Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 192

The WP:ANDOR guideline
I have supported WP:ANDOR a number of times, but I have found it to be problematic as well. Regardless of what MOS:QUOTE states about not changing quotes unless necessary, I've seen editors change quoted "and/or" text. And that includes an annoying WP:AND/OR sock who applies the rule to our guidelines as well, such as WP:TALK; see this discussion. He goes around calling "and/or" harmful. I have never seen it as harmful on Wikipedia. Instead, I've seen it as very helpful in that it gives precision to a matter that some people can find ambiguous because of how they view "or" and because it is not as cumbersome as stating "[this], [this], or both." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:38, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Any opinions on this? Do editors think that this guideline should stay exactly as it is, instead of being softened? Guidelines are meant to guide; they are not meant to be policies. Use of "do not," or "avoid" in this case, as if there are never any exceptions, is not necessarily helpful. This guideline should at least be amended to note that quotes should be left alone (or generally left alone) in this case. NewsAndEventsGuy, Noyster, Alanscottwalker, Rivertorch, North8000 and Tvx1, you participated in the aforementioned discussion. Any opinions? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:41, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Leave it alone. "Avoid" doesn't mean "absolutely never", and preserving quotes applies everywhere -- if someone's confused enough to not know that, then calling that out here may lead them to conclude changing quotes is OK elsewhere. One confused gnome isn't a reason to further bloat the guideline.  E Eng  22:49, 9 April 2017 (UTC)


 * We can easily point editors to MOS:QUOTE in the section about and/or. And while "avoid" doesn't mean "absolutely never", it's usually taken that way on Wikipedia when it comes to guidelines. Our guidelines are treated as policies often enough without restrictive language such as "avoid." And it's not just one editor applying the and/or guideline strictly and/or inaccurately. I see it often enough, especially since I use patrol programs like WP:STiki. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:26, 10 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Also about changing quotes, there are exceptions; these exceptions are noted in the "Original wording" subsection of the MOS:QUOTE section. Fixing an uncontroversial typo or needing to use a bracket for a clarity matter are the only times I change quoted material in a Wikipedia article. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:40, 10 April 2017 (UTC)


 * I also omit at times, per the guideline, but I always indicate this with an ellipses unless an ellipses is not necessary (such as when not including the rest of a quote unless the rest is important to include). Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:46, 10 April 2017 (UTC)


 * And/or is now in the dictionaries, it's a widely used word, it serves a useful purpose, and there is no word that is a substitute. I see no reason for the MOS to conflict with that.   North8000  (talk) 00:29, 10 April 2017 (UTC)


 * As written now, the guideline is ridiculous: "'Where more than two possibilities are present, instead of x, y, and/or z write one or more of x, y, and z or some or all of x, y, and z.'" Try parsing that if you're in a hurry or preoccupied. More to the point, pity the reader left to parse what you've written when you've followed it. As for the sentence that comes before all that gibberish, I think it could say something to the effect of "Avoid writing and/or unless ambiguity would result or unless other constructions would be too lengthy or awkward". And then kill the gibberish. Rivertorch   FIRE WATER   02:45, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
 * When I said to leave the guideline alone, what I really meant was that nothing should be added about leaving quotes alone. I wouldn't mind seeing and/or allowed, if that's the consensus of the wisest of our style experts. Ping .  E Eng  03:22, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
 * EEng: that's very kind of you, but undeserved—I've been guilty of heinous crimes against the language. I agree with your posts: "avoid" is fine, and doesn't mean "never allow". The supposed connection with quote provisions in MOS is null. Of course "and/or" should be retained in quoted text. Tony   (talk)  02:31, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Well,, I figured it takes a thief to catch a thief.  E Eng  03:08, 11 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Tony1, what is your opinion on what others have stated? For example, what Rivertorch stated? As for messing with quotes, you call it null, but my point is that this guideline is used strictly throughout Wikipedia. The guideline says "avoid," and that is exactly what editors do each and every time after becoming aware of the guideline...even when "and/or" is the better option and sometimes even when it is within a quote. I do not see that "and/or" should be advised against the way it is advised against now. Starting with Rivertorch's wording and improving upon that would be very helpful to the encyclopedia. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:21, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I suppose it could be explicit: "avoid wherever possible", or "avoid unless there's a good reason not to". In addition, I think we could probably fine-tune the guideline a little, but that's probably a matter for another day. Tony   (talk)  05:23, 11 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Tony1, yeah, "avoid unless there's a good reason not to" is a good option. It's similar to Rivertorch's wording, which, as noted below, I support. I think one or two examples would suffice after that. As for "avoid wherever possible," I don't think that solves the issues. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:30, 11 April 2017 (UTC)


 * For the record, I support Rivertorch's proposal. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:44, 10 April 2017 (UTC)


 * That stated, Rivertorch, the current wording is giving examples of what to do in place of "and/or." Do you want all of the examples killed or re-worded? I don't think they should all be killed. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:47, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not so sure we need examples, but I'm not intrinsically opposed to them. Rivertorch   FIRE WATER   18:21, 10 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the ping Flyer. The challenged sentence at WT:Talk page guidelines reads You may quickly find your questions and/or objections have already been answered if you try searching all the archives... Substituting "and/or" for "or" in that sentence is relevant only in the case of someone who has both questions and objections. If you have a multiplicity of concerns, though, you are unlikely to resolve them all "quickly" by hunting through all the archives. "A or B" is what is meant in such a case, not "A or B or A-and-B". But I'm not going to go to the stake about it Noyster (talk),  08:52, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

The current wording also takes a wrong case (3 items). And/or is used for 2 items.  North8000  (talk) 12:16, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Noyster, do you support a change to the current wording of the WP:ANDOR guideline, like what Rivertorch stated above? Or do you should feel it should stay as is? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:47, 11 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Sure, go with "avoid unless..." – no advice on style should ever be seen as a commandment. That's not to encourage indiscriminate use of "and/or" where "or" is adequate: readers are usually well capable of telling whether an exclusive or or an inclusive or is meant in a given passage. The "good reason" for insisting on "and/or" would be a necessity to make it quite clear that "both A and B" was one of the options to be included. Or, of course, that the "and/or" appeared in quoted material – and if you feel a need to convey "well of course I would know better than to write that" we have Noyster  (talk),  08:44, 11 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Okay, Rivertorch, North8000, Noyster, Tony1 and EEng, there appears to be consensus to soften the guideline just a bit. So should one of us go ahead and try a different version or should we have an RfC for this because it is a guideline? I know that changes are made to this page all the time without RfCs, but I'm just asking in case some editors view this as a change that needs substantial discussion. If we are all on board with changing the guideline, what wording should we use? We have Rivertorch's proposed wording, Tony1's and Noyster's. I prefer something along the lines of "Avoid unless." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:16, 12 April 2017 (UTC)


 * I hope an RfC will be unnecessary. (Maybe if someone reverts the change.) I don't have strong feelings on the exact wording. "Avoid unless..." makes sense. Even if the change is unchallenged, it won't be set in stone. We can always tweak it, if that seems desirable. Rivertorch   FIRE WATER   22:41, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, did I miss where some actual new guideline text has been proposed? I think what we need is "avoid unless needed to clarify/emphasize that inclusive or is meant".  E Eng  22:47, 12 April 2017 (UTC)


 * I think that it's clear that and / or should be allowed, but I'm not overly concerned about the outcome. I've just been showing up when pinged.  North8000  (talk) 23:57, 12 April 2017 (UTC)


 * EEng, Rivertorch made a wording proposal above; it is pretty much "avoid unless." Tony1 suggested "avoid wherever possible" or "avoid unless there's a good reason not to". Noyster stated "go with 'avoid unless...'" and elaborated on his line of thinking. I noted that I support "avoid unless" wording. And you've just stated that you think we need "avoid unless" wording. So I'm asking if one of us should go ahead and implement it, and what else do we state after that? Do we change anything else about the guideline, per what Rivertorch and Noyster stated?


 * North8000, I see. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:25, 13 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment: What is the semantics of "and/or" supposed to be? It strikes me as legal faux precision: a sign says "These seats reserved for passsengers who have a broken leg or are carrying a baby", and someone tries to claim this means that a passenger with a broken leg who is carrying a baby may not sit on them. So all that "and/or" does is clarify that "or" means "or", not "exclusive or". It should never be necessary in carefully written prose; contrary to a comment above, it is plainly not a word, it is two words separated by a slash. Can anyone give an example where the best written form of some statement has to include it? Imaginatorium (talk) 02:00, 13 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Take the Sexual orientation article, for example. It currently states, "Sexual orientation is an enduring pattern of romantic or sexual attraction (or a combination of these) to persons of the opposite sex or gender, the same sex or gender, or to both sexes or more than one gender." It does this cumbersome "or" thing partly because of the WP:AND/OR guideline. It would be much better with some instance of "and/or" used for it. The American Psychological Association uses "and/or" (as seen with this link) when speaking of sexual orientation, but we shouldn't? We don't use the American Psychological Association's initial definition due to past discussions about how to begin the introduction; this includes the fact that many people these days don't identify as men or women, and the fact that some of the sexual orientation sources are in line with the sex and gender distinction.


 * The Sexual identity article currently states "with identity referring to an individual's conception of themselves, behavior referring to actual sexual acts performed by the individual, and sexual orientation referring to romantic or sexual attractions toward persons of the opposite sex or gender, the same sex or gender, to both sexes or more than one gender, or to no one." Some instance of "and/or" would help in this case as well. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:50, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
 * "Sexual orientation is an enduring pattern of romantic or sexual attractions to others, according to their sex, gender, or both." Tony   (talk)  08:26, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Bravo  Tony ! I think the choice of subject matter almost exemplifies what I am getting at, but I would genuinely be interested if anyone can show an example of good, clear expository writing including the "and/or" construction, and explain the distinction in semantics between "or" and "and/or" (or "and" and "and/or", depending on context). The length of this discussion itself is relevant: in the MOS, it is always going to be easier to agree on writing "and/or" than trying to sort out what is really being said; this does not make it good writing. Imaginatorium (talk) 09:57, 13 April 2017 (UTC)


 * There are other issues with the "and/or" restriction. And it is a restriction. See more below. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:08, 13 April 2017 (UTC)


 * How about Avoid writing and/or unless ambiguity would result and/or other constructions would be too lengthy and/or awkward. All in favor, raise your hands. OK, seriously...


 * I've changed my mind. I'm not sure we need to change the guideline at all. I'd like some examples of text that can be best written using and/or and no other way.  E Eng  03:37, 13 April 2017 (UTC)


 * There are two questions here: (1) What do we think of "and/or"? Do we advocate avoiding it altogether, avoiding it unless clearly better in context than plain "or", or remove any guidance? (2) Should we soften language in the MOS to accommodate those who would otherwise over-interpret its guidance as "must" and "prohibited"? I think the answer to (2) is "no", and we should decide the matter according to (1) only. Opinions differ: "and/or" is never indispensable, and is often sloppily used to avoid thinking whether "or" would meet the case; but there are some who prefer it to "A or B or both", and I don't see it as harmful if properly used, i.e. to specify that the "both A and B" case is to be included where that would otherwise be in doubt Noyster (talk),  09:32, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I finally looked at the actual text. I suggest that the first sentence is fine; it says "avoid", not "banned", or anything like it. The top of the MOS page has a clear statement that this is a styleguide, not a set of military orders. The second sentence, however, is, as already remarked, ridiculous, and should be deleted: "...suffering from burns, smoke inhalation, or trauma" is utterly clear. Imaginatorium (talk) 10:05, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

____________

Current text:

Avoid writing and/or: Instead of Most suffered trauma and/or smoke inhalation, write simply trauma or smoke inhalation (which would normally be interpreted to imply or both); or, for emphasis or precision, write trauma or smoke inhalation or both. Where more than two possibilities are present, instead of x, y, and/or z write one or more of x, y, and z or some or all of x, y, and z.

Proposed text:

Avoid and/or. Instead of trauma and/or smoke inhalation, write simply trauma or smoke inhalation (which would normally be interpreted to imply the possibility of both). For special emphasis or precision, write trauma, smoke inhalation, or both. Avoid especially cases like x, y, and/or z. The intention is not clear. In the rare cases where it is necessary, some more precise and complex form can be used: one or more of x, y, and z; or some or all of x, y, and z.

Tony  (talk)  14:19, 13 April 2017 (UTC)


 * The "and/or" restriction sometimes gets in the way of straightforward writing. Another example is the current lead sentence of the Sexual intercourse article. It used to state "into the vagina for sexual pleasure or reproduction." But because editors occasionally interpreted the "or" as exclusive and because the WP:ANDOR guideline advises us against using "and/or," it was changed to "into the vagina for sexual pleasure, reproduction, or both." Why must we state "sexual pleasure, reproduction, or both"? It doesn't flow as well as "sexual pleasure and/or reproduction." In fact, it's a little awkward. When I see it, I'm like: "Or both? Well, duh." But when I see "and/or," it just seems like a seamless statement. Why not just "sexual pleasure and/or reproduction", which is something else editors would change the text to when they felt that the "or" was exclusive?


