Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 164

Is or was
has amended about 140 articles in 7 hours, changing "was" to "is" so that we now have, for example, "Seneca lived through the reigns of three significant emperors; Augustus (ruled 27 BC – 14 AD).... He is the father of the stoic philosopher Seneca the Younger...." (my emphasis). Edit summaries are usually "1 death has no effect if someone is your father or son. even when someone dies one "is" the father and the other "is" the son. the interaction may not be as before but one "is" the father and one "is" the son".

Rather than spread the discussion out across 140 talk pages plus an IP talk page, can anyone point to the appropriate part of the Manual of Style or an existing consensus, or (if the matter hasn't arisen before) can we discuss this here and reach a consensus? NebY (talk) 10:40, 21 February 2015 (UTC)


 * I doubt there's anything in the Manual of Style concerning thisg, because it's just basic English. The IP in question is trolling and should just be reverted. --Nicknack009 (talk) 12:07, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
 * It is? Seems to me that they'd both be correct. Verbs of just plain being are tricky I guess. "Was" would be preferred I guess, and even if not it'd justified to revert on the basis of "not an improvement" if you want to. I wouldn't call it trolling. The IP sounds like an intelligent person who wants to improve the encyclopedia and, like many of us, is going to need practice and maybe engagement to find helpful ways to do that. I wouldn't brush him off as a troll. 13:13, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Just for informational purposes, have you heard of E-Prime? Quite the writing style, and seems to give more factual information than either 'is' or 'was'. I try to use it while writing when I remember it, but don't always succeed. Good to study and practice though. Randy Kryn 13:25 21 February, 2015 (UTC)
 * I would revert back to past tense, but do so politely... have you tried contacting the editor in question to engage in discussion? He may be able to explain why he made the changes. Blueboar (talk) 13:28, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The editor has been explaining their reasoning to at Talk:Sisyphus and I hope they'll join the discussion here, where other editors may be able to make a clearer and stronger case for "is". As it stands, it would seem Manual of Style/Biographies applies and "was" should be used. Sorry, I should have noticed that sooner. NebY (talk) 14:05, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Then the manual of style follows English usage, and not some misbegotten appeal to "logic" by an unregistered user who can't write coherent English. Which is as it should be. Sisyphus, though? I was under the impression that mythocal, legendary and other such non-existent characters should be written in the present tense. --Nicknack009 (talk) 14:16, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
 * That was my impression too, though I don't know where to find the rule or which side of (for example) Menelaus or Lycurgus of Sparta the line is drawn. Still, at present all that part of that article uses the past tense. NebY (talk) 15:26, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I can understand and maybe even agree with the rationale. Even today, Seneca remains the father of Seneca the Younger as a matter of historical record; at no point did that blood relation cease to be. If we don’t have guidance on verb tense, we probably need some. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 13:33, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
 * If a new guideline evolves, maybe Wikipedia can include E-Prime in some form. Randy Kryn 13:42 21 February, 2015 (UTC)
 * The article is a mess, but it’s very interesting! The article needs a lot of work, possibly even a full rewrite, but the concept intrigues me! Thanks for mentioning it. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 14:09, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

A blood relationship can never be changed from existing to not existing therefore it should always be an "is" and never a "was". Your parent is always your parent regardless if that person is dead. If "was" is used then the statement is made factually incorrect. Those from whom you descent will always be your descendant and those that that follow will always be those that descend from you. So in describing that relationship it can never factually be in the past tense.66.74.176.59 (talk) 15:59, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Our of interest, is English your first language? --Nicknack009 (talk) 16:14, 21 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Grammatically, tense depends on the subject of the sentence. In the case of people, if the subject is alive, then we use the present tense... but once the subject has died we shift to past tense.  So...  is the son of, but  was the father of .   ... and if both parent and child are dead... then we should definitely use past tense. Blueboar (talk) 16:29, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, that is the style we currently use. But should it be? Or should we use the eternal present tense, as we do when discussing creative works? Just as ’s book discusses philosophy (it never stopped being that), is still a biological and/or legal parent, and that relation will never cease. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 17:07, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
 * So what you're saying is, you know perfectly well what English usage is, but you think it should be something else. That's not what Wikipedia is for. Stop it. --Nicknack009 (talk) 17:17, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Please note that I am not the same editor you originally replied to. And yes, I know perfectly well what Wikipedia’s English usage is, and I think Wikipedia’s usage should be something else—or at least I think it’s worth considering. We do use the eternal present for the works of deceased creators, as MOS:BIO explicitly states. Maybe we should use that for familial relationships, too. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 17:26, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I know you're not the same editor. But what you're proposing is changing English usage, not just Wikipedia guidelines. --Nicknack009 (talk) 17:36, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Can you source that claim? Does CMOS or Fowler’s or some such guide state that present tense is never to be used in describing aspects of the dead which do not change with death or time, or anything similar? Because at face value, it makes sense to use the eternal present; so I’d be surprised to find that proscribed by an authoritative guide. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 17:41, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Find me a single example of your proposed usage in the real world. --Nicknack009 (talk) 18:05, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
 * By contrast. Google searches of the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, which by definition only includes biographies of people who are dead:
 * "was the father of": 7 results; "is the father of": none
 * "was the mother of": 61 results; "is the mother of": two results, neither of which are part of a biography
 * "was the son of": 1,210 results; "is the son of": 4 results, all of which are about what is written in a particular text, not about historical family relations per se
 * "was the daughter of": 919 results; "is the daughter of: none
 * Searches of the Australian Dictionary of Biography:
 * "Was the father of": 29 results; "is the father of" none
 * "Was the mother of": 16 results; "is the mother of": none
 * "Was the son of": 118 results; is the son of: 1 result, referring to a living person not the subject of the biography
 * "Was the daughter of": 54 results; "is the daughter of": none
 * Frankly, I'd be astounded if any style guide felt the need to prescribe this, because it's universal. --Nicknack009 (talk) 18:30, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Point of curiosity: How do those sources treat the works of dead subjects? Do they discuss what the works are or what they were? —174.141.182.82 (talk) 18:39, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

The problem is that while some languages have a slew of tenses, we tend to use only three in normal English wording of the many tenses which exist. "George (dead) is the father of George Jr." is not incorrect -- the state of fatherhood does not consist of a single event in the past. "George (dead) was the father of George, Jr." is also not incorrect. Of course we could simply use "begat" I suppose - but neither position is "wrong" as we normally use the language. I found both used in newspapers, so maybe we should count this as a matter of trifling import at best? (Genealogical folks tend to use "is" by the way) ("Was" is far from universal by the way) Collect (talk) 18:38, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Would it be preferable to simply avoid attributive sentences and say, e.g., “George, father of George Jr.,” or “George’s son, George Jr., …”? Especially if the relative is notable for anything other than being a relative, there’s surely a better way to introduce him than “He is/was a relative.” —174.141.182.82 (talk) 18:48, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
 * That would be very awkward. In the example I gave at the start of this section, we wouldn't want to begin the article "Seneca the Elder, father of Seneca the Younger and son of Seneca the Even Older...." We'd be damaging the article's structure and readability just to avoid offending one editor (perhaps more) with "was" or jarring other readers (I think rather more) with a sudden "is" in amongst the past tenses. NebY (talk) 19:05, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
 * In the case of Seneca the Elder, I would instead change it to: “His son, the stoic philosopher Seneca the Younger (Lucius), was tutor of Nero.” But I don’t think that’s ideal, either. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 19:54, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I think genealogy and biography differ here. To a genealogist looking at a family tree, each and every person is on the family tree at once. To a biographer, everything happened in the past and the person was a son, a mother, the lover of Marie Antoinette, her lawyer, a horny-handed son of the soil, the general's enemy, the apple of her mother's eye. NebY (talk) 19:05, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

--Nicknack009, so your position is that language should never change, or at least that of grammar? Pull out your copy of the 1st ed. Encyclo Britanica to the pull out on writing structure and tell me just how useful were those rules that have since then undergone such a vast change--at least in the manner of explanation on paper? For having such a distinguished level in WP, the manner in which you evoke support for the position is rather shortsighted with very unpleasant connotations. So I am a troll? Or do you withdraw that statement as if it never happened? In fact, his statements are a "grand slam" when it concerns the sensitivity of some WP participants. I prefer to use the neutral value of an IP address by which to contribute to WP? According to WP policy there is absolutely nothing wrong with that practice although it will speedily be met with it is generally found that IP users are up to much mischief on WP. The there is the language of origin question but not stated as so but is English my primary language. Does this person ever give himself an opportunity not to become the spokes person for the less than optimistic aspects of WP? Like I said, the grand slam, managing to hit all the righ marks of a less than advantageous distinction. So we need to subject this test to a numbers strategy to be sufficiently legitimate for a "change" in an area that you do not want change? If so then why subject yourself to such potential ridicule. What is here, will never go away and the promote in WP from within WP practice only reinforces that what happens in WP with memory will always have an opportunity to be remembered, to return to the fore--maybe a matter of regurgitation? Does it matter what is one's primary language? Maybe a life that has been subjected to the internal critique of an anthropologist seeking out what is going on and what is its meaning instead of how is it going against the masses? I want to say without prejudicing my position that you seem to bot be ready for a change in this issue because it has long ago been settled within a group that has held the reigns. But those reigns will not always be held by the same people. You have the absolute monarch that what they say goes. Then you have the Magna Carta activities. Then you have the what land you hold issues. Then comes that you are a male. Then comes that you are a human being. and so on and so on. These things change because new issues develop.

The current usage seems to be heavily influenced by life or death. So much of it is in the past therefore it "sounds" logical to refer to it as "was" although a blood relationship can never be undone. There seems to be a great absence of mental agility to accept that which can never have change even with death and should be referred to as in the present. For those familiar, this probably represents an "Archie Bunker", a person stuck in usage. And this is not a criticism of being stuck because there are a great many people who are in as good place with a weltanschauung that gives them the ability to rethink that which posses potential road block in life.

It is not a position that emanates from the "official" rules or numbers game in usage. It is merely a matter of what good is there to maintain or deviate. WP looks at presenting supportable factual statements. On the face of it, a statement about a blood relationship where it is of life today, tomorrow or millennium ago, that relationship has not changed. Yet it seems validity is granted (at least presently) to the view that characterizing a relationship is best left to a confusing brought about by the imposition of time in the issue rather than solely whether a relationship exists or can be undone.

I remember for years whe younger the statement "The day after yesterday was a perfectly acceptable colloquialism but once that usage was outside that environment then the logic of the statement was called into question. The same logic is called into question with the "was" use versus characterizing the relationship as a current.

Well, I need to get to the grocers so will end this at what point it is with the understanding that much is being asked of people that have trained themselves to think a particular way and being faced with that not being potentially less credible may have an air of imposition.

Referring to that relationship should be by the value of that relationship, not when it happened. The latter is time not the relationship. Concentrate on the relationship and avoid the need to find confusion an acceptable means of presenting a view that is distorted.66.74.176.59 (talk) 21:33, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Consider this... When your parents die, you no longer have parents... you had parents in the past, but now you are an orphan. Blueboar (talk) 21:41, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
 * (I dearly hope this is not sensitive subject matter for anyone present.) But one would say, “My parents are dead.” The dead people are his parents, in perpetuity, even if he no longer has them. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 22:36, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Perhpas, but not always... if you are discussing the past you would say: "I grew up an orphan. By the time I was six, my parents were dead". And once you die, someone referring to you would say he/she was an orphan, his/her parents were dead by the time he/she turned six." Blueboar (talk) 23:48, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
 * But that is the fallacy into which that statement is trapped. You do still have parents although an orphan. You will always have parents although you will pass someday. The situation is that they are not alive or you may not be alive but nonetheless parents exist. All the fallacy does is trap one into believing that the parent(s) life form previously existed alive at some point otherwise it is very difficult to (with current technique) to exist. The state of the relationship remains current, parent/child. You may continue to use the statement but that dos not mean it is true. There are two different things here that are being fallaciously combined to confuse the matter. One is whether or not a relationship exists and whether or not a time exists. Science shows us that we cannot put two things in one space. I get reminded of this every time I go to the car park. Every time someone unsuccessfully manages to be unsuccessful in this activity has to call their insurance agent--they just had a accident. When you attempt to say that a relationship and time are the same you reach the fallacious perception that the relationship has ended and never existed because things either exist or they do not exist. A parent will always be a parent; you have a child, you are a parent. The same about being a child; you are born to someone(s), you will always be born to that someone(s). You cannot change that. Some one dies but it is not the relationship that dies, it is the person(s).

Government welfare gay comes about for every society it seems. You have the previous year earned your money and then have to pay the government so that they can do what supposedly you want done. Nothing in the world can change what you made then and what you paid then in taxes--nothing will ever change that amount for time infinitum. From year to year the amounts may change but they remain on record.66.74.176.59 (talk) 23:13, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Try again... what is past is past... you were born to someone, and you always will have been born to that someone.  I earned money (past tense), and then paid my taxes (again past tense)... I would be very upset if the government came back and told me to pay (present tense) again. Blueboar (talk) 23:48, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
 * My initial opinion was that 66.74.176.59. I am even more convinced of than now. I now also think that 174.141.182.82 is trolling. This discussion should be closed. Whatever happens, after seeing their response to my efforts to provide evidence of usage, I will waste no further time on them. --Nicknack009 (talk) 23:18, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
 * WP:No personal attacks, and WP:Assume good faith. The fact that I disagree with you does not mean I’m trolling. The fact that you apparently refuse to think critically about the matter similarly does not mean you are trolling. And I think you missed User:Collect’s comment about usage, and also my followup question about your examples of usage. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 23:33, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
 * As someone who until recently had a mother, I have no hesitation in saying I no longer have a mother - she is dead. One cannot have anything that no longer exists. The relationship argument holds no water either "I had a good relationship with my mother, but we no longer have a relationship." Similarly, one always says "John Smith's parents were the late Fred and Freda Smith." Giano    (talk) 23:52, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
 * My condolences. I also recently lost my mother, and I agree entirely with your take on the situation. However, I think any argument about whether the person or the relationship still exists or not is not really the point. This is a question of usage. Whatever the logic, whatever anyone thinks should be the case, English simply does not refer to relationships between dead people in the present tense. The examples I have provided demonstrated that. No counter-examples have been provided. User:174.141.182.82 saw my willingness to do research and provide data and, rather than do any work of their own, tried to get me to do more work on an question of no relevance to the discussion. This "follow-up question" was a blatant attempt to yank my chain. --Nicknack009 (talk) 00:13, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
 * It was not “of no relevance.” You demonstrated that those sources do not use the eternal present in a case where WIkipedia currently does not. If they also do use the eternal present in cases where Wikipedia does, that would be significant; if they do not, then perhaps they just opt not to use it at all. And I’ll ask you once more: Please stop assuming bad faith of me. If you care to question my motives or methods, then feel free to do so and I will answer, but don’t accuse. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 00:21, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

This discussion reminds me of the scene in "Lincoln" when he says about slavery, after establishing that there will be problems they have as yet to identify but he thinks that the negroes just assume be free as any one else would think of for themselves. If examples that say relationships can change, and in this discussion disappear, the continued presentation of examples that state for the relationship that which applies to time (i.e., in the past) are just continuations and perpetuations that something unchangeable can be changed. Do the math and science experiment. It just cannot be done and be the truth. As for civility, Nicknack destroyed that long ago with the knee jerk reactionary unfortunate statements.66.74.176.59 (talk) 01:24, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not the place to change what you think is wrong with the English language. I'm done arguing. Blueboar (talk) 02:01, 22 February 2015 (UTC)


