Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 128

Use of # in table headers
Some editors are replacing # in table heads with "No." or other equivalents, claiming that MOS:HASH absolutely prohibits use of # in any article in any context. It currently says "Avoid using the # symbol".

Regardless, it is still heavily used. For instance, a rough estimate is that about 40% of the TV show episode lists use # in a table header. E.g., eight out of 20 shows in Lists of British television series episodes, starting with "A" use the # : (I chose British shows here, as it is sometimes claimed that # isn't understood outside the US. As a non-American, I can say that is not true. But # meaning "pounds", that is weird; "number" is fine.)
 * List of Absolutely Fabulous episodes
 * List of After You've Gone episodes
 * List of Da Ali G Show episodes
 * List of 'Allo 'Allo! episodes
 * List of An Idiot Abroad episodes
 * List of As Time Goes By episodes
 * List of Auf Wiedersehen, Pet episodes
 * List of The Avengers episodes

Also many current popular shows, such as List of Game of Thrones episodes, List of Modern Family episodes.

I cannot find any explanation or justification of this part of MOS. The Talk archives are voluminous and hard to search. However, I found which seems to be when this guideline was proposed. There were plenty of exceptions mentioned. I do not know how that ended up as simply "avoid", nevertheless, I do not think a hardline prohibition is supported by the discussion there. So I think that this should be revised to specifically allow use of # in tables, where it saves space and is quite clear, and retain the admonition against use in prose. Barsoomian (talk) 10:56, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
 * List of An Idiot Abroad episodes also uses the numero sign, which MOS:HASH specifically says not to use, so it clearly does not comply. List of Auf Wiedersehen, Pet episodes does not use "#", it uses "Episode", so, out of the first 20 articles one is very wrong and 13, not 12, do not use "#". There's a relevant discussion, now archived, here, where it was mentioned by multiple editors that "#" is ambiguous. --AussieLegend (talk) 11:08, 26 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I see along rambling discussion that did not end in consensus on anything. The ambiguity mentioned is what is being counted, the meaning of # or No. as "number" is not ambiguous. Otherwise, that did not seem to be about this specific point. And many of the prominent episode lists cited in that discussion then still use # in their headers, eg. List of Star Trek: The Next Generation episodes. So it doesn't seem to have been put into practice by anyone, except perhaps you. I am asking for the policy to take account that many editors do not agree with this prohibition and revise it to something more sensible. Barsoomian (talk) 11:24, 26 February 2012 (UTC)


 * You're correct that no consensus was reached, which is why some articles still use it. However, your claim that "it doesn't seem to have been put into practice by anyone, except perhaps you" is far from correct. In fact the discussion was started by an editor who disagreed with "Season #" and "Series #" headings that were being used by many editors, including me. It wasn't until after that discussion concluded that I became aware of MOS:HASH, when an article I regularly edited was changed by another editor citing it. Since then I've seen many articles changed by many editors citing MOS:HASH. Your actions here obviously motivated by your opposition to "#" being changed to "No." at List of The Almighty Johnsons episodes and, despite a request, you still haven't explained why you think "#" is better than "No." --11:46, 26 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I never noticed any such request. I don't see any reason to prefer "No." in this case. Obviously, from the examples I cited, I am not the only person who thinks  that "#" is a valid and obvious symbol to use for this purpose. You haven't given any cogent reason not to do so. That "many articles [were] changed by many editors citing MOS:HASH." is a circular argument, and why I opened the discussion here, to question this appeal to authority (and would I be right in suspecting that you were one of the architects of this rule you enjoy laying down so much?)  Barsoomian (talk) 15:02, 26 February 2012 (UTC)


 * The request was clear on my talk page. You responded to the content directly after it, and even copied it to Talk:List of The Almighty Johnsons episodes. I didn't ask you if there was any reason to prefer "No.", I asked "Why do you prefer "#" over "No." given the obvious preference for the latter in the MoS?", something you still haven't answered. The argument for "No." is in MOS:HASH, which says to avoid it, and comments in the discussion that I linked to explain that it is ambiguous, especially when one column is headed with "№" and the other is headed by "#", such as in List of An Idiot Abroad episodes, as the two mean the same thing. You may prefer #, and others may too, but your own investigation showed there are more articles that don't, so they don't support your opinion. I still fail to see why you prefer "#". --AussieLegend (talk) 15:30, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

The question I am asking here (since you closed discussion of your Talk page, how can you continue that here?) is: Why prefer "No.", the abbreviation of a Latin phrase, over a single symbol "#" that is one character long and unambiguous? Actually, I don't care what you prefer. I do care that you want to forbid anyone from preferring otherwise, for no reason except that "it's in the MoS". Doing some archaeology, I found that at 14 September 2009 the wording was: Number signs Avoid use of the # symbol (known as the number sign, hash sign or pound sign) when referring to numbers or rankings. Instead use the word "number" to preserve formality. For example:Incorrect:  	Her album reached #1 in the UK album charts Correct:	Her album reached number 1 in the UK album charts Similarly, avoid using № or "No." (the numero signs). This was entered with the comment "Punctuation:  Agreed in Talk that # and No. should not be used". The changes, without any consensus, since then to "simplify" this have created the impression that "No." is the ONLY abbreviation that should be used. But the insistence on substitution of "No." for "#" is not supported by this guideline, the original discussion actually deprecated ALL abbreviations. It seems obvious that this policy applied to prose, not formats where abbreviations were appropriate, such as multi-column tables. There was no distinction made between abbreviations. As I have documented, the # and № are both very commonly used in tables in Wikipedia now. I see no reason to deprecate this. It is a quite normal and clear usage and has been for decades. So I advocate a reversion to the original sense, with clarification as to the scope, something like: Number signs In prose, avoid use of the # symbol (known as the number sign, hash sign or pound sign), № or "No." (the numero signs) when referring to numbers or rankings. Instead use the word "number" to preserve formality. For example:Incorrect:  	Her album reached #1 in the UK album charts Correct:	Her album reached number 1 in the UK album charts. In tables and lists short forms may be used, if the meaning is clear. Barsoomian (talk) 16:49, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
 * That I closed the discussion on my talk page is irrelevant. In the more than 14 hours between when I asked that question and when I closed the discussion after you started making snide comments and told another editor to "but out", you edited my user page on 3 different occasions. There was plenty of time to respond, and you still could at Talk:List of The Almighty Johnsons episodes, where you copied the content, and yet you're still avoiding providing an answer. Anyway, to the relevant topic here, you should have done a bit more than scrape the surface in your archaeology exploits. The content that you claim was there until 14 September 2009, was actually first added on that date, during a discussion now archived at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 110. Subsequent discussion resulted in a change to what is pretty much the present format on 24 September 2009. I don't see any justification in removing use of "No.". What was stated in the 2009 discussion is still valid and, in any case, you've gotten around MOS:HASH at List of The Almighty Johnsons episodes by changing "No." to "Ep.". --AussieLegend (talk) 17:58, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I haven't "avoided an answer" I answered above. Why prefer "No.", the abbreviation of a Latin phrase, over a single symbol "#" that is one character long and unambiguous? Is it being in the form of a rhetorical question confusing? I'm sorry. But clearly it doesn't matter what I say, you revert regardless, and templating anyone who dares to disagree.  You are the one who has avoided answering any of my points. I resent your forcing your interpretation of an arbitrary rule, an interpretation which has never been discussed, explained or given consensus. None of the links you cite do that; yes I did read them. One person commented that he thought # might be confusing, another went ahead ahead and made it so. Now, without any wider consensus or discussion, you are using this as a licence to arbitrarily change articles, templating anyone who disagrees with absurd assertions that using the numbersign in a table is "unusual, inappropriate or difficult to understand", all of which are untrue (it is  used now in thousands of major articles, such as List of Star Trek: The Next Generation episodes, as a random example, without anyone suffering "confusion"). In any case, I brought the discussion here to get comments from editors who might consider it on the merits rather than defending an entrenched position. Barsoomian (talk) 18:37, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Just a reminder that, whether "#" or "No." is used, they should be rendered as # or No. . Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:14, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Interesting. But every time I try to use "#" I am reverted, so it's not an option now. Barsoomian (talk) 15:02, 26 February 2012 (UTC)


 * That's highly dubious "abbr fetishism" (and I say that as someone who's 10x more semantic HTML fetishistic than almost anyone else on the system. :-) For one thing, it wouldn't be done except for the first time in the same article, and we don't use  /  markup for symbols, only for abbreviations (in fact, doing so is an abuse of that HTML element). The "#" symbol is, by definition, a symbol not an abbreviation. Even "No." is questionable. It's actually an ASCII rendering of the numero symbol,, which is a symbol albeit one obviously  abbreviation of numero, 'number', in the same way that the trademark symbol &trade; is a symbol, not simply an abbreviation of "trademark". There are many cases of this, including "&", which is a distorted abbreviaton of et, 'and', and so on.  An argument can be made for "No." since it's been kind of "desymboled", but I think that's a hairspliting exercise, as there is no one who knows English who doesn't recognized "No.", which is widely used around the world even outside of English, even in Cyrillic (as the actual numero symbol), despite Cyrillic not having an "N" glyph. — SMcCandlish    Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿ ¤ þ  Contrib.  08:18, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I've already seen Jan, Feb etc. (in tables including all months in order, no less, where if you can't figure out what Jan mean you likely can't figure out how to use a computer either), FFS. What's next, DNA, LSD or TNT, where actually fewer people know the substance by its full name than by the initials? Duh. ― A. di M.​  13:08, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * This overuse of abbr needs to be addressed at MOS:ABBR; it's essentially the exact same concept as overlinking of things like today and sun and elbow. Actually, it's not "essentially" the same thing, it the same, since it is a form of linking, to a pop-up tooltip instead of an article. We don't link if it blindingly obvious. — SMcCandlish    Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿ ¤ þ  Contrib.  16:00, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Is there any good reason to avoid # which doesn't apply to No. as well? (I find the idea that the former is unfamiliar to non-Americans ridiculous – and I've never been to America; plus, even the 0.1% of people who haven't encountered it before would likely be able to figure it out from the context without breaking a sweat.) ― A. di M.​  18:51, 26 February 2012 (UTC)


 * This is one of those MOS points I don't entirely support myself. It derives from the fact that most published style guides say to use "No." or the numero symbol (which MOS says not to use, for no known reason; it should explicitly state why if it's going to continue to do so).  The "#" symbol is overwhelmingly used as standard in many cases, from sports statistics to music and movie sales, in the vast majority of both general and specialist reliable sources.  I do agree that in general prose both "#" and "No." should be avoided. There's no reason to abbreviate. In a table or repetitive list, which does provide a reason to abbreviate, I'm fine with recommending "No." generally vs. "#" as a default, but the half-assed wording we have pretends there are no exceptions. I recently (after a reliably sourced proposal that garnered no opposition) added comics as a codified exception (WikiProjects' MOS-hating editwarriors take note: The issue was raised because the comics project was advising something different than MOS. Sound familiar? Instead of launching a tendentious, canvassing, poll-stacking, histrionic war, someone just asked about it and recommended a change, and a week later it was fixed because compelling reasons were presented to fix it.  People don't have to fly off the handle to get specialist preferences worked into MOS  they don't violate WP:ASTONISH (if they do, too bad, get over it and move on); calm reason usually works.) — SMcCandlish    Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿ ¤ þ  Contrib.  08:18, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Are there many old fonts still widely used which don't support the character? If there are, that's a good reason to avoid it. (BTW, how about Nº (capital N plus masculine ordinal sign º)? It ought to look the same or very similar to  but it ought to be supported by pretty much all fonts.) ― A. di M.​   12:54, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * № is in any Unicode font, but not if you're restricted to 8-bit Windows ANSI. If you can't use the actual character, better to use just "No." rather than trying to simulate it. But # is in every font from 7-bit ASCII up. Interestingly, № is on the editing "Insert symbol" list, despite its apparent prohibition. And as a brief reconnoiter found, it is widely used in articles here, though the equally banned # is more common. Barsoomian (talk) 13:21, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't understand what you mean by 'If you can't use the actual character, better to use just "No." rather than trying to simulate it.', since the character string "No." a simulation of №.  Who uses 8-bit ANSI? Any restriction that would affect that Unicode glyph would affect huge numbers of them all over the system, effectively making the issue moot. We do not optimize for obsolete operating systems.  We can't, or we cannot do what we need to do to make a proper encyclopedia. — SMcCandlish    Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿ ¤ þ  Contrib.  15:55, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Well this is a bit of a digression, but the № symbol is just a representation of "No." an abbreviation for the Latin numero. They're equivalent, not simulations.  Similar to the origin of the & as Latin "et", except that we don't use the "et" form at all any more in English. The "simulation" I was advising against was using  " Nº", which looks similar but purely accidentally. Anyway, if you want to advocate removing the restriction on № (also widely ignored) then please do so, preferably in a separate topic, as the case is a bit different. Barsoomian (talk) 15:31, 3 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Support Barsoomian's wording change. There's no reason to favor "No." over "#" in tables and lists (indeed, "#" is by far favored in both sporting and media contexts), and no reason to actively promote "No." (or, of course, #) in prose, except where such use is overwhelming (as # is in comics, in constructions like "The Amazing Spiderman #247"). — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿ ¤ þ  Contrib.  00:09, 3 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose Barsoomian's wording. It is moderate and subtle, but still does not reflect the fact that "#" has noticeable support only in the US. In The Canadian Style (current edition, 1997) it gets a limited acceptance similar to Barsoomian's proposal (p. 29). But even in the major US guide CMOS it is barely mentioned. (And never shown or used in CMOS, in referencing examples or any other context so far as I can see after a diligent search; same for the hugely influential APA Manual, with its meticulous and numerous tabular examples.) In the Gregg Reference Manual (my favourite US guide for its detail and subtlety) "No." is preferred (or no marker at all), in almost all circumstances. Most mentions there of "#" are proscriptive (don't use it addresses, for example: see 316c). At 455c there is a small concession: "The symbol # may be used on business forms and in technical material." And these two examples are later given: "use 50# paper for the job" (543d); "reorder #4659 and #4691" (543e). British guides (New Hart's and the others in that stable) have no place for "#", except perhaps as one in a series of note markers where numbers are not used. Cambridge Guide to English Usage at the article "hash" identifies "#" as American, and allows that it is "handy in mathematical tables and computer codes". In fact, I notice a predominance of acceptance among those with a solid mathematical or computing background, like SMcCandlish and A di M (no offence meant to either!). In conclusion, nowhere do we find a ringing endorsement of "#" for any use. I stand firmly against its incorporation in Wikipedia style, and I would not countenance its acceptance without solid endorsement in a properly conducted RFC. Many who edit here are international or "Americanised" in their outlook, or technically oriented as I have observed. The rest of the world does not use or accept "#" for indicating numbers.
 * N oetica Tea? 01:58, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I am neither American nor Americanised. I'm from the "rest of the world" (specifically Australia, and now Hong Kong). We don't need a "ringing endorsement" of its use, we need a good reason to proscribe using a common symbol, in every Latin character set, and plainly marked on every keyboard (UK or US). Currently I have found it being used in roughly 40% of articles listing UK TV episodes, for instance. That would not have been tolerated for a minute if it was not well understood by British readers and editors. The sporadic and random attempts by zealous editors to stamp it out, wielding the MOS:HASH as a blunt instrument, are met with incomprehension and annoyance as, for instance, tight header text is wrapped to two lines, as a side effect, while there is no gain in readability. It's an observable fact that it has entered common usage here (that is Wikipedia, all varieties of English), at least in the table layout s that I suggest it specifically be allowed for editors to have the choice to use it when appropriate. Barsoomian (talk) 08:42, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * For the record, I'm neither a mathematician nor a computer scientist. (I was taught about # by my father when I was about 7 years old. I have taken a few maths and comp sci courses in university since then, but it's not like we routinely talked about album charts or sports rankings or TV series in them, anyway. What I guess the CGEU is talking about has very little to do with the use of # as a synonym of №, which is what's being discussed here.) ― A. di M.​  17:29, 3 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose proposed change. Many contributors might be from the restricted areas of academic/professional life outside the US in which the hash is widely used, but we should be providing an encyclopaedia that suits the reader, not the editors.  Although recognition of the hash in UK is undoubtedly much wider than it was a few years ago, it is still perceived as an Americanism.  Kevin McE (talk) 07:33, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I find the statement that the hash is used in "restricted areas of academic/professional life" a highly dubious assertion. Its origin being recognised as an "Americanism" doesn't mean it isn't recognised. It is currently used by many editors in articles on British subjects; surely edited and read by many British readers without causing consternation. I am sure that none of those who oppose this use find it personally confusing; they are acting on behalf of a hypothetical person who I doubt really exists any more, at least in the readers of Wikipedia. A column of figures with a symbol at a the head is pretty much self evident. Barsoomian (talk)
 * Yeah, this is starting to look more and more like WP:IDONTLIKEIT, based on ca. 1970s assumptions about usage. Simply repeating the assertion that "#" is a weird Americanism that no one else understands doesn't make it true or even vaguely plausible given the evidence against this.  And it's important to note that the proposal is actually two proposals: 1) stop favoring one abbreviation over the other, and 2) explicitly favor the full word "number" over any abbreviation in running prose (there's really no excuse for using an abbreviation there unless it's in a special context in which such a usage is near-universal).  MOS is not bound to the Chicago Manual of Style, though we use it among other sources and other considerations in formulating what to do here. It's a noticeably conservative work, and often does not reflect current usage (and I don't mean texting-speak and street slang). If nearly half of British TV series articles use "#" (this would be after various people have tried to enforce MOS by cleaning up articles that do so, mind you), this is strong evidence that the prohibition against "#" is broadly perceived as obstructionist nonsense and is being WP:IAR'ed by a very large number of editors, in a programmatic, consistent way (i.e., it doesn't reflect consensus any longer if it ever did). It's also broadly used in sports articles. I've seen it in snooker tournament articles despite their being mostly Commonwealth-edited and Commonwealth-read. — SMcCandlish    Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿ ¤ þ  Contrib.  09:37, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * How many years is “a few years”? We most definitely only use billion to mean 109 even in British articles, although it used to mean 1012 in Britain until the 1970s. ― A. di M.​  10:08, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Oppose proposed change. I agree that the British view the use of the "#" key for numbers and more especially for pounds as an Americanism. In the UK, pounds are denoted either by "£" or by "lbs". It should also be noted that when computers were restricted to a 96 character set, there were various national character sets - the UK and the US sets were identical except that the UK had the symbol "£" instead of the symbol "#". Martinvl (talk) 09:50, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * No one is proposing to use # for pounds. And no one accessing a computer this century is restricted to 96 characters. Really, I will defend to the death the spelling of aluminium or colour, but # is pretty much universally understood now and is not an obvious flag of an American writer. But it's not formal use, it's an abbreviation, like &, and used in similar contexts.Barsoomian (talk) 10:03, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Nobody is proposing to use # for pounds! And that thing about 7-bit character encodings dates back several decades. ― A. di M.​  10:08, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * x2! Ditto all that. Even Americans haven't regularly used "#" to mean "pounds" since my grandma was a teenager, as far as I can tell. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿ ¤ þ  Contrib.  14:45, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I was highlighting why the symbol "#" is seldom used in the UK - there was a period when it just was not on our keyboards.  Martinvl (talk) 08:55, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Support new wording. It reflects actual usage in articles, and therefore more accurately describes the broad consensus of editors across Wikipedia. oknazevad (talk) 03:11, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Links not in quotes but nearby
To link when a linkable term is within a quotation, I've been using an alternative method so as not to link within a quotation. Near the quotation, usually within a ref element supporting it, usually following a bibliographic citation in the ref element, I add something like "(Wikipedia has an article on the linked-to subject.)". One editor removed one such instance but others have stayed in place, perhaps because they weren't noticed. If this method is useful, I suggest it be included in WP:MOS as a choice. Nick Levinson (talk) 17:06, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Can you point to a specific example of each of the two formats? That would help. Thanks. Milkunderwood (talk) 17:41, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I have to go home to find one or two, but the format is as given above, including the parentheses and linking brackets (you see the latter because I used nowiki markup). Only one format is being proposed; it is the alternative to linking within the quotation, which is not wanted. Does the format make sense now? Nick Levinson (talk) 17:56, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't know why you are imposing such a restriction on yourself. So long as there is no reasonable doubt that the link is to the word as the speaker meant it, there is no editorialising of a quote simply by having some of it in blue on our screens: one might as well agrue that they didn't say the words in the font in which they appear on our screens.  Kevin McE (talk) 18:10, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * See WT:MOSLINK. ― A. di M.​  19:16, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * What an extraordinary restriction! If lifting a quote from today's newspaper (not one that is necessarily likely to appear in an encyclopaedic article, but it makes the point), on what possible grounds can it be wrong to put " Scholes and Giggs are the best players this club has ever had "?  Crazy! Kevin McE (talk) 19:59, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * It's one of the more controversial MOS points, and last I raised the issue myself, I thought we had consensus to stop trying to tell people not to link in quotations if it seemed helpful. This is probably the single most-ignored MOS rule. Some such links are annoying every-day-word links, some of them are POV-pushing or OR-synthesizing, but a very large number of them are necessary to make the article cohesive without being hair-pullingly redundant by including links to all the important terms immediately after the quotation that contains them.  I have to confess that since I notice this restriction was put back in MOS, I have WP:IARed on this one with complete impunity and will continue to do so any time the result for article is better. — SMcCandlish    Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿ ¤ þ  Contrib.  06:56, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

We're losing the original issue. I accept the existing MOS provision against linking within quotations. I'm suggesting a method consistent with not linking within quotations. (I couldn't quickly find an example at home.) In short, the alternative method I propose is to link outside of the quotation, even if that means adding a nonquotational sentence just so a link can be provided. How does that sound? Nick Levinson (talk) 15:13, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

I did find an example, in the SCUM Manifesto article, in footnote 61: "Siegel, Deborah, Sisterhood, Interrupted, op. cit., p. 26 (referring to "the stances taken by the likes of Solanas and The Weathermen" (Wikipedia has an article on The Weathermen))". In this case, the link is piped from the Weather Underground article. The result is that the link is not inside the quotation. Nick Levinson (talk) 15:33, 28 February 2012 (UTC) (Corrected lack of paragraph break: 15:39, 28 February 2012 (UTC))
 * I understand. I and I think Kevin are suggesting this is grotesque. In the interim is seems like a good solution, but I for one don't think there's a solid consensus to retain such anti-link-in-quote restrictiveness, based on discussion that have taken place here within the last year or so. I'm too tired right this moment to go dig it out of the archives. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿ ¤ þ  Contrib.  15:49, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * How about “the stances taken by the likes of Solanas and The Weathermen [ Weather Underground ] ”? (This is silly when the title of the linked article matches the text in the quotation exactly, but in that case the grounds to avoid linking from within the quote are less strong.) ― A. di M.​  09:58, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The example confuses me. Do you mean that the original we are quoting said "the stances taken by the likes of Solanas and The Weathermen [Weather Underground]" or "the stances taken by the likes of Solanas and The Weathermen"? That is, are we just adding a link, or adding a [square-bracketed interpolation] with a link in it? If the latter, is it being added only for the purpose of linking, or would have we have added it as a clarification even if not linked? — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿ ¤ þ  Contrib.  14:41, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The original (according to Nick Levinson, I've not read it myself) says “the stances taken by the likes of Solanas and The Weathermen”; the square brackets ought to make clear that the insertion of [ Weather Underground ] is ours not theirs. As for the second question, we're linking anyway, so what's it matter what we would do if we weren't linking? ― A. di M.​  14:50, 3 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Are both methods acceptable?


 * The method using internal bracketing technically works, but my first impression is that it will confuse some readers and editors and lead to bad followup editing by drive-by editors. And in cases where what gets linked needs quotation marks because they're in the article title (I think there are cases of that), it will look to readers like a quotation from the source when it's not.


 * The added-sentence method solves that, but adds bulk. Editors might prefer a choice. Would that be okay?


 * Nick Levinson (talk) 17:15, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Apparent contradiction in "Bulleted and numbered lists" section
Someone recently added (I then deleted, and someone reverted back) the undiscussed: ), to separate list items
 * Use proper wiki-markup, not HTML line-break tags (

immediately before the long-standing:
 * Do not leave blank lines between items in a bulleted or numbered list unless there is a reason to do so, since this causes the Wiki software to interpret each item as beginning a new list.

The former appears to directly contradict the latter. If your intent is to separate list items with more space, the way to do this emphatically with ; there isn't even a wiki-template wrapper for this (br does something else). The "proper wiki-markup" way to do this would intuitively seem to be to simply insert a blank line, between list items, but this is  by the latter point, because it forks the markup into two lists, thus wrecking the semantic HTML value of using list code to begin with. 06:51, 28 February 2012 (UTC)


 * If this was supposed to address things like:

1) The first point

2) The second point

3) The third point
 * then yes, this is common among noobs who haven't learned #-list wikimarkup yet, but the wording added is too vague, and this isn't really an MOS issue, its a "Help:" namespace thing. We don't need MOS to tell editors "you don't have to use  to do italics" or "please don't use bare HTML table markup; see Help:Tables". Coding how-tos, and wikimarup tutorials aren't really MOS's job. — SMcCandlish    Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿ ¤ þ  Contrib.  15:38, 28 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Just to be clear, I intend to re-delete this, per WP:BOLLOCKS as unclear guidance no one can actually follow, unless someone with a clear vision of why it was added rewords it to not contradict the line that follows it. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿ ¤ þ  Contrib.  15:38, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Going twice... — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿ ¤ þ  Contrib.  14:58, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Replaced it with pointers to pages on list style and coding. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿ ¤ þ  Contrib.  00:02, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Merge WP:FAUNA sections to MOS
Naming conventions (fauna) obviously has to merge here, to WP:Manual of Style (and get addressed in WP:LEAD, too). It's definitely in the wrong venue right now, being 100% prose/lead style advice that has to do with article naming. It's actually very important, but quite hard to find because it's in the wrong page. For once, it's something on this topic that isn't already inside MOS proper that actually does have a very clear consensus record, having been arrived at in a well-attended RfC with a clear outcome, at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biology/Archive 4.

I intend to merge this (as in within 24 hours) so if you have an objection, raise it quick. This is such a no-brainer it suggests there should be some kind of "WP:CSM", "Criteria for speedy merging". ;-)

Normally I'd be WP:BOLD and just do it w/o posting here about it, but anything to do with animal names seems to send tempers through the roof (including mine sometimes - no pot/kettle here), so I'm erring on the side of caution. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿ ¤ þ  Contrib.  15:08, 28 February 2012 (UTC)


 * May need more discussion It must be made clear that the merged material only applies to fauna articles (the text to be merged is only at the fauna naming page, and the archived discussion has at the start "Plants and fungi are listed at their scientific names so this particular discussion does not apply to them"). Overwhelmingly flora articles are at the scientific name, but a few are at the common name when the scientific name is normally in bold, which is not recommended for fauna articles in the text to be merged. There seems not to have been a consensus on how to handle flora articles at common names. Peter coxhead (talk) 15:14, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Right, sorry I wasn't clear that I was going to account for this. The wording at the linked-to RfC made this clearer (and better - it isn't only about fauna articles, but rather about articles titled based on common name rather than scientific; this is more common with animal than plant articles, but not exclusive to either). Regardless, it has no business being at WP:FAUNA, which despite the shortcut name is and only is an article titles naming convention, so prose usage is out-of-scope. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿ ¤ þ  Contrib.  15:47, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually there's a general lack of clarity over where to explain conventions for article titles and where to explain conventions for the same word or phrase used in running text. I think that stuff about running text has crept into pages ostensibly about titles for this reason. Perhaps title issues should be subsections of more general pages? Peter coxhead (talk) 17:55, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * That does seem to be the general trend; cf. topical manuals of style (some labelled with style-guideline and named as part of MOS, some tagged with WikiProject style advice or nothing and named as part of the project; most of them contain short naming conventions as well, because it's really a subtopic of the style issue in most cases. I'd be generally supportive of the idea of moving all NC material to MOS pages when this can be done relatively seamlessly. (With, say, WP:NCP it probably couldn't be, because there are a lot of non-style concerns in it). At any rate, I think a wholesale change like that would be highly controversial and a proposal at WP:VPP to do it would probably fail, several times in a row.  I suggest that a more likely approach would be to move all the non-title material to MOS pages, since it  belong in MOS and does  belong in NC pages, then note which of the topical NC's are left with hardly anything to do with naming that's actually topic-specific, and then merge those "stub guidelines" back into WP:AT.  Six or so years ago, when I was first writing MOS:CUE (then, WP:WikiProject Cue sports/Spelling conventions), I tried to generate a stand-alone NC page for it too, before realizing there were approximately zero naming issues in that field that weren't either style issues I'd already covered, or general bio, organization, etc., issues already covered by WP:NC (now WP:AT) and the NC sub-guidelines. — SMcCandlish    Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿ ¤ þ  Contrib.  00:19, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not entirely sure what you mean above. If you mean that all discussion of conventions for naming organisms in running text should be in the body of the MOS, I think this is a bad idea. There are many complex issues in this field (e.g. differences between the codes of nomenclature in the use of connecting forms in ranks below species; how to handle the provisions of the ICNCP in regard to cultivars, Groups, grexes, trade designations; etc.). These don't belong in the main MOS; they are not of any concern to most editors. A few key issues (e.g. italics and only capitalize the genus name) should be in the main MOS; the rest should be in more specialized guidance. My point is that advice about the title of articles should be restricted to issues which are unique to titles (e.g. the preference for common names for animals but for scientific names for plants and fungi). All typographical issues relating to titles are the same as for running text, surely? So why separate the advice – it just leads to duplication and then disputes when there are differences (I hardly need to say this!!). Peter coxhead (talk) 09:55, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Aye; the "geeky details" should be in subguideline pages and even (e.g. the hyphenation rules detailia of birds) at project pages. What I'm getting at is the naming conventions pages should not be trying to prose style standards; it's utterly out-of-scope. If its helpful, they could briefly repeat some of the rules established in style guidelines.  For example, I edited MOS:CAPS's section on organism names to mention parenthetically that bionomials are italicized where the page discussed how they are capitalized, because it would be "editor hateful" to mention only the caps rule there and force people to go looking at MOS:ITALICS for the italics half of the "how to format a binomial" question.  But while MOS:CAPS now mentioned the italicization, it isn't the guideline that set that standard.  WP:FAUNA is a naming convention page, and doesn't set style standards, even if it relies upon them internally in context and may cross-reference them for convenience, if you see what i mean. — SMcCandlish    Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿ ¤ þ  Contrib.  14:56, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Naming conventions (fauna) also has to merge here, for the same reasons, except a note that the title of an article that is the scientific name of the animal is in the form Homo sapiens not "Homo Sapiens". Nothing else in that section has anything at all to do with AT/NC issues. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SMcCandlish (talk • contribs)
 * I think you mean "Homo sapiens" emphasizing the lower-case "s". Art LaPella (talk) 03:08, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I had some typos in there; now it says what it was supposed to. :-) — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿ ¤ þ  Contrib.  14:56, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I would say, as I said above, that the note is rather that when the title of article is a scientific name it follows precisely the same conventions as for running text (both in capitalization and in italicization). Peter coxhead (talk) 09:55, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Exactly. That even sounds like good wording to specifically use at the NC page after the MOSish stuff is merged here. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿ ¤ þ  Contrib.  14:46, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Proceeding with the merges: Any more issues to raise? I'd like to get on this ASAP. This MOS/NC animal names cleanup has taken over a month already. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿ ¤ þ  Contrib.  15:49, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Going twice... — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿ ¤ þ  Contrib.  23:56, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

✅ – I've merged the stuff from WP:FAUNA that was not article-naming-specific into MOS pages, with cross-references. It ended up making more sense to merge this stuff to specific subpages like MOS:CAPS, MOS:ITALICS and MOS:LEAD rather than MOS:LIFE which is about capitalization. Ultimately it may make more sense to make MOS:LIFE be a page at WP:Manual of Style/Organisms and merge all this stuff to there, but at least the style stuff is now in style guidelines instead of lost in a naming convention page no one pays much attention to. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿ ¤ þ  Contrib.

Proposing MOS:GLOSS as an actual guideline
I propose that Manual of Style/Glossaries have its proposal tag changed to MoS-guideline. Its advice is already being used as if it were "officially" a guideline. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿ ¤ þ  Contrib.  11:48, 29 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose Lots of good potential there, but still needs work. There is a current discussion highlighting problems with the Naming Conventions section at   Talk:Glossary of botanical terms (irrelevant). --Tom Hulse (talk) 21:11, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Except that it doesn't. MOS:GLOSS wouldn't affect any concern raised by anyone at that talk page. It doesn't say anything that contradicts that article's current name, Glossary of botanical terms, despite your claim in article talk to the contrary. Specifically, it says: "For a glossary list article that consists of a simple lead and a glossary, the form Glossary of subject terms is preferred, with redirects to it from [misc. plausible alternatives here]". It doesn't specify "subject in noun form"; that idea comes from WP:AT policy. If you have an issue with the idea that Glossary of botany terms is less ambiguous than Glossary of botanical terms, you'll need to that up at WT:AT to the extent anyone cares (I don't see anyone trying to move the article back to the "botany" version of the name), since AT is what recommends using the noun form for article names and redirecting to them from adjective forms and other modifications. MOS:GLOSS certainly said no such thing, and does not address this issue at all. Perhaps you'd like to review MOS:GLOSS again and reconsider your position? — SMcCandlish    Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿ ¤ þ  Contrib.  09:19, 3 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Perhaps I misunderstood why you included it in that discussion, where you called it "a long-stable guideline proposal" as part of arguments justifying an aritcle move there. If you can clarify that (at my talk page?), I'll strike that part of my objection. To be more clear on "needs work": The article is far from stable. It had the under construction tag last month, and you have many, many undiscussed edits since then; even today you are still changing it.  Here is the diff for the last month. For naming conventions, I don't think imposing rigid consistency, even if it's just requireing "terms" always helps improve Wikipedia.  For instance Glossary of classical physics is much better without added "terms", but conversely Glossary of equestrian terms virtually requires "terms" to be added.  I don't think a one-size-fits-all approach always works when the topics can be as unrelated as any two words in the English language. Also, the overall article reads awkwardly technical and overly verbose to my ear, although I am certainly not a glossary expert, so perhaps that is necessary. At least it might benefit from review by non-specialist, non-familiar editors.  --Tom Hulse (talk) 13:09, 3 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I dropped you a line in user talk, especially about avoiding "one-size-fits-all". I'd like to address some of this here, since it's already public. By "stable" I don't mean "absolutely unchanging"; it's been tweaked in various ways lately, especially in response to technical changes in WP's deployment of the MediaWiki software (itself changed in the last year in ways that directly affect glossary coding), in Mediawiki:Common.css, and in the code of the members of Category:Glossary templates, as well as in response to issues raised by "live" glossaries.  Transhumanist put an under-construction tag on it because he was cleaning up the wording in a marathon editing session, especially redundant bits, but changed very little about the underlying advice.  That aspect of it has hardly altered in any important way in well over a year.  Even as an official guideline, it couldn't "impose" anything; it's just trying to set a default, thus loose wording like "preferred" not "required". :-)  I've been internalizing the more salient bits of the discussion at Talk:Glossary of botanical terms and thinking of how to revise the NC section to get at precisely what you're talking about without it sounding like "there is no convention, do whatever you like"; certain constructions make more sense than others, and it may take some time to sort that out.  More detail at your user talk.


 * It overly verbose, but I don't think any of it is intrinsically  in any sense at this point.  Transhumanist was working on the verbosity problem, but has been busy lately.  It is technical mainly because the MediaWiki parser has  issues. The developers are actually working on (and supposedly nearing completion of) a from-the-ground-up replacement of the entire wikimarkup-to-HTML-output parser that should  obviate half of that technicality, but the fact for now is that wikimarkup's handling of definition lists is very, very brittle and flaky. I think some of the more technical bits will fork off into a "Help:" namespace page, but it's not the only highly technical MOS page. The "geeky" factor wears off pretty quick.  The template-defined glossary markup is so intuitive you end up internalizing it after coding only a few entries in a glossary. Way easier than things like wikimarkup tables. — SMcCandlish    Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿ ¤ þ  Contrib.  14:37, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

additional very common use of hyphens
Another very common use of hyphens is found in object–verbal noun compounds, such as egg-beater and pizza-lover. In some cases this avoids ambiguity: "They stood near a group of alien lovers" implies that they stood near a group of lovers who were aliens; "they stood near a group of alien-lovers" clarifies that they stood near a group who loved aliens. We should probably have a subsection on this. — kwami (talk) 21:18, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * This seems akin to the second item of hyphen usages:
 * A hyphen can help to disambiguate (little-celebrated paintings is not a reference to little paintings; a government-monitoring program is a program that monitors the government, whereas a government monitoring program is a government program that monitors something else).
 * Perhaps that can be expanded a little to include this example. Joja  lozzo  21:28, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * A man-eating shark differs from a man eating shark.—Wavelength (talk) 21:33, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Good example.
 * I think it's more than just 'other dabs'; IMO govt-monitoring program should be split off. Compound modifier and object–verb compounds are distinct constructions grammatically, and both are cases where some authors consistently hyphenate even when there's nothing to dab from. — kwami (talk) 22:09, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I often consult the English compound article to decide if the Main Page should have a hyphen. Art LaPella (talk) 22:42, 7 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Yikes! That article showed compounds of numeral and noun and called the result an "adjective". I know "adjective" sometimes includes nouns in style guides, but that's pretty sloppy when we're distinguishing compounds made of nouns or verbs from ones actually made of adjectives. — kwami (talk) 00:26, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Small-capitals formatting
Various templates, most of which will surely be merged to smallcaps, are being used in article space to do things like " Ze-dong" and "Leonardo ". I don't recall MOS addressing this, and it should, either pro or con. Sign me up for oppose: Wikipedia is not a business card, and encyclopedia prose is perfectly capable of explaining what is and isn't a subject's family name. Other uses illustrated in the template's documentation are also problematic, e.g. "T magazine", which transgresses MOS:TRADEMARK. Similarly, "" copy-pastes as "bce", which is against both MOS:NUM and MOS:ABBR. I'm trying to think of valid WP use for that style, templated or manual, in mainspace (I have used it myself on project pages, however). The "U" case is weird, because some people actually favor following the goofy New York Times practice of rendering that as "Unesco" despite it being "UNESCO" in reality (NYT does thsi purely for typographic effect, not liking that some readers may misinterpret long acronyms as all-caps EMPHASIS; WP, last I looked, had not come to any consensus that this was a notable concern in our encyclopedia prose). — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿ ¤ þ  Contrib.  06:25, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The one good use I can think of for small caps off the top of my head is in citing long banks of headlines in The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal and similar newspapers, especially in footnotes and Further reading/External links. In fact, I wish I'd used them more in some of my own articles based on such sources, e.g. Rhinelander Waldo and New York City mayoral election, 1917. Regular ALL CAPITALS are too big, and converting everything to lower case would diminish clarity and impact. ¶ As for the "goofy" New York Times practice, I'm pretty sure it's standard in British journalese for any abbreviation that can be pronounced as a word: Nato, Unicef, fifo, mirv, etc., and for a lot of unpronounceable abbreviations like mpg and rpg. —— Shakescene (talk) 12:22, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
 * As noted below by SMcCandlish but added here too for emphasis, all capitals should not be used in citing newspapers as per WP:ALLCAPS: "Reduce newspaper headlines and other titles from all caps to sentence case or title case". Peter coxhead (talk) 10:22, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * As noted in the smallcaps template documentation, the template should not be use in citation templates; else the rendered HTML markup will be included in the metadata. ---— Gadget850 (Ed)  talk 12:45, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:ALLCAPS says, "Change small caps to title case." Art LaPella (talk) 21:57, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
 * And note that this is an example of how even MOS regulars can't find MOS guidelines. Art LaPella (talk) 21:59, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Heh. MOS:SMALLCAPS and WP:SMALLCAPS go there now too. Anyway, yeah, STYLE OF HEADLINES NOT EMULATED BY WIKIPEDIA. News at 11.  So, the headlines in citations thing is doubly an invalid example. I'm wondering if there's  reason to not TfD this template, other than maybe modify it like xt to spit out a warning if you try to use it in mainspace. — SMcCandlish    Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿ ¤ þ  Contrib.  09:40, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

hard smallcaps preserves the caps when you cut and paste, and so would be more appropriate for things like or, biblical  (that has its own template, but there's also  etc.), or linguistic-glossing abbreviations, complementing smallcaps. It needs to be modified to allow the vision-impaired to override it in their css, but it addresses some of the objections presented here against smallcaps. — kwami (talk) 21:26, 7 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I guess that has to be accepted as a special case, and there may be others, but why should "BCE" or "NASA" be set in small capitals? Hard smallcaps addresses a technical issue with smallcaps but its existence can only increase the improper and un-necessary use of small caps in Wikipedia.
 * Returning to Gadget850's comment above, the smallcaps documentation may say that it shouldn't be used in citations, but the redirect aut is all over Wikipedia. Attempts to remove it have been met by quoting WP:CITEVAR which appears to give editors who have local consensus complete freedom to format citations however they wish. It seems pretty clear that WP:CITEVAR over-rides a note in template documentation. Peter coxhead (talk) 12:05, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * It is more a matter of see and do. I suspect that the majority of those using smallcap/aut do so because they saw it in use somewhere, and have never bothered to read the documentation. Having been a technical writer for many years, the first thing to realize is that documentation is quite often used after the fact. ---— Gadget850 (Ed)  talk 13:00, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Sure, I understand that. But some cases of the use of {tl|aut}} in particular are deliberate and are defended by WP:CITEVAR, which I don't think is right. I would like to see an additional bullet point added to MOS:ALLCAPS explicitly rejecting the use of small capitals for names. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:41, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed. The Aut redir to Smallcaps should be deleted. Anyway, you want to draft an addition to ALLCAPS? I think many of the uses suggested for it in the /doc of the Smallcaps template needs to be explicitly deprecated as well.  PS: With regard to stuff like LORD, see Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters/Archive 4 for previous discussion; a case can be made that Tetragrammaton-related stuff is an exception. — SMcCandlish    Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿ ¤ þ  Contrib.  14:06, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Correcting case in quotes
MOSQUOTE isn't as clear as it might be about changing case in quotations. I have a situation in which part of a newspaper headline has been quoted. This particular newspaper capitalises the first letter of every word in the headline. The inconsistent use of caps is hard on the eye, and ideally I'd rather make the case consistent with the rest of the text. I'm trying to decide whether it's acceptable to change this &mdash; "Preserve the original text, spelling, and punctuation" would suggest that it isn't, but "Some text styling should be altered" indicates that it is. Any comments? Jakew (talk) 10:43, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:ALLCAPS: Correct the case, for the same reason we don't COPY THE ALL-CAPS STYLE of newspaper headlines or try to E mulate Font Effects of titles on book covers. Titles (including headlines, which are just article titles) aren't quotations, they're metadata. PS: Titles of cited works, including article headlines, should be done in title case, not the sentence case we use for WP's internal headings. [Aside: I've seen some people in specific science fields insist on using sentence case in WP citations to journa artciles in their field, just because it's common in their field and they're used to it, but I've yet to see an actual system-wide consensus ever arise that this makes sense (it just confuses readers and leads to mix-'n-match styling in the refs section of every other article.) — SMcCandlish    Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿ ¤ þ  Contrib.  11:12, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * PS: If you mean correcting the display of titles that quotations, I'd say still normalize them (keep in mind that handling of title formatting varies widely all over the place; e.g. a book title might be given in italics, boldface, underline or quotation marks, depending on the house style of whatever publication is writing about it. WP doesn't care.)  Example: If we quote sloppy writing, e.g.:
 * "In a People magazine interview, Johnny Depp was reported as saying 'I'm a big fan of the "Lord Of The Rings", and wish I could be in "The Hobbit", but I'll be too busy with "Pirates of the Caribbean V" all year.'[5] Depp also..."
 * I would have no problem at all normalizing that mess to:
 * "In a People magazine interview, Johnny Depp was reported as saying 'I'm a big fan of The Lord of the Rings, and wish I could be in The Hobbit, but I'll be too busy with Pirates of the Caribbean V all year.'[5] Depp also...".
 * "Title", vs "hyper-title" capitalize-everything, vs. sentence case are just stylistic choices, like italics vs. bold. They're presentation versus content. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿ ¤ þ  Contrib.  11:34, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, I do mean text inside quotations. Thanks for your thoughts on the matter. I'm inclined to agree &mdash; certainly my first thought was to change the case.  Jakew (talk) 13:06, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * It is unlikely that the newspaper headline would be a quotation: it is the name of the article. If my newspaper uses David Cameron's name in an article, and I refer to that article, using Cameron's name, that is not quoting the article.  If I want to refer to an  article called "Cameron and Cable in budget clash", the quote marks are because our MoS requires that as a way of marking such a title, not because it is a quote.  Kevin McE (talk) 17:29, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * In this particular situation, another editor had quoted "Everyone's Favorite Baby Doctor" from the heading of this source, and had used that in a construction of the form 'described in the Los Angeles Times as "everyone's favorite baby doctor"'. Jakew (talk) 19:17, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * That's perfectly valid. It's still a quotable appellation, but it would not be capitalized when used as a quotation in that way, because we're quoting the words as as a statement, not as a title. I.e., they were only ever capitalized in the title they were being used in a title, not because the L.A. Times writer went crazy and intended it to be some kind of proper noun phrase if ever used outside the context of the title. — SMcCandlish    Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿ ¤ þ  Contrib.  14:14, 11 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I'd downcase newspaper titles from The New York Times et al. that cap all characters or initials, under the "Allowable typographical corrections" section. That's what I've encouraged The Signpost to do. Writers have always had to draw a boundary somewhere: for example, who would insist on the original font? Tony   (talk)  09:15, 9 March 2012 (UTC)


 * In the case of headlines, I would prefer to describe them as headlines rather than just quotes. First, headlines have to be short, so describing a headline as such warns the reader that subtleties may have been omitted. Second, the author named in the byline of a newspaper article often does not have control over the headline, so describing the headline as such prevents readers from attributing the exact wording to the author, but rather to the newspaper as a whole. Jc3s5h (talk) 15:08, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Caps question: Oregon Coast
Since the wikiproject Oregon was invited to comment, I figure we should also invited some more central guidance. Anyone want to comment on Talk:Oregon Coast? Dicklyon (talk) 18:49, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Can quotation marks inside quotations within quotations be altered?
According to Manual of Style:
 * When a quotation includes another quotation (and so on), start with double quote marks outermost, and, working inward, alternate single with double quote marks ("She accepted his statement that 'Voltaire never said "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it., with three levels of quotation).

However, if we're quoting something written, that amounts to saying that quotation marks inside the quote can be changed from double quote marks to single quote marks or vice versa. Are such alterations actually allowed, without the need for indication? --Chealer (talk) 19:16, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Please note that responses will be applied as an unjustified excuse for tendentiously abusing the close paraphrasing banner at Materialism. See also Wikipedia talk:Close paraphrasing.Machine Elf 1735  19:42, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I can't see that the question has anything to do with close paraphrasing. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:00, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Neither do I, but then again quotation marks aren't called "space before ellipsis", (4 minutes later). However, those particular quotation marks, the outer ones, are of central importance to someone being harassed for close paraphrasing a cited direct verbatim quote.—Machine Elf 1735  13:06, 9 March 2012 (UTC)


 * The answer to the original question is surely "yes, in this case". There are no semantic implications whatsoever of the choice of single or double quotes to mark direct speech; it's merely a stylistic choice. (The same applies to changing all capitals or small capitals to title or sentence case, which is specifically required by MOS:ALLCAPS.) So changing one kind of quote mark for the other when they are used to mark direct speech is irrelevant. On the other hand, suppose the source uses different kinds of quote marks to make semantic points as in "None of his 'species' is currently accepted." Here the single quotes around "species" are a signal that the writer is saying something equivalent to "None of his so-called species is currently accepted." Here there would be a problem in changing single to double quotes, since these aren't normally used for this purpose. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:00, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Peter, you keep asserting this single quotation marks are for scare quotes and double quotation marks are for quotations distinction, but I cannot find this documented anywhere in US or British style guides. I've lived in the UK and the US and Canada, and am very well-read, but cannot ever recall encountering this.  What's your source? — SMcCandlish    Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿ ¤ þ  Contrib.  23:55, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
 * You might not "normally" use double quotes in that case, but it isn't a rule that I've seen. The more important rule is that nested quotes should always alternate. That gives you a problem if you want to give the different styles of quotes a different significance. Some writers do, but they always end up having to break one rule or another in complex cases. And worse, the reader cannot know what code the writer is following (what "semantic point" he intends) unless he's footnoted what he's doing. So I always use a one style of quotes for all purposes: direct quotes, scare quotes, whatever; and the other style only for nested ones. Barsoomian (talk) 10:29, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The key point is surely that if a reader of the original source could determine the meaning of the style of quote marks used, then any quotation of this source must preserve the same meaning. A reader of the original and a reader of the quotation must be able to make the same interpretation of the quote marks, otherwise it isn't a true quotation (effectively it's a quote out of context). How to solve this problem is another matter; it may be better to avoid a direct quote in such a case since Wikipedia doesn't use the same convention. Peter coxhead (talk) 11:48, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * My point is that the reader often has no idea that a special meaning intended by using one style of quote or the other. From my experience elsewhere, it's rare that the writer actually has a logical system, and scrupulously preserving the quoting style doesn't convey any meaning, other than to highlight the inconsistency of usage. Where the writer has stated that he does have a system, well of course you should try to preserve that. Barsoomian (talk) 12:39, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * It's correct that Wikipedia does not make this alleged "scare quotes" distinction. If the writer did have a stated system, it still wouldn't make sense to preserve it here, since our readers would not understand that system or even notice that it existed and that we were bowing to it. If such a weird case ever arose, it would be much better to explain what the person said in new prose rather than quote directly, I would say. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿ ¤ þ  Contrib.  23:55, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi Peter, yes, this is similar to the situation for capitals. To clarify, we have a conflict of rules in this situation, and my question is which one should have an exception. For capitals, it is more or less clear that the rule on capitals wins, as Allowable typographical changes specifically excludes small capitals (although, shouldn't we change that to just (any) capitals?). I am asking what should prevail between Minimal change and Quotations within quotations, and if the latter wins, are indications of modification needed. Looking at the answers, I would say the latter wins. Does anyone oppose adding an explicit exception to Minimal changes for changing single quotes to double quotes and vice versa? --Chealer (talk) 16:32, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I took that as a no. --Chealer (talk) 18:01, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Works for me. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿ ¤ þ  Contrib.

Yes, when you quote something, you can change double-quotes within the quoted material to single ones. Similarly, you can capitalize the first letter of a sentence even if it is part of a direct quote and was not capitalized in the original. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 14:43, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * A capitalization change should be "[D]one like this", however. It merely typographic, but indicates the beginning of a sentence (or "[l]ack of one") that doesn't match the reality of the original quotation. It's semantically meaningful, sometimes crucial, especially when material has been cut and quotation is selective. — SMcCandlish    Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿ ¤ þ  Contrib.  23:55, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
 * It is perfectly standard to simply change the capitalization in quotes without that sort of square bracketing. This is section 13.16 of the Chicago manual, for example. The use of square brackets like that is usually limited to legal commentary and textual analysis (it was the "third option" for quotation styling in the old CMOS). Ordinary scholarly work is allowed to change the capitalization without any additional marks, as described in 13.7 there. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 17:57, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 * You're misquoting. CMoS, current (16th) ed, p. 626: "13.16  Brackets to indicate a change in capitalization. In some legal writing, textual commentary, and other contexts, it is considered obligatory to indicate any change in capitalization by brackets." And the CMoS is hardly the be-all and end-all of style, even in the US, especial for more formal writing style. I'm going to develop this further below. WP is obviously an "other context" of the same category of precise writing, and can even be construed as "textual commentary" any time it is actually using quotations anyway. — SMcCandlish    Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿ ¤ þ  Contrib.  01:18, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Recent addition: Comma usage uniformity
This text was recently inserted:
 * Prior to a quotation embedded within a sentence, the use of a comma is optional but should be consistent within a Wikipedia article. Eve said "Adam ate the apple." Adam said, "Eve gave it to me."