 * I can point to a number of examples where the WP:ANDOR guideline gets in the way. I know that I've pointed to sexual topic examples so far, but that is because I mainly edit medical and sexual topics. The guideline says that "or" would normally be interpreted to imply the possibility of "both." But people too often interpret the "or" as exclusive. And adding "or both" can have the awkward, unnecessary feel. Imaginatorium stated that the first sentence says "avoid", not "banned", but, like I noted above, "avoid" is interpreted as "don't ever." Anyone who has been editing this site for a significantly long time knows that our guidelines are often treated like policies. People enforce the guideline at every turn, as though there is never any leeway; this comes up enough at the WP:Words to watch guideline talk page, for example. That guideline is used so strictly so often that it led us to state "The advice in this guideline is not limited to the examples provided and should not be applied rigidly." at the top of that guideline and put the "should not be applied rigidly" aspect in bold. And yet editors still interpret the guideline rigidly. Most of the time, they don't even read the lead because they are only looking at a section of the guideline via a shortcut. Usual MOS editor SMcCandlish would support me on how strictly that guideline is used, but he hasn't edited since March 17. Either way, see what he stated here.


 * Tony1's latest suggestion doesn't allow for as much leeway as the "Avoid unless" proposals do. Editors were on board with "Avoid unless."  We have two so far who seem to be against it. Are you against it as well, Tony1? If so, why? Why not soften the guideline a bit when it really is interpreted as "never use and/or"? Any time "and/or" is used, it is removed, even if it's better. During its removal, the editor points to this guideline for their justification of removing it. I have done the same. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:08, 13 April 2017 (UTC)


 * I'm still waiting for a piece of well-written, sounds elegant when read out, expository text in which "and/or" adds something semantically. Why are the only examples given on subjects which are not being neutrally described, but are weighed down with political baggage. I mean, really, "The reason for the insertion of his and/or her penis and/or penises in her and/or his vagina is: ____" (complete in your own words). Imaginatorium (talk) 12:35, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Rivertorch, since everyone above in this section except seemingly two (Imaginatorium and EEng) supports "Avoid unless," the next step should be an RfC, right? Obviously, there are different opinions on this matter, and Noyster's "09:32, 13 April 2017 (UTC)" comment above highlights that. I'd rather start an RfC and see what the community decides on, rather than let this issue go stale. Like Noyster stated above, "Opinions differ: 'and/or' is never indispensable, and is often sloppily used to avoid thinking whether 'or' would meet the case; but there are some who prefer it to 'A or B or both', and I don't see it as harmful if properly used, i.e. to specify that the 'both A and B' case is to be included where that would otherwise be in doubt." I'm certainly one of those who prefers to it to "A or B or both." I've only unnecessarily gone with "A or B or both" because of this guideline. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:21, 14 April 2017 (UTC)


 * I'd support Tony's proposed text above.  E Eng  21:13, 14 April 2017 (UTC)


 * @User:Flyer22 Reborn: If you think it's important enough for an RfC, go for it. To be frank, I'm dubious. You've pointed out—correctly, I think—that the current "Avoid" wording is suboptimal in practice because, for whatever reason(s), some users take it to be a blanket prohibition. In those instances, if the replacement wording is unclear or ungainly and cannot be elegantly fixed, I'd be inclined to restore "and/or" with explanation. One would be justified on at least two levels in doing so: first, because MOS is a guideline, not a policy, and second, if necessary, per WP:IAR, because clarity is way more important than style. I'm guessing such instances would be few and far between, and that in most cases local consensus would be easy enough to attain. If I'm wrong about that, then maybe an RfC would be best, but I predict that an RfC at this time would not result in clear consensus to amend the wording as you and I might prefer. Rivertorch   FIRE WATER   04:08, 15 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Rivertorch, thanks. I'll wait a day or two and see if anyone else has anything more to state on this matter. After that, if it still appears that the guideline will start off with the restrictive "Avoid" wording instead of an "Avoid unless" wording, I'll start a wide-scale RfC on this topic...in a similar vein to the wide-scale RfC about the four-paragraph standard for the lead of our articles (but not that setup, obviously); I will alert those WikiProjects and likely others. Not sure yet if I will start the RfC here or at the WP:Village pump (policy). As for the guideline not being changed as a result of the RfC, I think it will be. And for the better. I don't think that most editors will want to retain such restrictive wording. I could be wrong, but we'll see. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:12, 15 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Indeed. My powers of prognostication in these areas are often flawed. Sometimes the community surprises me, and in a good way. Rivertorch   FIRE WATER   12:14, 15 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment: I don't particularly dislike saying "avoid unless..."; above I agree with Tony's sentiment in the draft, but I am sad to see that it makes the whole thing longer. I would really prefer to see something like "Generally avoid metalinguistic constructions such as 'x/y', or 'a (b)'...", where there are surely other very similar ones to "and/or", and there are (sorry, no good example springs to mind) cases of "something (some-other-name-for-it)". I call these "metalinguistic", because this is what they are: they tell the reader to choose either of the words to insert in the space. I do not think good writing does this. At the same time, of course it is better to write "and/or" if the political baggage makes it impractical to write anything else, but as I said at the beginning this is legal "faux precision". The semantics of "and" and "or" in real language are not the clearcut equivalences of the logical operators with the same names. Imaginatorium (talk) 12:43, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, we often see such legalistic "faux precision" in contributions from tyro writers, such as "25 (twenty-five)", "if and when", or "including but not limited to...", all cases like "and/or" where such usages are sometimes justifiable but very often not <b style="color:seagreen">Noyster</b> (talk),  08:55, 16 April 2017 (UTC)


 * To me, the increased length of the proposed text has little or no payoff since it adds context that is already implied, e.g. The intention is not clear. If anything, I think the rule could be softened, at least a tiny bit. In many cases inclusive-or is the natural interpretation of "or". Where it is not, adding "or both" or some such can be a natural way to disambiguate. However in some cases "and/or" can be quite reasonable when the workarounds turn out to be clunky, and it's in abundant use today -- just look at Google News. Manul ~ talk 13:00, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
 * To make this more concrete, sometimes the inclusiveness of "or" is not obvious and you don't want the emphasis that "and both" gives. 's example of "sexual pleasure and/or reproduction" is pretty good. There is some inclusive-or vibe to "sexual pleasure or reproduction", but it still sounds a bit odd. However adding "or both" here seems like overemphasis: humans, generally, don't need it pointed out to them that making a baby can also be fun. Manul ~ talk 13:26, 15 April 2017 (UTC)


 * I concur with 'Leave it alone. "Avoid" doesn't mean "absolutely never", and preserving quotes applies everywhere', other than I support Tony1's copyediting proposal for the section. "And/or" is vastly overused by the average amateur writer, and usually redundant. There are technical contexts in which its use is meaningful, and MoS does not preclude them absolutely, but already shows how to rewrite them to be clearer. Trolling and socking behavior is a disciplinary/behavior issue for admins to deal with, and has nothing to do with the question.  Same goes for disruptively changing the text of quotations intentionally. Both of those behavior issues are red herrings.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  01:01, 16 April 2017 (UTC)


 * "Avoid" without "Avoid unless" is not good enough, per what I and others argued above. The problem is that "Avoid" is interpreted strictly and is not allowed any leeway. It just isn't. I've gone ahead and started the RfC below. As noted above, I will advertise it to the pages seen in the aforementioned WP:Lead dispute (in that order), and probably at other pages. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:32, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

RfC: Should the WP:ANDOR guideline be softened to begin with "Avoid unless" wording or similar?
One view is that the WP:ANDOR guideline is too restrictive because there are some instances where using "and/or" is the better and less cumbersome or less awkward option. Editors have noted that stating "and/or" can be more concise and less awkward than stating "[that], [that], or both," or some more elaborate construction. There is the argument that the guideline beginning with "avoid" is usually interpreted to mean "don't ever" when it comes to applying "and/or," and that this has resulted in an unofficial ban on "and/or" on Wikipedia. It has also been noted that the guideline is sometimes interpreted as applying to quotes as well, despite what MOS:QUOTES states about not usually tampering with quotes. The other view is that the guideline is fine as is, and that "avoid" doesn't mean "never." This view argues that "and/or" should usually be avoided or is rarely needed. This view argues that most and/or constructions can be easily rewritten. If someone is applying the guideline too strictly, then it's a matter that can be worked out on the article's talk page, or handled at an appropriate forum like WP:ANI. To resolve the dispute with the guideline, softening the guideline to begin with "Avoid unless," instead of "Avoid," has been proposed. One suggestion has been to change the initial wording to the following wording: "Avoid writing and/or unless ambiguity would result or unless other constructions would be too lengthy or awkward."

Do you support or oppose softening the WP:ANDOR guideline? And why? For those viewing this from the RfC page or from an alert on their talk page, see the initial main discussion above for further detail. As noted above, a number of Wikipedia pages will be alerted to this RfC since this RfC affects Wikipedia on a wide-scale level. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:32, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Survey
For example, compare:
 * Yes. Like I noted above, while "avoid" doesn't mean "not ever," it is usually interpreted that way in this case. If I were to add "and/or" to any Wikipedia article, you better believe that it would eventually be removed by an editor pointing to the WP:ANDOR guideline. It doesn't even matter if "and/or" is the better option. The editor would simply revert me without even considering whether or not "and/or" is the better option. I've done the same (with the exception that I do take time to consider if "and/or" is better). But I've only done the same because I know that someone else will come along and remove "and/or" if I don't. My issue is this: I don't see why "and/or" needs to be so restricted. We should at least acknowledge that "and/or" might be the better option in some cases. I don't see why I need to state "sexual pleasure, reproduction, or both" instead of simply "sexual pleasure and/or reproduction," for example. The former is a little awkward and can leave one with a "no duh" feeling, since it's obvious that both may be applied. If we just state "or," however, there is a tendency for some editors and readers to interpret "or" as exclusive, which is why "and/or" is sometimes added. In enough of these cases, I'd rather use "and/or" instead of "[this], [that], or both." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:27, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Support softening the guideline. There are instances where I think the use of and/or would greatly improve the readability of a sentence from the resulting conciseness and avoidance of awkwardly worded alternatives.  In particular, I'm referring to when a series of 4+ comma-separated clauses are listed together and the intended meaning is that either all or combinatorial subset of those clauses, and not merely each clause alone, apply in that context.
 * "X is characterized by the occurrence of A, B, C, and/or D."
 * "X is characterized by the occurrence of some or all of A, B, C, or D."
 * In these examples, X is a noun and A, B, C, and D are dependent clauses.
 * IMO, the 1st case is more straightforward than the 2nd in the sense that it flows better and more concise. The meaning of and/or in this context is clear. In contrast, the use of "some or all of" could be ambiguous in circumstances when statements like "X is characterized by the occurrence of some or all of A", ..., and "X is characterized by the occurrence of some or all of D" have straightforward meanings.  Seppi  333  (Insert 2¢) 00:14, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment: This seems a stunningly bad example; "and/or" is a metalinguistic construction, which is to say, it is true whether replaced by "and" or replaced by "or", and the argument for using it seems to depend on a feeling that "or" might not be inclusive. So on the face of it, this means "either exactly one, or all four of [the following]". Whereas I guess that what you are trying to say is "any of A, B, C, and D". But depending on the actual example, simply "A, B, C, or D" might be clearer. Incidentally, I think by "clause" you mean "(noun) phrase", but anyway the example is too abstract. Imaginatorium (talk) 16:41, 18 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Support: As long as we don't find 'and/or' appearing too often (if this starts to happen, a review must take place), I have no objection to people writing it in order to improve syntax, make writing more concise, and avoid ambiguity. --Sb2001 (talk) 00:13, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Support softening the guideline. There are (rare) occasions when it simply is the easiest way to say something. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:17, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Support. Although they are not common, there are occasions when "and/or" is the best choice and the MoS should we worded in such a way that recognises this. I think the proposed new wording is better (although not perhaps perfect) in this regard than the present formulation. Thryduulf (talk) 02:25, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Support As editors should have some leeway to use it if it is the best way of presenting the material. My inner logician wants to protest that 'or' is sufficient. Unfortunately, whether 'or' means OR or XOR depends on context. Sizeofint (talk) 02:33, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Support per my comments above. While they are few and far between, instances where the "and/or" construction is appropriate do exist. Restriction of the usage is appropriate; proscription is not. Rivertorch   <sup style="color:#FF0066;">FIRE <sub style="color:#0066FF;">WATER   05:11, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Support. I personally wouldn't have read the original text as 'never', but the softer wording is basically what we want people to do so why not make the guidance clearer. Might I suggest an adaption of the suggested wording: "Avoid writing and/or unless other constructions would be too lengthy or awkward." It should really be taken as read that prose should not introduce ambiguity. It's always possible to replace and/or with an equivalent but clunky construction, but imo the only times in which we would want to see and/0r it is when that the alternative construction is too lengthy and awkward. Scribolt (talk) 05:58, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Support. As others. Bondegezou (talk) 10:15, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Support flexibility with this - "avoid" guidelines are too often interpreted as a "never" policy. Simon Burchell (talk) 10:44, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose Despite the arguments above, I remain unconvinced that the artificial legalistic construction "and/or" is ever necessary in ordinary prose. — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 11:56, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree that this crude construction has no place in well crafted writing. However, when it comes to ugly and awkward prose this is the least of our problems. At least it is parsable. ~ Ningauble (talk) 14:37, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The proposed modification leaves too much to editor discretion, and I have yet to see an example that could not be better phrased by simply using "or." To continue Seppi333's example: "X is characterized by A, B, C, or D" is perfect. Rebb  ing  18:03, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * "X is characterized by A, B, C, or D" could well and sometimes would be be taken to mean "X is characterized by A, or B, or C, or D, but not two or more of these" whereas ""X is characterized by A, B, C, and/or D" is commonly understood to be more inclusive. Herostratus (talk) 19:35, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Which should be rewritten as "is characterized by all of the four factors", or "A and B, and sometimes C and D". "And/or" can be trivially reworded while being more precise in its intent. --Izno (talk) 21:22, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Support. There are subtle downsides to And/Or: it is one, two or all three of "ugly, awkward-looking, somewhat informal". And I worry about ESL readers understanding it. On the other hand, it's usually crystal clear and sometimes quite handy, and apparently (as usual) editors are taking the prescription as an iron rule and we should not have an iron rule. My only question is should the prescription against And/Orbe removed altogether, and let the writer decide. But at any rate loosen the proscription. Not a fan of micro-managing. It's fine to leave it up to the writer. Herostratus (talk) 19:35, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Support I would like us to retain some discouragement of "and/or", which as argued above often conveys no more than "faux precision" and can be clearly inferior to "or". On the other hand there's no need for the MOS to seem to rule out the expression where its use is justifiable (even though the MOS should not be seen as a set of rigid rules in any case) <b style="color:seagreen">Noyster</b> (talk),  22:50, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose – My opinion is that the "and/or" construction should be strongly avoided and the existing guideline should not be softened.  &mdash; jmcgnh  (talk) (contribs)  20:42, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose - I haven't seen a convincing construction where an actual exception to the guidelines couldn't also be applied, or where the construction couldn't be written around. --Izno (talk) 21:22, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Support: A perfect example of what the Wiki has come to; endless debates about minor issues of style while our potential editors run away due to the endless debates about minor issues of style. Maury Markowitz (talk) 15:34, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I support 's proposal because this wording still advises against use of "and/or" but isn't unnecessarily restrictive. -Darouet (talk) 20:41, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Support Eliminate would be better but softening is a step in that direction.  North8000  (talk) 12:51, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Support And/or is sufficiently useful in some situations to soften the wording, but I still like the guideline because it's often overused. Utsill (talk) 13:46, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose - "and/or" is a hideous construction, it creates rather than dispels ambiguity, and there is virtually no reason to ever use it. Almost 100% of the time, it should be replaced. "And/or" is also universally objected to by style manuals. In addition, the MoS is advisory anyway - that's why it's a guideline, not a policy. No compelling reason has been advanced for any change. Neutralitytalk 19:23, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Neutrality, as I and others have stated, by using "avoid, it doesn't come across as "advisory" to many, and many editors treat the guideline like a policy. It's often that I see editors removing "and/or" without any thought as to whether the sentence is better with it (and it is sometimes better with it). They simply cite this guideline and state that it must be removed because of this guideline. Also, do you have any evidence that and/or "is also universally objected to by style manuals"? If so, maybe showcase this in the Discussion section below, as to avoid clutter in the Survey section? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:05, 3 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Use Tony1's version above the RfC. It gets at the entire set of issues exactly right. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 03:22, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose - And/or has the MOS:SLASH ambiguity issue: the slash shows that and and or are related, but leaves it unclear on how they are related. Support Tony1's refinement of the current phrasing. Reidgreg (talk) 15:43, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Discussion