 * This debate isn't about whether the relationship between people has changed, but rather about how relationships between people who are no longer living are described in English. And as previously stated, such relationships are almost invariably phrased in the past tense when the subject is no longer living.  Calpurnia was Caesar's wife; they were never divorced, but Calpurnia is dead, so she was.  Stating that "Octavian is Caesar's adopted son" rather than the usual was implies that Octavian is alive.  Nancy Reagan is Ronald Reagan's widow; if she dies then we would say that she was his widow.  And Lucius Aebutius was the son of Titus, because he is no longer alive; Titus was his father.  For that matter, if Titus were still alive, but Lucius dead, we might still say that Titus was Lucius' father.  The fact that the relationship between two people does not vanish when they themselves are consigned to the earth does not mean that the relationship must forever be described in the present tense.  The people no longer are, therefore they and their relationships are described in the past tense.  P Aculeius (talk) 02:07, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Precisely. The subject of the sentence is the person, not the relationship. And a person that is dead cannot be described in the present tense. 'E's not pinin'! 'E's passed on! This person is no more! He has ceased to be! 'E's expired and gone to meet 'is maker! 'E's a stiff! Bereft of life, 'e rests in peace! If you hadn't nailed 'im to the perch 'e'd be pushing up the daisies! 'Is metabolic processes are now 'istory! 'E's off the twig! 'E's kicked the bucket, 'e's shuffled off 'is mortal coil, run down the curtain and joined the bleedin' choir invisible!! THIS IS AN EX-PERSON!!. To use present tense for a dead person is just illiterate. (And the use of present tense for a work by a person is a red herring, as the work does still exist and so is properly in the present tense.) oknazevad (talk) 02:17, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Recommend we go with "was", in these situations. GoodDay (talk) 02:24, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I reverted the approximately 140 pages of "was" --> "is" edits. There appears to be an issue of competency in English that goes beyond these edits. --I am One of Many (talk) 05:16, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for doing that, and thanks to all for clarifying matters. NebY (talk) 16:15, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Congratulations to oknazevad in an attempt to put this issue to rest putting forth that those who recognize a problem with this issue are "illiterate". That type of comment is not necessary especially as the line of reasoning for the now established rule is not common to all cultures and societies. I am not responsible for your cultural illiteracy. I can only say that the former is what makes up your weltanschauung. Hopefully, your career is not within any diplomatic corp.66.74.176.59 (talk) 13:18, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

After doing a bit of research outside of WP on top of the replies here, I’ve determined that it is indeed not the norm to use present tense in these cases. It’s acceptable to some, and it arguably makes more sense, but it’s just not particularly common in English (and the English language does not necessarily make sense). Sorry, 66.74.176.59, but without widespread support outside Wikipedia, there’s little chance of convincing Wikipedians. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 15:43, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

It always has to be remembered that you may reflect the way those previous to you express so it becomes self supporting a prejudice that takes some time and effort to overcome. If a person's ability to extend the experience they can make outside their element is limited then all the more is there the opportunity to continue what when changed it then is a miss on the perception. If all you can read is your own language and to you all that is available is translations of other sources, how can you expect to learn about how this type of issue is handled especially when those translators are trained in the very same perception as yourself. And probably trained the same as those that have control over the publication of such information. Some may say, "Oh. But that is other people." Remember, it is all part of the brain and just how does yours function. Just as there remain people today that think the planet flat are those that know better through a different weltanschauung. Some call it sophistication, not broom stuck, an increased degree of differentiation. At least it has been brought to fore that yes there is a difference on the issue.66.74.176.59 (talk) 18:12, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
 * In terms of this discussion, it doesn’t matter how other languages work or how anyone translates anything. This is the English Wikipedia, and our style is (in general) governed by English style guides and common English usage—in some cases even if that usage is perceived as wrong. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 21:56, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

It is interesting mentioning English style guidance especially as when it concerns England they have so much to thank for other peoples invading. And remember that the western world is not getting "easternized" but is changing although with some people that seems to be expressed more as a threat than part of life. They should check out language development of adjoining peoples. Just saying, weltanschauung. The mind at use.66.74.176.59 (talk) 23:22, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Suggest you read the essay: WP:WINDMILL. Just saying. Blueboar (talk) 23:27, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the template but when someone does something perceived as irritating it can be something that one can avoid to call attention and possibly, specially from an organization that functions on promotion from within, avoid situations being perceived as a threat to authority. Did I miss a conditional statement somewhere in the WP mission statement, "everyone is welcomed to contribute, except for those with which we disagree or find irritating, ......"? Some may say that they are not part of WP beyond merely being a contributor but you tell me when is it that the senior contributors of WP that are within the ranks of its authority promote those they find irritating. So, it is to be expected that as long as things are top down many actions can be perceived as dissension. Or are you the type that is more concerned with manners? I read an oral history that the person was one of the early "ethnic" minority entrant into that country's educational ministry who said that being amongst Ph.D's did not mean that they debated with more sophisticated words but that they were so smooth that you never noticed when complements were given the knife going in and out.66.74.176.59 (talk) 23:59, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Oh, I forgot; not all wind wills are on the lowlands model.66.74.176.59 (talk) 00:01, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Let’s get this discussion back on track. We write English the way English is written. If you (or anyone) can show us any examples of English-language sources using text like “Bobby Kennedy is JFK’s brother” (note: both men are dead), or point out a respectable English style/grammar/usage guide that says to write that way, then we will have something worth talking about. Otherwise, there’s no reason to post anything further in this section. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 00:28, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

British/American style. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.74.176.59 (talk) 00:49, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Primarily, yes, we use one or the other of those. We also use other styles where appropriate; see WP:ENGVAR. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 03:50, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
 * It was merely pointing out what may be a subconscious effect on expression.66.74.176.59 (talk) 04:24, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Not sure I catch your meaning. If you mean that we say “was” because we’re influenced by British and American style… you’re right. Wikipedia is primarily written in one of those two styles. And subconscious or not, this is intentional and desirable, since these are the two most common varieties of the language that this encyclopedia is written in. But if your preferred usage were shown to be common in some other variety of English, that would be an improvement over the none that we have now. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 04:36, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Miss the mark-- "subconscious effect on expression" ; "We write English the way English is written." It should have been "British/American style". And written expression is taught the way that authority dictates otherwise you are accused of being illiterate.66.74.176.59 (talk) 13:39, 23 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Nobody here is arguing that you must use a particular national variety of English in order to edit Wikipedia articles. But before you go changing verb tenses to reflect your own preferences, you should be able to show that such usage is at least regular and considered grammatically valid in some well-known variety of English.  This is English Wikipedia, and articles are supposed to be written in a way that makes sense to most fluent English speakers; the fact that a peculiar form of using verb tenses in a specific instance is common in parts of Wales, Cornwall, and Yorkshire, or in eastern Texas, southern California, or Trinidad and Tobago, doesn't make it standard usage for a significant portion of the world's English-speaking population.


 * Non-standard dialect is appropriate for quotations, but not for replacing the grammar of articles written in general English forms. I have no argument with people who choose whether to use British or American spellings or figures of speech, or use stilted or archaic language in scholarly contexts.  But stating that Titus Aebutius is the father of Lucius, when both have been dead for 2,500 years, is not standard in any major variety of English; not in historical or genealogical contexts; not in encyclopedias, nor in biographical dictionaries, nor in competently written newspaper articles of any era.  Even if you could find one or two isolated instances of scholarly sources that treat long-dead persons this way, that would not demonstrate standard or widely-accepted practice.  But at least there would be a basis for the argument.  And there's not.  For nearly all purposes, when people are dead we refer to them in the past tense, whether or not some aspect of their relationship to the world can be said to endure.


 * Mulling over the question of whether, from a technical or logical standpoint, someone who is dead can still be the father of his sons, I find no clear answer. From grammar and usage, it would appear that English assumes that dead people no longer are for any purpose.  In other words, even though nobody else became Lucius Aebutius' father when Titus died, Titus stopped being his father because he was no longer alive.  And when Lucius died he stopped being Titus' son.  So even though the relationship between them has not changed through the ages, it can only be logically described in English using the past tense.  Now, if you or anyone you know claims to be Titus Aebutius, still alive in this day and age, you can say that he is the father of his children.  At least if some of them are also still alive.  Otherwise, please use the past tense.  P Aculeius (talk) 17:07, 23 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Two examples that occurred to me after writing this: it's customary for people to refer to their deceased parents in the past tense; after his father's death, Lucius Aebutius would have said, "my father was Titus Aebutius," although he would also have said, "I am the son of Titus," since he, the subject of the sentence, was alive at the time he said it. I also thought of an exception from the realm of genealogy.  Normally one says, "my great-great-great-grandfather was Johann Jacob Jingleheimerschmidt," but when two people are comparing genealogies they might say, "our common ancestor is Johann Jacob Jingleheimerschmidt."  But this is informal usage, and might not be used in a well-written genealogical treatise; moreover when speaking of distant ancestors it's usually assumed that they're dead; but when you say "my father is," you imply that he is still alive.  It may not always be true, but that's what saying it that way implies.  P Aculeius (talk) 18:59, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

I think that this road kill has passed and now is a carousel ride going up and down and all around and getting no where. I think that in future when referring to examples that instead of saying that "you" or "us" or other similar forms that the use of what is being discussed be limited to "may" because not every one does as what others say. And as for a genealogical treatise I would assume that the only acceptable form would be a that which is "well-written". It has already been stated that WP is not an environment of innovation. As for finding examples, the hunt is within sources that are schooled and reinforced by outside forces that can limit variety.

As I believe today I will believe tomorrow that a parent is a parent and the offspring will always be offspring and the only thing that changes with death is that they are dead, not the role in the chain of generations. I do not expect for any one to accept that which they do not believe--that just points out what you have been taught, your cultural bias and part of your weltanschauung. I believe and the absence or limited examples is not to me sufficient to prove me wrong. And to say that you are not this and you are not that is plain flying in the face road dust. And within WP that view has no standing. I have already been threatened with coercion otherwise.

As for 'Miss the mark-- "subconscious effect on expression" ; "We write English the way English is written." It should have been "British/American style". And written expression is taught the way that authority dictates otherwise you are accused of being illiterate." It was never about use but YOUR subconscious. People seem to be on auto-pilot and do not feel it is necessary to evaluate if what they write or say is substantiating a subconscious that may be faulty. Now do not get into a harp about "faulty" because all that will in likelihood happen is a restating of what can commonly be found and stated here each and every time previously. Regurgitation is wonderful for birds and the feeding of other animals but why the time we start to learn about writing we are well past puree as a staple.66.74.176.59 (talk) 22:04, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Canvassing vs seeking informed input
I’m not sure whether it would be considered canvassing if I posted a link here to an unambiguously style-related RFC where the only other participants so far are on the opposite side from me. So I’m not asking (yet?) for anyone to find it and join in; just looking to know whether others think it would be acceptable or not to ask that. Thanks. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 19:20, 25 February 2015 (UTC)


 * It could be considered canvassing if you expect the majority of the people on this page to agree with you or if your intro text is non-neutral. However, if it is a style issue or MoS issue, then this is an appropriate place to publicize it, whether you expect us to side with you or not. Darkfrog24 (talk) 19:28, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I honestly do expect the majority here to agree with me, because I believe I’m right and everyone who disagrees is wrong. But that could be a psychological issue. Anyway, I am pretty sure my initial RFC post is neutral: I asked questions (and tried not to make them leading questions) rather than make assertions. But I’ll wait for more responses here before linking to it, just to be sure. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 19:39, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
 * A message to the tune of "There is what I believe to be a style-related RFC occurring at place A. See link B." would probably have been fine. It probably still is fine. --Izno (talk) 22:20, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Done. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 00:18, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

RFC notice: Film series titles
There is an RFC concerning article title formatting at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (films). Input from all would be appreciated. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 00:18, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Spurious argument in "US and U.S."
The US and U.S. (WP:NOTUSA) section says:

The guideline may or may not be appropriate (it may be that those who formulated it were expressing an opinion, rather than reflecting real-world usage), but the reason given above is spurious and wrong. USA is very widely used orally and in writing (also U.S.A.) to mean the country, without ambiguity. There may be rare cases where use is truly ambiguous, but nobody thinks, for example, that crowds at sporting events are chanting to support the US military. So the guideline should be reconsidered; it may be maintained if there are non-spurious reasons to do so. The bare possibility of ambiguity is not good reason. There are innumerable examples; UK (U.K.; .uk in URLs) is used without ambiguity for the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, with only very rare problems with the Ukraine and the University of Kansas.

I'm not at this moment arguing that the anti-USA guideline should be dropped, but it should be properly supported if maintained. Pol098 (talk) 12:02, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Good point. I've never heard "USA" used for the army. Looking at USA (disambiguation), the other "USA"s are mostly pretty minor -- Uniform Securities Act, United Space Alliance, and what have you. The main exception being the defunct entity Union of South Africa (which I've never seen or heard of referred to as "USA", but maybe this was common in South Africa and elsewhere). There's no question that "USA" is clearly and obviously the United States of America, absent a declaration or context to the contrary in the text. (And after all, "US" could be the University of Salzburg or whatever.)


 * There might (or might not) be other good reasons to prescribe only "US" and not "USA" for referring to America, though. For one thing, it might not be a good thing to have both "US" and "USA" scattered throughout the Wikipedia and meaning the same thing. If it that's accepted, maybe "US" is more common or obvious or correct (I don't know). My inclination would be to remove it and let editors use what they want, but if it stays, the "because" clause should be eliminated, changed to something like "because its better to use one abbreviation for the United States of America and that's the one we've chosen" or changed to "because US is more common, obvious, or correct" (but only if that's true). Herostratus (talk) 12:29, 18 February 2015 (UTC)


 * I don't know where you were stationed, but the use of USA for United States Army is ubiquitous. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:41, 26 February 2015 (UTC)


 * To me it seems that in most cases United States should be used over US anyway. In what cases would US or USA be preferable over that? Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 12:46, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
 * "Foo is a town in the U.S. state of West Virtuckistan." --NE2 13:20, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Personal opinion doesn't really count here, we need to see what is actually used, and objective reasons which are not spurious. My impression is that I hear "US" and "USA" more than "United States", more than "United States of America". I'm not sure how they compare in writing from memory, but I see the abbreviated terms a great deal. Even the US Government site is headed "U.S. Government Services and Information". A Google search finds "usa" (I think Google considers "usa" and "u.s.a." to be identical) more than "united states". To the question In what cases would US or USA be preferable over [United States]?: in one case it helps in WP disambiguation pages to keep the descriptions sometimes used short. And a preoccupation of mine (I don't know if others will agree) is to keep text as short as possible so long as it's not ambiguous; readers just gain a few milliseconds, and maybe a tiny bit less brain processing, for every "UK" instead of "United Kingdom". It's the same as pointing out that the fact that in this point in time it is indubitably preferable to strive for brevity and conciseness, of no small assistance in saving time, instead of "keep it short", which probably saves at least a full second and a few flops. Pol098 (talk) 13:26, 18 February 2015 (UTC)