I don't think this should be ensconced as a rule. Some writers might use the comma after a speech tag such as X said, but not in other instances, where the comma might be an unnecessary bump where "a quotation is embedded smoothly into the grammar of a sentence". Tony  (talk)  09:24, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

This also ignores use of the colon to introduce a quote, as mentioned under Colons already. Barsoomian (talk) 10:14, 9 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I think this edit is well-intentioned, but it is narrowly focused, hence misleading. I think the editor was trying to say:    I think this is not a bad policy, and is consistent with general "be uniform within an article" MOS rule.  But I'm not sure it needs to be restated for comma usage, because the  "be uniform within an article" is ubiquitous for all MOS guidance.  There is no need to repeat "be uniform within an article" within every MOS section.   --Noleander (talk) 12:03, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes. When I first read MoS and a few of its subpages in late 2005, these incantations about keeping articles uniform, and not applying MoS to quotations, were scattered all over the place—it didn't make the page clearer, and lacked "hierarchical" logic. Now, the general principles are at least stated at the top, and Noleander's right, they shouldn't be restated locally. But sometimes flexibility within an article is required. For example, if I chose to write an article without commas after sentence-initial time phrases, I'd be uncomfortable at "In 2011 13 captives were released ...", so would favour inconsistency on one level. And a comma after a sentence-initial phrase can sometimes be bumpy if the sentence is short. By analogy, I used to allow inconsistency WRT the so-called Oxford comma, when I didn't really like adding yet more commas to technical text (there are plenty already). But I did use it to disambiguate: not "they had healthy dogs, fattened pigs and cows", but "they had healthy dogs, fattened pigs, and cows", where the cows weren't fattened ... bad example, but I can't think of anything better right now. I still retain flexibility as an editor of other people's text on this point. PS After two years of disagreement on the matter, someone here has finally persuaded me to use the O. comma all of the time in my own writing, on the basis of logic. Tony   (talk)  12:41, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * You should reconsider. >;-) The Oxford or serial comma is only needed if amibiguity is likely to result; otherwise, it's just really annoying and people like me will delete it on sight. Heh. — SMcCandlish    Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿ ¤ þ  Contrib.  00:06, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Last time I checked, the MOS included both an example where the Oxford comma caused ambiguity which could be prevented by omitting it and one where its omission caused ambiguity which could be prevented by using it. ― A. di M.​  14:45, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * While this small matter is being considered, could someone figure out if the edit to the examples by SMcCandlish should be undone? The point of the examples was simply to provide both punctuation styles, with and without a comma, in two brief sentences. Now, both examples are of the same style. And of course there is no need to make them consistent because they're in the same article, since they're merely examples of the two styles.  Bob Enyart   (talk)  --
 * Then it needs to be redone as two clearly seprate examples with "or" between them; what you put in there was one example showing a mixture of styles, precisely what the addition was trying to forbid! Eve said "Adam ate the apple." or Eve said, "Adam ate the apple." but not Eve said "Adam ate the apple." Adam said, "Eve gave it to me.". Colon usage is completely distinct, being for introduction of long, complex quotations of full sentences that are just short of block-quotation length, and it shouldn't be used for short quotations as in Eve said: "Adam ate the apple." Also, I agree with Noleander's rewrite – this really isn't about commas in particular but consistency more generally – and with the idea that something like that, if such clarification is needed, should be in the general section on intra-article consistency, not re-inserted in every other MOS section. — SMcCandlish    Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿ ¤ þ  Contrib.  00:06, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I see that this has been recently edited to express the usage as completely optional. Fine, but I'm inclined to say that it wasn't worth inserting in the first place, given that reducing the size and complexity of the MoS should be a priority. Will it really help editors? Tony   (talk)  09:05, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd say no, and I repeat my support of Noleaner's proposal to cover this sort of thing generally instead of re-iterating it for every possible case. It's about consistency, not commas. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿ ¤ þ  Contrib.  22:26, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Spaced dashes
Can someone explain to me how Frederick Douglass–Susan B. Anthony Memorial Bridge is a superior title to Frederick Douglass – Susan B. Anthony Memorial Bridge? The latter is clearer and easier to read and parse. Powers T 20:37, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I figured as much. Why did we ever get rid of spaced dashes?  Powers T 23:03, 12 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment. There's probably not a huge appetite for opening up this issue again, but I don't see either form as being superior or inferior to the other. I'm happy to use the form that most sources use when the endash is employed, which is the unspaced. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:17, 12 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm "hungry" enough. I agree with LtPowers. It's weird and awkward to not space it in this case. We do space it in similar cases such as "February 26 – March 3, 2012". Where do explicitly say to space a case like the bridge example? — SMcCandlish    Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿ ¤ þ  Contrib.  02:31, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 * IIRC, it used to be explicitly stated that we should space the dash in such instances. Then there was a huge discussion about it that resulted in that being taken out, the implication being that we are no longer recommending that usage, but defaulting to common usage in the specific case. That's roughly it, I believe—the general thrust was a movement away from the spaced endash in most circumstances. There was not enough give and take on the issue to make anything more explicit than that apart from the examples that are given, some of which I think could be interpreted to recommend no spaces in this case. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:36, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I have been interpreting the current version of WP:ENDASH to specify that "Frederick Douglass–Susan B. Anthony Memorial Bridge" should be unspaced. Specifically, it says: "An en dash is used for the names of two or more people in a compound. the Seifert–van Kampen theorem ... The en dash in all of the compounds above is unspaced." This differs from WP:ENDASH's date section, which says: "The en dash in a range is always unspaced, except when the endpoints of the range already include at least one space. 23 July 1790 – 1 December 1791, not 23 July 1790–1 December 1791". As usual, this is a comment on what the guideline says, not what it should say. Art LaPella (talk) 04:21, 13 March 2012 (UTC)


 * The decision was definitely to recommend no space in such constructions, much to the consternation of Tony and Noetica and a few others who preferred the spaced style, if I recall correctly. Obviously, with a hyphen, you'd want spaces; with the en dashes, some still do, but I think the compromise is fine, too.  This is an area where typography and styles do vary a lot, so trying to go by "common usage" isn't going to get us anywhere useful.  Some, like the city of Rochester page, just use unspaced hyphen!  Some books do it our way, like this one and this one.  I don't find any with spaced en dash, except this magazine with spaced en dash in title and spaced hyphen in the text!  Dicklyon (talk) 05:22, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 * It just seems to look cleaner and clearer with the spacing. Shouldn't we at least retain it as an option?  Powers T 18:49, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes. I missed the original debate, or would be counted among the voices of "consternation". Following the complex-dates example and what this section used to say (I can't keep track of everyone's nit-picky, peeve-pushing changes (and if I can't, given how closely I watch this page, nor can anyone else, hint hint), I always space complex usage and would write "Frederick Douglass – Susan B. Anthony Memorial Bridge" even if MOS said not to, per WP:COMMONSENSE. I can see not spacing it when it's simpler, like the example in the actual guideline (though the use of a "van Something" example confuses things; some probably would consider that complex enough to want to space the dash). I'm just stating my own feelings here; not trhying to interpret MOS in this case. I think right now, "Frederick Douglass–Susan B. Anthony Memorial Bridge" is mandated, but that this is unhelpful, inconsistent with WP:MOSNUM on dates, is likely to be frequently disobeyed, and maybe didn't have consensus to begin with. — SMcCandlish    Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿ ¤ þ  Contrib.  22:22, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * If Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/dash drafting and the preceding arbitration didn't produce consensus on that gravest of grave, grave issues, dash spacing, then we could appeal it to the Wikimedia Foundation, to the Supreme Court, to the United Nations, to the Federation of Planets, and to the World Toilet Organization. Art LaPella (talk) 04:47, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm all for the WTO, as long as I get to pull the flush handle. >;-) — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿ ¤ þ  Contrib.  04:51, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * In this specific case, where it's pretty obvious that Frederick Douglass and Susan B. Anthony are names of people, I don't think spaces matter, but in general Foo Bar – Baz Quux conundrum has the problem that it's not obvious whether the spaced en dash is supposed to join Foo Bar and Baz Quux, or to act as a separator (spaced en dash as a replacement for the em dash – as though Foo Bar—Baz Quux conundrum, which sounds like Foo Bar: Baz Quux conundrum, separating a title and a subtitle). ― A. di M.​  14:42, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Right. So, what do we do about this? — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿ ¤ þ  Contrib.  16:35, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * We use Foo Bar–Baz Quux conundrum instead (if that's the intended meaning). And if that's unclear too, we stop making nonce compounds and relying on punctuation to clarify them and resort to goddamn normal English syntax such as conundrum of Foo Bar and Baz Quux or whatever. ― A. di M.​  16:48, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * What about the bridge case — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿ ¤ þ  Contrib.  23:05, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I think he's saying it doesn't really matter for the bridge because it's unlikely anyone will be confused by an unspaced construction. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:17, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * But while we're at it, we might as well make it consistent with other such titles, which use unspaced dashes. <span style="background:#00ae00;white-space:nowrap;padding:3px;color:black;font:600 1em 'Gentium Book Basic', serif">― A. di M.​  01:04, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Should "alright" not be used on Wikipedia? Should it be replaced with "all right"?
Hopefully this is the right place to ask this question, but if not, please direct me to the right place. I noticed an edit come up on my watchlist where "alright" was changed to "all right" with AWB, and listed as "typo fixing". I think the reason for the edit stems from an entry on Lists of common misspellings (I assume AWB is using that list, since it is linked from AutoWikiBrowser/Projects). Is "alright" too informal to use in Wikipedia articles (I've seen sources that say it is non-standard, but in actual usage I think it is now very common)? If "alright" is too informal, is "all right" an appropriate replacement? I think to a lot of people the two mean different things, with "alright" meaning "acceptable", but "all right" meaning "entirely correct". When "alright" is used in articles, should it instead be corrected to something else, such as "acceptable" or "fine", or is "all right" actually the best replacement for "alright"? Calathan (talk) 17:39, 13 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I would say that both "alright" and "all right" are too informal for the encyclopedic tone that we are aiming for. I think that they might also be associated with excessively pedagogical text. I would replace them with some more formal synonym. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 17:50, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 * What Carl/CBM said. And, yes, they are often used in non-synonymous ways, so simple substitution of "all right" for "alright" can be hazardous to meaning. — SMcCandlish    Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿ ¤ þ  Contrib.  21:55, 14 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Except in quotes, I'd think that the use of alright in the same manner as "sounds good" is also very informal and inappropriate tone for an encyclopedia. I'd think the most universally applicable replacement would be "well", since an article on say, a natural disaster, claiming that "the villagers were alright in the end" would read odd as "the villagers were acceptable in the end", but not as "the villagers were well in the end" (although all three are pretty botchy, the third infers the correct meaning. -  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  <sup style="color:#3AAA3A;">τ <sub style="color:#3AAA3A;">¢  22:04, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Obviously a judgement call on case by case basis. "Well" doesn't work in constructions in which health or well-being aren't the subject: "After a dismal first quarter that alarmed investors, the company's profit margins were alright by mid-May" cannot use "well" but can use "acceptable". At least we all agree it's too informal. And I don't see anyone disagreeing that substituting in "all right" would be an improvement. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿ ¤ þ  Contrib.  22:15, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * In that particular case, I suppose I would agree that the substitution would be a modest improvement, but as long as you're editing that text, why not change it to a word that actually fits with an encyclopedic tone? If I saw such a change in my watchlist, I would immediately re-edit to substitute some more formal word.
 * I don't necessarily think that the substitution is uniformly an improvement at all, even a modest one. If you change his answers were alright to his answers were all right, you have changed the meaning, possibly to one that was not intended. --Trovatore (talk) 01:24, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, that was a typo/brainfart. I intended to say something like "I don't see anyone agreeing with the idea that just substituting in "all right" would actually be much of an improvement" because it's still too informal. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿ ¤ þ  Contrib.  04:41, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the input everyone. I went ahead and removed the "alright" to "all right" correction from Lists of common misspellings.  It sounds like there is agreement that it isn't necessarily an improvement, so I don't think AWB should be suggesting that substitution. Calathan (talk) 03:03, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * This was probably one of my recent edits. AWB doesn't use this list automatically, but I've recently started using AWB to work through articles containing spellings listed at Lists of common misspellings/A. I looked at alright before starting to make this change, where it says "the contracted term is considered nonstandard". However, in the light of this discussion and the recent edit to the "A" list I will make no more changes to "alright". (The automatic spelling list is at WP:AWB/T) -- John of Reading (talk) 08:01, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Idiom
The project page says: ''Generally do not capitalize the definite article in the middle of a sentence: an article about the United Kingdom (not about The United Kingdom). However there are some idiomatic exceptions, including most titles of artistic works: Tolkien wrote The Lord of the Rings (but Homer wrote the Odyssey); public transport in The Hague.'' (My emphasis.)

According to my understanding of the word "idiom", idiom is irrelevant here. Instead, it's a matter of (orthographic) convention. No need to say "orthographic", but I'd change the bold part to there are some conventional exceptions. Comments? Morenoodles (talk) 07:17, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Strongly agreed. Calling "Tolkien wrote The Lord of the Rings" idiomatic is a misuse of the word. "The Hague" is actually a problematic and potentially controversial example.  While the definite article is demonstrably always used, not everyone capitalizes it in mid-sentence, and the same goes for all other geopolitical terms where "the" is sometimes or always used (the Crimea, the Gambia, the Amazon, the Middle East, the United Aarb Emirates, the UK, etc.); in fact, from what I'm seeing, real-world usage vastly prefers lower case, uniformly.  Band names tend to be more contentious.  I for one have certainly never written "The Hauge" in mid-sentence, and never will (other than as an illustration of incorrect usage, as here). — SMcCandlish    Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿ ¤ þ  Contrib.  21:53, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Lowercasing the the in The Hague is flat wrong. --Trovatore (talk) 01:39, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm inclined to think that the determinant of capitalisation (or not) is whether or not the definite article is an inherent part of the subject's name. All of those geopolitical entities named above (except for "The Hague") are not given a definite article when presented on a map, as the definite article is not part of their name, and hence lower case is used/preferred when the definite article is added in text. "The Hague" is a different proposition because the anglicised version of the Dutch name Den Haag is actually "The Hague", not "Hague", and hence I always capitalise the definite article with that even in mid sentence. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 23:45, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Most usage online seems to favor capitalization, but to me it's just another case of "The Beatles" vs. "the Beatles". The idea that it "must" be capitalized because it's "Den Haag" in Dutch is just circular reasoning. Since den just means "the", it only begs the question whether it's actually grammatically sound to do that or simply a "we like it this way because it's important to us" example of over-capitalization. I favor the latter interpretation (strongly), but I'll go along with majority usage because it's not worth fighting over. — SMcCandlish    Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿ ¤ þ  Contrib.  04:48, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * In your desire to see this as an issue between pro-capitalisation and anti-capitalisation, you misunderstand my position and reasoning. I was trying to ascertain in which circumstances it is correct to use uppercase (and whether or not there is a pattern to that), I was not merely following some blind prejudice. If you look at a recent discussion which I engaged in here, you can witness a similar approach on my behalf, which also includes some slightly tortured self-analysis of my own position. I do wish that you could indulge in something similar yourself, then you might appreciate that a desire to make everything conform to a preconceived idea of correctness from a grammatical and stylistic point of view, can actually result in the opposite outcome from the point of view of meaning, as witnessed by the recent edit you made here. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 08:14, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Wow nice "you need to shut up and go self-analyze" civility buzzkill. I don't seem to be the one confusing various topics and approaches. Regarding your Nomenclature codes "smoking gun", I've challenged your reversion as an unsourced OR/PoV issue, that attempts to apply legal terminology to something that has no connection to legality or legal concepts (and your revised position on Hybrid Tea would result in a taxonomic error according to reliable sources like the International Code of Nomenclature for Cultivated Plants). On [t|T]he Hague, I did not misunderstand your argument, I moved past it because it's circular. "Do with 'The Hague' what is done with 'Den Haag, to recast it, isn't a helpful "solution" because the question of whether capitalizing the definite article is grammatically sound versus some local-pride preference remains unanswered; the buck is simply passed from English to Dutch. (There are other issues too, like what's the evidence that the stylistic conventions of Dutch are 100% identical to those of English?) Changing "The Hauge" to "the Hague" does not produce an "opposite outcome". But, whatever. I've already conceded that lower-casing is a lost cause in that case because "The" is overwhelmingly preferred in English for The Hague, despite the fact there doesn't seem to be  comparable usage in any other case, except perhaps the preference of some writers for capitalizing "The" in front of band names. — SMcCandlish    Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿ ¤ þ  Contrib.  14:02, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I never wrote, nor even inferred, that you needed to shut up, although I did (and do) assert that a certain amount of analysis of the psychology of one's position is helpful, principally in my view because it introduces a certain amount of self-doubt, which I think is essential. You might regard such an assertion as being uncivil, but I do not, seeing as I was only expressing a desire that you indulge in something which I do myself (though I concede that to express such a view on these pages is perhaps a little cheeky). I actually analyse my own psychological basis all the time, as I feel that not to do so means that truth can get obscured behind other things. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 15:11, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I that anyone reading what you wrote would be justified in inferring that you very clearly implied it. Anyway, I read your unfocused "slightly tortured self-analysis of [your] own position" at Talk:Hybrid Tea, and it's a classic example of what to  use article talk pages for (they are for article improvement, not self-exploration and chat) and how not to respond at XfD processes, including requested moves, which need carefully thought-out and enunciated positions based in clear understanding of policies, guidelines and sourceable facts, that other participants can quickly parse and that admins can wade through without headaches when closing discussions, not rambles that don't actually clearly advocate anything but only indicate confusion about policies/guidelines and facts.  Please check your own behavior before berating me for not engaging in yours. I also analyze my own positions and their bases continually, I just try not to make everyone else have to machete their way through it in the middle of !votes. — SMcCandlish    Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿ ¤ þ  Contrib.  16:09, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I have not berated you for anything, and I repeat that I did not write nor infer that you needed to shut up. If you wish to persist in seeing my communications in such a way, that is purely your interpretation. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 19:06, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you all for your comments. I have my own opinions on the desirability of capitals and they don't fully agree with MOS. But I didn't and don't intend to argue about what the substance of the advice should be. It was merely about the wording of this advice. Maybe I should have just gone ahead and changed "idiomatic" to "conventional", but I hesitated as in the past I'd seen flaming arguments over what seemed to me the tiniest proposed changes to MOS. Morenoodles (talk) 08:06, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I made the edit myself, as I've not seen anyone before or since you brought it up suggest that it was an appropriate use of the word "idiomatic". — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿ ¤ þ  Contrib.  14:02, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * FWIW:, , . <span style="background:#00ae00;white-space:nowrap;padding:3px;color:black;font:600 1em 'Gentium Book Basic', serif">― A. di M.​  14:26, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Nice to see I'm hardly alone in preferring "the Hague" and that the popularity of "The Hague" goes up and down (i.e. is a fad, even if a very popular one), while the more grammatically correct usage remains extremely steady. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿ ¤ þ  Contrib.  16:09, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * As for the original question, I take idiom to have a broader meaning than usual, simply meaning ‘a piece of language whose behaviour and meaning can't be entirely predicted from the behaviour and meaning of its parts’. (IIRC John C. Wells said that be a dark horse should be considered an idiom because the stress goes on be rather than on dark horse as usual for phrases like that.) <span style="background:#00ae00;white-space:nowrap;padding:3px;color:black;font:600 1em 'Gentium Book Basic', serif">― A. di M.​  14:50, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Long dash
In some bibliographies the name of an author for whom more than one work is listed is not repeated, but substituted by a long dash; see, e.g., MHRA Style Guide (2002), p. 54. This long dash is often longer than an ordinary em-dash. Does Wikipedia have any guidance, policy or other advice on this practice? I thought I saw something, but can't now find it. Here's an example, using an em-dash:


 * Richard Morphet. E. Q. Nicholson, designer & painter. London: Cygnet Press, 1990.
 * — In memory of E. Q. Nicholson: service taken by the Reverend Peter Elvy, Chelsea Old Church, London November 4th 1992, E.Q.'s birthday. [London? : the Nicholson Family?], 1992.

That dash appears to me too short for its job. Is there, or should there be, a better solution? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 13:28, 11 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Some publications use "Ibid.".—Wavelength (talk) 15:07, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
 * But Wikipedia discourages "Ibid." Art LaPella (talk) 18:22, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Which it needs to stop doing, since we have  these days and can keep the references in one place and re-order them with trivial ease. That would be far preferable to using long dashes.   Either style is fine.  If you must use one, just doing two or more em-dashes in a row should suffice: —— In memory of E. Q. Nicholson...  See if CMoS, Hart's, etc. say how to make one.  Though, thinking back, aren't they several underscores in a row ( ____ In memory of E. Q. Nicholson...), not any form of dash?  I'm pretty sure they  underscores...   (I was wrong. :-) — SMcCandlish    Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿ ¤ þ  Contrib.  17:33, 16 March 2012 (UTC))  — SMcCandlish    Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿ ¤ þ  Contrib.  00:13, 12 March 2012 (UTC) I struck part of this because it was just my opinion, not supported by external style guides. — SMcCandlish    Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿ ¤ þ  Contrib.  14:48, 16 March 2012 (UTC)


 * The Chicago Manual of Style (13th edition: 1982), section 15.90 etc., uses  a 3-em dash for a repeated name. Whether they had this glyph in the font or did it by kerning dashes is unstated.  This ———  (three em dashes kerned minus .2 ems) is produced by a span: if this type of thing is desirable a template would probably be better that a span. Modal Jig (talk) 16:15, 12 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't think this is the ibid. situation anyway; this isn't a repetition of the same source, but citation of a different source by the same author. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:35, 11 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Right, it's id. (idem), not ibid. (ibidem). — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿ ¤ þ  Contrib.  00:13, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that sounds much better. Thank you for the span suggestion, mj, though the kerning needs to be -.3 to close the gaps on my display; that will do fine as a one-off solution. I agree that a simple template would be much preferable if the thing were to be much used. Which leaves the question of whether or not it should be used. Is there any reason it shouldn't be? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 16:32, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Given that it generally isn't, the real question is why it should be, when id. and on later uses just id. work perfectly well and are much less mysterious. PS: I wouldn't cite Chicago 13th for anything at all; it's a generation and a half (or so) out of date. — SMcCandlish    Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿ ¤ þ  Contrib.  21:35, 12 March 2012 (UTC)


 * In my experience, idem is used in notes, whereas the 3-em dash is used in bibliographies. The current CMOS discourages the use of idem/id., noting that it is now rare, "except in legal references, where the abbreviation id. is used in place of ibid.". They still recommend the 3-em dash in bibliographies, though, and I do think it is still usual in most publications in the humanities. Lesgles (talk) 03:34, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * As I said just above, changes to the  have obsoleted MOS's "avoid ibid." advice.   I was actually wrong about this, for technical reasons discussed at . — SMcCandlish    Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿ ¤ þ  Contrib.  17:31, 16 March 2012 (UTC)  Saying that id. is used in place of ibid. is blatantly false information; they are not synonyms; ibid. (which CMoS also doesn't like, but which other style guides do not deprecate), refers to the previously cited  (work), while id., which is by no means exclusively a legal usage, refers to the previously cited .  This is not the only provable error in CMoS (for example, it says to use the ICN and ICZN as sources for the common as well as scientific names of species, but neither organization provides any taxonomical information about common names). There are many others gaffs, even after 16 editions (if anything, each new edition adds more errors than it corrects). CMoS loves to declare things "rare" or "common", but what it really means is "in journalistic and business writing and high school-level reports in the United States"; much advice in CMoS does not apply to non-American prose, nor even in the US to graduate-level and peer-reviewed journal writing, which is covered by style guides promulgated within specific fields, and the citation styles used in book publishing, which is more stolid and still makes frequent use of ibid. Also, not all writing styles, including most of Wikipedia, make use of the separate references and bibliography system preferred by CMoS and MLA, so the distinction is largely irrelevant here.  I'm not terribly, terribly opposed to using the extra-long dash in place of id. (and it  an id. not ibid. replacement); we're very flexible on citation style. The issue for me is that we should no longer deprecate ibid.. If we stop doing that, we can either remain silent on it the entire matter (probably unwise), or illustrate correct use of ibid. and id. and also provide illustration of the long-dash instead of id.  If we continue to deprecate ibid. we have to deprecate id. and the long-dash for the same (now bogus, in my view) reason as for ibid.  I hope that is clearer. — SMcCandlish    Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿ ¤ þ  Contrib.  14:48, 16 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree CMOS is not the ultimate authority here. I support the use of ibid. if it's coded properly (and the CMOS does recommend ibid., 14.29). I'm not against idem in notes, though I probably wouldn't use it myself. I do think it would be unusual in a bibliography, just as ——— would be unusual in a note. Many FAs do have separate bibliographies, so I think it's at least worth mentioning, though I could go either way on ———. Lesgles (talk) 15:58, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I have, to the best of my limited ability, created Template:long dash. I'd like to suggest that something like the following be inserted in the Dashes section of the page:
 * 3-em dash
 * Some style guides recommend that in bibliographies where more than one work is listed for an author, the name of the author should be not repeated, but substituted by a long or 3-em dash. Template:long dash may be used for this purpose; repeated em-dashes should not be used.
 * Any good? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 17:07, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The and  templates already provide the authormask parameter. See example usage at George Dow. -- Red rose64 (talk) 17:33, 16 March 2012 (UTC)


 * "Houston, we have a problem": Deprecation (in MOS and at WP:CITE) of ibid. ("same work just mentioned") also necessarily entails deprecation of id. ("same author just mentioned") and its more academic equivalent, the use of "&mdash;&mdash;&mdash;" to mean the same thing, anywhere citations aren't "tightly controlled with relation to reference style" (as Binksternet put it at the thread), which is essentially nowhere on Wikipedia. The problem is that we cannot control the later interpolations of other editors, and simple insertion of one will render such usage instantly incorrect. — SMcCandlish    Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿ ¤ þ  Contrib.  17:31, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Overquoting and overuse of blockquotes
Would you guys add something about overquoting and overuse of blockquotes to WP:MOSQUOTE? You know, something about WP:QUOTEFARMS? At the Sophia Bush article, I have had to revert an editor who should actually be familiar with not only the way headings are supposed to be formatted, but also how blockquotes should be used. When I pointed him to WP:Manual of Style, citing proper use of headings and quotes, he told me that WP:MOSQUOTE says nothing about overuse. I ask, "Why is that? And are you willing to change that?" 31.193.133.208 (talk) 06:49, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support! This is actually a growing problem. — SMcCandlish'   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿ ¤ þ  Contrib.  02:43, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support The problem is that 'overuse', unless clearly defined, can be a matter of opinion. In regards to Sophia Bush, all I was trying to do was tidy a section with a number of unformatted quotes into something more structured.  The format of the heading was from the previous editor that I didn't pick up on.  Unfortunately, rather than bothering to attempt to fix these problems and work with me in improving the article, 31.193.133.208 chose to twice revert back to a prior version that had other problems and removed valid cited material.  Applying MOS doesn't mean removing things, it means fixing things. -- Escape Orbit  (Talk) 13:42, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Amen to that; I hate sloppy blanket reverts. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿ ¤ þ  Contrib.  16:45, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The only sloppy, blanket reverts were Escape Orbit's. A number of unformatted quotes? Quotes don't have to be in blockquote format to be included, which is what Escape Orbit didn't and still doesn't seem to understand. I was explaining to him what to do in the edit summaries (I was also IP 64.251.22.180, by the way). All he had to do was listen and stop adding bad heading and text style. He finally listened, and I appropriately tweaked the only quote he left in that section. What I don't like, though, is how the 2012 information (about her Twitter followers and a comment she made regarding the 2012 Republican candidates) is not in chronological order. But it fits best where it's placed (Twitter part after mentioning that she is a frequent Twitter, Facebook and blog user, and the the 2012 Republican candidates part after mention that she disagrees with the objection to same-sex marriage), so it's okay.


 * Hopefully, more users support my above proposal...because it's needed. Even if most people will continue to overquote and misuse and/or overuse blockquotes. 31.193.133.208 (talk) 22:21, 15 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree, but it's not exactly a issue. Perhaps a better place than WP:MOS for that could be found. <span style="background:#00ae00;white-space:nowrap;padding:3px;color:black;font:600 1em 'Gentium Book Basic', serif">― A. di M.​   01:05, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Some basic stuff about not trying to construct an article mostly out of quotations is an article structure style issue, for MOS:LAYOUT. While mostly this issue would be for WP:Quotations, efforts to promote that essay as a content guideline keep (narrowly) failing. So we need to cover this better at MOS:LAYOUT and at MOS:QUOTE in a style/structure way that doesn't wander too far into being a content guideline. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿ ¤ þ  Contrib.  15:17, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

website or Web site
Which is preferable, "website" or "Web site"?

To me, the former is normal, the latter very affected although perhaps acceptable. Because I think it may be acceptable, I'd hesitate to change it if I found it. However, another editor has done the reverse: changed every instance in one article of "website" to either "site" (which I think is fine) or (more numerously) "Web site"; does this square with the injunction Where more than one style is acceptable, editors should not change an article from one of those styles to another without a substantial reason? Morenoodles (talk) 07:26, 14 March 2012 (UTC)


 * The styling "website" unquestionably predominates nowadays. Even the AP Stylebook, which historically recommended "Web site", eventually bowed to common usage and switched to "website".  —David Levy 09:04, 14 March 2012 (UTC)


 * My dos centavos: The latter is more correct, but yes, the former is very common. The AP Stylebook should not be cited as authoritative on anything we care about, because it only covers journalistic writing (and only American journo usage at that), which is notoriously sloppy, lazy, and inconsistent (internally as well as between publishers), and the number one priority of which is speed of reading, not precision. WP is not journalism and is written in encyclopedic style not news style. If you really make me, I can go dig up other style guides that say to use "Web site" instead of "website", but I'd rather not have to bother, because, any more than we are in a position to dictate whether to use "cooperate" or "co-operate" or insist everyone use the term "Cymric cat" instead of "long-haired Manx cat". It's an area where usage provably differs, for real-world reasons.


 * In a technical article, like on blogging software, I prefer "Web site" because it is more precise and accurate, and geeky readers know this and would be prone to correcting the "texting and IM"-style laziness of "website". But in an article on a celebrity or a company, I'd refer to their "official website" in ==External links== because that's what people are used to seeing in lowbrow sources like People and Businessweek magazines. Similarly I'd say someone died of a "heart attack" in generalist prose, but would expect the article on this topic to be at Myocardial infarction. Even WP itself internally has different registers of usage.


 * The problem for "website"-lovers is that it's easy to push the idea that "Web site" or even "Website" is more more correct than "website", since "World Wide Web" or "the Web" for short is a proper name, while "website" is a informalism adopted for expediency, increasingly common in non-encyclopedic prose but by no means universal. Thus, the "substantial reason" criterion is (as both more correct and less informal) by people who want to use the more formal phrase over the more informal journo-speak word. If someone changed "website" to "Web site" in a article about a non-tech topic, I'd leave it alone rather that pick a fight over it, because it's not any more wrong than saying someone died of a myocardial infarction. — SMcCandlish    Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿ ¤ þ  Contrib.  21:45, 14 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Firstly, I wasn't citing the AP Stylebook as an authority on the matter. My point, which I should have made clearer, was that it was known to insist on using "Web site" long after that styling fell out of favor (leading some adherents to its guidance — most commonly tech publications  — to institute an exception).  When the change to "website" finally occurred in 2010, many professional writers took notice.  The general vibe was that if a stubborn holdout like the AP Stylebook had conceded, the matter was all but settled.
 * Secondly, I disagree that "the 'substantial reason' criterion is automatically met (as both more correct and less informal) by people who want to use ['Web site' over 'website']". You appear to base this assertion on the term's etymology, which has no bearing on what form predominates today.  The fact that the term is derived from "World Wide Web" doesn't make "Web site" more correct and less informal, just as "association football" (so named because its rules were codified by the Football Association) isn't more correctly styled as "Association football".
 * As language evolves, proper names (and terms referring thereto) sometimes undergo genericization. While "Web site" originally meant "site on the World Wide Web" (and still refers to that from a technical standpoint), "website" has entered common usage (in both informal and formal writing) as a generic term, with little or no dependance on its origins.  (If some other system were to replace the WWW, people would continue to use the term "website".)
 * Your reference to using "the more formal phrase over the more informal journo-speak word" surprised me, as I've seen you cite The Chicago Manual of Style as an authoritative source on several occasions. (It now recommends "website" too.)
 * Here's what our website article says on the matter:
 * (See the article for citations.) —David Levy 06:26, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * What all that suggests to me is that the usage remains divided, with journalistic sources preferring the compound, and usage shifting toward it over time. I don't disagree that usage changes over time and sometimes eponyms become genericized (in fact, I believe and support this more than many, and have integrated this into WP:MODLANG). I'm not asserting that "website" can never be correct – I use it myself outside geeky contexts – as I'm a descriptive linguist at heart (even if I recognize that a house style organ like MOS has to be prescriptive).  As one, I have to  that "Web site" is not dead, and survives for clear reasons.
 * Having a "the matter was all but settled" view with regard to AP and its change lends them too much weight. As for Chicago, it has its uses and falls on its collective face other times, just like all style guides. It's a mish-mash of academic, business and journalistic writing, leaning more and more toward the expediency and "do it just because we said so" mentality of business writing.  When it sticks to academic writing it tends to be more reliable, though jingoistic in the "this alternative is just British crap, so ignore it and do it the One True American way because we said so" sense. I never cite it or any other style guide as authoritative, only as evidentiary, and (when I have time) in comparison with others. (Well, actually, I like to cite it, accurately, as if I think it's authoritative when correcting those who really do believe it is and always is authoritative on everything it mentions, but who have misinterpreted or misquoted it; that's just an amusement, though.)
 * What I asserting is that the "substantial reason" criterion is automatically met. Doesn't mean my change would necessarily stick, since WP:BRD could still be invoked to force a consensus discussion, but it would not begin with an assumption that my reason was insubstantial, since it clearly isn't (it is reasonable and reasoned, and has substance, including etymological logic, tradition, proof of still-extant currency, etc., etc.). It's not an "I just like it" kind of reason. That is, it's similar to meeting WP:ENGVAR's national ties criterion by asserting and explaining such a national tie when making a change; the debate would then be about whether that observation of a national tie is valid and compelling, not what a disruptive jerk the editor was being by not providing a rationale for the change.  Also analogous to assertion of notability vs. the CSD process; if an assertion is made, the claim that the assertion wasn't made is not valid, and the debate has changed to whether the assertion well supported enough enough under WP:V/WP:RS and WP:N to survive AfD. — SMcCandlish    Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿ ¤ þ  Contrib.  07:54, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * What I asserting is that the "substantial reason" criterion is automatically met. Doesn't mean my change would necessarily stick, since WP:BRD could still be invoked to force a consensus discussion, but it would not begin with an assumption that my reason was insubstantial, since it clearly isn't (it is reasonable and reasoned, and has substance, including etymological logic, tradition, proof of still-extant currency, etc., etc.). It's not an "I just like it" kind of reason. That is, it's similar to meeting WP:ENGVAR's national ties criterion by asserting and explaining such a national tie when making a change; the debate would then be about whether that observation of a national tie is valid and compelling, not what a disruptive jerk the editor was being by not providing a rationale for the change.  Also analogous to assertion of notability vs. the CSD process; if an assertion is made, the claim that the assertion wasn't made is not valid, and the debate has changed to whether the assertion well supported enough enough under WP:V/WP:RS and WP:N to survive AfD. — SMcCandlish    Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿ ¤ þ  Contrib.  07:54, 15 March 2012 (UTC)


 * What all that suggests to me is that the usage remains divided, with journalistic sources preferring the compound, and usage shifting toward it over time.
 * Not merely journalistic sources. The styling "website" has become the predominant (even called "standard" by experts) form in general usage.
 * "Web site" remains in use by a minority of publications. I don't claim that it's wrong; I'm disputing your assertion that it's "both more correct and less informal".
 * I'm not asserting that "website" can never be correct – I use it myself outside geeky contexts
 * As noted above, tech publications are the least likely to use "Web site" (with some adopting the form "website" even when their style guides advised against it).
 * Having a "the matter was all but settled" view with regard to AP and its change lends them too much weight.
 * Again, my point isn't that the AP Stylebook's proclamations carry a great deal of weight; it's that it was regarded as a staunch advocate of "Web site" (even after many of its adherents began ignoring this advice) and wouldn't have made the change if it didn't reflect a clear shift in common usage.
 * What I am asserting is that the "substantial reason" criterion is automatically met.
 * And I disagree. We look to whether a style is acceptable, not why it is (unless this has some bearing on usage in a particular context).
 * Examples of substantial reasons to switch from one acceptable style to another are "standard in this English variety", "usual style in this context", "clearer/less ambiguous than the alternative", "consistent with other instances in the article", et cetera.
 * The opinion that a term should be written a certain way (despite the fact that reliable sources commonly — in this case, more commonly — write it a different way) is not a "substantial reason". If it were, the exception would swallow the rule.  (The idea is to prevent unnecessary changes from one style to another.  Your rationale could be invoked almost anywhere "website" is written in the encyclopedia, thereby providing a blanket license to go around replacing an acceptable style.)  You've referred to "Web site" as a style more appropriate in geeky contexts (such as technical articles), but "website" is the predominant form in the tech world too.
 * It's not an "I just like it" kind of reason. That is, it's similar to meeting WP:ENGVAR's national ties criterion by asserting and explaining such a national tie when making a change;
 * How so? —David Levy 09:17, 15 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Three carefully selected examples of prominent "tech sites" using "website" isn't evidence of much of anything. I've already conceded that there's a shift in common usage. Whether vs. why: "Web site" is clearly still acceptable, even if not the #1 usage. If someone went around changing all cases of "website" to "Web site" they'd have a fight on their hands, but it would be a general consensus discussion, not an automatic "revert this borderline vandal per the 'substantial reason' clause without further discussion" matter. I've already explained why it would be a substantial reason at least in certain contexts: It's an established (the original) spelling, preferred by some sources, for specific reasons. One of your own "substantial reasons" - consistency within the article is much weaker. I could go write all kinds of tech articles (or even non-tech ones) and consistently use "Web site", and by your reasoning I should blanket revert any attempts to change it, as "not consistent" with the established spelling already used in the article. I'm disinclined to argue about this further, since a) I'm not advocating replacing "website" with "Web site" and you appear to be misunderstanding my point (it's about preferring one spelling over the other being a matter for consensus discussion not auto-reverting, and not an MoS matter any more than preferring "co-operation" over "cooperation" is, and nothing further, really); and b) a Google search on   produces over  including a wide rage of results like Kevin Werbach's world-famous The Bare Bones Guide to HTML, numerous media outlets including the New York Times, various libraries and universities, non-governmental and governmental organizations, tech sites like NetworkDictionary.com, decidedly non-tech sites (golfing, socialism), etc., etc., etc. It remains a staggeringly common usage across the board. (Contrast this with   with only 1,200,000 hits. That's a "Web site" to "Sun spot" ratio of 167:1. I'm pretty sure these searches are not case-sensitive; I'm not sure if there's a way to force Google to do a CS search. — SMcCandlish    Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿ ¤ þ  Contrib.  13:40, 15 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I've already conceded that there's a shift in common usage.
 * So why, in your view, is the "Web site" form "both more correct and less informal"?
 * Whether vs. why: "Web site" is clearly still acceptable, even if not the #1 usage.
 * I've acknowledged this, and I don't seek to disallow its use. I'm only disputing your assertion that this "automatically" constitutes a "substantial reason" to replace "website" in articles (leading to reversion and discussion if someone disagrees).
 * A "substantial reason", in the context quoted above (one in which multiple styles are acceptable), refers to something pertinent to the specific article or a particular usage therein. (I've provided examples.)  It does not refer to a general preference (relevant to the styles themselves), irrespective of the logic behind it.
 * Our goal is to prevent unnecessary changes (possibly followed by unnecessary discussions), so we discourage the replacement of one acceptable style with another unless there's a "substantial reason". The belief that one acceptable style is preferable to another in general (as opposed to preferable in a specific case) simply isn't such a reason.
 * If both styles are acceptable, both styles are acceptable. It doesn't matter why this is so (unless it relates to the specific article, as in the case of an English variety issue).  Perhaps one style is more traditional and more closely resembles the term's etymological ancestor.  But if another form is considered acceptable in general usage, there must be reason(s) behind that.  So by your definition, a "substantial reason" to switch from one acceptable style to another always exists.  (As I said, the exception swallows the rule.)
 * If someone can make a compelling case that style x is preferable to style y in general, that's a valid reason to initiate a community discussion (possibly leading to an MoS revision). It's not a valid reason to unilaterally impose a change from one acceptable style to another, possibly leading to dozens of redundant BRD-based debates on the talk pages of individual articles whose subjects are irrelevant to the issue.  This is exactly the sort of time-wasting scenario that the quoted advice is intended to avert.
 * If someone went around changing all cases of "website" to "Web site" they'd have a fight on their hands, but it would be a general consensus discussion, not an automatic "revert this borderline vandal per the 'substantial reason' clause without further discussion" matter.
 * Agreed. But that doesn't make it a good idea (or one consistent with the guideline).  Our goal is to prevent the aforementioned "fight" from occurring.
 * I've already explained why it would be a substantial reason at least in certain contexts:
 * I don't deny that there are certain contexts in which your rationale is applicable. I'm disputing your assertion that the "substantial reason" criterion is automatically met (on the basis that "Web site" is "both more correct and less informal").
 * It's an established (the original) spelling, preferred by some sources, for specific reasons.
 * And "website" is another established (the more common) spelling, preferred by more sources, for specific reasons.
 * ''One of your own "substantial reasons" - consistency within the article is much weaker. I could go write all kinds of tech articles (or even non-tech ones) and consistently use "Web site", and by your reasoning I should blanket revert any attempts to change it, as "not consistent" with the established spelling already used in the article.
 * That depends on what you mean by "blanket revert". If you mean "revert this borderline vandal per the 'substantial reason' clause without further discussion", no, that isn't what I'm arguing.  As you noted above, BRD would apply (if you or someone else decided to revert).  But ideally, the situation wouldn't arise in the first place.
 * When I wrote "consistent with other instances in the article", I was referring to a scenario in which the usage is mixed (i.e. one in which there's random alternation between style x and style y, with harmonization constituting a substantial reason to replace one of them). Do you disagree with that?
 * I'm disinclined to argue about this further, since a) I'm not advocating replacing "website" with "Web site" and you appear to be misunderstanding my point (it's about preferring one spelling over the other being a matter for consensus discussion not auto-reverting,
 * If you think that I advocate "revert[ing] this borderline vandal per the 'substantial reason' clause without further discussion", you've misunderstood my point.
 * When such a dispute arises between/among editors acting in good faith, discussion always is warranted, provided that a party pursues it. (The aforementioned clause never justifies treating a well-meaning editor as a borderline vandal, regardless of whether a "substantial reason" for the change exists.)
 * and not an MoS matter any more than preferring "co-operation" over "cooperation" is,
 * Agreed.
 * and b) a Google search on  produces over two billion hits including a wide rage of results like Kevin Werbach's world-famous The Bare Bones Guide to HTML, numerous media outlets including the New York Times, various libraries and universities, non-governmental and governmental organizations, tech sites like NetworkDictionary.com, decidedly non-tech sites (golfing, socialism), etc., etc., etc. It remains a staggeringly common usage across the board.
 * With whom are you arguing? I haven't claimed that "Web site" is uncommon or advocated its banishment from Wikipedia.  I've merely disputed your assertions that it's "both more correct and less informal" than "website" is and that this "automatically" constitutes a "substantial reason" to replace the latter with the former (subject to the BRD process).
 * Incidentally, the opposite Google search yields more than eleven billion hits (though this is largely irrelevant to my argument, as I don't seek to disprove that "Web site" is an acceptable style). —David Levy 17:28, 15 March 2012 (UTC)


 * So why, in your view, is the "Web site" form "both more correct and less informal"? See N-grams below. Short version: "Web site" is clearly preferred by techies. MS, Apple and Google, BTW, aren't "tech sources", they're just corporate sites, which tend to follow journalistic use, and we already know that journalistic and business writing have long favored "website". Note that I'm not making the argument that it's always the preferred style in all contexts; rather that many will consider it the preferred style in tech articles, and taht the facts behind the usage in that context constitute a "substantial reason" on their face. I may have been too vague about this; I've been adding a pile of pages today...  I'm also suggesting that because both usages are very well-attested neither is automatically preferable to the other, and either could have a "substantial reason". Basically, I'm trying to get across that I don't think the "substantial reason" quasi-rule is even applicable either way. No one's in a position to say "out with your version automatically because you didn't provide a substantial reason" if they did actually raise either the pro-"Web site" reasons I raise or the pro-"website" reasons you raise.  I'm also coming across as way more of a "Web site" booster than I really am. I've been devil's advocating to an extent, but mixing it in with an actual preference for "Web site" in tech articles and an actual preference for "website" in non-tech articles, and this became very unclear, I fear.  This whole discussion has also kind of wandered into "chat rather than encyclopedia improvement" territory that I criticized someone else for engaging in earlier, so I'm starting to feel hypocritical, too.
 * I don't seek to disallow its use. Others would. I've encountered people who would (along with "e-mail" in favor of the lazyism "email"; don't even get me started on that one).
 * I'm only disputing your assertion that this "automatically" constitutes a "substantial reason".... Right, and I've disputed your disputation, and we've come full circle again, but maybe this is clearer now. It's a moot point anyway, since MOS has no position on the issue, and anyone who felt really strongly about using the one spelling on the other on any particular article about it would have a debate about it locally to that article. We simply disagree or appeared to be disagreeing on what "substantial" means in this context. And that's okay, since the guideline doesn't specify a definition.
 * It doesn't matter why [both styles are acceptable]... (unless it relates to the specific article ....) That was my point. I've shown it is a substantial reason based on clear evidence of usage (see N-grams below) that the "Web site" version is preferred in Internet technology contexts vs. general usage.
 * [T]hat doesn't make [changing all cases] a good idea... Our goal is to prevent the aforementioned "fight" from occurring. Certainly. It was just a Gendankenexperiment; actually doing that would be the very definition of WP:POINT.
 * [U]sage is mixed ... with harmonization constituting a substantial reason to replace one of them .... Do you disagree with that? No, not at all. I just misunderstood what you were getting at on that one.
 * PS: That depends on what you mean by "blanket revert". I mean "rv. per WP:MOS, no 'substantial reason' was given that I can see", when one was actually given, just like "rv. per WP:ENGVAR. That's not a 'close national tie' to me."  This kind of b.s. goes on all the time, especially with UK/US language disputes, but also with any other "there's a criterion" point in any of the guidelines.  Someone asserts clearly and reasonably why their edit conforms to whatever the requirement is specified, then someone who disagrees with the change doesn't challenge the rationale on the talk page, but rather reverts with a counter-assertion that meeting the requirement simply never happened. It's just like all the stubs that show up at AfD that actually do have multiple reliable independent sources cited for their notability and so are kept.  Someone disliked the article enough to selectively not see the facts and waste everyone's time at AfD.  I'm not saying you engage in this kind of thinking, of course, just that it's common.  I call it monkey reasoning.  A Bad Thing makes Monkey unhappy. Monkey hoots and hollers and beats his chest. Sometimes the Bad Thing goes away. Naturally, all things Monkey doesn't like are responded to with noise and aggression, since it is the obvious and only possible solution to every displeasure. — SMcCandlish    Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿ ¤ þ  Contrib.  19:19, 15 March 2012 (UTC)


 * See N-grams below. Short version: "Web site" is clearly preferred by techies.
 * It pains me to say this, but that's uncomfortably similar to one of the birders' main arguments.
 * Certainly, "Web site" is far more common in mainstream usage than capitalized bird species names are, so I don't mean to suggest that the overall situations are comparable (or that "Web site" is inappropriate for use within Wikipedia's running prose). But the idea that a specialist preference determines which style is "more correct and less informal"?
 * Techies writing for relatively mainstream audiences (i.e. not writing books about Linux or Apache) were among the first professional writers to adopt the spelling "website". When the AP Stylebook still recommended "Web site", journalists writing for technology publications frequently made an exception (while most others adhering to that guide simply did as they were instructed).  Granted, that observation pertains to journalism (which Wikipedia is not).  But your N-grams are unavoidably slanted toward specialist publications (which most books about technology are), so this is a bit like someone citing books written for birders.  Also, the 2008 cutoff is not insignificant, as multiple style guides have changed their recommendations from "Web site" to "website" in the interim.
 * To be absolutely clear, I'm not accusing you of engaging in the sort of distortion, stonewalling or other questionable tactics employed by some of the birders. As I hope you realize, I hold you in high esteem (and agree with you most of the time).
 * MS, Apple and Google, BTW, aren't "tech sources", they're just corporate sites, which tend to follow journalistic use, and we already know that journalistic and business writing have long favored "website".
 * I haven't cited those companies in that context. I quoted our website article's entire "Spelling" section (in which they're referred to as "major Internet technology companies and corporations").
 * For the record, I have no objections to your edits.
 * Note that I'm not making the argument that it's always the preferred style in all contexts; rather that many will consider it the preferred style in tech articles, and taht the facts behind the usage in that context constitute a "substantial reason" on their face. I may have been too vague about this; I've been adding a pile of pages today...
 * Okay, it wasn't clear that you were referring strictly to technology articles. My understanding of your position was: "I'm not advocating that 'website' be replaced with 'Web site', but if someone else wants to use the more formal phrase over the more informal journo-speak word, the 'substantial reason' criterion is automatically met (as both more correct and less informal) throughout the encyclopedia."
 * When the scope is confined to tech articles, I still disagree, but it's easier to understand where you're coming from.
 * ''I'm also suggesting that because both usages are very well-attested neither is automatically preferable to the other, and either could have a "substantial reason".
 * No argument there.
 * Basically, I'm trying to get across that I don't think the "substantial reason" quasi-rule is even applicable either way. No one's in a position to say "out with your version automatically because you didn't provide a substantial reason" if they did actually raise either the pro-"Web site" reasons I raise or the pro-"website" reasons you raise.
 * Okay, I think that we're in violent agreement.
 * When I opine that the "substantial reason" criterion isn't automatically met, I do so from the perspective of someone who believes that it's never appropriate to dismiss a good-faith attempt to engage in discussion about an article's content (even if it pertains to a change made without attempting to cite a substantial reason). In my view, the text in question is simply helpful advice, not a blunt instrument with which to pummel fellow editors when one believes that they've failed to abide by it.
 * In other words, I'm only arguing that it isn't advisable for someone to declare "I have a substantial reason" and perform the change within a bunch of articles based on a blanket rationale. I'm not arguing that someone who does so should be blindly reverted and denied the opportunity to discuss the matter.  (As noted above, I don't believe that this should occur when someone doesn't attempt to cite a substantial reason.)
 * I'm also coming across as way more of a "Web site" booster than I really am. I've been devil's advocating to an extent, but mixing it in with an actual preference for "Web site" in tech articles and an actual preference for "website" in non-tech articles, and this became very unclear, I fear.
 * I fear that both of us have been unclear (hence the aforementioned violent agreement).
 * It's a moot point anyway, since MOS has no position on the issue, and anyone who felt really strongly about using the one spelling on the other on any particular article about it would have a debate about it locally to that article.
 * Exactly. My point is that such debates (redundantly spread across however many talk pages) are best avoided, so we seek to discourage editors from switching between acceptable styles unnecessarily (even if they personally believe that one generally is preferable to the other).
 * But as clarified above, I don't believe that the text in question is a license to blindly revert a good-faith edit and refuse to engage in discussion (on the basis that no "substantial reason" was provided).
 * We simply disagree or appeared to be disagreeing on what "substantial" means in this context.
 * I mistakenly believed that you were referring to Wikipedia as a whole (and opining that while you personally consider "website" appropriate within non-tech articles, if someone else disagrees, they automatically have a substantial reason to replace it with "Web site" in any article).
 * As noted above, I don't agree with the statement when its scope is confined to tech articles, but I find the position understandable (especially in the context of such editors otherwise being denied the opportunity to discuss the matter, which isn't at all what I had in mind). And as you go on to say...
 * And that's okay, since the guideline doesn't specify a definition.
 * Indeed. —David Levy 23:41, 15 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you all for your thoughtful and informed replies. (Oddly, it hadn't occurred to me to look in the article website. My excuse: This is not an encyclopedia but a dictionary matter, and "Wikipedia is not a dictionary" No, probably I was just lazy) My own inclination was to go with "website" because "Web site" looked odd. If asked why it looks odd, the simplest reason would simply be that it's much less familiar. Another is that (capitalization aside) it has two words, which suggests (though doesn't entail) two stresses, whereas I say the combination with a single stress. Morenoodles (talk) 08:00, 15 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree, Web site looks very odd to me. I certainly agree that World Wide Web is a proper noun, but I hear only the faintest echo of that in website, which I think is a common noun.  I'm not even sure a website has to be on the World Wide Web &mdash; I don't know why it couldn't be in a private intranet. --Trovatore (talk) 09:31, 15 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Like I say, I don't oppose the use of "website", just the view that "Web site" is stupid or archaic. The evidence proves the original spelling is still quite common. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿ ¤ þ  Contrib.  16:33, 15 March 2012 (UTC)


