Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 182

Hi, a question has come up at the Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Hyacinth Graf Strachwitz/1 discussion on how to treat foreign names of the various awards:

• Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross with Oak Leaves, Swords and Diamonds (German: Ritterkreuz des Eisernen Kreuzes mit Eichenlaub, Schwertern und Brillanten)
• ... was second only to the Grand Cross of the Iron Cross ([Großkreuz des Eisernen Kreuzes] Error: {{Lang}}: text has italic markup (help)), which was...
• ...surpassed on 29 December 1944 by the Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross with Golden Oak Leaves, Swords and Diamonds ([Ritterkreuz des Eisernen Kreuzes mit Goldenem Eichenlaub, Schwertern und Brillanten] Error: {{Lang}}: text has italic markup (help))...
• ...while imprisoned by the French he was awarded the Iron Cross ([Eisernes Kreuz] Error: {{Lang}}: text has italic markup (help)) Second and First Class.^[1].... Etc.
• ...nominated for the Clasp to the Iron Cross ([Spange zum Eisernen Kreuz] Error: {{Lang}}: text has italic markup (help)) 2nd Class for his organizational achievements,.^[1].

Is there a guideline that would be applicable here? K.e.coffman (talk) 01:04, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

• There may be no guideline on when the foreign name should not be given, in addition to the English name. No consensus may be applicable. Jay Jor (talk) 20:22, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
• Not really an MoS matter, more of a WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE one. It's superfluous on en.wiki to provide the German equivalent of the English name of every award received by the biographical article subject, especially since they're linked to articles on the awards that provide the German names. If we provided the German (or whatever) original for every military and other term, article length would bloat dramatically. Imagine if every military title, division name, etc., were given in multiple languages at an article like World War II; it would be practically unreadable. When to provide a translation/transliteration and original at the same time is a judgement call. If this article were to retain both, it would probably be in German first, as the proper name, then an English gloss, and done on the basis that the RS (in English) about these medals usually use the German. If that's not the case, just use the English.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  12:31, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Is the use of number sign okay, as in "#3 Stanford" in the template, at 2015 Stanford Cardinal football team? The infobox directly above has No. 3. This creates an inconsistency in the Wikipedia article.

I have seen Wikipedia:Ignore all rules, but I have seen long term Wikipedia editors invoke Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Number signs as if it were completely rigid. In reading it, it sounds completely rigid, except for the one example given otherwise. Thanks, Jay Jor (talk) 00:14, 3 July 2016 (UTC).

Oh, I have also seen somewhere, but can't remember where, something about deviating from guidelines in tables to save room. Jay Jor (talk) 00:42, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Use No. instead of a number sign. Infobox style exceptions are for space issues which isn't much of an issue at all in this case. Primergrey (talk) 01:13, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

@Jay Jor: MOS:NUMERO is not completely rigid, but basically, about the only time that the # sign is acceptable is in issue numbers of comic books. --Redrose64 (talk) 10:25, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

I see some clear guidance at MOS:NUMERO on chart singles and albums: number, Number, No., or #. But # seems to be used very widely indeed for chart records especially, dare I suggest it, for US records. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:24, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

I see it a lot on NASCAR-related pages as well but when I mentioned on that project page that I was changing it whenever I came across it no one voiced any disagreement. Primergrey (talk) 15:18, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the additional info. Interestingly, an internet search for:"#1" "#2" "#3" rank, compared to:"No. 1" "No. 2" "No. 3" rank, on Wikipedia produced about 6,740 results for use of # and 3,440 for No., nearly two to one.^[1][2] The same internet searches on the Harvard University website produced about 7,840 results for # and 2,470 for No., greater than three to one.^[3][4] There is some effort to change # to No. on Wikipedia. I'm not sure about at Harvard. Jay Jor (talk) 16:14, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, general usage outside of Wikipedia (especially for sports) seems to be "#" instead of "No.", does anyone know why we do it this way? ansh666 18:46, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

In the USA, perhaps; but not in the UK. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:41, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

"In the USA, perhaps"? I have not seen a major U.S. university with 4,000 to 20,000 internet search results, as specified above, that isn't three to one or more in favor of #. Is that the explanation, U.K. usage takes precedence over U.S. usage on Wikipedia? Jay Jor (talk) 01:06, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

For topics that are not USA-specific, USA practice should not dictate the style. This is MOS:ENGVAR. Until Twitter, many people had never heard of the # symbol, or they had seen it on their telephones but did not know what it meant or was called; there are still telephone services in the UK which advise customers to "key in the account number and then press the square key" - by "the square key" they mean #. By contrast, "No." is widely understood in many English-speaking countries. --Redrose64 (talk) 08:24, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Even "topics that are not USA-specific" may still be in American English, if that's the established variety at that article. This strikes me as not exactly an ENGVAR issue, though, since # versus No. is not a question of either spelling or word choice, in the usual sense.

Still, I'm a bit taken aback by the idea that the # sign should not be used in ranking teams. "No." really looks very strange to me in that context. "No. 3 Alabama". No what? What are you saying no to? Maybe we should find some other notation, say the bare number in parentheses? --Trovatore (talk) 08:40, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

U.S. college sports rankings, NASCAR (auto racing) driver rankings, etc., seem very "USA specific", yet some still insist on the use of "No." There can also be rankings, jersery numbers and car numbers, leading to something like, "John Q. Public, No. 23 on the #4 Tigers team ..." Jay Jor (talk) 11:40, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

And per the MOS, it should be "No." anyway, so people will see "Number" on hover. nyuszika7h (talk) 08:27, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Likewise, # would show "number" on hover. Jay Jor (talk) 11:40, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

MOS:KOREA currently says:

In general, use the Revised Romanization system for articles with topics about South Korea and topics about Korea before the division. Use McCune–Reischauer (not the DPRK's official variant) for topics about North Korea.

Should this be replaced with

In general, use the Revised Romanization system for articles with topics about South Korea. Use McCune–Reischauer (not the DPRK's official variant) for topics about North Korea and topics about Korea before the division.

?
06:17, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

I was just looking at David Levy's recent edit to the Manual of Style, in the Grammar and usage section, Posessives sub-section, and while I agree with David that the added phrase was unnecessary, I wonder why its is listed under Pronouns. I had always thought of my, your, his, her, its, our, and their as possessive adjectives, not possessive pronouns. Mine, yours, his, hers, ours, yours, and theirs are possessive pronouns.  – Corinne (talk) 04:09, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

They all seem like pronouns to me. But I suppose linguistic categorizations can vary. This page says "Possessive pronouns include my, mine, our, ours, its, his, her, hers, their, theirs, your and yours", which makes sense to me. Dicklyon (talk) 04:44, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

They are traditionally called "possessive pronouns" in English. But there are a lot of uses that strike me as clearly adjectival. In "my car", the word my does not substitute a noun, but modifies one, which is what adjectives do. Even in "the car is mine", it is still acting as an adjective, this time in the predicate adjective position.

On the other hand, in "I don't like your car; let's take mine", the word mine is finally substituting for a noun, so it makes sense to call it a pronoun.

I think it's largely a matter of tradition. In some other languages, these words are usually called "possessive adjectives" (or rather the translation in that language), and this makes more sense to me generally, though as I say some less common uses are most easily understood as pronominal. --Trovatore (talk) 04:55, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

(e.c.) They don't function like adjectives. Not at all. They're deictics, like "my father's" and "whose", and of a slightly different type, "the", "a", and "this", etc. They qualify the thing in terms of speaker-now, a point of reference in relation to the speaker/writer in the present. Since word-classes are very fuzzy in all languages, it would be safer to minimise the use of terms standing for supposed classes: they risk misleading simplistically rather than clarifying. Tony (talk) 05:00, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

So the deixis article is interesting; thanks for the pointer. Still, I don't see how this makes the words not adjectives. Sure, their semantics is relative to the speaker, but they still modify nouns, which is what adjectives do, and the sentences transform pretty much the way sentences with adjectives do (with "my" changing to "mine" in the "tonic position" or whatever it's called). --Trovatore (talk) 05:04, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes, they are adjectives, or at least function as adjectives (It's a matter of subtle semantics which description is correct). Most parts of speech can function as other parts of speech. "House" is a noun and "buying" a verb, but in the phrase "house buying", "house" functions as an adjective and "buying" as a noun. Possessives are cases of nouns, so "John's" is a noun, which functions as an adjective in "John's umbrella". "My" is to "me" exactly as "John's" is to "John", so in the same way as "John's" is a noun, "my" is a pronoun. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 06:01, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Hmm, I'm not too convinced. "House buying" is what I would call apposition rather than an adjectival use of "house" (note that you can't make it a predicate adjective; *the buying is house doesn't work at all).