 * As an American lawyer, I have a somewhat different perspective regarding this issue. The American standard reference for legal citations is The Bluebook, which uses the full phrase "United States" in reference to the country or government of the country, but requires "U.S." whenever it is used as an adjectival phrase, as in "U.S. Army," "U.S. government," or "U.S. Supreme Court."  This appears to be either a formal or informal standard adopted by a number of American media organizations, and seems to be the majority practice among American style guides.  Furthermore, I also note that "U.S." (with periods) is preferred over "US" (without periods) in American English, with exceptions for certain organizations that incorporate "US" or "USA" into their official names or short-form names without periods.  Of course, the result is otherwise in British and Commonwealth English.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 13:30, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
 * 1: about the logic: nobody has defended potential confusion between Army and America as a reason to avoid USA, so I'll remove the Army from the guideline; obviously if others think it belongs, reinstate it. 2: about abbreviation vs full: Dirtlawyer1 puts the official United States viewpoint. Wikipedia should reflect common usage, in the United States and elsewhere; this arguably differs from the United States' official stand. Even in the United States in an official context, the official form is not always used, as the United States government Web site I cited shows. This point should perhaps be discussed and decided, but I don't think I have anything further to say. Pol098 (talk) 14:17, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Pol098, I think perhaps you read my comment too quickly: nowhere do I cite an "official" government guideline regarding this issue. My point is that American common usage, supported by most American style guides, including that of the American legal profession, is to write "United States" in full when it is being used as a noun, and "U.S." when used as an adjective, in formal writing.  Rarely are either "United States of America" or "USA" used, usually in the limited circumstances described by others in this discussion.  And to reinforce my second point regarding abbreviations, in American English the common practice is to abbreviate "U.S." with periods, not without periods, although there are specific exceptions for specific organizations (e.g., USAF), as others have also noted.  I hope that makes my points crystal clear.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:29, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
 * But we never write "Foo is a town in the U.S. state of West Virtuckistan.". We consistently write something like "Foo is a town in West Virtuckistan", or "in West Virtuckistan, United States". Nor do we write US Supreme Court. In almost all cases it is obvious from the context which supreme court we mean. In the rare cases it isn't clear, using "the Supreme Court of the United States" is better than "the US Supreme court". I still am yet to see a single counterexample, which leads me to think, even if a counter example does exist, it's so rare it probably doesn't need a MOS entry. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 19:17, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
 * WTF? Seattle, Detroit, Portland, Oregon, Atlanta (no periods)... --NE2 04:31, 19 February 2015 (UTC) (NE2, I just edited the Atlanta article to conform "U.S. state of Georgia" to standard American usage of "U.S." with periods.   Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 04:46, 19 February 2015 (UTC))

Why would we ever use "USA" when "US" is available? To my ears, that would be like referring to the "UKGB" rather than the "UK". bd2412 T 14:23, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, bear in mind that America isn't the only country that's a United States. To my ears, "US" sounds sloppy when used as a noun. And the difference with the last would be that UKGB is never used (and if it was it would actually have to be UKGBNI), whereas USA is. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:46, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The USAF and USMC are obviously common abbreviations for their respective branches and USN is a very uncommon abbreviation for US Navy, but I have never, in my entire time in the United States Army or afterwards, ever seen United States Army abbreviated as USA. I agree that it should be removed, because that's not something that is used as an abbreviation for the United States Army, especially not commonly enough that it should be an example in the MoS. - Aoidh (talk) 14:26, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
 * USN isn't uncommon at all! USA is certainly used for the United States Army, but I would agree it's not common and not likely to be confused with the country when used in context. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:46, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not trying to argue at all I'm just genuinely curious, do you have any source that abbreviate the Army in that way? - Aoidh (talk) 06:42, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
 * To me, it's a question of tone. I associate "US" with the usage of serious publications, "USA" with patriotic country music, the chants of sports fans, and a certain alleged newspaper.  By the way, this is no general knock on country music, which I actually enjoy, and I can occasionally even listen to the patriotic subgenre though it's not my favorite.  But there are different standards for an encyclopedia.  I do agree that the "ambiguity" argument is not a good one. --Trovatore (talk) 17:29, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
 * While I can find the occasional references to "the U.S.A." used as a noun, I cannot think of a single instance where "U.S.A" is commonly used as an adjective -- the latter just sounds remarkably awkward to my American ear. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:45, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
 * There's an earlier discussion with some background at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 146. Trovatore's comments hit the nail right on the head for me (except for enjoying country music).  SchreiberBike | ⌨  18:47, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Support removal of "because ... names" but not the rule itself. We have style guides and other sources showing that "U.S." is preferred to "U.S.A." in general-audience publications, so the rule itself is good to stay.  Any discussion of the history etc. of the phrase should be moved to the article space where it can be sourced.  One thing, though, Pol098, the MoS should follow reliable sources on correct English, not common usage.  We want Wikipedia to look correct and professional wherever possible.  A great deal of common usage is common mistakes. Darkfrog24 (talk) 18:54, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Discussion regarding the WP:Overlinking guideline
Opinions are needed on the following matter: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Linking. A WP:Permalink for the discussion is here. You might also want to check out the Comments please on avoidable links and Nested links sections lower on that talk page. Flyer22 (talk) 21:28, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Quote marks
Quite apart from quoting text or identifying speech, quote marks (single or double) have a variety of other uses or functions. As I read the MOS, there is a preference for double quotes for identifying speech or quotes of text. The context pretty much ignores other uses of quote marks. It is also silent on what I understand to be conventions that use single quotes for uses other than quoting text or identifying speech. I would pose a question of the validity of this convention and a clarification of the MOS's intent. Cinderella157 (talk) 22:18, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
 * What specific uses do you find missing and need addressing by the MOS? -- Jayron 32 01:49, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

See Usage. Essentially, the six examples of usage other than quotations and speech. Cinderella157 (talk) 05:04, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Some of them are already covered in other guidelines... for example the use of quotes for irony (scare quotes) is covered at WP:SCAREQUOTES (a section of WP:Manual of Style/Words to watch)... and the use of quotes to indicate a nickname is covered at WP:NICKNAME (a section of WP:Naming conventions (people)). Blueboar (talk) 12:51, 22 February 2015 (UTC)


 * These sections are silent on the pertinent elements of the of the question. Cinderella157 (talk) 13:41, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Um... in that case, could you expand on what you think are the "pertinent elements" of your question? Blueboar (talk) 14:51, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

I seek to clarify these matters. Cinderella157 (talk) 15:55, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
 * There are uses of quote marks for other than identifying speech or quoting text.
 * The MOS 'prefers' the use of double quotes for speech or quoting text?
 * The MOS is silent on its preference for other uses?
 * There is a convention for using single quotes for the 'other uses'?
 * Let me ask this again, what other uses is the MOS silent on, that you would like it to speak to? -- Jayron 32 00:54, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
 * OK.. on the third question (preference for other uses) the reason the MOS is silent may be that other policies say we should avoid those other uses in the first place. Blueboar (talk) 17:07, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I understand that this (WP:SCAREQUOTES) might apply to one of the remaining six uses, which warns against such use directly but not where this is being reported or attributed to another. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:45, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
 * In the absence of an official statement, you should generally use normal rules of punctuation in English. Currently, double quotation marks are normal for most quotations; however, when a quotation itself contains quotation marks, the internal ones are normally rendered as single quotation marks, to make it easier to distinguish reported speech being quoted by someone else.  This convention is similar to the alternation of parentheses and (square) brackets.  When one parenthesis occurs within another, it's typically enclosed by brackets instead of parentheses (also called round brackets).  If the use of internal punctuation makes the passage even more confusing, omit it and follow the passage with "(internal quotation marks omitted)," or "(internal parentheses omitted)," or "(internal punctuation omitted)," or whatever seems clearest.
 * These are not hard and fast rules of English punctuation. In fact English rarely has "rules" that must be obeyed and never have exceptions.  Single quotation marks are often used to enclose individual words, letters, or numbers, when being spoken of as such, rather than being quoted.  But these conventions are widely accepted throughout the English-speaking world; and while there are a few regular variations (such as whether to place non-quoted punctuation inside or outside quotation marks) of locality or time (such as placing a space between quotation marks and enclosed text), varying from one or another of the widely-used practices tends to draw unwanted attention to the punctuation itself and away from the text.
 * For instance, from a technical standpoint Lewis Carroll's double apostrophes for words like sha'n't or wo'n't make perfect sense. But they didn't catch on, and today they merely arrest the reader's attention in a way that Carroll never intended.  It's not wrong to use them, but you wouldn't use them unless you wanted the reader to be looking at the punctuation and not the words.  And of course no English teacher or editor would encourage them, partly because they're so obscure that most people don't know about them, and partly because drawing attention to your punctuation distracts from what you're writing and is nearly always undesirable.
 * Wikipedia's own guidelines state that its conventions of grammar aren't strict rules that must be adhered to in every case. If there's a good reason to vary from normal practice, go ahead.  The MoS already endorses the use of national variants, such as British or American usage.  If an article makes extensive use of older literature containing quaint spellings and punctuation, consistency may argue in favour of using them throughout instead of varying between older and modern usage—as long as the older usage is still clear and understandable to modern readers.  I prefer editors to use coöperation or co-operation to something that sounds like the construction of chicken coops, and I believe that naïveté is the preferred form even amongst editors who normally eschew diaeresis.  But when you're punctuating something, ask yourself whether the form you want to use will pass unnoticed, or become an unwanted (and repetitive) distraction for the reader.  I think that'd probably be the best guideline for us all to use.  P Aculeius (talk) 17:02, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
 * @P Aculeius By this "Single quotation marks are often used to enclose individual words, letters, or numbers, when being spoken of as such, rather than being quoted. But these conventions are widely accepted throughout the English-speaking world;" I take, at least in part, that you concur with my observation regarding other uses, though some here would have double quotes used for the purpose you describe. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:45, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
 * You may have missed WP:MOS: “There are some conventional codified exceptions, such as single quotation marks for plant cultivars (Malus domestica 'Golden Delicious'); see WP:FLORA.” If you did see that and still claim the MOS is silent on other uses, you’re probably going to have to describe the specific uses you have in mind before getting an answer that will be useful to you. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 17:24, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
 * @174.141.182.82, As preciously stated, "The context pretty much ignores other uses of quote marks." The section, WP:MOS states:
 * Enclose quotations with double quotation marks (Bob said, "Jim ate the apple."). Enclose quotations inside quotations with single quotation marks (Bob said, "Did Jim say 'I ate the apple' after he left?"). This is by far the dominant convention in current practice; see other reasons, below.
 * As you note, it then states: “There are some conventional codified exceptions, such as [emphasis added] single quotation marks for plant cultivars (Malus domestica 'Golden Delicious'); see WP:FLORA.” Despite your myopic, smug and uncivil response, the question remains. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cinderella157 (talk • contribs) 00:46, 23 February 2015‎
 * I really don’t think those insults are warranted (particularly while violating WP:KETTLE). Your question remains vague; despite reading your posts here, I still don’t know which uses of quotation marks you feel are lacking guidance in the MOS (and other editors have also asked you for details). Without knowing the specific problem, it’s difficult to know how to answer. Is there an example you could point to in an article, or in a proposed addition to an article? Or is this just a general concern that a failure to address every scenario may cause potential disagreements among editors? —174.141.182.82 (talk) 04:06, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
 * @174.141.182.82, the article Quotation marks in English lists seven uses of quote marks of which Quotation marks in English and Quotation marks in English are dealt with by the MOS. I originally misspoke in saying the MOS was silent on six of these, having inadvertently omitted the latter of these two. There then remains five uses of quote marks for which it appears that the MOS is silent about and for which I believe there are conventions that indicate the use of single quotes are appropriate. I believed that the reference to Quotation marks in English was sufficiently clear. If it is not, I am at something of a loss as to how to make this clearer (and that is not intended as an insult).
 * Single quotes in one or more of these other uses have been edited to double quotes with some vague notion that the MOS directs this. So:
 * Is the MOS silent on its preference for other uses?
 * Is there a convention for using single quotes for the 'other uses'?
 * Depending on the responses, and the apparent perceptions of some as to the scope and meaning of the MOS, is there a need to make explicit the intention of the MOS wrt these 'other uses' or to define the MOS on these? I had not posed the last of these since I wished to gauge the response to the former before suggesting the latter.
 * I am quite happy to operate within the 'rules' (note how I have used single quotes a number of times) of the MOS, but I get a little peeved when others make changes claiming support of the MOS when such changes are not mandated, are construed by a loose association or are matters on which the MOS is actually silent - particularly when usage is supported by conventions of English (which may or may not be widely held). I would note that the MOS tends to assume much about the 'universality' of conventions or ignores variations of convention and this can be a source of angst.
 * I appologise if you have perceived my former brevity for terseness or that listing my perceptions were construed as an insult or otherwise considered to be uncivil. Cinderella157 (talk) 06:10, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
 * It's not my intention to take sides in a debate. I don't even see anything being debated.  It seems to me that you're asking for some kind of definitive scheme of right and wrong for the use of single and double quotation marks in every possible situation and circumstance.  But there isn't one, and there doesn't need to be one.  There's a general, widespread convention or two in English, which may not cover every possible use or preclude any alternative usage.  My advice is simply to follow normal English usage unless you have some particular reason for varying from it in a particular instance.  When a specific convention, such as botanical usage, seems relevant, follow that.  If two or more conventions seem equally applicable, take your pick based on what makes the most sense for the article, but try to be consistent throughout each article.  Common sense is the best guide to these matters!  P Aculeius (talk) 04:41, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

@P Aculeius, My perception is that there is nothing definitive, which is fine, until others try to assert that there is. I will try to phrase my questions another way still. Myself, I would leave double quotes alone in these other uses when I come across them, even though it might be against the convention 'as I have been taught' since I acknowledge that this is not necessarily universal and there is no specific guidance (that I see) on this matter in the MOS. I believe this is the standard that should be applied. Others construe the MOS to say otherwise. Cinderella157 (talk) 06:30, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Is the MOS in any way definitive in which quote marks are used in 'other uses' (ie other than quotes, speech or titles)
 * Is it reasonable to use single quote marks for these other uses?