 * If you thought that I was arguing that "Web site" is stupid, archaic or uncommon, you misunderstood. —David Levy 17:28, 15 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Ah, just thought of an interesting analogy &mdash; I think we mostly agree by now that the Sun is a proper noun &mdash; there are many suns but only one Sun. However its relatively dark patches are sunspots, not "Sun spots".  Hopefully the analogy is clear. --Trovatore (talk) 09:35, 15 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Except that the sun is not treated as proper noun at all, by Wikipedia or by the vast majority of off-wiki sources, except when discussed as an astronomical body in an astronomical context. Hardly anyone would write "the Sun was really shining today", but many (not all) would write "Alpha Centauri, at only 4.37 light years away, is the closest solar system to the Sun." — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿ ¤ þ  Contrib.  13:40, 15 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, if sunspots don't count as about the astronomical body in an astronomical context, what does? <span style="background:#00ae00;white-space:nowrap;padding:3px;color:black;font:600 1em 'Gentium Book Basic', serif">― A. di M.​  14:29, 15 March 2012 (UTC)


 * That's not the point; most people don't capitalize "the sun", only astronomers do, and only in an scientifically astronomical context. Ergo, very few people would ever want to capitalize "Sun spot/Sunspot", while "sunspot" is a term that has fairly wide currency outside of astronomy, e.g. because of the effects of sunspots on radio, and we all learn that sunspots exist in elementary school science class. Only ignorant people would write "the world wide web", and while "the web" is gaining some currency in lower case, like everything else because of IM/texting laziness, I'm unaware of any style guide that advises it, and it's very rare in professionally edited publications (unlike "the sun", which is overwhelmingly the most common use). You're comparing apples and ocean liner anchors. — SMcCandlish    Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿ ¤ þ  Contrib.  16:17, 15 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I certainly capitalize Sun when I mean the hot ball of gas, and I'm not an astronomer. It's just obviously correct to do so &mdash; it's a place name, or if you like the name of a unique object, and such names are proper nouns.  That has nothing to do with technical usage but is a simple application of a general rule of the language.  If anything astronomers have merely noted that popular usage was often not following the general rule.
 * The example you give about the sun shining is not using it as a place name or name of unique object &mdash; sun here is more in the sense of sunlight, which of course is a common noun. And again, this strikes me as similar to website, in that it's a common noun derived from a proper noun. --Trovatore (talk) 17:04, 15 March 2012 (UTC)


 * We're just talking past each other. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿ ¤ þ  Contrib.  18:28, 15 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Not sure whether to bother, but this N-gram is interesting. It demonstrates that in (mostly) professionally edited, non-journalism prose (i.e. books) that "website" (lc, no space) is only about twice as prevalent as "Web site" (uc, space), but when the latter is combined with "web site" (lc, space), the unspaced usage is only ahead by about a 4:3 ratio, not 2:1. (The uc, unspaced "Website" was statistically insignificant, and another search showed that hyphenated usage, lc or uc, barely exists at all). This indicates that the two-word usage isn't even nearing obsolescence yet. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿ ¤ þ  Contrib.  16:33, 15 March 2012 (UTC)


 * The implication of that being, IMO, “do whatever you want, provided you don't randomly mix them in the same article leading the reader to wonder whether you were trying to convey some subtle distinction”. (BTW, why the official? If the point is to not count instances of Web site at the beginning of a sentence, using the would achieve that without reducing the statistics as much. Not that there are that many sentences starting that way, anyway, site being a singular count noun.) <span style="background:#00ae00;white-space:nowrap;padding:3px;color:black;font:600 1em 'Gentium Book Basic', serif">― A. di M.​  16:55, 15 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I infer the same implication. Re: "official" I wanted to use a common phrase, not the bare word, and avoid sentence-starts, following your examples above. Varying the phrasing produces interesting results. Using "the", "his", "her" and "their" shows a strong, nearly 1:1 ratio between spaced and unspaced usage, and an aggregate 1.5:1 (1.4:1, 1.5:1, 1.5:1, and 1.5:1, respectively) ratio between "website" and "Web site", without "web site" being factored in. Using "this" produced the to me predictable result that spaced use generally is common, and that "Web site" was until ca. 2005 recently  popular than "website" among people with their own personal [w|W]eb[ ]sites, i.e. techies, with the latest stats showing only about a 1.35:1 lead for "website" over "Web site". To prove this point more fully, using geekier terminology essentially throws "website" in the trash can; searching with "Apache" produces a 2.4:1 majority in favor of "Web site" (almost 20:1 for spaced generally vs. unspaced). An obvious corollary is that corporate flacks would surely prefer "website", and they do: "our" shows a whopping 3.2:1 lead for website over "Web site", with the outlying "web site" case not helping much. Finally, replacing the entire search phrase with the very common parallel case "the Web server,the webserver,the web server,the Webserver" (and trying variants like "their" and "a") demonstrates that unspaced usage essentially does not exist, and that capitalized usage is in transition.  I rest my case that plenty of techies consider "Web site" more correct. Microsoft, Apple and Google are not examples of "tech publications", or even "tech sites", but of corporate sites, which take their cues principally from journalistic usage. I'd bet good money that if a chart like this could be generated only from tech books and "technorati" websites, even up to 2012-03 data, not N-gram's 2008 data, that it would show a much higher usage of "Web site" than that phrase's deprecators believe in. — SMcCandlish    Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿ ¤ þ  Contrib.  18:28, 15 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Again, with whom are you arguing? Has someone in this discussion asserted that "Web site" no longer is common or advocated that we eliminate it from the encyclopedia?
 * You seem to be going to a great deal of trouble to counter an argument that hasn't been made. —David Levy 18:39, 15 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Just responding to the general question, to your "The general vibe was that if a stubborn holdout like the AP Stylebook had conceded, the matter was all but settled.", to our own Website article flat statement "The form "website" has become the standard spelling...", which is actually factually incorrect, and so on. Basically, it's a pile of evidence I can cite here or more likely in the next upcoming talk archive page here next time this comes up. I don't like having to research the same thing twice. — SMcCandlish    Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿ ¤ þ  Contrib.  19:25, 15 March 2012 (UTC)


 * To clarify that comment, I was referring to the matter of which style predominated in common usage. I didn't mean to imply that "website" had somehow become the only acceptable form.  —David Levy 23:41, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The above appears to conclude that either is OK? That's certainly what I'd suggest, and mass-changing either way seems a little pointless. As ever, simply be consistent within any particular space. Btw I'd also argue - very generally and anecdotally - that website is far more common in British writing, with Web site appearing more often in US publications. And on the perhaps wider point about AP/media etc - yes, their style guide is of course no more definitive than any other and also we should not look to write like a wire service/newspaper necessarily, especially in terms of prose or susbtantive content; but at the same time I think it's fine to give quite a lot of weight to predominant media usage (at least at the more serious end) when we are looking to establish what is basic, mainstream terminology for something. Equally I don't think it's an issue of "correctness" vs media use or that the more technical the source the better somehow. Aren't these sorts of issues a bit more subjective and context-led than that?  N-HH   talk / edits  09:50, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Capitalizaton of titles of works was missing!
Somehow, all advice about capitalization of titles of works was missing. I put it back in, using the (slightly adapted) wording from MOS:CAPS, since that wording has long been stable, and MOS itself has to have this; it's arguably the most important capitalization-related style advice on the whole system. Its inexplicable absence for some time probably accounts for the serious increase in random mis-capitalization and excessive lower-casing of titles all over the place (several times per day (even per hour, when doing any notable amount of citation cleanup) I run into citations, even of books, not journal articles, with mangled titles like Unforgettable Rio bravo: exploring the new Belize national conservation and management area. Hardly anyone knows MOS:CAPS exist, much less bothers reading it, much less feels compelled to follow the advice of a sub-guideline page that advances rules that MOS proper doesn't even suggest we have any rules about. Sheesh. If people are going to delete entire, crucial swaths of MOS's advice, we need to just lock this page and not let it be edited except via editprotected. And this is further evidence that splitting MOS into a zillion subpages with independent talk pages and consensus processes was a mistake. I'll propose some solutions to that before long after I work on some test cases. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿ ¤ þ  Contrib.  07:10, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Before you work too hard on those solutions, I want to make sure you remember: Combining those zillion subpages into one would make it 3 times longer than the longest page on Wikipedia, and would presumably be overruled by Wikipedia's technical experts. Art LaPella (talk) 03:44, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * But it would make things easier to find for the users. Darkfrog24 (talk) 13:53, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The two things needn't be mutually exclusive: we could have detailed guidance on subpages and a WP:Manual of Style/full page transcluding all said subpages, for people who have decent Internet connections and robust browsers. <span style="background:#00ae00;white-space:nowrap;padding:3px;color:black;font:600 1em 'Gentium Book Basic', serif">― A. di M.​  14:40, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * That's going to be among the ideas covered. Another is using something akin to collapse top. There are actually several different problems to address and balance. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿ ¤ þ  Contrib.  18:24, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Proposed change: Recommend [b]racketing of case changes in direct quotations
A capitalization change should be "[D]one like this", if it is done at all (doing so is certainly optional, even if you prefer comma versus colon introductions to a quotation). Such a change merely typographic, but indicates the beginning of a sentence (or "[l]ack of one") that doesn't match the reality of the original quotation. It's not just stylistic, but semantically meaningful, sometimes crucial. "Silently" changing the case can lead to serious misquotation, and can even be easily bent to that end on purpose.

The Chicago Manual of Style, 16th ed. (2010, current), p. 626: "13.16  Brackets to indicate a change in capitalization. In some legal writing, textual commentary, and other contexts, it is considered obligatory to indicate any change in capitalization by brackets." The non-legal example is precisely the kind of quotation that Wikipedia does. An argument can easily be made that encyclopedic writing, which it includes quotations, is "textual commentary" by definition, but there's really no need, since it's covered by "and other context" anyway. I certainly always use the square brackets when I make changes to the quoted original like that, I don't recall any time when anyone has ever reverted me on it. And the CMoS is hardly the be-all and end-all of style, even in the US (it is heavily slanted toward journalistic and business writing, which are often less formal and less precise that encyclopedic style, which is much closer to academic style), so its not actually preferring the bracketed style is questionably relevant. PS: New Hart's Rules (i.e. the current edition of Hart's Rules, for a while published as The Oxford Guide to Style), p. 158, says that silently changing the case "in order to integrate" the quotation "is acceptable...although this is not preferred Oxford practice". So, the two main style guides on both sides of the Atlantic that are not focused on journalistic writing, which Wikipedia isn't, seem to support my usage. The highly compressed NHR doesn't illustrate an example of it, though. It does illustrate use of square brackets for interpolations, and even around ellipses for deletions if there could be any ambiguity, so "use square brackets" is NHR 's general solution for quotation alteration markup, as it is for CMoS, which simply gives more examples. And CMoS specifically appears to suggest that the bracketed-alteration style used for precision. .

Since I've spent so much on all these style guides, let's have some fun with them. It turns out that silently changing the case isn't even supported by journalism style guides. The New York Times Manual of Style and Usage, 1999 revised edition (most recent; Amazon lists it as "2002", but that's just a second printing of the same edition), does not recommend it. Neither does the Associated Press Stylebook (2009, one revision out of date; I have the 2011 new edition on order). The APSb pointedly says (p. 232.) as the very first words of the Quotations in the news entry, "Never alter quotations". Under Punctuation it also notes that square bracket and even round parenthesis characters are not properly supported by some newswires, so they logically can't recommend a bracketed usage, but don't recommend silent changes either. This "bad news" about old teletype machines is so outdated, I'm curious to see if the 2011 edition is more current. Given "[n]ever alter quotations", I doubt that it will support silent changes! The BBC News Styleguide [sic] (PDF, 2011; don't have a URL handy, just my downloaded copy) and The Guardian and Observer Style Guide (HTML, 2011; I don't have a URL handly, having "Web-ripped" the entire HTML and images to a local copy) do not address this issue in particular, but under "Brackets", GSOG says to use square brackets for interpolations in quotations more generally. The BBC NSg is almost exclusively about broadcast reporting, so it omission is understandable. The [London] Times Online Style Guide (HTML, 2011) is against alteration at all, saying "direct quotes should be corrected only to remove the solecisms and other errors that occur in speech but look silly in print. Always take care that quotes are correctly attributed; and especially that literary or biblical quotations are 100 per cent accurate." (All WP quotations of non-audiovisual sources are "literary" in the broad sense, which is the sense that the Times means here, as contrasted with spoken material. It also recommends square brackets for alterations to quotations, while not recommending this kind of alteration at all.

Way more importantly, other major works on formal writing consistently support bracketing such grammatical changes, sometimes very specifically. The encyclopedic Garner's Modern American Usage, 3rd ed. (2009 and current) p. 682, gets directly at the heart of why we must use the bracketed style on Wikipedia: "Square Brackets.... In scholarly writing, brackets are sometimes used for adjustments in quoted matter, such as making lowercase a letter that was uppercase in the source of the quotation ... or signifying the omission of a word's inflection ...." . Garner suggests correctly that the practice is distracting if over-used (and has an entire chapter how to not create awful quotations no one will read), and notes that many writers just silently make such changes. But he concludes that the bracketing practice "should be used only where the quotation must be rigorously accurate".

The Modern Language Association Handbook for Writers of Research Papers 7th ed. (2009, current) the most-used style guide for academic writing at least in North America spells it out plain as day, p. 92, "3.7.1 Use and Accuracy of Quotations ... The accuracy of quotations in research writing is extremely important. They must reproduce the original sources exactly.  Unless indicated in brackets ... changes must not be made in the spelling, capitalization of interior punctuation of the source. ... If you change a quotation in any way, make the alteration clear to the reader, following the rules and recommendations below." The relevant follow-on sections (i.e. those on prose, not poetry, dramatic dialogue, etc.) illustrate uses like "Shaw admitted, 'Nothing can extinguish my interest in Shakespeare. (pp. 93ff.), in which a case change is not performed at all, or in an entire section 3.7.6 Other Alterations of Sources, after the one on use of ellipsis with deletions (thus "[o]ther"), says to use brackets for alterations (technically it recommends use of round parentheses for a few things, in ways that most other style guides including MOS do not, none of which relate to case changes). In short, MLA indicates don't change it, but if you insist on doing so, use brackets. NB: Encyclopedic writing is emphatically both "research" and "academic" in the relevant senses.

Similarly, the Modern Humanities Research Association Style Guide, 2nd ed., rev. 2.3 (2009, even more current that the 2008 paper version), which the MLA 's closest UK analogue, at 5.7 Ellipses and Square Brackets, p 28–28, specifically illustrates the usage: "Mrs Bennett felt that '[t]his was invitation enough'." and [A] young man of large fortune' had taken Netherfield." The advice, "One may also indicate a change of case in square brackets:", is not imperative, but  other material about changes to quotations in this guide says emphatically to use brackets, even deletions, marked up as "[...]" even when there is no ambiguity about whether the ellipsis being part of the original quotation. That makes this the most pro-brackets guide of them the all, so the "may" phrasing appears to simply be vague wording not an indication of uncertainty.

I could go on, but this is probably enough.

MOS should specifically recommend silently changing the case, because the practice is not recommended by major style guides, specifically deprecated where it is mentioned in some, and implicitly deprecated by most others which simply say to avoid changing quotations and to [bracket] changes when they are necessary. At bare minimum, the MOS needs to endorse the bracketing practice as "preferred by some editors for accuracy and clarity" or some such, but there are compelling reasons to simply state that it is encyclopedic style and so should simply be done this way. "Maybe"-style options in Wikipedia have a strong tendency to lead to pointless disputes, and "just do it this way" changes are almost always rapidly accepted despite initial resistance.

— SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿ ¤ þ  Contrib.  01:18, 15 March 2012 (UTC)


 * No, this is just absurd as a suggestion for style in a general-audience encyclopedia. There are a few specific fields, including legal analysis and textual criticism, where the use of square brackets is the norm. But in virtually every setting the norm is just to change the first letter of a sentence to be capitalized regardless of whether the first letter is inside a quotation. Similarly, ellipses are commonly not used at the beginning or end of a quote, as long as the quote is a complete thought, even if the quote is not an entire sentence in the original. The idea that Wikipedia should use square brackets as if we were writing a legal opinion is a classic example of what has been called that specialist style fallacy. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 18:54, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * You're playing the "simply repeat arguments ad nauseam that have already been addressed" game again, just as you do at WT:LEAD and elsewhere. I'll reiterate, just for you: WP textual analysis, and even if it weren't, the passage you have now  misquoted to omit the most important part actually says "[i]n some legal writing, textual commentary, and other contexts", implying other contexts that require precision. An encyclopedia, like a book of quotations, a scientific journal article, and various other examples, obviously qualifies as one of those contexts. And CMoS is not the be-all and end-all of style; it's recommendations frequently conflict with WP's needs and with other style guides, so misquoting it like people do with Biblical scripture all the time is doubly inappropriate. The sourcing I've gathered for this proposal firmly supports this, and I can provide plenty more. I have at least 5 more style guides I've not quoted yet. I've already demonstrated above that silently changing the case  the norm at all, except perhaps in business writing; even journalism style guides (i.e. the most permissive of all) . Please try to address the points actually raised instead of re-re-reiterating the same debunked positions., in even one or two settings for starters. — SMcCandlish    Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿ ¤ þ  Contrib.  16:00, 16 March 2012 (UTC)


 * This proposal and discussion seem to go to the heart of what Wikipedia is, or wants to be, or should be. Personally I agree with SMcCandlish's assertion that "[e]ncyclopedic writing is scholarly by definition". But I have the general impression that Carl's understanding of "style in a general-audience encyclopedia" appears to be much more widely shared among editors. In my reading, and in my observation of specific arguments here, Common name, as a primary "pillar", firmly plunks the debate down on Carl's side. I find myself fighting against WP:UCN on several occasions, especially where it is taken to absurd extremes; see e.g., the brouhaha concerning Moonlight sonata and all its related proposals.


 * Having stated that overarching position as to whether Wikipedia is or should be "scholarly" as opposed to "general-audience", returning to the specific question of brackets and ellipses in quotations, I again agree with the OP. In this limited respect, at least, "scholarly" as opposed to "general-audience" strikes me as being a false dichotomy. Milkunderwood (talk) 20:13, 15 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, I agree it's certainly a false dichotomy. As I'm sure you're aware, no one could reasonably suggest, in this or in any other discussion, that Wikipedia being, which necessarily requires certain precise stylistic conventions and eschews sloppy ones, somehow means we would be changing our audience from general to academic. The entire field of science writing in the populist sense (think Carl Sagan, Richard Dawkins, Stephen Hawking, etc.) is writing in an extremely rigorously scholarly way, including not violating various style conventions that can lead to inaccuracy, ambiguity and other accuracy problems, while presenting the material in a form intellectually digestible by any intelligent reader with no science background above secondary school level. Positing an "academic rigor vs. general interest understandability" compatibility problem would not be just a false dichotomy, but also a red herring.


 * I'm not sure I understand some of your other points. This has nothing to do with article naming and WP:COMMONNAMES. The "[" and "]" characters are not even valid in article names. Article naming is  one of the WP:PILLARS.  This is a WP:V, WP:NPOV and WP:NOR issue (Pillars 1 and 2, encyclopedic writing and neutrality), not a WP:AT problem.  Also, what style views are "widely shared among editors" is a moving target that is strongly influenced by what MOS says. If MOS says capitalization changes are insignificant (or fails to say that they can often be very significant) then general editorial perspective will be that it doesn't matter. If MOS says, and illustrates how, it can be important, then editorial perspective will shift to that viewpoint.  MOS's own history proves this beyond any shadow of doubt. Because what MOS says has an enormous effect on editors' Wikipedia style perceptions, the argument that "MOS shouldn't say this because of what editors' Wikipedia style perceptions are" isn't really valid; they're largely predicated on what MOS says right now, so this argument would basically freeze MOS exactly as it is right now, forever. The debate can't "firmly plunk[...] down on Carl's side" when his arguments have already been addressed by citation to reliable sources as the very basis of the proposal. Carl has not made new arguments as of this writing, only repeated the ones already disproved. — SMcCandlish    Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿ ¤ þ  Contrib.  16:10, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Proposal: Stop deprecating "ibid."
I propose deleting replacing MOS's (and WP:CITE's) blanket deprecation of ibid. with guidance on its appropriate usage in Wikipedia , because total deprecation is unnecessary and is a now-obsolete restriction on a legitimate style of citation (a style that can reduce citation clutter). The restriction is obsolete, because for a couple of years now we've had  code that allows us to keep the reference citations for an entire article in one place and re-order them with trivial ease. [This doesn't, as noted below, prevent sourcing problems if ibid. is used to excessively truncate citations to the point of unidentifiability.] The rationale for deprecating ibid. (and by implication, related usages such as id. and op. cit.) was that it was too hard to even find reference citations much less keep them in a specific order when people can move entire sections of prose around. Deprecation of ibid. for this reason also means deprecation of id. for the same reason. Deprecation of the latter also necessarily deprecates use of a long dash as a replacement for id. for the same reason, but it recommended by various academic style guides and by CMoS. So, the ibid. deprecation's "fallout" for no net gain.

The CMoS side issue: Some editors also like the deprecation of ibid., not because of the above now-moot issue, but rather because the Chicago Manual of Style deprecates it. But this is a PoV-pushing problem, because various other style guides don't follow CMoS on this (some academic ones do; there are multiple valid styles), CMoS is an intensely American and prescriptive work for particular target markets (especially business/PR communications and secondary/undergraduate student writing), is factually incorrect in its [mis]understanding of ibid. and id. (it states that id. is simply a legal synonym of ibid., which it is not), and Wikipedia's encyclopedic style is more closely akin to that of book writing, which still regularly makes use of ibid. and id. (meanwhile professional academic styles differ; various fields and even specific journals have their own style guides). Preferring only what CMoS says (which includes a requirement for in-prose "short-title" citations, which are rarely used in WP at all!) instead of factoring in what it and various other style guides say is a serious WP:BIAS problem, and also does not square with our unusual and intentional level of flexibility when it comes to citation styles; the vast majority of WP articles do not make use of CMoS preferred layout in other ways, such as it's demanded separation of bibliography and footnotes. Ergo it's style advice that deprecates book style and prefers American high school research paper style – including deprecation of ibid. – is not particularly applicable to or appropriate for Wikipedia in the first place. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿ ¤ þ  Contrib.  15:01, 16 March 2012 (UTC)  Updated a bit to reflect concerns raised. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿ ¤ þ  Contrib.  16:39, 16 March 2012 (UTC)


 * With the aid of the reflist template, editors could order templates correctly, but they may not. If they don't, by the time a more competent editor notices, it may be impossible to figure out which ibid goes with which source unless the correcting editor has the same edition of the books in question as the earlier editors. Jc3s5h (talk) 15:21, 16 March 2012 (UTC)


 * The same proposal was made at Wikipedia talk:Citing sources. As I noted there, yes, you can use to  references in any desired order, but the reference list is rendered in the order in which the references are  in the content. There is no way to use   and ensure they render in any particular order other than invoked.
 * The only way to use ibid would be with the deprecated Footnote3 system or manually.
 * If there is something I am missing, then please provide an example. ---— Gadget850 (Ed)  talk 15:41, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * See below; I think I'm addressing your and Headbomb's concerns at once. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿ ¤ þ  Contrib.  16:27, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Death to ibib.. Here's why.

", certainly feel free to do that with "... ", and realize that if you revert someone else doing that, you're being a jackass, but our editors generally have more important things to think about. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿ ¤ þ  Contrib.  23:12, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Version 1: Blah blah blah. Bloh bloh bloh. Blih blih blih. Bluh bluh bluh.

Trans woman problem
We need to discuss good terminology for periods in a transsexual woman's life that:


 * 1) Predate her period of surgery, and (not or, but and)
 * 2) Talk about her with a partner who is a cisgender woman

(Go to Alexis Reich as an example.) Remember that this discussion is about all gender-specific terms, not just pronouns. Georgia guy (talk) 13:19, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
 * “Talk about her with a partner who is a cisgender woman” by itself is not terribly relevant: cisgender males, cisgender females, male-to-female transsexuals and female-to-male transsexuals can all be gynephilic. (The percentages of gynephilic people aren't the same across all those groups, but are likely within one or two orders of magnitudes of each other – IIRC the prevalence of homosexuality is around 10%.) <span style="background:#00ae00;white-space:nowrap;padding:3px;color:black;font:600 1em 'Gentium Book Basic', serif">― A. di M.​  14:04, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The real thing is should they be thought of as husband and wife or as lesbian partners?? Georgia guy (talk) 14:51, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah, that depends upon whether the gender has yet been legally changed or not. If this was a British person, the Gender Recognition Act 2004 would apply. I believe that similar legislation has been enacted in several U.S. states. -- Red rose64 (talk) 15:17, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Please remember that Wikipedia's MOS already says trans women should be referred to with she/her throughout their lives. This is normally no problem, but in situations like this, good terminology can be hard to find. Georgia guy (talk) 15:44, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I concur with Georgia guy. We should refer to trans women with female pronouns throughout their lives, giving explanation in the rest of the text. "For six years, she was married to a woman named Mary," or "Before her gender transition, she danced in Bob's All-male Revue." Darkfrog24 (talk) 13:17, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

A/an-problem with abbreviations
If an abrreviarion can be pronounced and is prononced stating with a non-vovel sound, but not if read letter by letter, should it use 'a' or 'an'? Couldn't find anything about this in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.160.83.42 (talk) 03:54, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Could you please give an example of such an abbreviation, preferably also giving context? -- Red rose64 (talk) 09:09, 26 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I believe what is being referred are acronyms such as "URL" or "FAQ", which can be read as words or individual letters and, depending on which is read, could be preceded with either "a" or "an" (e.g. an URL or a U.R.L.; an F.A.Q or a FAQ). In this case, I believe the best practice is just to pick one, since both can be correct, depending on the reader. <b style="background:#F83;color:Black;"> Chicken</b><b style="background-color:black; color:#F83;">monkey </b> 09:33, 26 March 2012 (UTC)


 * This may depend on the abbreviation concerned,in that one pronunciation may be more encyclopedic or otherwise more appropriate in context; so I don't know if a hard and fasr rule can be given. For instance "SQL" is often pronounced "sequel" colloquially, but "S-Q-L" is probably better in formal usage. Also, "S-Q-L" may be preferrred in order to avoid confusion with its predecessor, SEQUEL. There may also be differences in usage between British and American English or between different environments (Microsoft, IBM, etc.).--Boson (talk) 15:18, 26 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Instruction creep is natural, but if the Manual gets into this level of detail, as with "can/should you/one begin/start a sentence with a conjunction?", it will be so detailed to absolutely guarantee/absoutely to guarantee/to guarantee absolutely that a crushingly-vast majority of editors will never consult it even for vital points of clarity, ambiguity and avoiding unintended offense/offence.  There can be good-faith, vigo(u)rous, and probably even healthy, debate about what the Manual should and should not do, but what it can't do is replace in its entirety a middle-school course in English grammar, style and usage. ¶ Having said that (that this kind of detail has no place in the Manual), I still think it would be nice to have a Wikipedia magazine or forum where such interesting points of usage, style and guidance can be discussed in a relaxed, non-prescriptive, non-proscriptive way. —— Shakescene (talk) 02:47, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree. This has come up before, and there's no perfect solution. Best to leave it up to editors in local contexts, I think. Tony   (talk)  03:30, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

"She" for ships
I'm not sure why this rule is upheld by Wikipedia, but it's irksome, sexist, and—worst of all—inaccurate. I would appreciate a history of our use of "she" when referring to inanimate objects, if someone would oblige me. I suspect the reason we follow this style (for marine vessels only) is because it's traditional. I am worried, and I would like to see this rule changed. fds Talk 00:16, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Our guideline says either way is OK. If "history" means previous discussions, there have been several. Art LaPella (talk) 00:37, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the links, and I knew gender-neutral worked, as well. I was worked-up when I wrote that. fds  Talk 02:33, 27 March 2012 (UTC)


 * What's irksome is that those who feel the usage is sexist seem to feel no responsibility to prove it. --Trovatore (talk) 01:11, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to argue with you, but women have a history of being objectified by men, and this is one of the last remaining clutches of sexism in language. It isn't like we call some other particular inanimate objects "he" or "him". My concern is more about the accuracy of it: a Nimitz class super-carrier is clearly not a woman. fds  Talk 02:33, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * You're not going to argue with me, but you're going to repeat that it's sexism. I think my point is made. --Trovatore (talk) 02:40, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * My point is that it's inaccurate. A ship is not a woman, not a girl. A ship is inanimate. I was clarifying my earlier remarks because you didn't understand them fully. All I did was reiterate. Let's get down to language. Any inanimate object has no business being referred to as "she" or "he" or any other non-neuter pronoun. Most printed manuals of style, at least, say this much. Why do we cling to this linguistic antiquity? I also understand that tradition is strong, and my efforts here may be in vain, but for the sake of language and this encyclopedia, I felt it worthy to go to battle against "she" for marine vessels. fds  Talk 02:44, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * "Accurate" is not a relevant category &mdash; using a gendered pronoun makes no assertion whatsoever about its referent, and therefore can neither be accurate nor inaccurate. You, on the other hand, made an assertion that the usage constitutes sexism.  You don't seem to be interested in defending this assertion.  --Trovatore (talk) 02:48, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I call things (other than ships) "he" or "she" all the time. There is a bit of tradition in calling ships "she", but people anthropomorphize objects continually. I refuse to accept being labeled sexist, even indirectly, because of your personal over-sensitivity on this subject. :( — <span style="font-family: Courier New, monospace ;font-style:italic">V = IR (Talk&thinsp;&bull;&thinsp;Contribs) 02:52, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * My intent was not to label the people who use "she" for marine vessels as sexists. My purpose in calling the term sexist was to demonstrate further the deep-seated tradition of using "she" for marine vessels: The word's origins are rooted in human's male-dominated history. fds  Talk 02:59, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Are you going to attempt to prove that, or are we just supposed to accept it as obvious, because that's what the good people think? --Trovatore (talk) 03:01, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't know what I did to upset you, Trovatore, but it's not worth it: I've been reviewing the archives on this specific issue, and the consensus seemed to be in favor of keeping "she" for marine vessels. But because you were so dead-set on getting proof from me that human history was one-sided in favor of men, I'll point you to the search engine www.google.com. fds  Talk 03:19, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Whether history is one-sided in favor of men is not actually the issue (though if it were, your response would still be glib to the point of fatuousness). The assertion you seem to want taken for granted is that the use of the feminine pronouns for ships is due to one-sided history in favor of men. --Trovatore (talk) 03:30, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I see what you're saying. I don't know if it is because of the history or not, but I know most ships used to be given feminine names, so it probably was a pronoun for pronoun's sake: to describe the ship's literal name (Columbus's Santa Maria). fds  Talk 03:37, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * And besides that (sorry to veer off on a bit of a tangent here, but...), I wouldn't trust Wikipedia's judgement when it comes to pronoun usage anyway. The community here has come up with some... let's just say "odd" pronoun practices, in the discussion spaces. Besides, it seems as though our current practice on Wikipedia is reflective of what the outside world currently does, which is exactly how it should be. — <span style="font-family: Courier New, monospace ;font-style:italic">V = IR (Talk&thinsp;&bull;&thinsp;Contribs) 03:12, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * But V = IR, at least two manuals of style (CMS, AP) disagree with this specific rule, and I like to think that Wikipedia, even if it has some eclectic usages, is at the forefront of the future of common usage, if only because of its sheer prevalence in the English world. fds  Talk 03:19, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * With regard to "I like to think that Wikipedia [...] is at the forefront of the future of common usage", I don't think that it is, and I'm not sure that I share the desire (I likely do with some small things, and not with many others). That's all rather incidental to this topic though, I'd think. Just for the sake of clarity here, what exactly are you proposing? Replacing all instances of "She" with "It"? Or are you suggesting something else? I'm not likely to change my mind, but I'm at least interested in hearing an opinion (as long as I'm not being called sexist). — <span style="font-family: Courier New, monospace ;font-style:italic">V = IR (Talk&thinsp;&bull;&thinsp;Contribs) 03:25, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The ideal outcome would be that inanimate objects be referred to only as "it". Certainly "she" has its place in English, but certainly not a rightful place to describe inanimate objects. fds  Talk 03:29, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * That's the problem here though, is that personal pronouns are used all of the time to refer to inanimate objects in English. It's a bit of a quirk that the language has, but it's quite often easier to talk of specific objects through the use of a personal pronoun. The replacement of those instances with "it" usually sounds stilted, if not downright stuffy, snotty, or stuck up. Yes, Wikipedia should use a more formal tone, but it shouldn't be... stilted (there's a more descriptive word right at the edge of my memory here... geez, I hate that!). — <span style="font-family: Courier New, monospace ;font-style:italic">V = IR (Talk&thinsp;&bull;&thinsp;Contribs) 03:36, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * "Sterile"? Either way, I agree with you. I would not see common usage strictly changed, but rather the standard rulebooks we all work by changed. These manuals of style should be prescriptive, and people should be descriptive all they want. I am fine with the sailor calling the ship he's on "she". But I'm not OK with a stylebook dictating it. fds  Talk 03:42, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Yea, but the guideline already says that either way is fine... which implies that you're requesting a change to make the impersonal pronoun use mandatory. o_O — <span style="font-family: Courier New, monospace ;font-style:italic">V = IR (Talk&thinsp;&bull;&thinsp;Contribs) 03:44, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * By saying "she" and "it" are OK, they are implying "he" is wrong. Is it? I would say yes, definitely. "He" would be just as wrong as "she". As much as I appreciate everyday lingo and descriptivism, I want a robust, infallible stylebook for when I want to study the rules, and like I said earlier, this specific rule is at odd with printed stylebooks. fds  Talk 03:48, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The problem is, that ("I want a robust, infallible stylebook for when I want to study the rules,") is getting into a completely different area of debate. There's a whole huge can of worms that you're opening up on yourself with that (not that I necessarily disagree, but if you've read the archives here at all... just don't land yourself at arbitration, please. :) ) — <span style="font-family: Courier New, monospace ;font-style:italic">V = IR (Talk&thinsp;&bull;&thinsp;Contribs) 04:02, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * All I mean by that is a stylebook that is consistent, and by allowing "she" and "it", but not "he", a fundamental consistency problem arises. Arbitration would be a panel of editors reviewing me or the rule? I'm still unaccustomed to the procedural wing of Wikipedia. fds  Talk 04:07, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Arbitrators don't write the style book. They do sanction disruptive editors, but you aren't being disruptive at all; you would have to edit war, attack people personally, and defy a long list of ultimatums to reach that stage. Art LaPella (talk) 05:05, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * All language is traditional. Wikipedia generally avoids trying to revamp language to make it more consistent or logical, and leave it for outside sources to form a consensus before Wikipedia follows suit. For example, Wikipedia has not, for the most part, adopted binary prefixes, even though they are more logical and less ambiguous, because most other publications haven't adopted them either. Jc3s5h (talk) 01:19, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * However, tradition must coexist with the foundation of rules and their consistency throughout the language. As I've discussed above, I can't think of another example in English that uses a gender-specific pronoun to refer to a particular set of inanimate objects. Some may exist, but there isn't good reason other than tradition, which I know is a powerful force, especially in language. fds  Talk 02:33, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I Googled "wave her banner" and most of the hits were neither female nor ships. But ships are the most common example of an inanimate gender in English. Of course many other languages assign a gender to many or all inanimate objects, but I can't imagine declaring war on France for sexism. Art LaPella (talk) 05:05, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * "Tradition" in this case means "common usage". And plenty of common usages don't stand up to logical analysis. If you want to design a purely logical language, maybe you should look into Esperanto. I don't see how it's derogatory to women to use "she" for a ship, if that's the reason for the objection.  "He and "she" are used I think when the thing being referred to is seen as having characteristics of a living being, and plenty of sailors think of a ship as being alive, having a personality. Another example,  countries, for instance, she is often used to refer to Russia. Barsoomian (talk) 05:33, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * It's my general impression that where a pronoun is used in reference to countries, it's nearly always the feminine form. One doesn't say, referring to a country, "it" or "they". Here "they" would mean the people of a country rather than a polity. I'm pretty sure I've seen "she" and "her" used in English in reference to Germany, das Vaterland. Milkunderwood (talk) 06:07, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Esperanto? Seriously? Try Lojban instead, but don't be surprised if you fail to learn it –&#32;the point of human languages is for humans (including ones in the 5th percentile of cognitive abilities) to be able to formulate and understand grammatical sentences in the few seconds it normally takes to make an utterance in a normal conversation, not to be “purely logical”. <span style="background:#00ae00;white-space:nowrap;padding:3px;color:black;font:600 1em 'Gentium Book Basic', serif">― A. di M.​  13:34, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * No, I wasn't "seriously" advocating Esperanto as a paragon of logic. It's probably more logical than English though. My point was, as you did seem to grasp, that pure logic isn't what human language, and English in particular, is about. Barsoomian (talk) 14:02, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia should use language as it is and not try to redefine it. This is very different to clarifying which of a nubmer of different usages is preferable. Redefiniton of the use of language should be left to the language politicians - let them have the headaches of sorting things out.

For example, our local education authority decreed that in respect of photocopies, one has an "Original Copy", not a "Master copy". This could cause problems:
 * An art teacher makes copies of the Mona Lisa and distributes them to the class. The following year further copies are made and distributed.  I would be very surprised if the teacher concerend actually used the Original copy of the Mona Lisa - I think that the officials in Paris would object.

This alone is a good enough reason for Wikipeidia to follow established rules of language and not to make them up. Martinvl (talk) 14:43, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

But the problem is that there is no established prescriptive rule in this case, only permissive rules of either female or impersonal pronouns. But such permissive custom is spread across numerous genres of prose. There are many things that the language permits, but which would not usually be used outside colloquial, conversational or poetic settings. The issue is not sexism in the language, but whether the female pronouns are of a suitably formal register to be appropriate for an encyclopaedia. I would suggest that they are unduly informal for this project, and would prefer to see impersonal pronouns in such cases. Kevin McE (talk) 18:01, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * To the contrary, using "she" for a ship is traditional and formal usage. See for instance Royal Navy ships. "HMS Daring has made her debut in Kuwait on the latest stage of her inaugural deployment to the Gulf."  Also The Oxford English Dictionary, she "2. Used (instead of it) of things to which female sex is conventionally attributed. a. Of a ship or boat."  Barsoomian (talk) 18:28, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Using "she" and "her" for ships (or countries) is impossibly old-fashioned, and I believe it's regarded as sexist by many people. I'd revert anyone referring to England as she. Unfortunately, the ship people screamed so loudly that I lost that battle, and we must put up with the notion that ships are ridden (and fucked) by male sailors. Oh well. Tony   (talk)  03:38, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
 * See, this is exactly the crap I'm talking about, that you seem to feel free to just assert and not defend. Having sex with ships?  Really?  --Trovatore (talk) 04:29, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
 * This is the English branch of Wikipedia, not the Newspeak one. Barsoomian (talk)
 * These are responses by two males. Is it possible to have input from females who have insights into gender and language? Tony   (talk)  04:42, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Weak deflection. If they're around, they can chime in, or not, without your invitation.  In the mean time you seem to simply repeat your bizarre interpretation without giving a shred of argument for it. --Trovatore (talk) 04:47, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
 * What you're trying to do is CHANGE common usage. Wikipedia isn't the place to do that. WP:NOTADVOCATE. Barsoomian (talk) 07:09, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Your evidence for that, please? Rather than that I'm reflecting current usage? And Trovatore, I wasn't suggesting that male sailors rub themselves up against railings on ships (although that has probably happened once or twice). No, I was talking about the metaphorical implications. Tony   (talk)  07:29, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Your interpretation of the metaphorical implications, for which you have (to my recollection) never once provided a shred of evidence or even argument, just bare assertion. --Trovatore (talk) 08:11, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
 * As above; the Royal Navy link I gave. The Oxford Dictionary. Your evidence that it is deprecated? Other than you don't like it? Barsoomian (talk) 07:58, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
 * "Reflecting current usage" - sources, please? And what alternative pronoun would you use? Milkunderwood (talk) 08:04, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Huh, yeah. That's definitely why my heterosexual female housemate in Dublin referred to her laptop as she. As well as why the presumably heterosexual male speaker at the seminar about neutrinoless double beta decay I attended last Monday would refer to terms in equations as this guy. <span style="background:#00ae00;white-space:nowrap;padding:3px;color:black;font:600 1em 'Gentium Book Basic', serif">― A. di M.​  08:21, 29 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Whether I like it is irrelevant, although that I'm pushing, advocating, seems to be the basis for your argument. It's very hard to get an editorial body that comprises 87% men and 13% women to reflect the readership, which comprises a much more even division between the genders. I come from the angle of neutrality (a site policy), and current usage generally, not the cherry-picking of opinions put about by a few self-appointed male-run authorities. Strikingly, WP would recoil in horror at the use of racist terms in its own narrative voice (aside from usage that is necessary for analysis/description, of course). But this is a re-run of arguments put ?two years ago, so it's pointless to go on. I said I'd lost the battle, so why are you so actively trying to discredit the argument for inclusive (i.e., gender-neutral) text? Perhaps it's a threat to an old world-view. I'm very busy, as I'm sure you all are. Thank you for contributing your own opinions. Tony   (talk)  08:15, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Huh, didn't you use to argue something about what you call “ancestral Anglophone countries” or something (i.e. the US, the UK, Canada, Australia, Ireland, New Zealand and South Africa – though a couple of centuries ago only a minority of people currently living in some of those countries spoke English ), despite one-third of our readers coming from elsewhere? :-/ <span style="background:#00ae00;white-space:nowrap;padding:3px;color:black;font:600 1em 'Gentium Book Basic', serif">― A. di M.​   08:32, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I wasn't arguing for it, but pointing out that racism is inherent in our engvar and date-format guidelines. You'd only ever bother pointing out such a bias for English, which has global status and for which the status of native speakers is gradually and inevitably changing in relation to second-language speakers; language is inherently tribal and runs deeply in cultural identity, and for English that is now becoming increasingly fuzzy. Over at the French WP they'd have utterly no problem in exclusionary, discriminatory linguistic guidelines (I don't know whether they are so, but it wouldn't bother them if they existed); it would, however, be interesting to know how the French-language WPians deal with squabbles over Quebec, Swiss, Belgian, and African francophone varieties in their articles. Tony   (talk)  08:41, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
 * "Inclusive", "exclusionary" pronouns??? This is as bad as the "pro-life/pro-choice" labels that demonise the other side by their very use. Who (or what) is being excluded? No one is saying you can't use "it" for a ship. It's your proposal to make it compulsory that is drawing opposition. Barsoomian (talk) 10:08, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Seriously, why are we challenging grammatical gender here which may constitute WP:OR? -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 09:14, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Barsoomian, I certainly have kicked up an ant's nest here! It's surprising to watch: astonishingly, A di M has introduced the heterosexual–homosexual binary into the equation. How is this relevant? Please don't ascribe words or attitudes or agendas to me for which you have no evidence. I must point out that the MoS does not make things "compulsory"; nor did I say anything should be compulsory or banned, did I? Where? I did point out that we've had to put up with sexist pronouns in some areas: that should be enough to settle the matter. Try to keep the discussion calm and non-personal: that is what the community expects on this page. As I said, I've limited time for this, and the thread has lost all relevance to MoS text anyway, so probably should be shifted to the talk page of the gender-neutral page. Tony   (talk)  10:34, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Just as an aside - I wonder how many here speak French? In French, everything referred to in the third person is either masculine or feminine - there are no gender-neutral third-person pronouns. That is, they don't have a direct equivalent for "it" but must use their words for "he" or "she"; for the English third person plural word "they", the French must use either "ils" or "elles" which have no direct English equivalent. Are the French sexists? -- Red rose64 (talk) 12:52, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Probably no less or more; like the Finns, who have no he or she, just a gender-neutral third-person pronoun. A recent study published in Scientific American (2010?) on the psychological effects of your particular language suggested there are four areas of effect: agency, (family) relationships, conception of past, present and future, and conception of north/east/south/west. It was done on English, Spanish, and Japanese. Unsure it's the complete deal, though. Tony   (talk)  13:31, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Image size
Someone has been changing the text back to what it was like ages ago, when editors were discouraged from using anything but default thumbnail size (very unsatisfactory in many cases). I see that it's been reverted to reflect the modern and well-extablished greater flexibility in image sizing. Whoever is changing it, please raise your concerns here first. Tony  (talk)  03:34, 29 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I haven't changed it, but the general idea that we should "tweak" the sizes of most images is flawed. The final displayed appearance of a page varies enormously from one computer to another, due to browser differences, zoom setting differences, monitor size and resolution differences, browser window widths, etc. The idea that we can do graphic design in our articles as we would for a printed article is predicated on the incorrect idea that what a one editor sees is what others will also see. It's better to just use the default 'thumb' sizing and allow each reader to adjust the size by using their preferences and browser zoom settings, rather than to try to guess what they will want based on our personal preferences about what looks better. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 11:08, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Carl, perhaps you can help me to understand. The first problem I have is that the proportion of readers around the world who know you can adjust browser zoom settings is rather small. The second problem is that (correct me if I'm wrong) adjusting zoom can't adjust solely the size of WP's pics as displayed in articles, but boosts or reduces the size of the text too. Readers are likely to choose a text size they're comfortable with; whereas what is at issue here is the ratio of the image size to the text size. Yes? Tony   (talk)  11:56, 29 March 2012 (UTC)


 * The natural instinct of an editor is to adjust the image size so that its content is clearly visible on the system they are using (physical display device, operating system, browser, browser settings). But this doesn't mean that it will be the right size for any other user. Screen resolutions (pixels per inch) vary widely (and are getting higher, meaning that the same pixel size setting produces a smaller image). Operating systems and browsers have ways of 'compensating' for changed screen resolution (I get quite different default effects on my MacBook Pro depending on which browser I use). More people are viewing Wikipedia on mobile devices with smaller screens while desktop monitors are getting bigger. All of this just reinforces Carl's point: you can't do graphic design using plain HTML and/or the Wikimedia software (which is why people who care greatly about layout on the web use different approaches). Peter coxhead (talk) 12:17, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't know if your position is correct. Clearly what is rendered on my 23in display is very different then what I get on my 10in netpad.  So some general guideline that balances all of the various needs is a reasonable way is desirable.  I just had a discussion with an editor who had changed the column with em number on an article.  Clearly this is something that is highly subjective and very dependent on the readers environment.  What he discovered on his small screen is that using 33 as opposed to 30 or 35 works better for both of us.  I guess where this is going, is that we need to clearly understand the impact of image sizes and anything else that can be controlled for sizing and how they get rendered on various screens.  In the past many policies were established knowing that the smallest screens were 15in and 640x480 pixels. Today the smallest screens on computers are 7in and on phones and other devices 3in or less, so what worked in the past may not be the best advice today.  I don't know how this would affect the recommendations going forward, but clearly this should start with some advice from experts.  The readers and editors may not be the best to set the starting point for any discussions. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:34, 29 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I think that the main change happened back in November 2011. I don't think the edit was meant to change anything, only reduce duplication between Manual_of_Style and Manual of Style/Images. Recently first I and then SlimVirgin have restored a couple of things which went from the main MOS in the November 2011 edit.
 * This is an issue that has cropped up elsewhere (e.g. capitalization, especially the vernacular names of species). When the main MOS has extra guidance in a specialized subpage, how much from the subpage should be put into the main MOS page? What happens if they are not entirely consistent? Which has priority? Peter coxhead (talk) 12:17, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
 * But let me get this right: whatever the effect of browser setting, window width (let's not forget that one, please—it's critical and likely to vary much more even at the hands of the same user on the same day), and screen res, a detail-rich pic deserves consideration for larger sizing than a plain single portrait, say, all other things being equal. True? Tony   (talk)  13:35, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I think you have to go back to what pictures are for in Wikipedia. As it's primarily a text encyclopedia, they are included to illustrate points made in the text. A detail-rich image which can't be seen properly at a width of 220px (a size chosen because of the firm statement at WP:IDD "Don't use a fixed image size larger than 220px") is probably not appropriate. (Of course there are always WP:IAR cases.) If you really think a "thumb" image should be larger, it's better to use something like 1.5 than a fixed size since the <tt>upright</tt> parameter scales the user's setting (and technically this approach doesn't violate the WP:IDD statement). Peter coxhead (talk) 18:30, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
 * An advantage of using the same width for most pictures is that their left edges (for right-aligned images, and vice versa) line up. It would be weird for the pics in Timeline of human evolution to have different widths. <span style="background:#00ae00;white-space:nowrap;padding:3px;color:black;font:600 1em 'Gentium Book Basic', serif">― A. di M.​  00:05, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't disagree, but I wanted to point out that I think it's important for us not to become formulaic about this sort of thing either. What's good for Timeline of human evolution (and probably > 90% of other articles) may not always be the best thing. I think that's the main concern that the majority of people have with "edicts" from the MOS (even if we're all well aware that these aren't "edicts"). I think that the 220px thing is a perfect example of that, actually. — <span style="font-family: Courier New, monospace ;font-style:italic">V = IR (Talk&thinsp;&bull;&thinsp;Contribs) 02:25, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
 * That's why I said “most” and not “all”. <span style="background:#00ae00;white-space:nowrap;padding:3px;color:black;font:600 1em 'Gentium Book Basic', serif">― A. di M.​  09:22, 30 March 2012 (UTC)