In many languages, these words decline as adjectives, agreeing with gender and number, which is not true for genitives of nouns. So to the extent that you like your categories to work cross-linguistically, that's another point in favor of seeing the words as possessive adjectives. Admittedly it doesn't apply if you consider English in isolation. --Trovatore (talk) 06:20, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

I can't see any similarity between "house buying" and appositions. In an apposition, the two phrases refer to the same thing; you could leave one out and the sentence still means essentially the same thing. "house" and "buying" don't relate to each other that way. Rather, "house" modifies "buying". What kind of buying are we doing? House buying. (btw, I used "buying" to make a stronger point about role-switching words, but the point of an adjectival noun is perhaps more clear with "house painter".

That's an interesting observation about nouns not being usable as predicate adjectives. But it doesn't seem to stop them from modifying nouns directly.

Likewise, the treatment of the equivalent words in other languages to English so-called possessive pronouns is food for thought. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 03:10, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

I think our apposition article is incomplete. It's my understanding that the noun-noun pattern, when the first noun modifies the second, the first noun is said to be used "appositively". But I could be wrong; I probably picked that up from alt.usage.english, which has a lot of smart people on it but they're not always right. Still, I don't consider the first noun to be an adjective. --Trovatore (talk) 04:13, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Trovatore: you want to look at noun adjunct (though the article's not very good). Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:43, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Ah, thanks, that does look useful. --Trovatore (talk) 00:33, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

I did once start writing a terminological footnote about the different terms used by different grammarians, but I don't think I ever got round to adding it to any of the articles, because it got too long and complicated. I think words like my are now generally treated as the genitive/possessive case of the personal pronoun. I believe older grammars sometimes called them possessive adjectives, and some may have called them determiners (determinatives); like (other) determiners, they precede any adjectives. --Boson (talk) 06:04, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Good my friend, art thou certain? --Trovatore (talk) 06:07, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Bliss be upon you!--Boson (talk) 06:23, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

PS: Quirk et al. (A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language) talk about the genitive of the personal pronoun, calling my the determinative genitive and mine the independent genitive. Huddleston and Pullum (The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language) talk of the dependent and independent genitive of the personal pronoun. Huddleston and Payne (Chapter 5 of The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language) say this:

• "The dependent and independent genitives are often analysed in traditional grammar as 'possessive adjectives' and 'possessive pronouns', respectively, but we find this an unsatisfactory way of handling the difference between the two sets of forms. Both are genitive forms of the personal pronouns, and my and mine are both pronouns, just as I and me are. As pronouns they are heads of NPs: my and mine are genitive NPs, like such expressions as Kim's or the doctor's, which can replace them. ... in Type II [the subject of a gerund-participial, as in 'No one objected to my joining the party'] an adjective analysis makes no sense at all."

--Boson (talk) 06:47, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Very interesting... I agree with Bryan Henderson that "Most parts of speech can function as other parts of speech", which makes English an interesting and flexible language. I read a book (can't remember the title now) in which the author argued that English was gradually approaching the kind of language that Chinese is – with no verb tenses, words that can function in several ways, etc. I found quite interesting Trovatore's argument that in "The car is mine", "mine" seems to function as a predicate adjective. I had never thought of it that way. I had always thought of "mine" as exclusively a pronoun. I had always thought of these words in terms of what they replace, and since "mine" replaces a noun or noun phrase such as "my car", it makes "mine" a pronoun, and since "her" cannot stand alone, always modifies a noun, is similar to other adjectives ("big car", "blue car", "expensive car"), and can only replace something like "Mary's", and I thought of "Mary's" as adjectival, it followed that "her" was adjectival, but Bryan's pointing out that "most parts of speech can function as other parts of speech", I can see the validity of his statement,

Possessives are cases of nouns, so "John's" is a noun, which functions as an adjective in "John's umbrella".

But one could argue that while this statement is correct, since "his" replaces "John's" when "John's" is functioning as an adjective and not when it is functioning as a possessive noun, in the sentence "That's his umbrella", "his" is adjectival (i.e., an adjective). When "his" replaces "John's" when "John's is functioning as a pronoun, as in "Whose umbrella is that? It's John's." – , "his" is a pronoun ("Whose umbrella is that? It's his."). I thought a distinguishing characteristic was that words like my, your, his, her, our and their cannot stand alone, while mine, yours, his, hers, ours and theirs can stand alone – because they are quasi-nouns.

I was puzzled by two things in the Cambridge Grammar quoted by Boson:

1) "As pronouns they are heads of NPs". I think that's a strange thing to say. In the sentence "Mine is the green one", "Mine" is the noun phrase. I think saying it heads the noun phrase is weird. In the sentence "My notebook is the green one", O.K., you could say my "heads" the noun phrase "my notebook", but it certainly cannot stand alone. You can't say "My is the green one".

2) The other thing I found strange is this:

"...in Type II [the subject of a gerund-participial, as in 'No one objected to my joining the party'] an adjective analysis makes no sense at all."

I thought the reason "my" is used (instead of the object prounoun "me") is because "joining" is a gerund – the participle of the verb functioning as a noun – so it makes perfect sense to use an adjective – "my" –  to modify the gerund (or, actually, the gerund phrase "joining the party"). Could someone please explain "an adjectival analysis makes no sense at all"? (I'm assuming that "an adjectival analysis" is referring to "my"; if it isn't, then I don't understand the sentence.)

I can understand calling "my", etc., as determinative or dependent [because they cannot stand alone and must precede a noun] pronouns and "mine", etc., the independent pronouns. So (sigh) I guess I have to let go the phrase "possessive adjectives" and start calling my, your, etc., "determinative (or dependent) pronouns". But I just realized that that phrase does not give any indication of possessiveness. Hmm.  – Corinne (talk) 16:54, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

(1) Head is a linguistic term meaning the main word in a phrase, the obligatory part that can in some cases be modified by other parts of the phrase. John's and mine, being heads, can potentially be used alone, whereas my cannot. The head usually controls agreement, etc. (so you say "our notebook is"). When Huddleston uses the word head, (AIUI) he is saying that mine can replace John's in "This is John's", but not in "This is John's notebook" (in contemporary English).

(2) I can't really speak for Huddleston, but I think he would analyse "my joining the party" as a non-finite clause; joining has an object and it can be modified by an adverb, rather than an adjective ("my recently joining the party"); if you interpret joining as a "noun" modified by an adjective, you would presumably arrive at "my recent joining of the party" (which is a different construction). I am, of course, guessing what Huddleston's explanation would be, and ignoring the possibly more intuitive "me recently joining the party".

(3) The indication of possessiveness is in the genitive case, just as "the king" has no indication of possessiveness, but the genitive in "the king's" does.

--Boson (talk) 20:11, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Fantastic material, but almost wasted here. This kind of stuff and the sources behind it should be integrated into our mostly terrible articles about the English language (where we even have them). A large number of grammar and linguistics articles have a short section on English, which might be WP:SPLITable per WP:SPINOUT and WP:SUMMARY, and some don't even have that, just a few comments on English in there. Still others are incorrectly written entirely with reference to English and need to be moved to an "...in English" title, with a general linguistics article written about the topic in their place.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  21:25, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

• The discussion above shows just how misleading it is to stick to traditional word categories. They might be ok at the early stages of learning a foreign language, but after that they become incapable of showing people how to analyse text, or of helping them to write/speak better.