 * And as I've been saying all along, if the Manual of Style doesn't give clear guidance and you can't see a specific convention being followed in all similar articles, then use common sense. That will usually mean whatever is the most usual and least likely to draw attention.  If usage varies between two or more forms, take your pick.  If a specific convention applies and you don't know about it, other editors will inform you.  If you disagree with their application in a particular instance, discuss it on the article's talk page, or if it's an instance of a policy that should or should not be applied across an entire project, then discuss it on that project's talk page.  But if the Manual of Style doesn't address it, and you don't have a specific issue you want it to address, then this isn't the right place for this discussion.  As others have pointed out, the Manual of Style does not provide answers for every possible situation.  Unless editors know exactly what you want to do or don't want to do, it's impossible to provide guidance for you!  P Aculeius (talk) 13:53, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

@P Aculeius, I deduce from your response that the MOS is silent on whether to use double or single for other uses of quote marks (ie other than quotes, speech or titles). From your earlier comments, I understand that you would agree that there are conventions that prefer the use of single quotes for at least some of these other uses. It is unfortunate that some editors would construe the MOS to have a greater scope than what it actually addresses. Cinderella157 (talk) 14:32, 23 February 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, but I don't see anybody telling you that the Manual of Style tells you to do something you don't want to do. I haven't gone over the current conventions in the MoS with respect to all mentioned uses of quotation marks.  All I've done is ask you to use common sense when it doesn't tell you what to do in a given situation.  There's no need to drag me back into this conversation over and over when I haven't told you whether to use single or double quotation marks in any particular instance that you've mentioned (and you still haven't mentioned any).  If you don't have a particular example to discuss or an argument with what the MoS actually says, instead of what it doesn't say, then I can't be of any further help!  P Aculeius (talk) 16:38, 23 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Can you show us an article demonstrating such a use of quote marks? Or an edit of the sort you mentioned earlier, of single to double or vice versa “per MOS”? —174.141.182.82 (talk) 20:59, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Firstly, I thought it a relatively simple question to ask: "Is the MOS in any way definitive in which quote marks are used in 'other uses' (ie other than quotes, speech or titles)", having referred to these other uses as indicated in Quotation marks in English. I cannot, it appears, get an answer (or opinion) as to whether the MOS (MOS:QUOTEMARKS particularly) does or does not address these other uses. From this, the only 'common sense' conclusion is that the MOS does not address these uses. It causes me to question whether the MOS fulfills its goal, "to make using Wikipedia easier and more intuitive by promoting clarity and cohesion while helping editors write articles with consistent and precise language, layout, and formatting." I do note that @P Aculeius stated: "Single quotation marks are often used to enclose individual words, letters, or numbers, when being spoken of as such, rather than being quoted" - one of these other uses, but this is not from the MOS. As for specific instances, I would refer to, where 'free dropped' (a special terminology and signaling unusual usage) was changed to double quotes and similar edits have been made in other revisions for similar uses of single quotes. My question was to determine if this was a case where this statement from the MOS was applicable: "Where more than one style is acceptable, editors should not change an article from one of those styles to another without a good reason." The 'vagueness' of responses herein suggests a need to clarify the scope of the MOS on this particular issue. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:52, 24 February 2015 (UTC)


 * I absolutely give up. You don't want to listen to what anybody says.  You only seem to be interested in challenging the Manual of Style for no particular reason.  You haven't given even one example of something you disagree with or a particular circumstance for which you need guidance.  I tried to help you.  Again.  And again.  I was as clear as I could be given your totally abstract and unspecified question.  Please stop wasting people's time on non-existent problems, and stop tagging me when I've told you repeatedly that I have nothing else to add.  I am not lending support to a pointless crusade for a reason you're utterly incapable of articulating.  P Aculeius (talk) 01:51, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

I am not challenging the MOS at all. I am asking for clarification on a matter where the MOS appears to be unclear - actually, I do not believe that the MOS addresses the matters. That is ok but I am not certain if this is the case. Is it? I thought such a simple question might get a simple and direct answer. I have already provided a very specific example -, where 'free dropped' (a special terminology and signaling unusual usage) was changed to double quotes and similar edits have been made in other revisions for similar uses of single quotes. A clear answer might be, "no it doesn't cover these other cases" or "yes it does" or "it does cover these other cases (see ...) but not these ...". I am listening but all I can hear is that nobody has an answer. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:41, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
 * That particular edit does not reference the MOS, but I think it would have been better to italicize the term alongside a brief explanation of it (or if no definition is deemed necessary, I’d say no italics/quotes are either). If the MOS (or any other project page) covers the use of italics or quotation marks to introduce new terminology, I can’t find it. Anyway, the MOS does say, with rationale, that double quotation marks are preferred over single. So we could default to that when in doubt. But in cases where we don’t give guidance either way, then either way should be acceptable as long as it’s consistent throughout the article, similar to WP:ENGVAR. And we do have project pages discouraging editors from going around and changing whole articles from one style to another, so if anyone’s made a habit of doing that, it might be best to point that out. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 03:51, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

174.141.182.82, Thank you! An answer I can understand. That is not intended as facetiousness but genuine gratitude. Do you see any specific guidance for other uses such as: Irony, Use–mention distinction, Nicknames and false titles or Nonstandard usage? I think not either? No, the editor in question did not specifically reference the MOS in this instance but has suggested so previously (on another issue). Yes, this editor is in the habit of making such changes - even after pointing out that the MOS might specifically acknowledge a particular style (another issue). And yes, they did continue to do so even after it had been pointed out. I did note the rationale for preferring double quote marks over single, particularly: "Most browsers distinguish single and double quotation marks. (Searches for "must see" attractions may fail to find 'must see' attractions.)" It is not so much whether this statement is accurate (as written) but the relevance or significance of this eludes me. I perceive it like an unreferenced statement that begs explanation or context. How (or where) is this relevant? My observation, for what it is worth. Cinderella157 (talk) 04:36, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
 * On irony: MOS:QUOTEMARKS (but note that the guidance elsewhere discourages the use of irony). On words as words: WP:MOS (italics, not quotes). I believe we conventionally use double quotes for nicknames, such as William "Bill" Clinton, where quotes are called for, but prefer to avoid them if possible. And I honestly don’t think nonstandard usage would be acceptable, so there’s no need for guidance. Finally, regardless of the reason for use, nested quotation marks follow MOS:QUOTEMARKS: single within double.
 * If this editor ignores requests to stop needlessly converting whole articles from one style to another, it may be necessary to post to WP:AN/I.
 * On the browser limitation: Press ctrl-F (or command-F on Mac) and type in 'Most browsers with a single quote. Your search should fail to find your own quotation. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 05:54, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

This is only a consequence of using ' and not of a typed 'single' quote mark and then only if the single quote is included in the search. It sounds like a story to scare small children? But thank you nonetheless. Cinderella157 (talk) 07:02, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I think you’re confused. I was talking about searching the rendered page, not the wikitext, and ' renders as a simple apostrophe/single quote. If you search a page for a single quote along with some text, the search will fail to find any instances of a double quote with the same text, and vice versa. Searches for  do not match ", and searches for " do not match . —174.141.182.82 (talk) 21:33, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Was searching the rendered page and the search worked fine for all the single quotes on the page. I found all the other examples of 'most except for the 'Most browsers example. That too worked after changing ' for a typed 'single' quote mark. To be clear, I typed in 'most (including the single quote mark) as the search argument. Pretty certain I'm not confused at all. Cinderella157 (talk) 23:27, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
 * You’re being unclear. Are you saying that searching with a double quote also returns uses of a single quote? This does not happen at least in my browser, and I’m not aware of it being common behavior. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 23:34, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I am saying that if your search string has single quotes, it will return instances with single quotes and if your search string contains double quotes, it will return instances of double quote - all just as you would expect. However, a search string with single quotes may not find the occurrence if the single quote results from '. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:22, 27 February 2015 (UTC)


 * I agree with most of what P.A. and Anon174 say: Where the MoS is silent, follow general English rules for the variety of English in which the article is written. The style guides listed as sources on the MoS page itself would be a good place to look for them, but Purdue Owl Online is also very handy and reliable for U.S. English.  However&mdash;and these two things have been the subject of frequent contention here&mdash;English does have rules, lots of them.  Some of these rules have changed over time, but the MoS's target audience is Wikieditors who exist right now.  Right now, it is wrong to use Lewis Carrol's double apostrophes. As for whether or not the MoS is a set of rules or just a guideline, that's also contested. I'm saying this not because I think we need to hash it all out again but to establish for any newcomers that, "English doesn't really have rules" and "The MoS is just a guideline; it doesn't tell people do to things they don't want to do" are not universally held to be true either on Wikipedia or in general.
 * Cinderella seems to be talking about a non-hypothetical problem that actually happened., when you say someone reverted your changes claiming MoS support, exactly what was the text involved?  Exactly what did this person claim?  Did this happen more than once or in more than one way? Was it more than one person?  If this is a widespread problem, then putting the MoS's position where it's easier to see might be warranted. However, if someone is switching between two correct options on a whim, then that person should be directed to the line in the introduction: "Edit warring over optional styles is unacceptable." That might be a good last option before filing an AN/I against this person. Darkfrog24 (talk) 22:58, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Draft:Battle of Buna–Gona is a major rewrite about to go into the main-space. I am the first major contributor. The specific matter of edits from single to double quotes was addressed to this other editor at Draft talk:Battle of Buna–Gona. Rather than reverting the edits in question, I believe that the editor continued to make changes. I may have misspoken if I said the editor claimed MOS support for these particular edits but has made claims in other respects in a way that implied MOS support. This has been in respect to the use of abbreviations which I used IAW the MOS. They have since acknowledge (perhaps) that my writing was consistent with the MOS but continued (I believe) to edit them out (if they had not already all been edited out). Abbreviations were edited despite representations before and during the revisions made by this editor. The conversion template has been applied where previously, manual conversions had been made. The template has been applied in a way that implies an unreasonable degree of accuracy (significant figures) and contrary to the MOS in this respect. Many changes have been made on whole of document edits and will be difficult to disentangle from 'genuine' edits. So yes, I am peeved. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:16, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I suggest taking a look at WP:Dispute resolution before taking any further action. At the very least, make sure that User:Anotherclown is aware of this discussion. If further action is intended, it would be best to have a number of specific diffs you could point to rather than vague suspicions. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 02:29, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
 * First I heard about this conversation was now - although fairly pointless participating at this point. I really can't see how me copy-editing a draft has resulted in this but anyhow. No requirement for dispute resolution - I'm not remotely interested in discussing anything at any rate. Will simply steer clear of anything with User:Cinderella157's finger prints on it as that seems to be what they want. There are more important things in life than attempting to help someone that doesn't want it. Anotherclown (talk) 00:08, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

2001–02 South-West Indian Ocean cyclone season
Thoughts on that capitalization? It will be hitting the Main Page soon; see Today's featured article/March 20, 2015. - Dank (push to talk) 21:57, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

RfC: The MoS and the generic he
The conversation about the generic he and gender-neutral language that started on this talk page has progressed to two RfCs at the village pump. Further opinions are welcome. Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:35, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

RFC on commas before Jr. and Sr.
This RFC was mentioned and linked to in the discussions above... but I think it deserves to be highlighted a bit more clearly. Please see: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biographies. Blueboar (talk) 13:30, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Woops... it just was closed (prematurely?) Blueboar (talk) 17:02, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Comma before Jr. and Sr. in biographies
At the less-travelled subpage talkpage, Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biographies, the decision has been made to move Jr. and Sr. names so that no comma remains. Due to the large number of articles impacted and the small number of discussants, I am wondering if this was a proper consensus. I noticed this with 's move of Donald Trump Jr. and Tim Hardaway Jr., which are pages I created and continue to watch. Is there a way to reopen this up for broader discussion at a more widely-viewed venue?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:30, 24 February 2015 (UTC)


 * I won't wade into the technical question of whether an adequate consensus was reached, but I will say that a comma seems appropriate to separate the name from the suffix, which (in theory) is not really part of a person's name, but appended as a distinction in apposition to the name. Until the 20th century it seems to have been generally accepted that "junior" and "senior" were not names, but labels that could be used or discarded at the discretion of the speaker.  While in recent decades they've been treated as names for some purposes (with an ambiguous status as neither personal names nor surnames), their basic purpose is unchanged; and so in formal writing I think they should retain their adjectival features.  As appositional suffixes, they really need to be set off by commas both before and after.  Clearly punctuation is not trendy right now; I understand that many people would rather do without it.  But even if the Manual of Style were to deem it acceptable to omit commas in this instance, it shouldn't mandate doing so.  P Aculeius (talk) 05:29, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I have no dog in this hunt, I just move the articles when requested. However, and  may wish to comment.  Philg88 ♦talk 06:01, 25 February 2015 (UTC)


 * I agree that the MOS does not "mandate" changes. But it encourages and allows them, when they improve the encyclopedia.  If you read the discussion referenced, you may note that most wikipedia pages with "Jr." in them violate almost all guides by having commas before, but not after, the suffix.  Modern guides make it clear that if commas are used they should match, but that omitting commas is cleaner.  WP editors have agreed.  I have no objection if you want to reopen that discussion, here with a wider audience.  But if you do, please at least pick an example where sources agree with your preference (if you can find one).   Also note that the only change in the recent consensus was to eliminate the bit about maybe going with the subject's own preference; since such preferences are hard to know, and since the example Sammy Davis, Jr. was not supportable, it seemed silly.  Dicklyon (talk) 06:15, 25 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Actually, to be clear, the decision was never made to move pages. That's just something I've been doing to bring pages more into line with guidelines.  I've moved and edited a few hundred articles, with no pushback so far (but a few queries about why).  Dicklyon (talk) 06:19, 25 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Tony, I see you used matching commas. Unfortunately, many editors don't get that.  See this diff on Trump Jr.   But there were already several instances of missing commas after, and several more of no commas before, in the article at that time.  Don't you think it will be easier, nicer, more maintainable, and more modern looking to just go without offsetting the Jr.? Dicklyon (talk) 07:16, 25 February 2015 (UTC)


 * My practice has been to go with however the name is formatted in the article title, which mostly means using the preceding comma. However, it's clear that standard practice among editors is to omit the comma, and that feels better to me - it accords with the modern tendency to reduce punctuation usage, and the whole comma-both-before-and-after approach seems finicky and unenforceable because it's out of tune with actual practice. Also, omitting the comma fits better with the normal spoken pronunciation, which treats the suffix as part of the name, not as a tacked-on qualifier. I would support a project to remove the comma from article titles wholesale. The current situation - recommending one way whilst actually doing something different - is highly unsatisfactory. Colonies Chris (talk) 09:49, 25 February 2015 (UTC)


 * I pretty much agree with Dicklyon. Arguing with people about why they really need to include the commas after parenthetical phrases like years, states, and here personal suffixes, especially on wikipedia is an unholy combination of aggravating, tedious, and futile.  In this particular instance it is widely deemed acceptable by style guides to omit the commas, so I think we should encourage doing so wholeheartedly in the interest of avoiding aggravation, tedium, and futility.   AgnosticAphid  talk 18:05, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I raised a tangentially related question here, but that page doesn't seem too active and I would be interested to hear people's thoughts.  AgnosticAphid  talk 18:33, 25 February 2015 (UTC)


 * I found it at "John D. Rockefeller, Jr." to John D. Rockefeller Jr. The majority of the incoming links are to ", Jr." as are the ancillary articles such as John D. Rockefeller, Jr. Memorial Parkway and John D. Rockefeller, Jr. Library. See John D. Rockefeller, Jr. at the Encyclopedia Britannica and John D. Rockefeller, Jr. at the Rockefeller family archive for his canonical biography by his archive It appears that at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biographies seven people !voted on a major style change with a 5 to 2 split. 3 people decided this outcome. Now the comma is being removed en masse. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 21:03, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
 * If your only argument is that we should include the comma because a majority of sources use commas, I don't think that's a reason to keep the commas for all of the reasons explained in the earlier discussion ("the subject's style (or sources' styles) should not determine Wikipedia's style; besides which sources' styles are only reflecting their own style books, which who cares"). Nor is the fact that existing articles use commas a reason to keep them (just because they already exist doesn't mean there's a consensus for their inclusion or that they're stylistically appropriate).  And you haven't attempted to refute any of the practical concerns about keeping the commas including but not limited to whether a comma should always be used after the "jr", what to do about people who disagree on that last question, and also why it is a good use of everyone's time to constantly verify that the comma use of sources lines up with our comma use for each individual article subject.  AgnosticAphid  talk 21:24, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
 * My argument is to have more than 7 people, in a 5 to 2 split, decide on a style issue before massive changes are made. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 21:30, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, it's WP:NOTAVOTE and nobody can seem to come up with a compelling argument in favor of the use of commas, so I don't see what difference the number of participants makes, especially since there are many people participating here who didn't there.  AgnosticAphid  talk 21:32, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
 * What were the compelling reasons for no-comma? I don't see any at Manual_of_Style/Biographies, no rationale is given, no footnotes. We are arguing over aesthetics and style, I am not sure what arguments you can make. Wikipedia has its own style set by consensus. WP:NOTAVOTE has always been an Wikioxymoron. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 21:38, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I think if you read the discussion above, the comment I just made, and the discussion whose result you dismissed as illegitimate you will find many compelling reasons to omit the comma. Your comment suggests you might not have noticed those.   AgnosticAphid  talk 21:44, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Whilst I too am not fond of mass change like this, the reasons given are sound. Technically, when one uses a comma in this manner, one is required to use a following comma. That is to say, one would write "Richard Arthur Norton, Jr., appears to have been born in 1958". This is quite clunky, just as it is clunky to write "An agreement was made at Zagreb, Croatia, on January 25, 2015". When it is possible, it is wise to avoid having these kinds of commas, as they break-up the text for no good reason. Dropping the comma altogether eliminates the following comma, eliminating the problem of the broken-up text. RGloucester  — ☎ 21:49, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
 * What on Earth does a second comma that to do with titles of articles? And who says we must add the second comma, Wikipedia has its own style guide, all we have to do is write what we want in the style guide. The comma guide also conflicts with the rule that we use the most common name of the person. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 22:56, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
 * This is a matter of presentation (style), not of naming. Adding or removing the comma does not change the meaning, and hence has nothing to do with common naming. The name remains the same, regardless of whether there is a comma or not. The second comma is required by all style guides when using the "junior" with a comma, even those that recommend no commas at all. It is basic English usage, which is not something we can overwrite. RGloucester  — ☎ 23:16, 25 February 2015 (UTC)


