Wikipedia talk:Use modern language

One
I strongly object to the suggestion that Wikipedia articles should avoid using "one" as an impersonal pronoun. This suggestion interacts very badly with the requirement that Wikipedia articles avoid using first-person pronouns, since the only reasonable alternative is "we". I'm also not happy about the abjuration of subjunctive but it's not as much of a show-stopper for me. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:58, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Always been a fan of "one." It's not common in U.S. English, but it does the job correctly and without gender bias, while "he," "she" and "they" do not. Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:59, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree. But more importantly, I note that the gender neutrality section is a long list of "don't"s. What should we do if we take away all the options? -Phoenixrod (talk) 05:44, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * As that section says: Rewrite to avoid the awkward constuction. The most common way of doing this is to switch from singular to plural so that "they" can be used instead of "him/her". —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93; ‹(-¿-)› 19:53, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm a fan of "one" too in certain contexts, but I don't think it should be used much in Wikipedia. "One" serves more as a replacement of "we", "I", and "you", than of "he", "she", and "they", so it doesn't really help with respect to gender bias, and it goes against the spirit of avoiding the first and second person. --Itub (talk) 12:29, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm the one that added that in there, and I'm a fan of "one" myself, but this is actually long-standing WP guidance. I'm not trying to change anything.  We simply do not speak to the reader directly (except in self-refs, e.g. (see below), which we largely try to avoid by writing better prose that links to things less intrusively. We do not write, "...and then you pull the lever and press the green button", yet substituting "one" for "you" is still a direct, just more stilted, second person address, as has been pointed out at WT:MOS more than once. I'm pretty sure MOS still specifically mentions "one" as a no-no, though I haven't looked lately. —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93;  ‹(-¿-)› 19:49, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

MOS:YOU says "one" is allowed but sounds stilted and should be avoided if possible. -- Beland (talk) 01:10, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a magic 8-ball
If a usage is correct, then it should not be banned. If a term is markedly inferior to its alternatives, then it will be replaced by other editors without any guidelines against it. While Wikipedia should respond to the changes in our living languages, but it should not manufacture such changes or ban valid words just because it looks like they're about to die anyway; they might not. This might not be what we mean by "Wikipedia is not a crystal ball," but it's similar. The matter is far too subjective and subject to far too much regional variation. This essay is a good example: Some of the arguments against specific words read like perfect logic but others read like pet peeves ...and I don't think many of us will agree on which are which.

As for readers trying to learn English as a subsequent language, they would be better served by seeing English as it actually is rather than how one or a few Wikipedians would prefer it. Instances in which correct English is too confusing can be mitigated by careful Wikilinking and by including more articles in the [simple English Wikipedia].

This is not to say that Wikipedia shouldn't be written in clear, intelligiblRe language. However, "write for your audience," and "keep it encyclopedic" already cover this.

It is worth mentioning that certain cases outlined in this essay, such as the one against sexist or gender-specific language, are already espoused in so many style guides that they can be considered standard. In complying with those, Wikipedia is responding to changes in the English language rather than creating them. Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:59, 3 June 2009 (UTC)


 * This is a nascent guideline, not a policy, so it can't "ban" anything. Many "correct" usages are strongly discouraged by WP:MOS and its sub-guideline (hundreds of them); simply being grammatical in some varieties of English doesn't make a construction appropriate for a global encyclopedia.  The "we don't need a guideline, better usage will just happen automatically over time" view would have us delete every guideline on the system. The essay is not "manufacturing changes", it is asking readers to avoid potentially reader-confusing constructions that have already changed or are undergoing change entirely aside from WP. Of course it's subjective; everything about the MOS, and most other guidelines and policies is subjective - they are consensus judgement calls. Regional variation: We can hash that out; just saying "no!" is not compromising or consensus-building, it's just non-constructive. I.e., just because you don't believe there's a real issue to address doesn't mean everyone else will agree with you and stop addressing the issues they perceive.  Whether we'll agree on which are logical and which are not remains to be seen - you can't use your own crystal-balling as an argument against what you see as a problem of the essay/draft guideline itself crystal-balling!


 * Re: WFYA and KIE: This essay/proposal makes points that those do not, and each makes points that the other does not. So what?  Maybe there should be a discussion about a merge.  That is an entirely separate issue from whether any/all of the content and guidance in this page are valid.  By way of analogy, see the WP:ATT fiasco of several years ago. No one (sane) disagreed with WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:RS in substance, but the issue of whether or not to merge them turned into one of the biggest verbal brawls in wiki history.


 * Agreed about gender stuff; the disagreement in a nutshell is that I am seeing everything in this essay/proposal as following the same pattern, and you are not. —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93; ‹(-¿-)› 19:49, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Feedback
Stanton, you might consider a formatted opening for easy navigation, such as:


 * diacritics in loanwords that have ...

I'd aim for the same flow-on grammar for each ... "Avoid:
 * blah, because it's damned ugly.
 * blah, because people will think you're a pompouss ass.

etc. That way, you could avoid saying "Use of" in most or all of the items.

Consider splitting the whopping big first list into more than one section.

A bit of humour in a few places?

A few points concerning the top.


