I see it is: Agnosticism is a religion that requires evidence to back up any claim that there is or isn't something greater than us. Atheism is a religion that says there are no deities (good or bad). No religion is the group of people who just don't care one way or the other. They don't want to see any proof of this or that and they don't claim there is or isn't a greater power. Unfortunately, putting the message on the template and in the manual won't change the fact that these people are going to do their thing and change them anyways. All we can do as editors who realize there is a difference and it isn't appropriate is go through and clean up after them. Technical 13 (talk) 11:44, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Binksternet, you're doing the same thing by telling the reader that atheism isn't a religion. It's debateable (although not a debate I intend to have). However, the BBC seem to class it as one.[2] And what's a "standard religion"? Would scientology count? --Rob Sinden (talk) 11:49, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

I see two possible solutions here:

(1) Re-label "Religion" something like "Religious/theological belief" as a catch-all to accommodate all cases; OR

(2) Have separate labels for "Religion" and "Theology" (or something like that) so that either one can be used as appropriate in each case. However, the latter solution will not avoid arguments over what is/isn't a religion. —sroc (talk) 11:53, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Atheism is a religion in the same way a territory is a state. On a form even if you live in a territory, you put that territory in the state section. Same with atheism and religion. Why is it done, because the same thing can be gotten across with less complication (though from a completely objective view it is misleading, its just implied that the form's recipient will know what is truely meant). As an encyclopedia, we shouldnt be classing atheism as a religion. Just as we wouldnt (or at least shouldnt) class a territory as a state. -- Nbound (talk) 12:08, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Religion in an infobox is a well-worn topic at Template talk:Infobox scientist (search the archives, or try here for some flavor). There was once a religion field in Infobox_scientist (and was known as "religious stance" for a period), but it was finally removed after enough people agreed that it was misleading to label something as complex as religion in a scientist's infobox (Is it a belief, or a description of upbringing? How significant was it in the life of the person?). There has also been back-and-forth at Richard Dawkins where passing humorists used to like inserting "Religion: Agnostic" (because he said something like that the existence of God can never be 100% ruled out). If a simple label is going to be used to sum-up a person's religion, there should be clear evidence that the religion was significant to the person. Johnuniq (talk) 12:27, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Mufka. I'd be fine putting "Religion: Atheist" in the Richard Dawkins article. Heck, he'd probably be fine with it too. However, there is a difference between people who have no religion and active atheists. They are two different things.

As for whether atheism should be considered a religion, perhaps not, but it is okay to put it in the infobox because that is where people look to find out about people's religious leanings. It's okay if the religion entry isn't exactly a religion. We can explain the details in full in the text, where there is room to draw such distinctions. Darkfrog24 (talk) 13:19, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Johnuniq is on to the real problem. People are seldom simple. They change beliefs over time. They compartmentalize their thinking. They espouse one belief while holding another and while living lives as if they believed something different again. In most cases religion has little if any relation to the encyclopedic aspects of a person's life. Worse, the sources cited to support the assertion of X's religion are very often POV sources (for or against that religion as the case may be). We'd do better in most cases to actively discourage populating that parameter with anything but "|religion=see [[./#Religion|Religion]] below". LeadSongDog come howl! 13:49, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Well then having it in the infobox would defeat the purpose of the infobox! —sroc (talk) 13:53, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

There is another option here, but beyond the scope of MOS , and that is stripping the field from infoboxes altogether as a BLP issue (unless the infobox is one specifically dealing with a person in a religious field). Religion is something that only the person themselves can cite, so it makes it a potential BLP issue, and really, for most people that aren't part of a church or other such order, it's just a field that begs to be messed with (eg the above none/atheism case). If their religion can be cited, great, that's in the body of the article, but it is rarely necessary to have the person's religion documented in a summary infobox along with things like birth place, occupation, etc. (Comparably, we don't list political parties a person is associated with unless they are actually politicians) --MASEM (t)

Exactly. Tony (talk) 09:43, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Note the documentation at Template:Infobox person already states:

In the blank template: "religion = "
In the parameters table: "religion: If relevant. For living persons please refer to WP:BLPCAT. Please be sure to support with a citation from a reliable source, in the article body."

—sroc (talk) 14:14, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Even if it is cited, why is it needed in the infobox for those that are not directly part of a church/etc? For example, I've no doubt Barack Obama is Christian, but what does that piece of infobox data tell me? Very little. If a person's faith (or lack thereof) is important to their life but they weren't otherwise part of the church, that should be in the body of the article, and if really that important, would be summarized in the lead (as such for Richard Dawkins). It's not a fundamental piece of data, like most of the infobox fields, and one that leads to situations like the above. --MASEM (t) 14:25, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

See "If relevant."

WP:BLPCAT also states: "Categories regarding religious beliefs or sexual orientation should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief or orientation in question, and the subject's beliefs or sexual orientation are relevant to their public life or notability, according to reliable published sources."

The infobox has the facility, but it's not a carte blanche to use it for all and sundry. —sroc (talk) 14:35, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Arbitrary Section Break 1

I would like to discuss as examples Penn Jillette and Teller (magician). Also see Penn & Teller. Penn & Teller reject all belief in the supernatural. Penn explains this at length in his book God, No! Signs You May Already Be An Atheist and Other Magical Tales. Penn & Teller are what our article on Negative and positive atheism call negative atheists. IMO "Religion = none" is the correct term for Penn & Teller, because they reject all belief in the supernatural, including gods, ghosts, miracles and psychic powers. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:39, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Not everyone accepts the negative/positive distinction, nor would everyone agree that assertion of the negative position is equivalent to being irreligious. And for those who categorize atheism as a subspecies of religious belief, this line of argument isn't convincing. Look, the problem here is that there is a very low-lying difference of opinion in the taxonomy of religious belief. It's not up to Wikipedia to endorse one side or the other in this dispute, and that's really what the point of this fight is: people want Wikipedia to endorse their claim that "atheism isn't a religion", however one wants to interpret that sentence. Conversely, I do not interpret a slot in an infobox as making a claim about the precise nature of religion. It's simply convenient to put a person's religious/spiritual/philosophical/whatever relationship to religious beliefs in one box, because as a rule that's how it works out. Most people in the field make a distinction between atheism and agnosticism and a lack of interest in the matter (and it's abundantly clear that Jillette does not lack interest in the matter, given how much he talks about it), and lumping all of these into "none" is misleading. If we have to come up with some circumlocution to avoid using the word "religion", well, it won't be the first time Wikipedia has tied itself in a knot over the matter and come up with some tortured contrivance. But it's better to preserve the distinction in these various "non-religious" attitudes. Personally I think the current census-checkoff-box approach is not misleading to anyone; nobody reads "religion: Atheist" and concludes that atheism implies a belief in the supernatural. Mangoe (talk) 19:28, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

That's exactly what I read it as implying. Also, "none" is not misleading in the case of Penn Jillette. It is accurate. He rejects all religions, not just theistic religions. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:15, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

At least in AU, on the census, all the various forms of non-belief written as replies to the Census question (Atheist, No Religion, None, etc.) are compiled into a single non-religious category for results. As I said above:

On a form even if you live in a territory, you put that territory in the state section. Same with atheism and religion. Why is it done, because the same thing can be gotten across with less complication (though from a completely objective view it is misleading, its just implied that the form's recipient will know what is truely meant).

As an encyclopedia, we shouldnt be classing atheism as a religion. Just as we wouldnt (or at least shouldnt) class a territory as a state. -- Nbound (talk) 07:48, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Actually, forms in Australia often refer to "State/Territory" rather than just "State", recognising that the territories are not states. Similarly, it would be more correct to say "Religion/Theological Belief" rather than just "Religion", recognising that "Atheiest", "No Religion", "None", etc., are not religions. —sroc (talk) 08:56, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Government forms do, but business and especially online forms (except govt), not as often. Other examples also exist, when we see Zip Code on an online form we still put in our postcode (if it lets us!). When a Canadian sees State on a Nth American form (and I'm sure they dont all say "State/Province"), they probably put in their province. Now this is fine for forms, but not for an encyclopedia :) -- Nbound (talk) 09:08, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Saying Religion = Atheist is like saying Provence = Yukon or State = Jervis Bay. --Guy Macon (talk) 11:11, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Then the question is this: Does placing "Atheist" or "none" in the "Religion" slot in an infobox make the statement "Religion = Atheist"? My take is that it does not and even if a reader thought it did, this issue could be made clear in the article text. Darkfrog24 (talk) 19:30, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Commment - There is one one aspect to this that I have not seen raised... what about people who are simply not sure what their religion is? If you ask someone, "what is your religion?" and they say "I have not made up my mind." or "I don't really know... I think all religions have validity, so I don't choose between them." It would be wrong to say that the person is an Atheist. They do have religious belief... but their belief does not fit under any existing label. For such people, "None" would be appropriate... "Atheist" would not. Blueboar (talk) 19:39, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Atheism vs agnostisism vs theism is one question, religion is another. Atheism is no more a religion than theism is. No doubt the connexions are strong but we're dealing with two different things. It is possible to have a religion which offers no opinion as to the existance of (a) god(s) and/or goddess(es). It is possible to have a religion which insists that they don't exist. It is possible to be an atheist and yet be religious. It is also possible not to believe in the existance of (a) god(s) and/or goddess(es) and follow no religion. Some may be pretty zealous about their non-belief; don't mistake that for being religious. It may be convenient to write only "state" when making a form instead of "state/provence/territory/prefecture/etc." and know that people will be able to handle it but what fool would say "Right, so you're from tha state of British Columbia, eh."? No, whoever reads the filled form should be cluey enough to interpret its meaning. religion=atheist could be convenient as template input but we shouldn't have the template outputing "His religion is Atheism." which is what "Religion: Atheism" implies. Readers can figure it out, can they? Sure they can, if they're smart enough. If they're smart enough, though, they can read between the lines and see the implication that we are (intentionally or not) suggesting that atheism is a religion. It's not ... or is that just my opinion? Assuming that it's only an opinion, the converse may still be argued to only be an opinion too. Then we'd be endorsing an opinion. I don't think we want to do this. I have another opinion. It seems to me that it is the theists mostly who like calling atheism a religion; as if to say that non-belief takes just as much of a leap of faith ... anyhow ... no, we aught not be implying that atheism is a religion. Jimp 06:48, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Atheism is something more than commitments="religion: none". Revert such changes, of course, wherever atheism is not backed by RSes. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 09:12, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Proposal to remove the religion entry

A couple of people above have proposed suppressing "religion" entirely, and I'm coming to the conclusion that this is probably for the best. I am therefore proposing that biographical infoboxes omit "Religion" as an entry. Mangoe (talk) 15:14, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Weak oppose: Why can't people respect the guidelines?
- Template:Infobox person: "religion: If relevant. For living persons please refer to WP:BLPCAT. Please be sure to support with a citation from a reliable source, in the article body."
- WP:BLPCAT: "Categories regarding religious beliefs or sexual orientation should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief or orientation in question, and the subject's beliefs or sexual orientation are relevant to their public life or notability, according to reliable published sources."

