Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 81

Capitalization of Common Names of birds
I hope I've tidied the wording up enough for the MoS on the capitalization of Common Names of animal/plant species. The discussions as to why bird species names in particular should be capitalized in Wikipedia is exhaustingly long, and can be found repeatedly on the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Birds, and is very briefly summarized on the Naming conventions (fauna) page. The issue gets brought up periodically, always by people with virtually no knowledge of bird classification, and who haven't put any thought into how otherwise to solve confusing and conflicting common names. For example, "robins" in the Americas and Europe are not even remotely related to the ones on the other side, and the same goes for "vultures". As such, English names of groups of bird species are not capitalized, whether they match a specific taxa (e.g. toucans, woodpeckers), or not (e.g. robins, vultures, or seabirds). But all people who engage in any discourse about a specific species of bird, from pet owners to recreational bird-watchers to pop-culture authors to ivory-tower academics, all use the same set of English species names, set by regional academic ornithological associations, just to keep straight what bird we're talking about. Following that standardized list of names (including its well-established and broadly accepted and used capitalization convention) is not only appropriate here, but necessary to avoid creating an encyclopedia that establishes a unique convention that goes against everything else out there. Just try googling the common name of any bird species and see how it's capitalized everywhere. If anyone still has problems with this, please read the many arguments that have already been made on Fredwerner 09:24, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I hate Wikipedia's capitalization of common animal names. This isn't a bird encyclopedia, it's a general-use encyclopedia that happens to have lots of articles about birds because it's not paper. Presumably the common species names that have been established to differentiate similar birds would be just as effective in capitals or lowercase? But oh well; I see the folks with my viewpoint have been out-voted by the enthusiasts. — Brian ( talk ) 09:40, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I have to say that I agree with Brian. Tony 13:38, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry you guys have such visceral feelings about this. I don't see how it interferes with your, or anyone else's usage of Wikipedia.  If you obliterate the accepted science norms to impose your own standard, you might satisfy English language purists, but you will alienate people who know something about the subject, including many who contribute to and use your science-related articles.  You will also mislead students who use wikipedia as a source.  Jettisoning science standards and norm would only make closing the credibility gap that wikipedia still has in the sciences that much harder.
 * I imaagine a constant push-pull-compromise on many different levels between conforming to the quirky norms of the vast number of far-flung disciplines covered in wikiepedia, versus maintaining a cohesive and unified set of norms. A sophisticated flexibility rather than a rigid one-size fits all must work better in many instances to cover the entire universe of knowledge.  General-interest publications such as newspapers, news magazines, non science-websites, etc. typically follow the official naming conventions as soon as they start discussing individual bird species, and if they get letters to the editor complaining about it, I haven't seen one printed.  This may just be one of those times when you cannot satisfy everyone.  Fredwerner 14:45, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Does the convention of capitalising genera irk too? Or putting them in italics? Or capitalising family names? It isn't like the convention is forced on other articles, (like Ode to a Nightingale). Sabine's Sunbird  talk  21:47, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * No, of course Latinate species names and genera should be italicized. Those are scientific names. However, it turly irks to see "Cougar" all over the main page today, for example. It's common name is "cougar", please. Blech. I understand that birdwatching guidebooks and even scientific literature may capitalize common names, leading bird editors on Wikipedia to follow suit, but again, Wikipedia is not a birdwatching guidebook or a scientific encyclopedia of birds. But it irks that a WikiProject has set the standard for the rest of us. What if I decide to work on a bird article? Why must I follow capitalization guidelines that violate most manuals of style out there? Wouldn't it be better to allow a page's main author to choose the capitalization or non-capitalization to use for the common name of an animal (as seems to be the case for any animal but birds)? — Brian ( talk ) 22:22, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * When it comes to mammals I don't actually have an opinion, I certainly don't see mammals capitalised very often. Allowing people to do what they want is laudable and usually best to strive for but sacrifices consistency, this revision of Tieke for example was a mishmash of the two styles. Allowing the various projects to make the choices is basically a compromise between allowing individuals to do so it how they please and enforcing some kind of standard. It would look faintly ridiculous if you went from Common Blackbird, all capitalised, to song thrush, not, and then to Mistle Thrush capitilised again, when researching garden birds of England. Wikipedia is not a birdwatching guidebook or a scientific encyclopedia of birds it certainly reads like a mathematical encyclopedia for the maths articles and a religious encyclopedia for theological articles and a astronomic encyclopedia for the planets. It's more than a general encyclopedia, its the ultimate encyclopedia, which means its the ultimate bird encylopedia (or will be). Abnd even if it isn't a scientific encylopedia (something I'd contest) the articles are on scientific subjects.  