 * WP:IDD "Don't use a fixed image size larger than 220px"—Oh, it's just someone's essay, of no meaningful status, so I don't know why Peter is talking in terms of "violating" it; also, that incantation doesn't reflect the nuanced advice of the image policy. But I'm keenly aware of my technical ignorance: when you say we should use by preference the upright function (a function I've mixed feelings about, but that's on my display, my settings, of course), which user settings does it "scale" with, and which does it not scale with? There are a number of variables, which I listed above: screen res, window width, and browser zoom. Tony   (talk)  02:29, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, I shouldn't have used the word "violate"; I'm well aware that the MOS is just guidance, not edict (and note that I was talking about not actually following the "220px guideline").
 * To return to Tony1's question. Suppose you create an image via something like <tt> Dummy.jpg </tt>. Will the image actually occupy a width of 200 pixels on the user's display? The answer is that it depends on the operating system, the browser and the user's browser settings and cannot be controlled by an editor. For example, using Mac OS 10.6, Firefox 11 does not scale the image with the text size, so I personally always get an image very close to 200px. On the other hand, Safari 5 and Opera 11 do scale the image size with the text size and as I like fairly large text (an age issue!) my default settings for these browsers give images larger than 200px. (How Internet Explorer and these browsers behave with Windows operating systems, I don't know.) The physical size of the image then depends on the resolution of the display in terms of pixels/inch – but some combinations of operating system/browser/user settings automatically adjust the pixel size for the resolution. Image display sizes which depend on display resolution, operating system, browser and the user's browser settings can't be controlled by a Wikipedia editor.
 * Now suppose you instead create an image via <tt> Dummy.jpg </tt> or <tt> Dummy.jpg </tt>. The "target" size of this image is determined by the user's Wikipedia settings ("My preferences" tab at the top of the page, then "Appearance"). The default is 220px, but it can be increased or decreased. The first example here will have a target image width of the user's Wikipedia default; the second a target image width of 1.5x the user's Wikipedia default. So the use of value allows a Wikipedia editor to control the size of an image relative to the default for that combination of operating system, browser, browser setting and user's Wikipedia setting. It's a pity that the documentation of upright implies that it can only be used to reduce the width of an image (the default is 0.75).
 * Summary: However hard you try, you can't control the actual size of an image as seen by a reader. All you can control is the size relative to what would be shown by default.
 * Or as Carl clearly put it above: "The idea that we can do graphic design in our articles as we would for a printed article is predicated on the incorrect idea that what a one editor sees is what others will also see." Peter coxhead (talk) 09:17, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
 * All this discussion of image size is very similar to the problems involving word wrap and Line break handling discussed above on this page at the section Non-breaking space before or after a number written in digits, in that lines will wrap at different places on different display monitors. See WP:NBSP, where the Use subsection does not mention this problem. Milkunderwood (talk) 07:10, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
 * AFAICT using (say)  instead of   only makes a difference for signed-in users who have set a non-default thumbnail size in their preference (or when the default thumbnail size for the site is changed). (BTW, the name thumbnail itself points out that they're  to be small, and if they can't there's a problem with them as Peter coxhead said at 18:30, 29 March 2012 (UTC). When an image has text too small to be read comfortably at the default thumbnail size, I take it to the Graphics Lab and ask for the font size to be increased, rather than simply using a larger thumbnail.) <span style="background:#00ae00;white-space:nowrap;padding:3px;color:black;font:600 1em 'Gentium Book Basic', serif">― A. di M.​   09:22, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Use of  Did you actually try this out? I set up some images sized in various ways on one of my user pages and viewed them logged-in and logged-out; it didn't make any difference. However, given the vagaries of the Wikimedia software, operating systems, browsers, etc. I can well believe that other people might have different experiences. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:49, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I didn't, but if MediaWiki translates both  and   to the same size specification in the rendered HTML, then any given browser will display them both the same size as each other. (IIRC,   specifications are treated by multiplying x by the reader's thumbnail size preference –&#32;220 if none, rounding the result to the nearest ten, and using that as the pixel size in the HTML. The browser can then interpret that size whichever way it wants, but I'd expect the actual size to be proportional to the specified size for any given page, OS, settings, etc.) <span style="background:#00ae00;white-space:nowrap;padding:3px;color:black;font:600 1em 'Gentium Book Basic', serif">― A. di M.​   12:47, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Sure, if the reader has the thumbnail size preference at 220px, then  and   will produce the same size image; but the key point is that the two specifications are not the same when the reader has the preference set differently. Peter coxhead (talk) 22:27, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
 * There's quite a bit at WP:EIS, but my observations show that:
 * In the absence of the parameters described below, the presence of either  or   gives the default width of 220px, which logged-in users may alter through  (Thumbnail size).
 * is only effective if either  or   is also present. It multiplies the thumbnail width (as determined above) by factor n; thus,   has no effect.
 * with no scale factor is exactly equivalent to
 * The use of a  parameter overrides any sizing set using the above.
 * In my opinion, if a page is laid out so that the main (lead section) image is larger than thumbnail default, this should be done using relative sizing ( or similar), because if an absolute size is used, users with the thumbnail default set to a large value (300px is the present maximum) may receive a lead image the same size as, or perhaps smaller then the others in the article, which doesn't look good. -- Red rose64 (talk) 16:54, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I kinda like this solution. There are places where pixel-perfect sizing is needed (often in multi-image frames, infoboxex, some tables, etc.) But if we are talking images that text normally wraps around, I do think it makes sense to use relative sizing (via the upright parameter) for pictures that editors believe should be presented at a larger size, allowing the user prefs and browser settings determine what that size actually is.  (An example would be Richard Nixon where some of the post-header centered images are the ones I would emphasize with something like "upright = 2.0" relative to the non-centered images.)  This gives us the best of both worlds - editors are able to set what pictures they believe have certain prominence or need to be show at a larger scale, but all that's relative to either the default size or to the user's selected size.  As long as editors are following other MOS guidelines for image layouts (such as sandwiching), this should lead to a simple, adaptable system that works across a majority of browser experiences outside of those with weird settings (like, super-huge magnification). --M ASEM  (t) 17:04, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree. We seem to have reached some kind of consensus, at least among some of us, but one that I don't find reflected in the current documentation. The strong impression is given that upright is only for down sizing – at least that was my impression until quite recently when I realized it's just as useful for up sizing. Peter coxhead (talk) 22:27, 30 March 2012 (UTC)


 * It would be helpful in general if people would not restore contentious points that have been removed after extensive discussion. As for image sizes, editors do as a matter of fact fix them, so there is no point in someone's creating a rule that the MoS "prefers" that they not be fixed, because most editors will continue as before, with the occasional fist fight breaking out where before there was love and harmony. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:04, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
 * What is the contentious point that has been restored (and where exactly?) Peter coxhead (talk) 16:48, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I think it means and . Art LaPella (talk) 17:27, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah but that's the reverse: Noetica (and later others) removed material from the main MOS, largely on the grounds that it duplicated a subpage. Then I and SlimVirgin put back a couple of removed points; which is why I'm puzzled. I didn't think that any contentious points were restored. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:17, 2 April 2012 (UTC)


 * If I've understood the technical points above, upright settings make no difference whatsoever for our readers, but only for Wikipedians who are logged in. Anything that renders a small minority of WPians' displays differently from those of other editors and of our readers (on top of all of the other variables) should be discouraged, I believe. We need to minimise the barriers to seeing as our readers do. And editors are currently fooled into thinking that the upright function does have an effect for readers. Tony   (talk)  03:41, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
 * That also applies to the default size, so are you suggesting that all pics should have a fixed size specified? <span style="background:#00ae00;white-space:nowrap;padding:3px;color:black;font:600 1em 'Gentium Book Basic', serif">― A. di M.​  09:32, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Tony1, the  and   settings affect images whether or not you are logged in. Consider an image specified as   - this is by default 220px wide, but a logged-in user may alter this to, say, 250px. Now consider an image specified as   - the   multiplies the default of 220px by 0.75 giving 165px wide. Our logged-in user who has set 250px in  will see the image (250 * 0.75) ≈ 188px wide. See examples at : view that page (a) logged out; (b) logged in with your thumbnail size set to 220px; and (c) logged in with your thumbnail size set to something else. You should find that cases (a) and (b) give similar results; and for all three cases, the second and third images are always the same size as each other, as are the fourth and fifth. -- Red rose64 (talk) 14:03, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
 * My recent purchase of a Coby 7" (17.5cm) tablet computer has confirmed me on the side of "don't force sizes" except in unusual cases, and I disagree with the notion that screen resolution is increasing. Rather, screen resolution and size are becoming more diverse, as desk screens as commonly used by editors become bigger and finer, while small and coarse mobile screens as commonly used by readers become more numerous. Anyway isn't the talk page for WP:ImageSize the better place to discuss it? Jim.henderson (talk) 23:43, 7 April 2012‎ ‎

Percentage sizing?
I hesitate to stir up a new bag of nettles/open up a whole new can of worms/cook up a different kettle of fish, but since my main non-prose work in Wikipedia is with tables rather than pictures, I usually follow the advice I read somewhere here to specify table sizes and column widths in percentages {e.g. col width:"8%" ) rather than pixels (e.g. size:250px ), for much the same reasons as offered above about pictures, such as screen size, resolution and browser rendering. Those technical issues apparently also apply to screen readers used for Accessibility. So how much of that might also apply to images and pictures, where other concerns might apply? ¶ For an example of a successfully-resolved image size debate from my own editing past, see Talk:New York City mayoral election, 1917. The difficulty here was making the headlines that the Kaiser was reading within the cartoon legible without wrecking the display for other readers on other systems. —— Shakescene (talk) 21:56, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Although HTML has permitted table column sizing by percentages for a long time now, it won't be long before it no longer permits image sizing that way. It was allowed in HTML 4.01 and XHTML, but HTML 5 only permits the  and   attributes of the  element to be specified as integers, which are interpreted as a pixel count. -- Red rose64 (talk) 23:32, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
 * HTML5 supports the <tt>class</tt> and <tt>style</tt> attributes, of course, and the intention is that those should be used as the principal technique to apply formatting to elements. It's perfectly possible in HTML5 (or XHTML for now) to specify relative units such as % or ems when sizing an element – for example, an inline <tt>style="width:8%"</tt> will be fine as would a class definition for standardised situations. That would be like a class .tableimage, for example, if a consensus were reached that a given %width was useful in a large number of tables. It's a good idea to move away from using HTML attributes to apply formatting and replace it with CSS formatting (with classes preferred to inline styles, of course), so the changes when HTML5 becomes the default shouldn't cause huge problems if we apply good design techniques sooner rather than later. --RexxS (talk) 12:31, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Percentages (through CSS) are absolutely the way to go (well, ems would be best, but hardly anyone understands them so...). I suspect that getting acceptance for using percentages will be an uphill climb though if only due to the amount of inertia involved in the use of pixel sizes. — <span style="font-family: Courier New, monospace ;font-style:italic">V = IR (Talk&thinsp;&bull;&thinsp;Contribs) 16:02, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

flags in info boxes
I've seen people remove country flags from info boxes (such as Infobox language) saying it's per the MOS. Is that true? I have a bot request to clean up the language info boxes in limbo, and if this is true, it would be easy to have the bot remove them. — kwami (talk) 05:26, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I hope that you don't try to do this with a bot. The thing with flags in infoboxes (and tables, for that matter), in my experience, is that it's a "feel thing". They either look good or they look terrible. That being the case, the advice in various place in the MOS has fluctuated and at times been contradictory. As far as I know the only significant treatment of this has been on specific issue MOS sub-pages as well (although I may be incorrect about that). So... tread lightly, please? — <span style="font-family: Courier New, monospace ;font-style:italic">V = IR (Talk&thinsp;•&thinsp;Contribs) 05:48, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, that's why I'm asking before making a formal bot request. (I added it with a question mark, saying I wasn't sure.) — kwami (talk) 06:17, 1 April 2012 (UTC)


 * WP:INFOBOXFLAG. But that guideline has some vaguely defined exceptions. Art LaPella (talk) 05:51, 1 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Sounds like it's okay when it's a political use, such as provinces within a state, but not when it's non-political. That seems like a reasonable approach to me: flags are inherently political; you don't want to give a flag to a river, or to a language or a religion, for that matter. I suppose it would work for official language standards, but that's very few of our language articles, and in other cases would probably fit better in the section on where the language is official, not just on where it is spoken. — kwami (talk) 06:17, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Shortcuts, section organization, and stability
I wish to thank all the editors who have provided shortcuts for various sections and subpages of the Manual of Style. They are useful, not only for quickly accessing those sections and subpages from the search box, but also for briefly linking to them in edit summaries. I request that those shortcuts not be removed from the pages of the Manual of Style, and that their functionality not be changed. I also appreciate the orderly structure of the Manual of Style with sections and subsections, and with lists of items in point format. In my edit summaries, I have often referred to section or subsection numbers, and to listed items by number, even if they were not numbered in the Manual of Style. I request that the positions of sections, subsections, and listed items remain unchanged, so that my edit summaries can continue to reflect the structure of the Manual of Style in the future. At User:Wavelength/Note (permanent link here), I have prepared a few edit summary skeletons for use in edit summaries. One of those skeletons is the following. When I prepared that edit summary skeleton, I had in mind what is now point 8. Although I can still sometimes use it for what is now point 7, this illustrates how changes to positions of listed items can affect edit summaries years after they have been recorded. Nowadays, I usually copy edit summary skeletons from a computer file. However, I very seldom check to see whether the edit summary that I am about to record still accurately represents the present version of the Manual of Style. I request that, if a listed item is ever removed from the Manual of Style, its position be kept unchanged by the insertion of a new point or by the insertion of placeholder text. The same request applies also to the positions of sections and of subsections. For reference, here is a permanent link to the present version of the Manual of Style. —Wavelength (talk) 18:24, 3 April 2012 (UTC) and 18:29, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
 * adding hyphen: → ""—see WP:HYPHEN, sub-subsection 3, point 7

Terminology sections on Anime and manga articles
After this discussion which I started sometime ago, there has been some discussion for merging series terminology into the plot or setting section (for the details, see that discussion). Can something about terminology sections be added to MOS:AM? Asking it here instead of that page's talk page in order to receive wider discussion. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 00:46, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

TOC
That is one really large Table of Contents. Suggest that subsections be merged or something, although of course you wouldn't want to merge sections that have shortcut links to them. Best, Jesse V. (talk) 04:30, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

an odd example
Is not "a New York–Los Angeles flight" a range whose ends contain spaces? —Tamfang (talk) 03:43, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
 * You could define "range" that way, but the structure of WP:ENDASH shows that isn't the intent. The guideline shows ranges of numbers and dates as examples, and New York–Los Angeles in another section. So my interpretation is that the guideline uses "range" to mean a range of anything that has a clearly defined sequence. The letter Q is definitely in the range A–Z, but Chicago may or may not be in New York–Los Angeles. Either that, or (heaven forfend) we can argue that section all over again. Art LaPella (talk) 04:57, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Junior and Senior in names of people
Is there a standard or style for proper names of people? For example, John Doe (junior) or John Doe (Junior) or John Doe, Junior or the American style John Doe, Jr.? Same for Senior?

See the questionable John Bell (Junior), and I know I will find other examples.--DThomsen8 (talk) 15:47, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The “American” style is the only one I can recall ever seeing (unless you count ordinals such as I, II, stuff like the Older and the Younger, etc.). <span style="background:#00ae00;white-space:nowrap;padding:3px;color:black;font:600 1em 'Gentium Book Basic', serif">― A. di M.​  17:56, 8 April 2012 (UTC)


 * This isn't just a style problem, it is a potential substance problem. In some families, a person who is born a junior stays a junior throughout his life. In other families, when an ancestor dies, all the descendants with suffixes reduce their suffix by one. In some US states, like Texas, courts have found that the suffix is not part of the name, it is a description. Jc3s5h (talk) 18:41, 8 April 2012 (UTC)


 * The editor who created the article seems to have something of a bracket fetish. He also created (Geordie) Rhymes of Northern Bards by John Bell Junior. Bell labels himself "John Bell, jun" on the cover of his book. the article on the book should be changed, and I think the article on the man should be John Bell (printer) or John Bell (folk music). Since there is seemingly no notability to Bell senior, the Junior bit seems gratuitous. Paul B (talk) 18:49, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I've changed the title of the article on the book. I think the original author simply misunderstood the way bracketed additions to names and titles are used here to distinguish articles which would otherwise have the same name. We do already have a junior Mr Bell: John C. Bell, Jr. Paul B (talk) 18:58, 8 April 2012 (UTC)


 * See WP:QUALIFIER.
 * "In the case of Senior/Junior, the preferred format is with ' Sr.' or ' Jr.' written after the name."
 * —Wavelength (talk) 19:13, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Song title "Heroes" contains quotation marks; use two layers of quotation marks?
OK, I'm making a new section for this query, because although it involves the same piece of music as mentioned above, it's about a different aspect of the MOS.

The song "Heroes", like the album, has quotation marks as part of its title. Therefore, as far as I know, every time it appears on Wikipedia it should be written with two layers of quotation marks around it: the outer ones indicate on Wikipedia that it's a song title, and the inner ones are the ones that are part of the song title.

So that would imply that we should write ""Heroes"" every time it appears. However, other MOS guidelines say quotations within quotations should alternate between double and single quotes.

So am I right in saying that strictly speaking, we should write "'Heroes'" every time it appears? (Links to it would appear as as: "'Heroes'".) This was mentioned last year on the article's talk page by User:AnemoneProjectors and User:Gorpik.

So the different variants would be:

On the other hand, it's worth noting that "'Heroes'" is less legible than "Heroes". Is that another consideration that should be taken into account?

-- Nick RTalk 18:40, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Technically you should do "'Heroes'", but it looks weird so WP:IAR might be invoked (does not looking weird count as “improving” Wikipedia?). <span style="background:#00ae00;white-space:nowrap;padding:3px;color:black;font:600 1em 'Gentium Book Basic', serif">― A. di M.​  15:18, 16 April 2012 (UTC)


 * It's going to look weird no matter what, because of the unusual juxtaposition of the two kinds of quotation marks, so just do what's right and move on. :-) PS: When it's not linked like that, you can make it more legible thusly: , which renders as: Heroes.  Just a CSS spacing trick. I created those templates several years ago to make punctuation of nested quotations easier to read. — SMcCandlish    Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿ ¤ þ  Contrib.  05:24, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Should this page be moved?
Should Fox-North Coalition be moved under MoS, à la Military–industrial complex? <font color="#006600">It Is Me Here  <font color="#CC6600">t / <font color="#CC6600">c 16:41, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes. Done. Thanks! N oetica Tea? 01:18, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Bold/italic formatting of quotation marks as part of titles - "Heroes" example
The section on the application of bold/italic markup to quotation marks currently reads:
 * Article openings
 * When the title of an article appearing in the lead paragraph requires quotation marks (for example, the title of a song or poem), the quotation marks should not be in boldface, as they are not part of the title:
 * {|style="background:transparent"


 * Correct: || "Jabberwocky" is a nonsense poem by Lewis Carroll.
 * }

Should this section make any mention at all of those rare exceptions when quotation marks are part of the title, and therefore the italic (and bold in the lead paragraph) markup should be applied around the quotation marks?

The example I'm thinking of is "Heroes":

Would this Manual of Style page be improved by listing an exception to the rule such as that one?

-- Nick RTalk 18:34, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Per WP:CREEP, I'd say this is far too rare a case to warrant a mention. Even where it does happen, as a song title (see next section) or an album title, the quotation marks are usually inside a longer title  The entire-title-quoted case like "Heroes"/Heroes is very rare. I don't think anyone will object to the idea that in this case the proper formatting is, and this thread will be archived and can be cited should disagreement about it erupt. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿ ¤ þ  Contrib.  05:50, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

WP:ENGVAR and categories?
Has WP:ENGVAR been withdrawn for categories? See Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_March_28.

There appears to be a view that categories somehow require "consistency", in a way far in excess of anything required by article names, WP:ENGVAR or MediaWiki. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:26, 14 April 2012 (UTC)


 * If I recall correctly, we always have sought consistency between parent categories and subcategories thereof, which reduces the likelihood of confusion. I certainly have seen categories renamed (including changes from American English to British English) for this reason.
 * Our articles lack this type of organizational structure; one might focus on an element of a broader subject covered in another, but not as a subpage. (That feature was disabled in the article namespace years ago.)  —David Levy 19:16, 14 April 2012 (UTC)


 * It's not been withdrawn but there's always been an ambiguity over whether WP:ENGVAR & WP:RETAIN take precedence over the use by the main article and/or the relevant category tree. The speedy criteria have generally been applied in that categories normally follow the main articles and tree conventions override individual RETAINs, subject to conditions (ENGVAR rules for English speaking countries, RETAIN for the earliest categories for non-English speaking countries & trans-national subjects). The last few CFDs that I've closed where this has been an issue have generally come down on the side of the main article's spelling - see for instance Categories for discussion/Log/2012 March 17 which changed it to Category:Humour. Timrollpickering (talk) 14:42, 17 April 2012 (UTC)


 * And all of this is sensible, in my view. WP:RETAIN does apply to categories, but it doesn't mean "always retain the original English variety, no matter what" (a common misinterpretation).  It means "retain the original English variety unless there's a good reason not to".  Eliminating needlessly inconsistent/confusing organization is a good reason.  Some categories are switched to American English, while others are switched to British English or another variety, all for the good of the encyclopedia as a whole.  —David Levy 23:26, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Does the MoS apply to sources?
Please clarify If I have a sourced that is formatted as such "War in Vietnam (1968-1971)" is it proper for me to change that to "War in Vietnam (1968–1971)" per WP:DASH (that is, a hyphen - changed to an endash –)? Or should I leave that formatting as it is in the original source, irrespective of if it contradicts our style guide? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:35, 4 April 2012 (UTC)


 * See Manual of Style (permanent link here).
 * —Wavelength (talk) 18:28, 4 April 2012 (UTC)


 * What do you mean by "original source"? The book itself? Or a reference to it? If the book is published by any halfway respectable publisher, it will have the en-dash on the cover. But the publisher's website or press releases may not. Barsoomian (talk) 18:33, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Right I mean the original source is named "... (1968-1971)" (with hyphen) not "... (1968–1971)" (with ndash). —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:12, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Is this a physical book? Anyway, it's normal practice (and sanctioned by the MOS, as mentioned above) to make minor adjustments in quoted text like this. Barsoomian (talk) 02:13, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Book Well, it doesn't actually exist--it's a purely hypothetical. Thanks. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:06, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
 * So you were hypothesizing a book that has been unprofessionally edited. If and when you find such, you can worry about whether to correct it. Aside from some self-published tract it's unlikely though. Barsoomian (talk) 09:15, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Many such books do exist (here's one); it's not the most common professional style, but it is a style sometimes used. For WP, though, the typography should be converted to our  house style, which has deep roots in quality publications and professional typesetting.  Dicklyon (talk) 16:04, 7 April 2012 (UTC)


 * To answer the original question, yes, what Wavelength said. If the sources uses a hyphen when the MoS calls for an en-dash, yes you may change it, regardless of why the source uses a hyphen (unless the source is discussing hyphens or the hyphen is otherwise immediately relevant, but that would be pretty rare). Darkfrog24 (talk) 15:48, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think changing a hyphen in that circumstance to tie up with what our MOS mandates here in our own text for a year range (ie use an en-dash) would be the end of the world. But I would just query, or perhaps quibble about, one or two of the observations above. First, although probably applicable in principle, the section of the MOS cited by Wavelength is technically about quotes, not about formal titles (and also includes the misleading generalisation that 'This practice of conforming typographical styling to a publication's own "house style" is universal'). Secondly, as noted in a previous thread, it is not a sign of "unprofessional" editing to prefer hyphens for all compounds, joins and ranges, such that 1968-1971 would be hyphenated; it's merely an alternative.  N-HH   talk / edits  16:05, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is a sign of "unprofessional editing" to use a hyphen in a date range. Cite me a professional editor (someone who does it for a living, for a publishing company) who does that. I looked at your link and didn't see anything like that. I'm not going to force everyone to scrupulously observe the rule, but it certainly IS the rule used by "professionals". Barsoomian (talk) 15:50, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Concur with those saying YES, please change the incorrect hyphen in the source title to an en dash for date range. Binksternet (talk) 16:19, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
 * @Barsoomian: I said "as noted" not "as demonstrated". And no, it's the rule used by some professionals and a rule preferred by some style guides. You can believe what you like, but I'm neither going to dig up and show you in-house or hard-copy style guides nor go rooting around online for any that are publicly available just to prove it to you. Many non-technical publishers genuinely do not bother with the distinction, because it is mostly a useless distinction and one done seemingly for its own sake and for the sake of complexity rather than for clarity. Having said that, we do it here.  N-HH   talk / edits  16:24, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
 * So you don't actually have anything to support your opinion, however strongly expressed. That someone "noted" they agreed with you is nice, but unconvincing. What is decided to do in Wikipedia doesn't have to follow the practices of print editing, but don't blow off the rules followed by editors and typesetters for hundreds of years as "useless". Barsoomian (talk) 16:42, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
 * It's not an "opinion" that people can agree with or not, it's an observation, born of both wide reading and professional employment (and the noting referred to my noting it btw). Most newspapers and periodicals (in the UK at least) and plenty of professionally published books and official publications do not use en-dashes for such ranges. Like I say, the rules as you perceive them are not universal, or more – or indeed less – "correct" than any other rules. But if you wish to believe that they are, on the basis that you've personally not seen otherwise yet, that's up to you. All a bit off-topic from the specific query of course but it seems odd to be so insistent when someone is telling you in good faith that they have seen otherwise. I accept you don't have to take my word for it, but nonetheless.  N-HH   talk / edits  17:29, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Since you still fail to cite anything other than your own opinion, we'll just have to leave it at that. Barsoomian (talk) 18:19, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Dicklyon has cited one such book (see above). <span style="background:#00ae00;white-space:nowrap;padding:3px;color:black;font:600 1em 'Gentium Book Basic', serif">― A. di M.​  01:48, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Of course you can find books that are done amateurishly, especially from a tiny publisher of poetry with no budget. That example book has the hallmarks of an amateur. Aside from the hyphens, it also uses double spaces after periods. Probably laid out in MS Word. The statement was that a professional editor would ignore the rules on en-dashes. Show me a style guide from a reputable publisher that explicitly says that. N-HH says there were such, but I find that hard to believe. But I've only been editing books for 20 years, what do I know. Barsoomian (talk) 03:12, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
 * You know what you know, like everyone else. Even in 20 years you might not have seen everything. You've chosen, reasonably enough in principle but in somewhat bad faith, to not take my word about what I know and about my observations (again, this is not "opinion"; and also comes, in part, from professional experience), and rejected them simply because they do not conform with your own; which rather defeats the point of debate and exchange, you'd have thought. This is a side point on a talk page and yet you're demanding that I prooove something about common and easily observable exceptions while accepting that I take your word for a much bolder assertion about universality. Anyway, since you insist, I have spent some of my Easter weekend trawling around the web to find something I can flag up for you. Here are two, for what they're worth.
 * National Geographic on hyphens: "a hyphen means up to and including when used between dates: November 15-21"; and dashes "For a range of numbers or dates in display type or in map and graphic labels, an en dash may [my emphasis] be used in place of a hyphen for readability"
 * The American Medical Association. I have no experience of or even knowledge really of this one, but it seems to be widely used in the medical field. This summary page, assuming it is a reliable precis, suggests the AMA prefers hyphens for date and number ranges (which actually refutes my own point that hyphens are preferred in a non-technical context)
 * As I say, there are plenty of things I read that appear to happily rely on the simple hyphen for ranges, from the Guardian newspaper to the London Review of Books. If you wish to continue inferring that this is all a figment of my imagination, or that I am trying to deceive you, carry on.  N-HH   talk / edits  16:29, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
 * ps: the point as well is not about "ignor[ing] the rules on en-dashes", but about the fact that there are no fixed or universal rules in the first place - there are different rules, used by different editors and different publishers, all just as professional or correct as any other (up to a point).  N-HH   talk / edits  17:09, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Don't talk about my "bad faith" in not simply taking your word for something you refused to document that contradicts my own experience, when you reject what I say on exactly the same grounds. As for the two "citations" which you finally deign to give, the NGS  sadly does seem to use hyphens for ranges in text, but oddly not in "display type".  The AMA link is "Instructions to Authors". No indication as to how it will look in print. I routinely convert al hyphens in manuscripts between two numbers to en dashes myself. So the only cite you have is the NGS, and that is half hearted, and refers to a magazine, not books, which have higher standards -- we're talking about "professional" best practice. You asserted that "the [en-dash]  rule used by some professionals and a rule preferred by some style guides." In fact -- and I maintain it is a fact --  it's the rule used by, if not all, the great majority of professional book editors. The original question was about the TITLE of a BOOK. Not what is used in the pages of a magazine. Barsoomian (talk) 02:57, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * A hypothetical question about a hypothetical book, which could quite easily apply to the title of an academic paper or a journal or newspaper article. In any event, from when I first made my side observation I referred to general publishing, not books specifically, as did you at first (and btw there are books that do not use en-dashes; also please don't pretend that that journal or other forms of publishing are somehow a lesser form or less professional, or make up some ridiculous excuse as to why the AMA might not really mean what it appears to say). My comment about bad faith was somewhat badly phrased, but was meant to refer to your not accepting my word, ie assuming bad faith on my part, not my assuming it on yours. I simply don't understand why anyone would think I would be making up claims about what I have seen and what I have worked on, whether I had evidence I could share online or not. By contrast, I did accept your word about your experience - I just said you obviously haven't seen everything, which you haven't, if you really haven't edited or seen professionally published work - including books - with hyphens for ranges. If you don't understand that what you do might not be what everyone else does (or if you think it somehow "better"), or that a claim to universality demands a much higher standard of proof than the claim of exception (which is satisfied by one contrary example), then I don't know what else to say to you, since you're clearly not open to rational discussion.  N-HH   talk / edits  14:31, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Justin (koavf) started this section because of a question I asked him about one of his edits (my post on his talk and the following discussion on my talk). I'm looking for consensus on whether or not we should change hyphens to en dashes in the title of works cited in references. This question has come up before with dashes.js. The "Allowable typographical changes" section and this talk page discussion sheds some light on the issue, but I would like to know what the consensus is about hyphens/dashes in work titles or to spur on discussion of the issue. It doesn't really matter that much to me, since it honestly doesn't seem like that big of a deal, but what is a big deal to me is consistency which is why I would like community input on this issue. —danhash (talk) 18:14, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Use the style (dash not hyphen) that MOS recommends. It's 100% normal for basic typography to be adapted to the medium and "house" doing the publishing. Besides, unless you are an incredibly knowledgeable type expert, you don't actually know whether a hyphen or an en-dash was really used on the book cover, since their respective widths vary wildly between fonts (and non-electronic typefaces), and are exactly the same size in plenty of them, meanwhile, for every popular typeface there are about 100 almost but not quite identical knockoffs, and so on. You'd have to get into "typographical forensics" to even be certain what typeface you were looking at, which would be the only way to be certain what character had actually been used on the book cover or title page.  We cannot be fetishistic about trying to exactly replicate the look of glyphs as used in sources.  MOS has a strong and consistent position away from this notion, in MOS:QUOTE, throughout MOS:TEXT, at WP:TRADE, etc., etc.  National Geographic is a reliable source on nature documentarianism and anthropology photojournalism, and the AMA is a RS on medical practice in the US; neither are experts on English writing. (Note that the AMA style guide is a guide for paper writing and citation style for American medical journal publication, not a grammar guide; it's goal is in-house consistency for medical academics, not descriptive or even prescriptive linguistics.)  None of that really matters though. The question is not whether using hyphens for ranges is demonstrably an extant albeit minority style used even by some professional writers, editors and publishers. Of course it is. Every weird or sloppy writing practice you can think of is. WP just plain DGAFs about that. We have a standard for consistency, so stick to it. There is virtually no rule in MOS or any of its subpages for which a professionally-published exception can't be found. No one has ever posited otherwise, and an argument that proceeds from such an assumption is a red herring.  MOS is by definition a prescriptive (and where it's useful to be, even a proscriptive) work, though somewhat moderated in what it prescribes by descriptivist tendencies. It is not a guideline for general usage in the world of writing, only for writing WP articles in a consistent way for non-jarring reader experience across the site and for setting rules so that there is a rule for everything, style-wise, that people editwar about. It's an interesting and in-flux balance, and like all compromises, no one is every 100% happy with everything about it. It necessarily rules out minority practices for the most part, to settle on, and usually that which satisfies the largest (which is often not the most foot-stomping and nit-picking) audience. — SMcCandlish    Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿ ¤ þ  Contrib.  19:00, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, the National Geographic and AMA style guides are, by definition, perfectly reliable primary sources for what some style guides for some professional publishers say. What they might happen to be style guides for doesn't diminish their relevance or probative value. They're also all that I happened to find online in a quick search after being pressed for evidence. Anyway, this is indeed a red herring and a side point, as I always acknowledged - I wasn't trying to make a definitive point about the question at hand, I was simply trying to rebut a persistent claim that all professional publishers use en-dashes for ranges. They don't, and I still don't accept that it's somehow "sloppy" or less correct not to (and of course, this fact means that the hypothetical scenario envisaged in the question is likely to crop up quite often, especially with non-book publishing). However, as I also acknowledged from the start, we do use them in such cases.  N-HH   talk / edits  19:40, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, their relevance and probative value are very sharply limited, because they are house-organ style guides that are intended to apply to very specific publication circumstances, and are not general style guides for general practice. Failure to understand this kind of distinction is precisely what generates the specialist style fallacy so often.  And in point of fact, the AMA guide is not used by much of anyone anywhere for anything outside the medical profession, except for citation styles as required by some professors for biology and anatomy classes that are part of undergrad pre-med tracks (as I found out the frustrating way - anthro majors like I was often take at least one one such class, and have to learn the different AMA citation style just for those classes).  We don't  primary source evidence that different style guides exist for very narrow publication niches and recommend various things that mainstream style guides don't; we already know this and DGAF.  G'ing and F about that causes rather than solves problems, because it generates buzz and focus and controversy about trivial crap, like entertaining on WP as a style idea the fact taht MDs insist on not hyphenating adjectives in medical terms even where it would be helpful to do so, because they assume that everyone already understands what is a modifier of what in a medical journal, and fail to get it through their "can't see the encyclopedic forest for the specialist trees" skulls that 99.9% of people who read an article here about a medical term are not doctors. And  really, no one cares what Nat. Geo. does in its own publications, any more than we care whether the local greengrocer knows how to use an apostrophe correctly and knows that the express checkout is for 15 items or  not less. It has nothing to do with how the rest of the world writes or how we write an encyclopedia. — SMcCandlish    Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿ ¤ þ  Contrib.  06:30, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I think you're overinterpreting my point here. I'm not arguing the toss over our style guide or fundamental points about the principles of style guides - all I was saying here was that the use of the hyphen in this context will be found in professional publishing and hence in sources that people wish to refer to on WP, such that the scenario envisaged in the original question will need to be addressed. It will be. I didn't think we needed primary style-guide evidence for that or for the existence of varying style guides either, but I was persistently presented with demands to prove my rather uncontroversial and simple observation. As I said, regardless of what they are for (which doesn't matter in this context), the AMA and NG examples clearly and explicitly provide that proof by way of example.  N-HH   talk / edits  17:22, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
 * You were attempting to rebut my statement that you wouldn't see that in a professionally published book. You've found a reference to 1) a magazine and 2) the submission guidelines for medical papers (NOT the guide for how it would appear in print, which could be quite different). In any case, the original query was about the title of a book  -- what you would see on the cover -- and neither of your sources applies there. So, no, you have not "clearly and explicitly provide that proof ".  Just forget it and move on. 18:51, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
 * No, as I have explained over and over, from the outset - and rather obviously just above, in the post to which you claim to be responding - my point has always been a rather simple one about publishing in general (although yes, including books). In any case, the original question was about a hypothetical "source" (you btw were the one that first morphed it into being a book source specifically; perhaps you should read the start of the thread again) - the principle would apply to any other form of publication, as I have also had to point about, oh, twice now. Anyway, happy to move on, perhaps you could too. The amount of bollocks that can spiral out of control on an MOS talk page perhaps in part explains why it's such a minority sport.  N-HH   talk / edits  16:10, 20 April 2012 (UTC)


 * The AMA guide is certainly not a reliable source for presentation of text. The cite you gave is "Instructions to Authors", a guide for how files are prepared for submission to medical journals. How it's processed from there and ends up on paper or online is undefined. As for your "rebuttal", do not claim you have done that. You have found one example of a magazine that follows your practice, in its text -- but not the display text, which would include the title in the original question. Barsoomian (talk) 02:57, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * To return to the opening question in this thread, it's perfectly fine to correct the hyphen to a dash in a ref title: just on the practical side, a google search will be unaffected by which typography is used in the search box. Tony   (talk)  02:47, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Hyphen question
Is it just me, or does World-number-one male tennis-player rankings seem over-hyphenated? Jenks24 (talk) 05:14, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Perhaps so. And World number one women tennis players has too few.  Maybe "World number-one male tennis player rankings" and "World number-one women tennis players" would be better?  Hyphenating such long compounds is highly variable, but those woud be my guess at a good way.  Dicklyon (talk) 05:19, 7 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Go back to first principles. Why do we hyphenate in such constructions? To avoid ambiguity in parsing. Is "world number one male tennis player rankings" in any way ambiguous? Could it be interpreted, for example, as "(world number one male) tennis player rankings" or "world number one (male tennis) player rankings"? No. It's unambiguous. So it doesn't need any hyphens at all, especially not between "number" and "one". Peter coxhead (talk) 09:34, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Such titles hurt my brain, no matter how they're punctuated! :-) <span style="background:#00ae00;white-space:nowrap;padding:3px;color:black;font:600 1em 'Gentium Book Basic', serif">― A. di M.​  15:15, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
 * While you might be able to deduce that there is only one possible reading of the construction and thus omit all the hyphens, to do that you have to read to the end and then analyse it as if it were a chess problem. Help the reader out and put in at least one hyphen: "World number-one male tennis player rankings", then it can be easily parsed as it's read. Barsoomian (talk) 16:52, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
 * But "number" and "one" are the most tightly semantically connected words in the string, and so least likely to be mis-parsed. Hence this hyphenation doesn't help readers. "World-number-one male-tennis-player rankings" might, since the article is about (male tennis players) who were ranked (number one in the world) in different years. But I don't think anyone would seriously propose this hyphenation! (I'm not sure the word "rankings" is really needed; "World number one male tennis players" seems to me to equally meaningful as an article title and is easier to parse.) Peter coxhead (talk) 10:33, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Certainly "World-number-one male-tennis-player rankings" is what I'd propose, if we were stuck with this wording, as it's the least jarring possibility for me. But I like your suggestion much better.  Or "Male tennis players ranked first and second in the world, by year". &mdash;JerryFriedman  (Talk) 14:56, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Your alternative is the best yet, and has the merit of accuracy, unlike the existing title which is both inelegant and inaccurate. Peter coxhead (talk) 19:51, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * When writing prose (even journalistic prose) rather than titles or headlines, I would (were I writing about tennis) make world's into a possessive, as in "the world's number-one male tennis player". If the title is going to be slightly inelegant anyway, there might be nothing wrong with phrases such as "world's best female tennis player" (why not the best?) or "top-ranked tennis players in the world". Unlike German, English doesn't work well with a long stack of nouns modifying each other. [The preceding opinions are those of the writer alone, and may not reflect the official views of the Wikimedia Foundation, the MoS Cabal, the Associated Press, the University of Chicago Press, the Modern Language Association, the All-England Lawn Tennis Association or the International Olympic Committee.] —— Shakescene (talk) 07:30, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Apart from the disclaimers already posted, I would point out that the possessive form is quite ENGVAR specific. "Why not the best?": because scoring systems that compare different results are necessarily subjective, and the possibility of injury/freak results/different priorities means that the winner of any given event is not necessarily the best (if there can be an encyclopaedically valid application of that epiphet). Kevin McE (talk) 09:03, 8 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Erk: the title wording is awful. I don't have a quick fix. Strictly speaking, it should be "World-number-one-male-tennis-player rankings". Most American writers would prefer to drop all of the hyphens, and I think I would too, if the current wording were unavoidable: "World number one male tennis player rankings". I agree with Shakescene about the difference between title and running prose here. Tony   (talk)  02:54, 10 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Hyphenated expressions often represent re-arrangements of longer expressions from which some words (such as prepositions and conjunctions) have been removed. One unraveled version is Rankings of male tennis players who have been number one in the world, and another one is Male tennis players who were the best in the world, and another one is Top male tennis players in the world, and another one is World rankings of top male tennis players.
 * —Wavelength (talk) 20:55, 10 April 2012 (UTC)


 * The first problem is with "World-number-one", hyphenated like this. How many numbered worlds are there where "males" play "tennis", and how would we know which of these worlds is supposed to be number one? Of all the suggestions made here, World rankings of top male tennis players strikes me as being by far the best. Milkunderwood (talk) 04:05, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed. It would need to be "world number-one", so it's clear that "world" is an adjective, synonymous with "global", "worldwide", "international", modifying "number-one", together forming a compound modifier of what follows (male tennis players). That said, the phrase "world number-one", however hyphenated is a total Briticism.  If the article were actually limited to number-one players (it isn't, but let's pretend), various alternatives would be less colloquial.  Simply "Number-one male tennis players" would be sufficient. It is implicit in a title like this that we don't mean "male tennis players who were number one in Botswana or in Clovis, New Mexico", just like the List of snooker players implicitly includes only those who are genuinely notable in WP terms, which means internationally, not just "he's a good player at the local club and won a grand off me last week".  We don't need "world" or any synonym of it in List of snooker players, so we wouldn't need it for a "Number-one male tennis players".  And "tennis-player rankings" is overhyphenation; this sort of hyphenation is always optional, and should be opted for only when it's helpful.  As noted, the "rankings" part is redundant anyway. We already know what the ranking is (number one), though the article prose doesn't match the title anyway. — SMcCandlish    Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿ ¤ þ  Contrib.  06:14, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
 * To me, "World-number-one male tennis-player rankings" does not even make sense, irrespective of hyphenation. To me it seems to be talking about ranking number one players in order (i.e. you might have twenty players who are all "number one", yet which you then rank in order 1 to 20). This seems not to be what the article is about. 86.160.218.68 (talk) 02:55, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Wikidata
The Signpost has reported this week on progress in launching this new project—one that is likely to be powerful and influential if managed well. I've signed up as a volunteer WRT participating in discussion and consensus-generation concerning style, formatting and presentation. This aspect doesn't seem to be on the radar yet for Wikidata, yet it is just as important there as it is for a WP; style and formatting need to be discussed by the community, or we'll find ourselves with hyphens for minus signs all over the place, and units and symbols jammed up against each other (both contrary to ISO rules and en.WP's MOSNUM). There may need to be unique discussions about whether percentage signs, for example, may be spaced or unspaced, depending on the linguistic origins of the original author (the French space it). It's an interesting new scenario, and I encourage experts here—who have constructed and maintained what appears to be the most sophisticated guide for numerical style in the whole of the Wikimedia movement—to contribute to this exciting new project. (I've left the same message at wt:mosnum.) Tony   (talk)  03:45, 12 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you for alerting us to Wikidata; please continue to post relevant information about its development.
 * —Wavelength (talk) 15:26, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Soft hyphens
There's never been a solid consensus about soft hyphens. The closest we've come is this discussion, which had no followup. The reason it's come to my attention is work with AWB's typo fixing. Soft hyphens makes the typo fixes useless in some cases, and provides general confusion in others. I've reviewed about 20 or so pages that have these soft-hyphens (the vast majority of which are not visible... only occasionally has someone used the &shy; tag... usually they're hidden).

I think in most cases they're the result of copy-pasting from a source that maintains them, and they similarly are propagated as they're copy-pasted, often unknowingly.

The downside is, much in the way the accented quote marks cause issues, these break most regex based processing, and make it difficult to process the words. I also have questions about how grammatically correct these are. Most compound words should have an agreed upon hyphen style, or should be separate words. A soft hyphen is usually being used in cases where a particular choice would be correct. Finally, there's no uniformity (not to mention almost nobody knows these exist or how to put them in), so words that may be hyphenated in some instances (e.g. co-exist, or coexist) are instead being inconsistently applied. Even more inconsistent with a soft hyphen because the display of the hyphen depends entirely on the width of the viewer's screen. We don't use hyphens as line breaks (newspaper style) on wikipedia (nor do most computer displays).

In the two dozen or so articles with these I've reviewed, I've seen one use that seems reasonable for a soft-hyphen. That is, extremely long words that would benefit from line-breaks at a certain point. Here is one example (scroll down to the link to Taumatawhakatangihangakoauauotamateapokaiwhenuakitanatahu).

I'm not proposing a hard and fast rule, but it would be nice to know if I'm missing some alternative justification for soft hyphens. I would propose guidance along the lines of "soft hyphens are generally discouraged, unless there is a particular reason for their use, including extremely long words that are likely to look unbalanced if they don't line wrap." That could be worded better but you get the idea.

Any thoughts? Shadowjams (talk) 19:14, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
 * We cannot know how wide the user's screen is, therefore we cannot predict which words are likely to be wrapped to the next line. Even if we could, the insertion of just one or two words will re-set the paragraph, resulting in a different word requiring the soft hyphen treatment. Therefore, if we are to advocate the use of soft hyphens, every word of more than two syllables which is not the first word of a paragraph will need to be given such hyphens just in case they happen to fall at the beginning of a line. I'm against the use of these, on the grounds of simplicity. -- Red rose64 (talk) 20:04, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed, with the small exceptions that some long words should wrap, such as some examples at Longest English words. Shadowjams (talk) 20:22, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

There is a good case for using soft hyphens in table headers that are longer than all entries in their column. They allow graceful scaling on narrow displays, saving the user from horizontal scrolling. &minus;Woodstone (talk) 23:40, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
 * That's a very good point. I had not thought about that.


 * What I'm gathering is that these are being generally misused, but there are some instances, like table headers and extremely long words, where this does make some sense. If there are other possible uses I'd appreciate if someone would add them here. But do we think a guideline on them could be drafted? Shadowjams (talk) 23:29, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Soft hyphens are in the same league as hard spaces: we desperately need good syntax shortcuts for both, but the suitable template syntaxes were taken up long ago, often for not particularly useful targets. Let us gain consensus for a push to reallocate short syntaxes for both of these valuable functions. Tony   (talk)  07:29, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

MOS: size and inclusiveness
Frequently an editor wants or suggests an addition to the Manual of Style, either to its main page or to one of its subpages. I am one editor who prefers that there be no limit to the combined size of all of those pages, including possible subpages not now existing, and it seems very appropriate that a very large encyclopedia covering many subjects would have a very large manual of style. However, Noetica has advised me that a very large amount of detail in the Manual of Style is to be avoided in consideration of the circumstances. (User:Noetica/Archive4, 09:40, 18 June 2009) Indeed, I have occasionally seen comments calling for reducing its size to make it less daunting to editors with academic limitations. Therefore, I ask everyone with an idea for an addition to think about the consequences when the next call for reduction arises. Perhaps one of the more important guidelines will be removed because a less important guideline will have been added. Also, I suggest that hidden comments be added to the present version, indicating which guidelines have the greatest priority and should not be removed if and when a reduction occurs. Of course, consensus is important. —Wavelength (talk) 01:11, 17 April 2012 (UTC) and 00:16, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I believe we need three MoS main pages: the current one, in full detail (more than 40,000 hits a month); a shortened version, as I've done in my userspace (MoS for beginners, more than 200 hits a month, but unpublicised, and yikes, not up to date); and an ultra-short one for newbies. Tony   (talk)  07:44, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * There are already problems caused by the main MOS and its subpages saying different things. (I could cite the capitalization of the common names of organisms, but please don't start discussing that topic again! Another example which occurred recently is the guidance on images.) Having multiple pages would be a disaster: they would soon become inconsistent; where advice is controversial, editors interested in the MOS would argue about which bits should be included in the various summary versions and which not. I think that what is needed is a good index to the MOS and its subpages. To some extent Editor's index to Wikipedia fulfils this need, but a more specialized one would, I think, be better. (It doesn't matter if indexes are not equally complete.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peter coxhead (talk • contribs) 09:26, 20 April 2012
 * I disagree with Tony on the need for three main MOS pages. Apart from the problem of keeping them in synch - I don't think that a special MOS page for newbies will work.  I checked two articles that had associated "Introduction to" and found the number of hits over the last 30 days as follows:
 * Metric System - 65 k; Introduction to the metric system - 1 k
 * Evolution - 219 k; Introduction to Evolution - 6 k
 * Clearly the hatnotes that link to the introductory articles are not attracting a lot of attention. (WP:COI note - I have been heavily involved with both metric system articles).