—sroc 💬 22:14, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

The issue is that for people who make a big deal out of their atheism, some people want to put "atheist" because they view atheism is like in character to religious belief, while others want to put "none" because they hold that "religion" as a category here can only be taken as "belief in the supernatural"; but the first group of people interpret "none" to mean "doesn't care about religious issues." Mangoe (talk) 18:27, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Thia section is about removing the religion parameter, not how to accommodate atheism. To remove the parameter entirely because some people misuse it would be to throw the baby out with the bathwater. If necessary, change the guidelines or make them more prominent to promote proper use, but that does not justify removing it entirely. —sroc 💬 21:53, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure this is the place to discuss whether to remove "religion" from infoboxes, but am inclined towards removing all fields that have no clear and objective definition, as per this RfC to remove influences/influenced. Clearly religion is very significant for the subject of some articles, while in other articles the person may simply have been raised in a particular religion, with some cultural observances thereafter. Conflating those two situations with a single label in an infobox leads to misleading oversimplification and pointless disputes. By contrast, an article can state the facts, and can give attributed opinions where appropriate. Johnuniq (talk) 23:29, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Misspelling of "publicly"

I have started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Spelling#Misspelling of "publicly" (version of 16:32, 22 July 2013).
—Wavelength (talk) 16:40, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Gender identity: slight re-wording

Thread retitled from "Slight change to statement".

The MOS says:

Any person whose gender might be questioned should be referred to by the gendered nouns (for example "man/woman", "waiter/waitress", "chairman/chairwoman"), pronouns, and possessive adjectives that reflect that person's latest expressed gender self-identification.

Taken literally, this would have applied to Kate Middleton's baby until today. I think this should change to:

Any person whose birth was in the past whose gender might be questioned should be referred to by the gendered nouns (for example "man/woman", "waiter/waitress", "chairman/chairwoman"), pronouns, and possessive adjectives that reflect that person's latest expressed gender self-identification.

Any thoughts on the best wording?? Georgia guy (talk) 22:32, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

I am revising the heading of this subsection from Slight change to statement (attitudinal information) to Gender identity: slight re-wording (topical and then attitudinal information), in harmony with WP:TPOC, point 13 (Section headings). Please see Microcontent: How to Write Headlines, Page Titles, and Subject Lines. The new heading facilitates recognition of the topic in links and watchlists and tables of contents, and it facilitates maintenance of Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Register. This section pertains to MOS:IDENTITY.

—Wavelength (talk) 22:57, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

The change is not needed and is confusing. Apteva (talk) 05:05, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm a little confused as to what you're getting at here. Are you saying that this portion of the MOS shouldn't apply to fetuses? If so, I'm not sure I see why. If it's because fetuses can't "self-identify" as a gender, that's an issue that also encompasses infants, and perhaps the wording should be changed to say that a fetus's or infant's gender should be based on a doctor's or the parents' identification. If it's because a fetus may have an unknown gender, perhaps the MOS should simply state that references to gender should be kept neutral until such time the fetus's gender is identified by a doctor or parents. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 22:11, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Rename to curly apostrophe

Please could we have a look at Parkinson’s law of triviality which has recently been moved with the edit comment "redirect allows search with r-side-s-quote and avoids url munge (%27s)". Despite the edit comment justification this seems to be against MOS:QUOTEMARKS and not something we want to happen to all the articles with apostrophes or quotes in the titles. I will notify the author. --Mirokado (talk) 00:34, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

If you or User:Dvdrtrgn would explain "r-side-s-quote", then this discussion would be helped along.

—Wavelength (talk) 00:47, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

"right-side single quote", or as I put it "curly apostrophe", which is in the new title of the article. --Mirokado (talk)

The move has now been reverted by User:Oknazevad. --Mirokado (talk) 01:20, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Good. We don't use curly quotation marks, per MOS:QUOTEMARKS, but you knew that. —sroc 💬 03:05, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Could we at least call things by their names instead of making up new ones? It hinders communication if we don't use the same names for things. Yes, you can choose to use non-standard fleemishes and the reader can still gloork the meaning from the context, but there ix a limit; If too many ot the vleeps are changed, it becomes harder and qixer to fllf what the wethcz is blorping, and evenually izs is bkb longer possible to ghilred frok at wifx. Dnighth? Ngfipht yk ur! Uvq the hhvd or 'hnnngh.' Blorgk? Blorgk! Blorgkity-blorgk!!!! --Guy Macon (talk) 05:14, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Unicode names are hardly going to facilitate communication among normal people (are there any of those around?). What they call an apostrophe is not what typographers call an apostrophe, for example. Dicklyon (talk) 05:28, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Oh dear, this is Parkinson's law of triviality in situ. We prefer "Parkinson%27s_law_of_triviality" over "Parkinson’s_law_of_triviality"? (Although we believe MOS:QUOTEMARKS is about style for within articles.) Guess I got what was coming to me---and came looking for... dvdrtrgn (talk) 22:41, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Considering we never actually link to the URL, but to wiki links, which contain no underscores and are plain text between the double square brackets, and considering most keyboards produce straight quote marks and apostrophes, yes we do prefer "Parkinson's law of triviality". oknazevad (talk) 23:46, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

As the MOS states, it applies as much to titles as to other parts of articles. Why would one think otherwise? I'm not keen on this provision about not using fancy quotes, but as long as that's the consensus guideline, let's stick with it. And yes, if the guideline said to paint all bike sheds green, I'd resist your efforts to argue that we should paint yours red; even as the world crumbles around us. Dicklyon (talk) 00:54, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

The guidelines to avoid curly quotes (or whatever you want to call them) do indeed apply both to article text and article titles, and has done as long as I can remember it being discussed. I don't believe AT states it explicitly, but it does defer to MOSQUOTE on the issue of apostrophes, which is much the same thing. Andrew Gray (talk) 16:29, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Familiar terms

Thread retitled from "Underground guideline?".

I have seen the argument of unfamiliarity on the part of readers being used in arguing for a traditionalist approach to presentation on WP. I am unaware that it is an entrenched guideline (though see "The IEC prefixes kibi-, mebi-, gibi-, etc. (symbols Ki, Mi, Gi, etc.) are not familiar to most Wikipedia readers [...], so are generally not to be used except under the following circumstances:"), and I personally find it spurious. It could even be used to argue that established scientific standards, units etc. should not be used in WP. I have seen a version of this argument used to motivate that an article (Electronvolt) should be renamed by historical frequency of usage of competing terms, and not by what has been mandated by the relevant standards bodies since 2004. Taken to the extreme, it would suggest that WP is only intended to, and should only try to capture "the sum of all common knowledge", and thus not attempt to be a true reference. In the present-it-only-in-a-form-that-is-familiar-to-the-typical-reader argument seems to be a dangerous bias of traditionalism that would keep WP behind its intended and potential purpose, were it not for the numerous editors who would feel that such a guideline is inappropriate and would thus ignore such a "guideline".

My question is: Should the MOS not tackle this, before it grows too much momentum, and stunts WP's potential as a reference? — Quondum 15:56, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

I am revising the heading of this section from Underground guideline? (attitudinal information) to Familiar terms (topical information), in harmony with WP:TPOC, point 13 (Section headings). Please see Microcontent: How to Write Headlines, Page Titles, and Subject Lines. The new heading facilitates recognition of the topic in links and watchlists and tables of contents, and it facilitates maintenance of Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Register.

—Wavelength (talk) 16:17, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

This has been dealt with in great detail at WP:UNITS. The consensus is that Ki (which should logically be "ki"), Mi, Gi, etc., are not used in the real world, except in the circumstances referenced. It is a standard, but although IEEE is one of the member organizations of the standards subcommittee, it is no longer used in IEEE journals. In fact it's not used in any scientific journals not produced by the standards committee. See the "Binary prefixes" archives of Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers for more details than you want to see. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:20, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

I was not trying to discuss the choice of units; what I was trying to draw attention to with that guideline was the predicate of a guideline being familiarity by the readers. Please do not divert this thread into the discussion of that specific guideline's conclusion. Notability should trump reader familiarity in WP – shouldn't it? Even if the guideline's conclusion remains unaltered, it should be rewritten to exclude reader non-familiarity as its primary/sole motivation. And it should be a principle that reference value trumps familiarity. — Quondum 16:43, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Quondum, I'm having difficulty understanding what you want to happen. I understand you sometimes see people using an argument which you find spurious and which you don't believe to be an "entrenched guideline", but could you be more specific about how you'd like the MOS to "tackle this". --Stfg (talk) 18:33, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough, it is a bit woolly. In trying to formulate a clear answer, my hope for a linkable meta-guideline or principle to help direct emotive attitudes on the topic seems to be difficult to put together.

For now, in the binary prefix example, I'd suggest removing "are not familiar to most Wikipedia readers, so", which would not change the guideline, but would remove a visible example that could serve as a prototype for bad reasoning. This phrase was not in the original consensus text from the archive, but was introduced later. — Quondum 00:41, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

I can see that, although some reason seems appropriate. Perhaps changing "are not familiar to most Wikipedia readers" to "are rarely used, even in technical articles". — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:51, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

I imagine that putting in a good reason will make more people comfortable when reading the guideline (less negative reaction). The impression I got in scanning the archive is that these prefixes are nearly absent from secondary sources. Your wording is a nice non-jargon way of expressing this. — Quondum 19:10, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

I think you have to draw a distinction between the knowledge being collected/described and the terminology and style used to do so. Using commonly-understood terminology and style does not have to limit the completeness or accuracy of most of the subject matter. In other words, I don't think anyone is suggesting not to discuss the MiB/MB controversy in an article about units of measurement for storage; we just don't want to use it in every article that happens to mention the storage capacity of a device. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 01:05, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Clarification regarding when to include links to redirects on disambiguation pages

I have initiated a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Disambiguation pages#Clarification regarding WP:DABREDIR seeking to clarify when to apply one of the exceptions to the general rule that "redirects should not be used in disambiguation pages." It would be great to get wider input there. Thanks! —sroc 💬 21:53, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

This reversion of this revision has a misleading edit summary. My purpose in revising this particular heading was not clarity, but it was brevity.

—Wavelength (talk) 16:43, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Distances between locations

In articles about smaller locations, it is common to introduce them by indicating an approximate direction and distance from a larger location. For example "Salty is a town approximately 12 kilometers north of Miami." My question is: should we give the distance from the center of the larger place (i.e. downtown Miami) or from the nearest edge of the larger place (i.e. the northern boundary of Miami)? I cannot find this issue mentioned in the MOS pages. Did I miss it? If it is not present, which section does it belong in? Zero^talk 02:00, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:WikiProject Geographical coordinates/Linear.

—Wavelength (talk) 02:20, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, but it doesn't seem to solve the problem. Zero^talk 02:48, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Center to center. If you pick edge to edge, Baldwin, Florida is 0 miles from Jacksonville, Florida and Neptune Beach, Florida is also 0 miles from Jacksonville, Florida, but Baldwin, Florida is 34 Miles from Neptune Beach, Florida. City limits are arbitrary and political; you hit the Los Angeles city limit many miles before you reach anything resembling the edge of the city, but in Sitka Alaska you have a long, long drive from the edge of the city to the city limit. (Los Angeles is 469 square miles, while Sitka is over ten times bigger at 4,811 square miles). Center to center is the only sane way to measure this. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:25, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

If you check Google Maps or a roadmap, the travel distance is usually from town hall to town hall (Toronto, Ontario to Oakville, Ontario, for example). I'd be inclined to do the same, except with linear distance only. Geographic centres can be odd: the one for the Halifax Regional Municipality is in a gravel pit in the middle of nowhere.) Modal Jig (talk) 12:48, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

I searched in WP:ASTRO and its subpages for an analogous guideline, but I did not find any.

—Wavelength (talk) 05:58, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

I think we should not stipulate any one way, but should only provide distances when they are given in RSs, and we should then state what the RSs state :) --Stfg (talk) 07:42, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Comment on Correct and Incorrect Style Coloring in MOS

After perusing through the MOS for the last day, I only just now realized (as a newer editor) that styles that are incorrect are in red(?) and correct styles are in green(?). I am not fully red-green colorblind, but this color scheme is particularly annoying to me especially since the MOS specifically advises against this. Bboppy (talk) 23:07, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

See Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 107#Green text color can't be seen by the color-blind (January 2009)

and Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 110#An idea: markup for bad examples (September and October 2009)

and Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 114#MOS is contradicting itself on accessibility (March 2010).