 * This is much more than just a simple "style" issue. It involves how we present the names of actual people, and that means anything we choose can become very personal... we need to be sensitive to the fact that some people want a comma in their name, and others don't.  It is one of those emotional issues that can make people very upset if we get it "wrong".  I know my father would have insisted that his name be presented as Blueboar, Sr. ... ie with a comma. (Actually, in real life he was a "Jr."... but you get my point).  He cared very strongly about the fact that his name should be presented with a comma.  I am sure that there are people on the other side, who insist that their names don't have a comma before the Jr. or Sr.
 * In other words, this isn't something we should make any rule about... because no matter which style we choose, it will get personal... we are going to upset a lot of editors (Many of whom either do, or do not, use a comma in their real life names). Blueboar (talk) 23:58, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
 * It is too bad if a person is upset over whether one puts a comma in his name. Sadly, if other style guides are making this determination, there is no reason that we cannot do so. In the event that such an "exception" was restored, however, the following comma must be explicitly mandated. RGloucester  — ☎ 00:05, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Do I have the argument correct: The article titles were changed from "John Foo, Jr." to "John Foo Jr." because there is a style rule that if we use one comma we HAVE to use a second one, such as "John Foo, Jr.," IN THE TITLE of articles? Where does this rule come from? I don't see it in Encyclopedia Britannica in any article. Or do you mean it should be used in the lede such "John Foo, Jr., (1800-1900)" which IS in Encyclopedia Britannica: "John D. Rockefeller, Jr., in full John Davison Rockefeller, Jr.  (born January 29, 1874, Cleveland, Ohio, U.S.—died May 11, 1960, Tucson, Arizona)" and Every Jr. search here at EB. This rule concerns the lede and has nothing to do with the article title. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 00:55, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The argument primarily concerns the style of the prose, but the prose and article title must remain consistent. Including the comma in the title necessitates inclusion in the prose, therefore causing the choppy prose problem. RGloucester  — ☎ 00:59, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Agreed. The second comma concern is mostly about prose (although I can imagine descriptive titles that would need the second comma), but the prose has to match the article and editors don't often agree with the need for a second comma in prose regardless of what grammarians say.  That makes WP look unprofessional and dumb.  But there are other reasons to omit the comma that I already explained and you ignored, like for instance you say we should use the comma for your articles because of the use of a comma in sources, but it is very tedious and time consuming to determine comma use in reliable sources for each different article subject.  And we typically strive for consistency with our styling and don't defer to the wishes of individual article subjects.  The argument that we use the "wrong" name if we omit the comma or that we should defer to biographic experts is the same unpersuasive reasoning trotted out about other stylistic things plainly covered by the MOS regardless of the subject's wishes like capitalization and dash use. AgnosticAphid  talk 01:40, 26 February 2015 (UTC)


 * If a comma precedes Jr. or Sr. then one must also follow if the sentence continues. This wouldn't be necessary at the end of an article title (e.g., John D. Rockefeller, Jr.) but would be needed in prose (John D. Rockefeller, Jr., was an American financer and philanthropist) and in titles that do not end with the name (e.g., John D. Rockefeller, Jr., Memorial Parkway).  Style guides consistency say that the following comma is required if there is one before, although the trend is to omit the commas altogether in this case.
 * As I have set out previously:
 * —sroc &#x1F4AC; 06:12, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * —sroc &#x1F4AC; 06:12, 26 February 2015 (UTC)


 * I feel the need to reply to this example, suggesting that, "An agreement was made at Zagreb, Croatia, on January 25, 2015," is too clunky with commas, and should be amended to, "An agreement was made at Zagreb Croatia on January 25 2015" which I strongly feel would need to be amended by adding punctuation in at least some of the appropriate locations which would in my opinion necessitate putting them in all of the aforesaid locations simply because cutting the amount of punctuation in half fails to make the offending clause more readable or more understandable but instead draws the readers attention to the punctuation lack thereof or need for as the case may be which is far more clunky than simply using appropriate punctuation in the first place would have been or in the alternative perhaps rephrasing the text in order to avoid too many awkward pauses although I am willing to consider an exception with respect to the comma following Croatia which does not seem to be a particularly important pause in this sentence where we would naturally have paused following Zagreb and January 25 at least if we use proper and predictable punctuation we dont risk confusing the reader or drawing unwanted attention to the punctuation itself which I fear we do if we begin arbitrarily omitting it in places where most properly trained English writers and I daresay the majority of readers expect although I can see no objection whatever if a clause is simply reworded in order to make it less awkward than one in which the writer has picked and chosen which commas and other punctuation marks to include and which to omit with no particular guide except his or her own sensibility as much as we rely upon it in writing that judgment is no substitute for regular and predictable rules and some sort of specific policy would seem to be required if we begin axing punctuation in particular instances and not in others P Aculeius (talk) 13:44, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * You misinterpreted me. I never said we should write "Zagreb Croatia" anywhere, which is not something that anyone accepts, merely that avoidable commas should be avoided if possible. As an example, I would tend to write: "An agreement was made at Zagreb on 25 January 2015". DMY dates allow us to scotch one comma, and omitting "Croatia" is acceptable if a wikilink is provided, scotching another. Likewise, in the case of the "junior/senior" business, omitting the comma is considered acceptable, and even recommended by many style guides. If we can solve the choppy prose problem, there is no reason not to. RGloucester  — ☎ 14:52, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Article titles is not something if the remit the MOS but comes under WP:AT and disambiguation. Using a comma makes it easier to disambiguate the page, because of the same trick as using round brackets and the pipe symbol. The same thing applies to "the younger" and in English public schools "minor". In principle I agree with Blueboar this is just more instruction creep. As to "the 'junior' with a comma" who but an American would use "junior" and so care about it? -- PBS (talk) 19:50, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * My sources say that American men with a "junior" or a numeral after their name make up about 3% of the population. This has been static for a long time. But they seem to be a greater proportion of some biographies. For example, four of the Mercury Seven astronauts were "Junior" Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:23, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * PBS, you are wrong. "The guidance contained elsewhere in the MoS, particularly § Punctuation (below) applies to all parts of an article, including the title."  Let's not rehash old debates that have already been settled.   AgnosticAphid  talk 21:44, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * AgnosticAphid, that is a unilateral comment in the MOS. There have been several debates on the AT talk page about this there is no consensus over the issue. -- PBS (talk) 08:18, 27 February 2015 (UTC)


 * The National Park Service manages the John D. Rockefeller, Jr. Memorial Parkway, and they use the comma before Jr. in their literature as shown here. That article has been moved to no comma to comply with MOS, but again, they are the overseers and managers and they use a comma. Would we also change our articles about books such as this one to have no comma to comply with MOS or keep the title of our article in such a case as the book is titled?--MONGO 06:48, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
 * It is indeed a bit odd that the NPS uses the mismatched comma style that all English grammar guides say is wrong, but that almost all other sources choose between the no-comma and two-comma versions. Actually, some of those with the two commas are also NPS docs.  But if the guide books written for the public can go with no-comma style, I think WP can, too.  Dicklyon (talk) 06:57, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Something to consider, whether we go with "include a comma" or "don't include a comma"... I think we will need a living persons exception clause to deal with situations when the subject himself either does or does not use a comma. Are we really going to tell a living person that he is styling his own name incorrectly? Blueboar (talk) 21:06, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Are we going to write to people individually to tell them they have their name wrong? No.  Do we have the right to decide whether or not to include commas as a matter of style, as do other reputable style guides?  Of course we do.  No exception is needed for living people and it is entirely unnecessary to consult each subject's preferences for the reasons already discussed.  —sroc &#x1F4AC; 15:01, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't think we need to get permission... but if the subject has expressed a preference, we should have the sensitivity and common decency to honor that preference. we are talking about actual people's names here... that is a very personal thing. Blueboar (talk) 18:53, 5 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment. Both comma and comma-less constructions are acceptable, both among style guides and in the real world of published sources. There's no reason we need to proscribe this one. As long as we're consistent within an article, we shouldn't be forced to choose one or the other. Dohn joe (talk) 17:28, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Maybe this would help as these come from the style guides that Wikipedia has used to form its own style guide:
 * Strunk and White The Elements of Style (2000) states that you do not place a comma before Jr. because the abbreviation is restrictive in itself (p. 3).
 * The AP Stylebook (2013) states that you do not place a comma before the abbreviation Jr. (p. 146).
 * Turabian (8th edition) states that you do not use a comma before Jr. because it is only used after a full name (24.2.1 Names and Titles--Personal Names, p. 333).
 * The MLA Handbook for Writers of Research Papers (7th edition) states that you place a comma before Jr. in citations as the abbreviation is essential (5.5 Citing Nonperiodical Print Publications--5.5.2 A Book by a Single Author, p. 151). In text, whether you use a comma depends on whether sources use it (3.4 Names of Persons--3.4.1 First and Subsequent Uses of Names, pp. 79-80).
 * The Publication Manual of the APA (6th edition) states that you use a space instead of a comma (2.02 Author's Name (Byline) and Institutional Affiliation, p. 24) SciGal (talk) 21:40, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

There is a new RfC at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biographies. DrKiernan (talk) 07:34, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Forum Shopping? Suggest that this new RFC become the centralized discussion on the issue.  Unfortunately, starting a new RFC may mean that some of what has been said here in this discussion will have to be repeated at the RFC. Blueboar (talk) 13:34, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Having been accused of forum shopping, I won't be contributing to this discussion any further on any page. DrKiernan (talk) 13:58, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * It was meant as a question, not an accusation. My apologies if that was not clear.  I actually think a full RFC is a good idea (as it will gain a wider audience, and give us one centralized discussion instead of multiple discussions on multiple pages).  Blueboar (talk) 17:08, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Lowercase acronyms / uppercase initialisms
As a Britton, this is my standard usage, and I like it. It makes sense to have acronyms written as lowercase, and initialisms as uppercase. It grants more information to the reader, and looks better typographically. As an example, one uses Isil, Isis, Ukip, Nato, but UN, NSA, USSR, &c. I would propose that this common and standard usage should not be proscribed. In fact, I'd recommend that it be recommended, but I know that won't gain consensus. Is there any reason why we should not be able to write "Isis" or "Syriza", rather than "ISIS" or "SYRIZA"? See the style manual of The Guardian. RGloucester — ☎ 22:03, 27 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Is this exclusively a British convention? I am not aware of this being adopted elsewhere.  I would advise against it because readers in the rest of the world would not expect this convention to be used and thus may not recognise such terms as being acronyms.  It would also create unnecessary complications for piping links to Isis vs Isis, for example.  —sroc &#x1F4AC; 00:56, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
 * BTW, I didn't know what SYRIZA was, but I would have assumed Syriza was a typo. —sroc &#x1F4AC; 00:58, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Syriza is an acronym. For some unknown reason, however, even American sources that usually capitalise acronyms do not usually capitalise Syriza. I know that this scheme is also used in Ireland. I don't know what goes on in the Commonwealth, but I'm fairly certain that they maintain universal capitalisation for acronyms. Users in the rest of the world don't expect lorries or treacle either, but we're still allowed to use them in line with ENGVAR. Likewise with DMY dates, and other various conventions. In cases where no such disambiguation problem exists, however, I'd ask that we should be allowed to write Nato or Isil, just as most British sources do. This is standard practice in a significant English-speaking country. It should not be proscribed, anymore than we should proscribe the short form of the title mister sans full stop. RGloucester  — ☎ 01:08, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I have a question. What about AARP?  They changed their name from an initialism to an acronym a few years ago, but I've never ever ever seen the name written "Aarp."  In fact, my iPad thinks I spelled it wrong.  It would be so strange to recommend that the name be written that way, and I would imagine there are similar acronyms that readers would not expect to encounter uncapitalized.  Maybe it would make more sense to allow but not recommend this practice?   AgnosticAphid  talk 17:16, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
 * That's all I was asking. I was not asking for it to be recommended, merely for it to be allowed per WP:ENGVAR. As far as AARP is concerned, that would never be written Aaarp in British usage, as it is always pronounced "A. A.R.P.", never as "aarp", which is essentially unpronounceable. The determination is based on pronunciation. If one pronounces the individual letters, i.e. "U. S. A.", then one writes it in capital letters (USA). If one pronounces it as if it were a word, i.e. "Isis", then one users lowercase. RGloucester  — ☎ 17:54, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
 * actually, it is pronounced as a word now, they run commercials all the time ("if you think being old is about being lame and boring, then you don't know AARP!"), it's just always spelled with capital letters and your proposal said you wanted to recommended that using lowercase was recommended. I do share sroc's concern about people not recognizing that it's an abbreviation, as well.   AgnosticAphid  talk 18:20, 28 February 2015 (UTC)  I misunderstood your proposal, I'm sorry.  But it's true that if we always use capital letters people will always know it's an abbreviation.  AgnosticAphid  talk 18:24, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Please provide a source video or something where "AARP" is pronounced as "aarp". I've never heard of something so absurd. It is read as "A A R P". It is not read "aarp". This is confirmed by Wiktionary. RGloucester  — ☎ 18:58, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Your tone leaves something to be desired and you could easily look into this yourself. You also never addressed the substance of the concerns raised.  But here's an op-Ed from the wapo:  http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A17170-2003Sep2.html  AgnosticAphid  talk 19:44, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
 * That's not a good source, and is contested by not just Wiktionary, but also the Oxford Dictionary and the MacMillan Dictionary. Please provide a source where "AARP" is pronounced as "aarp" by an actual person. RS state it is pronounced "A A R P". What "substance"? As I said above, people may not recognise lories, treacle, electric torches, carriages, or wagons, but we're still allowed to use them in line with WP:ENGVAR. RGloucester  — ☎ 20:48, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Aside: AARP's very recent TV ad pronounces it both ways. Personally, I feel this is new for them, but I can't prove it. Jeh (talk) 23:08, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I'd say this is a bit tiresome. Exactly what is so bad about about the Washington Post?  And besides, there are tons of examples of other acronyms in that article that are always capitalized.  It would be unprofessional or sloppy to allow editors to write articles about Flpma and Ferc and I don't think it's advisable to base our style on pronunciation as this debate about AARP illustrates.   AgnosticAphid  talk 21:34, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Er, it is an op-ed, and apparently some kind of satire. What it says is directly contradicted by reputable dictionaries. In American usage, acronyms are always capitalised. I'm not talking about American usage. I'm talking about British usage, whereby we don't usually capitalise acronyms. It is neither unprofessional nor sloppy. It is the standard style of the BBC, The Guardian, the Financial Times, &c. RGloucester  — ☎ 21:38, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is a worldwide encyclopedia, so if we allow people to write acronyms in lowercase then we will end up with articles about non-british things like Flpma and Ferc that are just not ordinarily encountered uncapitalized. If we are going to read an ENGVAR rule into your proposal, so that non-british things always have to be capitalized but british things are optionally lowercase if they're acronyms and not initialisms, then we have to fight about whether or not Nato is encompassed within the rule or not and if so why.  Besides which, arguing on Wikipedia is frustrating for everyone, and with the current rule we don't have to have conflicts about whose reliable sources outweigh whose about pronunciation and we also don't have to constantly reevaluate capitalization depending on how reliable sources pronounce things.   AgnosticAphid  talk 21:50, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

I would make the following observations. Acronyms, as opposed to initialisms may be capitalised in varying ways, either all capitals, initial capitals and in some cases, when the word has passed into common usage, no capitals (eg scuba). There is no hard and fast rule, certainly not globally. The convention cited by RGloucester, while it is a recognised convention, I would be surprised if it was followed with sufficient consistency to be considered a 'national' variation. There is also no clear distinction between acronyms and initialisms since some unlikely initialisms become acronymised. I would suggest the following guidance. If there exists an article about the acronym (ie NATO), then ideally, referring to NATO should use the same style that has been used within the main article. If no article exists for the subject acronym, then capitalisation should be resolved by considering constant consistent usage in source material (unfortunately, this may well become a matter of contention). There is no issue with the use of initial capitals only as a style, since the acronym or initialism should be made explicit at first usage and this style is acknowledged by Manual of Style/Capital letters.