But, you know, we're both just rehashing arguments that have been made multiple times before. Sabine's Sunbird   talk  22:46, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, if we're inconsistent in our use of American and Commonwealth English, I don't see a problem in our inconsistency of common-name capitalization. I agree that re-arguing this is not the best idea, but I still oppose the idea of a WikiProject deciding the rules for the rest of us. How widely publicized was the project's discussion of the matter? Was it announced at the Village Pump? Was broader, pan-project consensus sought? (I honestly have no idea!) — Brian ( talk ) 22:56, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Before my time. I guess the places to look would be the tree of life's archive pages. And like I said earlier, it isn't like we impose this on the variety of articles beyond the scope of the project. And if new people are contributing bird articles themselves and had a strong opinion it probably would provoke a discussion and might even be left alone; the fact is that everyone that has written new decent sized bird articles (more than stubs) generally ends up joining the project and either already followed the convention or are happy to once informed of it (I certainly had no opinion when I joined but like the preciceness of the convention and have adopted it elsewhere.) Oh, and I don't consider the American and Commonwealth English example the greatest example of things working okay, it's something of a trainwreck really, but not one that anything that can honestly have anything done about anymore. Sabine's Sunbird  talk  23:13, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The acceptance of the major varieties of English works just fine, IMV. Our language, among all, is "big and baggy"; that's part of its genius—to be supple and inclusive, yet you know immediately when it's well written. I'm more worried about other things, as I said to Fred: "Does including that info about the Bird Wikiproject [in the MOS] mean that the MOS is endorsing its decisions (and thus that FAs must follow them, and other articles should, but not other Wikiproject determinations on initial caps)? It's unclear, which is why I don't like including the example unless it explicitly says Wikiproject determinations on this issue should be followed. Don't like it. All or none. Tony 05:24, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The acceptance of the major varieties of English works just fine, Aparently your spelling hasn't been corrected a number of times in articles that you've started or been the major contributor to. Lucky you. Okay, but your second point makes sense, I admit (and I didn't relaize that was the major cause of objection). The change was made in good faith due to an editor that was unhappy that we used it as a fairly strict convention within the Wikiproject. Wikiprojects have a great deal of leeway in setting standards within their articles, as befits the decentralised organisation of Wikipedia and the leeriness of expanding rules in the community. But if you're objecting to the changing of existsing wikipedia-wide rules, well, I belatedly see your point. Perhaps we can remove the change made and leave things as they were before, with the naming standards that Wikiproject birds quoting being Naming conventions (fauna); so long as MOS isn't used as a stick to beat the bird people with (and begin mass movement and editing of animal articles) this should be acceptable. Sabine's Sunbird  talk  21:53, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm uncomfortable about the MOS's endorsing of one particular WProject's dictum. I think it should go back to the original, and the bird people can fight it out among themselves. Tony 00:19, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Removed the line. Best to leave the truce alone, eh? Sabine's Sunbird  talk  00:40, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Truce is good. Thanks Sabine's Sunbird.  fyi - there is no fight "among"  "the bird people" about whether to capitalize English names of species (though there are arguments about HOW to capitalize them).  The only disputes about whether to capitalize occur when someone who knows nothing about birds tells us we're wrong.  Pgan002 posted: "I would like to contest your project's insistence on capital names for species. . .  Please change your guidelines or change the Manual of Style to make them consistent with each other." I guess the lesson here is I shouldn't have taken the bait, and should have done what almost everyone else did, which was to just ignore it.