 * What are "postmodern" English terms?
 * Methinks those who write in a pedantic or condescending manner are the very users who won't see their prose in those terms, unless it's directly pointed out to them.
 * You could number your points for easier reference at this stage. Bullets 3 and 4 seem unnecessary.
 * Fowler says "toward" et al. are adverbs alone, whereas "towards" et al. can be either adverb or adjective (I think).
 * Give an example of the subjunctive. Tony  (talk)  17:31, 9 June 2009 (UTC)


 * All good points. This was basically a first draft with minor twiddles here and there that I just "released to the wild". I haven't even commented on the talk page much less edited the document substantively since release, until now. Wanted to see what others made of it, what they'd want to change and why, and what arguments they'd use to defend the changes, before putting any more effort into it. —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93;  ‹(-¿-)› 19:49, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Subjunctive
I don't understand how could you want, at the same time, to pander to some prescriptive grammarians' peeves about the split infinitive while at the same time throwing away the subjunctive! I think many prescriptive grammarians would also be offended by the use of the indicative where the subjunctive is more appropriate. The subjunctive is not dead yet, and I don't see why Wikipedia should lead a campaign against it. --Itub (talk) 12:23, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The problem with the subjunctive in a globally edited encyclopedia (as opposed to your novel) is that a large percentage of readers/editors don't understand it and will edit war over it. See editing history of Godwin's law for an example. I introduced a perfectly grammatical subjunctive, defended it for months against "correction" and eventually just had to give up and rewrite the entire passage to avoid the contruction. —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93;  ‹(-¿-)› 19:49, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

The controversy over the subjunctive in Godwin's law occurred most recently in the Revision as of 04:18, 4 May 2007, where SMcCandlish changed was to were in "However, Godwin's Law can itself also be abused, as a distraction or diversion, to fallaciously miscast an opponent's argument as hyperbole, especially if the comparison that the argument made was actually appropriate." (italic emphasis added.) A strong case can be made is would be a better word choice here than was or were. See the discussion under English subjunctive, which compares and contrasts indicative and subjunctive usage. Suppose somewhere there is a discussion about torture in country X, analogous to torture under Nazi Germany. (In the previous sentence, I could have written "suppose somewhere there were a discussion ...", but that would imply a counterfactual, i.e. in fact there is no such discussion. I don't wish to imply a counterfactual; I assume that somewhere, there really is such a discussion.) In that discussion, where the comparison to Nazi Germany is actually appropriate, it would not be an application of Godwin's law. Is is the word of choice in the sentence SMcCandlish frets about. —Anomalocaris (talk) 06:03, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
 * "Fretting"? You're the one dragging up a dead discussion from five years ago (regarding a disagreement that's now over 7-years stale), in which I suggested to get worked up over it, with regard to material in an article that has changed so much and so frequently that it's no longer even relevant.  That said, the material at English subjunctive you're relying on has no source, and is wrong anyway; subjunctive in that usage expresses a hypothetical generally, not necessarily a definite counterfactual, and this in indicated in the very next paragraph in the section - which does have a source - even if the usage illustrated isn't the most common.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  20:12, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Feedback
Reading your advise against the use of old or overly progressive language, I thought about a related issue which you do not mention. I've been a writer in print long before Wikipedia, and I recall one example from a draft I circulated: "Yea, right" in an ironic sense was flagged as not being understandable to those outside the US. My point is to avoid cultural references that will be local or not stand the test of time. Trendy phrases might not show up on the radar of those thinking about "new words".

As for accent marks: I agree that they are dropped when a word is fully accepted into the English language. But they might still be useful when context is not shown. For example, "learned" vs "learnéd" if it appears in a list of words rather than as part of a sentence.

There are also issues in pointing out correct pronunciation. Everybody knows not to say /kuː.dɪn.ɪt/ or /kʊ.dɪn.ɪt/, as per your example. But the word zoology comes to mind. "This is my brother Tom, a zoologist", said Mary. "zoölogist", corrected Tom. In an essay about a subject, it might be quite appropriate to show the proper way to pronounce a word. So if it is not common ("The governor went to Kaanapala Village" — is the place-name immediately identifiable as a Hawaiian name, and how many people in other places know how Hawaiian words are pronounced?) or often mis-pronounced (like zoology), it might be nicer to use some kind of in-line hints as opposed to a parentetical comment. Maybe Wikipedia should offer a hover-link feature for that, so it's available without interrupting the flow of the sentence? We are not restricted to traditional media's ways of doing things. Długosz (talk) 17:38, 19 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Culturally-specific phrasing: Agreed, but I'm not sure whether that belongs here. It goes both ways across the channel (and elsewhere - I've encounted impenetrable Australianisms, etc.)  The snooker bio articles often include turns of phrase (usually informal ones, e.g. "gobsmacking") that don't parse outside of British English.  Accent marks: I'm not convinced that "zoölogist" would be appropriate, unless there were two words, "zoologist" and "zoölogist" that needed to be disambiguated.  When I learned to read and write in England in the 1970s, that "ö" was still common ("coöperate", etc.), but only in British English, and today I see no evidence of its everyday survival even in that dialect. For a Hawaiian placename, it should have its own article, with an IPA pronunciation guide in it.  Wikipedia is not a dictionary or "learn to pronounce funny-looking English words like 'zoology' correctly" guide. :-)  —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93;  ‹(-¿-)› 19:49, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Foreign names
"Formerly common mis-transliterations of foreign words and names..." You don't mention current mis-transliterations of foreign names. I recall reading an article lamenting the spelling of (e.g.) Arabic names, and how difficult it is to decide how to render it in English. Using the spelling as adopted in the popular news is generally more meanigful than the "correct" current standard transcription if nobody would recognise the name. In any case, a name by any spelling can be linked to that article, to make it perfectly clear.
 * I was avoiding that on purpose, as "the jury is still out" on what to do with them. The jury has long since brought down verdicts on Bombay and Peking. —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93;  ‹(-¿-)› 19:49, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Romanization talks all about this. -- Beland (talk) 01:22, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Comma
The comma is not used "as a natural pause" or breath-mark in a sentence. See comma. Some people who don't know proper grammar will stick them in all over the place for that purpose, so don't make it sound like that's what you are talking about. Długosz (talk) 17:55, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Not sure I'm entirely following you, but whatever. Just change the text to say what you think it should say, and if people agree, it will stay that way. —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93; ‹(-¿-)› 19:49, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Units of measure
"Eponymous units of measure are not capitalized, although their standard abbreviated symbols may be, determined on a unit-by-unit basis. Meanwhile eponymous scales, i.e. systems, of measurement, such as Celsius, Fahrenheit and Kelvin, are capitalized."