 * I am happy with either formating. Like spelling being British or USA. Just do not want to see people battling over it. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 23:02, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Neither I would like to eliminate the entire para. Editor don't need this kind of micro-management. Carlotm (talk) 08:07, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Whatever: I am not opposed to softening the wording, because of what User:Ningauble said above, but I do not like this "artificial legalistic construction" (User:MShabazz). However, I very much agree with User:Carlotm that this is micromanagement, and should not be necessary at all. (I am still waiting for a convincing example of ordinary, expository prose, in which this construction is actually more readable.) Imaginatorium (talk) 16:54, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * You don't consider my "sexual pleasure, reproduction, or both" vs. "sexual pleasure and/or reproduction" example a convincing instance of where "and/or" flows better? How is it at all better to state the former? Above, Manul recognized the awkwardness and unnecessary route of stating "sexual pleasure, reproduction, or both." And like I noted above, when only "or" is included in that case, some editors act like the "or" is exclusive. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:30, 18 April 2017 (UTC)


 * The purpose of avoiding and/or is to make the wording more simple. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 19:36, 19 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Since this talk page archives relatively fast, what should be done to keep this thread from archiving too fast (meaning before everyone has had a chance to weigh in and before a closer has assessed the RfC and closed it)? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:25, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
 * If a talk page is archived by a bot, then it'll be archived if the this thread's most recent timestamp is older than the most recent timestamps in the other threads on the page. The simplest ways to prevent it from being archived are to add a new response to the thread with a current timestamp (i.e., anyone replies) on a regular (e.g., daily) basis, or just simply use the  template.  Seppi  333  (Insert 2¢) 03:37, 25 April 2017 (UTC) ← ← ← ← ← (for the record, this is a timestamp)
 * Another alternative is to delete all the timestamps in a thread, but that's really not practical in this case since it'd violate WP:TPG to edit others' signatures.  Seppi  333  (Insert 2¢) 03:42, 25 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Seppi. Yeah, I knew that I could keep bumping the thread, but I was wondering about an alternative. Bumping Wikipedia threads isn't as typical as bumping a thread on some other forum. And there is the whole WP:Not a forum aspect. I'd rather not bump the thread by adding my signature with no comment or by trying to think of some response to make to an editor. And trivial responses are not ideal. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 10:53, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
 * It shouldn't be archived during the normal 30-day period of a current RfC. Pictogram voting wait.svg


 * Thank you, Noyster. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:58, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: Days ago, I did leave a note about this at WP:Request for closure. An editor there stated that they would be closing this. I'm not sure why the editor hasn't yet. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 16:47, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Noyster, got another way to bump this while we wait for the RfC to be closed? Or does it not need another bump? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:04, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Quotations with grammatical errors?
The show has proven that TV is every bit as impressive and in many cases more so, than film.

There are at least two problems with this:
 * TV is every bit as impressive [...] than film is probably the result of human speech not fully matching appropriate encyclopedic language;
 * [there should be either no comma after "more so" or a comma after "impressive"] is likely a typist's error and doesn't accurately reflect how the quoted individual spoke.

Has this come up before? What do we normally do? Just ignore it and print the errors anyway? Use square-brackets to amend the quotation to match how we are expected to write?

Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 11:24, 5 June 2017 (UTC)


 * See MOS:QUOTE. You are quoting "Entertainment Weekly" accurately; if they have problems with typists, then it is for them to sort out.  Quotations should normally be "faithfully reproduced" (see MOS:PMC), though I do see that "trivial spelling and typographic errors should simply be corrected without comment".  Regards, Martin of Sheffield (talk) 11:51, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Just quote it with sic, or paraphrase, or fix it with square-bracketed and ellipsis changes: "The show has proven that TV is every bit as impressive [as] and in many cases more so ... than film." It's a lame and empty enough statement I would just paraphrase it, if it's even worth including. It's nothing but a random assertion.  Even if the speaker is a well-known media commentator, no one is objectively an expert on what is "impressive", nor is there an objective way to measure the "impressiveness" of TV versus film; that's just subjective noise, no matter who said it.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  22:49, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

First floor / second floor
Any recommendations on how best to present the info objected to here? Was it fine before? Thanks. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 07:29, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
 * As the article on floor numbering notes, "The existence of two incompatible [floor numbering] conventions is a common source of confusion in international communication, sometimes even between communities who speak the same language." The phrase "first floor" is used in many WP articles, in different senses depending on the location. In a case where confusion is anticipated, such as this one, perhaps the phrase could be wikilinked – first floor – or a footnote could explain that in this context (England) "first floor" is the level above the ground floor. — Stanning (talk) 07:47, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

This is a clear engvar. It's a BE article, therefore no need for the AE note. -Sb2001 (talk) 15:11, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah, WP:ENGVAR. But we note alternative national spellings in the lead of some articles. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:11, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
 * It's an ENGVAR matter in that the usage appropriate to the English variety is the one to use in the text. However, it is never helpful to deliberately or negligently confuse readers, which this will do with some of them. It's harmless to include a footnote explaining the meaning, without going on and on about how the systems differ, and without inserting the note's text into the flow of the sentence. Use  or some other footnote template. PS: It's also not "American English" but "North American English"; Canadians use the same floor-numbering system as Americans.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  22:55, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Removal
"A few infoboxes also use pre-collapsed sections for infrequently accessed (usually navigational) details."

I'm wondering if we should remove this sentence [from the MoS] as it causes an accessibility problem. For example, some screen readers would not read out loud hidden content while others will need to be programed to do so. Even though some screen readers can be programmed to do so, we should remember that Wikipedia is free content that anyone can use. Hiding article content also prevents print outs of the text. Lastly, if an editor wants to copy and paste information, the hidden information may not be immediately apparent.Gonejackal (talk) 06:27, 17 May 2017 (UTC)


 * I'll be blunt, as I have before: I'm tired of hearing that we have to do this or that for more than a decade because of someone's broken screen reader. Use a working screen reader that understands collapsing.
 * The kind of content that gets precollapsed is the kind that paper shouldn't be wasted on -- navboxes and so on. It should be made clear in e.g. documentation of the precollapse machinery that in choosing to precollapse, editors are choosing to make that content non-printing by default; it's an editorial choice.
 * Anyone who blindly hits ctrl-A ctrl-C ctrl-V without thinking about what he actually wants will get what he deserves.
 * Having said all that, I'm not sure whether precollapsed content in infoboxes is a good idea. But e.g. the big boxes at Elizabeth_II, yes, precollapse them.  E Eng  11:46, 17 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Some taxoboxes contain long lists of synonyms that are of little interest to many readers, although explaining why redirects from them lead to that article. Hiding is useful to prevent articles being cluttered. Similarly there are very large navigation templates (Template:Araneae is middle-sized example). These can be useful to some readers, but simply overwhelm many articles unless hidden. Peter coxhead (talk) 17:15, 17 May 2017 (UTC)


 * But are there taxoboxes with sections(s) that are hidden? Are there any examples?Gonejackal (talk) 01:31, 21 May 2017 (UTC)


 * searching for "hastemplate:Taxobox hastemplate:Collapsible_list" gives about 1,500; then there are the taxoboxes generated by the automated taxobox templates, such as the one at Onion. Whether all of them need to have a collapsible list is another matter. Peter coxhead (talk) 07:39, 24 May 2017 (UTC)


 * How did you search for it? Did you insert it into the search box?Gonejackal (talk) 23:50, 24 May 2017 (UTC)


 * yes. Put in exactly what I have in double quotes above, without the double quotes. "hastemplate:XXX" finds all pages that include the template at "Template:XXX". Use _ in place of spaces if the template's name is more than one word. Peter coxhead (talk) 17:39, 25 May 2017 (UTC)


 * (more on talk page)Gonejackal (talk) 00:41, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

It is certainly not a good idea for all infoboxes to be fully expanded. Some pages for TV programmes, theatre productions, etc contain cast lists which would dominate the page before the actual article has started. On that point, why do people put cast lists in infoboxes - is that not what the rest of the article is for? But no: don't expect all information to be immediately visible in its full form. What the MoS does lack is clarity on what sort of information to collapse. The current guideline is far too vague. I'm not sure it needs reviewing though, as it does get the general message across. -Sb2001 (talk) 18:58, 17 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Are there any examples of hidden cast lists in TV programmes, theatre productions, et cetera?Gonejackal (talk) 01:31, 21 May 2017 (UTC)


 * break

So pre-collapsed sections hide long lists of redirects, cast lists, species synonyms, etc. Shouldn't it read "A few infoboxes also use pre-collapsed sections for infrequently accessed details."?Gonejackal (talk) 05:46, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Oppose removal of that phrase. The language is there for a reason, to discourage hiding of non-nav. content. Long-standing material should not be removed from guidelines or policies without a clear consensus to do so, and consensus to do that is unlikely. Back in ancient times when the hide-box scripting was first added, we had a real mess, with people hiding all sorts of content in and out of infoboxes. Presented serious usability (not just accessibility) problems, and was also a magnet for inclusion of non-encyclopedic trivia, hiding of citations, PoV hiding of minority viewpoints, and other poor practices. Material should definitely not be removed from guidelines during a dispute about compliance and applicability (see WP:GAMING). You don't change the rules out from under everyone to avoid following them. :-/ "I didn't get the result I wanted at TfD" does not mean "the guideline should change so I win next time". The removal was also counterfactual; the vast majority of use of collapse-boxing in infoboxes is, indeed, around navigational material, as MoS has long said. If anything, we should strengthen the wording to not approve of the use of the collapsing feature around any content unless it is a) navigational, or b) a re-presentation of information already given in regular prose in the same article. The main non-compliant misuse of it is to hide track listings in articles about albums and other musical releases, and this is an anti-encyclopedic, "reader-hateful" practice which needs to die. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  02:53, 2 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Actually, it isn't counterfactual. It was added in 11 September 2016 and it wasn't much discussed.  By the way, I've changed the proposal to only remove "(usually navigational)" as the above discussion illustrates that collapsed sections in infoboxes are useful but they aren't for navigation.Gonejackal (talk) 04:16, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Disagree. It almost entirely navigational. Typical uses are: a) taxonomic hierarchies; b) cast and production lists; c) OMIM and other medical codes.  These are lists of links to related on- and off-site material. That's navigation.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  17:17, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
 * But they are not linked (Help:Link and cf. :): thus they are not for navigation as they are simply plain text.Gonejackal (talk) 00:26, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Comma placement after "e.g."
In the spirit of adhering to standardized punctuation I edited the part of the second sentence, first paragraph, of "Wikipedia:Manual of Style" from "(e.g., punctuation)" to "(e.g. punctuation)". There are many examples of both variations. (See the third sentence of the first paragraph of "Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Abbreviations where "(e.g. NATO)" is used.) Would appreciate feed back from the community. I am a new editor hoping to help Wikipedia in good faith. User:EvergreenFir would appreciate your feedback. --Breadman420 (talk) 08:14, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree that the comma in "e.g., NATO" is both ugly and unnecessary. The argument has been that if the text were instead "for example, NATO" a comma would be used, and since "e.g." could be replaced by "for example", it too needs a comma. This is a spurious argument. The abbreviation "e.g." has its own punctuation practices, and most UK publications I see don't use a comma and neither would I ever do so in such a context. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:50, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

