Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 152

Gender Identity - proposal on names used
Based on a discussion here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_LGBT_studies#Biographies_of_transgender_people_having_excessive_mentions_of_former_names_and_links_to_sex_assignment_articles

My personal take on that specific issue is that the former name is worth mentioning if the person was notable while living and working under that name. If the person was not notable before transition, then the old name essentially refers to a non-notable person and as such WP:Notable applies.

Note that, as mentioned in Gender_identity, excessive use of former names constitutes a form of personal attack, as teh former name is "weaponised" against them. As such, current MOS rules would imply a preference for this clarification.

As such, I would suggest the following policy for transgender individuals:


 * Where the person was not notable before transition, then there is no justification for giving the former name at all, as that names refers to a non-notable time. It is enough to mention the gender identity issue, but not the former name.
 * Where the person was not notable before transition, but has made a point of publicising their former name after transition, then a single mention of the former name in the lede is appropriate.
 * Where the person was notable before transition, a single mention of the former name in the lede is appropriate. All events after transition should refer to the new name. Events prior to transition should be, where possible, worded to avoid repeating the former name.

Rhialto (talk) 07:02, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Not meaning to create confusion by top-posting, this came after a lot of the below posts chronologically, but it sums a lot of them up. From what everyone else has said, I think a reasonable compromise is to allow exactly one mention of someone's birth name in the lede in your first bullet, in a similar manner to other articles where someone's name has been changed. It is encyclopaedic, and maybe this isn't the most formal of reasons, but as a trans person myself finding out some of my role models transitioned has been a hugely positive experience for me. Otherwise I personally agree with everything you have. I think more conversation is probably needed in order to give us a good tool that furthers academics which can't easily be abused, but I think especially with more trans stories in the news as of late, some sort of easy tool which can prevent edit wars over things such as a celebrity's birth name being used to invalidate instead of inform, is necessary. Things like birth names, references to surgeries on genetalia, and the like, are all controversial, and controversy always leads to independent interpretation and gets in the way of delivering actual knowledge. In light of that fact, I don't think setting up rules for dealing with transgender people is silly at all. Wikipedia needs a nice, thick, bold, easy to understand line, and I believe the suggestions you have made give us that. The only other point that folks have addressed, that I would like to see your thoughts on because your solutions have thus far been excellent, is that there are going to be incidents where someone's sex affirmation surgeries, themselves, are international news. An example would be a healthcare debate. So if you have any ideas as far as policies that could give us those bold lines I mentioned in that situation that would be both fair and in Wikipedia's best interest, I would like to see those as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iheartdaikaiju (talk • contribs) 21:19, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
 * That would go against the defacto WP standard; we mention the birth name along with the birthdate in the opening sentence of bios. Ringo Starr was not famous as Richard Starkey, nor was Michelle Robinson famous before she Became Mrs. Obama (there we imply the birth name in the lede by including the full name with maiden name intact, But have the specified birth name later on.) Birth name is an encyclopedic piece of information. -Nat Gertler (talk) 07:34, 10 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I would agree that birth name is an encyclopedic piece of information. We shouldn't ban pieces of information. I don't agree that the old name essentially refers to a non-notable person: it's the same person. Jimp 08:21, 10 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I fail to see how providing the name a person was given at birth (in addition to their biological gender) is a personal attack or how it is weaponized, any more that it is to mention the race of a person or cultural ties. Should we hide that information as well because some people are racist or judgmental? -  Floydian  τ ¢  09:00, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Weaponizing a trans* person's birth name or implying their gender is anything but what they say it is, is an almost daily occurrence for many trans people, especially trans women, which suggests homophobia is a core motivation. With the trans* people I'm aware, the use of such tactics is the first and sometimes only warning sign that that you are considered less of a human being worthy of equal respect. The people who face the most violence regarding hate crimes are LGBT people, and within those populations trans women especially are subject to the worst of it. Every year hundreds of trans women are attacked and even murdered. Weaponizing their former identities against them is a part of that. Wikipedia should absolutely minimize the potential damage in any way that makes sense. We don't include every piece of someone's life in a biography and often their birth name is trivial at best. There should be compelling reason to include it, beyond the obvious that someone transitioned gender. We should be minimizing harm. Sportfan5000 (talk) 10:34, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
 * It's not our place to fix the problems of society, or to protect people from bigotry. It's our place to provide facts that are. I'm sorry, but transgendered people are no different in the fact that at birth, they are given a name and determined to be a certain biological gender. They are fully in their rights to change that (generally at 18, though socially at any age one can adopt a new name), but that doesn't erase the past Soviet-Russia style. (and see, even there, we don't hide the soviet history of Russia, even though I'm sure it makes a lot of modern clear-thinking Russians upset) -  Floydian  τ ¢  16:28, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
 * We're supposed to present facts in a Neutral pov, not just present facts. If all our Olympics articles only mentioned Russia as "Russia, formerly the Soviet Union" in every mention, there would be a problem with NPOV even though a fact was being stated each time. __ E L A Q U E A T E  17:47, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Well yes, but mentioning a birth name in the lede, infobox, and body is standard practise, neutral and not undue weight. -  Floydian  τ ¢  20:09, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
 * On the Manning talk page, there is a request being considered with undue seriousness to have it twice in the first few words of the lead (to account for the fact that a middle name can be abbreviated and maybe that would flummox readers) and it's used twice in the infobox (the birth name is added just in case the reader forgot from the caption text one line above). I'm not against a mention if it's a part of a truly NPOV biography (when it's in sources and not when WP:NPF or WP:BLP1E indicates not to), but it's clear that it can be sometimes rationalized by occasional editors beyond its due weight. I don't think there'd be a problem if people respected due weight and existing policies more often in these cases.__ E L A Q U E A T E  03:35, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
 * How about we avoid deliberately and wilfully propagating the problems of society? How neutral is it to go on doing a shitty thing just because biased sources do so? AlexTiefling (talk) 23:25, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Nat, I don't regard either Ringo Starr or Mrs. Obama as valid counter-examples for this policy proposal, as neither of them are, to my knowledge transgender individuals. The MOS already includes a specific note about pronouns for transfolk; I want that note to be expanded to cover good practice on the names of transfolk. Rhialto (talk) 10:45, 10 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I agree with Nat, Jimp and Floydian. Birth name is a basic piece of biographical data and should be mentioned in the lede as with anyone else.  One mention of a former name is not "excessive use".  No special attention needs to be drawn to the name change, but we do not banish the factual data either: Wikipedia is not censored.  Inclusion of the birth name may, in fact, help people to find relevant information about the person which could help to improve the article.  —sroc &#x1F4AC; 12:57, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
 * It is standard practice to include people's previous names even if they were only used prior to the person becoming notable. Carving out an exception to make trans people different is silly. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  13:18, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I have no problem at all with *one* mention of the previous name where the previous name is something that someone could reasonably expect to be searching for the person on, as people do need to be sure they have the right person. However, I highlighted this issue because in some articles, the former name was actually mentioned more times in the article than the person's current name, which seems at odds with common decency as well as NPOV. Used excessively, the old name does indeed constitute a personal attack against the person. Rhialto (talk) 13:29, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
 * your proposal says otherwise "Where the person was not notable before transition, then there is no justification for giving the former name at all". your caveat above is meaningless. Without a reliably published source for the alternate name(s), we would not be able to include previous names at all under any circumstance; however, once we have a reliably published source(s) then there is obviously the "reasonable expectation" that someone would search for that name. --  TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  18:39, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but using someone's name is not a personal attack on them unless that name was deliberately designed to be an insult. Any suggestion it is such an attack is ludicrous. -- Necrothesp (talk) 17:32, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
 * If Ringo or Mrs. Obama were transgendered, they would fit into what you are seeking to change rather than reflecting how that would be in conflict with normal treatment of birthnames. We considered birth name an appropriate piece of encyclopedic information even for those who have reasons for discomfort with their prior name (such as those who consider it a slave name, or those who wish to distance themselves from problematic parentage). I suspect you would gain more traction toward your goals if you were to present it as a more general case of what we do with someone who changes their name, regardless of reason, and moved away from the zero-mentions-of-birth-name stance. --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:58, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Just to point out, this seems to stem mostly from a discussion at Jennell Jaquays, which features her birth name of Paul in the infobox, in the Personal life section, and in the lede sentence as "(born Paul Jaquays, [DOB])". Some users insist that adding it to the lede in contentious and so it bust be removed. My understanding of contentious is not "it is controversial because someone doesn't like it", but rather of "it's false and/or misleading". -  Floydian  τ ¢  16:28, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

The name a person is born with is a fact. Simple. We record facts. Simple. The naming preference of the individual is completely and utterly irrelevant to the information an encyclopaedia records. -- Necrothesp (talk) 17:30, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
 * My view is that the current MOS is wrong, and that, having mentioned the current name in the lead section, we should when discussing a given stage of a person's career use the name by which that person was known at that time, or perhaps use a combined form such as "Jones (then known as Smith)". It may be that some use a past name as an attack by failing to recognize the person's self-identified gender and identity. But it is also a fact that a given person was know by various names at various times. As long as we show respect by making the current name and gender identity clear in the lead, i don;'t think it can be meaningfully be called an 'attack' to use the appropriate (i.e then-current) name in describing the various events in a person's life, while always making it clear what the current name and identity is. DES (talk) 17:23, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I therefore strongly oppose this current proposal. DES (talk) 17:25, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Just because something is a fact does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia, or for redundant mentions. If people mentioned the name of a subject's elementary school in every paragraph, it would be clear that something wasn't neutral, properly weighted, or appropriately encyclopedic.__ E L A Q U E A T E  17:42, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Indeed, but infobox, lede, and body are three points where basic facts about a person should be provided. -  Floydian  τ ¢  20:09, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Participants in this discussion should be aware of this ArbCom case Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manning_naming_dispute which is on a very similar dispute. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:35, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The Manning case is actually quite the opposite, but does make the same point. Manning became world famous under her birth name, then came out as transgender. What should happen, in gender identity cases, where their birth name is not notable is that we should minimize that aspect as to cause them the least real world harm. Sportfan5000 (talk) 18:04, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Can you clarify " What this is to effect is a change in that people who are not notable under their former names..." The grammar is not very clear to me. ( read it 4 times and still don't understand) I changed your ; to a : I hope you don't mind. CombatWombat42 (talk) 18:37, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
 * OK, reworded. Sportfan5000 (talk) 18:45, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, it seems by the notability logic alone Chelsea Manning should really be at Bradly Manning so the notability logic seems to have a flaw. (I do not want to restart the Chealsea-Bradly debate I am simply using it as an example to point out faulty logic) CombatWombat42 (talk) 19:00, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The logic is not faulty, Chelsea is an exceptional case where her gender identity change was international news, and the subject of international meia coverage including how media outlets were handling the case. The case here is not helpful to the discussion. Sportfan5000 (talk) 19:49, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Can see a theoretical case where, IF AND ONLY IF a person is not "out" as transgendered, publication of the birth name could be regarded as contrary to WP:BLP, but that is a matter of Privacy, not sensibility or political correctness. If an individual self-identifies or is widely identified AS Transgendered, they are also by implication self-identified as having, if you will, been trans-named.Anonymous209.6 (talk) 19:04, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I personally agree (mostly) with you, but it appears that for even for those who are primarily notable AS transgendered, this is a big PC issue. The PC line at this point is that the transgendered were never the "other" sex, and all of that history is Retconned out of existence and mentioning it in any way is a personal attack. (See the recent Piers Morgan controversy : )    Gaijin42 (talk) 19:09, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I understand and agree with your point that transgender involves a constant gender identity, and is a very good and conclusive point regarding using he/she as a pronoun - I agree that he/she should not be used, as it implies not two identities, but confusion of gender. Proper names, though, are indicative of NAME, of which there ARE two identities. Anonymous209.6 (talk) 01:07, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't think Piers Morgan's interview with Janet Mock is really representative of anyone except "news entertainment" shows. There are in fact a lot of trans people that take the position you are, respectfully, sneering at. There are also a lot that would say that they used to be their birth sex and are now their destination sex. I'll let them speak to their own experiences and reasons. But in short, there is no "party line" among transsexuals as you are suggesting, and Janet Mock's twitter account is not a credible place to get information. And because I believe in responding to clever cheekiness in kind, one wit to another, I would also advise you to avoid treating YouTube comments as gospel as well.Iheartdaikaiju (talk) 21:43, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Concur with Floydian, Jimp, and RPoD. Mentioning a person's pre-transition name in the lede is perfectly reasonable so long as we adhere to the MOS in respecting the subject's current name. It's especially desirable to clearly mention the pre-transition name if the subject was well known under their pre-transition name. If you can find some evidence that someone's edit attempts are designed to harass a person, that I would take issue with that. But I do not believe that use of such tactics elsewhere are sufficient reason to engage in the masking of facts here. - Sangrolu (talk) 19:33, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
 * That is disingenuous, no one is suggesting masking of facts, just not repeating it again and again when the bare minimum is all that is needed. As the issue causes del world harm there is no reason for trans* people we can't look to minimizing the damage done in Wikipedia's name. Sportfan5000 (talk) 19:49, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
 * So what is the bare minimum? Our standard practise is to include the birth name and/or maiden name alongside the date of birth in the lede sentence. Infobox person similarly has a parameter for this. Per WP:LEDE and WP:LAYOUT, the lede summarizes the content of the body of the article. This is the bare minimum and yet still is being claimed as a personal attack or running afoul of BLP. It's almost a form of white guilt. -  Floydian  τ ¢  20:09, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
 * (Response to sportfan): Disingenuous? I assure you I am being perfectly sincere. I propose you take a step back and consider how I see what you are proposing. You are proposing for this specific case, we depart from existing editorial policy to make articles less clear and downplay relevant facts, under the notion that somehow we are causing harm. As I recommended elsewhere, though it's not WP policy, I submit to you the litmus test under WP:HARM applies here. If the information is already known, relevant, and given due weight, it is fair for inclusion in an article. I don't think this deserves a special case. - Sangrolu (talk) 20:15, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I was bristling at the idea that we were trying the mask the information when the only effort has been to make it as minimal as possible. No one has even suggested it doesn't belong in the article, just that it is minimally used. This is a common problem for trans* people. Sportfan5000 (talk) 20:27, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
 * There is indeed a request here to totally mask the information in some articles. "Where the person was not notable before transition, then there is no justification for giving the former name at all, as that names refers to a non-notable time. It is enough to mention the gender identity issue, but not the former name." _Nat Gertler (talk) 23:46, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
 * It wasn't being made in the case that started the discussion, is what I meant. I agree that in some cases there is no need to report anything at all. We already have articles on trans women that make no reference to their former names or transitions. Sportfan5000 (talk) 06:03, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

There isn't, for the record, a hard and fast rule that we should always mention a transgender person's former name, but there isn't a hard and fast rule that we can never give it, either — rather, each individual case has to be evaluated on its own based on the specific circumstances in play. Generally, transgender people fall into one of three classes when it comes to this issue:


 * 1) they were already notable under their old name before coming out as transgender (obvious e.g. Chelsea Manning);
 * 2) they became notable only under their post-transition name, but reliable sources can be found which have published their former name anyway (e.g. Jenna Talackova);
 * 3) they became notable only under their post-transition name, but reliable sources do not exist for their former name, and the name could thus be added only on the basis of a (usually anonymous) Wikipedia contributor's unverifiable claims of personal knowledge such as "I went to high school with this person" (e.g. Laverne Cox).

In the first case, we have to include some mention of the prior name, because it misrepresents the context of their notability if we don't. We have to acknowledge their former names in these cases, because their former names are directly relevant to their notability. There may be some debate to be had about how much acknowledgement of the former name is necessary, but entirely stripping any acknowledgement of the former name whatsoever from the article is not really an option. And in the third case, the former name has to be removed, because it's not even verifiable in the first place.

So the only real place for debate about whether a transgender person's prior name should be included or excluded from the article is if the person falls into the second situation.