How is Kelvin different from watt, joule, or newton? The only difference is your examples are all temperature scales. I don't see what you mean by "scale or system" that's different for those units, compared with any others. Furthermore, the kelvin unit is not capitalized. But looking that up makes me wonder if you meant to distinguish "kelvin (SI Unit)" from "The Kelvin Scale"

Długosz (talk) 18:07, 19 June 2009 (UTC)


 * As the text says: "...units of measure are not capitalized...Meanwhile...scales, i.e. systems, of measurement...are capitalized". "It's 100 degrees fahrenheit" (unit); "It's 100° F" (unit symbol, capitalized in this case, unlike ml or km or qt); "What would that be on the Celsius scale?" (system of measurement). Kelvin is capitalized, when refering to the scale (e.g. "the Kelvin scale is..."; it is not capitalized when used as a unit (20 degrees kelvin). The text as it stands is already clear on all of this.  Not sure how to make it clearer, without throwing in a bunch of longwinded examples like I've done here. —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93;  ‹(-¿-)› 19:49, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I've tried to clarify that stuff in the essay without getting too verbose. Really, though, all you had to do was read the first sentence or two of Kelvin. :-) —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93;  ‹(-¿-)› 21:20, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * PS: This is really all determined at WP:MOSNUM anyway; I'm simply adapting that guideline's general advice to the specific issues raised in this essay. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ  Contribs. 09:51, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Towards, subjunctive mood and whilst
In regards to towards and alike the 's' is a matter of which country you live in. British English prefers the -s and most British people would find it an Americanism or even old fashioned not to use it. Therefore it should be used in British articles but not in American articles.

As for the Subjunctive mood it is common in America and amongst educated British people and would be understood by a British person even if they would not use it themselves. And finally while whilst should not be used in American articles there is no reason whatsoever not to use it in British articles. Plus it would be understood by both just as equaly as while. DanielR235 17:21, 24 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Towards: I don't see any evidence of that. Please cite a source showing that "toward" does not exist in British English and "towards" does not exist in American.
 * Huh? Subjunctive is far more common in British and Commonwealth English than North American, US included. It's virtually extinct in US English except in very formal and learned writing, especially in the New England subdialect (see William F. Buckley, Jr. as a grand example).  I added that in there because editwarring does in fact erupt here over subjunctive phrasing, especially in constructions that are not common ("If I were you" doesn't set anyone off, but more complex examples do).  "Whilst": I never said anyone would not be able to figure it out; it is simply redundant with "while".  Again, cite a source showing that "while" does not exist in British English and "whilst" does not exist in US English. —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93;  ‹(-¿-)› 19:49, 24 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I'll look up a source for the toward/towards for British English, but I never said that American English uses only toward. I said only that British prefers towards.
 * Update: Search http://www.collinslanguage.com/ it lists towards with toward as U.S.
 * In regard to the subjunctive mood from what I have read about the subjunctive and from compering U.S./U.K. T.V. programmes (e.g. the use of "if it weren't for" U.S. but "if it wasn't for" U.K.) I thought it to be used more in America than in the U.K..
 * However my point was that it is understood, could you give me a few examples of where it would not be understood.
 * As for whilst/while I never said that while is not used in British English but that whilst is also used and there is no need to use one over the other
 * see http://www.staffordshirewildlife.org.uk/reservedetails.asp?ses=&pl=false&rsid=113. I can provide more links if required.
 * DanielR235 20:02, 24 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Search the edit history of Godwin's law for "subjunctive" for an example of an editwar about it. I've seen others.  As for while/whilst, if as you say both are used interchangeably in the UK, and whilst is not used exclusively anywhere, then there is no reason to use the more archaic and longer-winded whilst at all on Wikipedia (esp. given our very, very large number of non-native English speakers, the majority of whom are barely familiar to not familiar at all with dialectalisms like whilst). All the same goes for towards. —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93;  ‹(-¿-)› 10:27, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Regarding whilst I can understand where you are coming from in regard to international articles, yey for  articles of British subjects such as British villages there is no reason not to use it, I'm sure that non-native English speakers would recognize it. And it is not at all archaic out-side of America, it is just chiefly commonwealth.

In regard to towards there is no reason whatsoever not to use an 's', it is far more common in Britain. What's more there is only a 's' between the two hence non-English speakers are very unlikely to know not what is means therefore there is no reason for the use of one over the other. But rather that the 's' ought to be dropped in U.S.A. articles but used in U.K. articles.