User:Peter coxhead most UK Publications don't use full stops, but that was rejected. I support the idea that a comma is not necessary. I don't even think it's necessary after for example. -Sb2001 (talk) 11:22, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree with both your points, but the key issue I think we should concentrate on is that "eg" or "e.g." is not the same as regards punctuation as "for example", so it's irrelevant whether the latter needs a comma or not. Peter coxhead (talk) 11:51, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
 * This may be an ENGVAR thing, but it is widely accepted style in some circles to place a comma after "e.g." or "i.e." AP and Chicago both require it. APA does, too. As I recall, MLA does not, but I’m not sure and I don’t have a link for that one. Rivertorch   <sup style="color:#FF0066;">FIRE <sub style="color:#0066FF;">WATER   06:31, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Discussion about first sentences of leads?
There is or was a recent discussion about getting rid of some of the useless parenthetical stuff in first sentences of articles, but I can't remember where I saw it ... possibly on Meta. Anyone remember? - Dank (push to talk) 17:08, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
 * It was an op-ed in the Signpost, by Kaldari. Some of the examples were horrifying. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 17:11, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
 * That's it, thanks Mike. - Dank (push to talk) 17:13, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
 * It's pretty good actually (and funny, too). It really makes me realize how much stuff often in these parentheticals belongs elsewhere.  E Eng  19:56, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Unit plurals: pounds per square inch
Should the article be pounds per square inch or pound per square inch? See discussion at Naming conventions (plurals). Johnuniq (talk) 23:28, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

'Pounds'. 'Pound' would imply there is only one. -Sb2001 (talk) 16:51, 13 June 2017 (UTC)


 * What about the article for pound? Primergrey (talk) 19:12, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Please keep the discussion at the linked location, WT:Naming conventions (plurals). I thought the same as Sb2001 at first, but keep in mind that we're talking about titles for articles about the unit qua unit.  That's a different question from how the unit normally appears in actual use. --Trovatore (talk) 19:59, 13 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Simply responding to something posted here. Just as you did (right after advising against it). Primergrey (talk) 20:53, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
 * My comment was directed more to Sb2001. --Trovatore (talk) 20:59, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Query on symbols/abbreviations for pressure
Is there a preferred or required style for pressure and partial pressure symbols/abbreviations? &bull; &bull; &bull; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 06:19, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Did you check the specific units table?  E Eng  12:06, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
 * My suggestion would be to use the common SI unit of kPa (kilopascal) unless it's an article with strong ties to the USA, when psi (pounds per square inch) would be more appropriate (Canada usually uses kPa and I think you already know the most popular usage in the UK, Peter). BushelCandle (talk) 13:35, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
 * , Sorry, I didn't make myself clear. I don't mean units, I mean the symbol representing pressure and identifying which pressure, as in partial pressure of oxygen, or pressure at the starting time of a reaction, that sort of thing. where in my experience, pressure is usually represented by a capital or lower case P, with a subscript to identify it, possibly with recursive subscripts for finer levels of identification. For example $$p_{a_{CO_{2_0}}}$$ for initial arterial partial pressure of carbon dioxide.&bull; &bull; &bull; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 14:45, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the misunderstanding, Peter. In that case, I'm well out of my depth and can not assist! BushelCandle (talk) 14:44, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Arguably use whatever notation makes the most sense or commonly done for the field, but make sure to define what variables and symbols mean in context. I don't think we have any MOS that attempts to strive for unification of variables/symbols across all of WP due to how different fields will use the terms. --M ASEM  (t) 14:51, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
 * [ec] No worries, ether someone will give me a pointer eventually, or it will illustrate a possible need for something to be written up for the MoS. There are several styles in current use. Some I have seen authorised for use in journals, or approved by organisations such as IUPAC, Others are familiar but may not be official in any way, and others may just be made up an the fly. &bull; &bull; &bull; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 14:54, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I have no problem with accepting a range of styles if different fields have different conventions, but it would probably be helpful to list the accepted conventions and the fields in which they are relevant, and have some guidance like for language variations which would indicate how, when and where the conventions should be applied. &bull; &bull; &bull; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 15:00, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I'd recommend checking the relevant wikiproject's page. Many of them have suggestions in supplemental style guides that account for particularities in those fields that are more esoteric than the general MOS needs to deal with. oknazevad (talk) 17:38, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Been there, done that, couldn't find anything. &bull; &bull; &bull; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 04:43, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
 * A good idea would be to add a note to the talk page of the relevant wikiproject of the form "I propose using the following symbols in some articles I am editing. Any thoughts?" There may be no response, and that might be because no one who understands the issue noticed, or because they agree. At least others would have a chance to respond if they wanted. Johnuniq (talk) 06:02, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Leaving a note is always a good idea, but the discussion itself is better off in one place (here). Primergrey (talk) 10:01, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I am confident that of the two options I would use, one should not be opposed as it is supported by authoritative sources, and the other has usually been accepted as in fairly common use. The issue here is whether it is acceptable to change a recognised standard to a simplified version which so far has not been supported by a reliable source. The recognised format $$p_{CO_2}$$ relies on relatively complex formatting using tags, or nested wiki markup for pCO 2, while the simplified method ppCO2 just uses plain wiki markup. Is someone were to change the wiki markup version to the  tagged version I would not object, but some might. There are grey areas in articles which use mixed formatting. $$p_{CO_2}$$ is fairly compatible with pCO 2 , but ppCO2 is a bit different, pCO2 technically has a different meaning to pCO 2 , and pCO2 is simply wrong as far as I know, and I can not find any reference which says I am wrong about it. &bull; &bull; &bull; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 11:31, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I left a note at WP:MED, Maybe someone there will have some input. &bull; &bull; &bull; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 12:03, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Images in navigational templates
I've been looking for information on images in navigational tables/templates but can't find anything in the MOS. I'm talking about this kind of thing. Is that allowed? Frowned upon? Is there a MOS section addressing this? Cheers,  Y intan  09:14, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not a big fan of graphics in navigation templates; they rarely provide any useful information and distract from the purpose of the template. It seems like a case of WP:ICONDECORATION to me (that's from Manual of Style/Icons).  Navigation template also notes that "Navigation templates are not arbitrarily decorative".  From the examples on that page, small icons (eg: a country flag) seem acceptable on the template's title line. – Reidgreg (talk) 01:54, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that.  Y intan  09:48, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Question about the 'proper' abbreviation for 'The Right Honourable' style
It's been a while since I've ventured into these choppy waters. I have a question to put to the members of this esteemed page. Recently, it has come to my attention that the MoS, as far as I can see, is not clear on whether one should write 'Rt Hon.' with a full stop after 'Hon', or 'Rt Hon' with no full stop at all. Now, I'm speaking about this matter from the perspective of a Briton. Please do not factor Canadian usage, &c., into this matter, as I'm aware that they'd use full stops for both 'Rt' and 'Hon'. I'd like to know what we ought do, here. I was always taught that the correct usage was 'Rt Hon.', and this is what I've always used when writing. Wikipedia, generally, tends to use 'Rt Hon.', and instances of 'Rt Hon' are presently rare. A fellow editor recently brought to my attention that Debrett's has begun to use 'Rt Hon', and, indeed, the government and parliament websites have begun to do so as well. I have no idea when this began to happen, and don't really feel like crawling through internet archives, at the moment. In any case, as I don't want to be on the 'wrong end of history' with regard to this matter, I'd like it if those who know more about such things could inform me as to the proper way forward, and indeed, I'd like it if this was documented somewhere in the MoS, so as to have a clear and consistent styling of the short form of 'The Right Honourable' in our British politics pages. RGloucester — ☎ 22:38, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
 * MOS:STOPS makes it clear (IMHO) that 'Rt Hon.' is correct in British usage: no full-stop after the contraction 'Rt', but a full-stop after the shortening 'Hon.' MOS:STOPS suggests that a stop after a shortening is optional, so that 'Rt. Hon.' would also be correct, but (IMHO again) it looks fussy, so that 'Rt Hon.' is visually preferable. — Stanning (talk) 23:42, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm perfectly aware of the logic behind 'Rt Hon.' As I said above, that's how I learnt to write it, based on that very logic. However, when the government and parliament websites, and also Debrett's, are using 'Rt Hon', I think it is hard to say that 'Rt Hon.' is 'correct' to the exclusion of 'Rt Hon'. To me, it seems clear that 'Rt Hon' has attained dominance in British usage, which is something I hadn't been aware of. RGloucester  — ☎ 00:39, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Certainly use 'Rt Hon'. I do a lot of work in UK politics, and this is the generally accepted style. If full stops are ever used (extremely rare), it would be 'Rt. Hon.'. I think most people outside of the bubbles containing linguists, grammarians etc either use full stops for all abbreviations/acronyms/contractions or they never use them. -Sb2001 (talk) 15:53, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I concur with . I'd opt for what Debrett's recommends, which doesn't bother with adding full stops.--Nev&eacute;–selbert 13:05, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Rt Hon seems, well, "not totally unreasonable" to me, as kind of but not really comparable to PhD. But it's not  in this publication, for its audience.  Certain publication types prefer Rt Hon, even when Rev. would be used by some of them (and Prof., but Dr). But this is just expediency or "in my field, we do it this way" territorialism/tradition, at the expense of clarity again. The intended audiences of those publication not only already know it's an abbreviation, they know what the full words are, and what "Right Honorable" signifies in the context.  The style, a presumption that Wikipedia generally avoids except for WP:BLUESKY matters.  Rt. Hon. is preferable as having maximum clarity, though I know some Commonwealth writers (including even some Canadians, who are otherwise often more influenced by American style) would go with Rt Hon. following the contractions-versus-truncations convention, or Rt Hon following British journalism's "death to punctuation" habits. "Some British writers like to drop the dots" is insufficient justification to impose the style on all WP readers, many of whom are not native English speakers and have no idea what "Hon" is supposed to mean, even if they might intuit that "Rt" is an abbreviation since it has no vowels. That vowellessness is pure coincidence, and will not hold true for various similar abbreviations that some British, Australian, etc. editors prefer de-punctuated.  And it's hardly all of them; this very page frequently sees British editors opposed to stop-dropping.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  05:30, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

MOS:GENDERID
"When a person's gender self-designation may come as a surprise to readers,"

What exactly would this mean? When would it be considered a surprise? How do we decide what gender self-designations are surprising or not? – 🐱? (talk) (ping me!) 15:01, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

I think you need to judge each case individually. An example of where it may come as a surprise could be someone has the physical appearance/body of a man, but identifies as a woman. -Sb2001 (talk) 15:48, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's intentionally left to editorial discretion through article-by-article consensus. MoS's job isn't to lay out definitions of what is surprising or not, it's to recommend courses of action for generalized types of circumstances. This is true of pretty much all of our policies and guidelines, or they'd all have to be about 20 times longer to account for every imaginable nit-pick and particularity. The very idea of trying to state anything iron-clad and definitive about gender identity, one of the hottest and most frequently debated topics today, is absurd.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  05:59, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

WP:NCA naming convention debate
Hi MoSians, I'd like to alert you to an ongoing discussion over locomotive naming conventions over at WT:TRAINS. There is a question over moving articles from abbreviated titles. For examples:


 * ATSF 1158 class to Santa Fe class 1158
 * D&RGW 315 to Rio Grande 315
 * GN boxcab (3 phase) to Great Northern boxcab (3 phase)

WP:NCA is clear on this ("," which most railroads are not. Please tell me if you do, indeed, recognize "PRR," "GN," "USATC," "D&RGW," and others.). Can those experienced in that guideline please weigh in over there? Thank you! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 14:31, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I, for one, find those acronyms totally meaningless and unhelpful. I predict that the vast majority of potential readers would feel the same. &bull; &bull; &bull; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 06:17, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

RfC started over WP:CITEVAR and use of vertical vs horizontal citation templates
A request for comments has been started at Wikipedia talk:Citing sources over whether WP:CITEVAR should cover the use of vertical/horizontal citation templates. AHeneen (talk) 10:50, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

RfC regarding the WP:Lead guideline -- the first sentence
Opinions are needed on the following matter: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Lead section. A WP:Permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:33, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Talk:First Battle of Zurich
Please see Talk:First Battle of Zurich -- PBS (talk) 17:26, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Use describer's full name?
Which is better in a species article?
 * "It was described by Dognin in 1914."
 * or


 * "It was described by Paul Dognin in 1914."