Jennell Jaquays, for the record, falls in the first class; the article was created at Paul Jaquays in 2009 and she didn't come out as transgender until 2011. So there may be room for debate about how much her former name should or shouldn't be featured, but we can't suppress it entirely. That said, from what I can tell nobody was actually trying to do that. Bearcat (talk) 21:06, 10 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Bearcat, the current version of Jennell's article looked fine to me (or at least, the last version I viewed if it's be edited since. However, at one point, the former name was given far more prominence than the current name in the body of the article. That is the kind of disproportionate emphasis that I want a policy set up to prevent. Rhialto (talk) 21:34, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
 * My comment was, for the record, aimed much more at the people who have been responding to you than it was at you; I see a lot of misunderstanding in the discussion of what you were even saying in the first place, such as several people who genuinely seemed to think you were arguing that a transgender person's former name should always be completely obliterated regardless of context. Bearcat (talk) 21:50, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
 * As the editor who decided to remove one of three mentions of Jennell Jaquays former name (not all references of her former name) I have an interest in this issue and support the proposed changes in policy.
 * Here is a link to an article called Transgender study looks at 'exceptionally high' suicide-attempt rate. I quote from the article: "Researchers wrote that being recognized as transgender by other people probably made them a target of more discrimination, putting them at greater risk -- a finding that echoes earlier research." So the comparison with someone like Ringo Starr is a flawed comparison, because it compares a group of people who are widely discriminated against (and who suffer stress from that discrimination) with a pop star that uses a stage name. A pop star with a stage name faces no risk of discrimination or any negative reaction if their real name is used.
 * MOS:IDENTITY says that we should use the current gender of a transexual person and not make references to a transwoman being a dad or a transman being a mum, but if you actually read the Jennell Jaquays article we are going against the spirit of MOS:IDENTITY and adding in five references to the fact that she is transgender:
 * 1) Lede: "Jennell Jaquays[1] (born Paul Jaquays..."
 * 2) Infobox: "Born 	Paul Jaquays"
 * 3 and 4) Personal life: "Jaquays was born October 14, 1956 in Michigan, assigned male at birth as Paul..."
 * 5) Personal life: "Jaquays announced in December 2011 that she identifies as a lesbian and trans woman."
 * This is without counting the twelve citations that include her old name (making a total of seventeen mentions of the fact she is trans). I have been following this article since before it was renamed to match the new name. There was a discussion about Pronouns, which made it clear that some editors were not even aware of the guidelines of MOS:IDENTITY and I think that the addition of Jennell's birth name to three places (instead of one place) was a mistake. I also think that there is no need to say that someone was "assigned male at birth" if the article already says they are a trans woman. That is a duplication and something a reader can discover if they navigate over to the trans woman article. I believe this article should focus on Jennell Jaquays and should have one mention of the name that she is widely known under, specifically because the name "Paul" is a gender-specific word and falls under the spirit of MOS:IDENTITY. I do not accept that we need to have three mentions, because anyone searching for the old name will find the current article and is presented with enough information to know that this is the same person that they knew under the former name.
 * The statement that a transgender person's birth name is a "fact" is a bit of a strawman argument. A transgender person is a person who comes to a point in their life, when they decide that they want to be known as a gender other than the one that people originally thought they were. They are "fixing" their incorrect gender at that point in time. If they made statements before they went public, they would obviously not have been using their new gender, because they had not transitioned. Using the argument that a person was very public about their old name is very much like blaming them for being a transexual and not having sorted it out before they became notable. The unique thing we have to deal with when we write biographies about transgender people is that it is not their "fault" that they were born into a body that had the wrong gender. And if they transition young or transition old that is going to leave a different footprint of the gender they were assigned at birth. We should not be adding weight to the amount of time a transgender person was identified in the original gender and/or the name that matches that gender. It is an invalid argument. I reject it.
 * MOS:IDENTITY clearly says we must support the decision of a person who wants to present as any sort of gender and go with their current gender. We may need to have lots of information about their pre-transition name, but including it three times, on top of a redirect and numerous citations seems very much like an attempt to circumvent MOS:IDENTITY.
 * I support this proposal because, this is not an isolated case and I believe that editors who are insisting on using a transgender person's name at least three times are going against the spirit of MOS:IDENTITY and causing a risk of distress and harm not just to the subjects of the articles, but also to transgender people in general. We already have one complaint that Wikipedia editors are being transphobic. We need to fix this policy and tone down the things that hint at the birth gender of transgender people before it escalates into a more serious complaint within the transgender community. Big Mac (talk) 01:02, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
 * If a lot of sources use the original name (including, in this case, numerous works by the person under their former name), should it not be mentioned at least in the lede and by extension the body? I don't take issue with the infobox, but this is becoming an argument of semantics. You can change your identity, but that doesn't erase the past. Likewise, we can refer to someone using their current identity and even pronouns, but why does acknowledging the facts of the past cause distress and harm? They publically announced their transitions, therefore a few mentions of their name in a Wikipedia article is by far the lesser cause of issues. I also reject the concept outright that those who hold a similar stance to me are "misinformed". No, we have a different opinion, and just because it isn't the same as another's opinion doesn't make our view one of intolerance, one of antagonism, or one of aggression or insult in any way, shape, or form. -  Floydian  τ <sub style="color:#3AAA3A;">¢  01:14, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
 * It is necessary to acknowledge the former name of a person who was already notable under that name prior to their gender transition, nobody's said otherwise — but the point is that it's not necessary to dwell on it any more than is absolutely necessary. One brief mention of the fact that Jennelle was formerly known as Paul is more than sufficient to get the point across that old references which used the name "Paul" are still referring to this same person, but it really is not necessary for our article to keep calling her "Paul" any more than the one time that we absolutely have to. And if a person hasn't established preexisting notability under the birth name prior to their transition, then there's really no reason for us to publish their birth name at all — even if reliable sources can be found for that information, it just violates the person's privacy rights for no compelling reason beyond prurient invasiveness.
 * As Big Mac quite correctly pointed out, the fact that "I'm going to ignore your identity and keep calling you by your old name and your old gender pronouns anyway" is a tactic frequently used to discriminate against transgender people means that this is not equivalent to a pop star adopting a stage name. Ringo Starr is at no risk of harm if his birth name is known to the public, but a transgender person faces a very real risk of harm if theirs is — so by virtue of the fact that Wikipedia has an explicit policy requiring us to minimize harm to our article subjects, we do have a responsibility to balance that in favour of the person's personal privacy rights to every extent that we possibly can. It's not always possible to entirely keep it out of the article at all, because sometimes the person did have established notability under their prior name — but in those situations where it is unavoidable we should rightly keep the use of it to an absolute minimum, and if it is avoidable then we shouldn't use it at all.
 * And finally, on the question of holding different opinions, it bears pointing out: if you genuinely don't want your opinion to be perceived as "intolerance, antagonism, aggression or insult", then you have to accept that trans people get the exclusive right to define the parameters of what is or isn't "intolerance, antagonism, aggression or insult" in regards to their issues. The rest of us have a responsibility to listen, to consider the matter from their perspective and to adjust our thinking if necessary, but we don't have the right to get defensive about it, and stick our tongues out and say "NUH-UH!", when we're told that we are coming across as intolerant or antagonistic to trans issues. I'm pretty clued up on this stuff, yet even I've made some mistakes sometimes — but when I do, I listen and learn rather than loudly insisting that I know better than an actual transgender person about what is or isn't anti-transgender prejudice. They're the ones who actually have to deal with the issue on a daily basis, so they're the ones who get to define what is or isn't oppressive to them. Bearcat (talk) 03:15, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
 * No, sorry, the "exclusive right" stuff is total bullshit. People have the right to do what they want, but not to control how others perceive or talk about it.  I have a responsibility to "adjust my thinking" if my thinking is objectively wrong; I don't have a responsibility to adjust it just because someone claims it overlaps his/her claimed intellectual space. --Trovatore (talk) 03:22, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
 * You have the right to think whatever you want. You have the right not to care whether you're being intolerant or antagonistic to transgender issues or not. But no, if you're not transgender then you don't get to claim naming rights over the basic definition of whether something is oppressive to transgender people or not. Bearcat (talk) 03:27, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Wrong. --Trovatore (talk) 03:31, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Nope. The victims of oppression get to decide what they are or aren't allowed to feel oppressed by — the rest of us certainly have the right to decide whether or not we care about not being oppressive to them, but we don't get veto rights over whether or not it is oppressive to them if we aren't in that community ourselves. You have the right to feel however you want about it; what you don't have is the right to dictate to a transgender person how they're allowed to feel about it. Bearcat (talk) 03:41, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree with that last bit &mdash; anyone is allowed to feel any way about anything. That doesn't mean that everything they feel automatically constitutes a legitimate complaint. --Trovatore (talk) 03:55, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
 * And by that notion every objection to their concern is not necessarily a legitimate objection.<span style="font-family:Futura, Helvetica, _sans;color:#01110f;font-size:66%;">__ E L A Q U E A T E  03:59, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
 * That is also true. It depends on the merits, and anyone gets to make arguments on the merits, regardless of membership in some real or imagined community. --Trovatore (talk) 04:01, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
 * But if trans people generally object to a certain naming style, we can say they generally object to it and act accordingly. For one thing, I know that people generally don't like a lot of common epithets (lazy, stupid) applied to them, even if I don't know if that represents a "community" of people against that name, or if I know some people wouldn't care. People of all sorts, trans or not, generally like being called by the name they say they prefer.<span style="font-family:Futura, Helvetica, _sans;color:#01110f;font-size:66%;">__ E L A Q U E A T E  04:07, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
 * If it is in fact harmful to report birth names, a completely standard thing for bios of persons who have changed their names when the birth name can be reliably determined and sourced, than that needs to be established, not just asserted. --Trovatore (talk) 04:16, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
 * When you're talking about oppression (homophobia, racism, transphobia, etc.), there is no such thing as an illegitimate complaint; even just calling it an illegitimate complaint is a form of "telling them how they're allowed to feel". You don't get to decide whether it is a legitimate complaint or not — you absolutely get to decide how much you care or don't care about helping to address a complaint or not, but the complaint itself is always a legitimate one. Bearcat (talk) 04:11, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Just a note, everything in this thread refers to the naming conventions of Manual of Style/Biographies which already lists WikiProject LGBT studies/Guidelines as the main page for naming conventions for this topic here. It already seems like it's pointed to by MOS. <span style="font-family:Futura, Helvetica, _sans;color:#01110f;font-size:66%;">__ E L A Q U E A T E  03:48, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Wrong. The legitimacy of the feeling and the legitimacy of the complaint are completely separate issues. --Trovatore (talk) 04:16, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Except that if the oppressor holds veto power over what is or isn't a legitimate complaint in the first place, then every complaint gets automatically dismissed as "illegitimate". Even "millions of my people have been rounded up and murdered" can be an illegitimate complaint, if the people who are doing the rounding up and murdering are the ones with the power to decide whether it's a legitimate complaint or not. Which means that absolutely nothing changes, and the oppressed remain stuck without any power to ever get their complaints addressed or taken seriously at all. Bearcat (talk) 04:32, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
 * It hasn't been established that there are any "oppressors". But even if there are, who mentioned veto power?  All I said was, it has to be argued on the merits, established rather than just asserted. --Trovatore (talk) 04:41, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
 * It has very much been established that there are "oppressors". Very nearly right across the board, transgender people with Wikipedia articles are subjected to constant editwarring over (a) what name the article is located at in the first place, (b) what name the article uses for them in body text, (c) what gender pronouns the body text uses for them. For just one example, the gender war over Brandon Teena started not long after the article was first created in 2002, and has never ended in the entire 12 years since. Here's an edit summary dated December 31, 2013: The subject of the article was in fact a woman and shall be addressed using the correct pronouns. Being "transgender" does not change your sex in any way, and "sex-change operations" are just mutilations of the genitals. Brandon Teena, just a reminder, died in 1993 — yet twenty-one years later, people are still utterly hellbent on making damn sure we gender him as a woman, as if calling a transman a man were somehow any fricking skin off their noses.
 * Most of the higher-profile transgender people, in fact, have had to be placed under permanent semi-protection for exactly this reason; some of the less famous ones haven't had to be permanently protected, but still cannot be left unwatched for any great length of time. And it's never just about the person themselves, either; each person always becomes The Mother of All Battles for every single editor who has some weirdly obsessive vested interest in trying to discredit the entire existence of gender identity disorder (as if the question of whether our article was located at "Bradley" or "Chelsea" actually somehow made a fraction as much difference to their lives as it did to Manning's?)
 * And then if you point to MOS:IDENTITY, some really creative types start editwarring that; people have actually tried arbitrarily rewriting it so that our new "policy" was that a transgender person always and forever remains their birth gender and name. And none of this is unique to Wikipedia, either; in society at large, transgender people are constantly subject to the exact same attempts to delegitimize their identities: no, you're still the gender you were born into. No, you're still the name your parents gave you. No, gender identity disorder doesn't really exist; you're just psychotic and should be locked up. No, you're not entitled to your personal safety anymore; if you even just want to use the washroom the onus is suddenly on you to prove that you're not a sex offender. No, you're not entitled to your personal privacy anymore; I demand you personally show me that you've had the surgery. And on and so forth: you have lost the right to identify and name yourself, I get to take over the right to decide who and what you are.
 * Who are the "oppressors" here? Everybody who thinks their own personal preferences get to override the real day-to-day life of an actual transgender person, that's who.
 * As for "veto power", whether you used the exact phrase "veto power" to describe it or not, presuming to hold the right to decide what is or isn't a legitimate complaint for a transgender person to even raise in the first place is an act of vetoing. Bearcat (talk) 05:32, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Bearcat, I think has fairly summed this up and has some sensible ideas for moving forward, to minimize the disruption, and stress, these constant battles, cause. Maybe a suggested guideline adjustment would be along the lines of treating trans* people's articles more judiciously and conservatively when discussing their former names, and gender identities. Find ways to minimize dwelling on their transition. Sportfan5000 (talk) 06:08, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I might be able to go along with that. Just don't act like everyone's supposed to buy the PC identity-politics bullshit. --Trovatore (talk) 07:01, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Can you re-phrase that without describing your opponents' views using highly biased and vague terminology like 'PC' and 'identity politics', please? These are purely derogatory terms these days, employed to devalue the views they refer to without reference to their value or content. AlexTiefling (talk) 09:37, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The views in question are simply stated as though we're all supposed to just agree with them without question, because the only people who get to comment are the ones holding the victim card. That's bullshit, and has no value to reference. --Trovatore (talk) 15:36, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
 * "the only people who get to comment," comments someone commenting. <span style="font-family:Futura, Helvetica, _sans;color:#01110f;font-size:66%;">__ E L A Q U E A T E  15:45, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm criticizing the assertion that I shouldn't comment. In doing so, naturally, I do comment, because the assertion I'm criticizing is bullshit. --Trovatore (talk) 16:01, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I didn't ask you not to comment. I asked you if you could express your objection without resorting to intemperate and biased language. As you've repeated 'bullshit', I'm guessing that you can't. Your whole objection, in fact, appears to be that you don't like it. Using crude language to describe someone's opinion, while not an ad hominem attack as such, gives us no more useful information with which to evaluate that opinion than if you had made one. AlexTiefling (talk) 23:32, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Just for the record, I'm not trying to be difficult or pissy here. But I gave a whole list of examples of how anti-trans discrimination actually affects the real day-to-day lives of real people. Just for one more, there was a news story today about a trans woman comedian from England who had visa problems on a visit to Canada, and was initially detained in a men's prison. In Canada, a country which has human rights protections for transgender people enshrined in law, this still happened within the last 24 hours (although thankfully they've reversed course and transferred her to a women's facility now.) Again, I'm not trying to be shrill or tendentious or difficult here — but I'm talking about real bread-and-butter issues that actually cause profound harm to real people, and to dismiss them as mere "PC bullshit" really isn't contributing anything helpful or productive to the discussion.
 * Again, all I'm asking you to do is to put yourself in someone else's shoes for a couple of minutes. All I'm asking you to do is think a little bit about how you would feel if people were claiming the right to call you by the pronouns of the opposite gender, or by a name you were no longer using? I'm not asking you to drop everything you've ever done with your life and become the president of the International Association of Hardcore Transgender Allies — I'm just asking you to spend a little bit of time thinking about how you would feel if all of this personally affected you, that's all. Bearcat (talk) 03:57, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I would second what Bearcat has said here, and paraphrase what a comment I made on Talk:Jennell Jaquays: We must remember that BLP is as much an ethical policy as it is a legal policy. We have a duty to be conservative about the information in the biographies of living people. This applies strongly to trans people, where the non-consensual usage of their old name can negatively affect them (as often as it's weaponised to further transphobic abuse). I do believe in a notability test that's similar to WP:BLPPRIVACY in a way: is there an overriding encyclopaedic reason that we should use their names? If not, and especially for borderline notable people, try to be conservative with the usage of old names unless the subject has actively disclosed it or was notable whilst using it. As a trans woman, and a long-term editor, I'm somewhat disturbed by the community's treatment of trans people and editors, especially when it goes against most ethical standards published in the last fifteen to twenty years. Sceptre (talk) 23:14, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Additionally, I should point out that in several Western jurisdictions, trans people are retroactively given recognition regarding their new name and gender, and gain significant legal protection regarding their old one. For example, when you get a Gender Recognition Certificate in the United Kingdom, your old birth certificate is replaced with a new one and it's illegal to disclose the information on the old one. Sceptre (talk) 23:24, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Calming break
I'm not saying that anyone should stop their discussion about who is allowed to voice opinions or who is being barred from discussion or whatever's going on above this break. I'm merely going to suggest that we keep that discussion above this break, and to move forward, will make several statements that might move us, if not toward a consensus, at least toward narrowing the points of contention (or they may prove points of contention.) As at least one editor above felt comfortable in stating their trans status and thus giving their useful comments some context, I will admit that I am a cis male, white, balding, and in need of a snack. --Nat Gertler (talk) 17:26, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) Listing of birthnames in the opening sentence is standard practice on Wikipedia, and there is not a general exception for when the subject, for whatever reason, wishes to distance themselves from that name.
 * 2) While "birthname" is a parameter of Template:Infobox person, that's a template that has 76 parameters; having a parameter in the infobox does not mean that it is necessary or expected to use it even in all cases where we have the info that would match.
 * 3) That a birthname that identifies someone as trans or a statement that someone is trans is inherently contentious (i.e., something that could reasonably be viewed as damaging if not true), and thus should not be included in a WP:BLP unless reliably sourced
 * 4) The more we can cast things in terms of general policies rather than as a creation of a special case, the more neutral it will at least seem, and likely the more neutral it will be.
 * 5) The excessive focus on someone's transition when that is not a key part of their notability can be handled as WP:UNDUE. This is not to say that we should not address it as part of the MOS, but that if we do, we should describe it as guidelines in applying WP:UNDUE in these circumstances, rather than as a separate, special rules for trans people.
 * 6) There are people for whom their trans status is a significant part of their notability, so that avoiding discussion of it at all would be unencyclopedic.
 * 7) There are people who are quite public about their trans status and history, so that for them, discussing their trans status is not a violation of privacy.
 * 8) There may be cases where transition-related surgery is key to a significant portion of notability (I can think of theoretical cases, but cannot quickly point to real world examples), and as such it should not be inherently barred, but again, it is an item that is subject to WP:UNDUE and can be specified as such. (A guideline might be if such material is covered by sources of serious rather than salacious-even-if-reliable nature; NYT versus TMZ, if you will.)
 * 9) For the many trans folks who keep their last name at transition, conflict over naming can at least be minimized by keeping one's eye on WP:SURNAME; it is our friend in those cases.
 * As a driveby comment, I note that there are a few comments above about how one mention of the person's former name in the lead is all that is necessary; Wikipedia's lead sections are supposed to be broad summaries of the entire article and should not contain information not mentioned elsewhere. Hence you're looking at a minimum of two mentions of the person's former name/identity; once in the lead and once in the body (if it is in fact important enough to be mentioned in the lead.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 18:19, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
 * While that is the broad goal of the lead, there are other standard (MOS:BOLDSYN, WP:BIRTHNAME) calling for specific identifying information in that opening sentence. WP:LEAD specifically says "Apart from trivial basic facts, significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article." (emphasis mine). Birthname would appear to be a basic fact, and in some cases it will be trivial. --Nat Gertler (talk) 19:08, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
 * As made abundantly clear by these discussions, birth names are not often basic, and certainly aren't "trivial" in the way "George Washington loved his ice cream" would be. It would also to me be strange to give someone's name in the lead and never refer to them by their full name anywhere else. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 19:33, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
 * And if I might bring a little bit of sanity to this discussion, just regarding harm. This is an example of when we can do serious harm by including a birth name, because the name is extremely difficult to find (although not impossible, if you really want to dig) and she literally can't defend herself in any way. The article which touched this dispute off does not carry that same risk, and the overwhelming majority of articles on transgender people are either the same or somewhere between it and the first example (you'd be hard-pressed to find a situation which really approaches that one). Just to keep things in perspective. The Blade of the Northern Lights  ( 話して下さい ) 19:38, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
 * In applying WP:UNDUE, the way that section is worded, it appears that a person's name is to be considered a matter subject to opinion. That is troubling on a great many levels, especially when the person in question has stated clearly what name they wish to use, even more so if that person has legal documents confirming that name. I would agree that WP:SURNAME represents an excellent way to avoid unnecessary repetition of names that have been disavowed by the subject. Rhialto (talk) 21:20, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
 * My apologies there; I invoked the wrong guideline when I used WP:UNDUE. Somewhere out there is a guideline or good essay about balance of the content, some don't-spend-much-more-time-on-the-stuff-not-vital-to-notabilityish thingy which is not coming to my mind at the moment (I am dealing with some temporary pain that is keeping me from being at 100%). It was not my intent to suggest that the name is subject to opinion; if a person has changed their name, they've changed their name. --Nat Gertler (talk) 17:21, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