As for the subjunctive mood is there a way of searching the article with out looking at every page manually? DanielR235 16:56, 30 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Whilst: I guess we can agree to disagree. My disagreement is, basically, that I wouldn't use "prevaricate" or "perambulate" when "lie" and "walk" suffice. There is no encyclopedic reason to use longer and more obscure terms when simpler and more broadly-known ones suffice.
 * Towards: Same reason, basically: The "s" is redundant, even in British English, even if it's common. "Ain't" is, like, real common in American English, as is the misuse of "real" (for "really") and "like" that I just used, but that's not a reason to use any of those dialectal quirks here, even in articles on American topics.  "Real" is probably a really good example, actually. It is 100% normal in American English below the formal register to use "real" as an adjective instead of "really".  I'm sure it looks/sounds completely ridiculous to all other English speakers. There are innumerable Briticisms and Americanisms and Australianisms, etc., etc., that should be avoided in WP articles, precisely because they are [some random region]-isms.
 * I'm not going to keel over and die if either of these get removed from the essay (I put it in "Wikipedia:" instead of "User talk:" so that others can edit it), but I feel that removing these (without further and clearer justification, at least) would simply be regional dialect defensiveness, not what is best for the global encyclopedia.
 * Searching history: Go to Godwin's law. Click history. Click the 500" link to the left of "View". Use your browser's in-page search function (usually ctrl-F or cmd-F, depending on OS and browser) and search for "subjunctive". Not found? Click "Next 500", repeat search. Found! See my edit there, and various ones before and after (there's one after where I ended up just rewriting the entire passage, because someone had "corrected" the subjunctive for the third or fourth time and it was getting very tiresome). —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93;  ‹(-¿-)› 18:27, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * PS: Please stop indenting your sig with a space; it is causing it to generate a ...  field. You'd be better off putting a "–" or something in front of it to get the effect you seem to be looking for. You can do this automatically by editing your signature in user preferences. —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93;  ‹(-¿-)› 18:27, 30 November 2009 (UTC)


 * First of all thank you for telling me how to find the subjunctive in the article.
 * Regarding that I know what you mean now (though I think what you had put was a lot better than what they edited it to and prefer the subjunctive myself), anyhow I don't think it is used that often 'lest not in the articles which I edit. I just think it would be better to say that you should try to talk through it with the person removing it and as a last resort rewrite the sentence to avoid it rather than just letting it be changed to incorrect English.
 * In regard to the '-s' is know where your coming from but I don't think it is as regional as real and ain't, hence I don't think it matters. Why does towards have no place in modern English when toward is older? As far as I know we in the U.K. started using the '-s' to the point of making words such as toward redundant but in the U.S.A. you keep the original word similar to the words diaper and nappy. I personally mind not toward but I think many of my fellow Englishman would prefer towards.
 * Also what about learnt vs learned and spelt vs spelled, my point being that there are always going to be differences from things which are written by British people than American.
 * In regard to towards itself a Google search find 40,100,000 for towards but only 28,700,000 for toward, I know that it is not the best way but it gives an idea.
 * Finally the signature was by accident I was having trouble with the Sinebot saying I hadn't signed by posts when I had thus I tried changing it and I thought it was just a temporary think which went normal after a while. I have since removed the space and I hope that it helps.
 * DanielR235 21:46, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The subjunctive stuff's been rewritten and moved; not sure it suits your preferences now. I didn't go into "discuss it with the other editor" instructions, since that's just how we do wiki to begin with. The issue is that some editors simply never understand subjunctive and trying to explain it to them is a waste of time. No one should replace it with ungrammatical wording, but it can just be simpler to rewrite the passage to avoid any further confusion and editwarring. Been there, done that. :-)
 * Towards, forwards, etc.: GHits are often skewed by all sorts of factors. The -s versions are still redundant. I might be persuadable, with scholarly linguistic evidence, that it really is entirely a WP:ENGVAR matter. Same goes for "spelt" (for "spelled"; not the fish!). I concede that in both cases it is possible it purely a dialect issue, and a real one, but no one has convinced me of this yet. And I learned to read and write in England, and have also lived in Canada, as well as the US, so I'm familiar with multiple varieties of English. Anyway, yes, there are also sorts of wording differences between varieties, I'm just not convinced that -s and -t fully qualify. I think they are quite a bit more regional than just "British", and are belong entirely within the informal register (thus their frequent appearance in popular journalism, but infrequent appearance in refereed journals).
 * Sig: I hear ya; there's a way to opt out of Sinebot's "assistance". — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ  Contribs. 05:27, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

More feedback
Some thoughts (as an American, 23 years old, not a professional writer or regular WP contributor, with an amateur interest in grammar/style, so take it for what it's worth):