I see the first most often but thought we should give the reader more information when we have it. Others have disagreed with me, saying that using the describer's last name is more appropriate for a scientific subject. What's the consensus? SchreiberBike &#124; ⌨  03:20, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
 * We give the full name at first mention. The only reason I can think of as to why anyone might think it looks less "scientific" is that when someone well-versed on the subject reads "Dongin" they would know it was Paul. But in a generalist 'pedia, that don't hold much water. Primergrey (talk) 05:25, 22 June 2017 (UTC) Primergrey (talk) 05:19, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
 * These are encyclopaedia articles aimed at a general readership, not scientific papers aimed at experts. We don't make assumptions about readers' knowledge, and we don't make the assumption that they've scanned the list of references before they read the article (or would look at them at all). Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 07:45, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Thirding Primegrey and Curly Turkey. The last-name-only style is common in scientific journal articles, where a footnote will include the info for the journal article being referenced . But this isn't a scientific journal, it's a generalist encyclopedia. oknazevad (talk) 13:20, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
 * You may find the guideline at MOS:SURNAME, part of Manual of Style/Biographies. – Reidgreg (talk) 13:52, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
 * It's not just scientific journals though, read reports of trials and similar in the newspapers and they adopt full name, then surname only: "John Henry Doe appeared at ... Doe later agreed that he had ..." (fictitious example). Martin of Sheffield (talk) 14:00, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, but that's not what we're discussing here. We do that as well, stating full name on first use and surname afterwards. The issue here is that academic journal articles (and other academic writings) will just use surnames from the start, never identifying the full name, on the assumption that the reader will be familiar with the person being mentioned. That's not an assumption a generalist encyclopedia can assume. oknazevad (talk) 14:12, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Eh? See Primegrey and Curly - it's exactly what they are suggesting for WP, and I thought you were agreeing. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 14:57, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I am agreeing that we should consistently use the style in WP:SURNAME of full name on first use and just surname thereafter regardless of article subject. What SchreiberBike was asking about was that some editors are insisting that on scientific subjects we follow the convention from journals that only surnames are used at all. I agree with everyone here that that's inappropriate for a generalist encyclopedia. I think I may have misunderstood your point about newspapers, though. oknazevad (talk) 17:44, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Concur with Primergrey; use full name on first mention in the regular article text (it's fine to just use the surname, or a conventional abbreviation, in an infobox). I agree that this has a strong element of "well, I'm a specialist in this field, and know it's Paul" to it, and that this is invalid, elitist reasoning at Wikipedia.  See also thread above for the exact same reasoning being applied to Rt[.] Hon[.]: "Well, Debrett's Peerage uses ...".  EN.WP doesn't write in Debrett's Style, for British politicians and genealogists; we write in WP style, for everyone capable of more than rudimentary English comprehension, no matter their familiarity or lack thereof with a topic.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  05:36, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks all above for the feedback. I'll be able to refer to the above discussion if a dispute comes up again. Keep up the good work. SchreiberBike &#124; ⌨   19:17, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Exclusion from MOS navbox of "MOS by any other name"?
Hey, I just stumbled across WikiProject Three Kingdoms, and ... well, it seems really weird to me that we have at least one MOS entry, which directly marks itself as an authoritative guideline that should only be violated in certain "peculiar" or "exception[al]" cases, but which is not listed on or linked to from this page.

I had assumed MOS:CHINA held sway over those pages, and the guidelines there probably should just be merged into MOS:CHINA, but has this come up before? Are there any other examples?

Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 04:56, 1 July 2017 (UTC) — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  20:31, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
 * A lot of Wikiprojects (and sub-projects) have written their own "project specific" MOS guidelines (because there are sometimes style issues that only affect the relatively few articles within the scope of the Wikiproject). These project specific MOS guidelines are usually fine... unless they conflict with broader, "Wiki-wide" MOS guidance.  When such conflicts occur, the conflict should be raised at both the project specific guideline and the broader guideline... and a unified discussion should take place to address the conflict.
 * Note... the fact that a Project specific MOS says "X" while a broader guideline says "Y" does not automatically mean that the Project MOS is "wrong"... our MOS pages do allow for exceptions. The point of holding the centralized discussion is to establish whether an exception is warranted... and (if so) to alert editors of the fact that an exception has be made (and perhaps more importantly, why it was made). Blueboar (talk) 13:34, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Wikiprojects have style essays, not "project-specific guidelines". Primergrey (talk) 16:27, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Correct. That's covered at the WP:PROJPAGE guideline. What's happened is that some of these project style essays date to the early 2000s when what "guideline" meant was far less clear-cut, and they have not been cleaned up in the interim. This one in particular is a good candidate for a) resolving any conflicts it has with MOS:CHINA then b) merging into MOS:CHINA. (This would probably be more productive than going to the wikiproject page and removing all the "guideline" wording.) There is no longer any need for any wikiproject to be laying out topical style advice (much less any purporting to be guidelines or policies), other than perhaps "here's a typical structure for an article of this sort" sample layout stuff.  If a wikiproject has developed something really comprehensive and people actually follow it, and there's no MoS page on it, it should be WP:PROPOSAL'ed and made part of MoS. If an actual guideline say "do X " and a wikiproject essay says "do Y ", then the guideline is what we follow, as a matter of policy (WP:CONLEVEL). If consensus and common sense indicate some narrow topical exception is needed to a generalized guideline rule, the exception gets written into the guidelines; the essay does not magically trump the guideline. Otherwise, we would have no MoS or other WP:P&G at all, only wikiproject-by-wikiproject rules – because someone with some topical interest in something disagrees with virtually every rule in MoS, and AT, and various other guidelines and policies, that they don't want to apply to "their" topic. Most proposals for special exceptionalism fail. Yet MoS (especially WP:MOSNUM) and various other guidelines do in fact have various topical variances in them. I.e., seeking to have a variance codified in the guidelines is the correct and effective process, even if most such requests do not get consensus (because consistency and avoidance of WP:CREEP are more important to this project than making every topic-focused editor 100% happy about style in their topic at the expense of readers and other editors). Or in yet other words: most desires for topical variance are bad ideas (see WP:SSF for why).  Obsessive and hostile pursuit of them has gotten people indefinitely blocked, and also caused the near total meltdown of some wikiprojects. If you are spending more brain cycles arguing with other editors about how to talk about "your" topic rather than working on reader-facing material about that topic, you are making a mistake.

Similar stuff to resolve, e.g. at WikiProject Comics
There's some other "wikiproject mess" cleanup work to do. As just one example: WikiProject Comics produced (at different times with mostly different editors involved) both a naming conventions page and a MoS subpage which both contain extensive naming advice that is often in conflict, and confusingly redundant when not contradictory. I flagged this problem over two years ago and others have brought it up, but no one currently involved in the project seems to have the will to merge the material to the proper pages and more cleanly split them (or merge them completely into one page with separate style and naming sections, as was done with WP:SAL). It seems to me that bickering and namecalling between wikiproject participants and various other parties has become a little WP:NOTHERE side hobby over there. What should probably happen is for mostly comics-unrelated editors to do the merging work, through a series of RfCs if necessary, and to host those discussions here, or WT:AT, or at Village Pump, so that they cannot be totally dominated by the same handful of WikiProject Comics combatants, or dominated by demands for special exceptionalism. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  20:31, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

That vs. which for restrictive clauses
I am writing in support of Primergrey's  to Manual of Style. I also agree with the accompanying edit summary. I can understand Jon C.'s position, but I take issue with this edit summary:

It's only US English that has a problem with the "thing which…" construction.

US English is spoken by over 250 million people, many of whom read, and contribute to, Wikipedia. For most of those readers, the use of "which" for a restrictive clause is ungrammatical. How would you feel if in nearly every article on Wikipedia you might read, you come across a grammatical error that is repeated throughout the article? Since in British English and at least some of the variants such as Canadian, Australian, and Indian English both "which" and "that" are acceptable for restrictive clauses, why not use the word (at least in the Manual of Style if not elsewhere) that would make reading for speakers of US English easier and more pleasant? Speakers of US English who read and edit articles on Wikipedia already have had to adjust to the many articles written in British English, with the spelling differences and words such as "whilst" and "learnt", and some constructions, that are not even used at all in US English. – Corinne (talk) 23:15, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
 * How about a big no to instruction creep? Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:26, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Given that we're instructed to strive for commonality, "that" seems like the obvious choice. Primergrey (talk) 23:34, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
 * So encourage it—don't regulate it. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:39, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

As little as buzzwords like "instruction creep" help at the best of times, it is of no relevance to this discussion. Reading the edit in question will reveal that it is not an addition of anything but is merely clarifying existing language. I actually had no idea this was an ENGVAR thing. I thought it was a "people that read closely deserve to not encounter the ambiguity that impresice writing can convey" thing. Primergrey (talk) 03:01, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I also support the edit. Observing the that/which distinction is often recommended in Canadian English guides.--Trystan (talk) 23:45, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
 * A big N-O, no. Before anything else let me say that Corinne and Primergrey are two of my favorite talk page stalkers. Nonetheless, if we apply Corinne's logic here on this page, then why not in articles too? MOS has long been an ecumenical zone where ENGVARs coexist. People just have to get used to that. (And see WP:MISSSNODGRASS.)  E Eng  23:53, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I also support Primergrey's's edits. there is no instruction creep here, in that the edits did not add any new instructions to editors to the MOS. All they did was to reword the existing instructions to avoid the problem that they were ungrammatical for US English. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:56, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
 * You mean, prescribed against in formal American writing—average Americans have no problem with it. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 00:01, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I question whether it's any longer an issue in any American writing.  E Eng  00:05, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I have honestly never met anyone in America who doesn't follow it in speech. -- Noneofyourbusiness (talk) 09:42, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I also support Primergrey's edit. I'm British, now live in Australia, and have worked for many UK, US and Australian book publishers. In my experience, "that" is far more commonly used than "which". JG66 (talk) 04:44, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
 * In other words, you buy into baseless prescriptions. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 04:31, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
 * My position is based on clarifying meaning, as I've already said, so I don't know what you're on about. Further, no one is suggesting anything be prescribed. The change is to the language of the MOS itself. In other words, your assessment of what I do or do not buy into is light-speed wrong. Primergrey (talk) 05:44, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Merriam-Webster also have something to say on the matter. --Boson (talk) 05:07, 30 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Hmm. We Brits, and I believe many Commonwealth English speakers, are rather relaxed about relative pronouns, and we wish to be allowed to stay that way. We use "which" differently from Americans, certainly. Much of the time they feel like close synonyms, and it is an effort to distinguish them. They do indeed have different applications, but we do not wish to be forced to write in a stilted way because American is different, or worse because American says so. A phenomenon up with which we will not put, even. Chiswick Chap (talk) 05:57, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Support for a relaxed approach, i.e., rejecting Primergrey's edits, also comes from Australian English: says that "that" is often used to lend an informal flavor to prose. Also, "The choice between that and the wh- relatives is sometimes said to depend on whether it prefaces a restrictive or nonrestrictive relative, with that for the restrictive type and which for the other ... This is an oversimplification of Fowler's original suggestion that they could be used that way, though even he admitted: It would be idle to pretend it was the practice either of most or of the best writers. Later style commentators note that while which is indeed preferred for nonrestrictive relative clauses, both that and which can be found with the restrictive type." Sminthopsis84 (talk) 02:24, 1 July 2017 (UTC)


 * My point above being that American is not (here) different—American prescriptivism is. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 06:05, 30 June 2017 (UTC)


 * There's a good case for commonality in pages, whether in mainspace or WP space, not marked as being in one ENGVAR or the other. However, it's not quite as simple as 's statement that "both 'which' and 'that' are acceptable for restrictive clauses" in British English, so you don't get full commonality by sticking to American prescriptivism. As  wrote, sometimes the American prescriptivist usage seems stilted to a British reader. In relation to the two changes under discussion, I find "an acronym is considered to be an initialism that is pronounced as a word" fine – I think because it can also be written as "an acronym is considered to be an initialism pronounced as a word" – "that" works well in British English when it can effectively be omitted. However, I would naturally write "do not mimic the style of local newspapers which refer to their municipality as 'the City'" – "that" here seems slightly odd to me. "Which" here corresponds to "who" in the equivalent sentence "do not mimic the style of local newspaper editors who refer to their municipality as 'the City'". Would US editors write "that" in this last example? Or perhaps insist on a comma if "who" is used? Peter coxhead (talk) 06:59, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
 * There's no support in the MoS or elsewhere for insisting on just one variety of English, nor should there ever be. That would be outrageous. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:10, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
 * That's a different issue, though. Some pages are marked as being in one ENGVAR rather than the other, and no-one is going to argue (I assume) that differences in the usage of "that" vs. "which" shouldn't be upheld on these pages. The issue here is pages like the MoS that aren't marked as being in one particular ENGVAR. On these pages, there's a strong argument for communality where possible (e.g. using "-ize" spellings as in the Oxford variant of British English rather than "-ise" spellings). My point is that Corinne assumed that American prescriptivism over "that" and "which" equals commonality, and it doesn't. Hence I support the points made by Jon C and Pbsouthwood below: there's no good reason to make the change to the American prescriptivist style. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:37, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