—Wavelength (talk) 23:27, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Ah, I now see that the MOS does not rely on color alone, even though somewhat inconsistent between sections (see MOS:ENDASH and MOS:HYPHEN). Is there a reason why #006400 and #8B0000 are used instead of #00FF00 and #FF0000? Bboppy (talk) 02:30, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Those darker green and red colors look like they were picked to be less garish, easier to read, with good luminance contrast. I have no idea whether that's helpful or not for your kind of color blindness. Let us know if adjusting one of the brightnesses up or down makes them easier to distinguish. Dicklyon (talk) 05:00, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

In my particular case, increasing the saturation would slightly help my ability to distinguish between the colors. But if the change interferes with readers with normal color vision's ability to read the text comfortably, there's really no point in changing the colors since I would still have difficulty regardless of saturation.--Bboppy (talk) 13:23, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

South East London

The name of this region is written in umpteen different ways, such as

South East London
south east London
South-East London
south-east London
southeast London
Southeast London
SouthEast London

The only one that I am confident is wrong is the last. Which should be preferred at Wikipedia? 81.159.107.64 (talk) 01:08, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

See WP:MOS#Compass points.—Wavelength (talk) 01:42, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I should have looked more carefully. 86.160.218.157 (talk) 02:19, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

That doesn't seem very clear on whether South East London (spaced) is correct, though the examples suggest that in British English "South-East London" is preferred to "Southeast London" (if the writer is using it as a proper name). Perhaps "may or may not be hyphenated" should be reworded to be clearer on which of the three alternatives it is intended to cover). --Boson (talk) 13:04, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Request for comment regarding tense for past events.

Consensus is to use historical present tense for Day of the Year list items, such as timelines, but the simple past tense for historical narrative. Eg, "July 4, 1776 - the Continental Congress adopts the Declaration of Independence"; but "On July 4, 1776, the Continental Congress adopted the Declaration of Independence." WP:NAC per request at WP:ANRFC by Van Isaac_{WS Vex}^contribs 23:04, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Should past events in Day of the Year articles be written in past tense or present? InedibleHulk (talk) 12:56, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Past I think it's clear that English has a past tense for a reason. Wikipedia seems to agree at WP:TENSE. These events have happened, they are not happening. I brought this up at the Days of the Year Wikiproject.

Apparently, there's a rule against it and this rule should stay because newspaper headlines use present tense, the rule hasn't been opposed since 2004, writing in the wrong tense isn't a problem and we should ignore all rules, including the one about a Wikiproject being unable to overrule a general guideline without first convincing the broader community. As far as I can tell, there was never a discussion to convince even the Wikiproject, just this edit. (talk) 13:03, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not a newspaper... While "In the news" blurbs on the Main Page can be written in present tense... articles on events should be written in the past tense. Blueboar (talk) 13:29, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

These are not really articles, they are lists. In essence they are lists of blurbs about events. -- Mufka ^(u) ^(t) ^(c) 13:34, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Irrelevant... Lists are considered "articles in listified format" on Wikipedia. Blueboar (talk) 16:04, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Present WP:TENSE states "discussion of history is usually written in the past tense" (my emphasis), but timelines are not discussion and are frequently written in the present tense. (Maybe WP:TENSE should mention this?) WikiProject Years appears to use the presnt tense too, though I can't see it stated as a style guideline there. --Stfg (talk) 13:44, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

~~Technically, no article has discussion. That takes more than one voice.~~ But these are complete sentences, expressing facts of history in English ("a formal treatment of a topic in speech or writing"). ~~As close to "discussion" as we get, so it can be assumed to be what is meant.~~ A timeline is ~~one of those graph-like things with the date running along the bottom~~ apparently what these lists are called here. InedibleHulk (talk) 13:51, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

The entries are not intentionally complete sentences. Sometimes simply "Battle of Blah Blah" is listed. -- Mufka ^(u) ^(t) ^(c) 13:58, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I fixed a few of those sentence fragments, too. If for nothing else, your Wikiproject's goals include article consistency. InedibleHulk (talk) 14:00, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Present The events on the DOY pages represent a point in time view of historical events. I don't feel there is a problem presenting them in a present tense form. As Stfg said, we're not having discussions about history in an narrative context in these pages. We're creating lists of or blurbs about events. If you take a particular event like Thomas Edison invents the lightbulb. It is listed on a date next to a year. When you think about what happened on this date, present tense seems appropriate. -- Mufka ^(u) ^(t) ^(c) 15:17, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

I disagree. If the choice is between -

"July 4, 1776 - United States declares it's independence from Great Brittan"

and

"July 4, 1776 - United States declared it's independence from Great Brittain"

I find the latter to be more encyclopedic and appropriate. Blueboar (talk) 16:04, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Imagine my astonishment that you were not instantly set upon by people tsk-tskingly pointing out your confusing it's for its (perhaps helpfully offering a lesson on the topic, complete with examples -- as if anyone participating in this discussion might actually need that). EEng (talk) 19:56, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

We'll disagree on this point. The latter just doesn't look or feel right in the context that we're talking about. -- Mufka ^(u) ^(t) ^(c) 16:22, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Comment As "encyclopedic" has been used, let's see some:
- Britannica Online has a Timelines section. Here's an example from its Arts subsection, entry for 1904: The young Pablo Picasso paints his elegiac "Woman Ironing," which reveals the depth and distinctive vision of his Blue Period.
- This example is from Credoreference: 20,000–10,000 b.c. -- Humans cross Siberian land bridge to North America.
- Here is oxfordreference.com's timeline for 1000-600 BCE: c. 1000 BCE -- The Jews write down the Torah, the earliest part of the text subsequently known to Christians as the Old Testament.

These are the first three examples I looked at. I didn't see any past tenses on the way. --Stfg (talk) 17:17, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

1. That's definitely an enyclopedia, but Wikipedia:1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica suggests using it for information only, and adopting Wikipedia's guidelines for sourcing and formatting. Granted, the 1911 version is older than the online, but the basic idea that we have a distinct style here is relevant. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:54, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

2. Not sure about this one. I just get a login screen. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:54, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

3. That's actually from HistoryWorld.net. Just indexed on an Oxford site. Does that site count as an encyclopedia? InedibleHulk (talk) 02:54, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

The examples are published timelines, at any rate. Rather than debate whether something qualifies as an encyclopedia, it's probably better to find examples of timelines. (The Credo one is subscription-required.) --Stfg (talk) 10:55, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

A lot of these other timelines are in simple table format, or done with a "newspaper from the past" gimmick. In those cases, headlinese and present tense description in an "Event" column are more appropriate than in a list of sentences like ours. InedibleHulk (talk) 11:14, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Present For me the part dealing with events is a timeline; every single event is dealt with with one entry in this timeline, and represents what has happened on this defined day in a certain year, each entry for itself; imagine having been present while each event happens: then Picasso paints his Woman Ironing, and Edison invents the lightbulb. I find the arguments by Mufka and Stfg rather compelling, especially the excerpts from Britannica online listed above. As a sidethought: one could, at a pinch, also describe events like this " xxxx Invention of the lightbulb by Edison" (Alas: I have not looked in the MoS if this is permitted). Lectonar (talk) 21:05, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

That's what baffles me. You say it represents what has happened. Why should we imagine we are present for a 1215 event in these articles anymore than we do in articles with paragraphs? Maybe it's just me, but I know I'm in 2013. Imagination is for storybooks. The only MoS guideline we have on the matter seems to agree, recommending present tense for fiction (which happens as one reads/watches), and past for history (which happened before, but no more). We even have cleanup tags specifically designed for this problem. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:27, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Of course it has happened in the past, but these are different kind of shoes, as is your link to the cleanup-tag....Lectonar (talk) 07:58, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Could you rephrase that? You lost me on to what "these" refers, whether "different kind of shoes" simply means different things, how my link ties into anything and what the ellipsis is for. InedibleHulk (talk) 11:14, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Present tense is pretty conventional for timeline events, as others have pointed out and documented. The alternative past tense style is probably sometimes used, too, but I think I'd stick with present for a day-of-year article with its headline-like phrases. Dicklyon (talk) 00:54, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
Comment.—English has more than one present tense and more than one past tense, and the choice of which one to use can be important. Waldo explores America. Waldo does explore America. Waldo is exploring America. Waldo explored America. Waldo was exploring America. Waldo has been exploring America. Waldo has explored America. Waldo had been exploring America. Waldo had explored America. Here is just one external page illustrating them.
Also, using different tenses together correctly is important. In 1900, Dora returned to the island that she had discovered in 1899, and told the inhabitants that she would be leaving the island in 1901. In 1900, Dora returns to the island that she discovered in 1899, and tells the inhabitants that she will be leaving the island in 1901. An editor who has chosen to write from the perspective of a particular tense can easily lose that perspective and slip into another perspective. Please see the article "Sequence of tenses".—Wavelength (talk) 03:04, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

I think I have a good grasp on that, and have considered it when editing. "The Convention of Artlenburg was signed, leading to the French occupation of Hanover (which had been ruled by the British king)". Do you see any problems with how tenses are used (as far as sequence goes, not past vs present preference) in today's article? InedibleHulk (talk) 03:16, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

I examined the article "July 5" (version of 14:21, 5 July 2013), and I did not find that particular incongruence within a sentence or paragraph of a single listed item, although I found the 1941 event (under "Events") expressed in the simple present tense ("reach"), among other listed events expressed in the simple past tense.

—Wavelength (talk) 15:20, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, got it. InedibleHulk (talk) 15:32, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Present—but I have no objection if local editors decide to render a particular timeline consistently in past tense.
Wavelength, I believe your list of examples is combination of tense and other grammatical features, which could be a little confusing in this context (whereas English has 36 tenses to choose from if we need to exemplify just that feature). For example:
"Waldo explores America"—marked, since it's a material rather than mental clause ("Waldo's exploring America" would be unmarked);
"Waldo does explore America"—also marked, but in a different way (it's constrastive), by unfusing the verb "explores" into "does explore" (all English verbs except be and in some varieties have are fused in the most common occurrences—that is, when all three of these conditions apply: (i) plain present or plain past tense, and (ii) neutral, and (iii) active voice. Tony (talk) 03:24, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Some of those terms (in your post) are associated with systemic functional grammar.

—Wavelength (talk) 15:41, 5 July 2013 (UTC) and 18:56, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Present (and also in timelines, eg Timeline of information theory) -- because it's more immediate, encouraging the reader to place themself into the frame of the event happening, rather than looking back at a fossilised piece of history. Jheald (talk) 12:01, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

"Fossils, schmossils. You can't stop progress because of some musty old bones. Bones, schmones!"

Again, imagining yourself in the moment is for storybooks. In the real world (which Wikipedia covers), history actually does happen to other people in another time. Boring, but true. InedibleHulk (talk) 15:28, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Present tense is fine. It's not unusual to use present tense when writing timelines, which is essentially what each DOY page is. Also, it ain't broke, so it don't need fixing. —howcheng {chat} 16:21, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
Point-of-reference based, which would usually be present tense in this context. The reader (and English tenses in general) work comfortably and are readily interpreted from an established time reference. In this case, cueing the point of reference as the date in question is natural and trivial: use of the present tense itself acts as the cue. There is one substantial advantage to present tense: any references that relate from that perspective use a simpler tense structure by virtue of one less remove, and timeline-based event descriptions rarely need to reference the present date. In effect, each verb would have one less "had" attached to it. The counterexamples, say a history book, does not have a natural mechanism of establishing a point of reference, because in the present tense the point of reference would be shifting with the narrative. In a timeline, the listed date establishes the point of reference unambiguously and trivially for each entry. — Quondum 23:25, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

You don't think these lists shift the "present" with each line? They skip ahead years or even centuries. Using the current date as the point of reference point requires no shifting, no cue and no need to put one's mind into several eras per article (most of which we can't properly imagine, anyway). InedibleHulk (talk) 07:03, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Present in this very limited context When you have a list of dates and things that happened on that date, the historical present strikes me as more elegant style. However I find that in general present tense is used inappropriately in articles about past events and extinct biological taxa, especially in the first sentence. (The article on the Whitechapel murders once began [t]he Whitechapel murders are..., as though these poor women were being eternally murdered.) --Trovatore (talk) 23:29, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Tragically, the brutal murder of the first still perpetually occurs on April 3. Another prostitute, another double standard. As vividly rhetorical and elegant as ghost stories and historical presence are, they suit other places better than where "plain English works best" and "unnecesarilly complex wording" is discouraged.