  Someone above is citing the Cambridge Grammar"—not a reliable source, in my view, unless the aim is to force traditional categories down our throats (and let's recall that anglophones have a long history of forcing Latin grammar down the throat of English, damaging our understanding of English).

  Trovatore: Just because a word modifies a noun doesn't subsume it into a one-size-fits-all class of "adjective". The obvious example is "the fast train": is it the train that travels at high speed (let's say, epithet, for want of a better term), or is it the no-stops train (classifier)? If it's the no-stops train, you can't call it "very fast": the grammar is different. A deictic element indicates whether or not some specific subset of the thing is intended; adjectives do not do that. Tony (talk) 08:46, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Hmm, maybe, I'll have to think about that one. I still think it's relevant that other Western European languages decline these words like adjectives in terms of number/gender/case. Just because we don't have those sorts of declensions in English doesn't mean (I think, at least) that we shouldn't look at evidence from related languages, as illuminatory of the "deep structure" or something, not sure that's exactly the right term. --Trovatore (talk) 08:50, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Tony, I don't recognise your characterization of the Cambridge Grammar at all. It definitely does not force traditional grammar down anybody's throats. A problem that some people may have with the Cambridge GEL is, perhaps, that it is more rigorous than most traditional grammars in distinguishing between word categories and the function of words and phrases in the sentence. --Boson (talk) 21:52, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

• Another view is that my, etc. in a noun phrase like "my old car" is a determiner. Singular common noun phrases in English normally require a determiner, which can be a, the, this, that, etc. or a possessive noun phrase, including a noun or pronoun. A major error being made above is to treat grammatical terminology as theory-free; it's not. Different word classes are used in different approaches.

Whatever my is, it's not sensibly treated as an adjective; adjectives as a class of word can be modified by words like very or by adverbs. Peter coxhead (talk) 11:19, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Indeed. This is one of the problems I had with my draft of a footnote explaining the different terminology. I stopped when I had written about a page, because of the difficulty of (concisely) taking account of the the different conceptual frameworks. As I wrote above, The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language is fairly strict about not conflating functions and word categories. In this case, they distinguish between the lexical category determinatives (including words like a, the, this, that, all, both) and the determiner function, including not only the basic determiners (as in the tie) but also, for instance, genitive NPs (as in my tie). They write "Determinatives (or phrases headed by them) constitute the most basic kind of determiner, but not all determiners have this form, ... Conversely, most determinatives can occur in one or more functions besides that of determiner ...." I think the (traditional) conflation of lexical category and function comes out quite clearly in the above discussion. --Boson (talk) 11:16, 13 July 2016 (UTC) PS: As well as typically being gradable (greener, very green) and typically modified by adverbs ("my ideas are remarkably furious"), adjectives can typically be used attributively ("my green idea") and predicatively ("my idea is green"). And adjectives follow determiners ("a green idea", "my green ideas"). --Boson (talk) 14:49, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Could those familiar with the history of discussion on the Manual of Style (MOS) help document the history of the discussion around US/U.S. and USA/United States? This is what I have found so far from the archives (plus a relatively recent village pump discussion):

• archive 1 (2003)
• Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive ("U.S." or "American") (2003-2007, some of this copies from other archives)
• Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive (abbreviations and acronyms) (2004)
• archive 21 (2005)
• Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive ("U.S." or "American") 2 (March to April 2006)
• archive 146 (2013)
• archive 164 (February 2015)
• archive 168 (August 2015)
• archive 181 (April 2016)
• VP (idea lab) archive 20 (April 2016)

There are probably more discussions about MOS:U.S., WP:NOTUSA and MOS:NOTUSA, particularly in the period from 2007 to 2013. Can anyone add to the above? Carcharoth (talk) 05:55, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Consider an article that is created and exists for some time in a non-specific state, then is edited to ENGVAR #X and stays in that way for some years. Is it than correct to add a new langvar-specific word, to label the article as "ENGVAR #Y" because the new word is in language #Y and "the article was originally created by "a #Y-ian editor"? Should the article then be edited to convert all the #X to #Y as it had previously "become muddled"?

I recognise the concept of an article being created in one version and then keeping it, but does it inherit ENGVAR solely because the creating editor usually works in a particular language version (but this time didn't use a specific word, or label it)? Andy Dingley (talk) 09:30, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

In such a situation, it is best to discuss the issue on the article's talk page, and see if there a consensus for adopting one language version (or another). Blueboar (talk) 10:53, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

I have little optimism then. It has already been labelled as #Y, and by an editor who has a long track record of intransigence. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:36, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Which article are you concerned with in this case? oknazevad (talk) 12:55, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Realise that the spirit of ENGVAR is to avoid any changing between varieties. If a variety has been stable for years, it should likely be left alone, barring any WP:TIES. RGloucester — ☎ 14:33, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

↑ this. If the article has been stable and consistent with version X for a long time, even if the original editor might have preferred Y, the stable version using X should be kept. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:47, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

I would regard the long period of stability as implicit consensus for that language. Hence, as others pointed out, it should remain in that language - barring a new, explicit, consensus. But it should be consistent within itself.  Stepho  talk  10:09, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

The problem with that is defining how long a "long period of stability" has to be. The sensible solution in muddied cases is to have the discussion on the talk page with a view to finding a consensus among the participants - you can always call an RfC if there's deadlock. --RexxS (talk) 20:17, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

If we are talking about weeks or months then there is room for interpretation of "long period". But Andy said "some years", implying considerable more than one or two years - which surely counts as a long time.  Stepho  talk  02:02, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

The strict answer to the original question is that the article should be regularised to ENGVAR #X, not because of any period of stability, but because of "use the variety found in the first post-stub revision that introduced an identifiable variety" per MOS:RETAIN. But if you want to start taking in account "periods of stability" of "some years", how would you reconcile an article that used ENGVAR #X for some years, then used ENGVAR #Y for some years? Do you pick the one with the longer "period of stability" or the one that was introduced first, even if its stability was shorter? That way lies chaos. --RexxS (talk) 19:41, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Concur with RGloucester and RexxS. If the article, in ancient stub state, had no clear ENGVAR, it does not matter at all what the supposed intent or expectation was of the original editor. See WP:OWN, WP:VESTED, WP:MERCILESS. Articles here do not have authors, they have a collective editorship of everyone on the project. If the subset of that editorial pool who have edited the article numbers only 1, that doesn't magically give that editor more editorial control.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  13:30, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

MOS:BIO was recently modified via an RfC to amend MOS:JR. In its current form, the guideline explains that "Omission of the comma before Jr., Jr, or Jnr, and Sr., Sr, or Snr, is preferred." Although MOS:BIO applies to "biographical articles and in biographical information in other articles," how should we approach situations where MOS:JR conflicts with a topic-specific naming convention? Here are two specific examples where MOS:JR conflicts with a topic-specific convention and/or WP:TITLE:

• The Adventures of Brisco County, Jr. — the show's credits use a comma before "Jr."
• J. W. Hampton, Jr. & Co. v. United States J. W. Hampton, Jr., & Co. v. United States — if you look at the title that is printed in the United States Reports you will find that the official case title places a comma before and after the "Jr." in the name of the case

In other words, I am seeking community input about the applicability of MOS:JR to the titles of non-biographical articles. Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 20:36, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Are some legal sites more official than others? Because this one shows it styled differently, in what looks like a copy of an official-ish supreme court doc; they use 2 commas (which I'd prefer to 1, but not to 0), and partial all-caps (which I hope we won't consider). It's also done with 0 commas in this book. Looks like style variation is not unusual in citing legal cases, going by this one example anyway. As for the film, 4 of the 10 Google Books hits here do it without the comma; seems like a common enough style variation that there would be no reason not to go with our house style on that one. So it might make sense to move WP:JR out of BIO and up to a more general place. Dicklyon (talk) 22:39, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