 * Unbeknownst and, especially, whatsoever seem to be relatively common in mainstream journalism, which should have a vaguely similar style/tone to Wikipedia. In particular, using the search function on the websites of the Seattle Times and the New York Times, I count a few occurrences a month of "unbeknownst" (mostly in the story text) and a few a week of "whatsoever" (mostly in direct quotes).
 * Whatever—definitely agree; I don't even recognize your example construction (though I understand it). Also suggest in any case as an alternative.
 * Subjunctive—I don't think a blanket recommendation against is justified. As an irregular user of the subjunctive, I would have used the indicative if I were writing your Godwin's Law example, but I probably would not have tried to "correct" your subjunctive to an indicative. On the other hand, I find it perfectly natural to use the subjunctive in simpler constructions such as the one in the previous sentence, and it seems to be pretty common still (e.g. Beyonce's 2008 song "If I Were A Boy") so I'd expect it to be understandable to the vast majority of speakers. But I would not bother to correct pre-existing uses of the indicative. So what I'm trying to say is, it might be best to explain the uncertain status of the subjunctive and recommend tolerance in both directions.
 * upon—in your last example, I would say and write "she climbed up on the roof" or "she climbed up onto the roof". Do you find something wrong with these?
 * in order to—I don't think a blanket recommendation against is justified, since simple to could be ambiguous in some cases where in order to is not: "We fought the new requirements in order to conserve fuel". (Removing in order results in an ambiguity as to whether the fighting or the requirements are trying to conserve fuel.) And, frankly, in order to doesn't strike me as verbose anyway. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.197.232.158 (talk) 13:30, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the comments. I'm not suggesting that "unbeknownst" and "whatsoever" are completely obsolete, only that they are unnecessarily tumid, and are confusing to non-native English speakers (who make up a surprisingly large number of en.wikipedia readers, because of the breadth and depth of our articlebase).  "In any case": Right; just added that. Feel free to edit the page - it's not a userspace essay. Subjunctive: I get your point; will change the page; moved it to "Borderline cases" and suggested that it be handled carefully rather than entirely avoided. Upon: Agree that the roof thing was a bad example, as I too would use your construction. I'm not sure I put roof in there in the first place. Changed it to table.  "In order to": Noted, and good example; will integrate it. Done. "In order to" isn't terribly verbose, but it is still verbose compared to "to", especially when (as the passage says), it is used to express a very simple relationship: "He moved to Scotland to take a new job." Anyway, I've massaged all these entries and several others as a result of issues you've raised. Nice to have an extra set of eyes on it. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ  Contribs. 05:08, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Death
Should we mention something about referring to people as being dead? Lately, I've cleaned out a ton of articles that said, for example, "She perished in a mountain-climbing accident", changing perished to either "died" or "was killed". Besides that being a personal annoyance to me (even when referring to relatives, I always say dead, died, etc.), it's not particularly encyclopedic, as people are not old tomatoes. Similarly, saying things like "passed away" should be eliminated too. We wouldn't say "kicked the bucket" or "bought the farm", would we? The Blade of the Northern Lights (talk) 08:22, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I believe that MOS (on one of its subpages or another) already covers this, actually. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ  Contribs. 04:31, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll have to look for it; maybe I missed something. Wouldn't be bad to stick that somewhere in here too, though. Most of these articles are relatively low-traffic, but there was one FA (the failed Robert Scott expedition to the South Pole, resulting in everyone involved dying) that had it everywhere. The Blade of the Northern Lights (talk) 05:12, 8 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I think I found what you're thinking of: WP:EUPHEMISM. It doesn't really mention what I said above- it only says to "avoid statements like 'died tragically'".  There's a difference between saying that and something like passed away or perished- the latter two statements are more implicit, so they aren't as readily visible.  Don't know what you make of that.  I find perished, passed away, and deceased in articles a lot more often than "died tragically" (I've done searches for both), so maybe stating it here would help.  The Blade of the Northern Lights (talk) 05:22, 8 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I strongly agree with the sentiment, but it's not a WP:MODLANG issue (after all, the phrases aren't obsoletely, they're just wishy-washy and over-sensitive); I would instead edit WP:EUPHEMISM to cover it more explicitly. If anyone objects, I'm sure that polling WT:BIOGRAPHY on the matter would show strong support for avoiding euphemistic language for death. Undoing such handwringing prose is actually a very common WP:BIOGRAPHY kind of edit. Anyway, I think this essay should stick to modern (vs. obsolete and "post-modern") usage, not other stylistic issues (for the same reason, I've intentionally avoided mention of things like "cutesy" or "twee" wording, contractions, telegraphic writing, and other issues covered elsewhere. PS: On "died tragically", the issue there isn't euphemism at all, it's point-of-view pushing. WP:EUPHEMISM may need cleanup as well as an addition... — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ  Contribs. 05:36, 8 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Makes sense, I just put in a word over there. The only thing that could be construed as obsolete would be something like "disease felled Prince Albert", which I've read in Victorian-era writing, but (mercifully) haven't encountered here.  Thanks!  The Blade of the Northern Lights (talk) 06:43, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Another suggestion
How about the word 'notwithstanding'? I've seen it used in a few places, and I think it's too technical and legalistic for a general purpose encyclopaedia. I'm a university student, and it confuses me sometimes, so it's probably best avoided in articles for a general audience. Robofish (talk) 12:34, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Added to borderline section, with "albeit" and "moreover". They're not obsolete, but they're not helpful for non-native English readers. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ  Contribs. 08:37, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Gender neutrality
Use modern language lists eight things not to say, but doesn't mention what to say instead. So use "he" and be done with it. Whatever you say will cause an argument anyway. Art LaPella (talk) 17:25, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * All points there now either say what to do or link to the previous material that says what to do. No one's raised a fuss about anything in there, that I recall.  Even the merge tag was put there by me, since some of the points here may not be covered over there, and the section here should be more concise and link to the gender neutrality guideline for more details. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ  Contribs. 08:46, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