 * I am also not happy with the idea of producing a single article call MOS - Why not have a book called MOS that is made up of all the MOS articles and that we concentrate on getting more of a balance between the sections in the main MOS article - in particular we should expect to see a specific article associated with every section in the top level MOS. If there is no article associated with it, why something that is important enough to warrant its own section at the top level not important enough to warrant such an article?  One area that springs to mind is the section "Punctuation". Martinvl (talk) 09:31, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I think three versions is overkill. I would guess that most people come here looking for guidance on a specific point, and as long as they can find that quickly it doesn't matter how long the rest of the manual is. Probably few people set out to read the whole thing... 86.160.218.68 (talk) 02:38, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The best existing system for finding MoS guidelines is the search box near the main page's upper right corner, labeled "Search the MoS". I have often urged the page be redesigned to make that search box more noticeable, ideally looking like the Google main page, and navigating to everything else from there. Newbies are unlikely to click on a link to an easier version; a better idea is to get non-newbies to click on links to more details, since non-newbies are more likely to know or care about a page's less noticeable features. Art LaPella (talk) 05:17, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
 * It may be the "best existing system" but I didn't find it at all helpful when I started editing. The problem is that you have to know the way a topic is described in the MOS to know what to search for. (As just one example, try "common names" as a search.) A good index includes many alternative starting points and can grow. Peter coxhead (talk) 07:43, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Common names? Isn't the second item on the list what you had in mind? But I get the point; something like redirects, or multiple index entries for each possible name for something, would help a lot. Good luck; remember, we can't even get the Manual of Style/Register implemented. Art LaPella (talk) 17:30, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Art LaPella, the Register is implemented (used) whenever anyone consults it.
 * —Wavelength (talk) 19:59, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Over 1% as often as the Manual itself. I'm surprised, considering that almost all the sections are empty. Art LaPella (talk) 20:54, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Order of sections
Hi, in articles about geographical or political regions (e.g. islands, countries, states) are there any guidelines about the order in which standard sections (e.g. "History", "Geography", "Economy" etc.) should appear? 86.160.218.68 (talk) 02:25, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I think there should be such a guideline, but I think that's more something for WP:GEOG than for the MOS. <span style="background:#00ae00;white-space:nowrap;padding:3px;color:black;font:600 1em 'Gentium Book Basic', serif">― A. di M.​  09:34, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
 * There is WP:LAYOUT for topics in general and for sections in general, but it seems to lack an answer to this question. I suggest that you ask the volunteers at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Geography.
 * —Wavelength (talk) 00:25, 22 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks, re-asked at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Geography. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.160.84.125 (talk) 02:48, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Geographic coordinates of private firm
I hate the MOS and wish it was blown up in the morning, for half a dozen reasons. That said, this seems the place to answer this question. I recently came across a piece with green links for geographical coordinates of a private business in the body of the piece: Lusty Lady. Is this an appropriate or commercializing use of green links? Carrite (talk) 03:51, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
 * This is what you called a grene link, but it lookes bloo to me. (Assooming you dont like no speling or grammer neither; korect me if Im rong.) Art LaPella (talk) 04:46, 22 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your illiterate non-answer. Would anyone less snotty and more fluent in the language like to check out the GREEN LINKS that are present in the blue link Lusty Lady and advise on whether they are kosher??? Carrite (talk) 01:11, 24 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Carrite, please see the notice at the top of this page, about discretionary sanctions under a recent ArbCom decision. You might take this as a gentle first warning. ♪☺♥♪ N oetica Tea? 01:44, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Um, without commenting on Noetica, I asked Carrite for a correction, and I got one. But the Seattle coordinate link is undisputably blue on my computer. Perhaps it's green on Carrite's computer. Or perhaps he means the green lines for "Bing Maps", "Google Maps", "Open Street Maps" and "Wikimapia", visible after clicking the blue link. Art LaPella (talk) 02:17, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * No-one willing to actually address the OP's question? IMO the coordinates are useful, but they should be in the top right corner (as in lots of articles –I guess there's a template for that) rather than on their own line at the beginning of a section like that. Anyway, the relevant part of the MOS is MOS:COORDS so you might want to ask at WT:MOSNUM and/or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Geographical coordinates instead. <span style="background:#00ae00;white-space:nowrap;padding:3px;color:black;font:600 1em 'Gentium Book Basic', serif">― A. di M.​  23:39, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * (As for the colour, in the default skin it's blue, but a slightly more greenish shade of blue than internal links. FWIW, the closest colours to that in http://xkcd.com/color/rgb/ are called “windows blue”, “flat blue”, “french blue”, ”mid blue”, “bluish” and “medium blue”. <span style="background:#00ae00;white-space:nowrap;padding:3px;color:black;font:600 1em 'Gentium Book Basic', serif">― A. di M.​  00:05, 25 April 2012 (UTC))
 * Here are the actual link colours for Vector skin:
 * bluelinks (unvisited) (visited)  (active)
 * redlinks (unvisited) (visited)
 * interwiki & external (unvisited) (visited)  (active)
 * None of these look green to me. Coordinates added with the template - in this case 47.60689°N, -122.33847°W - use the external link colours, so they show up as . The components of this colour are: red 20%; green 40%; blue 73.333%
 * The article in question - Lusty Lady - deals with two locations: one in Seattle, the other in San Francisco, so it is neither appropriate nor possible to put both of them upper right. There is no special template for putting coords upper right - you just need to amend the value of one parameter in the existing template, from inline to title, or add it in if not already present. Whether coordinates for commercial venues are appropriate or not - it is normal practice for coordinates to be given for anything with a fixed location. See, for example, articles in  most of which have coords. -- Red rose64 (talk) 17:01, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

µ and micro
There's recently been a dispute on a page as to whether to use "µg" or "microgram." Does the MOS have anything to say about this and if not is it a section worth considering? S Æ don <sup style="color:#000000;">talk 19:32, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * See also Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Archive_108, but "mcg" is an alternative that is recommended by other style guidelines. -- JHunterJ (talk) 19:37, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Depending on your readership, it might be appropriate to write "microgram (μg)" in the first instance and "μg" thereafter. From my observations in the UK, "mcg" seems to be used in the medical profession, but "μg" is used in other applications (Under European Union regulations "μg" is the correct form, not "mcg" - German keyboards actually have a "μ" character. Martinvl (talk) 20:18, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I've worked in the US as an integrated circuit designer; "µ" was always used as the prefix, never "mcg". It was used in a wide variety of units: µm, µg, µF, µV and µA. I also volunteered as an emergency medical technician, and observed that mcg was used, but the prefix micro- just didn't seem to occur with any other unit. I was told "µ" was avoided because when it was hand-written it could be mistaken for "m". Jc3s5h (talk) 20:29, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

The OED has the following illustration: (1980 Brit. Med. Jrnl. 29 Mar. Advt. between pp. x and xi), A metered-dose aerosol delivering 100 mcg salbutamol BP per actuation. — kwami (talk) 20:39, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * It is in the MOS - see MOS:UNITS, more specifically Manual of Style/Dates and numbers. -- Red rose64 (talk) 20:51, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * In my own work&mdash;life science journams&mdash;it's always µg and never mcg. However, what we need to figure out is what is best for general-audience publications.  As we've seen, professional and general don't always match.  My own feeling is that micrograms should follow the same rules as centimeters and other metric units. Darkfrog24 (talk) 13:13, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I've worked with electronic components, where capacitors often have values in microfarads. I'm old enough to have used a typewriter to produce labels for packs and boxes of such items. We would type a lowercase "u" and then write the descender by hand. Later, when computer databases arrived, we couldn't very well write on the screen; so we followed the lead of our suppliers and either used the letter "u" as it stood (or "U" if only capitals were available), or entered the unit as "MFD". This might seem ambiguous: but a one-megafarad capacitor would be enormous - even one farad is so large as to be extremely rarely used. It's not often that you find them much bigger than 4700 μF, and although it might seem logical to write that as 4.7 mF, the "millifarad" unit is not normally used. So, in electronics, the unit prefixes "μ", "u", "U" and "M" are all still in use to mean micro - but only where capacitors are concerned. -- Red rose64 (talk) 17:33, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

En dash spacing
Another situation; see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_New_York_City_Public_Transportation/New_York_City_Subway/Station_naming_convention and Talk:Brooklyn Bridge–City Hall / Chambers Street (New York City Subway). These should be unspaced, right? Dicklyon (talk) 01:50, 25 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, if the painstakingly developed and optimally consensual guidelines at WP:DASH are to be followed, those en dashes should indeed be unspaced. N oetica Tea? 01:55, 25 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, this seems an open-and-shut case; the en dash here means "to" or "through". It's hard enough to maintain the practice set out at WP:DASH as it is, without a project coming up with a different convention. Peter coxhead (talk) 11:04, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Propose add subsection: Foreign living person names
I've put propose add section where I believe it would be most helpful. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:15, 23 April 2012 (UTC)


 * That's fine, Ictus. But I have undone your addition of the start of such a section. Please discuss first; and especially do not edit MOS without leaving an edit summary. One that informs everyone adequately. There have been serious problems in the past, tracking down undocumented changes like that. Without a proper summary, anything could lurk underneath. We'd have to check it again and again, even months later.
 * Now, what did you have in mind for foreign living person names, for inclusion at WP:MOS?
 * N oetica Tea? 03:22, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Noetica, very sorry old chap, no harm intended. I was referred here, at least I think here(?), by PBS. I was confused about what can and can't be edited: as you saw I only dropped in blank propose new section. (I came here by clicking direct from WP:MOSPN not via the talk page here so didn't see the big red sign above, sorry). A large status quo chunk was removed at WP:MOSPN with instructions to see MOS:FOREIGN but there's nothing relevant here. Anyway I've restored the chunk deleted at WP:MOSPN, as far as I can see it has long status quo there and the topic belongs there, so apologies for bothering you here. Please excuse the not leaving an edit summary either, it should have at the least said "please see Talk". In ictu oculi (talk) 03:54, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify, there is actually no rule against changing the MoS without prior discussion. It is wise, but it's not absolutely required. Darkfrog24 (talk) 13:08, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * A worthy clarification, Darkfrog. No ill feeling in any direction, I trust. But I will continue to watch closely and act in the interest of consensual development and clear documentation. The recent ArbCom decision encourages me in this. N oetica Tea? 13:17, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I am comforted to know I didn't trip a wire! But I don't mind Noetica's comment or reversion It probably should be a rule even if it isn't. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:03, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Straight versus curly quote marks
1. Initially the MoS says:


 * Typewriter or straight style: " text ", text . Recommended at Wikipedia.


 * but this is almost immediately contradicted with "... the straight versions are recommended, and double rather than single quotation marks." In other words, single quotes like text  are not recommended at Wikipedia.

2. The following is given in support of the view that double straight quotes should be used:


 * "In its search form Google uses double quotation marks to search for phrases. Google ignores any punctuation marks in the pages it is searching."


 * I do not see how this fact supports that viewpoint.

3. The text also says:


 * Wikipedia's search facility, and the prompts that appear as users insert text, ignore double quotation marks, but treat single quotation marks as significant. They also distinguish straight and curly forms (neither ‘occupy’ protests nor “occupy” protests will find the title "Occupy" protests directly, especially in prompts).


 * This is contradictory. First it says that Wikipedia search ignores double quote markes; then it says that “occupy” will not match "occupy", so obviously it doesn't ignore them.


 * 86.160.221.37 (talk) 01:56, 27 April 2012 (UTC)


 * In response to (1), what is in the MoS is not actually contradictory if you read Manual_of_Style. The default is double quotation marks, but you need to alternate single and double quotation marks in some cases. The "explanations" concerning searching are, I agree, a little unclear. What is meant by ... ignore double quotation marks, but treat single quotation marks as significant is, in each case, straight quotation marks I think. Peter coxhead (talk) 18:22, 26 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Those are fair concerns to have, Peter [post actually by 86.160.221.37]. I'm glad you have raised them. That explanatory section, drafted by me, was subjected to scrutiny for more than a week on this talkpage. I adjusted it after a few useful comments, and only then put it into WP:MOS. I cannot recall whether it is has been altered since. Probably, a little.
 * Now to details in the points you make:


 * Point 1
 * "... but this is almost immediately contradicted with '... the straight versions are recommended, and double rather than single quotation marks.' In other words, single quotes like text are not recommended at Wikipedia."
 * Not really, I think. You omitted context at the start of your point. This preceded what you quote:
 * "There are two possible methods for rendering quotation marks at Wikipedia (that is, the Quotation mark glyphs, displayed with emphasis here, for clarity):"
 * So that part just deals with the straight–curly distinction. The wording that you go on to cite does not follow "almost immediately", since it is under a different rubric and addresses a different topic. I will concede this: the use of single marks for nested quotations is glossed over, just there. I do not think that is a serious difficulty though. It is all explained at the appropriate place in MOS, and people want to reduce the size of MOS, right? Still, if it is a problem, perhaps the wording could be supplemented like this (see underlined):
 * "But for practical reasons the straight versions are recommended, and double rather than single quotation marks as primary."
 * I prefer this to your re-wording with "default", because that can be construed in various ways also.


 * Point 2
 * "I do not see how this fact supports that viewpoint."
 * Well, that is one notable fact among others; it is well to alert editors to it. Consider this scenario, for just one example: A reader selects some text from an article and pastes it as a Google search. The behaviour of the search will differ, depending on whether the included quote marks are single or double. It is well to be aware of that. And then also, this about Google sets up what is then said about internal searches on Wikipedia, which work differently.


 * Point 3
 * "This is contradictory. First it says that Wikipedia search ignores double quote markes; then it says that “occupy” will not match 'occupy', so obviously it doesn't ignore them."
 * Well noted. I agree. The text should be amended to something like:
 * "Wikipedia's search facility treats differently styled quotation marks in unintuitive ways; and the prompts that appear as users insert text ignore straight double quotation marks, but treat other quotation marks as significant."
 * I think that's right. Try various experiments, progressively typing in these strings and monitoring the prompts that appear:
 * Weird Al Yankovic
 * “Weird Al” Yankovic
 * ‘Weird Al’ Yankovic
 * "Weird Al" Yankovic
 * 'Weird Al' Yankovic
 * It is important that such detail be recorded accurately and comprehensively somewhere; and WP:MOS seems to be an excellent location to gather it all together for the benefit of editors.
 * N oetica Tea? 23:38, 26 April 2012 (UTC)


 * (OP) I'm sorry, I think there may have been a confusion here because I forgot to sign my original post and it ran into Peter's response. I have now signed it above. Having read the responses, I stand by all three original points. In the case of #1 it seems obvious (to me, anyway) that anyone reading the text in question would assume that 'this' is just as good as "this", which actually seems to be not what we want to say. In the case of #2, this aspect of Google search behaviour may be "notable" and of interest to readers, but then so are dozens of other things no doubt. However, I still do not understand why this Google behaviour is a reason for Wikipedia to prefer straight double quotes, as opposed to standardising on any other style. And if it isn't a reason then it doesn't belong in a section titled "Reasons to prefer ...". Not that I'm saying any of these things is a huge deal, but just what I noticed while I was perusing that part. 86.160.221.37 (talk) 01:56, 27 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Hopefully it's now clear who said what. I do think it's worth adding Noetica's suggested "as primary" to the MoS, as this is what is actually meant.
 * As for the information about searching, I can't see that the subsection headed "Reasons to prefer straight quotation marks and apostrophes (and double quotation marks)" belongs in the body of the main MoS at all. It could be in a footnote, perhaps, or in a subpage, but the MoS itself needs to give sharp, clear guidance. The subsection is also confusing, because it mixes up two entirely different issues: straight vs. curly and single vs. double. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:04, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * No contradiction between Points 2 and 3: Wikipedia's search facility is not based on Google, and the former treats curly and straight quotes as distinct whereas the latter doesn't. <span style="background:#00ae00;white-space:nowrap;padding:3px;color:black;font:600 1em 'Gentium Book Basic', serif">― A. di M.​  10:56, 27 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you for sorting out the thread, Peter. I take your points. Let's see what else is said, over a day or so. The details in that section respond to perennial questions and concerns about the long-standing guidelines favouring "..." over “...”, and "..." over '...'. Those guidelines are challenged from time to time, with sound motivation. But they are well backed by community preferences, as it turns out. I will resist moves to lose anything in the comprehensive explanation that we now have; far better to err on the side of giving even more than is relevant, in the interest of telling the whole story. And indeed, more could have been said!
 * Just one note: the explanation is explicitly applied to apostrophes also; and with them, searching (in various modes) is a serious issue. It concerns not only readers, but editors searching through large articles for internal inconsistencies and other matters to adjust. See WP:MOS.
 * N oetica Tea? 11:06, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

There being no further discussion and no strong dissent, I have amended text under the heading "Reasons to prefer straight quotation marks and apostrophes (and double quotation marks)". I went somewhat further than the detailed suggestions above; but it is all in accord with the extensive consultation that we had earlier on this issue. As it now stands, the explanation is a central resource that can be appealed to generally in WP work, wherever it is needed (and it is needed!), for certain issues with quotation marks and apostrophes.

N oetica Tea? 23:36, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Need for shortcut disamb?
I find out I've been merrily linking WP:CONSISTENCY believing it led to the MOS lede "consistent with the titles of related articles" and I find out it links further down the MOS page to "consistent within articles". Duh. Is there any value in creating a separate WP:CONSISTENTTITLES to the former. Or is that pointless seeing as there's more detailed information at AT on WP:NAMINGCRITERIA. Or is there value in creating WP:CONSISTENTTITLES to link to AT? In ictu oculi (talk) 04:09, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * If you make a shortcut for your stated purpose, please choose something shorter.
 * —Wavelength (talk) 06:11, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:MATCHING ? In ictu oculi (talk) 06:50, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Consistency across article titles is not a MOS issue but something for WP:AT and it should be discussed at Wikipedia talk:Article titles -- PBS (talk) 09:56, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay. In ictu oculi (talk) 13:58, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * For the subsection Manual of Style (permanent link here), I suggest the shortcut MOS:AT (red link now).
 * —Wavelength (talk) 16:17, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I think that is a bad idea much better not to create it and to use the policy link to WP:AT. On that same issue this "The Manual of Style applies to all parts of an article, including the title ...", needs to be removed. The title is governed by the AT policy and its naming conventions and when the two contradict each other over a title of an article, the At policy takes presidents just as WP:V takes presidents over WP:RS. The current sentence implies otherwise and I presume was put in there by arguments by some editors over hyphens and ndashes. -- PBS (talk) 19:23, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * It's there because people have argued that AT COMMONNAME arguments apply to stylistic issues like dashes and therefore override MOS, which they don't. Are there substantial AT issues that the current MOS wording suggests would also be overridden? — kwami (talk) 07:41, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Then agreement is needed to add it to the appropriate place in the WP:AT policy or its guidelines. If this guideline is in conflict with the AT policy then policy should be followed. What should not be placed in this guideline is any wording that implies that guidance here takes precedence over policy. In the same way that guidance over content in the AT policy should be kept to a minimum and should not contradict the MOS. -- PBS (talk) 12:20, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Following discussion with JHunterJ and PBS propose to create WP:MATCHTITLE to shortcut to Article titles, since a shortcut of some sort to "Consistency – Titles follow the same pattern as those of similar articles." would be helpful given that WP:CONSISTENCY only links to "consistency within articles", and the MOS lede "consistent with the titles of related articles" currently has no handy shortcut to reference this guideline.In ictu oculi (talk) 10:17, 28 April 2012 (UTC)


 * You have made a proposal but you have not answered the question on the policy talk page as to what the proposed link should link to. As for the comment in Manual of Style I think either you are misreading it by placing emphasis on specific phrases or it needs to be rewritten. It is an attempt in a couple of sentences to summarise a detailed policy with many guidelines called naming conventions. The first sentence in the paragraph to which you refer says: "The title of an article should be based on the Article titles policy". The policy makes it clear that consistency between articles does not override other criteria "and ideally indicate titles that are in accordance with the principles behind the above questions". It is not helpful therefore to create links that encourage editor to read the summary Manual of Style if one phrase is being used to encourage unfamiliar editors to misunderstand the wording of the AT policy. If you need to point editors unfamiliar with the AT policy then use the links such as WP:AT -- and WP:UE for foreign names (an area I know you are interested in). -- PBS (talk) 12:20, 29 April 2012 (UTC)


 * The idea that WP:TITLE should make recommendations on the styling of anything, including article titles (except in the most rudimentary ways), is as ridiculous as the idea that WP:MOS should make recommendations on any choice of content, including article titles. We want titles to be styled in a way that matches occurrences in the rest of an article, right? After all, it is a strongly consensual principle that there should be consistency within an article. How could that be achieved, if WP:TITLE dealt with matters of styling for titles, and MOS dealt with styling for everything else? It is an elementary error to assume that WP:TITLE and WP:MOS must come into conflict, and that one must therefore overrule the other. They have their own quite separate domains of responsibility – overlapping only in that titles involve both content and style. Word choice is a matter of content; styling of sequences of words once they are chosen is a matter of styling. Obviously.
 * It's like AGF: assume harmony, not discord. We have been through all that before.
 * N oetica Tea? 14:24, 29 April 2012 (UTC) ☺
 * Hi Noetica, I have proposed on the talk page there the same as notified here, to create WP:MATCHTITLE to shortcut to Wikipedia:Article titles#Deciding on an article title, "Consistency – Titles follow the same pattern as those of similar articles." as this is simpler than linking WP:Article Titles "Consistency – Titles follow the same pattern as those of similar articles.". Am I to understand that you are against/in favour/neutral on creation of such a shortcut? In ictu oculi (talk) 23:16, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Ictus, I do not participate at talkpages where rational process is compromised or dominated by ideologues, and where one risks ending up at WP:AN, WP:ANI, or even ArbCom if one takes a stand against their abuses. (This present talkpage has evolved beyond such difficulties; let's be grateful for that!) So I do not join in any deliberations at WT:TITLE. To answer your question, I am solidly in favour of very many sorts of consistency and standardisation, though I stress that consistency is often problematic. One kind of consistency can compete with another.
 * As for consistency in article titles, I say that WP:MOS (along with all its auxiliary pages) recommends on consistent styling for titles, and WP:TITLE (along with all its auxiliary pages) ought to make some recommendations for consistent wording (and such fundamentals as "begin with a capital letter"). The styling matters are easier to settle than the wording matters, and with just a few exceptions they are quite distinct from them. (An example of an overlap: whether "the" is to be included at the start of a title.)
 * When all of that has been discussed and settled in an orderly way, with properly organised and wide community consultation, it will be possible rationally to address the subordinate matter of shortcuts.
 * N oetica Tea? 01:42, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Avoid preceding a direct quote with "that"
I propose an additional guideline for either Manual of Style or Quotations: Avoid preceding a direct quote with "that". An example of this objectionable usage appears in International reactions to the 2011 Egyptian revolution (permalink):
 * New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof said that "it should be increasingly evident that Mr. Mubarak is not the remedy for instability in Egypt; he is its cause. The road to stability in Egypt requires Mr. Mubarak's departure, immediately."

The word that should be removed because it implies that what follows is a description of what Kristof said, not his exact words. This principle is obvious, but because this error is so prevalent in Wikipedia, an explicit rule would be helpful.

I started this discussion at Wikipedia talk:Quotations four days ago and nobody has responded yet; in the interests of keeping the discussion in one place I ask that people respond there, not here, unless people strongly believe that this is the right place. —Anomalocaris (talk) 06:15, 24 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Wow. The main question is whether that one is too obvious for the MoS.  I fix that one wherever I find it. Darkfrog24 (talk) 13:15, 24 April 2012 (UTC)


 * [*Ahem*] Beware the obvious. It is perfectly normal and justifiable to write like that. Two examples that occur in NHR, without a murmur of disapproval, in the chapter "Quotations and direct speech":
 * He is alleged to have replied that 'our old college no longer exists'. (p. 154)
 * He asserted that 'Americans don't understand history', and that 'intervention would be a disaster'. (p. 156)
 * For similar examples in CMOS16, see 13.14, in which two have "that" immediately before the quoted material. Another one of interest there:
 * Benjamin Franklin advises us to "plough deep while sluggards sleep."
 * (And if you think that is acceptable but preceding with "that" is unacceptable, you have a job of explaining to do.)
 * Similarly again, CMOS16 at 13.15 gives an example of indented quotation beginning like this:
 * ... Aristotle observes that
 * revolutions break out when opposite parties, ... [continues as a long indented paragraph]
 * So is this to be condemned also? If not, why not? If so, why?
 * It is easy to find examples like all of these with a Googlebooks search, in well-edited books from serious publishers:, , , and so on.
 * N oetica Tea? 14:11, 24 April 2012 (UTC) ☺♪
 * The that is not actually wrong in Anomalocaris' example, but I'd still omit it. I guess the fact that that quotation is so much longer than in Noetica's examples (more than one sentence) must have something to do with this intuition of mine. If the it should started the sentence in the original, too, I'd go with Kristof said, "It should be blah blah, immediately.", with this punctuation and capitalization. <span style="background:#00ae00;white-space:nowrap;padding:3px;color:black;font:600 1em 'Gentium Book Basic', serif">― A. di M.​   23:46, 24 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Starting with the easy one, there is no problem at all with the Ben Franklin example. The issue is that the word that implies that what follows is a description or paraphrase, not the exact words originally used. The example He is alleged to have replied that 'our old college no longer exists' leads me to be less certain that "our old college no longer exists" were his (alleged) exact words. The word that suggests that maybe the single quotation marks are there for some reason other than identifying the speaker's exact words. Perhaps "our old college no longer exists" is an even older expression, or a book title, or a line from a song, or something out there in the culture, and point is that someone alleges that "he", whoever he is, was alleged to have replied echoing the sentiment of this old expression without using these exact words. The word that dilutes the certainty that he was alleged to have used those exact words. This same logic applies to the other inline examples. It doesn't apply in the Aristotle example, because the blockquote is extremely compelling as exact words. I view all of Noetica's that examples from NHR as careless, even if grammatical and not entirely wrong. It doesn't surprise me that a style manual would include examples that are grammatical and not wrong, but have problems in ways its editors did not thing about.—Anomalocaris (talk) 07:19, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

¶ I've never, ever, inferred that anything in quotation marks is meant to be anything other than direct quotation; I've always considered it misleading if not actually dishonest to put a paraphrase within quotation marks. That's precisely what quotation marks are for: actual words are what go within quotation marks. I've never considered that whether something within quotation marks is preceded by "that", or by anything else, affects the accuracy or precision of what's within them. [This is different from speech, where -- in the absence of quotation marks -- "that" sometimes suggests a paraphrase instead of a direct quotation.] So I think this (to me) utterly novel guidance is completely misguided. Two subsidiary points: These are difficult questions that can and should be discussed somewhere (like my hypothetical Wikipedia magazine of common practice), but can't and shouldn't be pinned down in something that's become so prescriptive and proscriptive as the Manual of Style; the topic's just too murky. —— Shakescene (talk) 04:32, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) "that" as a conjunction often makes the grammar, intention and meaning of a sentence much clearer, while the question of whether to precede the quotation marks with a comma (Frank said, "Let's go!") is a very fuzzy choice, partly dependent on WP:ENGVAR and partly on where and when you first learned to write. To my eyes, New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof said, "it should be increasingly evident that Mr. Mubarak is not... is clumsier than using "that".
 * 2) Where "that" may come into play is where the quotation begins with the beginning of a sentence. If Mr Kristof had begun his sentence, "It should be increasingly evident", then none of the choices is entirely satisfactory, as for example in the way I just framed this sentence. Legal and highly-scholarly documents that try to reproduce every character precisely would write something ugly like "[i]t should be increasingly evident". Less formal (even encyclopaedic) usage must choose between sticking a confusing, jarring capital in the middle of a sentence, inserting a confusing comma that enjoys no universal convention, or not letting the reader know if a whole sentence is being quoted by putting "it" in lower case.
 * I agree very much with Shakescene on this one. I honestly find it hard to see any problem with the usage stated that "X". The quotation marks make it obvious enough that it's a direct quotation: if it were indirect speech, they wouldn't be there. On the other hand&mdash;and this is perhaps because I've gotten too used to academic style&mdash;I don't see anything ugly about the square-brackets convention either. --Tyrannus Mundi (talk) 19:56, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Absolutely. The "that" construction is perfectly fine and useful--just be careful (a) not to put a comma after "that" or (b) capitalize the initial letter of the quotation, as the "that" makes it a syntactical part of the sentence. The "that" construction is common throughout great English literature, from the classics to the present day. I'm very surprised to find that there's any debate about this at all. DocKino (talk) 07:49, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Table of contents: position
What are the pros and cons (advantages and disadvantages; benefits and drawbacks) of positioning the table of contents at the right-hand side of the page, as in this version of 20:21, 30 April 2012? —Wavelength (talk) 23:25, 30 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Pros: it saves a few square inches of space; cons: it confuses readers used to seeing a ToC at the left-hand side on nearly any other Wikipedia page, and it makes the text of the first section unusually narrow, especially on small displays. <span style="background:#00ae00;white-space:nowrap;padding:3px;color:black;font:600 1em 'Gentium Book Basic', serif">― A. di M.​  00:43, 1 May 2012 (UTC)


 * [Note added later: I was assuming here that the question related to the TOC in WP:MOS, prompted by the recent move of the TOC to the right – which I reverted.–N] Rather than answer that question directly, I would call for a broader discussion. Should the depth of the TOC be limited, so that lower-level subsections are not marked? (I would not readily agree to that.) Is there an option to have the TOC in columns? (I could not find that among the various TOC templates; but it would extremely useful.) Is there value in a more customised approach, given the inevitable complexity of the page? (One template allows for a hidden TOC that can be revealed by a simple click of the mouse; that would be excellent, along with a manually generated list of internal links serving as a de facto high-level TOC.)
 * Should we start a new section, to open such a broad discussion? We will need technical advice concerning the range of possibilities. Background reading: WP:TOC, and the bewildering but dangerously enticing templates listed here: Category:Wikipedia table of contents templates (how would I link that, by the way?).
 * N oetica Tea? 01:23, 1 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Categories are linked by the use of a preceding colon: Category:Wikipedia table of contents templates.
 * —Wavelength (talk) 01:39, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * See Help:Category.
 * —Wavelength (talk) 01:55, 1 May 2012 (UTC)


 * This is a question of common sense. Sometimes a  is a good thing, usually not.  Page by page decision, as is the TOC depth, not a MoS matter.  Rich Farmbrough, 02:11, 1 May 2012 (UTC).


 * O, of course! Myself, I had assumed that the question was about WP:MOS's own TOC. Someone very recently moved it the right, and I reverted that and called for discussion. I assumed that this was the discussion that I had requested! The general issue is not a matter for WP:MOS to address, I agree.
 * N oetica Tea? 02:41, 1 May 2012 (UTC) ♫


 * When I started this discussion (in response to your request), I provided a link to the relevant version of Wikipedia’s Manual of Style, and the question was about its table of contents, and not about general questions about tables of contents on Wikipedia.
 * —Wavelength (talk) 03:01, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * As for having several columns, I've tried  but it doesn't seem to work. (FWIW, I think the default looks just fine; YMMV.) <span style="background:#00ae00;white-space:nowrap;padding:3px;color:black;font:600 1em 'Gentium Book Basic', serif">― A. di M.​   13:50, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

U.S. at the USA
Lemme put this here so we can get more feedback.

There's a problem at the United States of America article. Namely, that American usage (supposedly) generally favors U.S. in preference to US, but every single other abbreviation in the article apart from D.C. is given without punctuation.

Now, that's a perfectly valid way of looking at the current MOS guidelines here, but it's also an eyesore ("the United States, the U.S., the USA, America"). It's much more common now for real style guides to advise against any punctuation (costs ink, after all), but there's nothing wrong with keeping the punctuation – as long as you use it consistency for all the abbreviations in your piece.

Now, I hardly want to avoid American English at the USA page, but surely standardizing the usage and avoiding jarring text (the whole point of a MOS, after all) is more important than whatever segment of the American population will only surrender those particular full stops from their cold, dead hands.

In any case, discussion here. Feel free to weigh in. — LlywelynII  04:28, 28 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Please correct your link. It should be Talk:United States. Art LaPella (talk) 05:17, 28 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I disagree with the premise that seeing 'U.S.' and 'NASCAR' in the same article is "jarring" and the assertion that if 'U.S.' is used, we should switch to 'N.A.S.C.A.R.' (an actual example from the discussion). Some abbreviations are commonly written with periods.  Others aren't.
 * I personally have no strong attachment to 'U.S.' over 'US". Both are acceptable abbreviations (depending on the context).  But I don't believe that it's appropriate for an editor to unilaterally switch an article (let alone the United States article) from the former to the latter, particularly on the basis of a nonexistent uniformity guideline.  —David Levy 05:35, 28 April 2012 (UTC)


 * What's wrong with U dot S dot? English-speakers outside North America don't use the dots. It looks ugly; the dots are redundant; it causes inconsistency with sibling abbreviations that are not dotted (USA, the old acronym for the country-name, and the current one for the army), not to mention UK. "US" is widely used by Americans. The most recent edition of the authoritative Chicago Manual of Style reversed its long-standing insistence on dot dot. Tony   (talk)  07:22, 28 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree with some of those points, and I think that a reasonable case could be made for standardizing on "US" throughout Wikipedia. But that hasn't occurred.  —David Levy 07:33, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
 * We should also consider that dots prevent "U.S." from being read as a capitalized "us." Darkfrog24 (talk) 19:20, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Scarcely a valid argument: given that we don't capitalise for emphasis, the number of circumstances in which we would have the pronoun capitalised in such a way as it could be confused with the abbreviation of the abbreviation of the country's name is miniscule. Kevin McE (talk) 19:45, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
 * It's no less valid than mentioning the minuscule practical disadvantages of U.S. with dots. I figured the advantage should be put next to them. Darkfrog24 (talk) 23:12, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

I doubt it's American usage to use periods. More likely it's age. Older docs tend to use periods, newer ones tend not to. I would support ⟨US⟩ at USA and ⟨DC⟩ at Washington. — kwami (talk) 07:37, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
 * To my (American) eyes, 'US' doesn't look wrong (and I recognize its advantages, particularly in certain contexts), but it looks less right than 'U.S.' does.
 * It isn't a matter of favoring a particular style across the board. ('U.K.' looks quite odd.)  It's a matter of what I'm accustomed to reading and writing.  'U.S.' traditionally has been the predominant style in American English (though 'US' seems to be closing the gap).  —David Levy 07:54, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
 * There is the problem that some organisations and federal agencies still have the dots in their names—it will take some years for them to change. You can't force the issue on WP at the moment, I think. Tony   (talk)  08:10, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Is there any reason this should not be covered under WP:ENGVAR? You can't force a guideline just because you think something looks ugly. There needs to be something more compelling than that. --Jiang (talk) 08:13, 28 April 2012 (UTC)


 * It isn't a matter of ENGVAR. David thinks that ⟨U.S.⟩ is still dominant in the US, though that's not my impression. Regardless, though, it's close enough that it isn't an either–or situation like 'lift' instead of 'elevator'. Both are used, so apart from proper names it's just a matter of style. — kwami (talk) 09:12, 28 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I am specifically referring to the sentence "For consistency in an article, if the abbreviated form for the United States appears alongside other abbreviated country names, avoid periods throughout." Major American publications use "U.S." with "U.K." (Bloomberg, USA Today, Washington Post). Why not use periods throughout if the article is written in American English? Unlike periods in three or more letter abbreviations, periods in two letter abbreviations are commonplace. If we can't agree on this, we are better off without this sentence in the MoS.-Jiang (talk) 09:36, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay, I'm hearing a lot of "The dots are ugly," and "It must just be OLD people who use dots!" That's a big blaring warning bell for something that absolutely does not belong in the MoS: people's pet peeves and personal preferences. The MoS should no be about where people think English is going to go.  It should be about where English is.  We can always change it later.
 * Right now, Chicago advocates against the dots, but not all American style guides do. For now, we should consider "U.S." and "US" the way we consider the serial comma&mdash;optional in American English.
 * I concur with David Levy that "U.S." and "NASCAR"/"NASA" do not constitute intra-article inconsistency. Darkfrog24 (talk) 19:16, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I concur with Darkfrog24 and David Levy.  --Coolcaesar (talk) 22:23, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, "optional in American English" seems to capture it. — kwami (talk) 01:43, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Proposed rewording of the current guidelines (please comment):
 * In North American English, U.S. (with periods) is the dominant abbreviation for United States. US (without periods) is more common in most other national forms of English. Some American publications, such as The Chicago Manual of Style (16th ed.) now deprecates the use of the periods. Usage of periods for initialisms should be consistent within any given article, and congruent with the variety of English used by that article. In longer abbreviations incorporating the country's initials (USN, USAF), periods are not used. When the United States is mentioned with one or more other countries in the same sentence, U.S. or US may be too informal, especially at the first mention or as a noun instead of an adjective (France and the United States, not France and the U.S.). Do not use the spaced U. S., nor the archaic U.S. of A., except when quoting. Do not use U.S.A. or USA, except in a quotation or as part of a proper name (Team USA).

--Jiang (talk) 00:51, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't like the smell of this; you're on record as warring to have the dots made mandatory everywhere. To start with, please quote only the bit you propose be changed, and provide old and new side by side. Tony   (talk)  01:47, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps you've (again) confused me with someone else. I don't recall having "warred" on this topic, but do recall you having falsely claimed that I was banned or blocked due to this topic. Please see WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT.

I will detail the changes. These are mainly factual corrections, except for the very last bullet point: --Jiang (talk) 02:24, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
 * "In American English" -> "In North American English" - periods are also used in Canada, see the CBC.
 * "is more common as the standard abbreviation" -> "is the dominant abbreviation" - There is no such thing as a "standard abbreviation", but only what is more common.
 * "although The Chicago Manual of Style now deprecates the use of the periods (16th ed.)" -> "Some American publications, such as The Chicago Manual of Style (16th ed.) now deprecates the use of the periods." - This should be a sentence on its own, and should be reworded to indicate that "US" is minority, rather than non-existent usage. I'm not sure why the Chicago Manual of Style deserved mention here but not elsewhere.
 * "is generally accepted in most other national forms" -> "is more common in most other national forms" - It's accepted, not generally accepted. The point you want to convey is what is more common.
 * "especially at the first mention" -> "especially at the first mention or as a noun instead of an adjective" - The point to be made is that "France and the U.S." is too informal, while "U.S. President" is not.
 * "For consistency in an article, if the abbreviated form for the United States appears alongside other abbreviated country names, avoid periods throughout; never add full stops to the other abbreviations (the US, the UK, and the PRC, not the U.S., the U.K., and the P.R.C.)." -> "Usage of periods for initialisms should be consistent within any given article, and congruent with the variety of English used by that article." - As I stated above, I don't see how punctuation should be excluded from WP:ENGVAR. Mainstream American sources use periods for two letter abbreviations while excluding them for three letter abbreviations. The guidelines should not force a consistency where none exists.
 * Yes, this is certainly an ENGVAR issue rather than something that should be the same across all articles. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 12:10, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd prefer "American and Canadian English" to "North American English" because the two aren't quite the same, but other than that, change that "deprecates" to "deprecate" and I think we're good. Darkfrog24 (talk)


 * This thread began with a meritless complaint. There is no reason that there should be "consistency" among abbreviations having or not having periods. Some do and some don't. In some cases, Wikipedia allows for optional periods, including academic degrees, e.g. PhD or Ph.D.


 * U.S. is preferred in the U.S.; it's the form used in The New York Times, The Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, and Time. U.S. is better than US because periods minimize confusion with the English word us, which is US when written in all caps. However, Wikipedia can't require U.S. because US is preferred some variants of English including British English and Australian English.


 * The main thing is that this consistency thing is preposterous. There is no problem with "After vacationing in Ithaca, N.Y., Jones visited the Ireland and the UK." There is no problem with "Rogers got her B.A. in France and her Ph.D. in the UK." There is no problem with "Ross got her BA in Washington, D.C." Therefore, the existing rule, "For consistency in an article, if the abbreviated form for the United States appears alongside other abbreviated country names, avoid periods throughout....", should be striken. —Anomalocaris (talk) 06:42, 30 April 2012 (UTC)


 * It is inconsistent, that's not "preposterous", it's a fact. It makes the paragraph look like a ransom note, cut and pasted from several sources with no regard for style. You can say you don't care, that "U.S." must have its own rule, but you can't say it's consistent. Barsoomian (talk)


 * This discussion needs to be about usage in existing, comparable, and reputable sources, not WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT. If existing, comparable, and reputable sources use it, then there needs to be a better justification than personal preference to create a rule that forces a consistency that does not exist in the real world. The inconsistency is when "U.S." and "US" appear in the same article - no one is advocating that.--Jiang (talk) 08:08, 30 April 2012 (UTC)


 * If you're claiming that I was saying WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT, no. I was saying that it is inconsistent. An MoS is all about determining a self-consistent usage in a publication, so that aspect cannot be just dismissed as "preposterous", let alone "personal preference". You could find a dozen different ways to use, say, quotemarks, in "reputable sources", but we still have a section here choosing a subset of that. Given both with and without points are found in the wild, we can choose to prefer one or the other here. Barsoomian (talk) 08:21, 30 April 2012 (UTC)


 * The use of periods matches the variety of English used by the source (i.e. the national origin of the source). It is far from random and arbitrary. --Jiang (talk) 09:56, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Barsoomian, your comment "It makes the paragraph look like a ransom note," is a personal opinion, so Jiang's comment that your own personal preferences are coming into play here is valid. Whatever other points you may make, you have also expressed that you just don't like it.  Full disclosure: While Anomalocaris' points are all true and valid, I also just do like it. Darkfrog24 (talk) 16:07, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Of course I have a personal preference. However, the ransom note remark is not simply saying "I don't  like it", I was saying just how it looks inconsistent, in the same way that the jumbled styles in a ransom note do.  I get annoyed when I explain my reasoning only to have it all dismissed as  Barsoomian (talk) 08:14, 3 May 2012 (UTC)


 * In clarification, when I said "... this consistency thing is preposterous", I didn't mean to deny that there is an inconsistency between U.S. and UK. I meant that the goal of consistency between them is preposterous. However, in the interests of full disclosure, I searched the websites of various newspapers, including Canadian sites ottawacitizen.com, theglobeandmail.com, and macleans.ca, and U.S. sites washingtonpost.com and sfgate.com. These sites all use primarily U.S. and most of them use both U.K. and UK. Most articles mentioning both countries use U.S. and U.K. I did not find any media website that prefers U.S. and UK and uses this "inconsistent" style when both countries are mentioned in the same article. So, even though I would prefer to see U.S. and UK in the same article, the major media sites I searched prefer the "consistent" U.S. and U.K. —Anomalocaris (talk) 08:30, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I was responding more to the idea that it was preposterous to be concerned about consistency. And from your research it seems newspaper editors are concerned in this regard. Barsoomian (talk)


 * @Anomalocaris There is no problem with "Rogers got her B.A. in France and her Ph.D. in the UK." – Perhaps there isn't, but this isn't quite the issue. For me there would be a problem with "Rogers got her B.A. in the U.S. and her Ph.D. in the UK." Using "U.S." in a list of countries which otherwise use forms such as "UK" or "PRC" is a more blatant inconsistency. I agree with those who say that this should be avoided. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:11, 30 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I can see a potential issue with "Rogers got her B.A. in the U.S. and her Ph.D. in the UK" in that most American sources seem to put periods in both, though a sizable number leave them in "U.S." but leave them out in "UK". But then if you want to favor this sort of consistency, then "U.S. and U.K." and "US and UK" would be equally valid based on appearance in American sources. Some two letter abbreviations, such as the "UC" in UC Berkeley almost never come with periods, so sources will use "UC" without periods while keeping periods in "U.S." (example) Given that it is commonly done, I view this as perfectly fine. Three letter abbreviations must further be distinguished from two letter abbreviations - "PRC" never comes with periods, as "USA" seldom does. The Manual of Style must reflect common usage and convention, not a consistency that does not exist in the real world.--Jiang (talk) 09:56, 30 April 2012 (UTC)


 * The Manual of Style must reflect common usage and convention, not a consistency that does not exist in the real world. This is a recipe for no style at all. There are many different "common uses" and "conventions"; the task of the MoS is, as far as possible, to choose one of them, based on consensus and allowing for legitimate variations, such as ENGVAR. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:36, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually "The Manual of Style must reflect common usage and convention, not a consistency that does not exist in the real world" is exactly what we should have. Otherwise we'll imagine problems where there are none, as in this case.  In English, some acronyms have periods and some don't. Darkfrog24 (talk) 16:07, 30 April 2012 (UTC)


 * If you mean that full stops are tied to the acronym, i.e. that some acronyms always have full stops and some don't, this is clearly wrong. In some publications and in some varieties of English, some acronyms have full stops; in other publications and in other varieties of English, the same acronyms don't. Peter coxhead (talk) 18:39, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I mean that some acronyms must have periods, some must not have periods, and some may go either way. As I said earlier, the dots in U.S. should be considered optional in American English.Darkfrog24 (talk) 21:26, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Some acronyms always have periods, at least in certain contexts. Two-letter U.S. state abbreviations must have periods when used along with other state abbreviations written with periods. For example, if an article already has Calif. and Ore., it must use N.Y. and not the postal code NY. New York City public schools are always P.S. and a number. I don't know if this rule applies to other cities. The Latin e.g. and i.e. are always with periods. —Anomalocaris (talk) 19:38, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I was taught that the difference between an acronym and an abbreviation is that acronyms never have full stops, whilst abbreviations can have them (but don't always: "River" and "Saint" are abbreviated to "R" and "St", no full stop). Anyway. The Unites States Postal service has used many forms; here is one using USA. -- Red rose64 (talk) 19:55, 30 April 2012 (UTC)


 * This is the basis for WP:ENGVAR. There is no need for inter-article consistency on conventions that mirror national usage. Trying to impose one on a project like this won't get any consensus. It is better to seek intra-article consistency based on the variety of English used in the article. In American English, "U.S." with "PRC" is not inconsistent as it is used by multiple published sources - if usage is systemic then it is not inconsistent. The inconsistency you have to worry about is using "U.S." in one part of the article and "US" in another. We could also demand that all two-letter abbreviations in articles written in American/Canadian English have periods as this is the prevalent usage. I don't exactly advocate this, nor would I oppose it - is this what you prefer? --Jiang (talk) 18:12, 30 April 2012 (UTC)


 * What I would like is for the MoS to give clear default advice which I can follow. I'm British, so if I edit an article which is written in American English (I've been greatly expanding one such for the last month), I don't automatically know how to style acronyms and I'm happy to follow advice given in the MoS (e.g. I wouldn't have known that "US" is preferred to "USA"). American or Canadian editors with strong views can do what they like, as far as I am concerned, so long as there is intra-article consistency. Peter coxhead (talk) 18:39, 30 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Personally, I would like it if when one national style is variable, we go with the shared form. In the US it's either ⟨U.S.⟩ or ⟨US⟩, and in the UK it's ⟨US⟩, so we go with ⟨US⟩ in US-related articles. Similarly, since in the UK it's either -ise or -ize, and in the US -ize, we go with -ize in UK-related articles. Why exaggerate the differences? They're just an annoyance. I don't know if a 'use the shared form when possible' guideline would be practical, though. — kwami (talk) 19:16, 30 April 2012 (UTC)


 * The problem is there are more than two varieties of English. In New Zealand English, the "ize" form doesn't appear. We could very well get rid of WP:ENGVAR and come up with a standard set of spellings mixing the varieties of English, and this would make logical sense, but I don't think such a proposal would ever gain consensus as the current system of inter-article inconsistency has never been much of an issue. --Jiang (talk) 20:11, 30 April 2012 (UTC)


 * People who don't know British spelling should not edit British articles specifically for spelling. People who do not know U.S. punctuation should not be editing American English articles for punctuation.  If those editors are editing for facts, then almost any errors that they introduce will be worth it and can be expected to be corrected by subsequent editors.  I do not believe that the MoS needs a separate section detailing specific differences between British, American and other varieties, though a mention here and there might do.  I usually check the articles about those varieties when I need to. Darkfrog24 (talk) 21:26, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

You seem to be saying that we don't need the MoS to give guidance on spelling or punctuation because these can be left to editors who know about these topics – disinterested experts who will magically come along later and fix everything. It's certainly not my experience of Wikipedia editing! Peter coxhead (talk) 21:47, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Just so you remember there are more disinterested experts than obedient slaves who read everything in the Manual and its subpages before editing. Art LaPella (talk) 22:49, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
 * No, Peter, that is not what I am saying. I am saying 1. that the MoS does not need a section dedicated to every little difference between British and American usage (in part because other articles already fill that need), 2. that if people don't know U.S. usage, then they shouldn't click the "edit" button to fix U.S. usage in the first place (but doing so for other reasons is okay), and 3. factual accuracy is more important than correct usage (which is nonetheless still pretty darn important).  Of course the MoS should give guidance on spelling and punctuation in general.  It's an MoS.
 * Art&mdash;Regrettable but true. And I think the PC term is "wikignome." Darkfrog24 (talk) 23:07, 30 April 2012 (UTC)


 * WP:MOS can have a link to "American and British English differences".
 * —Wavelength (talk) 23:19, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

en dashes in category names
Recently a bot has switched a bunch of categories over from hyphens to dashes, evidently because I moved the main article. This makes them inaccessible: HotCat no longer recognizes the hyphenated form. That might be fixable, but one of the managers over there is pouting because he doesn't like dashes and so refuses to make them accessible. Do we even care if our categories names follow MOS? — kwami (talk) 08:20, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * A comment by Jenks24 on that page seems to imply they've finally implemented category redirects; if so, the solution is to just treat them the same way as articles, i.e. recommending that whenever a category name contains off-keyboard characters, a redirect from each plausible keyboard approximation of it be created. <span style="background:#00ae00;white-space:nowrap;padding:3px;color:black;font:600 1em 'Gentium Book Basic', serif">― A. di M.​  13:14, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's evidently been their advice for a year. Is it appropriate to cover here? — kwami (talk) 21:29, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * In the past, this issue has been debated extensively at WT:CFD. There have been some who have argued that categories should not follow the MOS. About two and a half years ago, there emerged a consensus that with category redirects, it now makes sense to not make categories an "exception" to general rules followed by article titles. (The poll/discussion is found here.) It's been working relatively well. If a user feels that an en dash in a category name makes the category inaccessible, the best thing to do is just create a soft category redirect on the version of the category name that uses a hyphen. Hotcat will then recognize both and apply the correct one regardless of which one is added with hotcat. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:56, 2 May 2012 (UTC)


 * What I meant was, is it appropriate for the MOS to instruct editors to add such redirects for categories? — kwami (talk) 04:50, 3 May 2012 (UTC)


 * How I read the outcome of the discussion is that the MOS applies in the same way to categories as to articles. I think it's fair to say that creating a category redirect is currently recommended when a category is created that has an en dash in it. Good Ol’factory (talk) 06:29, 3 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Okay. Added a note. — kwami (talk) 06:46, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Style question: published or released?
I find myself irked to see many of our articles refer to recent books as being "released", instead of "published", which is what I think is what traditionally describes a printed work being made available. Am I wrong, or what do others think? Are there style guides that address this?  Sandstein  06:16, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
 * For some recent books expected to be terribly popular (e.g. the last Harry Potter), they don't allow bookstores to sell, or even show, the copies of the book until a particular date even though they do print and physically distribute them in advance. They even throw parties in bookstores the evening before, with a veil covering the copies which is removed at midnight, and people queueing to be among the first to buy the book. (And there once was an incident where a bookstore accidentally sold some copies of such a book sold before they were supposed to, and people were ordered not to read them.) I'm not sure I would use the word “released” myself, but I can see where people using it are coming from. <span style="background:#00ae00;white-space:nowrap;padding:3px;color:black;font:600 1em 'Gentium Book Basic', serif">― A. di M.​  07:50, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
 * This does not only apply to books, it also applies to financial information such as when the national banks publish their lending rates. In practice, journalists from news agencies such as Reuters, Bloomberg, Dow Jones etc gather at a lock-up room at the bank premises, hand in their mobile phones and take places at their computer desks (the computers are permanently in place).  The room is then locked and the journalists are given the news a few minutes before the "publication time". They then prepare their stories.  The reports are then "published" by the bank offical enabling the computer lines - the journalist's stories go to their respective offices for instant publication while the bank publishes the report on their web page and makes paper copies available to the public.  In this instance the word "published" has a legal meaning. A similar thing happens with company results - people who know the results in advance coudl make a lot of money, but in most countries if they do so, they could also be jailed for "insider trading". Martinvl (talk) 11:47, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Fundamental problems with MOS:IDENTITY
At Village pump (policy) I've raised a concern that two important wikipedia guidelines: that we use the most common name found in secondary sources to determine an article title, and that we prefer titles that reflects the names that people and groups use for themselves. Current policy offers no clear way to determine how to handle a case where the most common name is not the name used by the person or group. So far I've seen this conflict arise in two articles on controversial subjects, Arab citizens of Israel, where it was resolved in favor of using the term preferred by the group, and Bradley Manning, where it appears that editors prefer the term used most commonly in the media (although there is some dispute over how Manning chooses to identify himself). I've proposed a solution to this inconsistency at the Village Pump and I would appreciate editor feedback. GabrielF (talk) 06:25, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Dunno about the article title, but if the way someone usually calls themselves is different from the way they're usually called by secondary sources, this fact should at least be mentioned in the lead, with both names boldfaced, which I can't see in either of your examples. <span style="background:#00ae00;white-space:nowrap;padding:3px;color:black;font:600 1em 'Gentium Book Basic', serif">― A. di M.​  09:54, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Navboxes about music ensembles should list all of the band members
I feel that navboxes about music ensembles should list all of the band members, whether they have articles or not. It is misleading not to put all of the band members past and present in the article. As someone said, this is not discussed in WP:Manual of Style/Music. Thoughts?--Jax 0677 (talk) 09:05, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
 * What about the London Philharmonic Orchestra? Martinvl (talk) 11:37, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Let me rephrase. I think that the names of the band members of a musical ensemble should be added to a navbox, and should not be deleted from said navbox, just because they do not yet have articles.  It is very misleading to have one band member name when the band has several members.  I also see no problem with having all of the members of the London Philharmonic Orchestra in one navbox if someone is willing to write such a navbox (a similar navbox was done for Roadrunner United).--Jax 0677 (talk) 02:19, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I strongly endorse the essay WP:NAV which emphasizes that navigational templates should only be used to link existing articles. As such, I frequently remove releases (albums, singles, etc.) listed on band navboxes that do not currently have articles. A navbox shouldn't be used to give information to the reader—that's what articles are for—but rather to simply facilitate navigation. However, I usually won't remove band members without an existing article from navboxes for fear of a misrepresentation (unless none of the members have articles). If only one member out of five have an article, then only listing one band member could give the impression that this is solo act. This issue seems to be exclusive to band members. For example, if a band has 10 singles but only 5 of them have existing articles, it's not a misrepresentation to only list the 5 singles with articles because a five-single band and a ten-single band are not real things. However, solo projects, quartets, trios, etc. are real things, and I feel this could be misleading to the reader if the exact number of current members isn't listed regardless of existing articles. Fezmar9 (talk) 01:20, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Fezmar9, I couldn't agree with you more (although I don't feel it is at all harmful to list the names of the band members under any circumstance). Keeping all of the names of the band members prevents deception, and articles should probably be written about albums if the band is notable.--Jax 0677 (talk) 03:06, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I feel that to add all members of for example the London Philharmonic Orchestra to an infobox, or indeed to the body of the article risks infringing WP:NOT. List of members of a music group in infoboxes should normally only include the notable permanent members, excluding any who may be considered backing band or session musicians. -- Ohconfucius  ¡digame! 03:43, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

"In fact"
In Hindenburg disaster talk I criticized what I perceive as a bad discource, some kind of too-speculative writing style making bold and pretty irrelevant claims, only to blow them to smithereens with one sentence. I think this is bad authoring. Is there any style guide for how the discource is to flow? Personally I think WP shouldn't speculate about possibilities unless we can find reliable sources speculating about serious possibilities.