My view is that there's absolutely no good reason different varieties of English can't coexist on the MoS. They coexist elsewhere on WP, so why not here? Also, are you seriously suggesting the average American wouldn't understand a restrictive cause containing "which"? If you're not, there's no reason to make the change. — Jon C.ॐ 06:59, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Does anyone seriously think the average American gets confused reading favour? Or the average Brit scratches their head when reading aluminum? If you read about the Grand Canyan wouldn't you know immediately what was meant? Based on your sole criteria, none of these would need addressing, ever.Primergrey (talk) 16:51, 1 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Ain't broke, don't fix. (leave it as it was) Agree with Chiswick Chap, Jon C. etc. &bull; &bull; &bull; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 08:25, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

I've just checked in Thompson & Martinet where this issue is discussed. Summarising (§75, ¶¶A-C): as a subject, use either – which is more formal, as the object of a verb either (but which is proscribed in some circumstances), as the object of a preposition use which or separate the two. Clearly this is an English view (it is published by OUP) and may be criticised by inveterate modernisers as "archaic". Martin of Sheffield (talk) 08:56, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
 * The issue of formality is very relevant, I think. I definitely would use "which" more in writing in Wikipedia than in, say, an e-mail, because "which" does often feel more formal in British English, and it's one reason why "that" sometimes seems inappropriate to me. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:16, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Primergrey, Trystan, David Eppstein, JG66 and Corinne. The Spell Check tool on my Microsoft Word underlines in green any use of "which" in such clauses instead of "that" and explains that there is a rule that either it must be "that" or, for it to be "which", it must follow a comma. Anyone using the same program would also be tripped up by the presence of "which". Whereas "that" doesn't make anyone go "hey!". I would also consider the fact that JG66 has UK, US and Australian publishing experience and supports "that" relevant. -- Noneofyourbusiness (talk) 09:30, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Word also automatically superscripts the "nd" in "2nd", "th" in "4th", etc., which no one has done since Victorian times. Quite aside from the fact it's an American program, Word's not a reliable source.
 * Re publishing experience, I'm a journalist, FWIW. — Jon C.  ॐ  10:22, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Re superscripting – I thought that was due to typewriters and the need to move the platen roller down. Certainly I was taught to superscript at school and I can assure you the monarch then was our present Queen, not Victoria!  I'd certainly superscript when handwriting, it avoids confusion between 1st and lst for instance.  Agreed with your other points about Word though. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 10:48, 30 June 2017 (UTC)


 * That which doesn't kill me makes me stronger. But this discussion kills me.  E Eng  11:57, 30 June 2017 (UTC) From comments elsewhere, it's apparently necessary for me to say explicitly that this post is something of a pun: that which – get it?


 * A few points:


 * 1) I have read many articles on WP where it seems "which" is used exclusively for all relative clauses. The word "that" hardly appears in the article at all. Is that an indication that the word "that" is disappearing from British English? I think an article that uses "which" almost exclusively, leaving the article heavily sprinkled with the word, or any one word for that matter, is not elegantly written. Besides that, I agree with Primergrey that the distinction that is made by the use of "that" for restrictive clauses is an important one. Precision of meaning is lost when "which" is used nearly exclusively for both restrictive and nonrestrictive clauses. Speakers of American English who come across "which" used for a restrictive clause have to pause and quickly figure out whether it is a restrictive clause, or a nonrestrictive clause with the comma inadvertently left out – not necessarily using those terms, but conceptually. The nice thing about "that" for restrictive clauses is that it can often be left out, so it is used only when needed for clarity.


 * 2) Thank you, EEng for your comments. Regarding your statement, above,
 * Nonetheless, if we apply Corinne's logic here on this page, then why not in articles too?
 * I would say, why not in articles, too? I repeat my main point: since both "which" and "that" are acceptable (which does not mean that it is necessarily one's preferred word) for restrictive clauses, why not use the one that is considered correct for most speakers of US English? I assume you would not support someone going through articles and changing "that" to "which" just because it sounds better to them. See  and the one just previous to it.
 * 3) In reply to the question posed by Peter coxhead, above,


 * Would US editors write "that" in this last example? Or perhaps insist on a comma if "who" is used?


 * in reference to this sentence:


 * do not mimic the style of local newspapers which refer to their municipality as 'the City'.


 * Americans would use "that" after "newspapers", but because "refer" is more naturally applied to a person, it would probably read better as:


 * do not mimic the style of local journalists who refer to their municipality as 'the City'


 * with no comma after "journalists" because "who" begins a restrictive clause.


 * or: Do not mimic the style of newspapers that refer to the local municipality as 'the City'.


 * or: Do not mimic the newspaper style in which the local municipality is referred to as 'the City'.


 * 4) In response to editors who object to the consistent use of "that" for restrictive clauses on the basis that it often sounds too formal, or "stilted", what about speakers of US English who find "whilst" and "learnt" not just stilted, but archaic, even foreign? If an American editor happened to change "whilst" to "while", a speaker of British English would vociferously object. – Corinne (talk) 15:34, 30 June 2017 (UTC)


 * let me say first of all that I'm a great admirer of the work you do copy-editing and clarifying articles. Some points:
 * Actually in British English in those cases where "which" and "that" are interchangeable, it's "which" which is felt to be more formal not "that" (as is said in one style guide referred to above by ). This is, I suspect, why you find what seems to you to be too many uses of "which" in some articles, since they are written in a formal style.
 * I'd be extremely happy if you changed "whilst" to "while"; it seems somewhat archaic to me, which given my age suggests it really is!
 * "Learnt" is a different issue. It's consistent with other words, like "meant", "sent", "bent", all of which can be derived from reduction of an "ed" ending after "n" or "nd". I see no reason to suppose that it's an archaism; it's just a different choice in the two dialects. It also clarifies "learned" as in "a learned scholar".
 * All of this is entertaining to those of us interested in discussing language (and annoying to those like who clearly don't), but actually a bit off the point, which was how should we write in pages like the MoS which aren't specifically in one ENGVAR? . We all agree, I take it, that where commonality is possible, it should be adopted, but sometimes it isn't. What then? Must we all bow to US English? Peter coxhead (talk) 17:22, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

I am slightly disturbed by this thread centring on the idea that English should be written to make sense for those in the US. I do believe 'which' is more common in UK English, although I would use either. 'That' can often sound a bit odd. It does not seem necessary for an engvar to be applied. Americans need to learn to accommodate the original language which they are trying to take over, ie English ... the language of England. This will never go through to the MoS. Push for an engvar if you wish, just do not try to enforce your ridiculous Americanisms on those of us residing in the UK. -Sb2001 (talk) 18:05, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Having now properly read the page, 'an acronym is considered to be an initialism pronounced as a word' sounds wrong. Totally incomprehensible. And, 'that is' is like 'ie', which means something different. Using 'which is' would avoid this problem. -Sb2001 (talk) 18:11, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Please take your jingoism elsewhere. Primergrey (talk) 05:09, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
 * User:Primergrey: I very much hope that was not directed towards me...-Sb2001 (talk) 12:19, 1 July 2017 (UTC)


 * This is one of the most confused MOS discussions I've seen, and that's saying a lot. Half the discussants are mixed up about which usage is British and which American.  E Eng  07:17, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Is this actually an ENGVAR issue? from the discussion, I get the idea that the two words are somewhat interchangeable in both U.K. and US English.  It seems to be more a question of formality than one of national variety. Blueboar (talk) 11:30, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

— SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  22:31, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
 * It seems that neither which or that should be the default option: just allow editors to use whichever they like. They both make sense, and I am sure people will have no problem understanding them.-Sb2001 (talk) 12:39, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I support the edit Primergrey made to MOS's own usage; there's nothing ungrammatical about it, in any dialect or register, and it's helpful in preventing any ambiguity or confusion. Oppose any new rulemaking or changes to existing rulemaking on the matter, at least at this time. The ground truth of the matter is that some people draw a distinction, and few people can define it, so the results end up being inconsistent, even within the same dialect. If we made a change, it should be to avoid "which" when not explicitly restrictive (i.e., use "that" more). The rule-of-thumb, common-sense approach: "which" is best reserved for cases that are definitely restrictive, and usually also include a comma, dash, or other "parentheticalizing" clause separator in the construction.  "The train that stops in Fremont" is a general, unrestrictive reference. It is equivalent to "Of all the trains in this transit system, the one (or possibly ones) that stop in Fremont ...".  By contrast, "the train, which stops in Fremont," is highly restrictive; we are already referring to a  train in a particular context.  It is equivalent to "this [or that] train we've been talking about – and it happens to stop in Fremont – ...".  Usage of "The train which stops in Fremont" is ambiguous and should be avoided, more so every day as comma habits become more and more sloppy, though the influences of various forces as diverse as SMS laziness to explicit anti-punctuation efforts by certain circles (especially UK newspaper publishers).  We can no longer depend upon readers being able to automatically distinguish that "the train which stops in Freeont" means "the train that stops in Fremont" rather than "the train, which stops in Fremont," because a non-trivial number of writers drop the commas in the latter. It's stupid, but it's demonstrably happening.


 * User:SMcCandlish: Interestingly enough, I never would have thought that I had anything against use of 'that'. This discussion has prompted be to think differently: 'the train which' reads much more freely than 'the train that'. I suppose it is just what I am used to. I think that readers in the UK will be more familiar with 'which', and 'that' may seem somewhat clunky. On the other hand, those in the US (and wherever else it is a rule) may think that 'which' is wrong and confusing. I think it is probably best left as is. I do not think it is new in the UK to use 'which' for non-restrictive clauses. It is pretty much all you hear: my surprise at seeing 'that' in one of your sentences - I cannot remember which - is a clear example of this. -Sb2001 (talk) 22:39, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
 * This is another WP:IKNOWIT argument, though. No one is asking "who is more familiar with what?"; the question is "what are the ambiguity or other comprehensibility problems, and how are they best avoided?"  Avoiding them often involves doing things that aren't the most familiar option (which will usually be an informal one) for some people.  The fact that variation exists probably means it will  be the case that any solution will be not-the-most-familiar option to some people. Given the ubiquity of trans-Atlantic communication today, it isn't credible that either approach is familiar to anyone; one is simply less likely to be ambiguous or confusing.  But, as I said, I don't support changing MoS about this, only changing it in this direction should a change be deemed necessary by consensus, against my view that we need no change. PS: I habitually use "the train which stops in Fremont" myself; I just concede that it's not the clearest option.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  02:48, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Using parenthetical disambiguation
Which article title format is correct according to the Manual of Style?: Party government XXXX–XX or Party government (XXXX–XXXX). Below are several of the articles I am thinking of moving:


 * Whig government 1714–17
 * Whig government (1714–1717)
 * Tory government 1783–1801
 * Tory government (1783–1801)
 * Canningite government 1827–28
 * Canningite government (1827–1828)
 * Liberal government 1859–66
 * Liberal government (1859–1866)
 * Conservative government 1866–68
 * Conservative government (1866–1868)
 * Unionist government 1895–1905
 * Unionist government (1895–1905)

One user has put it to me that the "Party government XXXX–XX" format is a natural disambiguation, but I'm not so sure.--Nev&eacute;–selbert 18:45, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't know about parens vs. no parens, but for a long time MOS expressed a general preference (not specifically in article titles) for ranges of the form XXXX–XX. This was changed a year or two ago to a preference for XXXX–XXXX. I think this may be part of the issue.  E Eng  19:04, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
 * One reason for that change is that 2004-05 is ambiguous: does it mean the two year range 2004–2005, or does it mean May 2004? The hyphen vs en-dash can disambiguate it (hyphen for YYYY-MM, en-dash for YYYY–YY) but that can be hard to see and is not always used consistently. But I'm not convinced the parens are needed here. We use titles of the form "Title (disambiguator)" only when there is a good reason not to choose a different title that would be unambiguous without the disambiguator. And here the year range is an important part of the title. It's not like the real title should be "Tory government" and you're only adding the 1783–1801 to disambiguate it from all those other topics whose title is also "Tory government": the actual title of the article and not just the disambiguator should have the year range. So I would prefer the current title, "Tory government 1783–1801". But the two-digit years should be changed to four-digit years. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:16, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

I can understand both. My preference is for XXXX-XX, but I am unsure of whether it is a good idea to ignore a style which goes against the MoS. This creates inconsistency: if you see it, change it. -Sb2001 (talk) 19:33, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
 * It would be permissible to use commas in these constructions, e.g. Whig government, 1714–1717. An argument could be made that moving many pages to this format away from parenthetic will better comply with both WP:NATURAL and WP:CONCISE. This would apply to any case in which what is presently in parentheses is not a clarifying classifier (as in "Robert Smith (biologist)") but a scope-narrower indicating a WP:SUMMARY/WP:SPLIT situation of a single topic being broken up over many articles. But this is all really a discussion for WT:AT; this isn't MoS material. PS: Yes, the primary reason for moving from "1714–17" to "1714–1717" was date amibiguity is some ranges, but it's also just a readability matter. It is much easier to parse "1714–1717" than "1714–17" as a date range without even having to stop and think about it.  We made the same move much earlier for page number ranges in citations, for the same reason.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  19:22, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Note... regarding the question of whether to have parens or not... according to our WP:Article titles policy, both parenthetical and non-parenthetical disambiguations are allowed. The policy lists several disambiguation methods, and leaves the determination of which method is best up to editorial opinion (to be determined by project consensus - or even local article level consensus). This is one of those areas where we intentionally chose NOT to set firm wiki wide "rules", but have allowed editors latitude to do what they would prefer. I would agree with SMC as to the date presentation. Blueboar (talk) 12:18, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
 * whether to have parens: Parens should be treasured. When you're older you'll appreciate all they've done for you.  E Eng  12:22, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Using plc (not PLC) after British company names
Please see discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Abbreviations

Someone recently changed MOS:ABBR to permit "plc", in imitation of the preference of particular companies. This appears to conflict with: a) WP:MOS on treatment of acronyms, b) the rest of MOS:ABBR on treatment of acronyms, c) MOS:TM on not emulating trademark stylization, and d) MOS:CAPS on treatment of acronyms.