Incidentally, The MOS, at Periods (full stops) and spaces does not distinguish an initialism from an acronym but refers to both as acronyms - perhaps a matter deserving attention or perhaps not.

Too much is said to be implied of the MOS when the MOS is actually silent on a subject. Too much is asserted or assumed about the universality of English conventions when conventions might vary regionally, nationally or even, within a nation. I see that too much contention exists because of perceptions (and misperceptions) as they relate to varying conventions of usage. Different 'parties' will argue that the MOS carries more or less weight on a particular subject than it actually does. Manual of Style/Abbreviations identifies that there are varying forms of capitalisation for acronyms but gives no advice on determining correct capitalisation. Manual of Style/Abbreviations lists some acronyms and this may be taken as a statement of style for these. Manual of Style/Capital letters states: "Many acronyms are written in all capitals, such as NATO, BBC, JPEG. However, some acronyms have gained common usage as ordinary, lowercase words; for example, we write scuba and laser." It ignores the case of acronyms with initial capitals and may be misconstrued as a statement of style. This inconsistency should be remedied.

I see some value in providing some guidance on how to capitalise acronyms mainly because the subject is left hanging and a matter of conjecture. Perhaps such guidance might be something similar to the observations I have made. I would suggest it be added at Manual of Style/Abbreviations. Such guidance need not clutter the main text. Such advice or clarification may well best be added as an annotation. Would this be instructional creep? I think not. If anything, it more clearly defines the scope of the MOS on this matter and thereby limits 'creep'. I think such disambiguating statements are potentially of great value, since they clarify perceptions and misperceptions about the universallity or otherwise of conventions of English. Cinderella157 (talk) 23:28, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I support your drive for clarity. I specifically take issue with the statement "Many acronyms are written in all capitals, such as NATO, BBC..." This is very problematic. "BBC" is not an acronym, but an initialism. "NATO" is usually written "Nato" in British usage. I do not think that the present text intends to be a statement of style, but as it stands, it is both incorrect and misleading. We must remedy this. At the very least, the distinction between initialisms and acronyms should be made clear, regardless of whether we prescribe a certain style. RGloucester  — ☎ 23:41, 28 February 2015 (UTC)


 * I also support the drive for clarity. Note, however, that the distinction between acronym and initialism is not so clear—see : "Although the word acronym is widely used to refer to any abbreviation formed from initial letters, in contradistinction to an initialism (or alphabetism)—a word or abbreviation formed from a string of initials—whereas some others include additional senses equating acronym with initialism. The distinction, when made, hinges on whether the abbreviation is pronounced as a word or as a string of individual letters. Examples in reference works that make the distinction include NATO, scuba, and radar for acronyms, and FBI , CRT , and HTML  for initialisms."  I omitted the footnotes here, but they provide telling reading in the article.  —sroc &#x1F4AC; 04:52, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The distinction is held to in reputable sources, such as The Guardian style guide above, and is near universal in British usage. It is very clear. Here is the Columbia Journalism Review. Interestingly, this shines a bit of light on our AARP problem. It says that AARP is a hybrid, as the organisation "sometimes calls itself “aay-aay-are-pee,” and it sometimes calls itself "arp". Either way, the errors in the MoS must be corrected. RGloucester  — ☎ 05:16, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
 * it's not really an "error" if the acronyms article specifically chose to use "acronym" to refer to both initialisms and acronyms because dictionaries and style guides disagree about whether there's a distinction to be made.  AgnosticAphid  talk 06:05, 1 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Quite so. To quote from the footnotes:
 * Merriam-Webster, Inc. Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of English Usage, 1994. ISBN 0-87779-132-5. pp. 21–22:"acronyms A number of commentators (as Copperud 1970, Janis 1984, Howard 1984) believe that acronyms can be differentiated from other abbreviations in being pronounceable as words. Dictionaries, however, do not make this distinction because writers in general do not"
 * The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Current English (1991), Oxford University Press. p. 12: "acronym: a word, usu[ally] pronounced as such, formed from the initial letters of other words (e.g. Ernie, laser, Nato)"
 * "Cambridge Dictionary of American English": "acronym: a word created from the first letters of each word in a series of words."
 * Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary: "acronym: a word (as NATO, radar, or laser) formed from the initial letter or letters of each of the successive parts or major parts of a compound term; also: an abbreviation (as FBI) formed from initial letters: see initialism"
 * Crystal, David (1995). "Abbreviation". The Cambridge Encyclopedia of the English Language, Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0-521-55985-5. p. 120: Under the heading "Types of Abbreviation", this article separately lists initialisms and acronyms, describing the latter as "Initialisms pronounced as single words", but adds, "However, some linguists do not recognize a sharp distinction between acronyms and initialisms, but use the former term for both."
 * Webster's New Universal Unabridged Dictionary (2003), Barnes & Noble. ISBN 0-7607-4975-2: "acronym. 1. a word created from the first letter or letters of each word in a series of words or a phrase. 2. a set of initials representing a name, organization, or the like, with each letter pronounced separately, as FBI for Federal Bureau of Investigation."
 * American Heritage Dictionary (2014), 5th edition: "Usage Note: ... Acronyms are often distinguished from initialisms like FBI and NIH, whose individual letters are pronounced as separate syllables. While observing this distinction has some virtue in precision, it may be lost on many people, for whom the term acronym refers to both kinds of abbreviations."
 * The distinction between acronym and initialism, if there is one, is so subtle that it must be made explicitly clear in MOS if they are to be treated differently. —sroc &#x1F4AC; 06:08, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
 * No one disagrees that the distinction exists. The distinction does exist, merely that it is sometimes ignored in common usage. There are multiple errors. First of all, American usage is taken as the be-all-end-all, i.e. "Many acronyms are written in all capitals, such as NATO". This is not correct. NATO is often not written in all capitals, as is standard in British usage. BBC is not considered an acronym. Note that the British dictionaries provided by Sroc all note the distinction, as in the Concise Oxford. Regardless, I would suggest the following: first of all, we need to have one place for our acronyms guidance. As it stands, it is scattered across three different guides, making it very hard to follow the guidance provided. It should all be centralised in the abbreviations page. Secondly, we need to at least acknowledge the standard British usage in the MoS. RGloucester  — ☎ 06:13, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

The Macquarie Dictionary (1st ed) list 'acronym' as being only the pronounced definition (ie is exclusive of initialisms). As the word is not universally understood and can have varying meanings, I would suggest that it should be defined in the text as including initialisms, if that is what is intended. The definition should also acknowledge the more general meaning, so as not to falsely imply that 'acronym' universally includes initialisms. I note the the lead of MOS:Caps was edited to replace "acronyms and initialisms" with just "acronyms"? It is frequently a false premise to assume universality in a global context. I don't think that it should necessarily be acknowledged as specifically British, but certainly, it should be acknowledged and guidance given in determining the appropriate style. Cinderella157 (talk) 06:31, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
 * It isn't exclusively British, that's just the context I come from. I know it is also the standard Irish usage. As I said above, I'm not familiar with Commonwealth usage, though if Macquarie says what it says, I imagine Australian English holds to the distinction as well. RGloucester  — ☎ 06:34, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I can tell you, from an Australian context, acronyms are universally in all caps (e.g., always "NATO", never "Nato"). Guardian Australia has adopted the British convention (e.g., "Nato"), but as a native Australian English speaker, it is quite jarring to read and adjust to.  —sroc &#x1F4AC; 13:54, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I will qualify that by saying that Anzac and Anzac Day are sometimes accepted with only an initial capital. —sroc &#x1F4AC; 13:58, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

An ngram shows that uses of "NATO" far outweigh "Nato" (by a ratio of 71:1 in 2008), even when restricted to British English (55:1). —sroc &#x1F4AC; 14:08, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Ngrams is limited to 2008 (ages ago, in style terms), and simply isn't an appropriate way to judge this matter, as it looks only at books and not at common usage in general. The fact remains that this usage is common. I have no need to show you a list of all the sources that follow the convention, as a quick Google search will reveal it. It is followed by the BBC, The Guardian, the Financial Times, The Independent...&c. These are high-quality sources, are they not? Once again, one must make clear that we write Nato and Isis. RGloucester  — ☎ 14:22, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I fail to see any benefit whatsoever in suggesting that it might be appropriate for editors to use lowercase for acronyms but not initialisms. We will have to explain what the difference is when that's not really necessary and not widely understood, I don't see how it would be anything other than trying to determine our capitalization by reference to pronunciation (both because pronunciation changes and also because people disagree about pronunciation), and if we have to make up an additional rule that says "go ahead and use lowercase if it's an acronym about something frequently discussed in the UK but please don't do that for American acronyms because people will think it's awfully strange!" then it seems especially unwieldy and argument-prone.  I think these points have been made repeatedly but you never really responded to them.   AgnosticAphid  talk 17:50, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Again, I'm not suggesting that we should endorse lowercase acronyms. What I am suggesting is that the present guide reads from an American perspective, and feels both confusing and incorrect from the perspective of a Briton. The division between initialism and acronym is widely understood in Britain, where it is standard, as are lowercase acronyms. You are seeming to say that this style of usage will be confusing for Americans. The present version is confusing for Britons. This must be remedied. The distinctions must be made clear, even if we mandate capitalised acronyms. I agree with Cinderella157 below. RGloucester  — ☎ 22:54, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

@ AgnosticAphid and others. I have not suggested that RGloucester 's proposal be adopted but it has identified a number of inconsistencies. Firstly, it cannot be claimed that 'acronym' is universally understood to include initialisms. This is already confusing and needs to be remedied at the point of use. WP documentation already acknowledges the use of inital capitalisation for acronyms. However, there are inconsistencies which suggest that acronyms are only ever capitalised fully. These should be reconciled. I had also suggested it might be appropriate to provide guidance on how to capitalise an acronym (as per previous suggestion or similar). Cinderella157 (talk) 21:42, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
 * At the risk of reigniting a fire, compare, , . LeadSongDog come howl!  17:52, 5 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Now that the issue has been adequately demonstrated, how shall we go about resolving it? I'd recommend that we transfer all acronym/initialism-related guidance to one spot, preferably the abbreviations sub-page of the MoS. This will make it clearer, and easier to access and understand. I also recommend that we describe the difference between acronyms and initialisms, even if we do not acknowledge it in terms of capitalisation. RGloucester  — ☎ 18:07, 5 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I don't know if all of the information can be 'combined' in one spot but certainly, ambiguities need to be clarified and reconciled across the pages and perhaps the guidance, as suggested, be made on the abbreviations sub page. Cinderella157 (talk) 04:05, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Future tense
I can’t find anything about this in the MOS, but is there any consensus around the use of future tense in articles? For instance, So-and-so will do such-and-such as opposed to So-and-so announced that he would do such-and-such. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 04:16, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Use common sense, and follow Wikipedia policies, such as WP:CRYSTAL. Don't predict the future, or assume something will happen. RGloucester  — ☎ 05:41, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
 * That was my thinking as well, but unless I missed it, WP:CRYSTAL says nothing about terminology. I’d assume that even if sources state that such-and-such will happen, it’s unacceptable for us to state the same as a not-yet-fact. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 07:27, 7 March 2015 (UTC)


 * As RGloucester says, use common sense. Next Italian general election says "The next Italian general election will be held in or before 2018. Under the current Constitution, voters will elect 630 members of the Chamber of Deputies..."; that seems fine because it would take a historic event (a coup, change to the constitution, etc) to invalidate. On the other hand, "Jane Smith announced that she would name her child Sarah if she and her husband became pregnant" seems preferable to "Jane Smith will name her next child Sarah [...]", since she could simply change her mind, and saying "Smith will name her child Sarah" implies a frankly jarring certainty on our part that she won't change her mind. WP:CRYSTAL point 1, basically. -sche (talk) 09:10, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
 * WP:V comes into play too. It is verifiable that X was announced, but it is not verifiable that X will happen. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  16:37, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Next Italian general election inherently risks WP:CRYSTAL but it could still easily be rephrased, e.g. "The next Italian general election will is due to be held in or before 2018. Under the current Constitution, voters will would elect 630 members of the Chamber of Deputies and 315 members of the Senate of the Republic for the 18th Parliament of Italy . Several , but several major parties have committed to constitutional changes which would replace the Senate with a smaller, indirectly elected body." NebY (talk) 16:57, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Guidance on section length?
Is there any formal guidance that essentially says "You should not create a section for every sentence" ? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  16:35, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
 * WP:COMMONSENSE? Blueboar (talk) 16:49, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
 * TRPoD, are people doing that? If this is a widespread problem then it might be worth adding an explicit rule even though, yes, WP:COMMONSENSE. Darkfrog24 (talk) 15:39, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Use of archaic language "to give readers pause"
This talk discussion related to the use of the term "intestine" here to mean "inner" or "internal" will clearly be unfamiliar to almost every reader, since it dates back to the 18th century (and "more recently" in one instance). A comment on the talk page says: "The reason for the use here is rhetorical, to bring the reader to pause and reflect on the essential inaccessibility to direct observation of the mechanisms of atomic and subatomic processes." Since the first cited use predates the entire field (quantum mechanics) by more than a century, and the second use is by a writer about science rather than a scientist, this seems to me like an editor taking extreme oratory liberties. The concerned may feel that a literary allusion that will escape (and quite frankly, confuse) essentially 100% of the readership, without even the courtesy if an explanatory footnote, is reasonable and is clearly unaware of "some reason why Wikipedia should avoid such scientific literary allusion or such oddity". Perhaps we need something in the MoS to limit "colourful or slightly eccentric or obsolete" language in our articles? Perhaps there is already something of this ilk in the MoS? —Quondum 03:12, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * It reads as a typo, and for that reason alone should be rewritten to avoid "corrections". That it is an extremely uncommon usage of the word, and Wikipedia's target audience is a non-specialist one, is even more reason to avoid it. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 03:27, 10 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Just a tiny "correction". In the just above comment, it is said that the user of the word is "a writer about science rather than a scientist". Clifford Truesdell was a respected authority on mathematical physics. I think that makes him a scientist. Scientists are allowed to write about science. The word is an ordinary word of the English language. According to the Oxford English Dictionary, it has been used in a context of ultramicroscopic physics since at least 1664. True, it is not often used, but its 1980 use by Truesdell is fine. Most readers would be able to work out its meaning here. Those who can't may have other difficulties in reading about quantum mechanics. The meaning is not just 'internal'. Also the idea is that the workings are in some sense inscrutable. If 'internal' conveyed the full meaning, why would Lavoisier, Laplace, and Truesdell bother with the less common word? They are echoing a usage with just this sense that has a long history in this context. It is not a specialist word, in the sense that it has a range of closely related meanings in other contexts, as reported by the OED, so "non-specialists" are not at a disadvantage.