Capitalization of "concerning"?
Should this be capitalized in book/essay titles? Which one is right, An Essay Concerning Human Understanding or An Enquiry concerning Human Understanding? shoeofdeath 18:11, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


 * (I will take a stab at this one and I will welcome others to jump in and correct me as needed.)
 * I believe that either way is acceptable. Since the word concerning is a preposition, it ought not to be capitalized. But there is also a tradition that if any word in the title is more than five letters—even if it is an article, a conjunction, or a preposition—then it may be capitalized. --Paul Erik 04:54, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Why capitalise any letter but the very first (which would conform with MOS's guidelines for article titles and subtitles). With such a wealth of formatting (highlighting) resources on computers, the old typewriter mindset of underlining and capitalising to mark text is—all too slowly—retreating. Tony 05:19, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Pretty coloured ticks and crosses
If no one minds, I'll change them to the less prominent black ones we used in the new hyphens and dashes section. Tony 00:56, 18 June 2007 (UTC)


 * A good idea, I say.
 * –&thinsp; Noetica ♬♩&thinsp;Talk 02:08, 18 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I have put the unicode template on them so that they work on less fancy machines. Jɪmp 07:54, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Jimp. Gotta hand it to you. Tony 09:06, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Foreign terms
I like the section on when foreign terms are italicized and when they are not, but I think an exception needs to be made for situations when an article has a foreign term as its title. For example, the articles on kitsune (Japanese fox spirits) and tengu (Japanese goblins) both use non-English terms for their titles. However, it is tiresome to have to read the terms kitsune and tengu in italics throughout. I therefore propose that we allow foreign terms to go non-italicized when such terms are the subject of the article. — Brian ( talk ) 04:42, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Anyone? Does my question not make sense? — Brian ( talk ) 22:19, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I think that's a perfectly fine idea. I'm not sure that I'd extend it to section headers, though. Askari Mark (Talk) 23:01, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Sounds good to me. Hate to be pedantic though not "allow foreign terms to go non-italicized when such terms are the subject of the article" but "allow foreign terms to go non-italicized when that to which the term refers is the subject of the article".  Of course, we all know that this is what you mean but it seems to me that we should be precise when writing the MOS. Jɪmp 05:21, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

British English v American English Compromise words
I am quite keen on expanding the section around BrE vs AmE to encourage the use of 'uncontested' words in the articles wherever possible. An example would be 'organization' (AmE) vs 'organisation' (BrE). In this case the words 'business', 'company' or 'charity' could be used dependant on the subject matter (obviously there are others where a different word could be used, but this is an example).

I strongly believe that this should be a fundamental element of the MOS, as it leads to generally less wars of attrition between editors, and if everyone did this so far as possible, then you wouldn't need to distinguish between types of English. Personally, i would like to apply this policy, even on country specific articles, as it creates consistency and readability for all users, regardless of origin.

It especially applies to scientific terms, especially those where BrE uses 'ae' or 'æ', as opposed to the AmE use of just the 'e'. For example 'haemorrhage' (BrE) versus 'hemorrhage' (AmE) where 'bleeding' would be an appropriate term, Paediatric vs Pediatric (childrens) etc.

Does anyone have any objections? If not, i'm going to think up a few good examples, and add them in the appropriate section.

Thanks for your input Owain.davies 14:41, 20 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Don't like it one bit. We have those words in the English language for a reason, and to pretend they don't exist simply because there are spelling variations is ridiculous.  When we write, we hopefully pick the appropriate word, regardless of whether or not it has spelling variations.  Your suggestion that "scientific words" should be changed in this way removes the "scientificness" of the words!  Should the article pediatrics be renamed to children's medicine?  I don't think so.  Lexicon (talk) 15:06, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with Lexicon. Tony 15:21, 20 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not suggesting wholesale removal of every example, but good editing makes the prose accessible to as many readers as possible. As for replacing pediatrics with childrens medicine.  Not really necessary (even with the apostrophe in the right place), but in the article, you can make more references to 'child' and 'children' than 'pediatric'.  It's not supposed to be blanket, but to use alternatives where possible. Owain.davies 15:42, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Just a quick addition - whilst i still maintain this is an overall good policy, I think this should at least apply to those words which are uncommon in either BrE or AmE (even if common in the other). One example which appears quite frequently on Wikipedia is 'Etiology' (AmE).  The BrE equivalent aetiology is very infrequently used (to the extent that it is virtually unused), and would therefore be better substituted out.  Others are on quite comprehensive lists on Wikipedia. Owain.davies 17:30, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm with tony and Lex. There is absolutely no reason to go pandering to the few people who can't deal with a few spelling differences and sacrifice the integrity of articles because of it (which is exactly what this will do).  If everyone just maintains the current standards on the issue and that is enforced there won't be any problems.--  Oni Ookami Alfador Talk 17:44, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Count me against this idea too. Choose your words according to normal common sense not according to whether or not somebody else spells them differently to how you do. Jɪmp 02:58, 21 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, we all learn to write in formal English and informal English. No problem writing and reading English of another major variety. In fact, it's a minor and necessary skill for Wikipedians; should be for all English speakers in a globalised world. Tony 13:04, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Portrait-format thumbnail images
I;ve just added the new upright parameter for portrait-format thumbnails, to the section on images. Andy Mabbett 15:24, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * What does the new parameter do? — M ETS 501 (talk) 03:28, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * It appears to reduce the dimensions of a portrait-format thumbnail such that its width matches the default height for landscape-format thumbnails, ie 180 pixels. As I've long considered this size to be too small, I'm not as enamoured by this as I might have been! We were fairly close to a consensus regarding the raising the default size to something sensible like 220 pixels, when the discussion seemed to go missing.. the original debate is here (scroll down a para or two) but a spinoff at WP:VPR with a good summary of the issue has vanished somehow. This new markup is undoubtedly a good facility, I'm just unlikely to use it so long as it further reduces an already-too-small thumb default. mikaultalk 10:48, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

U.S.
When this major change was made ( Revision as of 16:14, 30 March 2007 ("quotation marks, see Talk; words-as-words rule is not consistently applied, neither is the order of punctuation and quotation marks") to the article the commenting out of the paragraph seems to have gone largly uncommented. See Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Archive_36 and Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Archive_36 (please show the link in the archived talk page if I am wrong):
 * When abbreviating United States, “U.S.” is the more common style in that country. When referring to the United States in a long abbreviation (USA, USN, USAF), periods should not be used. When including the United States in a list of countries, do not abbreviate the "United States" (for example, “France and the United States”, not “France and the US”).