I went through a few pages to see how they would fare under this proposal.

Calpernia Addams - no former name mentioned. She actively discourages use of the old name, and has made considerable effort to keep it concealed. (She also has a very interesting youtube video which covers why she considers it to be a personal attack to use the old name on her). This is an article where there is no reliable source for her former name, so it should not be mentioned. No changes would be needed.

Chelsea Manning - former name mentioned in lead ("Chelsea Elizabeth Manning (born Bradley Edward Manning, ..."). 5 mentions of Bradley in article body (including two gratuitious mentions); 5 mentions of Chelsea. She was famous before transition, so it is appropriate for the former name to be mentioned. However, it has been given undue prominence in the article.

Aya Kamikawa - no former name mentioned. No reliable sources for former name, although they may exist. No changes would be needed.

Isis King - no former name mentioned. No reliable sources for former name, although they may exist. No changes would be needed.

Andreas Krieger - one mention of former name in lead, no other mentions. He was famous before transition, so it is appropriate for the former name to be mentioned. I would consider this to be a model example of how to handle this name issue. No changes would be needed.

Harisu - Harisu is a stage name, and as such, is the name primarily used in the article. Both new and former names are mentioned in the lead. Former name is mentioned more times in article than new name, which places undue emphasis.

Buck Angel - No other names mentioned, although reliable sources may exist. No changes would be needed.

Rhialto (talk) 22:02, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
 * " which places undue emphasis" In your opinion. CombatWombat42 (talk) 22:09, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Is it not your opinion that it does not? Rhialto (talk) 22:20, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I havn't looked and don't care to. You have been advocating for a position in this thread and so it should be clear that it is your opinion, as you clearly have a bias. (I am not saying you shouldn't have a bias, just that you, in my opinion, do.) CombatWombat42 (talk) 22:24, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Here's a slightly more reasoned answer for everyone else (based on the attitude expressed on your home page on WP, I doubt you'd pay much attention). Harisu has a stage name. She changed her name legally many years ago, and all government documents for her use that name. Online references to her primarily use her stage name, not her former name and not her current name. To therefore give her former name more prominence than her current name when it is not used (or used far less) in her daily life, in her legal life, or in verifiable sources about her, is giving her former name undue attention. Rhialto (talk) 06:07, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

I want to add the comment that I think this is an excellent summary, although I would personally add some minor clarifications. The point #3 is very important. It is obvious--by this talk page if nothing else--that inclusion of a former name can be contentious. Therefore, it should only be included if reliably sourced. However, because a former name is encyclopedic information, and because it is often critical in doing further research on a person, I would go farther and say our policy should be that the name must be included if a reliable source has been found (regardless of whether the person was notable prior to the name change).

After thinking on this, I would further offer that I think the style guide should be that the former name, when reliably sourced, should generally be mentioned in exactly three places. I cannot really think of reasonable arguments for omitting it from the lede (as per standard practice mentioned in point #1 above) or from a single mention in the personal life/early life section when fleshing out the person's past. It also fits neatly in the infobox. I could possibly be persuaded that it could be omitted from the infobox, although I do feel strongly that we should have a general guideline of either always putting it there or never putting it there for trans people. (Are there specific WP guideline about what belongs in an infobox? If there are, I missed that part.)  Taking it on a case-by-case basis is asking for arguments, and doesn't really add any value.

I do think this policy should include the guideline that more than three mentions, except when events are directly related to the prior name, is WP:UNDUE and should not be allowed.

(Note also that I am specifically talking about former names. This should be kept separate from guidelines on mention of gender change or surgery or anything else.  My opinions are less strong on those issues.) GrandOpener (talk) 14:57, 12 February 2014 (UTC)


 * So, one mention in the lead, one mention in the infobox, and one mention in a section specifically about "early life" (all subject to verifiable sources and general writing guidelines)? Provided that those mentions don't exceed the number of times the current name is mentioned, I can go along with that. Rhialto (talk) 15:36, 12 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Bill Clinton mentions "William Jefferson Blythe III" but doesn't make a big deal out of it. That's the way to go. Darkfrog24 (talk) 04:13, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Not relevant. He isn't transgender, unless you know something we don't. Rhialto (talk) 06:04, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The use in info boxes gets interesting, while they frequently have a field for the "birth name", Manual of Style/Infoboxes states "the purpose of an infobox: to summarize key facts in the article in which it appears. The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance. Of necessity, some infoboxes contain more than just a few fields; however, wherever possible, present information in short form, and exclude any unnecessary content." In these instances, name change and the context thereof probably require more than simple presentation and should not be included in infobox. --  TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  17:58, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I will concur with that (and was pointing toward it with my point 2 above). The infobox is not a baseball card for a fixed set of statistics, but a summary to give immediate context. There are certain things that are inherently of value there (birth/death date, for example, put the individual in historical context), but if we are only otherwise mentioning birth name in the opening sentence and in early life, it probably does not belong in the infobox. --Nat Gertler (talk) 18:47, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Another thought: if we right write up guidelines, we may want to include a notation that the birthname should not be gleaned from birth records or from name change documents, under WP:BLPPRIMARY. This will help prevent us from revealing a birth name that is not already a matter of public knowledge. --Nat Gertler (talk) 07:49, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

So any WP:Consensus on this matter?
I ask because I saw Pburka's removal of Thomas Beatie's birth name today; removed today. Pburka cited the WP:Gender identity essay for the removal. Flyer22 (talk) 21:28, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I was unaware of this discussion when I made that edit. My feeling is that the repeated use of the subject's birth name, and the use of the birth name in the lead, is WP:UNDUE. Unlike Ringo Starr or Michelle Obama, using a transgendered person's birth name in the first sentence immediately calls them out as transgendered, which may be irrelevant to their notability. We wouldn't call out a person's race, religion or sexual orientation in the first sentence unless it's relevant to their notability; I think that a subject's trans* status should be given the same treatment. Where being trans* is key to notability, I'd prefer to say so directly rather than implying it first through a birth name. Note that in the case of Thomas Beatie, I only removed his birth name from the lead and infobox; it still appears in the article body. (For cases where the subject became notable under their birth name, I think it is appropriate to include it in the lead.) Pburka (talk) 22:13, 22 February 2014 (UTC)


 * We often "call out" someone's marital status in the first sentence, even when it is irrelevant to their notability - typically if that person is female and married, by describing them as "Jane Smith Jones". Yet in at least some countries (eg Australia) is is just as illegal to discriminate on the basis of marital status as race, religion, sexual orientation, gender identity or intersex status. I don't believe that mentioning a person's birth name in the lead and infobox is "undue" emphasis on their gender change any more than it would be considered undue emphasis of a married woman's marital status. Mitch Ames (talk) 12:35, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
 * But along those lines, most would agree that examples like "Jane Smith, divorcee", "Senator Bob Henry, married five times", and "Elmer Jones, 91, bachelor" in the lead are instances where marital status could be used to unfairly and conspicuously editorialize the subject. Mentions of birth name or marital status are often innocuous and used with proper weight. It certainly doesn't mean they always have to be. If I found an article where marital status was being used with undue weight to pull due focus from a subject's notability, I'd want it de-emphasized in fairness, especially so if it was a BLP. <span style="font-family:Futura, Helvetica, _sans;color:#01110f;font-size:66%;">__ E L A Q U E A T E  12:59, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Although in the case of Thomas Beatie, I don't think anyone would seriously argue that his transgender status isn't pretty important... in all seriousness Beatie did notable things under the name Tracy LaGondino and has made no effort to hide this, so that's not the best place to try stuffing the genie back into the lamp. The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい ) 19:45, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The birth name hasn't been omitted. It begins the main article text. (In other words, I don't think any genies are near any lamps.) <span style="font-family:Futura, Helvetica, _sans;color:#01110f;font-size:66%;">__ E L A Q U E A T E  19:52, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I look forward to the day when gender identity is as innocuous as marital status. I agree that, in Beatie's case, his being a transman is important to his notability. I prefer to explicitly say that he's transgendered, rather than implying it through a birth name first. The latter approach feels vaguely like innuendo to me. If this edit is reverted, I won't object. However, I believe that we should espouse the following principles:
 * Articles about transgendered people who are not notable primarily for being transgendered, and who were not notable under their birth name should not include the subject's birth name in the lead.
 * Birth names should not be included at all if the name is not widely known. Primary sources must not be used to discover birth names, especially of living people.
 * Pburka (talk) 03:14, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't think you should revert anything; the article looks better than fine. This is supposed to be a discussion of overall policy, not a single application of it. I don't think people should start playing tug-of-war with a specific BLP article. Beatie became most notable as a trans man and it's fine to give weight to his current name in the lead.<span style="font-family:Futura, Helvetica, _sans;color:#01110f;font-size:66%;">__ E L A Q U E A T E  03:20, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