 * Dare I say that I think Wikipedia should not assume that its readers have only minimal language competence. Even readers of articles about the interpretation of quantum mechanics.Chjoaygame (talk) 07:34, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The word is an ordinary word of the English language.: Its usage in this case is most decidedly not, and your assertion otherwise is suspect—it is a fringe usage that even most educated native English speakers will not be familiar with. Furthermore it will come across as a typo for "internal", thus inviting "correction".  If "internal" does not convey the required meaning, then find a more appropriate wording that will. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 07:48, 10 March 2015 (UTC)


 * The choice of word obfuscates rather than illuminates. Cinderella157 (talk) 11:11, 10 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I did not come to the MoS talk page to deal with a single instance. I see two editors engaged in changing several articles in their respective interest areas to a peculiar style of their choosing, and I want a general principle to be able to stop such behaviour, which to me is against WP:COMMONSENSE. In this instance it appears to be a liking for, firstly, archaic terminology, and secondly, the use of the self-reference-through-style-of-exposition that can be found in Douglas Hofstadter's Godel, Escher, Bach, in the dialogues (but not the main text), where the actual construction of the passage is meant to be a reference to the subject matter.  The other editor that I'm concerned about seems to want to change the terminology of mathematics to the first traceable use as the "true meaning" (now no longer in general use), ignoring the modern use of the terms. Both these, IMO, degrade the value and accessibility of WP in no small way, and simply violate the clear, formal but accessible style that we strive to achieve. Please discuss this at a higher level than the specific edit than I used here as an example. —Quondum 14:37, 10 March 2015 (UTC).


 * The second paragraph of our Manual of Style reads:
 * That and common sense makes it clear to me that we should not use such words. At best, "intestine" in this usage would make me think about the interesting use of language at the expense of thinking about the topic. More likely, I'd think it was an error. SchreiberBike | ⌨  15:37, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * That and common sense makes it clear to me that we should not use such words. At best, "intestine" in this usage would make me think about the interesting use of language at the expense of thinking about the topic. More likely, I'd think it was an error. SchreiberBike | ⌨  15:37, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

This isn't really an MOS issue. It's a simple dispute over what word to use in one specific sentence of one specific article. If agreement (consensus) can not be reached between the few brothers arguing over this, call in some neutral third parties (per Third opinion) by filing an RFC. Sometimes using an archaic word is best... but most of the time using an archaic word is not best. No comment (here) on whether using one is best in this specific instance. That's what talk pages are for. I will comment there. Blueboar (talk) 16:10, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * This is less WP:COMMONSENSE and more WP:TONE. This is an issue of tone.  I agree with Schreiber and Curly that this word is likely to get "corrected" by a well-meaning editor, and the correction is likely to be an improvement. Darkfrog24 (talk) 19:57, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Cue tip size
I've asked a question about the conversion of measurements of cue tip sizes at talk:Cue stick. I'm soliciting wider input as that was the first edit to the page since 2012 and it doesn't appear widely watched. Please comment there to avoid duplication. Thanks, Thryduulf (talk) 19:34, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Not knowing the details, I would accept that statement to mean you should not use the disp=flip option on convert. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:42, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Archaic spellings
Does MOS cover things like encyclopaedia/encyclopedia or mediaeval/medieval (where not a formal title or quote) anywhere? I thought it did. --Dweller (talk) 11:48, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
 * That's partly an ENGVAR thing. The use of the "ae" ligature is commonly retained in British English and is not considered archaic, while it is largely absent in American English, akin to the color/colour spelling differences. If you see it in an article, it's actually one way to tell which ENGVAR is in use, and should not be changed per WP:RETAIN. oknazevad (talk) 11:56, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm British and studied medieval history. It's not spelled mediaeval any more over here, unless by someone who is positively mediaeval. --Dweller (talk) 12:07, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

UK news source The BBC, says "medieval", UK newspaper The Guardian's style guide says "medieval". --Dweller (talk) 12:23, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
 * See MOS:SPELLING and MOS:LIGATURE.
 * —Wavelength (talk) 18:52, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
 * "Encylopaedia" is not "mediaeval". These are still standard spellings in British usage, just as "foetal" has not been replaced by "fetal". In fact, my autocorrect considers the spelling "encylopedia" an error. I've never written "encylopedia". RGloucester  — ☎ 19:29, 12 March 2015 (UTC)


 * The MOS proscribes ligatures like "encyclopædia", since these are indeed archaic. Non-ligatured forms like "encyclopaedia" (which one user erroneously calls ligatures above), on the other hand, are not archaic at all; they're still common in British English and acceptable per WP:ENGVAR. (And although you don't seem to be asking about them, other archaic spellings like "shew" for "show" are proscribed by MOS:SPELLING, as Wavelength has noted. That section and MOS:QUOTE also reinforce the proscription of ligatures.) -sche (talk) 19:41, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks chaps. I'm looking for guidance mostly on the word "mediaeval", which as I've demonstrated in the links I've brought, is no longer a mainstream spelling in BrEng. --Dweller (talk) 21:54, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The entry for "medieval" in Fowler's says "The recommended spelling, not mediaeval". Formerip (talk) 23:41, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
 * That's fairly longstanding; the second edition of Fowler's (ed Ernest Gowers, 1965) has "The shorter spelling is recommended". NebY (talk) 09:09, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Which adds weight to it being archaic. --Dweller (talk) 09:47, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, somewhat antiquated old-fashioned. It's not quite in the same category as "shew" or "compleat". NebY (talk) 10:47, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Spellings don't pass from being mainstream to being archaic in a single lifetime. The labels in dictionaries vary, but a typical sequence would be no label for mainstream, "obsolete" for a bit old-fashioned, and "archaic" for spellings that are so old most modern readers will have trouble figuring out what it means. It is not the job of Wikipedia editors to decide if a spelling is archaic; that's what dictionaries are for. Jc3s5h (talk) 23:21, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I think you have the latter two backwards. "Obsolete" is a stronger word than "archaic", in this context.  In general popular English, "archaic" has become a very strong word indeed, but not so much when you're talking about words. --Trovatore (talk) 20:56, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
 * That's why I'm providing reliable sources. As is User:FormerIP. --Dweller (talk) 08:44, 13 March 2015 (UTC)


 * See wikt:Category:English archaic terms and wikt:Category:English terms with archaic senses.
 * —Wavelength (talk) 23:35, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Punctuation inside or out: explanation and example not in agreement
CurrentText:

Where a quoted sentence is followed by a clause identifying the speaker, a comma outside the quotation should be used in place of a full stop inside, but other terminal punctuation may be retained. Again, a question should end with a question mark.

Dory said: "Yes, I can read", which gave Marlin an idea.

Dory said: "Yes, I can read!", which gave Marlin an idea.

...

There is no following clause identifying the speaker in either example. My guess is that "identifying the speaker" should be removed, but I haven't been following this. Modal Jig (talk) 20:26, 13 March 2015 (UTC)


 * The quoted sentence is not followed by a clause identifying the speaker but preceded by one. That might be what needs to be fixed. "Accompanied by," perhaps.  In American English, the comma would go inside the Q marks in the first instance and be absent in the second, so we should consult British sources to address this.  Darkfrog24 (talk) 13:16, 15 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Someone had edited the text so that the wrong examples were next to the wrong explanations. I've switched it back. Formerip (talk) 13:25, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Appropriate Usage of "i.e." and "e.g." on Wikipedia
I have a few questions regarding the usage of "i.e" and "e.g." on Wikipedia. The MoS only briefly mentions it MoS § 5.3, but there isn't a clear elaboration on whether a comma should follow after either, and under which circumstances should a comma rightly follow. Manuals of style differ significantly on this issue, with some claiming that it should be used after "e.g." but not after "i.e.", since the latter typically addresses a singular entity whereas the former often lists a number of examples. Others simply state to place a comma after both, just as one would do so with the English translations of each abbreviation ("for example" and "that is", respectively). What is Wikipedia's stance on this? Should a comma always follow, or should it only follow if more than one entity is listed, or should it never follow, or only follow for one and not another (and only under certain circumstances)? What about when using these abbreviations to start a sentence? I've seen inconsistent usage throughout numerous Wikipedia articles, including ones which have been featured or marked as a "good article". Need I even mention the inconsistent usage among Wikipedians themselves?

Another issue I've noticed is whether it's appropriate to use these Latin abbreviations when an English phrase may suffice. There is quite some controversy surrounding this issue with valid points having been made on both sides. I'm largely ambivalent about this issue and although I have an affinity for Latin phrases, I understand the need for Wikipedia to be clear and understandable for everyone (despite the existence of Simple English Wikipedia articles). The lack of clarity and consensus on these two issues, however, only leads to an overall inconsistency among articles.

One final issue of notable mention is whether these abbreviations should be italicized. I'll provide information about that below as well, and it can be another topic of discussion if needed.

Compilation of Archived Debates
I have already searched through the archives and have primarily found debates surrounding whether such abbreviations should even be allowed. If this debate needs to be revitalized, then I suppose we might as well use this post to do so, though I believe both issues should be receive some serious consideration. Since both issues seem to be somewhat related, I've tried to compile all major instances wherein discussion was had regarding the usage of "i.e." and "e.g.". If I've missed any, feel free to let me know. Considering the wide range of opinions therein, I've decided to not summarize each section. Feel free to peruse them at your own leisure.

The following are all major instances wherein the usage of "i.e." and "e.g." as abbreviations was disputed: Archive (abbreviations and acronyms) § 4, Archive 3 § 23, Archive 4 § 8, Accessibility Archive 5 § 12, Archive 14 § 9, Archive 22 § 1, Archive 41 § 2, Archive 63 § 5, Archive 94 § 7, Archive 162 § 33

The following are all major instances wherein the usage of a comma after "i.e." and "e.g" was disputed: Abbreviations Archive 2 § 51, Text Formatting Archive 4 § 15, Archive 150 § 21

The following are all major instances wherein the italicization of "i.e." and "e.g." (and "etc.") have been disputed: Abbreviations Archive 2 § 26, Archive 108 § 18, Archive 108 § 40

Consensus?
Regarding all these issues, I believe there needs to be a clear consensus on when to use these Latin abbreviations, whether to follow them with a comma (and in which instances, if any), and whether they should be italicized when used. I apologize if I'm beating a dead horse or if I'm reviving an old topic which may be better left dead, but I feel this hole in the MoS needs to be mended. I'm not trying to stir up controversy, only summarize the issue and revive a discussion I believe should be had, especially since there is so much inconsistency in this respect within Wikipedia and among Wikipedians. If this post is inappropriate, feel free to state as much or do whatever is necessary to rectify the situation. I'm still new to Wikipedia, and although I'm trying to be bold, I understand that some faux pas are bound to occur. Hopefully, this is not one of them.

Current Consensus
The usage of commas following "i.e." and "e.g." may be a matter of MOS:COMMA and MOS:ENGVAR, since the rules are different depending on whether American English or British English is used. Clarification on this may or may not be needed in the MoS.

Regards,

Nøkkenbuer (talk) 13:41, 15 March 2015 (UTC)


 * See Manual of Style/Abbreviations (shortcut: WP:ABBR).
 * —Wavelength (talk) 14:47, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Should I move this post to WP:ABBR? I only chose here because I noticed that this issue was discussed in multiple different subcategories, and not just the Abbreviations one. If needed, I'll gladly move it to the WP:ABBR. –Nøkkenbuer (talk) 09:47, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
 * No need to move the discussion. I have flagged this discussion at  to direct further comments here.  —sroc &#x1F4AC; 10:44, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks a bunch! Sorry, still getting a hang of all this. –Nøkkenbuer (talk) 10:50, 16 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I think you've asked an interesting and relevant question and asked it well. To expand on the earlier post, the present status has existed for some time without causing big problems (that I know of). When I'm editing, I sometimes change from Latin abbreviations to English words. My thinking is that we are not limited by space and that an English phrase is more accessible, but I don't see the need to proscribe i.e. or e.g. which are pretty common. SchreiberBike | ⌨  17:35, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
 * For me, I just see Latin abbreviations like "i.e." and "e.g." to be another way of saying their English counterparts, which could add variety to a text. I could argue that those abbreviations have slightly different meanings from their English counterparts, but that sort of semantics quibbling won't really help resolve this issue. In my opinion, the abbreviations should be used in conjunction with their English counterparts, as a way to add variety to a text. There may be times wherein one is better than the other, in which case the best option should be chosen. At other times, either could work, in which case I think it's the writer or editor's responsibility to determine which is best.
 * Ultimately, it's irrelevant for me whether they are used at all, though. What matters to me is consistency and consensus on how to properly edit the articles, since I think this is important for ensuring that articles are written in the best possible style without the omission (or inclusion) of a comma, or different choice of words, or italicization of a term tripping up the reader because it was inconsistent with how it was used elsewhere. For many a perceptive reader, all of these deviations could give the impression of it being deliberate, which in turn keeps him or her tied up on an inconsistency which could have otherwise been avoided.


 * I don't mind whether the Latin abbreviations are used, or whether a comma comes after them, or even whether they're italicized. Although I may have my personal writing style, there needs to be some standardization (hence the Manual of Style). The MoS should address this issue in some meaningful way, even if it's simply saying "Use your own discretion when adding Latin abbreviations". Anything is better than how it is now, in my opinion.


 * (P.S. – Did you intend to put two indentions? I think it may have been a typo on your part, but I won't edit out the indention, since it wasn't my post.) –Nøkkenbuer (talk) 09:47, 16 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I have always added a comma (or colon) after both "e.g." and "i.e." as a matter of style, but was not aware of disagreement between style guides. I know that there is variation on Wikipedia and personal preference doesn't really come into it.  It would be nice to have some consistency, but this may be an area where it is left to individual editors' discretion, provided that this does not lead to more disruption than a MOS debate would bring.
 * I am also aware that (MOS:COMMA) says: "Modern practice is against excessive use of commas; there are usually ways to simplify a sentence so that fewer are needed."  This does not mean that commas should not be used where they belong, but perhaps suggests that if Wikipedia is to state a preference where both styles (with and without commas) are acceptable to reputable style guides, Wikipedia's preference may tend towards omitting the comma.  —sroc &#x1F4AC; 10:51, 16 March 2015 (UTC)


 * According to i.e. and e.g., the comma is used in American English and omitted in British English (I'm told the Chicago Manual of Style does indeed require the comma and I can confirm that The New Fowler's Modern English Usage has for "i.e." "It is not normally followed by a comma"), so WP:ENGVAR applies.
 * The examples in MOS are usually presented with "for example" and I haven't noticed any preceded by "e.g.". Perhaps MOS should recommend "for example" without actually deprecating proscribing "e.g.". NebY (talk) 11:07, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the information regarding regional differences. I was unaware of that. –Nøkkenbuer (talk) 11:47, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
 * From Manual of Style:
 * "... e.g., Funding of UNESCO projects, ..."
 * "These varieties (e.g. American English vs. British English) differ in many ways, ..."
 * "Use the subject's own spelling e.g. joint project of the United States Department of Defense and the Australian Defence Force ..."
 * "With few exceptions (e.g. when a topic has strong national ties or a term/spelling carries less ambiguity), ..."
 * "... alternative names, e.g. Adélie Penguin, ..."
 * "... multiple levels of subordinate divisions (e.g., city, state/province, country), ..."
 * "... e.g., instead of the informal wasn't or it's, ..."
 * "... where space is extremely limited (i.e. tables and infoboxes)."
 * —sroc &#x1F4AC; 12:02, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Gaah. I was obviously not paying enough attention when I skimmed it last night. Sorry, and thanks. NebY (talk) 12:08, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
 * No problemo. There were a few others for "e.g." out there, though not for "i.e.".  The majority do not have a following comma, but this may be an American bias.  —sroc &#x1F4AC; 12:19, 16 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Thank you, Nøkkenbuer, for clearly articulating some questions about these nagging inconsistencies which I also have found annoying. I think the overarching goals in Wikipedia style should be clarity and readability, and the trailing comma does not seem to contribute much to either in this context. I think that Wikipedia should continue to steer clear of American vs. British (vs. Australian vs. ...) disputes about "purity" or "correctness", even though this results in the "house style" being a composite of best practices from multiple varieties of English. Here, "best" should mean best serves the goals of clarity and readability, with simplicity used as a tie-breaker.