Does no one object to it because in the past editors have been willing to argue strongly for its inclusion. --Philip Baird Shearer 14:42, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Unsure what you mean; what does "it" refer to? Tony 15:30, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Removal of the two sentences. --Philip Baird Shearer 11:47, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

This passage had already been removed before the recent copy-edit of this section, and I, for one, didn’t even notice this fact. But I can see why it was removed. Most English speakers outside North America use “US”, just like the related abbreviations cited above; it's even used without the dots at the end of that very passage. Many Americans do the same, in line with the tendency throughout the language to lose the dots in abbreviations, possibly because they're ugly and redundant (witness the bottom of every WP article page—“US-registered”). I suspect that this is an increasing phenomenon, although I have no proof of this. Even the article on the US (a current Featured Article Candidate), contained instances of “US” until a reviewer pointed out the inconsistent usage there. Given that the MOS is for all of us, not just Americans, and that Americans themselves vary in their attitude to the dots, it seems unnecessary, even undesirable, to insist on you dot es dot in the MOS.

On the “spell it out when it’s listed with other countries” bit, I think the US style manuals from which this was derived say something stronger, like "spell it out when it occurs in the same sentence as another country”. Again, other English speakers don't take any notice of this, and I’m unsure that most Americans follow it. Is it psychologically defensive? The UK has no such problem with “the UK” when close to the names of other countries. I think that quite a few WPians would argue against the inclusion of these matters in what is an international manual of style. (Despite saying this, I wouldn’t disagree that the spelt-out version is attractive per se.)

Naturally, individual WPians are free to follow these stylistic niceties if they wish. Tony 13:06, 13 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Well it if is not going to be included here there is a case for removing it from WP:NC and Naming conventions (acronyms) --Philip Baird Shearer 17:18, 14 June 2007 (UTC)


 * In the United Kingdom, using UK (no periods) seems to actually be the official usage. If you visit the government sites, they use UK.  While if you visit the government sites of the United States, they use U.S. (periods).  USA, however, tends to be used more often without periods than with periods.  Of course, using American, for a person, is also fine, although I usually link it as American.  Therefore, I would recommend that United States, U.S., USA or American (for a person) be used, with the style of the surrounding words dictating which should be used.  In general, I would recommend using United States first, and then following usages can be U.S.  If a short form is wanted from the start, then USA (as linked here) would be best.  Fanra 20:20, 16 June 2007 (UTC)


 * That might be your recommendation, but to legislate it will cut across significant usage by both Americans and other English-speakers. If it went the other way, you wouldn't like the usage that you recommend to be proscribed by the MOS. Tony 03:31, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
 * PS And you say you link "American" ... Why? Is it an uncommon term, or are you just spattering the page with trivial blue links? Tony 23:19, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

A style guide should contain as few exceptions as possible. This one in particular was annoying if you write articles with a lot of “UK” and “US” in them. With this MoS rule in force, someday someone will come along changing the latter to “U.S.” but keeping the former, which is plain ugly. Anyway, sooner or later “US” will become the predominant form in the US, too; except probably in all-caps. Christoph Päper 20:18, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

For what it's worth, (American) journalistic usage dictates that "United States" is a noun ("He lives in the United States"), "U.S." is an adjective ("U.S. foreign policy dictates that ..."). As for punctuation, the general rule is that abbreviations of two letters or less get periods (U.S., U.K.), three letters or more do not (FBI, CIA). I for one like both those rules, if for no other reason than they are simple and don't require a truckload of exceptions. Nolefan32 06:26, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Some of those journalistic rules I like, others I don't. But my, and your personal preferences are not the issue. What matters is that many people, Americans and others, don't now use the dots, and will object to adoption of the preferences of a few US sources for all English speakers here. Tony 06:47, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * You'd prefer a bunch of exceptions then? Because that seems to be the way you want to lean on a lot of things ... "Do it this way except for when it's like this, or this, or this or this ...."  I just think the simpler, the better, and the less exceptions there are, the easier it is for people to figure out the style without having to actually study the guide. Nolefan32 06:59, 27 June 2007 (UTC)