USA
Use modern language says "'US' or 'USA'". This contradicts MOS:, which says "Do not use U.S.A. or USA ..." Art LaPella (talk) 17:29, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Clarified that entry. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ  Contribs. 18:39, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Fortnight
Someone removed the "fortnight" entry, on the basis that supposedly this is only obsolete in U.S. English. I disagree and have reverted per WP:BRD. This is the discussion part. I'd like to see some post-2000 examples of "fortnight" being used in formal, non-dialectal and non-journalistic (i.e. encyclopedic or academic) writing, in a non-tongue-in-cheek manner. My position is that the term survives in everyday usage in some dialects, especially Northern English and Scottish, but no where else except as a curiosity that only 1 out of 10 or so people understand. As such, it is not an appropriate usage in an encyclopedia, any more than other dialectal terms like "ain't", "ornery", "gobsmacking", "twain", etc. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ  Contribs. 20:56, 14 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Gosh. With the greatest respect and trying hard to think of a polite way to put it, I do think that that is wildly inaccurate. Where does that 1 in 10 figure come from, exactly? I live in London and I cannot imagine that I would be able easily to find anyone who does not understand "fortnight". Not 1 in 10 - 10 in 10. The comparison with "ain't", "ornery", "gobsmacking" and "twain" is, it seems to me, way off. They are not in the same category at all: as I hear it, "fortnight" is just an ordinary BrE word for two weeks. As for the specification that it be used only in encyclopaedic and academic writing to be an acceptable example, I fear that you are setting an unusually, perhaps illogically high standard here. "Curiosity" too is frankly bizarre. The whole thing reads most oddly, and to be honest I'm having trouble seeing where you are coming from with this perception, No offence meant, truly, but I am baffled. It is not an obscure word to me nor, I suspect, to around 60 million other BrE speakers for a start. Best wishes DBaK (talk) 21:52, 14 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I am trying not to have a terrible OCD attack over this, but I didn't have to look very long for http://www.bmj.com/content/325/7363/520.1.full.pdf where in 2002 they do not appear to have been talking some weird dialect ... disappointingly no-one says Quotha! or Forsooth! - let alone aye oop, why aye or och, erm, whatever they say up there :) DBaK (talk) 21:59, 14 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't want to labo[u]r the point but here's a very quick stab at it. I only used the BMJ site because it's one I know a little bit - not because I think they are soft on language. It is, indeed, quite a strongly edited journal. I particularly like the last example where "fortnight" is used as a measure in a table. Apologies for any errors as this was compiled in haste, but I hope it helps.


 * 2000 http://www.bmj.com/content/321/7267/1002.1.full
 * 2001 http://www.bmj.com/content/322/7287/647.full
 * 2002 http://archive.student.bmj.com/search/pdf/02/09/life.pdf
 * 2003 http://www.bmj.com/content/327/7421/949.3.full
 * 2004 http://emj.bmj.com/content/21/5/e6.full
 * 2005 http://adc.bmj.com/content/early/2005/09/13/adc.2005.073015.full.pdf
 * 2006 http://fn.bmj.com/content/92/1/F41.full
 * 2007 http://emj.bmj.com/content/24/5/375.full
 * 2008 http://bjsm.bmj.com/content/early/2008/08/27/bjsm.2008.050930.full.pdf
 * 2009 http://www.bmj.com/content/339/bmj.b4832.full
 * 2010 http://ard.bmj.com/content/early/2010/05/11/ard.2009.127324.full.pdf


 * With best wishes, DBaK (talk) 22:43, 14 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Alright, that's enough evidence for me. :-) The point remains that non-British English speakers below a collegiate education level have probably never seen this word (or have not understood and retained it when they have seen it).  What if I move it to the borderline cases section? — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ  Contribs. 00:02, 15 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the reply and the question. To be honest I hoped that I had demonstrated that it is not borderline anything, but just mainstream BrE whether well-known in AmE or not. It therefore isn't, I feel, within the scope of this article but simply a question of WP:ENGVAR. It not being out-of-date language in BrE has, I feel, that effect. Yes, there may be a problem with some readers not knowing it, but WP:ENGVAR does deal with this, and there is perfectly good information at Fortnight which can be just one click away with judicious editing. However, I think I have probably said enough on this topic now. Thanks and best wishes DBaK (talk) 22:42, 16 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I think the current wording adequately handles all of this. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ  Contribs. 23:18, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Per cent
The list of examples suggests that use of "per cent" is archaic. This is not true. According to the OED, "percent" is chiefly used in American English. In British English, "per cent" is widely used, as demonstrated by this. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:28, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I have removed it. "Per cent" is more common amongst non-Americans according to the Oxford.  McLerristarr &#124;  Mclay1  16:41, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Marginally conceded for now, but this will need to be revisited in a few years, as almost 1 in 3 Britons already prefer percent. Use Google to search everything Google has ever indexed, even Gopher and FTP material with old last-modified dates), from roughly the last human generation's worth of public and almost exclusively British text data (give or take a probably statistically insignificant number of American, Australian, etc., reprints and quotations on .uk servers):
 * , set "Custom range" (left sidebar) to  through   = "About 16,700,000 results".
 * , with same date constraints = "About 7,330,000 results".
 * While users of per cent use the combined forms percentage and percentile, they have to be eliminated from both searches as a control, because Google does not properly if at all distinguish between percent itself and percent- words. Because of Google vagaries, the weird spelling per-cent cannot be filtered out with  as one would expect, but it's so uncommon it should not affect the data.
 * PS: The OED is notoriously decades behind the times, especially in print. While it is the best researched dictionary in any language in the world for definitions and etymologies, and is thus a good source to rely on at articles like Mackem and card sharp, it's among the worst to try to use as evidence for or against present currency of a word or spelling.
 * — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ  Contribs. 02:26, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Rewrite as a Manual of Style page
The page recommends not using "snuck" which I agree with; however, I do not think it is an obsolete word. Rather, I think it is a modern American word. I think we should start a new Manual of Style: Manual of Style (grammar) or perhaps move this page and rewrite it.  McLerristarr &#124;  Mclay1  16:47, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Indeed, snuck has become more and more common in American English in the last century, and now it is nearly as common as sneaked. It looks like whoever wrote this page just made stuff up. A. di M. (talk) 10:13, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * As the "Nutshell" at the top says, it also covers neologism, not just obsolescence. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ  Contribs. 02:53, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, this page is definitely somebody's personal preferences, with some of the guidelines leaning towards Americanisms and discouraging Britishisms (apart from the "snuck" suggestion).  McLerristarr &#124;  Mclay1  08:13, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Such as? Seems to me that those have been eliminated. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ  Contribs. 02:53, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreed that this can be reworked to be a MoS page, but the main WP:MOS is already essentially a "Manual of Style (grammar)", meanwhile most of this page isn't about grammar at all, but about lexicography (word selection). Maybe "Manual of Style (modern language)", "Manual of Style (current language)", something like that? Or it could be combined into a "Manual of Style (encyclopedic language)", with inclusion of dialectalisms, journalistic and telegraphic writing, etc. That might be the best approach. Abuse of journalistic writing, especially in articles on media and sports figures/brands, is rampant. I consider it one of the worst of Wikipedia's writing and trustworthiness problems, as it is a constant source of bias and subtle misinformation. "Buzzword bingo" obfuscatory locutions (like that :-) could be covered as well. It's a very frequent PoV-pushing technique by proponents/boosters of an article subject (e.g. to describe an idea as a theoretical system or philosophical methodology. This sort of abusive logorrhoea can be found in thousands of articles, from Christian Science to Method acting (not necessarily as of when you read this; I and others edit out such problems from articles when we find them, and sometimes someone adds them back in). It's also common in bio articles on subjects who are marginally notable and do not attract a lot of independent editor attention (e.g. a singer/songwriter and guitarist may be excessively described as a multitalented and cross-performance-space artist). — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ  Contribs. 02:53, 1 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't think this essay has sufficient accommodation of supported English dialects (in ), to be ready for WP:MOS, unless prefixed with the like of "Except were any <> template is used." – which'd be a shame. Rather, for the moment, I think there's a core of overwhelmingly consensual diktats buried in here, which might be well suited to underlay a new <> or <> template (and forming it's documentation). –DjScrawl (talk) 18:26, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Dove
This is
 * not an archaism -- it is actually more recent than "dived".
 * pretty well-established in contemporary American English.