WP:ENGVAR
At the moment my understanding is all articles should be written in their regional variant, American E, British E, Irish E and so forth. Right now I am in a dispute with an IP, on Dublin. It was indicating to use British English, I changed this to Irish English- as per WP:ENGVAR the IP reverted I then re-revert with the link to WP:ENGVAR. They have since undne this again. It could be WP:POINTY. Am I following the guidelines correctly? And as per strong ties, Dublin is, well, Irish, WP:TIES even guides for Irish English usage on the EU articles, as well as British English. Murry1975 (talk) 20:15, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Note this statement at the policy you quote: "This guideline should not be used to claim national ownership of any article; see Wikipedia:Ownership of articles". 86.31.176.207 (talk) 20:25, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
 * We may all edit the Dublin article, no matter where we live, so long as we follow policy. And we should use Irish English, whether we are Irish or not. If we don't know the local variations, then we do our best in the variety of English we know, and someone who knows the local lingo will correct our text. --Pete (talk) 20:51, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Is there a difference that is noticeable? If so what?-- JOJ <sup style="color:#CC9900;">Hutton  21:50, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
 * My understanding is that there are no spelling differences. There may be some usage differences, and also some words specific to IeE, but overall BrE and IeE are very similar, and the majority of editors would not be aware of the differences unless they researched them. I don't think we need tag such articles as Irish English. The editor who did so has previously been involved in this issue and I think at the time it was suggested another "neutral" tag was used, but I can't remember precisely what it was. 86.31.176.207 (talk) 21:59, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
 * PS: I won't revert the article again if someone changes it, but maybe the other tag I mentioned could be used, if others think it's appropriate (I think it might have simply been "ENGVAR"). 86.31.176.207 (talk) 22:03, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Dublin is one of the most clear-cut examples of an Irish topic imaginable, so its article obviously should be written in Irish English.
 * You noted that British English and Irish English are very similar. (This is my understanding as well.)  You also noted that "there may be some usage differences", but let's assume that the article contains zero instances of text that would vary between British and Irish English.  Why, in your view, does it make more sense to include the Use British English template than it does to include the Use Irish English template?  I'm baffled as to the nature of your objection.  —David Levy 23:00, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't think it does make more sense to use BrE. I merely suggest that there was no need to change it to Irish English. As Murry points out, it's maybe pointy to do so; I think he's right. 86.31.176.207 (talk) 23:06, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
 * It's pointy to indicate that an article about the capital of Ireland should be written in Irish English (instead of British English, wherein "there may be some usage differences")? Please elaborate.
 * Murry1975 replaced an inappropriate template with the appropriate one. You reverted this change repeatedly (even after a second editor reinstated it).  I remain baffled as to why.  —David Levy 23:17, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Look at the guy's edit history. Also, it's not an inappropriate template, because its use does not degrade the quality of the article, or put another way, the article would not be improved by changing the tag to "Use Irish English", so why do it? Anyway, as I mentioned, there is another preferred tag that should be used in these cases. I'll have a look and see if I can find it. 86.31.176.207 (talk) 23:22, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
 * That won't be necessary. (Likewise, I won't question your motive as an unregistered UK user whose edit history is largely inaccessible.)
 * As I said, Dublin is one of the most clear-cut examples of an Irish topic imaginable, so its article obviously should be written in Irish English.
 * Irish English, not British English, is the appropriate variety for a Wikipedia article on an Irish topic (as clearly stated in our guidelines).
 * You acknowledged that "there may be some usage differences". Should they arise, the Use British English template would advise editors to include British constructs instead of their Irish equivalents.  How, in your view, is this appropriate?  How would you feel if the London article contained the Use Irish English template?
 * What do you mean by "these cases"? This isn't a borderline case.  Dublin is an Irish city.  No ambiguity exists here.  —David Levy 23:50, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
 * A quote from the Irish English article: Modern English as spoken in Ireland today retains some features showing the influence of the Irish language, such as vocabulary, grammatical structure, and pronunciation. Most of these are more used in the spoken language than in formal written language as used in say the Irish Times, which is much closer to Standard British English, with a few differences in vocabulary. Ireland follows the same spelling standard as all other English-speaking countries outside North America. In other words, the written forms are by and large the same, so if an article is tagged as "Use Irish English" what are editors to make of that? Are they supposed to research the idiosyncrasies of the Irish version of English to ensure they don't offend anyone? So let's not beat about the bush. This Irish English template is there primarily to assuage that small number of editors who don't like the "B" word to be used in connection with anything Irish. And because of this, and the edit wars it has caused, someone has developed the EngvarB template; that's what should be used at Dublin and elsewhere. 86.31.31.163 (talk) 16:06, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh, I see. By "these cases", you (assuming that you're the same editor) meant all in which Use Irish English is transcluded.  So these reversions were part of a campaign to eradicate a template that you dislike.
 * As an American with no known British or Irish heritage, national pride isn't a factor in my position. I simply find it ludicrous to suggest that our article about Dublin should be written in British English instead of Irish English.  —David Levy 10:47, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I think what's "pointy" about it is the fact that the previous style was not retained. Does the topic of Dublin have a strong enough tie to Irish English over that of British English to change the language expected without a prior consensus for a change (on the talk page or elsewhere)? --Izno (talk) 17:25, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Does the topic of Dublin have a strong enough tie to Irish English over that of British English... As it's the largest concentrated population of people speaking Irish English, I'm going to say "Yes." It looks like correcting a glaring oversight, not being controversial in any way. And isn't WP:POINT-iness where the change is made against what the editor believes to be the right course of action? That didn't happen here. An example of actual pointiness would be changing the default for London to American English or something like that. Repeatedly demanding that Dublin have a British default is the odd demand here.<span style="font-family:Futura, Helvetica, _sans;color:#01110f;font-size:66%;">__ E L A Q U E A T E  17:39, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
 * As for WP:RETAIN, it was this edit by that inserted the incorrect template last month, so why wasnt the correct template used in the first place? A good faith oversight by Ohconfucius. Simple as that. I corrected as per the MOS guidelines. It seems the IPs issue is that there is no difference between Irish and British English, yet there is a difference. Small differences maybe, but then we use B/E and its sub-variants, Oxford, and Cambridge English. So as far as I can make out, my edit wasnt pointy, POV, claiming national ownership of an article nor did it go against retain. The revert however seems to be WP:LAME. Murry1975 (talk) 18:09, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I regret this one careless edit of mine has precipitated an avalanche. I have been aware of the potential for problems due to national sensitivities for some time, and rarely use the use British English tag these days. The edit concerned was indeed unintentional in that I would have used the neutral EngvarB template had I not been processing a batch of articles on British subjects. The Dublin edit was among a batch of edits related to Duran Duran, for which I temporarily substituted the use British English tag. Dublin somehow got processed and I failed to pick it up and pressed 'save'. For this I sincerely apologise. Indeed, there are very few spelling differences between British English and Irish English, and none to speak in terms of the changes my scripts will make to spellings. And whilst there are words that are unique to Irish English, Wikipedia policies and guidelines emphasise that the language in which articles are written must be accessible to all English speakers. We would not accept routine substitution of Irish words or constructs where suitable 'mainstream' English ones exists, except where dialectic differences are being discussed or explained. It has never been my intention to create new definitions or nationalistic splits when I wrote the script. My script was to make spellings in a given article consistent, period. If anything, I now tend to substitute out these nationalistic templates with the EngvarB for all the misconceptions they create about Wikipedia's language ghettoes. I thank Murry1975 for correcting my error, and hope that my explanation clarifies the situation. --  Ohc  ¡digame! 01:38, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
 * My one question is why you believe that "the neutral EngvarB template" is called for in the Dublin article. You were inserting Use British English in "a batch of articles on British subjects", so why wouldn't the same standard apply to an Irish subject?  —David Levy 10:47, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
 * , OhConfucius developed the B-ENGVAR to elevate the tedious editing the like of which the IP has done, but I can see your point of why one and not the other. IMO, if I/E use is guided it should be used- to an article which is essentially Irish, if there is a cased to use a B-Engvar template is over an I/E template consensus should be reached as to why. Duran Duran :D thanks for making me laugh this morning bud. It was an easy oversight, these things happen. Murry1975 (talk) 11:29, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your understanding. FYI, I've just done Simple Minds and Deacon Blue. ;-) --  Ohc  ¡digame! 11:48, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Indeed, I understand the logic behind replacing multiple templates with EngvarB across the board, but if this is done, Use British English surely should be among those retired. And if Use Irish English isn't eliminated, I know of no subject to which it's more applicable than it is to Dublin.  —David Levy 12:16, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, and yes. --  Ohc  ¡digame! 12:32, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I already explained that above. I do not use the use British English tag these days. Its more efficient for my workflow and there's less risk of mistakes like the one I made for Dublin if I stick to the one template. --  Ohc  ¡digame! 11:48, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
 * You said that you "rarely use the use British English tag these days" (emphasis added) but switched to it temporarily when "processing a batch of articles on British subjects" (Duran Duran, specifically). Perhaps I've misunderstood what you meant by this.  —David Levy 12:16, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
 * That was done a whole month ago – an eternity as I process hundreds of articles a week – and as you will see if you looked at my contributions, it was temporary. I use the template exclusively now. --  Ohc  ¡digame! 12:32, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
 * In September (when EngvarB was nominated for deletion), you that you'd "stopped applying use British English".  I understand that last month's exception was temporary; I seek to ascertain the reason behind it.
 * To be clear, the above is not a criticism. I'm not speculating as to whether this will occur again or commenting on whether it was/would be justified.  —David Levy 13:06, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The edits in question took place from 7 to 15 January using AWB, on my windows laptop. With British English being considered a major variant here on WP, and many of these articles in that batch already had the tag, I must have thought nothing of putting the 'British' tag into AWB to merely update a bunch of articles mainly related to British musicians. Incidentally my AWB module doesn't actually change any spellings – it's more of a tagging exercise, so I'll be working through these with my script at some stage. I changed the setting back to again on my AWB client only when that batch had been completed, and it hasn't been changed since. That September statement of mine may not have been in the forefront of my mind, but the logic of deprecating the  must have come back when I reloaded the AWB work list. In any event, my js script now inserts  tags by default: and has been for over a year – twas January 2013. It still updates articles with extant  tags but I have not placed any new tags this month --  Ohc  ¡digame! 07:17, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much for the explanation. —David Levy 10:51, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
 * You're asking whether the capital of Ireland has strong national ties to Ireland? Seriously?  —David Levy 10:47, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Can you answer the question without the snark? You neither answered the question that you thought I asked nor answered the question that I actually did ask. --Izno (talk) 23:50, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I think that my opinion can be inferred easily. But if I misunderstood the question, your clarification is needed.  —David Levy 04:20, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
 * You're asking whether the capital of Ireland has strong national ties to Ireland? Seriously?  —David Levy 10:47, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Can you answer the question without the snark? You neither answered the question that you thought I asked nor answered the question that I actually did ask. --Izno (talk) 23:50, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I think that my opinion can be inferred easily. But if I misunderstood the question, your clarification is needed.  —David Levy 04:20, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I think that my opinion can be inferred easily. But if I misunderstood the question, your clarification is needed.  —David Levy 04:20, 25 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Just a note that WP:TIES doesn't give carte blanche to the usage of terms that won't be understood by our worldwide body of readers who comprehend standard English. The occasional exclusively local term, if relevant and necessary, can be glossed inline. Tony   (talk)  08:02, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Indeed, WP:COMMONALITY always applies. —David Levy 10:47, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
 * No one has presented the differences of written English between Ireland and the UK. Bickering about the spelling-variety sign at the top is time wasted in the pursuit of nationalistic fervour. Heavens, I coudln't care less if BrEng tags are on Australia-related articles. (And Australians seem quite happy to retain the union jack and to contract out their head of state to London—both potent symbols of the country's lack of self-confidence.) There's only one difference: program/me, as far as I can tell. Tony   (talk)  08:46, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Spelling is pretty much identical, there are a few vocabulary differences like "truck", "eggplant", "footpath", "soccer", etc. vs "lorry", "aubergine", "pavement", "football", etc. (Though, as for the last one, we seem to be undergoing something of a Pommification here.) It seems to me a good idea to have templates for specific dialects (not just British vs American). It's absurd to have a tag on an article with strong national ties to another English-speaking country (even if we couldn't care less). The tag, though, is a good way of specifying a variety which is British-Irish-Australian-New Zealand-etc. but not necessarily any particular one. The disadvantage, however, as I see it, is that the meaning won't be as clear to the novice editor when he sees " " in edit mode, but, what's the alternative, " ", " "? Jimp 10:07, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
 * ROTFL. --  Ohc  ¡digame! 12:23, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Placement of punctuation when quotation marks are not used for quotations
When quotation marks are not being used for quotations, but for titles, where should the punctuation go? I don't see that we address this situation here: #Punctuation inside or outside.

The current situation is found here, and I'm in doubt (see my edit summary):


 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Christina_Grimmie&diff=596677801&oldid=596676419

I think that for the title of the Miley Cyrus song "Wrecking Ball", the punctuation should not be allowed to break up the quote marks because they are not even being used for a quotation. I've lived in Europe for so long that I do get confused about the British and American rules, so I'd like to hear others' opinions.

We need to address this situation in the MoS. -- Brangifer (talk) 20:55, 22 February 2014 (UTC)


 * In what way is this not addressed by the following extract? On Wikipedia, place all punctuation marks inside the quotation marks if they are part of the quoted material and outside if they are not. This seems to cover it adequately – as the period is not part of the material being quoted, in this instance a song title, it goes outside the quotes, and I would not include the quotes in the link, like so: "Wrecking Ball". —Quondum 23:31, 22 February 2014 (UTC)


 * That's exactly my thinking as well. For such content, we don't follow the strict American practice.
 * The part that isn't addressed directly and explicitly is titles and instances where quotation marks are not used to enclose actual quotations in sentence (or paragraph) form. In those other instances they are used to emphasize something like the title of a song, book, corporation, etc.. These are two very clearly different types of usages. Are they addressed specifically anywhere in the MoS? -- Brangifer (talk) 23:51, 22 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I sense you're asking for wording that makes it more difficult for someone to argue ambiguity. How about "... if they are part of the contained material ..."? But I take your point that for titles, they are not functioning in the role of quotation marks, since italics are used for book titles. Perhaps "if they are part of the quoted material or title ..."? Or suggest something else. —Quondum 00:49, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't know about that, Quondom. Very few titles contain punctuation, and it's usually what style guides call "pretentious punctuation." That turn of phrase might imply that Wikipedia editors should spend their time and energy preserving that kind of thing. Darkfrog24 (talk) 15:43, 24 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia policy does not draw any distinction between quotations used for speech and those used for titles of short-form works, like songs. The current rule is to follow British practice at all times and place them outside for short-form works, even though the chance of confusion is pretty much zero.
 * Does anyone feel that the term "titles of short-form works" or "titles of songs and other short-form works" would improve WP:LQ? Darkfrog24 (talk) 15:26, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree, and I also think that wording of that sort (leaning toward the second wording) makes sense. -- Brangifer (talk) 01:21, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The MOS already contains the statement
 * This pretty much covers it already; if clarity is needed, couldn't we refer to this rather? —Quondum 02:09, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
 * This pretty much covers it already; if clarity is needed, couldn't we refer to this rather? —Quondum 02:09, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

does this apply to titles and category-names
I'd cited WP:MOSFOLLOW on a certain matter, different from the one at hand I'm about to mention, and got a response that pointed out it had been deleted, and should no longer cited; that link brought to my attention this line "If discussion cannot determine which style to use in an article, defer to the style used by the first major contributor." So, being caught in a protracted battle over a category name resulting from a bad call on a main article name, and hearing all kinds of guidelines and supposed conventions cited, to avoid any concession to the easiest resolution, and all along I've been saying the article's/category's creator's choice should be respected. I'm wondering if that phrasing applies to name usage/foreign words/romanization issues but it's also important because it concerns an indigenous people's topic and the preferences of those people themselves; on this current CfD where the aim is to move it from the unworkable current category to Category:Skwxwu7mesh, which is a variant of the diacritical-heavy version made by its creator User:OldManRivers - who is Skwxwu7mesh but "left the building" from getting tired of people invoking guidelines as reasons to ignore his knowledge/presence, but also in relation to an RM to revert Stawamus back to Sta7mes and any possible effort to move Esla7an ("7" is used as a a glottal stop character in ASCII renderings of native names in BC English; the original character drops below-line with a tail like a g or y). This question also affects Dakelh/Carrier people where an RM is now underway to revert to the creator's original choice, and where the category name has so far remained stable at Category:Dakelh. There are other "guidelines" which get invoked as policy, including "category name must match main article" which wind up speedying things based on faulty calls on RMs or, as in too many cases, on undiscussed moves. That namespace collisions result with more common meanings of names like Squamish, Okanagan and more is lost on those who make such moves and also, it seems, on those arguing for retention of changed titles irrespective of reasons or realities about why they shouldn't have been changed in the first place. I get made an issue because of my detailed (=long-winded) explanations to the point where it's like "didn't hear that" is the upshot of people not wanting to read the explanations, and wanting simple answers for complex issues whose complexities have gotten buried under the simplistically-decided moves, undiscussed or otherwise, that has resulted in a lot of complications. That there are no guidelines on indigenous usages/names here or in the romanization section, or in WP:MOSCAN, is a big hole in MOS, and though I've tried to codify loose guidelines that were in place back before a bunch of RMs happened in 2011, mostly I get ignored as WP:TLDNR. Deferring to the wishes of the article's/category's creator isn't always desirable, but when that person is a member of the people in question, or a major scholar in the field (as is the case at Dakelh/Carrier people and both are the case at Skwxwu7mesh/Squamish people), then it seems that if name-arguments later on, after moves away from those original choices, c ould be resolved by a "defer to the creator's choices"....but if that's not the meaning of the quoted passages, and it refers only to volume and date style-formats, then I'd like to know so I don't quote it and don't get the "that passage isn't about this issue" response. The absence of cohesive guidelines/conventions for indigenous titles is a major gap in MOS, imo.Skookum1 (talk) 11:04, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Let me see if I've got this. Someone else wants to spell it "Stawamus," but you want to spell it "Sta7mes." "Sta7mes" is the standard "BC" (British Columbian?) spelling and the "7" represents a glottal stop.
 * This sounds similar to the issue we had a few years back with the ß (eszett) in German. The fact that this is an indigenous language is irrelevant.  This is the English Wikipedia, so for things like this there's English and everything else.
 * The article is written in Canadian English, I'm guessing. Use whichever spelling predominates in that form of English per WP:UE and make sure the opening of the article provides both spellings (looks like it does).
 * I'm having trouble figuring out where the category name comes into it. Darkfrog24 (talk) 15:10, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Browser searches and single quotation marks
Browser searches (of displayed text, perhaps a Wikipedia page) distinguish between single and double quotation marks, and also between curly and straight forms.