In a BBC vault headline or table with a header named Event (where one naturally figures anything in that column is a description of the event, independent of time or anything else in another column), it makes sense. In an encyclopedia, rewording a sentence to bring the reader into an exciting world, separate from their own, is obviously adding a layer of complexity, if not verging on lying. History really happened, on this very earth to our actual ancestors. This should be acknowledged as true, not a good story.

And if some readers are as engrossed in the narrative as some of you think, wouldn't the shift back to reality when a Wikilink is clicked be about as jarring as The Lawnmower Man being yanked out of his helmet? One minute, they're being introduced to Jack the Ripper in the filthy London fog. The next, all the characters are dead and they're staring at a screen with factual information on it. That must suck. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:03, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Timelines should be in present tense, everything else just sounds wrong. Agathoclea (talk) 16:34, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Simple past.—I prefer the simple past tense for main clauses in lists of past events, because it accurately describes those events from the perspective of the reader in the present time. Also, it probably is (in comparison with the present tense) less prone to errors in the sequence of tenses.—Wavelength (talk) 17:28, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
Present tense - because it is standard practice for this kind of listing, however counterintuitive it might seem. Let us not imitate the archaic grammarians who insisted in fitting English to the procrustean bed of overexact logic, thus depriving us of the intensifying of the double negative. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:21, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Side discussion about closing

Conclusion of RfC Is there any need for this RfC to continue? Or is it clear enough that the general opinion is that present tense is appropriate and no change to WP:DAYS is needed? -- Mufka ^(u) ^(t) ^(c) 14:52, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Yeah... this RfC can be concluded. I still think it should be changed... but even I think there is a clear consensus for not changing it. Blueboar (talk) 15:52, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

This RfC is not about the past side changing the local rule, it's about the present side changing the general rule that clashes with it. Per WP:LOCALCONSENSUS, those who wish exemption need to convince the wider community they are right. Until then, your Wikiproject rule is overruled, by default. If this concludes without someone being convinced enough to amend WP:TENSE, the lists rightfully go into past tense, as it says non-fictional history should.

Remember, "Consensus is determined by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy." Not how many people have the general opinion of "I like it" or "This is how so-and-so does it". InedibleHulk (talk) 09:33, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

The question of debate for this RfC was "Should past events in Day of the Year articles be written in past tense or present?" That question has been clearly answered. Are you now suggesting that you wish to change the question? If so, please withdraw this RfC and start it over in a way that will, when debate is completed, allow you to accept the outcome and move on. So far, it seems you have no basis in Wikipedia policy for your position on this topic. You keep referring to WP:TENSE not realizing that it is an essay, not a policy. There is no need to petition to amend WP:TENSE because it has no teeth. I find no policy that specifically supports your argument about past vs present tense. This discussion has thus far confirmed longstanding consensus for the current practice of listing events in the present tense. -- Mufka ^(u) ^(t) ^(c) 20:13, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

I know what the question is, I wrote it. You seem to understand it, too. We apparently have different ideas about the point of asking, though.

I'm not trying to change your local rule. I was, at the project talk page, but you ended that discussion. After that, it became a question of the validity of your rule, given LOCALCONSENSUS, TENSE and the MOS. ("Plain English works best. Avoid unnecessarily complex wording"). You're right that the entire "Writing better articles" essay isn't a guideline, but the relevant section on tense is connected to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Writing about fiction, which is a guideline, as the cleanup tag says.

So that's two guidelines to your zero. You call it a "longstanding consensus", but it is against policy, not supported by policy and not even discussed at your Wikiproject or elsewhere. Remember, a closer determines consensus after discarding arguments "that flatly contradict established policy, those based on personal opinion only and those that are logically fallacious." InedibleHulk (talk) 20:56, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Writing about fiction says nothing about writing about history. Template:Cleanup-tense merely links back to WP:TENSE, wrongly calling it a guideline. That essay, by the way, also links to Historical present, which in its opening paragraph explains clearly enough the use of the present tense "in writing about history, especially in historical chronicles (listing a series of events)". --Stfg (talk) 21:36, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

It says "By convention, these synopses should be written in the present tense, as this is the way that the story is experienced as it is read or viewed (see also WP:TENSE)". When we see WP:TENSE, as directed, we read about distinguishing fact from fiction. It's all tied together, at least the way I read it.

I addressed the historical present Wikilink earlier, though maybe not clearly. Yes, it is used in some chronicles. But those don't have a guideline saying to avoid ambiguity (did it happen or is it happening? Dramatic narrative or factual claim?) and unnecessary complex wording. When we attempt to make our writing vivid by replacing plain English with rhetoric, that's complex and obviously not necessary. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:04, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

All the above notwithstanding, if the raiser wishes the RFC to remain open, I guess it would be wisest to await the completion of the standard 28-day period. --Stfg (talk) 21:36, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

I think you're over analyzing this whole thing. You're not giving readers enough credit. Looking at the description of an event that occurred in 1870, no reader with even a rudimentary understanding of English will not be able to determine if the event is happening now or in the past due to the tense of the statement. There is no complex wording or ambiguity. The longstanding consensus is not explicitly against any policy. Consensus does not need to form only after long drawn out discussions. This essay explains that clearly. You're also forgetting a very important fact: This policy explains that written rules do not set accepted practice. The current practice, is one of these accepted practices. Regardless of what some policy says somewhere (and none does), the community at large has accepted present tense as the norm in date articles. Strong evidence of this is found in the fact that the practice has been ongoing for many years, and one person has objected. The discussion above provides further evidence that those who are interested enough to comment (which is the only way to gauge community opinion) feel that the current practice is acceptable and should continue. This also illustrates that we are not talking about a local consensus. If discussion needs to continue, let's keep WP:TENSE and WP:LOCALCONSENSUS out of it because they don't apply. For good measure let's also leave out MOS because I don't think anyone will agree that we're dealing with unnecessarily complex wording. But without those, I don't see any argument to be made. -- Mufka ^(u) ^(t) ^(c) 00:06, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

I didn't say the idea was ambiguous, just the wording. Unnecessarily so, since, even if most people get the gist of it, it's still against the grain of plain English. We could mispell words, leave out punctuation, throw in some LOLs and people would still understand. But it's not the way it should be.

The practice was accepted. Now it's not. These things sometimes change when editors like me speak up. About that, you may want to count the others who were "interested enough to comment" about prefering past tense. Once the pure opinion votes alone are subtracted, we're tied. Not exactly a strong consensus for the status quo.

Have you ever reverted someone for changing the tense, who then didn't make a deal out of it? Those count as objections, too, even if they're easier to quash.

I think I'll pass on your request to leave the basis of my argument out of it. But it was worth a shot. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:25, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't see your logic in "once the pure opinion votes alone are subtracted". I don't really know what that means. I only see two other editors who prefer some form of past tense and one of those said consensus for present was clear even though he didn't like it. I also need clarification of your distinction between idea and wording. Wording where? In WP:DAYS? If that's the case, then let's fix the wording. And as far as reverting tense changes, those who use the wrong tense generally don't know that WP:DAYS exists and that the events should be in present tense. Those don't count as objections, they're just uninformed. It's a bit like someone in Massachusetts getting a citation for selling a purple chicken. Did you know that was illegal? -- Mufka ^(u) ^(t) ^(c) 12:12, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

In WP:Closing discussions#How to determine the outcome, it lists the kinds of comments to be disregarded, including "those based on personal opinion only". Those seem to be what Dicklyon, Howcheng, Agathoclea and you are offering. Others seem to be "logically fallacious". Of course, that's not my call to make.

A sentence can be written ambiguously enough that it could be taken to mean something else, though an English reader with average intelligence would understand the gist. "Adolf Hitler publishes his personal manifesto Mein Kampf" could be taken to mean he is perpetually publishing it, while "Adolf Hitler published his personal manifesto Mein Kampf" unambiguously says what happened on July 18, 1925. It's a small problem, but shouldn't exist when the solution is so simple.

Fixing the wording is all this has ever been about.

You call the editors you've reverted "uninformed", but did you inform them? How so? "Events should be in present tense" is an arbitrary rule that some guy stuck in your style guide a minute after he rejoined the Wikiproject. There was no local discussion, no local consensus. Seeing a grammar problem and trying to fix it is absolutely an act of objection. After being reverted, maybe they assumed there was a good reason or just couldn't be bothered to argue. I know there is no good reason and have plenty of free time.

Overseeing articles and reverting those who object is not a sign of a "longstanding consensus", since consensus is based on policy and discussion.

And no, I wasn't even aware purple chickens existed. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:53, July 18, 2013 (UTC)

I think at this point we're left to wait for an uninvolved third party to evaluate the discussion and come to a closing decision on the RfC. -- Mufka ^(u) ^(t) ^(c) 21:12, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, should happen on July 32, by my math. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:28, July 18, 2013 (UTC)

Just a touch to keep this on this page so it doesn't get archived before closure. -- Mufka ^(u) ^(t) ^(c) 11:25, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Not sure what happened, but it's apparently "expired". Don't know if that's "open" or "closed", neither or both. You? InedibleHulk (talk) 07:16, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

~~I think someone should bring it to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure, but I don't know if it should be someone uninvolved or not.~~ Nevermind, saw you there. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:20, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

WP:DASH in redirect category names

Please could DASH enthusiasts comment on Category:Redirects to non-English language terms to Category:Redirects to non-English-language terms and related category renamings currently at end of Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Speedy#Current nominations?

Also, I processed Category:Redirects from Komi-Permyak language terms to Category:Redirects from Komi-Permyak-language terms and Category:Redirects from Karachay-Balkar language terms to Category:Redirects from Karachay-Balkar-language terms. Please let me know here if those were wrong (or sub-optimal). – Fayenatic London 19:12, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Looks like correct nominations to me. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:15, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

I see no dashes involved one way or the other. Dicklyon (talk) 14:11, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

The choice is between non-English-language and non-English–language. I agree with Good Ol’factory that the hyphen should be preferred over a dash. — Quondum 21:16, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

The order of operations can work in various ways: non-English-language and non–English-language and non-English–language. The last two of those are effectively synonymous with each other, and the first gives no indication of meaning anything else, so the first version seems to be preferable because of its simplicity.

—Wavelength (talk) 21:37, 30 July 2013 (UTC) and 21:44, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

You are pointing out a binding strength difference between a dash and a hyphen. Should this be mentioned in the WP:ENDASH guideline? (I tend to agree with your logic.) — Quondum 21:58, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

WP:HYPHEN seems to be a better place for it to be mentioned ("do use a hyphen" versus "do not use a dash").