Besides that "in fact" is occurring here and there in Wikipedia, but I also consider it a bad style, since Wikipedia is essentially agnostic, and only referring to other sources claims. Rursus dixit. ( m bork3 !) 12:47, 13 May 2012 (UTC)


 * The use of the adverbial phrase in fact seems to be discouraged by MOS:NOTED.
 * —Wavelength (talk) 14:50, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Which guideline for citation style?
Should questions of citation style be covered by the Manual of Style and its sub-pages, by Citing sources, or all of these? This question was triggered by the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers and by a proposal at that same talk page which would create new mandates on citation date format. Jc3s5h (talk) 13:43, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Threaded discussion on which guideline
I suggest it creates an intolerable contradiction to state in WP:Citing sources "...Wikipedia does not have a single house style. Editors may choose any option they want; one article need not match what is done in other articles or what is done in professional publications or recommended by academic style guides. However, citations within a given article should follow a consistent style...." but to go on to give citation style advice in the MOS that contradicts the style that is used in many printed style guides or used, consistently, in many existing articles. So I believe "Citing sources" should be recognized as the primary style guide for citations and the MOS should only summarize "Citing sources". Jc3s5h (talk) 13:43, 6 May 2012 (UTC)


 * The proposal here is that WP:CITE should enjoy primacy over WP:MOSNUM as to the form of dates in the reference sections, but it's not at all clear why WP:CITE should enjoy primacy. I believe WP:CITE was set up to give guidance as to correct provision of citation content, and Manual of Style exists to guide the format of that content and appearance on the display window or printed page. There is nothing wrong nor contradictory for WP:CITE to re-emphasise that date formats ought to be consistent. WP:CITE does have a role to play in governing what parameters are required to achieve the aims of WP:RS and WP:V, amongst others, but it should not pretend a role in determining the ultimate permissible form of those parameters, particularly date format. The combinations of which formats are deemed acceptable has involved consensus developed over a long period. MOSNUM is apparently more restrictive than WP:CITE with respect to dates, but I see no problem in that because WP:CITE ought to concentrate on the substance and cede on matters of form. One consequence of giving WP:CITE primacy over WP:MOSNUM in the matter of date formats that immediately springs to mind is to allow chimera articles where the date formats in the body of an article on a US subject is referenced according to the MLA Style Manual (use of dmy dates in the citations, including access dates). To my mind, that would not be a desirable state of affairs. -- Ohconfucius  ¡digame! 14:27, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The fact that Ohconfucius wants to deprecate usage called for by a printed style manual means that he wants to move toward establishing a house style, which has been repeatedly rejected (for better or worse). Also, there are many automated tools available to implement citations in the the various printed style manuals; one such tool is Zotero. By forcing certain aspects of these styles to be altered for Wikipedia makes the automated tools unusable, and channels development of improved citation methods for Wikipedia in one direction (citation templates) and isolates Wikipedia from improvements that might be made elsewhere. Jc3s5h (talk) 14:36, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Do the tools such as Zotero render dmy, mdy and yyyy-mm-dd dates correctly? And how would having our dates more uniform be detrimental to the evolution of such bibliographic techniques? -- Ohconfucius  ¡digame! 16:41, 6 May 2012 (UTC)


 * My very limited experiments suggest Zotero will change the date stored as metadata in the Zotero program to the format called for in whatever output style the user has selected. And any ruling that says go ahead and use APA style or MLA style or any other style, except make (whatever) change, effectively rules out any automation that is not compatible with citation templates. Jc3s5h (talk) 17:08, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Seeing that Zotaro, and probably most other programs performing a similar function, are all capable of parsing our three permissible date formats in whatever combination (ie dates don't even need to be consistent at all), it seems that you have discounted one major argument for permitting the multitude of 'citation methods'. -- Ohconfucius  ¡digame! 00:15, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I deny that there are three permissible citation date formats; there are as many permissible formats as there are citation styles. All we have is a prohibition against all-numeric formats except YYYY-MM-DD.
 * There is no guidance about what format editors should use to store their dates within any citation software the editor may choose to use on his/her computer. Unless Wikipedia adopts some kind of source database in the future, there is no need for such guidance. All that matters is the format that is placed in the article.
 * The allowance of all consistent citation styles is firmly established; this RfC is about allowing contradictions between guidelines. Jc3s5h (talk) 01:10, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * "I deny that there are three permissible citation date formats" You would do... you've been strongly advocating the supremacy of CITE over MOSNUM, which only permits three. I say there's no contradiction, especially as there seems to be no longer a valid reason for encouraging this diversity of formats within any given article. --  Ohconfucius  ¡digame! 01:25, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:CITE says APA style is allowed. APA style gives the following example of a publication date in a citation: "(1993, September 30). (p. 200). Your statement "there seems to be no longer a valid reason for encouraging this diversity of formats within any given article" is incompatible with WP:CITE, established consensus, and WP:MOSNUM. Jc3s5h (talk) 01:50, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I am not opposed to having dmy dates in the reference sections; I personally have no gripes with a US subject's article being entirely in dmy format, as that would seem to avoid the problem. But that would create a problem with the general convention that US articles should have mdy dates. If you can resolve that, I'd back you. If anything, the respective scopes of WP:CITE and WP:MOSNUM should be more clearly defined and narrowed (if needs be), to avoid the conflict. WP:CITE ought not to encroach upon WP:MOS in matters of style. There should be no question of a power-grab. -- Ohconfucius  ¡digame! 02:06, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * A thought: the APA problem seems easy enough to resolve by ringfencing psychology articles, just like we already do for US military articles, which are almost universally dmy. But what about MLA? -- Ohconfucius  ¡digame! 03:05, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

I am opposed to any interference whatever in the established citation styles, unless the established citation style is so badly designed that it will create inordinate confusion in articles. For example, to the best of my knowledge, no printed style manuals have authors stupid enough to suggest referring to today as 4/7/12, and WP:CITE has forbidden this practice to cover any existing consistent use in any article out there. The reason I oppose any interference except in extreme cases is because interference breaks automated tools that produce citations in the various styles, disrupts the habits of editors that learned some of these styles at school, and prevents cut-and-paste of citations from outside Wikipedia. For example, just as Wikipedia suggest how to cite a Wikipedia in many different formats, some articles from outside provide these helpful suggestions.

That said, the contradiction between the present version of WP:MOSNUM and WP:CITE is not as great as you suggest, because you have not correctly interpreted WP:MOSNUM. That guideline has a separate section, "In references", which discusses date formats in citations, which has a "See also" pointing to WP:CITE. I suggest that only the material within WP:MOSNUM applies to citations, and other material in WP:MOSNUM does not. The only contradiction between "In references" and WP:CITE is that the former says an access date or archive date must either be in YYYY-MM-DD format, or the same format as publication dates. Since publication date format is not specified within "In references", the publication date may be in any consistent format, independent of what the rest of the article uses. So there would only be a conflict if there is a style that uses, for example "2012, May 7" as a publication date but "May 7, 20012" as an access date. I have not found a style guide that calls for differing format between publication and access date, so this contradiction is only theoretical.

The reason this is an issue is that proposals are constantly being made, especially at WP:MOSNUM, which would create contradictions that would be real, not theoretical. Jc3s5h (talk) 03:36, 7 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Often MOS trespasses on other areas and style in MOS is used to trigger bot changes. Why it is that an RFC was held in the MOS to force through a change that all footnotes next to punctuation should go after punctuation? BTW why does MOSNUM gives examples that it for the sake of consistency that it is OK to use "Sep" but not "September"? -- PBS (talk) 07:26, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * It's making a point about consistency, not the use of one or other form ("Sep" vs "September"): don't use "Sep" and "September" together. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:30, 7 May 2012 (UTC)


 * It's not a "trespass", it's MoS's purpose. It's our style guideline (and subguidelines). CITE is a content guideline; everything it says about style needs to come from MOS, or CITE is exceeding its mandate. As for "Sep" vs. "September" we should not ever be seen as advocating "Sep" as allowable here, since non-native English speakers are often not going to know what such abbreviations mean, and that wasn't even a properly formatted abbreviation anyway (try "Sep."). — SMcCandlish    Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿ ¤ þ  Contrib.  08:43, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

There seem to me to be two different issues mixed up here. MOSNUM allows two kinds of date format inconsistency: The arguments in favour of (1) are not necessarily the same as those in favour of (2). It would be a significantly smaller change to insist on a consistent style for all dates in references. Changing (1) only makes sense in the context of a much wider change to limiting the allowed referencing styles, which is simply not going to happen. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:47, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) The consistent style used for publication dates in references can be different from the consistent style used for dates in the running text of the article.
 * 2) The consistent style used for access and archive dates in references can be different from the consistent style used for publication dates in references.
 * True. And the arguments for (1) are only marginally less weak than those for (2), which border on asinine WP:ILIKEIT nonsense, that (as usual) smacks of a good deal of WP:SSF (the tired old "the journals I read in my field do it this way, so Wikipedia has to do it this way, or I'll stamp my feet and threaten to quit" nonsense). — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿ ¤ þ  Contrib.  08:43, 13 May 2012 (UTC)


 * If by "significantly smaller" Peter coxhead means the issue will occur in a much smaller number of citations, I agree. Until today, I was not convinced that any printed style manual existed that called for a different format between the publication date and the access date. I had looked through the APA style guide and found the recommended publication date format was like "(2010, February 22)", and that access dates were discouraged unless the content was likely to change. I could find no example of an access date format. But today I experimented with Zotero and found that if you specify an access date and order Zotero to produce an APA reference list entry, it will format the access date like "March 6, 2012".
 * Which doesn't necessarily mean anything at all about anything other than "what does Zotero do?" If the APA's own style guide doesn't provide a specified style for access dates, but does provide one for other types of dates, then the obvious conclusions are a) APA access dates are formatting like publication and other dates; b) Zotero's output is incorrect on this point; c) we DGAF, because, per WP:ENGVAR, we use either "2 December 2012" or "December 2, 2012" date formats, and per WP:MOSNUM use one ENGVAR date format consistently in the article, don't support weird-ass date formatting like "2012, December 2", and per WP:NOT, we don't do what random other publishers do (WP is not APA). The fact that pushers of various specialist styles have been improperly adding loosey-goosey "do whatever you want" style advice to the non-style, content guideline at WP:CITE needs to be stopped and reverted, because it's an abuse of process. — SMcCandlish    Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿ ¤ þ  Contrib.  08:43, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 * This example on the official APA style blog settles the matter of the access date format for APA: it's like "May 13, 2012". As for MOS controlling citation style, it doesn't today because it does not provide any citation style. All it does is provide style for regular text, a little bit of which could be forced onto citations. Jc3s5h (talk) 13:42, 13 May 2012 (UTC)


 * 'MoS: Like all style issues, the central "authority" is and must remain MoS. Even WP:AT policy derives its style requirements from MoS (e.g. it says to use P. T. Barnum not P.T. Barnum or PT Barnum because of what MoS says about handling initials; the naming conventions did not arrive at a style decision like that independently).  WP:CITE is essentially a how-to page, even if labelled a content guideline.  To the extent that it really is in fact a content guideline, it is a  not  guideline, so by definition it yields to MoS on style matters..  That said, it should certainly repeat relevant style advice, mirroring what MOS says on the matters that come up, so people don't have to go read all of WP:CITE, then just to figure out a few style questions about citations, have to come read all of WP:MOS and its subpages, and try to interpret it all as it could be applicable to citations. We can collectively do that interpretation once and save it for everyone at WP:CITE.  And that definitely needs to be done, done well, and frequently checked for consistency with MoS. I see boatloads of badly-formatted (from a WP standpoint) citations, with messy crap like , that someone lazily copy-pasted and didn't clean up (it should be  , and not abbreviated to initials at all if the names are actually known; also, many citation template fanciers would want to see this done with separate last1, etc., templates, not a lazy author block.)
 * There's no more (or less) justification to italicize "et al." than "etc.", "i.e." and similar terms. See MOS:Ety – the term is in the online Merriam-Webster here. But this comes down to SMcCandlish's point, which I agree with, that WP:ILIKEIT arguments and "if you change citation policy I'll stop editing" threats have ensured that Wikipedia has wildly inconsistent citation styles. Unless and until this changes, messing about with date style in citations is pointless. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:45, 13 May 2012 (UTC)


 * CITEVAR—This is a content issue, not a style issue. Different citation formats present radically different informational concepts and are field specific.  Moreover, any citation style chosen will be wrong, as no one citation style fulfils the general requirements of citation, and in particular even highly complete citation systems such as Turabian (ie: a citation style system that would produce the fewest number of incorrectly expressed citations) are beyond the capacity of automated implementation let alone Wikipedia's editorial public who can't determine who an author is. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:16, 15 May 2012 (UTC)


 * What a storm in a teacup. WP:CITE should be the primary source on how to do citations. The main thing I think missing about it a rationale that might help people in choosing a citation style. For instance in an article which is based on only a few sources but there are many references with the sources then harvard style works out best. However for articles based on a multitude of different sources with not all that much need to refer to different pages in the same sources then a more straightforward citation style is better as the user can get to the information directly. It's horses for courses. We most definitely do not have to follow book styles because we have hyperlinks. As to dates in citations I'm not at all fussed if these are different from the main body of the article. Dmcq (talk) 11:29, 16 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose. To actually implement this would need a much wider discussion than a backwater MoS page and very broad consensus would need to be achieved.  It will be a nightmare to get all the different disciplines, used to citing in their own particular way, to agree on one common style.  I confidently predicy that attempting to do it will lead to months of unnecessary anguish with a net result of "no consensus".  Spinning  Spark  16:04, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Citation styles
Seems to me that it would be useful to list the varying styles. Please update as seen fit. Please add only styles known to be in use on the English Wikipedia. ---— Gadget850 (Ed)  talk 21:24, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

In-text citation style:
 * Non-template
 * APA style
 * Chicago Manual of Style footnote style


 * Footnote3
 * Footnote3
 * Footnote3
 * Footnote3

defined (as used):
 * In-text defined

Full citation style:
 * Non-template
 * APA style (date format sometimes modified)
 * Chicago Manual of Style footnote style


 * Template
 * Linguistic Society of America
 * Linguistic Society of America
 * Linguistic Society of America
 * Linguistic Society of America

Citation title style:
 * Title case
 * Sentence case

Citation template format (where used):
 * Horizontal
 * Vertical

Citation author style (Western names):
 * Case
 * Standard
 * Smallcaps
 * Name order
 * Last First
 * First Last
 * First name
 * Full
 * Intials

Citation date styles:
 * Same as body
 * YYY-MM-DD

Citation access dates
 * All citations with URLs
 * Only for web pages with content likely to change

Reference list style:
 * Font size
 * Standard
 * Smaller
 * Columns
 * Single
 * Multiple
 * Indent
 * None
 * Hanging

American English on the front page.
Today's In the news section of the front page carries a story on a party which recently won 220 of 462 seats in their national legislature.

The problem is that this statement is meaningless to readers unfamiliar with the American English usage of the word plurality.

My first question is to ask whether or not this story currently complies with the MOS?

My second question is: does the MOS need amending to specifically outlaw (or allow) local varieties of English on the front page, or should the question be for the editors of In The News alone? Petecarney (talk) 11:37, 16 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't think this a MoS issue is it? I agree with you that words with such different meanings in the US and elsewhere are best avoided, but what I think is needed here is to post a request on WP:Main Page/Errors to have the wording changed to something generally understandable such as "relative majority". Malleus Fatuorum 11:48, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * We've been through this many times at ITN/C; it is a phrase that is rarely used outside the US, and because of its unfamiliarity elsewhere it was agreed that it should normally be linked, but other English variants, extraordinarily considering the frequency of the situation occurring, lack a concise term to describe the position, so it was agreed as an imperfect solution that we would use the US term. Kevin McE (talk) 15:56, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * What's wrong with writing "The National Liberation Front, led by Abdelaziz Bouteflika (pictured), gains the largest number of votes in the Algerian legislative election." (Assuming that this is what "plurality" means here – I had to look it up.) Peter coxhead (talk) 21:35, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * "The largest number of votes" sounds like the best solution. Don't agree with "relative majority" (in American usage, "majority" means you get more than all opponents combined, which is already "relative", and the phrase "relative majority" is likely to be misunderstood or just not understood).  If the front page is to avoid Americanisms, it has to avoid Britishisms too. --Trovatore (talk) 21:40, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Punctuation
I have a vague recollection that I may have asked a similar question before, but anyway I'd like to check again about punctuation like this:


 * Garage rock band, Nobunny adds the songs lyrics at the end of "I am a girlfriend".

To me, the comma looks wrong. I would delete it (in some other cases I would add another comma after "Nobunny", but not in this sentence). But it seems I am in a minority judging by the number of times I see commas used in this way. What do you think? 86.179.7.22 (talk) 13:55, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it is wrong. Either you use Garage rock band as a kind of title (like Professor) in which case you need no comma after it, or you use Nobunny as a parenthetical and you need an article at the beginning of the sentence and possibly a comma after Nobunny. (I strongly prefer the former, FWIW.) <span style="background:#00ae00;white-space:nowrap;padding:3px;color:black;font:600 1em 'Gentium Book Basic', serif">― A. di M.​  14:10, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Right -- commas on both sides, or commas on none.
 * "A garage rock band, Nobunny, adds"
 * "Garage rock band Nobunny adds..."
 * "Nobunny, a garage rock band, adds..."
 * For more, see Apposition. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:19, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks guys. 86.179.7.22 (talk) 20:59, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

RFC on date consistency within references
Hello. There's an ongoing RFC on date consistency within references. Please express your opinion. Thanks! 1exec1 (talk) 16:15, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

RfC on using External links inline
We're getting close to ending an RfC on using external links inline, but haven't gotten too many responses from the outside community. Any final comments would be appreciated. The RfC is here. This message is being posted because it involves application of this guideline. Thanks. &mdash; Jess · &Delta;&hearts; 17:15, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

"Award-winning" et al.
Do we have a MOS entry regulating the use of peacock adjectives such as "award-winning" or "acclaimed" in the lead sentences of articles about people, creative works etc.? I find these adjectives unhelpful (it's better to say directly what important accolades the subject has received, either in the lead or further down), but I'm not sure that we have consensus about removing them.  Sandstein  08:13, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, those words are tired and puffy, aren't they. Manual of Style/Words to watch is the place ... "Puffery". The only difference with award-winning is that it can be backed up with a solid fact (which award, when). But I ask other editors, if award-winning is in the lead, should it be backed up immediately, or can the reader wait until the section in which it's evidenced? Acclaimed is awful; I've just added it to the list there. Tony   (talk)  08:34, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I've also tried to describe this here in the part about the lead section. "Award-winning" or "best-selling", by itself, is puffery, I think, because it imparts no information about what kind of award(s) the person won, or in which country they sold how many works. Might these also be examples to add to WP:PEACOCK?  Sandstein   13:41, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm inclined to agree; even in a stub article, working a few examples (or the example) of the award is better than the hyphenated thing. Tony   (talk)  13:50, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Also agree. "Award-winning" can at least be justified by reference to the winning an award, but it's still incredibly vague and meaningless - it's far more helpful to state which award and/or how many (and at an appropriate place, eg not by listing them all necessarily as the very first point in the lead). Such vague phrases as "garnered acclaim", "well received" - or their negative opposites - are even worse in terms of nebulous vagueness. There are ways of reflecting the broad sweep of contemporary and historical critical judgment without such loose language. However, I've found people are often resistant to removing broad descriptions of this sort, as you can of course easily find cites for such claims, which some editors feel "proves" the content - which of course is rarely the case when dealing with subjective description and judgment, even at a meta-level.  N-HH   talk / edits  15:51, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I would chalk "award-winning" up to a question of taste. It can be used well and so should not be specifically banned.  Editors should be encouraged to use specific language in general. Darkfrog24 (talk) 18:07, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Can you find an example where "Foo is an award-winning author" is used "well"? What does it tell us? That Foo may once have won an eighth-grade essay competition or the Nobel Prize in Literature? That's the epitome of empty puffery.  Sandstein   19:48, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree with that we should reduce or do away with WP:PEACOCK wording whenever possible. "Best known for" is another one that infests many biographies. "Universally acclaimed" is one of the worst. For one thing it can't be sourced and the critics from Andromeda always pan things from the third rock from the sun. MarnetteD | Talk 19:58, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * It is easy for editors to imitate journalese and clichés popularized by the mass media, many of which lack the human resources to spend adequate time in choosing words carefully. Let us all spend more time in reading well-written prose, and let us all spend more time in writing well.
 * —Wavelength (talk) 21:12, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Reduce and do away with yes, but not ban. When award-winning is used badly, fix or remove it, but we shouldn't make a rule against using it.Darkfrog24 (talk) 03:42, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Do you have an example where it is used well?  Sandstein   06:50, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree about most of those, but “best known for” sounds like the most natural way to introduce the main reason why someone has a Wikipedia article about them in the first place. <span style="background:#00ae00;white-space:nowrap;padding:3px;color:black;font:600 1em 'Gentium Book Basic', serif">― A. di M.​  12:40, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I've sometimes found "best known for" useful, eg on actors' pages, when I'm trying to work out why I know them, but I'm still not sure I like it. I don't see under what objective criteria you can make the claim in most cases. For example, Mark Hamill is indisputably best known for being in Star Wars; but is Harrison Ford best known for that or Indiana Jones? It all depends on your perspective really.  N-HH   talk / edits  15:16, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * "best known for" has two problems and you have mentioned one of them N-HH. Their use is POV. As you state with Ford it is "ones perspective" that will determine which role is considered "best". The other problem is that the term is time sensitive. What a given actor was "best known for" in one decade may well have shifted by the next. Abe Vigoda would have been best known for his role in The Godfather until Barney Miller (I know this is skewing very old but this was the first example that came to mind) came along. IMO it is better to remove the word "best" and just say "known for" as that takes the POV out of the situation. MarnetteD | Talk 17:12, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * There are some situations&mdash;Mark Hamill&mdash;in which "best known for" applies. For this reason, we shouldn't ban it, just modify it when it's out of place. Darkfrog24 (talk) 17:16, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I should have said that I think that we should keep its use to a minimum. BTW in MH's case what if someone hates SW and has never seen them - they might think that Britannia Hospital is the film he is best known for - just kidding its actually Corvette Summer :-) MarnetteD | Talk 17:22, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Mmm sure, there'll be borderline cases, but I don't think anyone would seriously disagree that, say, Brian May is much more widely known for playing in Queen than for his work in astrophysics or his position as an university chancellor. Saying that since a phrase doesn't always (nor almost always) works then it should never (or almost never) used doesn't sound that compelling to me. <span style="background:#00ae00;white-space:nowrap;padding:3px;color:black;font:600 1em 'Gentium Book Basic', serif">― A. di M.​  09:16, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Harada-Ito procedure
I'm pretty sure WP:ENDASH ("An en dash is used for the names of two or more people in a compound.") calls for moving Harada-Ito procedure to Harada–Ito procedure. But a Google Scholar search shows only about 4% use the dash. So am I misreading the guideline, or do we live in our own little world? Art LaPella (talk) 22:10, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Similar usually hyphenated examples, from the same medical template category: Alveolar-arterial gradient, Apt-Downey test, Kleihauer-Betke test, Lecithin-sphingomyelin ratio, Sengstaken-Blakemore tube, Epstein-Barr vaccine, Weil-Felix test, and Sabin-Feldman dye test. Art LaPella (talk) 23:53, 18 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Art, such styling is changed as a matter of routine by all publishers (using the term with appropriate generality, to include Wikipedia). You are not misreading the guideline. Far from us "living in our own little world", on this point and most others WP:MOS follows widely accepted best practice "out there". Yes, there is alternation between hyphen and en dash: often in the same ill-edited publications, and certainly within the practice of individual publishers if they are not attentive. Wikipedia can in some respects be treated as a single work, from a single publisher. Let it follow high-quality ways, and not any careless inconsistency that leads to unclarity, confusion, and needlessly reiterated disputes.
 * As you know, WP:DASH was worked through with the widest achievable community consultation, early in 2011. The particular guideline you discuss was well supported.
 * Finally, note that Google scholar, along with all other Google search regimes, does not do well at reproducing the details in source punctuation. Em dashes are variously represented, en dashes are converted to hyphens, and so on. This is typical of the reduction we have come to expect from much on the web, where well-established principles of professional publishing are eroded, mostly through sheer ignorance or insouciance. Wikipedia is among those that work to a higher standard, and its Manual of Style is the principal mechanism by which it does so.
 * N oetica Tea? 00:48, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
 * N oetica Tea? 00:48, 19 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Actually, when I clicked the first 10 Google Scholar hits to bypass any distortion introduced by Google, all 10 spelled "Harada-Ito" with a hyphen (I couldn't check the last one, because the term occurs only behind a pay wall). So I suppose almost everything is an "ill-edited publication", and "best practice" isn't as "widely accepted" as one might think. But I'll take this as support for moving the articles I listed. Art LaPella (talk) 01:40, 19 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I think you clicked through to other web-altered text, right? Typically a summary of a document available as a PDF, but usually only by subscription. Sure, those summaries often also perform such a reduction, knowingly or not. And sure, sometimes the print forms and the PDFs will have hyphen. Different publications, different styles. The choice of hyphen or en dash may be correlated with discipline, and there is variety in how different disciplines regiment such things. And within disciplines, partly as a matter of region. But still you will reach cases like this, and text like these in the Scholar results:
 * "... 2 are similar to those reported by Kolling both for SOT&IOR and SOT [22] and to those reported by Boergen and his colleagues, who used a modified Harada–Ito procedure [5, 7]. However, their data ... Metz HS, Lerner H (1981) The adjustable Harada–Ito procedure . ... (ie, Harada–Ito procedure ). [Badly scanned or converted, on other evidence] Purpose: The H arada–Ito procedure is used to treat excylotropia but how it affects eye movements is unknown. contralateral IR recession, SO tuck and the Fells modified Harada–Ito procedure . ... [That's Oxford Textbook of Medicine] In these cases, extorsion can be improved by the Harada–Ito procedure, ..."
 * I have access that would enable me to check other cases, where there is a hyphen shown instead. But it is a tedious matter, so I will not.
 * N oetica Tea? 02:33, 19 May 2012 (UTC)


 * As I put it, "only about 4% use the dash", so I'm not surprised by an example of that 4%. But you could be right about PDF alteration; I would have to go 30 miles to the University of Washington to see something in print. Art LaPella (talk) 03:01, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I concur with Noetica's first post in this thread. We should use the correct English even if most web sites do not.  There's no reason not to hold Wikipedia to high standards.
 * In this case, the fact that a hyphen is usually so much easier to type than an en dash may account for its greater frequency. Think of all the blog posts and bulletin boards that no one would ever bother to type in en dash code for.  I doubt the disparity would be that big if we only counted newspapers, books and professionally edited web sites. Darkfrog24 (talk) 03:55, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
 * My 4% Google Scholar statistic counts academic papers, not "blog posts and bulletin boards". But Noetica could be right about PDF, so maybe someone should check a library. Art LaPella (talk) 04:21, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
 * To be clear, the abstracts or similar short summary texts that one gets ready web access to are not themselves PDFs. They summarise PDFs, which are usually only available by subscription or at a hefty price. Many of those PDFs would themselves be pre-print versions, not necessarily edited to the higher standards of the print journal they would then appear in. So in short:
 * Printed journal articles would have the highest proportion of en dashes in cases like "Harada~Ito". Many would not have them, in a principled fashion; their style would be otherwise.
 * PDFs supposedly giving a representation of those journal articles would have a lower proportion of such en dashes, because they are often prepared in a relatively amateur way, and are not subject to the final editing that we hope for in a printed journal (hope for in vain, increasingly!).
 * HTML-based abstracts of those PDFs show a sharp drop-off in the proportion of en dashes, because there is even less traditional editorial oversight of such things. And fewer people care; it's like database text, or an old typed library catalogue.
 * Wikipedia is, I hope we agree, closer to the published-journal end of the spectrum than the other end, with old typed library catalogues. Those who edit for journal publication know just how mixed up all this can get, in bibliographic material especially. Be wary of what you see, in published citations of works with a hyphen (of the sort discussed here) in their titles. They ain't necessarily hyphens.
 * N oetica Tea? 05:01, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

It would be nice to think that Wikipedia is "closer to the published-journal end of the spectrum", but this is hopelessly untrue. My experience as someone who largely edits botanical articles is that very few editors who add content understand or care about the difference between hyphens and en-dashes. What ratio of "style maintenance editors" to "content editors" would be needed to keep Wikipedia consistent? Where are all these "style maintenance editors"? We live in an online not a print world now, and the distinction is pointless when some fonts use shorter lines for en-dashes than for hyphens. Peter coxhead (talk) 07:42, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
 * @Noetica: Why do you think that “PDFs supposedly giving a representation of those journal articles would have a lower proportion of such en dashes, because they are often prepared in a relatively amateur way, and are not subject to the final editing that we hope for in a printed journal (hope for in vain, increasingly!)”? Just running the .dvi file used for printing through dvipdf or similar would be much easier than anything else, and it handles dashes just fine. Indeed, I'd be extremely surprised if the PDF for a journal article found on the editor's website was not identical to the print version, down to the position of end-of-line hyphenation (except for the inclusion of colour images and the like). <span style="background:#00ae00;white-space:nowrap;padding:3px;color:black;font:600 1em 'Gentium Book Basic', serif">― A. di M.​  09:12, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I was not discussing what ought to be the case, but what I have found to be the case. Admittedly, in a small number of cases. It's just one occasion for loss of precision to creep in, among many others. These days so much sheer volume is rushed into publication that a PDF may be put out very early, before final revision. Of course it could be amended, much more easily than corrections could be made for a print version. That doesn't mean it happens. Compare, by the way, some documents appearing in Googlebooks not as faithful representations of very recent published material, but as unset late drafts that lack page numbers even. I have encountered some of these recently. (Can't recall which; I've been looking through very many.) The bottom line: opportunities for loss of styling detail are manifold. They amount to a kind of move to greater entropy. Just as a living organism must resist that to stay alive (and some would say that such resistance defines it as a living organism) so must an entity like Wikipedia resist such degradation to stay viable as an accurate and efficient conveyor of information. N oetica Tea? 00:57, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Peter, it doesn't matter if not every Wikipedia article is perfectly consistent with respect to hyphens and en dashes. We should encourage proper usage, endorse proper usage and refrain from punishing improper usage when it is used in good faith, as always.  Frankly, the people who can't tell the difference between hyphens and en dashes won't notice anyway and the people who can will just be invited to hit the edit button. Darkfrog24 (talk) 23:40, 19 May 2012 (UTC)


 * It perhaps ought not to matter, but I'm one of those finicky people to whom it does matter (which is why I read MOS talk pages, I guess!). My view is that the MOS should not be making distinctions which the great majority of readers don't notice and the majority of editors don't notice either (or don't care about if they do). Yes, people who can distinguish hyphens and en-dashes can tidy up, but the time I personally spend on formatting List of botanists by author abbreviation after other editors make additions could be spent on more substantive tasks. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:11, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Bold episode titles in Episode lists
It has been asserted, at this discussion that the bolding of TV episodes which currently is automatic in Template:Episode list "contravenes MOS:BOLD".

MOS:BOLD discourages use of bold in prose; but tables are not prose. The episode title acts as a subhead within a table, which can have over 20 sections, each with a potentially long slab of text (the episode summary). Bolding titles aids navigation, helps the reader find the part of the table concerning a specific episode, for the same reason headings in prose are bold.

Currently MOS:BOLD specifically allows Table headers and captions, Definition lists, and of course most levels of heading. This use seems analogous to these -- basically this is a table subheading. Can I get some comment on whether MOS:BOLD really does prohibit the use of bold for episode titles in list tables. If it does, can this be revised to allow bold in tables; or this specific Template:Episode list? Barsoomian (talk) 17:19, 2 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Thing is, it's not a "subheader" within a table, it's a data element of a table. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:23, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Thing is, it acts as a subhead. Of course, it won't if you remove the bold formatting. We're talking about the function,  not the way it's implemented. Barsoomian (talk) 10:49, 3 May 2012 (UTC)


 * But that's not the purpose of data elements in tables. To act as "headings".  The heading is "Episode title".  The data element is the episode title itself.  And please also note that in the use of this template in the List of Friends episodes (from whence this lame argument arose), there's not even a need for a so-called "heading" since there's nothing to "head"... The Rambling Man (talk) 10:54, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The "purpose" of a table on a web page is to arrange text in a regular fashion. Doesn't matter how it's coded, it's how it looks. And if you were only screwing with Friends, I could ignore it. (Besides, your page List of Friends episodes  does not use the template directly anyway. What's seen there is a summary. The full table is at Friends (season 1) et al, where the interested reader can contemplate how much less legible it would be if the bold episode titles are removed.)  Many series have custom templates if they're not happy with Template:Episode list, you could do that rather than forcing everyone to follow your interpretation. But you propose to strip formatting from every TV list article in Wikipedia by making this change in the template. Since you cited MOS as giving you the right to do this, I brought it her to see if that is upheld. Hopefully, some who don't have a horse in the race will comment.Barsoomian (talk) 11:22, 3 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Unfortnally you are wrong data elements shoudl nto be bolded unless in explict reasons, please providea valid reason for them remaing bold other than it was done 6 years ago, conesus can change. before you think i am agianst you i prefer it bolded as i am dsylexic but as a editor i want the articles to be of the highest standard and viewable to as many people as possible currently it isnt so is aginst MOS so risks meaning all featured list get demoted-- Andrewcrawford ( talk  -  contrib ) 11:29, 3 May 2012 (UTC)


 * "explicit reason"? I've said that three times. They're subheads. It's irrelevant that they're also data. Everything in a web page is a data element if you look at the HTML. Any heading is a data element. How does the bold make the articles "less viewable"? It's the reverse. They make it easier to find a specific title in a long table. And the reason I raised this her was to clarify exactly how MOS applies. Concerns about "demotion" are premature. Barsoomian (talk) 11:54, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth (and you've already indicated you don't care at all about featured material), concerns of demotion are clear and present. And we're not talking about HTML data elements, we're talking about table data elements.  The two are very different as I'm sure you're aware.  The Rambling Man (talk) 12:15, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * So, your threats of "demotion" are "clear and present" if you don't get your way? That's a nice attitude. Since I don't have any gold stars to lose, it doesn't bother me. Regardless, I think we have a few days at least. Maybe we can consider the issue in the meantime. Why do you keep referring to "data elements" anyway". There is no mention of that in WP:BOLD. How is this relevant? Barsoomian (talk) 13:27, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * It's not a threat, it's reality, lists are always being nominated for demotion, by all types of editor concerned that older lists no longer meet current standards. Oh, and data elements are those elements displayed in the cells within a table.  And for consistent presentation, there's no good reason for one column to be entirely bold.  Easier?  WP:BOLD says it's okay for table headers to be bold, not for any other part of the table to be bold.  Have another read of it if you like.  The Rambling Man (talk) 13:39, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Also, I'm not "screwing around" with anything. I'm trying to ensure the whole picture, not just the bit you're interested in, is presented.  And interesting how you cite that it "doesn't matter how it's coded, it's how it looks", as somewhat the opposite opinion was given by User:AussieLegend when we suggested (and indeed implemented, and see reverted) the same television list without the template, thereby not "screwing" with anything.  So we're damned if we do and damned if we don't.  (By the way, what is a "regular fashion" when you format one particular column irregularly with respect to all the others?)  The Rambling Man (talk) 11:35, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * You want to strip formatting from every article using the template to solve a problem you perceive in a small subset: list articles with transclusion. And a "regular fashion" is exactly what having all the titles bold is.  Regarding "doesn't matter how it's coded, it's how it looks", that's the priority here, at MOS. At the template discussion page, of course the coding is also important. Barsoomian (talk) 11:54, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * It's a problem with the template failing to meet MOS. Can you explain in the example (List of Friends episodes) why the title of the episode should be bold?  Can you do that?  We tried it another way and your TV project colleagues reverted that as well.  So we can't progress either way.  Do you see that? The Rambling Man (talk) 12:15, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * You assert it "fails MOS". I don't concur. So I raised it here hoping some comment from people who might consider the "big picture" and not just how you can get a gold star for your article, regardless of the side effects on everyone else. I'm sorry that you can't make transclusion work the way you want it to. That does not give you a licence to screw up every page that uses the template, so you can tweak your page. Barsoomian (talk) 13:27, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Of course you don't concur, I think we all get that by now, that's why you've done little more than chase this argument around Wikipedia for two days.  Can you answer the question now please?  Pretty please?  (Reminder: Can you explain in the example (List of Friends episodes) why the title of the episode should be bold?) And for the record, it's not "my" page, I never said that.  It's not me who can't "make transclusions work the way I want to", it's your fellow TV project colleagues mandating their use rather than a simple hand-coded table (which they reverted).  And please reduce the histrionic "screw up" language, it's really tedious, totally untrue and overtly emotional.  Perhaps you need to disengage for a bit? The Rambling Man (talk) 13:39, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I've answered your question in detail, previously, more than once. If you want to pretend I didn't and just continue taking swipes at me, that's also your problem, not mine. Its also not the question this topic addresses. There are lots of pages that could be prettier if they were hand coded, if they had templates optimised for you alone. And that would make them that much harder to maintain, these are not static pages. Barsoomian (talk) 15:17, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

UNIDENT

Can i clarify i have not threaten they will be demoted, but since it does not meet the wider MOS standards it could be demoted, the current MOS for TV needs to be updated to be in line with MOS. Again i stress i prefer bold titles it helps me but i am miniority that it helps there is far more users it will help removing it for instance blind user using screen readrers. I can easily make the text bold using software to help me. Barsoomian you seem to be to emonitially and you risk going over the top and someoe might report you. I suggest you standa back and look at why this cahnge is being suggested. Then answer why you think it should stay giving good reasons, and not because this is how it has been for 6 years, have a read of wikipedia conesus and oyu can see what fine 1 year ago can change latr on. I am not aginst you personaly i am neutral i am giving prospect on both sides of the arguement-- Andrewcrawford ( talk  -  contrib ) 13:58, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * You didn't threaten, that was Rambling Man. If bold is a problem for screen readers, that's the first it has been mentioned. If it is, I wonder why no one complained about this in the last six years. Has in fact anyone complained, or is it a theoretical objection? Barsoomian (talk) 15:17, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I think it's probably been overlooked, combined with the fact that the code for episode list is beyond a lot of people's understanding, and that these things get more looked at when they're brought somewhere for scrutiny, like WP:FLC, which says that pages must conform to the MOS. Just because something hasn't been complained about before, doesn't mean it can never be complained about. And FWIW, discussion has already taken place and the consensus was made at MOS to remove bolding, it just never got passed down to WP:EPISODE. Matthewedwards : Chat  15:30, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

A couple points: First, remember that MOS are guidelines, not policy (this from the most recent Arbcom case on article titles). Deviations are acceptable if there is practical reason (read: IAR) to do so. That said, my take is that on the abbreviated table form (as opposed to the long form used in tv season articles) the bold title is a distraction as the width of the title column already draws the eyes to it, and thus the bold is excessive. In the long form, it does help as a sub-header to each episode which spans multiple rows, but not in the short one. --M ASEM (t) 15:20, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * But TV shows with season articles transclude the table from the season page onto the main list of episodes, except the summaries don't appear. So what is a "subheader" on the season page (and I don't believe it is, it's on a line with 6 other data elements like airdate, director's name, writer's name, production code, episode number and they're not bolded or called a subheader), becomes a normal data element just by removing the summary. Odd way to look at it.
 * And I'm sorry but this has got to be one of the most pathetic discussions of all time. It's now spread across at least 4, maybe 5 different talk pages, all because of some boldface text. Matthewedwards : Chat  15:30, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * @Matthewedwards: This is nothing. Have a look at the archives, pages and pages devoted to disputes about hyphens here, for instance.
 * @Masem: thanks, someone who gets the subhead function that is the whole rationale. It is a subhead because it indicates where the section on that episode is, it isn't just drawing attention to the title itself. The "short form" is an excerpt from the full table. There may be a way to strip formatting in the process as well, that would be the ideal solution. Maybe someone can work it out given some time. Simply losing the bold in the full tables is a trade off that I don't want to pay. Barsoomian (talk) 15:42, 3 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Can i clarify? is it transcluded episode list with bolding that is morea problem or is it both season article bolding and trasnclusion a problem? if it is the former the code can be changed to remove the bolding in transclusion from sublist, if it the latter then unfortnalyl that idea will not work-- Andrewcrawford ( talk  -  contrib ) 15:48, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * It's the bolding that's the problem. It seems the transcluding just changes the cell from a subheader to a data element in some people's minds. On a page where there is a summary, the title is still a data element, just like the other data in the cells along the same line. Matthewedwards : Chat  16:09, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * That's not to say that transcluding is or isn't a problem, it's just an entirely different issue. Matthewedwards : Chat  16:11, 3 May 2012 (UTC)


 * This all started with complaints by The Rambling Man about the bold titles in transcluded tables in List of Friends episodes. If bold can be omitted in that case, while leaving it in the original, I don't know if the de-bolders would be satisfied, but I would. Barsoomian (talk) 16:18, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * We're very commensurate with the misuse of hyphens at FLC, but that's pretty clearly defined now at WP:DASH, just like MOSBOLD. You still haven't said where it says it only applies to prose, despite a clear mandate to allow "headers" in tables to be bold, but not entire columns.  And of course, MOS is just a guideline, but we mandate its use at WP:FLC as part of the criteria, so for the list in question, we'd have to disallow it being featured at the moment because of a breach of MOS.  Now, Barsoomian has already indicated that featured material is of no interest, so that's a dead end to the origins of the discussion in question.  A refusal to answer why the list in question should have bold episode titles (other than continually accusing me of "screwing" with templates) is noted.  A refusal to take note that the TV project themselves reverted a move to not use the non-MOS compliant template so we wouldn't even have had to have this ridiculous vitriolic debate is also noted.  Finally, and once again, I did not threaten to do anything.  I simply advised Barsoomian that lists that don't meet MOS are subject to re-review and demotion.  Since Barsoomian cares little for featured material, it shouldn't bother Barsoomian that my advice was simply that, advice.  I have a nasty feeling that this is devolving into a "who can have the last word" debate.  I'm not playing that game.  I just want to solve the issue at hand, that of the List of Friends episodes.  Some of the Tv project insist we use the template.  Some (one) of the TV project insists we have bold titles.  That's not what MOS says.  The list can't be promoted, despite the patience and hard work of the nominator to satisfy "all the people all the time".  Naturally that can't happen and now we've wasted 100kb of rubbish discussion that hasn't actually progressed this debate at all.  Barsoomian believes their interpretation of MOSBOLD to only apply to prose.  I can't see that written anywhere.  I've said MOSBOLD mentions tables and says bold is fine for headers (not so-called sub-headers) but not for emphasis.   I'm going off to do some productive work and help keep promoting Wikipedia's finest work, good luck. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:23, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay, for some reason I thought that the episode title cell was a different one in the expanded (season-list) version compared to the short (overalll-list) version but they are the same (see Friends (season 1)). That said, the fact that there is a colored line between each episode in the long form implies to me we don't need bolding of episode titles in the long-form at all, and certainly not in the short form.  There is a way to quickly ID the episode title in the long-form via the use of the colored line, and in the short-form it is more a distraction.  --M ASEM  (t) 16:40, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the clarity :). I am going to try summarise so please edit or comemnt anytihng i have wrong.
 * MOSBOLD says data in tables should not be bolded unless in a special circumstance, this is debated whether episode titel field is subheader or data field, and also whether MOSBOLD covers tables as it debated it is only for prose?
 * Boldness of the titles is said to be needed for easy identifying the field in summary format but not in a transcluded list?
 * Quotation and Boldness is over doing it?
 * Does that summarise everything? if so then it woudl appear that we need to remove boldness but give a way that make it easier to identify the episode title in seaosn articles, as lineclour has to be specfic if it isnt then it wont appear so maybe some that is madantory in the template?-- Andrewcrawford ( talk  -  contrib ) 17:00, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * "MOSBOLD says data in tables should not be bolded"? Where does it say that ?
 * "Quotation and Boldness is over doing it?" Is subtlety such a overriding concern? But if I had to choose dropping one, I'd drop the quotes.
 * If you accept that it's a good idea to "make it easier to identify the episode title" I don't see how you can do that without highlighting the title. Lines above do that indirectly and not half as well. Other points, agreed. Barsoomian (talk) 17:13, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I cant comment where it is i am only summarising so we can have a point to break and starting debating those issues to go forward-- Andrewcrawford ( talk  -  contrib ) 17:16, 3 May 2012 (UTC)


 * It's true that MOSBOLD doesn't say that. In mentioning tables, it only says that headers and captions may be boldfaced. But why are you concerned with what it says, Barsoomian? You've already told us your hate of the MOS and said that there is no need to follow it. But now you propose to remove the quotemarks from the episode titles and have them purely boldfaced. Well since you don't seem to care whether the MOS is followed, you won't be interested that WP:MOS, MOS:TEXT and MOS:TITLE all say to use quotemarks around episode titles, so before you decide to remove those from the template, perhaps you should seek consensus from those pages first. Here, we're not trying to seek consensus, we're just applying what should have been done some time ago. And of course, now that this discussion/argument has carried on on this talk page none of the regular commenters here have said anything, no doubt because they don't want to get dragged in to a petty and childish fight over something so mundane. So can we please move it back to Template talk:Episode list, cap this discussion, and if anyone from MOS actually does want to comment here, they can do so without being jumped on? Matthewedwards :  Chat  18:48, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I have to disagree that MOSBOLD does not say "data in tables should not be bolded. As I explained in this post, MOSBOLD says that bold face is only used "in a few special cases" and gives "Table headers and captions" as one of those few special cases. This is the same as saying that bold shouldn't be used in data fields. --AussieLegend (talk) 23:02, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Isn't that what I said? All I meant was that it doesn't explicitly contain the words "data in tables should not be bolded." But by listing what can be, we know what can't be. :) Matthewedwards : Chat  01:54, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

I have removing the capping (hiding) of a great deal of material here. The caption over the hidden material was this: "'Capped arguement [sic] that's going nowhere. If we want the MOS talk page folk to comment on this, I'm sure it won't happen when the arguments have just spread to another venue.'" Three observations: My thoughts, anyway. N oetica Tea? 22:10, 3 May 2012 (UTC) (♫♪)
 * It is perhaps inappropriate to use capping as an argumentative move, as if one is attempting to rise above the fray and attach some cachet to one's stance that is unearned. Let such capping be more consensual.
 * The caption did not show who executed it, and this makes it even less a collegial part of the process on this page.
 * I think it would be appropriate to restore that capping, and even to use such means more often, if the capping were indeed agreed to, and signed at the caption by the editor performing it. Such means can keep a talkpage much more readable and welcoming. ☺
 * OKay, well I wasn't attempting to rise above the fray or attach any cachet to my stance, and I didn't sign the capping because the documentation at Template:Collapse top doesn't give any indication or examples that it should be signed. I capped it because we were interested in getting the WT:MOS regular people's input and view, and I thought that by seeing 32 verbose comments from less than a handful of other people would discourage them from joining in. I know if I saw all this I wouldn't want to be dragged in to it, but if it was hidden away after the initial query then I could choose to read it at my own pleasure. Anyway, Noetica, what's your POV on this? Matthewedwards :  Chat  01:54, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you for identifying yourself as the one who did that capping, Matthew, and thanks for explaining. Of course I assume good faith, and it's great to see some lively to-and-fro on a style issue. Now, sometimes those means are abused for argumentative purposes (who knows? I might have left myself open to such an accusation myself). It may be best to avoid that appearance. As for signing a caption, I've come to the view that this is important. At the time of our capping a discussion, we know what we're doing, and those in the conversation at the time also know. But it's very awkward to sort out later on – in archived material, for example. Yet it is at least as much a part of the course of events as any plain contribution, which would certainly be documented with a signature.
 * My POV? This time I have been more concerned with the process than the substance. When I can find time, I will go through all of this and perhaps make a considered comment on the issue.
 * Best wishes!
 * N oetica Tea? 02:28, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