Cleanup work
The change mentioned above was made by whose editing pattern I'm unaware of. The only other support for it appears to be from who has been making a number of anti-MoS edits across a lot of Wikipedia articles (like changing "4:01 p.m." or "4:01 pm" to "4.01pm", against MOS:NUM, and changing "e.g." to "eg" which is against MOS:ABBR and after a proposal to permit "eg" failed recently). This unproductive editing is based on a little style manifesto at User:Sb2001. This user has fewer than 400 mainspace edits, most of it style futzing (though some in the MoS-correct direction, plus some actual content work). This "I'm new here and my mission is to impose my idea of British style on Wikipedia" raises WP:NOTHERE and WP:NOT or WP:GREATWRONGS concerns, which I've raised in user talk, with a. It will take a long time to track down and revert the MoS-noncompliant style twiddling. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  01:31, 5 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Totally irrelevant to this discussion. Regardless, eg was implemented BEFORE the discussion and BEFORE I was aware of the MoS guidelines. Please avoid personal attacks aimed at one editor. Do not waste my time when you don't even respond to INNOCENT questions in your talk page. I will change my user page to avoid this issue. I will respond to your personal comments on the relevant discussion on my talk page.user:SMcCandlish-Sb2001 (talk) 11:45, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I'll respond to this and your later post below in one reply.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  17:26, 5 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Stanton, why do you characterize this as a "British style" problem? I must admit that, until I consulted wiktionary, I had quite forgotten about Philip Roth's use of that work in Portnoy's Complaint. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:01, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Sb2001 has been [mis]characterizing it as British style; this is detailed at the MOS:ABBR thread (including my counter-evidence of numerous British businesses using PLC in the top two pages of Google search results constrained to the UK). My own characterization of plc is as a style variance that is largely used as a branding technique to maximize the brand name and minimize other elements. Reidgreg's own position appears to concur with this, using a "some companies use 'plc', some use 'PLC'" argument. The conflict with other guidelines has arisen because Reidgreg made a change that amounts to "mimic the logo" when we have a long history of "do not mimic logos". The discussion should be centralized, which is why I posted a pointer to ongoing longer discussion about it.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  17:26, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

PS: I'm finding additional problems in your "corrections" at various articles, including insertion of nationalistic assertions without sources, editorializing like "incredibly rare" without sources (i.e. you are trying to get the reader to discount a source as irrelevant), alteration of quotations and titles of works to suit your spelling and punctuation preferences, and other such problems. I was entirely right to be scrutinizing these edits. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  21:02, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
 * User:SMcCandlish: I have addressed your concerns at my talk page. I am disappointed in your somewhat hurtful tone here, though. It seems you want to create a bad image of me for some reason. I will not get into that, though. -Sb2001 (talk) 15:57, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Your posts to my talk page and yours post-date my posts to these guideline talk pages; I will get to them in short order. Above, I'm identifying a pattern of "change articles away from MoS to how I think they should be" editing, and a user page laying out a plan for continuing to do so. I don't have any control over image (and don't worry about it; "someone didn't comply with MoS for a few days" is not going to stick in anyone's mind). This has simply been an ongoing issue other MoS editors should be aware of, since it's not likely that one editor alone will have the time to bring the material back into compliance with the guidelines. I spent over two hours on it yesterday, and only got through a small fraction of it; the edits have to be reviewed one at a time, line by line, to track down all the eg and 4.01pm stuff (and there may be other such changes). It's also not relevant to the WT:MOSABBR thread resolution, which is why I did not raise that issue over there, only here. If the circumstances have changed since yesterday, great, and I suppose the matter is resolved. In retrospect, a subheading would have made it clearer that the cleanup-work topic for this page and the guidelines-conflict topic for the WT:MOSABBR page are not the same topic, just situationally connected; I've now added one.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  17:26, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Maybe instead of spending your time going through one editor's contributions, you should think about everyone else who does it without knowing about the MoS' instructions. Do not try to make out that my five edits changing e.g. to eg last year are going to be that much of a problem to change (how about you say for example instead?). You are trying to suggest that all of my edits are going to be bad. That is not right. You do not 'have' to do this. Because ... shock, horror ... I do not go around trying to go against the advice of the MoS. As you will have seen from your two hours yesterday. You are trying to suggest that my edits are all disruptive. You do not take note of my opinions. I do not like that. It is not a reasonable attitude. The user page has been changed. Because of your abusive and aggressive tone. Even your tone in the above comment is harsh and unforgiving. WP:AGF. I am sure you are aware of it. Maybe some consideration is necessary. I wonder if you would have this attitude if you were actually talking to me face-to-face. 'including my counter-evidence of numerous British businesses using PLC in the top two pages of Google search results constrained to the UK'. Please show me where you left your counter-evidence. You will not take my extensive knowledge on the topic, you ignore what I say. I will not have any further opinion on your discussions. I will only reply if a comment is directed towards me. But anyway, here's a list of links: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7. My parting gift: all use 'plc' - check them!-Sb2001 (talk) 17:52, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Not suggesting anything like that; I've stated at your user page twice that most of your edits are good. I'm also making various other improvements to the affected articles, e.g. fixing broken citations that link to dead webpages, and other issues that have nothing to do with your editing at those pages. In another thread on this page, you've expressed stern opposition to the idea of you writing here in any style but your personally preferred "properly" one, so that leaves it to other editors to clean up after it, either programmatically as I've been doing, or by random and inconsistent happenstance over a much longer time span.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  04:07, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
 * User:SMcCandlish: you should raise this at either my user page, or start an entirely new discussion at the MoS talk page - if you think it is of strict relevance and should be brought to the attention of other editors. It is not a necessary/useful addition to a thread about plc v PLC. I will be happy to explain any specific instances, if you inform me of them. Further to this, last night I did volunteer to change back some of my edits away from the MoS. If you give me chance to do this, and if we agree a point at which my editing starts and yours ends (to avoid an overlap), you may find that many of your problems disappear.– Sb2001 talk page 17:33, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Sounds good (though another thread here isn't necessary; I think we've resolved this between user talk and e-mail). This has been productive anyway; cf. the additional sourcing I did at List of Latin phrases (E) and Date and time notation in the United Kingdom yesterday.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  19:06, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

MoS talk fragmentation

 * BTW, when I raised this at the MOS:ABBR talk page 3 months ago, as suggested above, I was pretty much "trying to move nit-picks out of the main MOS to the, well, nit-pick pages". Was that a mistake? Should I have generally waited longer, or done something else to draw attention from knowledgeable and interested editors? – Reidgreg (talk) 11:27, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
 * We should probably consider centralizing MoS discussion, by redirecting all the MoS subpages' talk pages to this one. As the editorial pool shrinks, these subpages are increasingly likely to wander off into WP:CONLEVEL problems, PoV forking from the main MoS page.  This has happened intermittently since at least 2012, and seems to be happening more frequently now.  The remaining editors who watch these pages do not have the time or energy to go to all of them every day or even every week.  Centralization of discussion is generally recommended, and doing it here would also prevent a lot of discussion forking, and the obviate the ncessity to notify MoS talk page A of discussions on MoS talk page B that are relevant to both.  The problem with MoS itself is it's too much information in one page, needing some details merged off of it into subpages; but the discussion problem is one of fragmentation into numerous and often redundant threads that do not get enough input to reach consensus.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  23:32, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

it's and its
Is there a MoS for the spelling of the term which means "belonging to it"? I note that wiktionary claims that it's is depreciated and non-standard use. However I don't see this reflected in the MoS. It seems to me that if Joshua's car means a car belonging to Joshua then it ought to be correct to say "It's car" meaning a car belonging to it. I'd agree it isn't a very elegant way to write, but I'd say it is different to the use in the phrase The tree had lost all of its leaves because we wouldn't say The tree has lost all of Joshua's leaves, which seems clumsy and wrong. In the latter case we'd say "The tree has lost all of his leaves" so it is possible to replace his with its in that context. JMWt (talk) 09:01, 6 July 2017 (UTC)


 * It's = it is (less commonly it has).
 * Its = belonging to it.
 * See apostrophe. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 09:09, 6 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Yes but I'm asking about the MoS. And thinking harder about it, if its is interchangeable with his/her then it ought also to be correct to say "its car" in the same way as "his car", but the problem is that we wouldn't say "ones car", I think we'd use the apostrophe to say "one's car", so somehow we're saying it is wrong to use the apostrophe on it but not on one or when indicating the noun's possession at the start of a phrase.  JMWt (talk) 09:13, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
 * This is the English Wiki, so MOS follows standard English grammar. Modern English does normally form the genitive with apostrophe-s but there are special cases.  Consider ox-oxen or child-children.  "His" is an irregular genitive of "he", were you to use "he's" it would be mistaken for "he is".  Likewise "its" is the only genitive form of "it".  "It's" is always a contraction of "it ...s" which reflects speech patterns: "it's a nice day today" [= "it is"], "it's been a while since I saw you" [= "is has"].  Martin of Sheffield (talk) 09:47, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
 * MoS doesn't cover spelling or grammar basics, and doesn't need to. This is a matter of basic fluency/competence.  It's for its and vice version versa are common typographical errors, including among professional writers. Just fix it when encountered.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  23:42, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
 * "Vice version"? Let's see... would that be, for example, My Secret Life, Second Edition?  E Eng  17:14, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Fixed. With a broken arm, I'm a bit reliant on software auto-correction and sometimes it is wrong and I don't catch it.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  21:02, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Bodie and Doyle sure ain't got nothing on you two. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:31, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
 * There may be an exception for Cousin It or It (film), but possessive for a regular it is "its". <strong style="color:#606060;">AngusWOOF ( bark  •  sniff ) 23:47, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Wicked me, I was tempted to try to add an actual example based on The Addams Family, but it turns out the proper spelling is Cousin Itt.  E Eng  00:09, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Use of "foot per inch" instead of "feet per inch" in article titles
Please see Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (plurals); while this discussion isn't strictly an MoS matter, changes to title style often affect in-article usage, and attempts to gather more editorial input into the question by "advertising" the discussion haven't been very successful so far, so posting about it here might bring some additional eyes and brains. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  19:09, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