—Wavelength (talk) 22:17, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Order of operations is a concept in mathematics and programming languages, not natural language. Where in any English grammar, style guide or usage guide is there such a concept for mixing hyphens and dashes? --Stfg (talk) 22:32, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Read WP:DASH and you'll see exactly that (this concept with dashes and spaces). — Quondum 02:31, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Already read. Nothing about "order of operations". More importantly, nothing about mixtures of hyphens and dashes. --Stfg (talk) 12:41, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

See WP:NDASH (a sub-subsection of the subsection WP:DASH), part 2 (a pro-establishment–anti-intellectual alliance; the Seeliger–Donker-Voet scheme) and part 3 ("Post–September 11 anti-war movement").

—Wavelength (talk) 14:24, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Ah, now I see. Thanks. --Stfg (talk) 14:40, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Note that the few mixed hyphen/dash consrtructs in our examples are to illustrate the application of specific usage patterns, which do not include this "precedence" concept. Multiple hyphens are what we would normally use in things like "non-English-language terms", since "non-Enlish language" is a noun compound used as an adjective there, which calls for a hyphen. There may be guides that would recommend doing this differently, and we could discuss those if someone has one, but otherwise it seems we're extrapolating a bit wildly to propose it. Dicklyon (talk) 15:49, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

In a pro-establishment–anti-intellectual alliance, a dash is used to contrast two concepts ("pro-establishment" and "anti-intellectual") each of which is a compound separated by a hyphen.

In the Seeliger–Donker-Voet scheme, a dash is used to combine two names (Seeliger and Donker-Voet), one of which is a hyphenated name.

In post–September 11 anti-war movement, a dash is used to combine a prefix ("post") with a compound that contains a space ("September 11"). The dash is only used in this context when the compound contains a space, otherwise it remains a hyphen.

In the present case, the prefix "non" is attached to a compound ("English-language") which does not contain a space. Thus, the phrase should be hyphenated as non-English-language, not with a dash as non-English–language or non–English-language or non–English–language. —sroc 💬 14:25, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

@Wavelength: yes, I see that it is already partially implicitly covered under "Multi-hyphenated items". Trying to add this edge case more explicitly might be foolhardy. — Quondum 11:42, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

As far as I know, our dash guidelines do not recommend that kind of construct. If they do, please quote the relevant lines so we can see if they apply here. But my interpretation of the original question was just hyphen versus space, no? Dicklyon (talk) 03:23, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

The section heading "WP:DASH in redirect category names" is misleading, causing editors to think of dashes, instead of hyphens as illustrated in the original post. Perhaps the original poster is confusing hyphens with dashes. Your comment at 14:11 alludes to this.

—Wavelength (talk) 03:37, 31 July 2013 (UTC) and 05:00, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Quondum picked up my intended meaning: I was wondering whether one of the multiple hyphens in the new names should have been a dash. Sorry for not being more explicit, and thank you all for resolving the matter. – Fayenatic London 13:45, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Clarification needed in WP:COMMA

Hello.

Judging from the discussion on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names)/Archives/2013/September#Commas in metro areas, it seems a clarification is needed in WP:COMMA. A minority is putting forth that since "Rochester, New York, metropolitan area" is not a (full) sentence, the exception "(except at the end of a sentence)" does not apply. The article is currently at Rochester, New York metropolitan area, missing the second comma. The second comma is advocated by a majority.

I would propose that the wording is amended so it would read: "(except at the end of a sentence or an expression)". The expression "Rochester, New York, metropolitan area" might appear in a parenthetical expression – whether set off by parentheses or by endashes – and thus this rule seemingly wouldn't apply with the current wording.

Example: Born and raised not far from the Great Lakes – in a small town in the Rochester, New York, metropolitan area – he would often go boating on Lake Ontario (apologies for the quality of my creative writing).

In fact, it would also seem that the rule didn't apply for "Rochester, New York" either, and if interpreted to the letter in the same way as in the discussion on the metropolitan area, would call for a move to Rochester, New York, – though I assume nobody in their right mind would propose that.

HandsomeFella (talk) 14:59, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

In my understanding, an expression can be as short as a symbol, and as long as a book.

—Wavelength (talk) 15:16, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Though I'm sympathetic I'd have to say that I'm worried that changing it to also say "use 2 commas unless its at the end of a phrase" would just lead more people to omit the second comma mid-sentence and then argue that it isn't needed because it's technically "at the end of a phrase". If what we want is to say, "COMMA applies to titles even though they aren't sentences," we should do that instead, even if it takes some effort. AgnosticAphid talk 15:25, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
How about "(except at the end of a sentence or a dependent clause)"? HandsomeFella (talk) 16:09, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

This doesn't work. For example: "While Stravinsy lived in Paris, France he met Jean Cocteau." is wrong. --Stfg (talk) 17:52, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

To keep it simple, how about replacing "... follows the last element (except at the end of a sentence)" with "... follows the last element (unless other punctuation follows it)", or words to that effect? --Stfg (talk) 16:28, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Not bad. Definitely an alternative. HandsomeFella (talk) 16:49, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't follow the logic. If the title Rochester, New York(,) metropolitan area is not a sentence and therefore not the end of a sentence, then the exception does not apply, and therefore you do need the second comma. Right? What am I missing? I don't think a change is needed here, just an explanation of the minority's logic mistake. --Trovatore (talk) 16:41, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

I have actually been thinking the same. HandsomeFella (talk) 16:49, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Here's an example: "Stravinsky lived in many citites—including Paris, France—during his life". Replace the dashes by parentheses, and still no comma after France. AFAICS, any punctuation supersedes the requirement for that comma. --Stfg (talk) 17:48, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Hmm, OK, but it doesn't seem to have anything to do with the original complaint. --Trovatore (talk) 17:50, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Agreed, it doesn't. But if the proposition is to amend the wording of WP:COMMA, we need to cover the general case, not just that specific issue. --Stfg (talk) 17:55, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

My point is that there's nothing to be done for the specific issue, not at MOS in any case. If you want to amend COMMA anyway, fine, but it's a separate issue. --Trovatore (talk) 18:05, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

OK, I see (and have posted at that talk pointing out how those arguing "it's a title not a sentence" are misapplying MOS). That discussion belongs there. Here, since the WP:COMMA is not accurate, perhaps here we can find a way to fix that. --Stfg (talk) 18:47, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

My suggestion is a start, but not enough, because the comma would also be omitted at the end of list items, table items, captions and titles for which terminal punctuation would be omitted. I'm having trouble expressing that concisely. Can anyone suggest something? --Stfg (talk) 18:47, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree that MOS:COMMA should be changed, not to say "expression" or "phrase" (which are inaccurate), perhaps to refer to other punctuation. It may not apply to all punctuation though, so can we please check the pertinent style guides to see how they handle it? —sroc 💬 11:10, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

See OnlineStylebooks.com (a stylebook search engine).

—Wavelength (talk) 01:02, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Section heading numbers

May I suggest that section heading numbers be followed by a fullstop. My reason is that, in headings that also contain numbers, the result often appears confusing at first glance. (To me, at least.)
For example, a heading like "Class 4" or "Class 4 locomotive" may display as, for example, "4 Class 4" or "4 Class 4 locomotive". I believe "4. Class 4" or "4. Class 4 locomotive" would be less confusing on the eye.
4 Class 4
4. Class 4
4 Class 4 locomotive
4. Class 4 locomotive
André Kritzinger 00:56, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Section heading numbers are not under editor's control, it is determined by the Wikimedia software. Try WP:Village Pump (technical).

Thank you. Will do. André Kritzinger 01:05, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Name of lawsuit

I have consulted Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Legal and Wikipedia:Article titles, and I am uncertain about how to name the lawsuit described in these reports. Five organizations comprise the set of defendants, and naming them all in the manner in which I have done here entails a lawsuit with a long name, and possibly a Wikipedia article with a long name.

—Wavelength (talk) 00:03, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

In some jurisdictions at least, where there are multiple plaintiffs/appellants or multiple defendants/respondents, the first is named and followed by "and anor" ("and another", if there is one other) or "and others". This doesn't seem to be covered by Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Legal or Case citation or {{Cite court}} though. —sroc 💬 01:57, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

My search for "et al" finds "many lawsuit articles", but I am still uncertain about whether that style for a particular lawsuit originated with the legal profession or with Wikipedia. Also, I am uncertain about the manner of selection of the "lead" plaintiff or (as in this case) the "lead" defendant.

—Wavelength (talk) 03:02, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

At the risk of WP:OR, I've mainly seen et al in relation to a list of authors in citations, but it would be good to consider reliable sources on actual usage (which may well vary by jurisdiction). —sroc 💬 04:36, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

For example, see Murdoch University ("Completing Case Citations"):

If many people are part of an action the first party's name is usually cited with & Ors (and others). If there are only two parties the second party may be cited as & Anor (and another). Sometimes only the first party is cited in a citation, e.g. Mabo & Ors v State of Queensland and Ors (No.2) is usually cited as Mabo v State of Queensland (No. 2). However, the Australian Guide to Legal Citation (3rd ed, 2010) requires that & Ors and & Another not be used, with only the first named plaintiff and the first named defendant being cited (ALGC3 rule 2.1.1)

Australian Guide to Legal Citation:

A citation of an Australian case should include the parties’ names in italics as they appear on the first page of the report, except that: [...]

• only the first-named plaintiff and first-named defendant should be cited (‘& Anor’ or ‘& Ors’ should not be used to indicate other parties); [...]

—sroc 💬 04:44, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

In the US, at least, if there are multiple parties the courts and parties usually just list the first named party and then put "et al." (short for et alia, so it needs the period) for the rest. You can do some OR here and see for yourself by looking through a few civil cases (ones that aren't "P v. Jones"). On the other hand, my trusty dusty Bluebook says (on page 7), "The case name that appears at the beginning of published opinions typically includes too much information ... Omit all parties other than the first listed on each side of the "v." .... Omit words including multiple parties such as "et al.," and alternative names." AgnosticAphid talk 18:49, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

If only the first named plaintiff and the first named defendant are mentioned in the title, then is the lead section the right place for mentioning the full name of the lawsuit? I have a draft ready for starting a Wikipedia article, and I welcome improvements to it after it has been started. (Alternatively, you or another editor may wish to start the article instead.)

—Wavelength (talk) 19:23, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Sure. I guess I'd say something like "filed by [whoever] against 3 [4?] different energy companies and the state environmental protection department" or whatever in the lead somewhere, and then specify who the companies are either in the lead or elsewhere in the article depending on whether or not the precise parties are that important. AgnosticAphid talk 20:16, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. I have started the article Stephanie Hallowich, H/W, v. Range Resources Corporation.

—Wavelength (talk) 20:37, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Just to add an English perspective, our manual of citation OSCOLA also recommends the use of only one party on each side of the "v" (we don't use the "."), but our style would also be to avoid use of "endings" such as "Ltd", "LLP" and so on, which I understand is not US style. Eg "Apple v Samsung". Francis Davey (talk) 13:53, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Hmm. So, I would have done this differently. Probably "Hallowich v. Range Resources, et al." Specifically, I would want to be reasonably brief. I wouldn't use "H/W" in the title, which I'm not sure of the expansion of, and the article doesn't explain. Since the plaintiffs are two Hallowiches, it's convenient to drop the first name (and doing so is shorter than "Hallowich and Hallowich"). I think omitting extra parties without any indication isn't super-good. The Bluebook does it that way, but while that's the dominant style for the law profession, it's not typical style readers see in newspaper articles, etc. (Also, I'm not sure why Australian and English style have a lot of bearing on an American court case; presumably we style cases differently based on their national origin...). Also, it's odd that the full caption in the article is given with semicolons. I guess I can just go change that... jhawkinson (talk) 21:33, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Please see Semicolon#Usage and the examples using the semicolon "between items in a series or listing containing internal punctuation, especially parenthetic commas, where the semicolons function as serial commas". Please see WP:SEMICOLON, where "semicolons are used in addition to commas to separate items in a listing, when commas alone would result in confusion."