While Wikipedians may well come to a consensus for/against the use of "dove" as the preterite of "dive", this question doesn't seem to belong in an essay entitled "Use modern language". Grover cleveland (talk) 22:07, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Google Ngram shows "dove" is currently more common than "dived". But advice about this has since been removed from this essay. -- Beland (talk) 20:37, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Passive
Most appearances of passive voice in articles, however, are simply stilted, Victorianesque writing.

Hmmm. How should we describe these uses of the passive, from this very page?


 * include but are not limited to


 * should be replaced with something more specific


 * other constructions can also be substituted.


 * they must not be modified


 * Although it can safely be replaced


 * whilst is still commonly used in some varieties of British English.


 * hands and stone are still broadly used in describing horses


 * Such terms should not be used


 * they should be avoided entirely in favor of more common units


 * When used, they should be parenthetically converted into their metric and imperial/customary equivalents ... and the unit linked to the article about the unit


 * While this uncommon pattern is ostensibly covered by WP:ENGVAR it should be avoided


 * The -ed versions are clearly understood by all English speakers

Grover cleveland (talk) 22:17, 24 July 2013 (UTC)


 * The advice about passive voice has since been dropped. -- Beland (talk) 20:35, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Scholarly style
How about words such as whom, henceforth and the words listed in wikt:thereby? Are they unproblematic? These words are, I believe, still widely found in formal contexts and scholarly writings, but some may already sound archaic or even unfamiliar to our readers, especially younger generations. I appreciate their special charm and the flair of erudition that they exude, and would be sad to see them go. I'm not sure which turns of phrase are beginning to sound outdated though: clearly the style of EB1911 now appears quaint, but what are our models? --Florian Blaschke (talk) 17:19, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

A lot of problems with this essay
This essay includes mostly good advice, but it also has a lot of problems. It conflicts with Wikipedia guidelines and usage. It conflicts with major, respected usage sources including The Chicago Manual of Style. An essay about usage, it includes many examples of sloppy usage. It even conflicts with its own guidelines. It serves to confuse and mislead, and should either be carefully reviewed and improved, or removed from this space.

Mis-titled
The article calls for modern usage, both in title and in article text. As such it is expected to discuss archaic vs. modern terminology and usage, but it dwells to a great extent on criticizing usage on grounds other than non-modernity. Re-title the essay.
 * Not sure that's still true. Any suggestions if so? -- Beland (talk) 20:33, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Mmm, actually, maybe this essay is more about writing in an appropriate register, which is formal but not stuffy, modern but not neologistic, not dumbed down but not full of jargon or unnecessarily obscure phrasing. "Wikipedia:Appropriate register"? -- Beland (talk) 02:57, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Lead sentence
"The Wikipedia Manual of Style offers a great deal of guidance on virtually every aspect of article writing." Not true. There are numerous aspects of article writing not discussed in WP:MOS.
 * This has since been changed. -- Beland (talk) 05:36, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Using the very usage it disparages

 * "avoid neologistic and postmodern usage": "bleeding-edge" is neologistic and postmodern.
 * "Avoid ending a sentence with a preposition": This bullet point immediately follows a sentence ending with a preposition, viz.: "However, see above for problems to be aware of."
 * It disparages the passive voice and uses it repeatedly, undermining the bogus theory that the passive voice should be avoided:
 * "Use of Latin forms when these have been largely supplanted by native English suffixes ..."
 * "All-capitals presentation of words that are technically acronyms or initialisms but which are no longer interpreted as such by the vast majority of speakers/readers."
 * "Contrast terms ... which have not been fully assimilated, and are not likely to be interpreted as English by native English speakers."
 * "Some of the more common words listed as examples of assimilated and not italicized by the MHRA Style Guide include ..."
 * "Whence and nigh are considered by some to be borderline exceptions ..."
 * "... it is otherwise unused today except by writers ..."
 * "... it has even been picked up by some native speakers."
 * "Subjunctive is poorly understood by most modern readers ..."
 * "While this uncommon pattern is ostensibly covered by WP:ENGVAR ..."
 * "The -ed versions are clearly understood by all English speakers ..."