@Dicklyon: I stand corrected -- the official title uses a comma before and after the "Jr." in the name of the petitioner. To answer your first question, the "official" version of the case is the one that appears in the United States Reports (in volume 276 at page 394). Although different style conventions will sometimes omit punctuation, MOS:LAW tries to resolve any such inconsistencies (when creating article titles) by following the conventions of the jurisdiction that published the case. My opinion is that when creating titles for articles about published works, we should utilize the stylistic conventions of the title as it appears in the work itself; I think that if we were to change the appearance of titles by superimposing our own style conventions, we would cause unnecessary confusion among readers. By way of analogy, I do not think we should modify the capitalization of anyone lived in a pretty how town. I don't disagree with the application of MOS:JR to the titles of biographical articles, but I don't think we should expand the guideline so that it modifies the titles of non-biographical articles. Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 23:12, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Since you changed what I responded to (and moved the article), I added back the original with strikeout; I hope this meets with your agreement. Dicklyon (talk) 01:59, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Wouldn’t WP:COMMONNAME and MOS:TM apply here? If sources (especially primary sources) use the comma, we use the comma. If they don’t, we don’t. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 00:32, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

In general, they do apply. However, WP:TITLE also defers to topic-specific conventions when applicable. For example, WP:ETHNICGROUP states that derogatory names for ethnic groups should not be used as article titles, even if the derogatory term is used by a majority of sources. In the case of MOS:LAW, reliable sources usually use so many different variations that it is better to defer to the title that appears in official publications from that jurisdiction (maintaining fidelity with an official title also helps avoid confusion about parties that were involved in a case; see WP:BLPCRIME). -- Notecardforfree (talk) 03:57, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

COMMONNAME does not actually apply to style matters at all. Nothing in it suggests this. I have to go over this so often, I've written a page about it here. MOS:TM, however, applies broadly, and is how most WP:RMs about weird stylizations are settled.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  13:54, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Can you articulate the potential confusion between the following two titles?

J. W. Hampton, Jr., & Co. v. United States

J. W. Hampton Jr. & Co. v. United States

―Mandruss ☎ 01:36, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

If we apply a criterion like MOS:TM, we'd pick a style that is in use and is close to WP style. That would be without the commas. I see no confusion. Dicklyon (talk) 02:04, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

I wouldn't see any potential for confusion if you eliminated all punctuation, and we're stopping well short of that.

J. W. Hampton, Jr., & Co. v. United States

J W Hampton Jr & Co v United States

It's pretty clear to me that those are the same case; there is no essential meaning lost. So I don't see how a confusion argument holds any water. If those two commas are style elements, which so far appears to be the community view, they are as insignificant as the font. I have no issue with exceptions to WP:JR, but I feel they need better justification than I've seen so far in this discussion. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:14, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

I agree with this logic. But whatever else we do, choosing from among punctuation styles that are "in use" is still a good idea (like what MOS:TM says). In American English, we would always, or almost always, use periods after abbreviations such as Co, Jr, and v. In British English they omit periods more, but this case is not much written about in British English, being an American case, so let's go with J. W. Hampton Jr. & Co. v. United States. Dicklyon (talk) 06:18, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

In Australian English, the full stop is not used in contractions. So since "Junior" ends with an "r", no full stop is required. Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:54, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

I wouldn't begin to suggest that we go any farther than WP:JR with this; i.e., omitting those one or two commas. That was only to illustrate a point. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:23, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Small details are important -- in the law, they can be vital. I don't necessarily think readers will be confused about the meaning of the title if we omit punctuation, but I do think that readers could potentially become confused about (1) the official form of the case's title and (2) punctuation conventions for the legal citation system that is used in the case's jurisdiction (compare, e.g., punctuation conventions for Bluebook and OSCOLA). But getting back to the original question in this discussion, I am interested in hearing reasons why MOS:JR should be applied to non-biographical article titles. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 08:38, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

My only answer is: For the same reason as the biographical article titles. And the articles about a bridge, a national historical park, a street, etc., which are not bio articles but whose names include the names of people. Sort of like legal cases, wouldn't you say? Granted, Wikipedia usually also has bio articles about the named individuals, but matching those titles was not the rationale for omitting the comma for the non-bio articles. The rationale was that the comma is a style element rather than essential meaning. The sole opponent of those non-bio moves made a very fervent and recurring argument very similar to yours: Wikipedia should include the comma because it's on the side of the building, or on the sign, or in some reliable sources that they deemed more authoritative than the rest. We should include it because it's part of the name, they insisted. Their argument failed every time, as I've told you elsewhere. I simply feel that Wikipedia benefits from being consistent on this style issue across the board, with any exceptions limited to those required by law, which we've yet to identify. I also think it's generally a bad idea for any reader to view or use Wikipedia as an authority on anything, form or substance.
I totally get that you feel legal cases should be treated with more gravitas than bridges and streets, but I feel that's your perspective speaking and the general population doesn't care nearly as much. Wikipedia is a general-audience encyclopedia, not a specialized legal reference site, and law students and scholars should keep that in mind when they use it—or edit it. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:47, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

@Mandruss: I apologize for taking so long to respond to your last comment -- I've been away from a computer for a little while. I think we are going to have to agree to disagree about whether the names of bridges, streets, legal cases, etc. include "biographical information". I agree that we should use a consistent style for for biographical articles, and I am totally in favor of applying MOS:JR to titles of articles about people, but when the article is about a geographic feature or a movie with a name in it (for example), then I think we should defer to subject-specific naming conventions. I also agree that information in Wikipedia should be taken with a grain of salt, but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't aspire to build the most accurate encyclopedia possible, and with respect to the titles of legal articles, I think it is in the best interest of readers to utilize article titles that adopt the citation conventions of the jurisdiction in which the case was published. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 01:41, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

I don't see why the same "build the most accurate encyclopedia possible" argument wouldn't apply to people's names, too, and yet WP:JR rejects that argument. The argument hangs on the word "accurate", and the consensus view is that omission of the comma does not decrease accuracy in any type of name or title, not even a little. I concur with that consensus view; I get that you do not. I was hoping for more participation here. You and I are not going to settle this alone, and the worst possible outcome would be ongoing dispute of this issue at article level. It may need an RfC. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:34, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

The initial RfC on Jr. comma use in biographical articles was quite close, with many editors in favor of keeping the comma. The closer recommended keeping the comma in older or featured articles. That common sense aside, to "build the most accurate encyclopedia possible" we should continue to use the real names of TV shows or movies. The Adventures of Brisco County, Jr., a now defunct television show, is given as an example. Since this is the real name of the TV show, and already a featured article, as an encyclopedia we should continue to reflect that now historic usage and not pretend the original name of the show doesn't exist. In the legal realm, what about things like Two Pesos, Inc. v. Taco Cabana, Inc.? Randy Kryn 11:16, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

@Randy Kryn: I agree with your assessment regarding the use of "real names." I think we should apply the same principle to legal articles, including articles about legal cases. For the example you provided, Two Pesos, Inc. v. Taco Cabana, Inc., the current title of the article is the official title used by the Supreme Court of the United States. See Volume 505 of the United States Reports at p. 763. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 16:13, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

The comma used before 'Jr' is not part of the name, merely part of the styling, just as with the full stop after 'Jr', or the full stop after 'Mr', or the use of commas to seperate postnominals (e.g. 'Bt, PC'). There is no reason to treat this matter any differently from any of these cases. The idea that there is a fundamental difference in 'Bt CH PC' and 'Bt., CH, PC' is a nonsense, just as much as this is a nonsense. RGloucester — ☎ 16:44, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

This is a good point; we've long rejected this idea that to have an accurate name we must use a styling consistent with the subject's use. Lego vs. LEGO, etc. I'm not aware of any problems this has caused. It's a very tired argument. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 16:48, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Concur with DickLyon, RGloucester, and Mandruss that including or omitting commas with things like "Jr." and "Inc." or "Ltd" is purely a style matter and has nothing to do with encyclopedic accuracy, in this example or any I can contemplate without coming up with silly fictions. (Let's posit an imaginary lawsuit between "ABC Inc." and "ABC, Inc." I would bet a large pile of money that no court would accept a case under such unclear party-name designation, but would disambiguate clearly in some manner. Since no state in the US anyway will issue two conflicting corporate registrations that only differ by this comma, the only possible such case in US jurisprudence would be federal, and thus they would probably disambiguate by state of registration.) In point of fact, if you go over legal style guides, you find that the expectations with regard to such punctuation are variable by both location and publication date, and are simply arbitrary. Thus, there is no "it's official!" case to be made here. It's just another run-of-the-mill WP:Specialized-style fallacy. The very same case will be rendered differently in different legal contexts even in the same national legal system, and even if it weren't, WP has no reason to care, because WP has it's own style guide and isn't following some external legal style guide. The idea "Small details are important -- in the law, they can be vital" is true within certain contextual bounds; it's fallacious to suppose that is it always true in every possible way, and it is demonstrably not true with regard to punctuation in case names, which themselves are often heavily abbreviated in legal citations anyway.