—Wavelength (talk) 22:03, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Oh sure, I'm well aware of that. I don't think there's any confusion here and it reads rather wrong (to my eye). jhawkinson (talk) 23:58, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Even if this is a borderline example where possibly some readers would not be confused, it still appears to me like a garden path sentence when commas are substituted for those semicolons. Who can say with certainty that a previously unknown lawsuit does not involve litigants identified as "L.P." and "L.L.C."? Anyway, in my original post above, the first listed link is to a web page authored by someone who evidently had a reason to use semicolons in the name of the lawsuit.

—Wavelength (talk) 02:14, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Source's formatting

Please take a look at Talk:2013 UCI World Tour#Sources' formatting, about how to format sources for the rankings. Thank you - Nabla (talk) 22:26, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Gender Identity - confusing text

Just wondering what the logic is behind: "Nevertheless, avoid confusing or seemingly logically impossible text that could result from pronoun usage (for example: instead of He gave birth to his first child, write He became a parent for the first time)."

Why are we reacting to something that is rare/some people may not have heard of/thought about by hiding it? Would that be the stylistic choice when not dealing with gender identity? Given that (using the above example) some men can get pregnant and give birth, it may be confusing to some, but it isn't logically impossible. Encyclopaedias should be in the business of explaining things that confuse people rather than pretending they don't exist.

Also, we should be more clear that using pronoun sets apart from he/him and she/her is okay. Obviously the only appropriate pronouns to use for someone are the pronouns they identify with, but the identity section doesn't directly say that yet. The line currently is:

"Any person whose gender might be questioned should be referred to by the gendered nouns (for example "man/woman", "waiter/waitress", "chairman/chairwoman"), pronouns, and possessive adjectives that reflect that person's latest expressed gender self-identification."

Which you'd think would be clear enough, but there have been edit wars where people have tried to stop appropriate pronoun sets from being used (i.e. zi/hir).

I'm proposing getting rid of the first bit I quoted, and changing the second bit to include a nod to non-binary gender. MartinLevine.91 (talk) 13:50, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

But that is just it; it is not okay to use words like "zi" and "hir." They are not part of the English language. They may be one day, but right now, they still have the status of made-up words. Our language does not have a singular gender-neutral pronoun appropriate for use with human subjects, and we have to deal with that within the confines of the language as it currently exists.

To solve one of the specific problems that you've brought up, how about, "[Person's name] became a parent for the first time" or even "[Person's surname] gave birth to a child"? Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:20, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Darkfrog, you're pointing towards the statement that transgender people should be referred to with no pronouns at all before the operation. Is that what WP:MOS says?? Georgia guy (talk) 00:45, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Our language does not have a singular gender-neutral pronoun...

But it does. Singular they —[AlanM1(talk)]— 01:11, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

AlanM1, the singular they has not yet become accepted in formal, written English, which is what we use on Wikipedia. It's working its way in, but it's not there yet.

Georgia Guy, no, I do not believe that gendered pronouns should be omitted from articles about transgender individuals, but when using "he" or "she" would be problematic, such as in the case that ML cites, then yes, the surname would work well. Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:30, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Singular they is actually pretty well accepted in everyday English, http://oxforddictionaries.com/words/he-or-she-versus-they, it's even recommended by the UK government's style guide https://www.gov.uk/designprinciples/styleguide, but we should also use rarer pronoun sets where appropriate. When we have pages on physics we use words that are not in most dictionaries or understood by most people but are words within the field of physics, when are pages broach subject of gender, we should use the words that trans*people and gender theorists use.

Separately to that, does anyone have any objections to saying the literally true "he gave birth"? I recognise we could have get arounds by rewording either the "he" or the "gave birth", but I don't understand why those get arounds are necessary. MartinLevine.91 (talk) 08:19, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

If by "rarer pronoun sets" you mean made-up words, then the only situations in which they would be appropriate on Wikipedia would be when they themselves are being discussed. Words like "molality" are rare, but they are real. We had a similar issue with the treatment of bird names. When dealing with facts about a specific subject (wingspan, mating habits, etc.) then the professional journal articles should trump other sources, but when dealing with how to write about those facts (capitalization, spelling, usage, punctuation) then standard English style guides should trump other sources. There is more support among style guides for the singular they than, say for using British punctuation in American English, but it's still best to use it sparingly in anything written in a formal style. Creating a rule that required something like the singular they would not be best. Darkfrog24 (talk) 12:41, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

I would say that where appropriate would definitely include a BoLP situation in which the subject has indicated a preference for being pronouned as xie/hir or they/their -- or who, like me, takes either female or gender-neutral pronouns. Under the most respectful reading of the BoLP guidelines, that should be done. (I should also mention, as a person who favours using gender-neutral singular pronouns, that singular they grates on my ears because I'm not comfortable referring to a singular person in the plural.)

I'd also say that on some level we're in the descriptivist-prescriptivist quagmire here. Are gender-neutral pronouns real words because people actually do use them in the real world (the descriptivist view), or are they not real words because this or that authority has not approved them (the presciptivist view)? One some levels, there's no resolving this debate, shy of seeking authoritative approval, which would take time, but may be inevitable. Getheren (talk) 13:06, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Because we are dealing with formal, written English, then the fact that the authorities on formal, written English have not approved these words is relevant. So yes, this is prescriptivist. It's like clothes. We wear what's appropriate to the restaurant or the beach or the workplace depending on where we are. The level of formality depends on the type of writing. Do people use slang and neologisms and non-standard capitalization in their emails and on their blogs and in field-specific publications? Yes. That does not mean that Wikipedia should do so as well. Darkfrog24 (talk) 15:49, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

On the other hand, there are vanishingly few neologisms or slang terms that any group of people of any size feels a need to argue strongly and persistently should be accepted in serious writing on Wikipedia. The mere fact that such a population exists for the gender-neutral pronouns places them somewhere outside the class of "slang" on the same level as "man, I was so yashed last night, I wound up praying to at the porcelain altar". And the fact that this conflict has persisted on Wikipedia, to my direct knowledge, for at least twelve years, makes the gender-neutral pronoun extraordinarily well-established and enduring for a "neologism". (Though I must admit that I expected a consensus on the spelling of the pronoun to have appeared by now.)

Whether any of this is in itself sufficient reason to accept the use of a gender-neutral third person singular pronoun is a separate (though interesting) question. However, I believe it is sufficient reason to think that a simplistic argument identifying them as "slang" or "neologisms" may be much more of a mantra than an argument.

Let me offer a compromise position, one which I'm perfectly willing to stand by. In other words, I offer it in explicit good faith and I'm not invested in maintaining an all-or-nothing position. Perhaps a consensus can be reached that within an identifiable context, in which these pronouns are useful and needed, they may acceptably be used, while outside that context they are to be deprecated (details to be settled by consensus). I feel certain that the population advocating for their use would generally be willing to make this compromise (there will be exceptions, but then on every side of every question there are absolutists who refuse compromise). Getheren (talk) 20:25, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Sounds interesting. Could you be more specific about what that "identifiable context" might be? --Stfg (talk) 20:54, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't think Wikipedia should use invented pronouns until such time as any reach mainstream usage (don't hold your breath). They look too pointy or self-conscious for our purposes here. 81.159.107.64 (talk) 01:18, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

But the subject here is how to refer to transgender people. A trans woman is a woman and must be referred to as she/her throughout her life. She differs from most women in that she had the wrong body before being fixed with surgery. Georgia guy (talk) 01:32, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't understand how your reply relates to what I wrote. 86.160.218.157 (talk) 02:13, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia shouldn't base its rules on fights that take place on Wikipedia. It should base its rules on reliable sources on formal written English in general. It shouldn't matter if a disproportionate number of Wikipedians think that something should be allowed. That's how we ended up with that stupid WP:LQ rule (Requiring incorrect punctuation? Really?). It should matter that a disproportionate number of English-language writers think that something should be allowed.

I'm not the only person you need to convince, Getheren, but no, I wouldn't use made-up words like "zi" and "hir" in the article space unless the words themselves were being discussed, for example, if it were an article about made-up words or about the jargon of transgenderism. I don't know what you mean specifically by "a context in which they are useful and needed," but I would not endorse them in an article about any human person until they enter mainstream usage. Because they are not at this time correct English, they are not useful or needed.

Bottom line: It is not for Wikipedia to reform or improve the English language. It is for Wikipedia to follow changes in the English language, not make them. If "zhi" and "hir" ever enter mainstream usage, we can always change the rule to allow them then. Darkfrog24 (talk) 12:40, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Re the claim that "singular they has not yet become accepted in formal, written English": English borrowed "they" from Old Norse in the 1200s, and was already using it with singular antecedents by the 1400s. The man called "the father of English literature", Geoffrey Chaucer, used "they" with a singular antecedent, as did the old Chancellor of the University of Cambridge, John Fisher (who wrote that Jesus "never forsaketh any creature unless they before have forsaken themselves"). The man called "the greatest writer in the English language", William Shakespeare, used singular "they" (e.g. in Romeo and Juliet: "arise; one knocks [...] hark, how they knock!"); the translators of the KJV also used it (e.g. in Deut. 17:5 — following the Hebrew text!). E. B. White used it ("somebody taught you, didn't they?"); J. K. Rowling uses it; etc; etc.

Some transgender/transsexual people might take offence at being referred to as "they", and for that reason and other reasons I think it is better to reword articles in the way the MOS currently describes, rather than resort to either the singular "they" or any neologisms like "co" or "hir". But I had to point out "singular they" has been proper English for several hundred years.

I think Darkfrog's suggestion of using the person's name or surname in places where a pronoun would be confusing is a great solution. -sche (talk) 18:43, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't consider the singular they to be accepted in formal English, but we seem to be in agreement about its role in articles about transgender individuals, -sche. Darkfrog24 (talk) 18:48, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

I do not wish to be confrontational here but do not know how to otherwise proceed. Darkfrog, I cannot help but feel from the way you are talking about this that you do not accept that people have non-binary genders and that is why you are protesting the usage of non-binary pronouns. In all other areas, be it science, sociology or fiction, when a word is created to mean something new, or a word is given a new meaning, wikipedia is happy to use the terminology used by the experts in the field. No-one derides the use of "decoherence" as a word made up by physicists. It's not in common usage, and most people reading it for the first time will have to look it up. Decoherence is often the correct word to use, and so we use it when appropriate. We could try and avoid using any specialised words, but that would be cumbersome and unnecessary. All words are made up, and a sizeable fraction of words are not in dictionaries or style guides but are still appropriate at time.

For those of non-binary gender, it is often the case that a non-binary pronoun is the correct one to use. The only reason I can see that you would protest these pronoun sets as made up is because you do not believe that non-binary gendered people are entitled to their gender identity. If in articles with less common pronoun sets, a link was provided to the wiki-page for non-binary pronouns, then how would those pronouns be confusing? It would simply expose some readers to a new concept, something wikipedia does all the time.

Does anyone have any objections apart from that a) they don't believe that words made up by gender theorists and trans* people are as valid as words made up by sociologists and authors and b) they think that clicking on a link to the page about non-binary pronouns would be too difficult for the average wikipedia reader? If not, then please elaborate one why it is that new trans* related words are so much harder to understand or accept than any others?