This assertion is false (and has been for years). In Safari/Mac and Safari/iOS, searching for “Alzheimer's” with a dumb apostrophe finds both occurrences on the page. —Michael Z. 2014-02-27 05:58 z 
 * Maybe it needs to say "Some browser searches". Firefox 27 also works fine. IE 11, OTOH, doesn't. Fat&#38;Happy (talk) 06:22, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The last time this came up, a few people said that readers in poorer countries might be using older browsers, but if that's no longer the case, then the time for this rule has passed and I would support removing it. Darkfrog24 (talk) 13:26, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Searching and Curly Quotes
Manual_of_Style/Register mentions that "Mixed use interferes with some searches, such as those using the browser’s search facility." This is fixed in the latest version of Firefox and other Gecko-based browsers. With some community effort it could also be fixed in other open source browser engines like Blink and WebKit (which together with Gecko account for a majority of Wikipedia page views), and in MediaWiki's built-in search engine. This would remove one of the main arguments against curly quotes. Mbrubeck (talk) 17:27, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't have curly quotes on my keyboard, so tough. -- Alarics (talk) 19:10, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Word processors like Microsoft Word automatically insert the appropriate curly quotes when you type a quotation mark (and you can backspace and retype to correct, it in the edge cases where the program gets it wrong). Markup languages like TeX also provide easy ways to author documents with curly quotes using only standard keyboard keys.  MediaWiki could potentially provide one or both of these approaches for authors of Wikipedia articles. Mbrubeck (talk) 23:31, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
 * You could also search the web, find a pair, copy and paste them. I don't see the point in taking the trouble to add fancy inverted commas when plain straight ones do the job. Allowing them will only lead to inconsistency since not everyone could be bothered with them and not everyone even likes them. Jimp 10:33, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Curly quotes are not usable to me – how am I going to enter them, for example?  Sorry, but going through multiple clicks just to enter a curly quotation mark is a nonsese, and I don't want to use any kind of "visual" editors. &mdash; Dsimic (talk | contribs) 17:15, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
 * It sounds like you might misunderstand the question, Dsimic. The issue is whether or not to remove the rule forbidding curly quotes.  This would not automatically mean that only curly quotes would be required on Wikipedia.  In fact, the original poster is pointing out that mixed usage isn't a problem any more on some browsers.  Your freedom to use single quotes is safe. Darkfrog24 (talk) 19:10, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Hm, but what if I edit an article already containing curly quotes? :) Article-level inconsistencies would look really ugly, if you agree –  similar to (if not worse than) the ugliness we already have with different date formats, for example. &mdash; Dsimic (talk | contribs) 20:49, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Hm, good question. You want to know if you should (A) use straight quotes in just the part you edit, creating intra-article inconsistency or whether to (B) use curly quotes even though that's against the rules because that's what the article already does?  The truth is that I did action B a couple of times several years ago and got brought up on AN/I for it, but that was British vs. American punctuation, which people care about a lot more than they seem to care about curly quotes.  You probably won't get in trouble for either A or B on the straight-or-curly issue.  Right now, you're safe using straight quotes even if it creates intra-article inconsistency.
 * If the rule were changed allowing both straight and curly, then you'd be required to use whichever format the article already used. If it didn't use any, then you'd get to pick (the first major contributor rule). Darkfrog24 (talk) 21:08, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
 * So far, I used to convert curly quotes to their straight versions, when spotted. Actually, I was asking about what to do while editing articles if curly quotes become allowed on Wikipedia; but, let's face it, I highly doubt that editors would stick to the already employed article-level quotation marks style.  In other words, beside the editing/typing difficulties, my opinion is that introducing curly quotes would just open another can of worms, without bringing huge benefits.  Maybe some kind of a solution would be to have MediaWiki render curly versions of straight quotes?  Also, I'm sure that going deeper into the automated rendering idea would reveal at least a few unforeseen issues. &mdash; Dsimic (talk | contribs) 21:22, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Because the MoS requires straight quotes only, you're allowed to make sweeping, whole-article changes of format like that. (In places where there are multiple MoS-endorsed options, like ENGVAR, this isn't usually allowed.) Only if the ban on curly quotes were lifted would you have to stop.  Or if someone objected so much that there was an edit war. Then all parties can be blamed.
 * What benefits does allowing two options offer? It gives editors their freedom.  It treats everyone equally.  That's more of an emotional and social benefit than a technical one, though. Darkfrog24 (talk) 21:30, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Please don't get me wrong, so far I've spotted and converted maybe a total of fifteen curly quotes. &mdash; Dsimic (talk | contribs) 21:37, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Not sure what I got wrong. You did some gnoming.  I guess the correct response is, "Thanks." Darkfrog24 (talk) 22:03, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Everything is fine. Actually, I just wanted to make it clear I'm not against curly quotes just so I can go around and wind up my edit count by "killing" them wherever to be found. :) &mdash; Dsimic (talk | contribs) 22:11, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Time to remove "it is used here because" from WP:LQ
The statement "It is used here because it is deemed by Wikipedia consensus to be more in keeping with the principle of minimal change" should be removed from WP:LQ. It is no longer true. If there ever was such a consensus, that has changed. In our last discussion of this issue, which can be found in Archive 143, the most common reasons given in support of keeping the ban of American style in force were 1. the belief that the current system is more logical than other systems (and an enthusiasm for said logic) and 2. a preference for inter-article consistency. So no, the principal of minimal change is not why WP:LQ is used on Wikipedia and therefore the MoS should not state that it is.

No rationale is given for most of the rules included in the MoS and they do not suffer for it. Giving one here suggests that the consensus is unusually clear when in fact this is one of the most frequently challenged and most clearly contradicted by outside sources of any rule in the MoS. Darkfrog24 (talk) 23:49, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Of the first 10 editors supporting Option A (LQ only) in the archive 143 discussion, 6 mention the principle of minimal change, retaining accuracy of the original, or similar. So, it does appear to be a common reason for why people support LQ. DrKiernan (talk) 08:24, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is a common reason, but it's not the reason. It's not a consensus reason.  Maybe it used to be, but the current state is that a lot of people just like WP:LQ because they find the logic of the British system appealing, and that is what most of them cited.
 * Here's a question: Why does this passage have a rationale given for it at all? If its purpose is to prevent further challenges and debates, then we'd be better served by acknowledging the most common problem with WP:LQ, that it's wrong.  Some of the challenges have started with someone coming in and changing the MoS to American style because they didn't know that there even was a different system. "We acknowledge that this practice is not standard in some varieties of English. Please use it on Wikipedia anyway." Darkfrog24 (talk) 13:18, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't understand the statement "it's wrong". It's like saying "color" is wrong because the correct spelling is "colour". DrKiernan (talk) 14:03, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * A rationale for a rule has benefits, especially when opinions about it are divided: it will help to forestall a lot of argument. The overlap between "logical quotation" and "principle of minimum change" is enough that either suffices. —Quondum 16:14, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * DrKiernan, that's actually a very good example. "Colour" is correct in British English and wrong in American English, just like the current rule. In at least one case, WP:LQ was challenged because the challenger didn't know that the British system differed from the American one and thought that the MoS was simply repeating a common error.
 * Quondum, if posting the reason for a rule has benefits, then we should at least post the real reason. No, minimal change is not why American English punctuation isn't allowed.  The original reason for the rule was a compromise between American and British English.  It was then believed that British English required single quotes all the time (it doesn't) so the "double quotes but untucked commas" was used to split the difference.  That consensus has changed, and so has the minimal change consensus.  The current reason for the rule is that people find its logic appealing and like the idea of cross-article consistency.
 * As for forestalling argument, we'd be better served by acknowledging people's objections and explaining than by claiming that the current system has benefits that can't be backed up by observable differences in performance. Darkfrog24 (talk) 18:38, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I acknowledge your objection, but I can't explain it. Why can't we just leave it, instead of claiming that consensus has changed?  Dicklyon (talk) 00:41, 20 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Because it isn't true. WP:LQ is not in place because it is deemed by Wikipedia consensus to be more in keeping with minimal change, so the MoS should not state that it is. Darkfrog24 (talk) 03:05, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
 * How would you guys feel about "has at various times been deemed"? That at least is true, and it shows that this consensus has been reached more than once, even though it is not in effect now.  I would still prefer to delete the sentence entirely. Darkfrog24 (talk) 17:58, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't think consensus has changed. Three editors said it makes sense or has/had consensus within about 24 hours of you opening this thread, and you appear to be the only one against it. DrKiernan (talk) 20:33, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The present discussion is of the line, not the consensus itself. The last major discussion of this issue was in archive 143, and it had more than a hundred participants.  That is where to look for the most recent consensus. Darkfrog24 (talk) 15:24, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
 * As I said at 08:24 on 19 February 2014, it is a common reason given at that discussion for why LQ is preferred, so going by that discussion, it has consensus. DrKiernan (talk) 15:31, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
 * But the statement makes it look like the principal of minimal change is the reason, when in fact a desire for cross-article consistency and a belief that British style is more logical. The idea that American style violates the principal of minimal change isn't even true. Darkfrog24 (talk) 16:05, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

I've been thinking about it and while I'd like to remove this sentence entirely, replacing the "It is used here because" with "This practice has been deemed" would make it factually true. It has been so deemed in the past, regardless of why the rule is here now or whether that consensus is still in force. I'll make the change tomorrow if there are no objections. Darkfrog24 (talk) 22:12, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Lead length
Opinions are needed on this matter: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Lead section. Flyer22 (talk) 00:47, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

An RFC has been started on this issue at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Lead section  Spinning Spark  12:19, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Related RfC (use of Pablo Casals vs Pau Casals in articles on Catalan culture)
There is a related Request for Comments at Talk:Pablo Casals. Dezastru (talk) 20:56, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Removal of "This differs from standard U.S. convention."
I agree with this removal (subsequently reverted) of "This differs from standard U.S. convention." from MOS:LQ, for the main reason stated in the edit comment - "no need for US-centric comment". I also think it should be removed from WP:SMOS.

I don't believe we should explicitly mention where MOS differs from a one specific country's convention, because to do so may imply that that particular country's convention is the default if we don't say otherwise - which would be contrary to MOS:ENGVAR's "The English Wikipedia prefers no major national variety of the language over any other." Mitch Ames (talk) 11:57, 24 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Thank you. For the record, I was wrong on the other reason in the edit summary when I removed the text ("also not discussed in the link stated in edit summary"), as it was stated at WP:SMOS, but this was really a secondary reason.  The primary reason was, as Mitch has said (more eloquently than me), that we should not single out the US, per MOS:ENGVAR.  After all, MOS is full of guidelines that differ from conventions in various parts of the world, but we don't mention them every time.  I support removal of the quoted text from both locations.  —sroc &#x1F4AC; 13:11, 24 February 2014 (UTC)


 * My impression is that the intent is to convey that we use logical quotation throughout the encyclopedia (including articles written in American English, despite the practice's usual absence from that variety). Certainly, this could be stated more explicitly, and Canadian English should be mentioned too.  ("North American English" would cover both.)
 * If there are any other conventions that we apply to English varieties from which they usually are absent, similar notations would be helpful. —David Levy 13:33, 24 February 2014 (UTC)


 * We do use LQ throughout. Tony   (talk)  14:14, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, the rule is to use Britsh/L style throughout, but if "we" means "Wikipedians," then in practice, no we don't. Darkfrog24 (talk) 02:28, 25 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes, I know. As stated above, my impression is that the text in question is intended to convey this information.  —David Levy 14:28, 24 February 2014 (UTC)


 * WP:LQ is a stated convention; stating anything about and adherence to it would simply be redundant clarification of what is already clearly stated. This is not the place to resolve what to some might be an apparent conflict in WP guidelines. IMO, the place to do that would be at WP:ENGVAR. —Quondum 15:29, 24 February 2014 (UTC)


 * If that's your position, Quondom, then we should also remove the claim that WP:LQ is in place because of the principal of minimal change. At least the statement "This differs from standard U.S. practice" is factually accurate.
 * Some of the challenges to WP:LQ have been specifically because the challenger did not know that there were punctuation systems that differed from standard U.S. practice. The statement wasn't U.S.-centric; it was consistent with actual events.  As to whether or not it belongs in WP:LQ, there is already a statement in there whose professed purpose is to prevent challenges.  Something like, "We know this isn't proper American English but please use it anyway" is more likely to prevent challenges than other claims  ...and this is coming from me.  I want WP:LQ to be challenged and replaced.  If there's going to be an explanation in WP:LQ, then it should be something that might actually work, not an agenda disguised as an explanation.
 * As for not singling out one particular variety of English, WP:LQ itself singles out British English. If we want to stop doing that, I'm all for it.  Darkfrog24 (talk) 15:37, 24 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Darkfrog, it came to my attention some time ago that you've been pushing against LQ more broadly on the Internet. Is this a continuation of that campaign? Tony   (talk)  14:08, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Tony, what are you talking about? What's "more broadly on the internet"?  Do you think I'm part of the Correct Punctuation Liberation Front? (Also, where do they meet because I want to join.)
 * What do you mean "come to your attention"? I oppose WP:LQ quite openly&mdash;and have already stated as much in this thread.  It's a hypocritical, biased and mean-spirited rule that puts some people's pet peeves over verifiable sources and the whole site would be better off without it.  I have absolutely zero problem with using British punctuation in contexts in which it is correct, such as British and Australian English Wikipedia articles (and books, magazines, journal articles, newspapers, blogs, the list goes on!).  I've never made any secret of that either. Darkfrog24 (talk) 21:28, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh, let me see. This type of thing?: "I am so sick of American punctuation getting such a bad rap. ...". Tony   (talk)  08:33, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
 * A notation within WP:ENGVAR, while sensible, isn't helpful to someone reading WP:LQ.
 * Clarification isn't "redundant" when it alleviates confusion. Unlike Darkfrog24, I don't want WP:LQ to be challenged and replaced, but it certainly confused me when I first arrived at Wikipedia.  —David Levy 17:30, 24 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I agree with Darkfrog: he writes "If there's going to be an explanation in WP:LQ, then it should be ... not an agenda disguised as an explanation."; yes, I agree. The question I have is whether "This differs from standard U.S. practice." doesn't in fact fall perfectly into this description. Jimp 10:19, 25 February 2014 (UTC)


 * As noted above, that wording is far from ideal (and should be improved). Perhaps we needn't even mention American and Canadian English specifically.  Something along the lines of "We apply this convention to articles written in all English varieties, including those in which it does not predominate outside Wikipedia." might work.  —David Levy 10:51, 25 February 2014 (UTC)


 * It's not obvious that "Does not predominate outside Wikipedia" is supposed to mean "in American English." The statement would have to acknowledge that Wikipedia is doing something that is incorrect in many standard forms of English. When people challenge WP:LQ, they come in saying, "Hey guys?  Did you know you made a mistake here?" or "This is wrong wrong wrong!" Just "Do as we say" isn't going cut it. We need to say, "We know this is wrong; please do it anyway." The system for dispelling a complaint is "listen, acknowledge, explain," not "reiterate orders." Darkfrog24 (talk) 21:18, 25 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Why is it so important to mention American English in particular? What about Canadian English?
 * Why is acknowledging that the practice is unusual in certain English varieties insufficient? You seem more interested in pushing your agenda than in providing clarity.
 * For the record, I find Wikipedia's indiscriminate use of logical quotation peculiar. Had I been here when the decision was made, I'd have argued against it.  But at this point, I'm inclined to believe that sticking to the status quo is the lesser of two evils.  And even if I agreed with you, I wouldn't condone your efforts to chip away at our current convention by vilifying it in the MoS itself.
 * I know. Shortly after I began editing Wikipedia (before I'd even seen the MoS), I attempted to "correct" an article.  I'm all for making our guidance as clear as possible.  I'm against formally declaring that using logical quotation in American English is like kicking a puppy.
 * I endorse . —David Levy 23:35, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I know. Shortly after I began editing Wikipedia (before I'd even seen the MoS), I attempted to "correct" an article.  I'm all for making our guidance as clear as possible.  I'm against formally declaring that using logical quotation in American English is like kicking a puppy.
 * I endorse . —David Levy 23:35, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I endorse . —David Levy 23:35, 25 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Because a statement designed to deal with challenges should address the kinds of challenges that are actually made. I have no problem with saying "U.S. and Canadian," but when the rule is challenged, American English is usually cited.  People don't say, "We should change this because it's unusual." They say "We should change this because it's wrong/incorrect/not what I was taught/contradicted by the style guides and sources." So the statement "does not predominate outside Wikipedia" might prevent further challenges based on the idea that WP:LQ does not predominate outside Wikipedia, but that's not the kind of challenge that people tend to make.
 * Saying "this differs from standard U.S. English" or even "this is incorrect in American English" doesn't vilify WP:LQ. These are neutral statements.  Yes, claiming that Wikipedia treats all forms of English equally while requiring British style in American English articles is hypocritical, but I'm not asking for the MoS to state this. Darkfrog24 (talk) 23:57, 25 February 2014 (UTC)