While I favor giving the titles of published works like novels, TV series, even non-fiction books, verbatim to a reasonable extent (i.e., ignoring stylistic quirks of cover-art marketing and promotional posters – see MOS:TM for numerous examples, like Alien 3 not "Alien³"), court cases are not creative works, and should be treated the same way as other manuscript materials, subject to MoS style normalization. While I would not remove the comma from The Adventures of Brisco County, Jr. (unless the copyright holder reissues Blu-rays of it without the comma, amounting to a formal re-titling, a republication under a modified title we can use), there is no problem whatsoever in removing commas from "J. W. Hampton, Jr. & Co. v. United States" or "J. W. Hampton, Jr., & Co. v. United States". And no, it has nothing at all do with removing the periods/stops from that construction, either after the initials or after the other abbreviations.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  13:54, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Should punctuation be included when emphasizing a word or sentence?

Example: “I am yelling!”
Should the exclamation mark be strong (or bold)?

Another example: “I am not doing that!”
Should the exclamation mark be emphasized (or italic type)?
―PapíDimmi (talk | contribs) 20:21, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Apply the same logic as MOS:LQ. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:50, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

I’m curious what prompted this question. I’d say we shouldn’t be using emphasis in articles in the first place, but a live example would help. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 00:38, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

No, it shouldn't, per MOS:ITAL § Effect on nearby punctuation. – nyuszika7h (talk) 09:50, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Concur with Nyuszika7H; this is already covered. Even if it weren't, I would agree with the anony's concerns/questions, and would have to point out that “I am not doing that!” is fiction-style writing, not encyclopedic, and further that italicizing the exclamation point is redundant brow-beating; the very fact that it's an exclamation already presupposes emphasis by nature of what an exclamation is.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  13:59, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

I just made changes that I think are conservative but I wanted to raise the change and issue here as documentation.

This manual of style contains a section on "images". There is no style guide for including other types of files in Wikipedia articles. Lately there has been more interest in certain files types, including videos, and I thought that there should be more guidance in this manual.

I changed "images" from being a top-level section heading to being a subsection of a section heading called "media files". Right now, this new "media files" section only has two subsections, those being the old "images" section and a new "Other media files" section. In the new section I only briefly wrote that other types of media files may be included with consensus. This is not the strongest or most comprehensive summary of the discussion, but at least it is accurate and non-controversial. If anyone would like to further develop the manual of style for video and other files then please do so here, and also consider developing policy at WP:Videos.

I added this in response to some community discussions about including video in articles. Anyone may see these discussions at

• Wikipedia_talk:Videos#RfC:_Full-length_films.2Fvideos_in_articles
• Talk:Debbie_Does_Dallas#RfC:_Placement_of_video
• Talk:A_Free_Ride#RfC:_Replace_embedded_hardcore_pornographic_movie_with_link_to_Commons.3F

Thanks to @Francis Schonken: and @Ricky81682: for closing these RfCs. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:02, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Tx for the ping. I extensively pruned your new additions (while they didn't exactly read as style guidance: imho this elaborate page shouldn't contain digressions like "Most commonly, editors use pictures as illustrations", etc), but kept the new section title, and other media files subsection.

Support making the style guidance for videos and sound files a bit more specific than what I did, but propose this should rather follow talk page discussion (if anything more specific needs to be said on these kinds of media files), than precede it. --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:08, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

I don't know the process here enough but could we consider starting Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Video as a proposal (or in draftspace at Draft:Manual of Style/Video or something) more akin to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Images? I think it's worth fleshing out into more detail but I don't think it's ready to be a formal part of the MOS at the moment. What is the process for MOS section additions? Is it expand the current one and then spin-off or create a spin-off and then get formally added? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:09, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Ricky81682 I would say expand text within this guide then spin it off after it becomes a few sentences. I looked at the images guide. Much of what could be said about images can be said about video, so maybe there should be a Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Media for general use among images, video, audio, text files, and the new interactive tools like maps. Once the common elements are established, the particular points of each file type can be put in their own pages. I would regret starting video documentation if it mostly was a copy of images, and right now, I think most of what needs to be said about video is in that image documentation. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:00, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Beware also wandering very far into how-to territory; we have other pages for that. And no we don't need a /Video MoS subpage; there isn't enough video-specific material to warrant such a split.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  20:00, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

I agree, though we might want to consider renaming Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Images to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Media and expand into videos and such on that page.  Wikipedian Sign Language Paine  20:27, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

That does sounds like a good idea.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  14:00, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Time for some long-overdue consolidation of the material on titles of works, presently scattered across several pages. We have an entire MoS subpage for this material, at WP:Manual of Style/Titles (MOS:TITLES), but are not using it properly/consistently. In some cases, for some aspects of title styling, we're treating it as the main page for this, and using {{Main}} to cross-reference it on other pages. In some other cases, we're treating it as just some summary page, with the details in a different page, and cross-referencing that page to those other pages to get the details. This is obviously confusing and impractical.

• I've tagged WP:Manual of Style/Capital letters#Composition titles for merging into WP:Manual of Style/Titles#Capital letters.
• I've also tagged two subsections of WP:Manual of Style/Text formatting#Italic type (namely #Names and titles and #When not to use italics) for partial merging (of only the material relating to titles of works) into WP:Manual of Style/Titles#Italics.
• In both cases, all that need be left behind of this material at the original locations is a summary of the key relevant points (using the same wording for them as the main MoS page uses for the same points, probably) and a cross-reference to the appropriate section at MOS:TITLES.
• After this, we should check that the main MoS page (and, where relevant, those other subpages of it) are summarizing the key points of MOS:TITLES adequately.
• Then the {{Wikipedia:Manual of Style/titles hatnote include}} transclusion used at all these places can be replaced with much simpler hatnotes. In removing it, we can examine each location it is used to be sure no points mentioned at them are missing from MOS:TITLES, and that the sub-guidelines have not "advice-forked" from MOS:TITLES or the main MoS, and add HTML comments advising to keep them in synch.
• Finally, move Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Titles to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Titles of works or Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Composition titles (I prefer the former, since it is more inclusive and better describes the content; legal cases, for example, are not compositions). The present name is ambiguous, and people often mis-cite it as the location of the guidelines on biographical titles (which are really at MOS:CREDENTIAL and MOS:HONORIFIC in WP:Manual of Style/Biographies).