MOS:TIME
I do not know whether other editors have found this to be an issue, but MOS:TIME states that 'colons separate hours, minutes and seconds'. The problem here is that UK standard is to use a full stop for 12-hour time. I have yet to find a UK style guide which advises otherwise, including New Hart's Rule, of which I am not a massive fan (please do tell me if there is one). Editors seem to come to UK articles and change the tie notation, quoting MOS:TIME as the reason. My query is whether it would be too much of a problem to just drop this line. Editors in the US may continue to write time using a colon, and those in the UK may use either (: is often used for 24-hr). -Sb2001 (talk) 19:11, 30 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Occasionally time is expressed as hours and a decimal fraction of an hour, such as 10.5, 10.25, or 10:255 (10:30, 10:15, and 10:15:30 respectively). So there is a potential for ambiguity. Jc3s5h (talk) 19:27, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
 * University of Oxford and BBC use a colon. Use a colon. DrKay (talk) 19:29, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Oxford says, 'The 12-hour clock uses a full stop between the hours and minutes; the 24-hour clock uses a colon and omits am/pm' and the BBC says, 'We use the 24-hour clock (with a colon) in all circumstances', so does not address 12-hour time. In response to the decimal point, it never seems to confuse people. I do understand what you are saying, though. We should - therefore - limit full stop usage to 12-hour time and require an am/pm suffix, eg 4.30pm. -Sb2001 (talk) 19:35, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
 * OK, try UK government (go to T for times) or University College London. DrKay (talk) 19:53, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I feel using a colon for 24 hour times but a full stop for 12 hour times would be confusing. Very few readers would ever guess that this comes from the advice of a handful of UK style guides. I fear readers will suspect a hidden meaning that doesn't actually exist. Jc3s5h (talk) 20:07, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
 * People in the UK use this format, so the idea that it would not be understood is not appropriate. -Sb2001 (talk) 20:45, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
 * It isn't good enough that people in the UK wouldn't be confused; as far as possible, no one who is proficient in English should be confused. If the full stop confuses quite a few people and the colon confuses hardly anyone, we should stick with the colon. Jc3s5h (talk) 21:25, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
 * You are taught in UK education (every establishment I have attended/know people who have attended) teaches that use of the colon is incorrect for 12-hour. Yes, they actually teach you how to write the time in the later stages of education! I am sitting here, in front of the television. The BBC, ITV, Channel 4 and Channel 5 have ALL displayed television listings with 12-hour time using the full stop. It is standard. The colon is not widely used, and I know some people who are confused by it: people who have little experience of the slowly globalised UK in which we seem to be living do not understand what the colon shows. The Guardian, the Times, the Telegraph, the Mirror, the Sun, the Mail ... all use the full stop. As does the bus timetable I have in my house. I received an email today advertising a meeting at '6.30pm'. I saw a poster telling me of a class at '4.10'. I have looked through the paperwork I have here, and NONE of it has a colon to show time. There should be no requirement to follow an American standard. The MoS should allow freedom, ie not specify a punctuation mark to use. Please do not say 'the colon confuses hardly anyone': this is simply untrue. -Sb2001 (talk) 21:53, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm writing this logged out deliberately, so that you can locate my IP and prove that I'm in England. Not once, ever, has any teacher told me to use a dot instead of a colon. I've worked as a copy editor and published professionally. No-one in Britain is confused by a colon between hours and minutes. 109.158.111.186 (talk) 06:19, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I think this is a better of personal experiences. I am sure you will accept that the very vast majority of people do use a full stop, though. -Sb2001 (talk) 12:37, 1 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Fine, some do say colon. This is only two. Common usage is for a full stop, and the overwhelming majority of style sides in the UK use that. Let us now debate/discuss the issue properly, rather than quoting style guides. I do appreciate the contribution: it is good to know from where advice comes. Also, barely anyone uses a colon for 12-hour in the UK and there are never any problems. I would show you some examples from my experiences - letters, posters, timetables etc - if possible. -Sb2001 (talk) 20:12, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Please go through the archives of this page, and of WP:MOSDATES, review the many discussions on this subject, and then, if you feel you have some new argument no one's thought of bring it back here. We just can't keep relitigating everything over and over from scratch.  E Eng  20:22, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I have looked at many pages of archives. There are not many specifically relevant discussions. I think we should wait for some UK editors to contribute to this. I am sure there will then be some reassurance that there is no confusion in full stop usage. -Sb2001 (talk) 20:45, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
 *  E Eng  21:08, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you, User:EEng: I have reviewed this link. There are some good points raised by both sides. I do not see why it would be unreasonable to allow the use of the full stop, instead of effectively discouraging its usage when it is often said to be incorrect for 12-hour time. I am sure everyone will understand that 4.30pm is a time. -Sb2001 (talk) 12:37, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
 * It's not unreasonable, it's just that so far it appears to be a change you'd like because you'd like it. In general I'm against MOS overprescribing – editors on any given article should work out little choices like this for themselves. But I'm also in favor of not fixing that which isn't broken. What problem are you solving here? Huge amounts of time have been spent tinkering with the rules on units of measure (choice of units, which is primary/secondary, how to present conversions) because they've been a chronic source of trouble and there's real benefit to putting an end to such conflict. In contrast, in ten years I can't think of a single dispute, ever, over colon-or-dot for time of day. I can only vaguely remember one or two times I've ever run into an article that used dot, and there was no trouble over regularizing those to colon. I have no doubt that, as you say, there were good arguments on both sides in past discussions. But in the end the consensus was for colon only, and so far everyone seems perfectly happy with that – except you.  E Eng  14:46, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
 * "4.30pm" is not fine outside of UK. I'm in US, and that looks like some unknown mistake to me -- info loss.  Per MOS:COMMONALITY, we should use common spelling/styles where available -- that's ":".  --A D Monroe III (talk) 17:19, 1 July 2017 (UTC)


 * My concern is that using the dot will cause actual confusion for US readers... if a US reader sees "4.25" he may think it is a decimal reference, meaning 4 and 25/100  (or four and a quarter) - which would be "4:15".  However, UK readers will not be confused if they see "4:25"... she may think the colon stylistically archaic, but at least she knows what it actually means.  The potential for confusion (and even harm) outweighs any ENVAR arguments here. Blueboar (talk) 21:28, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Maybe it is a good idea to avoid 12-hour time then, and use your beloved colon for 24-hour instead. I have spoken with some people I know in the US (British), and they have informed me that whilst people do generally use the colon, you will occasionally encounter the full stop being used. They write it, and NOBODY has had any problem understanding it. -Sb2001 (talk) 23:41, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
 * It may be useful to note that hotels in the UK provide information for breakfasts etc with a full stop being used. I am staying in one at the moment. It employs that style. Surely they would not do something which confuses some people. After all, the majority (?) of their guests are not from the UK.-Sb2001 (talk) 23:43, 1 July 2017 (UTC)


 * I'll be blunt. We already went through this on your fuss about eg vs. e.g. You have 325 article-space edits total, most of them to enforce the personal formatting preoccupations you list on your user page . As I'm exemplifying right now, the project takes unkindly to editors who suck away others' time jawboning such minutiae while giving no evidence they intend to contribute anything substantive. Get some editing experience and get some perspective.  E Eng  00:17, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm staying here next week. Click on "Feeling hungry?". It says "Breakfast served - 6:30AM - 10:30AM. Restaurant open - 6:00PM - 10:00PM".
 * Give it a rest. This is clearly not an ENGVAR issue. 86.160.123.155 (talk) 07:56, 2 July 2017 (UTC)


 * I am positively shocked by the level of rudeness exhibited by certain editors on this page. 'Give it a rest' is beyond unnecessary. If anyone said that to me in real life, they would be shouted down immediately. If it had been said in a meeting, they would be asked to leave and refrain from returning. I am a person. You may all be robotic, but I have these things called feelings. User:EEng: I also edit on an IP address on a different device. I edit all sorts of things, including syntactical inaccuracies, removing dead links, improving article consistency, adding to the article's main body and checking for errors/impurities in formatting. Things I have brought to this talk page have been actual issues. They have inconvenienced me and OTHER EDITORS. I have brought two things here. Do not try to make out that I am 'suck[ing] away others' time'. My listed edit count may not be as high as yours because - shock, horror - I have a life outside of this network. I am a full-time student. (Please do not suggest I have an inaccurate perspective of the education system User:109.158.111.186. I witness it EVERY DAY.) What I have learnt from using Wikipedia more often than formerly recently is that people believe they can hide behind an internet persona. Whether it be accusing others of jingoism (!), or congregating en masse to force certain editors to drop their PERFECTLY INNOCENTLY SUGGESTED ideas. I do not bring things here for personal benefit, believe it or not. I do it for the benefit of others. I find it totally outrageous that you are unable to see this. Look through all of my contributions to this talk page. Tell me I am selfish.
 * I will continue to contribute to Wikipedia. This ridiculous behaviour designed to push other away will not work on me. I will edit in the same way, contributing useful information, improving consistency etc whenever I have time, and wherever I see that I could make a positive difference.
 * Finally, I stand by EVERYTHING I have written on this thread. I will continue to write properly. If you want to undo everything, good for you. I wish you luck. EEng, thank you. You have made it clear I need to carry out more edits. That is exactly what I will do.
 * Do not think of telling me not to write this sort of thing here. It is relevant. -Sb2001 (talk) 13:49, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I hope you do continue to edit... however, I also hope that you will learn to accept that you won't win every debate you engage in. We operate by consensus.  Continuing to push for a change when it is clear that consensus is against you is considered disruptive, and can result in being blocked from further editing.  I think you want to avoid that... so I hope you will learn to accept defeat gracefully. Blueboar (talk) 14:36, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
 * When you call other editors robotic and ridiculous, any complaint you have over "Give it a rest" kind of falls flat. If you were in a meeting and you were the only person pushing a particular point despite everyone else at the meeting opposing it and providing evidence that contradicted your view, I don't think you could blame them for saying it's time to move on. 86.160.123.155 (talk) 14:57, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
 * User:86.160.123.155: I am talking about the manner in which you express your unwillingness to listen to my points. Very few people commented on this thread. I was effectively being told to go away after just several hours. The way you all were firing comments at me was rather unpleasant. And I described the general BEHAVIOUR of several editors as ridiculous. Which it was. Please actually read my initial statement. It was a gentle query to ask whether a certain line could be dropped. How it escalated to what I was subjected to is totally beyond me. I posted this comment at 4.15pm UK time. Just to confuse.-Sb2001 (talk) 15:15, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
 * We did read your initial statement. It said The problem here is that UK standard is to use a full stop for 12-hour time. I have yet to find a UK style guide which advises otherwise... That turns out to be completely wrong, yet you keep pressing the matter. If this were a substantive content issue e.g. whether a certain minor scandal should or shouldn't be included in a bio, that would be one thing. But you're arguing about a colon. I don't blame you for raising the question, but I do blame you for pressing it long after it's clear you're getting no traction. Like Blueboar I hope you continue to edit, but you need to take a less aggressive attitude until you've been socialized to how things are done around here.
 * You should not be alternating between logged-in editing and IP editing. That will get you into deep trouble sooner or later, and could lead to a block.  E  Eng  16:03, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
 * OK, standard in the UK in the sense that it is the norm. I am taken aback that you are accusing me of being aggressive. I use an IP address as I cannot log in on certain network computers. And please do not tell me I was arguing. I was responding to the points raised. Wikipedia clearly does not welcome the views of all, only long-established editors. That is such a shame. Once again, I stand by everything I said. I shared personal experiences, which were said to be untrue. I made many valid points, which were dismissed. This did not require change. There ar so many instances of the full stop already. How things are done is surely not 'shout the smaller person down until they give up'. That is - I am afraid - what I have seen. -Sb2001 (talk) 16:16, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
 * All are welcome, if they're clueful. Five named editors and two IPs have told you they see this as a nonissue, yet you continue to press. That's not clueful. What you're doing is reminiscent of Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Dates_and_numbers/Archive_150, and the regulars here, who put lots of time into resolving real problems, have little tolerance for it.  E Eng  17:36, 2 July 2017 (UTC) P.S. Could you please learn to indent your posts properly?
 * (better?)As I have said, I was responding to the points raised. Point-counterpoint: you are taught to do it when you are about 10. Please do not try to pass my query off as not a real problem. Quite unnecessary. I brought it here to find out A/ more about it, B/ whether it was 'set in stone' and C/ whether it had affected anyone else. I know that several of my edits have been changed because of the MoS and have been unsure why. I was informed of MOS:TIME and had a look. Nearly every British article I come across (possibly due to the sorts of things for which I look) uses a full stop. Do not tell me this is not a fact. It is. I have given up on the idea that the offending sentence will be dropped, however I do still think there is need to consider the sorts of responses a civilised and well-considered request prompts. You may have noticed that - since the e.g./eg discussion - I have made several contributions to help others. Yes, sometimes I sympathise with you - non-issues can be pushed (which v that, for a start...). I do not like the fact that the MoS seems to be written largely for the benefit of those in the US (and if it is not already, people try to change it). I do not see why articles for certain countries cannot use the national style. Otherwise there is a tendency for little consistency, ie the MoS' style starts it, and the national norm finishes because it has been added after the 'warden' has come to check it. -Sb2001 (talk) 18:32, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

— SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  02:38, 6 July 2017 (UTC) PS: Decimal time systems do exist, and some of them use the "." in this manner. Not sure that really equates to a confusion potential (how many readers use decimal time, and how many of those expect to see it used on a website like ours?). But still, it is "a thing". — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  00:52, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Concur this is not an ENGVAR matter. It's a style variant we do not need to entertain. It adds nothing useful but has an enormous potential for confusion. The claim that it's a norm and that UK style guides agree on it has been refuted. The "4:01 p.m." (or "4:01 pm") format MOS and MOSNUM already recommend is universally recognizable. Finally, ENGVAR only applies to situations in which which MOS and WP have no reason to prefer one version over the other, e.g. neighbor versus neighbour, and one better fits the subject matter due to strong national ties. In a case like this, there is a very clear reason (the ambiguity of "4.01") for us to prefer one over the other, so ENGVAR cannot apply, even if the "it's a British norm" argument were not bogus. (As with several other things under discussion lately, like "eg" for "e.g.", and lowercasing acronyms to things like "plc", it's something observable and common primarily in British news and government writing (styles WP does not use) but it is not consistently used, in any dialect, so who cares? PS: Both the UCL and gov.uk links are to house style guides for use internally (and specifically for web pages) only by those entities; they are not guidance for the public, but for employees of specific entities, and are specific to that particular insider context. If you've ever worked on an in-house style book, you know how disconnected from external concerns such things are, and that they are products not of expertise but of political and personal wrangling in committees full of people who don't know what they're talking about, and principally motivated by marketing concerns.
 * I favour the colon for 12- and 24-hour times. It's readily apprehendable by everyone; it's not an engvar issue; and it avoids potential confusion with a decimal point. Tony   (talk)  13:28, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Update: Date and time notation in the United Kingdom now has a bunch of additional sourcing. Styles vary, and the MoS-prescribed "1:45 p.m." and "13:45" are well-attested in British usage, though "1.45 p.m.", "1.45 pm", "1.45pm" and "13.45" are as well.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  00:47, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Well I for one regularly use it. If I've worked from 09:30 to 11:15 on a particular project that is 01:45 which is booked on my time sheet as 1.75hrs. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 22:53, 10 July 2017 (UTC)