 * The challenge stems from an inconsistency between Wikipedia's house style and the style of punctuation typically used in certain English varieties. Condemning the disparity (as opposed to simply acknowledging it) doesn't make the explanation any clearer.
 * You seem to be ignoring much of the sentence, in which I explicitly referred to English varieties in which the convention does not predominate outside Wikipedia. And we've moved on to better wording than mine, so this is moot.
 * Firstly, it's been asserted (in previous discussions) that logical quotation is an acceptable minority convention in American English. I'm inclined to disagree that it's regarded as correct in many contexts, but the dispute exists.
 * Secondly, a statement's factual accuracy doesn't make its inclusion neutral. Describing the practice as "incorrect" (as opposed to "unusual" or "atypical") serves no apparent purpose other than encouraging opposition.
 * You've stopped just short of that. —David Levy 00:31, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Firstly, it's been asserted (in previous discussions) that logical quotation is an acceptable minority convention in American English. I'm inclined to disagree that it's regarded as correct in many contexts, but the dispute exists.
 * Secondly, a statement's factual accuracy doesn't make its inclusion neutral. Describing the practice as "incorrect" (as opposed to "unusual" or "atypical") serves no apparent purpose other than encouraging opposition.
 * You've stopped just short of that. —David Levy 00:31, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
 * You've stopped just short of that. —David Levy 00:31, 26 February 2014 (UTC)


 * If by "minority convention" you mean "it's tolerated or endorsed fields not relevant to the type of writing that we do on Wikipedia," then yes, that has been asserted. We're not doing computer programming or literary criticism here.  We're writing for general audiences.
 * Stating a fact might not always be neutral, but stating something contrary to fact is definitely not neutral. British punctuation is not merely "unusual" or "atypical" in American English.  It is incorrect.  Suggesting otherwise would be untruthful and misleading.  If am writing a British English article and I spell "harbor" without the U, then I have misspelled it.  I would not merely be using an "unusual" spelling. Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:38, 26 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Hence my aforementioned disagreement with that argument, which exists nonetheless.
 * No one has proposed MoS text stating that logical quotation is considered correct in American English. It simply isn't necessary to state that it's incorrect (even if we assume that it is).  Again, this serves no purpose other than disparaging our current style convention.  —David Levy 01:15, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
 * No one has proposed MoS text stating that logical quotation is considered correct in American English. It simply isn't necessary to state that it's incorrect (even if we assume that it is).  Again, this serves no purpose other than disparaging our current style convention.  —David Levy 01:15, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
 * No one has proposed MoS text stating that logical quotation is considered correct in American English. It simply isn't necessary to state that it's incorrect (even if we assume that it is).  Again, this serves no purpose other than disparaging our current style convention.  —David Levy 01:15, 26 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I do not understand to what you refer by "aforementioned disagreement with that argument." With which argument?
 * Stating that British punctuation is merely unusual in American English implies that it is not actually incorrect. That is what I mean by misleading. Remember, the point of this statement is to address challenges, and the challenges are about this rule being incorrect, not about it being unusual.  That is the problem that this statement is meant to address. Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:26, 26 February 2014 (UTC)


 * The argument "that logical quotation is an acceptable minority convention in American English."
 * This is another moot point, as we aren't stating that. We're stating that we apply logical quotation "regardless of conventions associated with the variety of English in use."  There's nothing remotely "misleading" about that and nothing to gain by appending "...and by the way, this is completely wrong and shameful."  —David Levy 02:06, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
 * This is another moot point, as we aren't stating that. We're stating that we apply logical quotation "regardless of conventions associated with the variety of English in use."  There's nothing remotely "misleading" about that and nothing to gain by appending "...and by the way, this is completely wrong and shameful."  —David Levy 02:06, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
 * This is another moot point, as we aren't stating that. We're stating that we apply logical quotation "regardless of conventions associated with the variety of English in use."  There's nothing remotely "misleading" about that and nothing to gain by appending "...and by the way, this is completely wrong and shameful."  —David Levy 02:06, 26 February 2014 (UTC)


 * And you disagree with what about that? That it's a sufficient reason to have WP:LQ instead of an ENGVAR- or first-major-contributor-based rule?
 * Your question was why I objected to the term "unusual." That's why I addressed it. Similarly, the reason to refer to British style as incorrect in American contexts is because that's what people talk about when they challenge the rule.  The response is based on the call.
 * I gather you object to my characterization of WP:LQ as repugnant as well as just incorrect. Let's deal with that straight on instead of sideways: I think this rule is shameful, your words, because Wikipedia claims to treat everyone equally and to value diversity and verifiability, so what's this doing here?  This rule is shameful because it doesn't celebrate British style as something good; it steps on American style as something bad, as something not fit for inclusion on this website.  No one has ever shown either style to outperform the other in practice, not ever.  I keep showing people sources that they can see with their eyes and hold in their hands and I'm told that their personal preferences and imaginary fears are a fit substitute for facts.  That's why Wikipedia should be ashamed, because this rule contradicts what it's supposed to be about.
 * Just in case there was any confusion, I don't think that British style is bad. I think that the rule requiring that I use it even when it is wrong to do so is bad.  If there were a rule requiring spelling "harbor" without the U in British English articles, I would object to that as well. Darkfrog24 (talk) 03:21, 26 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I disagree with the claim on its face. As you noted (and I've noted in previous discussions), American English instructors routinely teach that logical quotation is incorrect and deduct points for its use.
 * That too. As I said, had I been here when the decision was made, I'd have argued against it.  My preference would have been for this to fall under WP:ENGVAR.
 * I realize that. I didn't mean to suggest that we should use that exact word in the section.
 * The reason to refer to logical quotation as incorrect is to condemn/undermine the status quo.
 * The current wording addresses the issue as clearly as (or more clearly than) any other wording suggested.
 * I don't personally dislike it to the extent that I'd label it "repugnant" (but that's a matter of opinion, so I don't object to you expressing it on this talk page).
 * In the remainder of your reply, you explain why you disapprove of WP:LQ. I've made similar (though less harshly worded) comments in the past.  I agree that it was a bad idea (though I believe that abolishing it now might be an even worse one).
 * The problem is that you want your disdain reflected in the MoS itself. —David Levy 04:11, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The current wording addresses the issue as clearly as (or more clearly than) any other wording suggested.
 * I don't personally dislike it to the extent that I'd label it "repugnant" (but that's a matter of opinion, so I don't object to you expressing it on this talk page).
 * In the remainder of your reply, you explain why you disapprove of WP:LQ. I've made similar (though less harshly worded) comments in the past.  I agree that it was a bad idea (though I believe that abolishing it now might be an even worse one).
 * The problem is that you want your disdain reflected in the MoS itself. —David Levy 04:11, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The problem is that you want your disdain reflected in the MoS itself. —David Levy 04:11, 26 February 2014 (UTC)


 * That is the discrepancy here. No I do not want my disdain in the MoS.  I want other people's disdain out.  The statements "this is incorrect" and "this contradicts the requirements of American English" aren't disdain; they are the truth. "This is hypocritical" and "This is unfair" would be putting my opinions in the MoS.
 * You've also identified the other place in which we are not on the same page. You say "The reason to refer to logical quotation as incorrect is to condemn/undermine the status quo." The reason to refer to WP:LQ as incorrect is to address the issues raised by those who challenge it.  In this case, it might even head off some fights if people are informed that WP:LQ is not here by accident. Darkfrog24 (talk) 04:29, 26 February 2014 (UTC)


 * You're welcome to propose that we switch to typesetters' quotation in North American English articles. You aren't welcome to append "...and what we're doing is wrong!" to the existing guidance.
 * Disdain for our current practice fuels your desire to insert such statements into the MoS.
 * provides this information splendidly. We're plainly stating that we apply logical quotation regardless of whether it customarily appears in a given English variety.  All that's missing is the condemnation.  —David Levy 05:21, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Disdain for our current practice fuels your desire to insert such statements into the MoS.
 * provides this information splendidly. We're plainly stating that we apply logical quotation regardless of whether it customarily appears in a given English variety.  All that's missing is the condemnation.  —David Levy 05:21, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
 * provides this information splendidly. We're plainly stating that we apply logical quotation regardless of whether it customarily appears in a given English variety.  All that's missing is the condemnation.  —David Levy 05:21, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
 * provides this information splendidly. We're plainly stating that we apply logical quotation regardless of whether it customarily appears in a given English variety.  All that's missing is the condemnation.  —David Levy 05:21, 26 February 2014 (UTC)


 * David, do not presume to know my mind better than I do; I have told you why I want what I want and what I believe the results of keeping a statement of this kind in the MoS will be. To maintain "Disdain for our current practice fuels your desire to insert such statements into the MoS" after being informed otherwise is to call me a liar.  That must stop.  If that's not what you meant, great.  It still has to stop.
 * Want me to prove it? Wait until the next challenge and then ask the challenger what role the statement played in their decision to ask or demand that WP:LQ be changed.  If this or any part of the MoS doesn't do what it's supposed to do, then it should be removed. In that case, the claim about minimal change should probably go out too, but I'm willing to compromise.
 * And saying, "We treat everyone equally" and then not doing it is wrong. I get that it doesn't bother you as much as it bothers me, but that doesn't mean it's not true. Darkfrog24 (talk) 20:34, 27 February 2014 (UTC)


 * You may have misunderstood (depending on what you mean by "a statement of this kind"). I support including a statement acknowledging the inconsistency (for the same reason you do).
 * In my response, "such statements" referred specifically to those with wording along the lines of the two quoted (in which Wikipedia's practice is condemned).
 * I have to stop pointing out that you're motivated by personal feelings (on which you've focused continually, even in unrelated discussions)?
 * I realize that you've had some negative experiences (and may even have been mistreated), but the Manual of Style itself isn't an appropriate forum in which to air your grievances. You're entitled to resent WP:LQ's existence, but you aren't entitled to insert this view into WP:LQ itself.
 * I was under the impression that we'd essentially resolved the matter at hand. Eighteen hours later, you resurrected the argument via the above reply.  Was I mistaken in my understanding that you accepted the current wording?  Are you still pushing for "this is incorrect" or "this contradicts the requirements of American English"?
 * I've expressed my agreement that the decision to use logical quotation indiscriminately was a poor one. I don't know what else you want me to say.
 * The extent to which it bothers me is tangential. No matter how strongly I disagree with a portion of the MoS, I don't seek to have my negative opinion reflected therein.  I might attempt to change the advice (in a manner consistent with Consensus), which you're more than welcome to do.  —David Levy 23:43, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I've expressed my agreement that the decision to use logical quotation indiscriminately was a poor one. I don't know what else you want me to say.
 * The extent to which it bothers me is tangential. No matter how strongly I disagree with a portion of the MoS, I don't seek to have my negative opinion reflected therein.  I might attempt to change the advice (in a manner consistent with Consensus), which you're more than welcome to do.  —David Levy 23:43, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The extent to which it bothers me is tangential. No matter how strongly I disagree with a portion of the MoS, I don't seek to have my negative opinion reflected therein.  I might attempt to change the advice (in a manner consistent with Consensus), which you're more than welcome to do.  —David Levy 23:43, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The extent to which it bothers me is tangential. No matter how strongly I disagree with a portion of the MoS, I don't seek to have my negative opinion reflected therein.  I might attempt to change the advice (in a manner consistent with Consensus), which you're more than welcome to do.  —David Levy 23:43, 27 February 2014 (UTC)


 * You have to stop calling me a liar. I have told you what my motivations are.  You do not know me.  You can't read my mind.  You need to stop claiming that you can.  Talk about what you do and don't believe, but talk about yourself, because that's on you.  Frankly, most of that would belong on my talk page or yours, not here.
 * "This differs from standard U.S. convention" is not an opinion. Again, I'll show you sources if you need proof.  No one in this thread has tried to insert any opinions into the MoS, not me, not Bullrangifer, not anyone.  To use your words, I don't know what else you want me to say.
 * And because you brought it up, no I'm not welcome to try to change WP:LQ. I am definitely not welcome.  If you ever try, I recommend protective gear. Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:39, 28 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I haven't done that. I thought that my previous reply would dispel the inference, but it obviously didn't, so I'll state this explicitly: I'm not calling you a liar.  Further, I apologize for leaving such an impression.
 * Again, I don't dispute that you seek to alleviate confusion. I only mean that your choice of words reflects your bias; you want to label the practice "incorrect" (in American English) because you regard it as such.  (You've stated this repeatedly and in much stronger terms than that, so no mind reading is involved.)  I'll remind you that I agree, but others regard the deviation as appropriate.
 * You posted your 20:34 reply twenty-two hours after I noted that "we needn't focus on your personal feelings here" and eighteen hours after the wording issue appeared resolved. What happened in the interim?
 * The question is whether we're "wrong" to maintain such a deviation at Wikipedia. You believe that we are.  Others disagree.
 * Again, that won't be necessary. What leads you to believe that I need to be convinced of that?
 * You suggested that the wording "this is incorrect" be used. As discussed above, others disagree with that claim (and I disagree with them, but that's beside the point).  Furthermore, even if we accept as fact that logical quotation is incorrect in American English, that doesn't mean that Wikipedia's purposeful deviation therefrom is incorrect.
 * This is the key distinction. I'm 100% with you on including an explanation that Wikipedia's practice differs from that of certain English varieties (and while it strikes me as superfluous, I don't oppose specifying "standard North American English" or "standard American and Canadian English").
 * I didn't say that I recommend it (and I don't). But unless you're subject to sanctions of which I'm unaware (in which case we probably wouldn't be having this discussion), you have as much right as anyone to give it a go.  —David Levy 05:49, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Again, that won't be necessary. What leads you to believe that I need to be convinced of that?
 * You suggested that the wording "this is incorrect" be used. As discussed above, others disagree with that claim (and I disagree with them, but that's beside the point).  Furthermore, even if we accept as fact that logical quotation is incorrect in American English, that doesn't mean that Wikipedia's purposeful deviation therefrom is incorrect.
 * This is the key distinction. I'm 100% with you on including an explanation that Wikipedia's practice differs from that of certain English varieties (and while it strikes me as superfluous, I don't oppose specifying "standard North American English" or "standard American and Canadian English").
 * I didn't say that I recommend it (and I don't). But unless you're subject to sanctions of which I'm unaware (in which case we probably wouldn't be having this discussion), you have as much right as anyone to give it a go.  —David Levy 05:49, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
 * This is the key distinction. I'm 100% with you on including an explanation that Wikipedia's practice differs from that of certain English varieties (and while it strikes me as superfluous, I don't oppose specifying "standard North American English" or "standard American and Canadian English").
 * I didn't say that I recommend it (and I don't). But unless you're subject to sanctions of which I'm unaware (in which case we probably wouldn't be having this discussion), you have as much right as anyone to give it a go.  —David Levy 05:49, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I didn't say that I recommend it (and I don't). But unless you're subject to sanctions of which I'm unaware (in which case we probably wouldn't be having this discussion), you have as much right as anyone to give it a go.  —David Levy 05:49, 28 February 2014 (UTC)


 * If I say, "I'm doing this because I believe X" and you say "No you're not," then you are calling me a liar. Regardless of what you meant or what you think you meant, you have to stop doing it.
 * I keep offering to show you proof because you keep claiming that the idea that leaving periods and commas outside the quotation marks is wrong in American English is an opinion: "view or judgment not necessarily based on fact or knowledge." It is not an opinion. It is a fact. No one tried to put an opinion into the MoS.  Darkfrog24 (talk) 15:18, 28 February 2014 (UTC)