Are there any issues that this cleanup would raise? I'd meant to get around to this since May 2014, but it's just been sitting on the back burner.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  08:50, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

What is the position on people who want to be referred to by a specific pronoun that is novel, i.e. not in major dictionaries? Something like "zie says this; xie thinks that". Should be clarified in MOS, along with the info about how to refer to transgender people. Equinox ◑ 04:22, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

It's not encyclopedic English, confusing to readers, and violates WP:NPOV by allowing third parties to dictate to WP how WP may write about them. It shouldn't be used here except in quotations. Rewrite to avoid, usually by inserting the surname ("Johnson then moved to Dallas ...") or a descriptive noun ("In 2015, the singer released a third album ..."). Agreed this should be covered in MOS:IDENTITY.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  13:26, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

However, the existing policy ("Gender identity: Give precedence to self-designation") also apparently "violates WP:NPOV by allowing third parties to dictate to WP how WP may write about them". Equinox ◑ 07:14, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

I agree with SMcCandlish here that neologistic pronouns should be avoided through rewrites when possible. Use singular they if unavoidable. Wikipedia tries to balance respect for individuals (see WP:HARM and BLP) with NPOV. When if comes to BLPs, the individuals have some say about self-identifying information (e.g. ethnicity, gender, religion, and sexual orientation) where the individual is the most authoritative source on the matter. EvergreenFir (talk) 07:19, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Concur that singular they is also useful in such a case. The distinction MOS has to draw as a style guide is that "self-identifying information" is a factual matter, not how-may-we-write matter (it's ultimately a WP:NPOV- and WP:NOR-grounded separation of content and presentation matter). It might be a verifiable fact (in an interview in a secondary-source publication, or in WP:ABOUTSELF material like a celebrity's own website, that a bio subject, in their personal and professional life, wants to be referred to by the made-up pronoun "zirmit" (I claim dibs on that one!), but that doesn't obligate Wikipedia editors in any way. Someone else probably wants to be referred to as a god or prophet, but we would not do so in Wikipedia's voice, either, even if we report the sourced fact of the assertion of alleged divinity. We can walk the line of not contradicting a personal pronoun choice without explicitly jumping on the bandwagon to support it, by simply writing around it, just as we can craft an article on a new religious movement's leader without flat-out denying that they are the prophet they claim to be, or appearing to support the claim.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  07:58, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

I deeply dislike singular they in the encyclopedic register, when referring to a specific person, but I agree with the rest. I suppose there might be a situation where singular they with a specific person as referent is the least of evils, but I don't know what it would be. --Trovatore (talk) 08:10, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

David Crystal once gave the example of "anyone can have a drink if ___ want(s)". Equinox ◑ 16:51, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

I said when the referent is a specific person, not "anyone". Honestly I'm not that fond of singular they referred to "anyone" either, but it's much less jarring than singular they referred to a specific identified person. --Trovatore (talk) 18:16, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

A discussion on the use of the word "aviatrix" has been started at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation#"Aviatrix", which may interest users who watch this page. —Granger (talk · contribs) 02:12, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

This is just a notification to a series of discussions that are taking place regarding updates to MOS:TV, of which editors may have an interest. You can find more information about the initiative and the discussions, here. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:31, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Since Apple Inc. announced the rename of OS X to macOS, Wikipedia articles use both OS X and macOS to indicate the operating system used by Apple computers.

Shall we unify it, and if unified, which name shall we use?

NasssaNser 05:40, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

• Comment I've alerted the WT:VG project to this as this question had come up relatively recently. I am sure there are more projects that should be notifed too (like the software project). --MASEM (t) 05:53, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
• Keep the term used at the release of the game. It will make verifiability easier, and will require no change to older articles. Diego (talk) 08:08, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
• For a second I misread the RfC and was wondering why Wikipedia had two articles for the same OS, and why that mattered for WP:VG. But I think Diego's opinion makes the most sense. Those older games weren't released on MacOS, they were released on OS X, a slight technical difference but one we should make, and which is the path of least resistance and change to boot. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 13:05, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
• Concur with using the name of the OS that was current at the time of the game's release (or its release for that OS, rather – as with Linux, Mac release dates are sometimes years after original PC/console release). It would be directly misleading to say that a game was released for "macOS" if it was actually released for OS X and may not even run on macOS (this is actually even more of a concern for older games released for Mac OS X, which later became OS X, then apparently macOS). The situation is similar to Windows NT becoming Windows 2000, then Windows XP, then Windows 7 through 10. The underlying core OS is really the same thing, modified over time, but we would not refer to Windows 10 as "Windows XP 10", or "Windows 2000 10", or "Windows NT 10". The idea that there are a whole bunch of Windows operating systems (Windows Server aside), and only one Apple computer OS, is essentially false in two countervailing senses at the same time.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  06:08, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
• Agree with the preceding. Quick-reference link: countervail ―Mandruss ☎ 08:17, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

The RfC is at Help talk:Hidden text #RfC on status of this page. --RexxS (talk) 14:30, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

I have started a discussion about the use of Google translate links in citations and external links sections. Please comment there. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:24, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm concerned that the section Invisible comments provides insufficient guidance on the appropriate use of hidden comments. According to WP:SS, the {{main article}} template in this section indicates that the section is a summary of the Help:Hidden text page, which goes into detail about appropriate and inappropriate uses, but this section fails to summarise much of the salient advice there. I propose therefore that the sentences:

• "Invisible comments are useful for flagging an issue or leaving instructions about part of the text, where this is more convenient than raising the matter on the talk page. They should be used judiciously, because they can clutter the wiki source for other editors."

should be replaced by:

• "Invisible comments are useful for alerting other editors to issues such as common mistakes that regularly occur in the article, a section title being the target of an incoming link, or pointing to a discussion that established a consensus relating to the article. They should not be used to instruct other editors not to perform certain edits, although where existing consensus is against making such an edit, they may usefully draw the editor's attention to that. Avoid adding too many invisible comments because they can clutter the wiki source for other editors."

I feel that provides a more comprehensive summary of the advice at Help:Hidden text, and is closer to the spirit of its guidance. In particular, I don't think that the idea of "leaving instructions ... where it's more convenient than raising the matter on the talk page" is at all clear. The prevailing opinion as I understand it is not to use invisible text as a substitute for using the talk page, and that instructions for other editors are not a collegial way of working. The advice at Help:Hidden text is far more nuanced and detailed, and far less open to misinterpretation than the current section here and I believe that the guidance here would be improved if it became a better summary. --RexxS (talk) 12:48, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

• Hidden comments are helpful. In one article where people keep changing a transliteration, I've added information about why not to change it. In another, where people kept expanding a certain paragraph (the UK para in FGM), I added a request to expand the dedicated article instead. WikiProjects add information about best practice. There's no need to gain special consensus for issues that may not be obvious to new editors (new to the page, as well as new to Wikipedia). SarahSV ^(talk) 16:32, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

A similar situation applies to many of the articles for episodes of Futurama, where IP editors keep changing the episode number to reflect airing order versus production order, in violation of broad consensus. The IPs aren't going to check the Talk page. DonIago (talk) 17:11, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Some hidden comments are useful. I'm sure the Futurama problems are much reduced by having a hidden comment pointing to that broad consensus, for example. The proposed changes here would not in any way discourage editors from pointing out common mistakes such as Sarah and Doniago mention. In fact they would be encouraged because of 'common mistakes' being specifically mentioned. I personally find them very useful in list articles/sections to remind editors of the inclusion criteria. But are all hidden comments useful? I think not. Unfortunately, this section at present gives no guidance that common mistakes should be flagged, nor on the value of indicating incoming links to sections, as common examples of use. It also fails to remind editors not to use hidden comments to enforce their own personal preferences. This section would benefit from the greater degree of clarity appropriate for any project-wide guideline. --RexxS (talk) 20:53, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

• I strongly concur with this suggested edit. I also strongly concur with SarahSV's and Doniago's points, and would have made essentially the same ones myself (with different particular examples, like the notes at Eight-ball to stop adding local "bar pool" rules to the section on the world standardized rules; those bad edits and their reversion make up a near majority of edits to that article in recent years). But the draft actually already accounted for these concerns, as RexxS points out.

  This change is needed, because we're seeing an increased amount of strife generated by HTML comments attempting to serve an illegitimate WP:FAITACCOMPLI and WP:OWN function – including a recent WP:ARCA filing (unresolved, and liable to lead to further conflict, probably a WP:RFARB case, since the Arbs seem to feel the issue is outside the scope of the original RFARB case under which the ARCA action was sought). This has been a problem for a long time, and it's worsening because some WP:FACTIONs have figured out they can (so far) get away with using them as a WP:GAMING tool. It's much, much easier for MoS to address this with a tiny change than to engage in several months of protracted dispute at ArbCom and other WP:DRAMAboards. As MoS's lead itself says, when faced with an intractable dispute, see if you can write around it to make it moot. That can sometimes apply as well to internal guideline matters as to actual encyclopedic content output.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  05:58, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Moot -- withdrawn, mainly for complaints about venue. We'll have a set of RfC's over here instead. Herostratus (talk) 13:32, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

There is an RfC regarding quote templates, which proposes a substituting part of WP:BLOCKQUOTE (which is part of this pasge) with different text. The RfC is here:

Template talk:Pull quote#Request for comments on use and documentation

and users are requested to chime in as able. The RfC is there because most of the changes are to Template:Pull quote, but for this to work a sentence also has to be changed here at WP:MOS, so heads up.