 * The advice about passive voice has since been dropped. I changed the advice about preposition stranding and rephrased "bleeding-edge" though I disagree this is a neologism. -- Beland (talk) 19:57, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Sloppy writing

 * "While your regional dialect may retain, on a day-to-day speech and informal writing basis" would be clearer as "While your regional dialect may include in daily speech and informal writing"
 * "Also used any longer only in poetry": any is usually reserved for negations, questions and with "if". This could have been written better as "Also not used any longer except in poetry".
 * These have since been fixed or dropped. -- Beland (talk) 20:27, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Violations of Wikipedia Manual of Style and Wikipedia usage

 * The examples in MOS:ELLIPSIS show a space before and after a three-dot ellipsis, violated in
 * or use another construction: "unbeknownst to Johnson..." could become "although Johnson was unaware of it...", "behind Johnson's back..." etc.
 * "...Chairperson..."
 * "The foundation provides shelters with essential funding for..."
 * As an example of obsolete usage, "Use of diacritics in loanwords that have become completely assimilated into English: ... examples include ... coup d'etat, dais ..."
 * Wikipedia's own article is Coup d'état, with an acute accent on the e.
 * Dais does not come from a word with diacritics.

Incorrect assertions of style consensus

 * "Avoid split infinitives": The Chicago Manual of Style, 14th Edition (1993) states: "The thirteenth edition of this manual included split infinitives among the 'errors and infelicities' but tempered the inclusion by adding, in parentheses, that they are 'debatable "error."' The item has been dropped from the fourteenth edition because the Press now regards the intelligent and discriminating use of the construction as a legitimate form of expression and nothing writers and editors need feel uneasy about. Indeed, it seems to us that in many cases clarity and naturalness of expression are best served by a judicious splitting of infinitives." (section 2.98, footnote 9, page 76). Indeed, Split infinitive states: However, most modern English usage guides have dropped the objection to the split infinitive.
 * I dropped this advice, which contradicts the earlier part of the essay. -- Beland (talk) 20:25, 7 July 2019 (UTC)


 * "Avoid ending a sentence with a preposition": Preposition and postposition states: Students are commonly taught that prepositions cannot end a sentence, although there is no rule prohibiting that use.
 * Dropped this advice. -- Beland (talk) 20:25, 7 July 2019 (UTC)


 * "Use strove not strived as the past tense of strive: Strove [sic: should be italic] ... is generally preferable to strived." Says who? Google search results show strived is far more commonly used than strove; Grammarist says both are acceptable for the past tense of strive, but the past participle is strived or striven, not strove.
 * This advice has since been removed. -- Beland (talk) 20:25, 7 July 2019 (UTC)


 * "Use periods (stops, dots) to indicate acronyms and initialisms that are not given in all-capitals: a.k.a., t.b.d." What about mph (miles per hour) and dpi (dots per inch), initialisms appearing widely in Wikipedia? And why is all-capitals hyphenated?
 * There has since been added specific advice about units, and I just de-hyphenated "all-capitals". -- Beland (talk) 20:25, 7 July 2019 (UTC)


 * "Subjunctive is poorly understood by most modern readers": If I had written this essay, I would have omitted this point. Most modern readers understand the previous sentence.
 * This wording has since been softened, and there's more justification. -- Beland (talk) 20:25, 7 July 2019 (UTC)


 * "Virtually all style guides urge writers to avoid the passive voice generally." Not true. This occurs only in the style guides written by authors too careless to notice how often they use the passive voice, the need for which is pervasive in good writing. See the list above showing some of the many uses of the passive voice in this very essay.
 * Advice about passive voice has since been removed. -- Beland (talk) 20:25, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

—Anomalocaris (talk) 04:22, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Supposed obsolete words
I fail to see how 'forthwith' and 'thrice' are "[e]ssentially extinct terms/spellings from Middle and Early Modern English". Whilst I can accept the archaic nature of 'twain', 'thither' and 'ere', claiming that the fairly common 'forthwith' and 'thrice' is on the same level is to me bizarre. 'Thence', in the same vein, is relatively common in formal writing, perhaps moreso than 'nigh' and 'whence' in my experience (though not backed up by any research). I would think that such words are common enough to be used in an encyclopaedic article, and if readers are unfamiliar with them, they can look them up in a dictionary. Deonyi (talk) 10:21, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * "Thence" and "nigh" and "whence" definitely sound stuffy to my ear, and they also sound British. Certainly I have never heard any Americans use these words in real life, and if I were to encounter them in writing I would roll my eyes and rephrase if possible. There's a strong downward trend if we actually look at some statistics from book writing. -- Beland (talk) 20:17, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Past tense and recency
I don't know if there is any current guardian for this page (I just came across it when addressing a gender-related neologism) but I have a problem with In constructions like "the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya is ended" use "has ended".... I sometimes see uses of the past tense that were appropriate at the time they were authored, but not so much twelve years later. Such constructions gradually acquire rust as the paragraph goes unattended. The suggestion ..."ended in October 2011" is better. Can that be generalized with an applicable tense guide, something like "don't use past perfect aspect", or whatever it's called, or have I missed it somewhere in the MOS sections? David Brooks (talk) 10:26, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Oh never mind. I promise I looked before, but I just found the guidance at MOS:RELTIME. I still think this essay should be fixed to conform to that MOS section, but otherwise I'll sit down now. David Brooks (talk) 10:30, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Heh, I don't feel like a guardian, but what you're saying (said? have spoked?) makes sense, so I tweaked the wording on this page. Feel free to further tweak as needed. -- Beland (talk) 01:51, 15 August 2023 (UTC)