As someone who frequently visits the television pages on Wikipedia, I have to say I am disappointed with the de- bolding edits. I disagree that they are not sub headers. As the articles are 'list of x episodes,' that make the idividual episodes that most important part of the article. Each episode name is an idividual work of media and the episodes -which are represented by their tile- are what forms a season. Air dates, writers, directors and viewers etc are less important to the pages main subject. The articles aren't called 'list of x episode directors'. I'm not really sure how to word that well. Say the article is 'Lost (season 1)'. "Pilot (Part 1)" is an individual piece of media that forms the season and the article tile in question. All of the other information is then regarding that specific episode. Then on the ' list of lost episodes, "Pilot" is an episode of lost. The writer of that episode is not an episode itselfSmallHill (talk) 15:30, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Every TV episode article I have a watch on, and probably all of them by now, has been edited by Matthewedwards with this comment: "‎Bold episode titles in Episode lists: Added "plainrowheaders" to episode list wikitable, to conform with HTML5 WP:DTT row scopes". Well, that's just great. Now they all look like slabs of text extracted from a telephone book. What an achievement, throwing away all the work done to make them clear and attractive and useful. Now the title of the episode is the least prominent part of the table. Also, despite WP:DTT being cited in all these edit comments, giving them an air of official sanction, there is no mention of the word "bold", or "emphasis" or any similar word that I can think of anywhere in that article. But I'm sure it's implied somewhere, somehow. What a victory of mindless bureaucratic application of a foolish fussy unnecessary rule without broad consensus, a change that helps no one at all. Well done anti-bold team. What's next? Get rid of italics, capital letters, and punctuation? Make all images 100x100 pixels, black and white? Barsoomian (talk) 08:40, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * See hyperbole. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:47, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Again, you're just disparaging my literary style rather than responding to the substance. Barsoomian (talk) 09:12, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Not at all. I'm pointing out that your fears that we will "get rid of italics, capital letters" etc is pure hyperbole and has no substance in any policy or guideline on this site, unlike the removal of unnecessary bold text which should not be used for emphasis as per this very guideline on this site. You didn't get it your way and that's just the way it goes sometimes, we can all see that in your self-confessed rant.  You did get your way with the transclusion issue, the list failed and that's the end of that.  Why keep beating the horse with your hyperbole? The Rambling Man (talk) 09:16, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * You're "pointing out that your fears that we will "get rid of italics, capital letters" etc is pure hyperbole". Oh, really? Do you think that anyone reading this is dumb enough to take it literally? (Sorry, that's a rhetorical question, before you feel the need to "point it out" to the uneducated.) Anyway, you're right, you got your way by dogged persistence and ignoring what anyone else thought. And without even a pretence of getting a consensus of those affected. Congratulations. You've trashed dozens of articles that I've been maintaining for years, all in one fell swoop. Well done.  But I am seriously wondering what you'll do for an encore.  Barsoomian (talk) 09:29, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, there was sensible non-hyperbolic debate about it here and at Template talk:Episode list which was subsequently independently implemented. I'm not sure about "dogged persistence", just an attempt to adhere to our manual of style.  Perhaps you need to disengage for a bit as it's clear this isn't really a sensible discussion, just further and further hyperbole (e.g. "You've trashed dozens of articles" - please show me exactly where I personally did anything to any of those articles except improve a number of the Friends episode articles which were trash).  As for an encore, well who knows?!  But the anticipation is often the most exciting part, right?  The Rambling Man (talk) 09:38, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * My articles have been trashed. They all look worse, thanks to you and whoever supported you in this crusade and eviscerated the templates. I don't know who else is to blame, but you led the charge. Barsoomian (talk) 10:00, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Further hyperbole and ownership issues for all to see. Suggest, once again, you disengage until you have something constructive to add to the discussion. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:07, 16 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Nice to have been alerted to the fact that you're bringing me and my edits into question again. Oh wait, you didn't. As for what I've done, mentioning DTT was not to give them an air of official sanction, it was to explain that adding plainrowheaders was required to make the tables follow DTT. What does "bold" or "emphasis" have to do with that? It's for rowscopes, and RexxS said that the "td" html tag needed to be changed to "th" for it to work fully, but not before "class=plainrowheaders" was added to each table that implemented the template. I've made an edit request at the template, when that happens the tables will appear as before. As for everything else you said, I'll choose to ignore that because it makes you seem like the biggest idiot ever. Matthewedwards (talk · contribs) 17:17, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Every TV list article I have worked on was trashed in the last week. Presumably most of the damage was done in the templates, but it was your edits that showed up in my watchlist, and then I saw how awful the articles now looked and blamed you. Your edit comments were cryptic and since they coincided with the formatting purge, it seemed that you were responsible. If it actually was unrelated I would apologise if you hadn't already comprehensively insulted and condescended to me. Have a nice day. Barsoomian (talk) 15:06, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * "Trashed"? Please.  The removal (in accordance with WP:MOS) of bold episode titles could hardly be described as "trash[ing]" articles.  It's simply aligning them with our site-wide manual of style.  There's really no need for such hyperbolic accusations which have no foundation in truth or reality.  The Rambling Man (talk) 16:31, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Please can someone explain for us mere mortals what you are arguing about here? Both examples in the collapsed bit at the top show no bold for "Cartman Gets Probed" which I imagine is an episode title and since there is only one line there is nothing that anything can be a "subheading" for. Perhaps provide examples which show the context in which a "subheading" might be needed? Then it may be possible to suggest a solution... --Mirokado (talk) 11:34, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Mirokado, the reason you don't see bold episode titles there is because it uses the Episode list template which has been updated, much to Barsoomian's chagrin, to remove bold episode titles, in accordance with WP:MOSBOLD. Barsoomian has been a lone "rant"ing voice against removing bold episode titles.  It now appears that to Barsoomian that "My articles have been trashed" (my own link, ironically) and that templates have been "eviscerated" (note, that's to "disembowel" or "deprive of essential content" [reiterate, bold episode titles were removed, is that "essential"?], also see hyperbole).  Barsoomian has also appeared just in time to keep this thread from Miszabot's archive, surely a coincidence, but nothing to worry about since hopefully we can move on from the cadaver that he/she insists on nudging.  For everyone else thinking WP:TLDR, correct!  Although I'll always welcome civil questions to my talk page.  And now, onto my next plan.... The Rambling Man (talk) 17:29, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * FFS, Mirokado didn't come her because of anything I said. So your tirade of insults against me was totally gratuitous. I have no idea or interest in when this page is archived, your suspicions are absurd and your implication of my motives is, as usual, insulting. I have not the slightest desire to prolong this. The only reason I'm here now is to see what provoked you to start stalking me again. Every interaction we have you insult me, then I see you suddenly appear in my watchlist at articles I've just edited where you've never been before. Go get drunk or something, celebrate your great victory. But get off my back. Barsoomian (talk) 15:06, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I've recently been alerted to the dreadful state of many television project articles, thanks to your input. By the way, they're not "your" articles.   I'll continue to fix them up, thanks!  I see you're up to your histrionic hyperbole again, this time directed at Matthew.  Honestly, I think it'd be better for you to get over it and move on.  Have a nice day.  The Rambling Man (talk) 15:16, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * So not only do you admit stalking me, you're going to continue doing so. And another batch of insults. How many people have you driven away from Wikipedia by this behaviour, I wonder? Barsoomian (talk) 16:21, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, what I said was that your defence of TV articles has led to closer inspection, and what a dreadful state of affairs I've discovered. Yes, you're right, all I want to do is improve articles without hyperbole.  I honestly think you'd be better off just not getting so worked up about your own articles, and move on.  Have a nice day.  The Rambling Man (talk) 16:24, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Barsoomian is 100% right. The articles look like complete shit now. Geg (talk) 17:27, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Nicely put. You need to debate the merits of MOS:BOLD though, not just say that articles look like "complete shit" just because a few words aren't in bold any more.  More hyperbole.  Thanks for your comment.  The Rambling Man (talk) 17:31, 17 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Well I have had a look at this and the lack of bold is caused by the addition of class plainrowheaders to each table definition in the articles, nothing to do with the template. You can see this from the above two examples, modified from the collapsed second example at the start of this section. The first includes plainrowheaders, the second does not, both use the real.
 * It is incorrect to suggest that MOS does not allow bold table row header cells, The default is bold text for those cells and WP:DTT has examples with bold row headers.
 * What MOS does say is that the use of explicitly coded bold text is generally not allowed because it has no semantic meaning for assistive technology, but that does not apply to a table header cell annotated with a . Thus the update of the template to use table headers instead of explicit bold text was OK, but the presence of the plainrowheaders class on all the tables is unnecessary. --Mirokado (talk) 01:35, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Well no responses for three days or so and I don't wish also to be accused of waiting for as long as possible before the bot strikes, so I will start looking at the affected articles when convenient. WP:MOS very clearly says in the lead "Where more than one style is acceptable, editors should not change an article from one of those styles to another without a substantial reason." Since the articles were already using the default font weight for table headings (albeit then generated incorrectly) and default table styles are MOS and accessiblity compliant, there was no justification for changing the article style as part of correcting those issues. --Mirokado (talk) 00:11, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, Mirokado, I wasn't aware the discussion had restarted. From what I understand, plainrowheaders was introduced to the general css for projects that didn't want bold data cells in the table. Titles previously weren't headers, they were simply bolded. In removing boldface, the discussion moved along to WP:DTT. The discussion about TV episodes has revealed consensus to not have bold titles, regardless of whether it is a header or not (only 1 editor has spoken against it and vehemently opposed it), so plainrowheaders was added to all the tables that used the template. Anyway, it looks like discussions are heading in the direction of making the episode number the header, not the titles. I ask that you don't go removing plainrowheaders just yet until all discussions regarding the are over. When the project gets the template exactly where they want it, they can decide whether or not to remove plainrows. Matthewedwards (talk · contribs) 17:32, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Just let this discussion archive, it's already moved back to the orginal location. Matthewedwards (talk · contribs) 17:33, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Changing quotation marks in non-English text
Different languages use different characters to delineate a quotation, see Non-English usage of quotation marks. I recently reported as a bug the behavior of AutoWikiBrowser when it went inside a foreign-language newspaper headline and changed the language-correct double chevrons to English quotation marks. I've now received feedback from the AWB team that they are simply adhering to the present guideline. In that case, this MoS needs to be amended to prevent this from being acceptable practice. __meco (talk) 12:09, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
 * This is covered in the MoS under "allowable typographical changes." The English Wikipedia uses English rules. Its counterparts in other languages use the rules applicable to those languages. Darkfrog24 (talk) 12:20, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Your response makes no sense to me. In fact it doesn't even seem to have absorbed the gist of my post. Injecting typographical corrections into foreign-language quotes (such as newspaper headlines) makes no sense whatsoever. Should we correct newspaper headlines from Spanish newspapers using the inverted question and exclamation marks as well? Should we correct spelling errors in same titles also? __meco (talk) 14:10, 5 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Apparently, Manual of Style does not specifically allow the changing of the inverted question mark, but it does allow the changing of quotation marks. I would call it "adaptation to Wikipedia's typographical conventions" rather than "correction". This is similar to the practice of other publishers. The OUP's Oxford Guide to Style, for instance, writes "[. . .] when reproducing matter that previously had been set using forms of punctuation differing from house style, you may silently impose the usual conventions, such as [. . .] or otherwise standardizing foreign or antiquated typographical constructions." The OUP also permits silent spelling corrections in some circumstances. --Boson (talk) 16:46, 5 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Boson, by "does not specifically allow", do you mean "does not expressly allow" or "does not explicitly allow"? (See specifically and expressly and explicitly.)
 * —Wavelength (talk) 16:53, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I meant that there was no "permission" that specified or mentioned the inverted question mark or applied particularly to the inverted question mark, as opposed to a possible wider permission that was not specific to the inverted question mark but either included the inverted question mark by definition or implied its inclusion or could be inferred to have been intended to include it. Pragmatically, you can take it to mean approximately expressis verbis, but what I actually meant (in semantic terms) was "specific" permission, in the sense of "exactly named, particular".
 * --Boson (talk) 21:15, 5 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I'd call changing the quotation marks an exceptionally bad practice. When links rot, sometimes the only way to fix a dead link is to do a Google search on the citation title and if it's not exactly as per the source it's often not possible to fix the citation. English titles are bad enough; foreign titles are a nightmare. --AussieLegend (talk) 17:01, 5 May 2012 (UTC)


 * And I hadn't even thought of that. That's a definite game changer. As for the earlier reference to the Oxford Guide to Style, does that even take into account foreign language quotations? __meco (talk) 05:53, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I would have thought the quote I gave was sufficiently explicit, but under "Foreign-language quotations" the Oxford Guide to Style has: "Foreign-language quotations given in English writing follow the same rules as for English quotations . . . The style of quotation marks can be normalized (e.g.« » or „ “ changed to ‘ ’); so too can the relative order of punctuation surrounding it, though not that within it." To be even clearer, in the section on typesetting of French writing, we have "Texts set wholly in French should use special quotation marks called guillemets (« »); these need not be used for French text in English language books. --Boson (talk) 10:14, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Does the Oxford guide deal with link-rot? --AussieLegend (talk) 11:21, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Not that I am aware of. --Boson (talk) 11:51, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * That is a moot point because the quotation marks that were changed in the example I provide in my initial post was within the quoted foreign-language text, and per Boson's quote changing them is in violation of the Oxford Guide to Style's rules. __meco (talk) 11:56, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * It should be obvious that the OUP permits changing the quotation marks within quoted foreign language text (in the sense that you are using the word "text"). Please do not confuse this with their use of "texts set wholly in French foreign language texts " in the sense of whole foreign-language books or articles to be typeset. --Boson (talk) 12:03, 6 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Could you give an example where this applies to changing quotation marks? Google seems to ignore quotation marks (and other punctuation) by default, so I get the same result when I Google for
 * "Siv og Knut angrer på «Uti vår hage» "
 * "Siv og Knut angrer på 'Uti vår hage' "
 * "Siv og Knut angrer på Uti vår hage"
 * --Boson (talk) 12:03, 6 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Meco, did you retain the original font and font-size? Tony   (talk)  12:35, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you are referring to. I haven't made any edits in the example issue. __meco (talk) 14:21, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I could certainly see the case for retaining non-English punctuation when it's part of a link (especially because those usually aren't supposed to show in the main text anyway), but yes, Meco, it is pretty standard to convert foreign punctuation to its English equivalent. If anything, it makes the original writer's real meaning clearer to English-language readers than it would have been if the chevrons were retained.  As Tony pointed out, it's no more a misquotation than changing the font or text size. Darkfrog24 (talk) 18:09, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Are you deliberately trying to blur the issue? Font and text size? When were those dimensions ever considered on par with orthography? __meco (talk) 18:28, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * No one's trying to blur the issue. Font text and size are two things that, like the conversion of chevrons to quotation marks, are understood as part of the quotation process and not considered to be misrepresentations of the original writer's intent, meaning or presentation.  You give off the impression that you were unfamiliar with the concept of acceptable typographical changes.
 * I have been assuming that you object to the conversion of chevrons to quotation marks because you believe it is inaccurate. Is that correct or is there some other reason? Darkfrog24 (talk) 21:59, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * No, that's the issue for me. __meco (talk) 09:21, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Good; just checking.
 * If you look around and ask around you will find that Wikipedia is not the only publication that permits the conversion of chevrons to English equivalents. It's standard practice in most professional publications for which this is an issue and it's understood that this isn't really a change, kind of like how, in American English, it's understood that tucked-in periods and commas do not constitute a claim that the period or comma was part of the quoted material (but this is not true of British English).
 * Basically, the conversion of chevrons to quotation marks isn't a Wikipedia thing. It's an English language thing.  Considering that most English language readers won't know what a chevron is but will know what a quotation mark is, it's probably also a good thing. Darkfrog24 (talk) 18:31, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * People pointing out that some British writers (especially in fiction) do tuck commas and that some American writers (especially in technical writing) don't in 5... 4... 3... <span style="background:#00ae00;white-space:nowrap;padding:3px;color:black;font:600 1em 'Gentium Book Basic', serif">― A. di M.​  21:12, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * And I am pointing out that this lack of universal compliance doesn't make these punctuation conventions any less a part of British and American English. Darkfrog24 (talk) 04:09, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I still think you're wrong about that. --Trovatore (talk) 04:10, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * It depends on what one means by “any less a part of British and American English”. <span style="background:#00ae00;white-space:nowrap;padding:3px;color:black;font:600 1em 'Gentium Book Basic', serif">― A. di M.​  10:19, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I mean that, in the U.S., a company may call itself "Acme Theatre" and a sign may read "Town Centre," but we still refer to -tre as British spelling, and rightly so because British spelling and punctuation are used the overwhelming majority of the time in British publications and American spelling and punctuation are used the overwhelming majority of the time in American publications. I mean that 100% compliance is not required for something to be called or be in essence British, American, Canadian, Martian, etc.
 * The part of this that's relevant to the thread is that there is a precedent for things that look like changes to the text but aren't, like changes in font size and tucked-in commas. This chevrons-to-quotation-marks issue is part of a larger network of things that are understood about English, even if some people find them counterintuitive from time to time.  Learning that quotation marks are the English version of chevrons is part of learning how to read. Darkfrog24 (talk) 17:28, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * A sign that says "Town Centre" is copying British usage, for the supposed classiness of it or just so you'll remember it. An American who puts the commas where they logically go is not copying British usage, just doing what makes sense.  --Trovatore (talk) 19:17, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes that American is copying British usage, even if the American prefers to call it by one of its other names. It was invented in Britain; it's used by the majority of British writers.  That makes it British usage.  The logical way to write is the way that will be understood and appreciated by one's readers.  In that way, American and British usage are about the same.  Also, that happens to be what we're doing with the conversion of chevrons&mdash;writing in a way that the readers will understand. Darkfrog24 (talk) 19:59, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I doubt it was "invented in Britain", unless you mean pre-Gutenberg or something. The story I've heard is that typesetters' quotes were invented to avoid breaking the small pieces in the days of movable type.  I don't really understand the purported mechanism, and can't swear that the story is accurate, but it is what I've heard. --Trovatore (talk) 21:01, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * What we now call British punctuation was invented by Fowler and Fowler for their 1906 publication The King's English. It was invented in Britain, where it became popular.  Never really caught on west of the puddle.  I've heard the typesetting story as well, but I don't know if it's true.  The sources for that fact (or "fact") from the quotation mark article just turned out to be a bulletin board and an article that was quoting Wikipedia. Darkfrog24 (talk) 03:07, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Where the commas "logically go" is a matter of opinion. The name "logical quotation" refers to the punctuation's context-dependent (as opposed to fixed) location, not to an assertion that this convention is more sensible than typesetters' quotation is.
 * Which method is superior is irrelevant to the fact that each overwhelmingly predominates in certain English varieties. Likewise, a person's motive for deviating from the prevailing style is immaterial.  —David Levy 20:30, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Yep. I don't like that British style is called "logical," because it falsely implies that American style is illogical, but I don't deny that that is one of its names.  Just because I don't happen to like it doesn't mean it's not so. Darkfrog24 (talk) 03:07, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * It is the style that people who study formal logic, and/or computer programming, naturally gravitate to. --Trovatore (talk) 21:01, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Still irrelevant. I happen to agree that logical quotation is advantageous, but that doesn't change the fact that typesetters' quotation is considered standard in my English variety (American).  —David Levy 21:15, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Again, the relevant part is that there are things about English that seem to be misquotations but aren't. It's understood that the quotation mark is the English version of a Spanish or French chevron.  As precedent, I offer the fact that tucked-in commas are considered just part of the quotation process in American English, are not considered misquotations under American rules, and cause negligible amounts of confusion under actual use in general-audience writing. Darkfrog24 (talk) 03:07, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I was reiterating my above statement that deviation from an English variety's prevailing style, irrespective of the rationale behind it, doesn't change what's considered standard (e.g. logical quotation in British English and typesetters' quotation in American English).  I wasn't referring to the topic's relevance to the discussion.  —David Levy 12:07, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

AFAICT, Google and other search engines not only do not force a match on punctuation, they also allow for substantial spelling variants, etc. Stick to current practice - the "link rot" does not appear to be a real issue. Collect (talk) 11:15, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

I strongly believe that when non-English text appears in English Wikipedia, the original non-English punctuation should be preserved. Boson's entry of May 5, referring to Manual of Style, is irrelevant, because that standard applies to quoting English text, not foreign text. Darkfrog's entry of May 9 claiming that conversion of chevrons is "writing in a way that the readers will understand" makes no sense at all. The original text was Siv og Knut angrer på «Uti vår hage»-sketsj. Most English readers will not understand this. Converting chevrons to quotes will help neither those who can nor those who cannot read the Norwegian.

Spanish excerpts containing inverted question and exclamation marks should be preserved per the original. Norwegian excerpts with chevrons should be preserved per the original.

The French newspaper website www.lemonde.fr uses straight quotes and guillemets in different ways. If we were mentioning a French headline, untranslated, that included guillemets, I would want to see them preserved, as in this example: —Anomalocaris (talk) 05:40, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I believe that Wikipedia should, as always, follow general-English rules rather than making up its own. Translating punctuation is standard, correct English practice, so that's what Wikipedia should do unless some problem arises that can only be solved by deviating from the standard.
 * As for whether changing chevrons to quotation marks facilitates understanding, at the absolute least, it lets English-language readers know that part of the excerpt is a quotation of something. Darkfrog24 (talk) 13:46, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Darkfrog24, it's strange to say what is "correct" English practice when something isn't English at all. There is no "correct English" way to write French. In the example from lemonde.fr, La Razón is not a quotation of something. It is the name of a periodical.
 * Ancient Hebrew used the symbol sof passuk, which looks similar to a modern English colon, much as English uses a period. A citation of Ancient Hebrew text that includes sof passuk symbols should preserve those symbols and not replace them with modern periods. A reader who can read Hebrew would expect to see sof passuk symbols and a reader who can't read Hebrew isn't helped by changing the sof passuk symbols into periods. —Anomalocaris (talk) 06:56, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, text in non-Latin scripts are an interesting special case. I'd use the original punctuation if the original script is used (after all, we aren't flipping the text so that it reads left-to-right either), but English-style punctuation if it's transliterated. <span style="background:#00ae00;white-space:nowrap;padding:3px;color:black;font:600 1em 'Gentium Book Basic', serif">― A. di M.​  10:09, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * If Le Razon is a periodical, then it would get italics, not quotation marks of any sort. Darkfrog24 (talk) 15:10, 13 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't speak Norwegian but, looking at it more closely, it would appear that the original so-called "quotation" is in fact the title of a TV series (included in the title of a newspaper article; the sketch itself apparently does not have a title). If my understanding is correct, we are talking about the prescribed style for titles of TV series within titles of news articles within citation footnotes. Cite news puts the news article title in quotation marks, so what should we do with titles within that? I would tentatively say that we have the choice of using the formatting normally used in the body text (i.e. italics) or using single quotation marks (for quotation marks within quotation marks). Since Cite news would use italics for the "quote=" parameter, it may be advisable to use single quotes for titles within titles within references. The title should also be translated, so we get something like <NOWIKI>

</NOWIKI>
 * yielding""
 * --Boson (talk) 17:17, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Darkfrog24, the original headline in lemonde.fr was Tollé après la Une de « La Razón » affichant les CV d’étudiants frondeurs. You, apparently, would change it to Tollé après la Une de La Razón affichant les CV d’étudiants frondeurs. Should we drop cedillas and acute and grave accents too, since English words don't have those, either? What about capitalization? In French titles, one capitalizes the first word, proper nouns, and, if the first word is an article, the first substantive and any intervening adjectives. If we are quoting from Article X in French that cites Article Y by title in French, shouldn't we just copy from Article X without changing spelling, capitalization, and punctuation? —Anomalocaris (talk) 01:03, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia should follow standard, professional practices rather than making up its own rules to suit editors' personal desires and pet peeves. It is standard to change chevrons but retain accent marks.
 * English doesn't always make sense. If you want to change the English language so that it better fits your idea of what's rational, go ahead: Write editorials endorsing your position.  Contact style guides.  Write a blog or book and use your preferred styles there.  Contact teachers' organizations and encourage them to offer students your methods.  But don't do it here. Darkfrog24 (talk) 13:11, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * But we're not talking about English, that's precisely the point. We're talking about how to render punctuation/italics etc in foreign-language quotes and headlines. And it's perfectly legitimate professional practice to leave them as they are. Doing that on WP would not involve or require reinventing the world's style guides and practices.  N-HH   talk / edits  13:45, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The English Wikipedia is an English-language publication meant for English-speaking readers. We should write for our audience. Darkfrog24 (talk) 19:51, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, but the quotes themselves are not English; in some cases they will not even be in Latin script. This seems a rather obvious point. As I think someone else already pointed out, the problems the average reader of English WP will probably have understanding or relating to foreign quotes is more likely to come down to the language itself than trivial punctuation and style points. I'm slightly confused as to how changing occasional chevrons to italics or quote marks - or, say, removing Spanish-style inverted qu marks - will help. The point is surely - for the reasons you note, that this is the English WP - that direct foreign quotes are going to pretty rare and will most likely appear as headlines/titles in citations. Especially when dealing with headlines or titles, retention of original formatting and style seems reasonable - not to mention perfectly common in real-world practice. Writing for our audience can't be a catch-all excuse to amend everything that might be unfamiliar or confusing, especially when it's an accurate representation of the original.  N-HH   talk / edits  13:36, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * With respect to reader understanding, we are likely to get more hits than misses if we follow the standard practices that are used by other publications than by making up our own rules. At least a few readers will have seen the conversion of chevrons before and will understand what it means. (To the best of my knowledge, the conversion of chevrons is standard but the conversion of upside down question marks et al. is not.) Darkfrog24 (talk) 21:27, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * It's definitely not universal practice though, so we wouldn't be going out on a limb by retaining them on the rare occasions they come up. Whether changing chevrons or retaining them is more - or less - common in the real world, I don't know (and I'm not sure how you would assess that and make a judgment anyway).  N-HH   talk / edits  16:29, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * If we have to wait for 100% compliance, then we'll have to chuck both British and American spelling systems as well. Darkfrog24 (talk) 18:09, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Darkfrog, I hope by "hits and misses" you are not trying to suggest that your method will improve automated search results.

I mark up your above comment:
 * Wikipedia should follow standard, professional practices rather than making up its own rules to suit editors' personal desires and pet peeves. It is standard to change chevrons but retain accent marks.

I realize that The Chicago Manual of Style is on its 16th edition, but I have the 14th edition, so I am going to use that as my authority. Chapter 9 is "Foreign Languages in Type" and has numerous examples of retaining chevrons in foreign languages that use them. French examples offered include:
 * «Va-t’en!» m’a-t-il dit.
 * D’où vient l’expression «sur le tapis»?
 * Est-ce Louis XV qui a dit: «Après moi, le déluge»?

And German:
 * Adam Smith hat sehr wohl gesehen, daß in „Wirklichkeit die Verschiedenheit der natürlichen Anlagen zwischen den Individuen weit geringer ist als wir glauben.“

I would support changing curly single and double quotes and apostrophes to straight single and double quotes and apostrophes, because we do that in English anyway and the straight symbols are in some sense the same symbols as the curly ones, in a way that quotes and chevrons are not the same. —Anomalocaris (talk) 17:43, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Which guideline for citation style?
Should questions of citation style be covered by the Manual of Style and its sub-pages, by Citing sources, or all of these? This question was triggered by the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers and by a proposal at that same talk page which would create new mandates on citation date format. Jc3s5h (talk) 13:43, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Threaded discussion on which guideline
I suggest it creates an intolerable contradiction to state in WP:Citing sources "...Wikipedia does not have a single house style. Editors may choose any option they want; one article need not match what is done in other articles or what is done in professional publications or recommended by academic style guides. However, citations within a given article should follow a consistent style...." but to go on to give citation style advice in the MOS that contradicts the style that is used in many printed style guides or used, consistently, in many existing articles. So I believe "Citing sources" should be recognized as the primary style guide for citations and the MOS should only summarize "Citing sources". Jc3s5h (talk) 13:43, 6 May 2012 (UTC)


 * The proposal here is that WP:CITE should enjoy primacy over WP:MOSNUM as to the form of dates in the reference sections, but it's not at all clear why WP:CITE should enjoy primacy. I believe WP:CITE was set up to give guidance as to correct provision of citation content, and Manual of Style exists to guide the format of that content and appearance on the display window or printed page. There is nothing wrong nor contradictory for WP:CITE to re-emphasise that date formats ought to be consistent. WP:CITE does have a role to play in governing what parameters are required to achieve the aims of WP:RS and WP:V, amongst others, but it should not pretend a role in determining the ultimate permissible form of those parameters, particularly date format. The combinations of which formats are deemed acceptable has involved consensus developed over a long period. MOSNUM is apparently more restrictive than WP:CITE with respect to dates, but I see no problem in that because WP:CITE ought to concentrate on the substance and cede on matters of form. One consequence of giving WP:CITE primacy over WP:MOSNUM in the matter of date formats that immediately springs to mind is to allow chimera articles where the date formats in the body of an article on a US subject is referenced according to the MLA Style Manual (use of dmy dates in the citations, including access dates). To my mind, that would not be a desirable state of affairs. -- Ohconfucius  ¡digame! 14:27, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The fact that Ohconfucius wants to deprecate usage called for by a printed style manual means that he wants to move toward establishing a house style, which has been repeatedly rejected (for better or worse). Also, there are many automated tools available to implement citations in the the various printed style manuals; one such tool is Zotero. By forcing certain aspects of these styles to be altered for Wikipedia makes the automated tools unusable, and channels development of improved citation methods for Wikipedia in one direction (citation templates) and isolates Wikipedia from improvements that might be made elsewhere. Jc3s5h (talk) 14:36, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Do the tools such as Zotero render dmy, mdy and yyyy-mm-dd dates correctly? And how would having our dates more uniform be detrimental to the evolution of such bibliographic techniques? -- Ohconfucius  ¡digame! 16:41, 6 May 2012 (UTC)


 * My very limited experiments suggest Zotero will change the date stored as metadata in the Zotero program to the format called for in whatever output style the user has selected. And any ruling that says go ahead and use APA style or MLA style or any other style, except make (whatever) change, effectively rules out any automation that is not compatible with citation templates. Jc3s5h (talk) 17:08, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Seeing that Zotaro, and probably most other programs performing a similar function, are all capable of parsing our three permissible date formats in whatever combination (ie dates don't even need to be consistent at all), it seems that you have discounted one major argument for permitting the multitude of 'citation methods'. -- Ohconfucius  ¡digame! 00:15, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I deny that there are three permissible citation date formats; there are as many permissible formats as there are citation styles. All we have is a prohibition against all-numeric formats except YYYY-MM-DD.
 * There is no guidance about what format editors should use to store their dates within any citation software the editor may choose to use on his/her computer. Unless Wikipedia adopts some kind of source database in the future, there is no need for such guidance. All that matters is the format that is placed in the article.
 * The allowance of all consistent citation styles is firmly established; this RfC is about allowing contradictions between guidelines. Jc3s5h (talk) 01:10, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * "I deny that there are three permissible citation date formats" You would do... you've been strongly advocating the supremacy of CITE over MOSNUM, which only permits three. I say there's no contradiction, especially as there seems to be no longer a valid reason for encouraging this diversity of formats within any given article. --  Ohconfucius  ¡digame! 01:25, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:CITE says APA style is allowed. APA style gives the following example of a publication date in a citation: "(1993, September 30). (p. 200). Your statement "there seems to be no longer a valid reason for encouraging this diversity of formats within any given article" is incompatible with WP:CITE, established consensus, and WP:MOSNUM. Jc3s5h (talk) 01:50, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I am not opposed to having dmy dates in the reference sections; I personally have no gripes with a US subject's article being entirely in dmy format, as that would seem to avoid the problem. But that would create a problem with the general convention that US articles should have mdy dates. If you can resolve that, I'd back you. If anything, the respective scopes of WP:CITE and WP:MOSNUM should be more clearly defined and narrowed (if needs be), to avoid the conflict. WP:CITE ought not to encroach upon WP:MOS in matters of style. There should be no question of a power-grab. -- Ohconfucius  ¡digame! 02:06, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * A thought: the APA problem seems easy enough to resolve by ringfencing psychology articles, just like we already do for US military articles, which are almost universally dmy. But what about MLA? -- Ohconfucius  ¡digame! 03:05, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * (Noticed this idea while re-reading the section, hence the comment after almost two weeks.) Ringfencing psychology articles to limit APA date styles won't work; though originated by and maintained by the American Psychological Association, APA style is widely used throughout many different social sciences, not just psychology, and also in some natural science writing. That's why it's usually one of main citation styles taught in American secondary schools and higher education. In short, it's too widely known and used to depreciate as a valid style here, unless we mandate a house style, which has indeed been rejected in past discussions.oknazevad (talk) 05:07, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

I am opposed to any interference whatever in the established citation styles, unless the established citation style is so badly designed that it will create inordinate confusion in articles. For example, to the best of my knowledge, no printed style manuals have authors stupid enough to suggest referring to today as 4/7/12, and WP:CITE has forbidden this practice to cover any existing consistent use in any article out there. The reason I oppose any interference except in extreme cases is because interference breaks automated tools that produce citations in the various styles, disrupts the habits of editors that learned some of these styles at school, and prevents cut-and-paste of citations from outside Wikipedia. For example, just as Wikipedia suggest how to cite a Wikipedia in many different formats, some articles from outside provide these helpful suggestions.

That said, the contradiction between the present version of WP:MOSNUM and WP:CITE is not as great as you suggest, because you have not correctly interpreted WP:MOSNUM. That guideline has a separate section, "In references", which discusses date formats in citations, which has a "See also" pointing to WP:CITE. I suggest that only the material within WP:MOSNUM applies to citations, and other material in WP:MOSNUM does not. The only contradiction between "In references" and WP:CITE is that the former says an access date or archive date must either be in YYYY-MM-DD format, or the same format as publication dates. Since publication date format is not specified within "In references", the publication date may be in any consistent format, independent of what the rest of the article uses. So there would only be a conflict if there is a style that uses, for example "2012, May 7" as a publication date but "May 7, 20012" as an access date. I have not found a style guide that calls for differing format between publication and access date, so this contradiction is only theoretical.

The reason this is an issue is that proposals are constantly being made, especially at WP:MOSNUM, which would create contradictions that would be real, not theoretical. Jc3s5h (talk) 03:36, 7 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Often MOS trespasses on other areas and style in MOS is used to trigger bot changes. Why it is that an RFC was held in the MOS to force through a change that all footnotes next to punctuation should go after punctuation? BTW why does MOSNUM gives examples that it for the sake of consistency that it is OK to use "Sep" but not "September"? -- PBS (talk) 07:26, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * It's making a point about consistency, not the use of one or other form ("Sep" vs "September"): don't use "Sep" and "September" together. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:30, 7 May 2012 (UTC)


 * It's not a "trespass", it's MoS's purpose. It's our style guideline (and subguidelines). CITE is a content guideline; everything it says about style needs to come from MOS, or CITE is exceeding its mandate. As for "Sep" vs. "September" we should not ever be seen as advocating "Sep" as allowable here, since non-native English speakers are often not going to know what such abbreviations mean, and that wasn't even a properly formatted abbreviation anyway (try "Sep."). — SMcCandlish    Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿ ¤ þ  Contrib.  08:43, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

There seem to me to be two different issues mixed up here. MOSNUM allows two kinds of date format inconsistency: The arguments in favour of (1) are not necessarily the same as those in favour of (2). It would be a significantly smaller change to insist on a consistent style for all dates in references. Changing (1) only makes sense in the context of a much wider change to limiting the allowed referencing styles, which is simply not going to happen. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:47, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) The consistent style used for publication dates in references can be different from the consistent style used for dates in the running text of the article.
 * 2) The consistent style used for access and archive dates in references can be different from the consistent style used for publication dates in references.
 * True. And the arguments for (1) are only marginally less weak than those for (2), which border on asinine WP:ILIKEIT nonsense, that (as usual) smacks of a good deal of WP:SSF (the tired old "the journals I read in my field do it this way, so Wikipedia has to do it this way, or I'll stamp my feet and threaten to quit" nonsense). — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿ ¤ þ  Contrib.  08:43, 13 May 2012 (UTC)


 * If by "significantly smaller" Peter coxhead means the issue will occur in a much smaller number of citations, I agree. Until today, I was not convinced that any printed style manual existed that called for a different format between the publication date and the access date. I had looked through the APA style guide and found the recommended publication date format was like "(2010, February 22)", and that access dates were discouraged unless the content was likely to change. I could find no example of an access date format. But today I experimented with Zotero and found that if you specify an access date and order Zotero to produce an APA reference list entry, it will format the access date like "March 6, 2012".
 * Which doesn't necessarily mean anything at all about anything other than "what does Zotero do?" If the APA's own style guide doesn't provide a specified style for access dates, but does provide one for other types of dates, then the obvious conclusions are a) APA access dates are formatting like publication and other dates; b) Zotero's output is incorrect on this point; c) we DGAF, because, per WP:ENGVAR, we use either "2 December 2012" or "December 2, 2012" date formats, and per WP:MOSNUM use one ENGVAR date format consistently in the article, don't support weird-ass date formatting like "2012, December 2", and per WP:NOT, we don't do what random other publishers do (WP is not APA). The fact that pushers of various specialist styles have been improperly adding loosey-goosey "do whatever you want" style advice to the non-style, content guideline at WP:CITE needs to be stopped and reverted, because it's an abuse of process. — SMcCandlish    Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿ ¤ þ  Contrib.  08:43, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 * This example on the official APA style blog settles the matter of the access date format for APA: it's like "May 13, 2012". As for MOS controlling citation style, it doesn't today because it does not provide any citation style. All it does is provide style for regular text, a little bit of which could be forced onto citations. Jc3s5h (talk) 13:42, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Are there any other date styles that guidelines allow/encourage using not so far discussed here (i.e other than the " " endorsed by APA)? I ask this because we seem to be veering down the path of philosophical objection to having a unified format based largely on a theoretical practice. In my travels across Wikipedia, I have never seen an entire article 'properly' or predominantly formatting dates in this [APA] fashion. Yes, I have seen the odd (i.e. one or two, and five at the utmost) APA style date used in articles and always co-existing with dmy/mdy and ISO formats. On that basis, I am pretty confident in saying there are no more than a small handful of article in our database with any such APA-style date. That makes this point moot, because for the sake of global consistency, there can be no point in allowing what is clearly a fringe date format as far as WP editors are concerned. -- Ohconfucius  ¡digame! 01:51, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The citation templates were originally based on APA. All those articles out there that you might think are hand-typed citations that look like the template citations could equally well be regarded as imperfectly typed APA citations. If there is ever a desire to automate those with software that is also used outside Wikipedia, there is a good chance software that correctly implements APA would be used. But placing a requirement on date formats would prevent the same software from being used inside and outside Wikipedia. Sort of reminds me of the National Geodetic Survey, which has locked itself into its own software with data formats based in IBM punched cards. Jc3s5h (talk) 10:54, 25 May 2012 (UTC)


 * 'MoS: Like all style issues, the central "authority" is and must remain MoS. Even WP:AT policy derives its style requirements from MoS (e.g. it says to use P. T. Barnum not P.T. Barnum or PT Barnum because of what MoS says about handling initials; the naming conventions did not arrive at a style decision like that independently).  WP:CITE is essentially a how-to page, even if labelled a content guideline.  To the extent that it really is in fact a content guideline, it is a  not  guideline, so by definition it yields to MoS on style matters..  That said, it should certainly repeat relevant style advice, mirroring what MOS says on the matters that come up, so people don't have to go read all of WP:CITE, then just to figure out a few style questions about citations, have to come read all of WP:MOS and its subpages, and try to interpret it all as it could be applicable to citations. We can collectively do that interpretation once and save it for everyone at WP:CITE.  And that definitely needs to be done, done well, and frequently checked for consistency with MoS. I see boatloads of badly-formatted (from a WP standpoint) citations, with messy crap like , that someone lazily copy-pasted and didn't clean up (it should be  , and not abbreviated to initials at all if the names are actually known; also, many citation template fanciers would want to see this done with separate last1, etc., templates, not a lazy author block.)
 * There's no more (or less) justification to italicize "et al." than "etc.", "i.e." and similar terms. See MOS:Ety – the term is in the online Merriam-Webster here. But this comes down to SMcCandlish's point, which I agree with, that WP:ILIKEIT arguments and "if you change citation policy I'll stop editing" threats have ensured that Wikipedia has wildly inconsistent citation styles. Unless and until this changes, messing about with date style in citations is pointless. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:45, 13 May 2012 (UTC)


 * CITEVAR—This is a content issue, not a style issue. Different citation formats present radically different informational concepts and are field specific.  Moreover, any citation style chosen will be wrong, as no one citation style fulfils the general requirements of citation, and in particular even highly complete citation systems such as Turabian (ie: a citation style system that would produce the fewest number of incorrectly expressed citations) are beyond the capacity of automated implementation let alone Wikipedia's editorial public who can't determine who an author is. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:16, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Moot, surely? It seems that Turabian is so specialist and esoteric that it is unlikely ever to be employed in Wikipedia. ;-) -- Ohconfucius  ¡digame! 02:43, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Turabian is Chicago style, but modified for student papers. It's simplified compared to Chicago. Wikipedia has always confined the use of printed style manuals to the citations, and used its own MOS for the body of the article. All these printed style manuals contain advice about the body of articles as well as the citations. The biggest difference between Chicago and Turabian is in the body of the article; Chicago is all about creating a manuscript to be turned over to a publisher, while Turabian is about creating a finished product to be turned into a teacher. For Wikipedia purposes there is no need to distinguish between Chicago and Turabian. Jc3s5h (talk) 10:54, 25 May 2012 (UTC)


 * What a storm in a teacup. WP:CITE should be the primary source on how to do citations. The main thing I think missing about it a rationale that might help people in choosing a citation style. For instance in an article which is based on only a few sources but there are many references with the sources then harvard style works out best. However for articles based on a multitude of different sources with not all that much need to refer to different pages in the same sources then a more straightforward citation style is better as the user can get to the information directly. It's horses for courses. We most definitely do not have to follow book styles because we have hyperlinks. As to dates in citations I'm not at all fussed if these are different from the main body of the article. Dmcq (talk) 11:29, 16 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose. To actually implement this would need a much wider discussion than a backwater MoS page and very broad consensus would need to be achieved.  It will be a nightmare to get all the different disciplines, used to citing in their own particular way, to agree on one common style.  I confidently predicy that attempting to do it will lead to months of unnecessary anguish with a net result of "no consensus".  Spinning  Spark  16:04, 16 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Support WP having a citation style that is defined by the MOS. I believe it is a service to our readers to be able to present a consistent (as possible) style for referencing syntax so that they can easily find and decipher similar information as they move between articles. We are already effectively getting a "house style" with the (vastly increasing) use of the various templates, so we may as well have a defined standard that editors can turn to as a default. I don't see the problem with taking the formatting guidance out of the Cite guidelines and making them a sub-page of the MOS since the MOS is the most likely venue editors will turn to for formatting advice of any kind. I don't believe that this is as much of a content issue as others are suggesting, however I'm not against variants to an eventual MOS style as long as those variants are clearly shown to be necessary based on content (and I fully expect such exceptions to be eventually worked into the MOS). GFHandel &#9836;  02:34, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Citation styles
Seems to me that it would be useful to list the varying styles. Please update as seen fit. Please add only styles known to be in use on the English Wikipedia. ---— Gadget850 (Ed)  talk 21:24, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

In-text citation style:
 * Non-template
 * APA style
 * Chicago Manual of Style footnote style


 * Footnote3
 * Footnote3
 * Footnote3
 * Footnote3

defined (as used):
 * In-text defined

Full citation style:
 * Non-template
 * APA style (date format sometimes modified)
 * Chicago Manual of Style footnote style


 * Template
 * Linguistic Society of America
 * Linguistic Society of America
 * Linguistic Society of America
 * Linguistic Society of America

Citation title style:
 * Title case
 * Sentence case

Citation template format (where used):
 * Horizontal
 * Vertical

Citation author style (Western names):
 * Case
 * Standard
 * Smallcaps
 * Name order
 * Last First
 * First Last
 * First name
 * Full
 * Intials

Citation date styles:
 * Same as body
 * YYY-MM-DD

Citation access dates
 * All citations with URLs
 * Only for web pages with content likely to change

Reference list style:
 * Font size
 * Standard
 * Smaller
 * Columns
 * Single
 * Multiple
 * Indent
 * None
 * Hanging

Summary
As I read it, the following editors have expressed a preference for which guideline should control citation style:

In addition GFHandel expressed a preference for a house style contained within the MOS. Jc3s5h (talk) 11:34, 24 May 2012 (UTC) updated 6 June 2012 13:50 UTC


 * Please add me to the MoS preferrers. That's much easier for editors. Tony   (talk)  13:10, 25 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Please note that "which guideline should control citation style", a style guideline or a content guideline, is a self-answering question. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿ ¤ þ  Contrib.  00:31, 27 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Just on a slightly different topic, I've just had the unsavoury experience of making an edit in New York State Route 227, an article that is so crowded with templates in the running prose, many of them citation templates, that it took minutes to locate the item I wanted to edit. No wonder new editors leave. Why were these hideously long and cumbersome inline citation templates ever allowed? Tony   (talk)  00:05, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Technical limitations. Rmhermen (talk) 01:06, 29 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I prefer MOS too. 1exec1 (talk) 10:59, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Dashes in article titles and mojibake
It seems to me that people who link to Wikipedia frequently go to the article page and then copy the URL they land on. Normally, this is fine, but occasionally things go pear-shaped when the article title has a dash that gets turned into mojibake. I can't be the only person who has been momentarily confused from seeing "Wikipedia does not have an article with this exact name" due to a corrupted URL. Is there any way we can make the URLs use hyphens in place of dashes in the article titles? (Sorry if this should go somewhere else, but I don't know where to put it.) --Poochy (talk) 18:40, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I can't reproduce the problem: the Mexican–American War (with a dash) URL works for me.
 * Maybe someone else's browser would change that to link to the Mexican-American War (with a hyphen) redirect, but it doesn't say there's no such article; it presents a link to the article.
 * If an article with a dash has no redirect using the same title with a hyphen, then that redirect should be added, as specified by the MOS:DASH guideline. Art LaPella (talk) 00:42, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The problem is that someone else's browser might change that link to "http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mexicanâ€“American_War" or otherwise replace the dash with some other equally unpredictable gibberish. And we can't possibly create a redirect for every single possibility, since every single possible combination of encoding and mismatched decoding choices could potentially result in a different set of gibberish in place of the dash. --Poochy (talk) 12:30, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Don't tell me this is yet another Internet Explorer (7) problem. It's an execrable browser that has already caused us grief, restricted what we can do. Tony   (talk)  13:12, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Does MOS:IDENTITY apply to credit for works?
More practically: Should the director for The Matrix be listed as "Larry Wachowski" or "Lana Wachowski"? Kaldari (talk) 20:46, 26 May 2012 (UTC)


 * MOS:IDENTITY suggests the latter, but ... in contexts that don't have room for a lot of elaboration, I'd probably lean towards formulations such as  "Lana Wachowski (as Larry Wachowski)", or ""Lana Wachowski (credited as Larry Wachowski)", which are not uncommon formulations.  --joe deckertalk to me 20:59, 26 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Surely, we can cut the proverbial cake and say "Larry Wachowski (now Lana Wachowski)"? Hopefully, I won't offend anybody if I suggest that there's a parallel with pseudonymous works: Alice's Adventures in Wonderland is written by Lewis Carroll, the pseudonym of Charles Lutwidge Dodgson. The article on Alice's Adventures in Wonderland says it was "written by English author Charles Lutwidge Dodgson under the pseudonym Lewis Carroll" and lists Lewis Carroll as the author in the infobox.
 * On the transgender issue specifically, I've been drafting some guidelines about how we can handle transgender issues more sensitively on-wiki. See User:Tom Morris/Write about gender identity sensitively. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:03, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
 * In contexts like the Matrix infobox, I think there's a real value to the reader to including both names. Nice work with that draft essay, by the way, I may drop a comment or two, but at a glance, it appears completely in-line with my own views on the subject.  --joe deckertalk to me 21:23, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I think there is a large difference between pseudonyms and gender identity changes. In the case of a pseudonym, we have no reason to the believe the author would object to the use of their real name. In the case of gender identity changes, it is often the case that the person prefers to never be referred to by their old name (even in historical contexts). I think a closer analogy would be Cat Stevens/Yusuf Islam, and even that isn't quite the same situation. Kaldari (talk) 21:57, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
 * It's not a biographical article. It's one thing to change references from he to she or a name change in their own specific article or in updated works to represent them as they are in their own bio. If Steven Spielberg changes his name to Pierre Lamar Sanchez, it wouldn't do to change E.T. from "directed by Steven Spielberg" to "directed by Pierre Lamar Sanchez" and it certainly wouldn't be practical to change it to "directed by Pierre Lamar Sanchez formerly Steven Spielberg". It's Common Name and common knowledge that Spielberg = E.T. like Wachowski Brothers = Matrix. Wachowski Brothers is how they are credited on the film, they aren't even credited individually and I find it wholly improper to essentially alter history to give an updated credit when all MOS:FILM guidelines say that it should represent the film as it was released. Blade Runner's plot does not reflect all the updates, only the initial release. That Larry or whichever one became Lana has no bearing on The Matrix or relevance to its history and has no need to be mentioned, nor its history distorted to reflect it. You can follow through to their article to find that out. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:23, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Kaldari, I think you have that quite right. --joe deckertalk to me 23:04, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Except that he just undermined himself when all of Cat Stevens works are credited to Cat Stevens and not Yusuf Islam. EDIT: And only on his post Yusuf works is he credited as Yusuf (formerly Cat Stevens).Darkwarriorblake (talk) 23:14, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
 * @Darkwarriorblake: But in this case, "Lana Wachowski" is gradually achieving WP:COMMONNAME (unlike Yusuf Islam or your fictional example). Already, sites such as IMDB and Metacritic credit The Matrix to "Lana Wachowski". As the Wachowskis continue to make movies, eventually "Lana" will fully overtake "Larry" as the more commonly cited name. I haven't done enough research to determine which name is actually more common at this point, but considering MOS:IDENTITY as an extenuating circumstance, I don't think it would hurt for us to go ahead and make the change (or at least mention both names). There is ample precedent for us listing "actual names" rather than credited names for movies on Wikipedia, especially in older black and white movies where the crediting was somewhat haphazard. Kaldari (talk) 23:22, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
 * IMDb and Metacritic use databases and tags. That is it. To preserve different names they would have to create two accounts for one person, splitting hteir work history and making their job harder than just changing the name on the particular record entry in the database. This is not some encompassing endorsement, it's a technological practicality of running a database/website. That Lana MAY become the common name does not, again, change the credit or history. That Larry is now Lana has no affect on The Matrix, it isn't part of it, or its history and would require inserting an unnecessary confusing tangent where none is required. The film is TWELVE years old, there is no mass confusion about this issue because as I said, it has no bearing on that film. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 23:32, 26 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Note: Concurrent discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film. --IllaZilla (talk) 03:04, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

The "official" director is the one that rolls in the credits. In terms of it not being "right", it's not much different than a film directed by Alan Smithee - even if we know who we know who the "true" director is, the director of the movie is the name listed in the credits. Of course, just like a move directed by Alan Smithee, if there is other relevant information about the director that should be included in articles as appropriate, but not replacing the director's name shown on the credits. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 04:06, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
 * In most of the Alan Smithee films on Wikipedia, we list the real director, not "Alan Smithee". In many cases, however, "(credited as Alan Smithee)" is added after the real name. Kaldari (talk) 04:56, 27 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Just list both names, e.g. “Larry Wachowski (now Lana Wachowski)” or “Lana Wachowski (then Larry Wachowski)”. FWIW, while the situation is not fully analogous, Geno Washington & the Ram Jam Band lists “Geoff Pullum aka Jeff Wright” (he went by Jeff Wright as a musician but now goes by his real name Geoffrey K. Pullum as a linguist). <span style="background:#00ae00;white-space:nowrap;padding:3px;color:black;font:600 1em 'Gentium Book Basic', serif">― A. di M.​  10:00, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

(Modified and expanded from earlier version)

Wendy Carlos is an interesting example, having both film and music album credits, and being famous both before and after reassignment surgery. Consider how we credit her various works:

Switched-On Bach: Text = "...by Wendy Carlos (originally released under the name of Walter Carlos)..."

The Well-Tempered Synthesizer: Text = "...a 1969 album released by Wendy Carlos..." Album cover shows "Wendy" (which raises the question as to whether Wikipedia was right to show an album cover and use an artist name that were not what was on the album when it was released: http://www.flickr.com/photos/djwudi/4886318732/)

Walter Carlos' Clockwork Orange: "Walter" in the title and on the album cover, but the text says "Wendy" with no explanation.

A Clockwork Orange (soundtrack): Text = "...music composed by Wendy Carlos (who, having not yet undergone sex reassignment surgery, was credited as 'Walter Carlos')..."

The Shining (film): Text = "...brief electronic score by Wendy Carlos..."

And, of course Wendy Carlos. Lead: "...Wendy Carlos is an American composer and electronic musician..." Career section: "...Carlos was born Walter Carlos..."