 * That isn't what occurred. Here's the exchange in question:
 * You apparently interpreted my comment to mean something along the lines of the following:
 * What I actually meant was:
 * As I type this, I worry that it might still come across as an accusation of misconduct. I can only assure you that it isn't one and apologize again for any and all failures on my part to adequately convey the intended message.
 * I want very much to avoid such miscommunication. I can't stop calling you a liar (as I haven't started calling you one), but I certainly want to cease writing things that come across in that manner.
 * As I noted, I disagree with those who assert that logical quotation is commonly regarded as acceptable in American English (outside a handful of specialist contexts). My point is merely that they exist (and have contested the claim that "this is incorrect in American English").
 * In my view, we convey the necessary information by acknowledging that Wikipedia's practice is inconsistent with that of certain English varieties (whether identified individually or not); labeling the deviation "incorrect" provides no additional clarity (but it has provoked the aforementioned disagreement). —David Levy 20:47, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
 * As I type this, I worry that it might still come across as an accusation of misconduct. I can only assure you that it isn't one and apologize again for any and all failures on my part to adequately convey the intended message.
 * I want very much to avoid such miscommunication. I can't stop calling you a liar (as I haven't started calling you one), but I certainly want to cease writing things that come across in that manner.
 * As I noted, I disagree with those who assert that logical quotation is commonly regarded as acceptable in American English (outside a handful of specialist contexts). My point is merely that they exist (and have contested the claim that "this is incorrect in American English").
 * In my view, we convey the necessary information by acknowledging that Wikipedia's practice is inconsistent with that of certain English varieties (whether identified individually or not); labeling the deviation "incorrect" provides no additional clarity (but it has provoked the aforementioned disagreement). —David Levy 20:47, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
 * As I noted, I disagree with those who assert that logical quotation is commonly regarded as acceptable in American English (outside a handful of specialist contexts). My point is merely that they exist (and have contested the claim that "this is incorrect in American English").
 * In my view, we convey the necessary information by acknowledging that Wikipedia's practice is inconsistent with that of certain English varieties (whether identified individually or not); labeling the deviation "incorrect" provides no additional clarity (but it has provoked the aforementioned disagreement). —David Levy 20:47, 28 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I said "I'm doing this because it might prevent fights" and you said "you're doing it because of disdain." YES that is tantamount to saying I'm lying about my motivations. Whatever you choose to call it, however you choose to think about it, it's not okay and you have to stop.
 * So what you're saying is that you believe that American English doesn't require American punctuation, that "this is incorrect" is an opinion? That belief is incorrect.  For it to be an opinion, it would have to be based on personal preferences, feelings, guesses, anything but knowledge and facts.  It isn't.  It is based on reliable sources.  You don't have to take my word for it.  You can ask the Chicago Manual of Style and American Psychological Association.  I have more links, but it might take me a few minutes to look them up.  It isn't as sure as a hand in front of the face, but it more than meets WP:V.  If I want to say, "Correct American English requires placing periods and commas inside the quotation marks" in the article space, I can cite these sources and do it, the same as if I were naming the date of a historical event or the properties of a chemical compound, or any other fact.  If you believe that "This is incorrect" is merely an opinion, please show sources of the same or better quality that support that conclusion. Darkfrog24 (talk) 21:11, 28 February 2014 (UTC)


 * As I've attempted to convey, I was not referring to your desire to include a statement regarding Wikipedia's noncompliance with the standard American English quotation style. (I support its inclusion for the very same reason you do.)  I was referring specifically to your arrival at the wordings quoted directly above my comment (and similar formulations).  I do not assert — and never asserted — that you've acted dishonestly.
 * I do, however, accept responsibility for expressing myself in a manner that came across as such an allegation. I can only stress that it wasn't one.  I do so not as an excuse, but as an explanation that the offense stemmed from clumsiness, not intent.
 * What, in your view, would constitute "stopping"? I've apologized profusely and expressed that "I want very much to avoid" such an occurrence in the future.  I spent a great deal of time reflecting on the matter and authoring a heartfelt response (which I revised repeatedly, in the hope of eliminating any potential ambiguity).
 * As you were typing the above message, I was preparing in which I reiterated my apology and expressed my appreciation of the work that you do at Wikipedia.  I'm relieved to see that you've  the apology, and I hope that you can also accept my equally sincere explanation.
 * No. I'm saying that other Wikipedians, with whom you and I have interacted (and debated) in the past, believe that.  As in several previous instances, I explicitly stated that I disagree with them.  This is why I'm the wrong person to whom to present your evidence.  —David Levy 22:45, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
 * As you were typing the above message, I was preparing in which I reiterated my apology and expressed my appreciation of the work that you do at Wikipedia.  I'm relieved to see that you've  the apology, and I hope that you can also accept my equally sincere explanation.
 * No. I'm saying that other Wikipedians, with whom you and I have interacted (and debated) in the past, believe that.  As in several previous instances, I explicitly stated that I disagree with them.  This is why I'm the wrong person to whom to present your evidence.  —David Levy 22:45, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
 * No. I'm saying that other Wikipedians, with whom you and I have interacted (and debated) in the past, believe that.  As in several previous instances, I explicitly stated that I disagree with them.  This is why I'm the wrong person to whom to present your evidence.  —David Levy 22:45, 28 February 2014 (UTC)


 * You said "You're entitled to resent WP:LQ's existence, but you aren't entitled to insert this view into WP:LQ itself." At no point did I or anyone attempt to do so. "This is incorrect in/wrong in/inconsistent with American English" isn't a view or an opinion. If this isn't the opinion to which you were referring, then what was? Darkfrog24 (talk) 02:18, 1 March 2014 (UTC)


 * In that instance too, I was referring to certain wordings (not to the general idea, which I've supported from my first reply onward).
 * As I noted previously, a statement's factual accuracy doesn't make its inclusion neutral. In my view, describing the practice as "incorrect" (or similar) wouldn't make the explanation any clearer, but it would imply that Wikipedia's adherence to the rule is, likewise, incorrect.  (Some of the wording that you suggested even seemed to state this directly.)
 * I'll note that I haven't objected to the wording "inconsistent with" (and, in fact, have used it myself). —David Levy 05:34, 1 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I have to say, I am with Darkfrog on this one even though I completely disagree with him or her about LQ. David Levy, I find your style of argument to be, frankly, tiresome and borderline offensive.  Statements like
 * are completely inappropriate, for multiple reasons. First of all, you should WP:AGF.  Who are you to presume that Darkfrog wants to insert the controversial text in question because he's incapable of setting aside his emotions about hating LQ and as a result is trying to sabotage a rule he doesn't like, perhaps unintentionally, rather than to improve the encyclopedia?  Moreover, even if it were true that Darkfrog was trying to fill the MOS with "disdain[ful]" remarks about a rule that he didn't like, the appropriate thing to say would be, "To me, your attempt to insert this seems to reflect a dislike of LQ," which is better because even though it's accusatory it's not a statement where you pretend to know what Darkfrog's actual feelings and motivations are.  That is why "I" statements are better than "you" statements in arguments, unless you are trying to be excessively confrontational, which you've done a good job of. It seems to me that this is why we have eminently sensible rules around here like WP:NPA.   Moreover, when Darkfrog pointed out that you needlessly maligned him, instead of apologizing you actually tried to defend your indefensible statement, acting as though an appropriate way to resolve wiki-disputes is to base decisions on what you perceive to be other editors' motivations.  I would suggest that you focus on the non-absurd reasons that Darkfrog has given for adding the clarifying statement rather than dismissing his suggestions out of a misguided belief that he's somehow out to destroy LQ.  Although I think that the current sentence is sufficient, I completely agree that a sentence like "watch out, our LQ rule is 'wrong' if you're American!" would be an improvement.  To pretend that oblivious American editors are generally accepting of rather than surprised by this rule is kind of silly; to me it seems better to pre-emptively head off the "your punctuation rule is wrong!" ideas.  Yes, it's a bit US-centric.  But if, say, Australian editors were particularly prone to mis-punctuating things, I'd be equally supportive of a clarifying sentence.  AgnosticAphid  talk 01:05, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
 * are completely inappropriate, for multiple reasons. First of all, you should WP:AGF.  Who are you to presume that Darkfrog wants to insert the controversial text in question because he's incapable of setting aside his emotions about hating LQ and as a result is trying to sabotage a rule he doesn't like, perhaps unintentionally, rather than to improve the encyclopedia?  Moreover, even if it were true that Darkfrog was trying to fill the MOS with "disdain[ful]" remarks about a rule that he didn't like, the appropriate thing to say would be, "To me, your attempt to insert this seems to reflect a dislike of LQ," which is better because even though it's accusatory it's not a statement where you pretend to know what Darkfrog's actual feelings and motivations are.  That is why "I" statements are better than "you" statements in arguments, unless you are trying to be excessively confrontational, which you've done a good job of. It seems to me that this is why we have eminently sensible rules around here like WP:NPA.   Moreover, when Darkfrog pointed out that you needlessly maligned him, instead of apologizing you actually tried to defend your indefensible statement, acting as though an appropriate way to resolve wiki-disputes is to base decisions on what you perceive to be other editors' motivations.  I would suggest that you focus on the non-absurd reasons that Darkfrog has given for adding the clarifying statement rather than dismissing his suggestions out of a misguided belief that he's somehow out to destroy LQ.  Although I think that the current sentence is sufficient, I completely agree that a sentence like "watch out, our LQ rule is 'wrong' if you're American!" would be an improvement.  To pretend that oblivious American editors are generally accepting of rather than surprised by this rule is kind of silly; to me it seems better to pre-emptively head off the "your punctuation rule is wrong!" ideas.  Yes, it's a bit US-centric.  But if, say, Australian editors were particularly prone to mis-punctuating things, I'd be equally supportive of a clarifying sentence.  AgnosticAphid  talk 01:05, 28 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I don't doubt that Darkfrog24's sincere goal is to improve the MoS (and, by extension, the encyclopedia). I merely disagree that labeling a practice specified therin "incorrect" would accomplish this.
 * I don't assert that. As I noted, I think that Darkfrog24's personal feelings have colored his/her perception (which happens to everyone from time to time), but I'm confident that he/she is acting in good faith.
 * That sounds malicious/spiteful, which I didn't intend.
 * There's no question that Darkfrog24 despises WP:LQ. (He/she openly acknowledges this.)  But I'm 100% confident that Darkfrog24 is not acting out of malice or spite.
 * My statement wasn't intended to be accusatory. Darkfrog24 suggested appending "this is incorrect" to our guidance.  The condemnation is self-evident.
 * Frankly, this discussion's tone surprises me. Darkfrog24 and I have participated in some heated grammar/punctuation debates together, but always on the same side.  Even on the specific topic of logical/typesetters' quotation (which has arisen on multiple occasions), I agree with Darkfrog24 that an instruction to use the former in North American English articles never should have entered the MoS.
 * My impression is that this argument has arisen primarily due to mutual misunderstanding. Whatever role I played in this (either by misinterpreting what was written or expressing myself poorly), I apologize unreservedly.
 * Constructive criticism of an editor's behavior isn't a personal attack. (This, of course, includes your criticism of my messages.)
 * I sought to clarify my statement (by affirming that Darkfrog24's goal, like mine, is to assist editors by addressing a potentially confusing inconsistency), thereby dispelling the inference that my intent was to malign him/her. Obviously, I failed.
 * Again, I support the inclusion of a "clarifying statement" (provided that it doesn't condemn Wikipedia's practice). I've stated this since my first reply.
 * Am I correct in assuming that you aren't proposing that specific wording (which is rather informal)?
 * Agreed. I certainly was surprised when I learned of its existence.
 * And I believe that an explicit acknowledgement that Wikipedia's quotation style is inconsistent with that of certain English varieties accomplishes this.
 * Are Americans more prone to encounter this issue than Canadians are? —David Levy 05:49, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I sought to clarify my statement (by affirming that Darkfrog24's goal, like mine, is to assist editors by addressing a potentially confusing inconsistency), thereby dispelling the inference that my intent was to malign him/her. Obviously, I failed.
 * Again, I support the inclusion of a "clarifying statement" (provided that it doesn't condemn Wikipedia's practice). I've stated this since my first reply.
 * Am I correct in assuming that you aren't proposing that specific wording (which is rather informal)?
 * Agreed. I certainly was surprised when I learned of its existence.
 * And I believe that an explicit acknowledgement that Wikipedia's quotation style is inconsistent with that of certain English varieties accomplishes this.
 * Are Americans more prone to encounter this issue than Canadians are? —David Levy 05:49, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I certainly was surprised when I learned of its existence.
 * And I believe that an explicit acknowledgement that Wikipedia's quotation style is inconsistent with that of certain English varieties accomplishes this.
 * Are Americans more prone to encounter this issue than Canadians are? —David Levy 05:49, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
 * And I believe that an explicit acknowledgement that Wikipedia's quotation style is inconsistent with that of certain English varieties accomplishes this.
 * Are Americans more prone to encounter this issue than Canadians are? —David Levy 05:49, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Are Americans more prone to encounter this issue than Canadians are? —David Levy 05:49, 28 February 2014 (UTC)


 * This isn't about the wording; that's mostly been settled. This is about you.  Claiming that someone's lying about his or her own thoughts without any proof isn't constructive criticism.  Yes, things get heated around here, but that crosses a line. Darkfrog24 (talk) 15:02, 28 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I've explained that I didn't accuse you of lying and apologized for leaving that impression. Are you now accusing me of lying?  —David Levy 15:09, 28 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Let's say that you didn't think you were calling me a liar. Darkfrog24 (talk) 15:19, 28 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Can you please elaborate? I want to ensure that this matter has been resolved fully and amicably.  —David Levy 20:47, 28 February 2014 (UTC)


 * It means I've gotten as much apology as I'm going to get, but the main thing was that you understand you have to stop doing it, and that is what I wanted, so I can give you the benefit of the doubt for the rest. Darkfrog24 (talk) 21:33, 1 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I find the "as much apology as I'm going to get" remark disheartening, as I've gone out of my way to apologize sincerely and deeply. I can only infer that you won't be fully satisfied unless and until I confess to calling you a liar.  Well, I haven't called you a liar.  If you dispute that, you're effectively accusing me of lying.  "Do not presume to know my mind better than I do."
 * Likewise, "benefit of the doubt" implies distrust (not on the level of calling someone a liar, but again, I didn't do that). That's your prerogative, but I'll note that I expressed "100%" confidence that you're acting in good faith.  I'm sorry that you're unable to reciprocate.  —David Levy 21:59, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
 * David, it's clear from your posts, including this one, that you don't think you did anything wrong&mdash;you keeps saying that you didn't call me a liar. I'm saying that I'm not going to insist that you state otherwise.  It's enough that you stop.
 * There's a difference between you claiming that my motives are insincere and my saying "You called me a liar." That difference is that you're talking about what I was thinking and I'm talking about what you said. You showed me what you said.  I can point to the posts in question. Yes you did claim that I was not being honest about my motives, motives that you cannot see and therefore are in no position to judge. Darkfrog24 (talk) 06:14, 2 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Not so. I've apologized for choosing my words poorly, thereby offending you.  It was unintentional, but I've accepted blame.
 * That isn't enough for me. It's important to me that you not see me in that light.
 * Agreed. Only the latter actually occurred.
 * I have, during the course of the discussion, speculated as to your thoughts. I have not accused you of lying about anything.
 * I understand that you interpreted some of my comments in that manner. As noted above, I accept blame for this.  But as I've desperately attempted to explain, that isn't what I meant.  I meant that your bias against WP:LQ was influencing your judgement (leading you to push for wording that I regard as non-neutral), not that you set out to sabotage the section and  misrepresented your intentions.
 * Again, if you dispute this explanation, you're accusing me of lying.
 * Ditto. —David Levy 07:24, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I have, during the course of the discussion, speculated as to your thoughts. I have not accused you of lying about anything.
 * I understand that you interpreted some of my comments in that manner. As noted above, I accept blame for this.  But as I've desperately attempted to explain, that isn't what I meant.  I meant that your bias against WP:LQ was influencing your judgement (leading you to push for wording that I regard as non-neutral), not that you set out to sabotage the section and  misrepresented your intentions.
 * Again, if you dispute this explanation, you're accusing me of lying.
 * Ditto. —David Levy 07:24, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Ditto. —David Levy 07:24, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Ditto. —David Levy 07:24, 2 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I get that you don't think that saying what you said should count as you calling me a liar. I've already explained why I do.  You can go reread the posts if you still don't get it. Darkfrog24 (talk) 13:15, 2 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Question... Is the intent to make LQ an exception to ENGVAR (use LQ, even if ENGVAR indicates that a national variety does something different)? Or is the intent to carve out an exception to LQ (use LQ, unless a national variety says to use something different)?  Blueboar (talk) 14:30, 25 February 2014 (UTC)