Wikipedia does not have a right to judge whether someone's gender is valid, and dismissing non-binary pronouns as "the jargon of transgenderism" is a clear dismissal of the existence of non-binary gender. MartinLevine.91 (talk) 14:06, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

But trans women and trans men are not a "third gender". Trans women are women and trans men are men; they differ from cisgender people in that they had the wrong body before being fixed with surgery. WP:MOS says a trans woman should be referred to with she/her throughout her life. Georgia guy (talk) 14:15, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

What GG said. Also, 1. Wikipedia is not the place to improve or modernize the English language; it's job is to reflect changes in the English language (but if you'll look at the RfC on punctuation with quotation marks, you will see that not everyone agrees with me on that). 2. Yes of course Wikieditors must judge whether subjects are male or female when writing articles about them. They do that with everyone, not just transgender individuals. We also take all subjects at their word as to whether they're male or female too, and the current rule reflects that.

My own opinions on the nature of gender identity are not relevant here, but I do like to talk about them. Message me on my talk page if you want.

If you want pronouns like "zi" an "hir" to be used more often, the Wikipedia is not the place to start. Send letters to newspapers and write editorials saying why people should use these words. Contact the Modern Language Association and ask for advice. Contact OED and Webster and ask how they decide when words merit inclusion in dictionaries. Become (or continue to be) a writer yourself and use them in your works, especially works that are not about transgender issues. If these pronouns enter the lexicon, Wikipedia's MoS will follow suit. Darkfrog24 (talk) 15:23, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

GG: Binary trans men and binary trans women are the same gender as cis men and cis women. There is also such a thing as non binary gender. If you haven't been introduced to the concept of non-binary gender, then this is a short read that will bring you a little bit more up to speed. (Also, the whole "wrong body" trope has long since been rejected by the trans* community and gender theorists as a damaging oversimplification.) https://medium.com/gender-justice-feminism/b7dbe72ccbe2

Darkfrog: 1. This is not about improving the english language, this is about using the correct words. 2. Where does it state that we must judge whether subjects fits into two arbitrary gender categories? The only guideline I see is one saying that we must use the pronouns associated with their most recently expressed gender identity (that applies to cis people's gender identities as well as trans* people's).

I am sure you are trying to be neutral here but it is clear that your beliefs about the invalidity of non-binary genders are leaking through into this discussion.

In what way are these words less in the lexicon than the words used by obscure articles on aspects of the Marvell multiverse or articles about little understood physics? Many words that we use in this encyclopedia are not in dictionaries. They are in the lexicon because people who are talking about the concepts the articles cover use those words. People talking about non-binary genders often use non-binary pronouns.

I am not arguing for anything controversial here. I'm not arguing that children shouldn't be given a gender identity in articles until they have personally expressed one. I'm arguing that we should uphold a current part of our MOS with bias against non-binary people: "Any person whose gender might be questioned should be referred to by the gendered nouns (for example "man/woman", "waiter/waitress", "chairman/chairwoman"), pronouns, and possessive adjectives that reflect that person's latest expressed gender self-identification."

1. Then because these words are not correct, we should not use them. And no, most people who talk about gender do not use made-up pronouns. They use he and she. We are writing for a general-English audience, so we follow general-English rules. You're not talking about giving a name to a new chemical or a new theory. You are talking about taking something that's close to the core of the language and making up a new rule for it. Articles about the Marvel Universe, Star Wars, Harry Potter and other fictional franchises are all supposed to be written from an out-of-universe perspective. If you've found an article that uses in-universe terminology like "droid" or "muggle" as if it were a standard English word, you are free to fix it or to alert others who may do so.

We must judge whether people are male or female in order to write about them because the English language relies on pronouns. We do this all the time, regardless of whether the subject is cis or trans.

The concept of whether gender or gender identity itself is non-binary in humans is not immediately relevant here. The relevant issue whether the English language is non-binary with respect to human gender identity and the use of pronouns. It isn't. If you want to change that, go out and do it, but don't do it here.

Yes, you are arguing for something controversial. You're arguing that non-standard words be endorsed by the Wikipedia Manual of Style. Around here, that's controversial. Just look at the RfC at the top of the page. We've been at it for months, and most people neither know nor care about the rule under discussion. Darkfrog24 (talk) 16:32, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

So this is basically the crux of it. You do not believe that non-binary pronouns are correct because you do not believe that non-binary people's identities are valid. If you did believe that non-binary genders were valid, you would see non-binary pronouns in the same way you see terms used by physicists. Believe it or not, the difference between gender theorists and "people who talk about gender" is similar to the difference between theoretical physicists and "people who talk about physics".

I do not know how we can reach consensus here. It is clear that many editors are resistant to lending the same level of validity to people of non-binary genders as we do to people of binary genders. If you look in the talk archives you'll see that this same argument happened a few years back for binary trans people's pronouns. The same arguments were going round that "this is about being correct" "we should just avoid using pronouns altogether". The back and forth was started and stopped more than a few times before consensus reached the then apparently controversial viewpoint that we should respect binary trans* folks' gender identities in the same way we do for cis folks. MartinLevine.91 (talk) 16:42, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Quit putting words into my mouth or at least wash your hands first. I do not believe that "zi" and "hir" are correct because they are not part of established, formal English. They're not taught in schools. They're not endorsed in professional-quality style guides such as those upon which most of this MoS is based. They're not in dictionaries. They are so rare out in the world that I have never seen them anywhere but in this conversation. They do not appear in the newspapers, magazine articles, professional journals and professional web sites that make up Wikipedia's source material. And if that were to change then my opinions on whether this MoS should endorse them would change as well. It has nothing to do with my views on gender identity in humans, and, just to point something out, you have not even asked me what those views are despite an invitation to come to my talk page for a discussion. You've only projected your own prejudices onto me. Darkfrog24 (talk) 16:55, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Your opinions are clear without you having to state them. If you understood and believed in the validity of non-binary gender then you would be describing "zi" and "hir" as technical terms with similar statuses to other words that most people don't know outside of a speciality. You are framing this as an argument about good prescriptivist English usage, but you are showing a clear bias against words used by the trans* community as "made up" or "jargon". They do appear in magazine articles *about gender*, they appear in professional journals *about gender* and books *about gender*, if you would like some source material on that front then I can provide you some or you could look in the sources of the wiki page about gender neutral pronouns. MartinLevine.91 (talk) 17:59, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Martin Levine, if you look at the RfC up top, you'll see the way I operate. There's a practice called British-style punctuation and a practice called American-style punctuation. Currently, a rule in this MoS called WP:LQ requires that British style be used in all articles, even articles written in American English. It allows wikieditors who use American punctuation to be punished. I believe this rule should be changed so that punctuation that is correct in American English can be used where appropriate. The British style is also called "logical," which I don't like because 1. no one can prove that it actually is more logical than American style and 2. it implies that American style is illogical, and that allows my opponents to frame this argument in their favor, giving them an unfair advantage on a part of this issue that shouldn't be relevant.

But at no point have I argued that supporters of WP:LQ shouldn't be allowed to call British-style punctuation "logical punctuation." I even used both names when I proposed some wording for the RfC (it's the green text) [3]. Why? Because although more sources call it "British," a large minority of sources call it "logical." The people on this talk page didn't make the name up and they can prove that they didn't make the name up. If I say "logical punctuation," it's almost as likely that the reader will know what I'm talking about as if I said "British punctuation."

So yes, I do have a track record of supporting correct English, even when it's correct English that I don't like. THAT is why my views on the binary or non-binary nature of gender are irrelevant.

If you have sources, then they're overdue to be shown. Please provide links. However, like I pointed out earlier, while professional journals are the best source for facts, it is style guides that are the best source for how to write about those facts. Darkfrog24 (talk) 18:29, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Looks a bit as if grammatical gender and sex are being conflated here. If anyone thinks that trans* is a third or more sex, let he and she be considered epicene. Imho this is all just tilting at windmills. --Stfg (talk) 14:35, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

This strikes me as being more about gender identity than about grammatical gender. It doesn't help that "gender" and "sex" both have "state of being male or female" as one of their definitions. Darkfrog24 (talk) 15:23, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, this is what I meant. (Sorry if I didn't express myself clearly.) It's one thing for physisicts to invent technical terms, quite another for anyone to foist neologisms for everyday terms like personal pronouns on us. That offends me, personally, as I find it preachy and "politically correct" in the worst sense. It seems to me that we have masculine (not male!) singular, feminine (not female!) singular and grammatically genderless plural pronouns, and that the only thing the MOS needs to say about people's sex/gender identities is that we respect that person's self-identification (but we don't prat about with the language). --Stfg (talk) 16:15, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

This simple thing being asked for is that people use the preferred gender pronouns of others. You may feel like your binary gender is more valid and more worthy of having appropriate pronouns, but if you read through this: https://medium.com/gender-justice-feminism/b7dbe72ccbe2 you'll see that that is completely arbitrary on your part. MartinLevine.91 (talk) 16:27, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

That is the current rule, actually. If we take Brad Pitt at his word that he's male then we should take Chaz Bono at his word as well. But we must do so within the limits of the English language as it currently exists.

I did read that article. It is not about the English language or about writing. It's a personal essay about how one person came to her current understanding of gender identity in humans and it contains advice about courtesy. It is not a reliable source for either an article about gender or for WP:MoS. Darkfrog24 (talk) 16:55, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

See you strongly deny that my accusations that you don't accept non-binary genders are valid, but you talk as though there are exactly two genders and if we cover them then we've covered everything and anything else is just made up. MartinLevine.91 (talk) 17:59, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

The part that is relevant here is that the English language has two sets of pronouns that are appropriate for use with people and those sets of pronouns come in masculine and feminine. The words zi an hir are made up. The issue of whether non-binary gender exists is a separate question and not the purview of a manual of style. Darkfrog24 (talk) 18:31, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

FWIW, here are my thoughts on the subject (as a latecomer to the discussion):

The pronouns he and she (and his and her/hers) are widely accepted in English—they should be preferred for use on Wikipedia, following the gender of the person's self-identification where relevant;
Singular they is gaining acceptance but still not widely endorsed in English—its use should be avoided on Wikipedia but may be necessary where the person's gender is unknown;
Others such as zi, hir and xe are not widely accepted in English (yet)—they should not be used on Wikipedia.

I note from Wikipedia:Gender-neutral language#Pronouns that there is "no Wikipedia consensus either for or against the singular they" although "its grammatical validity is disputed", hence my compromise position that it should be neither endorsed nor altogether written off, although it should be avoided when referring to specific people if a more appropriate and widely accepted alternative can be used. —sroc 💬 15:02, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm late to this discussion as well, but as I said in the previous discussion on this subject, the recommendation to write "he became a parent..." in place of "he gave birth..." seems horribly wrong. The two don't mean the same thing, and the idea seems to be to hide certain facts in case they upset the reader's delicate world view. If we really think that someone who can give birth can also be the sort of person that we refer to as "he", then we must say, proudly, "he gave birth". If we are concerned about that fact, then it means that "he" is not really the right pronoun to use in such circumstances - and if "she" is not right either for some reason, then we must eschew pronouns entirely and keep repeating the person's name, which is what I said long ago is what the advice should say. Victor Yus (talk) 09:05, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

T/t

Without getting into any debate about mid-sentence use, as a standalone in an info box list (even if not the first item in the list) should the word "the" be capitalized when it's part of an official name. The issue is at Roger Waters. The info box currently lists The Bleeding Heart Band as "the Bleeding Heart Band. When I was reverted after correcting this several days ago, I was told there was "longstanding consensus" that it should be this way. I waited several days and asked several times where I could find this consensus. Caught in a lie, the editor's new position is that he is the "lead contributor", and therefore gets to decide matters about "minutia". Joefromrandb (talk) 00:00, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Joe, IMO you are melting down fast! I wasn't claiming to own the article, but according to WP:MOS: "If discussion cannot determine which style to use in an article, defer to the style used by the first major contributor." Well, If I'm not the first major contributor, then who is and what style did they use? FTR, nobody has argued about "t"s in more than 9 months, so congrats on breaking the peace Joe! GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:12, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
- Because your "style" is simply bizarre and you are erroneously claiming that the word "the" in this case is simply a definitive article and not part of a proper noun. That would be correct with the Eagles or the Sex Pistols; not with The Rolling Stones or The Bleeding Heart Band. Joefromrandb (talk) 00:17, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

From the CMOS (16th edition, 2010, p.416): "the Beach Boys; the Beatles; the Grateful Dead; the Who". GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:18, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

The Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Music#Capitalization states:

"Standard English text formatting and capitalization rules apply to the names of bands and individual artists".