Do we really want these different pages about the same person following different rules set out by WikiProject Film, WikiProject Music and WikiProject Biography? I say that we don't. Instead, each WikiProject should contribute to a unified and decision made at Manual of Style. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:47, 27 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, we are certainly inconsistent in these areas. It seems that our current practice is a mix of WP:COMMONNAME, MOS:IDENTITY, and what is actually written in the credits. The claim that we just follow what's written in the credits is incorrect. We seem to always fix misspellings (see my list at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film) and we often favor WP:COMMONNAME over actual credits (see any of the numerous songs that Prince wrote under his 5 different aliases for example). Kaldari (talk) 04:40, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm a fan of a "X (as Y)" construction whenever a person is known as X but credited as Y: this would apply for legal name changes (e.g. Wendy/Walter Carlos), psuedonym changes (e.g. Mos Def/Yasiin Bey), or Alan Smithee-ing. Sceptre (talk) 17:24, 27 May 2012 (UTC)


 * The "X (as Y)" method suggests a deliberate pseudonym to me, not a name change that was to happen later. I agree with Carl that the name in the credits, on the title pages, etc., is the "official" name.  I'd prefer to use that name with the latest legal name or better-known name in parentheses.  A little-known pseudonym can be in quotation marks.  The one place where I don't think this works is those village Smithees.
 * Switched-On Bach is ... by Walter Carlos (now Wendy Carlos).
 * ... directed by Larry Wachowski (now Lana Wachowski)
 * An Other Cup is an album by Yusuf (formerly known as Cat Stevens) [which is how that article starts].
 * Tom Sawyer is... by Mark Twain.
 * ... directed by Charles B. Wessler (credited as Alan Smithee)
 * Members: ... "Jeff Wright" (Geoffrey K. Pullum)
 * For the last one, I wouldn't object to
 * Members: ... Geoffrey K. Pullum (as Jeff Wright), with or without quotation marks, with or without "credited". &mdash;JerryFriedman (Talk) 20:22, 27 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Why don't you just follow the same pattern that you would use for any other legal name change, e.g., what you do when a woman changes her name as a result of getting married? WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:45, 31 May 2012 (UTC)


 * That would be Begging the question. You are answering the question "Does MOS:IDENTITY apply to credit for works?" with the answer "Why don't you just apply MOS:IDENTITY to credit for works?" --Guy Macon (talk) 06:01, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

MOS on Zoë Baird
I have mentioned this topic before. I personally am of the view that clearer guidance, and clearer visibility and linking for existing guidance, would reduce disruption and controversy on en.wp. A User has recently come to grief on the (widely acknowledged to be) inadequate guidance given by MOS and MOS subpages on a very basic area of conflict between diacritic-enabled and diacritic disabled sources. MOS starts to address this area in MOS:FOREIGN, and then continues with guidance in sub-pages: Linked from WP:MOS Not linked from WP:MOS
 * Naming conventions (use English) has the most extensive section WP:DIACRITICS
 * Manual of Style/Text formatting - example: "Gustav I of Sweden liked to breakfast on crisp bread (knäckebröd) open sandwiches.."
 * Article titles does give guidance re "Besançon, Søren Kierkegaard and Göttingen, but Nuremberg, delicatessen, and Florence.",
 * Manual of Style/Biographies twice gives "(from François Mitterrand): François Maurice Adrien Marie Mitterrand (October 26, 1916 – January 8, 1996) ..." under both WP:OPENPARA and also under WP:FULLNAME
 * Manual of Style/Proper names has an extensive section including "For example, the name of the article on Hungarian mathematician Paul Erdős is spelt with the double acute accent, and the alternative spellings Paul Erdös and Paul Erdos redirect to that article."- although the entire section has recently been removed without prior discussion of the change on April 19 then restored. In ictu oculi (talk) 23:55, 29 May 2012 (UTC)


 * The content of Manual of Style/Proper names is under dispute because it contradicts this page, and at the moment you are rejecting any changes to that page to bring it into harmony with this one.
 * I do no think that there is "widely acknowledged to be) inadequate guidance given by MOS and MOS subpages on a very basic area of conflict between diacritic-enabled and diacritic disabled sources" can you provide evidence of this?
 * Please give diffs for the statement "A User has recently come to grief".
 * -PBS (talk) 07:39, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

related: WP:IRS on Zoë Baird
As WP:DIACRITICS indicates this is partly, perhaps primarily a WP:IRS issue. Note also that the Computer Security Act of 1987 (repealed by the Federal Information Security Management Act of 2002 but still referenced for diacritics below in 2010) prohibited names like Zoë Baird in birth certificates and SSA documentation; as also the ICAO prohibits names like Zoë Baird in passports of any country.
 * Zoë Baird - diacritic enabled sources (pick one from article, e.g. New York Times)
 * Zoe Baird - Time Magazine website (assuming diacritic disabled?) http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,977802,00.htm

Proposal - I propose to add Zoë Baird as an example to WP:DIACRITICS, with all 4 of the above sources as footnotes. The reason I'm making a pre-proposal here on WT:MOS, the page which links to it, is there may be objection that WP:DIACRITICS is not the correct place to make this proposal. In ictu oculi (talk) 23:55, 29 May 2012 (UTC)


 * You are confusing the scope of the MOS and that of the WP:AT policy. The MOS makes it clear that for article titles as opposed to usage within an article that the AT policy guidance should be followed, a better example to use would be the Brontë family rather than an article like Charlotte Brontë. Links exist on this page to WP:AT and Naming conventions (use English). If you want to discuss the content of WP:DIACRITICS that should be done on the appropriate talk page (Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (use English)) not here. If you want to discuss the content of WP:AT then do so at [Wikipedia talk:Article titles.


 * As an aside, primary sources should not be used for deciding on the spellings to use in names unless they have been published in reliable secondary sources (see WP:PSTS), so what is or is not on someone's birth certificate is not usually relevance in deciding a name and I do not think we need to discuss birth certificate guidance). -- PBS (talk) 07:39, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi Philip
 * Thanks, I will follow your suggestions unless others advise otherwise.
 * In ictu oculi (talk) 08:29, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The source given for the ICAO policy prohibiting names with diacritics doesn't seem to me to do so: it says that UK passports do not allow names with diacritics. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:59, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Spaced mdash and ndash vs unspaced (templated)
As is currently being discussed on Bots/Requests for approval/Hazard-Bot 10, is it better to: As for the first, there are issues with the reading of the source of the page itself (seeing foo –  bar is not very nice). For the second, it (the page source) would be "easier" to read (foo – bar is considerably less of an eyestrain to read). The third would lead us to having  and   all over the wiki.  Hazard-SJ  ✈   01:42, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Remain as we are now, with Spaced ndash and Ndash, as well as Spaced mdash and (possibly soon to come again) Mdash
 * 2) Manually add space between dash templates (depreciate Spaced mdash and Spaced ndash)
 * 3) Substitute and/or have these automatically substituted these dash templates.
 * We should never ever use spaced em dashes. There is no grammatically correct usage of spaced em dashes. Not in lists. Not in sentences. Not in navboxes. All uses of spaced em dashes should be replaced with regular em dashes or spaced en dashes, preferably non-templated (unless they're in a horizontal list). Kaldari (talk) 03:05, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The WP:DASH guideline says "Do not use spaced em dashes", so it isn't just Kaldari's opinion. We shouldn't have both a guideline and also a spaced mdash template to help people violate that guideline. Art LaPella (talk) 04:51, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The point of using spaced ndash rather than ndash with manually added spaces is that with the former the space before the dash is non-breaking. So the right comparison is not between  and   but between   and  . <span style="background:#00ae00;white-space:nowrap;padding:3px;color:black;font:600 1em 'Gentium Book Basic', serif">― A. di M.​   10:18, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Em dash spacing is not an issue of grammar — it is an issue of style. It is stylistically correct and is used on the websites of The New York Times, The Washington Post, San Francisco Chronicle, and many others. Here at Wikipedia, the community decision is to use unspaced em dashes — a decision I regret, but must abide by in the article space. — Anomalocaris (talk) 17:28, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Use of "the late"
Are there any WP policies that specifically address when (but more specifically if) the form "the late X" is ever to be used for a deceased individual? There is a dispute at Powhatan language that relates to this. Thank you. --Taivo (talk) 22:12, 1 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I do not know whether there are any Wikipedia policies that address your question, but here are two external links.
 * http://www.formsofaddress.info/Names.html#066
 * http://howtowrite.weebly.com/how-to-write-an-obituary.html (sections 4 and 5)
 * —Wavelength (talk) 00:10, 2 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Coincidentally, I have just posted a WP:ERRORS report on the main page describing someone who died in the American Revolutionary Wars as late.
 * It is, I suspect, more a phrase used in social convention than encyclopaedic, formal, euphemism-avoiding tone. It dates the article, as it will eventually become redundant, and so is a form of recentism, and is equivalent to describing, for example, an archbishop or an earl as "your grace": it might be socially appropriate, but it is not encyclopaedic. Kevin McE (talk) 09:42, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Contradiction again
My usual complaint. MOS: still conflicts with several similar guidelines in the subpages on how to punctuate the end of a list element. Discussed here. Art LaPella (talk) 23:34, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Capitalization and punctuation in song titles
I have a question about capitalization as connected to punctuation in album and song titles. There are the standard rules about parentheses, and I assume (although I couldn't find a reference to it in the MoS) that the rule holds true for colons and periods inside of song names.

"Oh, Bury Me Not (Introduction: A Cowboy's Prayer)" a song from Johnny Cash's American Recordings--I'd leave that "A" untouched because it's next to a colon.

But what about a song that had a comma or another piece of punctuation in its title?

Specifically, I'm wondering about the Lucinda Williams album "Live @ The Fillmore." The only possible reason I can surmise that someone would capitalize "The" is because it's next to an "@" sign. But should it be an @? Even though that's the character they use on the album cover, does Wikipedia choose to use it, or should it be "Live at the Fillmore"? I haven't been able to find a page dealing with special characters. Or is there an authoritative source for whether or not we'd use a special character in an album name?

I'm new to editing Wikipedia, but as a basic copy editor I like to clean up capitalization when I see it.

67.142.161.21 (talk) 03:16, 2 June 2012 (UTC) Melissa Jenks, 6/1/12


 * I believe this guideline applies to the @ sign, from WP:TRADEMARK:


 * Avoid using special characters that are not pronounced, are included purely for decoration, or simply substitute for English words (e.g., ♥ used for "love"). In the article about a trademark, it is acceptable to use decorative characters the first time the trademark appears, but thereafter, an alternative that follows the standard rules of punctuation should be used:
 * avoid: Macy*s, skate., [ yellow tail ], Se7en, Alien3, Toys Я Us
 * instead, use: Macy's, Skate, Yellow Tail, Seven, Alien 3, Toys "R" Us


 * Art LaPella (talk) 05:50, 2 June 2012 (UTC)


 * So what you're saying is that the trademark rule applies to special characters in album names and song names? Should that be put in the Manual of Style for music?


 * Oops. Just noticed this note in MoS for Music:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Music#Capitalization


 * It makes specific mention of the trademark rule. Thanks for pointing me in the right direction.  I'll change the Lucinda Williams album, and others I find.  It doesn't answer my question about capitalization connected to colons and other legitimate punctuation, however.  I'm also unable to find the rule for ampersands.  For instance, should an album be listed by "Bob Dylan and the Band"?  "Bob Dylan and The Band"?  Or "Bob Dylan & The Band"?


 * From what I can find, it seem that Bob Dylan and The Band is used, primarily, with erratic capitalization of "the" (e.g. The Basement Tapes). But what about folk groups, like Ian & Sylvia, commonly referred to using an ampersand? It seems like a choice for an authoritative source, or the band itself.  What authoritative sources are best to use for variations in a band and album name, anyway?  I believe I found a page making reference to ampersands at one point, but I can't find it now.  I must say that the MoS is difficult to use for a new aspiring editor.


 * 67.142.161.21 (talk) 03:16, 2 June 2012 (UTC) Melissa Jenks, 6/1/12


 * I think you're looking for MOS:&, which says "Retain ampersands in titles of works or organizations, such as The Tom & Jerry Show or AT&T." So my AWB software changes a list of publishers like Simon and Schuster to Simon & Schuster, after determining that those organizations use the ampersand in places like their logo.


 * Our guideline on colons doesn't mention titles, so maybe someone else here can tell us what other style manuals say about that situation. This heated but dated discussion may be helpful.


 * I certainly agree that "the MoS is difficult to use for a new aspiring editor". Among other proposals, I have often urged that the search box labeled "Search the MoS" (near the upper right corner of the main MoS page) should be the main focus of that page. I suppose you would have found guidelines like MOS:& that way. Others have objected that a comprehensive table of contents that includes all the subpages would be more useful. Well then, we should do one or the other, or both! Art LaPella (talk) 01:35, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Hyphen in requested move
Hey, I was hoping for some opinions on a hyphen in an article title. There is a requested move for Racist music to be renamed as white power music (as this type of music is the focus of the article). My thinking is that it would be more appropriate at white-power music. The specific example I gave was that there is a huge difference between white-power metal and white power metal. However, I'm not a punctuation expert, hence this note. Please leave any opinions at the discussion. ▫  Johnny Mr Nin ja  20:20, 3 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I am revising the heading of this section from "Hypen in requested move" to "Hyphen in requested move", in harmony with WP:TPOC, point 13 (Section headings).
 * —Wavelength (talk) 21:30, 3 June 2012 (UTC)


 * You are correct, I don't actually need any help with "hypens"... except for, obviously, spelling them. ▫  Johnny Mr Nin ja  21:34, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Leading ellipses
It's not completely clear to me from the guidelines if a leading ellipsis is required or recommended if a quote is truncated. For example, if source says: "Spongebob exclaimed "The implementation of this archaic design policy totally sucks."" Would we write
 * Spongebob said that the policy "totally sucks." or
 * Spongebob said that the policy "... totally sucks."

Thanks in advance. Sasata (talk) 19:41, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I see a lot of leading ellipsis points that are quite unnecessary (they're visually disruptive, so need a good reason for their insertion). My view is that they should be inserted only where it's important to emphasise that the quotation is drawn from part of the way into a text/sentence. Tony   (talk)  05:49, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Agree with Tony. Kaldari (talk) 06:07, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Concur with Tony and Kaldari. Darkfrog24 (talk) 17:05, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Proposed MOS for Religion, and, maybe, related social sciences
There is a comparatively new MOS draft at WikiProject Religion/Manual of style. I believe it is worth at least mentioning here. I also think that it is very possible that this MOS might be applicable to a variety of "secular faiths" and other "ethoses" (if that is the right plural) and would very much welcome any input that editors here might want to give. John Carter (talk) 22:35, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I've posted comment about the draft's bloat and redundancy. Tony   (talk)  05:42, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
 * So far as I can see, no religious WikiProjects other than the Christianity one have been consulted. Surely they should take part in this?

When it was proposed concerns were raised that some of it read as "seemed like policy-exemptions dressed up as MOS.". An obvious example is the section on the lead, part of which reads "The lede of an article on religion or religious subjects should be comprised entirely of an objective description of the religion/subject. It should not contain critiques or criticisms of the religion/subject, and it should not contain apologetics for the religion/subject. A critique, in this context, means stating that the religion/subject is false or mistaken. A criticism, in this context, means stating that the religion is bad or harmful or deceitful or just plain wrong." This violates our WP:NPOV policy and obviously WP:LEAD. Dougweller (talk) 13:55, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Yup. And "should be comprised entirely of" -> "should exclusively comprise" (if it weren't inappropriate in the first place). Tony   (talk)  08:33, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Which guideline for citation style?
Should questions of citation style be covered by the Manual of Style and its sub-pages, by Citing sources, or all of these? This question was triggered by the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers and by a proposal at that same talk page which would create new mandates on citation date format. Jc3s5h (talk) 13:43, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Threaded discussion on which guideline
I suggest it creates an intolerable contradiction to state in WP:Citing sources "...Wikipedia does not have a single house style. Editors may choose any option they want; one article need not match what is done in other articles or what is done in professional publications or recommended by academic style guides. However, citations within a given article should follow a consistent style...." but to go on to give citation style advice in the MOS that contradicts the style that is used in many printed style guides or used, consistently, in many existing articles. So I believe "Citing sources" should be recognized as the primary style guide for citations and the MOS should only summarize "Citing sources". Jc3s5h (talk) 13:43, 6 May 2012 (UTC)


 * The proposal here is that WP:CITE should enjoy primacy over WP:MOSNUM as to the form of dates in the reference sections, but it's not at all clear why WP:CITE should enjoy primacy. I believe WP:CITE was set up to give guidance as to correct provision of citation content, and Manual of Style exists to guide the format of that content and appearance on the display window or printed page. There is nothing wrong nor contradictory for WP:CITE to re-emphasise that date formats ought to be consistent. WP:CITE does have a role to play in governing what parameters are required to achieve the aims of WP:RS and WP:V, amongst others, but it should not pretend a role in determining the ultimate permissible form of those parameters, particularly date format. The combinations of which formats are deemed acceptable has involved consensus developed over a long period. MOSNUM is apparently more restrictive than WP:CITE with respect to dates, but I see no problem in that because WP:CITE ought to concentrate on the substance and cede on matters of form. One consequence of giving WP:CITE primacy over WP:MOSNUM in the matter of date formats that immediately springs to mind is to allow chimera articles where the date formats in the body of an article on a US subject is referenced according to the MLA Style Manual (use of dmy dates in the citations, including access dates). To my mind, that would not be a desirable state of affairs. -- Ohconfucius  ¡digame! 14:27, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The fact that Ohconfucius wants to deprecate usage called for by a printed style manual means that he wants to move toward establishing a house style, which has been repeatedly rejected (for better or worse). Also, there are many automated tools available to implement citations in the the various printed style manuals; one such tool is Zotero. By forcing certain aspects of these styles to be altered for Wikipedia makes the automated tools unusable, and channels development of improved citation methods for Wikipedia in one direction (citation templates) and isolates Wikipedia from improvements that might be made elsewhere. Jc3s5h (talk) 14:36, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Do the tools such as Zotero render dmy, mdy and yyyy-mm-dd dates correctly? And how would having our dates more uniform be detrimental to the evolution of such bibliographic techniques? -- Ohconfucius  ¡digame! 16:41, 6 May 2012 (UTC)


 * My very limited experiments suggest Zotero will change the date stored as metadata in the Zotero program to the format called for in whatever output style the user has selected. And any ruling that says go ahead and use APA style or MLA style or any other style, except make (whatever) change, effectively rules out any automation that is not compatible with citation templates. Jc3s5h (talk) 17:08, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Seeing that Zotaro, and probably most other programs performing a similar function, are all capable of parsing our three permissible date formats in whatever combination (ie dates don't even need to be consistent at all), it seems that you have discounted one major argument for permitting the multitude of 'citation methods'. -- Ohconfucius  ¡digame! 00:15, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I deny that there are three permissible citation date formats; there are as many permissible formats as there are citation styles. All we have is a prohibition against all-numeric formats except YYYY-MM-DD.
 * There is no guidance about what format editors should use to store their dates within any citation software the editor may choose to use on his/her computer. Unless Wikipedia adopts some kind of source database in the future, there is no need for such guidance. All that matters is the format that is placed in the article.
 * The allowance of all consistent citation styles is firmly established; this RfC is about allowing contradictions between guidelines. Jc3s5h (talk) 01:10, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * "I deny that there are three permissible citation date formats" You would do... you've been strongly advocating the supremacy of CITE over MOSNUM, which only permits three. I say there's no contradiction, especially as there seems to be no longer a valid reason for encouraging this diversity of formats within any given article. --  Ohconfucius  ¡digame! 01:25, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:CITE says APA style is allowed. APA style gives the following example of a publication date in a citation: "(1993, September 30). (p. 200). Your statement "there seems to be no longer a valid reason for encouraging this diversity of formats within any given article" is incompatible with WP:CITE, established consensus, and WP:MOSNUM. Jc3s5h (talk) 01:50, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I am not opposed to having dmy dates in the reference sections; I personally have no gripes with a US subject's article being entirely in dmy format, as that would seem to avoid the problem. But that would create a problem with the general convention that US articles should have mdy dates. If you can resolve that, I'd back you. If anything, the respective scopes of WP:CITE and WP:MOSNUM should be more clearly defined and narrowed (if needs be), to avoid the conflict. WP:CITE ought not to encroach upon WP:MOS in matters of style. There should be no question of a power-grab. -- Ohconfucius  ¡digame! 02:06, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * A thought: the APA problem seems easy enough to resolve by ringfencing psychology articles, just like we already do for US military articles, which are almost universally dmy. But what about MLA? -- Ohconfucius  ¡digame! 03:05, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * (Noticed this idea while re-reading the section, hence the comment after almost two weeks.) Ringfencing psychology articles to limit APA date styles won't work; though originated by and maintained by the American Psychological Association, APA style is widely used throughout many different social sciences, not just psychology, and also in some natural science writing. That's why it's usually one of main citation styles taught in American secondary schools and higher education. In short, it's too widely known and used to depreciate as a valid style here, unless we mandate a house style, which has indeed been rejected in past discussions.oknazevad (talk) 05:07, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

I am opposed to any interference whatever in the established citation styles, unless the established citation style is so badly designed that it will create inordinate confusion in articles. For example, to the best of my knowledge, no printed style manuals have authors stupid enough to suggest referring to today as 4/7/12, and WP:CITE has forbidden this practice to cover any existing consistent use in any article out there. The reason I oppose any interference except in extreme cases is because interference breaks automated tools that produce citations in the various styles, disrupts the habits of editors that learned some of these styles at school, and prevents cut-and-paste of citations from outside Wikipedia. For example, just as Wikipedia suggest how to cite a Wikipedia in many different formats, some articles from outside provide these helpful suggestions.

That said, the contradiction between the present version of WP:MOSNUM and WP:CITE is not as great as you suggest, because you have not correctly interpreted WP:MOSNUM. That guideline has a separate section, "In references", which discusses date formats in citations, which has a "See also" pointing to WP:CITE. I suggest that only the material within WP:MOSNUM applies to citations, and other material in WP:MOSNUM does not. The only contradiction between "In references" and WP:CITE is that the former says an access date or archive date must either be in YYYY-MM-DD format, or the same format as publication dates. Since publication date format is not specified within "In references", the publication date may be in any consistent format, independent of what the rest of the article uses. So there would only be a conflict if there is a style that uses, for example "2012, May 7" as a publication date but "May 7, 20012" as an access date. I have not found a style guide that calls for differing format between publication and access date, so this contradiction is only theoretical.

The reason this is an issue is that proposals are constantly being made, especially at WP:MOSNUM, which would create contradictions that would be real, not theoretical. Jc3s5h (talk) 03:36, 7 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Often MOS trespasses on other areas and style in MOS is used to trigger bot changes. Why it is that an RFC was held in the MOS to force through a change that all footnotes next to punctuation should go after punctuation? BTW why does MOSNUM gives examples that it for the sake of consistency that it is OK to use "Sep" but not "September"? -- PBS (talk) 07:26, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * It's making a point about consistency, not the use of one or other form ("Sep" vs "September"): don't use "Sep" and "September" together. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:30, 7 May 2012 (UTC)


 * It's not a "trespass", it's MoS's purpose. It's our style guideline (and subguidelines). CITE is a content guideline; everything it says about style needs to come from MOS, or CITE is exceeding its mandate. As for "Sep" vs. "September" we should not ever be seen as advocating "Sep" as allowable here, since non-native English speakers are often not going to know what such abbreviations mean, and that wasn't even a properly formatted abbreviation anyway (try "Sep."). — SMcCandlish    Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿ ¤ þ  Contrib.  08:43, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

There seem to me to be two different issues mixed up here. MOSNUM allows two kinds of date format inconsistency: The arguments in favour of (1) are not necessarily the same as those in favour of (2). It would be a significantly smaller change to insist on a consistent style for all dates in references. Changing (1) only makes sense in the context of a much wider change to limiting the allowed referencing styles, which is simply not going to happen. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:47, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) The consistent style used for publication dates in references can be different from the consistent style used for dates in the running text of the article.
 * 2) The consistent style used for access and archive dates in references can be different from the consistent style used for publication dates in references.
 * True. And the arguments for (1) are only marginally less weak than those for (2), which border on asinine WP:ILIKEIT nonsense, that (as usual) smacks of a good deal of WP:SSF (the tired old "the journals I read in my field do it this way, so Wikipedia has to do it this way, or I'll stamp my feet and threaten to quit" nonsense). — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿ ¤ þ  Contrib.  08:43, 13 May 2012 (UTC)


 * If by "significantly smaller" Peter coxhead means the issue will occur in a much smaller number of citations, I agree. Until today, I was not convinced that any printed style manual existed that called for a different format between the publication date and the access date. I had looked through the APA style guide and found the recommended publication date format was like "(2010, February 22)", and that access dates were discouraged unless the content was likely to change. I could find no example of an access date format. But today I experimented with Zotero and found that if you specify an access date and order Zotero to produce an APA reference list entry, it will format the access date like "March 6, 2012".
 * Which doesn't necessarily mean anything at all about anything other than "what does Zotero do?" If the APA's own style guide doesn't provide a specified style for access dates, but does provide one for other types of dates, then the obvious conclusions are a) APA access dates are formatting like publication and other dates; b) Zotero's output is incorrect on this point; c) we DGAF, because, per WP:ENGVAR, we use either "2 December 2012" or "December 2, 2012" date formats, and per WP:MOSNUM use one ENGVAR date format consistently in the article, don't support weird-ass date formatting like "2012, December 2", and per WP:NOT, we don't do what random other publishers do (WP is not APA). The fact that pushers of various specialist styles have been improperly adding loosey-goosey "do whatever you want" style advice to the non-style, content guideline at WP:CITE needs to be stopped and reverted, because it's an abuse of process. — SMcCandlish    Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿ ¤ þ  Contrib.  08:43, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 * This example on the official APA style blog settles the matter of the access date format for APA: it's like "May 13, 2012". As for MOS controlling citation style, it doesn't today because it does not provide any citation style. All it does is provide style for regular text, a little bit of which could be forced onto citations. Jc3s5h (talk) 13:42, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Are there any other date styles that guidelines allow/encourage using not so far discussed here (i.e other than the " " endorsed by APA)? I ask this because we seem to be veering down the path of philosophical objection to having a unified format based largely on a theoretical practice. In my travels across Wikipedia, I have never seen an entire article 'properly' or predominantly formatting dates in this [APA] fashion. Yes, I have seen the odd (i.e. one or two, and five at the utmost) APA style date used in articles and always co-existing with dmy/mdy and ISO formats. On that basis, I am pretty confident in saying there are no more than a small handful of article in our database with any such APA-style date. That makes this point moot, because for the sake of global consistency, there can be no point in allowing what is clearly a fringe date format as far as WP editors are concerned. -- Ohconfucius  ¡digame! 01:51, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The citation templates were originally based on APA. All those articles out there that you might think are hand-typed citations that look like the template citations could equally well be regarded as imperfectly typed APA citations. If there is ever a desire to automate those with software that is also used outside Wikipedia, there is a good chance software that correctly implements APA would be used. But placing a requirement on date formats would prevent the same software from being used inside and outside Wikipedia. Sort of reminds me of the National Geodetic Survey, which has locked itself into its own software with data formats based in IBM punched cards. Jc3s5h (talk) 10:54, 25 May 2012 (UTC)


 * 'MoS: Like all style issues, the central "authority" is and must remain MoS. Even WP:AT policy derives its style requirements from MoS (e.g. it says to use P. T. Barnum not P.T. Barnum or PT Barnum because of what MoS says about handling initials; the naming conventions did not arrive at a style decision like that independently).  WP:CITE is essentially a how-to page, even if labelled a content guideline.  To the extent that it really is in fact a content guideline, it is a  not  guideline, so by definition it yields to MoS on style matters..  That said, it should certainly repeat relevant style advice, mirroring what MOS says on the matters that come up, so people don't have to go read all of WP:CITE, then just to figure out a few style questions about citations, have to come read all of WP:MOS and its subpages, and try to interpret it all as it could be applicable to citations. We can collectively do that interpretation once and save it for everyone at WP:CITE.  And that definitely needs to be done, done well, and frequently checked for consistency with MoS. I see boatloads of badly-formatted (from a WP standpoint) citations, with messy crap like , that someone lazily copy-pasted and didn't clean up (it should be  , and not abbreviated to initials at all if the names are actually known; also, many citation template fanciers would want to see this done with separate last1, etc., templates, not a lazy author block.)
 * There's no more (or less) justification to italicize "et al." than "etc.", "i.e." and similar terms. See MOS:Ety – the term is in the online Merriam-Webster here. But this comes down to SMcCandlish's point, which I agree with, that WP:ILIKEIT arguments and "if you change citation policy I'll stop editing" threats have ensured that Wikipedia has wildly inconsistent citation styles. Unless and until this changes, messing about with date style in citations is pointless. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:45, 13 May 2012 (UTC)


 * CITEVAR—This is a content issue, not a style issue. Different citation formats present radically different informational concepts and are field specific.  Moreover, any citation style chosen will be wrong, as no one citation style fulfils the general requirements of citation, and in particular even highly complete citation systems such as Turabian (ie: a citation style system that would produce the fewest number of incorrectly expressed citations) are beyond the capacity of automated implementation let alone Wikipedia's editorial public who can't determine who an author is. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:16, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Moot, surely? It seems that Turabian is so specialist and esoteric that it is unlikely ever to be employed in Wikipedia. ;-) -- Ohconfucius  ¡digame! 02:43, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Turabian is Chicago style, but modified for student papers. It's simplified compared to Chicago. Wikipedia has always confined the use of printed style manuals to the citations, and used its own MOS for the body of the article. All these printed style manuals contain advice about the body of articles as well as the citations. The biggest difference between Chicago and Turabian is in the body of the article; Chicago is all about creating a manuscript to be turned over to a publisher, while Turabian is about creating a finished product to be turned into a teacher. For Wikipedia purposes there is no need to distinguish between Chicago and Turabian. Jc3s5h (talk) 10:54, 25 May 2012 (UTC)


 * What a storm in a teacup. WP:CITE should be the primary source on how to do citations. The main thing I think missing about it a rationale that might help people in choosing a citation style. For instance in an article which is based on only a few sources but there are many references with the sources then harvard style works out best. However for articles based on a multitude of different sources with not all that much need to refer to different pages in the same sources then a more straightforward citation style is better as the user can get to the information directly. It's horses for courses. We most definitely do not have to follow book styles because we have hyperlinks. As to dates in citations I'm not at all fussed if these are different from the main body of the article. Dmcq (talk) 11:29, 16 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose. To actually implement this would need a much wider discussion than a backwater MoS page and very broad consensus would need to be achieved.  It will be a nightmare to get all the different disciplines, used to citing in their own particular way, to agree on one common style.  I confidently predicy that attempting to do it will lead to months of unnecessary anguish with a net result of "no consensus".  Spinning  Spark  16:04, 16 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Support WP having a citation style that is defined by the MOS. I believe it is a service to our readers to be able to present a consistent (as possible) style for referencing syntax so that they can easily find and decipher similar information as they move between articles. We are already effectively getting a "house style" with the (vastly increasing) use of the various templates, so we may as well have a defined standard that editors can turn to as a default. I don't see the problem with taking the formatting guidance out of the Cite guidelines and making them a sub-page of the MOS since the MOS is the most likely venue editors will turn to for formatting advice of any kind. I don't believe that this is as much of a content issue as others are suggesting, however I'm not against variants to an eventual MOS style as long as those variants are clearly shown to be necessary based on content (and I fully expect such exceptions to be eventually worked into the MOS). GFHandel &#9836;  02:34, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Citation styles
Seems to me that it would be useful to list the varying styles. Please update as seen fit. Please add only styles known to be in use on the English Wikipedia. ---— Gadget850 (Ed)  talk 21:24, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

In-text citation style:
 * Non-template
 * APA style
 * Chicago Manual of Style footnote style


 * Footnote3
 * Footnote3
 * Footnote3
 * Footnote3

defined (as used):
 * In-text defined

Full citation style:
 * Non-template
 * APA style (date format sometimes modified)
 * Chicago Manual of Style footnote style


 * Template
 * Linguistic Society of America
 * Linguistic Society of America
 * Linguistic Society of America
 * Linguistic Society of America

Citation title style:
 * Title case
 * Sentence case

Citation template format (where used):
 * Horizontal
 * Vertical

Citation author style (Western names):
 * Case
 * Standard
 * Smallcaps
 * Name order
 * Last First
 * First Last
 * First name
 * Full
 * Intials

Citation date styles:
 * Same as body
 * YYY-MM-DD

Citation access dates
 * All citations with URLs
 * Only for web pages with content likely to change

Reference list style:
 * Font size
 * Standard
 * Smaller
 * Columns
 * Single
 * Multiple
 * Indent
 * None
 * Hanging

Summary
As I read it, the following editors have expressed a preference for which guideline should control citation style:

In addition GFHandel expressed a preference for a house style contained within the MOS. Jc3s5h (talk) 11:34, 24 May 2012 (UTC) updated 6 June 2012 13:50 UTC


 * Please add me to the MoS preferrers. That's much easier for editors. Tony   (talk)  13:10, 25 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Please note that "which guideline should control citation style", a style guideline or a content guideline, is a self-answering question. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿ ¤ þ  Contrib.  00:31, 27 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Just on a slightly different topic, I've just had the unsavoury experience of making an edit in New York State Route 227, an article that is so crowded with templates in the running prose, many of them citation templates, that it took minutes to locate the item I wanted to edit. No wonder new editors leave. Why were these hideously long and cumbersome inline citation templates ever allowed? Tony   (talk)  00:05, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Technical limitations. Rmhermen (talk) 01:06, 29 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I prefer MOS too. 1exec1 (talk) 10:59, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Which guideline for citation style?
Should questions of citation style be covered by the Manual of Style and its sub-pages, by Citing sources, or all of these? This question was triggered by the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers and by a proposal at that same talk page which would create new mandates on citation date format. Jc3s5h (talk) 13:43, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Threaded discussion on which guideline
I suggest it creates an intolerable contradiction to state in WP:Citing sources "...Wikipedia does not have a single house style. Editors may choose any option they want; one article need not match what is done in other articles or what is done in professional publications or recommended by academic style guides. However, citations within a given article should follow a consistent style...." but to go on to give citation style advice in the MOS that contradicts the style that is used in many printed style guides or used, consistently, in many existing articles. So I believe "Citing sources" should be recognized as the primary style guide for citations and the MOS should only summarize "Citing sources". Jc3s5h (talk) 13:43, 6 May 2012 (UTC)


 * The proposal here is that WP:CITE should enjoy primacy over WP:MOSNUM as to the form of dates in the reference sections, but it's not at all clear why WP:CITE should enjoy primacy. I believe WP:CITE was set up to give guidance as to correct provision of citation content, and Manual of Style exists to guide the format of that content and appearance on the display window or printed page. There is nothing wrong nor contradictory for WP:CITE to re-emphasise that date formats ought to be consistent. WP:CITE does have a role to play in governing what parameters are required to achieve the aims of WP:RS and WP:V, amongst others, but it should not pretend a role in determining the ultimate permissible form of those parameters, particularly date format. The combinations of which formats are deemed acceptable has involved consensus developed over a long period. MOSNUM is apparently more restrictive than WP:CITE with respect to dates, but I see no problem in that because WP:CITE ought to concentrate on the substance and cede on matters of form. One consequence of giving WP:CITE primacy over WP:MOSNUM in the matter of date formats that immediately springs to mind is to allow chimera articles where the date formats in the body of an article on a US subject is referenced according to the MLA Style Manual (use of dmy dates in the citations, including access dates). To my mind, that would not be a desirable state of affairs. -- Ohconfucius  ¡digame! 14:27, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The fact that Ohconfucius wants to deprecate usage called for by a printed style manual means that he wants to move toward establishing a house style, which has been repeatedly rejected (for better or worse). Also, there are many automated tools available to implement citations in the the various printed style manuals; one such tool is Zotero. By forcing certain aspects of these styles to be altered for Wikipedia makes the automated tools unusable, and channels development of improved citation methods for Wikipedia in one direction (citation templates) and isolates Wikipedia from improvements that might be made elsewhere. Jc3s5h (talk) 14:36, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Do the tools such as Zotero render dmy, mdy and yyyy-mm-dd dates correctly? And how would having our dates more uniform be detrimental to the evolution of such bibliographic techniques? -- Ohconfucius  ¡digame! 16:41, 6 May 2012 (UTC)


 * My very limited experiments suggest Zotero will change the date stored as metadata in the Zotero program to the format called for in whatever output style the user has selected. And any ruling that says go ahead and use APA style or MLA style or any other style, except make (whatever) change, effectively rules out any automation that is not compatible with citation templates. Jc3s5h (talk) 17:08, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Seeing that Zotaro, and probably most other programs performing a similar function, are all capable of parsing our three permissible date formats in whatever combination (ie dates don't even need to be consistent at all), it seems that you have discounted one major argument for permitting the multitude of 'citation methods'. -- Ohconfucius  ¡digame! 00:15, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I deny that there are three permissible citation date formats; there are as many permissible formats as there are citation styles. All we have is a prohibition against all-numeric formats except YYYY-MM-DD.
 * There is no guidance about what format editors should use to store their dates within any citation software the editor may choose to use on his/her computer. Unless Wikipedia adopts some kind of source database in the future, there is no need for such guidance. All that matters is the format that is placed in the article.
 * The allowance of all consistent citation styles is firmly established; this RfC is about allowing contradictions between guidelines. Jc3s5h (talk) 01:10, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * "I deny that there are three permissible citation date formats" You would do... you've been strongly advocating the supremacy of CITE over MOSNUM, which only permits three. I say there's no contradiction, especially as there seems to be no longer a valid reason for encouraging this diversity of formats within any given article. --  Ohconfucius  ¡digame! 01:25, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:CITE says APA style is allowed. APA style gives the following example of a publication date in a citation: "(1993, September 30). (p. 200). Your statement "there seems to be no longer a valid reason for encouraging this diversity of formats within any given article" is incompatible with WP:CITE, established consensus, and WP:MOSNUM. Jc3s5h (talk) 01:50, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I am not opposed to having dmy dates in the reference sections; I personally have no gripes with a US subject's article being entirely in dmy format, as that would seem to avoid the problem. But that would create a problem with the general convention that US articles should have mdy dates. If you can resolve that, I'd back you. If anything, the respective scopes of WP:CITE and WP:MOSNUM should be more clearly defined and narrowed (if needs be), to avoid the conflict. WP:CITE ought not to encroach upon WP:MOS in matters of style. There should be no question of a power-grab. -- Ohconfucius  ¡digame! 02:06, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * A thought: the APA problem seems easy enough to resolve by ringfencing psychology articles, just like we already do for US military articles, which are almost universally dmy. But what about MLA? -- Ohconfucius  ¡digame! 03:05, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * (Noticed this idea while re-reading the section, hence the comment after almost two weeks.) Ringfencing psychology articles to limit APA date styles won't work; though originated by and maintained by the American Psychological Association, APA style is widely used throughout many different social sciences, not just psychology, and also in some natural science writing. That's why it's usually one of main citation styles taught in American secondary schools and higher education. In short, it's too widely known and used to depreciate as a valid style here, unless we mandate a house style, which has indeed been rejected in past discussions.oknazevad (talk) 05:07, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

I am opposed to any interference whatever in the established citation styles, unless the established citation style is so badly designed that it will create inordinate confusion in articles. For example, to the best of my knowledge, no printed style manuals have authors stupid enough to suggest referring to today as 4/7/12, and WP:CITE has forbidden this practice to cover any existing consistent use in any article out there. The reason I oppose any interference except in extreme cases is because interference breaks automated tools that produce citations in the various styles, disrupts the habits of editors that learned some of these styles at school, and prevents cut-and-paste of citations from outside Wikipedia. For example, just as Wikipedia suggest how to cite a Wikipedia in many different formats, some articles from outside provide these helpful suggestions.

That said, the contradiction between the present version of WP:MOSNUM and WP:CITE is not as great as you suggest, because you have not correctly interpreted WP:MOSNUM. That guideline has a separate section, "In references", which discusses date formats in citations, which has a "See also" pointing to WP:CITE. I suggest that only the material within WP:MOSNUM applies to citations, and other material in WP:MOSNUM does not. The only contradiction between "In references" and WP:CITE is that the former says an access date or archive date must either be in YYYY-MM-DD format, or the same format as publication dates. Since publication date format is not specified within "In references", the publication date may be in any consistent format, independent of what the rest of the article uses. So there would only be a conflict if there is a style that uses, for example "2012, May 7" as a publication date but "May 7, 20012" as an access date. I have not found a style guide that calls for differing format between publication and access date, so this contradiction is only theoretical.

The reason this is an issue is that proposals are constantly being made, especially at WP:MOSNUM, which would create contradictions that would be real, not theoretical. Jc3s5h (talk) 03:36, 7 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Often MOS trespasses on other areas and style in MOS is used to trigger bot changes. Why it is that an RFC was held in the MOS to force through a change that all footnotes next to punctuation should go after punctuation? BTW why does MOSNUM gives examples that it for the sake of consistency that it is OK to use "Sep" but not "September"? -- PBS (talk) 07:26, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * It's making a point about consistency, not the use of one or other form ("Sep" vs "September"): don't use "Sep" and "September" together. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:30, 7 May 2012 (UTC)


 * It's not a "trespass", it's MoS's purpose. It's our style guideline (and subguidelines). CITE is a content guideline; everything it says about style needs to come from MOS, or CITE is exceeding its mandate. As for "Sep" vs. "September" we should not ever be seen as advocating "Sep" as allowable here, since non-native English speakers are often not going to know what such abbreviations mean, and that wasn't even a properly formatted abbreviation anyway (try "Sep."). — SMcCandlish    Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿ ¤ þ  Contrib.  08:43, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

There seem to me to be two different issues mixed up here. MOSNUM allows two kinds of date format inconsistency: The arguments in favour of (1) are not necessarily the same as those in favour of (2). It would be a significantly smaller change to insist on a consistent style for all dates in references. Changing (1) only makes sense in the context of a much wider change to limiting the allowed referencing styles, which is simply not going to happen. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:47, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) The consistent style used for publication dates in references can be different from the consistent style used for dates in the running text of the article.
 * 2) The consistent style used for access and archive dates in references can be different from the consistent style used for publication dates in references.
 * True. And the arguments for (1) are only marginally less weak than those for (2), which border on asinine WP:ILIKEIT nonsense, that (as usual) smacks of a good deal of WP:SSF (the tired old "the journals I read in my field do it this way, so Wikipedia has to do it this way, or I'll stamp my feet and threaten to quit" nonsense). — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿ ¤ þ  Contrib.  08:43, 13 May 2012 (UTC)


 * If by "significantly smaller" Peter coxhead means the issue will occur in a much smaller number of citations, I agree. Until today, I was not convinced that any printed style manual existed that called for a different format between the publication date and the access date. I had looked through the APA style guide and found the recommended publication date format was like "(2010, February 22)", and that access dates were discouraged unless the content was likely to change. I could find no example of an access date format. But today I experimented with Zotero and found that if you specify an access date and order Zotero to produce an APA reference list entry, it will format the access date like "March 6, 2012".
 * Which doesn't necessarily mean anything at all about anything other than "what does Zotero do?" If the APA's own style guide doesn't provide a specified style for access dates, but does provide one for other types of dates, then the obvious conclusions are a) APA access dates are formatting like publication and other dates; b) Zotero's output is incorrect on this point; c) we DGAF, because, per WP:ENGVAR, we use either "2 December 2012" or "December 2, 2012" date formats, and per WP:MOSNUM use one ENGVAR date format consistently in the article, don't support weird-ass date formatting like "2012, December 2", and per WP:NOT, we don't do what random other publishers do (WP is not APA). The fact that pushers of various specialist styles have been improperly adding loosey-goosey "do whatever you want" style advice to the non-style, content guideline at WP:CITE needs to be stopped and reverted, because it's an abuse of process. — SMcCandlish    Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿ ¤ þ  Contrib.  08:43, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 * This example on the official APA style blog settles the matter of the access date format for APA: it's like "May 13, 2012". As for MOS controlling citation style, it doesn't today because it does not provide any citation style. All it does is provide style for regular text, a little bit of which could be forced onto citations. Jc3s5h (talk) 13:42, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Are there any other date styles that guidelines allow/encourage using not so far discussed here (i.e other than the " " endorsed by APA)? I ask this because we seem to be veering down the path of philosophical objection to having a unified format based largely on a theoretical practice. In my travels across Wikipedia, I have never seen an entire article 'properly' or predominantly formatting dates in this [APA] fashion. Yes, I have seen the odd (i.e. one or two, and five at the utmost) APA style date used in articles and always co-existing with dmy/mdy and ISO formats. On that basis, I am pretty confident in saying there are no more than a small handful of article in our database with any such APA-style date. That makes this point moot, because for the sake of global consistency, there can be no point in allowing what is clearly a fringe date format as far as WP editors are concerned. -- Ohconfucius  ¡digame! 01:51, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The citation templates were originally based on APA. All those articles out there that you might think are hand-typed citations that look like the template citations could equally well be regarded as imperfectly typed APA citations. If there is ever a desire to automate those with software that is also used outside Wikipedia, there is a good chance software that correctly implements APA would be used. But placing a requirement on date formats would prevent the same software from being used inside and outside Wikipedia. Sort of reminds me of the National Geodetic Survey, which has locked itself into its own software with data formats based in IBM punched cards. Jc3s5h (talk) 10:54, 25 May 2012 (UTC)


 * 'MoS: Like all style issues, the central "authority" is and must remain MoS. Even WP:AT policy derives its style requirements from MoS (e.g. it says to use P. T. Barnum not P.T. Barnum or PT Barnum because of what MoS says about handling initials; the naming conventions did not arrive at a style decision like that independently).  WP:CITE is essentially a how-to page, even if labelled a content guideline.  To the extent that it really is in fact a content guideline, it is a  not  guideline, so by definition it yields to MoS on style matters..  That said, it should certainly repeat relevant style advice, mirroring what MOS says on the matters that come up, so people don't have to go read all of WP:CITE, then just to figure out a few style questions about citations, have to come read all of WP:MOS and its subpages, and try to interpret it all as it could be applicable to citations. We can collectively do that interpretation once and save it for everyone at WP:CITE.  And that definitely needs to be done, done well, and frequently checked for consistency with MoS. I see boatloads of badly-formatted (from a WP standpoint) citations, with messy crap like , that someone lazily copy-pasted and didn't clean up (it should be  , and not abbreviated to initials at all if the names are actually known; also, many citation template fanciers would want to see this done with separate last1, etc., templates, not a lazy author block.)
 * There's no more (or less) justification to italicize "et al." than "etc.", "i.e." and similar terms. See MOS:Ety – the term is in the online Merriam-Webster here. But this comes down to SMcCandlish's point, which I agree with, that WP:ILIKEIT arguments and "if you change citation policy I'll stop editing" threats have ensured that Wikipedia has wildly inconsistent citation styles. Unless and until this changes, messing about with date style in citations is pointless. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:45, 13 May 2012 (UTC)


 * CITEVAR—This is a content issue, not a style issue. Different citation formats present radically different informational concepts and are field specific.  Moreover, any citation style chosen will be wrong, as no one citation style fulfils the general requirements of citation, and in particular even highly complete citation systems such as Turabian (ie: a citation style system that would produce the fewest number of incorrectly expressed citations) are beyond the capacity of automated implementation let alone Wikipedia's editorial public who can't determine who an author is. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:16, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Moot, surely? It seems that Turabian is so specialist and esoteric that it is unlikely ever to be employed in Wikipedia. ;-) -- Ohconfucius  ¡digame! 02:43, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Turabian is Chicago style, but modified for student papers. It's simplified compared to Chicago. Wikipedia has always confined the use of printed style manuals to the citations, and used its own MOS for the body of the article. All these printed style manuals contain advice about the body of articles as well as the citations. The biggest difference between Chicago and Turabian is in the body of the article; Chicago is all about creating a manuscript to be turned over to a publisher, while Turabian is about creating a finished product to be turned into a teacher. For Wikipedia purposes there is no need to distinguish between Chicago and Turabian. Jc3s5h (talk) 10:54, 25 May 2012 (UTC)


 * What a storm in a teacup. WP:CITE should be the primary source on how to do citations. The main thing I think missing about it a rationale that might help people in choosing a citation style. For instance in an article which is based on only a few sources but there are many references with the sources then harvard style works out best. However for articles based on a multitude of different sources with not all that much need to refer to different pages in the same sources then a more straightforward citation style is better as the user can get to the information directly. It's horses for courses. We most definitely do not have to follow book styles because we have hyperlinks. As to dates in citations I'm not at all fussed if these are different from the main body of the article. Dmcq (talk) 11:29, 16 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose. To actually implement this would need a much wider discussion than a backwater MoS page and very broad consensus would need to be achieved.  It will be a nightmare to get all the different disciplines, used to citing in their own particular way, to agree on one common style.  I confidently predicy that attempting to do it will lead to months of unnecessary anguish with a net result of "no consensus".  Spinning  Spark  16:04, 16 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Support WP having a citation style that is defined by the MOS. I believe it is a service to our readers to be able to present a consistent (as possible) style for referencing syntax so that they can easily find and decipher similar information as they move between articles. We are already effectively getting a "house style" with the (vastly increasing) use of the various templates, so we may as well have a defined standard that editors can turn to as a default. I don't see the problem with taking the formatting guidance out of the Cite guidelines and making them a sub-page of the MOS since the MOS is the most likely venue editors will turn to for formatting advice of any kind. I don't believe that this is as much of a content issue as others are suggesting, however I'm not against variants to an eventual MOS style as long as those variants are clearly shown to be necessary based on content (and I fully expect such exceptions to be eventually worked into the MOS). GFHandel &#9836;  02:34, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Citation styles
Seems to me that it would be useful to list the varying styles. Please update as seen fit. Please add only styles known to be in use on the English Wikipedia. ---— Gadget850 (Ed)  talk 21:24, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

In-text citation style:
 * Non-template
 * APA style
 * Chicago Manual of Style footnote style


 * Footnote3
 * Footnote3
 * Footnote3
 * Footnote3

defined (as used):
 * In-text defined

Full citation style:
 * Non-template
 * APA style (date format sometimes modified)
 * Chicago Manual of Style footnote style


 * Template
 * Linguistic Society of America
 * Linguistic Society of America
 * Linguistic Society of America
 * Linguistic Society of America

Citation title style:
 * Title case
 * Sentence case

Citation template format (where used):
 * Horizontal
 * Vertical

Citation author style (Western names):
 * Case
 * Standard
 * Smallcaps
 * Name order
 * Last First
 * First Last
 * First name
 * Full
 * Intials

Citation date styles:
 * Same as body
 * YYY-MM-DD

Citation access dates
 * All citations with URLs
 * Only for web pages with content likely to change

Reference list style:
 * Font size
 * Standard
 * Smaller
 * Columns
 * Single
 * Multiple
 * Indent
 * None
 * Hanging

Summary
As I read it, the following editors have expressed a preference for which guideline should control citation style:

In addition GFHandel expressed a preference for a house style contained within the MOS. Jc3s5h (talk) 11:34, 24 May 2012 (UTC) updated 6 June 2012 13:50 UTC


 * Please add me to the MoS preferrers. That's much easier for editors. Tony   (talk)  13:10, 25 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Please note that "which guideline should control citation style", a style guideline or a content guideline, is a self-answering question. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿ ¤ þ  Contrib.  00:31, 27 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Just on a slightly different topic, I've just had the unsavoury experience of making an edit in New York State Route 227, an article that is so crowded with templates in the running prose, many of them citation templates, that it took minutes to locate the item I wanted to edit. No wonder new editors leave. Why were these hideously long and cumbersome inline citation templates ever allowed? Tony   (talk)  00:05, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Technical limitations. Rmhermen (talk) 01:06, 29 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I prefer MOS too. 1exec1 (talk) 10:59, 5 June 2012 (UTC)