 * We've been talking about LQ and ENGVAR as if the latter included punctuation, but in fact WP:ENGVAR explicitly excludes punctuation, and refers the reader to the separate punctuation section, which is not a subsection of ENGVAR. This doesn't change my opinion that LQ ought not state "differs from US". (Such a US-centric statement is still unnecessary, and still has undesirable implications.) Mitch Ames (talk) 14:39, 25 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Huh? Why does ENGVAR exclude punctuation? That does not make sense to me... punctuation rules are a "National variety of style" issue just like vocabulary and spelling.  I understand the concern about US-centric statements... However, in US focused articles, requiring LQ over "standard US conventions" of punctuation would have the opposite concern... an anti-US bias.  The whole point of ENGVAR is account for national differences in style... to allow a UK bias in UK related articles... a US bias in US related articles (etc. etc.)  We don't mandate any single style variety be used in all articles, instead we use what is appropriate within the context of the specific article.  I see no reason for punctuation style to be any different. Blueboar (talk) 14:52, 25 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I agree, Blueboar. However, to answer your question, yes WP:LQ does require the use of British/L punctuation at all times, even in varieties of English in which doing so is wrong.  It just shouldn't.  I don't see anything in ENGVAR that says, "this doesn't cover punctuation," though.  It just redirects to the punctuation section, which does include WP:LQ.  Frankly, I'm always careful to make sure my punctuation matches the variety in Wikipedia articles (which I why I don't do much gnoming in AmE any more). Darkfrog24 (talk) 21:14, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Regarding wording, punctuation rules should not be referred to as "conventions" (definition: "way in which something is usually done"). That implies that they are merely traditional, that they are optional. That's not the case. If a student fails to use correct American punctuation in a paper, he or she will be marked wrong the same as if he or she had misspelled the words. They should be called "standard rules" or "requirements." Remember, the point of this statement is to address the frequent challenges that are made to WP:LQ. They do not cite WP:LQ being unconventional or unusual. They cite that it breaks the rules. Address the issue that we actually have. Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:33, 26 February 2014 (UTC)


 * "a rule, method, or practice established by usage; custom" | "an accepted rule, usage, etc" (sources) —David Levy 02:06, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
 * "a way in which something is usually done" [OED UK] (and [U.S.]).
 * Better to use a term that is accurate in both the OED and dictionary.com than in only one of them. Also "convention" has connotations of being old-fashioned or passe that "requirements" and "rules" do not share. Darkfrog24 (talk) 02:59, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Better to use a term that is accurate in both the OED and dictionary.com than in only one of them. Also "convention" has connotations of being old-fashioned or passe that "requirements" and "rules" do not share. Darkfrog24 (talk) 02:59, 26 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes, I Googled that definition to determine its source.
 * Firstly, "sources" wasn't a typo; I quoted definitions from Random House and Collins (both appearing on the Dictionary.com page linked).
 * Secondly, I see nothing problematic about the interpretation "a way in which something is usually done" (for the reasons discussed above). I understand why you do, as you're determined to state that Wikipedia's practice is incorrect.
 * I perceive no such connotation in this context. We use the term "convention" throughout the page.  —David Levy 04:11, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Secondly, I see nothing problematic about the interpretation "a way in which something is usually done" (for the reasons discussed above). I understand why you do, as you're determined to state that Wikipedia's practice is incorrect.
 * I perceive no such connotation in this context. We use the term "convention" throughout the page.  —David Levy 04:11, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I perceive no such connotation in this context. We use the term "convention" throughout the page.  —David Levy 04:11, 26 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Because "usually" implies that the practice is optional. It is not.  You may not perceive the connotations yourself, but they are there.  Why not use "requirement"?  Why not use "rule"?  They have no such connotations.  Why not prose another term?  We might find one that we all consider acceptable.
 * It's a bit beside the issue at hand, but the Wikipedia practice is incorrect. However, I don't expect you to take my word for it.  If you like, I will provide sources. Darkfrog24 (talk) 04:32, 26 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Can you point to a definition of "usual" or "usually" indicating this? I was unable to find one.
 * Why haven't you objected to the page's numerous other instances of "convention"?
 * "Conventions" seems more neutral (though I regard "rules" — as opposed to "the standard rules" — as acceptable).
 * "Practices" and "customs" are possibilities. I'm open to other suggestions.  —David Levy 05:21, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
 * "Conventions" seems more neutral (though I regard "rules" — as opposed to "the standard rules" — as acceptable).
 * "Practices" and "customs" are possibilities. I'm open to other suggestions.  —David Levy 05:21, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
 * "Practices" and "customs" are possibilities. I'm open to other suggestions.  —David Levy 05:21, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
 * "Practices" and "customs" are possibilities. I'm open to other suggestions.  —David Levy 05:21, 26 February 2014 (UTC)


 * It's a bit beside the issue at hand, but the Wikipedia practice is incorrect. However, I don't expect you to take my word for it.  If you like, I will provide sources. Darkfrog24 (talk) 04:32, 26 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Whom are you addressing? —David Levy 05:21, 26 February 2014 (UTC)


 * The offer of sources is addressed to you, but I will provide them for anyone who wishes to see them.
 * Because some of the things to which the MoS refers are merely conventions and because no one ever brought me up on AN/I for gnoming any of them. If someone wants to argue that "The" shouldn't be capitalized in "The Hague," I'll hear them out and see for myself if it's a convention or a rule, but it really hasn't come up.
 * "Usually" means "not always"/"most of the time but often enough not." OED: "under normal conditions, generally"; AHD: "commonly encountered or observed." In correct American English punctuation, the only exception is for character strings ("type in '.gov.com.,.'."). That's more than "usually," "commonly," or "generally." At the absolute loosest, it's "almost always."
 * "Customs" is no good. Again, it suggests that the rule is optional.  I actually thought that "standard rules" was softer than "rules," but okay. "Rules" is good. Darkfrog24 (talk) 05:49, 26 February 2014 (UTC)


 * You needn't convince me that our practice is inconsistent with normal written American English.
 * What about the following instance?
 * That makes it sound as though you seek revenge.
 * Again, "convention" can refer to a rule.
 * Firstly, where does the "optional" part come in? Secondly, are you asserting that "convention" can't describe something that's almost always done?  —David Levy 06:27, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
 * That makes it sound as though you seek revenge.
 * Again, "convention" can refer to a rule.
 * Firstly, where does the "optional" part come in? Secondly, are you asserting that "convention" can't describe something that's almost always done?  —David Levy 06:27, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Again, "convention" can refer to a rule.
 * Firstly, where does the "optional" part come in? Secondly, are you asserting that "convention" can't describe something that's almost always done?  —David Levy 06:27, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Firstly, where does the "optional" part come in? Secondly, are you asserting that "convention" can't describe something that's almost always done?  —David Levy 06:27, 26 February 2014 (UTC)


 * If "conventions" is interpreted as "traditions" in the statement you offer, it won't do any harm. However, this issue has been subject to so much framing and so much spin, as Dicklyon put it, that greater care must be taken.  In the archive 143 discussion, when Tony wrote that biased RfC, he called American style "typesetters" to make it sound old-fashioned, even though every source that had been cited calls it "American." In previous discussions, people have also referred to American style as "TP," which usually stands for "toilet paper." There has been a lot of pushing to make American style sound optional and old-fashioned.  I've also taken flak for referring to British style as "British," even though this is the name by which this practice is most commonly called.  Personally, I wish people would stop calling it "logical," because that suggests that British style is more logical than it really is, but there are enough sources that call it this that people will recognize it by that name.  It's a legitimate practice, just one that I don't happen to like.
 * The fact that someone was so viciously in favor of banning American English that they wanted me to be punished for using it during gnoming impressed upon me that this rule is important and at least some of its proponents will be big jerks to anyone who wants it replaced. I haven't heard from the specific person who brought me up for AN/I in years.  It's not about him (or her; I never asked).  It's about this rule.  This sort of thing doesn't tend to happen with most of the content of the MoS. (And if you ask me, there's a reason for that.)
 * As for where the optional comes in, look at the other parts of English that are merely "usually" done a certain way: The serial comma. The capitalization (or not) of the first letter of a full sentence after a colon.  They're at the writer's discretion.  Using "convention" here might suggest that this is at the writer's discretion as well.
 * If you want to keep discussing my personal feelings about the word "usually," you're welcome to comment on my talk page, but is it still relevant here? I don't like "convention"; you don't like "standards," but we both like "rule." We found something that works.  Are we good to go? Darkfrog24 (talk) 15:24, 26 February 2014 (UTC)


 * We needn't focus on your personal feelings here, but they seem to be coloring your perception, leading you to read into innocuous wording in ways that most editors won't.
 * Yes, I'm fine with "rules" (but keep in mind that we aren't the only two editors involved in the matter). —David Levy 22:28, 26 February 2014 (UTC)


 * No, but that's the beauty of this particular issue: With the rule itself, we only have about four options 1)keep, 2) replace with ENGVAR, 3) replace with editors' discretion, 4) reverse. With the issue of what word we use here, we have many, many options.  If someone objects we'll just invite them to the talk page and find a new word. Darkfrog24 (talk) 02:38, 27 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I changed it to "the conventional rules", like in many books like this one. Dicklyon (talk) 04:23, 27 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Sounds too soft. This particular passage in your source seems to be talking about places in which the language gives options, as in "conventional rules vs. other rules." I could go for something a little harder, like "standard rules" or "stated rules" or even "specific rules" if you don't like "rules" by itself. Darkfrog24 (talk) 05:39, 27 February 2014 (UTC)


 * In the description you left, you expressed a concern that some varieties of English have more than one set of rules. The term "any rules" looks like it would address this. How do you feel about it? Darkfrog24 (talk) 05:41, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

(outdent)Allow WP:TIES to apply to punctuation in articles on United States topics; in other words, exempt articles on US topics from logical punctuation.  R ad io pa th y  •talk•  03:12, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree that that would be best, Radiopathy, but the current discussion is about how to describe WP:LQ, not whether to change it. If you decide to try, I recommend protective eyewear. Darkfrog24 (talk) 21:31, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Why is the American style the way it is?
Can someone provide a (or link to) an explanation of why the American style is to put the punctuation inside the quotes (at least in some cases) when the punctuation is not logically part of the quote? I accept that is the standard convention (illogical though it is, in my Australian opinion) - and the rationale ought not have any bearing on the MOS discussion - but I'm curious as to why it came about. Mitch Ames (talk) 03:02, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Something to do with when type was set by hand. R ad io pa th y  •talk•  03:06, 1 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Ben Yagoda attributes it to aesthetic reasons.
 * Logical punctuation: Should we start placing commas outside quotation marks? (final paragraph)
 * —Wavelength (talk) 03:15, 1 March 2014 (UTC)


 * There's a story that the small period and comma pieces would break if set at the end of a line and that the wider quotation mark pieces protected them, and that information used to be in quotation mark, but the only source for it was a comment someone made in a bulletin board.
 * What we do know is that both British and American English used to punctuate things the same way, the way that's currently called American style, until about 1906. Fowler and Fowler can be credited with popularizing what they called "placement according to sense" in their book The King's English.
 * It's just an idea someone had for changing the English language that happened to catch on. There was a guy in Chicago in the 20th century who changed "freight" to "frate" and made other simplifications, and for a while it looked like that would catch on, but it didn't.  The truth is that English is nuts.  It drags other languages into the alley, beats them up and goes through their pockets for spare vocabulary.  While at any given time there are things that are either right or wrong, those rules can change.
 * Yagoda actually lists two reasons: The other one is that British style does offer an advantage if you're dealing with strings of characters instead of words. To write an em-dash on Wikipedia, type in " ".  So if your readers are computers, British style might be better.  If your readers are humans, the two systems work about as well as each other.  It makes as much difference as spelling "harbour" with or without the u. Darkfrog24 (talk) 21:28, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

This 1899 magazine says the convention is based on "neatness". That is, about how it looks, not what it means. They discuss the illogic of it a bit. Dicklyon (talk) 05:42, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
 * It also makes it clear that the convention is (or was) not consistent between "authorities". So, perhaps should we open the debate about whether semicolons and colons should also go inside the quotation marks as demanded by certain style handbooks, if the whole thing is being debated? —Quondum 06:06, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

And this 1918 American book contrasts "what printers ordinarily do" with what they recommend, which is to do it logically instead; didn't catch on, apparently. Dicklyon (talk) 05:49, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

And this 1907 American book says to put periods and commas inside "whether they belong there or not". I think it's just pretty hard to give a good reason for such a rule. Dicklyon (talk) 05:52, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

And we call it "typographical quote" (TQ) style because it was driven by the typographers (printers), as the Cornell Magazine says: "Though logical arrangement favors the placing of the quotation marks as suggested, the printer favors the placing of the period always inside the quotation mark.  He says it looks better so, and what he says and what he does will likely be the continued usage." Dicklyon (talk) 05:59, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Related RfC regarding WP:ENGVAR
Please see Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (people) --Rob Sinden (talk) 11:24, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

RfC: Does COMMONNAME apply to grammatical forms?
Does, or should, WP:COMMONNAME apply to differing grammatical forms, such as plural vs singular? Please take part in the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Article titles. Curly Turkey (gobble) 23:34, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Using hyphens to denote citizenship
Hello. There is currently a discussion at Talk:Irish American about the usage of hyphens in denoting citizenship. The controversy is over whether Irish-American is different from Irish American. MOS:HYPHEN does not seem to cover this, so I'm leaving a request for comment here. Thanks.  KJ  click here  23:35, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Analy [sic]
I have added [sic] following the word Analy to warn AutoWikiBrowser users to not change it to Anally. One editor is asking me to keep the warning for AWB, but not have it appear on the page itself. For example, Analy High School without the Sic appearing in the article. Can this be done? Warning but not the appearance? --DThomsen8 (talk) 15:37, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
 * [sic] does the trick, right? —Mr. Granger (talk · contribs) 15:45, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for the fast reply. Where do I find this documented?--DThomsen8 (talk) 15:52, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
 * In the template documentation here. —Mr. Granger (talk · contribs) 15:57, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Who thought of calling a high school that? Tony   (talk)  08:44, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The explanation for the name is in the lede of the article in question. The name is the source of many jokes amongst the local students (especially opposing sports teams).  It's pronounced like "anna-lee".  As in "an apple".Chrisw80 (talk) 05:15, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Then there's Mac McAnally. Dyspeptic skeptic (talk) 00:35, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Significand or Mantissa
In the context of scientific notation and/or floating-point numbers, should I use the term Significand or Mantissa? -- Guy Macon (talk) 19:16, 12 March 2014‎ (UTC)


 * (Sound of Crickets...) --Guy Macon (talk) 01:03, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
 * This goes beyond a matter of style and is a matter of content and off-wiki definitions and usage. Significand and mantissa are often used synonymously but there is disagreement about whether to use mantissa more strictly for logarithms and not for floating point numbers, and actual usage varies. Wikipedia would be best served by having an explanation of this somewhere that could be inlinked where necessary. I don't think a blanket rule is possible at this point. As an actual practice, I would generally suggest explaining what the word was specifically being used to describe at the point where it was first used in an article. But again, I don't think it's purely a style issue when the words are often claimed to have distinctions of actual meaning despite overlapping usage.<span style="font-family:Futura, Helvetica, _sans;color:#01110f;font-size:66%;">__ E L A Q U E A T E  10:51, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Change font of example templates to Times
I'd like to direct your attention to Template talk:Xt. I want to get rid of Georgia due to some inherent problems like descending numerals, and replace it with the Times family. Input welcome. — Edokter  ( talk ) — 14:15, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Change font colour in TQ template
I would like to draw attention to Template talk:Tq where I have begun an RfC to change the colour of the tq template used for quoting comments on talk pages to distinguish from the xt template. —sroc &#x1F4AC; 14:25, 16 March 2014 (UTC)