 * As for the use of plain English equivalents "for example" and "in other words", they should continue to be used along with "e.g." and "i.e.", depending on which construction best fits the flow of the text. I tend to use plain English when there is an isolated occurrence, and to favor the abbreviations when there are (or likely will be) multiple usages of the constructions (often in parenthetical comments). Reify-tech (talk) 18:37, 16 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm glad my work was not in vain. As NebY already explained above, this is indeed a matter of MOS:ENGVAR of which I was unaware. I've edited that in above in Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style § Current Consensus. –Nøkkenbuer (talk) 12:55, March 16, 2015‎ (UTC)


 * I'm not sure whether it is ENGVAR. I don't think a comma is forbidden in the UK or compulsory in the US, just less and more common. I agree with what's been said above, though. It's not really doing anything, so leave it out. Formerip (talk) 20:21, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

MOS:REFPUNC clarification
The text should clarify that the "punctuation" that usually proceeds footnotes is rendered punctuation, and has absolutely nothing to do with wiki markup. I would think this goes without saying, but I've run into problems at At Freddie's over this. That section consists of a table given in
 * ;name:explanatorystringoftext

format. One of the labels has a footnote, because one RS got the character's name wrong repeatedly. In the course of editing I originally had the wrong name because of this, and I discovered the mistake before posting. So I added an explanatory footnote for the sake of any future reader/editor who reads the article with this particular RS at hand, resulting in
 * ;name :explanatorystringoftext

Yobot came along and put the reference after the colon, and after some discussion with Yobot's maintainer, settled on fooling the bot with a comment
 * ;name :explanatorystringoftext

Then along came a human who relies on a bot to find problems, who then edited this, citing MOS:REFPUNC as his justification, putting the Warning! way at the far end
 * ;name:explanatorystringoftext

which is just plain silly, since the Warning! is supposed to be attached to the problem text, not something that might be overlooked, especially if that explanatory string gets expanded. When I left a message on the human's Talk page that I had put it back, I was astonished that he defended his edit. I gave a longer explanation of why his choice was silly, he has not responded since.

Anyway, I think this is a complete no-brainer. Style always refers to what readers see, not editors. I mean, heck, if I had created and maintained the table with some kind of visual editor, I might not even be able to comprehend what someone saying "ref after punc!" was babbling about.

I am not going to be bold, though. I recommend some brief clarification in the lede and a longer comment in REFPUNC, at least advice on ways to fool a bot. In addition to the above example, one might explicitly advise we do not change
 * &amp;mdash;

into
 * & mdash;

or other markup read as punctuation games you can think up. Choor monster (talk) 12:30, 17 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Or you could simply put a line break before the colon. I don't think this instance of confusion warrants clarification in the MOS, per WP:CREEP.  —sroc &#x1F4AC; 16:28, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Just to expand, REFPUNC already supports your view:
 * "The ref tags should immediately follow the text to which the footnote applies, with no intervening space." That is, directly after the name, not at the end of the entry.
 * 'Any punctuation ... must precede the ref tags." The colon acts as wiki markup indicating indentation, and is not punctuation, so this does not apply.
 * If the bot does not behave in these instances, then the bot should be fixed rather than rely on editors to follow unnecessary MOS guidelines aimed at tricking it. —sroc &#x1F4AC; 16:40, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The line break was what Yobot's maintainer suggested. I'm concerned with a later editor not understanding and "fixing" the format, hence I introduced an explicit comment, which sufficed.
 * No kidding, the colon is wiki markup and not punctuation. That's what I said, and that's what I am absolutely astonished that someone would refuse to believe after it was pointed out to him.  Hence, my request for official clarification.  (Putting the ref immediately after the colon markup is too ugly to look at.)  The existing text from the guideline quoted above only "supports" my view for someone who understands the difference between markup and rendered punctuation.
 * As for CREEP: one sentence added that "style" refers to the text as seen by editors is too much? Something like


 * The "style" discussed here is in regards to displayed text only, and never refers to coding/markup contents.
 * And if that is too much, how about one footnote, to clarify punctuation is "rendered punctuation", etc?
 * Saying the correct thing to do is "fix the bot" is very easy to say but for something like this might be somewhat hard to implement (text must be wiki processed, not merely regexp-matched, to identify disappearing colons) and in general, we like to keep bots Real Real Simple, because they can be dangerous. I see nothing too CREEPy about including one more exception, a "Does not apply to wiki markup" with a sample included before and after the comment has been inserted.
 * Anyway, thank you all for your responses. Choor monster (talk) 17:21, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Nothing needs to be added to MOS because it already supports your position and any such addition would be redundant. If an editor has misunderstood, the answer it to set them straight; it would be an over-reaction to amend MOS to overcome one editor's confusion.  You might consider a comment or footnote at H:DL where this is more relevant (relatively few editors use that format compared with those who use footnotes, I suspect).  —sroc &#x1F4AC; 17:32, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks for your time. Choor monster (talk) 18:22, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree that MOS already support Choor monster's side and of course the bot was incorrect in that case. Since we have very few false positives with the current code (Yobot et al. correct approx. 1000 pages per day on this particular error), I only say that you could help us by adding newlines. You don't have to. It's only to help since it does not change anything in the visual result. Moreover, it's true that I, and I can presume Bgwhite too, really got confused with the double dot in there. I am frank when I say that I might have tried to "fix" the punctuation in that particular article because I was not aware that ";" and ":" work like that. Conclusion: Choor monster is right. No MOS addition is needed. The comment is a good solution to help bots too. I think we could use newlines to make code easier to read and avoid similar mistakes like I did. Thanks, Magioladitis (talk) 19:06, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I think this is getting slightly surreal, but OK. I've upgraded the comment at At Freddie's, it now reads: "WARNING! This comment is here to fool the bot that wants to put references after punctuation, but this colon/double-dot is NOT punctuation, it is wiki markup."  Persoally, I find alternating between line start semicolons and colons harder to mentally parse and keep track of (and squint sometimes, which is which) than only using semicolons at the start of lines. Choor monster (talk) 20:42, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I have the greatest respect for bot-makers and regret that I don't have the skill in that field just yet, and I wouldn't want to jeopardise an otherwise functional script by my fumbling through it. In saying that, I didn't mean for my comment to come across as someone else's problem.  If the errors are few and far between, I think the occasional correction as Choor monster has done will suffice; hopefully the bot will be upgraded in due course, but I don't see a dire rush.  —sroc &#x1F4AC; 04:06, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

WP:ARTCON sometimes causes more harm than good.
At least the way it currently is, ARTCON is not helping to calm arguments in some cases. My first concern here is with regard to international events, where there is a significant domination of certain dialect varieties over other dialects in articles that were previously mixed in dialect but changed over to one dialect (when British English, often done using scripts). Perhaps there should be some sort of alternative means of having consistency without clearly favoring certain dialects over others. Currently, editors just choose what favors their preferences (without admitting it) when the ARTCON arguments conflict with each other, whether it be arguments to retain the existing variety (MOS:RETAIN), to follow national ties (MOS:TIES), or to use the dialect used in the "first non-stub revision". If none of those arguments are applicable, editors who don't like the way an article currently is will just ignore the Manual of Style and do whatever it takes to keep their preferred variety even if they clearly are wrong. Example: An article is consistent, but the variety it is using is unsupported by the Manual of Style, which supports another variety. 50% of editors in a discussion want the article to remain with Variety 1, and 50% think it should be changed to Variety 2 based on the Manual of Style. Even though the editors arguing for Variety 1 are incorrect, they make up 50% so the people actually justifying a change to Variety 2 with the Manual of Style cannot do anything because they will just be reverted and told to discuss if they make the change. This shows that it is easier to keep an article in its current variety (even if it is wrong) than it is to change it. Not all dialect arguments are this obvious. Sometimes, Group 1 might think the current variety is proper under MOS:RETAIN, and Group 2 might think that it should be changed per MOS:TIES. Then Group 1 argues that MOS:RETAIN is stronger and that MOS:TIES does not apply, and Group 2 will say MOS:TIES does apply, and so on. This is another issue: What should be done where MOS:TIES conflicts with MOS:RETAIN? What should be done where interpretations of the Manual of Style significantly vary? How can conflict of interest (Americans almost always favoring American English, British almost always favoring British English, etc.) be countered? These issues are troubling and can be frustrating. In my opinion, ARTCON should be clarified and maybe there should be certain situations outlined where it might not necessarily apply (exceptions). I am still open to other solutions, though. Regardless of how such issues may be addressed, they should be addressed in some way. Dustin ( talk ) 20:28, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I believe the MoS is crystal clear on this matter. In the event of a conflict, MOS:RETAIN the existing variety unless a consensus develops to the contrary. RGloucester  — ☎ 20:40, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Editors may act without expressing their true intentions. It is not crystal clear on the matter, as editors do not interpret all arguments in the same way, and there is no means outlined for resolving such disputes. MOS:TIES where it irrefutably applies will obviously apply before MOS:RETAIN, but when there are differing interpretations of MOS:TIES and MOS:RETAIN, a decision cannot be reached without problems. This is not actual policy so it is not completely comparable, but these varying interpretations make me think of the ways in which all people may have varying interpretations of laws which then have to be decided by courts. The problem is, there is not any final authority when it comes to such issues on Wikipedia. If MOS:RETAIN applies in the event of a conflict, then even in the event that those arguing for retaining the existing variety are wrong, they will still keep their variety if there is a sufficient number of editors supporting their invalid reasoning. That is not to say that those who argue for retaining the existing variety are always wrong, but this should be clarified such that these kinds of arguments will be averted. Dustin  ( talk ) 20:56, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
 * No variety of English is ever "wrong". TIES only applies in unambiguous cases, as with Mumbai. It says as much. You would hard-pressed to find an article where TIES applies that is not in the appropriate variety. No one is asking to write New York in Australian English. In cases where there is the potential for "interpretation", that's not a case where TIES applies. The purpose of RETAIN is to minimise disruption and time-wasting. At the heart of the matter, it is important to note that English speakers can read any variety of English without significant problems. That's why RETAIN exists: there is no point in arguing about something that is irrelevant in most cases. That's also why no variety of English can be "wrong". As long as the information is conveyed, the variety does not matter. RETAIN evolved as a system to prevent such wars as the ones you seem to be a participant in. If there is a dispute, RETAIN applies. RGloucester  — ☎ 21:36, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
 * People should not be able to change everything to one dialect just because they like it (and have no consensus), have a little bit of time pass, and then suddenly it is the status quo. Also, you are not always right, even if you think you are. MOS:TIES says nowhere that it can only apply to 100% unambiguous situations. That is only your interpretation. I am requesting that some of these rules be clarified and perhaps others created. Currently, MOS:RETAIN provides a means for disruptive editors to establish a dialect in a sneaky manner and if it takes long enough for someone to notice, it doesn't matter if TIES applies or not because other disruptive editors with a conflict of interest (from the country which uses that dialect) will use MOS:RETAIN to keep it and then it will be people basing decisions solely on personal preferences (even if only subconsciously). When situations such as that arise, it becomes "no consensus" even though they were wrong to establish a dialect without any discussion/reasoning given in the first place. Perhaps I would be better to call for a change to the situations where maintaining the status quo applies. In that past discussion, there had formerly been no  dialect established, but apparently, some editor became confused and thought one had and started changing all of the text over from the previously balanced state of the article. Now, enough references to that discussion. Sometimes, I wonder why it is even necessary to maintain consistency so long as the information is understandable by all audiences, hence the reason why I dislike ARTCON. In any case, that isn't the only discussion where I have encountered this problem, and the same dialects have not always been involved. I want other editors to voice thoughts on this, as you are not providing a convincing enough argument to change my mind and the same clearly applies in reverse. Dustin  ( talk ) 17:28, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
 * It isn't "my interpretation". It is what "strong ties" means.

The examples are all unambiguous. Note that it says a "particular" nation, as opposed to all others. If an article has ties to more than one, by default, it does not have strong ties to a particular English-speaking nation. If an article is inconsistent, there is nothing disruptive about standardising the article style per MOS:RETAIN and ARTCON. The methods for standardising are specified by our guidelines. They say "When no English variety has been established and discussion cannot resolve the issue, the variety used in the first non-stub revision is considered the default. If no English variety was used consistently, the tie is broken by the first post-stub contributor to introduce text written in a particular English variety". If someone changes an inconsistent article to a variety other than that used in the first non-stub revision, then they've not followed the guidelines. It is perfectly acceptable to establish one variety as standard, and in fact our guidelines demand it. It is merely a matter of doing so in the manner prescribed. RGloucester — ☎ 18:05, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
 * This does not alleviate all of the problems which are presented. Say an article is inconsistent in dialect. Someone tries to unify everything to one dialect. That person is reverted by someone who disagrees. The issue is taken to the talk page. Arguing ensues. Someone tries to claim that there was one dialect at the beginning, but actual dialect that was first used is ambiguous as several different dialects use the exact same form. What next? Dustin  ( talk ) 16:19, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Use the variety used by the first post-stub contributor. This isn't that confusing. The formal written varieties used in the Commonwealth are largely the same. The only exception to that is Canadian English, which is easily distinguishable. RGloucester  — ☎ 17:03, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Placement of subject bar
About Subject bar. Reading WP:LAYOUTEL, this bar should be right above any navboxes. Certainly not in the See also section. Can someone confirm that? -DePiep (talk) 10:01, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Notification of request for comment
An RfC has been commenced at MOSCAPS Request for comment - Capitalise universe.

Cinderella157 (talk) 03:23, 22 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Sigh... yet another RFC on this issue? The last one just closed.  You seem to have difficulty accepting "no consensus". Blueboar (talk) 14:53, 22 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Double sigh since it actually said no consensus to add it to the list of words to capitalise but but it appear there is no consensus as to what 'no consensus' actually means. Cinderella157 (talk) 15:21, 22 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I suppose that "depends upon what the meaning of the word 'is' is." —sroc &#x1F4AC; 15:43, 22 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Is there really consensus that it appears there is no consensus as to what "no consensus" actually means? NebY (talk) 15:55, 22 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I don't see why there isn't consensus, since it should be obvious that "universe" could serve as both a common noun and proper noun, just as can "earth" and "solar system" and even "moon" in some contexts. Context is what's important, though. I guess some people just refuse to consider the possibility of other universes. –Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 07:10, 23 March 2015 (UTC)