The proposed WP:MOS change is to allow {{cquote}} and {{rquote}} for normal use (which they are used that way anyway), specifically to delete this sentence:

Do not enclose block quotations in quotation marks (and especially avoid decorative quotation marks in normal use, such as those provided by the {{pull quote}} a.k.a. {{cquote}} template, which are reserved for pull quotes).

and replace it with

{{Cquote}} and {{rquote}} are alternatives to {{quote}} which enclose the quote in large quotation marks..

Editors should see Template talk:Pull quote#Request for comments on use and documentation to see the change in context and the arguments for an against and to make their voices heard. Herostratus (talk) 15:20, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

• This is basically a bogus RfC that is trying to undo years of consensus at MoS against abuse of pull quote templates and decoration for decoration's sake, by pulling a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS move by fans of decorative quotes to change a template and its documentation to contradict the guideline, and to permit use of the template in ways that violate WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE policies. Unbelievable.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  06:57, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

If you would confine your arguments to one place (Template talk:Pull quote#Request for comments on use and documentation), that would be useful, as doing it here just muddies up what is supposed to be a simple pointer notice. Herostratus (talk) 13:57, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Filpro, what does the the IE in the new shortcut MOS:IE stand for? EEng 06:03, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

I was planning on it for being used for "Indian English" because of User:Filpro/script/IE. Would this shortcut be okay to use? Filpro (talk) 06:06, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Without commenting on whether the shortcut itself is okay, I wouldn't advertise it in the MoS as it's not terribly intuitive. Graham (talk) 06:10, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Now removed from MoS. Filpro (talk) 06:14, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Bill Gates thanks you. EEng 06:21, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, I thought this had something to do with working around Internet Explorer bugs.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  12:28, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

I believe the rule relating to sandwiching on the Wikipedia:Manual of Style needs to be amended. The current rule is immediately below.

• Avoid sandwiching text between two images that face each other, and between an image and an infobox or similar.

I would like it replaced with something along the lines of the following.

• Avoid sandwiching text between two images that face each other, and between an image and an infobox or similar, except when none of the images is wider than 220px and adding the additional image is desirable because it highlights a quote that sums up the essence of the information about the page.

This is in relation to my wish to place a 220px wide image of Che Guevara at the top left hand side of the Socialism page with a notable quote that sums up the essence and appeal of socialism: "For us there is no valid definition of socialism other than the abolition of the exploitation of one human being by another." I believe this improves the page. In my opinion this modestly sized image does not cause any aesthetic harm to the page and if anything improves the appearance, as you can judge by pasting the code used to create the image in this section onto the Socialism page just below the header and sidebar code and hitting the ‘Show preview' button. The default 220px thumbnail width allows this quote to fit well underneath it whereas anything much smaller would not look good.

You might not think it necessary to change the sandwiching rule, but you might believe this image of Che Guevara and the quote is of sufficient import to invoke the Wikipedia:Ignore all rules rule and support the use of this image/quote on this page in said manner on the grounds that doing so improves this page. If so please say so on theTalk:Socialism#Sandwiching images in lead page so a consensus can be reached that favors the addition of this image/quote on this page in this manner. Thank you for taking the time to read this comment. CodeBadger (talk) 05:50, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

• The problem (or one of many, anyway) with this proposal is the inherent difficulty in settling on the "quote that sums up the essence of the information about the page". In the case at hand, for example, I always felt that this was the quote that best sums of socialism:

The difference between capitalism and socialism is that under capitalism man exploits man, while under socialism it's just the opposite.

EEng 06:26, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

An excellent quote I have to say. It would be up to the editors who are interested in a particular article to reach a consensus as to what is the best quote. CodeBadger (talk) 05:41, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Gave me a chuckle. Good one.  Rules of enpagement Paine  20:09, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

• No, we're not going to amend MOS to enable you to do something very silly and unorthodox in one – or heaven forbid, more – articles. Even good intentions can cause sandwiching and this is a very good rationale for the present catch-all wording that makes no exceptions. Sandwiching is undesirable and if that conflicts with a "desirable" idea you had in mind, then you need to think of something else. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:58, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Um, that's a pretty harsh response to a new editor (500 edits) who maybe doesn't have a big-picture perspective yet. EEng 04:34, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Doesn't seem silly to me, while if we never challenged the prevailing orthodoxy we would never have progressed from the Dark Ages. Did you paste the code into the Socialism page and hit the 'Show preview' button as suggested to see what it looks like? If so what do you think it looks like? You seem to think sandwiching is inherently bad, but why is that? So long as the image is not too big (sensibly limited to a width of 220px) the text is not sandwiched enough to cause a problem. In fact it is easier to read a page which has narrow columns rather than wide columns. It seems to me that the rule relating to sandwiching is too restrictive and needs to be amended as suggested in order to improve Wikipedia. CodeBadger (talk) 05:41, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

• No, I don't agree that a change is needed. Sandwiching text is even less desirable in these days of very variable screen sizes on mobile devices, whose owners don't always want to view the mobile version. There's far too much sandwiching in articles. Peter coxhead (talk) 07:02, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
• The motivating example actually seems like an attempt to add a pull quote by other means. An image that "highlights a quote that sums up the essence of the ... page" is just a pull quote masquerading as an illustration. Pull quotes are generally discouraged in main space articles. Hiding a pull quote in an image caption does not improve the article. Pburka (talk) 15:43, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
• Looking at the version of the article with the image added, the article's introductory text is squished to an awkward column 2 or 3 words wide. I think the style advice to avoid sandwiching is good advice. While the quote is certainly evocative, I don't think it is very helpful as a starting point for the article. While there may be instances where sandwiching is warranted, I can't imagine it would ever be appropriate for the lead sentence.--Trystan (talk) 18:51, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Fully concur with Finnusertop, Trystan, and Pburka. The issue of no pull quotes on Wikipedia has been long settled. It is the longstanding policy of the Wikipedia community that Wikipedia is not a textbook. Please read Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. --Coolcaesar (talk) 20:30, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you all for your comments. I don't think it is a pull quote as this quote is not in the main article. I don't think the squeezing of the text at the top of the article is a problem so long as the image is not wider than 220px, while narrowing the text column near the top of the article makes it easier for people to get into reading it as it's easier to read narrow columns than wide columns. As for people who want to view a Wikipedia article on a small mobile they can use the mobile version of the Wikipedia article, while mobile devices now allow one to easily enlarge the non-mobile version of the article and move it around. It seems to me that if the quote sums up the essence of the article or a key point then it's ok if it leads the article. The current restriction on sandwiching seems too restrictive. We can limit the proposed sandwiching to the top of articles for one image/quote. The new rule could read as follows:

• Avoid sandwiching text between two images that face each other, and between an image and an infobox or similar, except when none of the images is wider than 220px and adding the additional image to the top left corner of the article is desirable because it highlights a quote that sums up the essence of the information about the article or a key point.