The Wikipedia:Manual of Style (music) states that a lower-case definite article should be used in band names:

"Mid-sentence, per the MoS, the word 'the' should in general not be capitalized in continuous prose, e.g. 'Wings featured Paul McCartney from the Beatles and Denny Laine from the Moody Blues.'"

Wikipedia:Naming conventions (music)#Capitalization states:

In band names, and titles of songs or albums, capitalize all words except:

articles (an, a, the)

The Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Capital letters says:

"Generally do not capitalize the definite article in the middle of a sentence."

From Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Icons#Flags#Inappropriate use:

"For example, with an English flag next to him, Paul McCartney looks like an 'English singer-songwriter from Liverpool who was in the Beatles'; without the flag next to him, he looks like an 'English singer-songwriter from Liverpool who was in the Beatles'".

Wikipedia articles about bands with a definite article mid-sentence in their name almost exclusively use a lower-case definite article, including:

Sly and the Family Stone, Derek and the Dominos, Country Joe and the Fish, Toad the Wet Sprocket, Big Head Todd and the Monsters, Tom Petty and the Heartbreakers, Jason & the Scorchers, Kid Creole and the Coconuts, Big Brother and the Holding Company, Mott the Hoople, Hootie & the Blowfish, Nick Cave and the Bad Seeds, Siouxsie and the Banshees, Gary Lewis & the Playboys, Shep and the Limelites, Rage Against the Machine, Harold Melvin & the Blue Notes, Lori and the Chameleons, Joey Dee and the Starlighters, Martha Reeves and the Vandellas, Ziggy Marley and the Melody Makers, Kool & the Gang, Little Anthony and the Imperials, Orchestral Manoeuvres in the Dark, Smokey Robinson and the Miracles, Echo & the Bunnymen, Tommy James and the Shondells, Johnny and the Hurricanes, Gladys Knight & the Pips, Huey Lewis and the News, Gerry and the Pacemakers, KC and the Sunshine Band, Jay and the Americans, Freddie and the Dreamers, Maurice Williams and the Zodiacs, Georgie Fame and the Blue Flames, Billy J. Kramer and the Dakotas, Marky Mark and the Funky Bunch, Toots and the Maytals, Booker T. & the M.G.s, ? and the Mysterians

All known external style guides recommend using a lower-case definite article mid-sentence, including:

The Oxford Style Guide (UK): "Beatles, the, a pop group, 1960-1970." (R. M. Ritter, 2003, p.633)
The Times style and usage guide (UK) says: "Beatles, the, no need to cap the unless at the start of a sentence". (2003, p.24)
The Guardian and Observer style guide (UK) says: "band names: lc the: the Beatles, the Killers, the The."
The Chicago Manual of Style (16th edition, US) specifically uses "the Beatles" as an example and states: "A the preceding a name, even when part of the official title, is lowercased in running text." (2010, p.416)
On page 92 of New Hart's Rules (Oxford, UK) there is a list of examples for the capitalization of names, one is "the Beatles", with a lower-cased definite article. New Hart's Rules also states: "Historians commonly impose minimal capitalisation on institutional references" and "minimise the use of capital initials where there is no detectable difference between the capitaized and the lower-case forms" and "overuse of capital initials is obtrusive, and can even confuse by suggesting false distinctions". (2005, p.90)
Fowler's Modern English Usage (Oxford, UK), "a festival celebrating the music of the Beatles". (2004, p.293)
Butcher's Copy-editing (Cambridge, UK) says "in a sentence the definite article should be lower-cased". (2006, p.241) Also in Butcher's: "too many capitals can be obtrusive and distracting for the reader." (p.126)
The Duke University Style Guide (US) says: "Avoid unnecessary capitals."
The UPI Style Book & Guide to Newswriting states: "Avoid unnecessary capitals." (Martin, Cook, 2004, p.40)
From The Copyeditor's Handbook: "down style [lower-case] predominates in book publishing." (Einsohn, 2000, p.151)
The Christian Writer's Manual of Style states: "The purpose of capitalisation is to show that a given word has a specialised or specific meaning rather than a general one ... avoid capitalisation whenever it is not needed for such purposes of specification". (Hudson, 2010, p.105)
The Scout Association's style guide (UK) says: "the – Keep as lower case for bands (the Rolling Stones)."
The Yahoo Style Guide says: "We recommend lowercasing 'the Beatles', except at the beginning of a sentence, for two main reasons: Reason No. 1: expedience. Lowercasing 'the' in every proper name makes life much easier. Reason No. 2: aesthetics. Lowercasing 'the' in every proper name also produces a consistent look—a look that, moreover, conforms to normal English usage. To the Yahoo editors, capitalizing 'the' in the middle of a sentence simply looks odd." GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:19, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
- Okay, so you're going to play stupid here? This is not about mid-sentence use. This is a standalone item in a list. Joefromrandb (talk) 00:23, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
  - List case is generally the same as sentence case, so please don't call me stupid. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:25, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
    - I didn't call you stupid, and as you called me a troll, I'll call you whatever the fuck I choose. Joefromrandb (talk) 00:29, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
      - Well, sorry about the troll comment, but you have confronted my work no less than three times in the last 5 days, so you sure seemed to be trolling to me. Nevertheless, I apologize for using the term. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:32, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lists#Horizontal lists:

Horizontal lists

In situations such as infoboxes, a single-line list may be useful—in this case:

List type: entry one, entry two, entry three

Heading 1	Heading 2
List with commas	Entry 1, entry 2, entry 3
List with {{Flatlist}}	Entry 1 entry 2 entry 3

Note the capitalization of only the first word in this list (but words that are normally capitalized would still be capitalized). This applies regardless of the separator used between the list type and the entries themselves—whether it is a comma (as in the first example above), or even an infobox divider (as in the second example above).

GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:27, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, and this is applied consistently with other lists in the infobox:

Progressive rock, psychedelic rock, opera
Musician, singer, songwriter, composer, producer
Vocals, bass guitar, guitar, synthesiser, clarinet
Pink Floyd, the Bleeding Heart Band

If the Bleeding Heart Band were listed first, it would be capitalised just as it would at the beginning of a sentence. —sroc 💬 00:33, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

"For bands, capitalized "The" is optional in wikilinks and may be preferred when listing:

A number of groups increasingly showed blues influences, among them The Rolling Stones, The Animals and The Yardbirds."

The dispute could perhaps be avoided by changing the order. --Boson (talk) 01:13, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

True, but we typically list them in chronological order. Also, IMO Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Music#Names (definite article) contains an abomination because it contradicts the rest of the MoS. I've started a thread on its removal here, but FWIW "may be preferred" does not in any way equal "may be forced down an editor's throat" by anyone wishing to do so. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:23, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Gabe quotes the MoS like it's Scripture until it disagrees with him, in which case it's "an abomination". Joefromrandb (talk) 01:42, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Also, regarding Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Music#Names (definite article). Per WP:MOS: "Use the same grammatical form for all elements in a list ... elements are formatted consistently in either sentence case or lower case." Also: "In case of discrepancy, this page has precedence over its subpages and the Simplified Manual of Style." Therefore, Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lists#Horizontal lists would take precedent over any seemingly contradictory subpage guideline. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:46, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

T/t (b)

Since Gabe is apparently going to continue spamming the above section until it's unintelligible, can an uninvolved editor please tell me if a proper noun should be capitalized in a list on Wikipedia? Joefromrandb (talk) 00:34, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Joe, don't you think that you should at least mention that the "noun" in question is the Bleeding Heart Band and that it is listed in an infobox and second in this specific case and not first? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:37, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

I mentioned it above, clearly and fully, in the section that you spammed to death, something you apparently intend to do to this section as well. Joefromrandb (talk) 00:40, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

For the sake of clarity I must ask you if you think that our MoS is wrong, or that I am misinterpreting our MoS, which is actually in complete agreement with you? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:57, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Joefromrandb, please do not create multiple sections with the same heading. I have already answered above. Gabe is right in referencing Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lists#Horizontal lists, which states: "Note the capitalization of only the first word in this list (but words that are normally capitalized would still be capitalized)." —sroc 💬 01:01, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Of course, but "the" in "the Bleeding Heart Band" is not consistently capitalized in sources, so per MOS:CAPS, WP does not consider it to be part of a proper noun. Dicklyon (talk) 01:43, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

A proper noun should be capitalized, but a proper noun phrase is a more complex issue. We should follow the style guides. To my mind, that list is neither spamming nor unintelligible, but evidence. --Stfg (talk) 08:49, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

There is a pretty long discussion about this exact issue here. Also, overall I'd say that it was a little harsh and unhelpful to begin your question with "caught in a lie...", which doesn't appear to WP:AGF. AgnosticAphid talk 02:36, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

The "abomination" in the MOS

The odd provision suggesting maybe sometimes capitalizing "the" in wikilinks and lists in Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Music#Names (definite article) came in via a brief and confused edit war right as the old music standards page was being merged into the current Music guidelines: Here it was claimed that items in a comma-separated list are not "mid sentence", which is perhaps the crux of the issue. Since it contradicts and is superceded by the main MOS provision Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lists#Horizontal lists, it seems that this local music aberration is probably what we need to fix to remove the apparent contradiction. Dicklyon (talk) 03:35, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Items in a comma-separated list are quite obviously not mid-sentence. Joefromrandb (talk) 04:46, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

So are they beginning a sentence or ending a sentence? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 05:14, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

How about you show me a sentence in a comma-separated list? Then I'll diligently try to figure out whether they begin or end it. Joefromrandb (talk) 05:30, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

The simple point that you are missing is that list case and sentence case are the same. Why is this so confusing to you? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 05:34, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Try rereading what Dicklyon wrote, what I wrote, and then what you wrote. Then reread what you have written above. This seems to be a common pattern with you; saying something stupid and then pretending you were saying something else all along. Joefromrandb (talk) 05:38, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Do you realize how many times you've called me stupid? Funny thing is, you are the one who is wrong, Joe. I'll ask yet again, can you cite even one style guide that agrees with you, or is this just too confusing for you? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 05:40, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I realize how many times I've called you stupid. Exactly zero. Calling me wrong over and over won't make you any less wrong, but I understand; it's a defense mechanism. Continue if it makes you feel better. The only style guide I need to cite is our own; the "abomination" that you are trying to get rescinded to make it look like you were right all along You're not and you never were. Joefromrandb (talk) 05:49, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

@Joefromrandb: "How about you show me a sentence in a comma-separated list?" -- wrong way round. It's about a comma-separated list in a sentence. --Stfg (talk) 08:44, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

I was responding to the absurd post from Gabe, which I fear you may have misread. Joefromrandb (talk) 08:51, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

I read it as irony. --Stfg (talk) 09:02, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree. I also think the section on capitalization on this page should be made clearer by discussing the capitalization of list items and table entries - at least referring to horizontal lists as well as bullteted and numbered lists. Guidelines should also be checked to see if the term "mid-sentence" needs changing in order to apply unambiguously to fragments, as in the middle of a table entry that is not a sentence. --Boson (talk) 14:48, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

There is an RfC regarding this point taking place here: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Music#Names (definite article). GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:09, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

^ 1
^ 2
^ 3
^ 4

[1] 1

[2] 2

[3] 3

[4] 4

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]