Perhaps we could add the Che image/quote to the top of the Socialism article for a week and get other people to have a look and see what they think? That would include other editors as well as our friends and relatives. It seems to me that we have nothing to lose by doing so and much to gain. CodeBadger (talk) 06:00, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

OK, look, your enthusiasm is admirable, but there's not going to be a special exception written into the rules for the very narrow situation of essential-quote-as-image-caption-at-top-of-article-opposite-infobox, and anyway there's a more fundamental problem here, which is that you're never going to get agreement on an "essential" quotation on a subject like socialism. EEng 06:29, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

• If the quote is really essential to the article, is should be in the article text. WP:CAPTION indicates that captions should identify the subject of the image, which a quote does not do. If you feel that this quote is critical to understanding socialism, you should try to incorporate it into the text instead of an image caption. Pburka (talk) 18:44, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your replies guys. It seems that the consensus is that my sandwiching idea sucks. Thank you Pburka for your idea about incorporating the quote into the text. Cheers. CodeBadger (talk) 08:38, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose, and I object to the WP:FORUMSHOPPING. This is just another attempt to do an end run around the RfC above about decorative quotation boxes. Address to WP:NPOV and other policy concerns about them in the RfC. Until you can do that, there is no basis whatsoever to try to wedge in "gimme quote boxes" stuff, much less under the guise of technical adjustments to the image-sandwiching section. It may well be that something needs to be said there about image sizes, but that has nothing to do with framing of out-of-context quotations, against MOS:BQ.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  11:24, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Oh, FFS calm down. The OP is a new user with a naive idea. There's no forum shopping or end run or anything else. And the OP's withdrawn the proposal, so why are you chiming in with all this gesticulation and hyperbole? Must you hold forth on everything? Did someone swap in regular for your decaf? Crickey! EEng 14:44, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

@Stanton: As the person who initially objected to the addition of the Che photo and quotation at Talk:Socialism § Sandwiching images in lead (which is what led to this discussion), I can assure you that CodeBadger had no intention of getting caught up in the {{quote box}} controversy. As EEng said, this is just a new user with a naïve idea (and no one here has suggested otherwise). That being said, this was an inadvertent demonstration of some of the problems caused by these quote boxes. Graham (talk) 15:38, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm entirely calm, and it's minced "for fuck's sake" exclamations that seem un-calm to me. As I said, we might need to adjust the wording about image sizes, but doing so does not involve any rider about quote boxes.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  20:15, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

The bot archived /Archive_182#Composition_titles_advice_consolidation before it got any response. For the record, "Yes, please!" Scattering this all over the place doesn't help anyone. While at it, there might be value in separating the "whether" from the "how": there are various places and reasons to use italics, or title case, or sentence case; these reasons could be given independently from examples showing what these are and what markup creates them. LeadSongDog come howl! 19:41, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

@LeadSongDog: Right. There were no objections raised, so I was just going to continue doing it (carefully) as time permits. It's rather painstaking.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  11:29, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Happy to see it being addressed. I've elsewhere expressed my reasons for preferring sentence case over title case in citing such minor works as news articles, so I won't repeat those arguments here. Whether one agrees, disagrees, or maintains neutrality on that question, it can only be an improvement to have the MOS guidance rendered coherent. Discussion of guidance changes should likely be deferred until that effort is done. Thank you. LeadSongDog come howl! 18:50, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Understood. The consolidation would just be a consolidation without substantive changes, or fits would be pitched.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  20:13, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Do not use capitals for emphasis Is woefully incomplete in my opinion. It only reflects the aesthetic effect of italic text opposed to the functional effect intended by emphasis. As of this posting, the entire section currently reads as follows:

Do not use capitals for emphasis

Use italics, not capitals, to denote emphasis.

Incorrect: It is not only a LITTLE learning that is dangerous.

Correct: It is not only a little learning that is dangerous.

I propose modifying the section to mention the functional effect of italic emphasis, with included links, as follows:

Do not use capitals for emphasis

Further information: MOS:EMPHASIS

Instead of capitals, use italics for emphasis, generated by the <em>...</em> element in HTML (see HTML in wikitext) or template {{em|...}} in wiki markup (see template's documentation).

Incorrect: It is not only a LITTLE learning that is dangerous.

Correct: It is not only a little learning that is dangerous.

Thank you for considering these changes.--John Cline (talk) 22:51, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

John is right to bring attention to the difference between <i>...</i> and <em>...</em>. It's not just an issue for screen readers, either. There's a fuller exposition of why it's a good idea to properly mark up text that has more meaning than just presentation at:

• "Using <b> and <i> elements (W3C internationalization)"

for those interested. --RexxS (talk) 23:38, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

User:Graham87 may wish to comment.—Wavelength (talk) 23:38, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

This is irrelevant to the majority of screen reader users, as the most widely used screen readers don't take font attributes (e.g. bold, underlining, italic) into account at all. Also, Wavelength, your attempt to ping me didn't work; I suspect you had an edit conflict when you composed your message. I only found out about this thread because of an offwiki notification by Tony1. Graham87 13:20, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, User:Graham87, for alerting me. I received both alerts.

—Wavelength (talk) 13:38, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, User:Tony1, for your assistance.

—Wavelength (talk) 14:41, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

As nobody seems to be disagreeing with the thrust of John's suggestion I've gone ahead and updated the section on "Do not use capitals for emphasis" to use {{em}}. Taking into account Graham's comments above, I've also updated the section on "Emphasis" to more accurately explain the reasons for using <em>...</em>. --RexxS (talk) 17:17, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

I belatedly very strongly support this; I'd meant to fix that years ago, when I created the {{em}} template, and just forgot.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  20:15, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

"The en dash in a range is always unspaced, except when at least one endpoint of the range includes at least one space." - erm, why?! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Turkeyphant (talk • contribs) 12:34, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Turkeyphant See MOS:DATERANGE.  – Corinne (talk) 00:37, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Well, that link just repeats the same rule in a different way. The reason for the rule is aesthetic. (And in fact that's the reason for a lot of formatting rules -- not something about "correctness", but rather what reads well and looks good.) For example:

Charles Robert Darwin (1809–1882) was an English naturalist

looks fine. But if you add the full dates:

Charles Robert Darwin (12 February 1809–19 April 1882) was an English naturalist

with no space around the dash you see how the "1809–19" are pulled together by the dash, as if they're the two things being related to each other -- the other stuff to the left and right is marginalized. But adding a space

Charles Robert Darwin (12 February 1809 – 19 April 1882) was an English naturalist

makes it look much more balanced. EEng 20:06, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

A similar (but not identical) procedure is applied in the order of operations in mathematics and computer programming.

—Wavelength (talk) 20:34, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Most style, grammar, spelling, punctuation and other usage matters are arbitrary. WP does it it because other academic style guides do it (Chicago, Oxford, Scientific Style and Format, etc., etc.). The ones that do not are journalistic (or for school children). In virtually all news house style manuals, the very existence itself of the en dash is denied; they'll tell you there is "a" dash, and show you an em dash, after which they all part ways and recommend conflicting usage, because they pride themselves on being distinctive from their competition. The historical background is that the careful, methodical typesetting of book (including encyclopedia) printing has had en, em and other dashes (3-em, etc.) for ages, but the news printers (especially in the days of manual type) were all about expediency, often having to produce multiple editions per day, so they eliminated whatever they could get away with. This is also why journalism style tends to write things like "On 2 July 2017 the sun will explode" instead of "On 2 July 2017, the Sun will explode", and drops many other commas that are found in a more formal, deliberate register that is meant to be read in depth, not scanned for a few seconds. But we can actually thank them for one thing: the dropping of the unnecessary dots in upper-case acronyms and initialisms; the last time you saw "U.S.S.R." was probably long before the USSR ceased to exist as such. :-)  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  20:26, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Please visit and comment here:

• Talk:List of tallest buildings in the world#Opinions welcome

Many thanks.

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 06:55, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Are the rules of using a non-Courier New monospaced fonts used for Code, preformatted text, etc. like Consolas, Everson Mono, Lucida Console, Lucida Sans Typewriter, Dejavu Sans Mono, etc. 46.130.128.129 (talk) 10:54, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

@46.130.128.129: It's not clear what your asking, nor what context you are thinking of. Setting a specific font is not a good idea, because we have no idea what fonts someone may have installed. In most cases it should simply be set to font-family: monospace; so that people see it in whatever their browser-default monospace font it, or a custom one they have set (I use one intended for coders that better distinguishes between 1, l, and I than most of them do, for example).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  13:14, 4 September 2016 (UTC)